![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I reverted the page to (the last version by me) before the anonymous "Clarified and reorganized technical material" changes. The "technical material" may be clarified and reorganized, but also added was an inappropriate "Physical roots of scales" section. Hyacinth 21:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're heading title is right. Though Wikipedia guideline includes Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Think of the reader and Wikipedia:Explain jargon, many many articles on math, science, philosophy, and a host of other topics are not understandable to a lay reader. Just because an article is about music I do not see why it should be held to a higher standard; we'll get there, like everyone else, it will just take time. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music.
I object to the "Physical roots" section because it is information currently found or needed at Musical tuning and the various articles about types of tuning. I also do not believe that claims about the origins of scales are NPOV unless backed by citation and references, and then a great deal of care is needed to provide balance between the many and usually opposing theories on tuning and scale origins. More importantly, physics tells lay readers little about scales, for the same scale may be tuned in different ways, and different tunings may be considered the same scale, and some scales may have social or other non-physical origins. The main objection, however, is that the section was to large a summary of musical tuning and related articles.
Regarding the "Clarified and reorganized" section, since we're here, let's talk about it. What is unclear about the article as it now stands? How is it hard to read? Do you have a source which may suggest a better organization of the information, or provide definitions and clarification? Hyacinth 04:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
folks:
to me, many of the "music concept" pages read as if the author assumes that the Western European art music model is normative; i would like to reduce the presence of that bias, but only after some dialogue about the merits of more inclusive definitions.
this page, scale, seemed a good launch pad for the discussion, since in some traditions, it is possible to discuss scales and melodies without requiring that pitches are fixed--see the discussion of chunings in The Soul of Mbira, Paul Berliner, for an example from Shona mbira music of Zimbabwe. Therefore, a more abstract introduction to scale--collection of pitches, usually bounded by octaves, directional (melodic minor, raga in Hindustani music) or nondirectional, ordered--might be useful before a discussion of intervals; half steps and whole steps could be gently introduced here but more in-depth in an idiom-specific page.
what do more long-time contributors think?
![]() | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a
worldwide view of the subject. |
It might be useful to note that in the German system what we call "B flat" they call B and what we call "B Natural" they call H though I don't know if that belongs in this article -- Ironcorona 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
"Western tonal chords are stacks of thirds built above a particular scale degree, which is called the root of the harmony."
Firstly, this statement is inappropriate. The only relevance of a discussion of chords here is as it impinges on the creation or use of scales; we have enough other articles on chords and harmony.
Secondly, this statement could only have been written by someone who has (a) only ever used 12-tone equal temperament, and noticed a simple counting pattern, or (b) swallowed whole an explanation by someone with a similarly limited perspective. From a more historical POV, the origin of chords is harmony, which arises from the harmonic series of overtones of natural instrumental (including vocal) timbres.
On both these grounds, I suggest that the sentence I quoted should be removed, and the text adjusted, if necessary, to read well in its absence. yoyo 07:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Do modes belong in this article and if so should they have their own section? Hyacinth 07:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The Modes in the following sequence are arranged in such a way as to where each next mode has one more shortened interval in its scale. The following sequence also corresponds with the circle of fifths.
(including origins of note-names & tonality) Should the Origin of scales be merged here? Or briefly described here? Even in a shorter form, it seems appropriate. Greenwyk 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed some things while reading this wiki page:
The following paragraph appears twice in the top part of the text:
The distance between two successive notes in a scale is called a "scale step." Composers often transform musical patterns by moving every note in the pattern by a constant number of scale steps: thus, in the C major scale, the pattern C-D-E ("doe, a deer") might be shifted up a single scale step to become D-E-F ("ray, a drop"). Since the steps of a scale can have various sizes, this process introduces subtle melodic and harmonic variation into the music. This variation is what gives scalar music much of its complexity.
and it says: The interval between successive tones of a scale is sometimes called a "step." and the distance between two successive notes in a scale is called a "scale step."
Is this both correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.35.71.67 ( talk) 23:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
I deleted this
Because
and
Your rewrite is a lot clearer. Big improvement! -- Tarquin
I deleted an 'Indian musical scale' section that, at one point, had a one-sentence reference to melakartha. I'm happy to have someone rewrite the sentence in non-Western scales that currently talks about raga, but I don't think this article needs its own section about raga, melakartha, or any other Carnatic music concepts. jp2 07:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The article uses the term "diatonic" extensively, and pays attention to explaining it; but it is not certain that the term is used consistently with other Wikipedia music articles. Along with "chromatic", "diatonic" is the cause of serious uncertainties at several articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
What does "diatonic" mean? Which kind of diatonic scale? Major? Natural minor? Harmonic minor? Melodic minor?
I just found this article...it is quite confusing! First, I am not familiar with the term, "temperated". (Did someone mean "tempered", or did I miss something?)
