Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2024 May 1

= May 1 =

"The Tay Bridge Disaster" really that bad of a poem?
People say "The Tay Bridge Disaster" by William McGonagall is a bad poem, but is there any explanation as to why? Our article just says in a conclusary fashion that it has been "lampooned by critics as one of the worst poems in the English language." The source that supports the claim just calls McGonagall a writer of "juvenile, arrhythmic poems", but there's nothing on the poem itself, and the source isn't really a poetry analysis source anyways. I was able to find one source that says "parallelism must be seen to have arisen accidentally. Rhyme that appears forced runs the risk of being subject to negative evaluation." Any help? I don't think we have an article on parallelism. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Well for starters, most of it doesn't scan; where is the metre? Shantavira|feed me 07:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For continuation, even this defence of McGonagall admits that bathetic rhymes are characteristic of his style. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also see the Poetry Foundation's definition of doggerel, which describes it as "traditionally characterized by clichés, clumsiness, and irregular meter", and illustrates this with an excerpt from the Tay Bridge Disaster. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This biographical introduction to McGonagall's works says:
 * He shared many of the faults of Mr Pooter, being pompous, self-important, humourless and the butt of jokes he didn't understand...
 * From the day divine inspiration to write poetry descended upon McGonagall, he was addicted to rhyme and the same rhyme pairs would often appear in his writing - if a poem involved the queen, she'd be somewhere "green" or "wondrous to be seen”. Although rhyming was a compulsion with McGonagall, scansion was completely alien to him. The long rambling lines, ending with that vital rhyme, are the most recognisable feature of his work and sometimes reach prodigious proportions...
 * The third element in McGonagall's poetic technique - or lack of it - is his extraordinary ability to puncture whatever pathos he may have been able to create by the addition of some extraneous fact or an inappropriate phrase...
 * Alansplodge (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alan's quote is addressing the same point as the one about "parallelism", in the source you found. Parallelism being apparently used as a general term for rhyme, alliteration, consonance, assonance etc. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In McGonagall's defence:
 * There is little meaningful distinction between McGonagall's style and content and that of a hawker of street verse in 1830s or 1860s Scotland... other than McGonagall's far greater reputation and longevity.
 * Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "being...the butt of jokes he didn't understand." Ah yes, the "fault" of every bullied child. Anyway, writing any poetry is hard, even "bad" poetry is better than most of us will ever achieve, and memorable poetry is beyond even most professional poets. DuncanHill (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that he's included in a global encyclopedia would undoubtedly please him no end. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Having read the poem, I'd say the obvious reasons would be that it's really inconsistent in structure: inconsistent line length, inconsistent verse length, and inconsistent rhyming pattern. It also has a lot of repetition (for example "on the last Sabbath day of 1879" is used four times), but even that repetition isn't consistent enough to be part of the structure of the poem.  Iapetus (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the question is inherently subjective, I'm treating as such to whatever extent my heart desires: it's very bad. It's not bad for its use of stock poetic conventions without demonstrating any understanding of why they're used, while simultaneously just, failing, to actually use them successfully. It's bad because it's boring and says nothing. Given it's longer than a few stanzas, I would expect a poem either to "tell a story" in the most abstract sense through elements like mood, perhaps by varying or elaborating upon said elements. Here, no connections are made that run deeper than the lines on which the words themselves appear. It just sounds like someone boring is talking to me about the boat, and there's no attempt to explore anything at any depth or breadth. Boat. Boat!
 * Boat. Remsense  诉  23:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've always particularly enjoyed that branch of literary criticism which involves displaying the critic's complete failure to read the criticised work. There ain't a boat in it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If I said I meant to type "bridge" four times in a row but failed all four times because I was distracted, that sounds like an obvious lie and you wouldn't believe me. So, I'll just take the L on this one. Remsense  诉  23:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "take the L" means. In your defence, boats and bridges do perform the same function, so your confusion could be excused. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Take the loss". The silver lining here is that my claimed QWERTial aphasia was probably as interesting as "The Tay Boat Disaster". Remsense  诉  00:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did that writing in my Dad's Filofax the other day. I said "I'll visit on Friday", and in the Friday section I wrote "Friday", instead of "Duncan". DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just read the poem for the first time. Is he trying to rhyme Edinburgh with sorrow? And if so, how is he expecting each to be pronounced? Iapetus (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to mostly work, assuming both end with [rə] like I'd expect. Remsense  诉  10:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just read the poem for the first time. Is he trying to rhyme Edinburgh with sorrow? And if so, how is he expecting each to be pronounced? Iapetus (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to mostly work, assuming both end with [rə] like I'd expect. Remsense  诉  10:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Having past connections with Dundee, I'm very familiar with McGonagall (who remains a local celebrity there) and his 3-volume Poetic Gems collection is almost within arms' reach as I type.
