rbarata wrote:Hello my friends
New user here.
I have a question regarding "Transpose" function. One of the possibilities is to transpose up or down a minor 4th. As far as I know this doesn't exist. I know it as Maj 3rd or Dim4th.
Is there any reason for the option minor 4th be there?
Thank you
Welcome!
[
NOTE: I have an odd sense of humor, and it is a great question. And while Notion 3 has a few odd behaviors and quirks, it is an amazing program, and you can make stellar music with it, for sure!]
I did an experiment in Notion 3 on the Mac, and I think the reason for there being both a "Minor" and a "Diminished" option in the left-hand column is the way computer programmers tend to think rather than the way everything works in music theory . . .
My university training is in Computer Science, so while this might make no sense to most folks, it makes good sense to me, and I probably would be fine with it if the idea was presented in a software engineering discussion, but so what . . .
So what! The experiment begins with this arpeggio, which I am exploring toward the goal of being able to do Baroque and post-Baroque ornamentation that is even sillier than the stellar ornamentation that Amadeus Mozart devised in the 18th century . . .
[
NOTE: Regarding the key, this is in the key of whatever has no flats and sharps but sounds like a major diatonic scale when it starts on A, which probably makes it one of the seven modes where all the white keys on a grand piano or keyboard synthesizer sound good when I play electric guitar stuff in what I think is the key of A but might be virtually any key for all I know, which is pretty strange, but it works for me, especially since I find the black keys on a grand piano to be quite annoying and difficult to play most of the time. For reference, the treble and bass clefs have a big "C" on them, which probably indicates something, perhaps being an abbreviation of "Cool", "Cute", or more likely "Crazy" . . . ]
Original Arpeggio
Original Arpeggio ~ Transposed Upward by a Minor Fourth
Original Arpeggio ~ Transposed Upward by a Diminished FourthAs best as I can determine, transposing upward in the same octave by a minor fourth moves the notes upward by four semitones or half-steps, which makes a lot of sense when you avoid thinking about it too much . . .
{A, A♯, B, C, C♯, D, D♯, E, F, F♯, G, G♯}
{A, B♭, B, C, D♭, D, E♭, F, G♭, G, A♭}
But when the notes are transposed upward in the same octave by a diminished fourth, this causes the notes to move upward by three semitones or half-steps, which tends to suggest that "minor" maps to a change of one semitone or half-step, while "diminished" maps to a changed of two semitones or a whole-step, which also makes a lot of sense when you avoid thinking about it too much . . .
I did a few more experiments, and it appears that for a fourth, the result of using any of these {Minor, Major, Perfect} is the same, so the distinction occurs when one specifies "Diminished" . . .
For me, this is neither confusing nor troublesome, because while I am generally proficient to a reasonable extent with music notation, I check everything "by ear", and if something does not sound right, then I adjust it until it sounds right . . .
From a programming perspective, my best guess at present is that Notion 3 probably is programmed primarily in C++ where a lot of the work is done in classes, and one of the things that C++ programmers tend to do is to focus more on getting everything to work in a general sense, since when nearly everything is done with C++ classes it tends to be very interdependent in the sense of tweaking something in one class causing cascading behavioral changes in other classes, which can be extraordinarily confusing to troubleshoot, which has the general consequence that when something is working correctly even though from a different perspective it might not make a lot of sense, then it is better to leave it alone rather than to try to "fix it" . . .
In other words, if you select "Minor" for a fourth, which makes no sense in formal music theory, the result is correct, as it is when you select "Perfect" and "Major", which for all I know also make no sense or perhaps a tiny bit of sense for a fourth . . .
Yet, when you select "Diminished" for a fourth, it also works correctly, and it actually makes sense in formal music theory . . .
Hence, the practical C++ programmer perspectives are (a) that it works correctly and (b) that it is likely to be a bit puzzling only to the handful of people who actually understand formal music theory, so who cares, since the fact of the matter is that there are oodles more people in the world who play "by ear" than there are people in the world who actually understand formal music theory, and it works very nicely for both groups of people, where the most important aspect is that while it might be a tiny bit non-standard in some respects, it is both accurate and correct in terms of what actually happens, which is fabulous . . .
Fabulous! P. S. C++ programmers are a bit strange in some respects, but they are able to do amazing things, and once you understand the way they relate to everything, it is easier to make sense of things like this . . .
On an oddly related note, one of the first significant epiphanies one has when studying Computer Science occurs sometime during the first course on Digital Logic, where the primary focus is on Boolean Algebra, which makes it abundantly clear that there are two types of OR operators, where one is inclusive and the other is mutually exclusive with respect to what technically is called a "truth table" . . .
So, when there are two choices and if either one or both of the choices are TRUE, then the result is TRUE, this is an "inclusive OR" or simply an "OR", but when only one or the other but not both being TRUE maps to the result being TRUE, this is a "mutually exclusive OR" or simply an "XOR" . . .
And once you understand this, the epiphany occurs when you are ordering a meal at McDonalds and the order-taker inevitably asks the question, "Is this for here OR to go?" and you reply, "YES", because it is a stupid question, since the
only logical answer is "YES" . . .
[
NOTE: It can take a while to understand why the only logical answer is "YES", but this is the way it works in Boolean Logic. Basically, (a) you ordered food and (b) there are a grand total of three places in the known universe where you can enjoy it {here, somewhere else, here and somewhere else}, so the other possible answers {NO, DON'T CARE} either make no sense (which is case for "NO") or little sense (which is the case for "DON'T CARE") . . . ]
Then, the order-taker quickly realizes that it was a stupid question or more likely quite mistakenly presumes that you are stupid and then rephrases the question to "Is this to go?", at which point you have options but might not be able to answer the question fully, since for example you might be planning to eat some of the meal inside the restaurant but also are planning to enjoy some of the food later, in which case part of it is "for here" but other parts are "to go", in which case the preferred strategy is to reply, "YES AND NO" or possibly "I DON"T CARE", followed by asking for a sack, since you already correctly answered the "for here OR to go" question, and it is becoming quite obvious that the overall level of confusion is increasing rather than decreasing, hence requesting that the question be rephrased as "for here AND to go" is a bit much, really . . .
Really! :)
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:03 am
It's pretty much a theoretical thing and in certain keys transposing a "maj 3rd" or a "Dmin4th" wouldn't give you the same written results as a minor 4th.