This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Circle of fifths article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is there no C-flat in the picture of the circle of fifths on this page?
-- Phil Kirlin 15:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Probably for the same reason there is no E-sharp, A-sharp, G-sharp, etc. Having them would clutter the diagram. Probably anyone who knows what C-flat is knows that it's enharmonic to B. Merphant 05:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Any of the rules of spelling notes are there to make reading music easier. B-natural and C-flat sound exactly the same. They are the same tone, but there are reasons to spell it one way or the other.
For instance, The C Major Scale is spelled like this: C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C There is one of each of the letters (with the last being the same as the first)
The G-flat scale is spelled like this Gb-Ab-Bb-Cb-Db-Eb-F-Gb There is one of each of the letters (with the last being the same as the first)
Scales need one of each letter so that they will read nicely on the staff. It won't do to have a Bb and a B-natural in the same scale. It would make for difficult reading.
While C-Flat is the enharmonic equivalent to B-natural, it definitely has it's place in the circle. As you travel counter-clockwise from the top of the circle, you encounter keys with 1 flat, then 2 flats, then 3 and so on. C-flat is the key with seven flats. That is one flat for each of the seven notes A through G.
The Circle of Fifths is a wonderful tool with no exceptions. It is invaluable to any student of 12 tone music
Marcos
Here's an alternate version of the article:
A term used in music theory to relate the greek modes.
being a circle it can be travelled around either clockwise or counter clockwise, one direction resulting in fourths.
B E A D G C F Bb Eb Ab Db Gb (B)
(note that this is written with flats. the enharmonic sharp equivalents are just as valid)
left at an alternative page name by 147.126.46.147 at 00:31, 22 Jan 2005; archived here. Noel (talk) 14:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Recently, I completed the list of Wikipedia articles for major keys, which include:
Anything else to include in each key article?? Georgia guy 00:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All keys are equal. There is nothing special about E-flat major. It may be made special by context, but this is still only in relation to another key. Hyacinth 21:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have an opinion on the ear's perception of certain major keys?? For example, some keys might be percieved as happy an pleasant; others as sleepy; others as boring; etc. Georgia guy 8 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just me, but in the section talking about moving from C to G, my browser is showing that you move the F to F? not F#. In fact all through the article where there should be a # sign there is just a question mark.
Is this something fancy the author was trying to do that didn't work?
I updated the article to make use of the {{music}}
template. This should improve display of Unicode sharps and flats. See
Template:Music for details.--
Dbolton
02:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Has anybody ever heard of this term? I was taught this concept in a 20th-century harmony class at University, and it specifically focused on the music of Alexander Scriabin. Basically, it's a progression that follows an "altered" circle-of-fifths passage, usually by using a bV-of-something (i.e. A-Db-G-C). I found it very fascinating, as it turns out to be a defining feature of MUCH of Scriabin's music (piano-music especially), and has helped me on MANY occassions to make sense of much of his music (the "middle" period-music, for the most part). Is there another name for this type of progression? Should it be included in this article? thoughts? -- Crabbyass 05:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Look in the Categorie for more Informations...
used for German Wikibooks (Gitarre)
Not only is the phrase "layman's terms" kind of condescending, but it's hilarious that that section includes this passage:
Way to simplify it for the average person!! Anyone would understand the circle of fifths after reading that. — Wahoofive ( talk) 02:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is an example of writing "in media res" -- jumping into the subject without properly introducing it. It neglects to explain the creation of musical scales by the subdivision of a plucked string, and how this relates to consonant and dissonant intervals. If you don't understand this, then the reason a "perfect" perfect fifth doesn't work makes no sense. This article needs a careful revision that will enable the "layman" to understand it. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
01-June-2007: Some of the most unprintable characters are the unicodes for sharps/flats: they have been reverted to '#'/'b' several times over the past year in other music-key articles. For more precise sharp/flat symbols, the superscripted pound/bee characters could be used (see below: Symbols for sharps/flats). However, there is no need to persecute '#'/'b' since they work well for all 12 notes, even "Eb"/"Ab", and more importantly, they create chords/notes that are searchable by search-engines. Guitar players have complete sets of chord notations that are easy to write, read, and are SEARCHABLE by search-engines: for example, look at these brilliant notations for D-sharp diminished, minor/major, 7th chords: D#dim D#sus D#sus4 D#m D#m7 D#maj D#maj7. There is little need for the obsession over unicode sharp/flat symbols. Although music-miming computer languages have become trendy (such as C# coding, F# coding and Db), the notes/chords are still searchable within music articles (hunting G#, Bb, C#, Eb, etc.). Try to avoid those get-a-life unicode characters for sharps/flats; they just aren't needed in the modern age. - Wikid77 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
01-June-2007: Over the past 2 years, the unprintable sharp/flat unicodes have been reverted in articles to use simple # / b; however, superscripted codes seem more accurate and universal. For more precise coding, that shows on most PC screens, use superscripts:
"<sup>b</sup>"
"<sup>#</sup>"
Double-sharp, use "<sup>##</sup>"
Double-flats, use "<sup>bb</sup>"
Results: F#, C#, Bb, Eb, C##, Gbb. In general, the simple "# / b" characters are close enough, such as F# or Bb, especially considering the tedious coding of superscript expressions. However, because Wiki articles feed other sources, worldwide, avoid unicodes for sharp/flat or use words (such as: F-sharp, A-flat or C-natural). The more precise superscripted forms support music elitists as well as the vast general public on an amazing variety of PCs or Wifi Internet devices. - Wikid77 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does this article have absoloutly nothing on how to use the Circle of Fiths. After reading it over it says (much like many of Wikipedia's music theory articles) that this is what X is in several different ways, while avoiding any mention of how to actually use it, or any mention of ways it has been used with given examples.
Someone fix this, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.218.80 ( talk) 05:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
One may find that this is a problem with music theory in general and not with Wikipedia. You may be looking for a good composition manual, which some people maintain does not exist. Hyacinth ( talk) 02:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I for one am willing to call this section closed. In the last week and a half, the article has come a long way, going from scattered to cohesive. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 01:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
While trying to source Johann David Heinichen as the origin of the CoF, I found an illustration from 1711 that shows it. In the article, the date of publication is wrong, the title seems to be incomplete, the origin is older, and Heinichen calls it a musicalischer circul.
-- Jtir ( talk) 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Nikolay Diletsky presented a circle of fifths in 1679. (Lester says "around 1670".)
Lester cites Jensen re Diletsky and has more about Heinichen.
-- Jtir ( talk) 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
If an audio recording really would be helpful, please include specifics.-- Dbolton ( talk) 01:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The recent audio additions are great!-- Dbolton ( talk) 05:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Jtir, you have expressed some concerns about the formatting and length of the lead section. The article will appear differently to different readers depending on the width of their screen, and thus there may be more or less white space for different readers and you may not be able to fix it for everyone. See Wikipedia:Image use#Displayed image size. Hyacinth ( talk) 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
E-A-D-G-C-F-A♯-D♯-G♯-C♯-F♯-B, arranged in 3 clusters of 4 strings to make the field of strings more readable.
