Page 1 of 3
#1
So I've been around the block and know a large share of music theory. I've come up with my own names for a lot of things, but just curious what the music theory community would make of this scale?

1 b2 bb3 #4 5 #6 7

One way this is spelled diatonically can be:

D Eb Fb G# A B# C#

Anyone have a rational idea for how to begin naming this scale?

Cheers,

Laroon
#2
The 4 semitone gap between "Fb", & G# renders it pretty much useless in context with most of western diatonic music.

I'm sure some extinct culture has tried it at one point or another.

Why not add a note in the gap I mentioned to make it octatonic and just maybe, we'll name the scale after you.

Three semitone gaps are common in middle eastern music, not really sure about four.
#3
D Eb Fb G# A B# C#

lets make it a bit easier to read

D Eb E Ab A C Db

without context of how its being used we could guess all day...my guess-its john scofield before hes had coffee..
#4
Well I wanted to keep it diatonic, rather than using two E's and A's and ignoring F and G...

Otherwise you could make it all with sharps with:

D D# E G# A C C# instead of
D Eb E Ab A C Db

Which would result in one tonic letter (D) if a tonic is even considered.

I figure with using a fabricated key signature you can still make it work (albeit it might be harder to read) something like this -



I know this is annoying to read, what with the sharps and flats there. But think about it - when you first played with a key signature (even for G major with one sharp), it was a pain to remember that the F was actually sharped, right?

This will take more adjustment, but if your music is fully in this 'key', you can write the rest of the music without the need of accidentals.

Just don't know what else to call it for traditional theory. (Again, I have my own, but it's not traditional.)

Thoughts?
Last edited by laroon at Jun 5, 2013,
#6
Quote by laroon


This will take more adjustment, but if your music is fully in this 'key', you can write the rest of the music without the need of accidentals.

Just don't know what else to call it for traditional theory. (Again, I have my own, but it's not traditional.)

Thoughts?


If you already have your own name for it then why do you need another? If a name exists for it then I can't imagine many people knowing it outright so it can't be in order to relate with other musicians.

Also, this seems like an effort in futility to me. Do you build chords out of this scale? Is this for a riff that's uses a shit ton of accidentals? Because to me it would still seem easier to just use accidentals throughout rather than use that abominable key sig concocted for this scale.
I'm an
Engeneer
Enginear
Enginere

I'm Good at Math
#7
It's almost a A blues scale, but with a major 7th, and starting on D for some reason.

When I play those notes it sounds like it's just a bluesy thing, and I suspect the C natural and G# are grace notes.

Where are you finding this "scale"? What chords are happening while this scale is going on?
#8
to be honest scale=/=key so they way you wrote that key signature there is kind of dumb to me.

Also what's bothering me is that you don't need to 'make up' a key (or a scale for that matter) to play some random intervals that you threw together. Ok if you play those intervals, it might sound nice, I highly doubt you'd be able to compose a musical piece in that 'key' though without using accidentals. and start using accidentals and you'll easily bump on a major key.

Also, if you didn't notice, if you added an additional third there and fourth, you'd get on myxolidian sound with jsut accidentals between 2nd and rd and 4th and 5th. nothing big, nothing to 'change' the key and 'make' a new key.

And finally as the person above me suggested, just write in an actual key and use accidentals. Or if it's using too many accidentals (which then ruins the actual reason for you to 'create' a new key) just write like a chromatic piece (cause that's what it'd be like pretty much) in the key of C major.

V
#9
are you serious
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#11
Quote by laroon
D Eb Fb G# A B# C#
In the somewhat remote possibility that there's a winner in this, "name the scale contest", are you going to comp tickets to the premier of, "Symphony in D Eb Fb G# A B# C#", to said aforementioned winner?


That's a rhetorical question for me, as I just flushed my entry form down the toilet.
#12
Where did this set of notes come from? Is it possible that it's part of 12-tone row or other chromatic set?
2010 Gibson SG Honeyburst
I'm a musician, a composer, and a theory nut. Pleased to meet you! Check out my websites and drop me a line.

"The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude. " ~ Freidrich Nietzche


My Website
#13
Why does everything have to be some sort of scale? Arpeggios are far more flexible.
#14
I was just thinking that music theory has been around for hundreds of years. We have many many named concoctions of notes - chords and scales. But even something like this, even with enharmonics taken into account, there isn't a name? I'm not even going off the 12-tone system of western music here, and I'm stumping a dozen people. I'm not trying to sound cocky, so please don't take this the wrong way and please bear with me.

