Spelling in artificial scales.

[jancivil]

Humm, how about a totally different interpretation that I've come up with.
Instead of thinking of this song in Eb, let's think of it in D.

D-Eb-F#-G-A-Bb-C#-D. Then it's actually an "arabic" scale with 2nd and 6th degree lowered.

that's what I mean, that's where I go with it, looking at it and singing it. From your remarks I felt you were eliding or 'avoiding' the sort of power D would hold with me. That C#-D-Eb is exactly what's in Marwa that the one time I went for it is a real mystery. I like mystery in music, rather than music I totally have already sussed.

as per 'harmonic minor', that always struck me as Arabic in feel, and this aug 2nd was one of these kind of verboten things for a time...

[jancivil]

comes from the scale

Eb - F# - G - A - Bb - C# - D - Eb.

Some assumptions:

1) The melody uses all these tones, so that's why I believe it "comes from it".
2) I've spelled it this way, because I feel/hear a tonal center in the Eb pitch.
This solved the Eb - G - Bb - Db spelling, but complicated the A - C# - Eb - F# spelling, because now I would need to constantly alternate these two spellings. Then I've decided to spell it A - Db - Eb - F#. At this point the F# "looked" strange on paper and made more sense to have it A - Db - Eb - Gb (?)...

Argh... I just got lost...
Not to mention that as soon it modulates (like 10 seconds after it begins lol) the nightmare begins all over...


Well, these same issues arise in EVERY tune I make that uses this kind of base... A melody composed with quirky intervals (i love using scales with 1,5 steps in there)...

So basically, It's very convenient to me to have these systems sorted out, to feed them into my symbolic composer and whatever because then I know how to model the "sound" and I can understand where the sound comes from...

BUT, whenever I want to spell it and notate it for the purpose of communicating them to others, or even commercial purposes, they clash with the expectations of players who are used to interpret classical/jazz scores... I'd say, by your own experience JanCivil, when you hear the snowboy and Crow tune, you replied to me with the matter of the pedal... noone would actually "HEAR" a Eb - G - Bb - C# chord, because it does NOT have that "function"... it's just a mental process to try to systematize that sound....

Yes, so it's a matter of what happens rather than a theory from the outside, isn't it.

I first got involved with 'artificial scales' like 40 yrs ago. Where that comes from is appropriating elements from non-western music and fitting it to 12tET. So I became aware of things from little booklets after I became somewhat aware of ICM. So while people, say here, will more typically want to shoehorn everything into functional harmonic theory, I look at it as the thing-in-itself and recognize that you, in all likelihood chose a row of tones for itself, its effect. You like what 1.5 tones does in things.
I wouldn't be considering chords until you signaled that.

So your row for this tune, well I've actually done that one so there's my attitude and bearing... 'rooted in D' does not have to be absolutely true in practice but we found it hard to ignore.

I would say that there is no real problem with this alternative spelling per se, if there is more than one effect coming out of this thing, and that will not be surprising. So I went into my Marwa bit, to try and show that we could find ourselves *located* in more than one level [you used the term 'modulation'; one thing you might enjoy conferring with is maqam modulation; also Indian Classical has a notion of 'dominant/subdominant' and plateaus. Or like Zappa Inca Roads solos, there are always arguments 'C lydian!' vs 'It's D mixolydian, though', because you might be oriented either way. For me it's D as tonic and C as dominant.] with a subtle scale or mode such as this one. In Marwa [C = Sa], it's C# when it is, and Db when it is. And the inflection in pitch belongs there, as well. My solo ends on what is given in the theory as 1, but it is the opposite of a final. It's KIND OF a b3, but it hangs there 'this question is never solved'. A duality. Resembling major-minor but there is no resolve it to 'major' because it isn't that thing, that would be a lie.

Because of what came before, I took Ab as 1 (more rooted in F by the nature of the raga and the drone, Ab-F) so spelling it Ab-A-C-D-F-G would be the first thing I'd say to someone else as the simplest statement. The single fact of no Eb there avails her of this mystery aspect, in every case if you are true to her.

[Musicologo]

I've actually played it again today and was messing around the theme, and the "problem" is that the D chord doesn't work after all... Now I understand why I was eliding the "D". If I try to forget the theory and scales behind it, and just try to simplify my melody and harmony "tonally", I kinda "feel" that I just alternate Eb-G-Bb-(Db7) with Eb-F#-A-(C), so I'm confused again. My functions are NOT bII-I but instead an alternation between major and diminhed as simple as that, with that added Db... argh... I can't wrap around this.

If I play those melodies with Eb7 and D, they just don't sound the same. they sound "too happy", it's different I don't know.

Ommiting the D and using the Eb-Db gives them another character and that is the sound I want. So I'm stuck again because I can't get a theoretical explanation for it that I'm satisfied with.