Because of this tuning all five neighbouring strings form a harmonic pentatonic scale and all seven neighbouring strings form a major scale, available in every key. This allows a very easy fingerpicking technique without picking false notes, if the right key is chosen.
Accordions also commonly use the stradella bass system for the left hand buttons. It follows the circle of fifths.
Although this section is above my level, I can still offer some comments:
-- Jtir ( talk) 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Any support for putting the various renditions of the circle itself into a gallery of thumbnails? There's also Image:Circle fifths.svg which shows the "lose three sharps or add three flats" thing between minor and major, that's mentioned in the text. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 04:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously a modern basic image needs to go in the introduction. The historical images should ideally accompany the text describing them and do not belong in the lead. Hyacinth ( talk) 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's an English version of the "deluxe" circle:
__ Just plain Bill ( talk) 05:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Here it is as a PNG, with my thoughts on your feedback:
Regarding your first point: the main circle is now 20% grey, and the little circles are gone. I like that a lot better. Comment? __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC) and by the way, I left off the enharmonic spellings except for the one at position 6, which suggests the rest. I figure that by the time someone is interested in wickedly sharp/flat keys, they'll be able to fill in the "missing" info for themselves, and it made for a crowded chart. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a first try at it with the bubbles and main circle shaded differently. I still like the unadorned "choppy" circle better. Anything beyond the simplest presentation starts saying things like "look at what a skilful artist I think I am, and all-round clever fellow!" Believe it or not, some people find that annoying, and pay less attention to the content as a result.
It's uploaded as a PNG; the parent SVG will be about four times as big if I turn the fonts into paths so they render equally (instead of as Arial) on all machines. I've used Garamond for the letters and slashes, and NWC15 (Noteworthy Composer's font) for the sharps, flats, and natural sign. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 05:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I might not call those numbers the most important feature, but they are certainly not the least important part of it. Depending on how I'm looking at the chart at any given moment, and what for, I'd even promote them a bit over the major or minor key names. Number of sharps or flats comes up all the time. "This piece is in 2 sharps, J; is it D major, B minor, A mixy, E dorian, or what?"
The key sigs have been called redundant elsewhere, and the editor that said that is not wrong. Where redundancy exists, which element is the redundant one? Philosophical musings aside, the data in this chart is massively redundant, and it all serves to help the viewer understand the particulars of the effects of a handful of simple rules. Simple doesn't always mean easy.
By the way, accidentals, strictly speaking, are sharps or flats or naturals that occur outside the key signature. Piece in two sharps may use accidentals to sharp some G's, for example, effectively straying into A major for a while, before coming back home to D major. Similarly, an A major piece in three sharps might use accidental naturals on G's or C's to give it an A minor feeling for a while. It happens. Accidentals also get used here and there to make chromatic runs, which have their own set of effects. best, __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 10:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
These versions reduce the size of the "Major" and "Minor" labels and vary the way the circles are laid out. -- Jtir ( talk) 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have much to add here, just that encoding information in a red vs. green distinction is problematic for people with red-green color blindness. — Gwalla | Talk 05:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about this a bit more, it seems like the number of sharps and flats is redundant with the key signatures. The paired numbers (for keys that can be spelled with sharps or flats) also get a bit crowded down at the bottom and obscure the groupings. — Gwalla | Talk 01:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone capable of it could also make a representation of the circle of fifths on the chromatic circle as a star dodecagon as in "Prelude to Musical Geometry", p.364, Brian J. McCartin, The College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 29, No. 5 (Nov., 1998), pp. 354-370. Hyacinth ( talk) 01:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
In order to understand and memorize the relations between pitch classes easier, it is possible to put all the keys into a Cartesian coordinate system according to their signatures citation needed.
In the resulting graph, the X coordinate represents the number of minor key signatures, treating the number of flats as a negative (as it makes a note negative). The Y coordinate represents the major key signature count the same way. C is therefore in (-3;0) as C minor has 3 flats and C major a 0 (zero).
When minor and major keys are paired into single dots, various relations become visible more clearly from the graph:
The above was removed as it appears to be textbook like original research. Hyacinth ( talk) 16:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Do anyone agree that the entire article could benefit from context? Not just the "Effect on diatonic function" section? Hyacinth ( talk) 16:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hyacinth, would it be possible to harmonize this example using root position chords? I think it's important to also see and hear the descending fifth/ascending fourth motion in the bass. Thanks- -- Blehfu ( talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I just removed it from the article for the following reasons:
__ Just plain Bill ( talk) 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are some images I made for comparison. I can't figure out at this moment how to even describe them (ascending vs descending, fourth vs fifth), and they all seem equally of value. The top two are currently in the introduction to the article. Hyacinth ( talk) 01:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Jtir ( talk) 19:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Was including "accidental" or "accidental " useful? It was not strictly necessary. I'm not sure, however, why one would refer to musical keyboard when removing the term. Also, accidentals do not necessarily refer to black keys. Hyacinth ( talk) 03:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
See also Talk:Accidental (music)#Inflections vs accidentals. Hyacinth ( talk) 04:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments refer to this version of the article:
-- Jtir ( talk) 19:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It's easy to remember the order because it is called the circle of fifths, and so you just have to count if you forget. If you are on A, for instance, you count up to E.
A B C D E = Fifth 1 2 3 4 5
Hyacinth ( talk) 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
B C D E F =? 1 2 3 4 5
On the piano there's a visual cue -- all the perfect fifths are either white-white or black-black keys, EXCEPT at the crossroads surrounding C - - the perfect fifth is B-F# and/or Bb-F. it's a really important thing to learn for a keyboardist, that weird spot. if you are a teacher you can use all kinds of metaphors, i'm fond of 'going from the field into the forest' [crossing over from wh to bl] or somesuch. i'm sure there is a great poem in all this.
right, and, yup, you basically just have to memorize it, and usually you do that in connection with your instrument. But it doesn't exist in a vacuum - - if you are playing basic western/eurocentric melodic music, the interval of a fifth is extremely common, so they are 'under your fingers' already - -- then you just group them in a more logical order. Magnolia63 ( talk) 01:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
--This is a way of remembering:
The comma divides the signatures with # from those without - CGDAEB, F#C#. Going anticlockwise all the signatures after f have a flat ♭. Wodorabe ( talk) 16:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I removed the above because I do not see how is it simpler to introduce more than eight new technical terms (major, do, etc.). Hyacinth ( talk) 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a newbie wikieditor, I'm a piano teacher, and I recently told a student to look up "Circle of Fifths" on wiki cuz he was having trouble conceptualizing it. So today I thought I'd look and see...and after nearly 40 years of playing the piano, I had trouble making heads or tails of this article. It seems to be written for advanced music theorists. I know it would scare away my poor student.
Thus, my attempt (writing the above text) was to provide something for even a beginning musician to grab onto.
I think maybe your objection to the new "technical terms" would only apply to someone who has never had a 5th grade music class or somehow successfully avoided the Sound of Music. Yes, I grant you, they are musical terms....but how can we talk about music without musical terms? The terms I used are far more common and accessible than those first two paragraphs. (honest question: How do we parse whether a wiki reader really has never heard of do re mi??)
