Talk:Diatonic scale/Archive 1

Archived discussion:

Properties of diatonic scales[edit]

What are the essiential characteristics of a diatonic scale?

What destinguishes a diatonic scale from an non-diatonic scale?

Any examples of dialtonic and non-diatonic scales?

Tetrachord circular definition[edit]

If you click on 'tetrachord' : "In musical theory, a tetrachord is a series of four *diatonic* tones " then if you click there on diatonic you go back :) Was in fact wondering what the word diatonic means, why the scale is called this way

-- (som'one browzing)

Dia[edit]

I have thought, having heard, for years that diatonic = dia-tonic = through the-tonic. Dia- being a Greek prefix used commonly medicine (diagnosis). Hyacinth 22:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

dia- means through, but the other root is tonos, tone (like a whole tone). (Source: Oxford American English Dictionary.) So it is a scale (or music in general) based on steps. --Wahoofive 17:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

basic definition[edit]

As someone above asked, what are the characteristics? What are the common elements?

May I propose the following two-part definition? A diatonic scale is a seven-note scale comprising a sequence of tones and semitones in which the semitones are maximally separated.

Is it possible to start with this?

I don't find the reference to staves, lines and spaces helpful, at least not right at the top.

Tony 16:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard's definition says: "The natural scale, consisting of five whole tones and two semitones, as it is produced on the white keys of the keyboard." We can't copy theirs, of course, but I thought it might be useful for reference. Will anyone try to read this WP article who doesn't know how the piano keyboard is structured? Conversely, if they don't, is there any chance we'll be able to define "diatonic" in a way they'll understand? —Wahoofive (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters whether the reader is acquainted with the structure of the keyboard. I wonder what Harvard means by the 'natural' scale'—is that a culturally biassed? Tony 04:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

recent and impending changes[edit]

All of this stuff about tetrachords and meantone temperament is not going to help us explain the concept to anyone but advanced theoretical musicians. I want to recast the second paragraph in simpler terms. In addition, I want to position the concept briefly in cultural/geographical terms. Tony 02:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technical composition of diatonic scales[edit]

Nope, it sure isn't a good heading. Tony 12:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Balzano stuff[edit]

I think this very controversial claim:

These unique relationships are as follows: Only certain divisions of the octave, 12 and 20 included, allow uniqueness, coherence, and transpositional simplicity, and that only the diatonic and pentatonic subsets of the 12-tone chromatic set follow these constraints (Balzano, 1980, 1982).

belongs in a Balzano article, not a diatonic scale article. It's hardly NPOV to put it here. If no one objects, I'll remove it. Gene Ward Smith 08:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objection, I've removed it. The claims about 12 and 20 are irrelevant to diatonic scales, and should be considered, if at all, in another article. Instead I've added some stuff explaining what is really going on with what is variously called propriety or coherence when applied to seven note scales, as Balzano attempted to do, with only partial success. Gene Ward Smith 08:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object, if a bit late. Why is it controversial, nevermind very? So you've added original research to replace the information cited in Balzano? Hyacinth 23:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyacinth, I have to say that I agree that the removed text was unsatisfactory. Tony 06:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Why? Hyacinth 23:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Flute" business[edit]

The article talks about the Divje Babe bone as if it were an incontrovertible fact that it was a "flute used by Neanderthals". Interpretation and disputed claims based on statistical analysis should be written of as such. As much goes for the claim of a Babylonian diatonic song, which seems absurdly overconfident. --Tdent 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Neanderthal flute claim is extremely controversial, but the Babylonian tuning claim isn't. While all of the reconstructions of the music are very speculative, it is reasonably clear from the tuning instructions, which we can read, that what was being tuned was a diatonic scale. I think something about that belongs in the article. Gene Ward Smith 08:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - now we need a reference for the Babylonian tuning - ie where we can read them? --Tdent 17:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Sounds From Silence by Kilmer, Crocker & Brown, Bit Enki Publications, 1976. This has now been added to the references material.

Query[edit]

What's a "seven-note strictly proper scale"? Tony 09:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A seven-note strictly proper scale is a seven notes to the octave scale with the property Rothenberg called "strictly proper", and Balzano "coherent". Gene Ward Smith 10:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is pitched at semi-experts as well as experts, I wonder whether the language can be simplified/explained? Tony 10:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article on propriety/coherence might be a way of doing that. I'll keep that on the agenda. Gene Ward Smith 17:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gene W S that there's highly conjectural material in the article. The History section is entirely unsatisfactory. Tony 09:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would this article benefit from a comprehensive list of the seven derivatives of this scale? Having read our article on Musical modes I gather that this group is synonymous with Modern modes, but it took me a while to figure that out.

