Ask me anything Music Theory and I'll answer

[cryophonik]

99.9% of them were either rewritten or changed to the enharmonic.

Care to offer some proof to back up that statistic? I see music written in the keys of F#maj/min and C#maj/min all the time (try Google and see for yourself), with abundant E#s and B#s. Believe it or not, many people can and do comprehend and read flats and sharps, even E#, Fb, B#, and Cb, whether they're notated in the key signature or added as accidentals. It's not just an exercise in academics - it applies to performance as well.

There is no sharps or flats between E->F and B->C... There is no sharps or flats between E->F and B->C.

That was never a point of argument. We are referring to this:

With regards to all of the above you should never see a B Sharp, E Sharp, C Flat, or F Flat written on a score. Instead you will see the natural notes applied, (C, F, B, and E).

That IS misinformation. I see those notes written in many pieces of music, as have/will many people reading this. Telling them otherwise is not doing them any favors and is ultimately more confusing than understanding key musical concepts, such as key signatures, relative keys, etc., and destroys your credibility as a self-proclaimed music theory expert. That's all I'll add to this argument.

[tehlord]

Can I be your cheerleader Dave?

[echomusic]

. . . Furthermore, instruments with continuous pitch (e.g., vocals, unfretted string instruments) do not always play enharmonic notes at the same pitch depending on the context, so Cb does not necessarily equal B, nor does E# = F, etc. You should look it up for yourself. And, please stop spreading this misinformation - it's not simpler to be wrong.

This is consistent with what I recall from my music theory days (well back into the last century!). And that's what my original question was in this thread: If it's true that string instruments are capable of distinguishing between these tones, how can modern 'compromise' instruments such as a piano ever truly be in tune with a traditional orchestra?

-B

There really isn't one but to play the natural. Take for example the double sharp and double flat, (which is what he signified right there). They are "in between" - a mid variation on notes that are already sharp or flat.

That is why I veer away from the theory on this subject because it doesn't apply to everything. As a rule, two notes that are enhamonically equivalent produce the same tone. There is no alternative for all instruments to play double sharps and double flats as a mid-variation.

[Ogg Vorbis]

I think you're trying to get at the C# minor's dominant 7th - which is the root of C# and a 4th half-step F natural. When you're studying theory the major third is E#, but when playing it's F natural. Take a look at a keyboard and play an E# yourself and see.

Okay here's an exerpt from Beethoven Sonata in C# Minor "Moonlight." If you look at the third measure of this "sheet music" you'll see B# which is the correct spelling of the leading tone.

You'll also see lots of instances of A# as well (not to mention F double sharp). All of these are correct enharmonic spellings that have specific meaning in music.

You don't arbitrarily respell things in music any more than a professional writer arbitrarily substitutes "they're, their and there" because they are the "same word."

These aren't just "nit picking" either. It's really what we're talking about when we talk about the essentials of music theory.

Sorry, I guess I get a bit passionate when it comes to the native language.

[ThomasKoot]

@ echomusic

When you're playing in the Gb major key, you have the following notes Gb, Ab, Bb, Cb, Db, Eb and F. When you would note B instead of Cb, you would have both a B and a Bb in the same scale, that is definately confusing. On to top that, you'll get flats and 'restoration marks' (I don't know how they're called in English) all over your score.

If you would rewrite it as F# major you would have the same problem with E#, rewriting this as F gives both F and F# in the same scale. So there is no other way than using Cb's or E#'s

It really seems to me that you're just wrong about this subject. Don't get me wrong, that's no shame at all, I don't think anyone here knows more than everybody else on this forum. That's the power of a forum, collective intelligence. So let's just use collective intelligence to answer the questions, instead of starting by proclaiming yourself as the authority on the subject.

[echomusic]

99.9% of them were either rewritten or changed to the enharmonic.

Care to offer some proof to back up that statistic? I see music written in the keys of F#maj/min and C#maj/min all the time (try Google and see for yourself), with abundant E#s and B#s. Believe it or not, many people can and do comprehend and read flats and sharps, even E#, Fb, B#, and Cb, whether they're notated in the key signature or added as accidentals. It's not just an exercise in academics - it applies to performance as well.

There is no sharps or flats between E->F and B->C... There is no sharps or flats between E->F and B->C.

