Talk:Diatonic and chromatic

message: "Four basic techniques produce chromatic harmony under this definition: modal mixture, secondary dominants..."
Might 'modal interchange' be a better choice here?  
"If the strictest understanding of the term diatonic scale were adhered to, even a major triad on the dominant scale degree in C minor (G–B♮–D) would be chromatic or altered in C minor."
The above is confusing. I assume when you say 'the strictest understanding', you mean the only-white-notes-definition of diatonic, but you don't say so, and it leaves people wondering why you can't have a major triad on V from harmonic minor. Dominant7flat9 (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: a couple of points

message: I have undone recent edits that alter the balance we had worked out through painful and painstaking dialogue, months ago. Please: familiarise yourself with the matters of contention before making substantive changes.
There were also some factual difficulties: unfounded assertions like "They are often used as a contrasting pair,[+ref] a usage that originated in the ancient Greek classification of modes.[+ref]" That last reference, to the 18th-century source, is by no means enough to warrant the claim that the Greeks established a binary opposition of the diatonic and the chromatic. They did not, in fact. Nor is the reference to Greek modes informative. I would be a matter of Greek tetrachords, not modes.
Still, good to see your interest. :)
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 11:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made myself familiar with the arguments that led to this unreadable article with its non-wiki layout, and I have noted all the various theoretical shortcomings and personal researches that led to its current parlous state. You express yourself clearly: this article is as it is in order to balance contention, not in order to inform the reader, as has been commented here and there by various editors who have not been granted a shareholding. Your comment repesents you and the other shareholders as owners of this mess. Not that you are to blame for it: ALL articles written under such circumstances end up unreadable. Your reverts already constitute edit war. I could see you would most likely do so - that is why I did not complete the work. The present use of the source you mention (its caption) are equally unsupported btw. And it is a matter of Greek GENERA - a matter dealt with very poorly throughout wiki, since many editors take for granted the language and ideas of homophony and equal temperament which from the beginning renders their effusions pretty much useless. Take note that this article must be rewritten. Redheylin (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: This article has one section titled "Notes" and also one subsection titled "Notes".   Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings, point 3, says: "Section names should preferably be unique within a page; this applies even for the names of subsections."
-- Wavelength (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-unique headings 

message: How is this article written like a personal reflection or essay and how should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not the person who placed that flag, but I would imagine that it may have been prompted by passages such as the one beginning the section Modern meanings of "diatonic scale", reading "Given the background presented above, we now move on to address …". Another example is the subsection "Modern extensions of the diatonic idea", with its air of academic finger-waggling: "Traditionally, and in all uses discussed above, …" and  "Exactly which heptatonic scales (and even which modes of those scales) should count as diatonic is unsettled, as shown above. But the broad selection principle itself is not disputed, at least as a theoretical convenience." Both of these passages include the dangerous (from a Wikipedia point of view) reference to "above" discussions, when a perfectly reasonable reorganisation (for example, in order to discuss "diatonic" before "chromatic", instead of the other way around) could render these sentences meaningless.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, that long, second "Notes" sections, to the caption of which editor Wavelength objected last June under the heading "Non-unique headings", does not look very "encyclopedic" (yes, yes, I know—whatever that is supposed to mean), either, serving mainly to add to the air of pontification. In my opinion, it is more liable to confuse than help the beginner.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

text: It's only a drop in an ocean, but I think all the first-person stuff is now changed (apart from direct quotations from sources).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay

message: The Bibliography doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic, much more essay-like. What exactly is it there for? And why is it after the Notes and References section? Mahlerlover1 (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See: WP:LAY, specifically WP:LAY#Standard appendices and footers. Hyacinth (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: Commenting here for discussion following revert. The article currently includes the following contextual clarification, which I suggest is removed:
"(Of relevance in searching for the term chromatic interval, note that the phrase has distinct meanings outside of music theory. [ref: Pascal, JI (1953). "The equivalent sphere and chromatic interval in astigmatism". American journal of ophthalmology 36 (12): 1730–2. .])".
I cannot see anybody being confused between sources on optics and sources on music theory, or not thinking to add "music" to a search term once they see search results filled with optics. To additionally go so far as to include a reference that would never have any relevance to the article just adds clutter. In my view this contravenes WP:OFFTOPIC, particularly as there is already a disambiguation link at the top of the article. 81.132.165.192 (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It seems overly fussy to caution the reader that searching for "chromatic interval" may bring up non-musical results. Such distracting clutter has no place in a tightly-written Wikipedia article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to opthalmology 

