Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Would it be possible to have the Music terminology project become a task force of the Music Theory project? Dominiktesla (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Professor William Sethares could use some more editing. Good-faith editors have used primary sources for the article, and a bit of effort should be able to find secondary sources. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being pretty acquainted with the field, I don't think he has the name recognition that would warrant immediate attention to that article. There are many more pages in dire need of attention before this one. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 04:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you consideration. A professor at Wisconsin has obviously some engineering mojo working, and Sethares seems to be an interesting musical intellect and personality. His work was the main source for the next topic of discussion, regular tunings for guitar. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started articles on major-thirds tuning and augmented-fourths tuning (tritone tuning) for the guitar, as well as written a short section on regular tunings in the article on guitar tunings.

My knowledge is meager, my sources have been few, my editing has been hurried, and the guitar-tunings article is viewed by 1600 innocents daily. Both articles may appear on DYK, soon, as I have nominated them at DYK.

Thus, informed second-opinions would be useful. A DYK review would be great.

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK nomination for all-tritone guitar-tuning

still need to be reviewed.

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 16:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  A line segment bisecting the chromatic circle specifies an augmented-fourths (tritone) tuning.
• 
  An equilateral triangle circumscribed by the chromatic circle specifies a major-thirds tuning.
• 
  A square circumscribed by the chromatic circle specifies a minor-thirds tuning.

• 
  All-fourths tuning
• 
  All-fifths tuning
• 
  New standard tuning

Please look at the new article regular tunings, which is an expanded part of the guitar tunings article.

Interval-experts and string theorists probably are most useful.

Editor Hyacinth created the nifty graphics, shown above!

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Updated with 2nd gallery 08:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - quite a bit of progress has been made since last August when this project was probably all but dead. However, it is time for someone else to take over. Nominations (which can be self-made) will be taken for the next two weeks and beginning in July, we'll have elections (unless only one person has been nominated). I've really appreciated my time here and I'll still be around, editing and offering my insight on tricky subjects. But I think my effectiveness is beginning to wane and new energy can be breathed into the program with a new coordinator. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 13:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions! You've done a great job! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo for all you have done. Make sure it appears as a line on your resume. :) -- kosboot (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No nominations? OK - is there anyone willing to take over? :) — Devin.chaloux (chat) 17:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a formal RM action to move Musical scale to Scale (music). Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles.

Noetica^Tea? 23:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noted we have many disparate articles on Japanese scales, primarily pentatonic, and most of which need a lot of work. But we had no page for them overall, and thus no easy way to list them as "Japanese" in Template:Scales. Accordingly, I created Japanese musical scales, but it could really use some work from someone more versed in Japanese music than I. As one interested in the Akebono scale, it's been frustrating to see the article unreferenced, and I'm unable to find good refs for it online. I'm also cross-posting this post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would venture to say that the majority of us here at WP:MTH probably are no well acquainted with Japanese scales. While certainly not exclusive, it is heavily skewed to Western music. By all means, maybe you'll find someone here that does know quite a bit, but the majority of us probably will not. At least me :) — Devin.chaloux (chat) 02:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed solfege from note articles for a reason that's easy to understand. In C major, those solfege names are right; otherwise they are wrong. You know the scale do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do. In C major, C is do, but in G major, C is fa, not do. Mentioning do in the C (musical note) article implies that C is do even if not in C major. Any comments?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For people (like myself) who believe in fixed do, what you did would seem superficially logical. But many people use movable do in which do is assigned to whatever note is the tonic. Since there is no resolution in the music theory world as to which is better, I would think Wikipedia would also defer on the question, and include moveable do, otherwise people will edit all those syllables back into the article. Even if we tried to decide it on consensus, I doubt that a consensus would be reached. -- kosboot (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just went and reverted Georgia guy's edits. I know you acted in good faith, but there are still English speakers who use fixed-do, for example, if their musical training or early education happened in Latin America. Not sure how best to accommodate your views here... I'm listening, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with solfege before removing more. Hyacinth (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know solfege well. I know the sequence (we all know the song Do-Re-Mi.) I know that each syllable corresponds to a note in the diatonic scale. Do is the tonic; re is the supertonic; mi is the mediant; and so on. It's important to know the difference between C major and other keys and that solfege melodies can be in either key. Look at the following tune written in solfege:

• Do-do-so-so-la-la-so
• Fa-fa-mi-mi-re-re-do
• So-so-fa-fa-mi-mi-re
• So-so-fa-fa-mi-mi-re
• Do-do-so-so-la-la-so
• Fa-fa-mi-mi-re-re-do

This tune is sometimes written in C major; sometimes it's in a different key. Do the solfege syllables change?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solfège#Fixed do solfège. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning violin students often learn that delightful bit of Mozart in the key of A; that way it stays on the two strings which are easiest to reach. In movable-Do, the syllables do not change. In fixed-Do, they will be different:

• La-la-mi-mi-fi-fi-mi ...

and so onwards, with La being the tonic. In another example, I am used to seeing violin strings packaged for the international market, with labelling such as "G IV Sol" or "D III Re" (where the numeral shows the string's position, numbered from high to low.) __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose two options, either should be implemented. Either the article explicitly states the solfege is in fixed do or all such articles should remove the solfege. Fixed do is definitely not the default. I'd say it's around 50/50 people learning fixed do vs. movable do. Right now, the fixed do is what is in the article, but it may be important to establish differences in enharmonicism. For instance, E is mi, Fb is fa - but both are the same note enharmonically. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the article has to do with solfege, I don't see any reason why solfege syllables are used in an article to specify notes. They are used more extensively in non-English languages (Italian, especially), but I think most English-speaking people will understand letter names quite well. -- kosboot (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this sentiment. But then again, I think there's a lot of extraneous information all over Wikipedia...so I'm not sure it'll ever be taken away ;-) — Devin.chaloux (chat) 19:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F♭ could be fo, fe, or even mi, depending on who you ask. Double sharp (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the white-key notes link to fixed-do. What one person may call extraneous, another may call enrichment. Familiarity with fixed-do solfege has helped me understand what an English-speaking musician was saying, when that person had been to school in a Spanish-speaking country. __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that All fifths tuning should be re-named to All fifths (guitar tuning), to avoid confusion with the tuning of orchestral instruments. I know that this would not be completely in line with the other guitar tunings articles, but as the other tunings are obviously guitar (i.e. not used elsewhere) and this one is not obvious for any string players, an exception could be made. Any thoughts?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you would propose consistently to rename the articles about regular tunings to

• "regular tunings (guitar)"
• "major thirds (guitar tuning)"
• "all fourths (guitar tuning)"
• "augmented fourths (guitar tuning))"
• "all fifths (guitar tuning)"

An advantage of the consistent renamings would be to remove the hyphenation from the (standard-written-English– and MOS–-compliant) titles "major-thirds tuning", ..., and "all-fifths tuning".

Gilderien is correct that all-fifths is has the greatest potential for clashing with a future article on all-fifths tunings for other instruments.

However, all-fourths tuning is used for bass guitar. Major-thirds tunings and related tunings are used for Russian guitar and other East-European instruments (often with rounding of the sharp/flat to a "natural" note).

Gilderien and others—do you know of reliable sources on all-fifths tuning for instruments besides the guitar? I have been frustrated on the dearth of academic sources for the regular guitar-tunings, besides Sethares's.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my own experience, I know that Violin, Viola, and Cello all use all-fifths tunings, whereas the Double Bass is tuned in perfect fourths. I'll have a look for some sources.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 08:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the violin family instruments are most usually (see scordatura) tuned in all fifths, and the double bass in all fourths, is an uncontroversial fact. Finding a source for that is a low priority, IMO. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just plan Bill,

Gilderien proposed renaming an article to allow space for an article all-fifths tuning for other instruments. Does anybody think that somebody will write an article on the topic of all-fifths tuning in general?

If nobody thinks that such an article will appear, there is little reason to rename the guitar article(s). If there are no reliable sources discussing all-fifths tunings in general, then no such article can appear. Thus, my question about reliable sources was to understand whether anybody could write such an article.

Perhaps Wikipedia's mentioning that violins, etc., are usually tuned in fifths in the violin, etc. articles and the scordatura article suffice---and there is no need to rename the guitar-tuning article? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article's first sentence establishes context with "Among guitar tunings, all-fifths tuning refers to the set of tunings..." If something of significance ever needs to be written about all-fifths tuning of other instruments, I believe it may be incorporated into this article, perhaps including an adjustment to the stated context. As always, I try to stay open to news which might change my view, but I'm pretty confident that this is a bridge which may be crossed if we ever come to it, and that the present situation is not broken enough to need fixing.

