Why do I have such a problem with understanding music theory?

[Francis_Vaughan]

@drad_dog

Sounds like transposition is to suit human needs and limitations. That’s ok with me. Crude musicians have access to all ranges to compose though.

Here is the crux: is the implication of science here that the tone called C and chords around it are more “right” when played on a guitar, because that’s the way the compromise was cut when it got laid down? All the ratios are simpler and they sound truer there with A at 440?

Not really. I don’t think all the nuances of key have been fully worked out, but here are a few things that complicate matters.

A guitar is nominally an equally tempered instrument. In reality it is only an approximation to that (as are pretty much all physically realised instruments - you really can only get exactly right with a synthesiser.) Guitars can never get exactly to equal temperament, and the issues with how it mismatches lead to a range of intonations that suit different styles and needs. Just how you tune a guitar makes a difference. Simple things like tuning up the guitar fretting the fourths yields a different tuning to tuning on the harmonics, which yields a different intonation using an electronic chromatic tuner. Usually all are good enough for rock and roll, but not good enough for many jazz players. (You get things like the Buzz Feiten system, - which if you read the history seems to eventually turn out to be an approximation to Werckmeister temerament.) You can tweak the intonation on a guitar to suit a range of needs, and the compromise is that you always make it worse for some others. Some keys will sound bad, other good. Some positions sound good, others not so good. It will depend upon your needs. But there isn’t any initial base level “right one”.

The question of A 440 is more difficult, as the variations over the years are more about timbre than the actual frequency. The change in pitch over time has been very small really. But the implication for instruments has been much more severe. An instrument constructed for a lower pitch A, will when tuned higher be stressed more, and the partials will move in slightly inharmonic ways that mean the instrument sounds slightly different. The drive to higher pitches in orchestras seems to have all been about making the string sounds cut through with more sizzle. Just the slight rise in pitch isn’t the whole story.

There is some suggestion that we respond to individual notes in different ways. No matter what, the entire octave spans a two to one variation in frequency. If we have some sort of deep intrinsic feeling about notes spanning such a range, there is probably some reason to believe there is an intrinsic emotional/feel attached to the key centre chosen, so that there is some artistic merit in that choice. Something I think that supports this notion is that people can attach colours to individual notes, and there seems to be some consistency in what colours are associated with which notes.

All real instruments have the above mentioned compromises, even instruments that are considered as transposing. Typically even a piano will have a temperament that favours some keys over others. When you are faced with a full orchestra the problems faced with so any instruments that fundamentally can’t transpose and have preferred keys means the key chosen has a lot of implications. Indeed a key may have been chosen because it has a poor match, and thus has a dark, bright, slightly weird feel. But that doesn’t come from the intrinsic nature of the key, but from the intricacies of the various intonations and miss-matches.

No matter what, for reasons I outlined earlier, it is very very hard to get perfect note ratios, and the mismatches all colour the result. These mismatches vary with key, scale and the intonation of the instrument, leading to certain keys having certain colours, on certain instruments. YMMV.

[JKellyMap]

@drad_dog

So what’s the difference? If it’s only the only the nomenclature then it’s not a musical consideration really.

EXACTLY! That’s precisely what I was trying to explain to Nava and Biffster in my first post about this, several days ago.

The only confusion was caused by the fact that English speakers do ocassionally use the WORDS “do re mi…,” but to refer to something else entirely. Nava’s calling this a “false friend” was perfect – that refers to a word which LOOKS like a word in another language, but MEANS something else.

[JKellyMap]

@pulykamell

I’m not entirely sure I’m understanding you. Yes, whatever system you use, whether fixed chords or Roman numeral/Nashville notation/whatever function harmony notation, you need to know the starting pitch…

Oh, I agree with everything you wrote. I was just musing philosophically for a moment on drad dog’s intriguing observation that, thanks to technology, we are moving toward a world where thinking in terms of absolute pitch isn’t always so important.

Like Eonwe said, there will always be situations where one way of thinking or the other is useful, so any musician should be conversant in both. I think drad dog’s observation means that we’re shifting from a world where (numbers made up) “70% of the time we think absolutely, 30% relatively” to a world where the numbers are more “60%, 40%”. Not a huge shift, but noticeable.

