Talk:Quartal and quintal harmony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Adding from the German page 2 Length 3 References 4 Article title 5 What is or is not relevant to quartal harmony 6 Incorrect musical examples 7 Vague / incomprehensible English

[edit] Adding from the German page

I'm going to be translating and incorporating the excellent German page at de:Quartenharmonik over the next few days. (Progress at User:Rainwarrior/quartal translation) - Rainwarrior 15:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Great! —Keenan Pepper 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been slower-going than I anticipated, but I have translated a great deal of the page by now (about two thirds of it, everything except the history, which is coming...). You might want to take a look at it (User:Rainwarrior/quartal translation) and start incorporating this information. A great deal of the image examples are useable without any translation work needed, and the audio examples are just tones and things so they don't need translation either. (References might be a pain though eventually. I have translated the titles, some books I knew English versions of, and some links were to English pages, so there's even stuff down there that could be used.) - Rainwarrior 04:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The history section has now been at least turned into English words, if not yet proper English grammar. Cleaning this up will not take too much time. It is for the most part understandable though, if anyone is interested in working on this already. Almost done translating! (phew) - Rainwarrior 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's done. Please incorporate material from User:Rainwarrior/quartal translation into this page. - Rainwarrior 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Even to replace this entire article with the translation would not be that bad, all of the material here (except the reference to Oliver Nelson maybe) is discussed on the translated page, and almost all of the images are useable without any work. It would mostly be a matter of cleaning out my editorial remarks, which I flagged with "(? )", and after that the changes made would only be minor. - Rainwarrior 17:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved all of that stuff from the translation here, translated the images which had German text, and cleaned out the external links to German sites. I could use a proofing by someone else... it's hard to read the same text over and over again. (I have a feeling there's some rough language in the first section.) - Rainwarrior 06:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like the new article is focused on quartal harmony and barely mentions quintal harmony. There are two things we could do: either move this to Quartal harmony and start a stub at Quintal harmony, or do some heavy editing to work in quintal harmony. Too bad there's no German article de:Quintenharmonik... or is that the wrong word? —Keenan Pepper 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not the wrong word, it's just a very obscure term. True "quintal" harmony doesn't appear very often (the example on the page from The Cage comes to mind), and where it is it is usually mixed with quartal harmony as well. Most often "quartal harmony" is a term used to cover them both. Honestly, I can't remember any reference to "quintal harmony" in any of my music theory readings, and taking a quick look through the indices of the books on my shelf, I can't find it mentioned. I don't think it needs its own page, but this page may deserve a rename with a redirect from quintal? - Rainwarrior 17:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as a further check, I tried looking up "quartal harmony" and "quintal harmony" on JSTOR; the former turned up plenty, the latter turned up 3 articles, 2 of which were guides for teaching young composers (mentioning it in a list after quartal), and the last was an article on Charles Ives which again mentions is in a list "quartal and quintal harmony in...". - Rainwarrior 18:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that in every usage I can find, "quartal and quintal harmony" is a synonym for "quartal harmony", and the latter is used much more often. (I can't find any mention at all of "quintal harmony" on its own.) - Rainwarrior 18:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. It does seem a bit unfair though: 4:6:9 is one of my favorite chords. =P —Keenan Pepper 18:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, i am the german author of the article "Quartenharmonik". I`m very impressed of your translation. Must have been a lot of work. The next days i will read your translation. Maybe i`ll find some mistakes. If i can help you in any way, please contact me. I see, that you also translated most of the text in the pictures. Perfect ! To your discussion about quintal harmony. I think these expression doesn`t really exist. The fifth is a normal part of tonal chords with first, third and fifth -> (major and minor chords). I would say, quintal harmony is simply what we call tonal system. In german language and musicbooks, the term "Quintenharmonik" doesn`t exist. I don`t know, how it`s in english music-literature. Please excuse my bad english. Have a nice day --Boris Fernbacher 22:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Boris! I worked on it a little bit at a time for about two months. Yes, English theory doesn't often use "quintal harmony", but it means almost the same thing as "quartal harmony". - Rainwarrior 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you make a mirror of fourths (D - G - C), then yo`ve got fifths (C - G - D). An german we say "Komplementärintervall". It`s funny and sometimes difficult to understand, reading my own article in english. Good night --Boris Fernbacher 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the translation of Riemann`s words about Scriabin was not correct. I changed it. Maybe in a bad english style. But from the meaning it now matches with the german original. --Boris Fernbacher 00:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your translation is very good and near to the original. Have you studied german at university ? --Boris Fernbacher 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it over. I'm glad you found that misunderstanding in the Riemann quote; it was probably the most difficult thing to translate. Regarding "Komplementärintervall", we do say "complementary interval" in English, but more often we say "inversion"; they have two different meanings, but when talking about only one interval, they have the same effect. I studied German a little in High School, but I did not understand it until I was at university. I did not take courses in German there, but I frequently read German articles on music (or other topics), and I think it is from this reading that I have learned most of my German. Thank you for the complement; your own English is good, much better than I am at writing German. Thanks for writing such a great article in the first place for me to translate! - Rainwarrior 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bradley, the Franz Liszt example: You translated "La lugubra gondola" as "the lazy gondola". I think it has to be translated as "the gondola of grief". In german it`s translated as "Trauergondel". I think also it really sounds more griefing then beeing lazy. Can you imagine yourself a lazy gondola ? Have a nice day --Boris Fernbacher 07:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's right. Sometimes a "lugubrious" thing may seem "lazy", so I had forgotten the meaning of that word. I have changed it to "mournful". Also, I believe it's "lugubre", not "lugubra". - Rainwarrior 08:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think "lugubre" is right. I´ll change it also in the german article. --Boris Fernbacher 08:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length

