Talk:Tonic (music)

message: I stacked up the seven modes to improve readability. No change to text. OktoberStorm (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability 

message: An effort should be made to standardise the articles on all the degrees of the diatonic. Eusebeus 10:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How should the articles be standardized and why? Hyacinth (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it uses definitions from different musical theories. Subtonic and supertonic are tones in the first place, not chords. (Sub)dominant and (sub)mediant are chords.Klausthemusician (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By "tone" I assume you mean diatonic function or degree. The terms for these are applied to chords the roots of which are on those degrees. Hyacinth (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to have kept you waiting, but no, I don't. I just mean note - a single tone. That's precisely what's the problem. You're mixing up two or three different theories about functions. Take a look at Norwegian and German wp or Harmony Simplified, and I think you'll understand. Part of the problem has already been discussed on the discussion sides to several degrees (the problem of the counter parallel as an example). Klausthemusician (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardise 

message: "Important" used twice in the first two sentence, don't want to step on anyone's toes by improving the readability of this article.--Josh Rocchio 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed 121.208.180.8 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Readability

message: I have added an audio example to the article. Hyacinth (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested audio

message: Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional citations

message: Why, what, where, and how is this article too technical for some readers and what should be done about it? Hyacinth (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag removed. It's a pretty well-written article, not overly technical at all. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical

message: WikiProject Music Theory is spearheading a proposal to unify the layout of the scale-degree pages. The discussion can be found here. Since these pages not only include discussion of the scale-degrees, but also occasionally discuss triads and seventh chords built on these scale-degrees, it is important to systemize these pages. This will also curtail the creation of pages for each individual triad and seventh chord, some which may not necessarily contain enough content to be expanded beyond a stub. I invite you to comment on the proposal with thoughts, criticisms, or suggestions. Thanks! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to unify the layout of scale-degree pages 

message: I have initiated a formal RM action to move Musical scale to Scale (music). Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles.
NoeticaTea? 00:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move: "Musical scale" → "Scale (music)"