Talk:Major scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Major scale article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Analyzing sharps and flats

Noticed something strange in the tables listing the number of accidentals in a given key. The notes E# and Cb are mentioned although no such notes exist in music. Siddharth Prabhu 08:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E# and Cb do exist; they are enharmonic spellings of F and B natural. __Just plain Bill 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solfege

Should this include a reference to the natural scale (of C?) and the representation of it as "doh, re, mi, fah, soh, lah, te, doh"? This doesn't seem to appear elsewhere in Wikipedia. Chris Wood 22:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) (reposted, logged in)

Solfege? If so, the mention of solfege is only useful for those who already know solfege, in which case they don't need the mention.Hyacinth 23:34, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to at least mention it, since many people are familiar with it. I don't know where to add it, but a sentence like Solfege assigns the syllables "Do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti, and do" to the notes in the major scale. might be useful. -- Merphant 06:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a bigot.Hyacinth

Major scale fingerings for the keyboard

Do any of you know the most improved major scale fingerings for 2 octaves?? If you use a piano book that tells you the fingerings, it will probably use the same fingering for F, C, G, D, A, and E major scales for the left hand, but this really isn't a good fingering if you're playing for more than one octave. According to one Internet site at http://www.northern.edu/wieland/piano/majscal.htm, there will be a "little secret" page if you follow the links correctly, giving you more improved fingerings for the G, D, A, and F major scales, which are certainly better if playing for more than one octave. Here are the fingerings for all 12 major scales, 2 octaves:

C and E major:

RH 123-1234-123-1234-5
LH 5-4321-321-4321-321

G major:

RH 123-1234-123-1234-5
LH 321-4321-321-321-32

F major:

RH 1234-123-1234-123-4
LH 321-4321-321-4321-2

D major:

RH 123-1234-123-1234-5
LH 21-4321-321-4321-32

B flat major:

RH 2-123-1234-123-1234
LH 321-4321-321-4321-2

A major:

RH 123-1234-123-1234-5
LH 21-321-4321-321-432

E flat major:

RH 2-1234-123-1234-123
LH 321-4321-321-4321-2

A flat major:

RH 23-123-1234-123-123
LH 321-4231-321-4321-2

B major:

RH 123-1234-123-1234-5
LH 4-321-4321-321-4321

D flat major:

RH 23-1234-123-1234-12
LH 321-4321-321-4321-2

F# or G flat major:

RH 234-123-1234-123-12
LH 4231-321-4321-321-2

If you're learning scales for the first time, you're better off learning mute fingering for all your scales. It'll help you down the track. Dysprosia 23:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a Google search on "mute fingering" and it doesn't appear to tell me what this phrase means. Georgia guy 00:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You use the fingering for C major for all scales. Dysprosia 00:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that can be kind of awkward because of the posture of the thumb and the keyboard layout. Georgia guy 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capital letters?

Should it be C-major, C Major or C major. I am slightly confused... Fatboy06 21:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never capitalize "major" for purposes of this encyclopedia. Whether it's hyphenated depends on whether it's being used as an adjective ("C-major scale") or a noun ("The piece is in C major"). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's something missing from this entry.

There is no explanation of how music in a major key is more grandiose and optomistic, and that in a minor key has a "sad", mournful quality.

So there's plenty of technical detail about sharps and flats, but no explanation of what it all means to the uneducated hearer.

It should be noted that a minor key sounding "sad" as well as any other conotations associated with chords is strictly a western notion. There is nothing inherently emotional about specific chords. A minor key sounds sad because we have been taught that it is sad and we only see it used in sad circumstances. If you tried to introduce this concept to someone trained in indian, asian, or any other non-western music they would have no idea what you were talking about. --Azakreski 16:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the other way around. Musical scales are essentially definitions of tones in specific ratios of frequency. A person could, in theory, make sounds using frequencies that do not fall into any scale relative to each other. For example, playing an out of tune piano would use such frequencies. Since notes played concurrently, or played while overtones from a previous note were still audible, would result in tones that are not multiples of each other, it would cause portions of each tone to "cancel out" portions of other tones. It's hard to explain without drawing sine waves, but the bottom line is that tonal scales evolved because they are inherently appealing. This is not a cultural thing.

