Discussion:
Math and music
(too old to reply)
David Dalton
2004-10-13 22:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.

I am very advanced mathematically and know a good bit about
acoustical physics and related mathematics but not much yet
about music theory including the frequencies of various notes,
the mathematical definition of musical keys and of harmonization
and more. But again I am mathematically advanced and
also have a good ear I think now, and may try to learn an
instrument soon.

David
Timothy Murphy
2004-10-13 22:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
I glanced at a book called "The topos of music",
but I wasn't sure if it was sane or not.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Bob Pease
2004-10-13 22:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
I am very advanced mathematically and know a good bit about
acoustical physics and related mathematics but not much yet
about music theory including the frequencies of various notes,
the mathematical definition of musical keys and of harmonization
and more. But again I am mathematically advanced and
also have a good ear I think now, and may try to learn an
instrument soon.
David
I would be interested also.
Google gives loads of links
You might be more specific as to your area of interest.

A recent thread is in the area of a set-theoretic definition and use of
musical intervals and rules for their use.

The area of applied acoustics or the acoustics of musical instruments might
be of interest to you, but I need to know what you mean by "mathematically
advanced"

Bob Pease


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
hs
2004-10-14 15:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Pease
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
I am very advanced mathematically and know a good bit about
acoustical physics and related mathematics but not much yet
about music theory including the frequencies of various notes,
the mathematical definition of musical keys and of harmonization
and more. But again I am mathematically advanced and
also have a good ear I think now, and may try to learn an
instrument soon.
David
I would be interested also.
Google gives loads of links
You might be more specific as to your area of interest.
I think a good overview, quite broad and yet not shallow, it the page of
Dave Benson:
http://www.math.uga.edu/~djb/html/math-music.html

Then there is Dave Rusin's page:
http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/papers/uses-math/music/

and a couple of others I have collected on my homepage:
http://home.datacomm.ch/straub/mamuth/mamulink.html
Post by Bob Pease
I glanced at a book called "The topos of music",
but I wasn't sure if it was sane or not.
Maybe it's less a question whether the book is sane but rather whether
the reader stays so... :-)

"The Topos of Music" is very special, but it sure meets the requirements
"music theory with a lot of mathematics". Being very advanced
mathematically, you can sure risk a look.
--
Hans Straub
Bob Pease
2004-10-14 16:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by hs
Post by Bob Pease
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
I am very advanced mathematically and know a good bit about
acoustical physics and related mathematics but not much yet
about music theory including the frequencies of various notes,
the mathematical definition of musical keys and of harmonization
and more. But again I am mathematically advanced and
also have a good ear I think now, and may try to learn an
instrument soon.
David
I would be interested also.
Google gives loads of links
You might be more specific as to your area of interest.
I think a good overview, quite broad and yet not shallow, it the page of
http://www.math.uga.edu/~djb/html/math-music.html
http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/papers/uses-math/music/
http://home.datacomm.ch/straub/mamuth/mamulink.html
Post by Bob Pease
I glanced at a book called "The topos of music",
but I wasn't sure if it was sane or not.
Maybe it's less a question whether the book is sane but rather whether
the reader stays so... :-)
"The Topos of Music" is very special, but it sure meets the requirements
"music theory with a lot of mathematics". Being very advanced
mathematically, you can sure risk a look.
--
Hans Straub
Thanks Hans
Also for giving me something better to do than Al-Bashing

Bob Pease


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
Dave Schutt
2004-10-13 22:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
A controversial set of books on this subject is the Schillinger
Method (I don't remember the exact title). George Gershwin studied
it. I don't know whether his musical ideas were better before or
after :-)
--
Dave Schutt <***@netgate.net> San Jose, California
Matthew Fields
2004-10-13 22:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Schutt
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
A controversial set of books on this subject is the Schillinger
Method (I don't remember the exact title). George Gershwin studied
it. I don't know whether his musical ideas were better before or
after :-)
--
I've looked at them a bit. Lots of authoritative declarations,
no substance.

I suggest Backus, The Science of Music, WW Norton for a brisk overview.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jon Slaughter
2004-10-13 23:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
I am very advanced mathematically and know a good bit about
acoustical physics and related mathematics but not much yet
about music theory including the frequencies of various notes,
the mathematical definition of musical keys and of harmonization
and more. But again I am mathematically advanced and
also have a good ear I think now, and may try to learn an
instrument soon.
David
This is a quite from http://geodyne.com/schillinger/index.html#top:

"Music has remained in the dark, without geometric form, because we still
refer to C as 1 instead of zero. Geometry begins with 0, not 1. With C as 0,
coherent visual form ensues. The twelve notes in our primary selective
system are used because 12 is the most versatile number; 12 is the smallest
number with the most divisors."

Now, as an "advanced" mathematician, does that make sense to you? If it
does, then your not as advanced as you think.


I've been studying music theory for about 5 years now and math for about 10
and, while music can be setup in a very mathematical way(such as using
musical set theory, etc...), they all only seem to confuse the subject.
Just go take a look a several "music theorists" work and see if you like it.
Most "mathematical" musicans tend to treat music as a set of objects that
are related, but they make up there own relations between them, in general,
and throw them together and get "music". Just ask one to compose in the
style of Bach or Beethoven... most likely you will not something that is
nearly as satisfying the original... the reason is, not all "laws" have been
stated and the ones that do exist are not stated properly(IMO).

What I have "discovered" is that music theory is no theory at all(not in the
mathematical/physics sense)... but just a set of so called common guidelines
that "music theorists" have found in studying composisions by the great
composers... the problem is, and they note this, that there are tons of
exceptions... and if there are so many exceptions then how can it be a
"rule".... people say all the time in music that rules are ment to be
broken... well, in my book, there not rules then. For example, there is a
"rule" that says parallel motion by perfect intervals are bad, and if you
take a class in counterpoint and use those in your examples, you will get
marked off... doesn't matter how they sound. Yet, Beethoven uses them all
the time. Its not that they are "bad", but that you have to know how to use
them... and ofcourse, they don't teach you that. Why? I don't know, but my
guess is that its to complex for them to understand as a rule. Music is
composed of 3 main area's: Melody, Harmony, and Rhythm. But you cannot
analyze, in general, one without the other two... for example, there are
many melodies that consist of the same notes but have different rhythms...
and hence different "functions". But, atleast AFAIK, they do not teach you
how these all work together. While, music theory has helped me a great deal
in sounding more classical, it hasn't helped much in sound better.

I suggest that you do not venture down this path, as I did, unless you want
to take a chance of wasting your time and money. I've been studying, as I've
said, music theory for about 5 years and have read some pretty "advanced"
books such as Theory of harmony by Schoenberg, and many books on
counterpoint. Yet, a friend of mine who's never studyied music theory can
imediately improvise much better music than I can. Now, the reason is that
I've spent to much time studying the theory and haven't put it into
pratice... and to do that, you pretty much need to have mastered an
instrument. Just cause you know what a Neapolitan chord is, if you can't
play it in context to hear how it sounds, then it does no good. I've found
that "music" theory to be very easy to understand, but hard to hear. So,
I'm sure you could easily pick up the theory, so I wouldn't focus on that.
I mean, "most" musicians "think" that chord construction is somewhat
advanced "music theory". To me, its very basic... its like knowing how to
add.

So, I think, if you just dive into music theory you might become frustrated
like I have... the reason is, the theory is so easy to understand, but so
hard to put into pratice unless you are very good at playing an instrument
such as a piano(well, you pretty much have to use a piano if you want to do
the theory). To me, music theory is really just a langauge so that two
musicans can easily communicate. Its not so much to explain how music
works. I suppose if your ear was so great, then you wouldn't need any music
theory.. your brain would have all the theory already. Ofcourse, I don't
think anyone has such an ear, and hence some theory helps... helps you
atleast to know what you are doing so you can try to break away from it and
do something else. But first you gotta be able to do something.

Anyways, There are many music theory books, but you might want to pick up
something to teach you how to play an instrument such as piano(I think you
need to learn piano first)... and almost all books, atleast ones for adults,
have basic music theory in it... Then, by the time you can play some songs
and you know your chords, you can dive into a harmony book and start playing
around with harmonic concepts such as modulation... which you might have
already discovered while learning the piano... and just didn't know what you
were doing and why it sounded good/bad.
Bob Pease
2004-10-14 04:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Slaughter
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
I am very advanced mathematically and know a good bit about
acoustical physics and related mathematics but not much yet
about music theory including the frequencies of various notes,
the mathematical definition of musical keys and of harmonization
and more. But again I am mathematically advanced and
also have a good ear I think now, and may try to learn an
instrument soon.
David
"Music has remained in the dark, without geometric form, because we still
refer to C as 1 instead of zero. Geometry begins with 0, not 1. With C as 0,
coherent visual form ensues. The twelve notes in our primary selective
system are used because 12 is the most versatile number; 12 is the smallest
number with the most divisors."
Now, as an "advanced" mathematician, does that make sense to you? If it
does, then your not as advanced as you think.
I've been studying music theory for about 5 years now and math for about 10
and, while music can be setup in a very mathematical way(such as using
musical set theory, etc...), they all only seem to confuse the subject.
Just go take a look a several "music theorists" work and see if you like it.
Most "mathematical" musicans tend to treat music as a set of objects that
are related, but they make up there own relations between them, in general,
and throw them together and get "music". Just ask one to compose in the
style of Bach or Beethoven... most likely you will not something that is
nearly as satisfying the original... the reason is, not all "laws" have been
stated and the ones that do exist are not stated properly(IMO).
What I have "discovered" is that music theory is no theory at all(not in the
mathematical/physics sense)... but just a set of so called common guidelines
that "music theorists" have found in studying composisions by the great
composers... the problem is, and they note this, that there are tons of
exceptions... and if there are so many exceptions then how can it be a
"rule".... people say all the time in music that rules are ment to be
broken... well, in my book, there not rules then. For example, there is a
"rule" that says parallel motion by perfect intervals are bad, and if you
take a class in counterpoint and use those in your examples, you will get
marked off... doesn't matter how they sound. Yet, Beethoven uses them all
the time. Its not that they are "bad", but that you have to know how to use
them... and ofcourse, they don't teach you that. Why? I don't know, but my
guess is that its to complex for them to understand as a rule. Music is
composed of 3 main area's: Melody, Harmony, and Rhythm. But you cannot
analyze, in general, one without the other two... for example, there are
many melodies that consist of the same notes but have different rhythms...
and hence different "functions". But, atleast AFAIK, they do not teach you
how these all work together. While, music theory has helped me a great deal
in sounding more classical, it hasn't helped much in sound better.
I suggest that you do not venture down this path, as I did, unless you want
to take a chance of wasting your time and money. I've been studying, as I've
said, music theory for about 5 years and have read some pretty "advanced"
books such as Theory of harmony by Schoenberg, and many books on
counterpoint. Yet, a friend of mine who's never studyied music theory can
imediately improvise much better music than I can. Now, the reason is that
I've spent to much time studying the theory and haven't put it into
pratice... and to do that, you pretty much need to have mastered an
instrument. Just cause you know what a Neapolitan chord is, if you can't
play it in context to hear how it sounds, then it does no good. I've found
that "music" theory to be very easy to understand, but hard to hear. So,
I'm sure you could easily pick up the theory, so I wouldn't focus on that.
I mean, "most" musicians "think" that chord construction is somewhat
advanced "music theory". To me, its very basic... its like knowing how to
add.
So, I think, if you just dive into music theory you might become frustrated
like I have... the reason is, the theory is so easy to understand, but so
hard to put into pratice unless you are very good at playing an instrument
such as a piano(well, you pretty much have to use a piano if you want to do
the theory). To me, music theory is really just a langauge so that two
musicans can easily communicate. Its not so much to explain how music
works. I suppose if your ear was so great, then you wouldn't need any music
theory.. your brain would have all the theory already. Ofcourse, I don't
think anyone has such an ear, and hence some theory helps... helps you
atleast to know what you are doing so you can try to break away from it and
do something else. But first you gotta be able to do something.
Anyways, There are many music theory books, but you might want to pick up
something to teach you how to play an instrument such as piano(I think you
need to learn piano first)... and almost all books, atleast ones for adults,
have basic music theory in it... Then, by the time you can play some songs
and you know your chords, you can dive into a harmony book and start playing
around with harmonic concepts such as modulation... which you might have
already discovered while learning the piano... and just didn't know what you
were doing and why it sounded good/bad.
Does that come with fries???

