B# & e# -vs- cflat & f flat [Archive]

View Full Version : B# & e# -vs- cflat & f flat

Soupy1957

Dec-20-2006, 3:51am

I asked my dad the other day, (a guy who has been performing written music, not tabs, for YEARS) "how do you choose between calling a note an A# or BFlat, (or pick any other combination you like) in writing music?"

His response was that if the Key Signature is in Flats, (for example) then the notes are usually called out as Flats that need to be, rather than sharps, and visa versa.

Then I asked him if he ever saw in sheet music, a B# or an E# for example, and he said YES!!! He said that SOME writers of music, ("Peterson" for one example) will put down a note like that, if they want to indicate a half-step move. So, for example, if the writer used an E#, what he is really saying is that the note to be played is an "F."

I was glad to learn about the Key Signature controlling the identifiers, and amazed that some writer of a score, would actually use non-existant note callouts.

hmmmmmm......I wonder if I could write a song using only non-existant notes; just to freak out the instrumentalist?!
(lol)

-Soupy1957

adgefan

Dec-20-2006, 4:52am

My favourite chord is B#dim7 as featured in This Side by Nickel Creek. Took me a long time to work out what was going on there...

Soupy1957

Dec-20-2006, 6:18am

Which, if I understand correctly, is a Cdim7th, yes?

Walter Newton

Dec-20-2006, 6:43am

They aren't non-existant notes, they are called enharmonics, and there are situations where notes like E# or B# - not to mention double sharp and double flat notes (!) - are the technically correct choice depending on harmonic context...there are also situations where they might be used for score legibility purposes.

Bruce Evans

Dec-20-2006, 6:53am

Oh dear. Here we go again.

A triad chord is created by using the first, third and fifth note of the scale. For example, in the key of A major:

A B C# D E F# G# A

The first note is A. The third note is C#. The fifth note is E. A C# E are the notes in an A major chord. NOT A Db E. Even thought it is the same resultant pitch, D is the fourth note of the A major scale, not the third. Got it?

Ok. A C# E is an A major chord. An augmented chord is created by raising the fifth of the chord by a half step. The fifth is E. Raising it a half step is...

E#.

E#, NOT F. F is the sixth note of the A major scale. Does it produce the same pitch? Yes. If it was written that way, would the musician play the correct pitch? Yes. But the chord is mispelled. Is that bad?

Well, my name is Bruce. If somebody spelled it Broose, a reader would probably know how to pronounce it, but it would still be mispelled, and it would bother me.

There ya go Db vs. C#, and E#. But then again, "They ain't no notes on a banjar. Ya just play it."

Oops. Sorry. Wrong board. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

groveland

Dec-20-2006, 7:17am

I really think the formal and correct application of the rules often poses an obstacle to learning actual music.

This is always an interesting topic to me. It's one of those notation situations that, when executed correctly, successfully communicates only to the smallest audience. And on the other hand, eliminating some formalities opens up doors for the masses. What are you gonna do.

I haven't personally encountered a situation where pointing out an incorrect rendering of an enharmonic's name has actually improved the performance or understanding of a tune (in equal temperament). On the contrary, it seems to obscure the relationships and intervals in most genres. Double-sharps and double-flats are real baggage. I am bracing for the rotten tomatoes.

It's kindof like in a conversation, something important is being said, but I stop the speaker every time their [sic] nouns and verbs don't grammatically agree in English.

In my naive (equal tempered) world, it's all interval sets. Just degrees of scales, starting at some arbitrary tone. Note names are just a navigational convenience. It's a simple world, and ignorance is bliss!

Okay, have at it. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

JimD

Dec-20-2006, 7:31am

I haven't personally encountered a situation where pointing out an incorrect rendering of an enharmonic's name has actually improved the performance or understanding of a tune (in equal temperament). On the contrary, it seems to obscure the relationships and intervals in most genres. Double-sharps and double-flats are real baggage. I am bracing for the rotten tomatoes.

No rotten tomatoes -- just disagreement. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

It's not that hard:
sharp -- raise 1/2 step
double sharp -- raise an additional half step
flat -- lower a half step
double flat -- lower an additional half step.

Why not use the correct names and align yourself with hundreds of years of your musical ancestors?

It really does help with an understanding of the theoretical basis of tonal music and pave the way for more advanced harmonic thinking (and, of course, playing)

The situation that makes enhamonic names irrelevant is atonality -- the avoidance or denial of tonal centricity.

This isn't in the musical vocabulary of most members of the Cafe.

groveland

Dec-20-2006, 8:27am

JimD -

I have no plans to ever travel to Boston. However, if I do, we absolutely gotta talk! (Far too much to cover here.) Best to you,

Craig

Soupy1957

Dec-20-2006, 8:28am

in other words, for a double sharp or flat, it's a "whole step" if I'm hearing ya right?.

-Soupy1957

mrmando

Dec-20-2006, 8:30am

The situation that makes enhamonic names irrelevant is atonality -- the avoidance or denial of tonal centricity.

This isn't in the musical vocabulary of most members of the Cafe.
You shouldn't say that until you've heard me play!

mrmando

Dec-20-2006, 8:32am

There is also a sign cancelling
the key signature flat or sharp - I can't type it (nor do I know the technical term for it).
It's called a "natural," naturally.

mythicfish

Dec-20-2006, 8:44am

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum ... pedagogic muscle-flexing.

Curt

Peter Hackman

Dec-20-2006, 8:49am

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum ... pedagogic muscle-flexing.

Curt
Thanks for you CONTRIBUTION. To make you happy I have erased my
posts.

