Talk:Diminished seventh/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived material:

"A diminished seventh interval is one of three musical intervals that span seven diatonic scale degrees."

A diminished 7th above C is Bbb (B double-flat) or A, which is a major sixth up from C. So, considering this, the interval does not span seven diatonic scale degrees. It's one degree short.

--Roivas 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The diminished seventh interval, C to Bbb, may sound the same as the major sixth, C to A, in modern equal temperament, but it's not the same in origin. It's a diatonic minor seventh interval reduced by a chromatic semitone (not a diatonic semitone).

To take a clearer example, the diminished 7th interval, B to Ab, spans 7 degrees of the C harmonic minor scale , between the leading note and the submediant scale degrees (BCDEbFGAb = 7), so it's not any kind of sixth even though, nowadays, it sounds like one. Mark - 16 November 2006

The problem is, diatonic scale degrees are used in a harmonic context (I, II, III / tonic, supertonic, mediant...etc). The inclusion of the diminished 7th as a proper "diatonic scale degree" is highly questionable. Justifying this by its occurrence in an artificial (not diatonic) scale such as the harmonic minor (1-2-1-2-2-1-3) doesn't really make any sense. "Diatonic Scale Degree" has a certain significance in music theory and it's being lost here.

Don't mean to split hairs...but clarity is important when you're explaining things to people who may be new to this. Music theory terminology and our Western notation system are far from perfect, so I think it's best to be as careful as possible. Already, in the first sentence, we're in the throes of microtonality, notational ambiguity, and artificial scales.

"The individual tones of the scale may act as roots, that is, each may serve as the lowest tone of the triad; in this function they are called degrees." -Schoenberg, "Harmony"--Roivas 02:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"The inclusion of the diminished 7th as a proper "diatonic scale degree" is highly questionable."

No-one is claiming that a diminished seventh is a diatonic scale degree. It's an interval. However, I think you didn't really mean that. I think your objection is that it doesn't span 7 diatonic scale degrees, and that its occurrence within the harmonic minor scale doesn't count, because the harmonic minor scale is not a diatonic scale. Well the harmonic minor scale IS considered a diatonic scale and all of its scale degrees are diatonic.

Here's what Tonalsoft has to say:

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/d/diminished-7th.aspx

And here's a quote from the highly respect Dolmetsch organisation:

"Diatonic intervals are all those whose notes can both be found in at least one major or harmonic minor scale (example: F and B are both found in C major); all other intervals are chromatic (for example F and B#, since no major or harmonic minor scale includes both of them)."

None of this contradicts Schoenberg's observation that a diatonic scale degree can serve as the root of a chord. In the example I gave, (B to Ab), both of those notes function as diatonic scale degrees and both can support triads built upon them. Mark - 17 November 2006

I'd be impressed if you could find a claim that the harmonic minor scale is diatonic in a respectable book on music theory. This is why I don't study music on the internet.

It appears as though there's a typographical error on this website's explanation of intervals:

"Dr Alan Crosier offers a succinct definition of a chromatic interval. // Diatonic intervals are all those whose notes can both be found in at least one major or harmonic minor scale (example: F and B are both found in C major); all other intervals are chromatic (for example F and B#, since no major or harmonic minor scale includes both of them)."

Here are some better definitions of "diatonic scale":

http://www.andymilne.dial.pipex.com/Diatonic.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic

http://www.ericweisstein.com/encyclopedias/music/DiatonicScale.html

From the same website you quoted: http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/d/diatonic.aspx

I doesn't seem as though Dr. Alan Crosier is published in the realm of musicology or music composition. Why he is being used as a source online is beyond me. http://www.imia.com.au/_public/about_imia/faculty_staff_students/a_crosier.htm

My objection is that he seems like "some guy on the internet."

: None of this contradicts Schoenberg's observation that a diatonic scale degree can serve as the root of a chord. In the example I gave, (B to Ab), both of those notes function as diatonic scale degrees and both can support triads built upon them. Mark - 17 November 2006

Once again, how has a bb7 ever been used as a scale degree in order to provide a root for a triad? What possible use could it have?

The highly respected Helmholtz has a wonderful section on diatonic scales: "On the Sensation of Tone." pp. 266-278 (Dover)

The basic Pythagorian form is E-F G A-Bb C D

The harmonic minor is not considered a diatonic scale. I don't see how c-Bbb spans seven diatonic scale degrees.--Roivas 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

These two definitions disagree and they're from the same website. Their information is not very consistent.

"Diatonic:----An adjective referring to a scale composed of five tones and two semitones, such as the pythagorean diatonic or the familiar 12-tone version."

"Diminished-7th:----An interval composed of 3 tones (i.e., "whole-tones") and 3 diatonic-semitones. The diminished 7th occurs naturally in every diatonic harmonic-minor scale, between the "leading-tone" (7th degree or "VII") and the "submediant" (6th degree or "VI"). Example, in the key of A-minor ("t" = tone, "s" = semitone)"

The only diatonic scales are the modern major and minor scales and the ecclesiastical modes. I still hold that the first line in this Wikipedia article stems from a confusion of terms.

--Roivas 00:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, how has a bb7 ever been used as a scale degree in order to provide a root for a triad? What possible use could it have?

Once again you're confusing scale degrees with intervals. Nobody says a bb7 is a scale degree. The first time you said it, I assumed it was a simple mistake, but you're saying it again!

Of course we can build triads on the scale degrees that constitute such an interval. In the scale of C harmonic minor the interval lies between the notes B and Ab. The triad on B is B diminished (BDF) and the triad on Ab is Ab major (AbCEb). What's the problem? Both of these scale degrees and their triads have strong diatonic functionality. In fact, the note B, which has been chromatically modified exhibits even greater diatonic functionality than the original Bb - which is exactly why it was modified in the first place.

As for the sources - I had to smile at the assertion that yours were 'better', presumably because they support your claim. However, Andy Milne is also not known in musicological circles but as a jazz musician. As for Eric Weisstein's site, any source that claims: "The minor scale was also used by the Greeks, and was called the aeolian mode." disqualifies itself from further service.

You wanted a source that didn't originate on the internet. Maybe I shouldn't do this but the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Music (a real book) states:

"...two of these ancient modes remained in use by composers, when the other 10 were almost abandoned, and these are our major and minor scales—the latter, however, subject to some variations in its 6th and 7th notes. ...the major and minor scales are spoken of as DIATONIC SCALES, as distinct from a scale using nothing but semitones, which is the CHROMATIC SCALE."

The concept of diatonic scale existed before the harmonic minor scale was created and was exactly as your sources say - a scale comprising 7 notes separated by 5 tones and 2 semitones, and some sources strictly define it that way still. However, when the harmonic minor scale came along (and with it the first appearance of the dim7), it was absorbed into the diatonic system and the diatonic system was expanded accordingly, which is why the other definition also exists. It's all a bit academic, and I'm sure we could find lots more sources to support both definitions, if we had nothing better to do. However you choose to define the scale, all of its notes are valid diatonic scale degrees in that they ALL have definite diatonic functionality and the naturally occurring diminished seventh chord built on its leading note contains the diminished seventh interval spanning seven of those diatonically functional scale degrees.

