Talk:All-trichord hexachord

All-trichord hexachord

Two questions for the writers of this page:

1) Why do you call it the "all-interval hexachord"? I have always seen it called the "all-trichord hexachord," as indeed the references listed call it. While it's true that this hexachord does have all the interval classes, so does nearly every other hexachord. The characteristic unique property of this hexachord is its inclusion of all the trichords.

2) As far as I know, it does not appear in the music of Milton Babbitt (are you confusing it with the all-combinatorial hexachords?). If I'm mistaken about this, please cite an example. 184.152.1.70 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What sources have you seen it called the all-trichord hexachord in? Hyacinth (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, all of the "Further Reading" listed on the page, for starters. But Google Scholar returns seventeen results for "all-trichord hexachord" and only David Schiff's book on Carter for "all-interval hexachord." As is noted in Guy Capuzzo's review of Schiff's book (in Integral Vol. 13), the term "all-interval hexachord" is used only three times in that book in an apparently mistaken conflation of "all-interval tetrachord" and "all-trichord hexachord." "All-trichord hexachord" a reasonable term for (012478) because, as mentioned above, it is its unique inclusion of the twelve trichord classes that characterizes the collection. I have seen no evidence to suggest that it is not also the standard term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.1.70 (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're suggesting this page should be at all-trichord hexachord per Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names? Hyacinth (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would go further and state that there's not enough information on each of these phenomena to create separate articles. Instead, they should all be merged into one article under a title like "all-interval chords." -- kosboot (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

They're not chords, though, and more often don't function as chords. The issue with this article is that it's NOT an "all-interval" hexachord, it's an all-trichord hexachord. While it's entirely possible to have a hexachord without instances of some interval classes, having all of the intervals in a hexachord is not a distinguishing characteristic. It's the presence of all possible trichords. 65.79.1.34 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hyacinth: yes, exactly. Kosboot: I'm not necessarily opposed, but which other set classes would be grouped with this? And finding a title might be difficult, since "all-interval" doesn't quite make sense for (012468), as outlined above. I would be happy with putting this in the "Hexachord" page - I don't know if separate hexachords like this, the Ode to Napoleon hexachord, the mystic chord, etc. all really deserve their own page. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.1.70 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of any complaint, I've updated the page to use "all-trichord hexachord" and other modern terminology (the original page also misused "triads" and "pitch-classes"), and remove the mistaken reference to Milton Babbitt. The title must still be changed by a registered user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.1.70 (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2012‎

Another good reason to register with Wikipedia so you can make these changes yourself. It makes it harder for others who may not be as intensely involved in a particular article to read up on all the changes necessary. -- kosboot (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is high time the title of this article was changed to "All-trichord hexachord", to reflect the article content. (I see it has not been pointed out so far, but an "all-interval hexachord" is any hexachord without a zero in its interval vector. Only seven of the 35 hexachord types are not all-interval: 6-1, 6-7, 6-8, 6-14, 6-20, 6-32, and 6-35.) Unfortunately, it is not sufficient to be a registered user (I know, because I have tried to do this). Because there is a redirect that has been edited, this requires an Administrator. I believe that User:Hyacinth is an Administrator, and has had a lot to do with this article. Would he perhaps be so kind?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Bravo! I see the move has been accomplished. Thank you, Hyacinth!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)