Talk:Diatonic and chromatic/Archive 1

A new article to resolve difficulties in certain Wikipedia music articles

I have made a very cursory start on this article, just so that it exists and can now be modified by interested editors. See discussion at Talk:Interval (music), which has recently been shifted to Talk:Diatonic scale. –Noetica 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of material at Chromatic scale that should definitely be moved here, especially the Chromaticism section (that redirect should be changed too). Also, with regard to intervals, there's a little bit of material at semitone that can be duplicated here or pointed to that explains the tuning distinction between diatonic and chromatic semitones (i.e. whether or not the interval is connected by an unbroken cycle of fifths). - Rainwarrior 07:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We also need a way to distinguish the term's use in diatonic function, where "diatonic" seems to mean something like "individual scale degree identity" rather than an antonym to "chromatic". —Wahoofive (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen Diatonic used as an antonym to Chromatic and I'd like to see this substantiated. Sounds like original research again.--Roivas 20:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Noetica keeps referring me to this definition by Percy Scholes that he claims supports his claim that the HM and who knows what other synthetic scales are diatonic. This definition does not support his claim and I want this resolved.--Roivas 20:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We are too soon into specifics, and it will be best not to clutter this page with quotes, as Wahoofive has said about related pages. Regrettably, though, Roivas has launched right back into detailed debate, and I should respond for the record:

The diatonic scales are the major and minor, made up of tones and semitones (in the case of the harmonic minor scale, also an augmented second), as distinct from the chromatic,... (Percy Scholes, Oxford Companion to Music, "Diatonic and chromatic", 9th edition, 1955).

(That quote, by the way, plainly shows one of the many simple oppositions of diatonic and chromatic that Roivas claims never to have seen.)

And this, for the ascending melodic, just to show the diversity of usage from current sources in the more popular domain. Here we have, from the good people at Britannica, the opinion that while the harmonic is not diatonic, the (ascending) melodic is(!):

The “harmonic” minor that results is, strictly speaking, no longer a diatonic scale, unlike “melodic” minor, which simply borrows its upper tetrachord from the parallel major, i.e., the major scale beginning and ending on the same pitch. (Concise Britannica, "Diatonic".)

This article should proceed in a more orderly way. When we have shifted all discussion to here, we could perhaps archive these present unruly exchanges, and start off afresh.

– Noetica^♬Talk 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As Noetica pointed out (I forgot about this definition), the New Grove does have a decent definition of "Diatonic Interval" if you want to use that in the article.--Roivas 21:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Roivas had made the claim that diatonic was not applied to intervals, despite the abundant evidence in Wikipedia and elsewhere that it is. And yes, we could use New Grove in the article. Good idea. It would be especially germane also to show how it equivocates strangely about whether the tritone is diatonic or not, though by New Grove's own definition it plainly is. Such equivocation, and such vagueness, is exactly the issue.

– Noetica^♬Talk 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"The “harmonic” minor that results is, strictly speaking, no longer a diatonic scale, unlike “melodic” minor, which simply borrows its upper tetrachord from the parallel major, i.e., the major scale beginning and ending on the same pitch. (Concise Britannica, "Diatonic".)"

The ascending melodic minor scale is definitely not diatonic according to most sources (the two semitones are not maximally separated). I don't like being expected to take the editor's word for it and I'm glad to see a clear, unambiguous source.--Roivas 15:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the "tritone not being diatonic", I could see how the definition is accurate if it only relates the upper tones of the interval to a common "tonic" in the major and natural minor scales. This explanation breaks down in the Lydian & Locrian modes. Careless lexicographers.--Roivas 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Diatonic and chromatic intervals

These terms have a very clear meaning in the context of tuning. In Pythagorean tuning and meantone temperament there are intervals which are available within the cycle of fifths (diatonic intervals) and intervals which are not (chromatic intervals). There is a section in the article semitone which explains how this works for diatonic (e.g. C to D-flat) versus chromatic (e.g. C to C-sharp) semitones, but it applies to all interval types. This meaning is actually quite useful in this context, as there is distinction being made about the tuning of these intervals. (Incidentally, the interval type is identifiable by their spelling, anything augmented or diminished is chromatic.)

This article, however, doesn't mention this aspect of the term at all. Instead it focuses on the rather nebulous case of using it in the context of tonal harmony theory, where I don't really think it comes up much, to tell you the truth. - Rainwarrior 07:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rainwarrior, practically all of the inconsistencies of interest, and certainly those that have led to uncertainties and confusions in Wikipedia articles, have to do with the terms as used in the Common practice period. To make our clarifying work manageable at all, it is also highly desirable to limit the large part of this article that deals with that period by assuming equal temperament. This does not mean there is no more to say. Certainly there is much to say about semitones, etc. But see my comments in the next section below.

– Noetica^♬Talk 09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would we omit usages outside of a narrow period of history such as the common practice period? That makes no sense to me. (Are you saying that articles about medieval and Renaissance music don't belong on Wikipedia?) - Rainwarrior 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can incorporate any relevant item you want into the article as long as it's done clearly and based on published sources. If it's going to become a microtonal jargon marathon, then it will only make mud out of the article. Maybe a thorough, concise section can be added about Diatonic scales and the evolution of instrument tuning.--Roivas 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Rainwarrior, Roivas and I seem to agree here. For a start, I think it is perhaps misleading to characterise the Common Practice Period as merely "a narrow period of history". After all, most popular music, and much more, is still largely in the grip of it. Certainly no one is saying that any kind of music is beyond the scope of Wikipedia! Myself, I would be happy to see exhaustive discussion of diatonic and chromatic in all their senses, for all periods. As it stands right now, the article is very new, and yet it does give a glimpse of earlier uses of the terms, to show how they have evolved at least. But the starting intention here has been to sort out a particular unholy mess that has arisen from applications of the terms to common practice music. Keeping all of this clear and under control is going to be a formidable task! I might make some changes in the headings right now, to sequester common practice concerns from other concerns. OK?

– Noetica^♬Talk 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A major edit, building on Wahoofive's work

I think Wahoofive has developed the article well, and deserves our thanks. Keeping the same broad structure, I have taken things further, with new references and links, substantial changes of wording, and severe editing of the list of sources. Some of this last editing is for clarity and consistency of arrangement (though more could be done towards that). The rest of it will no doubt be controversial. The disputed and confusing uses of the terms diatonic and chromatic concern common practice only, so sources dealing with terms as applied to Palestrina (who died before 1600) and earlier are irrelevant. They are disputed by no one. Also, looking at the sources listed, I found that some made no relevant judgement at all, while others were wrongly classified. I removed the former, and shifted the latter. A great deal remains to be done. Rainwarrior has made some useful points, above; and Wahoofive has pointed out further requirements above also. That's all fine. We can accommodate those. But before we go too much further, here are some considerations that I regard as crucial for the success of this article, and which I urge editors to reflect on:

• The matter of the contested usages (and evidence for them), which as I have said concern only common practice, ought to be kept free of material irrelevant to that period. This will require vigilance and restraint. The article must be focused in this way and others, or it will become unwieldy very fast.
• Many articles at Wikipedia, especially in the area of music, try to do too much. This article will fail if we open the floodgates to deal with competing systems of tuning and the like. I strongly recommend that, except where it is strictly impossible to do so, we confine our exposition by the assumption of equal temperament. Alternatives to this are, for most of our purposes, irrelevant – and utterly discouraging to most readers.
• One original purpose of this article was to function as a core reference for the two terms with which it deals, so that it can regulate their use throughout Wikipedia. Articles are blatantly inconsistent, even within themselves, in their use of these terms. But we have yet to give recommendations in the article concerning the terms. I think they need to be discussed in detail here first.
• Let's make an effort to respect each other, and in particular to observe the conventions that make for an orderly Discussion page: sign your name, post at the end of a coherent block of text (don't interpolate carelessly, making the flow of the discussion awkward to follow); don't edit anyone else's contributions here (or your own in such a way as to make references to what you have said incomprehensible), etc.

– Noetica^♬Talk 09:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

---

"The diatonic scales are the major and minor, made up of tones and semitones (in the case of the harmonic minor scale, also an augmented second), as distinct from the chromatic,... (Percy Scholes, Oxford Companion to Music, "Diatonic and chromatic", 9th edition, 1955)."

Is this parenthetical statement part of the definition or is it an editor's addition?--Roivas 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Okay. Looks like the Oxford Companion to Music is solid.

Other than that:

The first definition does not directly say that the HM is DIA.

We need to see exact wording from these sources:

1. Harmony: Its Theory and Practice, Ebenezer Prout, 1889 at Amazon

2. Everyman's Dictionary of Music, Eric Blom, 1946 (and later editions)

The only thing we can be sure of is that Prout's book is on sale @ Amazon.com.

If someone can find out what those books say, we can add them back in. Roivas' big library day is on Saturday and I'll have the Prout book to look at.

--Roivas 15:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I added some more definitions. All from the common practice period.

I even found a reference that defies what I'm trying to prove from some obscure music theory book. What are the odds?

I have no problem with someone archiving all those older discussions from Interval (Talk), & Diminished Seventh (Talk). I don't know how to do it, though.

--Roivas 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Removal of the Goetschius quote:

Noetica, if you pay a little attention, you'll see how the Goetschius section cleary rules out the HM scale.

First, on page 16, he shows the principle behind constructing a proper Diatonic scale and goes on to say the the HM scale does not conform to it.

Read it again.

--Roivas 20:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my removal of the Goetschius quote: I am, in fact, paying the most assiduous attention. The quoted text does not mention any principle for constructing a "proper diatonic scale". It does say this (at paragraph 16): "The diatonic half-step is the difference in pitch between tones that lie five harmonic degrees apart (harmonic degrees are fifths upwards C-G-D-A-E-B...etc. The chromatic half-step is seven harmonic degrees removed," and then "When thus defined, by direct derivation from the key, the natural (or major) scale is found to represent the following succession of whole and half-steps; whole steps between scale-steps 1-2, 2-3, 4-5, 5-6, 6-7; half-steps between scale steps 3-4, 7-8." But there is nothing here to define the term diatonic scale, which is what we are examining.

Really, though, it is easy to find support for the view in question! That is not disputed at all: we all agree that it is a dominant position. If citations that are no better than the Goetschius cannot be found by others, I'll find some to add myself. [I have corrected my spelling of "Goetschius".– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)]

I am grateful that Roivas has been similarly accommodating, in providing the Karl Wilson Gehrkens citation.[Amended my text.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)]

As for Blom and Prout, the latter will be reinstated when we have the text available to cite. If Roivas doesn't get to that, I will eventually.

– Noetica^♬Talk 21:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of Par. 16 is to describe the diatonic scale!

Okay, but if you're going to be that exacting (re: Goetschius), then put the other Grove definition in the ambiguous section since it doesn't exactly say the HM scale is DIA.

If this is merely a contest now I will find more references over the weekend.--Roivas 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Well, I hope this not a contest. We all want to develop a good unbiased and useful article, I hope.

Why did Roivas again remove the citation of the current Oxford (this time without explanation)? The reason given earlier was this "This definition does not cite the HM scale. It's referrencing chords only." (edit summary). But as I pointed out in my own edit summary restoring it: "Restored OCM entry (current); it makes explicit and decisive mention of the harmonic and melodic minors". Here is the text in question:

diatonic (from Gk. dia tonikos, ‘at intervals of a tone’). In the major–minor tonal system, a diatonic feature – which may be a single note, an interval, a chord, or an extended passage of music – is one that uses exclusively notes belonging to one key. In practice, it can be said to use a particular scale, but only with the proviso that the alternative submediants and leading notes of harmonic and melodic minor allow up to nine diatonic notes, compared with the seven available in a major scale.

This clearly means that in practice the altered notes of the harmonic and melodic scales don't disqualify those scales as diatonic. What other interpretation is at all reasonable? I call for discussion on this point. If we do not get a satisfactory account of an alternative interpretation (which might mean re-allocating the citation to the last, uncertain, category), then the citation ought to be restored.

– Noetica^♬Talk 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"...allow up to nine diatonic tones" is ambiguous. It doesn't mean anything.

It's most likely a reference to "diatonic triad construction" in minor and not a claim that the scales themselves are diatonic. Don't be so dismissive of my references and then put that in there. It's too ambiguous. We know what the same dictionary says about the HM scale, so please keep it in the ambiguous section.--Roivas 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to know how exactly to understand some of these references (one of the major motivations for this article). In fact, though, the point OCM makes is specifically and explicitly about the classification of scales. I accept the re-allocation to "ambiguous" happily, though.

– Noetica^♬Talk 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's trying to define "Diatonic" in some abstract sense. It says "diatonic feature" and applies it to "a single note, an interval, a chord, or an extended passage of music." It doesn't even mention "scale" until a bit later, as if it's trying very hard not to say the HM is DIA, yet account for common usage of it's tones in composition.--Roivas 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine! It's badly written, like most of the sources we examine here. I disagree about the interpretation of current OCM's entry, but I don't have a problem with re-allocating it, as I have said.

– Noetica^♬Talk 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What is all this supposed to mean for the rest of Wikipedia? Walter Piston's approach is best, I think. He seems to avoid using the term "diatonic" whenever possible.--Roivas 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing is obvious: there certainly are big implications for other Wikipedia music articles. Wahoofive too has said it would be best to avoid use of these contested terms where possible. I tend to agree, though there's no way we can always achieve that – and it would be pusillanimous and artificial to tiptoe around use of certain terms just because their meanings have grown muddy. These are, after all, important terms currently and historically. But let's focus on getting things clear and consensual in this article first, yes? Then we can more lucidly address that broader question.

– Noetica^♬Talk 23:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Common practice period

Why do we refer to this so often? Most of the ideas expressed apply to other periods as well (provided we actually mention the other diatonic modes). The only thing that doesn't seem to fit is the 14th century coloured notation (which is very clearly noted as an exception). - Rainwarrior 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I hope most of us realize that we're no longer in the Common Practice period.--Roivas 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rainwarrior, as the text now stands, that cromatico usage is not so clearly marked as an exception.

Common practice? As I have explained before, the main original motivation for this article was to clear up widespread failures to communicate clearly using these terms in respect of common practice. Of course the terms originated before that period, and have always been used in confusing ways. The history of music is littered with instances of muddled terminology, and the pair diatonic–chromatic is prominent in that whole sorry saga. And of course this article has to address all relevant periods and usages. There are several other usages that I am holding back from including in the article, for now. By all means, let's put in everything that can help clarify terms – in their own right, and for other Wikipedia articles, and for the increasing number of writers (in the popular media and beyond) who cite Wikipedia as an authority. But let's all work together to keep it orderly and readable.

Roivas, I'm confident that we all know that the dates of the Common Practice Period are from about 1600 to about 1900 (or 1910, as some prefer to say), and also that such dates are always pretty arbitrary. I'm confident also that we all appreciate the hold that "common practice" has over popular music and much other music, beyond hardcore 20C and current "art music". And theory that applies most aptly to "common practice" is still the basis of a huge amount of musicology and musical pedagogy. Hence the importance of getting things right, as this article strives to do.

– Noetica^♬Talk 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of Diatonic

We've listed "through the tones" and "stretched out" as differing etymologies for the word diatonic. This I think is misleading as it is because "tone" itself comes from "stretched", refering to stretched strings (see the etmological definition at dictionary.com). Thus the definition "through the tones" isn't exactly opposed to the latter meaning. - Rainwarrior 16:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rainwarrior, I appreciate your concern about the etymological information as I have expanded it. Having looked into the matter at some length, though, I find that many of the relevant terms are confused, and have been since antiquity. Even more in Medieval times. Yes, clearly tonos (from the verb teinein "to stretch") itself means "stretched" (as in English "muscle tone", and less directly such words as "tetanus"). But that doesn't help much, in the end. For one thing, the word in Greek musical theory could mean, as in English and other modern European languages, both a single note (from a stretched string, originally, we may presume) and the interval of a tone. Now, we could look at the relative frequencies of occurrence of relevant words in Greek (in the different senses), and their use by various authors at various dates. The key word tonos came quite late in the sense of an interval, and this usage is so rare that Liddell and Scott's exhaustive lexicon appears not even to record it; and we could look at each of teinein, diatonos, the very rare diatonikos, and diateinein. It is so far unsettled how the notion of stretching enters into the formation of the word "diatonic" in "diatonic genus", etc. It could be simply the "intervallic" stretch between the two notes of the interval of a tone (so that tonos is then available as a "pre-formed" element in word-formation, as in OED); or, more likely from the weight of all considerations, it could mean that the pitches are distributed (stretched out) most equally: no interval greater than a tone (as in the other two genera), none less than a semitone (as in the enharmonic genus).

Original research is not acceptable, and for that reason I refer only to easily accessible published sources in the note on etymology, but they plainly disagree. Many cite one or the other etymology as if it were uncontroversial. This is a mistake, and such dogmatic acceptance just continues the difficulties with the terms that we deal with in this article.

– Noetica^♬Talk 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Lassus

Re:

For instance Orlando Lasso's Prophetiae Sibyllarum opens with a prologue proclaiming, "these chromatic songs (Carmina chromatico), heard in modulation, in which the mysteries of the Sibyls are sung, intrepidly," which here takes its modern meaning referring to the extremely chromatic nature of the work.

The word "chromatic" near the end is kind of self-referential. Could we say "...referring to its extensive use of accidentals" or "of half steps" or "of parts of the chromatic scale?" I don't know the work myself, so I don't know what makes it seem chromatic in the modern sense. In fact, it's not clear to me that the meaning of the word has changed -- the Greeks called one tetrachord "chromatic" because it had consecutive half steps, essentially the same meaning as today. It's "diatonic" that has changed, and only to mean something like "tonal" or "common-practice harmony".

It would be great to find a reference to the word "diatonic" from that period as well. What about the Jeppeson reference? Plus, we should rename that section since Lassus isn't remotely considered medieval. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeppesen is very strict about the term in his book about the music of Palestrina. I'll add a section about it some time next week.

Yeah. The 16th century composers shouldn't be mistaken for "Medieval Composers."

So the "Common Practice" usage and lexicon mistakes aren't so dominating, we should clarify the historical basis of "Diatonic."

The words "tonal" and "diatonic" have obviously been confused. I believe we can make this clear by citing its clearer meaning before (and possibly after) the Common Practice period. I know that Schoenberg is after the Common Practice period. I'll move it later when we have a home for it.--Roivas 17:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

A section on the Renaissance period should be added after the Medieval section.--Roivas 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I certainly agree that Medieval and Renaissance practices should not simply be dealt with together. More needs to be done on the earlier uses of the terms diatonic and chromatic. But I'm wondering what Roivas means by "lexicon mistakes". Is this to do with the etymological note (in which case see my long comment above, in answer to Rainwarrior), or something else? Of course I agree that we should "clarify the historical basis of" the uses of the term diatonic. This has to be done in several ways, some of them going right back to Greek theory. And some of the explanation has to be more than cursory. The really hard part is to keep things orderly and understandable.

Wahoofive, the Jeppesen reference is fine, and could be used. There are innumerable references that would do to establish the basic earlier senses of the term diatonic. But let's not put any of them in the list of sources that deals with common-practice usages – the ones that are most confused of all, and cause most difficulty in Wikipedia.

And Wahoofive, I see what you mean about self-reference with the Lassus material. (I think it's great to have that in the article, by the way.) This might still need some polishing. The note I add quoting New Grove is instructive, isn't it? Perhaps confining such important technical detail to notes will help the flow of things, and keep things useful to the more general reader seeking general guidance about the use of the terms.

– Noetica^♬Talk 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But I'm wondering what Roivas means by "lexicon mistakes"

The careless blurring of meanings as regards "Diatonic."--Roivas 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see. Just the general blurrings and ambiguities that we've been addressing all along. Good! – Noetica^♬Talk 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering about your note about "Carmina chromatica". Every source I've seen for this work has used "chromatico", and I'm pretty sure that's what was in its original publication. Regardless of whether or not it is bad latin, isn't it still the word that Lasso wrote? - Rainwarrior 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Rainwarrior. A rough Google search shows much more for Carmina chromatico than for Carmina chromatica. It is plausible that Lassus himself got the Latin wrong, perhaps just as a slip of the quill. Still, New Grove has one mention only, and that gives the correct Latin form. In any case things are kept informative and neat by sticking to chromatic songs in the text, and bundling the rest into the endnotes.

– Noetica^♬Talk 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rainwarrior's new version of the passage on Lassus reads:

...which here takes its modern meaning referring to the frequent change of key and use of chromatic intervals in the work.

I hate to be a pedant here, but we've nowhere else defined chromatic as having to do with "frequent changes of key" (music of the Renaissance is arguably never in a key anyway) and the phrase "chromatic intervals" has only compounded the problem. Furthermore, I'm still not convinced that the "modern meaning" of chromatic is fundamentally different from its tetrachord meaning, other than extending to a 12-note scale. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Wahoofive, as I see it the problems with the term chromatic are linked to the many problems with diatonic, though they may be fewer. For both terms, modern uses are outlandishly muddled. It seems certain that chromatic when applied to a passage or a whole piece of common practice music can indeed suggest (melodic) use of "chromatic intervals" (what do you take them to be, by the way?) and frequent "chromatic" modulations, often to "remote" keys, and often using "chromatic" chords to effect the transition. Would you like me to try to convince you?

– Noetica^♬Talk 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there's a better way to properly describe it. I didn't want to make it too verbose, and there's an accuracy/concinnity tradeoff. In the Prophetiae Sibyllarum you do have some use of augmented unisons, but I that's not why it was called "chromatic"; the augmented unisons are a consequence of the chromaticism, rather than the means. They arise from the modulations which constantly occur throughout the work, which are chromatic because they use chords which are made up of pitches that do not belong to the current mode/key (whatever the appropriate term is). - Rainwarrior 02:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Rainwarrior. Word it differently somehow, I say. Let's keep it tight and clean. We continue to see how hard that is to do, I think. Meanwhile, I am delighted to have discovered one other person capable of deploying the term concinnity elegantly and accurately (in a word, capable of using it concinnously).

– Noetica^♬Talk 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving at other pages, and diversion of discussion to here

I have now archived all discussion at Talk:Interval (music), Talk:Diatonic scale, and Talk:Diminished seventh. Editors may wish to mine those archives for citations and discussion that can be useful to us here. I have executed this rather radical archiving partly in order to leave unruly and unedifying disputes behind, so that we can more easily work collegially on the present article. – Noetica^♬Talk 02:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you've done it to draw attention to and advertise this article, and by extension, yourself. You need to stop doing it. The rest of us should be allowed to discuss these other articles at the discussion pages associated with these other articles. TheScotch 09:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting guesses, Scotch. But you are entirely mistaken – about many things. Anyone is free to discuss an article at its talk page. I am not against that at all! I do it all the time, and encourage it in others. I also sometimes like to draw attention to other articles in talk pages, so that we can coordinate our efforts and especially use crucial terms in an informed and uniform way. You seem to be allergic to people doing that. (See Talk:Heptatonic scale.) That's your problem; please don't impose your problem on anyone else. You may be pleased to note that there has been tension between me and one other editor, who at least earlier thought that the terms with which this article dealt are straightforward and simple in their application. They are not, as the evidence amply shows. If you want to continue personal attacks against me, please do so at my talk page. (See below.) Don't clutter and confuse the useful discussion some of us are aiming to carry on here. I'll answer nothing personal here, only points concerning the content or structure of this article.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Anyone is free to discuss an article at its talk page."