How would YOU explain what the 7 in dim7 means? (Mark 18 November 2006)

Thanks for your responses, I hope my tone isn't too harsh. I appreciate the conversation you've spent so much time on as it's been a long boring day at the office. I know it's silly, but I like arguing about notes and things that others find completely trivial. I like being proven wrong. Probably the greatest feeling is to be pulled away from something that you were so sure about. Unfortunately, I don't think this feeling will be attained in this debate.

As far as online sources, you're right...mine are no better. I would rather use an actual book and not give too much thought to these dime-a-dozen internet scholars.

As to why it's called a seventh...my own speculation here: technically, you're stacking three thirds vertically up from a root, so you can call it a seventh. Speaking of the interval: without the harmonic context, you have to admit there's no way anyone would know it's a diminished seventh...so I don't know how I feel about treating it as an interval at all (once again, just my speculation, nothing I would argue too strongly about). Yes, it's called a seventh, but as with other notational quirks, I wouldn't try to derive that much meaning from its nomenclature.

Our key system. You have a major or minor key. In the minor key, all sorts of chords are produced, as you know, by the raising or lowering of the 6th and 7th scale steps. Sometimes vagrant chords and alterations are introduced on top of this, but in the harmonic hierarchy, their roots are not always considered degrees (I, II, III). Schenker, especially, was very strict about this (not that I'm one of his "disciples" or anything)

Well, can you name a piece by a known composer who wrote in the "harmonic minor key"? I suppose in a major key the bbVII is used by some misguided composer. Or if the piece is in the key of "C harmonic minor", the "naturally occuring" leading-tone scale degree would yield a Bdim7. I think this is a sophmoric abstraction that has no practical application.

The reason why the Bb in the C minor key is modified is because minor keys are artificial constructs. They are tweaked in order to make them function in a similar way to the major diatonic system, which is the model. Dominant-Tonic relations are impossible if the natural minor scale is harmonically adhered to.

I found an interesting example from Goetschius in his "The Material Used in Musical Composition". In explaining the difference between whole step, diatonic half-step, and chromatic half-step, he states that "The diatonic half-step is the difference in pitch between tones that lie five harmonic degrees apart (harmonic degrees are fifths upwards C-G-D-A-E-B...etc. He now gives an example...which I ain't typin' out). The chromatic half-step is seven harmonic degrees removed."

"When thus defined, by direct derivation from the key, the natural (or major) scale is found to represent the following succession of whole and half-steps; whole steps between scale-steps 1-2, 2-3, 4-5, 5-6, 6-7; half-steps between scale steps 3-4, 7-8."

When you arrange this series of notes into a scale, you get the primordial 2-2-1-2-2-2-1 arrangement.

So, to him, the only natural, diatonic scale is the major scale.

You say: Of course we can build triads on the scale degrees that constitute such an interval.

You can, but how is this "diatonically functional"? Are we to just pick any artificial scale or something out of Slonimsky's Thesaurus, assign numerals to their scalar steps, and form keys out of them? Because that's what diatonic function is.

How can you derive an interval from an artificial scale and call it "naturally occurring?"

I think you're saying that diatonic is a constantly changing term meaning "whatever is commonly used in harmony" or produces a convincing harmonic effect. I guess, to me, your use of "diatonic functionality" is very vague. I'd rather use new terms than just make previous terms so bloated that it's hard to nail down what the point of it all is.

I'm curious to know what isn't "diatonically functional".

"Diatonic" is the form that all tonal function is measured against. The meaning of this term, which is a rather basic concept in music, is being distorted by folks on the internet who don't really understand what it is they are talking about. Seems like you can't really find a straight definition of anything online. George Orwell's worst nightmare.

So, since the harmonic minor scale is an artifice stemming from chromatic alterations, it's not a diatonic scale. The diminished seventh is not a diatonic interval and it does not span seven diatonic scale degrees. Since this information is false, it should be removed from the article.

The harmonic minor scale is referred to as the "instrumental minor scale" in the Helmholtz book I mentioned above and, for some strange reason, he doesn't include it in his list of diatonic scales. He speaks of diatonic scales as the modern major, modern minor natural, and the Ecclesiastical modes only (which all share this semitone arrangement: 2-2-1-2-2-2-1).

This is probably the longest conversation about diatonic scales ever.

--Roivas 03:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, can you name a piece by a known composer who wrote in the "harmonic minor key"?

My biggest problem is in following your non-standard use of musical terms. I've already corrected your confusion between intervals and scale degrees -twice. Now you're introducing a new term - harmonic minor key. There's no such thing as a harmonic minor key. There are only minor keys using notes of the various minor scales.

I suppose in a major key the bbVII is used by some misguided composer.

Bach? Beethoven? Mozart? Misguided? What are you talking about? The diminished seventh is used by all composers from Bach onwards. It's by no means rare. Something tells me you're talking about something completely different here. You're not confusing intervals with the bbVII scale degree again, are you?

You asked how is it that forming triads on the roots of scale degrees separated by a bb7 interval can be diatonically functional. Again taking the two notes of C minor: B - Ab, which of those two notes are not diatonically functional? Ab is the submediant and B is the leading note. Their diatonic functions are clear.

As for the sources - I thought we had established that both definitions exist and not only on the internet, e.g. Helmholtz and Oxford. When two respected authorities offer different definitions on something, I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that one is wrong and "don't know what they're talking about". I accept the possibility that both may be correct. I can understand Helmholtz with a scientific bias preferring the strict tone/semitone arrangement, and I can understand Oxford preferring to define it in terms of common diatonic practice. It doesn't mean that the term 'diatonic' has constantly been expanded to include every new musical practice - other terms have been coined for those, e.g., chromaticism, serial composition, etc. All that Oxford, etc. is saying is that the harmonic minor scale is, to all intents and purposes, diatonic in that it combines elements from both diatonic scales - the natural minor and the major AND was fully absorbed into common diatonic practice.

You said as much yourself:

That's correct! The tweaking you refer to was to borrow the diatonic major scale's seventh degree to make it more functional, i.e., diatonically functional.

If I understand you correctly, you agree that:

1. B to Ab is a seventh because it spans seven scale degrees (or at least because it spans seven nominals or letters)

2. It's a diminished seventh because it's one chromatic semitone smaller than a minor seventh

But you disagree that it spans seven diatonic scale degrees because at least one of the notes forming it is non diatonic, having been chromatically altered. Is that a fair assessment of your position? (Mark - 20 November 2006)

Well, can you name a piece by a known composer who wrote in the "harmonic minor key"? My biggest problem is in following your non-standard use of musical terms. I've already corrected your confusion between intervals and scale degrees -twice. Now you're introducing a new term - harmonic minor key. There's no such thing as a harmonic minor key. There are only minor keys using notes of the various minor scales.

I say these things because you insist on using "scale degree" instead of "scale step." They are two different things. I'm using the terminology correctly.

I suppose in a major key the bbVII is used by some misguided composer. Bach? Beethoven? Mozart? Misguided? What are you talking about? The diminished seventh is used by all composers from Bach onwards. It's by no means rare. Something tells me you're talking about something completely different here. You're not confusing intervals with the bbVII scale degree again, are you?

I meant, in a major key, the bbVII scale degree.

