Talk:Heptatonic scale

Diatonic and chromatic

The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with chromatic, is the cause of serious uncertainties at several Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Specifically in this case, the article classifies harmonic minor and melodic minor as diatonic, contradicting the linked article Diatonic scale (but supportably from other sources). Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for editors to "challenge assumptions", "comfortable" or other, and neither is this discussion page the place to advertise and promote work one has undertaken on other articles. Although the term diatonic is occasionally used in such a way as to include the harmonic and melodic minor scales (in Robert Ottman's Advanced Harmony textbook, for example), this is an ahistorical usage that most authoritative sources avoid. It is not so much that the article fails to provide "adequate explanation" for diatonic as that its use of the term is contextually incorrect and illogical. In order to justify its very existence, this article needs to cite a number of seven-note scales. By only mentioning scales it calls "diatonic", it inadvertantly calls into question the need for the term heptatonic. TheScotch 09:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Scotch, whether or not Wikipedia is a place for editors to embark on a program of challenging assumptions, occasionally writing good articles will have that effect willy nilly. And it may then be a good idea to warn people that comfortable assumptions are likely to be called into question. That is what I have done above (and, as you know, at Talk:Pentatonic scale, and elsewhere). I find your resistance to attempts to coordinate Wikipedia's music theory articles odd. Of course we want some sort of uniformity in our use of terms, don't we? That's why we have areas like :Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_terminology and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tunings,_Temperaments,_and_Scales, and guides like Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music). Because these are not used as much as they might be, I have "advertised" an important new article that sets out to clarify usages of the key terms diatonic and chromatic. What could be possibly be objectionable about that? I have drawn attention to infelicities, inconsistencies, and frank errors in certain articles at their talk pages, with an invitation to look at Diatonic and chromatic, and to join the discussion at Talk:Diatonic and chromatic. Just what is your problem with that? You seem to believe that there is just one "correct" use of these terms. Unfortunately, there are many who disagree with you: here at Wikipedia, and in the wider literature. And of course, there are many who agree with you. In short, there is a confusing diversity: and it is well not to deny that unfortunate fact, since if we do deny it we fall victim to confusion – or at least fail to help others to avoid it. In the end, I simply want to document all this, to show what might be meant by these difficult terms. As the present article's use of the term diatonic being "contextually incorrect and illogical" (before you changed it), you have by no means demonstrated that. While I am neutral concerning these different usages, I would point out that the inclusion of all forms of the minor as diatonic has good historical precedent and current support, and is perfectly defensible on "logical" grounds (as a reasonable, coherent, understandable taxonomic decision). It seems to me that you work from the assumption that this is not so, and are uneasy about having that assumption challenged. Interesting.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 12:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What's more, it's a bit churlish and territorial to delete a link to Diatonic and chromatic (as you have just done, without explanation). It is quite relevant to the content of this article, and gives additional information that is at least as helpful to readers as Diatonic scale. I won't restore anything you have deleted, because I don't want an edit war over something so petty: but you have done a disservice to readers.

Why do you give in the lead the form of the major scale (C D E F G A B C) in parallel with similar forms for the harmonic minor, etc., with their C to C structure, but not name it "major"? You have deleted a link to Major scale, and you have called this sequence (C D E F G A B C) "diatonic scale" instead. This is misleading to the reader, if as you later write "the term diatonic scale refers to a pitch collection and does not imply any particular tonal center or note of especial emphasis." Showing it in the form you do, and not as an unstructured collection, you assimilate it to the other three forms; and then you contradict that assimilation. You provide no explanation of "pitch collection"; and if you did link pitch collection, there would simply be a redirection to an article that does not explain or even contain the phrase (Tone row). In any case, the link to Scale (music) that you do retain has in its lead this statement: "Scales differ from modes in that scales do not have a primary or 'tonic' note." So why do you single out the diatonic scale (in your understanding of it, at least) as not having any "note of especial interest"?

I'm afraid that this article is not much improved, and remains imprecise and confusing. Perhaps it is now more obvious why a number of us deplore the standard of the Wikipedia music theory articles, and are working against considerable resistance to improve standards and to coordinate things better.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 08:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Well Scotch, whether or not Wikipedia is a place for editors to embark on a program of challenging assumptions, occasionally writing good articles will have that effect willy nilly. And it may then be a good idea to warn people that comfortable assumptions are likely to be called into question. That is what I have done above (and, as you know, at Talk:Pentatonic scale, and elsewhere).":

