Talk:Thirteenth

Minor changes

I made a few minor changes to this page to make it more understandable. Still could be a lot more informative. I plan on expanding it when I get a chance.--Wikidan81 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested audio

I have added some audio examples to the article. Hyacinth (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

While it is greatly appreciated, some of the voicings are utterly invalid, as I explained earlier. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Now the article contains original research which is your own work and POV. You have no basis to remove cited information, including images, and that is "utterly invalid" not to mention glaring incivility, according to your definition. Hyacinth (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As I proved several minutes ago, your "citations" are at times wrongful interpretations of sources, thus not necessarily reflecting the sources per se. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing images

• 

  Dominant thirteenth chord (V13) in F major (C E G B♭ D)

• 

  Thirteenth chord on I in F major (F A C E G Bb D)

Someone still needs to re-add the images removed without cause:

13th chords may less often be built on degrees other than the dominant, such as the tonic (pictured at right) or subdominant.

Hyacinth (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You're starting to exhaust me man. I've provided ample explanations why this chord is invalid, yet you have yet to come up with a single "real world" example (not in a polytonal/atonal context) of these nonsensical voicings. What is the purpose of this request, to assemble a wp:tag team? 87.69.130.159 (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

...and here is the ultimate proof that I was right all along, coming from your cite: "a true thirteenth chord, arrived at by superposition of thirds, is a rare phenomenon even in 20th-century music." 87.69.130.159 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, what that proves is that I'm doing your work for you. Rare is not the same as "doesn't exist". You have [yet (8 November 2024)] to come up with a single cited exmaple of any kind. Removing a version of an image which I created from my theory textbook, which I cited, because you think it is an "injustice" to music students is not an ample explanation. Hyacinth (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

My work??? You asserted those chords based on misunderstanding the actual source, it is your work to properly understand sources before being able to properly cite them. "Rare even in 20th century music" means that when you find such a chord, it is for creating the ultimate dissonance for either programmatic or comedic purposes; in both cases it is somewhat of a "deliberate mistake". 87.69.130.159 (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Is perhaps the dispute here over the difference between the chord as a theoretical construct -- a series of thirds over a root -- and the actual voicings used in real music? I think the image showing the thirds is a useful one, even though it's hard to find music that voices chords that way. That's the most common way it's presented in all the theory textbooks I personally have ever used. Now admittedly I have not read through the entire dispute and the talk pages onto which it has spilled, but maybe split out the discussion in the article into how the chord is built, and how it is voiced in different varieties of music? Antandrus (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There are certain sets of rules present when constructing a chord, and one of the key rules is that an interval of ♭9 is almost always avoided (except for very specific cases, such as above the root in dominant ♭9 chords or above the 5th in a minor ♭6 chord, the latter exclusively pertaining to modal harmony). There are certain notes that are generally considered "avoid notes" for a number of reasons, and perhaps the "most avoided of them all" is the presence of a perfect fourth in a major chord. Notice that it is substantially different from having a major third on top of a sus4 chord. The latter is a more "advanced" chord and the reason is that the student must familiarize him or herself with the limitations of functional harmony before being able to start "thinking outside the box"... otherwise they start constructing outrageous voicings such as the one Hyacinth is proposing, completely disregarding the musical aspect of theory. Music came before theory; even Schoenberg started his atonal system as a free composer before figuring out the dodecaphonic method. Therefore, some chords, although technically can be constructed, do not work as a musical tool and are therefore completely useless, being able to only harm the development of the same music student who comes across such examples. By the way, another reason to avoid the presence of the ♮11 in a major chord is the complete obscuring of the original major sound as well as the perceived tonic being shifted to the fourth (for instance, a C major chord with an added 4 to it will sound like an F chord on its second inversion), which is pretty much tantamount to dividing by zero – although you could technically write $x/0=y$, this simply does not exist unless in very specific cases, which are only discussed in highly advanced classes for math majors. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

“ [One] can get a good sense of the difference between classical and non-classical harmony from looking at how they deal with dissonances. Classical treats all notes that don't belong to the chord (ie, the triad) as potential dissonances to be resolved. (See Unit 6.) Non-classical harmony just tells you which note in the scale to avoid ["what is sometimes called an avoid-note"] (because it's really dissonant), meaning that all the others are okay. ”

Hyacinth (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

References

"Noreen's Nocturne"

The analysis of the score is sourced. Your objection is POV and unsourced. If you can find a source please do so and describe it. Hyacinth (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not "my transcription", but my recreation of an image per the citation. If you check the source you will find the principal difference is that I did not circle the four roman numerals circled in the source, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and last. Hyacinth (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Inversions

I believe the first inversion is an Em11(b9b13) and not an Em13(b9). An Em13 would have a C# in it. 2001:16B8:2BC9:7300:5AC:6482:E69A:CB67 (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)