Some of the arguments against naming all 12 pitches...

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax And noboby's more hung up names than you diatologists.

 

but you aren't interested in chromatic music

 

don't worry - just pulling your chain.

 

Seriously though -- take time to elfect..you're on the right track with your thinking, but you are caught up in the indoctrination.

 

you are probably feeling very "put upon" right now, so your defenses are bristling...

 

This happens as the mind opens...you feel as though you face opposition from many different sides, but in honesty it's your mind struggling to let go - the weird thing about letting go is it's

taking in. when we are in defensive mode, we don't take in, we hold our breath.

 

 

but when you realize that it's your mind learning to let go...we way becomes easier

 

It's like Jack Flanders' card

 

"what is coming at you is coming from you"

 

 

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by MorePaul Worse than that! the modal system was developed to describe and classify ALREADY EXISTING chant...stuff that had been around for a long time. I think that's why you are cheating yourself, as a progressive musician, by using a fingerboard logic used to accompany folk singling during this period I mean these things predated the violin! Hell, they are so old and crusty their idea of a fret was to tie a used string aroung the neck of the instrument! You can leverage your thoughts on making the naming more symmetrical and put it to practical use right on your fretboard. You are thinking progressively here...just don't pull up short because you've been indoctrinated into a system that's so old that it predates formalized music notation

 

Sorry, but who are you replying to here? Singingax or me?

[MorePaul]

oh sorry - singingax -- I guess I should use the quote

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by MorePaul oh sorry - singingax -- I guess I should use the quote

 

It's ok - it didn't sound directed at me anyway...!

[riffdaddy]

On the subject of functionality of note names:

 

In the key of C major, note names take on these functions (amongst others--this is by no means a comprehensive list):

 

C: Root of the I chord, fifth degree of the IV chord, seventh degree of the ii7 chord.

C#: Third degree of the secondary dominant of the ii chord (V7/ii).

Db: Root of the Neopolitan chord.

D: Root of the ii chord, root of the secondary dominant of the V chord (V7/V), fifth degree of the V chord.

D#: Fifth degree of the V aug. chord (V+ or V+7).

Eb: Third degree of the common tone I diminished chord (C.T. I

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 2) And in the tempered scale they would be 11 of the possible 12 FIXED pitches. But I don't know what kind of scale you play, of course...

 

I'm not sure you actually understood what I was writing, when you replied to this.

 

You said I would only have to deal with 7 of the 12 names, when playing in a major mode using your system. That was your point to show me how 12 pitches with only ONE name and ONE function* - note my choice of words now - not at a time, but all the time - would also be very simple and useful when actually playing music. I said that very often that would not be the case. I showed you what some of the most typical alterations would be in C major.

 

The notes that would be used, are: C, C#, D, E, F, F#, G, Ab/G#, A, Bb, B. 11 different fixed pitches. I don't want to explain the obvious logic of this again.

 

You still believe it would work better with 12 names? You would have to think much more in names that we do now, we just add flats or sharp to avoid all that thinking.

 

* actually I'm wrong here. The functions would change depending on context, no matter what system we're using.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Yes. If one FIXED pitch is the root all the other FIXED pitches have a set relationship to the root. (by half-steps at least)

 

"by half-steps at least"?

 

Originally posted by Singingax 2) Actually the NOTES that would be used are C, D, E, F, G, A, B the other NOTES are using a note with an accidental though I'm certain you'll disagree with me on that definition.)

Of course I disagree, I highlighted one word in this qoutation to show you you what I mean!

 

But hey, you stick to your opinion - that is, in some cases, a cool thing!

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax As for explaining the logic of it, besides having to deal with the UNFIXED pitches of the natural scale and cumbersomeness of notation, I don't see the obvious logic. (when used with the tempered scale)

 

Then I suppose you would have a hard time with the natural scale as well. You pointed it our yourself earlier, that an A is still an A when it's the leading tone of Bb or "just" a 5th of D.

 

So actually it isn't more logical used within the natural scale, actually less logical, I'd say.

[vote4dicktaid]

 

Originally posted by Singingax 4) The pitch we now called C and the pitch we now call E are 4 half-steps and have a set relationship that never changes. C to E is a a major third (4 half-steps) if the C is the root. (remember, CONTEXT) Please feel free to show me how this would EVER change by giving a designation to all 12 pitches. (the pitch, not the function)

 

 

It wouldn't. But instead of C-Eb and C-E, indicating minor and major 3rds, we'd have fx. Jan-Apr and Jan-May, indicating the physical interval difference, but not showing the similarities these musical intervals have - that would be up to the player to find out, where as the notation system shows you with that little # or b.

