Talk:Nonchord tone

message: For what it's worth, the Elektra chord is not a chord with a nonharmonic bass. It's a bitonal polychord, a composite chord consisting of two different major triads. The triadic dissonance of the Elektra chord isn't nonharmonic--it is the harmony. This means it's inappropriate to refer to the root as nonharmonic. The same would go for the Petrushka chord and all manner of 20th century harmonies.
I should add (and it may be helpful to add this to the article), that a theory of nonchord tones in early 20th century music is problematic. Music underwent an emancipation of dissonance during this period, making it increasingly difficult to say what is or is not dissonant. Instead of thinking of chords with reference to major/minor tonality, thinking in terms of sonorities, or collections of tones might be more helpful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.52.218 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very good point - we should probably just stick with common practice music for common practice theory.  This also brings up a more general problem with isolating bass tones out of all the others as some kind of special form of nonchord tone (they require a little different treatment from upper voices, but not so much that they need a separate section).  The way the article is laid out (with a separate section for nonchord bass tones) currently suggests that bass tones are somehow exempt from classification as other types of nonchord tones, such as suspensions, passing tones, etc.  Passing tones in the bass, both accented and unaccented, are extremely common in the Bach chorales, and while other things like suspensions are slightly less common compared with nonchord tones in the upper voices, they can certainly be found in the repertoire.  It is easy to overlook bass nonchord tone usage because much music theory pedagogy relies on easing the student into analysis with clear harmonic bass lines, but in reality (the reality of the Bach chorales, for instance), bass lines are a bit more slippery than our introductory theory literature would suggest.  Looking back on the article I see that "nonharmonic bass" was just stuffed haphazardly under portamento, which certainly doesn't make any sense, and makes even less sense than adding it as a separate section. Phembree (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Elektra chord

message: "The art of embellishment is the knowledge and use of musical ornamentation. This is an old art and many volumes have been written on this craft. Some ornaments are the trill, mordent, arpeggio, and grace note. There are many, many others. Each nationality and historical period have used intrinsically specific ornamantation, thus, the embellishment of a Johann Sebastian Bach piece is more than likely not appropriate for a piece written by Chopin; this is for two reasons notwithstanding that the piano is to be used for the Chopin instead of the organ or harpsichord: Bach is a composer of the 18th century Baroque in Germany, and Chopin a Polish/French composer of the 19th century. Very different times, very different nationalities."
Wew, where did that come from?Hyacinth 03:20, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Embellishment

message: The concept of a nonchord tone also applies to music which is not strictly homophonic, but I do not know how to be more specific. I'd ask anyone who does to change the intro.Hyacinth 08:30, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-homophonic

message: I'm currently in a music theory class, and while I won't pretend to know a lot, I believe a suspension with an upwards resolution is called a retardation. D'Agosta 22:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add this to the article. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Retardation

message: It should be noted that these pages explaining music theory are oriented almost entirely toward "traditional" music.  Jazz theory is much richer than the rules described here.  While jazz borrows the terminology of traditional music theory (such as "suspended" chord), a suspended chord in jazz in no way implies the "suspended" note was suspended or held over from the previous chord.  The fourth can be thought of as a suspension from the previous chord (for instance the C in a Gsus held over from a Dmin7), but the Gsus in Jazz is a chord in its own right, that can just as easily be thought to resolve toward the tonic chord.  Or it might not resolve anywhere.  Herbie Hancock in Maiden Voyage, for instance, uses nothing but suspended chords all the way through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.9.13.224 (talk • contribs) 
:All of these theory articles are geared toward common-practice music theory primarily, as that's where such concepts are discussed. It would be a bit odd to have a section on all the types of music these terms do not apply to, because it would be huge. If you feel like there's a better way to explain what music this term does apply to, feel free to change the article! It's a wiki! Cheers, Mak (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jazz 

