Yes they exist.

I don't know all of them of the top of my head, but I'll give you the three that come to mind easily.

The first is a fully diminished chord.

Because there are only 12 named notes and a fully diminished chord is made of 4 notes that are a minor 3rd apart from each other (3 semitones) there are only 3 different chords but each can be named 4 different ways.

For example, a C fully diminished chord would consist of the notes C-Eb-Gb-Bbb , a Eb fully diminished chord would consist of the notes Eb-Gb-Bbb-Dbb(C) , a Gb fully diminished chord would consist of the notes Gb-Bbb-Dbb-Fbb(Eb) , and an A (Bbb) fully diminished chord would consist of the notes A(Bbb)-C-Eb-Gb .

The second is an augmented chord and like the fully diminished chord because there are only 12 named notes and

an augmented chord chord is made of 3 notes that are a major 3rd apart from each other (4 semitones) there are only 4 different chords but each can be named 3 different ways.

For example a C augmented chord would consist of the notes C-E-G# , an E augmented chord would consist of the notes E-G#-B#(C) , and a G# augmented chord would consist of the notes G#-B#-Dx(E) .

The third example are 7th and 6th chords.

Some minor 7th chords contain the same notes as 6th chords.

For example a C6 would contain the notes C-E-G-

A and an Am7 would contain the notes A-C-E-G .

In all these examples you name the chord based on the context of the key for example if you are in the key of Db minor

and you see the notes Eb, C, Gb, and Bbb

you would call that a C fully diminished chord because C is the leading tone of Db minor

so it makes the most sense in the key.

Another example is there are polychords and extensions that will contain the same notes.

A very simple example is Eb/C (produced Eb over C) can be represented as an C7#9.

While the notes of each are the same, a polychord refers to a specific idea where there are two distinct perceived chords rather then just one.

I will avoid the debate in the comments about whether "enharmonic" is the correct word.

But yes there are loads of examples of chords with the same notes in them.

Example 1 C D G =

Csus2 G C D = Gsus4 Example 2 A C E G = Am7 C E G A

= C6 Example 3,4

The full diminished and augmented chords where any one of the notes can be considered a root without even changing the type of harmony:

B D F Ab/G# (full diminished) C E ab/G# (augmented) Example in use and conclusion

The best name depends on context,

that is what chord it precedes and follows, more than it does on the inversion used.

The following (rather overused) chord progression I heard recently in a local band's song springs to mind: C Am F G

At the end of the song it went uptempo and the chord progression changed to the following: C6 Am7 F G

But the C6 and Am7 were exactly the SAME CHORD, completely blurred together.

EDIT:

John Lennon's Happy Christmas (War is Over) Just occured to me this is a good example of why you need different names for the same chord.

If we look at the chord progression over the first half of the verse, it's easy even for a non musician to appreciate the symmetry and realise why this song is so popular.

The fast change through chord type (3rd, sus2, sus4 and back to 3rd) combined with the slow change through chord root (A B E A) make this song both energising and soothing at the same time.

A Asus2 Asus4

A Bm Bsus2 Bsus4 Bm E Esus2 Esus4 E A Asus2 Asus4 A

Now, Esus4 and Asus2 contain the same notes.

If I wanted to standardise the name of this chord I could pick Asus2.

Applying this rigorously I get A Asus2 Dsus2

A Bm Bsus2 Esus2 Bm E Esus2 Asus2 E

A Asus2 Dsus2 A

Which is totally confusing and completely misses the point of the chord progression.

There are chords that function in different ways in different contexts.

Take for example the chord C-E-G-A.

This is the tonic chord of the key of C major with an additional note.

It is called an "added-sixth" chord.

It has a very pleasing sound and is often used as an ending chord in jazz and in the music of Olivier Messiaen.

Now play C-E-G-A on your keyboard, but follow it with C-D-F#-A and then B-D-G.

As if by magic the chord has become the first inversion of the ii7 of G major; the "dominant seventh of the dominant seventh".

Same notes, but what was a restful ending chord is now a chord that has to move in order to resolve.

I realize that this is in some sense the dual to what you asked, but here's one of the most famous chords in music history, the Tristan Chord .

150 years after it was first played, still nobody can agree on how to interpret (and thus name) that chord.

Yes, for example the min9 is actually a maj13, 3 semitones away E.G. Gmin9 = BbMaj13 Very useful in jazz when you want to move somewhere other than the predictable (ii-V) patterns, e.g. if G wanted to move to C

it can now instead move to Eb (Bb being the 5th Eb as G is to C).

It's good to know and gives more options.

Question: Will I even encounter any enharmonic chords? For example would an inverted variation of one chord be equivalent to the root variation of another chord?

Are there any enharmonic chords?

Yes, there are many examples of chords that contain the same notes as each other.


It will be beneficial to learn some music theory.

In that way you'll be able to identify repeating patterns (like the II-V-I chord progression).

It is easier to memorize larger chunks, so learning how to identify patterns by e.g. chord function should make it easier.

Someone asked about a good way to remember song lyrics in this thread : Good way to remember lyrics when covering songs?

I shan't repeat everything written there .. if you're playing an instrumental some of the techniques may still help!

I've found that just listening to a song a lot

so it's settled in your head

works very well.

Also there's a kind of quantum jump after listening to a song off and on for a week or so..

maybe it's subjective but for me after several days

it kind of sits more deeply in the mind

and I can get to grips with it more easily.

The other option is to have some cues written on a card, maybe just the structure of the song etc.

That brings me to another point which is to try and visualise the "landscape" of the song - eg

is it verse chorus verse chorus wird bit chorus (repeat to fade haha) .. or something more unusual ?

hope this helps.

My cello teacher suggests this method for memorizing sheet music: 1) memorize the music in your mind, as sound 2) memorize the music as written on the page 3) memorize the physical motions (in my case, bowing and fingerings) 4) merge the three memorizations.

This may not apply directly to lyrics, but it's worth a shot.

What I do is: Compose the song

Play it some times, so to be able to play it without much thinking

write it down

(as tab/notes whatever)

(this helps me if I forget something after some time) Play it again and again on a daily basis.

I think the last part is the most useful of all.

You just have to play the song(s) over and over and over to remember them.

This will take some time, but it will work.

If you have a lot of songs and you get them mixed by mistake when you play, start off by writing them down and then for a few days just play 3-4 of them.

Then for some days play some other songs etc.

Also, it might help to remember a pattern of the song.

Like a small drawing that your fretting hand is doing while playing the song.

This has helped me memorize songs as well

I like to write down my music in tab notation software such like Guitar Pro or Tuxguitar.

Over time the collection of your own stuff will grow, and if you can browse through your songs simply by playing them back, it's a pretty good solution for me.

I've found that using a different notated representation can help.

In particular, sheet music often makes it hard to see the wood for the trees; the amount of detail can obscure larger patterns (repeated or trivially different phrases, elements of form, etc.)

in lyrics, melody and harmony.

The act of actually creating one or more "song maps" at coarser levels of detail helps me to notice these patterns if I haven't already.

Then using them in rehearsal along with the sheet music helps me to remember them afterwards.

I'll see if I can dig up an example of one I've made before and add it later.

Practice.

Not trying to be snarky, that's really just what needs to happen.

Additionally, I find it helpful to try to dispense with sheet music as soon as possible.

Playing songs as quickly as you can (even ones that are meant to be slow) helps force internalization.

But the main thing is practicing.

There's no substitute for that.

Question: I've been googling and, unfortunately, coming up short in search of techniques, methods, systems or just simple tricks for how to memorise songs. I'm currently on a writing spree (I play the guitar and sing over it) and have found that it can be hard to keep everything in order in my head.  So what I'm looking for is any and all tips on how to learn multiple songs, but also how you can efficiently go about learning each of them.

Tricks and techniques for memorising songs

There are a number of option for learning multiple songs. Using cue cards is one.  Writing them down and practicing 3 or 4 of them over a number of days is another. Write down your music in tab notation software such as Guitar Pro or Tuxguitar. In the end,  you just have to play the song(s) over and over and over to remember them.

One way to learn multiple songs will be simply to practise. However, other things that could help include writing down cues or parts of music or learning some music theory.

Learning some musical theory may help solve this problem.

Writing down different cues or parts of music can help you to learn multiple songs.

One way to better remember songs is simply to practise.


In the middle of a song, it's difficult to tell if it's major or minor - at that point, it could be on any chord, major in a minor song, vice versa, and going somewhere else anyway !

Just stick to the last chord in a song to get the question answered.

If recognising one chord in isolation is not easy, you need more exposure to blends.

Get a friend to play and try to feel if it's a major or minor chord.

Experience will help a great deal.

Try to understand the difference between C maj and C min.

C maj and Amin.

Some songs will appear to be minor and end up major.

Is 'Fly me to the Moon' maj/min ?

Can you find the root note?

Start with the root note and sing Doe a Deer.

If "deer" sounds sharp or off then the piece is in minor.

In some degree it is possible to learn by training, but you need to have some chord-capable instrument and be able to get known chords out of it.

Try to compare C versus Cm, E versus Em, A versus

Am etc.

Pick the middle of the sound range, not too high and not too low.

After some practicing it should be possible for you to tell them apart.

Minor chords always sound way more sad and romantic for some reason.

You do not need to identify all individual notes for that, you also do not need to separate between same type of chords (C from C# for instance)

that is much more difficult task.

This might not be the answer if you've never had any interval ear training, but it would be good to add it here.

What I usually try to look for is a V-I drop.

In a lot of songs, it is used to determine the scale.

In some classical pieces, it used somewhere in the beginning of the song.

