Understanding Unisons, Octaves, Fourths, and Fifths

[EDMProd]

More aimed at beginners, but if you're not sure about intervals in general then I'd encourage you to have a look.

Looking specifically at how to recognize these intervals as perfect, diminished, or augmented. If you have any questions please reply to the thread or leave a comment

http://edmprod.com/unisons-octaves-fourths-and-fifths/

[Tricky-Loops]

I think with the claim that the augmented forth and the diminished fifth were "one and the same" (which is only true regarding the keys on the keyboard), you may get Mr. JumpingJackFlash against you...just warning you, so you're prepared for the usual music theory battle...

(You've been said that this is the devil's chord... )

[EDMProd]

I think with the claim that the augmented forth and the diminished fifth were "one and the same" (which is only true regarding the keys on the keyboard), you may get Mr. JumpingJackFlash against you...just warning you, so you're prepared for the usual music theory battle...

(You've been said that this is the devil's chord... )

Hmmm maybe I should edit that part out

[JumpingJackFlash]

If you're going to do this kind of thing, it's important to do it correctly, otherwise you will do more harm than good.

So this is meant as constructive criticism.

After a quick read through, generally it isn't bad. A few errors stand out though:

Firstly, your Augmented Unison example uses D# to E. This is NOT an augmented unison but a minor second. I realise you are limited by your DAW only notating sharps rather than flats, but you therefore need to choose an example that works that way. D to D# for example would work fine.

Similarly, your Augmented Octave example uses G# to A. Again, this is incorrect. You need to do A to A# or G to G# instead.

In the Fourths section, you write that "Fourths are an interval separated by, you guessed it - four lines and spaces (or five half steps)." and then later "All fourths have five half steps between them". Both of these statements are only true of Perfect Fourths, not other types of fourths, and is therefore going to confuse people.

You make the same mistake in the fifths section; make sure your specify "perfect" fifths when that's what you're talking about.

And your statement "All fifths are perfect, apart from again, the interval between F to B. This is a diminished fifth" is incorrect. F to B is an augmented fourth, not a diminished fifth. They are NOT the same thing (this one statement renders the entire article pointless).

In your picture example, A# to F is also NOT any type of fifth.

And after a very quick read through your previous article ("Melodic and Harmonic Intervals"), in the section on "Terms used to describe Quality", you write "Major: two half steps between notes". This is only true of major seconds and is therefore likely to confuse people.


As I said, I am not writing this to be difficult or offensive, I am writing this to help you correct your mistakes, which will in turn help anyone reading it not to learn things incorrectly.

KVR: Loving the new blue background by the way.

[EDMProd]

Thank you so, so much for that!

I fully appreciate feedback and aim to make my content as best as possible for the audience. I can't thank you enough!

[GeckoYamori]

Run them through some type of distortion. If they still sound reasonably clear, they're perfect. If they sound like ass, they're not

[skilfulgorilla]

[dark.nowhere]

Run them through some type of distortion. If they still sound reasonably clear, they're perfect. If they sound like ass, they're not

This dogs me so hard, I don't know whether to laugh knowingly or just cry about it. But electric guitars don't seem to have this problem.

[Hink]

imho distortion makes a guitar much more a forgiving instrument

[jancivil]

the things that are 'out' in equal temperament, eg., the sharp major thirds are the worst, are exacerbated by distortion, the fact of the harmonics amplified means that 13,69¢ sharp is replicated various ways in harmonic distortion; third partial, adding a sharp fifth on top of this unfortunate perverted third, etc... a 'power chord' omitting that third sure seems preferable to a major chord in heavily distorted genres and I believe there's your reason. At a certain point you get a pretty square form coming out and I don't really feel flattered working with it, it has a certain affect that you work with like any other phenom.

I'm using an especially filthy tone in the new track and it has a certain 'different' kind of intonation certainly than a bit cleaner, let alone a lot cleaner tone, there are things which seem out where the fundamental certainly is as in tune as it can be. It's expressive, the 'a bit unhinged' as a character. Guitar really seems out of tune to me. I like feedback, it tells me the truth about vibration.

[spacecult]

Run them through some type of distortion. If they still sound reasonably clear, they're perfect. If they sound like ass, they're not

This dogs me so hard, I don't know whether to laugh knowingly or just cry about it. But electric guitars don't seem to have this problem.

If it's a fuzz-type of distortion then he's reasonably accurate. straying from perfect 5ths(4ths), or octaves will produce ring mod type effects.

[dark.nowhere]

If it's a fuzz-type of distortion then he's reasonably accurate. straying from perfect 5ths(4ths), or octaves will produce ring mod type effects.

Sure, but my observation is that guitars don't so much sound like "ass" when this happens.

[Hink]

Run them through some type of distortion. If they still sound reasonably clear, they're perfect. If they sound like ass, they're not

This dogs me so hard, I don't know whether to laugh knowingly or just cry about it. But electric guitars don't seem to have this problem.

If it's a fuzz-type of distortion then he's reasonably accurate. straying from perfect 5ths(4ths), or octaves will produce ring mod type effects.

I personally find fuzz to be the type of distortion most likely to sound like "ass" if there is such a thing. As there are many people who prefer fuzz I am less inclined to use such language and simply say I dont care for fuzz. (which once in a thread about fuzz I got called a troll for making such a statement). Perhaps it's how I discovered fuzz when I was 12 or 13 (1971-1972) and that was with an old radio shack 8-track (cartridge) recorder and pegging the VU needles for the "Jimi Hendrix sound" as I called it then.