I'm just wondering if there's a need to have something out there so we can label everything out there rather than "oh, this is just a thing like this other scale, but it's changed." That's a good way to learn something (ex: Lydian is just like Major with #4), but that seems a far-fetched way to be able to actually name something.

Quote by J-Dawg158
If you already have your own name for it then why do you need another? If a name exists for it then I can't imagine many people knowing it outright so it can't be in order to relate with other musicians.

Also, this seems like an effort in futility to me. Do you build chords out of this scale? Is this for a riff that's uses a shit ton of accidentals? Because to me it would still seem easier to just use accidentals throughout rather than use that abominable key sig concocted for this scale.


The current system I made can name all collections of notes in a systematic way, but again, the reason I don't really care for using this right off, is that I don't want to step on the toes of something that is possibly in existence right now that can trace its roots into something traditional. If there is nothing (which I'm trying to find out here), then I would feel better about my system working to fill this void, rather than attempting to replace something that is already in existence.

Does that make sense? O.o

I've written a piece using this 'scale' before, but I must admit I kind of fabricated it for the piece itself. The chords used are not traditional triads, extended chords, etc., but rather are more chromatic meshes and things along the line of quartal chords. The nice part of the piece is though it's 4 part, I never use accidentals outside of that key signature.

Sorry for the ramble, but I'm seeing if this is something new and/or worthwhile.

Thanks for the responses guys. I truly appreciate them. Please keep them coming.
#16
I think the best answer for you, if you are looking for one, is a tone set. Especially if you haven't used any accidentals, then, you have essentially written a piece using set theory.

Set theory is not based on normal heptatonc intervals, but using semi-tones in a specific order. The intervals aren't refered to in "3rds" or "2nds" etc. Each tone is counted from 0, being your lowest note. So, a major triad in a set theory piece would be analyzed as 0, 4, 7. The root note, 4 half steps about it, and 7 half steps above.

Look into Mikrokosmos by Bela Bartok.
2010 Gibson SG Honeyburst
I'm a musician, a composer, and a theory nut. Pleased to meet you! Check out my websites and drop me a line.

"The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude. " ~ Freidrich Nietzche


My Website
Last edited by Angusman60 at Jun 5, 2013,
#17
Quote by laroon
I was just thinking that music theory has been around for hundreds of years. We have many many named concoctions of notes - chords and scales. But even something like this, even with enharmonics taken into account, there isn't a name? I'm not even going off the 12-tone system of western music here, and I'm stumping a dozen people. I'm not trying to sound cocky, so please don't take this the wrong way and please bear with me.


I think you overestimate the importance and usefulness of the scale as a musical concept. A scale is literally just a set of notes. Any notes. So sure, it's a scale if you write them down in order.

But scales are also a derived concept, typically. You look at what's going on harmonically within a given phrase and get the relevant scale from that.

That's what's confusing about your "scale" - there doesn't seem to be any sort of context. It's just some random notes without any hint of harmonic derivation or function. We can't really tell you the best way to analyze this set of notes without knowing what else is going on when you play it.

When you ask what scale 7 random notes are, it's about the same as asking "What equation gives you the number 58?".
#19
Quote by 20Tigers
If I had to name it I would call it "ugly".


Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
#20
Yes, I'm aware of set theory. My system is along the lines of Allen Forte's system, but takes a turn at a fork in the road. But sets, chords, and scales are similar concepts, no?

I mean, 'a collection of pitches utilized together to form something for a determined amount of time' is a pretty decent definition, I'd say, and fits the bill for all 3 labels above.

Also, why does context matter?

If i say "C D E F G A B" or "Eb F G Ab Bb C D" was my scale, you'd all just tell me "yeah, that's a major scale (or one of the modes, depending on what your tonic is)", but still, that's simplistic. No one can even tell me one version of this scale here, given ANY possibly conceivable conext... so why is there no label? Should there be one?a

Thoughts?
#21
Quote by laroon
So I've been around the block

I think you need to circle this block a few thousand more times.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#25
Quote by Hail


I legit welled up reading this even though it's probably fake.
.
#26
Quote by Nietsche
I legit welled up reading this even though it's probably fake.

I did as well, there's no shame
#27
Quote by Vendetta V
to be honest scale=/=key so they way you wrote that key signature there is kind of dumb to me.

Thanks, but this is the most practical way of simplifying this idea that I could muster. If you were to use ONLY these notes, your music would then be diatonic, and not require any accidentals through the rest of the composition. On the other hand, if you were to put no key signature (C major), you'd have to place flats on every single E and F and sharps on ever C, G, and B. The key signature, though fabricated out of the normal traditional stuffs, allows the notated music to be accidental free other than the key signature.
Quote by Vendetta V

Also what's bothering me is that you don't need to 'make up' a key (or a scale for that matter) to play some random intervals that you threw together. Ok if you play those intervals, it might sound nice, I highly doubt you'd be able to compose a musical piece in that 'key' though without using accidentals. and start using accidentals and you'll easily bump on a major key.

The piece I wrote used only those 7 pitches. And major keys are only found when following the circle of fifths (fourths). If you alter notes outside of the circle of fifths pattern, it's easy to find things that are not Major.
Quote by Vendetta V

Also, if you didn't notice, if you added an additional third there and fourth, you'd get on myxolidian sound with jsut accidentals between 2nd and rd and 4th and 5th. nothing big, nothing to 'change' the key and 'make' a new key.

Sure. And if you were to add just 5 pitches to any major scale, you'd have the chromatic scale. And if you were to sharp the 7th of natural minor you'd have harmonic minor. And if you were to remove the 2nd and 6th of a natural minor scale you'd have a version of pentatonic.

The point is - I don't want to change this scale in any way by adding notes or dismissing pitches as less important than others.

My question is - Is there a way to name this scale that is derived from traditional western theory, or is it 'unnameable' and therefor requires more innovative theory than we have currently at our fingertips in order to name?

Quote by Vendetta V

And finally as the person above me suggested, just write in an actual key and use accidentals. Or if it's using too many accidentals (which then ruins the actual reason for you to 'create' a new key) just write like a chromatic piece (cause that's what it'd be like pretty much) in the key of C major.
V


The scale I've come up with is diatonic, which means there is one pitch per letter. This allows the use of a key signature without having to worry about altering pitches within the composition. Yes, you could simply write it in C major and add accidentals to everything that's not a D or an A; but why go through that hassle if you can just use a key signature?

Granted, the key signature is a lot of "holy **** flats and sharps?" But seriously - it's not hard to get used to with enough practice - just like every other key signature we currently use today. Every E and F is flatted, every G, B and C is sharped. A's and D's are natural. Ready? Play. You know?

Sorry for not responding to this before, V. I really like your questions and look forward to more. This is a great discussion.
#28
Quote by laroon
Yes, I'm aware of set theory. My system is along the lines of Allen Forte's system, but takes a turn at a fork in the road. But sets, chords, and scales are similar concepts, no?

I mean, 'a collection of pitches utilized together to form something for a determined amount of time' is a pretty decent definition, I'd say, and fits the bill for all 3 labels above.

Also, why does context matter?

If i say "C D E F G A B" or "Eb F G Ab Bb C D" was my scale, you'd all just tell me "yeah, that's a major scale (or one of the modes, depending on what your tonic is)", but still, that's simplistic. No one can even tell me one version of this scale here, given ANY possibly conceivable conext... so why is there no label? Should there be one?a

Thoughts?



I really have to disagree. While your set is "diatonic", there is quite a distinction between scales/ chords and sets. Scales and modes always have a consistent pattern of intervals that develop a hierarchy of pitches which creates our basic major/ minor system. Your set isn't tonicized. As such, I posit that it is not a scale. Analyzing it as such wold also solve your key signature issue.
2010 Gibson SG Honeyburst
I'm a musician, a composer, and a theory nut. Pleased to meet you! Check out my websites and drop me a line.

"The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude. " ~ Freidrich Nietzche


My Website
#29
Right on, Angusman60!

The whole hierarchy of pitches is quite the difference between a scale (collection of 'ranked' pitches) and a set (collection of 'idle' pitches). In that light, it's arguable that (in context), a chord and scale function more similarly than a set ever will.

My inquiry is that even with the isolation of just this collection of pitches, with all possible hierarchies in mind, is there any context that exists today in which this would be called something?

For example:

D E F G A B C would be "Dorian" if D is your tonic, but if E were your tonic, it'd be Phrygian (and then linking into all the other modes of course).

I believe something along those lines is what I'm looking for. But all I've received thus far is "if you add / subtract notes from this..."

What I want to say is that in this scale, imagine that all pitches, regardless of their rank, are important. They are not all tonics and are the 'primary', but for that we can just assume D is.

So out of D Eb Fb G# A B# C#, all 7 are there and aren't just passing tones. Also, anything else that were to be added to this scale would be considered a non-scale tone.

If I were to start making up my own stuff here and call D the tonic, A the Dominant, Fb the reciting tone, etc., it would only make this harder to come up with a rational explanation. I'm just looking for any way - using anything as a tonic, using just the relationship of pitches to one another, if this is possible to analyze in our modern world of theory. OR if it behooves us to create another system and therefor the system I have created actually has room to have purpose.

I apologize for having this forum post be my guinea pig, but I'm thankful for this conversation and am enjoying it quite a lot. So thank you all for participating. Keep it coming
#30
My major hangup with figuring out a distinct pattern is the interval from Fb to G#. I don't know what to call that when spelled as such.

If you start from Eb instead of D, the scale would be almost symmetrical, aside from the Major third between Fb and G# and minor third (Aug 2nd) between A and B#
2010 Gibson SG Honeyburst
I'm a musician, a composer, and a theory nut. Pleased to meet you! Check out my websites and drop me a line.

"The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude. " ~ Freidrich Nietzche


My Website
#31
Quote by laroon


My question is - Is there a way to name this scale that is derived from traditional western theory, or is it 'unnameable' and therefor requires more innovative theory than we have currently at our fingertips in order to name?


Why do you need to name it at all? Why does it require theory to give it a name?

It sure seems to me that you're making it much more complicated that necessary by mixing flats and sharps and/or imposing a diatonic structure of a set of notes that don't really correspond to one.

If you want to name it, that name should be in some way related to the way this scale functions. How does this scale function?

You are acting like theory is a series of academic rules with no connection to how the music is actually used. But it's not. It is all related to context and function. And any sort of theoretical discussion MUST start from those places.

So other than being a random collection of notes that you put together, let me ask you: why these notes? What makes them something else?

The scale I've come up with is diatonic, which means there is one pitch per letter. This allows the use of a key signature without having to worry about altering pitches within the composition. Yes, you could simply write it in C major and add accidentals to everything that's not a D or an A; but why go through that hassle if you can just use a key signature?


Because the key signature serves a purpose other than telling you what notes you're using.

I'm also not sure this scale IS diatonic. That is to say, I don't see any reason why you should insist on applying the "one pitch per letter" rule to this apparently random collection of notes. We frequently use scales where that rule does not apply (eg, the blues scale with the 4, b5, and 5).

In this collection of notes, I don't see any particular reason, either, to use as the tonic the note you're using as a tonic. What is your goal here? How are you USING these notes and why?
#32
I'm using these notes to write with. We can move everything up a halfstep, and then only worry about sharps and double sharps, rather than mixing flats and sharps.

D# E F Gx A# Bx Cx

But I don't think this is any more clear.

As for why it 'should' have a name, I believe it would be easier to communicate this idea via a name, rather than calling it the individual notes. I'm talking about having a system where every combination of notes (out of the 12 pitch classes) would result in a concrete name. So if I were to say "the C Laroon scale" you'd all be able to recreate exactly what I was trying to play just as easily as you'd be able to recreate the C Major scale.

With functionality, that doesn't really necessarily matter. Major can be dealt with in a variety of ways. And if you emphasize certain notes (as I've mentioned before), you'd just get the moded versions of the Major scale (Ionian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aeolian, and locrian), but each of their functionalities are tied to the scale. I'm just curious if there is ANY fathomable way to explain this collection of pitches in any context with any functionality. But I do want that all the pitches are still considered to be important; rather than just simply passing tones. No pitches are extra, AND no pitches are missing. This is the complete scale.

I'm using these notes because it's one example of the many scale sets that are in my system out of over 300 collections of pitches. I'm just curious if the music world has a name for this before I assume it doesn't. I just thought I'd check.

What other purpose does the key signature tell us?

As far as I know, you can use the same key signature for C major, D dorian, and F Lydian (as well as quite a few others). It's not till you look at how the notes are played in the piece that you get a sense of functionality. I'd argue that the key signature significantly narrows down your possibilities (eg: F# and C# means it could be D major or B minor, but certainly not Gb Major), but all in all it just tells us what pitches are readily available without the need of altering the written notes with accidentals. I like to think of it as an artist setting up his pallet before he's painting. Some colors (pitch classes) work well with others, and some don't mix, but you still have that basic starting place.

I'm simply using these pitches to make a piece that illustrates the possibilities of non-traditionally related pitches interacting with one another. The sound is semi 20th century and dissonant, yet because of there being only 7 (of 12) pitches, it's not just blatant chromaticism, but has its own unique feel.

On another tangent, Blues (minor blues for purists), though traditionally thought as
1 b3 4 #4/b5 5 b7 is a 6
note scale without 2 and 6 represented.

I know this is blasphemy (and I'm certainly happy that I can post this from a place where I can't get hanged, stoned, or burned :P), but you could do this with a key signature and use

1 #2 #3 #4 5 b7 (or even 1 #2 #3 #4 5 #6) and still be enharmonically sound. This opens a way to create all 12 versions of the Blues scale with a modified key signature.

The thing is, as many of you are probably thinking, that it's 4, not #3. There's a functional version of 4 to make the IV chord, rather than a #III or something and with traditional theory, there's a reason for calling it IV rather than #III.

But I'm curious how much effort it would take to adjust to thinking of things as the same, but called different things to simplify notation.

For example, it's easily arguable that labeling a chord as "C7" is much more effective than writing out "C Dominant 7th". Then why is it not equally useful to write something out with a fabricated key signature? Here's an example of what I mean:



With using this, the rest of the music would be 'cleanly' written within the rules of this key signature. Anything that is NOT within the key signature - that is, chromatic passing tones - would then be blatantly obvious as not fitting in the blues scale.

This simplification process goes against traditional practices; I'm aware. But things change sometimes.

I'm interested in critical thinking responses for this. If you don't like it, that's fine. If you have insight, I'd love to hear it. But if you do honestly not care for it, I would like concrete examples why it's not useful. Or if you do like it, then please explain why.

As always, I really appreciate the collaborated feedback here.
Last edited by laroon at Jun 6, 2013,
#34
With the blues scale, I feel it is almost more simple to use the traditional format. Yes, the format you are proposing makes more sense on paper, but, in practice, I think it would become difficult to recognize that set of notes as a Blues scale if all the notes are written diatonically, as such. This would make it hard to read from sheet music. I also feel that labeling the notes only diatonically looses the purpose of the scale. The Blues scale isn't suppose to be diatonic. If I were writing a scale like this, I would write in chromatic tones, like the b5 in the blues scale, in order to make it clear that this tone is altered.
2010 Gibson SG Honeyburst
I'm a musician, a composer, and a theory nut. Pleased to meet you! Check out my websites and drop me a line.

"The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude. " ~ Freidrich Nietzche


My Website
#35
Quote by laroon
I'm using these notes to write with. We can move everything up a halfstep, and then only worry about sharps and double sharps, rather than mixing flats and sharps.

D# E F Gx A# Bx Cx

But I don't think this is any more clear.

Blues (minor blues for purists), though traditionally thought as
1 b3 4 #4/b5 5 b7 is a 6
note scale without 2 and 6 represented.

I know this is blasphemy (and I'm certainly happy that I can post this from a place where I can't get hanged, stoned, or burned :P), but you could do this with a key signature and use

1 #2 #3 #4 5 b7 (or even 1 #2 #3 #4 5 #6) and still be enharmonically sound. This opens a way to create all 12 versions of the Blues scale with a modified key signature.

The thing is, as many of you are probably thinking, that it's 4, not #3. There's a functional version of 4 to make the IV chord, rather than a #III or something and with traditional theory, there's a reason for calling it IV rather than #III.

But I'm curious how much effort it would take to adjust to thinking of things as the same, but called different things to simplify notation.

For example, it's easily arguable that labeling a chord as "C7" is much more effective than writing out "C Dominant 7th". Then why is it not equally useful to write something out with a fabricated key signature? Here's an example of what I mean:



With using this, the rest of the music would be 'cleanly' written within the rules of this key signature. Anything that is NOT within the key signature - that is, chromatic passing tones - would then be blatantly obvious as not fitting in the blues scale.

This simplification process goes against traditional practices; I'm aware. But things change sometimes.

I'm interested in critical thinking responses for this. If you don't like it, that's fine. If you have insight, I'd love to hear it. But if you do honestly not care for it, I would like concrete examples why it's not useful. Or if you do like it, then please explain why.

