Where to learn Theory for beginners

ah see there I am thinking that it was more complicatd than it was ,your showing me the name of the intervals if the note had that many intervals (1,2,3,-12),between them like in the c scale if we take C -G ITS A fifth note . just a different way to see it from the circle of fifths

however you dont name a chord according to the interval name do you

I am thinking about minor seventh there is 10 spaces beteen the 1st & 2nd note but i dont know of any chord that has that many intervals

Do we use that chart for naming a the chords ?
Yeah, sorry about that confusion. It was the only way I could think of to line them up over each other.

All chords are defined(named) by how the intervals are aligned within them, and any notes that are added, flatted, or sharped. That being said, it has practically nothing to do with how you play a chord on the guitar. Remember, you asked about theory, not practicality. :lol: What I mean is the notes may not neccesarily be in ORDER from low to high as they are defined by their intervals.

Take this chord for example:
e|---0--- Note: E (1)
B|---0--- Note: B (5)
G|---1--- Note: G# (3)
D|---0--- Note: D (b7)
A|---2--- Note: B (5)
E|---0--- Note: E (1)

This correct, but it can also be played this way:
e|---0--- Note: E (1)
B|---3--- Note: D (b7)
G|---1--- Note: G# (3)
D|---2--- Note: E (1)
A|---2--- Note: B (5)
E|---0--- Note: E (1)

Or even like this:
e|---0--- Note: E (1)
B|---3--- Note: D (b7)
G|---1--- Note: G# (3)
D|---0--- Note: D (b7)
A|---2--- Note: B (5)
E|---0--- Note: E (1)

Note that the notes in any of these forms may not SEEM to apply to the rules of intervals, but they do. You have the Major, minor, and minor 7th relationships in each of them. You can see this relationship more clearly if you disect the chord, and align the notes in order from the root.

Notes in order from the root are:
E, G#, B, and D

E to G# = Major third
G# to B = minor third
E to D = minor 7th

It is these interval relationships that define a Major Dominant 7th chord. The example above is the EMajor Dominant 7th chord, but any chord with these interval relationships will be a Major Dominant 7th chord. (Commonly called a 7th chord.)

Now that you know this, you can imagine that you could play these same notes together anywhere on the fretbord you choose, and still make an EMajor dominant 7th chord.

Like this one for example:
e|---7--- Note: B (5)
B|---9--- Note: G# (3)
G|---7--- Note: D (b7)
D|---9--- Note: B (5)
A|---7--- Note: E (1)
E|---7--- Note: B (5) (Optionally: E|---0--- Note: E (1)

Notice that these are the same notes, so have the same interval relationships, but are played in a different order, and still make the same chord.

Again, in order to understand these relationships (IMHO) you need to think in terms of the Chromatic rather than Diatonic scales. The Diatonic is just one scale, there are many more, and they all relate back to the Chromatic scale, and the intervals as defined by it.

In my opinion, trying to understand music theory from the Diatonic scale is sort of like building a pyramid upside down, there is no foundation. You need to build a foundation first. The foundation of western music is the Chromatic scale and the intervals it defines. Everything else stems from there.

Learn your intervals, intervals will set you free.

In my opinion, trying to understand music theory from the Diatonic scale is sort of like building a pyramid upside down, there is no foundation. You need to build a foundation first. The foundation of western music is the Chromatic scale and the intervals it defines. Everything else stems from there.

A lot of good info in your posts there, Ken. I must say though, that I don't share your enthusiasm for using the chromatic scale as the basis for understanding the diatonic note system. It's partly personal preference, but, for me, the chromatic scale's lack of different sized intervals renders it characterless and lacking in the necessary psychological associations that notes of the diatonic scales provide. I mean, the WWHWWWH arrangement is far more meaningful than HHHHHH etc.

I'm also reluctant to describe the major or minor scale as a subset of the chromatic scale. Of course, it's a valid view point, but it gives the misleading impression that major and minor scales were derived from the chromatic scale, when, in fact, the opposite is true - the chromatic scale is derived from the diatonic scales.

