Talk:Interval (music)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Interval distance, size, etc.

See: Talk:Chromatic_scale#Confused. Hyacinth (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"a unison"?

Do any music theorists really call the interval "a unison"? Two voices on the same note are said to be in unison, but I've always seen and heard the interval called a prime. Not R (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes.

☺

Noetica^Tea? 01:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The expression "Perfect unison" is used in Music theory textbooks twice as often as the expression "Perfect prime". Compare the following two Google searches:

1. intitle:"music theory", "perfect prime"
2. intitle:"music theory", "perfect unison"

Similarly, augmented unison is more frequently used than augmented prime:

1. intitle:"music theory", "augmented prime"
2. intitle:"music theory", "augmented unison"

Paolo.dL (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tone and ditone

We have a problem. Recent edits show that we do agree about the fact that

• semitone means both m2 (diatonic semitone) and A1 (chromatic semitone)
• for some contemporary authors tritone means any interval spanning six semitones, including both A4 and d5
• for others, tritone = A4

However, we do not agree about the definition of the terms tone and ditone. Jerome Kohl maintains that

• Tone = M2
• Ditone = M3

Woodstone insists (see edits on 13, 14 and 15 May 2013) that, chromatically,

• Tone means any interval spanning two semitones, including M2 and d3
• Ditone means any interval spanning two tones (four semitones), including M3 and d4

For sure, in Latin nomenclature (see Interval (music)#Latin nomenclature), the definitions were strict and unambiguous

• Semitonus = m2
• Tonus = M2
• Ditonus = M3
• Tritonus = A4

I guess that some contemporary music theorists follow Latin nomenclature (at least for the definition of the terms tone, ditone, and tritone). However, some others may also agree with Woodstone (similarly, there's no agreement in contemporary music theory about the standard meaning of the word tritone). Would you mind to share reliable references about this terminology in contemporary music theory? Paolo.dL (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't you agree that a 12-tone equal tempered step is universally called a semitone? And that a scale consists of semitones and whole tones, even if played 12-ET or on an instrument well-tuned for another scale? In all these cases steps other than the ones you mention will be called half or whole tones. Practical usage of these words is very loose. (And look at Google search found counts for "augmented prime" vs "augmented unison") −Woodstone (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not about my opinion, but about the opinion of reliable contemporary authors. Paolo.dL (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you know any book that does not call 2^1/12 a semitone? It is in every book. Semitone is a broad group of intervals, including a1, m2 in various tunings. −Woodstone (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not difficult. Drabkin says in Grove: "The interval equal to the sum of two semitones and hence referred to as a ‘whole tone’, usually perceived as a major 2nd"; he's right. Would anyone care to spell out a whole-tone scale here using only major seconds? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Right. For instance, in the whole tone scale on C there's a d3 between A♯ and C. What is the definition of whole tone (or whole step) and ditone by Grove Music Online? I do not have access to it. Paolo.dL (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Grove Online entry, "Whole tone" (in its entirely): "The interval equal to the sum of two semitones. See TONE (I)."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, a whole-tone scale has to have a d3 in it somewhere if you want it to span an octave rather than an augmented seventh; where you actually put it is a matter of choice. I think it's OK to quote the relevant bit of "Tone" in Grove, which is "The interval equal to the sum of two semitones and hence referred to as a ‘whole tone’, usually perceived as a major 2nd; in equal temperament, the sixth part of an octave. It and the semitone are the intervals by which conjunct motion in a part or voice is generated". The rest of it that is about the sizes of tones in various temperaments. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know which distinctions modern music theorists care about, but putting unsourced assertions about such things into footnotes is not a good idea. I removed several. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Dicklyon, most of the notes you deleted contained correct and widely known information, about which we all agree. For instance, the terms chromatic semitone and diatonic semitone are widely used. Moreover, as I wrote above, we all agree that some contemporary authors use the term Tritone (which traditionally meant A4) to indicate both A4 and d5. The article Tritone explains that in detail, and the topic has already been discussed. Are you going to delete the article as well? By the way, if you accept the definition of Whole tone given by Grove online (see above), then you also need to accept the obvious consequence that a d5 can be decomposed into three tones (one of which is a d3), and hence can be called Tritone. Paolo.dL (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, delete the whole article if you like, but my point was just that you don't want to bury unsourced assertions in notes, mingled with sources. If you must do this, at least separate out the notes from the references. Some of the distinctions buried there seem to be about like what you're trying to find agreement on here, so having them buried just makes the potential problem more hidden. Like who says a whole tone is only for a major second? Many authors use it for any two-semitone-like interval, no? Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

