Talk:Leading-tone - Knowledge

1912:: "Refering to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the authors create a theory that is intuitively difficult to understand and rather unsystematically infused with metaphor. They do not say a word about historically influential Gestalt theoretical approaches, which would explain the directional energies of notes much more plausibly and naturally than their own approach. It cannot be ruled out that the Theory of Musical Equilibration could make interesting contributions to explaining the expressiveness of music. To achieve this, however, it would have to be made much clearer and more systematic – docked onto already existing theoretical concepts and results of music psychology, with methodologically solid interfaces for experimental testing." ( 1057: 1890:

Equilibration" is also valid for the American understanding of "leading tone", that is, for the perception of the sound quality of the dominant third. In the English Knowledge "Leading tone" there are also music theorists like Ernst Kurth mentioned who describe the sense of the leading tone as perception of a "force". Wolfgang Böhler, one of the best-known Swiss music psychologists, writes about the Theory of Musical Equilibration: "...It cannot be ruled out that the Theory of Musical Equilibration could make interesting contributions to explaining the expressiveness of music."

1179:, litterally 'the descending leading tone'" – from which one may deduce that he considered the expression unusual in (American) English. A Google search for "descending leading tone" gives about 999 results, however. So, the example does show a downward leading tone, but it should at least say where. In addition, any perfect cadence also has a downward leading tone, there is nothing special about this particular example. I will leave it to others to decide wether the example should be removed, or kept with more detailed explanation. — 621:) as an upper leading tone. It seems to refer to Bernward and Saker on this point, but they certainly do not describe the example quoted (Scott Joplin) as a case of upper leading tone. They specifically say that the leading tone leads to the tonic, but never mention the upper leading tone (in the 2008 edition, at least). The article also later seems to refer to Kotska (which I don't have), associating his mention of "tendency tones" with the "upper leading tone 2324: 509:. Since these pages not only include discussion of the scale-degrees, but also occasionally discuss triads and seventh chords built on these scale-degrees, it is important to systemize these pages. This will also curtail the creation of pages for each individual triad and seventh chord, some which may not necessarily contain enough content to be expanded beyond a stub. I invite you to comment on the proposal with thoughts, criticisms, or suggestions. Thanks! 1493: 1485: 1472: 1464: 1455: 1447: 1276: 1268: 981: 922: 881: 869: 856: 840: 832: 824: 816: 808: 800: 787: 779: 762: 735: 713: 700: 677: 669: 661: 649: 636: 625: 617: 609: 191: 2298:" on the main page, but are being hosted (and can be found by going to their pngs link and changing the file extension to mp3) and are also present and playable in their holders within the visual editor. Attempted a potential fix I found with no luck, and am both new to wiki editing and LilyPond, so I'm not quite sure what the problem is if anyone else might have an idea. 236: 218: 1693: 320: 246: 1414:, I think we should definitely remove or replace the two sound examples, as they include a trill, which is wrong in both of them (as it isn't a trill). The one with a trill from C# to D# is doubly incorrect, as D# was never intended by the composer (as the sharp refers to the C)! I may create a correct version if I ever get time! 2219:. I think what your section heading should say is that explanation would help understanding of the article, not that it needs a reference, because most readers who couldn't understand this article would most likely have more difficulty with references to technical/instructional manuals in a specialized field. 2184:

When I wrote that "people" consider them common enough, I was thinking of the guys who create templates for Knowledge. I don't suppose that they are all music theorists. Would you think that anyone without any idea of music (and of some elementary music theory) be interested in what a "Leading-tone"

1358:

This example is not particularly known as an example of descending leading tone, and I remain puzzled that it was chosen as illustration here. Everyone is free, of course, to call "leading tone" what they want, but I at least would link the idea of leading tone to that of cadence. With this in mind,

1200:

It seems that the distinction needs to be made or clarified between the motion of a leading tone and the position of the leading tone in relation to the tone it leads to. A leading tone which moves upwards may be called "an upper leading tone", as may a leading tone which is above the tone it leads

947:

I'm not as sure about the tritone resolution example because jazz theorists sometimes use words differently than Classical theorist. You could certainly call it an augmented 6th but a jazz theorist would definitely call it a tritone substitution. It doesn't have a citation, so I would normally just

1606:

The usual represented interpretations of leading tones are not compatible with the laws of nature. Perceptions of striving forces in tones are impossible and not even imaginable. However, there are leading tones. Here I insert two links to articles that provide a realistic understanding of leading

1583:

Indeed, the example does not seem to be there anymore (it must have been an example with chords in root position and parallel voice leading, resulting in parallel fifths – never mind). As to the mention of "written in first inversion, as described below", the description is in the "Voice-leading"

1064:

Hi everyone, It seems to me that the score example has a trill from C# to D#. While enharmonically the D# is the same as E flat, it doesn't seem to me to be an example of an upper leading tone, which would have the main melodic line going from E flat to D. I suggest perhaps a different example

1539:

I don't know to what "as described below" refers, but certainly not to the example which shows triads in root position. The example should be redone, with triads in first inversion, because as it is it shows something that even a first-year student would not write. Triads in root position cannot

973:

example, but the page number is different (I should check). And it is about that example that they say what I mentioned above, "Note that although the chord sevenths resolve downward, the leading tones resolve upward". The example will have to be removed, anyway, so that the page number does not

1757:

You seem here to consider that the 7th and the 9th above the root (the dissonances) are "leading tones", but that is not at all the definition given in our article. Do you consider that any note with an obligatory voice leading is a "leading tone"? This is a specific meaning of the German term

1889:

