Talk:Musical mode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Notable songs in [mode x] is original research 2 Major and minor 3 Light and dark 4 Greek towns? 5 Messiaen's 'modes' 6 Church mode? 7 Dahlhaus reference? 8 Confusing Passage 9 Correspondence between church, modern modes 10 Musical Notation 11 Move this article? 12 Simpsons Theme Example 13 Lydian confusion 14 Dorian vs. Blues 15 Modern modes section 16 Affect 17 Revert 18 Locrian 19 Project for Mode Articles: Standardization and Consolidation 20 Short Symbols 21 Merge from Church modes 22 Serious Problem with Greek Mode Names 23 We Three Kings of Orient Are 24 lydian pic under church modes is wrong 25 Various comments 26 Way too complicated 27 Diatonic and chromatic

[edit] Notable songs in [mode x] is original research

I don't want to be an ass but I think the notable songs sections on the mode pages don't belong on wikipedia as it's original research. I think the best would be if someone would set up a (simple) website and do some research on all the mentioned songs, publish them there and then refer to them here. I'd do it, but I don't think I have enough musical knowledge for that. CheesePlease NL

[edit] Major and minor

How about naming them something like:

Lydian      Very Major
Ionian      Major
Myxolydian  Slightly Major
Dorian      Slightly Minor
Aolian      Minor
Phrygian    Very Minor
Locrian     Too Minor

--- User:Karl Palmen

I don't think locrian is a minor mode; it's more of a "diminished" mode, not to be confused with the diminished scale. Whether a mode is major or minor is determined by whether or not its tonic chord is a major or minor chord, so locrian kind of sits off on its own. After all, it does in every other respect (e.g., it's the only one that's almost unusable, etc.). The only thing that would make it minor is if we go by whether only the third is major or minor, not the third and the fifth. But that doesn't make sense to me.

--Furrykef 06:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC), modified 11 May 2004

Some of the scales do have elements of the major or minor scales (Ionian/Aeolian), but I think that calling Lydian "very major" for example would mean as much as calling the major scale "very Lydian."

Also, for the sake of correctness, the order of the modes should probably be Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian and then Locrian. This way they're consistent with the scale degrees they represent. Unsigned edit by 69.157.49.181.

You don't understand. In the sequence given, each mode has one more "smaller" interval than the previous one (counting from the root). So the sequence is definitely correct and the naming meaningful. −Woodstone 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also a cycle of fifths, by the way. But, I don't think we should talk about a degree of "major"ity or "minor"ity. How can you be "too minor"? It's very vague. Why look at the older modes through the filter of major-minor tonality anyway? (Why not look at tonal modes through the filter of modality?) The most meaningful description I've seen of the character of modes identifies them by tetrachord. Naming the tetrachords after the lower tetrachord of each of the four original modes:

• Lydian: Lydian, Ionian
• Ionian: Ionian, Ionian
• Myxolydian: Ionian, Dorian
• Dorian: Dorian, Dorian
• Aolian: Dorian, Phrygian
• Phrygian: Phrygian, Phrygian
• Locrian: Phrygian, Lydian

This also speaks to their construction. At any rate, though, I don't think either of these tables really belongs in the article. The construction of the modes is well defined already, and the subjective characters they possess are already listed. - Rainwarrior 03:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Light and dark

Ha!

They are traditionally held on a "darkness" continuum, where in that order it goes from Lydian (the brightest, with that perky II7 chord) all the way down to Phrygian's V diminished and it's evil flat II maj 7. User:J.F.Quackenbush

[edit] Greek towns?

Does anyone else think that the stuff about Greeks and towns and soldiers is a probably romanticised and highly exaggerated? Anyway, the Greek names we use now were assigned by Glareanus in the 16th century and are not actually consistent with the original Greek system, of which he only had a limited understanding --PS4FA

I've modified that part a bit, what do you think? -- Merphant

Why is there no mention of "ethos"? And what about the tetrachord structiure of tghe Greek mopdes.Wasn't it Plato's Republic that discusses the ethicalcharacter of music. But that includes rhythm and tone colour.