As soon as you archive a discussion, you effectively end it.

Re: "I do it all the time, and encourage it in others."

No, you discuss this article in the discussion pages belonging to other articles (and at enormous length) and "encourage" (which is far too weak a word) others to come here, which is quite a different thing.

It's extremely hypocritical of you, by the way, to complain about my "attacking you personally" considering that you attack me personally right and left over and over and over again. TheScotch 10:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Scotch, one last time. You launched a vigorous personal attack on me as soon as you saw that I had the temerity to post a small comment at "your" article's talk page: Talk:Pentatonic scale; and you also immediately and boisterously impugned and disfigured this present article, out of what appears to be sheer unmodulated spite. When you did so, I made a small editing concession in response, after first thanking you for your comments (see below: "Thank you for responding to my request to contribute here, ..."). But in fact, you have done nothing constructive for this article at all (preferring, it seems, silently and pettily to remove links to it from related articles). Nor have you taken on board any of the rather pertinent remarks that I have made at talk pages of other articles. If you were at all inclined to look at the thing dispassionately (or capable of doing so), you might see the value of drawing a line at certain other articles' talk pages by archiving them, along with their protracted and bitter disputes. If anyone wants to unarchive those disputes, for some unfathomable reason, they could have done so, and still can. But we here are trying move on, and do something constructive.

Yes, I sometimes bite back when bitten. I am quite capable of a sustained and bloody battle, and can defend myself with unsettling ease against such impotent barbs as you proffer. But I don't enjoy it, and want no part of it. If you REALLY insist, take it to my talk page. A display of public belligerence here does no one any credit, least of all you (if only you could see it). This is the last I will have to do with you personally at any talk page, other than at my own.

You might spend a little time while you're here studying the precision with which this article is crafted, and some of the rewards of hard-won peaceful collaboration that editors have been able to achieve.

But then again, I rather think you will not – given your form so far.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 13:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous intervals

After I made a small change to the organization of the "tuning" related section (I felt that the categories being used weren't very clear as to where or why this meaning of the term would apply), something came to mind about the definition of diatonic and chromatic intervals (which Noetica pointed out rather swiftly at my talk page). In the cycle-of-fifth tuning systems, chromatic or diatonic is decided by where the notes fall within the available pitches, and is not necessarily bound to a particular scale. Before well and equal temperaments, exotic keys like D flat major just weren't used in an instrumental context, and this is for the very practical reason that their chromatic intervals sounded bad, (that and also there wasn't really an absolute pitch standard). In these systems, every note on your keyboard has a specific name. It is not F sharp or G flat, it is only F sharp. If you wrote G flat, it would sound sour. (There were, however, plenty of keyboards with extra keys to accomodate. The organs used by Handel split every black key into two, for instance.)

In the case of tuning, the classification of whether an interval is diatonic or chromatic is not ambiguous. Either this interval is of the enharmonic form which requires the fewest fifths to reach (diatonic), or it is not (chromatic). Thus, every interval that is diminished or augmented, excepting the tritone, is chromatic. - Rainwarrior 07:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth noting, however, that this definition is consistent with the "between notes of a diatonic scale" definitions where the altered minor modes are excluded. - Rainwarrior 07:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

An interesting expository problem, Rainwarrior. Here is the beginning of the subsection as it now stands:

In equal temperament, there is no difference between the tuning of a diatonic interval and its chromatic equivalent. In systems other than equal temperament, however, there is often a distinction between enharmonic intervals which can clearly classify them as diatonic and chromatic.

I still have this difficulty, no matter whether it is resolvable by the context: a reader who has paid close attention up to this point may still sruggle with the idea of the "chromatic equivalent" to a "diatonic interval" (which has, in the main text but not the notes, been given only one meaning so far – with a twist concerning what diatonic scale might mean). Well, we all understand: but a little helpful redundancy may be in order for the readers. May I presume? I'll change it to this, and you can modify it further if you like:

In equal temperament, there is no difference between the tuning of a diatonic interval (defined above) and its enharmonic equivalent. For example, the notes F and E♯ represent exactly the same pitch, so the diatonic interval C-F (a perfect fourth) sounds exactly the same as its enharmonic equivalent: the chromatic interval C-E♯ (an augmented third). In systems other than equal temperament, however, there is often a pitch difference in notes that are enharmonically equivalent, with the result that a diatonic interval and its chromatic equivalent sound different.

This is longer, but it seems to me that the greater length is needed if the explanation is to be both accurate and understandable. (Note that the example I use of a "chromatic interval" works whichever understanding we have of "diatonic scale", since augmented thirds are chromatic both ways.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 08:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I like your version better, though I would suggest revising the first sentence. Because we still haven't unambiguously defined the diatonic interval, it's not really clear what is "defined above". - Rainwarrior 08:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks great as you have it now, Rainwarrior.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortable with the phrase "sound the same". In isolation that may be true, but we hear all musical elements in context. In C major, the interval C-E might "sound the same" as D-F# if they are both 5:4 (or both equal-tempered), but they don't have the same meaning -- and aren't necessary both "diatonic"! Similarly, C-Eb and C-D# might be tuned the same in equal temperament, but in context they will have different meanings and thus "sound different". Whether two intervals are tuned identically isn't necessarily relevant to whether they're diatonic or chromatic. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But the direct context here is tuning, isn't it? - Rainwarrior 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds the same? Hmmm. It's a tricky thing to convey both accurately and informatively. I can see Wahoofive's concern, but I think Rainwarrior's point answers it.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Different systems of tuning

Rainwarrior, I think the subsection Tuning is shaping up rather well. At least we are uncovering issues that were completely concealed before, and that enables us to discuss them here. I know it's more your specialty than mine, so I fully expect that you will edit, or edit out, changes that I put forward. I have some technical concerns, though, arising partly out of my imperfect grasp of the topic:

Concern 1. I had added this note:

Enharmonically equivalent "diatonic intervals" may also sound different in such systems, for example the diminished fifth E♯-B and the augmented fourth F-B.

You removed it, saying: "the two forms of the tritone are actually the same (the tritone is at the midpoint of the cycle of fifths)". So:

• First, I inserted this note before the text informed us that "This distinction most commonly arises in tuning systems that are based on a cycle of fifths,[...]"; and I intended it not to be restricted to those systems. Please tell me: are there some systems (unrestrictedly) in which what I wrote is correct? That is to say, are there some in which E♯ and F have different pitch? (Since the other note B is common to both intervals, I had thought that the question should reduce to that.)
• Second, do E♯ and F sound at the same pitch in the systems based on a circle of fifths? After all, you say this: "Under these systems the cycle of fifths isn't circular in the sense that a pitch at one end of the cycle (e.g. G♯) is not tuned the same as the enharmonic equivalent at its other end (A♭)," so this must be true:

The enharmonically equivalent tritone intervals D-G♯ and D-A♭ share a D but have different-sounding other notes, so these intervals sound different.

Yes?

Concern 2. You also brought in this change:

In systems other than equal temperament, however, there is often a sound difference between intervals that are enharmonically equivalent, and these alternatives may be labeled as diatonic or chromatic intervals.

Do you mean that in those other systems the sound difference is what motivates the differential labelling as diatonic or chromatic? If you don't mean this, I'm not sure what you do mean. If you do mean it, perhaps it should be stated unequivocally. I have some expertise in the area, and if I can't determine your meaning, perhaps many readers will not be able to.

Concern 3. The final paragraph now reads like this:

In tuning systems derived from a cycle of fifths the classification of intervals as diatonic or chromatic is not ambiguous. All intervals that are either augmented or diminished, excepting the tritone (of which both forms, the augmented fourth and diminished fifth, are tuned the same), are chromatic, and the rest are diatonic. This definition is consistent with the "drawn from the same diatonic scale" definition above as long as the harmonic minor and ascending melodic minor scale variants are not included.

The matter of the tritone I have asked about already. My question now is about this supposed non-ambiguity, and it is connected with my concern 2. I don't follow the logic here. With any system assumed, there is no ambiguity in diatonic or chromatic provided we adopt the basic definition (diatonic = between notes of a diatonic scale), and also exclude the harmonic and the ascending melodic. Why should we give the impression that this is true only in tuning systems derived from a cycle of fifths?

My overall worry is that some new motivation and definition for the terms diatonic and chromatic is implicitly appealed to in the subsection. If so, it should be accurately diagnosed and made explicit; if not, things must still need clarifying, since at least one competent reader can't quite sort this out yet!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I may have been overzealous when I made that edit. The two forms or tritone are both diatonic, but yes, they do have a different tuning. The thing that is unique to the tritones is that they are the octave inversions of eachother, which is not true of any of the other enharmonic pairs (octave-inversion sort of simplified out to "same sound" in my head when I was editing, I think, but this was a mistake).

What I meant by "sound difference" was "tuning difference". And yes, the description "diatonic" or "chromatic" interval is used in the context of tuning because there are two of them in (most) cycle-of-fifths tunings. For instance, if you are trying to describe the tuning of something in terms of smaller intervals, it is convenient to have names like "chromatic semitone" at your disposal.

Finally, maybe it's weird to say that it's "not ambiguous" and the others are, but basically it has to exclude the two "ambiguous" scales from its use of diatonic, or the properties of diatonic or chromatic intervals (e.g. number of fifths) become inconsistent.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the terms really only consistently apply to pythagorean and meantone tunings (though the latter is actually a very broad category; equal temperament is technically a meantone, for instance). I'm not sure offhand where the term diatonic or chromatic might belong in terms of just intonation (and I don't think I've seen them applied), really), with well temperament every interval is unique anyway, and that's most of the major tuning systems.

This section probably needs another pass-over for clarity's sake. I'll take another crack at it when I have time. - Rainwarrior 05:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get back to it. I think my edit covers the issues discussed; please take a look. 1. I've hopefully made it clear that this definition refers to only a specific class of tuning systems (cycle-of-fifths style); the terms aren't so widely used in other tuning systems and would generally have alternative definitions. 2. Clarification of the tritone's role here. 3. Revised the description of its relationship to the non-tuning definitions. - Rainwarrior 15:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Prevailing Key" is ambiguous in quote 3; and some new material to cover

All: great start on an important article! A couple of things I noticed...

The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Difficult Words

Diatonic: (of a musical scale, interval, etc.) involving only notes proper to the prevailing key without chromatic alteration.

I don't think this definition says anything about whether the HM or NM scales are included in the diatonic scales. I would include G#, along with G-natural, as a note in the key of a-minor. Otherwise are we switching keys every time we use a dominant chord in a minor key? I don't think any theorist would call the dominant-V modal mixture in minor. So I would have to classify this dictionary's usage as ambiguous. Even with this quotation, I don't see how the phrasing "most theorists exclude..." (or something like that) fits with the evidence presented.

An important section yet to be written on description of pieces or musical style as diatonic or chromatic in post-common practice music. I'll try to do some research to find cites on how these terms are used there by published theorists and historians. It's something that gets my students all the time (e.g., no, a chromatic scale in a piece doesn't make a diatonic composition chromatic). --Myke Cuthbert 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to our discussion, Myke. I agree with you about the placement of that definition of diatonic. I was being cautious, and didn't want to undo the work of a certain other editor. But now that you've said it, I think we should move it. Better still, omit it altogether. It's a minor and derivative dictionary. How about this, from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (SOED), a big two-volume standard resource:

2. Using only the notes proper to one key without chromatic alteration; based on a scale with five tones and two separated semitones. L17.

That would also go in the ambiguous and anomalous category, for the reasons you give and because it doesn't exclude the ascending melodic (which has five tones and two separated semitones). Even better would be this form the twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary (OED):

2. In modern music, denoting the scale which in any key proceeds by the notes proper to that key without chromatic alteration; hence, applied to melodies and harmonies constructed from such a scale.

SOED and OED are ambiguous given the inclusion of modified 6th and 7th degrees as diatonic in Oxford's own major music reference, the Oxford Companion to Music (OCM). (Those degrees are not necessarily "chromatically" altered, since the meaning of chromatically itself is uncertain in these two definitions, involving a circularity, if chromatic is taken as a direct opposite of diatonic). OED has several quotes to support its definition, a couple of which tend to support the HM-and-MM-excluding sense of diatonic scale, and a couple of which tend the other way. None of the quotes is truly decisive.

You write: "An important section yet to be written on description of pieces or musical style as diatonic or chromatic in post-common practice music." Do you really mean post-common-practice, or do you mean very late in common practice? Can you give an example, and say how our treatment of it might differ from our treatment of some highly chromatic work from about 1900? As I have mentioned above, the dates of the Common Practice Period (like those for periods in general) are vague, and a great deal that is written since 1900 or 1910 can be analysed as if it were common practice. I certainly agree that we need some treatment of chromatic works, styles, or genres in general, anyway.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming Myke meant things like pandiatonicism, in which "diatonic" certainly means only white-key music without any minor-key variants, and world music, same. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wahoofive's invocation of pandiatonicism is closer to what I meant, though much classic pandiatonic works (Copland for instance) can equally be described as tonal. The term comes up more often for works after 1950 which are not highly chromatic, but cannot be accurately described as tonal in the sense of having functional relationships among various notes of the scale. The music of Arvo Pärt or the American Minimalists is foremost in my memory as being described that way. I will look at what term the 3rd edition of Joseph Straus's book uses, but I'm pretty sure it uses the term diatonic atonality or something like that.

I wasn't thinking of world music, though I think research on cognitive isomorphisms between pitch and rhythm uses terms such as "diatonic rhythmic set" to talk about rhythmic patterns such as we see in Ewe music--2 2 1 2 2 2 1--where 2 could be thought of as a quarter note and 1 an eighth.

Thanks for the extra work on the quote. I think we're having the same ideas about key now.

Again, it's exciting to contribute to an article which has already been so well thought out. --Myke Cuthbert 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, Wahoofive: further uncertainties to unravel. All grist to our mill. I'm not sure that Myke meant what you assume; I hope he will explain. As for "world music" meaning the same as "pandiatonicism", I am surprised! Anyway, there are no links between the articles Pandiatonicism and World music, nor even any use of one term in the other article. Nor does World music use the terms diatonic or chromatic, or anything cognate with these. Not even in the lengthy discussion (Talk:World music). Would you please research this a little further? Myself, I'm no expert in the domain of either article.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my lack of clarity; I only meant that in world music (i.e. non-Western) the word "diatonic" would similarly not include minor-key variants. Even if the article world music itself doesn't mention "diatonic", I suspect that related articles, such as those on Chinese music or ethnomusicology, do; certainly non-WP articles on non-Western music do. See, for example, Anklung, Music of Mesopotamia, Fujara, Duduk, Sarangi. Before you start pelting all those talk pages with notices saying "diatonic" is ambiguous, consider that in non-Common-Practice music it might not be ambiguous at all. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine about that lack of clarity, Wahoofive. For the rest, I am certain that in the study of non-Western music (broadly construed) the term diatonic is used in several senses. It can be understood with the restricted meaning that we deal with in this article (-T-T-S-T-T-T-S-), or it can be some sort of a generalisation from that sense. Consider this, from Music of Mesopotamia: "Cuneiform sources reveal an orderly organized system of diatonic scales, depending on the tuning of stringed instruments in alternating fifths and fourths." While it is not impossible, there is almost no reason to think that the scale is diatonic in our restricted sense. Same for Sarangi. Yet in Anklung the restricted sense does appear to be intended. As for Duduk, who knows? The point is that we are entitled to know! Editors ought to make their meaning clear, and we have discovered here at his page several of the ways in which they do not.

It would be perfectly proper for me to "pelt" those other talk pages with a gentle admonition to this effect, drawing attention to this article and this discussion. The issue is serious enough, and it does no harm. That's what talk pages are for.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Myke, for me your latest remarks strengthen the case for what you have called for earlier, regarding post-common-practice music. Yes, it seems that does call for serious attention here. I hope you will go ahead and add a section on it. And I still think we need to look at all of that late-common-practice chromaticism, etc. (Chromaticism apparently had several meanings at the time, in fact.) I think we will need something on extensions beyond Western music too, for reasons you have raised, and some that I touched on also in answer to Wahoofive, just now. Finally, I don't think you and I ever thought differently about key!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to remove it (The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Difficult Words). I don't want to start an annoying trend of citing any and all dictionaries. Maybe we should limit ourselves to works on the subject of music.--Roivas 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Diatonic" and "chromatic" in articles on non-Western music: examining two cases

Sarangi

I have now done a little snooping around concerning the Sarangi. I had written this, in the section immediately above: "While it is not impossible, there is almost no reason to think that the scale is diatonic in our restricted sense. Same for Sarangi." Well, the article on the Sarangi does appear to be partially right:

On the lowest level are a diatonic row of 9 tarabs and a chromatic row of 15 tarabs, each encompassing a full octave plus 1–3 extra notes above or below.

See the tuning chart at this site:

sympathetic strings left - top row of pegs:

1. Sa - c

2. Re - d

3. Ga - e

4. Ma - f

5. Pa - g

6. Dha - a

7. Ni - b

8. high Sa - c'

9. high Re - d'

sympathetic strings right - middle and low rows of pegs:

1. low Pa - G

2. low Dha - A

3. low Ni - B

4. Sa - c

5. Re - d

6. komal Ga - e flat

7. shuddha Ga - e

8. shuddha Ma - f

9. tivra Ma - f sharp

10. Pa - g

11. Dha - a

12. Ni - b

13. high Sa - c'

14. high Re - d'

15. high Ga - e'

The nine-string series indeed turns out to be diatonic in our restricted sense, so now there is a reason to think it. But it is interesting to examine the fifteen-string series, which is not a "chromatic row" in any canonic sense, though Sarangi simply gives a link to the article Chromatic scale, for "chromatic", which would give the reader quite the wrong impression. My point is that such uses in Wikipedia articles on non-Western music are often misleading or at least uninformative, and this is borne out by the fact that one must do pretty far-reaching research of this kind to establish exactly what they mean by diatonic and chromatic.

Music of Mesopotamia

It seems that diatonic is indeed used in the restricted sense at that article. New Grove ("Mesopotamia", 8 (ii) Akkadian tuning systems):

The most complicated text is the tuning instruction U.7/80 dating from about 1800 bce or earlier; it convinced scholars that heptatonic diatonic scales must be the correct interpretation of this material (see Gurney, 1968, and 1994; Wulstan, 1968; Kümmel, 1970; and Crocker, 1997). It also demonstrates that the cycle of 5ths was known, and that the scales were named after the interval of a 5th or a 4th that initiated each of the seven tuning procedures (see Kümmel).

(A table follows, in which the Greek modes are overlaid as interpretations of various Mesopotamian "modes"; the hypothesis appears still to be debated.) But even here, because of Wikipedia's general uncertainty about the meaning of diatonic scale, it was necessary to go to New Grove to confirm what was meant. Interesting, by the way, that New Grove uses the wording "heptatonic diatonic scales". What would a non-heptatonic diatonic scale be, if we are working with the restricted sense?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Point of view

Re: "Regrettably, still other theorists mix these two meanings of diatonic (and conversely for chromatic), and this may lead to confusions and misconceptions.":

This is a "point of view" remark and needs to be removed. I'd do it myself now, but other remarks within the article are rather entwined in it, and I'm not quite up to untangling the whole thing. Although much of the remainder of the article is in itself quite innocuous, I gather the point of the article as it now stands is to advance someone's particular agenda. Apparently formerly separate diatonic and chromatic articles have been hijacked and then merged. TheScotch 05:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my request to contribute here, TheScotch. (See Talk:Pentatonic scale). I have boldly moved the section you have initiated from the very top to the very bottom, were it will attract discussion and were it does not usurp a privileged position occupied by the section that explains why the thread was started.

I understand your objection to the word "regrettably" (if I have identified your concern accurately). I was responsible for that word here; and I have now removed it. Please note, however, that immediately following the sentence in question there is an internal link to an extensive list of sources. This list was compiled with much effort by a few contributors here, and demonstrates the objective truth of the statement. So do several of the meticulous citations in the notes.

Do you object to the rest of the sentence? Isn't it a statement of manifest fact that mixing meanings can cause confusions and misconceptions? If you do object, then please delete that part of the sentence and leave just "Still other theorists mix these two meanings of diatonic (and conversely for chromatic)." That is amply documented.

Since you have shown no further evidence that a particular point of view is being pushed here, and I have amended what you have pointed out and called for you to amend further, I have removed the original research marker that you placed at the start of the article, which seemed somehow to be motivated by your perception of POV here.

You make this claim:

Apparently formerly separate diatonic and chromatic articles have been hijacked and then merged.

I don't think that anyone contributing here has been responsible for such changes (which you characterise in a particularly slanted way, with "hijacked"); but it is undertandable that others might have independently wanted to do something about terminological difficulties that have evolved in the Wikipedia music articles.

Far from being merely "innocuous", this developing article already meets a need among the Wikipedia articles. It would be well to attend to the ambiguous and confusing writing at other articles, before damning this one, which aims at the most careful accuracy and documentation of its claims.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been "hijacked", except that the redirect pages Diatonic and Chromatic have been changed to point here instead of to Diatonic scale and Chromatic scale, since those terms seem to encompass more than just scales. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

---

"Other theorists, especially some who are more oriented towards practical musicianship and performance, consistently include those scales as "diatonic" scales. For this minority, every Western scale in standard use is either diatonic (the major, and all forms of the minor) or chromatic.[9]"

This is original research and should be removed.--Roivas 17:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

---

"For some, the augmented triad E♭-G-B♮ is diatonic, because it exists in C harmonic minor."

I'm noticing Noetica's personal point of view sneak its way into the article. If a source is not found to validate a claim, it has to be removed, no matter how logical and true the claim seems to be to any of us.

Substantiating a claim with "for some" is not good enough.

--Roivas 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

Roivas, and anyone else, is certainly at liberty to remove what is not substantiated within the usual terms of Wikipedia editing. Let's look at the cases Roivas raises:

Other theorists, especially some who are more oriented towards practical musicianship and performance, consistently include those scales as "diatonic" scales. For this minority, every Western scale in standard use is either diatonic (the major, and all forms of the minor) or chromatic.

It beggars belief that this can still be contested! Ample evidence is given, in the list of sources at the end. Still, if an excess of pedantry demands it, let this be deleted. I'll simply restore it, with explicit citation of some of those references – among others. Roivas promised a couple of weeks ago to look up another impeccable reference that I cited but was not in a position to quote verbatim (Proust, Harmony). Whatever happened to that undertaking? It would be within Wikipedia standards for me to cite it in support here, even without a page reference. I might do so.

For some, the augmented triad E♭-G-B♮ is diatonic, because it exists in C harmonic minor.

On what grounds is this claimed as my personal point of view? That is an insulting and unworthy suggestion. Looking around in this article, and examining the notes and other places where sources are cited, does it look for a moment as if I don't respect academic and encyclopaedic propriety? If Roivas really insists on damaging the article, by all means let this be removed. And I'll come up with a citation, and restore it. It will, of course, for the while be sufficient to use a reference to diminished seventh chords, instead (the principle being the same).

I must say, I had thought that such intransigence was well behind us, after all the trials we've been through at other pages and also here. Isn't it blindingly obvious that I, for one, have worked tirelessly to get this right, in the interests of the readers of Wikipedia, and towards the integrity and quality of its music articles? Some people would do well to examine their motivations, and to think hard and searchingly before spitting such insults here. We could, theoretically, all work cooperatively and collegially on this.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll go over this again and again until all original research is removed from the music articles.

