If you guys think you’ve got problems, check this guy out. First half of the video is the guitar’s maker, second half is the musician. Linda Manzer / Medusa Guitar / Holy Grail Guitar Show / VintageandRare.com - YouTube
A…G is ordinal, therefore it isn’t arbitrary. It’s alphanumeric. I can’t understand the rest of what you’re saying. I haven’t waded into why there is no H and I don’t think I should. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether you have an ordered or random naming system. Alphanumeric is a technology that was introduced and became memorized in other contexts much earlier and with much more importance than note names. Therefore it is a more powerful idea.
For myself I have a picture in my mind of the ordered letters, but not note names. The alpha names have a relationship to each other perfectly defined for me. YMMV.
Well, actually, since we’re nitpickers here, you will find H in German key notation. (It represents the key of B. B represents B flat.) 
I know it has nothing to do with your point, but just wanted to throw that out. I remember coming across a chord chart for some church music when I was a kid and was really confused when I came across an H chord. There’s also some piece of classical music that is escaping me right now with movements or sections or whatever in keys based on Bach’s name (B-flat, A, C, B).
I’m asking what the difference is if one thinks there must be one.
It sounds like some want to say that things that are really high or really low are musically distinct simply because they are really high or low. They aren’t, in theory anyway as far as I know. They are just being played on different instruments that have different ranges. But the ranges are independent of music theory. If you can connect them I’d like to see it.
I get what you’re saying, but in some important ways it is arbitrary, too. I mean, unless you think oxen always walk in front of a house, and camels behind it, with a door behind them… 
Late ETA: Actually, the BACH thing is an established motif, used in many pieces. ETA2: Huh, the BACH key signature cross referenced in there is pretty cool and clever, too. Never seen it before. One whole note set on the middle line of the staff represents all the notes of the BACH motif (Bflat, A, C, B) using the treble clef, alto clef, and tenor clef.
So, to be clear: if a song is in A, then if someone plays it in F, it should sound the same? Of if someone plays a song in A 440, it should sound the same as the same song played in A 432?
“Musically distinct?” Obviously so! That phrase could mean so many things, including absolute pitch range at which a piece is played or sung. (To most listeners, it is *less *distinct if the pitch difference is small, that’s true – I already agreed with you on that).
The vibrational …etc. are human considerations. I used that word in addition to limitations. I’m not sure what your disagreement with me is based on. Why are we discussing the instruments in the orchestra?
If you are saying I can’t play your beethoven piece in the key I want to then we have a problem. If you can’t play your piece because you have the wrong configuration of players, you have a problem. My idea of a problem is the nexus of what we are trying to parse out, not accusing you of having one.
The first I do all the time. I push a song up to Capo 7, or 8 because it’s not working to raise the pitch by 3 or 5 half steps. You go lower and the melody undergoes some adjustments. That’s my limitations. But I think of it as the same song. (If I was a different singer, I might have had the capoed take as the original one and had to change that.)
The second point is that if the band is in tune it will be a coherent song, wherever A is located. It may be cents or even mils off but I won’t hear that as a listener. I don’t think I even care. I just want my things that get recorded to be in tune with a tuner, so that I can interpret the tape well.
“The same song”? Generally, yes. (But even the concept “same song” has fuzzy boundaries, and a big enough absolute pitch change could conceivably push the envelope).
But “same” without qualifiers puts the goalposts in a different part of the football field.
I didn’t have to memorize the note names. I already had that down when I was 6 years old. Do you see why that might be advantageous? Do you understand the ordinal nature of the alphabet, and that this can be used to create heirarchies of categories ordered?
You see no advantage in “visualization” within a system like that? You don’t use mental pictures to do critical thinking? Did you ever picture the guitar fretboard or the piano keyboard in your mind? Music is so spatial that I find visualization to be a primary skill.
Even if you put me in another country, if the notes had an order to them I would be advantaged, if it was based on alphanumerics.
If I’m thinking about a problem that has a time or space dimension, I might use mental pictures, but music isn’t a problem to be reasoned through. Music does have dimensionality (frequency, time, intensity) so I passively “see” things when I hear music, but it’s nothing to do with how I play or think about music.
No, not really. The layout of the instrument isn’t a problem to solve, it’s just an arbitrary and uninteresting skill to be learned by rote. Some instruments are laid out in some linear analogue to a number line that represents frequencies, some aren’t (a trumpet? The finger position is basically a 3-bit number… how do you visualize that?)
Let’s do a thought experiment. We are at war with each other and we have to be the first to solve a problem to prevail. We need to name all the squares on a chessboard and remember them, and I presume you’re going to use a variation of solvege. Anyway, I just solved it now, I know all the squares names and locations, by a grid, and by my familiarity with letters and numbers. So I win, and live, by my advanced technology.
Let’s do another: Jimi Hendrix played tuned down a half step. Anyone think about that when they listen? Did he feel different about the tunes? Was it a compromise with something? Down a half step is up 11 half steps too.
All singers tune down as they age, but they may keep the same material.
Stevie Ray Vaughn, Eddie Van Halen and Jimi Hendrix all tuned down because it fundamentally helped them get their tone. They felt they sounded different playing a somewhat lighter-gauged set tuned to E. They thought they sounded and played better in Eb.
Most of what has been written in this thread lately, while interesting, will be woefully unhelpful to the OP at this stage in his studies. I wouldn’t be surprised if it scared him off of the thread entirely.
My advice to him remains the same: don’t overthink it. It can be fun to overthink stuff when you already know a lot about it. But from where the OP is standing, my guess is he’s looking at all of this deeply analytical stuff about frequencies, temperments, and absolute pitch, and either his eyes are glazing over or he is intimidated by the idea that there is so much out there that he “needs” to learn.
OP: Get your guitar and play a C major arpeggio. Then play a D minor arpeggio.
One of these chords (outlined as an arpeggio) is major. One of them is minor. But they can still be part of the same key. Because the notes that make up the D minor chord are all contained in the C major scale.
This is the I and the II of a basic chord progression. This piece of information will be more useful to you at this stage of your skill level, than anything above.
Jacquernagy, it’s true the thread wandered beyond its original purpose. Thanks for getting back to the OP’s request.
Good idea to start with a couple of triads, both strummed and arpegiatted.
However, I would start with two chords that are harmonically more closely related than the two you mentioned. Either go with a I and a V (for guitar, you typically start with E major and A major, or else G major and D major – all easy to finger with standard tuning)…
…or, especially if you want to introduce the idea of major vs. minor, go with a I and a vi (that is, any relative minor) – that way, they’ll TRULY share the same scale, as you were hinting at. (For guitar, I’d do G major and e minor, or else maybe C major and a minor).
In other words, “I II” is not a “basic chord progression” at all – actually, it’s quite unusual. The Beatles start “Eight Days a Week” with this, but harmonically you shouldn’t even call the second chord a II, but rather a V-of-V. Best to stay away from any hint of all this for now.
I don’t mean the I and the II by itself is a “basic chord progression”, but that it could be PART of a basic chord progression in C major. Ie the I and the II of it, in addition to the III, IV, V, etc.
I just want this guy to get the idea that you can have minor chords in a major key.
Sounds good. I’d still start with any chord, then next learn its V, and then its vi, and then its IV. That way, very quickly you’ll be able to play a LOT of songs … AND, because you’ll have learned that V and IV and vi are more important than other relationships, you will have started to lay the groundwork for music theory, without having to really learn about it (yet).
For guitarists, the easiest chords to learn in the above order would be G, D, e minor, and C.
It was also much easier to bend the strings that way.