 * One of McGonagall's positive features is that he documented (in appallingly bad verse) many events that were at the time locally newsworthy but which otherwise have faded from memory. Generally, he is faithful to facts as reported in the local press at the time, and the incongruity of poetising often mundane events is one source of the amusement his works afford.
 * In latter years it has been suggested that his apparent poetic ineptitude may have been deliberate, but more likely he genuinely lacked any literary discernment, something of a handicap in a Shakespearian actor and a self-proclaimed 'poet and tragedian.' {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.144.58 (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See, that's neat. To be clear, even bad boring art is worth an awful lot sometimes. :) Remsense  诉  06:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Declaration of interest here - I am the Chris Hunt who's introduction to McGonagall's collected works is quoted above! The wiki answer to the question is that it's a bad poem because reliable sources say it is. Having read this poem in public on several occasions, I can tell you it's a great poem to perform live - but only if you do it for laughs, which I'm sure was not the intention of the original author. Chuntuk (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you Chuntuk, I have used your learned text as a reference for a new section; The Tay Bridge Disaster. I hope this satisfies Therapyisgood's original inquiry. Thanks all and feel free to edit if my modest efforts are lacking in any respect. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Why ♭ seems be more popular than ♯ ?
e.g. in the circle of fifths:


 * D
 * A & G
 * E & C
 * B & F
 * F♯ & B♭
 * C♯ & E♭
 * G♯/A♭ (they are the same note, but why called A♭ more often than G♯?)

also, in the diatonic scales:

125.230.0.219 (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * C major/a minor (0)
 * G major/e minor (1♯) & F major/d minor (1♭)
 * D major/b minor (2♯) & B♭ major/g minor (2♭)
 * A major/f♯ minor (3♯) & E♭ major/c minor (3♭)
 * E major/c♯ minor (4♯) & A♭ major/f minor (4♭)
 * B major/g♯ minor (5♯) & D♭ major/b♭ minor (5♭)
 * F♯ major/d♯ minor/G♭ major/e♭ minor (6♯/6♭) (they are the same diatonic scale, but why G♭ major/e♭ minor (6♭) is used more often than F♯ major/d♯ minor (6♯)?


 * G♯ and A♭ are the same key on most current keyboards, but they are not the same note in all tuning systems. In Pythagorean tuning, they are separated by a Pythagorean comma. --Lambiam 06:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume that the OP is mostly interested in Western common practice—12TET, normative music theory etc.
 * Let's look at the notes of F♯ major alongside those of G♭ major:
 * They're both equally pesky if E♯ or C♭ make you uncomfortable, of course. No double-sharps or double-flats which disqualify key signatures like G-flat minor, which requires B𝄫, E𝄫, as well as F♭. So that's not why.
