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.
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”?
“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.
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.
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.
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).
It’s the 21st century. Several ways of looking at music chromatically have emerged. There are books out there.
John Coltrane and Pat Martino were unorthodox as well. Thanks for the “swinging” reference. I always try to swing.
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.
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.
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.
As my ears are burning, I’m chiming in. @Drew’s read was correct. My obviously frustrated last comment twelve days (!) ago was meant neither sarcastically nor condescendingly. A lot seems to have been read into that since then and more, which is a shame.
Some time ago I made a video on a similar topic but I haven’t upload it on youtube yet. Seems like it’s the time )) I’ll send you a link then.
I guess there’s no point to explain it here since this whole topic looks like trolling for me so…
I think that’s just your perception. I’ve tried to avoid personal stuff. There’s too many posters here ready to point out flaws, and not enough listeners to conduct a good discussion. I’m not here to discuss music history.
No, I don’t think so. You can’t quote me being hostile. I did not “take shots” at members. You’re trying to change perceptions. In fact, why am I responding to this personal stuff? It’s not part of the discussion.
I still stand behind every statement I have made. If you have misinterpreted it, or were too quick to criticize before learning the real thrust of the posts, then that’s not my problem.
Because I started this thread, I resent the insinuation of trolling. And I think a large part of all this misperception and “right-fighting” is because many here have not learned to “think outside the box” of diatonic harmony, and its OBVIOUS correlation with the physical piano keyboard.
The short answer: very generally speaking, the guitar is a chromatic instrument, and the piano is a diatonic instrument. Don’t take that too literally, or try to punch holes in it; just take the statement the way it is intended.
Also, beyond that (if you can ever get beyond that), there are diatonic ways of thinking about music, and chromatic ways. John Coltrane was exploring chromatic aspects, and Pat Martino has already been there, done that, so these are not “obscure, off-the-wall, fringe” ideas. Martino’s teacher Dennis Sandole was teaching this stuff way back in the late 1950s.
When I said there were obvious connections in the piano and the diatonic scale (and the key sigs), I was hoping people would look at this and see it, rather than go into some music history sideline about the Church and Gregorian chant. That’s not the purpose of this. If we are guitar players, this is something we should know, or at least think about.
What is all this “trolling” stuff? I’m not here to do that, and you longer standing members should know better, and try to be nicer to newcomers than that. This is not a discussion about petty personal grievances.
Ok, well, in that case, these two bolded sections, to me, are coming across as fairly antagonistic and accusatory. If that’s not your intent, that’s totally cool, but again, you’re definitely leaving the door open to being miscontrued in a text-only environment.
But, if you stand behind every statement you’ve made, how do you reconcile “I never said that ‘key signatures don’t apply to the guitar.’” with "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." To me, that seems like I quoted you accurately, so I’m legitimately confused by your denial here.
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.”
ASTN also questioned this:
millionrainbows: “I memorized all the key signatures in theory class, but I didn’t see how they applied specifically to the guitar…”
millionrainbows: “…and they don’t.”
First of all, I’m not a beginner, and if ASTN had bothered to read my bio and go to my link, he would have known that. This was condescending. People are responding before they’re thinking.
I take nothing at face value or “that’s just because it is,” and that especially applies to music.
I saw that the guitar was a chromatic instrument.; it was much different from the piano.
Remember Pat Martino’s statement:
"… the communal language of music that all musicians share - that is, the language of scales, theory, and intervals that we all use when explaining or communicating music - really has nothing to do with any instrument other than the piano.”
I saw this same thing that Pat Martino saw, as well. I’ve already said plenty. I could go back over my posts and pull out quotes, and we could go over each one, point by point.
What specifically, drawn from my actual quotes, is it that you disagree with? Please use actual quotes.
Hey, man, I’m not being accusatory; I’m just defending myself. Your feelings of being hurt are beginning to get in the way of discussion of ideas. This is not about me; it’s a time-waster as well. I’d much rather discuss music than have to defend myself.
I agree that the key signatures don’t apply specifically to the guitar, but then again I don’t see how they apply specifically to the piano or any other instrument. A piano looks pretty chromatic to me but I’m not a piano player. Too dang hard memorizing all those different chord shapes.
As for diatonic stuff I come from a latin background and my ear is used to hearing F minor, C7, Bb major, G minor, and Eb major chords as practically diatonic in C Major.
Then why are you putting us in a position where we have to defend ourselves? I’m not hurt at all, I just feel like you’re shooting the messenger rather than debating the message, and I’m perplexed by that.
And again, you haven’t addressed my question - you’re saying “key signatures have nothing to do with the guitar,” and “I never said key signatures have nothing to do with the guitar” at the same time, and rather than trying to elaborate on what you meant, you’re accusing me of being hurt.
So, in the interest of trying to have a substantive conversation about this stuff, and honestly I’m hoping you can explain yourself here in such a way that you expand my own perspective… What exactly do you mean by that, then, about key signatures not applying to the guitar? You’ve asked for specific quotes twice now, and I’ve given them to you twice now. I’m trying to have a discussion on this, but you seem disinclined to do more than blame others and occasionally mention Martino.
I’d also be curious if you could explain how a guitar is chromatic, but a piano is not, as @Ian is also asking, but let’s get to that after key signatures.
EDIT - I mean, I guess there are two points I’m trying to get across, and they’re totally independent. The first is that tone matters, and some thought about how you present ideas can be very effective when it comes to getting people to accept or at least consider those ideas; so far you’ve mostly focused on this. The second point, though, is that I would legitimately like you to explain in a bit more depth what you’re talking about, because so far you’ve expressed a lot of opinion and mentioned Pat Martino as someone else who thinks like you, but haven’t actually really gotten into a substantive explaination as to WHY you hold these opinions. I’m way more interested in the why behind them, than I am that this is how you see music as functioning.
