Talk:Musical scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Removed

I deleted this

"More generally, a scale is a division of an acoustic frequency range in an interval [f,2*f] with a finite number of steps which are defined by their relation to the root of the scale, the note with frequency f."

Because

  • a.) it doesn't make a whole lot of sense

and

  • b.) it holds to an incorrect (and now deleted) idea that integral to the idea of a scale is whether it ascends or descends by steps, and this is not true in the most general case.

JFQ

Your rewrite is a lot clearer. Big improvement! -- Tarquin

Thanks!JFQ

I deleted an 'Indian musical scale' section that, at one point, had a one-sentence reference to melakartha. I'm happy to have someone rewrite the sentence in non-Western scales that currently talks about raga, but I don't think this article needs its own section about raga, melakartha, or any other Carnatic music concepts. jp2 07:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western bias

folks:

to me, many of the "music concept" pages read as if the author assumes that the Western European art music model is normative; i would like to reduce the presence of that bias, but only after some dialogue about the merits of more inclusive definitions.

this page, scale, seemed a good launch pad for the discussion, since in some traditions, it is possible to discuss scales and melodies without requiring that pitches are fixed--see the discussion of chunings in The Soul of Mbira, Paul Berliner, for an example from Shona mbira music of Zimbabwe. Therefore, a more abstract introduction to scale--collection of pitches, usually bounded by octaves, directional (melodic minor, raga in Hindustani music) or nondirectional, ordered--might be useful before a discussion of intervals; half steps and whole steps could be gently introduced here but more in-depth in an idiom-specific page.

what do more long-time contributors think?

I think that if any article is too European-classical-centric, you should certainly stamp on it - there's a fair amount of it around, and I try to correct it when I see it, but it's tricky, and it has to be balanced against the fact that most people reading these articles are going to be most familiar (in many cases, exclusively familiar) with western music. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should only discuss western music, but it does mean that if one starts on raags and whatnot too soon you're going to turn readers off. I certainly think that we should give the widest and most inclusive definition possible, but the initial definition should also be as simple as possible. Later on in the article, the gory details can be revealed, and we can get more complicated. This is just my opinion, of course.
In general, the best thing you can do, I think, is edit things as you see best (be bold in updating pages), and I'm sure people will let you know if they disagree with what you're doing! --Camembert
This problem, treating the music of a specific economic class of a specific geo-political location during a specific time period as Music or the normative standard, is, unfortunately, not wikipedia specific.
Wikipedians are expected to cite sources, and English sources are inevitably biased towards European influence music. Unfortunately one does not always have the knowledge one needs to correct this, whether or not one feels musically knowledgable, and thus one often has trouble providing examples.
Perhaps we need a 'WikiProject:Clarify and explain musical terminology' and 'WikiProject:Give non-Classical era music a fair shake'?
Hyacinth 20:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Indeed the template
Globe icon
 The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

can be added to articles as I have done for Chord (music) Andeggs 07:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes

folks:

(1) i moved the math-y discussion of scale degree out of the first paragraph and into the scale degree section;

(2) a scale is indeed an ordered series of notes, but that order is not just by pitch/frequency. in western music, think melodic minor scale: the scale is ordered by pitch and direction (asc/desc).

(3) i switched the frequency link to pitch, since frequency is very math-y, while pitch links to frequency in its first sentence.

(4) i removed the brief discussion of pentatonic and chromatic that preceded the scale list, as pentatonic scale includes scales that are not subsets of the chromatic scale: pelog, etc.

(5) i added pentatonic to the list of scale types, so it wouldn't get lost after the preceding edit. jp2 21:16 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Hijaz scale

Isn't the Hijaz scale the same as the Spanish and Jewish scale? (GCarty 18:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC))

[edit] Scales = or ≠

Scales and intervals are not equivalent to their pitches or exact frequencies. There is no "the chromatic scale", but many chromatic scales. The most common one is the equal tempered chromatic scale, which would include only an approximate of a pelog scale or pelog scales. There are many tunings of pelog scales, with each ensemble having a different tuning, and there also exist justly tuned chromatic scales, and there are or could be chromatic scales which contain the exact intervals of a specific tuning of a pelog scale. A major third (just) is a ditone (pythagorean) is 4-semitones (equal temperament), but luckily each can serve as the other. My point in all this is that scales are the same or different depending on context, on what you need the scales to do. The Hijaz scale, if not simply another or the real name for the Spanish scale, may seemingly be identical but still be a seperate thing (that may nonetheless substitute for the other). Does I mean that we shouldn't make connections or redirects? I mean that we should be both more flexible and do more research. Hyacinth 20:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


[edit] New Term, it's my own, can I introduce it?

