Talk:Tetrachord

Chromatic & enharmonic

Only in classical western music does the tetrachord have to be diatonic. As the theory comes from the ancient Greeks, and they used chromatic and enharmonic tetrachords as well as diatonic ones, perhaps this should be changed and expanded. Gareth Hughes 12:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sp

If a tetrachord spans a perfect fourth, why does the pictured example show it spanning an augmented fourth? Shouldn't that be a b flat, instead of b natural? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.106.90 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Confusion about tetrachords

There is a discrepancy between this article and the Dorian mode and Phrygian mode articles regarding the varieties of diatonic tetrachord. This article claims that the Dorian and Phrygian tetrachords are, respectively, TsT and sTT. The other two articles, however, reverse them: the Dorian mode article says the Dorian tetrachord is sTT and the Phrygian mode article says the Phrygian tetrachord is TsT. I don't know which article is correct, but they should agree.

User:Ixionid, Dec 29 23:05:32 EST 2006.

This article has no obligation to agree with any other wikipedia article. It only has an obligation to be true, accurate, clear, succinct, and well-written. No wikipedia article can be a valid source for any other wikipedia article. In any case, in the middle ages and in the Renaissance (as in the modern era) the term Dorian tetrachord was attached to an ascending tone, semitone, and tone, Phrygian tetrachord to an ascending semitone, tone, and tone, and Lydian tetrachord to an ascending tone, tone, and tone. The (ancient Greek) Aristoxenians assigned the term Dorian to the species spanning from E to E, what we now would call Phyrgian, the term Phyrgian to the species spanning from D to D, what we now would call Dorian, and the term Lydian to the species spanning from C to C, what we now would call Ionian. TheScotch (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What you say about the ancient Greek Harmoniai is true, however what you list here in this talk as the medieval Lydian tetrachord is not true, it should read tone, tone, semitone (not tone, tone, and tone), which reflects the structure of the upper fourth of the Lydian mode. Medieval thought used species of the fifth and species of the fourth. As their mode 1 was what musicians today consider Dorian, these species were as follows (transposed to all begin on C):

Species of the 5th (medieval)

1st C D Eb F G (bottom 5th of mode 1 = Dorian)

2nd C Db Eb F G (bottom 5th of mode 3 = Phrygian)

3rd C D E F# G (bottom 5th of mode 5 = Lydian)

4th C D E F G (bottom 5th of mode 7 = Mixolydian)

Species of the 4th (medieval)

1st C D Eb F (top 4th of mode 1 = Dorian)

2nd C Db Eb F (top 4th of mode 3 = Phrygian)

3rd C D E F (top 4th of mode 5 = Lydian)

This article on tetrachords is a little confusing as it should say Lydian Tetrachord, instead of Lydian Mode as they are not quite the same. All of these references to modes should clearly state if the reference is the the ancient Greek structures or the structures that descend from medieval times.

Mbase1235 (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I permuted the names Phrygian and Dorian in the section describing the tetrachord in Ancient Greek Theory. The above discussion merely reflects the fact that the denominations changed between Antiquity and Middle Ages. The Greek Dorian shade is sTT, the Greek Phrygian one TsT. The Medieval species of the 4th, as described above, are the other way around.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Merge from Genus (music)

I was surprised to discover that the this article and Genus (music) seem to be mutually oblivious of each other. I think that the material covered in Genus can be incorporated here. Tetrachord is a more general topic, and the structure of this article is a pretty good framework into which the other material can fit. - Rainwarrior 07:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't feel comfortable carrying out the merge...do you want to do it? Cazort (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tetrachord is more the selection of notes, and genus more of tuning. They're not really the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.48.136 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Diatonic and chromatic

The article uses the terms "diatonic" and "chromatic". They are the cause of serious uncertainties at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ibid

What does the ibid refer to at the end of the section Pythagorean tunings? Rigaudon (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See Ibid., Citation, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Hyacinth (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tetrachords in Indian music

