Key Signatures and The Guitar

[RockStarJazzCat]

Wow, I would think that it would be more prudent to consider that maybe I was misinterpreting what Martino was saying, rather than just flat-out call his ideas “wrong.” At any rate, Guitar Player magazine thought enough of his ideas to publish the article.

The quote came from where originally, the autobiography? I don’t know where you got it, but without acknowledging logical fallacy when it arises, we don’t have much to work with in terms of science and social discourse. That doesn’t mean I’m calling his “ideas ‘wrong’” in general! Nor do I think you misinterpreted his writing. The statement as quoted is logically false and can be proven as such, and several others have already stated the facts that disprove the statement earlier in the thread. In his math, it holds true, and he’s entitled to his opinion. Doesn’t make it fact.

I see it as Holdsworth generally dismissing the idea of key signatures as being archaic, especially in the chromatic music he plays. What do you want him to do, play “Three Blind Mice?”

Not sure what you mean by the latter about playing “‘Three Blind Mice’,” but in terms of what was in that clip, he was answering a question about enjoyment and utility of Slonimsky, he was not posting the subject of this thread. I’ve already stated that many of us prefer enharmonic spellings. It’s possible to hold two ideas at the same time (that key signatures exist for a reason and that they aren’t necessary in a particular context), and it’s possible to read more into a statement than is there (“dismissing the idea of key signatures as being archaic”). In fact, he explicitly left it open ended with mention of horn players. We can agree to disagree on the interpretation.

[millionrainbows]

I’ve already stated that many of us prefer enharmonic spellings. It’s possible to hold two ideas at the same time ( that key signatures exist for a reason and that they aren’t necessary in a particular context ), and it’s possible to read more into a statement than is there ( “dismissing the idea of key signatures as being archaic” ). In fact, he explicitly left it open ended with mention of horn players. We can agree to disagree on the interpretation.

I’m glad that you have afforded me this concession. I’m still pondering the subject, and when I can flesh-out my ideas on it, I’ll post it. These are very general concepts, though, so there’s really no “proving” or disproving them, as I see it. Sometimes rational logic is too confining to be of much use in seeing the big picture. I’m not sure what your specific objections to these ideas are, but the concessions you gave are much more productive to discourse than flat-out invalidations of these ideas, which, again, are general in nature, and concern more of a “bird’s eye view” of the subject, rather than rigid assertions. These ideas could help in forming a more guitar-oriented approach to music, and that was my original purpose; not to engage in debate.
The Pat Martino quote is from the Guitar Player article of April 2004, and is reproduced in his autobiography as Appendix III.

[Alexander]

@ASTN

why key sharps goes in fifths while flats goes in fourth, why F-major is the only major scale starting with ‘white’ note which has flat instead of sharp, why ‘circle of fifth’ is actully a spiral, why flat-named scales (Db-moll for example) have less signs than enharmonical sharp-named scale (C#-major) and so on.

Would you please give us the answers to these why’s? I’d be curious to read them, because my answer to “why F-major is the only major scale starting with ‘white’ note which has flat instead of sharp” is something like “that’s just the way it is”.

@ASTN

Lets take an orchestration for example, you have to deal with the fact that one and the same note could have different pitch on different instrument. Written C would be Bb on a trumpet while french-horn would sound as F. Sometimes it makes my eye twitch.

Actually that makes a lot of sense (I’m sure you’re aware of it though). It would be very inconvenient for a sax or clarinet player (for example) to remember fingerings and read notation in concert pitch for every different instrument from the same family. Transposing instruments are just like Yngwie’s guitar, which sounds a half tone lower than it’s written.

[RockStarJazzCat]

I’m still pondering the subject, and when I can flesh-out my ideas on it, I’ll post it. These are very general concepts, though, so there’s really no “proving” or disproving them, as I see it. Sometimes rational logic is too confining to be of much use in seeing the big picture.

If you are going to keep returning to this thread, I would recommend changing the title of your thread to “millionrainbows thoughts on Pat Martino’s theories about piano vs. guitar,” or something similar, to your liking.

[millionrainbows]

RockStarJazzCat: “If you are going to keep returning to this thread, I would recommend changing the title of your thread to “millionrainbows thoughts on Pat Martino’s theories about piano vs. guitar,” or something similar, to your liking.”

Wow, how condescending! No, I don’t think that will be necessary.

