We have scales but why??

[chj]

That might explain the octave, but why in the west has the octave always been divided up into 7 different basic notes? Why not 5 or 15? - That's just one example.

Because those 5-15 notes would sound like crap, because the physics of the wavelengths wouldn't work. But we're going round and round in circles here.

You obviously didn't read the Wikipedia links I provided. More specifically the Music and Mathematics link, tuning section, table with semitone-ratio-interval. A low first number in the ratio means the wavelengths match up frequently (i.e. octave, perfect fifth, perfect fourth). As a result the wavelengths complement each other result in a more consistent "consonant" sound. Which is what drove musicians from many cultures, times, places, etc. to arrive at very similar musical scales and intervals.

The answer to this particular question (the origin of scales) is actually REALLY SIMPLE. Of course, if you want to continually question if 2+2 really equals 4, then I guess you can do that for a lifetime.

[JumpingJackFlash]

those 5-15 notes would sound like crap, because the physics of the wavelengths wouldn't work.

Interesting that you claim "the wavelengths wouldn't work", because this is exactly what happens in the now ubiquitous equal temperament. We divide the octave up into 12 equal bits, but it's a fudge because the octave becomes the only interval which is completely pure, every other interval is off (to varying degrees).

As I said before, in ET, the major third "sounds like crap" (to use your words). But we use it all the time. Why? - Again, no scientific reason whatsoever.

A lot of people ignore the elephant for convenience, but in practical terms there will always be a discrepancy between physics and music.

The other problem is one of proceeding from false assumptions.
For example, the ratio of 3:2 might produce a pleasing consonance, but who decided to call that a "fifth" and why?

[chj]

the major third "sounds like crap" (to use your words). But we use it all the time. Why? - Again, no scientific reason whatsoever.

uh, when did I say a major third sounds like crap? Scientific reason a major third is used often, 5/4 ratio of wavelengths. But I'll stop going around in circles now, so this will be my last post here.

[JumpingJackFlash]

uh, when did I say a major third sounds like crap?

You didn't, I did.
Obviously it's subjective, but I was following on from your own subjective comments.

Scientific reason a major third is used often, 5/4 ratio of wavelengths.

I specifically said an ET major third, which is not a 5:4 ratio.
Despite this, we still use the ET major third all the time. The reason has very little to do with physics.

But you're right in one respect, we are going round in circles. You either don't understand what I'm saying, or you're wilfully ignoring it.

[chj]

OK, I lied, not my last post. I had no idea what equal temperament tuning meant. Turns out it's defined by basing scale divisions on perfectly equal frequency ratios. It's even MORE mathematical and physics based than "traditional" scale systems. In fact it's a strict (not particularly musical) application of math and physics to scales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament

[JumpingJackFlash]

I had no idea what equal temperament tuning meant.

I rest my case.

[chj]

I had no idea what equal temperament tuning meant.

I rest my case.

bwa ha ha, too funny. The whole time you've been saying math and physics can't explain scales. You brought up this equal temperament thing to try to "support" your argument. Turns out, you had no clue what you were talking about, because equal temperament is purely math and physics based. I had no idea what equal temperament was, but NEITHER DID YOU. I'm the one that looked it up and explained it to you. Now you use that quote? Yes, you should rest your case.

[JumpingJackFlash]

The whole time you've been saying math and physics can't explain scales. You brought up this equal temperament thing to try to "support" your argument. Turns out, you had no clue what you were talking about, because equal temperament is purely math and physics based. I had no idea what equal temperament was, but NEITHER DID YOU. I'm the one that looked it up and explained it to you. Now you use that quote? Yes, you should rest your case.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother on this forum anymore. At times it seems like it's full of people giving extremely bad advice and misleading innocent newbies based solely on what they've read on Wikipedia.

For the record, I have a Masters degree in music, I am the author of a well-selling textbook on music theory and have been a successful music teacher for several years. - But don't let that stop you.

The original point you made concerned "wavelengths" and that they could entirely explain music as if nothing else needed to be said. I was pointing out to you that a lot of music you hear doesn't actually have as much to do with these wavelengths as you thought. Yes, equal temperament is a mathematical system, but that doesn't explain the sound in any way. One plus one might equal two, but to someone who isn't familiar with those words, the statement is meaningless.

[herodotus]

I had no idea what equal temperament tuning meant.

I rest my case.

bwa ha ha, too funny. The whole time you've been saying math and physics can't explain scales. You brought up this equal temperament thing to try to "support" your argument. Turns out, you had no clue what you were talking about, because equal temperament is purely math and physics based. I had no idea what equal temperament was, but NEITHER DID YOU. I'm the one that looked it up and explained it to you. Now you use that quote? Yes, you should rest your case.

I hope that one day you can appreciate just how much of a fool you have made of yourself in this thread.

JumpingJackFlash has shared more useful information than anyone else in the Music Theory forum. He is one of the few who actually knows what he is talking about. The chances of you explaining anything to him are worse than your chances of winning a lottery with a 7 figure jackpot.

[chj]

The original point you made concerned "wavelengths" and that they could entirely explain music as if nothing else needed to be said.

Not at all, I said wavelengths explain scales and intervals, and why they've developed the way they have. I never claimed wavelengths explain all of music. My posts are all consistent about this.

I try to avoid getting snarky and managed to until my last response. But if you know alot about music theory, you probably know there is plenty of validity to my point that wavelengths are the driving factor in musical intervals.

If you want to discuss exceptions, that's fine. But there isn't any indication in your posts that you understood what I was saying at all.

[Doug1978]

To be honest chj, (in addition to me making a couple of flippant posts here) I read and re-read the whole thread because there is a lot of good info here that I didn't know before.
I understand your good points about wavelengths - they seem fair to me.

However, equally there's no 'if' involved about JJF's positive contribution to the Music Theory sub-forum, nor about his knowledge of music theory. His posts about scales, keys and musical divisions etc are among the most coherent and useful I've found on the Web, and I often recommend them to others starting out.

It's been a very interesting thread but, to put it politely, it's probably run it's course now.

[chj]

Agreed, in light of recent comments, it seems this has been a communication problem more than a musical theory disagreement.

[qa2pir]

funny how cultural relativism often goes hand in hand with complete resigned nihilism, unwillingness to acknowledge any artistic merit involved in the tradition of music.

[aciddose]

i quite like this JI set,

//c
1
18/17
//d
9/8,
19/16,
//e
5/4,
//f
4/3,
10/7,
//g
3/2,
19/12,
//a
5/3,
21/12,
//b
15/8,

i've never bothered to look up if this is a common one or not, it's just what i arrived at as a best approximation toward what i wanted.

12TET is another approximation only it's fit on a log scale to a constant ratio. it's a completely different way of looking at the issue.

the reason 12TET is used is because it allows for the most flexibility and makes the best approximations. go ahead, try 15TET or 9TET or whatever and see if you have nearly as easy a time putting it to real use. the ratios just don't line up the way you'd want them to, they don't approximate small fractions nearly as well.

i have however found that fractional ET scales can work well. for example have a try with 11.8 or 12.2. shift things around a little, you'll find it changes the emotion of the whole scale and all scales within in a similar way. can have very interesting effects.

[skitchy]

Might have already been said, but I believe this has a lot to do wit it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodulation