Talk:Acoustic scale

Insufficient context
I have tagged the article as not providing sufficient context for the following reasons:
 * The phrase "symmetrically balanced sections, especially periods" doesn't mean much to me.
 * The reference to the golden section links only to the mathematical ratio, and does not provide any clue as to how it applies to music.
 * The table describes the golden section as "chromatic, dynamic, close, circular" and other such words with no explanation as to why this should be the case. It seems to have been copied from a source without providing any accompanying explanation.

It would be better if this article was written in a more encyclopedic manner, as well. Instead, it reads like opinion of one or two musical analysts.

--Rhebus 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Even without having the book to refer to, I'm sure the talk about balanced sections, periods, golden sections and Fibonacci sequences refers to do the larger architecture of Bartók's music and has nothing whatever to do with the overtone scale as such. This certainly isn't the only music theory article on Wikipedia that sounds too much like the speculations of one theorist. Fenneck (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

i believe there should be an explanation of the difference between the acoustic scale and the lydian dominant used is jazz, if there is any (the answer is obviously unkown to me), as they both seem to consist of the same notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.217.148 (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a few problems with this article. First, the use of the "acoustic scale" goes back much farther than Lendvai -- it appears in Liszt, and was one of Debussy's favorite scales. Second, as mentioned above, the scale plays a major role in jazz, which isn't discussed at all. Third, the discussion here spends too much time on the particular theories of Erno Lendvai. This is misleading, as the acoustic scale is found in the music of a range of composers, many predating Bartok. The current discussion of golden sections, different rhythmic practices, etc., really belongs in an article on Lendvai's theories of Bartok, not in a general article on the acoustic scale itself. (Also, note that Lendvai's theories are very controversial; he's not considered a reliable source by professional theorists -- see, for instance, the review of his book in the Journal of Music Theory.)  Njarl (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please cite sources and add that information to the article. Hyacinth (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What does that review say? Hyacinth (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This scale appears in folk music in Central and Eastern Europe. I wouldn't be so quick to attribute its invention to some high-brow composers.--154.20.32.179 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposition for merge with Lydian dominant scale
Both scales are the same and I think both articles have enough information between them to form a reliable single one. Any thoughts? ArdClose (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Which title would they be at? Hyacinth (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Though it is true that both scales share the same contents... the context differs in their use, especially with the focus on particular notes of the scale... for the acoustic scale the sharp 4th degree is extremely important and often functions structurally, whereas in Jazz the modal scale version emphasizes the flattened 7th more. Therefore I am not sure that the two should be merged. User: Duncan 16:47 27 Sept 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.25.98 (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think they should be merged, because they refer to the same concept reached by different means (acoustics vs. minor harmony). I don't see where the evidence is for the comment above "in Jazz the modal scale version emphasizes the flattened 7th more". I am a jazz player. If I want to emphasize the 7th and not emphasize #4 in a scale, I can simply use the dominant (i.e. mixolydian) scale, rather than the lydian dominant. Rmkeller (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Merged. Hyacinth (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Should be Lydian Dominant
I suggest the title of this page be renamed to "Lydian Dominant". In the jazz community Lydian Dominant is the most common name for this scale, and "acoustic scale" is not used at all.

"Acoustic scale", "Lydian flat 7", and "Mixolydian sharp 4" are the alternate names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.208.212 (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and there is a redirect in place from "Lydian dominant scale" to this article. It should also be pointed out that this is not the Jazz Wikipedia, and the term "Lydian dominant scale" may not be familiar at all to the non-jazz musicians who customarily use the term "Acoustic scale".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There's actually over a dozen different names out there that are currently being used for this scale in the literature: (1) Lydian Dominant (common jazz usage), (2) Lydian-Mixolydian (Kostka, Payne, and Almen 2013), (3) ♯4 ♭7 (ibid.), (4) Overtone (Persichetti 1961), (5) Acoustic (Lendvai 1955 [1971]), (6) Lixian (Russo, Ainis, and Stephenson 1983), (7) Mixolydilydian (Nagel 1996), (8) Hypolydophrygian (Hatherly 1892--based off original Greek ordering), (9) Podhalean (McNamee 1985), (10) the "Howard Hanson Symphony No. 4" scale (Slonimsky 1947), (11) Bartok (Kerenyi 1947), (12) Hungarian-Bartok (Cope 1997), (13) Rumanian Non-Diatonic (Susanni and Antokoletz 2012), and, last but not least, (14) the "Fourth Mode of Melodic Minor" (also common jazz usage). Not to mention that our IP address friend added (15) "Lydian ♭7" and (16) "Mixolydian ♯4".  If we add in the Escala nordestina article, we've also got (17) "Brazilian Lydian".


 * "Acoustic" seems to be one that's in vogue with the theory journal crowd right now, probably because of Dmitri Tymoczko, but it's based on Lendvai making a mathematical rounding error. The article already sneaks a little note about this in, saying that the 13th partial from C1 is "closer to A♭4 than A4", but this should disqualify the entire rationale for naming the scale as such.  The actual closest approximation is clearly C D E F♯ G A♭ B♭ C (a scale that Persichetti calls "Lydian Minor"), rather than the scale in question here.  This also puts the whole paragraph about Tyvan/overtone singing into serious question.  Based on that alone, I'd probably side toward Lydian Dominant at present, simply because it's common and not based on error.  But really, the present naming situation for the non-diatonic heptatonic modes is an inconsistent trainwreck across the board, and this scale is the absolute poster child.

Locrian6 (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thorough catalogue of the various names which have been given to this scale. Given the multiplicity of possible derivations for this pitch collection and the great variety of musical uses to which it has been put, it seems that the only truly neutral label for this collection would be the ordered pitch-class sequence (0, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, T). Of course, a rarely-used numerical label would would hardly be an appropriate title for this article, so the question remains as to whether the "Acoustic scale" heading should be retained.


 * Although I totally agree that the term "Acoustic" is misleading, I'd vote for keeping the article's present title, if for no other reason than that this term is commonly used by theorists today. Even if Lendvai is largely responsible for popularizing this label, it should be acknowledged that he was not the first person to trace the scale's origins to the overtone series. As Antokoletz has pointed out, Georg von Albrecht had founded a set of 12 Preludes in Ober- und Untertonreihen on this scale and on its inversion in 1934. Thus, the custom of linking this collection to the overtone series is a time-honored one. Moreover, the sequence C D E F♯ G A♭ B♭ is the closest approximation of partials 8-14 only if one maps these partials onto the chromatic scale solely on the basis each tone's distance from C. If one takes into account the complete matrix of intervals which the scale degrees form with each other, then the scale with A-natural emerges as the closest approximation. Regardless, there really is no "good" 12-ET mapping of this segment of the harmonic series, and the acoustic "origin" of this scale is highly debatable.Chuckerbutty (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)