Talk:Interval (music)/Archive 1

Minor scale, minor intervals edit

I don't like the verbiage "in minor scales the minor intervals are introduced" because for one thing it creates the false impression that minor scales are minor because they have minor intervals. This is not the case, minor scales are minor because they have a minor third. Moreover, the major scale has within itself a number of minor intervals, just not between the tonic and any other note. I like the pictures though, so I'm a bit loathe to go changing anything.JFQ

Indeed the major and minor scales have exactly the same number of major and minor intervals as do all the seven modes. -- User:Karl Palmen

The minor scale introduces minor intervals from the tonic, maybe? I've never understood why it's a minor second and not a diminished second -- after all, it doesn't occur in the minor scale. -- Tarquin

It's because only flatted perfect intervals (and occasionally the flatted minor seventh) are called diminished. Major intervals invert to minor intervals, diminished intervals invert to augmented intervals, and perfect intervals invert to perfect intervals.

And there's a minor second between the second and the third in a natural minor scale.

And it's minor because it's got that dark, um, minor quality. yeah. Oy, this stuff is so subjective. - JFQ

Minor scales differ from Major scales only in which note is the tonic. Both use exactly the same set of notes. When this set has no sharps or flats, one gets A minor or C major. - User:Karl Palmen

Correction: the difference between minor and major scales is whether they have a minor or major third above the tonic. Major scales include Lydian and Myxolydian as well as Ionian/modern major, minor scales include Dorian and Phrygian as well as Aeolian/modern minor (natural minor); besides there are the harmonic and melodic minor scales which use different scale material from natural minor (a minor on the white keys of the keyboard).

In a broader sense, minor and major scales can include any modal scales, no matter what their scale material, according to whether they have a major or minor third above the tonic. This includes all sorts of Eastern and Indian scales, for instance. frodolives

This does not contradict what I have said above. Indeed all seven modes use the same set of notes and differ only in which of these is the tonic or first note. - User:Karl Palmen

Consonance and dissonance edit

The "concordant and discordant intervals" bit should be moved to a separate article that deals with the subjects or consonance and dissonance at a more general musical level (bring in chords, talk about the history of dissonance, etc.).

We don't have any articles on consonance or dissonance, and I'm not sure what to call a page like that. It seems silly to make an article called "dissonance", becuase that implies that there should be a similar "consonance" article. Getting redirected to the exact opposite thing would be confusing. -- Merphant

I guess "consonance and dissonance" would be the way to go. --Camembert

The bit about discordant intervals being the basis for suspensions is confusing (or confused) - one of the most common suspensions is that of the 4th dissolving into the 3rd, and it's dissonant strictly in the harmonic context - the 4th in itself is a concordant interval.

Personally I see no problem with having an article each on consonance and dissonance, with a link to the respective opposite. But then I haven't been around here for very long.

Also be careful not to confuse "consonant-dissonant" with "concordant- discordant" - I'm not entirely sure what exactly the difference is but I am very sure there is one. <<sigh- off to do some research>>frodolives

As far as I know, "concord" and "consonance" are synonyms, but I could be wrong, and I'd be interested to hear of a distinction (maybe there was some sort of distinction made by Renaissance theorists?).

The bit on concords and discords is certainly simplisitic and needs work (if not on this page, somewhere else). We've got to be careful though, because the purported relative consonance of intervals has varied from theorist to theorist, and also, as you suggest, because the perceived disonance of an interval is very much dependent on its context. I think it might be better to go into detail on this on consonance and dissonance (created since the above talk, the first is just a stub, the second is itself a bit simplistic). --Camembert

By the way, I still think one page on consonance and dissonance is better than a page on each, as I don't see how it's possible to talk about one without reference to the other. --Camembert

Rewrite edit

This article, as it stands, I feel, is not only unclear about the various "diatonic intervals" discussed, because it does not reference them to other ways of labelling intervals, and is thus heavily biased towards tonal music. This is part of what led to the confusing, "in minor scales the minor intervals are introduced." I have recently added a few sentences to the beginning (about measuring intervals in post-tonal theory) that changed the article from being entirely non-NPOV, but I hope to do more.Hyacinth 23:35, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just did a complete rewrite. I hope that my version is, most importantly, more consice, but I also hope that it is more clear and makes it easier to understand and compare the different intervals. I attempted to keep every subject and all pertinent information from the original article, while keeping out discussions of things such as dissonance (and resolution and...), which are properly dealt with and understood in their own articles. Hopefully I have done this switch (is it a move?) appropriately.Hyacinth 10:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Original article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Interval_%28music%29&oldid=2124198

Source edit

source for formula definitions: Basic Atonal Theory by John Rahn.

Too many theoretical orientations in one entry edit

I have just made some changes to this very technical and complex entry. Frankly, I doubt that the entry as it is presently structured and filled out would be much use to anyone who is not already a skilled music theorist. I would recommend splitting it (or having parallel entries, cross-referenced) so that for example discussion of intervals in a purely traditional Western tonal context could be "quarantined", to achieve some semblance of simplicity and comprehensibility. --Noetica 06:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. IMHO, those unfamiliar with the subject will find this quite difficult. I am half convinced that it will be hard to refactor with so many threads. Marty Heyman 1:19PM 14 Feb 2005 (PST)

Well, I'd be happy to initiate a separate "quarantined" treatment of intervals in the Western tonal tradition myself. But I'd need recommendations about how to name it and fit it into the existing nexus of articles. (Still new here!) --Noetica 22:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Article content disputes.

This is a common complaint: In my opinion most articles on Wikipedia are useless for those who are not already experts. But I do not see any reason to require all music articles to be comprehensible to the least educated reader and not requiring it of, for example, scientific or mathematical articles.

I feel strongly that there should be a comparative presentation of similar intervals in various theoretical or tuning systems, somewhere. Whether it is at Interval (music) or "Comparison of musical intervals" or some other title I do not know. There also should be "here are all the ratios", "here are all the integers", "here are all the diatonic intervals", etc., presentations. Hyacinth 17:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hyacinth, I don't know that it's a dispute so much as an exploration of ways we might all work together for improvement. Of course it's clear to me that you've done a lot of excellent work here, and elsewhere in music articles. Such fine detail! I may have some more things to say, myself. But I'm not sure how much time I can devote to this, having had slabs of painstaking work summarily (and quite obviously without thought, I say) dismissed in a couple of places. One has only so much time. Let's hope there is some good dialogue as a result of your registering this article for comment as you did. --Noetica 00:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not a dispute, and if RfC doesn't work I'll simply post a notice to some music editors talk pages. Hyacinth 02:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wahoofive's editing edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wahoofive, I appreciate much in your recent bold rewrite. Something had to be done. I think it is regrettable that you did not respect the fact that Hyacinth, who has had a significant part in developing the article, had issued an RFC for the article. In such circumstances we may reasonably view your action as high-handed, to say the least.

There are some incorrect or questionable details of content in your work, and some expository infelicities. To illustrate, let's look at your Interval qualities section:

Modern musicians usually define the interval quality based on the number of semitones between the two notes, roughly equivalent to the number of piano keys (black or white) between them. This quality is affected by the clef, key signature, and any accidentals applied to one or both of the notes. Note that the number of semitones does not by itself determine the interval name; the number of the interval must be determined from its notation (or inferred from its diatonic usage) first.

Why modern musicians, generally? This is Eurocentric, if it is left unqualified. And it is music theorists who do such defining, isn't it? Many musicians wouldn't know a fifth from a fire engine. Then there is, for the beginner, the possibility of confusing the two meanings of number, here. Last, the beginner may have trouble finding your meaning in the material after the semicolon.

Unison, fourth, fifth, octave. These intervals can be described as perfect, augmented, or (except for unison) diminished. Perfect fourths are five semitones, perfect fifths are six semitones, perfect octaves are twelve semitones. Perfect unisons are the same note, so are zero semitones apart. In each case, an augmented interval is one semitone larger, a diminished interval one semitone smaller. The word "perfect" derives from the presence of these intervals in the overtone series.

Described may be misleading, since the beginner may get the fleeting but distracting impression that these descriptions are interchangeable. The meaning we need is further qualified. Perhaps something like this would be better: Each of these intervals occurs in three varieties,... Then, note that the exclusion of the diminished unison is controversial (since the augmented octave arguably has it as its inversion). Better to say, therefore, possibly excluding the unison. Then, better to say a perfect unison occurs between notes at the same pitch, which in the context covers all that is required for a continuation to so it is zero semitones (for logical and syntactic consistency with treatment of the other intervals, which should also be presented in the singular). Then, it would be better to use closer (or perhaps narrower) and wider instead of smaller and larger, and you should say closer or wider than what, to help the beginner, who may have lost the thread after pondering over the perfect unison. So: An augmented interval is one semitone wider than its perfect equivalent; and a diminished interval is one semitone closer than its perfect equivalent. And your explanation of the term perfect is open to question, since it is not only perfect intervals that occur in the overtone series. That whole matter might bring in many irrelevancies.

Second, third, sixth, seventh. These intervals can be described as major, minor, augmented, or diminished.
- Major seconds are two semitones, also called a whole step, minor seconds are one semitone, also called a half step.
- Major thirds are four semitones, minor thirds are three semitones.
- Major sixths are nine semitones, minor sixths are eight semitones.
- Major sevenths are eleven semitones, minor sevenths are ten semitones.
- In each case, the augmented interval is one semitone larger than the major interval, and the diminished interval one semitone smaller than the minor interval. These intervals are rarely used; the only ones which occur with any regularity in common-practice music are the augmented sixth and the diminished seventh.

Similar strictures apply here as above: regarding describe, and all the rest. And then, what do you mean by are rarely used? Rarely used how: horizontally or vertically? The augmented second occurs very commonly, both melodically and harmonically. When we consider the vertical relations introduced by unessential notes like chromatic passing notes (or passing tones) in one part against a stationary second part, many of the other intervals occur. The same may be said for melodic occurrence of the allegedly rarely used intervals, like the augmented unison between C4 and C#4 in the melodic progression C4-C#4-D4. Even the diminished fourth occurs frequently (and though this is not said to be rarely used in the rewrite, it may be worth noting, to make a sort of a fortiori case). Using E4 and Ab4, for example: melodically in C4-E4-Ab4-G4-F4 and the like; harmonically in versions of the dominant 13th, like C3 Bb3 E4 Ab4 (in f minor). Why is nothing said about this matter of the relative frequency of occurrence for the first group of intervals (unison, fourth, fifth, octave)? The rarity of the augmented octave, both vertically and horizontally, might with profit have been noted. And then, why do you explain the term perfect, above, but leave the user mystified about the terms major and minor as applied to intervals?

It is possible to have doubly-diminished and doubly-augmented intervals, but these are quite rare.

The term perfect third is very occasionally used by early music experts to denote the major third interval when tuned to an exact 5:4 frequency ratio.

For grammatical propriety, the wording should be when it is tuned to. But there is a case for excluding this information from here anyway, if you are aiming to assist beginners. It belongs to a different and quite recherché theoretical schema.

Octave equivalency describes the perception that octaves are the same note, that the same notes repeat throughout the pitch range. Thus C and C', C5 and C3, and C and any C any number of octaves above or below, are all the same note or pitch class.

It doesn't describe it. It is a term used for the phenomenon. And, while Hyacinth, Opus33, Antandrus, Camembert, Stirling Newberry, you, and I all understand what is meant when you write octaves are the same note, the beginner may be totally confused by it! They have just been told that an octave is an interval between notes; now octaves are notes!

Much more could be said; but I have worked merely to illustrate the complexity of the task. I don't hold tight to some of the criticisms I make above. I just want to show that it is no easy matter to present basic music theory to neophytes, and this is why discussion is imperative first of all – especially when discussion has been explicitly called for, through a properly established channel. --Noetica 09:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not going through proper channels. I couldn't think of any way to discuss such a major change on this Talk page. Is there a scratch section where I could have presented this as a draft for comment?