Second, regarding the use of the words "note" and "tone" a valid point has been dismissed: although even trained musicians often mistakenly refer to a musical sound as a "note", this common error doesn't justify its perpetuation, particularly in Wikipedia. A note is a written music symbol which visually represents a pitch (sound); see Musical notation. The correct nomenclature for the sound is a tone. (Of course, this leads to confusion due to the various other meanings of the word "tone" in music.)
Third, in university we study the "Materials of Music" (referring to the various theoretical subjects). The term is in common use.
Fourth, which came first...the chicken or the egg? Someone intelligently stated that "Theory is derived from Music", and not vice versa. BRAVO! Obviously, every culture has made music before attempting to dissect or analyse it! The counter-argument provided (that "explicit instruction in theoretical subjects has been part of musical education for centuries") is true, but irrelevant. If this were the case, every composer would simply "follow the rules", and there would be "no such animal" as a new original composition. How can you account for the countless musicians who can create beautiful, original music, but lack any form of musical training? Also, keep in mind that Chopin failed his "composition course"! And what of youngsters who begin composing (unnotated, albeit) before receiving any sort of musical training? Rest assured, Theory IS derived from Music!
Fifth...this article has many obvious weaknesses. Much work is needed! Prof.rick 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted the opening of this article to an earlier and better version. The most recent version had numerous inaccuracies. For instance:
"In music, a scale is a collection of tones."
But this is insufficient. It doesn't distinguish a scale from a set or a chord.
"There are two aspects to the scale all tones available for a specific type of music such as all keys in a piano. all tones used in part or all of a musical work, such as the piano keys touched for one melody."
I don't know what is meant by "aspects" here, but it's not correct -- "all the piano keys touched for one melody" do not constitute a scale. Consider the melody of the opening of Beethoven's Eroica -- the is not a scale by anyone's definition.
"The first meaning of scale leads us to independently established tonal systems such as natural scale (most folk music), 12 temperated system (european), 53 temperated system (middle eastern), 72 temperated system (south indian), etc.."
Temperated is not a word, as someone else has already pointed out.
"The second meaning of scale involves a discussion of the different collections of tones within the domain of one such tonal system/ Usually a subset of 8 or fewer tones picked among all available tones in an octave make the skeleton of the scale of a melody."
This is also untrue -- the diatonic scale predated the chromatic and was in use for many centuries before it was reimagined as a subset of the chromatic.
A final plea: please do not edit the music articles unless you know what you're talking about. You wouldn't edit the technical math or science articles unless you actually had some qualifications and understood the material. Somehow, everyone feels qualified to rework the music entries, no matter how low their level of competence. This damages the credibility of Wikipedia. Njarl 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Could someone with a thorough understanding of the subject edit this to make it more accessible to those of us who don't? Parts like "Accidentals are rare, and somewhat unsystematically used, often to avoid the tritone" strike me as meaningless to anyone who doesn't know and understand that information already.
The article has:
Note that such labeling requires the choice of a "first" note; hence scale-degree labels are not intrinsic to the scale itself, but rather to its modes. For example, if we choose A as tonic, then we can label the notes of the C diatonic scale using A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, and so on. However, the difference between two scale degrees is independent of the choice of scale degree 1.
This is wrong. If C=1 then the difference between 2=D and 3=E is two semitones. If A=1 then 2=B and 3=C are only one semitone apart.
Thus whether two notes are adjacent in a scale, or separated by one note, does not depend on the mode under discussion.
This is completely garbled. Notes in a scale are by definition adjacent. Perhaps a distance in semitones is meant. But anyway, it seems to me a part of the definition of scale, not a property.
The scale degrees of the traditional major scale can also be named using the terms tonic, supertonic, mediant, subdominant, dominant, submediant, subtonic. If the subtonic is a semitone away from the tonic, then it is usually called the leading-tone (or leading-note); otherwise the leading-tone refers to the raised subtonic.
In the traditional major scale the subtonic is by definition the leading tone and one semitone away from the tonic. Perhaps, any traditional 7-tone scale is meant.
−
Woodstone (
talk)
16:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Having come to this article as a non musician I find it interesting but very western. What I would envisage in an article of this title is a total overview of music scales explained in a manner that is comprehensible to a non musical reader. It should then link to ALL the other scale articles. One glaring omission is that the scales do not have sound files to demonstrate the differences. I understand this would be a major undertaking. There is not even a table of notes and their frequencies. How is that neither Bach nor Pythagoras gets a mention? -- CloudSurfer ( talk) 19:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to bring Wikipedia's music theory articles up to a more professional standard. I've tried to rewrite this one to be more accurate and consistent. I hope I don't offend anyone.
The main change is to be consistent about the distinction between "scale' and "mode." There is admittedly some inconsistency in the way musicians use these terms, but that's no reason for the Wikipedia article to be inconsistent.
I've also removed the section that refers to Bob Fink's website. This material was controversial and non-peer-reviewed. If someone wanted to add a section on scales and acoustics, that would be great, but it should refer to more reputable sources -- for instance William Sethares "Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale."