JimD

Dec-20-2006, 8:53am

JimD -

I have no plans to ever travel to Boston. However, if I do, we absolutely gotta talk! (Far too much to cover here.) Best to you,

Craig

You should come out this way, I actually live in Salem (15 miles from Boston).

There is a town just a bit north of Salem called Groveland. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

JimD

Dec-20-2006, 9:03am

Thanks for you CONTRIBUTION. To make you happy I have rerased my
posts.

Sorry that you did that -- some of us appreciate your posts.

Ted Eschliman

Dec-20-2006, 9:45am

I really think the formal and correct application of the rules often poses an obstacle to learning actual music...

In my naive (equal tempered) world, it's all interval sets. #Just degrees of scales, starting at some arbitrary tone. #Note names are just a navigational convenience. It's a simple world, and ignorance is bliss!
Craig, Craig, Craig!
Oy, in the two years I've known you, I can't think of anything we disagreed on; this is a first! I think the way accidentals are notated are crucial to uncovering the harmonic intent of written music. An A# leads to a note entirely differently than a Bb, and it drives me crazy when it's notated "incorrectly." I had a conversation with a very well known mandolin educator who preferred to always use sharps when notating his pieces, because he felt mandolinists were always more comfortable with sharps. Ouch!
Here I thought I was only a theory Geek; if you abandon me, they'll start calling me a theory "Nazi!"

groveland

Dec-20-2006, 11:07am

Ted, Ted, Ted! #It'll be okay. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #I know what you're saying about written harmonic intent.

You, me, and JimD, Starbucks at 211 Washington St, Salem - Noon today. #Okay, I can't make it either. #So let me just say this - If notation didn't exist at all, would there still be a ii V7 I progression? #Could you hear it and recognize it? Of course. Would it change the gravity? #Would it change how you played it? #Of course not. #If A wasn't 440, would the universe crumble? #Of course not.

So as a general practical solution, I decouple from notation, note names, and Hz, and deal mainly with intervalic relationships. #That decoupling suits jazz fine, and lots of other genres.

Also, I suggest there are a lot of other great (and easy) ways to write music without accidentals at all - We hang on to our traditional system mainly because it's so hard to turn a big ship, and there are few folks interested in doing so.

One discussion we could start is: What harmonic intent does an accidental communicate? #It seems to me that there is a byzantine network of rules at the foundation of it all, and that intent can be expressed in far more elegant ways.

Of course, I could be way wrong! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

JimD

Dec-20-2006, 11:46am

Also, I suggest there are a lot of other great (and easy) ways to write music without accidentals at all - We hang on to our traditional system mainly because it's so hard to turn a big ship, and there are few folks interested in doing so.

One discussion we could start is: What harmonic intent does an accidental communicate? #It seems to me that there is a byzantine network of rules at the foundation of it all, and that intent can be expressed in far more elegant ways.

There is another way but don't count on anyone but theorists to adopt it all too soon.

In the second half of the 20th century, music theorists trying to study atonal music (without traditional harmonic implications, hit upon a way to do this. Pitches of the chromatic scale are numbered in order 0 thru 11. Simultanieties (the new term for chords) were then analysed and discussed in terms of intervallic relationships and set theory. Simple arithmetical and geometrical transformations (in modulo 12) were used to describe certain relationships as well.

At one point, someone (Milton Babbitt, perhaps) suggested that this would also be an efficacious mode of study for tonal and diatonic (major/minor and modal) music as well.

Much more recently (the last 15 years or so) theorists have actually began to use the integer model of pitch and set theory. This is one of my favorite branches of music theory. A good intro is Foundations of Diatonic Theory (http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Diatonic-Theory-Mathematically-Fundamentals/dp/1930190808) by Timothy A. Johnson. It is subtitled "A Mathematically Based Approach to Music Fundamentals.

I can hear it now "...but wait, I was told there would be no math..." #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

This is a very exciting branch of theory and opens the door to many useful insights into the materials of music and it is, as you put it, a more elegant way to express certain ideas-- but...

It will never replace standard notation as a means of conveying performance information. Sometimes the things that come down to us through the years as traditional carry with them some unwelcome baggage. Still -- some of that baggage is necessary.

groveland

Dec-20-2006, 11:52am

Now Jim - You've got me all fired up here! #Seriously! #I didn't know the following -

Pitches of the chromatic scale are numbered in order 0 thru 11. Simultanieties (the new term for chords) were then analysed and discussed in terms of intervallic relationships and set theory. Simple arithmetical and geometrical transformations (in modulo 12) were used to describe certain relationships as well. At one point, someone (Milton Babbitt, perhaps) suggested that this would also be an efficacious mode of study for tonal and diatonic (major/minor and modal) music as well.

Really! #I hate to break the rules here, but this describes a particular mode exploration software tool I am very fond of [wink wink], exactly! #And it (apparently) describes to a 'T' what I've been trying to express in this and so many other posts!

TELL ME MORE!

I may just have to pop for some plane tickets. This is TOO much for me to take!

JimD

Dec-20-2006, 11:56am

Hey Craig,

Another thought:

You ask "If notation didn't exist at all, would there still be a ii V7 I progression?"

Possibly not. It is generally agreed that polyphony developed to a high degree because the ability to write down pitches made it easier to control the relationships. After many (hundreds) years of polyphonic music, certain simultaneities were identified as chords and written down in figured bass notation (starting around the 1590s). Later the French theorist/composer, Jean-Philippe Rameau codified chords (Traité de l'harmonie, 1722) in a way that is similar to the way we understand them today.

Ted Eschliman

Dec-20-2006, 1:55pm

Poor originator of the thread is going, "I asked what time it is, and you guys are telling me how to build a watch..."
Okay Craig, the "written" vs aural is a point well taken, but yes, I hear "ii V7 I," but it's more in terms of (non-theory geeks tune out, please) Dominant Preparation, Dominant, and Tonic.

No, I don't get into the idiosyncracies of "is it ii7, IV, rootless V7, half dim 7, etc." and that would be the "bogging down" of written notation, the same as protocol for accidentals. Function though, I want to actually hear and react to in my playing.

Unless we're talking Milton Babbitt, Jim. Then I just want to go in a corner and listen to some Conway Twitty...

Starbucks sounds good, too! http://jazzmando.com/images/Msmiley.gif

groveland

Dec-20-2006, 2:29pm

The originator of the thread was Soupy - And he's known for kicking off some doozies. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

david blair

Dec-20-2006, 4:05pm

The reason for using notes like Fb or B# are rooted in the circle of fifths. This way every name is used somewhere within . If you were to draw out the circle (which resembles a time clock, or a peace sign) and start filling in all the notes for each scale using a consisitent formula it becomes obvious why these notes are used. Try for instance the key of C flat. Written everywhere as a "C" note on the staff, but with a "b" symbol at the begining. So then, a B# is played a B! I think.

The Monks thought real hard about this stuff.

Jim Broyles

Dec-20-2006, 4:07pm

Key of C Flat? B# played a B? ? What planet?

JimD

Dec-20-2006, 4:17pm

Try for instance the key of C flat. Written everywhere as a "C" note on the staff, but with a "b" symbol at the begining. So then, a B# is played a B! I think

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

C flat is one of the three easiest keys to remember:

C = C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C #(all naturals)

C# = #C#, D#, E#, F#, G#, A#, B#, C# #(all sharps)

Cb = #Cb, Db, Eb, Fb, Gb, Ab, Bb, Cb #(all flats)

Nothing more to it.

groveland

Dec-20-2006, 5:00pm

When you sharp the Bb in the key of Cb, you get a Cb, which is enharmonic to B. Milton Babbitt, where are you when we need you? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

August Watters

Dec-20-2006, 5:30pm

I haven't personally encountered a situation where pointing out an incorrect rendering of an enharmonic's name has actually improved the performance or understanding of a tune

Then you haven't been in one of Jim's or my classes. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

To get back to what's relevant to most folks, the above quote just indicates the writer is not actively involved in a "reading" environment. The whole point of writing with enharmonics is to make it EASIER to read. Notation works the way your ear works -- so if (for example) you're hearing a melody that goes "1-minor3rd-major3rd" It's usually easier to notate that as "C-D#-E" in the key of C, or "A-B#-C#" in the key of A. NOT "A-Cnatural-C#." In the key of A you're expecting a C#, so a C-natural disrupts the eye more than a B# would, if it's approaching a C#.

It's common practice to notate this way, for musicians who are accustomed to reading, and the reason is that it makes the reading process easier by requiring fewer written-in accidentals. Honest, this is not an attempt by musical intellectuals to make things more difficult and less understandable for the average musician. It really IS the way that makes things easier to understand for everyone.

*whew*

Sorry about that, it's the end of the semester, and I just finished a full day of private exams with my ear training students. I'll be back to normal tomorrow.

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

August W

groveland

Dec-20-2006, 5:57pm

To get back to what's relevant to most folks, the above quote just indicates the writer is not actively involved in a "reading" environment.
You hit that nail on the head. #I'm guessing that describes the overwhelming majority of players' experience. #I'm thinking a large part of that majority is involved in improvisation over musical frameworks as opposed to reading, and other tools are better suited for those jobs, as it's not so much about rendering repertoire as it is about active participation in a spontaneous event. #And if in fact that's the case, and if the weight of modern arts is in fact pressing toward the improvisational, the perceived value of these notational subtleties gets minimized - They are simply not the best tool for the job at hand.

Just a point of view, and observation.

That is not to minimize in any way the importance of reading. We lousy readers stand in awe of those who eat notation for breakfast!

Note: I have to say, between the CBOM thread on tuning electric bouzoukis in fifths and this thread, I have learned TONS over the last two days. #What a site this is! Thanks, Scott.

jmcgann

Dec-20-2006, 6:12pm

everything depends on how (indeed, if) you think about music- in relationship to a chord? in relationship to key center? in relationship to if you own the coolest instrument? not enough to hurt my playing? etc. etc.

The way I learned this stuff was in relationship to harmony (chord structure) in context of key centers (or lack thereof). Just because a key is theoretical (Fb) doesn't mean an Fb note shouldn't exist (Db minor). Context gives meaning. I think #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Try explaining this to steel guitar players- they'll run you right out of town. Question is, do you really want to buy a house there? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

JimD

Dec-20-2006, 6:44pm

When you sharp the Bb in the key of Cb, you get a Cb, which is enharmonic to B. Milton Babbitt, where are you when we need you? #

So, in the integer model of pitch notation, you sharp something by adding 1. Assuming the convention of C=0, we would call Bb "10" and add 1 to get 11.

The place where the math gets less comfortable for many people is when 11+1=0. This is called modulo 12 arithmetic and is like dealing with a clock face that has a 0 in place of 12.

All transposition is done by addition or subtraction.

Is this the kind of model you are looking for, Craig?

Sometime you should ask me how tritone substitutions are done in this model -- that's when it get's really interesting. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Sitting in for Milton Babbitt...

August Watters

Dec-20-2006, 7:03pm

I'm thinking a large part of that majority is involved in improvisation over musical frameworks as opposed to reading, and other tools are better suited for those jobs

It's all the same language! In my example above, "A-B#-C#" is most easily thought of as "play the root, then the major third with half step approach." If you're not interested in how that's most easily notated, fair enough -- but the original question here involved the thought process behind the notation.

groveland

Dec-20-2006, 7:40pm

#
The place where the math gets less comfortable for many people is when 11=1=0.
Do you mean 11+1=0?

JimD

Dec-21-2006, 3:26am

Quote

The place where the math gets less comfortable for many people is when 11=1=0.

