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



## JimDiGritz (Feb 12, 2022)

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 scale is has the raised third (from the minor scale)? What about ah yes, the Major scale, that's the standard old Neopolitan scale with the 2nd and 3rd raised!!" (I may have got those wrong BTW!!)

Maybe I'm being obtuse or questioning a basic paradigm like "why do we use Base-10 numbering???"

For context I'm working through the scale numbering concept and still getting confused with (for example) what the 5th note of a minor scale is. Eg the V of C major is G, however the 5th of Am (it's relative minor) is E and is referred to as the iii (which is it's position in the MAJOR scale - surely E isn't really the iii of Am??)

I also remember comments like my old guitar teacher saying that he still thinks of scales as to how they relate to the Major scale which got me asking this..


----------



## Bee_Abney (Feb 12, 2022)

My guess would be that it's down to historical happenstance. But there should be an interesting story or stories there. A lot is cultural. What to the West sounds sad (minor scales) are used for happy music in the Middle East.

C is the third note (iii) of the A minor scale. C# (III) is the third of A major. For both scales, E is the fifth note (V). Hopefully clearing that up helps a little.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 12, 2022)

Harmonic series . The first 5 partials are a maj chord . Root, Octave, Fifth, Fourth ( next Octave ) Third. 

best

e


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Feb 12, 2022)

JimDiGritz said:


> 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 scale is has the raised third (from the minor scale)?


because the major scale uses a perfect third. Not raised or augmented. Also see ed's comment on the harmonic series


----------



## Bee_Abney (Feb 12, 2022)

I should have thought of that explanation. I'm so forgetful. It makes sense in the context of instrument creation (e.g. the length of strings and placement of frets). It, of course, does not explain cultural variations and so is not the whole story.


----------



## JimDiGritz (Feb 12, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> My guess would be that it's down to historical happenstance. But there should be an interesting story or stories there. A lot is cultural. What to the West sounds sad (minor scales) are used for happy music in the Middle East.
> 
> C is the third note (iii) of the A minor scale. C# (III) is the third of A major. For both scales, E is the fifth note (V). Hopefully clearing that up helps a little.


Thanks, am exposing my utter lack of understanding publicly here!!

In the Key of C Major, G is the V, isn't it? 

If I'm playing the C Major scale it's C(I), D(ii), E(iii), F(IV), *G(V)*....

If I'm playing the A minor scale (which includes exactly the same notes) the five/fifth is E, A(i), B(iidim), C(III), D(iv), *E(v)*

I don't expect a basic theory lesson here - clearly I need to go back to the fundamentals and find a course online that explains it!!


----------



## Rob (Feb 12, 2022)

Richard Wilkinson said:


> because the major scale uses a perfect third. Not raised or augmented. Also see ed's comment on the harmonic series


Only fourth, fifth and octave are perfect, thirds are major or minor ( or dimished/augmented )


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic (Feb 12, 2022)

I think there's also something to be said for familiarity, and comfortability. For most of us, we grow up listening to music using the major and minor scales, so we can relate to music in these modes, which can potentially allow us to enjoy it more.


----------



## Rob (Feb 12, 2022)

JimDiGritz said:


> 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 scale is has the raised third (from the minor scale)? What about ah yes, the Major scale, that's the standard old Neopolitan scale with the 2nd and 3rd raised!!" (I may have got those wrong BTW!!)
> 
> ...


It's important to check the sources from which we get information, I see a number of mistakes in the "explanations" you quote. For instance, minor scales don't have a flatted third, but a minor one. Also, be sure not to mix scales and intervals with chords built on scales... Roman numerals are used for chords, arabic for single notes/intervals.


----------



## JimDiGritz (Feb 12, 2022)

Rob said:


> It's important to check the sources from which we get information, I see a number of mistakes in the "explanations" you quote. For instance, minor scales don't have a flatted third, but a minor one. Also, be sure not to mix scales and intervals with chords built on scales... Roman numerals are used for chords, arabic for single notes/intervals.


Thanks, this is where a more structured learning journey would help rather than a combination of YT videos. I'm also probably misunderstanding perfectly well explained concepts too!!!

I'm not blaming the teachers here!!!


----------



## Macrawn (Feb 12, 2022)

It's just a construct that became accepted. The ear gets used to certain constructs/ arrangements and so forth. Other cultures have more dissonant sounds as very accepted "normal" things.

Eventually people apply so many rules to these constructs, and they are so widely accepted and used that people can't even think beyond it. Language is just like that. Until you learn another language and begin to understand how thought is actually limited by the language. You construct your ideas in your native language with all the baggage and limitations attached to it.

It became widely accepted probably because it was easy to get a pleasing sound because the scale is so limited in scope. It's hard to get something that doesn't sound good comparatively.

I always thought Harry Partch was cool for inventing his own instruments and scales. I'm stuck with a midi controlled that is locked into this system and I'm too old and lazy to get out of it. Maybe old isn't an excuse. Plenty of people started late.


----------



## Kent (Feb 12, 2022)

JimDiGritz said:


> 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 scale is has the raised third (from the minor scale)? What about ah yes, the Major scale, that's the standard old Neopolitan scale with the 2nd and 3rd raised!!" (I may have got those wrong BTW!!)
> 
> ...


So there are at least two things at play here:

One, this is _a_ framework for understanding, from a single point of reference, what the differences are. The major scale, for a number of reasons, tends to be the initial access point for learning about western music theory, so learning about non-major scales necessitates comparing those scales against the major to see where they are different. There are other ways to consider all of this, all with their own pros and cons, but this is generally a useful construct for many pedagogical purposes—for example, in addition to being that common ‘entry-point’, learning (say) that C major has no flats or sharps in its key signature and that E♭ major has three flats (B♭ E♭ A♭)…and that C minor is the relative minor of E♭ major and therefore shares its key of three flats…and it turns out that going from C major to the parallel C minor requires adding three flats (to the third, the sixth, and the seventh scale degrees)…and what are those pitches 😏? So it can be a useful way to construct these mental relationships.

Two, do be careful about how you use numbers to describe things. Just like we have different sets of numbers for counting (one, two, three) and ordering (first, second, third), music theory has numbers of different semantical categories which apply to specific uses. Scale degrees are Arabic numerals 1 2 3 (or more specifically with a caret hat like 1̂ 2̂ 3̂ but those are hard to reproduce easily unless you’ve set up your computer for it); chords of a scale are Roman numerals (so I ii iii). E major is the V of A minor, but a true A minor (the natural minor) has E minor as the v. The pitch E is the 5̂—that is to say, the fifth scale degree—in the keys of A major and A minor. Keeping your numbering systems straight will lead to less confusion in the long run.

Hope this helps!


----------



## youngpokie (Feb 12, 2022)

Macrawn said:


> It's just a construct that became accepted.


This. 

All Western European music is based on one single never-ending scale of different intervals "constructed" by the Greeks using tetrachords and it's still debated whether or not it is artificial or based on real folk music. The specific portions, or segments, of that infinite scale are what we now call modes. There's quite a few of them and they differ from each other based on the particular sequence of half and whole steps, like a DNA as it were.

Our basic major and minor are two of those modes, but they have one additional and very peculiar characteristic - exceptionally strong sense of tonality (arising due to maj/min 3rd, mentioned above), which was discovered kind of by accident when a 3rd voice was added to organum chanting in church and triads were created.

When composers realized how amazingly expressive and dramatic this tonality thing is, they gradually abandoned the other modes and focused exclusively on these two for 300 years. Minor was used to express sorrow and major was a perfect fit for glorification of God, beauty of life, positivism, everything warm and fuzzy, etc. It was even called "durus" in Latin - "grand" - and became the face of the tonal system.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Feb 12, 2022)

JimDiGritz said:


> Thanks, am exposing my utter lack of understanding publicly here!!
> 
> In the Key of C Major, G is the V, isn't it?
> 
> ...



That's right.

Sorry I didn't know about - or remember - the convention of using Arabic numerals for notes in a scale. In addition to this, I can't read music. But even a little bit of theoretical knowledge, and of the vocabulary of music, can be a major help. Especially in communicating and receiving information. It has limitations, and you wouldn't want it to get in the way of you imagination. But I think it is better to be familiar with one tradition of musical categorisation than none at all!


----------



## Lea1229 (Feb 12, 2022)

JimDiGritz said:


> Thanks, am exposing my utter lack of understanding publicly here!!
> 
> In the Key of C Major, G is the V, isn't it?
> 
> ...


The Roman numerals represent the relationship between the notes, even though the same set of notes (key signature) is used, the way any single note/ chord will be perceived, is different. When you play a c major scale and you start and end on C, it feels like "home". If you play an A minor scale and stop on C, it feels incomplete - because the note C will have a different relationship to all the other notes when it occurs in C major vs A minor. So we're not going to assign it the same roman numeral because it's relationship and function is different.


----------



## AcousTech (Feb 12, 2022)

I found this very helpful while wrestling with similar theory questions:
Why Does Music Only Use 12 Different Notes?


----------



## ClaudioT (Feb 12, 2022)

As far as I know, very different types of scales where used in ancient times (some are actually still used in Middle East, Asia and India). At some point, Pythagoras, or more probably some student in the Pythagorean school, tried to find some natural justification of the scales used in Greek music.

They ended up saying that you could built basic tetrachords, groups of four notes, within the span of a perfect fourth. A perfect four was the interval between the sound of a string having a certain length and another string with 3/4 of that length. The two notes in between were variable, so between a C and a F you could have a D and an E, or a Db and a Eb, for example. The different types of tetrachords you could built were named after various regions of the Ancient Greece where, apparently, that certain tetrachord was more widely used. Those names are still used today, though they have no strict connection with Greek tetrachords (Ionian, Dorian, ...)

It seems that at some point the use of two equal tetrachords having the C as the center tone became more common: G A B C (WS-WS-HS) + C D E F (WS-WS-HS). This tetrachord was built from "perfect" ratios, ratios derived from 3/2 (a fifth); Greeks could do quite impressive things with integer (natural) numbers, ratios and strings! Reasonably, the two half steps give this sequence of notes a strong resolution power, and people found its use quite satisfying.

Now, I'm not very sure about what I'm going to write next: it looks like the Greeks where coupling one descending tetrachord with one ascending tetrachord, so the structure was actually C B A G + C D E F, and the C was the important note in the sequence, the note around which the melody was structured (ancient melodies apparently had a stepwise structure for the most, departing and returning to the central tone very frequently). So, despite the sequence starts from G, the important note is C.

At some point Guido d'Arezzo introduced the solmization, from which then derived the modern solfege. The solmization was someway based on the position of the half step in tetrachord, so tetrachords were still there and alive. However, the sequence of the two tetrachords reorganized and spelled as C D E F G A B (C) was already in use, since Guido d'Arezzo based the new naming system on it.
To be fair, he actually used the first syllables (= tone) of a chant with verses sarting on each of the notes of the scale. The chant was very well known to every monk, so each note was already in the "Vocal chords" of every singer (something like today's " Doe, a deer, a female deer - Ray, a drop of golden sun ...")
By the way, at that age, ancient Greek modes were already evolved in the modern major scale and natural minor scale.
I don't know if those two arrangements of notes became widely used because they were satisfactory to the ear, or because Pythagoras students made the tones derive from geometrical ratios. Since almost all the written music was sacred music, chances are that the Church allowed the use of scales built from perfect ratios: Pythagoras theorized tetrachords with perfect ratios -> the Church accepted the theory -> God only does perfect things -> God's music only has to use sequences of notes with perfect ratios.
And indeed, Gregorian chants make a wide use of perfect fourths, fifths and octaves.
So probably, people became more and more used to major and natural minor sounds, because that was accepted by the Church, that was what they could listen to during Masses, and that was the only music they could probably listen to at all.

This is what I have understood from some reading, at least!
(M. Mila - Storia della musica, DeA - Tutto Musica - Sorry, guys! Italian books 🤷‍♂️ )

If someone knows better, please correct or add!


----------



## rgames (Feb 12, 2022)

It's less arbitrary than base 10 numbering because there are physics behind it (harmonic series) but there is still an element of arbitrary (arbitrariness?) in it.

The major scale turns out to be the basis of a lot of music that people have liked over hundreds of years. So it's a good reference.

rgames


----------



## Kent (Feb 12, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> When composers realized how amazingly expressive and dramatic this tonality thing is, they gradually abandoned the other modes and focused exclusively on these two for 300 years. Minor was used to express sorrow and major was a perfect fit for glorification of God, beauty of life, positivism, everything warm and fuzzy, etc. It was even called "durus" in Latin - "grand" - and became the face of the tonal system.


Sorry, but a lot of this explanation is just wrong.

Cantus durus/hexachordum durum is so-named because it is GAB♮CDE, and thus uses the ‘hard’ (in Latin: durus/a/um) (not ‘grand’) ‘b’, which looked like a square lowercase b that evolved via scribal shorthand into ♮ (and in contrast to the hexachordum molle, FGAB♭CD, which contained the soft b which evolved into the ♭—these evolutions are why Germanic-theory calls B♭ ‘B’ and B♮ ‘H’, too). It has nothing to do with major/minor and everything to do with the shape of the hexachord (which were all ‘major-ish’ as we conceive the concept: the hexachordum naturale (no ‘B’ of any kind) was CDEFGA; the three hexachords on F C and G evolved into our three main clefs, too).