Bob Pease


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
David Webber
2004-10-14 04:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Slaughter
This is a quite from
"Music has remained in the dark, without geometric form, because
we still refer to C as 1 instead of zero. Geometry begins with 0,
not 1. With C as 0, coherent visual form ensues. The twelve notes
in our primary selective system are used because 12 is the most
versatile number; 12 is the smallest number with the most
divisors."
Now, as an "advanced" mathematician, does that make sense to you?
If it does, then your not as advanced as you think.
Indeed, it is a load of cobblers (as we say over here). The fact
that we use 12 semitones has nothing whatever to do with the fact
that 12 is an abundant number (ie one whose divisors sum to more
than itself) and everything to do with the intervals found by
generating pitches at intervals of a 5th. OTOH intervals woud be
much simpler if we labelled a unison 0 instead of 1, but that has
little to do with "geometry".
Post by Jon Slaughter
I've been studying music theory for about 5 years now and math for
about 10 and, while music can be setup in a very mathematical
way(such as using musical set theory, etc...), they all only seem
to confuse the subject...
Mathematics is a convenient framework in which to give a
*description* of a number of aspects of music. Nothing more.
Post by Jon Slaughter
What I have "discovered" is that music theory is no theory at
all(not in the mathematical/physics sense)... but just a set of so
called common guidelines
If you want an analogy of music theory in science then the closest
is probably taxonomy in biology: music theoory provides a framework
to describe what is there - not a set of prescriptive rules, or even
guidelines, and it doesn't make predictions like (say) theoretical
physics.
Post by Jon Slaughter
...
So, I think, if you just dive into music theory you might become frustrated
Well that is the outcome of many fields of human endeavour. It
doesn't mean one doesn't learn something useful along the way.
Post by Jon Slaughter
Anyways, There are many music theory books, but you might want to
pick up something to teach you how to play an instrument such as
piano
To do that you need (a) a piano (b) some appropriate music and (c) a
teacher. A book would come a very poor fourth.
Post by Jon Slaughter
(I think you need to learn piano first)...
How odd!
Post by Jon Slaughter
and almost all books, atleast ones for adults, have basic music
theory in it...
But no mathematics.
Post by Jon Slaughter
Then, by the time you can play some songs and you know your
chords, you can dive into a harmony book and start playing around
with harmonic concepts such as modulation... which you might have
already discovered while learning the piano... and just didn't
know what you were doing and why it sounded good/bad.
It certainly helps to be able to hear the effect of different
harmonies, but for that it is surely not necessary to become a
pianist! If it were, then there would be no jazz musicians on any
instrument who were not also accomplished pianists!

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Phil Carmody
2004-10-14 09:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
Post by Jon Slaughter
This is a quite from
"Music has remained in the dark, without geometric form, because
we still refer to C as 1 instead of zero. Geometry begins with 0,
not 1. With C as 0, coherent visual form ensues. The twelve notes
in our primary selective system are used because 12 is the most
versatile number; 12 is the smallest number with the most
divisors."
Now, as an "advanced" mathematician, does that make sense to you?
If it does, then your not as advanced as you think.
Indeed, it is a load of cobblers (as we say over here). The fact
that we use 12 semitones has nothing whatever to do with the fact
that 12 is an abundant number (ie one whose divisors sum to more
than itself) and everything to do with the intervals found by
generating pitches at intervals of a 5th.
Ahem, Intervals with a 3:2 frequency ratio, to which nowadays the
5th is just an approximation.

Right, back to singing in wolf tones, to annoy the neighbours. :-)

Phil
--
They no longer do my traditional winks tournament lunch - liver and bacon.
It's just what you need during a winks tournament lunchtime to replace lost
... liver. -- Anthony Horton, 2004/08/27 at the Cambridge 'Long Vac.'
David Webber
2004-10-14 16:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Carmody
Ahem, Intervals with a 3:2 frequency ratio, to which nowadays the
5th is just an approximation.
I wrote it in an untempered moment. :-)
Post by Phil Carmody
Right, back to singing in wolf tones, to annoy the neighbours. :-)
I find the wolves quite like it though :-)

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Jon Slaughter
2004-10-14 09:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Slaughter
"Music has remained in the dark, without geometric form, because we still
refer to C as 1 instead of zero. Geometry begins with 0, not 1. With C as
0, coherent visual form ensues. The twelve notes in our primary selective
system are used because 12 is the most versatile number; 12 is the
smallest number with the most divisors."
Now, as an "advanced" mathematician, does that make sense to you? If it
does, then your not as advanced as you think.
Indeed, it is a load of cobblers (as we say over here). The fact that we
use 12 semitones has nothing whatever to do with the fact that 12 is an
abundant number (ie one whose divisors sum to more than itself) and
everything to do with the intervals found by generating pitches at
intervals of a 5th. OTOH intervals woud be much simpler if we labelled a
unison 0 instead of 1, but that has little to do with "geometry".
Post by Jon Slaughter
I've been studying music theory for about 5 years now and math for about
10 and, while music can be setup in a very mathematical way(such as using
musical set theory, etc...), they all only seem to confuse the subject...
Mathematics is a convenient framework in which to give a *description* of
a number of aspects of music. Nothing more.
Well, I personally believe that mathematics is more prevalentthan that.
Mathematics is the language of nature, just cause no one speaks it well
doesn't mean that its not there. Math is all about patterns. Without
patterns, you couldn't make sense of the world. Your brain looks for the
patterns to reduce the complexity. This is learning the language of math...
learning how the world works. This is why we are human. While I do think
there is a theory about music that can be useful in making good music, I
don't think we are even near the lvl were we can begin to understand whats
truely going on. Maybe one day, but will probably be awhile.
Post by Jon Slaughter
What I have "discovered" is that music theory is no theory at all(not in
the mathematical/physics sense)... but just a set of so called common
guidelines
If you want an analogy of music theory in science then the closest is
probably taxonomy in biology: music theoory provides a framework to
describe what is there - not a set of prescriptive rules, or even
guidelines, and it doesn't make predictions like (say) theoretical
physics.
well, since I came from a scientific background, I figured "theory" ment
scientific theory. Such as when one says "theory of relativity", "theory of
quantum mechanics", "theory of gravity"... All these theories are
scienfitic, the "theory of music" is very unscientific, and in my opinion,
doesn't deserve to be called a theory. So, when I applied this "theory" to
composing, it helped out some, but I was no where near what I wanted and
what I thought I should get out of "learning" the theory. Now, I could have
just went about it the completely wrong way. But I'm following what I've
learned(unfortuantely, what I've read... if only books could talk). Now, if
I would have known that what I'm learning is really just some basic
guidelines that really don't hold much water, then maybe I would have not
been so confident that if I learn all those rules they presented, then tried
to apply them, that I would sound good. Those rules are useless by
themselfs. Music is a listening art, and if you don't listen and figure out
where those rules came from and in what context they are mainly used, then
you probably won't get very far.
Post by Jon Slaughter
...
So, I think, if you just dive into music theory you might become frustrated
Well that is the outcome of many fields of human endeavour. It doesn't
mean one doesn't learn something useful along the way.
Well, that is true, but it doesn't have to be.
Post by Jon Slaughter
Anyways, There are many music theory books, but you might want to pick up
something to teach you how to play an instrument such as piano
To do that you need (a) a piano (b) some appropriate music and (c) a
teacher. A book would come a very poor fourth.
Well, you can get a cheap electronic keyboard for 100 bucks and hook it up
to your computer and get great sounds from it. Tons of music is available
online for free. A teacher is well worth it if you can find a good one...
I'm sure that many of my problems would easily be solved from one on one
with a good teacher. Books are great if you have the first 3. Say, if you
live in the artic or something, then they are even better... I think a good
book and a good teacher with a little piano skills would be a good
combination. You can read the book and ask the teacher when you run into a
problem... that why, you are basicaly teaching yourself. The teacher I had
wouldn't answer any questions, wouldn't even take a listen to the type of
music I was interested in so he could tell me what I need to work on to play
in that style. It was just do this, this and that... and most of the theory
stuff I already knew... only good thing I got out of it was praticing on the
instrument. But I didn't learn anything as far as theory. and I kinda got
the feeling that he wasn't really interested in teaching me, cause everytime
I asked him a question(Well, almost everytime), he would get defensive...
then finally he asked me if I wanted him to teach me or not, cause I was
always asking questions(cause I guess he thought I was questioning his
ability or something... when I really just wanted to know why he was
teaching what he did so I would be able to understand it better.. I mean..
if I'm going to learn this concept, it helps if I know why its useful).
Post by Jon Slaughter
(I think you need to learn piano first)...
How odd!
Post by Jon Slaughter
and almost all books, atleast ones for adults, have basic music theory in
it...
But no mathematics.
well, mathematics is everywhere! ;)
Post by Jon Slaughter
Then, by the time you can play some songs and you know your chords, you
can dive into a harmony book and start playing around with harmonic
concepts such as modulation... which you might have already discovered
while learning the piano... and just didn't know what you were doing and
why it sounded good/bad.
It certainly helps to be able to hear the effect of different harmonies,
but for that it is surely not necessary to become a pianist! If it
were, then there would be no jazz musicians on any instrument who were not
also accomplished pianists!
Well, its not neccessary, but it helps. Its much easier to sit down at a
piano and work out different harmonic concepts than it is on a flute or a
violin. Also, since the piano is layed out in a linear way, its easier to
conceptalize on the paino. Chord and scales are very easy to see as
compared to most other instruments.
Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows - http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Anyways

Jon
David Webber
2004-10-14 16:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Well, I personally believe that mathematics is more prevalent than
that.
Sorry I was referring to its application to music theory.
Mathematics is the language of nature, just cause no one speaks it
well doesn't mean that its not there.
Well I speak it *quite* well - at least the applied dialect. I have
a PhD in it and make a fair part of my living from it.
Math is all about patterns. Without patterns, you couldn't make
sense of the world.
Absolutlely.
Your brain looks for the patterns to reduce the complexity. This
is learning the language of math... learning how the world works.
This is why we are human. While I do think there is a theory
about music that can be useful in making good music, I don't think
we are even near the lvl were we can begin to understand whats
truely going on. Maybe one day, but will probably be awhile.
I think with music we can. Marrying general relativity and quantum
mechanics is a slightly harder problem though.
well, since I came from a scientific background, I figured
"theory" ment scientific theory.
It's natural. I used to be annoyed by musicians calling it a
"theory", butthese days I find few words which have a single
definite meaning as used by everyone. Even easy ones like "dog".
Such as when one says "theory of relativity", "theory of quantum
mechanics", "theory of gravity"... All these theories are
scienfitic, the "theory of music" is very unscientific, and in my
opinion, doesn't deserve to be called a theory.
As I say, I used to think like that but I lightened up :-)
So, when I applied this "theory" to composing, it helped out
some, but I was no where near what I wanted and what I thought I
should get out of "learning" the theory. Now, I could have just
went about it the completely wrong way. But I'm following what
I've learned(unfortuantely, what I've read... if only books could
talk). Now, if I would have known that what I'm learning is
really just some basic guidelines that really don't hold much
water, then maybe I would have not been so confident that if I
learn all those rules they presented, then tried to apply them,
that I would sound good.
I have a lovely book on harmony with all the classic "rules" very
clearly set out. I keep it because it is so clear. It was written
in 1894...
... Those rules are useless by themselfs.
...and so I don't find it too hard to tell myself that I shouldn't
expect them to apply to Charlie Mingus :-)
Music is a listening art,
Enough to say its an art. Which means definitively that the rules
don't define it :-)
and if you don't listen and figure out where those rules came from
and in what context they are mainly used, then you probably won't
get very far.
More than Probably :-)
Post by David Webber
It certainly helps to be able to hear the effect of different
harmonies, but for that it is surely not necessary to become a
pianist! If it were, then there would be no jazz musicians on
any instrument who were not also accomplished pianists!
Well, its not neccessary, but it helps. Its much easier to sit
down at a piano and work out different harmonic concepts than it
is on a flute or a violin.
I have to confess that my interest in harmony was greatly increased
when I was (futilely as it turns out) trying to learn the guitar
when I was a teenager. I couldn't remember all those chord shapes,
and found that with a little understanding, I could work them out.
:-)

But these days its a useful guide when improvising with the jazz
band, and when arranging music (despite absolutely abyssmal keyboard
skills!).
Also, since the piano is layed out in a linear way, its easier to
conceptalize on the paino. Chord and scales are very easy to see
as compared to most other instruments.
That is true. I have nothing against the piano - I just don't think
you have to go as far as learning to play the bloody thing if your
muse lies elewhere :-)

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Martin Penderis
2004-10-14 19:11:53 UTC
Permalink
This thread is so long (started in 1993!) that I do not know if I am
posting something that somebody has said before. I am certainly not
going through all those messages.

The following quotation is about the relation between mathematics and
music:

Mathematics is the music of reason.
May not music be described as the mathematics of the sense,
mathematics as music of the reason? The musician feels mathematics,
the mathematician thinks music: music the dream, mathematics the
working life.
J.J.Sylvester (1814-1897).
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Sylvester.html
lutonomy
2004-10-15 05:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Penderis
The following quotation is about the relation between mathematics and
Mathematics is the music of reason.
May not music be described as the mathematics of the sense,
mathematics as music of the reason? The musician feels mathematics,
the mathematician thinks music: music the dream, mathematics the
working life.
J.J.Sylvester (1814-1897).
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Sylvester.html
It's an interesting quote. Certainly everything in existence ties into
mathematics in some way in the end. The only true universal (by which I
really mean the whole universe) language is mathematics.

I remember that movie "A Beautiful Mind" where they show how the high level
genius mathematicians don't think in literal "numbers" but rather shapes and
contours. Looked like, dare I say, art...so perhaps it does go "both ways".

Silverman is such a moron.
--
L U T O N O M Y

www.lutonomy.com
Robert Israel
2004-10-15 06:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by lutonomy
I remember that movie "A Beautiful Mind" where they show how the high level
genius mathematicians don't think in literal "numbers" but rather shapes and
contours.
They do no such thing, in that movie (which I guess you don't remember
very well: it had very little mathematics in it) or any other that I
know of.

I don't know of any mathematician who thinks in numbers. Mathematicians
sometimes think _about_ numbers, but they generally think in
concepts - maybe expressed in words, maybe geometrically, maybe both.

