Talk:Tonality/Archive 1

message: Compositional resources
I propose that compositional resources in the common practice period can be described in terms of practical sets.
The ultimate source set is the harmonic series. Common Practice composers and theoreticians have responded to this basic fact of nature by creating sets of:
Major scales,
minor scales (all flavors),
diatonic triads and extensions (tertian structures.)
cadences, 
non-harmonic tones, 
secondary functions, 
partwriting procedures.
harmonic progression practices,and the
reconciliation of dissonance and consonance.  
Transition technics such as modulation were developed to tie everything together as coherently as possible. 
To mold these basic resources into what Suzanne Langer would call "significant forms" composers craft phrases, melodies and genres and seek meaningful unity, variety and symmetical and asymmetical balance. This constitutes the raw materials of grammar and rhetoric of musical ideas within style periods, nationalities, individual composers and even specific works. In other words the common practice period languages provided ample room for individuality for a very long period of time. 
Impressionistic Set Repertoire
The revolutionary vision of the impressionist composers expanded the repertoire of sets described above to include:
Modes,
whole tone scales,
pentatonic scales,
quartal and quintal chords,
pan diatonic, pan pentatonic and pan whole tone structures. 
New grammar such as planing and new types of modulations were invented to bind this expanded wealth of resources together.  A heightened interest in timbre and new rhythmic designs added even more dimension to the new language. 
The genius of Debussy and Ravel was to create a great number of works that effectively blended old and new resources into significant forms.  There seems to have been no trial and error or "mannererist" period of experimentation involving gimmicky failures and half successes.  They also proved that the musical wheel could be effectively reinvented. 
Beyond Impressionism
The challenge to composers ever since has been to craft a personal language whose new and old sets can be combined into expressive and formally significant compositions.  In this quest 20th century composers often forgot that the audience is the client for their products. Verbose and convoluted  annotations were typically provided to beg for respect for fundamentally unlikable experiments. 
Enough! As 21st. century composers we must now direct our efforts to successfully serve the only population who, in the final analysis, justifies our existence.  To paraphrase Bill Clinton's famous campaign slogan, "It's the audience, stupid." 
Robert C. Howard
:Do you have a source for these theories? Hyacinth 23:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical Sets 

message: The article currenlty has sections titled "Vocabulary of Tonal Organization" and "Tonal Theory" and "History". What exactly do those title mean? Is the "Vocabulary of Tonal Organization" the vocabulary use to describe organization according to traditional theory? Is "Theory" then the history of theory? Is "History" the history of the "use" of tonality, or the history of the theory of tonality, or both? Hyacinth 05:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Which POVs are you referring to? Hyacinth 06:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Please sign messages. Hyacinth 06:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Also, please note that the Reti section/example explains tonality in ways not covered in the article and possibly not covered in more well known sources. Hyacinth 18:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Are you talking to yourself? Didn't Stirling Newberry write this, "Stirling Newberry added a great deal to the vocabulary section."? I'm confused. Hyacinth 00:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles?

message: *"In his influential article on the subject, music theorist Carl Dahlhaus provided a broad survey which included seven definitions of tonality he felt had been used with regularity."
I removed the above sentence because the article, as of yet, in no way mentions Dahlhaus' seven definitions. Hyacinth 00:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: In a way, this is completely appropriate, since the concept of tonality itself is a mess.  But it's also probably the most important motivating concept in modern music theory, so it'd be nice to have a good article on it.  This passage is a particular offense:
<<
Music is considered to be tonal if it includes the following five descriptions of tonality: (1) it uses a Major or minor (diatonic) scale system (2) it contains triadic harmonies (three note chords) (3) it has a tonic (central tone) (4) it has a leading tone (7th scale degree) (5) resolution of dissonance (that is: if a chord or note is played (like a leading tone 7th scale degree) that doesn't sound final, the final sounding chord is played after it (like the tonic) to resolve the piece)
>>
(1) is disputable; it isn't hard to think of examples of music that are recognizably tonal but for which it would be a stretch to try to interpret them as diatonic.  (2) is completely ill-worded.  It suggests that any old three-note chords will do!  What it should say is that the music uses functional harmony (based on major and minor triads, etc.).  Not that everyone would agree that this is a necessary condition for tonality.  (4) is completely absurd.  I've never heard anyone suggest that a leading tone is a necessary condition for tonality.  I suppose functional harmony requires a leading tone, but its silly to make this a self-standing entry in a definition. Finally, (5) is the most poorly, confusingly worded thing I've ever seen in a Wikipedia article.  I think the idea here is that tonality requires a consonance/dissonance distinction, which is fine.  At that point, why not just cite the consonance/dissonance article, rather than tie oneself in knots trying to explain it in multiply embedded parentheses?
I think if the article is going to include a "definition" of tonality, not in itself a bad idea, it has to acknowledge that there is no agreed upon definition.  The strongest contenders, it seems to me, are (a) a sense of tonal center (a "home" pitch class), itself not an entirely well-defined property of music (in fact, more of a way of hearing than an intrinsic musical property), and (b) the use of functional harmony, which is also a little tricky to define (with the appropriate breadth for dealing with chromatic harmony).  Diatonicity and consonance/dissonance are important adjunct ideas, but too slippery for a definition.  (What are the criteria for a musical passage to be diatonic?  How do you know when dissonance is being "treated as dissonance"?)
Jason D Yust 15:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess! 

