Humanities desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 17

People guessing keys of melodies using wrong rules

Look at Talk:Hail to the Chief.

Back in 2004, I (at that time using 66.32 and 66.245 IP addresses [I got a registered user name on January 1, 2005]) made the first post to the talk page, simply writing the melody. The key is G major.

Years later, another IP (I never bothered to study this talk page until recently) made comments implying that the melody the way I posted it was in D major, using the bad argument that a melody must start on the tonic. It's quite common for melodies to start on the dominant. Is this a common wrong rule some people use?? (Another important fact is that the post I made back then was before Wikipedia adopted a rule that you can't use a number sign for a sharp sign.) Georgia guy (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame because it's an incredibly intuitive concept once it's explained the right way: it's just the note that feels like "home" for all intents and purposes! Find the note that sounds okay being hummed throughout, and that's probably the tonic! Remsense ‥ 论 00:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense, look at the melody I wrote in the talk page of Hail to the Chief back in late 2004. I'm sure the tonic is G. (If you look at lower comments in the same section you'll see someone saying information implying that D is the tonic.) Georgia guy (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to you as a Georgia guy, but the example du jour of this has been Sweet Home Alabama, though the reasoning is at least because the chord progression seems like it outlines G (D 〃 C G → V 〃 IV I) instead of D (I 〃 ♭VII IV) to some. Remsense ‥ 论 01:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgia guy, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that File:Hail to the Chief Chorus Sheet Music.png is in G?

I'm not sure how that could be (by the way, you would be arguing it's in G Lydian). It starts with a strong I–V–I that rather firmly establishes D as the tonic—you have to look at the entire harmony to discern the key, not just the melody. In any case, it would be rather untypical to start with the leading tone. The harmonies rather squarely fit into what'd we'd expect from a piece in D, with really no exceptions. Aza24 (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The melody recorded with note names in Talk:Hail to the Chief § Melody and the First Voice seen in the score at File:Hail to the Chief Chorus Sheet Music.png are not in the same key. The melody rises stepwise to the note sounded at "Chief", the fourth syllable of the text (not counting the two-bar intro "Hail! Hail!"). This note is the tonic. On the talk page of Hail to the Chief this is a G; in the printed score it is a D. The Bass Voice in the score is stubbornly D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D throughout the initial "Hail to the Chief who in Triumph ad-". This is as sure an indication of the tonic as one might hope to get from the music itself. The key signature of the score is also that of D major. --Lambiam 08:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, the song (like most songs) can be in any key; the key depends on how the song is arranged. Here is the first line of the song in each key:

D major: A-B-C♯-D-C♯-B-A-B-A-F♯-E-D
G major: D-E-F♯-G-F♯-E-D-E-D-B-A-G. Lambiam, what notes (assuming the song is in G major) are the notes "Hail! Hail!" that make up the 2-bar intro?? (Also please note that a few years later, someone re-wrote the melody, also on the talk page but in a lower section, in a different key with a description that [if correct] would imply that the melody that I wrote on the talk page was in D; it would imply that the printed score is in A. They were using the argument that a song's first note is likely its tonic.) Georgia guy (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the two initial Hail!s takes up a full bar of four beats. Looking at all three voices, the first is D·F♯·D and the second A·E·C♯. Although the first is not a full triad I interpret this as the progression I–V, which is followed by D·F♯·A, unambiguously I. Melodically, A–C♯–A wouldn't have worked well; D–C♯–A is much better. --Lambiam 16:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lambiam, please note what this discussion is intended to be about. Look further down the talk page (below where I put the melody in G major) and you'll see what I mean. You'll see a comment made by an IP who said something that if it were true, it would imply that the way I put the melody at the talk page (which is in G) was in D. Georgia guy (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the question? If you want me to comment on a comment by someone who commented on your comment, could you be more precise than "further down the talk page", such as indicating in which thread by which IP when? --Lambiam 16:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lambiam, look down the talk page for a post dating to late 2008 by the IP 90.24.229.69. (The 66. user who put the notes to the song in G major in late 2004 was me before I got a Wikipedia user name on January 1, 2005.) Georgia guy (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The post starting with "Wrong image" then. Could you remind me what the question is? --Lambiam 18:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lambiam: Yes, look at what someone wrote just after the words "Wrong image". The IP put the melody in a different key but claimed it was in the key that would be equivalent to the statement that the melody I put on the talk page in 2004 was in D major. Please read it. Georgia guy (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. Now what is your question? --Lambiam 19:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, the user appears to be thinking that their set of notes of "Hail to the Chief" is in F, not B♭. This is a mistake. I want to know if this is a common mistake. Georgia guy (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a common mistake among people who know something about Western music theory. It is also not a common mistake among people who know nothing about Western music theory and therefore refrain from making statements about what key something is in. But then there are some people who know nothing about Western music theory and yet are happy to make pronouncements that only display their ignorance. I have no material on how common this is for this specific type of error. --Lambiam 22:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infralapsarianism infiltrates inter-disciplinarily. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump denied security clearance?

Suppose Donald Trump is inaugurated next January. Is there any way he could be denied any security clearance or information, due to his criminal convictions and so on? Could there be any restrictions that he could not overturn? Hayttom (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. --Golbez (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The president can constitutionally declare that there is an insurrection and, using the powers of the Insurrection Act, order the military to arrest their opponents. They need not involve Congress. If this doesn't work as planned, it can only be because of insubordination --Lambiam 16:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are acts of the president susceptible to Judicial Review? 2A02:C7B:223:9900:A88D:8EE5:E75B:3C1A (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By a recent ruling of the Supreme Court, the president enjoys absolute immunity for official acts, which this would be. In light of this, the question is purely theoretical. There is no way that SCOTUS, if not already arrested, would seek to review the acts (and if they do, the president can have them incarcerated too). --Lambiam 16:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's presumptive immunity for official acts, and absolute for so-called core acts of the office. The actual status (both legal and practical) of the notion of arresting/harassing/killing political opponents was disputed at the day of the ruling; I don't think anybody has seriously brought up the notion that other branches of government can be extralegally rounded up. Also, according to the Trump v US article you linked (but I didn't read the source and I probably don't understand it), Justice Jackson argued that legislative impeachment powers were reduced relative the judiciary in checking executive abuses of this nature after this ruling. So I'm guessing this is all way more complicated than all this, even if just theoretical. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually only Golbez (talk) seemed to understand my question (although they were not very generous with elaboration) so I will try to ask it better: could any institution like the CIA withhold (or try to withhold or at least demonstrate going through the motions of withholding) a president's security clearance on grounds such as their criminal history? Hayttom (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I mean, I suppose employees there could try, but they would be failing their job and thus should be fired. --Golbez (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to any source online, no conviction jeopardizes the president's security clearance because he doesn't have any (and keep in mind he gets classified briefings still, and would again be automatically granted them now as the major party's nominee, and his suitability to receive them even came up as an issue in 2016.) SamuelRiv (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict): Addendum to my above: I don't know to what extent this is entirely norms, or norms made legal by default, just like there there ain't no rules says a dog can't play basketball. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 2016 source refers to presidential candidates. Hayttom (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Once nominated, the major party candidates get classified briefings. As do presidents. As do ex-presidents, for life. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I believe I remember George H. W. Bush being quoted a few years before he died that he was no longer in the loop. But I imagine that was by his own request.) Hayttom (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we are being told that Trump (as an ex-president, as a candidate, and in the terms of my question, a president) cannot be denied classified briefings. Hayttom (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved

Buddhist monks and nuns theravada mahayana vajrayana

Is there website where they show Buddhist monks and nuns of Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana look like and dress like? Donmust90 Donmust90 (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a web search for images of members of those schools. You can also see images in our articles at Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. However, it's not as simple as that as their dress depends which country they are in and which particular branch of those schools they belong to. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]