I would like some feedback on how other contributors to the music theory sections of wikipedia would feel about my introducing a new piece of terminology which you may agree is potentially very useful. I realised several years ago that it would be possible to categorise different scales (I have described Just or 12 tone as "Tunings" not scales)with regard to how many notes they can share in common if their root notes are moved to the point where they have their maximum number of notes in common. For two modes of the same scale (e.g. Ionian ("Major") and Aeolian ("Minor") this value would be equal to the number of notes in each scale (7, not counting the octave of the root note) but for different "parent scales" (i.e. the orders of intervals from which modes can be chosen) these values are less. The size of this number (which I propose to call a "scale affinity" value) is a very simple numerical measure of similarity between scales. Generally speaking the changes of scale which are most appealing cut down on the number of different notes introduced each time, hence, in theory tables of scale affinities could provide paths between different scales which minimise dissonances. Also they would alert a musician to the fact that changing only one note from their current scale may lead them to another scale with which they may only have been within their grasp in another context. This could help a musician learn to learn how to improvise in novel ways. I have been using such tables for years and have a piece on my brother's website regarding the principle. Recently I've just learned how to use spreadsheets to enumerate similarities between scales in all possible alignments and intend to make the macros involved widely available, for free, through the internet. So my quandries are:

  • I'm no expert on music theory and a term may already exist for this property, I would like to know if this is the case.
  • If an amateur like myself introduces a new term and attaches a link to my scale theory website it may be regarded as a vain piece of self-aggrandisement. It is true that I wish to popularise this concept but is this the forum by which to do it?

My website is very, very ancient and needs updating, something I would have to consider doing before attaching such a scruffy thing to a major portal of communication like Wikipedia. I would welcome suggestions. Nonetheless you may wish to check it out by going to my brother's website http://www.classaxe.com/index.htm and then clicking on the links "Friends" (left hand side)and then "Andrew F." and then "scales resources". I expect that there are errors with some of the values but my MS Excel based method makes this process far more reliable.

I would be grateful for your comments.

you can email me if you wish:

u10ajf@yahoo.co.uk

Thanks.--U10ajf 00:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


To give you quick answers: Sorry, no, it's not a new, it's not your own, and if it was you could not add it.
See the recently created common tone and modulation (music) for the first, and Wikipedia:No original research for the latter. Hyacinth 01:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Nonetheless it seems to me that the common tone concept exclusively regards keys built from the same parent scale (the major scale and its modes) and isn't the same as the scale affnity concept which I introduced to compare different scale forms. (Major and Harmonic minor scales cohabit a group roughly similar to the closely related key group with only one note different). However I do acknowledge your point that wikipedia does not allow original research to be included and shall refrain from doing so. I should still be interested to hear from other wikipedia users if they have found the idea elsewhere since then I could reference their site instead of my own. I am new to Wikipedia, are there any more widely viewed noticeboards for peer review than the individual "discussion" postings which pertain - for my present purpose - too specifically to previous entries? Whether the concept is new or not I think that the enumeration of all the possible overlaps (12 each!) between the 47 different scale forms catalogued and where their constituent arpeggios lie may be of use to jazz musicians. Thanks for your time. Andrew --U10ajf 03:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, your discovery is insightful and I think your lists would be useful. Hyacinth 05:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See also: L'Isle Joyeuse. Hyacinth 16:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Writing for the lay reader

I reverted the page to (the last version by me) before the anonymous "Clarified and reorganized technical material" changes. The "technical material" may be clarified and reorganized, but also added was an inappropriate "Physical roots of scales" section. Hyacinth 21:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, the "clarified and reorganized" edits were mine. Forgot to log in for the first one, then logged in for the second one. I realize now that I should have posted here to explain the rationale behind the changes -- my apologies.
I'm a classically trained musician, and I found this page a difficult read. It strikes me that the page would be nearly impossible to understand for anyone who didn't already know all the material. The opening sentence alone is, I think, enough to make a non-musician run for cover. To compound the problem, many of the other articles linked to are also ambiguous or confusing.
I added the "Physical roots" section to explain why so many of the ideas that surround scales are vague or undefinable -- often described in terms of "feel" or "impression". I suspect that this may seem willfully obfuscatory to a beginner. However, the vagueness is indeed necessary... in many cases there simply is no clear technical explanation for what makes a particular scale or mode "feel" a certain way, since the perception of music is rooted in psychoacoustics. Perhaps it was not the best way to do it. However, I still think this point needs to be addressed somehow. If that section alone was the problem, could it not simply have been pasted here for improvement?
That would have allowed the rest of the changes to remain, which I think drastically simplified the article without sacrificing technical depth. It seems that those changes have now vanished into the ether, and I'm afraid I don't have time to take another stab at it. I would be grateful if someone else could attempt this again. Wordie 13:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're heading title is right. Though Wikipedia guideline includes Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Think of the reader and Wikipedia:Explain jargon, many many articles on math, science, philosophy, and a host of other topics are not understandable to a lay reader. Just because an article is about music I do not see why it should be held to a higher standard; we'll get there, like everyone else, it will just take time. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music.

