 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ArgoPete
Date: 2015-09-26 06:36
What is the benefit perceived by a significant number of woodwind players in reversing the circle of fifths and showing it clockwise as the circle of fourths. This just seems to make it less useful as Western Music is based on fifths and the circle sets out practically anything one needs to know from scale definitions through chord progressions when addressed with C at Midnight and the sharps flowing clockwise.
I do understand transposition and that most woodwinds read middle C more as a fingering guide than an actual note. I am perfectly happy with reading Open G in Bflat notation and hearing A Concert. So why change the Circle?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-09-26 06:59
ArgoPete wrote:
> What is the benefit perceived by a significant number of
> woodwind players in reversing the circle of fifths and showing
> it clockwise as the circle of fourths.
I'm confused - what order are the roots when you reverse the circle of fifths and show it clockwise as a circle of fourths?
The standard circle goes down in fifths (which is also up in fourths) - C-F-Bb-Eb..., which corresponds to V-I cadential movement between keys in traditional Western harmony. Do you mean showing it as C-G-D-A...?
I suppose the problem with doing that (as I think you suggest) is that any sequential routine (like the Klose Daily Studies) won't move smoothly in that direction without using some kind of secondary dominant to make each modulation.
> I am
> perfectly happy with reading Open G in Bflat notation and
> hearing A Concert. So why change the Circle?
Was this just a typo? When you read open G on a Bb clarinet, you're hearing concert F. But what does this have to do with circle of fifths?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ArgoPete
Date: 2015-09-26 08:35
Hi Karl
Thanks for answering but I am afraid that you have it completely back to front. The standard Circle of Fifths, as used by most musicians, is C at Midnight G at one o'çlock D at two o'clock following the order of sharps FCGDAEB. Whereas the Circle of fourths favoured by some (not all) Brass and Woodwind players is F at one o'clock Bb at two o'clock following the order of flats BEADG,
I am not sure what you play but middle C as read in Bflat notation that represents thumb and 3 fingers on the Bb clarinet is actually a whole step lower Bb in Concert notation so you are quite correct I meant F concert. I am afraid I switched context in mid stream thinking of what I would have to write for a Bflat player :-)
Since the Circle of Fifths is the basis of all Western Music I cannot see why you do not connect the two ideas. Certainly a standard ii V 1 in C concert flows beautifully D minor G Major C Major. However it is the calculation of Scales that is better covered by using the Fifths e.g. MusictheoryVideos.com and musicians typically use C concert when talking progressions.
Perhaps it is the Klosé that is the answer but many books do not mention him.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-09-26 15:54
ArgoPete wrote:
> Hi Karl
> Thanks for answering but I am afraid that you have it
> completely back to front. The standard Circle of Fifths, as
> used by most musicians, is C at Midnight G at one o'çlock D at
> two o'clock following the order of sharps FCGDAEB. Whereas the
> Circle of fourths favoured by some (not all) Brass and Woodwind
> players is F at one o'clock Bb at two o'clock following the
> order of flats BEADG,
> Since the Circle of Fifths is the basis of all Western Music I
> cannot see why you do not connect the two ideas. Certainly a
> standard ii V 1 in C concert flows beautifully D minor G Major
> C Major.
OK, I'll bite, though my instincts tell me that I ought to just drop it. Reading that I have things "completely back to front" looks a little to me like a red cape.
I *did* connect the "circle of fifths" (which is in any case only a visual representation of the theory, not a harmonic theory itself) to standard Western harmony in my first post. This is why I'm confused. ii-V-I takes you through an authentic cadence *back* to I - it doesn't lead further around the circle. I - I7(V of IV) - IV(new I) provides for a direct progression through the circle without intervening secondary dominants. In any case, C-F-Bb... *is* a circle of descending fifths. Naming one a circle of fourths is only a difference of direction. The driving force of Western harmony is V-I (a descending fifth or ascending fourth).
> However it is the calculation of Scales that is better
> covered by using the Fifths e.g. MusictheoryVideos.com and
> musicians typically use C concert when talking progressions.
> Perhaps it is the Klosé that is the answer but many books do
> not mention him.
I have no idea what "calculation of scales" means. The arrangement - sequence - of the scales (and arpeggios and the other materials) in Klose's Daily Studies is by roots in descending fifths, but that's not so much a calculation as a way of sequencing them conveniently. It's just a way to get through the 12 major and 12 minor keys seamlessly. And I have no idea what explanations are in MusicTheoryVideos.com, but musicians use C major to illustrate harmonic progressions because there aren't any chromatics to write out - it's all white keys on the piano.
So, it still comes down to my original problem, and I apologize for my density in this - I don't understand the meaning or, more important, the point of your question "What is the benefit perceived by a significant number of woodwind players in reversing the circle of fifths and showing it clockwise as the circle of fourths." The only reason to show an actual circle at all, IMO, is to teach harmonic movement to students.
I'm suspicious that we're both saying nearly the same things but using opposite terminology which is interfering with communication. Western harmony is based essentially on V - I, or more fully, I - IV - V - I. How you describe that or represent it visually doesn't change things.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-09-26 19:52
Karl's correct: the circle of fifths is simply a visual representation of harmonic distance. The Klose and other scale sequences descend by fifth because motion down by fifth creates the feeling of harmonic resolution (which is why Bach fugues, for example, often have a subdominant pedal toward their end: it disperses tension).
Adding flats in a scale sequence, therefore, gives the sensation of each key resolving into the one that follows; each scale becomes the dominant of the next. Adding sharps, however, would continually create tension; a harmonic move from C to G creates tension, which is the underlying principle of sonata-form, and needs to return to C for there to be resolution.
So a scale sequence adding flats is a series of resolutions and one adding sharps is a series of increasing tensions.
Also, scales were not created using the circle of fifths; they predate (by more than a thousand years) tonal harmony.
Post Edited (2015-09-26 23:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ArgoPete
Date: 2015-09-27 02:15
Hi All
It is a genuine question as I discovered when taking up the clarinet that in the late 20th century a significant number of wind players started writing the Circle of Fifths backwards i.e. F at 1 0'clock ... and calling it the circle of fourths. I can find little or no reference to this style in a significant number of books and wondered what the reason was.
It is now apparent that people doing this are treating the circle as simply a method of remembering straight forward progressions. I find this sad as the circle has so much more to offer.
Historically scales were probably set in a similar fashion to today by the Sumerians 8000 years ago. They were standardised on Fifths by Pythagoras 2500 years ago. The Circle of Fifths was defined by Johan David Heinichen in 1728. Equal Temperament was consolidated in the 19th century with the production of piano accordions and square pianos for the general population and the balancing of the instruments of the orchestra.
Books as diverse as the ABRSM Manual of Scales, Harvard Dictionary of Music and Mark Levine's The Jazz Theory Book all use the Circle of Fifths. The latter has a footnote that jazz musicians prefe rto use it counter-clockwise because that follows the roots of the ii V I progression as I said. It can even be used as a guide to Coltrane tritone progressions
It is also brilliant for scales when used in clock format http://www.musictheoryvideos.com/major2.html
Happy Blowing and thanks for the answers
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-09-27 03:59
Your history of music theory is wildly inaccurate. Check and see if your library has a copy of The Cambridge History of Music Theory, edited by Thomas Christensen (or if you have money to blow, you can buy your own copy).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ArgoPete
Date: 2015-09-27 05:10
Well Brycon I am fascinated by your wild statements. I am an analyst by profession and my statements have all been researched and quoted from the books which I have in my library 2 metres from where I sit.
Sadly I do not have the Cambridge version but I doubt that it differs from the Harvard or Mark Levine's jazz theory. Perhaps you could be specific in where you think I have gone wrong.
For those more inclined to TV or a chatty style of book I can recommend The Story of Music by Howard Goodall where he describes the Circle of Fifths and the development of the 7 chord pages 90 to 92. The associated videos are easily found on YouTube.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: qualitycontrol
Date: 2015-09-27 06:24
It's pretty easy and pretty useful and to think of the circle going in both directions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ArgoPete
Date: 2015-09-27 06:48
Hi Qualitycontrol my point exactly so why do some try and write the circle in the opposite direction. I thought that maybe I had missed something which I obviously hadn't.
As for Silversorcerer's strange comment about fourths. Well one could say jazz on the whole is based on thirds - a chord is just a stack of thirds. However one then gets into sus4 etc., or Coltrane's tritone progressions or Monk's chromatic scale atonal approach and as for Ornette Coleman's The Shape of Jazz to Come!
In fact Coltrane and Miles Davis studied classical theory and used it extensively. Kind of Blue was a beautiful exercise of exploring modes. Giant Steps was a wondrous adventure over key and chord changes, but as the beginner player like myself must realise you have to play in before you play out or as Miles would say "So What" :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: qualitycontrol
Date: 2015-09-27 07:14
Well, if you agree that it's easy to go both ways, and that it's also useful to go both ways, it doesn't really matter in which direction you write it...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-09-27 07:44
ArgoPete,
-The ancient scales bear no resemblance to our major/minor scales.
