Talk:Octave species

But what actually is a "species"?
Sadly, this article seems to fall into the usual Wikipedia trap: written by experts only for experts. But what about us mere mortals? Those of us who like music, and perhaps just about know that there are major and minor scales, and that a scale is somehow linked to an octave? What are we poor folks to make of this totally non-musical word "species"? (And the word is non-musical from our perspective... last time we checked, it was about plants and animals.)

Could someone who knows the subject try to put yourself is the mind of someone who doesn't yet know it, and try to teach us how we might envisage this strange word "species", please? Thanks.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Since this article is mostly my work, I suppose I had better stand up and take the heat. What is the problem? That pesky word "incomposite" found in the lead? It is a technical term that means "not divisible into smaller parts". Would it help if that phrase were inserted after the term? Or are there larger issues? The term "species" is in fact a specialised usage found in Ancient Greek (and by extension Medieval and Renaissance) music theory. Apart from that one word "incomposite", I cannot see how the explanation can be improved without doing violence to the actual employment of the concept, but I am willing to listen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerome. Stripping the sentence down, we have: "an octave species [...] is a sequence of [things] making up a complete octave".

In the term "octave species", the two individual words are, in their own way, equivalently technical: both attempt to describe or classify some aspect of music. If the reader doesn't understand the technical word "octave", they can click on its link towards a page which attempts to explain the word. But, alas, it is impossible for the reader do that with the similarly technical word "species". How does the reader get a hint?

Put another way: this page is importing two equivalently technical words "octave" and "species" in order to define the combined term "octave species". Presumably there are other sorts of "this species" and "that species" and "the-other species". How, do we give the reader a grasp, a clue, an intuitive feel, a picture, a description of "species" and of what differentiates one of these "species" thingummy-whatsits from another? (Rolling back the years, Jerome, by what process did you come to understand the concept underlying this mysterious term "species"? What was that "a-ha!" moment or event?  How do we give the reader that mind-picture, whatever it may be?)

Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I see your point. Both "octave" and "imcomposite interval" have links, but "species" does not. In fact, this ought to be trivial, since "species" in this context means nothing other than "kind" or "type". Unfortunately, this is far too simple an idea to supply a link. When you invoke "thingummy-whatsits", I'm afraid you lose me in technical terminology. I am "onlie a poor musician", I am afraid, and so require a less technical definition.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Species (εἶδη, σχήματα) is the most important concept of the Greek/Roman and medieval music theory. Actually, species is the abbreviation for 'species primarum consonantiarum', that is kinds, or modular dispositions, of every possible first consonance (diatessaron, diapente and diapason), or (in Greek) εἶδη τῶν πρώτων συμφωνιών. Octave species is just one (important) issue of the wider theory represented, for instance, in Ptolemy's Harmonic, Boethius' Institutio musica and the whole bunch of other music treatises (definition can be found there too, btw). Olorulus (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, but this still doesn't provide an article to link to, since there is no article Species primarum consonantiarum. What I am uneasy about is that this article is about "octave species", but there is no article on species of other intervals, nor is there an article about interval species more generally. Perhaps this article can cover these things, even without a change of title, for the reason that species of the octave are the sort most often invoked by modern theorists. If we cannot direct the perplesed reader to another article, then we need to provide an explanation here. I like the formulation "kinds, or modular dispositions", but fear that the expression "first consonance" may provoke more mystification than it resolves. This is all the more true if (following your explanation strictly) we must then explain why medieval theorists do not restrict their discussion to fourths, fifths, and octaves, but also sometimes speak of species of sevenths, sixths, and thirds.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically ('encyclopedically') I don't see a problem. The article should be called Species (music). The definitive part could (literally in one or two sentences) explain the (very simple) thing, that is which consonances had been considered 'first' for ca. 2000 years. Then the following 3 sections should be devoted to species of fourth, species of fifth, and species of octave. That is what really important for the history of music (theory) and 'encyclopedic'. As for species of any other interval (sorry, never heard about medieval theory of, say, species of consonant seventh), ok, if you think that this is important, the 4th section can describe them under a title, say, 'Species of other intervals'. Olorulus (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In principle, I agree with you that it makes best sense to rename the article as Species (music) (or perhaps Species (musical interval), or similar). However, I am not sure what your reasoning is concerning why consonant intervals should be given preference over dissonant ones (an historical argument, I presume), and why the order of interval species should proceed from fourth to fifth, and only then to octave (again historical arguments, I must assume). I cannot imagine why you suppose there ever could have been a "species of consonant seventh". Surely you must know that sevenths have always been regarded as dissonances (at least, until very recent times). Latin music theorists, however, from at least the 10th century have described species of non-consonant intervals. Jacobus of Liège (Speculum musicae, Liber Secundus, Capitulum LXXIIII: De nomine huius consonantiae et quotiens in monochordo contineatur) cites Guido of Arezzo: "Ideo dicit Guido duas species ad semiditonum pertinere". Two centuries later, Stephano Vanneo (Recanetum de musica aurea, Rome: Valerius Doricus, 1533, chapter XXXI) wavers about whether even the ditone can have more than one species ("Nolim tamen dicas duas esse ditoni species, cum absit ab eo semitonium, ut quidam male imbuti aiunt, concedimus uero duo appellari nomina seu formas uariatas"), but firmly states that the minor third has two species: "Et huiusmodi Semiditoni species, licet plures uideantur, ob earum multiplicem in manu reiterationem, duas tamen dicimus esse uidelicet, Re mi fa, et Mi fa sol, quae quidem species pro dispositione semitonii diuersitatem patiuntur. Altera namque in fine habet semitonium, Altera uero in initio suscepit, ut in subiecti exempli speculo, oculata fide, uidere potes". For the intervals of the major and minor seventh, I refer to Gioseffo Zarlino, Le istitutione harmoniche (Venice, 1558), Part 3, chapters 22 and 23: there are two species of the major seventh and five of the minor seventh.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I already said, the first consonances are the most important for both Antiquity and Medieval Ages. It is no way my reasoning (as you are implying supra), this is just the fact of history. The theory of species declined with the rise of the new harmonic theory. Evidences you cited are marginal (with all respect to conservative Zarlino, you can find even later speculations on species by Euler btw.), and should be described as such at a proper place with a proper (minor) attention, looking 'encyclopedically' (this means, the marginal species speculations can be described ad marginem, as I already said before). Olorulus (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose it makes a difference where you draw the line, historically. Treating the subject as principally to do with ancient Greek music, I must bow to your superior knowledge, and of course there is no question that the consonant intervals take priority. Could you be more specific, though, about "the rise of the new harmonic theory"? If you mean Rameau, then of course the concept of interval species dwindles to near-zero importance. Jacobus of Liège, on the other hand, is early 14th century, which I find a little difficult to characterize as "harmonic theory". I also am concerned that the Latin phrase you quote, "species primarum consonantiarum", does not produce a single hit in the entire Thesaurus Musicarum Latinarum. Can you cit a source for this?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To end up this discussion (which on my side would mean unnecessary repeats of the things already said), I propose that you'd base on some music dictionary which you trust. Surprisingly, I didn't find Species in the New Grove (not even 'octave species'), but you'd definitely find a kind of (I can't believe that such important concept of both Antiquity and medieval theory of music has not been reflected in the English-speaking dictionaries somewhere). As for your question, 'species primarum consonantiarum' is my own translation of what diatessaron, diapente and diapason were for the magistral medieval thinkers. I never suggested calling an English-Wikipedia article like this, it is just for you to understand what realities were 'primary' for the medieval theory of music (which re-thought Antiquity theory, or better to say, applied it to the reality of diatonic modes of plainchant, as you can see, e.g. in Hermannus Contractus, Berno of Reichenau and many others), and what is of secondary importance (species of other intervals which have been re-qualified as consonances with the evolution of 'vertical' perception of music through centuries). Olorulus (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. For 'first consonances' in TML you might check here (search for 'Simphoniae simplices ac primae'). Olorulus (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further thoughts. When I first came upon this article a year or two ago I, too, was surprised to discover that the New Grove had no applicable article. I cannot now remember how many other standard references I consulted, but there were several and none had such an entry. Consequently, I went ahead with the sources you now see in the article. Thanks also for clarifying where the expression "species primarum consonantiarum" comes from. I will stop expecting to find this unfamiliar phrase in Latin medieval theorists. As for the Musica enchiriadis, the phrase "Simphoniae simplices ac primae" clearly refers to what we call today "simple" intervals in contrast to "compound intervals"—not to "consonances of the first order", since there were no other consonances for theorists of that period (9th century). Perhaps I had misunderstood your discussion to mean that the "species primarum" were in some way contrasted with "lesser" consonances of thirds and sixths. If instead they refer to simple intervals (as in the Musica enchiriadis), then I think this is of less concern, since discussing species of compound intervals would probably not be such a good idea for this article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear colleague, frankley speaking I didn't think that you'd search whole medieval texts for exact phrase like my (literal translation from Greek) 'species primarum consonantiarum'. I believed that you being an experienced scholar would understand that 'consonantia' might be 'concordia', 'concordantia', 'symphonia', 'simphonia' or whatever, as well as 'primus' might be 'princeps', 'primarius' or anything else of the kind. When studying species theory in the primary sources, you might want to consider passages like 'simphonia diatessaron quae princeps est et quodammodo vim optinens elementi' etc., not just plainly 'species primarum consonantiarum'. Once again, my point was not to give a unique and the only 'terminus technicus' but rather to give you a hint at the magistral idea behind. Definitely this is due to my poor English that you misunderstood me. I am sorry.
 * Pity that you didn't find some encyclopedic entry on Species in English-speaking music dictionaries (if I got you right), this would facilitate creation of the article 'Species'. May it be then that you'd look for some musicological study? I checked my shelves and stuck over 'Critical Nexus' by Atkinson, which is seemingly descriptive enough to be used as a possible secondary source of the medieval species theory. May I advise you to look inside it. Olorulus (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with Atkinson's article, nor the author's first name. Could you tell me please the journal and year in which it was published?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually this is not an article but the book from OUP. Standard bibliographical entry is here, and book preview can be reached there.
 * PS. As for 'primary consonances' in TML, you may check also Anonymus II Gerberti (this important treatise has been edited critically by Michael Bernhard but this edition was not incorporated into TML due to copyright restrictions), search for a string 'tres principales consonantiae'. Olorulus (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, on both counts! The recent Atkinson book had not come to my attention until now; the pointer to the slightly less-recent Anonymous II is greatly appreciated. Certainly 'principales' does not sound at all ambiguous in this context, as 'simplices' might be.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional thought. If you will write an article 'Species' (I will not do it principally because I'm pretty sure, this schould be done by a native-speaker, not a foreigner), consider a complex question of 'applicability' of the theory to medieval 'counterpoint' treatises and 'praecepta' in general (e.g. as found in direct notes in sheet music, not only and literally 'in a sholar treatise'). As I wrote earlier, medieval theorists applied the Antiquity theory of species not only to modality (which is of primary importance), but also to 'vertical' understanding (here in Russia all those phenomena we call 'harmony', not just what is related to major and minor tonality, as it is usual in the West, so it is up to you to select proper termini technici, to make matters better understood by an ordinary English-speaking reader). Undoubtedly, the adaption of primary consonances was extremely important both in 'horizontal' and in 'vertical' perception of music, and this aspect, IMHO, should be (at least superficially) touched in an article on 'Species'. Think it over, the source of 'simplicity' in ME (and the whole large Pseudo-Hucbald's group of treatises, btw) was not an elementary theory of music of modern vintage, but rather 'first numbers' (primi numeri) of the fixed and reliable Pythagorean mathematics. Olorulus (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately, this is far too simple an idea to supply a link".
 * This is where explaining things becomes necessary! John Baez (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear colleague! After (almost) three years, pity that the octave species is still here (though I supplied above the necessary references to Atkinson's book and Warburton's article, leaving alone secondary literature in other languages devoted to the same subject), and there is not yet species (music) as the article title (sorry, but... compare the Russian Wiki article thru interwiki).
 * As for your required "proof" for "first consonances" evidence inside TML, now the project (of which I was 20 years a member of editorial board, but with the retirement of Tom Mathiesen, unfortunately, not anymore) has been finally revived, so you can easily locate the required "species primarum consonantiarum" in Boethius, here: Nunc de speciebus primarum consonantiarum tractandum est, etc. At least, several scholars in the Middle Ages followed the concept of consonant species (mostly 4th, 5th and 8th, as the cited famous citation from Marchetto of species as 'dishes'). Boethius himself borrowed his one (with a corrupted definition) from the Ptolemy's Harmonic, but I already wrote about it (see above). Olorulus (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Article is too technical
@User: Feline Hymnic @User: Jerome Kohl @User: Olorulus: Is there not a way to simplify this article so that a person of ordinary literacy can understand it? After all the purpose of an encyclopedia is to introduce people to ideas, not to be a forum for professionals to express their theories and discuss the fine points of their discipline.

