Talk:Tonality/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Tonality. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"Hermann von Helmholtz wrote, 'The predominance of the tonic as the link which connects all the tones of a piece, we may, with F['e]tis, term the principle of tonality.'"

I don't know who F['e]tis is and this info is now in the first paragraph.Hyacinth 06:12, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"['e]" is a sort of shorthand (well, longhand really) for "é", which would likely make this François-Joseph Fétis, a 19th century Belgian composer, teacher, writer, theoretician and all-round clever bloke. (Of course this doesn't need to be in the article, I'm just mentioning it for interest's (boredom's?) sake.) --Camembert

"The term tonality seems to have been introduced into music by the Belgian composer and musicologist Joseph Fétis around the middle of the nineteenth century. It was meant to signify a musical state, which had for several centuries already been in general use, according to which a musical group is conceived (by the composer as well as the listener) as a unit related to, and so to speak derived from, a central tonal fundament, the tonic. This tonal fundament is understood as one note, or, in a more comprehensive sense, as the full triad-harmony of a note, be it major or minor. In fact, the word tonality was probably chosen merely as a linguistically pleasant abberviation of tonicality (thus also presaging atonality instead of the tongue-twisting atonicality)." (Reti, 1958, Tonality: Harmonic Tonality)

---

In this article tonality is described as a set of rules, which are actual guidelines created after the fact, and not as a system of relations and perceptions. Hyacinth

1. Intro:Tonality is the character of music written with hierarchical relationships of pitches, rhythms, and chords to a "center" or tonic. Tonic is sometimes used interchangeably with key. Musical sensations associated with tonality include consonance, dissonance, and resolution.
   1. Tonality, however, may be defined in various ways.
      1. One is through reference to pre-existing music of a specific time period and location which is assumed to be tonal, such as that of the common practice period.
      2. Analysis of the above music may be used to define tonal music from similarities and restrictions inferred from analysis. This includes the use of the major scale or minor scale, their triadic chords and diatonic functions, and the compositional techniques, procedures, and materials used.
      3. A definition may be formed from observations or assumptions of the characteristics of sound, organization or order, and/or perception, possibly combined with aspects of the above analysis, that considers tonality a practice correctly based on physical or psychological constants.
      4. Tonal music may simply be contrasted with atonal music, music which does not feel as if it has a tonal center.
   2. Tonality, however, may be considered more generally with no restrictions as to the date or place at which the music was produced, or (very little) restriction as to the materials and methods used. In fact, many people, including Anton Webern, consider all music to be tonal in that music is always perceived as having a center. Centric is sometimes used to describe music which is not traditionally tonal in that it used triads of a diatonic scale but which nevertheless has relatively strong tonal center. Other terms which have been used in an attempt clarify are tonical and tonicality, as in "possessing a tonic," and Igor Stravinsky used the term polar.
2. Vocabulary of Tonal Organization
   1. Scale: [table].
   2. Chords
   3. Degree & Diatonic function
   4. Form
3. Tonal Theory
   1. Intro: Tonality allows for a great range of musical materials, structures, meanings, and understandings. It does this through establishing a tonic, or central pitch, and a somewhat flexible network of relations between any pitch or chord and the tonic similar to perspective in painting. As within a musical phrase, interest and tension may be created through the move from consonance to dissonance and back, an larger piece will also create interest by moving away from and back to the tonic and tension by destabilizing and re-establishing the key. Further, temporary secondary tonal centers may be established by cadences or simply passed through in a process called modulation (key change), or simultaneous tonal centers may be established through polytonality. Additionally, the structure of these features and processes may be linear, cycical, or both. This allows for a huge variety of relations to be expressed through dissonance and consonance, distance or proximaty to the tonic, the establishment of temporary or secondary tonal centers, and/or ambiguity as to tonal center. Music notation was created to accomodate tonality and facilitates interpretation.
   2. The assumptions of tonal theory are:
      1. Octave equivalency and diatonic functionality not enharmonic equivalency
      2. Less so transpositional equivalency and very little inversional equivalency
   3. Cadences: Though modulation may occur instantaneously without indication or preparation, the strongest way to establish a tonal center is through a cadence, a succession of two or more chords which gives a feeling of closure or finality, or series of cadences. Traditionally cadences act both harmonically to establish tonal centers and formally to articulate the end of sections. The strongest cadence is the perfect authentic cadence, which moves from the dominant to the tonic, mostly strongly establishes tonal center, and ends the most important sections of tonal pieces, including the final section. This is the basis of the "dominant-tonic" or "tonic-dominant" relationship.
4. History
   1. Common practice period
   2. Post-tonal: According to different theories tonality began to "break down" because of expansion, disinterest in functionality, increased use of leading tones, alterations, modulations, tonicization, the increased importance of subsidary key areas, use of non-diatonic hierarchical methods, and/or symmetry.

Note that most or all of the problems identified here have been corrected.

The article, as written, isn't very useful at all to someone without a strong working knowledge of music theory and musicology. Also, style of prose is more appropriate for a graduate-level college essay than for an encyclopaedia. For example, there is no need to sum up a section - if you need to sum up, you haven't done a good enough job breaking down the information into digestible bits. Along those lines, paragraphs and sentences should be shorter, and the whole thing needs to be further subdivided into sub-sections.

Also the content is wanting. First, remember that "tonal music" redirects here. This can't just be an article about the theory of tonality! If I wanted to know about tonality and tonal music, I'd probably want to see the following information (i.e., this is my propsoed outline):

• Basic definition. The first paragraph of the article is ok, but it needs to mention more (and more simply) about scales, chords, etc. The four "definitions" of tonality given in the intro are okay, but need to be rephrased so that they will be meaningful to all readers. I have a lot of formal training in music and music theory, and I was unable to parse several of these items on the first try.
  • Also, the various parenthetical citations should be changed to wiki-style citations, and the Jim Samson definition does not belong at all (Who cares what Jim Samson thinks? Put him in the "definitions" section below.)
• Characteristics of Tonal Music - this first section of the body of the article needs to have sections on scales, chords, progressions, cadences, form, etc. Each of these should be one section and be explained clearly. Since there are other articles on these topics, they can also be (blissfully) short, but should give enough information to make them worth reading.
  • The table of solfege is especially out of place here as there's already an article on it and most people don't (principally) use solfege anyway. Under the subsection on "scales", it could perhaps be included as a sentence like "The solfege system gives the notes of the major scale the names do, re, mi, fa, so, la, and ti, while other systems assign numbers from 1 to 7."
  • Sentences like "Most tonality is 'functional harmony', which is a term used to describe music where changes in the predominate scale or additional notes to chords are explainable by their place in stabilizing or destabilizing a tonality." should also be strongly avoided, as they are hard to read and full of jargon. A better restatement would be something like "Functional harmony describes a type of music where particular notes are present not because part of a scale or chord, but because they create additional consonance or dissonance. In this way, functional harmony may be used to stabilize or destabilize a particular tonality." Of course, I'm not sure this material should be here at all; perhaps you might have a sub-heading on exceptions to the general rules of tonality, and include "functional harmony" with a link to a separate article on that topic.
  • These sorts of changes, made throughout the document, will be greatly beneficial.
• the next three sections can be in whatever order makes most sense...
• Definition(s) of tonal music - clearly, there are several. First, say why there are different definitions. Then, describe each succinctly and, most important, clearly.
• History of tonal music - when did it start, and how? When did other movements break off? What qualifies (not just in "serious" composition, but also popular and world music genres)? What is the state of tonal music today? Again, make things succinct and clear!
• Tonal Music Theory - the current section is pretty good, but the writing style needs to be clearer; more scientific and less storytelling. I do really like the examples of different principles from actual pieces and/or composers.
• History of the term "tonality" - because that's already in the article. Cut it down, though. Much of the information belongs in one of the other sections.

Dave 21:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Some criticisms duly taken.

Basic definition: I rewrote the four definitions to make it more clear by phrasing them "tonality is" rather than "tonality is defined through".

Citations: There was, last time I checked, no standard. Citations may be in text or note style. If you want notes, change them yourself.

Jim Samson. You didn't write the book, he did. Although many people prefer to simply state opinions I and many others like to attribute opinions. This is more NPOV in my opinion.

Definitions: I explained in the introduction why there are several definitions of tonality.

Hyacinth 23:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for the citations bit - having re-read the guidelines, it doesn't matter. Also, thank you for cleaning up the language and presentation of the material in this article - it has undergone a metamorphosis into something I think will be useful for readers of all knowledge levels. Dave 03:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Compositional resources

I propose that compositional resources in the common practice period can be described in terms of practical sets.

The ultimate source set is the harmonic series. Common Practice composers and theoreticians have responded to this basic fact of nature by creating sets of:

Major scales, minor scales (all flavors), diatonic triads and extensions (tertian structures.) cadences, non-harmonic tones, secondary functions, partwriting procedures. harmonic progression practices,and the reconciliation of dissonance and consonance. Transition technics such as modulation were developed to tie everything together as coherently as possible.

To mold these basic resources into what Suzanne Langer would call "significant forms" composers craft phrases, melodies and genres and seek meaningful unity, variety and symmetical and asymmetical balance. This constitutes the raw materials of grammar and rhetoric of musical ideas within style periods, nationalities, individual composers and even specific works. In other words the common practice period languages provided ample room for individuality for a very long period of time.

Impressionistic Set Repertoire

The revolutionary vision of the impressionist composers expanded the repertoire of sets described above to include:

Modes, whole tone scales, pentatonic scales, quartal and quintal chords, pan diatonic, pan pentatonic and pan whole tone structures.

New grammar such as planing and new types of modulations were invented to bind this expanded wealth of resources together. A heightened interest in timbre and new rhythmic designs added even more dimension to the new language.

The genius of Debussy and Ravel was to create a great number of works that effectively blended old and new resources into significant forms. There seems to have been no trial and error or "mannererist" period of experimentation involving gimmicky failures and half successes. They also proved that the musical wheel could be effectively reinvented.

Beyond Impressionism

The challenge to composers ever since has been to craft a personal language whose new and old sets can be combined into expressive and formally significant compositions. In this quest 20th century composers often forgot that the audience is the client for their products. Verbose and convoluted annotations were typically provided to beg for respect for fundamentally unlikable experiments.

Enough! As 21st. century composers we must now direct our efforts to successfully serve the only population who, in the final analysis, justifies our existence. To paraphrase Bill Clinton's famous campaign slogan, "It's the audience, stupid."

Robert C. Howard

Do you have a source for these theories? Hyacinth 23:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The article currenlty has sections titled "Vocabulary of Tonal Organization" and "Tonal Theory" and "History". What exactly do those title mean? Is the "Vocabulary of Tonal Organization" the vocabulary use to describe organization according to traditional theory? Is "Theory" then the history of theory? Is "History" the history of the "use" of tonality, or the history of the theory of tonality, or both? Hyacinth 05:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

---

The article has an accumulation of material. The Vocabulary of tonal organization is a description of chord names and functions - which is required to able to read tonal analysis of almost any kind. The theory and history sections should probably be rewritten to make each clearer. The current article is defective in that it spends a great deal of time on some POVs which, while interesting, are not the dominant meanings of the word as it is generally used.

Thanks. Which POVs are you referring to? Hyacinth 06:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry I would have to say that Reti gets a good deal more attention in the article than he does in the real world, particularly with respect to Schenker and Schoenberg who are still the most influential theorists on the subject of tonality. The use of tonality in Jazz is, similarly, given a somewhat short shrift. I feel we should rebalance the article to put more emphasis on the sort of material that most people will encounter and want information on.

Stirling Newberry added a great deal to the vocabulary section. I want the poor stiff who reads "and then cadence on vi leads back to the tonic triad" to at least feel that there is some sense there.

Please sign messages. Hyacinth 06:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, please note that the Reti section/example explains tonality in ways not covered in the article and possibly not covered in more well known sources. Hyacinth 18:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you talking to yourself? Didn't Stirling Newberry write this, "Stirling Newberry added a great deal to the vocabulary section."? I'm confused. Hyacinth 00:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Stirling Newberry, thanks for integrating the section on Reti into the history section.

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Is the history section the history of tonality or the history of tonal theory? Hyacinth

• "In his influential article on the subject, music theorist Carl Dahlhaus provided a broad survey which included seven definitions of tonality he felt had been used with regularity."

I removed the above sentence because the article, as of yet, in no way mentions Dahlhaus' seven definitions. Hyacinth 00:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In a way, this is completely appropriate, since the concept of tonality itself is a mess. But it's also probably the most important motivating concept in modern music theory, so it'd be nice to have a good article on it. This passage is a particular offense:

<< Music is considered to be tonal if it includes the following five descriptions of tonality: (1) it uses a Major or minor (diatonic) scale system (2) it contains triadic harmonies (three note chords) (3) it has a tonic (central tone) (4) it has a leading tone (7th scale degree) (5) resolution of dissonance (that is: if a chord or note is played (like a leading tone 7th scale degree) that doesn't sound final, the final sounding chord is played after it (like the tonic) to resolve the piece) >>

(1) is disputable; it isn't hard to think of examples of music that are recognizably tonal but for which it would be a stretch to try to interpret them as diatonic. (2) is completely ill-worded. It suggests that any old three-note chords will do! What it should say is that the music uses functional harmony (based on major and minor triads, etc.). Not that everyone would agree that this is a necessary condition for tonality. (4) is completely absurd. I've never heard anyone suggest that a leading tone is a necessary condition for tonality. I suppose functional harmony requires a leading tone, but its silly to make this a self-standing entry in a definition. Finally, (5) is the most poorly, confusingly worded thing I've ever seen in a Wikipedia article. I think the idea here is that tonality requires a consonance/dissonance distinction, which is fine. At that point, why not just cite the consonance/dissonance article, rather than tie oneself in knots trying to explain it in multiply embedded parentheses?

I think if the article is going to include a "definition" of tonality, not in itself a bad idea, it has to acknowledge that there is no agreed upon definition. The strongest contenders, it seems to me, are (a) a sense of tonal center (a "home" pitch class), itself not an entirely well-defined property of music (in fact, more of a way of hearing than an intrinsic musical property), and (b) the use of functional harmony, which is also a little tricky to define (with the appropriate breadth for dealing with chromatic harmony). Diatonicity and consonance/dissonance are important adjunct ideas, but too slippery for a definition. (What are the criteria for a musical passage to be diatonic? How do you know when dissonance is being "treated as dissonance"?)

