Talk:Tristan chord

Liszt and the Tristan Chord
Alan Walker in his Liszt biography says that Wagner may have heard the Tristan chord in one of Liszt's songs. The song was 'Ich mochte hingehn' and was composed 10 years before Wagner started to work on Tristan and Isolde. Though Beethoven and Chopin may have used the chord before, the interesting thing about this example is that Liszt uses it in a way almost identical to Wagner, according to Walker. If the music for this could be found, perhaps it would be an interesting addition to this page.--DStong [17:37, 27 April 2007]
 * I don't know how old this request is, but in case anyone's curious, "Ich möchte hingeh'n" does indeed have a remarkably similar passage, but modern scholarship has revealed that while the song dates from 10 years before the opera, the passage was added to it after Tristan, and is effectively a quotation. Alan Walker was quoting out-of-date literature, and reviews of his Liszt biography have pointed this out. Junggai (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

MIDI file
Can the MIDI file on this page be changed so at least it's at the correct tempo? It's too fast right now. Try eighth note equals 80 or quarter equals 40.

And what's the title and opus number of the Beethoven example?

Ryan


 * Welcome. Currently the midi file can't be changed, as midi files can't currently be uploaded to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia talk:Sound. I will attempt to create an .MP3 (or even .ogg) file in a more correct tempo.
 * If you clicked on the Beethoven example you would have been taken to a page which would tell you more about the picture. If you simply rest the mouse on the graphic text appears which reads, "Beethoven's Sonata Op. 31 No. 3". Hyacinth 21:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a bit of a problem with the tempo of the file - myself and User:Opus33 discussed it a little (I thought we'd had the discussion on this page, but obviously not). I made the file with Lilypond to play at dotted crotchet = 35 but, unfortunately, while the file sounds fine if I play it in Winamp, it's too fast if I play it through my browser. So there is some sort of problem with the file, but exactly what's causing it, I don't know. If I get time I'll try to fix it (of course, I'll be very grateful if somebody else does it before me). --Camembert

Adding music
I'd like to add a whole chunk of text illustrated with musical examples to this article, but I haven't got access to music writing software. Is there anyone out there who could construct musical examples from instructions I give them?

Thanks, Anselm


 * I could probably do that, assuming that the examples aren't too long. EldKatt (Talk) 13:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, EldKatt. The musical examples will only be a bar or two each, but there will be quite a few of them. They'll all be on the conventional piano score format.

Just as a trial run, if I gave you the following instruction, would it be clear enough for you to produce a musical example? I've used the pitch notation in the Wikipedia article "Scientific Pitch Notation", and the "|" character to denote barlines. (The music is the imperfectly remembered opening of a Bach chorale from the Riemenschneider 371.)

Sop: Bb4 | A4 A4 G4 (all 1/4 notes) Alt: G4 | G4 F#4 G4 (all 1/4 notes) Ten: D4 | Eb4 D4 C4 Bb3 (1/4 note | 1/4 note 1/8 note 1/8 note 1/4 note) Bas: G3 | C3 D3 G2 (all 1/4 notes)

Being a new Wikipedian, is it OK to carry on this discussion on these pages, or would it be better carried on somewhere else? (Assuming you want to go on with it, that is!)

Anselm


 * Your instructions make perfect sense, although a simpler way of writing the note lengths might be desirable (use your imagination, as long as it makes sense). I don't have an endless supply of time, though, so about how many is quite a few?


 * To answer your final question: if we're the only ones who need to communicate, it'd probably be better to use user talk pages. EldKatt (Talk) 14:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

See also Images and Requested pictures. If you can point me towards your source I would be willing to create images from that (as opposed to through lengthy written descriptions by yourself). Hyacinth 00:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Hyacinth, but I'm afraid lengthy written descriptions may be necessary - it's hard to tell before we've launched into the article. I have to construct theoretical musical examples for the most part, so images won't do. Also, I've noted your e-problems on your talk page, and it sounds as if you could do without a long-term project (such as this one might turn out to be) for the meanwhile!

