Talk:Harmony

Tone

I find the tone (no pun intended) to be a bit colloquial at times. It also uses the second-person. It seems very unprofessional. 68.99.151.209 09:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)MT

Dinergic

The article included the following:

It [harmony] is a dinergic relationship, which is the fitting and joining of often contrasting elements. It is the fundamental basis of the Golden Mean.

I think mentioning dinergy here, which is a rather obscure concept, gives it too much prominence (besides which, the article on dinergy says it is "the pattern-forming process of the union of opposites", which isn't what harmony is, it seems to me). The Golden Mean sentence seems meaningless to me. The golden mean is a middle path; I don't see as this has anything to do with harmony. (There's also the mathematical meaning of course, which also has nothing to do with conventional harmony, though it's true a small number of people have written music using a tuning system based on the golden ratio.) --Camembert

It's just struck me that the author may have been thinking not about musical harmony, but about harmony as a general concept. If so, maybe the above makes sense, but it really doesn't belong in this article, which is explicitly just about the musical kind of harmony. Where it might belong instead, I don't really know, but it should be linked from Harmony (disambiguation), I guess. --Camembert

Harmony is also in nature and humans copied that into architecture and pottery. WHEELER 15:43, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, so you didn't mean harmony in music, then? If so, that's OK, as I said, there's probably a place for what you wrote on the Wikipedia somewhere. But this page is explicitly about harmony in music, and I think it's better to keep it that way - things could get quite confusing and confused if we mix the various concepts of harmony together. Like I say, maybe it could be worked into Harmony (disambiguation) or given its own page. --Camembert

---

Consonance and dissonance

The following sentence:

Notes may be considered to be in harmony with each other when some of the harmonics of each note, especially the louder harmonics (which are often the lower ones), share the same frequency.

confuses harmony with consonance. While this is in line with non-musical uses of the term (as opposed to disharmony), in music dissonances are considered harmony as well. Wahoofive 22:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How does it look now? Hyacinth 22:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Wahoofive 06:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Church

The influence of churches on harmonic language is overstated. Developments in harmony were due to the taste of individual composers and listeners (and patrons); although some of them were church members or clergy, there was no consistent policy on harmony from either Catholic or Protestant churches. Other aspects of music were regulated, such as instrumental accompaniment, but I'm not aware than any churches banned diminished-seventh chords or augmented sixths or whatever as a matter of church policy. Wahoofive 22:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a general example of churches controlling music Gregorian chant mentions "edicts of Rome...attempting to establish a consistent practice during this period" [400-800 CE]. Hyacinth 22:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Churches have often controlled music, but not specifically harmony, AFAIK. Wahoofive 06:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps you could remove it to talk as in the proposed policy Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources. Hyacinth 16:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Centrifugal/centripetal

Harmony may also be distinguished as centrifugal or centripetal harmony, harmony which leads away from or to the tonic, respectively. For example, music of the classical era is most often centrifugal, while the ragtime progression is centripetal. (van der Merwe 1989)

I've never heard of this, which may not be relevant, but the examples are nonsensical. For one thing, the "ragtime progression" page states it derives from classical usage. Anyway, in what universe does harmony in classical music lead away from the tonic? Ever heard of a cadence? —Wahoofive (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess youll have to look up the reference before dismissing it!--Light current 01:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How about a Google test? 36 results, none about music. That's for "centripedal". Centrifugal has only 4 results. I vote that the reference is a hoax, or at least the terms are not widely enough used to be included. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the book ref? Are you going to let it go?--Light current 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's break this down:

• CONTRIBUTOR: This section was added by a contributor who has a long history of adding made up material to Wikipedia and refusing to work with others, especially Wahoofive. See: User:Hyacinth and #Consonance and dissonance
• REFERENCE:The reference added is not a real book. See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0193161214/102-4638459-8408159?n=283155
• CONTENT: The actual content of the section, considered apart from the above, doesn't make sense. Why would one want to discuss where a chord progression is going? See: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Progress

One can only and quickly conclude that it is "hoax". (Please note that I'm being facetious) Hyacinth 09:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed "most" to "more" as I believe that was what van der Merwe meant (and it would seem that classical era music would be centrifugal only half the time). Hyacinth 09:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems like the Arabian comma mess all over again. Just because it's in a book doesn't make it true. Some books are full of shit fringe theories, and an important page like this one shouldn't give it prominence as if it were on the same level of general acceptance as Rameau or Riemann, neither of whom are is mentioned here. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to note the conflict which contributed to your tone in this discussion.