I object to the "Physical roots" section because it is information currently found or needed at Musical tuning and the various articles about types of tuning. I also do not believe that claims about the origins of scales are NPOV unless backed by citation and references, and then a great deal of care is needed to provide balance between the many and usually opposing theories on tuning and scale origins. More importantly, physics tells lay readers little about scales, for the same scale may be tuned in different ways, and different tunings may be considered the same scale, and some scales may have social or other non-physical origins. The main objection, however, is that the section was to large a summary of musical tuning and related articles.

Regarding the "Clarified and reorganized" section, since we're here, let's talk about it. What is unclear about the article as it now stands? How is it hard to read? Do you have a source which may suggest a better organization of the information, or provide definitions and clarification? Hyacinth 04:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your reverted edits shouldn't have vanished into the ether, you should be able to view them from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scale_%28music%29&action=history (for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scale_%28music%29&oldid=11200229). Hyacinth 09:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derived

Anyone know anything about derived scales formerly mentioned in the article? Looking around I find mention of modes being derived from the major scale but no mention of "derived scale" as a term. Hyacinth 09:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

See http://www.outsideshore.com/primer/primer/ms-primer-4-6.html for one (jazz) usage of the term. yoyo 07:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Revisions

I'm trying to bring Wikipedia's music theory articles up to a more professional standard. I've tried to rewrite this one to be more accurate and consistent. I hope I don't offend anyone.

The main change is to be consistent about the distinction between "scale' and "mode." There is admittedly some inconsistency in the way musicians use these terms, but that's no reason for the Wikipedia article to be inconsistent.

I've also removed the section that refers to Bob Fink's website. This material was controversial and non-peer-reviewed. If someone wanted to add a section on scales and acoustics, that would be great, but it should refer to more reputable sources -- for instance William Sethares "Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale."

Tymoczko 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes good work Tymoczko. I also think some of the revisions made by Wordie last year should also be incorporated where possible. They make the article easier to read IMHO. These are here. Bear in mind Hyacinth's point about the "Physical roots" section above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andeggs (talk • contribs)

I'm curious about this definition:

Scales differ from modes in that scales do not have a primary or "tonic" pitch.

So you're saying the C major scale has no tonic pitch? That'll be a surprise to many musicians.

I think the difference is much deeper than this. Scales are collections of pitches put in (ascending or descending) order. Modes are much more than pitch collections: they are patterns of use. The Phrygian mode is established by the conventional use of particular melodic patterns which surround the final (and in some cases the dominant) -- that's the only way you know which is the final. When we speak of "major mode" or "minor mode" we aren't referring to scales but to key centers established via harmonic progressions. That's why a piece in Aeolian mode is different from one in the minor mode -- the latter is established by its cadential chord progressions, notably including the major V chord and its sharpened leading tone. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Good points! I think the first point is covered in the "Terminological note." (" However, the term is sometimes used to mean "mode," indicating that an element of the scale has been chosen as most important.") When musicians talk about the "C major scale" they're talking about what the article calls a mode. When they talk about "the octatonic scale" they're talking about what the article calls a scale. The problem is that there are many conflicting usages.
About your second point: it's true that, within a style, modes involve specific patterns of use. But I don't really think that there are many patterns that remain the same across styles. Josquin's use of the phrygian mode is very different from Stravinsky's, or John Coltrane's. There are many, many different ways to make a note sound "central" or "tonic," and it's really not clear that there are any "patterns of use" common to all pieces in phrygian mode. What's common to all E-phrygian pieces, however, is the use of the white notes, and that E is felt as central or primary.
About the third point: I agree completely. A major key is different from the Ionian mode, largely because of conventional harmonic and cadential patterns. I suppose I might be willing to consider the idea that major-mode music uses the Ionian mode, but adds on an extra set of harmonic progressions. In any case, this seems like material that should be covered in the article on "key" rather than the article on "scale." Tymoczko 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if different composers have different patterns, I still think that a mode only exists in the context of a composition, whereas a scale is a list of pitches in order. Do you agree there's such as thing as a "Phrygian scale"? If I play a major scale, that's going to end after a few octaves when I run out of notes. If I play in the major mode, I could go on all day. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel like we're getting into metaphysics here. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to say that a mode is a scale, plus a specification of which pitch is the tonic. It's certainly a concise, reasonable definition, and I don't see any major problems with it. Tymoczko 16:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew F. 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) There is so much contradictory use of the words scale and mode, would anybody else welcome the application of the term "parent scale", meaning a set of notes without specification of modality? I sometimes think it would be nice if we could start from scratch and ditch all the synonyms for different parent scales, the whole issue is a nightmare! It's hard for a musician to catalogue their learning and ensure that they are not simply re-learning different modes of different parent scales.

