Talk:Major scale

message: Noticed something strange in the tables listing the number of accidentals in a given key. The notes E# and Cb are mentioned although no such notes exist in music. Siddharth Prabhu 08:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: E# and Cb do exist; they are enharmonic spellings of F and B natural. __Just plain Bill 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Analyzing sharps and flats

message: Do any of you know the most improved major scale fingerings for 2 octaves?? If you use a piano book that tells you the fingerings, it will probably use the same fingering for F, C, G, D, A, and E major scales for the left hand, but this really isn't a good fingering if you're playing for more than one octave. According to one Internet site at http://www.northern.edu/wieland/piano/majscal.htm, there will be a "little secret" page if you follow the links correctly, giving you more improved fingerings for the G, D, A, and F major scales, which are certainly better if playing for more than one octave. Here are the fingerings for all 12 major scales, 2 octaves:
C and E major:
*RH 123-1234-123-1234-5
*LH 5-4321-321-4321-321
G major:
*RH 123-1234-123-1234-5
*LH 321-4321-321-321-32
F major:
*RH 1234-123-1234-123-4
*LH 321-4321-321-4321-2
D major:
*RH 123-1234-123-1234-5
*LH 21-4321-321-4321-32
B flat major:
*RH 2-123-1234-123-1234
*LH 321-4321-321-4321-2
A major:
*RH 123-1234-123-1234-5
*LH 21-321-4321-321-432
E flat major:
*RH 2-1234-123-1234-123
*LH 321-4321-321-4321-2
A flat major:
*RH 23-123-1234-123-123
*LH 321-4231-321-4321-2
B major:
*RH 123-1234-123-1234-5
*LH 4-321-4321-321-4321
D flat major:
*RH 23-1234-123-1234-12
*LH 321-4321-321-4321-2
F# or G flat major:
*RH 234-123-1234-123-12
*LH 4231-321-4321-321-2
:: If you're learning scales for the first time, you're better off learning mute fingering for all your scales. It'll help you down the track. Dysprosia 23:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You use the fingering for C major for all scales. Dysprosia 00:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that can be kind of awkward because of the posture of the thumb and the keyboard layout. Georgia guy 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major scale fingerings for the keyboard 

message: Should it be C-major, C Major or C major.  I am slightly confused...
Fatboy06 21:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never capitalize "major" for purposes of this encyclopedia. Whether it's hyphenated depends on whether it's being used as an adjective ("C-major scale") or a noun ("The piece is in C major"). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital letters? 

message: Georgia guy, don't revert just because you don't have a font with sharp and flat signs. Wikipedia policy is to use correct Unicode characters. —Keenan Pepper 21:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#Flats and sharps. You can bring it up on the talk page there. —Keenan Pepper 23:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode sharp and flat signs (versus number sign and lowercase b) 

message: This section strikes me as somewhat meaningless, at least the way in which it's worded.
"The major scale may predominate because of its unique harmonic properties. It allows:
three-part major or minor chords, both stable and consonant, on every scale degree but the seventh"
Every mode allows that.  The difference is which degree the diminished (unstable) chord falls on.
"a diminished fifth within the seventh chord built on the fifth degree, the dominant 
motion by a minor second from the leading tone to the tonic"''
The first part of this statement (the V7 chord, and its unmentioned tritone resolution) is the only real vital characteristic, the most distinguishing feature of Major mode.  Lydian also features a an identical leading tone to the tonic, as do Phrygian and Locrian from above (scale degree II to I).
"root motion by perfect fifths, the strongest root motion, from nearly every degree in either direction, the two exceptions being up a perfect fifth from the seventh degree, and down a perfect fifth from the fourth degree"
Again, this happens in all modes, the difference being where that one exception occurs.
"the first six notes of the harmonic series provide a consonant major chord, the fourth to sixth of which form a major triad, and seven of the nine notes between the 8th and 16th harmonics (the 7th and 15th overtones) are notes in the major scale in just intonation"
The first ten notes of the harmonic series are all in Mixolydian mode, without having to skip a partial.  If using the harmonic series as a determiner for why a particular mode predominates, Mixolydian is the strongest, not Major/Ionian.
And the most important characteristic of Major/Ionian was not mentioned: it is the only mode which has major chords for scale degrees I, IV, and V.  (Likewise Minor/Aeolian is the only one with minor chords for scale degrees i, iv, and v.  Because in these modes the tonic, dominant, and sub-dominant are all of the same quality, the mood is not affected when shifting between these stable scale degrees.)
I suggest that this section be altered to include only the unique characteristics of Major/Ionian mode and how it functions, and should not include speculations as to why this mode predominates using reasons which point to other modes.
Phoebus 14:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmonic Properties 

