Talk:Diminished triad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Notation[edit]

How is each kind of diminished chord notated? --Jlloganiii 04:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested audio[edit]

I have added an audio example to the article. Hyacinth (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Works[edit]

The article is perfect. But I was thinking about some works that employ remarkable diminished triad chord. Beethoven's String Quartet No. 9 in C major Op. 59 No. 3 "Razumovsky" starts with such a chord. The last movement of the "Appassionata" Sonata also comes from a transition on this chord. Of course, there must be inumerable examples, but there are some importante moments with this chord. --Leonardo T. de Oliveira (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming (article title)[edit]

please change this back to 'diminished triad', it looks silly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.2.172.2 (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It does appear redundant. Hyacinth (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Hyacinth (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


Diminished triad chordDiminished triad –The expression "triad chord" is redundant. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Triad is a disambiguation page, so how is this redundant? 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Reply The expression "diminished triad" only means one thing. "Diminished triad chord" is clumsy, kind of like "vegetarian banana". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion, but I moved the page. Hyacinth (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cmb5[edit]

This article says Cmb5 is how to notate a diminished triad. What does the b stand for?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

C minor chord with a flat fifth ie C diminished — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.126.86 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
In other words the "b" means "flat." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.130.208 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
See Template:Music. Hyacinth (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge: Leading-tone chord[edit]

"The quality of the leading-tone triad is diminished in both major and minor keys." Hyacinth (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Leading tone is a functional harmony related term. The variety of scales is not limited to major and minor keys, therefore leading-tone triad is not a subset of diminished chord. Cyberkid ua (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a perfectly good argument for continuing to distinguish the full set of leading-tone chords in all scales from the diminished triad – with which it coincides in both of the commonest scales from common-practice western music, namely the major and harmonic minor diatonic heptatonic scales.
It's also a good argument for expanding the Leading-tone chord article to cover the leading-tone chords - both triads and extended tertian chords, such as sevenths - of all other scales besides those two that also have a leading tone. For example, in a C tonality, the scale C Db E F G Ab B C (name?) has leading-tone B, a leading-tone triad B Db F, a leading-tone tetrad B Db F Ab, and so on, and it'd be good to know whether such chords have been studied, have standard names, have common patterns of resolution, and so on.
Because leading-tone seventh chords are also leading-tone chords - in fact, leading-tone (tertian) tetrads, the Leading-tone chord article is a logical place to discuss them. Rather than merge that article (inappropriately) into diminished triad, it would make better sense to merge leading-tone seventh chord into the Leading-tone chord article.
Which brings me to another point - what about quartal and other chords built on the leading-tone? The Leading-tone chord article lead specifically states that "a leading-tone chord is a triad built on the seventh scale-degree" and it's reasonable to assume that, unless qualified, the term "triad" means a tertian triad - a chord of three notes built out of diatonic thirds. However, even if a composer chooses to build triads from fourths ("quartal" harmony) or fifths ("quintal" harmony), the leading-tone of a scale still functions in the same way and will typically resolve by step to the octave or unison. (If it doesn't resolve, but remains steadfastly a seventh, its function is more that of a "suspended seventh" than that of a leading-tone, since it leads nowhere, so a chord built on it is not a leading-tone chord but just a chord on the seventh degree.)
In summary, we should not merge the Leading-tone chord article with diminished triad, but could consider expanding the Leading-tone chord article's scope to cover some of the less common chords, as well as chords of more than three notes, built on the leading-tone of any scale.
Further, since three years and more have passed since there was any discussion, I suggest we close the proposal for a merge forthwith! (and remove the merge template from the article). yoyo (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Template removed from the lead. Hyacinth (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Table - Enharmonic Notes[edit]

The enharmonic notes, while nice for ease of reading, contradict the definition of triad. Triads are three-note chords built by stacking thirds. By definition, a Db diminished triad would be Db, Fb, Abb no matter how clumsy the double flats look. On the other hand, Db, E, G is not a Db diminished triad. (If anything, that would imply more a E diminished seventh missing the fifth). I suggest we remove the enharmonic spellings for this reason. Composers also would not have done this for the reasons listed.


If there is no response in a few days, I'll remove them myself. Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just intonation ratio?[edit]

On 11 April 2011 (over three years ago), Hyacinth wrote:

"In just intonation, the diminished triad on vii [B-D-F] is tuned 135:162:160."

It still appears today. However this clearly is not possible, perhaps either the 160 or 162 being a typo for 192 instead.

While it's soon afterward stated that "45:54:64 is preferred," I'd argue that, based on the use of 5:6 pure minor thirds, 25:30:36 might be slightly more consonant, although the rules of just intonation appear to make it difficult to produce without making nasty harmonic compromises. I hope there's a solution that can answer my concern. -- Glenn L (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's wrong, and also User:Hyacinth didn't give a source we can check. I don't know what the correct answer is either, User:Glenn L - if there is a single correct answer - but surely that depends on the just intonation we choose for the scale; variant tunings do exist. A common JI heptatonic has these ratios:
  1. C = 1:1
  2. D = 9:8
  3. E = 5:4
  4. F = 4:3
  5. G = 3:2
  6. A = 5:3
  7. B = 15:8
  8. c = 2:1
which, in the second octave, extends to:
  1. d = 9:4
  2. e = 5:2
  3. f = 8:3
With this tuning, the triad B-d-f has ratios 15/8 : 9/4 : 8/3 (relative to the tonic C = 1:1), or 45:54:64, as given in the info-box and the passage you quoted, and I think that's the tuning most likely to be acceptable to modern JI practitioners (including myself).
For comparison, the Sorge tuning,

5:6:7 ("perfect diminished chord"), but the 7 is too flat

is very close to this, being 45:54:63 (when multiplied through by 9) and certainly has simpler internal ratios, thereby making it, by most measures, more consonant; however adopting these ratios would flatten the fourth scale degree, the F, in the ratio 63/64, making it 21:16 instead of the usual 4:3, and seriously affecting the consonance of the chords that include it, such as the subdominant major F-A-c, which would change from the simple 4:5:6 to the more complex 63:80:96. To make a (usually passing) dissonance more consonant, you'd have to make at least two consonances (F major and D minor, in the C major scale) more dissonant. There could be good musical reasons to do so, but I don't know of any examples where that tuning would be better - that is, more musically effective - than the 45:54:64 that we use more commonly.
Tuning the diminished triad 135:162:192, as you suggest, gives exactly the same ratios 45:54:64 between the three notes, each factor being multiplied by 3. Another possibility is that the "160" was a typo for "190", rather than for "192", since 190 is an integer between 3 * 63 = 189 and 3 * 64 = 192 and might conceivably make an aurally acceptable compromise between the Sorge 5:6:7 and the commoner 45:54:64, but we'd need to do some calculations to confirm that.
I think we should check with Hyacinth, and try to find a good source for any ratio other than the 45:54:64 or the Sorge 5:6:7. If we can't find any, we should remove that erroneous tuning statement. yoyo (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Your reply a few hours ago has been seen by User:Hyacinth, and he's decided to "remove that erroneous tuning statement" himself, among other edits. Glenn L (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I must have meant 135:160:192 (typo: 162 for 192). Hyacinth (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)