Talk:Ragtime progression

Music theory Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Examples

Couldn't we get some examples from ragtime music? —Wahoofive (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to remove the sharp signs on the chord progressions. They shouldn't be there. I don't understand the "math notation", however, and simply deleting the words "sharp" in the html resulted in an error. How do I do this?

By the way, before anyone jumps at me claiming that the "#"'s SHOULD be there, I offer my reasoning:

The sharp symbols must imply the 'sharpening' of something. There are only two things they could be applying to: the triad itself (in some way), or the 7th.

If the sharps are positioned under the 7's in order to represent major 7's, then, aside from being highly unconventional, I would object that the 7ths are performing a dominant function, and that they must therefore be simply 7ths (in jazz / pop terminology) (or "minor 7ths" in classical terminology). Moreover, the reference cited on the page gives an example with unequivocally 'ordinary' / 'non-sharpened' 7ths for this ragtime progression. If, on the other hand, the sharps are intended to imply that the chord types are major as opposed to minor, then the final dominant should also have one for consistency, though a sharp sign to indicate major would, again, be far from conventional, and ludicrously ambiguous. Wfructose 17:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask this question, but now see that it was asked - and ignored for almost 14 years. Which is exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia. You get a start, and then ....

MarkinBoston (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chord Symbols

What kind of crap is that?! Use a normal font instead! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.228.233 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to italics. Hyacinth (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supertonic and Submediant

The text "[[submediant|VI]]-[[supertonic|II]]-[[dominant (music)|V]]-[[tonic (music)|I]]" was removed and replaced with "chains of [[secondary dominant]]s" and the edit summary "In major, the third, sixth and second degrees are MINOR chords. Why is it that the misinformation always weasels its way back to the supposedly encyclopedic article???" I assert that the chord symbols are correct, thus I reverted the edit. I think the links are too. Hyacinth (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I assert" is not how we roll, it's basic knowledge that the 3rd, 6th and 2nd degrees in major are minor chords (pretty much akin to "the 3rd letter in the word 'ignorance' is 'n'"). Of course, if you want to dispute, you're welcome to do so. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: here's a source. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal comments, however innocuous. Hyacinth (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are we and how do we roll? Do you have a source forbidding accidentals? Hyacinth (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia, and our job is to deliver correct information. The source (as well as common knowledge) asserts that the mediant, submediant and supertonic in major are minor chords. When you involve accidentals, these are no longer diatonic degrees. This is a clear cut case of a chain of secondary dominants. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God, please quit so desperately trying to prove me wrong just to make a point, this is anything but productive. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I originally posted my comment you had yet to provide a source. Hyacinth (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there has been productive work on the article during our discussion. Hyacinth (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your sources for nonsensical "chords" like III7♯? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you found a source. I am beginning to think this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, and a serious one as well. Why else would you still insist on pinning function numbers on chords which do not perform those functions? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources have you cited in the article? Hyacinth (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup... a definite competence issue. Sorry, but in order to edit music articles, you need to know what these sources say, not just quote them. This is not a personal attack, but rather a genuine concern regarding the accuracy of editing (or lack thereof) in certain professional fields. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and your blatant disregard for this talk page and edit summaries just elevated your latest edit to vandalism. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is III7/♯ "nonsensical"? It's as accurate a label for the dominant seventh on the third degree (III) of a major scale as the rather visually complicated V7/V/V/V, if not more so. There is no single "correct" way to label a chord. —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 04:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Mahlerlover1: as soon as it becomes a dominant seventh chord, it ceases to play the mediant function in a major scale, and more importantly – it is no longer the third degree, but rather the fifth degree of something else. That being said, how exactly does the roman numeral III serve a useful purpose here?
Side note: how does one accurately define III7/♯? Could it be the third with a raised (major) seventh note? Is it minor or major? And if we're dealing with II7/♯ (or VI7/♯), can its root be half step above the second degree? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but, for instance, Schoenberg still analyzes the chord (and its diminshed seventh equivalent) as ~~III~~ (with the slash indicating an altered form).

And think of the "7/♯" as figured bass symbols (seventh with raised third). —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 05:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would, had we been discussing Baroque music... except we're not. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So symbols like I6/4, V4/3, etc. only apply in analyses of Baroque music?

For the record, I do see your point; the formulation V7/V/V/V - V7/V/V - V7/V - V7 - I is probably more appropriate for this progression, in this context, but the alternative offered is not "nonsensical", and could be perfectly appropriate in a different context. —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 03:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think there are merits to both sides of this argument. Yes, Schoenberg uses these Roman numerals. Schenker did as well. Today, you don't see it as often (except for those who still adopt a vertical approach to harmony.) It is much more common to see dominant seventh chords labeled as V7 chords, thus as secondary dominants. I think the current compromise (what's on the page now) is OK. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 04:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than vandalism, my edit was constructive and in accord with Wikipedia policy. According to WP:V: "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." According to WP:CITE: "It [Wikipedia's Verifiability policy] requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged." Hyacinth (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said it, but I'll repeat just for the sake of it: it's a paraphrase on your own cited source. Read WP:IDHT because this is exactly what you're doing. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering everything that has been raised here so far, I officially declare you a troll and will treat you like one from now on. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I have attempted numerous compromises, have the ability to cite sources, have the ability to quote policy, and that you have not done any of those three things, your unsupported accusation seems ridiculous. Hyacinth (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all of the above, and if anyone is interested I'll supply a long list of links that support my statement (we can start with a clear answer just a couple of comments above). Beyond this point, I'll be implementing WP:DFTT. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New (demeaning) quote