message: Sorry to intrude in a technical discussion here, but I'm just a middle-aged guy who played cello in jr. and sr. high school -- never understood anything about music theory -- but have continued to enjoy listening to classical music.  Late in life (hopefully, not too late!) I've realized that I would like to understand how music works, how different senses of sound convey different meanings (or not, I realize that these are undoubtedly culture-bound interpreations?), and how the theoretical underpinnings of music become the way in which to apprehend different styles/modes of composition.
But, looking at this article, and other related Wikipedia articles about basic concepts in music, I find myself totally at sea simply reading the first three or four sentences.  (See below for a good example of impenetrable introduction, unless one already knows what the topic is about.)
Would it be possible for someone musically talented to provide introductory statements for Wikipedia articles on basic musical concepts that give the interested, but ignorant, layperson a chance to understand what each concept is actually about not in theory but in hearing (perhaps with examples, such "in Beethoven's 5th one can hear the xxxx," of "The Beatles' "Michelle" is a good example of how xxxxx.")
Thanks in advance for any help you all can give to the well-meaning but musically poorly-educated masses.
Uoguma 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion for a layperson 

message: It seems to me that these mnemonics are really about memorizing the order of accidentals in a key signature, and don't have much to do with major scales. I propose having exactly one mnemonic (one each for flats and sharps) in the key signature article, and eliminating them here. If everybody wants to post their favorite (which I oppose, but I know I'll lose on this), they should go in a separate article like Key signature mnemonics. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do the mnemonics really belong here? 

message: The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with "chromatic", is the cause of serious uncertainties at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we 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 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diatonic and chromatic

message: There's a lot of second-person prescriptive language in the article, which I have started to clean up, doing some wikification at the same time. 
In the process, I'm taking out " to the C major scale. " and replacing it with a neater audio link to an ascending-only scale. If someone wants to put that earlier file in a more accessible spot in the commons, we can easily go back to the up-and-down audio clip to match the written scale just below it. __Just plain Bill 22:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cleanup in progress 

