Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
I had a thought this morning that never ocured to me before.
I've never been able to get on top of musical notation with all those sharps and flats, then some notes E and B don't have a sharp. So I wondered why it was this way?
As I said, I have problems understanding notation and for all of you, like me, I just play by ear and have no recognition of when the note I play is a sharp in a scale or flat, to me it's just the sound.
OK! streatching the imagination a bit here, but if you were to be a musical note and in that capacity, if you could ponder things, you would think of yourself as just another note, I mean not 'sharp' or 'flat', just a 'true note' like every other note around you, so why would you have to have the tag: sharp or flat?
So this is all going on in my head then it hit me. 'The whole musical notation system is contrived to make it easier to play the piano'. Think of it, a piano could be made with alternative black/white notes from one end to the other, or just all white notes one end to the other, or just all black notes. That way there would be no sharps or flats. Problem is that it would be hard to play without the visual recognition of where things are on the key board. So to make it easier, black note groupings were invented but this system ment pairing white notes together and therefore, E and B don't have sharps.
Just imagine how different it would be if we didn't have pianos
Posts: 6440
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Jim Opfer)
quote:
I've never been able to get on top of musical notation with all those sharps and flats, then some notes E and B don't have a sharp. So I wondered why it was this way?
Depends on the type of scale and mode. It's about intervals.
In a diatonic major scale the intervals are:
tone-tone-semitone-tone-tone-tone-semitone
So the C major scale (i.e. only the white keys on the piano) intervals are:
D E F G A B C
I thought the piano was designed around middle C which was traditionally above the lock mechanism on the keyboard.
So I guess your question (and point) is that the piano keyboard is built around the diatonic system, but can play many others?
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Escribano)
When we sing we (in the west) generally sing five or seven notes per octave. Notation was designed to represent clearly what was sang. Writing twelve notes per stave seemed to be a bad idea then since it would introduce notes which were not needed and would confuse the singer.
We have frets on the guitar placed every semitone which allow us to play in all twelve keys. We rarely use all twelve at any one time.
For instrumentalsits it is undeniable that music could be more clearly represented by a twelve note system for some musics and some instruments ( although the Clarinet, Flute, Oboe and other instrements have a clear seven note bias in their construction and not just the piano). There are however learning advantages to a system which is not completely symmetrical (a symmetrical system has not hooks for the memory as it without shape since the basic repeating unit is one whereas the seven note system takes a whole octave to repeat). Oddly enough this was the same problem which made twelve tone music difficult for people enjoy, there was no tonal heirarchy for our ears(and also our memory) to latch onto.
The piano (although really at this stage in history it was the organ and the Clavicord) was designed to as a machine to realise western tonal music and reflects the system of notation which was already evolving before it's invention.So it is not to blame, it merely capatalises on the system already in use by being a more efficient machine for realising western tonal music than any other preixisting instrument.
Standard notation really helps to explain the music to the informed reader in a way which tablature systems simply do not. Actually any note at all can be sharpened or flattened ( although judging from many posts here semiliterate 'guitar' notation programs have serious failings in this depertment). For example if you are playing in F# the leading tone is not F but in fact E#. For an example closer to home, if you are playing an Alegrias in E, and want to go to the relative minor (C#) then you might play a Dhalf diminished chord then a G#b9 and then C# minor. The G# chorde has the notes G#B#D#andA. Notice the B#.
There is a really good reason for this to do with movement in music, it's kind of hard to explain but trust me there is a really good reason.
I think that the real problem (apart from laziness on behalf of pupils) for so much confusion (especially for guitarists) is the poor structure of teaching methods. The poor theoretical understanding of too many classical teachers who have never composed and also their lack of imagination in teaching. Such teachers are often all too ready to blame the pupil for problems instead of sharing the blame and being more patient and creative. Poor teaching of and use of standard notation leads to it being no more valid for some users than tablature is.
Imagine if you went to school to learn to read and got all 26 letters in one week and were expected to read short sentances the next. That is obviously stupid yet that is what many method books seem to expect. Then imagine that the book only contained nursery rhymes, the words of which you knew already, then that is an added stupidity for instead of reading (a new and difficult task) you would simply recite them from memory. This is natural so in fact to force you to read it is much better to work on things that you have not heard before. An ideal combination is one that combines playing purely by ear and purely from the page. Mixing the two up early on causes great confusion for everybody involved. Yet this is an inevitable consequence of a poorly constructed method.
