Classical music | ||||
|
The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with chromatic, is the cause of serious uncertainties at several Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Specifically in this case, the article classifies harmonic minor and melodic minor as diatonic, contradicting the linked article Diatonic scale (but supportably from other sources). 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 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you have done it at pretty much every article that uses either the (very basic and very common) term diatonic or chromatic, and you have done it with precisely the same words, by cutting and pasting which, I think, qualifies your advertisements as spam. In any case, you seem to be begging the question here (that is, talking in circles): If you define a "good" article to be one that "challenges assumptions" then you will of course find that "good" articles challenge assumptions, but to define good thus is to proceed in a manner contrary to the spirit and letter of wikipedia policy. TheScotch 10:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Notice first that the one who has undertaken to write the article, to watch it like a hawk, to advertise it vociferously, and to dominate its discussion page is the one who is calling it "important" here. I submit that you are not in position to be objective about this, and that it is unbecoming of yourself to judge your own "importance". In any case, among many other objections, you are cluttering wikipedia and distracting editors. I reply to you at all against my better judgement.
Quite obviously, I do it simply for the sake of parallelism.
Au contraire, it would be a disservice to readers to vomit forth endless paragraphs splitting diatonic hair molecules. Quite obviously the diatonic scale subsumes the major scale. TheScotch 10:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
A pitch collection is quite obviously and simply a collection of pitches. It is hard for me to see that this requires any explanation. I am, of course, not responsible for articles with which I have had nothing to do, but, in any case, it is unreasonable of you to expect and require that all wikipedia articles be perfectly consistent in all respects with all other wikipedia articles, whether or not the articles you mention are indeed inconsistent with each other. It is also unreasonable of you to hold me accountable for everything that appears in every article to which an article I have edited may link, especially if I've merely "retained", as you put it, the link. TheScotch 11:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I think we can dismiss with impunity as mere defensive posturing (replete with argumentum ad hominem) pretty much all you say above, since you seem desperately to be foraging for anything (whether native to this article or not) you can pass off as inconsistent so as to bolster the claims of your cut-and-paste replicated advertisement, I should simply like to remind you once again, apropos of the very first sentence of your original missive, that it is not your job at wikipedia to reform what you call “the wider literature”, but to conform to it. Try to let that sink in. TheScotch 15:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think TheScotch needs to put down the thesaurus and pick up a dictionary.
121.209.10.105
16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought that "diatonic" meant a scale composed of two kinds of intervals. If this is the case then Harmonic Minor, containing an interval of a tone and half along with its tones and semitones, is not a diatonic scale at all. Music terminology is a nightmare and any attempts to take it outside of its usual western box are likely to end in tears. Wikipedia isn't the place to re-invent terminology but I wish somebody would do so and provide a sensible framework everyone could agree upon with new words that don't cause confusion. -- Andrew F. ( talk) 00:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a musical virtuoso here, and I'm trying to understand about these 'exotic' scales but Wikipedia seems to be contradicting itself here. I always understood the gypsy scale to be the Phrygian dominant of the harmonic minor, even though on wikipedia it is sometimes referred to as the Jewish scale. The articles for Byzantine scale and Arabic scale are both describing the same thing (admittedly they are under discussion for merging) but this article is stating that the Hungarian, gypsy and Byzantine scale are all the same, and gives a different scale. This website: http://cnx.org/content/m11636/latest/ is also giving slightly different titles etc.
Can anyone help me out with all this confusion?! ArdClose ( talk) 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Ok, well I just found out at least that Arabic and Arabian don't mean the same thing... ArdClose ( talk) 01:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I just checked the "Byzantine scale" and "Arabic scale" Wikipedia articles. The former gives the scale E F G# A B C D# E, the latter the scale C Db E F G Ab B C, which is a transpostion. Another transposition is G Ab B C D Eb F# G, which is a cyclic rotation of (the same scale as) C D Eb F# G Ab B C. There is no contradiction here. TheScotch ( talk) 06:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you meant that this scale should be differentiated according to name by different tonal centers (within the same pitch collection), the answer is that there is no consensus about this. In general the names refer to pitch collection alone. TheScotch ( talk) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says:
The term diatonic scale refers to a pitch collection and does not imply any particular tonal center or note of especial emphasis. It is in this respect different from the term major scale, which does imply a tonal center.
It seems like opening a can of worms to bring pitch hierarchy in on a term like this. (Can you think of a diatonic scale that does not imply a tonal center?) I think we should re-word this:
The term diatonic scale refers to any pitch collection of seven notes. As a generic term, it is used in conjunction with more specific terms such as major or minor to imply a tonal center (i.e. F-Major diatonic scale).
Any thoughts? 66.130.161.95 ( talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, that's not correct. A diatonic scale is simply one of seven scales: Ioanian (normal major), Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian (natural minor), and locrian. Since there are only seven of them, simply listing them gives the easiest definition. Does it have to be any more complex than that? Or the scales you get when playing the white notes on the piano (and their transpositions).
The statement you quotes also seems confusing to me. I would think a diatonic "scale" would have a tonal center. A diatonic pith collection could be called "a diatonic pitch collection". There is no ambiguity in that. I have for example always understood "E phrygian (minor)" to be a "diatonic scale" with E as its root. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.113.244 ( talk) 20:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's always good to check the dictionary sites. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diatonic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatonic http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/161859/diatonic Diatonic means "having two types of tones". However, if that were the only criterion, many scales would qualify, such as 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 (the numbers represent consecutive intervals between scale members), 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2, 1 3 1 3 1 3, 2 2 3 2 3, etc. Other criteria apparently include repeating at the octave, having a definite "tonic" (tonal center), and having 7 pitches (which is the only reason they deserve mention in this heptatonic artice). Depending where you read, one final criterion is that a diatonic scale contains only one tritone interval, which eliminates the modes of 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 (common in jazz) and 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 (not common, but it would satisfy the other criteria). I fixed the section. -- 98.154.203.28 ( talk) 06:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
‘Heptonia’ looks strange and hardly appears outside Wikipedia; it should presumably be spelt ‘heptatonia’ (2 extra letters).in short, all this means that heptonic is a seven note scale.
(I wrote the first sentence above, and someone else replied, apparently missing the point entirely.) No, heptatonic means ‘of seven notes’; heptonic cannot possibly be right. Cf. OED: heptatonic [...] a. Mus. [Gr. ἑπτάτον-ος seven-toned], consisting of seven notes. Heptatonia (currently spelt heptonia in the article) would appear to derive from the same stem and hence be spelt analogously.
Having read the distinction in the article between diatonic and major, with major implying a tonal centre, I'm not comfortable with the famous examples of heptatonic scales including diatonic, melodic minor, harmonic minor, etc., as that implies that harmonic minor is not diatonic.
