# Music Theory - it's the numbers/counting that gets me



## JimDiGritz

Disclaimer. Clearly it's me. No false modesty, no excuses. Music theory obviously works, and makes perfect sense to everyone else who understands it. Those that 'get' MT are quick to point out it's natural symmetry, inherent beauty and mathematical simplicity.

Also, to be completely clear I've had some of the best teachers in history to learn from (online and in print), so I cannot blame the teaching.

However.

The counting and numbering in MT seems arcane and inconsistent. There. I said it.

For example. G is the 5th of C, but it's actually 7 semitones above it. But G below C is 5 semitones below C, not 7. So the note G is simultaneously 5 semitones below and 7 semitones above C. Ummm.. okay. The 5th of C is G because it's 7 semitones above, but F is the 4th of C because it's 5 semitones above (but it's actually 7 semitones below). But it's clearly the 4th of C. Wait, what?

But that's not all, when we count in intervals we don't include the current interval (eg C), so to go from C to G we are moving up 7 'new' individual keys on a piano (C#, D,D#, E,F, F# and G)... but wait, to count around circle of 5ths we count up 5 notes INCLUDING the current note (C, D, E, F & G). 

So G is simultaneously 5, 7 and 4 in relation to C. Such natural symmetry, inherent beauty and mathematical simplicity!!!

> Modes have entered the chat.

:brain explodes meme:

This is tongue in cheek, just wanted to rant and demonstrate my lack of cognitive ability to everyone. I'm not giving up - I'll get there! See you on the other side


----------



## Prockamanisc

Don't think of the "steps", just know your intervals. G is a Perfect 5th UP from C. It's a Perfect 4th DOWN from C. That's important, because keys with 4th and 5th relationships share common key signatures. CMaj has 0 sharps/flats, GMaj has 1 sharp, and FMaj has 1 flat. So you can jump between those keys pretty stealthily without the listener going "HEY THEY JUST CHANGED KEYS!". That way you can imbue your piece with some variety without destroying it.

With modes, just think of them in relation to the major or minor scales. Lydian is a major scale with a raised 4th. Dorian is a minor scale with a raised 6th.

You're focusing on the minutae.


----------



## Saxer

Forget MIDI transpose. Think inside the scale. Count the first note as "one", not the first interval.
That's it. Takes a while but it's possible.


----------



## gamma-ut

JimDiGritz said:


> Those that 'get' MT are quick to point out it's natural symmetry, inherent beauty and mathematical simplicity.


Anyone who thinks music theory has mathematical simplicity probably hasn't done a lot of music theory. It might look a bit like that at first, but the exceptions soon start to pile up. It's not so much what you'd call a theory but a collection of guidelines.

On the bright side, you don't have to be like Newton and Kepler anymore and keep banging your head on a wall trying to prove music's mathematical elegance.


----------



## youngpokie

JimDiGritz said:


> The counting and numbering in MT seems arcane and inconsistent. There. I said it.


Personal opinion: modes and counting of the intervals is one "viewfinder" on music theory. I was never able to "get it" from that vantage point, because it didn't explain the bigger picture to me and I was _always_ getting bogged down in details which in the end simply didn't add up. 

When I switched gears and started looking at music theory from the angle of functions, it was a revelation and everything just clicked. Looked at this way, music theory is about using rudimentary harmonic patterns rather than measuring numbers. And the purpose of harmony is simply to create endless variety from a very small number of core patterns via embellishments, ornamentation, extensions and such. 

Of course, scale and intervals are behind everything. But there are various systems of explaining the bigger picture and you just need to find the one that makes it vivid for you. Then you can come back to the intervals with a different mind.


----------



## cqd

Shur there's only 12 notes..how hard could it be..


----------



## JimDiGritz

Aaaand another thing.

Man who invented MT, "Let's assign letters from the alphabet to the tones!"

Also Man who invented MT, "So the musical alphabet will start on C"

On a serious note, I'm downplaying my understanding a little in my posts - but am making a small point that as a beginner there's a lot of fundamentals that are perhaps less than obvious.

I can only liken it to trying to switch to the Imperial measurement system after growing up with Metric. When I watch US carpenters on YouTube explain their projects by saying "This is super easy, just measure out four 9/32's and then add the 3/64 of an inch for clearance plus a couple of thou tolerance. Oh and I've no idea how to convert that to that crazy metric system!" Me with a calculator and pencil.. "So you mean 12mm?...."

On an even more serious note, a genuine thank you for all the replies so far - I'm taking them all in!


----------



## Jett Hitt

My theory teacher said something that I later found to be true when I taught music theory: "All students who fail music theory fail for the same reason: they can't spell the scales." For the first month of my freshman theory classes, we would play "Whiny-assed theory student roulette." Randomly, with a stopwatch in hand, I would look at a student and say a scale name. That student had ten seconds to verbalize the scale. After one month, the students had to verbalize the scale up and back down in ten seconds. By the end of the semester, the whole class could do all major and three forms of minor scales, and we would have speed spelling competitions. In the second semester, we added modes. There were always a few Karens who complained bitterly, but in the end, no one ever failed my theory class.


----------



## Living Fossil

JimDiGritz said:


> Also Man who invented MT, "So the musical alphabet will start on C"


No, the musical alphabet starts with "A".

C-major, on the other hand, starts with C.
But C-major is not any kind of "foundation" of our music.

Besides, the reference tone also applies to A.
Like A=440 Hz


----------



## dainiak

JimDiGritz said:


> Disclaimer. Clearly it's me. No false modesty, no excuses. Music theory obviously works, and makes perfect sense to everyone else who understands it. Those that 'get' MT are quick to point out it's natural symmetry, inherent beauty and mathematical simplicity.
> 
> Also, to be completely clear I've had some of the best teachers in history to learn from (online and in print), so I cannot blame the teaching.
> 
> However.
> 
> The counting and numbering in MT seems arcane and inconsistent. There. I said it.
> 
> For example. G is the 5th of C, but it's actually 7 semitones above it. But G below C is 5 semitones below C, not 7. So the note G is simultaneously 5 semitones below and 7 semitones above C. Ummm.. okay. The 5th of C is G because it's 7 semitones above, but F is the 4th of C because it's 5 semitones above (but it's actually 7 semitones below). But it's clearly the 4th of C. Wait, what?
> 
> But that's not all, when we count in intervals we don't include the current interval (eg C), so to go from C to G we are moving up 7 'new' individual keys on a piano (C#, D,D#, E,F, F# and G)... but wait, to count around circle of 5ths we count up 5 notes INCLUDING the current note (C, D, E, F & G).
> 
> So G is simultaneously 5, 7 and 4 in relation to C. Such natural symmetry, inherent beauty and mathematical simplicity!!!
> 
> > Modes have entered the chat.
> 
> :brain explodes meme:
> 
> This is tongue in cheek, just wanted to rant and demonstrate my lack of cognitive ability to everyone. I'm not giving up - I'll get there! See you on the other side


The thing that made my mind click was an interactive tutorial where I could actually play with the theory and patterns: www.lightnote.co — worked way better for me than any video tutorial. As for the things that I would call “formal conventions” of music theory, I personally just decided that if music is a _language_ then I just _have_ to learn the grammar and the _vocabulary_. However nasty the inconsistencies of music theory are, any natural language is way nastier in that regard. Why do we have synonyms (why can’t we use just a single word for any concept always)? Why do we have to write “neighbour” and not “neibor”? Why do we need to say “the past” and not “the future”? We can provide some apologies for why it is so, mainly historical, and partially logical, but we probably will never be able to provide a satisfactory argument isolated from the cultural and historical matters. And that is just fine. If we learned natural language as children, we definitely could learn music theory, even if it were 3 times harder than it is. A bit of cramming is not harmful if it is placed into a meaningful context. So even if we consider some _music theory_ (or, to be more specific, some _terminology of music theory_) as pure cramming, there is still _music_ that provides the context for the theory to grow on us eventually. My takeaway is that music theory is best learned with _musical instrument_ in your hands. IMHO, playing tunes and chords over circle of 5ths is 5 times more powerful activity than reading 5 explanations of what circle of 5ths is and what it is for


----------



## JimDiGritz

Here's another confusing example.

This (seemingly excellent) explanation of the Circle of 5ths ends up with this diagram:



- It very clearly shows all 15 Major Keys...

Wait.. 15? what am I missing let me google Circle of 5ths:






Ah of course, it's only really 12 due to the enharmonics. C# is Db and Cb is B. Also the Gb is also F# That leaves us with 12. So why is F's enharmonic, E#, not listed?


----------



## JimDiGritz

Living Fossil said:


> No, the musical alphabet starts with "A".
> 
> C-major, on the other hand, starts with C.
> But C-major is not any kind of "foundation" of our music.
> 
> Besides, the reference tone also applies to A.
> Like A=440 Hz


Thanks, of course you are completely correct!

However since I'm playing devils advocate in this thread, why if A is the start of the musical alphabet do piano's 'start' on C, and why does for example the Circle of 5ths have C at the top?!


----------



## gamma-ut

JimDiGritz said:


> Man who invented MT, "Let's assign letters from the alphabet to the tones!"
> 
> Also Man who invented MT, "So the musical alphabet will start on C"


Would you prefer this? Proslambanomenos, hypate hypaton, parhypate hypaton, lichanos hypaton, hypate meson....

Also, the western European system starts on A (unless you're in one of those countries where it's based more on the solfege names). It used to go up to O, then got simplified a bit with the octave wraparound and a whole lot of other history happened.

Also, my 88-key keyboard starts on A.


----------



## JimDiGritz

gamma-ut said:


> Would you prefer this? Proslambanomenos, hypate hypaton, parhypate hypaton, lichanos hypaton, hypate meson....
> 
> Also, the western European system starts on A (unless you're in one of those countries where it's based more on the solfege names). It used to go up to O, then got simplified a bit with the octave wraparound and a whole lot of other history happened.
> 
> Also, my 88-key keyboard starts on A.


Again, you are correct - but despite A being obviously the start of the musical alphabet a huge amount of 'deference' is paid to C.