The definitions of the terms "Leitton", "Leading tone" and "Note sensble" actually differ. The term “Leading tone” is broader than the term “Leading tone”. But I think the phenomenon it's about is the same thing, because Germans don't feel differently than Americans. The "Theory of Musical

2185:

is? Note also that the fragment of the lede that you quote always mentions in full the chord concerned, and adds the notation only in parentheses. You say that this notation is used "throughout the article", but it actually is used only rarely. Anyway, I added a link to

1923:

Don't misundersand me, Bernd Willimek. I have known about your theory for years now, and I am aware that it could bring a complement to existing theories – including some that are also not mentioned in our article, and that apparently you don't know. See for instance

2242:

Thank you for these observations. I think that when I get home later I will review this discussion on a larger screen (laptop vs smartphone), so I can see most of it without scrolling (and more than 12 words of my response!), and maybe take your suggestion.

1846:

266/5000 It is true that the articles often do not contain the term "Leading Tone" literally. But they contain the term "Theory of Musical Equilibration". And the "Theory of Musical Equilibration" is nothing more than a new meaningful definition of the

1459:

could be a leading tone, but this rightly is marked as needing a citation: I for one am not familiar with that usage. As I already wrote above, there is a descending leading tone (in Schenker's sense) in the last two measures of the example, E–D,

2084:, and while I mostly understand the use of the template to generate the notation, I blank on much of what its symbols refer to. There's no name or explicit reference to the symbol system — the article assumes that the reader is familiar with it: 1334:

So what we probably need then is for a single audio examples with no trill (and no D#) in the top stave, and perhaps the example to be put in modern notation (i.e. the sharp in front of the C, perhaps in square brackets to show it's editorial)?

739:

referred to as an upper leading tone either – it struck me as strange, too. I don't have Benward and Saker, but unless you it's not actually in Benward and Saker or there are sources that dispute it, I can't see a reason to remove/change it.

914:, which at first reading appeared to me an example of parallel 7th, while it really is an example of augmented 6th. Something must be done about all this, in my opinion, and I'll do so as soon as we aggreed. I very strongly doubt that any 754:

The expression "upper leading tone" is not found at all in Benward and Saker (if I can trust my OCR). About the Scott Joplin and other examples, they write "Note that although the chord sevenths resolve downward, the leading tones resolve

2214:

Sometimes music is like math in that if one does not know the name of a symbol or the name of the system of symbols it is a part of then one may have great difficulty attempting to look it up. However, Knowledge is not a classroom, per

1970:

Here, a completely novel conception of the leading tone experience is defined, which also creates the possibility of understanding the emotional impact of musical harmonies. Perhaps this aspect should be taken up in the article.

2122:

confirms that people consider them common enough. I think that any music theorist reading English would be aware of them. The question that you implicitly raise is whether en.Knowledge must be considered mainly American ... —

1240:

in the bass should be sung earlier, where it is not formally written. There are indeed two B's in the bass in the measures preceding those represented here, and a debate arose c.1540 about whether these should be made flat by

2156:

reading English would be aware of them." Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a work on music theory, and as such the article should include, at the bare minimum, references to allow the general reader to learn about the

1081: 1251:

Why is it this particular example that is given here, while many examples of a V–I cadence similarly would show a descending leading tone? There is such a leading tone, G–F, in the top part of the example in the

153: 1417:

I think the criteria for a descending leading tone doesn't really depend on whether there's a cadence (compare: the seventh scale degree in major is still the leading note even when it's not near a cadence).--

1248:

for a detailed discussion.) I have been unable to check the reference given to Berger 1987, but I presume that it concerns this debate, and in no way the presence of a descending leading tone in the cadence.

2543:

says, I believe the hyphenated form is really only used as an adjective, as in the term "leading-tone seventh chord." The note itself (which is the subject of this article) would be stylized sans hyphen.

2088:

Is this a standard notation, and is it described anywhere, either on WP or elsewhere? If so, it needs an explicit reference, preferably early in the text rather than buried in one of the many references.

1322:

it seems the descending leading tone then, is not E natural to D in the tenor, but B flat to A in the bass. And it's quite a nice example of a descending leading tone (Thanks Hyacinth and Squandermania!)

2499:

I have never seen this hyphenated except as an adjective. Google ngram shows that "leading-tone" started enjoying more use around 2000, but is still vastly outstripped by the unhyphenated version.

1992: 1972: 1632: 1622: 1142: 1085: 844:, respectively") – and to assume that the 7th in a 7th chord is an upper leading tone would lead to consider that any degree can become an upper leading tone. This seems to me utterly farfetched. 1678: 896:, because you added this link at a point concerning the resolution of 7ths. There is an additional problem in the present article, in that the example showing the tritone substitution has a C 2114:

This notation apparently is common in music theory teaching in the US (insofar as one still teaches tonal theory in the US). It is an adaptation of Gottfried Weber's usage, as illustrated

1945:(2017), etc., which all discuss harmonic progressions with leading tones, about which they provide new insights. Obviously, you are not the only one to have reflected on such progressions. 1866:

effect? Are you sure that your understanding of that German concept is the same as our understanding of the American (or the French) one? Riemann, at least, indicates that the concept of

998:, where the term is nowhere mentioned. It also refers to an article by J. Day-O'Connell, which I read. Day-O'Connell probably coined the expression, which is worth quoting in our article. 1234:

Why does it say that "the debate over which was documented in Rome c.1540," while the debate in question did not concern what is shown in the example? (The debate was about whether the B

1962:

As a supplement to the leading tone discussion, I would like to refer to our paper recently published in the journal “Auditory, Perception & Cognition” (Taylor & Francis):

944:) and was clearly referring to the 7th of a dom7 resolving as an example of an upper leading tone. If it's not in the citation and seems wrong, you should definitely delete that. 940:

If they don't mention upper leading tone in Benward and Saker, then it should definitely be deleted. Does it have the "Maple Leaf Rag" example on p. 203? This was added in 2010 (

1280:, which should not be considered cases of descending leading tone). And there are two less visible ones (both D–C) in the example from Beethoven's Piano sonata n. 5 in the 2594: 2148:

Thank you for that information. But it isn't (just) the geography of the readership that concerns me, but the type of readers. Your own words reveal the difference: "...

