We have scales but why??

[NKF]

these tuning schemes are instrument specific. An orchestra doesn't have the same limitations as a piano. I would say that cultural trends have proven more important than physics in some cases. The 3rd is much more poignant than the 5th yet the 5th has a more simple ration which would ]\goes against the idea that simpler ratios are more salient.

[jancivil]

what does 'more salient' mean? more problematic? 5:4 is the most consonant when a strong bass produces the fifth partial as it agrees. +13.69¢ can in some exposed textures bug me. If I was dealing a lot with piano I would be very particular about its tuning. I don't really think a string or trombone player is going to adjust to the irrational interval but the simple concordance in harmony. et cetera.

a music such as Indian Classical Music which goes for a lot of expression by pitch variance considers the fifth inviolate and its melodic structures rely on that concordance, it certainly is the salient relationship. I

In non-fixed-pitch instruments ^3 can have a pull to 4 by being quite sharp like a ^7 does to the octave.

[Trakstar]

Without ... fixed pitch associations such as the universally adopted 440htz, there would simply be no rules or order in which to write musical melodies, harmonies and chords. A bit like the universal laws of physics.

that's absurd.

fixed pitch is strictly from convention. the physical laws of sound do not accord with, let alone rely on such conventions. The cart doesn't pull the horse.

The conventions in place you have a passing familiarity with are not a bit like univeral laws of physics. They are entirely artificial and serve a style area owing to a particular culture. Other cultures have other rules, some of which don't fix pitch necessarily, or demand A=440 or any other vibration as A. Persian musicians find that a corruptor for a musician, *fixed pitch*.

If you require to work inside a convention, you follow that convention. That should be self-evident.

Western European musicians have sought such a hegemony over the world they have tried to argue the natural law-fulness of their ways. Cf. Furtwangler. It's just not true, it's completely unreasonable blather.

Ok, to start with I admit I was wrong, it was late and i was tired and not thinking properly. I apologize for any misconception of the subject on my part
and so now I will try to explain what I meant a little clearer. It was like I told Tapper Mike on the music theory forum, I know what to say, just sometimes its how i say it. The sound occurs on a Frequency range of 20htz - 20,000htz , well for humans any way. It has a numerical order to it which goes from 0htz and upwards, not in random chaotic order like 0htz to 500htz then 16.000htz back to 1000khtz., so obviously this is what we use as the foundation for our scales and pitch associations. I was taught to believe where ever there is an order in force of some kind,there has to be a governing law in place to implement the order(thus the term Law and order). So here we have the order of the freq range 0htz going upto wherever it is that bats and dogs hear and so on at an infinite range.
we then use this foundation from which we create our musical scales and apply the harmonic series or enharmonic series to whatever sound happens to gain life
through the freq range, be it a clanging cacophony of out of tune drum sounds or the sweet ensemble of musical instruments playing in harmony with each other.
The confusion arose with me because of the Laws of consonance and dissonance which pyhthagoras is meant to have written the supposed first musical scale with, the Diatonic scale. I didnt put it in a proper context, so again my apologies. So we humans use the audible freq range to choose our musical scales
and instrument frequencies to fit what we choose to make them into, western culture most obviously for the major and minor chord keys and scales. Music has changed drastically over time, and we now class sequences of noise and sounds with no fixed scale, melodies harmonies or rhythm as musical pieces of work. Again my apologies to all the musicians who compose their chosen musical expressions through this form.When you look at forums like this and then look for the definition of music within whatever medium they are seriously opposing views upon what the definition of music is_(free dictionary)

1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.
3.
a. A musical composition.
b. The written or printed score for such a composition.
c. Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.
4. A musical accompaniment.
5. A particular category or kind of music.
6. An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.

Music was always understood to consist of Melody, harmony and rhythm. When you score music on a sheet you would always write the melodies on the treble clef and bass clef. Now though, people write music around such different methods of work you might as well throw the traditional view of music out of the window.

So, I hope that makes it a little easier to understand what i was trying to say, I started out with a pair of technics 1210's and no musical knowledge whatsoever, I couldnt even play a keyboard never mind understand the keys. everything I have had to learn from the ground up, so you will have to excuse the slight mistakes in my explanations as i am only beginning to learn about different scales and theory. At the minute I am working through a 300 page theory book and have just finished learning major and minor keys and chords.
Next up is the pentatonic scale(s) and others which i have yet to get my head around. So all the people who have years of experience in this area and qualifications coming out of your ears, please, have a little heart towards all us numpties who are having to learn the really hard way. Again my apologies to all concerned and to whyte rabbit, it was my bedtime you see.
Trakstar

[NKF]

what does 'more salient' mean? more problematic? .

more appealing i suppose. It sounds more consonant to most than a 5th. And it is also reflected in music as well.

