Talk:Augmented sixth chord

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Music theory Low‑importance 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.

Archives

/Archive 1

My dear Noetica ... ahem ... MOS clearly states that periods should not be used after a caption that is just a

–⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes, you're right. But the Haydn example does not want those two dots. I agree with your other edit. BTW, I think the audio clip makes Haydn sound like the kind of noise you hear on a merry-go-round ride at the amusement park. Couldn't be uglier. Why don't we remove it to save degrading the genius? TONY (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have consensus on deleting these tiresome references to every country on the globe, and just stick with the traditional ones? Australian 6th, hello. Was it announced in the source with tongue in cheek? TONY (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Haydn example is less certain, and I am happy enough that you have reverted it. The MOS guidelines remain inadequate, of course. They need trenchant reform.

The Haydn audio clip may sound like tinsel-clad elves, but I think such things should stay until we have better. That gives an incentive for improvement; and they don't mar the presentation of the article in the meantime.

As for the Australian sixth, what's wrong with that single example? It is well-documented, and illustrates the point admirably. A range of superfluous and undocumented examples have been removed. Just keep one.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section of the article needs to be deleted or greatly expanded. It simply states "people have differing opinions about this" and offers absolutely no elaboration. Specific examples of interpretations are necessary if this section of the article is to exist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SockEat (talk • contribs) 06:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's totally unsatisfactory as is; I'd remove the section. A related issue is that the derivation of the three aug 6 chords from their original, diatonic, root-position chords is missing. I think these derivations should be included in the treatment of each chord, with refs to the appropriate texts. Tony (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a quote from Tchaikovsky which kind of goes against common opinion. He was the only one of the really acknowledged masters to write on the subject before the 20th century (well Rimsky-Korsakov did as well, but he's not quite in the same league), so I think his opinion should be heard. 78.84.17.15 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<!--I'm not sure I agree with this next statement; are the references intended to shed light on this, or are they just general, as the note says. If so, why is the note located right here?-->Theorists have struggled for centuries to explain the origins of these chords, define their [[root (music)|root]]s, and fit them into conventional harmonic theory.<ref>Some general sources for the modern theory of these chords are Aldwell and Schachter (op. cit.); Gauldin R, ''Harmonic practice in tonal music'', Norton, New York, 1997, ISBN 0-393-97074-4, pp. 422–438; and Christ, W, DeLone, R, Kliewer, V, Rowell, L, and Thomson, W, ''Materials and structure of music'', Vol. 2, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1973, pp. 141–171. (Christ et al. offer a usefully detailed consideration of augmented sixth chords along with the [[Neopolitan sixth]] chord.)</ref>

I'm grappling with this statement. I disagree with the statement that "theorists have struggled for centuries to explain the origins of these chords". Thoughts? --Blehfu (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree? You think theorists figured it out right away, and we've understood them ever since? Every 18th-century theorist had an explanation for augmented sixth chords, and they were all different. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with that theorists have struggled to explain or analyze the chords, just that they had trouble "explaining the origins". --Blehfu (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, or less obtuse, aren't the origins of x6 chords their diatonically unaltered counterpoints like IV7, ii6/5, etc.? It's that word, origins that I have the problem with. I am a fussy git, no? --Blehfu (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with you, Blehfu. Aldwell and Schachter—and others—explain the derivations from their diatonic parent chords with elegance and simplicity. I think this should be included in the article. Tony (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to then shirk this particular responsibility as I don't have this reference at hand... Anyone? --Blehfu (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe theorists were struggling for centuries over augmented sixth chords, but that seems like an improbable amount of time for a rather simple problem. Maybe theorists did struggle for centuries; composers didn't. Functionally, J.S. Bach clearly knew exactly what a German Augmented Sixth chord was, even if his peers didn't and even if he didn't call it such. I would imagine Bach knew a great deal about theory and probably had some kind of explanation, even if it wasn't recognized by other theorists. Also, the idea that every 18th century theorist had a unique explanation for augmented sixth chords is a downright silly, rash generalization. There simply aren't that many explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.63.3 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Tony1: Regarding the relationship between the Fr4/3 and V7 sonorities, I hope I was able to cover that in the following section "French sixth sonority as dominant". --Blehfu (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I detect a note of frustration, Blehfu. IMO, those templates should be flushed down the pan; they were made for newbies and innocents, and seem to have become the norm for most editors who should be able to manage quite easily without them. They've grown like topsy at the behest of developers who live in a different world. Uncoordinated mess. Nothing wrong with manual. Tony (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the bars listed considered any kind of +6 at all? In both the Andante and the Con Anima, bars 3-4 of both are completely diatonic. Realillusions (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this, as there's been no response. Realillusions (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the example, but the most obvious answer is that it's non-diatonic to the progression presented, but rather diatonic to the key signature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.63.3 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I went through 3 years of augmented sixth chords drilled into our heads at university, I still find them interesting. It would be nice to see a score of an example of the Austrailian sixth. I also wonder if anyone has ever named the chord that contains a flat 6th, keynote, Maj 3rd, and aug 4th.I used such a chord in a compostition years ago and called it the Randolph sixth chord. I have also found ways of resolving an augmented sixth to chords other than the dominant. --R3hall (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)R3hall[reply]

I'm sure I have seen examples of the Australian 6th, but I can't recall where. It isn't all that common, I suppose; but if I come across a particular one I will try to remember to come back here and mention it. I am not aware of anyone having called it this other than Alex Burnard in his 1950 book "Harmony and Composition" (cited in the article), so I'm not sure we should regard it as a general name for the chord, in the manner of the three well-known European 6ths (if I can so term them). (It leads me to wonder whether you could concoct a Spanish 6th, Portuguese 6th, Greek 6th, and so on.) There is also the "Sydney 6th", which (if I remember correctly) is the same as the Australian 6th except that the leading note becomes the tonic note. That is, in C major the Australian 6th might be F-Ab-B-D#, and the Sydney 6th would then be F-Ab-C-D#. I'm sure I've seen both in actual music, but examples are not particularly common.

The 'Australian Sixth' is just an inverted enharmonic half-diminished seventh chord and the 'Sydney Sixth' is just an inverted enharmonic minor seventh chord. As such, it's entirely unnecessary to think of these as augmented sixth chords. Likely the only reason they were analyzed as such was for their resolutions. However, it is no longer the seventeenth century, it's okay for chords to be resolved in peculiar ways. That's likely why most texts don't call it them 'Australian' or 'Sydney Sixths' or even bother to refer to them as any kind of augmented sixth chord. It's a crutch for analysts and composers lacking in creativity, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.63.3 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the second chord you mention, this chord is found quite often in Scriabin, but I am not aware of it having any specific name. Scriabin's music contains more examples of this chord than all other composers I can think of put together, and he uses them in various inversions. A very prominent example is the first fully-harmonized bar (second actual bar) in his Symphony No. 3 in C minor, "The Divine Poem". (It begins in Db major, though, so the chord in question is A-G-Db-F. It might seem as if the the A should be written as Bbb (flattened submediant), but it progresses to Bb (bass note of 1st inversion Gb major) in the following bar, so that justifies the A-natural notation. It's even possible he wrote the G as an Abb, because it resolves onto Gb. (I don't quite remember without looking at the score again. (Scriabin is almost always very particular in his choice of enharmonic notation, even when it is unusual, and there is always a reason, and complete consistency, behind his choices. So a chord notated as A-Abb-Db-F is entirely conceivable in Scriabin's scores, and can be logically justified by looking at the context, and how the notes resolve.)

If you think beyond the traditional limits, I think there are many different augmented 6th chords (you could take an augmented 6th interval and fill it with 2 or 3 notes almost at random, and, given the right voice-leading, it could be made into a meaningful chromatic chord); and there are many unorthodox ways of using even the standard augmented 6ths. For instance, these chords can also be based on the subdominant degree of the scale - that is, F in the key of C major, although this usage is quite rare. But this works only in major keys, because in minor keys their top note would be the diatonic Eb, and thus the chord would be an ordinary minor 7th, not an augmented 6th at all. If anyone knows of examples of these which could be cited, it would be good to add this to the article. But what I'm not sure of is whether the traditional terms "German", "French", etc. are applied to chords with the right make-up based on any degree of the scale, or only if they are based on the flattened submediant. M.J.E. (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling an augmented sixth chord on the subdominant in a major key is also unnecessary. It would be diatonic in the parallel minor, which just makes it an enharmonic borrowed chord in the parallel major and not an augmented sixth chord at all.

It probably wouldn't be necessary to call the German augmented sixth chord as such in that case, as it's enharmonically equivalent to a secondary dominant seventh chord who's resolution is just a little peculiar. The French designation might also be deemed unnecessary as it's essentially just an altered secondary dominant seventh, substituting the fifth scale degree for a flat five, which is common enough in the romantic period and after. The Italian designation, however, you may want to retain. Because of it's lack of a fourth unique scale degree (as the tonic is doubled) theoretically, you could call it any number of different chords, just with a voice or two omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.63.3 (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should ♭6—1—1 not be ♭6—1—#4? or am I misunderstanding the text? Pounderd (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though that would be an error, which has already been fixed! ChadOhman (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

♭6—1—#4—1 would be the proper spelling. The tonic is nearly always doubled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.63.3 (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2013