Above comment by Boris B 10:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC). Sorry.[reply]

Definition of Diatonic Scale[edit]

how can we clear up the inconsistencies in the definition of the diatonic scale.

we talk about 7 notes and 7 intervals and do re mi fa so la ti do.

7 intervals implies 8 notes.

or do we except the inconsistencies? joe 14:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven intervals indicate seven notes, don't they? The seventh interval gets you back to the first note; eight notes would count one note twice. Tony 15:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?[edit]

'The diatonic collection contains each interval class a unique number of times' - I find this sentence utterly obscure. Does it say anything nontrivial? And if so, what? --Tdent 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are three major thirds in the diatonic scale, and the only intervals that are represented exactly three times are the major third, its inversion the minor sixth, and of course octave compounds of those. In other words, the number of times it contains the major third interval class (3) is unique in that no other interval class appears that same number of times. Other scales lack this property: for example the equal-tempered chromatic scale has 12 semitones and also 12 perfect fourths. Is this worth explaining in detail in the article? —Keenan Pepper 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diatonic Template[edit]

I don't understand why the template is placed above the External Links section on many of the individual Diatonic scale pages, as in D major. I have always seen nav templates juxtaposed with categories at the bottom, like the Havana article. z ε n 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who likes music but doesn't know much about musical theory, I find the introduction to diatonic scale(s) to be far too technical for a layperson to understand. Some examples from well-known music (Beethoven, Beatles, Bee-Gees, anybody!) that would help an inquiring mind to grasp what the following means, would be very useful:

"In music theory, a diatonic scale (from the Greek διατονικος, meaning "[progressing] through tones", also known as the heptatonia prima and set form 7-35) is a seven-note musical scale comprising five whole-tone and two half-tone steps, in which the half tones are maximally separated. Thus between two half-tone steps there are either two or three whole tones, with the pattern repeating at the octave. The term diatonic originally referred to the diatonic genus, one of the three genera of the ancient Greeks."

As this is the opening few lines of this article, it is not very helpful for the interested but ignorant person such as myself.

Uoguma 14:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued from Talk:Interval (music)[edit]

This section continues a discussion at Talk:Interval (music) where the meaning of "Diatonic" has been extensively discussed. For purposes of this discussion I'm going to refer to the following terms:

Absolutist: "diatonic" means only major and natural minor scales (and church modes)
Inclusive: "diatonic" includes harmonic and melodic minor.

I am not proposing these terms for use in the article, just for convenience of discussion. Also, this is only for modern usage, not Greek genera etc.

Some proposals:

Everyone seems to agree that the absolutist position is the majority view among music academics, although we don't all agree how extensive the minority view is, or how important the casual usage might be
Since Wikipedia articles can't qualify every use of a term, we will have to assume the absolutist meaning in other articles. This article, or another article such as Diatonic and chromatic (in parallel to Major and minor), should explain the discrepancies in detail, and be linked to whenever the term is used
Whenever possible, the word "diatonic" should be avoided if it isn't essential. Rather, articles describing derivative structures such as intervals and chords should specify which major or minor scales they are derived from, if derivation is to be described. The use of phrases such as "diatonic interval" or "diatonic chord" should be avoided.

This last proposal stems not from an analysis of the literature, but from a common-sense observation that musicians themselves seem inconsistent in their use of the word, and non-musicians have probably never heard it, so using the term is likely to confuse our intended audience; whereas "major scale" is an unambiguous and widely-known term. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I agree about minority and majority here. It depends on the context. In the context of teaching scales themselves, the term diatonic might categorically exclude the harmonic and melodic minor for a variety of reasons. Outside of that context, the qualifier "diatonic" is very often used in a way that might sometimes exclude or include them, but most of the time wouldn't matter. They are at the very least derived from diatonic scales.

I don't agree that the word diatonic should be avoided, either. The term "diatonic interval" doesn't exclude or include harmonic/melodic minor scales, so I don't see why it is problematic. If you wanted to list scales to which these terms apply, the lists would be large, where the simple word "diatonic" would do, and in most cases it really doesn't matter whether technically the harmonic minor scale counts - it doesn't affect the meaning. The whole word isn't tainted because two scales happen to be in the grey area.