Jason D Yust 15:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no discussion concerning the innovations of Russian composers such as Alexander Scriabin and Nikolay Roslavets. Schoenberg may not be the singular pioneer that Euro-centric people think he is. Roslavets may have produced a rational 12 tone system before Schoenberg did, and Scriabin was before them both. The 1907 fifth sonata breaks from conventional western tonality, and some shorter pieces may predate it and involve similar innovation. Because of politics, revolutionary-Soviet-Cold War, the work of Roslavets has been practically forgotten, but he deserves to be discussed just as much as Schoenberg does, and Scriabin definitely does as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.133.103.221 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I will attempt to do this over a number of weeks, and would be pleased to receive feedback from the previous writers. I've had a go at the opening. Tony 14:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Can the rewrite look into the use of "which" versus "that." It's silly grammar, but misuse of "which" makes an otherwise well-written sentence confusing. Here's an example of the normal use of the two: There is a note that is consonant with another, which pleases the ear. 72.195.187.63 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I've learnt something new here: a term for the lowered seventh degree of a tonal scale. It's unfamiliar to most musicians, although I'm having second thoughts about having removed it from the table. Tony 14:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I assume that means that you removed it because you think it is unfamiliar to most musicians. I am curious to see the survey or study you base this on. What do you call the lowered seventh degree (or rather the seventh degree a whole tone below the tonic) of a scale? Hyacinth 12:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have several factual and POV problems with Tony 01's edits.

1. While the focus on tonic triad is historically correct, it hasn't been the case for a century in theory or practice for a century. Quartal harmony has been regarded as tonal for almost a century.

2. Calling it "European". This is excessively ethnocentric, it may have originated in a certain area of Europe - and many folk musics are not tonal even in Europe proper, however, it isn't "European" in the same sense as the "European parliament" or being tied on a continuing basis to Europe.

3. The second inversion is the second inversion, it shouldn't be removed.

4. A great deal of music is not made by the media system, and there is a far amount of commercial popular music based on india's system of ragas, which is not, in the definition that Tony argues for "tonal".

5. Other modes that church modes have become very common - including blues and the magic scale - in modern tonal practice.

The changes seemed more appropriate to say, common practice, which was far more a European or European derrived musical system.

Stirling Newberry 20:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that you should go ahead and add these facts or make the relevant changes, then - they are all good points. Just keep the prose concise... (What do you think, Tony?) Dave 21:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss the changes Tony 01 would like to make, I'm not clear what is being added. Stirling Newberry 22:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What is the magic scale? Hyacinth 12:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my god, you've reverted the entire effort? That's hard to believe. I'm afraid I have problems with WAY too much of the previous, and sadly, current text. We're going to have to go through the entire text, bit by bit, I'm afraid, because the existing article is woefully inadequate. To take the points you raise, one by one:

(1) Please provide references and justify your statement that quartal harmony is tonal. I think that you'll find little support for this assertion among music theorists. Tonality is almost universally regarded as being based on the triad, and thus having ended in art-music during the 20th century. Quartal harmony, as practised by, say, Bartok, is regarded as being a move away from tonality. The article should be plain and simple for a non-specialist to read. Going with the conventional notion of tonality is the easiest way to do this. Alternatives, such as quartal harmony, might be mentioned further down in the article.

(2) Whether you like it or not, tonality WAS a European development, just as the drone was an Indian innovation; pointing that out doesn't mean that the drone is solely Indian. I felt that NOT mentioning 'European' was ethnocentric, since it may have implied that what was essentially European was global. Constraining the definition to a geographical and cultural area is necessary if tonality is to be compared and contrasted with other music traditions.

(3) I'll accept reference to 'second inversion', but not without explaining that it's essentially different from root position and first inversion.

(4) Please be logical: I wrote that tonality 'remains the dominant feature of popular music'—that DOESN'T mean that popular music is entirely tonal, as you assume I stated or implied in your fourth point. The statement stands perfectly well here, since it's important to explain the waning of the system in traditional European music, against its flourishing in popular music worldwide. Why on earth shouldn't the article start by positioning tonality in cultural terms?

(5) I don't understand the relevance of that point; it can be dealt with later, and is not inconsistent with my proposed opening. The opening should paint the big picture in cultural and technical terms. The new text doesn't seem to be inconsistent with most of your objections.

Chords are quite different from triads, and tones from notes. Let's use the terminology precisely and consistently, to minimise confusion in the relatively uninformed reader.

I hope that we can do this co-operatively rather than fighting a war. Doing a complete revert is like starting a war.

Tony 02:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

PS, Stirling, I've just read your personal page, which is very much to my liking, politically and musically. I do hope that we can co-operate in the rewriting of this article. Tony

My earlier talk comments were eaten by a browser crash, sorry for taking so long to get back on things.

1. I'd have no problem with "originated in Europe" but "European" implies still presently a phenonenon limited to Europe. Not in line with current theory, where other musics are now thought of as tonal (including some from Africa) and a wide range of practioners are non-European.

2. Globally India Pop, which is based on Ragas, has millions of listeners and and makes thousands of records. It's more popular in Africa than US pop us. Most popular music isn't really accurate. One can say commercial pop based on US models is tonal, by way of the incorporation of African modes and tonality into R&B and Jazz, but that requires some explanation.

3. The second inversion of chords is relatively common pre-1760. Bach has a famous use of a second inverted I as a substitute subdominant in es ist genung. The second inversion fell out of favor with the practice of Mozart and Haydn, and in fact one can separate out real from fake Mozart based on Mozart's characteristic of using German sixths rather than the second inversion of the Vth. (cf. Maunder) Second inversions are also used in guitar music relatively frequently and are a standard part of the guitarist's arsenal.

4. Quartal harmony has been regarded as part of tonality for some time. No one calls the impressionists "atonal" and few question the tonal credentials of quartal using composers such as Scriabin, Debussy, Sibelius or Hindemith. In fact Hindemith's theory of tonality includes quartal harmony, and his Harmonie du Welt has extensive quartal passages, and that is generally regarded as a tonal work. According to many theorists, especially Schenkerans, tonality is shown by the through base, and it matters far less which chords are built, so long as the urlinie in top and bottom is present.

I suggest we make tonality/temp and work on the article there, bringing it up to standard and then pushing to the main page - as there are a large numbers of stakeholders in this article.

Best Stirling Newberry 03:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Stirling: Thanks for your reply, which contains some good points; I think we have to come to a consensus about the semantic boundaries surrounding the term 'tonal/tonality'.

I'm very on-side with Schenker; although I don't know as much as I should about Schenkerian analysis, his basic theory informs my outlook on tonal language.

I'm unsure of the ramifications of making the article 'temp', since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia; is it explained somewhere? I'll respond in detail soon. Tony 15:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Setting up a temp page is easy, we copy the current article there, work on the temp version,a and when there is consensus move it forward.

2. Remember we are here to document notable uses of the term, and label where they come from, so that a reader who comes here with a reference to tonality in hand, will be able to find the use they see in the source.

Stirling Newberry 16:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you able to set up the temp page, then? I wonder whether it would be diplomatic to signal to other stakeholders that this process is occurring.

So you advise opening with a semantic, definitional approach? Is it appropriate to list the various meanings of the term 'tonality', and then perhaps to embark on further, more detailed explanation of one or more of these meanings?

Tony <tony1@iinet.net.au>

Tony 07:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Currently it's this:

Tonality is the character of music written with hierarchical relationships of pitches, rhythms, and chords to a "center" or tonic. Tonic is sometimes used interchangeably with key. The term tonalité was borrowed from Castil-Blaze (1821, François Henri Joseph Blaze) by François-Joseph Fétis in 1840 (Reti, 1958; Judd, 1998; Dahlhaus). The term is often used as being synonymous with Major-Minor tonality, but is, in more recent theory, used more broadly to encompass a number of systems of musical organization.

In my view, there are several problems that we need to address.

(1) 'is the character of'—what does it mean? How about: 'Tonality is a system of writing music with hierarchical relationships ...'. (2) I don't understand the inclusion of 'rhythms' in the hierarchical relationship to the centre. (3) A central note applies to most of the music cultures in the world, and doesn't distinguish tonality from pretonal music in the European tradition. I've always understood the unique aspect of tonality to be the central triad. Much renaissance and medieval music, for example, lacks a sense of triadic/root movement. Isn't this important in defining the tonal system? (4) The second sentence may confuse the reader; can someone give an example of exact interchangeability between 'tonic' and 'key'. In any case, is it important enough to put in the second sentence? (5) 'is often used as being synonymous' needs to be reworded. (6) If 'tonality' is to be broadly defined, as appears here, I wonder whether a separate article is required, perhaps entitled 'The tonal period', or 'European tonality', or something like that. Alternatively, an account of tonality as many people understand it (i.e., the system that was dominant from about 1600 to 1910) could be dealt with in a separate section here.

Tony 04:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Having undertaken a typo cleanup of this otherwise excellent article, I found several references to the term "through bass". As these linked terms have no target article, I wonder if they too are typos and should actually be "thorough-bass". Thanks, Chas 2 October 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.100.17 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 1 October 2005

Thank you for taking the time to copy-edit the article. I'm not an expert in the field, but certainly it seems from context like they intend to say thorough-bass. So the question is whether or not "through-bass" is actually an acceptable variant; I honestly don't know, but Google doesn't seem to think so. If it is valid, we can make a redirect so that linking through-bass will take you to figured bass. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it's far from excellent, and requires a complete rewrite. Tony 07:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

And what about the question at hand? Or was your point that by rewriting the article completely, the links to through-bass could be removed? —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope that it is helpful. The term should be "thorough bass", normally without hyphen. However, why not use the more common term "figured bass" (after mentioning t b on first occurrence)? Tony 00:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have chosen to write it as thoroughbass, (without space or hyphen) not only because this form links directly to the relevant article in wikipedia (Figured bass) but also, following a little research, I found it is the form used by such authoritative sources as: Oxford University Press, The Encyclopedia Britannica. and Microsoft Encarta. Chas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.191.174 11 October 2005 (talk • contribs)

I don't think that the term "tonicality" is common or accepted enough to appear in the introduction, so I removed it. Hyacinth 09:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter Schat, in Tone Clock (ISBN 3718653699, 1993, p.26), argues that "'tonal' and 'atonal' are the wrong words" yet puts tonicality in scare quotes at its first appearance. Leigh Landy, in What's the Matter with Today's Experimental Music?; Organized Sound Too Rarely Heard (ISBN 3718651688, 1991, p.94), explains that he uses the term to embrace "all music, be it modal, strict tonal, pentatonic, or whatever, as long as it is based on tone centers". Hyacinth 12:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• This page is 36 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.

The article is too long. Hyacinth 09:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The audio samples of mozart are too fast to get the point across. Someone should make them slower.

I just read this article for the first time today, and I'd like to help with the copy editing because there is a lot of material here that I could more readily agree with if it were only expressed in simpler, easier-to-understand language.

The first suggestion I'd like to make is about the "chart" of tonal functions. It seems to me that this is completely anti-intuitive and more difficult to understand than it should be because the whole thing is arranged upside down. I mean, heck, the first this you see is that the "supertonic" is below the "tonic!" So I'd like to suggest that the table be rearranged as follows. I need to learn a little bit more about how to center the text before I can do this myself, but in the meantime if anybody has any objections or comments about how to improve this, please state them over the next few days, and I'll proceed accordingly. Spventi 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Table of Tonal Functions

Roman Numeral	Solfege	Name (Function)
I	Do/Ut								Tonic
VII	Ti / Si							Leading/Subtonic
VI	La						Sub-Mediant
V	Sol					Dominant
IV	Fa				Sub-Dominant
III	Mi			Mediant
II	Re		Supertonic
I	Do / Ut	Tonic

Did you mean to make this table?

Function	Roman Numeral	Solfege
Leading/Subtonic	VII	Ti/Si
Sub-Mediant	VI	La
Dominant	V	Sol
Sub-Dominant	IV	Fa
Mediant	III	Mi
Supertonic	II	Re
Tonic	I	Do/Ut

Hyacinth 07:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, I meant exactly what I proposed, although perhaps it is better to have the numerals and solfege names to the left. I would like to find a way to make this table easier to understand for people who do not already understand these concepts. Musically, these relations only have meaning along a time line, and I think that spreading it out horizontally helps illustrate that. After all, we never show scales as clusters of notes on a single stem. Also, it would be nice to find something that implies visually that things beging and end at the tonic. Maybe we need a graphic showing these relationships arranged around circle with the tonic at the top. See what I mean?

Spventi 08:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the table as it exists currently is misleading in terms of content more so than form. Are we talking about roman numerals in the major form only? Only capital roman numerals are being used here. If this is the case then what is the table trying to communicate? A major scale, a minor one? As it is now no conventional scale is represented. If the table is describing the use of roman numerals in general then it should include lower case roman numerals as well. It is my understanding convention is to use lower case roman numerals when describing minor chords, and to use capital roman numerals when describing major chords. Both should be present if we are going to be thorough.

Furthermore, if one is to include the corresponding solfege syllables, then if we are also describing minor chords we should include syllables used with flats/sharps as well: "di/ra" (#1/b2), "ri/me" (#2/b3), "fi/se" (#4/b5), "si/le" (#5/b6), "li/te" (#6/b7). I realize these are mostly used with "movable do", but I think we should include them so that both systems may be represented.Omnibus progression (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This article makes a number of claims about the relationship of perceptual processes, the overtone series, and musical tonality that should be identified as being more controversial than they currently are-- see specifically the section "Uses of the Term", subsection "By nature". Far more seriously, the citations backing up these assertions are of the lowest quality- not to peer-reviewed journal articles, but to self-published books and personal web-pages which make extremely broad and untenable claims that are far from mainstream viewpoints in music theory, history, or cognitive science.

If the relationship of tonality to the overtone series should be handled (which is certainly interesting and important), it needs to be done by citing reputable sources.

There are also a number of factual errors. Eg:

These scales are referred to as "diatonic" because it is felt that there are two fundamental centers of attraction: the tonic note and the dominant note.

This is not why the scale is called diatonic.