Yes, thanks, that looks better. I guess I would have put a "supposedly" or "allegedly" in front of the bit about modal preferences of different towns as I tend to be fairly sceptical of this sort of thing. Even if there are contemporary accounts recording it, these were probably just snapshots of changing musical fashions. Still, I suppose that even these days we talk about the "Mersey sound", the "Bristol sound", the "Nashville sound", etc.

Perhaps you'd tell use where in ancient Greece was the town of Lydia located? Likewise for Doria?

[edit] Messiaen's 'modes'

So, the next question is, do Messiaen's modes of limited transposition belong here, or should they have their own article? --PS4FA

Mention and link to them here, and give them their own article, I say (I've been thinking about an article on them for a while, but will be very hapypy if somebody else does it, hint hint ;) --Camembert

OK, then, I'll have a go --PS4FA

[edit] Church mode?

What does "church mode" mean, exactly?

--Furrykef 06:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• The church modes are the ones used in the renaissance period, and they correspond to the ionian through to aeolian modes. However, this article fails to make clear which modes were used at which times and how they were called. Beyond the church modes and the more modern modal system I'm not very clear on it myself, so I'd be grateful if this article could be organised with much stronger chronological context, by someone with more idea of what they're talking about than myself --Thomas 17:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dahlhaus reference?

A reference is made in "History" to "Carl Dahlhaus (1990)", but the references section doesn't give the text. Anyone have a full bibliographical reference for that? It ought to be added...

Done. Hyacinth 19:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On an unrelated point, perhaps a reference to "tetrachords" ought to be thrown in.. I'm not sure where. --Yourcelf 18:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing Passage

"The iv minor chord in second inversion with the tonic doubled is a good I chord for Locrian because it is the exact reverse of a major chord."

What does this mean, exactly? Could somebody clear this up?—Trevor Caira 18:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• (in B locrian) "The iv (E) minor chord (E,G,B) in second inversion (B,E,G) with the tonic (B) doubled (B,E,G,B) is a good I (tonic) chord for Locrian because it is the exact reverse (inversion) of a major chord."

In B locrian (B, C, D, E, F, G, A) the IV chord is E, G, and B. Its second inversion is "spelled" B, E, G, with the tonic doubled: B, E, G, B. The inversion of those intervals gives B, D, F#, B: a major chord.

I highlighted errors in terminology, but the suggestion itself may be faulty though not without reason or sense:

The actual I chord in locrian is a diminished chord (i^o), and thus somewhat unsuitable as a tonic or final chord (see resolution). The suggestion is then to use another chord in some inversion, the IV chord in second inversion, and pretend it is the tonic.

One could argue that this idea may be true but explained using the wrong terms, or one could argue, assuming a diminished chord is unexceptable as a tonic, that treating another chord as the tonic changes the sense or feel of locrian more than simply sharpening the fifth (changing F to F# to create a minor chord (i): B,D,F#).

Regardless, this all appears to be original research...

...but I would love to see a source/citation for this assertion. Hyacinth 01:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Correspondence between church, modern modes

It's not really clear on a first reading that when you start the "Modern modes" section, the "church mode" terminology no longer applies. My main thought at this point was, "wait, they just said we should use Roman numerals to disambiguate, and now they're back to the names." I now see that you use the Roman numerals for the 'church' modes, because the Greek names are (now) taken to refer to the 'modern' modes.

