Talk:Bird changes

Proposal to merge with Twelve-bar blues

This is a small article. It could easily be merged with Twelve-bar blues. There is no reason for this to be an entire article, Bird changes could just redirect to a new section in Twelve-bar blues. Any thoughts?BassHistory (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that this article is unlikely to be expanded or that it requires the context of twelve-bar blues per Wikipedia:Merging#Rationale? Hyacinth (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be expanded on very slightly, but it definitely requires context.BassHistory (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Roman Numerals

I came to this page to learn the changes, but found the "ii-V/tritone" interpretation in the Roman Numerals section to be confusing... I've inserted a table with the straight Roman Numeral changes so people who just want to learn the changes can see them written out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobus2 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Small Error?

Shouldn't measure 10 be V7 instead of simply V? Just judging by the key-of-C compared to the rest of the Roman Number notation. Bfc0713 (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

weberian chords

I change the analysis by the "weberian", we have to know that the chords " VI7" "III7" just exist in other very different context, further the chord "biii" don't exist. I'm standing in the "weberian" analysis that used the roman numerals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.71.2.25 (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How and why doesn't ♭iii exist? Hyacinth (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of the Roman numeral analysis would be better if rewritten as secondary dominants. biii is an analysis which implies no function for the chord. The chords are very functional though, just as part of tonicizations of other keys Karen-bmi30 (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

not sure about subii and subV in bars 9-12

If I take Eb, D and Db as the "key" as in the preceeding bars, then this should be called simply "ii/V" instead of "subii/subV", or am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karsten Gorkow (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

MIDI demonstration of Bird changes is inaccurate and poorly rendered

Clicking on the example downloads a file that must be played in some kind of MIDI player. This should be an audio file. What's more, it contains errors in the harmony and stands as a poor example. Finally, while an example with all chords as root-position stacked thirds is edifying for a less sophisticated musician, the playback result is inauthentic. It lacks the voice leading that is inherent to the style. I hope to replace this with an audio file but I hope someone beats me to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:1:11F0:A916:C441:1AD4:2A5C (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like anyone did beat you to it, though it's only nine years ... have you made the audio files yet? :) DBaK (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Demo tempi

It's difficult to get this right. Following on from the IP's comments above, no it is not a realistic performance. But I found it very unhelpful that the Bird Changes demo was at half the speed of the two predecessors, thus breaking any chance of a link in listening comprehension between them. Pending their replacement with lovely audio files (see above) I have removed this anomaly with a compromise, slowing them all down a little but making them all the same speed. I feel that this is an improvement in a difficult article. With best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)