Talk:Mode (music)

Modes in the Key of C Major

I object to the title of this section. The phrase "Key of C Major" indicates the Major mode - the modern term for Ionian. Also, keys do not exist until a mode is established. Perhaps a better name would simply be "Modes of C"? --Tim Sabin (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your objection does seem well-founded. However, the phrase "modes of C" sounds like you might mean, e.g., C-Dorian (C-D-E♭-F-G-A-B♭-C), C-Phrygian (C-D♭-E♭-F-G-A♭-B♭-C), etc., whereas the section clearly means the so-called "white-key" modes. The problem with "white-key" modes is that these days not all readers can be counted on to be familiar with the layout of a piano keyboard. Let me think about this, but in the meantime, someone else may come up with a more elegant solution.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the broader picture, I discovered that this section was also badly placed, just ahead of the discussion of Ancient Greek and medieval scales, as if it had something to do with them. I have accordingly moved this section to where it belonged (in the "Modern modal scales" section), and cleaned up the text in order to correct a large number of misused terms and ambiguously stated concepts (e.g., equating the minor-seventh interval with the dominant-seventh chord). How does it look now?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Right justified image?

Wouldn't it make more sense to either left justify or center the "Pitch constellations of the modern musical modes" image? The right justification looks weird to me -- Dougher (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I think it looks odd because it is such a long image, and probably looks just as odd left justified. I've changed it to centered, which looks best to me. If other editors disagree, please feel free to change it back.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A diagram showing all modes

I have made a diagram showing all of the standard modern modes, arranged by number of sharps/flats. It is on Wikimedia commons at

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:All_modes_diagram.png

If you think it is useful then please feel free to use it in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleedadswell (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Modes and improvisation

Under 4.5, Modern Use, it would be nice to have at least some mention of how modes are used to teach improvisation. This is certainly true in Jazz, and the Dorian and Mixolydian modes are also used quite commonly in Rock. When a blues harmonica player is told the songs in 'A' they're going to grab a 'D' harp. They call it the "cross-key" BobbyBoykin (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving of Music mode & this talk page

Were these moves discussed somewhere? --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a bold sensible move to me. Are there reasons it should not have been done? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not discussing. As I explained in the edit summary, in my experience these moves are consistent with a policy which is commonly adopted in Wikipedia (not only in music, by the way). This policy or guideline is most likely described somewhere in WP:MOS, but even if it were not, it makes perfectly sense to adopt it, when possible, because the most important word in the title (in this case the word "Mode") is the first word. Examples:

• Mode (music)
• Mode (statistics)
• Mode (literature)

• Interval (music)
• Interval (mathematics)
• Interval (time)

• Degree (music)
• Degree (freemasonry)
• Degree (angle)
• Degree (temperature)
• Degree (deodorant)

• Transposition (music)
• Transposition (mathematics)
• Transposition (logic)
• Transposition (law)
• Transposition (chess)
• Transposition (telecommunications)

However, as you probably know the old title Musical mode still exists and redirects here.

Paolo.dL (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The move should nevertheless have been discussed first, and there will now be many dozens, perhaps hundreds of redirects to correct in articles from Tonality to Olivier Messiaen. That said, I agree with your reasoning. This move seems long overdue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

When you move an article, you are supposed to check only for "double redirects" (i.e. pages which are redirected to the old page Musical mode, which in turn redirects to this article) or broken redirects. Do not worry about them. They have already been corrected. There are BOTs (one of them is called User:Xqbot) which automatically corrected them yesterday before I could do it myself, and even before this discussion was started by Tim Sabin.