Tymoczko 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about this definition:
So you're saying the C major scale has no tonic pitch? That'll be a surprise to many musicians.
I think the difference is much deeper than this. Scales are collections of pitches put in (ascending or descending) order. Modes are much more than pitch collections: they are patterns of use. The Phrygian mode is established by the conventional use of particular melodic patterns which surround the final (and in some cases the dominant) -- that's the only way you know which is the final. When we speak of "major mode" or "minor mode" we aren't referring to scales but to key centers established via harmonic progressions. That's why a piece in Aeolian mode is different from one in the minor mode -- the latter is established by its cadential chord progressions, notably including the major V chord and its sharpened leading tone. — Wahoofive ( talk) 05:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Andrew F. 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) There is so much contradictory use of the words scale and mode, would anybody else welcome the application of the term "parent scale", meaning a set of notes without specification of modality? I sometimes think it would be nice if we could start from scratch and ditch all the synonyms for different parent scales, the whole issue is a nightmare! It's hard for a musician to catalogue their learning and ensure that they are not simply re-learning different modes of different parent scales.
So, can we just put at the top of the article, that modes are scales? I at least skimmed through about 20 articles to understand what scales are, then a music teacher I know said to me, "Modes are not scales," and linked me to back to this very (confusing) article. "What are known as the major and minor scales (sets of notes/pitches in no specific order) are really only two of seven modes." If that's correct, let's please put it on the page. Or something like this that really clarifies it and simplifies it. Maybe with a note to the exception of the Harmonic Minor. 12.165.5.47 ( talk) 09:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The distance between two successive notes in a scale is called a "scale step." Composers often transform musical patterns by moving every note in the pattern by a constant number of scale steps: thus, in the C major scale, the pattern C-D-E might be shifted up, or transposed, a single scale step to become D-E-F. This process is called scalar transposition (see also musical sequence). Since the steps of a scale can have various sizes, this process introduces subtle melodic and harmonic variation into the music. This variation is what gives scalar music much of its complexity.
This doesn't entirely make sense. C-D-E could simply be changed to C-D-D♯. Someone knowledgeable should look at what I quoted and rework it. 80.202.209.162 ( talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the merits of the various discussions, I suggest that this material shouldn't be in the lead of the article. The lead of a WP article is generally about gently leading an outsider into the subject with an uncontroversial overview. Detailed points generally belong in subsections. So I suggest that this material firstly be relocated to a later place, probably in its own subsection. That move, in itself, might then help us to clarify the points it is trying to make. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 14:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've moved most of that paragraph into its own section later in the article. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 22:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this link in "External links" really relevant? Excuse me from saying so, but IMHO that site has telltale signs of kookiness. TorLillqvist ( talk) 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
In response to Feline Hymnic reverting my edit...
I'm quite new to Wiki so I didn't immediately realize my edit had been actively reverted, I just thought it had got lost somehow. So I re-posted it.
Seeing your comment in the history tab, may I explain why I think it's important?
The bulk of western music is based on semitones but when I was learning music theory nobody explained why an octave was divided into 12 equal intervals (rather than eg 53). It remained a baffling mystery through several years of music lessons.
It was only much later when I taught myself to play the guitar that I understood that tuning in 5ths naturally generates a total of 12 keys, but I saw that mathematically it made no sense. Then the flash of understanding came that it was just a coincidence that the harmonics approximately fitted with the mathematic intervals - the 5th pretty well, the 3rd rather less well.
Later still I heard about the "commas" and they seemed to be described in awfully complex terms when actually they were just the difference between the harmonics and the 12-root-2 divisions - quite simple really.
So I thought someone interested to understand scales should hear this straight away rather than be baffled like I was.
If you can explain it better that's fine but I don't think it should be left out.
Best wishes, DrJCPC ( talk) 01:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It is also good that you now seem to have a proper account, namely "DrJCPC". That's a good step. The "temperament" edits to the article were done from an "anon-IP" account. Many editors (myself included) who keep watch on some articles for things going astray will be quite trigger-happy in reverting such anon-IP contributions, but will be somewhat more careful in reverting those by established, account-based contributors. For one thing, being able to view an editor's previous contributions helps us get a feel for the seriousness and experience of that contributor. (For instance, you can view my previous contributions here and yours here.) I hope that helps. Keep contributing! Feline Hymnic ( talk) 23:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
_______________________________________________________________
I understand the need for a simple introductary article with more detailed descriptions referenced but I think the present artical uses highly technical jargon (requiring a general reader to follow frequent links, interrupting the flow) and still does not explain that the underlying structure of a scale depends first on the division of an octave into 12 semitone intervals. This is so basic that I don't see how you would want to leave it out.
The obvious question "Why 12?" should also be addressed before launching into the details of the various diatonic and other scales.
I'll get back and try to add a simple intro (or maybe you would prefer to put one in?)
Best wishes, DrJCPC ( talk) 17:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
As several people have noted on the 'talk' page over the years, this article seems to lack focus and structure. Somewhat too much of it seems to suffer from the Wikipedia malaise of being globs of information, made by experts for experts, rather than a structured means to assist people who might well be relative beginners to develop and grow in their understanding of our topic. Might we spend a little time putting ourselves in the shoes of someone who doesn't know the subject and imagining how to present the material to them? And similarly deciding what material to present? And what not to present? And what to provide links for? I've just made a small start by re-ordering some sections to keep information about Western scales together (they had previously been held apart by non-Western and microtonal sections). Feline Hymnic ( talk) 23:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Where and how is this article too technical and what should be done to improve it and why? Hyacinth ( talk) 07:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This has to be the most useless article on this wiki. All the information on here is only comprehensible by somebody who already knows it. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, to teach. Then I look at the talk page, and I see people complaining about the 'math-y' parts. Instead of removing -every piece- of information that isn't instantly understood by someone whose only focuses on music, maybe leave it so that way anyone with an understanding of math or physics will actually get something out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.161.212 ( talk) 07:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think "musical scale" is the 'most common' name, so it should be moved back to scale (music) per Manual of Style. 24.18.215.132 23:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the article title should be Scale (music), because the most important word in the title (in this case the word "Scale") should be the first one. "Scale" is also the word that anyone would type in the
search box, which automatically proposes "Scale (music)" as one of the possible alternatives. Moreover, and even more importantly, this is consistent with a style widely adopted in Wikipedia in these cases (even in articles about music):
Scale
As you probably know, if we decide to change the title, the current title Musical scale will be turned into a page which will redirect here, and double redirects will be fixed by whoever does the move, or automatically by BOTs.
Paolo.dL ( talk) 12:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
My examples do support the proposal to adopt the title Scale (music), especially (but not only) the specific examples about Scale. Most of them are not redirects. Even the redirects (which I copied from the disambiguation pages Degree, Interval, Mode, Transposition) support my proposal. Indeed, Transposition (mathematics) redirects to Cycle (mathematics), not to Mathematical transposition, Interval (time) redirects to Time, not to Time interval, etc. (for more details, see the updated list of links provided above).
Moreover, the proposal is not only supported by examples. I will give other motivations:
1) The introduction says "In
music, a scale is...". It does not and should not say "A musical scale is..."...
2) In dictionaries, people are used to search for "scale", not for "musical" when they want to know the meaning of the word scale in music. For instance:
Scale (from
Webster's online dictionary)
|
3) Whoever is going to search for an article about musical scales will type at least the word "scale" in the search box (not always they will type "musical scale").
Paolo.dL (
talk)
09:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe the parenthetical form is preferred for disambiguation when there is not an unambiguous common name form. But here, "musical scale" is a very commonly used term for it, unambiguous, appearing in thousand of books before 1900 even, and hundreds of thousands by now. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Answer 1: Let's not waste our time discussing whether I addressed all your concerns before you expressed them or did not address them at all. It only matters that I provided several reasons to adopt
Scale (music) and not to change
Interval (music) into
Musical interval.
Answer 2: Non-musical examples are relevant because Wikipedia is not only about music (and this is the reason why we need to disambiguate the title of this article, using either
Scale (music) or
Musical scale).
Answer 3: In music, for each specific topic (such as
Scale), the articles starting with "Musical" are typically less than those starting with the name of the topic. For instance, in this case only one article starts with "Musical" (
Musical scale) and two with "Scale" (
Scale (album) and
Scale (string instruments)). See the
disambiguation page. Also, there's a series of articles about
Mode in music:
Mode (music),
Gregorian mode, etc.. However, no article about "Mode" in music starts with "Musical". But since there are a lot of topics in music, we have more articles starting with "Musical" (very generic term) than articles starting with "Scale" or "Mode" (very specific).
Answer to Dicklyon (00:51, 10 June 2012): The expression Musical scale (as well as "Musical notes") is rarely used as a chapter title in music textbooks. The most common titles are
See, for instance, Music theory, or musictheory.net, or Music theory and history. Similarly, in the introduction of this article, we say: "In music, a scale is...". We do not and should not say "A musical scale is..."... ". Paolo.dL ( talk) 21:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this term had no link, so created a start article of Tetratonic scale (a scale having only four notes). I'd welcome any support in expanding the article. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 17:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd submit that "Types of scale" would read smoother done in order of quantity. Would folks support modifying it to the below? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 21:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Types of scale
Scales may be described according to the intervals they contain:
- for example: diatonic, chromatic, whole tone
or by the number of different pitch classes they contain:
- Octatonic (8 tones per octave): used in jazz and modern classical music
- Heptatonic (7 tones per octave): the most common modern Western scale
- Hexatonic (6 tones) and pentatonic (5 tones): common in Western folk music
- Tetratonic (4 tones), tritonic (3 tones), and ditonic (2 tones): generally limited to prehistoric ("primitive") music
- Monotonic (1 tone): limited use in liturgy, or for effect in modern art music
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I reverted the page to (the last version by me) before the anonymous "Clarified and reorganized technical material" changes. The "technical material" may be clarified and reorganized, but also added was an inappropriate "Physical roots of scales" section. Hyacinth 21:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're heading title is right. Though Wikipedia guideline includes Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Think of the reader and Wikipedia:Explain jargon, many many articles on math, science, philosophy, and a host of other topics are not understandable to a lay reader. Just because an article is about music I do not see why it should be held to a higher standard; we'll get there, like everyone else, it will just take time. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music.
I object to the "Physical roots" section because it is information currently found or needed at Musical tuning and the various articles about types of tuning. I also do not believe that claims about the origins of scales are NPOV unless backed by citation and references, and then a great deal of care is needed to provide balance between the many and usually opposing theories on tuning and scale origins. More importantly, physics tells lay readers little about scales, for the same scale may be tuned in different ways, and different tunings may be considered the same scale, and some scales may have social or other non-physical origins. The main objection, however, is that the section was to large a summary of musical tuning and related articles.
Regarding the "Clarified and reorganized" section, since we're here, let's talk about it. What is unclear about the article as it now stands? How is it hard to read? Do you have a source which may suggest a better organization of the information, or provide definitions and clarification? Hyacinth 04:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
folks:
to me, many of the "music concept" pages read as if the author assumes that the Western European art music model is normative; i would like to reduce the presence of that bias, but only after some dialogue about the merits of more inclusive definitions.
this page, scale, seemed a good launch pad for the discussion, since in some traditions, it is possible to discuss scales and melodies without requiring that pitches are fixed--see the discussion of chunings in The Soul of Mbira, Paul Berliner, for an example from Shona mbira music of Zimbabwe. Therefore, a more abstract introduction to scale--collection of pitches, usually bounded by octaves, directional (melodic minor, raga in Hindustani music) or nondirectional, ordered--might be useful before a discussion of intervals; half steps and whole steps could be gently introduced here but more in-depth in an idiom-specific page.
what do more long-time contributors think?
![]() | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a
worldwide view of the subject. |
It might be useful to note that in the German system what we call "B flat" they call B and what we call "B Natural" they call H though I don't know if that belongs in this article -- Ironcorona 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
"Western tonal chords are stacks of thirds built above a particular scale degree, which is called the root of the harmony."
Firstly, this statement is inappropriate. The only relevance of a discussion of chords here is as it impinges on the creation or use of scales; we have enough other articles on chords and harmony.
Secondly, this statement could only have been written by someone who has (a) only ever used 12-tone equal temperament, and noticed a simple counting pattern, or (b) swallowed whole an explanation by someone with a similarly limited perspective. From a more historical POV, the origin of chords is harmony, which arises from the harmonic series of overtones of natural instrumental (including vocal) timbres.
On both these grounds, I suggest that the sentence I quoted should be removed, and the text adjusted, if necessary, to read well in its absence. yoyo 07:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Do modes belong in this article and if so should they have their own section? Hyacinth 07:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The Modes in the following sequence are arranged in such a way as to where each next mode has one more shortened interval in its scale. The following sequence also corresponds with the circle of fifths.
(including origins of note-names & tonality) Should the Origin of scales be merged here? Or briefly described here? Even in a shorter form, it seems appropriate. Greenwyk 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed some things while reading this wiki page:
The following paragraph appears twice in the top part of the text:
The distance between two successive notes in a scale is called a "scale step." Composers often transform musical patterns by moving every note in the pattern by a constant number of scale steps: thus, in the C major scale, the pattern C-D-E ("doe, a deer") might be shifted up a single scale step to become D-E-F ("ray, a drop"). Since the steps of a scale can have various sizes, this process introduces subtle melodic and harmonic variation into the music. This variation is what gives scalar music much of its complexity.
and it says: The interval between successive tones of a scale is sometimes called a "step." and the distance between two successive notes in a scale is called a "scale step."
Is this both correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.35.71.67 ( talk) 23:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
I deleted this
Because
and
Your rewrite is a lot clearer. Big improvement! -- Tarquin
I deleted an 'Indian musical scale' section that, at one point, had a one-sentence reference to melakartha. I'm happy to have someone rewrite the sentence in non-Western scales that currently talks about raga, but I don't think this article needs its own section about raga, melakartha, or any other Carnatic music concepts. jp2 07:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The article uses the term "diatonic" extensively, and pays attention to explaining it; but it is not certain that the term is used consistently with other Wikipedia music articles. Along with "chromatic", "diatonic" is the cause of serious uncertainties at several articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
What does "diatonic" mean? Which kind of diatonic scale? Major? Natural minor? Harmonic minor? Melodic minor?
I just found this article...it is quite confusing! First, I am not familiar with the term, "temperated". (Did someone mean "tempered", or did I miss something?)