That was never a point of argument. We are referring to this:

With regards to all of the above you should never see a B Sharp, E Sharp, C Flat, or F Flat written on a score. Instead you will see the natural notes applied, (C, F, B, and E).

That IS misinformation. I see those notes written in many pieces of music, as have/will many people reading this. Telling them otherwise is not doing them any favors and is ultimately more confusing than understanding key musical concepts, such as key signatures, relative keys, etc., and destroys your credibility as a self-proclaimed music theory expert. That's all I'll add to this argument.

I edited one of my posts with more than one example. There is a contention between theory and application. You wouldn't disagree with there being no sharps or flats between E/F and B/C, why would you disagree when I say you shouldn't see it either?

The use of them is confusing and is one of the places where theory contradicts with performance. I always lean toward performance when it comes to practical use.

Two enharmonially equivalent notes produce the same pitch. There is already a convention for those notes in between as previously mentioned - double sharps and double flats - referring to those mid-tones between a sharp and natural or flat and natural. They have their own symbol to signify it. Furthermore, not all instruments can play the mid-tone between an E# and F natural.

[echomusic]

I think you're trying to get at the C# minor's dominant 7th - which is the root of C# and a 4th half-step F natural. When you're studying theory the major third is E#, but when playing it's F natural. Take a look at a keyboard and play an E# yourself and see.

Okay here's an exerpt from Beethoven Sonata in C# Minor "Moonlight." If you look at the third measure of this "sheet music" you'll see B# which is the correct spelling of the leading tone.

You'll also see lots of instances of A# as well (not to mention F double sharp). All of these are correct enharmonic spellings that have specific meaning in music.

You don't arbitrarily respell things in music any more than a professional writer arbitrarily substitutes "they're, their and there" because they are the "same word."

These aren't just "nit picking" either. It's really what we're talking about when we talk about the essentials of music theory.

Sorry, I guess I get a bit passionate when it comes to the native language.

You chose a good one, but I have the original. That I went through with a fine tooth comb as you mentioned it was a matter of spelling probably due to the notes before and after it, they would be on the same line. In either case I would consider that at best an exception to the rule.

It says a lot considering that they were written in as accidentals - a far cry from it being marked as part of the key signature. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I will always lean toward performance over theory when there is such a rift between them.

[PaulSC]

I edited one of my posts with more than one example.

Yes, rather hilariously, since the 6th rhapsody makes prominent use of notes such as C-flat and F-flat (despite your claims that these theoretical notes are absent from sheet music)

and since bringing up the Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies reminds us that the best known of them (#2) uses E# in its very first measure...
http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/LookIn ... ianL2.html
At any rate, while it's true that Liszt, like many composers, switches back and forth between enharmonically equivalent keys for pragmatic purposes, the claim I was hoping you would illustrate is that Bach and Kraus wrote pieces in C-sharp major and then rewrote them in the enharmonically equivalent key. Your Liszt example doesn't back up that claim, since it doesn't present any evidence that Liszt wrote the Db major passages in C# major and subsequently rewrote them. Your Bach example doesn't back up that claim, either, since you use it instead as an opportunity to advance the quite different claim that Bach wrote his C-sharp major Prelude and Fugue in C major and transposed it after the fact. Where's the evidence for that? Is there an extant manuscript in C major? A reference to any such version in his letters? Regardless, since on the C-sharp major version is the only one available to performers to play (either in Bach's own time or ours), it makes no sense to claim that the transposition is a matter of theory only; on the contrary, C-sharp major is the only key in which that piece is regularly performed; it therefore has an eminently practical, rather than theoretical, existance.

Two enharmonially equivalent notes produce the same pitch. There is already a convention for those notes in between as previously mentioned - double sharps and double flats - referring to those mid-tones between a sharp and natural or flat and natural. They have their own symbol to signify it. Furthermore, not all instruments can play the mid-tone between an E# and F natural.

Double sharps are not in between the notes of the chromatic scale, they are enharmonic with various members of that scale. For instance, F-double-sharp is enharmonically equivalent to G natural. Uses of notes such as F-double-sharp are not uncommon in published scores; a particularly well known example occurs in m. 2 of Chopin's Waltz in C-sharp minor, Op. 64 No. 2
http://everynote.com/piano.show/3325.note

[echomusic]

@ echomusic

When you're playing in the Gb major key, you have the following notes Gb, Ab, Bb, Cb, Db, Eb and F. When you would note B instead of Cb, you would have both a B and a Bb in the same scale, that is definately confusing. On to top that, you'll get flats and 'restoration marks' (I don't know how they're called in English) all over your score.