Your editorial criticism is mostly valid. Please feel free to improve my work, of course -- unless my offense is so serious that you might revert to the previous version. Some of the sections you critiqued, such as "octave equivalency," were lifted verbatim from the previous version, btw.

The issue with the previous version is that it presented conventional interval names (such as perfect fifth) alongside specialist jargon such as frequency ratios, cents, and Allen Forte's interval-class sets. Even early-music experts, who talk happily for hours about tuning systems and syntonic commas and the difference between 10:9 and 9:8 whole steps, still refer to perfect fifths and major seconds -- that is the standard language for describing intervals. Therefore it should be described in detail first, before the more-specialized terminology.

As for non-Western music, it would be great to get some input on that. I'd speculate that most probably use simple-proportion tuning (e.g. 5:4) for the same intervals, but don't have to temper them since their music doesn't modulate or become chromatic. Much of the difference will just be language. But see slendro and pelog, and pseudo-octave. Wahoofive 17:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that your work was well intended, Wahoofive. And I don't say that it worsens things! As for lifting material verbatim from the earlier version, perhaps it is fair to criticise your work for the content of that material too, because in a major rewrite such as you claim to be doing you may be taken to endorse that content if you keep it.

Others can advise you better than I can about "scratch pages" and the like.

I completely agree with you concerning all that specialist jargon, and the mixing of theoretical orientations. I drew attention to it in the first place.

I still think it would be good to isolate intervals in traditional Western tonal theory, and to treat them thoroughly first (no, with some general common introduction preceding it, because the general notion of the interval needs to be presented lucidly as a preliminary to everything else). That traditional Western system is hard enough to give a proper treament, without complications from outside the system.

So far the article does not treat the category diatonic interval accurately. In the traditional system, a diatonic interval is one that occurs in some or other major or harmonic minor scale. Its proper opposite is chromatic interval (a term that does not occur in the article at all, now or before the rewrite). The augmented unison, third, sixth, and octave are all chromatic intervals, but they are classified among the diatonic intervals in the article. Getting this all right is not easy. Even the New Grove does a poor job. It has, in the article Chromatic: "An interval is said to be chromatic if it is not part of a diatonic scale (e.g. F–F#, B–Eb)." This definition is misleading because it fails to exclude the melodic minor scale. [Finally fixed MUCH later (shame on me): O, also B-Eb does belong to a diatonic scale (C harmonic minor)! Shame on you, New Grove! – Noetica 22:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)] A beginner might think that the interval Bb-B is not chromatic because each of the components can be found somewhere in either the ascending or the descending form of c melodic minor. Do a quick Google search on "chromatic interval" if you want to see bizarre "explanations". I found some gems here, where not one of the contributors gets it right:Reply

www.ibreathemusic.com/forums/ archive/index.php/t-4818.html

That's the sort of confusion we have an opportunity to sort out. However, having contributed what clarification I have so far, I shall be playing no substantial part from now on, because I have decided to withdraw from involvement in Wikipedia soon. I'll put a note about this on my User page shortly. --Noetica 23:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "it would be good to isolate intervals in Western theory first." Isn't that what I've done? Or maybe you mean we should move the "labelling intervals" section lower down (or even eliminate it), which would be fine with me.

I don't see why the distinction between "diatonic" and "chromatic" intervals is important. Why does it matter whether diminished fourths appear in some diatonic scale or not? Maybe the reason these reference books don't treat it well is that the topic isn't that central to music theory. I'm not happy with the name "diatonic intervals" for the second section and would be happy to hear of suggested alternatives.

--Wahoofive 23:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say you didn't do it! I simply intended that, however things work out in the end, after any re-working that is to come, it would be good to have things structured that way. Nothing I said contradicts this. Perhaps a separate article is the way to achieve such a separation. Perhaps several separate sub-articles, with a short general article at the hub.

You may not think that the distinction between "diatonic" and "chromatic" intervals is important; but it is nevertheless a traditional part of the content the article is intended to cover. The confusion evident in discussions such as the one I drew to your attention is evidence that it is a generally ill-covered topic, and one that could be sorted out here. But as things stand, the article is quite misleading in that area (since it wrongly classifies some intervals). Better not to add to the confusion!

The reason some reference works get such things wrong is simply bad thinking, bad expression, and bad editing, in an area in which fewer and fewer people are competent (and the evidence for this last is easy to find!). One might as well say "who cares about the Greek chromatic tetrachords?" Well, an encyclopedia that addresses such things must care! And Wikipedia is such an encyclopedia. --Noetica 00:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the above discussion, but looking at the difference, User:Wahoofive, I think your edit lost a lot of information. Unless you have an immediate proposal for another location for that information, I suggest a revert. For example, all explination of simple intervals was removed, now they are just mentioned and linked to. In my opinion this isn't the kind of trimming that is useful for the lay reader. Wikipedia:Explain jargon.

As another example, almost all of the information below is lost:

Unison: The ratio of 1:1 is a unison (specifically, a perfect unison; there are other variants), two notes at the same pitch. In integer notation it is a 0 and is also zero cents. It is the simplest and most consonant of intervals.

I'm fine with people boldly reinterpreting, rewriting, and clarify what I rewrote in the first place, but I don't think that removing the information is clarifying. Hyacinth 07:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The edit did ad some useful information. For example:

"In musical set theory intervals are numbered according to the number of half steps, from 0 to 11; see integer notation. This system ignores enharmonic intervals and is only used for atonal music. A similar system is interval classes, which are similar but consider each interval and its inversion to be equivalent, and use only the smaller number; thus the largest interval class is 6."

That first sentence is not explained (only implied), and should be kept no matter what. This system is not, however, used only for atonal music. Next sentence is good. Hyacinth 07:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I reverted, added the above information, and just reorganized the Labelling intervals section to clarify and address Wahoofive and Noetica's concerns. Now, instead of this overwhelming unbroken stream of unexplained ways in which intervals may be described, the ways are broken into theory and use. Please comment and revise. Hyacinth 08:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jargon that may need to be better explained includes consonance and dissonance (currently explained as "stable and unstable" respectively), such as Wahoofive's text:

"These terms are relative to the usage in different compositional styles. In atonal music all intervals (or interval classes) are considered equally consonant. In 16th-century usage, perfect fifths and octaves, and major and minor thirds and sixths were considered consonant, and all other intervals dissonant. In the common practice period, it makes more sense to speak of consonant and dissonant chords, and certain intervals previously thought to be dissonant (such as minor sevenths) became acceptable in certain contexts. However, 16th-century practice continued to be taught to beginning musicians throughout this period."

Enharmonic intervals, Wahoofive's text:

"Two intervals with different names which have the same number of semitones are called enharmonic. For example, a diminished fifth and an augmented fourth both have six semitones. This particular interval is also called the tritone since it is three whole steps."

I don't think it is necessary to explain the reason's and differences behind just intonation and equal temperment in detail here, and I think their qualities are nicely described here (if not explicitly). Hyacinth 08:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I propose three changes to the article as it now stands:

Rename "diatonic theory" to something more reflective of the fact that the vast majority of musicians consider this standard terminology for describing intervals
Move this section above "just intonation" for the same reason (I don't have an issue with the ratios being first, but David Cope and Hindemith are of interest only to specialists)
Re-introduce the graphics from my version.

I also have a strong objection to the way "consonant" and "dissonant" are used in the list of intervals. To refer to perfect fifths and fourths as both equally consonant is to introduce a physicist's bias, since the majority of musicians wouldn't use the terms in that way. Hindemith's theories are almost a historical curiosity now; I don't see any evidence that they've gained traction in music teaching in general.

--Wahoofive 04:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hindemith and Cope are of interest only to specialists, but their theories (interval root, etc) are not. More importantly, this article was not structured according to Hindemith's theories, which I have only a passing acquaintance with. Hyacinth 20:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think changing the title of the section "Diatonic theory" to something which reflects many musicians limited knowledge of that theory as the only theory is uninformative and not NPOV. Hyacinth 20:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, I moved Cope and Hindemith down into the "consonant and dissonant intervals" section. Cope definitely belongs there, since "interval strength" is a concept related to consonance and dissonance, but the "interval root" section maybe doesn't. It didn't really belong under "just intonation" where it was before, though, since this theory applies to equal-tempered intervals as well. Perhaps it belongs as a sub-section of "Inversion," since that seems related somehow.

I'll concede your position on the equal importance of the diatonic names of intervals, but the phrase "diatonic theory" still seems a little abstract to me. --Wahoofive 21:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Generations of intervals edit

The following seems to belong in its own article describing whatever theory it is:

The intervals can be divided into five "generations", which correspond to negative powers of two:
Zeroth generation (1+2⁻⁰): P1, P8.
First generation (1+2⁻¹): P4, P5.
Second generation (1+2⁻²): M3, m3, M6, m6.
Third generation (1+2⁻³): M2, m7.
Fourth generation (1+2⁻⁴): m2, M7, π.

Each successive generation is more dissonant than the previous one.

Here is the derivation of each generation from the previous one: Start with the octave's ratio, 2:1. Multiply each of its two numbers by two, yielding 4:2. Then stick the missing number in the middle, which gives 4:3:2. This breaks up into a pair of ratios — 4:3 and 3:2. The minor one is 4:3 and the major one is 3:2. These are the perfect fourth and the perfect fifth, respectively, and they are the first generation.

Now take the perfect fifth's ratio, 3:2. Multiply each of its two numbers by two to obtain 6:4. Then stick the missing number in the middle, yielding 6:5:4. This breaks up into a pair of ratios — 6:5 and 5:4. The minor one is 6:5 and the major one is 5:4. These are the minor third and major third, respectively. Their inversions are 5:3 and 8:5, which are the major sixth and the minor sixth, respectively. So these are the second generation: M3, m3, M6, m6.

Now take the major third's ratio, 5:4. Multiply each of its two numbers by two, which yields 10:8. Then stick the missing number in the middle, giving 10:9:8. This breaks up into a pair of ratios — 10:9 and 9:8. The minor one is 10:9 and the major one is 9:8. Both of these are whole-tones, i.e. major seconds. The inversion of 9:8 is 16:9, a minor seventh. So these are the third generation: M2, m7.

Now take the whole-tone's ratio, 9:8. Multiply each of its two numbers by two, giving 18:16. Then stick the missing number in the middle to obtain 18:17:16. This breaks up into a pair of ratios — 18:17 and 17:16. The minor one is 18:17 and the major one is 17:16. Both of these are semitones, i.e. minor seconds. The inversion of 18:17 is 17:9, a major seventh. The last interval is the tritone. The tritone is ideally equal to the square root of two, which is irrational, but can be approximated by adding a semitone to a perfect fourth:

{4 \over 3}\times {17 \over 16}={1\times 17 \over 3\times 4}={17 \over 12}

or

{4 \over 3}\times {18 \over 17}={4\times 6 \over 1\times 17}={24 \over 17},

which is the inversion of 17:12. 24:17 has the same denominator as 18:17, and 17:12 has the same numerator as 17:16. So these are the intervals of the fourth generation: m2, M7, π.

Agree. No clue what theory that is, though. --Wahoofive 04:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Diatonic edit

I do not see how "nomenclature" is less abstract than theory, it certainly is less readily understandable. "Diatonic theory" is also terminology actually used, as in: Johnson, Timothy (2003). Foundations of Diatonic Theory: A Mathematically Based Approach to Music Fundamentals. Key College Publishing. ISBN 1930190808. Hyacinth 23:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just vs Equal edit

I think that anything which is applied to equal tempered intervals only when those are considered as the just intervals they approximate should go in a just section where there is one. Hyacinth 23:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article in its current state is organized with naming conventions first, then analytical tools. That's why I moved interval root and strength to other places on the page. --Wahoofive 00:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Outline edit

I propose that we create an outline we agree on, and then use that to guide collaboration on the article. Hyacinth 10:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The following is the current outline:

1 Labelling intervals
 1.1 Frequency Ratios
 1.2 Interval number and quality
  1.2.1 Shorthand notation
 1.3 Names used in atonal theory
  1.3.1 Ordered and unordered pitch and pitch class intervals
  1.3.2 Interval cycles
 1.4 Cents
2 Comparison of different interval naming systems
3 Consonant and dissonant intervals
4 Inversion
 4.1 Interval roots
5 Other intervals
6 Sources
7 External Links

The only problem I see at first glance is that atonal theory is marked off as special. What is the corresponding description for the intervals used in atonal theory: what to atonal theory "interval numiber and quality" is to diatonic theory. The latter being privileged by being assumed. Hyacinth 10:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "Interval numbers and interval classes"? I'd advocate subsection titles which reflect the naming systems, rather than what kind of music the names apply to, since the latter is pretty flexible. Allen Forte has applied set-class analysis to tonal music as well.