Second, regarding the use of the words "note" and "tone" a valid point has been dismissed: although even trained musicians often mistakenly refer to a musical sound as a "note", this common error doesn't justify its perpetuation, particularly in Wikipedia. A note is a written music symbol which visually represents a pitch (sound); see Musical notation. The correct nomenclature for the sound is a tone. (Of course, this leads to confusion due to the various other meanings of the word "tone" in music.)
Third, in university we study the "Materials of Music" (referring to the various theoretical subjects). The term is in common use.
Fourth, which came first...the chicken or the egg? Someone intelligently stated that "Theory is derived from Music", and not vice versa. BRAVO! Obviously, every culture has made music before attempting to dissect or analyse it! The counter-argument provided (that "explicit instruction in theoretical subjects has been part of musical education for centuries") is true, but irrelevant. If this were the case, every composer would simply "follow the rules", and there would be "no such animal" as a new original composition. How can you account for the countless musicians who can create beautiful, original music, but lack any form of musical training? Also, keep in mind that Chopin failed his "composition course"! And what of youngsters who begin composing (unnotated, albeit) before receiving any sort of musical training? Rest assured, Theory IS derived from Music!
Fifth...this article has many obvious weaknesses. Much work is needed! Prof.rick 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted the opening of this article to an earlier and better version. The most recent version had numerous inaccuracies. For instance:
"In music, a scale is a collection of tones."
But this is insufficient. It doesn't distinguish a scale from a set or a chord.
"There are two aspects to the scale all tones available for a specific type of music such as all keys in a piano. all tones used in part or all of a musical work, such as the piano keys touched for one melody."
I don't know what is meant by "aspects" here, but it's not correct -- "all the piano keys touched for one melody" do not constitute a scale. Consider the melody of the opening of Beethoven's Eroica -- the is not a scale by anyone's definition.
"The first meaning of scale leads us to independently established tonal systems such as natural scale (most folk music), 12 temperated system (european), 53 temperated system (middle eastern), 72 temperated system (south indian), etc.."
Temperated is not a word, as someone else has already pointed out.
"The second meaning of scale involves a discussion of the different collections of tones within the domain of one such tonal system/ Usually a subset of 8 or fewer tones picked among all available tones in an octave make the skeleton of the scale of a melody."
This is also untrue -- the diatonic scale predated the chromatic and was in use for many centuries before it was reimagined as a subset of the chromatic.
A final plea: please do not edit the music articles unless you know what you're talking about. You wouldn't edit the technical math or science articles unless you actually had some qualifications and understood the material. Somehow, everyone feels qualified to rework the music entries, no matter how low their level of competence. This damages the credibility of Wikipedia. Njarl 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Could someone with a thorough understanding of the subject edit this to make it more accessible to those of us who don't? Parts like "Accidentals are rare, and somewhat unsystematically used, often to avoid the tritone" strike me as meaningless to anyone who doesn't know and understand that information already.
The article has:
Note that such labeling requires the choice of a "first" note; hence scale-degree labels are not intrinsic to the scale itself, but rather to its modes. For example, if we choose A as tonic, then we can label the notes of the C diatonic scale using A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, and so on. However, the difference between two scale degrees is independent of the choice of scale degree 1.
This is wrong. If C=1 then the difference between 2=D and 3=E is two semitones. If A=1 then 2=B and 3=C are only one semitone apart.
Thus whether two notes are adjacent in a scale, or separated by one note, does not depend on the mode under discussion.
This is completely garbled. Notes in a scale are by definition adjacent. Perhaps a distance in semitones is meant. But anyway, it seems to me a part of the definition of scale, not a property.
The scale degrees of the traditional major scale can also be named using the terms tonic, supertonic, mediant, subdominant, dominant, submediant, subtonic. If the subtonic is a semitone away from the tonic, then it is usually called the leading-tone (or leading-note); otherwise the leading-tone refers to the raised subtonic.
In the traditional major scale the subtonic is by definition the leading tone and one semitone away from the tonic. Perhaps, any traditional 7-tone scale is meant.
−
Woodstone (
talk)
16:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Having come to this article as a non musician I find it interesting but very western. What I would envisage in an article of this title is a total overview of music scales explained in a manner that is comprehensible to a non musical reader. It should then link to ALL the other scale articles. One glaring omission is that the scales do not have sound files to demonstrate the differences. I understand this would be a major undertaking. There is not even a table of notes and their frequencies. How is that neither Bach nor Pythagoras gets a mention? -- CloudSurfer ( talk) 19:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to bring Wikipedia's music theory articles up to a more professional standard. I've tried to rewrite this one to be more accurate and consistent. I hope I don't offend anyone.
The main change is to be consistent about the distinction between "scale' and "mode." There is admittedly some inconsistency in the way musicians use these terms, but that's no reason for the Wikipedia article to be inconsistent.
I've also removed the section that refers to Bob Fink's website. This material was controversial and non-peer-reviewed. If someone wanted to add a section on scales and acoustics, that would be great, but it should refer to more reputable sources -- for instance William Sethares "Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale."