I want to see the citations first. All interpretations and extrapolations are original research. This is not something that is going to be debated.

I have the Proust book at home now and I've looked through it a couple of times. I haven't seen anything in it that supports a loose interpretation of diatonic. Haven't found any citations from the text that are relevant to this article. Probably a wild goose chase.

--Roivas 19:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

An arrant and disruptive waste of everyone's time. What original research is Roivas talking about? How thoroughly inept is this statement for this article, in particular: "All interpretations and extrapolations are original research." For one thing, this article has very few interpretations and extrapolations, certainly compared with the great majority of Wikipedia music articles. Have another look at the citations in the notes; then look at the specific extra list of sources to back up the claims in the article. Where is there a more meticulously documented article in music theory, here at Wikipedia? And we've only just begun. For another thing, no article of any sophistication, or with any claim to breadth of coverage, can do its job without some slight loosening of the guidelines. They are mostly just guidelines, remember – not commandments set in stone to oppress editors eagerly slaving away at such articles as this.

The Proust book clearly defines diatonic scales in such a way as to include all forms of the major and minor scales. I can't help it if some people can't navigate the copious analytical index that Prout furnishes, and find their way to these things. (I'll be able to remedy this myself in about a week, as it happens.) But we already have all the sources we need to support this usage – laid out in the article.

Roivas writes:

This is not something that is going to be debated.

O great. We're really making progress. Just as a matter of interest, here are some other gems from Roivas:

I've never seen Diatonic used as an antonym to Chromatic and I'd like to see this substantiated. Sounds like original research again.

What?!

The words "tonal" and "diatonic" have obviously been confused.

Where? By whom? If it is so, doesn't that prove the central NPOV observation made in this article, that whatever usage one cleaves to, others use the terms diatonic and chromatic in a whole range of ways?

Noetica keeps referring me to this definition by Percy Scholes that he claims supports his claim that the HM and who knows what other synthetic scales are diatonic. This definition does not support his claim and I want this resolved.

1) It is not my claim; I am concerned to document various usages. As I seem to have to repeat!

2) That Scholes quote, to jog the memory (yet again): "The diatonic scales are the major and minor, made up of tones and semitones (in the case of the harmonic minor scale, also an augmented second), as distinct from the chromatic."

3) How in heaven's good name can we resolve this thing, if all evidence is ignored?

[Re Scholes:] Is this parenthetical statement part of the definition or is it an editor's addition?

Percy Scholes is the editor and the sole author, and it wouldn't matter even if this were not the case. We have cited a respected and authoritative source, which gives an unambiguous ruling.

[Since deleted; underlining is my own addition:] I'm going to remove the section Diatonic includes the harmonic and melodic minor scales. Noetica has added his own words into the second definition in order to distort its meaning. This behavior will stop immediately. I will involve an administrator if this continues. I find it very difficult to understand how someone could actually alter a dictionary definition and post it into a Wikipedia article without any indication of doing so. I find this very underhanded and dishonest. The first definition does not directly say that the HM is DIA.

Prudently deleted, indeed. What a wild accusation! I suppose an apology would be too much to ask?

And those are just from here, without trawling through the whole sorry saga of the archives at other pages. Look, let's all try to work together on this, as I again find myself having to repeat. If anyone has an agenda here, it is that there is one proper way to understand these terms, and that all other usages are, in some ill-defined way, "incorrect". Let's drop such agendas, and move on with impartiality – and without the jackboots.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk

21:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to dig up some of your gems, Noetica?

Anyway. I'm not going to read all of that. Point is: everything will be backed up by a source. There will be no "loosening of the guidelines." Based on your "research habits" in the past, it can't be any other way.--Roivas 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Documenting "other usages" is fine, but we need to see some sources for the "Diatonic Chord" section of this article. Do you have any at the moment or do we need to remove that section for now?--Roivas 16:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Proust's Harmony: Chapter VII (The Minor Key). He doesn't make any clear remark about the HM scale being DIA exactly. I'm sure you're about to make some really condescending statement about my reading comprehension or intelligence. I look forward to that.

He states that the leading tone in a minor key is not a chromatic note and that "it belongs to the diatonic scale." That's about it. The augemnted triad "is not a common chord."

"The diatonic triads of the minor key are made from the harmonic form of the scale"

Maybe paragraphs 458-459 discussing the "chromatic harmonic scale" are relevant. (Edit: Well, I just checked again. It doesn't mean what I initially thought.)

--Roivas 19:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Roivas, and maintaining the article's integrity

Roivas asks: "Would you like me to dig up some of your gems, Noetica?" This is in response to my quoting some of Roivas's contributions on this page alone. I did that to expose a negative one-sided attitude that is unhelpful in our work here. I would be happy to have anything I have written here exposed for scrutiny, yes. As for anyone's earlier material which I have sought to relegate to archives, elsewhere, I have no problem with that either. But the reason for that relegation was so we could just leave all that behind and simply get on with the development of articles.

I don't know what Roivas means by my "research habits of the past". Ha! Let an example of poor research habits be shown, if anything is alleged. Note that I can easily defend myself if attacked with such sweeping allegations. Roivas has repeatedly simply made unsupported statements in the past, and edited on the basis of those. I could show evidence of this. But this is all just wasting our time and energy, and is of no interest to anyone here.

The Prout material as cited by Roivas already demonstrates that Prout, if he is to be located anywhere, is with those who hold that the harmonic minor is diatonic. But I recall (and will check next week) a clear statement of this in the preliminary part of his Harmony.

Roivas cites a use of the term common chord. To what purpose, I can't tell. The term has a technical meaning or two at the time Prout was writing. In fact, I know of about four meanings that need to be sorted out for it. Perhaps that's another (short) Wikipedia article.

The addition of the Harvard quote in support of the restrictive use of diatonic is useful, I think. But note this characterisation of diatonic scale, which takes away some of the purity: "any major or pure minor scale and any church mode as distinct from the chromatic scale." This simply opposes diatonic and chromatic, and confuses the issue. A student seeking information on the harmonic minor, and having no other resources, might quite naturally conclude that the HM is chromatic! For this reason, perhaps Harvard needs re-allocating to the third category (ambiguous, etc.).

The definition from Baker is useful, but I am about to move it to the third category: "(In modern usage) By, through, with, within, or embracing the tones of the standard major or minor scale." "Standard major or minor scale" is undefined, and could easily include HM and MM. That is, after all, a main point of difficulty here.

I note that Roivas has removed a lot of useful material from the article. I am now reinstating it, amending it to be more palatable to "conservative" tastes, adding a citation or two, and adding a note for some of it that a citation is still needed. That is the usual and cooperative way to deal with these things. I will provide further citations as they seem to be needed and as time and access permit, as I always strive to do. (Obviously! Look at the notes.) I call on other editors to assist with this, and with maintaining the integrity of the article. Let's have no edit wars, but work together.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"I don't know what Roivas means by my "research habits of the past". Ha! Let an example of poor research habits be shown, if anything is alleged."

Dr. Alan Crosier.--Roivas 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean? In the case in question, I cited a web-based source – the excellent Dolmetsch dictionary. You objected to the citation, and raised a great commotion. No matter what source the relevant entry in that dictionary had, it was in that dictionary, and endorsed by the producer of that dictionary. You deleted the citation, and the material it supported (as well as two print citations, including the New Grove). I did not engage in an edit war, but let your deletion stand, and moved on. Now, you move on! No one is interested. – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If the point of this is "moving on," why are you bringing up statements I deleted weeks ago that are no longer relevant to this discussion? Just to irritate me?

Re: Crossier: why did you post that as a defnition for "diatonic" while knowing there were many other sources that contradicted it? Or did you not know?--Roivas 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

---

In what exact way does this source support your sentence re: dim 7 chords being DIA?: "Kostka and Payne, op. cit., pp. 64-65"--Roivas 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC) [Spelling of "Kostka" corrected in the article now, and also here.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)]

Since you ask, I will quote the source itself, in the article.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that this definition does not mention the ascending minor scale:

1. Oxford Companion to Music, ed. Percy Scholes, "Diatonic and chromatic", 9th edition, 1955

Diatonic and Chromatic: [...]The diatonic scales are the major and minor, made up of tones and semitones (in the case of the harmonic minor scale, also an augmented second), as distinct from the chromatic[...]

Could be (tones and semitones), but it doesn't really say. The octatonic scale also proceeds by tones and semitones. Does it not? We could rule that out if the definition limited itself to heptatonic scales.

--Roivas 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The intent of the Scholes quote is perfectly plain, even if it is not possible to demonstrate from axioms to the satisfaction of someone attempting to reverse-engineer the entire universe of scholarship on Euclidean principles. Scholes means that the term diatonic scale covers the major and all forms of the minor (all of which are, of course, heptatonic). Both forms of the melodic minor use only tones and semitones, so they are included. The harmonic is also specifically included. The so-called octatonic scale is not a minor or a major scale, and therefore clearly not in the ambit of the Scholes definition. Scholes would [not] have recognised the octatonic scale if he tripped over one, I think. He has no entry for it. – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[Corrected later.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]

If you don't like the octatonic scale, how about this one?:

|||'| |'|||

Major tetrachord underneath. Phrygian tetrachord on top. You can classify it as a major scale. The Scholes entry seems like a bad definition to me.

"even if it is not possible to demonstrate from axioms to the satisfaction of someone attempting to reverse-engineer the entire universe of scholarship on Euclidean principles."

Yet you hypocritically apply these standards to my definitions and entries. It goes both ways, I'm afraid.

It's not all that plain.

The same pedagogical failure applies to both no. 1 & no. 3 in the "includes" section and they should be moved to the "ambiguous" section. They do not set a limit to the arrangement of whole tone and semitone steps (as the Harvard definition does by stating: A scale with seven pitches (heptatonic) that are adjacent to one another on the circle of fifths; thus, one in which each letter name represents only a single pitch and which is made up of whole tones and semitones arranged in the pattern embodied in the white keys of the piano keyboard).

As far as your critique of the Harvard definition goes: even if there is some ambiguity regarding the HM being Chromatic, there is NO ambiguity in the exclusion of the two altered minor scales. A definite pattern of whole/semi tone steps is firmly established.

The section is about uses of the word diatonic, not the word chromatic. Because of this pointless technicality you would place it in the third section. I can do the same.

"Scholes means..." What? According to you?--Roivas 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Further responses to Roivas

Ancient disputes, and not continuing with them here

Roivas writes:

Re: Crossier: why did you post that as a defnition for "diatonic" while knowing there were many other sources that contradicted it? Or did you not know?--Roivas 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, you want to persist with this? Once and for all: I cited the Dolmetsch dictionary, in the article Interval (music). Many months ago! I did this to support a disambiguating section in that article, concerning the meaning of diatonic interval. The citation supported one usage that I mentioned: a diatonic interval is one occurring between notes of the same diatonic scale. I was not, at that stage, turning my mind to the different meanings that diatonic scale has. It has since become more saliently obvious to me that the term is used in different senses, and with reputable authorities on either side. My other invocation of the Dolmetsch site, as I recall, was also several months ago, at Talk:Diminished seventh (go to the archive). In this context, I had said this: "Well the harmonic minor scale IS considered a diatonic scale and all of its scale degrees are diatonic." That is perfectly true. Sure, I could have (and would have, with the lessons of hindsight magically already learned) qualified this, for perfect clarity: "...IS considered by many to be...". (Remember, that was only in a talk page. I never made any change to Diminished seventh itself, except twice: to query its neutrality and to revert a vandal.) I don't deny, and never have denied that many others make different use of the term diatonic scale.

I should, in fairness to myself and because YOU have raised the matter, point out that at the same time you were stridently and without any qualification or proviso, proclaiming that diatonic scale meant only one thing: that there was no diversity in usage among reputable authorities at all. What's more, that no reputable authority held that the diminished seventh chord was diatonic, etc. etc. Well, Schoenberg himself (an authority you have seen fit to cite) allows that chords formed from the harmonic minor are diatonic in the minor (the augmented triad on the mediant, for example). And we have abundant other evidence that you are mistaken in your narrow view. Not only are you shown to be mistaken, you have never retracted anything of substance, and never apologised for your misrepresentations and abuses (on show in the archives of those other articles, for anyone to see – though it makes unedifying reading).

I really don't want to go on about any of this. If you insist on continuing with it, please do so at User talk:Noetica.

It is of no interest to anyone else here. Nor to me, in fact.

Scholes

Roivas writes:

It's not all that plain.

It is all that plain. If I had time and inclination, I might try to decipher your cryptic notation for a concocted scale that Scholes allegedly might, conceivably, have had in mind when he wrote about the diatonic scale. But no. I have not the time, nor the inclination. Once more: Scholes is clearly, specifically, and demonstrably addressing the minor scales, and saying that they, along with the major, are the diatonic scales. What he meant by major scale is entirely unambiguous, and can be checked in the same work. It is plain from his reference to the harmonic minor (which needed specific mention) that this is included as diatonic. That the ascending minor is also included is abundantly clear: (ALL are included after all, and it IS "made up of tones and semitones"). So it doesn't need specific mention. No other sort of scale (pentatonic, octatonic, Mongolian, Berber, Vulcan, or otherwise) is remotely relevant. In plain words he names the scales that are diatonic, among the major and the various forms of the minor: they ALL are! And no other scales are, from his common-practice point of view, in which there are no other scales – except the chromatic, which he says is not included as diatonic. Nothing about any other sort of scale has any bearing on his definition at all. Simple.

More could be said, in answer to Roivas's other assertions. But frankly, the effort is wasted. I will have to stop here, for now. Roivas, if you have particular disputes about these technical details that you feel really do need continued discussion, or anything else that needs to be pursued but which does not affect the present article or other editors, please take them also to User talk:Noetica. Let's all focus a bit better here, on continuing to improve the article together.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition No 3 is even less clear. Do you have any defense before I move it?--Roivas 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"If I had time and inclination, I might try to decipher your cryptic notation for a concocted scale that Scholes allegedly might, conceivably, have had in mind when he wrote about the diatonic scale."

(C D E F | G Ab Bb C)

My problem with your "research habits" is the fact that it took half a year before you finally learned the importance of cracking a book open in order to substantiate a claim that's being debated. That's all, really.

--Roivas 18:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Tonal music

The article states that tonal music has dominated in the West between 1600 and 1900. That seems quite an understatement. Non-tonal music is still quite the exception. Isn't practically all popular music tonal? −Woodstone 19:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Woodstone. The article should perhaps reflect the fact to which you draw attention. See some discussion above, on this.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

More definitions

As if we need them!

From Aldwell and Schachter, 3rd edition, p. 7: "The major scale is one kind of diatonic scale. All diatonic scales contain five whole steps and two half steps within the octave, but each of the different types of diatonic scale has the half steps in different places." It's not an entirely useful definition, since it says, "All diatonic scales contain five whole steps and two half steps" not "All scales with five whole steps and two half steps are diatonic." It does rule out the harmonic minor though, but not ascending melodic minor. They continue though, saying "From the time of the ancient Greeks through the nineteenth century, most Western art music was based on diatonic scales." That might be taken to imply that the ME minor ascending would be considered, but it's still ambiguous.

Unfortunately, they introduce another term later which is not so useful, "diatonic order":

The seven "white-key" scales constitute segments of the diatonic order, the pattern of whole and half steps that has given rise to most of the tonal systems of Western music. (pp. 18-19).

The diatonic order thus is just a collection of the seven modes. --Myke Cuthbert 22:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A really useful find, Myke. It illustrates beautifully the sorts of infelicities that beset the literature. Perhaps it should find its way into the article in some way.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Goetschius and his definition of diatonic

It's too long to be a definition. I don't know where to put it.

Goetschius offers the strictest definition so far. He states that only the major scale is diatonic and gives an explanation. The minor mode in all its forms is not diatonic...etc.

Diatonic intervals are all those intervals which agree with the natural major scale. They are always counted upward along the diatonic major scale of the lower tone. The diatonic second, third, sixth, and seventh are major.

See: The Theory and Practice of Tone-Relations (p. 6 ).

The current "modern usage" of diatonic should be expanded to include this POV.

I posted the text on my Talk Page.

--Roivas 19:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's useful to have that text available at User talk:Roivas. Interesting reading! Seems to me a very strange sort of analysis, and so idiosyncratic as to be unclassifiable – except, perhaps, in our third category (if we really wanted to put it there). Anyway, it's a great illustration of the diversity of approaches in music theory, and in the uses of terms. (His use of the term natural scale is especially odd: "This is the true natural scale, composed of equal contiguous intervals."). I suppose his definition might go well in the article, but it seems to be held by him alone. (Is the major the only manifestation of the diatonic scale, for him? He writes: "The diatonic scale comprises the tones of the major mode"; but this leaves it open that the "natural" minor is also diatonic, doesn't it? What he says about the minor is not clear by any means.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He doens't "leave it open." What are you talking about?

I did not say he leaves it open. I said "but this leaves it open", citing some exact wording. He uses "tones" to mean pitches (not intervals); one might wonder why anyone would say that starting at a different point in the "diatonic" series of "tones" would make a scale that is not diatonic. That's all.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not possible to determine what exact number of people hold a certain view. It's stated a particular way in a late 19th century music theory book. Goetschius is a published and respected music theorist. Unlike Scholes, he explains the reason for this position. According to Goetschius, the minor mode in all its forms is NOT diatonic, even the natural minor.

Fine. However, I think most of us would agree that the whole spiel is pretty unusual. Consider this, for example:

This is the true natural scale, composed of equal contiguous intervals.

Does anyone else think, write, or say that?– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I quoted paragraphs from two chapters of the same book. Together they make a cohesive definition of diatonic that classifies the minor mode in all its forms as artificial deformations of the major (diatonic) scale.

Fine. So what? I'm just wondering about the coherence of the whole. I'm ready to accept the interpretation of what he says, but I find what he says very strange. I have already said it might merit a place in the article. In a note only, perhaps. – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This statement is a decent guide for the perplexed:

"86. The other, i.e., the minor mode, is consequently to be regarded as an unnatural or artificial mode, and is accounted for as an arbitrary modification of the natural major mode."

Fine. See above.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Percy Scholes, unfortunately, cannot be dismissed, but composers really don't care about his musically bigoted opinions.--Roivas 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bigoted?" Such gratuitous and abusive dismissal of an eminent and respected writer, responsible for the Oxford Companion to Music for its first half-century or so (actually, for the last twenty years of his life; but his influence and most of the content persisted long after that), does nothing but prejudge the issue in a most unhelpful way. Unlike Scholes', Goetschius's opinion and terminology are demonstrably idiosyncratic; but Scholes has ample support, and simply and plainly states an understanding of the terms diatonic and chromatic prevalent in British usage (and beyond) – then and now. [I have now altered that last sentence; I had mixed up the two names. – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 12:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)] "Composers don't care?" Well, it is not a huge step from Scholes' opinion to classifying the augmented chord on the minor mediant as diatonic, is it? Both Schoenberg and Hindemith do that.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

His influence? Give me a break. He was a mere schoolteacher and journalist. Not my go-to source for the fundamentals of music composition. He was a bigot. Check his Wikipedia page out if you don't believe me. He dismisses artforms that he's obviously not intelligent enough to understand. Kind of sad, really.--Roivas 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

His influence? Yes, his influence over the Oxford Companion even after his death. Till 1983, decades after Scholes' first edition, the work was still being attributed to him on the title page of the 10th edition; and the editor of that edition apparently saw no reason to alter the article Diatonic and chromatic. The wording as we cite it in our article is the same in 1938 and the early eighties. His influence? Yes, many students and musicians used the Oxford Companion as their main reference. To say that he was a "mere schoolteacher and journalist", and a "bigot", is pejorative and unfounded. One could be excused for thinking that such accusations themselves spring from bigotry (always "kind of sad really"). Being a schoolteacher and a journalist does not mean one cannot also be knowledgeable and authoritative about music! Roivas, you cite Helmholtz. Was he an "official" trained musicologist? No. He was a physicist. So what? Anyway, your statement concerning Scholes' career is incomplete and misleading. The article you refer us to says this: "He became an organist, schoolteacher, music journalist and lecturer. At various times he was music critic for the Evening Standard, The Observer (1920-1927) and the Radio Times (1923-1929). He wrote over 30 books, mainly concerning music appreciation, ..." The article gives examples of his "quirkiness" and limitations: that he disparaged certain composers in colourful language, and that he was not an expert on non-Western and atonal music, to give examples. So what? What we cite is at the core of common-practice Western music. Scholes was idiosyncratic? In some of his views, perhaps. Who isn't? Wasn't Goetschius, in his strange view of the "natural scale"? But Scholes is simply giving voice to a certain plain orthodoxy (one among a few "orthodox" views concerning the terms) when he writes concerning diatonic and chromatic. The evidence (in case you are at all interested in it) is that his view was common. It was unchallenged for decades; it was stated before he wrote, without challenge; and it is explicitly stated in modern texts that we cite in the article.

Goetschius, according to the Wikipedia article Percy Goetschius, was an innovator: "While Goetschius’ books are rarely used today as texts, they do contain many original theoretical ideas which have been passed from teacher to student and are widely accepted today." Fine! The long citation you provide at your talk page bears this out. You yourself said you didn't know what to do with that material. I simply gave my opinion. Put it where you like, of course, abbreviated as you see fit, and we can all look at the proposal on its merits.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good thing a writer with a little more sense corrected his misguided ramblings on the subject of diatonic after his death!

Corrected? That prejudges the issue, against the tide of evidence that Scholes wrote lucidly and in accord with a long-prevailing orthodoxy, to which many adhere even today. (See some of our other citations.) At least you're no longer saying he is a bigot, for which the SOED definition is this: "Obstinate and unreasonable adherence to a religious or other opinion; narrow-minded intolerance; an instance of this." That would be a most unwise stone to cast!

Corrected?? Scholes' definition stood, through editions by another editor, for over a quarter of a century after his death.

Corrected??? The current OCM treats diatonic indecisively and with qualifications whose application is unclear. One of its definitions we have in our category Diatonic used vaguely, inconsistently, or anomalously.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my condensed Goetschius definition (condensed again--Roivas 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)):

The diatonic scale comprises the tones of the major mode. Upon examination it is found that the contiguous intervals of the diatonic scale, unlike those of the natural scale (a scale of rising fifths from F to B, the keynote being C), are not uniform, but differ as follows:

(A diagram is shown of a C major scale with slurs pointing out the semitone placement between scale steps 3-4 & 7-8)

The line of research and argument above proves that, of the two modes recognized and employed in modern music, that one known as major (because its prin. triads have a major third) is the natural one. The other, i.e., the minor mode, is consequently to be regarded as an unnatural or artificial mode, and is accounted for as an arbitrary modification of the natural major mode. --Roivas 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Roivas, after a minute analysis of the uncondensed Goetschius text, I am happy not to raise any objection to some version of it going in the "exclusive" category. It clearly excludes HM, and by a plausible extension it excludes the ascending MM. For technical reasons that I have neither the patience nor the stomach to argue over, here and now, I think that his further supposed exclusion of the natural minor (and therefore of the descending MM) is deeply flawed. [I have added the word supposed. In the material we have available, there is no specific or unambiguous mention of the "natural minor"; the mention of the "minor mode" is in the context of discussion of the harmonic minor. This can be called a "mode", also. From what Goetschius is saying, he seems to be confining his discussion to it alone. This would be consistent with other usage at the time. (Cf. the Prout citation, in which the two predominant forms presented are the major and the harmonic minor.) It be would be a non sequitur if Goetschius were suddenly to shift to talk of the minor mode in the sense of "Aeolian mode". In fact, Goetschius says that the modifications to the major mode by which one gets the minor mode are to the "two mediants" (that is, the degrees 3 and 6). But this is exactly how one can derive the HM from the major. He next says: "The scale thus obtained is called the harmonic minor mode". So I think your interpretation is mistaken, Roivas, from the evidence of the text itself. – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)] In the end, it doesn't matter. In the case of both Scholes and Goetschius, there may well be continued disputation about credentials, "orthodoxy", and capacity to express a reasoned opinion. But they say what they way; and we can record what they say.