message: There is no discussion concerning the innovations of Russian composers such as Alexander Scriabin and Nikolay Roslavets. Schoenberg may not be the singular pioneer that Euro-centric people think he is. Roslavets may have produced a rational 12 tone system before Schoenberg did, and Scriabin was before them both. The 1907 fifth sonata breaks from conventional western tonality, and some shorter pieces may predate it and involve similar innovation. Because of politics, revolutionary-Soviet-Cold War, the work of Roslavets has been practically forgotten, but he deserves to be discussed just as much as Schoenberg does, and Scriabin definitely does as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.133.103.221 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oversight 

message: I will attempt to do this over a number of weeks, and would be pleased to receive feedback from the previous writers. I've had a go at the opening.
Tony 14:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the rewrite look into the use of "which" versus "that."  It's silly grammar, but misuse of "which" makes an otherwise well-written sentence confusing.  Here's an example of the normal use of the two:  There is a note that is consonant with another, which pleases the ear.  72.195.187.63 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be rewritten 

message: I have to admit that I've learnt something new here: a term for the lowered seventh degree of a tonal scale. It's unfamiliar to most musicians, although I'm having second thoughts about having removed it from the table.
Tony 14:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that means that you removed it because you think it is unfamiliar to most musicians. I am curious to see the survey or study you base this on. What do you call the lowered seventh degree (or rather the seventh degree a whole tone below the tonic) of a scale? Hyacinth 12:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'subtonic' 

message: Currently it's this:
Tonality is the character of music written with hierarchical relationships of pitches, rhythms, and chords to a "center" or tonic. Tonic is sometimes used interchangeably with key. The term tonalité was borrowed from Castil-Blaze (1821, François Henri Joseph Blaze) by François-Joseph Fétis in 1840 (Reti, 1958; Judd, 1998; Dahlhaus). The term is often used as being synonymous with Major-Minor tonality, but is, in more recent theory, used more broadly to encompass a number of systems of musical organization.
In my view, there are several problems that we need to address.
(1) 'is the character of'—what does it mean? How about: 'Tonality is a system of writing music with hierarchical relationships ...'.
(2) I don't understand the inclusion of 'rhythms' in the hierarchical relationship to the centre.
(3) A central note applies to most of the music cultures in the world, and doesn't distinguish tonality from pretonal music in the European tradition. I've always understood the unique aspect of tonality to be the central triad. Much renaissance and medieval music, for example, lacks a sense of triadic/root movement. Isn't this important in defining the tonal system?
(4) The second sentence may confuse the reader; can someone give an example of exact interchangeability between 'tonic' and 'key'. In any case, is it important enough to put in the second sentence?
(5) 'is often used as being synonymous' needs to be reworded.
(6) If 'tonality' is to be broadly defined, as appears here, I wonder whether a separate article is required, perhaps entitled 'The tonal period', or 'European tonality', or something like that. Alternatively, an account of tonality as many people understand it (i.e., the system that was dominant from about 1600 to 1910) could be dealt with in a separate section here.
Tony 04:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's start with the opening para 

message: I don't think that the term "tonicality" is common or accepted enough to appear in the introduction, so I removed it. Hyacinth 09:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tonicality