The hundreds of direct links from articles such as Diatonic scale to the old page Musical mode will still work correctly (with a very short delay) because the old page redirects here, and I guess they are not a problem for MediaWiki, as I was not asked to "fix" them (see WP:MOVE). Paolo.dL (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me also say that I was not supposed to discuss these moves before doing them. The reference to WP:BOLD is appropriate in this case (see previous comment by Just plain Bill). If I have good reasons to edit and I do it in good faith, providing a quite exhaustive edit summary, not only I can do it, but Wikipedia asks me to boldly do it. After that, and not before, a discussion can be started by someone else, and in this case I am always willing to participate actively and respectfully. I sometimes start a time-consuming discussion before editing, but in this case I felt it would have been a waste of time. The reason why Wikepedia does not ask editors to discuss their edits a priori is because most people would not edit if it were so difficult to edit. That's how Wikipedia works and the reason why it grows so fast and so healthy. Paolo.dL (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked the WP:BOLD page, and it says "Be Bold" only applies to page edits, not moves. I agree that these pages should have been moved for consistency's sake, but disagree with the way you went about it. My initial question was because I would expect a discussion before moving. --Tim Sabin (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving an article is just a series of edits. Important edits, but edits. You can think of it as an edit to the article title, together with the creation of a redirection from the old to the new title. I did it with a sound reason, very easy to grasp by everybody and well explained in my edit summary, which even contained three internal links as examples. And since everybody, including you, seem to agree about the need to do it, I think that a previous discussion would have been only a waste of time, definitely against the spirit of WP:BOLD. I receive your suggestions respectfully, but I think that I acted correctly. Paolo.dL (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Musical scale, a case in which a discussion before moving was in my opinion necessary, because the topic was previously discussed without reaching consensus. And hence I posted there a comment before editing, and I will not move unless consensus is reached. You might help. Paolo.dL (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Modern names vs. Ancient Greek names

Ionian = Lydian (Ancient Greek name)

Dorian = Phrygian (Ancient Greek name)

Phrygian = Dorian (Ancient Greek name)

Lydian = Sintolydian (Ancient Greek name)

Mixolydian = Ionian (Ancient Greek name)

Aeolian = Aeolian (Ancient Greek name)

Locrian = Mixolydian (Ancient Greek name) says Anthony Ashton ("Harmonograph: A Visual Guide to the Mathematics of Music"). Böri (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there some point to all this? These equivalents could only apply to the diatonic genus of the ancient Greek harmoniai, of course (along with several further qualifications), but are they inaccurately represented in the article at present, or what?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The modern Ionian mode was in fact "the Lydian mode" in Ancient Greece. I wanted to say this. Böri (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned, this is true only of the diatonic genus of the scale used in the Lydian harmonia. Does this affect the present article at all? This is, after all, what talk pages like this are for—not for a general discussion of a subject.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Where do 'modern' modes come from?