We are not discussing about semitone and tritone here. As I wrote at the beginning of this section, we already agree about the definition of these terms. However, you deleted the relevant footnotes. You also deleted that about whole tone, but I did not restore it. Indeed, I would have deleted it myself if you had not done it.

You can separate footnotes from references if you like. It would be an improvement.

In my opinion footnotes are appropriate in this case. The table shows only the main information, the footnotes give some more details without clogging the table with text. For instance, there's no agreement in the literature about the meaning of the term tritone, so there is no other way to represent both definitions in a table, without clogging it with text. Without the footnote, the table would represent a non-neutral point of view and edit wars would continue forever about those who dogmatically believe that tritone = A4 and those who dogmatically believe that tritone is any interval spanning six semitones. We are also discussing below about the three footnotes containing alternative names (perfect and augmented prime, diatonic and chromatic semitone)

Paolo.dL (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just a thought: if the tritone article explains in detail what a tritone is, and the semitone article explains in detail what a semitone is, why do we need to add the same information in footnotes here? Given the size of the topic, this can never be more than a very broad overview. It's probably unproductive to try to cover every detail. Apropos of which, I notice that someone has stuck the augmented prime back in; I'm not suggesting that this term is never used, but the fact that there is no reference to it whatsoever in Grove is I believe an indication that it is not a common term. I suggest removing it again, as I have already once done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

We still need to reach consensus about the definition of ditone in contemporary literature. The current text says that a ditone is any interval spanning two tones (for example, a M3). Jerome Kohl wrote this note: "[...] ditone [...] is, of course a synonym for "major third", which is not merely an example of a ditone)". Paolo.dL (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

And my comments above apply equally to the archaic ditone or ditonus. Grove again: Ditonus: "The INTERVAL equal to the sum of two whole tones, usually perceived as a major 3rd. The term is found mainly in ancient medieval treatises on music, though some modern writers use the word ‘ditone’ for the interval of a major 3rd in equal temperament". That is not something that needs to be included here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. So the term ditone, as the term tritone, has two meanings. Someone uses it to indicate any interval spanning two tones, others use it to indicate M3.
I see what you mean about the footnotes. I agree that it is not very important to specify here the difference between chromatic and diatonic semitone. This is just a personal preference. Let's wait for the opinion of somebody else. I will abide to consensus.
However, long ago we decided that this table should include the terms semitone, tone, and tritone. This is important in a table listing the "Main intervals", as these terms are widely used to indicate some of the main intervals. The term ditone is less frequently used (and this is why we already removed it from the table), but I believe we should mention it, for the sake of completeness, in the introduction to the table (where we already mention it, and where we warn the reader that it is a rarely used term). This is because there are four terms containing the term tone:

• semi-tone (smallest brick)
• tone (2 semitones)
• di-tone (4 semitones)
• tri-tone (6 semitones)