Learning to read well can be undertaken by anyone at any age as long as they are reasonably serious about the task and don't just want to memorise fancy pieces. If your aim is solely to memorise fancy pieces then you are on a hiding to nothing and will never understand the reasons for and advantages of music notation.
Such a pupil however needs to spend a lot of time with a good teacher and to work hard with a good and intelligently organised method which they use regularly in paralell with learning inspiring pieces.
Sorry for the wordy answer Jim but it is a difficult question.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Jim Opfer)
the simple answer- because nobody could tell you how to play an L minor seventh chord with a flat ninth.
Simple is good. If you had twelve note names, most of which aren't used in the context of a 7 note scale, it just clutters things. A musical staff is very tidy, 5 lines makig it easy to quickly write down your musical idea. A simple triad chord is obvious to read, every other line or space.
Consider if you play Indian or Arabic music how crazy-making that would be, where you'd have 22 to 36 separate note names. You'd run out of alphabet!
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to guitarbuddha)
I, like Jim, don't know anything about this written music biz. (Tadpoles on telephone wires as Jimmy Edwards used to say.. ) My old boss at the University used to be a professional violin player and he said that on the violin (since it's not fretted) that F sharp is not interpreted the same way as G flat. That there is a different "feel". So therefore written music shows that more accuractely. Which is not relevant on the guitar etc.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Ron.M)
Hi Ron, it is actually very relevant for guitar. If you are playing in say the key of F and you play the note a semitone up then that note is Gb, because if you write it as F# then that insinuates that you are no longer in the key of F.
A score that has many of these kind of mistakes is difficult to read at sight, like a badly spelled sentance. On fretless instruments (violin cello and double bass) there is some leeway in how they tune the minor thirds in any key ( and also the sixth ) but that is to do with their flexibility in tuning and is really unconnected with the theoretical difference between Fsharp and G flat which is an issued unconnected with the particular instrument used. The repeated writing of A# instead of Bflat in flamenco scores is spretty irritating and immediately makes me suspicious of the arrangers skill.
You are right in as much the issue is not relevant to TABLATURE for guitar. If someone said that it does not matter wether you spell night with an N or Knight with a KN because you say them the same way and they sound the same they are accurate unless you consider the MEANING of the words. A# MEANS something different from Bb.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Ron.M)
Thanks for that Ron here is your answer. You play with understanding. Think of an actor they do not just say a word clearly they say it with meaning.
Think of this. 'The boy stepped out of that stable and was faced with a dark night' ' The boy stepped out of the stable and was faced with a dark Knight'
or 'There was a buoy in the water'. 'There was a boy in the water'
Only a bloody fool would say them the same way.
Reading music is like reading any language, it is not just getting things in the right order it is about rhythm and stress. A badly spelled score does not help with this.
I am speaking from years of experience. I CAN read music, I am not the best but it is something which I DO use. I know when it is written correctly and I know why that is important, I am not guessing or quoting someone else inappropriately. Sometimes I think you guys think I make this stuff up to be controversial. If I am doing a theatre gig at sight and the score is full of spelling errors then I have got a much harder job making sense of it. Would you enjoy standing up and reading a speech at sight that was misspelt ?
D. 0 A flamenco example if I was playing a buleria Por Arriba for the first time in a score and saw A# few bars ahead then I think 'aye up, changing key' so I think what that may mean, I look for a Bminor chord so that I can wind up the tension to to F# phrygian (por Taranta). I need to know not just the what but the why. I dont want to play like a machine. I'ts the same with time signatures rhythm etc. Sure I can work it out using the score as a guide but a better score makes the whole process much easier and more enjoyable.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to guitarbuddha)
I know it's not relevant in the flamenco context but I find playing from written notes very much easier. However, this is only in the context of a basic folk music course based largely round the key of D.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Jim Opfer)
Mmmmmm...! I'm not convinced. It's as if the notation 'system' throws up all these technicalities in order to explain itself. It's a bit like our numeracy system. We count in 10's and this is the basis for all sorts of numeric problems. 10 divided by 3 = 3.333333... and then multiplied by the same value (3) = 9.999... not 10. So that can't be correct? I think all the musical theory exists simply to explain the adopted system, not the reverse and it makes me wonder how else it could be?