This is a very confusing subject, and the article doesn't entirely clear up the confusion. It appears that there are three different 'systems' of modes - Greek, Church (medieval and later), and Modern - which use a set of overlapping terminology derived from Greek (Dorian, etc) but apply it to different things. It is understandable that the medieval composers and writers got in a muddle over the Greek usage, because they had very little info to go on, but it is not clear why the 'Modern' system is different from both Greek and Church systems. When did the Modern system come into common use, and why?86.179.214.155 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to take a closer look at the current version of the article, because I have an uneasy feeling that the answer actually is found in one of the subsidiary articles, such as Lydian mode. The short answer is that the connection between the Greek harmoniai and the medieval modes is more tenuous than you appear to believe, and the connection between medieval and modern modes is fairly straightforward. The "modern system" is actually that of Common Practice Tonality, and "modal" usage within that context begins to establish itself as a separate idea during the 18th century. The chief difference from medieval practice is a more rigid adherence to the diatonic notes of the scale. For example, in the medieval system, there is no practical difference between the Lydian scale and what we call the major scale, or between the Dorian and what we call the minor scale. In order to differentiate "modal flavor" from the chromatic flexibility of the upper half of the minor scale, for example, it became necessary to insist on always using the minor-seventh scale degree, especially in ascent to the tonic, and the sixth degree had to be always major to identify Dorian, and always minor to identify Aeolian. No such practice existed up to the 16th century, and indeed it was only with Glareanus in the mid-16th century that a theoretical difference was made between Dorian and Aeolian on the one hand, and Lydian and Ionian on the other. I shall see what I can do to clear this up (using reliable sources, of course).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's helpful. I came to the article because I've been reading the Cambridge History of Western Music Theory and was trying to make sense of this bewildering subject! Just a couple of points that occur to me. First, the emphasis in music theory and pedagogy probably shifted from vocal (choral)to keyboard applications between 1650 and 1800, and on the keyboard the 'modern' interpretation of modes is very easy to explain. Second, and related to the first, the general adoption of tempered scales (whether equal temperament or some other 'well-tempered' system) must have had some impact on how people interpreted modes.86.143.237.7 (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would put that shift about a century earlier but, yes, it is true that "On 31 December 1600 all the Renaissance composers died". They were all singers, of course, and they were probably assassinated by the gang of violinists and keyboardists who took over composition in the Baroque. I'm not sure how much easier this makes the explanation of the modes, but it may very well have had some effect on the way in which they are explained. The "modern interpretation", on the other hand (as it is construed in the present article), does not really emerge until the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th century, when theorist found themselves explaining the efforts of historicist composers like Bruckner, who began attempting to evoke the dim and distant musical past in a way similar to the literary efforts of Walter Scott at around the same point in history. As for the tempering of scales, I do not really see what importance this has, unless of course you are a devotee of the chant performance style cultivated by Ensemble Organum, which includes ornamentation that slides back and forth between scale pitches, notes landing squarely between B-natural and B-flat, etc. If you are having a difficult time coming to terms with what the Cambridge History has got to say on the subject, I should probably steer you toward what is generally regarded as the last word on the subject of modes, which is Harold Powers's essay in the New Grove, cited in this article. It is a daunting article, probably the longest non-biographical article in New Grove, and not at all easy to grasp on first reading but, in the end, will set straight most if not all of the misapprehensions about the history of modal theory. Rockstro's article in the original Grove (also cited here) will put the icing in the cake, in that it includes a huge amount of material on the 19th-century point of view that has been avoided by Powers, probably on grounds that chant theory after 1600 is not particularly relevant. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the use of modes in jazz or by composers like Shostakovich or Glass.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

intervals

"an ordered series of intervals that, with the key or tonic (first tone), defines that scale's intervals, or steps" how can intervals define intervals? isn't that circular?

It certainly is! Clearly, someone typoed "interval" for "pitch" or "note" in one of the two places. I have decided it must be the earlier place, and fixed the passage accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Major and minor

Why are the modes other than ionian and aeolian not used anymore? Is there something bad about them? Have people develop theories of harmonies similar to ionian and aeolian for those modes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money is tight (talk • contribs) 10:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that no one answered Money is tight's question. Apparently he didn't find the answer in the article and wanted some help. That also indicates that this article is a place where people come for answers to this kind of questions. In any case I think his assumption that what happened was that the other modes were abandoned and only two were left and that's all it took for the tonal major-minor system to come into existence should have been corrected. Contact Basemetal here 08:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, also. Somehow I missed this question last September, or I might have responded to it then. However, I have just read through this article and cannot find any statement in it that implies this at all. If anything, it seems to say quite the opposite. In the first main section, titled "Modes and scales", the second paragraph states that, by the early 19th century, "mode" came to refer to something "outside of the major/minor system that could be used to evoke religious feelings or to suggest folk-music idioms". Surely this implies that modal writing continued in use for these purposes through at least 1850. This might be expanded a bit to include something about modal usage in the later 19th century (perhaps citing examples from Brahms or Bruckner, or even mentioning the Cecilian Movement), as well as a geneal mention of modal practice in the 20th century. This would serve as an introduction to the more detailed discussion toward the end of the article in a fairly long section describing "The modern modes" (the word "modern" should probably be specified as referring to usage from the 17th century or so down to the present time). This all sounds as if Money is tight had heard this rumor somewhere else and, upon reading this article, could not find confirmation of it. Despite this, he formulated the question as if this false assumption acquired at some unspecified place were true. If there is a reliable source for such a wrong-headed view, then I suppose it might be added here, in order that further sourced material explaining why it is wrong might be added. (To make such a defense now, when no such question has been raised, seems pointless.) The other half of the question, however (are there theories of harmonies specific to modes?) is only partially addressed in the present form of this article. The currently proposed merger back into this article of the once-split-away Properties of musical modes might help to answer this question, except that as it stands that article actually has less in it than this one already has got.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you think I was implying Money's tight got his wrong assumptions from this article? If I did, it was wholly unintentional. Who knows where he might have gotten them? You do find stuff like "In the Baroque period of music, all modes except the Ionian and Aeolian were discarded. These were then renamed the major and minor scale." (verbatim from this Web page) floating around. Contact Basemetal here 16:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if I left the impression that anyone other than Money is tight suggested this idea might have come from this article. Because the question was posted here, it is logical to assume that the question is directed at something said in the article itself. In the present instance it is particularly odd because, as I said, the article seems to make it perfectly clear (complete with some citations from reliable sources) that this is not the case at all. There may be sources out there somewhere that are full of such misinformation (I have actually seen books with titles beginning "The Idiot's Guide to …" and have often wondered why anyone would want to be guided by an idiot) and, if they are receiving sufficient attention and harm is therefore being caused, then they ought to be brought into the discussion here. However, until such cases are actually pointed out, it seems best to regard this as gossip picked up on the playground from jokers luring the gullible with tall tales ("The earth really is flat, you know—just look at it!").—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-merger Merger proposal

