Talk:Diatonic and chromatic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
It is requested that one or more audio files be included in this article to improve its quality.
Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 Archives |
| /Archive 1 |
[edit] 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)