This article is too long. Hyacinth 20:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the length, I personally think it's near the edge of what is acceptable, but still okay (WP:SIZE says as much). It's well structured, and it comes to about 10 printed pages. If anything we could move the history section to History of quartal harmony (along with its particular references), but I am not in favour of that option. I don't think it's necessary, and would rather see the history remain with the rest of the article. - Rainwarrior 04:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would cut the Introduction: Intervals and Chord symbols section as it has little to do with quartal harmony and is covered at those articles. Hyacinth 09:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I think you can remove that section wholesale without disturbing the rest, actually. - Rainwarrior 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I've amended your recent changes:

1. Everything you moved to "further reading" was used as reference for the creation of the article. I don't see any reason why it should be downgraded to "further reading". Is your one source any different from the others for some reason?
2. A random sentence about Tyner and Nelson doesn't really belong at the head of the Jazz section. (A general introduction like what is there is more appropriate.) Tyner is already mentioned actually, but I forgot to add the part about Oliver Nelson when I was translating the German article, sorry.
3. You added a reference to the Musiklexicon with a "?". I assume this is because of the reference to it regarding Skriabin. I believe the actual source of that quote was taken from the book by Gottfried Eberle, but you'd have to ask Boris Fernbacher about that. (I also moved your other reference to the Jazz section of the references.)

-Rainwarrior 04:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE says almost nothing about "further reading", but one of the things it does say about it is that it is for books and links that "have not been used as sources for the article". In the case of this article they were used as a source. They don't particularly make a good "further reading" list, either, as a lot of them contain little more than what was used in the article itself. I really don't get it, why do you keep moving the sources for this article into further reading? - Rainwarrior 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

I'm thinking this should be moved to Quartal harmony. There was a discussion about this above (in the talk about the German translation), but my reason is that "quintal harmony" is a completely obscure term. Quartal harmony is regularly referred to in theoretical writings, but I have yet to find a single source that mentions "quintal harmony" in its own right. In every source I've found it it was only as part of the phrase "quartal and quintal harmony", which was in these cases just a passing reference to the existance of alternative forms of harmony. In sources about quartal harmony, fifth-chords are generally still referred to as part of "quartal" harmony. - Rainwarrior 15:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is or is not relevant to quartal harmony

I find much of the discussion confusing or irrelevant, since a lot of it is about melodic use of the fourth. What does a fourth appearing in melody have to do with the subject?