I suggest that you make a brief but adequate abridgement (perhaps shorter that what you come up with above), and put it in the "exclusive" category. Why not add a short annotation in square brackets? I and other editors can then see if they like it, and work with you to clarify things if that seems to be called for.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I shortened it again.

As far as my interpretation being "deeply flawed":

Fair enough. I'll look through the book again tonight to see if I can find another passage that supports what I believe he is saying.

--Roivas 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

---

BTW, no. 2 in the "ambiguous" section (Grove) sets a definite tone/semi-tone pattern and labels the HM and MM scales as the result of chromatic alteration. Why is this not included in the first section?

--Roivas 15:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That Grove citation begins like this:

Minor (i). (1) The name given to a diatonic scale whose octave, in its natural form, is built of the following ascending sequence, in which T stands for a tone and S for a semitone: T–S–T–T–S–T–T). The note chosen to begin the sequence, called the key note, also becomes part of the name of the scale; a D minor scale, for instance, consists of the notes D–E–F–G–A–B–C–D. In practice, however, some notes of the scale are altered chromatically to help impart a sense of direction to the melody. [Then details for the formation of HM and MM.]

First focus on the wording at the very start: Minor ... the name given to a diatonic scale .... That in itself is quite clear; and nothing in the continuation states or entails that any form of the minor fails to be diatonic. So in isolation this beginning would have the definition go in the inclusive (second) category. The qualification in its natural form suggests only that there are other forms of this diatonic scale that is called "minor", apart from the natural form; and the suggestion is later amplified: "In practice...", etc. Because the phrasing with in its natural form is a little unfortunate (inviting a misreading: that only the "natural" minor is spoken of under the rubric diatonic), I am happy to see the definition go in the third category: this poor expression renders it, in a way, "vague". It could equally go in the inclusive category; but not in the exclusive category, since HM and MM are not excluded, unless it be through a misreading.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're off base on this one, Noetica. It's clear that the MM and HM are described as "altered chromatically". It strains credulity to think that the first sentence is intended to encompass those variants. Anyway, thinking that D minor is all white notes hurts one's credibility. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Wahoofive. I have put the B♭ in the Grove text that we cite. We wouldn't want Grove's credibility impugned so captiously, would we? The flat must have dropped out when I cut and pasted from Grove Online. The citation in its uncorrected form was originally inserted by Roivas on 3 December 2006 (see Talk:Diminished_seventh/archive1), and then copied to the present article by Wahoofive. No one seems to have noticed it till now. Doesn't matter! A simple slip. [Corrected later.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)]

I believe I am not "off base", by any means. I have analysed the text with great caution, and I have shown the results of that analysis here. With respect, I suggest that you have fallen victim to the very misreading that I identify as invited by the poor expression in the text. I put it to you that the misreading in question is only a "natural" reading if one already assumes a certain understanding of the terms. When one is open to other definitions (such as those given in other citations), a "natural" reading has all minor forms as diatonic. The fact that certain notes are described as "chromatically altered" to form HM and MM shows nothing, because it would take further argument to demonstrate that chromatic alteration and "diatonicity" are incompatible, and in all cases exclude each other. The easy assumption that diatonic and chromatic are always in simple opposition is not universally accepted. Let's not fall back into such easy assumptions as this – nor into an acceptance of a God-given-stone-tablet acceptance of diatonic scale as necessarily requiring this exact cyclically recurring structure: -T-T-S-T-T-T-S- (with or without variation of the selected starting point, or "tonic"). Many do not understand diatonic scale like this. That's the main point. No group is right or wrong: all groups have their reasons, and their impeccable precedents.

All that said, it is possible that the author's intention in the Grove text was what you take it to be. If that is so, the point remains that the intended meaning is not given in the wording as we see it. This justifies including the citation in the third category. We have only the wording as we see it to go by – conditioned by the writings of other authors, who have a diversity of opinions.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your objection isn't swaying me. You seem to apply this extreme scrutiny only to passages that exclude HM & MM. (Prout's "other forms" are assumed to be diatonic when it is not necessarily stated that way. Why doesn't he list the MM right then and there if it's supposed to be diatonic?) Like I said, Grove sets up a fixed semi-tone sequence. That's what diminishes your argument. An "exception" or "inclusion" is not made in the definition.

--Roivas 16:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Roivas, I'll put my comments on your recent contributions all together here, so they can easily be found and read.

In your revised summary above, you omit the crucial derivation and alleged justification of the exclusion of the so-called minor mode. That derivation shows that he only means the harmonic minor, as he then explicitly goes on to name it. He is, typically for the period, completely silent concerning what we might call the minor mode: the Aeolian, the natural minor. He is also silent concerning the melodic minor. I think the excerpt in the article should take note of all this. Please also note the standard convention of using square brackets for your editorial interpolations. Anyway, if you fix those things I have no objection to Goetschius in that category. I think he's strange and innovative, but that doesn't matter. [Material later deleted from this paragraph. I had made a mistake in my quick parsing of Roivas's summary.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)]

Rather than merely looking elsewhere in his book for support of the interpretation that you cleave to of this passage, may I suggest that you consider the analysis I have offered, and subject that interpretation to unbiased scrutiny? I think it is plain that you have got it wrong this time: understandably, given Goetschius's odd wording and odd concepts.

I did not say, by the way, that your interpretation was deeply flawed: I said that Goetschius's "further supposed exclusion of the natural minor" was deeply flawed.

As for Prout and Grove, it is perhaps unfair to say that I apply "this extreme scrutiny" in a biased way. There are articles in the third category that I would want in the second, inclusive, category; but I concede that they are unclear and should be categorised as vague. Prout is very plainly in the inclusive camp, and writes with great care and precision. But he is presenting things in a certain order in his sections and chapters, for a certain readership: not in a way perfectly tailored to our needs, at Wikipedia. The Grove text is difficult and more problematic. The sequence of tones and semitones in it is there to show the sequence in the natural minor, which we agree is diatonic: "in its natural form, is built of the following ascending sequence". It is not claimed as doing anything beyond that. I am persuaded that the categorisation as vague is justified well enough. The fact that you and Wahoofive would move it the first category and I to the second is perhaps sufficient evidence of this! I would be happy not to take it further (except to give a square-bracketed gloss at its end). But if anyone wants more justification and close argument, I can equally happily provide it – when I have time. Meanwhile, let no one move it without an analysis at least as painstaking as the one I have provided for its staying where it is. In fact, I’d rather see it removed for now entirely, until the matter is properly discussed among us.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Noetica said: Rather than merely looking elsewhere in his book for support of the interpretation that you cleave to of this passage, may I suggest that you consider the analysis I have offered, and subject that interpretation to unbiased scrutiny? I think it is plain that you have got it wrong this time: understandably, given Goetschius's odd wording and odd concepts

This is the only treatment of the minor system in this book. He 's doesn't treat treats the natural or and ascending melodic forms of the minor scale because, to him, they are as ephemeral devices used to "fix" avoid the melodic imperfections of his minor mode.

He considers the HM scale as "the only theoretically accurate scale" (I added more to par. 88 on my Talk Page).

I added a couple paragraphs from his chapter on diatonic and chromatic intervals. He classes the minor third as chromatic. I think it's safe to assume that the natural minor mode is artificial to Goetschius. He's not alone. Schenker makes a different case for the same conclusion.

--Roivas 15:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Title of this Article

...really doesn't refer to its subject matter. If it's just a discussion about a confusion of terms, shouldn't this be evident in the name of the article?--Roivas 00:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article indicates its subject matter with impeccable precision. The crucially important terms diatonic and chromatic (often taken as a natural pairing in the literature) are given a thorough treatment, unrestricted by application to scales alone, intervals alone, harmony alone, etc. This is valuable because applications of one sort are influenced by applications of other sorts. So articles that cover, say, chromatic scale, or semitone, cannot really cover the meanings of our terms comprehensively or comprehensibly.

Yes, there are confusions in the use of these terms. These confusions provide an important extra motivation and clarifying role for the article. But the theme of the article is by no means those confusions. Many Wikipedia articles seek to dispel uncertainties, as this one does. But you don't see The uncertainties attaching to the term "nature": you see Nature. (Have a look there, perhaps.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Two types of tones (mistaken origin)

I'd like to find in print somewhere the definition of Diatonic from "di" = two and "tonic" = tones, thus a scale consisting of two types of tones, whole-steps and half-steps. I've heard this definition used by teachers before. It's incorrect since the "dia" -> through, as in diapente, diapason, etc., but so prevalent that it's worth a mention if I can find a cite in print. I've found on-line mistaken origins which suggest that diatonic comes from two tonics (one an octave above the lower), but nothing further. Also the fact that there is a ditone in the diatonic genus has lead to confusion of the terms before. --Myke Cuthbert 19:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Myke, I have put something concerning a closely related and equally spurious etymology in the first long notes. It interprets "dia-" in that same incorrect way, and is worth recording in order to counter it:

A completely separate explanation of the origins of the term diatonic appeals to the generation of the diatonic scale from "two tones": "Because the musical scale is based entirely on octaves and fifths, that is, two notes, it is called the ‘diatonic scale’ " (Phillips, Stephen, "Pythagorean aspects of music", in Music and Psyche, Vol. 3, available also online). But this ignores the fact that it is the element di- that means "two", not the element dia-, which has "through" among its meanings (see Liddell and Scott, op. cit.).

Had you seen this, when you posted? I believe the journal is available both in print and online. Just go to the root and click on Journal, for information.

(I must fix those links for Liddell and Scott, by the way. Seems to be some problem with them.)

Soon I'll have more to post concerning etymologies for the names of the genera, including the diatonic.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Somehow I missed it. Wow, lots of work done by the editors here already. --Myke Cuthbert 02:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Myke.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A procedural problem in this discussion

Editors here will have noticed some animosity between Roivas and me. This is an unfortunate vestige of animosity at other pages. Yesterday I requested that any of this irrelevant material be diverted to my talk page: User talk:Noetica. But unfortunately Roivas has not complied with this request, and has posted this:

My problem with your "research habits" is the fact that it took half a year before you finally learned the importance of cracking a book open in order to substantiate a claim that's being debated. That's all, really.

Now, it would be a simple matter to reply in kind, or to refute the suggestion with evidence. (I'm confident that anyone looking at my work in this article would be disinclined to believe it.) But the whole exercise is futile.

Editors please note: if there are personal attacks against me here, including such insupportable suggestions concerning my competence in research, editing, analysis, or writing, I will NOT respond to them here – except to refer the matter to my talk page. I will respond to them, if they merit any response, at my talk page.

I regret that I have, in some measure, fallen back into such negativity myself, faced with continued obstruction and attacks that seem to be prompted by my evenhanded treatment of the content we are dealing with at this article. If anyone doubts this evenhandedness, let them review the edits I have made to this article.

I hope that this discussion can be free of such irrelevancies from this moment on.

I will not answer anything from anyone that responds to this posting, except at my talk page.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

---

The Karl Wilson Gehrkens citation

Here is the third citation in the category "Diatonic includes the harmonic and melodic minor scales" [and the surname is Gehrkens, as I have now amended here and there in my own text– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)]:

3. Music Notation and Terminology, Gehrkens, Karl Wilson, 1882-1975

p. 79. There are three general classes of scales extant at the present time, viz.: (1) Diatonic; (2) Chromatic; (3) Whole-tone.

p. 80. The word diatonic means "through the tones" (i.e., through the tones of the key), and is applied to both major and minor scales of our modern tonality system. In general a diatonic scale may be defined as one which proceeds by half-steps and whole-steps. There is, however, one exception to this principle, viz., in the progression six to seven in the harmonic minor scale, which is of course a step-and-a-half.

I assume Roivas refers to this, in a comment above:

Definition No 3 is even less clear. Do you have any defense before I move it?

But I don't understand. First, it was Roivas who provided that quote (and I expressed gratitude for this). Second, so far I cannot see what needs defending (defending against what?), or any reason to re-classify the citation. Later material in the same text confirms Gehrkens as being squarely in the "inclusive" camp. Can we discuss this? Without some sound argument to the contrary, the citation should certainly be left where it is.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC) [With later additions– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)]

He says that the term "applies to major and minor scales" but is not limited to those scales (the octotonic, the Major/Phrygian scale I cited above, and others which are cleary not diatonic, fit into this definition). Since the Britannica definition was moved for similar reasons, it's only consistent to do the same with this poor definition.--Roivas 18:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, your refusal to include the Goetschius material in the "excludes" camp needs to be reconsidered since his explanation is clear. It should be condensed, obviously.--Roivas 18:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Roivas, you write: "He says that the term 'applies to major and minor scales' but is not limited to those scales". He does not say that. He says the term: "applies to major and minor scales", and YOU add conjecturally that the term "is not limited to those scales". For Gehrkens, from all the evidence in the quote as we have it, the immediate context of that quote, and the remainder of the book from which the quote is drawn, Gehrkens is concerned to classify the minor in ALL its forms, and the major. He calls them all "diatonic". He does not address other scales; the octatonic was invented long after he wrote; and even if these other scales were somehow to be included as diatonic, this would not mean that his citation should be re-classified. The heading of the classification is "Diatonic includes the harmonic and melodic minor scales". So it wouldn't matter if the term covered other sorts of scales as well. Pay attention, please.

Roivas, you mention my "refusal to include the Goetschius material in the 'excludes' camp". What refusal? You didn't know what to do with it yourself! I simply mused about it, and expressed my sense that it was difficult and strange, and possibly most apt for the third category (as "anomalous"). Do with it what you will; we can then all look at it and see what we think of your proposal.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hindemith citation

Myke Cuthbert recently added mention of the fact that Hindemith fails to exclude the octatonic scale in his definition:

5. Elementary Training for Musicians (Hindemith, Paul - p. 58, Second Edition, 1949)

Diatonic = consisting of whole and half-tone steps.

I have removed that mention for two reasons:

• The octatonic scale is not, if the Wikipedia article is to be believed ("first introduced by Arthur Berger in 1963"), a feature of the common-practice domain concerning which Hindemith wrote.
• The immediate context in Hindemith's book confirms that he is concerned with the "standard" scales only: "In diatonic scales (diatonic = consisting of whole- and half-tone steps), certain tones have special names." This is followed by discussion of names like tonic and subdominant, in a way that that is clearly restricted to heptatonic scales. (Wider context in the same book confirms this restriction also, though that cannot be quite so relevant to this localised definition.)

Anyway, none of this affects the classification of the citation. For what it's worth, from my examination of the book, and of other work by Hindemith, I conclude that he is in the inclusive camp. It is no serious discredit to him that he never says this, or gives a clearer definition: for his purposes, his inclusive meaning becomes clear enough to the attentive reader, and I have so far seen no evidence that he contradicts himself: except that he should have made specific mention of the harmonic minor and its augmented second, here in this definition. He assumes it elsewhere, I submit.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to cut it; I just added it to note that Hindemith isn't being particularly specific in his definition. The term "octatonic" was first introduced by Berger in 1963; however, as a structure it appears throughout Russian music of the late 19th century, and Hindemith would have been well aware of its existence, if not its name. Just curious though, what types of scales is he contrasting diatonic with? Just the chromatic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

OK, Myke. I think we might need to add something on scales beyond the usual canonic and "standard" ones of the Common Practice Period, to see how the term diatonic has been been used with them. Non-Western, Western but not "art music", post-common-practice "constructed" scales, etc.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A newcomer's perspective

This well-researched article correctly notes that there is confusion around the term "diatonic." In my judgment, however, the article gives too little weight to the fact that "diatonic" is now most commonly used to refer to the white-note scale and its transpositions (including all of its modes). The other usage is older and less precise, and is fading. I changed the wording somewhat to reflect this fact. I hope this doesn't stir up any passions. Njarl 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, Njarl. Your changes are worthy, in my opinion. But I have modified things further, prompted by them. Your opinion that " 'diatonic' is now most commonly used to refer to the white-note scale and its transpositions", and that this usage is becoming more dominant, is interesting. Remember that there is a third category: "used vaguely, inconsistently, or anomalously". Our evidence shows that a great many sources are in this category – perhaps a majority. And indeed, very many are in the "inclusive" category. It is interesting that you characterise this inclusive usage as "less precise". In what sense is it less precise? Speaking for myself, your alterations do not stir "any passions": but I have countered them, because they are against carefully assembled evidence that we present in the article. If you can bring forward equal or stronger evidence to support your changes, of course I and others here should aquiesce. But opinion and preference do not count as evidence, as I'm sure you understand.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 11:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Noetica -- my evidence comes from the fact that I'm familiar with professional music-theoretical discourse. If one were to attend the national conference of the Society for Music theory, or any of the regional conferences, or were to survey the recent articles in Music Theory Spectrum or the Journal of Music Theory, you'd find the term "diatonic" being used as I described. Also, I give significant weight to the New Grove and New Harvard dictionaries, which are the most widely used and authoritative.

BTW, why the slightly condescending attitude toward academic musicians in the article? Why not defer to their usage? Would the articles on philosophy or physics try to balance "academic" with non-academic usages?

In my view, the main problem with the current article is that it is not helpful to the casual reader. It is a very careful, neutral, scholarly treatment that doesn't provide any guidance to the confused layperson. It would be much better to follow the lead of the New Grove or New Harvard in the first instance, and then to add the (interesting and helpful-to-the-specialist, but overwhelming to the casual layperson) detail later. The problem is that writing a dictionary or Encyclopedia is inevitably a normative business. You are, like it or not, helping to standardize usage. This is a place where Wikipedia tends to fail: in the face of any confusion in usage, one gets (in the best case) a studiously neutral proliferation of detail. And this makes the article less useful to the majority of readers.

There's another problem. Almost nobody, to my knowledge, uses "diatonic" to mean the diatonic scale as well as the two other minor scales. In contexts where, say, the harmonic minor is considered "diatonic" the phyrigian mode would not typically be considered diatonic. So really, this usage refers to the major mode, as well as the three forms of the minor mode. The distinction between scale and mode is not well-treated in this article.

Perhaps the following improvement might help. You might explain that "diatonic" typically refers to one particular scale when the context is discussion about particular scales (say, to contrast the diatonic with melodic minor). It typically refers to the major and three forms of the minor mode when the context is contrasting normal ("marked") common-practice routines ("diatonic music") with less-standard ("chromatic") routines. At least that would provide readers with an understanding of where the terminological confusion comes from. Njarl 14:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See Freudian slip for an example of treatment of popular usage of a technical term. Conversely, Light year makes no mention of its common misuse as a unit of time. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Noetica's Reponse to Njarl

Njarl, I understand what you say, and I am in sympathy with a lot of it. Let me go through some of your points, before drawing things together in an overall response. I'll italicise your points.

...my evidence comes from the fact that I'm familiar with professional music-theoretical discourse. If one were to attend the national conference of the Society for Music theory, or any of the regional conferences, or were to survey the recent articles in Music Theory Spectrum or the Journal of Music Theory, you'd find the term "diatonic" being used as I described. Also, I give significant weight to the New Grove and New Harvard dictionaries, which are the most widely used and authoritative.

I don't deny that an "exclusive" understanding of the term diatonic is common in contemporary musicology – at least in musicology that is dominated by an American academic tradition, and that seems to be most of it these days. But it dominates as a norm, not as a consistent practice. Like you, I am familiar with this sort of discourse. I have surveyed a great deal of literature that uses the terms that this article is concerned with. What strikes me is the very common flexibility and inconsistency in their use, in attempting to respect that exclusivist norm. Look at Kostka and Payne, as twice cited in the article. This is a very widely used textbook. (The current edition does not vary in its use of these terms from the 1995 edition.) Obviously the authors respect modern norms, but they are inconsistent by calling the diminished seventh diatonic in minor. By the exclusivist norm it would be chromatic (or at least non-diatonic). And this is typical of very many current authors of current academic textbooks. As for the New Grove, it is inconsistent. See its strange exceptional (and unsourced) remarks concerning the tritone, reported in the article; consider also the confused treatment Grove gives the minor scales in the next entry in our list in the article, and look at the discussion above generated by that entry.

BTW, why the slightly condescending attitude toward academic musicians in the article? Why not defer to their usage? Would the articles on philosophy or physics try to balance "academic" with non-academic usages?

Please give examples of that "condescending attitude". I don't see it. Why not defer to their usage? Good question. One answer: "their" usage, as just discussed, varies and is inconsistent. It typically respects a norm, but imperfectly – in order to accommodate the complex facts of real music in the real world. The article reports on this interesting and important matter. But it is not for this article to pretend, along with some academics, that one single usage is uniformly adopted, and that it is reasonable and describes the phenomena of music lucidly. Another answer: an article like this is not the place for recommendations concerning usage. We can make recommendations later at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). At least that would work towards consistency in all of Wikipedia's music articles, which we certainly do not have now.

In my view, the main problem with the current article is that it is not helpful to the casual reader.

I agree. That is certainly a problem. The converse problem is found in a great many sources: they give a short, readable, consistent, and simple account of usage, and they fail readers who are looking for guidance precisely because they have discovered something long-winded, unreadable, inconsistent, and complex in the literature. And they want an encyclopedia to sort that complexity out – not to deny that complexity! I see no easy solution here. The literature is complex, so our article must be complex too. The lead should serve as a summary of the required sort. It does, I had thought. It gives a brief rough account, but warns that the story is indeed more tortuous.

It is a very careful, neutral, scholarly treatment that doesn't provide any guidance to the confused layperson.

Ah, but it does provide such guidance, as far as it can be provided. And if the confused layperson were to seek guidance about nuclear fission, there would be no easy way to wave a magic wand there either.

It would be much better to follow the lead of the New Grove or New Harvard in the first instance, and then to add the (interesting and helpful-to-the-specialist, but overwhelming to the casual layperson) detail later. The problem is that writing a dictionary or Encyclopedia is inevitably a normative business. You are, like it or not, helping to standardize usage. This is a place where Wikipedia tends to fail: in the face of any confusion in usage, one gets (in the best case) a studiously neutral proliferation of detail. And this makes the article less useful to the majority of readers.

The article should aim to help all comers. This can partly be achieved with a lean and economical main text, with details for specialists in endnotes and special sections. I think we could continue to work that way: refining and clarifying in the main text, pushing the complexities out into well-managed notes. But there are limits to this. As for the New Grove, see above. As for the Harvard, it seems to be better. But it still only represents one choice of usage, and that choice is not universal.

There's another problem. Almost nobody, to my knowledge, uses "diatonic" to mean the diatonic scale as well as the two other minor scales.

Forgive me. I don't mean to be condescending, but you illustrate the very point that is of interest. You use the term diatonic in a contested way. To keep things neutral for the purposes of this discussion, you'd have to put it something like this: "Almost nobody uses the term diatonic to refer to all forms of the minor scale [along with the major, and forms preceding Common Practice]". Is this more or less what you meant? If it is, I disagree. Look at the evidence cited in the article. Look at other places in Wikipedia. You might start with Heptatonic scale.

