Talk:Mixolydian mode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Please put the notable mixolydian mode songs back in the article

Please put the notable mixolydian mode songs back in the article. They were essential to it's success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.13.244 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be stirring the possum a bit in suggesting this: but you can always put the list back yourself, referring to earlier versions of this article to source them from. But the inclusion of these lists seems to be very contentious, and you may be quickly reverted by those who oppose such lists. (I have noticed one particular editor who seems to have made this their own personal project, and they are quite aggressive in removing such lists from various key and mode articles.)
The main ground opposers of these lists use to justify their opposition is are that determining the mode of a piece is original research (prohibited under Wikipedia policy), unless an authoritative source has said that the piece is in such and such a mode. Personally, I think it's stretching the meaning of "original research" somewhat, taking an extremely puritan stance, and I tend to agree that, while there can be ambiguous cases where it's not certain what mode a piece is in, much of the time it is a simple matter of fact that a piece is in a given mode or key, and that it should be okay to mention this. I would submit that anyone who can read music and who knows the various modes and keys can very easily and reliably determine the mode or key of a piece, and, unless there are special complicating factors, I don't think this should be the subject of contention or the cause of bitter editing wars.
The problem is compounded by the fact that people actually *have* put songs or pieces in such lists that were in fact incorrect. (I've removed a few such, but I don't remove those I know to be correct, or where I just don't know if it's correct.) So if you want to add a new song to a list, I suggest that you check the actual score of the piece first, and make sure it's the original version, not a simplified arrangement which may change the key. Recordings can be less reliable, as they can vary from the proper key by almost a semitone on some occasions. Modes are less likely to be distorted by such factors than keys, since keys vary only by pitch, whereas modes are actually different *kinds* of scales. So you really do need to know modes well before you can reliably identify a piece in being this or that mode.
So, if you feel strongly about it, retrieve those lists and put them back - but be prepared for them to be removed again, and decide whether you want to persist in reinstating it, and whether you feel up to an edit war. I think there's also a rule about not reverting any more often than three times within any 24-hour period. M.J.E. (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:No original research. It doesn't matter if it's true. The entire list is prohibited in the second sentence with the words "unpublished facts". It doesn't matter whether you can correctly identify that a piece of music is in D Mixolydian because you have perfect pitch. If there aren't any reliable external sources, then it's prohibited.   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mediaeval

is mediaeval supposed to be medieval? ENSSB 20:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's one of those florae or faunae situations. ǣ or æ I think.

[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 the Musical mode article and removed from all 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 the Musical mode article, and not mentioned in the articles about specific modes (all articles should of course be linked to the general Musical mode 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 the Musical mode 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 is obvious 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 09:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

PS please respond and discuss at the Musical mode talk page

[edit] Key signatures and accidentals (title added)

if a song is in G mixolydian (GABCDEFG) would it was a key signature of no flats or one sharp,with a natural sign whenever F is played? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.65.31.160 (talk • contribs) .

I would write it with no flats or sharps in the key signature, so no accidentals would need to be used for the basic scale. A lot of printed music I've seen uses this convention also, for example Bartok, who often uses modes other than major and minor. —Keenan Pepper 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Music

Perhaps it should be mentioned that much of Scottish music, where not pentatonic, is in the Mixolydian mode. "Flower of Scotland", "Flowers of the Forest", Mairi's Wedding, "Scots Wha Hae" and "The Skye Boat Song" are a few of the many examples. Wmck 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning example of Mixolydian mode.

I wish to raise a query about this item in the list of pieces in the Mixolydian mode:

"It's a Long Way to the Top" by AC/DC is in A# Mixolydian.

I don't know the piece, so can't alter this description, even though I strongly suspect it's wrong almost to the point of certainty; perhaps someone who knows the piece (and has seen the sheet music) can do so.

The reason why I think it is almost certainly wrong is that the Mixolydian mode in A# would include F-double-sharp and C-double-sharp: the mode would run A# B# Cx D# E# Fx G# A#. This is unlikely enough even in advanced classical music, even with those composers who do not shy away from remote keys or complex notation; it seems practically impossible in a popular song. So I'm wondering if it really should be the enharmonic equivalent Bb Mixolydian (Bb C D Eb F G Ab Bb - much, much simpler), or possibly A Mixolydian (A B C# D E F# G A - quite manageable). Hearing the piece would not distinguish between A# and Bb Mixolydian; only examining the sheet music would settle this. M.J.E. 01:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a valid example?

I was recently analyzing music from the video game Rayman. The song I'm thinking of in particular is the "Band Land theme", particularly the first section.

The flute melody begins on an A while the strings in the background play an A chord. It goes to a G chord in the second measure and the flatted seventh is most noticable when the melody plays a G when passing to the next measure. The whole progression for the first four bars is this:

A -  G  - Bm - F♯m
I - VII - ii - vi

The fact that the melody began on an A, that the first chord is an A major chord, and the total absence of G♯ in this section led me to conclude that this part is in Mixolydian. However, someone pointed out to me that it's possible that the second chord was simply lowered (which is totally valid, but somewhat inconvenient in my opinion). Additionally, there is a section that does have chord with G♯ (but I suppose they simply changed modes for that section).

In any case, I feel that the list on the page does not represent all media in which the mode may appear; the Phrygian mode page provides video game examples which this page does not. If this truly is a valid example, I'd like to add this (unless there's a more recognized game out there that utilizes this mode).—Iggy Koopa (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well-known music in this key

I plan on deleting any unsourced entries from this in a few weeks. (Listening to a piece and trying to figure out the key is not a source, and is also WP:OR.) Torc2 (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


>> Out of interest, what would you consider a source? I may not have a music PhD but I know my modes and I know all that I wrote was accurate.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.128.200 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why were the "notable songs in x mode" sections deleted? They were one of the most interesting parts of the articles (the best way to learn about modes I found was to relate them to examples from popular music). Because they're "not sourced"? That's crap really - what do you suggest? A written note from the composer declaring what scale the tune's in?

Let's not forget: Wikipedia is nothing more than an anecdotal source of info (given that it's not even taken seriously by university professors), so why such rigid formality? Plus, any bullshit info probably wouldn't make it past the community of experts here.

As someone who contributed a great deal to these lists I am not very happy. Whoever's responsible: where do you get off deleting large tracts of other people's contributions?


---


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.128.200 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


"I may not have a music PhD but I know my modes and I know all that I wrote was accurate." it doesn't matter whether you know that it was accurate. the fact is that it was original research, which is not allowed. WP:NOR   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Unsourced or not, I hope you realize that by removing examples of songs in Mixolydian mode you are detracting from the quality of the article. When I first read this article I did not come away with a grasp of this mode from the text. After listening to the examples, however, the description made intuitive sense. In fact, after listening to the cited examples, I was able to go back and correct a song that had been labeled in the wrong key (I have perfect pitch); in this case having those examples available helped me improve the article itself.

Further, the claim that a user's song contribution constitutes original research is dubious at best. The mode of the song is a simple point of fact. 71.199.114.79 (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)