Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Theory related post from elsewhere
- Thread starter glocke1
- Start date
I'll focus on this fragment only because in trying to find a coherent thought you use the term fifth frequently. Harmonic fifth?? Anyway, you say, "at every perfect 4th and between perfect harmonic Fifths because it seems at every modes whether it is a major or minor like diatonic mode that all share still this similar symmetry."
The fifth and fourth, both of which are the inversion of the other, i.e. c to g is a perfect fifth and g to c is a perfect fourth, are called perfect because they have no modality, i.e. they are neither major or minor. The modality is determined by the diatonics scales 3rd degree. So in C major the major 3rd is e and the minor 3rd is e flat. The 5th in either triad remains g. The g can be raised to create an augmented chord or lowered along with the 3rd to make the chord dimininished but modality (major or minor is determined by the 3rd)
The prominence of the 5th is implicit by its rank, if you will, in the overtone series.
Take your bass and sound the loudest, most prominent overtone on any string and it will be the octave harmonic at the 12th fret. The next loudest will be the 5th at the seventh fret. The 3rds and sevenths are there, but weaker. The 3rds are also, as we use them in the tempered system, slightly out of tune to our ear as they occur in the overtone series. The history of Western music reflects this hierarchy as well as unisons then octaves characterize very early music before the middle ages embraced 5ths and 4ths (organum) (look it up) When 3rds and their inversion, the 6th came into it things get very interesting.
Your post despite the coherence issue struck me as your thinking as expressed suggests there is something mystical going on. It's more really, natural symmetry, nature's math as demonstrated through sound.
The fifth and fourth, both of which are the inversion of the other, i.e. c to g is a perfect fifth and g to c is a perfect fourth, are called perfect because they have no modality, i.e. they are neither major or minor. The modality is determined by the diatonics scales 3rd degree. So in C major the major 3rd is e and the minor 3rd is e flat. The 5th in either triad remains g. The g can be raised to create an augmented chord or lowered along with the 3rd to make the chord dimininished but modality (major or minor is determined by the 3rd)
The prominence of the 5th is implicit by its rank, if you will, in the overtone series.
Take your bass and sound the loudest, most prominent overtone on any string and it will be the octave harmonic at the 12th fret. The next loudest will be the 5th at the seventh fret. The 3rds and sevenths are there, but weaker. The 3rds are also, as we use them in the tempered system, slightly out of tune to our ear as they occur in the overtone series. The history of Western music reflects this hierarchy as well as unisons then octaves characterize very early music before the middle ages embraced 5ths and 4ths (organum) (look it up) When 3rds and their inversion, the 6th came into it things get very interesting.
Your post despite the coherence issue struck me as your thinking as expressed suggests there is something mystical going on. It's more really, natural symmetry, nature's math as demonstrated through sound.
If you're looking for somebody who's gotten so fascinated with theory that they've forgotten about the music, I really don't think this is your guy. He's just mashing keys and using words he doesn't understand.
And, anyway, there's plenty of counterexamples. I mean, Harmolodics always seemed like a bunch of BS to me, but I hear a lot of soul in The Shape of Jazz to Come, so who am I to judge.
Music is complicated and weird and there's more than one way to do it.
Last edited:
I understand that you are not the same person as the original poster, and I do not "hold you responsible" for this bizarre discussion.
Last edited:
Maybe he's asking why 4ths, 5ths, unisons and octaves are "perfect" and 2nds, 3rds, 6ths and 7ths are not.
I'm pretty sure this goes back to the Renaissance times and early polyphony where one voice would sing what we now consider as "a bassline" and other voices would sing a melody above that. Those "non-perfect" intervals were to be avoided iirc. This was back when tuning systems were much different than today and those intervals didn't sound all that good. That's my informed guess at least.
I'm pretty sure this goes back to the Renaissance times and early polyphony where one voice would sing what we now consider as "a bassline" and other voices would sing a melody above that. Those "non-perfect" intervals were to be avoided iirc. This was back when tuning systems were much different than today and those intervals didn't sound all that good. That's my informed guess at least.
I don't think this is a case of drugs or incoherency as some people are assuming. My guess is that whoever wrote this wrote this in their native language - something that doesn't use Roman charcters or grammar - and then ran it through a translator. It explains the single paragraph, the odd diction, and the lack of punctuation.
As another poster stated, the question here may be about the perfect fifths and perfect fourths and why they are always perfect.
The poster makes references to circles and cycles, and it is indeed true that you can't reach all 12 western notes without using intervals of fifths or fourths. (Minor 2nds or major 7ths do work, as they create a chromatic progression. The other intervals give you a subset - the hexatonic scale, the diminished arpeggio, and the augmented arpeggio.)
