Talk:Arabic scale

Misspelling

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the spelling of the scale should include "C-C#-E-F-G-G#-B." That's incorrect notation, as a note spelling should not appear twice in a diatonic scale (in this case, C-C# and G-G#); those are reserved for accidentals. The correct spelling is "C-Db-E-F-G-Ab-B-C;" that way, it fits correctly on a staff. Bluesdealer 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Bluesdealer

Corrected. --GCarty 17:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Double harmonic scale

Isn't this the double harmonic scale?

Someone edited the article indicating it is indeed so. Why is it called that? Hyacinth (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation: Combine with Arab Tone System

It seems to me that this page could or should be a section of the Arab Tone System page. This page basically interprets an Arabic scale as a Western scale, but the Arab Tone System is much richer than this brief article implies. If I had time, I'd do this, and may do it later, but I leave it as a suggestion for now.--Chris van Hasselt 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think by "Arabic scale" this is meant to be a sort of imitation of Arabic music for western music - this bears little resemblance to maqam which is much larger and as you say much richer. I've seen and heard it used but it's definitely not (at least in this form) a part of Arabic music. 202.37.62.100 04:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The scale in the article is described in Maqam terminology as a Hijaz-Kar scale. Similarly the Phrygian dominant scale is also described as a Hijaz-Nahawand scale, while the Hijaz-Rast is a phrygian dominant with the sixth note raised by a quarter-tone. --GCarty 17:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself and has a condescending tone

It says both that it's uncommon in Western music, and that it's "used a lot" in Heavy Metal. The tone also questionable. "Gross generalization"? On whose part?

Why would someone want to "derive" an Arabic scale from a Western? (Whatever that means.) Or a Western from an Arabic, for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.176.13 (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that heavy metal comprises such a large percentage of the totality of "Western music" that the frequent use of something in heavy metal makes that thing characteristic of Western music as a whole.

The "gross generalization" was on the part of Western musicians though what was meant was actually a stereotype rather than a generalization.

I assume "Western scale" means the diatonic scale and one would only want to derive one scale from the other if one was already familiar with the diatonic scale, as many are, and wish to use a comparison between that and the Arabic scale. It may also assist with solfege.

See my edits. Hyacinth (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge Byzantine scale?

Why should Byzantine scale be merged with this this article? Hyacinth (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Because both articles seem to be describing exactly the same scale. ArdClose (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not merge this article into "Byzantine scale"? Hyacinth (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging

I suggest this article be merged with Byzantine scale. As far as i know, Arabic and Byzantine are just two names for the same scale. I would suggest the Article be titled Byzantine scale or Byzantine/Arabic scale because the Arabian Scale is a completely different scale which Arabic might be confused with. (Interestingly enough the Arabian scale redirects here. Someone needs to create an Arabian scale article...)

Byzantine/Arabic scale (in E) = E-F-G#-A-B-C-D#-E

Arabian scale (also in E) = E-F#-G#-A-Bb-C-D-E

ArdClose (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not create the Arabian scale yourself? Hyacinth (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If I did, it would be a poor stub seeings as i know nothing of its history, origins or usage! ArdClose (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we all have the same problem! Hyacinth (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up

This page definitely needs it. At the moment, it's transferring the info word for word to Wiktionary, so it's probably best to leave further editing until that's done, then a lot will need to be cut. Boleyn3 (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? Hyacinth (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be left until it's copied or why does it need clean-up? If why leave it to be copied, it's because some of this would make a good definition at Wiktionary. If why does it need clean-up, pelase see MOS:D pr Category:Disambiguation and look at how a dab is supposed to look. This in no way meets the guidelines. Boleyn3 (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now hidden the references as they don't belong on a disambiguation page. Once I'd hidden all entries which did not meet the guidelines, we are left with only one entry and a see also. I think a redirect to the one entry would be the best course of action, but wanted to run it by other editors first. Boleyn3 (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Could the user who reverted my changes please discuss this on this Talk pg? (I'm not suggesting that my edits were necessarily 100% right - it's hard to judge without a good knowledge of the term and the articles; however, the previous bios did not justify their inclusion here.) Additionally, they now need bios. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume you know who I am (WP:PAGE), please feel free to address me when necessary.

I don't believe terms need biographies. What do you mean by "bios"?

Why is there a link to a non-existent Wiktionary entry? Hyacinth (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Wiktionary, this page in its previous form is still in the process of being transferred to Wikt via Transwiki, a process I'm not that familiar with but I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it's fully transferred. It can be seen at wikt:Transwiki:Arabic scale but should soon be clear through the link on the pg. Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiktionary#Linking_between_projects. Hyacinth (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)