message: *This page is 36 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.
The article is too long. Hyacinth 09:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: This article makes a number of claims about the relationship of perceptual processes, the overtone series, and musical tonality that should be identified as being more controversial than they currently are-- see specifically the section "Uses of the Term", subsection "By nature".  Far more seriously, the citations backing up these assertions are of the lowest quality- not to peer-reviewed journal articles, but to self-published books and personal web-pages which make extremely broad and untenable claims that are far from mainstream viewpoints in music theory, history, or cognitive science.
If the relationship of tonality to the overtone series should be handled (which is certainly interesting and important), it needs to be done by citing reputable sources.
There are also a number of factual errors.  Eg:
:These scales are referred to as "diatonic" because it is felt that there are two fundamental centers of attraction: the tonic note and the dominant note.
This is not why the scale is called diatonic.
I'd go as far as saying that this is probably the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia!
Chris 19:41, September 6, 2006 (UTC) User:Redpony
:Note that this article also uses [at least] six other sources besides the Fink citations. If this is the worst article you have ever seen on Wikipedia, I must assume you haven't looked at many articles.
:Factual errors may be removed, marked as such in the article, or moved to this section of the talk page. The false diatonic etymology was added fairly recently. Have you noticed any other errors?
:Do you have reputable sources regarding the relationship between the overtone series and tonality? Hyacinth 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a fairly good chapter on the definition as well as definitional problems associated with tonality in a disertation from the early 90's that cites the more established authorities on tonality on the music theory/musicology side.  Even though music theory is a fractured discpline (it's tough to balance the applied needs as well of performers, composers, and historians with the intellectual trends brought on by developments in psychology and the cognitive sciences), there are reasonably standard definitions for tonality which would provide a more clear starting point for redoing this article according such that it meets Wikipedia's standards.  Of course, this dissertation and its sources don't delve go into the  epsitemological questions that seem to be occupying certain authors of this page (and which are interesting), but those might be more properly brought up in a discussion in terms of music cognition and what the constraints on a musical cognitive system might look like.  Lehral & Jackendoff's Generative Theory for Tonal Music and David Temperley's Cognition of Basic Musical Structures (the intro at least) describe some of the issues associated with the relationship between music theory (and theoretical constructs/descriptions like tonality) and the musical intuitions of listeners, composers, and performers.  Still, the theories that would seek to connect structural elements of music with intuitions (and more remotely, with physical phenomena like the overtone series) are highly speculative and not well worked out (compared to something like, for example, modern theories of syntax in language), and relying too heavily on them would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.
Redpony 03:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several serious problems 

message: Sorry for the carelessness. Fixed it right away —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greenwyk (talk • contribs). Sorry -- like you (whoiever originally accidentally removed the introduction) I also accidentally removed your comment about it, and replaced it as fast as I could -- but forgot to sign "Greenwyk."  I seem to have lost your identity in the process. Greenwyk 01:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro accidentally removed 

message: Agreeing with the call for citations about the "natural" basis for tonality, since they exist, I have added them.
To make the article a little shorter, someone may wish to move the citations down below, under references and sources, and possibly refer to the quotes and viewpoint descriptions only by author's name & year (Reti, Gustin, etc.) in the "by nature:" category.
Using the number format may not be agreeable to some. So change that if desired. Or put the whole list of quotes, descriptions of theories and views, & authors down below under "Theory of tonal music" where there is more room (which would be best I think) -- and simply outline the list of various authors on both the "nature" and the "nurture" side of the debate (the latter has many sources, but I haven't chosen them yet -- or someone else may know better which should be chosen & quoted), and put the short list under the "by nature:" subhead under "Uses of the term." 
No strong feelings about this, except that the sources and quotes, now known, should be listed to meet Wiki "balanced POV" guides, whatever one may agree with about any of the views. I don't believe the accepted view of this controversy is as "nurture" as some say -- maybe in music academia, it may be. But in science & archaeology academia, and in the general public (tonal popular music as evidence) it isn't that settled by far, and much more leans toward "nature".   Greenwyk 08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several serious problems 2 

message: This page is tagged at the very top with "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed." -- but having read the page and this talk page, I am not sure just what facts are disputed.  Is it the whole page, or just parts?  If just parts, could the tag be moved to the disputed sections, whatever they are? Pfly 08:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag. Hyacinth (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy tag

message: I have read through the article, and the discussion. It seems to me that many of the terms used here need defining. One that causes a great deal of trouble is "diatonic". Because of the serious uncertainties it has caused at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature, some of us thought that it and "chromatic" needed special coverage, and we have therefore 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 22:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diatonic and chromatic

message: Maybe this should wait until things get sorted out from previous talk page posts, but more contemporary, reputable musicological trends from McClary to Taylor (I'm reading his Beyond Exoticism now) relate the development of tonality and its heirarchies to European colonialization and self identification.  While the old fogeys out there will scoff, it is now an accepted academic practice to discuss historical context in the arts, and I'm sure it can be presented in a non-biased manner.  Any thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.30.11 (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonality and Colonialism 

message: On 15 May 2007 the article was vandalised by deleting a whole section (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tonality&diff=131150858&oldid=130985513). It seems that nobody noticed the incident, and the data hasn't been put back into the article. Someone with more insight to the article might want to check if the deleted part contains any relevant information. Liffey (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it wasn't vandalism then? Hyacinth (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently unnoticed vandalism a year ago 

message: ESSAY by Sean McHugh 02Sean McHugh 02 (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Hyacinth. Well there was some stuff in the essay that could well be used to improve the article, but I wasn't planning to take the time for that. I have a great deal of info on tonality and its relation with consonance and dissonance, and would like to see a more empirical rather than relativist cultural angle on why it's so important...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean McHugh 02 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Defence of the Pythagorean tradition 