To describe "Indian scales" as formed either of two diatonic tetrachords separated by a tone (36 combinations) or a "tritone" tetrachord followed by a diatonic one a semitone higher (another 36 combinations) merely duplicates the fantastic theory of the "72 karnatic modes" described in Lavignac and La Laurencie's Encyclopédie de la musique. This is exactly what Dupré does, but this all is a French fantasm of the early 20th century − one in which Olivier Messiaen also believed. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that inclusion of Dupré's observation in this article needs a caveat, or that it should be deleted altogether? If the former, then some references will need to be found, specifically calling into question the validity of this claim; if the latter, what can be the justification for removing a claim cited to a reliable source?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Labeling something "fantasm" is a sign of revisionism, dangerous without formal refutation by research, yet the complainant just provided yet another positive citation. But ethnomusicology is always imprecise, generally because "ethnic cultures" don't worry about mathematico-inductive rigor in their musics, and musicologists don't care what the hippo said to the turtle. Dupre, in the source cited, didn't venture into tuning particulars as should be found in a WP article on Ragas. But as long as a formulation of exotic intonation let Westerners with Western minds render something fairly realistic and representative of the source material, especially during a period when musical xenophilia was common (Romantic Era), it's a reasonably good algorithm and historically representative of our understanding within the limits of our 12TET tuning and Italian notational systems. 70.115.48.136 (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that, here in France, especially among ethnomusicologists and researchers of Indian music, the article on Indian music in the Lavignac Encyclopédie is generally considered mere fantasy — an interesting fantasy nevertheless, probably, for it strongly influenced Messiaen (and, through him probably, Dupré). To quote Dupré's Cours d'improvisation as an authority on Indian music, while his only source probably was Messiaen, seems to me quite questionable. However, having looked for published evidence about all this, after the question raised by Jerome Kohl six months ago, I was surprized that very little can be found about this, which appears to be common knowledge in Paris. I won't endorse the statement that "ethnomusicology is always imprecise", though.

talk) 19:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@70.115.48.136 – Apparently you don't like user-to-user discussion. Allow me nevertheless to question references to Carnatic rāga and to Hindustani classical music, while neither of these articles even mention the term "tetrachord". It is extremely difficult to prove that something is NOT used; yet, I am not aware (again, unless in Lavignac's Encyclopédie) that Indian theory would describe Indian scales as formed of tetrachords; the two articles mentioned, Carnatic rāga and Hindustani classical music, indirectly (or negatively, if you want) confirm this. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC) My issue with this is that the list of 6 tritone tetrachords don't actually combine correctly to form the 72 karnatic modes. Those 6 listed are 3 2 1, 3 1 2, 2 2 2, 1 3 2, 2 1 3 & 1 2 3. However 321 (and the excluded permutation 231) aren't used while 114 is. This not only matches up with the actual 72 modes but it also shows that the tritone tetrachords are the "normal six" increased by 1. In the correct order they are: Lower 114, 123, 132, 213, 222, 312 Upper 123, 122, 131, 212, 221, 311 comment added by Beatrix Wickson (talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Musical examples

Several of the musical examples in the article would need correction:

• Two of the three examples of ancient Greek tetrachords should be renamed, Dorian_tetrachord.png as Phrygian, and Phrygian as Dorian. The captions of the examples have been corrected.
• The labels ---, -♭-- and -♭-♭- are somewhat puzzling. First of all, in Schenkerian analysis, denotes the tonic; but here? Second, the fact that some of these figures have the ♭ sign appears to indicate that these degrees are 'altered', from which one might deduce that the normal, 'unaltered' version is the Lydian tetrachord. In Greek theory, however, if any tetrachord could be considered the norm, it would be the Dorian tetrachord...
• Also, why are these examples showing descending tetrachords, while the text at the left describes ascending tetrachords? (I don't mean that this is wrong, but doesn't it need a word of explanation?)
• The example of the "Descending tetrachord in the modern B Locrian" should probably have three flats in the signature. "B" should perhaps be read as "B♭". And what is a "Locrian tetrachord"? At least, there is none mentioned in the text. And the expression "Upper minor tetrachord" given as alternative name is not really documented in music theory.
• The example of the "Phrygian progression" refers to a "Classical music blog", the address of which is http://classicalmusicblog.com. This probably is not a very reliable source; it is anonymous (searching indicate that the author is Roni Alec Liebenson, a young Israeli composer of Russian origin); it describes the progression as a monodic tetrachord and proposes various harmonizations (among which the one proposed here, but not in the same key), with a few Baroque examples.
• The sams example is also given in the Cadence (music) article, to which it refers, but it does not correspond to the definition of the Phrygian half cadence given there. See also Descending tetrachord and Andalusian cadence.