For instance, if the song is in C harmonic minor, there would be a G - Cm drop.

Whereas, if the song is in C major, there would be a G-C drop.

That would help you understand the scale.

Εxample:

In C major and C harmonic minor scales, the V chord is the same.

It's G-B-D.

So, if I hear a G and then a C/Cm, I would know that the song is in C major or C harmonic minor scale respectively.

@AlexanderTroup, my teacher played a lot of V-

I's on the piano, some where minor and some major.

That was my ear training material.

(There were more chords, not just V-I).

It is quite often seen as: IV-V-I (and in jazz, II-V-I)

But, in some more complex songs, this might not exactly point out the scale.

I'll elaborate on Tim's note from the above answers.

First learn your relative major and minor keys.

These are the major and minor keys that have the same key signature; the relative minor is always a minor third (3 half steps) below its relative major.

Now, look at the key signature.

Which major or minor key are we talking about?

Let's say the key signature has no sharps or flats.

It is therefore either A minor or C major.

Now, look for two things in the first few bars of the piece.

Do they center around an a minor chord or a C major chord?

Also, look for a G# occurring a lot.

This is a raised 7th tone in a minor and is very common.

If you see it, chances are good

you're in A minor.

If you don't, you might still be in A minor, if the music still centers around the A minor chord instead of the C major chord.

Keep in mind that a lot of music bounces back and forth between relative major and minor in the same piece.

It's very easy to set up, and adds interest to the music.

The best example of this that I can come up with off the top of my head is "O Little Town of Bethlehem" (the original American version of the tune, not the vapid Vaughan Williams "adaptation" of a British folk tune which the British inexplicably prefer to use).

The piece is in a major key, but the part that goes "but in thy dark streets shineth the everlasting light" is in the relative minor.

Question: I have a hard time figuring out if a song with a certain key signature is major or minor. I know some sound minor and are and some sound major and are but some sound opposite of what they actually are(major sounds minor and minor sounds major). How can I tell if any song is major or minor?

Hard to tell major from minor

To recognise if a song is in major or minor key, the first thing to do is learn your relative major and minor keys. After some practicing it should be possible for you to tell them apart. Experience is the key here. More practice makes for better recognition.

To tell whether a song is major or minor, the main element will be to simply practise. However, learning your relative major and minor keys will also help. Then, you might want to try starting with the root note and singing "Doe a deer" to help further.

Simple practice will be beneficial in being able to identify whether a song is major or minor.

Starting with the root note and singing "Doe a Deer" could help to identify whether a song is major or minor.

You should start by learning your relative major and minor keys.


Play the manual parts on piano or keyboard while you sing the pedal part (fixed-do solfege can be useful here) and move your feet on an imaginary pedal board.

I have learned relatively easy pieces this way and performed them without having had much time with an actual organ.

Even for a Bach fugue, though, if you can sing the pedal part while playing the hands it will be much easier to add the actual foot action.

Don't know where you live, but here in U.K. the old style of organ (2 manuals, pedals), come along on occasions for little money.

I bought one for £10 sterling, just for the pedalboard (although the 2 12" speakers were a nice bonus).

If you can find room, this is a good option, as pretending won't tell you when you've hit a wrong note.

There may only be one octave of pedals, rather than two, and they'll be parallel, not radial, but that's got to be better than none.

To practise an instrument and improve, every day is the way to go.

Even if it goes in the garage, bedroom, whatever, it's better than the once a week you're doing.

I find that moving my feet as if there were a pedal board, when practicing on a piano, for example, helps.

It engages the learning centre of the brain - not as much as if you had the real thing, but better than not.

Playing the Organ is hard - it will take a long time to get proficiant.

Have you got pedal exercises to do?

working through them will teach your legs different pedaling techniques, and increase your accuracy.

Are there any other churches/organs in the area that you can get some practice at?

Many churches are more than happy to let people practice on the organ.

The cheapest solution.

Take a cardboard.

Draw the keys on it (of the original size).

At least, You can be confident with coordination.

I used this method (however, for hands), when I needed practicing piano pieces written for the grand piano on my upright piano (which doesn't have some keys at the top).

That's enough for studying a piece on the first stages, but anyway You have to practice in the real environment, especially the closer the concert / competition is to take place.

Actually that is sufficient even to become a laureate of the competition, if You really desire (written from my personal experience).

Just a side note: Sergei Rachmaninoff used "silent" keyboard ("немая" клавиатура) during traveling.

The Cardboard Piano : Perkins's "cardboard piano" derives from an incident (...) about the celebrated composer Sergei Rachmaninoff who practiced on a silent piano while crossing the Atlantic.

buy a flexible midi pedal board from china.

It can be folded and you do not need space.

Just spread it on the floor when needed and connect it .

You will need a midi adapter to usb and of course a computer with sound output connected to speakers.

Definately midi software.lots out there.

I would often just picture the foot pedals in my mind and move my feet to an approximate point on the floor.

The mental effort of coordinating the foot movement along with everything else is worth it even if you don't have access to a real foot pedal.

Keep in mind that pedal distances are not the same from one organ to the next even if they're the same type (radial vs parallel)

so the "muscle memory" required is different than for the hands.

Eventually, you should get to a point where you can sit at any organ and spend no more than 5 minutes getting familiar with the foot pedals then you're good to go.

Question: I only get about an hour-and-a-half's access per week to practice on a 'real' organ.   Needless to say, my progress at pedalling is painfully slow.  Are there any ways to practice pedalling without the pedals (I used to practice touch-typing by shutting my eyes and just imaging)? And if not, is there a way to make my practice sessions more productive?

Practicing pedalling without pedals, or maximizing real practice efficiency

Moving your feet as if there were a pedal board, when practicing on a piano may help with organ pedal practice. Alternatively,  buy a flexible midi pedal board from China.

To practise without a real organ, you could move your feet to play imaginary pedals whilst singing the pedal part. Alternatively, you could consider buying a flexible MIDI pedal board from China.

Moving your feet to play imaginary pedals whilst singing the pedal part is considered a good practice technique when you don't have access to a real organ.

You could consider buying a flexible MIDI pedal board from China.


Accidentals override key signatures and previous accidentals.

The circled chord has two G# and and one C# note.

Having "additive" accidentals would make it very hard to read music.

In this excerpt, the next octave chords in the top staff would then be B-flat, then B-doubleflat, and then either G natural (if adding to the previous accidental) or or G double flat (if adding to the key signature)...

The chord played is Amaj7, made up with A C# E and G#.The key sig.

is Db/Bbm.

I guess that the G# is shown instead of a possible Ab, which is technically correct for that chord.

All accidentals over-ride the key sig., for the rest of the bar they're marked in.

Sometimes the author will be helpful and remind the player that a particular accidental is not needed in the next bar by using another accidental,which can get confusing !

Any accidental will show the actual note to be played, not just sharpening a flat, for example.

In that key sig.

,the

Gb is changed to a G# with an accidental.

It doesn't 'sharpen the flat' to make it a G natural.

As has been mentioned in other answers, alterations are not relative, they're absolute.

So a sharp makes the note sharp, regardless of the alteration it had due to the key you're playing in; so if the key states Ab and you suddenly see an accidental sharp on an A, you play A#.

Same goes for the inverse case.

So I just wanted to add that there is a sign to remove an alteration: the natural.

Your example includes the natural sign in the second chord on the treble clef; that one is used to "neutralize" a sharp or flat,

so you play B natural there (which is what you were thinking the sharps did in the first chord).

The key signature is always secondary to any accidentals next to the note.

In the chord you circled you would play a G#, C#, and another G# instead of a Gb, C, and another Gb.

They never cancel each other out

just play what is written.

Accidentals take precedence to any alteration from the signature.

Moreover, they apply until the end of the bar for every pitch.

If there is a G# in a bar, then, until a new accidental or the end of the bar, all the following Gs on the same octave should be played sharp.

The key signature is not overridden.

This is just a chord borrowed from a different key and the accidentals continue until the end of the measure unless otherwise noted.

As noted in the other replies, accidentals are "absolute", with the meaning unfazed by preceding material or key signature.

There is one exception: when "weakening" a previous double accidental (key signature or previous in the bar), the resulting single accidental is often printed combined with an immediately preceding natural sign.

Question: I am wondering how the accidental in the first chord (see what is circled) is played?  Does any accidental simply move the note up or down a half-step from what the note is supposed to be based on the key signature or does it override the key signature all together?  Specifically, is the accidental G# played as a natural G (since G is already a flat in the key signature - thus a half step up) or actually as a G#?

Do accidentals override key signature and previous accidentals?

Accidentals override key signatures and previous accidentals. All accidentals over-ride the key sig., for the rest of the bar they're marked in. The key signature is always secondary to any accidentals next to the note.

Accidentals are absolute and take precedence over any key signature or other alteration. In the example provided, the G would be played as a G#.


For a given instrument (violin, viola, cello, bass is more complicated), the tuning of a fractional size instrument (1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 are commonly seen, 7/8 used to be frequently called "lady's cello") is always the same as the full size instrument.

viola is a bit complicated because professionals have different sizes (15', 16', sometimes 17' for body length, remove about one inch for string length), so that one refers to the body length and string length (the last one being the more important for buying strings).A good rule for chosing one's viola size is : are you able to confortably stop on each string the first tone after the empty string with the index as well as the fifth interval with your little finger ?

(For the A-string : try to stop a B and a E, for the C-string : try to stop a D and a G).

The size matters for the sound, but a lot less than the quality of construction.

A good violin maker will change the internal measurements, the position of the f-holes, to maintain the best body resonance for the intended tuning.

I have played several good 1/2 cellos that sounded a lot better and more powerful than ordinary full size ones.