 * I would surmise part of the reason why is that G♭ major is simply closer to other keys with which it may relate in a given piece, suite, etc. It's much more common to play around in the darkness of A♭ and D♭ major than worry about B major being annoying for everyone but the guitarist. B♭ minor is also a rather common key, because many instruments are tuned to B♭. Remsense  诉  11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This means in the circle of fifths, the 7 “normal” white keys (A, B, C, D, E, F, G), and the black keys, the two black keys which are “next to” the white keys in the circle of fifths, we use F# and Bb instead of Gb and A#, since F# and Bb are “next to” the white keys in the circle of fifths, i.e, they have distance of 1 to the “normal” white keys (B and F, respectively), but Gb and A# have distance of 5 to the “normal” white keys in the circle of fifths, similarly, C# and Eb both have distance of 2 to the “normal” white keys in the circle of fifths, but Db and D# have distance of 4 to the “normal” white keys in the circle of fifths, thus we use C# and Eb instead of Db and D#, but for the black key G#/Ab, this key is the “farest” key to the white keys in the circle of fifths, both G# and Ab have distance of 3 to the “normal” white keys in the circle of fifths, but why Ab is used more often than G#? 61.224.150.139 (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would surmise part of the reason why is that G♭ major is simply closer to other keys with which it may relate in a given piece, suite, etc. It's much more common to play around in the darkness of A♭ and D♭ major than worry about B major being annoying for everyone but the guitarist. B♭ minor is also a rather common key, because many instruments are tuned to B♭. Remsense  诉  11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This means in the circle of fifths, the 7 “normal” white keys (A, B, C, D, E, F, G), and the black keys, the two black keys which are “next to” the white keys in the circle of fifths, we use F# and Bb instead of Gb and A#, since F# and Bb are “next to” the white keys in the circle of fifths, i.e, they have distance of 1 to the “normal” white keys (B and F, respectively), but Gb and A# have distance of 5 to the “normal” white keys in the circle of fifths, similarly, C# and Eb both have distance of 2 to the “normal” white keys in the circle of fifths, but Db and D# have distance of 4 to the “normal” white keys in the circle of fifths, thus we use C# and Eb instead of Db and D#, but for the black key G#/Ab, this key is the “farest” key to the white keys in the circle of fifths, both G# and Ab have distance of 3 to the “normal” white keys in the circle of fifths, but why Ab is used more often than G#? 61.224.150.139 (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This question looks like the reverse of a question on this same reference desk that I asked on February 21, 2022. It was about why some people think it's okay to avoid flats and just use sharps in place of their flat enharmonics. Please check it out. Georgia guy (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Link: . --Lambiam 14:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You've missed out mentioning C♯ major/A♯ minor, and C♭ major/A♭ minor (7♯/7♭). Three of these keys are well represented in the musical canon (including examples by Bach and Beethoven; see Overview of compositions with 7 accidentals), although for reasons I've never quite understood, A♯ minor is disfavoured almost to the point of invisibility. But not quite, as I've found a few examples in my travels (more than are shown in the linked list). Maybe your omission of these 7-accidental keys was a sort of mental bridge too far for you, and maybe that also explains why many people prefer flat keys over sharps. The physical shape of a battalion of ♯ signs might seem too brutal and threatening, compared with the softer, rounder, more swan-like ♭ signs. That's my theory. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding A♯ minor, I have a theory. C♯ major and A♭ minor make sense to use directly, because their parallel keys are normal keys with fewer accidentals, and using the seven-accidental keys in these cases avoids enharmonic shifting between parallel major and minor. C♭ major at least makes sense because of harp tuning, but you'll also notice it's significantly less common than C♯ major and A♭ minor. Meanwhile A♯ minor has neither driver pushing it into use, so it remains an extreme rarity. Double sharp (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 7# and 7b are rarely used, we usually use 5b in place of 7# and use 5# in place of 7b, since they are the same note, but 6# and 6b are also the same note. 61.224.150.139 (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, for the theoretical keys (8# and 8b), all of F-flat major, G-sharp major, D-flat minor have their own articles, but why E-sharp minor is only a redirect? (♭ seems be more popular than ♯) 61.224.150.139 (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This thread suffers from the fact that nobody has bothered to verify that the premise of the question is actually correct. What makes you believe flats are more frequently used than sharps? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two meanings of "popular", the word the OP used in his question. In the sense of liked or preferred, I can vouch that many people in my experience report a greater ease when playing pieces in flat keys compared with sharp keys. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The bit at the very end is definitely correct - Eb minor is more common than D# minor as a key signature because the accidentals are simpler (the raised 6th and 7th are C-natural and D-natural, as opposed to B-sharp and C-double-sharp). Gb major might be preferred by analogy, as any piece in a major key from the classical and romantic periods tends to spend some time in the relative minor. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, both of the natural major and the natural minor have no additional sharp/flat, i.e. the natural F# major and the natural D# minor have “just” this 6 sharps, and the natural Gb major and the natural Eb minor have “just” this 6 flats, but if you use the harmonic scale or the melodic scale, you will have additional sharps/flats, harmonic major has an additional flat in the 6th note, harmonic minor has an additional sharp in the 7th note, melodic major (descending) has two additional flats in the 6th and 7th notes, melodic minor (ascending) has two additional sharps in the 6th and 7th notes, thus:


 * and the F# major together with the D# minor, and the Gb major together with the Eb minor, will use the same number of sharps/flats. 61.224.150.139 (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, IMSLP uses software like Wikipedia, so that entries can be categorised in many ways, including by key signature. Like WP, it depends on volunteers actually doing the work, so who knows whether the results of any analysis are mathematically meaningful. But, fwiw, here's what I found:
 * There are 50,618 pieces in flat keys, compared with only 39,190 in sharp keys. Also, 17,701 in neutral keys (predominantly C major, 73%).
