Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Inversion (music): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Mscuthbert (talk | contribs) →Mscuthbert: sources |
|||
Line 80:
:::There can't be an image using V64 on this particular page because it wouldn't illustrate the topic at hand, which is chord inversion. V64 isn't a label which illustrates an inverted chord. Can we find an example where we'd all agree on the analysis, like a passing 6/4 or something? I'd be happy to notate it if you'll describe it. —[[User:Wahoofive|Wahoofive]] ([[User talk:Wahoofive|talk]]) 05:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::::How about something similar to [http://www.smu.edu/totw/inver2b.gif this one]? The examples where the bass is arpeggiated are so trivial as to render the whole inversion concept meaningless, which is perhaps what you mean. —[[User:Wahoofive|Wahoofive]] ([[User talk:Wahoofive|talk]]) 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::::It doesn't have a cadence; it's just a textbook illustration. A copyrighted one at that; I was just asking whether you'd consider this a second inversion, but obviously the issue here is that you don't believe the second inversion even exists except as a trivial arpeggiation of the bass. In that, you're joined only by a tiny minority of music analysts and it's ridiculous for you to insist that Wikipedia reflect that position exclusively, especially in an article on chord inversion. —[[User:Wahoofive|Wahoofive]] ([[User talk:Wahoofive|talk]]) 04:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
| |||