Let's start again: If I assume I'm just alternating a Major with a diminished, can that be explained functionally in any way that makes "sense"?...

[JumpingJackFlash]

can that be explained functionally in any way that makes "sense"?...

Why do you need it to be "explained"?

"So it makes sense" relative to what? - If you're not using functional harmony, then your piece is obviously not likely to make sense in those terms... Or it certainly won't be meaningful even if it's possible to do so.

[jancivil]

Well, I don't think the construction of that scale, or these kinds of synthetic scales is very conducive to chords to make sense or be 'tonal' in the stricter sense. You don't have to shoehorn it into some prior paradigm to make sense, you can make your own rule about it if it makes sense to you musically.

[MadBrain]

I've actually played it again today and was messing around the theme, and the "problem" is that the D chord doesn't work after all... Now I understand why I was eliding the "D". If I try to forget the theory and scales behind it, and just try to simplify my melody and harmony "tonally", I kinda "feel" that I just alternate Eb-G-Bb-(Db7) with Eb-F#-A-(C), so I'm confused again. My functions are NOT bII-I but instead an alternation between major and diminhed as simple as that, with that added Db... argh... I can't wrap around this.

If I play those melodies with Eb7 and D, they just don't sound the same. they sound "too happy", it's different I don't know.

Ommiting the D and using the Eb-Db gives them another character and that is the sound I want. So I'm stuck again because I can't get a theoretical explanation for it that I'm satisfied with.

Let's start again: If I assume I'm just alternating a Major with a diminished, can that be explained functionally in any way that makes "sense"?...

It could be a subset of the Eb octatonic scale (Eb E F# G A Bb C Db, also known as halfstep-step diminished scale), which has a pretty wide harmony (can have Eb7, F#7, A7 and C7 chords, plus Edim7, Gdim7, Bbdim7, C#dim7, plus Ebdim7, F#dim7, Adim7, Cdim7, plus various jazz chords with lots of alterations like Eb7b9, Eb13b9, C/Eb, Eb7#9 etc).

[A_SN]

Let's say I build up an artificial scale with raised fourth and lowered sixth.
c-d-e-f#-g-ab-b-c

Not sure this is what you're asking, but I like to keep my notation simple and flexible, so I would notate it as numbers of semitones from the root note. So for this example C D E F# G Ab B C would become 0 2 4 6 7 8 11 12 (which according to this page makes it one note away from Lydian minor).

I use that notation for everything, with 0 always the root note (I indicate which note 0 is separately), which is a good way to understand what's happening and keep the notation simple even when things get jazzy/chromatic. It makes things extremely easy too when like me you tune your guitar in major thirds (FAC#FAC# for instance) as turning those numbers into finger positions is simple maths (you add/subtract 4 for each string then go by frets)/remember where to find each number from the arbitrary root note, whatever the starting string, and also everything, intervals, triads, melodies are always the same shape.

If you really want to avoid ambiguity you could notate semitones by number: 1, 3, 5, 7, and so forth. (Or try a 0-based indexing scheme if you really want to annoy people!) Still, there's a reason why this never caught on.

0-based is definitely better, it makes a lot more sense mathematically to have the fifth represented by a 7, or the octave being worth 12 for instance. Why did this not catch on? Real question, I always wanted to know. I use this for everything and it beats anything else in simplicity when things get complicated, and you can more readily recognise scales and relations between notes (provided you always index the root as 0) regardless of the key without having to try to remember what is a E in Ab minor (because you'd always write the minor sixth as an '8').

Imagine writing the following (a real jazz example) in any other way. For 0 = Eb:
0-3-7-10-9
3-6-3-11↓-8↓-5
5-2-10↓-7↓-4 (↓ after a number means the octave below, so 11↓ is the note right below 0)

In this short example you've got 11 of the 12 possible notes in the octave (no '1' aka E, which occurs later anyway) as opposed to 7 for your everyday heptatonic scale, so it's hard to beat the simplicity of those numbers in that case. And it's helpful because if you're familiar with this notation then you recognise 0-3-7-10 instantly as a minor seventh chord (like C-Eb-G-Bb) whatever the key since it's precisely always the same sequence of numbers, which you might have more trouble recognising in this possibly unfamiliar Eb key as it gives you Eb-Gb-Bb-Db.

I know that people who learned music theory in more classical ways have trouble getting used to this, but when like me you're native to it (all the music I know I learnt through my spiral analyser and using that numbers notation) a lot of your problems just disappear and there are things you can just understand much more easily, using exotic scales is easy for instance. And transposition in the middle of something is a total no-brainer, I just write "TR-9" for instance to transpose down a major sixth, and everything keeps the same numbers, so you have no thinking to do and nothing new to learn.