To go back to the spatial analogy, it will always be useful to have both “left, right, forward, back” AND “north, south, east, west” in one’s vocabulary.

[JKellyMap]

@drad_dog

2. I don’t know a lot of horn stuff. Can I ask what you mean by “tuned to absolute pitch value” as applied to a horn?

In the most commonly used absolute pitch system, A in English (la in Spanish) is at around 440 beats per minute. The piano uses this, as does the guitar and (I think) the trumpet.

But for some reason I cannot fathom, for certain other instruments, everything is shifted by a certain interval. A clarinetist learns that a certain fingering on their instrument produces a note called an A (say). They learn how to read music like anyone else. They see a note that everyone knows indicates an “A” – say, the second space from the bottom of the treble clef staff. They play the note in band practice. But it’s a DIFFERENT note from the trumpet’s A! Not slightly off pitch – a different note altogether (I can’t remember the shift interval, but it’s like a flatted fourth or something).

(This isn’t about temperament – that would just affect minor adjustments, like “should A be 440, 442, or 445?”, not wholesale shifts.)

[pulykamell]

@drad_dog

2. I don’t know a lot of horn stuff. Can I ask what you mean by “tuned to absolute pitch value” as applied to a horn?

I think we’re talking about transposing instruments here. Guitar, piano, flute, etc., are all written such that if you see a C in the score, you hear a C from the instrument. Transposing instruments like many horns, are transposed such that if a tenor sax sees a C in the score and plays it, you hear a Bb. With an alto sax, you’d hear an Eb. This is why they’re called Bb and Eb instruments. So, if you wanted to write a score for tenor sax that is in concert C, you’d have to write it out in the key of D. (But most often what happens is the C instruments end up playing in flatted keys. That’s why when you play with horns, you most commonly see scores in concert Bb or Eb or Ab or F or whatnot.)

[JKellyMap]

Right. “There was this one time? In Band Camp? When we realized that our scores were in different keys, but when we played together, it sounded fine?”

[Eonwe]

@JKellyMap

But for some reason I cannot fathom, for certain other instruments, everything is shifted by a certain interval. A clarinetist learns that a certain fingering on their instrument produces a note called an A (say). They learn how to read music like anyone else. They see a note that everyone knows indicates an “A” – say, the second space from the bottom of the treble clef staff. They play the note in band practice. But it’s a DIFFERENT note from the trumpet’s A! Not slightly off pitch – a different note altogether (I can’t remember the shift interval, but it’s like a flatted fourth or something).

(This isn’t about temperament – that would just affect minor adjustments, like “should A be 440, 442, or 445?”, not wholesale shifts.)

I play saxophone. Soprano, alto, tenor, bari. They each sound a different pitch. Playing a fingering on the alto will give a different absolute pitch than the same fingering on the tenor, for example.

Having them all be transposing instruments means there’s one fingering to play ‘G’ that works for all saxes. I can’t imagine having to re-map the fingerings per instrument (in other words, “if I hold my fingers like this while playing the alto, I sound a ‘g’. If I hold them the same way on the tenor, it’s a ‘c’”).

That’s one practical reason, anyway. The fingering for an instrument family will always correspond to the same notes on the page.

[JKellyMap]

Thanks, Eonwe. That makes sense.

[Biffster]

@JKellyMap

In the most commonly used absolute pitch system, A in English (la in Spanish) is at around 440 beats per minute. The piano uses this, as does the guitar and (I think) the trumpet.

But for some reason I cannot fathom, for certain other instruments, everything is shifted by a certain interval. A clarinetist learns that a certain fingering on their instrument produces a note called an A (say). They learn how to read music like anyone else. They see a note that everyone knows indicates an “A” – say, the second space from the bottom of the treble clef staff. They play the note in band practice. But it’s a DIFFERENT note from the trumpet’s A! Not slightly off pitch – a different note altogether (I can’t remember the shift interval, but it’s like a flatted fourth or something).

(This isn’t about temperament – that would just affect minor adjustments, like “should A be 440, 442, or 445?”, not wholesale shifts.)

Actually a trumpet’s A and a clarinet’s A are the same. Alto sax would be a better comparator. Or French horn.