[NKF]

The confusion arose with me because of the Laws of consonance and dissonance which pyhthagoras is meant to have written the supposed first musical scale with, the Diatonic scale. I didnt put it in a proper context, so again my apologies. So we humans use the audible freq range to choose our musical scales
and instrument frequencies to fit what we choose to make them into, western culture most obviously for the major and minor chord keys and scales.
Trakstar

they are not laws.
Consonance and dissonance are not tangible and a matter of opinion.
Pythogoras did not invent the diatonic scale. The first reported use of such tuning was circa the 9-10 century when polyphony was being explored. His name was given due to way it works. Even the modes we use now have nothing to do with greek modes.

[JumpingJackFlash]

no musical knowledge whatsoever

I don't wish to be rude, but I believe it is best to make certain of your facts before trying to advice newbies, who are likely to be even more confused by misleading posts.

No offence intended.

[chj]

This is the only post you need to know. It's math, it's physics, plain and simple.

It is simply mathematical ratios ...

they are not laws.
Consonance and dissonance are not tangible and a matter of opinion.

Not true. When wavelengths don't match up at all, sh*t sounds nasty, period. It won't be music, it will be noise. Sure, different music cultures prefer different intervals, some with more or less dissonance, but the intervals are still there and still based on wavelengths and their ratios.

Sure you could argue that nasty, irritating noise could be considered music to some ears, but then I'd leave you, so you could happily listen to the sound of fingernails on a blackboard.

Tuning to 440hz is completely arbitrary and culturally defined. Calling a note C instead of A, is arbitrary and culturally defined. Doesn't matter exactly what you tune to, it's all relative. An octave above an out of tune C, is another out of tune C, and the two together make a perfect octave, because that's physics, which is not defined by culture.

[JoeCat]

This is the only post you need to know. It's math, it's physics, plain and simple.

It is simply mathematical ratios ...

they are not laws.
Consonance and dissonance are not tangible and a matter of opinion.

Not true. When wavelengths don't match up at all, sh*t sounds nasty, period. It won't be music, it will be noise. Sure, different music cultures prefer different intervals, some with more or less dissonance, but the intervals are still there and still based on wavelengths and their ratios.

Sure you could argue that nasty, irritating noise could be considered music to some ears, but then I'd leave you, so you could happily listen to the sound of fingernails on a blackboard.

Tuning to 440hz is completely arbitrary and culturally defined. Calling a note C instead of A, is arbitrary and culturally defined. Doesn't matter exactly what you tune to, it's all relative. An octave above an out of tune C, is another out of tune C, and the two together make a perfect octave, because that's physics, which is not defined by culture.

+1.
Little chimp agrees:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l38 ... i=0&MUD=MP

When he grows up, he's gonna listen to dubstep, just to piss off his parents. Secretly, he'll prefer show-tunes.

[JumpingJackFlash]

When wavelengths don't match up at all, sh*t sounds nasty, period. It won't be music, it will be noise. Sure, different music cultures prefer different intervals, some with more or less dissonance, but the intervals are still there and still based on wavelengths and their ratios.

Do you think people thousands of years ago knew about wavelengths?

Did you read the bits above about temperament? For example, the major third in equal temperament is noticeably different to an acoustically pure third, but most people in the West are still conditioned to think of it as "in-tune' - that's a cultural thing, not physics.

[jancivil]

what does 'more salient' mean? more problematic? .

more appealing i suppose. It sounds more consonant to most than a 5th. And it is also reflected in music as well.

I have no evidence 'it sounds more consonant to most than'. a pure fifth is as consonant as a different-than-unison interval can be. the ET fifth itself is but a couple of cents off that, as well.

this is a bizarre idea to see in this day and age. It smacks of the kind of notion you'd see out of a very particular cultural bias which don't think is as prevalent today as you find it to be.

'reflected in music'? what music? intervals per se have no meaning as music until they are found in context.

[JJBiener]

You clearly dont (sic) have a clue where Im (sic) coming from, whatever that you actually think that is.

It is quite clear where you are coming from. It is apparent that you believe that by acting like an a**hole, someone might mistake it for intelligence. I think the OP had a serious question and your response is to simply contradict and insult people who weren't talking to you. Is that really the role you see for yourself in this life?

