Talk:Degree (music)

The current intro is not written in plain language, and makes no sense to someone who doesn't know music theory:

Carets
Can someone please tell me where on the web I could find numerals with carets above, as in the examples in the "Scale Degree" section? Thanks! --Dveej 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never seen that either. Perhaps it should be removed, since it has been a long time since you asked for a reference. Pfly 08:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed? What the first commenter wanted was easily downloadable images of these, not a reference. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, misread, too much wikipedia reading.Pfly 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Scales & scale degrees
can scale degrees help identify scales?durp

if not, is there anything that can?durp


 * Please sign your posts on talk pages per Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks!
 * The number of scale degrees can help identify scales. For example a scale with only five degrees is a pentatonic scale. See Scale (music). Hyacinth 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

what about other scales like the japanese (itchisuko) or the oriental, how would I identify those with scale degrees? I'm pretty sure there are scales with the same amount of scale degrees.durp

Additional citations
Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Table
One book I have [Benward & Saker (2003). Music: In Theory and Practice, Vol. I, p.33. Seventh Edition. ISBN 978-0-07-294262-0.] has a table like the one above. Hyacinth (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure I know what "lower dominant" means for the 4th degree. Doesn't "subdominant" mean "one step below the dominant" in parallel construction to "subtonic"? &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What does "submediant" mean then? Hyacinth (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, you got me there. But I maintain that "lower dominant" is meaningless. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * W, Like much in music terminology the situation is complex and far from rational. "Sub" is used with different meanings in that table. In "subtonic" it means "below the tonic". In "subdominant" it may mean "below the dominant" (since it is below the dominant), but it appears originally to have involved something like the inverse of the dominant relation, so that it marks the degree to which the tonic stands as dominant, right? See here and here for example. And we might take "submediant" to mean "inverse of the mediant, standing as far below the tonic as the mediant stands above it"; but note its role as mediant to the subdominant; and as the table glosses things, it is mediant, or midway, between the subdominant and the tonic, just as the mediant is midway between tonic and dominant. History weighs heavy on all of this; as it does, notoriously, in uses of "diatonic" and "chromatic" applied in diverse ill-harmonised ways. But let's not go there!
 * N oetica Tea? 23:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm good with all that, Noetica, and although I've never previously encountered the meaning of "would be the tonic if I were the dominant", I see that Harvard Dictionary agrees with that meaning as well (although the SMT guys seems to be on the "below the dominant" team). But "lower dominant" is not in common usage nor does it explain it well. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh! You won't get an argument from me. I make no excuses for the chaotic development of terminology in music theory. I am a stern critic of anyone who claims that it's "Alles in Ordnung". Anyway, good to run into you again.
 * N oetica Tea? 06:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We could maintain that words and history are meaningless, but we could not go there instead. Saying something doesn't make it so. Hyacinth (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for reverting my good-faith edit with a snarky remark. That really encourages collaborative editing on WP. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the concept presented in the table above - the 7th is either subtonic or leading tone, the 8th is the tonic (again). I've altered the table but happy to discuss further Chalky (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Subdominant was named
The subdominant is named for being the same interval below the tonic (a fifth) that the dominant is above the tonic. Although the subdominant happens to be the degree just below the dominant, it was not named for being such. To support this, let's turn to the submediant.

The mediant is the third degree. Let's first assume that the subdominant was named for being the degree just below the dominant, and then find out if the submediant makes sense under this assumption. The degree just below the mediant (the third degree) is the second degree, and the submediant is the sixth. Not the same.

Now let's assume the subdominant was named for being the interval below the tonic that the dominant is above the tonic. Then the submediant would be the degree a third below the tonic. The degree a third below the tonic is the sixth degree, and the submediant is the sixth. The same! See how much sense the submediant makes for those who understand the true reason the subdominant is called subdominant?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If what you say regarding the subdominant is true it should be easy to find a source. Hyacinth (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraphs in this section of the talk page support that it's true. What faulty info am I assuming here?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You really don't need a source for this - it's like "Paris is the capital of France", everybody knows it. However, [s.n.] (1958) Rudiments and Theory of Music, London: Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music, page 58: "Subdominant (the lower Dominant) is so named because it is the same distance below the Tonic as the Dominant is above – not because it is the note below the Dominant." Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Diatonic mode ?!?
The article contains this puzzling statement:
 * The degrees of the traditional major and minor scales may be identified several ways:
 * [...]
 * the diatonic mode which starts on the degree, and contains all the notes in the key

If somebody could explain what this is supposed to mean, I'd be delighted. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Roman numeral notation
Roman numerals are assigned to scale degrees in first sidebox diagram of the article. These numerals are currently shown in upper and lower case, reflecting the major/minor quality of their associated triad chords (i.e. harmonisation). Thus they are not, strictly speaking, a descriptive of the scale but are, rather, descriptive of the harmonised scale (specifically in this case the major scale). I also observe that the associated citation/reference for the diagram notes that the reference cited is "shown all upper case" which is also inconsistent with the use of both cases, as in the diagram.

I suggest the diagram be clarified by either

1. simply noting in digram description that the case of the scale degree reflects associated harmonisation for the major scale OR 2. Remove the harmonisations of each degree and present all the numerals in upper case as, one might assume, is actually supported by the citation. RichardJ Christie (talk)
 * I had not seen this comment by @RichardJ Christie in its own time, but I must say that the recent modification by @Jbeans makes things worse, in that it says that "lower case indicates minor scale, upper case, major scale", while the scale shown is the major one in any case. And the second phrase in the lead, "Degrees are useful for indicating the size of intervals and chords, and whether they are major or minor", makes it even worse if possible, mistaking the degrees themselves (which do not and cannot indicate the nature of the chords) for their Roman numerals (which might indeed indicate the form of the triads). The reference to Jonas' Introduction to the Theory of Heinrich Schenker remains misleading, for the musical example there shows all Roman numerals in upper case (as is the usage of many Schenkerian theorists and analysts).
 * I think that the example urgently needs to be redrawn, if possible by its original author (@Hyacinth), showing only the scale (possibly with accidentals in parentheses, so that the scale would be both major and some type of minor), with Roman numerals all in upper case. The (American?) usage of lower case numerals (and of ° to denote a diminished fifth chord) could be mentioned later in the article, with references to textbooks suggesting it, but also refering to other books that suggest upper case numerals everywhere. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Hucbald.SaintAmand: I defer to your expertise, and will remove the edit you mentioned; indeed, I was attempting here to interpret the application of Roman numerals per the sentence you mentioned.//Jbeans (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Degrees as intervals?
The article also contains this puzzling statement:
 * The degrees of the traditional major and minor scales may be identified several ways:
 * the first, second, (major or minor) third, fourth, fifth, major or minor sixth, and major or minor seventh degrees of the scale;

This confusion may arise from the fact that, in English, numbering the degrees (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh) and describing the intervals (unison, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh) are done with the same terms (the only difference being between "first" and "unison"). In French the terms are different: premier, deuxième, troisième, etc., for the degrees, and unison, seconde, tierce, etc., for the intervals.

What I mean is this: it is not obvious to me that the third, sixth, or seventh degrees may be "major" or "minor". The third degree may be distant from the first by an interval of a major or minor third, but this does not make it the major or minor third degree: it is the third degree in all cases. (Or else one might have to call it the "second and a half" degree, etc.). In addition, how would one call, say, the second degree of a phrygian mode: the minor second degree? or the fourth degree of a lydian mode: the augmented fourth degree? (What we call the augmented fourth – the interval! – has been termed in the 19th century the major fourth!)