message: I'm often boggled by misaprehension as to what harmony theory actually represents. It seems as if it is an ideal, conventional or 'normal ' approach that and that music gains much of it's interest in the use of non theory figurative approaches. Looking at Bach I can barely see the rules apply, he was a madman in his non chord, non harmonic usages and it seems like every writer later and many before him were much freer than theory would admit! 4.234.12.50 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Theory gives us a vocabulary to discuss what happens in music, and also defines a set of patterns which constitute the most common usages. Music which strictly follows the rules can be boring. Theory doesn't dictate what must happen in music, but it gives a set of tools to describe in what way each piece of music is unique. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Wahoofive, this is a wonderful and concise explanation.Phembree (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory vs practice

message: The link to the example of "suspension and pedal point" doesn't work.  Can anyone help?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.137.113 (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  link doesn't work 

message: advanced theory like this article was thought up so songwriters, like me, could have a harder time writing songs than it has to be. 66.41.231.207 (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your suggestion for the article? Hyacinth (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think nonchord tones are advanced theory nor are you obligated to use the theory. Irregardless, you will find, if you study nonchord tones one day, that you have been you singing and using them all along. Hyacinth (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Difficult

message: or
400px
Hyacinth (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it now? Hyacinth (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, but in real music the note of resolution (in this case the B) doesn't usually appear elsewhere in the chord. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hyacinth (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Much better. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspension images

message: What information in this article needs to be verified or cited? Hyacinth (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: See discussion at Talk:Pedal point. Hyacinth (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedal point: nonchord tone?

message: You have to say what the next chord is in the example for Nonharmonic Bass. If the E and the G go up one step and the F and the C stay the same then the E and G are the non chord tones and the F is not a Nonharmonic Bass.  Teenly (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonharmonic Bass 

message: I have taken music theory courses and looked through my book and there is no mention of escape tones. The example given in the article is an incomplete neighbor tone.
S s s7 (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escape Tone? 

message: Who decided upon that horrible name?  Who invented the term Nonchord tone anyway: I have never heard it in my life and I studied for 4 years at uni for BMus(Hons)!  --Jubilee♫clipman 01:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What horrible name? Hyacinth (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: OK, I've been Googling around and find that 74,900 for "non-chord tone" gives a fairly clear winner.  The searches I made are here:
*9 for "nonchord notes" (Did you mean: "non chord notes")
*4,260 for "non-chord tones"
*6,880 for "nonchord tones"
*20,300 for "non-chord notes"
*9 for "nonchord note" (Did you mean: "non chord note")
*7,760 for "nonchord tone"
*10,400 for "non-chord note"
*74,900 for "non-chord tone"
*735 for "nonharmonic notes" (Did you mean: "non harmonic notes")
*5,670 for "non-harmonic tones"
*12,500 for "nonharmonic tones"
*15,300 for "non-harmonic notes"
*955 for "nonharmonic note"
*2,870 for "nonharmonic tone"
*6,190 for "non-harmonic note"
*35,700 for "non-harmonic tone"
730 for "nonharmonic notes"
5,670 for "non-harmonic tones"
12,500 for "nonharmonic tones"
15,300 for "non-harmonic notes"
*0 for "nonharmony note"  (Did you mean: "non harmony note")
*1 for "nonharmony tone" (Did you mean: "nonharmonic tone")
*1 for "non-harmony tone" (Did you mean: "non-harmonic tone")
*16,000 for "non-harmony note"
*1 for "nonharmony note"  (Did you mean: "non harmony notes")
*1 for "nonharmony tone" (Did you mean: "nonharmonic tones")
*3 for "non-harmony tone" (Did you mean: "non-harmonic tones")
*13,200 for "non-harmony notes"
(I included the pluralised forms as a comparision; furthermore, removing the quotes would, obviously, give totally different results as it would include the use of each word separately...)
Maybe this is a term used in North America which is getting more acceptance everywhere else?  However, note the hyphen (-) and note that the result is the same if the hyphen is replaced with a space (ie "non-harmony" = "non harmony").  I suspect the term is actually hyphenated as most of the hits in "non-chord tone"/"non chord tone"  use the term non-chord tone.  I therefore suggest moving this page to non-chord tone (being apparently the more accurate term) if no one objects.
I might have misinterpreted the data, of course, so any other ideas are welcome!  I do wonder if this term is far more widely used in popular music than in classical music, however, and, given the nature of popular music, this may skew the results.  The next one down ("non-harmonic tone") seems a more likely candidate for classical discussions (ignoring the "note"/"tone" issue of course).  
I also wonder if some of these actual non-chord tones should not actually be written up?  Suspension could certainly be expanded with a discussion of its evolution through the centuries. Any thoughts on that point?  --Jubilee♫clipman 05:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you done any searching about google searches as a reliable source or a reliable source for article titles? Hyacinth (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is a good point actually! And to be fair you and Camembert do appear to have covered all important bases via redirects! There are few left though (non-harmonic note non-harmonic tone etc) but these could easily be sorted out.  In fact... there, I just did those two.  Perhaps the issue I really have is the fact that some of these really could be split off into main space articles.  It seemed odd to me when I clicked on a link for passing note and ended up at a term I had never heard in my life!  It seems even more odd that Suspension (music) (which has such a massive and varied history to explain) redirects to a tiny part of a terminology article rather than a full blown article about how it was used and transformed by Palestrina, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner and so on.  Note to self: perhaps a future project?  --Jubilee♫clipman 15:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[non-chord tone]]? Or split into articles indeed?

