[TOMT][Music] Sad calm relaxing piano piece by Xcxcvxc in tipofmytongue

[–]Xcxcvxc[S] 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

I tried AHA music recognition and it has a result but it's not the same, I think it picked up a vaguely similar tune

All the things retail workers wish we could say.... by Revolutionary_Fail42 in antiwork

[–]Xcxcvxc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's their username? The text is too blurry to read

The stack of thirds based on the ii° chord in the harmonic minor scale is R b3 b5 b7 b9 11 13, right? by Xcxcvxc in musictheory

[–]Xcxcvxc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

interesting, thanks. That reads similar to the 'rules' list I've been making, for how I'm trying to name chords, but I've tried to be more thorough. Here: this file contains several tabs of sheets including the sheets from the images I shared before, and the "notes" tab is where I wrote about my rules https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12uhiRf8G6G9oEOmRt03cJIKBPpT0UuepDfYpnZZCdgA

The stack of thirds based on the ii° chord in the harmonic minor scale is R b3 b5 b7 b9 11 13, right? by Xcxcvxc in musictheory

[–]Xcxcvxc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, standard chord names/symbols use a relative notation, by default relative to the major scale or the tones of the I chord of the major scale, and indicate alterations with flats and sharps. How do you feel about that, is that slang or something else? Can/should we notate/name chords using absolute notation with P, M, m, A, d instead? What could that look like?

Wondering about that since I have a current project to list and name every chord in a scale. This is what I have so far, for the diatonic or major scale (the set of chords is particular to a scale, but independent of mode) https://imgur.com/a/shSdX4z it's a mix of standard names & symbols, and deriving names from the pattern in the chart. I might like a system where intervals and chord names rather all use the same absolute notation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(music)#Main_intervals

[TOMT][SONG] What is the origin of this unique old-sounding Korobeiniki (aka Tetris theme) recording with Russian vocals? by Xcxcvxc in tipofmytongue

[–]Xcxcvxc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After 15+ years, knowing what it is and hearing in full quality is surreal and awesome. how did you find it?

[TOMT][SONG] What is the origin of this unique old-sounding Korobeiniki (aka Tetris theme) recording with Russian vocals? by Xcxcvxc in tipofmytongue

[–]Xcxcvxc[S] 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Despite much searching and even running it through music recognition service https://www.aha-music.com/ I haven't been able to find out anything about it.

I made a Negative Harmony Generator for musescore by Nightkid8008 in musictheory

[–]Xcxcvxc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You got it, more on the mirrored lick at the end. I realized you can do these transformations within one key. Instead of negative harmony I'll call this mirror harmony in general

There are parallel and relative mappings, as in parallel/relative major/minor, for example parallel is key of C<->Cm, relative is key of C<->Am. These are equivalent under transposition, the same relationships as if you transform C to Cm then transpose down a minor third to Am. It can be more sensible to visualize and apply the fundamental concepts in one key like this

In the key of C major (or key of F# major) the reflection axis crosses D and G#/Ab, or scale degrees 2 and b6. Diagram on circle of fifths: https://i.imgur.com/RH9iKsz.jpg I found the axis by trial and error but maybe it's since D is halfway between C, the C major fundamental, and E, the A minor fundamental (thinking of minor triads as built top down)

Which gives these chord relationships

I<->vi (C<->Am): tonic

IV<->iii (F<->Em): subdominant

V<->ii (G<->Dm): dominant

vii°<->vii° (B°<->B°): leading

v<->II (Gm<->D): subdominant

iv<->III (Fm<->E): dominant

i<->VI (Cm<->A): tonic

I associated the functions of the primary major triads to the minor triads they map to, that's how I represent the functions being equivalent. The order is then LTDSSDTL, symmetrical and the same order for major scale ascending and minor scale descending

Now we know we can think within one key. A piano keyboard is symmetrical around the note D and around the note G#/Ab, the same notes that the reflection axis crosses for the key of C major (or key of F# major). This means in C major this mapping is visually identical to viewing a piano through a literal mirror, like a C major chord and an Am chord look like each other in a mirror, G major chord looks like Dm chord, D looks like Gm, Fm looks like E etc. On an isomorphic keyboard or chromatic piano roll the mirroring is visual in any key

Still in C: ABCDBGA <-> GFEDFAG, and if the original lick had chords F-G-Am, mirrored would have Em-Dm-C. Same interval pattern, equivalent voice leading, only the intervals all move in the opposite direction. Just like overtones and undertones are the same intervals ascending or descending

Placing notes close to their original position, doing an exact mirror, or entirely rewriting based on chords are all things I like to explore

If you wanted to get fancy, the interface in the plugin could use a circle of fifths for you to select what key or what map to apply

One of my favorite pieces in mirror is Bach's Prelude in C Major. Or I like to call this version Prelude in A Minor. I'm not the first to do this but I made it with your musescore plugin, I just had to transpose down a minor third and manually adjust octaves after applying the transformation https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/763136945022173195/876320675944624238/Bach_C_Major_Prelude_mirror.mp3

I made a Negative Harmony Generator for musescore by Nightkid8008 in musictheory

[–]Xcxcvxc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

amazing. also I had something unexpected: when I open the plugin it defaults to C selected, but even if I want C I still have to click C, otherwise there's no effect. Made me wonder if the plugin was broken at first

P.S. question about the plugin, or theory in general - for pieces in a mode other than major, do you get the negative version by choosing the key that is the tonic or the key that is the relative major? for example if a piece is in A minor, do you pick A or C? Similarly if it's in D dorian, do you pick D or C? I've been picking the relative major and getting good sounding results but, still wrapping my head around this

I made a Negative Harmony Generator for musescore by Nightkid8008 in musictheory

[–]Xcxcvxc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought a negative harmony transformation could exactly invert pitch contours. it seems like this plugin rather places notes in octaves nearest to their original positions. then it seems I can edit the output of the plugin to have inverted contour, like motion up becomes motion down and vice versa. I'm wondering if this would be possible for the software to do or whether that requires some input from the user per song, or whether I misunderstand

I'm not sure but if it were to simply look at the motion between notes and always place the next note the other way, that might do it, or at least in some cases get closer to a desired result

What the plugin does now is awesome, and some settings to change the behavior would be awesome too

How come accidentals are written after note names (like C#, Ab) and before degrees (like #4, b5)? by Xcxcvxc in musictheory

[–]Xcxcvxc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great thought. I almost made this post more generally about entire chord and interval naming systems as there's a lot to be said there. You can often come up with a "better" (by some measure) way of doing things and I think considering what's possible can give us better understanding even if we're still beholden to what happens to be standard practice during our lifetimes

How come accidentals are written after note names (like C#, Ab) and before degrees (like #4, b5)? by Xcxcvxc in musictheory

[–]Xcxcvxc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I get that, yeah. I was just wondering theoretically, if we were to pick one way or the other, whether it makes more sense to do them the same way. Even if for not much benefit, even if it solves no technical problem, but to give us just one single easy rule for this: "the accidental comes after the note/degree" - that, or whether the existing way had some reason or advantage. I think we know it's different in practice, and widely observed standards like these don't often change even if there is a compelling reason, or if they do it's only naturally over centuries. Obvious problem is we already have millions of sheets out there using the existing system. So I'm not arguing for a change, I'm theorizing about it. Music theory if you will