Thus,

Soft Hexachord: FGAB♭CD
Natural Hexachord: CDEFGA
Hard Hexachord: GAB♮CDE

Also, the concept of specific emotions being tied to specific keys/modes (and especially the false binary “minor=sad, major=happy”) didn’t really emerge as a codified conceptual topic until the Baroque era and its Doctrine of the Affections.


----------



## youngpokie (Feb 12, 2022)

Kent said:


> It has nothing to do with major/minor and everything to do with the shape of the hexachord


I think in everyday practice Germany specifically was using durus and mollis to refer to key signatures for probably a full century or more before mainstream theorists finally gave up and switched to that view across Europe (Kirnberger? I might have the name wrong now). Your clarification is correct and there are hundreds of fascinating details like that sprinkled all over. The debate about the mood and meaning of flat and sharp keys is another interesting curiosity. I just wanted a "topline" version that obviously omits a couple tons of them to try to get the general arc of it right.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Feb 12, 2022)

Rob said:


> Only fourth, fifth and octave are perfect, thirds are major or minor ( or dimished/augmented )


Quite right! Mind went awol earlier


----------



## rrichard63 (Feb 12, 2022)

JimDiGritz said:


> I also remember comments like my old guitar teacher saying that he still thinks of scales as to how they relate to the Major scale which got me asking this


Each scale other than the major can be constructed by starting on a different note of the major scale. Therefore there are exactly seven scale types (or "modes"). For example, if you play the notes of the C major scale starting with the sixth (A), you will be playing an A minor scale (natural minor, which is the sixth or Aeolian mode). In other words, A natural minor has the same notes as C major, just starting on a different note. We say that the key of Am is the "relative minor" of C.

The major scale is "major" in the sense that it is the first mode of the seven, also called the Ionian mode.

Here's a clear, succinct summary:









What are musical modes and how do they function?


An explanation of the seven musical modes in Western music, examples of songs that use musical modes, and ways to play them on the piano.




www.skoove.com





Why these seven scales out of the many that can be constructed from twelve tones (and, related to this, why the white and black keys on a piano are arranged they way they are) is way above my pay grade.


----------



## Barrel Maker (Feb 12, 2022)

> why aren't we saying that the Major scale is has the raised third (from the minor scale)?



As others have stated, the overtone series, which is a naturally occurring phenomenon, contains the major third closer to the fundamental than the minor third. This results in a ratio which is simpler mathematically, and a (perceived) sound which is purer, or more harmonious, musically.

The evolution of Western music theory (i.e. Greek modes -> church modes -> etc.) helped reinforce the major (Ionian) scale as a foundation, so in a way, the answer to your question is it's a combination of nature and nurture.

P.S. Feel free to refer to a major scale as a minor scale with a raised third--F*ck the music theory police.


----------



## Rob (Feb 12, 2022)

hey mind your language! I'm the undersecretary of the music theory police...


----------



## David Cuny (Feb 12, 2022)

Hearing music isn't purely a theoretical construct - there's physics on how it works, and that comes into play in how we perceive intervals and harmonies.

A note is rarely "pure" in the sense that it's the only the "fundamental" pitch that we hear. Rather, it's a mixture of additional frequencies.

These "additional" frequencies are described as "overtones", as they are frequencies that are higher ("over") than the fundamental frequency. These frequencies can be described in terms of their rate relative to the fundamental frequency.

For example, the first overtone is twice the frequency of the fundamental, the second overtone is three times the frequency of fundamental, and so on.

You can see lots of cool pictures on the Wikipedia page.

This also works in reverse: the ear will supply "missing" pitches when given intervals, because the ear uses the same physics that creates the overtone series to convert audio waves into nerve impulses.

The order of the first few intervals - octave, perfect fifth, perfect third - can be seen as a measure of consonance. That is, the octave is the most consonant interval, followed by the perfect fifth, and they the perfect third.

The word "perfect" here denotes level of consonance.

So to answer your question: The "major" scale is used in reference to the "consonance" of the intervals, and consonance can be explained by looking at the lower intervals of the overtone series.

As for the remaining pitches, Western music chooses to build the chromatic pitch collection by constructing notes on intervals of perfect fifths. That gives a pitch collection of:

C, G, D, A, E, B, F#, C#, G#, D# A#, F

but the circle doesn't _quite_ close, so you end up with a gap called the Pythagorean comma. This gap was eventually resolved by piano tuners agreeing to slightly detune ("temper") the perfect fifth, which results in being able to shift from key (signature) to any other on the piano.

Measure of consonance isn't a measure of "goodness", obviously. Perfectly consonant music is _boring_, but that's outside the scope of the question.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 12, 2022)

Most western music got traction in religious settings. Here DORIAN and MIXOLYDIAN were the go-to scales. Both are easy to sing .



Once polyphony reared its ugly head and chords where formed the clients ( ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ) liked the pretty bits. God played in Major keys was the basic briefe . Unless it was about something very very sad. Then minor was tolerated .

There is also consideration with the instrument. The Harmonic series serves the west well. Not so much in JAVA !



Here the mechanics of sound production contribute to the scale used. In this case PELOG

best

ed


----------



## JEPA (Feb 12, 2022)

ed buller said:


> The Harmonic series serves the west well. Not so much in JAVA !


This statement is half false, may I respectfully counterargument. The harmonic series serves well over all the world music. On the contrary the west turned away from the natural harmonic series and music theorists tempered the scale between 1500-1600 (as I more or less remember). Today the commercial music that we hear is mostly based on tempered tuning, with the Octave being as the only natural perfect interval, the rest of intervals are tempered, thus not natural, not perfect. Maybe I understood you wrong, but the harmonic series serves well the west into the actual theoretical realm for programming audio editors, equalizers and so on, but MIDI keyboards, VI-Orchestral libraries, all are tuned 12-TET. Not so some "ethnic"/cultural/world instruments, but for the standard west instruments (electric guitar, bass, PIANO, orchestra more or less) they are mostly 12-TET.


----------



## Kent (Feb 12, 2022)

JimDiGritz said:


> 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 scale is has the raised third (from the minor scale)? What about ah yes, the Major scale, that's the standard old Neopolitan scale with the 2nd and 3rd raised!!" (I may have got those wrong BTW!!)
> 
> ...


Just want to return to this and offer a different lens of perspective:

This is exactly the kind of questioning one should be asking. 

Most explanations of ‘why’ in this thread and elsewhere are posthoc rationalizations, and while many hold some water, nothing completely answers the question (nor could anything).

The spirit of seeking the rationalizations behind even the most ‘obvious’ mores is what leads to surprising discoveries. Look up NNT’s concept of ‘platonic folds’, which describe the gap between the model (which nothing in human cognition is not) and the objective reality (which nothing in human cognition perceives directly).

Never feel lesser for asking questions about ‘basic things’! A spirit of seeking is the best engine for growth.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 13, 2022)

JEPA said:


> On the contrary the west turned away from the natural harmonic series and music theorists tempered the scale between 1500-1600 (as I more or less remember).


Half true !...they tweaked it to allow key changes. And there was a precedent. Just like the columns and front of the Parthenon were built with a curve, this was so It "looked right".... The harmonic series was "curved" so it sounded right. It's still the basis of most music in the west

best
E


----------



## JEPA (Feb 13, 2022)

ed buller said:


> The harmonic series was "curved" so it sounded right


But what is to sound right? That is cultural dependent, like stated before in this thread, it is an agreement.



ed buller said:


> It's still the basis of most music in the west


This I have said, for example the piano is tunned 12-TET.

Cheers,
Jorge


----------



## Rob (Feb 13, 2022)

to add to that, in practice musicians tune to each other while playing, so the temperament isn't really always happening. Just listening to how French horns or trombones and trumpets play chords is a demonstration of that. In sample world, when you have vibrato, the pitch is also deviating from the ideal tuning, so it's more complex than it seems...


----------



## JEPA (Feb 13, 2022)

Rob said:


> to add to that, in practice musicians tune to each other while playing, so the temperament isn't really always happening. Just listening to how French horns or trombones and trumpets play chords is a demonstration of that. In sample world, when you have vibrato, the pitch is also deviating from the ideal tuning, so it's more complex than it seems...


True! Winds specially but also strings (I played violin, guitar, now piano), even the chords of a guitar don't fit every key well. There was a big development in tuning from theorists in times of the Vihuela, Lute and Oud.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 13, 2022)

JEPA said:


> But what is to sound right? That is cultural dependent, like stated before in this thread, it is an agreement.
> 
> 
> This I have said, for example the piano is tunned 12-TET.
> ...


your splitting hairs. Agreement ?...without this correction BACH wouldn't have given us the well tempered clavier !

best

e


----------



## JEPA (Feb 13, 2022)

ed buller said:


> your splitting hairs. Agreement ?...without this correction BACH wouldn't have given us the well tempered clavier !
> 
> best
> 
> e


I love Bach ❤️. But there exist different tuning systems, and none of them are right or false, they are. Humans adopted tuning systems through cultural agreements of what sounds "right " to they ears, like your example of Parthenon, some made an adjustment, some didn't.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 13, 2022)

JEPA said:


> I love Bach ❤️. But there exist different tuning systems, and none of them are right or false, they are. Humans adopted tuning systems through cultural agreements of what sounds "right " to they ears, like your example of Parthenon, some made an adjustment, some didn't.


what I have said !

e


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 13, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> I should have thought of that explanation. I'm so forgetful. It makes sense in the context of instrument creation (e.g. the length of strings and placement of frets). It, of course, does not explain cultural variations and so is not the whole story.


The harmonic reason is something of a post-hoc argument: it's a reasonable possibility but not the reason why it's taught that way.

The reason is primarily historical, as you wrote, coupled with the relative ease of teaching some concepts ahead of others. The major scale has the leading tone, for example, and there are multiple minor scales. And the tonal system largely dominates western music theory. Given those factors, where else would you choose to start?


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 13, 2022)

JEPA said:


> This statement is half false, may I respectfully counterargument. The harmonic series serves well over all the world music. On the contrary the west turned away from the natural harmonic series and music theorists tempered the scale between 1500-1600 (as I more or less remember). Today the commercial music that we hear is mostly based on tempered tuning, with the Octave being as the only natural perfect interval, the rest of intervals are tempered, thus not natural, not perfect. Maybe I understood you wrong, but the harmonic series serves well the west into the actual theoretical realm for programming audio editors, equalizers and so on, but MIDI keyboards, VI-Orchestral libraries, all are tuned 12-TET. Not so some "ethnic"/cultural/world instruments, but for the standard west instruments (electric guitar, bass, PIANO, orchestra more or less) they are mostly 12-TET.


That's not the point Ed was making: the design of the predominant instruments seems to influence the scale, which is the core of William Sethares' work on tuning and scale. Being based on metallophones, the dominant harmonic series in Gamelan are completely different to those based on instruments that use air resonating in a hollow chamber - ie pretty much any other musical instrument. So, as Sethares argument goes, the various Gamelan scales tend to fit in with the metallophones.

Now, it's fair to say that the human ear/brain has a high degree of tolerance to tuning differences - so moving from pure intervals to TET isn't that big an issue. And that's where we are now.

One could define a class of synthetic instruments using FM and derive from that a useful scale in some microtonal system that has nothing to do with 12-TET.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 13, 2022)

gamma-ut said:


> That's not the point Ed was making: the design of the predominant instruments seems to influence the scale, which is the core of William Sethares' work on tuning and scale. Being based on metallophones, the dominant harmonic series in Gamelan are completely different to those based on instruments that use air resonating in a hollow chamber - ie pretty much any other musical instrument. So, as Sethares argument goes, the various Gamelan scales tend to fit in with the metallophones.


thanks !

best

e


----------



## JEPA (Feb 13, 2022)

gamma-ut said:


> That's not the point Ed was making: the design of the predominant instruments seems to influence the scale, which is the core of William Sethares' work on tuning and scale. Being based on metallophones, the dominant harmonic series in Gamelan are completely different to those based on instruments that use air resonating in a hollow chamber - ie pretty much any other musical instrument. So, as Sethares argument goes, the various Gamelan scales tend to fit in with the metallophones.
> 
> Now, it's fair to say that the human ear/brain has a high degree of tolerance to tuning differences - so moving from pure intervals to TET isn't that big an issue. And that's where we are now.
> 
> One could define a class of synthetic instruments using FM and derive from that a useful scale in some microtonal system that has nothing to do with 12-TET.


Yes, we could build our own custom tuning system for our needs. And sure thing I miss interpreted Ed's point taking Java music as a generalization of world music, that's my fault; it was my assumption.. But now I see it, apologizes!


----------



## JEPA (Feb 13, 2022)

I have made field recordings of choral chants from groups of people with different cultural background as of the european influenced cultures that sing out of the 12-TET but in line with the natural harmonic series. That was my point with cultural agreements of a tuning system, an agreement that is cultural made through heritage, etc. We ("west") have 12-TET now, grown up inside a culture that uses and supports this tuning, that's why for example I hear the "ethnic" chants of my field recordings and with "west" ears I could say they sing out of tune (but they sing accord to the natural harmonic series). But in reality when I play piano I am playing out-of-tune music in reference to the natural harmonic series. Not that I don't know that music theorist made 12-TET to find a way to "close" the octave and play in different keys with a minimum of tuning interference, but really the only natural harmonic (ed. interval) in 12-TET is the octave. So tempered systems are an agreement, "corrections", adjustments.
In this sense I would say to the OP that we use the Major scale as a foundation based on natural phenomena (the harmonic series) plus a cultural construct (agreement, context, heritage, "corrections", research). For other cultures the Major scale isn't/hasn't been the foundation of music making.


----------



## waveheavy (Feb 13, 2022)

JimDiGritz said:


> 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.
> 
> ....


Suffice it to say, the ancient Greeks started the foundation of our western based diatonic system using the Ionian mode (Major scale). Today's Ionian mode came about through historical changes though.

The mode names originate from specific regions of ancient Greece:

Ionian, from Ionia, central coastal Anatolia.
Dorian, from region called Doris, bounded by Aetolia and Thessaly, and Ozolian Locrians, and Phocis.
Aeolian, from Aeolus, third son of Hellen, originated in Thessaly, central Greece.
Phrygian, from Phrygia, west central Anatolia, considered to be a war-like mode in ancient Greece.
Lydian, from Lydia, western Anatolia.
Mixolydian, invented by a Greek poet.
Locrian, from Locris, central Greece.


----------



## Kent (Feb 13, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> Suffice it to say, the ancient Greeks started the foundation of our western based diatonic system using the Ionian mode (Major scale). Today's Ionian mode came about through historical changes though.
> 
> The mode names originate from specific regions of ancient Greece:
> 
> ...


Again, truly sorry—though there are some kernels of truth in here, this is absolutely not what happened nor is it a helpful way to think about the development of modes nor the assignment of their names.

(In fact, 'Ionian' and 'Aeolian' weren't even in a standard list of modes—or thereby extant as a unique concept against which others could be compared—until Heinrich Glarean suggested them in _Dodecachordon_ in 1547!)

We might as well name the modes we use today "Alfa Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf" for all the similarities ancient Greek modes have with medieval/church modes have with modern/jazz modes.

I would strongly suspect that when OP is learning about modes and scales, and the way that Ionian maps to Major and Aeolian maps to natural Minor, OP is doing so with contemporary study materials and conceptual frameworks.

While I do not doubt your well-intent, @waveheavy, I do believe that this sort of folk etiology makes music theory and music history far more obtuse and arcane than it needs to be for both beginners and pros.

For anybody who is interested, Part I of Gardner Read's _Music Notation_* is a _great_ introductory gloss of the development of much of our modern music notational practices and nomenclature; I highly recommend it.

*link is to an archive.org scan of the book, but you'll need a [free] account to access the full text


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 13, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> Suffice it to say, the ancient Greeks started the foundation of our western based diatonic system using the Ionian mode (Major scale). Today's Ionian mode came about through historical changes though.


It might easily look that way, but that isn't what happened at all. The modern and ancient modes share two things: a name and in the way the scales of the Greater Perfect System match up with a modern diatonic scale. The ancient Ionian mode in some texts doesn't even span a full octave as it was designed for parallel recitation: poetry reading with a strum on an accompanying lute.

The marrying of the modes in Greek literature to certain tribes was probably a bit of artistic licence, the Ionian mode doesn't even get a lot of attention in ancient texts and no-one got around to naming the modern mode we call Ionian until the 15th Century - by which time a lot of things had gotten underway.


----------



## Emanuel Fróes (Feb 13, 2022)

JimDiGritz said:


> 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 scale is has the raised third (from the minor scale)? What about ah yes, the Major scale, that's the standard old Neopolitan scale with the 2nd and 3rd raised!!" (I may have got those wrong BTW!!)
> 
> ...


1. Because of the harmonic series
2. Because major thirds are more relaxed and experienced as perfect since the Renaissance. It is also the best result when using tenor clausule (f-e to c major chord) The minor thirds are more tense, so not apropriated as a perfect start and perfect end, from the acoustic point of view.


----------



## prodigalson (Feb 13, 2022)

I may have missed it but I'm surprised noone yet has mentioned George Russell's seminal text from the 1950s, The Lydian Chromatic Concept in which is essentially argues the lydian mode is actually fundamental mode from which harmonic function emerges


----------



## waveheavy (Feb 13, 2022)

gamma-ut said:


> It might easily look that way, but that isn't what happened at all. The modern and ancient modes share two things: a name and in the way the scales of the Greater Perfect System match up with a modern diatonic scale. The ancient Ionian mode in some texts doesn't even span a full octave as it was designed for parallel recitation: poetry reading with a strum on an accompanying lute.
> 
> The marrying of the modes in Greek literature to certain tribes was probably a bit of artistic licence, the Ionian mode doesn't even get a lot of attention in ancient texts and no-one got around to naming the modern mode we call Ionian until the 15th Century - by which time a lot of things had gotten underway.


I didn't say our present system like it is today came directly from those areas in ancient Greece, but the names of the modes certainly... did, and that's what I had listed, the actual areas where those mode names came from. Thus the names of the Major scale modes didn't start in the 16th century.


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 13, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> I didn't say our present system like it is today came directly from those areas in ancient Greece, but the names of the modes certainly... did, and that's what I had listed, the actual areas where those mode names came from. Thus the names of the Major scale modes didn't start in the 16th century.


You wrote "the ancient Greeks started the foundation of our western based diatonic system using the Ionian mode (Major scale)".

Second, the modes almost certainly didn't come directly from those areas. Much like the claims about blacksmiths inspiring Pythagoras' monochord experiments, they were almost certainly a bit of "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" mythologising by one or two scholars - not least because it's not clear which Ionian mode described in the various texts is actually the original.


----------



## waveheavy (Feb 13, 2022)

gamma-ut said:


> You wrote "the ancient Greeks started the foundation of our western based diatonic system using the Ionian mode (Major scale)".
> 
> Second, the modes almost certainly didn't come directly from those areas. Much like Ptolemy's claims about blacksmiths inspiring his monochord experiments, they were almost certainly a bit of "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" mythologising by one or two scholars - not least because it's not clear which Ionian mode described in the various texts is actually the original.


I went into the origin of the names... so calm down techy.


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 13, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> I went into the origin of the names


Yes, and there isn't a great deal of evidence for those origins. If you'd like to provide some, that would be a help, though probably not to the OP at this moment.


----------



## jbuhler (Feb 13, 2022)

All this talk about temperament and tuning, and no mention of 81:80, the syntonic comma?


----------



## ed buller (Feb 13, 2022)

gamma-ut said:


> Yes, and there isn't a great deal of evidence for those origins. If you'd like to provide some, that would be a help, though probably not to the OP at this moment.


