Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory/Archive 6

A way forward on the "diatonic, chromatic, enharmonic" situation
It's a little sad to me that this situation persists five years after it was brought up, and maybe that doesn't bode well for attempts to address it, but I'd really like to see it rectified for the benefit of non-specialist readers. I bet we have it in us if we work together! ^_^

The main thing that I think is getting obscured in the existing articles on this topic is that "diatonic" and "chromatic" are used by theorists in a pretty broad and abstract way, broader than their specific meaning in a traditional tonal context. Chromaticism carries general connotations of treating an equal division of the octave symmetrically somehow, via stepwise motion, a lack of emphasis on any one note, etc. The 12-tone equal temperament case is the one most commonly discussed, I think, but the concept is more general than that. Diatonicism relates to the taking of subsets of steps from a chromatic set in a systematic way either equivalent to the traditional method of deriving 7-note diatonic sets from a 12-tone equal tempered background, or analogous to it somehow. I think if their treatment in the main articles on them centered on the general way they're thought of in the literature, the articles could be made shorter and clearer, because it wouldn't be necessary to explain their meaning in Ancient Greek music, Medieval music, the common practice period, etc. etc. one after the other. The articles could focus on their general meaning and link to other articles covering those topics as necessary, and the articles on diatonic vs. chromatic scales, chords, etc. could be merged into these as it makes sense.

For example, the article on Chromaticism states that it is a compositional technique in which non-diatonic material is interspersed into diatonic material, which obscures the larger meaning of "chromatic" by restricting its discussion to a limited perspective on tonal theory. Even in the tonal context, theorists debate over whether diatonic material is best described as being structured by chromatic material or vice versa, so I think it would be better not to take a perspective from one side or the other. Going further, the traditional tonal approach to diatonicism and chromaticism can be treated in set theory as a particular case of a more general framework of "chromatic" universes with their own flavors of diatonicism, and chromaticism is also discussed in terms of atonal and microtonal music, so the concept of chromaticism has a broader scope than that article would indicate. It's even used in discussions of non-Western music for situations that are analogous to the Western case in one way or another, which you wouldn't guess from reading that article.

I think it would make sense to discuss the significance of "diatonic" and "chromatic" in a traditional tonal context in the article on Tonality, because they have a very well-defined meaning in that space discussed in introductory textbooks for undergraduates and the like. Much of the other miscellaneous articles on that topic which only consider the tonal case could be merged into it in the process. Meanwhile, the Diatonic and chromatic article could be split into Diatonicism and Chromaticism articles that effectively present the generalized concepts as they are used in modern theory, with parenthetical material moved elsewhere. (I think they ought to be split up because chromaticism is a larger concept than diatonicism; diatonicism implies chromaticism but not vice versa, due to chromaticism's use in discussions of atonal music, microtonal music, non-Western non-diatonic music, etc.)

As far as "enharmonic" goes, it usually just means "spelled differently but sounding the same", in both introductory and expert-level material. It gets sophisticated use as both an analytic tool and a compositional technique, because notation often implies a larger structure for the notated material and composers can exploit instances of enharmonicism to make the structural place of material ambiguous. As such, there's plenty to say about it, but I don't see much material following that line of thought in the existing article.

Furthermore, in my experience, the other senses of it discussed on the Enharmonic page are much more unusual than that article would indicate. For instance, I'm not aware of a context in which it has a close relationship with the terms "diatonic" and "chromatic" except in the context of Ancient Greek theory, and I think extended discussions of it in that context ought to be restricted to articles on that case alone, instead of discussing it in detail here and there in general articles. The meaning of those terms is very different in that context from how they are used in theory generally, and I think it's confusing to discuss both cases at length together. Likewise, enharmonicism is a concept with significance in tonal theory, like diatonicism and chromaticism, but discussion of it in that context ought to be centered around the Tonality article and related articles. I think the way it's treated in Modulation is sensible for instance (although that article does not make explicit its mostly tonal focus and probably ought to). The main article ought to discuss it in terms of notational ambiguity in general, which is both straightforward to explain and accurately captures the broad way it's used by theorists.

Thoughts? Across the board, I think focusing these sorts of "high-level concept" articles on their general meanings, outside of a specific musical style, will really help to clarify and focus them. As it is, a lot of these articles are organized around a haphazard collection of specific contexts, which I think makes the larger concepts hard to grasp, especially for beginners or casual readers. I'd be happy to start into this kind of work if other people here think this approach is sound. It might seem like a sort of abstract or thorny project, but as long as we stick very firmly to what's actually in the literature and let that guide us I think we'll be fine.

To recap what I'm proposing:
 * Split Diatonic and chromatic into Diatonicism and Chromaticism articles that focus on their general definitions beyond a specific musical system; since there's already an article on Chromaticism, it might make sense to move material on that into that article and then change the Diatonic and chromatic article to Diatonicism.
 * Discuss the meaning of diatonicism and chromaticism in common-practice tonal music in the Tonality article and related articles; I think it's probably wise to summarize their significance in tonal music in the main articles on them, but that shouldn't be the sole focus there.
 * Move tonality-centric material from the diatonic vs. chromatic chords, scales, etc. articles into the tonality articles, and discuss the general construction of diatonic and chromatic material (sets, scales, lines, motion, etc.) in the Diatonicism and Chromaticism articles.
 * Focus the Enharmonic article on the concept of material that can be spelled differently but sounds the same in a musical notation system in general, and move unrelated or overly specific material to articles where it fits better.
 * Reorient other "high-level" concept articles around their general definitions as needed.
 * As a side note, change the names of these articles that are currently adjectives (like "Enharmonic") to their noun forms ("Enharmonicism"); not only would that bring them into compliance with WP:NOUN but it would also reflect common usage in the literature.

—Mesocarp (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * @Mesocarp, thanks for rekindling this discussion – and for trying to revive the Music Theory project.
 * You seem to assume that there is a "general definition" of the terms "diatonic", "chromatic" and "enharmonic", but I strongly doubt that. For instance, you write that "Chromaticism carries general connotations of treating an equal division of the octave symmetrically somehow, via stepwise motion, a lack of emphasis on any one note, etc.", but this connotation is quite recent and the definition that it implies might well concern dodecaphonism more than chromaticism. You will not be able to define any of these terms in "the general way they're thought of in the literature".
 * I think that we need an article "Diatonic and chromatic", or possibly "Diatonic, chromatic and enharmonic", if only to discuss how these words relate to each other. You suggest to create a "diatonicism" article on the model of "chromaticism". But the latter defines chromaticsm as "a compositional technique", and I very much doubt that "diatonicism" in any way is a compositional technique. Also, the correct noun created from "diatonic" might be "diatonism" or "diatonicity" – there is at present a redirection from the word enharmonicity to enharmonic, which should perhaps be reversed. So, diatonism/chromatism/enharmonism, or diatonicity/chromaticity/enharmonicity?
 * The discussion of "diatonic, chromatic, enharmonic" above lists some of the articles concerned. We cannot begin on any of these without having first established how they should relate to each other. Jerome Kohl did a lot of work on the Genus (music) article in 2014, and we too easily stopped there. We should identify another set of interrelated articles and try to solve their problems. But I don't think it a good idea to start from a "general definition" that merely does not exist. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Hucbald.SaintAmand, thanks for still taking an interest! I was a little worried all the earlier contributors to the project had gone elsewhere.
 * My advocacy for the noun forms "diatonicism," "chromaticism," and "enharmonicism" are based on my understanding of what's mainstream in the theory community. Those are the forms used by Tonal Harmony, a popular introductory textbook.  Furthermore, doing a case-insensitive search through the pages of Music Theory Spectrum, I count 412 uses of "chromaticism", 155 uses of "diatonicism", and 59 uses of "enharmonicism". "Chromaticity" occurs once in a citation. "Diatonicity" occurs 3 times, once in that citation and twice in the main body of a single article. "Chromatism", "diatonism", "enharmonism", and "enharmonicity" never appear. See WP:COMMONNAME. If you have evidence of equal or greater weight to the contrary, I will happily change my stance.
 * I'm not sure it's really fair to call that an assumption; my statements are based on research, as I tried to make apparent. I think those terms definitely mean something in general, because contemporary music theorists use them freely, without bothering to define them first, trusting that their readership will understand what they mean. "Diatonic" and "chromatic" are certainly used in a variety of different ways, but every usage of them I've seen has some things in common, which I did my best to describe and back up with citations. If you know of uses in current, mainstream sources that aren't captured by the definitions I gave, that's awesome—please cite them here so that we can get a better picture of the full scope of the idea in question.
 * I don't think we should just throw up our hands and say "it's impossible to give a general definition" when we have plenty of sources at hand we can use for that. See WP:BROADCONCEPT, especially the physics and mathematics examples, which successfully cover topics even broader and more abstract than these.
 * As a side note, I'm not suggesting that we try to obscure the variance in their usage that exists. I just think that for a given term we need to start with what ties its uses together. That will allow us to explain the variance in a clear and elegant way that even a naïve reader will be able to follow.
 * WP:SOURCETYPES points us towards current scholarship, so I think recent definitions are exactly what we need, as long as they're mainstream. Of course, the meanings of these terms have changed over time, and that's something I think we could and should describe in the articles. Obviously terms like "diatonic" and "chromatic" meant something somewhat different 150 years ago; the history of theory is interesting and well-within the scope of the articles so we don't need to ignore that. I just think they need to be written in a way that makes explicit what is current, what is dated, how the change has occurred, etc. in a way that's grounded in the mainstream writing in the field.
 * I'm actually not suggesting that we use the present "Chromaticism" article as a model to follow; in my original post I went into a fair bit of detail about the issues I think it has. I don't think chromatacism or diatonicism can fairly be described as a "compositional technique" as I did my best to make clear. I was just suggesting a possible editing strategy, designed to get us to having separate "Chromaticism" and "Diatonicism" articles as easily as possible.
 * Aside from the point I made earlier about chromaticism being a broader concept than diatonicism, you can look through my citations and see those terms being used apart from one another, especially in the case of chromaticism which is frequently discussed without any reference to diatonicism at all.  Consider also that in the search I did through Spectrum above, "chromaticism" occurred 412 times to "diatonicism"'s 155; if they really shared breadth and scope, they would occur with closer-to-equal frequency.
 * As a result, readers looking for information on chromaticism will not expect to be redirected to an article that discusses diatonicism with equal weight and vice versa. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that implies they should be separate. They're only so closely tied to each other in the context of tonal theory, especially common-practice tonal theory, and the field is much broader than that today. I'm not saying we need to write about them as if they have nothing at all to do with each other, because that perspective doesn't have much grounding in the literature either, just that they're distinct enough to both qualify as primary topics.
 * I'm not sure why we would discuss enharmonicism as having some special relationship to diatonicism and chromaticism. "Diatonic," "chromatic," and "enharmonic" may all be descriptors of Ancient Greek genera, but the current term "enharmonicism" in mainstream theory denotes a totally different concept: musical objects having multiple methods of notation but a single sound, and the structural ambiguity that can result from this. I don't see what in particular that concept has to do with diatonicism and chromaticism, which are about sets of notes and divisions of the octave.    Consider that even in popular textbooks that use all three of those terms extensively, such as Tonal Harmony or Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory, mention is never made of the Ancient Greek genera or that sense of "enharmonic". I think it's fair to say that that usage should be restricted to articles that have a primary focus on Ancient Greek music; there could be hatnotes at the tops of the main articles on these topics pointing towards the Genus page for the benefit of readers trying to seek out that information. —Mesocarp (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mesocarp. I do not have the time just now to give you a detailed answer. Let me stress that I am a professional theorist and busy at this point with (among others) researches about how 16th-century musicians (and earlier ones) conceived the diatonic system and how late-16th- and early-17th-century musicians came from there to conceive the chromatic system; what were the consequences for the origin of tonality; etc. I don't want to turn this into an argument of authority and I will therefore not quote my earlier publications on this topic (most of which ain't in English anyway).
 * I have some doubts about what you call "contemporary music theorists", "mainstream sources", "current scholarship", etc. It seems to me that your sources are either pedagogical works of a somewhat basic (undergraduate) level, or more advanced researches in contemporary music – which is not at all the same thing as contemporary theory.
 * You write that "chromaticism [is] a broader concept than diatonicism": well, this might be true today, but I can assure you that in the history of theory, it most probably was the other way around. For Orlande de Lassus for instance, end 16th century, one of the most "chromatic" composers of the time, diatoni[ci]sm certainly was the main thing, regulating most of his compositional practice. This is made clear by two aspects of his works: his fundamental basses are so to say always diatonic (you might believe that the concept of fundamental bass is anachronic, but Lassus wrote a majority of his chords in root position); and his "chromatic" notes almost always are there to make his chords major. That is to say that, in a way, his concern was less in chromaticism than in aligning major chords on a diatonic bass.
