Talk:Diatonic and chromatic/Archive 1

message: ====Sarangi====
I have now done a little snooping around concerning the Sarangi. I had written this, in the section immediately above: "While it is not impossible, there is almost no reason to think that the scale is diatonic in our restricted sense. Same for Sarangi." Well, the article on the Sarangi does appear to be partially right:
On the lowest level are a diatonic row of 9 tarabs and a chromatic row of 15 tarabs, each encompassing a full octave plus 1–3 extra notes above or below.
See the tuning chart at this site:
::sympathetic strings left - top row of pegs:
::1. Sa - c
::2. Re - d
::3. Ga - e
::4. Ma - f
::5. Pa - g
::6. Dha - a
::7. Ni - b
::8. high Sa - c'
::9. high Re - d'
::sympathetic strings right - middle and low rows of pegs:
::1. low Pa - G
::2. low Dha - A
::3. low Ni - B
::4. Sa - c
::5. Re - d
::6. komal Ga - e flat
::7. shuddha Ga - e
::8. shuddha Ma - f
::9. tivra Ma - f sharp
::10. Pa - g
::11. Dha - a
::12. Ni - b
::13. high Sa - c'
::14. high Re - d'
::15. high Ga - e'
The nine-string series indeed turns out to be diatonic in our restricted sense, so now there is a reason to think it. But it is interesting to examine the fifteen-string series, which is not a "chromatic row" in any canonic sense, though Sarangi simply gives a link to the article Chromatic scale, for "chromatic", which would give the reader quite the wrong impression. My point is that such uses in Wikipedia articles on non-Western music are often misleading or at least uninformative, and this is borne out by the fact that one must do pretty far-reaching research of this kind to establish exactly what they mean by diatonic and chromatic.
====Music of Mesopotamia====
It seems that diatonic is indeed used in the restricted sense at that article. New Grove ("Mesopotamia", 8 (ii) Akkadian tuning systems):
The most complicated text is the tuning instruction U.7/80 dating from about 1800 bce or earlier; it convinced scholars that heptatonic diatonic scales must be the correct interpretation of this material (see Gurney, 1968, and 1994; Wulstan, 1968; Kümmel, 1970; and Crocker, 1997). It also demonstrates that the cycle of 5ths was known, and that the scales were named after the interval of a 5th or a 4th that initiated each of the seven tuning procedures (see Kümmel).
(A table follows, in which the Greek modes are overlaid as interpretations of various Mesopotamian "modes"; the hypothesis appears still to be debated.) But even here, because of Wikipedia's general uncertainty about the meaning of diatonic scale, it was necessary to go to New Grove to confirm what was meant. Interesting, by the way, that New Grove uses the wording "heptatonic diatonic scales". What would a non-heptatonic diatonic scale be, if we are working with the restricted sense?
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Diatonic" and "chromatic" in articles on non-Western music: examining two cases

message: It seems that diatonic is indeed used in the restricted sense at that article. New Grove ("Mesopotamia", 8 (ii) Akkadian tuning systems):
The most complicated text is the tuning instruction U.7/80 dating from about 1800 bce or earlier; it convinced scholars that heptatonic diatonic scales must be the correct interpretation of this material (see Gurney, 1968, and 1994; Wulstan, 1968; Kümmel, 1970; and Crocker, 1997). It also demonstrates that the cycle of 5ths was known, and that the scales were named after the interval of a 5th or a 4th that initiated each of the seven tuning procedures (see Kümmel).
(A table follows, in which the Greek modes are overlaid as interpretations of various Mesopotamian "modes"; the hypothesis appears still to be debated.) But even here, because of Wikipedia's general uncertainty about the meaning of diatonic scale, it was necessary to go to New Grove to confirm what was meant. Interesting, by the way, that New Grove uses the wording "heptatonic diatonic scales". What would a non-heptatonic diatonic scale be, if we are working with the restricted sense?
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Music of Mesopotamia]]

message: Ancient disputes, and not continuing with them here
Roivas writes:
Re: Crossier:  why did you post that as a defnition for "diatonic" while knowing there were many other sources that contradicted it?  Or did you not know?--Roivas 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definition No 3 is even less clear.  Do you have any defense before I move it?--Roivas 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further responses to Roivas