Many aspects of music theory would benefit from starting from scratch. Have you ever read Lies My Music Teacher Told Me? However, Wikipedia isn't the place for inventing new pedagogies, nor new terminology (such as "parent scale"). —Wahoofive (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This discussion of chords is inappropriate and controversial

"Western tonal chords are stacks of thirds built above a particular scale degree, which is called the root of the harmony."

Firstly, this statement is inappropriate. The only relevance of a discussion of chords here is as it impinges on the creation or use of scales; we have enough other articles on chords and harmony.

Secondly, this statement could only have been written by someone who has (a) only ever used 12-tone equal temperament, and noticed a simple counting pattern, or (b) swallowed whole an explanation by someone with a similarly limited perspective. From a more historical POV, the origin of chords is harmony, which arises from the harmonic series of overtones of natural instrumental (including vocal) timbres.

On both these grounds, I suggest that the sentence I quoted should be removed, and the text adjusted, if necessary, to read well in its absence. yoyo 07:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this objection. The sentence appears in a section on "scalar transposition," which refers to the standard Western practice of shifting some pattern (chord, melody, motive) by a constant number of scale steps. This is very common in Western music -- one might think in particular of parallel 6/3 chords, which are found from 1700 on. Furthermore, it's pretty uncontroversial that standard Western tonal music uses "stack of thirds" harmonies: triads and seventh chords, for the most part. This is true in both major and minor modes--and in, minor, overtone-based justifications are much harder to come by. Finally, the statement has nothing to do with equal-temperament. Imagine some non-equal-tempered diatonic scale--such as one of the well temperaments used in the 18th century. Composers using these scales still used stack of thirds harmonies, and utilized scalar transposition. So I'm in favor of keeping the sentence. Tymoczko 04:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. That sentence seems fine to me, yoyo. But what you should do instead of removing it is add something about the situation in other musical cultures. —Keenan Pepper 12:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how the statement that chords are built from thirds is related to counting 12-tet. I also don't see how harmony or the overtone series (different things) precludes the use of thirds, especially since they can explain the use. Hyacinth 23:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Music

It might be useful to note that in the German system what we call "B flat" they call B and what we call "B Natural" they call H though I don't know if that belongs in this article -- Ironcorona 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the artcile note, where it belongs more. −Woodstone 09:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modes

Do modes belong in this article and if so should they have their own section? Hyacinth 07:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think modes should have their own article, or at least section in this one. Tymoczko 15:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The following section has been repeatedly deleted by User:Tymoszko:

The Modes in the following sequence are arranged in such a way as to where each next mode has one more shortened interval in its scale. The following sequence also corresponds with the circle of fifths.

He points to "terminological note". However that recognises that the word "scale" is commonly used in two slightly different meanings. It is an ordered set of notes either with a chosen tonica (=including modes) or without one (=limited meaning of scale). Futhermore, the rest of the article uses the term "degree" many times, which is only meaningful after a tonica has been chosen. So I see no reason whatsoever not to inlude a discussion on modes. −Woodstone 18:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Since my previous remarks I have had a sandbox try at integrating modes in the article, but I found that the article is currently too mixed up in terminology. A major rewrite will be needed to clear up the inconsistency and redundancy between the lead section and the various detail sections. Perhaps I will find the time later, but anyone wanting to jump in is welcome. −Woodstone 20:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear -- I don't really object to the material itself, but rather where it was placed. I also think that the facts described here can be stated in purely scalar terms -- you're talking about the single-semitone voice leadings between fifth-related diatonic collections. I agree that the use of the term "scale degree" should probably be curtailed in the article, and I'm all in favor of including more information on modes. Tymoczko 20:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It's important that if modes are going to be included (or get their own article) that it be noted that there are two sets of modes -- ancient Greek and medieval church modes. The names are often similar, but the sequence of notes are different, such as the Dorian mode being different in church modes than it is in the Greek version. The Apel dictionary or other reference works can provide the full lists of the names and notes from the different time periods. Without checking, I believe the Greek modes were understood from the top down, while the Church or medieval modes were understood from the lowest note to the highest.

