Talk:Semitone/Archive 2

message: I agree fully with a comment made by Mark (19 Aug 06), that the Augmented Unison should NOT be dealt with under the general heading, "Minor Second".  (Thanks for your support, Mark!)  I also want to strongly disagree with Rainwarrior's comment of 19:35, 19 Aug 2006, which suggests that the augmented unison is not of much significance, and that it's occurence is relatively rare (such as in Bartok's chromatic tone clusters).  As we know, there is more than one way to notate a chromatic scale passage!  It seems that most composers prefer to use accidentals which "raise" in ascending chromatic passages, and accidentals which "lower" in descending chromatic passages (with due respect for the key signature). This practice facilitates both notation and reading. Countless examples, exist, but are probably most evident in the Romantic repertoire, when chromaticism was so prevalent. (A fine example is found in the bars 35 and 36 of Chopin's "Fantaisie-Impromptu", Op. 66...just count the Augmented Unisons!)
I would also suggest that most references to common intervals are likely to be made by students of music theory. It is decidedly misleading to such students to categorize the augmented unison under the topic, "Minor Second". Prof.rick 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about harmonic augmented unisons at the time, and had since amended my statement with an edit to the article. - Rainwarrior 06:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Rainwarrior.  Thanks for your speedy and effective change! (Of course the augmented unison is more frequently  used melodically, but since you are providing an example of it's harmonic use, why not include more familiar and/or traditional examples? It would seem only "fair" to include examples of same by Chopin (I am thinking of Ballade No. 1, Opus 23, bar 171, where Chopin splits the note-stem to form a Y-shape in order to accomodate both A natural and A flat; also, by  the same composer, the Berceuse, Op. 57, bar 18, where similar stem-splitting is employed on the final treble double grace notes of the bar.) Other examples can be found in Liszt (for instance, "Etudes d'execution transcendental", No. 2, bar 62, in which  a harmonic  augmented unison occurs in the bass, on the second eighth of the bar). Of course, other examples can be found, even in pre-Romantic repertoire.  The point is this: IF an example is provided, it should not infer that the harmonic augmented unison is basically a "modern" phenomenon, foreign to traditional harmony. However, rather that cite numberous examples, why not simply OMIT the statement about "rarity of the harmonic augmented unison" entirely? Regards, Prof.rick 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of Augmented Unison 

message: To: The Administrators;
This article is replete with false, misleading and irrelevant information, and requires a major overhaul. Might I suggest, the best possible place to start would be to RENAME the Article, "Semitone", as Hyancinth had suggested, 20:44, 19 August 2006, under "Merge" item.
In this way, both chromatic and diatonic semitones (augmented unisons and minor seconds) could legitimately be included.
I realize that re-naming would break some links and re-directs.  GREAT! Do we really want to re-direct enquiries regarding the chromatic semitone / augmented unison to "Minor second"??? (I hope not!)
Once the Article is re-named, we can argue over the details, eventually leading to an accurate and informative article, worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.
May I also suggest archiving sections 1 through 17, since they refer to Articles which no longer exist, and are therefore of no direct relevance. They also make the present discussion page rather awkward for editing, due to it's length.
Prof.rick 23:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to summon an administrator, you should use Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, because the only administrators who read the article talk pages are those administrators who have an interest in the particular article (Hyacinth, for instance, is an administrator.) A reason I would put forth to keep "minor second" as the article is that it is part of a series of like named articles on intervals. There should be a consistent naming for them, Unison, Minor second, Major second, Minor third, etc... You would have this sequence go Unison, Semitone, Major second? I don't think that's appropriate. - Rainwarrior 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Rainwarrior! As things stand now, there is an inconsistency in the naming of intervals (see my points in previous section). I sincerely appreciate the helpful leads you have provided above. I thought you were an Administrator. I am fairly new to "computerland", and a newbie at Wikipedia. Providing such help, including links, was very thoughtful of you. Prof.rick 06:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sections 1-17 contain a lot of recent posts, there's no reason to archive them just yet. Maybe when this talk page calms down a bit, but it is not a good idea to archive this thing while there's still a lot of talking going on. - Rainwarrior 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A point well-taken! Prof.rick 06:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A fresh start 

