a beaten dead horse

[wommbatt]

as the title suggests i know this HAS to have been spoken of millions of times and i'm very new to music theory....so please be kind, and linky 8]

if sharps and flats are the same thing why not just have a symbol that means halftone and apply it to the previous note?

is this simply due to going up or down scales or is there a more scientific reason that i'm not aware of.

one idea that i had was that half tones being labeled as sharp or flat are estimates, that if scales were done in third tones instead of half tones, would you wind up with something like A - Asharp - Bflat - B?

i tried googling, but all the phrases i used just seemed too long to find anything useful, or they just explained sharps and flats without reasonings just "this is how it is, dont question it"

anyway, thanks in advance
-wommbatt

[journeybear]

This is how it is; don't question it.

[journeybear]

Seriously, people with years of study of music theory will be ringing in soon enough. I have always thought it was to keep from cluttering up the staff with up to 11 of either # or b symbols. Dividing accidentals into two groups and going in opposite directions around the circle of fifths seems a practical solution, and about as neat as possible given the parameters of the notation system.

And splitting tones into thirds instead of halves? Yikes!

[Ravenwood]

Usually whether a note is specified as a sharp or flat will depend on the key of the tune. For example in the key of D the F and C are noted as sharp F and sharp C rather than flat G and flat D. Maintaining consistency with the manner in which the key is defined (D has 2 sharps) the semitone between G and A would then also typically be noted as G# rather than Ab.

So, although much of it is taken as convention, there really is something systematic about it. Of course, for every "rule" there are always exceptions.

[wommbatt]

i decided to take my searches one step further and to go track down the frequencies of the notes and then to compare them to each other to see if they actually are equal or not. but in doing this i found the answer to some of my questions:
1. to prevent excessive usage of accidentals and unnecessary sharps/flats all over
2. to keep 1 note of each letter in a given scale (ex. a G scale COULD be written with 2 E notes and NO F notes, but that just wouldn't make sense although technically sound)
3. because they said so lol

i hate when i find answers to questions immediately AFTER i make a post, also, i will be addressing the Tritonal idea in this thread as well once i find the info im looking for, any other input on that idea is welcome 8]

[Bertram Henze]

Sigh... I won't go into full explanation here, but try to give you a lead what to search for:

In the beginning, there was so-called just intonation, sounding beautiful for physical reasons (overtones), but being sentenced to be played alone: one instrument tuned in a just G scale and another tuned in just F sounded awful when played together, because the frequencies wouldn't exactly fit over each other. In just intonation, A# and Bb were two different notes. Stringed instruments with just scale frets were impossible to build (though some try to sometimes), so frets were given up on altogether (that's how the violin family came to be).

Then these rebellious scales were being tempered, e.g. the unfitting notes of different just scales were slightly shifted so they would fit, until equal temperament was reached which was basically an octave divided into 12 equal half steps (each one raising the frequency by the 12th root of 2). Suddenly, different instruments could play together, fretted instruments had simple frets and A# and Bb became the same note. The names of the notes, however, remained. I don't understand it either (nor do I understand why Washington DC is outside Washington state) - just accept that the world is weird.

[Mark Robertson-Tessi]

A little history:

Sharps and flats are a convention of notation that arose directly and necessarily out of Gregorian chant. Back in the day, melodies were based mostly on 6-note series (equivalent to tones 1 through 6 of the major scale), and the 6 notes were simply written on consecutive lines of the staff (equally spaced on paper and in lettering). However, the pitch spacing between these 6 notes is not equal ( step, step, half-step, step, step). Because of the way that the notes were chosen, it turns out that the B and C notes, and the E and F notes were the ones that were naturally a half-step apart without accidentals, and all other consecutive notes were whole tones. And no matter how you try, you can only put two half-steps into an octave and still keep consecutive lettering for the six note sets. In other words, once it was decided that the 6-note pattern of step/step/halfstep/step/step was going to be described with consecutive letters, everything that follows with regards to accidentals is determined! So as new starting points for the 6-note set were added, say starting on F, it became clear that the B would need to be lowered to maintain the six-note set spacing. Thus the introduction of the small letter b, which looks suspiciously like a flat. And as history winds on, you see addition of sharps and flats as music became more harmonically complex. But really, when you boil it down, it was the original choice of making the C and G notes the start of the 6-note sequences which predetermined the system of notation we have today, even though they didn't use any sharps or flats initially. So it is the way it is and you can blame the monks.

