Talk:Circle of fifths

message: Why is there no C-flat in the picture of the circle of fifths on this page?  
--Phil Kirlin 15:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: no c-flat

message: Here's an alternate version of the article:
----
A term used in music theory to relate the greek modes.  
being a circle it can be travelled around either clockwise or counter clockwise, one direction resulting in fourths.
B  E  A  D  G  C  F  Bb  Eb  Ab  Db  Gb  (B)
(note that this is written with flats.  the enharmonic sharp equivalents are just as valid)
----
left at an alternative page name by 147.126.46.147 at 00:31, 22 Jan 2005; archived here. Noel (talk) 14:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate version

message: Does anyone have an opinion on the ear's perception of certain major keys?? For example, some keys might be percieved as happy an pleasant; others as sleepy; others as boring; etc. Georgia guy 8 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
:In my personal experience, that doesn't have to do with keys, but rather with scales and modes. Uttaddmb 00:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See perfect pitch and equal temperament. Hyacinth 08:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ear's perception of major keys 

message: Perhaps it's just me, but in the section talking about moving from C to G, my browser is showing that you move the F to F? not F#.
In fact all through the article where there should be a # sign there is just a question mark.
Is this something fancy the author was trying to do that didn't work?
:Someone recently changed all the "#" signs to unicode sharp signs.  I think this is in keeping with some Wikipedia style guide, but it seems to be messing with your browser. Tymoczko 21:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The flat signs do not show up either on my computer. I get these little boxes (like when your computer does not support a certain language format) where the symbols should be. Dachshund2k3 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharps 

message: Has anybody ever heard of this term?  I was taught this concept in a 20th-century harmony class at University, and it specifically focused on the music of Alexander Scriabin.  Basically, it's a progression that follows an "altered" circle-of-fifths passage, usually by using a bV-of-something (i.e. A-Db-G-C).  I found it very fascinating, as it turns out to be a defining feature of MUCH of Scriabin's music (piano-music especially), and has helped me on MANY occassions to make sense of much of his music (the "middle" period-music, for the most part).  Is there another name for this type of progression?  Should it be included in this article?  thoughts?  --Crabbyass 05:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chromatically-altered Circle of Fifths 

message: Not only is the phrase "layman's terms" kind of condescending, but it's hilarious that that section includes this passage:
:The frequencies of two notes that are a perfect fifth apart differ by a ratio of approximately 3:2 = 1.5. A ratio of exactly 1.5 sounds best, and this explains why a perfect fifth sounds consonant, though for mathematical reasons it is not possible to get the circle of fifths to 'join up' (i.e. return to the original pitch after going round the circle) unless a close approximation to a perfect fifth is used, namely 2 to the power 7/12 = 1.498.
Way to simplify it for the average person!! Anyone would understand the circle of fifths after reading that. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried to improve this section a little. It still reads awkwardly though. Pfly (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, for what it's worth, the original addition of the "In Layman's Terms" section can be seen here. Looks like someone was just trying to explain what a fifth is. Pfly (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Why doesn't a "perfect" perfect fifth work? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layman's terms 

message: 01-June-2007: Some of the most unprintable characters are the unicodes for sharps/flats: they have been reverted to '#'/'b' several times over the past year in other music-key articles.  For more precise sharp/flat symbols, the superscripted pound/bee characters could be used (see below: Symbols for sharps/flats).  However, there is no need to persecute '#'/'b' since they work well for all 12 notes, even "Eb"/"Ab", and more importantly, they create chords/notes that are searchable by search-engines.  Guitar players have complete sets of chord notations that are easy to write, read, and are SEARCHABLE by search-engines: for example, look at these brilliant notations for D-sharp diminished, minor/major, 7th chords: D#dim D#sus D#sus4 D#m D#m7 D#maj D#maj7.  There is little need for the obsession over unicode sharp/flat symbols.  Although music-miming computer languages have become trendy (such as C# coding, F# coding and Db), the notes/chords are still searchable within music articles (hunting G#, Bb, C#, Eb, etc.).  Try to avoid those get-a-life unicode characters for sharps/flats; they just aren't needed in the modern age.  -Wikid77 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprintables

message: :I just removed this [below] from the article. At the very least, it needs some introduction. I have no idea what instrument is being described in the top two paragraphs. My OR-sense is tingling. __Just plain Bill (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The circle used in instrument building 

message: In order to understand and memorize the relations between pitch classes easier, it is possible to put all the keys into a Cartesian coordinate system according to their signatures.
In the resulting graph, the X coordinate represents the number of minor key signatures, treating the number of flats as a negative (as it makes a note negative). The Y coordinate represents the major key signature count the same way. C is therefore in (-3;0) as C minor has 3 flats and C major a 0 (zero).
When minor and major keys are paired into single dots, various relations become visible more clearly from the graph:
* Minor and major key signature amounts are always separated by 3 units. 
** Examples: if we know that C major has 0, we get that C minor would have 0 + 3 = 3 flats. If G minor has 2 flats (-2), G major would have -2 + 3 = 1 sharp.
* The amount of signatures in a sharp/flat key is always 7 more than the same note key without sharp/flat tonic.
** Examples: if C major has 0, C sharp major would have 7 sharps. If C minor has -3, C sharp minor would be -3 + 7 = 4 sharps.
* The relative key is also easy to find. If a relative is needed of the C major, which stands on y = 0, we look for a key that stands on 0 of the minor axis. In another example, the relative of B minor (x = 2) is D major (y = 2).
* The order of signature placement is the same as the key order on the axes. If the key goes down becoming flat, flats are placed from B downwards. Respectively, sharps are placed from F upwards.
* It is also clear that all of the keys tend to recur every 12 units because of the chromatic scale consisting of 12 notes. Therefore a major key with 120 sharp signatures would remain C major.
----
The above was removed as it appears to be textbook like original research. Hyacinth (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that the above section was absolutely not helpful. It´s so strange and complicated, that I can not even guess, if it makes any sense. Hexadecimal (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed: In coordinate system

message: Do anyone agree that the entire article could benefit from context? Not just the "Effect on diatonic function" section? Hyacinth (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although moving that section gave it a bit more context, IMO. __Just plain Bill (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Context

message: Hyacinth, would it be possible to harmonize this example using root position chords? I think it's important to also see and hear the descending fifth/ascending fourth motion in the bass. Thanks- --Blehfu (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hyacinth (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request regarding Circle_progression_in_major.png 

message: I just removed it from the article for the following reasons:
*I have not seen these symbols used elsewhere.
*As a result, I find the image difficult to decipher.
*The background color and other chartjunk gets in the way of my comprehension of this graphic.
*Sometimes the only computer available to me has an 800x600 pixel CRT display. The "unrolled" graphic doesn't all fit on that screen, requiring sideways scrolling to view "the big picture."
*This info is more relevant to Pythagorean comma, which now appears in the "see also" section here.
__Just plain Bill (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted: unrolled circle with Pythagorean comma shown 

message: *"You can buy linear or circular slide rules based on the circle of fifths; they give you the key signatures, the principal chords and so on." 
*TEACHING AID FOR DEMONSTRATING THE HARMONIC SYSTEM (US Patent: 3791254. Issued: Feb 1974) (linear design) 
*Music magic circular calculator (US Patent: 4074607. Issued: February 21, 1978) 
*Chord display device for fretted string instrument (US Patent: 4503748. Issued: Mar 12, 1985) (circular design) 
*The Chord Wheel: The Ultimate Tool for All Musicians (Hal Leonard. 2000) (color) 
--Jtir (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CoF slide rules 

message: Another "man from Mars" question, perhaps... do we need to explain here (or give a link to an explanation of) what "higher" and "lower" mean in terms of pitch? The difference isn't always clear-cut. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read the first few sentences of Tritone paradox and came away not knowing what it actually is — perfect example of not stating the obvious. --Jtir (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages are aimed at a different audience than articles. First clause of first sentence: "The tritone paradox is an auditory illusion..." Some people hear a given pair of Shepard tones as ascending, others hear it as descending. Some can hear it both ways, but not simultaneously. Interesting to listen to the externally linked stuff there. __Just plain Bill (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. I was critiquing the article to which you linked, not what you wrote. The clause you quote states the genus, but a definition requires a differentia too — the lead of the article does not tell a reader how this illusion differs from other such illusions by saying what it actually sounds like, which may be why you had to. I commented at Talk:Tritone paradox. --Jtir (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sometimes it takes me a while... I realized you were critiquing the article about a day after I wrote that "aimed at different audiences thing" in haste. I've responded over there, you see. __Just plain Bill (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do "up" and "down" mean? 

message: In my opinion, "circle of fifths" is a misnomer for "cycle of fifths".Unfree (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very probably. Unfortunately, "circle of fifths" is the term found nearly universally in textbooks.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cycle

message: I beg to differ. While it is no doubt helpful - to those who understand it - it is by no means essential in the process of writing music. How do I know? I cannot grasp the meaning of the circle - at all - yet I have written several successful and well-received music pieces, including a symphony. Nor am I alone in this regard. Therefore, can I change "essential" to "helpful" and expect the change to not result in an immediate revert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadicalTwo (talk • contribs) 
:I went ahead and rephrase the overstatement. They are plenty of styles of music that do not necessarily rely on the circle of fifths. Also it possible to understand the concepts of keys and chords without thinking of them in a circle as you mention. --dbolton (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is intended to be a guide for composition and now it has become essential to writing music" 

message: Isn't the image and accompanying midi file for the circle of fifths being played clockwise near the top of the page incorrect? In both, the fourth note is given as an A sharp, but shouldn't it be an A? 110.175.37.94 (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is certainly incorrect, just as you say. I haven't listened to it but, if the accompanying sound file also has A instead of A, then it, too, is in error and should be corrected. Unfortunately, correcting these things is not within my realm of competence.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! I see this was the result of a recent edit by User:Hyacinth. Could we have a correction, please, Hyacinth?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Fixed. Hyacinth (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circle of fifths image/mid file 

message: Considering the flurry of malicious edits and reversions ongoing here, I'm not about to enter the fray.
I'm going instead merely to mention a minor problem rather than to repair it [this is true also in part because I have no idea how to repair the problem without breaking something], and leave the repair of the problem to wiser and more trusted editors.
Anyway, in the History section, the "[page needed]" quibble at the end of the first sentence is inappropriate.
The paragraph author at this point is discussing the treatise (a self-standing document in most cases) as a whole, not some particular point within that treatise, and so has no page number to provide in response to the quibble at the indicated point.
Xanthian (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it is necessary to look more closely at a problem like this. It is not the named book that is being cited, but rather a secondary source. The note reads Jensen (1992), so the demand for a page reference is from Claudia Jensen's 1992 article in JAMS, rather than from Diletskii's Grammatika. I am frankly astounded that this request has not been dealt with for nearly two years, since JAMS is an extremely well-known journal readily accessible to many editors.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion of a whole document does not merit a 'needs page number' quibble. 

