|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diminished triad article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- In other words the "b" means "flat." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (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)
- 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.)
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)
- 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:
- C = 1:1
- D = 9:8
- E = 5:4
- F = 4:3
- G = 3:2
- A = 5:3
- B = 15:8
- c = 2:1
- which, in the second octave, extends to:
- d = 9:4
- e = 5:2
- 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)