Talk:Circle of fifths/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Circle of fifths vs fourths

It's called the circle of fifths! Hyacinth (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the article leads off with "In music theory, the circle of fifths (or circle of fourths)..." The article doesn't yet explain well anything to do with fourths. One should not assume that the reader is yet familiar with the fact that a fourth is the reverse of a fifth. It is certainly not intuitive to those not familiar with music notation that an interval has one name going up scale and a different name going down scale.

It is also not yet clearly stated that one can use the circle of fifths to go up scale or down scale both clockwise and counterclockwise, and what the results will be in each case.

I note some debate on the talk page about what level this article should be written at. IMO there is not one music theory article on wikipedia that is written at too low a level. OTOH, there is not one really good introductory article on music theory for those readers completely new to the subject. In other words, there is a lot of explaining yet to be done in this entire field; you aren't even close to oversimplifying too much. I dearly wish for an article that explains the whys and hows of music terminology written to a newcomer's level. It's not at all clear why intervals are called intervals and not factors or proportions. (Normally, one thinks of an interval as an additive distance value, not a multiplicative coefficient.) It's not at all clear what the 'fifths' in 'circle of fifths' refers to. (Bottles of whiskey and rye?) And that's not getting to any of the confusing paradoxes such as the fact that we customarily use a chromatic tuning to express diatonic and pentatonic scales. I note that it is even difficult to find out exactly which fractions are assumed to make up a diatonic or pentatonic scale. Instead, we find a multitude of sources giving patterns of 'whole' and 'half' notes without defining what they mean by 'whole' and 'half'. And no, that's not something that a beginner can safely assume means anything like half+half=whole arithmetically, because it's not. Dlw20070716 (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cycle

In my opinion, "circle of fifths" is a misnomer for "cycle of fifths".Unfree (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Very probably. Unfortunately, "circle of fifths" is the term found nearly universally in textbooks.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"It is intended to be a guide for composition and now it has become essential to writing music"

I beg to differ. While it is no doubt helpful - to those who understand it - it is by no means essential in the process of writing music. How do I know? I cannot grasp the meaning of the circle - at all - yet I have written several successful and well-received music pieces, including a symphony. Nor am I alone in this regard. Therefore, can I change "essential" to "helpful" and expect the change to not result in an immediate revert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadicalTwo (talk • contribs)

I went ahead and rephrase the overstatement. They are plenty of styles of music that do not necessarily rely on the circle of fifths. Also it possible to understand the concepts of keys and chords without thinking of them in a circle as you mention. --dbolton (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Circle of fifths image/mid file

Isn't the image and accompanying midi file for the circle of fifths being played clockwise near the top of the page incorrect? In both, the fourth note is given as an A sharp, but shouldn't it be an A? 110.175.37.94 (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The image is certainly incorrect, just as you say. I haven't listened to it but, if the accompanying sound file also has A♯ instead of A♮, then it, too, is in error and should be corrected. Unfortunately, correcting these things is not within my realm of competence.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I see this was the result of a recent edit by User:Hyacinth. Could we have a correction, please, Hyacinth?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Hyacinth (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

discussion of a whole document does not merit a 'needs page number' quibble.

Considering the flurry of malicious edits and reversions ongoing here, I'm not about to enter the fray.

I'm going instead merely to mention a minor problem rather than to repair it [this is true also in part because I have no idea how to repair the problem without breaking something], and leave the repair of the problem to wiser and more trusted editors.

Anyway, in the History section, the "[page needed]" quibble at the end of the first sentence is inappropriate.

The paragraph author at this point is discussing the treatise (a self-standing document in most cases) as a whole, not some particular point within that treatise, and so has no page number to provide in response to the quibble at the indicated point.

Xanthian (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is necessary to look more closely at a problem like this. It is not the named book that is being cited, but rather a secondary source. The note reads <ref name="Jensen">Jensen (1992)</ref>{{Page needed|date=May 2010}}, so the demand for a page reference is from Claudia Jensen's 1992 article in JAMS, rather than from Diletskii's Grammatika. I am frankly astounded that this request has not been dealt with for nearly two years, since JAMS is an extremely well-known journal readily accessible to many editors.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

general criticism

The article is very vague and confusing. The sentence, which is supposed to be a definition, is not even grammatical: "Since the term 'fifth' defines an interval or mathematical ratio which is the closest and most consonant non-octave interval, then the circle of fifths is a circle of closely related pitches or key tonalities." Saying that the circle of fifths is a circle of "closely related pitches" is vary vague. Don't you want to say that these pitches are precisely 5 tones apart?

Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.231.52 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

How is the sentence ungrammatical? To me, it seems to parse OK. In most general terms, two pitches making the interval of a perfect fifth are three tones plus a semitone apart, or seven semitones. How can we reduce the confusion here? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

7 sharps and flats

How does the circle not stop at 7 sharps and flats (quote from article)? Realistically, enharmonically, you start running into equivalent keys and there is no point to extend it beyond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.187.157 (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that keys with double sharps and double flats are of more theoretical significance, not so much of any great practical use. There is also the fact that "enharmonic" does not necessarily mean "identical pitch" in tuning systems other than ET. But, as that section says, the circle (or spiral) does continue, starting over by adding F or B and so on. I don't think I would enjoy sight reading a piece in such a cluster of flats or sharps, but perhaps they do exist out in the wild. Awaiting comment from more expert editors... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There's more to music than key signatures. For example, pieces in C-sharp major routinely modulate to the dominant, G-sharp major. Of course they have to use double-sharps to notate those passages, but to the extent we're using the circle of fifths to understand key relationships (or even harmonic progressions), we have to allow for keys with double accidentals. Below is a passage from Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier: —Wahoofive (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, John Foulds' A World Requiem ends in G♯ major with F in the key signature (I suspect it might be the only piece to do that, but of course I don't know that for sure):

Double sharp (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

AAAARGH

Well I looked hard at the picture of the Vicious Girdle of Fifths, trying again after forty unhappy years of "Not Getting It" ::: and realised after about 10 minutes that there was no C# major? Scrolling down the talk, I also find there is no C♭, (or similarly abstruse key-sig) because it "clutters the table up????" Duh??????????????????????? So there is no point in reading the talk, I just hate all music theory and all theorists because they can never explain what the f they are actually on about, namely Producing Beautiful Music Which Revivifies The Soul. I have always hated the circle, and WP does nothing in the slightest to modify my attitude, especially since "The Circle" has been populated by things which have apparently escaped from Ian M. Banks' vocabulary such as Pitch-class space, like a Raptor-class interstellar terraforming AI with a somewhat detached hive mind of its very very very very own. And, unless you are careful, you end up with a ♯-Class planet-destroyer. Trumpets and drums to you, too. MinorProphet (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy Cow! You are right about that diagram, of course, but the problem is much worse than you describe. If we are to believe what we see there, the key of D-flat major may have a signature of seven sharps, and the key of B major may be written with a signature of seven flats. Let us see if we can track down User:Just plain Bill, who created this diagram, and see if we can get it fixed. On the other hand, I doubt very much that music theorists are concerned with Producing Beautiful Music Which Revivifies The Soul, which is something they leave to performers. Thanks for the heads-up.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I may be able to fit the proper nomenclature for those two keys into that end of the diagram. Might take a few days to find time... Just plain Bill (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Had a cancellation, so was able to update the svg file sooner than I expected. Now it is shown in this article. For some reason the commons would not let me upload a new rev of the existing image, so it is a different file. Sorting out that cluster of issues will take some time, another day. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Some theorists are also performers, so they might also want to PBMWRTS. ;-) —Wahoofive (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Commons eventually showed the "upload new version" link, so disregard that bit above. Back to the same file name, newest rev shows the extra key names. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

what no music?

Here we are with a huge exposition and no composers' works cited. many people cannot think in musical notes. they see the words but don't get it. try this: Mike Oldfield, Incantations, easily discovered on youtube. the original, not anything that has been sample etc. the entire composition is based on the circle of fiths and the first few bars will make the Circle of Fifths into an understood reality. i don't know how to add a sample but perhaps one of you does.74.12.125.129 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Introduction: sharps and flats

for those who know the topic I guess this is okay, but I don't know what sharps and flats are, they are never defined in the Introduction, so I'm lost from the start — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.228.149 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sharps and flats are linked in the "Definition" section, the first one after the table of contents. They are not mentioned in the introduction, which is meant to summarize the content of the article, not explain all the rudiments of the topic. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

History and vii harmonic progression

Hello: I am just wondering why my edits on the history of the circle of fifths, and the vii harmonic progression were deleted. If anyone knows could they please let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F573:BA00:444A:8489:D2F0:5336 (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me justify my recent removal of your new addition concerning Pythagoras:

1) The original of the source that you mention has been removed from Internet. You quote it only from a version preserved in the Wayback machine, which already is problematic.