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Jim Opfer)
I know what you mean Jim. But let me put a different slant on it. We live in a world which is populated by irrational numbers (numbers which cannot be easily represented by dividing one number by another, never mind requiring one of those numbers to be ten). Yet we have systems of Mathematics and Arithmetic which are entirely geared to manipulating rational numbers. Yet this hasn't really limited the effectiveness of mathematics and arithmetic to such a great extent.
When was the last time that using CAD caused you to desing something which fell down ?
If you had an apprentice who was a 'purist' and insisted on theoretical grounds that he would not use a computer because on the bench test that he ran the calculation that you quoted had an eight in the twenty ninth decimal place and that meant that it was not useful to use the computer. Wouldn't you suspect that he was actually too lazy to use the computer or maybe didn't really understand how it worked at all ?
Now imagine yourself as programmer of modest achievement in a room full of non programmers who insisted that computers don't really work, aren't useful for architecture and can't be trusted. Fun eh ?
In your original post you basic asserted that music was designed for the piano.
1) that is factually innacurate.
2) Look at a piano the, thing that most distinguishes it from a harp (which is actually what it is) or a guitar is the fact that it is massively more mechanical. Why? Why was it designed thus, is there something mechanically essential about the placing of the white and the black keys? A flat layout would be much more simple for the engineers who designed the. So no, there isn't. The piano was designed to be an instrument which could really easily be used to play western art music of the eighteenth century. The layout is for ease and convenience of use. It is a design classic.
You see we are not at the mercy of the piano, amongst all stringed instruments it is the one which it is easiest for a beginner to find a tune on (and one of the most difficult to master becauese this ease of use has led composers and improvisers towards ever more complicated music ).
Now I want to you to imagine a piano with all white keys. Would this be easier to play? I dont think so. It would be a damn sight harder to find a melody in the key of C. Or any other key for that matter once you have learned you scales. Is it easier to find your way around a buliding which exhibits radial symmetry or one which is slightly irregular in a memorable way ?
Pianos work, especially if you have dedicated a subtantial portion of your life mastering them.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Escribano)
I think numbers are tools with their advantages and disadvantages.
I remember trying to build a shed once with a hammer and nails. I kept bruising my thumb and got so frustrated that I threw it away, it was an imperfect tool, it caused me more difficulty and frustration than it helped. So I threw it away and pushed the nails in by hand. After a while I got so strong that I got good at this, and felt contempt for professional carpenters who were still limited to using their hammers.
Mind you they seem to build sheds more quickly than me.
Oddly the problem defined is not a problem with numbers at all it is a problem with innapropriate use of algebra.
It can be seen that the numbers are in fact more than able to get the perfect answer when manipulated correctly. The problem actually arose from the imperfect translation from rational numbers to a digital decimal system which is actually inapproptiate to the problem.
Or put another way the incorrect result was actually due to incorrect use/understanding of the algebraic tools that we have devised to deal with numbers. Or possibly in this case DELIBERATE ABUSE.
If one were to make this kind of schoolboy error then perphaps a crusade to convince the world of the superiority of abacuses would be misjudged ? No matter how right on in some circles.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Jim Opfer)
The idea that sharps and flats refer to non-scalar notes not usually sung seems like a good explanation to me.
quote:
I think all the musical theory exists simply to explain the adopted system...
I disagree—much of music theory exists apart from the system of notation that is the core issue of this thread.
It seems to me that the system of notation used in music is the result of long standing traditions that can’t be set aside for a better system--basically the result “early adopter” error.
Posts: 15242
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Jim Opfer)
Guitarbuddah is right, or at least I agree with all the points he made. Just want to add there is an importance with TUNING systems. Early keyboard instruments were not even equal tempered. So the whole thing was about fine tuning and getting the new 12 note system to work, leaving behind modes and Modal type music/tuning systems. Many musical mined math students have tried to understand "why 12" or how did the early musicians come up with 12? Wouldn't say 16 notes have more acturate intervals? Or perhaps less notes with more pleasing relations? (essential the old modal tuning idea). Well, when it comes to changing keys, the answer always comes back to 12. Wish I understood it, but there is a mathematical reason.
So the REAL question is why does the 7 note scale matter so much? This is a more deep and important way to get at Jim's orginal question. The reason we need sharps or flats is because we need to describe 7 notes in a 12 note tuning system. The indians did the same, 7 main notes but they have 22 note tuning system. Greeks the same, but they had 24 (Indians don't rename imperfect 5ths or octaves as we think of them). Chinese had 60 notes to the octave in their metal pipes or whatever, but yet again describe their scales with 7 main designations.