[millionrainbows]

Would you please give us the answers to these why’s? I’d be curious to read them, because my answer to “why F-major is the only major scale starting with ‘white’ note which has flat instead of sharp” is something like “that’s just the way it is”.

My answer is more specific than “that’s just the way it is.”
The keyboard white notes are laid out to favor the C-major scale. On the other hand, the twelve note division of the octave was arrived at by the Pythagoran-derived process of “stacking fifths,” or interval projection. The “pythagoran comma” was later corrected by ET, but the 12-division remains, and is what’s important, not “perfect” fifths.
Piano tuners start on “F” and tune all their fifths first. Why? Because that’s the only way to get seven fifths on white notes. F-C-G-D-A-E-B. If you start on C, you get C-G-D-A-E-B----F#? No, it doesn’t work.
This reveals the nature of the diatonic major scale: it has an inherent dissonance within its octave. This was the basis for George Russell’s LCC.
The diatonic major scale was designed for modulation. It does not reinforce its own key note as well as a lydian scale does.
C-D-E-F has a leading tone E-F, which reinforces a new root on F. G-A-B-C does reinforce C. But as you can see, there is a battle between F and C as roots.
The lydian scale is better for reinforcing its own scale root of F: F-G-A establishes F, the scale root, and B-C-D-E has the leading tone B-C which establishes C, the dominant, which is the most closely related relationship to F., closer than the root/subdominant “F-C” relationship in C major.
As further harmonic proof, go to any keyboard which sustains notes, such as a string or organ patch, and begin stacking fifths from C, then on F. Use all white notes. The ear can easily hear that starting on C is more dissonant than starting on F…C-G-D-A-E-B-F? The F sounds terrible. F-C-G-D-A-E-B sounds much better.

Pebber Brown demonstrates this on a YouTube vid, which is unfortunately marred by his voice being inaudible during certain sections.
OK, jazzcat, now you can ridicule me.

[millionrainbows]

So far in this discussion, I don’t think that discussion of ideas is as important as disproving my statements. RockStarJazzCat is now implying that the ideas I am discussing are an idiosyncratic personal interpretation. I did not intend for the discussion to go in this direction. My purpose is to show guitarists (and all musical thinkers) that their instrument is uniquely chromatic, and should not have to depend on the rather archaic diatonic scale system-way of viewing things. Diatonicism is old-hat. There are new ways of viewing music which have emerged, and these are based on the chromatic scale, not the diatonics.

[millionrainbows]

ypical misunderstanding
Key signatures exist not becaise of piano keyboard, but because most common scales are heptatonic (7 grades) while we have 12 semitones in a octave. And traditional musical theory is 7 notes based. If you take a note staff then you would see that major, minor, any diatonic scale (dorian, phrygian etc), harmonic major/minor, melodic major/minor located quite logically - one grade occupies one line or place between lines. Looking at sheets you can easily find out what grade of scale is which note, which interval you have here and so on.
Sharps and flats are not to address ‘black keys’. ‘Sharp’ moves a note a semitone up, ‘flat’ moves a note a semitone down, thats it, that is their definition. Sharp sign rises ANY note up. Even ‘white’ note - thus you can get E# or, for example, double sharp F##. And you can’ t change E# to F without ruining theoretical system. Take for example C#- major - it has seven sharps, and if you know that this scale is derived from C-major using 7 steps by fifth, it looks quite logical.

Since the piano keyboard is a reflection of a diatonic scale (7 white notes/5 black), then this is self-evident. The physical keyboard, as well as our staff notation, is all based on diatonic structures. (and the sky is blue).
In fact, this diatonic system of notation begins to break down, or show cracks, when diminished sevenths spellings are involved. Also, scales with more or less than seven notes show these same deficiencies: the whole tone, 6 notes, C-D-E-F#-G#-A#, or C-D-E-Gb-Ab-Bb? Likewise, the diminished scale: C-D-Eb-F-Gb-Ab-A-B or C-D-Eb-F-Gb-Ab-Bbb-B? or Cb? The sequential letter-name system, made for 7-note scales, breaks down, and new procedures must be used to accomodate this.

[millionrainbows]

Okay. You might want to check your sources on the latter though; did you read what @ASTN explained above?

The net result is the same. This is a trivial point. Even if the keyboard evolved after the diatonic scale, it still reflects it in the same way.