In contexts where, say, the harmonic minor is considered "diatonic" the phyrigian mode would not typically be considered diatonic. So really, this usage refers to the major mode, as well as the three forms of the minor mode. The distinction between scale and mode is not well-treated in this article.

I agree that the distinction between scale and mode is not well drawn in the article. Perhaps it needs to be. I had not thought that the problem loomed large in this article. I believe that there is considerable divergence in the use of those terms as well, and that there is no single "correct line" to take. This needs to be looked at, sure.

Perhaps the following improvement might help. You might explain that "diatonic" typically refers to one particular scale when the context is discussion about particular scales (say, to contrast the diatonic with melodic minor). It typically refers to the major and three forms of the minor mode when the context is contrasting normal ("marked") common-practice routines ("diatonic music") with less-standard ("chromatic") routines. At least that would provide readers with an understanding of where the terminological confusion comes from.

Sure! We should do all that. I thought we did try to do that sort of thing already. I think there is more to do, and there are improvements to be made.

Summary

Njarl, as I said above I am in sympathy with much that you say. I respect your concerns, and we share the goal of meeting the needs of readers. I hope that is clear to you as it is clear to me. But I refuse to simplify where simplification leads to, or worsens, confusion. Let's work together to refine the article so that it meets all needs, as an encyclopedic article ought to. Most sources fail their readers with these terms. The New Grove performs poorly, and we are entitled to expect much more from it. Other encyclopedias fail through the ignorance of their contributors or by succumbing to this pervasive pressure to be useful and friendly. Friendliness they may sometimes achieve; usefulness they have not achieved. We can do better! As it stands, I would say this article is the best resource readily available anywhere for getting clear about the terms diatonic and chromatic, and demonstrating how they are used in the literature. (If not, find me a better one.) In seeking to improve it, let's not compromise that success with simplified "catechistic" dogma, spurious appeals to authorities which have demonstrably failed, or impossible attempts to simplify a domain that has grown complex just by encyclopedist's fiat.

With all of that in mind, I am amending some your changes, while striving to preserve what I see as useful in them. They are not supported by hard evidence, and this article is diminished if we do not maintain that high standard.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Noetica, if I may -- you seem a bit attached, personally, to this article. The volume of your comments written on this talk page attests to that. Furthermore, you claim to be "sympathetic" to my points, but then you simply revert to an earlier version. I am going to restore some of my changes -- particularly the bit about modes, where I don't believe your reversions have helped the content of the article.

There is still a major unresolved issue here. No theorist has ever, or would ever, refer to the opening of Stravinsky's "Infernal Dance" (from Firebird) as "diatonic." Yet according to you it is diatonic, since it uses a mode of the harmonic minor scale. The article as currently written gives the misleading impression that this would be a reasonable description of the passage, yet it simply is not. In my earlier revision, I changed your use of "scale" to "mode" to try to avoid a major falsehood. If you don't like that, find another way to clarify it -- but please don't just revert to the misleading earlier version.

Also, I don't think you've really addressed the point about the New Harvard and New Grove dictionaries. Yes, there is some inconsistency in a massive work like the New Grove. However, it's perfectly reasonable to give the articles on "scale" and "diatonic" particular weight. These entries no doubt represent the considered opinion of the editorial staff -- it's not right to weight them equally with offhand comments found in other entries, whose main focus is on other topics. Njarl 02:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Noetica's further response to Njarl

Njarl, I'll answer points that you make in order:

Noetica, if I may -- you seem a bit attached, personally, to this article. The volume of your comments written on this talk page attests to that. Furthermore, you claim to be "sympathetic" to my points, but then you simply revert to an earlier version. I am going to restore some of my changes -- particularly the bit about modes, where I don't believe your reversions have helped the content of the article.

Yes, I am attached to this article "personally" in the sense that I initiated it, and I seem to be the one who has researched it most and written most of its content. But I am not attached to it in the sense of having a particular opinion to push. For example, I don't claim that most theorists have a certain view or adopt some usage or other, or that any view or usage is right. I have had to work hard against such POV editing here. And yes, this has required a great volume of discussion. As you have seen, claims in the article are meticulously supported by sources. Some few that are not are annotated as needing citations.

I am indeed sympathetic to your points. I can see that you are knowledgeable and interested, and that you want to work to improve this article. I have responded thoughtfully, therefore, to your thoughtful suggestions. I "simply reverted" in only one case, where your meaning was ambiguous and the reader might easily have been confused. You then "simply reverted" what I had eventually put in place of your version. My later considered version, after reflecting further:

In some usages it includes all forms of heptatonic scale that are in common use in Western music (the major, and all forms of the minor).

What could be objectionable here? It is neither factually wrong, nor ill-formed stylistically or grammatically. It says something that is important to say. Compare your version:

In some usages it refers to the major and minor modes of classical tonality--which may incorporate a variety of other other heptatonic scales.

(First note the slip with the doubled word other, and the style of dash that is inconsistent with the style in the rest of the article.) Now, how is that better than than what I came up with, prompted by your editing? What is "classical tonality", to us or to the typical reader? This is a rare and unindexed phrase in New Grove. (Most salient and retrievable of the nine unexplained uses in Grove: "In 12-note triadic and 7th-chord chromaticism, then, harmony retains the primary cognitive status that it bears in the approaches of Rameau and Riemann to classical tonality" New Grove, "Harmony", §5.) Even if it were something well described and widely understood in the literature, and which the reader could look up, how is "the major and minor modes of classical tonality" more informative and accurate than "all forms of heptatonic scale that are in common use in Western music (the major, and all forms of the minor)"? I say it is less. As for mode itself, I think we have to be circumspect in its use. If you think there is a clear and uniformly respected distinction between mode and scale that the typical reader will grasp without guidance, I'm afraid I disagree. How is the distinction crucial here, anyway? We are characterising different sequences of pitches, which can be construed either as cycling sequences or sequences bound in an octave. The sequence represented by major (the same as the sequences in the descending melodic, and in the church modes) is one such structure that we need to describe clearly; the ascending melodic minor is a second such sequence; and the harmonic minor a third. Let's find the best way of conveying all that. If you think that mode is important here, then work it into the article systematically, with an explanation. Good luck to the reader searching through New Grove for a clear statement about this. It is finally given in "Mode, §V: Middle East and Asia": "By the mid-18th century, ‘mode’ in European languages meant a collection of degrees of a scale (and its aggregate intervallic content), being governed by a single chief degree: a mode was a scale with a tonic, which was the last note of a melody or the root of a final triad. This is the sense in which the major and minor scales, as well as the so-called ‘church modes’, are still deemed ‘modes’, and it was with this sense that the term ‘mode’ was first applied to phenomena and practices in other musical cultures." But the choice of tonic in the sequences discussed in this article is irrelevant to the business of explaining diatonic and chromatic.

As for the harmonic minor in Firebird, you write:

There is still a major unresolved issue here. No theorist has ever, or would ever, refer to the opening of Stravinsky's "Infernal Dance" (from Firebird) as "diatonic." Yet according to you it is diatonic, since it uses a mode of the harmonic minor scale. The article as currently written gives the misleading impression that this would be a reasonable description of the passage, yet it simply is not.

No. Not according to me! I don't say anything is diatonic or not diatonic. I report usages, and give sources. What consenting adult musicologists might like to say about Firebird is their private business. You assert that none would ever say that the use of a harmonic minor feature is diatonic. I wonder how that assertion could ever be supported. On the evidence that we have assembled in our list of sources, it is not disqualified as a "reasonable description", in some usages. Show me why this is not so. But even if no musicologist would use terms that way, this is not crucially relevant to a survey of usages that are to be found in the whole range of musical discourse. Finally, don't we already characterise the "exclusive" use, of which you are clearly a partisan, as favoured in academic use? So what's the problem?

You write:

Also, I don't think you've really addressed the point about the New Harvard and New Grove dictionaries. Yes, there is some inconsistency in a massive work like the New Grove. However, it's perfectly reasonable to give the articles on "scale" and "diatonic" particular weight. These entries no doubt represent the considered opinion of the editorial staff -- it's not right to weight them equally with offhand comments found in other entries, whose main focus is on other topics.

I have conceded that the Harvard may do better than the New Grove. It is, then, one respected source that may be consistent. But the Grove is not such a source. I agree that we should look at primary articles, not at mere obiter dicta. We do that, in fact, in our list of sources. The articles cited there are "Diatonic" (cited twice) and "Minor". One citation of "Diatonic" includes a serious anomaly or inconsistency (that the tritone, in either spelling, is reasonably accounted a non-diatonic interval, by some undocumented source or other). The citation from "Minor" starts this way: The name given to a diatonic scale..., and eveything that follows would lead the unbiased reader to think that all forms of the minor are diatonic. The unbiased reader: not readers like us, who have read a lot already, and have ideas already formed. Scan the excerpt carefully, setting aside any prejudices, and you'll see what I mean. So in summary, Grove could be classified as a whole as vague and inconsistent. It is certainly careless! But by a charitable concession we may allow it to weigh in as mainly supporting the exclusive use. That it does so in such an equivocal way constitutes major evidence that there is a problem, which this article addresses.

Once more I am altering (not in all cases "simply reverting", as if I took any of this lightly!) some of what you have changed. Please do not make such changes here without hard evidence; and please set aside any preference or bias you may have towards some usage or another. One major theme of this article is that there is diversity in usage that needs clear and unbiased documenting.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

---

See Freudian slip for an example of treatment of popular usage of a technical term. Conversely, Light year makes no mention of its common misuse as a unit of time. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Wahoofive. The problem in this case though is that the "experts" talk in confusing ways: to others and among themselves. An analogy I rather like: the incorrect and endlessly misleading use of the terms red cones, blue cones, and green cones in describing the mechanisms of colour perception. The "experts" muddle themselves, and everyone else too. (See Color; and see psychology textbooks that usually get it wrong, so that most students end up with impossible beliefs.)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

This article’s opening sentence, “Diatonic and chromatic are important terms in music theory,” espouses a subjective point of view (however mild). Since it is also essentially superfluous (not to mention banal), I suggest we do away with it entirely. Let’s cut to the chase and begin with an explicit and succinct definition of the terms. TheScotch 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you objecting to? Is it only the single word important? After all, diatonic and chromatic are certainly terms in music theory, are they not? Do you think they are unimportant ones, or that the level of their importance is entirely a matter of personal opinion?

We do in fact cut to the chase pretty briskly. First we have to say what domain we are in (music theory); then we have to say in short form how the terms are used. We do all that: in the lead, as appropriate. Then the rest of article gives the details, of which there are many. One feature of this article is that it keeps things lean in its main text, and relegates a great deal of material, and careful qualification and citation, to extensive notes. But we have to give enough detail in the main text so that we don't mislead by over-simplifying.

Please say more clearly what your problems are with the article is, so that they can be discussed. We can then make changes consensually, if others see a need for them too.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems remain

Noetica, there is still a problem with this article. The article claims that the term "diatonic" is often applied to the harmonic minor scale. Readers could well conclude from this that modal uses of the harmonic minor, such as that in the opening of the Firebird's "Infernal Dance," are frequently (or even sometimes) described as diatonic. The problem is that this is false. None of the sources you have cited provides evidence for such usage. (What evidence can I provide for the claim that there is no such usage? The evidence is that there are virtually no examples to be found, even by dedicated folks such as yourself!)

The problem is that "diatonic" is used in the "inclusive" sense (so as to include the harmonic and melodic minor scales) only in a very particular context: when describing the art music of the so-called "common practice" period. There is a lot of (broadly speaking) tonal music, including much late nineteenth-century and twentieth-century music (Liszt, Musorgsky, Debussy, jazz, Shostakovich, Adams, etc.) that does not fall into this category. Almost nobody, when describing this "broadly tonal" music, uses "diatonic" in the inclusive sense described in the article. (The article exacerbates this problem by conflating "tonal" with "common-practice tonal" and using "modern" to refer to "common practice.")

The article needs to be improved by making it clear that the "inclusive" use of diatonic is limited to a particular context. The narrower use of "diatonic" (referring to the white-note scale) is much more common in contexts describing modern, tonal, but not common-practice music.

Alternatively, you could come up with some citations where the inclusive use is applied to tonal-but-not-common-practice music. But as I say, there are precious few of these to be found. Njarl 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that outside of common-practice harmony the term diatonic is exclusively used in the more restricted sense, and the article should make this clearer. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems remain

Noetica, there is still a problem with this article. The article claims that the term "diatonic" is often applied to the harmonic minor scale. Readers could well conclude from this that modal uses of the harmonic minor, such as that in the opening of the Firebird's "Infernal Dance," are frequently (or even sometimes) described as diatonic. The problem is that this is false. None of the sources you have cited provides evidence for such usage. (What evidence can I provide for the claim that there is no such usage? The evidence is that there are virtually no examples to be found, even by dedicated folks such as yourself!)

The problem is that "diatonic" is used in the "inclusive" sense (so as to include the harmonic and melodic minor scales) only in a very particular context: when describing the art music of the so-called "common practice" period. There is a lot of (broadly speaking) tonal music, including much late nineteenth-century and twentieth-century music (Liszt, Musorgsky, Debussy, jazz, Shostakovich, Adams, etc.) that does not fall into this category. Almost nobody, when describing this "broadly tonal" music, uses "diatonic" in the inclusive sense described in the article. (The article exacerbates this problem by conflating "tonal" with "common-practice tonal" and using "modern" to refer to "common practice.")

The article needs to be improved by making it clear that the "inclusive" use of diatonic is limited to a particular context. The narrower use of "diatonic" (referring to the white-note scale) is much more common in contexts describing modern, tonal, but not common-practice music.

Alternatively, you could come up with some citations where the inclusive use is applied to tonal-but-not-common-practice music. But as I say, there are precious few of these to be found. Njarl 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Njarl

Thank you for your remarks, Njarl. I'll now address some of them in sequence, citing your words in italics.

The article claims that the term "diatonic" is often applied to the harmonic minor scale.

So far so good. It is often so applied, and the list of sources shows evidence of this. Note that two categories in the list present such evidence, and that one of these shows that many such usages are in some way compromised or unclear. Those usages constitute one good reason for such a list, and for such an article.

Readers could well conclude from this that modal uses of the harmonic minor, such as that in the opening of the Firebird's "Infernal Dance," are frequently (or even sometimes) described as diatonic. The problem is that this is false. None of the sources you have cited provides evidence for such usage. (What evidence can I provide for the claim that there is no such usage? The evidence is that there are virtually no examples to be found, even by dedicated folks such as yourself!)

Njarl, you might have missed this footnote (currently marked as number 20):

Almost no writer uses diatonic to describe non-traditional or modal use of the melodic and harmonic minor scales, in ways that are outside of common practice.

I seem to recall that this is adapted from something you contributed at your last visit here. I raise no objection to it. Satisfied on that score?

I think this should be put into the main body of the text, rather than a footnote. I'll move it when I get a chance.

The problem is that "diatonic" is used in the "inclusive" sense (so as to include the harmonic and melodic minor scales) only in a very particular context: when describing the art music of the so-called "common practice" period.

Really? How about music written since 1900 (or 1910, if you prefer that artificial limiting date) that conforms in all essential respects to common practice? Do you deny that most later Western music outside of later art music does this?

I believe that most Western music since 1900 is tonal, but does not conform "in all essential respects" to common-practice norms. For instance, jazz and rock both use parallel fifths, modal progressions, etc.

There is a lot of (broadly speaking) tonal music, including much late nineteenth-century and twentieth-century music (Liszt, Musorgsky, Debussy, jazz, Shostakovich, Adams, etc.) that does not fall into this category. Almost nobody, when describing this "broadly tonal" music, uses "diatonic" in the inclusive sense described in the article.

First, some composers you mention are either outside of the the so-called common practice period as it is clearly delimited in Wikipedia and many other places (Shostakovich, Adams); at least one other is obviously transitional (Debussy; died 1918, remember); and at least one who is within the period is unusual in prefiguring many changes that were to come (Liszt). In any case, so what? The article, while not yet as fine-grain in all respects as many would like (including myself), would not mislead any reasonably careful reader. There are, let's face it, thirty-four footnotes so far, to document and qualify what are already carefully worded statements. Look again at the wording in the lead especially, and in those copious notes. There is also mention of a predominantly pedagogical context for the inclusive use, and of a predominantly "academic" and musicological context for the exclusive use.

As for jazz, who ever thought that was in the ambit of common practice? (I will point out incidentally that the great majority of tutors and textbooks for all styles of guitar use diatonic in the inclusive sense.)

This doesn't address the issue. Many people think jazz is tonal. It conforms to many norms of common practice tonality (ii-V-I progressions, etc.). It is not common practice music, however. The article as currently written confuses tonal music with common practice.

Furthermore, no jazz theorist uses the term "diatonic" to describe the altered scale, which is a mode of the melodic minor ascending, and hence "diatonic" in the inclusive sense.

(The article exacerbates this problem by conflating "tonal" with "common-practice tonal" and using "modern" to refer to "common practice.")

Do you think so? Where does it do that? I don't yet see that there is a problem to exacerbate, as I hope I make clear above. If you think there is a problem that has not been covered, by all means cover it! Bring on the endnotes, I say. And of course let them be documented with examples and citations.

Footnote 1 for example. BTW, I think this article has way too many footnotes. It should read like an encyclopedia article, not a scholarly treatise.

The article needs to be improved by making it clear that the "inclusive" use of diatonic is limited to a particular context. The narrower use of "diatonic" (referring to the white-note scale) is much more common in contexts describing modern, tonal, but not common-practice music.

Fine. Improve it! With documentation. I think you are probably right.

Alternatively, you could come up with some citations where the inclusive use is applied to tonal-but-not-common-practice music. But as I say, there are precious few of these to be found.

Alternatively, someone else could! I've done a lot already, and will do more – when I have time to add a few other things I have in mind but am still chasing sources for.

My point is that there aren't any such uses. You can't footnote an absence.

Njarl, I for one am glad to see you participating here. I like your style, and you are obviously knowledgeable in the area. Last time, I adapted and preserved some of your work, in the light of the considerable explorations that I have made in this domain myself. I look forward to your new edits. I may well seek to treat them the same as earlier, adapting them. Or someone else might. It's all public property, after all.

Wahoofive, same for you! But I will remind editors here once more that we are working with evidence and reasoned argument, not preconceptions established from our own musical education and involvements, which for all of us are limited in some way or other. We all have to fight against such limitations to produce a useful and balanced article. I have worked hard to suppress my own early learnings and present leanings, with many matters in music theory. Wikipedia is great for helping us to do that – and demanding that we do it, if we are to contribute well.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Roivas adds his two cents

Like I've said before: we are no longer a part of the common practice period. The lazy misuse of the term "diatonic" is not equal or valid alongside the correct definition. At one time it might have been used as a term of convenience, but this can no longer be the case. Music is much more diverse now and we should probably show that we are somewhat aware of this reality in the article.--Roivas 15:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Riovas on this. Njarl 02:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Some questions and comments for you, Roivas:

• Who says, or thinks, that we are "a part of the common practice period"? Certainly the article makes it clear that we are not.

Footnote 1 does this. Njarl 02:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Who determines what is "misuse"?

The sorts of people who write reference works, like dictionaries and encyclopedias. Njarl 02:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Who is a "lazy" user of terms? Certainly not anyone who puts effort into a painstaking article such as this one!
• Who says "this can no longer be the case"? With support from what argument, and with citation of what uncontradicted sources?
• Exactly how does the article fail to acknowledge that music is diverse? The article certainly allows that music theory is diverse: why are you reluctant to acknowledge that?
• We cite the musicologist Allen Forte, as follows:

4. Tonal Harmony in Concept and Practice, Forte, Allen, NY, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 3rd edition, 1979, p. 14

The diatonic minor scale therefore has three forms: natural, melodic, and harmonic.

Explain, if you can, why this eminent theorist, author or co-author of Tonal Harmony in Concept and Practice, The Structure of Atonal Music, Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis, The American Popular Ballad of the Golden Era 1924-1950, and The Atonal Music of Anton Webern, is not an authority that you respect.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, there actually are genuine reasons to doubt Forte here. He might well be motivated by a particular Schenkerian claim that all music is fundamentally "diatonic." To treat the harmonic and melodic minor scales as "nondiatonic" would be to cast doubt on this view. (I simply speculate.) In any case, the mere fact that someone teaches at an Ivy League university does not mean that he thinks clearly about these issues (sorry to say). Furthermore, popular song aside, Forte's particular concerns and expertise do not focus on the extended tonal music of the twentieth century -- the music for which it is important to distinguish the melodic minor scale from the white-note scale. Njarl 02:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

*Exactly how does the article fail to acknowledge that music is diverse?

This passage betrays your bias:

"When treated as an opposing pair, the terms are especially used in discourse concerning modern Western music.[1] (Footnote: That is to say common practice music)"

--Roivas 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Roivas, what on earth are you talking about? Some points and questions:

• For a start, you are not quoting me, but the article. And what is more, you are misquoting it, by presenting the note as if it were complete. You should, at the very least, have indicated elision with "[...]" or something similar. Here is the first paragraph of the lead in full, with that note in full, with what you omitted underlined:

Diatonic and chromatic are terms in music theory applied primarily to scales, but also often used in characterising intervals, chords, individual notes, general musical styles, kinds of harmony, etc. When treated as an opposing pair, the terms are especially used in discourse concerning modern Western music.¹

¹That is to say common practice music – the tonal music that dominated in the West from about 1600 to about 1900. But the terms are also relevant to a great deal of current music, since beyond art music Western music is still overwhelmingly tonal.

That paragraph was developed by me and others; the note is a way of giving clarification that is needed to remove bias or anything incautious, and its content was prompted by another editor, not me. What do you disagree with in that paragraph, or in its note?

• What is "my bias"? I still can't see what you're getting at. What do you take my opinion to be, about any of this? Given that anyone is free to come in and propose or make changes (subject to review by other editors), how is there a problem?
• Why have you answered (cryptically!) only one of the itemised questions I put to you above?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

*For a start, you are not quoting me, but the article. And what is more, you are misquoting it, by presenting the note as if it were complete. You should, at the very least, have indicated elision with "[...]" or something similar. Here is the first paragraph of the lead in full, with that note in full, with what you omitted underlined:

My point is that modern Western music is not part of the common practice period. 20th century (what we like to call "modern") music has no common practice and the paragraph ignores (or belittles) this diversity. Is it really not obvious to you? Njarl seems to see the same thing.--Roivas 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

the note is a way of giving clarification that is needed to remove bias

It fails to do either.--Roivas 14:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The recent change to note 1 doesn't really solve the problem. I suggest deleting "modern Western music" and replacing it with "the Common Pratice period." The note could then describe what the Common Practice period is or we can forgo the note and rely on the internal link.--Roivas 15:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems fixed

[Please do not fragment contributions with inserted comments, but reply at the end of a contribution so that the reader can easily follow the conversation. Please sign all your comments.]

...or at least I hope so. Really, there is not so much disagreement among us as there may seem to be, on a superficial view of the to-and-fro above. The evidence plainly shows what it shows about different usages; it's then just a matter of presenting what it shows in an unbiased way. In my own view of the matter, there is no "correct" usage for the terms diatonic and chromatic. How could there be? Only by there being a clear and universal consensus in the literature, enshrined and confirmed in standard works of reference. In this case there is not such a consensus: there are several literatures, and even within single sectors there has been disagreement and confusion. The fact that this disagreement, with its attendant confusion, is rarely recognised or discussed does not diminish it: it can only worsen it.