It would be useful, howevere to have an article specifically called Diatonic, so that we could have a place to actually clarify the various meanings. - Rainwarrior 06:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your logic, Rainwarrior. If "most of the time it doesn't matter," why use the term? Anyway, we need clarity for the times it does matter, such as diminished seventh or augmented chord, structures which derive only from the minor-scale variants, but whose articles sprinkle in the word "diatonic" as if it meant something (N.B., one of those articles says it's diatonic because it derives from harmonic minor, and the other says it's not diatonic for the same reason). The reason I'm proposing avoiding phrases like "diatonic interval" is that too many readers won't know what that means, even if theorists agree. Plus I'm trying to calm down some edit wars surrounding the topic. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that most of the time it doesn't matter whether or not harmonic or melodic minor scales belong in the category of diatonic when you are using the word diatonic. Now that you've pointed out specific cases where it's causing confusing I can understand what you're talking about a little better though. The passage at augmented chord is just confused in general (I've removed it). At diminished seventh, I'd say it's fine in terms of the way the word "diatonic" is used, but I can understand the confusion here, because in terms of "diatonic function", the interval is there in the minor key, whereas if we're talking about a "diatonic scale", no, the interval isn't there. In this case the words that follow are what make the choice of definition, which I suppose means that the term "diatonic" is more or less useless here. I'd suggest replacing it with something more descriptive (which I will do).

This is more or less why I was opposed to your suggestions. In the general case of all uses of the word "diatonic", I wouldn't make the call that harmonic minor is excused because it depends on the subject. I mentioned "diatonic function" before, which definitely includes alterations of the minor scale, and in many theoretical contexts "diatonic" has a very similar use to "tonality" (I've often seen it used as part of the definition of tonality). Sometimes it's used historically to refer to certain harmonic practices as well. In other contexts, it's clear that we're talking about certain types of seven note scales, and often here melodic and harmonic minor scales would be excluded. - Rainwarrior 20:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to eliminate the term completely, just to discourage it in articles where specifying individual scale types by name might be less ambiguous and more widely comprehensible. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica's response to Wahoofive's proposals

First let me express my thanks for your initiative, Wahoofive. Second, I for one shall provisionally adopt your provisional terms. Third, I note that, while the dichotomous use set up in this way for scales cannot by itself settle all derivative usages (for intervals, chords in context, chords out of context, etc.), it works well enough in determining our treatment of scales in Wikipedia. In absolutist usage, for example, it would never be appropriate to have significant treatment of harmonic and melodic minor scales in an article or section headed Diatonic Scale; so if we were to adopt the absolutist usage, that content would need to be shifted from the present article.

Responses to your specific points:

1. Everyone seems to agree that the absolutist position is the majority view among music academics, although we don't all agree how extensive the minority view is, or how important the casual usage might be.

I agree that if a simple choice is to be made, then this is right. But the minority inclusive view is not simply a separate view (nor is it a matter of mere "casual" usage), isolated and adhered to with rigour by a few British hold-outs: it is carelessly mixed with the absolutist view, even in academia. The result is pervasive confusion. It is therefore very important! Ill-advised, perhaps: but important in its consequences.

2. Since Wikipedia articles can't qualify every use of a term, we will have to assume the absolutist meaning in other articles. This article, or another article such as Diatonic and chromatic (in parallel to Major and minor), should explain the discrepancies in detail, and be linked to whenever the term is used.

I agree that we should assume the absolutist position in articles, on the condition that there should be an early and prominent link to an article Diatonic and chromatic in every article that uses either of these terms other than just incidentally. Sometimes the distinction might need additional emphasis: for example to explain an entrenched phrase (like "diatonic harmony", or a usage in a quotation which cannot be amended). The wording and structure of many articles (and a template or two) would have to be changed to adhere to this absolutist usage. The present article, confined to the use of diatonic, and concerning only scales, simply cannot fill the role of a core link effectively. A new article is needed.

3. Whenever possible, the word "diatonic" should be avoided if it isn't essential. Rather, articles describing derivative structures such as intervals and chords should specify which major or minor scales they are derived from, if derivation is to be described. The use of phrases such as "diatonic interval" or "diatonic chord" should be avoided.

I agree with this in general terms. It would help a lot! It would also take a concerted effort to implement it, because there are many music editors in Wikipedia, and some will have strong preferences that have not been aired yet. Also, some articles (like Diatonic function, Diatonic set theory, etc.) are in a special category. They generally already assume the absolutist position, but are perhaps infected with elements of the inclusive position. Indeed, most musicological discourse does appear to retain such elements (my whole point!), in its classification of scales, and for example in its characterisation of harmony as diatonic even though it includes vocabulary that the absolutist would say is not diatonic.

As for your closing remarks, I do think that many students and aspiring musicians have heard these terms applied beyond scales. Many remain confused by them: whether as applied to scales or as applied to intervals, chords, etc. I have surveyed several discussions on the web that reveal serious confusion and misinformation. We have a chance to help with that problem. I for one would welcome the opportunity to do so, provided that we can get a good number of unbiased editors involved, with sufficient expertise and goodwill to make all the necessary changes. –Noetica 06:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now started a new article Diatonic and chromatic, just so that it exists and we can get things moving. I have put only a paragraph there, with a couple of links. Nothing too controversial! We could, I suppose, now move this whole discussion to Talk:Diatonic and chromatic, and put notices to advise editors at music talk pages (and elsewhere) that there is such an article, and such a discussion. –Noetica 07:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainwarrior said:

In the general case of all uses of the word "diatonic", I wouldn't make the call that harmonic minor is excused because it depends on the subject.