Back in 2005 a chunk was taken out of this article to make Properties of musical modes. I don't find that article particularly useful. I propose to merge it back here and make it a redirect. Objections? Contact Basemetal here 04:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Since there don't seem to be objections I'll bring back here whatever is in the other article, and there is very little that's there that's not already here. Contact Basemetal here 04:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Contact Basemetal here 09:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not...

Since in section Mode_(music)#Summary there's a table of the modes transposed to C and their signatures, which I did not insert there, I thought it made sense to explain how modal signatures are arrived at. But I've hanged around this place long enough to just know someone is bound to get up and loudly protest that "Wikipedia is not a handbook, an instruction manual, a guidebook, a textbook, a how-to book, a compendium, a recipe book, a collection of mathematical formulas, a travel book, a FAQ, a tourist guide, a list of hotels or restaurants in Paris, etc.". Of course the information that is presented in my "recipe" could be presented in a totally factual way, with not a shadow of a hint that you're explaining to anyone how to do something. At the cost, I'd say, of being more pedantic, unreadable and silly looking. But let's just wait and see what happens. Contact Basemetal here 04:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Relative?

Is it OK to use the term "relative" for modes (modal scales, transposed modes, with the same signature) as in "The relative major of F dorian is E♭ major" and vice versa? Contact Basemetal here 09:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have heard this done; I cannot recall seeing it in print, but I wouldn't be surprised. Personally, I would avoid confusing "major" and "minor" with mode names, or you might end up saying foolish things like "the relative major of E♭ Ionian is E♭". More seriously, is the "relative minor" of F Dorian C or F, since the minor scale can use either the Dorian and Aeolian sixth scale degree? There should be no confusion in saying "the relative Mixolydian of C♯ Dorian is F♯".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Modes transposed to a common tonic of A

I believe it may be useful to show a table of the modes transposed to a common tonic of A, alongside the one given for the tonic of C - this will make the "minor modes" more transparent. 46.117.77.204 (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How would that be more transparent than the current table with C as the common tonic? When your eye runs down the "E" column, there is a point where this turns to E♭. In a table with a common tonic of A, it would be a matter of C♯ turning to C♮. I fail to see the advantage.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Mode as a general term

I reworked this section, because the referred essay of Harold Powers does either not get to the point or the quoting reader did not see the wood before the trees. The synthesis is indeed long before Powers, but we do not have Greek references preceding the Hagiopolites treatise. The earliest theoretical source might be al-Kindi who documented an interest for the Greek octoechos for 8th-century Baghdad. The octoechos reform was already done by the end of the 7th century, although it was a controversial issue among Byzantine churchmen. We know about a Carolingian interest, but the theory which reflected the synthesis, was a century later. Platonykiss (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

COI?