977:

The Schenkerian informations that I give are always verified: I am a compulsive reader of Schenker ;–)). But I think that the expression "upper leading tone" applied to

955:

You could also add to the upper leading tone section by adding some Schenkerian ideas to it as well. It would be good to have some verified information on the topic. :)

292: 147: 1830:

6 as dissonant 7th and 9th in the dominant minor ninth (with or without root) is a case of obligatory resolution of the dissonances, which is utterly different. —

2364: 1874:. I am afraid that such fine distinctions (you mention yourself "a new meaningful definition") belong to other discussions than what is possible on Knowledge. — 2360: 298: 1365:–A could not be a leading tone, because there is no cadence on A (which obviously is a dominant). It seems to me, therefore, that even if some might consider B 267:, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 2599: 371:, is the cause of serious uncertainties at several Knowledge articles, and in the broader literature. Specifically in this case, the leading note in the 79: 1175:, § 10, p. 13, John Rothgeb felt compelled to add a footnote: "In German theoretical writings the second step of the scale is sometimes rererred to as 2589: 1816:

specifically refer to the 3d of the dominant, even if in German (or at least in his view), any note with an obligatory leading could be considered a

1501:

1540 whether B needed a flat or not. What we need is an example of a clear Phrygian cadence; this particular example is not clear in this respect —

2467: 506: 268: 1673: 1939: 2071: 85: 44: 1371:–A an example of descending leading tone, it would form a very bad example for this WP article, as the whole remains highly questionable. 1224:

added a mention of where the descending leading tone is to be found in the example. There are aspects that remain unclear to me, though:

2363:

within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the

1159:

What might be considered a downward leading-tone in this example is the progression E–D in the tenor. Schenker certainly called this an

1060:

Cadence featuring an upper leading tone from a well known 16th-century lamentation, the debate over which was documented in Rome c.1540.

1996: 1976: 1739:, but a simple search shows that so to say none of the texts linked above contains the words "leading tone"! The only one that does is 1636: 1626: 632:

I never encountered the expression "upper leading tone" applied to the resolution of a dominant seventh, nor to any degree other than

259: 223: 2439:– Is and has always been the most common form; the present title looks like either an idiosyncratic mistake or the adjectival form. 2372: 1138: 1770:

means a note that leads to another and creates the expectation of this other, particularly the note a semitone under the tonic (

1325:

The sharp above the stave is not referring to the upper note of a trill as I (and probably others) previously imagined, it's a

99: 30: 1925: 1056: 1909: 1891: 104: 20: 1752:

As a dominant minor ninth chord without a root, contains the third, the minor seventh and the minor ninth as leading tones.

168: 2399: 1540:

follow each other, even when the first is a diminished triad. In first inversion, parallel chords are fully acceptable. —

74: 467:

Why, what, where, and how does this article's tone and voice need to be made more consistent with the rest of Knowledge?

135: 2194: 2128: 1953: 1879: 1835: 1589: 1545: 1535:

In C major and C minor, it is a B diminished triad (though it is usually written in first inversion, as described below)

1506: 1397: 1293: 1220:

that the expression "upper leading tone" is unclear. I think that "descending leading tone" is clearer. And I note that

1184: 1006: 931: 686: 198: 1665:

Here some links about the “Theory of Musical Equilibration” which provides a realistic understanding of leading tones:

990: 388: 65: 812:(as the article in its present version seems to imply, when it says "The lower and upper leading-tones, scale degree 1948:

But I think that neither these theories nor yours should figure in a vulgarizing encyclopaedia such as Knowledge. —

2268:

Hi great to have you here! I know this reply is a bit late, but I think the info you want about the notation is at

1647: 1150: 1097: 1201:

to, even those are opposites, and the terminology used in the literature and scholarship regarding leading tones.

2356: 1708: 766:

is not a tendency tone in all cases. And a tendency tone is not the same as a leading tone. The example from the

1932: 1374:

I had not listened to the sound examples (I feel the score itself so much better than Midi sound), but the two c

2604: 2525: 2368: 942:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Leading-tone&diff=363386993&oldid=363386689&diffmode=source

375:

is not under discussion at all, if we assume that scale not to be diatonic. Some of us have thought that both

129: 2520:

and also correct 'leading-note' to 'leading note', which is the UK term. Also never seen this with a hyphen.

1646:

Two links, but to the same article, it appears. As a self-published blog, this does not seem to qualify as a

1497:

as an example of descending leading tone seems to me rather misleading, especially in view of the discussion

432:

Why, what, where, and how does this article have an unclear citation style and what should be done about it?

