# Why isn't...



## millionrainbows

Why isn't there a key of F-flat?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

You mean F-flat minor?


----------



## GraemeG

Because there's E...


----------



## SeptimalTritone

-----------------------------------


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> Why isn't there a key of F-flat?


Because then there'd be one for B#.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Don't those technically exist? I thought they were just useless theoretical equivalents of the enharmonic key


----------



## Phil loves classical

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Don't those technically exist? I thought they were just useless theoretical equivalents of the enharmonic key


Only MillionR knows the right answer for the purposes of this thread. The rest is just close-minded academic thinking.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Phil loves classical said:


> Only MillionR knows the right answer for the purposes of this thread. The rest is just close-minded academic thinking.


Ah yes, of course. I'll just hang out in my ivory tower for now


----------



## SixFootScowl

GraemeG said:


> Because there's E...


But there is no black key between the E and the F keys. It is a good question. Likewise there is no black key between B and C. How did they ever come up with that setup? I know all of western music stands on this crazy set-up and it makes for the most beautiful music, but how did anyone figure it out?

What if we move some of the black keys to those blank spaces, leaving blanks in different places? What would happen to our music then?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SixFootScowl said:


> But there is no black key between the E and the F keys. It is a good question. Likewise there is no black key between B and C. How did they ever come up with that setup? I know all of western music stands on this crazy set-up and it makes for the most beautiful music, but how did anyone figure it out?
> 
> What if we move some of the black keys to those blank spaces, leaving blanks in different places? What would happen to our music then?


---‐-------------------


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

SixFootScowl said:


> But there is no black key between the E and the F keys. It is a good question. Likewise there is no black key between B and C. How did they ever come up with that setup? I know all of western music stands on this crazy set-up and it makes for the most beautiful music, but how did anyone figure it out?
> 
> What if we move some of the black keys to those blank spaces, leaving blanks in different places? What would happen to our music then?


You could look towards other musical traditions where they employ microtones and different scale systems to satisfy your curiousity. I wonder what the results would be like if those non-Western traditions were as theoretically well developed as Western Art Music


----------



## Vasks

Phil loves classical said:


> Only MillionR knows the right answer for the purposes of this thread. The rest is just close-minded academic thinking.


Shut this puppy down, now.


----------



## Knorf

millionrainbows said:


> Why isn't there a key of F-flat?


There absolutely is. I encountered it once, in Verdi's _Don Carlo_. There was a difficult passage, with flying triplets up and down the full range of the bassoon, everything flat with B-double flat. I had a hell of a time learning it, until I realized it was in F-flat major. B-double flat was the subdominant, C-flat the dominant. What tweaked my brain (in terms of learning this passage) was E-flat functioning as the leading tone. But once I understood what was going on, it was much easier to learn.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> Why isn't there a key of F-flat?


_Because all of the other keys are racist, as is evidenced by the majority of listeners on this forum who only listen to erm, the other keys and not that one..._

The key exists (the OP knows this of course), but is used infrequently. We all know it can become necessary to spell as such for good voice-leading, or if allied to a fastidiousness regarding harmonic logic and precision. This can lead to the use of spelling that involves double flats (and double sharps in other keys of course), but practicalities that favour ease of reading are certainly also valued and depending upon context and resolutions, the key of E might be more practical as double flats (and sharps) can become unwieldy and confusing in some situations. 
The use of double flats and sharps in an actual key signature is rarely used too in classical/romantic music. Is this about equal temperament MR?

I can't immediately recall a piece _solely_ in Fb but it wouldn't surprise me if there's a piece or passage in some Schubert. Either way, the key of Fb exists in theory and sometimes practice and Knorf is our witness, so case, on the face of it, closed. (Phil's Bsharp in post5 exists too for that matter, but no-one would thank you for it if you used it).

As the agenda is yet to be revealed, one can't help but wonder if we are about to kop another bout of theoretical virtue signalling from MR.....


----------



## millionrainbows

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> You mean F-flat minor?


No, F-flat major.



mikeh375 said:


> The key exists (the OP knows this of course), but is used infrequently. It can become necessary to spell as such for good voice-leading, or if allied to a fastidiousness regarding harmonic logic and precision. This can lead to the use of spelling that involves double flats (and double sharps in other keys of course)...The use of double flats and sharps in an actual key signature is rarely used too in classical/romantic music. Is this about equal temperament MR?...the key of Fb exists in theory and sometimes practice...




Could you spell the scale, please?


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> No, F-flat major.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you spell the scale, please?


....all right, out of sheer curiosity and even though I know you can do it yourself, I'll play along.

Fb Gb Ab Bbb Cb Db Eb...