[millionrainbows]

sorry, nope.
Piano keyboard is the result, not the reason. You can use whatever instrument you want. Actually, you don’t need an instrument at all. Once you start to buid scales as it’s usually done (considering C-major as a basis) you’ll get your key signatures. Without any instrument, whether its piano or guitar or electroukulele.

But you seem to missing the point that the entire language of key signatures and notation is based on diatonic scales. By your statement, this diatonic spelling language seems to be so ingrained in your thinking that you are no longer able to “think outside the diatonic box,” and that’s what I am exposing.

I guess you just don’t understand the system well yet. Once you get it, everything becomes clear, like why key sharps goes in fifths while flats goes in fourth, why F-major is the only major scale starting with ‘white’ note which has flat instead of sharp, why ‘circle of fifth’ is actully a spiral, why flat-named scales (Db-moll for example) have less signs than
enharmonical sharp-named scale (C#-major) and so on.
It has nothing to do with a piano or organ or whatever. If these instruments were not invented you’d still had to learn these key signatures )

I beg your pardon?

[Drew]

RockStarJazzCat: “If you are going to keep returning to this thread, I would recommend changing the title of your thread to “millionrainbows thoughts on Pat Martino’s theories about piano vs. guitar,” or something similar, to your liking.”

Wow, how condescending! No, I don’t think that will be necessary.

With all due respect, I think the point you may be missing is that the views you’re espousing are, at a minimum, a very “non-standard” way of looking at how music works, and some of your conclusions - “key signatures don’t apply to the guitar,” for example - are, well, somewhat controversial and things that I don’t think you can realistically expect not to have some very bright people disagreeing with you, in a conversation about music theory.

Which, again, that’s fine - very intelligent people disagree all the time, and sometimes non-standard ways of looking at things can yield interesting results - but you’re kind of coming out swinging here, and considering you’re arguing against pretty long-standing and orthodox ways of understanding how music works, I don’t think you can really justify calling it “condescending” when someone politely suggests maybe we should pause and acknowledge that you’re looking at music theory in a manner very different than most people.

[Alexander]

My answer is more specific than “that’s just the way it is.”
The keyboard white notes are laid out to favor the C-major scale. On the other hand, the twelve note division of the octave was arrived at by the Pythagoran-derived process of “stacking fifths,” or interval projection. The “pythagoran comma” was later corrected by ET, but the 12-division remains, and is what’s important, not “perfect” fifths.
Piano tuners start on “F” and tune all their fifths first. Why? Because that’s the only way to get seven fifths on white notes. F-C-G-D-A-E-B. If you start on C, you get C-G-D-A-E-B----F#? No, it doesn’t work.
This reveals the nature of the diatonic major scale: it has an inherent dissonance within its octave. This was the basis for George Russell’s LCC.
The diatonic major scale was designed for modulation. It does not reinforce its own key note as well as a lydian scale does.
C-D-E-F has a leading tone E-F, which reinforces a new root on F. G-A-B-C does reinforce C. But as you can see, there is a battle between F and C as roots.
The lydian scale is better for reinforcing its own scale root of F: F-G-A establishes F, the scale root, and B-C-D-E has the leading tone B-C which establishes C, the dominant, which is the most closely related relationship to F., closer than the root/subdominant “F-C” relationship in C major.
As further harmonic proof, go to any keyboard which sustains notes, such as a string or organ patch, and begin stacking fifths from C, then on F. Use all white notes. The ear can easily hear that starting on C is more dissonant than starting on F…C-G-D-A-E-B-F? The F sounds terrible. F-C-G-D-A-E-B sounds much better.

Thank you for the answer, but how does this answer the question “why F-major is the only major scale starting with ‘white’ note which has flat instead of sharp”?

[millionrainbows]

“In Western tonal music, the primacy of the C-major scale, played entirely on the lower keys, must derive in some measure from the traditional keyboard design.”

• The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, 1986, from the definition of “keyboard,” page 427.

Uhh, didn’t I say that?

[Ian]

The keyboard is derived from notation and it’s note name conventions. And it’s all due to Gregorian chants. Western notation was invented to record Gregorian chants.

Key signatures are really based on A minor, not C major. Most Gregorian chants were in A minor, and that’s why the notes start with A. At the time there were 8 diatonic notes in A minor- A through G plus Bb. “Bb” was originally “B” and “B” was “H”. This is why “H” is used for B in some parts of Europe.