I realize now this conversation has been going on for a long time. I feel committed to joining the team here and working on this article to make it accessible. I think there should be a starting paragraph with the simplest possible terms. For example -- using the simpler term "visual" instead of the immediately complex "geographic" in the first sentence would improve things immensely imho. OK - I am going to attempt a first pass at that kind of edit. let's keep talking.
Magnolia63 ( talk) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
...one further thought...the terms "major" and "minor" are right there on the diagram.
Magnolia63 (
talk)
03:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hyacinth - - yes I was making a huge leap re the 5th grade music class - - I assumed someone who was looking up CoF would cross-correlate with either "Having seen the Sound of Music" [age, gender, class race marker] and/or "Having Had some basic music instruction, ie 5th grade music class curriculum." [privilege marker] Yet, I think that might be a valid marker/benchmark, though it is worth imagining: OK who would access this article? who is the Lowest Common Denom.?
it's a really good question about 'how much to dumb down.' I use wiki alot for reference and most articles give a really solid ground/context before leaping into the technical info. With music it's a little confusing - - do we try to put the 5th grade music class on the CoF page, or somewhere else with links...or do we say in the very first sentence: "this is a somewhat advanced musical concept. Please refer to these links, x,y,z, for background." ?? (is that ever done??) Magnolia63 ( talk) 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey people, this article is really shaping up. I like the new edits to my edits. go team. I'll have more to contribute another day...been chewing on this quite a bit...
to answer Jtir: it depends on the teacher and their curriculum. Some [many] never teach it. Some teachers don't use or understand it. Some curricula (the famous kid books like Schaum) put it right in Book I. (but sometimes it's too soon and overwhelming)
I have been engaged in developing a curriculum which provides a broad base of knowledge so that my students can branch out in a direction that interests them: classical, pop, folk, blues, or jazz. If you are going to play jazz (imho) you must understand the CoF. So I start even the youngest kids on the CoF on the piano, which btw has a beautiful logic: if you start on middle C and move "up" or to the right, you get to F# (across the 'clock' from C) - - and then if you go left from C down, you finish the circle to Db. So tidy. [oh wait i think this is already on the wiki page isnt it?] Anyhow -- you don't need to know what it "is" in its vastness to memorize and play it...lights will pop on later. I like the idea of locking it in in the very early development years....so far it's working.
also - to addrss the "clock" question: I just expanded that idea b/c the previous editor had used that term -- but again my students find it helpful. We even say -- "What's One Sharp O'Clock?" So yeh clockface is a fine term but i'm not attached. Magnolia63 ( talk) 01:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Another "man from Mars" question, perhaps... do we need to explain here (or give a link to an explanation of) what "higher" and "lower" mean in terms of pitch? The difference isn't always clear-cut. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The question was asked: Do we really need to link cloc directions here? [6]
A: WP:CONTEXT is the guideline.
The previous version included the explanatory phrase "to the right". Linking is more concise. Linking both clockwise and counterclockwise could be considered overlinking, however.
Should we link circle? :-)
-- Jtir ( talk) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It's called the circle of fifths! Hyacinth ( talk) 07:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, "circle of fifths" is a misnomer for "cycle of fifths". Unfree ( talk) 06:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ. While it is no doubt helpful - to those who understand it - it is by no means essential in the process of writing music. How do I know? I cannot grasp the meaning of the circle - at all - yet I have written several successful and well-received music pieces, including a symphony. Nor am I alone in this regard. Therefore, can I change "essential" to "helpful" and expect the change to not result in an immediate revert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadicalTwo ( talk • contribs)
Isn't the image and accompanying midi file for the circle of fifths being played clockwise near the top of the page incorrect? In both, the fourth note is given as an A sharp, but shouldn't it be an A? 110.175.37.94 ( talk) 05:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Considering the flurry of malicious edits and reversions ongoing here, I'm not about to enter the fray.
I'm going instead merely to mention a minor problem rather than to repair it [this is true also in part because I have no idea how to repair the problem without breaking something], and leave the repair of the problem to wiser and more trusted editors.
Anyway, in the History section, the "[page needed]" quibble at the end of the first sentence is inappropriate.
The paragraph author at this point is discussing the treatise (a self-standing document in most cases) as a whole, not some particular point within that treatise, and so has no page number to provide in response to the quibble at the indicated point.
Xanthian ( talk) 07:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is very vague and confusing. The sentence, which is supposed to be a definition, is not even grammatical: "Since the term 'fifth' defines an interval or mathematical ratio which is the closest and most consonant non-octave interval, then the circle of fifths is a circle of closely related pitches or key tonalities." Saying that the circle of fifths is a circle of "closely related pitches" is vary vague. Don't you want to say that these pitches are precisely 5 tones apart?
Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.231.52 ( talk) 15:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
How does the circle not stop at 7 sharps and flats (quote from article)? Realistically, enharmonically, you start running into equivalent keys and there is no point to extend it beyond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.187.157 ( talk) 03:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I looked hard at the picture of the Vicious Girdle of Fifths, trying again after forty unhappy years of "Not Getting It" ::: and realised after about 10 minutes that there was no C# major? Scrolling down the talk, I also find there is no C♭, (or similarly abstruse key-sig) because it "clutters the table up????" Duh??????????????????????? So there is no point in reading the talk, I just hate all music theory and all theorists because they can never explain what the f they are actually on about, namely Producing Beautiful Music Which Revivifies The Soul. I have always hated the circle, and WP does nothing in the slightest to modify my attitude, especially since "The Circle" has been populated by things which have apparently escaped from Ian M. Banks' vocabulary such as Pitch-class space, like a Raptor-class interstellar terraforming AI with a somewhat detached hive mind of its very very very very own. And, unless you are careful, you end up with a ♯-Class planet-destroyer. Trumpets and drums to you, too. MinorProphet ( talk) 12:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Here we are with a huge exposition and no composers' works cited. many people cannot think in musical notes. they see the words but don't get it. try this: Mike Oldfield, Incantations, easily discovered on youtube. the original, not anything that has been sample etc. the entire composition is based on the circle of fiths and the first few bars will make the Circle of Fifths into an understood reality. i don't know how to add a sample but perhaps one of you does. 74.12.125.129 ( talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
for those who know the topic I guess this is okay, but I don't know what sharps and flats are, they are never defined in the Introduction, so I'm lost from the start — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.228.149 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello: I am just wondering why my edits on the history of the circle of fifths, and the vii harmonic progression were deleted. If anyone knows could they please let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F573:BA00:444A:8489:D2F0:5336 ( talk) 07:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I will respond to your comments in reverse order:
Eparaqutam ( talk) 20:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm proposing a re-write of the lede which would eliminate some information/jargon from the very start of the article. Some of that info is probably useful, but I'd like to see the basic idea(s) laid out clearly and simply if possible. Here's a proposal:
In music theory, the circle of fifths is a way of organizing the 12 chromatic pitches as a sequence of perfect fifths. If C is chosen as a starting point, the sequence is: C, G, D, A, E, B, F♯ (=G♭), C♯ (=D♭), G♯ (=A♭), E♭, B♭, F. Continuing the pattern from F returns the sequence to its starting point of C. This order places the most closely related key signatures adjacent to one another. It is usually illustrated in the form of a circle.