The statement about the ninth is rooted in math, but it's an (understandable) mathematical mistake - an attenpt to use diatonic math (seven notes, eight is the octave, so seven steps) in a chromatic space (twelve notes, thirteen is the octave, so twelve steps). The fourth is five half steps, while a fifth is seven, adding up to twleve steps. This means that the ninth thing doesn't really work.
The original poster isn't daft - they are rightfully looking for patterns. Diatonic math, unfortunately, isn't the right path here. Always best to use the circle of fifths or the chromatic circle for mathematical purposes.
I'm afraid I don't know the history and theory well enough to state why there is only a perfect fifth, no major or minor (I know the harmonic series, etc, but I don't know why it was decided that fifths would always be perfect).
As another poster stated, the question here may be about the perfect fifths and perfect fourths and why they are always perfect.
The poster makes references to circles and cycles, and it is indeed true that you can't reach all 12 western notes without using intervals of fifths or fourths. (Minor 2nds or major 7ths do work, as they create a chromatic progression. The other intervals give you a subset - the hexatonic scale, the diminished arpeggio, and the augmented arpeggio.)
The statement about the ninth is rooted in math, but it's an (understandable) mathematical mistake - an attenpt to use diatonic math (seven notes, eight is the octave, so seven steps) in a chromatic space (twelve notes, thirteen is the octave, so twelve steps). The fourth is five half steps, while a fifth is seven, adding up to twleve steps. This means that the ninth thing doesn't really work.
The original poster isn't daft - they are rightfully looking for patterns. Diatonic math, unfortunately, isn't the right path here. Always best to use the circle of fifths or the chromatic circle for mathematical purposes.
I'm afraid I don't know the history and theory well enough to state why there is only a perfect fifth, no major or minor (I know the harmonic series, etc, but I don't know why it was decided that fifths would always be perfect).
Perfect intervals, when inverted, are still Perfect. Major and minor intervals when inverted are not (still Major or Minor). That might be part of it.
From Wikipedia:
Perfect[edit]
Perfect intervals on C.
PU (help·info), P4 (help·info), P5 (help·info), P8 (help·info).Perfect intervals are so-called because they were traditionally considered perfectly consonant,[6]although in Western classical music the perfect fourth was sometimes regarded as a less than perfect consonance, when its function was contrapuntal.[vague] Conversely, minor, major, augmented or diminished intervals are typically considered less consonant, and were traditionally classified as mediocre consonances, imperfect consonances, or dissonances.[6]
Within a diatonic scale[d] all unisons (P1) and octaves (P8) are perfect. Most fourths and fifths are also perfect (P4 and P5), with five and seven semitones respectively. One occurrence of a fourth is augmented (A4) and one fifth is diminished (d5), both spanning six semitones. For instance, in a C-major scale, the A4 is between F and B, and the d5 is between B and F (see table).
By definition, the inversion of a perfect interval is also perfect. Since the inversion does not change the pitch class of the two notes, it hardly affects their level of consonance (matching of their Invalid Link Removed). Conversely, other kinds of intervals have the opposite quality with respect to their inversion. The inversion of a major interval is a minor interval, the inversion of an augmented interval is a diminished interval.
I see what the OP is saying. The answer is that there are different intervals. Some sound more pleasing than others based on who the listener is and the musical context.
It's a pretty important observation and I feel really good about both the time I spent reading responses and the time I spent crafting my own response.
It's a pretty important observation and I feel really good about both the time I spent reading responses and the time I spent crafting my own response.
I agree that it sounds like a translation into English that lost the gist. Now we're all fumbling around trying to understand the question and goofing on the post in its incomprehensible form. I'm embarrassed and ashamed for not noticing this earlier. Damn crystals!
Groove Master
Commercial User
- Apr 22, 2011
- 1,808
- 1,291
- Disclosures
- Author of Groove 101, Slap 101 and Technique 101
I think the OP is talking about the Cycle of fifths. And the confusion (!) with the cycle of fourths. Which is exactly the same. Just the direction of the intervals is not the same. The real cycle is going a fifth down which is the same as a fourth up. Confusion comes from the bassist's view because of our fourths tuning.
And he might refers to the diatonic cycle of the Major key ex. in C : C-F-Bmin7(b5)-Emin7-Amin-Dmin7-G7-C.
And he might refers to the diatonic cycle of the Major key ex. in C : C-F-Bmin7(b5)-Emin7-Amin-Dmin7-G7-C.
Last edited:
