B and E sharp

Factual Questions
21

After having dragged in temperament to this discussion, it may surprise you to learn that I agree with ianzin. When MIDI first arrived I had some vague hopes that it might be the catalyst forcing a much-needed reform in musical notation, as people started composing on computer, and would have to figure out a streamlined way to present the ideas. Alas, instead, the UI’s developed quickly enough to accomodate the old nasty notation to a great extent.

Look, I understand what the notation means. Well enough to have gotten through a couple music theory courses, and discuss it. However, I can’t actually play anything from it - I mean actually open a book of staff which describes something I’m not familiar with and render it. I play guitar by knowledge of chords and scale patterns, and ear. My practical use of theory is mainly to transpose practically everything I want to play to some key which accomodates my vocal range, which is actually more of a vocal notch.

Add to the currently aired gripes that the symbology for note duration is archaic and misleading in terms of the chosen graphics (that dotted note and triplet tripe in particular). The notion of time signatures could also stand some reform - measures and beats per measure are valid concepts, but arbitrarily changing which type of notation is going to represent a “beat” is silly. I think it mainly illustrates how unwieldy the note notations are.

First step in the reform might be to get rid of key signatures altogether, along with the idea that the staff represents particular PITCHES, rather than particular scale steps. Why not understand the bottom line of the staff to represent the tonal of whatever key you decided to play the thing in? You would then use some sort of sharp or flat notation only on individual notes to indicate accidentals - notes which are not in the diatonic scale, and are probably worthy of being flagged for that reason.

Minor keys and other modal stuff would have visual aids in symbolically resolving to something other than the base line of the staff - you would SEE something in a minor key parking on a long note on the line or space normally representing the sixth.

Relation of that staff to actual pitches would be something to learn for your particular instrument when asked to play it in a particular key. Note that we’ve also now got a notation that allows for retuning for just intonation without changing any of the symbolism - we simply agree that we aren’t going to use the equal temperament pitches, instead, we are going to all play instruments tuned to the “right” pitches in the key of F. For that matter, we could agree to play with a tonal = doubles and halves of 440 Hz, rather than say we are going to play “in the key of A” without changing the symbology.

In rather computer-sciency terms, we’ve abstracted the actual musical “logic” away from the details of presentation.

22

So after reading the posts in this thread, I broke out * Structural Functions in Music* By Wallace Berry to combat some ignorance. Then I got lost in Berry’s exquisitely complicated way of saying things. An excerpt:

It goes on like that for four hundred pages. I got so sucked into this book I forgot what the OP was all about.

Common views on tonality…Minor: sad. Major: happy. Phrygian: what you don’t want your spouse to be.

23

So how do you represent key changes? Especially when the change spans a few measures. In the current notation, a song can go smoothly from one key, to one key with some accidentals of another key, to the other key, whereas with a relative staff, the same note in adjacent measures would be in different places.

Another note, by the way, concerning well-tempered and just scales: While keyboard instruments were essentially made possible by well-tempered scales, many wind instruments are only capable of just scales. You have certain fixed pipe lengths, and the wavelengths you can produce are limited to simple fractions of those pipe lengths. The mismatch isn’t usually very significant, unless you’re using alternate fingerings or are playing a few octaves outside the instrument’s accustomed range, but it’s a real effect. Experienced players will generally correct for this using the tuning slides.

24

or, they may simply switch to a different instrument that is built in a different key. Hence, the E flat clarinet, for example. The original French horns, in fact, were valveless, and when the music went into a key that was not really accessable using the natural overtones available on the one that was being used, they changed horns. Eventually, they found it a bit easier to change crooks, (until someone invented valves) but the point, which has been made many times here now, is that most people’s understanding of scales comes from their familiarity with the piano, which cleverly hides these other distinctions.

25

This seems rather unweildy and cumbersome: it essentially amounts to transposing in one’s head all the time. I much prefer just remembering that a “note on the bottom of the staff” is an E, than having to think: “Ok, it’s on the second line; I’m in F major; that makes it… umm… an A!” Yes, I do realize that eventually I’d get used to it, but it seems much harder to learn than just a direct correspondence between positions on the staff and actual notes. I have several friends who play beautifully, but can’t transpose worth a damn. But they can play in any key, because they know the correspondence between tones and the notation - something that would be lost with your system of notation.

26

To continue the general questioning, after having comtributed to the ranting, I was just wondering: When I was in middle school, I played the clarinet, and we always treated it as a well-tempered instrument; we played in all keys without retuning, and things sounded fine. Is this just due to my crappy ear? Is the clarinet one of those instruments only capable of just scales?

27

I don’t get all this bitching about musical notation and theory.

“Well hell, I can talk just fine! Who the hell says I need all this grammar? I know what I want to say and I say it, so who gives a shit if it doesn’t fit into all these stupid rules? And this reading and writing crap! I don’t need to be able to read, just give me a recording of it and I’ll be able to repeat it!”

The rules describe what is happening when you play by ear, and helps us understand what will sound good, and more importantly, why. It’s possible to speak without understanding grammar, but all good writers do understand it.

And while I value improvisation and the ability to play by ear VERY highly, I just don’t buy all these guys who say they don’t need to learn to read music. If you can’t read your native language, you’re illiterate. If you can’t read music, you’re not a complete musician.

and ianzin, shifting the whole song up or down isn’t what makes the difference between “happy” and “sad”. The difference is in the type of scale. You have to be able to understand the system before you can criticize it effectively. It works well.

28

I don’t know about clarinet specifically, but I would suspect that since you have about a dozen keys, rather than a mere three or four valves, that clarinets can be (and are) made in well-temper. Even if not, you usually do have to go out a few octaves to notice a significant difference (depending on your ear), and most middle-schoolers don’t have that range.

29

I see the notation reformers are coming out of the timbre.

30

hawthorne, those of us who play the shoehorn probably wish you had posted that in the footnotes.

…as the thread morphs into silly…

31

Would you say you’re musically thick then?

I once needed a class to graduate and took an entry level music class, but the music listening class was full, so I took intro to theory. Zoing. The instructor kept telling me that, as a math major, the class was going to be easy for me. Never happened.

Looking back, I can recognize a few of my own misconceptions in your rant.

For instance, what does it mean to write in a key? You seem to think that it just means that the notation fits on the page a certain way–that the relationships among the notes are not affected. I have been assured that this is not the case, that a certain range of notes (and their ratios) is emphasized.

I’m still laughing over your suggestion that it would be “better” to call them “raised” or “lowered” rather than “sharpened” or “flattened”. How do you “raise” a note??

32

My two cents:

If you want a graphical representation of notes, then possibly the “Piano-Roll” view from cakewalk is about as easy as you can get: an 88+ row, infinite column graph, where each individual note occupies one space, note-length corresponds to the length of the graphical marker. Very logical, and completely useless if you try to read it real-time.

I d o n t b e l i e v e t h i s l i n e i s e a s i e r t o r e a d

than this one, although the above is (arguably) more “logical”.

The five lines on a stave makes it really easy on the eye to place notes, spatial-relation-wise. a line in the middle separates top from bottom, the top and bottom line frame it, and a line of division in between. 3 lines might be even easier, but then everything would be on ledger-lines above or below, and the benefit is lost. Critical if you read music as you play, practice, or even store written music.

And just to echo what others have already said: theory is born of practice - the reason why western music theory exists is that it best explains the mechanics of western music. It may seem overblown if you’re trying to figure out how to theoretically describe the inner complexities of “Mary Had a Little Lamb”, but the words “happy” and “sad” suck for deciphering a Brahms Symphony.

Lastly, the theory that gets bandied around here seems to be regarding Western Art Music. This music theory is not necessarily appropriate for analyzing or describing Jazz, Blues, Folk, Rock, Indian, Middle Eastern, African, or any other kind of music. It is appropriate for each of these other forms to determine their own theory (to describe the rules which already inherently exist in their music form), and use their own notation and words if necessary. TAB is a neat example, IMHO, considering that it’s used to relate guitar chords in music forms where the actual voicing is critical, but rhythm is either understood in context, or more flexible than regular stave. Jazz is so individualistic one can get by with just the chord letter and quality (echoes of Figured Bass anyone?).

A “grand unified theory” of music does not seem to be either necessary or appropriate.
My two cents:

If you want a graphical representation of notes, then possibly the “Piano-Roll” view from cakewalk is about as easy as you can get: an 88+ row, infinite column graph, where each individual note occupies one space, note-length corresponds to the length of the graphical marker. Very logical, and completely useless if you try to read it real-time.

I d o n t b e l i e v e t h i s l i n e i s e a s i e r t o r e a d

than this one, although the above is (arguably) more “logical”.

The five lines on a stave makes it really easy on the eye to place notes, spatial-relation-wise. a line in the middle separates top from bottom, the top and bottom line frame it, and a line of division in between. 3 lines might be even easier, but then everything would be on ledger-lines above or below, and the benefit is lost.

And just to echo what others have already said: theory is born of practice - the reason why western music theory exists is that it best explains the mechanics of western music. It may seem overblown if you’re trying to figure out how to theoretically describe the inner complexities of “Mary Had a Little Lamb”, but the words “happy” and “sad” suck for analyzing a Brahms Symphony.

Lastly, the theory that gets bandied around here seems to be regarding Western Art Music. This music theory is not necessarily appropriate for analyzing or describing Jazz, Blues, Folk, Rock, Indian, Middle Eastern, African, or any other kind of music. It is appropriate for each of these other forms to determine their own theory (to describe the rules which already inherently exist in their music form), and use their own notation and words if necessary. TAB is a neat example, IMHO, considering that it’s used to relate guitar chords in music forms where the actual voicing is critical, but rhythm is either understood in context, or more flexible than regular stave. Jazz is so individualistic one can get by with just the chord letter and quality (echoes of Figured Bass anyone?).

A “grand unified theory” of music does not seem to be either necessary or appropriate.

33

A da capo al fine post!

34

:smiley:

Actually, if you read closely, it’s a theme and variation!

And this must be the coda

(just when I thought it was safe to eschew “preview”)

35

Nope, not done yet. It must have been a false recapitulation. MilTan - I taught middle school for 33 years. I’ve lived through more band concerts than most people. If YOU thought the band sounded great, fine. Most of us, however, detect that such ensembles frequently play desifinado. Not the song, the quality. (“slightly out of tune”). That some of that discord came from wrong notes, etc. is obvious. But it also may be that as instrumentalists gain experience they also automatically learn to lip up some notes in some keys in some registers, thereby tuning (justifying) their instruments as they play, so to speak.

36

(a) It isn’t bitching. It is drawing attention to some aspects of music theory, and the way it is taught, which serve as a barrier to some people’s enjoyment of, and participation in, music. Barriers which I feel could be removed or reduced, at least in part.

(b) I’m not railing against rules, and I appreciate their function. I’m suggesting there could be better rules, or ones which work equally well while having some advantages such as being less abstruse, or less illogical.

© I understand the difference. You haven’t read my post sufficiently well to understand the points I’m making. Try to understand before you reprimand.

(d) I understand it pretty well. I can play four musical instruments, and I teach one (guitar). I’ve played professionally and semi-professionally. I’ve written and recorded my own songs. I’ve written and recorded my own instrumental compostions, using a variety of instruments and multi-track facilities. I’ve had a single released (admittedly not a very successfful one). I regularly go to rock gigs, opera and classical concerts. Good enough for you? I understand it. And I understand some of the needless illogicalities of the theory and the notation which are plainly not a problem for many people, but which are a problem for millions of others. My simple request was that some modernisation of he theory and the notation, or at least the way it’s taught, might make music more accessible to people.

I’m not being entirely self-centred. Look, I’ve earned a living as a writer. English spelling and grammar are not a problem for me - I can explain either to degree level. But I know they both suck. They’re hard to learn, and can put people off. I can see the merits of modernising and simplifying spelling, and grammar, and the way they are taught, so that English is less offputting and more embracing and inclusive. I was just suggesting the same might be true of music.

But hey, according to Joe Cool, it’s all just “bitching”. Excellent contribution, Joe. I’m sure you put a lot of thought into that.

37

I’m going to go with the first explanation. Occam’s razor, no doubt.

38

Music students at advanced levels get taught what amounts to being the theory and practice of “justifying” intonation as they play (on their nominally equal-tempered) instruments. Perhaps the most common example is that the third of a major chord should be played slightly flat in order to really sound right.

“Huh?” Let me feebly attempt to make that more clear:

In just intonation, the interval of a major third (M3) is a frequency ratio of 5:4. So, if we’re pegging our tuning on A=440 hz, a M3 above that A would be a C# at 550 hz. Similarly, a perfect fifth (P5) is a 3:2 ratio, so the P5 above that A would be an E at 660 hz.

In equal temperament, though, a M3 is four equal half-steps, where the ratio between half-steps is 2[sup]1/12[/sup]). Four half-steps, then, is a 2[sup]4/12[/sup], or 1.260. An equal-temperament C#, then, is 554.4 hz. Similarly, an equal-temperament E is 659.3 hz.

An equal temperament version of a major triad (e.g., A-C#-E) will sound OK, and that’s really all you’ll get on an equal-tempered keyboard instrument. However, if you get that played by three strings (or even three woodwinds or brasses), and the guy playing the C# flattens it just a tad (from 554 down to 550 hz), the quality of the chord will improve and it’ll just sound more “in tune”.

Yeah, the E is technically a hair flat, but the C#'s out-of-tune nature is more obvious to most.

These are differences that can be heard, which is why people bother with them.

39

First, I appreciate Ianzin’s relatively calm response to the criticism. On the SDMB, occasionally someone responds to well-intentioned (harsh) criticsm with a real flaming answer. Thanks for just answering. We pride ourselves in our civility here. Second, there are some intersting parallels between teaching music and teaching writing. One is this: there are no rules you must follow in writing Enlish any more than there are in writing music. The “rules” that we refer to from time to time are not prescriptions, but descriptions. They describe the language as the users understand it and have sort of agreed to use it. You can write what you want. You can compose what you want. How that’s taken by the reader/performer depends in some measure on the language they have in common. I, therefore, am agreeing with a writer above who suggested that we COULD revolutionize it, but so could we revolutionize the English language - but it would really be a pain and probably counterproductive.

40

If you are trying to tell us that Irving Berlin, the Beatles, Buddy Holly, and Jimi Hendrix are not complete musicians, I think you will find a lot of people here disagree with you.