Do you mean 11+1=0?

Yes, if fact I do. Fixed it in the edit.

groveland

Dec-21-2006, 4:29am

I deleted a thread-stopping binary math example from my last post. #I have a question to replace it. #This is not a trick question. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

You have a student. This person is by no means classically trained, but this person does know 'the names of the notes on the neck' and has been playing successfully for years.

I want to teach this student the 3rd mode of melodic minor, a.k.a. Lydian Augmented. I want to demonstrate this with a Cb tonic. #For maximum clarity and to best preserve the sense of the unique intervals of the scale, what notes do I say are in the Cb Lydian Augmented scale?

And then, for contrast, how do I express the notes of the C Lydian Augmented scale?

And most importantly: To this student, does one tonic more clearly describe the intervalic relationships than the other? Does one obscure those relationships?

JimD

Dec-21-2006, 4:49am

Another early riser!

Good question.

I would teach the C Lydian Augmented first -- C D E F# G# A B C (most folks visualize more easily in C -- just for the sake of comparison to the "no accidentals" of C major)

then teach the Cb Lydian Augmented -- Cb Db Eb F G Ab Bb Cb

Of course, if the student already knows that Cb major is "all flats" the nature of Lydian Augmented will make itself apparent without the intermediary step of doing it in C.

To answer your last question more directly:

I believe that both tonics describe the interval relationships well -- if presented this way and with this spelling.

The point that I made earlier (about Cb major being all flats and C# major being all sharps) is something that I try to impart to my students right away (very early in their lessons). This way they are less confused by such matters as Cb, Fb, E# and B# and come to understand the correct spellings in a simple and staight forward way that will help them in their understanding of the underlying principles.

If the proper ground work is laid, the correct spellings of scales will always support an understanding of the relationships and an "improper" spelling will obscure the relationships.

JimD

Dec-21-2006, 5:10am

Another way to think of this is by complementary relationships:

There are 7 notes in a diatonic scale. If you consider the relationship between F major #(1 flat) and F# major (6 sharps), you'll see that in pairs of keys that are a half step apart and share the same letter name, the total number of sharps and flats will be 7. This is because the interval relationships are preserved.

example:

F major : #F # #G # #A # #Bb #C # #D # #E # #(F)
F# maj. : #F# #G# #A# #B # #C# #D# #E# #(F#)

This is a good way to help students remember the key signatures. They can build on what they know:

G maj. -- 1 sharp # # # Gb maj. -- 6 flats
Eb maj. -- 3 flats # # # # E maj. -- #4 sharps

always adding up to 7 -- (refer to previous post for C, Cb, C#)

The complementary relationship also works with chords:

Cmin7 #-- C # #Eb #G # #Bb
C#min7 --C# #E # #G# #B

What was natural in Cmin7 is sharp in C#min7 and what was flat is natural.

Same is true for modes, synthetic scales etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Very key basic information:

-spelling of a chromatic scale (half steps between B and C, E and F.
-enharmonic spelling
-direction and distance of accidentals (sharp -- half step up, double sharp -- additional half step up etc.)

This last bit (double sharp -- additional half step up) is important because if you say that it is a whole step up, it may lead to confusion.

If a student fully grasps this very basic material, proper spelling and, more importantly, full understanding of the relationships is easier to achieve.

Then the fact that a Dbmin7 chord contains Fb and Cb won't be an issue at all.

groveland

Dec-21-2006, 5:47am

Thanks, Jim! (and August, too.)

Here's another. #The answers to these questions are determining my future - No pressure, though. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Cb Freygish. #Can this be expressed at all, or is it B Freygish always?

JimD

Dec-21-2006, 6:02am

Here's another. The answers to these questions are determining my future - No pressuer, though.

Glad to hear it. You wouldn't want me to end up like this guy. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

Cb Freygish. Can this be expressed at all, or is it B Freygish always?

Sure, why not?

Cb Dbb Eb Fb Gb Abb Bbb Cb

But why would you want to?

Triple flats and sharps are theoretically possible too -- doesn't mean you would want to use them. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

groveland

Dec-21-2006, 6:37am

Thanks Jim. That's exactly where I wanted to end up. "But why would you want to?" I HAVE TO! The reasons why - Well I'll have to take that offline, if it's okay with you, and spare the rest of these poor folks... (I think Ted and a couple others on the cafe may have an inkling of where I'm going with this line of questioning... then again, maybe not)

JimD

Dec-21-2006, 6:56am

I think that we sometime need to cover some of these more awkward keys as a pedagogical tool at least -- to make students aware of the possibilities and the nature of the musical "systems" at work.

But in the heat of playing Cb freygish will always become B freygish -- at least for me.

P.S. Craig -- feel free to P.M. me or email me to continue the conversation, if you'd prefer.

Pete Martin

Dec-21-2006, 9:12am

You ask "If notation didn't exist at all, would there still be a ii V7 I progression?"

Funny!!! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

groveland

Dec-22-2006, 9:45pm

I have about 3000 pages of jazz charts and jazz theory books in front of me. I've been poring over them. #I haven't seen a B#, Fb, Cb or E# anywhere... or double flat or double sharp anywhere.

edit: That is, B#, Fb, Cb, E#, double flat or double sharp CHORD anywhere. Sorry.

I think that says a lot about the use of accidentals in jazz, anyway, and most likely it says a something about the tools and priorities of improv styles in general.

Anybody have any ideas on this? I have never seen a B# 7(#5b9) or an Fb ma7(#5) in my life.

Walter Newton

Dec-22-2006, 9:58pm

Huh, out of curiosity's sake I just pulled my "Ultimate Jazz Fakebook" off the shelf and literally within a minute found a Cb in "Ruby, My Dear" - key signature is Ab, first descending phrase is notated G - F - Cb - Bb - maybe I just got lucky!

groveland

Dec-22-2006, 10:30pm

We have a winner! #Just kidding. #I found it, on page 322. #However, I should have been way more specific... I didn't make the distinction between chord names and note names. #I see an E# note right here in The New Real Book at a glance...

I haven't seen a B#, Fb, Cb or E# chords anywhere. #I threw out a couple near random examples - #B# 7(#5b9) or an Fb ma7(#5).

As August was indicating, there are advantages to using accidentals for facilitating reading. #My question is theory-related. #If a tune has a passage in melodic minor, and it's a choice between C# or Db melodic minor, which wins? # And for the former naming choice, you get a B# 7(#5b9) at the V - but I'm pretty sure you'll never see that in a chart - It'll be a C7(#5b9). #For the latter you'll get a Fb ma7(#5) at the III. #Same exact scale. #Same notes.

Sure it depends on the context a bit - like if that C7(#5b9) is the V leading to an F ma7, we name it C. #But interpretation can change things - there are a few ways to render a handful of chords. Taken alone, that C 7(#5b9) can be a B# 7(#5b9) if it's the VII chord of C# melodic minor. #I guess I just haven't seen the tunes that define a context that requires, say, a B# 7(#5b9).

If you find some, give me a heads up.

I'm still under construction here... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Larry Simonson

Dec-25-2006, 10:08pm

JimD

Dec-26-2006, 3:57am

I'm trying to imagine how arithmetic would have progressed over the last thousand years if our counting system of 1 to 100 would have only 5 numbers between 30 and 40 and 70 and 80 but 10 numbers in all the other decades. #

Have theorists ever tried to devise a metric system?

Ok, I'm not entirely sure what your point is but I think that the implication is that theorists are responsible for there being half steps between B-C and E-F and whole steps between all the other adjacent pairs.

The spacing is a fact of acoustics -- the practical application evolved from centuries of use by practicing musicians. Theorists have had the task of trying to make sense out of the situation. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

Larry Simonson

Dec-26-2006, 10:03am

I surely didn't wish to imply that theorists are responsible for the 1/2 steps. #I'm sure they were well established by what naturally sounded good and later analyzed, as you said. #For whatever reason our ears must like 12th root of 2 division for frequency better than powers of ten. #I was only asking if, in the history of scale making, anyone had tried to devise a metric scale.

Interesting factoid: #An 'octave' is a factor of 2 whilst a 'decade' is a factor of 10.

JimD

Dec-26-2006, 12:49pm

I was only asking if, in the history of scale making, anyone had tried to devise a metric scale.

Well, there have been a number equal divisions of different kinds (much easier and less expensive in the age of electro-acoustic and computer music). I have a recording called Microtonal Compositions by Easley Blackwood (Cedille CDR 90000 018) that contains pieces in equal tunings of 13 through 24 tones.

Most of these are electronic but there is a Suite for Guitar in 15-note equal which I think is the least effective piece on the CD. Perhaps the familar timbre of the guitar set up expectations for me that the electronic media did not -- or perhaps I simply don't like the 15 equal. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Blackwood has also written a book called The Structure of Recognizable Diatonic Tunings in which he discusses the various equal temperaments that he has worked with. I haven't looked at it in a long while so I'm not sure if he ever did 10 equal. There is a piece on the recording in 20-note equal, which obviously contains 10 equal. It's a fairly effective piece.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Slendro scale of Indonesia is pretty nearly #a 5-tone equal temperament -- the closest approximation for us is the major pentatonic scale.

JimD

Dec-28-2006, 2:09pm

For those who are interested in various kinds of tuning:

There is an interesting demonstration of a tuning similar to the one Handel used here (http://www.paulayres.co.uk/callforscores/audio.mp3)

This is from a discussion of how to compose for organ and introduction to a specific organ (at Handel's church).

The discussion and demo of the tuning in question comes at about 8'20" into the discussion and lasts until about the 12 minute mark. The tuning used is what is called a sixth-comma meantone. It is interesting to really hear the various triads and their relative "in tune-ness"

david blair

Dec-29-2006, 1:49am

"When you sharp the Bb in the key of Cb, you get a Cb, which is enharmonic to B. Milton Babbitt, where are you when we need you?"

This has been a really fun thread! Thanks to August for all the help.

So in the key of Cb, all the notes are flatted, and this is shown at the begining of the piece with all those 7 flat symbols. Any future sharp or flat symbols in the piece are considered "accidentals". and therefore a B note is already played as Bb. So adding a flat symbol to the B note means in reality you are to play an A natural. B# is then played as "B" natural, because it's already been flatted.
You must take into account the key signature, or context.

Peter Hackman

Dec-29-2006, 4:05am

>So in the key of Cb, all the notes are flatted ...

I've seen the key notated Cb only once, in the harp part of a Debussy sonata.
The flute and viola are notated in B natural. I don't know much about harps
but I believe they have a pedal for lowering all the strings a half-step.

>So adding a flat symbol to the B note means in reality you are to play an A natural. B# is then played as "B" natural, because it's already been flatted.
You must take into account the key signature, or context ...

No. To indicate that the B flat of the key signature is to be lowered a half-step you use a *double flat* sign. That's the exact role of
double accidentals.

To indicate that it's to be raised a half-step, to B natural,
you use a natural sign, not a sharp.

Hope I remember this correctly: if you lower a B flat, belonging to the key
and raise it back again, within the same bar, it's notated with the two signs
natural-b.

jmcgann

Dec-29-2006, 6:02am

The harp is tuned to the key of Cb, and the 7 pedals raise the strings a half step. They need to be warned ahead of time what's coming up in terms of changes (at least, in orchestral parts). Makes the mandolin look dead easy!

groveland

Dec-29-2006, 8:11am

Regarding naming of component chords that can be built from scales –

(myself, earlier) I have about 3000 pages of jazz charts and jazz theory books in front of me. I've been poring over them. I haven't seen a B#, Fb, Cb or E# (chord) anywhere... or double flat or double sharp (chord) anywhere.

I have included a short list of some problematic situations below. This illustrates why, when demonstrating component chords of scales in a general setting, formally correct chromatic naming may actually obscure the message.

Below are a few common scales based on tonics that cause the component chords to have funny names. Chord charts, fake books, and jazz theory books never name their chords from these “correct” tonics. I don't think you'll never see, for example, a Cb ma7 as a IV chord in a tune in Gb major (Ionian) for example – It will be a B ma7 chord. Or an E# mi7(b5) on the IV of the B Lydian scale – It will be an F mi7(b5).

It might be argued that from a key-signature point of view 'there is no such thing as a Cb minor scale, so there shouldn't be a Cb dorian scale' and 'there is no such thing as an A# major scale so there shouldn't be an A# lydian scale' and 'there is no such thing as a G# major, so how can there be an A# dorian' and the like. I am not sure how this is managed. #Any input is appreciated.

I omitted symmetric and pentatonic scales, as they will have a special set of rules (and problems). Notice that some name sets actually switch from flats to sharps, because from the specified name, well, You Just Can't Get There From Here. (ex: Ab Enigmatic isn't possible - Have to switch to G# to get an alphabetic sequence, or start mixing accidentals.)