Tymoczko 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about this definition:
So you're saying the C major scale has no tonic pitch? That'll be a surprise to many musicians.
I think the difference is much deeper than this. Scales are collections of pitches put in (ascending or descending) order. Modes are much more than pitch collections: they are patterns of use. The Phrygian mode is established by the conventional use of particular melodic patterns which surround the final (and in some cases the dominant) -- that's the only way you know which is the final. When we speak of "major mode" or "minor mode" we aren't referring to scales but to key centers established via harmonic progressions. That's why a piece in Aeolian mode is different from one in the minor mode -- the latter is established by its cadential chord progressions, notably including the major V chord and its sharpened leading tone. — Wahoofive ( talk) 05:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Andrew F. 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) There is so much contradictory use of the words scale and mode, would anybody else welcome the application of the term "parent scale", meaning a set of notes without specification of modality? I sometimes think it would be nice if we could start from scratch and ditch all the synonyms for different parent scales, the whole issue is a nightmare! It's hard for a musician to catalogue their learning and ensure that they are not simply re-learning different modes of different parent scales.
So, can we just put at the top of the article, that modes are scales? I at least skimmed through about 20 articles to understand what scales are, then a music teacher I know said to me, "Modes are not scales," and linked me to back to this very (confusing) article. "What are known as the major and minor scales (sets of notes/pitches in no specific order) are really only two of seven modes." If that's correct, let's please put it on the page. Or something like this that really clarifies it and simplifies it. Maybe with a note to the exception of the Harmonic Minor. 12.165.5.47 ( talk) 09:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The distance between two successive notes in a scale is called a "scale step." Composers often transform musical patterns by moving every note in the pattern by a constant number of scale steps: thus, in the C major scale, the pattern C-D-E might be shifted up, or transposed, a single scale step to become D-E-F. This process is called scalar transposition (see also musical sequence). Since the steps of a scale can have various sizes, this process introduces subtle melodic and harmonic variation into the music. This variation is what gives scalar music much of its complexity.
This doesn't entirely make sense. C-D-E could simply be changed to C-D-D♯. Someone knowledgeable should look at what I quoted and rework it. 80.202.209.162 ( talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the merits of the various discussions, I suggest that this material shouldn't be in the lead of the article. The lead of a WP article is generally about gently leading an outsider into the subject with an uncontroversial overview. Detailed points generally belong in subsections. So I suggest that this material firstly be relocated to a later place, probably in its own subsection. That move, in itself, might then help us to clarify the points it is trying to make. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 14:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've moved most of that paragraph into its own section later in the article. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 22:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this link in "External links" really relevant? Excuse me from saying so, but IMHO that site has telltale signs of kookiness. TorLillqvist ( talk) 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
In response to Feline Hymnic reverting my edit...
I'm quite new to Wiki so I didn't immediately realize my edit had been actively reverted, I just thought it had got lost somehow. So I re-posted it.
Seeing your comment in the history tab, may I explain why I think it's important?
The bulk of western music is based on semitones but when I was learning music theory nobody explained why an octave was divided into 12 equal intervals (rather than eg 53). It remained a baffling mystery through several years of music lessons.
It was only much later when I taught myself to play the guitar that I understood that tuning in 5ths naturally generates a total of 12 keys, but I saw that mathematically it made no sense. Then the flash of understanding came that it was just a coincidence that the harmonics approximately fitted with the mathematic intervals - the 5th pretty well, the 3rd rather less well.
Later still I heard about the "commas" and they seemed to be described in awfully complex terms when actually they were just the difference between the harmonics and the 12-root-2 divisions - quite simple really.
So I thought someone interested to understand scales should hear this straight away rather than be baffled like I was.
If you can explain it better that's fine but I don't think it should be left out.
Best wishes, DrJCPC ( talk) 01:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It is also good that you now seem to have a proper account, namely "DrJCPC". That's a good step. The "temperament" edits to the article were done from an "anon-IP" account. Many editors (myself included) who keep watch on some articles for things going astray will be quite trigger-happy in reverting such anon-IP contributions, but will be somewhat more careful in reverting those by established, account-based contributors. For one thing, being able to view an editor's previous contributions helps us get a feel for the seriousness and experience of that contributor. (For instance, you can view my previous contributions here and yours here.) I hope that helps. Keep contributing! Feline Hymnic ( talk) 23:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
_______________________________________________________________
I understand the need for a simple introductary article with more detailed descriptions referenced but I think the present artical uses highly technical jargon (requiring a general reader to follow frequent links, interrupting the flow) and still does not explain that the underlying structure of a scale depends first on the division of an octave into 12 semitone intervals. This is so basic that I don't see how you would want to leave it out.
The obvious question "Why 12?" should also be addressed before launching into the details of the various diatonic and other scales.
I'll get back and try to add a simple intro (or maybe you would prefer to put one in?)
