[HN Gopher] Music and Geometry: Intervals and Scales
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Music and Geometry: Intervals and Scales
        
       Author : coloneltcb
       Score  : 181 points
       Date   : 2024-12-19 18:52 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (roelsworld.eu)
 (TXT) w3m dump (roelsworld.eu)
        
       | rekado wrote:
       | If you like this you may also be interested in Emmett Chapman's
       | Offset Modal System:
       | 
       | https://www.stick.com/method/articles/offsetmodal/
       | https://www.stick.com/method/articles/parallel/
        
         | mlochbaum wrote:
         | My own take on relating scales geometrically:
         | https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN-Musician/theory/modulation.h...
         | 
         | It does seem that I include all Chapman's scales (while saying
         | nothing about chords), although oddly enough he's chosen to use
         | the modes of harmonic major but not those of its inversion,
         | harmonic minor?
         | 
         | Edit: In fact I found the second link (first one's pretty vague
         | and wasn't enough for me to follow the diagram) relevant enough
         | that I added a paragraph to point out the connection!
        
       | pohl wrote:
       | I love this. Here's another interesting thing I encountered. It's
       | a way of organizing chromatic subsets by brightness
       | 
       | https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/1etydas/i_made...
        
         | hammock wrote:
         | That is cool and different. Glancing at the bottom several rows
         | I tend to agree with the classification, as a trained musician.
         | I wonder though, what is (the mathematical principle) behind it
         | that is causing the brightness/ darkness in the sound of these
         | chords?
         | 
         | Don't say "dissonance" (or explain what dissonance is)- that
         | much is obvious, looking for something a bit more detailed,
         | e.g. why 1-2-5 sounds brighter than 1-4-5
        
           | dbcurtis wrote:
           | It is going to be the relative amplitudes of the overtones.
           | Pure tone (like flute) is bright, many overtones present with
           | the appropriate mix can sound dark (french horn). Next, you
           | are going to ask me for the coefficients, but I don't know
           | that. Break into the nearest church with a proper pipe organ
           | and start pulling and pushing stops to see what happens. (Or
           | ask your friend the organist to take you so that you don't
           | get arrested)
        
             | recursive wrote:
             | It's a reference to this particular chart, not the general
             | idea of brightness of a sound. And it's regarding chords or
             | scales, not timbres.
        
           | recursive wrote:
           | I don't really understand this chart at all, but I think it's
           | based on the idea that an upward movement of a fifth is
           | bright, and a downward movement is dark. 1-2-5 can be built
           | on two upward movements of a fifth, whereas 1-4-5 can be
           | built be one upwards movement, and one downward (from the
           | tonic)
        
       | tugu77 wrote:
       | The diagrams look nice, but in the end of the day, they are
       | merely nice visualizations of what's fundamentally algebra. There
       | is not much geometry going on besides a quite simple group
       | structure of order 12.
        
         | openrisk wrote:
         | Besides geometry there is not a lot of music either, in the
         | sense that even this simple symmetry is kinda fake, effectively
         | a forced resolution of an essentially unsolvable "problem":
         | hammering the intervals into place to inject some "logic" into
         | the task of dividing the octave in heptatonic scales. Despite
         | the unrepentant Pythogereans across all ages, our musical brain
         | is not mathematical except in a very loose way.
         | 
         | Besides aesthetics, though, there might be educational value
         | given that the equal temperament tuning is a cornerstone of
         | western music education.
        
           | PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
           | > the task of dividing the octave in heptatonic scales.
           | 
           | that's not task. The octave has already been divided into
           | twelve tones here.
           | 
           | The task is to pick sets of those twelve tones to serve some
           | aesthetic purpose. The sets may be of various sizes, though 7
           | is common in a lot of european music.
           | 
           | If the task was to generate heptatonic scales from within the
           | octave, there are a huge number of possibilities not
           | described here, and most of them are rarely used (though many
           | more than the ones based on a 12TET system are).
        