Despite its widespread popularity and use by classical composers including Liszt, the progression's associations have provoked its censure:
It will be quickly realized that such a common formula as the following..., however plausible it may sound, has little musical worth, it belongs to the realm of the "salon" at best, or the lowest type of popular music, or sentimental "sacred solo".
— H.K. Andrews (1950). The Oxford Harmony, ii, p.127.^[1]

Please explain the quote that was just added to the article and the relevance it bears to describing the subject matter. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Hyacinth (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The quotes relevance is that it is about the subject matter. That's why I added it to the article. In what way is the quote demeaning? Hyacinth (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to cover criticism of the ragtime, do it from several angles, not just by quoting a "classical snob" who uses terms like "the lowest type of popular music". Pretty basic WP:NPOV. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something to say to me, or any other user, use a talk page, not an edit summary. When you reference policies, you might try quoting a relevant portion, and not just linking to often lengthy texts. Hyacinth (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I need to explain to you what WP:NPOV is, you might consider playing in your WP:Sandbox until you're ready to edit. As for WP:BRD, read that and stop edit warring with edit summaries that say nothing more than the edit text. I'm reverting per policy, do not reinsert until a consensus is established. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I need you to explain NPOV to me" is not what I said. Have you taken into consideration any of the changes in the text I have made? Hyacinth (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a quote saying the progression is the best thing since, or before, sliced bread, and "the highest type of popular music" then please do so. This may be difficult, since its fans seem to say things like, "here's how to use it". Hyacinth (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I admit that you have made many positive changes to this article and others, but some edits you make are infuriating, and your edit summaries and talk page comments – even more so. The quote you want to insert stands out in that paragraph like a giraffe in a mole convention, and does not adequately represent the musical community's view on the subject. The proper way to do that would be to create a "Criticism" section and properly build it, not just insert an outdated (and obviously biased, therefore not exactly encyclopedic) quote from over 60 years ago. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Criticism, a criticism section is "is not always the best route to take." Hyacinth (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the only point you have taken under consideration upon replying? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, if "we" (Wikipedia, this article) where to say the same thing ('the ragtime progression is horrible') it would be unencyclopedic (not to mention strange). Hyacinth (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're insinuating at it by quoting the one person that had a specific thing to say about it. Quit sneaking that back in the article and make note of everything I wrote in this thread. I expect a decent reply. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing isn't "sneaking". Documenting published opinions is not disruptive. Hyacinth (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly reverting, mostly without edit summaries (or replies within the discussion) mid-discussion is very disruptive. How exactly am I violating WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV here? I already explained why this quote is out of context, unencyclopedic and unbalanced. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have always provided an edit summary, though that is irrelevant to the quote. The quote is provided with some context, is sourced, and balances the critics assertion with contrary uses and popularity. Hyacinth (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I have a problem with the chord progression? Hyacinth (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the edit as the edit summary is not considered an edit summary. Here are a few examples of unruly behavior:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
Following your lack of response on the talk page: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ragtime progression article. Hyacinth (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Also, a banana is a tropical fruit, and South America is a continent. Can we get back to the discussion please? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is why I only ever note issues on the talk page and stay off the article itself. It is people like you and the way you behave toward Hyacinth. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C85D:E443:C575:6519 (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Wikipedia:NOTOR:reasonable substitute? Hyacinth (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Won't hurt you to actually read the linked essay. Of course, being the experienced editor you must be considering the time you have been editing Wikipedia, you should have realized that this is a mere typo and should have been reasonable substitute. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was a typo, that is why I asked. Hyacinth (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. Which specific part of that policy are you referring to? Note that the policy is these are not original research, while you we are talking about one thing. Also, if you are unable to name the specific thing you think is "not original research" that does not indicate I have not read or am unfamiliar with the policy, but that you may be. Hyacinth (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been assuming way too much. Begin assuming mutual respect and we'll start making serious progress. Thank you.

Requested quotes: "Accurate paraphrasing of reliable sources is not considered original research[...]Identifying synonymous terms[...]is also part of writing an encyclopedia." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What have you been assuming? What are you thanking me for? Hyacinth (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Request

Please see Talk:Circle_progression#Nomenclature_and_Chromatic_Version for the discussion of this merger. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 11:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram VofVofV-VofV-V-I.png

Could someone add an explanation of the diagram or link to an explanation? I understand most of the dominant of dominant stuff, but for the life of me I can't figure out what the vertical axis on this diagram means.

Thanks in advance, Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenold52 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"by a process of gradual accretion. First the dominant chord acquired its own dominant...This then acquired its dominant, which in turn acquired yet another dominant, giving"

This just ends in the word giving. Is that a word too many, or should it have ended at the preceding word?

Also, is this needed? This just describes the circle-of-fifths "backbone" theory of chord progression. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C85D:E443:C575:6519 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference Roots was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Roots-1] Cite error: The named reference Roots was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]