Should "Comparison of naming systems" be a subsection of "Labelling intervals" rather than a top-level section? And does "Cents" belong there? It's a measure of interval rather than a name, but maybe that's an irrelevant distinction.

Actually, let me back off and ask if you're suggesting making more fundamental changes in the outline, as suggested by your first sentence. My two items are just minor tweaks. I'm pretty happy with it as is, but I'd like to hear any concerns.

We could have a subsection at the beginning of (1) expanding on narrow and wide, vertical/horizontal, etc., if there's more to say about it.

We do need to make room for non-Western naming systems; I'm sure India (at least) has one.

One section that needs more attention is the "consonant and dissonant" section because it assumes simultaneous (rather than melodic) intervals. Melodic intervals have their own dissonance rules in some contexts. "Inversion" needs to address this also. --Wahoofive 22:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding cents, whether they are a label or a measure I think is mostly an issue of semantics. We could change Labelling intervals to "Labelling and measuring intervals" but it is common to refer to an interval by its cents alone ("an interval of 200 cents"). I think the consonance and dissonance section is a long as it should be, see consonance and dissonance. Hyacinth 00:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I made some changes. Here is the outline now (I'm not sure whether to update one outline to save space or list each outline draft for clarity and continuity):

1 Frequency Ratios
2 Interval number and quality
 2.1 Shorthand notation
3 Pitch class intervals
 3.1 Ordered and unordered pitch and pitch class intervals
4 Cents
5 Comparison of different interval naming systems
6 Consonant and dissonant intervals
7 Inversion
 7.1 Interval roots
8 Interval cycles
9 Other intervals
10 Sources
11 External links

I like the new organization. It's not so much that C&D has to be expanded but it needs clarification about simultaneous vs. melodic intervals. I've got a couple of other minor adds that I'll put in. Oh, and better to keep the record of discussion. We can always archive it. Text storage is cheap. --Wahoofive 05:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pitch class notation edit

Do we need the mathematical notation in the set-theory stuff? It seems kind of pretentious to say you subtract two numbers, then use a formula to show

DIFFERENCE = MINUEND - SUBTRAHEND
INVERSE = SUBTRAHEND - MINUEND
ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE = | MINUEND - SUBTRAHEND |

The distinction between <> brackets and () parentheses is difficult to see, too. It's much more clearly explained on the musical set theory page. I think we could just summarize it in text only. --Wahoofive 05:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But its not mentioned on musical set theory. Hyacinth 05:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All I meant was the different types of brackets are explained at Musical_set_theory#The_set_and_set_types. Thank you for removing the formulas. --Wahoofive 17:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tables edit

I've been making some tables over at User:Hyacinth/Interval tables and I would welcome comments. Hyacinth 08:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the second version of the perfect/major/augmented table -- easier to read. Maybe an additional column with compound intervals?
I oppose any table simply dividing intervals into "consonant" and "dissonant" -- there's no theoretical basis or historical consensus on this. (To be sure, it illustrates Helmholtz's theory, but that doesn't strike me as important enough to merit a table.) The perfect fourth has been a bone of contention among theorists for years, since for practical purposes it's been considered dissonant for 600 years (in the West), yet it is a simple ratio. Bringing in non-Western music makes it even murkier.
- The box going from "most consonant" to "most dissonant," however, might be a useful tool for illustrating Hindemith's schema (if the arbitrary dividing line between "consonant" and "dissonant" is removed).
Of course I approve of the "comparison" box, since I made it. Maybe should include interval class (max 6) as an additional column. BTW, although you don't have to use the table template I did, I strongly encourage "CELLSPACING=0" on all tables for aesthetic purposes.
I'm not sure why you divided that box into separate lines. I hope this isn't part of a plan to revert to having separate subsections on each interval. They each have separate pages, which I'm fine with.
- What might be useful, though, is to have a list of enharmonics for each interval.
- I don't know if it's practical to have a comparison of different ratios, or to compare meantone and other tunings on this page. Maybe just a mention in passing, with references to the Tuning and various Temperament pages.

--Wahoofive 17:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is theoretical basis and a modicum of consensus on consonance and dissonance, with even the twelve tone and atonal text books discuss intervals and simultaneities degree's of tension. The amount of disagreement only argues for more specific tables. What does cellspacing=0 do? Hyacinth 01:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

cellspacing=0 makes a single line between cells instead of a double line. Try it in the sandbox. Degrees of tension, or a table showing a continuum from consonance to dissonance, is fine with me; I'm only opposed to a boundary saying "this list of intervals is consonant and this other list is dissonant," unless it's attributed to a particular theorist. --Wahoofive 17:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the consonant-dissonance thing too much. The only intervals that I consider really dissonant are the half-step (minor 2nd) and the tritone; the major seventh can also be dissonant (being a half-step less than an octive). In terms of the full-step (major 2nd), I don't consider this a dissonant interval when used in a major key, but consider it dissonant when used in a minor key (and the fact that minor penatonic scales drop the initial full-step seems to reinforce this). What makes an interval sound dissonant to a listener has as much to do with what key the listener thinks the song is in as much as the interval itself. Samboy 08:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This and related articles are not about your or my own personal perceptions of consonance and dissonance. Hyacinth 17:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed edit

(by Wahoofive)

It is important to note that while intervals may be named by their harmonic functions, for instance, a major second, may be described by a ratio, cent, or integer, not every interval described by these more general terms may be described with the harmonic function name. For instance, all major seconds (in twelve tone equal temperament) are 200 cents, but not every interval of 200 cents is a major second. See: enharmonic.
simple and compound

Hyacinth 06:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unison edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Please forgive my ignorance on this topic, but is everyone sure that a unison is actually called an interval, when there is clearly no interval at all?--Light current 22:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Is zero a number? By the way, Light current, don't forget to sign your talk-page posts with ~~~~ —Wahoofive (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Do bears C**p in the woods? Now come on, give me a proper answer!--Light current 22:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I guess I was being too subtle. Unison is an interval in exactly the same sense that zero is a number: you wouldn't use it to count anything, but it's essential as a starting point and an indicator of no change. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

In fact, I can pursue the analogy further. An interval is a difference between notes. A difference between two numbers can certainly be zero. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Examples of intervals edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In the section on intervals using equal temperament, maybe there could be a table with the name of the interval, its abbrevation, and a few examples of well-known songs that start with that interval? That would be helpful for people learning to recognize intervals. Skybrian 21:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The names of the intervals are already in the table. So I am confused what you ask. The list of well known songs is a good idea, but is a project on its own, deserving a separate page. −Woodstone 21:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the examples are what I'm most interested in. A separate page is fine, but I'm not sure what to call it or how it relates to the main article. There's already a List of Musical Intervals which is mostly unusual intervals, and separate pages for each equal temperament interval. - Skybrian 18:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may want to have a look at songs by interval. I have no idea about the copyright status of this site, so be careful in converting it to wikipedia. −Woodstone 19:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The following material was added to this archive on 29 March 2007:

Diatonic and chromatic intervals edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago39 comments3 people in discussion

Some time ago I deplored the almost universal shoddy treatment accorded the terms diatonic and chromatic as applied to intervals (see by searching above, and note my newly inserted comment about New Grove getting it wrong in yet another way). I have now been moved to add a new subsection to the article making two quite distinct usages clear, with examples (and new redirects for both terms). I have positioned it in such a way that it can be found readily enough, and so that it fits logically into the overall exposition. Note that chromatic interval and diatonic interval are used very often, generally on the web and in textbooks but also in Wikipedia, without there ever being clear disambiguations or explanations. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia will now be the first readily accessible resource to remedy this. Noetica 02:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

From your description above it sounds like original research. Hyacinth 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, it isn't original research. It's just clarity in disambiguation, and careful respect for traditional usage, through research in the literature. That traditional usage vaguely informs current usage; but current usage is all over the place with these terms chromatic and diatonic. I'll now provide references in the article, as you have requested with your annotation there. One will be the New Grove, for its sentence that I have quoted above: ("An interval is said to be chromatic if it is not part of a diatonic scale (e.g. F–F#, B–Eb)." The definitional substance of that sentence is literally true; only the examples are inadequate (the first because it gives a case that is too clear and therefore not discriminating enough; the second because it contradicts the definition itself, since B and Eb are to be found in the same diatonic scale). Noetica 21:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article gives the traditional definition of a diatonic interval as one that can be found in either a major or harmonic minor scale., How can that be? Surely, a traditional definition must exclude all chromatic alteration, given that diatonic usage predates the introduction of the harmonic minor scale. Can anyone tell me how or when this illogically expanded definition came about, and is it accepted by respected authorities on music theory? From Noetica's post, above, it would seem that Groves doesn't accept it, which is why they say that B - Eb doesn't belong to any diatonic scale. Thanks (Mark 23 November 2006)

Mark, you write concerning diatonic intervals: Surely, a traditional definition must exclude all chromatic alteration.... But what is meant by chromatic alteration, here? Chromatic alteration depends on context. Is B♭ chromatically altered? The question is unanswerable without knowledge of the key in which the note occurs. In A major or A minor B♭ is chromatically altered; in F major or F minor it is not. The definition presented in the article is not "illogically expanded"; it is just a fully understandable and established use of the term diatonic interval. (From what would it be "expanded", by the way? Have you a particular unexpanded definition in mind? And next ask: what makes that unexpanded definition logical?) At present, sources are all over the place with diatonic interval and chromatic interval. Some, including the New Grove, contradict themselves. The article cites Grove as a source for the traditional definition because it says this: An interval is said to be chromatic if it is not part of a diatonic scale. That's quite explicit, and only a little ambiguous. (It should strictly exclude the melodic minor, since if you take both ascending and descending forms of the melodic minor all sorts of intervals get included as diatonic: in G minor, the melodic has F# ascending and F natural descending, but this does not make F-F# diatonic, by the first of Grove's own examples.) Unfortunately Grove them contradicts itself with the examples: (e.g. F–F#, B–E♭), the second of which belongs in C harmonic minor. But that's just carelessness on the part of Grove. That august work is often careless; but this does not license us to be careless. I now see that I myself was careless months ago, and inadvertently wrote F where I meant C, etc., where all this is discussed above. I'll fix that next. – Noetica 21:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Noetica, I should have been clearer. By chromatically altered, I don't just mean a note inflected with an accidental. I mean a note that has been actively altered from its diatonic origin, e.g., the note B in the scale of C harmonic minor. My point is that the original (traditional) definition of diatonic would be as is explained in the Wikipedia article diatonic and in that respect, I agree with Roivas's statement below. Unlike Roivas, however, I'm prepared to acknowledge a modern, looser, expanded definition that includes those chromatically altered intervals of the harmonic minor scale. I say 'illogically expanded' as it seems to have been done simply as an expedience with no acoustical justification.