My 49 key keyboard starts and ends with a C, the Co5ths has C at the top.

It's everywhere!






Wikipedia on Chromatic scales - all examples start on C

What about this:


----------



## JohnG

JimDiGritz said:


> Clearly it's me.


Maybe it’s _not_ you?

it’s possible that you’d find a different system more interesting, or more applicable to whatever kind of music you favour. One I like for non-traditional music is the pmnsdt system Hanson seems to have developed. Instead of looking at scales and keys, it looks at the “character” (my word not his) of a harmony.

There are sites that explain Hanson so I won’t, but it can be handy in several ways:

1. It unmoors you / unshackles you from the traditional “G-major / Ab minor” systems;

2. It provides an alternate means of measuring how dissonant or consonant a chord feels to you. It’s not prescriptive — it opens the door to you defining your own harmonic universe;

3. Suppose you wrote 30 seconds of wild, Avant-Garde material. Now what? Hanson gives you a tool to measure consistently what you _already _like about your beginning, making it far easier to extend a non-traditional piece (or even a traditional one, depending) while keeping it coherent.

If you’re writing blues, it probably wouldn’t help, but if you are trying for something unique / non-traditional, it’s a good tool.

Plus it doesn’t feature as many of the deficiencies you pointed out in your initial post.

Suggest you tell us what kind of music you want to write; that might help focus suggestions.


----------



## JimDiGritz

By the way I realise that I might seem like I'm trolling or trying to pick a fight - I'm genuinely curious and am very appreciative of all of your answers.

Anyway, gives me a break from learning plagal and authentic cadences


----------



## JimDiGritz

JohnG said:


> Maybe it’s _not_ you?
> 
> it’s possible that you’d find a different system more interesting, or more applicable to whatever kind of music you favour. One I like for non-traditional music is the pmnsdt system Hanson seems to have developed. Instead of looking at scales and keys, it looks at the “character” (my word not his) of a harmony.
> 
> There are sites that explain Hanson so I won’t, but it can be handy in several ways:
> 
> 1. It unmoors you / unshackles you from the traditional “G-major / Ab minor” systems;
> 
> 2. It provides an alternate means of measuring how dissonant or consonant a chord feels to you (it’s not prescriptive — it opens the door to you defining your own harmonic universe;
> 
> 3. Suppose you wrote 30 seconds of wild, Avant-Garde material. Now what? Hanson gives you a tool to measure consistently what you _already _like about your beginning, making it far easier to extend a non-traditional piece (or even a traditional one, depending) while keeping it coherent.
> 
> If you’re writing blues, it probably wouldn’t help, but if you are trying for something unique / non-traditional, it’s a good tool.
> 
> Plus it doesn’t feature as many of the deficiencies you pointed out in your initial post.
> 
> Suggest you tell us what kind of music you want to write; that might help focus suggestions.


Wow, this is genuinely eye opening. I was only partially aware of non traditional (usually non-Western) systems of music. I've never heard of pmnsdt (hardly a catchy name!) but the idea that there are other well thought through systems is interesting.

I really want to get a fundamental grasp of the underlying structure of music and given that 99% of the musical world use this method effectively shows me that I'm the idiot in the room.


----------



## Jett Hitt

JimDiGritz said:


> Again, you are correct - but despite A being obviously the start of the musical alphabet a huge amount of 'deference' is paid to C.


No, it doesn't start on any fixed note. You perceive it as starting on A because someone arbitrarily gave the notes letter names. It can start anywhere. In the case of major, it starts on Do, and in minor, it starts on La, unless you're dealing with Fixed-Do, which generally isn't useful to the would-be theory student. I am telling you, just go learn your scales. Start thinking within the scale, and learn to think of scale degrees.


----------



## JimDiGritz

Jett Hitt said:


> No, it doesn't start on any fixed note. You perceive it as starting on A because someone arbitrarily gave the notes letter names. It can start anywhere. In the case of major, it starts on Do, and in minor, it starts on La, unless you're dealing with Fixed-Do, which generally isn't useful to the would-be theory student. I am telling you, just go learn your scales. Start thinking within the scale, and learn to think of scale degrees.


The Intervallic approach makes complete sense to me, it's the most reductionist method that I can see being useful.

Knowing that the Major scale is 2212221 is great, but at some point I need to translate into actual notes and chords.


----------



## JohnG

JimDiGritz said:


> I'm the idiot in the room.


Of course you’re not an idiot.

Musical notation, symbols, chord theory, scales — it all takes a while to absorb and it’s frustratingly debatable (just watch academics argue over what chords underpin any passage that’s adventurous).

Even if you know everything about theory, there’s a reason some conductors are so in demand: the notation is just not that complete. How loud is forte? How quiet is pianissimo? What does a composer mean by “espressivo?”

John Williams in his day didn’t dominate merely because he’s a genius orchestrator and a composer in touch with the zeitgeist. He did because he conducted his own pieces so that he got _exactly _what he wanted from the orchestra.

Keep chipping away but don’t let anyone trap you into the mindset of “you must learn _this, _and _this, _and _this….” _ad nauseum before you’re “allowed” to write.

Write good stuff and pick up theory as needed, a little at a time; take a short online tutorial or course (really short is usually better — 10 minute summaries from Guy Michelmore I believe are out there).

Don’t get bogged down with it.


----------



## JimDiGritz

JohnG said:


> Of course you’re not an idiot.
> 
> Musical notation, symbols, chord theory, scales — it all takes a while to absorb and it’s frustratingly debatable (just watch academics argue over what chords underpin any passage that’s adventurous).
> 
> Even if you know everything about theory, there’s a reason some conductors are so in demand: the notation is just not that complete. How loud is forte? How quiet is pianissimo? What does a composer mean by “espressivo?”
> 
> John Williams in his day didn’t dominate merely because he’s a genius orchestrator and a composer in touch with the zeitgeist. He did because he conducted his own pieces so that he got _exactly _what he wanted from the orchestra.
> 
> Keep chipping away but don’t let anyone trap you into the mindset of “you must learn _this, _and _this, _and _this….” _ad nauseum before you’re “allowed” to write.
> 
> Write good stuff and pick up theory as needed, a little at a time; take a short online tutorial or course (really short is usually better — 10 minute summaries from Guy Michelmore I believe are out there.
> 
> Don’t get bogged down with it.


Thanks John, whilst I may not be an idiot - my propensity to want/need to understand the fundamentals of a subject combined with my lack of ability to *actually *understand the fundamentals has been my undoing in many subjects over the years!

I really like Terry Tao's explanation of the learning journey (I heard it mentioned in a YouTube video)

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-mathematics-than-rigour-and-proofs/

_One can roughly divide [mathematical] education into three stages:

The “pre-rigorous” stage, in which mathematics is taught in an informal, intuitive manner, based on examples, fuzzy notions, and hand-waving. (For instance, calculus is usually first introduced in terms of slopes, areas, rates of change, and so forth.) The emphasis is more on computation than on theory. This stage generally lasts until the early undergraduate years.

The “rigorous” stage, in which one is now taught that in order to do maths “properly”, one needs to work and think in a much more precise and formal manner (e.g. re-doing calculus by using epsilons and deltas all over the place). The emphasis is now primarily on theory; and one is expected to be able to comfortably manipulate abstract mathematical objects without focusing too much on what such objects actually “mean”. This stage usually occupies the later undergraduate and early graduate years.

The “post-rigorous” stage, in which one has grown comfortable with all the rigorous foundations of one’s chosen field, and is now ready to revisit and refine one’s pre-rigorous intuition on the subject, but this time with the intuition solidly buttressed by rigorous theory. (For instance, in this stage one would be able to quickly and accurately perform computations in vector calculus by using analogies with scalar calculus, or informal and semi-rigorous use of infinitesimals, big-O notation, and so forth, and be able to convert all such calculations into a rigorous argument whenever required.) The emphasis is now on applications, intuition, and the “big picture”. This stage usually occupies the late graduate years and beyond._


I've probably skipped through the pre-rigorous stage too quickyl and am now well and truly bogged down in the Rigorous stage and whatever musicality existed previously (probably not a whole lot!!) is now consumed with Contrapuntals, Negative Harmonies, Ostinatos and "Why is C Major so damn important?"

In an attempt to back out into the pre-rigorous stage I'm trying to start again with the fundamentals but maybe I just need to create more music and worry less about the conventions...


----------



## gamma-ut

JimDiGritz said:


> Again, you are correct - but despite A being obviously the start of the musical alphabet a huge amount of 'deference' is paid to C.
> 
> My 49 key keyboard starts and ends with a C, the Co5ths has C at the top.


As I wrote above, a whole lot of history happened. C only gets prominent treatment because if you map the arrangement of notes borrowed from the Greek Greater Perfect System and start that on A, you wind up with C major being the only key comprised of notes from that early scale. And there was a major theoretical shift that came with the near abandonment of church modes in favour of the tonal system.

Also, you mentioned piano, originally - which starts on A.


----------



## JimDiGritz

gamma-ut said:


> As I wrote above, a whole lot of history happened. C only gets prominent treatment because if you map the arrangement of notes borrowed from the Greek Greater Perfect System and start that on A, you wind up with C major being the only key comprised of notes from that early scale. And there was a major theoretical shift that came with the near abandonment of church modes in favour of the tonal system.
> 
> Also, you mentioned piano, originally - which starts on A.


Thanks Gamma - I completely get that History has impacted the conventions.

I actually never knew that a standard Piano's first key is an A! I've only got a 49 key keyboard and it starts/ends on C and I wrongly assumed that a full size piano would just extend out by an octave or two either side (but now doing the maths I can figure it out!)


----------



## JimDiGritz

youngpokie said:


> Personal opinion: modes and counting of the intervals is one "viewfinder" on music theory. I was never able to "get it" from that vantage point, because it didn't explain the bigger picture to me and I was _always_ getting bogged down in details which in the end simply didn't add up.
> 
> When I switched gears and started looking at music theory from the angle of functions, it was a revelation and everything just clicked. Looked at this way, music theory is about using rudimentary harmonic patterns rather than measuring numbers. And the purpose of harmony is simply to create endless variety from a very small number of core patterns via embellishments, ornamentation, extensions and such.
> 
> Of course, scale and intervals are behind everything. But there are various systems of explaining the bigger picture and you just need to find the one that makes it vivid for you. Then you can come back to the intervals with a different mind.


This is interesting, I'm diving into Intervals as the basis of my learning at the moment and some of it is absolutely clear and intuitive.. until it's not.

Do you have any links to the Function approach to music?


----------



## Living Fossil

JimDiGritz said:


> However since I'm playing devils advocate in this thread, why if A is the start of the musical alphabet do piano's 'start' on C, and why does for example the Circle of 5ths have C at the top?!


Because the person who did this diagram put it on the top.

You can also put Eb/D# on top, or every other 11 possibility.

From a perspective that takes signs into perspective, D would be the best choice; since
it would give in both directions 3 notes without a sign.

(a sign is e.g. b or # )


Don't overthink it, try to understand what's behind.


----------



## bryla

JimDiGritz said:


> Wait.. 15? what am I missing let me google Circle of 5ths:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah of course, it's only really 12 due to the enharmonics. C# is Db and Cb is B. Also the Gb is also F# That leaves us with 12. So why is F's enharmonic, E#, not listed?


Because when you reach C-flat major you have lowered all seven steps of the C major scale once. If you progress to the F-flat major you have double flats in your major scale. It's not because F-flat major doesn't exist but in practicality rarely used.


----------



## JimDiGritz

Thanks for all your input, and as a new forum member perhaps I should give you some background (plus it's snowing heavily here so my Saturday is stuck indoors on the PC!)

I've 'played' music for a few years (picked up a guitar 4 years ago at 40 years old - nothing screams midlife crisis more huh?) and whilst I continue to play I fell in love with the ability to create entire symphonic pieces with my PC back in January this year. Although I had dabbled with ACID sample based stuff over the years, I picked up Reaper quite recently.

Despite knowing very little theory my guitar playing approach is mostly intervallic and shape based eg I know the CAGED system and can play most Rock songs by ear. I never really composed anything, I either learned songs for fun or noodled.

My first attempt at an orchestral piece is attached (it's neither good nor finished), and I really haven't progressed... when I put this together (using BBCSO Discover) I just played what sounded good to me. Arrangement, whats that?

Now I stare at a dreaded blank DAW screen whilst half formed concepts like Counterpoint, Species and Chromatic Mediants float around in my head and haven't created anything of note.

Luckily my knowledge of Sample Libraries and their various merits is now getting pretty good and I've even managed to cannily acquire some on various sales which makes me a much better musician (sarcasm!)

PS sorry for the short silence on the intro, still getting to grips with Rendering in Reaper...


----------



## Markus Kohlprath

Just another thought. Generally I would say music is all about the relationship of frequencies not so much about the absolute frequencies. Thats why to our ears it doesn't matter so much on which frequency you start but it matters very much how the proportion and the timing-meaning the relationship between frequencies- is structured. I think a lot of confusion with music theory comes from not being entirely aware of this fact. In the end the whole naming system is just a more or less arbitrary attempt to give our mind an anchor to make sense out of this mess of frequencies which only makes sense to our ears for some reason not necessarily to our intellectual thinking.


----------



## David Cuny

It's about notational complexity.

The Circle of Fifths "starts" with C because it's arranged by notational complexity. C Major has the 0 sharps and flats, G Major has one sharp, D Major has two sharps, and so on.

So in addition to demonstrating harmonic relationships, it _also_ shows the order the sharps and flats are applied to key signatures.

But the relationships between the chords remains the same, no matter where you start.

The same with the overtone series. You could write it out using another key, but the reader would have to know which accidentals are due to the overtones, and which come from the key signature. Using C Major means it's easier to see the relationship without also having to disentangle the key signature from the diagram.

That's also why piano students start in the key of C Major, and then adding related keys. That way, they can start out without having to deal with sharps and flats. That's also why a lot of books begin by writing the numbered finger notation, sometimes even skipping staff notation altogether until a later chapter.

On the other hand, C Major _isn't _the easiest key to play the guitar in, because the F Major chord requires a full barre. So you're likely to start off learning in the key of A Major, because the A, D and E chords only require three fingers closely clustered together to get the open form of the chords. E Major is also a good key, because there's a form of the B7 chord that's relatively easy to make (it's a modified version of the open C7 chord).

Most guitar students will be starting off learning _chords_, not the notes. At the point where note reading is taught (for some guitarists, that never happens), it usually starts with C Major because... notational complexity.

The same thing holds for people who play transposing instruments, like the saxophone. For example, the tenor saxophone has a "natural" scale of Bb. But instead of writing the tenor saxophone part out in Bb Major - which has 2 flats in the key signature - it's written out in C Major.

Doing this means that the notation corresponds to the _fingering of the instrument_, not the _pitch_ of the instrument.

When a sax player picks up an alto saxophone (natural key of Eb), the note they get when they play something _written_ as a C natural _sounds _as an Eb. 

It's a lot more work for the person who's transcribing the music, but it means that the player can use the different saxophones without having to learn a whole new set of fingerings.

All of which is to say that there are a number of things that are done in music that make sense because it makes music easier to read and play for the player, but make things harder to do or explain if you're a composer or music theory student.


----------



## JohnG

JimDiGritz said:


> I never really composed anything, I either learned songs for fun or noodled.


Well, keep having fun -- by far the most important thing. Nurture your curiosity (not only in music); listen to yourself and try to observe and note what stimulates you and puts you into a happy, creative place. 

I never urge people to avoid learning; every thing I have learned about music, from bar bands to esoteric harmony, can help us. However, if it becomes work, it'll be hard to sustain enthusiasm.


----------



## David Cuny

I think it's also helpful to keep in mind that notation is often about making highlighting some "important" feature, but that same notation will be less useful for making some other relationship clear.

For example, if you look at the notes of a C Major scale on the staff, the distance between adjacent pitches looks the same. That is, on the staff, you can't see the difference between a major second (C to D) and a minor second (E to F).

"Standard" music notation makes the simplifying assumption that the player is working with a diatonic scale with 7 distinct notes.

That's a great model for a lot of music, so it's got utility. But it hides the true acoustic distance between notes, and is less good for notating music that _isn't_ diatonic in nature. It also required the invention of key signatures and other workarounds.

I remember my chemistry teacher telling us at the end of Chem1A that "Everything you're learned is a lie, but it's a useful lie". That is, there are a lot of simplifications to the models we learned about how chemical reactions worked, and while they were useful, they would prove less useful for more advanced chemistry, and we'd have to adopt models that handled greater complexity.

Except for students like me, who decided that they'd learned enough to get by. 

So... yes. A lot of things in music notation are arcane and inconsistent, because one kind of notation doesn't fit everything. What might make things easier to understand from a music theory perspective might make like miserable for someone who's playing an instrument.

That's sort of the nature of everything, unfortunately.


----------



## youngpokie

JimDiGritz said:


> This is interesting, I'm diving into Intervals as the basis of my learning at the moment and some of it is absolutely clear and intuitive.. until it's not.
> 
> Do you have any links to the Function approach to music?


I mean the standard conventions of functional theory are everywhere, from basic to advanced concepts going to Schenker. The most "standard" I've seen is more or less like this one.

BUT for me personally, the "lightbulb" moment about the functional theory only happened with the formulation I haven't seen often: that all tonal music, in all its richness and diversity, is ultimately reducible to 2 harmonic patterns (IV going to I and V going to I). It can be visualized as either endless oscillation back and forth between these functions or as a circle or a spiral. A string of V-I or IV-I patterns, etc. Then the motion finally ends and everything stops at I. That's the DNA but the way these patterns are manipulated into richnses and diversity of tonal music is the secret sauce.

To make music _today_ using functional theory, basic pattern is enough: IV-V-I or even V-I. Most of modern pop music is made like that - a pattern is bare and totally exposed. The pattern is also a loop that can be started at any point and run for as long as you need.

Then plagal and authentic cadences that you're studying are the first "trick in the book" of functional harmony: how to "end" any pattern of any complexity or at any point in order to move on the next one or to finish the piece. Or how to end the mini pattern inside a bigger one. If you perceive music this way, cadences become intuitive.

The remaining organizing principles are:

- chords can be swapped out. Chords built on any scale step can function as any one of these 3 based on easy logic. This swapping out creates a huge variety of chord progressions even if it still follows the same basic pattern underneath. So IV-I can be replaced with II-I and so on. The pattern is the same but the mood changes. Swapping out chords also enables modulation, while the pattern underneath simply continues in a new key.

- by the way, modern tonal music takes this swapping out of chords to a whole new level: instead of chords from only the diatonic scale, you take chords from the chromatic scale using leading tones and apply them as if they were diatonic. Or merge standard root and chromatic chord together in one.

- the transition through the functions in a pattern can also be altered: they can be made longer by repeating the same chord or by stringing together several chords. So IV-I can become IV-II-VI-I for example. This modifies the harmonic pulse with which the pattern flows, creating a different level of intensity and sense of movement.

If you conceptualize music in this way, then some harmony textbooks are really not theory anymore, but a dictionary of the most successful tricks that were invented to make the basic patterns more expressive and sophisticated. They show effective models of stringing chords together that can be instantly adopted without reinventing the wheel. You can even study them in this way: how does this or that help me make whatever I'm using less obvious and more powerful.

Sorry this ended up being so long. Obviously people will each have something different that stands out to them and makes the whole thing gel. That's how it works for me.