Also, even if you do use the chromatic scale as the basis for understanding theory, you still have to use the standard terminology, which is based on the diatonic scale system. A fourth, for example, is defined as an interval that encompasses four diatonic scale degrees degrees - not 6 chromatic scale degrees. And a C major chord is widely known as comprising notes 1, 3 & 5 of the C major scale, not 1 5 8 of the chromatic scale. It makes more sense to relate those to the diatonic scale, specifically the major scale.

A final reservation I have is that it would be necessary to ensure that only the harmonic form of the chromatic scale, with its correctly named notes, is used at all times and not the melodic form, which would completely obscure the tonality by naming sharp and flat notes according to whatever is the most convenient way of notating them.

I'm not disputing anything you've said. Just that I prefer to relate diatonic music to diatonic scales, with reference to the chromatic scale where necessary. Chromatic music though, that's a different thing and that's where the chromatic scale really holds its own.

It's nice that we can disagree so politely. :lol: I believe that what you say is mostly true, but....
A lot of good info in your posts there, Ken. I must say though, that I don't share your enthusiasm for using the chromatic scale as the basis for understanding the diatonic note system. It's partly personal preference, but, for me, the chromatic scale's lack of different sized intervals renders it characterless and lacking in the necessary psychological associations that notes of the diatonic scales provide. I mean, the WWHWWWH arrangement is far more meaningful than HHHHHH etc.

I'm also reluctant to describe the major or minor scale as a subset of the chromatic scale. Of course, it's a valid view point, but it gives the misleading impression that major and minor scales were derived from the chromatic scale, when, in fact, the opposite is true - the chromatic scale is derived from the diatonic scales.
I think you may be correct regarding which came first, the chicken or the egg, although it shouldn't be an issue. The fact is that intervals relate to the Chromatic scale, and none other. I also don't understand your reluctance at describing a Diatonic scale as a subset of the Chromatic. How could it possibly anything else. When one speaks of tones and semi tones, or Whole notes and half notes, what you are really describing are minor second and Major second intervals. So that WWHWWWH pattern could actually read MMmMMMm.
Also, even if you do use the chromatic scale as the basis for understanding theory, you still have to use the standard terminology, which is based on the diatonic scale system. A fourth, for example, is defined as an interval that encompasses four diatonic scale degrees degrees - not 6 chromatic scale degrees. And a C major chord is widely known as comprising notes 1, 3 & 5 of the C major scale, not 1 5 8 of the chromatic scale. It makes more sense to relate those to the diatonic scale, specifically the major scale.
Yes, a Perfect fourth is the interval defined as being between the fifth and sixth note of the Chromatic scale. By the same token, a Perfect fifth is the interval between the seventh and eighth notes of the Chromatic. (No wonder so many song use the I, IV, V chord structure, it's Perfect.) :lol: However, they are still defined and named by the standard intervals of the Chromatic scale.
1) minor second
2) Major second
3) minor third
4) Major third
5) Perfect fourth
6) Tritone (if the interval seems to describe a 5th - DIM5
if the interval seems to describe a 4th - AUG4)
7) Perfect fifth
8) minor sixth
9) Major sixth
10) minor seventh
11) Major seventh
12) octave

As far as the 1,3,5 thing goes, I agree that is the Diatonic description of a Major triad. But I'm afraid I only see it as simply a clever Diatonic memory trick. In actuality a Major triad is defined as having a Major interval between the first and second note, and a minor third interval between the second and third notes.

Some other chords structures are defined as follows;
a minor triad has a minor third between between first and second notes, and a Major third between second and third notes.
a diminished triad has a minor third between first and and a minor third between second and third notes.
an augmented triad has Major thirds between first and second notes, and a Major third between second and third notes. Of course beyond this you can either stack thirds, or flatten/sharpen notes. Now how could you flatten a note in the Diatonic scale if it didn't exist in the Chromatic.

