Talk:Mixolydian mode

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expert help[edit]

There is a desperate need for sources to verify the explanation of modes in general, the specifics of Mixolydian and the Greek and medieval history. Perhaps some knowledgeable person can help locate sources.   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 07:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation help[edit]

Chris, I added a notable tune to the list(LET IT LOOSE), but I need help with the citation. Please check out what I've done so far, and let me know how to properly set it up. This is my second addition to the list, the first was Old Joe Clark. -Mark Stringer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.247.158 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

last time you had a URL. do you have one this time? also, the citation info is conflicting, and i'm not sure which part is correct. the magazine, mandolin sessions, is published by Mel Bay Publications, but you have the publisher as Hal Leonard Corporation. do you mean this book:
Morer, Jack (1995). Exile on Main Street. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Hal Leonard Corporation. ISBN 0-7935-4094-1. OCLC 49627026. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
what page number do you want to reference? is there a sentence or two that i can include as a quote?   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the book I'm referring to is the one from Hal Leonard, not the Mel Bay one. The mixolydian tune and info is located on page 100 of the book.

ok. i corrected the citation to be for page 100 of the book.   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 07:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the notable mixolydian mode songs back in the article[edit]

I've added She Moved Through The Fair. There is no meaningful source to cite, other than the song's own Wikipedia page, which seems clumsy. Requiring sources for this list seems a bit wrong-headed to me: I mean, surely it's not something that requires empirical support? Surely it's just either correct (in which case leave it) or not correct (in which case delete it). I can see that it's important to stop people adding songs that aren't in fact mixolydian, but requiring a source seems highly unnecessary, and a bit despotic. Surely it would be more reasonable to put a hidden comment saying something along the lines of "Please only list songs you are absolutely *certain* about, and cite a source if possible"?

(Oh, and I totally agree with M.J.E. below - I think it's a misreading of "original research" to consider "finding out what mode a song is in" as "original research". It's just not the sort of thing that would require the citing of a source in any book, academic or otherwise, because it's (for the most part) just a simple matter of fact.) --Tremolo (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the notable mixolydian mode songs back in the article. They were essential to it's success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.13.244 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be stirring the possum a bit in suggesting this: but you can always put the list back yourself, referring to earlier versions of this article to source them from. But the inclusion of these lists seems to be very contentious, and you may be quickly reverted by those who oppose such lists. (I have noticed one particular editor who seems to have made this their own personal project, and they are quite aggressive in removing such lists from various key and mode articles.)
The main ground opposers of these lists use to justify their opposition is are that determining the mode of a piece is original research (prohibited under Wikipedia policy), unless an authoritative source has said that the piece is in such and such a mode. Personally, I think it's stretching the meaning of "original research" somewhat, taking an extremely puritan stance, and I tend to agree that, while there can be ambiguous cases where it's not certain what mode a piece is in, much of the time it is a simple matter of fact that a piece is in a given mode or key, and that it should be okay to mention this. I would submit that anyone who can read music and who knows the various modes and keys can very easily and reliably determine the mode or key of a piece, and, unless there are special complicating factors, I don't think this should be the subject of contention or the cause of bitter editing wars.
The problem is compounded by the fact that people actually *have* put songs or pieces in such lists that were in fact incorrect. (I've removed a few such, but I don't remove those I know to be correct, or where I just don't know if it's correct.) So if you want to add a new song to a list, I suggest that you check the actual score of the piece first, and make sure it's the original version, not a simplified arrangement which may change the key. Recordings can be less reliable, as they can vary from the proper key by almost a semitone on some occasions. Modes are less likely to be distorted by such factors than keys, since keys vary only by pitch, whereas modes are actually different *kinds* of scales. So you really do need to know modes well before you can reliably identify a piece in being this or that mode.
So, if you feel strongly about it, retrieve those lists and put them back - but be prepared for them to be removed again, and decide whether you want to persist in reinstating it, and whether you feel up to an edit war. I think there's also a rule about not reverting any more often than three times within any 24-hour period. M.J.E. (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:No original research. It doesn't matter if it's true. The entire list is prohibited in the second sentence with the words "unpublished facts". It doesn't matter whether you can correctly identify that a piece of music is in D Mixolydian because you have perfect pitch. If there aren't any reliable external sources, then it's prohibited.   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, put that JOE CLARK back on there, http://melbay.com/mandolinsessions/feb07/Anthony.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.13.244 (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could find sources like that for the songs that were in the list, I'd support adding them back into the article.   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 10:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting it back...you're such a tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.195.91 (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mediaeval[edit]

is mediaeval supposed to be medieval? ENSSB 20:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's one of those florae or faunae situations. ǣ or æ I think.