Furthermore, Grove says B - Eb is a chromatic interval because it doesn't occur in a diatonic scale. You feel that that's an error as B - Eb does occur in the diatonic scale of C harmonic minor. But how do you know that Grove accepts that harmonic minor scales ARE diatonic? Perhaps, like Roivas, they don't. If you have access to Grove perhaps you (or anyone) could report their definition. I'd like to know how 'official' is this expanded definition among acknowledged authorities. Thanks for your prompt response to my original query. (Mark - 24 November 2006)

Mark, first: why don't you get a user-name here at Wikipedia? It makes signing your contributions, and having them documented and easy to discern, much more straightforward. (You can then sign and date simply by typing in ~~~~.) Second, please read carefully what I say in my contributions below. I address some things that you have just remarked on – especially concerning Grove's usage (or usages). – Noetica 01:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is the Diatonic Form: 2-2-1-2-2-2-1 (2 = whole step / 1 = semitone). Any other form is not Diatonic. The modern major, the modern natural minor, and the Ecclesiastical modes are the only Diatonic scales.

See the discussion of diminished seventh for a full explanation with references.

This is an excerpt:

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.

--Roivas 22:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Roivas, what is the relevance of all that to the section of the article under discussion here (Diatonic and chromatic intervals)? What, if anything, do you dispute in that section? Both adjectives, diatonic and chromatic, are notoriously hard to get clear about; both are used in different senses in diverse sources, when they are applied to intervals. Since the article goes on to use diatonic interval in a particular way that is not universally accepted, it is important to clarify things early. The section in question does that. – Noetica 23:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think I now understand. There are two senses of diatonic scale:

A kind of scale defined in the article Diatonic scale.
A kind of scale implicitly understood in the article Minor scale:

A minor scale in musical theory is a diatonic scale whose third scale degree is an interval of a minor third above the tonic. While some definitions of minor scale encompass modes with the minor third, such as Dorian mode, most musicians use the term to refer to the natural minor, harmonic minor, and melodic minor scales described below. Also, compare major and minor.

By sense 2, melodic minors and harmonic minors are kinds of diatonic scales. This is the usage I have assumed above; and indeed it is a usage that is very common, despite what may be said above, or in the extended discussion at Talk:Diminished_seventh. It is very common, in well-established older usage, to hear talk of a pianist practising her chromatic and diatonic scales, with the intention to refer to chromatic scales on one hand and harmonic and melodic minor scales on the other. Now, this usage seems to be waning. If that's the case, then the section in question in this article may need revision, but perhaps only slight revision (in the exact form of words). The distinction it makes is still important. It counters, for example, such nonsense as you will find here. Of course, you might think that B-E♭, for example, is a chromatic interval. Do you? If we ought to think this, then we ought to think that Grove was right all along. But it is not yet established in which sense Grove uses diatonic scale, or whether it is consistent in its usage. A moral to draw from all of this: A term may have many uses, and it is a mistake merely to assume one of those uses, ignoring the others; it is also a mistake to assume that any one of those uses counts as the right one, simply because of its historical priority, its acceptance in contemporary practice, or its acceptance in one out of several contemporary bodies of practice. – Noetica 00:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You said:

And next ask: what makes that unexpanded definition logical?

I simply gave one of many examples of what the diatonic scale is. As far as modern and traditional definitions, there's really only one meaning of the word. I don't know if our definitions disagree. I'm just showing that it's not all that ambiguous. The only problems are the misconceptions from online sources and a possible loose interpretation of the Oxford's Concise.

--Roivas 00:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, my contribution above (00:29) was posted without my seeing Roivas's latest contribution (00:17), so neither of these two contributions responds to the other. – Noetica 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, I referred not to the Grove's Concise but to the full online New Grove. Unfortunately I have no access to it right now. I would like to check its usage of diatonic scale, melodic minor, etc., throughout; not just at articles that might be headed with those terms. – Noetica 00:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

My objection is that "most musicians say" is not a valid reference. No published encyclopedia would settle for mere speculation and I don't see why any of us should. The harmonic minor scale is a chromatically altered scale and is never considered diatonic in any music theory book. People are using the term "Diatonic" out of context to make their assertions sound more "scientific." It is not a mistake to dismiss careless distortions of a term that has been well-defined for years. References can be found in the other discussion page I mentioned above.

The proper term for an interval derived from a diminished or augmented interval (like the diminished seventh) is "enharmonic interval" (see Walter Piston's "Harmony" pg. 8...my copy is third edition).

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).

If someone could let me know what Grove's says...I haven't seen this definition.

REALLY SORRY ABOUT THAT EDIT RE: THE GROVE'S/OXFORD MIXUP!!!

Hope this helps.--Roivas 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Roivas, this dialogue is all good and healthy, I say. I certainly agree with you that "most musicians say" is not a valid reference, for many purposes. In fact, though, it does carry weight for some purposes. Usages in musical theory are changing all the time, and some that are becoming well-established are not yet reflected in standard works of reference. A highly relevant example: reference authorities for diatonic interval in the second sense given in the article (the distance spanned in a diatonic scale) are extraordinarily hard to track down. I personally have never used diatonic interval in that sense, but it is found from an excellent editor later in the article, and there are instances from other reputable sources. One example is to be found here.

Music syllabuses of universally recognised examining bodies give evidence in print that diatonic scales is a common way of referring to major scales, and harmonic and melodic minor scales. In the nature things it is hard to find material that is in print online, but this from the Royal College of Music is certainly relevant:

The number of required diatonic and tremolando scales in Grades 6 and higher has been reduced. For example, in the previous Syllabus Grade 8 candidates were required to prepare two- and three-octave scales in every major and minor key. In the 2004 Edition, this is reduced to six major scales and their relative minors.

This clearly is not intended to restrict diatonic scale so that the harmonic and melodic minor scales are excluded. In fact they, along with major scales, are certainly the only "diatonic scales" required in the guitar syllabus under discussion.

You mention the Oxford Concise (after you correct yourself). But it still isn't clear what you mean to refer to. Is it The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, or a music dictionary? Concerning it, you quote and gloss:

"Three scales are used as the basis of the music with which we are concerned"...and mentions major, minor (with it's [make that its] two common alterations) and the chromatic.

But this doesn't support the contention that the forms of the minor are not diatonic! If anything, it distances all forms of the minor from the chromatic: quite properly, but it doesn't say that the harmonic is a chromatically altered scale, to use your words.

Finally, what are we to make of diatonic harmony, in common use? It is surely harmony that uses only the notes of the major, the melodic minor, and the harmonic minor to construct its chords. It is called diatonic for just that reason. It is most definitely not harmony that uses only the resources of the major and the natural minor.

Anyway, my point has been that the situation is not all clear. I do not agree with you that the harmonic minor scale is a chromatically altered scale and is never considered diatonic in any music theory book. In older books especially, and in discussion of syllabuses such as the one I cite from an eminently respectable source, it is common to classify things this way. I also don't agree when you speak of the proper interpretation of anything. Usage, sadly, varies. A failure to document and acknowledge such variation can only perpetuate confusions and misunderstandings. If we want uniformity in an article (and in Wikipedia as a whole), we have to set it up explicitly, not simply assume it, or lay it down in a doctrinaire fashion. – Noetica 05:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

That section about the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Music was intended for Mark (as he referenced that in the Dim 7 article's discussion page. I thought you were mentioning the same thing. My brain was stuck in gear. Sorry.--Roivas 05:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

"The number of required diatonic and tremolando scales in Grades 6 and higher has been reduced. For example, in the previous Syllabus Grade 8 candidates were required to prepare two- and three-octave scales in every major and minor key. In the 2004 Edition, this is reduced to six major scales and their relative minors."

How is this supposed to provide a defense for the harmonic minor scale being diatonic? Is it implied by its very omission?--Roivas 05:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Three scales are used as the basis of the music with which we are concerned"...and mentions major, minor (with it's [make that its] [thank you very much for catching that] two common alterations) and the chromatic.

My point was that there was no mention of "Diatonic" in the text for a good reason, so any use of this to justify Mark's position that the word had been "expanded" would be invalid. That's all.

Please cite the "older book" that supports your position. Something from a book that explicitly states that a harmonic minor scale is diatonic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I don't know what you mean by "Diatonic Harmony." In the Goetschius book, The Material Used in Musical Composition, pg. 134, it states:

If the last chord of the original key is one which belongs also to the prospective key (in other harmonic meaning, of course), the modulation will be gradual, and there need be no chromatic inflection. Consequently, such are called Diatonic modulations. Each chord-movement, before, during and after the change of key, pursues the track of a diatonic scale.

This is from an "older book" first published in 1889 by Schirmer. I mentioned other references in the Dim 7 discussion as well.--Roivas 05:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

What is the point of the webpage you linked us to: homepages.cae.wisc.edu? Please use an example from a book on music theory, acoustics, or tuning. I'm sure you can find quite a few at your local library. If you have access to a University, that's even better. This "online syllabus" thing is not adding anything to the discussion. Do the administrators at Wikipedia want contributions based on idle speculation and unreliable online sources?--Roivas 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You say:

Usages in musical theory are changing all the time, and some that are becoming well-established are not yet reflected in standard works of reference.

I'm frustrated by the lack of academic integrity being shown on Wikipedia. I don't understand why these completely groundless assumptions are being clung to and defended. Please, for my own sanity, give me a source from a respected book on music theory that verifies what you are claiming to be true. If it isn't "reflect in a standard work of reference," then it's simply not valid (especially since this lack of precision accomplishes nothing).--Roivas 09:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, Roivas. You've said quite a bit. I note that you've retracted and corrected a couple of things, and I'll mention them no more. I will, however, address all of the other points you make. I quoted the following, from the highly respected Royal College of Music:

"The number of required diatonic and tremolando scales in Grades 6 and higher has been reduced. For example, in the previous Syllabus Grade 8 candidates were required to prepare two- and three-octave scales in every major and minor key. In the 2004 Edition, this is reduced to six major scales and their relative minors."

You replied with this:

How is this supposed to provide a defense for the harmonic minor scale being diatonic? Is it implied by its very omission?

I am truly surprised if you can't see this. Obviously, in the guitar syllabus under discussion, there are major, melodic minor, and harmonic minor scales required. This we know as background, surely. That's the nature of such syllabuses in practical music. Clearly all of these are designated diatonic for short. Do you dispute that? If you do, what do you imagine the guitarists are to play – natural minor scales? Not at all likely! It could, with some effort, be checked – if you really do think that.

You also write:

My point was that there was no mention of "Diatonic" in the text for a good reason, so any use of this to justify Mark's position that the word had been "expanded" would be invalid. That's all.

Sorry. I don't follow that. Is it important? Try again if it is.

I am away from my large collection of music reference books. But here's one, from the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music (an older edition: 1964):

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]

Happy?

You don't? There are several books bearing the title Diatonic Harmony, or having it as part of their title. (To see some, go to Amazon and search for books using the phrase diatonic harmony. It means tonal harmony other than chromatic harmony, and therefore includes the use of all chords formed with notes from the major, harmonic minor, or melodic minor scales. It is called diatonic harmony for the good reason that many people call those three sorts of scales diatonic scales. Schönberg appears to be among those who speak of diatonic harmony in this sense.

Next you mention a book by Goetschius, but I can't see the relevance of it, still less how it might count against diatonic being understood as I say it often is.

Next you write:

What is the point of the webpage you linked us to: homepages.cae.wisc.edu?

I have made that perfectly clear above. It shows just one example of diatonic interval being used, at a respectable university (University of Wisconsin), in the rather new sense of number of notes spanned in a diatonic scale. The point I was quite explicitly making was this: it's hard to track down reference works that warrant that usage, but it is nevertheless out there in academic currency.

For this particular usage (which is not my own usage, note) I cannot. That was the whole point! For the usage with scales, see above. Is Oxford University Press good enough for you?

Don't patronise. You don't know how unwarranted that is.

Elitist and antiquated nonsense. In any case, hardcopy can be found, for such syllabuses.

This is your response to the effort I have put into this? This, in response to my suggestion that this dialogue is healthy and worthwhile? Are you accusing me of a failure of academic integrity? I have met all of the challenges you offer, remote as I am at the moment from my resources. I invite you to reconsider what have written here.

Done (see above). Sane now?

