Talk:Chromaticism

Cleanup suggestion

The last paragraph in the article is some of the worst nonsense I've read in Wikipedia for some time. It adds nothing significant to the article, it's just empty pondering by people whose sole purpose apparently is to inject feminist narrative into every aspect of Western culture. In my opinion it should be removed. Lefuc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.179.188 (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Diatonic and chromatic

The article uses the terms "diatonic" and "chromatic", but without adequate explanation. These terms are the cause of serious uncertainties at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This article was made due to one editor's concern, expressed here, right above your other post on the subject. ALTON .ıl 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

What specific that needs to be clarified or given context? What else about the article needs to be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge: Chromatic chord

It has been suggested that Chromatic chord be merged into this article. No reason has been given but "Chromatic chord" is an unreferenced stub. Hyacinth (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hyacinth (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem with definition

I have numerous problems with the current definition:

• What constitutes chromaticism has changed over time. See [1] as a source backing this up.
• The current page is written to imply that tonality is the same thing as diatonicism, yet this is not true--as the music of Paul Hindemith proves. One author even references "Hindemith's Chromaticism": [2].
• The current page is written from the perspective of diatonic music somehow being the "base" around which "chromaticism" is a departure or ornamentation. Yet chromaticism can exist within non-diatonic music. For example, the octatonic scale can be used both as a source of "chromaticism", or as a contrast with chromaticism.

Yeah, that's what I have to say right now. Cazort (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Chromatic Scale & Chromaticism - BassLessons.tv.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk of restructuring this and related articles over at WikiProject Music Theory

There is a thread about restructuring this article and other related ones over at the relevant WikiProject if anyone is interested. —Mesocarp (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mesocarp, since you seem to consider that this Chromaticism article may be the one where you (or we) might begin restructuring, let me offer some considerations that might have to be take in account here.

The article as it is appears to believe that chromaticism is mainly a matter of the scale: it describes it as "interspersing diatonic pitches with other pitches of the chromatic scale". However, such a definition might apply as well (or almost) to modulation, which is a shift from one diatonicism to another by the replacement of one or several diatonic degrees by others, taken from the chromatic scale but which soon appear to become members of the new "diatony". (By the way, "diatony" is an interesting term, probably from Schenkerian terminology, which we should keep in mind for the future.) It must also be stressed that this definition implies a fundamental diatonicism of the music considered. One cannot intersperse diatonic pitches with non diatonic ones if the music is not diatonic in the first place. The article appears generally to agree with this, but does however mention twelve-tone technique, even although it hardly could be described as "interpersing diatonic pitches with non diatonic ones".

I wonder whether chromaticism would not be better described as the use of chromatic intervals. One might argue that chromaticism must be thought of in equal temperament, where the difference between diatonic and chromatic intervals does not exist, but one should keep in mind that chromaticsm always concerns music in staff notation, or at least "notable" in staff notation. Because staff notation was conceived for diatonic music, it always makes the difference apparent. Christoph Bernhard's definition of the passus duriusculus clearly associates it with chromatic intervals, even although this is not often mentioned. Bernhard writes:

Passus duriusculus, einer Stimmen gegen sich selbst, ist, wenn eine Stimme ein Semitonium minus steiget, oder fället. Welcherley Gänge einige für chromatische Art Sätze gehalten, mit was vor Gründe aber, solches mögen sie ausfechten. Oder wenn der Gang zur Secunde allzu groß oder zur Tertie zu klein, oder zur Quarta und Quinta zu groß oder zu klein ist.

which means:

Passus duriusculus, within one single voice, is when one voice rises or falls a minor semitone. Progressions which some have taken for a chromatic kind, but they should fight out between themselves the reason for this. Or when a progression of a second is too large or of a third too narrow, or to a fourth or a fifth too large or too narrow.

A "minor semitone", in any tuning other that Pythagorean or ET, is a chromatic semitone; Bernhard gives as examples a descending and an ascending chromatic fourth, alternating diatonic and chromatic semitones. The disjunct intervals that he describes as "too large" or "too narrow" are augmented and diminished intervals, as his examples once again make clear: E♭–F♯ (augmented second) and E♭–D–C♯ (diminished third in three notes) make clear. When he wonders whether this is a "chromatic kind" (or a "chromatic type", chromatische Art), he is actually wondering whether this represents the chromatic genus of Antiquity.

Of course, twelve-tone music is based on ET, so that the definition by chromatic intervals might seem not to apply. However, this music usually is written in staff notation, so that the distinction remains visible, if not audible. One might argue that ET blurs the distinction between diatonicism and chromaticism, but even this conclusion would start from a consideration of chromatic intervals.

The article tries to describe "chromatic chords", but fails to explain in what they are chromatic. For instance the "Neapolitan sixth" F–A♭–D♭ is nothing else than the first inversion of a major chord and, as such, is by no means chromatic. It can be said chromatic only with reference to a given key (in this case C major), and it is chromatic there only because it resolves by chromatic intervals, however one describes the resolution: one often mentions the diminished third between ♭2 and ♮7, but Schenker (and others) objects that the true resolution is between ♭2 and ♮2 – the interval is chromatic in both cases. From the definition given in the article, a dominant 7th would be a diatonic chord if it is on V (in major?), but a chromatic chord on any other degree.

A definition of chromaticism by chromatic intervals of course would require a clear definition of which intervals are chromatic. Such definitions should not be too difficult to find in the literature. It is odd, to say the least, that the article as it is does not include the word "interval". — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)