Talk:Phrygian mode

message: I plan on deleting any unsourced entries from this in a few weeks. (Listening to a piece and trying to figure out the key is not a source, and is also WP:OR.) Torc2 (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Well-known music in this key

message: Hi. I've reorganized the article and done some cleanup. Here some of what I did:
*Tried to make musical examples clearer, at least barring any actual images of chords and scales.
*Simplify the sus4/jazz section. IANAJazzMusician so if you notice any mistakes, you know what to do.
*Removed any glaringly extraneous copy from the Modern examples section. The relevance and usefulness of these sections can be dubious, so at least I've made it as inconspicuous as possible.
Here's some of what I didn't do:
*Remove any copy. I did rewrite and rearrange, but it's basically intact. I think there's still some debris in there, but I'll let someone else take a crack at it.
Thanks for reading. --Blehfu (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite/partial cleanup 

message: The song is clearly in a minor (aeolian) tonality throughout the song, and the natural two is used throughout the song. Whoever put this up noticed there was a b2 in the chorus, but a single accidental doesn't mean this song is in Phrygian mode.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.216.178 (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: this is actually a major problem with all of these articles on musical modes. people are doing original research and adding information to articles without citing sources. sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong, but mostly no one can tell whether they're right or wrong. the list in mixolydian mode is maybe in the best condition, but the guitar nut citation is self-published and the rest of the article is mostly without sources. if you know of any reliable sources for any of these articles about modes, please either add them to the articles or mention them in talk and someone else will add them.  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 07:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed claim that "If You Seek Amy" is in Phrygian

message: diff — Summary: "revert arbitrary change of reference format without the required editorial consensus"It seems like a bit of a distortion to call my improvements "arbitrary". What should be properly understood as arbitrary is the home-brewed reference formatting that was in the article before. At least my format is follwing WP:CITE/ES. My changes also improved verifiability by adding DOIs and URLs and improved readability by following a standard order of elements in each reference and hyphenating the ISBNs. Finally, what kind of useful "editorial consensus" is present for this article when it's filled with original research? The "editorial consensus" is the reason why the article has a huge example section with only one self-published reference.  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 07:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference formatting that you changed was hardly "home-brewed", unless you are labeling as such the Chicago Manual of Style preferred format, which is sanctioned at Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style. If you believe that Wikipedia ought not to sanction this style, the correct place to raise the issue is on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, not on individual article pages with established styles.  While it may be true that there remains a lot of doubtful or OR material, almost entirely in the "modern" section and its list of examples, the many citations of the respected sources by Powers, Gombosi, and Solomon, particularly in the section labelled "Ancient Greek Phrygian mode" (though these sources ought also to be added to the section on Medieval and Renaissance usage) hardly merits being called "original research". ISBNs and URLs can be added to the list of References without disturbing the present citation format, which renders the text far more readable than a bunch of unsightly footnote numbers that require jumping back and forth (but this argument, too, belongs on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, not here). The unreferenced "examples" ought simply to be removed, not used as an excuse for sidestepping the citation-format guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_format_citations and Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_templates_and_tools, where it says "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of improvement of references 

message: I am quite sure this version of the major phrygian is false... the 1 b2, b3 ... is not major. It is the normal Phrygian mode which is minor!!! The major phrygian mode is 1 b2 3 4 5 6 7/#7 8.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.59.59 (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as "major Phrygian". The passage to which you are apparently referring says it illustrates "how the modern major mode … can be altered to produce the Phrygian mode". In order to alter the major scale to Phrygian, it is necessary to lower scale-degrees 2, 3, 6, and 7, hence "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1". If this is not clear as it stands, perhaps it should be rewritten to help avoid misunderstanding.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something's wrong... 

message: I find this article very interesting overall, I would just like to point out a little factual mistake I noticed. The quoted Respighi theme, from Trittico Botticelliano as an example of Phrygian mode is not in that mode, but rather it is in F major. But there is a nice example that could replace it by Respighi that is in Phrygian mode and that is the opening the 1st prelude in Tre Preludi sopra melodie gregoriane (3 preludes on gregorian melodies) for piano, composed in 1919. 
For your information, in 1925, Respighi orchestrated and transposed these 3 preludes, and added a 4th orchestral piece. He called the whole 4-part work Vetrate di chiesa (Church Windows). The 1st prelude became The Flight in Egypt and the phygian melody is heard by the clarinet. But i believe, to illustrate clearly the Phrygian mode, it would be better to use the original piano version. You could find a recording of this Prelude in the iTunes site. The track number of that particular prelude is 18.
The score of the Preludi can downloaded here. I think it is in public domain since Respighi died in 1936. I think the 1st three bars of the melody, at the top voice, would be sufficient to illustrate the Phrygian mode.
I would have edit the article myself, but i don't have the skills and the software to send the musical staff with the melody, nor the midi file. If someone could do it it would be nice.
I am a professional violinist in a symphony orchestra. I am not an English native speaker, sorry for any mistake in this post.
Thank you
Claudio Ricignuolo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.116.99 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You may well be right, but if the cited source (Benward & Saker) say it is in the Phrygian mode on A, then it is in the Phrygian mode on A. That is the sad situation on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". However idiotic, Benward & Saker will prevail until a contrary source can be found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I defer to Prof. Kohl's expertise in the great majority of such matters, but if a published work says "idiotic" things, then how can it be considered a reliable source? Propagating previously published error should have no place in a responsibly written encyclopedia. The history of scholarship may be full of such clerical inanity, but we have no obligation to continue in a similar manner. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Indeed we do not have any obligation to blindly accept such inanities (if inanity this be), but two things need to be weighed very carefully here. The first is: who will demonstrate that Benward & Saker are wrong on this point? No Wikipedia editor's assessment of the key of this musical example will suffice—it requires a reliable source. The second is that Benward & Saker, as a widely used college textbook, has been cited as an authority on dozens of music-theory-related Wikipedia articles (Chord (music), Diminished triad chord, Dominant seventh chord, Texture (music), Imitation (music), Diminished octave, Augmented seventh, etc.). If Benward & Saker can be shown to be so flagrantly wrong in such an elementary matter as this (and, since the book is now in its eighth edition, this can hardly be regarded as a teething problem), how can their reliability be accepted for any of those other articles?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The given Respighi example is not in Phrygian mode, it is in F major 

message: Apologies for adding without one, but I think i've now found a good source for Phrygian mode in Britten's Hymn to St Cecilia: aberdeenbachchoir.com, Notes by Peter Parfitt, ©2011 Aberdeen Bach Choir. 
If so, perhaps the entry can be re-added?
Marcas.oduinn (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The source only verifies Phrygian for the first section, though it could be trying to say the refrain is also in Phrygian. As long as you don't exceed what the source says, yes, I would say it looks reliable.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Britten's St. Cecilia 

message: The entire song uses both D natural and harmonic minor. A better example of a song with phrygian is Painkiller by Judas Priest (though they also have some instances of aeolian mode). I can't find a written source regarding Painkiller's use of phrygian, but I think we should talk more about the prevalence of phrygian in hard rock and heavy metal, if someone could find more sources for this. Yungstirjoey666 (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unholy Confession does not use Phrygian mode