message: I will have to dig up some references, but I think I can do that without too much trouble. In the meantime I present these ideas for your inspection (it will need some formatting, but isn't intended to replace the entire article):
To the introduction: 
"In music theory, the major scale is one of the diatonic scales. It is made up of seven distinct notes, plus an eighth which duplicates the first an octave higher. The simplest major scale to write or play on a keyboard is C major, which is the only major scale to not require sharps or flats, and therefore requires only the white notes of the keyboard to be played."
(keep the image of scale and recording, as already existing)
The changes I have made here are to remove the references to the Ionian mode and the Solfege system, both of which I believe would work better further on in the article. 
To the Structure section:
"A major scale may be seen as two identical tetrachords, each consisting of two whole tones followed by a semitone, separated by a whole tone. The resulting scale has the same pattern of intervals between scale degrees as the Ionian mode:
whole tone, whole tone, semitone, whole tone, whole tone, whole tone, semitone."
(I like the image showing the pattern of whole tones and semitones, but perhaps it could have the roman numerals underneath the notes to help relate them to the next section?).
The changes I made to this section are fairly large: I rephrased the language to talk about whole tones and semitones rather than whole steps and half steps, but that's just my personal preference and may not be compliant with the general usage on Wikipedia. I liked the explanation of structure using tetrachords, but I'm not an expert on them. After reading the article on tetrachords perhaps it would be easier to call them Lydian tetrachords? This would avoid the involved details about the exact relationships between whole tones and semitones, which is given in the image. I also moved the reference to the Ionian mode from the introduction to here.
To the Named scale degrees section:
I like it the way it is, but perhaps it could also be presented as a table, and which could then easily include the Solfege names as well?
Regarding key signatures:
This section is necessary as the major key article redirects to here, but I propose that the two existing sections regarding major and minor keys be merged into one:
"Key signatures are used to enable a major scale to begin on any note (as opposed to just C) by ensuring that the essential pattern of whole tones and semitones between degrees of the scale is maintained. They consist of sharps or flats placed at the beginning of each line, which raise or lower the pitch of their respective notes by one semitone accordingly. They define the key of a piece.
Accidentals can also be used for this purpose within a score.
Sharp key signatures have between one and seven sharps, applied in this order: F C G D A E B. The key note or tonic is immediately above the last sharp in the signature. For example, one sharp (F♯) in the key signature of a piece in a major key indicates the key of G major, as G is the note following F♯.
(existing code box showing 'sharp' keys - perhaps this could be replaced with an image showing them graphically?)
This table shows that each scale starting on the fifth scale degree of the previous scale has one new sharp, added in the order given above. See Circle of Fifths.
Flat key signatures consist of one to seven flats, applied in this order: B E A D G C F. This, incidentally, is the same as the order of sharps, but reversed. The major scale with one flat is F major. In all other flat major scales, the tonic or key note is indicated by the second to last flat. In the major key with four flats, for example, the penultimate flat is A♭, indicating a key of A♭ major."
(existing code box showing 'flat' keys - perhaps this could be replaced with an image showing them graphically?).
In this case each new scale starts a fifth below (or a fourth above) the previous one."
The Circle of Fifths Section:
This appears to be a summarised version of the circle of fifths page. Is it really needed?
The Harmonic Properties section:
I believe that this may be pretty much original research. Phoebus gives a very thorough analysis of it above. Myself, I think it just happened to catch on, although this isn't very scholarly. If you look at Renaissance polyphony, you can see that they were tending to write in a manner that encouraged the development of tonality - the raising of the leading note at cadences, avoidance of tritones in the lydian mode with the B flat, which effectively created the Ionian mode, and perhaps also the 4-3 cadence foreshadowed the tonal V-I candence. I don't believe that in 1600, some genius hit upon the idea of writing in the Ionian mode because of the harmonic series.
Back to the article, I think that this section can be removed.
And then all that leaves is the referencing, which should be fun.Cosmicpanda (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  my proposed changes: 

message: There is an audio example included in this article. Hyacinth (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested audio

message: Pretty nice job, editors.  I understand most of this, but I'm not good enough to edit the subject, alas.  A couple of thoughts:  "Structure" talks about tetrachords, but the pic has whole step/half step.  And steps are easy enough to understand, too.  I don't think starting with steps in scales and then going deeper into tetrachords is such a bad idea.  Scale degrees is just dumped on the page with no explanation whatsoever (?).  And then there's Harmonic Properties.... I think overall it's a pretty good job, though, as I said. Jjdon (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Feedback 

message: The statement in the head paragraph that the simplest major scale to play on the piano is C major seems a bit too unsophisticated and piano-centric.  It's true many western people do play piano, but is it becoming of a encyclopedia article to speak in such simple terms?
Baumgaertner (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote the article: "The simplest major scale to write or play on the piano is C major, the only major scale not to require sharps or flats, using only the white keys on the piano keyboard". Are you claiming that it is ethnocentric because it mentions the piano? Hyacinth (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence mentioning the piano comes after other more technical descriptions of the major scale. Why would it not be "becoming of an encyclopedia" to consider various possible readers, with various ways of coming at the subject? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  too simple of an explanation in head paragraph 

