Talk:Tritone

With respects to Jazz music, shouldn't someone mention tritone substitutions? (unsigned message)

An important element not mentioned in the article, but I have little expertise on the issue, so I can't add this section.--Myke Cuthbert 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently it's breifly mentioned in the article but I think it deserves some more limelight then what it currently has. Omillas (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It is definantly notable that a straight tritone is the main riff of the song "black sabbtah" by the epnonymous band, and that metal music in general is based around the tritone and its uses in the pentatonic scale and to a lower extent the blues scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.3.121 (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, even if a decade late. I am surprised that this is not discussed in the article. When I think of tritone out side of jazz, this is the exact song I think of. The tritone is foundational to metal. Jyg (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Whilst very well sourced and written, must there really be such a catalogue of the use of the tritone? Glissando1234567890 (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If there are too many examples a reader may choose to ignore some of them. If there are not enough examples, that's much harder for the reader. Hyacinth (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the Haluska quote mentioning Hindemith looks mangled, and found this edit from 2010, which added mention of the book into it. Is it supposed to look like that (i.e. is it part of the original)? It gives the impression that someone not familiar with Wiki markup tried to manually insert a reference into the article by typing "[28]". Is anyone able to advise? Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The editor who inserted that quotation, User:Hyacinth, is very familiar with Wiki markup. It looks to me as if there is a reference numeral in the original, and the editor has added the note to which it refers in square brackets after the numeral. It is a bit awkward, but I think saying it is "mangled" may be going too far. Perhaps the editorially bracketed insertion could simply replace the original reference-note numeral.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the relevant edit: . Hyacinth (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)