[jancivil]

Well, if you're going to bring 'jazz' in, the symbols for those things signal at once the relationship to other things, which this does not.
And I don't know who this is that would have "trouble" seeing 10 = 'm7' (which, you may not know this but a tone less than the 'octave' may be augmented sixth, which has a meaning and is a musical idea [≠m7] indicating a point, its voice-leading, for just one instance) either, it doesn't take me but a moment to sort that out. I transpose notes in the piano roll often enough, ya know. I don't know what 'a lot of your problems disappear' means. I think the discussion here was interesting (I think talking about musical intervals reveals new things), you maybe not so much. I don't think abstracting it sorts Musicologo out, unless the goal is to obliterate thought about it.

I think using note names for conveying musical ideas is more apt and I don't mind the ambiguities as you put it, as spellings indicate musical meaning which is contextual. Which we have explored a little in this thread.

For instance in jazz when C7b5 is b5-substituted with F#7b5, the very same pitches on the piano, the fact of this indicates we have both F and B (or Cb!) as potential obvious targets/resolutions and a whole thing is opened up (there is a whole idiom here where calling something 0 is not going to work) .
Now this becomes rote for the experienced person, but in terms of analysis and obtaining knowledge/teaching, I'm sticking with it. When people even talk about it, we're dealing in musical intervals.

Everything you know came from that, well you kind of suggest to me you won't know all what the people know that always used notation. This is abstract and context-free, maybe is apt for serial dodecaphony but I don't know why you're selling it.

[A_SN]

Well, if you're going to bring 'jazz' in, the symbols for those things signal at once the relationship to other things, which this does not.

If you're not used to it then the numbers mean nothing special to you, but if you are then the numbers mean all the things you've seen them in before, as many things are repeated across many different tunes.

Yes, 10 = minor seventh, but a) it's much simpler to use numbers than minor/major/augmented/diminished second/third/fourth/etc..., b) numbers keep making sense in exotic scales whereas a seventh might become something very different and c) numbers are harder to get wrong (mostly in the context of learning notes directly from analysing sound as I do) whereas you have to figure out whether a 10 is an augmented sixth or a minor seventh and d) what would you call it when it's a 10↓, that is the one a step below the root?

By a lot of your problems disappear I mean (besides what I already mentioned concerning transposition and exotic scales) is for example since you do away with note names and everything is referenced from the root note then you don't have to bother calculating what's a diminished fifth from A and whether you should call it D# or Eb, you don't have to bother figuring out the names of the notes for all the components of a chord for instance, like, 0-3-7 is a minor chord, all it takes is the numbers, so if I say that a chord is 0-4-9-11 that's all I need to know, I don't need to know the name of each of the 4 notes involved depending on the key, I don't need to know if it's called a diminished minor whatever, and there's only one possibility, unlike some chords that have the same name but have different combiations. So it's about cutting to the chase, what is essential. The rest has its place, like knowing if something is an augmented sixth or a minor seventh, or the name of chords, or the proper name of the interval in an exotic scale, but this is non-essential and I think it can get in the way, getting you to think about things you should be able to do without, which I feel is kind of what this thread is about.

For instance in jazz when C7b5 is b5-substituted with F#7b5, the very same pitches on the piano, the fact of this indicates we have both F and B (or Cb!) as potential obvious targets/resolutions and a whole thing is opened up (there is a whole idiom here where calling something 0 is not going to work) .

And why is it better than my way where 11 (always 11, that's the beauty of it, it doesn't change) is your target and your C7b5 or F#7b5 are both "0-4-6-10", the only difference in notation being the indicated key?

Now this becomes rote for the experienced person, but in terms of analysis and obtaining knowledge/teaching, I'm sticking with it. When people even talk about it, we're dealing in musical intervals.

Sounds like you're telling me that you prefer this because that's what you're used to, which is fine, it's hard to switch to something less familiar, it's like learning another language when you don't even have to, but that doesn't mean my way isn't simpler or more efficient.

Everything you know came from that, well you kind of suggest to me you won't know all what the people know that always used notation. This is abstract and context-free, maybe is apt for serial dodecaphony but I don't know why you're selling it.

Well it won't tell you the difference between an augmented sixth and a minor seventh, but it doesn't get in your way of learning that either, it's all about keeping things simple to a minimum. It allows you to better understand things on your own through observation, when you don't even have access to a score for instance.

