Talk:Augmentation (music)

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Edit history at Augmentation

Should this article be deleted and Augmentation moved here for the edit history? Hyacinth 00:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hendrix Chord

Hello Hyacinth. I see you reverted my removal of the reference to the Hendrix chord in this article. As I noted in my edit, I don't see how that is really relevant to this article. Since you are obviously a serious contributor I'll respect that by asking for an explanation of why you believe that it should be here. Can you please explain why you feel why this deserves special mention in this article? Thanks, --DannyMuse (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been a week, no explanation or response of any kind from Hyacinth so I'm reverting to my removal of the reference to the Hendrix chord in this article. As I noted in my edit, I don't see how it is at all relevant to this article. There are millions of examples of the various types of Augmentation. For one to be noted it should be exceptional. In fact, the so-called "Hendrix Chord" is not an augmented chord, but a dominant 7#9. The outside interval, the top note and the bass, can be analyzed as an augmented ninth. But other than that esoteric analysis that is way too nerdy for the rock guitarists that call it a Hendrix chord, there is absolutely no academic reason to include this pop nomenclature for one particular guitar voicing of a rather common chord in this article on a specific musical term with BILLIONS of applications. ---DannyMuse (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess, how can it be improved?

This article is a complete disaster, how can it be improved? One particular problem is that there are far too many images for the text, and no examples of rhythmic augmentation among them (And what does the whole-tone scale have to do with augmentation?). —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 03:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have at least one suggestion; remove a few images or add some text to justify them. Hyacinth (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Augmented octave and diminished unison^[1]. play

OK, I've tried to distinguish the various meanings of the term, and to organise the images a little, in the hope that others will be able to improve further or better. In the process I have removed the diminished unison image and its reference, given the doubtful status of this interval; that means there is now no image for the augmented octave. Does that matter? And does rhythmic augmentation need a section of its own, or should it go into 'Augmentation in composition'?Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Sembos (2006). Principles of Music Theory, p.51. ISBN 1430309555. online.

Once I get back to my apartment where my theory texts are, I plan on editing this page a bit. It should focus mostly on augmentation of melody/rhythm since when you hear the term "augmentation" by itself, it usually implies elongated melodies, like in fugues. I think it's important to include the discussion about chords, but I've never heard anyone say "we've expanding this chord through augmentation." Or at least the term "augmentation." It's usually just "augmented ___". I know this is sounding picky, but if you go to the back of a theory text book and look up "augmentation" you'll get the melody/rhythm term only. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, in general. I tried to say so with " ... the process may be called augmentation". However, it can be found used in this sense, as in this randomly selected example. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure citing a source from 1857 really means much. Music theory has come a long way from then, and I think our Wikipedia articles should reflect that. Of course, this would be a great "historical" source to include in the page, but let's not get all our info from there. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 20:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Justlettersandnumbers. Just a little re-organization and clarification, and this article is already much improved. I have to agree with Devin on article focus; I find "Interval augmentation" a very unusual term, and, as there are in most cases articles on the various augmented intervals (not Augmented octave, though—the link redirects to that bothersome Diminished unison page) and chords, giving them extensive coverage here seems unnecessary to me. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 02:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical

Why and where is this article too technical? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I messaged this user who tagged this after this was posted. I have not received a response. I think the article needs to be formatted a little better (mostly with the graphics), but I do not think it is too technical. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Augmentation in Notation

I guess we (WP:MTH) never got around to filling out this section. While there is the dotted note, we could talk about its use as a compositional device here as well. Is this what was originally intended? — Devin.chaloux (chat) 23:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A nice example of augmentation in practice

I've recently proofread and added a nice example of a canon with double augmentation at s:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Augmentation. Feel free to grab the score and add it here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Sembos-1] Sembos (2006). Principles of Music Theory, p.51. ISBN 1430309555. online.

[1]