 * You might want to argue that this is too complex for the Wikipedian layman. I won't agree with that. The aim of this encyclopedy, as of any serious encyclopedy, is not to make believe that complex things are simple, but to explain the complexity of complex things in simple terms. The main problem of the Music Theory Project is there. We certainly have been faulty not to pursue the work, and we will be most grateful if you can help us. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Hucbald.SaintAmand, I worry that we're talking past each other. It doesn't sound like the position you think I hold is the one I actually hold. If anything I've said is unclear or confusing, I'm sorry; please let me know and I'll try to rephrase it. You seem to think that I want to exclude any discussion of historical theory, or restrict the articles to only covering theories of contemporary music. Neither of those is the case, as I've tried to make clear.
 * I'm not suggesting that we conceal the history of the term "chromaticism". See above where I said, "Of course, the meanings of these terms have changed over time, and that's something I think we could and should describe in the articles. Obviously terms like 'diatonic' and 'chromatic' meant something somewhat different 150 years ago; the history of theory is interesting and well-within the scope of the articles so we don't need to ignore that…" etc. It sounds like you know a lot about what chromaticism meant to earlier theorists, so you're in a great position to cover that history.
 * My reason for citing undergraduate textbooks is to show what's mainstream in the field, since undergraduate textbooks strive to contain material that's uncontroversial. The two textbooks I cited are in use in undergraduate university courses, at least in the English-speaking world, and I don't think the professors that teach those courses would assign them if they didn't reflect mainstream thought. As for the articles, one of them has a very broad scope applicable to both contemporary and earlier music, two of them focus on tonal music and one of those is restricted to the Classical era, and two of them focus on traditional non-Western music  ; they're not all restricted to analyzing contemporary pieces.
 * If you think these sources are not adequate, please give alternatives; your words alone are just not sufficient in this context, however much expertise you might have. We have to focus on what's mainstream across the entire field. Even the most successful professional theorist will probably have some ideas that are either too obscure or too contrary to mainstream thought to merit lengthy inclusion in a broad-concept article, so we really need sources from a variety of different theorists to know what to include and how to organize it.
 * I have no desire to "make believe that complex things are simple". Your description of the music of Orlande de Lassus sheds interesting light on appearances of (apparent) chromaticism during the Renaissance; I definitely think it's relevant to the subject of chromaticism, and I think it could be comprehensible to a layperson depending on how it was written and contextualized. I would be happy if it was included in the history section of the "Chromaticism" article, as long as you provided citations for it, because it could help people understand how we moved from the heavily diatonic environment of the Renaissance to the environment of today. All I'm saying is that the article should be structured around a current understanding of chromaticism as a theoretical tool—not just how it pertains to contemporary music, but how it is used as a concept in analysis of all music by contemporary theorists.
 * Consider the article on Gravity. It doesn't prioritize how gravity was understood in Newton's time, nor does it give equal weight to the understanding of gravity by Newton, Archimedes, Galileo, etc. It opens with the way gravity is understood by physicists today, with some discussion of how that understanding developed historically. Then it takes some time to describe that historical development in detail, after which it discusses the modern understanding. I'm basically proposing that we structure the articles on diatonicism, chromaticism, enharmonicism, etc. along similar lines. I recently worked on the introduction to Articulation, if you want to see my attempt at doing this sort of thing for a musical topic; note that I take pains to discuss the way articulation was handled in a variety of historical periods, not just how it's treated now.
 * The present Diatonic and chromatic article sort of does this, but as I've said already I don't think the grouping of those subjects into one page really makes sense. There is a post on the talk page echoing my position, and other comments complaining that the article is too confusing for an amateur to make sense of. The Chromaticism article is worse; it opens with a description of chromaticism that does not capture its usage by theorists today, even when describing earlier music. Again, I'm not alone in thinking this. The Enharmonic article has a lot of good information, but it's presented in a scattered way that obscures the topic's significance; the body of the article is dedicated entirely to tunings and a discussion of the Ancient Greek genus, with only a brief mention of its analytic uses in the introduction. The articles on diatonic and chromatic scales, chords, etc. might not even be necessary if the articles on diatonicism and chromaticism covered those topics more comprehensively, especially in the case of chromaticism which can't be confined to a specific set of chords or scales.
 * When I have time, I'll write mock-up introductions for "Chromaticism", "Diatonicism", and "Enharmonicism" in my sandbox. It doesn't seem like we're making much progress talking about this stuff in the abstract, so I think some concrete examples might help. Maybe if you see what I have in mind directly you'll find it more appealing. I'm also going to link to this discussion on the talk pages of the existing articles, since I think it might be helpful if we had more voices in this discussion than just the two of us and I'm not sure anyone else is keeping an eye on this page right now. —Mesocarp (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My reason for citing undergraduate textbooks is to show what's mainstream in the field, since undergraduate textbooks strive to contain material that's uncontroversial. The two textbooks I cited are in use in undergraduate university courses, at least in the English-speaking world, and I don't think the professors that teach those courses would assign them if they didn't reflect mainstream thought. As for the articles, one of them has a very broad scope applicable to both contemporary and earlier music, two of them focus on tonal music and one of those is restricted to the Classical era, and two of them focus on traditional non-Western music  ; they're not all restricted to analyzing contemporary pieces.
 * If you think these sources are not adequate, please give alternatives; your words alone are just not sufficient in this context, however much expertise you might have. We have to focus on what's mainstream across the entire field. Even the most successful professional theorist will probably have some ideas that are either too obscure or too contrary to mainstream thought to merit lengthy inclusion in a broad-concept article, so we really need sources from a variety of different theorists to know what to include and how to organize it.
 * I have no desire to "make believe that complex things are simple". Your description of the music of Orlande de Lassus sheds interesting light on appearances of (apparent) chromaticism during the Renaissance; I definitely think it's relevant to the subject of chromaticism, and I think it could be comprehensible to a layperson depending on how it was written and contextualized. I would be happy if it was included in the history section of the "Chromaticism" article, as long as you provided citations for it, because it could help people understand how we moved from the heavily diatonic environment of the Renaissance to the environment of today. All I'm saying is that the article should be structured around a current understanding of chromaticism as a theoretical tool—not just how it pertains to contemporary music, but how it is used as a concept in analysis of all music by contemporary theorists.
 * Consider the article on Gravity. It doesn't prioritize how gravity was understood in Newton's time, nor does it give equal weight to the understanding of gravity by Newton, Archimedes, Galileo, etc. It opens with the way gravity is understood by physicists today, with some discussion of how that understanding developed historically. Then it takes some time to describe that historical development in detail, after which it discusses the modern understanding. I'm basically proposing that we structure the articles on diatonicism, chromaticism, enharmonicism, etc. along similar lines. I recently worked on the introduction to Articulation, if you want to see my attempt at doing this sort of thing for a musical topic; note that I take pains to discuss the way articulation was handled in a variety of historical periods, not just how it's treated now.
 * The present Diatonic and chromatic article sort of does this, but as I've said already I don't think the grouping of those subjects into one page really makes sense. There is a post on the talk page echoing my position, and other comments complaining that the article is too confusing for an amateur to make sense of. The Chromaticism article is worse; it opens with a description of chromaticism that does not capture its usage by theorists today, even when describing earlier music. Again, I'm not alone in thinking this. The Enharmonic article has a lot of good information, but it's presented in a scattered way that obscures the topic's significance; the body of the article is dedicated entirely to tunings and a discussion of the Ancient Greek genus, with only a brief mention of its analytic uses in the introduction. The articles on diatonic and chromatic scales, chords, etc. might not even be necessary if the articles on diatonicism and chromaticism covered those topics more comprehensively, especially in the case of chromaticism which can't be confined to a specific set of chords or scales.
 * When I have time, I'll write mock-up introductions for "Chromaticism", "Diatonicism", and "Enharmonicism" in my sandbox. It doesn't seem like we're making much progress talking about this stuff in the abstract, so I think some concrete examples might help. Maybe if you see what I have in mind directly you'll find it more appealing. I'm also going to link to this discussion on the talk pages of the existing articles, since I think it might be helpful if we had more voices in this discussion than just the two of us and I'm not sure anyone else is keeping an eye on this page right now. —Mesocarp (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * @Mesocarp, I still think that your sources may not be sufficient. I will quote only one case, which I choose because it is somewhat remote from our main concern. You write:
 * The case of the second reference, Sami Abu Shumays in Music Theory Spectrum 35/2 (2013), is the most obvious. The author writes: "This paper advances new ideas that differ significantly from the conventional view of maqam, as represented both in the theoretical literature and in the oral theory tradition of practitioners." That is to say that what he proposes is not mainstream theory. The theories proposed in this paper seem rather biased toward Egyptian music and I have colleagues in Tunis or Beyrouth who certainly would object.
 * Your first reference is to John Clough, Jack Douthett, N. Ramanathan and Lewis Rowell in Music Theory Spectrum 15/1 (1993). This text is in my opinion (and in theirs, apparently) very strongly inspired by set theory. There is nothing wrong with that, but for the fact that they never question whether degrees, notes, pitches, whatever you call them, might be anything else in Indian music than "pitch classes" properly speaking. I mean that, in Indian music as in maqam music, there is strong evidence that some degrees (or pitches) may be movable, undertermined.
 * If you ever heard someone playing the sitar, you must have realized that many notes are unstable, constantly moving. As a matter of fact, the sitar is built to allow that, with frets very high above the fretboard. And the situation in maqam music is quite similar, with the so called "quarter tones" being nothing else than unstable degrees (perhaps less in Egypt than in other surrounding countries). I would be extremely cautious when speaking of "diatonicism" in the case of Indian or maqam music.
 * My purpose at this point is only to try to explain why the members of the Project Music Theory did not pursue the work suggested in 2015: we were probably taken aback by the difficulty. But we should have been more persistent. Perhaps others will have opinions about this whole matter. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Hucbald.SaintAmand, thank you for taking some time to look through my citations; I really appreciate that. At the same time, I didn't intend the papers you're bringing up as vague "general sources" designed to bolster all of my arguments equally. I cited them in defense of a specific point and the objections you raise don't call that point into question.
 * Here's the point I made with those: "[Chromaticism as a concept] is even used in discussions of non-Western music for situations that are analogous to the Western case in one way or another, which you wouldn't guess from reading [the current Chromaticism page]." Even if you take issue with the content of those papers, it's still true that their authors deployed the concept of chromaticism when discussing music very different from traditional Western fare, as you effectively illustrate, and they did so as professional theorists like yourself writing in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal. The existing Chromaticism page gives no sign that any theorist would think to use it in this way, because it limits its discussion to 12-step chromaticism and even implies that it can't exist outside of a Western diatonic framework. Therefore, I think the claim I made holds water.
 * At this point, I've thought it over and I think the best way to move forward is simply to begin work on the articles. We've spent a lot of time and energy at this point deliberating over these issues that we could be spending making the articles better. We don't have to get it perfect on the first edit—I think the articles have serious problems in their current state so even moderate improvements would be great and I'm sure we can accomplish that in short order. I know you're concerned about the difficulty; I think the best way to overcome it is incremental, dogged effort, taking a broad and rigorous view of the output from the current theory community as a whole, and giving citations for every claim.
 * As for myself, I'm going to start working on the Chromaticism article for starters since it's an important topic and I think that article has the most serious problems out of the articles we've been discussing.
 * As a side note, I agree with your point about treating Indian music as well as maqam-based music as if it makes use of a discretized division of the octave. As I hear and understand it, singers, musicians playing unfretted string instruments like the oud, etc. will often fall tens of cents or more away from the supposed steps of the "mode" they're within, and in ways that are not random but based around the larger structure of the line. Also, continuous motion around a single "step" of the "mode" as you describe occurs very often, and sometimes the area around a "step" is even traversed with a linear slide before jumping away without emphasizing any one frequency in the region. As such, I think it's better to think of melodic activity in those traditions as smoothly, continuously moving a point around a surface that has variable centers of gravity at certain frequencies, rather than walking up and down a set of discretized steps. It's tempting to treat those frequencies as being somehow equivalent to steps but as you say I think great caution is required. Theorists in the Western tradition are eager to bring to bear their high-powered tools for analyzing music with discretized octave divisions on anything they possibly can, of course, risky or not.
 * In fairness to the authors of "Early Indian Heptatonic Scales and Recent Diatonic Theory," they are sensitive to this issue, in direct contrast to your characterization of them: "We use the term scale throughout the article, in full knowledge that many readers will prefer the term collection. In the context of this article, scale will always refer to a particular pattern of intervals arrayed in consecutive order, never to specific pitches or pitch classes. [emphasis mine] We regard it as the 'scaling' of the tonal spectrum, in the same sense that the pattern of parallel lines on a ruler establishes the scale for its linear space." (p. 37) And a bit later: "…these degrees do not represent specific interval relationships; unlike the Western [solmization] syllables, they are generalized scale degrees that can be inflected in several different ways when actualized in a particular rāga or one of the mode-classes ancestral to the later rāga system." (p. 38) Their sense of chromaticism in early Indian music pertains to divisions of the octave into 22 and 12 variably-sized frequency bands, whereas their sense of diatonicism pertains to a division into 7 such bands, a usage of those ideas notably not involving pitch classes and thus even more distant from their use in traditional Western analysis than I have been defending thus far. Some of their analysis is dedicated to describing complex and widely varying rules for movement within these divisions, both within and across the bands. They even specify that early Indian theory did not emphasize the octave as an interval, working instead with sets of seven-band "'octave species'": "Early musicians were more interested in [the octave's] contents than in its role as a boundary interval, and consequently they referred to the complete scale as saptaka (a set of seven)—in contrast to the Attic Greek diapason ('through all [the notes]')." (p. 41) I think they're doing a pretty good job of not applying their Western theoretical concepts overeagerly.
 * The second part of the paper has a more deeply set-theoretic flavor and thus is less strict in this regard, but they are careful to note its limitations: "We assume that all śrutis are equivalent, likewise all semitones, but we make no assumptions about tuning. Thus approach is essentially combinatorial, as opposed to acoustical." (p. 48) Even so, their analysis does not proceed in terms of pitch classes, but rather interval patterns. This way, they can retain their picture of frequency bands, just with an assumption of static, equally-spaced endpoints. They're aware that this is a reductive picture of ancient Indian music as it was played, but their goal in this section is to talk about generalized diatonicism and they want to take some steps to bring their model of ancient Indian practice into a space where it can be meaningfully compared with Western diatonic practice in pursuit of this goal. In their words, "Diatonicism is a fact. That there are different, exquisitely different, versions of and approaches to diatonicism is also a fact. Do our findings confirm the existence of real similarities between the ancient Indian grāma system and Western diatonicism? We believe that they do, but readers will judge for themselves. Do they tell us what were the most flavorful, meaningful, or powerful features of early Indian musical practice and the mental processes of its performers and theorists? Surely not." (p. 57) As a side note, I think that quote gives yet more support to my case that "Diatonicism" and "Chromaticism" need to be separate pages, as it gestures towards the depth and complexity of diatonicism as a concept in its own right. —Mesocarp (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mesocarp, I did not criticise your sources for what they say, I merely questioned whether they can be considered representative of mainstream theory for these non Western musics. For sure, for Arabic music, "zalzalian" should be added beside "diatonic", "chromatic" and "enharmonic". But let's leave that for the time being.
