Talk:Tetrachord

message: Only in classical western music does the tetrachord have to be diatonic. As the theory comes from the ancient Greeks, and they used chromatic and enharmonic tetrachords as well as diatonic ones, perhaps this should be changed and expanded. Gareth Hughes 12:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chromatic & enharmonic

message: I was surprised to discover that the this article and Genus (music) seem to be mutually oblivious of each other. I think that the material covered in Genus can be incorporated here. Tetrachord is a more general topic, and the structure of this article is a pretty good framework into which the other material can fit. - Rainwarrior 07:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I don't feel comfortable carrying out the merge...do you want to do it?  Cazort (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tetrachord is more the selection of notes, and genus more of tuning.  They're not really the same.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.48.136 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Genus (music) 

message: The article uses the terms "diatonic" and "chromatic". They are 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 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diatonic and chromatic

message: What does the ibid refer to at the end of the section Pythagorean tunings? Rigaudon (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Ibid., Citation, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Hyacinth (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibid 

message: Several of the musical examples in the article would need correction:
* Two of the three examples of ancient Greek tetrachords should be renamed, Dorian_tetrachord.png as Phrygian, and Phrygian as Dorian. The captions of the examples have been corrected.
* The labels ---, --- and --- are somewhat puzzling. First of all, in Schenkerian analysis,  denotes the tonic; but here? Second, the fact that some of these figures have the  sign appears to indicate that these degrees are 'altered', from which one might deduce that the normal, 'unaltered' version is the Lydian tetrachord. In Greek theory, however, if any tetrachord could be considered the norm, it would be the Dorian tetrachord...
* Also, why are these examples showing descending tetrachords, while the text at the left describes ascending tetrachords? (I don't mean that this is wrong, but doesn't it need a word of explanation?)
* The example of the "Descending tetrachord in the modern B Locrian" should probably have three flats in the signature. "B" should perhaps be read as "B". And what is a "Locrian tetrachord"? At least, there is none mentioned in the text. And the expression "Upper minor tetrachord" given as alternative name is not really documented in music theory.
* The example of the "Phrygian progression" refers to a "Classical music blog", the address of which is http://classicalmusicblog.com. This probably is not a very reliable source; it is anonymous (searching indicate that the author is Roni Alec Liebenson, a young Israeli composer of Russian origin); it describes the progression as a monodic tetrachord and proposes various harmonizations (among which the one proposed here, but not in the same key), with a few Baroque examples. 
* The sams example is also given in the Cadence (music) article, to which it refers, but it does not correspond to the definition of the Phrygian half cadence given there. See also Descending tetrachord and Andalusian cadence.
The necessary corrections should better be made by the author of the examples.
Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that "Descending tetrachord in the modern B Locrian" probably refers to the modern Locrian scale. I still don't see why this scale should include a "descending tetrachord". "Upper minor" actually is defined at the left of the example, but obviously does not correspond to this "Locrian tetrachord". Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical examples 

message: Again, 70.115.48.136, you'll excuse me to doubt Dupré's course of organ improvisation to be a reliable source on musical forms. You mention two, complaint and litany, which are quoted neither in the New Grove Online, nor in any of the French or German dictionaries that I know. I have taught Music history and Music theory at University level for more than 40 years without ever encountering such terms – nor works claiming to be composed in such forms. Could you at least quote some examples? I must confess not having read Dupré's Cours d'improvisation; he certainly was a fantastic organist and improviser, but it never occured to me to consider him an authority in music theory (nor, for that matter, on Indian music). Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compositional forms 

message: Quote from last sentence:
:"It literally means four strings, originally in reference to harp-like instruments such as the lyre or the kithara, with the implicit understanding that the four strings must be contiguous."
What does this mean? In my understanding, four contiguous strings = 1 long piece of string, which is probably not what is meant. Is it something to do with pitches or tuning? MinorProphet (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: A: When it's a tetrachord. Perhaps something could be added to the article to this effect. MinorProphet (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: "a tetrachord (Greek: τετράχορδoν, Latin: tetrachordum) is a series of three smaller intervals that span the interval of a perfect fourth, a 4:3 frequency proportion. In modern usage a tetrachord is any four-note segment of a scale or tone row, not necessarily related to a particular system of tuning." That is what it currently says in the lede. Is this not sufficient?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q: When is a chord not a chord? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tetrachord. 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/20150618200916/http://www.docs.solfege.org/3.21/C/scales/dha.html to http://www.docs.solfege.org/3.21/C/scales/dha.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110115142924/http://www.nupress.neu.edu/ to http://www.nupress.neu.edu/
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) 03:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article starts at the top by saying a tetrachord traditionally spans a perfect fourth. However, the history 
section following immediately gives examples which span a perfect fifth (A-E). No where is it explicitly stated if in fact the ancient Greek tetrachord had a larger span. This discrepancy leaves the reader bewildered. Was the fourth comment in the introduction incorrect, or is the examples incorrect, or are they both correct and the Ancient Greek tetrachord is an exception to the usual fourth?
:Where did you find examples spanning a perfect fifth? Can you be more specific? And sign your messages? And add them at the bottom of the page, so as to respect chronology? Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reference to an interval of a fifth anywhere in the article. If you look a little more carefully at the examples in the History section, you will see that the notes from A to E are in descending order: A–G = whole tone, G–F = whole tone, and F–E = semitone. Together, these come to a perfect fourth. Greek theorists often (by no means always) used descending order, and this is often done also by modern theorists when describing the Greek system. Personally, I don't think this is a good idea, because it easily leads to exactly the confusion found here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presentation (looks) inconsistent