Talk:Interval (music)

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Music theory Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The reckoning of the non-consecutive intervals. Sometimes by calculating the optimum harmonic connectome (with some minimal compromise[s], study:

Sometimes we focus on some basic notes, or intervals (there is no single approach).

Hyperinterval is any non-consecutive interval after some starting note.* The starting note doesn't have to be the first of the musical piece; simply the first in that particular measurement.

When composing; hyperintervals and the hyperinterval harmonic connectome are more important than "next note rules of choice/selection".

It is extremely important in non-classical music; when the composer doesn't want to follow the rules of harmony, but still (he/she wants to) maintain a common feeling/atmosphere/sense within the piece (cohesion).

Re: [1] Really? There are people who use the word "half note" to refer to a semitone, rather than a note value? Citation, please.

I believe that the current description of Helmholtz's theory on dissonance is so simplistic that it is rendered incorrect.

"Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894) defined a harmonically consonant interval as one in which the two pitches have an upper partial (an overtone) in common.[11] This essentially defines all seconds and sevenths as dissonant, and the above thirds, fourths, fifths, and sixths as consonant."

I believe that a suitable alternative may be something like this:

"Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894) theorised that dissonance was caused by the presence of beats (1). von Helmholtz further believed that the beating produced by the upper partials of harmonic sounds was the cause of dissonance for intervals too far apart to produce beating between the fundamentals (2). von Helmholtz then designated that two harmonic tones that shared common low partials would be more consonant, as they produced less beats (3)+[11]. von Helmholtz disregarded partials above the seventh, as he believed that they were not audible enough to have significant effect (4). From this von Helmholtz categorises the octave, perfect fifth, perfect fourth, major sixth, major third, and minor third as consonant, in decreasing value, and other intervals as dissonant."

I realise this is significantly longer, but the additional length is necessary to correctly discuss the idea. I've not edited a wikipedia article before so I am not 100% sure on how to reference this correctly. I am more than happy to get secondary references that describe the concept in a similar way.

(1) Helmholtz, H. L. F. (1877)On the Sensations of Tone as a Theoretical Basis for the Theory of Music. Third English Edition. Ellis, Alexander J. (Trans.) (1895). Longmans, Green, And Co. (P. 172) "The roughness from sounding two tones together depends... the number of beats produced in a second."

(2) Helmholtz, H. L. F. (1877)On the Sensations of Tone as a Theoretical Basis for the Theory of Music. Third English Edition. Ellis, Alexander J. (Trans.) (1895). Longmans, Green, And Co. (P. 178) " The cause of this phenomenon must be looked for in the beats prodcued by the high upper partials of such compound tones,".

(3) Helmholtz, H. L. F. (1877)On the Sensations of Tone as a Theoretical Basis for the Theory of Music. Third English Edition. Ellis, Alexander J. (Trans.) (1895). Longmans, Green, And Co. (P. 182).

(4) Helmholtz, H. L. F. (1877)On the Sensations of Tone as a Theoretical Basis for the Theory of Music. Third English Edition. Ellis, Alexander J. (Trans.) (1895). Longmans, Green, And Co. (P. 183) "Here I have stopped, because the 7th partial tone is entirely eliminated, or at least much weakened,".

JoshuaAMills (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who only knows a smattering of music theory, when you read about some special scale, there's a lot of talk about "the interval" which often stands in for scale step, as I just learned.

Intervals between successive notes of a scale are also known as scale steps.

If it were up to me, I would make this page definitional for both "interval" and "scale step", rather than have scale step defined in a minor clause of an obscure corner of scale (music).

Concerning the octatonic, symmetric, diminished scale it seems to be the usual slang to say that the scale contains only two intervals, whereas precision would require stating that there are only two distinct scale steps.

That's why I would define them both here, side by side, because they get sneakily interchanged under the table by people who know too much—catering to choir rather than the congregation.

I'm not enough into this culture to know whether "the intervals of a scale" actually means the set of distinct scale steps, or the ordered set of distinct scale steps, or something else, or any of the above, if you can crack the unstated local code. — MaxEnt 16:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scale steps are intervals, and a justly tuned scale is not limited to two distinct "flavors" of steps (whole steps and half steps.) There's more to it than a paragraph can cover, I believe.

Intervals within a scale can also be between any two notes of the scale, most prominently between the tonic and other notes. Does that help at all? Just plain Bill (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you even find the

Note that you've said the article "makes no sense", but you've been able to successfully understand what it is saying. Writing for clarity sometimes means accepting the inherent shortcuts and ambiguities of human language, replacing every instance of "pitch" with "frequency of pitch" would not improve the article.

To answer your first, fundamental question: the lack of strict causality between subjective and objective or a priori phenomena does not mean you cannot establish working, predictive correlations inductively. Remsense诉 19:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]