 * I had a look at the Diatonic and chromatic article, and was thrown aback. Among other problems, it includes internal references (e.g. footnote 5) that refer to nonexistent sections, or contains statements that are blatantly false (e.g. that "most of [the medieval modes] included both versions of the "variable" note B♮/B♭", which is never true of the modes of the deuterus and the tetrardus, and so to say never of the tritus), etc. Many of the footnotes, instead of providing references, give mere commentaries often expressing rather personal points of view.
 * Even so, I am not convinced that this article should disappear, if only because diatonicism and chromaticism often are defined with respect to each other. Chromaticism, in particular, often is described as an alteration of diatonicism. At least, we should discuss this further before we decide to suppress this article.
 * In the meanwhile, I opened a page, User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Diatonic_and_Chromatic, where I began to assemble quotations concerning diatonicism and chromaticism. Comments and additions will be welcome. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A short additional thought, relating to
 * We should keep in mind, I think, that adjectives in English (as in many other languages) can be used substantively: we may write "the old and the new", "the warm and the cold", "the white and the black" and, why not, "the diatonic and the chromatic". Such terms are more neutral than "the diatonicism" and "the chromaticism", which both may refer to a (compositional) practice more than to abstract concepts. Schenker devised "diatony" (e.g. Harmonielehre, 4. Kapitel, Die Beziehungen zwischen Chromatic und Diatonie, pp. 379-398), which is interesting; but I am afraid that "chromaty" does not work (:–)) – note that Schenker said Chromatic. We should probably keep in mind, when quoting sources or references, that "diatonicism" or "chromaticism" may not be exactly synonymous with "diatonic" and "chromatic" (the nouns!).
 * (I'd very much like to have the opinion of other participants to this Music Theory Project. Or are we the last two participants?) — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was doing something similar with enharmonicism until this discussion began. (I believe enharmonicism should be separated from diatonicism & chromaticism because it does not represent a system as do those two terms.)  Generally I do believe that the noun forms should be the main article.  As far as the dichotomy between "chromaticism" and "chromatic" - that could be explained in the article.  Hucbald.SaintAmand, I see what you're doing on your page by going back to various historical treatises.  But for encyclopedic coverage--meaning, for the average person that seeks definitions & clarifications, I think one should start with the coverage provided by contemporary textbooks and writings, and then go back to historic writings. - kosboot (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * kosboot, I am perfectly aware that the treatises I quote on my page cannot be used as secondary references as required by Wikipedia. Even so, they may help make the difference between contemporary textbooks that conform to historic writings and those that do not. I must confess that I don't usually read contemporary textbooks... I suppose that my collection may be of use at some point.
 * I note that the New Grove Online has an article on "Diatonic", but none on "Diatonicism" which appears never used in the Dictionary. It has an article on "Chromatic", which however soon speaks of "Chromaticism"; but none on "Chromaticism". — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was doing something similar with enharmonicism until this discussion began. (I believe enharmonicism should be separated from diatonicism & chromaticism because it does not represent a system as do those two terms.)  Generally I do believe that the noun forms should be the main article.  As far as the dichotomy between "chromaticism" and "chromatic" - that could be explained in the article.  Hucbald.SaintAmand, I see what you're doing on your page by going back to various historical treatises.  But for encyclopedic coverage--meaning, for the average person that seeks definitions & clarifications, I think one should start with the coverage provided by contemporary textbooks and writings, and then go back to historic writings. - kosboot (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * kosboot, I am perfectly aware that the treatises I quote on my page cannot be used as secondary references as required by Wikipedia. Even so, they may help make the difference between contemporary textbooks that conform to historic writings and those that do not. I must confess that I don't usually read contemporary textbooks... I suppose that my collection may be of use at some point.
 * I note that the New Grove Online has an article on "Diatonic", but none on "Diatonicism" which appears never used in the Dictionary. It has an article on "Chromatic", which however soon speaks of "Chromaticism"; but none on "Chromaticism". — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Diatonic function
There is a requested move discussion for the page Diatonic function here — Andy W. ( talk ) 01:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC) [now at Talk:Function (music) Hyacinth (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Notable songs
Look at the Notable songs section of the D major article. This is nonsense; technically any song can be in any key of the kind (major/minor) the song was written in. Georgia guy (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't nonsense. While some songs are often played in any key, such as folk tunes, songs generally are composed in a certain key or are recorded in one key, so it does make sense to say that a certain song is in a specific key. Awelotta (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is true, Awelotta. However many songs exist in scores for several different voices: high, medium, low, etc., and for instruments in a variety of keys Whether this is important depends on the extent to which, and how, the songs were written at the time of composition – if they were composed in writing – or on the pitch standard at which they were sung or played. Most of the listed "notable songs" have references to published sheet music, but it is extremely difficult to say whether these scores are in the original key and whether this is important.
 * Look at the reference for the first of them, "Mamma mia" by ABBA : the score that first appears on this website is in D major, said to be "the original published key", whatever that means. But the site proposes other versions transposed in A, B♭, C, E♭, F and G. It also propose alternative versions, among which for "easy piano" and for guitar in C, for SATB choir and piano in B♭, for SSA choir and piano in A, for Ukelele and for cello duett in G, for 2-part choir and piano, for instrumental duett and for trombone duett in F, for clarinet duett and for trumpet duett in G – but these instruments may be in B♭ so that the piece would then sound in F. In what real sense is this piece in D major?
 * And the same could be asked, of course, of all "notable songs" in all keys. After all, what Georgia guy wrote may have some justification. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * After writing the above, I had the curiosity to look closer at these "notable" songs. I discovered that (as I suspected) all links provided are to the same website, www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/. I did not check whether this site also publishes other songs in D major that may be "less notable", but I strongly doubt it. All these links have been added by the same unidentified contributer, 73.12.164.158, who appears to have created the list of notable songs in all articles on keys. In other words, it appears that in order to be "notable", in any key, a song merely has to be available on www.musicnotes.com. This looks furiously like hidden advertising. I suggest that all these lists of "notable songs" be deleted. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hucbald.SaintAmand's suggestion to remove all popular songs from the Musical keys articles. They may be notable songs, but none of them is notable for being in that key, unlike Pachelbel's Canon in D or Beethoven's Violin Concerto. Further, the list of classical works listed in those articles should also be pruned. Listing a movement of a larger work, or even unlinked entries, serves no purpose. Each of these article is member of Category:Compositions by key which is much more helpful in navigating compositions by key. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