And last:

If it isn't "reflect in a standard work of reference," then it's simply not valid (especially since this lack of precision accomplishes nothing).

An interesting, if unfounded, assertion. I argue against it above. In any case, the usages I have claimed to be prevalent clearly are in print from reputable sources. As for precision, I am strongly in favour of the most exacting precision. That's the whole point of my efforts at this article, and at several others. But a word of advice to you: a presumption of uniform usage, in the face of palpable evidence against such uniformity, is not to be confused with precision. It is, rather, a form of prejudice of the most unacademic kind. – Noetica 11:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You haven't put much effort into this. It doesn't take much effort to Google a word.

The definition you posted, yet again, does not state that harmonic minor is diatonic. The octatonic scale isn't chromatic, so by your bizarre interpretation of Oxford Concise, it's diatonic.

You have not "met my challenge" by providing a reference that explicitly states that harmonic minor is diatonic.

See the Knud Jeppesen book (The Style of Palestrina and the Dissonance) for a clear example of what diatonic means.

Here is one of many basic descriptions of the word "Diatonic" which can be found in a sea of books on musicology:

"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."

My valid reference: Tuning and Temperament, A Historical Survey, by J. Murray Barbour, ISBN 0-486-43406-0

Any occurance of "diatonic" in reference to harmonic minor or ascending minor scales need to be cleaned up from this and any other article. This is why:

Say where you got it: It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another.

"The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it."

Reliable sources Wikipedia:Verifiability Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you.

The excerpt you provided from Oxford Concise does not verify what you are claiming to be true. You are simply implying it. Once again, please provide a valid source.

--Roivas 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, Roivas. Once more I'll go through what you have written and respond to everything (which is more than you have done for me, note):

You haven't put much effort into this. It doesn't take much effort to Google a word.

That is inaccurate and insulting. Look again at all that I have posted on this page, and at my work on the article. Reflect on the effort that goes on in the background. I have done a lot more than Google a word, as you rudely assert.

The definition you posted, yet again, does not state that harmonic minor is diatonic. The octatonic scale isn't chromatic, so by your bizarre interpretation of Oxford Concise, it's diatonic.

I see that a similar quote, but presumably from a later edition of the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Music, turns up at Talk:Diminished seventh. There too, having called for a standard reference work that would support a view that opposed your own, you rejected the citation when it was produced. Once more, here, you fail to understand the context in which the influential and respected authority (Percy Scholes) was writing. My interpretation of what he writes, far from being bizarre, is the only coherent interpretation available. Clearly Scholes is writing not about Greek theory, or theory appropriate to modal practice in European music: he is writing about the dominant later system in which the usual scales (excluding the chromatic) are major, melodic minor, and harmonic minor. These he clearly calls diatonic. How else are we to interpret what he writes? (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.) Scholes simply does not address the earlier scale that you call octatonic. Nor should he, for the modern context he writes in.

I clearly have. See immediately above. It is diatonic, in one of the accepted meanings of the term diatonic. Your refusal to accept that a term may have more than one sense does you no credit.

You refer here to that other discussion (Talk:Diminished_seventh). Please take care not to send us on such a chase. As it happens, I have that work in my collection, along with something else of Jeppesen's. I respect his authority, of course, and have cited him elsewhere in Wikipedia. But he is writing about an earlier period, one that Scholes is not writing about. Diatonic evolved new senses, just as the system of scales itself evolved.

Next you cite a work on Greek theory of music. Lovely! And undisputed. But again, evidence that a term has one meaning does not show that it has no other meanings.

Then you say something with which I almost agree:

Any occurance [sic] of "diatonic" in reference to harmonic minor or ascending minor scales need [sc. needs] to be cleaned up from this and any other article.

Well, all of this terminology needs to be sorted out. That was the whole point of my introducing a section clarifying the terms diatonic and chromatic, used of intervals. They need to be sorted out in many contexts, in fact – not just when they are used of intervals. Given that you have edited and discussed at Tritone, it surprises me that you passed over in silence Template:Diatonic_intervals, which is included there. In it, even the augmented unison and the diminished third are listed as diatonic intervals. Now, neither of us would find that acceptable. But I understand that the authors of the template had yet another meaning in mind for diatonic interval. Can you work out what that meaning is? There is not one single "right" interpretation. We just need to say how we are going to use our terms, with what sound precedents, and then work towards consistency. But consistency cannot be imposed on the spurious ground that there is a "right" way to use terms.

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

OK, that's a worthy principle. Not always achievable, given one's immediate circumstances, but worthy nonetheless.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another.

"The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it."

So what? I cite verifiable sources (as does Mark, elsewhere), and they reveal that there is diversity in usage. You refuse to respect those sources, and refuse to acknowledge that diversity.

You next talk about Wikipedia's policy on original research, but I can't see the relevance here. Who's doing original research?

Palpable nonsense. The only fault in the vicinity is your own. When your challenge to provide a respected source is fully and unambiguously met (here and also at Talk:Diminished_seventh), you cannot accept that you may have been mistaken.

There is little point going on with this. I suggest you stand back a little and take stock. You may find that you don't have a monopoly on truth, and on academic or Wikipedic rectitude. – Noetica 22:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

To correct another mistake of yours, "tonal" and "diatonic" are not interchangeable terms.

If you cannot come up with a published source, then accept that this erroneous definition of diatonic cannot be a part of this article. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal sounding board. Thanks.--Roivas 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

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 Talk:Diminished_seventh, 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 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe that the definition means what you think it does. On top of this, the dictionary you cite does not say "the harmonic minor scale is diatonic." I would think you'd be able to find it in a music theory book if this was the case. It must be explicit and not implied.--Roivas 00:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let me raise the bar just slightly. The phrase "harmonic minor" has to occur SOMEWHERE on the page and be somewhat relevant to the matter at hand. Can we, at least, do that?--Roivas 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Back to the Oxford Concise:

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 noticed that the Lydian mode is not mentioned here. It is close to the major scale, but it's not the major scale. It seems to be completely omitted from this definition. Isn't the Lydian mode a Diatonic Scale?

How does the (modern) Locrian Mode fit into this definition? It's not the major, minor, or chromatic scale.

Locrian Mode: |"| | | : "| | | |

It has a minor third between 1 & 3, but a major third between 5 & 6. No leading tone between 7 & 8! It doesn't fit into this definition at all. Is the Locrian Mode Diatonic? Does the Oxford omit the Ecclesiastical Modes for a reason?

As you put it, the Oxford provides "the only coherent interpretation available." Come again?

Another source I've found:

Altered Chords in Minor

"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."

"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."

Goetschius: The Material Used in Musical Composition, pg. 121 & pg. 5.

This is all very clearly stated, which is why Goetschius is a great introduction to basic music theory. I know you are concerned that I am hiding or omitting something by adhering to some antiquated Greek definition, but Goetschius is writing about the "dominant later system" that you have in mind.

Once again, here's the Diatonic Form: 2-2-1-2-2-2-1.

You said:

In older books especially...it is common to classify things this way.

Please give me, at least, a title of a book or an author and I will try to help you find an example. You said "common," right? That's really hard to believe.

I feel that my references are being dismissed as well, so...

--Roivas 07:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Dr. Alan Crosier's definition has been removed from the article.--Roivas 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Roivas has, here and at Talk:Diminished_seventh, 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. Some of Roivas's recent comments here I deal with at Talk:Diminished_seventh, in a post made some minutes ago. – Noetica 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, other than a few things that I edited, I'm not sure what you are talking about.--Roivas 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Roivas has just made an unwarranted personal attack. And as I wrote above, Roivas has, here and at Talk:Diminished_seventh, 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. Here I will only add a couple of points concerning process:

1. Since June 2006, when I added a disambiguating section, I have not edited the present article except to correct or clarify things quite uncontroversially at a couple of points, and except to apply a {{{Neutrality}}} marker at the top. Roivas has now, in effect, removed that disambiguating section, along with its three references (one of which was the New Grove).

2. I have attempted to engage in fruitful discussion with Roivas. So has Mark. Neither of us has had much success. I see no way forward until we can all be more respectful. This would mean avoiding personal attacks, etc.

3. I look forward to being able to engage in rational dialogue concerning the different senses in which diatonic and chromatic are used, especially as they are applied to scales and intervals. Right here would seem to be a suitable place for such dialogue.

– Noetica 23:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. Since June 2006, when I added a disambiguating section, I have not edited the present article except to correct or clarify things quite uncontroversially at a couple of points, and except to apply a {{{Neutrality}}} marker at the top. Roivas has now, in effect, removed that disambiguating section, along with its three references (one of which was the New Grove).

What's most amusing about this is that the most basic, "traditional" definition wasn't even in your "disambiguation." Kind of odd.--Roivas 16:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are right. We are all getting a little excited. I have no interest in "personally attacking" people and if you'd kindly refer me to the offending comments I'll gladly reword or remove them. I will even admit that I'm probably the cause of most of the bile. I will also try not to be sarcastic.

Please address this: The section I removed was pasted from a website quoting a certain Dr. Crosier. Am I correct in asserting this? --Roivas 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: Moral Highground. Are you going to make edits where you've made assumptions on my part, or is this a one way street?--Roivas 01:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The most important point is getting lost in these ridiculous arguments. What is the best way to introduce these ideas to a beginner or disinterested party? This is the only thing I'm trying to get across in the article. I think this "searching for truth" aspect of the argument is incredibly pretentious and out of place in an encyclopedia.--Roivas 19:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Pretentious? moi? You're probably referring to a phrase I used over at the diminished seventh discussion page. Yes, hands up! It did come across that way as I noticed later to my dismay. I should have said that I'm just trying to get the true facts. And not just an accurate definition of 'diatonic' but the various usages of the term, whether careless or precise, correct or incorrect.

However it wasn't so much the phrase you attacked as the idea. That's completely confused me - I thought getting the most accurate information possible was exactly the point of any encyclopedia. To your credit you've shown me that Dr Alan Crozier isn't acknowledged as a source of such accurate information. So I'll keep at it, and mostly offline. (Mark - 28 November 2006)

Great. Now I'm attacking ideas.

Look, I'm just going to make my edits and cite my reasons. U Cool wit dat?--Roivas 23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Noetica said:

My interpretation of what he writes, far from being bizarre, is the only coherent interpretation available.

Just read this sentence a few times. How am I supposed to have a rational debate with someone who says things like this?--Roivas 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

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).

Very clear definition.

--Roivas 08:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am going to remove this passage in a weekunless it is qualified by a source:

Interval names
U = unison; 8ve = octave

In Western diatonic or tonal theory, intervals are labeled according to their diatonic function and according to the number of degrees they span in a diatonic scale. The image on the right depicts the intervals of the major scale on the tonic "F".^{[citation needed]}

I challenge this as being based on an assumption and not research.