message: Mention if e.g., if the David Bowie song TVC 15 has tonality,
or is it just limited to classical music, etc. Jidanni (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good general question. Hyacinth (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern or popular examples needed 

message: What about that section is confusing? What needs explanation? Hyacinth (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is confusing because the section title seemingly has no relationship whatsoever to the content.  To end the entire article with a section heading called "Effect" would seem to infer wrapping up the article and talking about the overall musical effect of tonality.  As it is, the paragraph discusses a relatively arcane difference between harmonic and melodic tonality that probably doesn't merit a musical example or even its own section.  In my opinion the subject of harmonic vs. melodic tonality should be presented in an earlier section in a more truncated, concise fashion, and the "Effect" section deleted completely.  5000fingers (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing: Effect

message: I came to this article seeking to learn something about the concept of tonality. All I have learned is that I lack a solid enough grounding in music theory to separate fact from the heaped-on balderdash someone or someones has passed off as an 'article', when the only aim of this piece is to bury a music concept so far in its own jargon that it defies any description other than mystical. 
Please work at making some of these concepts understandable either by way of example or extensive hyperlinking to reference material. As it stands, one learns nothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.190.149.48 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What specific ways should the article be improved in? What specific parts of the article should be improved? Hyacinth (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: No surprise, it looks like someone pasted their theory paper verbatim. I like how the History section is followed by what appears to be a very wikipedia-like article on Tonality, followed by THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS. I would seriously suggest moving both the History section, and the..... other section to something like Tonality/Verbum_Obscurum and clean up what's left while discussing what to do with all of this verbiage. --Blehfu (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What sort of structure would you like? Hyacinth (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive moved the History section later in the article. I think perhaps a separate article, History of tonality, might be in order. --Blehfu (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if a separate article is needed.  The current History section just needs to be tightened up considerably.  This is not the New Grove!  A few paragraphs at most will suffice.  There is a lot of ambiguity here.  And a lot of this material is redundant information that appears or should appear elsewhere, e.g. the material appearing in the History section that is really more about Theoretical Underpinnings or Terms.  5000fingers (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure you could really write a succinct article on tonality unless you were only discussing the recent mediterranean + western history. 76.99.56.13 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A layperson's point of view 

message: I agree with the many comments that this article is just a mess, especially stylistically and organizationally.  For instance, the section on Terms begins with a torturous sentence about Dahlhaus and the "characteristic schemata of tonal harmony," and then a few paragraphs later we get to the C major scale!  I have less quibbling about the factual veracity of some of the entries than others who have posted here, but the way the information is presented is not very professional or clear.  Such an important concept needs a better article.  I've made a few minor edits to help clarify certain concepts and will continue doing so to help tighten things up a bit.  But I think a more major revision is in order, something that presents the relevant information in a more concise, less rambling fashion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5000fingers (talk • contribs) 15:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What revisions do you suggest? Hyacinth (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've already done some minor ones.  No doubt due to the uneven way it was written and how it came about, the article comes across sort of like an undergraduate paper, and I think the whole thing ought to be re-envisioned from the standpoint of the layperson.  As far as the more major revisions I would suggest starting with the more broader definitions of tonality, and work out to more specifics.  I also would vastly edit down the History section, delete the oddly random "Effects" subsection and have its contents abbreviated and included in the Theoretical Underpinnings section.  I would also remove discussions of theoretical issues in the history section.  One of the main reasons this article comes across as so muddled is that nobody seemingly ever decided whether "history" meant the history of tonality (which I think it should be), or the history of tonal theory (which I think it should not be).  Also, in the first sections of "Terms," the article already gives the theoretical underpinnings of the tonal system!  So using the section title of Theoretical Underpinnings is misleading and confusing.  What follows in History and Theoretical Underpinnings is actually a mish-mosh of the history of tonal practice and the history of tonal theory, and I think it all just needs to be completely re-worked with greater concision. 76.102.43.172 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I would urge caution in this regard, but only because the dialect used in the article is American ("centre" is spelt "center", "-ize" endings occur instead of "-ise", etc.), where the relationship between the terms "note" and "tone" is somewhat different from UK usage. Depending on context, replacing "tone" with "note" might cause confusion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me be frank: Americans (often those of immigrant mainland European origin from the first half of the 20th century) have by-and-large produced the clearest, simplest, and most sophisticated theoretical (text)books on music over the past two generations. These texts have had an impact on professional music theorists and tertiary training throughout the English-speaking world. They typically use tone to indicate a pitch, and note to indicate a pitch-in-context, e.g. invested with rhythmic and textural identity, in a real passage of music. The distinction is worth making for all readers, from beginners to advanced musicians, I believe. Tony (talk)  03:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a mess 

