Talk:Aeolian mode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Music theory (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Do we really need seven examples of the same simple thing? I propose all the articles on individual modes use at most three examples each. Hyacinth 00:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "ants go marching" example is not just unreliable, it's wrong. You run into this kind of thing all the time with mode and interval mnemonics. If you think the first note of the tune is the root of the scale, then it's Aeolian. But it's clearly the 5th. When viewed correctly, the tune doesn't even include the 6th scale tone, so we can't event tell if it's dorian or aeolian. Mullr (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Porgy & Bess[edit]

I assume that Porgy & Bess is in the natural minor, and that there are few 20th century or later popular songs which could accurately be called Aeolian. Hyacinth 16:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe an explanation of the actual difference would be nice to have in the article itself. Ari 08:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Summertime doesn't have a sixth in the melody, so it's not definitely Aeolian or Dorian. How about the Dr Who theme...?

OK, given it's a year and no-one's contradicted me, I'm going to go ahead and replace the Summertime example with Dr Who. A melody that omits a defining degree of the scale isn't a good one to use as an example. I can't think of any other tunes that are entirely Aeolian (as opposed to just using the descending melodic minor) Kisch 01:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I see someone's ripped it it out without discussing it - it's not accurate to imply that every piece in the minor mode is Aeolian. They might use the descending melodic minor scale, but almost all will also use its ascending form or hybrids of the two - the Dr Who example was intended to demonstrate a tune that was entirely in the Aeolian mode. Kisch 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Also the claim that it's the most widely used diatonic mode in Western Music is rather dubious - I think the Ionian mode (or major scale) would give it a run for its money. Kisch 01:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


This section's title is unclear and the information very basic: it basically re-explains through a specific example that "It may be considered a major scale but starting from the sixth scale degree." Hyacinth 16:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 09:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

PS please respond and discuss at the Musical mode talk page

So many words...[edit]

So many words about this article and important thing is missing. I would like to see here a picture with notes. Or what ever. I read this, and I still don't know what is aeolian mode. I remembered that it originates from ancient Greece and that it hasn't been used in middle ages, and I don't care about that at all. If there was option for grading article, I would give it a very low grade. Martin 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tonic chord[edit]

The article currently states: The Aeolian mode is the sixth mode of the Major scale and has the formula 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, b6, b7. Its tonic chord is a m7.(Am7 in the Key of C). ...but wouldn't the tonic in the Key of C be, well, C? In C Aeolian, wouldn't the tonic chord for Cm7? In A Aeolian the tonic chord would be Am7, unless I am quite confused. Am I? Pfly 03:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, "Pfly" - I seem to be bumping into you in all sorts of places relating to modes and scales and chords and such things.
I just saw this question of yours. I think my most recent edit to this article answers the issue. See here: [[1]].
By the way, I've noticed that several of the mode articles seem to think that some modes have a 7th chord as a tonic chord. While of course composers can have a 7th (or any other) chord based on the tonic, my understanding of music theory gives no backing to the idea that a 7th chord is the standard tonic chord for any mode. I would have thought that, as usual, this status should be applied only to a triad (major, minor, diminished, depending on what the mode is). I don't know if I'm setting myself up for disagreement; but I have modified the articles to reflect this. M.J.E. (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Examples[edit]

I realize that since this mode is virtually synonymous with the minor scale, but shouldn't we at least have some examples of Aeolian mode? Perhaps not songs that use the melodic or harmonic minor, but I'm sure there are plenty examples of songs purely in Aeolian. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe That's All is an example.—Iggy Koopa (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

you need a reliable source that supports inclusion in some list of examples to avoid original research.  —Chris Capoccia TC 11:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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) 08:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Improper Weasel notation?[edit]

In the first section, the sentence which begins "[a]lthough scholars for the past three centuries[weasel words] have regarded..." is marked as weasel wordy. I understand that "although scholars have regarded..." can be used as weasel words but, in this particular case, I think the usage as appropriate, as it serves to offset the second part of the paragraph, where that thinking is countered (with references.)

I was going to remove the WP:Weasel mark, but I don't feel I'm an experienced enough editor to make the call, so wanted to raise the issue to others with more background. Oliepedia (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who may have placed that tag, I should say that, personally, I have absolutely no problem with changing it to a {{Citation needed}}, which indeed may be more appropriate in the present case. One way or another, a source is needed for this claim, which is not quite substantiated by the Powers article cited at the end of the paragraph, although he does say something similar that could be misrepresented in this way.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Too much bullshit in this article[edit]

I'm not a native english-speaker, so this is out of my range to fix. There are SEVEN modes, not eight like the article says in history section. What about twelve-mode-system, ninth mode discovery and all -- sounds crazy to me, and every other word in the article starts to stink. can be it's own page, telling information about crazy music theorian from middle-age, but my opion is, that it should not be linked to this article, or let any disinformation flood to the history section with it.

I assume that there are lots of more mistakes like that, so maybe it would best to delete the whole shit. I was looking for some ethymological explanation for a word "aeolian", and finding this horrible example, why people can't really trust Wikipedia.

I can assure you that there were eight church modes, not seven, and these were increased to twelve (not fourteen) by the arguments of Glareanus. The article is perfectly correct. I do not know what your native language might be, but I would suggest you begin by consulting the Wikipedia in that language, which may (or may not) make things clear to you. FWIW, the history of the church modes more or less ends with Glareanus, so to protest that this is "shit" and should be deleted is effectively suggesting the entire article be removed.
As for the etymology of the word, you are correct: this article does not explain it, as the articles on some of the other modes do. I shall see what I can do to correct this problem.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I have now added the etymology you were looking for. Thanks for calling attention to this missing detail.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)