Anonymous User:93.76.27.53 (an IP address that I observe is in Kiev, Ukraine) has now three times removed a citation to a standard textbook by the late Yuri Kholopov. With the most recent reversion, a serious charge of a financial conflict of interest was made in the edit summary: "Just look who added this link (not quite appropriate) and read the paragraph WP:FCOI)". I have provisionally removed the entire paragraph, and invite User:93.76.27.53 to explain further. As I said in my own edit summary, I have no idea who it was who added this reference (not a "link"), and cannot fathom how anyone could have a financial interest that would be in conflict with adding it. For clarity, the contentious source is/was: Kholopov, Yuri (2003). Гармония. Теоретический курс. 2nd ed. Moscow; Saint Petersburg: Lan'. ISBN 5-8114-0516-2 (English: Harmony. A Theoretical Course). The subject of the contested paragraph is the relationship between Carolingian chant theory and that of Byzantine and Znamenny chant. Because my only direct contact with Prof Kholopov was attending a brilliant presentation on the subject of Znamenny chant which he made at a session of the American Musicological Society in Phoenix some years ago, I would be astonished if the reliability of this source could possibly be in question. Since User:Michael Bednarek has also recently reverted 93.76.27.53's deletion of this reference, I also invite his input to this discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• My revert was purely technical. The citation was attached to a claim related to Znamenny chant; removing the citation with the edit summary, "Reference (Kholopov 2003, 192) moved to the article 'Znamenny chant', where it is more relevant." where 93.76.28.14 had it just added, shows unfamiliarity with Wikipedia citation rules. Same for 93.76.27.219's "Reference to the article 'Znamenny chant' there is more than enough." The reference was added by User:Olorulus on 11 September 2014 in 2 edits at 10:40 and 10:45. That user, Sergey Lebedev, states that he wrote his thesis under Kholopov. Even so, I can't fathom either how FCOI can arise. Anyway, if the paragraph "Nevertheless, Carolingian theorists … Russian Znamenny chant as well." (now removed) is of value in this arrticle, then this source ought to be included. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It would not be amiss, on your part, to explain why page 192 of the source, which is necessary, as you believe, is really relevant, and not a brazen advertisement with calculation that here they don't read in Russian. --93.76.26.42 (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether that paragraph is necessary or even relevant, and I didn't write that. If it is, the Kholopov citation, or any other suitable source, should be used. You still seem to misunderstand Wikipedia's requirement for citations. A source provided in Znamenny chant is not sufficient to support a related statement in Mode (music). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Is quite clear that you don't know what is written on page 192, reference to which you rashly returned to the paragraph where it no looks as evidence of the veracity of the foregoing, but as brazen advertising, trampling the basics of community. --93.76.26.218 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If the citation supports the text about eight modes in Znamenny chant, where you inserted it, it is also appropriate to use that source here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your kids logic is not added sustainability to your a faltering reputation. --93.76.29.110 (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Olorulus wrote (2012 [1] English translation): Has laid out scan (PDF) the second edition of the seminal book (textbook) Yu. N. Kholopov "Harmony. Theoretical course." For convenience, add bookmarks to PDF on the main sections of the book.

In the near future I plan to do reference system for this book (Index nominum, Index rerum, Index notarum), which is sorely lacking.