- Special-T ( talk) 22:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Almost the entire section seems to be off-topic or convoluted explanations of the relation between keys. Since the diagram is shown above and can be referred to, I'd like to replace the Diatonic key signature section with:
I'm putting this here on the talk page because I'd be removing a lot of content. But, as I said, that content isn't helping the article. - Special-T ( talk) 19:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
And, heads up, I'm looking at the same issues in that next section. - Special-T ( talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The "Use" and "Related concepts" sections are so full of random facts & assertions that I can't figure out how to start to clean them up. Most of it boils down to "chords often move up a fourth in Western music." Some other issues:
- changing between talking about chord progressions and talking about modulations - if I wasn't already very familiar with theory and composition these paragraphs wouldn't make any sense at all.
- I don't think that any of the "here are some jazz standards that use the circle of fifths" stuff should be here. Almost all of these 20th-century American tunes (like nearly all other Western music) use circle-of-fifths "functional harmony"
I'm probably not the person to edit these, since I'd cut 95%+ of what's there—I hope someone else can get a handle on them. - Special-T ( talk) 15:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Landmarks: Clockwise at 12-3-6-9 o'clock: Major C-A-F#-Eb and Minor a-f#-bflat-c. Both spell CAFE. Major cafe opens at 12. Minor cafe opens at 9. Acorrector ( talk) 15:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion that arose between 68.8.178.131 and @Just_plain_Bill should not turn to a war. I first wondered what all this was about, but then realized that the figure at the right shows only three enharmonies, for B/C♭, G♭/F♯, and D♭/C♯. This, I think, justifies the modification suggested by our anonymous contributor. All other enharmonies would involve one of the two keys with double sharps or double flats.
One may argue that the lede concerns pitch classes as well as keys, but then one should perhaps question the figure at the right. This may not be necessary, but I think that the correction in the lede makes (some) sense. — Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 18:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Could some other editors (preferably musicians) take a look at those external links? I can be a little too enthusiastic about pruning, but nearly all of them (except the last one) seem to just be clever graphics that don't clarify/enlighten. - Special-T ( talk) 12:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that presenting a systematic idea (circle of fifths, transposition, inverse-square relationships in physics, ...) by illustrating a bunch of individual examples is inherently misleading. I've found it to be true with my students as well ("how am I supposed to remember all of those facts?"). So I'd ditch the "click here and see which diatonic chords are minor in F#" links. I realize this is an opinion, but I've found this to be one of the biggest barriers to understanding anything that has a systematic basis. - Special-T ( talk) 14:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This is why I asked for others to look at this and decide - I know I lean heavily towards certain ways of presenting info, and I know my uncensored impulse to delete some of these links is perhaps not constructive. There are so many convoluted explanations in Wikipedia - I get on a bit of a crusade to weed them out, and get a little trigger-happy sometimes! Thanks for picking up the ball on this. - Special-T ( talk) 17:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll leave that decision to you and other editors. Thanks. - Special-T ( talk) 20:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I have deleted the Ravel example that I added previously. Another editor has seen fit to replace both my music score and the audio file of this with an edit that contains errors (wrong notes) that were not in my original contribution. I am all for an edit that corrects and improves on something that I have contributed, but not one that simply makes it worse. Spencerpiers ( talk) 17:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Recent edits brought my attention to the History section, in which "circle of fifths" is used to mean the diagram. This seems misleading and incorrect (in a topic area that can already be confusing). It's an organizational scheme, so saying someone invented it, or there was a "first example" of it confuses the idea with the visual chart. This seems like something for the talk page, though, and not a bold (and possibly contentious) edit. - Special-T ( talk) 13:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Why not we make the diatonic circle of fifths progression part as a separate article so that it can be more searchable? AnAlpineSymphony ( talk) 02:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
DASL51984 added in the lead of this article that "some tunings, such as quarter tones, have multiple such circles." This is rather puzzling. First "quarter tones" is not a tuning. Let's assume that what is meant is a tuning producing 24 (equal or unequal) degrees in the octave. I fail to see, however, how a circle or pure fifths could produce a series of 24 degrees and I don't understand what "multiple cicles" means. There are two possibilities:
There might of course be another explanation, of which I didn't think. — Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 16:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that 17-TET (or 24-TET) is a WP:FRINGE topic, only experienced by a tiny minority of readers. Obviously not all music is 12-TET, but it represents the vast majority of music that most readers will have experienced, at least in Western countries (if non-Western countries use the idea of "circle of fifths," that's another matter). I don't have a problem with including how this concept applies to other tuning systems, as long as it's explained clearly (as Hucbald suggested) and meets WP:SOURCE, but it doesn't belong anywhere near the lede, per WP:DUE. — Wahoofive ( talk) 15:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
This image recently showed up in the "Modulation and chord progression" section, without accompanying text to explain it or motivate its inclusion. What encyclopedic value does it add? Just plain Bill ( talk) 12:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion in the section above ( Talk:Circle of fifths#Umbilic torus gif) evolved into a discussion of chord progressions and their representation in the circle of fifths. User:Jimishol rigthly argues above that the image of the umbilic torus is not directly concerned by this discussion, that it might even be clearer than the text itself. I therefore open this new section to ask a few questions about Modulation and chord progression.
The text rightly begins saying that the circle of fifths illustrates the distance between keys, or between the roots of chords. But it continues stating that "The circle of fifths is used to organize and describe the harmonic or tonal function of chords" and refers to a website the purpose of which apparently is to propose (or, more precisely, to sell) "a songwriting tool" based on the "wheel of fifths". I am not sure that this is a valid source for Wikipedia, but let's leave the question aside for now.
I am not sure of what is meant by "organize" the function of chords. The text continues saying that chords can progress by fifths (or fourths) in what is called a "functional succession". But this in the sole occasion where this expression is used on WP. "Functional succcession" is found in Nattiez' Music and Discourse, quoted immediately after, where it apparently means "succession of functions" or, more precisely, succession of scale degrees – this is in a discussion of Wagner's "Tristan chord". The text continues commenting Nattiez (and Goldman, quoted by Nattiez) and concludes saying that in the succession I–IV–vii°–iii–vi–ii–V–I, IV is farther from I than ii. A reference to Simon Sechter would be welcome here, as all this is his " theory of the degrees".
To sum up, the problem is that the mention of "functions" in this context (i.e. in relation with the circle of fifths) is somewhat misleading. The website about the "wheel of thirds" truly considers harmonic functions and says that there are only three, T, S (or P) and D, which are not really described by the circle of fifths. The rest of the section calls "functions" what in reality is "degrees" (this seems to be common in American music theory) and discusses matters which do not really relate to the circle of fifths.
The section sould heavily be rewritten, in my opinion (or deleted, I am not sure it belongs to this article). Before working on it, however, I'd like to have the opinion of others. – Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 17:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
A recent modification by user 71.17.203.128 (what a strange name!), already reverted, raised once again the question of "circle" vs "cycle," already discussed on several occasions in this talk page. There are reasons to prefer "circle" which may be more common in English – the situation would be the opposite, say, in French. But I do believe that adding a word about this in the article could prevent further discussions. "Cycle" is used at least three times in the article, but not all three cases may be justifiable. Something should be done about this. Whaddya think? — Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 08:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Circle of fifths article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is there no C-flat in the picture of the circle of fifths on this page?