By the way, the scale length of most guitars is closer to that of a cello, which has a bearing on fingering. An octave mandolin recently came into my life, and I'm finding that cello-esque fingerings are more convenient for it than are violin or mandolin fingerings, at least as far as melodic playing goes. Chords are a different beast entirely. This relates to the reason a bass is in all fourths, possibly so scale runs may be played across the strings without shifting the left hand up or down the neck. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: Do you oppose the name change(s) for now ("if not broke, then don't fix it")?

(I agree that the scale length is important. I added Fripp's scale length with his electronic strings to the new standard tuning article. It is unfortunate that most string-recommendations don't mention e.g. 25.25 or 25.5 inches.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the move, but it is mild opposition. All fifths tuning works perfectly well as a name, as far as I can see. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: So far, I think that consensus is to uphold the status quo---no name-changes. However, if anybody writes an article on general all-fifths tuning or orchestral stringed-instruments all-fifths tuning (or declares a serious intention to begin writing such an article, imho), then a name change would make sense (and anybody could implement it). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get round to it at some point, but won't move the article until then.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The automatic peer-reviewer suggested that articles have infoboxes, so I created the following box, which summarizes the summary table in regular tunings.

Major thirds
An equilateral triangle circumscribed by the chromatic circle specifies a major-thirds tuning, which has consecutive open-notes a major third apart (four semitones).
Aliases	All thirds
Interval	Major third
Semitones	4
Example(s)	E-G♯-c-e-g♯-c'-e' D♯-G-b-d♯-g-b'-d'♯
Other instruments	Seven-string guitar
Repetition	After 3 strings
Advantages	Reduced hand-stretching: major and minor chords on 2 consecutive frets
Disadvantages	Reduced range on 6 strings
Left-handed tuning	Minor sixths tuning
Associated musician
Guitarist	Ralph Patt
Regular tunings (semitones)
Trivial (0)
Minor thirds (3)
Major thirds (4)
All fourths (5)
Augmented fourths (6)
New standard (7, 3)
All fifths (7)
Minor sixths (8)
Guitar tunings

I updated the box, because I disliked the unstructured-programming style of the old template. The new template looks better and should be easier to understand and maintain. 20:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Ralph Patt is now a good article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are welcome. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to have a separate page for every single diatonic scale? Are they each significant enough to warrant their own page? I think they could easily be merged into Diatonic scale without any loss. Every scale page amounts to "this is its key signature, this is its relative minor, these are famous compositions that use it, etc"... which is all very trivial and not encyclopedia material. Mbza (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the page were just the basics, I might agree more strongly wtih you. But the few that I saw really try to flesh out the characteristics of the particular key. More significantly, any of them could use expansion in such as way as to really make each scale page distinctive and unique. So my feeling is that each one should be enhanced rather than merged. -- kosboot (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This all seams very airy fairy and difficult to decipher.

Please before you all turn into loose cannons read the book called Intervals, Scales and Temperaments and then you'll have more than half a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.36.245 (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the formatting of this comment. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with the idea of the scale pages being non-encyclopedic at the moment. It's something that needs to be worked on. In a way though, I think it is something better fit for a more musicology based project (finding sources that describe characteristics of keys) than a music theory one. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 15:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the image File:Tonnetz.jpg display as a blank white rectangle for anyone else? On the file page I can see it, but whenever it is thumbnailed it doesn't display. Any idea(s) why? Hyacinth (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue, but it's a blank black rectangle for me (including the thumbnail shown on the file page). Weird. Rivertorch (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thumbnail on this page is blank for me; but clicking on it shows the original image which is visible to me. -- kosboot (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that when I removed the thumb element, it displays properly; when I try other sizes (250px, 300px) it still displays as a blank area Maybe it would be wise to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and then link to it from there instead of WP. -- kosboot (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to PNG version. Seemed to be an issue with the compression used in the file. gringer (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded and revised guitar chords. It now contains

• more discussion of regular tunings (and open tunings), using illustrations I uploaded for major thirds tuning.
• brief introduction to guitar chords now independent of the tuning (while also emphasizing the emphasis on standard tuning). I mentioned the Roman numeral analysis discussed by two sources as explaining the popularity of the CAGED major-chords in popular music.
• Discussion of repeated notes (for increased volume) and inversions and alternative voicings as important for guitar. These observations seem trivial, but I cannot find references.