American vs International note names
Hi! I'd like to propose that articles for notes (such as the Eighth note or Quarter note) are renamed to follow international music notation terminology instead of American terminology? For example, instead of "eigth note," it'd be referenced as a "quaver." Music isn't something that is centred around any specific country, and I think that there's an ethical obligation for Wikipedia, an international resource where American users are the 67th region (out of 80 regions) for Wikipedia use according to Google Trends, to provide an internationalised experience.

For anyone trying to learn music theory online, especially where they've heard the international names, seeing an U.S-specific term could very easily confuse them and discourage them. On the other hand, US users make up a reasonably minor audience group, and from what I've heard online, there are significant pushes for American music educators to use notes' international names. Claims that these international names are actually only used in the UK are false, I must also add. Even in my experiences as a music student in Australia, it's really unnatural and unusual to hear a note as a fraction of a 4/4 bar instead of it's universal length. The same can be said with my experiences in the UK, Germany, New Zealand and Singapore. ItsPugle (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't think you can call "quaver" and such international because non-English language users use different names (and in fact German usage is much closer to U.S. usage). So let's call it U.K. usage. Secondly, I've been a member of the (American) Society for Music Theory for many years, and I've never heard of a push toward adopting those names. If you want to go by numbers, something tells me that the U.S. has many millions more musicians than the U.K. and Australia combined. As far as Wikipedia, I wait to see a controversy arise because of the difference. I've seen a number of U.K. WP users go with what is used in the U.S. - kosboot (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What kosboot wrote. Further, anybody in Germany would have to consult a dictionary when they come across crotchet, quaver, or demisemihemidemisemiquaver. As for usage in this Wikipedia: redirects cover it all. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I must say that, not being an English native speaker, I have to wonder about "quaver" whenever I meet it, while "eighth note" is somewhat more easily understandable (I only have to remember what a "whole note" is; I usually have to check). As to "semibreve", the problem is similar: how does one usually transcribe a medieval semibreve?
 * I'd like to ask a similar question about whole tone and half tone and their abbreviation as W and H – see Modern modes, and its talk page s.v. "Layout". It seems to me, but I may be mistaken, that T and S (for tone and semitone) are so much more international, and probably so much more common. I know that nobody speaks Latin anymore, yet ... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I must just simply be in an environment and had extraordinary experiences in terms of the use of what I believed to be international note names. Thanks for the discussion, though :) ItsPugle (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ninth chord
Ninth chord and Ninth (chord) go to different pages. Is it supposed to be like that? Marnanel (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now corrected. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

AfD: Allen Cadwallader
The article Allen Cadwallader‎ is up for deletion. If you have an opinion, post it. - kosboot (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this a new attack against Schenker? I have no utter sympathy for Allen Cadwallader, but I'd certainly not doubt his notability.
 * There was another attack earlier today on the Schenkerian Analysis article by an anonymous contributor (192.76.8.86), unable to correctly reproduce the name of Martin Eybl and surprinsingly linking the Nazi ban of Schenker's publications with Schenker's own "racist statements".
 * This contributor also was unable to mention other writings questioning Schenker's statements, by American and English writers, William Rothstein ("The Americanization of Heinrich Schenker", In Theory Only 9/1), Carl Schachter ("Elephants, Crocodiles, and Beethoven: Schenker’s Politics and the Pedagogy of Schenkerian Analysis”, Theory and Practice 26), William Drabkin "Heinrich Schenker", The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory), Suzannah Clark ("The Politics of the Urlinie in Schenker’s Der Tonwille and Der freie Satz", Journal of the Royal Musical Association 132/1), Nicholas Cook (The Schenker Project: Culture, Race, and Music Theory in Fin-de-siècle Vienna), and many others.
 * It may be time that music theorists among us, mainly American ones, "bring back the church in the middle of the village." This all begins to confine to the ridicule. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Watchlist Link
I removed the link to the "Wikiproject Music Theory Watchlist" from the main project page. The tool no longer seems to exist, and I couldn't figure out a simple way to recreate it using the avialible tools on the site or on WP itself. This project isn't alone in this - every single link on List_of_WikiProject_watchlists_(alphabetical) seems to be dead. PianoDan (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Leonhard Euler
I have nominated Leonhard Euler for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Philip Ewell
Philip Ewell doesn't have an article! That has to change. I would write it but I'll be busy all weekend. - kosboot (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * http://philipewell.com/ - contains reprints of his articles. - kosboot (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Philip Ewell now has a page. PianoDan (talk)
 * Well, after the admirable work by SyLvRuUz creating that article, I'm not sure it was worth it. There are 2 other Wikipedia articles that mention him, and no other articles mention him, so it seems there wasn't a big hole to fill. Still, every encyclopedia has its niches. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that he'll be on people's radar. He's writing a book (that's where all these talks about music and race are drafts for) and I'm sure the book will generate much interest.  We have not heard the last of him by far. He also seems very much aware of Wikipedia and if he can offer more suggestions, all the better. - kosboot (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Having augmented and diminished intervals have their intended sound
I listened to the Augmented fifth's MIDI file and the sound I heard was unambiguously a minor sixth. A video that shows the sound of an augmented or diminished interval must not play the interval isolated; it will produce the sound of its enharmonic equivalent (in this case I heard a minor sixth.) We need to show videos that give the interval its context so that it will have the dissonant sound it's intended to be. Georgia guy (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Timothy L. Jackson Notability
The article Timothy L. Jackson seems to have been self-created. Aside from that, notability? - kosboot (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see enough evidence to be certain Jackson himself wrote the article. Editeur24 has a reasonably long edit history, and describes themselves as an economist. Further, they made the basic mistake of referring to Jackson as a "musicologist" rather than a "music theorist," which is a quite clear distinction in the US, and one on which Jackson decidedly falls on the latter side of.
 * That said, I think the biggest objection to Jackson's notability is that while he has had quite a bit of independent coverage, it's all for one event. My gut is that he has (barely) managed to clear that bar, but I wouldn't argue with a forceful opinion to the contrary.
 * If the article DOES remain, it's going to have to be monitored. The original version was incredibly non-NPOV.  This is an encyclopedia, not Fox News - you don't get to have a section heading called "Cancellation." PianoDan (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Couldn't the same question about notability be asked about Philip Ewell? Both articles seem justified only by the recent events in the UNT and the SMT. If an article is devoted to Philip Ewell, I think it only fair to have one also on Timothy Jackson. Jackson's list of works (which I began completing) is in addition more extended (and more intersting, IMO) than Ewell's. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's a fundamental difference. Ewell isn't just notable for the controversy over his views, he's notable for the coverage of the views themselves.  Jackson's only mainstream notability is for attacking Ewell.  No one is covering Jackson's actual views on music theory in the mainstream press, and if simply being an academic expert on a topic were sufficient reason to have an article, there would be a lot more of them. PianoDan (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That said, I think he DOES squeak by WP:NACADEMIC. "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." JSS sorta kinda squeaks over that line, even with only twelve issues, and his title is "Distinguished Professor," which is also listed as a qualification. PianoDan (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think "the coverage of the [Ewell's] views themselves" had been what it is, was in not for the reactions in the Journal of Schenkerian Studies. What is covered is the quarrel between Ewell and Jackson. The "views themselves" do not resist examination. But let's leave it at that. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not make a false equivalence. There is not a "dispute between Ewell and Jackson."  Ewell has presented criticism of the current framing of music theory.  Jackson responded by attacking Ewell directly.  These are fundamentally different, and implying that this is simply a personal matter between two academics misrepresents the actual situation. PianoDan (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @PianoDan, I don't think that WP is the place to further discuss this. I am not speaking of Ewell's views or of the dispute itself, but of their "coverage." Can you quote if only one publication that covers Ewell's views as such? Even the Society for Music Theory forcefully refuses to discuss them after their publication in Music Theory Online. The only thing covered is the quarrel with the Journal of Schenkerian Studies – which was not only between Jackson and Ewell, but also involved several of the main experts in Schenkerian theory, then the University of North Texas, the SMT, etc. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did hear a zoom talk by Ewell where, responding to a question from the audience, he said he was not interested in responding to or talking about Jackson. I still think the Jackson article barely reaches notability. Perhaps someone can post it AfD to see if it passes scrutiny there. - kosboot (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Hucbald.SaintAmand It's quite a bit disingenuous to say "This isn't the place to further discuss this," and then continue to discuss it. SMT rarely "discusses" anything - the fact that they issued a statement at all is a testament to just how flagrantly unprofessional Jackson's behavior was. And as Kosboot points out - Ewell is repeatedly on record as not wanting to talk about Jackson or the JSS.
 * @Kosboot In the face of the fact that WP:NACADEMIC expressly calls out the title of "Distinguished Professor" as conferring notability, I personally wouldn't bother filing an AfD, because I predict it would fail immediately on that basis. PianoDan (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this theorist really notable enough for WP?
Struggling to find really any coverage from reliable sources on Stefan Kostka. Anyone have any luck? Otherwise, I'm thinking the article needs to go to AFD—as much as I would hate deleting the article of a music theorist. Aza24 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice that his (and Dorothy Paine's) book Tonal Harmony is cited in almost 50 Wikipedia articles. Maybe that's enough to satisfy WP:NPROF. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect the book is more notable than him; I can't find any references to source any of the information on his life, for example. Aza24 (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * True, and his books get some scholarly reviews, which helps NPROF, I suppose. His name often appears as "Stefan M. Kostka". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * After a bit of digging, I'm surprised to find that I agree - he doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. He was never on the executive board of SMT, was not a Distinguished professor, his RESEARCH doesn't seem to have been highly influential, etc... PianoDan (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both, see Articles for deletion/Stefan Kostka. Aza24 (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