The only reason to buy a fractional size is the age and body measurements of the player, not the sound.

Also make sure that the player will have time to play and study say two years on this instrument.

This is not about economy, just so that he/she will develop enough is ear and finger skills, so that the transition to a larger one will be really easy.

3/4 means three quarters size as opposed to full size.

The tuning can be the same, but the scale length is different, which means string length and tension (and thickness) are different.

So while you use the same techniques, the finger positioning will vary.

The reason for these different size instruments is the difference in tonal quality.

The resonant frequency of the body will be different between two instruments of different sizes.

Usually the three-quarter or other smaller than standard violins are for younger, smaller children.

A full sized violin would be way too much for a three or four year old to handle.

The bow is appropriately smaller, as well.

The spoken lengths of the strings are obviously in proportion, and a child will have to re-adapt when it grows big enough for the next size violin.

Most adults would, I believe, use a full-size 4/4 violin.

In the bass world, size matters.

Very few players use a full size bass (it's huge), except some orchestral players.

The standard size is ⅞, and ¾ size basses are popular, too.

1/4, 2/4... 4/4 are instrument proportion measurements.

A child will often play in a 1,2 or 3 quarters of original size (4/4).

Normally a professional instrument is a 4/4 size.

The term 4/4 is most used in Schools/Student context.

What changes between them is the string length, and with that the space between fingers to tune properly.

The proportion between instrument size and arm length is important for the hand to have a good ergonomic position and reach naturally the fingers place.

The size of the instrument means also a weight difference.

a 4/4 violin is heavier than a 1/4 violin.

I have seen many colleagues, playing for example viola, having to exercise the upper body so they can compensate the heavy instrument when playing many hours.

Last but not least, the bigger instrument the more resonance body and larger string wave length.

A 1/4 violin will not produce a open string tone as long lasting as a viola (which can be compared with a measure like 5/4 or 6/4 of a violin).

You can see it as a concert piano.

The longer the tail is the better sound you will get.

The tuning is always the same.

The "3/4" fraction of full size is approximate, as a moment's websearching reveals.

Intonation is easier on larger instruments, because less precision is required.

Sound is louder from larger instruments: larger resonating body, more energy imparted to the string.

Tone is better on larger instruments, because a longer string's harmonics align more closely to its fundamental frequency.

(That's why a piano is tuned in "stretched" octaves: its ideal bass strings would have to be dozens of feet long.)

All these generalities assume that the instrument is not so large as to be uncomfortable to play.

Question: In the string family, you can buy instruments that are described in fractional sizes, like 3/4 violin.  Is the tuning always the same, no matter the size of the instrument?Why is the instrument size important/what difference does it make?  Also, what does the term 3/4 or 4/4 mean?  Example : 4/4 Violin Maplewood

Why does bowed string instrument size matter?

The reason for these different size string instruments is the difference in tonal quality. Sound is louder from larger instruments: larger resonating body, more energy imparted to the string. Tone is better on larger instruments, because a longer string's harmonics align more closely to its fundamental frequency. The tuning is always the same.   The only reason to buy a fractional size is the age and body measurements of the player, not the sound.

The tuning of an instrument is always the same regardless of size. However, the size can impact other things such as tone, weight and intonation. "3/4" and "4/4" are instrument proportion measurements, and fractional sizes normally are used to cater for the body measurements of the player.

The size of an instrument can have a big impact on the sound and tone that the instrument produces.

Intonation is easier on larger instruments.

The tuning is always the same regardless of the size of the instrument.

"3/4" and "4/4" are instrument proportion measurements.

Fractional sizes exist to suit the measurements of the player.

The size of the instrument will also impact the weight of the instrument.


Views from a native German speaker, just having looked at a text booklet: the vocabulary used in the cantatas is slighty dusted, but still easily recognisable.

A few words are dated and some have strange umlauts, where the modern counterparts have none.

I guess in the church context one would notice fewer substantial changes.

Without knowing which solists Gardiner had available, I would warn against taking the pronounciation too seriously, however - even well-known singers struggled astonishingly.

The texts of Bach's Church music are in Early New High German (Frühneuhochdeutsch).

This is actually very different from modern standard German.

There are fairly good translation websites out there, for example http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Texts/IndexTexts-Eng3-BWV.htm

I'm native in both languages

and it's actually a bit easier for me to read the English translation than the original German.

It's dated and very "church-centric", i.e. uses phrasings and terms that are solely used in religious context.

As such it would NOT make good learning material.

Presumably, the differences between modern German and the language used in Bach's Cantatas, when considering its usefulness as a tool for learning the language, is less significant than the rather specific nature of their subject matter.

As much of the cantatas are based upon liturgical texts, using them as an aid to learning German, would be like learning to speak and read English by using the King James Bible!

For this reason, I would imagine that useful, conversational German might not be improved as readily by studying these cantatas, as by using more conventional methods.

But, as a means to understanding the differences between modern German and 18th Century German (and earlier German…), you could have a really interesting area of study.

However, it is worth noting that the German used in the cantatas is itself from a number of different eras.

Text from Bach's 18th Century contemporaries is set alongside the text of the Luther Bible (translated from Hebrew into German in the early 16th Century) and chorale texts.

As soon as I read your question, it reminded me of the central character of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World , who learns English by reading Shakespeare!

Some observations: Poetry written for use in church hymns has a rather restricted subject matter and vocabulary to begin with.

And in any language, the difference between rhyming poetry and regular speech is always quite different.

German has changed quite a bit since Bach's time.

In particular, German vocabulary, though not the grammar, has changed dramatically just in the last 75 years, since the end of World War II.

Since that time, German-speaking people have adopted a great deal of English words and "Germanicized" them (" eingedeutscht ") to replace traditional German words.

This is no doubt because of all the trade and cultural influence from the United States and England as Europe was re-built after the war.

I think there's certainly no harm in studying Bach's texts to help you learn "classical" German, but realize that the vocabulary of Bach's day is not the same as the vocabulary used today.

Bach's cantatas are essentially standard German.

Where he uses direct Luther text citations as lyrics, you may have some Early New German, but far and wide it is pretty much indistinguishable from slightly stilted Modern German.

Definitely quite more similar than even Shakespeare's Early Modern English is compared to Modern English.

So you should be fine with modern dictionaries and learning material.

Pronunciation is also modern, and one doesn't try to put a Saxonian accent to it either: that would be considered a strange regionalism.

Question: My German is very rudimentary (A1) and I have no regular exposure to the language except what I get listening to Bach. Recently, I have been very interested in Bach's cantatas (I have a huge box set by Gardiner) and I am in the habit of looking at the text with translation as I listen. I'm curious about the German that Bach used and how it compares to modern everyday German. Is it good learning material for me?

German in Bach's Cantatas

A native German speaker, just having looked at a text booklet says the vocabulary used in the Bach cantatas is slighty dusted, but still easily recognisable. There is no harm in studying Bach's texts to help you learn "classical" German, but realize that the vocabulary of Bach's day is not the same as the vocabulary used today.  Other people, however, consider it is actually very different from modern standard German. They also warn against taking the pronounciation too seriously, as even well-known singers struggled astonishingly.

It is not clear whether the German used in Bach's Cantantas is considered good learning material or not for modern German, but it would not be advisable to use them as a guide for pronunciation.

It is not clear whether the German used in Bach's Cantantas is considered good learning material or not for modern German.

It would be unadvisable to use Bach's work as an indicator for pronunciation.


When you lower the pitch by releasing tension, there might be slack in the gears in the tuning machines, which might make the string go below the intended pitch.

By going further down and approaching the target note from below, there will be force applied to the gears and when you've reached the correct pitch the gears have less potential to move.

So your teacher is correct.

Yes, as the strings are kept under tension better.

It works with all stringed instruments (inc. piano!), for the same reason.

Also, somehow, it seems easier to hear a note coming up to pitch rather than approaching it from above. '

We're tuning up'.

There will often be some friction at various parts of the tuning linkage, as well as at the nut (where the string passes over).

At some points, including the nut, things may bind slightly.

Think about what would happens if the string is binding where it passes over the nut, both in the "tightening" and "loosening" cases.

If the string binds where it passes over the nut while the player is loosening it, then the portion of the string between the peg and the nut may be at lower tension than the main sounding portion of the string.

Each time the string is plucked, its tension will be momentarily increased.

Consequently, even if the tension difference at the nut wasn't sufficient to cause slippage while the string was resting, the act of playing the string might cause it to slip at some inopportune time.

If, by contrast, the last action was to tighten the string, then the portion of the string connecting the peg will if anything be tighter than the sounding portion.

If it's not "enough tighter" to overcome friction when the string is resting, it will be even less inclined to move when the main string is drawn more tightly (reducing the tension difference).

Although it's easiest to visualize the above behavior happening at the nut, it can also happen at other parts of the mechanical linkage.

For example, the peg might bind slightly such that it would stay put (at least for awhile) even if the worm cased to exist.

Ideally, the tuning gear would always ride against the worm, but if the peg binds, it might not turn to loosen the string unless or until the worm pushes it.

If one turns the worm enough to turn the peg 0.4 degrees, but the peg binds after turning only 0.3 degrees, then one would initially hear the string's pitch as though the worm had been tuned 0.3 degrees, but if the peg slips (as it likely would at some point) the tuning would change by an extra 0.1 degree.

As a principle, what's important is not whether the pitch of something is being raised or lowered, but rather whether one is pushing something in the direction opposite where it wants to be.

For most instruments, that would represent raising the pitch, but some electronic instruments which are tuned by adjusting inductors work in the opposite direction; I wouldn't be surprised if some mechanical acoustic instruments do so as well.