--Roivas 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Golden ratio edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is the interval produced by two notes with frequencies with the golden ratio musically significant?--Lkjhgfdsa 19:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting question. The golden ratio is (1+sqrt(5))/2=1.618034, which corresponds to 833.09 cents. This is the interval from c to about a third of a semitone between g# and a. Checking the extensive list at List of musical intervals this does not appear to have any musical significance. Viewed from another angle, musical relations are usually ratios between small numbers, whereas φ is not a rational number. −Woodstone 20:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It does have a special property though: in a certain sense it is the most dissonant interval because its continued fraction expansion 1+1/(1+1/(1+1/... converges the most slowly. Isn't it weird how paintings and architecture that use the golden ratio look beautiful, but the golden ratio sounds ugly as a musical interval? —Keenan Pepper 21:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

NPOV edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

As a global encyclopedia, a NPOV for Wikipedia means a global point of view. The discription of intervals here concentrates on European or western scales. There are many totaly different scales in othere cultres. For example, in the classical courtly music of Buganda, played on instruments like amadinda and akadinda xylophones and on the enanga harp the scale used is a roughly equidistant pentatonic scale which means that the octave is divided into five equal intervals of about 240 cents (2.4 semitones). Moreover, some musical cultures have a higher tollerance for variation in their scales, so an emic and etic distinction seems appropriate here (similar to the distinction of phonetics and phonology). So the article needs to be structured into a general part definig general concepts applicable in all cultures (like "interval", "cent" etc.) and a section or sections describing specific intervals or interval systems occurring in certain musical cultures (like classical european music or classical buganda music). Nannus 22:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't agree more. This article needs some major work to avoid systemic bias. It should start out with the universals: the terminology, the mathematics, the octave (the only interval with a good claim to universality), and then it should have equal sections for all the musical traditions of the world. A lot of the material should probably be broken off into its own article, Intervals of common practice music or Intervals of the diatonic scale or whatever. —Keenan Pepper 03:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree also, though some of my comments early in 2005 (see above) might seem to show that I disagree. I do think there needs to be a clearly marked and well-managed "core" of theory, which can then be applied in treatments of several different traditions. As things stand, the coverage of Western common practice is pretty thorough; but it tends to blend too seamlessly and therefore confusingly with talk of Pythagorean commas, schismata, and the like. One problem might be that few have the expertise to undertake the non-Western coverage. Myself, I know the common-practice side of things well, but for the rest I could only assist with the task of integration and copyediting for consistency. So how about you, Nannus and Keenan Pepper? (By the way, KP: did you mean "systematic bias"? That's the more usual expression, and seems to refer to POV bias. By the way, I'm not sure that NPOV is precisely what is lacking here: would anything that falls short of full global coverage be aptly called a lapse from NPOV? Nannus: do you mean "the distinction of phonetics and phonemics", which is the usual way of glossing the etic–emic distinction?) Noetica 04:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good assessment. I have access to a good music theory library (Allen library at FSU) and enough knowledge to use it. I thought it was systematic too, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias uses the other word. —Keenan Pepper 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Minor reformatting edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reformatted the explanations of perfect intervals to match the list style of major/minor intervals which is easier to read. I didn't change any content. --64.175.42.169 20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Compound intervals edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should this article contain information on common compound intervals and their enharmonic equivalents?

maybe we could say that these intervals are part of the western chromatic scale, cuz i doubt we can find any experts on the 22-tone or parche scales. Blueaster 03:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Topic Rewrite edit

We seriously need a RCM (royal conservatory of music) official to rewrite the faulty parts of the article..... that way, there won't be half as much arguing over the topic.... however, I don't think that they would respect a free online version of conservatory theory.... therefore.... Ex-Conservatory members? [[User:]] 17:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Talflick

Neutrality disputed??? edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

In an article about musical intervals? What the galluking plick is up with that??151.202.111.202 02:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I came to this article and found some information which was inaccurate regarding the definition of "diatonic interval."

I mentioned a few references (at least eight of them...and there are plenty more) from reliable, published sources (works by Piston, Schenker...etc) that support my argument (which isn't merely "my point of view", it's basic music theory that any undergrad should know).

The other person felt this was "intolerant" of me and posted the NPOV tag out of frustration.

My position is still that the other person doesn't really know what the term means and, I guess, is still out there looking for the rare abnormality that will support the incorrect definition he/she is looking for. The argument is under Diatonic Intervals in this discussion and also in the Diminished Seventh discussion.--Roivas 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous, I do not have dialogue with Roivas, who (I note) continues to attribute feelings, opinions, and actions to me inaccurately and without evidence. Because it has been impossible to work through things coolly, with tolerance of the unfortunate uncertainties in some core terminology, and with respect and intellectual detachment on all sides, I do not now edit at this page. See recent additions at Talk:Diminished seventh for more. The rather ill-focused citations added there earlier by Roivas to support a single doctrinare interpretation of the term diatonic are mostly irrelevant, since no one disputes that the term is used in the way claimed; what is disputed is whether it is also used in other senses as well. In general, in the absence of further supporting argument, evidence for A is not automatically evidence against B. (Should be obvious, but apparently it isn't.) – Noetica 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC) [With later amendments.]Reply

The burden of proof is with the person who is making the claim. Interpretations and ponderings are completely meaningless in this discussion--Roivas 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

What exactly is ill-focused about my citations? What qualifies as a "focused" source to you?--Roivas 02:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Diagram poor edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I really think the diagram illustrating the intervals needs to include all the chromatic intervals to illustrate the exact use of each interval quality more clearly. Secondly, the following statement "There [sic! just noticed will fix] are called perfect because of their extremely simple pitch relationships resulting in a high degree of consonance..." is not enough, there needs to be some basic information about ratios, and it is no use describing these intervals in semi-tones, as 1) the interval of a semi-tone has not yet been defined, and as we know, varies between different systems of temperament/tuning. Matt.kaner 03:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I thought an interval was perfect because it used notes that appear only once in the harmonic series or am I misunderstanding something? 68.18.179.218 02:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Intervals and diatonic function edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

I'm having trouble with this sentence: In Western diatonic or tonal theory, intervals are labelled according to their diatonic function and according to the number of members or degrees they span in a diatonic scale.

The Diatonic function page says it is about the role of notes in relation to a key. But interval names like "major third" don't say anything about what key you are in or what the tonic is. For example, I might say there is a major third between the notes G and B, and without more information you could not say what the key was or what note is the tonic. Perhaps I'm talking about the key of C major, who knows.

Shouldn't the sentence simply be: "...intervals are labeled according to the number of degrees they span in a diatonic scale."? (also dropping the word "members" as confusing -- the word does not imply an order but just a set) Pfly 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

We agree that the name of an interval depicts the interval quality and the number of degrees the notes span, like major third, minor sixth etc. In order to determine a single interval, one of the notes of the interval has to be named as the tonic. Per convention, the first note named (written) is the tonic (interval between G and B = major third because G is the tonic). Per convention, the lowest note of the interval is the tonic. An interval cannot be determined definitely, when the tonic is not identified. When we have the tonic, we also have the key (for that particular interval) and can determine the diatonic function of the other note of the interval in relation to the tonic. Examples: (let's presume that all these intervals occur in a piece of music in C-major, although it is not really important):

G and B → three degrees, so a third, B is diatonic (major) to the key of G-major, so a major third.
B and g → six degrees, so a sixth, g# is diatonic (major) to the key of B-major so a minor sixth (the inversion of G and B).
f and b → four degrees, so a fourth, b-flat is diatonic (perfect) to the key of f-major so an augmented fourth (Tritone).
B and f → five degrees, so a fifth, f# is diatonic (perfect) to the key of B-major so a diminished fifth (the inversion of f and b).
D and c → seven degrees, so a seventh, c# is diatonic (major) to the key of D-major, so a minor seventh.
Etc.

As such I find the reference to the diatonic function in the sentence (not written by me) "intervals are labelled according to their diatonic function and according to the number of members or degrees they span in a diatonic scale" important and justified.

I agree about dropping the word "members".

Feetonthedesk 04:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Huh.. I didn't know the term key could be used in this way -- I thought it had to do with harmonic progressions, cadences, etc, rather than bare intervals -- but I'll take your word for it! Pfly 04:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think Feet is flat wrong about this. There's no such thing as the "tonic" (or key) of an interval, although it can have a "root" just like a triad. When you "invert" an interval you're moving its root away from the bottom, just like a triad.

You can easily identify the interval number of an interval from its notes alone (although not its pitches) without reference to a scale.

Please explain how. Feetonthedesk 06:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Feet's theory falls down when you think about major and minor seconds, which have nothing to do with major and minor scales; the words just mean large and small. Major and minor chords and major and minor scales were named because they contained major and minor thirds -- those interval names far predate the theory of those other structures. Feet's system may work for him as a mnemonic, but it isn't representative of mainstream music theory.

Please see this for want of a better online citation: [1]. In reference to this link, "proceeding up the scale" (unfortunately they ommit "major") involves determining the tonic of the scale to proceed up in order to determine the key signature of that scale. My contribution is intended to be a simple and efficient generic method of determining intervals and their quality which, in my opinion, should be included in an article about the interval (music). Unfortunately, this was missing in the former version of the article. Admittedly, my contributions may contain "flaws" but one of the advantages of Wikipedia is that these are quickly identified and ironed out. Feetonthedesk 06:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

That page gives the example of the interval of C to G being a perfect fifth in the key of C. But wouldn't it work just as well if the interval didn't begin on the key's tonic? I mean, doesn't it make sense to say: in the key of C, the interval between F and A is a major third? In other words, I am confused about how "proceeding up the scale" requires that one begins at the scale's tonic. Pfly 07:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What they ommit to say is that the lower note of the interval determines which scale to proceed up. They proceed up the scale of C-major because in their example the lower note of the interval is C. In your example F is the lower note of the interval, therefore the scale to proceed up is F-major. The number of degrees between F and A is 3 and the note "A" is "native" to (diatonic to; in accordance with the key signature of) F-major, therefore its a major third. Feetonthedesk 10:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Although intervals can have diatonic functions, those functions are related only to the functions of their component notes, or to explicit or implied chords of which they are a part -- this is not related to the naming schema. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, in my opinion the article is poor shape. There is much that is not explained. (What exactly does diatonic to mean? How exactly does the mysterious notion of diatonic function affect the classification of intervals?) There are alternative usages that have been censored out (concerning the various ways in which diatonic and chromatic are used, as applied to intervals). There is also at least one glaring internal contradiction. Consider the diagram of intervals above F, glossed this way: The image on the right depicts the diatonic intervals of the major scale on the tonic "F". By the definition of diatonic interval entailed here, only intervals that occur between the tonic and some note above it in a diatonic scale are diatonic intervals. But then we have a diagram purporting to show all the intervals diatonic to C major, glossed this way: A diatonic interval is an interval formed by two notes of a diatonic scale. The table on the right depicts all diatonic intervals for C-major. But this definition is inconsistent with the first definition.

This was inconsistent. Thank you for pointing this out. Feetonthedesk 05:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, nothing is said about intervals formed between degrees of the harmonic minor scale. Are they all diatonic, or are some (like B-Eb, a diminished 4th) chromatic? What about the diminished 7th? Is it chromatic or diatonic? Or is it diatonic in some contexts and chromatic in others? To settle this you would need first to settle whether the harmonic minor is to count as a diatonic scale: but different theorists give different answers concerning that. To make matters worse, the account in the article Minor scale is itself contradictory. Readers seeking answers to such questions are likely to come away that article, and also the present one, more confused than ever. This is partly because there are in fact quite different applications of the relevant terms of art in use; and these articles does not respond well to this unfortunate fact. I have had an unpleasant time with an editor on some of these matters (notably at Diminished seventh), and I don't want to get into those difficulties again. So I merely state my opinion here, without actually editing the article itself. –Noetica 12:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

When I rewrote this article a year or more ago, I defined the interval number in terms of the number of staff positions the interval encompassed. This diatonic stuff is just wrong and should be removed. When I created that F-major example, it didn't have a B-flat because the flat is irrelevant to whether it's a 4th; it's Feet who has changed this and it's confusing for no purpose. It's understandable you're confused, because a lot of what's there now is just bull***t. I've never heard of diatonic/chromatic used to describe intervals. I'd like to see some sourcing on that (it used to have a citation tag, which has since been removed with adding any citations). In fact, I recommend reverting to this version before Feet got his hands on it. Compare and tell me whether you agree. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wahoofive, you write: "It's understandable you're confused, because a lot of what's there now is just bull***t." But why do you think that I'm confused? Do I give any indication that I am? I have done a careful study of usages of the terms diatonic and chromatic, and I put it to you that I understand as much about them as anyone so far contributing to this discussion, or to this article. Most editors are completely blind to the anomalies and subtleties to which I have adverted just now, and have shown that they are incapable of addressing them. I do agree that the material on the terms diatonic and chromatic here (and in other Wikipedia articles) is bullshit. I could help fix that, but I am not inclined to, for the reason I have given: I am not interested in fruitless disputation with editors who cleave to one usage, ignoring the current pervasive diversity in application of core terminology. (See discussion of some months ago, above; and see Talk:Diminished seventh.) Music theory is full of such problems, but this matter of diatonic and chromatic is one of the best illustrations that I have found of the difficulties. As for your recent changes at Diminished seventh, I'm afraid they don't really fix the problems besetting that article. But that's a separate matter, concerning which I may post something in Talk:Diminished seventh if I can bring myself to it. –Noetica 23:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for sloppy wording. You indicated that readers would likely be confused, and I casually used the generic "you" to describe such readers. I didn't mean to imply that your own knowledge was incomplete. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, Wahoofive. Meanwhile, let's hope that one day something can be done for this article. I am thinking of a way to sort all this out with diatonic and chromatic, across several music articles; but I have not yet found the time to give it the concentrated attention it would require. –Noetica 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I ask again that you review this version to see if the former staff-position definition of interval number makes more sense than trying to define intervals based on scale degrees. I think it's inappropriate for me to revert to my own version just because I think it's better. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Wahoofive. I have looked at that version. I think that the presentation in terms of staff positions avoids some of the difficulties that one gets with talk of diatonic scales. But with respect, it's a piecemeal fix in an article that needs re-thinking as a whole. And the article itself is one a suite of articles that needs rethinking as a whole. A number of us would have to get together and talk through the terminological and conceptual uncertainties that prevent progress. –Noetica 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Feet, life would be a lot easier if you put your comments at the end of a thread instead of interspersing them.