They use diminished 7 chords, not diminished seventh "scale degrees." There is no bbVII scale degree. I'm following your own logic to its end. In order for something to be diatonically funtional, it has to have more going for it that a semi-tone between itself and the following note.

This is the only valid diatonic system: I ii iii IV V vi vii (1/2 dim). It's based on the Diatonic Major Scale. Anything different is a chromatic alteration. The vii (1/2) dim results from this abstraction, but it's not considered diatonically functional. The correct root movement is missing. Any attempts at applying strict diatonic qualities to the dim triad on vii are problematic. Mainly because of the tritone root bass movement of IV-vii, the lack of a perfect fifth interval, and the missing leading tone in the stong root movement of vii to III (B D F - E G# B). There is not enough to make this chord seem diatonic without altering it significantly. The only way to "make it function" is to treat it as a V7 degree with the root missing (G) B D F. Rimsky-Korsakov (not some pre-tonal composer) was a major force behind developing this interpretation. If you have to force a chord into another shape to make it function, it is not natural = it is not Diatonic.

So, there you have a triad that occurs as a result of the diatonic scale, but is not diatonically functional.

Your words:

In the example I gave, (B to Ab), both of those notes function as diatonic scale degrees.

They do not coexist as scale degrees in any one key.

You asked how is it that forming triads on the roots of scale degrees separated by a bb7 interval can be diatonically functional. Again taking the two notes of C minor: B - Ab, which of those two notes are not diatonically functional? Ab is the submediant and B is the leading note. Their diatonic functions are clear.

Submediant and leading note of what key? C minor does not have a diatonic leading note scale degree on B. It's a chromatic alteration. Any triad built on top of a B natural in the key of C minor could only be a vagrant chord. Possibly you could argue an implied root on the note G (B D F Ab), making it function like a dominant V. These alterations do not make it diatonic. You're confusing its function for what it is again. You are, again, implying that there is a harmonic minor key.

You have a bent pipe, and you try your best to straighten it. That's what the minor key is.

All that Oxford, etc. is saying is that the harmonic minor scale is, to all intents and purposes, diatonic in that it combines elements from both diatonic scales - the natural minor and the major AND was fully absorbed into common diatonic practice.

The Oxford dictionary is a real book, but it's not a great source for composition instruction. Emphasis on "concise." You have made an incorrect assumption based on your interpretation of the lexicon's definition.

The Harmonic Minor Scale actually "combines," or is a residue of, the Ascending Minor and the Natural (Aeolian Minor) Modes. Neither of which are the major mode.

The Modes (the two tetrachords use to make each mode are listed, in abbreviated form, first: MM, mm, PP, LM, Mm, mP, PL).

Tetrachords:

(" <- this represents the location of the tetrachord's semi-tone)

M = major

| | |"|

m = minor

| |"| |

P = phrygian

|"| | |

L = lydian (whole-tone tetrachord)

"| | | |

Using modern nomenclature and my own shorthand, these are the Modes:

MM ionian

mm dorian

PP phrygian

LM lydian

Mm mixolydian

mP aeolian

PL locrian

So, this can help us break down the ascending minor scale:

C min descending: C D Eb F : G Ab Bb C (Minor tetrachord / Phrygian tetrachord = C aeolian)

C min ascending: C D Eb F : G A B C (Minor tetrachord / Major tetrachord = Heptatonia Seconda = not diatonic---> 2-1-2-2-2-2-1)

The "Heptatonia Seconda" is not diatonic, even though it contains a leading tone (and if you look carefully, you'll see it is not a major scale). It's used in passing when climbing up to the tonic.

| |"| | : | | |"|

The Natural Minor, Ascending Minor, AND Harmonic Minor all begin with the Minor Tetrachord. So, none of these are the Major Diatonic Scale.

You are also confusing "Diatonic Practice" with "Tonal Practice" or something else.

Just because you stick a leading tone in a scale doesn't mean that it's diatonic. Tonal harmonic analysis doesn't work that way. The diatonic scale is the most relaxed, natural form of the scale. You could say an octatonic scale contains a leading tone (or several) in certain circumstances. Does that make it a diatonic scale? Heck, the fully chromatic scale has a leading tone.

Because an alternate opinion may exist, it doesn't mean they weigh equally in the balance.

The reason why I say strange things like "harmonic minor key" and "bbVII" is because that's what is implied when you say "scale degree" instead of "scale step."

If I understand you correctly, you agree that: 1. B to Ab is a seventh because it spans seven scale degrees (or at least because it spans seven nominals or letters) 2. It's a diminished seventh because it's one chromatic semitone smaller than a minor seventh But you disagree that it spans seven diatonic scale degrees because at least one of the notes forming it is non diatonic, having been chromatically altered. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

1. That's not what I mean at all. B to Ab is a seventh only in context of a chromatically lowered min7 or a chromatically raised bass. It cannot be extracted out of it's harmonic context and treated as a separate entity. It's a nominal seventh and is only so because of our outdated notational system. It's been outdated ever since equal temperament.

2. I do not agree with the fact that it "spans 7 scale degrees" because, on a good day, the dim7 interval only spans six diatonic scale steps.

If you said "scale step" instead of "scale degree" there wouldn't be any confusion. They mean different things.

I'm trying to think of a better way to explain this. I see that you're getting stuck on "functionally diatonic.".

It's not just "my position." I'm not treading any new territory with this. The harmonic minor scale is not diatonic. No chromatically altered scale is diatonic. Diatonic = "agrees with the scale." A flat six and a leading tone does not "agree with the scale." Can you agree with me on this?

Other references:

The Study of Fugue (Dover): Section on Fux

Knud Jeppesen: The Style of Palestrina and the Dissonance

It's absurd to say that chromatic alterations have been "absorbed into the diatonic system." The diatonic system has always designated the natural, unaltered use of the basic diatonic scale form, in contrast to systems which employ chromatic embellishment. Because of the painfully linear way that music theory is often taught, most people do not understand that these two systems existed simultaneously for a period of time. One didn't become the other, temporally OR functionally.

--Roivas 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I sense a conclusion isn't far off. Thanks for your latest input. Before I offer any comment, I'd just like to mention that I believe it's considered bad style to make significant edits to text on the discussion pages, (apart from typos etc). Apparantly you're supposed to strike a line through it rather than edit it. I now see the need for it as, on a few occasions, I've attempted responses to comments you made only to find that you've removed, replaced or expanded them, rendering my response invalid. Just thought I'd mention it as some Wiki folks are real strict about that, and you might fall foul of them in future. Personally I don't use Wiki enough to care too much about it.

And now to the matter in hand. I appreciate you going to the trouble of supplying references but, honestly, there's no need because I'm not disputing your definition of 'diatonic'. I'm not even asking you to accept the one that I've been defending is an equally correct alternative. Obviously from a historical perspective it's not. I'm just asking you to accept that it exists, however rankling it may be to you.

You dismissed my internet sources and asked for a real book. So I was disappointed that you also rejected The Oxford dictionary of Music that I quoted on the grounds that it was 'concise'. It may be concise but I'm sure its big brother wouldn't contradict the information given in the concise version. I'm pretty sure it would give an in-depth account of the meaning and history of diatonicism, outlining its strictly non-chromatic nature, before going on to mention those chromatic alterations of the diatonic minor scale that became so integral to common compositional practice that the term, is often found expanded to cover it. Dictionaries do that. They are descriptive rather than prescriptive. If enough people use a term in a certain way, it becomes acceptable usage, regardless of its origin and much to the outrage of purists. Our language is replete with such instances.

