Where does an octave begin?

anywhere you want it to. an octave is a length of notes not a starting point

C major / a minor it's all relative bruh

Btw all these are me OP. Some of the other posters are misleading. Please ask me any questions as I'd be happy to answer :)

Source: been playing guitar for 8 years and producing for about 6 and I love music!!!

An octave can begin anywhere. Every 8 notes is an octave. So if you have a 88 key piano like in pic related just put your finger on the lowest note "A". From there you can find the other "A"'s, by going up each octave.
To the left of the pair of two black Keys is "c". Count up the white keys until you get to the next c. The black Keys are the tones in between the white keys and are referred to as sharps or flats. It takes no time at all to learn where the notes are, it's the same thing repeating over and over in "octaves".

Treating the sharps/flats as if they are not there is more confusing in the long run I'd say. Understanding that a diatonic scale has 7 notes until a new octave is reached is what you are explaining.

I'm not saying ignore the sharps and flats at all. if you know the white keys you can certainly figure out the black keys.

Not to push this further than it needs to go, but saying someone should be able to figure it out doesn't mean they actually will be able to. Also OP asked specifically about octaves, not scales.

Just messing around on the piano.

>Eventually all of the theory will make sense
I come from a mathematica (and probably slightly autistical) background. Musicians idea of what constitutes a theory seems to be a lot looser than mine.

Thanks for the offer, but I think if you try to explain things over the internet that will just end up frustrating both of us. The biggest thing I'm struggling with is the concept of time signatures.

My original question was just me wondering which tones can be said to belong to the same octave and which would be said to belong to an octave higher or lower.

Because then you have to deal with accidentals
The c major scale uses the natural notes and is the base of Western music theory

But why isn't it called the A major scale?

Because when the notes were named, they happened to use a minor scale. That scale is known today as A minor and goes ABCDEFGA.
Remember that the first people to study music were religious monks and that was the sound they used in their hymns.

So what changed? And why didn't notation change with it?

your question is weird because its super basic yet something that you wouldnt really ask if you were at a high enough level to be familiar with the subject. it owuld be akin to someone asking what a consenant is from someone whos already reading see spot run. an octave 'starts' on any note, the octave ends 12 semitone pitches (literally one key over) on the same pitch, just an octave higher. from here those notes are divided into scales of usually 8 notes (for major and minor keys). for example, major scales are constructed following a pattern of wholetones(one note in between keys) and semitones as follows:
W-W-S-W-W-W-S
looking at a keyboard starting on the note C youll see that C major scale is
C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C
G major, for example is
G-A-B-C-D-E-F#-G
hope this helps retard

Also, and maybe a better question, why does music theory have to be based on any particular scale? That doesn't sound like 'music' theory. That sounds like 'C major' theory.

>asking what a consenant is from someone whos already reading see spot run.
That is an excellent question, and not one many people on that reading level could answer.

the guys youre talking to is kind of stupid. but im not terribly advanced at music theory myself so ill try to explain to the best of my abilities. modern music theory was 'canonized' during the renaisance. thats when musical notation (sheet music and all the symbols and such) became being standardized and thats why all your dynamic and tempo descriptors are mostly in italian due to it being heavily developed their. blah blah blah the majir and minor scales were standardized as well (see my above post) when the hapiscord (no balck keys, all white keys) 'evolved' into the piano in aeound the 1800s the blacks were added and deliberately designed so that the c major would be the all white keys of C D E F G A B C. the notes that make up the major scales and their corresponding minor scales were already standardized based off modes (which is some shit i know nothing about)

kindergarteners are literally tested on that dude

>when the hapiscord (no balck keys, all white keys) 'evolved' into the piano in aeound the 1800s the blacks were added and deliberately designed so that the c major would be the all white keys of C D E F G A B C.
That's interesting. I didn't know that.