Let's try and reach consensus about this as well.
Paolo.dL (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The crux of the conflict in opinion here is that there are at least three different ways of defining the same thing. If one assumes a 12-note equal division of the octave (as Woodstone is doing), then there is no point at all in differentiating between a unison, a diminished second, a quadruply diminished third, and so on. If on the other hand one uses the historical number-ratio derivation of intervals described in the third paragraph of the present article's lede, then completely different physical results are obtained (and the semitone is no longer the "smallest brick", as Paolo puts it). Depending on the ratios chosen to effect diminution of intervals, a diminished second may be an interval of a different size from from a unison—even possibly a "negative" value. Third, there is the definition commonly used in music theory (I think this is Paolo's setting-off point), whereby the surrounding context helps to determine the quality (and not just the quantity) of an interval. This entails the notion of composite and incomposite intervals and, more indirectly, melody types. Getting into a full-scale discussion of these things in the present article would be more complicated than interesting, I think, but it is important to understand them as background to what ought to be a simple set of definitions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Or indeed the other way round - the quality of the interval determines the context. The spelling of the interval gives information about the harmony. Playing B - C puts you in home territory; playing B - B# puts you in another world. It seems to me important to make clear that the width of the interval does not determine its quality, but vice versa. And I don't agree that this has anything to do with the way the octave is divided. It really doesn't matter if all the semitones are actually measurably exactly the same width (as on an electric organ, perhaps), it only matters that they are treated as functionally equal in width, as they are in most modern temperaments including strict ET and the more flexible systems used in tuning pianos, string quartets, choirs etc, and as they have been in all historic well-temperaments since about 1700 or perhaps earlier. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite so, and by saying so you have revealed yourself to be in the same third camp I mentioned (the musicians) as Paolo. Physicists (and even musicians of limited experience) are liable to think otherwise, and have done for millennia, if the complaints by Aristoxenus on just this point are to be relied upon. In fact, thinking of intervals as pure distances (without this contextual element) has been identified as a fundamental shift of consciousness that marks off musical thinking after about 1900 from everything that went before. So far as I am aware, this was first remarked on by Arthur Eaglefield Hull, in Modern Harmony: Its Explanation and Application (1915), who gives examples of what he calls "twelve-note thinking" (as opposed to "chromatic thinking", which is fundamentally diatonic but with added auxiliary chromatics) from Richard Strauss and Arnold Schoenberg—the pre-twelve-note Schoenberg, of course—to prove his point. Despite this now-long-established condition, we are many of us still resisting the notion. It is what makes such a seemingly strightforward article as this so difficult to write.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree on the last point! And that that there is nothing recent in the gulf between the teorici and the pratici, between Zarlino and Zacconi. I think the important thing here is to set down in the first part of the article the basics as held (more or less) in common by all those who respect the core principles of Western tonal harmony. Any mention of 19-limit tunings, augmented primes, septimal kleisme or chronosynclastic infundibula should be relegated to the end of the article or indeed to the relevant pages. In my opinion (you will not be surprised to read, in view of your perceptive remarks above) the discussion of functional intervals should precede that of their widths and scientific ratios. A shockingly large number of our music articles are rendered near-useless to the ordinary reader because they give such high priority to eccentric tuning systems that are probably used by less than 1/1000th of a percent of practising musicians, and understood by about 1 percent of those. I think what is needed here is plain English. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

By all means, may plain English reign. I don't think there is any disagreement (at least not yet) that arcane tuning systems should be allowed to muddy the waters, especially in the first 99% of the article. However, I still think it is necessary to keep in mind that there are several different conceptual frameworks used by different writers. Musicians tend to believe that a sophisticated musical understanding is the only correct way to understand things like scales and intervals, but psychoacousticians (for example) tend to want definitions by which things can be "measured scientifically". Similarly, the musically untrained reader who wants to know some basic stuff about intervals will doubtless not wish to be told it is necessary to consider a complex constellation of notes in order to understand the relationship between just two of them. It will be difficult to persuade such readers that the (shortest) distance between two points is not necessarily the most conducive to understanding—oops, I mean <plain English>correct</plain English>.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative names for perfect unison, minor second, augmented unison

In the following section, we are discussing about the meaning of the terms tone and ditone. Some contributor, however, opened a secondary discussion about the footnotes appearing in the main table which provide widely used alternative names for P1, m2, and A1. I created this section to discuss this secondary topic separately, to avoid confusion. The alternative names for P1, m2, and A1 are:

• Perfect prime (P1)
• Diatonic semitone (m2)
• Chromatic semitone or augmented prime (A1)

See separate section above about the usage in music theory textbooks of the terms perfect unison/prime and augmented unison/prime. See Semitone for details about diatonic and chromatic semitones.
We can either specify all these alternative names, or omit them all. There's no reason to delete only one of the relevant footnotes. Personally, I was glad to discover in the table an alternative name for unison, which I totally ignored and which is apparently used by several authors (see separate section above).
Please consider that the choice to specify, in the main table, widely used alternative names for some intervals is a personal preference. We need consensus before taking a final decision. It would be nice to know the opinion of many editors about this topic. Paolo.dL (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

So it is "unbelievable (that) you insist" that a perfect prime cannot be mentioned as alternate name for a perfect unison. −Woodstone (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The real sad thing is that there is no good neutral term for the octave, which is so biased towards the traditional diatonic scale. A pity that was not called a ditone. −Woodstone (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit note (17:33, 25 August 2013), your edit not only duplicates an existing footnote, and information already provided in the previous text, but also implies that both P1 and d2 are called perfect prime, which is false. And this is the second time you do this kind of mistake. On 09:36, 24 August 2013‎ I reverted a previous very similar edit of yours with the following edit note: "[...]. Also, the Diminished second is not called a unison!". Notice the exclamation mark. Paolo.dL (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not making a mistake. You still don't understand. The key column in the table is the number of semitones. The other columns give names for that size. First as perfect/minor/major, then as diminished/augmented and finally some alternates. Since a perfect prime is 0 semitones, it fits very well in that line. Clearly this is all meant in an enharmonic sense, with an abstract size of semitone (or when using everything in 12ET). −Woodstone (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Absurd. There's a separate column for perfect intervals. By the way, as I wrote in my edit note, both a footnote and the previous text already provide the alternative name for perfect octave. Paolo.dL (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of a table is to present all information in a systematic way. Hiding information in footnotes is not compatible with that. Do you contest that "0 semitones" = "perfect unison" = "perfect prime"? If not, why is one not an alternate name for the others? I really don't see your point. −Woodstone (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a column dedicated to perfect, minor, and major intervals, as specified in its column label. The only option you have, if you want to show the alternative name and you don't like footnotes, is to write "perfect octave or perfect prime" in the first cell of that column (isn't this obvious?). However, I do not agree about this option because:

1. IMO this table should only show the most commonly used names for the main intervals
2. Semitone, tone and tritone, for most people, are not synonyms of m2, M2, A4, so it does not matter whether they are more or less commonly used than m2, M2, A4. They are widely used names within a different and widely used naming convention, which is not based on interval quality and diatonic number.
3. "Perfect octave" is used in textbooks twice as frequently as "perfect prime" (about this terminological preference, Justlettersandnumbers inserted a reference in the article, and I provided references in a separate section above).
4. The alternative name "perfect prime" is specified right above the table, within the same section of the article (Main intervals).
5. Full information about alternative names (including "perfect prime") is given later in a separate table with a different structure, within a separate section called Alternative interval naming conventions.

Based on this, we might even reach consensus here about deleting all the footnotes about alternative names (not only that about perfect prime). It would not be a tragedy. I would like to know the opinion of others about this. As I wrote, I will abide to consensus.
Paolo.dL (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be OK to make a special notes subsection for the naming table (right after the table, not at the end of the article), to avoid repeating info. You might want to consider a more parallel system of tables if one is for one set of naming conventions and one is for another. Or just put all the names into one table. Dicklyon (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dicklyon. In my opinion, Main intervals should be just an overview, and should be kept as simple as possible. The separate section called Alternative interval naming conventions is too complex to be used as a subsection of Main intervals. As a consequence, I believe that the only viable options are:

• Option 1 (Visible information): we write the alternative names for P1, m2, A1 in the table rather than in the footnotes.
• Option 2 (Hidden information): we keep the footnotes
• Option 3 (No information): we delete the footnotes

Remember that we also provide information about "perfect prime" in the text above the table, and a much more detailed analysis in a separate section at the end of the article (Alternative interval naming conventions). Some redundancy in this separate section is necessary and welcome. To avoid redundancy, we would need to delete both the footnotes and the column about "Widely used alternative names", in Main intervals. But this is just my opinion. Let me know if you agree.
Paolo.dL (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rearranging the main table

PMFJI, but I have an idea for simplifying the main table which I hope won't be too controversial. Although the Tritone is not a perfect, major or minor interval, it is a very legitimate diatonic interval (representing B–F or F–B). I suggest moving the Tritone to column 2 and renaming the column "Diatonic intervals" to incorporate the addition as follows (you may have to fix the table a little):

Number of semitones	Diatonic intervals	Short	Augmented or diminished intervals	Short	Widely used alternative names	Short	Audio
0	Perfect unison	P1	Diminished second	d2
1	Minor second	m2	Augmented unison	A1	Semitone, half tone, half step	S
2	Major second	M2	Diminished third	d3	Tone, whole tone, whole step	T
3	Minor third	m3	Augmented second	A2
4	Major third	M3	Diminished fourth	d4
5	Perfect fourth	P4	Augmented third	A3
6	Tritone	TT	Diminished fifth	d5
			Augmented fourth	A4
7	Perfect fifth	P5	Diminished sixth	d6
8	Minor sixth	m6	Augmented fifth	A5
9	Major sixth	M6	Diminished seventh	d7
10	Minor seventh	m7	Augmented sixth	A6
11	Major seventh	M7	Diminished octave	d8
12	Perfect octave	P8	Augmented seventh	A7

-- Glenn L (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I thank you for joining the discussion but I disagree for three different reasons: (1) The column "Widely used alternative names" should contain (as it currently does) all the most common terms based on the concept of "tone", i.e. semitone, tone, tritone. (2) Both d5 and A4 may be defined "diatonic intervals", meaning that they appear in a diatonic scale. (3) The expression "diatonic intervals" is so ambiguous that actually means nothing. See Diatonic and chromatic.

So, honestly I can't see a simplification in your proposal, but a complication which scrambles a well designed table, in which each column is unambiguosly defined. In other words, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Sorry, I don't want to be impolite, I just want to be honest.

What about the options we are discussing in the previous section? What do you prefer? Please answer above. According to WP:Refactoring talk pages, I created a separate section for discussing your proposal, which has got nothing to do with the topic discussed in the previous section ("Alternative names for perfect unison, minor second, augmented unison").

Paolo.dL (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction between illustration and its MIDI -- Main_intervals_from_C.png and Intervals.mid

The Main_intervals_from_C.png file illustrates both C and F♯ (to show an augmented fourth) and C and G♭ (to show a diminished fifth). In Western intonation, or whatever it's called, these two dyads sound exactly the same; they are essentially one. The MIDI does not play it twice. Consequently, there is one less dyad played in the MIDI than shown on the illustration. Now, I figured this out right away and understood it, but I wouldn't hold everybody to my standard of music-theory knowledge. I would, in fact, expect a number of people to get confused, even frustrated.

Is this worth changing? It would not be hard for me to edit my copy of the MIDI and figure out how to upload it (though it would be my first time messing with anything besides text), but I don't feel like I should do it without some consensus. (And I would rather not do it myself, because I don't really understand the licensing bit.) More relevantly, I see that another article, Dyad (music) uses the same MIDI, and perhaps fixing this problem here would create a problem there(?)

