Major and Minor Scales

[Megan]

Did composers of early music use major and minor scales, and when did they come into use?

.

[Peter]

No they used Modal scales. Major/minor tonality didn't come into general practice until the end of the 17th century.

[Ed C]

Speaking of major/minor, recently a scientist (student?) has been experimenting with altering classical pieces in order to generate different "feelings". The cliche of course, is that minor is "sad" and major is "happy", but this fellow used I think about 6 or 7 other criteria (tempo, key, harmonic complexity, pitch register, articlulation, loudness, etc..) to create happy, angry, sad and tender versions of Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 20, Op. 49 No. 2 in G Major.

His site is no longer active but I wrote a little bit about his article (in a much simplified manner):

3/16 Designing Musical Emotions.

I guess he was working on some kind of program where it could create these "alternate feeling" versions of classical works using some kind of filter method.

Abomination against music - or the magic of technology?

[Peter]

Speaking of major/minor, recently a scientist (student?) has been experimenting with altering classical pieces in order to generate different "feelings". The cliche of course, is that minor is "sad" and major is "happy", but this fellow used I think about 6 or 7 other criteria (tempo, key, harmonic complexity, pitch register, articlulation, loudness, etc..) to create happy, angry, sad and tender versions of Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 20, Op. 49 No. 2 in G Major.

His site is no longer active but I wrote a little bit about his article (in a much simplified manner):

3/16 Designing Musical Emotions.

I guess he was working on some kind of program where it could create these "alternate feeling" versions of classical works using some kind of filter method.

Abomination against music - or the magic of technology?

Yes key contrast in programming is also very important - I remember a recital some years ago where every piece was in the minor key; the effect was tedious despite the fine playing. I'm not sure of the point of a scientist altering a piece in every conceivable way, what does that prove when you can simply select different pieces?

[Ed C]

I'm not sure of the point of a scientist altering a piece in every conceivable way, what does that prove when you can simply select different pieces?

Good point! My guess is he needed a graduate thesis subject

One other thing that I found interesting was his distinction between 2 kinds of emotional element:

"...perceived, and induced. Perceived emotion is the emotion you think a person or stimuli is expressing/feeling, while induced emotion is that felt by you after viewing the stimulus. For example, when viewing a photograph of someone with an angry facial expression, you perceive the emotion of the person to be anger, but what emotion is induced in you as a result of viewing the photograph could be a variety of emotions (e.g., fear, anger, laughter). "

[Chris]

I'm not sure of the point of a scientist altering a piece in every conceivable way, what does that prove when you can simply select different pieces?

That doesn't sound like a very controlled experiment. By choosing different pieces, you would be introducing other difference which could affect the thing you are studying. Though altering a piece in this manner would have its own set of problems.

[Peter]

Good point! My guess is he needed a graduate thesis subject

One other thing that I found interesting was his distinction between 2 kinds of emotional element:

"...perceived, and induced. Perceived emotion is the emotion you think a person or stimuli is expressing/feeling, while induced emotion is that felt by you after viewing the stimulus. For example, when viewing a photograph of someone with an angry facial expression, you perceive the emotion of the person to be anger, but what emotion is induced in you as a result of viewing the photograph could be a variety of emotions (e.g., fear, anger, laughter). "

Yes it reminds me of Oscar Wilde - 'You have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the death of little Nell'!

[Sorrano]

This looks like an appropriate thread to post this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0325102008.htm

That will give a new spin on scales.....

[Peter]

This looks like an appropriate thread to post this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0325102008.htm

That will give a new spin on scales.....

Interesting but I don't understand it!

[Chris]

Interesting but I don't understand it!

Neither do I. They don't explain how they take a series of notes and put it into a two or three dimensional coordinate system, which is kind of important information if we're supposed to be impressed by the shapes they are pulling out of it.

[Sorrano]

This concept is based upon the Euler lattice model of coordination, so a better understanding of how that works would probably help. The interest the article had for me is the commonality between the synthetic scales and the Western traditional scales. Of course, the octave is common in each of these scales and probably has a lot to do with the overall commonality. I imagine that the different tunings of the same scales has little effect on the overall shape. Have any composers explored altered tuning systems, scales, etc., that are not octave based? That would go against the natural harmonics, but it could provide some interesting music.

[Peter]

This concept is based upon the Euler lattice model of coordination, so a better understanding of how that works would probably help. The interest the article had for me is the commonality between the synthetic scales and the Western traditional scales. Of course, the octave is common in each of these scales and probably has a lot to do with the overall commonality. I imagine that the different tunings of the same scales has little effect on the overall shape. Have any composers explored altered tuning systems, scales, etc., that are not octave based? That would go against the natural harmonics, but it could provide some interesting music.

Science was never my strong point! Presumably the Pentatonic scale is an example of what you mean?

[Sorrano]

No, that is octave based, as well. It's probably not a very feasible idea, but I don't think it's impossible. It would require retuning everything and throwing out all the rules of harmonics. But I think it would create some interesting sounds and possibilities.

[The Dude]

Sounds and "possibilities" shouldn't necessarily be confused with music. Bodily functions make a "sound" but is that music? A car's brakes screeching - and that would be tonal - is a "sound', but it isn't music. When music leaves the realm of the truly human, and identification with the human spirit and emotion, and becomes a mere function of the intellect, or mechanics, most people want to part company with it. In Texas we can listen to bleating cattle - and if I was a really, really cynical human being (who wanted attention) I could record that onto a computer, add the sounds, say, of nails being driven into a piece of wood, or bathwater being thrown over the dog - put it all together and call that "art". Some clown would come along and say, 'man, you've really got something there'. But I know Stephen Colbert would be waiting to rubbish me and I'd deserve it!

[Sorrano]

And what is the "realm of the truly human"? And what is music? Any "traditional" composition can be reduced to mathematics. Does that, then, remove it from that realm? Music is all about possibilities and sounds. Without that there would be no music. The idea of creating music that is beyond the realm of human experience does not appeal to people who are confined within their comfort zones. Those who are willing and can escape those confines have a limitless approach to music and what it is.