# # # #'Correct' Chord Names ## # # Informal Choices
Ionian (2212221):
#Gb # #Gb Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F Gb # # # # # Gb Ab Bb B Db Eb F Gb
#G# # #G# A# B# C# D# E# F## G# # # # # G# A# C C# D# F G G#
#A# # #A# B# C## D# E# F## G## A# # # # A# C D D# F G A A#
#C# # #C# D# E# F# G# A# B# C# # # # # #C# D# F F# G# A# C C#
#D# # #D# E# F## G# A# B# C## D# # # # #D# F G G# A# C D D#
#F# # #F# G# A# B C# D# E# F# # # # # # F# G# A# B C# D# F F#
Dorian (2122212): # #
#Ab # #Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F Gb Ab # # # # # Ab Bb B Db Eb F Gb Ab
#Db # #Db Eb Fb Gb Ab Bb Cb Db # # # # #Db Eb E Gb Ab Bb B Db
#Gb # #Gb Ab Bbb Cb Db Eb Fb Gb # # # # Gb Ab A B Db Eb E Gb
#G# # #G# A# B C# D# E# F# G# # # # # # G# A# B C# D# F F# G#
#A# # #A# B# C# D# E# F## G# A# # # # # A# C C# D# F G G# A#
#C# # #C# D# E F# G# A# B C# # # # # # #C# D# E F# G# A# B C#
#D# # #D# E# F# G# A# B# C# D# # # # # #D# F F# G# A# C C# D#
Phrygian (1222122):
#Ab # #Ab Bbb Cb Db Eb Fb Gb Ab # # # # Ab A B Db Eb E Gb Ab
#Bb # #Bb Cb Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb # # # # # Bb B Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb
#Db # #Db Ebb Fb Gb Ab Bbb Cb Db # # # #Db D E Gb Ab A B Db
#Eb # #Eb Fb Gb Ab Bb Cb Db Eb # # # # #Eb E Gb Ab Bb B Db Eb
#Gb # #Gb Abb Bbb Cb Db Ebb Fb Gb # # # Gb G A B Db D E Gb
#A# # #A# B C# D# E# F# G# A# # # # # # A# B C# D# F F# G# A#
Lydian (2221221):
#B # # B C# D# E# F# G# A# B # # # # # #B C# D# F F# G# A# B
#G# # #G# A# B# C## D# E# F## G# # # # #G# A# C D D# F G G#
#A# # #A# B# C## D## E# F## G## A# # # #A# C D E F G A A#
#C# # #C# D# E# F## G# A# B# C# # # # # C# D# F G G# A# C C#
#D# # #D# E# F## G## A# B# C## D# # # # D# F G A A# C D D#
#F# # #F# G# A# B# C# D# E# F# # # # # #F# G# A# C C# D# F F#
Mixolydian (2212212):
#Db # #Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb Cb Db # # # # # Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb B Db
#Gb # #Gb Ab Bb Cb Db Eb Fb Gb # # # # #Gb Ab Bb B Db Eb E Gb
#G# # #G# A# B# C# D# E# F# G# # # # # #G# A# C C# D# F F# G#
#A# # #A# B# C## D# E# F## G# A# # # # #A# C D D# F G G# A#
#C# # #C# D# E# F# G# A# B C# # # # # # C# D# F F# G# A# B C#
#D# # #D# E# F## G# A# B# C# D# # # # # D# F G G# A# C C# D#
Aeolian (2122122):
#Ab # #Ab Bb Cb Db Eb Fb Gb Ab # # # # #Ab Bb B Db Eb E Gb Ab
#Db # #Db Eb Fb Gb Ab Bbb Cb Db # # # # Db Eb E Gb Ab A B Db
#Eb # #Eb F Gb Ab Bb Cb Db Eb # # # # # Eb F Gb Ab Bb B Db Eb
#Gb # #Gb Ab Bbb Cb Db Ebb Fb Gb # # # #Gb Ab A B Db D E Gb
#A# # #A# B# C# D# E# F# G# A# # # # # #A# C C# D# F F# G# A#
#D# # #D# E# F# G# A# B C# D# # # # # # D# F F# G# A# B C# D#
Locrian (1221222):
#Ab # #Ab Bbb Cb Db Ebb Fb Gb Ab # # # #Ab A B Db D E Gb Ab
#Bb # #Bb Cb Db Eb Fb Gb Ab Bb # # # # #Bb B Db Eb E Gb Ab Bb
#Db # #Db Ebb Fb Gb Abb Bbb Cb Db # # # Db D E Gb G A B Db
#Eb # #Eb Fb Gb Ab Bbb Cb Db Eb # # # # Eb E Gb Ab A B Db Eb
#Gb # #Gb Abb Bbb Cb Dbb Ebb Fb Gb # # #Gb G A B C D E Gb
#F # # F Gb Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F # # # # # #F Gb Ab Bb B Db Eb F
Harmonic Minor (2122131):
#Ab # #Ab Bb Cb Db Eb Fb G Ab # # # # # Ab Bb B Db Eb E G Ab
#Db # #Db Eb Fb Gb Ab Bbb C Db # # # # #Db Eb E Gb Ab A C Db
#Eb # #Eb F Gb Ab Bb Cb D Eb # # # # # #Eb F Gb Ab Bb B D Eb
#Gb # #Gb Ab Bbb Cb Db Ebb F Gb # # # # Gb Ab A B Db D F Gb
#G# # #G# A# B C# D# E F## G# # # # # # G# A# B C# D# E G G#
#A# # #A# B# C# D# E# F# G## A# # # # # A# C C# D# F F# A A#
#C# # #C# D# E F# G# A B# C# # # # # # #C# D# E F# G# A C C#
#D# # #D# E# F# G# A# B C## D# # # # # #D# F F# G# A# B D D#
#F# # #F# G# A B C# D E# F# # # # # # # F# G# A B C# D F F#
Melodic Minor (2122221):
#Ab # #Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F G Ab # # # # # #Ab Bb B Db Eb F G Ab
#Db # #Db Eb Fb Gb Ab Bb C Db # # # # # Db Eb E Gb Ab Bb C Db
#Gb # #Gb Ab Bbb Cb Db Eb F Gb # # # # #Gb Ab A B Db Eb F Gb
#G# # #G# A# B C# D# E# F## G# # # # # #G# A# B C# D# F G G#
#A# # #A# B# C# D# E# F## G## A# # # # #A# C C# D# F G A A#
#C# # #C# D# E F# G# A# B# C# # # # # # C# D# E F# G# A# C C#
#D# # #D# E# F# G# A# B# C## D# # # # # D# F F# G# A# C D D#
#F# # #F# G# A B C# D# E# F# # # # # # #F# G# A B C# D# F F#
Super Locrian (1212222):
#Ab # #Ab Bbb Cb Dbb Ebb Fb Gb Ab # # # Ab A B C D E Gb Ab
#Bb # #Bb Cb Db Ebb Fb Gb Ab Bb # # # # Bb B Db D E Gb Ab Bb
#Db # #Db Ebb Fb Gbb Abb Bbb Cb Db # # #Db D E F G A B Db
#Eb # #Eb Fb Gb Abb Bbb Cb Db Eb # # # #Eb E Gb G A B Db Eb
#Gb # #Gb Abb Bbb Cbb Dbb Ebb Fb Gb # # Gb G A Bb C D E Gb
#C # # C Db Eb Fb Gb Ab Bb C # # # # # #C Db Eb E Gb Ab Bb C
#F # # F Gb Ab Bbb Cb Db Eb F # # # # # F Gb Ab A B Db Eb F
#G # # G Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F G # # # # # # G Ab Bb B Db Eb F G
#F# # #Gb Abb Bbb Cbb Dbb Ebb Fb Gb # # Gb G A Bb C D E Gb
Overtone (2221212):
#Db # #Db Eb F G Ab Bb Cb Db # # # # # #Db Eb F G Ab Bb B Db
#Gb # #Gb Ab Bb C Db Eb Fb Gb # # # # # Gb Ab Bb C Db Eb E Gb
#B # # B C# D# E# F# G# A B # # # # # # B C# D# F F# G# A B
#G# # #G# A# B# C## D# E# F# G# # # # # G# A# C D D# F F# G#
#A# # #A# B# C## D## E# F## G# A# # # # A# C D E F G G# A#
#C# # #C# D# E# F## G# A# B C# # # # # #C# D# F G G# A# B C#
#D# # #D# E# F## G## A# B# C# D# # # # #D# F G A A# C C# D#
#F# # #F# G# A# B# C# D# E F# # # # # # F# G# A# C C# D# E F#
Hungarian Minor (2131131):
#Ab # #Ab Bb Cb D Eb Fb G Ab # # # # # #Ab Bb B D Eb E G Ab
#Db # #Db Eb Fb G Ab Bbb C Db # # # # # Db Eb E G Ab A C Db
#Eb # #Eb F Gb A Bb Cb D Eb # # # # # # Eb F Gb A Bb B D Eb
#Gb # #Gb Ab Bbb C Db Ebb F Gb # # # # #Gb Ab A C Db D F Gb
#B # # B C# D E# F# G A# B # # # # # # #B C# D F F# G A# B
#G# # #G# A# B C## D# E F## G# # # # # #G# A# B D D# E G G#
#A# # #A# B# C# D## E# F# G## A# # # # #A# C C# E F F# A A#
#C# # #C# D# E F## G# A B# C# # # # # # C# D# E G G# A C C#
#D# # #D# E# F# G## A# B C## D# # # # # D# F F# A A# B D D#
#F# # #F# G# A B# C# D E# F# # # # # # #F# G# A C C# D F F#
#
... and a zillion scales like this and worse...