It's probable that I made mistakes, and so outside-eyes would be appreciated. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Acoustics has been nominated for merging with Template:Musical acoustics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Hyacinth (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of short articles that should be merged (or one split into two other preexisting articles, etc.), and there are also many parallel classifications, redundant articles, and almost-duplicates. I've just done so with Power chord and spider chord. Sometimes, pop/rock musicians with lack of music theory knowledge "discover" chords that were already invented and give them new names (like the Mu chord). I'd like to discuss the merging of many articles. Here are some proposals:

• Nondominant seventh chord → Seventh chord
• Mu chord → Added tone chord or Ninth chord
• Blind octave and Close and open harmony → Voicing (music)
• Tertian → Chord (music)
• Blues scale → Jazz scale
• Major scale and minor scale → Major and minor
• Power chord and Open chord → Guitar chord
• Predominant chord → Diatonic function or Cadence (music)
• Subdominant parallel → Supertonic (and then see here below)
• The 8 articles about tonal function (tonic, mediant, dominant...) → Diatonic function

• (I know that's going to be tough!)

• Other articles to merge with something else: Relative key, Parallel key...
• Groups of articles in which we should discuss what is their relationship:

• Added tone chord and Extended chord
• Chord progression and Cadence (music)

Since I can't find a centralized list with all the chords and related concepts (and many articles are not listed in this WikiProject), I think we'll have to make some digging. Maybe we should create a "scheme" as some kind of guideline. Thanks!!--Fauban 11:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait at least a week (for discussion here) before merging any more chord articles, and be sure to discuss this with Hyacinth (who wrote a lot of e.g., the nondominant seventh chord).

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Anyway, I'll still add more sugestions on the list above. One last thing: by reducing the number of articles (reasonably), maintenance and general cleanup in the WikiProject will be easier.--Fauban 11:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two objections regarding guitar chords. (1) The Power chord deserves its own article, per due weight. Its discussion in guitar chord uses theory and so has a brief treatment; most readers would prefer a discussion with fewer prerequisites. (2) Open chord is also of concern for other string instruments, and so I don't think it should be merged. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but still then, we have Open chord and Open string.--Fauban 12:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think there should be a clear division between techniques (like Open chord) and real harmonic devices. About the "guideline" thing, why don't we make the harmony article the center of all the harmonic devices (chords, tonality, function) and we structure everything around the contents we put in that article? However, maybe we shoud subdivide it into a Western tonal harmony article.--Fauban 14:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A textbook on tonal harmony might have your suggested organization. However, an encyclopedia has greater overlap among its articles, to ensure accessibility to the public. (Presumably, somebody who has had a course on the fundamentals of music does not need an explanation of what a chord or triad is.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean (WP:MANYTHINGS). However, I think that we should have an exhaustive list with (at least) the key articles about harmony, for coordination and ensuring coeherence between pages. That's been made before (e.g. Outline of finance), and we could call it "outline of tonal harmony". Here's an example. --Fauban 15:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could try to assemble your list in your user-space, and when it is settled for yourself, you could ask for feedback from a few editors. When you all have consensus, maybe you could bring it to the project? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the reasons for merging some of the articles listed above (Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger)?
What about Category:Harmony, Category:Chords, and List of chords? Hyacinth (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the merging, WP:MERGE already expalins it. For example: Tertian, Blind octave and Subdominant parallel because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and they're unlikely to be expanded a lot; Nondominant seventh chord and Mu chord because of overlapping; and Dominant, Mediant... → because of context (and also because they won't be expanded). I think those and many others are clear candidates, and I'm sure I'll find more. Cheers! (P.S. Well, it turns out I'll be very busy for a couple of days)--Fauban 19:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGE doesn't already explain it. We're talking about real specific instances. That's why I asked you, and not a page that can't talk or write. WP:MERGE also already explains that the way to propose a merger is to start a local discussion.