As always, I really appreciate the collaborated feedback here.


That sounds way too complicated to me. I like simple, easy ways of naming things and that just confuses me. Key signatures work just fine the way they are. Accidentals are a much more effective way of letting you know when you step outside the key.

BTW, That scale your talking about is a fragment of the altered scale which already has a specific naming convention for clarity. The way you spelled originally doesn't make very much sense.

1 3 b5 #5 b7 b9 #9

or sequentially arranged

1 b2 3 #2 b5 #5 b7

D Eb E# F# Ab A# C --> Scale

D F# Ab A# C Eb E# --> D7alt.

Its named this way in order to clearly highlight the extensions used on an Altered Dominant chord, probably one of the most dissonant chords.

This scale is often used as a starting point to navigate these types of chords as it contains all of the chord tones that are commonly used over alt.7 chords. Alt 7 chords contain the 1 3 and b7, but the b/#5 and b/#9 may not all be present.

I believe your scale was D Eb E# Ab A# C which fits into this perfectly.

Quote by The Spoon
Unless you're sure she likes you, telling her you like her has a 110% chance of failing.

But hey, at least you have a 10% chance of absolutely guaranteeing failure.
Last edited by British_Steal at Jun 6, 2013,
#36
Quote by laroon
I'm using these notes to write with.


Okay. So what's the resolution? Why are you starting this on D#?

I'm talking about having a system where every combination of notes (out of the 12 pitch classes) would result in a concrete name. So if I were to say "the C Laroon scale" you'd all be able to recreate exactly what I was trying to play just as easily as you'd be able to recreate the C Major scale.


This strikes me as a goal which would not be interesting to anyone but you.

I'm just curious if there is ANY fathomable way to explain this collection of pitches in any context with any functionality. But I do want that all the pitches are still considered to be important; rather than just simply passing tones. No pitches are extra, AND no pitches are missing. This is the complete scale.


Here's the problem. You don't understand what "functional" means in a musical context.

"Outside" notes aren't necessarily "passing tones." You frequently, in fact, see melodies that spend a lot of time on outside nots. They might even use the outside not and not the corresponding inside note.

Because here's the thing: in a functional context, all pitches are NOT created equal. In the key of C, B is doing something VERY different from what F is doing, and it's not just about being a different pitch. It gets to the physics of the sound, our history and cultural expectations, and so on.

In C major, A is less important than B. It just is. I'm not saying that I want to compose without the A note, but the B note does something very profound to our understanding of music in that context. So again, we see you're imposing this artificial construct "I want all the notes to be equal" on something where that's a silly rule.

As far as I know, you can use the same key signature for C major, D dorian, and F Lydian (as well as quite a few others).


D Dorian is not a key. F Lydian is not a key.

If I was writing down a piece in F Lydian, I would not use the C major key signature for it. I would use the F major key signature for it. If I was writing in D Dorian, I would use the D minor key signature.

This gets at the sort of information that the key signature tells us. It's not just about what notes - it's about the context. We do not hear musical notes in a vaccum - we hear them in a context. The key signature is not about what notes we're using, it is about that context.

It's not till you look at how the notes are played in the piece that you get a sense of functionality. I'd argue that the key signature significantly narrows down your possibilities (eg: F# and C# means it could be D major or B minor, but certainly not Gb Major)


Wrong! The presence of a C# does not mean we're not in, say, C major. You do not determine a key by counting notes and seeing what fits. You absolutely can have a C# or an F# in Gb major (although we'd generally call them Gb and Db).


I'm simply using these pitches to make a piece that illustrates the possibilities of non-traditionally related pitches interacting with one another. The sound is semi 20th century and dissonant, yet because of there being only 7 (of 12) pitches, it's not just blatant chromaticism, but has its own unique feel.


But if you don't understand the core way in those notes relate to their tonic - and it seems as though you don't - then you're really not composing anything.

On another tangent, Blues (minor blues for purists), though traditionally thought as
1 b3 4 #4/b5 5 b7 is a 6
note scale without 2 and 6 represented.

I know this is blasphemy (and I'm certainly happy that I can post this from a place where I can't get hanged, stoned, or burned :P), but you could do this with a key signature and use

1 #2 #3 #4 5 b7 (or even 1 #2 #3 #4 5 #6) and still be enharmonically sound. This opens a way to create all 12 versions of the Blues scale with a modified key signature.