So? There are a lot of kindergarten teachers who couldn't satisfyingly explain what a consonant is and why it's significant.

musictheory.net/lessons

they can still tell you if a random letter is consenant or a vowel which better represents the analogy im making. you have such a lack of knowledge of music theory you shpuldnt be asking the question. if you did, you wouldnt be asking it at all.

>you have such a lack of knowledge that you shouldn't be trying to attain knowledge
gee, th-thanks

musictheory.net/lessons/11
musictheory.net/lessons/12

How long is a whole note?

depends on the time signature. a slower time signature warrants 1......2......3......4......
while a faster one could be as fast as 1..2..3..4..
this is determinded by the tempo marker. it may be expresseed as a literal bpm (beat per min) or as an aforementioned italian word such as allegro (fast, sounds vague but my metronome says 110-131bpm which allows for some artistic interrpretation) always something to consider bpm maybe expressed as other types of notes. the standard is usually quarter note. so for example you may see something like quarter note=100 bpm. that means each division of a quarter note is one beat. in relation your whole note, which has four quarter note beats, you would have four beats in the note counted as fast as the metronome determines (based off the bpm/tempo and time,signatures) desu thats a fucking haphazard way of explaining also watch youtube video because music is linear and its easier to understand while hearing example be played as you go along
for this
you,misunderstand me. if youre reading at the level of see spot run. you clearly dont need what letters are or arent consenants exlained to you. but if you know NOTHING about reading, you wouldnt be asking whats a fucking consesant because you havent even learned a single letter. thats where your music theory knowledgr is now. now that i think about it, music theory for dummies is a good resource and if you have an iphone or ipad theres an app thats like 1 or 2 dollars with lessons and practice problems put out by a company called musicopolous as well. you better be thankful im happy to help you im typing this shit on my fucking phone

is this bait?

It's not based in the C scale, C major just happens to be the easiest to start from because it's a familiar sound used often
Nothing changed. Why would you rename everything after thousands of years for nothing? That's like asking why we didn't switch to base 2 once computers came along.

In other words you could name the noted whatever the fuck you want and tune "A" to 250Hz and the theory would still apply. The most important part of music theory is the space between the notes, not the notes themselves

One measure

Everything in music is relative to the scale and tone.

You have twelve unique, sequentially repeating tones. None are first or last, and differences are arbitrary (C is one of these, decided by monks just because). An octave is one full cycle among the twelve tones. It’s an interval, so the distance between any two of the same tone is the octave. A to the next higher A, and everything inbetween, is an octave. It’s a measure of distance, representing twelve semi-tones. A major seventh represents eleven semi-tones. A minor seventh, ten semi-tones. And so on, each distance has a name regardless of where you started measuring. A meter is a meter regardless of where you measured it from.

How long is a measure?

Ok me again OP

Almost all modern songs are written in 4/4. An example of a 3/4 song is my curse by killswitch engage. Check it out and try counting to 3 to the beat of the song and you'll understand time signatures immediately.

Dont worry about the bottom number too much! It is the same as the top except over an entire bar rather than just a measure of a bar (4/4 = 4 beats per measure and 4 measures per bar)

1 measure is dictated by the top number of the time signature. So a 4 would indicate 4 beats per measure aka count to four then start over!

The way people count and stay on track for let's say 3/4 would be:
1, 2 ,3
2, 2, 3
3, 2, 3
4, 2, 3

Like I said: This discussion will just just end up frustrating both of us. I already think you suck, based on your attempted "explanations".

An octave is a distance so it starts anywhere I guess... it's like asking where does a mile begin

I literally just told you to listen to music and count you little shit

I'm sorry if counting is hard for you OP :(

I thought the time sig. was a good explanation.
Anyway idk who came up with what sounds good with other notes...music is confusing but learnable

Why ask for advice if you are just going to say the explanations are too complex

Attached: images(3).jpg (211x239, 5K)

4/4 =
1, 2, 3, 4

I didn't. I asked a much simpler question in the op.