message: Encyclopedic entries are generally titled as nouns, not adjectives. Wikipedia's Manual of Style dictates that "Titles should normally be nouns or noun phrases." 
Therefore, the title of this article be "Diatonicism and Chromaticism." Then the introduction would say something like "Diatonicism and chromaticism refer to..." Agree?
Pigi5 (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. I understand the point you're making, but those nouns have different connotations than the adjectives, and are cumbersome besides. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noun titles 

message: This page is quite a mess and difficult to comprehend, even for those who are well versed in music theory. It might be easier to edit and comprehend this page if we split it into two sections. Especially considering both diatonic and chromatic have multiple meanings.
(Chromatic meaning either all the 12 notes avalible or an Ancient Greek particular tuning of the tetrachord. Diatonic meaning either modes of the Major scalehttps://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-what-does-diatonic-meanhttp://www.tonalcentre.org/Diatonic.html, modes of the established scalehttps://www.britannica.com/art/diatonichttps://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/diatonic and rarely only the modes of Cmaj, the latter of which I could find any sources for.)
Obviously the two pages would be called 'Diatonic' and 'Chromatic' respectively.
220.101.84.46 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly. —Mesocarp (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spliting this page into two pages 

message: There is a thread about restructuring this article and other related ones over at the relevant WikiProject if anyone is interested. —Mesocarp (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk of restructuring this and related articles over at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music_theory|WikiProject Music Theory]] 

message: Wow, you have a pretty in depth footnote on the subject! I just finished correcting an etymology paragraph in the Genus (music) article, since, with the help of the most widely accepted Greek dictionary (Babiniotis Dictionary), I found a Byzantine source (George Pachymeres, Quadrivium, Chapter E') which states that the word "διάτονος" comes from the verb "διατείνω", which means to stretch, since "...the voice is most stretched by it" (voice not necessarily meaning human voice). Georgios Babiniotis agrees with the Byzantine writer, and states that "διατονικός" (diatonic) comes from "διάτονος", which I would guess everyone agrees with, since it is a word for the genus, at least it is in this Byzantine text. This is in reference to the diatonic genus. In reference to "diatonic music", Babiniotis states that this use of the word comes to Greek through the French "diatonique" which comes from the Greek and changes meaning. I would add the sources to your footnote but I spent too much time figuring out how to make citations and I have to leave. I'll do it tomorrow, but if I forget at least there is this Talk entry... 123popos123 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of the word "diatonic" 

message: The musical example from Dido and Aeneas is a bit ugly and has a hyphen/dash missing in the word "welcome" in the song text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.240.17 (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical examples 

message: The section "Musical instruments" starts with: 
"Some instruments, such as the violin, can play any scale; others, such as the glockenspiel, are restricted to the scale to which they are tuned. Among this latter class, some instruments, such as the piano, are always tuned to a chromatic scale, and can be played in any key, while others are restricted to a diatonic scale, and therefore to a particular key. Some instruments, such as the harmonica, harp, and glockenspiel, are available in both diatonic and chromatic versions...". 
I think that a lot of this is confusing, and possibly incorrect. 
"...restricted to the scale to which they are tuned...": I think the reference to scale is intended to be about being diatonic or chromatic, but I don't think that being diatonic or chromatic is talked of as a difference of tuning. Tuning I think refers to equal temperament, meantone etc.
A glockenspiel seems to be a strange choice of example of a restricted instrument, especially as all the instruments pictured in glockenspiel are chromatic (and so can be used to play in a diatonic or chromatic way, as one chooses). Also, the glockenspiel is much less well-known than piano or guitar. 
I think a better example of a common instrument which is largely designed to be diatonic is the tin whistle, though it can be played chromatically as well.
Also, if one is talking about being restricted to diatonic notes or not, I think choosing the violin as an example of an "unrestricted" instrument is not a good idea, because the violin can play any note within its range, and therefore in any tuning, as well as both chromatically and diatonically. I think it is best to leave the issue of tuning out of this section.
I suggest a re-write would be good:
* Piano as example of chromatic instrument,
* Tin whistle as example of instrument (mostly) diatonic instrument.
FrankSier (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glockenspiel 

message: 11 of the 15 diatonic major scales are designed by the piano. The tenuous pianistic diatonic major scales are F-sharp major, G-flat major, C-sharp major and C-flat major.
189.50.177.145 (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: 11 designed diatonic major scales by the piano