Yes, because that is the way that the gears in tuning machines work best.

Yes... on all the above.

Plus, in case it isn't mentioned in there somewhere, when a new string is a little sharp you might want to give it a gentle tug outward to make it flat, and then tune it up.

This way, if there's any looseness at the peg end, you can get rid of it.

Yes, your teacher is very correct there.

When you tune down, it outside slack on the strings, and gears!

This means your guitar's tuning may go below the level you wanted.

If you want to avoid tuning down, I recommend purchasing a chromatic/guitar tuner.

This helps you to reach near perfect pitch, so you should tune down less.

The easiest way to understand this is to consider the gears connecting the tuning knobs to the strings.

If you "tune up", the surfaces of the gears are in contact the entire time and cannot loosen.

If you "tune down" the gears engage in the oposite direction and could leave a gap that closes due to the string tension while you play.

This would cause the string to detune down.

Although this is a simplification, it hopefully demonstrates the concept...

The only time I would not tune up from below is if the string had been tuned way too high already for whatever reason.

In that case, after you tune the string down, it will tend to creep up a bit afterwards because of material memory.

Tuning it from above will help counteract this effect.

That said, this is only really applicable to certain materials- metal strings have practically no memory, nylon strings somewhat more, and gut strings a whole lot.

So the occasions when I would tune from above on a guitar are pretty limited.

The best general policy, as has been said here, is to tune from below.

I however do this quite often on the gut strings of my harp, and it helps considerably.

There s backlash in the gears.

Poor gear meshing causes "slippage" although the teacher is correct its not strings per se but poorly machined, or fitted worm gears.

You tune up and its tight "in tune" hit the string or pull the string and the tuning pole will turn.

Slightly, but enough to cause it to drop out of tune.

Happens all the time on cheap keys you can even feel it if there s excessive backlash.

A gap on fine incremental movements if the key needs quarter turn to reach desired pitch when you know your pitch hovers at the threshold and it requires a large movement to get there.

Your tuning keys are the problem!

not the strings.

All other things being equal such as thermal coefficients, mechanical integrity plays a major role.

Question: I used to have a guitar teacher that said you should always finish tuning each string by tightening/sharpening the string.  So for example if the top E is a little sharp, you should turn the peg to make it flat and  then  tune it up to the right pitch, as opposed to just turning the peg to the right pitch from above.  He claimed that the increase in tightness as opposed to loosening from above kept the string in tune longer.  Is this true?

When tuning a guitar, should you always end with tightening the string rather than loosening it?

It is correct that you should always tighten the guitar string a little when you finish tuning it.

Yes, you should always end string tuning by tightening rather than loosening it


As humans, we're not naturally inclined to play music in time .

Our speech while rhythmic at times is vastly more complicated rhythmically than the majority of music out there.

Just check out this article by Steve Vai in which he talks about polyrhythms.

He talks about how one of the toughest challenges he has ever faced in music is transcribing speech.

But what does this have to do with metronomes?

I'm glad you asked, other Alex.

Well, our minds and ears are flexable to the complicated sounds of the world.

We're not naturally used to the constant pulse of set tempos.

Our heartbeats are variable, and slow and speed in phases, and there's not really that much in the natural world which exerts a constant audible tempo.

So, when we try to play a steady tempo without a metronome, what we will actually do is slightly speed up, slow down, and compensate when we fall behind the beat.

As soon as a group of musicians trained in such a way gets together, everyone will be in time with themselves, and out of time with others(I've been there, it's not pretty).

Enter the metronome.

The metronome is constant, unyeilding.

It does not forgive, it does not forget.

When you play 50 ms out of time and there's a metronome there, you can hear the difference, and it's not the metronome's fault that you were out.

Playing to a metronome makes you consistent.

It makes every one of the people playing along consistent, and it enables players to develop a sense of timing to use while they play with themselves and each other.

It can also help you with playing faster, and more accurately quicker, see these questions: Technique or exercise to play this part from a song which i'm stuck with

I find myself making the same mistake when practising - despite focussing on that part- how to remedy?

As a parting note I'd say I never used to practice with a metronome, and my skill went up rapidly as soon as I started doing it.

Getting into the habit of practicing with a metronome is a huuuuuuuuge benefit in both the short and the long run.

Hope that helps :)

A metronome can do several things.

If a piece has a metronome marking, it can give you some idea of a composer's (or often an editor's) idea of how fast it should go.

Also, it can give you an idea of whether your tempos through a piece are consistent.

Especially when you are beginning to work on a piece, you can find that you are playing easier sections faster than harder ones without realizing it, and your tempo can get inconsistent.

A metronome will point this out to you in a hurry.

It can give you a sort of benchmark on how well you are coming along with a difficult piece as you are working it up.

It's especially useful in this last regard.

Try putting the metronome on at a speed where you can practice the entire piece without making (many) mistakes.

You'll be surprised to see how slow some easier parts sound when you're trying to play them at the same speed

as more difficult parts elsewhere, at a tempo slow enough to accommodate the tougher sections.

Now, all that said, be very careful NOT to overdo it.

You have to always keep the music in mind before the notes.

If you just try to get the notes without playing the music, you'll find that you have trained your hands to play the piece unmusically.

("Metronomic" is a criticism of a performance that sounds too slavish in its adherence to a tempo, to the point that all the music is squeezed out of it.)

The further along you are with the piece, the less useful the metronome is.

You can always use it to "spot check" your tempos;

see if you're playing the whole piece faster than you think you are, see how consistent your tempos are from section to section, and so on.

Two additional points beyond BobRodes's answer For using the metronome as a gauge for progress with specific agility/speed exercises: e.g. taking a given exercise and increasing the metronome rate each day for a period of time.

Focusing on listening to the click is a basic step towards being able to listen to other performers when in an ensemble situation.

In relation to the last part of your question, yes, it's directly related to time sigs.

There are metronomes which can be set to 'ping' on beat one, whether the time sig.

is 2, 3 4 5 or 6 on the top.

So you can hear when each new bar starts.

The tempo can also be used as a good guide, in that, say it's 80 b.p.m.

- if you wanted, you could set 160 to give a tick twice as quick, which sometimes helps to keep you in time better.

When you got pretty good, you could go down to half speed, 40 b.p.m. and work harder to keep in time.

B.p.m.

incidentally, is beats per minute, in other words, how many ticks the metronome will sound in one minute.

60 b.p.m. =

one tick per second.

Having said all that, I still prefer to have a drum track playing to keep time to.

Probably used to playing with real drummers for many, many years...

When I practice with the metronome I often imagine the ticks are on the off-beats, so if I were counting out loud "one and two and three and four and" then a tick would fall on each "and", rather than on a number.

If you don't already do this, you have to try it.

The skill in this is that you must mentally construct the unheard on-the-beat tick.

With practice you can mentally flip between hearing the tick on the beat and off the beat.

It's like the rhythmic equivalent of one of those optical illusions where you can interpret what you're seeing in more than one way.

Further practice with this is to play tuplets against the off-beat tick.

This is hard(!)

but worth while.

Question: I heard that anyone who received theoretical education in music should use a metronome to practice their timing. But I don't know how does a metronome help me? Or even how would better timing help me?  Also is it related with beats,and time signatures?

How does a metronome help me play music better?

Playing to a metronome makes you consistent.  It makes every one of the people playing along consistent, and it enables players to develop a sense of timing to use while they play with themselves and each other. If a piece has a metronome marking, it can give you some idea of a composer's (or often an editor's) idea of how fast it should go. Also, it can give you an idea of whether your tempos through a piece are consistent.  It's directly related to time sigs.

Firstly, yes, use of a metronome is related to time signatures. Playing with a metronome can provide numerous benefits, but mainly it will help you play at a consistent tempo in line with the intentions of the composer. It can also be a great way of keeping track of your progress.

Playing with a metronome will help you play at a consistent tempo in line with the composer's intention.

A metronome can provide several benefits.

Playing with a metronome can be a good way of keeping track of your progress.

Yes, use of metronome is related to time signatures.


I've compared my fancy Korg multi-temperament orchestra tuner to various tuner apps available for Android on my Nexus 4, and I prefer the box every time.

It's got much better sound detection, and because it's a fancy (and expensive) one there's no issue with support for reference pitches and temperaments (although all I regularly need is A440, A415, equal temperament and Vallotti's temperament).

However, I suspect if my phone had a better microphone the apps could be just as good

and they're certainly fully capable of producing what seem to be accurate reference tones to tune that way.

So really it's down to your experience, your phone hardware

and if you've already invested in a tuning box with the capabilities you need.

If you've already got a smartphone and its microphone is up to the task, an app is going to be a lot cheaper - provided you keep it charged, anyway!

I personally experienced no difference.

If the app is able to pick up your violin's sound, its frequency display will have roughly the same precision as a tuner, tuner/metronome combination.

Advantages of an app: always at hand often more flexible (tuning frequency, display variations) Advantages of a device: may be more intuitive to use no hesitation to hand over to fellow musicians cheaper to replace if dropped to the floor and crashed unshared power source, so better chances to be still sufficient (kudos to Matthew for that)

My favourite Android (newly available for iOS also) app is PitchLab, but your mileage may vary.

One advantage of a dedicated clip-on tuner is that it can detect vibrations coming through the body of the instrument.

A smartphone app uses a microphone that hears not just the instrument, but also lots of other ambient noise.

The clip-on tuner can use the cleaner signal coming directly through the instrument, and so may be less prone to responding to ambient noise or may be effective in a noisy environment in which a smart phone app would not be able to cope.

The microphone of the smartphone is optimized for speech, not for music.

Its supported frequency range is the vocal range of the average human talker, not a professional singer.

As narrow as 300 Hz to 3500

Hz only was declared "optimal" in the past, while now it may be wider.

Hence the microphone may not be picking very low or high frequences well enough.

From the other side, if the instrument is loud enough or its not an 8 octave piano after all, this still may work.

As long as the sound is picked, the frequency indicator should be reliable.

It is at the end backed up by the internal quartz oscillator of the device.

However there are many possible bugs and design flaws that would make a tuner app inaccurate or not working at all.

Simply counting ups and downs per second may result inaccurate reading due distortions and background noises.

But if a good program can be written for a tuner, such a program will probably run on a smartphone also.

As a result, you probably need to try multiple applications and do not rely blindly on them.

If the familiar melody seems sounding out of tune, it probably is, even if the smartphone tuner suggest otherwise!

Smartphone tuner apps are pretty solid.

I have a specialized tuner that is 3-4 years old that has been having a hard time picking up acoustic sounds as of lately.

I bought a smartphone tuner app to tune my harpsichord and it worked like a charm.

I have experience with Cleartune for Android.

There are benefits to having a dedicated tuner.

For instance, if the instrument that you're tuning is electric, or acoustic-electric, you can plug it in to some tuners and tune it even if there is noise in your vicinity.

With the smartphone tuner, any additional background noise may get picked up and make it harder for you to tune your instrument.

A Tuner for Android 'Claims to be most accurate https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jp.nokubi.nobapp.atuner.basic Auto & Manual Sensitivity Change accuracy levels Strobe rotation & in tune color I found that alot of the tuner apps actually have a 5 cent tolerance (meaning they say in tune but really not) a Guitar thats set up properly falls into a stable tune like a magnet & most app tuners

get you close enough the pitch goes in tune.

Another tuner I invite people to try out is Quantz Tuner / see your sounds

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.QuantzTunerFree See your sound with this real-time, quantitative music visualization app.

After trying alot of tuners, I have noticed alot clamp onto a certain piont in the pitch and reads that result.

I think if your trying to set up an instrument or trying to adjust pitch competitions, might be better to purchase a real frequency tumer

Question: I play the violin, and have always tuned using a smartphone app. Today I came across this specialised (to a certain extent)  electronic tuner , which got me wondering: How reliable are smartphone tuner apps, in the sense that why should I spend the money on a specialised tuner when an app seems to work just fine?

Are smartphone tuner apps reliable?

Most people consider that smartphone tuner apps are fairly reliable. Although some people do believe that tuners, like the Korg orchestra tuner are better. The important thing is that the smartphone is able to pick up the sound.

Whilst some people would prefer a dedicated tuning device, it is generally accepted that a smartphone app will work just as well.

Some people prefer to buy a dedicated tuner.

In general, it is considered that a smartphone app is likely to be good enough.


No, there is absolutely no risk.

You may have seen such amplifiers being stacked on stage during festivals/concerts, and those burdens can get heavier than what you weigh.

Just make sure you're not hurting your ears by being too close to your amp when it's turned up to eleven.

Depends on how heavy you are and where and how you sit.

Amps are designed to be stacked corner-to-corner, and a cheap combo amp might be weak in the middle of the case.

That said, I used to sit on mine almost every time I played.

I'm only 120 pounds though...

I wouldn't think you'll break your amp - but you can get loads of hum with your guitar that close to the amp, especially if you're using overdrive.

And, it's unlikely to be very comfortable!

If you're going to be using it in a place where there is a chair available, I would use that instead.

Normally you can sit on your amp, but if I were you, I wouldn't do it, ill just sit in front of the amp, to have the best sound return.

I would generally say that there is no risk to your amp by sitting on it.

This case could be a little different since you are using a relatively small amp

but I still doubt that you would be able to break it unless you are significantly heavier than the average person.

I also imagine that you would be pretty close to the ground, which I would find uncomfortable.

Question: I just bought a 1x10" Marshall combo guitar amp, and I've read in articles that many guitarists sit on their amps.  Is it okay to sit on it? Is there any chance of breaking it as a result?

Is it okay to sit on guitar combo amplifier?

Most people consider there is no risk in sitting onyour amp.

It is generally agreed that it is OK to sit on an amplifier and there is no risk of breaking it.


It'll depend a lot on your son's musical taste as to what he's likely to be inspired by, but try to find music that shows off the recorder both as a solo instrument and working with other instruments.

So some of the baroque sonatas by Handel or Telemann - which are also quite accessible to the intermediate player - would be a good starting point.

For something a bit more spectacular, Vivaldi's recorder concertos are impressive examples of what you can do with the instrument within its baroque domain, definitely for the advanced player but everyone can enjoy listening to them, and how well the recorder can work with other instruments.

For another example of working with other instruments, Boismortier's "4 Balets de Village" give you a couple of recorders in the French baroque style, alongside strings, baroque oboes and flutes, hurdy gurdies and French bagpipes, all together in a chaotic mess that somehow comes out sounding coherent, exuberant and magnificent.

There's just so much of this stuff if you know where to look.

Try the videos on charlottebarbourcondini.com - BBC Young Musician 2012 finalist, the first ever on recorder, she played Vivaldi's concerto in C minor in the final, and a variety of other pieces in the category final including Linde's Music for a Bird , which is one of the great 20th century pieces for solo recorder.

Also check out players like Pamela Thorby and Evelyn Nallen, and groups like Red Priest and the Amsterdam Loki Stardust Quartet.

Evelyn's also found in the group Respectable Groove, playing in a very jazzy way on a very baroque selection of instruments.

Of course, your son may not find any of this inspiring at all, but I hope this provides you with something to start with.

You can find a lot of good stuff just by trawling YouTube, too - if you're prepared to listen to a lot of hideous terribleness in the process, anyway.

I know you said 'child-friendly', but I'm not really sure what that means

so I just gave you my usual selection of recorder music, because I'm not sure there's any such thing really.

I play in a group with some people I've played with since they were 12, and we've been on hardcore baroque consort music all the way and they love it.

Of course, they were already dedicated recorder players when we started the group...

At the risk of being declared off-topic, can I recommend that if your son shows a modicum of talent, buy him an Alto recorder - preferably a wooden one.

The difference in sound is incredible, and it opens a new world of music.

I took up recorder in my 40s, after a break of 30 years.

Now in my late 60s, I have no intention of retiring.

The recorder is a much underated instrument.

There is so much Renaissance and Baroque music out there (transpositions on Bach's Anna Magdelena notebook are very nice introduction).

Composers like Telemann, Veracini, Marcello and many others wrote excellent tuneful and challenging stuff for the recorder.

You can form a consort, and play recorder without needing to be at professional level.

You can start on descant, graduate to Alto, try a Tenor and learn to play Bass.

If you are rich you can buy a Great Bass and a Contra Bass.

Then start rounding out your menagerie with a set of Renaissance instruments (A=415) and French

Worlwide

there are regular recorder weeks, where you can recieve tuition, play with others

both in both small groups and a "recorder orchestra" - Gabrielli is a favorite for an orchestra.

I'd better sign off before the "off topic" police hit me...

There are many songs.

You can get the suzuki books, they have different levels http://www.amazon.com/Suzuki-Recorder-School-Soprano-Volume/dp/0874875536/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1402425647&sr=8-2&keywords=recorder+suzuki here on level 1, there are like 30 songs (didn't count).

Most of them are familiar and fun, teaching students technique.

I haven't played recorder for a while, but in my applied guitar class I went through the Suzuki series, they're fantastic.

The book Red Hot Recorder is very popular with colleagues of mine who teach recorder (and their pupils, of course!)

I must stress this is just one example book though - there are loads of others.

Are you looking for something simple to play, that he can play along with, like this selection from Zelda: Or just something fun to listen to, like this Recorder Orchestra:

This one is a real inspiration to small children!

For older kids, check out more from the same (now adult)

Lucy Horscht or the BBC Young Musician of the Year videos from 2012 (Charlotte Barbour Condini) and 2014 (Sophie Westbrooke) or the parallel BBC Jazz competition in 2016 finalist Tom Ridout.

Each of those three beat all the other woodwind players to reach the final and have videos on YouTube which young teens love to watch.

Question: My young five year old son is learning to play the recorder. I would like to let him listen to some music to inspire him . What child friendly music is there that features the recorder?

Recorder music to inspire a young learner

Some of the baroque sonatas by Handel or Telemann - which are also quite accessible to the intermediate player - would be a good starting point for a recorder player. For something a bit more spectacular, Vivaldi's recorder concertos are impressive examples of what you can do with the instrument within its baroque domain, definitely for the advanced player but everyone can enjoy listening to them, and how well the recorder can work with other instruments.

Some child-friendly recorder music that could word as inspiration could be a baroque sonata by Handel or one of Vivaldi's recorder concertos.


This question got me curious, so I started googling.

Keyboard size is not officially standardized (there is no committee creating and enforcing standards), but in practice, there is very little variation.

Browsing through forum topics on www.pianoworld.com, people measured 88 key keyboards from anywhere between 48 inches to 48 1/2".

Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_keyboard ) describes the width of an octave on a modern keyboard as 164-165 mm, which leaves almost a centimeter variation in width over the entire keyboard.

There is also the option of buying a deliberately manufactured smaller keyboard, as described at http://www.smallpianokeyboards.org/keyboard-history.html .

This would have a width as small as 141 mm for an octave, or over 2 cm smaller than a standard.

I don't play piano, but as a small handed woman, that sounds pretty attractive.

Historically, from both the wikipedia and the smallpianokeyboards.org sites, older keyed instruments had octave widths as small as 125 mm, but not modern pianos.

For piano-like instruments, such as midi-controllers and cheap electronic keyboards, smaller keys are common when manufacturers have goals other than producing a standard piano.

While I see no reason to dispute the answers already presented I thought I would follow up with posting the measurements that I proposed in my comment under the question.

Measuring several keys near middle C with a calibrated digital caliper: 1915 Steinway Model M (New York) with original action: 22.1 to 22.

9 mm (slight variance),

fractions of 0.86 inches 2002

Yamaha Model S08 88-note weighted-action synthesizer: 22.8 mm or 0.89 inches

I suspect the variance of the width on the Steinway is due to the 1915 tooling vs. computer assisted manufacturing of the 2002 Yamaha.

To get a more authoritative answer I have contacted an authorized Steinway tech that tunes my Steinway and restores them as well (wish I could afford that) to review this.

Pending his email answer, I will post an update later.

UPDATE June 30th, 2014:

It has come to my attention that the following answer would be more valuable to the community if I were to credit my source properly.

I have been reluctant to reveal my source these past few days as I did not want him to be subjected to unnecessary distractions (spam) or harassment from adversarial points of view.

As I stated clearly last week "protect my source.

I have been in contact and we have reviewed our options on this post.

So without any further chit chat, I would like to introduce to you, John Callahan of Callahan Piano in the San Francisco Bay Area, a Steinway restoration specialist.

Please be nice to him, he gets it right every day from tuning to restoration and beyond.

"You are correct, 100 year old piano keys will vary slightly in width.

Some of that is the original tooling and cutting (piano keys are sliced like bread from one piece of material) and some of the variance can be from wear.

The keys at the far ends of the keyboard will be a good bit wider on an older, heavily played instrument than the keys in the middle of the keyboard, where the most playing occurs.

" "No standard width.

You can measure many different pianos, and while they will all be within a fairly standard range, you will see differences.

Same goes for the sharps.

This also holds true for many other piano dimensions.

Keytop thickness, head length (distance from the player's end of the natural key to the cutout for the sharp), tail length, height of the keytop off the floor, height of the pedals off the floor, etc."

Do other keyboard instruments have significantly different widths of keys?

Organs seem to have the same key widths

but I can't verify that.

Accordions do vary - I can just reach a 10th on a piano but can easily get at least a 12th on an accordion.

7/8" appears to be the industry standard, but there is a slight (2 or 3%) difference occasionally.

Some keyboards I think are slightly smaller, but can't access mine for a while, so can't measure.

I'm not talking mini-boards here,which are made either for kiddies or for studio pro. use.

Got a Yamaha keyboard here with 7/8" keys.

I think the main differences, which subtly affect things, are the length of keys and the amount that they get pressed down.

That, and the different 'balance' feel, will make each piano different, but width-wise, not a lot.

Do other keyboard instruments have significantly different widths of keys?

I can speak from experience that melodica keys are significantly narrower than piano keys.

Where I cannot comfortably reach more than an octave on a piano, I think my range is more like a 10th on the melodica.

It was surprisingly tricky to reprogram my fingers for the shorter scale.

I can only imagine that an accordion would have a similarly-shortened keyboard.

In addition, Karen mentioned smaller keys on some midi controllers.

Here is an example of one such device, designed for portability.

My Evolution e-Keys mini USB piano keyboard has 17 mm wide naturals with 1 mm gaps between them so the center-to-center measurement is 18 mm, 5 mm less than what is normal on a piano.

The distance from the front edge of the naturals to the accidentals are 30 mm while on a piano this is 50 mm and on organs often 46 mm.

Question: Is there a standard width for piano keys?  If not, how much variation is there?  Do other keyboard instruments have significantly different widths of keys?

Is there a standard width for piano keys?

Keyboard size is not officially standardized (there is no committee creating and enforcing standards), but in practice, there is very little variation. 7/8" appears to be the industry standard, but there is a slight (2 or 3%) difference occasionally. melodica  keys are significantly narrower than piano keys.

There is no official enforced standard but there is likely to be little variation, with a common measurement being around 7/8". With regard to other keyboard instruments, the melodica has signficiantly narrower keys than the piano.

Melodica keys have significantly narrower keys than pianos.


It's taken a year or so, but I use (don't ask why)

the opening note of Coronation Street (a British soap) that is a C note , the major 3 of Ab.

Every time I walk past a piano - several times a day, I hum that note, then play it to check (much to my wife's amusement and disgust).

Just done it now, and got in the crack to one side of the correct note.

Getting better but not perfect yet.

So, yes, it can be learnt.

Obviously.

Some have perfect/absolute pitch, but we mere mortals put up with relative pitch, where we get a note and can pitch another from it.

Again, a skill to be practised. With tuners as small as they are,or using a mobile, you could carry one around, and try a note every so often.

It may take time, but it's a good way to bore your friends.

50 yrs ago - pre tuners, during caravan holidays, I used to drop a house key on a hard surface to keep guitars in 'concert pitch'.

Daft, but it worked !

I had to learn Bach's Minuet for a piano class.

I played it so much that I remember the D

I started on every time.

I also have a small vocal part in a song that I had to practice getting perfectly correct even if I can't hear myself at all, that starts on a D.

Now I'm pretty good at just singing, hearing a D and can sometimes identify other notes from this D.

It takes some real training but just practicing different modes of making or hearing the note repetitively to really drill it into your head.

It's still not always accurate of course, but it'll get better and if you don't have perfect pitch, it's something!!

"Perfect pitch" (the ability to sing and/or recognize a particular note) can be developed by some people, to some degree.

Not everyone, and generally not as accurately as a tuner.

(The folks who are precise report that it may be more a handicap than a help, since they may be annoyed by any instrument that's tuned slightly differently.)

I know that I naturally tend to start some songs in D-minor, just because that's where my voice naturally falls.

That sort of thing, tapping "muscle memory" and the resonances of your own body, might be adequate for solo performance.

As noted above, it isn't likely to be good enough for performing with others where you have to agree on a tuning.

Electronic or mechanical tuners can be tiny and cheap.

Tuner apps exist for most of the popular smartphones and tablets.

I suspect that if you care enough to want to be on the right note, you want to be on the RIGHT note, and are better off using mechanical assistance unless you want to spend lots of time practicing this skill that could be spent practicing the instrument.

You're asking how to remember a pitch

.It's more like remembering one pound by hand, than notes in music.

Therefore you have to repeat the pitch as others answered: listen to a pitch, recall it by heart, listen, recall, ...

It's simple rote learning.

For that matter if you tune an instrument every day, you would be aware of Hz difference rather than note difference although I can't say you will have one herz accuracy.

Use a spectrum analyser (there's an app), that will allow you to correlate your natural tone.

mine is 146hz..

whats that, a D?

so i can read this value off on the analyser, and repeat recall until its lodged deep inside my neural pathway.

The sensitivity to the relative pitch differences may depend on the absolute value of the pitch.

Very low or very high notes are more difficult to recognize and tell apart, even if in still hear-able sound range.

As you have an instrument, try to experiment where approximately your individual ear is the most sensitive to the pitch differences, and then learn to remember the absolute frequency in this range.

Simply play, record into mobile phone and use later as a ringtone and wake up signal in the morning.

Question: I'm wondering what ways there are to remember a note. For example, as a guitarist it'd come in handy if one can hum an E note so you can tune your E string according to it.  Are there common techniques to remember a note? Or is it just practice and feeling?

Techniques for remembering a pitch without reference

It's simple rote learning.  It takes some real training but just practicing different modes of making or hearing the note repetitively to really drill it into your head. One trick is to simply play the note, record it into mobile phone and use later as a ringtone and wake up signal in the morning.

The most common technique to achieve this is probably just to practise. However, you could also consider recording a note as part of your ringtone to help you memorise it.

The most common technique is probably just to practise repeatedly.

You could record a note as your ringtone on your phone.


You would think the German, French, and Italian 6th chords are so named by the historical context in which they first appeared.

(See also Neapolitan sixth chord, and the "Tristan Chord".)

However, the more I research this, it appears the names German, French, and Italian are likely arbitrary.

Here are two citations that support this: 1) "...

theorists disagree on their precise origins and have struggled for centuries to define their roots, and fit them into conventional harmonic theory...

" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_sixth_chord 2)

"Why the national names?

No particular reason, it seems.

But they had to be called something.

Frank, Suzie, and Jack would have done as well."

source:

My recollections from undergraduate music theory (many decades ago) are that these were introduced in operas from each nation, but this appears wonky now.

However the "Neapolitan" 6th does have a specific origin:

"The chord is called "Neapolitan" because it is associated with the Neapolitan School, which included Alessandro Scarlatti, Pergolesi, Paisiello, Cimarosa, and other important 18th-century composers of Italian opera" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neapolitan_chord

I found a summary of a book that details "...

Augmented Sixth from Monteverdi to Mahler"

(Mark Ellis, Kirklees College and Huddersfield University, UK): http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754663850

The names Italian, French and German have a sure and certain origin.

They were coined by John Wall Callcott in his "A musical grammar", oublished in 1806.

Or, better, he quotes the first (italian) from tradition, and coins himself the other two.

Very simple!!

Note that the French sixth contains notes belonging to a whole-tone scale.

Despite the strong temptation to draw a parallel to the French impressionist school, famous for their use of this scale (e.g. Debussy's Voiles ), I concur with the previous poster that this is most likely a coincidence.

in German they are named by the intervals.

(whereby ü = übermässig , that means augmented 6th Italian: ü6 = aug 6th German: ü56 = aug 5th6th French:

ü34 = aug 3rd4th

The term augmented sixth is ambigious to me.

Sometimes it refers to the 6th being augmented, and sometimes the 5th being augmented with a major 6th.

There are three types of Augmented 6th chord the German, the Italian, and the French.

Dom asked Jun 18 '14 at 19:49 What about the conventional augmented sixth chords, which have a major 6th and an augmented 5th?

e.g. C-E-G#-A withfunctions R-3-5#-6 as can be played in C Lydian Augmented .

Do you mean to ask why they are called Augmented 6th chords or why they are called German/Italian/French?

Basstickler Jun 18 '14 at 20:59

It is interesting, though, that they call these chords augmented sixth.

Other augmented chords do not refer to the extension note being augmented: e.g. Caug7 which has an augmented 5th and a minor 7th.

is there an alternative name for each that better captures how they are constructed?

Dom asked Jun 18 '14 at 19:49 If we apply contemporary chord names based on enharmonics of the major scale: german: dom7 italian: dom7(no5) french: dom7(b5)

Question: There are three types of Augmented 6th chord the German, the Italian, and the French. Most chords are named for the intervals they contain or their function, but these seem like just arbitrary names for chords. Why are the augmented chords named for their respective countries and is there an alternative name for each that better captures how they are constructed?

Naming convention for augmented 6th chords

The names for the French, Italian and German chords were coined by John Wall Callcott in his "A musical grammar", published in 1806.  "The chord is called "Neapolitan" because it is associated with the  Neapolitan School, which included Alessandro Scarlatti, Pergolesi,  Paisiello, Cimarosa, and other important 18th-century composers of  Italian opera"   source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neapolitan_chord

There is no agreement as to how augmented chords received these names, with some people claiming that they can from operas in their respective nation, and others saying that they were invented by John Wall Callcott in 1806.


Tension and release.

The point of a leading note is often to give a feeling that it needs to move, as little as possible, to the tonic.

As in G chord, dominant of C, contains B, which needs to move to the tonic

C. A semitone move is used in this example.

The F minor chord has F, Ab and C. To move as little as possible to the tonic involves the Ab going to G, the F going to E and the C remaining static.

So the A-Ab-G move (F, Fm,C) is all going in the same, inevitable direction.

The Ab works somewhat like the b9 in G7b9, as it pulls again in the same way .Another

example is the augmented chord.

G+

has G, B and D#.

To move to tonic, the B goes a semitone to C, the D# a semitone to E, and the G remains static.

It's all to do with getting as close as possible to the target.

A sort of magnetic attraction, where a tone away is too far to get a pull.

The chord progression for the introduction is: Am - C+ - C - D7 - F - Fm - C

However, you can see it as Am - C - F - C (or vi - I - IV - I), and the chords in the middle are only chromatic passing notes, i.e. •

In the sequence Am - C you have (A,C,E) that goes to (C,E,G).

E and C are common to both chords and A and G are one tone apart.

Add a chromatic ornament in between A and G to obtain the note sequence A - Ab - G, and it may look like you passed through C+, but it is in reality just a passing note.

Between C (C,E,G) and F(F,A,C), E goes to F through F#, and G goes to A through Ab, looking like you passed through D7.

Finally to go form F(F,A,C) to C(C,E,G)

, A goes to G through Ab and F remains to go directly to E, looking like you passed through Fm

This way you can see that you are in the key of C all the time, and all strange notes are in fact chromatic passing notes.

Passing notes always create tension since they are not part of the chord and therefore create a dissonance (and chromatic passing notes create even more tension since they are not part of the key), which is released once they resolve to a note that is part of the chord, so concerning the specific part you ask about (IV-iv-I)

you have a simple plagal cadence with a chromatic passing note.

Of course this is just an interpretation, but at least the way I learned analysis, the goal is to explain the harmony with as little chords and modulations as possible, as long as the remaining notes fall into the category of an embellishment note .

DP

I agree with the other answers that iv contains a chromatic passing tone that enhances the horizontal (melodic) structure.

For a vertical (harmonic) perspective, iv is closely related to the neapolitan sixth chord (in this context, Db major in first inversion), a standard 19th-century substitution for IV or ii.

Thinking this way, the substitution of interest is not Ab for A, but C for Db, which I think is easy to understand as a suspension or pedal tone carried over from the previous IV chord (and into the following I).

Zooming out, IV - I or ii - I is the plagal cadence, as @Dissidentpenguin notes.

Alternatively, the neapolitan chord is also a tritone substitution for V, so in this pop-music setting it might be appropriate to think of it as IV - V - I, using a tritone substitution for V with a suspension to boot.

You've already received several good answers, but I would like to add one thing that I consider important.

The progression in your question is a well-known example of a more general concept know as modal interchange .

Modal interchange is the borrowing of chords from parallel tonalities.

The most common form of it, which can be found in thousands of pop songs, is borrowing natural minor chords for use in the parallel major key.

In your example this means that you can use chords from C natural minor (such as Fm) in the key of C major.

Some other chords commonly found in songs in C major based on this idea are G minor, Ab major, and Bb major.

If you look for it, you'll start hearing the result of this concept almost everywhere.

It is also a great concept for melodic improvisation.

I think what's happening is ..

Your ears become accustomed to the C maj

key F is a nice chord to deviate to from C Fm is the same but the major note (A) is flattened from A to Ab.

Kind of implies it's going somewhere but for that moment it sounds a bit out of place ..

Finally it resolves to a C.

the Ab is flattened again to a G (5th of the C).

So your ears pick up the sequence A Ab G as it resolves to C.

Our ears "want to" hear sequences of notes and the initial flattening

fo the A implies something else is going to happen along those lines, with another flattening of the note.

It's a similar thing to playing C, C7 then F. C has an upper-octave C as well (we assume, for this example)

C7 has that upper C flattened by a tone (Bb) F has the Bb flattened again to an A.

Your ears pick up the sequence C Bb A, which against a backdrop of chords that sound nice together anyway, seems to fit nicely.

I would say that this common progression follows one of the 'rules' (descriptions of common practice) of harmony and modulation.

That is modulation to the parallel minor.

I would say that the iv chord is 'borrowed' from the parallel minor key.

Then, the song modulates immediately back to the original major key.

Question: An example of this is the song  Nobody Home  by Pink Floyd. The last line of the intro is, in a C major key:  F  Fm  C  %  I think this sounds great, and in fact I often use such passages when improvising on the piano myself, but I still don't know how exactly this can/should be used, and what it means.  Does anyone have any insights on this?

Why is IV-iv-I an effective chord sequence in a major key?

The  IV-iv-I  chord progression is a well-known example of a more general concept know as  modal interchange . It follows one of the 'rules' (descriptions of common practice) of harmony and modulation. It contains a chromatic passing tone that enhances the horizontal (melodic) structure.

There are many reasons why this chord progression might work well, but one key reason may be the "tension and release" that is employed. Additionally, this progression follows the "rules" of harmony and modulation and is an example of modal interchange, thereby enhancing the harmonic structure.

This chord progression works well because of the "tension and release" that use employed.

This common progression works because it follows the "rules" of harmony and modulation.

This is an example of a modal interchange which enhances the harmonic structure.


Well, without any further context there is no possible distinction between a minor third and an augmented second as they are indeed the same note, technically.

However, the phrases minor third and augmented second make reference not only to that space of three semitones, but also to the relationship that this interval plays within a given chord or scale.

Since almost every scale known to the Western world has some form of third, a scale or chord with an augmented second would most probably have another kind of third as well, making the augmented second seem like an added dissonance in context.

Consider this chord: C7#9.

(The #9 can be considered equivalent to an augmented second).

The naming convention of the chord assumes there will be a major third.

So the chord is 1, 3, 5, 7 and #9.

The last note is not an essential part of the chord's structure, and will sound dissonant.

If you just have a C and a D#/Eb, it doesn't really matter whether you call it a D# or an Eb.

But when you're talking about the role that note plays within another structure, then there are reasons for naming it an augmented second (to make clear it is not a minor third).

Hope this helps!

A key thing to keep in mind is that technically a minor 3rd and an augmented 2nd are different pitches (have different notional fundamental frequencies), at least in anything other than equal temperament.

In just intonation, these two pitches differ by approximately 40 cents ( list of intervals ), enough to make a perceptable difference in the degree of consonance.

(Also note that some types of mean-tone temperament can also represent this difference).

Thus these different notes are different and have different harmonic behaviour in the context of a chord.

Even in the context of music intended for performance in ET, notating the enharmonic notes in particular ways can provide the performer with information on the composer's intent.

One reason is that if you're specifying an augmented 2, its probably because you have an augmented second and a major third in the chord.

These notes are only a half step apart, and that is very dissonant.

Since we don't have, for example, a "minor fourth" interval, the third will always be major if an augmented 2 is involved.

I guess there could be exceptions, but if there isn't also major third in the chord, it would just be written as a minor third interval.

It seems to stem not from the meaning that we attach to the words now, but the past.

Consonant meant it sat well in the key, dissonant, the opposite.

So, when WRITTEN in music, a minor 3rd belongs in a given set of notes, whereas a #2 is not found.

It appears to be more of a technicality than a reflection of what it actually sounds like.

Turn a minor 3 upside down, and it's a major 6th.

Supposedly consonant.

Turn a #2 upside down, and it's a diminished 7th.

Both augmented and diminished intervals were labelled dissonant.

A sound example would make it much easier.

Try this experiment:Play a Cmajor scale and some I-IV-V-I in this key, then suddenly play the harmonic interval C-D#.

It will sound dissonant in this context, the D# sounds like a leading tone to E (your brain will ask for solving it to E).

You don't need to have the C-E in the same chord.