I ask all noticed typographical and factual errors in the book YuNH notify me at the address indicated on the errata page. These comments will necessarily be taken into account when re-release of the book. --93.76.26.131 (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with writers adding their own scholarly works as sources to Wikipedia articles – happens all the time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it is done all the time. Further, while much has now been cleared up about who was responsible for adding this particular citation, nothing said so far supports the claim that Olorulus=Sergey Lebedev has a financial motive in citing his mentor's book, let alone how FCOI can possibly apply, since it plainly states that "a close financial relationship with a topic" is a possible reason for not writing articles about that topic—it says nothing at all about citing sources. How does Olorulus stand to benefit financially from the concept of musical modes?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• It is not a scholarly work but re-release of the textbook, which is not distributed for free, and is massively sold by the publisher. This is a commercial activity, which in dire need of advertising. --93.76.26.218 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

How does this give Olorulus a financial interest in the subject "Mode (music)"? It is neither a copyrighted nor a patented concept.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Now — no way. You removed from the article a possibility to advertise the Kholopov's textbook (not indisputably valuable). --93.76.28.63 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly ("Now — no way"), you are withdrawing your allegation of FCOI. There has never been any issue raised about advertising anything at all, least of all Kholopv's textbook, which was cited as a source. I agree that nothing is indisputably valuable—this is a truism—but this text clearly satisfies the Wikipedia requirements for reliable sources. Do you have some further point to make, or shall we just restore the paragraph on the relationship of the Carolingian system and Znamenny chant, supported by the citation to Kholopov's text, as originally added by Olorulus?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding is not correct. If you simply quote here a fragment of the specified in Kholopov's textbook page 192, where is written about the said relationship, the suspicions in financial interest of the contributor will be scattered. --93.76.27.192 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If a citation in a reputable source supports the text, it should not be removed. I suspect that Grove, MGG, and many other publications gained some Wikipedia readers/editors as customers because they are used for references here. I subscribed for a time to The New Yorker because of Alex Ross's articles quoted here, and to the The New York Times for Anthony Tommasini and others. So what? They're still quotable, reputable, reliable sources. I suggest you stop your cruisade and drop the stick. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. Besides, what does quoting a relevant passage from the page (e.g., Древнерусские гласы – одна из великих ладовых систем, сравнимая по важности с другими великими ладовыми массивами – древнегреческой и западной грегорианской) have to do with the claim of financial interest?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You're not kidding? You really argue that the passage Old Russian voices — one of the great modal systems, comparable in importance to other great modal arrays — Greek and Western Gregorian may be valid sourse of all this:: Nevertheless, Carolingian theorists did not simply use the same modes described in the Hagiopolites, they invented an own eight mode system which was used to structure the melodic memory of plainchant, since cantors were asked to learn the Roman repertoire. The Byzantine hymns were imported to Slavic chant traditions, when the monastic chant books (sticherarion, heirmologion) were translated in Ohrid and Novgorod. The translation of echos (ἦχος) was glas (гласъ "voice"). Hence, a system of eight glas can be found in later Russian Znamenny chant as well.? --93.76.29.10 (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

All you asked for was a random quote or two "about the said relationship" in order that "the suspicions in financial interest of the contributor will be scattered". This makes absolutely no sense to me at all (perhaps we have a language-barrier problem here—my Russian is almost non-existent, and I have no Ukrainian at all) , but I am trying to fulfill your requirements. The issue is not (though perhaps it should be) whether or not the cited passage verifies everything in the paragraph (it verifies some things, but not others). The issue is whether WP:FCOI is being violated here. I see no grounds at all to support this charge against User:Olorulus.

If you re-release in English The Great Textbook by your Genious Teacher, will be much easier for you to push its advertising in articles of this Wikipedia part. --93.76.29.227 (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge the cited source as not supporting either the entire paragraph or specific points within it, then the correct procedure is either to mark the citation with a {{failed verification}} template, or to mark specific points not addressed in it with {{citation needed}}, not by making wild and unsupportable accusations against another editor.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems wild your with Michael Bednarek unsupportable belief that for paragraph (now removed) was extremely needful the reference to page where is written: «what the modes in the native ancient Russian melodies, we don't know; it's not known how many them, how they should be called, what their indications; we do not know if the voices and the modes are identical or not ( Template:Lang-ru)». Ones who understand the matter of the financial interests will not exclude from those annoying advertising the intended for re-releasing textbook. --93.76.27.18 (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)