Fuzz imo is too dirty for my tastes (overall, there are times for fuzz for me as well, just not as often) and I do prefer overdrive to fuzz for my pedals. I like that biting clean edged OD, I also find that such tone is easier (not to mention more quiet) to achieve with class A tube amps and thus the allure for me of single ended tube amps.

I could be way off but this is how I see it (or hear it as the case may be), fuzz is pretty much white noise-ish, fuzz covers a lot of frequencies and can mask a lot. I think typically when being used as the artist intends this masking is a good thing..."more forgiving" not too mention is the defining tone of R&R guitar for a long time...still I care very little for it. There is more sustain but the more you increase the sustain the more noise you are introducing to your signal. With OD into a non plate starved tube pre-amp (talking the pre-amp stage here, not just a dedicated tube pre-amp) there is magic between the overdrive and the tubes that create the singing glass like tone that I love so. Sustain is not an issue, feedback is more controllable, it allows for more detailed tone imo for both the guitar player and the rest of the band...I also notice that my dependency on fuzz has diminished more and more over the years suggesting to me I dont need to mask those mistakes as much or to mask awkward passages some might not care for...but again that's just me.

Now of course there is always some fuzz created, but the difference for me is the fuzz is not the main force. Also all this is just my way, in no way am I saying it's "right" but I found through the years that fuzz works better with solidstate amps or should I say that when I had solidstate amps in my younger years I did enjoy fuzz much more but that enjoyment was short lived when I got tube amps. Of course to each his/her own for sure, but I do think that the more forgiving aspect of fuzz is key to a lot of players. If I really wanted to I could sit down with several tube amps and make some demo tracks to illustrate this but it's likely it would just be a waste of time because I am not trying to "change" anyone and such things have a tendency of being ignored here at KvR.

FWIW I also really do not care for distortion on vocals or drums and when it comes to bass sometimes a little distortion is cool but with all three it's very easy to over do the distortion and then it turns me off. (but again that's just me)

I know at least one person will condemn me in this thread because this has nothing to do with theory, but I disagree because I think when adding distortion to a piece these things must be taken into consideration and there are a lot one non guitar players using synths and other instruments experimenting with fuzz and other distortions who may not understand the differences in distortions and that understanding cam compliment a piece quite quickly. Apologies to anyone who feels this is a derail of the thread...I wont even get into my argument that distortion is a process and not an effect

[jancivil]

it seems like 'fuzz' was created in order to capture something of the distortion in overdriving tubes to saturation when one didn't have that kind of amplification available.

It's 'flattering' to make things less distinct I guess but I mean that the squareness of the wave is itself something to negotiate with from the very attack. It depends. It doesn't make a less-than-clean line more clean I don't think. Effects can be something to hide behind and there are some people that rely on them to do their talking for them in excess I think. I hear certain people and wonder, did they ever bother with 'tone' from their hands at all.

Hendrix used fuzz, a number of boxes, in addition to overdriving Marshalls. He had a round sound that wan't often this totally square thing such as in the more extreme 'metal' manifestations. From an engineering standpoint, I don't know but I'm not sure building a fuzzbox and diming a speaker is necessarily dichotomous. It seems like to me ascribing too much to labeling a thing puts the cart in front of the horse. Distortion is distortion, I would look at it objectively.

I'm not a typical guitar sort of person, I'm not as interested in 'guitaristic' things as guitarists tend to be. I want a singing tone so I gravitated towards sustain. I took up the guitar following Hendrix kind of directly. The first fuzz boxes I could get my hands on ca 1970 were godawful. What I like is a sustaining thing that allows me to get the most out of the left hand and not pick a lot of notes, more of a horn player's [blowing*] approach than a mandolinist's.

The two best sounds I got in real life were out of a 50-Watt Combo Marshall and an aged Fender Twin and I didn't use effects in those gigs. With the latter I played clean all the time, with the former I liked to be right next to the amp and sustain, negotiations with the feedback.
I am interested in distortion in a big way now, ITB/virtual and in effects as an expressive device (I have this template with 'Phaze Nine' and working the speed of that modulating feedback I get something someone thought was like a *Shakuhachi). I know from 'fuzzbox' more thru Amplitube Jimi Hendrix than from actual boxes, I didn't have money to throw at that. I had the Rockman for a time in the 80's, it was good in the studio as you could mitigate its issues and bring it out, PITA for live. The technology today for the things I'm interested in is miraculous, kids today don't know how good they have it.

[spacecult]

What I like is a sustaining thing that allows me to get the most out of the left hand and not pick a lot of notes, more of a horn player's [blowing*] approach than a mandolinist's.

From looking at old ads, seems like one of the original marketing angles for fuzz boxes was more or less 'no need for that sax player anymore, rock n' rollers, plug your guitar into this and you will have that horn sound right at your fingertips!'

Seems hilarious now. Maybe there was something to it, though, as horn section style parts played on fuzzed out or overdrive guitars eventually morphed into the almighty and indispensable (spell-check tried to correct to indefensible, hehe) hard rock riff.

I guess fuzz-boxes were not successful in emulating horns other than producing a buzzy, harmonically rich sound, especially considering that the dynamic range of a horn sounds quite large to me and a straight up fuzz is close to none. Playing a cranked fuzz feels vaguely like playing some 70s monosynth with no velocity sensitivity. I like that, but I can certainly see why folks wouldn't.