[edit] Recent undiscussed page move

I don't think "musical scale" is the 'most common' name, so it should be moved back to scale (music) per Manual of Style. 24.18.215.132 23:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Scale (music)" is certainly less common than "musical scale". Anything in the naming conventions which addresses which is preferred in this case? Hyacinth 09:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I interpret the guideline you cite to recommend the opposite of what you propose. Scale is the most common name, but it is redundant with all the articles linked to from the Scale disambiguation page. Therefore musical scale is the most common name "that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". —Keenan Pepper 23:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of Scales

(including origins of note-names & tonality) Should the Origin of scales be merged here? Or briefly described here? Even in a shorter form, it seems appropriate. Greenwyk 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You must be Kidding

This is one of the worst articles in wikipedia that I have seen. Why can't musicians make any damn sense when speaking in English instead of music?

The very first sentence is incorrect. A musical scale is not a succession of "notes." It is a set of tones each having a definite pitch and at a specific interval relative to all the other pitches, played in a sequence that either rising or falling in frequency. A note is the written or spoken name you give to a pitch. It is not the pitch itself. A scale, however, is about the pitches, not about their names.

"Composers often transform musical patterns by moving every note in the pattern by a constant number of scale steps: thus, in the C major scale, the pattern C-D-E might be shifted up a single scale step to become D-E-F. Since the steps of a scale can have various sizes, this process introduces subtle melodic and harmonic variation into the music. "

That makes no sense whatsoever. Composers choose sequences of pitches (melody) and combinations of pitches harmony. They may sequence or combine pitches of any way they want, and jump from one pitch to another or slowly change the pitch of a sound (not a note, you cannot change the pitch of a note, a note is what you use to designate a pitch, it is not he pitch itself.

Think, man. Don't just open your mouth and let words drop out.--Nomenclator 12:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Common, really, what do you mean by "provides material for part or all of a musical work." Sort of like trees provide material for making furniture, pigments and solvents provide material for painting pictures, and scales provide material for making music? No! Music is made of sound, not material. Sound is energy not material. The materials used for making music are the materials that are used for making musical instruments. --Nomenclator 02:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Several responses:
  1. I don't think that it's at all self-evident that scales are composed of pitches. The sequence C - E-double-flat - E - E-sharp - G-A-B-C isn't a scale, even though it might enharmonically sound like one when played (on some instruments). In fact, a C major scale will sound at a different pitch when played on a transposing instrument; players of such instruments routinely refer to notes (and scales) by their written names.
  2. Nomenclator is right that composers and musicians don't start with theoretical constructs and make music with them. Music comes first and theory follows after. The quoted passage is certainly dreadful and needs revising. However, musicians commonly use the word note to refer to sounding pitches; much as we'd like to make a distinction between written notes and pitches, it isn't standard English.
  3. As for why musicians can't make music theory concepts easy to understand (a complaint voiced on a number of pages): we all learn a simplified version of music theory from Mrs. Grundy, our third-grade piano teachers. As we become serious musicians, we learn that even the most fundamental aspects of music theory (such as what is a half step) aren't as simple as Mrs. Grundy pretended. It's like physicists learning that the theory of relativity totally makes wrong everything they learned about Newtonian mechanics, except that instead of requiring esoteric experiments to tell the difference, it's easy to perceive in Indian music, jazz, or Baroque theory treatises if you know what to look for. In all these articles we have to balance between a simplistic explanation which is useful for beginners, and a more sophisticated understanding which is necessary for a variety of styles of music, including non-Western music. It isn't that easy.
—Wahoofive (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this initial comment is mistaken. The distinction between "note" and "tone" is the author's own, and is not a standard piece of music-theoretical terminology. Furthermore, Wahoofive's comment that "musicians don't start with theoretical constructs and make music with them" is also incorrect. Explicit instruction in theoretical concepts, including scales, has been part of musical education for centuries. Njarl 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] paragraph appears twice

I noticed some things while reading this wiki page:

The following paragraph appears twice in the top part of the text:

The distance between two successive notes in a scale is called a "scale step." Composers often transform musical patterns by moving every note in the pattern by a constant number of scale steps: thus, in the C major scale, the pattern C-D-E ("doe, a deer") might be shifted up a single scale step to become D-E-F ("ray, a drop"). Since the steps of a scale can have various sizes, this process introduces subtle melodic and harmonic variation into the music. This variation is what gives scalar music much of its complexity.

and it says: The interval between successive tones of a scale is sometimes called a "step." and the distance between two successive notes in a scale is called a "scale step."