There hardley is any. My Father wrote an Opera with the Bacchae as the story. It was sung in Ancient Greek !. Papa did years of research trying to find bonafide musical fragments from that time. The delphic hymn , scales and so forth. Slim pickings. The scales he did find if memory serves where mostly pentatonic and NOT tonal at all. 

best

ed


----------



## youngpokie (Feb 13, 2022)

On YouTube, there are multiple videos attempting to recreate what some believe is one of the oldest known songs from Ancient Greece, the Seikilos. 

Even knowing this is more than likely only half-correct and that it kept slowly evolving over subsequent centuries in various ways, I personally think the emergence of tonal system based on the maj/min 3rd was a profound event in the sense that it elevated the emotional impact to the n-th degree. Like suddenly seeing in color.

That's why, despite multiple complicated details, mislabeling of modes in the Middle Ages and all the other stuff that happened, the major scale came to dominate for one single reason, _in my opinion_ - the emotional response it keeps generating in human beings to this day. And I always had this perception that children instinctively gravitate to songs that are in major because of the uplifting emotional response.


----------



## Kent (Feb 13, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> I went into the origin of the names... so calm down techy.


I think there is a way to discuss data fruitfully that doesn’t rely on ad hominems or name-calling.

I think all here agree that your original spirit of helpfulness was both appropriate and appreciated in the context of this thread. Any pushback you received was rooted squarely at the veracity of certain ideas in your post and not at all directed _at_ you or as an underhanded value judgment _against_ you as an individual. 

If this understanding was not clear to you from my own response-post, I apologize.


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 13, 2022)

ed buller said:


> There hardley is any. My Father wrote an Opera with the Bacchae as the story. It was sung in Ancient Greek !. Papa did years of research trying to find bonafide musical fragments from that time. The delphic hymn , scales and so forth. Slim pickings. The scales he did find if memory serves where mostly pentatonic and NOT tonal at all.
> 
> best
> 
> ed


Indeed. One of the unfortunate ironies of the documents that do survive from that period is that there's a lot more "dancing about architecture" description of how it was meant to work (or at least how Philosopher X or Y thought it should work) than actual examples of the music itself.


----------



## Kent (Feb 13, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> On YouTube, there are multiple videos attempting to recreate what some believe is one of the oldest known songs from Ancient Greece, the Seikilos.


These are so cool!! 

At that time Greek was a tonal (or at least pitch-accented) rather than a stress-accented language. In other words the Greek of Homer, SPA, Alexander, this hymn, and the New Testament was much more ‘melodic’ than today. IIRC this hymn is even prosodically-accurate (and might even be used as evidence for this claim?)

Fun to think about 😀


----------



## ism (Feb 13, 2022)

Here's a more mathematical take on not why the major scale is not fundamental a natural choice, but instead on how underlying phenomenon can be understood to, in some cultural contexts, make it seems a natural choice.


First, a some modal logic (which is the logic of possibility and necessity).

Lets denote an operation "[]" (pretend this is a square box) as the "necessity" operator. So take proposition x, apply the necessity operator and you get the proposition "[]x", which in a suitable context of modal logic, you can read this as "x is true in all possible future worlds".

So now instead of taking x as a conventional logical proposition, think instead of x to be a note or, better yet, a triad. We can think of x as contain a fundamental frequency as a "local" space, and all the other possible frequencies as possible future locations in this musical world.

So when we think of music, we don't really think of single frequencies. We think of:

a) notes/triads not as single tone(s), but a fundamental with overtones spread across a frequency spectrum.

b) notes/triads not sitting statically on a single isolatable moment in time, but as something with inherent expectations of movement.

So to think like this, we need to think of music more that static notation, but more a sense a note as a world spread across the frequency spectrum, but a world that holds all kinds of possible future worlds, whether in terms of a melody pressing onwards, or a chord progress, cadence etc. In all of these we have a sense of the current world anticipating a collection of possible future worlds. That is, creating a structure of pathways forward, not at the level of individual notes or chords, but of spaces in this much more complex frequency spectrum.

If you move from the tonic, to the dominant, for instance, the fundamental changes, but there's actually quite a lot of overtones that are still going to me more or less the same.

So, in terms of our analogy with modal logic, we have a world/note x, but a world with enough structure that it also contains within it possibilities for and expectations or (and resistance to) possible future worlds. The structure containing this presence/possibility is denoted []x.

There's a curious analogy with quantum theory here. Where instead of a note in a musical world, we have the current state of the world described a wave function, denoted |phi>.

Like a note, the wave function of a quantum state doe not consist of a single fact, but of a description of presence across a frequency spectrum. In the quantum world, this is of a spectrum of varying degrees of "presence" (interpreted as probabilities, though this part of quantum theory needn't concern us). So in a musical world, a single note also his this sense of a spectrum of presence. With of course the fundamental being the strongest, and the 5th being a lesser, but still quite strong presence and so on. Generalize from a single note to a triad, and you can see the aggregate sense of "presence" of each overtones becomes quite a bit more complex.


Like a note, a quantum wave function also contains the seeds of possible future worlds. Physics (specifically the Schroedinger equation if you want to get technically) defines for us a "Time evolution operator", for simplicity let's call it "T". So if our quantum systems starts in a state described by a wave function |phi>, then our future worlds are found buy apply the time evolution operator to get:

T |phi> <-- lots of math involve in actually calculating
this, but don't worry about it.

And similarly, given a note/triad x (understood similarly as spectrum of presence and not just a lone fundamental) our modal operator [] serves to project our note/triad and it's presences not from the present world/note/triad, but into the future, to divine/ produce that shape of the available paths into possible future worlds. White is what our modal operator gives us also:

[]x

Exactly what such a "time evolution operator" for music should look like is a very complex question. But clearly it needs to be more like quantum physics - which projects a spectrum of the current, multivalent, state of the world onto a multiplicity of possible, multivalent, future worlds - than classical physics. In classical physics, a particle just kind of plods along predictably and there's no need for wave functions or any kind of spectrum or multiplicity in the structure of our completely pedestrian and predictable possible future worlds. his would make for very, very boring music.


So the question of what the (Future Possible Musical Worlds) operator ( "[]") should look like is a complex one.


But also also, not necessarily as complex as you might thing.


In his paper "The Topos of Triads", Thomas Noll uses some very straightforward mathematical transforms (ie. "affine" transforms that here simply shift each overtone by, for instance, a 5th, or by a 4th etc and summing the results). And he uses this simple form of transformation to conjecture a really quite simple form for a [] operator (ie what I'm calling the Future Possible Musical Worlds operator, though he's too rigourous a mathematician to use this kind of language).

And the idea is to see if, given an note/triad x, and a way to calculate (a candidate for ) []x, then might []x somehow revealed ... what? ... some quality of resonance, or anticipation, or presence in x of it's future possible world?

