Talk:Harmony

message: The following sentence:
:Notes may be considered to be in harmony with each other when some of the harmonics of each note, especially the louder harmonics (which are often the lower ones), share the same frequency.
confuses harmony with consonance. While this is in line with non-musical uses of the term (as opposed to disharmony), in music dissonances are considered harmony as well. Wahoofive 22:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it look now? Hyacinth 22:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consonance and dissonance

message: The influence of churches on harmonic language is overstated. Developments in harmony were due to the taste of individual composers and listeners (and patrons); although some of them were church members or clergy, there was no consistent policy on harmony from either Catholic or Protestant churches. Other aspects of music were regulated, such as instrumental accompaniment, but I'm not aware than any churches banned diminished-seventh chords or augmented sixths or whatever as a matter of church policy. Wahoofive 22:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general example of churches controlling music Gregorian chant mentions "edicts of Rome...attempting to establish a consistent practice during this period" [400-800 CE]. Hyacinth 22:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Good point. Perhaps you could remove it to talk as in the proposed policy Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources. Hyacinth 16:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Church

message: the line about harmony being possible in a single harmonic line could really use some clarification. I think it is by definition impossible for a single melodic line to hit harmonies. If multiple notes are being sounded together, its no longer a single melodic line. The only thing I can think is that the "harmony" could be implied, for example by playing the root note of the implied chord on the downbeat and then playing as if within that chord, but I don't think that should really count, and if that is what is being described it certainly needs clarification. I guess the other possibility is that the sentence refers to the harmonics present in the notes of the melody, but that certainly shouldn't be mentioned as harmony as it more or less renders the term meaningless. Thoughts? Powrtoch 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised it slightly and left an example of what it was trying to describe. Also, there is a Canadian composer who has made considerable use of this technique... but I can't remember his name offhand. I'll try and remember... - Rainwarrior 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Found it. José Evangelista. "José Evangelista pursues an artistic path by which he has explored ways of making a music based exclusively on melody. Hence he has developed a heterophonic writing, both for instruments and orchestra, in which the melodic line generates echoes of itself and creates an illusion of polyphony."  - Rainwarrior 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single melodic line? 

message: I propose that we develop some sort of standard or guideline as to what information goes on the Chord (music) and Harmony articles.
To that end I will start discussion on this talk page. It seems like the history section of Chord (music) may actually belong at Harmony, so the first change I propose is that it (Chord (music)#History) be moved to or discussed more fully on Harmony. Hyacinth 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chord (music) and Harmony

message: (Okay -- will ask again. Moved down again, and updated): 2 titles (as published by secondary sources) in  "Further Reading"  could be usefully accessed on-line, at the webpages mentioned below. These would be:
#On-line essay: Evidence of Harmony in Ancient Music, --publ by Archaeologia Musicalis journal, Feb., 1988 by the "Study Group on Music Archaeology" of the Int'l Council on Traditional Music). Publ: Moeck Verlag, Celle, Geermany. Study of oldest known song
#Role of the drone in the evolution of counterpoint & harmony published in Onlook, Summer, 2002, Four Winds Centre, Farnham, Surrey. UK, p. 21-22.
Those publisheres have no on-line versions of those articles. But as I own the online website which reproduces those articles, in order to avoid COI, even though the content was published in 2nd or 3rd-party journals, I ask someone else to add the online content to "external links" as well.
Reasons to add: The "Evidence" link reports the Kilmer evidence in the "oldest known song" (+midi of that song version) and reports research finding new evidence of ancient harmony, from observing clues found in ancient art (wall art, vases, etc) showing musicians playing harps. This evidence is well-known and widely accepted in the music archaeology field, but far less known among those in the musicology fields. --Bob F. 65.255.225.37 10:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These topics may be tangentially related to "harmony", but I don't think they're relevant enough for "further reading" here. Even if the topics are relevant enough, there are plenty of other (less obscure) articles by other authors about these same subjects that you could cite instead without being in a potential conflict of interest. - Rainwarrior 05:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to add external links  

message: This section is so odd. What exactly is anyone supposed to  learn from this table? In addition, the characters used for sharp and flat do not adhere to the music guidlines. Matt.kaner 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intervals

