Talk:Altered chord

Music theory Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Leading Tone"

Ab is in no way a leading tone for G. Perhaps they merely mean that the stability of the Ab makes the V chord sound more stable and tonic, but the leading tone must be a half-step below tonic. Ab is a half step ABOVE G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.90.169 (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You present no citations or even arguments. See leading-tone. Hyacinth (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Tension"

tension is Berklee terminology. I'm pretty sure that there should be an explanatory note attached to that, because it's not universal. User:J.F.Quackenbush

Are you sure it's restricted to Berklee? Perhaps they have some specific definition or something, but tension in a general sense seems universal to me... -- Merphant

I studied music in Tennessee, and we use it there. Not that far away but I am pretty sure "tension" is universal. --Wikidan81 17:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Berklee" in this case refers to a collection of guidelines/rules and terminology, and the implied method of analysis. See Berklee method. Hyacinth (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Merphant on this. I've heard the notion of tension and resolution as central to certain moments in music mentioned many times over the decades. In my judgment, the words have an immediately clear intuitive interpretation, making it essentially a universally understood concept. Its use here is consonant with that general meaning. In my opinion, the fact that Berklee guidelines chose to provide a different or more precise meaning to the term should not preclude its use here. Randallbsmith (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diatonic and chromatic

The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with chromatic, is the cause of serious uncertainties at several 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 06:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove

I don't really doubt the information in the article, I just think that more references would be great, especially in the jazz section. Hyacinth (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Chord (music)#Inversions, etc. Hyacinth (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do have doubts about the "neither the 9th nor the 5th appear unaltered" (a Real Book quotation?)—I may be missing something here, but I think altered 9ths in particular are voiced frequently with unaltered 5ths, and probably vice versa. I'll be happy to look into this if I get some time. Thoughts? /ninly_(talk) 06:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote, "neither the 9th nor the 5th appear unaltered," doesn't appear to be in the body of the article now or have been in October 2010 when you posted the above. Hyacinth (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

The article currently ends defining alteration and begins defining an altered chord, "an example of alteration". The material within the lengthier altered chord sections can clearly also use reorganization. Hyacinth (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Altered seventh chord

Unreferenced stub. Hyacinth (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been rewritten and is a referenced stub. Hyacinth (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alteration section has bad illustration altering the root

Will someone with the right software correct the example illustration in the Alteration section that spells an altered G chord as Gb-B-D#? There is no such operation in music theory as altering the root. That is an undefined operation. Rather, any alteration of the root is considered changing to a different chord built on a different root. A G chord with Gb in the root is therefore no longer a G chord, so it can't be considered an altered G chord. It would be a Gb something chord.2606:6000:FFC0:34:6553:639D:42D9:F725 (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)A jazz lover[reply]

What source do you suggest for this correction? Hyacinth (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A chord altered in any way becomes a different chord. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about "alteration" or "modification". Hyacinth (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neopolitan chord in "See Also"

In the "See Also" section the summary of the article for neopolitan chords is wrong. It reads "Major chord in music theory" which is technically correct, I suppose, but also probably a mistake from the automatic summarization that wikipedia does since I couldn't find any way to actually edit it and it lines up roughly with the opening sentence of the other article in question (apart from mentioning it's built on the flat second of course). 158.75.60.233 (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]