I suspect that this confusion may not be exclusive to WP and that it could be found in many textbooks of music theory. This is one case where I think we should do slightly better than merely give references: we should try to find the good references and reject the ones that maintain the confusion. Would that be considered original research? Or, to ask it otherwise, is it the purpose of WP to advocate the mistakes of poor references?

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Your concern here appears to be linguistical or terminological rather than musical. One could argue that a third degree that is green is, "a green third degree," without it being, "the green third degree". Unless you have a source that you can point to or quote which says that scale degrees defy all description, then a single source which does something such as saying that the third degree of the major scale is a major third above the tonic indicates that one may describe scale degrees. Hyacinth (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hyacinth, I really think that when we write, say, a "major third", we mean an interval, not a degree. Neither the Major third nor the Minor third articles speak of a degree, or if they do, they name it the "mediant" in both cases. A "blue third" is a more ambiguous term, because it means both a third degree bent down about a quarter tone (from the interval of a major third), and the interval that results from this bending. I do believe that naming a third (or a sixth, or a seventh) degree that is a major or a minor third (or sixth, or seventh) from the tonic a "major" or "minor" third (or sixth or seventh) degree is wrong linguistically, terminologically and music theoretically. But I'll leave that to others more versed in American ... musical terminology. A reference might also settle the matter. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Scale degrees – Musical example
@User:Hyacinth, your work to illustrate WP articles with musical examples is praiseworthy, but I think that the last version that you just published of the example showing "Scale degrees of C major and C minor" looses link with the reference quoted. I presume that the reference is to example 27 of the Jonas book (I have only the German original and the 2d English edition, so that I cannot be entirely sure of the reference to p. 22). Now, this example does not show scale degrees, but triads; it does not show C major and C minor, but only C major; and it does not give Arabic numerals, but uppercase Roman ones. Note 1 in the article does mention the uppercase Roman numerals, but neither the fact that the exemples shows triads, nor that it shows them in major only.

I trust that there must be many American textbooks that show a scale with the degrees numbered. The version that I have of Benward & Saker (8th edition) shows an example (Figure 2.2) that gives both (careted) Arabic numbers and names for the scale degrees. I suspect that the same example (from the 7th edition) is the source of your second example. If that is so, the two examples in the WP article could be combined as one, with both the Arabic numbers (without carets) and the degree names. I don't want to prepare such an example myself, because I think you should remain credited for it.

