i m not talking about sound, i know they sound the same, no need to bother ET , TET or any other form of tuning,i m talking about properly aming intervals since different names implies different use
An ugmented fourth and a diminished fifth obviously soun d the same, but the two notes in an augmented fourth are the fourth and the seventh degree of a key,while in a diminished fifth the two notes are the seventh and the fourth degree. This means that they lead towards different notes thus they solve on different chords of different keys.If they have different names, they have different purposes, but what that guy doensn t want to understand, and it pisses me off a lot, is that he can t randomly call enharmonic notes they way he likes because it s easier.
Look at the first grid he posted, scroll down to the key of G and lough,according to that thing the major seventh of G is G flat,do u call that being serious about music?I don t

 

That is a totally different subject (the position of intervals inside a tonal framework). I think that given the subject, all that matters here is intervals per se, not intervals inside the tonal structure.

Anyways, in this straight intervalic view or within the tonal context that you've presented, it absolutely makes a difference if it's TET or not. In 12 TET, the enharmonic notes will sound exactly the same, otherwise... they won't, because they are not the same.


Regarding the importance of going above the octave, the thing is that above the octave you'll have extensions. If you're repeating the notes, you're not extending anything, only doubling.

 

I am sorry but that is incorrect. Those intervals aren't to be considered extensions. It is better to describe them as additions. Yes they are already part of the chord but they are an octave up and therefore bring a completely different tonality to the chord. For example Cm add 9 describes a Cm chord with its 9th added. If you made a Cm add 2 it would sound far more dissonant and therefore completely different tonally.

 

LOL your loosing it m8. Dont let it get to you. Lets go chill and play guitar HAHAHAHA.

 

i tried to explain him that he has to specify that intervals have qualities that have to be specified, looking at the grid he posted, it seems that he s too lazy to do it and thinks that if he doesn t write otherwise,an interval is major , or perfect,i don t even attempt to list all the mistakes he made for the sake of simplicity, that grid he wrote is ridiculous, and im being kind.I asked him why he extended it beyond the octave because,as u noticed he omitted a lot of intervals within the octave, so i thought he should have written them all before going on beond the octave.But since he wrtoe some extended intervals i asked him why he didm t write them all, although it s somehow useless since their properties don t change.I mean a ninth lowered of a semitone becomes a minor ninth,like the second,the same goes for the perfect eleventh related to the perfect fourth.I repeat, it was pointless, but since he started to write them, he should have written them all.
The problem here is not harmonic strenght or pulsation,if that s how u call in english the strenght of some intervals compared to others, the problem is that he insists on learning intervals in a wrong way.If he had spent the time he took to think and write that crap practicing intervals properly,he would have learned them by now

 

Well.. no.

That's called "voicing".

Example: You don't write that a chord has "R - b3 - 5 - b10 - 12", that is redundant. The structure is simply "R - b3 - 5".

"b10 - 12" adds nothing to the structure.

 

Last edited: Oct 19, 2015

I see I've won a "dumb" award

Am I supposed to click that on every dumb and uninformed post that this topic has?

 

U can t learn intervals if u don t name them properly,and if u do ,u won t know wht to do with them.I assume Kouros and Z3ro read harmony books, so u guys both know that intervals, in every harmony book, are the second chapter, after the key chapter.
The point here is another: he can t only use flats to learn intervals, he can t write that G flat is the major seventh of G,I know that G flat and F sharp are the same note but F sharp is the major seventh,G flat is the diminished octave,maybe i am a harmony nazi but i didn t make the rules

 

No its called adding notes to a basic chord. For example Cm add 9 means exactly that and is completely different from a Cm9. Voicing is simply where you want the notes of a chord played and I am not talking about inversions. However when you do bring in 1st and 2nd inversions voicing can come into it if you like or you can just simply play the chord in its original voicing. A new topic me thinks

 

I've already acknowledge that within the harmonic context (tonality), intervals have "their own place".

What I said is that to the context of the original topic, there is no tonality involved, it's simply distances (...intervals). In this context, you're fine with sharping/flatting everything, all you want to do is express a deviation from the "untouched number" (from 1 to 7).

 

M8 you are right. I didnt even want to get into the sharp key signatures with the guy. Thats why I said Go back to basics. One stave, a treble clef and learn the names of the notes on the lines and in the spaces

 

Dude... since when is doubling octaves from the base structure considered an addition? You 're confusing things.

Edit: Cm add 9 has no 7th, that's the only difference. Would you write Cm9 b10 or something? What would be the point? The structure has already been identified as minor because of the "m". If you want to double voices, the chord cypher is not the best place to do it.

 

His original post is about "to transpose a key". I am laughing now as I pour another vodka. How could he transpose anything if he only used flat key signatures. To be able to transpose you need to know your key signatures and what instrument you are transposing from or to. That brings in a whole new world of tenor, alto and bass clefs LMAO.

 

As I've said, that kind of chart is common and it's not supposed to be related to key signatures. It's used to transpose the intervals of a scale in absolute terms (not related to key signatures).

BTW: People who learnt music in the "traditional/classical" way (with the notes on the staff, key signatures, etc) often have a hard time understanding the difference. Any jazz guy would understand it immediately.

It's just a different way of thinking but it's all about the same stuff.

 

Dude placing the second up an octave is not doubling, I think that's why they call it add 9 as opposed to add 2. Yeah sure double that 2nd with the 9th, that would sound awesome lmao ;). Of course Cm add 9 has no 7th. What a ludicrous thing to say. I think it is you that is confused with what I said earlier.
My reply to you was with respect to you saying Cm add 9 was about voicing. You clearly don't know what voicing is lol.

 

I never said that. Surely never said either that add9 would be the same as add 2. Neither the second or the ninth are at the base structure of the chord, that's why they are written... and that's the reason why it makes no sense to write 10 and 12. Got it?

You should think about the context in which things are being said, not as somekind of universal matter... that only adds confusion.

 

Wow 2 dumb awards in one night. You are going for gold. The statement about classical training v jazz is bullshit mon ami. Classically trained people can thing in terms of keys (flat or sharp) just as well as any jazz head.

 

Sure, that's why confusions like this about key signatures appear all the time (and here too) lol

In absolute terms (plain numbers, not related to key signatures), 1234567 makes sense, 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 makes sense, 12345678910 doesn't make any sense.

If you're just trying to be a dick I don't see the point in clarifying any further.

 

Man there is always one fucking asshole in the pot. I'm not trying to be a dick but having read through the posts again to make sure I wasn't getting it wrong I can see that there is definitely a language barrier at work here lol or at least your trying to be a know it all fuck wit.
1234567 makes sense? HAHAHAH if it did then an octave makes no sense at all.... to you.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 makes sense? Of course it does if you know what your talking about.
123456789 10 doesn't make sense? Why would it not if you know what your talking about.

All you are trying to do is reiterate your silly point setting the premise of no key signature. Why? Never mind. All your trying to do is make a point, again

 

Steeeeerike ur OUT