Talk:Harmony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harmony is within the scope of WikiProject Music, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to music. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Tone

I find the tone (no pun intended) to be a bit colloquial at times. It also uses the second-person. It seems very unprofessional. 68.99.151.209 09:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)MT

I strongly agree. The definitions are extremely woolly. Take the following example:
(Under the heading 'Tensions): There are certain basic harmonies. A basic chord consists of three notes: the root, the third above the root, and the fifth above the root (which happens to be the minor third above the third above the root). So, in a C chord, the notes are C, E, and G. In an A-flat chord, the notes are Ab, C, and Eb.
Firstly, the first sentence is extremely unspecific and poorly put. Music theorist do not talk about 'basic harmonies', especially when what they are really referring to is triads. There is also no reference whatsoever to the sort of music this is referring to. The most 'basic' harmony is either the octave (or if this cannot be considered harmony) the open fifth. Pre-medieval western music was 'harmonised' often exclusively in consecutive open fifths and octaves. The triad (three note CEG chords) did not materialise in western music until later on. In some other cultures it did not appear at all. There needs to be an explanation for why the triad became the fundamental consonant sound in Western music, and therefore some reference, and ideally a notated example of the harmonic series. There are so many academic sources on this subject (in the 1000s at least) I won't bother with a link.
Once the reason for this emphasis on the fifth and third has been established the make of the triad can be much more easily explained. You need to talk about major and minor and what these intervals are (maybe mention systems of temperament). I know there is a lot of overlap here with other theory articles but without touching on these issues, any academically trained musician or theorist will see the article as nonsense.
The next paragraph opens "There are four basic "parts" in classical music-soprano, alto, tenor, and bass. Note: there can be more than one example of those parts in a given song, and there are also more parts. These are just the basic ones."
There are so many things wrong here. What is 'classical music' is it Chinese Classical Music? Is it music from the so-called 'Classical Era' (c. 1750-1790)? Secondly as it seems to be referring to Tonal Western Art Music in general, I would like to point out that the first sentence is entirely wrong. Whether or not a piece of music is divided into these four parts is never the same, regardless of the genre of music. Even some choral music for four voice choir is not divided this way. Then the word 'song' is used, which gives the entire paragraph the authority of a primary school project.
There are millions of academic sources on this subject. This passage really needs to be clearly articulated with the correct terminology and well referenced. This article starts very well, it's a shame that the rest is so bizarrely awful... Matt.kaner 13:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dinergic

The article included the following:

It [harmony] is a dinergic relationship, which is the fitting and joining of often contrasting elements. It is the fundamental basis of the Golden Mean.

I think mentioning dinergy here, which is a rather obscure concept, gives it too much prominence (besides which, the article on dinergy says it is "the pattern-forming process of the union of opposites", which isn't what harmony is, it seems to me). The Golden Mean sentence seems meaningless to me. The golden mean is a middle path; I don't see as this has anything to do with harmony. (There's also the mathematical meaning of course, which also has nothing to do with conventional harmony, though it's true a small number of people have written music using a tuning system based on the golden ratio.) --Camembert

It's just struck me that the author may have been thinking not about musical harmony, but about harmony as a general concept. If so, maybe the above makes sense, but it really doesn't belong in this article, which is explicitly just about the musical kind of harmony. Where it might belong instead, I don't really know, but it should be linked from Harmony (disambiguation), I guess. --Camembert
Harmony is also in nature and humans copied that into architecture and pottery. WHEELER 15:43, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
OK, so you didn't mean harmony in music, then? If so, that's OK, as I said, there's probably a place for what you wrote on the Wikipedia somewhere. But this page is explicitly about harmony in music, and I think it's better to keep it that way - things could get quite confusing and confused if we mix the various concepts of harmony together. Like I say, maybe it could be worked into Harmony (disambiguation) or given its own page. --Camembert

[edit] Consonance and dissonance

The following sentence:

Notes may be considered to be in harmony with each other when some of the harmonics of each note, especially the louder harmonics (which are often the lower ones), share the same frequency.

confuses harmony with consonance. While this is in line with non-musical uses of the term (as opposed to disharmony), in music dissonances are considered harmony as well. Wahoofive 22:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How does it look now? Hyacinth 22:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Wahoofive 06:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church

The influence of churches on harmonic language is overstated. Developments in harmony were due to the taste of individual composers and listeners (and patrons); although some of them were church members or clergy, there was no consistent policy on harmony from either Catholic or Protestant churches. Other aspects of music were regulated, such as instrumental accompaniment, but I'm not aware than any churches banned diminished-seventh chords or augmented sixths or whatever as a matter of church policy. Wahoofive 22:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a general example of churches controlling music Gregorian chant mentions "edicts of Rome...attempting to establish a consistent practice during this period" [400-800 CE]. Hyacinth 22:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Churches have often controlled music, but not specifically harmony, AFAIK. Wahoofive 06:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps you could remove it to talk as in the proposed policy Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources. Hyacinth 16:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Centrifugal/centripetal

Harmony may also be distinguished as centrifugal or centripetal harmony, harmony which leads away from or to the tonic, respectively. For example, music of the classical era is most often centrifugal, while the ragtime progression is centripetal. (van der Merwe 1989)

I've never heard of this, which may not be relevant, but the examples are nonsensical. For one thing, the "ragtime progression" page states it derives from classical usage. Anyway, in what universe does harmony in classical music lead away from the tonic? Ever heard of a cadence? —Wahoofive (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess youll have to look up the reference before dismissing it!--Light current 01:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How about a Google test? 36 results, none about music. That's for "centripedal". Centrifugal has only 4 results. I vote that the reference is a hoax, or at least the terms are not widely enough used to be included. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the book ref? Are you going to let it go?--Light current 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's break this down:

One can only and quickly conclude that it is "hoax". (Please note that I'm being facetious) Hyacinth 09:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed "most" to "more" as I believe that was what van der Merwe meant (and it would seem that classical era music would be centrifugal only half the time). Hyacinth 09:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems like the Arabian comma mess all over again. Just because it's in a book doesn't make it true. Some books are full of shit fringe theories, and an important page like this one shouldn't give it prominence as if it were on the same level of general acceptance as Rameau or Riemann, neither of whom are is mentioned here. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It is interesting to note the conflict which contributed to your tone in this discussion.
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Hyacinth 09:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes well, this is under review at the moment. Watch that space!--Light current 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can play rule-citing games too: see WP:NPOV#Undue weight, where it says
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
My Google test was intended to show that this view is extremely minority. This article presently gives a whole section to some crank neologisms while not even mentioning the mainstream view at all. You have the strangest library, Hyacinth. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You'll find mention of Rameau and Riemann on Tonality, some of which was added by me. Hyacinth 11:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this passage for the reason that, as the difference between "centrifugal" and "centripetal" harmonies are not defined. The passage states:

Harmony may also be distinguished as centrifugal or centripetal harmony, harmony which leads away from or to the tonic, respectively. For example, music of the classical era is more often centrifugal, while the ragtime progression is centripetal.

It fails to explain what harmony that "leads toward a tonic" or away from it is. It's somewhat unreasonable to be making a statement like "classical music more often leads away from the tonic", because this is untrue. Even the example of a ragtime progression is a particularly common progression in classical music. There may be some distinction to be made, but there isn't even a hint of it in this article. Hyacinth, can you offer a passage from the book you have taken this material from? Does the book use it throughout, or do the words only appear once in reference to ragtime music? - Rainwarrior 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Single melodic line?

the line about harmony being possible in a single harmonic line could really use some clarification. I think it is by definition impossible for a single melodic line to hit harmonies. If multiple notes are being sounded together, its no longer a single melodic line. The only thing I can think is that the "harmony" could be implied, for example by playing the root note of the implied chord on the downbeat and then playing as if within that chord, but I don't think that should really count, and if that is what is being described it certainly needs clarification. I guess the other possibility is that the sentence refers to the harmonics present in the notes of the melody, but that certainly shouldn't be mentioned as harmony as it more or less renders the term meaningless. Thoughts? Powrtoch 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've revised it slightly and left an example of what it was trying to describe. Also, there is a Canadian composer who has made considerable use of this technique... but I can't remember his name offhand. I'll try and remember... - Rainwarrior 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Found it. José Evangelista. "José Evangelista pursues an artistic path by which he has explored ways of making a music based exclusively on melody. Hence he has developed a heterophonic writing, both for instruments and orchestra, in which the melodic line generates echoes of itself and creates an illusion of polyphony." [1] - Rainwarrior 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chord (music) and Harmony

I propose that we develop some sort of standard or guideline as to what information goes on the Chord (music) and Harmony articles.

To that end I will start discussion on this talk page. It seems like the history section of Chord (music) may actually belong at Harmony, so the first change I propose is that it (Chord (music)#History) be moved to or discussed more fully on Harmony. Hyacinth 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

[edit] Rainwarrior edits are in pursuit of a petty personal vendetta

The Rainwarrior edits are aimed at his continued months-long stalking of Bob Fink, not the interest of the article. The Rainwarrior-censored citations have been restoreed. The edits include info on ancient harmony, 3rd-party-published by Archaeologia Musicalis journal, Feb., 1988. Fink, not yet 3,000 years old, did not author the vase and wall art from ancient Egypt and Greece in the citation. But even if he did draw that ancient art, Rainwarrior does not recognize nor honour wikipedia guidelines (because they don't serve his corrupt stalking campaign) such as:

1. "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest." (For Rainwarrior's obsessive targeting of Fink, perhaps even ONE citation would be "excessive." Greenwyk 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You added about a hundred links to your website to wikipedia. I think that classifies as linkspam. You should read the external linking guidelines (WP:EL) which say:
"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."
Post the link here on the talk page, and if someone else thinks it's relevant they can add it. - Rainwarrior 08:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

100 links? Or 100 edits? Which? If links, add the URLs or names of the articles of where they are to prove your claim. 100 links seems exaggerated to me. Greenwyk 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tom harrison/external links counts 136 links to your website from Wikipedia. Putting greenwych.ca into the search box will find them for you. The edit histories show when the link was added and by what IP address, and the total contributions of each of these IP addresses may be checked. Almost all of them were added by the 65.255.255.* IP addresses you use, and their contribution histories consistently edit the same material at the same pages.
Now, you've added your articles as "further reading", but why? There are thousands of books and articles on harmony and on its history. What's so special about yours? Should we have every author who has written on harmony cite their article here? - Rainwarrior 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rainwarrior continues vendetta: vandalizes relevant citations

There is no justified reason to remove legitimate secondary citations, no matter who places them. They show the discovery of two recent items of evidence for ancient harmony. Citations cannot be removed for reasons of personal hostility to a single person. There must be a specific reason given relating to the good of the subject of the article, not based on the subject of Rainwarrior's sick, tortured, irrational hatred of Bob Fink's research, with no reasoned, cited justifications given for it. That censorship vandalism will be reverted until the end of time. 65.255.225.52 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The action described above is known as edit warring, which can result in a user being blocked from editing. Wikipedia has a guideline of consensus. I suggest that the anonymous present his or her case for the inclusion of these links. I further recommend that the user consult Wikipedia's code of conduct policy. The statement made above is clearly inappropriate. Victoriagirl 05:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
To Victoriagirl: I'm sorry, but I must disagree. I have been under attack from Rainwarrior for months. He exhibits all the facets described in Wikipedia of a troll, a disrupter, and a harasser, but he also does it as a "creative troll," as Wikipedia puts it -- in this case being offensive in a mild-mannered way designed to provoke me or others to blow their top. People can take only so much insult and hassle.
You can see the evidence for all this at Talk:Musical_acoustics. In that Talk (quite long), Rainwarrior has been accused (not by me only) of being offensive toward me. I'm only human. I will not tolerate lies, distortions, misrepresentations about myself, my motives, without serious specific evidence being presented. Search the thousands of words, and you'll see Rainwarrior's evidence of anything against me is ONLY his own suspicions, but he never cites anything real, hard or true. On the other hand, when evidence is presented that contradicts his suspicions, he ignores it, refuses to address it, and moves on to other accusations or subjects. INDEED he himself has proposed in the various Talk pages that my citations should be secondary sources, not links to my own webpages. Fine. I provided these in the "Further Reading" here. But now, even that isn't good enough.
Wikipedia mades provisions for secondary sources to be provided by authors, even if they have a played a role in the article's findings. Wikipedia reports that material can be cited, and the author can edit "in the Third Person" -- of course with care. Rainwarrior observes none of these guidelines or policies regarding me. Only the ones that suit his attack.
There is ample evidence of provocation and bad faith on his part -- IF you read the whole of his manner of operating at Musical acoustics. There are two sides to every story. You will also see that Rainwarrior is always far more interested in me than in the article. If an edit I made over the year or so has stood unchallenged, Wiki/Consensus says: "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus -- somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process." (BTW, that "silence" thing is a point of view that Rainwarrior has already said, when it was convenient to him, is "ludicrous" at Talk:Divje_Babe).
But when you're faced with a person whose apparent goal is clearly to track down every edit, word and link I have placed, there can never be consensus, because there can never be that "silence" from Rainwarror to allow a consensus. In plain English, "he is out to get me." He refuses to reply to any offer (made twice) to negotiate, nor to find a common ground in good faith that represents even part of -- as Wiki puts it --"the interests of both parties." CATCH 22! I have no choice but to revert the vandalism -- which, if vandalism, is not subject to the "3-revert rule." So let's go to a mediator or arbitrator and let's find out if it's vandalism. Ask Rainwarrior if he'll go to mediation. Or arbitration?-- I will.
Wikipedia has pointed out that authors may edit material about themselves in a small way -- and can also revert vandalism. Since the Rainwarrior edits are targeting me almost wholly, and invariably vandalize what little editing Wikipedia allows a scholar involved in the contents of the article itself to still edit (that is, if one of the duly published scholars in a discussion on a particular subject in an article also edits). But Rainwarrior never recognizes anything in the guidelines that favours me even existing at all as an minor editor in musicology pages. Most such edits were made earlier through 2006 by my publisher and a few others. They didn't know the rules, but we have offered to replace any links that break the rules with other links publishing our research that do not break the rules. Ask Rainwarrior why he seems to not accept that.
Rainwarrior has falsely also said my views are not notable, but a look in the references in my bio page, for which you did the "cleanup" will show that is indeed false. You don't get invited to write an article for a world conference on music archaeology by the conference organizers and editors if not notable; Or published in other peer-reviewed journals, or receive scores or hundreds of good reviews of your work (along with published dissent too, replying against your ideas) from other notable people in the field -- if you're not notable as well. Or get invited by Nature journal, the leading science journal in the world, to be a juror regarding ancient music -- if you're not notable. There is no reason to remove the secondary links.
Regarding the "case" you asked for, to show why the links should be there, I already made that case above for those secondary sources. But I'll repeat it here. Since those links Rainwarrior removed are not to webpages I own, nor are they an "External link" -- I don't have to beg "permission" to enter them in an edit. But here's the case anyway: The "Evidence link" reports the famous work, in the Archaeology/Assyrian field, of Professor Anne D. Kilmer deciphering the stone tablet, 4000 years old, as markings that describe the music and words to the oldest known song. And the song was in harmony. Visit the link to see, if you wish. In that link, my own discovery -- found in ancient artworks depicting musicians -- was to note that this art has strong clues that harmony existed at the time the art was made. These discoveries were also supported by Kilmer in one of her articles in her Assyriology research. (She was head of the Assyriology Dept at University of California at Berkeley before retiring.)
She visited me in Canada for a week, to compare notes. She favourable reviewed my book The Origin of Music. If you want a reference on my "worth" -- of which Rainwarrior will admit there is none -- I'll give you Kilmer's phone number, and you can phone her -- or e-mail her. Whatever you wish. I am the victim of a scurrilous injustice and waste of time from Rainwarrior's behavior, and I can prove it to anyone who will act on my evidence of that.
So on all these grounds, I will revert the edit because it is vandalism. My lack of civility was because I'm trying to share my life's work and research, and being harassed and disrupted in that. So I'm ready to go to a mediator, or and arbitration over this. If Wikipedia wants to allow trolls to chase away scholars and knoweldgeable people who may be able to make articles better, then let's find out where they will draw the line: On his or my side.
As to Rainwarrior's edit being because I'm engaged in self-promotion? Why are those secondary links different from any other scholar who cites secondary sources of his/her work? They are allowed to do it by the guidelines. What POV is there? -- Only that the source is a publication of Bob Fink's discoveries and research on harmony? Is being Bob Fink wrong in itself? -- Just "advertising myself"? How on earth can it be? Just because Rainwarrior asserts it? If so then every such author is "advertising"!
At age 71, Most of my books are sold out. 30 or so left. I have already made arrangements to give up my copyrights into the public domain because of my age. I don't have much "future" left. So, what point is there for self-promotion? To get a better job? I'm retired. I can barely walk. -- I have been doing musicological research for a half-century on the origins of music. As said, I've written several books, been published in peer-reviewed journals and books and other secondary literature; and so on. My books are in hundreds of libraries. (I can name their on-line catalogue listings.) See also the "notability" section in Talk:Musical_acoustics.
But it was in vain. Rainwarrior has been advised of the facts of that publishing record many times, and knows that they are true. And I can prove them. So: The idea (or that of my publisher or supporters of my views) that our sincere desire to share the findings of my published research and knowledge with others (through relevant musicology pages in Wikipedia), represents only mercenary "POV pushing," or "Spam" is absurd & pointless -- I can only interpret it as a desire of Rainwarrior's to pursue only the censorship of that research. He can find only those rules that seem to serve that end.
I will e-mail you Prof. Kilmer's phone number. If you provide an e-mail address. Or Professor Bonnie Blackwell (who radiocarbon-dated the age of the Neanderthal "flute"). You also can read what they say about my work at the external links on the Bob_Fink page. All you have to do is visit those links, and decide for yourself, after reading them as well as the accuations and bad faith Rainwarrior showed me Talk:Musical_acoutics -- if you're interested -- and decide for yourself. Anyway I'm not tolerating it anymore. I'm not a punching bag. It's an uncalled for campaign of personal attack, very pretend-"civil" but abusive to me nonetheless. -- Best wishes, Bob Fink, at 65.255.225.36 08:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You may disagree with them, but the edits in question [2] [3] cannot in any way be considered vandalism. Simply put, nothing resembling them is described in the rather long list of examples provided in Wikipedia's official policy on the matter. In fact, your accusation that Rainwarrior has been harrassing clearly falls under what vandalism is not. You'll note that the very same section provides a link to the dispute resolution pages. The fact remains that there is obviously no consensus as to whether the references in question should be included. In fact, there has been no response to the call for comment made by Rainwarrior in removing these articles. I suggest that the question be reworded and included for discussion on this page. Silence is, quite obviously, not the only sign of consensus. I don't for a moment agree that consensus cannot be reached because one or two people are particularly vocal - this has not been my experience. Nor can I accept the behaviour of one member as an excuse for the lack of civility displayed by another, particularly when it runs counter to the code of conduct policy. Victoriagirl 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It clearly says in the "types of vandalism" you cited, right in the top paragraph: "Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." Assertions of self-promotion are not "valid." That assertion is false. There is no evidence given. Unless you believe that ANY author who posts a link to a publication of his/her research relevant to the article is always to be considered "self-promoting"? Do you believe that? Look at the link and see. After all, Wiki goes on to say that "removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself." (Added italics.) What, in the readily apparent content, "promotes me?" That a peer-reviewed journal published my research (and Kilmer's) on harmony (which is the title of this wiki article)? Where in Wikipedia does only an authorship by-line of published content alone constitute self-promotion? Bob F. 65.255.225.38 03:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In dismissing my concerns you quote the Wikipedia policy on vandalism, to which I referred: "Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." With all due respect, Rainwarrior has twice provided [4][5] edit summaries indicating the reasoning behind the removal of the links in question. I consider these concerns valid. While I don't for a moment believe that a user who posts a reference to his or her own research is necessarily committing an act of self-promotion, I most certainly recognize a very real possibility. To cite oneself, to add one's name to an article as the author of two of nine articles considered to be "Further reading", is a rather bold act. There is nothing wrong with this - after all, Wikipedia encourages bold editing, but one must expect to be challenged. Again, I encourage you to seek consensus on this issue. Victoriagirl 04:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to add external links