 * 80,554 pieces in major keys, compared with only 26,955 in minor keys.
 * Looking at numbers of accidentals in key signatures, there's an unsurprising preference for fewer as compared to more:
 * Neutral: keys 17,701
 * 1 accidental: 33,276
 * 2 accidentals: 24,391
 * 3 accidentals: 19,205
 * 4 accidentals: 9,027
 * 5 accidentals: 2,688
 * 6 accidentals: 796
 * 7 accidentals: 161
 * That trend also applies when applied only to major keys, or only to minor keys.
 * Looking at preference of major over minor within the above split, there's a very stable trend up to 5 accidentals:
 * Neutral keys: 73.2% major
 * 1 accidental: 74.7% major
 * 2 accidentals: 74.9% major
 * 3 accidentals: 78.8% major
 * 4 accidentals: 72.9% major
 * 5 accidentals: 74.4% major
 * But for the keys with 6 or 7 accidentals, it's roughly equal:
 * 6 accidentals: 52.9% major
 * 7 accidentals: 52.8% major.
 * I surmise that that's because these keys are predominantly found in exercises and studies for advanced pianists, and are not even taught to beginners.
 * None of above are terribly surprising, but they do perhaps serve to confirm the OP's premise, inter alia. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * JackofOz, that site is for old (pre-1929 for the time being; it will go up by one year every year) music. In modern popular music sharp keys appear to be more popular. Georgia guy (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about score music or recorded popular music? The latter generally has much less notational or metatextual reason to strongly favor one enharmonic spelling over another. While B♭ vs. A♯ matters rather more for woodwind players reading from a score, it matters potentially not at all to a guitarist in a context where notation itself was largely optional and there generally wasn't expected to be a tonal relationship between discrete pieces. In any case, I wouldn't say it's "more popular" because it's simply not a choice that matters, so what the sticker on the fretboard (etc. etc.) says is perfectly serviceable as a label. Plus, of course, the most useful analysis of pop songs deriving in some way from the common practice would likely prefer one over the other regardless, but the distinction is often not prioritized by people entering the data. Remsense  诉  22:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I found a formula, x+y gives the number of sharps/flats in this key (positive number means sharps, negative number means flats), if x+y is > +7 or < -7, then this key is only a theoretical key):
 * x:
 * B#: +10
 * E#: +9
 * A#: +8
 * D#: +7
 * G#: +6
 * C#: +5
 * F#: +4
 * B: +3
 * E: +2
 * A: +1
 * D: 0
 * G: -1
 * C: -2
 * F: -3
 * Bb: -4
 * Eb: -5
 * Ab: -6
 * Db: -7
 * Gb: -8
 * Cb: -9
 * Fb: -10
 * y:
 * Lydian: +3
 * Ionian: +2
 * Mixolydian: +1
 * Dorian: 0
 * Aeolian: -1
 * Phrygian: -2
 * Locrian: -3
 * not count the theoretical keys (i.e. the keys with more than 7 sharps/flats), there are 15*7 = 105 possible keys (from B# Locrian (7#) to Fb Lydian (7b)). 61.224.150.139 (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So Fb Locrian is the most theoretical key? With 13 flat symbols and you can't even remove some of them with the star=## symbol? I suppose you could have Bbbbbbbbbbbb Locrian but that's just ridiculous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know. What's wrong with taking, say, an ascending C major scale and with a judicious use of multiple accidentals make it sound like a descending F-sharp minor scale. Simple, really:
 * C♯♯♯♯♯♯ D♯♯♯ E♭♭ F♭♭♭♭♭♭ G♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭ A♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭ B♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭ C♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭♭. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not add one more sharp symbol to B# Lydian and call it B# Superlydian, 15 sharps for B# Ultralydian and 16 sharps for B# Hyperlydian, then add one repeat per sharp after running out of Greek and Latin like Hyperhyperhyperhyperhyperhyperhyperhyperhyperlydian? And add some flat modes with names like Infralocrian, Sublocrian and Hypolocrian? Maybe Hypsolocrian and Perlydian too. And Superphyrgian is just Locrian. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The invention of writing has been a disaster. Remsense  诉  23:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Funniest thing I've read this year. :) -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually Superphyrgian would be minus 1, unless you want super to mean "more extreme in any direction" in which case you couldn't have unambiguous Superdorian anymore. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is “superlydian”, a key with much more sharps than dorian (the medium key)? Also “superlocrian” should be a key with much more flats than dorian (the medium key)? 2402:7500:943:D56F:909B:9877:85C8:AFAA (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose an SI metric prefix system for this. Rather than Superlydian, Ultralydian, and Hyperlydian, we use Kilolydian, Megalydian, and Gigalydian. Also, instead of Infralocrian, Sublocrian, and Hypolocrian, we use Millilocrian, Microlocrian, and Nanolocrian. GalacticShoe (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since Dorian mode is the “middle” mode, we compare it with other modes:
 * (♯ and ♭ are dual, 2 and 7 are dual, 3 and 6 are dual, 4 and 5 are dual)
 * Dorian is self-dual, Mixolydian mode and Aeolian mode are dual, Ionian mode and Phrygian mode are dual, etc.
 * ♯3 -> Mixolydian mode / ♭6 -> Aeolian mode (natural minor and descending melodic minor)
 * ♯3, ♯7 -> Ionian mode (natural major and ascending melodic major) / ♭2, ♭6 -> Phrygian mode
 * ♯3, ♯4, ♯7 -> Lydian mode / ♭2, ♭5, ♭6 -> Locrian mode
 * ♯3, ♯4, ♯5, ♯7 -> Lydian augmented scale / ♭2, ♭4, ♭5, ♭6 -> Altered scale
 * ♯7 -> Jazz minor scale (ascending melodic minor) / ♭2 -> Dorian ♭2 scale
 * ♯3, ♯4 -> Acoustic scale / ♭5, ♭6 -> Half diminished scale
 * (♯4 / ♭5) -> ? (two types of Dorian harmonic scale?) (the case ♯4 is Ukrainian Dorian scale)
 * ♯3, ♭2 -> ? (Mixolydian harmonic scale?) / ♯7, ♭6 -> ? (Aeolian harmonic scale?) (harmonic minor)
 * ♯3, ♯7, ♭6 -> ? (Ionian harmonic scale?) (harmonic major) / ♯3, ♭2, ♭6 -> Phrygian dominant scale (Phrygian harmonic scale?)
 * ♯4, ♯7 -> ? (Lydian harmonic scale?) / ♭2, ♭5 -> ? (Locrian harmonic scale?)
 * ♯4, ♯7, ♭6 -> Hungarian minor scale / ♯3, ♭2, ♭5 -> Oriental mode
 * ♯3, ♭6 -> Aeolian dominant scale (descending melodic major) (it is self-dual)
 * ♯3, ♯7, ♭2, ♭6 -> Double harmonic scale (it is self-dual)
 * Or remove two keys to get pentatonic scale:
 * Remove 3 and 6 -> suspended pentatonic scale (商 (shāng) mode) (it is self-dual)
 * Remove 3 and 7 -> blues major pentatonic scale (徵 (zhǐ) mode) / Remove 2 and 6 -> minor pentatonic scale (羽 (yǔ) mode)
 * Remove 4 and 7, ♯3 -> major pentatonic scale (宮 (gōng) mode) / Remove 2 and 5, ♭6 -> blues minor pentatonic scale (角 (jué) mode)
 * 49.217.136.82 (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They are called “harmonic” scales since they contain all seven types of seventh chords (like the harmonic major scale and the harmonic minor scale).