More concretely, if within a scale, we move from x to y (ie a melody or chord progression), is there a sense in which something of y is already contained within []x? That is, contained as a resonance, or maybe as anticipations, or some other means of "smoothing" the path from x to y?


Conversely if a another note/chord z is excluded from the scale, then can this exclusion can be understood terms of the possible future worlds of of notes/triads that are in the scale (x[]) , just not having enough presence or anticipation of z. Can the exclusion of z be understood in this way?

And yes, it likely like even so simply a model as Noll's simple transforms offer a pretty good way to understand the construction of scales in this way.

Scales, in this account, here are about the existence of pathways through possible future worlds. Or - how readily you can get from here to there?

So writing a progression of notes note/triads is about a pathfinding your way through this reservoir of possible paths, inherent in the overtone content of notes/triads that forms the scale.


This path structure can then understood as a topology of the structure of passage of possible future worlds. And Noll's calculations of []x are designed to give us a sense of what those paths are, and how they can be understood in terms of overtone content.



This is an *extremely* handwaving account (which would appall a proper mathematician), and Noll is very carefully to stress that he's a mathematician, not a musicologist). I've also added all the quantum stuff and "many worlds" stuff myself. But still, this is a very suggestive paper.


There's another interesting dimension to this (at risk of a bit a bit of wonky). It turns out that scales, thus described by Noll's [] operator, formally form a particular type of algebra of modal logic called a "Lawevere-Tierney" algebra. Which is not something I've seen outside of some pretty hard core categorical logic and/or topology textbooks. So that's fun. If you're into that sort of thing.

But to see what's interesting about the appearance of Lawevere-Tierney topology in scales, we need to understand it's logical interpretation, and it arises in the topology of categorical logic as a generalization of truth.

Now, in the truth and logic assumed in our conventional "Mr Literal Pants" notion of bivalent logic, truth has very boring topology.

Within the mathematics of Topos Theory, this is expressed in the "truth object" of a logical world. Ever logical world has a truth object. And the Mr Literal Pants world has a truth object structured like this:

False -> True

And that's it. There's a pathway here towards truth. But it's very boring. If something is False, you can make it more true by following the (single) path from False -> True .... but, well you can see how just how boring that is topologically.

Luckily, not all logics of worlds are as boring as the "Mr Literal Pants" world. Lawevere-Tierney topology arises in logics of worlds in which truth is a quality of varying intensities. There's still point of minimal truth called "False", and a maximal point called "True", but in general there can be a network of pathways structuring the topology of the truth object. For instance the truth object from the a slightly less boring world of "trivalent logic":

False -> Not sure yet -> True

Which is only slightly less boring.

In general however, the structure of a truth object can be wonderfully complex, containing a myriad of pathways between objects in which its objects shine with (possibly) infinitely varying intensities and colours of truth.
...


----------



## ism (Feb 13, 2022)

...


And it turns out, one particularly interesting structure of truth object is precisely described by the Lawevere-Tierney topology. Which is characterized by a modal operator [], which has various properties that characterize pathways towards greater intensities of truth [2].




So it's very interesting to see that then scales can be understood quite rigorously as this exactly same Lawevere-Tierney structure.

But recall that to do this, the objects of a scale suggested by {C, D, E, F, G, A, B} are just too Mr Literal Pants to expose this internal structure, and so we had to abandon our notion of notes as single Mr Literal Pants objects described by a single frequency, and instead understand pathways defined by complex multivalencies of overtones particularly in triadic motions. In fact the richness of this approach really comes out in triads, more than individual notes.

Ok, so that was a bit long winded.

But I guess the point then is that, thus understood, the major scale arises from a choice of notes in a scale to give a kind of maximally presence of other notes in the possible future worlds of it's triads, and so especially easy, well greased logical pathways, as it were.

Which for some reason white guys during the enlightenment found a particularly satisfying way to experience the logical fabric of the world. Can't imagine why.




[1] Noll, 2005 "The Topos of Triads" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228614514_The_Topos_of_Triads

[2] https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Lawvere-Tierney+topology


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 13, 2022)

^ You are Alan Sokal and I claim my five pounds.


----------



## ism (Feb 13, 2022)

^ .. all rigorous well referenced mathematics here ... no cause to alert Mr Sokal and the postmodernism police.


----------



## sinkd (Feb 13, 2022)

Has anyone mentioned the maximal intervallic variety that is a feature of Major (and natural minor) scales? 1 tritone, two semitones, three Major thirds, four minor thirds, five M2s, and six P4ths/5ths. With inversional equivalence, all intervals occur a unique number of times, which makes the collection ideally suited for melodic variety and coherence. I agree that acoustics accounts for the major scale predominating and kind of "mapping" its harmonic function onto the same scale degrees in minor, especially V7, which requires raising scale-degree 7 (and changing the interval count: 2 tritones, 3 semitones, 3 M2, 1 Aug 2, 3 minor 3rds, 3 Maj 3rds, 4 P4/5).


----------



## Fa (Feb 13, 2022)

rgames said:


> It's less arbitrary than base 10 numbering because there are physics behind it (harmonic series) but there is still an element of arbitrary (arbitrariness?) in it.
> 
> The major scale turns out to be the basis of a lot of music that people have liked over hundreds of years. So it's a good reference.
> 
> rgames


Actually this sentence about base 10 got my attention as well, but for the opposite reason :
(not sure if anybody else wrote it later, had no time to read all, but I can't resist. In case I apologize)

- Using base 10 was not arbitrary: we used base 10 because we had 10 fingers on our hands.
- we didn't always use base 10, and not all civilizations used it all the time.

Same is for music:
- using a major scale makes perfect sense if you perceive the power of harmonic correlations, and it has to do with physics and anatomy of ears as with neural sound interpolation, etc.
- we didn't always use major scale and not all civilizations used it all the time. 

so the similitude was incredibly good LOL despite the intention of considering it a paradox.


----------



## JimDiGritz (Feb 13, 2022)

Fa said:


> Actually this sentence about base 10 got my attention as well, but for the opposite reason :
> (not sure if anybody else wrote it later, had no time to read all, but I can't resist. In case I apologize)
> 
> - Using base 10 was not arbitrary: we used base 10 because we had 10 fingers on our hands.
> ...


I love this place, what started out as a poorly worded and rambling question has lead to a really interesting discussion on the fundamentals of music!

PS Base-12 was a very common numbering system for thousands of years, I believe it was based on using your thumb to count across all 12 knuckle joints on the same hand. From a utility perspective I guess you could hold something in one hand and still 'count off' 12 items!

I also believe that is where our modern 12 month calendar and 12 hour clock came from. Perhaps music relates to a deeper pattern beyond harmonics and pitch...


----------



## David Cuny (Feb 13, 2022)

JimDiGritz said:


> I also believe that is where our modern 12 month calendar and 12 hour clock came from. Perhaps music relates to a deeper pattern beyond harmonics and pitch...


