I don't know the major scale

[Spin Doctor]

So what are the constraints when working it out to that number? Is it the intervals? 2nds? 3rds, 4ths? Is it the order of pitches? Ascending? Descending? Alternating? Up 3 down 2? Is it the time values of each note? All whole? Half? Quavers and 2 semiquavers? All combinations of 16th subdivision? Crotchet triplets? And what is the ambitus? 2 octaves? 3?

If I don't already have it mapped out or given to me beforehand I just make them what I want. The number just comes out to whatever it happens to come out to. I don't do this stuff with a view to make everything 5,000 permutations or 10 permutations or a million permutations.

 

[SteveCS]

If I don't already have it mapped out or given to me beforehand I just make them what I want.

Sorry, I was just curious as to the combinations and permutations used to get to your number of 4480. The other number quoted was 5040, so presumably different criteria for what to include or when to stop counting. I'm genuinely curious in order that I might confirm or debunk my accusation of gibberish.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Sorry, I was just curious as to the combinations and permutations used to get to your number of 4480. The other number quoted was 5040, so presumably different criteria for what to include or when to stop counting. I'm genuinely curious in order that I might confirm or debunk my accusation of gibberish.

The way I arrived at the number is printed right there in the jpeg I included in one of my previous posts. Just read the last line. If you want to think that any or all of it is gibberish I honestly don't care because I'm going to do what I want. And then you do what you want, and we'll be good. Your confirmation is of no importance to me but feel free to knock yourself out.

You mentioned that you had been doing this same thing 30 years ago, so you should already know how it works. If not then you might need a review of your method.

 

[WrapRough]

Sorry, I was just curious as to the combinations and permutations used to get to your number of 4480. The other number quoted was 5040, so presumably different criteria for what to include or when to stop counting. I'm genuinely curious in order that I might confirm or debunk my accusation of gibberish.

He posted the picture from his notebook on how that was arrived at.

My number was purely mathematical and works with 7 of anything

 

[Papageno]

Time is not necessary to study harmony.
Harmony is a mathematical function that eliminates time. Time is intentionally left out of the equation (ie function).

Well, that is not entirely true. Time actually plays an important role for harmony: just as there are some strong beats and weaks beats in a 4/4 bar, there are some strong and weak bars in a 4-bar or 8-bar harmonic phrase. How these align with the tension and release associated with dominant and tonic function is very important for the harmony.
For this reason the 2 following harmonic phrases are significantly different:
1. ||: I / VI7 / ii / V7 :||
2. ||: ii / V / I / VI7 :||
even though the succession of chords is the same when they are looped.

 

[SteveCS]

The way I arrived at the number is printed right there in the jpeg I included in one of my previous posts. Just read the last line.
...

OK, I see it now, thx.

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

I must admit I didn't watch it. After years of immersion in theory, I've long since come to the conclusion it shouldn't get in the way of making music.

My first bass teacher quoted his first bass teacher to me:

“Theory is not music, it’s a way we have of talking about music.”

Which is incredibly interesting, of course. A way of talking about music is what allows us to work together, to build on each other’s work over years, decades, and centuries, a way of discovering new things about music… Every single human endeavour whether “arts” or “sciences” needs a way for people to talk to each other about it.

And yet… theory is still not music!

 

[MrLenny1]

Check out SBL's the only scale you need to know.