This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Augmented sixth chord article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
My dear Noetica ... ahem ... MOS clearly states that periods should not be used after a caption that is just a nominal group, unless that group comes after a full sentence in the caption. There are good reasons for this, and I haven't understood that the MOS policy was under threat of change. It was a clarion call to me, was it? <smile> TONY (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC) PS And they're now inconsistent. TONY (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the excellent Tony! Now, dear colleague, for convenience I reproduce the relevant guideline at WP:MOS, since it does not say what you claim it does:
So in fact MOS does not rule on cases in which there are several sentence fragments (nominal groups) forming the caption, in the absence of any full grammatical sentence. Many captions are like that, though:
Augmented sixth chord on scale degree ♭2 in Schubert's piano sonata D. 959. Italian form, preceded by a Neapolitan sixth chord in root position.
So which caption is in breach of MOS? Is it that one, or the other which consists of two fragments? If there is a breach, what are the solutions that fit with the existing insufficient guidelines at MOS? (I say nothing concerning the execrable WP:CAP, which is way out of conformity with WP:MOS, and stands in dire need of editing even to meet MOS standards of editing itself.)
And by the way, as far as the MOS guidelines are concerned the nominal group may come before the full sentence, despite what you say above. I should know: I wrote that part.
: )
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 11:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes yes, you're right. But the Haydn example does not want those two dots. I agree with your other edit. BTW, I think the audio clip makes Haydn sound like the kind of noise you hear on a merry-go-round ride at the amusement park. Couldn't be uglier. Why don't we remove it to save degrading the genius? TONY (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we have consensus on deleting these tiresome references to every country on the globe, and just stick with the traditional ones? Australian 6th, hello. Was it announced in the source with tongue in cheek? TONY (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This section of the article needs to be deleted or greatly expanded. It simply states "people have differing opinions about this" and offers absolutely no elaboration. Specific examples of interpretations are necessary if this section of the article is to exist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SockEat ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
<!--I'm not sure I agree with this next statement; are the references intended to shed light on this, or are they just general, as the note says. If so, why is the note located right here?-->Theorists have struggled for centuries to explain the origins of these chords, define their [[root (music)|root]]s, and fit them into conventional harmonic theory.<ref>Some general sources for the modern theory of these chords are Aldwell and Schachter (op. cit.); Gauldin R, ''Harmonic practice in tonal music'', Norton, New York, 1997, ISBN 0-393-97074-4, pp. 422–438; and Christ, W, DeLone, R, Kliewer, V, Rowell, L, and Thomson, W, ''Materials and structure of music'', Vol. 2, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1973, pp. 141–171. (Christ et al. offer a usefully detailed consideration of augmented sixth chords along with the [[Neopolitan sixth]] chord.)</ref>
To Tony1: Regarding the relationship between the Fr4/3 and V7 sonorities, I hope I was able to cover that in the following section "French sixth sonority as dominant". -- Blehfu ( talk) 15:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Do I detect a note of frustration, Blehfu. IMO, those templates should be flushed down the pan; they were made for newbies and innocents, and seem to have become the norm for most editors who should be able to manage quite easily without them. They've grown like topsy at the behest of developers who live in a different world. Uncoordinated mess. Nothing wrong with manual. Tony (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are the bars listed considered any kind of +6 at all? In both the Andante and the Con Anima, bars 3-4 of both are completely diatonic. Realillusions ( talk) 18:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Even though I went through 3 years of augmented sixth chords drilled into our heads at university, I still find them interesting. It would be nice to see a score of an example of the Austrailian sixth. I also wonder if anyone has ever named the chord that contains a flat 6th, keynote, Maj 3rd, and aug 4th.I used such a chord in a compostition years ago and called it the Randolph sixth chord. I have also found ways of resolving an augmented sixth to chords other than the dominant. -- R3hall ( talk) 16:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)R3hall
Calling an augmented sixth chord on the subdominant in a major key is also unnecessary. It would be diatonic in the parallel minor, which just makes it an enharmonic borrowed chord in the parallel major and not an augmented sixth chord at all.
