Today a friend of mine gave me a book he thinks I might like. The timing could not have been better because I happen to be inbetween books right now.
I've read the front and back end flaps, a few reviews of it and the first few pages of the introduction. And it appears to address the intersection of music, art, neuroscience, psychology, culture and maybe a few other domains . . . all subjects I'm fascinated by.
The author is neuroscientist but has worked as a session musician, sound engineer and a record producer. Here is a quote from page 2 of the intro.
Many years later, Paul Simon told me that the sound is always what he was after too. "The way that I listen to my own records is for the sound of them; not the chords or the lyrics - my first impression is of the overall sound."
So far, I'm very much enjoying what this guy has to say.
For others interested in these areas and who might want to read along and discuss here or privately, this is one place to purchase it.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
Reading this book is quite fascinating and is exposing me to concepts I had never thought of before. Here is a quote that I can't quite make sense of. Curious if anybody musically trained can break this apart for us folk that are self-taught.
"Led Zeppelin often tuned their instruments away from the modern A440 standard to give their music an uncommon sound, and perhaps to link it with the European children's folk songs that inspired many of their compositions."
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
Some folks will change their tuner to 432 Hz rather than standard 440 Hz. As you know the 440 is the standard tuning of the A note above middle C. Some folks claim benefits of listening to 432 Hz music like reducing stress, mental healing and a whole bunch of other stuff. Other people suggest they do not notice any difference.
BIAB 2026 Ultrapack- Studio One Pro 7 Windows 11, Mac Mini M4 with Logic Pro 11, Melodyne Studio, Luna Pro
<...snip...> Some folks claim benefits of listening to 432 Hz music like reducing stress, mental healing and a whole bunch of other stuff. Other people suggest they do not notice any difference.
The only thing I noticed was acoustic pianos all played out of tune - flat
Just kidding, of course. But seriously, I can't try that, as it's outside the range my saxophone will tune to.
It's interesting. Over seemingly centuries, everyone has had a thought on what the exact pitch of 'A' should be. The overall consensus now is that it should be 440Hz, but many artists (including Led Zepplin obviously) have chosen to alter it in an effort to create a more 'unique sound'.
(Also, the ACW would have a fit )
BIAB & RB2026 Win.(Audiophile), Windows 10 Professional & Windows 11, Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors
Some folks claim benefits of listening to 432 Hz music like reducing stress, mental healing and a whole bunch of other stuff. Other people suggest they do not notice any difference.
This is one of the baffling things to me regarding the quote. Are humans, on average, able to consciously notice a 8 Hz difference in notes (not pure tones) in a rock band that was known for ear shattering dB levels, or even at comfortable listening levels? I think no, but I could be wrong.
But even if the general untrained Zepelin fan could detect and understand sub-semitone differences how does that produce an "uncommon sound" since all you're doing is agreeing to a different frequency baseline?
And thirdly, how can non-standard tuning link to "European children's folk songs"? Wouldn't all instrument frequencies in the band be shifted up or down by the same amount?
My understanding is that we are designed to percieve and understand relative pitches in music, not absolute pitches.
I also wonder where the author got that info. If from a Zepelin interview, could that have been LSD talking??
Obviously, I'm not understanding everything regarding this quote.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
There are some who say we are all born with perfect pitch and we lose the ability to use it. The exceptions are folks from Asian countries where the inflections in words are so subtle that the ear remains attuned.
I don’t know about that.
As for pitch discrimination, I’ve know many audio engineers who were taught that people cannot distinguish a change of less than six cents. I proved I can hear down to four, but not less.
And the proponents of 432 Hz claim a mathematical origin as well as the historical precedent. Our church has a Steinway grand that was built in 1866 when it would have been perfect for a European orchestra. It can be tuned to 440 but by two days later will again be sitting happily at 432. It doesn’t help that the organ is at 442.
BIAB 2025 Win Audiophile. Software: Studio One 7 Pro, Swam horns, Acoustica-7, Notion 6, Song Master Pro, Win 11 Home. Hardware: Intel i9, 32 Gb; Presonus 192 & Faderport 8, Royer 121, Slate VSX, Adam Sub8 & Neumann 120 monitors.
Some folks claim benefits of listening to 432 Hz music like reducing stress, mental healing and a whole bunch of other stuff. Other people suggest they do not notice any difference.
This is one of the baffling things to me regarding the quote. Are humans, on average, able to consciously notice a 8 Hz difference in notes (not pure tones) in a rock band that was known for ear shattering dB levels, or even at comfortable listening levels? I think no, but I could be wrong.
But even if the general untrained Zepelin fan could detect and understand sub-semitone differences how does that produce an "uncommon sound" since all you're doing is agreeing to a different frequency baseline?
And thirdly, how can non-standard tuning link to "European children's folk songs"? Wouldn't all instrument frequencies in the band be shifted up or down by the same amount?
My understanding is that we are designed to percieve and understand relative pitches in music, not absolute pitches.
I also wonder where the author got that info. If from a Zepelin interview, could that have been LSD talking??
Obviously, I'm not understanding everything regarding this quote.
I duplicated a acoustic guitar track and then detuned one track by -8 cents and yes you can hear the chorus effect between the two tracks. However if all tracks are set to 432 can I tell the difference between the 440 and the 432 I have not done that before I suppose.
BIAB 2026 Ultrapack- Studio One Pro 7 Windows 11, Mac Mini M4 with Logic Pro 11, Melodyne Studio, Luna Pro
... It can be tuned to 440 but by two days later will again be sitting happily at 432. It doesn’t help that the organ is at 442.
Ouch!
BIAB & RB2026 Win.(Audiophile), Windows 10 Professional & Windows 11, Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors
................................ And the proponents of 432 Hz claim a mathematical origin as well as the historical precedent. Our church has a Steinway grand that was built in 1866 when it would have been perfect for a European orchestra. It can be tuned to 440 but by two days later will again be sitting happily at 432. It doesn’t help that the organ is at 442.
FYI - My wife's old upright piano is tuned to 432. Our now retired piano tuner said a lot of old uprights are tuned to 432 because at 440 they would not be in tune for very long. Those pianos' wooden components could not take the string tension. He was the piano tuner for the Eastman School of Music and the Hochstein School of Music, both in Rochester NY. He said those pianos were tuned to either 442 or 444 so the brightness and volume of the piano would cut through the orchestra. He also said he had a monthly agreement to retune and to replace any broken strings!
It takes courage for a man to admit his wife was wrong.
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
And the proponents of 432 Hz claim a mathematical origin as well as the historical precedent.
Hmmm, I think these folks might have lost the debate, my understanding is 440 is the global standard. And I'm thinking any standard is somewhat arbitrary, but it's important that the world agree on a standard.
But I'm still trying to figure out the linkage (if any) between altered tuning and Zepelin's uncommon sound/European children folk songs.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
And the proponents of 432 Hz claim a mathematical origin as well as the historical precedent.
Hmmm, I think these folks might have lost the debate, my understanding is 440 is the global standard. And I'm thinking any standard is somewhat arbitrary, but it's important that the world agree on a standard.
But I'm still trying to figure out the linkage (if any) between altered tuning and Zepelin's uncommon sound/European children folk songs.
Maybe the linkage is the fact that if said children folk songs were ancient they may have been in 432 and Led Zeppelin may have wanted to emulate that. There is a lot of controversy about what sounds better, songs in 440 or songs in 432. Through out the ages there has been no tuning standard, that is until 1955, or 1939 if you want to include the suggestion to standardize 440. If you are interested in 432 here is the history of it:
In the days of recording to tape (which was often sped up), no 440 except with tuning forks, turntables with 10% tolerance in speed, cassettes with even less precise speeds, my answer is, "Who cares".
Learning songs from recordings by ear meant adjusting the pitch of your instrument first.
In my early career, we tuned to the piano that was on every stage, and they were hardly ever at 440. There were no guitar tuners, so the guitars were tuned by from the 6th string to match the piano, and then by ear, making it a bit like just tuning, instead of equal temperament.
Then came strobe tuners, followed by digital, and I don't really know if that's an improvement or not. Some of those old 60s recordings with slightly out-of-tune guitars would not be improved if they were tuned perfectly.
As far as I'm concerned, if it sounds good to me, it is good.
There is a lot of controversy about what sounds better, songs in 440 or songs in 432. Through out the ages there has been no tuning standard, that is until 1955, or 1939 if you want to include the suggestion to standardize 440. If you are interested in 432 here is the history of it:
This is becoming a quite worthwhile discussion. For those that don’t know, a big part of music for me is all about growth and this thread is promoting growth.