-Ancient theory wasn't standardized by Pythagoras but rather by Boethius, whose treatise provided commentary (in Latin) on the Greeks. Again, the scales in Boethius are rather different than ours (and they certainly weren't based on a system of fifths).
-The history of equal-temperament is rather complex; suffice to say, its adoption wasn't nearly as neat as you present it.
As I said, the circle of fifths is a representation of harmonic distance (F#, for instance, is the furthest away from C we can get, so they lie on opposite sides of the circle). There are a number of these sorts of representations; one of the most interesting ones is Schoenberg's chart of tonal regions in his book Structural Functions of Harmony.
If you let me know your theory background, I can recommend some other books for you.
Quote:
Jazz is based on 4ths.
What are you talking about?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ArgoPete
Date: 2015-09-27 09:23
@qualitycontrol Yes it can be read both ways but it is far more effective as a guide to scales when done as designed that is the circle of fifths with the sharps going clockwise and the flats going anti clockwise. The major scales are picked from C and the minor from A. Plus this is the way the system is taught which is why I quoted the ABRSM. I suggest you try the musictheoryvideo link. It explains it very clearly.
@brycon I am afraid that you seem to have misread history. Boethius came along nearly a 1000 years after Pythagorus and commented on Eratosthenes.
The Pythagorean system was in use right up to the Middle Ages and it was exactly what our system is based on. We got rid of the wolf tones and the Pythagorean comma by going to equal temperament by a minor cent adjustment to the precise fifth of Pythagorus. Instead we went for 1200 cents to the set giving a precise 700 cents to the fifth.
I am familiar with Schoenberg's work his 42 is quite a fascinating crashing piece but certainly never going to be popular.
The history of equal temperament is capable of great detail however its complete take-over of the general usage is down to the main world events I mentioned. This is a BB post not a book.
However I am interested in any literature you can refer me to.
As for "Jazz is based on Fourths" that was @Silversorcerer not me which is why I gave a variety of other jazz references..
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-09-27 09:54
I've read Boethius, in a doctoral history of music theory course; he comments on Pythagoras (as well as Ptolemy, Aristotle, and others). At any rate, mediaeval theorists (the authors of the Scholica and Musica Enchiriadis, for example) as well as those of the Renaissance (Tinctoris) knew ancient theory through Boethius. It was Boethius who transmitted the ancient's harmonic knowledge to later theorists, laying the groundwork for western musical theory.
If you want recommendations, let me know your background. You appear unaware of historic trends (such as modal vs tonal thinking) as well as fundamentals of music theory (such as the purposes of the circle of fifths), so if you haven't gone through basic texts, like Schachter's harmony book, I'd start there.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2015-09-27 14:06
Certainly the relationship of numbers and music is very interesting. In a practical sense however very few professional musicians would be referring to the circle of fifths. Professional musicians don't think of a clock. When they were learning basics they were introduced to it this way. But this transitions into internalizing a series of fifths and fourths that they can repeat just like people can count by 5's or 4's. Perhaps it is common that people refer to a circle of fourths rather than just an anti clockwise circle of fifths. I guess this might be normal as we like to go as a clocks do . This shouldn't undermine the integrity of our system built on thirds and not fourths. In the end thinking of a clock is a teaching tool that shows the underpinning of numbers in music.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-09-27 19:42
It really isn't even about fourths in one direction and fifths in the other. One way around the circle, or "clock," shows ascending fifths and the other way shows descending fifths. It's all fifths, of which fourths are the inversions. Of course, by the same logic, you might (but I don't) want to say that both directions around the clock are fourths, again one ascending and the other descending. It's basically a nonsensical argument at its bottom.
In any case, art theory is almost entirely the analytical study of what *has been done* and isn't meant, nor has it generally been used historically, as a guide for what a really creative artist *must do* in an act of musical creativity. If anything, it becomes a point of departure for many artists from which to expand theoretical limits beyond contemporary understanding.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ArgoPete
Date: 2015-09-28 03:15
Hi kdk I am bemused by your definition of art theory. My point is simply that those drawing the Cycle of Fifths back to front to meet an assumed need of simplicity are not helping anyone learning music. I say this because as soon as they open a book be it Mark Levine's Jazz Theory or the ANRSM exam syllabus they will be presented with a confusion; a circle opposite to their basic learning.
