Talk:Degree (music)

message: Can someone please tell me where on the web I could find numerals with carets above, as in the examples in the "Scale Degree" section? Thanks! --Dveej 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen that either.  Perhaps it should be removed, since it has been a long time since you asked for a reference. Pfly 08:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed? What the first commenter wanted was easily downloadable images of these, not a reference.  —Wahoofive (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sorry, misread, too much wikipedia reading.Pfly 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Carets

message: can scale degrees help identify scales?durp
if not, is there anything that can?durp
:Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks!
:The number of scale degrees can help identify scales. For example a scale with only five degrees is a pentatonic scale. See Scale (music). Hyacinth 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scales & scale degrees

message: Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional citations

message: The subdominant is named for being the same interval below the tonic (a fifth) that the dominant is above the tonic. Although the subdominant happens to be the degree just below the dominant, it was not named for being such. To support this, let's turn to the submediant.
The mediant is the third degree. Let's first assume that the subdominant was named for being the degree just below the dominant, and then find out if the submediant makes sense under this assumption. The degree just below the mediant (the third degree) is the second degree, and the submediant is the sixth. Not the same.
Now let's assume the subdominant was named for being the interval below the tonic that the dominant is above the tonic. Then the submediant would be the degree a third below the tonic. The degree a third below the tonic is the sixth degree, and the submediant is the sixth. The same! See how much sense the submediant makes for those who understand the true reason the subdominant is called subdominant?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If what you say regarding the subdominant is true it should be easy to find a source. Hyacinth (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraphs in this section of the talk page support that it's true. What faulty info am I assuming here?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You really don't need a source for this - it's like "Paris is the capital of France", everybody knows it. However, [s.n.] (1958) Rudiments and Theory of Music, London: Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music, page 58: "Subdominant (the lower Dominant) is so named because it is the same distance below the Tonic as the Dominant is above – not because it is the note below the Dominant." Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdominant was named 

message: The article contains this puzzling statement:
:The degrees of the traditional major and minor scales may be identified several ways:
:[...]
:the diatonic mode which starts on the degree, and contains all the notes in the key
If somebody could explain what this is supposed to mean, I'd be delighted. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diatonic mode ?!? 

message: Roman numerals are assigned to scale degrees in first sidebox diagram of the article. These numerals are currently shown in upper and lower case, reflecting the major/minor quality of their associated triad chords (i.e. harmonisation). Thus they are not, strictly speaking, a descriptive of the scale but are, rather, descriptive of the harmonised scale (specifically in this case the major scale). 
I also observe that the associated citation/reference for the diagram notes that the reference cited is "shown all upper case" which is also inconsistent with the use of both cases, as in the diagram.
I suggest the diagram be clarified by either
1. simply noting in digram description that the case of the scale degree reflects associated harmonisation for the major scale OR 
2. Remove the harmonisations of each degree and present all the numerals in upper case as, one might assume, is actually supported by the citation. RichardJ Christie (talk)
:I had not seen this comment by @RichardJ Christie in its own time, but I must say that the recent modification by @Jbeans makes things worse, in that it says that "lower case indicates minor scale, upper case, major scale", while the scale shown is the major one in any case. And the second phrase in the lead, "Degrees are useful for indicating the size of intervals and chords, and whether they are major or minor", makes it even worse if possible, mistaking the degrees themselves (which do not and cannot indicate the nature of the chords) for their Roman numerals (which might indeed indicate the form of the triads). The reference to Jonas' Introduction to the Theory of Heinrich Schenker remains misleading, for the musical example there shows all Roman numerals in upper case (as is the usage of many Schenkerian theorists and analysts). 
:I think that the example urgently needs to be redrawn, if possible by its original author (@Hyacinth), showing only the scale (possibly with accidentals in parentheses, so that the scale would be both major and some type of minor), with Roman numerals all in upper case. The (American?) usage of lower case numerals (and of ° to denote a diminished fifth chord) could be mentioned later in the article, with references to textbooks suggesting it, but also refering to other books that suggest upper case numerals everywhere. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @Hucbald.SaintAmand: I defer to your expertise, and will remove the edit you mentioned; indeed, I was attempting here to interpret the application of Roman numerals per the sentence you mentioned.//Jbeans (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman numeral notation 

message: The article also contains this puzzling statement:
:The degrees of the traditional major and minor scales may be identified several ways:
:* the first, second, (major or minor) third, fourth, fifth, major or minor sixth, and major or minor seventh degrees of the scale;
This confusion may arise from the fact that, in English, numbering the degrees (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh) and describing the intervals (unison, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh) are done with the same terms (the only difference being between "first" and "unison"). In French the terms are different: premier, deuxième, troisième, etc., for the degrees, and unison, seconde, tierce, etc., for the intervals.
What I mean is this: it is not obvious to me that the third, sixth, or seventh degrees may be "major" or "minor". The third degree may be distant from the first by an interval of a major or minor third, but this does not make it the major or minor third degree: it is the third degree in all cases. (Or else one might have to call it the "second and a half" degree, etc.). In addition, how would one call, say, the second degree of a phrygian mode: the minor second degree? or the fourth degree of a lydian mode: the augmented fourth degree? (What we call the augmented fourth – the interval! – has been termed in the 19th century the major fourth!)
I suspect that this confusion may not be exclusive to WP and that it could be found in many textbooks of music theory. This is one case where I think we should do slightly better than merely give references: we should try to find the good references and reject the ones that maintain the confusion. Would that be considered original research? Or, to ask it otherwise, is it the purpose of WP to advocate the mistakes of poor references?
Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concern here appears to be linguistical or terminological rather than musical. One could argue that a third degree that is green is, "a green third degree," without it being, "the green third degree". Unless you have a source that you can point to or quote which says that scale degrees defy all description, then a single source which does something such as saying that the third degree of the major scale is a major third above the tonic indicates that one may describe scale degrees. Hyacinth (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyacinth, I really think that when we write, say, a "major third", we mean an interval, not a degree. Neither the Major third nor the Minor third articles speak of a degree, or if they do, they name it the "mediant" in both cases. A "blue third" is a more ambiguous term, because it means both a third degree bent down about a quarter tone (from the interval of a major third), and the interval that results from this bending. I do believe that naming a third (or a sixth, or a seventh) degree that is a major or a minor third (or sixth, or seventh) from the tonic a "major" or "minor" third (or sixth or seventh) degree is wrong linguistically, terminologically and music theoretically. But I'll leave that to others more versed in American ... musical terminology. A reference might also settle the matter. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degrees as intervals?