Talk:Minor chord

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


I've removed this:

A minor chord in just intonation corresponds to a pitch ratios of 14:12:10 (7.5:6:5, for comparison with the major chord)

The first bit is probably a typo which I've corrected (should be 15:12:10), but the bit in brackets I don't understand - I've scratched my head quite a bit over it, but can't get anything from it. I daresay it can go back in if its clarified, but as it stood, I don't think it was very helpful. --Camembert

Yah, 14 is a typo. However, the ratio 15:12:10 is a little more than an octave higher than the ratio given for the major chord, 6:5:4.Hyacinth 19:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, it's all relative, isn't it: I mean, you can have a 6:5:4 chord three octaves above middle C or three octaves below - you don't need to change the numbers, all the matters is that they're in the right ratio. But I know what you mean - for the benefit of comparing numbers it might, I suppose, be useful to mention that 15:12:10 could also be "spelled" 6:4.8:4 (which is analogous to 6:5:4 for the major triad). --Camembert

see Talk:Major chord

A bit confused[edit]

Can it be said that a minor chord is constructed upon a minor scale? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 23:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Nobody has commented on the merge tag here and at major chord. I oppose a merge because I think it will be more confusing to link to a merged page. There is already a page that discusses both, as well as their diminished and augmented brethren, at Triad (music), but I think it is useful to have separate pages for each of those as well. Rigadoun (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has mentioned it, I removed the tag. Rigadoun (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


"The minor chord resembles the major chord except that it has a minor third with a major third on top, while a major chord has a major third with a minor third on top." Articles on Quantum Mechanics are less convoluted then this one. Bogger (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope! It depends entirely on the article. (try replacing minor third and major third with the variables A and B and reread the sentence) Would you like the sentence broken into shorten ones or are you saying it is confusing? Hyacinth (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor third above root[edit]

I don't think that, "generally speaking, a minor chord is any chord which has a minor third above its root," is true. For instance, a diminished chord has a minor third above its root, but is not called a minor chord. See Talk:Major chord#Major third above root. Hyacinth (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Symbols not displaying in text[edit]

The symbol for a flat is not displaying properly on my machine. In the section that reads "which consists of the notes C (root), E♭ (minor third) and G (perfect fifth)", what I see immediately after the capital E is a little rectangle, not the musical symbol for a flat that looks like a lower-case "b". Actually this comment applies to all pages about music at wikipedia, and to the symbols for sharps, naturals, etc, when embedded within the text. I am using a machine with a fresh installation of Windows XP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Musical markup may be of assistance. Hyacinth (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

19:16 minor third[edit]

Hi Hyacinth. The change you recently made makes it sound like one just interval (16:19) approximates another (6:5), which doesn't really make sense since neither is an approximation--each is exactly as wide as it is supposed to be. The way I had it before it said that the twelve-tone minor third (300 cents) more closely approximates the 19-limit just minor third 19/16 (about 298 cents) than the 5-limit just minor third 6/5 (about 316 cents). I can provide the citation to back up my statement, but not to back up what you changed it to. If you revert your change, I will cite Helmholtz/Ellis. By the way, I'm not the writer of this snippet from that other article Minor Third also talking about 16:19, "If a minor third is tuned in accordance with the fundamental of the overtone series, the result will be a ratio of 19:16, ..." That's a meaningless statement for so many reasons, and if you are the one who put the citation needed tag there, then I agree with you, but I don't agree with your recent edit to my edit of this article. Another Stickler (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Your" text:
  • "...but the minor third is noticeably different at about 16 cents narrower, more closely approximating the 19-limit minor third 16:19 with only 2 cents error."
"My" text:
  • "...but the minor third is noticeably different at about 16 cents narrower. The 5:6 just minor third more closely approximating the 19-limit (Limit (music)) minor third 16:19 with only 2 cents error."
Notice that in both texts "the minor third" in question is left unspecified, having been implied by the beginning of the sentence that it is a 6:5 just minor third. My text simply attempted to specify which minor third was in question: "the [ET] minor third", "the [just] minor third", or some other one? Note that other than that, our text is identical, as highlighted in my text followed by yours below:
  • "...but the minor third is noticeably different at about 16 cents narrower. The 5:6 just minor third more closely approximating the 19-limit (Limit (music)) minor third 16:19 with only 2 cents error."
  • "...but the minor third is noticeably different at about 16 cents narrower, [it, the ET minor third,] more closely approximating the 19-limit minor third 16:19 with only 2 cents error."
The actual error I appear to have made is not in sense, but in cents:
  • ET: 300
  • 6:5: 316
  • 19:16: 297.51
Hyacinth (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
If you reread the whole original sentence, you'll see that the minor third was indeed specified as the equal tempered minor third. The error you made was to say that 5:6 approximates 19:16, which is absurd. Please revert the sentence to the way I had it, saying that the equal tempered minor third more closely approximates 19:16 than it does 5:6. It was just fine the way it was. You just misread it and thought it was wrong. Another Stickler (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
First, you have the ability to revert edits yourself. Second, you should look at the article before you tell me what to do with it (since I edited it before I posted my last response above). Third, please take note of flaws in texts, such as vagueness which causes errors and conflicts such as this, and actually correct or improve upon them (in this instance you could have reverted my changes and then, to prevent similar mistakes specified which minor third). The point of collaboration is improvement, not stasis. Hyacinth (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't want to revert your change and risk starting a revert war. I'd rather get the issue cleared up here first--which I think it is now--then start editing again. I've added the Ellis citation and I added some other minor triad tunings too. Another Stickler (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Table of contents[edit]

Why is there __NOTOC__?

Origin of the minor chord[edit]

The explanation of the origin of the minor chord (and minor tonalities) is simply ridiculous.

This requires a physical explanation much more detailed and justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pef890 (talkcontribs) 00:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of minor chords[edit]

Comparison, in cents, of minor triad tunings

The notation in the caption for the Pythagorean chord is not correct. Shouldn't it simply be E-? Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)