The standard music reference works, as cited in our list of sources, have done a very poor job with these terms. Here is something from Richard Goldman's useful study Harmony in Western Music, 1965, right at the start of chapter one:

The minor scale or mode has always been an embarrassment to theorists. Tovey puts the matter simply when he says that "the minor scale is so unstable that the evidence of its common chords is conflicting and misleading." (p. 15)

Evidently this uncertainty concerning the minor scale – or scales – is responsible for most of the uncertainty with the term diatonic. The response of reference works to the problem has been characterised by avoidance. For example, the current Oxford Companion to Music in one place (the article "Scale") deals with the harmonic and melodic minors under the heading Diatonic Scale, near a related heading Chromatic Scale, as if these two headings neatly and decisively partitioned all of the scales used in common practice music. (The other headings, taking us beyond common practice, are The whole-tone scale, Pentatonc scales, and Invented scales.) Fine: so far an inclusivist way of organising things. But it states, even under that heading, that the melodic and harmonic minor are not diatonic: an exclusivist stance. Elsewhere it does no better. And New Grove does little better, also.

In Wikipedia we now have the only article I have seen anywhere that thoroughly addresses problems with these terms. (If anyone knows of another one, let's hear about it!) There is still some work to do here, some signalled at the very start of this talk page. But we have made good progress, I think. I will continue to root out statements that are not sufficiently supported by evidence or argument, and I hope others will do the same. I will not accept that this article has too many notes appended. They have been called for, and have been supplied. There can be no harm in having very many citations and notes, especially if the material is contested and complex, and the treatment of it is groundbreaking and unique in the literature, as this article is. The body of the article can stay lean and readable, no matter what auxiliaries are added for those who want them.

I'll not re-engage with petty argument or mere sniping comments. When I do that, my detailed points in reply are ignored, as are my own direct questions. Let's all just work collaboratively and consensually, instead. I hope we can all resolutely focus on being unbiased. Njarl, thanks for your recent valuable input.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Still remaining: the difficult question of what to do about other articles which use the word "diatonic". They can't issue a disclaimer or footnote every time. They could, however, link to this article. But now that we've evidenced that the term is of uncertain definition, that doesn't help much in determining how to use it in Wikipedia. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is more to do, Wahoofive. I have not forgotten that clarity and uniformity in Wikipedia were a strong motivation for making this article. I think what we have here does help a lot towards something concrete and durable in other articles, in fact. We can use it to feed discussion at WP:MOSMUSIC, where as you know I am keen to get things moving. (Alternatively, some other place – like the one you have suggested at the talk page for WP:MOSMUSIC.) We can't make recommendations directly right here, that's for sure. When other active editors are ready for that policy discussion, so am I! Exactly how to manage usage throughout the Wikipedia can then be determined by consensus, and then a note can be put near the start of this article, to show which usage is generally in place throughout Wikipedia. But we have to go through all of that process, if the results are to have any persuasive force.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

---

The following sentence is very vague, and in my view misleading:

"When treated as an opposing pair, the terms are especially used with respect to the common practice music of the period 1600-1900, and later music whose scales and related structures are sufficiently similar to those of that period.[1]

[1] A great deal of popular music belongs in this category (probably most). Jazz, some rock, and many derivatives from these do not; and most later art music does not, even when it uses tonal elements of its own."

What exactly does "sufficiently similar" mean? Either this should be spelled out or it should be eliminated altogether. I favor elimination. Here's why: Jazz is in many ways extremely similar to classical music, and yet as the footnote acknowledges, the oppostion diatonc/chromatic does not apply here. The same goes for a large amount of rock -- is the b7 in Norwegian wood a diatonic note or a chromatic note?

As I see it, the issue is not similarity/nonsimilarity in some absolute sense -- the issue is whether the music uses just the traditional scales of the common practice (major and the three minors) or whether it uses a broader variety of scales and modes. If the latter, then the inclusive use of "diatonic" is too confusing.

I also don't like this sentence:

"Inclusive" usage: Many writers (especially in pedagogical and practical texts, and especially concerning the music of the Common Practice Period),

It implies that in most practical texts the inclusive usage is found. This is not true. For example, there are many, many practical texts about jazz and almost none use the terms in the way that is described here. I'm not sure I even know what "pedagogical and practical texts" means here. Are you referring to textbooks by Kostka and Payne, Aldwell and Schachter, Gauldin? If so, these people are academic music theorists, and so seem to belong to the earlier category.

I'm editing these sentences. Please do not revert without addressing these problems. Njarl 22:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Njarl, if that last injunction is in any way intended for me, you should know that I address problems and discuss issues thoroughly. Look at the record. I do note that you have once more removed the word many from the description of the "inclusivist" position, on a very dubious pretext. Many certainly does not imply most! And many is amply justified by abundant evidence. This is very wearying. Are you confident that you are not motivated by bias, in some of your choices? I have worked hard to suppress any inclinations of my own, and to work towards an even-handed article. If you think I have not, I want to see your evidence. I'll come back to this discussion when I have time for it.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I can look again at what you have written, Njarl. First, I think we are making progress. Painfully. Second, I will want your answers to my question about bias (see immediately above). And I ask you to consider how this article ought to have been developed, if you're not entirely happy with it. It's one thing to come in late and criticise when you find some material not to your taste or in accord with your experience (though strong evidence backs it up), another thing to weather the enormous difficulties of building an article from scratch against often vicious opposition: petty obstruction, unfounded assertions of the "simple" "facts" of the matter, unsupportable claims that there is uniformity of contemporary opinion when there is none, personal attacks, and all the rest. Think about that, and respond, please. In particular, you might like to review what you say about Allen Forte. No one is claiming that his authority weighs against all others'! But he is a much admired, frequently cited, pioneering musicologist who wrote a major textbook on tonal harmony, serious studies of the transitions in 20th music away from tonality, or to a different kind of tonality, tonal music beyond art music, and much, much more. Why single him out as counting for little, when so many lesser sources are cited? I am reminded of Roivas's snap judgement that Percy Scholes is a mere schoolteacher and a "bigot". Scholes' plainly stating an opinion that is different from Roivas's is not, believe it or not, sufficient grounds for that judgement.

As for the details of your recent changes, here is a systematic treatment of them:

• It seems that no matter what I do you resist any sort of a note attached near the start, to make it clear what kinds of music the article is about. I want a simple note: but I am driven to complexities because you are never happy! If I don't mention jazz as excluded, you then complain that jazz ought to be excluded (from you, above: "For example, there are many, many practical texts about jazz and almost none use the terms in the way that is described here"), or 20th-century non-common-practice but tonal art music. Obviously though, a great deal of later music uses essentially common-practice resources, and is analysable and analysed the same way. Do you disagree? I'm putting back a note to show that. If you want to remove or change it, show us why, here. And be consistent in what you call for, please!
• I am rearranging some details in the section introducing exclusivist and other uses. We really agree about these generally, I think. One sticking point concerns "most" versus "some". I'm putting in the less controversial "some" for the first too camps. Please note carefully: a later note, currently note 22, does a lot to explain who uses the terms how, and which is more current among what sector. We don't need to say all this more than once. A couple of other things were repeated, too. I have trimmed those.
• I have no problem with this addition of yours, Njarl: "In general, diatonic is most often used inclusively with respect to music that restricts itself to standard uses of traditional major and minor scales. When discussing music that uses a larger variety of scales and modes (including much jazz, rock, and some tonal twentieth-century concert music), writers often adopt the exclusive use to prevent confusion."
• I have no problem with this addition either, as I amend it and sharpen it a little: "Some writers use the phrase "diatonic to" as a synonym for "belonging to." Here, a chord could be "diatonic to" a scale that was not itself diatonic." I have also called for a citation. This is not an act of aggression or resistance! I have imposed such tags on some of my own assertions in this article.

Everyone happy?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Noetica says: I am reminded of Roivas's snap judgement that Percy Scholes is a mere schoolteacher and a "bigot". Scholes' plainly stating an opinion that is different from Roivas's is not, believe it or not, sufficient grounds for that judgement.

I don't know what you're getting at here. That wasn't the "grounds for my judgement." This statement is: "Jazz is to serious music as daily journalism is to serious writing."--Roivas 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of usage of diatonic and chromatic in Wikipedia articles

Editors will be interested that Wahoofive has initiated the discussion of these terms at WP:MOSMUSIC. Let's all get involved there. Among other things, the outcome will feed into this present article – and this article will have implications for it, in turn.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Diatonic function

Main article: Diatonic function

The word diatonic in this context seems to mean "scale degree" and certainly applies to minor scale variants. Where is a good place to mention this in the article? —Wahoofive (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome debate

I've not been party to this discussion thus far. LIke many articles on music theory, it's difficult to negotiate: being highly theoretical, there are bound to be conflicting perspectives among contributors; being encyclopedic, the article is supposed to be based on existing knowledge, yet that itself presents conflicts, and much of it, dare I say, is not useful. It's just my opinion, but when I see texts from the early to mid-20th century coming out of the woodwork, I draw breathe. Is the article going to be just an uncritical melange of these texts, or will it present a clear, cohesive, easy-to-understand, modern viewpoint, selectively referenced? I hope the latter. Tony 08:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If "modern viewpoint" is code for revisionist viewpoint, I should prefer that the article avoid it. We need to respect historical precedent. TheScotch 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism of what "should" you prefer to avoid? How ridiculous. Tony 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I get dizzy reading the lead. It's aggressively technical (who is the intended readership?), and should ease us into the greater detail below, not confront us with difficulties that hardly anyone will comprehend adequately at the top. It's a vague tour around a whole lot of things, whereas it should make it easier to navigate through the article. I don't think the "see below" reference should be in the lead. It's poorly written on the clause level. Tony 14:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I'm glad I invited you to come and look at all of this. The process has been long and arduous, and the article is not yet settled and trimmed into a neat consensus offering. I expected that you would not like what you found! I know you go for brevity and simplicity. I value those things, too. But it has not been possible to keep things simple and nuanced and accurate, amid the turmoil of dispute. I started this article because Wikipedia needed it. I put this to you: the article is far more accurate, complete, and well researched than most of our music theory articles. As for old texts coming "out of the woodwork", yes! Pretty amazing what's been dredged up. But the complexities of the terms we deal with go way back – and the uncertainties in contemporary use of them can only be explained by examining those roots. The language of music theory is like that, as I'm sure you appreciate. We need to come up with a trim, taut, terrific compromise, lucidly expressed, useful to all comers. Sure! We also need to be true to the complex facts, and respect the detail that is swept under the carpet by almost all other major reference works. It will always be possible to object, on some grounds or others, to what we produce. Let's all appreciate how hard the task is, and accept a durable and useful compromise. Meanwhile, let's continue to improve the article: cautiously and with respect for how hard that task really is. Get it right first, then make it more elegant without loss of integrity.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. A thought: the title is not "History of diatonic and chromatic theory", which could well be a daughter article. Let's keep that in mind, yes? And I hate the title, being two epithets without a nominal group to qualify. Why is it separate from the "Diatonic scale" article? Tony 03:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I can understand your reservations about the title. It has precedent in Major and minor though, and the same sorts of justification. Like that article, it deals with a pair of salient concepts; so it is not surprising that the terms do not qualify any single nominal group.

Why is this article not one with Diatonic scale? For three connected reasons, of varying value:

• Diatonic scale is not entirely well conceived or well organised, and the effort to reform it without support from more thorough basic article might be wasted.
• Diatonic scale does not cover the intimately related concept of the chromatic.
• The associated concepts diatonic and chromatic both have other applications, beyond their their supposed logically and historically prior application to scales.

A daughter article History of diatonic and chromatic theory? Possibly. I can think of several objections, and a few good reasons for it. What I would prefer, before anything else, is to get everything negotiated rationally for a very comprehensive article here. The terms have deep roots, as I say above and as the article demonstrates. Once we have all the connections and background thrashed out, we can reasonably think how or whether to divide the content.

I think we are just about right, now, to pursue discussion at WP:MOSMUSIC, and I do hope people will get involved at that page: for this and also other broad issues affecting the music theory articles.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Tony 07:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. This article should be renamed "History of the use of the terms 'diatonic' and 'chromatic'." It is currently much to detailed for the average user. Noetica, I am quite certain I am not motivated by what you call bias. What motivates me is the belief that Wikipedia should defer to professional music theorists and musicologists when defining technical music theory terms. Unfortunately, I really don't have time to keep arguing with you about this. I strongly recommend moving footnote 21 into the main text and deleting footnote 1. Goodbye. Njarl 22:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Coloration

I don't think this should redirect here - I was expecting either a redirect to color or an article on coloration in biology. Since we only have animal coloration at the moment, perhaps a redirect to color, with a note at the top, would be the best option?

Edit:I've redirected to color for now anyway. Richard001 04:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Diatonic and chromatic

I came here from the Talk:Enharmonic page. It says that enharmonics are two tones that are equivalent but named differently. I'm fairly sure that G# and A' have different pitches in different contexts, or does everyone here assume ET? As for the two terms, dia and chrom: dia is greek for through. Through the tone. A diatonic scale or chord is one derived from the harmonic series of the fundamental. Chromatic scales or chords are derived from the compromised 100 cent semitone equal temperament stuff. Or some variant of it. Some other compromise. That is how I've been taught it. I'm not sure if I'm right on that second bit, but the greek meaning of dia belongs in the article, I think. If anyone agrees I'll find a source. What about my definition of diatonic scales and chords? Irrelevant part--this is my first attempt to help with an article. I admire you people for not collapsing into comfortable assumptions and for examining contradictory views. Since I've been interested in music, there has been a strange and seemingly irresoluble tension between eight and twelve. This talk page and the article have "helped" me with it. this page is a good read: http://home.austin.rr.com/jmjensen/musicTheory.html Not Published, but it's all math anyway. His examples are all open source. He shys away from discussing "functional harmony" which makes me think he is not a musician.

Seanparker 04:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, Sean. Things have quietened down a lot around here; and I myself have decided not to do any serious Wikipedia editing for a while, though that may change. Note that Greek dia is indeed discussed, in note 5. A great deal of detail is in these notes, much of it assembled in one place for the first time ever, anywhere. Study that note especially, and then see if you still think new material is called for in the article. One point of contention has been how much detail to put in the article. It seems clear to me that the main text of the article should be lean and easy to assimilate, but that any amount of detailed hard-to-find information can go into the notes. Review also our detailed background information concerning the term chromatic, I suggest.

As for the "tension between eight and twelve", do you mean between seven (that is, seven notes or pitch classes of a so-called "diatonic" system) and twelve (that is, twelve notes of a so-called chromatic system, or however it might be characterised)?

As the article currently states, equal temperament is assumed unless stated otherwise.

The business of enharmonic is quite complex, and that term also means different things in different contexts.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with new additions to the list of definitions

Hi, everyone.

The following definition should be moved to the Diatonic used vaguely, inconsistently, or anomalously section:

7. Music for Our Time, Winter, Robert, Wadsworth, 1992, pp. 28–29 [...] Western music settled on two diatonic patterns, known today as the major scale and the minor scale. [...] The minor scale results from flatting (lowering by half a step) the third and sixth degrees of the major scale. [...] it is frequently smoothed out by [alterations to the sixth and seventh degree. ...] this form of the minor scale is called the melodic minor scale.

Only two scale patterns are diatonic according to the definition. It goes on to state that the minor scale is frequently modified, in practice, with alterations to the 6th & 7th scale steps, but it does not imply that these altered forms are also diatonic. This is similar to definition 2 (Grove Music Online) in the Diatonic used vaguely, inconsistently, or anomalously section.

Is every scale form derived from the diatonic scale also diatonic? It doesn’t clarify this problem. If it said “Western music settled on four diatonic patterns” and promptly listed all four forms, we might have some idea. The term “harmonic minor” isn’t mentioned in the definition. --Roivas (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Roivas. I agree that the expression in the Winter excerpt is imperfect (nothing unusual there!); but it is still easy to get a definite verdict on the classification of scales from it. Let's analyse.

For a start, while as you say harmonic minor is not a term that is used here, it is perfectly obvious that the harmonic minor is referred to:

The minor scale results from flatting (lowering by half a step) the third and sixth degrees of the major scale.

What could the scale that results be, if not the harmonic minor? So if your doubts are warranted, and Winter intends only two strict patterns of tones and semitones to count as diatonic, those two patterns are major and harmonic minor.

Now, you ask a pertinent question: Is every scale form derived from the diatonic scale also diatonic? Well, not for everyone, that's for sure! But in the present context, it seems clear that Winter does intend "derived" forms to be diatonic. How can we read him otherwise? There is no hint that he means to exclude the melodic forms, and every indication that he intends to include them. I say this with confidence because, unlike Britannica (see our list), he does not even implicitly appeal to any principle of construction out of the diatonic tetrachords. Indeed, his acceptance of the harmonic minor as diatonic means that he cannot appeal to such a principle as essential to a scale's being diatonic.

The crux of the excerpt is perhaps this, right near the beginning:

...two diatonic patterns, known today as the major scale and the minor scale.

How are we to understand pattern? If Winter means "strict pattern of tones and semitones", such a pattern cannot be varied in the ways that he goes on to discuss. (Or perhaps we should say that it can't be varied without becoming a different pattern.) Then the excerpt would be inconsistent and anomalous. But it is reasonable to use a modicum of charity, and of conservative, cautious interpretation: pattern can mean something broader, like general conformation. And such a conformation might be determined by the nature of the third from the tonic, yes? That might be the essential or diagnostic feature of the pattern he calls the minor scale – quite a standard way to go, I'd say. On such a reading, there is nothing at all that resists interpretation in the excerpt. What Winter identifies as the minor scale he introduces as one of two "diatonic patterns": patterns in a sense that permits variations, without loss of essential properties. A perfectly typical use of the word.

It is nearly always possible to show how an excerpt such as this might fail to deliver a clear verdict. But when this can only be achieved by forcing an interpretation of general terms (like pattern) that is the least likely in the context, so producing what on more reasonable and natural interpretations would be self-consistent and in line with some common acceptation of the whole, we should set such quibbles aside.

I say, therefore, that Winter should stay where he is.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we have to interpret the definition is the problem. Who is interpreting? A few anonymous editors on Wikipedia?

That would be fine if we were to apply this sort of reasoning in general. Use a "modicum of charity" and move the Grove (no. 2) definition up to the excludes section. It spells out a fixed tone/semitone sequence and then refers to any melodic alteration as chromatic. What else could make its point any clearer? Are we only to use broad, sweeping generalizations when it comes to a certain section of our list? Let's be consistent.--Roivas (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true, he called the HM scale the "minor scale". It's strange that he neglects to mention the natural minor scale, then tacitly implies it as a form of the melodic minor scale.--Roivas (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that all of our scales are abstractions from real musical practice, it is perhaps not to be marvelled at that Winter does not mention the so-called "natural" minor scale. That is certainly an abstraction, in the context of common practice music and its derivatives. Many theorists take the "default" form of the minor to be the harmonic (Prout, for example), and – implicitly or explicitly – the melodic forms to be derivations from it: the ascending raises one more note, and the descending loses one raising of a note. The third of the scale remains invariable in all the minors, and distinguishes them as a group that shares a common "pattern".

That's one way to think about all this, anyway. And it's common enough, despite the spurious and equivocating deliverances of many modern musicologists.

Roivas, you mention "the Grove (no. 2) definition" (in fact the third of three from Grove, but assigned the number 2 in the category Anomalous):

2. Grove Music Online

Minor (i). (1) The name given to a diatonic scale whose octave, in its natural form, is built of the following ascending sequence, in which T stands for a tone and S for a semitone: T–S–T–T–S–T–T). The note chosen to begin the sequence, called the key note, also becomes part of the name of the scale; a D minor scale, for instance, consists of the notes D–E–F–G–A–B♭–C–D. In practice, however, some notes of the scale are altered chromatically to help impart a sense of direction to the melody. The harmonic minor scale has a raised seventh, in accordance with the need for a major triad on the fifth step (the Dominant chord). The melodic minor scale has a raised sixth and a raised seventh when it is ascending, borrowing the leading-note function of the seventh step from the major scale; in descending, though, it is the same as the natural minor scale.

Now, this definition has already been discussed at considerable length, above. I find that when I do the fine-grained analysis that these flawed attempts at definition call for, and spend many carefully chosen words explaining things, I get not much more than an opinionated and dismissive response – and accusation of bias. But how am I biased? I readily assign definitions to the Exclusive list, and have acquiesced in the assigning of definitions that I have judged inclusive to the Anomalous list. Happy to do that! If I have an overall point to make, it is just that we must strive not to be biased, but start with a fresh analysis that allows the possibility of either reading, and proceed to determine which meaning is most plausibly intended by the writer – if any. In some cases it can't be determined, so we call the definition anomalous, vague, or inconsistent. My main point is just that there really is that variability in the literature, for those who will read and analyse without prejudice.

Roivas, you have never given an alternative fine-grained analysis to support your reading of this Grove quote; nor of the Winter quote. Nor have you in either case responded point by point to my analyses. Faced with this, it is not reasonable for me to labour to make further points until you redress that imbalance. I'm still waiting.

As for the modicum of charity, I certainly seek to apply it all cases. All reading involves interpretation, and reasonable interpretation always requires a kind of charity, so that we forgive negligible surface blemishes if it can be determined what the deeper sense of a passage is.

As for your mention of "broad, sweeping generalizations", will you please point those out for me exactly what you have in mind? Your allusion is not well focused.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If I seem negligent in my responses, it is because of the writing habits you've chosen to adopt in these discussions. Please don't be offended, but I find that I have to wade through two hundred words to get to the salient ten. It's a little draining.

Here are some points we can start with. I don't have a lot of time today, so I apologize for being aloof.

Noetica said:

The fact that certain notes are described as "chromatically altered" to form HM and MM shows nothing, because it would take further argument to demonstrate that chromatic alteration and "diatonicity" are incompatible, and in all cases exclude each other.

A clue is offered by another Grove excerpt:

From the Grove definition of diatonic:

The tritone, in theory diatonic according to this definition, has traditionally been regarded as the alteration of a perfect interval, and hence chromatic;

According to this, diatonic and chromatic are incompatible. This can be assumed for the definition of "minor".

Noetica said:

He is, typically for the period, completely silent concerning what we might call the minor mode: the Aeolian, the natural minor. He is also silent concerning the melodic minor.

I don't understand what you're getting at. He mentions both natural minor and melodic minor scales.

Noetica said:

The sequence of tones and semitones in it is there to show the sequence in the natural minor, which we agree is diatonic: "in its natural form, is built of the following ascending sequence". It is not claimed as doing anything beyond that.

Please clarify what you mean.

Noetica said:

But it is reasonable to use a modicum of charity, and of conservative, cautious interpretation: pattern can mean something broader, like general conformation. And such a conformation might be determined by the nature of the third from the tonic, yes?

The boundaries of diatonic cohesion aren't evident from the (Winter) text at all. Why should we assume that the third and tonic are the only determining scale steps?

You neglect to mention that in Winter's two patterns, the minor scale is also limited characterized by the flatted sixth. The ascending minor scale does not conform to either of his two parent scale patterns. This alone proves that the definition is too ambiguous to stay where it is. The Grove definition is, at least, consistent.

--Roivas 16:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Roivas, you write:

If I seem negligent in my responses, it is because of the writing habits you've chosen to adopt in these discussions. Please don't be offended, but I find that I have to wade through two hundred words to get to the salient ten. It's a little draining.