Robert Israel ***@math.ubc.ca
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
David Webber
2004-10-15 07:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Israel
I don't know of any mathematician who thinks in numbers.
Most of us prefer algebra: it's like arithmetic but without the
inconvenience of making numerical mistakes when you add things up
:-)

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
paramucho
2004-10-15 08:19:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:11:31 +0100, "David Webber"
Post by David Webber
Post by Robert Israel
I don't know of any mathematician who thinks in numbers.
Most of us prefer algebra: it's like arithmetic but without the
inconvenience of making numerical mistakes when you add things up
:-)
I prefer tables, aka, Numbers By Painting.
.
lutonomy
2004-10-15 07:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Israel
Post by lutonomy
I remember that movie "A Beautiful Mind" where they show how the high level
genius mathematicians don't think in literal "numbers" but rather shapes and
contours.
They do no such thing, in that movie (which I guess you don't remember
very well: it had very little mathematics in it) or any other that I
know of.
Well, OK, no need to get so defensive. But I do know that's how they stated
it in a "making of" documentary. Not being a mathematician I guess I just
misinterpreted it.
Post by Robert Israel
I don't know of any mathematician who thinks in numbers. Mathematicians
sometimes think _about_ numbers, but they generally think in
concepts - maybe expressed in words, maybe geometrically, maybe both.
I guess that is what I was trying to articulate. So chill man, and thanks
for helping me make my point.
--
L U T O N O M Y

www.lutonomy.com
Chan-Ho Suh
2004-10-15 12:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Israel
Post by lutonomy
I remember that movie "A Beautiful Mind" where they show how the high level
genius mathematicians don't think in literal "numbers" but rather shapes and
contours.
They do no such thing, in that movie (which I guess you don't remember
very well: it had very little mathematics in it) or any other that I
know of.
I don't know of any mathematician who thinks in numbers. Mathematicians
sometimes think _about_ numbers, but they generally think in
concepts - maybe expressed in words, maybe geometrically, maybe both.
I distinctively remember a scene in "A Beautiful Mind" where John Nash
looks at a bunch of numbers and they start glowing and dancing around.
So that refutes your statement.

Another thing the movie demonstrated is how little mathematical
research can progress if there aren't windows around to write on.
Matthew Fields
2004-10-15 14:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Post by Robert Israel
Post by lutonomy
I remember that movie "A Beautiful Mind" where they show how the high level
genius mathematicians don't think in literal "numbers" but rather shapes and
contours.
They do no such thing, in that movie (which I guess you don't remember
very well: it had very little mathematics in it) or any other that I
know of.
I don't know of any mathematician who thinks in numbers. Mathematicians
sometimes think _about_ numbers, but they generally think in
concepts - maybe expressed in words, maybe geometrically, maybe both.
I distinctively remember a scene in "A Beautiful Mind" where John Nash
looks at a bunch of numbers and they start glowing and dancing around.
So that refutes your statement.
No, it doesn't. That's a *dramatization* created by Ron Howard in
consultation with his cinematographer, to try to illustrate conceptual
thinking. The scene is pure fiction--nobody knows what Nash did when
he consulted for the government, and Nash is not saying.
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Another thing the movie demonstrated is how little mathematical
research can progress if there aren't windows around to write on.
Ah, well, in that case, that refutes your statement. ppffft!
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Bob Pease
2004-10-15 15:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Post by Robert Israel
Post by lutonomy
I remember that movie "A Beautiful Mind" where they show how the high level
genius mathematicians don't think in literal "numbers" but rather shapes and
contours.
They do no such thing, in that movie (which I guess you don't remember
very well: it had very little mathematics in it) or any other that I
know of.
I don't know of any mathematician who thinks in numbers.
Mathematicians
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Post by Robert Israel
sometimes think _about_ numbers, but they generally think in
concepts - maybe expressed in words, maybe geometrically, maybe both.
I distinctively remember a scene in "A Beautiful Mind" where John Nash
looks at a bunch of numbers and they start glowing and dancing around.
So that refutes your statement.
No, it doesn't. That's a *dramatization* created by Ron Howard in
consultation with his cinematographer, to try to illustrate conceptual
thinking. The scene is pure fiction--nobody knows what Nash did when
he consulted for the government, and Nash is not saying.
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Another thing the movie demonstrated is how little mathematical
research can progress if there aren't windows around to write on.
Ah, well, in that case, that refutes your statement. ppffft!
Actually it would be easy to demonstrate a strong correlation between the
amount of moisture condensation on the inside of windows and strength of the
mathematical communities in those locations!!

Bob Pease


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
Matthew Fields
2004-10-15 15:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by lutonomy
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Post by Robert Israel
Post by lutonomy
I remember that movie "A Beautiful Mind" where they show how the high
level
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Post by Robert Israel
Post by lutonomy
genius mathematicians don't think in literal "numbers" but rather
shapes and
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Post by Robert Israel
Post by lutonomy
contours.
They do no such thing, in that movie (which I guess you don't remember
very well: it had very little mathematics in it) or any other that I
know of.
I don't know of any mathematician who thinks in numbers.
Mathematicians
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Post by Robert Israel
sometimes think _about_ numbers, but they generally think in
concepts - maybe expressed in words, maybe geometrically, maybe both.
I distinctively remember a scene in "A Beautiful Mind" where John Nash
looks at a bunch of numbers and they start glowing and dancing around.
So that refutes your statement.
No, it doesn't. That's a *dramatization* created by Ron Howard in
consultation with his cinematographer, to try to illustrate conceptual
thinking. The scene is pure fiction--nobody knows what Nash did when
he consulted for the government, and Nash is not saying.
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Another thing the movie demonstrated is how little mathematical
research can progress if there aren't windows around to write on.
Ah, well, in that case, that refutes your statement. ppffft!
Actually it would be easy to demonstrate a strong correlation between the
amount of moisture condensation on the inside of windows and strength of the
mathematical communities in those locations!!
Bob Pease
And it would be easy to demonstrate a strong corrolation between the
distance between North America and Europe and the greyness of my hair,
too!
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Bob Pease
2004-10-15 17:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by lutonomy
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Post by Robert Israel
Post by lutonomy
I remember that movie "A Beautiful Mind" where they show how the high
level
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Post by Robert Israel
Post by lutonomy
genius mathematicians don't think in literal "numbers" but rather
shapes and
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Post by Robert Israel
Post by lutonomy
contours.
They do no such thing, in that movie (which I guess you don't remember
very well: it had very little mathematics in it) or any other that I
know of.
I don't know of any mathematician who thinks in numbers.
Mathematicians
Post by Matthew Fields
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Post by Robert Israel
sometimes think _about_ numbers, but they generally think in
concepts - maybe expressed in words, maybe geometrically, maybe both.
I distinctively remember a scene in "A Beautiful Mind" where John Nash
looks at a bunch of numbers and they start glowing and dancing around.
So that refutes your statement.
No, it doesn't. That's a *dramatization* created by Ron Howard in
consultation with his cinematographer, to try to illustrate conceptual
thinking. The scene is pure fiction--nobody knows what Nash did when
he consulted for the government, and Nash is not saying.
Post by Chan-Ho Suh
Another thing the movie demonstrated is how little mathematical
research can progress if there aren't windows around to write on.
Ah, well, in that case, that refutes your statement. ppffft!
Actually it would be easy to demonstrate a strong correlation between the
amount of moisture condensation on the inside of windows and strength of the
mathematical communities in those locations!!
Bob Pease
And it would be easy to demonstrate a strong corrolation between the
distance between North America and Europe and the greyness of my hair,
too!
Yup That's true

I think it's because folks in the Midwest don't use as much hair dye as in
California.
This causes a accumulation of surplus hair dye bottles in New York which
contributes to the continental drift.