Best wishes, DrJCPC ( talk) 17:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
As several people have noted on the 'talk' page over the years, this article seems to lack focus and structure. Somewhat too much of it seems to suffer from the Wikipedia malaise of being globs of information, made by experts for experts, rather than a structured means to assist people who might well be relative beginners to develop and grow in their understanding of our topic. Might we spend a little time putting ourselves in the shoes of someone who doesn't know the subject and imagining how to present the material to them? And similarly deciding what material to present? And what not to present? And what to provide links for? I've just made a small start by re-ordering some sections to keep information about Western scales together (they had previously been held apart by non-Western and microtonal sections). Feline Hymnic ( talk) 23:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Where and how is this article too technical and what should be done to improve it and why? Hyacinth ( talk) 07:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This has to be the most useless article on this wiki. All the information on here is only comprehensible by somebody who already knows it. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, to teach. Then I look at the talk page, and I see people complaining about the 'math-y' parts. Instead of removing -every piece- of information that isn't instantly understood by someone whose only focuses on music, maybe leave it so that way anyone with an understanding of math or physics will actually get something out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.161.212 ( talk) 07:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think "musical scale" is the 'most common' name, so it should be moved back to scale (music) per Manual of Style. 24.18.215.132 23:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the article title should be Scale (music), because the most important word in the title (in this case the word "Scale") should be the first one. "Scale" is also the word that anyone would type in the
search box, which automatically proposes "Scale (music)" as one of the possible alternatives. Moreover, and even more importantly, this is consistent with a style widely adopted in Wikipedia in these cases (even in articles about music):
Scale
As you probably know, if we decide to change the title, the current title Musical scale will be turned into a page which will redirect here, and double redirects will be fixed by whoever does the move, or automatically by BOTs.
Paolo.dL ( talk) 12:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
My examples do support the proposal to adopt the title Scale (music), especially (but not only) the specific examples about Scale. Most of them are not redirects. Even the redirects (which I copied from the disambiguation pages Degree, Interval, Mode, Transposition) support my proposal. Indeed, Transposition (mathematics) redirects to Cycle (mathematics), not to Mathematical transposition, Interval (time) redirects to Time, not to Time interval, etc. (for more details, see the updated list of links provided above).
Moreover, the proposal is not only supported by examples. I will give other motivations:
1) The introduction says "In
music, a scale is...". It does not and should not say "A musical scale is..."...
2) In dictionaries, people are used to search for "scale", not for "musical" when they want to know the meaning of the word scale in music. For instance:
Scale (from
Webster's online dictionary)
|
3) Whoever is going to search for an article about musical scales will type at least the word "scale" in the search box (not always they will type "musical scale").
Paolo.dL (
talk)
09:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe the parenthetical form is preferred for disambiguation when there is not an unambiguous common name form. But here, "musical scale" is a very commonly used term for it, unambiguous, appearing in thousand of books before 1900 even, and hundreds of thousands by now. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Answer 1: Let's not waste our time discussing whether I addressed all your concerns before you expressed them or did not address them at all. It only matters that I provided several reasons to adopt
Scale (music) and not to change
Interval (music) into
Musical interval.
Answer 2: Non-musical examples are relevant because Wikipedia is not only about music (and this is the reason why we need to disambiguate the title of this article, using either
Scale (music) or
Musical scale).
Answer 3: In music, for each specific topic (such as
Scale), the articles starting with "Musical" are typically less than those starting with the name of the topic. For instance, in this case only one article starts with "Musical" (
Musical scale) and two with "Scale" (
Scale (album) and
Scale (string instruments)). See the
disambiguation page. Also, there's a series of articles about
Mode in music:
Mode (music),
Gregorian mode, etc.. However, no article about "Mode" in music starts with "Musical". But since there are a lot of topics in music, we have more articles starting with "Musical" (very generic term) than articles starting with "Scale" or "Mode" (very specific).
Answer to Dicklyon (00:51, 10 June 2012): The expression Musical scale (as well as "Musical notes") is rarely used as a chapter title in music textbooks. The most common titles are
See, for instance, Music theory, or musictheory.net, or Music theory and history. Similarly, in the introduction of this article, we say: "In music, a scale is...". We do not and should not say "A musical scale is..."... ". Paolo.dL ( talk) 21:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this term had no link, so created a start article of Tetratonic scale (a scale having only four notes). I'd welcome any support in expanding the article. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 17:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd submit that "Types of scale" would read smoother done in order of quantity. Would folks support modifying it to the below? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 21:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Types of scale
Scales may be described according to the intervals they contain:
- for example: diatonic, chromatic, whole tone
or by the number of different pitch classes they contain:
- Octatonic (8 tones per octave): used in jazz and modern classical music
- Heptatonic (7 tones per octave): the most common modern Western scale
- Hexatonic (6 tones) and pentatonic (5 tones): common in Western folk music
- Tetratonic (4 tones), tritonic (3 tones), and ditonic (2 tones): generally limited to prehistoric ("primitive") music
- Monotonic (1 tone): limited use in liturgy, or for effect in modern art music