# Difference between scale an key?



## youngcapone

Originally, I thought that key and scale were essentially the same thing. I thought "key" was just a way of saying that (for the most part) we will be using notes from a certain scale. Maybe, C major, maybe B minor etc… But, the more I’ve studied theory there seems to be a deeper, more fundamental difference between the two. 
For example, apparently you can use multiple scales within one key. I don’t understand why the key of C major would be called C major if you can use notes from other scales… My first thought would be that multiple scales can use the same notes, which makes sense. But, then my next question would be, can you use notes outside of the C major scale in the key of c major? 
I've also heard “it all has to do with the concept of tonality”. I have a vague understanding of tonality, so how specifically does tonality determine what can be played or should be played within a certain key?
I feel like if I've learned anything in music theory it's that there are a lot of rules, but even more exceptions to the rules. Just saying that so you know I get that your answer probably won’t be as cut and dry as I'm asking haha


----------



## Woodduck

This is not complicated, but it takes a bit of time to explain.

A scale is simply any set of notes presented in ascending or descending order of pitch. Any particular scale ascends or descends by specific intervals that distinguish that scale from other scales. For example, the major scale (say from C to C) ascends by whole step, whole step, half step, whole step, whole step, whole step, half step. The natural minor scale ascends by whole step, half step, whole step, whole step, half step, whole step, whole step. The Lydian scale ascends by whole step, whole step, whole step, half step, whole step, whole step, half step. It's the pattern of intervals between steps that determines a scale's special identity and name; any scale can begin at any pitch and maintain its identity as major, minor, etc, as long as its pattern of intervals remains the same. Thus we can have a C major scale, a D major scale, etc.

Applied to actual music, the pattern of intervals in whatever scale is used are important in the structure of the music. Most important is the scale's starting note, which has a special function and status. Music that uses a particular scale - major, minor, etc. - assumes the first note of that scale as its tonal center, the tone we feel as the strongest point of resolution around which other tones revolve and to which they have particular relationships. This system of relationships is called a _tonal system,_ _tonality,_ or _mode._ Scales, containing specific intervals, represent by those intervals particular tonalities - e.g., a major scale represents a major tonality, a minor scale a minor tonality.

"Key" is a concept originating within a particular tonal system, the Western major-minor system. It indicates the location of the tonal center within a piece of music. A piece in C major is in the key of C. At some point in the piece the tonal center may shift to F, and we would say that the piece modulates to the key of F. If the piece begins and ends in C but has a middle section in F, we might still say for convenience that the piece is in C despite a temporary excursion into a different key. "Scale" is relevant only in that we recognize the keys of C and F major by their use of the C major and F major scales; if the middle section of the piece modulated into F minor rather than F major, it would be using the minor scale (with its flat third degree) rather than the major scale. A key is not a scale, but is identified by the scale it uses - by the location of its tonal center and by the relationship of its other tones to that center.

You can indeed use multiple scales within a single key. You can use any notes you want. It's the way in which you use them that determines whether you can reasonably say you're in a certain key. It would make no sense to give a piece a key signature of three flats and say that it's in Eb major while spending most of your time in A minor, but you can certainly use some A minor tonality, even a clear modulation into A minor. To achieve that, you'd use, for a certain length of time, the notes found in the A minor scale.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> This is not complicated, but it takes a bit of time to explain.
> 
> A scale is simply any set of notes presented in ascending or descending order of pitch. Any particular scale ascends or descends by specific intervals that distinguish that scale from other scales. For example, the major scale (say from C to C) ascends by whole step, whole step, half step, whole step, whole step, whole step, half step. The natural minor scale ascends by whole step, half step, whole step, whole step, half step, whole step, whole step. The Lydian scale ascends by whole step, whole step, whole step, half step, whole step, whole step, half step. It's the pattern of intervals between steps that determines a scale's special identity and name; any scale can begin at any pitch and maintain its identity as major, minor, etc, as long as its pattern of intervals remains the same. Thus we can have a C major scale, a D major scale, etc.
> 
> Applied to actual music, the pattern of intervals in whatever scale is used are important in the structure of the music. Most important is the scale's starting note, which has a special function and status. Music that uses a particular scale - major, minor, etc. - assumes the first note of that scale as its tonal center, the tone we feel as the strongest point of resolution around which other tones revolve and to which they have particular relationships. This system of relationships is called a _tonal system,_ _tonality,_ or _mode._ Scales, containing specific intervals, represent by those intervals particular tonalities - e.g., a major scale represents a major tonality, a minor scale a minor tonality.
> 
> "Key" is a concept originating within a particular tonal system, the Western major-minor system. It indicates the location of the tonal center within a piece of music. A piece in C major is in the key of C. At some point in the piece the tonal center may shift to F, and we would say that the piece modulates to the key of F. If the piece begins and ends in C but has a middle section in F, we might still say for convenience that the piece is in C despite a temporary excursion into a different key. "Scale" is relevant only in that we recognize the keys of C and F major by their use of the C major and F major scales; if the middle section of the piece modulated into F minor rather than F major, it would be using the minor scale (with its flat third degree) rather than the major scale. A key is not a scale, but is identified by the scale it uses - by the location of its tonal center and by the relationship of its other tones to that center.
> 
> You can indeed use multiple scales within a single key. You can use any notes you want. It's the way in which you use them that determines whether you can reasonably say you're in a certain key. It would make no sense to give a piece a key signature of three flats and say that it's in Eb major while spending most of your time in A minor, but you can certainly use some A minor tonality, even a clear modulation into A minor. To achieve that, you'd use, for a certain length of time, the notes found in the A minor scale.


I largely agree with Woodduck, and I'm glad that he distinguishes between a scale/tonality/mode and a CP key signature.



youngcapone said:


> Originally, I thought that key and scale were essentially the same thing. I thought "key" was just a way of saying that (for the most part) we will be using notes from a certain scale. Maybe, C major, maybe B minor etc… But, the more I've studied theory there seems to be a deeper, more fundamental difference between the two.


I know exactly what you mean. You're probably a person who uses his ear and hears these kinds of similarities. Then, conceptual questions begin to appear to you. Like me, you are going to have to eventually learn that there are differences in what our ear tells us, and the rules & regulations of the Western CP major/minor tonal system.
If you are more of an "ear" person, I suggest that you look at jazz theory very closely. That's not to say you shouldn't keep on learning CP theory, but I think the jazz and more modern approaches will clear things up for you. Jazz players use their ears, and the approach to their "theory" reflects this.



youngcapone said:


> For example, apparently you can use multiple scales within one key. I don't understand why the key of C major would be called C major if you can use notes from other scales… My first thought would be that multiple scales can use the same notes, which makes sense. But, then my next question would be, can you use notes outside of the C major scale in the key of c major?