I would rephrase things (where the Roman numerals are first introduced, and at the top of the "Modern modes" section), but I'm not sure whether to say in the latter that "there is no correspondence between the mediaeval church modes and the modern modes" or "there is only a loose correspondence between some of the church modes and the modern modes". If the latter, it would be nice if there were some sort of table laying out the correspondences. (For example, it looks like a modern D Dorian really does correspond to a mediaeval Dorian aka "Mode I", but that might just be me being naïve.) (Blahedo 23:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Like others, I am confused about the different sets of modes. "The names of the church modes are Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, and Locrian" ... fair enough, but aren't those the exact names of the seven Modern modes described further down? I thought there were eight Church modes, the included "Hypo-" versions, and they didn't include Locrian, etc. Also, there is talk about Aristotle and Plato in the Church modes section, which seems more appropriate to the previous section. Finally, having established that a given term like Phrygian mode has different meanings whether you are using the Greek, Church, or Modern definitions, maybe the section on "Use of the modes" should make clear which definition is being used (I suspect people use Modern definitions unless otherwise specified but I can't swear to it). Boris B 10:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The mediaeval and modern modes are essentially the same. However, the church did not use all the possible modes in the modern scheme, and interpreted them quite differently. The church modes focused on their use in chanting, and the important reciting note and final. The church also used plagal modes based on the same scale as the authentic modes, but with different reciting and final notes. These plagal modes are known by the name of the authentic mode with the prefix hypo- added. The Greek modes, from which the mediaeval modes arose, are quite different. They are based on Greek tetrachord theory, and the names given to the modes apply to different modes in the mediaeval/modern scheme. The Greeks also made use of enharmonic and chromatic modes beside the diatonic modes, and some of the mode names refer to such modes in the Greek scheme, whereas the mediaeval/modern scheme is completely diatonic. — Gareth Hughes 16:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musical Notation

The use of 'si' in the solfege of this article is ambiguous. For consistancy, the use of 'ti' in refering to the major seventh would likely be prefered, and reserve the use of 'si' in refering to the augmented fifth. See the solfege page for details.

[edit] Move this article?

Why is musical mode a better title than mode (music)? Michael Hardy 00:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not? See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Hyacinth 01:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, "mode (music)" redirects appropriately. Probably not worth worrying about... /blahedo (t) 04:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons Theme Example

I am wondering about the theme song from "The Simpsons" being listed as an example of the Lydian mode. It definitely has the raised 4th, but it also prominently features a lowered 7th, so technically, it is in the so-called "Lydian Dominant" mode. Perhaps it should be used as an example of that mode. --Locrian 23:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Example clarified. /blahedo (t) 04:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lydian confusion

This article is extremely confusing and has several errors, possibly. The picture showing the scales seems wrong. The Lydian scale has a lowered 4th degree (Bb), the the text goes on about how characteristic the raised 4th is. DrG 05:54, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Reality: actually the lydian mode has a raised 4th

First, there are two Lydian modes. See Lydian mode#Medieval and modern Lydian mode for the one with the raised fourth (in comparison to the major scale. F Major: F G A Bb C D E, Lydian: F G A B C D E). The Lydian mode#Greek Lydian mode is apparently identical to the major (its fourth degree is Bb, which is not lowered, see below).

Secondly, Bb is not a "lowered fourth degree" (the fourth degree of a major scale on F is Bb. "Lowered fourth degree", despite the lack of context, meant "lowered in relation to the major scale").

Lastly, the article no longer refers to "lowered" or "raised" degrees. Hyacinth 09:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This simply seems to promote the idea of a rewrite. There are no lines between Greek, Church or Modern modes beyond the text itself. The examples should stated which model they refer to. Kakugo 13:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be naive, but I thought the characteristic of the modes was that they were scales built on each of the degrees of the major scale using no accidentals, which would lend to the argument that the Lydian with the tritone interval between root and fourth is the more appropriate to list in the illustrations as the Lydian scale.

[edit] Dorian vs. Blues

It's incorrect to say that the Dorian mode is the same as the blues scale. The blues scale is 1, b3, 4, b5, 5, b7, whereas Dorian is 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, 6, b7. The blues scale is really a minor pentatonic scale with a b5 added. I'm going to remove this sentence from the article.--Rictus 8 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, however the anon editor insists on adding back Dorian = Blues again and again. The only thing Dorian and the Blues scale have in common is the skeleton of the minor pentatonic.