----------



## jsaras

JimDiGritz said:


> Disclaimer. Clearly it's me. No false modesty, no excuses. Music theory obviously works, and makes perfect sense to everyone else who understands it. Those that 'get' MT are quick to point out it's natural symmetry, inherent beauty and mathematical simplicity.
> 
> Also, to be completely clear I've had some of the best teachers in history to learn from (online and in print), so I cannot blame the teaching.
> 
> However.
> 
> The counting and numbering in MT seems arcane and inconsistent. There. I said it.
> 
> For example. G is the 5th of C, but it's actually 7 semitones above it. But G below C is 5 semitones below C, not 7. So the note G is simultaneously 5 semitones below and 7 semitones above C. Ummm.. okay. The 5th of C is G because it's 7 semitones above, but F is the 4th of C because it's 5 semitones above (but it's actually 7 semitones below). But it's clearly the 4th of C. Wait, what?
> 
> But that's not all, when we count in intervals we don't include the current interval (eg C), so to go from C to G we are moving up 7 'new' individual keys on a piano (C#, D,D#, E,F, F# and G)... but wait, to count around circle of 5ths we count up 5 notes INCLUDING the current note (C, D, E, F & G).
> 
> So G is simultaneously 5, 7 and 4 in relation to C. Such natural symmetry, inherent beauty and mathematical simplicity!!!
> 
> > Modes have entered the chat.
> 
> :brain explodes meme:
> 
> This is tongue in cheek, just wanted to rant and demonstrate my lack of cognitive ability to everyone. I'm not giving up - I'll get there! See you on the other side





JimDiGritz said:


> Disclaimer. Clearly it's me. No false modesty, no excuses. Music theory obviously works, and makes perfect sense to everyone else who understands it. Those that 'get' MT are quick to point out it's natural symmetry, inherent beauty and mathematical simplicity.
> 
> Also, to be completely clear I've had some of the best teachers in history to learn from (online and in print), so I cannot blame the teaching.
> 
> However.
> 
> The counting and numbering in MT seems arcane and inconsistent. There. I said it.
> 
> For example. G is the 5th of C, but it's actually 7 semitones above it. But G below C is 5 semitones below C, not 7. So the note G is simultaneously 5 semitones below and 7 semitones above C. Ummm.. okay. The 5th of C is G because it's 7 semitones above, but F is the 4th of C because it's 5 semitones above (but it's actually 7 semitones below). But it's clearly the 4th of C. Wait, what?
> 
> But that's not all, when we count in intervals we don't include the current interval (eg C), so to go from C to G we are moving up 7 'new' individual keys on a piano (C#, D,D#, E,F, F# and G)... but wait, to count around circle of 5ths we count up 5 notes INCLUDING the current note (C, D, E, F & G).
> 
> So G is simultaneously 5, 7 and 4 in relation to C. Such natural symmetry, inherent beauty and mathematical simplicity!!!
> 
> > Modes have entered the chat.
> 
> :brain explodes meme:
> 
> This is tongue in cheek, just wanted to rant and demonstrate my lack of cognitive ability to everyone. I'm not giving up - I'll get there! See you on the other side


Your observation is a significant one. The counting in the Equal Interval System begins with a "zero" just as a ruler does. The diatonic system starts its "ruler" with a "one", which leads to some confusion.


----------



## JimDiGritz

Since this is simply a noob rant here's yet another oddity that doesn't quite (literally) add up.

In 4/4 Time signature. Whole notes last a whole measure, half notes last half a measure and so on 1/4, 1/8 down etc

In 3/2 Time signature. Whole notes last a whole measure, third notes last... oh wait they're still called quarter notes... and there's 3 quarter notes in a whole.... umm

As a complete newcomer I expected notation to have a concept of a whole note that is divided into smaller notes relative to the time signature. So in 3/2 time you have whole, 3rds, 9ths etc.

Triplets exist, but they sound different to 3 equally spaced notes in a 3/2 time signature.

I guess it's the hand waving - "that's just how it is" that bothers me. Clearly I'm not smarter than everyone else, neither have I pointed out something that has never been spotted before however I've yet to read any acknowledgement of the apparent absurdity of this... I mean if I told my 9 year old that 3 quarters make a whole she'd laugh me out of the room!


----------



## Sebastianmu

Hi Jim,

I think you're right with regard to the oddity of most of the phenomena you pointed out. On the bottom of this lie very arbitrary naming conventions, in this case: of western music. Music has been made long before people started to give names to its various aspects, and the conventions as to how to talk about and notate western music developed over the course of more than eight centuries, with layer added upon layer, in a not very linear or particularly thought-through way. In Germany, just as an example, the note "b" is called "h" because of a transcription error (as in: some one, at some point, misread the b for an h in some medieval tractatus, and that error was carried forward by subsequent theorists ever since!). So the a-minor scale in German is: a h c d e f g -- it makes no sense whatsoever! And the note "b-flat" is called "b" in Germany, which also doesn't make too much sense. But it allows for fun plays with the name B-A-C-H of course..

The deeper truth is: This is not, in any way, a science. It's a set of arbitrary conventions, most of which find their ultimate reason in certain practical aspects of making music. 

You asked about the dominance of the C-major(/a-minor)-scale in music theory. Keep in mind the fact that different instruments are tuned to different base pitches. The piano happens to be an instrument in C, that's why a-minor / C-major are only white keys on the piano keyboard. It also happens to be the favourite instrument of music theorists (and many composers), because it so clearly maps out all tones of the western tone system in front of you! 

If you regard a-minor [resp. a-aeolian] as the prime key of all music theory, that might satisfy your sense of orderlyness, both with regard to the piano keyboard as well as to the circle of fifths.

It has been pointed out that the Circle of fifths is essentially a convention as to how different keys shall be notated (with zero to 6 alteration signs, either # or b, and where 6b and 6# are coextensive). It would be entirely possible, without loosing anything, to make a pitch different from a-minor the one with zero alteration signs, it wouldn't really make a difference practically: One had to be picked, and people chose a-minor. 

As to the intervals -- their names are actually _ordinal numerals_, as in: "Well, here is a set of intervals that I need to talk about. This one is the first (_prime_), the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, and so forth". They denote entries in a list, and then have certain values attached to them, but the number of the entry in the list has little to do with the attached value. 

Maybe this helps allieviating some of your perfectly understandable befuddlement? 
Cheers,
Sebastian


----------



## JimDiGritz

Sebastianmu said:


> Hi Jim,
> [..]
> Maybe this helps allieviating some of your perfectly understandable befuddlement?
> Cheers,
> Sebastian


It does, thanks! 

I acknowledge having a balanced combination of befuddlement, consternation and curmudgeon-ness!


----------



## Sebastianmu

JimDiGritz said:


> In 3/2 Time signature. Whole notes last a whole measure, third notes last... oh wait they're still called quarter notes... and there's 3 quarter notes in a whole.... umm


This one is not correct though. There are always 4 quarter notes in a whole note. The peculiarity of a 3/2 time signature is where the accents are (as compared to the 6/4 for instance).


----------



## JimDiGritz

Sebastianmu said:


> This one is not correct though. There are always 4 quarter notes in a whole note. The peculiarity of a 3/2 time signature is where the accents are (as compared to the 6/4 for instance).


I stand corrected, though when I'm in Reaper and change the time signature to 3/4 and select 1/4 notes, only 3 gridlines appear in the measure - is this wrong?


----------



## liquidlino

JimDiGritz said:


> Since this is simply a noob rant here's yet another oddity that doesn't quite (literally) add up.
> 
> In 4/4 Time signature. Whole notes last a whole measure, half notes last half a measure and so on 1/4, 1/8 down etc
> 
> In 3/2 Time signature. Whole notes last a whole measure, third notes last... oh wait they're still called quarter notes... and there's 3 quarter notes in a whole.... umm
> 
> As a complete newcomer I expected notation to have a concept of a whole note that is divided into smaller notes relative to the time signature. So in 3/2 time you have whole, 3rds, 9ths etc.
> 
> Triplets exist, but they sound different to 3 equally spaced notes in a 3/2 time signature.
> 
> I guess it's the hand waving - "that's just how it is" that bothers me. Clearly I'm not smarter than everyone else, neither have I pointed out something that has never been spotted before however I've yet to read any acknowledgement of the apparent absurdity of this... I mean if I told my 9 year old that 3 quarters make a whole she'd laugh me out of the room!


You haven't even mentioned the absurdity of transposing instruments yet. (F Horn, Bb Clarinet etc). Nor that the staves in notation don't even connect and you have to add ledger lines everywhere.


----------



## benwiggy

JimDiGritz said:


> Since this is simply a noob rant here's yet another oddity that doesn't quite (literally) add up.
> 
> In 4/4 Time signature. Whole notes last a whole measure, half notes last half a measure and so on 1/4, 1/8 down etc
> 
> In 3/2 Time signature. Whole notes last a whole measure, third notes last... oh wait they're still called quarter notes... and there's 3 quarter notes in a whole.... umm


In the UK, we give names to the durations that are not fractions of an arbitrary bar. I too find it odd that in 3/4, a crotchet is described as a quarter note.

Yes, there are peculiarities in music theory. And I find that the most interesting chords are the ones whose relevance to the tonic is remote, so describing them in reference to a tonic is almost pointless.

Here's Lenny Bernstein, giving some great insight.


----------



## gamma-ut

JimDiGritz said:


> I stand corrected, though when I'm in Reaper and change the time signature to 3/4 and select 1/4 notes, only 3 gridlines appear in the measure - is this wrong?


a) 3/4 is not 3/2

b) The upper part of the time signature tells you how many notes of that quality in the lower half are in the bar.

c) Look at some music notation and try to find a whole note in 3/4. However, in you could find a dotted whole note in 3/2.


----------



## JimDiGritz

gamma-ut said:


> a) 3/4 is not 3/2
> 
> b) The upper part of the time signature tells you how many notes of that quality in the lower half are in the bar.
> 
> c) Look at some music notation and try to find a whole note in 3/4. However, in you could find a dotted whole note in 3/2.


a) Fair point, however if I change the TS to 3/2 the grid stays the same as the screenshot... 3 notes, each a third of the duration of the measure... they are definitely not a quarter of the measure in duration. If I change to 8th notes.. I can only fit 6 notes in the measure..


----------



## Sebastianmu

JimDiGritz said:


> I stand corrected, though when I'm in Reaper and change the time signature to 3/4 and select 1/4 notes, only 3 gridlines appear in the measure - is this wrong?