The way you determine the interval number of an interval is by counting the staff positions between the notes. F to A is a third because the two notes encompass three staff positions (F-G-A), and it's a major third because it's four half steps; it doesn't matter whether it's the fourth and sixth degrees of C major, or the 5th and 7th degrees of Bb harmonic minor, or the third and raised fifth degrees of Db major. It might be a useful device for beginners to relate intervals to scales assuming the lower note is the tonic of a scale, but it's not inherent in the meaning of the interval names, and it's very distracting in anayzing real music, where intervals can be built on any scale degree, let alone in atonal music, which still contains these intervals. (And just for the record, when I say "beginners" I mean trainee musicians, not encyclopedia readers, who will be just as confused [or even more so] by trying to define intervals based on scales.) —Wahoofive (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please cite your source for this: In Western diatonic or tonal theory, intervals are labelled according to their diatonic function and according to the number of members or degrees they span in a diatonic scale.--Roivas 16:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wahoofive: I don't really care who the author is, as long as the article is correct, complete and understandable. As such, I suggest you make following changes:

There are now three terms for "scale degree" in the paragraph "Interval number and quality": These are in order of appearance: "scale steps", "staff positions" and "degree". I suggest you remove the synonyms.
The following sentence occurs twice: "The name of any interval is further qualified using the terms perfect, major, minor, augmented, and diminished. These terms depict the interval quality." The redundancy needs to be removed.
I understand your concerns about the understandability of the article for encyclopedia readers as opposed to specialists. It probably is easier for non-specialists to count semitones than to relate to the key signature of a major scale based on the lower note of the interval. Feetonthedesk 04:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will clean up the first two items (or someone else can); thank you for bringing these up. I should note, however, that staff position doesn't mean the same thing as "scale degree". Staff position means location on the staff, measured by lines and spaces, and independent of key signature or accidentals, whereas scale degrees relate to a particular scale above a particular tonic. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A note on the terms diatonic and chromatic edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion

Wahoofive has revived for me some concerns I have had about this article, and also about Diminished seventh. These have been discussed above some months ago, and at Talk:Diminished seventh. But it may be useful to summarise, now. The articles in question are marred by poor treatment of basic terminology, along with their other flaws. With the diminished 7th, I myself am less concerned with how the chord is derived than with the underlying classification of both the interval and the chord. In a nutshell, the problem is this. We know quite well what a diatonic scale is in the context of Greek-based theory of tetrachords and scales; and the term works well and uncontroversially enough when we speak of the music of the Renaissance being founded on the diatonic scale. But in accounting for the period when the harmonic minor (in particular) grew to be important in western music, the term diatonic grows less certain in meaning. According to a usage that evolved in 19C, especially in Britain, the term diatonic came to mean proper to the notes of a major scale, or of some form of a minor scale. This usage can be discerned quite clearly in Percy Scholes' original Oxford Companion to Music, and in the very influential pedagogical writings of the late-19C theorist Ebenezer Prout. In Britain and the other Commonwealth countries, especially in pedagogy as opposed to musicology, this usage is still dominant. And it makes good sense. After all, the system of the Common Practice Period is essentially a system of major scales and melodic and harmonic minor scales, so it's useful to have a term that refers to scales, notes, intervals, embellishments, and harmonic resources that fit most naturally into that basic system: diatonic. And then chromatic is available for reference to the expanded resources arising from adding notes that do not belong to those scales. In fact, it is when we revert to the supposedly more rigorous and supposedly earlier understanding of the term diatonic – and press it into service to describe Common Period practice – that confusions, ambiguities, and infelicities emerge. These are now ubiquitous, and can be found throughout the Wikipedia music articles, very many current textbooks, and very many current dictionaries – both general and musical. Even the New Grove is a little muddled. (Setting aside the harmonic minor, consider, as a side complication, how the ascending form of the melodic minor scale is to be classified: some say it is diatonic, some say it is not. And there are varying grounds for the opinions in question.) As a result, the whole area is riddled with complexities and entrenched allegiances to accustomed understandings of the terms. The problem may be insoluble for Wikipedia, as a matter of practicality. We'll see. –Noetica 01:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Diatonic and chromatic have meaning only as applied to scales, as far as I know. We can circumvent all this discussion by simply saying that some intervals can be derived from certain scales, and identifying the scales; classifying the scales and then applying those terms to the intervals or chords derived therefrom seems unnecessary. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

In fact, though, the terms have long been applied also to intervals, chords, harmonic vocabulary, melodic embellishments and "unessential" notes more broadly, and general compositional styles – for better or for worse. Our articles should, therefore, at least use the terms diatonic and chromatic in a way that recognises the complex divergences in current and historical usage, if they are to use them at all. Better not to use them at all – ever – than to trouble the already turbid waters with such carelessness as we now see in these articles. –Noetica 04:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Noetica finally mentions one of his sources: Ebenezer Prout. Does anyone have a citation from Prout regarding harmonic minor scales being diatonic?

I've already debunked the Scholes citation (~~proving it was taken from Piston's harmony~~ [OCM: 1938 / Piston's HARM: 1941] Showing that the same exact wording occurs in Piston's Harmony and that he in no way intended the HM scale to be interpreted as DIA).--Roivas 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Noetica's "complex divergences" are not supported by the standard works of reference. That's the crux of the problem. The term "Common Practice" is being used to justify "common misconceptions".--Roivas 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will not address Roivas directly, who is still misrepresenting and slurring anyone not sharing Roivas's view. But I will comment briefly:

A clearer retraction concerning Scholes and Piston would be in order; but, as I write, the text above still includes the claim "I've already debunked the Scholes citation".
For Ebenezer Prout, one citation is Harmony: Its Theory and Practice, 1889. That work is well informed by mainstream musical theory, and hugely influential in its own right. Here you can find an interesting account of it, showing the regard in which it is still held by some reviewers at Amazon. (Note the reference to Helmholtz.) It is still in print. I have not got my copy to hand: but look up scales and such general terms as that.
Another reference supporting the usage in question, from the many available, is Eric Blom's Everyman's Dictionary of Music, 1946.
There are others, including more recent ones. (It had seemed that older ones were wanted.) I have a short list of them, but since this topic was dropped some months ago, I have not got it with me here. There are also web references that support the usage; but the broad conclusion to draw from many such references is that people are indeed divergent in their understandings of the terms diatonic and chromatic, as applied to scales, intervals, chords, etc. And the divergences are not due simply to popular misunderstandings: they are to be found among music academics.
It is simply not true that I abuse the term "Common Practice" as suggested. That is an offensive and unfounded imputation, and provides further grounds for not engaging in dialogue with Roivas.

My main claim remains simply this: the terms diatonic and chromatic are not used univocally at Wikipedia, nor in the wider literature. Wikipedia articles are therefore inconsistent and confusing. That could be fixed; but it will not be fixed, not even properly addressed, if there is a doctrinaire and disrespectful resistance to unbiased dialogue. –Noetica 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Will you please stop with the "Roivas is slurring and misrepresenting, etc"? This isn't a soap opera. Every time I disagree with you you get "offended." This hypersensitive behavior is really getting old.

Are you 100% positive that there's a citation in Prout's Harmony book that states that the HM scale is DIA?

Anyway, I have the Prout book on hold from the library. We'll see what it says.--Roivas 23:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

1) I am sure about Prout's usage in that book – and about Blom's, and about recent editions of Oxford Concise Dictionary of Music, which unambiguously support that usage. 2) Roivas's response when I object to offensive imputations is itself offensive; and there are still some earlier instances of disrespect and misattribution that have not been remedied. –Noetica 00:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why can't you provide a quote from your sources like I've done with mine?

Again with the Oxford Concise. Isn't this the exact same material we've already been talking about that doesn't mention the HM scale?--Roivas 14:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't pretend to understand the exact meaning of "diatonic", or even quite what the debate here about. It seems to involve the question of whether the term diatonic is used in a loose fashion in any decent references. I only have one book on music theory and harmony, W.A. Mathieu's "Harmonic Experience". I've read a lot of other books, but most seemed to be either textbook-like (defining terms and usage/"rules" without much explanation about why harmony works the way it does) or detailed but specific to a limited type of music (baroque counterpoint, for example, or jazz piano, etc). So far I've learned much more about harmony (and "why it works") from Mathieu's book than any other. I doubt it is held as an "authority" the way Grove seems to be, but it seems to be a popular book, especially among people without an education in music who are trying to learn more about harmony. Anyway, so I looked in it to see what he writes about "diatonic", and here's what I found (opening sentence of Chapter 15, after a section using JI lattice stuff to relate the standard 12 notes back to actual in-tune resonance): There are two kinds of half steps in our twelve-note lattice. One kind has adjacent letter names, for instance, E to F, F# to G, G to Ab. These are called, in a broad use of the term, diatonic, meaning they proceed from one scale degree to the next. The other kind of half step is spelled with same-letter names, for instance, Eb to E (natural), Ab to A (natural), F (natural) to F#. These are generally called chromatic, meaning that the scale degree does not change even though its position is adjusted.

I don't know if this quote is useful in your debates here. His use of "diatonic" and "chromatic" here is not specifically linked to any particular scale. The previous chapter describes the many scales that can be made with the 12 notes, from the standard modes to "mixed modes" named things like "minor over lydian", and including harmonic minor and other scales with augmented seconds (like the so-called "gypsy minor"). Of harmonic minor he notes, Harmonic minor is taught in classical European theory not as a scale to be ordinarily used in its own right, but as the scalar residue of the harmonic cadence most characteristic of the Minor mode. ... Apart from circumstances of its common name, however, the melodic use of this mode over a drone can be exceedingly powerful. Anyway, just thought I'd add this reference. Maybe useful, maybe not. Gotta go! Pfly 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Noetica's stance is that the harmonic minor scale is a diatonic scale. My stance is that it's not. That's really all this is about.--Roivas 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is not my stance at all. That is a lie. Let's not engage in such lying! If such unacceptable behaviour continues, I'll withdraw from the discussion once more, and probably make a formal complaint. For the record, yet again, I presented my stance a little way up from here, on this page:

In a nutshell, the problem is this. We know quite well what a diatonic scale is in the context of Greek-based theory of tetrachords and scales; and the term works well and uncontroversially enough when we speak of the music of the Renaissance being founded on the diatonic scale. But in accounting for the period when the harmonic minor (in particular) grew to be important in western music, the term diatonic grows less certain in meaning. According to a usage that evolved in 19C, especially in Britain, the term diatonic came to mean proper to the notes of a major scale, or of some form of a minor scale. [And you can read the rest above.]