----------



## millionrainbows

Knorf said:


> There absolutely is. I encountered it once, in Verdi's _Don Carlo_. There was a difficult passage, with flying triplets up and down the full range of the bassoon, everything flat with B-double flat. I had a hell of a time learning it, until I realized it was in F-flat major. B-double flat was the subdominant, C-flat the dominant. What tweaked my brain (in terms of learning this passage) was E-flat functioning as the leading tone. But once I understood what was going on, it was much easier to learn.


Wouldn't it be easier to notate the passage in E major (with 4 sharps)?

Or are sharps considered racially inferior to flat key signatures?


----------



## Knorf

millionrainbows said:


> Wouldn't it be easier to notate the passage in E major (with 4 sharps)?


Sure it would. But I can't perform a séance and then mind-read the long dead spirit of Giuseppe Verdi, so I will never know why he chose a more complicated route.


----------



## Omnimusic

Schubert, Moments Musicaux, Op.94 nr 4, bar 86


----------



## Knorf

Omnimusic said:


> Schubert, Moments Musicaux, Op.94 nr 4, bar 86


I went and checked this out, and this is a great example! It includes a number of authentic cadences on F-flat major, as the flatted mediant of D-flat major, which is the key of the middle, "B" section of a compound ternary form. The key of Op. 94 No. 4 as a whole is C-sharp minor, whose relative major is E major, the enharmonic equivalent of F-flat major. There are numerous enharmonic respelling games in this piece!

One could argue it might have been simpler to use just sharp keys for the whole thing but...well, he didn't.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

I prefer all such of my notations to be flats , cats . *`o*


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

In Norway F-flat is called Fess, almost like "fest", which is PARTY  (might be important...)


----------



## millionrainbows

Knorf said:


> I went and checked this out, and this is a great example! It includes a number of authentic cadences on F-flat major, as the flattened mediant of D-flat major, which is the key of the middle, "B" section of a compound ternary form. The key of Op. 94 No. 4 as a whole is C-sharp minor, whose relative major is E major, the enharmonic equivalent of F-flat major. There are numerous enharmonic respelling games in this piece!
> 
> One could argue it might have been simpler to use just sharp keys for the whole thing but...well, he didn't.


But identifying a chord as "Fb" because it's the flatted submediant in the key of Db major is not the same as having Fb as a key signature.

If the overall key of Op. 94 No. 4 is C# minor, then where did the key of Db *major* come from?

These discrepancies are showing the flaws or glitches in the diatonic system, because according to the key signature and diatonic system, to qualify as as key signature, its scale must: 1) Have seven letter names, with no repeats of a letter; and 2) No double sharps or double flats.


----------



## Knorf

millionrainbows said:


> But identifying a chord as "Fb" because it's the flatted submediant in the key of Db major is not the same as having Fb as a key signature.


Well, sure. I think it's very unlikely you'd ever see double-flats or sharps in a key signature, but there's no theoretical reason why you couldn't have them.



> If the overall key of Op. 94 No. 4 is C# minor, then where did the key of Db *major* come from?


He starts with four sharps, in minor with C-sharp as tonic. End of the "A" section is a G-sharp dominant seventh chord, which can be interpreted to function as its enharmonic equivalent, A-flat dominant seventh, because then comes the "B" section with 5 flats, with D-flat as tonic. He could have used C-sharp major with seven sharps, but chose not to.



> These discrepancies are showing the flaws or glitches in the diatonic system, because according to the key signature and diatonic system, to qualify as as key signature, its scale must: 1) Have seven letter names, with no repeats of a letter; and 2) No double sharps or double flats.


For sure the diatonic system (as well as the 12-tone equal division of the octave) requires various greater or lesser adjustments in its tuning, especially with triads and sevenths, but there's no theoretical reason why you can't have double-sharps or double-flats in a key signature. Probably someone's tried it, but none that I know of.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> But identifying a chord as "Fb" because it's the flatted submediant in the key of Db major is not the same as having Fb as a key signature.
> 
> If the overall key of Op. 94 No. 4 is C# minor, then where did the key of Db *major* come from?
> 
> *These discrepancies are showing the flaws or glitches in the diatonic system*, because according to the key signature and diatonic system, to qualify as as key signature, its scale must: 1) Have seven letter names, with no repeats of a letter; and 2) No double sharps or double flats.


Ah, the true agenda is revealed... There is no need for an Fb or B# signature is the obvious retort. If it ain't broke...


----------



## Knorf

I mean, all musical systems are flawed on some level, because all of them are compromised products of human invention.