JimDiGritz said:


> they are definitely not a quarter of the measure


A "whole" note is a full bar only in 4/4.
Don't let the name confuse you.

A 3/4 bar is 3* 1/4.
A 3/2 bar is 3* 1/2.

To me, that makes sense.


----------



## JimDiGritz

*"A 3/4 bar is 3* 1/4."*

3 one quarters of what? The measure? But they're not! The 'quarter notes' in 3/4 are exactly a third of the bar/measure. So they are demonstrably thirds, not quarters.

I guess they are 3/4 the 4/4 of the equivalent BPM 4/4 measure..? Is that what I'm missing?


----------



## gamma-ut

Time signatures are not fractions.


----------



## Sebastianmu

JimDiGritz said:


> *"A 3/4 bar is 3* 1/4."*
> 
> 3 one quarters of what? The measure? But they're not! The 'quarter notes' in 3/4 are exactly a third of the bar/measure. So they are demonstrably thirds, not quarters.
> 
> I guess they are 3/4 the 4/4 of the equivalent BPM 4/4 measure..? Is that what I'm missing?


If you want to think about it like that: yes.
A 3/4 bar is, if you want, not a "whole" bar, but 75% of a 4/4 bar.
It's three quarters of a 4/4 bar.
And can be filled up with three quarter-notes.

Similarily, a 3/2 bar is 150% of a 4/4 bar.
It's one and a half 4/4 bars.
And can be filled with three half-notes.


----------



## JimDiGritz

Sebastianmu said:


> If you want to think about it like that: yes.
> A 3/4 bar is, if you want, not a "whole" bar, but 75% of a 4/4 bar.
> It's three quarters of a 4/4 bar.
> And can be filled up with three quarter-notes.


Ah. This makes sense, I now get what you and gamma-ut are driving at!

I suspect by now the entire thread are realising how poor my musical knowledge is, and how obtuse I can be...


----------



## Sebastianmu

JimDiGritz said:


> Ah. This makes sense, I now get what you and gamma-ut are driving at!
> 
> I suspect by now the entire thread are realising how poor my musical knowledge is, and how obtuse I can be...


Nothing to be ashamed of, everyone has to start somewhere.


----------



## sinkd

Scales, keys SCALE DEGREES and unique tendency tones within. Most of the time no one needs to know if a third is major or minor. I agree numbers are used too much in MT.


----------



## sinkd

liquidlino said:


> You haven't even mentioned the absurdity of transposing instruments yet. (F Horn, Bb Clarinet etc). Nor that the staves in notation don't even connect and you have to add ledger lines everywhere.


transposing instruments exist to minimize ledger lines in common clefs AND to allow instrumentalists to use common fingerings when switching instruments in the same family. A notated C for E-flat alto sax has the same (or very similar) fingering as the same notated "C" for tenor sax, but produces a different note. Transpositions have evolved for the convenience of the performer, not the composer.


----------



## SamMarksMusic

Interesting thoughts! It's quite easy to get confused and thrown upside-down when first learning theory (I certainly am no exception!). 

It sounds like what you're discussing here are (basically) the Diatonic relationships between pitches in any given key, and the underlying Chromatic structures that go into forming those Diatonic relationships.

I may personally not have the best approach to theory and I'm sure others can more eloquently express their points better than me, but I would consider these two things slightly different 'sub-sections', if you will, of theory. The _chromatic steps_ being the _blue print_ or _building blocks_ for constructing _diatonic intervals_ (such as Perfect 5ths, Perfect 4ths etc.).

It may be helpful if we first understand the construction of individual diatonic intervals, i.e. how many _chromatic steps_ go into forming a _Perfect 5th _(the answer being 7). Then we can apply these diatonic intervals to keys, chords, harmony...

Unfortunately, understanding the make-up of intervals can be a little dry, haha.

I hope this is even the slightest bit helpful!


----------



## Kent

JimDiGritz said:


> For example. G is the 5th of C, but it's actually 7 semitones above it. But G below C is 5 semitones below C, not 7. So the note G is simultaneously 5 semitones below and 7 semitones above C. Ummm.. okay. The 5th of C is G because it's 7 semitones above, but F is the 4th of C because it's 5 semitones above (but it's actually 7 semitones below). But it's clearly the 4th of C. Wait, what?


how is 8:45 8 hours and 45 minutes after 12 but _also_ 3 hours and 15 minutes before 12?


----------



## Kent

Sebastianmu said:


> So the a-minor scale in German is: a h c d e f g -- it makes no sense whatsoever! And the note "b-flat" is called "b" in Germany, which also doesn't make too much sense.


sure it does, once you see the history 





__





Music Theory Question - why do we use the Major scale as the foundation?


I'm learning music theory and amongst many, many things am struggling to understand why (as I see it...) western music theory is based around the Major scale. For example, I see explanations like "a minor chord has the flatted 3rd". Not to be difficult, but why aren't we saying that the Major...




vi-control.net


----------



## liquidlino

sinkd said:


> transposing instruments exist to minimize ledger lines in common clefs AND to allow instrumentalists to use common fingerings when switching instruments in the same family. A notated C for E-flat alto sax has the same (or very similar) fingering as the same notated "C" for tenor sax, but produces a different note. Transpositions have evolved for the convenience of the performer, not the composer.


That's the first time I've seen it mentioned about the common fingerings, that kinda makes sense. Odd how several sites I googled when trying to learn about transposing instruments, none of them mentioned that.

Alternatively, why didn't they engineer the instruments to have common fingering in the first place, for the same notes? I read that there was an oboe made with common fingering but it was rejected as everyone was used to the arcane fingering for oboe.


----------



## AmbientMile

Completely and utterly off topic, but when I saw the OP's name (Jim DiGritz) I did a double take. My favorite Sci-Fi writer when I was a kid was Harry Harrison. One of my favorite series he wrote was the Stainless Steel Rat series whose main character was Slippery Jim DiGriz! What a flashback to the 70s and early 80s!


----------



## PaulieDC

JimDiGritz said:


> For example. G is the 5th of C, but it's actually 7 semitones above it.


You simply count the diatonic notes. Semitones (or half steps across the pond) are not part of the _base _count. That's why G is the fifth. True, you do count the initial note as one, but you do that with numbers too. 2 is the second item in 1-2-3-4-5, just like D is the second item in the C scale (C-D-E-F-G). Hence, G is a 5th interval from C.

Regarding the semitones, those are only adjustments to the number. C to D is a major 2nd (part of the scale), C to Db is a minor 2nd... simply altering the existing interval.

Being your post was serious + fun, here's my comical out (admittedly a repeat):

What's the definition of a minor 2nd?
Two student violinists playing in unison.


----------



## Kent

liquidlino said:


> That's the first time I've seen it mentioned about the common fingerings, that kinda makes sense. Odd how several sites I googled when trying to learn about transposing instruments, none of them mentioned that.
> 
> Alternatively, why didn't they engineer the instruments to have common fingering in the first place, for the same notes? I read that there was an oboe made with common fingering but it was rejected as everyone was used to the arcane fingering for oboe.


Don't confuse the 'common fingerings' between members of a family (like Alto Sax and Tenor Sax) with what could be called 'standardized' fingerings (say, like a piano, organ, and harpsichord all share the same layout).

Mechanical keys are a modern innovation. It used to be just holes. Different wind instrument bore shapes (cone or cylinder, open or closed) have different resonant properties, so the holes for such (especially for basic diatonics) were in slightly different places to accommodate. Once chromatics became more than just the occasional half-covered hole, and ranges required the upper partials to be accessed, mechanical keys developed to account for the new use-cases.

see the chalumeau:





looks like a baroque recorder with a reed instead of a fipple.

Then by c. Mozart's time we had






and by the early 1800s





and now








(continued...)


----------



## Kent

(...continuing)

but even today depending on where you live and what music you do you might see a Boehm system...





an Albert system...






...or a Oehler system.






so there is no 'one right way' to do things


----------



## liquidlino

Kent said:


> (...continuing)
> 
> but even today depending on where you live and what music you do you might see a Boehm system...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an Albert system...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...or a Oehler system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so there is no 'one right way' to do things


All I can say is... I'm so grateful I play Piano and guitar! Standardization, polyphony, wide tonal range, and relatively low cost (especially guitar) compared to oboes, which seem to cost thousands for something actually worth playing.


----------



## Trash Panda

JimDiGritz said:


> For example. G is the 5th of C, but it's actually 7 semitones above it. But G below C is 5 semitones below C, not 7. So the note G is simultaneously 5 semitones below and 7 semitones above C. Ummm.. okay. The 5th of C is G because it's 7 semitones above, but F is the 4th of C because it's 5 semitones above (but it's actually 7 semitones below). But it's clearly the 4th of C. Wait, what?


There are 12 semi tones in an octave, so if G is 7 semi tones above C, why wouldn’t it also be 5 semi tones below the next C? You can’t have it separated by 7 semi tones each direction without a 14 semi tone per octave scale.


----------



## David Cuny

liquidlino said:


> Alternatively, why didn't they engineer the instruments to have common fingering in the first place, for the same notes?


Holes are placed where they are on woodwinds because that's what physics demands. Most of that fancy keywork is there so that you won't need impossibly long fingers to reach the notes.

You can't have same key == same note, because when you change the length of the instrument, you change the fundamental. Holes in the "same" place make different pitches.

And that's a good thing, because you have different sized instruments so you can play notes that larger or smaller versions of that instrument _can't_ play.

Even if it were possible to have the "same" fingering for the same notes, how do you deal with the "extra" notes that the larger/smaller instruments can make? Do you add extra keys? If so, there goes your "standard" system.

That said, we've pretty much adopted "standardized" fingering (_i.e._ Boehm fingering), so moving from a flute to a clarinet won't be entirely alien.

If all this gives you a headache, just get an EWI. You can play everything in the key of C, and the software will handle the transposition for you.


----------



## Vik

JimDiGritz said:


> Again, you are correct - but despite A being obviously the start of the musical alphabet a huge amount of 'deference' is paid to C.