Of course if all they ever aspire to is the cocktail pianist who never plays black notes approach or the wind player who blows everything as ii V I in C then they will be happy. Cést la vie.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2015-09-28 03:33
I don't think anyone reverses the direction to make anything simpler. I believe it's just a different way of describing the same musical concept. IMO they're both equally "correct." (Quotes added because nothing one can do in music is inherently right or wrong! So much subjectivity!)
Any decent music teacher here in the US knows they're the same thing and will tell their students that going one way is fifths and the other way is fourths. Same difference, ultimately.
I don't see what your opposition is, unless it's merely due to your statement that someone somewhere claims it's "easier" in one direction.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ArgoPete
Date: 2015-09-28 03:51
Hi @brycon Thank you for the recommendation. Relative to yourself my knowledge is definitely at the CliffsNotes level albeit I am aware and very interested in Modal and Tonal thinking as I believe my mention of Miles Davis and Monk indicated. I find it peculiar that many classical teachers decry the very mention of modality despite the obvious fact that the natural minor scale is the Aeolian mode of it's Major Ionian Relative.
I take what I consider to be a more practical scientific view of musical development. Sound know as music comes from natural vibrations that were recognised by people carving bone flutes in caves 40,000 years ago. Stringed instruments became a norm in the time of the Sumerians and Pythagoras nailed a simple definition that was effectively used by every lute player in every tavern for the next 2000 years.
Boethius was a learned man, maybe even a martyr, who tried to clearly define the wisdom of the Ancient Greeks. However I am of the view that he falls into the category of what kdk calls art theory. Given he wrote around 500 AD the impact and distribution of his books was undoubtedly minimal. Did Guido dÁrezzo, arguably one of the most important men in modern musical history, read his books; probably not. He, like myself and most others before him, would have learned Plain Chant by ear through endless repetition at church every day.
On another direction you may already know of the mathematical musical theories of Ianiis Xenakis brilliantly performed by Sabine Pyrker http://www.sabinepyrker.at/multimedia_en.php
Thanks for your input, as ever a simple question has resulted in a stream of thought.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-09-28 06:45
ArgoPete,
I'm trying to be patient, but you're wrong (about history and theory).
Quote:
Boethius was a learned man, maybe even a martyr, who tried to clearly define the wisdom of the Ancient Greeks. However I am of the view that he falls into the category of what kdk calls art theory. Given he wrote around 500 AD the impact and distribution of his books was undoubtedly minimal. Did Guido dÁrezzo, arguably one of the most important men in modern musical history, read his books; probably not.
From the Grove Dictionary entry on Boethius: "The manuscript tradition of De institutione musica, preserved in over 150 codices containing the work or extracts from the work, represents the most extensive textual tradition of any musical treatise in the middle ages."
I don't know if Guido read Boethius (though I imagine he did), but as I said, the anonymous authors of the Musica enchiriadis and the Scholica enchiriadis certainly read it, as did Hucbald and Aurelian (quotes appear in their treatises). Furthermore, any medieval or Renaissance theorist writing that the unison, fourth, fifth, and octave are the only consonances is following the theoretical tradition of Boethius (this includes Tinctoris, Descartes, Zarlino, take your pick).
When I mentioned modes, I wasn't talking about our "church" modes; I meant the construction of scales in Boethius and then later in the enchiriadis texts, Hucbald, Guido, etc. (and they weren't constructed in the same way, which is why I called out your unresearched opinion on the similarity between ancient and modern scales: ancient and mediavel scales weren't even built the same way).
Of course, none of these theorists had a clue about the circle of fifths: it's a tonal chart!
If your library has a copy of Grove, maybe read the entries on modes to get an idea about the history of scales.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ArgoPete
Date: 2015-09-28 08:58
Hi Katrina I think you missed the point I was raising that some have started reversing the way that the Circle is written which I find to be silly as a person learning will run into problems as soon as they read a book with it written the proper way. There is so much to know one needs to stick to standards.
As you say it is easy to read counter-clockwise when necessary and no need to rewrite which raises other issues in its use.
@brycon Hi again as I suspected you are talking about some esoteric art theory as kdk would say. If you choose to use words in a different sense to the normal then you can expect to be misunderstood. As for distribution you seem to have forgotten that useful printing was not even invented until the fifteenth century a 1000 years after Boethius and 400 after Guido. The words "most extensive" are very misleading as they refer to an extremely limited resource.
My statements are correct as for all practical purposes the church was the main if not sole source of knowledge and it relied on word of mouth. The Harvard dictionary describes the Church modes as the major source of development.
I think we have strayed far too far from my simple question regarding the Circle of Fifths/Fourths, its representation and its use .
However you have piqued my interest so I have tracked down a copy of the concise Grove in a remote corner of the state and shall follow up with interest when I can get it. I am afraid the state does not run to the 20 volume version.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2015-09-28 13:09
What a lot of nonsense.
A 4th and a 5th are the inversions of each other. It makes no difference which way you write it, you just read it differently. Personally, I prefer to see descending 5ths going clockwise so that they resolve V - I style into each other.
On second thoughts I don't care at all. I don't need a chart. Key relationships have been well stuck in my head for donkeys years.
Post Edited (2015-09-28 14:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2015-09-28 13:20
ArgoPete wrote:
> Coltrane's tritone progressions or
I've no idea what you mean by this. Coltrane's most famous progression is the Giant Steps thing where he does II - V - I progressions in keys a major third apart.
> Monk's chromatic scale atonal approach
There's nothing atonal about Monk's music nor does he have a chromatic scale approach whatever that might be. He did like dissonant voicings and had a bit of a penchant for whole tone scales.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2015-09-28 13:21
Silversorcerer wrote:
> Jazz is based on 4ths.
>
Eh?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2015-09-28 13:29
>
> -Ancient theory wasn't standardized by Pythagoras but rather by
> Boethius, whose treatise provided commentary (in Latin) on the
> Greeks. Again, the scales in Boethius are rather different than
> ours (and they certainly weren't based on a system of fifths).
>
Well I'm no expert on ancient music theory but I too was under the impression that Pythagoras is generally credited with the idea of building a scale by stacking up 5ths (and going down octaves as necessary). Certainly tuning a keyboard in perfect 5ths with a single wolf interval is generally known as Pythagorean tuning.
Post Edited (2015-09-28 13:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2015-09-28 18:12
I guess I don't have a problem writing it either way too. As long as you say "this is the circle of fourths" and "this is the circle of fifths," what's the big difference. IMO, any teacher worth a grain of salt would write it BOTH ways...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-09-28 20:19
Quote:
Well I'm no expert on ancient music theory but I too was under the impression that Pythagoras is generally credited with the idea of building a scale by stacking up 5ths (and going down octaves as necessary). Certainly tuning a keyboard in perfect 5ths with a single wolf interval is generally known as Pythagorean tuning.
Pythagoras is credited with discovering the numerical ratios of perfect intervals (though the story of him passing a blacksmith's shop and hearing the tones of different sized hammers is probably just a legend). At any rate, 4:1 is the compound octave, 2:1 the octave, 3:2 the fifth, and 4:3 the fourth; these intervals were the only consonances--considered so because of the simplicity of their ratios. The ratios also appear in Euclid and Nicomachus and their theory was translated into Latin by Boethius (among others) and read by the authors of the Enchiriadis texts, the most important treatises of the Middle Ages. But the link from the Middle Ages to ancient theory is Boethius.
Pythagoras does have a tuning system and a scale construction named after him. But the true Pythagorian scale--that is, the scale as Pythagoras himself constructed it--was built from tetrachords: the distance from a fourth to a fifth was a ratio of 9:8 (a whole tone); the fourth could then be divided into two whole tones and some left over (called the limma). Of course, the problem is if you have six 9:8 whole tones in a row, you end up with an octave larger than 2:1. As a compromise, Pythagorian tuning maintains the ratios of perfect intervals at the expense of seconds and thirds.
Post Edited (2015-09-28 20:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JonTheReeds
Date: 2015-09-28 20:51
@brycon
Is there a natural major scale that we all sing spontaneously without reference to instruments, frequencies or ratios? Or are intervals determined by culture and experience? Indeed, am I hors piste with even talking about a major scale?
--------------------------------------
The older I get, the better I was
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ArgoPete
Date: 2015-09-29 03:25
Wow! A simple question really spun the wheels. I never met anyone I could not learn from and these results are fascinating.
@JontheReeds I would say yes just as light has 7 major vibrations so does music. People were carving flutes around the camp fire 40,000 years ago and they picked pretty well the same notes as we do. Sadly the deep academic approach seems to ignore the fact that music was developed in this way not by obscure philosophical treatises. Paul McCartney made many millions and he can't read music. Loved your "hors piste" remark.