I think this question reflects a sense of restriction of the CP idea "being in a key" and using key signatures. If you look at some jazz instructional videos, you can look at how different scales can be used over different chords. You might eventually realize that in many cases, key signatures are just something we "ear" players learn to accept and work around. Trust your ear, always.



youngcapone said:


> I've also heard "it all has to do with the concept of tonality". I have a vague understanding of tonality, so how specifically does tonality determine what can be played or should be played within a certain key?


Woodduck is correct in what he says above, so read it carefully, then read it again. On this forum, in many lengthy discussions, there finally emerged a definition(s) of 'tonal' and 'tonality,' and yes, this definition of 'tonal' is more general and inclusive than you might think. It is an more of an "ear" definition. CP tonality can be included, but does not use this general definition;

"Tonality" is usually used to denote the CP tonal system exclusively, leaving out 'folk' and 'ethnic' forms of general tonality, so it's important to remember this in discussions of music here. In the CP tonal system, it's major/minor scales.



youngcapone said:


> I feel like if I've learned anything in music theory it's that there are a lot of rules, but even more exceptions to the rules. Just saying that so you know I get that your answer probably won't be as cut and dry as I'm asking haha


Music theory does not have to be full of rules and restrictions. That's the CP system, and I suggest you do learn the CP version of it, but bearing in mind that it was specifically designed for music of an earlier period. 
Why learn it? Because all of the notation, key signatures, letter names, and more, are "the system" that all musicians use when they want to write music down, and communicate with other musicians. But if you want to play jazz or make soundtrack music, or use computers to make modern music, then study some jazz theory.

"Did I offend anyone?"-Frank Zappa


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

youngcapone said:


> I don't understand why the key of C major would be called C major if you can use notes from other scales… My first thought would be that multiple scales can use the same notes, which makes sense.


In the key of C there will be a many references to the major triad . This is the identifier . Dance around it at as you please , tease it , diverge and return .


----------



## Woodduck

Tikoo Tuba said:


> In the key of C there will be a many references to the major triad . This is the identifier . Dance around it at as you please , tease it , diverge and return .


That's typical, but you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> That's typical, but you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord.


Yeah, who needs triads?

...But the ear can Perceive a key center and do it much faster and easier than the brain (cognitive aspects).

Saying "you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord" doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's all CP ideological rhetoric.

I can identify many words with missing letters. For example:

iscontinuous pattern
nrequited love
tupid idiot
eautiful girl,

etcetera. That metaphor is biased towards the cognitive aspects; it doesn't really explain what makes _music_ work; as above, you have to use your _brain_ to infer these kinds of cognitive meanings.

In music, it's _the ear_ which puts things into context, not the brain, as above. If not, you are visually biased; you want music to be like a book: uniform, continuous, and connected, and dependent on cognitive processes and corresponding simple precise meanings.

What are you trying to say here, Woodduck? That a collection of CP "devices" is what makes a key center, not the ear? And that if you accumulate enough of these "devices" that a "key area" or "tonality" will be perceived, according to CP standards?

I think the egg came before the chicken, and furthermore, that the chicken was the egg's idea to get more eggs.

I think the reason you think this way is because the music you like (Wagner, etc) is "spread out" into these long narrative sections of time. Things are based on travel to & from key areas, over periods of time. This is unlike Indian raga music, in which "key areas' are simply established once, by the drone tambura, and is "not an issue."

But can't you see that this CP music is a result of these drawn-out processes,, and not the primary cause of tonality, centers of key, etc?

Or are you so carried away by these forms that you will not consider the notion that they are not primary causes of Man's innate ability to perceive tonality?

If not, then please stop talking as if they are.

I fully agree that the language of CP tonality is beautiful, the way it does this. I listen to it. But I see both sides, and realize that "the drone' is the ear, and this is the prime cause.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Woodduck said:


> That's typical, but you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord.


An arpeggio will do . And in reference to the triad , this might just be two
of its tones in sequence with the root featured often enough to identify it .


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, who needs triads?


That depends on what you need them FOR.



> ...But the ear can Perceive a key center and do it much faster and easier than the brain (cognitive aspects).


Nonsense. The ear merely vibrates. The brain perceives. It's basic neuroscience.



> Saying "you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord" doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's all CP ideological rhetoric.


I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything. And it isn't "ideological rhetoric." It's simply a true statement which qualifies Tikoo Tuba's statement. I believe it's acceptable to make simple, true statements without some pretentious *** butting in with a gratuitous putdown and a truckload of irrelevant verbiage, such as:



> I can identify many words with missing letters. For example:
> 
> iscontinuous pattern
> nrequited love
> tupid idiot
> eautiful girl,
> 
> etcetera. That metaphor is biased towards the cognitive aspects; it doesn't really explain what makes _music_ work; as above, you have to use your _brain_ to infer these kinds of cognitive meanings.
> 
> In music, it's _the ear_ which puts things into context, not the brain, as above. If not, you are visually biased; you want music to be like a book: uniform, continuous, and connected, and dependent on cognitive processes and corresponding simple precise meanings.
> 
> What are you trying to say here, Woodduck? That a collection of CP "devices" is what makes a key center, not the ear? And that if you accumulate enough of these "devices" that a "key area" or "tonality" will be perceived, according to CP standards?
> 
> I think the egg came before the chicken, and furthermore, that the chicken was the egg's idea to get more eggs.
> 
> I think the reason you think this way is because the music you like (Wagner, etc) is "spread out" into these long narrative sections of time. Things are based on travel to & from key areas, over periods of time. This is unlike Indian raga music, in which "key areas' are simply established once, by the drone tambura, and is "not an issue."
> 
> But can't you see that this CP music is a result of these drawn-out processes,, and not the primary cause of tonality, centers of key, etc?
> 
> Or are you so carried away by these forms that you will not consider the notion that they are not primary causes of Man's innate ability to perceive tonality?
> 
> If not, then please stop talking as if they are.
> 
> I fully agree that the language of CP tonality is beautiful, the way it does this. I listen to it. But I see both sides, and realize that "the drone' is the ear, and this is the prime cause.


This is sloppy nonsense, and completely irrelevant to the statement it pretends to be responding to. The ability to perceive C major in music that contains no C major triad is based on _acquired knowledge of a tonal system._ All this "ear-brain" dichotomizing is fallacious and beside the point.


----------



## millionrainbows

_



Yeah, who needs triads?

...But the ear can Perceive a key center and do it much faster and easier than the brain (cognitive aspects).

Saying "you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord" doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's all CP ideological rhetoric. 

I can identify many words with missing letters. For example:

iscontinuous pattern
nrequited love
tupid idiot
eautiful girl,

etcetera. That metaphor is biased towards the cognitive aspects; it doesn't really explain what makes 

Click to expand...

_


> _music work; as above, you have to use your brain to infer these kinds of cognitive meanings.
> 
> In music, it's the ear which puts things into context, not the brain, as above. If not, you are visually biased; you want music to be like a book: uniform, continuous, and connected, and dependent on cognitive processes and corresponding simple precise meanings.
> 
> What are you trying to say here, Woodduck? That a collection of CP "devices" is what makes a key center, not the ear? And that if you accumulate enough of these "devices" that a "key area" or "tonality" will be perceived, according to CP standards?
> 
> I think the egg came before the chicken, and furthermore, that the chicken was the egg's idea to get more eggs.
> 
> I think the reason you think this way is because the music you like (Wagner, etc) is "spread out" into these long narrative sections of time. Things are based on travel to & from key areas, over periods of time. This is unlike Indian raga music, in which "key areas' are simply established once, by the drone tambura, and is "not an issue."
> 
> But can't you see that this CP music is a result of these drawn-out processes,, and not the primary cause of tonality, centers of key, etc?
> 
> Or are you so carried away by these forms that you will not consider the notion that they are not primary causes of Man's innate ability to perceive tonality?
> 
> If not, then please stop talking as if they are.
> 
> I fully agree that the language of CP tonality is beautiful, the way it does this. I listen to it. But I see both sides, and realize that "the drone' is the ear, and this is the prime cause._


_Yeah, who needs triads?_


Woodduck said:


> That depends on what you need them FOR.


You said you could estabish a tonality without using a tonic triad, which is cognitive. Triads are the basis of tonality more than cognitive trickery and artifice. Saying "you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord" doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's all CP ideological rhetoric. 
The ear can Perceive a key center and do it much faster and easier than the brain (cognitive aspects).


> Nonsense. The ear merely vibrates. The brain perceives. It's basic neuroscience.


I won't dignify that with a response.


> I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything. And it isn't "ideological rhetoric." It's simply a true statement which qualifies Tikoo Tuba's statement. I believe it's acceptable to make simple, true statements without some pretentious *** butting in with a gratuitous putdown and a truckload of irrelevant verbiage, such as:


You've always tried to prove the same old point; that a sense of tonality is established by all these CP gimmicks which are spread out over a narrative distance, to be read like "War and Peace." That's not true except in a CP context. "Tonality" is heard immediately by the ear, which is of course connected to the brain.


> This is sloppy nonsense, and completely irrelevant to the statement it pretends to be responding to. *The ability to perceive C major in music that contains no C major triad is based on acquired knowledge of a tonal system.* All this "ear-brain" dichotomizing is fallacious and beside the point.


Exactly; glad to hear you finally say it. Perceiving tonal centers is an innate ability, not learned.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

I am an elder of the rainbow family of living light . You do not respect me , nor acknowledge me when
you make my idea the center of your view . hmm . 'scuse this simplicity . I am embarrassed to think this .

rainbow , million rainbows ,
a rainbow around the sun .

Ha ha . (the last word of the OP's first post)


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> You said you could estabish a tonality without using a tonic triad, which is cognitive. Triads are the basis of tonality more than cognitive trickery and artifice. Saying "you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord" doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's all CP ideological rhetoric.


It's obvious that tonality is something perceived, regardless of whether or not we go on to conceptualize it. My original statement, "you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord," is simply true. Schumann does it for quite a stretch in his C major _Fantasy_ (a work I brought up in an exchange with you about implicit tonal centers in Wagner, the very idea of which you pooh-poohed for some reason I can't even remember). I've never said that we needed to _think about_ tonality in order to know it's there. However, if we want to know that the piece in question is specifically in C major, we have to know what C major is. That's where theory enters: first perception, then conceptualization _as needed._



> The ear can perceive a key center and do it much faster and easier than the brain (cognitive aspects).


Of course. I never said it couldn't, although I don't accept the terminology. Perception is a function of the brain; the ear merely sends the brain vibratory data.



> You've always tried to prove the same old point; that a sense of tonality is established by all these CP gimmicks which are spread out over a narrative distance, to be read like "War and Peace."


I don't know what that means. How can a _sense_ of tonality be "established"? You either sense something or you don't. In any case, I've written a number of times about tonality on this forum over six years, and have repeatedly called it a natural phenomenon that arises in music all over the world in part because the human brain spontaneously tries to organize percepts - _and,_ be it noted, concepts - hierarchically. (There are other reasons for tonality's appeal; the psychological concept of "cross-domain mapping" - a sort of "metaphorizing" of one mode of perception by another - seems to me particularly useful.)

It's only common sense that the tonal organization of music has to take place before the level of conceptual thought is reached. Otherwise there would be no tonal music before the existence of theory, or in cultures lacking a theory of music altogether. There would be nothing to have a theory _of._



> Perceiving tonal centers is an innate ability, not learned.


I would modify this to note that innate abilities still require experience before they can be exercised, and that this involves learning, to varying extents. I don't think it's safe to assume that an innate ability to perceive tonality must always or automatically result in an actual perception of it.

Unfortunately, you want so desperately to pigeonhole me as some sort of disembodied intellect divorced from physical sensation that you can't even read what I actually write. I doubt that there's anything you can tell this lifelong practicing musician about the relative roles of perception and conceptualization in the experience, study and making of music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> You can indeed use multiple scales within a single key. You can use any notes you want. It's the way in which you use them that determines whether you can reasonably say you're in a certain key. It would make no sense to give a piece a key signature of three flats and say that it's in Eb major while spending most of your time in A minor,


which is what makes this piece quite remarkable in my view:





http://www.cmpcp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PSN2011_Chueke.pdf
"...The very first intriguing aspect we encounter is the non-establishment of any specific tonality, due to the absence not only of a key signature but also of a central tonality which would justify the allusion to C minor in the title...
...The same can be said about any of the numerous other tonalities suggested during the piece: none of them is sufficiently present to the point of being considered the tonic key...
...Through the Fantasy's musical discourse, the confirmation of C minor as the main key is held until the end of the piece, justifying the term "musical plot"; the "mystery" will be solved only at the end, like in his operas, or Talk Classical music theory threads that invariably conclude with _dénouement_ from millionrainbows..."


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> which is what makes this piece quite remarkable in my view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cmpcp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PSN2011_Chueke.pdf
> "...The very first intriguing aspect we encounter is the non-establishment of any specific tonality, due to the absence not only of a key signature but also of a central tonality which would justify the allusion to C minor in the title...
> ...The same can be said about any of the numerous other tonalities suggested during the piece: none of them is sufficiently present to the point of being considered the tonic key...
> ...Through the Fantasy's musical discourse, the confirmation of C minor as the main key is held until the end of the piece, justifying the term "musical plot"; the "mystery" will be solved only at the end, like in his operas, or Talk Classical music theory threads that invariably conclude with _dénouement_ from millionrainbows..."


I don't think the term "musical plot" is justified, or that there's really a mystery to solve. A plot has logic, and a mystery has clues. This piece is in C minor at the end, but most of it consists of a constant shifting of keys that could just as well have led elsewhere. Mozart sensibly provides no key signature. This is the very opposite of Schumann's great _Fantasie,_ which is definitely in C and provides plenty of clues but avoids cadencing in C major for about its first eleven minutes.


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## EdwardBast

To supplement Woodduck's dissertation (), I'll add this:

There is no substantive relationship between the terms. The C major scale is a collection of seven notes played in an ascending or descending direction. Passages in the key of C major can include all twelve pitches of the chromatic collection (in at least one spelling).


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> To supplement Woodduck's dissertation (), I'll add this:
> 
> There is no substantive relationship between the terms. The C major scale is a collection of seven notes played in an ascending or descending direction. Passages in the key of C major can include all twelve pitches of the chromatic collection (in at least one spelling).


Your supplementation does me the highest honor. ()


----------



## millionrainbows

> MR said:





> Yeah, who needs triads?
> 
> ...But the ear can Perceive a key center and do it much faster and easier than the brain (cognitive aspects).
> 
> Saying "you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord" doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's all CP ideological rhetoric.
> 
> I can identify many words with missing letters. For example:
> 
> iscontinuous pattern
> nrequited love
> tupid idiot
> eautiful girl,
> 
> etcetera. That metaphor is biased towards the cognitive aspects; it doesn't really explain what makes _music work; as above, you have to use your brain to infer these kinds of cognitive meanings.
> 
> In music, it's the ear which puts things into context, not the brain, as above. If not, you are visually biased; you want music to be like a book: uniform, continuous, and connected, and dependent on cognitive processes and corresponding simple precise meanings.
> 
> What are you trying to say here, Woodduck? That a collection of CP "devices" is what makes a key center, not the ear? And that if you accumulate enough of these "devices" that a "key area" or "tonality" will be perceived, according to CP standards?
> 
> I think the egg came before the chicken, and furthermore, that the chicken was the egg's idea to get more eggs.
> 
> I think the reason you think this way is because the music you like (Wagner, etc) is "spread out" into these long narrative sections of time. Things are based on travel to & from key areas, over periods of time. This is unlike Indian raga music, in which "key areas' are simply established once, by the drone tambura, and is "not an issue."
> 
> But can't you see that this CP music is a result of these drawn-out processes,, and not the primary cause of tonality, centers of key, etc?
> 
> Or are you so carried away by these forms that you will not consider the notion that they are not primary causes of Man's innate ability to perceive tonality?
> 
> If not, then please stop talking as if they are.
> 
> I fully agree that the language of CP tonality is beautiful, the way it does this. I listen to it. But I see both sides, and realize that "the drone' is the ear, and this is the prime cause._


_



MR said: You said you could estabish a tonality without using a tonic triad, which is cognitive. Triads are the basis of tonality more than cognitive trickery and artifice. Saying "you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord" doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's all CP ideological rhetoric.

Click to expand...

_



Woodduck said:


> I've never said that we needed to _think about_ tonality in order to know it's there. However, if we want to know that the piece in question is specifically in C major, we have to know what C major is. That's where theory enters: first perception, then conceptualization _as needed._


I think I'll have this reply framed, and put it on the wall. At last, you explicitly say that tonality is perception, followed by conceptualization _as needed._ I never thought I'd see the day. Now, at last, you have accepted that CP devices and procedures are best put into perspective!



> MR said: The ear can Perceive a key center and do it much faster and easier than the brain (cognitive aspects).





> Of course. I never said it couldn't, although I don't accept the terminology. Perception is a function of the brain; the ear merely sends the brain vibratory data.


_



MR said: You've always tried to prove the same old point; that a sense of tonality is established by all these CP gimmicks which are spread out over a narrative distance, to be read like "War and Peace."

Click to expand...

_


> I don't know what that means. How can a _sense_ of tonality be "established"? You either sense something or you don't.


That contradicts your assertion that "_you could estabish a tonality without using a tonic triad." _If you can't hear a tonic triad, you haven't sensed it.


> *In any case, I've written a number of times about tonality on this forum over six years, and have repeatedly called it a natural phenomenon that arises in music all over the world in part because the human brain spontaneously tries to organize percepts - and, be it noted, concepts - hierarchically. (There are other reasons for tonality's appeal; the psychological concept of "cross-domain mapping" - a sort of "metaphorizing" of one mode of perception by another - seems to me particularly useful.)*


 Okay, I can agree fully with you on this, as long as you're not using it to invalidate me.


> *It's only common sense that the tonal organization of music has to take place before the level of conceptual thought is reached. Otherwise there would be no tonal music before the existence of theory, or in cultures lacking a theory of music altogether. There would be nothing to have a theory *_*of.*_


Why do you *only now* say this? It's been over six years in coming. Is it because I have changed, or you?


> I would modify this to note that innate abilities still require experience before they can be exercised, and that this involves learning, to varying extents. I don't think it's safe to assume that an innate ability to perceive tonality must always or automatically result in an actual perception of it.
> 
> Unfortunately, you want so desperately to pigeonhole me as some sort of disembodied intellect divorced from physical sensation that you can't even read what I actually write. I doubt that there's anything you can tell this lifelong practicing musician about the relative roles of perception and conceptualization in the experience, study and making of music.


Well then, I shudder to think of what you've already written about me!


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, there are clues to the mystery. Mozart frequently "hints" using the "F sharp pivot". For instance, the chromatic mediant modulation that leads to D major at 2:10. This is explained in another article <W.A. Mozart's Fantasy in C minor, K. 475, And the Generalization of the Lydian Principle Through Motivic Thorough-Composition>
> There's logic in it , and with it, the work inspired Beethoven, Schubert, Liszt (structurally), Grieg, Tchaikovsky.
> I on the other hand have never really sympathized with other people's enthusiasm for Schumann's _"GREAT"_ Fantasie, which honestly I think just meanders around all over the place for the sake of wandering around lacking sense of control, cohesion or inspired melodic & transitional ideas. (sounds kind of generic to me, like Liszt's lesser rhapsodic works tbh. Or his improvisations written down.) Each to their own. But I do think Schumann did write better piano works like the second sonata.
> (Sorry, but for this particular case, the idea of improvising for 11 minutes with constant arpeggiated figurations with the rule of not cadencing on C seems kind of 'pedantic' to me. Too pedantic for Romantic composers of the likes of Schumann, who express best when freed from constraints. It just doesn't suit their temperament. It reminds me of the awkward cyclic idea Schubert tried with his Piano Trio. Maybe someone like Brahms would have been the best guy for the job.)


Give me a break. What is "the F sharp pivot" a clue to? Does it have anything to do with C minor? My point is that C major has a presence in Schumann's fantasy that C minor does not in Mozart's. I base this statement on what I actually hear as I listen to the music.

An even more interesting example of a real harmonic "plot" is the prelude to Wagner's _Tristan und Isolde,_ where the underlying key complex is A minor/C major, but Wagner doesn't reach a clear statement of key until bar 18. It's a tour de force of interrupted cadences, secondary dominants, indirection and irresolution that revels in ambiguity yet holds together magnificently. I mean no disrespect to Mozart's delightful piece in saying that it does not convey a comparable harmonic teleology.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think I'll have this reply framed, and put it on the wall. At last, you explicitly say that tonality is perception, followed by conceptualization _as needed._ I never thought I'd see the day. Now, at last, you have accepted that CP devices and procedures are best put into perspective!


I've never prioritized theory over hearing. Theory is just a way of thinking about what we hear. As I've said, I have only a rudimentary background in theory. I'm not wedded to any school of thought, but neither am I tempted by abstruse explanations for things that appear - or, in the case of music, sound - simple to me.



> That contradicts your assertion that "_you could establish a tonality without using a tonic triad." _If you can't hear a tonic triad, you haven't sensed it.


Don't paraphrase me and then criticize your paraphrase. What I said was, "you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord." If you have such a piece in front of you - a piece like Schumann's _Fantasie_ - you can see him doing this. If you're simply hearing it, you're aware of the unstated tonic. I don't know why you want to complicate this.



> Why do you *only now* say this? It's been over six years in coming. Is it because I have changed, or you?


I'm surprised at your surprise. My thinking about musical perception and tonality hasn't changed, nor do I believe I've expressed it unclearly. You've simply made assumptions about it based on an image you have of me and my "thought-style," assuming an opposition that isn't there (or at least I think it isn't). Honestly, I can't imagine how you got the idea that I comprehend music only by consulting theory books.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I've never prioritized theory over hearing.


 Well, I would never have known this until you actually said it. I see this as a very positive step forward.


> Don't paraphrase me and then criticize your paraphrase. What I said was, "you can write a piece easily identifiable as being in C major without ever sounding a C major chord."


Was my paraphrase that far removed? Same net result, right? Geez, sorry! BTW, I wish you'd quote ME more accurately, i.e. without always taking it out of context like you tend to do in those fragmented quip/replies. That's why from now on, I'm posting my entire post in my reply.


> If you have such a piece in front of you - a piece like Schumann's _Fantasie_ - you can see him doing this. If you're simply hearing it, you're aware of the unstated tonic. I don't know why you want to complicate this.


This is out of context again. I cited this as a device of CP which relies more on the cognitive, or as you put it,


> _I've never said that we needed to __think about tonality in order to know it's there. However, if we want to know that the piece in question is specifically in C major, we have to know what C major is. That's where theory enters: first perception, then conceptualization as needed._





> I'm surprised at your surprise. My thinking about musical perception and tonality hasn't changed, nor do I believe I've expressed it unclearly.


You've never been as explicit as this, because I assumed you were savoring the alternative, which is the norm here. Have I changed, or have you? Or both?


> You've simply made assumptions about it based on an image you have of me and my "thought-style," assuming an opposition that isn't there (or at least I think it isn't).


Ok, I'll call it "passive aggression." It's a good martial arts strategy, "Wait for the opponent to make the first move."


> Honestly, I can't imagine how you got the idea that I comprehend music only by consulting theory books.


Not at all; I'd like to hear you play the piano, while I dance around in a tutu, _a la_ Frank Zappa. Or I could get out my electric guitar, and we can "jam."


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Well, I would never have known this until you actually said it. I see this as a very positive step forward.


It isn't a step forward. You have no right even to suggest that it's a step forward. That's sheer arrogance on your part. If you want to know what it really is, ask me. I'm the only one qualified to characterize what I think. Your constant attempts to characterize other people, along with your refusal to respect their request not to be characterized, is loathsome. It ought to be a major violation on this forum.

The rest of your post is nothingness.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Every composer has their own way of doing things. I think you're the one who has to acknowledge this. =)


Have I ever said otherwise? I'm not the one with a repetition-compulsion disorder that makes him put down certain composers in thread after thread.

Relax. All I've said is that the Mozart fantasy does not give me the feeling, as I listen, that it's moving toward a goal. I cite the Schumann and the Wagner because they do.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Have I ever said otherwise? I'm not the one with a repetition-compulsion disorder that makes him put down certain composers in thread after thread.


If you are referring to me, watch the disparaging personal remarks. Although you act like it, I have it from a reliable source that you are not "in" with the mods, and are not immune. I don't like to report, though.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> It isn't a step forward. You have no right even to suggest that it's a step forward. That's sheer arrogance on your part. If you want to know what it really is, ask me. I'm the only one qualified to characterize what I think. Your constant attempts to characterize other people, along with your refusal to respect their request not to be characterized, is loathsome. It ought to be a major violation on this forum.
> 
> The rest of your post is nothingness.


I'm just telling it like it is, and this reply of yours is evidence that you need to hear it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Have I ever said otherwise?





Woodduck said:


> Relax.


Hahahahahahaha. How cute, Mr. Woodduck. _"Have I ever said otherwise?" "Relax."_ I could also have used these expressions in justifying my "criticisms" in other threads. (For example I could have said: _"Relax. Have I ever said otherwise? A certain composer's "Preludes" are mostly 10~20-measure piano exercises that don't really get anywhere."_)
Anyway, I respect and understand your negative view (which you express quite regularly) on Mozart and his 'Classical sensibilities' or whatever. But if you ask me, that's what I find so admirable about him; he achieves so much without being overly sentimental or bombastic. That C minor ending of the Mozart always makes me feel "Wow.. What a structure.." I honestly don't get this feeling with the Schumann. The transitions and the final C major ending just seem artificial in comparison to be honest. (Again, you don't have to agree with me, and I respect your views.) 
And by the way, I think you and millionrainbows are the two most interestingly opinionated (and funniest) people on this forum. Your posts often put smile on my face. That's what I like about you. Have a good day (or night), sir.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I respect and understand your negative view (which you express quite regularly) on Mozart and his 'Classical sensibilities' or whatever.


I consider Mozart one of the greatest musical geniuses ever to exist. I don't have a "negative" view of him which I express "quite regularly," or even seldom. He isn't a favorite, but I don't need to make an issue of that. My disagreement with you about this piece of music doesn't indicate any negativity at all toward Mozart, or even toward the piece. It's your view of it I disagree with, not him. I don't think you speak for him, do you?



> And by the way, I think you and millionrainbows are the two most interestingly opinionated (and funniest) people on this forum. Your posts often put smile on my face. That's what I like about you. Have a good day (or night), sir.


Well, gosh... Thanks.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I'm just telling it like it is, and this reply of yours is evidence that you need to hear it.


You cannot "tell it like it is" when it comes to my musical thinking. You're going to have to get this through your head; you can't legitimately go on disrespecting my prerogative to speak for myself. When I tell you that my thinking on a subject hasn't changed, you can either take my word for it and stop talking, or you can go on acting as if you're an authority on other people's minds and be told off as you deserve. So far you've chosen the latter course.

I'm not here to be told what I think, used to think, or should think, and you're totally out of bounds doing it. Concentrate on expressing your OWN thinking in clear language.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> If you are referring to me, watch the disparaging personal remarks. Although you act like it, I have it from a reliable source that you are not "in" with the mods, and are not immune. I don't like to report, though.


I wasn't talking about you. Kindly stop talking about me.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I wasn't talking about you. Kindly stop talking about me.


The topic, what's the difference between a scale and a key, depends on how we are allowed to think of scales, in case the CP Police come around.

"What are the similarities?" might be a better question. A "key" would refer to a key signature, which reflects the sharps or flats of that key, and thus, by correspondence, also reflects the scale.

Trick question: Are key signatures diatonic?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Trick question: Are key signatures diatonic?


Since you know that the question is a misuse of terms - akin to "Are armadillos fruits or vegetables?" - what's your point? To ferret out people who are musically ignorant?


----------



## millionrainbows

_Trick question: Are key signatures diatonic?_



Woodduck said:


> Since you know that the question is a misuse of terms - akin to "Are armadillos fruits or vegetables?" - what's your point? To ferret out people who are musically ignorant?


No, I guess in this case it's to ferret out my own ignorance. 
I thought it was obvious that key signatures are diatonic in nature, because they indicate diatonic scales. Are they not? 
Are they chromatic? Is this a trick question?

I thought that the key signature defines the diatonic scale that a piece of music uses without the need for accidentals.

How about yourself? Are you an armadillo or a vegetable?


----------



## Woodduck

I guess I'm more of an armadillo...

That aside, it does seem an odd question, since a key signature indicates only a basic key that music is written in, and sometimes hardly even that. A piece of music in any key can be as diatonic or chromatic as you please. We can't assume that because we have a key signature of one sharp, we're going to hear only the notes of a diatonic G major or E minor scale. All we can be sure of is that F will be sharped unless it's notated otherwise. Key signatures don't predict diatonicism or chromaticism, and so there's no reason to describe key signatures in those terms. I think they apply only to scales, and by extension to music that uses primarily the unaltered notes and chords of those scales.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I guess I'm more of an armadillo...
> 
> That aside, it does seem an odd question, since a key signature indicates only a basic key that music is written in, and sometimes hardly even that. A piece of music in any key can be as diatonic or chromatic as you please. We can't assume that because we have a key signature of one sharp, we're going to hear only the notes of a diatonic G major or E minor scale. All we can be sure of is that F will be sharped unless it's notated otherwise. Key signatures don't predict diatonicism or chromaticism, and so there's no reason to describe key signatures in those terms. I think they apply only to scales, and by extension to music that uses primarily the unaltered notes and chords of those scales.


That answer/rebuttal seems as nit-picky as me, with my desire for a "perfect answer" to the viiº issue. 
That being said, the degree of chromaticism is not central. Since the key signature indicates the main diatonic scale used, for notation purposes, it seems obvious that it is designed for diatonic convenience. Your "chromaticism" is an afterthought, merely an attempt at rebuttal (as usual).

You admitted that  "a key signature indicates *only* a basic key that music is written in", and then tried to erode that simple straightforward solution with the qualifiers *"only"* and *"**sometimes hardly even that."* Tsk tsk.

I certainly hope you don't run in to these problems when you are playing the piano on the job and are faced with a piece of music with a key signature. You might "freeze up" with all these exceptions and doubts.

What if another musician asks you "what key do you play this in?", what will you tell him/her? "Oh, it's in G, but I'm playing it in a very chromatic G."



Woodduck said:


> All we can be sure of is that F will be sharped unless it's notated otherwise. Key signatures don't predict diatonicism or chromaticism.




Now you are conflating "a diatonic style of music" and "a chromatic style of music" with the _literal, simple meaning of diatonic _(which are the 7-note scales we are all familiar with). You _did _say "All we can be sure of is that F will be sharped unless it's notated otherwise," and that fits the meaning of "a key signature is diatonic" because its a notation device that indicates a diatonic scale.

_The key word which brings "key signatures" and "scales" together is the term "diatonic." If someone can't make that association, they are distracted._

You seem to want to erode the meanings of simple definitions by bringing in all these exceptions, and that can be very unproductive in a discussion, unless, of course, it is not your purpose.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> That answer/rebuttal seems as nit-picky as me, with my desire for a "perfect answer" to the viiº issue.
> That being said, the degree of chromaticism is not central. Since the key signature indicates the main diatonic scale used, for notation purposes, it seems obvious that it is designed for diatonic convenience. Your "chromaticism" is an afterthought, merely an attempt at rebuttal (as usual).
> 
> You admitted that  "a key signature indicates *only* a basic key that music is written in", and then tried to erode that simple straightforward solution with the qualifiers *"only"* and *"**sometimes hardly even that."* Tsk tsk.
> 
> I certainly hope you don't run in to these problems when you are playing the piano on the job and are faced with a piece of music with a key signature. You might "freeze up" with all these exceptions and doubts.
> 
> What if another musician asks you "what key do you play this in?", what will you tell him/her? "Oh, it's in G, but I'm playing it in a very chromatic G."
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are conflating "a diatonic style of music" and "a chromatic style of music" with the _literal, simple meaning of diatonic _(which are the 7-note scales we are all familiar with). You _did _say "All we can be sure of is that F will be sharped unless it's notated otherwise," and that fits the meaning of "a key signature is diatonic" because its a notation device that indicates a diatonic scale.
> 
> _The key word which brings "key signatures" and "scales" together is the term "diatonic." If someone can't make that association, they are distracted._
> 
> *You seem to want to erode the meanings of simple definitions* by bringing in all these exceptions, and that can be very unproductive in a discussion, unless, of course, it is not your purpose.


Jumpin' Jehosaphat.

Your question was: "are key signatures diatonic." The answer is: no, the concept is not applicable, and the question involves an improper use of terminology. _Scales_ are diatonic. To quote you: "you seem to want to erode the meanings of simple definitions." Everybody knows that the A major _scale_ (for example) is diatonic. That doesn't make the key signature of three sharps diatonic.

We are not all as indifferent as you are to the proper use of words.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Your question was: "are key signatures diatonic." The answer is: no, the concept is not applicable, and the question involves an improper use of terminology.


That doesn't make sense. _Of course a key signature refers to a diatonic scale._ In that sense, "key signatures are diatonic." Are you saying they aren't?

To be more specific, the real thrust of the question was "Are key signatures diatonic (in nature)?



> We are not all as indifferent as you are to the proper use of words.


 Whatever, dude. I didn't learn theory from Catholic nuns, and I'm using "diatonic" as a descriptor which characterizes the entire CP notation system, and the scales that go with it. _The CP system is diatonic, not chromatic, including the staff lines, letter names, and key signatures. _If you can't grasp that, you truly are 'CP piano-blind.' You might be technically correct in one narrow sense, but the overall "truth" of what is presented begins to sound absurd to a chromatic instrument/player /thinker like myself.

Quote me on this:
*"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."*


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> _Of course a key signature refers to a diatonic scale._ In that sense, "key signatures are diatonic." Are you saying they aren't?
> 
> To be more specific, the real thrust of the question was "Are key signatures diatonic (in nature)?


OK, I see what you're getting at. Your initial question is phrased in a kind of shorthand or ellipsis that doesn't really say what you meant it to say. No need to be abusive because I found it meaningless. _As phrased,_ it is. "Thing A is Thing B" isn't the same statement as "Thing A refers to Thing B." But even the locution "refers to" is vague and provides no clear information.

As I would explain this, the only thing a key signature _is_ is a symbol of a key - i.e., of a tonal area organized around a particular pitch class serving as its tonal center - and a guide to playing music in that key. What is properly called diatonic is not the key signature but the scale that constitutes the main defining pitch content of a key area, which is _indicated by_ a key signature. In English, and in the vocabulary of music theory, "diatonic" is not a descriptor for key signatures.

Not to harp, but precise thinking and communicating requires precise use of words. Music theory isn't a good place for reading between the lines. Music itself is the arena for that.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> _The CP system is diatonic, not chromatic, including the staff lines, letter names, and key signatures. _If you can't grasp that, you truly are 'CP piano-blind.' You might be technically correct in one narrow sense, but the overall "truth" of what is presented begins to sound absurd to a chromatic instrument/player /thinker like myself.


The statement that the CP system is diatonic is wrong, as the system was obviously designed to accommodate and produce both diatonic and chromatic music. Thousands upon thousands of CP works falsify your statement.



millionrainbows said:


> Quote me on this:
> *"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."*


Might I suggest getting a dictionary and looking up the word refer?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> *OK, I see what you're getting at.* Your initial question is phrased in a kind of shorthand or ellipsis that doesn't really say what you meant it to say. No need to be abusive because I found it meaningless. _As phrased,_ it is. "Thing A is Thing B" isn't the same statement as "Thing A refers to Thing B." But even the locution "refers to" is vague and provides no clear information.


No, this isn't a matter of phrasing or shorthand; I'm using the term "diatonic" as a descriptor, to describe the CP system.

I went through this same thing when I used the term "harmonic" as a descriptor to describe certain tonal music, and it was being confused with the use as a noun, as in "a harmonic of a fundamental."

I see it now as an argument strategy. "Oh, I see what you're saying now..." _Sure_ you do.



Woodduck said:


> As I would explain this, the only thing a key signature _is_ is a symbol of a key - i.e., of a tonal area organized around a particular pitch class serving as its tonal center - and a guide to playing music in that key. What is properly called diatonic is not the key signature but the scale that constitutes the main defining pitch content of a key area, which is _indicated by_ a key signature. In English, and in the vocabulary of music theory, "diatonic" is not a descriptor for key signatures.


I disagree; I think "diatonic" will be found used as a descriptor if we do a search-engine on it. I'd bet five dollars on it.



Woodduck said:


> Not to harp, but precise thinking and communicating requires precise use of words. Music theory isn't a good place for reading between the lines. Music itself is the arena for that.


The reason you can't see "diatonic" used as a descriptor of the CP system and its components (scales, key signatures, keyboard layout, staff, letter names) is because you have no need to. You are content with things the way they are. I know that you don't like modern music which lies outside the CP realm. You can call me "imprecise," and I can call you "blindered."


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> The statement that the CP system is diatonic is wrong, as the system was obviously designed to accommodate and produce both diatonic and chromatic music.


No, you are wrong, probably because you are a pianist. _The CP system was designed for diatonic use, _and its components (scales, key signatures, keyboard layout, staff, letter names) reflect this.

That it can be "worked around" to write chromatic music doesn't disprove this.

Pat Martino, the brilliant jazz guitarist & theorist, says this:

_
"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
_



EdwardBast said:


> Thousands upon thousands of CP works falsify your statement.


 That's hogwash; I can provide many examples why I am justified in saying the CP system was designed for diatonic use.

The brilliant guitarist Alan Holdsworth praised Nicolas Slonimsky's _Thesaurus of Scales_ because it didn't use key signatures; this made it more understandable to players who used chromatic instruments such as the guitar, which is by nature chromatic.

John Coltrane also used the book. Dennis Sandole was a theory teacher in Philadelphia who is largely responsible for the spread of this information and this way of approaching music theory. BTW, this is all about jazz, not playing hymns in Sunday school or Bach chorales.



EdwardBast said:


> Might I suggest getting a dictionary and looking up the word refer?


Refer: To place in or under by a mental or *rational process;* *to assign to, as a class,* a cause, source, a motive, *reason, or ground of explanation.
*
That sounds like exactly the right word.

You and Woodduck are piano players (or piano-thinkers). You apparently can't see all this.

Why are you guys trying to defend and obscure this point by using "strict" definitions of diatonic and "strict" logic? You can't use it as a descriptor?
I really don't understand, other than just to invalidate my point. Are you afraid that "CP" will be "exposed" as diatonic? I thought everybody here _liked_ CP music like Mozart, bach, etc.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> No, this isn't a matter of phrasing or shorthand; I'm using the term "diatonic" as a descriptor, to describe the CP system.


No you are not. You are calling KEY SIGNATURES diatonic. Please refer back to your own posts. But guess what? It's also misleading to call the common practice system diatonic. It's misleading because "diatonic," as applied to CP, is meaningful only because "chromatic" applies to the system as well. Those two concepts exist only in opposition to each other; if there were no chromaticism, the concept of "diatonicism" wouldn't be needed and wouldn't exist. "Diatonic" and "chromatic" describe scales and harmony - which may be either diatonic or chromatic - but not CP as a whole, which necessarily subsumes both.

EdwardBast puts it this way: "The statement that the CP system is diatonic is wrong, as the system was obviously designed to accommodate and produce both diatonic and chromatic music. Thousands upon thousands of CP works falsify your statement."



> I see it now as an argument strategy. "Oh, I see what you're saying now..." _Sure_ you do.


You're calling me a liar.



> I disagree; I think "diatonic" will be found used as a descriptor if we do a search-engine on it. I'd bet five dollars on it.


Who said it isn't a descriptor? I merely said that it isn't an adjective used to describe key signatures, and that using it that way is at best elliptical and confusing. I tried to decipher what you meant by it, and you're abusing me for that and calling me a liar.



> The reason you can't see "diatonic" used as a descriptor of the CP system and its components (scales, key signatures, keyboard layout, staff, letter names) is because you have no need to.


How do you know what I "have no need" to do? I can tell you what I DO need to do, and that's to use language in a way that's accurate and comprehensible to other people.



> You are content with things the way they are.


It isn't for you to say what I'm content with.



> I know that you don't like modern music which lies outside the CP realm.


My personal tastes are irrelevant (and your generalization is presumptuous and wrong).



> You can call me "imprecise," and I can call you "blindered."


You ARE imprecise - frequently. And you call people all sorts of things that say nothing about them but a lot about you.

This is another theory thread which you yourself are spoiling (something you're always accusing others of doing). I have made a good faith effort here to overlook your "let's see if you ignoramuses can guess what I already know" game-playing, and to understand what you're talking about despite your imprecise language, and you can't even get far enough past your fragile ego to appreciate it.

If you keep abusing people for the crime of questioning your thinking, it isn't going to end well. This is a forum. People discuss and debate ideas on forums. Anyone here has the right to question the statements of any other member. If you can't bear having yours questioned, you'd be better off not participating, and the rest of us would be better off not having to come here and find ourselves tagged with your outrageous and insulting "descriptors."


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> No you are not. You are calling KEY SIGNATURES diatonic.


Those are included: scales, key signatures, keyboard layout, staff, letter names, the entire CP system is diatonic.


Woodduck said:


> Please refer back to your own posts. But guess what? It's also misleading to call the common practice system diatonic. It's misleading because "diatonic," as applied to CP, is meaningful only because "chromatic" applies to the system as well. Those two concepts exist only in opposition to each other; if there were no chromaticism, the concept of "diatonicism" wouldn't be needed and wouldn't exist.


Are you sure about that? This goes all the way back to the Greeks. I think it has more to do with tetrachords than scales. The chromatic scale didn't even exist back then, did it? Back then, scales did not divide the octave into 12 parts. I see a lot of red flags in this theory of yours. The whole convoluted history is a little too complex for you to be so off-handedly using it as internet argument fodder. Anyway, I'm using "diatonic" as a descriptor, not as a technical term.

I've even had people here argue _against_ the fact that the 12-note division of the octave was derived from Pythagoran procedures (stacking the fifth), so I'm very wary when you say "diatonic...is meaningful only because "chromatic" applies to the system as well."



Woodduck said:


> "Diatonic" and "chromatic" describe scales and harmony - which may be either diatonic or chromatic - but not CP as a whole, which necessarily subsumes both.


 The CP system can accommodate and notate chromatic notes, but it was designed for diatonic music. The chromatic notes were always treated as exceptions. If it was "chromatic," the why are scales, key signatures, keyboard layout, staff, letter names, not "chromatic"as well, with no half steps between B-C and E-F, etc.


Woodduck said:


> You're calling me a liar.


 No, it's just that I don't trust you, Woodduck. You make no effort to recognize the bigger picture in what I'm saying, and often get snagged-up on definitions. BTW, I think the mods are getting tired of these kinds of overly-dramatic insulting replies of yours, such as accusing me of accusing you of being a "liar" and "abusing" you. Our posts don't represent us, remember?



Woodduck said:


> Who said it isn't a descriptor? I merely said that it isn't an adjective used to describe key signatures, and that using it that way is at best elliptical and confusing. I tried to decipher what you meant by it, and you're abusing me for that and calling me a liar.


Yes, I used "diatonic" as a descriptor for the CP system.



Woodduck said:


> How do you know what I "have no need" to do? I can tell you what I DO need to do, and that's to use language in a way that's accurate and comprehensible to other people...It isn't for you to say what I'm content with...My personal tastes are irrelevant (and your generalization is presumptuous and wrong)...You ARE imprecise - frequently. And you call people all sorts of things that say nothing about them but a lot about you.


You're too argumentative to see any point I make.



> This is another theory thread which you yourself are spoiling (something you're always accusing others of doing). I have made a good faith effort here to overlook your "let's see if you ignoramuses can guess what I already know" game-playing, and to understand what you're talking about despite your imprecise language, and you can't even get far enough past your fragile ego to appreciate it.


Sometimes you appear to be quite intellectual, but this side of it is too "dramatic" for that to hold much credibility.



> If you keep abusing people for the crime of questioning your thinking, it isn't going to end well. This is a forum. People discuss and debate ideas on forums. Anyone here has the right to question the statements of any other member. If you can't bear having yours questioned, you'd be better off not participating, and the rest of us would be better off not having to come here and find ourselves tagged with your outrageous and insulting "descriptors."


That sounds like your "forum police" side emerging. Way too much drama for me. I'm here to discuss ideas about music theory. This reminds me of how James Brown would "faint," and his assistant would bring his robe and lead him away. Then, BLAM! he would suddenly break away, and return to his funky self.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> No, you are wrong, probably because you are a pianist. _The CP system was designed for diatonic use, _and its components (scales, key signatures, keyboard layout, staff, letter names) reflect this.
> 
> That it can be "worked around" to write chromatic music doesn't disprove this.


I'm a guitarist. And I play piano too. Worked around? It's an efficient system that has been readily used for centuries of chromatic music. I'm sorry if it's so much work for you.



millionrainbows said:


> Pat Martino, the brilliant jazz guitarist & theorist, says this:
> 
> _
> "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
> _


Martino is wrong. He forgot about woodwinds and pitched percussion.



millionrainbows said:


> Refer: To place in or under by a mental or *rational process;* *to assign to, as a class,* a cause, source, a motive, *reason, or ground of explanation.
> *
> That sounds like exactly the right word.


Key signatures facilitate writing in specific keys. Refer is a bad choice of wording.



millionrainbows said:


> Why are you guys trying to defend and obscure this point by using "strict" definitions of diatonic and "strict" logic? You can't use it as a descriptor?
> I really don't understand, other than just to invalidate my point. Are you afraid that "CP" will be "exposed" as diatonic? I thought everybody here _liked_ CP music like Mozart, bach, etc.


Once again, CP music is based on keys in which, by the mid-18thc at latest, the full chromatic collection is employed routinely.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> I'm a guitarist. And I play piano too. Worked around? It's an efficient system that has been readily used for centuries of chromatic music. I'm sorry if it's so much work for you.


I'm not saying that CP notation could be dropped; it's all we've got. And pardon me, but it's quite obvious to anyone that the piano reflects the CP diatonic system more naturally than the guitar does.



EdwardBast said:


> Martino is wrong. He forgot about woodwinds and pitched percussion.


 Heresy! You DARE to dis Pat Martino? Wow, that's hubris to the max! I don't get you; not enough back-up. Orchestral instruments favor certain keys, too, like "Eb saxophone." Oh, my gosh, I'm gonna faint! Quick, get Woodduck over here with the smelling salts!



EdwardBast said:


> Key signatures facilitate writing in specific keys. Refer is a bad choice of wording.


That doesn't matter, now that you & WD have pretended you don't know what I'm saying.



EdwardBast said:


> Once again, CP music is based on keys in which, by the mid-18thc at latest, the full chromatic collection is employed routinely.


I certainly hope so! Duh! After all there are 12 notes in an octave, not seven!
Yes, but once again, those notes are always exceptions. Overall, the CP system favors diatonic music.


----------