             | openrisk wrote:
             | > The task is to pick sets of those twelve tones to serve
             | some aesthetic purpose
             | 
             | Aesthetic in the musical or visual sense? The visual aspect
             | is based on the Z12 symmetry and it is pleasant - like all
             | symmetries.
             | 
             | The question is what does the visual experience have to do
             | with the music experience?
             | 
             | The first disconnect with the musical experience is that
             | the 12TET itself is not what people would, e.g., choose to
             | sing in [1].
             | 
             | The second disconnect is that the Greek modes of the major
             | scale are not remotely covering all the scales people
             | enjoy, even adopting a Eurocentric point [2].
             | 
             | [1] https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/41383/do-
             | capable-h...
             | 
             | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_minor_scale
        
               | HPsquared wrote:
               | On singers and violinists adjusting their harmony to just
               | intonation by fine-tuning to zero beat frequency, I
               | wonder if anyone has made a keyboard that can do that.
        
               | PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
               | If you mean a keyboard which includes a mechanism for
               | causing strings to vibrate, you can tune ANY such
               | keyboard to use just intonation.
               | 
               | What you cannot do is modulate between keys with a
               | keyboard tuned to just intonation: it would have to be
               | retuned for every key change. The scope of the mechanism
               | that would be required to do this has not been
               | implemented since the harpsichord was invented.
               | 
               | There are synthesizers that can be retuned in this way,
               | because there is no physical mechanism to adjust. The
               | results are ... odd. It is still challenging to play them
               | because in addition to performing the notes, you need to
               | signal the key change/retuning points.
               | 
               | Also, when singers and violinists do this, they are not
               | "fine tuning to zero beat frequency". Either you sing in
               | just intonation, in which case you cannot modulate
               | between keys (because the Nth note of the scale has a
               | different frequency depending on the root note), or you
               | sing in some tempered scale (in which the frequencies of
               | the notes have been adjusted to make modulation
               | possible).
        
               | bkazez wrote:
               | This is not true.
               | 
               | Singers and violinists can and do adjust intonation so
               | each chord sounds (justly) in tune. The exception is if
               | they were trained with equal tempered instruments (which
               | is common nowadays - see Duffin, "How Equal Temperament
               | Ruined Harmony") or if they are playing with pre-
               | quantized (fretted/keyed) instruments, in which case they
               | would match the existing temperaments.
               | 
               | So the linked article, while it shows some beautiful
               | shapes linked to 12s, has nothing to do with actually
               | (justly) in tune music.
               | 
               | Source: master's degree in the topic; am a professional
               | singers specializing in music written before equal
               | temperament was invented
        
               | tugu77 wrote:
               | For a professional musician you are oddly singer/violin
               | focused. Any instrument which can physically detune while
               | playing has their musicians do this. On wind instruments
               | it's via the mouthpiece, any string instrument beyond
               | violin has some flexibility etc. It's only the piano that
               | doesn't, essentially everybody else does.
               | 
               | But in practise, for many music styles, it doesn't really
               | matter. Music is so much more than whether some chord is
               | pitch perfect in tune.
               | 
               | Source: Jazz musician on 6 instrument types part time
               | professional for 25 years (other part is software
               | engineer).
        
               | Tor3 wrote:
               | I go to a lot of choir concerts. What I've found is that
               | I much prefer (good) choirs singing without accompanying
               | instruments, because when there are instruments involved
               | the harmonies always fall into equal temperament. There
               | is a quality when they sing a cappella which simply isn't
               | there when they don't.
        
               | PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
               | I did speak a bit loosely and too simplistically. What I
               | was trying to get to was the point you're making which is
               | the same point the GP was making: when performers have
               | the ability (because of the instrument they are using,
               | including the voice), they will adjust to reduce beating.
               | 
               | My words on this were wrong and misleading.
        
               | black_knight wrote:
               | Eivind Groven developed a mechanical piano for playing in
               | just intonation: http://www.joranrudi.no/mediefiler/The%2
               | 0Just%20Intonation%2...
        
               | PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
               | Ah yes, of course. 36T ... increasing the number of
               | pitches per octave is a different approach to the
               | problem, and works (at some cost to the performer :)
        
         | Rochus wrote:
         | > _There is not much geometry going on_
         | 
         | You can use the geometric representation ("necklace") to
         | explain modulation of e.g. diatonic scales as axial mirroring.
         | This can be regarded as a geometric operation. When you look at
         | harmony in this way, some interesting insights open up. I've
         | even built a tool to explore it: https://github.com/rochus-
         | keller/MusicTools/tree/master.
        
           | jvvw wrote:
           | This sounds interesting. As a mathematician (in the sense
           | that I have a PhD in group theory), is there a good guide to
           | music theory for mathematicians?
           | 
           | There seems to be lots of stuff along the lines of 'if you
           | understand music, here is some mathematics to help you think
           | about it' but not much 'if you understand mathematics, but
           | not so much about music, here is how to think about music'.
        
             | Kye wrote:
             | It depends on your goal.
             | 
             | Music theory is a way to encode and share the practice of
             | music. The practice is largely unconcerned with and unaware
             | of math. Any mathematical treatment that gets too far from
             | the practice won't help you understand music.
             | 
             | If you want to understand and practice music, it's safest
             | to limit your exposure to the body of work we call theory
             | to scales, chords, and the circle of fifths and carefully
             | expand from there. Theory can be useful, but the practice
             | of theory can become too about itself and lose sight of the
             | music.
             | 
             | Being too about theory is how you get people saying,
             | confidently, that songs which use that common four chord
             | progression are boring/hackish even though all the examples
             | are of famous and beloved songs.
        
             | Rochus wrote:
             | There are many with various mathematical depth:
             | 
             | - Fauvel et al., Music and Mathematics - From Pythagoras to
             | Fractals, 2003, Oxford UP
             | 
             | - Loy, Musimatics Volume 1, 2006 MIT Press
             | 
             | - Tymoczko, A Geometry of Music, 2011, Oxford UP
             | 
             | - Walker, Mathematics and Music, 2013, CRC Press
             | 
             | - Toussaint, The Geometry of Musical Rhythm, 2013, CRC
             | Press
             | 
             | - Chew, Mathematical and Computational Modeling of
             | Tonality, 2014, Springer
             | 
             | - Hook, Exploring Musical Spaces, 2023, Oxford UP
             | 
             | From my point of view, all titles can be appreciated by
             | non-musicians with mathematical background (though I'm an
             | engineer, not a mathematician, and very much involved with
             | non-classical music). But for your specific requirement,
             | maybe Loy is suited, but personally I consider the later
             | books more interesting, especially Tymoczko and Hook. Book
             | recommendations are always very subjective.
             | 
             | Also note that the music theory commonly taught at high
             | schools and universities is barely able to describe music,
             | or only a small fraction of it. And only a fraction of this
             | theory has a mathematical fundament. Most of it is just a
             | heuristic projection of existing music, only useful for
             | recognizing and classifying elements, and not for deriving
             | new music. In recent years, however, new theories have
             | emerged that allow for both a more formal and a more
             | practical approach.
        
         | PittleyDunkin wrote:
         | Whenever someone says "there's not much geometry going on"
         | you've identified a person with little capacity for imagination
        
           | tugu77 wrote:
           | I'd love to see some imagination on that page beyond some
           | star shapes.
        
           | jvvw wrote:
           | Mathematicians regard 'symmetries' as algebra (as in group
           | theory etc rather than high-school algebra) rather than
           | geometry and I suspect this is about the use of the word
           | geometry in part.
        
         | fuhsnn wrote:
         | Geometry of Music by Dmitri Tymoczko is a fun book of
         | visualizing chromatic music theory with geometry models, some
         | of it also covered in author's papers
         | https://dmitri.mycpanel.princeton.edu/publications.html
        
           | TheOtherHobbes wrote:
           | Tymoczko's take is far more interesting and educational than
           | the article.
           | 
           | (I'm being polite.)
        