message: I think there are enough problems on this page to merit a complete rewrite. Though some of the info is factually accurate it is lacking in sources/references, and the overall structure of the article makes for very bad reading. I think it is a given that there will be some overlap between this article and 'Chords', but if you look at various musicological encyclopedias and dictionaries, this is perfectly normal. In fact articles on 'Harmony' usually form the bulk of the info on the subject. There doesn't seem to be (correct me if i'm wrong) a unified article on Western Harmonic Practice anywhere on Wikipedia; it's all very bitty - and while it's essential to have these specialised articles on Augmented Sixth chords, for example, there is nothing to explain the general application of the harmonic system in western art music. Matt.kaner 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are these spots of coverage of "Western Harmonic Practice" and where would they be compiled? Hyacinth (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This article contains too many chunks of various poorly-written freshman music theory term papers, which makes this article stilted, uneven and unintentionally comical.  For example, "There is no doubt, nevertheless, that the emphasis on the...."  Tom NM (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: The article uses the term "chromatic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with "diatonic", is the cause of serious uncertainties at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged!
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diatonic and chromatic

message: harmony may be
accord, affinity, amicability, amity, compatibility, concord, conformity, consensus, consistency, cooperation, correspondence, empathy, fellow-feeling, friendship, good will, kinship, like-mindedness, peace, rapport, sympathy, tranquility, unanimity, understanding, unity
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME armonye < MF < L harmonia < Gk harmonía joint, framework, agreement, harmony, akin to hárma chariot, harmós joint, ararískein to join together]
1. agreement; accord; harmonious relations.
2. a consistent, orderly, or pleasing arrangement of parts; congruity.
3. Music. a. any simultaneous combination of tones.
b. the simultaneous combination of tones, esp. when blended into chords pleasing to the ear; chordal structure, as distinguished from melody and rhythm.
c. the science of the structure, relations, and practical combination of chords.
4. an arrangement of the contents of the Gospels, either of all four or of the first three, designed to show their parallelism, mutual relations, and differences.
see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harmony
i think the Harmony page should start from a backgrounder if nobody has an objection then  i will edit the background of this page please note that the harmony page is linked with the peace page  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Motegole (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct place for this is Harmony (disambiguation). Rootless 18:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmony in the background sense 

message: Can I ask what the point of the Intervals section is, particularly from the passage beginning:
In the musical scale, there are twelve pitches...
I have not deleted it, however I am very tempted to do so, because it doesn't really seem to relate to this article. Perhaps in another article? Can we have a consensus? Madder 16:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intervals Section - relevance? 

message: How can the note names ABC etc be 'intransigent'  ie "Refusing to moderate a position, especially an extreme position; uncompromising"  Is this a technical use of the word, or just the wrong word?  I would have thought they were 'arbitrary"... or do you just mean they don't change? Wreader 20:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think someone with ESL is contributing to the article and occasionally making mistakes. Hyacinth (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intransigent 

message: Why does the metal band Blind Guardian link to this page? Seems pointless.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.9.247 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blind Guardian

message: One of the fundamental constructs in the study of harmony is Roman numeral analysis. Roman numeral analysis emerged in the 19th as a way to codify elements in earlier 18th century music, abstracting vertical relationships in music as chords. Modern scholarship has criticized this as being problematic in that it could be an oversimplistic account of vertical relationships in music (Parncutt 89). Nevertheless, Roman numeral analysis has proven quite effective as a tool for uncovering certain relationships in music and is quite interesting in its own right. We should therefore discuss it in the article.
I also propose an extended discussion on psychoacoustic models of harmony as well as sensory vs. syntactic accounts of harmony in music.  (Parncutt, 89; Bigand 2003) Just a thought 165.124.212.109 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman numeral analysis 