Anselm

Golliwogg's Cakewalk
While the Tristan chord is implied in Golliwogg's Cakewalk, it is not quoted note for note or even interval for interval. The three chords that appear are an implied F major chord (From the bass up, A-A-F), A C7 chord (C-Bb-E), and an interesting chord, Ab Minor with an added 11 (Ab-Db-Cb-Eb). The latter chord is a very intriguing. Since the Db is added, it functions as a dominant in the key of Gb. This is reinforced by the next phrase, which resolves to Gb major. This chord, however, cannot be the Tristan chord as there is no tritone between any of these intervals. So the quote here is more a quote of the opening of Tristan and Isolde, rather than the chord itself. Am I interpreting this incorrectly? Kntrabssi 17:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Idioteque
This chord is not in Radiohead's Idioteque. It might be in Mild und Leise somewhere but it's not in the part that Radiohead sampled. Bob

The Beethoven example
Is not the the "tristan chord", the chord is shown to be composed of Ab, F, Eb and Cb, regardez:

where in actualy fact it is a C natural as you can see here [blacklisted link removed]. therefore i am removing it an replacing it with an instance of the "tristan chord" coming up in Chopin. Aarandir 10:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alternative source:


 * Are you saying that the asterisk-marked chord should have a C natural instead of a C flat? You were probably looking at the wrong place in the score: the cited chord occurs in the fourth bar of the last line of the first page in the document you cite, and it does indeed have a C flat even there. If I'm getting you wrong, I apologize, but you might like to reconsider your removal. EldKatt (Talk) 11:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. For the record, there is an error in the example, though: The left-hand quavers in the penultimate bar should also have C flat instead of C natural. But I digress somewhat. EldKatt (Talk) 11:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've amended the image. It should be correct now. - Rainwarrior 22:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My god i feel such a turd, yes you are right i failed to notice beethoven bought in the main motif as it were into minor, yes you can revert my edit. Aarandir 14:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

thats actually quite intresting, i had no idea beethoven could be so liberal in his harmonies. hes used a chord composed of Ab, F Eb and C in the beggining which is a major chord with an added 6th which ive never seen in any classical music before, and hes also used the "tristan chord" which doesnt resolve where i expect it to. intresting, yes keep the beethoven example, my chopin exam is rubbish and hard to recognise Aarandir 14:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

the thing is, ive NEVER understood the fuss about the "tristan chord" (in fact i dislike it being credited to wagner when i can see it in bach), perhaps its my ignorance, perhaps i have a point, the only unique thing i can see that wagner HAS done is made it resolve where you werent expecting it; from Ab minor with an augmented 6th (Ab, Cb, Eb and F) resolving or landing rather on E major 6th (E, G#, B, and D). In my life expereince the "tristan chord" which consists of an augmented fourth, a major third and a perfect fourth usally resolves itself by tuning the aug 4th in a perfect 4th (so if you started on F the B natural will become Bb) and the major third becoming a minor third (so the Eb turning into D). this is evident in my bach example, The D minor with added aug 6th resolves by diminishing the A and F into G# and E and also in the chopin scherzo, the E G B and C# resolve happily onto E F# A# C#(F# major 6th). Aarandir 11:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the fuss is because in Tristan und Isolde it's (a) the very first chord in the piece; and (b) it's held for more than a moment, giving the listener time to wonder (subconsciously) how it might resolve, if at all. (The second and subsequent times you hear the piece, you'll know what happens, but subconsciously the uncertainty is probably repeated each time. Cue music psychology.) Regards, David Kernow 02:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So if anything the fuss is about where it resolves rather than what the chord consists of? fair enough. Aarandir 09:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say not so much as to where or how it resolves but that at the start of Tristan und Isolde our (subconscious) attention is drawn to the chord itself, as it is held for more than a moment and nothing else occurs during that time. It was also a very unusual chord with which to start a piece of music, i.e. not suggesting any particular tonality or resolution. (Cue writings about Tristan and Isolde's longing and unresolved love, etc, etc.) Yours, David 11:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

intresting. thankyou, i can come to appreciate and respect this chord and its use now. just wondering now why there isnt a big kerfuffle about chopin starting his scherzo in B minor with the same chord, held for even longer... Aarandir 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * True, although I suppose whether or not it's held for longer depends on how fast the scherzo is taken; but this is beside the point that it's not only the very first chord heard in the piece but the very first event, made all the more attention-grabbing by being played ffz. Perhaps it wasn't seized on by theorists because Chopin's use was so much a gesture (the ffz chord = "Listen!", "Here comes something dramatic!", etc ...followed by a perfect cadence into the piece's key) or maybe because it occurred in a piece for piano rather than an overture to (and leitmotif of) a Wagner opera, the latter more likely to draw theorists' attention... These are just guesses, as I really have no idea. Somebody somewhere with music credentials has probably found or invented a plausible story or three. Regards, David 02:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

i just dislike wagner (understandbly in my opinion) and thats probably clouding my opinion on the chord. yes, indeed i've come to respect it (and to some extent wager) more but it seemed like an awfully big fuss on an awfully insignificant part of the prelude, but i realise that it is the first chord, is held for long(er), doesnt resolve how we expect it and how it fits in with the longing thats associated with the romance between the two lovers. to be frank it boils down to the fact that i dislike Wagner, its rather conspicous why. Aarandir 22:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So far I've only enjoyed some of the music by Wagner that doesn't involve wobbly singing – yes, what a giveaway, I must be a philistine to some folks and probably by definition "dislike Wagner" – but (a) who cares; and (b) I'm always game to try it if I'm sold on someone's enthusiasm for it or the like. Enjoy, David 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, wagner is only midly entertaining compared to chopin in my opinion. its like comparing the great fire of london to a tiny family BBQ, the analogy doesnt really work with chopin and wagner, but i'm quoting russel brand who is pure genius! right, thanks for explaining the significance of the chord and putting it in some kind of context, cheers David. Aarandir 09:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think David's explanation above (starting in a way "not suggesting any particular tonality or resolution") is a quite relevant one. It leaves the listener in total uncertainty about what's going to happen, in a rather successful way; not so much because of how the Tristan chord itself is harmonically built up, but because of the context. (And I'm not saying this as a Wagner enthusiast; I'm not overly fond of him.) I'm reminded of Beethoven's ninth symphony, which begins in a similarly mysterious, and highly original, manner, although harmonically it's about as simple as it could get. EldKatt (Talk) 22:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not interesting to trained, modern ears. To me, as a Savant, the first time I heard it, I can recall that my brain only perceived the basic m7b5 chord, in essence, a minor 6.  I guess you could call that a different point of view.  Surely, music is not at all lost its magic in my mind, quite the opposite, but what does get my attention is something very unique, like ELO's Livin Thing (C Am Ab Fm Em Dm in a basic 4 rock song), or Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody (there's too many to mention, like the beautiful end, which is listening to it, Eb Bb/D Cm G Cm G Cm Bb Eb D7/F# Gm Ab#11 Ebmaj7 Abmaj7/C Gm Cm Gm Cm Abm Abmaj7/Bb Eb Ab#11/Eb Eb Ebdim7 Bb/D Bbm/Db C7b9 F Bb/F F Fdim7 Gm7/F F), how's that for a way to end a song? ReignMan (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And on that topic, songs that contain a "Tristan" chord? Not counting the exact key, popular songs with a m7b5 would be Change The World ("I could be the sunlight" is on a D#m7b5), "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" ("lover that's sleeping" - Am/F# or F#m7b5, all verses in that same spot), Free As a Bird (the life that we once knew F#m7b5), etc.  Interesting that the first example is Clapton, the second is Clapton and the Beatles, and the third is The Beatles...ReignMan (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bach example
I'm removing the Bach example. It's a perfectly ordinary subdominant (in the key of A minor) added sixth chord, resolving to a dominant seventh chord. While it does contain the pitches of a Tristan chord, they're spelled differently and, above all, stacked differently: If this example fits here, so should every other minor added sixth chord in the history of music, making for a great body of largely irrelevant examples of "the Tristan chord before Wagner". The issue of restacking also raises the question of whether the Chopin example belongs here&mdash;I think not, since it also is a largely different chord, but I will leave this open for comments for a while before taking action. EldKatt (Talk) 11:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Bach example is a little tenuous/contrived. I'd say the Chopin example has more in its favo/ur, but would make the contrast I mentioned in the previous thread. Yours, David Kernow 13:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Analyzed from a Thorough Bass Perspective
What I am about to write is OR on my part, but may be of interest to some editors here.

The "Tristan Chord" can almost be signed as a "chord of the second". The (D#) aug 6 is the only interval that stands in the way.

"Tristan Chord" on F: (D#) aug 6, (B) aug 4, (G#) aug 2

The "chord of the second" as codified by C. P. E. Bach in his Essay on the TRUE ART OF PLAYING KEYBOARD INSTRUMENTS on pg. 256:

[The aspects that agree with the Tristan Chord are bold]


 * 3. The chord may contain the major or minor sixth, the augmented or perfect fourth, the major, minor, or augmented second.

In Wagner’s example, the bass (considered the dissonance of the “chord of the second”) even resolves down a half step!

--Roivas (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
The chord's intervals are being explained in a rather childish manner:
 * More generally, it can be any chord that consists of these same intervals, viz. (from the lowest note upward) an augmented fourth, a major third and a perfect fourth.

Intervals are measured from the bass. Can we find a source for this or delete the sentence? --Roivas (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Only two year olds don't measure notes from the root! I changed the article accordingly. Hyacinth (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good job.--Roivas (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that people don't agree with what the root is of the Tristan chord. And many people say it must be found in this inversion. Also, classical theory does measure from the root. It's a I64 chord, not a I51 chord.

Tempo
I am no Tristan chord historian, but I don't think it was the tempo that made it innovative, and therefore, the tempo should not hold the dominant place it does in the first paragraph. It is misleading, and places undue emphasis on the tempo marking. I am reverting to my previous edit, but please correct me if I am missing something. Captbaritone (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where should that information go? Hyacinth (talk)


 * The last paragraph of the "The chord itself" section begins with a discussion of the importance of the slow tempo. If we feel the actual temp marking is of importance (and not just the fact that it was slow enough to not merely be a passing dissonance) it could be included here. Another option would be to include it in the musical example image. Your thoughts? Captbaritone (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern Spelling
I had put that the so called tristan chord is a Fm7b5 chord. Someone deleted this as unhelpful. First' I'd like to see their musical credentials. I have many years of education in this specific area of theory, and am an Autistic Savant. This is not some enigma for the generations, it's a damn chord. To me, it sounds like what it is, 4 notes, big deal. Only an un-educated or stupid person would challenge such a simple statement. There is no arguing this point. So, please, help me keep it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReignMan (talk • contribs) 19:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, spelling things, enharmonically, in a different way can change the meaning of the chord and its function. Credentials are irrelevant and often misleading.  Content for Wikipedia is provided by published sources.  You don't find jazz-chart style chord indications above the staff lines in the published scores of Wagner or any other 19th century composer.  You need to find a published source before adding content to an article.  I guess I'll find some way to live with the fact that I'm stupid and uneducated.  Things could be worse for me, I suppose.  Have a good day.--Roivas (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC).


 * If it is what it is then spelling doesn't matter and there is no need to add Fm7b5. Hyacinth (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have multiple copies of the published score. What does that have to do with it?  Changing the spelling of a chord does not change its function, this is a common misconception of the layman.  If I write a song that goes, C E#, Abb, (I iii# VIbb) will it be any different than a C F G (I IV V)?  Will you call me more creative?  Mathematically, it's the same.  In even tempered music, one flat is as good as any other sharp.


 * Now, of course, the people who are idiots will come out and begin to throw around temperament. But at the time, the only remaining instrument that had separate sharps and flats, to my knowledge, was the concertina.  All the instruments listed in the score had only one way to play a certain note (brass and woodwind alternate fingerings and "sul X" string functions notwithstanding, of course)  Theoretically, the strings and trombone have no basis of intonation, (except open strings, slide closed, etc, which are points of definate reference).


 * People who think they know music (and have, of course, no education in it), assume that a rose by any other name won't smell as sweet. You can take it out, but it won't be any less true.  The Fm7b5 will allow people to look at the chord, and see better what it is, as they (say, guitar players) go look it up and learn to play it.  It's better to list it in every way possible.  It reminds me of the food people who berate and denounce basic food items without a thought as to all the people starving to death in this world everyday.  I hope to never become such an arrogant ass in my field.  I'm glad you think my education, experience, and savantism don't mean anything, by the way. ReignMan (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't call other users arrogant asses, even by implication. See Civility. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" - No personal attacks. Thanks.
 * One's education and experience mean little to nothing on Wikipedia. What matters is one's ability to collaborate in adding constructive content. Hyacinth (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind the context we are working in. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, so we need not help instruct people to learn how to play a chord. Nor was there any need for you to take Roivas's comment that credentials are irrelevant out of context. Irrelevant does not mean meaningless, it means not relevant, and credentials are neither verifiable nor relevant among users on Wikipedia, except as those credentials contribute to your knowledge and politeness, as witnessed by the content you contribute and your behavior on talk pages. One's credentials are not proven by being rude and asserting one's superior intelligence. Hyacinth (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Fm7b5 belongs under Non-functional analyses. You could call it a very specific voicing of a half-diminished chord with the root on F, but the usefulness is limited. If someone is looking up Tristan chord, it is much, much more than that. --Blehfu (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An Fm7b5 chord, also known as a half-diminished 7th chord, in the context of 19th century functional harmony, would be a predominant in Eb minor that would tend to resolve to a Bb major or Bb7 chord. The reason the Tristan chord is spelled with a G# instead of an Ab is because of the chromatic melodic line it follows:  G#,A,A#,B.  The D# is because it acts as a secondary leading tone, and you do not spell leading tones as flats (except in the phrygian mode in pre-tonal writing, but let's not go there) unless the tonic is a double-flat.  The reason it is inappropriate to call the chord an Fm7b5 is because it does not have the same function as the Tristan chord, exactly like the difference between a German augmented sixth chord and a dominant seventh chord.  A Bb7 chord in Eb major sounds totally different from one that occurs in the context of D minor, in which it would function as an augmented sixth chord.  To go with your "rose" analogy; a rose sitting next to one that smells sweeter will not smell as sweet in context, or it will smell sweeter if it is near a paper mill.  Context affects sensory perception very heavily, and thus it is context that makes this chord not an Fm7b5.  Furthermore, referring to it as "just a chord" is only looking at one aspect of the music.  If you listen to the music of, say, Palestrina, you would likely hear a lot of chords, but the concept of a chord did not even exist when he wrote music.  Rather, Palestrina wrote different melodies against each other in consonant intervals.  The melodic lines within the Tristan chord are enough grounds to say there is more going on than just a chord.


 * It would, however, be useful to specify that the Tristan Chord is enharmonic to an Fm7b5.--68.84.28.255 (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from adjusting the smoke and mirrors; the mysticism surrounding the Tristan chord is rather fragile. 69.136.104.26 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup: Further reading
Why and how does the further reading section need cleanup? Hyacinth (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It possibly did in 2006 when the notice was put up. I have removed it. Smerus (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-Published Article added by 87.114.89.64
I removed a link to the article "The Tristan Chord in Context," because it was a self-published article added by an anonymous IP; moreover I found the article to be of questionable academic quality, full of unsupported speculation and logical leaps, even seriously accusing Wagner of plagiarism based on some pseudo-statistics. After I had removed it, another anonymous IP put it back without discussion; the same IP just added another article by the same author to Music and Mathematics, so I'm assuming that this is someone promoting his own work. It's my understanding that this isn't allowed under NOR. If "87.114.89.64" or anyone else would like to weigh in about why the article deserves inclusion, please do so. This could only be my irrational opinion, so input would be appreciated. Junggai (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User 87.114.89.64 has been warned many times about edit-warring, and continues to add the article without discussion. If this user continues, I'll report the incident to the 3RR noticeboard for attention. Junggai (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a bit late to add to this discussion (19.09.2018), but I would like to clarify that I, Dr Ludger Hofmann-Engl, did not add my paper "The Tristan Chord in Context" to Wikipedia. Additionally I would like to know the academic credentials and music scientific knowledge of Junggai to make the claims that the quality of my paper is questionable, that it contains logical leaps and that I am using pseudo-statistics. At the very least Junggai should provide us with examples and details underpinning his or her claims.