But, again, this misses the fact that these notes are working functionally. Enharmonic note names are not picked at random. You would not call the b3 in a blues context a sharp two because that's not how it's working. It's working as a minor third, and that means something.

The fact that you don't know what it means, that you think these things are interchangeable, suggests that you really do need to dig in and work on your fundamentals. You should know how a mousetrap works before you try to build a better one.

But I'm curious how much effort it would take to adjust to thinking of things as the same, but called different things to simplify notation.


Meh. Nobody cares. One of the interesting things about notation is that the more you know, the more sense it makes. It feels arbitrary and weird when you start, and the more time you spend with it, the more it makes sense.

It's certainly rather pointless for someone with only a passing understanding of it to try to rebuild it.

With using this, the rest of the music would be 'cleanly' written within the rules of this key signature. Anything that is NOT within the key signature - that is, chromatic passing tones - would then be blatantly obvious as not fitting in the blues scale.


Again we find the missing issue: you're losing contextual information. You're trying to simplify the use of accidentals, but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm interested in critical thinking responses for this. If you don't like it, that's fine. If you have insight, I'd love to hear it. But if you do honestly not care for it, I would like concrete examples why it's not useful. Or if you do like it, then please explain why.


The key signature tells us something about the function of the notes. Your system does not.
#37
I agree with everything said here. If your goal is to use 7 notes that don't normally interact within a piece, I'm sorry, but Bartok beat you to it.
2010 Gibson SG Honeyburst
I'm a musician, a composer, and a theory nut. Pleased to meet you! Check out my websites and drop me a line.

"The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude. " ~ Freidrich Nietzche


My Website
#38
Greetings again, I kind of like what Hotspur put in his post and how he put it in words.

As mentioned above, key is not jsut the notes and the simplification of accidentals.

I really don't understand the potential on this 'scale'. again scale=/=key. If you were to write music with this, what type of music would come out? Would that classify as 'music' to our ears even?
Another question, do you have resolution? do you have chord progressions with this scale? What are your chords that you used for this track and finally is it possible to hear this piece that you wrote? I'm genuinely interested

and finally this leads me to think, even if you did force yourself to writing a piece with those notes exclusively, how many more pieces would you write in this key?! I have a feeling it's a 'just once for this song' thing than anything else

Also, as you said you need elaboration. it's a bit hard for me to elaborate why this wouldn't 'work any futher by examples as you requested. We'd have to use this 'key' write something then tell you why exactly it didn't work for us?

cheers. V
#39
Sean, I like your explanation for this, but for me, it's not precise enough. If I were to give you another synthetic scale, it would be labeled just as ambiguously, and wouldn't provide anything to differentiate it by name from this one. That's where I'm not comfortable enough just calling this a 'synthetic scale' and a 'tone set'.

British_Steal.. your scale isn't the same as mine, right? Yours is going H W H W W W W (Half and Whole).

My proposed scale is going H H 4 H 3 H H (3 = 3 halfsteps; 4 = 4 halfsteps)

I don't know where you got the relation to the altered scale. Can you expand on that? I'm not saying you're incorrect; I'm just missing the connection.

Quote by Angusman60
With the blues scale, I feel it is almost more simple to use the traditional format. Yes, the format you are proposing makes more sense on paper, but, in practice, I think it would become difficult to recognize that set of notes as a Blues scale if all the notes are written diatonically, as such. This would make it hard to read from sheet music. I also feel that labeling the notes only diatonically looses the purpose of the scale. The Blues scale isn't suppose to be diatonic. If I were writing a scale like this, I would write in chromatic tones, like the b5 in the blues scale, in order to make it clear that this tone is altered.


This is very true. But let me give you a few examples.



If you look at each of these, the notation is the same. The key signatures are all different and thus give you a different method of operation when you play each one.

Currently, the only key signatures we use are based off the circle of fifths. But I'm saying why not use this concept to justify other possibilities to get us in all sorts of mindsets? Then you could look at a random key signature (not shown here) and be all "cool. I'm in Bb Dorian #4 #5" and my notes are : Bb C Db E F# G Ab Bb based off a key signature that would show these 4 altered notes?
Last edited by laroon at Jun 6, 2013,
#40
are you ******ed or do you sincerely not know the difference between keys and scales
Quote by Kevätuhri
Hail isn't too edgy for posts, posts are not edgy enough for Hail.


Quote by UseYourThumb
You win. I'm done here.
Page 1 of 3