message: Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that top banner is out of date and could now be removed. The article is on the whole fairly well cited, and the sections and individual sentences that are exceptions are plainly marked.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional citations

message: Why and where does this article need cleanup? How should this be done? Hyacinth (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: This article refers to the I,V,IV as tonic dominant and predominant. I changed it to subdominant. Jerome Kohl, a well respected Wikipedian, changed it back. I am quite sure however that the IV chord is frequently, if not usually, referred to as the subdominant or sub-dominant. I also believe that a predominant chord is any chord that resolves to the dominant (e.g. II,1V etc.) I believe the more specific term (subdominant) is preferable. 
I believe the following articles support this opinion: Chord progression - Basics P2, Subdominant, Predominant.
Thanks in advance for corrections and comments. BobbyBoykin (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The chord and scale degree are both correctly referred to as "subdominant". However, the context within which you changed the term has to do with chord function, not chord naming. Some theory books do use the term "subdominant" as a function name (which often cause confusion for beginners when a submediant or supertonic chord is referred to as having "subdominant" function), but others use "predominant", or "dominant preparation", which prevents confusing the chord's name with its function. There is, unfortunately, no commonly employed terminology (so far as I am aware) that similarly separates function and chord name for the tonic and dominant chords. It may be advisable to add a cautionary note about this (or perhaps to add ii and vi in brackets after IV), but there is some danger of making the explanation so complicated that the beginner will give up in exasperation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predominant vs. Subdominant  

message: *Rameau's work was introduced to Germany by Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg in 1757, and used Rameau's system to explain the music of Johann Sebastian Bach (Marpurg 1753–54).
That's easy. Let's say I haven't yet introduced myself to you. I still know my own name and am able to write my signature. In the same way, if I haven't yet introduced some knowledge to Germany, I am still capable of knowing and using it. Hyacinth (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I've just removed this sentence from the opening caption: "This is the strongest cadence type, almost always found at the main formal articulative points" (Benjamin 2003, 284). It's patently untrue. Tony (talk)  13:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits so far are exemplary: good work, though there is a much that could still be improved. Regarding your questions, it appears these all appear as quotations from reliable sources (including the one you removed on grounds that it is "patently untrue"). While keeping in mind that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", it does the reader no service at all to quote random sentences from reliable sources without any regard for their comprehensibility. Have you checked the context of the quotations from Dahlhaus that puzzle you, to see whether they could be better explained here? I shall have to look at the edit history to see the context from which you excised the quotation from Benjamin, but it looks as though it refers to the Perfect Authentic Cadence. If that is the case, why do you contend that it is "patently untrue" that such cadences are "almost always found at the main formal articulative points" of a tonal composition?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerome, impressive pedigree I see on your user page! It's a question of balance, and balance right at the summary opening (including that caption at the top) is not served well when one ideology is presented as (the only) truth. I have to say that the British music examination establishment (powerfully and sub-professionaly represented by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music) did enormous damage to our ability to understand harmony by elevating IV to fundamental level, along with the tonic–dominant polarity; the plagal cadence is similarly elevated, without proper explanation to learners, to the status of the perfect cadence. This infection spread throughout the English-speaking world during the 20th century. It deserves to be mentioned, but not to dominate the article at the top through exclusive treatment, whichever source has mouthed it. The modern textbooks such as Aldwell and Schachter, and Forte (regrettably too much to bite off for the suburban music-studio teacher, although ironically they present the basic system more simply) don't go along with this unexplained fog, but talk first and foremost about the V–I polarity, and then about pre-dominant triads (ii, IV, and vi, using the casing for the major mode). If IV is to be elevated to this special status, could there be proof of this from the musical literature? Certainly, later on in the article, the influence of IV in blues-influenced popular music could be treated as a particular type of tonality; but right at the top it just reproduces a fallacy that the tonal system quintessentially relies on I, IV and V, a holy trinity that might resonate with christian symbolism, but not with the acoustical and cultural facts. Tony (talk)  03:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I understand your objection is not to the characterization of perfect-authentic cadences, but to the inclusion of IV as part of the cadential formula, I am in perfect agreement with your position. I am uncertain whether Benjamin asserts that IV is a part of this cadence, but if he does not, putting that claim in conjunction with the example in question is at least misleading. You do not mention Schenker, who is the major influence behind both Forte and Aldwell-Schachter, and for the last half-century increasingly the dominant paradigm in the American academy. There is now the inevitable backlash, but I do not believe that this has gone so far as to restore IV to its former glory. Keep up the good work.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerome, on the backlash to Schenker ... it's not surprising, since the analytical system claims to do much more than it ends up doing, I think. Nicholas Cooke (A Guide to Musical Analysis) resonates with this take; his account of the messiness of analysing the Tristan overture is marvellous! All the same, my view is that some of Schenker's fundamental observations have transformed our understanding of harmony and compositional technique; for example, prolongation seems obvious in retrospect, for both composer and listener.But to the task at hand—this article. I wonder what you think about my urge to explain the emergence of tonality better. I'm going to look up Rosen's chapter on tonality in The Classical Style to see if it might be a useful source. Do you know of other good sources on this aspect? Tony (talk)  02:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And then there is the backlash to the backlash to Schenker, and so on. I only meant to put some emphasis on the demotion of the subdominant, with which Schenker had "some issues". The explanation of the "emergence of tonality" could indeed be bette explained, but the topic is really two topics: the emergence of tonality in the musical literature, and the emergence of the concept of tonality in the history of music theory. I am not sure which of these is in more urgent need of care here. I had something to do with revising the part on the history of theory (though this is just about my least favourite period in the subject), when I first came across this article five years ago or so. I recall feeling hampered somewhat at the time by another editor who had some peculiar ideas about referencing (the artifacts are still there, in that editorial note about "sources" vs "references"). It seemed better to follow the path of least resistance and I did not put up as much of a fight as I might have done. As a result, the history of theory part is still awfully ragged. As for the history of the music literature itself, there is nothing at all about this in the current version, but a huge amount of literature out there. I'm not sure where I would start, but this aspect interests me much more than the early history of the theory of tonality. Which of these areas were you most concerned about?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: This is very ambiguous and undefined. Example of the excessive indulgence of  Wikipedia "writers"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tonality functions "locally", in the mid-range" 

