Talk:Harmonic progression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've removed the sentence which was above the table "In other words, only the progressions below will affirm the tonic, any other progressions indicate a different tonic." I don't think it's true. It's difficult to "affirm" anything with just two chords, and certainly the progression III-VI, say, doesn't in itself "affirm the tonic" any more or less than the progression VI-III, say.

I have problems with the table itself, too, but I'll leave that for now. --Camembert

If the table is not either an old list of rules which are now taken as recommendations or a list of progressions which do something similar to each, then we should just cut it.Hyacinth 15:54, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I think this page should be merged into and then redirect to chord progression.Hyacinth 16:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You're right, a merge is in order. (And the table isn't either of those things, and I wouldn't at all mind it being cut.) --Camembert

Done.Hyacinth 16:50, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

doesnot make any sense

[edit] To do is to teach by example.

I hav a few things to say about how hard it is to read these roman numerals when this stuff can be written on a staff. When I've figured out who or what piece I'll use as an example, then I'll write numbers on the score and compare equivalent ratios like this: 3:2 is 12:8 or 15:10

in an example of microtonal musicology (or mechanical rendition). The work is harder than I expected. Sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers with harmony, then I notice that sometimes harmony is like an echo from the immediate past -- a note is held on one line, but the harmony it makes changes.

I don't typically hold notes in my own works. I'm sure that I've done it, but it's something that I avoid to the point where I've chucked a lot of work with repetition. And, of course, I think such work otta hav a big name behind the orijinal score without the numbers.

Any sujjestions would be welcome. It should be a short piece, because my ear for music will come into play. If someone says that it sounds inferior to the orijinal, then I hav to revise my work.

In any case, when this work is done (and I hav confidence that other people are more capable of it than I am), I think this page should begin as being quite distinct from "chord progression". Potentially, I just don't know where to look.BrewJay (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC) BrewJay (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)