Basically in a way you're the wrong person to preach to, because you already know pretty much all you need to know, but if you start from nothing you'll have a much easier time figuring things out doing things my way, because it's much easier making sense of "(0=F#) 0-4-6-10" than making sense of "F#7b5" for a newbie once you get the basic concept of the numbers thing. Picture a newbie trying to figure out a 12-bar blues (I-I-I-I IV-IV-I-I V-V-I-I) whose first bar goes "0-3-4-5" (C-D#-E-F), it's much easier to figure out what's next with numbers than note names or interval names. And more importantly it's easier to see the things two different melodies in two different keys of the same scale (or even related scales, for example natural minor scale vs blues scale) have in common when you use root-indexed numbers notation than when you use note names, so you start more quickly to understand how a fifth sounds like when you always write it "0-7" than when you either know it as "C-G" or "E-B" or "Ab-Eb". Like you see how a pattern goes from using 0, 2, 3, 5 to using 3, 5, 7, 8 (granted the same can be said with using proper interval names as long as you don't dabble in exotic scales), or you better see how triad reversal works, you better see how 0, 2, 3, 5, 7 sound so much like 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, it's really much easier to see how a 9 doesn't fit in a minor scale when you know that scale has an 8, a 10 but no 9 than to see how a D doesn't fit in F minor (again, for a newbie), and when you look at things this way it makes you wonder what sense it makes to put so much importance in note names. Because absolute notes don't matter that much, take a tune and transpose everything by as much everywhere, and you get the same tune. Sure, it's in a different key, but I say it only warrants a mention at the beginning (like writing "0=C"), not making everything rely on what the key is. I know people are very attached to how playing in a heptatonic scale gives you a different letter for each of the seven notes, but when "0 2 3 5 7 8 10 12" seems more familiar to you than the alphabet you really don't miss the note names, and importantly enough it prepares you quite well to use notes outside of that scale (because it's not like suddenly you're confused because you have two different kinds of thirds at the same time, it's just the numbers 3 and 4, no big deal).

Again I guess you're too experienced to be able to enjoy the difference or benefit from the advantages. But I think that given that I knew nothing about music less than 2 years ago (other than the fact that there's 12 semitones in an octave, really, I didn't even know what a fifth was) and that I was able to figure a lot of things out through mere observation (through the spiral shaped analyser, with epiphanies such as "I see lots of 5s and 7s") and thinking in numbers, I think this has its place for simplifying things if you struggle with the regular notation and help with understanding/learning.

[Musicologo]

You win something, you lose something.
Numbers have the incredibly merit of simplifying things and are extremely useful to communicate to a computer and to model styles and tunes. I've been working with symbolic composer and I definitely agree that numbers are the way to go, specially when I'm dealing with artificial scales beyond 12tET. On the point i want to work or build up scales based on continuum I have to deal with pure frequencies.

On the other hand letters (symbols) are very useful to build relational contexts that are difficult to grasp by numbers. If I build up an artificial discrete scale based on pure frequencies, then I have to "name it" it I want to do something like "octave equivalence" or something alike. example a = 22.3 Hz; b = 27.9 Hz; c = 31.2 Hz; d = 36.6 Hz; e = 39.2 Hz. There.
Now I know that 44.6 hz, for instance is also "a" and 66.9 Hz is ALSO "a" and I can build entanglements.

The thing with numbers is that 0 is 0 is 0 is 0. It's not ambiguous, it's a representation of a frequency. While C and B# and Dbb, on a tuned piano represent the same 0 and the same key, in philosophical terms represent 3 different entities... and in contexts represent different things! Heck, among musicians for sure they are different things.

Example: you have a pianist, a bass player and a violinist. Tell them all: play 0, 0, 0. There.
Now tell them, piano you're in F major, start there and play a C, violin you're in E major start there and play a B#, bass you're in Bb minor start there and play a Dbb.
Well... probably you'd get a different sonorous result!...

So it really depends on context. Sometimes is useful to have ambiguous notation.
Notation and symbols also open up mental construction and to think about the core processes why we do things and how we go from a to b.
Reasoning in terms of symbols using music theory applied to art music, then applied to jazz or reasoning in terms of numbers is not the same thing. The language allows us to build worlds inside our heads that can shape ideal "sound spaces" and conceptions to create. Therefore "Bb major chord" is not the same as 10-2-5. "Bb major chords" implies a before and an after, implies a tradition and a path.

[A_SN]

On the other hand letters (symbols) are very useful to build relational contexts that are difficult to grasp by numbers. If I build up an artificial discrete scale based on pure frequencies, then I have to "name it" it I want to do something like "octave equivalence" or something alike. example a = 22.3 Hz; b = 27.9 Hz; c = 31.2 Hz; d = 36.6 Hz; e = 39.2 Hz. There.
Now I know that 44.6 hz, for instance is also "a" and 66.9 Hz is ALSO "a" and I can build entanglements.