message: Editors here will have noticed some animosity between Roivas and me. This is an unfortunate vestige of animosity at other pages. Yesterday I requested that any of this irrelevant material be diverted to my talk page: User talk:Noetica. But unfortunately Roivas has not complied with this request, and has posted this:
My problem with your "research habits" is the fact that it took half a year before you finally learned the importance of cracking a book open in order to substantiate a claim that's being debated. That's all, really.
Now, it would be a simple matter to reply in kind, or to refute the suggestion with evidence. (I'm confident that anyone looking at my work in this article would be disinclined to believe it.) But the whole exercise is futile.
Editors please note: if there are personal attacks against me here, including such insupportable suggestions concerning my competence in research, editing, analysis, or writing, I will NOT respond to them here – except to refer the matter to my talk page. I will respond to them, if they merit any response, at my talk page.
I regret that I have, in some measure, fallen back into such negativity myself, faced with continued obstruction and attacks that seem to be prompted by my evenhanded treatment of the content we are dealing with at this article. If anyone doubts this evenhandedness, let them review the edits I have made to this article.
I hope that this discussion can be free of such irrelevancies from this moment on.
I will not answer anything from anyone that responds to this posting, except at my talk page.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A procedural problem in this discussion

message: Noetica, there is still a problem with this article.  The article claims that the term "diatonic" is often applied to the harmonic minor scale.  Readers could well conclude from this that modal uses of the harmonic minor, such as that in the opening of the Firebird's "Infernal Dance," are frequently (or even sometimes) described as diatonic.  The problem is that this is false.  None of the sources you have cited provides evidence for such usage.  (What evidence can I provide for the claim that there is no such usage?  The evidence is that there are virtually no examples to be found, even by dedicated folks such as yourself!)
The problem is that "diatonic" is used in the "inclusive" sense (so as to include the harmonic and melodic minor scales) only in a very particular context: when describing the art music of the so-called "common practice" period.  There is a lot of (broadly speaking) tonal music, including much late nineteenth-century and twentieth-century music (Liszt, Musorgsky, Debussy, jazz, Shostakovich, Adams, etc.) that does not fall into this category.  Almost nobody, when describing this "broadly tonal" music, uses "diatonic" in the inclusive sense described in the article.  (The article exacerbates this problem by conflating "tonal" with "common-practice tonal" and using "modern" to refer to "common practice.")
The article needs to be improved by making it clear that the "inclusive" use of diatonic is limited to a particular context.  The narrower use of "diatonic" (referring to the white-note scale) is much more common in contexts describing modern, tonal, but not common-practice music.
Alternatively, you could come up with some citations where the inclusive use is applied to tonal-but-not-common-practice music.  But as I say, there are precious few of these to be found.  Njarl 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that outside of common-practice harmony the term diatonic is exclusively used in the more restricted sense, and the article should make this clearer. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems remain