The use of 12 in clocks and Imperial measurements has the purpose of avoiding fractions when dividing.

That's also why you've got 360 degrees in a circle, because it adds a couple more divisors that conveniently avoid fractions when working with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12...

As for the number of months, it's related to the number of days in a year (360 ish) and the number of days in a lunar cycle (29.5 ish).

Beverages are apparently in 12 packs because it's more stable to ship that way, but [citation needed].


----------



## Arbee (Feb 13, 2022)

ed buller said:


> Harmonic series . The first 5 partials are a maj chord . Root, Octave, Fifth, Fourth ( next Octave ) Third.


Not sure why this thread is still going after Ed posted this on the first page. Asked and answered, no  ?


----------



## Fa (Feb 14, 2022)

Arbee said:


> Not sure why this thread is still going after Ed posted this on the first page. Asked and answered, no  ?


I would say that the thread is going on because of several reason:
- it's a lot of fun  everybody has something to say, or at least a joke to make on the topic.
- there is not just 1 answer, and we can write pages and pages of physics, history, psychoacoustic, neuroscience, ethnomusicology etc.
- because to read all the answers is too time consuming and people just read a couple of messages and then write something, because it's a lot of fun 

Anyway... sorry to contradict you, now I'm serious: the one you quoted is not the answer at all. It's just about why a major chord is nice and relaxing to listen. Nothing to do with the reason for using the major scale as a base for melodic composition, that is by far more sophisticated, and totally NOT universal (as pentatonic, emitonic and microtonal systems of cultures around the world demonstrate). We may consider it the transition between the "natural" systems (e.g. pentatonic and eptatonic modal scales) and the artificial theory based systems (western counterpoint and tonal music from 1500 to 1800): when the paradigm of music based on theory started, alternative scales and new systems were introduced artificially by composers without any ethnic or natural background. No need to tell you more, just read any book on the topic, or surf the internet


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 14, 2022)

Arbee said:


> Not sure why this thread is still going after Ed posted this on the first page. Asked and answered, no  ?


Not really, because you could just as easily make the same overtone argument for mixolydian or lydian (in the latter case, someone already mentioned George Russell's book which makes exactly that point).


----------



## dcomdico (Feb 14, 2022)

I haven’t read the Russell book but am curious. In his book on Harmony, Schoenberg references the harmonic series as the basis for tonality except that consonance and dissonance are only properties of distance from the fundamental. So all tones are “harmonic.” Regarding the dominant he observes that it both pushes and is pulled from the fundamental and ultimately disagrees the dominant is dominant at all since it is reliant on the fundamental. Regarding ontology Schoenberg is also very pragmatic. For example, he is cautious about asserting there are “rules” but rather calls such things “instructions” which provide certain practical effects. That Western music has evolved is not a reason for its deconstruction or silly arguments about its arbitrariness. It’s flexibility itself is an argument for its utility. That’s as a good a justification as you can expect of anything.


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 14, 2022)

I honestly think the whole consonance/dissonance dichotomy is a massive red herring in music other than in clarity of orchestration. It relies way too much on defining a hard line between the two, which tends to encourage an over-emphasis on the physical differences rather than trying address music as psychological responses to physical phenomena - which are far more slippery. 

For example, the tritone is officially a dissonance in most texts and yet seems psychologically consonant in some contexts while dissonant in others. And the fourth is treated as a dissonance both traditionally and IIRC even in that Noll paper (presumably because that's partly how he gets to his result) and yet it's hard to view it as truly dissonant from a psychoacoustic perspective.


----------



## Kent (Feb 14, 2022)

gamma-ut said:


> I honestly think the whole consonance/dissonance dichotomy is a massive red herring in music other than in clarity of orchestration. It relies way too much on defining a hard line between the two, which tends to encourage an over-emphasis on the physical differences rather than trying address music as psychological responses to physical phenomena - which are far more slippery.
> 
> For example, the tritone is officially a dissonance in most texts and yet seems psychologically consonant in some contexts while dissonant in others. And the fourth is treated as a dissonance both traditionally and IIRC even in that Noll paper (presumably because that's partly how he gets to his result) and yet it's hard to view it as truly dissonant from a psychoacoustic perspective.


yep—definitions distort meaning.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 14, 2022)

gamma-ut said:


> Not really, because you could just as easily make the same overtone argument for mixolydian or lydian (in the latter case, someone already mentioned George Russell's book which makes exactly that point).


True. The harmonic series actually re-inforces Mixolydian with the minor third after the major putting a flattened seventh in. Truth be told the raised seventh is a device. 

Interestingly a prominent Russian theorist gave much credence to the power of the tritone above all else. Russian music at the turn of the century ( and french for that matter ) became somewhat obsessed with neatly dividing the octave in symmetrical units. Maj3rds ( augmented , DUKAS sorcerer's apprentice ) and minor ( Rimsky , Stravinsky OCTATONIC etc ) 

best

ed


----------



## dcomdico (Feb 14, 2022)

gamma-ut said:


> I honestly think the whole consonance/dissonance dichotomy is a massive red herring in music other than in clarity of orchestration. It relies way too much on defining a hard line between the two, which tends to encourage an over-emphasis on the physical differences rather than trying address music as psychological responses to physical phenomena - which are far more slippery.


Agree. Schoenberg doesn’t create a hard line re consonance/dissonance since he sees it as a continuum vis a vis the harmonic series. The deeper you go into a thing the more paradoxical the answers become.


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 14, 2022)

Arnold did also come up with the idea of the "emancipation of the dissonance".


----------



## youngpokie (Feb 14, 2022)

ed buller said:


> Interestingly a prominent Russian theorist gave much credence to the power of the tritone above all else.


The idea being that in _C-major_ for example, "C" alone denotes tonality, while "major" is one of the several possible "lads" or "luds" (a much more sophisticated interpretation of modes, which includes the standard church modes as we know them, but also expands into multiple scales and quite a different view on consonance and dissonance, etc). For example, the idea that conventional major and minor should really be seen as a unified single "lad" or "lud" and can/should be expressed in a single scale, that is really interesting for practical composition and as a bridge to chromaticism.

I used to read a lot about all of this. Some stuff is hard to grasp, but I find the Russian system is a really fascinating mix of early Riemann and their own theoretical framework. It's a shame it's virtually unknown outside of that country. Thanks for reposting this.


----------



## Rowy van Hest (Feb 14, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> It was even called "durus" in Latin - "grand" - and became the face of the tonal system.


Dur (< Lat. durus = hard) is the German musical term for the major key. D. originates in B durum (or B quadratum) versus B mollum (or B rotundum), both from the medieval music system of hexachords.

But I see this has already being noticed. So I'll shut up now.


----------