If you would rewrite it as F# major you would have the same problem with E#, rewriting this as F gives both F and F# in the same scale. So there is no other way than using Cb's or E#'s

It really seems to me that you're just wrong about this subject. Don't get me wrong, that's no shame at all, I don't think anyone here knows more than everybody else on this forum. That's the power of a forum, collective intelligence. So let's just use collective intelligence to answer the questions, instead of starting by proclaiming yourself as the authority on the subject.

Ironically the disagreement isn't about the theory, but the fact that I said you shouldn't see it on sheet music. I did concede by the way and agreed that for the sake of spelling they can be used as exceptions to the rule. I'll either omit that statement in the new revision or add it as an exception to my preference.

[Ogg Vorbis]

You chose a good one, but I have the original. That I went through with a fine tooth comb as you mentioned it was a matter of spelling probably due to the notes before and after it, they would be on the same line. In either case I would consider that at best an exception to the rule.

It says a lot considering that they were written in as accidentals - a far cry from it being marked as part of the key signature. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I will always lean toward performance over theory when there is such a rift between them.

My man, you are WAY out on a limb. I was going to rip your bad information but I like what ThomasKoot wrote. He said something to the effect that we are all here to learn from each other and keep each other in check.

Coming off as a guru isn't going to cut it. I know because I am a failed guru myself. I've have my shit checked a bunch of times and now I have learned to appreciate it.

Welcome to KVR, the land of the eternally studious.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_sharp

[leggie]

Why is it so complicated ?

[echomusic]

Why is it so complicated ?

It's not complicated. The theory we're all fine with. What they're contesting is my preference of application.

[echomusic]

You chose a good one, but I have the original. That I went through with a fine tooth comb as you mentioned it was a matter of spelling probably due to the notes before and after it, they would be on the same line. In either case I would consider that at best an exception to the rule.

It says a lot considering that they were written in as accidentals - a far cry from it being marked as part of the key signature. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I will always lean toward performance over theory when there is such a rift between them.

My man, you are WAY out on a limb. I was going to rip your bad information but I like what ThomasKoot wrote. He said something to the effect that we are all here to learn from each other and keep each other in check.

Coming off as a guru isn't going to cut it. I know because I am a failed guru myself. I've have my shit checked a bunch of times and now I have learned to appreciate it.

Welcome to KVR, the land of the eternally studious.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_sharp

Like I said it isn't the theory that we're in disagreement over, but me saying that you should see it in sheet music, which I still stand by as a rule of thumb. I did concede that like every rule there are exceptions. The examples of work that I used and was shown showed two things. First the composer started in the key and changed to enharmonic and second the sharp was used as an accidental (not part of the key signature) which was my point to begin with.

There's a reason why it was changed in the first instance. There is no E# B# except when explained in theory. It's a rift between following the rule of there being no E# or B# and using theory to apply it to performing.

The contention is whether to notate the progression by the rule
C# Major - C#-D#-F-F#-G#-A#-C-C#

or notating it by theory (which contradicts the rule)
C# Major - C#-D#-E#-F#-G#-A#-B#-C#

The historical path has been to start off in C# Major and switch to the enharmonic equivalent or notate as accidentals. It was done because the theory contradicts the rule (again which is why I conceded and called it an exception to the rule that I will be sure to mention in the new book).

I'm being attacked on personal preference, not the theory.

[MOK19]

Tangent opinion here, but 2 or 3 of you have come off overly-aggressive towards echomusic. We can disagree and remain civil, even if facts or interpretations are actively in question.
Chillax, my bruthas.

[ckatrun411]

Tangent opinion here, but 2 or 3 of you have come off overly-aggressive towards echomusic. We can disagree and remain civil, even if facts or interpretations are actively in question.
Chillax, my bruthas.

bullshit, the guy asked for it. anybody claiming to be a walking encyclopedia is more than welcome to get called out.


Thread would have been a lot nicer if: subject = I'm writing a music theory book. content = what are some ideas and questions I should cover?


Than the guy would have had room to make a mistake on the subject, he claims to be a master of.