People who are not used to music of a certain type, or scales used in a different culture, would certainly not be predisposed to enjoy what they are hearing. But if they were told that a certain aspect of what they are hearing is tied to a certain emotion, such as sadness, it would be done to help them learn because it correlates with what they hear and feel. Students who have never learned about major or minor scales who are taught in terms of sadness or other emotions will be able to use that as a tool because they can associate the emotion they were feeling with what they were taught, not the other way around. A beginning music student might think, "that's the minor key because it's the sad sounding one." The student did not learn that the minor scale sounded sad. The student learned that the sad sounding scale was the minor one. The same general concepts apply when students are learning about music that is completely foreign to them. --Hagrinas (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode sharp and flat signs (versus number sign and lowercase b)

Georgia guy, don't revert just because you don't have a font with sharp and flat signs. Wikipedia policy is to use correct Unicode characters. —Keenan Pepper 21:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I go to propose a change to the policy?? They show up as boxes on my computer. Georgia guy 22:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#Flats and sharps. You can bring it up on the talk page there. —Keenan Pepper 23:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mnemonics

How many of the mnemonics added to the article (for the order of sharps and flats) are used in practice, and how many have just been made up (possibly even for the purposes of this article)? The "flat" mnemonics now make a nonsense of the preceding sentence "Luckily (!) the mnemonic can now be reversed ..." Unless there are violent objections, I shall remove all mnemonics apart from "Father Charles ... Ends Battle" (which neatly reverses to "Battle Ends ... Charles's Father"); this, incidentally, is the only mnemonic that is widely used outside kindergartens.195.217.52.130 20:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing about the mnemonics right now... They both show the same patter (FCGDAEB), which doesn't make any sense. The Flats pattern should be reversed, as the text above it states.

Harmonic Properties

This section strikes me as somewhat meaningless, at least the way in which it's worded.

"The major scale may predominate because of its unique harmonic properties. It allows:

three-part major or minor chords, both stable and consonant, on every scale degree but the seventh"

Every mode allows that. The difference is which degree the diminished (unstable) chord falls on.

"a diminished fifth within the seventh chord built on the fifth degree, the dominant motion by a minor second from the leading tone to the tonic"

The first part of this statement (the V7 chord, and its unmentioned tritone resolution) is the only real vital characteristic, the most distinguishing feature of Major mode. Lydian also features a an identical leading tone to the tonic, as do Phrygian and Locrian from above (scale degree II to I).

"root motion by perfect fifths, the strongest root motion, from nearly every degree in either direction, the two exceptions being up a perfect fifth from the seventh degree, and down a perfect fifth from the fourth degree"

Again, this happens in all modes, the difference being where that one exception occurs.

"the first six notes of the harmonic series provide a consonant major chord, the fourth to sixth of which form a major triad, and seven of the nine notes between the 8th and 16th harmonics (the 7th and 15th overtones) are notes in the major scale in just intonation"

The first ten notes of the harmonic series are all in Mixolydian mode, without having to skip a partial. If using the harmonic series as a determiner for why a particular mode predominates, Mixolydian is the strongest, not Major/Ionian.

And the most important characteristic of Major/Ionian was not mentioned: it is the only mode which has major chords for scale degrees I, IV, and V. (Likewise Minor/Aeolian is the only one with minor chords for scale degrees i, iv, and v. Because in these modes the tonic, dominant, and sub-dominant are all of the same quality, the mood is not affected when shifting between these stable scale degrees.)

I suggest that this section be altered to include only the unique characteristics of Major/Ionian mode and how it functions, and should not include speculations as to why this mode predominates using reasons which point to other modes.

Phoebus 14:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

confusion for a layperson

Sorry to intrude in a technical discussion here, but I'm just a middle-aged guy who played cello in jr. and sr. high school -- never understood anything about music theory -- but have continued to enjoy listening to classical music. Late in life (hopefully, not too late!) I've realized that I would like to understand how music works, how different senses of sound convey different meanings (or not, I realize that these are undoubtedly culture-bound interpreations?), and how the theoretical underpinnings of music become the way in which to apprehend different styles/modes of composition.

But, looking at this article, and other related Wikipedia articles about basic concepts in music, I find myself totally at sea simply reading the first three or four sentences. (See below for a good example of impenetrable introduction, unless one already knows what the topic is about.)

