Talk:Hexatonic scale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject contemporary music, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary music subjects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Blues notes
The Blues Scale section of this article needs clarification
In particular the talk of the 'flatted fifth's note seems to be in conflict with the Wiki entry for Blues Notes. Also talk of derivation from the major or minor pentatonic scale in both entries needs to be fixed.
Blues Scale:
"...but the scale most commonly called "the blues scale" comprises a flatted seventh blues note, a flatted third blues note, a flatted fifth blues note, and the flatted fifth's note of upward resolution along with other pitches derived from the minor pentatonic scale, C Eb F F# G Bb C."
Blues Notes:
"The flattened fifth is not a "true" blue note-- as we notice the blues scale in any key can be derived from a major pentatonic scale one minor third up. This excludes the flatted fifth. These blue notes are what turns a major scale into the blues scale."
ME
- One wikipedia article cannot be a valid source for another wikipedia article, nor can a wikipedia article's inconsistency with another wikipedia article be (in and of itself) a valid objection to a wikipedia article. As it happens, the wikipedia article you cite ("Blues notes") errs--assuming you have quoted it accurately. TheScotch 19:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
76.172.20.225 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Derivation versus relationship and Blues Notes:
The existing level of detail about the relationship of the Blues scales to western scales could give the impression that they derive from the western scales historically. I don't believe this is the case. I wonder if anything definitive can be said about the origins of these scales beyond the common appeals to field songs, etc, which really just begs the question since it lacks any information about the ultimate origins of those and is also probably lumping together a number of different traditions. Dbarclaymoore (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- My own researches lead me to believe that the "blues scale" is an artificial scale concocted by jazz theorists long after the fact. I don't mean to suggest by this that no one had ever used this particular combination of pitches together before, but rather that they were not considered to form a single scalar entity. The origin of blue notes (or blues notes) themselves is a different matter, one probably better discussed at the "blue notes" article. TheScotch (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Major" blues scale
Re: "The corresponding major Blues scale is Eb F Gb G Bb C or, transposing back to C, C D Eb E G A.:
This usage is very circumscribed and idiosyncratic, as well as logically dubious: The oscillation between the minor and major third makes it a very minor-ish sort of "major".TheScotch (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling of Scales
The use of sharps, which you explain as "ascending scales use sharps" is quite wrong. Correct usage is to denote each note according to its function and to scrupulously avoid use of enharmonic equivalents even at the expense of readability - Chopin's manuscripts, for example, at least as published, carry this to an extreme level.
Note that for instruments without fixed pitches, D# and Eb, for example, are distinct notes and writing one rather than the other will produce a different result when played by expert performers in settings that lack fixed pitch instruments (a string quartet for example)
In the major Blues scale the the third note is quite clearly a minor third not an augmented second and needs to be notated as such (ie with a flat). Please change this back.
BTW, I just learned that sharps and flats should be entered using ♯ and ♭. I will help fix this up, but would like to get agreement of spelling scales correctly first.
(Sorry - I am signing belatedly) Dbarclaymoore 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- [NEW COMMENT: previous one was unsigned, so does not terminate clearly:] On the sharps and flats notation issue, there seems to be a bit of uncertainty here. While the signs you propose do look a bit closer to the real ones (although I would question whether the sharp signs are truly accurate), the disadvantage of these (according to a post on another Talk page) is that some browsers may not be able to read them clearly and may render them as question marks, little boxes, or gobble-de-gook of some kind. On the other hand, "#" and "b", while only approximate, are close enough to be perfectly understandable in context, and everyone would be able to read those characters; and that was what the other commentator actually recommended doing.
- So it seems a bit uncertain, as far as I've seen, which way is best for notating sharps and flats. M.J.E. 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Piston ("Harmony", WW Norton) makes it clear (page 11 just before the Excercises) that one should not use enharmonic equivalents to spell notes saying, by way of example, that in the key of G the seventh degree is F# and not Gb. This is a standard textbook that I think it is reasonable to accept as an authority.
On the sharp/flat notation, note that I did not use the unicode characters but the markup (though this is only evident when you edit this page). Its not clear to me either that the recommendation in the style guide is a good one. Its claimed the markup works everywhere but I have not confirmed that and have my doubts. I raised it simply because I had entered something that appeared to vary from the style guidleline.