message: The Minor second article gives us just a hint of some the glaring problems regarding Wikipedia's treatment of intervals. Here are another couple of choice examples:
1. I can find NO reference to a "Perfect eighth" (an accepted alternate name for the octave).
2. On the table of Diatonic Intervals, click "Diminished Octave".  You will arrive at the Major Seventh article, which contains no reference whatsoever to the diminished 8.
Obviously, the problems we are discussing on this page, are of a nature which extends far beyond this page alone! Prof.rick 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Perfect eighth redirects to Octave, just edit "(also perfect eighth)" into that article's lead with "Perfect eighth redirects here" as your edit summary. Using a good edit summary or leaving an appropriate message on that article's talk page are very good ways to let the other editors know why you made the edit. Please do the same for Diminished octave and Major seventh (maybe even give a good description of the difference as well, while you're at it). - Rainwarrior 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently neither of those are redirects, if you wish to create them, create the articles containing only the text "#REDIRECT Article name". - Rainwarrior 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rainwarrior:  Great ideas, but I think it might be worth waiting until this new Semitone page is ironed out. (Then intervals can then be defined in terms of number-of-semitones, as well as their current definitions.) Prof.rick 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tip of the iceberg 

message: #REDIRECT Minor Second
This move comes as a result of conscensus and considerable discussion.  Since the article includes both minor seconds and augmented unisons, "Minor second" is an inappropriate title.  The title "Semitone" includes both of these intervals. Prof.rick 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure you should put wikipedia code up on this page like that (I put nowiki tags around it to be safe). "Talk:Minor second" shouldn't redirect to "Minor second", and should never be a redirect at all really. Anyhow, you should read what it says at the top of this page. It's listed on the requests for moves, and has to wait five days (since September 2) before it will be moved by an administrator. There's really no reason for you to continue mentioning it here. Just wait. - Rainwarrior 22:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>#REDIRECT</nowiki> [[Minor Second]] 

message: Hi Rainwarrior.  I tried using the "move" button, because it would not work because the Semitone page already exists.
I tried to find an Administrator to help...no luck.  So I tried to make a "redirect", which I really messed up!!! Prof.rick 22:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help moving 

message: The notice at the top of the discussion page says, "a few days".  (But I did read a suggestion of waiting 5 days elsewhere). Also, I don't know how to do this myself! You've put in so much great material, I don't want to risk accidentally losing it.  Prof.rick 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait 5 days for an administrator to do it. You can't do it properly yourself because you're not an administrator. You can go and look at the entry for it at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and read about the process. Don't try to move it. Just relax. It'll happen in a few days. It was already requested on September 2nd, there's nothing for you to do about this at this point. - Rainwarrior 23:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been no objections so far, so I'm going to make an administrative decision and move it now. Since Minor second and Semitone underwent parallel editing for a period of time, their histories cannot be merged, so I'll just swap them. —Keenan Pepper 14:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's done. The article that used to be Minor second is now here at Semitone, and the history of the article that used to be Semitone is now at Minor second, as a redirect. Try not to get confused. =P —Keenan Pepper 14:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll wait! 

message: Synonyms: If we want to begin by referring to the use of the word "semitone", I suggest we start with ET, since it is most widely used today.  It also lends itself neatly to the expression of synonyms. I believe this approach would be most useful to the average music student for an "opener".  (Following this, could be categories of historic values of the semitone).  Perhaps a "Table" would be convenient, contain such information as:
:"In ET, the term Semitone refers equally to the following intervals, which are identical in sound (1 : 12th root of 2 ratio)."
::1.Name:  Augmented Unison OR Chromatic Semitone
::Notation: The letter-name of a note is retained, but modified by an accidental (e.g.  C to C#;  Db to D;  E to E#)
::Inversion: diminished octave (dim. 8)
::2.Name:  Minor Second OR Diatonic Semitone
::Notation: Two adjacent letter-names are used (modified by accidentals as necessary (e.g. C to Db;  C# to D;  E to F)
::Inversion: major 7th
It could also be pointed out that 1. and 2. above are enharmonically equivalent, and examples could be provided (harmonic and melodic use of both categories).
(Following such a clarification of the obvious synonymic values, we could then proceed with a history of the semitone, again with proper references, and possibly, examples.) 
This is just a "rough draft" of an approach to the organization of this page. I would like to hear what others think about this... do you support this approach? 
PS to Mark: Don't get discouraged about editing!  Sometimes it can seem brutal, but you have much to offer. (Remember the Wikipedia advice to editors: BE BOLD!) Also, if you "sign in", you can just use 4 tildes to sign, and your message will be automatically date/time stamped.  Prof.rick 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for re-organization 