Also
>count until you get it
is not a complex explanation. It's not an explanation at all.

Not the same guy, but it is really hard to type out an explanation of counting time. Videos are your best bet
youtube.com/watch?v=I1pY3ijudj4

>I asked a much simpler question in the op
And you've asked like 5 other questions since then you ignorant cunt.

That is not what I said, actually. You cant help someone that doesn't want to be helped.

Because all the answers have sucked. Presumably because people think they understand the theory, but when pressed are unable to explain anything and are forced to resort to resort to circular definitions and intuition.

Well not all answers have sucked. The original question has been answered well enough.

Okay I know music theory. What questions do you still have?

As long as you want it to be, based on the time signature you chose.

An time signature is defined in terms of whole notes, at leas according to So we've come full circle.

This is all bullshit.

>musictheory.net/lessons/12
>Time signatures define the amount and type of notes that each measure contains.
I'm not sure where you're getting that time signatures are defined by whole notes.

Eight notes after what you started on
So if you start on A eight notes down you’ll hit another A boom that’s the octave

>The meassure in 4/4 time contains four quarter notes
>The meassure in 3/4 time contains three quarter notes
>The meassure in 6/8 time contains six eighth notes.
>The meassure in 3/2 time contains three half notes
Time signature is defined in terms of fractions of a whole note.

What if I want to start my song on a note in the middle of the scale?

>Time signature is defined in terms of fractions of a whole note.
Well yes technically, since other notes are fractions of the whole note. I don't see the problem? Time signatures define the length of measures, and are themselves defined by note subdivisions.

>people think they understand the theory, but when pressed are unable to explain
OP has to be a troll. I have a very solid grasp of the concepts you've been asking about. As a matter of fact they set the framework for the rest of the concepts I am sure of and even those I'm not so keen on. Many others in this thread also appear to know what they are talking about but explain things differently than I would to a beginner.

Here's some advice, do what I did and learn it on your own. After that stick your arrogance up your ass. I insist nobody attempts to help this person.

You just play that note and follow the note pattern of the scale.

The problem is that when I asked how long a whole note is the reply I got was Which 1: Leads to a circular definition; and 2: is incorrect, now that you made me think about it again, since we have seen that measures can be shorter or longer than one whole note.

More generally my problem with time signatures is that they seem entirely arbitrary and meaningless, and I struggle to understand what meaning people find in time signatures.

Yes, but now half the notes of the song belong to a different octave.

>I insist nobody attempts to help this person.
you were saying something about arrogance

Half note × 2 = whole note
Quarter note × 2 = half note

C5 = C6 ÷ 2
C6 = C5 × 2

Does this help you mr. mathematician?

You told people who were trying to help you that that didn't know what they are talking about. Pure arrogance. Why should anyone assist you?

>More generally my problem with time signatures is that they seem entirely arbitrary and meaningless, and I struggle to understand what meaning people find in time signatures.

Note values depend on the BPM (beats per minute). A whole note in 120 BPM would be 2 seconds long, for example, and a quarter note would be half a second long.

A whole note is always the duration of a whole measure, but it doesn't determine the time. Time signatures are denoted by two numbers: #/#. The first # is the number of beats per measure (bar), and the second # is the note duration for the notation. In 4/4, this means that each measure is as long as four 4th notes. Try listening to the beat of a song. You'll find most basic drum patterns has a snare drum or other accentuation on the 1st and 3rd or 2nd and 4th beats in each bar.

>Yes, but now half the notes of the song belong to a different octave.

Octaves and scales are different. Octaves are just the same note at different frequencies (An A note can be 220Hz and 440Hz, for example).