(I'm not really sure how you describe these basic chords in Diatonic terminology. 1,3,5 I guess, but isn't that a little misleading? Also, I noticed earlir that you talked about adding a Major 7th. How can you make sense of that without the referring to the intervals of the Chromatic scale?
A final reservation I have is that it would be necessary to ensure that only the harmonic form of the chromatic scale, with its correctly named notes, is used at all times and not the melodic form, which would completely obscure the tonality by naming sharp and flat notes according to whatever is the most convenient way of notating them.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. I believe notes ARE pretty much named in the most convenient way. A particular note designation, say G, must exist, and can only exist once in a Diatonic scale. It becomes G# or Gb depending upon the INTERVAL required to place the G in that position of the Diatonic scale.

The E Major scale for example. E F# G# A B C# D# E
From E to F is a minor second, but what is required is a Major second, hence it must be F#. It cannot be Gb because the scale requires an F, and so on.
I'm not disputing anything you've said. Just that I prefer to relate diatonic music to diatonic scales, with reference to the chromatic scale where necessary. Chromatic music though, that's a different thing and that's where the chromatic scale really holds its own.
I never intended to describe Chromatic music, and I agree that music utilizing the Diatonic scale should be related to that scale. My original intent was simply to clarify the intervals that were being used to describe things. Without an understanding of why a Major third is called a Major third , or a Major 7th is called a Major 7th, there is little basis for understanding.

Actually Tucker, the diatonic scales aren't subsets of the chromatic scale - they're parents of the chromatic. And intervals developed in relation to diatonic scales long before chromaticism was even known.

If we go back 1000 or more years, we had only seven tones, the ones with letter names.

You might be aware that four of the modes predate the major scale in Western music - the Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, and Mixolydian. Composers noticed that sometimes when a melody was in Lydian, the singers didn't get one note right - they sang it flat. Eventually some composers started indicating this discrepancy in the scores... since only letter names were used, F Lydian was the only Lydian scale available, and the note in question was B.

Notes weren't in their modern form yet; they were written as neumes, roughly square/oblong shapes. Composers indicated the flat by rounding the note, calling it 'round B' (B rotundum). B Natural was 'square B' (B quadratum). Our flat sign actually developed from the way they'd write out the round B in score notations.

Some years later, sharps appeared with the same general logic applied to the Mixolydian scale - F# appeared first.

It took about 600 years for all of the flats and sharps of the chromatic scale to be developed - they came one by one in response to harmonic challenges that arose as polyphonic music developed.

Since the diatonic scales predate the chromatic scale by many centuries, it's not properly a 'subset' even though it looks like one today. In fact, the chromatic scale is a combination of all the diatonic scales - it's a 'superset' of diatonic music.

Our understanding of intervals also predates the development of the chromatic tones, beginning with the development of organum in about the 9th century. All of the common interval names today are in relation to the major scale, rather than the chromatic.

That's inconvenient for composers working in atonal music, which doesn't rely on chromatic scales... and couldn't care less about the diatonic differences between a minor third and an augmented second. So some modern composers use 'pitch class' to describe relationships between tones, and they base those relationships on chromatic tones.

But even in using pitch classes, the tones aren't really related to the chromatic scale... because there are two chromatic scales (one using sharps, the other flats). Pitch classes avoid any possible confusion by numbering pitches - so it's really based on chromatic tones rather than chromatic scales.

:)

It's nice that we can disagree so politely. :lol: I believe that what you say is mostly true, but....

Thanks for your lengthy response, Ken - with some more interesting points. Yes, politeness is a keyword around here. It's the ideal background for learning and sharing knowledge - a fact that's not yet been discovered in many other forums. :D

I see NoteBoat has summed up nicely my reluctance to regard the diatonic scale as a subset of the chromatic scale, which saves me a bit of typing. Of course it works out perfectly well when viewed that way, but just as you regard the 1 3 5 method of describing major chords as a diatonic trick, I think of calling the diatonic scale a subset as a chromatic trick. (A handy one, I'll admit)

Speaking of the 1 3 5 thing. Yes, chords developed by continually adding major and minor thirds. Regarding a ninth chord, for example, as 1 3 5 b7 9 of the major scale may be a diatonic trick, but it's a pretty essential one. Look at the alternative way that you used to describe triads. A ninth chord would be a major 3rd plus a minor 3rd plus a minor 3rd plus a major 3rd. That is one unwieldy definition! I suppose you could employ a shorthand label as M3 m3 m3 M3 - but, that is still nowhere near as meaningful as 1 3 5 b7 9.