I have a similar feeling when I hear the term dominant seventh used when there is no reference to the dominant at all. It's incorrect and misleading from a strictly tonal perspective, and at one time such usage was unheard of. Sadly, that's no longer the case, and I've given up trying to preserve the true significance of that term. I've even caught myself using it in the modern sense with increasing frequency. Such is 'progress' for want of a better word.

I can't really think of anything more to say on the subject without repeating myself, so I'll withdraw from further correspondence. I have enjoyed the discussion, though, and conclude by reminding you that you are free, and actively encouraged, to make any edits to the article as you see fit. I believe such edits, borne out of accurate research, would earn you more respect among Wiki editors and readers than comments from the sidelines such as "folks on the internet who don't really understand what it is they are talking about".

Best wishes on all your future endeavours (Mark - 22 November 2006)

No problem. This is more of an exercise in explaining myself correctly than defending the true meaning of a word. I'm not good at it, and for that reason I think I'd make a horrible teacher. I go off on tangents and make careless errors, hence the edits. I didn't even know about the "strike a line" thing, though I see the button up there now.

Did the Oxford not lead you to think that the harmonic minor was a combination of the modern major and minor scales when that isn't the case at all? It's not so much "it is written," but who is writing it and why.

The one thing I really dislike is people giving in to "common usage" when it comes to music theory. More often than not, this is the result of people who don't really care about the subject watering down music theory.

If you want to be more precise about the dominant seventh thing, just say "secondary dominant 7" if the actual V degree isn't being dealt with.

--Roivas 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You said:

...before going on to mention those chromatic alterations of the diatonic minor scale that became so integral to common compositional practice...

This description isn't so bad, you didn't say that diatonic scales include or "absorb" chromatic alterations.

edit: (I just noticed that after that, you had to add is often found expanded to cover it which indicates you're still clinging, for whatever reason, to a misconception. If I dig up more references, can we get you to change your mind? Or is this about something else?).

I don't know where this "common practice" term came from.

--Roivas 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No! You're missing the point. The non-chromatic definition is NOT in dispute. I think everyone who has ever studied music theory and history knows that the origins of the diatonic scale predate the introduction of the chromatically enhanced harmonic minor. What can your references show me? I already know the history as well as the acoustical significance of the unique tone/semitone pattern.

All I'm doing is pointing out that the expanded meaning DOES exist. You can't deny that the meaning of 'diatonic' IS often found expanded to include the harmonic minor. Whether or not it should be is another question entirely and a rather academic one at that. But be careful, if you try to address the perceived folly of this expanded view of the term 'diatonic' in your edit, some administrator will come along and revert it for not representing a neutral viewpoint. Meanwhile, I look forward to your edit. (Mark 22 November 2006)

"Often found expanded" where? All you have provided is a section of a paragraph in a dictionary which may be incorrectly interpreted to mean otherwise (the online sources don't even factor into the conversation). Please provide a valid reference or drop it. edit: I have done more than my share as far as this goes. Your objections are based on hearsay and your perceptions of popular opinion. "People think so" is not a reason to include it in an encyclopedia. --Roivas 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any more offline references to hand and I can't be bothered going to the library just to confirm what most musicians already know, i.e., that the chromatically altered intervals of the harmonic minor scale (rightly or wrongly) are often considered diatonic. Notice that I always try to choose words and phrases that are not so dogmatic about it (considered, to all intents and purposes, included with). I did offer to drop it on the grounds I had nothing new to add to what I already said, but you wouldn't let it go and insisted on repeating something that is also common knowledge, i.e., that the term diatonic in its strictest sense excludes, (by definition) any chromatic alteration.

I, too, have spent much more time on this than it deserves, so I propose opening it up and letting others weigh in on either side. Evidently, no-one comes to this obscure corner of Wikipedia or else we would have heard from them. So, with that in mind, I had a look at the Wiki article interval (music) and its discussion page. I realised we should have been there all along as the matter has been discussed by many. Actually, the definitions on that page seem more confusing. They provide a traditional as well as a contemporary definition of diatonic interval. But the traditional one, to my great surprise, is the one that I've been claiming is the modern one, i.e. any interval present in a major or harmonic minor scale. I'm sure, for the first time, we can both agree that that can't be right - the traditional definition couldn't possibly allow chromatic alteration. As for the contemporary one, I'm not quite sure what they're getting at.

Anyway, I'm going to go there and ask a question, because one thing that I genuinely don't know is how or when this alternative definition of a diatonic interval came about, i.e any interval present in either a major or harmonic minor. I invite you to come along. I'll ask it in the section on chromatic and diatonic intervals. I hope to see you there. I don't expect I'll be back here in the near future. (Mark - 23 November 2006)

It had to have come about from inaccurate use. It's like expanding the color orange to include green because that's the color an orange turns when you leave it out for too long. It's bad logic.

Musicologist just call what you're talking about the "Modern Major-Minor System."

I know what you mean by common usage and etymology, but I think that's a poor analogy in this particular case.

I'll be glad to join you in a further discussion in another part of Wikipedia.

I guess I don't consider anything outside of a respected book on music theory or acoustics to be valid. I believe that musical ideas on the internet and in the "music community" can just be wrong.

I have way too many books on music theory, acoustics, and a couple on the history of tuning (I don't pretend to be an expert on tuning systems, though). I would've noticed a relaxed definition of the word "Diatonic." The word has a certain meaning in the context of music analysis/history and to expand it doesn't help in any way.

I don't know what you mean by "most musicians," 'cause the ones I know don't use the term that way. My former private composition teacher DEFINITELY wouldn't.

Also, you haven't wasted any time on this...if you're a musician, I would think that these concepts are important to evaluate, re-evalute and understand.

Remember: "The art of the musician who is not hypersensitive is not a fine art."

You said:

They provide a traditional as well as a contemporary definition of diatonic interval. But the traditional one, to my great surprise, is the one that I've been claiming is the modern one, i.e. any interval present in a major or harmonic minor scale.

This is exactly what I mean. Things get a little mixed up online, don't they?

Thanks again for your comments and for helping me to understand these concepts better.

Edit:

Once again, "often considered" is not worthy of an entry in a encyclopedia.

I'm sure you could find the same incorrect assumption verified by twenty people on different web pages, but that's not the way one conducts good research.

Edit:

I'm not just being overly-dogmatic or a Puritan. I love music spanning such diverse sources as Guillaume de Machaut to Morton Feldman, Slayer, and Ornette Coleman and I see no need to expand a perfectly good term to accomodate these wonderfully various musical worldviews.

--Roivas 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to clean up the article the best that I can over the weekend and provide background for the concept of the diminished seventh chord. The information in the article, as it is now, could only confuse a new student of composed music. I think a serious music student would want to understand the basic concepts of music theory as best they can and not have to worry about "common usage" (common misconceptions) or other internet distortions. I'll give references for all my changes and list differences of opinion as long as they stem from "real sources." Also, a list of books that people might find useful.