The necessary corrections should better be made by the author of the examples.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I realise that "Descending tetrachord in the modern B Locrian" probably refers to the modern Locrian scale. I still don't see why this scale should include a "descending tetrachord". "Upper minor" actually is defined at the left of the example, but obviously does not correspond to this "Locrian tetrachord". Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Compositional forms

Again, 70.115.48.136, you'll excuse me to doubt Dupré's course of organ improvisation to be a reliable source on musical forms. You mention two, complaint and litany, which are quoted neither in the New Grove Online, nor in any of the French or German dictionaries that I know. I have taught Music history and Music theory at University level for more than 40 years without ever encountering such terms – nor works claiming to be composed in such forms. Could you at least quote some examples? I must confess not having read Dupré's Cours d'improvisation; he certainly was a fantastic organist and improviser, but it never occured to me to consider him an authority in music theory (nor, for that matter, on Indian music). Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

History section

Quote from last sentence:

"It literally means four strings, originally in reference to harp-like instruments such as the lyre or the kithara, with the implicit understanding that the four strings must be contiguous."

What does this mean? In my understanding, four contiguous strings = 1 long piece of string, which is probably not what is meant. Is it something to do with pitches or tuning? MinorProphet (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Q: When is a chord not a chord?

A: When it's a tetrachord. Perhaps something could be added to the article to this effect. MinorProphet (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

How about: "a tetrachord (Greek: τετράχορδoν, Latin: tetrachordum) is a series of three smaller intervals that span the interval of a perfect fourth, a 4:3 frequency proportion. In modern usage a tetrachord is any four-note segment of a scale or tone row, not necessarily related to a particular system of tuning." That is what it currently says in the lede. Is this not sufficient?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This exchange prompted me to reread this article, to which I made a few changes:

• Tetrachord obviously refers to four notes, not three intervals.
• "Adjacent strings" was intended to mean that the strings produced adjacent notes.
• I fully reorganized the description of Greek tetrachords and scales. The new description makes better sense, but remains in need of references which may come later.

I didn't really look at the rest: it will be for later. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tetrachord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150618200916/http://www.docs.solfege.org/3.21/C/scales/dha.html to http://www.docs.solfege.org/3.21/C/scales/dha.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110115142924/http://www.nupress.neu.edu/ to http://www.nupress.neu.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Presentation (looks) inconsistent

This article starts at the top by saying a tetrachord traditionally spans a perfect fourth. However, the history section following immediately gives examples which span a perfect fifth (A-E). No where is it explicitly stated if in fact the ancient Greek tetrachord had a larger span. This discrepancy leaves the reader bewildered. Was the fourth comment in the introduction incorrect, or is the examples incorrect, or are they both correct and the Ancient Greek tetrachord is an exception to the usual fourth?

Where did you find examples spanning a perfect fifth? Can you be more specific? And sign your messages? And add them at the bottom of the page, so as to respect chronology? Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no reference to an interval of a fifth anywhere in the article. If you look a little more carefully at the examples in the History section, you will see that the notes from A to E are in descending order: A–G = whole tone, G–F = whole tone, and F–E = semitone. Together, these come to a perfect fourth. Greek theorists often (by no means always) used descending order, and this is often done also by modern theorists when describing the Greek system. Personally, I don't think this is a good idea, because it easily leads to exactly the confusion found here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)