(Okay -- will ask again. Moved down again, and updated): 2 titles (as published by secondary sources) in "Further Reading" could be usefully accessed on-line, at the webpages mentioned below. These would be:

  1. On-line essay: Evidence of Harmony in Ancient Music, --publ by Archaeologia Musicalis journal, Feb., 1988 by the "Study Group on Music Archaeology" of the Int'l Council on Traditional Music). Publ: Moeck Verlag, Celle, Geermany. Study of oldest known song
  2. Role of the drone in the evolution of counterpoint & harmony published in Onlook, Summer, 2002, Four Winds Centre, Farnham, Surrey. UK, p. 21-22.

Those publisheres have no on-line versions of those articles. But as I own the online website which reproduces those articles, in order to avoid COI, even though the content was published in 2nd or 3rd-party journals, I ask someone else to add the online content to "external links" as well.

Reasons to add: The "Evidence" link reports the Kilmer evidence in the "oldest known song" (+midi of that song version) and reports research finding new evidence of ancient harmony, from observing clues found in ancient art (wall art, vases, etc) showing musicians playing harps. This evidence is well-known and widely accepted in the music archaeology field, but far less known among those in the musicology fields. --Bob F. 65.255.225.37 10:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

These topics may be tangentially related to "harmony", but I don't think they're relevant enough for "further reading" here. Even if the topics are relevant enough, there are plenty of other (less obscure) articles by other authors about these same subjects that you could cite instead without being in a potential conflict of interest. - Rainwarrior 05:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rainwarrior, the 3-revert rule, the spirit & letter of the rules

Rainwarrior has again proved his interest is not in the article, but only in his desire to censor the research of Bob Fink. His last comment above contains two untruths, a common feature of his remarks.

He writes: "...there are plenty of other (less obscure) articles by other authors about these same subjects..." which is not true, and he cannot name them. Other authors may have written on the evidence I discovered from ancient art that show clues to harmony in antiquity, but he cannot name ANY. His claim that the evidence of ancient harmony is "tangentially relevant" to the subject of "harmony" is also untrue, on the face of it.

He is a troll who loves to repeatedly claim my actions as w/COI, and as violations of w/auto and wiki/POV and so on, that I am a rule-breaker & a spammer. But he himself rigidly and fixatedly interprets wiki-rules to suit his own personal obsessiveness with me as an author editing and citing my own sources (quoted above) -- even though, if I cite them using secondary sources they would be acceptable under the rules (also quoted above in the Talk).

But he has now violated my right to do that by censoring (from "Further Reading") even the secondary sources, thus writing his own Wikipedia rules to the effect that no author can ever edit or cite his/her own work ever!!! And now himself breaking the spirit of the rules he pretends to "respect."

Rainwarrior is therefore totally hypocritical and his judgement has apparently become deeply corrupted by his fanatic hatred of all things related to Bob Fink. What's THAT got to do with "Harmony"??

Here is how Wikipedia describes a troll (below), which can be compared to Rainwarrior by simply reading the (unfortunately, quite long) argumentative, untruthful, hostile, self-contradictory, sneakily abusive, provocatively slanderous, and "creative" writings by Rainwarrior on various Talk pages. (These are pages, which as a musicologist I have been mildly active, as has my publisher been earlier a year ago, when none of us were aware of all the rules (Talk:Musical_acoustics, here, Talk:Divje_Babe Talk:Trio_theory) and some others).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_a_troll

  1. "Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces. It necessarily involves a value judgement made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgement 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent.)... The defining characteristic of a troll in this case is not the content of the edit, but the behavior in discussing the edit, and the refusal to consider evidence and citations or to accept consensus or compromise....The nature of trolling is to be disruptive, and one of the most disruptive things that can be done is to find new ways to cause trouble that aren't quite against the rules. No matter how great your definition of trolling may be, a dedicated troll will find something you haven't thought of yet." Wiki continues:
  2. "This, then, is something of a catch-all category -- if a user is being continually disruptive, and no amount of politeness, consensus, mediation, or anything else is reining them in, they are trolling." (NOTE: I have repeatedly offered to correct any citations that were not secondary sources since some may have been mistakenly placed last year; twice offered to negotiate Rainwarrior's demands, but he has refused to reply. He also is virtually never specific, but vague when asked questions.) Wikipedia Continues:
    • ' "When a user, in a conflict of any sort, insists on the letter of a rule while grossly violating its spirit, this is often a sign of trolling.... Of course, sometimes trolls cannot be ignored without compromising the integrity of an article" -- particularly in the case of "edit war trolling" ALL of which edit-wars Rainwarrior has started in order to provoke disruption and endless debate.

When reading any of the TALK pages, note the similarity of the Wiki descriptions to Rainwarrior's approach. (Emph. added) --Bob Fink 65.255.225.47 14:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I will begin by pointing out that in no way has Rainwarrior's most recent edit violated Three revert rule which states that "an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period (emphasis mine). The edit in question is the first made by Rainwarrior in five days. This accusation is as baseless as the previous charge of vandalism.
I suggest the author of these two references present his arguments for inclusion under a separate section. As it is, they are hidden within rather long posts containing incorrect accusations and lacking in civility.
I regret that I must again refer the user to the code of conduct policy. Victoriagirl 17:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to the above

Note -- from Wiki, re civility: "...incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress..." That's a definition that Wikipedia seems to accept. If so, then Rainwarrior has been uncivil to me for months.

I have offered evidence of that, in the Talk pages I mentioned. Was that read by Victoriagirl? Or is the charge of incivility being hurled only at me without looking open-mindedly and fairly at ALL the evidence? As I quoted above: "The nature of trolling is to be disruptive, and one of the most disruptive things that can be done is to find new ways to cause trouble that aren't quite against the rules." Well, I think Rainwarrior has done that in this case. The three-revert rule is mentioned on many Wiki pages. Perhaps the page I read some time ago didn't include the full definition or the 24-hour limit. But Rainwarrior breaks more rules than that one.

Rainwarrior continually calling my motivations as "self-promotion" without offering any evidence and without assuming good faith (especially in light of me admitting that as newbies, mistakes were made about posting links a lonmg time ago) is evidence of provocation, no? And it's provoking especially since NO ONE can read minds and motivation, and especially since the evidence I ask to be read indicates when taken as a whole that self-promotion is inconsistent with my character and life history -- to an unbiased onlooker.

Rainwarrior has never written anywhere in all these thousands of words that it is even possible that self-promotion was not my motivation (as "good faith' would indicate). And considering that every edit war on the pages mentioned was started with bad-faith edits by Rainwarrior, by assuming the worst motivations on my part -- and which "wars" were never started by me -- check out the facts, and find out what is the whole truth, rather than seizing upon a "technicality" that captures the literal words of a guideline -- thus insisting "on the letter of a rule while grossly violating its spirit," which seems here to be used to protect Rainwarrior's bad-faith "mind-reading summaries" for his edits. So that means I too can revert as many times as Rainwarrior if I wait 25 hours for the third edit?

Interesting that none of the other points I made are considered or dealth with. Just the one defending how to "legally" get away with the reverts Rainwarrior targeted at me rather than for the good of the article. Very one-sided "cherry-picking" approach, don't you think? Please examine your arguments in the light of all the evidence and the spirit of the issue? Is that possible to do? The rules were not meant to be used as a weapon to chase scholars away, or to target individual editors. They are being used, however, exactly as such, whether you can see that or not. I've lived long enough, as a Jew, as a civil rights & social-justice activist to recognize when I am being screwed.

It is important to look at a situation as a whole, yes? Namely, keeping in mind, as the Wiki/troll page wrote: "the refusal (by Rainwarrior) to consider evidence and citations or to accept consensus or compromise." And mindful of basic ethics of seeing the spirit as well as ONLY the technicality of the issue and the rules. Anyway, in keeping with the technicality of "24 hours" that I missed up to now, I will remove my accusation. But the rest of my points remain unaddressed, unrecognized, unconsidered, marginalized or ignored. But. Suit yourselves. "The tree that cannot bend with the wind -- breaks." (anon.) --Bob Fink, 65.255.225.42 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

While it is appropriate to remove the false accustations, it is clearly inappropriate to rewrite one's post, particularly after it has received a response from another user. This is not the first time I have had to address this issue.
And, as I have said before, do I feel that the behaviour of one user as an excuse for another's incivility.
I am aware of conflict between two other users and see I see no value in passing comment on past grievances. My focus concerns two references once provided under "Further reading" and whether or not they should be included in the article. May we please address this issue. Victoriagirl 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Clearly this is becoming hopeless. In the same code of conduct you refer to, it says:
  • "Strike offensive words or replace them with milder ones on talk pages...."
  • "Remove offensive comments on talk pages (since they remain in the page history, anyone can find them again or refer to them later on)"
Therefore, I did so. But now you say doing what the rules suggest be done is "innappropriate"? Can't win, can I?
You wrote: "I see no value in passing comment on past grievances." But you have passed conclusions upon them (e.g., validating above the false claims of my so-called "self-promotion" against all evidence -- evidence which you won't read). Not reading the evidence yet making conclusions? I think that is "innappropriate." And it also makes my attempts at rational discourse impossible and futile.
Don't you subscribe to the common notion of fairness that there are two (or more) sides to every case? But you buy into Rainwarrior's conclusions in his edit summary without demanding evidence, but refuse all my conclusions even though I do invariably provide evidence, and even quotes from Wiki -- which you ignore or dismiss. Double standard, yes? --Bob F., 65.255.225.50 05:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Agreed, this is indeed becoming rather hopeless. What was once acknowledged as a false accusation, is now considered to fall under the definition of an offensive comment (and so, is open to revision). I beg to differ. To say that another user has violated a policy may be misguided and incorrect, but it is not offensive. It is, in fact, an error.
I must address the comment that I am not reading what has been termed the "evidence". How has this conclusion been reached? In fact I have read the past exchanges on this discussion page and others. Clearly I have raised considerable disappointment in choosing not to comment. Again, the issue under discussion is whether or not two articles should be included in the entry under "Further reading".
Thus far my comments have concerned the articles in question and Rainwarrior's edits [6][7][8]: I have twice pointed out that they cannnot be considered vandalism [9][10] (as was charged), I have written that these same edits are not in violation of the three-revert rule [11] (as was charged). I have also expressed the opinion that there is validilty to Rainwarrior's concerns. Aswritten above, I don't believe that a user who posts a reference to his or her own work is necessarily committing an act of self-promotion, however, it is a bold act. While Wikipedia encourages bold editing, one must expect to be challenged.
My suggestion, twice made, that consensus be sought on this issue, has been met by silence. I again recommend this process be used as a means of moving forward. Victoriagirl 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why some cultures use harmony in their music and others don't

This subject interests me and I was hoping to find some discussion here. Harmony seems to be far more prevalent in western culture than it is in eastern culture. I've been told there are eastern languages that have no word for harmony in their vocabulary. If anyone could shed some insight on this subject, I believe it would improve the article. Grumpyoldgeek 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did Tibetan monks develop overtone singing and no one else? Why did Australians develop the boomerang and no one else? Why do only some cultures use feet and inches for measurement? Why did the Egyptians build pyramids and no one else? In all these cases, probably what happened is somebody happened to invent it and certain influential people thought it was a great idea and encouraged others to adopt it. While Western music has developed harmony, other cultures have gone further with rhythms and tuning systems. No one really knows why. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, your pedantic-almost-to-the-point-of-insulting tone does nothing to clarify the issue. You could have simply said "I don't know". Or since you don't know, remain silent. Secondly, a small amount of research suggests that there are at least some theories. The Origin and Character of Authentic Chinese Church Music Grumpyoldgeek 05:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Grumpyoldgeek. It is actually a very important issue and that seems poorly addressed in any of the wikipedia music theory definitions/entries. None of them seem to emphasise sufficiently (in my view) that most of the systems discussed refer to European musical practices only. It is a gross simplification to suggest that Western music has developed harmony whereas others have focussed more or aspects of rhythm and tuning(!).
In Indian and other South Asian Art Music forms, to take one example, there is a much stronger emphasis on melodic lines played in conjunct motion. (All of what follows is extremely generalised by the way! - but there is an enormous amount of academic writing on the subject - on Grove Music Online for example) This music is almost always improvised, with very few elements decided beforehand. The 'pitch' element of the music is defined by a seven degree scale or rāga (similar in some ways to our seven note major/minor scales and church modes, however there are in fact several hundred different rāgas). Melodic improvisation takes place along the pitches defined in this scale above a drone - which is always note 1 of the scale or the sdja, (i.e. the "tonic"). Therefore "harmonies" occur constantly in this music, in the broader sense of the term, i.e. different pitches sound simultaneously. However, as the music is not notated beforehand, they are always incidental and never goal directed, and the bass note beneath them does not change.
This is not that far apart from the "Coordinate harmony" that Dahlhaus refers to in Studies in the Origin of Harmonic Tonality. In early Western music, music was composed 'horizontally' and taught in terms of intervals, rather than chords. Melodic lines were combined according to certain rules of consonance and dissonance, but not in terms of chord progressions. Eventually, this system led to a preference for certain harmonic patterns, and composers began using certain chord progressions deliberately, which in very simple terms resulted in tonality. In any case, this all had to do with the preference for notated music in the West, and a more rigid/prescriptive type of composition. When I get the time I would like to add something about this to a few of the articles. It's a shame not to, because it takes away the authority of the definitions by making them seem like they are describing the systems used in all music. If it was clearly pointed out that they refer specifically to Western Art Music from (in this case) c. 1500 - onwards, they would instantly become more specific and accurate defintions. Matt.kaner 14:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intervals

This section is so odd. What exactly is anyone supposed to learn from this table? In addition, the characters used for sharp and flat do not adhere to the music guidlines. Matt.kaner 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I think there are enough problems on this page to merit a complete rewrite. Though some of the info is factually accurate it is lacking in sources/references, and the overall structure of the article makes for very bad reading. I think it is a given that there will be some overlap between this article and 'Chords', but if you look at various musicological encyclopedias and dictionaries, this is perfectly normal. In fact articles on 'Harmony' usually form the bulk of the info on the subject. There doesn't seem to be (correct me if i'm wrong) a unified article on Western Harmonic Practice anywhere on Wikipedia; it's all very bitty - and while it's essential to have these specialised articles on Augmented Sixth chords, for example, there is nothing to explain the general application of the harmonic system in western art music. Matt.kaner 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are these spots of coverage of "Western Harmonic Practice" and where would they be compiled? Hyacinth (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diatonic and chromatic

The article uses the term "chromatic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with "diatonic", is the cause of serious uncertainties at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harmony in the background sense

harmony may be

accord, affinity, amicability, amity, compatibility, concord, conformity, consensus, consistency, cooperation, correspondence, empathy, fellow-feeling, friendship, good will, kinship, like-mindedness, peace, rapport, sympathy, tranquility, unanimity, understanding, unity

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME armonye < MF < L harmonia < Gk harmonía joint, framework, agreement, harmony, akin to hárma chariot, harmós joint, ararískein to join together]

1. agreement; accord; harmonious relations. 2. a consistent, orderly, or pleasing arrangement of parts; congruity. 3. Music. a. any simultaneous combination of tones. b. the simultaneous combination of tones, esp. when blended into chords pleasing to the ear; chordal structure, as distinguished from melody and rhythm. c. the science of the structure, relations, and practical combination of chords.

4. an arrangement of the contents of the Gospels, either of all four or of the first three, designed to show their parallelism, mutual relations, and differences. see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harmony

i think the Harmony page should start from a backgrounder if nobody has an objection then i will edit the background of this page please note that the harmony page is linked with the peace page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Motegole (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

The correct place for this is Harmony (disambiguation). Rootless 18:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intervals Section - relevance?

Can I ask what the point of the Intervals section is, particularly from the passage beginning:

In the musical scale, there are twelve pitches...