For most musicians, the alto clef is not second nature; could the picture in "Dominant functions" be replaced with one without such an absurd clef? Hyacinth (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The clef is not absurd. Never using it will not make it easier. The notes are labeled in the text below. Hyacinth (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically, today most people who play an instrument don't play a woodwind. Other instances of alto clef are too few and far in between. So yes, it is a bit absurd, but that doesn't justify you not learning how to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.63.3 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why and where does this section need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't. The French Augmented sixth is clearly an enharmonic altered dominant with a flat five replacing the fifth scale degree. Any one with half a brain for theory or the capacity for critical thought should be able to reach that very same conclusion. Just because a text states something doesn't make it correct, and just because a text didn't doesn't mean it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.63.3 (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Intro
2. Structure/Types
   1. Italian
   2. French
   3. German
3. Function
   1. Predominant
   2. Modulation
4. Comparisons

I propose the above outline. Hyacinth (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. May I suggest the addition of a section on the formal derivation of this group of chords (unless this is already to be covered under "Function"), and a sub-section at the end of "Structure/Types" on the less-common variants?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does "formal derivation" refer to the physical structure of the chord (resulting, presumably, from its use) or does it refer to the use of the chord (resulting, presumably, from its physical structure)? Hyacinth (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the lines of what I learned (back in the Pleistocene Era) from Allen Forte's harmony textbook about the chromatic deformations of perfectly ordinary triads as Schenker-derived linear explanations of the origins of augmented sixths, Neapolitan sixths, and suchlike contraptions. I suppose this would mean the former, rather than the latter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a year-long course on "History of Music Theory" in grad school and can tell you that every theorist from Rameau onwards struggled to come up with an explanation for augmented sixth chords, and there were dozens of different ones. Even today, theory texts diverge significantly. We could have a whole separate article on the various explanations.

Although the linear explanation is useful, it doesn't really explain why the chord progression IV⁶-V got this chromatic-passing-tone treatment whereas other progressions (say V⁶-I) didn't. Why not have a chromatic passing tone between the supertonic and the tonic in a V-I progression? —Wahoofive (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. It is better to leave the reader in the dark than to confuse him/her with annoying facts. All I was suggesting was that there ought to be some discussion of what reliable sources have to say on the subject.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now don't take it like that. I'm just saying it's not as easy as saying "Here's the theory behind it." The best start for such a section would be to say that it's been a conundrum for theorists for centuries, and here are a bunch of ways they've tried to explain it. We can probably re-use some of what's already there.

Not sure what problem this new outline is trying to solve, other than getting rid of (or at least demoting) that goofball tesseract theory. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the article's current outline is perfect? Hyacinth (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current outline isn't that different from what you've proposed, except you've left a lot of stuff out. Are you going to just dump the rest of it under "Other" or remove it? What is the "Comparison" topic? —Wahoofive (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Suppose you're in the key of C. Write an Ab combined with an F# and you have two notes that are each a half-step away from G, but coming at it from different directions. Each is serving as a "leading tone" to G, and that G could be the root of the dominant chord or it could be the bass of the inverted tonic chord. Either way this interval, an augmented sixth, sets up a feeling that the next thing to happen is going to be a G. Now you can fill out that interval in various ways, making a chord with a fuller sonority." From Ars Nova. Burraron (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC) ñññ There are other things to consider, such as what is eventually implied as an imminent resolution of contrary chromatic lines. But absent such specific context, the augmented sixth chord seems to persuade people that the tendency of the minor seventh to resolve inward can be reversed merely by means of enharmonic spelling. Whether or not this is legitimate is a separate question from whether it historically happened, which it did. I suggest that readers might better understand Europeans listening with their eyes by also providing them to a link to the article on Eye Rhyme. - Joshua Clement Broyles ñññ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.181.89 (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably mention "Also called a tritone" or replace aug6 entirely with tritone. Aug6 is outdated lingo. Academia uses the term tritone over aug6. 162.157.152.87 (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, nonsense! The inversion of an augmented sixth is a diminished third. The inversion of a tritone is ... a tritone. There is an augmented fourth in an aug6 chord, but it isn't that that gives it its character or its function in voice-leading. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use dark mode on iOS and the SVG representing scale degrees (see the first sentence of the description for the French and German variants) doesn't render correctly. How would we fix this issue? Ledhed2222 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The description says that - for an an Italian Augmented Sixth - the root is doubled. However, in the example (the "generic" example, not the Beethoven excerpt) it is actually the third that is doubled: Ab - C - C - F#. I think this has the potential to confuse readers, as the example comes directly after the description. Unless the article is assuming that C is the root, which I doubt? 82.15.153.175 (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one agrees what the "root" is of any augmented sixth. We should say the tonic is doubled. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]