2387: 2335: 2190: 2143: 2124: 1949: 1875: 1831: 1585: 1557: 1541: 1502: 1409: 1393: 1310: 1289: 1180: 1145:

which was originally uploaded by Hyacinth. I agree that it doesn't seem to show a downward leading-tone. --

1020: 1002: 960: 927: 745: 682: 653:, but not always). The case is all the more annoying that a reference to this section has been added in the 587: 517: 109: 2269: 2186: 2115: 2061: 1315:

Thanks for sending that link about the papal choir debate: interesting reading! From looking at the link:

1246: 536: 384: 345: 2521: 1824:), but even that is not very common in English, I think – nor in French, for sure. And the case of 4 and 125: 2549: 2093: 1655: 1221: 1146: 1093: 722: 551: 204: 1531:

In the section about the leading-tone triad, one reads the following statement followed by an example:

1171:, § 10, 1935 p. 34, 1954 p. 43), a "descending leading tone," especially in a contrapuntal context. In 1107: 505:

is spearheading a proposal to unify the layout of the scale-degree pages. The discussion can be found

1618: 1392:

is of course incorrect. I think that the best solution would be to remove this example completely. —

770:

in the article shows what has been termed a "secundary leading tone", and this in turn might justify

1965: 1476:

in the tenor , but the same could be found in any perfect cadence. To quote this particular case of

175: 2570: 2303: 1942:

Advances in Multiple Viewpoint Systems and Applications in Modelling Higher Order Musical Structure

1895: 1848: 1736: 1722: 1703: 353: 161: 55: 758:

I have no problem accepting that the 7th in a dominant seventh is a tendency tone – but certainly

2504: 2482: 2451: 2376: 2224: 2216: 1899: 1852: 1726: 1567: 1206: 1134: 1016: 994:, I discovered that this WP article mentions "plagal leading tones" and links about these to our 956: 889: 741: 583: 565: 512: 487: 472: 452: 437: 413: 70: 1820:. Our article makes a concession to the German usage when it speaks of the upper leading tone ( 1492: 1484: 1471: 1463: 1454: 1446: 1275: 1267: 980: 921: 880: 868: 855: 847:

It might be more interesting to mention that, in German – and particularly in Schenker –, even

839: 831: 823: 815: 807: 799: 786: 778: 761: 734: 712: 699: 676: 668: 660: 648: 635: 624: 616: 608: 2299: 532: 395: 352:

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |

51: 582:

Does anyone know why the title is hyphenated? I've only seen it as two words with no hyphen.

2545: 2248: 2162: 2104: 1651: 718: 547: 332: 1609: 1119:

if you're reading this, I've enjoyed seeing all your examples in music theory articles! :)

717:. At the moment, I cannot think of a reliable source, but I am sure that one can be found.— 1584:

subsection. It might be better to link to it, but I don't immediately see how to do it. —

141: 1613: 367:

The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with

2566: 2119: 2081: 372: 2583: 2540: 2500: 2472: 2441: 2277: 2237: 2220: 2035: 2025: 2015: 1683: 1578: 1563: 1422: 1340: 1217: 1202: 1124: 1116: 1089: 1070: 893: 654: 561: 502: 483: 468: 448: 433: 409: 1718: 2430: 2331: 1668: 1327: 1281: 1259: 1253: 1108:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/score/o/6/o6edxpqjxyxmltdfxqmnpfjrk6jmmqs/o6edxpqj.png

995: 602: 264: 251: 24: 1562:

What example needs, or needed, to be redone? I assume an image no longer present.

2263: 2244: 2209: 2179: 2158: 2100: 1688: 1245:– which would have resulted in unsolvable conflicts with the upper voices. See 2294:

The players for the auto-generated audio from LilyPond notations all link to "

1988:

The new representation of the leading tone phenomenon can also be found here:

1743:, but some of the statements that can be read there question the meaning that 1713: 1698: 948:

stick a on it and wait a few months before deleting it. I have Mark Levine's

241: 1015:

I deleted the sentences about the seventh of a seventh chord resolving down.

1001:

I'll do all that, but I am somewat too busy with other things just now. —

2273: 1433: 1418: 1353: 1336: 1120: 1066: 344:] The anchor (#Four-part writing) is no longer available because it was 2096:, but refrained because there are many inline Harvard-style references. 1227:

Why does the caption not say that this example if from Juan Escribano's

985:

is common in German, not specifically Schenkerian. I have to check that.

2010:

I am unfamiliar with the notation used throughout this article, e.g.,

969:

I have a later edition of Bernward and Saker. They definitely give the

731:

In Kotska, he refers to it as a "tendency tone". I've never heard of a

340:

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

1082:

File:Escribano - Lamentation, upper leading-tone cadence diatonic.mid

885:

is for Schenker an upper leading tone; but it is not a tendency tone.

2574: 2553: 2529: 2508: 2490: 2459: 2307: 2281: 2252: 2228: 2198: 2166: 2132: 2108: 2000: 1980: 1957: 1903: 1883: 1856: 1839: 1730: 1659: 1640: 1593: 1571: 1549: 1510: 1426: 1401: 1344: 1297: 1210: 1188: 1154: 1128: 1101: 1074: 1024: 1010: 964: 935: 749: 726: 690: 591: 569: 555: 540: 521: 491: 476: 456: 441: 417: 398: 235: 217: 1055: 1966:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/25742442.2023.2185064

2295: 1989: 2351: 2318: 1380:

of course are sharpened by musica ficta and the idea that the

314: 184: 15: 1143:

File:Escribano - Lamentation, upper leading-tone cadence.png

1086:

File:Escribano - Lamentation, upper leading-tone cadence.mid

531:

It is not the best example. G# and A is a better example.