message: "The first and third notes are always consonant, while the second and third may or may not be,"
That is self-contradictory, and I don't know enough about it to correct it for sure. Maybe the "second and third may or may not be" should be "second and fourth may or may not be".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.194.151 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nota Cambiata section contradiction 

message: Hello.  I think that many of the nonchord tones presented in the article do in fact warrant their own pages.  According to the Wikipedia  Notability Policy, for topics to be 'notable', they must have significant coverage, reliable information, and a variety of sources.  While Wikipedia is not is not indiscriminate, I think there might be good reasons to have separate articles:
:*Significant coverage -  Suspensions are delineated in nearly every dictionary, encyclopedia, and theory book.  Grove's  dictionary of Music and Musicians, for example, dedicates several pages to the important concept.  Suspensions are also discussed in nearly all first year music theory classes, making it rudimentary information.  While I can understand why the 'suspension (music)' page was redirected, I do not think it was wholly beneficial.
:*Reliable Information -  There is a variety of reliable information about suspensions.  To name a few: Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the Harvard Dictionary of Music, Edward Aldwell's Harmony and Voice Leading, and Tonal Harmony, by Kostka and Payne.
Verifiable facts and content supported by multiple independent sources might justify reconsideration of this topic.  I do hope that we can come to a satisfactory resolution.  Regards, Paul.m.kirschner (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Articles 

message: I see that the images in the suspension section are labelled as "syncopes."  This is certainly not a common word for describing suspensions.  I would prefer to see them labelled as suspensions, which would also make them consistent with the section heading. Actually I'm just going to go ahead and do that... Discuss if you have a problem with this... Phembree (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the image labels to be consistent with "suspension" as the main term, but kept "syncope" in the body of that section for reference.  I've done my fair share of Schenkerian analysis, but for whatever reason I haven't seen that Oswald Jonas book before (where "syncope" came from ... it certainly makes sense that syncopation is fundamental to the workings of suspensions).  Anyone object to sticking with "suspension?" Phembree (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspension is more common than Syncope

message: There really are a lot of things in this article that aren't at all consistent with modern theory practice.  The definitions of some of the terms are really just inaccurate, and there are a handful of examples that are just bad.  I think I'm going to rewrite this article so that it is up to date, and so that the language is more consistent.  Idlewaves (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes 

message: A recent edit by User:139.0.181.105 added that anticipations must be approached by step. There were several other edits which might be improvements, so I'm reluctant to undo. My main go-to source for such things doesn't really specify, but I can easily imagine situations where an anticipation might be reached by leap; for example, a G chord with G  in the melody, dropping to E just before the chord change to C major. Can somebody provide a source one way or another? —Wahoofive (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Must anticipations be approached by step?