It probably wouldn't be necessary to call the German augmented sixth chord as such in that case, as it's enharmonically equivalent to a secondary dominant seventh chord who's resolution is just a little peculiar. The French designation might also be deemed unnecessary as it's essentially just an altered secondary dominant seventh, substituting the fifth scale degree for a flat five, which is common enough in the romantic period and after. The Italian designation, however, you may want to retain. Because of it's lack of a fourth unique scale degree (as the tonic is doubled) theoretically, you could call it any number of different chords, just with a voice or two omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.63.3 ( talk) 20:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Should ♭6—1—1 not be ♭6—1—#4? or am I misunderstanding the text? Pounderd ( talk) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
For most musicians, the alto clef is not second nature; could the picture in "Dominant functions" be replaced with one without such an absurd clef? Hyacinth ( talk) 10:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Why and where does this section need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth ( talk) 22:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I propose the above outline. Hyacinth ( talk) 23:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"Suppose you're in the key of C. Write an Ab combined with an F# and you have two notes that are each a half-step away from G, but coming at it from different directions. Each is serving as a "leading tone" to G, and that G could be the root of the dominant chord or it could be the bass of the inverted tonic chord. Either way this interval, an augmented sixth, sets up a feeling that the next thing to happen is going to be a G. Now you can fill out that interval in various ways, making a chord with a fuller sonority." From Ars Nova. Burraron ( talk) 19:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC) ñññ There are other things to consider, such as what is eventually implied as an imminent resolution of contrary chromatic lines. But absent such specific context, the augmented sixth chord seems to persuade people that the tendency of the minor seventh to resolve inward can be reversed merely by means of enharmonic spelling. Whether or not this is legitimate is a separate question from whether it historically happened, which it did. I suggest that readers might better understand Europeans listening with their eyes by also providing them to a link to the article on Eye Rhyme. - Joshua Clement Broyles ñññ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.181.89 ( talk) 17:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
We should probably mention "Also called a tritone" or replace aug6 entirely with tritone. Aug6 is outdated lingo. Academia uses the term tritone over aug6. 162.157.152.87 ( talk) 20:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I use dark mode on iOS and the SVG representing scale degrees (see the first sentence of the description for the French and German variants) doesn't render correctly. How would we fix this issue? Ledhed2222 ( talk) 20:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The description says that - for an an Italian Augmented Sixth - the root is doubled. However, in the example (the "generic" example, not the Beethoven excerpt) it is actually the third that is doubled: Ab - C - C - F#. I think this has the potential to confuse readers, as the example comes directly after the description. Unless the article is assuming that C is the root, which I doubt? 82.15.153.175 ( talk) 07:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Augmented sixth chord article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
My dear Noetica ... ahem ... MOS clearly states that periods should not be used after a caption that is just a nominal group, unless that group comes after a full sentence in the caption. There are good reasons for this, and I haven't understood that the MOS policy was under threat of change. It was a clarion call to me, was it? <smile> TONY (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC) PS And they're now inconsistent. TONY (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the excellent Tony! Now, dear colleague, for convenience I reproduce the relevant guideline at WP:MOS, since it does not say what you claim it does:
So in fact MOS does not rule on cases in which there are several sentence fragments (nominal groups) forming the caption, in the absence of any full grammatical sentence. Many captions are like that, though:
Augmented sixth chord on scale degree ♭2 in Schubert's piano sonata D. 959. Italian form, preceded by a Neapolitan sixth chord in root position.
So which caption is in breach of MOS? Is it that one, or the other which consists of two fragments? If there is a breach, what are the solutions that fit with the existing insufficient guidelines at MOS? (I say nothing concerning the execrable WP:CAP, which is way out of conformity with WP:MOS, and stands in dire need of editing even to meet MOS standards of editing itself.)
And by the way, as far as the MOS guidelines are concerned the nominal group may come before the full sentence, despite what you say above. I should know: I wrote that part.