message: Probably the hardest part of this article will be the start...an inclusive, yet easily understood definition for an interval (the semitone) which comes in many sizes!  Obviously "just" (mathematical) definitions are out...first, there are several forms of just and mean semitones. This would also exclude 12-tet semitones.  Attempting to define diatonically is really the same problem in disguise. (Which form of the major scale are we referring to? Which notes of the scale, if the scale is non-ET?)
Another major challenge is the "KISS" principle ("Keep It Simple, Stupid"). The earlier sections of the article must be readily understood by the average first-level theory student, who will probably make the most use of the article. We should probably avoid technical jargon, or even the use of many terms which might require very much page-jumping. (The earlier sections cannot possibly be geared towards the student who is preparing his Ph.D. thesis! However, as the article progresses into the more subtle and complex aspects of the semitone, we are probably aiming at more knowledgeable readers, and can allow ourselves a more technical vocabulary.)
In a way I'd like to see an avoidance of reference to Solfege. Many students learn the sounds of intervals by reference to specific songs (in effect, to specific scale degrees). For example, for a major second, the tune "Frere Jacques" might be used (Doh - Re). But this can easily lead to a failure to recognize the same interval occurring on other notes of the scale (such as "London Bridge", which uses Soh - La).
I don't mean to complicate matters, but the initial definition of the semitone is going to be extremely important...very challenging for us, but I hope, clear as a bell to the reader.  Prof.rick 01:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't use it as a primary definition, but what are you going to say about it? That every interval between adjacent piano keys is a semitone? I don't really have suggestions about definiting the semitone, except that we should probably have several, but the minor second should be primarily defined in terms of diatonic steps. The lead of the article should clarify the distinctions between terms and generally define them in a very quick and efficient manner, and better descriptions should be left to individual sections. This way the reader can figure out what they want to read and get to it without unnecessary delay. Anyhow, make edits to the page. I'll comment on or amend when I think it's appropriate. - Rainwarrior 05:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I guess I am saying that every pair of adjacent piano keys is a semitone. (I am going to guess that Mark would agree.) (That does NOT mean it is necessarily a minor second or an augmented unison.) I really can't think of anything else to add to the introductory definition. Does anyone else have ideas? Meanwhile, I will try to add a diatonic reference to the minor second, but I want to know, which scale notes did you have in mind? (Maybe both Mi to Fa, AND Ti to Doh.)
For that matter, it might even be possible to use Solfege in describing the chromatic scale. For example, Doh to Di is a chromatic semitone, while Doh to Ra is a diatonic semitone. (Or is that pushing it, making it more confusing?) Prof.rick 05:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Adjacent piano keys. (We don't mean white/white when there IS an intermediate black key.) To "get the picture", cover the front half of a section of keyboard with a book. Look at the back...see the pattern: white, black, white, black, white, white, black, white, black, white, black, white, white. At the back, the black and white keys are about the same width. Their "sound widths" are identical (the twelve semitones of one octave in 12-ET). Prof.rick 05:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping it simple 

message: For Rain, or anyone who can answer: When we use bold in the lead to establish links/re-directs, will they still work if in brackets? (Non-bold brackets, of course.) Prof.rick 03:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't establish redirects, the redirects are established by actually creating the redirect pages themselves (see Wikipedia:Redirect). The bold link is strongly reccomended for the first use of terms that belong to the article (redirects tend to fit), and in a redirect situtation it is usually important to put the term in the lead so that someone who is redirected can quickly find what they are looking for (the eye is drawn to bold text quickly). - Rainwarrior 03:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And, to answer your question, brackets don't have any functional effect, no. When I adjusted your edits to the lead, I moved "minor second" and "augmented unison" out of brackets because I think the terms belong grouped together, but also because these terms are much more common than "diatonic semitone" and "chromatic semitone". - Rainwarrior 03:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold in brackets? 

message: Hello Mark, and thank you for your kind comments regarding the work Rain and I have done on the Semitone.  However, I feel your contributions were absolutely essential. I am sorry to see that your rewrite of the original "semitone" lead was not fully retained,  and that your well-phrased  references to the piano keyboard (and guitar frets) were removed from the page (apparently due to an administrator's objection.)  But more importantly, you defended the augmented unison (chromatic semitone) as a distinct interval! If it hadn't been for your imput, this might have remained nothing more than a renamed article on the minor second. You have raised other points which must still be addressed, e.g., how can we really name an inversion of the semitone? (there is no name for 11 semitones). I hope you will continue to express whatever concerns you may have, regarding ANY content of the article, and feel free to edit. (Sure, someone may remove or change it...that's the cruel side of Wikipedia!) We "live with it". But you have much to contribute.) Incidentally, Rain has proven to be highly knowledgeable, extremely dedicated, very helful in Wiki technical matters, and surprisingly open to compromise (despite our many little disputes!) Although the article has progressed considerably, it is by no means finished! I have done  considerable editing tonight, clarifying some technical data, technical matters, as well as minor improvements in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.  But we need your imput, too!  Thank you! Prof.rick 02:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments to Mark 

message: I have expanded this section, since it previously referred to the resolution of the leading-tone in "all the important cadences", without qualification. I qualified this, explaining the use of the minor second in the plagal cadence, and in many forms of the imperfect cadence. Prof.rick 05:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Second: Cadences 

message: I changed "character" to "color or character", to try to better convey the concept of subtle differences in musical nuance, which are so difficult to express in words. Prof.rick 06:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  well temperaments