Does anyone object if I change diatonic to major? Obviously the major scale is a famous example of a heptatonic scale. Rigaudon ( talk) 13:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that Egyptian scale redirects here, but it is not mentioned anywhere in this article. I haven't found a good source about it. A guitar tutorial at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuwE0klUyaA shows that it is a harmonic minor with a raised fourth (C D Eb F# G Ab H). http://www.jeffbuser.com/egyptian.html lists many other "Egyptian scales", but not this one. More searching raises even more confusion — looks like the term is not at all uniquely defined. Anyway, as long as we have the aforementioned redirect, we should write about it! — Pt (T) 01:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Clearly, what differentiates notes of different pitch is the sonic frequency or wavelength. This isn't even mentioned but is the basic building block of sound in science, and must be the basis of all scales. "Egyptian" or otherwise. Please dispense with the artistic bafflegab and address sonic reality. 2.31.162.111 ( talk) 22:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Classical music | ||||
|
The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with chromatic, is the cause of serious uncertainties at several Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Specifically in this case, the article classifies harmonic minor and melodic minor as diatonic, contradicting the linked article Diatonic scale (but supportably from other sources). 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 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you have done it at pretty much every article that uses either the (very basic and very common) term diatonic or chromatic, and you have done it with precisely the same words, by cutting and pasting which, I think, qualifies your advertisements as spam. In any case, you seem to be begging the question here (that is, talking in circles): If you define a "good" article to be one that "challenges assumptions" then you will of course find that "good" articles challenge assumptions, but to define good thus is to proceed in a manner contrary to the spirit and letter of wikipedia policy. TheScotch 10:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Notice first that the one who has undertaken to write the article, to watch it like a hawk, to advertise it vociferously, and to dominate its discussion page is the one who is calling it "important" here. I submit that you are not in position to be objective about this, and that it is unbecoming of yourself to judge your own "importance". In any case, among many other objections, you are cluttering wikipedia and distracting editors. I reply to you at all against my better judgement.
Quite obviously, I do it simply for the sake of parallelism.
Au contraire, it would be a disservice to readers to vomit forth endless paragraphs splitting diatonic hair molecules. Quite obviously the diatonic scale subsumes the major scale. TheScotch 10:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
A pitch collection is quite obviously and simply a collection of pitches. It is hard for me to see that this requires any explanation. I am, of course, not responsible for articles with which I have had nothing to do, but, in any case, it is unreasonable of you to expect and require that all wikipedia articles be perfectly consistent in all respects with all other wikipedia articles, whether or not the articles you mention are indeed inconsistent with each other. It is also unreasonable of you to hold me accountable for everything that appears in every article to which an article I have edited may link, especially if I've merely "retained", as you put it, the link. TheScotch 11:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I think we can dismiss with impunity as mere defensive posturing (replete with argumentum ad hominem) pretty much all you say above, since you seem desperately to be foraging for anything (whether native to this article or not) you can pass off as inconsistent so as to bolster the claims of your cut-and-paste replicated advertisement, I should simply like to remind you once again, apropos of the very first sentence of your original missive, that it is not your job at wikipedia to reform what you call “the wider literature”, but to conform to it. Try to let that sink in. TheScotch 15:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think TheScotch needs to put down the thesaurus and pick up a dictionary.
121.209.10.105
16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought that "diatonic" meant a scale composed of two kinds of intervals. If this is the case then Harmonic Minor, containing an interval of a tone and half along with its tones and semitones, is not a diatonic scale at all. Music terminology is a nightmare and any attempts to take it outside of its usual western box are likely to end in tears. Wikipedia isn't the place to re-invent terminology but I wish somebody would do so and provide a sensible framework everyone could agree upon with new words that don't cause confusion. -- Andrew F. ( talk) 00:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a musical virtuoso here, and I'm trying to understand about these 'exotic' scales but Wikipedia seems to be contradicting itself here. I always understood the gypsy scale to be the Phrygian dominant of the harmonic minor, even though on wikipedia it is sometimes referred to as the Jewish scale. The articles for Byzantine scale and Arabic scale are both describing the same thing (admittedly they are under discussion for merging) but this article is stating that the Hungarian, gypsy and Byzantine scale are all the same, and gives a different scale. This website: http://cnx.org/content/m11636/latest/ is also giving slightly different titles etc.
Can anyone help me out with all this confusion?! ArdClose ( talk) 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Ok, well I just found out at least that Arabic and Arabian don't mean the same thing... ArdClose ( talk) 01:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I just checked the "Byzantine scale" and "Arabic scale" Wikipedia articles. The former gives the scale E F G# A B C D# E, the latter the scale C Db E F G Ab B C, which is a transpostion. Another transposition is G Ab B C D Eb F# G, which is a cyclic rotation of (the same scale as) C D Eb F# G Ab B C. There is no contradiction here. TheScotch ( talk) 06:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you meant that this scale should be differentiated according to name by different tonal centers (within the same pitch collection), the answer is that there is no consensus about this. In general the names refer to pitch collection alone. TheScotch ( talk) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says:
The term diatonic scale refers to a pitch collection and does not imply any particular tonal center or note of especial emphasis. It is in this respect different from the term major scale, which does imply a tonal center.