 * e.g. for Dorian ♯4:
 * 1st: Minor seventh chord
 * 2nd: Dominant seventh chord
 * 3rd: Major seventh chord
 * 4th (start with the ♯4): Diminished seventh chord
 * 5th: Minor major seventh chord
 * 6th: Half-diminished seventh chord
 * 7th: Augmented major seventh chord
 * and for Dorian ♭5:
 * 1st: Half-diminished seventh chord
 * 2nd: Minor seventh chord
 * 3rd: Minor major seventh chord
 * 4th: Dominant seventh chord
 * 5th (start with the ♭5): Augmented major seventh chord
 * 6th: Diminished seventh chord
 * 7th: Major seventh chord
 * 49.217.136.82 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In contrast, the original Dorian mode (and the natural major scale and the natural minor scale) does not contain minor major seventh chord and augmented major seventh chord and diminished seventh chord. 49.217.136.82 (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Both major scale and minor scale have natural, harmonic, and melodic:

2402:7500:92D:FD81:EC83:9EB4:F66F:5867 (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Since Dorian mode and Aeolian dominant scale (Dorian ♯3 ♭6 scale) and double harmonic scale (Dorian ♭2 ♯3 ♭6 ♯7 scale) are self-dual, but no harmonic scales are self-dual, thus we list the scales and the triad qualities and the seventh chord qualities in each scale degrees of Dorian mode and Aeolian dominant scale (Dorian ♯3 ♭6 scale) and double harmonic scale (Dorian ♭2 ♯3 ♭6 ♯7 scale) and the two types of Dorian harmonic scale: (for Dorian mode and Aeolian dominant scale and double harmonic scale, the 2nd/7th scales, the 3rd/6th scales, the 4th/5th scales, are dual scales, and for the scale of a type of Dorian harmonic scale, its dual is the 2nd/7th scale, the 3rd/6th scale, the 4th/5th scale, of another Dorian harmonic scale)

49.217.136.82 (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I want to call Aeolian dominant scale (Dorian ♯3 ♭6 scale) as “anti-Dorian scale”, since it and Dorian scale are the only two scales which are self-dual. 2402:7500:92D:FD81:B999:FD88:1DE7:D5D6 (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Dual triads:
 * major triad ~ minor triad
 * diminished triad (self-dual)
 * augmented triad (self-dual)
 * Dual seventh chords:
 * major seventh chord (self-dual)
 * minor seventh chord (self-dual)
 * dominant seventh chord ~ half-diminished seventh chord
 * diminished seventh chord (self-dual)
 * augmented major seventh chord ~ minor major seventh chord 2402:7500:92D:FD81:B999:FD88:1DE7:D5D6 (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Dual keys:
 * D (self-dual)
 * A ~ G
 * E ~ C
 * B ~ F
 * F♯ ~ B♭
 * C♯ ~ E♭
 * G♯ ~ A♭ (the same key, self-dual)
 * D♯ ~ D♭
 * A♯ ~ G♭
 * E♯ ~ C♭
 * B♯ ~ F♭

49.217.136.82 (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We can have a table of all 105 non-theoretical keys:

49.217.136.82 (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, F♭ Locrian has the key signature the same as G-double-flat major and E-double-flat minor (i.e. 13 flats), and B♯ Lydian has the key signature the same as F-double-sharp major and D-double-sharp minor (i.e. 13 sharps), thus they are extremely theoretical keys and seldom used. 2402:7500:943:D56F:909B:9877:85C8:AFAA (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which of these 105 keys are more common to use? The natural major key is exactly the Ionian key, and the natural minor key is exactly the Aeolian key. 2402:7500:92D:FD81:EC83:9EB4:F66F:5867 (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now I have 35 different scales in the above table (the scales in each scale degrees of Dorian mode and Aeolian dominant scale (Dorian ♯3 ♭6 scale) and double harmonic scale (Dorian ♭2 ♯3 ♭6 ♯7 scale) and the two types of Dorian harmonic scale), and for the Dorian mode and Aeolian dominant scale (Dorian ♯3 ♭6 scale) and double harmonic scale (Dorian ♭2 ♯3 ♭6 ♯7 scale) and the two types of Dorian harmonic scale, we can use D♯, G♯, C♯, F♯, B, E, A, D, G, C, F, B♭, E♭, A♭, D♭ as the keys, and can be converted to the scales in other scale degrees, there will be 35*15 = 525 non-theoretical keys (although some of them, such as D♯ Aeolian dominant scale, D♯ Dorian harmonic (♯4) scale, D♭ Aeolian dominant scale, D♭ Dorian harmonic (♭5) scale, contain either double sharp or double flat). 2402:7500:92D:FD81:B999:FD88:1DE7:D5D6 (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, I find the stuff that GalacticShoe wrote at 06:38 5 May 2024 to be just ridiculous! There are only 7 musical modes. Georgia guy (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Theoretically there's an extrapolatable logical order to which note gets the next sharp or flat right, so even though the key that is F♭ Locrian except the next letter gets another flat ("Fb Millilocrian") would be enharmonically equivalent to another key in one of the 7 modes and less than 14 accidentals it could also be the answer to "what's flatter than Locrian?" right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * :P GalacticShoe (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hitler's employment
What did Adolf Hitler do for a living between his military service and 1933? Adolf Hitler's rise to power mentions him holding a minor government position in Braunschweig, starting c. 1932, and I assume he was provided for by Bavaria when in prison, but otherwise I don't have an idea how he lived. Did he earn enough royalties from Mein Kampf to live on? Was he paid by the Party? Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * More detail at Adolf Hitler's rise to power. On discharge from the army, he was an intelligence agent for the miltary, spying on political extremists, where he came into contact with the DAP - German Workers' Party (later the National Socialists), By early 1920, he was the party's head of propaganda, presumably a paid role. Alansplodge (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To the Threshold of Power, 1922/33: Origins and Dynamics of the Fascist and National Socialist Dictatorships (pp. 331-333) clarifies that he was an agent while still an army NCO and agreed to join the DAP leadership in January 1920 because of impending military cutbacks (which implies that it was indeed a paid post, although I couldn't find anything that specifically says so). Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "You were supposed to investigate the DAP! Not join them!" J I P  &#124; Talk 06:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ian Kershaw has a couple of bits about this in Hubris. In the early 20s he had various well-to-do supporters who gave support in a variety of ways, accommodation, transport, hosting dinners, and cash. Later, as we enter the 30s Kershaw says "Hitler had from the earliest years of his 'career', as we have seen, been supported by generous donations from benefactors. But by the early 1930s he was less dependent on financial support from private patrons, even if his celebrity status now unquestionably brought him many unsolicited donations. His sources of income have remained largely in the dark". He didn't receive a salary or speaking fees from the party, but instead received "hidden fees" - expenses based on the size of the audience, again accommodation, transport, uniforms, etc. By '32 he was earning a lot from his book, articles for newspapers and magazines, interview fees, etc. DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've not yet read it, but looks well-worth a go. DuncanHill (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which points out, that in 1919, "Hitler was still on the full-time payroll of the Reichswehr as a political agent." Modocc (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it was after he left the military that is the mystery. Alansplodge (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I was unaware that he'd remained in the military after the war (I didn't read the earlier section of the article, and figured he'd left the army soon after the Armistice, if not sooner), so I didn't know that he remained in the Army after the war's end. Thus "he remained in the military" actually answers part of what I was looking for, even though it doesn't exactly answer the question.  Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nyttend, I have added a brief note to the article directly after the text which states that he was discharged from the army in March 1920 and began full-time work for the Nazi Party:
 * Although the NSDAP claimed that Hitler received no income from them and lived on the fees he received from public speaking at non-party events, he was actually supported financially by several wealthy patrons and party sympathisers.
 * I have referenced it to Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris (pp. 159-160) by Ian Kershaw, which you can read on archive.org if you want more detail. Trust this is adequate. My thanks to DuncanHill for the reference. Alansplodge (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We have an article Adolf Hitler's wealth and income which is particularly lacking for the period of this question. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to fill the gap in that article, but it needs a lot more work. feel free to chip in. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)