Bob Pease


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
Gerry Myerson
2004-10-15 04:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Slaughter
Well, I personally believe that mathematics is more prevalentthan that.
....
Post by Jon Slaughter
well, since I came from a scientific background, I figured "theory" ment
....
Post by Jon Slaughter
Well, that is true, but it doesn't have to be.
....
Post by Jon Slaughter
Well, you can get a cheap electronic keyboard for 100 bucks and hook it up
....
Post by Jon Slaughter
well, mathematics is everywhere! ;)
....
Post by Jon Slaughter
Well, its not neccessary, but it helps. Its much easier to sit down at a
Tell me, is there a law in your country that every paragraph
must begin with "well"?
--
Gerry Myerson (***@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Jon Slaughter
2004-10-15 05:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Myerson
Post by Jon Slaughter
Well, I personally believe that mathematics is more prevalentthan that.
....
Post by Jon Slaughter
well, since I came from a scientific background, I figured "theory" ment
....
Post by Jon Slaughter
Well, that is true, but it doesn't have to be.
....
Post by Jon Slaughter
Well, you can get a cheap electronic keyboard for 100 bucks and hook it up
....
Post by Jon Slaughter
well, mathematics is everywhere! ;)
....
Post by Jon Slaughter
Well, its not neccessary, but it helps. Its much easier to sit down at a
Tell me, is there a law in your country that every paragraph
must begin with "well"?
--
well..........

;)
George Cox
2004-10-14 20:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Slaughter
..
"Music has remained in the dark, without geometric form, because we still
refer to C as 1 instead of zero. Geometry begins with 0, not 1. With C as 0,
coherent visual form ensues. The twelve notes in our primary selective
system are used because 12 is the most versatile number; 12 is the smallest
number with the most divisors."
Now, as an "advanced" mathematician, does that make sense to you? If it
does, then your not as advanced as you think.
The arrogance of "our"; which of the worlds many and diverse musical
cultures does that refer to?

0 would seem to be the smallest (non-negative) number with the most
divisors--assuming that that phrase means anything.
David Webber
2004-10-14 22:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Cox
0 would seem to be the smallest (non-negative) number with the
most
divisors--assuming that that phrase means anything.
It doesn't to most people. Integers are classed as deficient,
perfect, or abundant.

The divisors of a perfect number (including by convention 1 but not
itself) add up to the number.

6 = 3 + 2 + 1 is a perfect number.

12 < 6+4+3+2+1 is abundant.

10 > 5 + 2 + 1 is deficient

As far as I know these properties are mainly just a curiosity. But
for example a currency system based on 12 would be useful as you can
share things out in more ways. Our old £1 = 240d was very shareable
:-)

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Gerry Myerson
2004-10-14 01:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
At the Joint Mathematics Meetings in Phoenix in January there was
an AMS-MAA special session on mathematical techniques in musical
analysis. About two dozen papers were presented. The information
is probably still up on the American Mathematical Society website.
You might be able to read the abstracts, find something of interest,
and contact the authors for suggestions for further reading.
--
Gerry Myerson (***@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Bob Pease
2004-10-14 04:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Myerson
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
At the Joint Mathematics Meetings in Phoenix in January there was
an AMS-MAA special session on mathematical techniques in musical
analysis. About two dozen papers were presented. The information
is probably still up on the American Mathematical Society website.
You might be able to read the abstracts, find something of interest,
and contact the authors for suggestions for further reading.
--
Thanks

sounds like just the ticket for my style and interests!!

Bob Pease


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
John M. Gamble
2004-10-15 23:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
I am very advanced mathematically and know a good bit about
acoustical physics and related mathematics but not much yet
about music theory including the frequencies of various notes,
the mathematical definition of musical keys and of harmonization
and more. But again I am mathematically advanced and
also have a good ear I think now, and may try to learn an
instrument soon.
*Self-Similar Melodies* by Tom Johnson got a short but positive
review in Scientific American. I can't personally vouch one way
or another, as it is still on my "get around to buying or borrowing"
list.
--
-john

February 28 1997: Last day libraries could order catalogue cards
from the Library of Congress.
Allen L. Barker
2004-10-16 02:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
I am very advanced mathematically and know a good bit about
acoustical physics and related mathematics but not much yet
about music theory including the frequencies of various notes,
the mathematical definition of musical keys and of harmonization
and more. But again I am mathematically advanced and
also have a good ear I think now, and may try to learn an
instrument soon.
It's not exactly advanced mathematics, but there are some
very nice and practical applications of group theory to
music. I recently posted some info to some other groups,
which I've combined below. The Balzano paper mentioned
below is quite good as far as pointing to the relationship
between group-theoretical structures and the physics of
waves (vibrating strings, etc.) in equal-tempered scales.


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


I recently kludged together a bash script to print out chord and
scale diagrams. I've found these diagrams to be a useful way to
think about music theory, and helpful in composition and in analyzing
chord progressions. They are a very concise way to graphically
illustrate a lot of music-theoretical relationships. The script
can be found at
http://www.datafilter.com/software/generateChordAndScaleDiagrams

The construction is based on group theory, but you don't need to
know any group theory to use the charts. You basically just need
to be comfortable with the idea of numbering the notes in base 12,
for example as
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b
B C C# D D# E F F# G G# A A#

I got the basic idea from the paper:

Gerald J. Balzano, "The Group-theoretic Description of 12-Fold
and Microtonal Pitch Systems," _Computer Music Journal_, 4/4,
1980, p.66-84

In that paper, group theory is used to analyze chords and scales
with the idea of generalizing equal-tempered scales beyond 12-tone
scales (19-tone scales have some nice properties, for example).
I might get into that some day, but for now I just like to use
the diagrams for 12-tone music theory.

Again, using the diagrams does not require any knowledge of group
theory -- although this sort of application would be a great
introduction to group theory. (You can find a couple of such papers
on the web, and the Balzano paper above is very good.) Basically,
the 12 notes fit on the surface of a torus. In its simplest form
it looks like this:

0 4 8
9 1 5
6 a 2
3 7 b

Now mentally connect the left and right edges together and connect
the top and bottom edges together (like the screen in a game of Pong,
where the ball can go through the walls). Topologically this forms
a donut or bagel shape called a torus. The charts are just
repetitions of this basic pattern over and over, to avoid the mental
convolutions involved in mentally wrapping the numbers onto a toroidal
shape.

Notice that from left to right the sequences increase by 4 (mod 12)
and from bottom to top they increase by 3 (mod 12). [The rows and
columns are subgroup cosets of the full 12-note group, just FYI.]
Notice also that the top left to bottom right diagonals increase
by 1 (mod 12), just like counting or like the strings on fretted
instruments. The diagonals from the bottom left to the top right
increase by 7 (mod 12) and form the cycle of fifths. These are just
some of the patterns to notice, and give you an idea of what makes
these diagrams "work." I'm not going to go into the theory any more
than that; such diagrams efficiently display many important interval
relationships within (and between) chords and scales.