--Roivas 19:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark, the definition that's being used here from Oxford Concise appears to be directly lifted from Piston's "Harmony" (page 3, after Ex. 1)) The word Diatonic isn't even mentioned on this page.

All it says: "Three scales are used as the basis of the music with which we are concerned"...and mentions major, minor (with it's two common alterations) and the chromatic.

So, I hope the whole basis of this perceived polarity isn't going to pivot on Oxford's Concise (edit: I had Grove's in there on accident). --Roivas 05:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made the first few edits. The article is now in line with music theory as it is expressed in the most commonly available published souces. For now, Walter Piston's "Harmony" has been used, as it is provided as a textbook in American Universities.--Roivas 21:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Roivas, you wrote at the beginning of this page:

A diminished 7th above C is Bbb (B double-flat) or A, which is a major sixth up from C. So, considering this, the interval does not span seven diatonic scale degrees. It's one degree short.

And this led to a great deal of complex discussion. Some of that discussion got mixed up with lengthy disputation at Talk:Interval_(music), and anyone wanting to follow all of this should look there as well. But let me just comment on your original assertion here. In fact the interval C–B♭♭ does span seven diatonic scale degrees. What's more, it occurs in an actual diatonic scale, provided only that we understand diatonic scale to include harmonic minor scale (and this interpretation is supported at Talk:Interval_(music). The interval occurs in D♭ harmonic minor. For the record, it is a mistake to say, as you more or less do, that B♭♭ is the same as A. In some systems of tuning the two are at the same pitch, but that doesn't entail that in any sense that is relevant here they are "the same". – Noetica 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I understand that is what you, personally, believe. Unfortunately, your position is not backed by any published source on music theory. I will consider a more loose interpretation if you will provide a published source.

I have already provided a solid case for my position, please read the entire discussion. If you have difficulty with a particular example, then I will explain myself better.

We are talking about basic music theory. If you'd like to add a section about other tuning systems (based on a published source), that's fine. Helmholtz has some information on this in the above mentioned reference. Speculation and online sources cannot be relied upon.

If I may copy and paste something from this very discussion (regarding your only source for defining the harmonic minor as diatonic:

My objection is that he seems like "some guy on the internet."

My point is: HE IS NOT A PUBLISHED MUSICOLOGIST. The source is not reliable. If what you say is true, then I'm sure you'll be able to find it somewhere in a book.--Roivas 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, your belief that the harmonic minor scale is diatonic would necessarily imply that this chord is diatonic: B D F Ab. Arnold Schoenberg explicitly refers to ALL diminished seventh chords as NONDIATONIC in his "Theory of Harmony" book.--Roivas 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, Roivas, you are all at sea. look again at the assertion of yours that I analyse and refute:

A diminished 7th above C is Bbb (B double-flat) or A, which is a major sixth up from C. So, considering this, the interval does not span seven diatonic scale degrees. It's one degree short.

Notice that you are not there addressing the issue of what should count as a diatonic scale. You effectively make the unsupported claim that B♭♭ is the same as A. In analysis of scales and intervals, it is not: no matter what interpretation of the word diatonic is used. All that you could mean, to be charitable to you and to use your interpretation of diatonic, is that the pitches marked by the notes C and the B♭♭ next above it are represented only as a major sixth in a diatonic scale (since the enharmonically equivalent diminished seventh does not occur in any diatonic scale, by your interpretation of the term). As for published sources, you have been provided with at least one above (Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music), and an earlier edition of the same work at Talk:Interval_(music), where other sources are cited (including something from the Royal College of Music). Incidentally, the sense of diatonic justified by those sources is not "loose", as you choose to label it. It is perfectly clear. It simply differs from the single one that you adhere to, doggedly and in the face of any evidence that comes your way. I have also (at Talk:Interval_(music)) drawn your attention to the term diatonic harmony, which you then said you didn't understand. I showed you how to find titles of books that incorporate that phrase, and you completely ignored this. As for the point you make about Schönberg, so what? All it can mean is that, on at least one occasion, he uses the term diatonic in the way you think is the only right way. Look, if you are going to remain immune to evidence that is uncomfortable for you, just tell us, OK? That will save us all a lot of trouble. – Noetica 00:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, if you want to change the article, please provide an example from a music theory book that explicitly defines the harmonic minor as diatonic. Regarding my changes to this article, I have two solid, published sources listed that support my claims. I have more if you'd like me to cite those as well.

The Oxford Concise does not explicity state that the harmonic minor scale is diatonic, so please stop referring to it. Really, it's just referring to the major scale and the natural minor scale.--Roivas 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How can you justify that? How can you be sure of that? Here is the way I presented the quote at Talk:Interval_(music):

Scale: ...[First an account of the major scale, then the melodic minor and the harmonic minor scales, then:]... The major and minor scales are spoken of as DIATONIC SCALES, as distinct from a scale using nothing but semitones, which is the CHROMATIC SCALE. [Capitals in the original]

I'm sure of it because I know what the Diatonic Form is.--Roivas 07:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked the work I quote? If not, how on earth can you read it any way other than including all currently used forms other than the chromatic scale – the major, and the harmonic and melodic minors – as diatonic?

I'll simply repeat what I wrote at Talk:Interval_(music): I have come up with a published source. So has Mark (elsewhere). The definition is not erroneous, it has been in use for some considerable time, and still is. You are being completely unreasonable. It is, on the evidence plainly visible here and at [this present page], ridiculous to assert that I am merely expressing an opinion of my own without published support. Somehow contrive to get the wisdom to see this. Until you wise up, you are not worth talking to, and are wasting your time and others' time, while doing damage to articles along the way. – Noetica 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as your dictionary definition is concerned, I would never have come to that conclusion.

Please find it explcitly stated in a music theory book or drop it. A lot of these books may not be infallible, but at least they are published. If you have a counterargument supported by a book, then provide it. The Oxford Concise does not back your claim. The term "harmonic minor" isn't even in the definition. You have to do better than that.--Roivas 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really a big fan of using dictionaries to prove a point (they are usually not the best places to go for a firm understanding of music theory), but here's a definition I found in The Oxford Companion to Music:

Scale

3. Diatonic Scale: The sixth and seventh degrees of the minor scale are unstable and result in two forms, neither of them diatonic: the harmonic minor, with the characteristic interval of an augmented 2nd; and the melodic minor...

Pg. 1106, ISBN: 0198662122

This addresses the harmonic minor scale in a direct way and leaves no room for ambiguity and misinterpretation.

I don't know if the two people who have argued the most with me are still involved in this discussion, but in case I come up against this in the future, I want to make sure that my point has been clearly made.

--Roivas 05:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken Roivas. Your latest research has convinced me that the expanded view we've been discussing is not officially accepted in respected academic/ musicological publications as a valid alternative but, rather, is based on a popular misconception. As such it shouldn't be presented as fact in Wikipedia and I'm happy to stand corrected on it.

