Talk:Diatonic scale

message: I have now added a lot of older, and also more recent material, to an archive (see above). A new article has been set up, partly to deal with issues of terminology that have arisen here . Discussion about application of the terms diatonic and chromatic, as applied to intervals or to anything else, is best conducted in the context of that article. I suggest that we now discontinue any such general debate here (and at Talk:Interval (music), Talk:Diminished seventh, etc.), and confine it to Talk:Diatonic and chromatic. – Noetica♬ Talk 02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving, and [[Diatonic and chromatic]] now established

message: It's Ti, wtf? Ti, a drink with jam and bread.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the North American English I learned at my mother's knee, and other joints, the solfege of a Major scale is "Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti Do." I assume "Si" is used in other idioms. I believe the 5th scale degree is "Sol" everywhere, not "So" ...   attention needed here from someone who actually knows. __Just plain Bill 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Si? 

message: Four others (ie all but Locrian) also have either major or minor opening triads. The circle of fifths arguments needs explicating; there's something extremely interesting and necessary about tonality that can't be dismissed with cultural relativity and needs illuminating technically as far as pos...
Sean McHugh 02 (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please elaborate on the key question of why Ionian and Aeolian (C & A scales) were selected

message: It is important to make clear, in the introduction, the concept of "maximally separated" half steps, so that no layman could think (not even for a moment) that this means "separated by 5 whole steps". 
This is what I tried to do in my last edit. Notice that the definition given in the first sentence of the previous version of the intro was strongly misleading. The concept was better (but not clearly enough, IMO) explained only in the next sentences.
I am not saying that my edit is perfect, but at least now everyone should be able to understand, and the first sentence is a perfect definition with no ambiguity. The concept of "maximum separation" of the half steps is tricky. Either we explain it clearly, or we just avoid it altogether. If you wish to further simplify the intro, you can safely delete the sentence referring to it, because in my edit this concept is not anymore presented as the definition of the diatonic scale, but as a consequence of it, in a separate sentence. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximally separated half steps 

message: The article mentions "the three major scales (Ionian, Lydian, and Mixolydian)" and "the three minor scales (Dorian, Phrygian, and Aeolian)" and Locrian scales.  I don't see in the article or another article any explanation of this classification of the diatonic scales.  I don't see that 'major' and 'minor' are applied to Lydian, Mixolydian, Dorian, or Phrygian elsewhere.  If there is such a classification and it is mentioned here, it needs to be explained.  Thank you.CountMacula (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dorian (II), Phrygian (III), and Aeolian (VI) modes have a minor triad on the tonic in common, and the Ionian (I), Lydian (IV), and Mixolydian (V) have a major triad on the tonic in common. The Locrian mode (VII) is omitted because instead of a major or minor triad on the tonic it has a diminished triad. Hyacinth (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, and I see that the article now reflects that.CountMacula (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three? major scales and three? minor scales? 

message: Here is the scale on this page using the score tag. Perhaps more accessible than midi/png files.
\relative c' { c d e f g a b c\fermata }
ColinKinloch (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Score notation

message: Why the last column heading reads "Example"? In the context of this article, for each Mode, there is only one possibility of pitch class "sequencing".--Connection (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: These modes could be created on other notes by the use of accidentals. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Most appreciated. What I want to clarify is that using accidentals will be a different "Tonic relative to major scale"? Considering first row, Major scale on C is unique, on D is unique, and so forth... Eventually on C# is also unique. Thank you in advance.--Connection (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modes Table 

message: I summarize here my revisions of today and my justifications. I am perfectly aware that my changes require references. I am not very good at doing this, because I don't usually read elementary textbooks on music theory, and I hope that others will add references – I am quite sure that they can be found. In addition, my revisions remain open to improvements.
* Added (whole tone) and (semitone) after whole step and half step.
* Removed the mention of the Pythagorean tuning in the lede: (a) Pythagorean tuning is a property neither of the diatonic scale, nor of the cycle of fifths (which could also be formed of tempered fifths); (b) until recently, musical instruments always were tuned by ear, in any tuning or temperament; (c) the diffusion of the diatonic scale certainly is not a consequence of its being in Pythagorean tuning.
* Changed "piano keyboard" in "musical keyboard" and "white keys" in "lower (white) keys": they are not always white.
* "Western music" instead of "Western harmony"; from the "Middle Ages" instead of "Renaissance".
* Removed "diatonic functionality": this kind of functionality is not a property of the diatonic scale, but rather of tonality. See also Talk:Function_(music).
* Moved the second paragraph of the section "History" to a subsection "Middle Ages".
* Provided an explanation of the relation between the four medieval modes and the seven scales.
* Added a subsection "Renaissance", with details of the reform by Glarean. I am aware that Glarean's twelve scales can be explained otherwise, but the explanation given here certainly is one of the correct explanations. I have no other reference than Glarean's treatise itself, but I understand that WP does not like first-hand sources.
* Added a subsection "Modern" (which might not be the best term – it'll have to do for now). Details on the origin of common practice tonality really don't belong here: I kept this subsection minimal.
* Simplified the "Theory" section on two essential points:
:– Connecting the description of transpositions to Glarean's theory.
:– Removing the somewhat puzzling idea that the keyboard arrangement could simplify the system of key signatures, and the even more puzzling statement that it "allows the adjacent positioning of most of the diatonic whole-steps" (?).
* Suppressed the "Analysis" section and moved its (modified) content to "Theory": this had nothing to do with analysis.
* I changed the "mode" subsection in accordance with my conviction that it is improper to call "mode" what is merely a scale.
* What is described as "properties" of diatonic scales often derive from the fact that our theory is conceived for them; I tried to show that without changing too much...
* I drastically reduced the mentions of theories by David Rothenberg, Balzano and Erv Wilson, and Diatonic set theory, which do not really concern diatonic scales properly speaking. Links to the specific articles are all that is needed. For the same reason I removed the infobox in the lede, which concerned properties that do not belong to diatonic scales properly speaking.
In addition to the above,
* The mention of "syntonic commas" in the caption of the second figure (and the corresponding "+" in the notation) remains unclear. The syntonic commas describe the difference between Pythagoran tuning and just intonation, but the caption does not suggest this comparison. Both examples could be moved to the section on tuning – where I added a comment on the notes differing by a syntonic comma.
* I am not sure that the denominations of the degrees in the major scale (tonic, supertonic, mediant, etc.) belongs here: it does not describe properties of the diatonic scales, but of tonality itself.
* The reference to "tetrachords" should be emended. The notion, in Diatonic_and_chromatic#Diatonic_scales, that medieval theorists described diatonic scales in terms of Greek tetrachords is merely wrong. Correcting that will have to remain for later.
— Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions of the article 

message: How to use a musical scale on Bass 41.190.2.209 (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: In the third paragraph, the phrase “the white notes” bothers me. I would think a better phrasing would be “the notes on the white keys,” but I don’t feel confident enough to make the change myself. MozzieM (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed this into "white-key notes", in the hope that it makes better sense. Some might argue that the white keys ain't always white, but I leave it to them to do better. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  White notes?