| ▲ | taco_emoji 3 hours ago | |||||||
There is no "objective" foundation to music. Mapping twelve letters onto a piano keyboard would then look something like this:
Which means an A major scale in this notation would be ACEFHJLA, which is actually less intuitive than understanding the circle of fifths etc. and arriving at ABC#DEF#G#A (to use this universe's notation) | ||||||||
| ▲ | Groxx 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
To +1 the "no objective foundation": browse music theory research a bit! There's a ton of caveats and poor-sounding fits and whatnot for literally every approach, and there's endless discussion of it. E.g. have a MinutePhysics take on how the common 12 note western scale falls apart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hqm0dYKUx4 And that's before even getting into completely alternate approaches, or how strongly harmonics affect perception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAgXpCK_4gA or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ8qZCGg4Bk (maybe to clarify: there are objective aspects, in that sound is measurable. but there is nothing like a "grand unified theory" that covers all music, nor are roughly any of the popular ones internally consistent - it's far, far too varied for that, and physics often doesn't allow the desired consistency, causing more variety) | ||||||||
| ▲ | newpavlov 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
>There is no "objective" foundation to music. Well, there is a number of "objective" factors which play a significant role. For example, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCsl6ZcY9ag | ||||||||
| ▲ | functionmouse 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
In your traditional system, if you want to play something a step up, you have to actually think about it; which notes will now become sharps, which won't, etc. In my system (A though L, or more simply, 1 through 12), you simply add 2 to each note. It's easier to work about and isn't as rigidly defined by the culture it came from. | ||||||||
| ||||||||