It is also not clear whether the inversions of the common chord (eg E-G-c, G-c-e) count as 'quartal harmony'. I would imagine not, since quartal harmony seem to be defined in contrast to the triadic harmony of common practice.

The history section I do find overlong simply on account of the irrelevant passages which, rather than being about quartal harmony, are actually about any use of the fourth whatsoever. Well, all common practice uses the fourth!! That doesn't make it relevant to quartal harmony.

The music examples I also find confusing. --Tdent 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect musical examples

In the Mozart example, the viola clef is incorrect (should be alto clef, not tenor!) and the notation is corrupted (e.g. D# instead of Eb, A# instead of Bb) so that the harmony is extremely difficult to understand. Either correct the example or find a new one!

Also in the Schoenberg example the viola clef is incorrectly placed. --Tdent 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Mozard example is enharmonically incorrect, and the use of the tenor clef is a little odd. The images are hand-editable though, since the lines aren't anti-aliased. You can save them, edit them, and then reupload them over the old ones at the wikimedia commons. - Rainwarrior 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vague / incomprehensible English

Unfortunately the translation has produced sentences which are vague or confusing to the point of meaninglessness. The translation should be thoroughly overhauled by a native English speaker familiar with music theory. For a few examples:

"Quartal harmony imbued modern music with structural commonalities, laying parts more widely separated in space and/or time, allowing for a very different sound."

did this mean anything in German?

"Corresponding to this vertical structuring of chords is a melodically oriented (horizontal) usage of fourths; the parallel theory of quartal melody however has not been put across as of yet."

it seems to me that fourths & fifths have always been used as parts of melody, so I don't know what use would be a specialised theory of "quartal melody". Again, I have to ask why there are so many references to melodic uses of the fourth in the Baroque and Classical "history" sections, when this is irrelevant to the subject of the page.

"The integral design of cadential models - G functions as the dominant of C, this extends again to F and so on - explains why fourths have this property, giving quartal harmony a new tonal centre corresponding to the original by a less stable ratio."

very confusing. What is an "integral design", a "cadential model", a "less stable ratio"?

"Surely it must also be significant, whether it takes many listenings (or a study of the score) for the listener to understand the harmonic situation arranged by the interpretation."

vague and ambiguous.

How does 'Vexierspiel' become 'Carnival-mirror'?? --Tdent 14:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're a native English speaker with knowledge of music theory, I would invite you to dive right in. After I was finished translating it from German, I needed to take a break from it. Since then though it hasn't been high enough on my priorities to come back and re-proofread it (and even so, I think it would still be better for someone else to do it, like you maybe).

No, that sentence doesn't really have much more meaning in the German (even though I think I mistranslated it a little). Looking at the article, that entire sentence should probably be removed.

The "integral design of cadential models" is just "the way cadences work" if you like, though looking at it now, I don't think this "explains" why fourths "tend to forget which key they are in" (might want to change this as well), really. The "less stable ratio" refers to the fourth 4:3 vs the fifth 3:2. I don't think any of this sentence really needs to be in the article, actually. (I would also suggest changing the term "fuse" in the same paragraph.)

The whole paragraph with "surely it must be significant..." is a bit vague, and written oddly (i.e. why does it ask questions?). The sentence about forcing it into a procrustean bed is probably the heart of its content. I can't think of a good way to reword it right now.

I think I misread vexierspiel as vexierspiegel; It should be "puzzle-game" or maybe less literally "riddle". (Does this change the meaning much?)

Anyhow, go ahead and edit it. - Rainwarrior 19:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)