For future reference - it has been pointed out on the discussion thread that WP:AUTHOR is something we should also be considering. I think Cadwallader would still have failed under that metric - he was third author on a textbook that's not as fundamental as the Kostka / Payne is. But for future discussions, we need to think about that in addition to WP:NACADEMIC. PianoDan (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Timothy L. Jackson COI/UPE discussion
(started a new topic, moved Michael Bednarek's comment down here - PianoDan (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC))

The article has now been moved into draft space, Draft:Timothy L. Jackson, apparently over WP:UPE concerns. I think it should be in main space. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's what I could find:
 * Redirects for discussion: Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 30 (I think this relates to an error made in the original creation of the page, not the current situation.)
 * Original author's talk page: User talk:Editeur24 (last entry, wasn't sure how to link to a subsection of a talk page)


 * It appears that the admin in question is concerned about either Conflict of Interest concerns or that Editeur24 had been paid to write this page. I think the former is far more likely, since they haven't been back to work on the page since the original publication.  In support, the photo of Jackson on the page is listed by Editeur24 as "own work".  However, at this point, there's really nothing to be done except wait for Editeur24 to make an AFC request. PianoDan (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Editeur24 says on his own page, refering to his sandbox pages, that he has "other local pages such as [...] /jackson." It seems obvious that when he thought that this page could be published, he created it keeping its sandbox name, "Editeur24/Jackson" – which has been the cause of all this discussion. The page File:Jackson_Timothy_L.jpg says that the file is "own work" by Editeur24 and dates it 29 October 2021, which indeed, is when the photograph was added to the article. The metadata however say that the file was created by an iPhone 8 plus on 3 May 2020. The photograph was used in the French WP article on Timothy Jackson since its creation on 30 October 2020. In view of all this, I think that only User:Editeur24 himself could provide information about this page. Both COI and UPE appear unlikely. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Editeur24's last 500 contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Editeur24&limit=500&target=Editeur24 - kosboot (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Editeur24 last edited this article, it has changed considerably (diff 30 Oct 2021 – 1 Jan 2022), so I suggest any COI/UPE concerns are water under the bridge. No AFC request is needed; any confirmed user can move a draft into article space. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

, would you mind weighing in here? PianoDan (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping - the length of time an editor has been editing is irrelevant to whether or not an editor has a COI/UPE conflict.  In this case, it's very clear that the editor does. I have no comment on the notability of the of the subject (although I will point out that the distinguished professor title stated in the article, does not have a valid citation, so it would need that). UPE editors, along with socks, are two of the largest time-sucks on Wikipedia, and imho, should never be encouraged. I would say that until the editor addresses that concern, it should not be submitted for review.   Onel 5969  TT me 12:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a level of Wikipedia procedural arcana that I'm not familiar with, I'm afraid. Is Michael Bednarek correct that anyone could move this article back into article space once it's been cleaned up, or would the request need to come from the original author? Thanks for your help! PianoDan (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , but what are your arguments to claim that "it's very clear" that the editor does have a COI/UPE conflict? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Onel5969: Of course "the length of time an editor has been editing is irrelevant …"; relevant is that the current version of the article is quite different to the one written by Editeur24. Any consideration of WP:POISON is now irrelevant. PianoDan: Please read WP:DRAFT for relevant guidance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. A, I'm not going to go into the tells which UPE/COI engage in which would only make it easier for UPE editors to game the system. B, The basic content of the article is not that much different.  Other than same format changes and the addition of other works, it's basically the same article. Regardless, until the UPE/COI is dealt with by the original editor, it should not be moved.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * AFAICS, the original editor, User:Editeur24, who is, according to their user page, an professor at a major university, has never been asked whether they are paid or have a conflict of interest. How can they be expected to deal with that? What happened to WP:AGF? Most importantly, which passages in the original article or in the current draft could possibly be considered tainted by COI/UPE? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside the COI question for a moment, is there any conceivable reason why we should have or want an article on this person? He does not pass WP:NPROF – he does not have a named professorship, and has an h-index of 3 – and the stuff about the Journal of Schenkerian Studies is already covered, just as it ought to be, in that article. This would make a good redirect, perhaps? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Timothy Jackson appears notable on the basis of his distinguished professor appointment (WP:NPROF, crit. 5) and of having been head or chief editor of a well-established academic journal (WP:NPROF, crit. 8). It may be of importance to compare his notoriety with that of Philip Ewell, who passes WP:NPROF on none of the criteria and has a Scopus h-index of only 1. WP should accept these two articles, or reject both, lest it unduly takes position in a complex matter. This already was abundantly discussed above. The question is not whether we (who?) want these articles, but rather whether their presence is justified. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, I fundamentally disagree with your evaluation of Ewell's notability, as well as the significance of the JSS. WP:PROF is a guideline, not a straitjacket.  Bringing up Ewell in this context makes Jackson less notable, since it's clear that his primary notability outside of academia is for a single event, namely attacking Ewell.  "Distinguished Professor" is the ONLY thing that drags Jackson over the notability line, in my opinion.  That said - it does seem to do that. PianoDan (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The more it is discussed, the more I think this "distinguished professor" rule is being misinterpreted and misued. It's only a title. Sure, it may indicate that the person has done enough research to merit an increase in salary. But it might be purely as a result of longevity or internal political manipulations.  If "distinguished professor" tips the scales for inclusion, then Wikipedia could easily become a directory of distinguished professors, the majority of which really have no additional reason to be included.  Go back to the fundamentals: Has the person really accomplished something of notability that warrants inclusions in Wikipedia?  - kosboot (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (Here from spillover discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics).) The claim that all of TLJ's coverage is over the Schenker/racism controversy is completely false. There are many in-depth and reliably published reviews of his academic works            , enough for a pass of WP:AUTHOR on top of the obvious pass of WP:PROF and on top of the large amount of media attention (more than most professors) given to his recent announcements. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. I concur that the subject clearly passes our notability guidelines per criteria 5 and 8 of WP:NACADEMIC and multiple criteria at WP:NAUTHOR. Speaking as someone who just completed graduate studies in music (I passed my defense last month!) both Ewell and Jackson's academic publications have been at the center of much heated discussions in graduate courses in music theory and musicology which I have taken in the last two years. Both of them are at the center of a seminal moment in music studies, and I would be hard pressed to think of two working music theory practitioners more important than these two men for what is happening currently and being discussed in the field.4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am editeur24, who posted the article in the first place. I am not a paid editor; I doubt a musicology professor could afford my billing rate. I saw Timothy Jackson in the news, tried to look him up on Wikipedia, and he wasn't there. I looked up info about him, which I didn't think was controversial (would I lie about him being a chaired professor or having those various publications or being a journal editor?). The conflict with Ewell is what he's best known for, but otherwise he seems to be a fairly typical "big name" academic-- a journal editor with a bunch of publications who is seen as a big name by other academics but not by ordinary people. If his journal deserves an article, presumably he does too. The conflict with Ewell alone makes the two of them prominent music professors-- prominent for their views on music, not for something incidental like committing a murder or people calling for his firing. I wrote to him for a photo, since though there are photos on the web, I wanted to get one with copyright permission, and he gave me the one I used. A photo's not essential to a bio article, but it's nice to have. editeur24 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Editeur24 again. By now I've looked through various Wikipedia pages and using the template there fixed up an email to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to get the licensing formalities all in order. editeur24 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , for the photograph, please ask the photographer (not the sitter) to generate a release here and email to VRTS. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Repost from /Solfège talk: Different Naming for Flat Notes
I have a more intuitive naming scheme for the flat notes under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfège#Major, but is citation required to begin with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rason.lyc (talk • contribs) 05:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Rason.lyc, you have an answer at Talk:Solfège. It's a standard policy, which, as you can imagine, we often have to apply; see Original Research. I'm sorry, but you can imagine the problems we'd have without this policy. You might try writing your work up on Wikipedia's sister project, Wikiversity, or other places. HLHJ (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)