Dbarclaymoore 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Re: "Piston ("Harmony", WW Norton) makes it clear (page 11 just before the Excercises) that one should not use enharmonic equivalents to spell notes saying, by way of example, that in the key of G the seventh degree is F# and not Gb.":
- There are two reasons this is spelled as F#, not Gb: The first need not concern us here, but for the record, it's because these spellings denote different pitches. In Pythagorean tuning F# is sharper than Gb. The other reason is that the scale already has some kind of G. A diatonic scale requires all seven letters because we have precisely seven letters only in order to name the notes of the diatonic scale. Chromatic pitches, on the other hand, are spelled according to how they resolve. Ascending chromatic pitches, resolving upward, are spelled as sharps (or raised notes, anyway), and descending chromatic pitches, resolving downward, are spelled as flats (or lowered notes). This is very elemental. TheScotch 06:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The whole tone scale.
I would have agreed with the assertion that the use of the whole tone scale was introduced by Debussy. Flipping through Schoenberg's "Theory of Harmony" I see some different ideas and that he at least at one time (i.e. while writing this book - it says he did not revise this chapter later) felt that the scale appeared in Liszt's Don Juan Phantasie. While I know I have heard that piece while driving I cannot atest to its use there myself, so I mention this in case anyone wants to research into it. Dbarclaymoore 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article doesn't say Debussy "introduced" the scale; it says it is "primarily asssociated" with Debussy. It happens to be very well known that (long before Liszt, of course) Mozart used the scale--in an atypical context. The use of the scale in jazz derives from Debussy's use of it.
- In any case, this sort of discussion (and your expansion of the whole-tone scale section) are best reserved for the "Whole tone scale" article itself. Duplicating that material at length here is redundant. This article's raison d'etre is only to provide a hexatonic overview. TheScotch 07:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Etymology
Re: "(Latin: Hexa = 6)":
I've removed this interpolation for several reasons:
1) The term hexatonic derives from Greek, not Latin.
2) Even so, hexa is a combining form; hex is the Greek word for six.
3) Small numbers should be spelled out. (Six, not 6.)
4) Encyclopedia entries should use full sentences, not cryptic shorthand.
Notice that our names for chords and pitch sets by cardinality derive from Greek, whereas our names for the intervallic content of chords derive from Latin: We speak of "tertian chords", "quartal chords", and so on. Since this is a distinction worth preserving, it might be a good idea to point this out in some wikipedia article, but I'm not convinced that this particular article is the proper place. TheScotch 08:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reason for recent changes I made, including reverting other recent changes.
I restored the Prometheus scale to main list, instead of it being illogically relegated, alone, to "Others". The reason cited for doing this was that it wasn't mentioned in the introduction. While I take the point, it seemed to me that a better solution to this anomaly was to mention it in the introduction (which I did), rather than to create an "Others" category which has only one entry. (I also put it before the Blues scale, because it seemed best placed next to the other more "classical" types of scales.)
I restored "for example" in the sample Prometheus scale, to forestall the possibility that someone may think the Prometheus scale can only begin on C. Yes, most of us probably already know that - but I think, as a general practice, when citing a scale in a particular key, it's a good idea to indicate that that is just one example of it, rather than making it seem as if C is the only possible or natural instance of it.
I restored the fuller description of whole-tone scale which was recently removed (with a few changes such as removing the "tonic" mention - I agree that this is not the best word to use in the whole-tone scale). The cut-down version resulting from the recent removal of this description didn't leave it clear to those who don't know what the whole-tone scale is what it is exactly.