: )
– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica! T– 11:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes yes, you're right. But the Haydn example does not want those two dots. I agree with your other edit. BTW, I think the audio clip makes Haydn sound like the kind of noise you hear on a merry-go-round ride at the amusement park. Couldn't be uglier. Why don't we remove it to save degrading the genius? TONY (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we have consensus on deleting these tiresome references to every country on the globe, and just stick with the traditional ones? Australian 6th, hello. Was it announced in the source with tongue in cheek? TONY (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This section of the article needs to be deleted or greatly expanded. It simply states "people have differing opinions about this" and offers absolutely no elaboration. Specific examples of interpretations are necessary if this section of the article is to exist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SockEat ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
<!--I'm not sure I agree with this next statement; are the references intended to shed light on this, or are they just general, as the note says. If so, why is the note located right here?-->Theorists have struggled for centuries to explain the origins of these chords, define their [[root (music)|root]]s, and fit them into conventional harmonic theory.<ref>Some general sources for the modern theory of these chords are Aldwell and Schachter (op. cit.); Gauldin R, ''Harmonic practice in tonal music'', Norton, New York, 1997, ISBN 0-393-97074-4, pp. 422–438; and Christ, W, DeLone, R, Kliewer, V, Rowell, L, and Thomson, W, ''Materials and structure of music'', Vol. 2, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1973, pp. 141–171. (Christ et al. offer a usefully detailed consideration of augmented sixth chords along with the [[Neopolitan sixth]] chord.)</ref>
To Tony1: Regarding the relationship between the Fr4/3 and V7 sonorities, I hope I was able to cover that in the following section "French sixth sonority as dominant". -- Blehfu ( talk) 15:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Do I detect a note of frustration, Blehfu. IMO, those templates should be flushed down the pan; they were made for newbies and innocents, and seem to have become the norm for most editors who should be able to manage quite easily without them. They've grown like topsy at the behest of developers who live in a different world. Uncoordinated mess. Nothing wrong with manual. Tony (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are the bars listed considered any kind of +6 at all? In both the Andante and the Con Anima, bars 3-4 of both are completely diatonic. Realillusions ( talk) 18:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Even though I went through 3 years of augmented sixth chords drilled into our heads at university, I still find them interesting. It would be nice to see a score of an example of the Austrailian sixth. I also wonder if anyone has ever named the chord that contains a flat 6th, keynote, Maj 3rd, and aug 4th.I used such a chord in a compostition years ago and called it the Randolph sixth chord. I have also found ways of resolving an augmented sixth to chords other than the dominant. -- R3hall ( talk) 16:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)R3hall
Calling an augmented sixth chord on the subdominant in a major key is also unnecessary. It would be diatonic in the parallel minor, which just makes it an enharmonic borrowed chord in the parallel major and not an augmented sixth chord at all.
It probably wouldn't be necessary to call the German augmented sixth chord as such in that case, as it's enharmonically equivalent to a secondary dominant seventh chord who's resolution is just a little peculiar. The French designation might also be deemed unnecessary as it's essentially just an altered secondary dominant seventh, substituting the fifth scale degree for a flat five, which is common enough in the romantic period and after. The Italian designation, however, you may want to retain. Because of it's lack of a fourth unique scale degree (as the tonic is doubled) theoretically, you could call it any number of different chords, just with a voice or two omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.63.3 ( talk) 20:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Should ♭6—1—1 not be ♭6—1—#4? or am I misunderstanding the text? Pounderd ( talk) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
For most musicians, the alto clef is not second nature; could the picture in "Dominant functions" be replaced with one without such an absurd clef? Hyacinth ( talk) 10:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Why and where does this section need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth ( talk) 22:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I propose the above outline. Hyacinth ( talk) 23:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"Suppose you're in the key of C. Write an Ab combined with an F# and you have two notes that are each a half-step away from G, but coming at it from different directions. Each is serving as a "leading tone" to G, and that G could be the root of the dominant chord or it could be the bass of the inverted tonic chord. Either way this interval, an augmented sixth, sets up a feeling that the next thing to happen is going to be a G. Now you can fill out that interval in various ways, making a chord with a fuller sonority." From Ars Nova. Burraron ( talk) 19:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC) ñññ There are other things to consider, such as what is eventually implied as an imminent resolution of contrary chromatic lines. But absent such specific context, the augmented sixth chord seems to persuade people that the tendency of the minor seventh to resolve inward can be reversed merely by means of enharmonic spelling. Whether or not this is legitimate is a separate question from whether it historically happened, which it did. I suggest that readers might better understand Europeans listening with their eyes by also providing them to a link to the article on Eye Rhyme. - Joshua Clement Broyles ñññ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.181.89 ( talk) 17:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
We should probably mention "Also called a tritone" or replace aug6 entirely with tritone. Aug6 is outdated lingo. Academia uses the term tritone over aug6. 162.157.152.87 ( talk) 20:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I use dark mode on iOS and the SVG representing scale degrees (see the first sentence of the description for the French and German variants) doesn't render correctly. How would we fix this issue? Ledhed2222 ( talk) 20:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The description says that - for an an Italian Augmented Sixth - the root is doubled. However, in the example (the "generic" example, not the Beethoven excerpt) it is actually the third that is doubled: Ab - C - C - F#. I think this has the potential to confuse readers, as the example comes directly after the description. Unless the article is assuming that C is the root, which I doubt? 82.15.153.175 ( talk) 07:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)