I don't think all your examples are clear. For example, Tertian isn't even marked as a stub. Regarding dominant, etc., "Merging should be avoided if:" "The resulting article is too long or 'clunky'". Hyacinth (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Maybe I was too naive. I suggested the mergings here (instead of using the procedure exposed in Wikipedia:Merging) because I thought it would be easier and quicker. Let's be more specific, at leaast with some of my suggestions:

• Subdominant parallel: It's just a synonym of Supertonic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It will never be expanded. It's just an alternative name created by Hugo Riemann.

• The 8 articles about tonal function (tonic, mediant, dominant...) → Diatonic function: Diatonic Function is a vital article. As such, it "should" be a featured article (or at least one of our main goals). Featured articles are always long, so you must admit that one day, this article will be very long. Just check other featured articles. There's nothing wrong with an article being long if that's how it's meant to be. Apart from this, the resulting article (after merging) wouldn't be as long as the sum of its parts, since much material (text and images) would become redundant, and there's also quite a lot of OR that should be removed. Finally, there's also the issues of consistency and overlap: how can you explain the concept of dominant without exposing the concept of tonic?

Well, if you are still not convinced, let's start the normal procedure for every article, but it's going to be quite tiring... Cheers. P.S: again, I'd like to point out that the fewer articles we have the easier will be to improve them and turn them into FA's, and we won't have to make so much cross-linking.--Fauban 11:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's wonderful that you want to do so much work. :)

However, I think your claim is wrong. It is almost impossible to bring core articles to Featured-Article status.

Even good-article status is extremely difficult because of the "comprehensive" requirement. Have you any experience with writing or reviewing Good Articles? You might look at Ralph Patt (the jazz guitarist who invented major thirds tuning) to see the amount of work needed for GA status of a narrow topic. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I'm familiar with writing and reviewing Good Articles (I've written 50% of the current Bill Evans article, and I thought it would become a FA, but I "ran out" of sources). About what you say, I know I may die before Functional harmony becomes a GA, but at least we should try. Again, with some cleanup prior the merging, the core article will not become much bigger, and the whole set of information about subject will be easier to maintain and improve in the future.--Fauban 12:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much in favor of merging all these individual articles into one big article, for it will provide better context for how they relate to one another. Redirects will solve the problem of people looking for individual chords. If one of merged chord articles them becomes excessive (e.g. diminished seventh chord), then it can be forked with a summary in the main article. -- kosboot (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point: remember that we wouldn't be deleting the small articles, just putting a redirect, so if somebody searched for "dominant", he'd still find the definition within the big article.--Fauban 11:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am a little late to the party, but I was in favor of expanding all of the diatonic function articles (tonic, supertonic, mediant...etc) so they actually made sense as their own articles. Unfortunately, User:Hyacinth thought otherwise. They could be expanded to not only talk about diatonic function, but to talk about the triads that are built on those scale degrees and their resolutions, their context in a broader harmonic function, and so forth. These actually could be not only lengthy articles, but extremely useful. My concern is that an article on diatonic function would get too long if it actually went into the depth it should.

I do agree that the Riemannian functions should be merged since it is just a classification system and one that is rarely taught to the larger population of English speakers (except in more advanced degrees). Proper redirects would solve any issue with finding the articles. A lot of what is proposed here is good. Condensing smaller stubs into larger articles make a lot of sense for the most part. I think a few others could be added to the list (i.e. some of the sequence topics like Ragtime progression and Circle progression --> Sequence (music)) — Devin.chaloux (chat) 13:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How and where was I against lengthier articles and articles which make sense? Hyacinth (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were against them when I attempted to combine the articles listed above as well as the ones being discussed on diatonic function. You didn't think they made sense so you unilaterally objected and thus it was never done. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, if the Diatonic function article became too long, it could be split in other ways, for example one article about the history of diatonic function, another about the philosophical implications of diatonic function, etc... What, IMHO shouldn't be split are the concepts of tonic, mediant... Because they are relative concepts, one can't exist without the other. And I think people would find them more useful in that way. Thanks.--Fauban 09:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think this is a smart way to go about this as many other fields in Wikipedia parse there articles in such a fashion if they become too long. As far as I'm concerned, the organization of many of these pages are not good and do need to be fixed. I will support any changes along these lines. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 21:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't we merge all articles into Music? Hyacinth (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~ The typical snarky response. This is why these articles are not getting improved Hyacinth. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]