This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The current intro is not written in plain language, and makes no sense to someone who doesn't know music theory:
Can someone please tell me where on the web I could find numerals with carets above, as in the examples in the "Scale Degree" section? Thanks! -- Dveej 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
can scale degrees help identify scales? durp
if not, is there anything that can? durp
what about other scales like the japanese (itchisuko) or the oriental, how would I identify those with scale degrees? I'm pretty sure there are scales with the same amount of scale degrees. durp
Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth ( talk) 01:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Scale degree | Name | Meaning |
---|---|---|
1st | Tonic | Tonal center, note of final resolution |
2nd | Supertonic | One step above the tonic |
3rd | Mediant | Midway between tonic and dominant |
4th | Subdominant | Lower dominant |
5th | Dominant | 2nd in importance to the tonic |
6th | Submediant | Lower mediant, halfway between tonic and subdominant |
7th | Leading tone | Melodically strong affinity for and leads to tonic |
7th | Subtonic | One whole step below tonic |
One book I have [Benward & Saker (2003). Music: In Theory and Practice, Vol. I, p.33. Seventh Edition. ISBN 978-0-07-294262-0.] has a table like the one above. Hyacinth ( talk) 23:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the concept presented in the table above - the 7th is either subtonic or leading tone [1], the 8th is the tonic (again). I've altered the table but happy to discuss further Chalky ( talk) 13:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
References
The subdominant is named for being the same interval below the tonic (a fifth) that the dominant is above the tonic. Although the subdominant happens to be the degree just below the dominant, it was not named for being such. To support this, let's turn to the submediant.
The mediant is the third degree. Let's first assume that the subdominant was named for being the degree just below the dominant, and then find out if the submediant makes sense under this assumption. The degree just below the mediant (the third degree) is the second degree, and the submediant is the sixth. Not the same.
Now let's assume the subdominant was named for being the interval below the tonic that the dominant is above the tonic. Then the submediant would be the degree a third below the tonic. The degree a third below the tonic is the sixth degree, and the submediant is the sixth. The same! See how much sense the submediant makes for those who understand the true reason the subdominant is called subdominant?? Georgia guy ( talk) 00:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The article contains this puzzling statement:
If somebody could explain what this is supposed to mean, I'd be delighted. — Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 06:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Roman numerals are assigned to scale degrees in first sidebox diagram of the article. These numerals are currently shown in upper and lower case, reflecting the major/minor quality of their associated triad chords (i.e. harmonisation). Thus they are not, strictly speaking, a descriptive of the scale but are, rather, descriptive of the harmonised scale (specifically in this case the major scale). I also observe that the associated citation/reference for the diagram notes that the reference cited is "shown all upper case" which is also inconsistent with the use of both cases, as in the diagram.
I suggest the diagram be clarified by either
1. simply noting in digram description that the case of the scale degree reflects associated harmonisation for the major scale OR 2. Remove the harmonisations of each degree and present all the numerals in upper case as, one might assume, is actually supported by the citation. RichardJ Christie ( talk)
The article also contains this puzzling statement:
This confusion may arise from the fact that, in English, numbering the degrees (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh) and describing the intervals (unison, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh) are done with the same terms (the only difference being between "first" and "unison"). In French the terms are different: premier, deuxième, troisième, etc., for the degrees, and unison, seconde, tierce, etc., for the intervals.
What I mean is this: it is not obvious to me that the third, sixth, or seventh degrees may be "major" or "minor". The third degree may be distant from the first by an interval of a major or minor third, but this does not make it the major or minor third degree: it is the third degree in all cases. (Or else one might have to call it the "second and a half" degree, etc.). In addition, how would one call, say, the second degree of a phrygian mode: the minor second degree? or the fourth degree of a lydian mode: the augmented fourth degree? (What we call the augmented fourth – the interval! – has been termed in the 19th century the major fourth!)
I suspect that this confusion may not be exclusive to WP and that it could be found in many textbooks of music theory. This is one case where I think we should do slightly better than merely give references: we should try to find the good references and reject the ones that maintain the confusion. Would that be considered original research? Or, to ask it otherwise, is it the purpose of WP to advocate the mistakes of poor references?
Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 21:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@ User:Hyacinth, your work to illustrate WP articles with musical examples is praiseworthy, but I think that the last version that you just published of the example showing "Scale degrees of C major and C minor" looses link with the reference quoted. I presume that the reference is to example 27 of the Jonas book (I have only the German original and the 2d English edition, so that I cannot be entirely sure of the reference to p. 22). Now, this example does not show scale degrees, but triads; it does not show C major and C minor, but only C major; and it does not give Arabic numerals, but uppercase Roman ones. Note 1 in the article does mention the uppercase Roman numerals, but neither the fact that the exemples shows triads, nor that it shows them in major only.
I trust that there must be many American textbooks that show a scale with the degrees numbered. The version that I have of Benward & Saker (8th edition) shows an example (Figure 2.2) that gives both (careted) Arabic numbers and names for the scale degrees. I suspect that the same example (from the 7th edition) is the source of your second example. If that is so, the two examples in the WP article could be combined as one, with both the Arabic numbers (without carets) and the degree names. I don't want to prepare such an example myself, because I think you should remain credited for it.
I find it somewhat misleading to have the scale both in major and in minor, because you hardly can indicate how the flat signs should be used for Aeolian, melodic and harmonic minor. But you might be able to arrange that. Degree names are the same in both cases, but for "leading tone" that becomes "subtonic" if flattened. — Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 11:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Hyacinth, I see that you added sound files to the scale, one which you identify as "harmonized" scale. I don't want to be annoying, but I don't think that adding triads above a scale is the same thing as "harmonizing" it – nor that the result is "harmony". What you get is merely a scale with triads, the triads "belonging to the scale", leitereigene, as they use to be described in German harmony textbooks. Harmonizing a scale is of the order of the famous Règle de l'octave, as described in the article Rule of the octave which you created yourself some years ago. Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 06:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The table says that the supertonic is only for a whole step above the tonic (2 semitones). But can't the word also be used for a half step above tonic (1 semitone) e.g., for the Phrygian scale? Squandermania ( talk) 17:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The current intro is not written in plain language, and makes no sense to someone who doesn't know music theory:
Can someone please tell me where on the web I could find numerals with carets above, as in the examples in the "Scale Degree" section? Thanks! -- Dveej 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
can scale degrees help identify scales? durp
if not, is there anything that can? durp
what about other scales like the japanese (itchisuko) or the oriental, how would I identify those with scale degrees? I'm pretty sure there are scales with the same amount of scale degrees. durp
Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth ( talk) 01:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Scale degree | Name | Meaning |
---|---|---|
1st | Tonic | Tonal center, note of final resolution |
2nd | Supertonic | One step above the tonic |
3rd | Mediant | Midway between tonic and dominant |
4th | Subdominant | Lower dominant |
5th | Dominant | 2nd in importance to the tonic |
6th | Submediant | Lower mediant, halfway between tonic and subdominant |
7th | Leading tone | Melodically strong affinity for and leads to tonic |
7th | Subtonic | One whole step below tonic |
One book I have [Benward & Saker (2003). Music: In Theory and Practice, Vol. I, p.33. Seventh Edition. ISBN 978-0-07-294262-0.] has a table like the one above. Hyacinth ( talk) 23:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the concept presented in the table above - the 7th is either subtonic or leading tone [1], the 8th is the tonic (again). I've altered the table but happy to discuss further Chalky ( talk) 13:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
References
The subdominant is named for being the same interval below the tonic (a fifth) that the dominant is above the tonic. Although the subdominant happens to be the degree just below the dominant, it was not named for being such. To support this, let's turn to the submediant.
The mediant is the third degree. Let's first assume that the subdominant was named for being the degree just below the dominant, and then find out if the submediant makes sense under this assumption. The degree just below the mediant (the third degree) is the second degree, and the submediant is the sixth. Not the same.