I'd go as far as saying that this is probably the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia!

Chris 19:41, September 6, 2006 (UTC) User:Redpony

Note that this article also uses [at least] six other sources besides the Fink citations. If this is the worst article you have ever seen on Wikipedia, I must assume you haven't looked at many articles.

Factual errors may be removed, marked as such in the article, or moved to this section of the talk page. The false diatonic etymology was added fairly recently. Have you noticed any other errors?

Do you have reputable sources regarding the relationship between the overtone series and tonality? Hyacinth 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As always, if you are knowledgeable about a topic, improving the article yourself is allowed and encouraged. Factual errors? Fix them! Don't see the cites you want? Add them! Kwertii 20:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a fairly good chapter on the definition as well as definitional problems associated with tonality in a disertation from the early 90's that cites the more established authorities on tonality on the music theory/musicology side. Even though music theory is a fractured discpline (it's tough to balance the applied needs as well of performers, composers, and historians with the intellectual trends brought on by developments in psychology and the cognitive sciences), there are reasonably standard definitions for tonality which would provide a more clear starting point for redoing this article according such that it meets Wikipedia's standards. Of course, this dissertation and its sources don't delve go into the epsitemological questions that seem to be occupying certain authors of this page (and which are interesting), but those might be more properly brought up in a discussion in terms of music cognition and what the constraints on a musical cognitive system might look like. Lehral & Jackendoff's Generative Theory for Tonal Music and David Temperley's Cognition of Basic Musical Structures (the intro at least) describe some of the issues associated with the relationship between music theory (and theoretical constructs/descriptions like tonality) and the musical intuitions of listeners, composers, and performers. Still, the theories that would seek to connect structural elements of music with intuitions (and more remotely, with physical phenomena like the overtone series) are highly speculative and not well worked out (compared to something like, for example, modern theories of syntax in language), and relying too heavily on them would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.

Redpony 03:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the carelessness. Fixed it right away —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greenwyk (talk • contribs) 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC). Sorry -- like you (whoiever originally accidentally removed the introduction) I also accidentally removed your comment about it, and replaced it as fast as I could -- but forgot to sign "Greenwyk." I seem to have lost your identity in the process. Greenwyk 01:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with the call for citations about the "natural" basis for tonality, since they exist, I have added them.

To make the article a little shorter, someone may wish to move the citations down below, under references and sources, and possibly refer to the quotes and viewpoint descriptions only by author's name & year (Reti, Gustin, etc.) in the "by nature:" category.

Using the number format may not be agreeable to some. So change that if desired. Or put the whole list of quotes, descriptions of theories and views, & authors down below under "Theory of tonal music" where there is more room (which would be best I think) -- and simply outline the list of various authors on both the "nature" and the "nurture" side of the debate (the latter has many sources, but I haven't chosen them yet -- or someone else may know better which should be chosen & quoted), and put the short list under the "by nature:" subhead under "Uses of the term."

No strong feelings about this, except that the sources and quotes, now known, should be listed to meet Wiki "balanced POV" guides, whatever one may agree with about any of the views. I don't believe the accepted view of this controversy is as "nurture" as some say -- maybe in music academia, it may be. But in science & archaeology academia, and in the general public (tonal popular music as evidence) it isn't that settled by far, and much more leans toward "nature". Greenwyk 08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• The citations are interesting; however, I still think the "nature definition" has problems that must be addressed (although it should be noted that I am not arguing necessarily against the content, merely the form).
  • First, the "nature definition" given seems to be trying to account for the fact that tonal music is learned very naturally and automatically by children (giving rise to the phenomenon of child prodigies), that tonal music seems to be understood automatically and without special education by everyone, and in similar ways (e.g., in most contexts everyone hears a leading tone as "leading to" a tonic). These aspects, in short, make out not a "natural" definition of tonality at all, but a psychological conception of tonality (since it accounts for learning, understanding, and hearing), along the lines of Chomsky's psychological conception of language. Furthermore, it supports a specific, rationalist (cf. the Bourke quote) theory of human musical competence that presumes that humans are predisposed to acquire/internalize certain musical systems and not others because of features of the human mind/brain, the auditory perceptual system, etc. This theory wants to account for the fact that the features of tonal music (the notes, intervals, chords, rhythms, meters, etc) are what they are and not some other way. And it wants to account for the seeming non-arbitrariness of important elements of tonal music (eg., the intervals of importance are related to the overtone series, the rhythms and meters are related to simple whole-number ratios of their beats). In this theory, these facts are not accidental, they are motivated by the way people's ears/brains/minds work.
  • The psychological definition is a perfectly wonderful definition of tonality (in fact, defining tonality without talking about its effects on hearers is certainly possible, but not really very interesting), and it is well-accepted that some kind of rationalist theory is almost certainly correct. In light of this particular theory, the data-points cited (the failure of alternative systems of musical organization (atonality) to become popularized, the prevalence of perfect and consonant intervals in the world's musics) are potentially interesting. But, without an explicit theory, they can be construed in a variety of ways.
• In short, I would propose that the "nature definition" be replaced with a "psychological definition" of tonality. Under this definition, the "essence of tonality" is the nature of the perceptions that listeners have of tonal music. That is, it elevates the shared agreement about what is consonant, what is dissonant, patterns of tension and relaxation and about how tonal music "works" to be the defining feature of tonality. In this definition, if one wanted to bring in the "nature vs nurture" debate (I would avoid those terms since they are over-used, vague, and politically charged), there can be a discussion of two possible theories for why tonality has the features it has:
  • "The empiricist theory" (which is popular in some academic circles) says that all of music is learnt by convention and any possible system could be learnt (imagine one where loud notes act like dominants and soft notes are tonics). All music is culture. I'm not sure who to cite here- this viewpoint is popular in music history departments and music theory departments.
  • "The rationalist theory" (which is popular in other academic circles). This says that the human mind/ear is predisposed to learn some musical systems rather than others. In particular, it can account for the universal distribution of consonant intervals, the prevalence of the pentatonic scale, isochrony, etc., without having to attribute this to coincidence. Here, you might cite Lerdahl&Jackendoff (1981) or anything where Steven Pinker or Jackendoff talk about music, as well as all the citations currently under the "nature" definition (although I think this section is far too long- the details of this argument are better suited to a pursuasive piece, not an encyclopedia entry).

• The bottom line is that if we want to keep some discussion on the relationship between "nature" and tonality, we must make the theories that explain this relationship explicit (since tonality is presumably something created by humans/the human mind, it is therefore in some sense "outside nature", and explanation for the relationship is required). If we cannot do this (or if we think there are too many theories to account for, or they are too tentative), then I think this section should be removed completely since failing to do so undermines Wikipedia's neutrality.

Redpony 21:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot offer a definition of tonality as you ask. But I believe it is naturally caused. Whether caused internally (hard-wired) by the physiology of the ear, or by the external structure of sound acoustics, or both, is not conclusive in general academic circles.

However, the idea it is all learned is not generally adopted in archaeology nor in musical physics. There is no desire to accept coincidence as an explantion when archaeology and other sources keep bringing up new studies and artifacts with 5 and 7-note scales, similar or the same. The world public (in general) practices tonal music, and by that, seems to agree, even historically and prehistorically.

On the other hand, the present musical academics are loathe to change their view about conditioning being in vogue, namely, that we can "learn anything" equally well (namely, tonal or non-tonal music). But they have invested lives and careers heavily in non-tonal or post-tonal music and Skinnerian theories of human learning and -- in my opinion -- are stuck isolated there for some time to come. Most in that area still know little or nothing of the last 20 years of music archaeology, nor much about acoustics, which contradicts their views.

I would tend to believe that a section on nature/nurture could be written from what already exists in separate places in this article. Combine it, represent the major theories, including mine, I would hope, and indicate the evidence that is presented, so far, in the sources so far recently listed.

The nurture view needs to be sourced, quoted and presented -- or can develop on its own, as there is clearly a passion for it when we see some editors asserting that origins of music and is all "guesswork" and that all is "learned." If you believe that is true, and a notable view, then present it, rather than preventing, any other view.

Regarding internal or external "forces" or explanations for widespread similarites in scales, intervals -- and notes seeming to be related (much as we see likenesses among family members' faces -- despite the differences), note:

Remember this happens whether we learn it from the nature of sound we hear from overtones of much-used octaves, fifths and fouths -- or whether the ear processes the matter internally as a physiological or biological effect. We don't have to solve this issue of which or both, today, in order to proceed.

Tonic, dom and subdom, all arise from people knowing nothing of acoustics; They are the 3 chords that easily harmonize almost any melody, West or East; They are parallel to the loudness of the overtones of the three most widespread intervals, thus originating tonality along with the scale (including "leading tones," which happen many places -- Scotland, or China, called pien, meaning "becoming," "crossing over"). Or Leave out those least loud overtones (3rds & 7ths), and you have the pentatonic. Monumental coincidence or a simply explainable pattern? Encyclopedias can record the history and description of a debate -- like evolution vs. creationism -- and should in this case as well.

I would love to do it, but as a long-time author in that debate, I restrict myself to sources, citations, journal/book quotes, and minor edits, because unlike Brittanica, Wikipedia editors jump down my throat for even existing around here. But I will propose some things in talk, if no one else will write it. I have researched for over 50 years (and published with more than fair notability, especially recently) on the origins of music, scales (melody), harmony, etc.

I leave it to you all to agree either removing the debate altogether (very wrong, I think) or finding a way to make it known to readers in a NPOV. Neutral doesn';t mean we must make the matter inconclusive. Only that we present all the views fairly, and let the readers conclude what they wish. --Bob Fink Greenwyk 06:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To Bob Fink: I hope you reconsider your decision. As an experienced author you should contribute - and test your patience with other editors. That's Wikipedia. Old Palimpsest 19:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of all of Pleasant's views left item 2 without its reference (for "similar findings"). Reposted short description of Pleasant's findings & work. Also entered missing source for Pleasant's book.) Greenwyk 17:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The phrase in the section Theory of tonal music last paragraph, last sentence, which reads: "(if anyone ever did so)" should be removed by whoever added it. The sources for this belief (that the diatonic is a Western scale or invention) are extremely numerous among writers in the music academic community, especially in music theory and ethnomusicology (midst terms like "Eurocentric" for those who see tonality and diatonics as in any way "natural"). I thought it was common knowledge, but I guess not.

Even in the next section, history of the term, the last paragraph there begins with an example of that very same or similar bias:

"While tonality is the most common form of organizing Western Music, it is not universal, nor is the seven note scale universal...." -- a view, which while not held in science, anthropology and archaeology academia (when a view is held at all), it is almost the "official line" of music academia and composers therein.

However, if anyone really needs a citation, I can provide many -- as can anyone, just by looking for examples of similar statements in any history of western music textbook or by searching google (possibly for the search phrases: "our scale," or the "Western scale," etc).

If no one comments, I'll remove the phrase, as it implies a negation of the verifiable accuracy of the statement to which it is attached. Greenwyk 19:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The midi which demonstrates to listeners that the Kilmer version of the oldest known song is tonal-sounding provides information that removal of the midi prevents readers from hearing. I will replace the midi unless there is some reason for suppressing it from being heard. After all, this article is about tonality.

The observation that the holes in the Neanderthal flute match the spacing of a do-re-mi-fa sequence found in modern flutes (such as an Irish whistle) is not a POV. It is a fact verified simply by looking at the match of the spacings which have been measured. The match can be visually seen at Divje Babe (and at other websites which have requested permission to reproduce the picture).

Removing this factual observation appears to have no reason for it. The holes, whether human-made or chance-made, are there and can be seen and measured. Describing the actual appearance of a match is valid whether the disputed bone is a flute or not. Unless a relevant reason for claiming it is a "POV" is provided (other than asserting it's POV), the comment will be replaced. Bob Fink, 65.255.225.41 14:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The midi is rich media, which should not be linked directly from an external link. If you think it should be content in the article, upload it to the wikimedia commons and link it from there.

As for the 4-holes idea, that's a point of view taken by your own research. The argument is at Talk:Divje Babe, and I won't bother with it here. The claim that is it POV is based on the fact that there are multiple published opposing viewpoints which you are well aware of (Chase, Nowell, d'Errico...). Just because you find the evidence conclusive does not mean the rest of the academic community does (and by the published sources, they clearly don't). - Rainwarrior 20:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no published statements by d'Errico, Nowell, et al, which deny there are 4 holes. None. D'Errico, Nowell, et al, unlike yourself, have not redefined the meaning of the word "hole" to mean "made by humans." Only you have done that to claim a POV exists.

What they deny is that the two end holes (called "holes" at one point or another by everyone's writings -because they are "holes") were made by humans. The chewing damage around the holes indicated that, to them, the holes were caused along with the damage. But to deny they are holes is to deny the meaning of plain English. Even a non-round hole is still a hole. There's a very large English comprehension difference between denying they're holes and denying one view of how the holes were made.

You are inventing this phrase: "4-hole view" as a semantic fiction to justify it's some kind of POV. But as you well know, no one (not even myself) has used the phrase "4-hole view" or anything like it. The statement is not a POV by any Wiki guideline or rule you can cite. The statement will be restored unless you can come up with something more reasonable. The point you fail to realize is that even if the object is not a flute, the statment regarding the scale-spacings match and the line-up is still true, whatever word you use for the 4 "openings, holes, bites, etc." Whether important or not, on principle I cannot allow the squelching of a truthful statement.

As for the midi issue, I will comply with your request about that. Bob Fink 65.255.225.48 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The ends may contain semicircular indents. Your claim that it is a "hole" is a claim that there was a complete hole before the chewing damage. If you are not claiming this, then the issue of "in line" is meaningless, because chewed off ends are perpendicular to the two complete holes (at which point the question of a do-re-mi scale as the sentence I trimmed is no longer relevant). The assertion that there were two additional holes in the bone before carnivore damage is YOURS, and not d'Errico's, Nowell's, Morley's or even Turk's. Again, this is a discussion for the Divje Babe page, and not here. Many of these other archaeologists don't even believe it's a man made artifact. And as I said at Talk:Divje Babe the lack of a published rebuttal to you does NOT INDICATE their agreement with you. The status of the artifact is in dispute and to say otherwise is purely POV. - Rainwarrior 06:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the statements in your above paragraph are outrageously untrue, false, and unfounded. I will not continue to be provoked by statments the facts of which -- to correct -- will simply use up time, disrupt everything, and serve only your desire to target me, my edits, references, or verified information. Nothing to be done except to revert or replace your ridiculous edits for the incompetence that they are. Since you won't read -- or cannot understand accurately what you read -- of Turk, or me (even in Talk) and of others in the literature, or quote them or me rather than invent your own warped meaning about what was written or what I said, I'm finally aware I'm discussing with a deaf wall. You are impervious to evidence, facts, and believe you are infallible. You don't even seem able to consistently or accurately express the meaning of, or define the word "hole." You'll find someone else to drive crazy with distractions, but not me any longer. If you don't like it take it to an arbitrator. Happy New Year. --Bob Fink 65.255.225.52 05:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You can attack the word "hole", but the real issue is that the status of the object is clearly in debate, and my edits make this clear. The assertion that it is diatonic isn't even really the major problem, it is the implications of it; For the presence of the diatonic scale (which is contested by Chase and Nowell, whether or not you think you have a counter-argument) to be relevant we must already assume that it IS a flute, and that it IS man-made. Both of these ideas are very much disputed, and to say that its holes match the diatonic scale without qualification is directly misleading. Again, the argument is at Divje Babe, and not here. - Rainwarrior 09:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of understanding the difference between "observations" (or measurements or evidence) and interpretations: Let's say the hole spacing matched the tooth-span of a wolf? Would making that unqualified observation be "misleading"? Or is it fair to mention as an accurate item of evidence? If truthful, it would not prove a wolf made the holes. Nor disprove it. It would just be an accurate observation. It's not necessary to assume holes are carnivore made just because the holes match an animal's tooth-span. Likewise, it isn't necessary or true that noting the holes match a diatonic sequence assumes the POV that it actually was intended to be diatonic.

To say that either observation cannot be made would in effect suppress evidence the reader has a right to know was measured. (BTW, for the record: None of the holes matched any animal's tooth-spans. That issue was examined and measured, and agreed upon.) The reader of those observations (re: wolf, or diatonic, either of which match is provable --or not-- by simple measurements) can him/herself decide what to make of those matches, without qualifying hints from the article's writers or editors. Thus the separating of POV or interpretation from observations and measurements should remain separate, as part of the scientific method. Bob F. Greenwyk 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The attribution of a diatonic scale to the object is NOT an observation. We would need to be able to observe the length of the bone to do that. You know that Chase and Nowell have published their opinion that the spacings could not have been diatonic in the way you described. The status of the object is in dispute; that's the key fact here. We do NOT need the arguments for and against it here on the Tonality page. People will go to Divje Babe to learn them. - Rainwarrior 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You really, really must try to read more carefully old chap. I NEVER attributed the scale to the bone. You read that into my remarks, tho that wasn't in my remarks. Read the original comment again and try to see that, if it's possible not to keep reading the inside of your own glasses? I measured the spacing and noted the spacing matched the hole-spacing on a diatonic flute. Open your eyes to see that also at the pic at Divje Babe. THAT's a measured and indisputable observation, unless you want to convince everyone reading this discussion that you are willfully blind as a bat. Or trying to supress a mathematical observational fact not your own POV's liking.

Next: You don't need the whole length of bone to see that. Nowell likely is wrong about the length. Three museum curators wrote in 1997 the original bone would have been "easily" long enough. Based on the width of the yearling's femur, they wrote, to wit:

1. From: Boylan P., P.Boylan@city.ac.uk "Since [my letter] of 11 March, I managed to work on quite a few immature cave bear bones in the collections of the Zarodny (National) Museum in Prague and there's no problem about getting your required length [37cm] so far as I can see from various bones from the same region."
2. From: treasure@CTCnet.Net Organization: Treasures of The Earth Ltd. "Thanks for the clarification [of me offering Jay the width dimension]. Yes, a juvenile bear femur could be 37cm or longer." --Jay (Treasures of The Earth Ltd.)
3. From: Wm Nolen Reeder, wreeder@Traveller.COM "According to both our mammal curator and our director, the femur of a black bear cub (less than two years old) would easily be long enough. A two year old cub is about two thirds grown but still remains with the mother so therefore is still considered a cub." --Wm Reeder, Birmingham Zoo Webmaster.

The "key" here is that you cannot tell a simple, straightforward measurement observation from what you fear it may, or may not, imply regarding your OWN incorrect and biased reading, or super-imposed POV. The match-up could be evidence implying coincidence, not only implying a diatonic sequence. It's not for you to censor the fact of a match just because you don't like one of those implications.

Since you started the argument here with your wrong edit, then the rebutted argument goes here too. But I'll write whatever I damn please here if you provoke it by your POV-pushing edits. Greenwyk 06:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Presenting only one "observation" about the Divje Babe artifact is more POV than my edit acknowledging the dispute about it. Can we also write that there are only two complete holes and that it bears a great deal of carnivore damage? Anyone who wants to find out about the artifact can go to its article. We shouldn't drag the argument about it over to this article. - Rainwarrior 15:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you took out the observation of a match that indicated a possible tonal scale sequence. The article is about tonality, after all. I haven't put your edit back and doubt if I'll bother. It depends how many more POV edits you plan to do. The other observations you mention are not relevant to tonality -- only to the "is it a flute-or-not" dispute. But -- If you reverted my "possible early tonality" evidence, then mentioning that the object is disputed regarding even being anthropic in origin could be said too. Because the evidence of very early tonality may not stand if proof of non-human origins turns up. Bob F. 65.255.225.36 15:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is tagged at the very top with "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed." -- but having read the page and this talk page, I am not sure just what facts are disputed. Is it the whole page, or just parts? If just parts, could the tag be moved to the disputed sections, whatever they are? Pfly 08:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Hyacinth (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read through the article, and the discussion. It seems to me that many of the terms used here need defining. One that causes a great deal of trouble is "diatonic". Because of the serious uncertainties it has caused at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature, some of us thought that it and "chromatic" needed special coverage, and we have therefore started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this should wait until things get sorted out from previous talk page posts, but more contemporary, reputable musicological trends from McClary to Taylor (I'm reading his Beyond Exoticism now) relate the development of tonality and its heirarchies to European colonialization and self identification. While the old fogeys out there will scoff, it is now an accepted academic practice to discuss historical context in the arts, and I'm sure it can be presented in a non-biased manner. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.30.11 (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On 15 May 2007 the article was vandalised by deleting a whole section (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tonality&diff=131150858&oldid=130985513). It seems that nobody noticed the incident, and the data hasn't been put back into the article. Someone with more insight to the article might want to check if the deleted part contains any relevant information. Liffey (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So it wasn't vandalism then? Hyacinth (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

ESSAY by Sean McHugh 02Sean McHugh 02 (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC) REMOVED by Hyacinth (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

This talk page is for discussing improvements for the article. Hyacinth (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hyacinth. Well there was some stuff in the essay that could well be used to improve the article, but I wasn't planning to take the time for that. I have a great deal of info on tonality and its relation with consonance and dissonance, and would like to see a more empirical rather than relativist cultural angle on why it's so important... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean McHugh 02 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mention if e.g., if the David Bowie song TVC 15 has tonality, or is it just limited to classical music, etc. Jidanni (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good general question. Hyacinth (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What about that section is confusing? What needs explanation? Hyacinth (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is confusing because the section title seemingly has no relationship whatsoever to the content. To end the entire article with a section heading called "Effect" would seem to infer wrapping up the article and talking about the overall musical effect of tonality. As it is, the paragraph discusses a relatively arcane difference between harmonic and melodic tonality that probably doesn't merit a musical example or even its own section. In my opinion the subject of harmonic vs. melodic tonality should be presented in an earlier section in a more truncated, concise fashion, and the "Effect" section deleted completely. 5000fingers (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)5000fingers

I came to this article seeking to learn something about the concept of tonality. All I have learned is that I lack a solid enough grounding in music theory to separate fact from the heaped-on balderdash someone or someones has passed off as an 'article', when the only aim of this piece is to bury a music concept so far in its own jargon that it defies any description other than mystical.

Please work at making some of these concepts understandable either by way of example or extensive hyperlinking to reference material. As it stands, one learns nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.190.149.48 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What specific ways should the article be improved in? What specific parts of the article should be improved? Hyacinth (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No surprise, it looks like someone pasted their theory paper verbatim. I like how the History section is followed by what appears to be a very wikipedia-like article on Tonality, followed by THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS. I would seriously suggest moving both the History section, and the..... other section to something like Tonality/Verbum_Obscurum and clean up what's left while discussing what to do with all of this verbiage. --Blehfu (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What sort of structure would you like? Hyacinth (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ive moved the History section later in the article. I think perhaps a separate article, History of tonality, might be in order. --Blehfu (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if a separate article is needed. The current History section just needs to be tightened up considerably. This is not the New Grove! A few paragraphs at most will suffice. There is a lot of ambiguity here. And a lot of this material is redundant information that appears or should appear elsewhere, e.g. the material appearing in the History section that is really more about Theoretical Underpinnings or Terms. 5000fingers (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)5000fingers

I'm not sure you could really write a succinct article on tonality unless you were only discussing the recent mediterranean + western history. 76.99.56.13 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the many comments that this article is just a mess, especially stylistically and organizationally. For instance, the section on Terms begins with a torturous sentence about Dahlhaus and the "characteristic schemata of tonal harmony," and then a few paragraphs later we get to the C major scale! I have less quibbling about the factual veracity of some of the entries than others who have posted here, but the way the information is presented is not very professional or clear. Such an important concept needs a better article. I've made a few minor edits to help clarify certain concepts and will continue doing so to help tighten things up a bit. But I think a more major revision is in order, something that presents the relevant information in a more concise, less rambling fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5000fingers (talk • contribs) 15:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What revisions do you suggest? Hyacinth (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've already done some minor ones. No doubt due to the uneven way it was written and how it came about, the article comes across sort of like an undergraduate paper, and I think the whole thing ought to be re-envisioned from the standpoint of the layperson. As far as the more major revisions I would suggest starting with the more broader definitions of tonality, and work out to more specifics. I also would vastly edit down the History section, delete the oddly random "Effects" subsection and have its contents abbreviated and included in the Theoretical Underpinnings section. I would also remove discussions of theoretical issues in the history section. One of the main reasons this article comes across as so muddled is that nobody seemingly ever decided whether "history" meant the history of tonality (which I think it should be), or the history of tonal theory (which I think it should not be). Also, in the first sections of "Terms," the article already gives the theoretical underpinnings of the tonal system! So using the section title of Theoretical Underpinnings is misleading and confusing. What follows in History and Theoretical Underpinnings is actually a mish-mosh of the history of tonal practice and the history of tonal theory, and I think it all just needs to be completely re-worked with greater concision. 76.102.43.172 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)5000fingers

I am a music theory PhD precandidate in a US university and would be glad to try my hand at some repairs. Much of what is contained is technically correct in that it accurately quotes the listed sources. However, it is not presented well or logically and does not reflect current thinking in the field. Not to mention that it seems to be written by an aficionado (a scholar would do a better job). Are there any thoughts on what people would like to see in terms of additional subject headings? For the record, I am not familiar with wikipedia editing, format, etc., but could provide solid content. Blap Splapf (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The writing on which the article is based seems too confusing to begin with. I would second the proposal above - we need a concise set of headings under which to fashion an article which is clear and presents the information usefully, comprehensibly and in an appropriate order.

• Introduction - Summary of term "Tonality"
• Origins of Tonality (encompassing the current 'History and Theory' section)
• Features of Tonal music (Characteristics and Features)
• Theoretical Underpinnings

Andrew w munro (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)andrew_w_munro

One problem is the inconsistent usage of "note" and "tone" to mean the unique individual pitches. Might I suggest using "note" exclusively to avoid ambiguity with both the article title and the technical term for a major second (two "semi-tones")? --Jubilee♫clipman 20:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would urge caution in this regard, but only because the dialect used in the article is American ("centre" is spelt "center", "-ize" endings occur instead of "-ise", etc.), where the relationship between the terms "note" and "tone" is somewhat different from UK usage. Depending on context, replacing "tone" with "note" might cause confusion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me be frank: Americans (often those of immigrant mainland European origin from the first half of the 20th century) have by-and-large produced the clearest, simplest, and most sophisticated theoretical (text)books on music over the past two generations. These texts have had an impact on professional music theorists and tertiary training throughout the English-speaking world. They typically use tone to indicate a pitch, and note to indicate a pitch-in-context, e.g. invested with rhythmic and textural identity, in a real passage of music. The distinction is worth making for all readers, from beginners to advanced musicians, I believe. Tony (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say that top banner is out of date and could now be removed. The article is on the whole fairly well cited, and the sections and individual sentences that are exceptions are plainly marked.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why and where does this article need cleanup? How should this be done? Hyacinth (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This article refers to the I,V,IV as tonic dominant and predominant. I changed it to subdominant. Jerome Kohl, a well respected Wikipedian, changed it back. I am quite sure however that the IV chord is frequently, if not usually, referred to as the subdominant or sub-dominant. I also believe that a predominant chord is any chord that resolves to the dominant (e.g. II,1V etc.) I believe the more specific term (subdominant) is preferable.

I believe the following articles support this opinion: Chord progression - Basics P2, Subdominant, Predominant.