→Ben Culture (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Interval number and quality

Being a little rusty on interval naming, I recently turned to this article. I am afraid to say I found it really quite difficult to understand, and on a practical level, not particularly helpful. I am not sure how I would have fared had I been coming to the topic for the first time. I've had a go at preparing a new version, but with regard to the extensive discussions on these talk pages I thought I should post a draft here for comment:

User:Gnathan87/Draft/Interval_number_and_quality.

I did not include the following material, because I think this section should be a concise description of interval naming. Many visitors probably come looking for that. (For this reason I have also renamed the section "Interval naming".) I would not intend to exclude this material altogether, but maybe it could be moved into different sections if it is not there already:

Perfect intervals are so-called because they were traditionally considered perfectly consonant, although in Western classical music the perfect fourth was sometimes regarded as a less than perfect consonance, when its function was contrapuntal. Conversely, minor, major, augmented or diminished intervals are typically considered to be less consonant, and were traditionally classified as mediocre consonances, imperfect consonances, or dissonances.

By definition, the inversion of a perfect interval is also perfect. Since the inversion does not change the pitch of the two notes, it hardly affects their level of consonance (matching of their harmonics). Conversely, other kinds of intervals have the opposite quality with respect to their inversion. The inversion of a major interval is a minor interval, the inversion of an augmented interval is a diminished interval.

Interval numbers do not represent exactly interval widths. For instance, the interval C–D is a second, but D is only one staff position, or diatonic-scale degree, above C. Similarly, C–E is a third, but E is only two staff positions above C, and so on. As a consequence, joining two intervals always yields an interval number one less than their sum. For instance, the intervals C–E and E–G are thirds, but joined together they form a fifth (C–G), not a sixth. Similarly, a stack of three thirds, such as C–E, E–G, and G–B, is a seventh (C–B), not a ninth.

I have also tried to tidy the diagrams up a little: I feel there is a danger of the sheer number and complexity of the diagrams being confusing, although the information in them is undoubtedly useful. I've added the interval names to the various diagrams for perfect, major/minor and augmented/diminished intervals (I think there is currently a bug in the caching system which means the original files/thumbnails might still show, but the correct files *have* been uploaded) and removed the diagram of "main intervals", as that is now redundant.

Looking forward to any feedback. Gnathan87 (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, I have edited this section to also include the "shorthand notation" section currently in the article. Gnathan87 (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A minor quibble with this clause, quoted above: Since the inversion does not change the pitch of the two notes...: usually inverting an interval is defined as moving one of the notes up or down an octave, which does change its pitch, although not its note name or pitch class. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In your linked draft, it's not correct to say that an interval is named relative to a major scale built on the lower note. For example, a minor third is still a minor third, no matter its location in a major scale (such as between the third and fifth scale degrees), and if you try to say that it's named relative to a major scale on the bottom note, a minor third wouldn't even occur there, which gets you in trouble. Once you started explaining things that way, you had to pull in unnecessary key changes and unnecessary accidentals, just to come back to the same interval you started with. For example, you gave the interval of Eb to A (which would naturally occur between the fourth and seventh scale degrees in Bb major), and then you tried to explain it as occurring relative to Eb Major, which it doesn't naturally occur in, so you added an accidental in front of the A to make it A natural (even though it was already A natural when you started), to counter the unnecessary key change that you inserted that would have made it Ab. See what I mean? The naming process is simpler than that. We know Eb to A has to be some kind of fourth because it encompasses four note-name letters (E, F, G, and A, acknowledging that note names wrap around) a.k.a. four staff positions, and we know it has to be an augmented fourth because it's a semitone wider than a perfect fourth. Notice we didn't need to know the key to determine that. 108.60.216.202 (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Remark and request

I thought this was a great article, really interesting topic and really well written, thank you. I did find one sentence that I underlined that I thought was unclear and could do with review ˜```25 June 2017 Australian Eastern Standard time. Mgdyason (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sentence was clarified. −Woodstone (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The following footnotes you see below apply to the previous topic. System glitch? ←Ben Culture (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense sentence?

What on Earth does this mean? "These names describe not only the difference in semitones between the upper and lower notes, but also how the interval is spelled."

For a start the names of intervals don't refer to the number of semitones. And does "spelled" have some kind of technical meaning in this context? If so shouldn't that be explained? 86.20.66.253 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, an "augmented fourth" and a "diminished fifth" are different enharmonic spellings of the same interval (a tritone, or six semitones). I have added a wikilink to the word "spelling" in the article and re-worded the sentence. I hope this clarifies. Burninthruthesky (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Description

Some simple description: As music is played according to a scale, which itself is based on a system of tones, a typical Western scale consists of seven notes with a system of twelve possible tones. The difference between notes which are adjacent to each other is called a half-step, and then two notes difference is called a whole step. Scales and modes are a series of simple intervals between notes, and the playing of melodies is based in those scales.-Inowen (nlfte) 02:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Pitches necessary

User:Jerome Kohl's recent edit changed "an interval is the difference between two pitches or notes" to "an interval is the difference between two sounds". I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. What's the interval between the sounds of a waterfall and a gunshot? I don't think the word "interval" makes much sense outside the concept of pitches (notes are, however, not necessary). I can't check the cited source, but surely we could find one with a better definition, if indeed Prout includes waterfalls. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, what my edit did was to revert a change made some time ago to what the cited source actually says. Prout 1903, p. 1, has: "If two different notes are sounded, either in succession or together, it is clear that one of the two must be the higher, and the other the lower. The difference in pitch between the two sounds is called the Interval between them." This says both the difference between two pitches and the difference between two sounds. In context, Prout clearly is not speaking of gunshots or waterfalls in general, but the pitches sounded by the gunshot and the waterfall. Let us see if we cannot represent him more accurately, without having to provide a long quotation to give the necessary context to the words.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Replacing image+midi examples with <score>

Right now this page (and many other music theory pages) has a lot of instances of Template:Audio with MIDI files, mostly in image captions. e.g.

Markup	Renders as
[[Image:Melodic and harmonic intervals.png|thumb|275px|Melodic and harmonic intervals. {{audio|Melodic and harmonic intervals.mid|Play}}]]	Melodic and harmonic intervals.

I think the usability of these is really poor. If I click "play", I expect it to start playing in my browser. But actually it prompts me to download a .mid file to my computer, where I may or may not have software that can play it.

I'd like to replace all or most of these using mw:Extension:Score, since it provides an embedded audio player. Cadence and Minor scale are a couple music theory articles that already do this to excellent effect. I've already translated the first couple figures in the article.

If anyone has thoughts on the overall plan, let me know. Also, I'm not an expert on music theory or LilyPond notation, so apologies in advance for any errors I might introduce. I'm mostly trying to reproduce the look and sound of the original images and MIDI files as closely as possible, but there are some judgement calls. Dindon~enwiki (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

macrointerval

A musical interval not formed in series. An interval which has inlayed other notes before its completed. But the first and the last note (only these two are the macrointerval) have either to be stressed, either to be important in the composing method.

Macrointervals (which sometimes aren't obvious but constructively crucial) are extremely important in musical composition; because they create a scaffold and control the overall mood of the composition.

Sorry, I don't understand a word of this. Could you try again, please?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite an example? Are you referring to extra flat bb and extra sharp X intervals or a frequency range not found on a piano keyboard? Tradimus (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Table of intervals by scale

I would like to see a breakdown of the most common scales by the number of semitones in each interval. For example the major scales all have the same interval, just start on a different note. Something like this Tradimus (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Type of Scale	First interval	Second interval	Third Interval	Fourth Interval	Fifth Interval	Sixth Interval	Seventh Interval
Major Scale	2 semitones	2	1 semitone	2	2	2	1
Natural Minor Scale
Harmonic Minor Scale
Melodic Minor Scale
Pentatonic Scale
Hungarian Minor Scale	2	1	3	1	1	3	1
Blues
et cetera