As far as I can tell, you have done it at pretty much every article that uses either the (very basic and very common) term diatonic or chromatic, and you have done it with precisely the same words, by cutting and pasting which, I think, qualifies your advertisements as spam. In any case, you seem to be begging the question here (that is, talking in circles): If you define a "good" article to be one that "challenges assumptions" then you will of course find that "good" articles challenge assumptions, but to define good thus is to proceed in a manner contrary to the spirit and letter of wikipedia policy. TheScotch 10:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Because these are not used as much as they might be, I have "advertised" an important new article that sets out to clarify usages of the key terms diatonic and chromatic. What could be possibly be objectionable about that?":

Notice first that the one who has undertaken to write the article, to watch it like a hawk, to advertise it vociferously, and to dominate its discussion page is the one who is calling it "important" here. I submit that you are not in position to be objective about this, and that it is unbecoming of yourself to judge your own "importance". In any case, among many other objections, you are cluttering wikipedia and distracting editors. I reply to you at all against my better judgement.

Re: "Why do you give in the lead the form of the major scale (C D E F G A B C) in parallel with similar forms for the harmonic minor, etc., with their C to C structure, but not name it '"major'?'"

Quite obviously, I do it simply for the sake of parallelism.

Re: "You have deleted a link to Major scale, and you have called this sequence (C D E F G A B C) 'diatonic scale' instead. This is misleading to the reader, if as you later write 'the term diatonic scale refers to a pitch collection and does not imply any particular tonal center or note of especial emphasis.":

Au contraire, it would be a disservice to readers to vomit forth endless paragraphs splitting diatonic hair molecules. Quite obviously the diatonic scale subsumes the major scale. TheScotch 10:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "You provide no explanation of 'pitch collection'; and if you did link pitch collection, there would simply be a redirection to an article that does not explain or even contain the phrase (Tone row). In any case, the link to Scale (music) that you do retain has in its lead this statement: 'Scales differ from modes in that scales do not have a primary or "tonic" note.":

A pitch collection is quite obviously and simply a collection of pitches. It is hard for me to see that this requires any explanation. I am, of course, not responsible for articles with which I have had nothing to do, but, in any case, it is unreasonable of you to expect and require that all wikipedia articles be perfectly consistent in all respects with all other wikipedia articles, whether or not the articles you mention are indeed inconsistent with each other. It is also unreasonable of you to hold me accountable for everything that appears in every article to which an article I have edited may link, especially if I've merely "retained", as you put it, the link. TheScotch 11:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

---

This is all pretty much a waste of time, Scotch. I'll respond to most of what you say here, but if I replied with all that I could say, it would be a further waste of time. Your remarks in italics, mine not:

As far as I can tell, you have done it at pretty much every article that uses either the (very basic and very common) term diatonic or chromatic, and you have done it with precisely the same words,...

You are mistaken. I first read each relevant article, and then adapted a short and unobtrusive general text commenting on the article's use of diatonic or chromatic (or both). You're the only editor who has so far raised any objection to my discussing articles in their talk pages, or to my efforts towards some order and uniformity of terminology across articles.

...by cutting and pasting which, I think, qualifies your advertisements as spam.

It would be spam if it were not relevant and well-considered. Since it is both relevant and well-considered, it is not spam.

In any case, you seem to be begging the question here (that is, talking in circles): If you define a good article to be one that "challenges assumptions"...

But it is not part of my definition. I wrote: "...challenging assumptions, occasionally writing good articles will have that effect willy nilly." (The consequent in your conditional has no support, since the antecedent is false.)

Notice first that the one who has undertaken to write the article, to watch it like a hawk, to advertise it vociferously, and to dominate its discussion page is the one who is calling it "important" here.

Yes, I started the article, and have been congratulated for doing so. Yes, I write a lot at its discussion page, because I like to discuss. Yes, I watch it like a hawk, because I am competent and motivated to maintain a good Wikipedia article against vandalism and substandard editing. And yes, I call it "important". I would not have put so much effort into it if I had a different opinion. If you don't share that view of its importance, or understand the terminological difficulties that it clears up, that is (unfortunately) your problem. I will not make it mine.

I submit that you are not in position to be objective about this, and that it is unbecoming of yourself to judge your own "importance".

I'm biased, in some way? Then counter my bias by reasoned discussion at Talk:Diatonic and chromatic. But I am at loss to see how you conclude anything about my assessment of myself. I, note, have not ADVERTISED myself at my completely empty page User:Noetica, which redirects to my discussion page. (Contrast various other user pages... .) That's all I want here: good discussion towards good articles.

In any case, among many other objections, you are cluttering wikipedia and distracting editors. I reply to you at all against my better judgement.

I am not distracting anyone, except perhaps you. Nor am I cluttering Wikipedia. I am clarifying terms that you seem to think are used in a uniform way. They are not, as highly competent editors with specialised knowledge have agreed. Efforts towards clarity are the opposite of cluttering.

