Talk:Augmented sixth chord

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] x6 = -7 ?

Whaaaaat? There is no Augmented Sixth, just minor sixth and major sixth

Maybe you mean minor seventh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shagmaestro (talk • contribs) 19:43, 21 June 2004 (UTC)

There is an augmented sixth. For example, B flat to G flat is a minor sixth; B flat to G natural is a major sixth; and B flat to G sharp is an augmented sixth. You can enharmonically respell that last one as B flat to A flat, and then its a minor seventh, but if you spell it as a G sharp, it's an augmented sixth. --Camembert (20:18, 21 June 2004)

Request to Rainwarrior, or Camembert, or whoever's minding the shop:

Since you asked for suggestions, would you mind explaining the above distinction in the article, even if only in passing? Shagmeistro's opening unsigned comment is a fair one that any educated reader might have. No sense burying the answer here on the Discussion page. There's an analogous situation in the article about diminished sevenths (i.e., why the artifice of a o7 when there's already a perfectly good +6?). Kkken 10:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (just passing by, looking for information about a chord)

I think it's time I got aorund to working on this page. I'll start working on it today. - Rainwarrior 20:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There, how's that? I've rewritten the whole article, basically, and added an example picture. I tried to incorporate everything that was already in the article before, as well. - Rainwarrior 22:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. The picture certainly gets one's attention. I gave the rewrite a quick proofread as you invited me to on my Talk page, and nothing jumped out at me. It was an easy read. But I'm not a subject matter expert (couldn't tell a modulation from a transition) so I have to trust all the tech info. :-)

Kkken 07:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint

This article is awful. How do you seriously expect music students to learn about music theory when you employ such convoluted and unnecessarily complicated language. Make it simple and use plainer language so that people who don't already understand the material can appreciate it and therefore learn!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.1.174 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you that the article is in bad shape; why don't you make some suggestions, or better yet, rewrite the article, instead of just complaining? Comments like the one you have just made do not help. While I have not yet made any contributions to this page, it has been on my list of things to work on... as such, a comment like this shows up on my watch list and is really just an annoyance. I'd be glad to discuss any suggestions you have about the page, but don't just come here and say "this is terrible". That's just a waste of time to read. - Rainwarrior 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I did have a stab at editing some of the article, in order to remove some of the unhelpful language. However, I don't feel sufficiently adept with the material to confidently rephrase things such as "applied-functions within subordinate prolongations found in lower Schichten, such as #IV7/IIb". I feel this makes my point better. I hope now attention has been drawn to the fact (stated quite clearly above), that the poor choice language is what I object to, not the content. I think this is a valid point, in order to point out to persons thinking of writing articles that maximum effort should be made to render things clear and comprehensible. Is that a waste of time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.178.137 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a waste of time at all when you make suggestions, or even ask questions. That sentence is a good thing to point out. The word "schichten" is not even an English word and should be replaced with "parts", for starters. "Subordinate" I guess refers to the fact that the "#IV7" is an Aug6 prolongation of the chord "IIb", which isn't one of the primary chords of tonality. The whole sentence should probably actually be stricken.

I'm sorry to have complained back at you. It's just that, yeah I was already watching this page because I know it needs cleanup. I'll get to it sooner or later, but the main thing I was trying to say is that: if you've got questions, please ask them; if you've got suggestions, please make them. - Rainwarrior 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some interesting stuff in W.A. Mathieu's book "Harmonic Experience" about augmented sixth chords. He claims that the name is essentially wrong and misleading, resulting in all kinds of confusing and misleading explanations of what these chords are, harmonically. Adding to the confusion is that the chords are "conceived of being an (altered) triad with an Ab root" (in the key of C), resulting in the notation bVI#6, or, spoken, "flat six sharp six chord". And that the German version's Eb note (key of C) is often misspelled D#, adding more confusion. His take on the augmented sixth chords is based on a mixing of overtonal and reciprocal energy -- the (key of C) Ab being submediant to the tonic and the F# being the tonic's dominant-dominant-mediant (C-G-D-F#). The chords are thought to have an Ab root, but the French version especially makes as much sense as having a D root. Then there is stuff about how the augmented sixth chords and the dominant seventh chords are "diaschismic pairs" -- different in terms of overtone/reciprocal energy, but enharmonically equivalent in equal temperament. Personally, I'd long been confused by the augmented sixth chords until I read his take on it. Every other music theory text I've seen does a terrible job of explaining them. Has anyone heard of Mathieu's explanation? If I find the time I can try to add it. Pfly 03:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E minor

Hey, I just happened to work out the German augmented sixth used in the graphic at the top for myself, and it seems that it's basically an Fmaj Augmented sixth, but built from the tone A (i.e. the F is an inverted minor sixth) - so this ought to resolve to either E minor or E major, depending on the key of A - and beneath the graphic it says it is in A minor, but it resolves to E major - isn't this an error?? 71.58.57.23 02:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The dominant (V) in the key of A minor is an E major chord (all dominants are major). You can check almost any piece of classical music written in a minor key to verify this. - Rainwarrior 03:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll verify that too. However, I do notice one more specific problem in that graphic, which you may or may not deem irrelevant--the Ger6 chord resolving directly to the dominant is typically considered bad voice-leading because of the parallel fifths (in this case, if I remember correctly, they're shown in the bass and tenor). The typical way of avoiding this is the 6/4 dissonance over the dominant, but I don't know if this is relevant enough to the topic at hand to warrant changing the graphic. Just thought I'd point it out. maestro 09:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The German Sixth section of the article makes a comment about the example picture and parallel fifths. I thought adding a suspension to the picture would make it less clear as to which chord was which. Do you think it needs to be changed, or alternatively do we need more description in the article about it? - Rainwarrior 23:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, actually the description in the article is sufficient, I just didn't see it before. Sorry! maestro 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)