Would it be possible for someone musically talented to provide introductory statements for Wikipedia articles on basic musical concepts that give the interested, but ignorant, layperson a chance to understand what each concept is actually about not in theory but in hearing (perhaps with examples, such "in Beethoven's 5th one can hear the xxxx," of "The Beatles' "Michelle" is a good example of how xxxxx.")

Thanks in advance for any help you all can give to the well-meaning but musically poorly-educated masses.

Uoguma 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)uoguma[reply]

In music theory, the major scale (or major mode) is one of the diatonic scales. It is often considered to be made up of seven notes (eight if one includes the octave which is actually the first note of the next octave of the scale). When the octaves are compounded (as they usually are in practice as opposed to the more theoretical concept of the seven-note system), they are considered to be divided into two groups of four, the tetrachords. The pattern of steps in each tetrachord is, in ascending order:

   tone, tone, semitone, (tone)

The major scale has seven notes (plus the inclusion of the tonic of the next scale to complete an octave, in practice), which in solfege are the syllables "Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti (or Si) (and Do)." The simplest major scale is C major (see figure 1). It is unique in that it is the only major scale not to use sharps or flats on the musical staff and consequently uses only the white notes on the piano keyboard.

Listen to the C major scale.

The C major scale.

When writing out major (and minor) scales, no line or space on the stave can be skipped, and no note can be repeated with a different accidental. This has the effect of forcing the key signature to feature just sharps or just flats; ordinary major scales never include both.

The major scale is the same as the Ionian mode.

Do the mnemonics really belong here?

It seems to me that these mnemonics are really about memorizing the order of accidentals in a key signature, and don't have much to do with major scales. I propose having exactly one mnemonic (one each for flats and sharps) in the key signature article, and eliminating them here. If everybody wants to post their favorite (which I oppose, but I know I'll lose on this), they should go in a separate article like Key signature mnemonics. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diatonic and chromatic

The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with "chromatic", is 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 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup in progress

There's a lot of second-person prescriptive language in the article, which I have started to clean up, doing some wikification at the same time.

In the process, I'm taking out "[[Media:Cmaj scale.ogg|Listen]] to the C major scale. " and replacing it with a neater audio link to an ascending-only scale. If someone wants to put that earlier file in a more accessible spot in the commons, we can easily go back to the up-and-down audio clip to match the written scale just below it. __Just plain Bill 22:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enharmonic equivalents

I found this in the "scales with sharp key signatures section":

"Six sharps, the last one being E# (an enharmonic spelling of F natural) indicate the key of F# major, since F has already been sharped in the key signature."

I believe that this sentence contains irrelevant information. The fact that F is the enharmonic equivalent of E# is irrelevant, since the scale of F# major does not contain F natural. Therefore, the note at the end that F has already been sharpened in the key signature is also irrelevant. I propose this replacement sentence:

"Six sharps, the last one being E#, indicate the key of F# major."

I think this is easier for someone not well versed in music theory to follow.

On a similar topic, I don't see why major scales with flat key signatures are considered so different to similar scales with sharp key signatures.

Cosmicpanda (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... easier for someone not well versed in music theory to follow." is a very persuasive argument, in my view, at least. I wrote it that way because every now and then someone comes up and says, "but there's no such thing as E#." For the moment I demoted the sentence to a parenthesis; it could just as easily disappear entirely, without losing much relevant info.

On your second point, being more or less a folkie, I pretty much stay between four sharps and three flats when considering paper with lines and spots on it, so I can't really speak to that. I don't consider heavily sharped or flatted key signatures at all :-)

__Just plain Bill (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there is such a thing as E#, that's the thing. You're completely correct, though, that the whole sentence could be deleted without harming the article at all. Cosmicpanda (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain relevant information. If adding something improves the clarity of an article, it belongs there. If removing it adds confusion, it belongs there. Since somebody made a comment on this very page, six months before this issue came up (see the top of this talk page), it's clear that there are people who were confused without this mentioned, and who would have a better understanding with this mentioned. --Hagrinas (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Wikipedia:Summary style useful. Hyacinth (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this issue could be resolved using a less confusing example - this article, after all, is about the major scale, not about enharmonic equivalents. On that note, I think a lot of this article could be rewritten to aid clarity. I'll take a look at it now.Cosmicpanda (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my proposed changes:

I will have to dig up some references, but I think I can do that without too much trouble. In the meantime I present these ideas for your inspection (it will need some formatting, but isn't intended to replace the entire article):

To the introduction:

"In music theory, the major scale is one of the diatonic scales. It is made up of seven distinct notes, plus an eighth which duplicates the first an octave higher. The simplest major scale to write or play on a keyboard is C major, which is the only major scale to not require sharps or flats, and therefore requires only the white notes of the keyboard to be played."

(keep the image of scale and recording, as already existing)

The changes I have made here are to remove the references to the Ionian mode and the Solfege system, both of which I believe would work better further on in the article.

To the Structure section:

"A major scale may be seen as two identical tetrachords, each consisting of two whole tones followed by a semitone, separated by a whole tone. The resulting scale has the same pattern of intervals between scale degrees as the Ionian mode:

whole tone, whole tone, semitone, whole tone, whole tone, whole tone, semitone."

(I like the image showing the pattern of whole tones and semitones, but perhaps it could have the roman numerals underneath the notes to help relate them to the next section?).

The changes I made to this section are fairly large: I rephrased the language to talk about whole tones and semitones rather than whole steps and half steps, but that's just my personal preference and may not be compliant with the general usage on Wikipedia. I liked the explanation of structure using tetrachords, but I'm not an expert on them. After reading the article on tetrachords perhaps it would be easier to call them Lydian tetrachords? This would avoid the involved details about the exact relationships between whole tones and semitones, which is given in the image. I also moved the reference to the Ionian mode from the introduction to here.

To the Named scale degrees section:

I like it the way it is, but perhaps it could also be presented as a table, and which could then easily include the Solfege names as well?

Regarding key signatures:

This section is necessary as the major key article redirects to here, but I propose that the two existing sections regarding major and minor keys be merged into one:

"Key signatures are used to enable a major scale to begin on any note (as opposed to just C) by ensuring that the essential pattern of whole tones and semitones between degrees of the scale is maintained. They consist of sharps or flats placed at the beginning of each line, which raise or lower the pitch of their respective notes by one semitone accordingly. They define the key of a piece.

Accidentals can also be used for this purpose within a score.

Sharp key signatures have between one and seven sharps, applied in this order: F C G D A E B. The key note or tonic is immediately above the last sharp in the signature. For example, one sharp (F♯) in the key signature of a piece in a major key indicates the key of G major, as G is the note following F♯.

(existing code box showing 'sharp' keys - perhaps this could be replaced with an image showing them graphically?)

This table shows that each scale starting on the fifth scale degree of the previous scale has one new sharp, added in the order given above. See Circle of Fifths.

Flat key signatures consist of one to seven flats, applied in this order: B E A D G C F. This, incidentally, is the same as the order of sharps, but reversed. The major scale with one flat is F major. In all other flat major scales, the tonic or key note is indicated by the second to last flat. In the major key with four flats, for example, the penultimate flat is A♭, indicating a key of A♭ major."

(existing code box showing 'flat' keys - perhaps this could be replaced with an image showing them graphically?).

In this case each new scale starts a fifth below (or a fourth above) the previous one."

The Circle of Fifths Section:

This appears to be a summarised version of the circle of fifths page. Is it really needed?

The Harmonic Properties section:

I believe that this may be pretty much original research. Phoebus gives a very thorough analysis of it above. Myself, I think it just happened to catch on, although this isn't very scholarly. If you look at Renaissance polyphony, you can see that they were tending to write in a manner that encouraged the development of tonality - the raising of the leading note at cadences, avoidance of tritones in the lydian mode with the B flat, which effectively created the Ionian mode, and perhaps also the 4-3 cadence foreshadowed the tonal V-I candence. I don't believe that in 1600, some genius hit upon the idea of writing in the Ionian mode because of the harmonic series.

Back to the article, I think that this section can be removed.

And then all that leaves is the referencing, which should be fun.Cosmicpanda (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested audio

There is an audio example included in this article. Hyacinth (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Feedback

Pretty nice job, editors. I understand most of this, but I'm not good enough to edit the subject, alas. A couple of thoughts: "Structure" talks about tetrachords, but the pic has whole step/half step. And steps are easy enough to understand, too. I don't think starting with steps in scales and then going deeper into tetrachords is such a bad idea. Scale degrees is just dumped on the page with no explanation whatsoever (?). And then there's Harmonic Properties.... I think overall it's a pretty good job, though, as I said. Jjdon (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]