• 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.

Whats "Minor" about a 2nd?

#41
Thanks for all the responses. I think I understand it now.
At some point I'm going to get the nerve to ask about the thing that confuses me the most....:hiding:
But I think I better let this all sink in for a while for now!
And thanks to the OP for posting the question about a minor 2nd. I had been wondering the same thing!
 
#42
Richard Lindsey said:
Cool, but we're not talking about 19 tone or any other historical temperament, and neither was the OP, whose original question this discussion was presumably aimed at answering. So it's not really relevant here.

With respect, it doesn't matter whether you personally think this augmented unison business is a contradiction or not. That doesn't change anything. This is how this stuff works and is defined and labeled within the system we're talking about. And yes, it is by definition within this system, as I said earlier, because a "convention" agreed on and held to consistently within a system IS a definition in terms of that system. In the same way that a dictionary definition of a word is merely an agreed-on convention regarding how that word looks and is understood.
Click to expand...

what i'm trying to point out is that the OP's confusion is due to the fact that these are irrational conventions. talking about things like augmented/diminished unisons only serve to increase ambiguity. i have never heard a performing musician refer to unison as anything other than unison (and don't get me started on 'augmented fifths'). something accepted collectively can also be collectively wrong, you know. that is why it's quite relevant to the OP's question.
 
#44
uethanian said:
what i'm trying to point out is that the OP's confusion is due to the fact that these are irrational conventions. talking about things like augmented/diminished unisons only serve to increase ambiguity. i have never heard a performing musician refer to unison as anything other than unison (and don't get me started on 'augmented fifths'). something accepted collectively can also be collectively wrong, you know. that is why it's quite relevant to the OP's question.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, someone trying to reinvent the wheel because they think they have a better idea. There is no such thing as a diminished unison by definition of an interval but your own personal dogma prevents you from seeing that. Can you divide by zero also in your world?
 
#45
TobyBass55 said:
....At some point I'm going to get the nerve to ask about the thing that confuses me the most....:hiding:
Click to expand...

Go ahead and ask it. If it is something completely off topic, just start a new thread. But the sooner you get clarification on what is confusing you, the better for you.

There is too much off topic information, not pertaining to the original question, in this thread already. The original question has been answered, and then some.
So if it is totally unrelated, just start a new thread.
 
#46
Schlyder said:
Go ahead and ask it. If it is something completely off topic, just start a new thread. But the sooner you get clarification on what is confusing you, the better for you.

There is too much off topic information, not pertaining to the original question, in this thread already. The original question has been answered, and then some.
So if it is totally unrelated, just start a new thread.
Click to expand...

OK. The only relation to the original post is that it is about music nomenclature. But I feel funny starting a thread to ask this, so hopefully people will bear with me here.

I play a song that has a simple I IV V progression. And in parts I'm playing 1, 5, 1, 5,1 on the V chord. (which is why I asked about the 5 below the root before) So when I refer to that 5 of the V chord, it doesn't seem right to call it the 2 (edit: also had that mixed up before) (which is what it is in the key I'm playing in) Edit: part that was here was mixed up..............so took it out.......see how confused this gets me!
 
#47
TobyBass55 said:
OK. The only relation to the original post is that it is about music nomenclature. But I feel funny starting a thread to ask this, so hopefully people will bear with me here.

I play a song that has a simple I IV V progression. And in parts I'm playing 1, 5, 1, 5,1 on the V chord. (which is why I asked about the 5 below the root before) So when I refer to that 5 of the V chord, it doesn't seem right to call it the 2 (edit: also had that mixed up before) (which is what it is in the key I'm playing in) Edit: part that was here was mixed up..............so took it out.......see how confused this gets me!
Click to expand...

You could refer to chord members by their actual names (root, fifth) and scale steps by their numbers (2,4,7). The fifth of a V chord is the 2nd scale step. The root of the IV chord is the fourth scale step.
 
#49
uethanian said:
what i'm trying to point out is that the OP's confusion is due to the fact that these are irrational conventions. talking about things like augmented/diminished unisons only serve to increase ambiguity. i have never heard a performing musician refer to unison as anything other than unison (and don't get me started on 'augmented fifths'). something accepted collectively can also be collectively wrong, you know. that is why it's quite relevant to the OP's question.
Click to expand...

No, that's not the reason for his confusion at all. It's due to the fact that he doesn't understand what the existing, well-accepted conventions are. There's nothing particularly irrational about them, and it wouldn't matter all that much if there were, provided that everybody went along with them. A lot of quite useful conventions are quite "irrational," at least by somebody's lights, and so what? English spelling is highly irrational in some areas, yet it represents a convention that is both useful and widely accepted. People have tried to overhaul English spelling in the hope of achieving greater rationality and consistency, and those efforts have all failed utterly, largely because they are answers to questions almost nobody is interested in asking.

I know plenty of musicians, performing and not so much, who know, understand, and can explain what an augmented unison (or an augmented 5th) is and illustrate why and how those terms are used. I'm surprised you don't.

As for something collectively accepted being collectively wrong, that's true in matters of objective fact, like whether the earth is the center of the solar system. But not so much in matters, like this one, where the definition itself is created by collective acceptance. The same idea of "wrong" does not apply. It would be like you telling me it was "wrong" to spell the word "thought" that way, when rationally it should be spelled "thot." You could certainly say that you thought "thot" would be a better and more sensible spelling, but you simply can't say that "thought" is wrong.

What you're saying is not helping the OP understand the difference between a number used to denote the degree of a scale and a number as used to denote an interval between two given notes.
 
