# Do keys matter?



## youngcapone

(Beginner here)I made a simple melody in the piano roll of FL studio and started shifting it up one semitone at a time (keeping the intervals the same). I notice that there was no real difference in how the melody felt as I shifted it up or down. It made me think about why keys or octaves were important. I’ve heard some things about how historically, there were implications involving the way different instruments were made and what not, but in today's day and age does it really matter if we’re making music digitally?? I feel like what’s most important are relationships between notes (intervals). Thoughts???


----------



## Woodduck

A melody may retain its character played at different pitch levels, but once you start adding harmony you'll notice that transposition can have a major effect on the music's sonority and mood. Depending on the nature of the piece, there are apt to be be good reasons for choosing one key over another.


----------



## mbhaub

Not only does harmony make a big difference, adding orchestration markedly changes the mood and feeling. A symphony in G is very bright sounding, whereas one in B flat is much more somber. A lot of it has to do with the ways instruments are built and how the overtone series works. This is especially apparent in the strings. A string that isn't being used will still have a resonance however small that adds to the sound. Digitally, it may not make a huge difference, but to a trained, skilled musician the difference between E flat major and C major is like night and day.


----------



## mikeh375

Digital music doesn't care about all the good stuff mbhaub and Woodduck have mentioned, (with the obvious proviso that absurdly large transposition and register change would clearly have a telling effect). If you want realism via digital samples then yes, it's important to pay attention to the practicalities of scoring and echo decisions whilst composing/programming that one would make for a real orchestra. One would write to exploit the expressive potential of the idiomatic and registral quirks instruments possess (on the assumption one knows how to). The samples would also have to be capable of any technique beyond the basic articulations asked of them for a semi-convincing playback to be achieved.

The effect is illusory though, for example, a sample is not aware of its programmed musical environment within a DAW and will not react in a genuinely acoustic way. This is particularly noticeable when programming strings. The beautiful 'bloom' of sound that comes from a live string section, a melange of tuning, hall and sympathetic resonance, is not possible in digitally sampled music at present, not even with those samples that come with so called 'baked-in' ambience.

On the downside, the ubiquity and relative ease of digital sampling has spawned a generation who think they can write for orchestra, the reality is very different so far as realism is concerned.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> On the downside, the ubiquity and relative ease of digital sampling has spawned a generation who think they can write for orchestra, the reality is very different so far as realism is concerned.


They're called "sound designers." :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

youngcapone said:


> (Beginner here)I made a simple melody in the piano roll of FL studio and started shifting it up one semitone at a time (keeping the intervals the same). I notice that there was no real difference in how the melody felt as I shifted it up or down. It made me think about why keys or octaves were important. *I've heard some things about how historically, there were implications involving the way different instruments were made and what not,* but in today's day and age does it really matter if we're making music digitally?? I feel like what's most important are relationships between notes (intervals). Thoughts???


No, it doesn't really matter, as long as it sounds good. You're working digitally from a keyboard, so instrument ranges aren't going to be an issue unless you are using an orchestral emulation sampling software. Even there, the orchestral program, if it's a realistic one, won't allow you to notate things out of the range of instruments. Even my simple E-Mu Proteus Orchestral Module has limits built in. If you get a good orchestral software, this will all be taken care of; you won't be able to notate "out of bounds," so the axiom will still be 'if it sounds good, do it.'

Ignore some of the other answers here, as you seem to be satisfied working digitally, and recognize it for what it is, a very useful tool. The others here seem intent on using digital technology in trying to imitate real orchestras, as if it were your ultimate goal to notate for real orchestras. Listen to some Wendy Carlos Bach, and appreciate that she lets "sound be itself" and appreciates electronic sound for what it is.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> Ignore some of the other answers here, as you seem to be satisfied working digitally, and recognize it for what it is, a very useful tool.* The others here seem intent on using digital technology in trying to imitate real orchestras*, as if it were your ultimate goal to notate for real orchestras. Listen to some Wendy Carlos Bach, and appreciate that she lets "sound be itself" and appreciates electronic sound for what it is.