Quite obviously, I do it simply for the sake of parallelism.

An absurd response to a well-formed question whose point you appear to have missed entirely.

...it would be a disservice to readers to vomit forth endless paragraphs splitting diatonic hair molecules. Quite obviously the diatonic scale subsumes the major scale.

A thoroughly benighted response. Since you have not been able to grasp the issues that I have raised for consideration, and reflexly come back with nothing but venom and obstruction, I'll not continue this futile interchange much further.

A pitch collection is quite obviously and simply a collection of pitches. It is hard for me to see that this requires any explanation.

There's your problem. If you introduce technical terms, first understand them well yourself; then, if there is any doubt, explain for the readers. Or at least link to an explanation. The mere fact that you think you understand a term fully, and that the term is used in a uniform way by everyone else, does not guarantee that readers will have the vaguest idea what you intend. If you can't see, for example, that there is a problem with the term diatonic, even though it is now thoroughly documented for you, then (optimist though I am) I see little hope.

...it is unreasonable of you to expect and require that all wikipedia articles be perfectly consistent in all respects with all other wikipedia articles, whether or not the articles you mention are indeed inconsistent with each other. It is also unreasonable of you to hold me accountable for everything that appears in every article to which an article I have edited may link, especially if I've merely "retained", as you put it, the link.

I don't do either of those things. But I say this: it is unreasonable for you to resist efforts at clarifying, and efforts towards a measure of uniformity across the Wikipedia music articles. Others, myself included, make the effort. If you don't want to join in that effort, at least don't obstruct it, through a sense of wounded pride, inappropriate territoriality, or whatever it is that moves you to inveigh so vehemently and personally against me. The editor doth protest too much, methinks.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I think we can dismiss with impunity as mere defensive posturing (replete with argumentum ad hominem) pretty much all you say above, since you seem desperately to be foraging for anything (whether native to this article or not) you can pass off as inconsistent so as to bolster the claims of your cut-and-paste replicated advertisement, I should simply like to remind you once again, apropos of the very first sentence of your original missive, that it is not your job at wikipedia to reform what you call “the wider literature”, but to conform to it. Try to let that sink in. TheScotch 15:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As also recently at Talk:Diatonic and chromatic, Scotch, I find I now have to draw this public sparring to a close. For one thing, it is too much of a mismatch, since it is embarrassing how easily I can dismiss your misguided tiltings.

Let me just point out that I am not attempting to reform the wider literature. But I am concerned to edit well at Wikipedia, and to work towards consistency and clarity here. I regret that some few are unable to see the value of that work. But many others do value it, and we collaborate in it. The present article is among those that need reform desperately.

Again, as at Talk:Diatonic and chromatic, I ask you to continue any personal attacks at my talk page instead of publicly. But in fact I think the whole thing is a waste of time, and against Wikipedia rules. Why not just get on with dispassionate editing?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think TheScotch needs to put down the thesaurus and pick up a dictionary. 121.209.10.105 16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that "diatonic" meant a scale composed of two kinds of intervals. If this is the case then Harmonic Minor, containing an interval of a tone and half along with its tones and semitones, is not a diatonic scale at all. Music terminology is a nightmare and any attempts to take it outside of its usual western box are likely to end in tears. Wikipedia isn't the place to re-invent terminology but I wish somebody would do so and provide a sensible framework everyone could agree upon with new words that don't cause confusion. --Andrew F. (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Need some help here

Hi, I'm not a musical virtuoso here, and I'm trying to understand about these 'exotic' scales but Wikipedia seems to be contradicting itself here. I always understood the gypsy scale to be the Phrygian dominant of the harmonic minor, even though on wikipedia it is sometimes referred to as the Jewish scale. The articles for Byzantine scale and Arabic scale are both describing the same thing (admittedly they are under discussion for merging) but this article is stating that the Hungarian, gypsy and Byzantine scale are all the same, and gives a different scale. This website: http://cnx.org/content/m11636/latest/ is also giving slightly different titles etc.

Can anyone help me out with all this confusion?! ArdClose (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Ok, well I just found out at least that Arabic and Arabian don't mean the same thing... ArdClose (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

First, "Wikipedia...contradicting itself" is a thing to be expected and not to be concerned about. No Wikipedia article can be a valid source for another Wikipedia article (or anything else for that matter--take everything at Wikipedia, and on the Internet altogether, cum grano salis). No Wikipedia article is obliged to be consistent with another. For that matter, what some seemingly random website you've googled says about the subject is not especially relevant. Anyone can put things on the Internet, and very often that anyone hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

Second, real Arabic scales are many and varied and don't use Western tuning systems.