I have not deleted it, however I am very tempted to do so, because it doesn't really seem to relate to this article. Perhaps in another article? Can we have a consensus? Madder 16:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I'll give you my opinion. I wrote the Intervals section, and I admit that I didn't write it well at all. It was one of my first Wiki contribs, and it sucked quite honestly. I would encourage someone to re-write it if they want to, or I will when I have time to mull it over and do it properly. However, as far as the specific point over whether it relates to the article: harmony cannot exist without intervals. When two distinct (by which I mean different) pitches are sounded, the interval between them is what creates harmony. Harmony and interval relationships are inseparable, because they're one and the same. So absolutely, a section explaining intervals is relevant. However, the way in which I went about explaining it in my contrib wasn't so great. Again, I would encourage a competent and learned musician to do a re-write, or wait and I'll do it. Piercetheorganist 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I will say one other thing, which is that Wikipedia is a learning reference, and will serve its best use to the public if Average Joe can come along and glean complete information from non-confusing articles. My ideal is this: say a churchgoing person, one who has very limited musical knowledge, wants to learn how to sing the alto/tenor/bass/whatever line in hymns, so that he/she can feel more "one with God" on Sunday mornings. I want for that person to be able to look at this article, and come away with a clear idea of how harmonies work, so that he/she can practice singing them. The one--and only--thing which creates the alto, tenor, and bass lines are the fact that they're pitched at an interval to the melody (soprano) line. Again, intervals and harmonies are one and the same. For the large percentage of the population who struggles with learning things "by ear", a comfortably firm understanding of interval relationships is (along with practice thereafter) the magic key to unlocking the ability to "hear" (discern) harmonies. That's why I think it's important to keep the section in question, but to rewrite it. Piercetheorganist 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harmony in non-Western music

  • "The study of harmony in Western Music may often refer to the study of harmonic progressions."

What may the study of harmony in non-Western music be called, if such a thing may be considered to exist (which it sometimes is)? Hyacinth 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any non-Western tradition (unless you count jazz) where harmony (i.e. triadic harmony), and chord progressions are studied at all. Indian Classical Music never refers to harmony as a real entity in its music, (it only occurs as an accident of interwoven improvised lines on a fixed mode), Japanese, African and Chinese music (to my knowledge) are all fairly similar in this respect. There is a mouth organ used in Japanese gagaku court music called the sho, but the chords used don't really "progress" from one to the next, they're best seen as static colours that just shift gradually. None of them are triads and many of them are cluster chords. Come to think of it, I can't really think of any "true" non-Western Music where harmony is studied per se. I guess an experienced ethnomusicologists would have a definitive answer though. Matt.kaner 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this article seem incredibly biased towards western harmony, and within that, towards historical harmony...i.e. not only does this article seem to include stuff most relevant to western music, but it doesn't even seem to encompass modern western music, jazz, etc, let alone anything that falls outside of the 12-tone equally tempered system (such as Indian classical music, Javanese Gamelan, very early western music, etc.)??? I am tempted to add another cleanup tag. Cazort 18:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

True, the article should cover any style of music that uses harmony *as harmony* - but I understand that harmony, in world-music terms, is actually a pretty rare phenomenon, and that a lot of music may use scales and melodies out of which one may (using Western ways of thinking) draw harmonic inferences, but that this music doesn't really use a concept of harmony as usually defined. So the failure to mention certain musics like Indian, Javanese, etc. may simply be because harmony is not a relevant concept to them.
In short, I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to talk about harmony at all without a strongly Western bias. M.J.E. 04:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. 'Non-western' musical traditions very rarely place any emphasis on harmony (or 'verticals') at all, and certainly tend not to study it, nor view it as a viable means of analysing musical structure. This in itself is something that ought to be discussed in the article however. -- Matt.kaner (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no musical tradition where the horizontal relations are not considered. I assume that "harmony as 'harmony'" means tonality, a page you should all consult (roughly: certain hierarchical relationships of pitches). Only one decision needs to be made:

Does the term harmony apply only to certain horizontal relationships, tonality, or does it apply to all horizontal relationships?

All current sources assert that "harmony" applies to all horizontal relationships, not just tonal harmony. Hyacinth (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hyacinth you are missing the point here. We are talking largely about vertical relationships for starts. Secondly the questions you are asking imply that we as Wikipedians make some serious value judgements. That is not our place. If this is to be a serious article all we need to do is cite the debates surrounding these ideas. We aren't meant to make any kinds of decisions at all. I do not know any sources currently in print that assert that "harmony" applies to all horizontal relationships. (The sound made by a car driving past your house then followed by a bus driving past would fall in to this category). However, I think you'll find that most of them say that harmony is a means of codifying vertical relationships and implied vertical relationships however. In many musics the consideration of vertical pitch is not considered to be particularly pertinent. What are you really digging at? Matt.kaner (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] intransigent

How can the note names ABC etc be 'intransigent' ie "Refusing to moderate a position, especially an extreme position; uncompromising" Is this a technical use of the word, or just the wrong word? I would have thought they were 'arbitrary"... or do you just mean they don't change? Wreader 20:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think someone with ESL is contributing to the article and occasionally making mistakes. Hyacinth (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

Cited definitions of music:

  • "We define harmony today as a vertical combination of tones, or notes heard simultaneously. Melody is a horiztonal organizations of notes, or notes occurring consecutively over time." Jamini, Deborah (2005). Harmony and Composition: Basics to Intermediate, p.147. ISBN-10: 1412033330.

[edit] Blind Guardian

Why does the metal band Blind Guardian link to this page? Seems pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.9.247 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)