As for the re-write, I like it but feel that one sentence you added is superfluous - the one about it being the same as a major sixth in certain contexts. The last sentence of that section already says pretty much the same thing. Thanks for your efforts in the pursuit of factual accuracy. (Mark - 26 November 2006)

Y'know...my thoughts don't always translate well. Any help on cleaning up my changes would be appreciated.--Roivas 20:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark, if only it were so simple! The only point Roivas succeeds in making – a useful one, I allow – is this: there is a strong modern tendency for diatonic to be anchored in the old theory of tetrachords, or theory proper to the unmodified modes that precede the common practice period. Unfortunately, this is only a tendency, and even in works in which it dominates there are equivocations, compromises, and uncertainties. Consider how the Oxford Companion to Music (OCM), which Roivas cites as settling the matter, opens its article Diatonic (with my emphases in underline):

In the major–minor tonal system, a diatonic feature – which may be a single note, an interval, a chord, or an extended passage of music – is one that uses exclusively notes belonging to one key. In practice, it can be said to use a particular scale, but only with the proviso that the alternative submediants and leading notes of harmonic and melodic minor allow up to nine diatonic notes, compared with the seven available in a major scale.

What are we to make of this? What does the pronoun it refer to, here? It can only make sense if it refers to a diatonic feature. Now, let's talk about one of those diatonic features listed: intervals. Some intervals, it seems, may be called diatonic. And OCM explicitly canvasses an extension to allow this term to involve an extra two notes: submediants and leading notes raised by a semitone, in the (ascending) melodic and the harmonic minor. If this means anything, it means that intervals involving one of those raised notes (in the absence of its unraised form) may be classified as diatonic. This would include the diminished seventh (along with the diminished fourth, etc.). As far as the terms diatonic and chromatic are concerned OCM gives no ruling on how intervals are to be classified beyond what I cite and analyse above. And what I cite and analyse calls into question the very exclusion of the harmonic minor as diatonic that OCM is elsewhere firm about.

Is OCM a final authority on scholarly use, or any use, of terms in music? Certainly not. There are no final authorities in this field. Some of the other sources cited in discussion above contradict themselves concerning the term diatonic (I am thinking in particular of this one, which Roivas cites as giving a "better definition" of diatonic scale. What are Roivas's exact definitions of diatonic interval and chromatic interval, I wonder? And what authority does Roivas use for those definitions?). Indeed, in this slippery area, most sources contradict themselves or at least equivocate, including The New Grove. I am still away from my own large collection of music resources. I'll come back to this matter and address the chromatic–diatonic distinction more systematically when I can get to them. As things stand, Wikipedia treats these terms most inconsistently, and work certainly needs to be done. This includes at Interval_(music), where I see I have to revise some of my own contributions, and expand the distinctions that are made between various usages. (For the record, I now count over six senses of chromatic and over six of diatonic around the place, including in Wikipedia articles.) For now, let me just finish by clarifying something that surprised you: I used traditional in a relative sense in Interval_(music). The senses of diatonic and chromatic that have to do with spanning degrees of scales, or with spanning semitones, are new and untraditional (and hard to justify by appeal to standard reference works), so any earlier and more established uses are in a way to be counted as traditional. Meanwhile, Roivas has, here and at Talk:Interval_(music), rashly attributed to me statements and opinions that are not mine, and until that's sorted out I'll not discuss these matters with Roivas. – Noetica 20:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as diatonic intervals go...I don't really care what is used as long as it isn't Dr. Alan Crosier and a published source can be verified. The OCM gives a terrible definition of diatonic interval...but if you really like it, I can't argue against its use. At least my initial concern that the harmonic minor scale is being used incorrectly has been settled.--Roivas 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"The senses of diatonic and chromatic that have to do with spanning degrees of scales, or with spanning semitones, are new and untraditional (and hard to justify by appeal to standard reference works), so any earlier and more established uses are in a way to be counted as traditional."

Hey, like I said, not a great way to start an article in an encylopedia. If you really must stick a lot of equivocations and pratically useless confusions in an article, why not put them in a trivia section at the bottom or something?--Roivas 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"What are Roivas's exact definitions of diatonic interval and chromatic interval, I wonder? And what authority does Roivas use for those definitions?)."

For about the fifth time, here's the Diatonic Form: 2-2-1-2-2-2-1

I've listed quite a few references. Did you really not see them or are you purposely trying to frustrate me?

The "dim 7 interval spanning 7 diatonic scale degrees." In this one sentence, there's confusion as far as what a diatonic scale is, what a scale degree is, and what the dim 7 represents functionally. Not a great way to start an article.--Roivas 21:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Roivas, Noetica has provided exactly the information you've been repeatedly asking for, and from a published source highly respected in the field of musicology. "...alternative submediants and leading notes of harmonic and melodic minor allow up to nine diatonic notes...

So what does it mean? That's two opposing views both of you have provided from the same source. Is the OCM contradicting itself? I don't think so. I think the key lies in the openining phrase "in practice..." That would make sense, wouldn't it? The strict theoretical definition could be as you quoted but in practice it's convenient to include the intervals of the harmonic minor as, let's say 'honorary members' of the diatonic collection, and the OCM is simply reflecting the existence of this practice. (Mark 26 November 2006)

Noetica has not done what I asked. I asked for a published source to explicitly state that the harmonic minor scale is diatonic. This definition does not do that.

Remember, that's your interpretation and nothing else. I have my own idea of what that means, but unfortunately what I think is unimportant. That's what both of you fail to understand.

The main reason to think that you are incorrect is that the same dictionary goes on to state: "The sixth and seventh degrees of the minor scale are unstable and result in two forms, neither of them diatonic: the harmonic minor, with the characteristic interval of an augmented 2nd; and the melodic minor."

If you think the OCM definition belongs in the article...by all means...edit away.

Believe me, it's not practical in any way to expand the definition! The minor system is artificial. Just because folks use it a lot doesn't mean that it's now "natural." Music theory 101.

Both of you have taken a couple ambiguous definitions as a license to revise history. You don't stop at the definition, but carry on with all sorts of unsupported nonsense. What's the point of it all anyway? What does it gain us? If what you're saying is true, find it in a book, theoretically or practically worked out in some way. I want to see when the term was expanded, by whom, and what reason they had for doing so.

Quote from Mark:

"That would make sense, wouldn't it? The strict theoretical definition could be as you quoted but in practice it's convenient to include the intervals of the harmonic minor as, let's say 'honorary members' of the diatonic collection, and the OCM is simply reflecting the existence of this practice."

Okay, can you substantiate this or am I supposed to take your word for it?

Quote from Noetica:

"most sources contradict themselves or at least equivocate, including The New Grove."

If your only source of information on this is a dictionary, I guess it would seem that way. I've listed six references that are not dictionaries. Why don't you do the same?

I understand that you don't have access to your library at the moment. If your research proves that I am wrong, then that's fine with me. I tend to dismiss most of everything outside of writings of composers and musicologists. If Schoenberg, Brahms, or Rimsky-Korsakov says something that contradicts some guitar professor, then I'm sorry, but the composer wins every time. The front lines of music are not often found anywhere near a syllabus for a beginner's guitar instruction course. That is not an academic record by any means.

I really have little patience for this "common knowledge" nonsense and that's why I'm taking a decidedly obnoxious tone with both of you.

I'm not interested in the history of music according to Mark and Noetica.--Roivas 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

--Roivas 22:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re my last quote - see above, you responded:

Okay, can you substantiate this or am I supposed to take your word for it?