Now let's assume the subdominant was named for being the interval below the tonic that the dominant is above the tonic. Then the submediant would be the degree a third below the tonic. The degree a third below the tonic is the sixth degree, and the submediant is the sixth. The same! See how much sense the submediant makes for those who understand the true reason the subdominant is called subdominant?? Georgia guy ( talk) 00:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The article contains this puzzling statement:
If somebody could explain what this is supposed to mean, I'd be delighted. — Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 06:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Roman numerals are assigned to scale degrees in first sidebox diagram of the article. These numerals are currently shown in upper and lower case, reflecting the major/minor quality of their associated triad chords (i.e. harmonisation). Thus they are not, strictly speaking, a descriptive of the scale but are, rather, descriptive of the harmonised scale (specifically in this case the major scale). I also observe that the associated citation/reference for the diagram notes that the reference cited is "shown all upper case" which is also inconsistent with the use of both cases, as in the diagram.
I suggest the diagram be clarified by either
1. simply noting in digram description that the case of the scale degree reflects associated harmonisation for the major scale OR 2. Remove the harmonisations of each degree and present all the numerals in upper case as, one might assume, is actually supported by the citation. RichardJ Christie ( talk)
The article also contains this puzzling statement:
This confusion may arise from the fact that, in English, numbering the degrees (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh) and describing the intervals (unison, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh) are done with the same terms (the only difference being between "first" and "unison"). In French the terms are different: premier, deuxième, troisième, etc., for the degrees, and unison, seconde, tierce, etc., for the intervals.
What I mean is this: it is not obvious to me that the third, sixth, or seventh degrees may be "major" or "minor". The third degree may be distant from the first by an interval of a major or minor third, but this does not make it the major or minor third degree: it is the third degree in all cases. (Or else one might have to call it the "second and a half" degree, etc.). In addition, how would one call, say, the second degree of a phrygian mode: the minor second degree? or the fourth degree of a lydian mode: the augmented fourth degree? (What we call the augmented fourth – the interval! – has been termed in the 19th century the major fourth!)
I suspect that this confusion may not be exclusive to WP and that it could be found in many textbooks of music theory. This is one case where I think we should do slightly better than merely give references: we should try to find the good references and reject the ones that maintain the confusion. Would that be considered original research? Or, to ask it otherwise, is it the purpose of WP to advocate the mistakes of poor references?
Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 21:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@ User:Hyacinth, your work to illustrate WP articles with musical examples is praiseworthy, but I think that the last version that you just published of the example showing "Scale degrees of C major and C minor" looses link with the reference quoted. I presume that the reference is to example 27 of the Jonas book (I have only the German original and the 2d English edition, so that I cannot be entirely sure of the reference to p. 22). Now, this example does not show scale degrees, but triads; it does not show C major and C minor, but only C major; and it does not give Arabic numerals, but uppercase Roman ones. Note 1 in the article does mention the uppercase Roman numerals, but neither the fact that the exemples shows triads, nor that it shows them in major only.
I trust that there must be many American textbooks that show a scale with the degrees numbered. The version that I have of Benward & Saker (8th edition) shows an example (Figure 2.2) that gives both (careted) Arabic numbers and names for the scale degrees. I suspect that the same example (from the 7th edition) is the source of your second example. If that is so, the two examples in the WP article could be combined as one, with both the Arabic numbers (without carets) and the degree names. I don't want to prepare such an example myself, because I think you should remain credited for it.
I find it somewhat misleading to have the scale both in major and in minor, because you hardly can indicate how the flat signs should be used for Aeolian, melodic and harmonic minor. But you might be able to arrange that. Degree names are the same in both cases, but for "leading tone" that becomes "subtonic" if flattened. — Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 11:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Hyacinth, I see that you added sound files to the scale, one which you identify as "harmonized" scale. I don't want to be annoying, but I don't think that adding triads above a scale is the same thing as "harmonizing" it – nor that the result is "harmony". What you get is merely a scale with triads, the triads "belonging to the scale", leitereigene, as they use to be described in German harmony textbooks. Harmonizing a scale is of the order of the famous Règle de l'octave, as described in the article Rule of the octave which you created yourself some years ago. Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 06:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The table says that the supertonic is only for a whole step above the tonic (2 semitones). But can't the word also be used for a half step above tonic (1 semitone) e.g., for the Phrygian scale? Squandermania ( talk) 17:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)