-- Phil Kirlin 15:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Probably for the same reason there is no E-sharp, A-sharp, G-sharp, etc. Having them would clutter the diagram. Probably anyone who knows what C-flat is knows that it's enharmonic to B. Merphant 05:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Any of the rules of spelling notes are there to make reading music easier. B-natural and C-flat sound exactly the same. They are the same tone, but there are reasons to spell it one way or the other.
For instance, The C Major Scale is spelled like this: C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C There is one of each of the letters (with the last being the same as the first)
The G-flat scale is spelled like this Gb-Ab-Bb-Cb-Db-Eb-F-Gb There is one of each of the letters (with the last being the same as the first)
Scales need one of each letter so that they will read nicely on the staff. It won't do to have a Bb and a B-natural in the same scale. It would make for difficult reading.
While C-Flat is the enharmonic equivalent to B-natural, it definitely has it's place in the circle. As you travel counter-clockwise from the top of the circle, you encounter keys with 1 flat, then 2 flats, then 3 and so on. C-flat is the key with seven flats. That is one flat for each of the seven notes A through G.
The Circle of Fifths is a wonderful tool with no exceptions. It is invaluable to any student of 12 tone music
Marcos
Here's an alternate version of the article:
A term used in music theory to relate the greek modes.
being a circle it can be travelled around either clockwise or counter clockwise, one direction resulting in fourths.
B E A D G C F Bb Eb Ab Db Gb (B)
(note that this is written with flats. the enharmonic sharp equivalents are just as valid)
left at an alternative page name by 147.126.46.147 at 00:31, 22 Jan 2005; archived here. Noel (talk) 14:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Recently, I completed the list of Wikipedia articles for major keys, which include:
Anything else to include in each key article?? Georgia guy 00:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All keys are equal. There is nothing special about E-flat major. It may be made special by context, but this is still only in relation to another key. Hyacinth 21:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have an opinion on the ear's perception of certain major keys?? For example, some keys might be percieved as happy an pleasant; others as sleepy; others as boring; etc. Georgia guy 8 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just me, but in the section talking about moving from C to G, my browser is showing that you move the F to F? not F#. In fact all through the article where there should be a # sign there is just a question mark.
Is this something fancy the author was trying to do that didn't work?
I updated the article to make use of the {{music}}
template. This should improve display of Unicode sharps and flats. See
Template:Music for details.--
Dbolton
02:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Has anybody ever heard of this term? I was taught this concept in a 20th-century harmony class at University, and it specifically focused on the music of Alexander Scriabin. Basically, it's a progression that follows an "altered" circle-of-fifths passage, usually by using a bV-of-something (i.e. A-Db-G-C). I found it very fascinating, as it turns out to be a defining feature of MUCH of Scriabin's music (piano-music especially), and has helped me on MANY occassions to make sense of much of his music (the "middle" period-music, for the most part). Is there another name for this type of progression? Should it be included in this article? thoughts? -- Crabbyass 05:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Look in the Categorie for more Informations...
used for German Wikibooks (Gitarre)
Not only is the phrase "layman's terms" kind of condescending, but it's hilarious that that section includes this passage:
Way to simplify it for the average person!! Anyone would understand the circle of fifths after reading that. — Wahoofive ( talk) 02:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is an example of writing "in media res" -- jumping into the subject without properly introducing it. It neglects to explain the creation of musical scales by the subdivision of a plucked string, and how this relates to consonant and dissonant intervals. If you don't understand this, then the reason a "perfect" perfect fifth doesn't work makes no sense. This article needs a careful revision that will enable the "layman" to understand it. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
01-June-2007: Some of the most unprintable characters are the unicodes for sharps/flats: they have been reverted to '#'/'b' several times over the past year in other music-key articles. For more precise sharp/flat symbols, the superscripted pound/bee characters could be used (see below: Symbols for sharps/flats). However, there is no need to persecute '#'/'b' since they work well for all 12 notes, even "Eb"/"Ab", and more importantly, they create chords/notes that are searchable by search-engines. Guitar players have complete sets of chord notations that are easy to write, read, and are SEARCHABLE by search-engines: for example, look at these brilliant notations for D-sharp diminished, minor/major, 7th chords: D#dim D#sus D#sus4 D#m D#m7 D#maj D#maj7. There is little need for the obsession over unicode sharp/flat symbols. Although music-miming computer languages have become trendy (such as C# coding, F# coding and Db), the notes/chords are still searchable within music articles (hunting G#, Bb, C#, Eb, etc.). Try to avoid those get-a-life unicode characters for sharps/flats; they just aren't needed in the modern age. - Wikid77 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
01-June-2007: Over the past 2 years, the unprintable sharp/flat unicodes have been reverted in articles to use simple # / b; however, superscripted codes seem more accurate and universal. For more precise coding, that shows on most PC screens, use superscripts:
"<sup>b</sup>"
"<sup>#</sup>"
Double-sharp, use "<sup>##</sup>"
Double-flats, use "<sup>bb</sup>"
Results: F#, C#, Bb, Eb, C##, Gbb. In general, the simple "# / b" characters are close enough, such as F# or Bb, especially considering the tedious coding of superscript expressions. However, because Wiki articles feed other sources, worldwide, avoid unicodes for sharp/flat or use words (such as: F-sharp, A-flat or C-natural). The more precise superscripted forms support music elitists as well as the vast general public on an amazing variety of PCs or Wifi Internet devices. - Wikid77 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does this article have absoloutly nothing on how to use the Circle of Fiths. After reading it over it says (much like many of Wikipedia's music theory articles) that this is what X is in several different ways, while avoiding any mention of how to actually use it, or any mention of ways it has been used with given examples.
Someone fix this, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.218.80 ( talk) 05:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
One may find that this is a problem with music theory in general and not with Wikipedia. You may be looking for a good composition manual, which some people maintain does not exist. Hyacinth ( talk) 02:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I for one am willing to call this section closed. In the last week and a half, the article has come a long way, going from scattered to cohesive. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 01:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
While trying to source Johann David Heinichen as the origin of the CoF, I found an illustration from 1711 that shows it. In the article, the date of publication is wrong, the title seems to be incomplete, the origin is older, and Heinichen calls it a musicalischer circul.
-- Jtir ( talk) 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Nikolay Diletsky presented a circle of fifths in 1679. (Lester says "around 1670".)
Lester cites Jensen re Diletsky and has more about Heinichen.
-- Jtir ( talk) 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
If an audio recording really would be helpful, please include specifics.-- Dbolton ( talk) 01:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The recent audio additions are great!-- Dbolton ( talk) 05:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Jtir, you have expressed some concerns about the formatting and length of the lead section. The article will appear differently to different readers depending on the width of their screen, and thus there may be more or less white space for different readers and you may not be able to fix it for everyone. See Wikipedia:Image use#Displayed image size. Hyacinth ( talk) 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
E-A-D-G-C-F-A♯-D♯-G♯-C♯-F♯-B, arranged in 3 clusters of 4 strings to make the field of strings more readable.
