Talk:Dyad (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.

Harmonic/melodic

I think that a dyad is just as likely to be harmonic as melodic. Hyacinth 09:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power chord

I removed the following text because it does not seem all that relevant to the article -- a power chord is but one example of a dyad, and it is no more relevant here than any other interval.

A much more common and modern name for some dyads is the power chord, usually built of the root and the perfect fifth (in rock'n'roll guitar riffs, it may be replaced by the root's major sixth or minor seventh). The power chord is known to be pioneered by Link Wray.

--ArthurDenture 04:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the term "power chord" implies electronic distortion and high volume--more so than it does any particular dyad--, and, in any case, it isn't a good idea to mix indiscriminately rock and roll journalistic slang with music theory. TheScotch 05:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

isnt it spelt diad?

It appears that diad is a variant spelling of dyad (remember we're transliterating from Greek) for some usages, but I've never encountered this spelling in musical contexts. Since in diatonic, dia is a preposition (prepositions are variously translated) and does not refer to a number, some confusion may result from spelling it diad in musical contexts. So if we were allowed to choose, it would still seem to me to be a bad idea. I don't think we are allowed to choose, though; I think we are obliged to follow existing practice. TheScotch 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why would two-note chords be spelled "dyad" and three-note chords be spelled "triad"? Wouldn't it make more sense to have "diad" and "triad"? We don't call three-note chords "tryads" after all. I, for one, have seen it spelled "diad" on plenty of occasions with regards to music.

Please sign your remarks.

Re: "Well, why would two-note chords be spelled 'dyad' and three-note chords be spelled 'triad'?":

Possibly so as to avoid confusion with diatonic, as I already explained. Please actually read what you purport to be replying to. In any case, as I also already explained, we are obliged to follow existing practice.

"I, for one, have seen it spelled "diad" on plenty of occasions with regards to music.":

You need to specify where precisely. TheScotch 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An automated search for dyad in the on-line version of the Grove Dictionary of music returns twenty references, each meaning "a set of two notes or pitches". A search for diad in the dictionary returns one reference only, Diad Rustavels, the (presumably) Russian title of a piece by a Soviet composer which translates into English as To the Great Rustavelli. TheScotch 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Well, why would two-note chords be spelled 'dyad' and three-note chords be spelled 'triad'?":

I suppose I should have pointed out more plainly that the above is a false analogy. As I originally remarked, we're transliterating from Greek here. Greek uses a different alphabet

from that of English (which uses the Roman alphabet). The Greek word for two is spelled delta-upsilon-omicron. The Greek word for three is spelled tau-rho-iota-alpha. These words have no letters in common at all. TheScotch 06:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, until more references to the spelling 'diad' are listed, the article should make use of the widespread and accepted spelling of 'dyad'. I have updated the page to reflect accepted spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.243.35 (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2010

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a lot of the stuff that comes after the first sentence. For example the reference to periods/genres of music where it is/was commonly used and also power chords. 75.45.226.208 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that info need citations? Hyacinth (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are dyads chords?

If dyads are chords then what is the point of making a difference between intervals and chords? All intervals except octave will then be dyads. Even maybe octave. Is there a total proof from a valid source that dyads are chords (always or sometimes) and if not always why would they be only in a given case/scenarion? My musical teacher told me chords must have three or more distinct tones. I argued about power chords not being real chords because they make an interval of a perfect fifth with an additional octave to the root note not counted as separate note. --Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're using 'chord' imprecisely. In common practice, a chord needs to have (or suggest) 3 or more notes. An interval is just a distance. 205.152.67.36 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dyads are Chords

A chord is any combination of tones, and (obviously enough) requires at minimum, at least two tones. See Oxford Companion to Music; Latham, Alison ed., Oxford University Press, 2002. Unfortunately, we are often taught that a chord requires at least three tones, but that is simply a reflection of the fact that Western music uses triads most frequently. See any Bach chorale (Riemenschneider, Albert ed., 371 Harmonized Chorals, G. Schirmer 1941). But to get at the root of the confusion, our word "chord," as it applies to music, derives from Fr. "accord" and "concord", or with agreement. "Cord" and later "Chord" are aphetic spellings of "accord". (See Oxford English Dictionary). Since no more than two parties are required to make an agreement or "accord," it follows that it takes no more than two notes to make a "chord." As suggested above, "interval" is only and specifically the measure of scalar distance between two notes, whether sounded simultaneously or not, thus harmonic interval and melodic interval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbailhe (talk • contribs) 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Distinguish "dyad" and "interval"

The term "interval" is used to denote a pitch distance between two notes (measured in semitones in the case of notes on a twelve-tone chromatic scale). However it is also seems to be used to denote a dyad - a pair of notes separated by a pitch distance. (Refer: Interval.)

To avoid confusion I suggest the following usage:

(In discussions of music theory) the term "interval" should ONLY be used to denote a pitch distance, and NOT to denote a pair of notes.

Perhaps the confusion arose this way. People spoke of a chord (eg a major chord) as being a built up from intervals (eg thirds) "stacked" on top of each other (eg a minor third on top of a major third), when all they meant was that the first note and second note were separated by a certain interval (eg four semitones), and the second and third notes were separated by another interval (eg three semitones), and so on. But it's also natural to think of chords as being notes stacked on top of each other, and by extension as dyads stacked on top of each other. Hence the confusion.

For the sake of simplicity I also suggest the following usage:

A chord should be defined as a group of TWO or more notes (with a given chord distinguished by the intervals between the its component notes, plus the pitch of its "root" note).

If we spoke of chords as being composed of dyads stacked on top of each other, we might not want to speak of dyads as themselves chords. Otherwise, there's no problem in speaking of a dyad as just a two-note chord.

Webrobate (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonic series?

Why is there a discussion about harmonic series here? Agreed, the harmonic series is relevant to how the diatonic scale is constructed, but it isn't more relevant to dyads than any other harmonic construct. It serves little purpose here, IMO. Gustavus Magnus (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astoundingly pointless, I agree. It is also unreferenced.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does feel like it comes completely out of left field and its function in the article seems dubious. As this has been a point of discussion, but the text is still there 3 years later with no defense for why it should stay, I will go ahead and remove it. Segj2 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]