It is enough to have the key context in your mind-ear.

Then play a Cminor scale and some cadences in this key, suddenly play the C-Eb (actually same piano keys as C-D#).

In this context they will sound consonant, that is the reason for different name.

So they are different both in the writing and in the sound, in a tonal context.

They only sound the same in atonal music.

You would never find Beethoven mistaken D# for Eb in his written scores, but I wouldn't say the same for some common chord charts you find around.

Question: I am currently reading the Jazzology and on the chapter per the consonant and dissonant intervals I came across this statement:   while a minor 3rd is consonant, an augmented 2nd is dissonant.    (page 6)   So my question is this:  Why is a minor 3rd consonant but an augmented 2nd dissonant, since they --technically-- are the same note?

Why is a minor 3rd consonant but an augmented 2nd dissonant?

A key thing to keep in mind is that  technically  a minor 3rd and an augmented 2nd are different pitches (have different notional fundamental frequencies), at least in anything other than equal temperament.  In just intonation, these two pitches differ by approximately 40 cents ( list of intervals ), enough to make a perceptable difference in the degree of consonance. One reason is that if you're specifying an augmented 2, its probably because you have an augmented second  and  a major third in the chord.

Without further context, it's impossible to give a precise answer to this question. However, in just intonation, an augmented 2nd and a minor 3rd are in fact not the same note. Additionally, an augmented 2nd may be noted as such because it appears at the same time as a major 3rd, in which case, it would be dissonant.

It is difficult to provide a precise answer to this question without further context.

In just intonation, these two notes are actually not the same note, though they are in equal temperament.

One possible reason could be because the augmented 2nd could appear at the same time as a major 3rd.


The verse-chorus (sometimes with a bridge) form replaced the AABA 32-bar formula in popular music at around the sixties.

And the 32-bar form replaced the strophic form (verses sometimes with a refrain) which most earlier folk songs were based on.

So it represents the current taste and is by no means timeless or universal, just a current tendency.

But repetition has been a part of music since as far back in history as we can see.

In order to not be bored, we need surprises.

Surprise implies unexpectedness.

Without expectation there can be no surprise.

Repetition builds expectation, contrast breaks it and provides the surprise.

Unsurprisingly, form in music is based on these two elements: Repetition and contrast.

Of course, with current popular music, since you know where exactly the bridge (contrasting section) will start, there is barely any surprise now, hence the boredom.

Someone said that music is about the balance between surprise and the familiar.

This balance is different for different people, some people want to hear new things all the time, while other want the same thing over and over.

The popularity of the structure in the question is likely due to that it's a balance that many people find pleasing.

If you find this formula boring, there sure is tons of music out there which do not follow this pattern.

Songs could be looked upon as poetry set to music.

Poems traditionally consist of verses.

Actually far more verses and few choruses, compared with songs.

Familiarity is one of the reasons.

The 'hook' - the catchy bit, is what lots of folk remember, and they like to be able to sing/hum/whistle along with it.

It's often in the chorus, and if it only came once or twice, folks wouldn't have much chance to join in.

Also, repetition is the name of the game with a lot of pop songs, so get in as many repeats as possible !

If the song was verse-verse-verse, or chorus-chorus-chorus, it would be even more tedious.

Thus the format so many songs use.

It does work - having been proved over decades.

If it ain't broke...

Familiarity is comforting.

Screw with convention too much and many people get uncomfortable.

Even an avant garde songwriter sometimes wants to make some parts of a song familiar and comfortable.

If I want to wow you with words and melody, I don't want to distract you too much from those with strikingly original structure.

And yet, novelty is exciting.

And that's why although this structure is common, it's by no means universal.

If I had asked your question, I would probably have written that the "kind of boring" familiar structure is: verse 1/verse2/chorus/verse3/bridge/chorus ...

and of course there's plenty more variations, even in the most mainstream pop (I'm always struck by how Biology by Girls Aloud has no verses and about 4 different choruses...)

As cyco130 notes, this structure is based on alternating repetition and contrast.

Interestingly, the Classical Sonata-Allegro form is built in almost exactly the same way as the verse-chorus-bridge form, although the expectations for what each section contains are a bit different.

Start with some complete melodic phrase.

In pop music, this is the verse, in a sonata, it is your main theme: A Now add a contrasting phrase.

In pop music, this is the chorus, which tends to be more energetic than the verse.

In classical music, this is the secondary theme, which is usually in a related key, such as the dominant, and often tends to be more relaxed: AB Now treat this entire segment as a unit, and repeat it.

In pop music, this is the second verse: |:AB:| Now add another contrasting section.

In pop music, this is the bridge, which often modulates to a different key, and introduces new ideas.

In classical music, it is called the Development section, which introduces new permutations of previous ideas, and also typically modulates to more distant keys:

|:AB:| C

Finally, add some more repetition.

In pop music, depending on the song and the lyrics, this can either be a full 3rd verse and chorus, or just the chorus (possibly repeated multiple times).

In classical music, this is the Recapitulation section, which doesn't modulate: |:AB:| C AB ||

Finally, pop music might tag on a couple repeats of the chorus with a fade out, where classical music might tag on a Coda.

Question: Doesn't matter if it's Rage Against The Machine or Britney Spears song structures are always the same. It always goes something like:  Verse/Chorus/Verse 2/Chorus/Verse 3/Bridge/Chorus .  Why?  Why is this such an accepted structure?  What's the  draw  behind this kind of structure?  (I personally find the repetition kind of  boring  but it seems to be universally accepted.)  Maybe this belongs on psychology SE instead...

Song Structure: What's up with Verse/Chorus/Verse 2/Chorus/Verse 3/Bridge/Chorus?

S2: The popularity of the Verse/Chorus/Verse 2/Chorus/Verse 3/Bridge/Chorus structure is likely due to that it's a balance that many people find pleasing.

The popularity of this structure is probably due to the fact that it provides people with a pleasing balance.


I think triplets are always 2/3 of the duration of the 3 notes regardless of the meter indicated by the time signature.

So a triplet of quarter notes will take up the space of a half note (or two quarter notes).

A triplet of eighth notes will take up the space of a quarter note (or two eighth notes). ...and so on.

I pulled up some useful links in discussion, for further information: Counting Musical Triplets Triplets in 8-time signatures

Lee is right, but there is a simpler way to think of triplets.

Typically we break notes up into sets of 2 (or duples).

For example, two half notes make a whole note, two quarter notes make a half notes, two eighth notes make a quarter note etc.

All a triplet is is putting 3 notes where 2 normally go.

So 3 eighth note triplets will always equal a quarter note or two normal eighth notes.

In 9/8, you only have 4 pairs of eighth notes and 1 unpaired so you cannot have a whole measure of eighth note triples.

You can have up to 13 eighth note triples, then you need something to take up the last 1/3 of an eighth note (aka a sixteenth note triplet).

The question has already been answered correctly by Lee and Dom, but I would like to add some pictures as clarification...

I don't have an example right now from an actual piece, though I'm quite sure I've seen something similar.

Anyway, it's not hard to come up with your own examples, so here's one which shouldn't even sound that odd: This should at least show that it is completely possible to have 8th note triplets (top staff) in 9/8 which are different from the triples (bottom staff) of 8th notes associated to the time signature.

You can also see how it works.

As has been said, you just cram 3 8th notes where two would go.

The following way of writing might make it easier to see: In the first beat you play three against two as usual for the first two eight notes, and then play one more eight note.

Of course, you can also cross beats like this:

This might be quite rare in general (and if the pattern continues, I would probably write the time signature for the top staff (or both staves) as (3/4)+(3/8)).

It is certainly not exotic compared to a lot of contemporary classical music, though.

I suspect that there might be some confusion in the question.

As I see things, 6/8 is a way of notating a 2/4 rhythm whilst showing that there is a triplet beat; 9/8 is a way of notating 3/4.

I came to this backwards, hearing songs which I considered to be in 12/8 then discovering that they were notated in 4/4.

One can count songs both ways as the rhythm can be discerned on two levels: the 'outer' level having four beats to a bar, and the 'inner' level in which each beat is further subdivided into three beats (triplets).

4/4 is the 'outer' rhythm and 12/8 in the 'inner' rhythm.

Think of 9/8 like this: 3/8 + 3/8 + 3/8

So therefore 9/8 is basically a combination of 3 8th-note triplets.

If you want the original triplets, you will have to go for 16th-note triplets for each of the 9 8th notes.

I would be curious as to see a real life example as to why this would happen.

Time signatures at there core tell you how many beats there is in a bar and also what each beat consists of.

When you take 3/4 time.

It tells you in essence that we have three beats of crotchets.

If you would take this and make a compound time signature you would basically put a dot next to the groups of crotchets giving you three groups of dotted crotchets or 9/8 time.

If you take 3/4 and make a full bar of triplets you in essence also have nine notes but they are played slightly differently.

You would have three notes played in the time of two, played three times in the bar.

This is slightly different to 9/8 where you just have 9 quavers in each bar.

They should be approached slightly differently although the playing has only a slight difference between the two.

Question: How do eighth note  triplets work in 9/8 or 6/8 time?  I know in 4/4 they take up the space of two eighth notes but haven't been able to figure out how they work in 8.

Triplets in 9/8 time

All a triplet is is putting 3 notes where 2 normally go.  In 9/8, you only have 4 pairs of eighth notes and 1 unpaired so you cannot have a whole measure of eighth note triples.

Triplets are simply when you play three notes where two would normally be. However, since 9/8 does not have an even number of notes, you cannot have a full bar of triplets in 9/8.

Since there are not an even number of notes in 9/8, you cannot have a full bar of triplets.