----------



## mikeh375

We all know that there is nothing wrong with modulating from a sharp key to a flat key, in fact it is common. In Knorf's example, Dflat major as a key, is more common and familiar in real life than C sharp major and the enharmonic change would surely have been a practical decision based on ease of reading for all instruments and especially for the benefit of transposing instruments. (I am assuming here as I haven't seen the score. Perhaps the clts are in A which would transpose to [as it happens] *Fb* in the part for a given concert key sig. of Db. In that case, notation in E might be preferable).

Generally speaking, no trumpet player or clarinettist would thank you for the key of D sharp if their instruments are in Bb. Obviously It's not that one can't use sharp keys but Eb is much more comfortable than Dsharp and one should always strive to write in the most direct and practical way that's relevant to the medium. I surmise that this was part of Verdi's reasoning when it came to spelling.

Alternatively, perhaps Verdi had a strong emotional connection to Db, who knows, (almost the same modulation in reverse occurs in Chopin's Op28 Db maj Prelude. When playing this, I sense a psychological shift in feel not simply because of a maj to min change, but also _because _of the enharmonic shift).

So, far from being flawed to the extent the OP claims, the system is actually very flexible creatively and practically when it comes to art/concert music and has proven itself malleable in the 20thC. Initially, equal temperament opened the door to a lot of this flexibility and I'm guessing this will crop up soon enough.

As Knorf and I have already touched on, the fact that one _could_ use double accidentals in a key signature is an example of the flexibility inherent in the system and as Bartok discovered, there is no reason why sharps and accidentals can't be used together neither.


----------



## Rogerx

SixFootScowl said:


> But there is no black key between the E and the F keys. It is a good question. Likewise there is no black key between B and C. How did they ever come up with that setup? I know all of western music stands on this crazy set-up and it makes for the most beautiful music, but how did anyone figure it out?
> 
> What if we move some of the black keys to those blank spaces, leaving blanks in different places? What would happen to our music then?


Post of the week :lol:


----------



## Guest

F-flat major (from Max Reger's booklet on modulation.


----------



## millionrainbows

Rogerx said:


> Post of the week :lol:


You are receiving a warning at TalkClassical for chiding and mocking other members. Please refrain from this and keep your posts polite and civil.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> ...the system is actually very flexible creatively and practically...As Knorf and I have already touched on, the fact that one _could_ use double accidentals in a key signature is an example of the flexibility inherent in the system...


Key signatures such as F-flat major are known as _theoretical_ key signatures.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## hammeredklavier

G sharp major:








*[ 1:33 ]*


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> Key signatures such as F-flat major are known as _theoretical_ key signatures.


I'm not sure what you are getting at MR but there is no flaw here. The practical in music supersedes the theoretical once we get into theses realms because otherwise harmonic spelling in particular can get very complicated. I mentioned earlier that harmonic fastidiousness and voice leading are critical in most cases, but there is a limit and that border is policed by common sense, clarity and Occam's razor.

And just to answer the OP question, there is if you want it.....


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> I'm not sure what you are getting at MR but there is no flaw here.


It's simple math, as well as simplicity. If you've ever really thought about this, you would agree that it is a "flaw" or "glitch" to use theoretical key signatures such as Fb or G#.

Our system is diatonic (7 note scales). There are only 7 letter/note names, ABCDEFG. There are 12 total notes in the octave. The formula for a major scale in steps is W-W-H-W-W-W-H.

When you exceed 7 scales, redundancy sets in, and the system exceeds its limit of 7.

Up in fifths is C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#. To go further in sharps is redundant, because "G#" is equivalent to Ab.
Down in fifths (up in fourths) is C-F-Bb-Eb-Ab-Db-Gb-Cb. To go further up in fourths is redundant: "Fb" is already accounted for as E.

The key signatures shared are Db/C#, Gb/F#, and Cb/B.

The key signatures with seven flats (♭) and seven sharps (♯) are rarely used because they have simpler enharmonic equivalents. For example, the key of C♯ major (seven sharps) is more simply represented as D♭ major (five flats).

Key signatures can be further extended through double sharps and double flats (for example, a piece in the key of G♯ major can be expressed with a double sharp on F double-sharp, and six sharps on the other six pitches). As with the seven-sharp and seven-flat examples, it is rarely necessary to express music in such keys when simpler enharmonic examples can instead be used (in the case of G♯, the same passage could be expressed in A♭ with only four flats).


----------



## mikeh375

So I was right eh, it is about equal temperament and enharmonic practice. 

What you see as redundancy in enharmonic writing is actually a valuable and powerful resource because in the immediate concerns whilst writing, enharmonic practice/technique can open new sonic/harmonic doorways with its options, solve voice leading issues and clarify transitions to other areas. It can logically justify (if that is deemed necessary), almost any harmonic/key shift. 

Any note can be re-spelt and any note or re-spelling thereof can have a new functional role. That kind of flexibility enables an intellectual fluency that can explore options and gives one a criteria of good and bad the more one ventures forward....that's a good thing.

Far from you hammering another nail into CP/music theory's coffin, all you've done is highlight one of its creative strengths as far as I can tell. If I'm missing your point then so be it, the system works beautifully for most needs.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> So I was right eh, it is about equal temperament and enharmonic practice.
> 
> What you see as redundancy in enharmonic writing is actually a valuable and powerful resource because in the immediate concerns whilst writing, enharmonic practice/technique can open new sonic/harmonic doorways with its options, solve voice leading issues and clarify transitions to other areas. It can logically justify (if that is deemed necessary), almost any harmonic/key shift.
> 
> *Any note can be re-spelt and any note or re-spelling thereof can have a new functional role. That kind of flexibility enables an intellectual fluency that can explore options and gives one a criteria of good and bad the more one ventures forward....that's a good thing. *


That simply sounds like an accommodation to the tenets of "function". Rather than some "advanced intellectual process," it sounds like 'bending over backwards' to accommodate the specialized voice-leading and key shift tenets and nomenclatures which traditional 18th/19th century Western music theory is burdened with.



> Far from you hammering another nail into CP/music theory's coffin, all you've done is highlight one of its creative strengths as far as I can tell. If I'm missing your point then so be it, the system works beautifully for most needs.


Sure it does, if you're totally immersed in that box of thinking.

What you see as "advantages" and "solutions" are only relevant within the parameters of conventional diatonic thinking. For chromatic thinkers outside the "diatonic box, " the notion of using seven accidentals, or using double-accidentals, is cumbersome and redundant.

Breaking news: there are 12 notes.


----------



## mikeh375

No, your characterisation is off the mark I'm afraid.
Such a shame you where bludgeoned into defeat by an idiot professor with a Beethoven sonata analysis because it might have adversely affected your judgement. I don't use the techniques literally, within the confines of the 'box' as I've moved on from them, but the paradigm is immensely fertile for a composer and learning it is a sure fire way of getting your hands dirty with the stuff of music.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> No, your characterisation is off the mark I'm afraid.
> Such a shame you where bludgeoned into defeat by an idiot professor with a Beethoven sonata analysis because it might have adversely affected your judgement. I don't use the techniques literally, within the confines of the 'box' as I've moved on from them, but the paradigm is immensely fertile for a composer and learning it is a sure fire way of getting your hands dirty with the stuff of music.


Yes, it's a shame that these professors were totally exclusive in their thinking. Maybe if they had been black, and played some jazz, things might have been different.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Why isn't there the same number of black keys as white, and no yellow or red keys? That's inequality.

Hold on, the harpsichord!


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> Why isn't there the same number of black keys as white, and no yellow or red keys? That's inequality.
> 
> Hold on, the harpsichord!


Ha ha, that's absolutely hilarious. :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Why isn't there the same number of black keys as white, and no yellow or red keys? That's inequality.
> Hold on, the harpsichord!


Post of the week :lol:


----------



## JAS

Phil loves classical said:


> Why isn't there the same number of black keys as white, and no yellow or red keys? That's inequality.
> 
> Hold on, the harpsichord!


I have seen harpsichords with yellow keys. (Ivory will do that over time.)


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I have seen harpsichords with yellow keys. (Ivory will do that over time.)


No, that's not what he meant. I gather from this that you've never seen a harpsichord where the CDEFGAB keys are black, and the accidentals are white.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> No, that's not what he meant. I gather from this that you've never seen a harpsichord where the CDEFGAB keys are black, and the accidentals are white.











Old harpsichord, with keys turned yellow with age.

And another, although these may be wood rather than ivory:









(Also, it was meant at least partially in good humor, as was the post to which I replied.)


----------



## Knorf

I'm really not understanding the purpose of this thread. Gee, the 7-note diatonic and 12-note chromatic scales in the Western system are kludges. I mean, we already knew that. So what if they're not infinitely extendable?

If you want infinitely extendable, there's this:










Of course this particular example uses 12-tone equal temperament, but you can apply Nørgård's _Uendelighedsrækken_ to literally any scale collection or tonal system you like!


----------



## millionrainbows

Knorf said:


> I'm really not understanding the purpose of this thread.


Ok, I'll explain it again for you.

I'm pointing out the accommodation involved when using the diatonic tonal system of the 18th century: old, inflexible theory which must adhere to the tenets of "function". Rather than some "advanced intellectual process," it results in 'bending over backwards' using ridiculous "theoretical key signatures" like Fb, which exceeds seven flats, to accommodate the specialized voice-leading and key shift tenets and nomenclatures which traditional 18th/19th century Western music theory is burdened with.

It works, if you're totally immersed in that box of thinking.

What are seen as "advantages" and "solutions" are only relevant within the parameters of this outmoded conventional diatonic thinking.

For chromatic thinkers outside the "diatonic box, " the notion of using seven accidentals, or using double-accidentals, is cumbersome and redundant.


----------



## Knorf

millionrainbows said:


> Ok, I'll explain it again for you.
> 
> I'm pointing out the accommodation involved when using the diatonic tonal system of the 18th century: old, inflexible theory which must adhere to the tenets of "function". Rather than some "advanced intellectual process," it results in 'bending over backwards' using ridiculous "theoretical key signatures" like Fb, which exceeds seven flats, to accommodate the specialized voice-leading and key shift tenets and nomenclatures which traditional 18th/19th century Western music theory is burdened with.
> 
> It works, if you're totally immersed in that box of thinking.
> 
> What are seen as "advantages" and "solutions" are only relevant within the parameters of this outmoded conventional diatonic thinking.
> 
> For chromatic thinkers outside the "diatonic box, " the notion of using seven accidentals, or using double-accidentals, is cumbersome and redundant.


This doesn't explain anything. Everything here is well known and no serious theorist or halfway trained composer for at least seventy years would say otherwise.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> Ok, I'll explain it again for you.
> 
> I'm pointing out the accommodation involved when using the diatonic tonal system of the 18th century: old, inflexible theory which must adhere to the tenets of "function". Rather than some "advanced intellectual process," it results in 'bending over backwards' using ridiculous "theoretical key signatures" like Fb, which exceeds seven flats, to accommodate the specialized voice-leading and key shift tenets and nomenclatures which traditional 18th/19th century Western music theory is burdened with.
> 
> It works, if you're totally immersed in that box of thinking.
> 
> What are seen as "advantages" and "solutions" are only relevant within the parameters of this outmoded conventional diatonic thinking.
> 
> For chromatic thinkers outside the "diatonic box, " the notion of using seven accidentals, or using double-accidentals, is cumbersome and redundant.


For diatonic music, there is no problem with the system. For 12-tone atonal music, it's even simpler. For some chromatic music like Bartok's, he actually intends the notes viewed in some diatonic sense, so he had a certain way of notating, which had some double sharps and flats. There came a point where he abandoned it for most part. I find it a fascinating perspective of hearing, even though for practical purposes of playing it could be simpler.

https://relatedrocks.com/1996/03/01/some-aspects-of-bartoks-notation/


----------



## Knorf

I mean, Rameau worked out the issues millionrainbows is talking about in 1722 with his _Traité de l'harmonie réduite à ses principes naturels_.


----------



## Woodduck

Knorf said:


> I mean, Rameau worked out the issues millionrainbows is talking about in 1722 with his _Traité de l'harmonie réduite à ses principes naturels_.


Wisdom may dictate avoiding threads like this, but what the hell. Is there anything here for the composer or instrumentalist? Or is it just cerebral noodling? I mean, nobody's actually fond of double flats, but they're pretty rare; as a singer I don't remember ever encountering one. For a composer, I can see a positive beauty in having a way of notating according to the tonal context one is working in. Where's the problem?


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> It works, if you're totally immersed in that box of thinking.
> 
> What are seen as "advantages" and "solutions" are only relevant within the parameters of this outmoded conventional diatonic thinking.
> 
> For chromatic thinkers outside the "diatonic box, " the notion of using seven accidentals, or using double-accidentals, is cumbersome and redundant.


Composers can learn these techniques and move on, they do not have to stay immersed in them but can use them as a starting point, a technically objective method that can develop the inner ear and provide a sure footing for further exploration if they wish. 
The advantages of the techniques in question go way beyond relevance within the box only when it comes to the development of a composer and it is the seemingly not understanding or experiencing of this from the OP that for me, seriously undermines almost all of his rants against the system. Once understood, ideally one assimilates, adapts, experiment with and even discards such techniques. There is personal artistic growth inherent in that process.

Edited to add...

Enharmonic practice actually encourages chromatic thinking, introducing as it does shifts in tonal fields. This again is a good way to introduce chromatic thinking to a young composer.
Whilst CP is not the only way to learn and is not even conducive or relevant for most modernism, it _is_ a solid option with which to start prima facie, the search for one's own creativity.

For a counterbalance here, I read recently that Alexander Goehr was initially taught via a pentatonic route instead of a CP one which obviously ensured a mild consonant euphony whilst composing. However this in hindsight for him, he says, was a solid preparation and aid to understanding serial principles such as heaxachordal systems where (as you will know), six note sets are combined. He suggests that the pentatonic approach was more conducive to making him more receptive to these 12t techniques than the traditional CP route, presumably through 'procedures' learnt (Goehr - 'Finding the Key'). I mention this to highlight that CP is certainly not the only game in town, but that does not detract from its efficacy to initially teach chromatic concepts neither - it's just a different way.

To work in a highly chromatic field, one can use algorithms such as Knorf has posted as an example and/or one can have chromaticism underpinned by extended, modified and personalised CP techniques, or for that matter, any other number of organising principles that the last 100 years has yielded. These are used as a controlled justification for the musical choices and argument, if not the actual gesture/idea - the brain as opposed to the heart. So the goal for a composer is to become comfortable in chromatic fields, sure footed in decisions and confident in what amounts to an unlimited choice. The principle in CP's enharmonic practice _can_ give you solid fundamental ground in this regard, a beginners route map perhaps, but only if you are taught in the correct spirit and manner and only if one has a little more about them than a textbook mentality and is prepared to experiment and....oh all right then.. think outside the box too. This includes a freer attitude to function, which can be re-defined in more modern ways too, not just the old resolving ways.

Equally important and rarely mentioned is that CP will also inculcate a sense of musicality and tradition - one that teaches the student about the past which can become a guiding hand as a student matures if they want it to be. This may or may not be important to some but I personally believe there is a musical advantage to be had by this.

I'll shut up now.


----------



## Knorf

Woodduck said:


> Wisdom may dictate avoiding threads like this, but what the hell. Is there anything here for the composer or instrumentalist? Or is it just cerebral noodling?


Do you mean the Rameau _Traité_? If so, it's pretty interesting but I think mainly of historical curiosity. Yet, so much of our modern understanding of harmony and progression is rooted in Rameau (especially the incipient notion of what we now call the triad and 7th chord "root," what Rameau called the _basse fondamentale_) and it's an interesting fact of history that J. S. Bach knew some of Rameau's theories yet disagreed with them! (Most specifically, the whole concept of basse fondamentale.)

If you mean this thread, no idea. Maybe millionrainbows just needs to bash on "modern" diatonic composers a bit? I am somewhat sympathetic to that urge, but honestly why bother? There are no perfect musical systems. I'd go further: there is no perfection in art.


----------



## millionrainbows

That's very clever, guys! You can bend over backwards! Now show me some other tricks, maybe rolling over and playing dead? :lol: I'll reward you with a chromatic biscuit!


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> That's very clever, guys! You can bend over backwards! Now show me some other tricks, maybe rolling over and playing dead? :lol: I'll reward you with a chromatic biscuit!


I see you can do the tail between the legs.


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> I see you can do the tail between the legs.


No. I don't admit defeat on this issue. As was said before:

*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, or with any other paradigm than "the diatonic music of white European males of the 18th-19th centuries."*


----------



## Knorf

millionrainbows said:


> *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, or with any other paradigm than "the diatonic music of white European males of the 18th-19th centuries."*


This looks like a strawman, certainly something we can agree is narrow-minded rubbish. But did someone actually say this, or something close enough to this, such this is a fair paraphrase? Certainly no one in this thread.


----------



## millionrainbows

Knorf said:


> This looks like a strawman, *certainly something we can agree is narrow-minded rubbish. *But did someone actually say this, or something close enough to this, such this is a fair paraphrase? Certainly no one in this thread.


It was inspired by jazz guitarist Pat Martino. Tsk, tsk, try to restrain yourself. Your desperation is showing.


----------



## Knorf

millionrainbows said:


> It was inspired by jazz guitarist Pat Martino. Tsk, tsk, try to restrain yourself. Your desperation is showing.


WTF...

 

Are you trolling? Do you have a point to make? If so, what it is? Spit it out. No, you haven't done so, yet. This coy behavior, if there is a sincere point behind this, is not helping you.

In any case, nothing that is happening with me in this thread or anything else in my life resembles desperation.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> It was inspired by jazz guitarist Pat Martino. Tsk, tsk, try to restrain yourself. Your desperation is showing.


Seems like Pat developed little tricks with the guitar, and his own technique, but he's wrong to impose what he did in the quote. I think he has something against the piano. He is choosing not to think outside of his guitar box.

Check this out. He's pretty bad at explaining what he's doing, and also mistaken a minor 9th for a major 7th at 3:03.


----------



## millionrainbows

Knorf said:


> WTF...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trolling? Do you have a point to make? If so, what it is? Spit it out. No, you haven't done so, yet. This coy behavior, if there is a sincere point behind this, is not helping you.
> 
> In any case, nothing that is happening with me in this thread or anything else in my life resembles desperation.


You are being accusatory and defensive. Me trolling? You called my post #56 "narrow-minded rubbish." You can dish it out, but can't take it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> Seems like Pat developed little tricks with the guitar, and his own technique, but he's wrong to impose what he did in the quote. I think he has something against the piano. He is choosing not to think outside of his guitar box.
> 
> Check this out. He's pretty bad at explaining what he's doing, and also mistaken a minor 9th for a major 7th at 3:03.


When you started dissing Pat Martino, you lost _all_ credibility with me.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> When you started dissing Pat Martino, you lost _all_ credibility with me.


Some of the guys you diss here are more credible than Pat, I'm afraid.


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> Some of the guys you diss here are more credible than Pat, I'm afraid.


Wow, you *really do* have an inflated view of your theory "in crowd."


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> Wow, you *really do* have an inflated view of your theory "in crowd."


If I'm not mistaken, Knorf studied with Fernyhough and might, just might know something about chromaticism...that'll do for me thanks. And to be fair, some of the other guys also know what they are talking about in spades. They just might not see eye to eye with you is all and perhaps with good reason.


----------



## Knorf

millionrainbows said:


> You are being accusatory and defensive. Me trolling? You called my post #56 "narrow-minded rubbish." You can dish it out, but can't take it.


I didn't think you were sincerely holding the point of view in that quote. Are you?



mikeh375 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, Knorf studied with Fernyhough and might, just might know something about chromaticism...


To be fair, just at the summer courses at Darmstadt. But I do hold a doctorate in composition and have 25 years experience teaching music theory and composition at university, having earned tenure and the rank of "full" professor. FWIW.

Here's the progress of this thread, as I see it:


Millionrainbows asks why F-flat major doesn't exist.
Several posters respond that it does. Some provide examples in the repertoire.
Millionrainbows says yeah sure but not as a key signature.
Posters respond that yes, you can print a key signature for F-flat major, but no one does because Occam's Razor (don't make things more complicated than necessary).
Millionrainbows says the diatonic system is flawed and limited.
Posters respond that yes, that's true. It reflects a human construct. What's your point?
Millionrainbows posts a quote from a jazz guitarist that's so bonkers I assumed he posted it ironically. 
Posters respond that the quotation is bonkers.
Millionrainbows takes offense, seemingly. But sincerely? 

And here we are. What exactly is the topic for debate? Millionrainbows, it's past time to stop being coy, or I'm out. This just doesn't seem worth my time.


----------



## Handelian

Just to lighten this. I know Irving Berlin only used to playin the key of F sharp. He liked the black notes. Even had transposing pianos. And think of all those songs!


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> When you started dissing Pat Martino, you lost _all_ credibility with me.


What about your credibility? Are you a musician? Are you a composer? Are you a musicologist? Are you just a guy who reads stuff?


----------



## Knorf

Handelian said:


> Just to lighten this. I know Irving Berlin only used to playin the key of F sharp. He liked the black notes. Even had transposing pianos. And think of all those songs!


I'm fond of F-sharp, too, but mainly F-sharp minor. It's Bach's fault.


----------



## millionrainbows

Knorf said:


> Millionrainbows posts a quote from a jazz guitarist that's so bonkers I assumed he posted it ironically.
> Posters respond that the quotation is bonkers.
> 
> And here we are. *What exactly is the topic for debate?* Millionrainbows, it's past time to stop being coy, or *I'm out. This just doesn't seem worth my time.*


I don't use sarcasm or irony online, ever. You can take all my statements seriously.

I assume you're a pianist, so you've never pondered the difference between the piano and the guitar, or questioned the diatonic system. 
With all that work you've invested into this: a doctorate in composition, and 25 years experience teaching music theory and composition at university, having earned tenure and the rank of "full" professor; it seems unlikely you would be "game" to question any of this.

I assume you're a pianist. The piano is essentially a diatonic instrument, and the guitar is essentially a chromatic instrument. So you've always been immersed in the diatonic system as an "insider," which includes your instrument.

*^^^Whether or not you wish to follow the train of thought this embodies long enough to grasp it, before you trash it, is what would determine whether or not it's worth my elaboration. 
*
I doubt it, since mike375 already trashed it, and I question whether it's worth my effort elaborating on it.

...But I've already made the point I intended about diatonic music. It's cumbersome and self-serving.


----------



## Knorf

millionrainbows said:


> I don't use sarcasm or irony online, ever. You can take all my statements seriously.


Noted.



> I assume you're a pianist, so you've never pondered the difference between the piano and the guitar, or questioned the diatonic system.


I'm primarily a bassoonist. As for questioning the diatonic system, what a laugh! I had had enough of its limits by high school.



> With all that work you've invested into this: a doctorate in composition, and 25 years experience teaching music theory and composition at university, having earned tenure and the rank of "full" professor; it seems unlikely you would be "game" to question any of this.


Ok, now my conclusion is you haven't read my posts in this thread, or you would realize clearly that I recognize and understand the limits of the diatonic system very well, arguably better than you do.



> I assume you're a pianist. The piano is essentially a diatonic instrument, and the guitar is essentially a chromatic instrument. So you've always been immersed in the diatonic system as an "insider," which includes your instrument.


You assume incorrectly on all points.



> ...But I've already made the point I intended about diatonic music.


The point that it is limited and arguably flawed, if you try to justify it based on the overtone series? As is 12-tone equal temperament? That's it?

....

I mean, multiple people in this thread have already recognized this. And I pointed out Rameau did as well, following a similar line of thinking but with far greater sophistication and thoroughness, back in 1722.


----------



## millionrainbows

Knorf said:


> And here we are. What exactly is the topic for debate? Millionrainbows, it's past time to stop being coy, or I'm out. This just doesn't seem worth my time.


If you don't understand or agree with the points I've made, that's your option.


----------



## millionrainbows

Knorf said:


> I'm primarily a bassoonist. As for questioning the diatonic system, what a laugh! I had had enough of its limits by high school.


Then we agree.



> Ok, now my conclusion is you haven't read my posts in this thread, or you would realize clearly that I recognize and understand the limits of the diatonic system very well, arguably better than you do.


Then we agree.



> You assume incorrectly on all points.


Okay, so you're not a pianist, and you're not totally immersed in diatonic thinking. Others here don't seem to question it, though.



> The point that it is limited and arguably flawed, if you try to justify it based on the overtone series? As is 12-tone equal temperament? That's it?


If you mean that the diatonic system is limited because of harmonic concepts based on the overtone series, i.e, the harmonic series, no, not necessarily. That defines tonality, but not all the diatonic infrastrucure of scales, note names, functions, chords, etc.



> I mean, multiple people in this thread have already recognized this. And I pointed out Rameau did as well, following a similar line of thinking but with far greater sophistication and thoroughness, back in 1722.


Have they? It sounds to me as if they were justifying such ridiculous diatonic indulgences and specialized lingo such as key signatures like Fb with seven or more accidentals.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> Then we agree.
> 
> Then we agree.
> 
> Okay, so you're not a pianist, and you're not totally immersed in diatonic thinking. Others here don't seem to question it, though.
> 
> If you mean that the diatonic system is limited because of harmonic concepts based on the overtone series, i.e, the harmonic series, no, not necessarily. That defines tonality, but not all the diatonic infrastrucure of scales, note names, functions, chords, etc.
> 
> *Have they? It sounds to me as if they were justifying such ridiculous diatonic indulgences and specialized lingo such as key signatures like Fb with seven or more accidentals.*


It was said from the beginning an Fb signature was not necessary, but then that it could be done to satisfy you. There is no flaw in the diatonic system and notation, but that's different than saying there is no limitation in the diatonic music. There are also limits in atonal music, would you admit that? You can't modulate when there is no tonal centre to begin with.

Plus there are different degrees in diatonicism. You can have some chromaticism and still maintain a degree of diatonicism. It's not purely one or the other.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I still think Fb-minor is a funny thought


----------



## EdwardBast

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I still think Fb-minor is a funny thought


See the beginning of the development section in the first movement of Beethoven's Sonata Op. 57, mm. 70ff. It's written as E minor but it's origins - reached from Fb major enharmonically spelled (mm. 67ff), which in turn occurs as the VI of the Ab minor that ends the exposition - make it "really" F-flat minor. This is in a sense confirmed by a continuing modulating spiral by minor 6ths in the subsequent passages


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Plus there are different degrees in diatonicism. You can have some chromaticism and still maintain a degree of diatonicism. It's not purely one or the other.


"diatonic containment of chromaticism"














obviously differs from this sort of expression:


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> "diatonic containment of chromaticism" obviously differs from this sort of expression:


Mozart's diatonic chromaticism is based on root movements of fifths, as Bernstein demonstrated. This is what the major scale and system of chord function was designed for. 
A fifth (7 semitones) is not a divisor for 12 within the octave; *it is not recursive*, and must travel outside the octave (7 X 12=84) before it coincides with its staring point and closes its circle of travel.

Likewise, the fourth (its inversion) is 5 semitones (5 X 12=60), before it circles back around.

The smaller intervals *are* recursive within the octave, and do not encourage travel: the m2, M2, m3, M3, and tritone. *This is "true" chromaticism.* Root movement using these intervals leaves the key area more quickly and breaks down the diatonicism.


----------