Numbers do that too so you get the same advantage, in my case with 12TET they're in base 12 (except I use "10" and "11", and occasionally "12", instead of special symbols for those, no need for symbols given that "11" is atomic, you shouldn't be able to confuse it for "1-1"). So 7 is an octave below 7↑ and an octave above 7↓, there's no -5 or 19, it's always 7 from octave to octave. So if you're in 19TET you can do the same in base 19.

Example: you have a pianist, a bass player and a violinist. Tell them all: play 0, 0, 0. There.
Now tell them, piano you're in F major, start there and play a C, violin you're in E major start there and play a B#, bass you're in Bb minor start there and play a Dbb.
Well... probably you'd get a different sonorous result!...

Well actually in that case since piano thinks in F major you would tell him to play a 7, not a 0, violin in E major would play an 8 (which I can tell you right away isn't part of the major scale, although maybe that's part of your point), not a 0, and bass in Bb would play a 2, not a 0. Telling them to play 0, 0, 0 means telling them to play in the key of C, which isn't what you want. I'm not convinced that they will sound different in isolation by the way, but they will definitely sound different in context with other notes, which is my entire point, a 7 sounds like a 7, an 8 sounds like an 8 (and in the context of a major scale it will sound 'funny') and a 2 sounds like a 2, even if they're all a C, which is the whole point of my notation!

So it's important to remember two things, the 0 isn't a C, numbers aren't substitutes for note names, they're relative to the key, not absolute, which is what's good about them. And you only use numbers between 0 and 11 (or 12 if it suits you better), no negatives, nothing above 12.

Alright I'll just put it in a different way: the problem with note names, other than being a bit twisted, is that they're absolute, and you get very little benefit from using an absolute pitch notation. Using a notation relative to a key makes a lot more sense (you only need an absolute notation to indicate the key which I always do when I write "0=F" for example). So that relative notation could be anything, you could use letters starting from M or whatever letter you like, you could even have them using #s and bs if you want to tie your notation to a particular scale, but I don't, so I choose numbers, and numbers are easy to handle and calculate with.

Therefore "Bb major chord" is not the same as 10-2-5. "Bb major chords" implies a before and an after, implies a tradition and a path.

you don't get it (or maybe I misunderstood your point?), a Bb major chord is not 10-2-5, it's 0-4-7, a F# major chord is 0-4-7, a Eb major chord is 0-4-7. A major chord is always 0-4-7, a minor chord always 0-3-7, a diminished chord always 0-3-6 (really you can learn a dozen chords in 10 minutes, you don't need chord tables to memorise, it's easy, that's the whole point!), etc... The symbols are still there, they're just there in a different simpler form.

Edit: In case you meant a Bb major chord in the key of C then you have a point, but what I do in that case as in the case of a 12-bar blues is that I think of the chord as being transposed, for instance I'll think "0-3-4-5 from 0" then later "0-3-4-5 from 5" then later "0-3-4-5 from 7" because it makes more sense that way than thinking "5-8-9-10" and "7-10-11-12". So in the case of a Bb major chord play in the key of C (C minor I assume?) you'd do better to think of it as "0-4-7 from 10" than as "10-2↑-5↑".

tl;dr this is all about using notation relative to the key rather than absolute pitch notation. Isn't it plain to see why relative would make more sense than absolute?

[JumpingJackFlash]

it makes a lot more sense mathematically to have the fifth represented by a 7, or the octave being worth 12 for instance.

It may make sense mathematically, but not musically.

I use this for everything... you can more readily recognise scales and relations between notes ... regardless of the key without having to try to remember what is a E in Ab minor (because you'd always write the minor sixth as an '8').

Ab-E is actually an augmented fifth.
Kind of proves my point a bit (see below)...

it's helpful because if you're familiar with this notation then you recognise 0-3-7-10 instantly as a minor seventh chord (like C-Eb-G-Bb) whatever the key since it's precisely always the same sequence of numbers

What you're missing is that in tonal music, there is an important relationship between pitches. Omit that and the label becomes meaningless.

For example, say you have 0-4-7-10 (in your system).
In and of itself, that doesn't tell me very much. It might indicate what notes to play, but very little else.

It could be a Dominant Seventh (V7) chord for example, or it could be a German Augmented Sixth... these are much more useful labels, they tell me a lot more about the chord and its context.

Number systems have been used in more "atonal" contexts, most notably in "set theory" where conventional tonal relationships don't apply. But with tonal music, calling a basic major triad "0-4-7" is just unnecessarily complex and meaningless.

numbers are harder to get wrong (mostly in the context of learning notes directly from analysing sound as I do) whereas you have to figure out whether a 10 is an augmented sixth or a minor seventh

This is important information that carries meaning. You seem to think the distinction is unnecessary, but it can be actually be useful.

you don't have to bother calculating what's a diminished fifth from A and whether you should call it D# or Eb, you don't have to bother figuring out the names of the notes for all the components of a chord for instance, like, 0-3-7 is a minor chord, all it takes is the numbers

Sounds a bit like laziness to me.
A diminished fifth above A is Eb.
An augmented fourth above A is D#.
There is no ambiguity there; these are different things depending on context. That difference is important and needs to be preserved.

so if I say that a chord is 0-4-9-11 that's all I need to know

And if I say a chord is a minor seventh (or whatever), that's all I need to know.

Sounds like you're telling me that you prefer this because that's what you're used to, which is fine, it's hard to switch to something less familiar, it's like learning another language when you don't even have to, but that doesn't mean my way isn't simpler or more efficient.

And we could say the exact same thing back to you.

if you start from nothing you'll have a much easier time figuring things out doing things my way, because it's much easier making sense of "(0=F#) 0-4-6-10" than making sense of "F#7b5" for a newbie once you get the basic concept of the numbers thing.

Nonsense.
You like your method, and that's fine, but it is definitely not a good idea to "teach" it to a newbie.

There is a reason why Western music has represented pitches as letters for the past 1134 years.

The intricacies of music theory may not all be easy to understand at first, but if something's worth doing, it's worth doing properly. Deliberately learning things differently will put you at an enormous disadvantage when it comes to communicating and working with other musicians.

Just because you find numbers easier doesn't mean everyone else will.

I guess you're too experienced to be able to enjoy the difference or benefit from the advantages.

And you're too set in your ways to enjoy and understand the benefits of traditional music theory.

[A_SN]

it makes a lot more sense mathematically to have the fifth represented by a 7, or the octave being worth 12 for instance.

It may make sense mathematically, but not musically.

It makes sense musically when you're used to it. If it's new to you then it means nothing.

I use this for everything... you can more readily recognise scales and relations between notes ... regardless of the key without having to try to remember what is a E in Ab minor (because you'd always write the minor sixth as an '8').

Ab-E is actually an augmented fifth.
Kind of proves my point a bit (see below)...

In Ab minor? How's that? D# is the fifth, E is the (minor) sixth, F# is the seventh, there's no other sixth to be had, so why would you call it an augmented fifth? It's just a minor scale.

it's helpful because if you're familiar with this notation then you recognise 0-3-7-10 instantly as a minor seventh chord (like C-Eb-G-Bb) whatever the key since it's precisely always the same sequence of numbers

What you're missing is that in tonal music, there is an important relationship between pitches. Omit that and the label becomes meaningless.

For example, say you have 0-4-7-10 (in your system).
In and of itself, that doesn't tell me very much. It might indicate what notes to play, but very little else.

It could be a Dominant Seventh (V7) chord for example, or it could be a German Augmented Sixth... these are much more useful labels, they tell me a lot more about the chord and its context.

OK, but how does having "G-B-D-F" help you rather than having "0-4-7-10"? "G-B-D-F" could also be either of those two chords, it doesn't tell you which it is. Same thing with the numbers.

Number systems have been used in more "atonal" contexts, most notably in "set theory" where conventional tonal relationships don't apply. But with tonal music, calling a basic major triad "0-4-7" is just unnecessarily complex and meaningless.

Well I wouldn't call a major triad "0-4-7" either, it's simpler to say it's a major triad, but that's how I will think of it and remember it. See what I mean?

you don't have to bother calculating what's a diminished fifth from A and whether you should call it D# or Eb, you don't have to bother figuring out the names of the notes for all the components of a chord for instance, like, 0-3-7 is a minor chord, all it takes is the numbers

Sounds a bit like laziness to me.
A diminished fifth above A is Eb.
An augmented fourth above A is D#.
There is no ambiguity there; these are different things depending on context. That difference is important and needs to be preserved.

Laziness can sometimes be the mother of simplicity. I see what you mean, but what's a diminished fifth above Bb? E? Maybe if you want to preserve those distinction (although I'll admit to being ignorant of why that distinction is so important and I'd be thankful if you could explain it to me with an example. Also would you get both a diminished fifth and an augmented fourth in the same piece using the same scale?) you can always write them as 7b and 5# (although I'd stick to 6).

so if I say that a chord is 0-4-9-11 that's all I need to know

And if I say a chord is a minor seventh (or whatever), that's all I need to know.

No, you also have to know what a minor seventh (I think it's some kind of major seventh btw) is, and how do you learn what that chord is? Probably by saying that it's made of the root, a major third, a major sixth and a major seventh, which is essentially the same logic as writing "0-4-9-11", just longer. Again, look at it from a newbie's point of view. Not to mention there are chords that have a different make up and the same name.

