Talk:Hungarian gypsy scale

This may not be a Hungarian Gypsy Scale
What has been described is a mode of Double Harmonic Scale and should be merged with that. Both the "guitar grimoire" (Vol 1) by Karl Adamon and "Monster scales and modes for guitar" by Dave Celentano describe Hungarian gypsy as an Aeolian #4 scale. I am going to edit this now, I don't want to cause offense but this is obscure information and wikipedia could cause great confusion by airing inaccurate information on this matter. I checked the web link, it showed a double harmonic scale. Andrew F. (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian scales: Merge
afaik there are 3 hungarian scales, major, minor & gypsy

hungarian gypsy would be a hungarian minor flat 7 scale

weblink:

http://byronsanto.com/Book/ByronSantosScaleGrimiourm.pdf

my suggestion is to merge all the scale articles, so the same notations and conventions are used

84.53.97.78 (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with: Double harmonic scale
I think to merge this with byzantine scale (as it is the 4th mode) and have the Gypsy scale article link to it. ArdClose (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would a mode of the double harmonic scale be merged into that article rather than having its own? Hyacinth (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Because I don't think there is enough info on this article, I think it would suit better as a subsection (where modes currently exists) in the Double harmonic scale article. At the moment this article just gives three unnecessary examples of the scale and a tidbit about how it differs from the melodic minor scale. But then again it depends if the majority see the Hungarian gypsy scale as a mode of the double harmonic or vice versa. ArdClose (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge: Gypsy scale
I removed the merge tag from the article since there was no explanation on the talk page. Hyacinth (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge: Hungarian minor scale

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was Not merged very old and no support.--Salix (talk): 18:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why merge Hungarian minor scale with this article? Hyacinth (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge: Algerian scale

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was Not merged very old and no support.--Salix (talk): 18:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I found sources which indicate the Algerian scale is eleven notes, and thus distinct from the Hungarian scale and should not be merged. Hyacinth (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hungarian gypsy and hungarian minor the same?
Are they the same or not? When you make a simple google search most sites say they're the same, that it's just different names of the same scale.

These pages suggest otherwise:

http://byronsanto.com/Book/ByronSantosScaleGrimiourm.pdf

http://docs.solfege.org:81/3.10/C/scales/nem.html

This suggests that the hungarian gypsy scale is a hungarian minor scale flat 7, that is the 4th mode of the neapolitan minor(phrygian natural 7).

I'd say they're different... and thus the wiki article is wrong but lots of sites say they're the same.

It should be written into the article that they might be the same and might not be, I'm not really sure about this.

Jsem (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It should probably be written on all the pages that the useless names like Hungarian gypsy cause lots of confusion as different people call them different things, and above all should really be referred to by their more technical "name-plus-structure", like Double harmonic or Locrian natural 6thinstead of Byzantine ect. ArdClose (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The name thing is a good idea, call this one Aeolian sharp 4 or just refer it to the page for the neapolitan minor scale (which does not have a wikipedia article (yet)). However I still think the name of a scale, and not the structure name should at least be directed to the article.

If it is so that Hungarian Gypsy & Hungarian minor are the same they should be merged, or one should be directed to the other. I'd seperate these scales though, maybe add something like "this article should not be confused with the hungarian minor scale" and link to the hungarian minor scale. Jsem (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I proposed months ago that this article should be merged into the Modes subsection of Double harmonic scale. The Hungarian Gypsy and Hungarian Minor apparently describe the same thing, so really the distinct info on each page should be collected and added to Double harmonic, or if there's too much, merged into a single aticle. Whether to call the new article Hungarian Gypsy or Hungarian Minor is another discussion. Unfortunately other internet sources might disagree with what certain scales are named on Wikipedia, so I now have a sneaking suspicion that either the Minor or gypsy article may be mistaken, and should contain a flat 7th - thereby perhaps distinguishing them and making one compatible with the source User:Jsem found above (the mode of the Neapolitan). I guess the proper name for this scale is the Double harmonic minor, with its parent mode the Double harmonic [major]. ArdClose (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Scale Names are a headache
This scale I would have referred to as a "gypsy scale" but not as the "hungarian gypsy scale" which I always took to mean the Aeolian #4 as mentioned by Jsem below. I originally got this scale from a book by Dave Celentano called "Killer Scales and Modes for guitar" and have seen it on some but not all other websites with the name Hungarian Gypsy ((or Mela Sanmukhapriya (1st mode), Neapolitan Minor (5th), Mela Sulini (3rd),Mela Citrambari (6th), Mixolydian Augmented (7th)).

The rather lovely Double Harmonic Scale described on this page is equally akin to the Harmonic Minor Scale as it is to the Aeolian #4 and I have also seen this referred to as Mela Rasikapriya (5TH mode), Major Gypsy (4th mode), Minor Gypsy (7TH mode) on Scaleopia, a website that has recently (and inconveniently) died.

I'm sorry to see this kind of confusion and would agree that a merger with the double harmonic scale would be sensible. There's so much duplication and ambiguity that it certainly makes sense to merge this page with another and, I would suggest, avoid the hungarian gypsy name altogether even IF this scale is used by gypsies in Hungary!

Nobody can be definitively right or wrong on such a topic but it would be nice to develop a concensus and use uncontested names (like double Harmonic Scale for Aeolian #4#7 and Neapolitan Minor for the Aeolian #4 mode. I've been working for some years on a project that analyses musical scales for their chord constituents and cross compares their similarities and in general I would say that one mode for each scale should be chosen by default in much the same way as the Major (Ionian) mode of the diatonic scale is nominative, the remaining modes should be named mode X of the scale in question. There are just too many names (and so too much chance of error/ambiguity).  I think there's no good reason to dwell on each mode separately when it contains the same chords and notes as its brothers and sisters.

In short I'd recommend merging this with the Double Harmonic Scale but NOT calling it a mode of Hungarian Gypsy at all because it seems it means too many different things.

.Andrew F. (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional citations
Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)