Steve Haflich wrote: > -snip-
> Start with the interval of a unison. "Unison" derives from the number > 1. But two notes that are a unison have a zero interval (distance) > between them. > > Adjacent diatonic scale steps have a distance on 1, but we call that > interval a "second". > -snip- I reply: If anything, what's wrong is the word "interval" which might suggest distance to some. The number assigned to an interval isn't supposed to be determined by measurement or substraction but rather represent the place of the upper note in the major scale of the bottom note. Over the years, I've had some rather heated discussions on the related subject of whether one ought to think of a triad as a M3 plus a m3 (e.g., C to E and then E to G), or consider it as Root, M3, and P5. While everyone would agree that both are true and useful things to know, I find the former only a shortcut while the latter reflects the way music and music theory really work. Given my opinion above, naming intervals by the distance between two notes would remove a very necessary part of the thinking that goes into understanding music theory. I can see, however, that someone who thinks primarily of the distance between notes might find that approach to identifying intervals more practical. Just my opinion, your mileage may vary. -S- _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