I also retored the jazz applications of the whole-tone scale. It seems to me they reasonably belong here, at that level of detail. It may be debatable whether this short section would be better placed in the whole-tone scale article - but it isn't there. (Use in jazz is mentioned there, but not the specific point in the section I just restored.) M.J.E. 23:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Re: "While I take the point, it seemed to me that a better solution to this anomaly was to mention it [the Promethius] in the introduction (which I did), rather than to create an "Others" category which has only one entry.":
- This of course is the other obvious solution to the problem, but are we sure the Promethius scale is famous enough? After all, it's only associated with one work of one composer. If it is famous enough, does this mean every hexatonic scale that gets added to the article will have to be added to the list of "famous examples"? TheScotch 07:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"Re: "I restored "for example" in the sample Prometheus scale, to forestall the possibility that someone may think the Prometheus scale can only begin on C.":
The article has to be consistent. If "for example" is used here, it must be used in connection with the other scales as well. To my ear it's verbose. TheScotch 07:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Re: "(Use in jazz is mentioned there, but not the specific point in the section I just restored.)"
- This "specific point" is not appropriate for an overview. TheScotch 07:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prometheus "scale"
Scriabin himself called this sonority the "mystic chord", by which name it is much more commonly known. It also called (by others) the "Promethean chord". Although Scriabin did sometimes horizontalize, so to speak, the sonority, it is primarily considered a chord, not a scale, and as such I'm not sure it belongs in this article at all. TheScotch (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Vincent Persichetti's "Twentieth-Century Harmony" names the Prometheus scale, and gives the example C D E F# A Bb C, which is consistent with the usage in this article. Even if Persichetti hadn't named it, a very strong argument can be made that it is a meaningful scale, just as much as is the whole-tone scale.
- Scriabin used this scale, and also others, both vertically and horizontally, and the distinction between a complex chord and a scale cannot be maintained with strictness. Most composers - certainly including Scriabin in his use of various scales - mix horizontal and vertical combinations in almost all permutations, and it would be impossible to separate them out consistently, so that one passage is using a set of notes as a "scale", but another is not.
- It is quite possible to find passages in "Prometheus" and some other pieces where, for a few bars at least, the total melodic and harmonic material (whether used vertically or horizontally) is derived from a scale, including occasionally the Prometheus scale, although the actual chords used at any given time may be only a subset of the total number of notes in the scale. I think it is a reasonable use of the concept of a scale to allow it to cover the total range of notes used in a passage. By this criterion, the Prometheus scale is just as valid a scale as the whole-tone scale, for example. M.J.E. (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of "validity"; it's a question of classification (according to how it's--as I said--primarily known). For that matter, there remains the question concerning the extent of its use--especially in light of these remarks (from the article as it currently reads): It is likely that Scriabin was the first composer ever to use this scale for whole passages of music - as against its accidental transient occurrence resulting from passing chromatic harmony, which did occur earlier in various composers' music, even occasionally as early as Beethoven. Probably 90 percent or more of Prometheus is composed in the Prometheus scale, at one pitch or another (the transposition of the scale at any given time usually changing every few bars).
At the very least the quoted passage needs work: "Ever" here is clearly redundant. What is a "whole passage of music"? "As against" is awkward. The reference to "accidental occurrences" seems to me superfluous. "Probably" and following sounds like POV. TheScotch (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hexatonic Scale?
Why is this the name of the article when it is much more well known as the blues scale.--74.138.83.10 (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- A hexatonic scale is any six-note scale. One six-note scale in particular is "known as the blues scale". As the article points out, others (different six-note scales) are known as the augmented scale, the whole-tone scale, and the Prometheus scale. Others still, known by different names, known but not named, or not very "well known", the article does not mention. TheScotch (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the blues scale is much much more common to be a little article at the bottom of the Hexatonic scale (what???) page. Perhaps we could make a page for the blues scale. It has a long history.--74.138.83.10 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neither the Grove Dictionary of Music nor the Grove Dictionary of Jazz has an article devoted to "the blues scale", but the Grove Dictionary of Jazz does include this statement: "The blues scale in jazz [is] in essence merely the diatonic scale to which inflected third, fifth, and seventh degrees may be added to impart a blues flavor (ex.2)." Its "ex. 2" shows a C major scale (C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C) in whole-notes with three parenthetical sets of pitches with smaller filled-in note-heads separated by diagonal lines (presumably to suggest portamento) interpolated: (D D# E), (F F# G), and (A A# B). The clear implication here is that "the blues scale" is actually a large set of possible combinations of diatonic notes, blue notes, microtonal inflections, and portamento effects. TheScotch (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