Sounds like you're telling me that you prefer this because that's what you're used to, which is fine, it's hard to switch to something less familiar, it's like learning another language when you don't even have to, but that doesn't mean my way isn't simpler or more efficient.

And we could say the exact same thing back to you.

Yep. Except mine is simpler to the point you guys are arguing it's dumbed down a bridge too far, not that it's complicated. But it's a basis, nothing prevents you from undumbing it down, if you want your score to make a point that all the '6' are diminished fifths and not augmented fourths you can just write that.

if you start from nothing you'll have a much easier time figuring things out doing things my way, because it's much easier making sense of "(0=F#) 0-4-6-10" than making sense of "F#7b5" for a newbie once you get the basic concept of the numbers thing.

Nonsense.
You like your method, and that's fine, but it is definitely not a good idea to "teach" it to a newbie.

There is a reason why Western music has represented pitches as letters for the past 1134 years.

Yeah the main reason is because Western music strongly chained itself to the C major scale and its modes. It developed in an ass backwards way where you started with a scale and ended up getting chromatic as if it was the ultimate development. If you play in E minor why should the second have a # sign in F# that says something is different? It's not different, it's just the same vanilla second you get in every minor scale. So why does it need that extra sign that the other notes don't have? Forget about all the numbers crap, I concede that "F#7b5" is probably better than writing it out with numbers (though I maintain that the numbers make it easier to learn what a 7b5 is, like, you learn that a 7b5 chord is "0-4-6-10" and there you go, you know what it is, you can start calling things E7b5 or Gb7b5), the most important thing is relative notation vs absolute pitch notation, are you going to seriously tell me that absolute is better and isn't unnecessarily complicating?

The intricacies of music theory may not all be easy to understand at first, but if something's worth doing, it's worth doing properly. Deliberately learning things differently will put you at an enormous disadvantage when it comes to communicating and working with other musicians.

Those intricacies are much easier to understand when you're able to break them down into something as simple as numbers. It does definitely put you at a disadvantage if that's all you know, like living abroad if you only speak Icelandic, but I think thinking using that gives you an edge as it clears things up for you.

Just because you find numbers easier doesn't mean everyone else will.

I guess you're too experienced to be able to enjoy the difference or benefit from the advantages.

And you're too set in your ways to understand the benefit of traditional music theory.

Not really, that's my angle into understanding good old music theory and it works for me. I see "minor major seventh chord" I'm like WTF is that, hey what do you know Wikipedia tells me it's "The chord can be represented by the integer notation {0, 3, 7, 11}", done, understood. If I figure out the notes for a tune only use the numbers 0, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 I just look it up and not only do I instantly find out it's a Romanian scale, I also now know what a Romanian scale is. I now know what a minor major seventh chord is (really I just looked up a random chord, and now I know what it is, took me 10 seconds), easy peasy. I'm not throwing the baby that is music theory with the bath water that is notation, notation isn't theory, and classical notation could be better. So I'm not shutting myself out, on the contrary I have a pretty efficient way of gaining insight.

I mean come on, just admit that relative notation (whatever you choose your relative notation scheme to be, doesn't have to be numbers) is superior in every way to absolute notation.

[JumpingJackFlash]

It may make sense mathematically, but not musically.

It makes sense musically when you're used to it.

No, sorry it doesn't.
I'm not stupid; I fully understand your system of numbers, but that isn't how music works. Music is not mathematics.

In Ab minor? How's that? D# is the fifth, E is the (minor) sixth, F# is the seventh, there's no other sixth to be had, so why would you call it an augmented fifth? It's just a minor scale.

Look up intervals, you obviously don't understand them.

For example, say you have 0-4-7-10 (in your system).
In and of itself, that doesn't tell me very much. It might indicate what notes to play, but very little else.
It could be a Dominant Seventh (V7) chord for example, or it could be a German Augmented Sixth... these are much more useful labels, they tell me a lot more about the chord and its context.

OK, but how does having "G-B-D-F" help you rather than having "0-4-7-10"? "G-B-D-F" could also be either of those two chords, it doesn't tell you which it is. Same thing with the numbers.

Actually, a German Sixth would normally be spelt with an augmented sixth, not a minor seventh (hence the name "Augmented Sixth" chord). So it would be G-B-D-E# rather than G-B-D-F, and that gives me a lot more useful information that just a string of numbers.
(It could also sometimes be spelt with a C-double-sharp instead of D).

Also, I know that a dominant seventh on G means the tonal centre (at least temporarily) is likely to be C, whereas with a German sixth on G, the tonal centre is likely to be B or F#. - Again, useful information.

what's a diminished fifth above Bb? E?

Nope, B(b) to E is only four notes (B-C-D-E) therefore it cannot be any type of "fifth". A diminished fifth above Bb is Fb.