message: There is a difference between the Major Scale and the Ionian mode. They are the same construct but the nomenclature is different for a reason. The reason needs to be told!
What musical period did the Major scale come into being and for what purpose? What other purposes were the major scale adapted for? Why did music gravitate away from the modes to the major and minor scales?
All I know is (1) that the Major scale was probably developed during the common practice period after music had gone somewhat tonal. So the major scale most certainly carried the concept of a tonic. (2) The major/minor scales also found favor because the ternary chords built on them were pretty great systems.
Despite extensive research on the web, information on the Major scale origin is completely lacking without any specific details. It will take a music theory expert who has read off-web to answer the questions above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrotSalad (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no difference whatever between the Major scale and the scale of the Ionian mode. The reason for the difference in nomenclature has more to do with the properties of modes generally. Properly speaking, the Ionian mode is defined by (1) a range limited to one octave above the tonic (or "final"), plus one added note below, (2) a "tenor" or "reciting tone" on the fifth scale degree, which functions as an important center for melodic motion, and (3) a hierarchy of melodic cadencing points amongst the other scale degrees. The major scale, by contrast, is an abstraction of the notes used in a (tonal) composition, whose actual deployment may cover seven octaves or so, depending on the forces employed. The fifth scale degree indeed has an important polar function in relation to the tonic, but it is not particularly important (and certainly not in a fixed octave related to an equally fixed "final") as a structural center for the creation of melodies. This function is a harmonic one, and is independent of actual registral position (for example, in the Ionian mode, the reciting tone is the perfect fifth above the final; in a major key, the dominant is the fifth scale degree, whether it appears above or below an instance of the tonic in any particular place, and since neither tonic nor dominant is fixed to one register, the relationship may as well be expressed by compound intervals as simple ones. This is even more true for the remaining scale degrees. I sum, the scales are identical, but the difference in terminology indicates a difference in the contexts in which they are found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is true that there is no difference between the intervals that make up a major scale and the those of an Ionian mode, but as the elaboration above suggests (at least to me) it is incorrect to say that they are the same thing. The major scale is a construct of tonal music and has harmonic implications. The Ionian mode is a construct of pre-tonal music that lacked polyphony. Modes do not have a harmonic implication. While it is worth noting in the article that a major scale and the Ionian mode contain the same notes, I think the article is incorrect when it says (in the lead sentence no less) that they are the same. They may be effectively the same to (for example) a guitar player learning scales/modes to increase their improvisational vocabulary, but they are different things used for different purposes when used for theoretical analysis (which is where both of these constructs originate). Alas, I feel like I should include citations galore for this. Maybe I'll hunt through some books later today.... SlubGlub (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the Ionian mode was cooked up in 1547 by Glareanus, it is incorrect to say that it is "a construct of pre-tonal music that lacked polyphony". We could quibble about what exactly "tonality" is and whether it could be said to have existed already in Glareanus's time, but there is absolutely not question at all that music in the mid-16th-century possessed polyphony. Similarly, modes do in fact have harmonic implications, but again that depends a bit on how we define the word "harmony". I think I made plain three years ago that there are differences, and what those differences are.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