Is this both correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.35.71.67 (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Diatonic and chromatic

The article uses the term "diatonic" extensively, and pays attention to explaining it; but it is not certain that the term is used consistently with other Wikipedia music articles. Along with "chromatic", "diatonic" is the cause of serious uncertainties at several 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 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Noetica. You will find references to the terms "diatonic" and "chromatic" in the article, Semitone...a very thorough article, and one which was researched with great care, effort, and lengthy discussion. As "just" intervals, a diatonic semitone and a chromatic semitone are obviously not intervals of identical pitch ratio. And I'm sure we all know the difference between diatonic and chromatic scales. Prof.rick 07:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry...I checked your article...it has much to say, and is developing nicely. All the best with it!Prof.rick 09:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed, Prof.rick. Thanks for you interest in the new article. I noted a sentence that you wrote yourself, at Talk:Semitone/Archive_2:

What does "diatonic" mean? Which kind of diatonic scale? Major? Natural minor? Harmonic minor? Melodic minor?

According to certain purists, the query you pose on behalf of the hapless student has only one answer, and it is obvious: only the natural minor (equivalent to the descending form of the melodic) and the major are diatonic. Such purists often use the term muddily themselves, though. According to other sources, working from a fine and solidly established tradition that informs much pedagogy, all of the forms you list are diatonic. The different usages needed to be clarified, and that's what we seek to do at Diatonic and chromatic. It is causing a good measure of controversy at Talk:Diatonic and chromatic, though. I hope to see you chipping in there, from the point of view of an experienced teacher.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 02:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
YES! The harmonic minor scale is NOT diatonic...you will notice that my comment to which you referred was a question rather than a statement. DIATONIC SCALES ARE CONSTRUCTED OF SEMITONES AND WHOLE TONES. The natural minor scale is decidedly diatonic (consisting of tones and semitones, and without chromatic alteration). The harmonic minor scale is something of a mystery...we have called it a "scale", while, in fact, it most commonly serves as a basis of harmonic function rather than melodic; which begs the question, "are scales the basis of melody, harmony, or both?" In practice, however, the melodic minor scale IS diatonic (whether in ascending or descending form, it is constructed ONLY of tones and semitones). Perhaps the melodic minor should be regarded as TWO scales, or modes (the ascending and descending forms). The descending form is equivalent to the Aeolian Mode. An ascending melodic minor scale cannot be played on the white keys of a piano...but so what? Let's regard all pitches as equal. Let's not allow the design of our keyboard instruments and our bias toward western system of notation (which provides no independent staff lines or spaces for "sharp" or "flat" notes) to influence clear musical thought. To form an ascending melodic minor scale, all it takes is a Dorian or Aeolian tetrachord to be followed by an Ionian or Mixolydian tetrachord (as most common, separated by a whole tone). Other than through the layout of our keyboard instruments, and our biased western notation, can the ascending melodic minor scale justifiably be classified as "chromatic"?
It is interesting that many compositional circumstances demand the use of the "ascending" melodic minor scale in a descending context, and vice versa.
I would therefore present the concept that the MELODIC minor scale is a DIATONIC scale (or two scales), while the HARMONIC minor scale is either not a scale (in Western music) or is something other than DIATONIC. We need another term for hypothetical scales which involve more than tones and semitones. Even the word "diatonic" is misleading. Does it refer to scales that are constructed of nothing more than tones and semitones? That seems to be the concensus. Anything else must be called something else, e.g., "multitonic", "omnitonic" or "heterotonic".
WHY perpetuate the error of nomenclature, particularly in Wikipedia?
For that matter, some editors seem to dwell on music of the "common period" (which, by and large, still dominates today). Great! But IF we dwell on the "common period", we must surely also dwell on Equal Temperament, which similarly dominates music of our times. (I am not rejecting discussion of pre-16th century or alternate tuning systems, nor modern, avante-garde systems...but the average reader is surely most interested in the COMMON MUSIC OF OUR DAY.)
Yes, I hope to "chip in" on your new article, but I feel this one needs palliative therapy! Prof.rick 07:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Very good, Prof.rick: I like to see such analysis. I see that you are sympathetic to this definition for diatonic scale: any heptatonic scale formed of only tones and semitones. As recorded in Diatonic and chromatic, this is the definition that Encyclopaedia Britannica favours (and they explicitly include the ascending melodic, on this basis). But it is not an inevitable definition, and it is definitely adopted by only a small minority of sources. In fact, there is no inevitable or singularly and pre-eminently rational definition for diatonic scale – nor, alas, for other deployments of the descriptor diatonic. Hinc illae lacrimae. I have done a huge amount of reading on this topic, and I'm still going with it. For myself, the main concern is simply to catalogue and explain all the various usages for these terms. But many others find the challenge to their cherished definitions unpalatable, and take offence. For that reason there is some unseemly squabbling at our new article (at Talk:Diatonic and chromatic, and also lately at Talk:Pentatonic scale). Please excuse it! I hope you will read the article through carefully, and have your say at the talk page, as well as adding what you think is fitting to the article itself. Do be careful – it's tough in there! As for this present article, it does look like a bit of a wolverine's brunch. I am not inclined to get involved with it, at this stage. Same for a number of our Wikipedia music theory articles. They are crammed with so many different and competing theoretical orientations, and often corrupted by shoddy analysis and expression – and poor structure, especially. Interesting! It should be an area in Wikipedia excels; in some pockets it does, but elsewhere the seeker after musical enlightenment would be left adrift in the sea of sonic samsara, yes? ;)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, Netica! Your final statement sums it up nicely. You have provided much food for thought. I look forward to contributing to both articles, and to such constructive talk. However, I have a performance coming up very soon, and must therefore put Wikipedia "on hold" for a few days. Back soon, with much to say! (You might find it interesting to check the article, half diminished scale. Look at the history, particularly at the oldest item! How did this get into Wikipedia? I have tried to salvage the article, but feel it is a likely candidate for deletion. Your thoughts? Prof.rick 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine, Prof. I look forward to dialogue and collaboration on these matters. All the best with the performance. What will you play?
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 08:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions on this article