Keyboards were invented to ring bells to accompany the Gregorian chanters. The very first keyboards had no black keys, the black keys were added shortly thereafter and over the next few hundred years the keyboard layout was developed and moved from 8 “white” and 4 “blacks” to the 7 and 5 we know today. Before equal temperament took hold on some harpsichords the black keys were split into two keys like D# and Eb.

As Western notation matured over the centuries we arrived at the staff notation and key signatures we know today. The keyboard layout we know today was so well designed and redesigned to work with Western notation that it’s easy to think it was the other way around.

[Ian]

why key sharps goes in fifths while flats goes in fourth, why F-major is the only major scale starting with ‘white’ note which has flat instead of sharp, why ‘circle of fifth’ is actully a spiral, why flat-named scales (Db-moll for example) have less signs than enharmonical sharp-named scale (C#-major) and so on.

Would you please give us the answers to these why’s? I’d be curious to read them, because my answer to “why F-major is the only major scale starting with ‘white’ note which has flat instead of sharp” is something like “that’s just the way it is”.

Why key sharps goes in fifths while flats goes in fourth: Combination of math and how the seven natural and 5 non-diatonic notes are laid out in an octave. If we went back to the beginning of notation where there were 8 natural and 4 non-diatonic notes it would be different. Kind of like the where 15 is “F” in hexadecimal and “00001111” in binary. Same number, different notation.

Why F-major is the only major scale starting with ‘white’ note which has flat instead of sharp: See above.

Why ‘circle of fifth’ is actually a spiral: In equal temperament the circle of fifths is a closed circle. Otherwise you get the “Pythagorean comma” interval and it spirals out. The circle of fifths is an observation of how the the 12 notes in an octave interact with each other.

[Frylock]

Key signatures are really based on A minor, not C major. Most Gregorian chants were in A minor, and that’s why the notes start with A. At the time there were 8 diatonic notes in A minor- A through G plus Bb. “Bb” was originally “B” and “B” was “H”. This is why “H” is used for B in some parts of Europe.

I was aware of the historic primacy of A minor, but was unaware of most of the other cool details in your post. The B/H thing blew my mind.

And I think that in an era where we pretty much take equal temperament for granted most of the time, it’s easy to see how we might overestimate the historic role of chromaticism. The idea that the earliest keyboards were diatonic (by the definition of the time) only was a real eye opener (Edit: diatonic in order to match the music they were intended to accompany).

[millionrainbows]

I never said that “key signatures don’t apply to the guitar.” I am a guitarist, and I can read music.

[millionrainbows]

With all due respect, I think the point you may be missing is that the views you’re espousing are, at a minimum, a very “non-standard” way of looking at how music works…"

It’s the 21st century. Several ways of looking at music chromatically have emerged. There are books out there.

…you’re kind of coming out swinging here, and considering you’re arguing against pretty long-standing and orthodox ways of understanding how music works…

John Coltrane and Pat Martino were unorthodox as well. Thanks for the “swinging” reference. I always try to swing.

…I don’t think you can really justify calling it “condescending” when someone politely suggests maybe we should pause and acknowledge that you’re looking at music theory in a manner very different than most people.

Politely? It did not sound like that to me.
I haven’t really argued “against” the standard diatonic approach; I’m simply think outside the diatonic box, and I think a lot of guitarists already do this.

[Drew]

Politely? It did not sound like that to me.

Ok, well, from an outsider’s perspective, your tone appears hostile and combative, even if you’re not intending it to be. That’s worth thinking about, if nothing else because a change in tone could probably lead to a more productive, fruitful conversation.

[Drew]

@millionrainbows

I never said that “key signatures don’t apply to the guitar.” I am a guitarist, and I can read music.

@millionrainbows

I memorized all the key signatures in theory class, but I didn’t see how they applied specifically to the guitar; and they don’t.

I mean, maybe you’re splitting hairs with the use of “specifically”… But, you could see where this could lead to some confusion, no?

Again, water under the bridge, the main point I’m trying to make here is your tone has been pretty argumentative and hostile, which tends to make people less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt or to hear you out when you’re making controversial or seemingly contradictory statements. Dialing it back a little and trying to engage rather than dictate or take shots at members could very well be the difference between a pretty good and potentially interesting discussion, and most of the board just writing you off and not taking your potential contributions seriously. Food for thought.