message: Thank you for your remarks, Njarl. I'll now address some of them in sequence, citing your words in italics.
:The article claims that the term "diatonic" is often applied to the harmonic minor scale.
So far so good. It is often so applied, and the list of sources shows evidence of this. Note that two categories in the list present such evidence, and that one of these shows that many such usages are in some way compromised or unclear. Those usages constitute one good reason for such a list, and for such an article.
:Readers could well conclude from this that modal uses of the harmonic minor, such as that in the opening of the Firebird's "Infernal Dance," are frequently (or even sometimes) described as diatonic.  The problem is that this is false.  None of the sources you have cited provides evidence for such usage.  (What evidence can I provide for the claim that there is no such usage?  The evidence is that there are virtually no examples to be found, even by dedicated folks such as yourself!)
Njarl, you might have missed this footnote (currently marked as number 20):
Almost no writer uses diatonic to describe non-traditional or modal use of the melodic and harmonic minor scales, in ways that are outside of common practice.
I seem to recall that this is adapted from something you contributed at your last visit here. I raise no objection to it. Satisfied on that score?
::I think this should be put into the main body of the text, rather than a footnote.  I'll move it when I get a chance.
:The problem is that "diatonic" is used in the "inclusive" sense (so as to include the harmonic and melodic minor scales) only in a very particular context: when describing the art music of the so-called "common practice" period.
Really? How about music written since 1900 (or 1910, if you prefer that artificial limiting date) that conforms in all essential respects to common practice? Do you deny that most later Western music outside of later art music does this?
::I believe that most Western music since 1900 is tonal, but does not conform "in all essential respects" to common-practice norms.  For instance, jazz and rock both use parallel fifths, modal progressions, etc.
:There is a lot of (broadly speaking) tonal music, including much late nineteenth-century and twentieth-century music (Liszt, Musorgsky, Debussy, jazz, Shostakovich, Adams, etc.) that does not fall into this category. Almost nobody, when describing this "broadly tonal" music, uses "diatonic" in the inclusive sense described in the article.
First, some composers you mention are either outside of the the so-called common practice period as it is clearly delimited in Wikipedia and many other places (Shostakovich, Adams); at least one other is obviously transitional (Debussy; died 1918, remember); and at least one who is within the period is unusual in prefiguring many changes that were to come (Liszt). In any case, so what? The article, while not yet as fine-grain in all respects as many would like (including myself), would not mislead any reasonably careful reader. There are, let's face it, thirty-four footnotes so far, to document and qualify what are already carefully worded statements.
Look again at the wording in the lead especially, and in those copious notes. There is also mention of a predominantly pedagogical context for the inclusive use, and of a predominantly "academic" and musicological context for the exclusive use.
As for jazz, who ever thought that was in the ambit of common practice? (I will point out incidentally that the great majority of tutors and textbooks for all styles of guitar use diatonic in the inclusive sense.)
::This doesn't address the issue.  Many people think jazz is tonal.  It conforms to many norms of common practice tonality (ii-V-I progressions, etc.).  It is not common practice music, however.  The article as currently written confuses tonal music with common practice.
::Furthermore, no jazz theorist uses the term "diatonic" to describe the altered scale, which is a mode of the melodic minor ascending, and hence "diatonic" in the inclusive sense.
:(The article exacerbates this problem by conflating "tonal" with "common-practice tonal" and using "modern" to refer to "common practice.")
Do you think so? Where does it do that? I don't yet see that there is a problem to exacerbate, as I hope I make clear above. If you think there is a problem that has not been covered, by all means cover it! Bring on the endnotes, I say. And of course let them be documented with examples and citations.
::Footnote 1 for example.  BTW, I think this article has way too many footnotes.  It should read like an encyclopedia article, not a scholarly treatise.
:The article needs to be improved by making it clear that the "inclusive" use of diatonic is limited to a particular context.  The narrower use of "diatonic" (referring to the white-note scale) is much more common in contexts describing modern, tonal, but not common-practice music.
Fine. Improve it! With documentation. I think you are probably right.
:Alternatively, you could come up with some citations where the inclusive use is applied to tonal-but-not-common-practice music.  But as I say, there are precious few of these to be found.
Alternatively, someone else could! I've done a lot already, and will do more – when I have time to add a few other things I have in mind but am still chasing sources for.
::My point is that there aren't any such uses.  You can't footnote an absence.
Njarl, I for one am glad to see you participating here. I like your style, and you are obviously knowledgeable in the area. Last time, I adapted and preserved some of your work, in the light of the considerable explorations that I have made in this domain myself. I look forward to your new edits. I may well seek to treat them the same as earlier, adapting them. Or someone else might. It's all public property, after all.
Wahoofive, same for you! But I will remind editors here once more that we are working with evidence and reasoned argument, not preconceptions established from our own musical education and involvements, which for all of us are limited in some way or other. We all have to fight against such limitations to produce a useful and balanced article. I have worked hard to suppress my own early learnings and present leanings, with many matters in music theory. Wikipedia is great for helping us to do that – and demanding that we do it, if we are to contribute well.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Njarl

message: Editors will be interested that Wahoofive has initiated the discussion of these terms at WP:MOSMUSIC. Let's all get involved there. Among other things, the outcome will feed into this present article – and this article will have implications for it, in turn.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of usage of ''diatonic'' and ''chromatic'' in Wikipedia articles

message: The word diatonic in this context seems to mean "scale degree" and certainly applies to minor scale variants. Where is a good place to mention this in the article? —Wahoofive (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diatonic function 

message: I don't think this should redirect here - I was expecting either a redirect to color or an article on coloration in biology. Since we only have animal coloration at the moment, perhaps a redirect to color, with a note at the top, would be the best option? 
Edit:I've redirected to color for now anyway. Richard001 04:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coloration

message: This talk page is long and sprawling. Although much of the earlier discussion is still "live", it is probably a good idea to archive most of it. If no one makes specific objections, or requests that particular material be kept for now, I propose to go ahead and archive almost all of it, within a couple of days. I might try to index the archive to some extent, and represent its contents meaningfully in this main page. As usual, anything that is archived can still be invoked in discussion.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it can be dug out. I propose that the dissent not be hidden. TheScotch (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving soon