"Medieval" comes from "middle age" in latin, so it's a compounded (or contracted, not sure) word, and it's not a case of ǣ (which indicates one sound): medio-evale -> medieval. --David Be (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project for Mode Articles: Standardization and Consolidation[edit]

The mode articles are a mess when taken together. The articles need to be standardized and some of the general information consolidated into the Musical mode article and removed from all the articles about specific modes.

a few specific propositions:

corresponding information

I think all the mode articles should have corresponding information in corresponding sections. For example, the intervals that define the mode should be given at say, somewhere near the top of the article in a section called "intervals" or something (whatever, as long as its standard for all articles and maximally descriptive). Also things like if the scale is "symmetric" or "asymmetiric" or whether its a "minor" or "major" scale should be all in one place (perhaps a table would be best for these things).

Information about modes in general

All information that is about modes in general (i.e. applies to all modes) should be moved to the Musical mode article, and not mentioned in the articles about specific modes (all articles should of course be linked to the general Musical mode article). Information about idiosyncratic properties of the modes then will be easier to find that way, and there will be no confused and redundant info (sorta like this paragraph).

Greek vs. modern terminology confusion'

Information about the confusion between the greek and modern terminology should stay in the Musical mode article, with a note at the top of each article--out of the main body--highlighting the terminology confusion (to eschew obfuscation). Perhaps there should be serperate disambiguable articles for the greek modes e.g. a article for Ionian (Greek Mode) and Ionian (Gregorian Mode).

avoiding articl style divergence with later editors not privy to the standardization project

As time passes, people who don't know about the effort to standardize the article no doubt will add information to the article in their own style, perhaps causing the articles to diverge in style over time. To avoid this, we can make a template to go at the top of each talk page that tells editors to keep in mind the style standardization (perhaps a project page--"metawiki pages" I think they are called--with a template and style explanation). Although this may not be that much of a problem, if the style is obvious and is suffieciently elegant to begin with.

Am I getting across the idea here? What do you guys think about such a project? I know there is a way to set up a wikiproject for this sort of thing, but I've never done it before. I'll look into how to do it. Any other ideas on how to make the articles fit better together? Any objections or improvements to the above suggestions? Brentt 09:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS please respond and discuss at the Musical mode talk page

Key signatures and accidentals (title added)[edit]

if a song is in G mixolydian (GABCDEFG) would it was a key signature of no flats or one sharp,with a natural sign whenever F is played? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.65.31.160 (talk • contribs) .

I would write it with no flats or sharps in the key signature, so no accidentals would need to be used for the basic scale. A lot of printed music I've seen uses this convention also, for example Bartok, who often uses modes other than major and minor. —Keenan Pepper 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen modal tunes printed with a major or minor key signature, but with accidentals throughout. For example, "Old Joe Clark" may be written in three sharps, with a natural sign applied to every G. From what I have seen, the better editions of traditional tunes do not do this kind of dumbing-down, which may come from the mistaken notion that the folks reading these tunes can only recognize major or minor key signatures. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Music[edit]

Perhaps it should be mentioned that much of Scottish music, where not pentatonic, is in the Mixolydian mode. "Flower of Scotland", "Flowers of the Forest", Mairi's Wedding, "Scots Wha Hae" and "The Skye Boat Song" are a few of the many examples. Wmck 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than that, the Great Highland Bagpipe's chanter is in the mixolydian mode. NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 03:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning example of Mixolydian mode.[edit]

I wish to raise a query about this item in the list of pieces in the Mixolydian mode:

"It's a Long Way to the Top" by AC/DC is in A# Mixolydian.

I don't know the piece, so can't alter this description, even though I strongly suspect it's wrong almost to the point of certainty; perhaps someone who knows the piece (and has seen the sheet music) can do so.

The reason why I think it is almost certainly wrong is that the Mixolydian mode in A# would include F-double-sharp and C-double-sharp: the mode would run A# B# Cx D# E# Fx G# A#. This is unlikely enough even in advanced classical music, even with those composers who do not shy away from remoteand Ab accidentals (flattened 7ths, i.e. Mixolydian) keys or complex notation; it seems practically impossible in a popular song. So I'm wondering if it really should be the enharmonic equivalent Bb Mixolydian (Bb C D Eb F G Ab Bb - much, much simpler), or possibly A Mixolydian (A B C# D E F# G A - quite manageable). Hearing the piece would not distinguish between A# and Bb Mixolydian; only examining the sheet music would settle this. M.J.E. 01:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sheet music[1] it's definitely Bb Mixolydian; Bb key signature, with Ab accidentals. --Jwshea (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This actually suggests the opposite, namely that there are some V7/IV chords, but mostly in B-flat major. Otherwise it would make better sense to use a three-flat signature. Of course it is the music itself that matters, not the manner of its notation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=MN0107971

Is this a valid example?[edit]

I was recently analyzing music from the video game Rayman. The song I'm thinking of in particular is the "Band Land theme", particularly the first section.