Thanks in advance for corrections and comments. BobbyBoykin (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The chord and scale degree are both correctly referred to as "subdominant". However, the context within which you changed the term has to do with chord function, not chord naming. Some theory books do use the term "subdominant" as a function name (which often cause confusion for beginners when a submediant or supertonic chord is referred to as having "subdominant" function), but others use "predominant", or "dominant preparation", which prevents confusing the chord's name with its function. There is, unfortunately, no commonly employed terminology (so far as I am aware) that similarly separates function and chord name for the tonic and dominant chords. It may be advisable to add a cautionary note about this (or perhaps to add ii and vi in brackets after IV), but there is some danger of making the explanation so complicated that the beginner will give up in exasperation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Rameau's work was introduced to Germany by Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg in 1757, and used Rameau's system to explain the music of Johann Sebastian Bach (Marpurg 1753–54).{{Vague|date=December 2010}}<!--If Marpurg only first introduced Rameau's theories in 1757, how can he already have used them to explain the music of Bach three to four years earlier? (Besides, the 1753–54 treatise is a handbook on fugue, not on harmonic practice.)-->

That's easy. Let's say I haven't yet introduced myself to you. I still know my own name and am able to write my signature. In the same way, if I haven't yet introduced some knowledge to Germany, I am still capable of knowing and using it. Hyacinth (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• The vocabulary of describing notes in relationship to the tonic note, and the use of harmonic progressions and cadences, became part of Bach's practice. Essential to this version of tonal theory are the chorale harmonizations of Bach, and the method by which a church melody is given a four part harmony by first assigning cadences, then creating a natural, or most direct, thoroughbass, and finally filling in the middle voices.{{Citation needed|date=December 2010}}<!--The implication here that Bach adopted and endorsed Rameau's theories is of course ludicrous, but perhaps the rest can be verified somehow.-->

So are we saying that Bach didn't describe notes in relation to the tonic, didn't use chord progressions, and didn't use cadences? Hyacinth (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed this sentence from the opening caption: "This is the strongest cadence type, almost always found at the main formal articulative points" (Benjamin 2003, 284). It's patently untrue. Tony (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Haven't a clue what this means: "the major–minor parallelism: minor v–i–VII–III equals major: iii–vi–V–I; or minor: III–VII–i–v equals major: I–V–vi–iii. The last of these progressions is characterized by "retrograde" harmonic motion." I've copy-edited the typography, but it's still a mystery. Tony (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

These scales are not tonal, so I've removed this paragraph, which is a needless complication so early in the article: "Other important scales include the blues scale, the whole tone scale, the pentatonic scale, and the chromatic scale. As these are not the major or minor diatonic scales, music written exclusively with them is not tonal by the definition above."

This paragraph is weird: "Triads are built primarily from notes of a diatonic scale, or secondarily from chromatic notes treated as variations or embellishments of the basic scale. The identity of the scale is important, as the size of the steps between notes are used to determine the system of chord relationships." Does such foggy complexity need to appear so early in the article? It's hard enough to explain to a wide readership how the system works just within a key; I suggest that this be done first. Tony (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edits so far are exemplary: good work, though there is a much that could still be improved. Regarding your questions, it appears these all appear as quotations from reliable sources (including the one you removed on grounds that it is "patently untrue"). While keeping in mind that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", it does the reader no service at all to quote random sentences from reliable sources without any regard for their comprehensibility. Have you checked the context of the quotations from Dahlhaus that puzzle you, to see whether they could be better explained here? I shall have to look at the edit history to see the context from which you excised the quotation from Benjamin, but it looks as though it refers to the Perfect Authentic Cadence. If that is the case, why do you contend that it is "patently untrue" that such cadences are "almost always found at the main formal articulative points" of a tonal composition?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerome, impressive pedigree I see on your user page! It's a question of balance, and balance right at the summary opening (including that caption at the top) is not served well when one ideology is presented as (the only) truth. I have to say that the British music examination establishment (powerfully and sub-professionaly represented by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music) did enormous damage to our ability to understand harmony by elevating IV to fundamental level, along with the tonic–dominant polarity; the plagal cadence is similarly elevated, without proper explanation to learners, to the status of the perfect cadence. This infection spread throughout the English-speaking world during the 20th century. It deserves to be mentioned, but not to dominate the article at the top through exclusive treatment, whichever source has mouthed it. The modern textbooks such as Aldwell and Schachter, and Forte (regrettably too much to bite off for the suburban music-studio teacher, although ironically they present the basic system more simply) don't go along with this unexplained fog, but talk first and foremost about the V–I polarity, and then about pre-dominant triads (ii, IV, and vi, using the casing for the major mode). If IV is to be elevated to this special status, could there be proof of this from the musical literature? Certainly, later on in the article, the influence of IV in blues-influenced popular music could be treated as a particular type of tonality; but right at the top it just reproduces a fallacy that the tonal system quintessentially relies on I, IV and V, a holy trinity that might resonate with christian symbolism, but not with the acoustical and cultural facts. Tony (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that I understand your objection is not to the characterization of perfect-authentic cadences, but to the inclusion of IV as part of the cadential formula, I am in perfect agreement with your position. I am uncertain whether Benjamin asserts that IV is a part of this cadence, but if he does not, putting that claim in conjunction with the example in question is at least misleading. You do not mention Schenker, who is the major influence behind both Forte and Aldwell-Schachter, and for the last half-century increasingly the dominant paradigm in the American academy. There is now the inevitable backlash, but I do not believe that this has gone so far as to restore IV to its former glory. Keep up the good work.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerome, on the backlash to Schenker ... it's not surprising, since the analytical system claims to do much more than it ends up doing, I think. Nicholas Cooke (A Guide to Musical Analysis) resonates with this take; his account of the messiness of analysing the Tristan overture is marvellous! All the same, my view is that some of Schenker's fundamental observations have transformed our understanding of harmony and compositional technique; for example, prolongation seems obvious in retrospect, for both composer and listener.

But to the task at hand—this article. I wonder what you think about my urge to explain the emergence of tonality better. I'm going to look up Rosen's chapter on tonality in The Classical Style to see if it might be a useful source. Do you know of other good sources on this aspect? Tony (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And then there is the backlash to the backlash to Schenker, and so on. I only meant to put some emphasis on the demotion of the subdominant, with which Schenker had "some issues". The explanation of the "emergence of tonality" could indeed be bette explained, but the topic is really two topics: the emergence of tonality in the musical literature, and the emergence of the concept of tonality in the history of music theory. I am not sure which of these is in more urgent need of care here. I had something to do with revising the part on the history of theory (though this is just about my least favourite period in the subject), when I first came across this article five years ago or so. I recall feeling hampered somewhat at the time by another editor who had some peculiar ideas about referencing (the artifacts are still there, in that editorial note about "sources" vs "references"). It seemed better to follow the path of least resistance and I did not put up as much of a fight as I might have done. As a result, the history of theory part is still awfully ragged. As for the history of the music literature itself, there is nothing at all about this in the current version, but a huge amount of literature out there. I'm not sure where I would start, but this aspect interests me much more than the early history of the theory of tonality. Which of these areas were you most concerned about?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is very ambiguous and undefined. Example of the excessive indulgence of Wikipedia "writers" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"in which each the root of each triad has a tonal function in relation to the tonic.."

grammar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2014

---

Although Fétis used it as a general term for a system of musical organization and spoke of types de tonalités rather than a single system, today the term is most often used to refer to major–minor tonality

---

In the New Grove "tonality" in the broad sense is mentioned as actual. This 'broad' tonality (in a Fétis sense) is (according to B.Hyer, the author of the article of this renown encyclopedia) applied to any music of any region (slendro, plainchant, raga etc.). Moreover, it is the 1st in a row of definitions given by Hyer. Just have a look. Olorulus (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To be sure, but after his list of seven other usages (and Brian Hyer leaves out several dubious senses widely employed in the popular press), his sense h states: "Perhaps the most common use of the term, then, in either its noun or adjective forms, is to designate the arrangement of musical phenomena around a referential tonic in European music from about 1600 to about 1910", and he goes on to specify the major-minor tonal system. Sometimes, writers save the most important thing for last; when they do this (as in this case), it suggests the first thing in the list may in fact be the least important. Still, they should not be entirely ignored, nor perhaps (always supposing, of course, that reliable sources can be found) should be the informal senses of, for example, "music that I like" or "music without dissonance" or—to paraphrase the [Abbey#Crawley family|Dowager Countess of Grantham]—"where each musician knows what the others are playing".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious how your treatment of the broad sense tonality as 'the least important' thing would correlate with the mentioning of the discussed meaning directly in the definition section of the 'Tonality' article (before the row begins) by Hyer:

One of the main conceptual categories in Western musical thought, the term most often refers to the orientation of melodies and harmonies towards a referential (or tonic) pitch class. In the broadest possible sense, however, it refers to systematic arrangements of pitch phenomena and relations between them. Olorulus (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

PS. I'm not inside the conversational usage of English-speaking musicology. Just wanted to be sure that the 'broadest meaning' which is positioned at the very top of the famous English-speaking dictionary, is really obsolete and 'the least important'. If not (the fact I cannot really evaluate being a non-native speaker), then this broad sense meaning should not be marked with caution just as 'Fétis usage', as the current WP article clearly implies. That's why my comments. Olorulus (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The "broadest sense" of a term is not necessarily the most usual, and is almost always the least precise. In some cases, it may be best to regard the broadest sense as the primary or most-commonly understood one. In this case, however, I believe that this would be futile, since what you cite describes all music using pitches, whether there is a referential tonic or not—that is, so-called atonal music (by definition the absence of tonality) would also be included. I believe it is in this sense that Schoenberg objected to the term "atonal", which he claimed could apply only to music without tones. Of course, these alternative definitions ought to be included somewhere in the article (and their marginal or problematic aspects made clear), and perhaps even the polemical senses I mentioned above (as when a music reviewer really is saying, "music that I find repulsive but cannot be bothered to explain why"). Having reviewed the article in light of your comments, I see that these senses are scarcely mentioned, if at all. Let us see what we can do to rectify this situation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't want to interfere in serious editing because of limitations of my English. Such edits should be done by a native-speaker, this is my point.

As for your anecdotic 'sense' parallels above, I don't think they are relevant. The sense which used Choron/Fétis (as also other French 19-th c. theorists, btw) and then inherited in the English ('the broadest possible') 'tonality', exists (and quite actual) in both German and Russian theory, incorporated there, accordingly, in 'Tonart' (consider e.g. 'Kirchentonarten', the most influential 'Tonarten der klassischen Polyphonie' by B.Meier, 'griechische Tonarten' and many other Tonarten-instances outside "B-dur und b-moll") and (Russian) 'лад'. So the problem, as I see it, actually in fact that there is no one English word which would comprise both modal and tonal pitch organizations, that's why this dearth is partially filled up through (clumsy and confusing usage of) 'tonality' marked by Hyer as the term 'in the broadest sense'. Olorulus (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• And if such a wide definition is used, tonality becomes synonymous with music. I don't see that this is appropriate given the full range of sources, and I don't see the value for our readers. Tony (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Music is not only the 'systematic arrangment of pitches' (Hyer). It also contains rhythm, form and many other things, which are not at all covered by 'tonality in the broadest sense'. Olorulus (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe you will find that form, at least, can be argued as being primarily a creation of pitch relations in a composition (Heinrich Schenker took this view, for example). If all types of pitch relations are subsumed under the heading of 'tonality', then form can be also. Rhythm is another issue, of course, but there are theorists who have argued (e.g., Karlheinz Stockhausen, in "... Wie die Zeit vergeht&nbsp..." and "Die Einheit der musikalischen Zeit", and Bernd Alois Zimmermann in "Intervall und Zeit") that pitch and rhythm are merely different parts of the same acoustical continuum: namely, duration (i.e., musical time).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I insist, I cannot judge about the discussed usage, because I am not inside the English-speaking 'musicological' world. My view is just an external view of an observer. Look, this broad meaning is not in the 1980 'tonality' article of NGD 1980, and it appeared first in NGD 2001 (just compare two articles), as the German author was replaced by the American one (of course, Dahlhaus could not use this word 'in the broadest sense', because 'Tonart' and 'Tonalität' are not the same things in German! and there is no way to translate this crucal difference into English!). And later this 'broadest' meaning was reproduced in the fundamental 'Cambridge history of the Western music theory'. So I thought, the meaning we are discussing is not 'the least important' (as you implied), nor it is 'obsolete'. But again, it is up to your responsibility as a musicologist, who is inside, to decide, whether both NGD and Cambridge fundamental 'History' should be ignored as the sources of the 'least important things'. Olorulus (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Dahlhaus 1990,[page needed]

---

Carl Dahlhaus should be placed earlier in this listing. His famous book had been published in 1968, based on the Habilitationsschrift "Untersuchungen über die Entstehung der harmonischen Tonalität" which appeared even earlier (Kiel 1966). Also, the editorial request mark 'page needed' is evidently absurd to anyone who saw the work (where 'Tonalität' occurs on almost every page including the title of this most valuable book). Olorulus (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Certainly Dahlhaus should be mentioned before David Cope, though there is currently no indication in this article that Dahlhaus's book existed prior to 1990 (even knowing that he died in 1989, it might be assumed it was his last book, already in the press at the time of his demise). It was I who placed the "page needed" request, now some years ago, but I have never seen the book in question, and so could not know that Dahlhaus confirms on every single page of his book that the term was "The term tonalité originated with Alexandre-Étienne Choron (1810) and was borrowed by François-Joseph Fétis in 1840", and that tonality is "typified in the compositional formulae of the 16th [sic] and early 17th centuries". However, I shall have to see the book with my own eyes before I can accept that this astonishing fact is true, even for an obsessive-compulsive German musicologist.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed Dahlhaus from the authorities of 'borrowers', because he thought that tonalité (used by Choron and lots of other French theorists that time) had been 'coined' by Castil-Blaze. The valuable book of Dahlhaus 1968 (published in English after the author's death) is not at all the source of the dramatic problem 'who borrowed from whom'. Olorulus (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The critical thing here, I think, is that according to your edit, Dahlhaus believed the term was not coined (or "originated", which is the same thing) until 1821, by Castil-Blaze—eleven years after the four other sources say Choron did it. This is a very curious discrepancy.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that this is really "critical". Dahlhaus represents in his article not a 'personal view', but a trivial view which dominated for decades. Just look around, check (first of all) Germans. But I don't insist on that (very persistent for years) view. You can delete it. It's mere nothing compared to the crucial issue: who was essential in the development of the tonality concept (and Choron was definitely not among such developers, well, he was not a scholar at all). Olorulus (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

First one: "Tonality functions "locally", in the mid-range"—what does that mean? Tony (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Second one, which I've partly fixed ... triads are the building blocks of the tonal system, not tones. I've removed two references to "the root of" at the opening. The pre-tonal church modes might be better described as built on tones, as opposed to triads. Tony (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

First one: That sentence mystifies me, as well. It sounds like someone is trying to make the distinction between the Schenkerian "foreground" and "middleground", but lacks the vocabulary. Even supposing that this is the intention, substituting the Schenkerian terminology would require explaining it first, and then there would have to be a lot of heavy shovel work repairing this badly misconstrued description.