message: The article is very vague and confusing. 
The sentence, which is supposed to be a definition, is not even grammatical: "Since the term 'fifth' defines an interval or mathematical ratio which is the closest and most consonant non-octave interval, then the circle of fifths is a circle of closely related pitches or key tonalities."
Saying that the circle of fifths is a circle of "closely related pitches" is vary vague. 
Don't you want to say that these pitches are precisely 5 tones apart?
Adam  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.231.52 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the sentence ungrammatical? To me, it seems to parse OK. In most general terms, two pitches making the interval of a perfect fifth are three tones plus a semitone apart, or seven semitones. How can we reduce the confusion here? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  general criticism 

message: Well I looked hard at the picture of the Vicious Girdle of Fifths, trying again after forty unhappy years of "Not Getting It" ::: and realised after about 10 minutes that there was no C# major? Scrolling down the talk, I also find there is no C♭, (or similarly abstruse key-sig)  because it "clutters the table up????" Duh??????????????????????? So there is no point in reading the talk, I just hate all music theory and all theorists because they can never explain what the f they are actually on about, namely Producing Beautiful Music Which Revivifies The Soul. I have always hated the circle, and WP does nothing in the slightest to modify my attitude, especially since "The Circle" has been populated by things which have apparently escaped from Ian M. Banks' vocabulary such as Pitch-class space, like a Raptor-class interstellar terraforming AI with a somewhat detached hive mind of its very very very very own. And, unless you are careful, you end up with a ♯-Class planet-destroyer. Trumpets and drums to you, too. MinorProphet (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy Cow! You are right about that diagram, of course, but the problem is much worse than you describe. If we are to believe what we see there, the key of D-flat major may have a signature of seven sharps, and the key of B major may be written with a signature of seven flats. Let us see if we can track down User:Just plain Bill, who created this diagram, and see if we can get it fixed. On the other hand, I doubt very much that music theorists are concerned with Producing Beautiful Music Which Revivifies The Soul, which is something they leave to performers. Thanks for the heads-up.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be able to fit the proper nomenclature for those two keys into that end of the diagram. Might take a few days to find time... Just plain Bill (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Had a cancellation, so was able to update the svg file sooner than I expected. Now it is shown in this article. For some reason the commons would not let me upload a new rev of the existing image, so it is a different file. Sorting out that cluster of issues will take some time, another day. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Some theorists are also performers, so they might also want to PBMWRTS. ;-) —Wahoofive (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Commons eventually showed the "upload new version" link, so disregard that bit above. Back to the same file name, newest rev shows the extra key names. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAAARGH 

message: Here we are with a huge exposition and no composers' works cited. many people cannot think in musical notes. they see the words but don't get it. try this: Mike Oldfield, Incantations, easily discovered on youtube. the original, not anything that has been sample etc. the entire composition is based on the circle of fiths and the first few bars will make the Circle of Fifths into an understood reality. i don't know how to add a sample but perhaps one of you does.74.12.125.129 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  what no music? 

message: for those who know the topic I guess this is okay, but I don't know what sharps and flats are, they are never defined in the Introduction, so I'm lost from the start — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.228.149 (talk • contribs)  16:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sharps and flats are linked in the "Definition" section, the first one after the table of contents. They are not mentioned in the introduction, which is meant to summarize the content of the article, not explain all the rudiments of the topic. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction: sharps and flats 

message: I'm proposing a re-write of the lede which would eliminate some information/jargon from the very start of the article.  Some of that info is probably useful, but I'd like to see the basic idea(s) laid out clearly and simply if possible.  Here's a proposal:
In music theory, the circle of fifths is a way of organizing the 12 chromatic pitches as a sequence of perfect fifths. If C is chosen as a starting point, the sequence is: C, G, D, A, E, B, F (=G), C (=D), G (=A), E, B, F. Continuing the pattern from F returns the sequence to its starting point of C. This order places the most closely related key signatures adjacent to one another. It is usually illustrated in the form of a circle.
- Special-T (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplify lede? 