That’s probably because the middle C on the piano clef is easy to find, since it’s located between the treble clef and bass clef.


----------



## liquidlino

David Cuny said:


> Holes are placed where they are on woodwinds because that's what physics demands. Most of that fancy keywork is there so that you won't need impossibly long fingers to reach the notes.
> 
> You can't have same key == same note, because when you change the length of the instrument, you change the fundamental. Holes in the "same" place make different pitches.
> 
> And that's a good thing, because you have different sized instruments so you can play notes that larger or smaller versions of that instrument _can't_ play.
> 
> Even if it were possible to have the "same" fingering for the same notes, how do you deal with the "extra" notes that the larger/smaller instruments can make? Do you add extra keys? If so, there goes your "standard" system.
> 
> That said, we've pretty much adopted "standardized" fingering (_i.e._ Boehm fingering), so moving from a flute to a clarinet won't be entirely alien.
> 
> If all this gives you a headache, just get an EWI. You can play everything in the key of C, and the software will handle the transposition for you.


I just think, that if this was being designed, from scratch today, the design meeting would go along the lines of:

_"Right, we're going to make a group of wind instruments, that covers a broad tonal range between them, with lots of different colours.

So, lets make it so that the top most hole/key on each instrument is, I dunno, lets pick a C note, and then as you go down the holes it's chromatic until you get to the last hole, which, lets say it's a C note as well for simplicity, with a two octave range per instrument by using the thumb hole to change octave (or something, I'm not a wind player, no idea how it works)

"And lets write, on the music notation, a C where we want the player to play a C note."_

It probably wouldn't go:

_"Lets make lots of instruments with totally different keys/holes systems and lets write completely different notes on the notation than what we actually want played. People are going to LOVE it!"_

But, that's the issue with legacy. I'm just surprised that after 200-300 years, we are still encumbered with the legacy...


----------



## David Cuny

liquidlino said:


> _"Lets make lots of instruments with totally different keys/holes systems and lets write completely different notes on the notation than what we actually want played. People are going to LOVE it!"_
> 
> But, that's the issue with legacy. I'm just surprised that after 200-300 years, we are still encumbered with the legacy...


Yeah, that's certainly the _only possible reason_.

Thank goodness you're _so _much more clever than all those committees that were in charge of designing woodwinds and brass instruments. Dunderheads and clowns, every one of them!

Oh, wait... did _individuals_ actually work on these instruments, _not _committees?

You might want to consider that _*solutions look easy to people who don't understand the problem*._

It could actually be that transposing instruments are actually a _really good solution_ to the problem, and the issue is that you don't really understand the problem well enough to understand the solution.

Just saying.


----------



## liquidlino

David Cuny said:


> Yeah, that's certainly the _only possible reason_.
> 
> Thank goodness you're _so _much more clever than all those committees that were in charge of designing woodwinds and brass instruments. Dunderheads and clowns, every one of them!
> 
> Oh, wait... did _individuals_ actually work on these instruments, _not _committees?
> 
> You might want to consider that _*solutions look easy to people who don't understand the problem*._
> 
> It could actually be that transposing instruments are actually a _really good solution_ to the problem, and the issue is that you don't really understand the problem well enough to understand the solution.
> 
> Just saying.


I have no idea why you just made that so personal and went all ad hominem. Thought we were having a friendly chat about instruments and what not, not a nasty personal argument.


----------



## David Cuny

liquidlino said:


> I have no idea why you just made that so personal and went all ad hominem. Thought we were having a friendly chat about instruments and what not, not a nasty personal argument.


Sorry, that's my fault entirely. I tried to work on the tone, but failed. 

So, apologies. You're 100% right - it wasn't called for.

It wasn't meant to be a _personal_ attack - I was trying to make the point that when the solution looks blindingly obvious, there's a good chance that _you don't really understand the problem._

And the core of getting to the answer is embracing that idea: that there's a compelling reason that things are done the way they are.

But... I said it very badly, and it _did_ come across as a personal attack. 

Again, I apologize for that.


----------



## liquidlino

David Cuny said:


> Sorry, that's my fault entirely. I tried to work on the tone, but failed.
> 
> So, apologies. You're 100% right - it wasn't called for.
> 
> It wasn't meant to be a _personal_ attack - I was trying to make the point that when the solution looks blindingly obvious, there's a good chance that _you don't really understand the problem._
> 
> And the core of getting to the answer is embracing that idea: that there's a compelling reason that things are done the way they are.
> 
> But... I said it very badly, and it _did_ come across as a personal attack.
> 
> Again, I apologize for that.


No worries, it's so easy to be misheard over text only, all good. And you're right of course, there's surely plenty of good reasons for the system continuing, that I'm not seeing as a daw/vst user. I guess the whole write one note, play another is just very unfamiliar, and from the world of safety critical operations that I work in, a total antithesis. But... Music is art not safety management. God help us if music was designed by safety committees! We would have to fill out a risk assessment before playing a tritone.


----------



## Rob

"If you think you understand musical theory you don't understand musical theory"


----------



## KEM

I certainly don’t understand music theory


----------



## David Cuny

Back in the day, I got it into my head that I could write a program to compose music. Because I figured is was "just" a matter of putting "rules" into the computer. 

Someone recently wrote:



> You might want to consider that _*solutions look easy to people who don't understand the problem*._



And this was very much the case!  

I found out that most "rules" of music theory were more hints and guidelines of "things to think about if you get stuck", rather than a recipe on how to _make_ music. Sure, there were plenty of prohibitions. But the real-life examples seemed to break them at will, under the umbrella rule of "ignore the rules if it sounds good."

Even for something seemingly as simple as chord progressions, music theory only offered various frameworks for explaining chordal movement. Which one was right? Often there could be several explanations, and sometimes the very ambiguity of what was happening was the whole point of the music.

Much of the code ending up being "discard the obviously bad choices, and then randomly pick from the remaining options."

Unsurprisingly, the music it ended up generating wasn't especially good. 

Here's a chart of the Dunning-Kruger effect I stole:


----------



## KEM

David Cuny said:


> Back in the day, I got it into my head that I could write a program to compose music. Because I figured is was "just" a matter of putting "rules" into the computer.
> 
> Someone recently wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> And this was very much the case!
> 
> I found out that most "rules" of music theory were more hints and guidelines of "things to think about if you get stuck", rather than a recipe on how to _make_ music. Sure, there were plenty of prohibitions. But the real-life examples seemed to break them at will, under the umbrella rule of "ignore the rules if it sounds good."
> 
> Even for something seemingly as simple as chord progressions, music theory only offered various frameworks for explaining chordal movement. Which one was right? Often there could be several explanations, and sometimes the very ambiguity of what was happening was the whole point of the music.
> 
> Much of the code ending up being "discard the obviously bad choices, and then randomly pick from the remaining options."
> 
> Unsurprisingly, the music it ended up generating wasn't especially good.
> 
> Here's a chart of the Dunning-Kruger effect I stole:



This picture is 100% accurate, I was very confident 4 years ago when I just started and didn’t know anything, I’ve learned a lot since and it’s only shown me how little knowledge I have, so now I’m very unconfident


----------



## liquidlino

David Cuny said:


> Back in the day, I got it into my head that I could write a program to compose music. Because I figured is was "just" a matter of putting "rules" into the computer.
> 
> Someone recently wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> And this was very much the case!
> 
> I found out that most "rules" of music theory were more hints and guidelines of "things to think about if you get stuck", rather than a recipe on how to _make_ music. Sure, there were plenty of prohibitions. But the real-life examples seemed to break them at will, under the umbrella rule of "ignore the rules if it sounds good."
> 
> Even for something seemingly as simple as chord progressions, music theory only offered various frameworks for explaining chordal movement. Which one was right? Often there could be several explanations, and sometimes the very ambiguity of what was happening was the whole point of the music.
> 
> Much of the code ending up being "discard the obviously bad choices, and then randomly pick from the remaining options."
> 
> Unsurprisingly, the music it ended up generating wasn't especially good.
> 
> Here's a chart of the Dunning-Kruger effect I stole:


That graph is every single day of my life, except I never seem to escape the valley of despair.


----------



## Alexandre

youngpokie said:


> Personal opinion: modes and counting of the intervals is one "viewfinder" on music theory. I was never able to "get it" from that vantage point, because it didn't explain the bigger picture to me and I was _always_ getting bogged down in details which in the end simply didn't add up.
> 
> When I switched gears and started looking at music theory from the angle of functions, it was a revelation and everything just clicked. Looked at this way, music theory is about using rudimentary harmonic patterns rather than measuring numbers. And the purpose of harmony is simply to create endless variety from a very small number of core patterns via embellishments, ornamentation, extensions and such.
> 
> Of course, scale and intervals are behind everything. But there are various systems of explaining the bigger picture and you just need to find the one that makes it vivid for you. Then you can come back to the intervals with a different mind.


any recommendation on a book, videos or courses that take this more holistic approach? It really speaks to me, thank you!


----------



## sinkd

liquidlino said:


> That's the first time I've seen it mentioned about the common fingerings, that kinda makes sense. Odd how several sites I googled when trying to learn about transposing instruments, none of them mentioned that.
> 
> Alternatively, why didn't they engineer the instruments to have common fingering in the first place, for the same notes? I read that there was an oboe made with common fingering but it was rejected as everyone was used to the arcane fingering for oboe.


It would not be possible to engineer instruments of different sizes to play the same notes in the same register. Transposing instruments are like an extension of having different clefs for different ranges. The fingering for the lowest D on a viola and a 'cello are similar (the viola is a half-sized 'cello), but one is notated in alto clef, the other in bass clef. You could think of Bb clarinet as just being notated in moveable-c tenor clef, for example. Some people approach score reading that way. We all learn two different systems for the five line staff (bass and treble clefs) and don't really think twice about it because it is so commonplace.

In general, as a theory teacher, I find the "googleable" info on music theory to be not as helpful to students who really want to learn to read music notation, melody and harmony, with discernment. Too many nifty "tricks" to spell chords without really thinking in a key, or of scale-degree function.