Wish I could give them but I can't remember. Indian is like "Sa Fa ma pa " or something really sorry, can't remember. But 7. Chinese again, some chinese sounds. Europeans adapt Do re me fa sol la, etc, and others ABCDEFG. In some cases the 7 sounds describe the Ionian or natural major scale (not always litterally because remember the tuning system thing). Oddly, the alphabet system describes natural minor or Aeolian scale, not Ionian. The chinese was really like a "Lydian" scale, but remember chinese modes leave out the tritone, so they deal with only pentatonics. (ACDEG for example, leave out F and B the tritone), but still reserve a name for the extra notes.
So no matter what tuning system you choose, you discover a need for naming the "notes in between". So we use Sharps or flats or with do re mi you say "do bemol" or "sol sustonido". etc.
Once more I point out "Why 7" is so important? I have my own personal "theories" about it. Think about the over tone series (harmonics above a vibrating note), and also that interval the Chinese deliberately omit...I found a connection there.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to guitarbuddha)
GB, You've had a formal music education and have come into contact with many more Classical musicians than myself, so I wonder if you could explain something that has always puzzled me?
I have just listened to the Sunday Service on Radio 4. Why is it that when Church Organists get a "free hand" (ie not accompanying Hymns) to play "incidental" music, they always play the most horrific, grating, atonal chords possible at maximum volume? It sounds like they are pushing down on the keyboard with both forearms while pressing groups of keys at random with their forehead. The resultant noise sounds more like incidental music to a Hammer horror film, where some gruesome abomination rises from a coffin in a darkened room in a castle, rather than something in praise of God.
My own theory is that even in Classical musicians there lurks the same craving for that "high" that Heavy Metal guitarists seek.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Ron.M)
I agree Ron, because of the imperfections of its tuning the organ is particularly ugly when dissonant chords are spread across many octaves (the reason that it is harsher than any other instrument).
Unfortunately the ability to improvise and the ability to train a choir do not always go hand in hand. Saying that I would give my eye teeth to go and hear Bach improvising at the organ (he was famous for this during his lifetime and his compositions werer barely noticed).
Now a question for you. Why the sunday service ? To my mind the persistance of this crazy death cult just illustrates how people will believe any old hokum given half a chance.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Ricardo)
Hi Ricardo.
I think that the seven notes are easily explained ( though easy may not be accurate) by the fact that the three major triads which are easily constructed from the harmonic series (I IV and V) generate seven tones. So in C , CEG,FAC,GBD. Also notice the prominance of the two most important tones of the diatonic system, C and G. All strong (primitive) three chord combinations seem to generate seven notes and they seem to get their strength through being easily generated from the harmonic series.
The connection with our ear and the harmonic series may not seem obvious to some but the fact is we have a little computer in our brain custom made for analysing and comparing the harmonic information transmitted to it from our ears ( that is harmonic as in the interaction between waves of different frequency and not the musical phenomenon of harmony). As our understanding of music grows we (as individuals) learn to accept funkier ideas and to apprecitate them (although clearly not always on the organ) but still the kernel remains.
There was an attempt to move towards twelve tone music during the last century but noone could really stomach it. Seven really seems to be the magic number and there are pretty strong and compelling 'hardware' reasons in our brains for this.
Sorry if I touched on this too briefly earlier when I said that people when they sing use seven or five notes in general.
Posts: 15242
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to guitarbuddha)
quote:
ORIGINAL: guitarbuddha
Hi Ricardo.
I think that the seven notes are easily explained ( though easy may not be accurate) by the fact that the three major triads which are easily constructed from the harmonic series (I IV and V) generate seven tones. So in C , CEG,FAC,GBD. Also notice the prominance of the two most important tones of the diatonic system, C and G. All strong (primitive) three chord combinations seem to generate seven notes and they seem to get their strength through being easily generated from the harmonic series.
