Talk:Tonic (music)

Readability

I stacked up the seven modes to improve readability. No change to text. OktoberStorm (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Standardise

An effort should be made to standardise the articles on all the degrees of the diatonic. Eusebeus 10:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How should the articles be standardized and why? Hyacinth (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it uses definitions from different musical theories. Subtonic and supertonic are tones in the first place, not chords. (Sub)dominant and (sub)mediant are chords.Klausthemusician (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

By "tone" I assume you mean diatonic function or degree. The terms for these are applied to chords the roots of which are on those degrees. Hyacinth (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Function	Roman Numeral	Chord in C
Tonic	I	CEG
Supertonic	ii	DFA
Mediant	iii	EGB
Sub-Dominant	IV	FAC
Dominant	V(7)	GBD(F)
Sub-Mediant	vi	ACE
Leading/Subtonic	viio/♭VII	BDF/B♭DF

Sorry to have kept you waiting, but no, I don't. I just mean note - a single tone. That's precisely what's the problem. You're mixing up two or three different theories about functions. Take a look at Norwegian and German wp or Harmony Simplified, and I think you'll understand. Part of the problem has already been discussed on the discussion sides to several degrees (the problem of the counter parallel as an example). Klausthemusician (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Readability

"Important" used twice in the first two sentence, don't want to step on anyone's toes by improving the readability of this article.--Josh Rocchio 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed 121.208.180.8 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro

This article, I just wanted to say, is extremely easy to follow for the first portion. I applaud whoever wrote it. That's all. Kalatix 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What? I needed to copy any paste the introduction to a music major so that he could explain to me what the hell it all meant. This section of wikipedia (i.e. this article and all links off of here) is incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't already know what the articles are about. Wkerney (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had the exact opposite impression. The article hits the reader with a wall of formal music terminology. As someone with no music theory background, I still don't know what a tonic is, after reading the first three paragraphs.

This may not be easily fixed, and I have no specific recommendation. And I understand the desire to be completely accurate in terminology. I just wanted to share my experience in the hope of eventually improving the article.

As a reference for why this might matter: according to Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, technical articles on wikipedia "should be understandable to the widest possible audience" and "Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible."

I hope this is useful feedback. Stay (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, so I've added the Technical tag to the article. --fjarlq (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why, what, where, and how is this article too technical for most readers to understand? How should it be rewritten? Hyacinth (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is truly, truly awful. It's like a how-not-to of technical writing. Everything it says is probably true, but completely useless to a general reader. Not only does it use technical terminology where it should explain (e.g. "the tonic is the first scale degree of the diatonic scale and the tonal center or final resolution tone") but those terms link to articles that link back to this on, creating an infinite incomprehensibility loop for someone who doesn't already have the key. To see an example of much better writing on the same subject - at least a B to this articles F grade - look at e.g. http://www.playpiano.com/wordpress/tag/tonic-note — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.92.109 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Part of what you describe are the "Internal links [that] bind the project together into an interconnected whole." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking) Secondly, lengthy explanations do not belong in the introduction. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section) However, these terms should find explanation in the body of the article, even those that are linked to.

However, it would help me if you could tell me more, since terms such as "scale degree" and "tonal center" seem self-explanatory to me. Hyacinth (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I started the article several years ago, because I wondered why is a major scale different from a minor scale when they have exactly the same seven notes. For A minor and C major these seven notes are A to G without any sharps or flats. The answer is that they have a different first note (Tonic). So the tonic must play a special role in musical composition that makes music in a minor scale sound different from music in a major scale even though they use the same notes. The article has not yet explained this to me.

Karl (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference between the major and minor scales is not the first scale degree (it is the third, sixth, and seventh degrees). C major and C minor have the same tonic (C). The difference is in the arrangement of notes relative to one another. Thus, for example, the third scale degree in C major is E♮ (a major third above C) while in C minor it is E♭ (a minor third above C). The reason you didn't find the explanation you where looking for here is that it doesn't exist. See: Major and minor. Hyacinth (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested audio

I have added an audio example to the article. Hyacinth (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Technical

Why, what, where, and how is this article too technical for some readers and what should be done about it? Hyacinth (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tag removed. It's a pretty well-written article, not overly technical at all. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to unify the layout of scale-degree pages

WikiProject Music Theory is spearheading a proposal to unify the layout of the scale-degree pages. The discussion can be found here. Since these pages not only include discussion of the scale-degrees, but also occasionally discuss triads and seventh chords built on these scale-degrees, it is important to systemize these pages. This will also curtail the creation of pages for each individual triad and seventh chord, some which may not necessarily contain enough content to be expanded beyond a stub. I invite you to comment on the proposal with thoughts, criticisms, or suggestions. Thanks! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: "Musical scale" → "Scale (music)"

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? 00:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

interesting outcome, seen most-of-a-decade later, and having arrived, IIRC, via “Tonic”... something....JerzyA (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)