The flute melody begins on an A while the strings in the background play an A chord. It goes to a G chord in the second measure and the flatted seventh is most noticable when the melody plays a G when passing to the next measure. The whole progression for the first four bars is this: 

A -  G  - Bm - F♯m
I - VII - ii - vi

The fact that the melody began on an A, that the first chord is an A major chord, and the total absence of G♯ in this section led me to conclude that this part is in Mixolydian. However, someone pointed out to me that it's possible that the second chord was simply lowered (which is totally valid, but somewhat inconvenient in my opinion). Additionally, there is a section that does have chord with G♯ (but I suppose they simply changed modes for that section).

In any case, I feel that the list on the page does not represent all media in which the mode may appear; the Phrygian mode page provides video game examples which this page does not. If this truly is a valid example, I'd like to add this (unless there's a more recognized game out there that utilizes this mode).—Iggy Koopa (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well-known music in this key[edit]

I plan on deleting any unsourced entries from this in a few weeks. (Listening to a piece and trying to figure out the key is not a source, and is also WP:OR.) Torc2 (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


>> Out of interest, what would you consider a source? I may not have a music PhD but I know my modes and I know all that I wrote was accurate.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.128.200 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the "notable songs in x mode" sections deleted? They were one of the most interesting parts of the articles (the best way to learn about modes I found was to relate them to examples from popular music). Because they're "not sourced"? That's crap really - what do you suggest? A written note from the composer declaring what scale the tune's in?

Let's not forget: Wikipedia is nothing more than an anecdotal source of info (given that it's not even taken seriously by university professors), so why such rigid formality? Plus, any bullshit info probably wouldn't make it past the community of experts here.

As someone who contributed a great deal to these lists I am not very happy. Whoever's responsible: where do you get off deleting large tracts of other people's contributions?

Good question. But I think I've been encountering this on Wikipedia since about 2005. A couple of mentally challenged souls have been abusing "OR" discussion for doing their mass-deletion of, as you say, other people's contributions. To put it bluntly, "OR" disputes will kill Wikipedia one day. Because some morons delete large parts, others do not accept that and fight back (well, they have my support!) and quicker than you guys can say Jack Robinson, we're at war. Read my lips. -andy 77.7.117.238 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.128.200 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"I may not have a music PhD but I know my modes and I know all that I wrote was accurate." it doesn't matter whether you know that it was accurate. the fact is that it was original research, which is not allowed. WP:NOR   — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Unsourced or not, I hope you realize that by removing examples of songs in Mixolydian mode you are detracting from the quality of the article. When I first read this article I did not come away with a grasp of this mode from the text. After listening to the examples, however, the description made intuitive sense. In fact, after listening to the cited examples, I was able to go back and correct a song that had been labeled in the wrong key (I have perfect pitch); in this case having those examples available helped me improve the article itself.

Further, the claim that a user's song contribution constitutes original research is dubious at best. The mode of the song is a simple point of fact. 71.199.114.79 (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the song list. Just picking them out on piano, both Norweigan Wood and and Dark Star are clearly DORIAN, not Mixolydian. They use the scale (D-E-F-G-A-B-C) Using D as the tonic for these, you play the F as a natural not F#. Old Joe Clark, on the other hand is an authentic Mixolydian piece (D- E -F#- G - A - B- C).

Besides, one can almost instantly tell just by the sound of the pieces. Dorian is a minor mode (Tonic Chord is minor) while Mixolydian is Major. Hence, OLd Joe Clark has a brighter, more major feel than Dark Star or Norwiegan Wood (which both have a minor feel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.66.158 (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Since every song in that list has a reference source, I suggest you find other sources, equally or more reliable than the ones cited, that support your opinion, and add them together with a suitable note. Your opinion and mine count for nothing on Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diff The reference for "Dear Prudence" calls it pentatonic, with "a mixolydian feel." "Within You and Without You" is not even mentioned in the reference. "Norwegian Wood" opens in dorian, and may modulate. It is not unambiguously in mixolydian, and so is not a good example of it. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lists included with every key and mode as a whole were atrocious, full of mistakes, and generally unnecessary. It's easy enough to find a few sourced examples of songs in a given key or mode, and that's all that's required to provide an idea of its character. A comprehensive list of songs in A major or Mixolydian mode is about as useful as a list of paintings that used the color blue or Impasto technique. And no, the key or mode of a song isn't always "a simple point of fact"; the tonality can be weakly established or ambiguous, as it was with much late Romantic music and a lot of popular music. It's not a simple as figuring out what notes or chords are used. A song that contains the notes A-B-C-D-E-F-G and has the chords C, D, G, Em and Am could conceivably be in A minor, C major, D dorian, etc. -- it depends on the context, the harmonic resolution and melodic moveement, and is frequently debatable. And a lot of times, the full scale isn't even used -- the seventh or fourth is absent, so the tonality is even more ambiguous. The fact that there were so many mistakes disproves that the mode of a song is "a simple point of fact", and illustrates the need for authoratative, peer-reviewed published sources. Otherwise we have nothing to filter good information from bad. The list ends up reflecting little more than heresay and speculation, and the article ceases to be reliable. —Torc. (Talk.) 00:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Within you without you/ tomorrow never knows by the beatles is my personal favorite song written in mixolydian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.26.181 (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found another one...[edit]