If I write tersely, you flatly contradict me or misunderstand me; if I write at length, filling in all the details, you refuse to engage. You have seemed impossible to please. That is draining, too.

Your points (which I'll usually indent, from now on; and I'll add underlining for emphasis as required):

Noetica said:

The fact that certain notes are described as "chromatically altered" to form HM and MM shows nothing, because it would take further argument to demonstrate that chromatic alteration and "diatonicity" are incompatible, and in all cases exclude each other.

Yes, I wrote that – back in April.

A clue is offered by another Grove excerpt:

From the Grove definition of diatonic:

The tritone, in theory diatonic according to this definition, has traditionally been regarded as the alteration of a perfect interval, and hence chromatic;

According to this, diatonic and chromatic are incompatible. This can be assumed for the definition of "minor".

A clue, yes. Perhaps! But my point was qualified in this way: that chromatic alteration and "diatonicity" are incompatible, and in all cases exclude each other. Well, back in March you wrote: I've never seen Diatonic used as an antonym to Chromatic and I'd like to see this substantiated. Sounds like original research again. Just where do you stand? Have you changed your mind? It's OK if you have, but it would be good to know. For the record, my view is this:

In some contexts diatonic and chromatic are taken as opposites by many theorists, who must (to be consistent) think they they exclude each other absolutely in those contexts. In other contexts, and for other theorists, the terms are not opposites, and do not exclude each other.

If on the other hand we want whatever musical feature that is diatonic not to be chromatic, and vice versa, and that every diatonic scale has the cyclic pattern -TTSTTTS-, we must classify the harmonic and ascending minor scales as chromatic. The only source I have discovered that does that is William Crotch, writing in 1830!

Clearly, then, both diatonic and chromatic are variable in meaning, and we cannot reliably interpret the Grove definition that is currently under scrutiny in any fixed way.

Noetica said:

He is, typically for the period, completely silent concerning what we might call the minor mode: the Aeolian, the natural minor. He is also silent concerning the melodic minor.

I don't understand what you're getting at. He mentions both natural minor and melodic minor scales.

Now for some reason you have jumped to a discussion of Goetschius! I don't know why. But anyway, you are the one who supplied the Goetschius material that was under discussion (see your talk page). Nothing in that material touches on the so-called "natural minor". Show me, if you dispute this. Here is the nearest he comes to mentioning the melodic forms:

88. The scale thus obtained is called the harmonic minor mode. It is the only theoretically accurate minor scale, and is the same in both ascending and descending succession. Still other alterations, rendered necessary by melodic considerations (to be explained is due season), are based upon this harmonic minor mode, which must therefore be first thoroughly mastered.

This is, arguably, a "mention" of the melodic forms: but it is certainly deflationary since such forms are not "theoretically accurate". Does he, in fact, allow that those alterations to the "only theoretically accurate minor scale" make a new scale, which he will later call "melodic minor"?

Noetica said:

The sequence of tones and semitones in it is there to show the sequence in the natural minor, which we agree is diatonic: "in its natural form, is built of the following ascending sequence". It is not claimed as doing anything beyond that.

Please clarify what you mean.

OK, we are back with the Grove quote that is in question. To make clear what I mean, I'll have to show the text yet again, and then analyse it:

Minor (i). (1) The name given to a diatonic scale whose octave, in its natural form, is built of the following ascending sequence, in which T stands for a tone and S for a semitone: T–S–T–T–S–T–T). The note chosen to begin the sequence, called the key note, also becomes part of the name of the scale; a D minor scale, for instance, consists of the notes D–E–F–G–A–B♭–C–D. In practice, however, some notes of the scale are altered chromatically to help impart a sense of direction to the melody. The harmonic minor scale has a raised seventh, in accordance with the need for a major triad on the fifth step (the Dominant chord). The melodic minor scale has a raised sixth and a raised seventh when it is ascending, borrowing the leading-note function of the seventh step from the major scale; in descending, though, it is the same as the natural minor scale.

Consider this. The definition might instead have started like this:

Minor: The name given to a scale whose octave, in its natural, diatonic, form, ...

If it had started like that, all would be clear. The definition would exclude the harmonic and the ascending melodic as diatonic, and would be classified accordingly.

But it doesn't start like that! It starts like this, in effect:

Minor: The name given to a diatonic scale whose octave, in its natural form, ...

Now pause. Re-read. Reflect. All of this was pointed out above, and here you have it once more. We cannot think that these two beginnings are identical in meaning, unless it be by reading incautiously and with a preconception about what must be intended. In that first variant I have given just now, a certain scale is spoken of in what follows. We are given information about the structure of one of its forms: some presumed diatonic "natural" form. In the actual text, a natural form of a certain diatonic scale is spoken of. See the difference?

And what does follow? This:

...is built of the following ascending sequence, in which T stands for a tone and S for a semitone: T–S–T–T–S–T–T).

So, when we set aside all preconceptions and prescind from unnecessary interpretation, the text plainly says:

• that there is a certain diatonic scale, called the minor; and
• that a certain form of that diatonic scale (the natural form) has a certain structure.

I'm not saying that! The author of that Grove definition is. As I have pointed out, it is possible that the author really meant to say something else: but he did not say something else. And what he does effectively say accords with a view that others express quite explicitly: that the minor scale, in all of its versions, is diatonic. And he says nothing to counter this view.

Next you move to the Winter definition:

Noetica said:

But it is reasonable to use a modicum of charity, and of conservative, cautious interpretation: pattern can mean something broader, like general conformation. And such a conformation might be determined by the nature of the third from the tonic, yes?

The boundaries of diatonic cohesion aren't evident from the (Winter) text at all. Why should we assume that the third and tonic are the only determining scale steps?

I don't know what you mean by diatonic cohesion, here. And I don't assume that the relation of the third to the tonic is the only determinant of a scale being minor. But that relation is what persists through the modifications that Winter mentions, by which other forms of the minor scale come about. What I have called the general conformation persists, and that is a matter of the minor third between tonic and mediant.

You neglect to mention that in Winter's two patterns, the minor scale is also limited characterized by the flatted sixth. The ascending minor scale does not conform to either of his two parent scale patterns. This alone proves that the definition is too ambiguous to stay where it is.

Why should I mention that? Winter says:

The minor scale results from flatting (lowering by half a step) the third and sixth degrees of the major scale. [...] it is frequently smoothed out by [alterations to the sixth and seventh degree. ...]

That's right: that's how you can derive the minor scale from the major (which need not retain all its features, once it has been so derived). Goetschius does exactly the same; and both Winter and Goetschius go on to speak of further modifications that yield variations of the basic (harmonic minor) configuration. Winter explicitly calls those variations melodic minor scale, while Goetschius may or may not do that: I can't tell from the excerpts at your talk page. But for both theorists, what remains invariable is the minor third between tonic and mediant; so that is the best and most persistent determinant of a scale's being minor, is it not? It is the determinant of the general conformation, or general pattern, that all forms of the minor scale have in common. Winter would surely agree; so would Goetchius; so would Prout; so would Schoenberg; so should we.

The Grove definition is, at least, consistent.

Is that so? Then let's put it in the Includes category, on the basis of my demonstration of its meaning, above.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Noetica said:

If I write tersely, you flatly contradict me or misunderstand me; if I write at length, filling in all the details, you refuse to engage. You have seemed impossible to please. That is draining, too.

You’ll have a better chance if you write tersely!

Noetica said:

A clue, yes. Perhaps! But my point was qualified in this way: that chromatic alteration and "diatonicity" are incompatible, and in all cases exclude each other. Well, back in March you wrote: I've never seen Diatonic used as an antonym to Chromatic and I'd like to see this substantiated. Sounds like original research again. Just where do you stand? Have you changed your mind? It's OK if you have, but it would be good to know. For the record, my view is this:

In some contexts diatonic and chromatic are taken as opposites by many theorists, who must (to be consistent) think they they exclude each other absolutely in those contexts. In other contexts, and for other theorists, the terms are not opposites, and do not exclude each other.

I don't know if it's really all that black and white from any theorist's point of view. It may seem that way in some writer's efforts to be concise.

Noetica said:

If on the other hand we want whatever musical feature that is diatonic not to be chromatic, and vice versa, and that every diatonic scale has the cyclic pattern -TTSTTTS-, we must classify the harmonic and ascending minor scales as chromatic. The only source I have discovered that does that is William Crotch, writing in 1830!

Clearly, then, both diatonic and chromatic are variable in meaning, and we cannot reliably interpret the Grove definition that is currently under scrutiny in any fixed way.

That's fine, but we can't be sure about the Winter definition either.

Noetica said:

Now for some reason you have jumped to a discussion of Goetschius!

I wasn't sure if this was part of the same discussion on Grove. Disregard my comment, then.

I said:

Please clarify what you mean.

Noetica responded:

OK, we are back with the Grove quote that is in question. To make clear what I mean, I'll have to show the text yet again, and then analyse it:

Minor (i)...

Consider this. The definition might instead have started like this:

Minor: The name given to a scale whose octave, in its natural, diatonic, form, ...

If it had started like that, all would be clear. The definition would exclude the harmonic and the ascending melodic as diatonic, and would be classified accordingly.

But it doesn't start like that! It starts like this, in effect:

Minor: The name given to a diatonic scale whose octave, in its natural form, ...

Now pause. Re-read. Reflect. All of this was pointed out above, and here you have it once more. We cannot think that these two beginnings are identical in meaning, unless it be by reading incautiously and with a preconception about what must be intended. In that first variant I have given just now, a certain scale is spoken of in what follows. We are given information about the structure of one of its forms: some presumed diatonic "natural" form. In the actual text, a natural form of a certain diatonic scale is spoken of. See the difference?

And what does follow? This:

...is built of the following ascending sequence, in which T stands for a tone and S for a semitone: T–S–T–T–S–T–T).

So, when we set aside all preconceptions and prescind from unnecessary interpretation, the text plainly says:

that there is a certain diatonic scale, called the minor; and

that a certain form of that diatonic scale (the natural form) has a certain structure. I'm not saying that! The author of that Grove definition is. As I have pointed out, it is possible that the author really meant to say something else: but he did not say something else. And what he does effectively say accords with a view that others express quite explicitly: that the minor scale, in all of its versions, is diatonic. And he says nothing to counter this view.

This is a ridiculous level nitpicking that you aren't applying to your own additions to the article.

The Percy Scholes example fails to meet this level of clarity. It only limits the definition of DIA to a progression of whole tones and semitones. The only difference between this definition and Hindemith's is that he makes an allowance for the HM scale. Problem is, the octatonic scale progresses by whole tones and semitones, but no one in their right mind would consider it a diatonic scale. Why don't we move this one as well?

The Karl Wilson Gehrkens definition does exactly the same thing. Hardly up to the level of rigor that you strive for with certain other definitions. By this definition, again, the octatonic scale is diatonic. Completely absurd.

Why do we need further elucidation only from Grove that "unnatural forms" and "chromatic alterations" are opposed to the diatonic (natural) forms? This seems very one-sided.

Noetica said:

Next you move to the Winter definition:

But it is reasonable to use a modicum of charity, and of conservative, cautious interpretation: pattern can mean something broader, like general conformation. And such a conformation might be determined by the nature of the third from the tonic, yes?

I said:

The boundaries of diatonic cohesion aren't evident from the (Winter) text at all. Why should we assume that the third and tonic are the only determining scale steps?

Noetica said:

I don't know what you mean by diatonic cohesion, here. And I don't assume that the relation of the third to the tonic is the only determinant of a scale being minor. But that relation is what persists through the modifications that Winter mentions, by which other forms of the minor scale come about. What I have called the general conformation persists, and that is a matter of the minor third between tonic and mediant.

So what? We still don't know if he considers the MEL and HM scales diatonic.

Boundary of diatonic cohesion: The point where a scale is no longer diatonic because of modification.

Winter does not state that "pattern" stands for "general confirmation". That's original research.

I said:

You neglect to mention that in Winter's two patterns, the minor scale is also limited characterized by the flatted sixth. The ascending minor scale does not conform to either of his two parent scale patterns. This alone proves that the definition is too ambiguous to stay where it is.

Noetica said:

Why should I mention that? Winter says:

The minor scale results from flatting (lowering by half a step) the third and sixth degrees of the major scale. [...] it is frequently smoothed out by [alterations to the sixth and seventh degree. ...]

That's right: that's how you can derive the minor scale from the major (which need not retain all its features, once it has been so derived). Goetschius does exactly the same; and both Winter and Goetschius go on to speak of further modifications that yield variations of the basic (harmonic minor) configuration. Winter explicitly calls those variations melodic minor scale, while Goetschius may or may not do that: I can't tell from the excerpts at your talk page. But for both theorists, what remains invariable is the minor third between tonic and mediant; so that is the best and most persistent determinant of a scale's being minor, is it not? It is the determinant of the general conformation, or general pattern, that all forms of the minor scale have in common. Winter would surely agree; so would Goetchius; so would Prout; so would Schoenberg; so should we.

I'll concede your point to avoid going any further with this irrelevant tangent.

I said:

The Grove definition is, at least, consistent.

Noetica said:

Is that so? Then let's put it in the Includes category, on the basis of my demonstration of its meaning, above.

You haven't "demonstrated its meaning". This is idle semantics.

The texts have to remain independent of our interpretations. Since the Winter definition is not clear, it can't stay where it is. I believe the Grove is clearer than Winter's definition. If you still find fault with it the Grove, I guess it has to stay in the bog.

The problem with Winter's is:

If you have two diatonic scales and you add two additional, "smoothed out", scales, isn't that four patterns? Do we then need to think up a weird theory positing that only the lower tetrachord of the scale dictates "the pattern"?

My dime store analysis of Winter's text:

All we can gather from plainly reading the Winter definition:

Two patterns are diatonic (major and HM)

The 6th and 7th scale steps of the minor pattern are modified for melodic reasons

He is tacit on whether or not the modified forms are diatonic. It isn't our place to assume anything.

Noetica said:

So, when we set aside all preconceptions and prescind from unnecessary interpretation...

You want to "use a modicum of charity, and of conservative, cautious interpretation" for a certain definition and then "prescind from unnecessary interpretation" for another? --Roivas 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Taking up the very last point, to illustrate a rather general problem:

You want to "use a modicum of charity, and of conservative, cautious interpretation" for a certain definition and then "prescind from unnecessary interpretation" for another?

My answer? No! I want to be – and have striven to be, and have been (as far I can tell) – consistent. If you think that I have not been consistent, you should show the precise details that reveal this. But you don't do that: you simply repeat a baseless assertion again and again. Specifically, here: I said "prescind from unnecessary interpretation". I did not say "prescind from interpretation", tout court! In fact, I have said above that all reading requires interpretation. I think you must agree with that; certainly Goetschius, whom you introduced to the discussion, uses terms in a highly idiosyncratic way that cries out for interpretation. Others require less, though always we must make some small decisions on how they are to be understood. But I say don't go to unnecessary lengths, in interpreting: at some point accept what is very plausibly meant, when there are no realistic competing hypotheses.

Let's interrupt here, and look at the process. You asked me a question that imputed to me a certain inconsistency. I have a natural right to explain, so that I am not slandered if some third party should happen upon this conversation. But if I do explain, you accuse me of wordiness!

Understand this. I am more than capable of defending myself in a fight, fair or unfair. But I don't want to waste time doing so! So please don't continue to take wild swings in my direction. The result can only be ugly and fruitless.

With that in mind, I propose not to address your latest largely ill-focused responses. Let me not be accused of doing the same as I accuse you of, though. It is easy for me to point out how you have failed yet again to understand; and failed to heed my call to analyse with fresh unprejudiced eyes, guided by the new explanation I have given of things, which you yourself have requested. When I gave a clear, surgically precise analysis of something you couldn't grasp, the best you could come up with was: "This is a ridiculous level [of] nitpicking that you aren't applying to your own additions to the article." You ask for analysis, but when it is handed to you in spades, you do not engage with it on its own terms, but heap scorn on it from a safe defensive distance. You raise, by way of attempted misdirection, yet another author (Scholes, this time), and yet again the matter of the octatonic. Such a diversion! That very objection was answered months ago. And all the while the focused analysis that you had requested sits mutely on the screen in front of you, awaiting your direct response. You cannot show that it is faulty, simply because it isn't.

Sorry, Roivas. I have tried again and again to help you up to a level of clarity and focus that, I fear, either you are incapable of achieving or for "political" or other reasons you choose not to rise to. I hate to say this, and I really don't want to be dismissive. But we simply can't have useful dialogue on these subtle matters.

So I ask this: what do you really want? Do you still want the new Winter quote put into the Anomalous and vague category? Will that be enough? Will that satisfy you? If so, let me know, and I'll put it there myself, with an annotation about its being less than lucidly written. And, though I think its unambiguous meaning can be extracted with only a small effort, that will be sufficient for it be re-allocated in that way.

Good enough? I will not contiue any merely personal discussion with you here. Take anything like that to my talk page, as I have repeatedly suggested before. But the preceding remarks were necessary to account for my attitude to the change that you propose, and in which I now acquiesce.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I have no interest in starting or continuing a "personal discussion" with you anywhere. I should be able to point out what I perceive to be inconsistency in someone's wording without them becoming offended on some personal level.

My point was, simply, that if we apply your level of scrutiny regarding the Grove's definition to the other definitions, we would probably not be able to keep them in their current positions. My "diversions" were meant to make this obvious.

So now you've presented some condescending comments regarding my intelligence. I'm not sure how to proceed when a request for change is met with this sort of personal resentment.

By the way, to point something else out.

You made this comment:

That's right: that's how you can derive the minor scale from the major (which need not retain all its features, once it has been so derived). Goetschius does exactly the same; and both Winter and Goetschius go on to speak of further modifications that yield variations of the basic (harmonic minor) configuration. Winter explicitly calls those variations melodic minor scale, while Goetschius may or may not do that: I can't tell from the excerpts at your talk page. But for both theorists, what remains invariable is the minor third between tonic and mediant; so that is the best and most persistent determinant of a scale's being minor, is it not? It is the determinant of the general conformation, or general pattern, that all forms of the minor scale have in common. Winter would surely agree; so would Goetschius; so would Prout; so would Schoenberg; so should we.

and earlier this defense against my "octatonic test":

The so-called octatonic scale is not a minor or a major scale, and therefore clearly not in the ambit of the Scholes definition. Scholes would [not] have recognised the octatonic scale if he tripped over one, I think. He has no entry for it.

By your own interpretation above, the octatonic scale is a minor scale.

Again, I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your general commentary. Nothing personal.

So...are you going to take your ball and go home or finish the discussion?

--Roivas 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Some tidying first. I had omitted the word not earlier on this page; I have supplied it in your quotation above, Roivas, in square brackets: "Scholes would [not] have recognised the octatonic scale if he tripped over one, I think. He has no entry for it." I can't think that this makes any real difference in the discussion, since the point was already made independently: "The so-called octatonic scale is not a minor or a major scale, and therefore clearly not in the ambit of the Scholes definition."

Now, I'm glad that you don't want a personal discussion. We have earlier impugned each other's capacities; I don't want to perpetuate any of that, though I will have to do so once more below, to explain once more why I can't discuss certain things usefully with you. I only point out that any dialogue between you and me concerning fine detail and its rigorous analysis has come to seem impossible. To me, at least. So let's stick to business, by which I mean let's just deal with proposed concrete changes to the article. I asked whether you would be happy with a shift of the Winter definition, with an annotation. That's the topic of this section of the discussion, as you began it. I am still waiting for you answer to my specific question.

The rest, concerning the octatonic, is amply dealt with earlier. Read this again, concerning Scholes:

That the ascending minor is also included is abundantly clear: (ALL are included after all, and it IS "made up of tones and semitones"). So it doesn't need specific mention. No other sort of scale (pentatonic, octatonic, Mongolian, Berber, Vulcan, or otherwise) is remotely relevant. In plain words he names the scales that are diatonic, among the major and the various forms of the minor: they ALL are!

And read this again:

For Gehrkens, from all the evidence in the quote as we have it, the immediate context of that quote, and the remainder of the book from which the quote is drawn, Gehrkens is concerned to classify the minor in ALL its forms, and the major. He calls them all "diatonic". He does not address other scales; the octatonic was invented long after he wrote; and even if these other scales were somehow to be included as diatonic, this would not mean that his citation should be re-classified.

And this:

The octatonic scale is not, if the Wikipedia article is to be believed ("first introduced by Arthur Berger in 1963"), a feature of the common-practice domain concerning which Hindemith wrote.

[Incidentally but importantly for other reasons, the article Octatonic scale was radically changed in May, since we wrote. The relevant link is now Diminished scale. I'm not sure that was a sound change. You might like to investigate, and amend things with those articles.]

The point that you have steadfastly refused to grasp, or dare I say cannot grasp, is that relations between the terms diatonic, major, minor, harmonic minor, and the like can and usually do assume a restricted domain of discourse. It is not reasonable to wheel in the 1963 octatonic scale when the topic is the classification of common-practice scales – scales used also in later music that confines itself to the resources of the common practice period. Certainly not in authors who write before it was named or invented; certainly not when some later author is obviously not addressing later 20th-century scales; certainly not in Winter's text, when he is discussing the theoretical derivation of the minor from the major; and certainly not when we here are discussing those authors' writings. We are entitled to assume the same domain as they do, for the duration of our discussion of their treatments. You might as well accuse Newton of negligence for not allowing for or accounting for the weak nuclear force, or expect a modern critic of Newton's theories to give this matter due coverage.

I am not, since you ask, taking my ball and going home. I'm ready to discuss anything relevant to the article with editors here, as always. But you have not focused, and you have wilfully failed to answer direct questions, and to remember the outcomes of earlier discussion; and when you have sought detailed explanation you have not gone on to meet it on its own precise terms, but reverted to something far more diffuse, with no possibility of progress let alone resolution. That's all.

Now, how about that move of the Winter definition? I'd be happy enough with it, of it can bring this time-wasting conversation to a reasonable end.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

---

This is not a response to the comments directly above. I'll have to address those later. I'll try to respond to your analysis of Grove's definition as best as I can.

As far as all that goes, I'm going to present the two definitions from the same lexicon already in the article.

We will view the second definition as a continuation of the first.

Grove Music [Example 1] Diatonic (from Gk. dia tonos: 'proceeding by whole tones'). Based on or derivable from an octave of seven notes in a particular configuration, as opposed to chromatic and other forms of scale. A seven-note scale is said to be diatonic when its octave span is filled by five tones and two semitones, with the semitones maximally separated, for example the major scale (T–T–S–T–T–T–S). The natural minor scale and the church modes (see Mode) are also diatonic.

[Example 2] Minor (i). (1) The name given to a diatonic scale [clearly defined above] whose octave, in its natural form, is built of the following ascending sequence, in which T stands for a tone and S for a semitone: T–S–T–T–S–T–T). The note chosen to begin the sequence, called the key note, also becomes part of the name of the scale; a D minor scale, for instance, consists of the notes D–E–F–G–A–B flat–C–D. In practice, however, some notes of the scale are altered chromatically [diatonic is opposed to chromatic according to the Grove definition of diatonic above] to help impart a sense of direction to the melody. The harmonic minor scale has a raised seventh, in accordance with the need for a major triad on the fifth step (the Dominant chord). The melodic minor scale has a raised sixth and a raised seventh when it is ascending, borrowing the leading-note function of the seventh step from the major scale; in descending, though, it is the same as the natural minor scale.