The HM is not a diatonic scale and I have many sources that back this up. One example:

The Oxford Companion to Music:

Scale

3. Diatonic Scale: The sixth and seventh degrees of the minor scale are unstable and result in two forms, neither of them diatonic: the harmonic minor, with the characteristic interval of an augmented 2nd; and the melodic minor...

Pg. 1106, ISBN: 0198662122

--Roivas 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you cut out the references already? They're already cluttering up two other talk pages. Let's designate a place, like Diatonic and chromatic#References where they belong -- otherwise this talk page will become unreadable, just like Interval (music). —Wahoofive (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know how else to prevent the pointless speculation in these discussions. I provide solid references and they are ignored. It's incredibly annoying.--Roivas 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see some useful dialogue here. I'm following the discussion avidly, but will hold off from any further long contribution just now. Some particular points:

We'll all need to work hard to keep the discussion readable, and avoid putting our contributions in positions that obscure who says what, in response to what.
Wahoofive wrote: The reason I'm proposing avoiding phrases like "diatonic interval" is that too many readers won't know what that means, even if theorists agree. Two things: 1) Simply scanning earlier contributions on this talk page will reveal how confusing the whole affair is for readers. 2) Theorists do not agree, and simply scanning the many articles written by genuine experts here at Wikipedia will demonstrate that.
Wahoofive wrote: Plus I'm trying to calm down some edit wars surrounding the topic. I would like to put something on record. While I have made sustained contributions to talk pages, I have never edited in Diminished seventh, except to impose a {{Neutrality}} marker (amply justified, as we now see). I have never edited here at Diatonic scale. And at Interval (music) my last edit apart from anti-vandal work (and similar) was to impose a {{Neutrality}} marker (again, justified); my last edit there affecting interpretation of terms was in June 2006, when I supplied references as requested. Edit war? We have avoided that. It takes more than one to have an edit war.

I admit that "edit war" was an exaggeration. Testy discussions, perhaps. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainwarrior wrote: The passage at augmented chord is just confused in general (I've removed it). At diminished seventh, I'd say it's fine in terms of the way the word "diatonic" is used, but I can understand the confusion here, because in terms of "diatonic function", the interval is there in the minor key, whereas if we're talking about a "diatonic scale", no, the interval isn't there. This illustrates something of the difficulties. In fact, if the harmonic minor is classed as diatonic (a main consequence of what we are calling the inclusive position), some of what Rainwarrior deleted at Augmented chord is indeed justified, and is the sort of thing we can find in respectable textbooks: However, the augmented chord can be used diatonically as the iii chord in the ascending melodic minor scale.
My general advice (if I may presume!) is that we all proceed with caution, and with respect for others' views. Long-held assumptions may be challenged in this discussion. As the one who drew specific attention to it in the first place, I have looked long and hard at this mess of terms, and I have had to face some challenges myself. This is all to the good – or it can be, if we approach it in the right spirit.

– Noetica^♬Talk 22:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge the above usage of the word "Diatonic". What source do you have that specifically designates the ascending minor scale (or harmonic minor) as diatonic? Please cite the exact wording (without interpretation or embellishment) on my talk page so we don't clutter this page. You have not provided a reference that confirms this point of view.--Roivas 23:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do let's try to be more attentive. Exact wording is given at Talk:Interval (music). See the Percy Scholes quote, 1955. And there is much more in support of that.

Best that we all now acknowledge this and other diversities in usage, and move on to the job of clarifying and fixing the affected articles. To this end, I move that we now shift all of this discussion to Talk:Diatonic and chromatic. Any objections? That is now the natural place to deal with the whole issue.

– Noetica^♬Talk 02:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That definition does not mention the HM scale at all. You have no support for this claim in published sources. All original research will be removed from these articles. Many people seem to be mistaken about a few basic terms, but that's no reason to revise history. I will not acknowledge your personal claim to diversity in usage.--Roivas 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is thought to clutter the page, but Roivas's latest claim is plain wrong, and it is only fair that I have a chance to demonstrate this. Here is what I have posted at Talk:Diatonic and chromatic (where I think we should soon shift all this discussion). I include one of Roivas's comments there, also:

duplicate talk post deleted —Wahoofive (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See next section, concerning this discussion: – Noetica^♬Talk 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diatonic and chromatic now established[edit]

The new article is now well and truly settled in, and has quite a lot of content. I suggest that we now discontinue the general debate here over these terms (see last section), and confine it to Talk:Diatonic and chromatic. I'll sure there will be quite spirited debate. – Noetica^♬Talk 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]