The basic chords and scales fit nicely onto such diagrams. Chord
progressions move along the diagrams (i.e., the surface of the
torus) in interesting ways. I think the diagram for the full
chromatic scale is useful in general, but generating diagrams for
particular scales and printing them out so you can mark them up,
etc., can be especially useful.

The bash script can optionally include a chord-pattern chart at
the bottom of of the diagrams. The basic chord patterns obviously
apply when translated anywhere on the chart. They work for minor
chords too, with the "flip over" of the chord's third. This should
be clear after studying the charts a little. Notice that the
program can also print the diagrams using the standard, lettered
C-major-scale note names.

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

Torus is the mathematical name for a donut or bagel shape.
The notes all fit neatly onto the surface of a torus. Major
and minor chords are triangles on the surface. The cycle of
fifths loops around the surface like candy-cane stripes.

You don't really need to know that to use the diagrams. The
diagrams are flattened out into 2-D so that they are easier
to comprehend.

Consider the simple example below, for the C-major scale. Note
the pattern it forms. Every triangle is a major or minor chord.

*--* * G
| / /| /|
|/ / | for example / |
x x--* C--E
x-minor x-major C-major

Knowing this, you can see all the major and minor chords that
are in the C-major scale and how they relate to each other.
For example, you can see how the C-F-G progression moves along
the diagram by locating each of those chords on it.


Major scale in the key of C

F---A Db F---A Db F---A Db F
| / | / | / |
| / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |
D Gb Bb D Gb Bb D Gb Bb D
| /| /| /|
| / | / | / |
| / | / | / |
B Eb G---B Eb G---B Eb G---B
/| / /| / /| /
/ | / / | / / | /
/ |/ / |/ / |/
Ab C---E Ab C---E Ab C---E Ab
/| / /| / /| /
/ | / / | / / | /
/ |/ / |/ / |/
F---A Db F---A Db F---A Db F
| / | / | / |
| / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |
D Gb Bb D Gb Bb D Gb Bb D
| /| /| /|
| / | / | / |
| / | / | / |
B Eb G---B Eb G---B Eb G---B


That's a basic example that gives a general idea of how such
diagrams can be useful. It is just a tool, though. How you use
it (or not) as far as writing and thinking about music is up to
you.

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

Here are a few final comments on the chord and scale diagrams,
along with a link to the bash script to generate them.

I've noticed that in some news readers (like Google) the
diagrams don't display properly. There are some added spaces
from being sent over Usenet that throw off the alignment a
little. I hope the general structure still comes through.
The diagrams display OK for me with Mozilla. You also need
to use a fixed-width font for the diagrams to be properly
aligned.

As an aside, if you're interested in the musical torus as
it relates to the study of the brain's perception of music,
check out
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2002/dec/121202.html

I've put the bash script for generating the diagrams on the web at
http://www.datafilter.com/software/generateChordAndScaleDiagrams
There was obviously some feature creep, but sometimes that's
the fun part (and it didn't get out of control ;-).

The script works with
GNU bash, version 2.05b.0(1)-release (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
on my Linux system. It should be reasonably portable (or at
most require a few tweaks). The only external program it
really requires is sed, which is only used to optionally
translate to the standard C-major-scale-based note names.

Enjoy! Constructive comments welcome.

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

Harmonic minor scale in the key of 0, with chord diagrams

0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4
| / | / | / | / | / | /
| / | / | / | / | / | /
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a
/| /| /| /| /| /|
/ | / | / | / | / | / |
/ | / | / | / | / | / |
3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7
| / | /| / | /| / | /| / | /| / | /| / | /| /
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | /
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4
| / | / | / | / | / | /
| / | / | / | / | / | /
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a
/| /| /| /| /| /|
/ | / | / | / | / | / |
/ | / | / | / | / | / |
3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7
| / | /| / | /| / | /| / | /| / | /| / | /| /
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | /
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4
| / | / | / | / | / | /
| / | / | / | / | / | /
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a
/| /| /| /| /| /|
/ | / | / | / | / | / |
/ | / | / | / | / | / |
3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7
| / | /| / | /| / | /| / | /| / | /| / | /| /
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | /
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4 8---0 4


Chords with root 0 (the pattern is the same for all chords):

9th=7th+add9
3rd 3--7 5th 7 5th 7th a 2 add9 9 7th 0--4--7
| / /| | / (-3rd=sus2) |
|/ / | |/ | augmented
0 0--4 3rd 7--b maj7 6
root root /| |
/ | |
minor major 0--4 3
/| |
/ | |
sus4 5 9 0
(-3rd) 6th
diminished

Note the cycle of 5ths along the / diagonals; counting along the \ diagonals.
Note guitar/bass fretboard pattern (minus "guitar bump") along alternate \ diags.
Standard note convention: 0=B 1=C 2=C# 3=D 4=D# 5=E 6=F 7=F# 8=G 9=G# a=A b=A#
--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Allen Barker
Allen L. Barker
2004-10-16 04:27:44 UTC
Permalink
A few more examples... The chromatic scale diagrams are useful in
a general sense, because they don't depend on any particular scale,
key, or collection of notes.

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

Chromatic scale (notes numbered in base 12)

0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1---5---9---1
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a---2---6---a
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4---8---0---4


Chords with root 0 (the pattern is the same for all chords):

9th=7th+add9
3rd 3--7 5th 7 5th 7th a 2 add9 9 7th 0--4--7
| / /| | / (-3rd=sus2) |
|/ / | |/ | augmented
0 0--4 3rd 7--b maj7 6
root root /| |
/ | |
minor major 0--4 3
/| |
/ | |
sus4 5 9 0
(-3rd) 6th
diminished

Note the cycle of 5ths along the / diagonals; counting along the \ diagonals.
Note guitar/bass fretboard pattern (minus "guitar bump") along alternate \ diags.
Standard note convention: 0=B 1=C 2=C# 3=D 4=D# 5=E 6=F 7=F# 8=G 9=G# a=A b=A#

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

Melodic minor scale in the key of 0 (notes numbered in base 12)

0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4
| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / |
| / | / | / | / | / | / |
9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1
| / | / | / | / | / | /
| / | / | / | / | / | /
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a
/| /| /| /| /| /|
/ | / | / | / | / | / |
/ | / | / | / | / | / |
3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7
| / | / | / | / | / | / | /
| / | / | / | / | / | / | /
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4
| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / |
| / | / | / | / | / | / |
9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1
| / | / | / | / | / | /
| / | / | / | / | / | /
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a
/| /| /| /| /| /|
/ | / | / | / | / | / |
/ | / | / | / | / | / |
3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7
| / | / | / | / | / | / | /
| / | / | / | / | / | / | /
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4
| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / |
| / | / | / | / | / | / |
9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1 5---9 1
| / | / | / | / | / | /
| / | / | / | / | / | /
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a 2 6 a
/| /| /| /| /| /|
/ | / | / | / | / | / |
/ | / | / | / | / | / |
3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7---b---3---7
| / | / | / | / | / | / | /
| / | / | / | / | / | / | /
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 4