So I am just suggesting that our articles account responsibly for this complexity, and that we do not pretend that there is only one usage around. There are more, for the these terms as applied to scales, intervals, chords, etc.

Good to see your imput here, Pfly. The application to semitones is one of the less controversial, but it is handy to have it mentioned. –Noetica 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source for any of this? I'll take a look at the Prout book, but you'll have to provide some of your own citations. "Burden of proof" is yours.

BTW, you just implied that I'm a liar. You need to consider this comment next time you decide to criticize my choice of words

You're going to make a formal complaint because I chose the word "stance"? Please, by all means, go ahead.--Roivas 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

[If I were to make a formal complaint it would not be about Roivas's use of the word "stance", but about Roivas's continuing reckless and unremedied misrepresentation of my stance, which amounts to lying about me. That, as well as earlier imputations. But it would be better if we could all just focus on the matter in hand, I think.]

As for citations, I have given some here and at Talk:Diminished seventh; and each time they have been summarily dismissed as somehow not counting! Several sources have now been adduced to show at least that the term diatonic has often been used with meanings other than the simple one that Roivas allows for it. Apart from several web sources (among them a publication by a renowned music examining authority, the Royal College of Music – which Roivas still apparently wilfully fails to understand), citations we have seen earlier include the following:

Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music (various editions).
Oxford Companion to Music (various editions, with various takes on "diatonic").
New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (which equivocates on whether the tritone is to be classified as diatonic or chromatic).

To these we may now add:

Ebenezer Prout, Harmony: Its Theory and Practice.
Eric Blom, Everyman's Dictionary of Music.
Just about any book (or university subject syllabus) with "diatonic harmony" in its title (since almost all include the diminished seventh – at least the one on the leading note of the harmonic minor – in the diatonic vocabulary).
The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed. Thomas Christenson, 2004. This work, in the chapter by David W Bernstein, attributes to at least two important theorists the view that the altered seventh or sixth degrees of the minor (involved in forming the ascending melodic, and the harmonic) are "diatonic". Diatonic in the sense that triads and also sevenths formed using them are also diatonic:

Simon Sechter, whose ideas, we are told, influenced many later theorists, teachers, and composers, including Bruckner, Schoenberg, and Schenker: "Since he conflates the three traditional forms of the minor scale into one, he arrives at thirteen diatonic triads in a minor key and seven in a major" (p. 788) From the immediate context we can deduce that Sechter also considers seventh chords constructed with any of the modified scale degrees also to be "diatonic"; and they include both a diminished seventh and a half-diminished seventh.

Even if the text appears to be inconclusive in the case of Sechter, it goes on to discuss the case of Karl Mayrberger, who followed Sechter in this matter, and was himself an influential analyst of Wagner: "Like Sechter, Mayrberger considered all three forms of the minor scale when laying out the available diatonic triads and seventh chords in the minor mode. So, for example, all of the following chords could be attributed to 'D minor' by using its raised and lowered sixth and seventh scale degrees: Bb-D-F-A, B-D-F-A, C-E-G-Bb, C#-E-G-Bb, and F-A-C-E. [By way of contrast:] Following the tenets of Sechterian theory, Meyrberger [sic] considered chromatic chords as composite diatonic chords or 'hybrid chords' (Zwitterakkorde) whose chromatically inflected pitches stem from keys other than the tonic. B-D#-F-A, in A minor, for example, is an altered seventh chord on the second degree whose D# is borrowed from E minor" (p. 792).

As I have said, there is more evidence; but I do not have the list of sources here with me, since I dropped this matter some time ago. I may produce that material, when it is convenient for me to do so. But the evidence collected above should be enough to demonstrate to any unbiased analyst that some respected and influential theorists have used, and still do use, the terms diatonic and chromatic in ways that are at variance with the supposedly uniform norm that Roivas provides evidence for. No one disputes the prevalence of that norm in modern musicology; but many do not adhere to it. And attempts to conform to it without due care have led to much confusion: here at Wikipedia, and in the literature generally. Responsible editors will take note of this, and will want to do something about it.

–Noetica 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I asked for sources that clearly state the HM scale to be DIA. You are evading my challenge again and again. PROVIDE A SOURCE. Not something vaguely related that requires embellishment to support your argument.

I've already covered "diatonic triads in minor."

You can add concepts clearly supported by a valid source. Noetica said: "From the immediate context we can deduce". Material based on your hypothesizing (in order to claim the HM scale is DIA) will NOT be added to the article.

All that can be added based on your research is that chords constructed from the altered tones in the minor key are considered diatonic from the mid 19th century on. I never had a problem with this and, in fact, pointed it out myself in one of our discussions.

This is what I wrote in the Dim7 discussion page:

"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."

Any other embellishments to this idea or attempts at "deductive reasoning" will be removed from the article.--Roivas 14:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think I need to make myself clearer. My "stance" has been limited to diatonic scales. I am not concerned with "Diatonic Harmony" or "Diatonic Triads in Minor." I had an issue with "Diatonic" being applied to the HM scale and other nondiatonic scales. Please address this issue.--Roivas 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Diatonic summarized edit

As a person who has been appealed to by both sides, let me make the following observations:

Both of you seem to believe that using more words makes your argument more emphatic. Nothing could be further from the truth. Be concise.
I'm going to try to summarize the basic confict here. Please confirm that my understanding is correct. Rovias argues that the overwhelming consensus of music theorists is that the harmonic minor scale (and perhaps the melodic as well) is not "diatonic", whereas Noetica thinks there is substantial doubt.
Rovias acknowledges that chords ~~(and intervals)~~ derived from these minor-variant scales are often considered diatonic even by those who consider the underlying scales to be non-diatonic. I haven't looked at your references in detail, but this seems pretty hard to swallow. The term is almost always defined in terms of scales.
Noetica observes, correctly, that the term "diatonic" is used pretty loosely in Wikipedia articles, a reflection of the confusion regarding this term among musicians in general. Feetonthedesk's editing, which introduced this term throughout this article, did nothing to make it more comprehensible. However, I'm not clear what Noetica's proposed solution is. There's no way to indicate that a term is ambiguous every time you use it.
Why is this discussion not taking place in the article Diatonic? I don't see that either of you has ever edited, or commented on, that article.

Do me a favor and keep your answers short. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pretty close. As far as number 3 goes: I have never seen the word "diatonic" applied to intervals and I don't support this usage.--Roivas 16:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding "Diatonic Triads": One example is Schoenberg's Harmony: "Diatonic Triads in Minor" I don't consider this as evidence of some sort of paradigm shift or anything.--Roivas 16:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Wahoofive. This talk page is so long and almost unreadable in places! And it is odd that the debate is here (and on a few other pages) rather than at Diatonic scale (Diatonic) -- a page which right off the bat defines "diatonic" quite clearly. Pfly 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pfly, Diatonic scale at first presents "the" minor scale as if there were only one, and as if it were clearly diatonic. A reader might easily become confused, by the subsequent discussion of the harmonic minor, because by the basic definition in the article the harmonic minor is not diatonic. The article Minor scale, to which there is a link, is also ambivalent. If the harmonic minor is not to be considered diatonic, why is it glibly introduced at all in the article Diatonic scale? Because that article is itself in conflict: in a way it "unconsciously" wants to classify all those common scales that are not chromatic as diatonic ("The modern major and minor scales are diatonic..."), yet it also wants to preserve the strict pre-common-practice notion, involving only tones and semitones in a certain order. A recipe for confusion! It is perhaps hard to appreciate the difficulties that new-comers will find with such things, since we have been using these terms for years. But new-comers, especially, need everything logical and unambiguous. –Noetica 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

My solution is to remove all occurrences of the word "diatonic" from this article until a reliable source is provided that explains the so-called "diatonic interval".--Roivas 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wahoofive, thank you for taking the time to examine this. I did try to put things in a nutshell at the head of the section preceding this one (A note on the terms diatonic and chromatic). I am clear about my position. Let me state it definitively here, once more and in my own way. This will, I regret, require some length of words:

Noetica's position: The terms diatonic and chromatic have long been used in western music theory, applied first to scales and then derivatively to intervals, chords, melodic devices, harmony, etc. When the terms are applied with music preceding the common practice period, their meanings are well regimented and understood. When applied with music within that period, however, different usages have arisen. This is not surprising, since this later music is widely understood as constructed using three basic types of scale: major, harmonic minor, and melodic minor (and let us understand this as the so-called ascending form only, setting aside for simplicity the straightforwardly "diatonic" descending or natural form). Of these three, only the major conforms to the old "diatonic" gamut: T-T-S-T-T-T-S. Faced with this, some revisionist theorists have recruited the term diatonic for a new purpose: to classify together these three basic types of scale. Traditionalists, however, adhere firmly to the old usage, and want to apply the term diatonic only to the major (and yes, the natural minor too). Each of these ways is supported in the literature. The revisionist way is less common (in musicology especially), but it is a firmly entrenched option in much pedagogy of practical music everywhere, and also beyond pedagogy in non-American countries. The traditionalists are far more common in America. Now, two serious problems arise – at Wikipedia and beyond. The first problem is that our terms diatonic and chromatic are very widely applied to entities other than scales, and this almost inevitably yields further divergences in meaning. The divergences are indeed many (going beyond what I have just accounted for), and can be amply shown in Wikipedia articles. The second is that the terms – whether with scales or in the derivative applications just mentioned – are used inconsistently, often within the same Wikipedia article. These two problems are far from trivial. Their effect, here and elsewhere, is discouraging for students and unsettling for many others. The solution I propose is to make a new article devoted to these key terms, in which the usages are presented truthfully and without bias. Then let any article that uses these terms refer to that new article, and have its usage conditioned by that article.

Just three further notes:

You write: "Why is this discussion not taking place in the article Diatonic? I don't see that either of you has ever edited, or commented on, that article." The simple answer is that there is no such article. There should be one (or one called Diatonic and chromatic, with the precedent Major and minor), because the terms in questions are used beyond the discussion of scales alone. Also, I have seen that it is futile to edit to clarify usages without first working with other editors to establish understanding among us first.

Roivas writes: "I have never seen the word "diatonic" applied to intervals and I don't support this usage." Well, Roivas has cited New Grove above, plainly applying the term to intervals! It is a very common application. See for example one peculiar usage, which I have deprecated elsewhere, at Template:Diatonic_intervals. That case illustrates the ways in which meanings have proliferated, unchecked by any coordinated effort at regimentation.

Contrary to what Roivas says, I have adduced citations to support my claim that usages diverge and are indeed confused and confusing. To demand a statement so explicit as "the harmonic minor [or the diminished seventh] is diatonic" is perhaps to demand too much, given that my whole point is that there is unclarity and a noisome implicitness about the use of these terms. Nevertheless, I have pretty well done what is demanded. For the harmonic minor there is the Prout citation; and there is Scholes: "The diatonic scales are the major and minor, made up of tones and semitones (in the case of the harmonic minor scale, also an augmented second), as distinct from the chromatic,..." (Oxford Companion to Music, 9th edition, 1955). For the diminished seventh chord, there is the citation concerning Mayrberger above, which explicitly gives the diminished seventh C#-E-G-Bb as among "the available diatonic triads and seventh chords in the minor mode." But I have to say that if Roivas continues to ignore evidence against a spurious monolithic orthodoxy prevailing throughout all respectable musicology, and rush in with edits inconsistently reflecting that spurious orthodoxy only, then there is no hope for reforming these Wikipedia articles. There is, regrettably, no such unanimity; let's acknowledge that and fix things the best way we can.

–Noetica 23:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved edit

I'm going to continue this discussion at Talk:Diatonic scale, since it certainly doesn't belong at Interval. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fine with me, Wahoofive. I will just note in passing that the discussion doesn't fit naturally at any existing article, though, because the terms in question are applied to all sorts of things: scales, intervals, chords, harmony, etc. But OK, no more here. –Noetica 05:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add topic