Second one: Yes, good work, it is much better.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Fétis considered tonalité moderne as "trans-tonic order" (having one established key, and allowing for modulation to other keys)

---

In fact, Fétis differentiated 3 phases (stages) of tonalité moderne: ordre transitonique was only the 'transitional stage' (Monteverdi); the later stages -- ordre pluritonique (Mozart, Rossini etc.) and ordre omnitonique (Berlioz, Wagner) -- also belong to the tonalité moderne, Generally, "Traité complet" represents the first in the history diachronic view of the Western tonality, this is important. Olorulus (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure; perhaps we need to sequester this kind of stuff into a section on the theoretical history of tonality. Tonality is a complicated topic already, and I fear that this article will become diffuse. Tony (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The article presently has a separate section for this. Are you suggesting that it should be split off into an article of its own? To Olorulus's point: it is not strictly true that Fétis was the first to present a diachronic view of Western tonality, though it may be argued that he was the first to do so in a thorough manner. I just yesterday added a sentence on Choron, who discusses tonalité moderne as a diachronic process, with particular reference to Monteverdi as a starting point, and the Neapolitan School as its full crystallization. As a matter of fact, in other sections of Choron's essay he discusses the development of earlier tonalités, from the Ancient Greeks down to his own time, as well as making passing references to systems of tonal organization in non-European cultures.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

---

The term tonalité originated with Alexandre-Étienne Choron (1810) and was borrowed by François-Joseph Fétis in 1840 (Judd 1998a, 5)

---

Colleague, just have a look in the book! I hesitate that you read it, really. Prof. Judd never wrote about the fact you want to ascribe to her authority. She didn't even mention Choron (as your reference falsely implies). Olorulus (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC) PS. I uploaded p.5 from the discussed article by Judd; in case an editor might have a limited access to the book, she/he can check there. Olorulus (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

One tricky thing about references is that, in order to avoid clutter, they are conventionally collected together in groups at the end of a paragraph or sentence. This means that various claims contained in that paragraph may be separately confirmed by different sources. In the present case, the passage in question is not exclusively about Choron. It also mentions, for example, Fétis. Judd addresses Fétis, and confirms at least part of what is said about him in the preceding sentence (namely, that he used the term later, but did not originate it). Clear now?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There are two different agruments which you mixed. First: 'Fétis was the most influential scholar, he developed the concept of tonalité though (parenthetically, in a note) he didn't coin the word as is'. This is what Prof. Judd said (see the Judd's article attached as PDF). Second: 'Fétis has borrowed the term tonalité from Choron'. This is what implies your edit. This is incorrect. Olorulus (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Here and in the next thread I find myself agreeing with Jerome. Olorulus, en.WP tends to be quite fussy about how sources are treated. Tony (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is up to you to leave it as is. It seems to me that a reader's profit should be higher of all other arguments. I just wanted not to confuse a reader who would insert Prof. Judd in a row of other scholars directly accusing Fétis of a miserable plagiate. The thing she really never did. Olorulus (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

PS. Btw, I really doubt that Réti also wrote about 'Fétis borrowing from Choron', he is not just the scholar of such 'format'. Unfortunately I can't get access to the original book of him so far, but I'll check it definitely. Olorulus (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't understant the request for 'better source for claim' of different meanings of German 'Tonart' and 'Tonalität'. Also, what did you mean with your request of Reichert's exact page? The title of Reichert's article itself plainly implies the difference of terms. In short: 'Tonart' is used for all possible 'systematic arrangements of pitches', while 'Tonalität' is used mainly as synonym for 'Dur-Moll-Tonalität' (or Dalhaus' 'harmonische Tonalität'). Do you really want me to prove this? May I ask you, for the start, to read 'Tonart' and 'Tonalität' in German WP for the further (and maybe more competent) discussion of the point you requested. Olorulus (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but my German is actually reasonably good. I can assure you that the title of Reichert's article, "Tonart und Tonalität in der älteren Musik", though certainly problematic to render into English, cannot be translated as "All Possible 'Systematic Arrangements of Pitches', and 'Major/Minor Tonality' in Old Music". The claim this article is being used to support is that "two different German words "Tonart" and "Tonalität" have been translated as "tonality" although they are not the same words in German". Where exactly does Reichert explain (1) that they are different (admittedly, this is self-evident), but, more importantly, (2) what that difference is? He certainly does not do so in his title.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My edit in WP didn't imply that the title of Reichert's title should be translated either as 'All Possible Systematic Arrangements of Pitches' or as 'Major/Minor Tonality in Early Music'. The Reichert's article is simply one clear example of miriads of other German articles which use 'Tonalität' and 'Tonart' differently. As I already said (see above), 'Tonart' is applied to lots of pitch systems ('system' means systematic arrangement, logical organisation of pitches and their interrelations in the composition of music) as well as to the major-minor tonality (I gave examples of such usage above but you ignored them), while 'Tonalität' is principally applied to the major-minor tonality (but not only to this kind of tonality, see Schönberg's handbook for other usages). In English there is no way to render this semantic difference. The word 'Tonart' is often translated as 'tonality' (see Power's most influential 'Mode' article and lots of other instances) in a 'broad sense' which is fixed at the very first paragraph of the encyclopedic article 'Tonality' by Hyer (in 2001 and again, with minor but essential edits, in the authoritative 'Cambridge History...', 2002). If you understand this, then, please, edit my text, just do me a favour (I asked you about it 100 times before), because English is not my native language, so you would render the text certainly in the manner, that no one reader would ever imply that German 'Tonart und Tonalität in der älteren Musik' I tend to translate as 'All possible systematic arrangement of pitches' (as you might understand it). Olorulus (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

All of this is perfectly true, of course. It is not a matter of correctly rendering it in English ("pitch system" is a perfectly reasonable translation of Tonart, for example—there is nothing in your translation to correct). Rather, it is a question of providing a source that verifies all of this. Otherwise, it is just your interpretation, or mine. This is Original Research.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits of my modest contribution. But... there is no one 'source, that verifies all of this'. To do so, we should devote much more space in the article to exemplification of German noun 'Tonart' vs. English 'Mode/Tonality' fork, e.g., by giving alternative English translations (sometimes 'mode', sometimes 'tonality') of German primary and secondary sources, side by side. The same is true for adjective 'tonal': I mean, 'Tonartentyp' is sometimes translated as 'modal type', sometimes as 'tonal type'. So... please consider the fact that such 'verifications' would make the material of 'Tonality' article complicated for an average reader of WP and would seriously (due to citations) extend its size. Do you really want this? Olorulus (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is precisely the point. In English, as in the parallel German and French examples, the word "tonal" refers back to the concept of "tone". As a result, it becomes necessary to take into account the fact that such expressions as "tonal relation" may refer in this context simply to the acoustical relationship of (for example) the 23rd to the 11th overtones of a common fundamental. When we move from the relative precision of such arithmetic relationships to the less precise realm of mere language … well, you must see what I mean. "Tonality" at this point becomes meaningless. I do not think that the purpose of an article like this is to explain to the reader that the term is in fact meaningless.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No no, the point which I touched has nothing to do with acoustical/arithmetical meanings of 'tone'. The problem which is not a bit 'phanthom' nor 'meaningless' and widely practiced in the English-speaking musicology is what Sarah Fuller clearly defined in the Judd's collection of articles 1998: "In English, the adjective 'tonal' carries weighly associations of hierarchy in which one pitch or sonority dominates over others and controls scale configuration or matrices of relationships" (see p.61). In German, however, 'Tonartentyp' (which is rendered often as 'tonal type') doesn't necessarily contain this 'hierarchic' connotation. This is my point. And this is not to exemplify in an WP article with one source. Olorulus (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You are certainly wrong if you believe that the word "tonal" in English carries only an association of hierarchy. Certainly it can (as your citation from Fuller asserts), but whether or not this association is intended depends on context. The expression "tonal relation" is a good example since it is often used to describe the relationships amongst notes in a twelve-tone row, or amongst notes in an atonal musical context generally. As for translating the German Tonart, this is indeed problematic. One alternative English translation, particularly used in discussions of modal theory, is "melody type".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Another example to consider is the influential book of Hermelink's 'Dispositiones modorum. Tonarten...', the matter of which is clearly polyphonic incarnation of modus (this should be English mode, isn't it?). Now consider that Powers (and many his successors) render 'Tonartentyp' as tonal [type] meaning combination of uncorrelated modal types and tonal categories in an early '16th century tonality'. You cannot ignore this trend. I don't really think that this meaning is really marginal. To my view, on the contrary, it becomes more and more popular in the English-speaking musicology. Olorulus (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

PS. Certainly I heard 'tonal relation' word combination. But I'm not sure that 'tonal type', 'tonal coherence', 'tonal structure' -- terms widely represented in modern English-speaking literature -- are in the same 'epistemological' row where 'tonal relations' reside. Olorulus (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but aren't we losing sight of something rather important here? Is this article really meant to be explaining developments and debates in musicology, or is it meant to explain the basics of what tonality (and not "tonal" this and "tonal" that) actually is supposed to be? Consider the poor innocent reader who arrives at this article because he hopes to learn what the term means, and instead finds himself caught up in a swirling storm of terminological distinctions and disagreements.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right. That's why I placed 'my' section at the very bottom of the article, for those curious readers who are interested not only in the music of the 'common-practice era'. 06:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

PS. Btw, 'tonal relations' is a translation of Tonbeziehungen, while 'tonal type' is from Tonartentyp (there is no 'Tontyp'). Do you see the difference? Olorulus (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I would have to be either blind or ignorant of German not to see the difference. However, it is important to realize that in English the expression "tonal relations" is not used exclusively for translating German. This can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings about the meaning of the English adjective "tonal", which need not have anything to do with "tonality". Do you not see the difference?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

'Tonal relations' was your example, not mine. This is obviously not from the 'epistemological row' shown above in this Talk (btw, you can add to word combinations 'tonal markers' and 'tonal focus' widely used by musicologists studying 'extended' tonality), nor it belongs to the context of the article 'Tonality', nor to the prevailed meaning of an adjective 'tonal' which is described by a recognized scholar of the early music, Prof. Fuller (see her citation above). But if you find the context of the discussed section still unclear, please, add your 'tonal relations' and explain it in your native language, to avoid confusing. You would do it definitely better than I can. Olorulus (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

---

According to Choron, this pattern, which he called tonalité moderne, distinguished modern music's harmonic organization from that of earlier [pre 17th century] music, including "tonalité des Grecs" (ancient Greek modes) and "tonalité ecclésiastique" (plainchant), which Choron generally called tonalité antique (Brown 2005, xiii; Choron 1810, xxxvii–xl; Hyer 2001).

---

On the page xiii of Brown 2005 there is nothing about Choron's generalization of early tonal types as tonalité antique. I also didn't find this term in the (voluminous) Choron's preface. For those who added this edit, may I ask for a precise page of Choron's article with the tonalité antique. Olorulus (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, what Brown says on his p. xiii is that the word "tonalité" was "First coined by Alexandre-Étienne Choron in his 'Sommaire de l’histoire de la musique' (1810), it was popularized by François-Joseph Fétis in the 1830s and 1840s". This is from the beginning of the paragraph in question, and I have now moved the citation there, and duplicated it again in the following paragraph, where it inhibits the readability of both sentences. This is intended as a temporary illustration of why we do not place citations at each and every word they support in a paragraph, but rather collect them together at the end. If you have a complaint that none of the citations (including the one by Choron himself) support the claim that he uses the term "tonalité antique", then please use {{Cn}} or {{Failed verification}}, with an editorial note explaining what requires verification. It is not acceptable to delete a citation simply because it does not verify everything in a paragraph.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. As I saw the reference, I tried to locate the 'tonalité antique' by Brown, Choron and Hyer (to whom the references clearly pointed). This was immediate behaviour of an interested reader who would like just to trace genesis of some scholar thought or a word (in this case, there is an interesting term which reveals an attempt of generalization of pitch systems' history). Olorulus (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it is Hyer who attributes the expression 'tonalité antique' to Choron, but I thought it best to delete it, since it does not actually occur in the French source (perhaps it is found in the 1825 English translation, but I do not have access to it).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If I may belatedly add my five cents, Choron indeed never uses the expression tonalité antique; he does however write of the tonalité des Grecs, from which, he adds, derived the ecclesiastic tonality. This is page xxxvij of his Introduction. Sommaire de l'histoire de la musique. In Sainsbury's translation (1827), it becomes "the tones of the Greek [...], from which were derived the ecclesiastical tones". Brown (2005) obviously should never have been quoted as an authority on this: he hardly mentions Choron in passing, and this is not the subject of his book.

According to Hyer in the Cambridge History of Western Music Theory (p. 726, note 1), the expression tonalité antique is found in Choron's translation of Albrechtsberger Grundliche Anweisung (Méthode élémentaire, 1814, p. 18). The attribution of this term to Choron, therefore, is not mistaken, but the attribution to his text of 1810 is. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank you for clearing up this detail.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Define central triad. Is it the same as the tonic triad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:BD88:CCEF:1D4:9744 (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"The tonal system prevalent in the common-practice period is often known as major-minor tonality, in which each triad has a tonal function in relation to the tonic triad and with other triads in the key."