Because of this tuning all five neighbouring strings form a harmonic pentatonic scale and all seven neighbouring strings form a major scale, available in every key. This allows a very easy fingerpicking technique without picking false notes, if the right key is chosen.
Accordions also commonly use the stradella bass system for the left hand buttons. It follows the circle of fifths.
Although this section is above my level, I can still offer some comments:
-- Jtir ( talk) 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Any support for putting the various renditions of the circle itself into a gallery of thumbnails? There's also Image:Circle fifths.svg which shows the "lose three sharps or add three flats" thing between minor and major, that's mentioned in the text. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 04:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously a modern basic image needs to go in the introduction. The historical images should ideally accompany the text describing them and do not belong in the lead. Hyacinth ( talk) 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's an English version of the "deluxe" circle:
__ Just plain Bill ( talk) 05:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Here it is as a PNG, with my thoughts on your feedback:
Regarding your first point: the main circle is now 20% grey, and the little circles are gone. I like that a lot better. Comment? __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC) and by the way, I left off the enharmonic spellings except for the one at position 6, which suggests the rest. I figure that by the time someone is interested in wickedly sharp/flat keys, they'll be able to fill in the "missing" info for themselves, and it made for a crowded chart. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a first try at it with the bubbles and main circle shaded differently. I still like the unadorned "choppy" circle better. Anything beyond the simplest presentation starts saying things like "look at what a skilful artist I think I am, and all-round clever fellow!" Believe it or not, some people find that annoying, and pay less attention to the content as a result.
It's uploaded as a PNG; the parent SVG will be about four times as big if I turn the fonts into paths so they render equally (instead of as Arial) on all machines. I've used Garamond for the letters and slashes, and NWC15 (Noteworthy Composer's font) for the sharps, flats, and natural sign. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 05:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I might not call those numbers the most important feature, but they are certainly not the least important part of it. Depending on how I'm looking at the chart at any given moment, and what for, I'd even promote them a bit over the major or minor key names. Number of sharps or flats comes up all the time. "This piece is in 2 sharps, J; is it D major, B minor, A mixy, E dorian, or what?"
The key sigs have been called redundant elsewhere, and the editor that said that is not wrong. Where redundancy exists, which element is the redundant one? Philosophical musings aside, the data in this chart is massively redundant, and it all serves to help the viewer understand the particulars of the effects of a handful of simple rules. Simple doesn't always mean easy.
By the way, accidentals, strictly speaking, are sharps or flats or naturals that occur outside the key signature. Piece in two sharps may use accidentals to sharp some G's, for example, effectively straying into A major for a while, before coming back home to D major. Similarly, an A major piece in three sharps might use accidental naturals on G's or C's to give it an A minor feeling for a while. It happens. Accidentals also get used here and there to make chromatic runs, which have their own set of effects. best, __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 10:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
These versions reduce the size of the "Major" and "Minor" labels and vary the way the circles are laid out. -- Jtir ( talk) 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have much to add here, just that encoding information in a red vs. green distinction is problematic for people with red-green color blindness. — Gwalla | Talk 05:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about this a bit more, it seems like the number of sharps and flats is redundant with the key signatures. The paired numbers (for keys that can be spelled with sharps or flats) also get a bit crowded down at the bottom and obscure the groupings. — Gwalla | Talk 01:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone capable of it could also make a representation of the circle of fifths on the chromatic circle as a star dodecagon as in "Prelude to Musical Geometry", p.364, Brian J. McCartin, The College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 29, No. 5 (Nov., 1998), pp. 354-370. Hyacinth ( talk) 01:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
In order to understand and memorize the relations between pitch classes easier, it is possible to put all the keys into a Cartesian coordinate system according to their signatures citation needed.
In the resulting graph, the X coordinate represents the number of minor key signatures, treating the number of flats as a negative (as it makes a note negative). The Y coordinate represents the major key signature count the same way. C is therefore in (-3;0) as C minor has 3 flats and C major a 0 (zero).
When minor and major keys are paired into single dots, various relations become visible more clearly from the graph:
The above was removed as it appears to be textbook like original research. Hyacinth ( talk) 16:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Do anyone agree that the entire article could benefit from context? Not just the "Effect on diatonic function" section? Hyacinth ( talk) 16:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hyacinth, would it be possible to harmonize this example using root position chords? I think it's important to also see and hear the descending fifth/ascending fourth motion in the bass. Thanks- -- Blehfu ( talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I just removed it from the article for the following reasons:
__ Just plain Bill ( talk) 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are some images I made for comparison. I can't figure out at this moment how to even describe them (ascending vs descending, fourth vs fifth), and they all seem equally of value. The top two are currently in the introduction to the article. Hyacinth ( talk) 01:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Jtir ( talk) 19:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Was including "accidental" or "accidental " useful? It was not strictly necessary. I'm not sure, however, why one would refer to musical keyboard when removing the term. Also, accidentals do not necessarily refer to black keys. Hyacinth ( talk) 03:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
See also Talk:Accidental (music)#Inflections vs accidentals. Hyacinth ( talk) 04:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments refer to this version of the article:
-- Jtir ( talk) 19:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It's easy to remember the order because it is called the circle of fifths, and so you just have to count if you forget. If you are on A, for instance, you count up to E.
A B C D E = Fifth 1 2 3 4 5
Hyacinth ( talk) 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
B C D E F =? 1 2 3 4 5
On the piano there's a visual cue -- all the perfect fifths are either white-white or black-black keys, EXCEPT at the crossroads surrounding C - - the perfect fifth is B-F# and/or Bb-F. it's a really important thing to learn for a keyboardist, that weird spot. if you are a teacher you can use all kinds of metaphors, i'm fond of 'going from the field into the forest' [crossing over from wh to bl] or somesuch. i'm sure there is a great poem in all this.
right, and, yup, you basically just have to memorize it, and usually you do that in connection with your instrument. But it doesn't exist in a vacuum - - if you are playing basic western/eurocentric melodic music, the interval of a fifth is extremely common, so they are 'under your fingers' already - -- then you just group them in a more logical order. Magnolia63 ( talk) 01:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
--This is a way of remembering:
The comma divides the signatures with # from those without - CGDAEB, F#C#. Going anticlockwise all the signatures after f have a flat ♭. Wodorabe ( talk) 16:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I removed the above because I do not see how is it simpler to introduce more than eight new technical terms (major, do, etc.). Hyacinth ( talk) 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a newbie wikieditor, I'm a piano teacher, and I recently told a student to look up "Circle of Fifths" on wiki cuz he was having trouble conceptualizing it. So today I thought I'd look and see...and after nearly 40 years of playing the piano, I had trouble making heads or tails of this article. It seems to be written for advanced music theorists. I know it would scare away my poor student.
Thus, my attempt (writing the above text) was to provide something for even a beginning musician to grab onto.
I think maybe your objection to the new "technical terms" would only apply to someone who has never had a 5th grade music class or somehow successfully avoided the Sound of Music. Yes, I grant you, they are musical terms....but how can we talk about music without musical terms? The terms I used are far more common and accessible than those first two paragraphs. (honest question: How do we parse whether a wiki reader really has never heard of do re mi??)