***************
To all others I would recommend Mark Levine's Jazz Piano Book or Jazz Theory to see how modes are defined and used with scales.
On the point of Tritones, when reading Jazz Piano I recognised the steps and went looking http://danadler.com/misc/Cycles.pdf Yes Dan does the Circle backwards but if you have got that far it is not a problem. It is for beginning texts that I say stick to the standard.
Sadly I shall not be able to shell out the $AU370 for Schacter's Harmony as I am interested in the original rules as well as modern practice.
Thanks for the insights one and all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2015-09-29 04:28
@JontheReeds
I'm not really qualified to answer that one (maybe look into the work of some ethno-musicologists or cognitive scientists?).
From my own study of Western music, I know that the work of the ancient Greeks, as well as that of Boethius, had very little effect on musical performance (indeed, Plato would have musicians banned from his Republic). Philosophers treated harmony as a study of abstract ideas--the harmony of the spheres, bodily organs, and the monochord were all linked, and an understanding of one would help with that of the others. This level of abstraction I'm sure had very little bearing on what the common-variety lyre player was doing.
When the writings of Boethius became popular, in the 9th and 10th centuries, music theorists and composers would defer to his treatise. But it made sense for them to do so: organum moves in perfect octaves, fifths, and fourths. But when the third and sixth began to be used as a consonance and the fourth as a dissonance, it presented a problem.
There are a number of Renaissance theorists (Tinctoris, for example) who pay homage to Boethius with a discussion of the mathematical purity of perfect intervals but go on to say "of course, composers now treat the third/sixth more liberally." Even Descartes, interestingly enough, asked his readers to use their ear rather than their reasoning faculty in determining consonances/dissonances.
So this time period does present an instance where culture outweighed science, that is to say, composition was driving theory.
With regard to an ur-scale, toward which all cultures gravitate: I think it's unlikely. Our major scale, for example, is the result of the overlaying of two grids: tonal harmony and modal scales. Without these two grids, I see no reason why a culture would move toward our particular succession of whole-steps and half-steps.
@ArgoPete
You are the internet manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I'll no longer respond to your nonsense.
Post Edited (2015-09-29 04:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Luuk ★2017
Date: 2015-09-29 17:52
@ArgoPete,
Could you please explain what you mean with '...light has 7 major vibrations...'?
And do you have any support for the statement 'Paul McCartney made many millions and he can't read music.'?
Regards,
Luuk
Philips Symphonic Band
The Netherlands
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2015-09-29 18:00
Luuk wrote:
> And do you have any support for the statement 'Paul McCartney
> made many millions and he can't read music.'?
>
I know I'm not the poster of this statement but to take each part of the it separately, Sir Paul McCartney is generally known to be worth hundreds of millions of pounds and I have heard him say himself on television that he cannot read music.
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2015-09-30 00:27
After all this discussion we now have it! "It actually isn't a circle at all".
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ArgoPete
Date: 2015-09-30 03:54
Hi I wish to apologise to the group for the tenor of my last reply.
To those who wish to know my background I spent my formative years as did Guido dÁrezzo in the monastic system. We studied the Latin writings of Pliny, Tacitus etc. and the theories of Pythagorus , Euclid et al. when there was no distinction between music, maths or language studies. We attended chapel singing plain chant seven times a day and spent up to 10 days at time in total silence apart from the chants. In history we studied the Christian era wherein The Dark Ages ran from the sacks of Rome (at least 3 around 500AD) to the Renaissance. In that time few books were written, or survived, as they were carefully illuminated by hand and in the main covered ecclesiastical themes.
Our scales are based on the tetrachords familiar to lute players of Pythagoras times - for a brief intro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachord .
Someone asked about my reference to colour and music. Both sight and sound are the product of vibrations which our built in computer, the brain, translates into acceptable thoughts. In much the same way as a television splits the antenna vibrations between sound and colour vision and is powered by electron vibrating down an electricity wire.
I hope we can continue to discuss things in a more productive manner.
As to the circle it is as someone said a useful construct. In my opinion it reveals most when used in the traditional manner and viewed as a clock - to use an American term - YMMV. I use Jim Fleser's Chord Wheel, Rand Scullard's interactive circle http://randscullard.com/CircleOfFifths/UserGuide.htm and I also use The Grid of Six simply write it out from Cb toC# on one line and Ab to A# on the next line in the same columns and box any 3 pairs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