     Dorian:  D   E   F - G    A   B   C   D
     Blues:   D       F - G G# A       C   D

Antandrus (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modern modes section

I think the "Modern modes" section could be made clearer. The simplest explanation for the modern modes is that they are the scales you get by starting on each successive degree of the major scale; this isn't really explained directly. I added the Roman numerals to the different Greek names as a stopgap, but it seems like this section should be more explicit (especially given how much attention is paid to the old church modes, which aren't really relevant in current music theory). If I have time later on, I'll try to rework this. --Rictus 07:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Also the bt about Locrian mode being unusable needs work. People use it all the time...ergo, useable.--Josh Rocchio 02:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Affect

"Affect" is correct here and not a typo of "effect". Hyacinth 10:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I "Reverted edits by Falstaft (talk) to last version by Blahedo" because the information originally in the paragraph is sourced and the addition made it seem as if those assertions where also sourced. Hyacinth 09:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locrian

Doesn't the Locrian mode have perfect 4th and diminished 5th (not vice versa)?

Yes. joshbuddy^talk 08:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right and doesn't it make the pattern even stand out better? −Woodstone 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project for Mode Articles: Standardization and Consolidation

The mode articles are a mess when taken together. The articles need to be standardized and some of the general information consolidated into this article and removed from the articles about specific modes.

a few specific propositions:

corresponding information

I think all the mode articles should have corresponding information in corresponding sections. For example, the intervals that define the mode should be given at say, somewhere near the top of the article in a section called "intervals" or something (whatever, as long as its standard for all articles and maximally descriptive). Also things like if the scale is "symmetric" or "asymmetiric" or whether its a "minor" or "major" scale should be all in one place (perhaps a table would be best for these things).

Information about modes in general

All information that is about modes in general (i.e. applies to all modes) should be moved to this article, and not mentioned in the articles about specific modes (all articles should of course be linked to this article). Information about idiosyncratic properties of the modes then will be easier to find that way, and there will be no confused and redundant info (sorta like this paragraph).

Greek vs. modern terminology confusion'

Information about the confusion between the greek and modern terminology should stay in this article, with a note at the top of each article--out of the main body--highlighting the terminology confusion (to eschew obfuscation). Perhaps there should be serperate disambiguable articles for the greek modes e.g. a article for Ionian (Greek Mode) and Ionian (Gregorian Mode).

avoiding articl style divergence with later editors not privy to the standardization project

As time passes, people who don't know about the effort to standardize the article no doubt will add information to the article in their own style, perhaps causing the articles to diverge in style over time. To avoid this, we can make a template to go at the top of each talk page that tells editors to keep in mind the style standardization (perhaps a project page--"metawiki pages" I think they are called--with a template and style explanation). Although this may not be that much of a problem, if the style isobvious and is suffieciently elegant to begin with.

Am I getting across the idea here? What do you guys think about such a project? I know there is a way to set up a wikiproject for this sort of thing, but I've never done it before. I'll look into how to do it. Any other ideas on how to make the articles fit better together? Any objections or improvements to the above suggestions? --Brentt 06:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd merge them all together into an article Modes of the diatonic scale, but these are good suggestions regardless. —Keenan Pepper 15:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I think it's better to have them as separate pages, because it makes incoming links easier to follow (i.e., an article can say such-and-such is in Dorian and the reader can see much faster what that means instead of trying to understand the whole system of modes). I don't think the Greek modes need separate pages, as they are quite infrequently referenced. I would put their information after the modern mode (except for the mention in the introduction) for that reason. Probably an infobox would be a good way to standardize the format; perhaps being a list of which scale degrees are major or minor (or diminished), symmetricity, etc. Rigadoun 15:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea and am willing to help the editing process. I agree that the Greek modes probably don't need their own page, but a section on the relevant Greek mode of the same name could be part of the standard template. I also think an info box is a good idea, possibly with a picture of the mode displayed on a staff. --MarkBuckles 03:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this whole plan, but the greek modes need to have a section as well. They are a completely different conception of pitch relationships than the church modes and there is much to say. Perhaps the "Ancient Greek Modes" article could just be a cross-reference to an article called "Ancient Greek Tonoi," which is the actual word used in Greek theory manuscripts? This would underline just how different the Greek concept of tonoi (which is often mis-translated as mode) is from the Medieval concept of mode. --p4limpsest 10:41, 2 June 2006 (ET)

