Talk:Harmonic rhythm

Rate vs Rhythm

Hyacinth just changed:

In music harmonic rhythm is the rhythm in which the chords change.

to

In music harmonic rhythm is the rate at which the chords change.

To my mind, the word "rate" suggests a constant speed, like three changes per measure. But one of the significant aspects of harmonic rhythm is its potential variability. While a Bach piece might have a fairly consistent "rate" of chord changes, a Beethoven symphony can go from six chords per bar to the same harmony over twelve measures. I'm not sold that the first version is the perfect description, but the word "rate" suggests a consistency which isn't true to the meaning. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

First I checked the dictionary. According to Merriam Webster (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) rate may mean "a fixed quantity" though this is "obsolete" (2) and it may also mean "relative condition or quality" (5). You are thinking of one definition (3) "a fixed ratio between two things".

Then I checked Swain (2002) who uses "rate" on pages 1, 15, 36, 103, 108, and 111. For example (p.36), "Remember that when interpreting harmonic rhythm, it is not the actual durations that will matter but the rates of change, and the rate of change denoted by successive quarter notes is perceptually equivalent to eighths followed by eight rests."

Lastly, I feel that "rate" is superior to rhythm because it is defines harmonic rhythm without using the term itself (the rhythm of the harmony).

Hyacinth 10:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the confusion probably arises from the paragraph below. Hyacinth 11:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Trying to avoid the word "rhythm" in the definition is a red herring. Could wild pitch be defined without using the word "pitch"? No one who doesn't know the word "rhythm" has a prayer of understanding what this page is talking about. Harvard Dictionary of Music's definition of harmonic rhythm is "The rhythmic pattern provided by the changes in harmony". Later he refers to "the pattern of harmonic changes".
2. I'm just using a seat-of-the-pants definition of "rate", as in "The rate of water flow in the pipe is 5.8 liters per second". No one would interpret that to mean 4 liters one second and 6 the next.
3. Your Swain example could be interpreted to support my position. He's not redefining what harmonic rhythm is, but suggesting a way to "interpret" it. The overall rate of change may be the most important aspect of harmonic rhythm, but that isn't inherent in its definition; it's the same as rhythm vs. meter. One piece may generally move in sixteenth notes and another in eighth notes, but those note values aren't themselves the rhythm, just a characteristic of it.

I hope we get comments from additional editors. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How about we stick to definitions of "rate" rather than what you assume some people might think it might mean? Hyacinth (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Would you define the word rhythm using the word rhythm? Would you define the word harmony using the word harmony? Hyacinth (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall pace

Harmonic rhythm is rarely notated or described exactly; rather, analysts compare the overall pace of harmonic rhythm from one piece to another, or the amount of variation of harmonic rhythm within a piece. For example, a key stylistic difference between Baroque music and Classical-period music is that the latter exhibits much more variety of harmonic rhythm, even though the harmony itself is less complex.

Harmonic rhythm may rarely be notated in that it is rarely considered or discussed, but in discussions of harmonic rhythm I imagine notation and/or description are quite common. Analysts do compare the overall pace of harmonic rhythm from one piece to another, but they also compare the harmonic rhythm between sections or even phrases of one piece. Hyacinth 11:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Never once in my masters' or doctoral studies in music did I ever see a transcription of a harmonic rhythm, although sometimes passages were reduced to block chords for analytical purposes. You're right, though, that it's never been a big topic. Your final clause is what I was trying to capture with "...the amount of variation of harmonic rhythm within a piece." Edit for clarity as necessary! —Wahoofive (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Scriabin

It's been a part of the article since its inception, but the single sentence on Scriabin's middle period seems like a bit of a non-sequitur. It would be useful to have more information on harmonic rhythm in different musical periods or movements, but I'm not sure that listing individual composers' predilections is worthwhile, unless they were particularly distinctive or had some influence on historical shifts in practice. Is there something particularly notable about Scriabin's harmonic rhythm, within the broader context of musical history? (Was it unprecedentedly slow, or just slow compared to his early period?) If so, that context should be added; if not, the sentence could be removed. Seventhsaint (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)