You could make a system of notation that had one half step for each line or space on the staff. 12 letters per octave, instead of 7, and it would work fine. But, since the first use of our current system of notation was based on the first 6 notes of a major scale, we have a system that needs sharps and flats when we move away from that. It makes reading tonal music very easy, but it might not be the most natural way to describe atonal music.

Also, sharps are in general not equal to flats unless you are playing an equal tempered instrument. If you look at the order in which the sharps and flats are applied to the scale tones, you will see that they go in opposite directions:
Sharps are added: 7 3 6 2 5 1 4
Flats are added: 4 1 5 2 6 3 7
The first few sharps are initially on leading tone type of notes (7 and 3), while the early flats are on perfect intervals (4, 1 and 5). If you have control of micro-intonation like on a fiddle, it would be common to make the sharps a little higher to have them lead better into the next note. The early flats on that list, on the other hand, would be played true since they usually represent the perfect intervals.

Anyway, maybe there's an answer in there somewhere!

Cheers
MRT

[Phil Goodson]

.... Dividing accidentals into two groups.....:

And just to interject my pet peve: ACCIDENTALS are not the same as sharps and flats!!

Accidentals are notes in a tune that are not found in the scale of the Key that the tune is being played in and therefore have to be marked as "accidentals" on the written music so you know to play the proper note.

In the key of Bb, a B note would be an accidental. (but a C note would not.)

<rant over> Thanks for listening. I feel better now.

[John Flynn]

As a person who is a struggling notation reader, I don't question the convention, but I do question how some sheet music publishers use it. There is a piece of music I play in church that has a run with a accidental Db in it and in the next measure, with no key change mind you, there is a run with an accidental C#. I get that technically there may be some difference, but I don't wanna hear about it. It is the same darn note and I'm just trying to play here for cryin' out loud! There is another piece we play that has a Cb accidental in it, but it's in a key that has a B natural in it. I want to call the sheet music publisher and yell "It's a B, OK?" and then slam down the phone!
- end of rant

[Jim Bevan]

Sit at the keyboard. Starting at C, which is the white key to the left of the 2 black keys, play 8 white keys, going "up", to the right. This is the C scale, and we're going to call the notes "do re mi fa sol la ti do." Notice that there are no black notes between mi and fa, and between ti and do. Do to re is called a whole step, and mi to fa is called a half step. This arrangement of whole and half steps is called a "major scale." Now, starting on C, play "do re mi fa sol", or, what is the same, play "C D E F G." Think of G as a new do, and, starting at G, play a major scale. You'll notice that to keep the same arrangement of whole and half steps, the G scale goes G A B C D E and not the white key F but the black key above it, which we call F sharp or F#, and then G. So the key of G has one sharp. Repeat this whole process of making sol the new do, and you'll notice that a new sharp is added each time. Try this 3 or 4 times. Then, starting again at C, and going down, play "do ti la sol fa," or, what is the same, play "C B A G F." Think of F as the new do, and, starting at F, play a major scale. You'll notice that the F scale goes F G A and not the white key B but the black key below it, which we call B flat or Bb, and then C D E F. So the key of F has one flat. Picture the different keys as numbers on a number line, with C being zero, and all the "sharp" keys being positive numbers, and the "flat" keys being negative numbers.

[Bill Baldridge]

Thanks, folks, for the theory lesson. So far every response has been understandable with no condescension. I feel a halftone more knowledgeable, or would that be an accidental?

[John Flynn]

Thanks, folks, for the theory lesson. So far every response has been understandable with no condescension. I feel a halftone more knowledgeable, or would that be an accidental?

I felt that way for a hemidemisemiquaver, but then the feeling passed.

[Mark Robertson-Tessi]

I felt that way for a hemidemisemiquaver, but then the feeling passed.

A very sharp observation.

[Bill Baldridge]

My comment only applied to, "blame the monks."

[bobby bill]

As a person who is a struggling notation reader, I don't question the convention, but I do question how some sheet music publishers use it.

Outside of the classical music world, I have rarely seen a music book without one if not a handful of glaringly obvious errors. Just last night I was reading a waltz in Ungar's book of waltzes and the harmony was an E major and the melody included an a flat (rather than g sharp). The fact that an a flat and g sharp sound the same (in an equally tempered world) is of little consequence. It hurts the eyes and ears and puts a stumbling block in one's sight-reading.

Haven't music publishers ever heard of proof-readers? I have always thought I should offer up my services just for a free book.