[JKellyMap]

@Biffster

Actually a trumpet’s A and a clarinet’s A are the same. Alto sax would be a better comparator. Or French horn.

Right. It’s all starting to come back to me now. Reed splinters on the tongue…

[HMS_Irruncible]

@drad_dog

Sounds like transposition is to suit human needs and limitations. That’s ok with me.

No, it is to suit the * physical limits of the instrument*. Every instrument has a finite range, and it creates sounds of noticeably different timbre in different parts of the range.

Here is the crux: is the implication of science here that the tone called C and chords around it are more “right” when played on a guitar, because that’s the way the compromise was cut when it got laid down? All the ratios are simpler and they sound truer there with A at 440?

Perhaps we are making different points here. I am just pointing out that music is not simply all about relative pitches; it matters because the things produce different (or no) sound at different ranges. If electronic music is all you do, cool, it doesn’t matter much. Or if you play in a 2-guitar ensemble, it doesn’t really come into it. But in a larger context than that, you get different results in different keys.

[drad_dog]

@HMS_Irruncible

No, it is to suit the * physical limits of the instrument*. Every instrument has a finite range, and it creates sounds of noticeably different timbre in different parts of the range.
Perhaps we are making different points here. I am just pointing out that music is not simply all about relative pitches; it matters because the things produce different (or no) sound at different ranges. If electronic music is all you do, cool, it doesn’t matter much. Or if you play in a 2-guitar ensemble, it doesn’t really come into it. But in a larger context than that, you get different results in different keys.

The physical limitations of the instrument are functional human limitations and considerations. I don’t know why there would be a distinction between these things. You are talking about orchestral music and what you need to do to work with that. I don’t see a universal here. I see that as event specific and not referring to “music” or music theory.

I think, strictly from a musicological standpoint, that you can play a symphony in 12 different keys, ignoring personell and instrumentation requirements. Why is that wrong apart from simple limits of instruments and people? What are the “different results in different keys”? If it’s only that you heard 4 violins and not 3 cellos, that doesn’t strike me as a musicological problem.

[JKellyMap]

@drad_dog

I think, strictly from a musicological standpoint, that you can play a symphony in 12 different keys, ignoring personell and instrumentation requirements. Why is that wrong apart from simple limits of instruments and people? What are the “different results in different keys”? If it’s only that you heard 4 violins and not 3 cellos, that doesn’t strike me as a musicological problem.

I found your first paragraph intriguing, but for this one, it seems to me you’re neglecting the properties of human hearing. Typical human ears/brains – and, each human’s ears/brains – processes auditory input in ways that DO vary according to absolute pitch. (You can start with the most basic property: audible range. Dog whistles…)

Maybe the idea that D minor is more “bucolic-sounding” than B minor (or whatever) is bunk, but if you don’t value the difference between the Chipmunks and the same voices in their original pitch (hey, same humans, so the “personnel” factor cancels out, right?), I don’t know what to tell you.

[drad_dog]

@JKellyMap

EXACTLY! That’s precisely what I was trying to explain to Nava and Biffster in my first post about this, several days ago.

The only confusion was caused by the fact that English speakers do ocassionally use the WORDS “do re mi…,” but to refer to something else entirely. Nava’s calling this a “false friend” was perfect – that refers to a word which LOOKS like a word in another language, but MEANS something else.

One big difference though is that “do re mi” is arbitrary, and must be memorized, whereas A,B,C… is ordinal, heirarchical, and can be visualized. Technology making life simpler.

[drad_dog]

@JKellyMap

I found your first paragraph intriguing, but for this one, it seems to me you’re neglecting the properties of human hearing. Typical human ears/brains – and, each human’s ears/brains – processes auditory input in ways that DO vary according to absolute pitch. (You can start with the most basic property: audible range. Dog whistles…)

Maybe the idea that D minor is more “bucolic-sounding” than B minor (or whatever) is bunk, but if you don’t value the difference between the Chipmunks and the same voices in their original pitch (hey, same humans, so the “personnel” factor cancels out, right?), I don’t know what to tell you.

I am having a hard time making the connection between qualities of auditory systems in mammals, and music theory. Aren’t these independent things?