The term tonal function is redundant. It refers to the tonalsyatem. Too many hands in the kitchen on Wikipedia trying to show off their writing skills. It ends up to be ambiguous and wordy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:BD88:CCEF:1D4:9744 (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Independent of the very appropriate comments that other readers did, there is a basic concept that requires to be clearly founded and explained: The physically origin of the major and minor chords, an issue of acoustics and not of the music.Pef890 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "physical origin" of chords?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't dared to read the article properly for years. It was in an appalling state when last I visited. Pef, I presume you're referring to the derivation of the major triad from the overtone series. Should be mentioned in the article. Tony (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And if this is so, then is the "physical origin" of the minor triad the "undertone series"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Jerome, I don't understand the relevance of "undertone series". Tony (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If the major triad is derived from the overtone series (that is, proportions of 4:5:6, producing an ascending major followed by a minor third, combining to form a perfect fifth), the minor triad requires the same proportions in descending order. This cannot be found anywhere in the overtone series, and so there has often been hypothesized an "undertone series" which, unlike the overtone series, does not occur in natural acoustics. It is therefore the biggest stumbling block to the theory of "natural origin" of the major-minor tonal system.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Benward & Saker talk of tones; this, I believe, is misleading. Tonality—at least that practised between the 16th and 19th centuries, as the article says—is based on a central triad. In that respect, it differs from the earlier systems based on the tones of the church modes. Tony (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but keep in mind that (as the article explains) the term "tonality" has got eight distinct, though partly overlapping senses. The one you invoke here (the most common, it is true) is sense 8 in the list or tonality₈, for short. This does indeed differ from tonality₄, which is essentially if not entirely exclusively a melodically organized system, in which triads are largely irrelevant. The eight "modes" (as they are most often called today) were usually termed "tones" in the 8th to 17th centuries, and the systems they involve are therefore called (not only up to 19th-century theorists like Choron and Fétis, but even today) "tonalities". I suspect this is what Benward & Saker are referring to, though I do not own a copy of the book to verify this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Eight meanings is just one person's opinion. The more "meanings" this article treats thematically (rather than just paying them lip-service to avoid WP:UNDUE weight), the more it becomes bland porridge. I think that highly significant paragraph needs more than one source, anyway. Tony (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, eight senses is a summary of the usage of hundreds or even thousands of writers on the subject. I encourage you to actually read Brian Hyer's New Grove article (I extend this invitation also to User:Hyacinth, who has insisted, in at least one case rightly, that more extensive quotations from Hyles be added to the summary list of points I distilled from this article.) If you really believe that New Grove is an insignificant source in music references, then I would like to hear more of your argument on this and about why it should be disregarded under WP:UNDUE. I also strongly suggest that you read the cited articles on rock music by Burns, Everett, and Moore, before you jump to the conclusion that tonality is a single thing, across all time and space. This once-popular view has been discredited as Euro-centrism (amongst other things) for nearly a century now. Wikipedia readers deserve better than to be hurled back into 19th-century parochialism.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to ask User:Hucbald.SaintAmand for his opinions on this subject, as well as other members of the music-theory Wikiproject, to which this article ought to be of the utmost concern.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This article indeed should be a major concern of the members of the music-theory project, and I feel somewhat guilty not to have seen it before Jerome Kohl's mention of my name in the previous sentence resulted in a warning sent to me by Wikipedia. [I say this mainly because it stresses the importance of mentioning people through a proper WP reference.] In general, the article as it is (I read it only cursorily) does not appear so bad to me, probably mainly somewhat disorgarnized. But I presume that, for the time being, Jerome is asking my opinion about the few points made in this particular section of the talk page.

On the matter of the physical origin of the major and minor triads, the matter seems quite clear to me, even although it may never have been presented as I think it should. The origin of the triads is consonance. To say this displaces the problem towards the question of the definition of consonance. If we agree that the consonant intervals in the chromatic scale are the thirds, fourth, fifth, sixths and octave (a point about which musicians seem to have agreed in the common practice period), two conclusions follow: (1) there is no possibility to combine more than three different notes in a fully consonant combination (chords of four different notes necessarily include at least one dissonant intervals); (2) the only possible combinations of three notes to form a consonant combination are the major and minor triads, in any of their inversions. After that, one may question the physical origin of the consonance, which would lead to a consideration of the harmonic series. But there is no reason to question whether overtones can explain the minor triad: of course they can, since they can explain the consonance of the minor third. To view the major triad as originating in harmonics 4, 5 and 6 (or 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) is a naivity: consonances arise from a blending of harmonic series, not in a choice of only a few harmonic overtones of only one of the tones under consideration. There is no reason why a single harmonic series should explain a combination of three notes, each with its own series of overtones.

On the matter of the organization of te article as a whole, leave me more time to consider it. I am somewhat surprized at the idea that "tonality" has eight senses (that many? only eight?), but I think that considering seperate documented senses might be a good way to organize the article. More about that as soon as possible. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Hucbald, for joining the discussion. The article structure certainly needs re-thinking, but one of the most glaring problems at present is the section titled Tonality outside common-practice period, for the simple reason that there is already a discussion of the history of tonality which covers much of the same ground. This section also contains material that is irrelevant to the question of being either in or out of the common-practice period (Arabic maqamat, for example). The period-specific material should probably be moved to the historical discussion, and the section re-named to cover the use of the term with application to non-Western musics.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Grove Dictionary, I think I recall, defines tonality chronologically within what seems to be called the common practice period (I've never been happy with that term). Tony (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that by "Grove Dictionary" you mean Brian Hyer's article in New Grove 2, the outline is:

Tonality

1. Usage.

2. Rhetoric.

3. Theory.

4. Practice.

(i) Renaissance to Baroque.

(ii) The Classical period.

(iii) The Romantic period.

5. Historiography.

Section 4, then, is arranged chronologically, but embedded in a larger design. The "usage" section deals with the things that do not easily fall into an historical (or diachronic) account, such as the application of the idea of "tonality" to non-European musics. This synchronic issue, I think, is something that we ought to keep in mind.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

At any rate I must say that the statement "The noun "tonality" and adjective "tonal" are widely applied also, in studies of early Western music and in non-Western traditional music (Arabic maqam, ...)" needs qualification, to say the least. At the very time when I write this, I am in one of the maqamic countries, trying to bring to some of the local music students the good word of Schenkerian analysis. We did discuss the extent to which the tonal centricity in the maqam could be described as expressing a "tonality", and we agreed that it could be done only in a very stretched meaning of the term. To say that "tonality" and "tonal" are widely used in the study of maqam seems to me quite exagerated. I cannot easily check Brian Hyer in the NG from here: it will have to wait until next week. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it need not wait so long. From what you say I suspect you are assuming that Hyer is claiming that rules of Western functional tonality are being forced on the Arabic tonal—oops, I mean pitch system. He is not. Here is the direct quotation covering his first two senses:

It is nevertheless possible to sort uses of the term into two basic categories, corresponding to its noun and adjective forms, and while its noun forms suggest a greater degree of abstraction and therefore tend to be more controversial, in practice the two forms often converge:

(a) As an adjective, the term is often used to describe the systematic organization of pitch phenomena in both Western and non-Western music. Tonal music in this sense includes music based on, among other theoretical structures, the eight ecclesiastical modes of medieval and Renaissance liturgical music, the sléndro and pélog collections of Indonesian gamelan music, the modal nuclei of Arabic maqām, the scalar peregrinations of Indian rāga, the constellation of tonic, dominant and subdominant harmonies in the theories of Rameau, the paired major and minor scales in the theories of Gottfried Weber, or the 144 basic transformations of the 12-note row (Perle thus refers to his complexes of interrelated row forms as ‘twelve-tone tonalities’: Twelve-Tone Tonality, D1977).

(b) As a noun, then, the term is sometimes used as an equivalent for what Rousseau called a sistême musicale, a rational and self-contained arrangement of musical phenomena: accordingly, Sainsbury, who had Choron translated into English in 1825, rendered the first occurrence of tonalité as a ‘system of modes’ before matching it with the neologism ‘tonality’. While tonality qua system constitutes a theoretical (and thus imaginative) abstraction from actual music, it is often hypostatized in musicological discourse, converted from a theoretical structure into a musical reality. In this sense, it is understood as a Platonic form or prediscursive musical essence that suffuses music with intelligible sense, which exists before its concrete embodiment in music, and can thus be theorized and discussed apart from actual musical contexts.

I hope this will help in the process of correcting my poor attempts to condense this material to a more easily understood form.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your quotations evidence an ambiguity that (a) may be inherent in the English language and (b) certainly is not clarified by Hyer. The ambiguity is whether the noun form corresponding to the adjective "tonal" is "tone" or "tonality". The usages quoted by Hyer under (a) obviously use "tonal" in reference to "tones", or pitches, while those under (b) relate "tonal" with "tonality". This does not solve the question whether there is some level of "tonality" in the Arabic maqam, a question that I think is worth raising. [My first concern was with the expression "widely applied".]

To illustrate the ambiguity, let me mention this: Schenker often mentions a concept which I consider basic to his theories (see Schenkerian analysis), that of Tonraum. Ernst Oster translated it as "tone space", and this translation has gained general acceptance among American Schenkerians. I do believe, however, that what Schenker really meant is "the space of tonality"(the space within which tonality unfolds), and I would therefore always translate as "tonal space" — which does not fully remove the ambiguity, but at least modifies the general orientation.

I trust that such considerations might rightly find their way into the WP article, as they would help clarify Hyer's categories. But that too will have to wait... (or be dealt with by someone else). — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I now got time to have a first look at the article. The problem appears to arise from the very start, from the "lead", which fails to clearly state what the article is about. No further organization is possible, I think, if the purpose is not made clear from the start. I don't know yet how to organize that, but let me make a few general proposals.

• "Tonality" is mainly about what we will have to define as "common practice tonality". This apparently is one of the earliest specific meanings of the term. Common practice tonality seems to me inseparable from harmony; but I reckon that this is something we might discuss.
• "Tonality" has one very much more restricted sense, as (quasi) synonym of "key", denoting one specified category within a more general system of the same name. This particular sense connotes one characteristic of the more general sense: tonality in the sense of common practice is a system that can be described as consisting in a certain number (typically 24, see Bach's WTC) of categories in the restricted sense.
• "Tonality" also has more general senses, linked with the more general meaning of the term as "relating to tones", in which "tone" means a pitch (Greek tonos, a tuned string): tonality is a general organization of pitches within a unified system. It is in this sense that Schoenberg (and Perle, as discussed in Pitt 1995) tends to challenge or reject the word "atonal". It is also in this sense that Dahlhaus, in NG 1 (and elsewhere) argued about the existence of a "melodic tonality", e.g. in the Middle Ages.
• One essential aspect of common practice tonality (and of several of the more general senses, and of much if not all of what we might define as "extended common practice tonalities", e.g. jazz or popular musics) is that of "tonal centricity". Other recent styles that could as well be said "atonal" may have a "tonality" defined by internal symmetries instead of centricity.

These different aspects seem connoted by the quotations presently forming the lead, but it is a very shy idea to present such concepts, which deserve explanation, merely under the cover of (often unclear) quotations. The lead could further discuss the possible links between Tonality properly speaking and Modality on the one hand, Atonality on the other. Modality is at present defined in the disambiguation Mode article as "a system of musical tonality involving a type of scale coupled with a set of characteristic melodic behaviors" and, in the Mode (music) article, more simply as "a type of scale, coupled with a set of characteristic melodic behaviours." (I for one would hardly endorse any of these definitions.) And Atonality is defined mainly with reference to the lack of centricity: "music that lacks a tonal center, or key."

We might also discuss in the lead the origin and early meanings of the term, both in French and in English, but that might better be reserved to one of the first sections of the article, on the history of the term. The term certainly is in Choron, but in a rather general meaning. It probably gained some specificity through Castil-Blaze and Fétis; but it had been prepared by other terms, such as "octave" (as in "règle de l'octave"), or "modulation". I should probably be able to untangle some or this. I won't be able on the other hand to discuss the earliest usages in English: Webster Online says 1838, but Etymonline says 1824 – both are quite early after Choron!

Tell me what you think. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In general, I like your suggestions for reorganization. There are some things about the (recent) history of this article, and especially the lede, of which you are evidently unaware. These explain (but do not excuse) the present state of it. You may wish to review the edit history covering the past two or three months. This history also points to a problem with one of your suggestions, which is that the lede is not (according to Wikipedia practices) the place to introduce material that is not discussed already in the article itself. I am not saying that basics should not be introduced there, only that the place to start re-writing should be with the body of the article and its structure. It should be from this that decisions are made about what needs to be presented in the lede, not the other way around.

I agree with special emphasis that "'Tonality' is mainly about what we will have to define as 'common practice tonality'", but here we come to a critical weakness thaI have been unable to resolve with a single source and, as you know, it is a ticklish business on Wikipedia to start putting different sources together without running afoul of the accusation of "unwarranted sysnthesis". Although it seems to me that the strict definition of common-practice tonality involves a number of imperatives, I find that some sources mention (for example) the leading tone and major dominant chord, while others mention the necessary use of triads with the presence of the third of the chord, and still others demand the presence of pre-dominant–dominant–tonic function, but no one reliable source combines them all. Worse, when it comes to the entire category of voice-leading, the imperatives here are inevitably treated in a context that assumes "everybody knows" what functional harmony is. I hope I am wrong about this, and it only seems to be a problem because I have just not looked in the right places, but elementary textbooks (such as Benward & Saker) necessarily gloss over a great deal in order not to swamp the beginner in technicalities, while more advanced writing tends to assume that fundamentals are well understood and do not wish to insult their readers by explaining the obvious.

It seems to me that these very basic issues need to be addressed before moving on to discussing the contributions of Choron, Fétis, Riemann, or Dahlhaus, let alone the various ways in which the term "tonality" is used that exceed or violate outright the strict definition of common-practice functional harmony.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In regards to your statement about a single source/unwarranted synthesis, I think a good place to start from is Brian Hyer's article on Tonality in the Cambridge History of Western Music Theory. He outlines very clearly the various forms that the word "tonality" has come to mean over time. I don't think any of it is all that contentious and it would offer a good starting point for this article. If we are actually serious about a revision, it might be best to think about taking his eight or so definitions and synthesize that into something a bit more concise and structure the article based on those various meanings of the word. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried reviewing the recent history of the article, but it proves an impossible task; besides, I can easily suspect where the problems came from. My suggestions did not point to a rewriting of the lead, but to what it might look like in the end – they also reflected a possible organization of the article as a whole.

We do agree, I think, that "common practice tonality" should occupy a central position in the article. We do not need to propose a synthesized theory: this is an encyclopedy article, not a pedagogical textbook; for the same reason, I think we should quote the theories themselves, whenever possible, not their avatar in a textbook. On the contrary, we should list theories and try to classify them in categories. Dmitri Tymoczko wrote a paper [1] in which he describes and comments three categories of tonal theories:

• Root-motion theories, for which he quotes Rameau, Schoenberg, Sadaï and Meeus, to whom might perhaps be added Tymoczko himself. Lewin and Lendvai have also been mentioned in this context.
• Scale-degree theories, which he traces to Vogler and Weber, for which he quotes Kotska & Payne. These theories are mainly Viennese, as is well known, and were taught by Sechter, Bruckner, Schoenberg and Schenker, before they passed to the US (e.g. Walter Piston). They are now widely accepted in Western Europe as well.
• Function theories, which he says "descend from Riemann (1893)" but which may be considered more generally German, with several of Riemann's contemporaries and followers (including those who rejected Riemann's dualism). Such theories remain active in Germany and Eastern Europe.