That brings me to a part that has confused me.

Yes, a Perfect fourth is the interval defined as being between the fifth and sixth note of the Chromatic scale. By the same token, a Perfect fifth is the interval between the seventh and eighth notes of the Chromatic.

I'm afraid I don't understand that at all. Are we talking about two completely different things here? It looks like you're describing semitones, not 5ths and 4ths.

You ask how could I talk about the major 7th without reference to the chromatic scale. Easy - It's the distance between the first and seventh degrees of the major scale - and the minor seventh is the distance between the fifth and (upper) fourth degrees. That's how they were thought of long before the chromatic scale came along.

I agree that an understanding of why a major third, for example, is called a major third is essential to a deeper understanding of the workings of music - but I don't see what that has to do with the chromatic scale. It's called a third because it encompasses three diatonic scale degrees and it's called major because it's larger than the other third that also encompasses three diatonic scale degrees, i.e., the minor third.

If I want to compare the two 3rds to see how the major is larger, and by how much, then I can refer to the chromatic scale, which reveals that it's exactly one chromatic semitone larger. That's why I said in my previous post that I always think first in diatonic terms because IMO, they are far more meaningful, but refer to the chromatic scale where convenient or necessary.

Well, you learn something new everyday, hopefully. :D

As I said earlier, I have no doubt which came first, and that is relavent when talking about the history of music. However, my point was only that there is now a complete list of western notes (Chromatic) and that all standard intervals are defined within the Chromatic, regardless of how or where they originated. So, if I want to refer to an interval, that's where I go to get the name of the interval. Maybe that's my little trick?

Anyway, the way I think of it is, if you have a complete list, then a shorter list consisting of parts of the larger, then it's a subset of the larger list (Diatonic, diminished scales, pentatonic scales, etc...) It may not be historically acurate, but it works for me. That's probably because I had difficulty understanding most of this until I put it in context of the Chromatic scale.

Everything you're saying now makes perfect sense to me now.

Thanks guys.

i read this thread nearly every second day and never realised i never thanked all of you guys Fretsource,tucker,NoteBoat,hbriem, Misanthrope
and all the rest that i may have missed out a belated thank you

OOPS sorry kingpatzer thankyou 2

Cheers Frank. Always glad to help if I can - and learn if I can't. :D

However, my point was only that there is now a complete list of western notes (Chromatic) and that all standard intervals are defined within the Chromatic, regardless of how or where they originated.

Present? Yes. Defined? No.

Pick a typical interval "The Major 3rd" It is defined as the "span" between the root and 3rd of the major scale. That's the definition you'll find in any standard music theory text. It's WHY it's a 3rd, and not a 5th (the distance from the root to the 5th chromatic tone).

"Minor third" you'll find defined as an alteration to the major interval, or occasionally, in terms of the inverse interval.

Intervals are defined, and have been defined for centuries, by counting the notes -- root, 2nd, 3rd, etc.

Your chart relates a count of half-steps to intervals, but the definition of those intervals comes from the Major scale.

If you know the fifth note of the major scale, and you know the scale's root, you know the interval of a perfect fifth -- and it's perfect because it's inversion is also within the same major scale.

In contrast there is nothing inherent in a chromatic scale to tell you that an interval is a 2nd or a 3rd or whatever. Nor is there any context to tell you that it should be a major 3rd and not a doubly diminished fourth.

All of that information, and more, is present in the major scale. And it is thus the major scale that defines the intervals. This isn't an esoteric point, it's key to understanding why the intervals are named what they're named.
So, if I want to refer to an interval, that's where I go to get the name of the interval. Maybe that's my little trick?