Sorry guys, but when I was begginer I read these articles and didn't understand nothing. You need to make some system. For newbies it's really confussing. It's hard to understand what's really Greek , Church and Modern modes.

I wholeheartedly agree with this idea. The articles are a mess, highly confusing and probably quite impenetrable (like the comment above here) to the technically untrained. I like the entry on plagal modes, whcih starts, Plagal mode refers to the notes of a plagal mode. I would be happy to help out. Eusebeus 11:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it would be best to start a revised version under a different name stating the three different models, starting off with minimal text. I don't think it's wise to try and say everything and end up explaining nothing. Kakugo 13:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Short Symbols

It would be good to have a table of the short symbols of the modes (e.g cmaj7 = /\) though I cannot find the respective symbols. There is also no mention of mode transposition. Also no mention that Hypomixolydian (represented as a seperate mode) is Dorian. Kakugo 13:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Church modes

I am suggesting that Church modes be merged into this article. The topic has better coverage here already. - Rainwarrior 03:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Hyacinth 20:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Problem with Greek Mode Names

After taking a look over this article, I was quite surprised to find no mention of the fact that the original Greek names for the modes referred to different ones than their modern application. (This seems to be a problem with the articles about the individual modes as well.)

If you read the original Greek treatises (Aristoxenus, etc.), what we call "Phrygian" was then called "Dorian", our "Dorian" their "Phrygian", our "Ionian" their "Lydian", etc.. This is all due to a very old misunderstanding made by western scholars when they studied the old Greek texts:

"In the tenth century, a few authors applied the names of the Greek tonoi and harmoniai to the church modes. Mistreading Boethius, they named the A-octave the Hypodorian, the B-octave the Hypophrygian, and so forth. The two systems are not at all parallel, however. Although neither medieval treatises nor modern liturgical books refer to the modes by the Greek names (preferring numerals), the ethnic names are generally used in modern textbooks on counterpoint and analysis. Thus, modes 1 and 2 are now often called Dorian and Hypodorian; modes 3 and 4, Phrygian and Hypophrygian; modes 5 and 6, Lydian and Hypolydian; and modes 7 and 8, Mixolydian and Hypomixolydian." - Grout and Palisca. A History of Western Music, 6th. ed., 2001. pp. 53-54.

"Tenth-century theorists tried to relate their modes to the complex Greek system as transmitted by Boethius and later Latin writers. This accounts for the Greek names of the eight modes, although nothing else about them is Greek; and through a misunderstanding of Greek theory--by no means the last--even the names were misapplied. (In the Greek modal system, Dorian begins on E, Phrygian on D, Lydian on C, and Mixolydian on B.)" - Hoppin. Medieval Music, 1978. p. 69.

This issue, as far as I can tell, is completely absent from our articles about modes, and should be addressed clearly and consistently throughout them. - Rainwarrior 21:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We Three Kings of Orient Are

Is this song modal? If so, which mode?--Sonjaaa 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat. The melody of the verse is in the aeolian mode, which has the same notes as the "natural minor". However, when given its usual harmonization the verse modulates from (if it were in the key of E) E minor to G major and back again (the chorus begins in G major and moves back to E), thus the flattened 6th and 7th scale degrees aren't really part of the E natural minor so much as they are part of the G major harmony to which the piece has moved.