message: Dahlhaus 1990,[page needed]
Carl Dahlhaus should be placed earlier in this listing. His famous book had been published in 1968, based on the Habilitationsschrift "Untersuchungen über die Entstehung der harmonischen Tonalität" which appeared even earlier (Kiel 1966). Also, the editorial request mark 'page needed' is evidently absurd to anyone who saw the work (where 'Tonalität' occurs on almost every page including the title of this most valuable book). Olorulus (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the information. Certainly Dahlhaus should be mentioned before David Cope, though there is currently no indication in this article that Dahlhaus's book existed prior to 1990 (even knowing that he died in 1989, it might be assumed it was his last book, already in the press at the time of his demise). It was I who placed the "page needed" request, now some years ago, but I have never seen the book in question, and so could not know that Dahlhaus confirms on every single page of his book that the term was "The term tonalité originated with Alexandre-Étienne Choron (1810) and was borrowed by François-Joseph Fétis in 1840", and that tonality is "typified in the compositional formulae of the 16th [sic] and early 17th centuries". However, I shall have to see the book with my own eyes before I can accept that this astonishing fact is true, even for an obsessive-compulsive German musicologist.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed Dahlhaus from the authorities of 'borrowers', because he thought that tonalité (used by Choron and lots of other French theorists that time) had been 'coined' by Castil-Blaze. The valuable book of Dahlhaus 1968 (published in English after the author's death) is not at all the source of the dramatic problem 'who borrowed from whom'. Olorulus (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The critical thing here, I think, is that according to your edit, Dahlhaus believed the term was not coined (or "originated", which is the same thing) until 1821, by Castil-Blaze—eleven years after the four other sources say Choron did it. This is a very curious discrepancy.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that this is really "critical". Dahlhaus represents in his article not a 'personal view', but a trivial view which dominated for decades. Just look around, check (first of all) Germans. But I don't insist on that (very persistent for years) view. You can delete it. It's mere nothing compared to the crucial issue: who was essential in the development of the tonality concept (and Choron was definitely not among such developers, well, he was not a scholar at all). Olorulus (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borrowed by Dahlhaus 

message: Fétis considered tonalité moderne as "trans-tonic order" (having one established key, and allowing for modulation to other keys) 
In fact, Fétis differentiated 3 phases (stages) of tonalité moderne: ordre transitonique was only the 'transitional stage' (Monteverdi); the later stages -- ordre pluritonique (Mozart, Rossini etc.) and ordre omnitonique (Berlioz, Wagner) -- also belong to the tonalité moderne, Generally, "Traité complet" represents the first in the history diachronic view of the Western tonality, this is important. Olorulus (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure; perhaps we need to sequester this kind of stuff into a section on the theoretical history of tonality. Tonality is a complicated topic already, and I fear that this article will become diffuse. Tony (talk)  09:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article presently has a separate section for this. Are you suggesting that it should be split off into an article of its own? To Olorulus's point: it is not strictly true that Fétis was the first to present a diachronic view of Western tonality, though it may be argued that he was the first to do so in a thorough manner. I just yesterday added a sentence on Choron, who discusses tonalité moderne as a diachronic process, with particular reference to Monteverdi as a starting point, and the Neapolitan School as its full crystallization. As a matter of fact, in other sections of Choron's essay he discusses the development of earlier tonalités, from the Ancient Greeks down to his own time, as well as making passing references to systems of tonal organization in non-European cultures.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory of Fétis 