       | ChocMontePy wrote:
       | I never realized until now that in the the two different circles
       | pictured (the Chromatic Circle and the Circle of Fifths) the
       | pairs of notes opposite each other are the same in each circle.
       | For example in both circles B is opposite from F.
       | 
       | And if you move around the Chromatic Circle, swapping every
       | second pair of notes with its opposite on the other side of the
       | circle, you have the Circle of Fifths.
        
         | smitelli wrote:
         | That interval (B-F) would be the tritone, arguably the most
         | dissonant one in the toolbox.
        
         | kian wrote:
         | If you take the chromatic scale and then swap every other pair
         | of notes on opposite sides of the circle, it yields the circle
         | of fifths. You'll notice that on the circle of fifths notes
         | that skip a step are a whole tone apart in the chromatic scale.
         | 
         | Although there have been some claims in these comments to the
         | contrary, harmony is particularly mathematical. Symmetry and
         | the breaking of within the integers mod 12 form the
         | foundational principles of harmony.
        
       | Duanemclemore wrote:
       | Amazing. A deeper dive of the methods John Coltrane used.
       | 
       | https://www.openculture.com/2024/12/john-coltrane-draws-a-pi...
       | 
       | And
       | 
       | https://www.openculture.com/2017/10/john-coltrane-draws-a-my...
       | 
       | With plenty of great links to dive deeper in both!
        
       | ziofill wrote:
       | I've been playing piano for 30+ years, and I only learned to use
       | the circle of fifths this year. It's been short of a revelation
       | and I can't recommend enough to practice scales and drills based
       | on it.
        
       | niobe wrote:
       | I am a technical musician for 40 years and I couldn't understand
       | the points he was trying to make... poorly explained
        
       | brcmthrowaway wrote:
       | How can I make music without knowing an instrument?
        
         | Rochus wrote:
         | E.g. with a tool like this: https://nodalmusic.com/
        
           | brcmthrowaway wrote:
           | How does this differ to Max/MSP or PureData
        
             | Rochus wrote:
             | It has nothing in common with Max nor Pd. The latter
             | specifiy signal flow and operators on the signal. Nodal
             | instead represents events and time distances between them;
             | this way you can design musical patterns; time is two
             | dimensional, so you can draw loops; then you can associate
             | musical information with the events and add logical
             | operations so that your loops vary in time. It's a very
             | nice experimenting and composition tool, especially if you
             | don't play an instrument. See e.g. here for a tutorial:
             | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQpJi0AkFBQ.
             | 
             | And here are some nice composition created with Nodal:
             | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1BzGaz62PE,
             | https://youtu.be/gi61bHLyDsU,
             | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTpyIT8dWIA.
        
               | TheOtherHobbes wrote:
               | With some persuasion, Max can do everything Nodal does.
               | It's not _convenient_ and you have to use numbers instead
               | of line lengths. But it 's untrue they have "nothing in
               | common."
        
               | Rochus wrote:
               | Well, that requires a demonstration ;-)
               | 
               | > _you have to use numbers instead of line lengths_
               | 
               | That's the whole point of Nodal; you represent musical
               | patterns (and control flow) with graphical means.
               | Entering numbers is close to Midi event lists and has
               | little to do with Nodal's approach. Max/Pd are great
               | tools, but focus on the processing and signal flow aspect
               | (i.e. the machine which generates the music/noise), not
               | the representation of the music.
        
         | shadowerm wrote:
         | IMO the question doesn't make sense.
         | 
         | You can't make music without learning an instrument.
         | 
         | Maybe the instrument is a computer with PD or DAW software but
         | it is still a musical instrument that you have to learn to
         | play.
         | 
         | There is no way around spending hours learning and practicing
         | whatever instrument you pick.
         | 
         | What makes a computer hard to learn to play is that it has too
         | many options. You don't learn anything playing trumpet for a
         | month, then changing to piano for 2 weeks, then trying a new
         | guitar that just came out for 2 months. That though is
         | basically what many computer musicians do.
         | 
         | You need to pick the software setup and then spend a long time
         | learning it and don't switch instruments.
        