Good idea, and based on 12 tone tuning system I would tend to agree. But there is flaw with your "I,IV,V" idea. That is, well, you can still get a 7 note scale out of some other 3 chords/triads in the chord scale. I, ii, iii, for example. But also, very important, those "chords" by themselves sound OK in equal temp tunings, but in some modal systems you dont' have those chords as separate entities. You would just have a drone and some intervals above, basically the scale makes ONE fundamental, sweetly tuned 13th chord. But again you have 7 notes to name a mode, like the Greeks. 7 notes, but no chord "progressions" like I,IV,V. (I know the Greek tetra chords imply 8 notes, but one of the notes is an "octave" as we westerns think of it). The thing about V-I in tonal music is you get to modulate, but still the whole thing comes AFTER the concept of a 7 note scale that the chords get derived FROM, not vice versa.
Trying to build chords from the overtone series, I mean the literal pitches, not the equal temp approximations, you get some ugly sounding relations. BUT when heard over a drone, they all sound like the "same" 13th chord, sweet and beautifully tuned.
12 tone music was a nice intellectual game, but really since you no longer deal with the V-I, that music sort of defeats the purpose of the whole equal temp system (finding a pleasing or acceptable tuning that allowed for modulation, from one "mode" or key to another, without having to retune). They could just as easily invent a new tuning system, and indeed some nerds have done just that with their modern atonal music. Honestly I can stomach some atonal stuff, so long as it has rhythm. Opposite to atonal music, hearing an Indian drone and ONE scale improv for 30 minutes, really can bore people.
Again my idea why the prejudice for 7 notes, vs 6,8,9 etc, incorporates both modal concepts AND tonal, and even partially explains the ambiguity for "atonal" music and scales. My idea deals with the tritone's relationship to a key, mode, scale, etc. I could go on for you but I think the point about "why # and b's" has been made clear already.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
quote:
ORIGINAL: guitarbuddha
Hi Ricardo.
I think that the seven notes are easily explained ( though easy may not be accurate) by the fact that the three major triads which are easily constructed from the harmonic series (I IV and V) generate seven tones. So in C , CEG,FAC,GBD. Also notice the prominance of the two most important tones of the diatonic system, C and G. All strong (primitive) three chord combinations seem to generate seven notes and they seem to get their strength through being easily generated from the harmonic series.
Good idea, and based on 12 tone tuning system I would tend to agree. But there is flaw with your "I,IV,V" idea. That is, well, you can still get a 7 note scale out of some other 3 chords/triads in the chord scale. I, ii, iii, for example.
Ricardo
Hi Ricardo, that is exaxtly what I meant by 'primitive' chord sequences, ie folkloric and modal (in the western rennaissance sense) sequences.
What would really fascinate me would be some kind of study as to what is percieved by different cultures as 'exotic' in music of a culture to which they have not been exposed. Possibly the time for this is running out.
I suspect that pentatonics (without semitones) sound straightforward to everyone and that scales which contain adjacent minor thirds and semitones, always sound exotic. But I really don't cant verify that. Symmetrical scales are probably always disturbing as they lack a tonal centre ( and all cultures seem to enjoy some concept of a tonal centre ).
Certainly much of the 'comparing' that we in the west do (wether we are aware of it or wish to) with all music to the ionian arrangement is due to a great deal of cultural baggage, but I think that there well be something 'vanillaish' about it intrinsically (tempered or not). Even more vanilla still the Major pentatonic and its imversion the minor pentatonic.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to guitarbuddha)
quote:
Now a question for you. Why the sunday service ? To my mind the persistance of this crazy death cult just illustrates how people will believe any old hokum given half a chance.
Hi David, I don't especially tune in to it or anything... It's just because I have Radio 4 on 24 hours a day. (World Service and all that). Actually the Kirk is not doing too badly up here in the North East amongst the older generation. I think it's a legacy from fishing communities scattered around most of coastal Scotland. Although I really can't see how "Lurch" on the organ would cheer anybody up myself.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Jim Opfer)
there are other tuning systems for guitar
lucy tuning and 18 Tone equal temper divides the octave into 18 parts
32 tet divides the octave into 32 parts. basically there is a mathematical difference between Bb and A# and in 32 or 18 tet you can play A# or Bb more accurately. you can also play double sharps or flats to their very nearest mathematical placement.
music notation wasn't designed for piano. look back waaaay back and you'll find a notation system for gregorian chant, there's a reason that things look the way they do now
some of it is precedent, some is revised. but most of it is there because it makes good logical sense.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Jim Opfer)
F# and Gb aren't the same note, really.