No, I for one did not say that at all, so please be careful. I said *IF* you want realism and the rest of my post was in that vein.
I've used electronics, daw's, samples, synths all of my pro life. I know a lot about them and _do_ recognise the creative and aesthetic value of them. The fact that you've just p**sed me off should tell you something, try and remember that next time you do an all purpose lumping together of folk around here..


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> No, I for one, did not say that at all, so please be careful. I said *IF* you want realism.
> I've used electronics, daw's, samples, synths all of my pro life and _do_ recognise the creative and aesthetic value of them. The fact that you've just p**sed me off should tell you something, try and remember that next time you do an all purpose lumping together of folk here..


How do you know I wasn't responding to mbhaub's post about realistic strings?

I didn't mention anyone by name, nor was my reply to you. It was to youngcapone.I didn't invalidate or question anything you said. Please be careful _yourself. _

This was general advice to youngcapone. If you are p**sed off, that's _your_ problem, and not my fault. Try and remember that next time you zero-in on a particular member.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> I didn't mention anyone by name, nor was my reply to you. I didn't invalidate or question anything you said. Please be careful _yourself. _
> 
> This was general advice to YoungCapone. If you are p**sed off, that's _your_ problem, and not my fault. Try and remember that next time you zero-in on a particular member.


You said..and I quote..."the others".


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> You said..and I quote..."the others".


No, that's incorrect. I said "Ignore some of the *other answers* here..." not "other people."

Besides that, As Woodduck has often said, ideas are just ideas, and do not represent us as people. If that's true, then you have no reason to be upset, do you? We could ask Woodduck about this.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> No, that's incorrect. I said "Ignore some of the *other answers* here..." not "other people."
> 
> Besides that, As Woodduck has often said, ideas are just ideas, and do not represent us a people. If that's true, then you have no reason to be upset, do you? We could ask Woodduck about this.


ok MR, read my post 7 and see what I highlighted in your post 6. A bigger person would at least acknowledge that.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> No, that's incorrect. I said "Ignore some of the *other answers* here..." not "other people."
> 
> Besides that, As Woodduck has often said, ideas are just ideas, and do not represent us a people. If that's true, then you have no reason to be upset, do you? We could ask Woodduck about this.


Since you bring up Woodduck, he would ask you why Youngcapone should "ignore some of the other answers here." Since only mikeh375 and Woodduck had given answers, "some" must refer to both of those answers.

I don't think it's right to tell Youngcapone to ignore what mikeh375 and I said. Do you?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Since you bring up Woodduck, he would ask you why Youngcapone should "ignore some of the other answers here." Since only mikeh375 and Woodduck had given answers, "some" must refer to both of those answers.
> 
> I don't think it's right to tell Youngcapone to ignore what mikeh375 and I said. Do you?


I think it's good advice if youngcapone is working with digital tools, not a chamber group, and wants to be free creatively.

Why should he follow the advice of any teacher who is so totally immersed in the CP diatonic system that they are unaware of its nature, just like a goldfish in a bowl?

If he can't learn that "key signatures are part of the CP diatonic system and are used to refer to diatonic scales, and are in this descriptive sense diatonic in nature," then how will he ever put this into perspective from behind a computer, unless he wants to play hymns in a Sunday school class?

It didn't do me much good, but I learned it. Actually, I learned more from Dan Hearle, a jazz pianist, and by listening.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's good advice if youngcapone is working with digital tools, not a chamber group, and wants to be free creatively.
> 
> *Why should he follow the advice of any teacher who is so totally immersed in the CP diatonic system that they are unaware of its nature, just like a goldfish in a bowl?
> *
> If he can't learn that "key signatures are part of the CP diatonic system and are used to refer to diatonic scales, and are in this descriptive sense diatonic in nature," then how will he ever put this into perspective from behind a computer, unless he wants to play hymns in a Sunday school class?
> 
> It didn't do me much good, but I learned it. Actually, I learned more from Dan Hearle, a jazz pianist, and by listening.


I suggest that at this point you look at my last reply to your huffing and puffing here: Difference between scale an key?

You see, bubbula, I know very well the things you think I don't know. The difference between us is that I know how to state them so that other people don't have to waste a lot of time cracking a code. (I'm sure this applies to mikeh375 too.)


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> You see, bubbula, I know very well the things you think I don't know. The difference between us is that I know how to state them so that other people don't have to waste a lot of time cracking a code. (I'm sure this applies to mikeh375 too.)


 So, you finally admit that you know very well what I've been getting at all along.So who is wasting who's time?

You're not cracking a code (I get the reference, you did a google search on the Martino quote), you're just obfuscating.

At least on the "Cracking The Code" forum, you'll be exposed to the progress that the electric plectrum guitar has made, even though Troy Grady is a little too "metal" for my taste.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> So, you finally admit that you know very well what I've been getting at all along.So who is wasting who's time?


I said that I know things you claim I don't know. That doesn't mean I always know what you're trying to say. That's where decrypting becomes necessary.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I said that I know things you claim I don't know. That doesn't mean I always know what you're trying to say. That's where decrypting becomes necessary.


I don't think so. When you said "You see, bubbula, I know very well the things you think I don't know," you were referring very specifically to the subject in context. I see it as a tacit admission of that.

What you are saying above is a generality.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think so. When you said "You see, bubbula, I know very well the things you think I don't know," you were referring very specifically to the subject in context. I see it as a tacit admission of that.
> 
> What you are saying above is a generality.


There is nothing to "admit," tacitly or otherwise. You make statements, and if you use language that's vague, misleading or nonsensical, people respond accordingly. It's decryption, and it's pretty routine around here.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> There is nothing to "admit," tacitly or otherwise. You make statements, and if you use language that's vague, misleading or nonsensical, people respond accordingly. It's decryption, and it's pretty routine around here.


What's "routine" is your way of derailing threads and obfuscation, i.e. the concept of concealing the meaning of a communication by making it more confusing and harder to interpret. The intent to obscure information: that's your goal.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^Obscurity doesn't need obscuring. You talk as if I'm the only one here who thinks you offer more words than sense. Try offering clear and accurate information, then see whether people try to "obscure" it.

It's amusing that you portray yourself as a source of "information" rather than of views. Not surprising, just amusing. As my Aunt Helen used to say, "Pin a rose on you!"


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ^^^Obscurity doesn't need obscuring. You talk as if I'm the only one here who thinks you offer more words than sense. Try offering clear and accurate information, then see whether people try to "obscure" it.


Ideas like exposing the diatonic nature and bias of the CP notation system? That seems obscure to you because you've never really thought about it. You just continued to play your piano. For you, it's not about information, anyway, which you demonstrate as follows:



> It's amusing that you portray yourself as a source of "information" rather than of views. Not surprising, just amusing. As my Aunt Helen used to say, "Pin a rose on you!"


I shudder to think what else your Aunt Helen used to do to you.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Ideas like exposing the diatonic nature and bias of the CP notation system? That seems obscure to you because you've never really thought about it. You just continued to play your piano. For you, it's not about information, anyway, which you demonstrate as follows:
> 
> I shudder to think what else your Aunt Helen used to do to you.


Music utilizing the CP notation system can be as diatonic or as chromatic as anyone chooses to make it. There is no "bias" you need to "expose." A staff with a separate line or space for every one of the 12 chromatic notes wouldn't be "unbiased," it would merely be unwieldy. The layout of black and white piano keys isn't "biased," it makes possible the identification of every key by its distinct visual pattern. Your claim that composers are "biased" toward "diatonic thinking" by the piano is ludicrous.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Music utilizing the CP notation system can be as diatonic or as chromatic as anyone chooses to make it.


Yes, but Alan Holdsworth is glad that Nicolas Slonimsky wrote his Thesaurus of Scales without key signatures. That would have made it extremely unwieldy.


Woodduck said:


> There is no "bias" you need to "expose."


 I was being dramatic, like you.I think people need to know these things, especially guitarists.


> A staff with a separate line or space for every one of the 12 chromatic notes wouldn't be "unbiased," it would merely be unwieldy.


I never proposed doing that.


> The layout of black and white piano keys isn't "biased," it makes possible the identification of every key by its distinct visual pattern.


I was being dramatic. the layout of the keyboard does reflect the diatonic scales because it is a diatonic instrument by nature. Don't you know that? I guess you can't see it because you never thought about it. The guitar, by contrast, is a chromatic instrument.


> Your claim that composers are "biased" toward "diatonic thinking" by the piano is ludicrous.


 I didn't say that. I said the CP system is designed for diatonic music. The word "biased" is a little dramatic, don't you think? It's ludicrous!

_
*"The communal language of music that all musicians share - that is, the language of scales, theory, and intervals that we all use when explaining or communicating music - really has nothing to do with any instrument other than the piano." *-Pat Martino
_


----------



## Kopachris

millionrainbows said:


> I was being dramatic. the layout of the keyboard does reflect the diatonic scales because it is a diatonic instrument by nature. Don't you know that? I guess you can't see it because you never thought about it. The guitar, by contrast, is a chromatic instrument.


Uh uh uh. We're not comparing guitar to the whole of keyboard instruments. We're comparing guitar to _piano_, which *is* by nature a chromatic instrument. The earliest keyboard instruments were diatonic, but the original plucked string instruments were pentatonic, so you have no point there.


----------



## millionrainbows

Kopachris said:


> Uh uh uh. We're not comparing guitar to the whole of keyboard instruments. We're comparing guitar to _piano_, which *is* by nature a chromatic instrument. The earliest keyboard instruments were diatonic, but the original plucked string instruments were pentatonic, so you have no point there.


Uh uh uh...yessss!

The black and white keys of the piano reflect diatonic key signatures. Is this rocket science? One black key and six white keys is the key of G (one sharp). Can you wrap your head around that?
I'm planning to go into more detail on this later, _if_ I can find some keyboard pattern images. The image-posting capabilities are pretty limited here.


----------



## Kopachris

millionrainbows said:


> Uh uh uh...yessss!
> 
> The black and white keys of the piano reflect diatonic key signatures. Is this rocket science? One black key and six white keys is the key of G (one sharp). Can you wrap your head around that?
> I'm planning to go into more detail on this later, _if_ I can find some keyboard pattern images. The image-posting capabilities are pretty limited here.


Sure, the keyboard layout was designed to be accessible for diatonic music _in any and every key signature_, i.e. in a chromatic fashion. It's a chromatic instrument.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> The black and white keys of the piano reflect diatonic key signatures. Is this rocket science? One black key and six white keys is the key of G (one sharp). Can you wrap your head around that?


Sure, the piano's pattern of black and white keys does correspond to key signatures. The disagreement seems to be over calling key signatures diatonic and, based on that, calling the piano diatonic. Pentatonic instruments contain only the notes of the common pentatonic scale. A diatonic instrument would contain only the notes of a diatonic scale. A chromatic instrument would contain all the notes of the chromatic scale. The piano does.

The patterning of the piano keyboard doesn't limit us to diatonicism in any way. All it does, in practice, is to distinguish keys visually by pattern, so that we can easily see what key we're in. What other pattern would make sense? What would a "chromatic keyboard," in your thinking, look like? Maybe one that uses a different color for each of the 12 pitch classes, eliminating the concept of "key" from visual representation? Do you think that would be more useful?


----------



## millionrainbows

Kopachris said:


> Sure, the keyboard layout was designed to be accessible for diatonic music _in any and every key signature_, i.e. in a chromatic fashion. It's a chromatic instrument.


What a reply! "All the key signatures means the piano is chromatic? No, you're not seeing it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Sure, the piano's pattern of black and white keys does correspond to key signatures. The disagreement seems to be over calling key signatures diatonic and, based on that, calling the piano diatonic.


Admittedly, in modern thinking, key signatures can be used differently, as a 'workaround', _but it was never my assertion that they could not._ I simply said that _they were designed_ for the diatonic system, as was the layout of the keyboard itself.

Admittedly, in modern practice, the piano be used and written for chromatically, _but it was never my assertion that it could not.
_
But it _is _my assertion that, especially _in this context of comparison to the guitar,_ _the piano is a diatonic instrument, and the guitar is a chromatic instrument. _This can be shown in many ways.


> Pentatonic instruments contain only the notes of the common pentatonic scale. A diatonic instrument would contain only the notes of a diatonic scale. A chromatic instrument would contain all the notes of the chromatic scale. The piano does.


Where did you get this from? I never said that, or proposed that, and you are way off-base as to an understanding of what I'm saying.



> The patterning of the piano keyboard doesn't limit us to diatonicism in any way.


 True, and I never said it did. The patterns do reflect that it is a basically diatonically-designed instrument by nature. The guitar is not.



> All it does, in practice, is to distinguish keys visually by pattern, so that we can easily see what key we're in. What other pattern would make sense? What would a "chromatic keyboard," in your thinking, look like?


I never proposed a "chromatic" keyboard. I'm fine with the piano the way it is.



> Maybe one that uses a different color for each of the 12 pitch classes, eliminating the concept of "key" from visual representation? Do you think that would be more useful?


I never proposed the elimination of "key" areas. All I said was that the entire "language" of music, all the note names, notational system, are derived from this diatonic key-system-based way of thinking.


----------



## Kopachris

millionrainbows said:


> What a reply! "All the key signatures means the piano is chromatic? No, you're not seeing it.


Explain like I'm 5, then.

A piano and a guitar can play the same notes. The piano can play more notes in actuality. If anything, the piano is _more chromatic_ than the guitar.


----------



## millionrainbows

Kopachris said:


> Explain like I'm 5, then.
> 
> A piano and a guitar can play the same notes. The piano can play more notes in actuality. If anything, the piano is _more chromatic_ than the guitar.


Well, to explain it, I have to go into detail, but here's an example.

When a guitarist learns a C major scale, he has to learn _several different forms_ for it. One starts on index/6th string, another on middle finger/6th string, and pinky/6th string, then repeating this on the 5th string, for a total of 6 or 7 different patterns for only one scale. This is his "diatonic disadvantage."

But the guitar has a "chromatic advantage." Each pattern can move up by one fret, and suddenly he knows C#, D, Eb, E, and so on. This is a "chromatic advantage."

The piano, by contrast, has only _one unique pattern_ for each major scale; C is all white, C# is all black notes except for one white note, D is two black notes, and so on.

The pianist's "diatonic advantage" is that there is only _one_ unique form for each scale.

But, the pianist has to learn a different new pattern as he goes up chromatically. The pattern of black/white notes changes as he goes up chromatically. This is hs "chromatic disadvantage."

The same principle applies to chord voicings.


----------



## mikeh375

That's just called learning an instrument. Fingering patterns are quite consistent for the piano with a few variations.


----------



## Woodduck

mikeh375 said:


> That's just called learning an instrument. Fingering patterns are quite consistent for the piano with a few variations.


Yeah, it's just mechanics. None of it is of any concern to anyone not playing the piano or the guitar. It has nothing to do with chromaticism or diatonicism, much less with whether "keys matter."


----------



## Kopachris

None of that has anything to do with whether the instrument is considered, by anyone except YOU, diatonic or chromatic. Both instruments are chromatic and that's that.


----------



## Guest

mikeh375 said:


> *That's just called learning an instrument.* Fingering patterns are quite consistent for the piano with a few variations.


Ouf, back to earth again. Thanks Mike.


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> C# is all black notes except for one white note


you mean two white notes?
C#, D#, *E#*, F#, G#, A#, *B#*


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> you mean two white notes?
> C#, D#, *E#*, F#, G#, A#, *B#*


Yes! two white notes. Don't shoot me, piano is not my main instrument.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> That's just called learning an instrument. Fingering patterns are quite consistent for the piano with a few variations.


Yes, this explanation is specifically applied to the piano as an instrument and understanding its nature in comparison. I've noticed that its harder for pianists to see this.
I still say this has resonances in all aspects of scales, notation, and the overall CP language.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Yeah, it's just mechanics. None of it is of any concern to anyone not playing the piano or the guitar. It has nothing to do with chromaticism or diatonicism, much less with whether "keys matter."


It's not just mechanics; the instrument reflects diatonic notation as well, which includes the letter-names, lines and spaces, scales, key signatures and the whole language of music that we use to convey ideas to other musicians. It's all diatonic, not chromatic.
What do _you_ mean by "chromaticism and diatonicism" in the way you are using the terms, and how is it separate from this?


----------



## millionrainbows

Kopachris said:


> None of that has anything to do with whether the instrument is considered, by anyone except YOU, diatonic or chromatic. Both instruments are chromatic and that's that.


I just explained how it does. Your reply just an insubstantial denial of that. It doesn't hold any water for me on a discussion level. You're just internet squabbling, not discussing.


----------



## Kopachris

millionrainbows said:


> I just explained how it does. Your reply just an insubstantial denial of that. It doesn't hold any water for me on a discussion level. You're just internet squabbling, not discussing.


Fair enough. I don't have time to squabble with you either. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> It's not just mechanics; the instrument reflects diatonic notation as well, which includes the letter-names, lines and spaces, scales, key signatures and the whole language of music that we use to convey ideas to other musicians. It's all diatonic, not chromatic.
> What do _you_ mean by "chromaticism and diatonicism" in the way you are using the terms, and how is it separate from this?


The letter names of the notes - ABCDEFG - spell out the natural minor scale, which is obviously a diatonic scale. If you prefer a melodic minor scale, you stick some chromatics into it - F# and G#- but you don't put them in the key signature because the parallel major is C and because you tend to use the natural minor scale on the way back down. It seems quite efficient for representing tonal relations clearly and facilitating playing the piano.

What are we arguing about?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The letter names of the notes - ABCDEFG - spell out the natural minor scale, which is obviously a diatonic scale. If you prefer a melodic minor scale, you stick some chromatics into it - F# and G#- but you don't put them in the key signature because the parallel major is C and because you tend to use the natural minor scale on the way back down. It seems quite efficient for representing tonal relations clearly and facilitating playing the piano.
> 
> What are we arguing about?


OK, if the diatonic system is so efficient, how do you notate other scales outside its scope and purview? 8, 9, 10, &11 note scales?

Nicolas Slonimsky avoided this, and wrote his Thesaurus of scale without key signatures.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> OK, if the diatonic system is so efficient, how do you notate other scales outside its scope and purview? 8, 9, 10, &11 note scales?
> 
> Nicolas Slonimsky avoided this, and wrote his Thesaurus of scale without key signatures.


I don't acknowledge the term "diatonic system." The common practice, major-minor system is both diatonic and chromatic.

If Slonimsky wants to use other scales and have no key signatures, fine. Perhaps you'll illustrate his procedures for us.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I don't acknowledge the term "diatonic system." *The common practice, major-minor system is both diatonic and chromatic.*


In a narrow sense you are correct, but in the broader sense you are incorrect.

*The "CP chromatic collection" will still use diatonic principles: *one example is that it will "divide" the octave at the fifth, not the tritone. For true chromaticism, the tritone is the true dividing point of the octave (6+6=12).

The key signatures follow the circle of fifths, proving that the CP system is not really "chromatic" in an important sense. Why?

There are only two intervals which, when projected (or "stacked") produce the entire chromatic scale before repeating: the fifth (and its other-direction inversion, the fourth) and the minor second.

*Thus, the CP system is built on progressions of fifths/fourths, not chromatics.*

Postulate 1: The interval-distance of a fifth is 7 semitones; a fourth is 5 semitones.

Postulate 2: 12 (the chromatic collection within an octave) is divisible by 7 only when we reach 7x12=84. Similarly, 5x12=60. Both 84 and 60 lie well-outside the bounds of 12; they are the result of outward travel "outside" the octave.

Postulate 3: The minor second interval distance is 1, and 1x12=12. this interval stays "within" the octave, is recursive within an octave.

Postulate 4: Therefore, *CP's "chromatic" nature is arrived at via the fifth/fourth, and is thus not "truly" chromatic as a "real" chromatic minor second is.*


----------



## Flamme

If u r Zuul, I guess


----------