No, I can't, and no you're not. That's why I was asking the question. I wasn't presenting a statement of supposed fact. I was hoping to engage you in intelligent conversation, and, in the spirit of shared research, to elicit your opinion on the possibility of it being an explanation for the apparent contradiction found in the OCM. You say you want to know when the term was expanded, by whom and for what reason. Me too. Isn't that almost exactly what I said recently? "...because one thing that I genuinely don't know is how or when this alternative definition of a diatonic interval came about" That's all I'm trying to find out - "How has it come about and to what extent is it accepted?" That's why I also asked the question at Talk:Interval_(music) and am grateful to Noetica for his informative response. It doesn't mean that I accept everything Noetica said as fact - but it means I have more information and opinion at my disposal to weigh up and help me in my search for truth. That my genuine attempt to discuss these apparent contradictions more deeply with you has been met with an obnoxious tone, as you've admitted, is unfortunate. It's unfortunate, not so much because of any personal affront to me, but because it precludes any possibility of further discussion. I'm not interested in point scoring or personal attacks and I certainly won't respond in the same manner. (Mark 27 November 2006).

Roivas has just made an unwarranted personal attack. Earlier I wrote this: Roivas has, here and at Talk:Interval_(music), rashly attributed to me statements and opinions that are not mine, and until that's sorted out I'll not discuss these matters with Roivas. This is still my attitude. Here I will only add a couple of points concerning process:

1. I have not once edited the present article, except to apply a {{{Neutrality}}} marker at the top.

2. I have attempted to engage in fruitful discussion with Roivas. So has Mark. Neither of us has had much success, I fear.

3. I see no way forward until we can all be more respectful. This would mean avoiding personal attacks, answering questions put to us, not claiming to have done what we have not yet done, and not accusing others of doing what they have not done.

4. This is far from the best place for general discussion of the disputed terms (diatonic and chromatic, as applied to intervals, scales, etc.). I suggest that any further dialogue take place at Talk:Interval_(music), but only when discussion can be rational and respectful.

– Noetica 23:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to make a comment about this paragraph from OCM...

Basically, the paragraph is referring to the "additional chords" available in the minor key. a minor: D-F#-A, G#-B-D, C-E-G#, etc. are said to "occur naturally" because of accidentals given by the raised 7th & 8th scale steps. You'll often see "Diatonic Triads in Minor" with all the accidental chords delineated.

Doesn't mean you can start extracting isolated features out of the minor key and treat them as diatonic occurrences.

That's all the OCM is trying to say...keep in mind the reference to harmonic minor a few pages later.--Roivas 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope someone can objectively arbitrate and remove the "neutrality" tag. There's nothing in the article that can't be found in a reliable source on music theory (unlike its previous form). This has degenerated into something else. I don't know what the point is anymore. I'll just add to it as I find info and if people hate me for it, then whatever...this has nothing to do with rational debate. I'm not interested in making people feel better about themselves. If you have a fact, then add it. If you have an opinion, than keep it to yourself. What's the big deal?--Roivas 07:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the 'disputed netrality tag for the following reason:

The neutrality tag was added following recent edits which rejected the previous assertion that the diminished seventh interval spanned seven diatonic scale degrees, implying the interval was diatonic. This led to a dispute regarding the exact definition of the term diatonic.

However, the rewrite doesn't present any disputed information. Alluding to the interval's chromatic origin, it states that there is no 'natural' diatonic occurrence of it, a fact which has never been in dispute. By either of the definitions discussed, the wording of the current article is such that the disputed neutrality tag is unjustified. The article contains nothing that directly contradicts either of the disputed definitions. (Mark - 27/12/2006)

Mark, I put that tag there (not quite for the reason you say I did); but I have no problem with it being removed. I simply don't care any more. For the record, the interval of the diminished seventh is not uncontroversially of "chromatic origin"; and, according to several older authorities, when it occurs between the seventh and the sixth degrees of the harmonic minor it does indeed have a " 'natural' diatonic occurrence". For such theorists, the diatonic scales of the common practice period are the major, the melodic minor, and the harmonic minor. I have now been able to check this with several books in my own collection, and with some others (including what you and I found earlier). These can be added to web usages that we might cite, if we could be bothered. Myself, I always knew (as you did, I think) that the terms diatonic and chromatic have several meanings. They are among the most slippery terms in our musical vocabulary, and it is for that reason that I am interested in them. To pretend that they each have a single meaning (even when only applied to scales, or to intervals) would be, quite simply, intellectually dishonest. But I will not adduce more evidence here, because it would be futile. I've enjoyed your contributions to the discussion here, so thank you for that. I may take up the matter of these disputed terms elsewhere in Wikipedia, when I am again interested and motivated to do so – systematically, and with sufficient citations. – Noetica 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Noetica, and I'm sorry you found my recent additions, ill-focused and irrelevant, as I noted you mentioned at talk:interval (music). My point was that the information presented by Roivas isn't in dispute, because whether or not the term diatonic has other accepted meanings, the current article doesn't specifically contradict or refute them. However, you've pointed out that the sentence "The diminished seventh has no 'natural' diatonic occurrence" is contentious. This is ironic as it was I, not Roivas, who originally wrote that sentence. My point (since deleted) was that it occurred as a result of chromatically raising the seventh degree of the diatonic minor scale, and in that respect was artificially contrived, rather than naturally occurring from the intervals of the pre-existing diatonic scales, hence my use of inverted commas around the word 'natural'. (Mark - 27/12/06)

No no! Mark, I did not allude to your additions here when I wrote "the rather ill-focused citations added there to support Roivas's unilateralism are mostly irrelevant" (at Talk:interval (music)). I meant the citations given under the heading References from Roivas (see below). If you had recently added citations, I didn't notice them. I'll now fix the wording at the other talk page to prevent misreadings. As for the provenance of certain text, let me say this: I care less about who wrote what than I do about the accuracy of what is written, and the readiness of editors to have rational dialogue towards a better article. For the record, the article now includes not only this: The diminished seventh [interval] has no 'natural' diatonic occurrence, but also this: The diminished seventh chord is a nondiatonic chord. But the relevant sense of this term diatonic is not made clear for the reader. Nor is the range of senses in which diatonic is used laid out anywhere in Wikipedia, yet the term is used in different senses in different places – sometimes within a single article. (Similarly for chromatic. Both terms are an unholy mess, throughout Wikipedia.) Also, we might think it remarkable that there is no mention of the harmonic minor scale in the article; yet that is the scale (diatonic or not) in which the diminished seventh (interval or chord) most naturally occurs. Why not mention it? A question, by the way: Is any chord chromatic simply because of the context in which it occurs, or are some chords diatonic or chromatic independently of context? If the matter is determined independently of context, what does determine whether the chord is diatonic or chromatic? I ask this because of the mention of diatonic occurrence. There are those who would want to say that a chord is "diatonic" or "chromatic" tout court, not simply as a matter of context. Usage varies with this, as it does very often in music theory. Sometimes it should be mentioned that it varies, so that less experienced readers are not baffled by what they encounter. – Noetica 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake Noetica, I hadn't noticed you were referring to citations and assumed you meant my recent contributions. I'll put it down to a mixture of paranoia and inattention on my part. Thanks for pointing it out and for your further input on the subject. (Mark - 28/12/2006)

Da capo, yet again:

"according to several older authorities" "For such theorists"

"I have now been able to check this with several books in my own collection"

I know that no one is talking to me right now, but I've been hearing about this enormous book collection for a couple months now. Care to name some of these mysterious sources?

Regarding the long-winded ponderings of Noetica: they do not matter. Why are 200 words doing the work of 10, anyway?

This is an encyclopedia. If you don't have a valid source for a piece of information, don't add it to a Wikipedia article. You have been unable to cite a valid, published source that unequivocally maintains that a harmonic minor scale is diatonic. Until you do so, your "NPOV" tags will be removed and this discussion will be put on hold. This argument was started back in early November. I have done more than my share of research and you have done nothing but cite hearsay and your own opinions. This is irritating to say the least. I'm sorry that you are confused on these matters, but this really is not my problem.--Roivas 01:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Schoenberg states somewhere that there are more than 48 resolutions of the dim 7 chord. I can't remember where this information is, though.--Roivas 08:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1 References from Roivas
- 1.1 And another
2 "Scale degree" vs. "Scale Step"
3 Diatonic and chromatic now established

[edit] References from Roivas

The Oxford Companion to Music:

Scale

Pg. 1106, ISBN: 0198662122

Grove Music Online (wording is exactly the same in print as well...see page 295 in the actual text):

Diatonic (from Gk. dia tonos: ‘proceeding by whole tones’).

Based on or derivable from an octave of seven notes in a particular configuration, as opposed to Chromatic and other forms of Scale. A seven-note scale is said to be diatonic when its octave span is filled by five tones and two semitones, with the semitones maximally separated, for example the major scale (T–T–S–T–T–T–S) [which is the scale form I have been referring to all along]. The natural minor scale and the church modes (see Mode) are also diatonic.

An interval is said to be diatonic if it is available within a diatonic scale. The following intervals and their compounds are all diatonic: minor 2nd (S), major 2nd (T), minor 3rd (TS), major 3rd (TT), perfect 4th (TTS), perfect 5th (TTST), minor 6th (STTTS), major 6th (TTSTT), minor 7th (TSTTTS), major 7th (TTSTTT) and the octave itself. The Tritone, in theory diatonic according to this definition, has traditionally been regarded as the alteration of a perfect interval, and hence chromatic; it may be either a semitone more than a perfect 4th (augmented 4th: TTT) or a semitone less than a perfect 5th (diminished 5th: STTS).

--Roivas 08:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Same as above:

Minor (i). (1) The name given to a diatonic Scale whose octave, in its natural form, is built of the following ascending sequence, in which T stands for a tone and S for a semitone: T–S–T–T–S–T–T). The note chosen to begin the sequence, called the key note, also becomes part of the name of the scale; a D minor scale, for instance, consists of the notes D–E–F–G–A–B–C–D. In practice, however, some notes of the scale are altered chromatically to help impart a sense of direction to the melody. The harmonic minor scale has a raised seventh, in accordance with the need for a major triad on the fifth step (the Dominant chord). The melodic minor scale has a raised sixth and a raised seventh when it is ascending, borrowing the leading-note function of the seventh step from the major scale; in descending, though, it is the same as the natural minor scale.

--Roivas 08:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Material Used in Musical Composition Goetschius, Percy - pp. 121 & 5 (par. 16)

"The alterations in minor are reckoned from the harmonic form of the scale, and they tend chiefly to remove the unmelodious progressions between the 6th and 7th scale-steps. This interval embraces one and a half step, and therefore does not conform to the principle of scale-formation (par. 16)."

Here's par. 16:

"The diatonic half-step is the difference in pitch between tones that lie five harmonic degrees apart (harmonic degrees are fifths upwards C-G-D-A-E-B...etc. The chromatic half-step is seven harmonic degrees removed."

The Style of Palestrina and the Dissonance Jeppesen, Knud

Tuning and Temperament, A Historical Survey J. Murray Barbour, ISBN 0-486-43406-0

"The Greeks had three genera - diatonic, chromatic, and enharmonic. A diatonic tetrachord contained two tones and a semitone, variously arranged, the Dorian tetrachord having the order shown above, as A G F E. In the chromatic tetrachord the second string (as G) was lowered until the two lower intervals in the tetrachord were equal. Thus A Gb F E represents the process of formaion better than the more commonly shown A F# F E. In the enharmonic tetrachord the second string was lowered still further until it was in unison with the third string; the third string was then tuned half way between the second and fourth strings...etc."

On the Sensation of Tone Helmholtz, Hermann - pp. 266-278 (Dover)

The basic Pythagorian form is E-F G A-Bb C D

"The diatonic scale thus obtained could be continued either way at pleasure by adding higher and lower octaves, and it then produced a regularly alternating series of Tones and Semitones."

This excludes the "instrumental minor scale" (mentioned on pg 288) or harmonic minor scale.--Roivas 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Elementary Training for Musicians Hindemith, Paul - pg. 58, Second Edition, 1949

(diatonic = consisting of whole- and half-tone steps)

Not the greatest definition, but this exludes the harmonic minor, which contains an augmented 2nd.--Roivas 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And another

For what it's worth, here's a passage from the article "Seventh chords" in the Harvard Dictionary of Music, 2nd edition:

While each of the seven "diatonic" seventh chords contains major as well as minor thirds (in various arrangements), there also is an important seventh chord consisting of minor thirds only, the diminished seventh chord.

So apparently Harvard Dictionary thinks the dim7 is nondiatonic, although the quotation marks around "diatonic", which appear in the original, are curious. The reference to seven seventh chords means a chord built on each of the seven scale degrees, even though fewer than seven chord qualities are represented. HD's article on "diatonic" also refers to 5W and 2H, thus excluding the harmonic minor. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wahoofive, apart from the fact that many of the references given above are hardly to the point, the exercise is fairly useless. No one disputes that musicologists generally prefer a certain hard-line use of the terms diatonic and chromatic, nor that this affects the classification of intervals like the diminished 7th. What has been disputed is whether there are other usages that are still current. There clearly are! And this situation leads to enormous confusion and unclarity. You note the quotation marks in Harvard. Yes, that's a typical "hedging". New Grove is equally ill at ease on these matters. Anyway, it may be better to concentrate such discussion at Talk:Interval (music), so that it will not become (or remain, rather) too fragmented. –Noetica 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Noetica said: "What has been disputed is whether there are other usages that are still current."

My point is, if these "usages" are not supported by any standard work of reference, they are not relevant to Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia's Attribution article: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."

Also: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

Also: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process"--Roivas 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Scale degree" vs. "Scale Step"

I'm using "scale degrees" in the Schenkerian sense. "Scale degree" implies a harmonically functional root. "Scale step" can be applied to any tone in any scale.Roivas 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diatonic and chromatic now established

The new article is now well and truly settled in, and has quite a lot of content. I suggest that we now discontinue any general debate here (and at Talk:Diatonic scale and Talk:Interval (music)) over these terms (see earlier sections), and confine it to Talk:Diatonic and chromatic. I'll sure there will be quite spirited debate. If all goes well, the clarifications that we eventually settle on at the new article will help with the present article on the diminished seventh, and with many others. – Noetica^♬Talk 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Diminished seventh/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] References from Roivas

[edit] And another

[edit] "Scale degree" vs. "Scale Step"

[edit] Diatonic and chromatic now established

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search