message: Almost the entire section seems to be off-topic or convoluted explanations of the relation between keys.  Since the diagram is shown above and can be referred to, I'd like to replace the Diatonic key signature section with:
:Each of the twelve pitches can serve as the tonic of a major or minor key, and each of these keys will have a diatonic scale associated with it. The circle diagram shows the number of sharps or flats in each key signature, with the major key indicated by a capital letter and the minor key indicated by a lower-case letter. Major and minor keys that have the same key signature are referred to as relative major and relative minor of one another.
I'm putting this here on the talk page because I'd be removing a lot of content.  But, as I said, that content isn't helping the article. - Special-T (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is too much info for this article. Your suggested replacement seems apt, and the link to "key signature" will guide readers to a useful place for further exploration. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diatonic key sig section 

message: The "Use" and "Related concepts" sections are so full of random facts & assertions that I can't figure out how to start to clean them up. Most of it boils down to "chords often move up a fourth in Western music." Some other issues:
- changing between talking about chord progressions and talking about modulations - if I wasn't already very familiar with theory and composition these paragraphs wouldn't make any sense at all. 
- I don't think that any of the "here are some jazz standards that use the circle of fifths" stuff should be here. Almost all of these 20th-century American tunes (like nearly all other Western music) use circle-of-fifths "functional harmony"
I'm probably not the person to edit these, since I'd cut 95%+ of what's there—I hope someone else can get a handle on them. - Special-T (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a lot of random info 

message: Landmarks: Clockwise at 12-3-6-9 o'clock: Major C-A-F#-Eb and Minor a-f#-bflat-c. Both spell CAFE. Major cafe opens at 12. Minor cafe opens at 9. Acorrector (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAFE - CAF#Eb - 12-3-6-9 

message: The discussion that arose between 68.8.178.131 and @Just_plain_Bill should not turn to a war. I first wondered what all this was about, but then realized that the figure at the right shows only three enharmonies, for B/C, G/F, and D/C. This, I think, justifies the modification suggested by our anonymous contributor. All other enharmonies would involve one of the two keys with double sharps or double flats.
One may argue that the lede concerns pitch classes as well as keys, but then one should perhaps question the figure at the right. This may not be necessary, but I think that the correction in the lede makes (some) sense. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine, for the reasons you've stated. I reverted it earlier because the rationale (G#maj isn't a key) didn't apply to the sentence, which is talking about pitches. But we're not listing all the enharmonics (D#, A#, etc.) there, and the diagram treats the pitches as keys also, so all good. - Special-T (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to fully conform to the diagram, the text should perhaps read "B (=C♭), F♯ = G♭, D♭ (=C♯)", but I am too lazy today to change that. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitimate pitches and keys 

message: I have deleted the Ravel example that I added previously.  Another editor has seen fit to replace both my music score and the audio file of this with an edit that contains errors (wrong notes) that were not in my original contribution.  I am all for an edit that corrects and improves on something that I have contributed, but not one that simply makes it worse.Spencerpiers (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in Ravel edit 

message: Recent edits brought my attention to the History section, in which "circle of fifths" is used to mean the diagram. This seems misleading and incorrect (in a topic area that can already be confusing). It's an organizational scheme, so saying someone invented it, or there was a "first example" of it confuses the idea with the visual chart. This seems like something for the talk page, though, and not a bold (and possibly contentious) edit. - Special-T (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, isn't the idea of a "circle" connected with the diagram? A mere "cycle" of fifths would not necessarily form a circle. Is it the history section that is misleading when it says that the first circles are from 1677 and 1711, or the article as a whole when it says that fifths form a circle (instead of a cycle, or a spiral)? If this were so, it would not be the history section that would need edition, but the article itself that would need renaming. On Google, however, "cycle of fifths" (with quotation marks) gives abour 2,110,000 results, while "circle of fifths" gives only 71,800 and "spiral of fifths" 2990. On Google Scholar the figures are 8470, 1870 and 148. In other words, I think that the article should mention your point, but not necessarily in the history section. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea vs. diagram 

message: Why not we make the diatonic circle of fifths progression part as a separate article so that it can be more searchable? AnAlpineSymphony (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The I-IV-vii°-iii-vi-ii-V-I progression part should be in a separate article