[Mark Robertson-Tessi]

A-flat in a tonal melody in E major is unnecessarily wrong for sure. Cb in a key with no flats is also suspiciously egregious. Personally, I think a lot of these errors are introduced by midi and TAB based transcriptions which are then translated into standard notation by a program that doesn't have good rules for flats and sharps. I have a friend who enters music via MIDI, and when he prints off a part for me, it's usually very strangely notated, a mix of sharps and flats; clearly the algorithm has no built-in sense of key structure. Even something like Finale that's on the upper end of quality for notation software will choke on stuff that's input through MIDI.

The reverse is true, too. i've seen ridiculous tabbed versions of a song where clearly the transcriber took standard notation and used a program to create the TAB without regard to playability (basically using the lowest fret possible in all cases). Probably was never tried on the instrument using the TAB. Yet, it's sold as such.

So yeah, human eyes are apparently lacking in the publishing business.

Cheers
MRT

[John McGann]

Well, not everyone is as music theory-aware as others. The idea that "accidentals should agree with the chord symbol" is a concept that requires a pretty good knowledge of harmony. "Standard practices" aren't universally adopted- there is a lot of confusion over chord symbols, because they haven't been totally standardized...I see it a lot, even in the work of students at Berklee.

[Mark Robertson-Tessi]

Well, not everyone is as music theory-aware as others. The idea that "accidentals should agree with the chord symbol" is a concept that requires a pretty good knowledge of harmony. "Standard practices" aren't universally adopted- there is a lot of confusion over chord symbols, because they haven't been totally standardized...I see it a lot, even in the work of students at Berklee.

True. Especially in jazz, it's a wrestling match between strict theory and readability. An A-flat in a simple E major tune is something that should be caught, if you're in the business of publishing dots.

Cheers
MRT

[mrmando]

one idea that i had was that half tones being labeled as sharp or flat are estimates, that if scales were done in third tones instead of half tones, would you wind up with something like A - Asharp - Bflat - B?

Mr. Partsch ... paging Mr. Partsch ...

Some contemporary music does include quarter-tone notation.

[John McGann]

Agreed. In the USA, I don't think there is a lot of "musical editing" that goes on in the publishing houses.

[Bertram Henze]

Incorrect notation seems to be much like incorrect spelling: itt souwns normel butt loox weerd.

[wommbatt]

haha wow, this place just exploded with info 8]

all of my confusion is gone now, and after reading all of this my understanding of how scales work just increased 10 fold

now im off to learn about this quadtonal system, you guys are the best

[lukmanohnz]

Sigh... I won't go into full explanation here, but try to give you a lead what to search for:

In the beginning, there was so-called just intonation, sounding beautiful for physical reasons (overtones), but being sentenced to be played alone: one instrument tuned in a just G scale and another tuned in just F sounded awful when played together, because the frequencies wouldn't exactly fit over each other. In just intonation, A# and Bb were two different notes. Stringed instruments with just scale frets were impossible to build (though some try to sometimes), so frets were given up on altogether (that's how the violin family came to be).

Then these rebellious scales were being tempered, e.g. the unfitting notes of different just scales were slightly shifted so they would fit, until equal temperament was reached which was basically an octave divided into 12 equal half steps (each one raising the frequency by the 12th root of 2). Suddenly, different instruments could play together, fretted instruments had simple frets and A# and Bb became the same note. The names of the notes, however, remained. I don't understand it either (nor do I understand why Washington DC is outside Washington state) - just accept that the world is weird.

That is an awesome summary!

[journeybear]

Well, yes, the world is weird ... but Washington DC and Washington state are related only in that they are named after the same person, as is Washington, PA. Heck, there is a Wyoming, PA. (There really isn't a Wyoming, Montana, though; there is no brick-and-mortar Wendell Mercantile.) Also, there are over a dozen states with a Springfield in them ("The Simpsons" could be set in any of them). It gets worse - there are some states (PA is one, I believe) that have more than one town by the same name in them. Sorting mail in such a situation could easily be tricky.

Anyway ... it is interesting to learn about the evolution of notes and scales. We are - OK, I am - so accustomed to the way things are, not much thought given to how they got this way. And here we are - OK, I am - bending strings to make evocative music in between the restrictions imposed by frets. Interesting ...

[Bertram Henze]

Sorting mail in such a situation could easily be tricky.

Europe is no better JB. Just take a look at this tiny Austrian town...