Talk:Inversion (music)

message: "Thus, a root-position chord is also known as a {}^5_3 chord."
This could be explained further in how to actually say it .. is it five three or three five?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.229.96 (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing info

message: Hope I'm doing the right thing by putting most recent comment at the top.
Someone kindly addressed point B/ above with a simple disambiguation at the top of the article, which seems fine.
Trying to be a bit more proactively wikipediasical,  (a neologism, thinks google -  if so, you first saw it here:-) )  I just went ahead  & put in something to address the notation issue (point A above). Hope it's useful. Cheers.  Reflection.
Thanks for hierarchical heading, Opus 33 - my ignorance.
:Great to have Point A addressed.  Would it make sense to discuss figured bass in section 1.1 instead of 1?  It's really just one of four rival systems, though perhaps the most common. This would keep section 1 nice and simple.   (Hope you don't mind my moving your comment to the bottom, Reflection.)  Cheers, Opus33 17:09, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: This looks to the untrained eye like half a dozen articles lumped into one. --Smack (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. I think the article is just poorly organized at the moment. It needs improvement, not a split. It is better to keep groups of related information together than to fragment it onto many small pages and make the user have to visit all of them to gain a proper understanding of the subject. - Rainwarrior 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. If this article was split the newly created articles would be stubs which would then need be merged back into one article. Hyacinth 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the article? 

message: I think there needs to be more on invertible counterpoint, particularly as it is one of the most important aspects of fugue writing (even though it is not always used), and there are so many examples of its use in baroque music. I think we can then satisfactorily refer back to this page on the countersubject and fugue page. Matt.kaner 14:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Invertible Counterpoint

message: Hi. I'm Ed Poor. I'm user #188, which makes me just about the most experienced contributor to Wikipedia. Not that I haven't made my share of mistakes along the way, of course. I've been called "tendentious", but since I don't know what that means, it didn't bother me! :-0
I am one of the original members of the Mediation Committee, and I've hardly ever had a case that didn't come to a happy resolution. So, if you'd all like some help from an experienced mediator, please let me know. I have email, and I can even boot up my IRC program. --Uncle Ed 20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation Offer

message: I'm surprised the article makes no mention of how chord inversions are commonly expressed in chord charts in popular music. (i.e. An A major chord in first inversion is written as A/C#. A D major chord in second inversion is written as D/A. Etc.) It is mentioned briefly in the main chord article. Chord (music)
I was a music major once, and used to use the more "academically correct" chord inversion system all the time, but that was ten years ago. Now as a music teacher and musician, I never touch it anymore. 
If someone would like, I'd be willing to do the research and write the section on "slash chords." --Guitarlesson 03:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found an existing article on the matter. It could be cleaned up or integrated with the Inversion article. The link... Slash_chord --Guitarlesson 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. We do need to reach some kind of consensus in the mediation before anything is added. I hope it doesn't drag on for too much longer. Tony (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest the addition of a  where it appears in the text. Also, what are the sources for the third and fourth systems of chord inversion notation? I'm not familiar with either. Rigadoun  (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inversions in chord charts (or "slash chords") 

message: That section is gobbledygook to me. It needs to start with a big picture statement about WTH it is, why it was developed, and why you'd use it. Otherwise, it assumes way more than the opening sections just merged. Tony (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth having a section on inversion in set theory, but this section as is is almost worthless. Inversion in set theory is identical to the usual concept of interval inversion, there's nothing new there. The only thing that's different, really, is the notation, and that's what that T(x) stuff is (it's a fairly standard notation for it). The passage we've got doesn't really explain the meaning of those terms very well though. - Rainwarrior 09:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed--at this point, thanks to the hard work esp. of Rainwarrior and Tony, the chord inversion section is probably the best part of the article, so the other parts should be thought about (but maybe after some break to catch our breath?).  My suggestion would be to move melodic inversion to the top of the page, and begin with a basic explanation of the concept WITHOUT using music notation (but probably with audio examples).  Then follow with melodic inversion in a diatonic context: first a (simple) technical explanation, then usages in the West (chronological?).  Then follow with melodic inversion in a chromatic context, including inversion of a tone row.  I think only then is someone reading the article ready to understand inversion of an arbitrary set around a fixed note. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set theory 

message: The New Grove article (William Drabkin, "Inversion") can be used as a citation for using letter names for various inversions.  However, the letter "a" seems to be omitted:
*in a C major context, for example, the three chords in ex.1 are either I, I6 and I6-4 or I, Ib and Ic, while ex.2 [I7, I65, I43, I42 -- MSC] shows I7, I7b, I7c and I7d.
Unrelated -- I was just at the American Musicological Society meeting all weekend.  I spent some time looking through the theory textbooks that were being marketed there.  Looking through about 10 books, there's of course no unanimous consensus, but it appears that at least 50% of them discuss the controversy around cadential 6-4, admit that all the designations require some sort of compromise, and use the symbol I64 in some sort of adapted form.  One used (I64) -- similar to Benjamin et al.'s [I64], meaning "voice-leading" chord.  One used a small font for I64.  And one (similar in spirit at least to the Piston example we're currently using on the page) used I64 - V with a large brace under them and a bigger V placed below it.  Most of the writers were careful either to completely avoid or drastically reduce the use of the word "chord" when discussing this 6-4, and/or did not talk about the term "inversion"; yet many of the same books placed this whole discussion in chapters or sections called "Second Inversion Chords."  
There's food for all sides of the debate in there, but I think it mostly shows that textbook writers are trying to find a position that both sides can live with.
(I copied down the passages on the cadential six-four from a couple of books and I'll add them to my six-four sandbox page and post them here soon; I asked for sample copies of other books, so I'll add their thoughts too when they arrive in a month or so).  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (a), b, c ; theory texts, etc. 