This seems to me to offer an interesting overview of tonal theories – even if Tymoczko's description is somewhat biased (his article is now ten years old). I think that most existing theories of common practice tonality can be linked to one or another of these three categories (or possibly several; Rameau could figure in all three). One might discover a fourth category, but I am not aware of it at this point. At any rate, I would find it more effective to classify theories in this type of categories, rather than chronologically. This also indirectly makes a point about which one might disagree, but which I think essential: tonality, in my opinion, is a matter of theory. It cannot be discussed merely as a fact, as a phenomenon, it must be discussed as a theoretical construct. Otherwise, we would soon reach in unsolvable problems all reducing to oppositions between contradictory "truths". (If we agree on this position, it might be wise to state it somewhere in the article.)

Some points may be discussed separately, for instance the question whether tonality has its origin in nature (the harmonic series), or in human physiology, or in human psychology. Here again, the point in an encyclopedy is to list existing theories, not to synthesize them. And of course, after having discussed common practice tonality, the article should turn to other senses of the term.

But let's first agree or disagree on the above. Does Wikipedia offer any means of beginning the rewriting in some sort of "sandbox" somewhere? I presume one might use one of our personal sandboxes, but can anyone write in someone's sandbox? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like a splendid start. I certainly endorse starting from Tymoczko's three-part model. In the past, I have worked with editing other users' sandboxes so, yes, that is a workable method. I suppose that etiquette demands an invitation to do so, but there is no barrier to editing in anyone's sandbox, as far as I am aware.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

After an unsuccessfull attempt to append some kind of sandbox to this page, I created a page User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Tonality that can be used as a sandbox for the article, and I gave there a few first suggestions for the rewriting. I feel concerned that this new page may not be easy to find for those wanting to collaborate to the revision: I strongly suggest, therefore, that any change or comment made there be advertized here, with a link recalling the address of the new page. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have made a couple of small edits already. I think the sandbox approach is an excellent idea, since we can throw around tentative revisions for discussion without disrupting the actual article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The sandbox work is progressing, but more opinions would be welcome. There is still a lot to do, and many hands make light work. Perhaps User:Tony1, in particular, might like to give an opinion there?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

While jazz is certainly based on major-minor tonality (which is described in the edited first section), the folk music is not. Some later folk music did experience the influence of major-minor tonality, this is true (as e.g. in Russia of the 19th century), but at the level of a universal generalization, 'harmony' of folk music is not a major-minor tonality phenomenon. Olorulus (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Olorulus, may I suggest that you take a look at User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Tonality? This page is not progressing as I'd like for two reasons: (1) I have been busy with too many other things recently; (2) I certainly cannot claim to be knowledgeable about all aspects of this topic, and I am eagerly awaiting other collaborations. Right or wrong, my conviction in opening this page has been that it would be easier to rewrite the page from blank than to correct it from its present state. I remain open to any criticism. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Olorulus, the lines are blurred. Tony (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not consider the current Tonality WP article (which is the result of collective thought and long extended polemics) incurable. To start a work from scratch (and experience this whole bunch of difficulties once more?) is concievable but 'irrealistic'. Olorulus (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But did you have a look at the new page in progress? Whether it eventually replaces the existing one, or is used merely to improve it, is not important at this stage. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at it. At present the Sandbox article does not fit the specifics of a genre of an encyclopedic article as I see it (and not only 'see', I published over 100 articles in this genre 'on paper', and I dare say that I mastered the required 'editorial habit'). Here is not a place to discuss and define 'laws of the genre', well, to name only one obligatory aspect is the sorting out things (definitions, notions and terms), the cliches (standard, 'normal', common views) should be separated from scholarly views (polemical, occasional, understandable only in a specific context etc., to give you an idea, for example, 'melodic tonality' of Dahlhaus' RML article "Tonalität", reproduced in NGD 1980 [and you cited it], is just another term for what is nowadays commonly called 'modality', which is absolutely dimmed w/o knowing Dahlhaus' 'Lehre'), this is what makes an encyclopedic article different from the (a) summa (listing indiscretly all possible meanings and usages, recent and early) and (b) scholarly 'inventions' and uncommon discussions in some scholars' narrow circles. Article in its current state, as it seems to me, "shifts the pain of decision on a reader's shoulder" (extending a Russian idiom), while it is an editor (author, expert) who does this sorting-out job. Olorulus (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Olorulu, you will have to excuse me, but I don't understand what you write. You mention "Dahlhaus RML article Tonalität": does RML mean Riemann's Musiklexikon? And do you mean that this article (of which I am not aware: are you sure you don't mean MGG?) was "reproduced" in NGD 1980? You also mention Dahlhaus' Lehre: I don't see what you refer to with this. You write that Dahlhaus' 'melodic tonality' "is just another term for what is nowadays commonly called 'modality'". But I cannot suppose you are unaware of Harold Powers' theory of tonal types, meant precisely to avoid the term 'modality', nor of Cristle Collins Judd's ideas about "Chant-based tonality", etc.

The Sandbox page is at an early stage of development, where many things are only listed that should be discussed in full (or possibly suppressed). I don't quite see what you aim at when speaking of "scholarly inventions" in reference to this page. It seems to me that an encyclopedic article (I just tried to count how many I had written myself: more than 200; but never mind) has to list, perhaps not all possible meanings and usages, but at least the most important – and discussing their importance, of course. It seems to me that the concept of "Melodic tonality", once published in such an important encyclopedia as the NGD 1980 (and possibly in MGG which I didn't check), mentioned also by such writers as Eric von Hornbostel, Rudolph Reti, and many others, must find its way in any encyclopedic work.

But I'll gladly read your arguments about all this. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My first point is that to separate cliches from secondary and polemical notions of tonality is the work of an editor (author) of an encyclopedic article, for it is a torture for a non-expert reader to sort out meanings/definitions/notions listed by, say, Hyer in NGD 2001. My second point is to describe primary and secondary notions proportionally, according to their current usage and validity (not sub specie aeternitatis, this is not a task of an encyclopedia of the WP-kind). The current WP article Tonality does it more or less good. In the Sandbox article this task should be still done, and this is a lot of work, I'm afraid.

Yes, I know Powers' output very good. He never rejected modality, he just wanted to limit its meaning to 'European cultural construct' (that is to limit 'modality' to a concept of Gregorian modes only; btw this limitation is not supported universally, due to validity of modal categories -- in their local forms/appearances, of course, -- all over the world, in many traditional monodic cultures). Dahlhaus' article 'Tonality' in NGD 1980 is actually an extended recapitulation of his (valuable) studies of tonality which he developed in the 1960s and (in a short form) fixed in RML, 12te Aufl., Sachteil. Olorulus (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you published in paper "more than 200" encyclopedic articles, you definitely ran thru convenient editorial cycle (incl. reviews and cross-reading phases), so you should have already experienced difficulties I outlined above. Olorulus (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Olorulus, some comments:

– You "do not consider the current Tonality WP article [...] incurable." Neither do I, but I consider that it is very much in need of some therapy. I therefore opened a sandbox page which eventually either may replace the existing article (although I don't think this the best solution) or parts of which could replace sections of the existing article. I am perfectly aware that this is no easy task, but I do not think that it is 'irrealistic'.

– I still fail to understand your criticism about the sandbox exercise not respecting the encyclopedic "genre", as you call it. I have indeed published more than 200 encyclopedic articles on paper, some of them in both editions of the NG, and I even participated in the production of at least one encyclopedic dictionary. You argue against the mention of the fact that Dahlhaus spoke of "melodic tonality". But the fact remains that he did, in many of his writings, among which NG 1. An encyclopedic article should add that the term had been used by Hornbostel in several of his writings, particularly concerning African music. The present Tonality article only mentions Reti's usage of the term (see Tonality#Theoretical_underpinnings).

– I still don't know to what publication you refer when you mention "Dahlhaus' Lehre". Do you mean his and Abraham's Melodielehre?

– You seem to refer to Powers' "Modality as a European cultural construct", in the Acts of the Secondo Convegno Europeo di Analisi Musicale (1992), and you think that his purpose was "to limit 'modality' to a concept of Gregorian modes only". But that is not exactly what he did. On the contrary, he considers that "the octenary modal system of 'Gregorian' chant was an imitation of the Byzantine oktoechos", adding that "Gregorian" chant [...] could have managed perfectly well without a set of modal categories" (p. 208). He also writes: "the modal systems to which we constantly refer in our analyses of Gregorian chant and Renaissance polyphony are not intrinsic to the musical repertories in question" (p. 207). And this is the reason why he and his disciples prefer to use "tonality", as explained in Tonality#Tonality_outside_common-practice_period (which shows that not everything is bad in this article).

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You cite the late Powers' article when he became arrogant and annoyed with too wide/extended notion of modality (although the first is a polemic point of view, and the second is the encyclopedic fact). Check his NGD 1980 (widely disseminated) 90-pages article 'Mode' where he completely supported the common view of modality [it was reprinted with exact Powers' wording, extended by some other scholars, as 'Mode' in NGD 2001, and this latest article is now commonly considered a milestone of encyclopedic knowledge], and in his (large) article 'Tonal types and modal categories' and (another large) one about offertories, with pretty evident attempt to reconciliate 'modal categories' with his 'tonality' (especially see his batches of analytical tables with 'modal distributions' of pieces).

It was me who added the section 'Tonality outside common-practice period' in the current WP-page and, trust me, I invested much time in (fruitful) discussion in refining this section (see above on this Talk page). The 'tonality' in Powers' usage (applied to the 16th century polyphonic sacred music), which he failed to define elsewhere, in none of his articles [In the latest of his tonal/modal article series, of 1996, he again insisted on the existence of 'tonality' of some unclear kind but he is «still not ready to advance any new hypothesis about Renaissance tonalities or any particular Renaissance tonality», p.226], has nothing to do with the most common usage of 'tonality' (= hierarchical pitch system with tonal center as reference pitch), he translated German 'Tonart' with 'tonality' which is the semantic shortage of English terminology (Russian music theory uses two different words for what an English scholar calls with the one word 'tonality', but here is not a decent place to explain these complications, sorry). That is why (due to uncommon usage of such 'tonality') the 'outside' section is rightly located as marginal addition to the article designed as an instance of 'encyclopedic genre'. But you don't hear me, so I don't think I should develop the evident things I outlined above once more. Olorulus (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Olorulus, despite what you may think, I am genuinely interested by this discussion. The questions whether Power's "Renaissance tonalities" have anything to do with "Tonality" as discussed in an Encyclopedia in English (Wikipedia, in this case), and whether the English word "Tonality" really is due to "the semantic shortage of English terminology", are still worth discussing, in my opinon, as also clearly appears in the Broad sense, or the Tonalität/Tonart sections above, among others in Jerome Kohl's comments.

There are two reasons why Powers' NG 1 article is less polemic than what followed. The first is that the instructions received by the New Grove authors recommended to avoid polemic stances (this corresponds to your own conception of the genre). The second is that writing this article opened Powers' eyes. The NG 1 article was soon followed by "Tonal Types and Modal Categories" in 1981, and this reflexion culminated in "Is Mode Real?" in 1992. The word "arrogance" may be too strong, but I fully agree with you that Powers' position did not facilitate modern researches about European and non-European modalities. I had the opportunity to discuss this not only with him, but also with Cristle Collins Judd and very recently (a few weeks ago) with Jessie Ann Owen. It seems rather obvious to me that Powers' disciples are not yet ready to fully abandon the idea of Medieval and Renaissance tonalities, even in 2015. I certainly don't share their views, but I do think they cannot be said outmoded (not yet) and, as such, cannot be avoided in a (mainly American) Encyclopedia.

The question of Tonart vs Tonalität is an important one, but I don't think it presents itself exactly as you say. English too has different terms to denote these. And you should keep in mind that the whole affair began in French. Tonart strictly denotes a "type" (Art) of "tone" (Ton), where Ton does not merely mean a "sound" (it could), but a Tone as in "Church Tone" (Kirchenton, Kirchentonart). English has relatively old words for that, "key" on the one hand, and "mode"(!) on the other. Major and minor modes are what Germans would call Dur- or Moll-Tonart, while, say, the key of C major would become C dur-Tonart. In French, words for "key" included modulation, mode, sometimes octave. Things changed, in all these languages (and in some others) after the introduction of tonalité in 1810 and even more after Fétis' description of it in 1844. "Tonality" (Tonalität, tonalité) does not describe a particular type in a system, but a property of the tonal work: it is not meant to classify, but to qualify. In all these languages, however, the new term also replaced the old ones denoting classes: one now speaks of the "tonality of C major", of die C dur-Tonalität, of la tonalité de do majeur, while all these are improper strictly speaking. This is not a problem to be dismissed, it is one of the very reasons why writing this article is difficult – and there may be no other solution than to explain the problem.

You seem to believe that the usage of "tonality" by Dahlhaus or Powers to describe something that should better be described as "modality" is a modern misconception, and you imply that it may be because of a "shortage" of English. But that is not at all the case. Helmholtz devotes a full chapter of his Tonempfindungen to the Tonalität der homophonen Musik. The question is not whether we can agree about this, but whether this is a documented fact that must figure in an Encyclopedic article. And one should also wonder about the adjective "tonal" which, unless I am mistaken, has no equivalent in German when refering to tonality, and must be translated by periphrases. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your considerations, they are important for me (as a representative of quite another musicological tradition, closer to German than to American) in my attempts to understand complications of the current English terminology. However, the point stays as earlier. In this 'folk encyclopedia' there is not a task to confuse a reader with this (and other) interesting polemics, so (if you are interested in one's opinion), the Sandbox article must concentrate on 'common and most disseminated' views and not 'overload' a reader's brain with a bunch of meanings/notions. Other notions (how interesting they might be) should be placed (proportionally sized) much later in the 'encyclopedic article', as facultative additions. Olorulus (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)