Yeah the main reason is because Western music strongly chained itself to the C major scale and its modes.

Erm, no.

If you play in E minor why should the second have a # sign in F# that says something is different?

Different than what? - You're the one prejudiced to the C major scale here.

why does it need that extra sign that the other notes don't have?

Because if it had an F-natural instead, it wouldn't be E minor.

the most important thing is relative notation vs absolute pitch notation, are you going to seriously tell me that absolute is better and isn't unnecessarily complicating?

Not at all. That's not my issue here.
Music uses relative notation all the time, and for good reason.
I-IV-V for example; simple but effective.

[A_SN]

I mean come on, just admit that relative notation (whatever you choose your relative notation scheme to be, doesn't have to be numbers) is superior in every way to absolute notation.

Oops, I left home after writing this and I realised how stupid it is, so my apologies for offending your eyes with something so stupid. I forgot that absolute notation is quite necessary for playing on instruments like keyboards, even if it's not for instruments like bass or violin.

It may make sense mathematically, but not musically.

It makes sense musically when you're used to it.

No, sorry it doesn't.
I'm not stupid; I fully understand your system of numbers, but that isn't how music works. Music is not mathematics.

I get that you understand technically how it works, but it doesn't have to do with mathematics. The numbers are just a notation, and they make sense musically when you're used to using them.

In Ab minor? How's that? D# is the fifth, E is the (minor) sixth, F# is the seventh, there's no other sixth to be had, so why would you call it an augmented fifth? It's just a minor scale.

Look up intervals, you obviously don't understand them.

OK, I may be ignorantly arrogant, but I think that whatever reason there may be for saying that E in a Ab minor scale isn't a sixth must be pointless. Then what is a sixth in a Ab minor scale?

For example, say you have 0-4-7-10 (in your system).
In and of itself, that doesn't tell me very much. It might indicate what notes to play, but very little else.
It could be a Dominant Seventh (V7) chord for example, or it could be a German Augmented Sixth... these are much more useful labels, they tell me a lot more about the chord and its context.

OK, but how does having "G-B-D-F" help you rather than having "0-4-7-10"? "G-B-D-F" could also be either of those two chords, it doesn't tell you which it is. Same thing with the numbers.

Actually, a German Sixth would normally be spelt with an augmented sixth, not a minor seventh (hence the name "Augmented Sixth" chord). So it would be G-B-D-E# rather than G-B-D-F, and that gives me a lot more useful information that just a string of numbers.
(It could also sometimes be spelt with a C-double-sharp instead of D).

Also, I know that a dominant seventh on G means the tonal centre (at least temporarily) is likely to be C, whereas with a German sixth on G, the tonal centre is likely to be B or F#. - Again, useful information.

OK thanks, I'm starting to realise the limitations of my approach.

what's a diminished fifth above Bb? E?

Nope, B(b) to E is only four notes (B-C-D-E) therefore it cannot be any type of "fifth". A diminished fifth above Bb is Fb.

Jesus, it may be my ignorant arrogance speaking but I indeed have trouble seeing the value of such distinctions. I mean, I get that it tells you something different, but it's like the same notes either way.

Yeah the main reason is because Western music strongly chained itself to the C major scale and its modes.

Erm, no.

Well look at the notation, everything is simple for C major and its modes, then you have to throw flats and sharps all around. At least strongly chained to the major scale and its modes in general, no??

why does it need that extra sign that the other notes don't have?

Because if it had an F-natural instead, it wouldn't be E minor.

I'm not stupid either, I know that, I'm not suggesting that it should be a F-natural otherwise it'd be a A minor. Why is a F in A minor a sixth but a E in Ab minor an augmented fifth? It's the exact same thing transposed. You have to wonder at that point if the distinction is real or if it's a construct that has little to do with what you hear. Don't just tell me that I'm wrong, I know that, tell me why you supposedly can hear a difference.

the most important thing is relative notation vs absolute pitch notation, are you going to seriously tell me that absolute is better and isn't unnecessarily complicating?

Not at all. That's not my issue here.
Music uses relative notation all the time, and for good reason.
I-IV-V for example; simple but effective.

Ah good so we sort of agree . But my issue is that you can't write a whole score with IVs and Vs, can you? I mean maybe a simple chord-progression based score, but for my initial jazz example no one would do that would they?

By the way I appreciate finally having the opportunity to confront my homegrown views with people who know music theory better than me. It helps me see what I'm missing, even if I admit there's some stuff you guys are attached to that doesn't seem to me as essential as you think. Especially the Ab-E augmented fifth thing, it just sounds wrong to me. The basic thing is, I really do not see why which key you're in matters as far as the relationships between the notes of a scale matter, slowing down a tape/vinyl doesn't make sixths become fifths, does it?