Don Henley's 1985 synth-pop hit "All She Wants To Do Is Dance" is in D-Mixolydian or isn't it? G Bm C D all throughout the song:) -andy 77.7.117.238 (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations[edit]

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks thoroughly referenced to me (even if the quality of some of those references may not be unimpeachable). That banner must be badly out of date.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"She Moved Through the Fair"[edit]

The entry in the list Mixolydian mode#Notable songs in Mixolydian mode "She Moves Through the Fair" is tagged with Template:Failed verification, followed by the hidden text explaining: "The word "mixolydian" is not found anywhere in the entire book." The page cited does however, give the chords of the song, and they would be in Mixolydian, making this lie somewhere between "properly" referenced and the "you can just tell [the truth is the truth]" examples. Hyacinth (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Key Comparison[edit]

Hi there,

as a musicologist I am a little uncomfortable with the piano key comparison, since no greek mode can ever be equivalent to "the white keys on a piano" since the scale system is completely different and I think that comparisonsof that sort should be used with great care if used at all. I know that for especially late renaissance or early baroque understanding this might be true (even though a meantone temperamented organ would still be radically different from a piano - even in number of keys). I think a comment should be added to such a comparison that this is a modern simplification and a great distortion of the actual sounds involved. Since I think this should be changed in all mode-related articles,I did not change it in this specific article, but maybe we can find a guideline to avoid confusion alltogether.46.196.113.47 (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As one musicologist to another, you are of course correct to the extent that a precise correspondence does not exist, and I have modified the sentence to emphasize this fact. However, to say that the ancient Greek scale system is "completely different" from that of the piano is simply not the case, so long as we are speaking solely of the diatonic genus. For one thing, the piano can be tuned in any number of different ways, including the various shadings of the ancient Greek system (in fact, it could even be tuned in the chromatic or enharmonic genera), though of course this is not customary. What really is needed here, I think, is a pair of examples illustrating the chromatic and enharmonic forms of the Mixolydian octave (like the ones given for the Dorian mode article, for example), which should be sufficient to dispel the idea that the ancient Greeks played the piano! To go into the refinements of the many ancient tuning systems (and whether or not Aristoxenos may have been thinking in terms of equal temperament) I think would be far beyond the scope of the present article, where this section on Greek music serves the function mainly of explaining where the name came from, and the rudimentary music-theoretical elements that evolved into the medieval modal system.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added an example of the enharmonic genus, which should at least demonstrate the distance of the Greek system from the medieval/modern ones. Now only an example of the chromatic genus is needed, I think.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chromatic genus now added, and the enharmonic illustration has been improved.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis[edit]

"More Than a Feeling" is listed as being in mixolydian, however the source does not mention "mixolydian". Hyacinth (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've just checked and you are right. I might have tagged it as "failed verification", but it is in fact improper synthesis, since it requires the reader not only to be able to read guitar tab, but also to judge where the tonal centre is. Do you think a brief hidden-text editorial note explaining why this is so ought to be placed with the tag?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine synthesis is missing[edit]

I just would like to mention that the octave species used in Byzantine chant is the octave C—c, so it has f sharp, when it is transposed on G—g. For further references don't hesitate to ask me. Platonykiss (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mixolydian mode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mixolydian mode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing notable songs[edit]

Is "Shake It Off" by Taylor Swift, "I Love It" by Icona Pop, "Honey I'm Good" by Andy Grammer, or "Celebtration" by Kool and the Gang in mixolidian mode?Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mixolydian mode/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article needs citations to reliable sources that cover Greek and Medieval modal theory, explain the arrangement of tones in Mixolydian mode and compare Mixolydian with other modes. Jargon, especially in the paragraph about Greek music theory, needs to be defined.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 19:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mixolydian mode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mixolydian mode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mixolydian_mode&oldid=1204032109"