It may well be. And if that's how you relate to music, that's fine. But the standard parent scale for all western music theory is the major scale.
Anyway, the way I think of it is, if you have a complete list, then a shorter list consisting of parts of the larger, then it's a subset of the larger list (Diatonic, diminished scales, pentatonic scales, etc...) It may not be historically acurate, but it works for me. That's probably because I had difficulty understanding most of this until I put it in context of the Chromatic scale.

Everything you're saying now makes perfect sense to me now.

Thanks guys.

Again, if that's the way you relate to it, it's fine.

But the major scale is not a subset of the chromatic scale.

Instead, the chromatic scale is a superset of all the major scales (as was said up thread).

You can certainly use the chromatic scale effectively to describe theory. But the basis for most terminology in theory as it relates to intervals rests upon the major scale, not the chromatic.

I'am Back

just trying to figure out the minor scales and there chords

how does it work is Am like A # OR b the you go from there TTSTTTS or how does it work :?

I'am Back

just trying to figure out the minor scales and there chords

how does it work is Am like A # OR b the you go from there TTSTTTS or how does it work :?

Unlike the major scale which has a single form, there are three different forms of the minor scale: natural, harmonic and melodic.
In the case of A minor, that gives you:

A natural minor: A B C D E F G
A harmonic minor: A B C D E F G# (7th degree is raised a semitone)
A melodic minor: A B C D E F# G# (6th & 7th degrees are raised a semitone)

The natural form has exactly the same notes as the major scale that starts 3 notes higher, in this case C major. A minor and C major are called the relative minor and major of each other.

I'd get to grips with the different forms first before worrying about the chords.

Sorry to go back to Modes again, I just read through most of this whole topic, great explanations, really helping me get my head around it all, but just wondering about modes...

Do all major scales come from the C major scale (well actually the original Ionian scale) which was kept from its original use before sharps and flats?

So when sharps and flats were added, C (Ionian) sounded good and made a good chord progression and therefore became the basis of major chord (being called major because analysing it with the minor that also came from the modes in the same way, the differences between the 1st and 2nd notes were larger for the major scale) using the difference between the notes ie FFHFFFH from the new chromatic scale with all the sharps and flats?

Hope I explained well enough,

Cheers
Tiffer

Sorry to go back to Modes again, I just read through most of this whole topic, great explanations, really helping me get my head around it all, but just wondering about modes...

Do all major scales come from the C major scale (well actually the original Ionian scale) which was kept from its original use before sharps and flats?

Yes - that's right.
So when sharps and flats were added, C (Ionian) sounded good and made a good chord progression and therefore became the basis of major chord (being called major because analysing it with the minor that also came from the modes in the same way, the differences between the 1st and 2nd notes were larger for the major scale) using the difference between the notes ie FFHFFFH from the new chromatic scale with all the sharps and flats?

Kind of... adding sharps and flats didn't so much make C Ionian have better chord progressions, as create (gradually) a whole family of new Ionians, such as G ionian, F Ionian, etc. which resulted in the modern major/minor key system and the name Ionian mode was dropped in favour of major scale (or major mode). Even before sharps and flats became common practice, C ionian (the only Ionian) was better than all the other modes at making good chord progressions.

Yes - the words major and minor originally refer to the difference between the first and third (not second) degrees of the major and minor scales.

Ah cool, cheers very much

Even before sharps and flats became common practice, C ionian (the only Ionian) was better than all the other modes at making good chord progressions.

So is that how sharps and flats came about? because if C has better chord progressions before sharps and flats then there is obviously some notes inbetween being ignored that are making it sound better, cos surely the difference other than what note they start on is just the same so using the I, III, V would be the same for each of the old scales

Cheers
Tiffer

EDIT: this is probably rubbish but maybe this would help me, was their a structure back then, like for a "major" chord, as in I III V, or just experiments that sounded more pleasing, did this make C better, or is it while coming up with a structure something was decided about adding the sharps and flats. I keep getting more questions as I think about it that im not sure will be that important, I should have listened to the warnings of modes