----------



## Vik

Sebastianmu said:


> If you want to think about it like that: yes.
> A 3/4 bar is, if you want, not a "whole" bar, but 75% of a 4/4 bar.
> It's three quarters of a 4/4 bar.
> And can be filled up with three quarter-notes.


With all due respect: IMO that way of looking at it adds to the confusion, and notation is already confusing! 

A 'quarter note' (1/4) always means that it's length is equivalent to 1/4 of a whole note, not 1/4 of the bar. This makes meaning once everybody know that a 'whole note' always refers to four beats. Now, one could say that even to call some notes whole and others not whole could also be confusing, but that's a different story – because, after all, it makes sense to have a visual representation of long notes, and since bars with four beats in is more common than bars with 3 or 5 beats in them, having a way to indicate '4 beats' is useful.

(Not only that, but writing 3/4 or 5/4 in the beginning of a piece may also add confusing, because usually, writing just "3" or "5" would be enough ,meaning that each bar either contains 3 or 5 beats.)

By the way, it would have made sense to call the 'middle note', the one we either call C3 or C4, for A – but that's too late to change. That's why it's important to think of the actual A (the uppermost note in the bass clef for pianists) as the beginning of the alphabet (again, for piano players).


----------



## Vik

...and: the term 'quarter note' is already misleading, especially for noobs.

When explaining a so called quarter note to noobs, it's IMO better to describe this note length as having a length equalling one beat, combined with something about one beat equals taking one step if you are walking. One of my first teachers called 1/4 notes for walking notes, and 1/8 notes for running notes. 1/16-notes would be 'running faster'-notes.

What we call a 'whole note' is a 'four beat note'. A half note is a 'two beat note'.

The same kind of confusion is introduced when we claim that the interval between C and C# is a 'semitone' (in some European languages: 'half step'). When I've head piano students who aren't already familiar with notation, I start the first lesson by apologizing on behalf of those who made decisions about this terminology. – combined with telling them that most of this is quite learnable once we explain and teach things in a different way, like for instance trying to learn the circa 30 most used notes by thinking of them as graphical symbols instead of relying on all kinds of tricks to remember what the notes are called (like for instance 'Every Good Bird Does Fly' to identify the pitches on the lines in the treble clef). Some students don't know that the C above the bass clef and the C below the treble clef is the same C, some do a major mistake by sometimes playing stuff using eiter the treble clef or the bass clef (as opposed to always be looking at a piano clef).

When it comes to the actual use of numbers in chord symbols, the system is actually quite logical (in most cases).


----------



## Rob

Vik said:


> With all due respect: IMO that way of looking at it adds to the confusion, and notation is already confusing!
> 
> A 'quarter note' (1/4) always means that it's length is equivalent to 3/4 of a whole note


is this supposed to be clarifying? 1/4 is 3/4 of a whole?

signed
the under secretary of music theory


----------



## Vik

Rob said:


> is this supposed to be clarifying? 1/4 is 3/4 of a whole?


😆

Thanks, the typo is fixed now: 
"A 'quarter note' (1/4) always means that it's length is equivalent to 1/4 of a whole note, not 1/4 of the bar."


----------



## JimDiGritz

Vik said:


> 😆
> 
> Thanks, the typo is fixed now:
> "A 'quarter note' (1/4) always means that it's length is equivalent to 1/4 of a whole note, not 1/4 of the bar."


So if I have a time sig of 3/4, 4/4 or even 9/8 @ 60bpm, each quarter note lasts exactly 1 second. Hence the Quarter = 60 on the notation...

So the duration of the note effectively takes precedence over the *number *of notes in a measure.. a bar could be 4 notes (a 4/4 bar is 4 secs at 60bpm) or 3 notes (a 3/4 bar is 3 secs at 60bpm). So a 10 bar piece of music at the same tempo (eg 60bpm) will vary in overall duration if the time sig is different.

This is what caught me out, instinctively I thought that the measures were subdivisions of the overall duration and that the notes were derived from this... not the other way around.


----------



## David Cuny

Vik said:


> When explaining a so called quarter note to noobs, it's IMO better to describe this note length as having a length equalling one beat, combined with something about one beat equals taking one step if you are walking. One of my first teachers called 1/4 notes for walking notes, and 1/8 notes for running notes. 1/16-notes would be 'running faster'-notes.


I disagree.

The duration of a "beat" is indicated in the time signature.

For example, 4/1 means that a whole note is equal to one beat, and there are 4 beats per measure.

The "beat" is the basic pulse of the music, and it's important to think of it as such. Thinking of the beat in terms of quarter notes confuses beat with tempo.

Tempo isn't indicated by quarter notes, but with "BPM" - beats per minute. The BPM is only counted in quarter notes if that's what the time signature indicates.

So if the time signature is 6/2, the BPM should be in terms of half-notes.

The fractional name of a note ("eighth", "quarter", "half") only indicates the duration of a note _relative to a whole note_. It says nothing about the beat.

Like a lot of things music notation related, when a default value is used (such as quarter notes as the beat), they are often left out of the notation. But when it's _not_ the default, the notation should indicate it.



Vik said:


> When it comes to the actual use of numbers in chord symbols, the system is actually quote logical (in most cases).


Chord notation is another place where if something is the default value, you can leave it off.

For example, the default chord type is "major".

So if you see "C", it indicates "C major". If it's _not_ a major, you need to indicate it, such as "C minor".

If it's a 7th chord and has a dominant/flattened 7th, you can just write "C7", but if it's a major 7th, you have to add it to the notation, such as "C maj7".

The number also indicates that you include all the lower triad tones, so "C9" indicates there is a 7th and 9th, and C11 indicates there is a 7th, 9th and 11th (the 3rd is dropped because it clashes with the 11th).

Of course, there are (always) exceptions to this rule, such as "6/9" chords, which _don't_ have a 7th in them.

If you _don't_ want the additional triad tones, use the term "add" before the tone. So "Cadd2", indicates a C major triad with an added "2" tone.

It's a pretty simple rule, but I still run into publishers who write "C9" when they mean "Cadd2"... the music will usually tell you pretty quickly when you play the wrong chord.


----------



## Vik

David Cuny said:


> The duration of a "beat" is indicated in the time signature.


...and tempo, yes. Will comment more later. 

To the OP: 90% of all western music is quite simple rhythmically, so don't worry – your mathematical approach to this will help you (unless you get lost in it).

Here's something I just came across. It isn't directly related to this topic except that the clip shows how intricate stuff can be in some other cultures (and in part of what happens in the Western hemisphere as well, of course) – in case that helps when you get confused by diving into the numerical structures in 'normal' music.


----------



## Mister Grady

David Cuny said:


> The duration of a "beat" is indicated in the time signature.



Good post, but I'll just clarify a couple of minor points.

The bottom number in a time sig indicates the *metric pulse*, and though this is also _usually_ the beat (and the value used for the tempo), it's not necessarily in all cases.
____________________

EDIT: Second part of post deleted because of brain fog error on my part.


----------



## David Cuny

Mister Grady said:


> A chord like that would need to be written as a G7/C.
> 
> An 11 on a major chord is ordinarily an avoid note, so it would typically not be included. If you still wanted that level of density, you'd have to change it to a #11.


Do you mean Gm7/C?

That's normally how I've seen an 11th chord notated, just to make sure that the 3rd is left out.

Although when I first ran across that notation, I assumed so guitar-strumming dummies like me would be able to play complicated chords without having to count to 11.


----------



## sinkd

Mister Grady said:


> The bottom number in a time sig indicates the *metric pulse*,


Except in compound meters like 6/8 & 12/8. This is one area of music theory that has survived in spite of being somewhat misaligned. We can all blame Philippe de Vitry.

EDIT: I see that you have edited your original post to align more with this aspect.


----------



## Vik

David Cuny said:


> The number also indicates that you include all the lower triad tones, so "C9" indicates there is a 7th and 9th, and C11 indicates there is a 7th, 9th and 11th (the 3rd is dropped because it clashes with the 11th).



C9 suggests 1, 3, 5, *b7* and 9. C11 – in theory – contains 1, 3, 5, b7, 11, but isn't always played that way. It can be played as Bb/C (a Bb major triad over a C root), for instance. C9 still suggests which scale that can be used with that chord – a scale containing a b7 and an un-altered 11.

When it comes to C 13, it is never played as 1, 3, 5, b7, 9, 11, 13. In jazz, a C13 is often played as 1, b7, 9, 11 and 13 (C, Bb, D, E and A).


Mister Grady said:


> A chord like that would need to be written as a G7/C.


He didn't mention that the 7th note was flattened into a b7 when he wrote 'C11 indicates there is a 7th, 9th and 11th (the 3rd is dropped because it clashes with the 11th)', but indicated that earlier. A C11 always indicateds a flat 7, there simply isn't a C11 that contains a B natural – it's always a Bb.



Mister Grady said:


> The bottom number in a time sig indicates the *metric pulse*, and though this is also _usually_ the beat (and the value used for the tempo), it's not necessarily in all cases.


True, and maybe 'pulse' is a better word than 'beat'. What I'm usually thinking of when I use 'beat' in this context is the pulse – that same thing that one would usually hear if someone would tap their foot to the music.


----------



## Mister Grady

David Cuny said:


> Do you mean Gm7/C?



Yes. Disregard that part of my comment, as my brain combined two of your sentences—one about major and one about dominants—into one lump sum.


----------



## Mister Grady

Vik said:


> He didn't mention that the 7th note was flattened into a b7 when he wrote 'C11 indicates there is a 7th, 9th and 11th (the 3rd is dropped because it clashes with the 11th)', but indicated that earlier. A C11 always indicateds a flat 7, there simply isn't a C11 that contains a B natural – it's always a Bb.



Correct. See my reply to David above.


----------



## Mister Grady

sinkd said:


> Except in compound meters like 6/8 & 12/8. This is one area of music theory that has survived in spite of being somewhat misaligned. We can all blame Philippe de Vitry.



I'm referring to metric pulse, as opposed to beat.