[Dann'sTheMan]

Originally posted by Singingax The following is an attempt to be more clear to the diantologists who seem to miss my point with startling regularity. With the tempered scale you get 12 basic building blocks in the form of FIXED pitches. (and their octaves) Those 12 basic building blocks have a basic (and FIXED) relationship with themselves in the form of half-steps. My contention is that you should give 12 seperate designations to those 12 basic building blocks. You can then learn the basic relationships of each of building blocks that are used in the tempered scale. Functionality, modality, notationality are all side issues to that basic tenet.

 

Abundantly clear, Singinax,

 

I understand the logic of your system - and it is indeed logical. I mentioned earlier that I was an engineer, a research engineer to be precise, and logical and progressive ideas appeal to me greatly.

 

I also mentioned that organisation was important to me too, and now that I better understand your proposal, it is here that I think it is weak.

 

You are right to highlight that music is drawn from 12 unambiguous NTPs (in the tempered scale). However, music is ORGANISED around 7 NTPs - that is why we have keys. The Nashville system is organised around a key and 1234567, the Notation system and music score is similarly organised around a key signature and CDEFGAB. (We may of course draw upon the other 5 NTPs, i.e. notes that are outside the current key, through use of accidentals/flattened or sharpened NTPs.)

 

Let me repeat that once more for clarity. Music is ORGANISED around 7 NTPs and a key.

 

BUT WAIT, I hear you complain, my proposal to have 12 definitive names for the 12 definitive NTPs doesn't change this.

 

THIS IS THE POINT!

 

IT DOES...

 

You see, the definitive names for the 7NTPs that define a key, are chosen so that they are SEQUENTIAL. 7 Sequentially named NTPs in each key. This is why the Nashville system uses 1234567 plus the key name. This is why the Notation system uses 7 sequential letters plus a key signature e.g. CDEFGAB with 0 #s & bs ; or similarly EFGABCD with 4 #s.

 

Your proposal, whilst logical, reduces the dependency on the key - a stave that could represent 12 definitive NTPs doesn't need a key signature. The key is just not required any more - especially when the 7 NTPs that define it are NOT sequentially numbered. Remember my examples: C Ionian - Jan, Mar, May, Jun, Aug, Oct, Dec; and D Ionian - Mar, May, Jul, Aug, Oct, Dec, Feb ?!

 

A key plus 7 sequentially named NTPs is an excellent way to ORGANISE music.

 

A key plus 7 NON-sequential NTPs (as you might propose), brings no added advantage in ORGANISING music. Neither in terms of mental organisation, nor allowing us to concentrate on being musical.

 

A key plus 7 sequentially named NTPs is an excellent and logical way to ORGANISE music. Not everything fits into it neatly, but the advantages brought, far outweigh the disadvantages.

[riffdaddy]

 

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Would using 12 FIXED designations for the 12 FIXED pitches of the tempered scale change any of those functionalities? Anyone using the tempered scale already is doing using 12 FIXED pitches, why not have a naming system based on it as well. You need to understand that those of us here with advanced theory training can see the validity of what you're proposing. You fail to grasp the reasons why we don't use such a system. In tonal music, Db and C# are not the same because they do not share the same function (as I pointed out). In atonal music, Db and C# are the same note. However, it is highly impractical to expect musicians to learn two systems with two seperate note-naming schemes. Very seldom does a musician play either tonal or atonal music exclusively. For theoretical and notational purposes, musicians accept a system that defines tonal music somewhat more accurately than it does atonal music. Why? History. Scoff at this one all you want, but try finding anybody to volunteer for the job of converting Mahler's symphonies to a new notational system. Once you start examining the sheer volume of music out there, you'll understand just how tedious this task would be. Furthermore, there are anywhere from 200 to 1000 years (depending on your instrument of choice) of repertoire that is best defined by a tonal, diatonic system. We've only got 100 years of atonality under our belts. The majority of our music is tonal. There is no way around this simple fact. 2) Of course not, but they're the SAME pitch. (in the tempered scale) No, they're not--at least not in tonal music. I'll be playing the 5th degree of a V+7 chord slightly sharp. I'll be playing the 3rd degree of a Ger.+6 slightly flat. In atonal music, they are the same pitch. The common solution in notation is to call the note "D#" when in an ascending passage and "Eb" when in a descending passage. I've never met a trained musician who had difficulty grasping this concept. 3) I agree, but is that an argument for or against using a diatonic tone naming system. It's an argument FOR what you are referring to as a diatonic tone naming system. Again, you need to re-examine the definition of the word "tone". The current system allows composers to reflect the function of the note through the name alone. Suppose for a second that we're playing a Mozart piece. The passage we're currently playing is in the key of C. If I see a Db, I know for sure that I'm playing a Neopolitan chord. If it were the 3rd degree of a V7/ii, the note would be C#. I'll know what the function of my note is and I'll be able to make the necessary adjustments to my pitch and balance so the note fits correctly with the rest of the ensemble. It might sound confusing, but the system is quite simple once you intimately understand its workings. A discrete PITCH naming system would not provide all of this information as readily. Suppose for a second that we're calling the pitch between C and D "K". If I see a K followed by a D, I don't have a clue what the context is. I might be playing the 3rd degree of V7/ii resolving into the root of ii. I might be playing the root of the Neopolitan resolving into the 5th degree of V. Because of this, the discrete system is less effective at communicating vital information about the music. 4) The pitch we now called C and the pitch we now call E are 4 half-steps and have a set relationship that never changes. C to E is a a major third (4 half-steps) if the C is the root. (remember, CONTEXT) Please feel free to show me how this would EVER change by giving a designation to all 12 pitches. (the pitch, not the function) In a discrete naming system, the note formerly known as C would no longer be a 3rd away from the note formerly known as E. It would still be four half steps, but the interval created by four half steps couldn't logically be called a major 3rd. We call the interval a 3rd because there are three notes (diatonically) seperating them (C, D, and E). Those two pitches would now have four half steps between them, and each of those notes would be discretely named. Thus, our intervals would have to be named by the number of half steps between them, like this: C to C: unison C to C#: first C to D: second C to Eb: third C to E: fourth C to F: fifth ...etc. Now we've abolished any sort of easy explanation for the analysis of music using (what we currently call) triadic chord structures. With the current system, the intervals in a major chord are a M3 and a m3. A minor chord is built with a m3 and a M3. With the new discrete naming system, a M3 becomes a fourth and a m3 becomes a third. Now we lose the ability to define music with harmonies built from combinations of M3's and m3's under a single name. The current term is tertian harmony. If the intervals used are now called thirds and fourths, the name "tertian" doesn't apply anymore. Thus, we lose the ability to define the fundamental similarities of the functions of these intervals. It may seem like a small loss to you, but our ability to understand the music of the past 400 years is dependent on our ability to easily define it. Again, history prevails as the deciding factor. As for intervals in atonal music, pitch class theory defines interval relationships adequately--and it does so without disrupting or altering our ability to understand and analyze tonal music. Pitch class theory is unique in that it can be used independently or as a supplement to the current pitch-naming system. Musicians who use pitch class theory categorically understand the functions of using it both ways and are well-versed in both. Furthermore, pitch class theory mimics atonality's general desanctification of pitch--in other words, it doesn't treat the note "A" any differently than it does "F". Instead, it deals pretty much exclusively with the relationship between the two. 5) I'm spared the problems of notation thanks to TAB so not getting into it works for me. (considering the fact that it's a side issue) Being unable to notate music in a traditional manner severely inhibits your ability to communicate with other musicians. Since ensemble music is largely about communication, you're sort of screwing yourself. As of right now, you've cut off your ability to communicate with other musicians visually or verbally. Now you're down to aural perception alone. While this is the most important of the three, you'd better have some damn good ears to make up for not having the other two. Think of music as bowling. The ball is the music itelf--the actual notes you are playing. Communicating with other musicians is akin to hitting the pins. Your arm is going to be the most important factor here. Regardless of anything else, you must have an arm to even get the ball rolling. Imagine now that we cut off your legs and put a blindfold on you. Do you trust your arm that much? 6) If the 12 FIXED pitches of the tempered scale are odd, I'll take odd. All I suggest is that they all have a FIXED designation. And, I can always carry around a small index card with the 12 designation that I use with the 12 FIXED pitches of the tempered scale and whatever note name the diatonic tone naming system can come up with for any of those 12 FIXED pitches and cross reference them so I can tell the trumpet player what pitch I'm using. You're essentially creating your own musical language here. The vocabulary will be exclusive to you because nobody else will understand it. If this is what you're after, then run with it. None of us are attempting to dissuade you from using your own system on your own. We're simply trying to show you that you will be crippled in your ability to communicate with anybody else. If you require a reference card to communicate basic information to other musicians, you're like an Englishman trying to write a dissertation in Portugese using a pocket English to Portugese dictionary. Perhaps you can make it work. We're just trying to warn you of the potential pitfalls. We're also trying to explain to you that your system is inadequate for dealing with the analysis of music in our culture. I'm going to do a web search on pitch class theory though it probably isn't dealing with what I'm talking about.

 

 

Pitch class theory may or may not help you. Regardless, I doubt you'll find anything of great usefulness on the web. 20th century music theory is probably not a popular topic for webpages. Go to your library and see what they have. You might find that some of these books read like a college trigonometry textbook--minus the questions, answers, and clear explanations. Many of the theorists who helped develop the system had ego issues. They wrote unintelligable texts on the subject for their students with the specific intention of creating an avenue for justified belittling of their underlings.

[riffdaddy]

As a final attempt to get you to see the historical aspect of all of this, I think you need to examine the evolution of the current system. Our system is based on attempts to define and notate consonance and dissonance as it occurs in nature. 800 years ago a piece could only end on a unison or octave. Phrases ended only in unisons, octaves, or fifths. As time passed, our culture continually redifined its fundamental understanding of consonance and dissonance. The modes were not developed arbitrarily. They evolved out of our understanding of consonance as it exists in nature. Our notation system evolved out of our need to communicate interval relationships within the modes. Music evolved (and continues to evolve) because of our ability to derive various intricacies within our system, along with our continuing ability to refine and redefine our concepts of consonance and dissonance. We did not create a seven note nomenclature arbitrarily. We did it out of a necessity for communication. Musicians developed a living language, one that continues to evolve and expand to this very day. Like any language, it isn't perfect. It is, however, more than adequate. Thus, it is not necessary for us to abandon the language and create a new one.

 

 

 

 

I did this in two posts because I actually exceeded the limit for a single post. I've never done that before. I'm so proud right now...(sniffle, sniffle)

[MorePaul]

you're thinking along logical lines,

now go ahead and extend it to the fretboard.

 

 

take the resistance you see in others as an object lesson and allow yourself to apply it to your own resistance.

[Reeko2]

Singinax,

 

I know that you say you don't care about notation, but let's for argument say that you do...

 

Currently, when I see a piece of music, I first see what key it is in, based off of the key signature. I assume, given 12 different notes, that you would indicate the key somehow in the notation (key of 7 for instance).

 

Ok, many times I use the key to figure out a given way to apply the music to guitar (a good pattern for playing in the key of G for instance). Then temperary key changes or changes to the Pattern I use on the guitar are indicated by accidentals. This is how I tend to sight read music , the accidentals are indicators or flags to me that something outside the key is happening here.

 

In your 12 note system, would you flag notes outside of a major key by highlighting them, something to bring attention to the key change?

[Auggie Doggie]

 

Originally posted by Singingax I would really love for you to explain how E being 4 half-steps away from C wouldn't make it a major 3rd of C. Especially if (and EVEN if it isn't), as I stated, it's taken as the root. A major 3rd interval is 4 half-steps isn't it? If you abandon the current naming system, you also abandon intevals as we know them. A 'third' in your 12-tone system would actually be a major second. You can't call a 3 or 4 half-tone interval a third in your system, nor can you designate it as major or minor. It seem that everytime I try to talk about basic relationships the argument gets drawn into functionality or notationality or modality or tonality. These are all products of context. Function and context are the entire foundation of music theory. These concepts do not, and can not, exist in a proverbial vacuum. Once I learn ALL the basic relationships (of the 12 fixed pitches in the tempered scale) I'll know that E is the major 7th of F as well as being the major 3rd of C. These are the basic fixed relationships that can be learned using 12 designations for the 12 fixed pitches of the tempered scale.

 

 

 

 

Those of us who have even the most fundamental knowledge of theory have no trouble understanding that E is the major 7th of F and the major 3rd of C. A new system is not needed.

 

However, as I've mentioned before, if you continue with your 'system', the words 'third' and 'seventh' and 'major' and 'minor' no longer apply. You'll need an entirely new nomenclature. Otherwise, you're nothing but a windbag and a troll. Since you REFUSE to learn the system you decry, and you haven't TAUGHT anything here, your posts are in the wrong forum.

[Auggie Doggie]

 

Originally posted by Singingax Let me ask you a question. How do you show, in notation, whether you're in a major or a minor key? Or a Harmonic minor key?

 

 

 

There is no such thing as a 'harmonic minor' key; the phrase 'minor key' suffices.

[Auggie Doggie]

 

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Say what? A major 3rd is 4 half-steps. How would giving 12 designations to the 12 fixed pitches of the tempered scale change that??? You've been harping about 'un-named' notes when referring to notes that have 2 names and share a letter with another note. Coming up with a NON-diatonic system of names changes the intervals between everything but the octave. *edit* You can't call it an octave any more, either, since that would be a residue of a diatonic system. *end edit* For example, if you used numbers, beginning on "C"... 1=C 2=C#/Db 3=D 4=D#/Eb 5=E 6=F 7=F#/Gb 8=G 9=G#/Ab 10=A 11=A#/Bb 12=B "1" is the root....the E (the major third in real-life music theory for the competent) is the FIFTH note in your system. It's no longer a 'third', and is thus no longer 'major'. If you call it a major third, you're still using the system that you keep complaining about. 2) No, in the tempered scale, the 12 fixed pitches ARE the foundation of music theory. How you use any of those pitches is an application of function and context. Wrong; the theory works for just, well, and equally tempered tunings. CONTEXT and FUNCTION are what make theory work; those are abstract concepts, though, which is probably why you can't understand them. Also, you have made numerous mention of the importance of absolute pitch (ie A=440). Well, the A=440 standard is being replaced as we speak....symphonies all over the world are changing to A=442....some even A=445. According to your absolute pitch notion, A=441 (and the tempered scale based thereof) would generate ALL 'un-named' notes. The absolute pitch is NOT important...the context and function ARE. 3) Those of you who have been indoctrinated into the natural scale inspired diatonic tone naming sytem have no trouble understanding that E is the major 7th of F and the major 3rd of C. Thanks to the Nashville Numerical system, so do I. Try learning how to read music...maybe then you'd be in a position to understand something about theory. Until then, your comprehension will be limited to knowing a bunch of names with no regard to function. Hyperbole and chicken littleitis aside, I'm not talking about a new system. (though you diantologists may THINK so) I'm just talking about taking advantage of the 12 fixed pitches of the tempered scale by giving them all designations. All of the notes already have designations. You will forever look like a fool until you realize that. You pretend that the names do not exist...you choose to ignore them....ignore--->ignorance. Enjoy your bliss. 4) How does giving the 12 fixed pitches of the tempered scale 12 designations make 3rd's, 7th's and major and minor no longer apply??? The pitches and the intervals between them are named according to tonal function. E and Eb, the major and minor thirds of C, share a letter....and a space(or line, depending on octave) on the staff....they ALSO share the intervallic designation of a 'third'...one is major....the other minor. You want to get rid of notes sharing letters in their names...and you want to avoid anything and everything tonal and diatonic. That means that the major scale no longer has meaning, and a chromatic scale becomes the basis for everything. Starting on C, the THIRD note, chromatically, is D; that's a major second, not a third. You change the names of the notes, you have to change the names of EVERYTHING, otherwise, you're still using the system that you hate. More hyperbole and name calling, huh? Maybe there's a different forum for YOU and YOUR hot air. I told you exactly what makes you a troll; you are refusing to learn....and you have nothing to teach....that means that your posts don't belong in a LESSON forum. 5) And is that how it's indicated by the phrase "minor key"?

 

 

 

 

Until you understand the major/minor system (which you refuse to even try to do), any answer I would give would be futile, as it would fall on deaf ears.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax I still don't see how Eb INDICATES that it's a minor third of C unless maybe that's a part of the diatonic tone naming systems indoctrination. Only from the perspective of the C Ionian mode derived diatonoic tone naming system can you see the Eb and know it indicates a flatted 3rd.

 

Yes, of course you need to have a basic amount of music knowledge - you'll have to know that E and Eb is the third step(s) of the C major scale.

 

And you're right - it wouldn't change with your system - except that it would be a bit contradicting to "name all pitches" and call 4 half-steps a major third. You would say that you could put in whatever context you'd like to your 12 pitches. Could you give an example of that (I'm not quite an atonal player, I must admit)?

 

The relationship between the notes would not be as practical to me as the current system. Logical, yes, but not practical.

 

Why? Because with 12 fixed names, the major third would have the same relationship to the 4th as to the minor 3rd, which is physically logical, yes, but musically (you play all kinds of music you say, so you ought to get this) there is a point in having the leading tone (often the major third, in jazz sometimes the b5, and others as well) lead to another named note, while the different versions of the same basic Western musical idea of an interval share names, and to a certain extent function.

 

With 12 fixed pitches, all notes would be not only physically, but also musically equal to each other. And in Western music tradition, this simply doesn't work. It would not make anything easier. Indoctrination or not - this system is meant for Western, tonal music.

 

Yes, indeed does this system favourize the modes of diatonic music - or a better way to put it, it's built around it. For a reason, too. However, as I showed you earlier, it's not really that difficult to deal with most of the Middle Eastern/Oriental scales and stuff.

[vote4dicktaid]

 

Originally posted by Singingax A major 3rd interval is 4 half-steps isn't it?

 

 

Yes it is. And the third step of the major scale. The last defination seems easier to me.

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax It seem that everytime I try to talk about basic relationships the argument gets drawn into functionality or notationality or modality or tonality. These are all products of context.

 

 

Why do you think we do that? Because we like a system that makes sense not only on the fretboard of a guitar, but also in communication with other musicians.

 

And do you really think that the diatonic modes is not a good context to start from, when playing "all sort of music" - which, I assume, includes functional or modal music?

 

What music do you play, that would really benefit from twelve never (not even depending on context) changing names?

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax I would really love for you to explain how E being 4 half-steps away from C wouldn't make it a major 3rd of C. Especially if (and EVEN if it isn't), as I stated, it's taken as the root. The intervals are named as such because of the number of letters between the first and last note in the group. The interval of C to E is a third because there are three notes in there--C, D, and E. C# to E is also a third for the same reason. So is C to Eb, C# to Eb, and even Cb to E#. I know this seems confusing, but the nomenclature exists for this reason. I assume that you have at least some concept of how to read standard notation, so I'll notate what I'm saying here (albeit rather crudely). All of this is in treble clef: -------------------------- -------------------------- --------------x----------- -------x------------------ -------------------------- I have notated here the interval of G to B, which is currently called a major third. Each line and each space represents a note name and all of its potential variations (flats, sharps, double flats, etc.). Count the number of lines and spaces between the two notes, including the lines that the notes are on. There are three. Hence, the interval is called a 3rd. All of these intervals are also thirds: -----------|-----------|------------|-----------|------------|-----------|------------- -----------|-----------|------------|-----------|------------|-----------|------------- -------x---|-------x--|---------x--|------bx--|-------bx--|------#x-|-------#x--- --x--------|--#x-----|----bx-----|---x-------|--#x------|---#x-----|---bx------- -----------|-----------|------------|-----------|------------|-----------|------------- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1) G to B--major 3rd 2) G# to B--minor 3rd 3) Gb to B--augmented 3rd 4) G to Bb--minor 3rd 5) G# to Bb--diminished 3rd 6) G# to B#--major 3rd 7) Gb to B#--double-augmented 3rd (this interval is pretty much useless, but it exists nonetheless) I apologize again for the crude appearance. I hope it adequately illustrates what I'm saying here. In a discrete pitch naming system, each of the notes would have its own name. Thus, there would no longer be only three note names between a G and a B. There would now be five: G (?) A (?) B. Thus, we can no longer call it a third, because it does not occupy the space of three note names. It now occupies the space of five note names. We must call it something else. As you can see, our interval system has an integral attachment to our note naming system. You can't seperate the two of them. Because of this, much of the general knowledge we possess about the construction of chords simply disappears. B is no longer the 3rd of a G chord, nor is it the 5th of an E chord or the 7th of a C chord. Major and minor chords are no longer built on thirds, because the term "thirds" has no meaning. Thus, tertian harmony no longer exists. The terms "major", "minor", "diminished", and "augmented" might just as well disappear also. Their meanings are tied to the interval nomenclature. When it dissapears, so do they. Thus, there is no such thing as a major or minor chord. They no longer exist. Once you change part of the nomenclature of the system, you must change it all. I'm not talking about those or the many tones that C and E can be. My point is E is a major 3rd interval of C (in it's basic relationship) no matter what context they're used in. And THAT basic relationship NEVER changes. Actually, it does change. If we're working in a tempered scale, then C and B# are the same notes. E and Fb are also the same notes. Here is a list of various intervals that can be created with these two discrete pitches: C to E: major 3rd B# to E: diminished 4th C to Fb: diminished 4th B# to Fb: triple-diminished 5th The triple-diminished 5th obviously lacks any serious function, but the two diminished 4th intervals do occur in music. So how do you go about picking which name to use in your new system (functionality issues aside)? Is the interval between the note formerly known as C and the note formerly known as E going to be called a major 3rd or a diminished 4th? It can be either one. Thus, a discrete pitch naming system does you no good unless you're willing to have a discrete interval naming system to go with it. A major 3rd interval is 4 half-steps isn't it? Sure, if C is being used as the minor 3rd of A then (in CONTEXT) E is not a major 3rd in the A minor chord, but it's still a major 3rd (4 half-steps) away from C. You are correct about the number of half-steps--or are you? If each pitch has its own name, why do we still measure the distance between them in fractions? D to Eb is currently considered a half step. In the new system, they're really just one note apart. Thus, you should probably consider an octave to be 12 steps, not 12 half steps. That would be the logical thing to do from a mathematical standpoint. The basic unit of measure should be 1, not 1/2. Once again, you have to change the entire nomenclature. It seem that everytime I try to talk about basic relationships the argument gets drawn into functionality or notationality or modality or tonality. These are all products of context. The basic relationship that occurs between two pitches (i.e. the interval) is largely dependent upon function, as I have shown above. Context is relevant. If I'm playing in the F Ionian mode and I see that C is the 5th of F I know (without the tone naming system telling me) that it is a major chord within the F ionian mode and E will be a major 3rd (4 half-steps) away from C as a part of the C major chord. In fact wherever a C major chord is used (no matter what context) the E will always be (as a basic relationship) the major 3rd of C. But C isn't the 5th of F anymore. E isn't the 3rd of C anymore. They aren't major chords. Major chords are named as such because of the interval between the root and the 3rd. Since we can't call that interval a 3rd anymore, the name "major" disappears also. Once I learn ALL the basic relationships (of the 12 fixed pitches in the tempered scale) I'll know that E is the major 7th of F as well as being the major 3rd of C. These are the basic fixed relationships that can be learned using 12 designations for the 12 fixed pitches of the tempered scale. Again, it won't work that way anymore. The terms 7th, 3rd, and major won't exist. Your argument against the current system is that it is illogical (in your opinion). If you intend to create a new system, you must follow through and recreate every function of the system. This entails renaming the intervals and creating new names to adequately define chord shapes. All of the old names for various functions must be rendered useless. To create a system that would be equally useful to other musicians, you must rename every function of the system. You must also create a notation system that is equally useful to all instruments. It must be compact enough that musicians playing instruments with extended ranges (such as the piano--7.5 octaves) can easily read music that rapidly covers large portions of the tessitura. The system must also be able to adequately describe all of the music of the past 1000 years. If you can accomplish this with your system, you will have achieved a lifetime's worth of work. Speaking of octaves, that term would become archaic too. "Octave" essentially means eight notes--the seven note names followed by the repitition of the first.

 

[riffdaddy]

 

Originally posted by Singingax Hyperbole and chicken littleitis aside, I'm not talking about a new system. (though you diantologists may THINK so) I'm just talking about taking advantage of the 12 fixed pitches of the tempered scale by giving them all designations.

 

 

Now who's doing the name-calling here? Furthermore, where did you get the term "diantologist"? When you called us diatonics, at least you were using real words.

 

Calling us diatonics doesn't make sense either. Look here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diatonic

 

As it turns out, we are talking about chromatic alterations. Therefore, we're not really dealing with diatonicism here at all.

[Greg Cincy]

Yes, "octo"...

Also, I think that would be an undertaking that would require more than one lifetime.

Let's not forget how long it took the Pythagoreans to get the basis for the system that we currently use (not Nashville Numbering)...

The problem is that you will continue to confuse discussions like this one even moreso when you try to resolve these issues. I am willing to accept the quirks of the seven-tone system (since using notes outside of those seven scalar tones is almost-always "note"worthy when discussing a piece of music) because it acknowledges the peculiar nature of music insofar as certain notes sound better together than others. For example, this system would apparently have a systematic way of naming all tones so that you would not know that certain intervals have specific sounds. A semitone would apparently have a name of equal standing as, say, a fifth or even a seventh. I guess I'm just arguing that the idea of scales excluding some tones seems inexplicable in a 12-tone system.

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) I absolutely DONT, but OK. (I guess is better than arguing against my point) 2) I tend to think in modes and I'm not overly familiar with the idiosyncrasies of notation (thank God) so I'm probably not the person to ask but my best guess is you would indicate one of the 12 designations as the keynote. I find it odd that you're opposed to our system of notation. Are you aware that the five-line staff developed out of a neccesity to deal with the modes in a meaningful manner? Tab, which you seem to be awfully fond of, was developed in the 15th century so musical novices could play simple tunes on fretted instruments. It was never meant to replace standard notation. Tab was designed with the same intentions that spawned Cliff's Notes. Like Cliff's Notes, tab can be an excellent supplement to the real deal. When using it exclusively, however, you miss the point altogether. I think you might need to spend a little time studying music history. Here's some recommended reading: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393969045/qid=1059800733/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-4928473-8448018?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 You can get a used copy for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 plus shipping--not a bad investment for something which very well might open your eyes to a few new things. Let me ask you a question. How do you show, in notation, whether you're in a major or a minor key? Or a Harmonic minor key? There is no such thing as a harmonic minor key. There are three scales commonly used within a minor key, all of which serve different functions (once again, context is important). The first is the natural minor scale. This is the sixth mode of the major scale (the Aeolian). The notes in this scale are reflected in the key signature. In the key of A minor, the notes of the natural minor scale are {A B C D E F G A}. The second is the harmonic minor scale. This scale exists as a function of harmonic progression. The V chord of the natural minor scale is a minor chord (thus, it would actually be notated as "v" instead of "V"). Composers used the minor form of the chord up until approx. 1400 (I think--I'm a little rusty on my dates here). Around that time, they began to "borrow" the leading tone from the major scale to create a stronger sense of resolution. This turned the "v" chord into the "V" chord. Thus, the harmonic minor scale was born. In the key of A minor, the notes are {A B C D E F G# A}. The harmonic minor was not necessarily thought of as a scale in the traditional sense. Scales were intended more to reflect melodic ideas, and the harmonic minor wasn't necessarily considered useful for creating a melody---isn't it amazing how differently we look at it now? Enter the melodic minor scale. Melodies are often designed to fit the shape of the chord. They aren't really designed to reflect a key signature, though they often do by default. Rather, the melody is in what we call "the key of the chord". Thus, over an A minor chord, we would expect to see strong emphasis on the notes A, C, and E. B is used as a passing tone between A and C. D is used as a passing tone between C and E. G or G# are commonly used as neighbor tones to A. Thus, if we take a melodic passage that goes "A G# A B C D E", the B and D are passing tones and the G# is a neighbor tone. This is very common usage for these scale degrees. With the brand new V chord, composers needed a passing tone between the root of the chord (E in this example) and the recently raised 3rd degree (G#). The natural choice was F#. When viewed in relationship to the key signature, the scale created by this is {A B C D E F# G# A}. However, it is a mistake to look at it from the perspective of the i chord. A better perspective is obtained by looking at it from the point of view it was created for to begin with: from the V chord. Thus, in the key of A minor, the melodic minor scale ought to be viewed as {E F# G# A B C D E}. These scales weren't created first. They were developed to explain the music being written at the time. In this instance, the chicken came first (then it rolled over and smoked a cigarette ).

[riffdaddy]

 

Originally posted by Greg Cincy I am willing to accept the quirks of the seven-tone system because it acknowledges the peculiar nature of music insofar as certain notes sound better together than others.

 

 

Greg, I really like this part of your argument. It really demonstrates how this system was developed--out of a need to communicate our understanding of consonance and dissonance.

[Greg Cincy]

Can someone who has a clear knowledge of classical theory (i.e. "better than mine") make an argument FOR chromatic names?

I'm hearing nothing but a relatively small degree of convenience for a very small percentage of the Western World's musicians...

I'm not looking for a fight, I guess it's just a question of how I started out. I learned it this way, so I am likely to think it superior.

May I recommend Zuckerkandl's "The Sense of Music"?

It's the text my school used, and it starts out with my basic argument. I think it's from Princeton University Press and is a good primer for someone looking to learn general theory as well.

[riffdaddy]

 

Originally posted by Greg Cincy Can someone who has a clear knowledge of classical theory (i.e. "better than mine") make an argument FOR chromatic names? I'm hearing nothing but a relatively small degree of convenience for a very small percentage of the Western World's musicians... I'm not looking for a fight, I guess it's just a question of how I started out. I learned it this way, so I am likely to think it superior. May I recommend Zuckerkandl's "The Sense of Music"? It's the text my school used, and it starts out with my basic argument. I think it's from Princeton University Press and is a good primer for someone looking to learn general theory as well.

 

 

There is no historical precedent for a discrete pitch naming system. The closest thing is pitch class theory (or set class theory), which defines intervallic relationships from a strictly mathematic point of view. This is a system commonly used by both musicians and composers for dealing with music that can't be defined as easily by conventional music theory. Because the music that falls into this category is often derived using mathematical principles, it makes sense to analyze it mathematically. You can actually analyze even the most tonal music with pitch class theory, but it is designed to work best with music that is highly organized.

 

Pitch class theory has been around for about 75 years or so.