[jancivil]

The confusion arose with me because of the Laws of consonance and dissonance which pyhthagoras is meant to have written the supposed first musical scale with, the Diatonic scale.

Your reading has been insufficient per the subject matter I think. "the diatonic scale" per Pythagoras... Pythagoras is said to have sought principles of consonant vibration by divvying up string length on a 'monochord'. finding the frequency of vibration in inverse proportion to length. 2:1/1:2, 3:2/2:3.
Now one can construct a diatonic scale more or less by continuing to multiply 3/2; 9/4 (9:8 to put it in same octave {a tone}, etc. (1:1, 9:8, 81:64, 4:3, 3:2, 27:16, 243:128) It does not follow that he meant to write any such thing. at that time in history there is no evidence of any such thing. It's hard to show anything of the sort for quite some time after the quasi-legendary existence of Pythagoras. That bit cannot be resonabley attributed to that man, not even hardly.

Music was always understood to consist of Melody, harmony and rhythm. When you score music on a sheet you would always write the melodies on the treble clef and bass clef.

No, the concept of harmony is relatively novel in fact. During medieval times music was not understood in harmonic terms at all, and through much of the 'renaissance' period. It developed out of polyphony in contrapuntal practice, a plainsong and other lines to support it in church music for instance.

that's as far as europe. There is still no harmony as we speak of it in the highly developed Indian Classical Music, nor in the Maqams of Arabic music, nor in the Persian musics. Chinese traditional music, it its myriad forms, has not concerned itself with harmony.

Now though, people write music around such different methods of work you might as well throw the traditional view of music out of the window.

I'm sorry, that's just a complete non-sequitur, it doesn't even follow your other premises.

"the traditional view'. what traditional view? "out the window". towards what end?

I'm not here to just gainsay you. Not my intent to make you look bad. BUT I will advise you: the thing to do for you at this point is to step back and reflect. You're making assertions based in a poor understanding of things, and you have decided to step out with confidence like you got it. You don't got it. You are drawing conclusions out of bad premises. You ought to approach this from more humility and patience, you do.

[jancivil]

they are not laws.
Consonance and dissonance are not tangible and a matter of opinion.

in your post directly above what I quote, you characterized an interval, that is by ratio simpler, as less consonant.
what's the point there, an opinion about an interval. Before it was 'more salient', which is peculiar term for 'more pleasing I guess' which followed.

Are you having us on?

[jancivil]

This is the only post you need to know. It's math, it's physics, plain and simple.

It is simply mathematical ratios ...

they are not laws.
Consonance and dissonance are not tangible and a matter of opinion.

Not true. When wavelengths don't match up at all, sh*t sounds nasty, period. It won't be music, it will be noise. Sure, different music cultures prefer different intervals, some with more or less dissonance, but the intervals are still there and still based on wavelengths and their ratios.

Sure you could argue that nasty, irritating noise could be considered music to some ears, but then I'd leave you, so you could happily listen to the sound of fingernails on a blackboard.

I don't know I've ever seen more absurd assertions about the nature of things as this to date.

wavelengths? what about them? what is 'don't match up at all' even MEAN? "Shit sounds nasty, period."

Lookit, musicians simply do not rely on waveforms before the process for musical decisions (outside of, maybe, fairly arcane electronic experimental music. NB: even though that was my focus at SFCM I never heard anyone talk like that). The salient point of "dissonance" is what intervals happen to coincide in context of musical ideas!!!!

as JJF just offered, the Major Third - less consonant vis a vis physics than its rational basis in five limit - is considered a default consonance to a culture. It isn't to another culture; it doesn't even exist in a rational temperament, as it is derived from the twelfth root of two which gives an irrational number. Relatively, things are more dissonant to some people with less experience as a listener than they are to another more seasoned listener. Culturally there are different bases for 'taste'. Per the culinary simile, some people can handle more spice.

Then you go to exaggeration in the farthest reach ['nails on blackboard'] as if it hammers home a point.

you lack the very first clue as to what you're talking about.

[JJBiener]

That's because it doesn't exist.

If this weren't a music thread, I would ask you to defend this statement.

There is music that offends me as it was/is not a part of my culture.

Seriously? There is music that offends you? That seems like an odd choice of words. I didn't grow up listening to certain microtonal type of music, so they sound unfamiliar to my western ears. It never occurred to me to consider it offensive.

Just as there are fashion statements that disgust me but others find visually satisfying.

Again this seems like a rather extreme reaction to something you don't like.