I find it somewhat misleading to have the scale both in major and in minor, because you hardly can indicate how the flat signs should be used for Aeolian, melodic and harmonic minor. But you might be able to arrange that. Degree names are the same in both cases, but for "leading tone" that becomes "subtonic" if flattened. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The old image still exists. The idea for a major and minor scale was yours. Hyacinth (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, now that you mention it, I see that I had made this suggestion; but now that I see it realized, I am less sure... In any case, my comment here was not so much about the scale than about the reference to Jonas as its source. I think that a combined example, with reference to Benward & Saker, would be better; but I may once again change my mind after seeing it ... ;–))
 * The major scale with Arabic numerals was shown in Simon Sechter's Die richtige Folge der Grundharmonien (1853; this must be the first instance ever, even if the possibility of numbering the degrees had been mentioned by Quirinus van Blankenburg in 1739) and in Anton Bruckner's Vorlesungen über Harmonielehre und Kontrapunkt (Schwanzara ed., 1950), but these probably are not the right references for an English WP article. Schenker and Schoenberg give the same example as Jonas, with triads (Schenker without the Roman numerals). So, Benward & Saker seems one of the best choices. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hyacinth, I see that you added sound files to the scale, one which you identify as "harmonized" scale. I don't want to be annoying, but I don't think that adding triads above a scale is the same thing as "harmonizing" it – nor that the result is "harmony". What you get is merely a scale with triads, the triads "belonging to the scale", leitereigene, as they use to be described in German harmony textbooks. Harmonizing a scale is of the order of the famous Règle de l'octave, as described in the article Rule of the octave which you created yourself some years ago. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If you follow the redirect 'harmonized scale' you'll find that, according to Wikipedia, "harmonization" refers to using/adding harmony rather than some specific form of harmonization with specific rules from a specific time and place. Hyacinth (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me shortly say that the definitions of "harmonization" and "harmony" that I first learned, then taught for many years, are not the ones implied by this. When the WP article Harmonization says that harmonization refers to using/adding harmony, it does not say what harmony is. And the article Harmony says that "harmony involves chords and their construction and chord progressions and the principles of connection that govern them". And Chord progression adds that "Chord progressions are the foundation of harmony in Western musical tradition from the common practice era of Classical music to the 21st century." It are the principles of connection that are missing in a mere scale of triads. But I won't further argue about this. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if your argument is that parallel chords can't be "harmony" (see Parallel harmony) or that it can't be harmony if it's only an example and not an actual composition (which would eliminate most of the "harmony" examples). Either way I'm not yet convinced. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll withdraw what I said (but I'll keep thinking otherwise). What Parallel harmony describes as parallel harmony obviously is parallel diatonic counterpoint. I spent too much time in my youth struggling with the harmonization of an ascending and descending scale (which still was a common exercise, in my class at least) to think otherwise. But I see that the confusion is common, among others amongst guitarists who are prompt to play parallel chords (which, in my opinion, do not form a "harmony"). — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Supertonic for half step?
The table says that the supertonic is only for a whole step above the tonic (2 semitones). But can't the word also be used for a half step above tonic (1 semitone) e.g., for the Phrygian scale? Squandermania (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but mentioning that in the table would require a reference. Note that the second degree, particularly when it is a half step above the tonic, also at times is called the "upper leading tone" – more rarely when it is a whole step above, but I think Schenker used the term that way. Once again, we could add this in the article only with references. I'll see whether I can find any. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In the English translations of Schenker's two volumes of Counterpoint and of Free Composition, "descending leading tone" is more than once used as translation of abwärtssteigende Leitton, meaning the supertonic resolving down a full step to the tonic. This appears to have been frequent in German, also Oberleitton (Riemann). — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I looked at a few textbooks and none were conclusive -- they all defined the supertonic as a step above the tonic, which could support either view -- and spent more time on the supertonic chord than the supertonic tone itself. I'll need to see if I can find a source that is conclusive. Squandermania (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Supertonic" hardly could be used alone to denote the degree a semitone above the tonic. It needs a qualifier. But then, several cases can be found:
 * – Flat supertonic is the most frequent. One finds it for instance in
 * Donald Tovey (1944). The Main Stream of Music and Other Essays. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 141, 148-149, 151, 154, 244, 261, 290, 292-296.
 * Anthony Pople (2001). "Styles and languages around the turn of the century." The Cambrige History of Nineteenth-Century Music, J. Samson ed. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 615.
 * David Beach (2005). Aspects of Unity in J. S. Bach’s Partitas and Suites. Rochester University Press, p. 53.
 * Richard Kramer (2008). Unfinished Music. New York, Oxford University Press, p. 351.
 * – Lowered supertonic in
 * Willy Apel (1944). Harvard Dictionary of Music. Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press, p. 685.
 * John Chalmers (1993). Divisions of the Tetrachord. Hanover (N.H.), Frog Peak, p. 86. (About the Greek Dorian scale.)
 * David Damschroder (2008). Thinking about Harmony. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 264, 318.
 * – Flattened supertonic in
 * Hepokoski & Darcy (2006). Elements of Sonata Theory, New York, Oxford University Press, p. 285.
 * David Damschroder (2008). Thinking about Harmony. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 208.
 * Another term used, for which I din't (yet) make an extensive researd is "Neapolitan (degree)," probably coming from Schoenberg's Structural Functions. It is used for instance by Joel Lester (1999), Bach's Works for Solo Violin (New York, Oxford University Press), p. 41. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)