|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diminished triad article.|
How is each kind of diminished chord notated? --Jlloganiii 04:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
- C minor chord with a flat fifth ie C diminished — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- In other words the "b" means "flat." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Merge: Leading-tone chord
- 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)
Table - Enharmonic Notes
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.
Just intonation ratio?
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)