1762:. Even Riemann is quite clear about this, when he writes: 1258:

There are two (both F–E) in the examble illustrating the

873:!) is considered an upper leading tone. In a Schenkerian 673:. Has anyone ever encountered this expression applied to 391:? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – 2290:

LilyPond audio players unlinked to their respective mp3s

888:

You made this problem apparent when you added a link to

783:

as a "secundary upper leading tone". But to assume that

629:", but I strongly doubt that Kotska associates the two. 2435: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2340: 941: 791:

may be an upper leading tone, one would have to accept

383:

need special coverage, so we started up a new article:

1438:

Well, this is a complex case. The article claims that

160: 1041:

Given Escribano Lamentation example score with trill

1808:

Riemann makes it very clear in this that the French

1799:

of this type always is the third of the dominant. (

605:, describes the resolution of the dominant seventh ( 263:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 197:This article has not yet been rated on Knowledge's 2018:built on the seventh scale degree in a major key ( 498:Proposal to unify the layout of scale-degree pages 297:This article has not yet received a rating on the 1106:Hi Michael Sorry I meant the one that links to: 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 952:and I couldn't find "upper leading tone" in it. 2152:consider them common enough. I think that any 1264:(No, I wrote too fast, the descending F–E are 1803:, 1st edition, 1882, p. 516, my translation.) 174: 8: 1935:Modal Function in Rock and Heavy Metal Music 1719:Music. The Vision of Humanities and Sciences 828:, have a tendency to move to scale degree 2070:harv error: no target: CITEREFGoldman1965 ( 2024:), while a leading-tone seventh chord is a 2330:It has been proposed in this section that 1870:is broader than that of "leading tone" or 1616: 988:While working on an analysis of Debussy's 696:I cannot recall ever seeing it applied to 408:I added one audio example to the article. 212: 190: 188: 1112:i.e. the one with four staves in D minor. 560:I assume it's because of the accidental. 2595:Unknown-importance Music theory articles 2189:: I don't see what else one could do. — 2296:https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Undefined 2065: 1993:2A02:8071:3483:6D80:CC5B:4BA1:CEBA:AAE6 1973:2A02:8071:3483:6D80:6545:EE90:DE10:DE2E 1633:2A02:8071:3E81:9900:659D:6D32:B2B6:6A46 1623:2A02:8071:3E81:9900:659D:6D32:B2B6:6A46 1088:, or both? In any case, we should ping 1080:Which sound file are you referring to? 214: 2470:has been notified of this discussion. 2118:, and the presence of these signs in 1747:give to "leading tone". For instance: 7: 387:. Why not have a look, and join the 257:This article is within the scope of 2028:built on the seventh scale degree ( 1331:sharp, and it's not a trill at all. 601:The article, in its section on the 203:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 1650:. Can you offer something better?— 277:Knowledge:WikiProject Music theory 14: 2600:WikiProject Music theory articles 2355:will list this discussion on the 1862:Is it not rather a theory of the 1714:An essay about happy memory songs 1610:Academia: What is a leading tone? 918:source could be found describing 280:Template:WikiProject Music theory 2590:Unassessed Music theory articles 2322: 2313:Requested move 26 September 2024 1914:Einmal mehr: Musik und Emotionen 1491: 1483: 1470: 1462: 1453: 1445: 1274: 1266: 1229:Lamentations du prophète Jérémie 979: 920: 879: 867: 854: 838: 830: 822: 814: 806: 798: 785: 777: 760: 733: 711: 704:, but I have seen it applied to 698: 675: 667: 659: 647: 634: 623: 615: 607: 318: 244: 234: 216: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 1141:as a LilyPond transcription of 2575:19:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC) 2554:21:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2530:19:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2509:16:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2491:14:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2460:14:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 1614:Prezi: What is a leading tone? 657:article, about the resolution 1: 2199:18:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC) 2167:15:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC) 2133:17:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC) 2109:19:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC) 1990:https://psyarxiv.com/g29xy/-- 1511:08:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC) 1427:00:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC) 271:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 2367:). Please base arguments on 1550:13:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC) 1177:der abwärtssteigende Leitton 1025:22:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC) 1011:21:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC) 965:18:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC) 936:21:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC) 926:as an upper leading tone. — 750:20:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC) 727:18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC) 691:09:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC) 592:21:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC) 2006:Notation? Reference needed! 1699:Music and Emotion in Cinema 1629:) 07:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 991:La fille aux cheveux de lin 804:as a lower leading tone to 477:12:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 442:12:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 2621: 2014:A leading-tone triad is a 1282:Leading-tone seventh chord 1256:subsection, for instance. 