Talk:Tetrachord

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Chromatic & enharmonic[edit]

Only in classical western music does the tetrachord have to be diatonic. As the theory comes from the ancient Greeks, and they used chromatic and enharmonic tetrachords as well as diatonic ones, perhaps this should be changed and expanded. Gareth Hughes 12:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If a tetrachord spans a perfect fourth, why does the pictured example show it spanning an augmented fourth? Shouldn't that be a b flat, instead of b natural? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.106.90 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Confusion about tetrachords[edit]

There is a discrepancy between this article and the Dorian mode and Phrygian mode articles regarding the varieties of diatonic tetrachord. This article claims that the Dorian and Phrygian tetrachords are, respectively, TsT and sTT. The other two articles, however, reverse them: the Dorian mode article says the Dorian tetrachord is sTT and the Phrygian mode article says the Phrygian tetrachord is TsT. I don't know which article is correct, but they should agree.

User:Ixionid, Dec 29 23:05:32 EST 2006.

This article has no obligation to agree with any other wikipedia article. It only has an obligation to be true, accurate, clear, succinct, and well-written. No wikipedia article can be a valid source for any other wikipedia article. In any case, in the middle ages and in the Renaissance (as in the modern era) the term Dorian tetrachord was attached to an ascending tone, semitone, and tone, Phrygian tetrachord to an ascending semitone, tone, and tone, and Lydian tetrachord to an ascending tone, tone, and tone. The (ancient Greek) Aristoxenians assigned the term Dorian to the species spanning from E to E, what we now would call Phyrgian, the term Phyrgian to the species spanning from D to D, what we now would call Dorian, and the term Lydian to the species spanning from C to C, what we now would call Ionian. TheScotch (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What you say about the ancient Greek Harmoniai is true, however what you list here in this talk as the medieval Lydian tetrachord is not true, it should read tone, tone, semitone (not tone, tone, and tone), which reflects the structure of the upper fourth of the Lydian mode. Medieval thought used species of the fifth and species of the fourth. As their mode 1 was what musicians today consider Dorian, these species were as follows (transposed to all begin on C):
Species of the 5th (medieval)
1st C D Eb F G (bottom 5th of mode 1 = Dorian)
2nd C Db Eb F G (bottom 5th of mode 3 = Phrygian)
3rd C D E F# G (bottom 5th of mode 5 = Lydian)
4th C D E F G (bottom 5th of mode 7 = Mixolydian)
Species of the 4th (medieval)
1st C D Eb F (top 4th of mode 1 = Dorian)
2nd C Db Eb F (top 4th of mode 3 = Phrygian)
3rd C D E F (top 4th of mode 5 = Lydian)
This article on tetrachords is a little confusing as it should say Lydian Tetrachord, instead of Lydian Mode as they are not quite the same. All of these references to modes should clearly state if the reference is the the ancient Greek structures or the structures that descend from medieval times.
[1]
Mbase1235 (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Genus (music)[edit]

I was surprised to discover that the this article and Genus (music) seem to be mutually oblivious of each other. I think that the material covered in Genus can be incorporated here. Tetrachord is a more general topic, and the structure of this article is a pretty good framework into which the other material can fit. - Rainwarrior 07:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't feel comfortable carrying out the merge...do you want to do it? Cazort (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Diatonic and chromatic[edit]

The article uses the terms "diatonic" and "chromatic". They are the cause of serious uncertainties at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica♬♩Talk 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ibid[edit]

What does the ibid refer to at the end of the section Pythagorean tunings? Rigaudon (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See Ibid., Citation, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Hyacinth (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tetrachords in Indian music[edit]

To describe "Indian scales" as formed either of two diatonic tetrachords separated by a tone (36 combinations) or a "tritone" tetrachord followed by a diatonic one a semitone higher (another 36 combinations) merely duplicates the fantastic theory of the "72 karnatic modes" described in Lavignac and La Laurencie's Encyclopédie de la musique. This is exactly what Dupré does, but this all is a French fantasm of the early 20th century − one in which Olivier Messiaen also believed. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that inclusion of Dupré's observation in this article needs a caveat, or that it should be deleted altogether? If the former, then some references will need to be found, specifically calling into question the validity of this claim; if the latter, what can be the justification for removing a claim cited to a reliable source?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).