#50
he doesn't understand what the existing, well-accepted conventions are
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Some labeling maybe 'irrational' (i.e., Augmented Unison), mostly because it doesn't exist within conventional practice. But can be explained by the rules of theory. No one I've known has used a Key signature with triple-sharps, but in theory you can have one.

I haven't heard the 19-tone music of uethanian, but scales built on that division can only occur within very highest overtones. It's not going to be palpable to people that use the 12-tone system based on the first 16 naturally occurring overtones. In fact, it'll sound out-of-tune.

Best of luck with it, though.
 
#51
TobyBass55 said:
OK. The only relation to the original post is that it is about music nomenclature. But I feel funny starting a thread to ask this, so hopefully people will bear with me here.

I play a song that has a simple I IV V progression. And in parts I'm playing 1, 5, 1, 5,1 on the V chord. (which is why I asked about the 5 below the root before) So when I refer to that 5 of the V chord, it doesn't seem right to call it the 2 (edit: also had that mixed up before) (which is what it is in the key I'm playing in) Edit: part that was here was mixed up..............so took it out.......see how confused this gets me!
Click to expand...

It's mainly a matter of keeping your frame of reference straight. When you talk about the degrees of the scale, your main referent is the tonic of the key (the 1 of the associated scale). This is also true when you refer to the chords built on those scale degrees in the context of a key. Thus, in C, an F major is IV, because it is a major chord (hence IV and not iv) built on the 4th degree of the scale associated with C major.

When you talk about playing 1-5-1-5 on a chord, your referent is the root of the chord, which can be any degree of the scale. Thus, playing 1-5-1-5 on a C major chord in the key of C means playing C-G-C-G, because the root of the chord is C; it just happens also to be the tonic of the key. Playing 1-5-1-5 on an A minor chord in C major means playing A-E-A-E, because your referent is the root of the chord, A, even though it is not the tonic of the key (C).

Does that help?
 
#53
As I said earlier. Read/study the first part of "The Keys to Music Rudiments" from that link I posted. I think it gives you the first 4 or 5 chapters. It even has questions for each chapter. Read/ study/ answer the questions. Even if some stuff is redundant to you, read it again.
Pay attention to the terminology/definition of everything. You need to go back to square one and learn the correct name for things first. That is why you are confused.
Once you understand what you are calling things, then you can start to sort them out properly.
 
#55
Schlyder said:
As I said earlier. Read/study the first part of "The Keys to Music Rudiments" from that link I posted. I think it gives you the first 4 or 5 chapters. It even has questions for each chapter. Read/ study/ answer the questions. Even if some stuff is redundant to you, read it again.
Pay attention to the terminology/definition of everything. You need to go back to square one and learn the correct name for things first. That is why you are confused.
Once you understand what you are calling things, then you can start to sort them out properly.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I really do want to learn it. I found your link (turned out to be in a different, but similar thread) That book looks like it would be good to go through.

nutdog said:
I'm ready for a double augmented gin and supertonic.
Click to expand...

Actually sounds like a good idea right about now. Probably will make me more confused though. lol I just won't realize it.
 
#56
TobyBass55 said:
Thanks. I really do want to learn it. I found your link (turned out to be in a different, but similar thread) That book looks like it would be good to go through.



Actually sounds like a good idea right about now. Probably will make me more confused though. lol I just won't realize it.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha Yeah, I got confused which one it was in too.
Same answer for both. the confusion is coming from mixing different terms. Get all that sorted out and stuff will be clearer.
 
#57
I believe no one has actually addressed, or really understood, the OP's question.

'Perfect' intervals: unison, 4th, 5th

'Major'/'minor' intervals: 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th

Why does the 2nd (remember I'm talking intervals, not scale degrees) appear in the major/minor camp? What is the rationale? Because it seems that it has more in common with the other 'perfect' intervals, in that it is invariable between the major and minor scales (harmonic and melodic).

It's a question about Western music terminology.

I don't know the answer, which is why I'm posting to refresh the question.

Is it just arbitrary? Why don't we talk about a perfect 2nd instead?
 
#58
It's funny - music theory has been studied and taught for centuries and yet there seems no way to simplify it and teaching to new students is a *bear* due to so many of these confusing rules. Once learned, it all "makes sense" - but its a great deal to take in.
Which is why when I see kids buying "Rock Star" and then going to GC because they "know how to play" I just shake my head.
 
#59
Kolbitr said:
Why does the 2nd (remember I'm talking intervals, not scale degrees) appear in the major/minor camp? What is the rationale? Because it seems that it has more in common with the other 'perfect' intervals, in that it is invariable between the major and minor scales (harmonic and melodic).

It's a question about Western music terminology.

I don't know the answer, which is why I'm posting to refresh the question.

Is it just arbitrary? Why don't we talk about a perfect 2nd instead?
Click to expand...

Because the reason why intervals are referred to as "perfect" has nothing to do with whether they are or are not invariable between major and minor scales. They are called that because they were traditionally considered to be the most consonant-sounding of the intervals, with seconds, thirds, sixths, and sevenths being considered less consonant.

You could also look at it another way, though this is hardly an "official" reason: A second is, in a sense, just the inverse of a seventh (just as a fourth is the inverse of a fifth). If a seventh is major/minor, why shouldn't a second be?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scatabrain
#60
Music theory is layers and layers of information gathered over the centuries. In the ancient days of musical analysis, the 4th and 5th intervals were considered "perfect" because they sounded "perfect" when played against the tonic. They had (maybe still have) a sonic quality the other intervals didn't have. That's it. It's no more complicated than that.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back