Talk:Pentachord
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Jerome Kohl in topic Transposablity of Pentachords
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Instrument
editWasn't the pentachord also a classical era instrument? Karl Abel composed for the Pentachord I believe. - 74.13.5.179 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
article quoted, from...
edithttp://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/pentachord.aspx
which is copyright —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.43.172.237 (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
Transposablity of Pentachords
editFrom the article,
- A diatonic scale comprises five non-transpositionally equivalent pentachords rather than seven because the Ionian and Mixolydian pentachords and the Dorian and Aeolian pentachords are intervallically identical (CDEFG=GABCD; DEFGA=ABCDE).
is challenged with the "original research?" tag.
The assertion in the text is a commonplace in music theory, e.g., this garden-variety user page. - JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- The problem was with the larger context of the paragraph, which includes "any five pitch classes, regarded as an unordered collection". As such, there are 21, not 7 pentachords (not necessarily with distinct intervallic content) as subsets of any set of seven pitches (including the diatonic set). The assertion in the text "is a commonplace in music theory" only under the second definition: "any consecutive five-note section of a diatonic scale". I think I have now repaired the confusion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent, maestro! Thanks for disambiguating - JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Take it down a notch. too technical even for those who know music theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Take what down a notch? Hyacinth (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can see (given that this is such a small article already), this must be a nomination for deletion—at least of the second paragraph.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)