I realize now this conversation has been going on for a long time. I feel committed to joining the team here and working on this article to make it accessible. I think there should be a starting paragraph with the simplest possible terms. For example -- using the simpler term "visual" instead of the immediately complex "geographic" in the first sentence would improve things immensely imho. OK - I am going to attempt a first pass at that kind of edit. let's keep talking.
Magnolia63 ( talk) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
...one further thought...the terms "major" and "minor" are right there on the diagram.
Magnolia63 (
talk)
03:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hyacinth - - yes I was making a huge leap re the 5th grade music class - - I assumed someone who was looking up CoF would cross-correlate with either "Having seen the Sound of Music" [age, gender, class race marker] and/or "Having Had some basic music instruction, ie 5th grade music class curriculum." [privilege marker] Yet, I think that might be a valid marker/benchmark, though it is worth imagining: OK who would access this article? who is the Lowest Common Denom.?
it's a really good question about 'how much to dumb down.' I use wiki alot for reference and most articles give a really solid ground/context before leaping into the technical info. With music it's a little confusing - - do we try to put the 5th grade music class on the CoF page, or somewhere else with links...or do we say in the very first sentence: "this is a somewhat advanced musical concept. Please refer to these links, x,y,z, for background." ?? (is that ever done??) Magnolia63 ( talk) 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey people, this article is really shaping up. I like the new edits to my edits. go team. I'll have more to contribute another day...been chewing on this quite a bit...
to answer Jtir: it depends on the teacher and their curriculum. Some [many] never teach it. Some teachers don't use or understand it. Some curricula (the famous kid books like Schaum) put it right in Book I. (but sometimes it's too soon and overwhelming)
I have been engaged in developing a curriculum which provides a broad base of knowledge so that my students can branch out in a direction that interests them: classical, pop, folk, blues, or jazz. If you are going to play jazz (imho) you must understand the CoF. So I start even the youngest kids on the CoF on the piano, which btw has a beautiful logic: if you start on middle C and move "up" or to the right, you get to F# (across the 'clock' from C) - - and then if you go left from C down, you finish the circle to Db. So tidy. [oh wait i think this is already on the wiki page isnt it?] Anyhow -- you don't need to know what it "is" in its vastness to memorize and play it...lights will pop on later. I like the idea of locking it in in the very early development years....so far it's working.
also - to addrss the "clock" question: I just expanded that idea b/c the previous editor had used that term -- but again my students find it helpful. We even say -- "What's One Sharp O'Clock?" So yeh clockface is a fine term but i'm not attached. Magnolia63 ( talk) 01:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Another "man from Mars" question, perhaps... do we need to explain here (or give a link to an explanation of) what "higher" and "lower" mean in terms of pitch? The difference isn't always clear-cut. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The question was asked: Do we really need to link cloc directions here? [6]
A: WP:CONTEXT is the guideline.
The previous version included the explanatory phrase "to the right". Linking is more concise. Linking both clockwise and counterclockwise could be considered overlinking, however.
Should we link circle? :-)
-- Jtir ( talk) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It's called the circle of fifths! Hyacinth ( talk) 07:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, "circle of fifths" is a misnomer for "cycle of fifths". Unfree ( talk) 06:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ. While it is no doubt helpful - to those who understand it - it is by no means essential in the process of writing music. How do I know? I cannot grasp the meaning of the circle - at all - yet I have written several successful and well-received music pieces, including a symphony. Nor am I alone in this regard. Therefore, can I change "essential" to "helpful" and expect the change to not result in an immediate revert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadicalTwo ( talk • contribs)
Isn't the image and accompanying midi file for the circle of fifths being played clockwise near the top of the page incorrect? In both, the fourth note is given as an A sharp, but shouldn't it be an A? 110.175.37.94 ( talk) 05:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Considering the flurry of malicious edits and reversions ongoing here, I'm not about to enter the fray.
I'm going instead merely to mention a minor problem rather than to repair it [this is true also in part because I have no idea how to repair the problem without breaking something], and leave the repair of the problem to wiser and more trusted editors.
Anyway, in the History section, the "[page needed]" quibble at the end of the first sentence is inappropriate.
The paragraph author at this point is discussing the treatise (a self-standing document in most cases) as a whole, not some particular point within that treatise, and so has no page number to provide in response to the quibble at the indicated point.
Xanthian ( talk) 07:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is very vague and confusing. The sentence, which is supposed to be a definition, is not even grammatical: "Since the term 'fifth' defines an interval or mathematical ratio which is the closest and most consonant non-octave interval, then the circle of fifths is a circle of closely related pitches or key tonalities." Saying that the circle of fifths is a circle of "closely related pitches" is vary vague. Don't you want to say that these pitches are precisely 5 tones apart?
Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.231.52 ( talk) 15:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
How does the circle not stop at 7 sharps and flats (quote from article)? Realistically, enharmonically, you start running into equivalent keys and there is no point to extend it beyond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.187.157 ( talk) 03:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I looked hard at the picture of the Vicious Girdle of Fifths, trying again after forty unhappy years of "Not Getting It" ::: and realised after about 10 minutes that there was no C# major? Scrolling down the talk, I also find there is no C♭, (or similarly abstruse key-sig) because it "clutters the table up????" Duh??????????????????????? So there is no point in reading the talk, I just hate all music theory and all theorists because they can never explain what the f they are actually on about, namely Producing Beautiful Music Which Revivifies The Soul. I have always hated the circle, and WP does nothing in the slightest to modify my attitude, especially since "The Circle" has been populated by things which have apparently escaped from Ian M. Banks' vocabulary such as Pitch-class space, like a Raptor-class interstellar terraforming AI with a somewhat detached hive mind of its very very very very own. And, unless you are careful, you end up with a ♯-Class planet-destroyer. Trumpets and drums to you, too. MinorProphet ( talk) 12:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Here we are with a huge exposition and no composers' works cited. many people cannot think in musical notes. they see the words but don't get it. try this: Mike Oldfield, Incantations, easily discovered on youtube. the original, not anything that has been sample etc. the entire composition is based on the circle of fiths and the first few bars will make the Circle of Fifths into an understood reality. i don't know how to add a sample but perhaps one of you does. 74.12.125.129 ( talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
for those who know the topic I guess this is okay, but I don't know what sharps and flats are, they are never defined in the Introduction, so I'm lost from the start — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.228.149 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello: I am just wondering why my edits on the history of the circle of fifths, and the vii harmonic progression were deleted. If anyone knows could they please let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F573:BA00:444A:8489:D2F0:5336 ( talk) 07:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I will respond to your comments in reverse order:
Eparaqutam ( talk) 20:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm proposing a re-write of the lede which would eliminate some information/jargon from the very start of the article. Some of that info is probably useful, but I'd like to see the basic idea(s) laid out clearly and simply if possible. Here's a proposal:
In music theory, the circle of fifths is a way of organizing the 12 chromatic pitches as a sequence of perfect fifths. If C is chosen as a starting point, the sequence is: C, G, D, A, E, B, F♯ (=G♭), C♯ (=D♭), G♯ (=A♭), E♭, B♭, F. Continuing the pattern from F returns the sequence to its starting point of C. This order places the most closely related key signatures adjacent to one another. It is usually illustrated in the form of a circle.