message: The term tonalité originated with Alexandre-Étienne Choron (1810) and was borrowed by François-Joseph Fétis in 1840 (Judd 1998a, 5)
Colleague, just have a look in the book! I hesitate that you read it, really. Prof. Judd never wrote about the fact you want to ascribe to her authority. She didn't even mention Choron (as your reference falsely implies). Olorulus (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One tricky thing about references is that, in order to avoid clutter, they are conventionally collected together in groups at the end of a paragraph or sentence. This means that various claims contained in that paragraph may be separately confirmed by different sources. In the present case, the passage in question is not exclusively about Choron. It also mentions, for example, Fétis. Judd addresses Fétis, and confirms at least part of what is said about him in the preceding sentence (namely, that he used the term later, but did not originate it). Clear now?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are two different agruments which you mixed. First: 'Fétis was the most influential scholar, he developed the concept of tonalité though (parenthetically, in a note) he didn't coin the word as is'. This is what Prof. Judd said (see the Judd's article attached as PDF). Second: 'Fétis has borrowed the term tonalité from Choron'. This is what implies your edit. This is incorrect. Olorulus (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here and in the next thread I find myself agreeing with Jerome. Olorulus, en.WP tends to be quite fussy about how sources are treated. Tony (talk)  10:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it is up to you to leave it as is. It seems to me that a reader's profit should be higher of all other arguments. I just wanted not to confuse a reader who would insert Prof. Judd in a row of other scholars directly accusing Fétis of a miserable plagiate. The thing she really never did. Olorulus (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

text:  PS. Btw, I really doubt that Réti also wrote about 'Fétis borrowing from Choron', he is not just the scholar of such 'format'. Unfortunately I can't get access to the original book of him so far, but I'll check it definitely. Olorulus (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cristle Collins Judd 