Third, this article is not "stating that the Hungarian, gypsy and Byzantine scale are all the same"; it's stating that the particular heptatonic scale in question goes by these three names (and Egyptian as well).

Grove: "Gypsy scale [Hungarian mode, Hungarian scale]. The scale type c–d–eb–f#–g–ab–b–c', so called because of its use in much Hungarian Romantic music (particularly the verbunkos and the csárdás)." TheScotch (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the "Byzantine scale" and "Arabic scale" Wikipedia articles. The former gives the scale E F G# A B C D# E, the latter the scale C Db E F G Ab B C, which is a transpostion. Another transposition is G Ab B C D Eb F# G, which is a cyclic rotation of (the same scale as) C D Eb F# G Ab B C. There is no contradiction here. TheScotch (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, but thanks anyway, it still helped. ArdClose (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you meant that this scale should be differentiated according to name by different tonal centers (within the same pitch collection), the answer is that there is no consensus about this. In general the names refer to pitch collection alone. TheScotch (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Section: Diatonic Scale

The article says:

The term diatonic scale refers to a pitch collection and does not imply any particular tonal center or note of especial emphasis. It is in this respect different from the term major scale, which does imply a tonal center.

It seems like opening a can of worms to bring pitch hierarchy in on a term like this. (Can you think of a diatonic scale that does not imply a tonal center?) I think we should re-word this:

The term diatonic scale refers to any pitch collection of seven notes. As a generic term, it is used in conjunction with more specific terms such as major or minor to imply a tonal center (i.e. F-Major diatonic scale).

Any thoughts? 66.130.161.95 (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, that's not correct. A diatonic scale is simply one of seven scales: Ioanian (normal major), Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian (natural minor), and locrian. Since there are only seven of them, simply listing them gives the easiest definition. Does it have to be any more complex than that? Or the scales you get when playing the white notes on the piano (and their transpositions).

The statement you quotes also seems confusing to me. I would think a diatonic "scale" would have a tonal center. A diatonic pith collection could be called "a diatonic pitch collection". There is no ambiguity in that. I have for example always understood "E phrygian (minor)" to be a "diatonic scale" with E as its root. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.113.244 (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's always good to check the dictionary sites. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diatonic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatonic http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/161859/diatonic Diatonic means "having two types of tones". However, if that were the only criterion, many scales would qualify, such as 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 (the numbers represent consecutive intervals between scale members), 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2, 1 3 1 3 1 3, 2 2 3 2 3, etc. Other criteria apparently include repeating at the octave, having a definite "tonic" (tonal center), and having 7 pitches (which is the only reason they deserve mention in this heptatonic artice). Depending where you read, one final criterion is that a diatonic scale contains only one tritone interval, which eliminates the modes of 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 (common in jazz) and 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 (not common, but it would satisfy the other criteria). I fixed the section. --98.154.203.28 (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Heptonia (typo)

‘Heptonia’ looks strange and hardly appears outside Wikipedia; it should presumably be spelt ‘heptatonia’ (2 extra letters).in short, all this means that heptonic is a seven note scale.

(I wrote the first sentence above, and someone else replied, apparently missing the point entirely.) No, heptatonic means ‘of seven notes’; heptonic cannot possibly be right. Cf. OED: heptatonic [...] a. Mus. [Gr. ἑπτάτον-ος seven-toned], consisting of seven notes. Heptatonia (currently spelt heptonia in the article) would appear to derive from the same stem and hence be spelt analogously.

Classification of scales

Having read the distinction in the article between diatonic and major, with major implying a tonal centre, I'm not comfortable with the famous examples of heptatonic scales including diatonic, melodic minor, harmonic minor, etc., as that implies that harmonic minor is not diatonic.

Does anyone object if I change diatonic to major? Obviously the major scale is a famous example of a heptatonic scale. Rigaudon (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian scale

I noticed that Egyptian scale redirects here, but it is not mentioned anywhere in this article. I haven't found a good source about it. A guitar tutorial at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuwE0klUyaA shows that it is a harmonic minor with a raised fourth (C D Eb F# G Ab H). http://www.jeffbuser.com/egyptian.html lists many other "Egyptian scales", but not this one. More searching raises even more confusion — looks like the term is not at all uniquely defined. Anyway, as long as we have the aforementioned redirect, we should write about it! — Pt _(T) 01:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Where is the simple frequency scale?

Clearly, what differentiates notes of different pitch is the sonic frequency or wavelength. This isn't even mentioned but is the basic building block of sound in science, and must be the basis of all scales. "Egyptian" or otherwise. Please dispense with the artistic bafflegab and address sonic reality. 2.31.162.111 (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)