>A whole note is always the duration of a whole measure
FALSE
This is only true when working in 4/4

But never mind OP said I dont know what I'm talking about

Yeah, a whole note is not defined as one measure. Rhythmic subdivisions of notes exist independently of measure length. And time signatures are not arbitrary at all. Songs in 4/4 have a different feel than songs in 3/4.
Here's a pop song in 4/4:
youtube.com/watch?v=FTQbiNvZqaY
and one in 3/4:
youtube.com/watch?v=lkzXi4cmdJk
Try to count to the beat of the music in the 4/4 song, first as repeating patterns of 1, 2, 3, 4 and then try to count it as 1, 2, 3. Then do the same for the 3/4 song. You'll notice that counting multiples of 4 for the 4/4 song feels more natural than counting 3, and vice versa for the 3/4 song.

Rather 4 beats per measure with any amount of measures per bar

Well fuck me.

C-B including the black keys

Good luck getting through. Said exactly what i said just differently lol

No.

I'm not denying I'm a kettle. Just saying you're a pot.

>Why should anyone assist you?
They shouldn't. Like I said in an early post But people thinking then understand theory keep insisting on giving halfbaked circular answers anyway, thinking that somehow that means anything. There's an arrogance in that as well.

This is not my first time trying to undersand this bullshit. I've been on this ride before.

You define how long the whole note is you dumb fuck
That is your time signature
A 5/4 time signature means you want 5 measures in a bar, each measure 4 beats long
A whole note is always the same length as one measure

Then give up dude you're going to be shitty at music with that attitude anyways

Attached: images(4).jpg (229x220, 11K)

You're an idiot. One measure in 5/4 does not equal a whole note. It would be a whole note and a quarter note, in other words 5 quarter notes. Whole notes don't magically change their value in different times.

You need to stop posting misinformation. Idc about op but others should not try to comprehend this

> You'll notice that counting multiples of 4 for the 4/4 song feels more natural than counting 3, and vice versa for the 3/4 song.
Yes, but WHY? This is the big gaping hole in the theory, to my mind. Because for any beat, I can arbitrarily choose any natural number to count to. Including the number 1.

That really got under your skin, didn't it. Did I strike a nerve?

>Then give up dude you're going to be shitty at music with that attitude anyways
If I had talent I wouldn't need to be so hung up on theory. But it is what it is.

The reason 4/4 is the most popular time signature is because it's easy to groove to. A crowd can feel the rhythm on the accentuated notes, and it's also just easier to play around rather than trying to keep time in odd rhythms. Some dances like waltzes (I think? Or polka) are usually in 3/4 because of how the dance works. Songs aren't bound to a specific time signature, but they're used to maintain order and time during the performance.

>Yes, but WHY?
Its the way you choose rhythms that gives it a specific feel. Our brain picks out chord changes and percussive accents.
For example, let's say you have a chord and you play it three times in a row. Then you move on to another chord and play that one three times, and so on. Congratulations, you've just made a song in 3/4. You could also make a drum rhythm that emphasizes every 3 beats and get the same 3/4 feel.

I'm actually happy to see you struggle where I have succeeded due to your attitude in all this. Nice try though.

This is exactly as meaningless a reply as anything itt.

And it doesn't take a much more complicated arangement to for this appeal to intuittion to break down.

It's interacting with enough patronizing people like you that has fostered this attitude. Kowing that should put the cherry on top of your day.

>And it doesn't take a much more complicated arangement to for this appeal to intuittion to break down.
???
I don't really know what you're looking for when it comes to explaining time signatures, but I don't think I can help you. The only advice I'll give is to practice counting different rhythms until you get a feel for it.

>The only advice I'll give is to practice counting different rhythms until you get a feel for it.
This is what everyone's advice eventually boils down to. My issue is that this is not elementary and self evident enough to base a theory on.

Also, in fact, the more I practice counting different rythms the more the concept of an inherent rythm breaks down for me.

>this is not elementary and self evident enough to base a theory on
It really is, but you refuse every explanation given to you. I don't think you want to learn music, just how to autistically dissect it.

>just how to autistically dissect it.
A theory that doesn't allow you to do this is not worth it's name.

an octave is 8 whole notes distance. it 'begins' anywhere