Enigmatic (1322211):
#Ab # #G# A B# C## D## E## F## G# # # # G# A C D E F# G G#
#Bb # #A# B C## D## E## F### G## A# # # A# B D E F# G# A A#
#Db # #Db Ebb F G A B C Db # # # # # # #Db D F G A B C Db
#Eb # #D# E F## G## A## B## C## D# # # #D# E G A B C# D D#
#Gb # #Gb Abb Bb C D E F Gb # # # # # # Gb G Bb C D E F Gb
#B # # B C D# E# F## G## A# B # # # # # B C D# F G A A# B
#E # # E F G# A# B# C## D# E # # # # # #E F G# A# C D D# E
#G# # #G# A B# C## D## E## F## G# # # # G# A C D E F# G G#
#A# # #A# B C## D## E## F### G## A# # # A# B D E F# G# A A#
#C# # #C# D E# F## G## A## B# C# # # # #C# D F G A B C C#
#D# # #D# E F## G## A## B## C## D# # # #D# E G A B C# D D#
#F# # #F# G A# B# C## D## E# F# # # # # F# G A# C D E F F#

JimD

Dec-29-2006, 8:26am

Only time for a short answer right now:

The only keys that we traditionally use key signatures for are 0-7 flats and 0-7 sharps.

Anything else gets handled by accidentals (i.e. double. flats and sharps not in the key signature).

In theory any pitch can finction as a tonic (even B quadruple sharp!) -- but most of these are too unwieldy for serious consideration. It is important to understand the system though.

groveland

Dec-29-2006, 8:35am

Another short answer - I'm talking chord names here. Like the 6th degree of Gb Hungarian Minor yields an Ebb ma7(b5) chord. I would expect to see a D ma7(b5) in a chord chart, personally.

jmcgann

Dec-29-2006, 11:34am

I have never seen double sharps or double flats used for chord symbols- they are already 'informal' http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

groveland

Dec-29-2006, 11:55am

John -

Your winky icon could mean a lot of things - But I will take that to mean something like, "When expressing the component chords of a given scale, don't fret about using the formally correct note names for each degree of the scale based on the given tonic - The names of the chord types aren't formal, why should we worry about the note names in that case? So when naming chords, an A# is as good as a Bb, Cb is a B, and double flats and double sharps are baggage."

Or have I put words in your mouth? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

jmcgann

Dec-29-2006, 1:16pm

Well, I think chord symbols like Cbmaj7 or A#m7 are correct, and if you take a few minutes to get the feel for translation (i.e. Bmaj7 or Bbm7) it's OK. What I meant to say is I agree with you- the reason we don't see symbols like Ebb maj7 is that life is hard enough, and it's gonna sound like Dmaj7, so why not call it that? Double flats and double sharps in chord symbols- I've never seen them, that doesn't mean they don't exist-but they'd be coming from someone rather hard core!

The 'informal' feeling about chord symbols, for me, is such that I'd never want to see a double flat or double sharp in a chord symbol- and most jazz musicians wouldn't use them even in a melodic context anyway- but you can expect to see them (in notation) in other kinds of music, and it's good to be able to deal with them (even if it involves swearing) http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif Personally, I don't use them myself when composing or arranging, as I value sight reading clarity over theoretical accuracy (as Hindemith and Schoenberg roll over Beethoven...) Trained classical players can easily deal with all these double sharps/flats pretty much as a matter of course- it's safe to say that excellent reading ability is taken for granted more in that field of music than any other.

It's enough to make me consider learning to read tab http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Peter Hackman

Dec-29-2006, 1:46pm

As a footnote to my previous post: perhaps the easiest way to express that mumbo-jumbo is that accidentals are independent of the key signature.

E.g., a natural sign on the middle line (G clef) may neutralize the key signature
or a previous accidental - in both cases it means the same: b natural.

A single sharp on the lowest space ALWAYS signifies an f sharp; a double
sharp on the top line ALWAYS means f raised twice, i.e., (enharmonically) g,
whether the key is B or C (but don't use it in the last case if you don't want to make enemies!)

david blair

Dec-30-2006, 2:08am

Thanks for that clarification, Pete. Of course you're exactly right. I forgot about the natural symbol. And rarely do I actually see a double flat. I have avoided sheet music with more than four flats!
Happy new year to all!

David

Soupy1957

Dec-30-2006, 7:47am

Groveland: 100 "Soupy points" for the time it took you to create that post!!!!
-Soupy1957

groveland

Dec-30-2006, 12:19pm

Soupy - Thanks. I think...
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

August Watters

Dec-30-2006, 6:35pm

Composers and arrangers use enharmonics and double accidentals for clarity, or to express a specific idea they're working on. Sometimes it's more clear to express a chord enharmonically: such as when it makes the root motion easier to understand.

I encountered just this situation this past semester while teaching an ensemble: a student just about had a meltdown over a CbMaj7 chord we found in a tune from a Latin fake book. The student assumed it should have been notated as a BMaj7, and that the book was being deliberately obtuse and "correct" rather than understandable. Yet when we examined the duration of chords and relationship to cadences, it was clear that chord was easier to read as a CbMaj7.

Notation decisions are subjective -- there are no "right" or "wrong" answers, it's just a matter of how we see things, and what looks like the easiest way to get the job done.

August W