Talk:Lydian dominant scale

Substitution of flat and sharp signs for "b" and "#".
Hallo, "Pfly"; glad you appear to like the article.

I noticed that you substituted flat and sharp signs in place of "b" and "#" which I had used, partly because they were the only way I knew for approximating these signs. But I have a question about this. While the signs you've put in may look closer to the real signs than the characters I used, I do recall reading somewhere (probably in a "Talk" page for another musical article) a suggestion that these signs *not* be substituted, because in some browsers they are not readable, and appear instead as question marks or incorrect and incomprehensible characters; at least the characters I used are recognizable for flats and sharps, even if not quite correct - and they will be readable on pretty well any browser.

Do you know if there is any Wikipedia policy on this? Unfortunately, even today, standardization on the way computers display more obscure characters is hopeless, almost Stone-Age in character, and I think there is a strong argument for using basic characters as much as possible until decent and reliable standards evolve, even if it's at the cost of having characters that don't look quite right.

If you get to read this, what do you think? Should we keep the correct characters you've put in, or revert to the more basic ones I originally used. I don't care a lot myself, as it so happens I can read either - but I was thinking about the possible situation of people who can't read the characters you changed to at all. M.J.E. (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hullo -- I recently stumbled across this at Manual of Style (music), which suggests (it's a guideline rather than a policy) not using b and #, and mentions the "music" template. Some of the issues about the topic are discussed on the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music). It seems like people have hashed this out for some time now. I don't know whether this template fails to display correctly on some browsers. I got the sense from reading the discussions, and the stuff over at Template:Music, that it works well and browser issues resolved (mostly?). I thought it was a pretty cool template, so I started using it -- just a few days ago. But I'm not particularly attached to it and would never insist on sticking with one style or another. Anyway, I'd say a little more but I gotta run! Pfly (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

neutral pov
this article is written in a not-so-neutral manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.92.155 (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How so? Hyacinth (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree -- it is basically an op-ed arguing against calling the scale "lydian dominant," rather than an explanation of why it is called that, coupled with citations of experts who think it shouldn't be.

Also, it's ridiculous to claim that Lydian's character is "defined" by the seventh degree, which is shared with many other modes; the distinguishing trait is the raised fourth, which it shares with Lydian dominant but none of the other ionian-based modes. Same for mixolydian and the fourth degree, which it shares with most of the others (I'd argue the major third, coupled with the flatted seventh, together define the mixolydian character).

Even as an op-ed, it employs circular logic. First it says the scale isn't related to the modal system, then it says calling it lydian-mixolydian or lydian dominant are kind of accurate, but they're wrong. . . because they relate the scale to the modal system.

I'm not normally the type to edit Wikipedia, but thought I had something to say here. --Robert


 * The statement that "A perceived kinship with the Lydian mode is illusory, because the scale also resembles the Mixolydian mode just as much as it does the Lydian mode" is rather like saying "A perceived kinship with your father is illusory, because you are related to your mother just as much as to your father." For naming purposes, as Robert points out, the Lydian fourth (which appears in only that diatonic mode) is much more distinctive than the Mixolydian seventh (which appears in five modes). Fenneck (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to acoustic scale
Can we just redirect this article to the "acoustic scale" entry, which has pretty much the same content and is written in a nice, neutral point of view, with references? I'd do it myself, but don't know how. Njarl (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose a merge on this one, see Talk:Acoustic scale. ArdClose (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How is clarification needed?
"... and it has also been called the "Overtone scale" (acoustic scale) in Vincent Persichetti's Twentieth-Century Harmony[clarify]."

How does this need clarifying? I wrote this, and I simply meant that this scale is given in notation in the book by Persichetti, "Twentieth-Century Harmony", and he labels it as the Overtone scale. How can I cite this more clearly? M.J.E. (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have provided a footnote with page number, which I believe is the clarification requested. I'm quite new here and am not familiar with Wikipedia citation style or markup. If anyone more experienced wants to bring this reference more in line with local convention, be my guest. Fenneck (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed example
Hyacinth (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A clear demonstration of the mode can be heard at the beginning of the song In the Evening by Led Zeppelin.