The chipmunks are singing the same song as the actors, from what I hear, because it’s the same recording speeded up. I can’t make the theory connection here either though. The quality of novelty, that it’s a kids record, all are non musical things that are value differences, which may make you hear the record in some way.

Some musician may play the chipmunk song in same the key as the 45 record, but it might be in a low register. Do you hear the key or the register? You could make a novelty record which shared the key of the original singers demos, but was sillier than the original 45 as released.

[JKellyMap]

@drad_dog

One big difference though is that “do re mi” is arbitrary, and must be memorized, whereas A,B,C… is ordinal, heirarchical, and can be visualized. Technology making life simpler.

That is true.

Not that this challenges your point – it doesn’t – but it’s worth noting that, in 6th-century Europe, most folks (I wager) were MORE familiar with “ut re mi fa…” as something with an intrinsic, logical order, than they were with the letters of the alphabet playing that role. In other words, the first syllables in that popular Christian hymn might have been so well known that hearing the names “out of order” may have felt odd to someone then, as odd as “C B A” feels to us.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@drad_dog

The physical limitations of the instrument are functional human limitations and considerations.

No, the vibrational characteristics of a 3-foot tube of metal is not a functional human limitation, sorry. Unless you somehow argue it’s a human constraint that we can only play metal tubes rather than a thousand ton sphere of hollow cesium, in which case your assumption is still mistaken. That object still has its own vibrational characteristics.

I think, strictly from a musicological standpoint, that you can play a symphony in 12 different keys, ignoring personell and instrumentation requirements. Why is that wrong apart from simple limits of instruments and people?

I never said “wrong”, this is a term you keep forcing into the argument.

What are the “different results in different keys”? If it’s only that you heard 4 violins and not 3 cellos, that doesn’t strike me as a musicological problem.

I… don’t think we have any common ground to discuss here. I never said it’s a “problem”, again this is judgmental language that you keep inserting. But 4 violins sounds fundamentally different from 3 cellos. And you’ll probably dismiss this as a “human” limitation again, but music is a human art form, so differences that humans appreciate are the ones that matter.

[JKellyMap]

@drad_dog

I am having a hard time making the connection between qualities of auditory systems in mammals, and music theory. Aren’t these independent things?

…

Okay. I thought you were opining that absolute pitch was of almost no importance whatsoever, when in fact your position wasn’t so drastic. You are saying, it seems, two overlapping things:

1. that a musical piece sounds basically the same transposed, as long as it’s not shifted TOO far (maybe an octave or so max?), and as long as the other qualities remain unchanged (thus, the wrong-speed mastering of the first Doors album wouldn’t count, because that also changed the timbre of the vocals). I agree this is the case, especially for electronic-instrument music, and especially for untrained listeners.

2. that most or all components of “music theory” (that’s a category with indefinite boundaries, but okay) don’t depend on the absolute notes (nor key) of the piece being analyzed. I agree with this.

[HMS_Irruncible]

So um… about this…

@drad_dog

One big difference though is that “do re mi” is arbitrary, and must be memorized,

You were born knowing ABC? You didn’t have to memorize it?

whereas A,B,C… is ordinal

Yeah, if you were educated in the Roman albphabet, not so much if you if you’re Russian, Indian, Chinese, etc.

, heirarchical

Please explain the hierarchical nature of a one-dimensional array of abstract inanimate objects. This should be cool.

, and can be visualized.

Which, firstly - why is visualization an important property of a symbology of sound? and secondly, no.

I was about to ditch this thread but honestly now I want to see what you’ll come out with next.

[Biffster]

@drad_dog

One big difference though is that “do re mi” is arbitrary, and must be memorized, whereas A,B,C… is ordinal, heirarchical, and can be visualized. Technology making life simpler.

Yes, but ABCDEFG is arbitrary as well. Why no H? Why does it end at G? Why didn’t they go with shapes instead? (In solfege they did go with handshapes, actually). Something is only F# because somebody declared it thus and the rest of us just more or less went along with it. The letters are simple enough to remember, but the frequency is probably more accurate, plus it tells you what octave you’re in. Sound engineers think in terms of frequency for pitch all the time. It’s just not a handy short form. Easier to work with A below middle C than 440 cycles/second.