2) You mention it apparently to justify your statement that Pythagoras "devised a system of tuning based solely upon the interval of a fifth", which your source indeed says on p. 13. But it adds that Pythagoras did not tune more than eight notes. This is not enough to form even only a diatonic circle of fifths.

3) There are many other better documented sources both on Antique Greek theory (that Pythagoras existed as a person is not even certain) and on the history of tuning, which make it doubtful that the circle of fifths was known in Antiquity.

4) There is in fact no available evidence that the cycle might have existed before Diletsky. You asked from where he got the idea, but somebody must have formed the idea from nowhere and, for what we know today, it might have been Diletsky himself.

Something more: if you intend to further participate to Wikipedia (do so, it is fun!), you should open a personal page, with your real name or a pseudonym: this would make discussions easier. Your IP address changes, so that without a personal page one cannot find you back. Your recent contributions to this article are listed here and here, and perhaps elsewhere. To see examples of personal pages, merely click on the signature of comments above or anywhere in the talk pages that you may visit. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I will respond to your comments in reverse order:

1. I have created a personal page, as you suggested, to make things easier (good suggestion).

2. I believe you are 100% correct that the circle did not exist before Diletsky. There is no question that he invented it. My small paragraph was actually meant to state that Pythagoras DID NOT invent the circle of fifths, and clearly I didn't get that right. I think the idea of creating the circle of fifths is brilliant, and truly amazing. I do not wish to minimize the credit that Diletsky rightfully deserves, however, I do not believe in any way that he could have achieved this with out knowing something about musical history at that time. Perhaps he obtained this knowledge from the church, or other sources, we may never know, but I do not believe that he created the circle in a vacuum.

3. I definitely agree that there are probably many better documented sources, I would say especially more academic ones, and as I believe the information in the paragraph that I submitted was technically correct (although in retrospect, misleading), I would welcome any suggestions you have on including additional sources.

4. Somewhat already covered above.

5. I believe that the very fact that I obtained my original source from the internet shows that it is still on the internet, the Wayback machine (or Internet Archive) is clearly part of the internet. I am not sure why you consider it problematic, as this recent article by wired " https://www.wired.com/story/internet-archive-wikipedia-more-reliable/ " actually suggests that the Internet Archive is making Wikipedia more reliable.

6. The following is why I believe a short paragraph on Pythagoras should be included in the history section. When researching the circle of fifths I found many articles on the internet claiming that Pythagoras invented it. When I eventually read the Wikipedia article I was surprised to discover that there was no mention of him at all in the history section, so I just assumed it was an oversight, and added it in. As a result of my correspondence with Professor Kohl, I realized that this was wrong, and a very bad mistake on my part. So, then, how should one address the problem of many music sites claiming that Pythagoras invented the Circle of Fifths? By saying nothing at all, or by producing a very short paragraph addressing the issue. I choose the latter. I think the history section would be less served by not addressing the issue at all.

7. I will add a small paragraph on Pythagoras back in to the history section with the changes based on your suggestions, and hopefully this will pass your review.

8. I also wish to express my grateful thanks for your detailed comments. This is a very interesting topic, and I am learning far more than I originally intended.

Eparaqutam (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You will by now have noticed that I separated the portion of the paragraph that Fraser actually verifies from the first part, which he does not. An important point here has to do with reliability of sources. Fraser is not reliable, because he is self-published. Internet websites are not usually regarded as reliable, and are always not reliable when they are not actually cited. Vague phrases like "many sources say" are called weasel language. Always state where you got your information. It is a basic principle on Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have slightly rewritten the first paragraph, to make it clearer, and provided sources for the first part of the paragraph as requested. And as for Fraser not being a reliable source. My understanding is that this was an academic article written by Mr. Fraser at a university in support of a doctoral thesis (I believe he got his doctorate). But your point is well taken, and is indeed a valid one. I also suspect, with your thorough background in music, that you already know weather the second sentence is true or false, (I believe it is true) and I would greatly appreciate your help in adding a valid source to the second sentence. Perhaps replacing the reference to Fraser all together. Eparaqutam (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The most difficult problem of all is proving non-existence of something. I wish you luck.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

