Talk:Viennese trichord

Bill Evans correction

I have some problems matching the example in the picture with the second sentence "the third, seventh, and added sixth/thirteenth of a dominant chord". The trichords in the figure actually have the minor thirds instead of the major ones. I would expect the major 3rd in a dominant 7th chord. In the picture I guess the first chord is Eb7, so I would expect F rather than Gb. Thanks for explaining Ozzarram (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ozzarram is correct, and in the Bill Evans example the trichord isn't representing those pitches at all. By the way, the Viennese trichord is listed as "embellishing the first (C7) chord." This is technically correct, but misleading given the bass. Scott LaFaro is alternating between C and Db, and Evans' chord--(left hand) F-B-E (right hand) Bb Eb G Bb--falls on the off-beat Db at 0'03" in the recording. How to notate such a chord? It's clumsy, but either Eb/Db7#9 or Db9(#9#11b13) would work; Db7alt is ok too, though it doesn't account for the Eb in Evans' right hand. I suggest wording it this way: "A Viennese trichord as a part of G-z17, an altered dominant tritone substitution (Db7alt) in the key of C, from Bill Evans's opening to 'What Is This Thing Called Love?' 218.88.108.13 (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You both missed the E♮ in the bass clef. Mixed thirds and sevenths and alteration are common in jazz (thus "see jazz chord"). You also both missed the citation, so all that needs be said is, "Allen Forte considers it an embellished C7 chord," in which case the article does not make up what the chord is, it says that Forte did, which may be verified by reading the cited source rather than reading another Wikipedia editor's mind. It's obviously not E^♭7, given that there is no D♭ but there is an E♮. Hyacinth (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency between examples, so one is probably incorrect.

In the music example titled "Viennese trichord as dominant" near the end of the article, there is a 5-note chord (reading up from the lowest note) G B D E F, and three of these notes are coloured to show that they constitute the Viennese trichord. Yet they do not constitute this - or else the earlier musical example which gives two examples of Viennese trichords in different keys and different inversions is wrong. Or else both examples are Viennese trichords, and so that term is a *type* of chord rather than a single, specific chord - in which case the article should mention this.

This inconsistency between the examples is perhaps obscured by the fact that the two examples are in different keys and inversions. But the inconsistency is best seen if we arrange the notes in each example so that the smallest interval, the minor 2nd, is at the bottom. And this is what we get: in the two examples at the top, showing bare examples of the Viennese trichord, the intervals ascending are, respectively, a minor 2nd, a perfect 4th, and, if we double the lowest note at the higher octave, the third interval is an augmented 4th. But in the other example further down, showing the Viennese trichord embedded in the larger chord, the same intervals are, respectively, a minor 2nd, an augmented 4th, and a perfect 4th up to the lowest note doubled in the higher octave. This would seem to show that we are actually dealing with two different chords, albeit that they seem closely related. (In fact, one is a mirror reflection of the other.)

Perhaps both of these are Viennese trichords - I don't know. But if so, the article should explicitly mention this.

I do not know which is correct; but, whichever it is, there is clearly an inconsistency, and if someone who does know the true situation could fix this anomaly, it would help the reliability of this article.

(I have at times seen other errors or inconsistencies in details of various music theory articles in Wikipedia, which causes me to have a few doubts about the reliability of Wikipedia in this topic generally. But I do not have the knowledge to create musical examples to depict correct versions; and, in some cases, I do not know which situation is true - just that there are inconsistencies. I just noticed another one in "List_of_pitch-class_sets". I will go there now and add a note about the anomaly I have found there.) M.J.E. (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

In Schoenberg's Op. 14-1, the augmented fourth (or diminished fifth) plus perfect fourth version predominates, though a chord with a perfect fourth plus an augmented fourth is the characteristic sonority of the second of the Five Orchestral Pieces, for instance (and also appears prominently in the other song of Op. 14, but as an upper extension over differing bass notes). Either is more characteristic in his music than the collapsed prime voicings (with minor seconds) shown in the most prominent example here. 71.174.37.164 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

See: File:Viennese trichord quartal.png. Hyacinth (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@M.J.E.: Put E, F, and B into a PC Set Calculator. [4, 5, 11] is a transposition of the inverse of [0,1,6], and inverted sets are equivalent. Thus both the major chord and the minor chord are PC set 3-11, even though they are usually not considered "the same chord" they are considered the same pitch class set. Hyacinth (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You’re correct, neither the b,e,f nor the Eb,a,d structures would be considered 0,1,6 - this is bad math on the part of the editor and should be remedied. 2600:8803:950E:8F00:B8C8:5BEA:A4E7:1524 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)