       | shermantanktop wrote:
       | As a longtime guitarist, this is exactly the type of visual
       | pattern crutch that the fretboard encourages and which is (for
       | me) both a crutch and a trap. Geometry can help explain music but
       | if it takes the lead, that's the definition of formulaic.
        
       | hilbert42 wrote:
       | _" Pythagorean Temperament"_
       | 
       | 'Pythagorean Temperament' involves the Pythagorean Comma (aka
       | Comma of Pythagoras). Whilst mentioned, it's not spelled out as
       | such here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_comma
        
       | f1shy wrote:
       | There is a classical book by about the topic
       | https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-64364-9
        
       | tambarskjelve wrote:
       | I understand music and mathematics were much more closely related
       | historically, to some extent practically regarded as the same
       | subject, but new discoveries about this relationship are still
       | happening in our time. One interesting finding is that the the
       | Pythagoeran comma, i.e. tiny interval between to enharmonically
       | equivalent notes can be constructed geometrically:
       | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00283-022-10260-4
        
       | BaculumMeumEst wrote:
       | Somewhat unrelated: I'm looking for a comprehensive overview of
       | why the CAGED system works on guitar. I see lots of mechanical
       | explanations of how to use it to play various chords down the
       | neck, but nothing explaining the theory behind it.
        
         | lachlan_gray wrote:
         | I was super obsessed with this for a while! When you have a
         | string instrument tuned in 4ths, there are 2D patterns that
         | emerge which you can use to "derive" or "extrapolate" what a
         | scale shape/pattern will look like across the whole neck
         | 
         | Using a 6-string bass as an example:
         | https://bradleyfish.com/the-notes-on-the-6-string-bass-guita...
         | 
         | You can find a 2D pattern in the white notes (green notes in
         | the pic) that you can use to understand how the pattern will
         | extend from a given point. For example notice EF+BC always
         | appear in the same 2x2 box shape. Also how those boxes repeat
         | in a diagonal line, and how boxes are connected vertically by a
         | "strip" of 3 notes ADG
         | 
         | The only difference for guitar is that you have to correct for
         | the G/B strings which are separated by a 3rd instead of a 4th,
         | by scooting the pattern on the B+E strings up by one fret
        
         | derekerdmann wrote:
         | Take a look at _Fretboard Theory_ by Desi Serna - it spends a
         | lot of time on how different scales are constructed and
         | relating different patterns and chord forms back to the
         | underlying concepts.
        
       | jrdres wrote:
       | I don't know enough music to tell if this is insightful, or just
       | neat pattern-matching.
       | 
       | A few months ago, mathematician John Baez had a series on the
       | mathematics of various temperament and keys. Of course he knows
       | his math, but also music thanks to being a member of rather
       | famous musical family. (More math in the second link.)
       | 
       | https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2024/01/11/well-tempera...
       | 
       | https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2023/10/07/pythagorean-...
        
       | giancaIta wrote:
       | Oh that's my cup of tea, love this stuff!
       | 
       | I've created a 3d guitar fretboard here, where the height of the
       | blocks corresponds to the height of the pitches:
       | https://www.fachords.com/guitar-fretboard-3d/
       | 
       | And here are the shapes of the different chord qualities in the
       | Circle Of Fifths: https://www.fachords.com/circle-of-fifths-
       | chord-shape/
        
         | aanet wrote:
         | Thanks - this looks great! I might download / get one of the
         | books!
         | 
         | <3
        
       | aanet wrote:
       | Fantastic resource! Thanks for sharing this. I love both the
       | math, the music, and math&music combo. Tickles my inner geek. <3
       | 
       | I'd love to see if anyone has done this geometric / visualization
       | for Indian classical (specifically, Hindustani) music??
       | 
       | Perhaps there's specific shapes / visualizations in certain Ragas
       | that naturally emanate?
       | 
       | Note that in the Indian classical (Hindustani) music system, the
       | Ragas are a "framework" for melody, not really a mode (as in
       | Western music theory).
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-12-20 23:01 UTC)