Among other things, such a simplification entails defining basic terms before one uses them in complex statements. The concepts have to be built up from more readily understood precursors.

The subtleties can be kept if need be in footnotes, but even footnotes should have as their main purpose to refer the reader to source materials or to authorities where more detailed treatment can be found. -Wwallacee (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Sadly, Jerome Kohl died, I think around August last year (2020).  And the article was mostly his.  The only reason I appear on this talk page is because I, too, had been struggling with it and asking similar questions. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed above. Feel free to improve the article, with reputable sources. IMO, some subjects are inherently technical and obscure. Reading the discussion above and looking at the article's sources, this seems to be the case here and at several related articles. OTOH, such technical articles are prevalent in many other encyclopedic areas, e.g. in graph theory where I don't understand a single article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's accept that the exploration of "octave species" is inherently deeply technical, analogous to your "graph theory" example.  (I've been an amateur church musician most of my life, but I was unable even to get a tenuous fingerhold on this "octave species" thing from this article and background knowledge.)  But I still get the feeling that we ought to be able to provide some sort of bearing, however imprecise, in the lead; to provide that fingerhold.  Having had another rummage around Google since my note yesterday, it appears that musical "mode" might be such a point of contact.  If so, might the lead say something that relates the obscure "octave species" to the more familiar (even if not everyday) "mode"?  Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)