There is an actual frequency difference. Before tempering became common (about the time JS Bach wrote "the Well Tempered Clavier") it was the convention for people to retune their instruments when they changed keys. Modulations (key changes) within a single piece of music were (therefore) rare before that time.
A tempered keyboard (clavier in Bach's parlance) is tuned so that the actual frequency of the black key is a compromise between F# and Gb (and, of course, likewise with other flat/sharp pairs). Most people without perfect pitch (even most with it) aren't bothered by the compromise. Bach wrote the Well Tempered Clavier to demonstrate that the practice of tempering worked; it is a series of pieces in a sequence of keys that would sound horrible on untempered instruments if left untuned.
This is why your guitar might sound great when you play something in A and then sound like it needs retuning when you change to C, even though it is still in tune in A.
Violinists, vocalists, and other players of unfretted instruments can correct for these infinitesimal differences (like between F# and Gb) without retuning. Guitarists and keyboardists can't. So violinists have to correct and play a little off key to sound right with a guitar or piano.
Ricardo and guitarbuddha reference this history indirectly. One could probably google the Well Tempered Clavier (sometimes spelled Klavier) and find more detail.
The musical scale is such a mathematically internally consistent thing (harmonic-sounding frequencies having integer ratios, etc, all known and mapped out since Plato) it has always puzzled me that F# and Gb AREN'T the same. Seems like they should be.
I just asserted that they aren't the same, and they aren't, but I still don't know why not. Just because my music teacher said so doesn't really explain it. Seems an uncharacteristically inelegant aspect of music, given the mathematical elegance of music otherwise.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to a_arnold)
Cycle of fifths does not resolve to a note which is the same as the starting note.
How so, well take a guitar low E string, divide it in three and you get a B one octave and a fith higher (which you can tune your B string to). Take a new string tuned to that note and repeat the procedure, so, E,B,F#,C#,G#,D#,A#,F,C,G,D,A and back to E. Now when you divide your string in two you get an octave (the same note again higher, exactly twice the frequency) now the E (or any other note) that you get when you go up the cycle of fifth actually has a DIFFERENT frequency (is a slightly different note )than the one that you get by doubling continually. Play the two together and it is pretty appalling. This is fundamentally why tuning on any instrument is a compromise and why it is sometimes a very bad idea to tune your guitar with harmonics.
In Bach's times all of the notes were made slightly out of tune so that they got a cycle which did get back to the original note. Strangely enough we on fretted strings have our instruments perfectly tempered as divingin a string in twelve does exactly what it would take very complicate maths to decide to do.Basically take your open string divide that note in twelve and that is where you put your first fret. Take that length and get the second fret a nd so on.
So the note at you seventh fret (where the harmonic an octave plus a fifth is also found ) is in fact tempered and slightly out of tune with the harmonic of the same string. It is often a very good idea to tune to fretted notes for this reason as it gives you a perfectly tempered instrument (something which is much more difficult and expensive to do on your piano).
Before equal temperament for the keyboard instruments we guitarist were way ahead of keyboard technology. The clavichords and harpsichords were tuned to sound sweet (much sweeter than a modern piano) in one key at a time (using the natural harmonic series) and sounded bloody awful if you moved to some other keys. If you wanted to play a piece in a different key then you had to stop and retune. Some open tunings in the guitar are like this, such as DADGAD, and again although sweet they affect your ability to change key.
In the string orchestra the Cellos,Vialos and violins are tuned in perfect fifths and not tempered. Again this sounds very sweet but can lead to tuning problems. However and advantage is that the high notes on the violin are slightly sharp and sound more brilliant against the flatter bass notes helping them to stand out. A fretless player can choose exactly which note to play and there is a real skill in choosing the ones (INSTINCTIVELY) which are most effective in a particular situation. A good blues or rock gutarist can also do this to great effect with bending, again instinctively. On gut we also have access to this kind of thing with vibrato and smaller bends. Also a great technique which a lot is flattening a note by pushing the string towards the bridge which can add a really accentuate a line and although very subtle can bring a lot of life to the music.
This has however NOTHING AT ALL, yup, NOTHING AT ALL, to do with Jim's original question. However it has EVERYTHING to do with why Ron finds organs jarring.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to a_arnold)
Another thing A-arnold the Greeks knew this. It was discovered by Pythagoras the philosopher and mathematician and the difference between the two notes is called the Pythagorean comma after him. Fundamentally the maths dont really work out in music, but our brains kind of paper between the cracks.
Pretty much like the rest of the human condition really.
Posts: 15242
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to guitarbuddha)
Good stuff Budda. Just want to add. The WELL tempered clavier was not EQUAL tempered, and there were different instruments tempered different, not necessasarily a need to retune for each song. Bach's "well tempered clavier" was specifically designed to go through ALL the keys, avoiding say the harsher out of tune intervals in Certain keys, but for that one special tuning only. Aparently the proper well tempered instrument you can hear the difference, compared to say a modern piano.
Anyway, in modal music, you have a drone, and the soloist be it a vocalist or string player, flute, whatever, can hit a single pure interval, perfectly in tune, and the "color" relative to the drone has expression. In equal tempered tuning, beyond the "bending" you talked about, VIBRATO is used to smear the "coma" problem to the listener, and there the soloist gives "expression". Vibrato is done on string instruments and with the voice, sometimes very exaggerated and gives the illusion that the note is in "tune' with the other instruments.
About tuning to fretted notes vs harmonics. The only problem is you can not tell for sure the finger or fretted note, is being applied a perfect even pressure. Guitars with high action for example are MUCH more sensitive to this. Always safest to have the OPEN strings in tune relative to each other since you are not afforded the technique of vibrato or bending with those notes. And a fast way is the harmonic method, even better, a digital tuner for the open strings.
One more thing about the difference between Gb and F#. Well, there is not really a difference on equal temp instruments, BUT you can get the idea why what seems to be the same note might be OUT of tune relative to other notes (sort of the same idea). The way to hear it is simple if you can hold a note with your voice and have a good ear. Here is what you do.
Take the D string open and pretend it is perfectly in tune. Now tune the note D an octave above, and use your ear to be sure it is a PERFECT octave, not wavering or beating. YOu can use the 3rd fret B string, or 7th fret G string, I don't care, just make sure you are careful about the pressure you put on the fret, don't push too hard.
OK, for a reference play the 4th fret of the D string, that is equal temp F#, and sing the same pitch. Now just play the D string open and listen to the wavering and beating. Lower the pitch your voice makes JUST A HAIR until the beating stops and you have a perfect sweet Major third with no beats. That is a perfect tuned F#. OK, NOW play D you fret an octave higher and keeping singing the same note. That is supposed to be a minor 6th, but it is a bit wavey so if you raise your pitch up just a hair, close to what it was at eh 4th fret, you notice it gets "sweet" again, not wavering. When you can learn how to distinguish those two different notes, the perfectly tuned major 3d above, and the perfectly tuned minor 6 below, then you are starting to hear the difference between an F# and a Gb...sort of. See in modal music, that difference, as subtle as it seems in this exercise, can actually mean an entirely different note and intervalic relation.
OK if that is too hard to do with the voice, you CAN use your guitar. You just have to fret the D on the 5th fret (make sure your octave D notes are PERFECT), and use the 4th fret D string for the F#. To lower the pitch for a major 3rd above, squeeze harder on the F# TOWARDS the bridge. Be careful to not bend your D on the 5th string when you do that. To hear the minor 6th below your higher D note (either 7th fret G or 3rd frt B string) you pull the F# AWAY From the bridge. You try to do this bending thing just enough to make the beats go away so the intervals are "sweet" sounding.
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to Ricardo)
Hi Ricardo, thanks for the clarification, I kind of assumed that well tempered was equally tempered. I know that there were a lot of different tuning systems around.
The thing that I want to clarify in here is that Jim suggested that music theory throws up more problems than it answers. And I profoundly disagree.
Look at Ron's posts on his heroic struggle with El Tempul (and I am sure he will win in the end). The puzzles that we need to solve ARE IN THE MUSIC, that is the sounds we hear and enjoy and the incredible variety of shadings of pitch and meaning that they can convey.
For me a well produced score is a real big help. This is a fact so I will repeat it A GOOD SCORE IS A FABULOUS AID IN LEARNING MUSIC......IF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE READING A SCORE. Now if you aren't (not you Ricardo of course but my posts are pompous enough without writne 'one' all the time) then, until you conquer this skill, the score may seem like another complication. But if you need the score you were not that clear about the music in the first place were you ?
For you and I and the other experienced readers reading a well presented score is not a problem at all. When we discuss elements of music theory here on the foro then we are discussing ways of understanding (and therefore being able to untergrate into our won playing) ACTUAL MUSICAL SOUNDS, RHYTHMS AND HARMONIES, using the theory to help us communicate and to also using the theory in our own private study.
I worry that when people get confused by our discussions they assume that we are as confused and lost as them. Generally we are not, we do not always agree but the theoretical is another USEFUL (although NOT ESSENTIAL) layer in our understanding of music and also in our ability to discuss and share ideas.
I worry that this discussion seems to have boiled down to just you and I and we are preaching to the converted. The majority of posters seem to deny that music reading is any use. They seem to confuse useful with essential, reading music for some styles is not essential but bloody hell is it useful.
I just wish that people would accept that. There are new generations of players composers transcribers and improvisers who will be working on flameco and flamenco type music. I feel sure that the Oral tradition is alive and well in flamenco perhaps more so than in any other guitar based music and that really is a wonderful thing. I agree that the new generations must and will continue with this skill. But we are doing them a tremendous disservice if we by our comments and prejudices encourage them to reject learning to read music. Reading music is bloody great fun, I could never go back to playing from tab or solely from ear, there is too much I want to play (some of it only once at sight and just for a moments entertainment) to abandon this the most useful of the things that I have learned since I started learning.
There is another worry that I have as well (although more for the guitar in general and not particularly for flamenco) when kids were learning from the record they were getting great ear training and really needed to understand what they were playing (on some level) to play along with the recording. Now I notice lots and lots of pupils who are playing from TAB and they don't really understand a bloody thing about what they are playing because they haven't listened to the recording often enough or carefully and actively enough, they are not playing by ear at all. You ask them to 'dum de dum' how they think it goes and what they vocalise has 1)No relationship with the recording 2)Little in common with what they played.
Now we are getting instead of scores with TAB added TAB with scores added. Often the scores are useless (music capoed at the second fret written in the key af F# rather than E, Eb instead of C at the third fret ) no fingerings in the music or pisition indications, no actual FINGERINGS for either hand. Even worse we get a tune with around 12 bars of actual guitar music written over like 20 pages. Ten page turns for five minutes of five chord rock ?
Now I know that the age of defference with snooty 'only classical is worthy' musicians turning off kids with their snooty opinions and zero understanding of anything written since Schuber.... is over. And good riddance to it. But now kids seem to be sold the idea in the media that they know everything before they have even started looking. In the guitar magazines they get the idea that TAB is an advance on standard notation and that ingorance is they key to success in music and in showbiz.
To sum up.
Playing by ear =Great !!!!!!!!!! Playing from a score with understanding and style= Great !!!!!!!! Being able to do both= Super great. Murdering music from TAB= Dull Dull Dull Bu##****. TAB and ear works too but seems more open to abuse.
I propose that we as a body adopt the above position when we welcome new members and when we influence them by our discussions.
Another thing. Many of the old school classical teachers discouraged playing by ear (since they couldn't do it and didn't understand it) do the ear only players here really want to adopt the same position towards reading ?
RE: Why do we have sharp and flat notes? (in reply to guitarbuddha)
quote:
ORIGINAL: guitarbuddha
TAB and ear works too but seems more open to abuse.
That is not a malfunction of TABs. Its the students choice what to do with it. For example, somebody who is not really interested in learning this stuff seriously, will choose TABs over notes, because they are easier to learn. So, with his attitude he starts to read TABs with half interest, and in the end, doesnt "get" the music behind that. Imagine there wouldnt be TABs.. surely you could also "murder" music from notes. It would just take more time lol.
Further you always generalize from bad TABs to all TABs. Even if there was no accurate TAB on earth, still, that wouldnt mean that TABs are bad, but more that TABs are made poorly. Anyways, not so much important imo. It depends on what suits you more, what type of learner you are. Learning by ear, or TABs/Notes. I never could play something from the paper without first hearing and memory it. I admire people who can do that, but i dont think its neccessary, especially not in flamenco. Regarding TABs or Notes... TABs just make life a bit easier. Its just a luck, a nice coincidence for guitarrists that the guitar has frets and that there is this easy way of notation that everybody understands. And its more accurate than notes, because it shows the fret. You can have also rythmical notation (with the necks). Disadvantage is you have to know that the 5th fret on the A string is a D, and so on, but that should be no problem, since you can take the C chord at first position, and shift it until you have your note at a higher fret.