text:  Furthermore, I'd add that, at least in pre-tonal music, the Ionian mode was never equal tempered and that for probably more than 200 years now, the major scale is almost always equal tempered. Therefore, they aren't usually the same notes even. Additionally, modes could not be transposed both because the tone system was generally not equal tempered and because there was no way to notate what we now think of as black notes on the keyboard (except for Bb). The possibility of transposition into 12 different keys, on the other hand, is central to the concept of a scale in tonal music. SlubGlub (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First, tempering has little or nothing to do with the theory of modes or of tonality. Second, modes can be and were transposed, and this too has nothing to do with the system of tuning in use. The notation of "black notes" besides B dates back to the Ancient Greeks, and where the notation of chant is concerned, this goes as far back as the origins of chant theory. I would not dispute your assertion that transposition into 12 different keys is vital to the concept of a scale in tonal music, but Ptolemy already had a system of transposition into 15 different keys in the second century AD, and that system in turn was based on much older schemes of similar nature. Therefore, if what you are trying to say is that transposability differentiates tonal systems from modal ones, I would say you are going to have to come up with some mighty impressive sources before I will be convinced.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  All I was trying to get at with any of this (and I guess I should have just created a new section or something) was that the (previous--I've since changed it) lead sentence was not correct when it indicated that a major scale was the exact same thing as an Ionian mode. I sense agreement on that point, even if some of the reasons I presented are historically or theoretically inaccurate. Broken clocks are correct twice a day and all that, I suppose. SlubGlub (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes, agreed. It is better to lose that confusion from the lede. It requires (and the discussion above requires) close reading—for example, "there is absolutely no difference whatever between the Major scale and the scale of the Ionian mode" (bolding added)—which will not easily be conveyed to the newcomer, no matter how we might rewrite the lede.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Section on Historical Origin 

message: From the point of view of a music novice.  In the text a major is described as a series of eight notes spanning an octave (simplified).  However, the diagram 'C major scale' shows 15 notes 8 ascending and 7 descending.  I suspect this is a rising followed by a falling major (or whatever the musical terms are).  However, it does NOT match the description of a major in the text.  Either a diagram showing 8 notes, or some explanatory text/different diagram label would help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llynglas (talk • contribs) 16:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The description refers to "seven distinct notes". If a note is repeated, it is no longer "distinct". The text also refers cautiously to "an eighth which duplicates the first an octave higher", which is to say that this note, too is not "distinct". Now, although this looks perfectly plain to me, perhaps it could be made clearer for the novice. Do you have a suggestion how this might be done?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just uploaded my simple understanding of a major scale as a diagram,  --ilgiz (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  C major scale diagram 

message: AFAICT the description of the Major System boils down to: Chord roots are on the notes of the Myxolydian (the major scale with a flatted seventh), almost all of them can be either major or minor, diminished chords are avoided and most songs don't use the full system.
This doesn't seem like a very descriptive system.  Given that the Myxolydian isn't the major scale and that the chords may or may not be the same as those built on the major scale, it's also not clear what this is doing here, other than it having the word "major" in its name.
It's certainly true that  a lot of songs build chords on the flatted seventh -- e.g., a G-F-C-G progression -- but that seems worth noting on its own, and maybe not here.
Theory, whether musical or otherwise, exists to make predictions.  If you hear the leading tone on a dominant chord in classical music, there's a very good chance you'll hear the tonic next, and if not a few other possibilities cover most of the actual usage (with the understanding that composers can and will deviate from the rules when it makes musical sense to them).  From the description of the major system, I very little idea what to expect from it.  Something like Space Oddity is fairly unusual harmonically (at least for pop/rock music), and probably deserves its own harmonic analysis rather than being lumped into a system that could cover nearly anything that doesn't use the diminished, whether it's Space Oddity or Louie Louie.
--Dmh (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The "major system" stuff is idiosyncratic, relies on one source,  and does not warrant an expansive section like this complete with laundry lists of songs. It should be removed entirely. See my comments on the minor scale article at . --it's presence does the article a disservice. SlubGlub (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I notice that this same source has apparently scoured the popular-song repertory and managed to find four examples of songs using the major scale (see the end of the article's lede). What next—a comprehensive list of all popular songs in 4/4 time? As far as the Mixolydian stuff is concerned, it sounds suspiciously like George Russell's Lydian chromatic concept turned upside-down. This is not so much about scales as about harmony, which is another reason to regard its presence here with suspicion. Either way, I agree that this section seems to have little or nothing to do with the major scale, and support its deletion (together with that comment in the lede listing four songs that use the major scale).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on the "major system" is now gone, since it seems to have given undue weight to something that may not even belong here. If anyone wants to find a better place for it, the content is still available in the history. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

text:  @Jerome Kohl: Until earlier today, that same source (What To Listen For In Rock by Ken Stephenson) was cited in the Triad article to support this: "Examples of pieces which are based mostly on triads include Buddy Holly's "That'll Be The Day", The Beatles' "Hey Jude", Three Dog Night's "Joy To The World", and Bobby McFerrin's "Don't Worry, Be Happy", each from a successive decade beginning with the fifties." A list of songs in 4/4 time can't be far behind.  It was also cited in the article for "Here Comes The Sun" to state that the song is in a minor key, which is ludicrous. I suspect whoever included that last one misread the source. It was probably doing some analysis (perhaps solid, perhaps questionable) of the bridge that starts with a C major chord and ends on the tonic A major. But whatever, it might be a good idea to look for other articles that site that source and make sure that it is being used to support something useful and informative, and not an unhelpful laundry list of songs that have some non-notable feature or some unusual analysis of questionable value and correctness.  SlubGlub (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your edit summary on the Triad article, but did not realize the same source was at the root of this really stupid example of "sky is blue" documentation. Thanks for pointing this out. It shouldn't be too difficult to hunt out other places where that source is used, though I suppose it is marginally possible that it might actually be used somewhere to support useful observations.… Bwaah-hah-hah-hah-haaah!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major System 

message: The article Diatonic scale, specifically the section saying "Theory", says that a major scale means any scale with a major third above the tonic, as in this sentence:
Using the twelve notes of the chromatic scale, twelve of each of the three major scales (those with a major third/triad: Ionian, Lydian, and Mixolydian),...
This means that all 3 of these scales are major scales. This definitely contradicts what this article says. Georgia guy (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a subtle distinction that needs to be clarified in that article. The seven diatonic scale types (Lydian, Ionian, Mixolydian, Dorian, Aeolian, Phrygian, and Locrian) are often divided into two classes, according to whether the third scale degree lies a major or a minor third above the tonic. By analogy to the major/minor tonal system, the former group (Lydian, Ionian, Mixolydian) are designated "major", and the rest "minor". What is not made clear is that the major scale is not the same as a "major" diatonic mode (with scare-quotes). Thanks for pointing this out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different definition 

message: The section on harmonics and the major scale has been tagged for expert view since 2008 and has been questioned and debated many times here.  Not sure I'm the world's expert on the major scale, but I have been a prof in music theory for half a decade and I could not find anything in the section that either helped elucidate knowledge of the major scale or was supported by citations from mainstream texts.  I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the whole section.  If it is to be replaced, it should have citations to back it up.  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, it looked like a half-baked attempt to resuscitate the old overtone-series claims for the origin of the major scale, without any sources to back it up. It was long overdue for removal, as it must have been terribly confusing for the novice, and infuriating to the expert. Well done, I say.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, although there have been plenty of authors who favored such explanations (especially in the 18th and 19th centuries),  at least for major triads (for example) (though most of them had difficulty rationalizing the entire scale from this principle). Too esoteric for this article. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmonic properties/motion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Major scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140311205933/http://www.musicstudents.com/archive01/093.html to http://www.musicstudents.com/archive01/093.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What do people think of the diagram at the very top with the white and black keys (File:MajorScales.svg)? My instinct is to delete it. In the very least, I think it's too small to read. Squandermania (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote to kill it. Not helpful to readers. Same with the Minor scale equivalent. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram at the top 

message: Just under the "Seventh chord qualities" heading, I see what appears to be an error message stating that it is "Unable to compile LilyPond input file" followed by roughly 700 lines of what appear to be errors.
I had to look up what LilyPond was, and am not sure why I am seeing this error on Wikipedia?  Is this something I need installed in order to see the example "sheet" music?
Is this something on my system?  I've looked with two different browsers with no change.  My Apologies in advance if it is something on my end, I just don't know what it could be.
Should that section be temporarily removed?  Thanks for any input on this...
AreThree (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unable to compile LilyPond input file