It seems like opening a can of worms to bring pitch hierarchy in on a term like this. (Can you think of a diatonic scale that does not imply a tonal center?) I think we should re-word this:
The term diatonic scale refers to any pitch collection of seven notes. As a generic term, it is used in conjunction with more specific terms such as major or minor to imply a tonal center (i.e. F-Major diatonic scale).
Any thoughts? 66.130.161.95 ( talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, that's not correct. A diatonic scale is simply one of seven scales: Ioanian (normal major), Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian (natural minor), and locrian. Since there are only seven of them, simply listing them gives the easiest definition. Does it have to be any more complex than that? Or the scales you get when playing the white notes on the piano (and their transpositions).
The statement you quotes also seems confusing to me. I would think a diatonic "scale" would have a tonal center. A diatonic pith collection could be called "a diatonic pitch collection". There is no ambiguity in that. I have for example always understood "E phrygian (minor)" to be a "diatonic scale" with E as its root. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.113.244 ( talk) 20:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's always good to check the dictionary sites. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diatonic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatonic http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/161859/diatonic Diatonic means "having two types of tones". However, if that were the only criterion, many scales would qualify, such as 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 (the numbers represent consecutive intervals between scale members), 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2, 1 3 1 3 1 3, 2 2 3 2 3, etc. Other criteria apparently include repeating at the octave, having a definite "tonic" (tonal center), and having 7 pitches (which is the only reason they deserve mention in this heptatonic artice). Depending where you read, one final criterion is that a diatonic scale contains only one tritone interval, which eliminates the modes of 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 (common in jazz) and 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 (not common, but it would satisfy the other criteria). I fixed the section. -- 98.154.203.28 ( talk) 06:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
‘Heptonia’ looks strange and hardly appears outside Wikipedia; it should presumably be spelt ‘heptatonia’ (2 extra letters).in short, all this means that heptonic is a seven note scale.
(I wrote the first sentence above, and someone else replied, apparently missing the point entirely.) No, heptatonic means ‘of seven notes’; heptonic cannot possibly be right. Cf. OED: heptatonic [...] a. Mus. [Gr. ἑπτάτον-ος seven-toned], consisting of seven notes. Heptatonia (currently spelt heptonia in the article) would appear to derive from the same stem and hence be spelt analogously.
Having read the distinction in the article between diatonic and major, with major implying a tonal centre, I'm not comfortable with the famous examples of heptatonic scales including diatonic, melodic minor, harmonic minor, etc., as that implies that harmonic minor is not diatonic.
Does anyone object if I change diatonic to major? Obviously the major scale is a famous example of a heptatonic scale. Rigaudon ( talk) 13:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that Egyptian scale redirects here, but it is not mentioned anywhere in this article. I haven't found a good source about it. A guitar tutorial at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuwE0klUyaA shows that it is a harmonic minor with a raised fourth (C D Eb F# G Ab H). http://www.jeffbuser.com/egyptian.html lists many other "Egyptian scales", but not this one. More searching raises even more confusion — looks like the term is not at all uniquely defined. Anyway, as long as we have the aforementioned redirect, we should write about it! — Pt (T) 01:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Clearly, what differentiates notes of different pitch is the sonic frequency or wavelength. This isn't even mentioned but is the basic building block of sound in science, and must be the basis of all scales. "Egyptian" or otherwise. Please dispense with the artistic bafflegab and address sonic reality. 2.31.162.111 ( talk) 22:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)