I'll put some of your comments together:

Consider this. The definition might instead have started like this:

Minor: The name given to a scale whose octave, in its natural, diatonic, form, ...

If it had started like that, all would be clear. The definition would exclude the harmonic and the ascending melodic as diatonic, and would be classified accordingly.

But it doesn't start like that! It starts like this, in effect:

Minor: The name given to a diatonic scale whose octave, in its natural form, ...

Now pause. Re-read. Reflect. All of this was pointed out above, and here you have it once more. We cannot think that these two beginnings are identical in meaning, unless it be by reading incautiously and with a preconception about what must be intended. In that first variant I have given just now, a certain scale is spoken of in what follows. We are given information about the structure of one of its forms: some presumed diatonic "natural" form. In the actual text, a natural form of a certain diatonic scale is spoken of. See the difference?

In a hypothetical vacuum, there might have been some room for interpretation.

According to you, Example 2 puts forward an uncertain number of diatonic scales and then elaborates on only one of them. This, supposedly, would make for the possibility that the HM and MEL and who knows what other scales are also diatonic. This interpretation also depends on the proposed uncertainty regarding chromatic not necessarily being opposed to diatonic as far as Grove is concerned.

Unfortunately, this does not follow from the same lexicon's definition of diatonic and diatonic scales (see Example 1).

that there is a certain diatonic scale, called the minor; and that a certain form of that diatonic scale (the natural form) has a certain structure.

This statement doesn't really present any problems, though it unfairly isolates the sentence from its context. In addition, Grove states that the minor diatonic scale has a fixed sequence of tones and semitones. I think the phrase "in its natural form" could have been omitted for the sake of clarity, but it doesn't fatally obscure the meaning of the text.

And what he does effectively say accords with a view that others express quite explicitly: that the minor scale, in all of its versions, is diatonic. And he says nothing to counter this view.

That is not true. It is clearly stated that chromatic is opposed to diatonic in the first definition. Following this logic, the chromatic alterations of the HM and MEL scales place them at odds with diatonic scales.

It's obvious that the forced conclusions you have come to are incorrect, though possibly well intentioned.

I hope I have acknowledged and responded to your analyses enough to your satisfaction and that I have persuaded you to reconsider your position on the categorization of Example 2.--Roivas (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Your statements are indented.

Some tidying first. I had omitted the word not earlier on this page; I have supplied it in your quotation above, Roivas, in square brackets: "Scholes would [not] have recognised the octatonic scale if he tripped over one, I think. He has no entry for it." I can't think that this makes any real difference in the discussion, since the point was already made independently: "The so-called octatonic scale is not a minor or a major scale, and therefore clearly not in the ambit of the Scholes definition."

You ignored my response to this above. I stated that you defined it yourself as a minor scale.

Now, I'm glad that you don't want a personal discussion. We have earlier impugned each other's capacities; I don't want to perpetuate any of that, though I will have to do so once more below, to explain once more why I can't discuss certain things usefully with you. I only point out that any dialogue between you and me concerning fine detail and its rigorous analysis has come to seem impossible. To me, at least. So let's stick to business, by which I mean let's just deal with proposed concrete changes to the article. I asked whether you would be happy with a shift of the Winter definition, with an annotation. That's the topic of this section of the discussion, as you began it. I am still waiting for you answer to my specific question.

Your analyses aren’t as rigorous and finely detailed as you think they are. Simply lauding your own comments with silly, florid superlatives doesn’t increase their merit. I’m making an effort to respond in a more attentive manner.

The rest, concerning the octatonic, is amply dealt with earlier. Read this again, concerning Scholes:

That the ascending minor is also included is abundantly clear: (ALL are included after all, and it IS "made up of tones and semitones"). So it doesn't need specific mention. No other sort of scale (pentatonic, octatonic, Mongolian, Berber, Vulcan, or otherwise) is remotely relevant. In plain words he names the scales that are diatonic, among the major and the various forms of the minor: they ALL are!

It says, merely:

The diatonic scales are the major and minor, made up of tones and semitones

It is not “abundantly clear”. Information as to whether the melodic and/or ascending minor scales are to be included or excluded is left out of the text. The definitions need to specify which scales it intends to classify as diatonic and chromatic in writing or in diagrams.

He also doesn’t write “the various forms of the minor” or “ALL are included”. These are your own embellishments and are to be considered original research.

And read this again:

For Gehrkens, from all the evidence in the quote as we have it, the immediate context of that quote, and the remainder of the book from which the quote is drawn, Gehrkens is concerned to classify the minor in ALL its forms, and the major. He calls them all "diatonic". He does not address other scales; the octatonic was invented long after he wrote; and even if these other scales were somehow to be included as diatonic, this would not mean that his citation should be re-classified.

Bartok used the octatonic scale. It wasn’t invented in 1963. Scholes and Gehrkens were alive and well while the device was being used. Whether or not they were personally interested in the avant-garde music of their time, I can’t say. If your defense is based merely on this error, I’ll give you a chance to revise your statement.

We don’t know what “all its forms” are unless this is delineated by the author. No interpretation by the wikipedia editor is to be tolerated.

In conclusion, he fails to limit his definition, allowing for many scale formations which may or may not be intended.

And this:

The octatonic scale is not, if the Wikipedia article is to be believed ("first introduced by Arthur Berger in 1963"), a feature of the common-practice domain concerning which Hindemith wrote.

Once again, the octatonic scale did not drop out of the sky in 1963. Of course, it is not a common practice device. Bartok is not considered a common practice composer. At the same time, the definitions need to be clear on their own. We can’t depend on preconception as to what common practice conventions are in order to derive meaning from a definition.

The point of this section is to define different uses of diatonic, not to elaborate on or take for granted the supposed conventions of common practice music theory.

[Incidentally but importantly for other reasons, the article Octatonic scale was radically changed in May, since we wrote. The relevant link is now Diminished scale. I'm not sure that was a sound change. You might like to investigate, and amend things with those articles.]

I’ll look into it.

The point that you have steadfastly refused to grasp, or dare I say cannot grasp, is that relations between the terms diatonic, major, minor, harmonic minor, and the like can and usually do assume a restricted domain of discourse.

I am morbidly aware of the compositional conventions of the common practice period, but I am not willing to allow assumptions to be made regarding an author’s intentions.

It is not reasonable to wheel in the 1963 octatonic scale when the topic is the classification of common-practice scales – scales used also in later music that confines itself to the resources of the common practice period. Certainly not in authors who write before it was named or invented; certainly not when some later author is obviously not addressing later 20th-century scales;

You often get what you pay for on Wikipedia.

It’s ridiculous to expect myself and others to rely on your interpretations when a thorough, concise definition isn’t to be found. I thought the point of this little article was to prove that there’s no clear definition of diatonic. The two definitions we are discussing are good examples of the problem.

We will not try to assume the mentality of the writer in order to ascertain the meaning of his texts. As if that were even possible.

Also, since we’re on the topic of context, these harmony books are meant for a beginner’s instructional use, not as historical research tools. They are writings on common practice harmony “in a nutshell”.

Plenty of common practice composers experimented, dabbled in modes and pentatonic scales, or were influenced by folk melodies (like D. Scarlatti, Dvorak, Brahms). Musical devices that a myopic musicologist would call anomalous become more and more common as we approach the late-romantic period.

Just because a book is authored on the “basics of harmony”, it isn’t necessarily a reliable source of information of actual compositional practice from any period. It is merely an abstraction used to accustom the beginner to a rational ordering of musical devices (with or without unsolicited musical agendas and opinions), not an exposition of absolute truth.

By these two authors (who lived subsequent to the musical period of which they were writing about) failing to limit the arrangement of tones and semitones, the two definitions are to be classified as ambiguous. Being merely basic instructional manuals for beginners, we cannot add undue merit to these works. Any talk of “theoretical domain” (especially since they wrote in the 20th century) will have to be substantiated.

…certainly not in Winter's text, when he is discussing the theoretical derivation of the minor from the major; and certainly not when we here are discussing those authors' writings.

Okay. If he’s deriving the minor from the major he’s still not clear on what is and isn’t diatonic.

Anyway, that may be your interpretation of what he’s doing, but a Wikipedia editor’s personal views have to be considered original research.

We are entitled to assume the same domain as they do, for the duration of our discussion of their treatments.

No we are not.

Too much room for misinterpretation and error on the editor’s part. This cannot be allowed. We can’t have article entries that hinge on someone’s interpretation of events, no matter how obvious they may seem. I’m sorry if that offends you, but it’s for a good reason.

We have to prove support our conclusions with research, not assumptions and generalizations. We are to comprehend and reflect what is found in research, not to interpret it.

You might as well accuse Newton of negligence for not allowing for or accounting for the weak nuclear force, or expect a modern critic of Newton's theories to give this matter due coverage.

That isn’t what I’m doing. I’m criticizing those stick-in-the-mud pedants who ignore innovation and change subsequent to Newton’s contributions.

I am not, since you ask, taking my ball and going home. I'm ready to discuss anything relevant to the article with editors here, as always. But you have not focused, and you have wilfully failed to answer direct questions, and to remember the outcomes of earlier discussion; and when you have sought detailed explanation you have not gone on to meet it on its own precise terms, but reverted to something far more diffuse, with no possibility of progress let alone resolution. That's all.

Now, how about that move of the Winter definition? I'd be happy enough with it, of it can bring this time-wasting conversation to a reasonable end.

It should be moved, so yes.

--Roivas (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. An answer. I'll move it now, since that's what you want. As I have already allowed, I'll be happy enough with that for now.

Of course, don't expect answers to what you have recently written. As you quote me (immediately above), I'm ready to discuss anything relevant to the article with editors here, as always. But you have not focused... and the rest. You have again misunderstood much. You have quoted an author in a way that flagrantly misrepresents not only his intention but the very quoted sentence itself. You have been literalist beyond the dreams of Asperger. You interpret extravagantly where it suits your immediate purpose, but then declare that "No interpretation by the wikipedia editor is to be tolerated." You call on context when it suits your need to shore up an untenable position: a position that remains vague and scarcely articulated, which we are left struggling to deduce from your various repeated slogans. But when I invoke context, as an aid to making sense of the writers we examine, I am attacked with a ferocity reminiscent of war-time Italy. There are flagrant analytical errors in your last contributions. But I will not rebut them: not to you, anyway. Long experience has shown that to be a waste of time and patience. However, in the unlikely event that anyone else comes along and is curious enough, let them ask specific questions and I will give specific answers.

I will clarify one thing: of course the octatonic scale did not, in the most literal sense, come into being in 1963! But, if the article Octatonic scale is to be believed, it was first crystallised as a theoretical notion then. We could say that is when it was "invented" for the use of theory, since that appears to be when it was named. As I have said: "Setting aside the fact that all of our scales are abstractions from real musical practice, it is perhaps not to be marvelled at that Winter does not mention the so-called "natural" minor scale. That is certainly an abstraction, in the context of common practice music and its derivatives." Nor does Goetschius mention the so-called "natural" minor scale, it seems. (At least, Roivas, you don't appear to be able to support your claim that he does.) That scale was "invented" by others, beyond the ken of Goetschius. So, to a certain extent, with the octatonic; and so, in a way, with all scales. They are theoretical constructions, and as such they are all, in a perfectly sound sense, invented.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Noetica said:

I will clarify one thing: of course the octatonic scale did not, in the most literal sense, come into being in 1963! But, if the article Octatonic scale is to be believed, it was first crystallised as a theoretical notion then.

What is it with the strange adherence to this passage in a Wikipedia article?

As far as further games with semantics regarding octatonic scales and the blowing up of a passage from a Wikipedia article into metaphysical proportions, if you read the article again, you’ll see the phrase “’octatonic pitch collection’ was introduced by Arthur Berger in 1963.”

Slonimsky’s Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns was published in 1947.

From the same page:

“Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov claimed the diminished scale as "his discovery" in his My Musical Life (van den Toorn 1983).”

Are these other sources not valid enough for some reason?

So can we please stop citing 1963 as the scale’s “invention” or “theoretical formulation”.

--Roivas (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I doubt that offensive, offbeat references to Hans Asperger or to the “fascist” overtones of war-time Italy are consructive or helpful in this discussion. Please do not mistake this as a divination of your intentions, but I see this as an attempt to lure me into some sort of emotionally-charged dispute in order to distract me from what I am trying to accomplish.

I see that participating in this sort of dialogue will only frustrate my efforts in the end. I will leave it at that.

The point I’m making is simple enough:

NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN AN EDITOR’S INTERPRETATIONS AND ORIGINAL THOUGHTS ON THESE MATTERS.

An individual in his/her capacity as a Wikipedia editor is not to be considered an authority on the subject of music. We need to differentiate between SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE and RESEARCH.

To prevent further confusion between these two concepts, we need to make sure that EVERYTHING is backed up with published sources. This is in consonance with the guidelines of Wikipedia.

--Roivas (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern meanings of “diatonic scale”

In this section, the common practice period is solely addressed (except for the very last sentence).

The common practice period is not “modern”. It ended over a hundred years ago.

This section should be titled Common Practice Meanings of "diatonic scale"

A new section titled Modern meanings of “diatonic scale” should be started in which the terms diatonic and chromatic are dealt with from a modern perspective.

--Roivas (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the common practice period (CPP) is mentioned explicitly, and with rigour and caution. The main focus of this section is made perfectly clear: "the Common practice period, and later music that shares its core features (see note 1, above)". And the focus is explicitly on scales. What's the problem with all of that?

The section's context in the article as a whole makes the meaning of modern quite clear. We have moved from ancient, through mediaeval and renaissance, to later times that are conventionally called modern, as in the term modern English ("English as it has been since 1470 or 1500"; SOED, entry "English"; compare the term modern history). This is a perfectly standard use of modern.

Beyond that, it may be considered irrelevant whether or not CPP is considered "modern": the section concerns the use of terms in modern times: the various meanings with which diatonic and chromatic have been deployed in the last century or so (sometimes earlier), and by current theorists. The terms are, in fact, predominantly (or at least very often) used in analysis of CPP music, and of the vast body of later and current music that adheres to CPP idioms and structures. For convenience, we might label this expanded corpus of music as CPP+.

I agree that there should be new material added. I have said so before, and I have done something towards that: on extended understandings of the terms that are at least less exclusively concerned with CPP+ music. Others have said that we need to account for usage in Diatonic set theory, and the like.

You could do that, Roivas. Or someone else might.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Your use of "Common Practice" is not supported by any literature. You have already mistakenly assoiated 20th century popular music with Common Practice conventions. Even a superficial acquaintance with the discipline of music composition would convince you otherwise.

Music has progressed beyond 1899 and the article needs to address that.

I don't appreciate the fact that you completely side-stepped my response to your Grove analysis.

--Roivas (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, no article is to favor the common practice period over others. This and all other music articles need to be written from a modern perspective and to point out when they are discussing musical conventions of the past in order to place them in their proper context.

--Roivas (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Noetica said:

We have moved from ancient, through mediaeval and renaissance, to later times that are conventionally called modern, as in the term modern English ("English as it has been since 1470 or 1500"; SOED, entry "English"; compare the term modern history). This is a perfectly standard use of modern.

Modern English? This isn’t a discussion of the etymology of the word “modern”, but a discussion of “modern music”. Although the term has no fixed meaning (much like “democracy”, “liberal”, “socialism”), it is usually associated with the disparate musical practices of the 20th century as opposed to Common Practice tradition.

In this article, “modern” is a subjectively-defined, temporal/stylistic marker that is proliferating a distorted view of history.

It is true that certain individuals (Busoni and his “neo-classicism”, John Williams and other film-score composers who invoke music from the late-romantic period, Arvo Part and his revisitation of church polyphony) may still compose anachronistic music strongly influenced by musical paradigms of the past, but they are still reacting to and contributing to the “modern” period they live in.

I will now show that your own definition of ‘’Modern Music’’ (as rooted in Common Practice music) is anomalous to the majority of those found in music literature and on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia’s definition: Modern music

A book I happen to have with me today:

Ernst Krenek

Music Here and Now (1939)

CHAPTER THREE NOT ALL CONTEMPORARY MUSIC IS NEW MUSIC

Contemporary, Modern, New Music

“When the specialist speaks of modern music, he means something distinguished by characteristics other than the merely statistical date of composition. He will call “modern” only that part of our contemporary music which emerges from the whole by a visible deviation from tradition in its material, its style, or in some other essential feature.”

“The average person believes modern music to be the opposite of “classical”; his interpretation of the latter designation takes no account of the period in which the work was composed.”

You may find a few sources to the contrary, but there is more than enough support for my claim that the current definition of modern in this article cannot remain as it is.

In order to disentangle two separate periods of serious music composition, I am challenging the use of the word “modern” as presently used in this article.

It does not reflect an accurate or neutral point of view.

Do we need to employ the factual accuracy tag to motivate this simple change that will only further clarify a section of the article?

--Roivas (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I would like to point out another area of original research in the first footnote of the article.

A liberty has been taken to define, without the support of published sources, what are perceived to be certain “core features” of Common Practice music and that these unexplained features are being used to categorize the disparate musical practices, fashions, and trends of the 20th century.

If further argument is needed or desired, I believe I can easily find support for my claim that these “core features” of the CPP apply to fundamental concepts of form, balance, harmonic hierarchy/subordination, and development, and that these elements are not present in jazz, rock, or any other form of popular music.

A simple I-IV-V-I chord progression and a “focus on scales” are not the sole features of the CPP and such a perception is unique to this article.

--Roivas (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, a good portion of the article deals with history that predates the Common Practice period, and it will, in the future, have to address the evolution of these two terms after the CPP, can we do something about the section I mentioned and footnote 1?--Roivas (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving soon

This talk page is long and sprawling. Although much of the earlier discussion is still "live", it is probably a good idea to archive most of it. If no one makes specific objections, or requests that particular material be kept for now, I propose to go ahead and archive almost all of it, within a couple of days. I might try to index the archive to some extent, and represent its contents meaningfully in this main page. As usual, anything that is archived can still be invoked in discussion.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Only if it can be dug out. I propose that the dissent not be hidden. TheScotch (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Deletion of this article

This article does not represent a neutral point of view and is based on original research.

It is not an editor's place to compare and contrast terms (Diatonic/Chromatic, Fish/Water) on his/her own.

According to the original research page, this article is an example of a synthesis of published material. A certain phrase in a few dictionaries (most likely referring to a single period in history) has been taken out of context and applied to an the entire span of Western music.

Being that a lot of work has been put into it, I'm sure places can be found for the research here in other articles.

--Roivas (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research rather than original research. Hyacinth (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. --Roivas (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Roivas, it's clear that you're frustrated, but reviewing your entries above suggests (to me, anyway) that things are going around in circles. Frankly, I approve overall of Noetica's contributions to this article. Demanding that it be deleted is inappropriate, IMO; the NOR issue that you raise hold absolutely no water here. A more constructive approach would be welcome. Tony (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The essential question is whether the article's very raison d'etre is to "challenge" "comfortable assumptions" as Noetica's many advertisements for it strewn throughout this site promise. Some, many, most, or even all of an article's individual particular remarks may be sourced and the article can still overall be an example of "original research" if it exists essentially to espouse some particular point of view, such as Noetica's stated belief that the terms diatonic and chromatic should generally be avoided. In such a case the only remedy may be to delete the article as a whole. TheScotch (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In what way does this article argue against the use of the terms diatonic and chromatic? Noetica has argued that they should not be used in Wikipedia when there are often more well-defined words that could substitute; but this particular article, which attempts to explain their various and conflicting meanings, is not an essay against the use of these terms in any way that I can see. - Rainwarrior (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the common practice bias? Is this going to be the norm on Wikipedia?--Roivas (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the bias? What is not being said that should be said? There are references to texts from the very recent to a century ago. It looks to me like like modern theory is discussed, and also the history section covers much older uses of the term. - Rainwarrior (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I pointed this out already. Footnote 1 and the section about diatonic in "Modern" times which only discusses common practice music except for the last sentence. It's clearly written from a biased point of view. In no way are we still in the common practice period. The article is misleading.--Roivas (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "core features" of the common practice period are left unexplained and unsourced. "Harmonic and melodic idioms"? This is nonsense.--Roivas (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that the footnote is somewhat misleading or confusing or vague or awkward, depending on the interperetation, but I don't think the article as a whole bears any of this bias that you're referring to. Modern music and modern usage isn't being minimized (though really there aren't any examples given of either of modern or common-practice music, so neither is really being given adequate attention, I'd say). The terms as they apply to the common practice period largely apply to modern music in the same way where appropriate. There is, however, a great deal of modern music where they are inapproprite; e.g. we would not speak of Boulez's "chromaticism". As I see it, this article covers the modern use of these terms, which just happen to be applied to common-practice music more often than modern music in the literature and in most formal music education. The modern usage isn't missing here (though it may not be explicitly or adequately explained as such). Additionally, we have a section entitled "modern extensions of the diatonic idea" which covers a few very modern uses of the term. I don't understand what bias you perceive here. - Rainwarrior (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not just pointillistic music. It's everything else in the 20th century. Popular 20th century music is not part of the common practice period. You hear a lot of melodic minor scales in rock music? Anyway...the main difference is that common practice implies a trained composer. The musically-uneducated may emulate serious music in some superficial way, but that doesn't mean it's the same thing.

Here's the first few lines from the section in question:

Modern meanings of "diatonic scale"

Given the background presented above, we now move on to address the music of the Common Practice Period, and later music that shares its core features (see note 1, above).

This states that the "music of the Common Practice Period" is modern. In effect, the article is saying that the year 1600 is "modern". This needs to be changed.

--Roivas (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some "core features" of medieval music (rhythm, music notation, sound) are present in common practice music. What's the point?--Roivas (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is worded a bit vaguely, yes, and should probably be revised. However, what follows describes the modern usage of the term, which is why I don't see this as a bias; the right things are being covered. I just see it as an awkward introduction. I think the statement is trying to suggest that the opposition of diatonic and chromatic applies mainly to the common practice period, which I believe is more or less true; once we hit the 20th century, describing a piece of music as "chromatic" isn't very historically interesting, though certainly theoretical terms like a "chromatic alteration" of a chord would apply just as well as they did before. It depends on the context, really. I don't know if this point needs to be made there in the article, however. It seems confusing where it is. - Rainwarrior (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we have a section for the CCP and another for Modern music (to be filled out later, of course)? We shouldn't muddle the two periods together (CCP+ was Noetica's absurd suggestion). I'd imagine it's confusing to the lay reader.--Roivas (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion directly above will only fix a minor issue.

The organization/layout of the page is strange. We have a History section. The first paragraph discusses both diatonic and chromatic tetrachords going back to ancient Greek music theory. Then two more paragraphs follow describing the history of "chromatic" only.

Next, we have Diatonic Scales with its own history, but now only dating back to the medieval gamut.

Last, there's a section titled Chromatic Scale which merely offers a definition. Its own history is missing (which would, of course, be redundant since its history is actually part of the History section above).

Can we bridge all this together is some cohesive way? Two sections. One for Diatonic and another for Chromatic?

Why can't we just merge this stuff into the existing articles for Diatonic and Chromatic? (What I meant by deletion)

--Roivas (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I like having them both in the same article, because it gives the opportunity to discuss their complementary nature where appropriate. I agree that it would be good to make the structure a bit more clearly defined, though I don't have any immediate suggestions as to how. - Rainwarrior (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's a logical and useful way of dealing with a set of closely related concepts. Tony (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)