I just found this article...it is quite confusing! First, I am not familiar with the term, "temperated". (Did someone mean "tempered", or did I miss something?)

Second, regarding the use of the words "note" and "tone" a valid point has been dismissed: although even trained musicians often mistakenly refer to a musical sound as a "note", this common error doesn't justify its perpetuation, particularly in Wikipedia. A note is a written music symbol which visually represents a pitch (sound); see Musical notation. The correct nomenclature for the sound is a tone. (Of course, this leads to confusion due to the various other meanings of the word "tone" in music.)

This is false. The New Harvard Dictionary of Music gives both meanings, as does the New Grove and the American Heritage Dictionary. People speak of jazz musicians playing "notes" even though they are improvising and not writing anything down. Njarl 20:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Third, in university we study the "Materials of Music" (referring to the various theoretical subjects). The term is in common use.

Fourth, which came first...the chicken or the egg? Someone intelligently stated that "Theory is derived from Music", and not vice versa. BRAVO! Obviously, every culture has made music before attempting to dissect or analyse it! The counter-argument provided (that "explicit instruction in theoretical subjects has been part of musical education for centuries") is true, but irrelevant. If this were the case, every composer would simply "follow the rules", and there would be "no such animal" as a new original composition. How can you account for the countless musicians who can create beautiful, original music, but lack any form of musical training? Also, keep in mind that Chopin failed his "composition course"! And what of youngsters who begin composing (unnotated, albeit) before receiving any sort of musical training? Rest assured, Theory IS derived from Music!

This is a bad argument. Theory and practice interact. Composers learn scales and use them, and have for centuries. This does not mean that there is no possibility for originality. I learned scales when I was young. If I want to depart from my training, there's no problem with this. Njarl 20:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fifth...this article has many obvious weaknesses. Much work is needed! Prof.rick 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion to earlier version

Hi. I've reverted the opening of this article to an earlier and better version. The most recent version had numerous inaccuracies. For instance:

"In music, a scale is a collection of tones."

But this is insufficient. It doesn't distinguish a scale from a set or a chord.

"There are two aspects to the scale all tones available for a specific type of music such as all keys in a piano. all tones used in part or all of a musical work, such as the piano keys touched for one melody."

I don't know what is meant by "aspects" here, but it's not correct -- "all the piano keys touched for one melody" do not constitute a scale. Consider the melody of the opening of Beethoven's Eroica -- the is not a scale by anyone's definition.