message: I didn't understant the request for 'better source for claim' of different meanings of German 'Tonart' and 'Tonalität'. Also, what did you mean with your request of Reichert's exact page? The title of Reichert's article itself plainly implies the difference of terms. In short: 'Tonart' is used for all possible 'systematic arrangements of pitches', while 'Tonalität' is used mainly as synonym for 'Dur-Moll-Tonalität' (or Dalhaus' 'harmonische Tonalität'). Do you really want me to prove this? May I ask you, for the start, to read 'Tonart' and 'Tonalität' in German WP for the further (and maybe more competent) discussion of the point you requested. Olorulus (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me, but my German is actually reasonably good. I can assure you that the title of Reichert's article, "Tonart und Tonalität in der älteren Musik", though certainly problematic to render into English, cannot be translated as "All Possible 'Systematic Arrangements of Pitches', and 'Major/Minor Tonality' in Old Music". The claim this article is being used to support is that "two different German words "Tonart" and "Tonalität" have been translated as "tonality" although they are not the same words in German". Where exactly does Reichert explain (1) that they are different (admittedly, this is self-evident), but, more importantly, (2) what that difference is? He certainly does not do so in his title.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  My edit in WP didn't imply that the title of Reichert's title should be translated either as 'All Possible Systematic Arrangements of Pitches' or as 'Major/Minor Tonality in Early Music'. The Reichert's article is simply one clear example of miriads of other German articles which use 'Tonalität' and 'Tonart' differently. As I already said (see above), 'Tonart' is applied to lots of pitch systems ('system' means systematic arrangement, logical organisation of pitches and their interrelations in the composition of music) as well as to the major-minor tonality (I gave examples of such usage above but you ignored them), while 'Tonalität' is principally applied to the major-minor tonality (but not only to this kind of tonality, see Schönberg's handbook for other usages). In English there is no way to render this semantic difference. The word 'Tonart' is often translated as 'tonality' (see Power's most influential 'Mode' article and lots of other instances) in a 'broad sense' which is fixed at the very first paragraph of the encyclopedic article 'Tonality' by Hyer (in 2001 and again, with minor but essential edits, in the authoritative 'Cambridge History...', 2002). If you understand this, then, please, edit my text, just do me a favour (I asked you about it 100 times before), because English is not my native language, so you would render the text certainly in the manner, that no one reader would ever imply that German 'Tonart und Tonalität in der älteren Musik' I tend to translate as 'All possible systematic arrangement of pitches' (as you might understand it). Olorulus (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this is perfectly true, of course. It is not a matter of correctly rendering it in English ("pitch system" is a perfectly reasonable translation of Tonart, for example—there is nothing in your translation to correct). Rather, it is a question of providing a source that verifies all of this. Otherwise, it is just your interpretation, or mine. This is Original Research.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your edits of my modest contribution. But... there is no one 'source, that verifies all of this'. To do so, we should devote much more space in the article to exemplification of German noun 'Tonart' vs. English 'Mode/Tonality' fork, e.g., by giving alternative English translations (sometimes 'mode', sometimes 'tonality') of German primary and secondary sources, side by side. The same is true for adjective 'tonal': I mean, 'Tonartentyp' is sometimes translated as 'modal type', sometimes as 'tonal type'. So... please consider the fact that such 'verifications' would make the material of 'Tonality' article complicated for an average reader of WP and would seriously (due to citations) extend its size. Do you really want this? Olorulus (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is precisely the point. In English, as in the parallel German and French examples, the word "tonal" refers back to the concept of "tone". As a result, it becomes necessary to take into account the fact that such expressions as "tonal relation" may refer in this context simply to the acoustical relationship of (for example) the 23rd to the 11th overtones of a common fundamental. When we move from the relative precision of such arithmetic relationships to the less precise realm of mere language … well, you must see what I mean. "Tonality" at this point becomes meaningless. I do not think that the purpose of an article like this is to explain to the reader that the term is in fact meaningless.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  No no, the point which I touched has nothing to do with acoustical/arithmetical meanings of 'tone'. The problem which is not a bit 'phanthom' nor 'meaningless' and widely practiced in the English-speaking musicology is what Sarah Fuller clearly defined in the Judd's collection of articles 1998: "In English, the adjective 'tonal' carries weighly associations of hierarchy in which one pitch or sonority dominates over others and controls scale configuration or matrices of relationships" (see p.61). In German, however, 'Tonartentyp' (which is rendered often as 'tonal type') doesn't necessarily contain this 'hierarchic' connotation. This is my point. And this is not to exemplify in an WP article with one source. Olorulus (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are certainly wrong if you believe that the word "tonal" in English carries only an association of hierarchy. Certainly it can (as your citation from Fuller asserts), but whether or not this association is intended depends on context. The expression "tonal relation" is a good example since it is often used to describe the relationships amongst notes in a twelve-tone row, or amongst notes in an atonal musical context generally.  As for translating the German Tonart, this is indeed problematic. One alternative English translation, particularly used in discussions of modal theory, is "melody type".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another example to consider is the influential book of Hermelink's 'Dispositiones modorum. Tonarten...', the matter of which is clearly polyphonic incarnation of modus (this should be English mode, isn't it?). Now consider that Powers (and many his successors) render 'Tonartentyp' as tonal [type] meaning combination of uncorrelated modal types and tonal categories in an early '16th century tonality'. You cannot ignore this trend. I don't really think that this meaning is really marginal. To my view, on the contrary, it becomes more and more popular in the English-speaking musicology. Olorulus (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

text:  PS. Certainly I heard 'tonal relation' word combination. But I'm not sure that 'tonal type', 'tonal coherence', 'tonal structure' -- terms widely represented in modern English-speaking literature -- are in the same 'epistemological' row where 'tonal relations' reside. Olorulus (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all well and good, but aren't we losing sight of something rather important here? Is this article really meant to be explaining developments and debates in musicology, or is it meant to explain the basics of what tonality (and not "tonal" this and "tonal" that) actually is supposed to be? Consider the poor innocent reader who arrives at this article because he hopes to learn what the term means, and instead finds himself caught up in a swirling storm of terminological distinctions and disagreements.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right. That's why I placed 'my' section at the very bottom of the article, for those curious readers who are interested not only in the music of the 'common-practice era'. 06:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

text:  PS. Btw, 'tonal relations' is a translation of Tonbeziehungen, while 'tonal type' is from Tonartentyp (there is no 'Tontyp'). Do you see the difference? Olorulus (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to be either blind or ignorant of German not to see the difference. However, it is important to realize that in English the expression "tonal relations" is not used exclusively for translating German. This can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings about the meaning of the English adjective "tonal", which need not have anything to do with "tonality". Do you not see the difference?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Tonal relations' was your example, not mine. This is obviously not from the 'epistemological row' shown above in this Talk (btw, you can add to word combinations 'tonal markers' and 'tonal focus' widely used by musicologists studying 'extended' tonality), nor it belongs to the context of the article 'Tonality', nor to the prevailed meaning of an adjective 'tonal' which is described by a recognized scholar of the early music, Prof. Fuller (see her citation above). But if you find the context of the discussed section still unclear, please, add your 'tonal relations' and explain it in your native language, to avoid confusing. You would do it definitely better than I can. Olorulus (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for confirming 'Tonart' / 'Tonalität' different meanings 

message: Define central triad.  Is it the same as the tonic triad?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:BD88:CCEF:1D4:9744 (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Triad