message: I think the few bits of post-tonal theory scattered through the article should either be removed or brought into a new subsection clearly delineating it as such. I was going to jump in but considering alot of good work has been put into this article I refrained. Since most of the article is about the tonal conception of inversions I think its confusing for students or non-specialists to have bits of post-tonal theory there. Post-tonal is quite esoteric, and would only be familiar to those involved with music academically. --Loksu (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For example? Hyacinth (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonal vs Post Tonal 

message: This post should give precise unambiguous definitions (not examples) for 
(1) voicing
(2) inversion
(3) closed voicing
(4) open voicing
(5) closed inversion
(4) open inversion
Examples should be given only after precise definitions are made.
Web sources are all over the place. Some consider voicings and inversions to be synonymous, some don’t. Some consider 1-5-3 to be an inversion of the major triad, some don't. Getting a precise definition of closed inversion is hard to come by. This article could set the record straight once and for all.  
P.S. The section on Inverted chords is totally insufficient.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.158.224 (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succinct definitions needed 

message: The section on melodic inversion contains the following curious sentence: "The notes are reflected about the center line of the staff." This is not part of the definition of melodic inversion. There is no requirement of symmetry about the center line of the staff. Simply changing clefs, say from treble to alto clef, does not affect whether two melodies are melodic inversions of each other. In fact, the figure in the article, showing melodic inversion between Paganini and Rachmaninoff, is NOT reflected about the center line of the staff.
The axis of symmetery in the figure is a quarter-tone pitch halfway between C and C#. The centerline of the staff, as notated here, is B, not C-half-sharp.
If no compelling objection is raised, I plan to delete the noted sentence by the end of July, 2008. If I see a valid objection or discussion HERE before then, well, discussion may ensue. 
-- Mshark (MCM) aka The Cause, July 12, 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.126.132 (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melodic inversion 

message: It is curious to me that this sections mentions, in one brief sentence at the very end of the article, the theories of counterpoint which do not view chord inversions the same was as did Rameau and successive music theorists.  The omission of the fact that functional harmony was a very new concept altogether when Rameau talked about it makes this situation even worse; in rules of counterpoint, 6/3 and 5/3 sonorities were not even thought of as chords in a way that resembles our modern view of chords in harmony.  This section needs to be expanded significantly (possibly into its own article) or deleted altogether.--68.84.28.255 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: Double diminished?  Double augmented?  I haven't taken the time to see who actually wrote this into the article in the hopes that he and/or she still has some interest in an article that should not be treated with the macho of a mathematician on steroids as opposed to a musician explaining the insights of music theory.  There is no practical application for double diminished or double augmented save for the keys of Cb and C# major which are deliberately avoided for such reason.  Be sane, people! - Prophet of the Most High (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, C and C major are no more likely than any other key to include such intervals. Secondly, double augmented/diminished intervals do sometimes appear in practice: one of the most appearances is the double-augmented fourth in a spelling of the German sixth. Double sharp (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inverted Intervals 

message: At one point in the Chords section, the text refers to "The following chord" as if some illustration appears inline in the text.  But you have to go looking for the illustration.  You can't be sure that you have found it unless you already understand what the article is trying to explain.  So that arrangement needs to be fixed.CountMacula (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not the chord on the right, since that is labeled a "Root position F major chord" which leaves the chord on the left. Nonetheless I labeled the chord. Hyacinth (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Still too much work to tell which figure is referenced.  Sposeta be easy to read, not hard.  It would never be done that way in a standard textbook.  How about just referring to the figure by its caption?---after editing the caption if needed.CountMacula (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chords: "The following chord" 

message: * tritone + tritone = (perfect) octave
* diminished fourth + minor sixth = octave (ok perfect but we know it)
* minor third + Major sixth = octave
How do we say: "octavic complementary intervals in sets of two"
Tell me a synonym. We have also a page about it. So write [ [ ... ] ]
:Where do you get the idea that a diminished fourth + minor sixth = and octave? It does not, it equals a diminished ninth. Everybody knows that.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Everybody," LOL. Anyway the answer to the user's question is "inversions." —Wahoofive (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Octavic complementaries in sets of two 

message: Or is it just me 2603:6011:9600:52C0:2C6E:983C:33C:8B0 (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bach audio example at the top right not working?