 * Dr Ludger Hofmann-Engl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.152.50 (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Nice of you to drop by, Herr Doktor Hofmann-Engl. It's not my job to act as a peer-reviewer for a self-published article that someone wants to add to a Wikipedia page, but if you really care to know why the claims in "The Tristan Chord in Context" wouldn't hold up to any kind of scholarly scrutiny, it basically boils down to the fact that it's trying to prove that Wagner plagiarized the Tristan chord from Chopin, or as the conclusion has it, committed "one the greatest thefts in music history." To do this would require demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that Wagner knew the work in question and that the passage is sufficiently similar. This paper accomplishes neither. It demonstrates only that Wagner knew of Chopin's existence (who didn't?), and then leaps somehow to the fact that he didn't mention Chopin in "Mein Leben" as evidence of his guilt! There's no attempt to establish that Wagner knew the Mazurka in question. The only "proof" offered is the existence of the same chord somewhere in the passage and the melodic similarity of the chromatic motion G#-A-A#-B; the paper claims there's only a 10% chance that the chord could appear by random chance, and 20% that the melody could be similar, while never defining how these statistics were arrived at. The fact that the chord in the Mazurka appears a whole measure earlier than the melodic motion is, astonishingly, explained away by claiming that Wagner jostled things around to reduce the appearance of plagiarism. As a composer, I think Herr Doktor Hofmann-Engl would agree that the importance of the "Tristan Chord" is not only the chord itself, but the way that voice-leading and harmonic motion combine with the duration of the chord to foreground it as a Fremdkörper, one that is approached in an unorthodox way and "resolved" to another dissonance that itself is never resolved. Chopin's passage, as striking as it is, does neither of those things. The chord in Chopin appears in passing, an entirely logical result of the chromatic voice-leading beforehand, and is resolved by similarly logical voice-leading to cadence in A minor. In Wagner, the strangeness of the chord is the point, and the fact that it seems to lead somewhere but never arrives (well, until the 'Liebestod' four hours later) is the source for its hold on the theoretical mind.
 * And, by the way, Wikipedia does not make a big deal out of credentials, but rather places their emphasis on clear editorial guidelines. As it happens, I have a PhD in Musicology, have published multiple scholarly articles and books, and am a research fellow at a certain prestigious Academy of Sciences. Nine years ago, when I read this paper and removed it from the page, I had accomplished none of those things. But that doesn't make the article any more scholarly, nor does it make my removal of a self-published article from the recommended reading list any less in line with Wikipedia's guidelines on original research. Junggai (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my late response, yet again. At least it was not a few years this time but only a few months. Junggai says that credentials are of no significance at wikipedia, but then he or she states his or her, possibly, imaginary credentials without any concrete reference. I tend to not make superficial puns, however what sort of name is Junggai in the first place? Still, I wish him or her good luck.
 * Dr L J Hofmann-Engl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.53.132 (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

d'Indy book (1903?)
I cannot find what this book is. Either it needs to be referenced or the whole statement of the subdominant interpretation should be deleted. More specifically, I would like to know so I can double check the image. I have a hard time believing that in the book it's published with parallel fifths. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 21:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See File:D'Indy Tristan chord IV6-V small.PNG. Hyacinth (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Image info


It appears we've stripped a lot of information out of the image of the chord. Hyacinth (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed: Incorrect
The above was removed as incorrect, the chord being a(n E♭) major seventh. Hyacinth (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul Lansky uses the Tristan chord and its inversions to make a chord progression for his piece "Mild und Leise". Radiohead would later go on to sample four chords of Lansky's progression for their song "Idioteque" off Kid A, released in 2000.

Discussion of chords is inappropriate when the author did not conceive of his work in those terms.
"Classical" composers prior to the early 20th century wrote their music horizontally, and their musical ideas were based on polyphonic ideas. It is anachronistic to superimpose vertical structures on their music, and worse, to do so prevents a correct understanding of the composer's musical ideas.

Wagner did not think in terms of chords as we understand them today when he wrote Tristan and Isolde. He thought in terms of passion and flow: of dissonance and resolution, and he purposely toyed with the music theory "rules" of his day in his interplay between "broken rules" and "correct" use of scales. Why do we try to superimpose a dumbed-down populist anachronistic vertical interpretation on his music, when the the music was not conceived in those terms? Wagner's music must be understood and appreciated on Wagner's terms. Not Nashville's terms.Wagner's music must be understood and appreciated on Wagner's terms. Not our own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.124.149 (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

HMS Pinafore example
I can't see a convincing reference to the Tristan chord in HMS Pinafore. (Sullivan's best known usage is at the beginning of Iolanthe.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.64.201 (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this page much use to non-musicologists?
This page very quickly becomes bogged down in musicological theory that is only ever half-explained. As such the page fails to work on any level: a serious scholar of music would be better served by a well-edited book or article, whereas an uninformed but intelligent lay reader would find most of the content difficult to decipher, and move on not much the wiser. Is there a way to incorporate a lengthier general section on the intended / perceived effects and uses of the chord, by Wagner and others, before the page tails off into tendentious musical theory? Djewesbury (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I read and play music and do not find it to be very enlightening. And what's this about "French"? Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Just Intonation implications
This chord, in any meantone that can be considered a septimal meantone (i.e. where the aug 6th approximates 7/4), closely approximates the septimal chord 1/1 - 7/6 - 7/5 - 7/4. The specific root - 5th - 6th - 9th voicing is a fairly consonant voicing of this chord. Should this be mentioned in the article? Seems like it should, if this chord in this voicing was used during the meantone era. SeventhHarmonic (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Context
"Martin Vogel points out the "chord" in earlier works by Guillaume de Machaut, Carlo Gesualdo, J. S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or Louis Spohr[1] as in the following...."

To say the Tristan Chord had been used previous to Tristan (as it ist stated here) would be equivalent to saying that the colour "blue" has been used before Ives Klein used it (inventor of the "International Klein Blue"). Klein used this kind of blue in a special way. simliarly, wagner used a then well known structure in a new context. It's about context. You can't just look for every half-diminished chord and yell: "Look! There's a tristan chord!" It AT LEAST has to be a half-diminsihed chord on the b6 scale degree (Although it is, technically speaking, not that easy. but to have at least the same SOUND, you would have to do THAT). It's not just about the structure, but about the context that structure appears in. For example: with Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 18 the problem is that the excerpt is in Eb-minor. The "tristan-chord" here is on the second degree (Fm7b5), which is really nothing special. Had beethoven written that chord as Bm7b5, the real Tristan-Sound would have been evocated. (If you wanted to do it enharmonically correct, you also would have to speak of it as a appogiatura to a french sixt, not a half-diminished). It would be better to delete these examples or to anotate that all the predecessors are just the same structure, but not the right context. But then again: then the page should be called "the half-diminished chord appearing somewhere in some works". it would be ridiculous if you would do something equivalent on the page of the the major triad.

About the Liszt-Chord: It's not even a Half-diminished structure, it's a diminished strucure in the beginning (the D!). At least the rest is identical, so it SOUNDS more like the beginning of Tristan. So did Wagner learn from Liszt? Of course, he admitted that. And he took the structure and made something great out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.42.106 (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to dispute Martin Vogel's analysis and Jean-Jacques Nattiez' and others' apparent agreement, this is the wrong venue. IOW, that paragraph cites sources, and unless it can be shown that the article misrepresents them, that's all that counts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)