message: "In tertian or tertial harmony, so named after the interval of a third. The members of chords are found and named by stacking intervals of major and minor thirds, starting with the "root", then the "third" above the root, and the "fifth" above the root (which is a third above the third), etc. (Note that chord members are named after their interval above the root, not by their numerical inclusion in the building of the chord.) Traditionally, a triad must have, or imply at least three members to be called a chord, although 2-member dyads are sometimes treated as chords, especially in rock (see power chords)."
Before I edit the sub-heading content, a note here is in consideration of any further discussion inclusive to the reasons for edits.
The first sentence is not complete.
Major intervals may be altered to be augmented, diminished and/or minor.  It is suffice, especially for the divulgence into the specifics of tertian harmony, to introduce the stacking as purely a third relation.
It is also suffice to say "(Note that chord members are named after their interval above the root)."  The use of "numerical inclusion" is vague, if not confusing and misleading.  Having stated "starting with the 'root'", sufficient basis is presented with "(Note that chord members are named after their interval above the root)." to show the method of building chords in the order they are reckoned with respect to proper spelling.
The last sentence here is the worst.  A triad is always a chord with three members.  Dyads (or intervals), the simplest chords, always contain two members.  The introduction of "rock", aside from being a bastardization of "rock 'n roll", the genre named after continental drift, may serve to bolster "power chords", which I have not read, it is not introduced thematically to support the previous statements except in error. Prophet of the Most High (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chords and tension : grammar and content 

message: Re this quotation: "The great power of this fact is that any song can be played or sung in any key—it will be the same song, as long as the intervals are kept the same, thus transposing the melody into the corresponding key." I know next to nothing, but I thought very simply minor key melodies couldn't be transposed into major keys and vice versa.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.229.254 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That section, Harmony#Intervals, has some problems, especially starting with the passage: In the musical scale, there are twelve pitches. Each pitch is referred to as a "degree" of the scale. The names A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are insignificant. The intervals, however, are not. Here is an example: The example given is two major scales, with 8 intervals each, counting the octave. This conflicts with the opening claim of a "musical scale" having 12 pitches. There's some confusion here between chromatic and diatonic scales. The whole section is rather awkwardly worded and could be much improved. In addition, it might be useful to point out that transposition changes the base pitch but not the intervals in equal temperament only. Pfly (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this is pretty peripheral to the point, it's perfectly possible to transpose music which is in other tunings, as long as you're not using a fixed-tuned instrument like a keyboard. Voices and string instruments are perfectly capable of duplicating the pitch relationships of the original in transposition, even if it's in just intonation or another temperament. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I suppose that is true. I was thinking about transposing within a given temperament. In quarter-comma meantone, say, interval sizes vary, the pitches forming the scale are unevenly spaced. If music is transposed beyond a point, within the temperament, you'll start getting wolf intervals. But maybe I'm not thinking about  transposition so much as modulation, I'm not entirely sure. Anyway, ignore that last sentence if I have it wrong. The section is still in need of copyedit scrubbing. Perhaps I'll do it myself, if I find the time, focus, and freedom from other priorities! Pfly (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: 

message: Although I have music education I do not agree that music harmony is the main meaning of the word and in disambiguation page I dont see any type of issue reflecting the main meaning of harmony:
# agreement; accord; harmonious relations. 
# a consistent, orderly, or pleasing arrangement of parts; congruity.
# musical meaning is third
# agreement in action, opinion, feeling, etc; accord 
# order or congruity of parts to their whole or to one another
—Synonyms 
# concord, unity, peace, amity, friendship. 
# consonance, conformity, correspondence, consistency. See symmetry.
--Aleksd (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other meanings 

message: Ideally, these should either link to a topic, or be better explained. --76.89.189.214 (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "thirds and sixths" 

message: Lots of potentially incorrect information here; see talk page for discussion. JZCL 10:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Four-part harmony]] 

message: Unlikely search term, would be better off in main article Ifnord (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[:The perception of harmony]] into [[:Harmony]]  

message: Certainly, I am unable to understand the definition of harmony given: 
"... harmony is the process by which the composition of individual sounds, or superpositions of sounds, is analysed by hearing". 
Is harmony a process? Isn't it rather a fact? In this "process", is the composition of individual sounds, or superposition of sounds, analyzed by hearing? Although this can occur perceptually... it is not the harmony itself, I think.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witrock (talk • contribs) 07:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition