Page 1 of 2
#1
Alright, so I am a self taught guitar player. I learned some theory, some scales, got bored, and did my own thing. Anyway, my question is simple.

If theory is just that.....THEORY, why do musicians accept it? I mean, I assume when theory was being developed it was based on what notes sounded good or worked together, because after all, that is in essence what music is. Anyway, I can come up with any combination of notes that sound good randomly, do a quick check and find that they fit under this "music theory" that musicians follow. This is I assume because music theory is soo encompassing that if it sounds good, it was constructed or can be explained by theory.

fine, I accept that. My question is what is to stop someone from coming up with a completely different set of rules that encompasses all the notes that work together, ignoring keys, root notes, scales, semi tones, octaves. Your answer is probably something to the effect of "well if these notes work together they can be explained by common music theory". I know that but why cant I come up with a different REASON for why they work? Think outside the box so to speak.

Its gotten to the point where I think theory is just an easy way for musicians to communicate and play each others music. If music theory were not widely accepted, it wouldnt really be beneficial now would it?

I dont know, maybe I am just looking for a needle in a haystack that isnt there. What if I dont think that the low "e" tuned in standard is an "e" at all? what if I call that 6, and the "a" is 5? what if instead of using musical notes, musicians were taught to use numbers instead? See where I am getting at? Everyone who is a virtuoso at music theory is really just rehashing what has already been determined, and what has been taught to you. You are a slave to the god of music so to speak.

Im more interested in the history OF music theory and less about music theory itself.

Anyway, long story short, the question is, do you think that at any point in time we may see a shift in what we now call music theory?
#2
Ever heard of James Blood Ulmer? Ornette Coleman? Greg Ginn? Harmolodics? What about noise rock? Lots of experimental musicians deviate from standard music theory. I don't think we'll ever see a shift as far as what the "rules of composition' are, just more people ignoring the rules.
#3
If the english language wasnt widely accepted it wouldn't be used. You could invent your own way of thinking about music theory but you wouldnt be able to apply it to a group setting because no one else would understand.
#4
that's like saying "what if blue was red?".

to answer your question, i don't think we'll see a significant change in the way music and music theory is thought of. granted, thoughts on music WILL change over time, but if the basis for all music has held up at least back until the classical age, i don't see why it would just change.
#5
If theory is just that.....THEORY


There's your problem right there...you don't understand what the word "theory" means. It does not have the same meaning in a field of research as it does in colloquial usage. It is not a "guess".

I mean, I assume when theory was being developed it was based on what notes sounded good or worked together, because after all, that is in essence what music is. Anyway, I can come up with any combination of notes that sound good randomly, do a quick check and find that they fit under this "music theory" that musicians follow. This is I assume because music theory is soo encompassing that if it sounds good, it was constructed or can be explained by theory.


You don't seem to understand what music theory is either. It does not explain what sounds good, as "good" is a purely subjective judgment. Music theory describes musical structure.

My question is what is to stop someone from coming up with a completely different set of rules that encompasses all the notes that work together, ignoring keys, root notes, scales, semi tones, octaves.


See my statement above. Music theory describes the structure of music. If you choose to write music that for some reason isn't encompassed by existing theoretical framework, it's simply a matter of formulating the right vocabulary and framework to explain it.

Its gotten to the point where I think theory is just an easy way for musicians to communicate and play each others music. If music theory were not widely accepted, it wouldnt really be beneficial now would it?


"Acceptance" has nothing to do with it. Theory is a descriptive system.

What if I dont think that the low "e" tuned in standard is an "e" at all? what if I call that 6, and the "a" is 5?


Call it whatever you want. Both are merely names assigned to pitch classes. Of course, it would accomplish nothing, since no one would know what the hell you were talking about...

See where I am getting at?


No.

Everyone who is a virtuoso at music theory is really just rehashing what has already been determined, and what has been taught to you. You are a slave to the god of music so to speak.


You've already demonstrated that you don't understand what music theory is.

Anyway, long story short, the question is, do you think that at any point in time we may see a shift in what we now call music theory?


You're apparently ignorant of the entire history of music theory as well. As homework, listen to some Schoenberg.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#6
Quote by Archeo Avis
There's your problem right there...you don't understand what the word "theory" means. It does not have the same meaning in a field of research as it does in colloquial usage. It is not a "guess".


You don't seem to understand what music theory is either. It does not explain what sounds good, as "good" is a purely subjective judgment. Music theory describes musical structure.


See my statement above. Music theory describes the structure of music. If you choose to write music that for some reason isn't encompassed by existing theoretical framework, it's simply a matter of formulating the right vocabulary and framework to explain it.


"Acceptance" has nothing to do with it. Theory is a descriptive system.


Call it whatever you want. Both are merely names assigned to pitch classes. Of course, it would accomplish nothing, since no one would know what the hell you were talking about...


No.


You've already demonstrated that you don't understand what music theory is.


You're apparently ignorant of the entire history of music theory as well. As homework, listen to some Schoenberg.


Musical structure based on what? Music is sound, thus isnt musical structure based on the structure of sound, in the sense of the way notes are put together? or am I wrong here too? Theory is a descriptive system for what? Music?

I thought I already admitted to being ignorant on the HISTORY of music theory? Im pretty sure I made it clear that I wanted to learn the history of music theory, maybe I better structure my sentences differently.

I know how to apply music theory. I know what music theory is to me, or at least how to use it. But please, feel free to give me a lesson on music theory instead of answering my question. Just dont try to bill me, cause I am not paying for this ****!
#7
Music is sound, thus isnt musical structure based on the structure of sound, in the sense of the way notes are put together?


Yes.

I know how to apply music theory. I know what music theory is to me, or at least how to use it.


How much? This statement in particular is what I'm talking about...

My question is what is to stop someone from coming up with a completely different set of rules that encompasses all the notes that work together, ignoring keys, root notes, scales, semi tones, octaves.


All of the above have been done countless times. For some examples, I suggest looking at Scheonberg, Webern, and Berg (pioneers of serialism): modernist composers such as Xenakis (who draw heavily on set theory in order to structure their music): Perotin and other medieval composers (who pioneered polyphonic music): and every musical system outside of North America.

Why I imagine you're talking about is something like Schenkerian analysis as compared to other forms of formal analysis, and whether or not formal analysis will ever undergo a paradigm shift of sorts. The answer is...probably. But this doesn't really have anything to do with broader music theory and whether or not it's somehow oppressive or obsolete.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Mar 8, 2009,
#8
No, I don't think theory was created just by using what sounded good, because Jazz (bebop) has tons of theory in it and it's not accessible AT ALL. I believe theory was made using mathematics. You know 2 + 2 = 5
#9
Quote by Archeo Avis
Yes.


How much? This statement in particular is what I'm talking about...


All of the above have been done countless times. For some examples, I suggest looking at Scheonberg, Webern, and Berg (pioneers of serialism): modernist composers such as Xenakis (who draw heavily on set theory in order to structure their music): Perotin and other medieval composers (who pioneered polyphonic music): and every musical system outside of North America.



I admitted to knowing slightly more than the basics in my first post, which is mainly the reason why I wont argue about the contents of theory. But does structuring music differently than the way it would be structured in common music theory result in new theory all together? or just a subset of it? and if thats the case, is it possible that these composers who stray from common theory can become the populous thus redefining common music theory, or the way we view structuring music?
#10
But does structuring music differently than the way it would be structured in common music theory result in new theory all together?


Music isn't structured "within" music theory. Music theory exists only to describe the structure of music and explain why musical concepts sound the way they do (this is not the same as explaining what sounds "good", which is an entirely subjective judgment). If someone develops a radical new system of composition, all that happens is a new framework is built in order to explain it. Said frameworks are built to suit the needs of composers at the time. There's nothing "confining" or "oppressive" or "obsolete" about any of them. Melody didn't cease to exist just because harmony was developed.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#11
Quote by amd123
No, I don't think theory was created just by using what sounded good, because Jazz (bebop) has tons of theory in it and it's not accessible AT ALL. I believe theory was made using mathematics. You know 2 + 2 = 5

...
Oh, dear.

Quote by Redwingstock
But does structuring music differently than the way it would be structured in common music theory result in new theory all together? or just a subset of it?

I think you need to review the meaning of the word "theory". Nothing can possibly result in "a new music theory". Architecture is architecture, whether you're building a bridge or a hutt, whether you build it out of wood and brick, or out of straw. It isn't "musical theories" as in "Gallilleo's theory was rejected by the church". Musical theory wasn't written by scientists in a lab discussing how much of this they should mic with that. It simply means musical study; it's how music works.
Whether you're playing random intervals with your eyes closed or whether you're playing metal riffs, a half-step is a half-step, a note is a note.

EDIT: sorry if some of this seems repetitive; I was writing when ArcheoAvis posted.
#12
Quote by toyboxmonster
...
Oh, dear.


I think you need to review the meaning of the word "theory". Nothing can possibly result in "a new music theory". Architecture is architecture, whether you're building a bridge or a hutt, whether you build it out of wood and brick, or out of straw. It isn't "musical theories" as in "Gallilleo's theory was rejected by the church". Musical theory wasn't written by scientists in a lab discussing how much of this they should mic with that. It simply means musical study; it's how music works.
Whether you're playing random intervals with your eyes closed or whether you're playing metal riffs, a half-step is a half-step, a note is a note.

EDIT: sorry if some of this seems repetitive; I was writing when ArcheoAvis posted.



What about my post ??? ???
#13
Quote by amd123
What about my post ??? ???

See the second part of my response. It applies to your comment as well.
The sentence "Jazz has tons of theory" is utterly nonsensical.
#14
Quote by toyboxmonster
...
Oh, dear.


I think you need to review the meaning of the word "theory". Nothing can possibly result in "a new music theory". Architecture is architecture, whether you're building a bridge or a hutt, whether you build it out of wood and brick, or out of straw. It isn't "musical theories" as in "Gallilleo's theory was rejected by the church". Musical theory wasn't written by scientists in a lab discussing how much of this they should mic with that. It simply means musical study; it's how music works.
Whether you're playing random intervals with your eyes closed or whether you're playing metal riffs, a half-step is a half-step, a note is a note.

EDIT: sorry if some of this seems repetitive; I was writing when ArcheoAvis posted.


Thats probably where I am getting confused, so for the sake of argument, assuming as you say, theory is just the study of music, are you saying that there are "subsets" of music theory as I inquired in my previous post? For instance, back to your architecture example, there is greek architecture, roman architecture, etc. So your saying all structures of music is "music theory". It makes sense, but I think the way the term is used is misleading. Atleast in general, whenever talking about music theory people refer to a specific set or rules or guidelines that everyone is in agreement with. Everyone is in agreement with what notes make up a major scale vs. a minor scale. Is it possible that say for instance (and this is a big for instance, and will never be the case, but roll with me here) musicians stopped using one note in the C major scale. Pick one, any one (not C :P ) So musicians stop using this note, eventually no one who plays the C major scale plays this note in the scale, or what have you. So in theory, this note that is never played anymore IS still part of the C major scale. My question is if NO ONE, and I mean ABSOLUTELY NO ONE uses this particular note in the scale, is it possible for people when they teach music theory to leave out this note and soon thousands of years from now, that note will not exist in the C major scale? I know its a crazy question and kind of irrelevant as it will never happen, but is it possible?

To answer my own question I would say no, only because of the music that already exists that was developed with this particular note.

I dont know, this may be a worthless thread or what have you, but I think its a fair question.
#15
Quote by Archeo Avis
Music isn't structured "within" music theory. Music theory exists only to describe the structure of music and explain why musical concepts sound the way they do (this is not the same as explaining what sounds "good", which is an entirely subjective judgment). If someone develops a radical new system of composition, all that happens is a new framework is built in order to explain it. Said frameworks are built to suit the needs of composers at the time. There's nothing "confining" or "oppressive" or "obsolete" about any of them. Melody didn't cease to exist just because harmony was developed.



Suppose one discovered a completely new note, that does not fall into ABCDEFG (flats and sharps). Does this then default music theory because it now doesnt explain why musical concepts sound the way they do as it does not take into account this new pitch?

I know this seems elementary, but I understand that music theory is not limiting, I think I am just getting confused with terms, but my question remains the same.
#16
Renaming has been in use, for many years. Google the "Nashville Numbers System". Historically, country musicians had larger bands and relied heavily upon session professionals to record a track, so they relabled it all. The roman numerals that most musicians go by as they study the cycle of fifths, in Nashville they drop the note letters and give it all a cardinal number. A song with this chord progression:

G C G C G Em D G

Becomes this:

1 4 1 4 1 6m 5 1
Bluegrass Rocks

CYNONYTE!

Quote by Basti95
People only come here to get sigged anyway


Quote by Basti95
Rats, I thought someone would sig it and make me famous...

it was going to be my big break

#17
Quote by millerdrr
Renaming has been in use, for many years. Google the "Nashville Numbers System". Historically, country musicians had larger bands and relied heavily upon session professionals to record a track, so they relabled it all. The roman numerals that most musicians go by as they study the cycle of fifths, in Nashville they drop the note letters and give it all a cardinal number. A song with this chord progression:

G C G C G Em D G

Becomes this:

1 4 1 4 1 6m 5 1



Now thats just silly :P
#18
Not really; saves a fortune in recording costs. Instead of guitar, bass, drum, and vocals, they are working with twin lead guitar, rythym guitar, pedal steel guitar, lap steel guitar, fiddle, bass, mandolin, piano, harmonica, accordian, and enough backup singers to fill a church choir. With so many different instruments tuned differently, it's easier to just think in terms of tonic position, instead of actual notes played. Session instrumentalists can nail a track in short order, but like most rock stars, most country stars can't read music. In a studio, time is money.
Bluegrass Rocks

CYNONYTE!

Quote by Basti95
People only come here to get sigged anyway


Quote by Basti95
Rats, I thought someone would sig it and make me famous...

it was going to be my big break

Last edited by millerdrr at Mar 8, 2009,
#19
no onw ever listens to me but if you want to know how music came about learn these things here

1.) pythargoreans in ancient greece. specifically pythargarous and his follower that say they mathematically calculated pitch change on a string and cettain ratio's that create a perfect forth and fifth and shaped what is known as constanant sound

2.) learn about Aristoxenus who was supposedly the first person to hypothesize that pitch is a long line within which an infinit number of subdivisions could exist

3.) neumic notation. which was pretty much brought into play by the early european cristian church.and evolve over time from couloours being used to notate pitches to letters C F G which are now used as cles G now the trebble F now the bass and C now the C cleff.

4.) mensural notation - codified(verb- arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code, arrange according to plan or system) by Franco of cologne. this is where note values are from ie- maxima, long, breve, semi breve, and minum. which was xpanded upon untill the 1600.

5.) origanal modes - more advanced thoery - at this point the notation alowed for more comunication. the modes are dorian, hypodorian, phrygian, hypo phrygian, lydian, hypolydian, mixolodian, hypomixolodian.

6.) the renesance when ionian and aeolian where created

present when ionian and aeolian have become the major and minor scale

and of course maybe the atual math and physics behins sound and it's relation to the ear and music
song stuck in my head today


#20
Quote by millerdrr
Not really; saves a fortune in recording costs. Instead of guitar, bass, drum, and vocals, they are working with twin lead guitar, rythym guitar, pedal steel guitar, lap steel guitar, fiddle, bass, mandolin, piano, harmonica, accordian, and enough backup singers to fill a church choir. With so many different instruments tuned differently, it's easier to just think in terms of tonic position, instead of actual notes played. Session instrumentalists can nail a track in short order, but like most rock stars, most country stars can't read music. In a studio, time is money.



That makes sense I guess. Unless you are using your own studio.
#21
Quote by lbc_sublime
no onw ever listens to me but if you want to know how music came about learn these things here

1.) pythargoreans in ancient greece. specifically pythargarous and his follower that say they mathematically calculated pitch change on a string and cettain ratio's that create a perfect forth and fifth and shaped what is known as constanant sound

2.) learn about Aristoxenus who was supposedly the first person to hypothesize that pitch is a long line within which an infinit number of subdivisions could exist

3.) neumic notation. which was pretty much brought into play by the early european cristian church.and evolve over time from couloours being used to notate pitches to letters C F G which are now used as cles G now the trebble F now the bass and C now the C cleff.

4.) mensural notation - codified(verb- arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code, arrange according to plan or system) by Franco of cologne. this is where note values are from ie- maxima, long, breve, semi breve, and minum. which was xpanded upon untill the 1600.

5.) origanal modes - more advanced thoery - at this point the notation alowed for more comunication. the modes are dorian, hypodorian, phrygian, hypo phrygian, lydian, hypolydian, mixolodian, hypomixolodian.

6.) the renesance when ionian and aeolian where created

present when ionian and aeolian have become the major and minor scale

and of course maybe the atual math and physics behins sound and it's relation to the ear and music



According to this, music IS a science, thus music theory would be a scientific theory? Whoah, I just went over my own head.
#22
Music is a collection of sounds. What we have in theory are concrete names that are concrete because everyone agrees on them. These are names for occurences in the art of music. Beyond that, it's all opinion.
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
#23
Quote by Redwingsrock
That makes sense I guess. Unless you are using your own studio.


Think of it in terms of sheet music. If the lead sheet is written in the Key of G, but the singer can only do the song properly in the Key of F, you have to rewrite every single note on the sheet for the instrumentalists, since as session guys they are not part of the band and probably won't do much improvising without wanting songwriter credit. With using numbers, everything can just be shifted. In the old key, G was 1. In the new key, F is 1, and everything falls into place after that. Call it a version of tab, only its for all instruments. Of course, we have computers now that can transpose a song with the click of a button, but 70 years ago...
Bluegrass Rocks

CYNONYTE!

Quote by Basti95
People only come here to get sigged anyway


Quote by Basti95
Rats, I thought someone would sig it and make me famous...

it was going to be my big break

#24
Quote by Redwingsrock
Suppose one discovered a completely new note, that does not fall into ABCDEFG (flats and sharps). Does this then default music theory because it now doesnt explain why musical concepts sound the way they do as it does not take into account this new pitch?

I know this seems elementary, but I understand that music theory is not limiting, I think I am just getting confused with terms, but my question remains the same.



no music thoery is an explanation of aurally heard sounds and the realtionship of one sound to another.

it does not disprove music thoery.A thoery is a collection hypothesis so far proven over and over again to be correct unless you can prove that the sounds and relationships are incorrect the western theory of music will continue to exist possibly with the note as thoery's are changed based on new information.


further more most of the thoery we study relates to the 12 tet system as our guitars are made with certain ratio's so we can harnomize. this is evedant if you where to take a 12 tet guitar and a 19 tet guitar and play a lets say C# they will sound out of key from each other because the fret ratio's are different even thought they are both tuned.

if you were to measure the frequency of the sound they would probably not be the same.

EDIT: wups wrong thing to say before

however it will still explain both instruments and the notes on them. and although it should sound good by thoery it will not aurally because of the frequency.
song stuck in my head today


Last edited by lbc_sublime at Mar 8, 2009,
#25
¶ø»t¦~ïìæßØЩЌζνγΰЊηψύοΖΡφ


that translates to, "the same reason we're using the english language to communicate right now.
#26
Music theory is a description. Musicians agreed that this pitch will now be referred to as E, and these agreements have been kept for ages. Nobody is changing the naming of E to 6 because there's no point.
#27
Quote by Redwingsrock
Suppose one discovered a completely new note, that does not fall into ABCDEFG (flats and sharps). Does this then default music theory because it now doesnt explain why musical concepts sound the way they do as it does not take into account this new pitch?

I know this seems elementary, but I understand that music theory is not limiting, I think I am just getting confused with terms, but my question remains the same.



No, cause all other instruments are based on the 12 note system.

Yes it's been done (look up microtonal music).

Or check out indian Rage and indonesian Gamelan which work with totally different intervals/notes which can not be played on western instruments.

It doesn't matter for ur music if it's "theoretically correct" or not.

Jazz is theoretically not correct based on the theory at the time, cause you often play chromatics which are not part of the chord, hence this is called in theory chromatics.

(not as much theoretically incorrect, but more theoretically to superficial, calling every outside note a chromatic is right in the music theory, but often there's "sub theory" which go into detail more)

However it became a popular genre, thus there is new theory that comes with it, and that is jazz theory.

Before classical music theory, you would be burned alive if you played b5's on a church organ.

Theory is developing/extended on, but it's always based of the most basic theory which is the major scale/western notes (the 12 notes we use in all our music)

If you play notes that do not fall in common tones, you will sound out of tune, cause music theory doesn't apply there.

Now if you use notes that "Do not exist (yet)" and make chords that "don't exist" and it is appealing, then you created ur own musical system.