1133:That score was entered by 570:09:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC) 556:16:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC) 541:06:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC) 522:19:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 492:00:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 457:00:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 299:project's importance scale 2483: 2452: 2282:15:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC) 2253:23:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 2229:10:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 1958:15:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 1904:09:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 1884:16:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 1857:08:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 1840:13:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 1731:12:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 1660:08:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 1641:07:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 1594:10:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 1572:09:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 1402:17:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC) 1345:17:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC) 1298:11:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 1211:09:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 1189:08:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 1155:13:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC) 1129:11:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC) 1102:02:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC) 1075:15:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC) 418:22:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 399:05:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 296: 229: 211: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2468:WikiProject Music theory 2308:09:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) 2001:12:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC) 1981:07:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) 1694:Music on Stage, P. 202ff 1161:abwärtssteigende Leitton 503:WikiProject Music Theory 260:WikiProject Music theory 1918:Schweitzer Musikzeitung 1602:What is a leading tone? 2371:, and keep discussion 2270:Roman numeral notation 2187:Roman numeral analysis 2062:dominant seventh chord 2038:considers and notates 1928:Facts and Counterfacts 1847:leading-tone-effect.-- 1805: 1754: 1092:who created those. -- 1061: 428:Unclear citation style 385:Diatonic and chromatic 363:Diatonic and chromatic 75:avoid personal attacks 2094:Template:No footnotes 1795:in G major, etc. The 1765: 1750: 1704:A story through notes 1167:I and II, passim, or 1059: 283:Music theory articles 100:Neutral point of view 2400:requested move/dated 2388:subst:requested move 2369:article title policy 2365:closing instructions 2359:current discussions 2092:I considered adding 105:No original research 2191:Hucbald.SaintAmand 2144:Hucbald.SaintAmand 2125:Hucbald.SaintAmand 2086:Not reliably true. 1950:Hucbald.SaintAmand 1876:Hucbald.SaintAmand 1832:Hucbald.SaintAmand 1772:subsemitonium modi 1586:Hucbald.SaintAmand 1558:Hucbald.SaintAmand 1542:Hucbald.SaintAmand 1527:Leading tone triad 1503:Hucbald.SaintAmand 1410:Hucbald.SaintAmand 1394:Hucbald.SaintAmand 1311:Hucbald.SaintAmand 1290:Hucbald.SaintAmand 1263: 1181:Hucbald.SaintAmand 1135:User:Squandermania 1062: 1003:Hucbald.SaintAmand 928:Hucbald.SaintAmand 890:upper leading tone 683:Hucbald.SaintAmand 603:upper leading tone 597:Upper leading tone 527:B and C as example 199:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2493: 2428: 2427: 2423: 2406: 2336:renamed and moved 1933:Nicole Biamonte, 1630: 1621:comment added by 1257: 836:and scale degree 820:and scale degree 360: 359: 346:deleted by a user 335:in most browsers. 313: 312: 309: 308: 305: 304: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2612: 2489: 2487: 2481: 2477: 2465: 2458: 2456: 2450: 2446: 2438: 2408: 2403: 2391: 2382: 2354: 2343: 2326: 2325: 2319: 2267: 2241: 2213: 2183: 2147: 2075: 2060:, an incomplete 2059: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2043: 2033: 2023: 1829: 1828: 1812:and the English 1794: 1793: 1582: 1561: 1496: 1495: 1488: 1487: 1481: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1467: 1466: 1458: 1457: 1450: 1449: 1443: 1442: 1437: 1413: 1391: 1390: 1385: 1384: 1379: 1378: 1370: 1369: 1364: 1363: 1357: 1314: 1279: 1278: 1271: 1270: 1239: 1238: 1222:Michael Bednarek 1173:Free Composition 1147:Michael Bednarek 1094:Michael Bednarek 1065:might be better. 1053: 1052: 1048: 984: 983: 950:Jazz Theory Book 925: 924: 913: 912: 907: 906: 901: 900: 884: 883: 872: 871: 865: 864: 859: 858: 852: 851: 843: 842: 835: 834: 827: 826: 819: 818: 811: 810: 803: 802: 796: 795: 790: 789: 782: 781: 775: 774: 765: 764: 738: 737: 716: 715: 709: 708: 703: 702: 680: 679: 672: 671: 664: 663: 652: 651: 645: 644: 639: 638: 628: 627: 620: 619: 612: 611: 394: 354:Reporting errors 322: 321: 315: 285: 284: 281: 278: 275: 254: 249: 248: 247: 238: 231: 230: 220: 213: 194: 193: 192: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2620: 2619: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2605:Requested moves 2580: 2579: 2479: 2473: 2471: 2448: 2442: 2440: 2434: 2424: 2397: 2385: 2357:requested moves 2350: 2339: 2323: 2315: 2292: 2261: 2235: 2207: 2177: 2141: 2069: 2054: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2045: 2039: 2029: 2019: 2008: 1940:Thomas Hedges, 1910:Wolfgang Böhler 1892:Wolfgang Böhler 1826: 1825: 1791: 1790: 1648:reliable source 1604: 1576: 1555: 1529: 1490: 1482: 1478: 1477: 1469: 1461: 1452: 1444: 1440: 1439: 1431: 1407: 1388: 1387: 1382: 1381: 1376: 1375: 1367: 1366: 1361: 1360: 1351: 1308: 1273: 1265: 1236: 1235: 1139:5 November 2018 1054: 1050: 1046: 1044: 1043: 978: 919: 910: 909: 904: 903: 898: 897: 878: 866: 862: 861: 853: 849: 848: 837: 829: 821: 813: 805: 797: 793: 792: 784: 776: 772: 771: 759: 732: 710: 706: 705: 697: 674: 666: 658: 646: 642: 641: 633: 622: 614: 606: 599: 580: 529: 500: 465: 430: 425: 406: 392: 365: 356: 338: 337: 336: 319: 282: 279: 276: 273: 272: 250: 245: 243: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2618: 2616: 2608: 2607: 2602: 2597: 2592: 2582: 2581: 2578: 2577: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2533: 2532: 2522:YorkshireExpat 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2426: 2425: 2407: 2381: 2347: 2346: 2327: 2314: 2311: 2291: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2256: 2255: 2232: 2231: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2154:music theorist 2136: 2135: 2120:Template:Music 2082:Template:Music 2078: 2077: 2052: 2051: 2007: 2004: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1968: 1963: 1946: 1921: 1887: 1886: 1845: 1843: 1842: 1764: 1763: 1749: 1748: 1741:Music on Stage 1663: 1662: 1612: 1608: 1603: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1537: 1536: 1528: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1415: 1372: 1348: 1347: 1332: 1323: 1317: 1316: 1301: 1300: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1249: 1232: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1169:Der freie Satz 1113: 1110: 1042: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 999: 986: 975: 971:Maple Leaf Rag 953: 945: 908:, instead of B 886: 845: 756: 598: 595: 579: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 528: 525: 499: 496: 495: 494: 464: 461: 460: 459: 429: 426: 424: 421: 405: 402: 373:harmonic minor 364: 361: 358: 357: 351: 350: 349: 333:case-sensitive 327: 326: 325: 323: 311: 310: 307: 306: 303: 302: 295: 289: 288: 286: 269:the discussion 256: 255: 239: 227: 226: 221: 209: 208: 202: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2617: 2606: 2603: 2601: 2598: 2596: 2593: 2591: 2588: 2587: 2585: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2565: 2560: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2542: 2538: 2535: 2534: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2516: 2515: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2495: 2494: 2492: 2488: 2486: 2478: 2476: 2469: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2457: 2455: 2447: 2445: 2437: 2432: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2411: 2405: 2401: 2395: 2389: 2380: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2353: 2345: 2342: 2337: 2333: 2328: 2321: 2320: 2317: 2312: 2310: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2289: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2265: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2239: 2234: 2233: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2211: 2206: 2205: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2181: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2155: 2151: 2145: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2097: 2095: 2090: 2087: 2083: 2073: 2067: 2063: 2058: 2042: 2037: 2036:Walter Piston 2032: 2027: 2026:seventh chord 2022: 2017: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2005: 2003: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1969: 1967: 1964: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1944: 1943: 1937: 1936: 1930: 1929: 1926:Thomas Noll, 1922: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1872:note sensible 1869: 1865: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810:note sensible 1807: 1806: 1804: 1802: 1801:Musik-Lexikon 1798: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1776:note sensible 1773: 1769: 1761: 1756: 1755: 1753: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1706: 1705: 1701: 1700: 1696: 1695: 1691: 1690: 1686: 1685: 1684:Prezi Ganguly 1681: 1680: 1679:Cycle Defrost 1676: 1675: 1671: 1670: 1669:Ukulele.Space 1666: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1611: 1601: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1580: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1559: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1526: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1494: 1486: 1473: 1465: 1456: 1448: 1435: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1411: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1373: 1355: 1350: 1349: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1333: 1330: 1329: 1324: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1312: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1283: 1277: 1269: 1261: 1260:Voice-leading 1255: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1225: 1223: 1219: 1216:I agree with 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1117:User:Hyacinth 1114: 1111: 1109: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1090:User:Hyacinth 1087: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1058: 1049: 1040: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1017:Squandermania 1014: 1013: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 997: 993: 992: 987: 982: 976: 972: 968: 967: 966: 962: 958: 957:Squandermania 954: 951: 946: 943: 939: 938: 937: 933: 929: 923: 917: 895: 894:Voice leading 891: 887: 882: 876: 870: 857: 846: 841: 833: 825: 817: 809: 801: 788: 780: 769: 763: 757: 753: 752: 751: 747: 743: 742:Squandermania 736: 730: 729: 728: 724: 720: 714: 701: 695: 694: 693: 692: 688: 684: 678: 670: 662: 656: 655:Voice leading 650: 637: 630: 626: 618: 610: 604: 596: 594: 593: 589: 585: 584:Squandermania 577: 571: 567: 563: 559: 558: 557: 553: 549: 545: 544: 543: 542: 538: 534: 526: 524: 523: 519: 515: 514: 513:Devin.chaloux 508: 504: 497: 493: 489: 485: 482:Tag removed. 481: 480: 479: 478: 474: 470: 462: 458: 454: 450: 447:Tag removed. 446: 445: 444: 443: 439: 435: 427: 422: 420: 419: 415: 411: 403: 401: 400: 397: 390: 386: 382: 378: 374: 370: 362: 355: 347: 343: 342: 341: 334: 330: 324: 317: 316: 300: 294: 291: 290: 287: 270: 266: 262: 261: 253: 242: 240: 237: 233: 232: 228: 225: 222: 219: 215: 210: 206: 200: 196: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2558: 2536: 2517: 2496: 2484: 2474: 2453: 2443: 2436:Leading tone 2431:Leading-tone 2429: 2409: 2393: 2383: 2348: 2341:Leading tone 2332:Leading-tone 2329: 2316: 2293: 2153: 2149: 2098: 2091: 2085: 2079: 2066:Goldman 1965 2046: 2040: 2030: 2020: 2009: 1987: 1941: 1934: 1927: 1917: 1913: 1888: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1844: 1822:Gegenleitton 1821: 1817: 1814:Leading tone 1813: 1809: 1800: 1796: 1787: 1786:in C major, 1783: 1780:Leading tone 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1759: 1751: 1744: 1740: 1717: 1712: 1707: 1702: 1697: 1692: 1687: 1682: 1677: 1672: 1667: 1664: 1617:— Preceding 1605: 1538: 1530: 1498: 1328:musica ficta 1326: 1243:musica ficta 1242: 1228: 1199: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1063: 996:Leading-tone 989: 970: 949: 915: 874: 767: 631: 600: 581: 533:Qwertyxp2000 530: 510: 501: 466: 431: 407: 380: 376: 368: 366: 339: 331:Anchors are 328: 274:Music theory 265:music theory 258: 252:Music portal 224:Music theory 205:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 25:Leading-tone 19:This is the 2546:Violetstork 2421:direct move 2413:current log 2384:Please use 2217:WP:NOTHOWTO 2157:notation.-- 1709:Anita Sayar 1674:Operalively 1652:Jerome Kohl 1262:subsection. 1165:Kontrapunkt 1115:By the way 719:Jerome Kohl 548:Jerome Kohl 148:free images 31:not a forum 2584:Categories 2417:target log 1938:(2012) or 1778:, English 389:discussion 2567:Kowal2701 2561:per above 2404:directly. 1782:), f. i. 1774:, French 1689:Prezi Ali 768:Waldstein 640:(usually 381:chromatic 369:chromatic 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2541:PianoDan 2537:Support. 2501:PianoDan 2475:Remsense 2444:Remsense 2373:succinct 2238:Hyacinth 2221:Hyacinth 1931:(2005), 1896:Willimek 1849:Willimek 1737:Willimek 1723:Willimek 1619:unsigned 1579:Hyacinth 1564:Hyacinth 1386:denote d 1284:section. 1254:Function 1218:Hyacinth 1203:Hyacinth 755:upward". 562:Hyacinth 484:Hyacinth 469:Hyacinth 449:Hyacinth 434:Hyacinth 410:Hyacinth 404:Reqaudio 377:diatonic 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2559:Support 2518:Support 2497:Support 2361:subpage 2080:I read 1868:Leitton 1864:Leitton 1818:Leitton 1797:Leitton 1768:Leitton 1760:Leitton 974:matter. 916:serious 902:above D 875:Urlinie 423:Cleanup 393:Noetica 348:before. 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2539:Like @ 2466:Note: 2410:Links: 2264:Thnidu 2245:Thnidu 2210:Thnidu 2180:Thnidu 2159:Thnidu 2150:people 2101:Thnidu 1607:tones: 1406:Hello 1045:": --> 578:Hyphen 201:scale. 126:Google 2392:. Do 2377:civil 2068:, 17) 2016:triad 1916:, in 1163:(see 860:(not 546:Why?— 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2571:talk 2550:talk 2526:talk 2505:talk 2396:use 2375:and 2304:talk 2278:talk 2249:talk 2225:talk 2195:talk 2163:talk 2129:talk 2116:here 2105:talk 2072:help 1997:talk 1977:talk 1954:talk 1900:talk 1880:talk 1853:talk 1836:talk 1727:talk 1656:talk 1637:talk 1627:talk 1590:talk 1568:talk 1546:talk 1507:talk 1423:talk 1398:talk 1341:talk 1294:talk 1207:talk 1185:talk 1151:talk 1125:talk 1098:talk 1071:talk 1047:edit 1021:talk 1007:talk 961:talk 932:talk 746:talk 723:talk 687:talk 681:? — 588:talk 566:talk 552:talk 537:talk 518:chat 507:here 488:talk 473:talk 463:Tone 453:talk 438:talk 414:talk 396:Talk 379:and 329:Tip: 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2394:not 2352:bot 2338:to 2334:be 2300:S8D 2274:Fh1 2044:as 2041:vii 2034:). 2031:vii 2021:vii 1745:you 1434:Fh1 1419:Fh1 1354:Fh1 1337:Fh1 1137:on 1121:Fh1 1084:or 1067:Fh1 892:in 293:??? 176:TWL 2586:: 2573:) 2552:) 2528:) 2507:) 2480:‥ 2449:‥ 2433:→ 2419:• 2415:• 2402:}} 2398:{{ 2390:}} 2386:{{ 2379:. 2349:A 2306:) 2280:) 2272:. 2251:) 2227:) 2197:) 2165:) 2131:) 2107:) 2099:-- 1999:) 1979:) 1956:) 1920:.) 1902:) 1894:-- 1882:) 1855:) 1838:) 1729:) 1721:-- 1658:) 1639:) 1631:-- 1592:) 1570:) 1548:) 1509:) 1425:) 1400:) 1343:) 1296:) 1209:) 1187:) 1153:) 1127:) 1100:) 1073:) 1023:) 1009:) 963:) 934:) 877:, 748:) 725:) 689:) 590:) 568:) 554:) 539:) 520:) 511:— 490:) 475:) 455:) 440:) 416:) 156:) 54:; 2569:( 2548:( 2524:( 2503:( 2485:论 2454:论 2344:. 2302:( 2276:( 2266:: 2262:@ 2247:( 2240:: 2236:@ 2223:( 2212:: 2208:@ 2193:( 2182:: 2178:@ 2161:( 2146:: 2142:@ 2127:( 2103:( 2076:. 2074:) 2064:( 2053:7 2047:V 1995:( 1975:( 1952:( 1898:( 1878:( 1851:( 1834:( 1827:♭ 1792:♯ 1788:f 1784:b 1725:( 1654:( 1635:( 1625:( 1588:( 1581:: 1577:@ 1566:( 1560:: 1556:@ 1544:( 1505:( 1499:c 1489:– 1479:♭ 1468:– 1451:– 1441:♭ 1436:: 1432:@ 1421:( 1412:: 1408:@ 1396:( 1389:♯ 1383:♯ 1377:♯ 1368:♭ 1362:♭ 1359:B 1356:: 1352:@ 1339:( 1313:: 1309:@ 1292:( 1272:– 1237:♭ 1231:? 1205:( 1183:( 1149:( 1123:( 1096:( 1069:( 1051:] 1019:( 1005:( 959:( 930:( 911:♮ 905:♭ 899:♭ 863:♭ 850:♮ 794:♯ 773:♭ 744:( 721:( 707:♭ 685:( 665:– 643:♭ 613:– 586:( 564:( 550:( 535:( 516:( 486:( 471:( 451:( 436:( 412:( 301:. 207:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index