The metric pulse in 6/8 is six 8th-notes to the bar. The beat could be, say, 8th = 127. But it could also be (not related to the previous tempo) dotted-Q = 73.

Then there are the irregular beats per bar: In 5/8, the metric pulse is five 8th-notes to the bar, but the beat, which is irregular in this case, may be marked as Q = 81, in which case the group of three in each bar will be at 54 BPM.

(It suddenly occurs to me that all this would be much easier to talk about if only there were some rudimentary notation built-in to the forum software. That simple point was cumbersome to type out.)


----------



## sinkd

Mister Grady said:


> I'm referring to metric pulse, as opposed to beat.
> 
> The metric pulse in 6/8 is six 8th-notes to the bar. The beat could be, say, 8th = 127. But it could also be (not related to the previous tempo) dotted-Q = 73.
> 
> Then there are the irregular beats per bar: In 5/8, the metric pulse is five 8th-notes to the bar, but the beat, which is irregular in this case, may be marked as Q = 81, in which case the group of three in each bar will be at 54 BPM.
> 
> (It suddenly occurs to me that all this would be much easier to talk about if only there were some rudimentary notation built-in to the forum software. That simple point was cumbersome to type out.)


Not sure I follow you. Your post said that the bottom note of a meter indicates the metric pulse. My view is that if the metric pulse of 4/4 is 4 quarter notes to the bar, then the metric pulse of 6/8 is 2 dotted quarters to the bar. But I would agree to call them both "beats" and the subdivision "pulse." What I am saying is that the bottom "4" in 4/4 and the "8" in 6/8 sort of confusingly don't refer to the same aspect of meter/beat/pulse.


----------



## Maarten

sinkd said:


> Not sure I follow you. Your post said that the bottom note of a meter indicates the metric pulse. My view is that if the metric pulse of 4/4 is 4 quarter notes to the bar, then the metric pulse of 6/8 is 2 dotted quarters to the bar. But I would agree to call them both "beats" and the subdivision "pulse." What I am saying is that the bottom "4" in 4/4 and the "8" in 6/8 sort of confusingly don't refer to the same aspect of meter/beat/pulse.


Exactly, like 12/8 has 4 pulses. With 6/8, the default interpretation is a division in 2 pulses. It's a convention which you can't derive from the time-signature. IMHO.


----------



## Mister Grady

sinkd said:


> Not sure I follow you. Your post said that the bottom note of a meter indicates the metric pulse. My view is that if the metric pulse of 4/4 is 4 quarter notes to the bar, then the metric pulse of 6/8 is 2 dotted quarters to the bar. But I would agree to call them both "beats" and the subdivision "pulse." What I am saying is that the bottom "4" in 4/4 and the "8" in 6/8 sort of confusingly don't refer to the same aspect of meter/beat/pulse.


Understood, and perfectly valid of course.

TL;DR: I'm talking about meters as used in the more malleable contemporary sense of rhythmic design.

Speaking from a contemporary point of view—and barring instances where the pulse is suppressed and/or the written meter obfuscated—if you're in, say, 6/8 or 5/8, the theoretical pulse is 8ths, regardless of how they are grouped (if conventionally: 3+3 in 6/8, and 3+2 or 2+3 in 5/8). The number of those metric pulses per bar is 6 and 5, respectively.

In one instance, the beat might be written in either of those meters as 8th=117, in which case the beat is the same as the pulse. But in another instance, it might be written as dotted-Q=93 (not related to prior tempo). The 5/8 would obviously be an asymmetrical beat, requiring a 2/3's adjustment of beat length on the Q beat.

Of course the real meter, pulse, beat, barline (or absence of any or all of these aspects of rhythm) all come down to how the hearer perceives it as designed by the composer, irrespective of what the notation may look like at a glance.


----------



## JimDiGritz

bryla said:


> Because when you reach C-flat major you have lowered all seven steps of the C major scale once. If you progress to the F-flat major you have double flats in your major scale. It's not because F-flat major doesn't exist but in practicality rarely used.


It's become much clearer to me - there are actually 30 keys, not 12 or 24. This is making it a lot easier to grasp!


----------



## bryla

JimDiGritz said:


> It's become much clearer to me - there are actually 30 keys, not 12 or 24. This is making it a lot easier to grasp!


There are 15. 'C-major' + 1-7 sharps + 1-7 flats. I don't know how you came to 30 though. That would assume you counted C-major as B-sharp major. But still remember that in the 15 mentioned, three are already counted twice. Outside the 15 though there is no practicality whatsoever.


----------



## JimDiGritz

bryla said:


> There are 15. 'C-major' + 1-7 sharps + 1-7 flats. I don't know how you came to 30 though. That would assume you counted C-major as B-sharp major. But still remember that in the 15 mentioned, three are already counted twice. Outside the 15 though there is no practicality whatsoever.


So I counted it as C Major + 1 through 7 #s and 1 thru 7 flats (15) *plus *A minor + 1 thru 7 #s and 1 thru 7 flats (15)... so a total of 30. I don't think we consider any other modes as keys since they are 'just' scales - Ionian and Aeolian are special - right?

I really don't want to be_ that guy_ but this is kinda my point of the thread. I'm trying to reconcile that the circle of Fifths is simultaneously 12, 24, 15 and 30 keys and also a horsehoe that's either a 4th or a 5th descending or ascending depending on your viewpoint!!!!


----------



## bryla

Yes if we are talking major and minor then we get to 30.


----------



## Kent

bryla said:


> There are 15. 'C-major' + 1-7 sharps + 1-7 flats. I don't know how you came to 30 though. That would assume you counted C-major as B-sharp major. But still remember that in the 15 mentioned, three are already counted twice. Outside the 15 though there is no practicality whatsoever.





Like this, if you’re Victor Wooten 😉


----------



## bryla

Yes I had a brain fart before since I assumed we were still talking about the steps on the circle of fifths.


----------



## Jrides

youngpokie said:


> Personal opinion: modes and counting of the intervals is one "viewfinder" on music theory. I was never able to "get it" from that vantage point, because it didn't explain the bigger picture to me and I was _always_ getting bogged down in details which in the end simply didn't add up.


yeah I am also curious if there are books or videos that go into more detail regarding your preferred approach.


----------



## youngpokie

Alexandre said:


> any recommendation on a book, videos or courses that take this more holistic approach? It really speaks to me, thank you!





Jrides said:


> yeah I am also curious if there are books or videos that go into more detail regarding your preferred approach.


Hi. Sorry, I missed these before. I don't think "my approach" is all that different from the way the traditional harmony is taught, at least in Europe. The one thing that's potentially different is the view on practical application, but I cannot be sure because it's been a long time.

When I studied harmony, it was taught using the most basic of tools: take 4-bar or 8-bar segment and fill it up with harmony, starting from the end and going backwards to the front.
The functions, cadences, voice leading, resolution of various chords were all taught using that schematic. Visually, it looked roughly like this snippet, let's say early in an exercise (I just filled this with some notes to have a graphic):






The S and D and T functions would then be filled with actual chords that can actually work in that function (ii, V and vi, for example). However, conceptually it was always presented as this or that isolated topic and the angle was always analysis-based. For example, the Neapolitan chord and how it resolves. Or harmonizing the given bass or given melody. Endless voice leading exercises. Very theoretical and often very boring.

It didn't occur to me until much later and after a long gap that instead of abstract analysis, I can use this as a blueprint for building my own chord progressions and transforming them creatively. Not aimlessly trying this or that, but actually understanding what I'm doing. That was my a-ha moment, when the light bulb suddenly went on. I went back to all of my old books and everything was somehow falling into place and making sense. It's really like a Lego, from a certain perspective.

I think it was a mindset switch. For example: I know the basic harmonic pattern is V-I (or IV-I) and that it can be lengthened, altered, amplified or toned-down and concluded with various degrees of emphasis. So, the real question becomes - how does the new thing I learn become an actual technique, and more precisely - _where and how would I use it in that 8-bar sequence_.

Using this mindset, a simple course in harmony like this one offers a ton of practical techniques. All that's needed is deliberately applying each topic into a sequence like above. Orchestrating it in various ways, making it rhythmic instead of sustained, playing with it until it becomes recognizable and very familiar, like second nature. And in a resource like this on cadences, it is even presented as raw chord progressions usable immediately:






Funnily enough, I even tried it in Cubase - drawing 1-bar long MIDI-parts in an empty track to visualize an 8-bar sequence so that I can use it without notation. What matters most is the question itself - where and how do I apply X, Y, Z in my own 8 bar sequence.

Sorry for the length of this (and it's really just scratching the surface and not even touching suspension, sequencing, modulation, chromaticism, odd vs equal length and other tools). Maybe it's taught like this today, I have no idea and I don't claim any great invention. But once I stumbled upon it, it became very meaningful and useful to me.


----------



## David Cuny

JimDiGritz said:


> It's become much clearer to me - there are actually 30 keys, not 12 or 24. This is making it a lot easier to grasp!


For understanding *V → I* movement, I find it simpler to ignore the key and scale, and just look at the roots of the chords.

When you're just looking at _harmonic function_, you can often ignore the chord quality. This is especially true for *V → I* progressions.

You can also ignore root _direction_. It doesn't matter if the root of the chord ascends by a fourth or descends by a fifth. Because the harmonic motion isn't really controlled by the interval the root moves.

So these are all the same type of harmonic progressions, irregardless of the type of chord or whether the root ascends by a fourth or descends by a fifth:

*C → F
C7 → Fmin
Cmin11 → Fdim
Csus → Fmin*

Easy-peasy.


----------



## rgames

Music theory is just a set of conventions that have emerged as humans have tried to come up with a way to record their musical ideas in a way that will allow others to reproduce them (notation) and understand what is going on (functional harmony).

There's certainly logic behind a lot of it but the logic is tougher to identify in some aspects and some situations. For example, the whole point of some 20th century music was to get away from the ideas that functional harmony tries to describe.

Music theory is less like conventions in mathematics and more like conventions in language: fraught with confusing examples that show faults in logical structure.

I mean, we drive on the parkway and park on the driveway. Come on.

rgames


----------