"The first meaning of scale leads us to independently established tonal systems such as natural scale (most folk music), 12 temperated system (european), 53 temperated system (middle eastern), 72 temperated system (south indian), etc.."

Temperated is not a word, as someone else has already pointed out.

"The second meaning of scale involves a discussion of the different collections of tones within the domain of one such tonal system/ Usually a subset of 8 or fewer tones picked among all available tones in an octave make the skeleton of the scale of a melody."

This is also untrue -- the diatonic scale predated the chromatic and was in use for many centuries before it was reimagined as a subset of the chromatic.

A final plea: please do not edit the music articles unless you know what you're talking about. You wouldn't edit the technical math or science articles unless you actually had some qualifications and understood the material. Somehow, everyone feels qualified to rework the music entries, no matter how low their level of competence. This damages the credibility of Wikipedia. Njarl 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accessibility to novices

Could someone with a thorough understanding of the subject edit this to make it more accessible to those of us who don't? Parts like "Accidentals are rare, and somewhat unsystematically used, often to avoid the tritone" strike me as meaningless to anyone who doesn't know and understand that information already.

I agree with you. An encyclopedia is meant to enlighten the unenlightened. This whole article reads like a treatise by professionals for other professionals. I came to this article to try to better my understanding of music from a technical aspect and find myself slogging through it and becoming confused. I hope that person with the thorough understanding of this subject does come forward and better this stilted and poorly written article. Buster 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article as an overview

Having come to this article as a non musician I find it interesting but very western. What I would envisage in an article of this title is a total overview of music scales explained in a manner that is comprehensible to a non musical reader. It should then link to ALL the other scale articles. One glaring omission is that the scales do not have sound files to demonstrate the differences. I understand this would be a major undertaking. There is not even a table of notes and their frequencies. How is that neither Bach nor Pythagoras gets a mention? --CloudSurfer (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... My thoughts:
  • A link to Category:Musical scales would be useful, or a list based on that category.
  • The concept of a musical scale is sort of a western concept, isn't it? Other than the Indian scales, are there any scales that originate from the East? I know of none, anyway.
  • Making it comprehensible to a non-music reader is definitely a good plan.
  • I wrote a script that will generate a scale as a MIDI given either the notes or the intervals, so if there is enough demand I could generate and upload some... but they should probably be included in the individual scale articles, not in this article. It only works for scales within the 12-tone equal-tempered system that repeat at the octave, though.
  • Why should Bach be mentioned in an article about scales? He never invented a scale or anything, he was just a composer
  • As for Pythagoras, I believe he invented a tuning system, not a scale, but I suppose he could be mentioned.
  • And a table of notes and their frequencies does not really belong in this article. Such a thing should be found in an article on tuning.
You do have some good points, definitely. Perhaps you could point out which parts of the article need improvement to be understood by a non-musical reader? —Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Scales from the East? Let's see: Pelog and Slendro from Indonesia, Hirajoshi, Iwato, and the Yo scale from Japan, the various makam of Turkey and maqam of Islamic music...what am I missing?
I do agree about Pythagoras (he is credited with developing a tuning system, but not the scales that could use it), Bach, and pitches (dependent on tuning system and on reference pitch: A=440Hz has not always been standard!). — Gwalla | Talk 23:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confused statements about scale degree

The article has:

Note that such labeling requires the choice of a "first" note; hence scale-degree labels are not intrinsic to the scale itself, but rather to its modes. For example, if we choose A as tonic, then we can label the notes of the C diatonic scale using A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, and so on. However, the difference between two scale degrees is independent of the choice of scale degree 1.

This is wrong. If C=1 then the difference between 2=D and 3=E is two semitones. If A=1 then 2=B and 3=C are only one semitone apart.

Thus whether two notes are adjacent in a scale, or separated by one note, does not depend on the mode under discussion.

This is completely garbled. Notes in a scale are by definition adjacent. Perhaps a distance in semitones is meant. But anyway, it seems to me a part of the definition of scale, not a property.

The scale degrees of the traditional major scale can also be named using the terms tonic, supertonic, mediant, subdominant, dominant, submediant, subtonic. If the subtonic is a semitone away from the tonic, then it is usually called the leading-tone (or leading-note); otherwise the leading-tone refers to the raised subtonic.

In the traditional major scale the subtonic is by definition the leading tone and one semitone away from the tonic. Perhaps, any traditional 7-tone scale is meant.
−Woodstone (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the first two offending sentences and altered the third. I'm not quite sure if whoever put those two sentences in had something in mind and just did not phrase it properly, but I think in this case it's probably not very important. –Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)