So... overall I would say, no. The piece as usually played falls well within normal tonal practice for the minor mode (modulation to the relative major key). The melody of the verse itself, detached from harmony, however, does fit the aeolian mode (and the lowered 6th and 7th really are noticeable). Though, the aeolian mode wasn't commonly used in western music until relatively late; tonality was not far off when it was finally theorized by Glareanus. - Rainwarrior 05:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lydian pic under church modes is wrong

There is a pic under the "church modes" heading showing lydian as having a perfect 4th from root to 4th. This is wrong. Lydian has an augmented 4th. I like the pic otherwise, but if anyone can duplicate it without the mistake, that'd be great. Jordan 18:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In terms of church modes, it's not exactly "wrong". The B was very, very frequently flattened where Gregorian chant is written in the third mode (for composers of the time, the augmented fourth sound wasn't something to be emphasized; however, for modern composers using the Lydian, flattening the fourth eliminates the point). However, the image doesn't indicate that the flat was optional. It appears in some places, but not others (mostly places where the F to B relationship is not directly outlined). So... some change in the image is probably warranted. - Rainwarrior 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as a further note: in the church modes, there was no Ionian mode. Only Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, and Mixolydian. So, a Lydian with a b-flat doesn't actually duplicate an existing mode as it does when you have the more extended modal systems. The later development of a "major" scale comes directly out of this frequently enjoyed alteration of the Lydian mode. - Rainwarrior 19:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various comments

I only recently stumbled upon this article, having looked at the Locrian mode page and saw links here on the talk page. After reading the page and this talk page a few times I have a few comments.

First, on the proposal to standardize and consolidate the pages on modes, I agree! It seems sensible to have all the individual pages on modes redirected here, where modes can be explained in general. If this page gets too long as a result, we could split it by history -- let this page be about modern modes, with links to the historical stuff on their own pages.

Second, on the idea of the modes being ordered from "very major" to "very minor", or "light to dark", I am reminded of the way Mathieu explains modes in his book "Harmonic Experience". He describes intervals as "overtonal" and "reciprocal" (eg, fifths, 3:2, are overtonal and fourths, 4:3, reciprocal; dominant/subdominant). From this perspective the modes shift from "fully overtonal" to "fully reciprocal", Lydian to Phrygian. He adds the possible metaphor of sun to moon to the common metaphor of "light to dark".

Third, the Locrian mode. Mathieu says "the Locrian mode is suspect in that it exists as a latter-day theoretical construct generated to complete the compass of the church modes." And goes on to suggest that without a perfect fifth a mode will "tilt irrevocably toward the subdominant" -- in other words, even over a strong drone, "C Locrian is hard as F Phrygian", though he admits there's no proof other than your ears. If the drone is so strong that it remains the tonal center even in Locrian, you could put anything above it, "even a chainsaw", as he puts it.

Also, if Locrian is included as a regular mode, one step more reciprocal than Phrygian, shouldn't its overtonal partner, "Supra-Lydian" or "Lydian Dominant" (Lydian with a sharped fifth) be included as well? Perhaps both are best left as unusual modes beyond the basic set.

I'm also curious about the comment of Locrian being "a latter-day theoretical construct generated to complete the compass of the church modes." When was Locrian added to the list of modes?

Finally, this page is confusing over how the church modes evolved into the modern modes. Perhaps the page would be better if it began with the modern modes and then had a history section later. Gotta run, naptime! Pfly 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Locrian was added by Heinrich Glarean in his treatise, the Dodecachordon. This was mid-16th century, I think, but you can look it up. It wasn't a church mode because it wasn't used in any music; it was just a theoretical extension of the existing modes to all steps of the scale. - Rainwarrior 05:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Way too complicated

This needs to be easier to understand.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.25.210.131 (talk • contribs).

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. MarkBuckles (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diatonic and chromatic

The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with chromatic, is the cause of serious uncertainties at several Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)