- Special-T ( talk) 22:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Almost the entire section seems to be off-topic or convoluted explanations of the relation between keys. Since the diagram is shown above and can be referred to, I'd like to replace the Diatonic key signature section with:
I'm putting this here on the talk page because I'd be removing a lot of content. But, as I said, that content isn't helping the article. - Special-T ( talk) 19:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
And, heads up, I'm looking at the same issues in that next section. - Special-T ( talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The "Use" and "Related concepts" sections are so full of random facts & assertions that I can't figure out how to start to clean them up. Most of it boils down to "chords often move up a fourth in Western music." Some other issues:
- changing between talking about chord progressions and talking about modulations - if I wasn't already very familiar with theory and composition these paragraphs wouldn't make any sense at all.
- I don't think that any of the "here are some jazz standards that use the circle of fifths" stuff should be here. Almost all of these 20th-century American tunes (like nearly all other Western music) use circle-of-fifths "functional harmony"
I'm probably not the person to edit these, since I'd cut 95%+ of what's there—I hope someone else can get a handle on them. - Special-T ( talk) 15:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Landmarks: Clockwise at 12-3-6-9 o'clock: Major C-A-F#-Eb and Minor a-f#-bflat-c. Both spell CAFE. Major cafe opens at 12. Minor cafe opens at 9. Acorrector ( talk) 15:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion that arose between 68.8.178.131 and @Just_plain_Bill should not turn to a war. I first wondered what all this was about, but then realized that the figure at the right shows only three enharmonies, for B/C♭, G♭/F♯, and D♭/C♯. This, I think, justifies the modification suggested by our anonymous contributor. All other enharmonies would involve one of the two keys with double sharps or double flats.
One may argue that the lede concerns pitch classes as well as keys, but then one should perhaps question the figure at the right. This may not be necessary, but I think that the correction in the lede makes (some) sense. — Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 18:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Could some other editors (preferably musicians) take a look at those external links? I can be a little too enthusiastic about pruning, but nearly all of them (except the last one) seem to just be clever graphics that don't clarify/enlighten. - Special-T ( talk) 12:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that presenting a systematic idea (circle of fifths, transposition, inverse-square relationships in physics, ...) by illustrating a bunch of individual examples is inherently misleading. I've found it to be true with my students as well ("how am I supposed to remember all of those facts?"). So I'd ditch the "click here and see which diatonic chords are minor in F#" links. I realize this is an opinion, but I've found this to be one of the biggest barriers to understanding anything that has a systematic basis. - Special-T ( talk) 14:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This is why I asked for others to look at this and decide - I know I lean heavily towards certain ways of presenting info, and I know my uncensored impulse to delete some of these links is perhaps not constructive. There are so many convoluted explanations in Wikipedia - I get on a bit of a crusade to weed them out, and get a little trigger-happy sometimes! Thanks for picking up the ball on this. - Special-T ( talk) 17:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll leave that decision to you and other editors. Thanks. - Special-T ( talk) 20:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I have deleted the Ravel example that I added previously. Another editor has seen fit to replace both my music score and the audio file of this with an edit that contains errors (wrong notes) that were not in my original contribution. I am all for an edit that corrects and improves on something that I have contributed, but not one that simply makes it worse. Spencerpiers ( talk) 17:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Recent edits brought my attention to the History section, in which "circle of fifths" is used to mean the diagram. This seems misleading and incorrect (in a topic area that can already be confusing). It's an organizational scheme, so saying someone invented it, or there was a "first example" of it confuses the idea with the visual chart. This seems like something for the talk page, though, and not a bold (and possibly contentious) edit. - Special-T ( talk) 13:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Why not we make the diatonic circle of fifths progression part as a separate article so that it can be more searchable? AnAlpineSymphony ( talk) 02:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
DASL51984 added in the lead of this article that "some tunings, such as quarter tones, have multiple such circles." This is rather puzzling. First "quarter tones" is not a tuning. Let's assume that what is meant is a tuning producing 24 (equal or unequal) degrees in the octave. I fail to see, however, how a circle or pure fifths could produce a series of 24 degrees and I don't understand what "multiple cicles" means. There are two possibilities:
There might of course be another explanation, of which I didn't think. — Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 16:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that 17-TET (or 24-TET) is a WP:FRINGE topic, only experienced by a tiny minority of readers. Obviously not all music is 12-TET, but it represents the vast majority of music that most readers will have experienced, at least in Western countries (if non-Western countries use the idea of "circle of fifths," that's another matter). I don't have a problem with including how this concept applies to other tuning systems, as long as it's explained clearly (as Hucbald suggested) and meets WP:SOURCE, but it doesn't belong anywhere near the lede, per WP:DUE. — Wahoofive ( talk) 15:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
This image recently showed up in the "Modulation and chord progression" section, without accompanying text to explain it or motivate its inclusion. What encyclopedic value does it add? Just plain Bill ( talk) 12:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion in the section above ( Talk:Circle of fifths#Umbilic torus gif) evolved into a discussion of chord progressions and their representation in the circle of fifths. User:Jimishol rigthly argues above that the image of the umbilic torus is not directly concerned by this discussion, that it might even be clearer than the text itself. I therefore open this new section to ask a few questions about Modulation and chord progression.
The text rightly begins saying that the circle of fifths illustrates the distance between keys, or between the roots of chords. But it continues stating that "The circle of fifths is used to organize and describe the harmonic or tonal function of chords" and refers to a website the purpose of which apparently is to propose (or, more precisely, to sell) "a songwriting tool" based on the "wheel of fifths". I am not sure that this is a valid source for Wikipedia, but let's leave the question aside for now.
I am not sure of what is meant by "organize" the function of chords. The text continues saying that chords can progress by fifths (or fourths) in what is called a "functional succession". But this in the sole occasion where this expression is used on WP. "Functional succcession" is found in Nattiez' Music and Discourse, quoted immediately after, where it apparently means "succession of functions" or, more precisely, succession of scale degrees – this is in a discussion of Wagner's "Tristan chord". The text continues commenting Nattiez (and Goldman, quoted by Nattiez) and concludes saying that in the succession I–IV–vii°–iii–vi–ii–V–I, IV is farther from I than ii. A reference to Simon Sechter would be welcome here, as all this is his " theory of the degrees".
To sum up, the problem is that the mention of "functions" in this context (i.e. in relation with the circle of fifths) is somewhat misleading. The website about the "wheel of thirds" truly considers harmonic functions and says that there are only three, T, S (or P) and D, which are not really described by the circle of fifths. The rest of the section calls "functions" what in reality is "degrees" (this seems to be common in American music theory) and discusses matters which do not really relate to the circle of fifths.
The section sould heavily be rewritten, in my opinion (or deleted, I am not sure it belongs to this article). Before working on it, however, I'd like to have the opinion of others. – Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 17:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
A recent modification by user 71.17.203.128 (what a strange name!), already reverted, raised once again the question of "circle" vs "cycle," already discussed on several occasions in this talk page. There are reasons to prefer "circle" which may be more common in English – the situation would be the opposite, say, in French. But I do believe that adding a word about this in the article could prevent further discussions. "Cycle" is used at least three times in the article, but not all three cases may be justifiable. Something should be done about this. Whaddya think? — Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 08:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)