Chords with root 0 (the pattern is the same for all chords):

9th=7th+add9
3rd 3--7 5th 7 5th 7th a 2 add9 9 7th 0--4--7
| / /| | / (-3rd=sus2) |
|/ / | |/ | augmented
0 0--4 3rd 7--b maj7 6
root root /| |
/ | |
minor major 0--4 3
/| |
/ | |
sus4 5 9 0
(-3rd) 6th
diminished

Note the cycle of 5ths along the / diagonals; counting along the \ diagonals.
Note guitar/bass fretboard pattern (minus "guitar bump") along alternate \ diags.
Standard note convention: 0=B 1=C 2=C# 3=D 4=D# 5=E 6=F 7=F# 8=G 9=G# a=A b=A#

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

Chromatic scale with standard note names (using flats)

B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C---E---Ab--C
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A---Db--F---A
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb--Bb--D---Gb
| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
| / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |
B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb--G---B---Eb


Chords with root 0 (the pattern is the same for all chords):

9th=7th+add9
3rd 3--7 5th 7 5th 7th a 2 add9 9 7th 0--4--7
| / /| | / (-3rd=sus2) |
|/ / | |/ | augmented
0 0--4 3rd 7--b maj7 6
root root /| |
/ | |
minor major 0--4 3
/| |
/ | |
sus4 5 9 0
(-3rd) 6th
diminished

Note the cycle of 5ths along the / diagonals; counting along the \ diagonals.
Note guitar/bass fretboard pattern (minus "guitar bump") along alternate \ diags.
Standard note convention: 0=B 1=C 2=C# 3=D 4=D# 5=E 6=F 7=F# 8=G 9=G# a=A b=A#

----------------------------------------------------
David Webber
2004-10-16 13:26:43 UTC
Permalink
...there are some
very nice and practical applications of group theory to
music.
Interestingly the operations of "moving by an interval from one
note to another" as is being discussed at length under "query about
compound intervals..." form a group. But only if you consider
"directed intervals" (otherwise there is no inverse). I think this
one of the things which underlies my eschewing the consideration of
positive intervals only.

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Matthew Fields
2004-10-16 13:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
...there are some
very nice and practical applications of group theory to
music.
Interestingly the operations of "moving by an interval from one
note to another" as is being discussed at length under "query about
compound intervals..." form a group. But only if you consider
"directed intervals" (otherwise there is no inverse). I think this
one of the things which underlies my eschewing the consideration of
positive intervals only.
Even in 12-tone theory, the motion is "Up an IC3" or "Down an IC3",
but IC3 is still not-directed.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
graham breed
2004-10-16 15:51:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
Interestingly the operations of "moving by an interval from one
note to another" as is being discussed at length under "query about
compound intervals..." form a group. But only if you consider
"directed intervals" (otherwise there is no inverse). I think this
one of the things which underlies my eschewing the consideration of
positive intervals only.
You can get an inverse from undirected intervals by enforcing octave
equivalence. So a perfect fifth is the inverse of a perfect fourth.
I'm not sure if the result is a group ... or at least one that makes
sense. It wouldn't be "moving by an interval" anyway, but building up
chords.


Graham
David Webber
2004-10-16 16:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by graham breed
You can get an inverse from undirected intervals by enforcing
octave equivalence. So a perfect fifth is the inverse of a
perfect fourth. I'm not sure if the result is a group ... or at
least one that makes sense. It wouldn't be "moving by an
interval" anyway, but building up chords.
It is a group, but a smaller one - there are no 9ths etc. It
becomes like addition modulo 7 instead of addition.

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Matthew Fields
2004-10-16 16:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
Post by graham breed
You can get an inverse from undirected intervals by enforcing
octave equivalence. So a perfect fifth is the inverse of a
perfect fourth. I'm not sure if the result is a group ... or at
least one that makes sense. It wouldn't be "moving by an
interval" anyway, but building up chords.
It is a group, but a smaller one - there are no 9ths etc. It
becomes like addition modulo 7 instead of addition.
Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
In which case the distinction between interval, directed interval, and
transposition operator still all retain their salience.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
graham breed
2004-10-16 17:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
It is a group, but a smaller one - there are no 9ths etc. It
becomes like addition modulo 7 instead of addition.
You can only get by without ninths if you allow seconds to be doubly
diminished ;)


Graham
Matthew Fields
2004-10-16 17:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by graham breed
Post by David Webber
It is a group, but a smaller one - there are no 9ths etc. It
becomes like addition modulo 7 instead of addition.
You can only get by without ninths if you allow seconds to be doubly
diminished ;)
Graham
We'll be able to do that at 97 quarters to three.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Matthew Fields
2004-10-16 16:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by graham breed
Post by David Webber
Interestingly the operations of "moving by an interval from one
note to another" as is being discussed at length under "query about
compound intervals..." form a group. But only if you consider
"directed intervals" (otherwise there is no inverse). I think this
one of the things which underlies my eschewing the consideration of
positive intervals only.
You can get an inverse from undirected intervals by enforcing octave
equivalence. So a perfect fifth is the inverse of a perfect fourth.
I'm not sure if the result is a group ... or at least one that makes
sense. It wouldn't be "moving by an interval" anyway, but building up
chords.
Graham
In any case, we already have the T operators in 12-tone theory, and
they all have additive inverses. It just happens that negative numbers
are still not always used because the ring Z12 is usually the domain.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Ken Pledger
2004-10-20 00:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Such could be a book on music theory with a lot of mathematics.
I am very advanced mathematically and know a good bit about
acoustical physics and related mathematics but not much yet
about music theory including the frequencies of various notes,
the mathematical definition of musical keys and of harmonization
and more. But again I am mathematically advanced and
also have a good ear I think now, and may try to learn an
instrument soon.
David
The thread seems to have wandered a long way from your original
question. A little book which (years ago) I found very interesting and
well-written was Sir James Jeans, "Science and Music." He tries not to
assume much background knowledge of mathematics, physics or music
theory, but of course whatever you do already know will help make things
clearer to you.

Ken Pledger.
Eckard Blumschein
2004-10-20 11:38:33 UTC
Permalink
You might find some pertaining books on my list at
http://iesk.et.uni-magdeburg.de/~blumsche/

Concerning your question, I recommend the small but nice book by Juan
Roederer.
Also look for the home page of Chen-Gia Tsai.
In order to loose some illusions, you might look into my messages M275
and M277.

E.B.
Post by David Dalton
Could you recommend good book(s) on the mathematics of music?
Note Jam
2004-10-26 19:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Midi maximus, a book on how to program midi, but also covers some theory/math
on how to build and add features to a sequencer.

Its in C language, and available from amazon books.

Loading...