A point to consider is the date of the invention of the circular clock face with twelve or twenty-four divisions. This must have been at some point in the Renaissance, probably in the 15th century. The circle of fifths is unlikely before that. Another interesting device is the chromatic keyboard, probably the first device clearly evidencing that there are twelve notes in the octave. It did not exist before the 14th century (see "Keyboard" in Grove). — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference on Grove. This led me to the the fascinating video of a performance with a reproduction of a Greek Hydraulis, and the video of the oldest playable organ in the world. Truly Amazing. Eparaqutam (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, the outer case of the Sion organ may be one of the oldest organ cases in the world, but the organ within it is at least a century (or possibly two) later than its case... The keyboard, from what one can see in this video, has a range from C/E to c³, and that is a late-16th-century range at the earliest. The shape of the keys (especially the upper keys) also is from the late 16th or more probably the 17th century. The Grove article shows the 14th-century keys of the organ in Norrlanda, and the 15th-century original keyboard of the Van Eyck's organ in the Ghent altarpiece, as reconstructed by Edwin Ripin, had keys of roughly the same shape (see this illustration). — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Simplify lede?

I'm proposing a re-write of the lede which would eliminate some information/jargon from the very start of the article. Some of that info is probably useful, but I'd like to see the basic idea(s) laid out clearly and simply if possible. Here's a proposal:

In music theory, the circle of fifths is a way of organizing the 12 chromatic pitches as a sequence of perfect fifths. If C is chosen as a starting point, the sequence is: C, G, D, A, E, B, F♯ (=G♭), C♯ (=D♭), G♯ (=A♭), E♭, B♭, F. Continuing the pattern from F returns the sequence to its starting point of C. This order places the most closely related key signatures adjacent to one another. It is usually illustrated in the form of a circle.

- Special-T (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Diatonic key sig section

Almost the entire section seems to be off-topic or convoluted explanations of the relation between keys. Since the diagram is shown above and can be referred to, I'd like to replace the Diatonic key signature section with:

Each of the twelve pitches can serve as the tonic of a major or minor key, and each of these keys will have a diatonic scale associated with it. The circle diagram shows the number of sharps or flats in each key signature, with the major key indicated by a capital letter and the minor key indicated by a lower-case letter. Major and minor keys that have the same key signature are referred to as relative major and relative minor of one another.

I'm putting this here on the talk page because I'd be removing a lot of content. But, as I said, that content isn't helping the article. - Special-T (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is too much info for this article. Your suggested replacement seems apt, and the link to "key signature" will guide readers to a useful place for further exploration. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

And, heads up, I'm looking at the same issues in that next section. - Special-T (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Still a lot of random info

The "Use" and "Related concepts" sections are so full of random facts & assertions that I can't figure out how to start to clean them up. Most of it boils down to "chords often move up a fourth in Western music." Some other issues:

- changing between talking about chord progressions and talking about modulations - if I wasn't already very familiar with theory and composition these paragraphs wouldn't make any sense at all.

- I don't think that any of the "here are some jazz standards that use the circle of fifths" stuff should be here. Almost all of these 20th-century American tunes (like nearly all other Western music) use circle-of-fifths "functional harmony"

I'm probably not the person to edit these, since I'd cut 95%+ of what's there—I hope someone else can get a handle on them. - Special-T (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

CAFE - CAF#Eb - 12-3-6-9

Landmarks: Clockwise at 12-3-6-9 o'clock: Major C-A-F#-Eb and Minor a-f#-bflat-c. Both spell CAFE. Major cafe opens at 12. Minor cafe opens at 9. Acorrector (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Legitimate pitches and keys

The discussion that arose between 68.8.178.131 and @Just_plain_Bill should not turn to a war. I first wondered what all this was about, but then realized that the figure at the right shows only three enharmonies, for B/C♭, G♭/F♯, and D♭/C♯. This, I think, justifies the modification suggested by our anonymous contributor. All other enharmonies would involve one of the two keys with double sharps or double flats.

One may argue that the lede concerns pitch classes as well as keys, but then one should perhaps question the figure at the right. This may not be necessary, but I think that the correction in the lede makes (some) sense. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's fine, for the reasons you've stated. I reverted it earlier because the rationale (G#maj isn't a key) didn't apply to the sentence, which is talking about pitches. But we're not listing all the enharmonics (D#, A#, etc.) there, and the diagram treats the pitches as keys also, so all good. - Special-T (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

In order to fully conform to the diagram, the text should perhaps read "B (=C♭), F♯ = G♭, D♭ (=C♯)", but I am too lazy today to change that. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

External links

Could some other editors (preferably musicians) take a look at those external links? I can be a little too enthusiastic about pruning, but nearly all of them (except the last one) seem to just be clever graphics that don't clarify/enlighten. - Special-T (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

When the recent addition of the randscullard . com link showed up on my watchlist, I sharpened up the pruning hatchet, but to me it seems like a worthwhile presentation. I have been merciless enthusiastic about gatekeeping that section in times past, and will look it over again soon. Thanks, Just plain Bill (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that presenting a systematic idea (circle of fifths, transposition, inverse-square relationships in physics, ...) by illustrating a bunch of individual examples is inherently misleading. I've found it to be true with my students as well ("how am I supposed to remember all of those facts?"). So I'd ditch the "click here and see which diatonic chords are minor in F#" links. I realize this is an opinion, but I've found this to be one of the biggest barriers to understanding anything that has a systematic basis. - Special-T (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If it's the randscullard link you mean by "click here and see...", I see it as a set of graspable slices through a complex multidimensional space, which can be difficult to visualize as a coherent whole. I can't speak for a broad base of students, but my own learning style tends to favor a balance between examples and systematic rule-based descriptions or frameworks. Kindly let me know if I seem to be misconstruing what you have said.

What I am trying to say is that my theoretical understanding has benefited from a variety of approaches to the material, each illuminating the others from a different angle. For example, I started taking an interest in modal music by trying to pick out examples of traditional songs, whose interval structure had siezed my attention, on a keyboard. Still very much a neophyte to harmonizing those melodies beyond simple i-VII-i accompaniment to aeolian minor tunes, but on it goes... regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This is why I asked for others to look at this and decide - I know I lean heavily towards certain ways of presenting info, and I know my uncensored impulse to delete some of these links is perhaps not constructive. There are so many convoluted explanations in Wikipedia - I get on a bit of a crusade to weed them out, and get a little trigger-happy sometimes! Thanks for picking up the ball on this. - Special-T (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I just had a quick scan through them, and some I like better than others. For the moment I suppose I'm content with the present state of the section. Still, I'd be willing to participate in a triage discussion of the ones you see as outliers. cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave that decision to you and other editors. Thanks. - Special-T (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Errors in Ravel edit

I have deleted the Ravel example that I added previously. Another editor has seen fit to replace both my music score and the audio file of this with an edit that contains errors (wrong notes) that were not in my original contribution. I am all for an edit that corrects and improves on something that I have contributed, but not one that simply makes it worse.Spencerpiers (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Idea vs. diagram

Recent edits brought my attention to the History section, in which "circle of fifths" is used to mean the diagram. This seems misleading and incorrect (in a topic area that can already be confusing). It's an organizational scheme, so saying someone invented it, or there was a "first example" of it confuses the idea with the visual chart. This seems like something for the talk page, though, and not a bold (and possibly contentious) edit. - Special-T (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, isn't the idea of a "circle" connected with the diagram? A mere "cycle" of fifths would not necessarily form a circle. Is it the history section that is misleading when it says that the first circles are from 1677 and 1711, or the article as a whole when it says that fifths form a circle (instead of a cycle, or a spiral)? If this were so, it would not be the history section that would need edition, but the article itself that would need renaming. On Google, however, "cycle of fifths" (with quotation marks) gives abour 2,110,000 results, while "circle of fifths" gives only 71,800 and "spiral of fifths" 2990. On Google Scholar the figures are 8470, 1870 and 148. In other words, I think that the article should mention your point, but not necessarily in the history section. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The I-IV-vii°-iii-vi-ii-V-I progression part should be in a separate article

Why not we make the diatonic circle of fifths progression part as a separate article so that it can be more searchable? AnAlpineSymphony (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)