Whether people gonna like it or not doesn't matter.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Mar 8, 2009,
#28
If we didn't have a unified system of music theory then we wouldn't be able to communicate with each other regarding music. You can create your whole system for understanding music, but there is no point if you can't discuss it with other people.
#29
Quote by millerdrr
Think of it in terms of sheet music. If the lead sheet is written in the Key of G, but the singer can only do the song properly in the Key of F, you have to rewrite every single note on the sheet for the instrumentalists, since as session guys they are not part of the band and probably won't do much improvising without wanting songwriter credit. With using numbers, everything can just be shifted. In the old key, G was 1. In the new key, F is 1, and everything falls into place after that. Call it a version of tab, only its for all instruments. Of course, we have computers now that can transpose a song with the click of a button, but 70 years ago...

Session musicians are, believe it or not, capable of transpoing music.
#30
Theory is just for remembering things. It won't take your musicianship any higher
Quote by razorback91
Im sorry, I just don't see how you could argue that hardcore isn't metal. That just seems arrogant to me.

Yes, its its own kind of metal, but its still metal.
#31
The real reason I am asking is because I am going to write all my music in code so no one can steal it. Hell I have already accomplished the impossible. I have recorded a unique set of notes that sound different when looking into a mirror. wrap your heads around that one.
#32
Quote by Redwingsrock
The real reason I am asking is because I am going to write all my music in code so no one can steal it. Hell I have already accomplished the impossible. I have recorded a unique set of notes that sound different when looking into a mirror. wrap your heads around that one.


It doesn't matter if you write your music in code, all anybody has to do is listen to it and figure it out by ear.
#33
Quote by Zycho
It doesn't matter if you write your music in code, all anybody has to do is listen to it and figure it out by ear.



With or without a mirror? it makes a difference......
#34
Quote by Redwingsrock
The real reason I am asking is because I am going to write all my music in code so no one can steal it. Hell I have already accomplished the impossible. I have recorded a unique set of notes that sound different when looking into a mirror. wrap your heads around that one.

Could you explain how looking into something that reflects light has anything to do with changing the sound of your notes.

Also, if you don't want people to steal your music (which is highley unlikely anyway) just copyright your songs (though you probably haven't written many having wasted your time thinking of ways to stop people stealing them).
#35
Quote by 12345abcd3
Could you explain how looking into something that reflects light has anything to do with changing the sound of your notes.

Also, if you don't want people to steal your music (which is highley unlikely anyway) just copyright your songs (though you probably haven't written many having wasted your time thinking of ways to stop people stealing them).



Im just messin' man. Although if I DID figure out how to change notes while looking into something that reflects like, I am pretty sure people WOULD want to steal my music, wouldnt you think?
#36
Basically, you could come up with anything you want to describe it. But it is what it is. And it works because it's describing why something is what it is (or in this case, sounds like it does).

You could name the scale G H J K L M M but it will be a different name for the same thing. Atthe end of the day theory is the most mathematical and complete way of describing why it sounds like it does. If you can think of a better way, lets hear it. If not, accept it.
#37
Also:

I dont know, maybe I am just looking for a needle in a haystack that isnt there. What if I dont think that the low "e" tuned in standard is an "e" at all? what if I call that 6, and the "a" is 5? what if instead of using musical notes, musicians were taught to use numbers instead? See where I am getting at? Everyone who is a virtuoso at music theory is really just rehashing what has already been determined, and what has been taught to you. You are a slave to the god of music so to speak.


This is stupid. That's like saying why is a chair a chair? Because people call it a chair. You could call an E note 'Shazamm', and if enough people refer to it as that, then that's what it is.......but everything is named what it is because it's commonly accepted as such.
#38
Ikonoklast made a good point.

Music theory itself is logic, it doesn't matter how you name the notes, as long as all the relativeness is intact.

In fact in germany they call an B note an H so ye it happens.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#39
Quote by 12345abcd3
Session musicians are, believe it or not, capable of transpoing music.


Of course! They just avoid the unneccesary work when possible. Studio time is expensive. I'm not sure who developed "Nashville Numbers", but my bet is it came from producers like Chet Atkins, over the session guys themselves.

I'm not exactly sure what we are debating here? The existence of the system? Google can confirm I didn't invent the concept...

Bluegrass Rocks

CYNONYTE!

Quote by Basti95
People only come here to get sigged anyway


Quote by Basti95
Rats, I thought someone would sig it and make me famous...

it was going to be my big break

#40
Just as a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet so too an E note by any other name will still sound the same.
Si
Page 1 of 2