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Hyacinth 09:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes well, this is under review at the moment. Watch that space!--Light current 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can play rule-citing games too: see WP:NPOV#Undue weight, where it says

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

My Google test was intended to show that this view is extremely minority. This article presently gives a whole section to some crank neologisms while not even mentioning the mainstream view at all. You have the strangest library, Hyacinth. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll find mention of Rameau and Riemann on Tonality, some of which was added by me. Hyacinth 11:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this passage for the reason that, as the difference between "centrifugal" and "centripetal" harmonies are not defined. The passage states:

Harmony may also be distinguished as centrifugal or centripetal harmony, harmony which leads away from or to the tonic, respectively. For example, music of the classical era is more often centrifugal, while the ragtime progression is centripetal.

It fails to explain what harmony that "leads toward a tonic" or away from it is. It's somewhat unreasonable to be making a statement like "classical music more often leads away from the tonic", because this is untrue. Even the example of a ragtime progression is a particularly common progression in classical music. There may be some distinction to be made, but there isn't even a hint of it in this article. Hyacinth, can you offer a passage from the book you have taken this material from? Does the book use it throughout, or do the words only appear once in reference to ragtime music? - Rainwarrior 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Single melodic line?

the line about harmony being possible in a single harmonic line could really use some clarification. I think it is by definition impossible for a single melodic line to hit harmonies. If multiple notes are being sounded together, its no longer a single melodic line. The only thing I can think is that the "harmony" could be implied, for example by playing the root note of the implied chord on the downbeat and then playing as if within that chord, but I don't think that should really count, and if that is what is being described it certainly needs clarification. I guess the other possibility is that the sentence refers to the harmonics present in the notes of the melody, but that certainly shouldn't be mentioned as harmony as it more or less renders the term meaningless. Thoughts? Powrtoch 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've revised it slightly and left an example of what it was trying to describe. Also, there is a Canadian composer who has made considerable use of this technique... but I can't remember his name offhand. I'll try and remember... - Rainwarrior 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Found it. José Evangelista. "José Evangelista pursues an artistic path by which he has explored ways of making a music based exclusively on melody. Hence he has developed a heterophonic writing, both for instruments and orchestra, in which the melodic line generates echoes of itself and creates an illusion of polyphony." [1] - Rainwarrior 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Chord (music) and Harmony

I propose that we develop some sort of standard or guideline as to what information goes on the Chord (music) and Harmony articles.

To that end I will start discussion on this talk page. It seems like the history section of Chord (music) may actually belong at Harmony, so the first change I propose is that it (Chord (music)#History) be moved to or discussed more fully on Harmony. Hyacinth 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Rainwarrior edits are in pursuit of a petty personal vendetta

The Rainwarrior edits are aimed at his continued months-long stalking of Bob Fink, not the interest of the article. The Rainwarrior-censored citations have been restoreed. The edits include info on ancient harmony, 3rd-party-published by Archaeologia Musicalis journal, Feb., 1988. Fink, not yet 3,000 years old, did not author the vase and wall art from ancient Egypt and Greece in the citation. But even if he did draw that ancient art, Rainwarrior does not recognize nor honour wikipedia guidelines (because they don't serve his corrupt stalking campaign) such as:

1. "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest." (For Rainwarrior's obsessive targeting of Fink, perhaps even ONE citation would be "excessive." Greenwyk 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You added about a hundred links to your website to wikipedia. I think that classifies as linkspam. You should read the external linking guidelines (WP:EL) which say:

"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."

Post the link here on the talk page, and if someone else thinks it's relevant they can add it. - Rainwarrior 08:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Added the titles (as published by 3rd-party publications) to "further reading". However, it's possible these titles can be accessed on line, at the webpages mentioned in the history edit. These would be: (to come shortly) As I own the website, even though the content has been published in 3rd-party journals, I ask someone else to add the online content. 100 links? Or 100 edits? Which? If links, add the URLs or names of the articles of where they are to prove it. 100 links seems exaggerated to me. Greenwyk 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)