Talk:Diatonic and chromatic

First section topic

I propose that clear definitions be placed in the first section(s) and that history follow definitions. The current definitions found in the lead are unclear to the inexperienced and the history of these terms is not enlightening in that respect. Hyacinth (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Hyacinth. I've been looking through the article myself recently and thinking we might re-work a couple of things. The article grew up in a difficult environment, not one that was conducive to a natural exposition. Other articles treated these terms abysmally, especially the term diatonic. They still do, and they stand in need of attention far more than this article does.

I do think that all of the history is important in its own right, and also relevant to a deep understanding of how the terms are used today. I also think that the notes are essential, and in no way detract from the readability of the main text, since they stand apart from it. In fact, they help to keep things streamlined in the main text. It can now be made more streamlined, and one or two more things may be transferable to the notes.

I should say this: proceed with caution! It's a thorny one to keep balanced and consensual, and useful both to beginners and to those trying to dig beneath the surface.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than insufficient context, it's overly technical. :) Hyacinth (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not the true meaning of diatonic. Its really quite simple but im not telling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikialrobertson (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In the modern meanings, perhaps something should be mentioned about intervals above augmented seconds. I have a teacher who defines diatonic as 'any seven note scale with no consecutive interval larger than an augmented 2nd'. This seems weird at first, you think 'any seven note scale'? But they're actually quite limited. I haven't sat down and worked out how many variants you can make beyond the obvious maj/min modes, but might be interesting to do so... Maybe you could add an additional qualifier that there can only be one augmented 2nd (if any) - Dominant7flat9 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

a couple of points

"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)

C+D = E :O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.241.35 (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

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. :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Non-unique headings

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)

Essay

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)

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)

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)

Goals:

1. Rewrite in the third person
2. Replace vague references to "above", etc., with specific references or section links
3. Remove condescension
4. Discuss diatonic before chromatic
5. Add images & audio for clarification

Hyacinth (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Bibliography

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)

See: WP:LAY, specifically WP:LAY#Standard appendices and footers. Hyacinth (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

General comments on the article

[Discussion moved to its own section, for clarity. –Noetica]

The lack of flow in this article makes it practically unreadable even to someone experienced in musical theory. The abundance of technical terms and references to others only compound how vague the content has actually become. Diatonic and Chromatic tones in the most basic applications, such as simple chords or harmonies, are completely absent in the face of minor technicalities. The idea is moderately difficult to grasp, and as such should have a clear and concise description for the readers who come to the article to learn about the topic, not discuss abstract advanced theory. This article gives the impression that the core idea has been overcomplicated just for the sake of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaintingPerception (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

PP, this article has had a troubled history from the start. It could certainly do with some re-fashioning, now that the white-hot contention has subsided. But it will not be as easy as many think. It also needs to be brought into line with Wikipedia referencing standards and the like.

There are those who consider the terms diatonic and chromatic straightforward – certainly in their elementary applications. There are others (and I am among them) who think that modern and current usage is deeply conflicted. As a test: do you think that the diminished 7th on G# (both as interval and chord) is diatonic? Do you think it is diatonic in A major? In A minor? Do you think that the chord E–G#–B is diatonic in A minor? How about the chord D–F#–A in A minor? How about that chord in the ascending form of the A melodic minor scale? How about the note F# in A minor (in the ascending melodic fragment E-F#-G#-A): diatonic? Is the interval G#–C diatonic? Is it diatonic in A minor? Do you think that these questions all make sense? If not, why not? Please explain your answers; and if an answer is "no", say whether the feature in question is instead chromatic, or what (if anything specifiable at all in the same domain).

When you have given your clear answers to all these questions, you might like to show references that support your answers. In some cases, references can be provided that give a different answer. The exercise is interesting, and it affects basic music theory – not just the ethereal reaches of academic musicology.

Other editors may like to respond to this challenge too.

Noetica^Tea? 04:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The following links may be of interest.

• MusicGoals Music Theory Questions and Answers.
• Ask a Question - My Music Theory. Free lessons and exercises in Music Theory for everyone.
• Ask Edly about Playing Music and Learning Music Theory
• Music Theory Questions and Answers

—Wavelength (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some additional links, perhaps with decreasing relevance.

• Lucille Reilly's Most Frequently Asked Questions
• Skytopia : Tuning & Music Scales Theory - Why are there 12 notes in Equal temperament?
• Harp-L FAQ
• Is the chromatic scale a result of the diatonic scale? - iBreatheMusic Forums
• Autoharp Talk • View topic - What does "diatonic" mean?
• The Development of Musical Tuning Systems
• Scale Networks and Debussy
• Music Solo Performance

—Wavelength (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As an amateur musician I can't make any sense of this article.-- Graphics Geezer — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraphicsGeezer (talk • contribs) 02:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the (brief) discussion in the article currently on the original meanings of the terms "diatonic" "chromatic" (and "enharmonic") in ancient Greek musical theory needs expansion and reworking. First, it should be noted that this is the same meaning of these terms that was used in Byzantine music, and is still current in post-Byzantine ecclesiastical music. Second, the use of terms "whole tone" and "semitone" to characterize the diatonic scales in this sense is inappropriate. In the Byzantine sense of this term, a diatonic scale consists of two tetrachords with intervals of 12, 10, and 8 microtones (where 12 microtones = a "whole tone" in the contemporary sense (= 1000 cents)). The Byzantine diatonic scale thus involves no semi-tones (= 6 microtones). The Byzantine enharmonic scales are closer to the contemporary major or minor scales-- their tetrachords consist of intervals of 12 and 6 microtones. Byzantine chromatic scales are any scale that consists of tetrachords whose middle interval is larger than the intervals on either side of it. There are two types of chromatic scale-- soft and hard. In a soft chromatic scale, the middle interval of the tetrachord is less than the sum of the intervals next to it (e.g., 8, 14, and 8 microtones-- Byzantine "mode 2"), while in a hard chromatic scale the middle interval of the tetrachord is greater than the sum of the intervals next to it (e.g., 6, 20 and 4-- Byzantine "mode plagal 2"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.9.154 (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"12 microtones = 1 whole tone"? "1 whole tone = 1000 cents"? "Post-Byzantine ecclesiastical music"? What planet are you from? —Wahoofive (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference to opthalmology

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. PMID 13104591.])".

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)

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)

Noun titles

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)Pigi5

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)

Spliting this page into two pages

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 scale, modes of the established scale 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)