The article you supplied provided at least a glimpse of all the fuss that was required to get us where we are today. Good historical info. We should all hold those that participated in the 1939 London conference in high esteem.
“The modern standard of 440 Hz became more widely accepted in the 20th century, particularly following a 1939 international conference in London. The British Standards Institution recommended 440 Hz as the standard pitch, and this tuning gained more traction globally after World War II.”
As good as that webpage is, it doesn’t shed the light I’m looking for in regards to the quote in question. So let me try this.
So you’re invited to a birthday party and you're the only muscian invited. And as they bring out the cake, someone starts singing Happy Birthday. Nobody is carrying a pocket tuner with them and no one has any preconceived ideas on “the proper key”. But as soon as the first note is sung, the entire room is able to sing along quite nicely. And even if a high-pitched woman or child starts everyone off, the low-pitch males can easily adjust their singing down an octave or two quite naturally to blend with the crowd. I find it amazing that we are wired this way.
Now back to the Zepelin quote. I’m still baffled by how an alternate tuning (432 for example) can some how create an “unusual sound” or be linked to some children’s folk song if the relationships among the notes are not altered. Presumably, the standard 440 is inadequate? For starters, who in the audience can say, “This music stinks because the tuning is all wrong”? likewise when a song is transposed say from Amaj to Cmaj (to meet the needs of a singer or other requirement) don’t we all recognize and enjoy the piece in the same way that Happy Birthday can be sung quite nicely in different keys?
I think part of the answer to all this involves “equal temperament” and how we are designed to understand and sing based on relative frequencies (the musical distance from one note to the next) as opposed to absolute frequencies.
But for that matter, I wonder if 440 tuning has its own set of compromises and is it possible that no tuning scheme is perfect in all situations? I understand that one benefit of 440 is that it allows (near?) perfect transposition.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
432 creates one more overtone within our hearing range, so there's that ..
440 has 46, 432 has 47.
If you’re counting the number of harmonics out to 20kHz, I’m not sure how relevant that is in listening to music. Many audiologists only test out to 8kHz, and many of us can't even hear out to that frequency.
20,000/440=45.5 20,000/432=46.3
8,000/440=18.2 8,000/432=18.5
What I do find interesting is how easy it is to take A440 for granted given the challenges the folks back in 1939 faced while establishing it. The more I learn about this the more I realize that a) 440Hz is to some degree arbitrary b) Much compromise was needed for this standard to be agreed upon c) A 440Hz standard is not “musically perfect” in every sense but it does solve important problems d) Musicians were happy (and are happy today with it)
I’m beginning to conclude that even with today’s computer-assisted, multi-factor optimization routines that we would not be able to come up with a practical standard meaningfully superior to A440. But then again, there’s much more of this book that remains to be read.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
[quote=MarioD]So you’re invited to a birthday party and you're the only muscian invited. And as they bring out the cake, someone starts singing Happy Birthday. Nobody is carrying a pocket tuner with them and no one has any preconceived ideas on “the proper key”. But as soon as the first note is sung, the entire room is able to sing along quite nicely. And even if a high-pitched woman or child starts everyone off, the low-pitch males can easily adjust their singing down an octave or two quite naturally to blend with the crowd. I find it amazing that we are wired this way.
Not at the birthday parties that I've attended. People start in different keys, and proceed to get louder and louder, and even less in tune at the end.
Quote
Now back to the Zepelin quote. I’m still baffled by how an alternate tuning (432 for example) can some how create an “unusual sound” or be linked to some children’s folk song if the relationships among the notes are not altered.
You're right, it's completely rubbish.
Quote
For starters, who in the audience can say, “This music stinks because the tuning is all wrong”? likewise when a song is transposed say from Amaj to Cmaj (to meet the needs of a singer or other requirement) don’t we all recognize and enjoy the piece in the same way that Happy Birthday can be sung quite nicely in different keys?
I have a singer in my Sunday group who thinks he can.
He asks if I changed the key every time he has trouble singing his part.
[quote=MarioD]So you’re invited to a birthday party and you're the only muscian invited. And as they bring out the cake, someone starts singing Happy Birthday. Nobody is carrying a pocket tuner with them and no one has any preconceived ideas on “the proper key”. But as soon as the first note is sung, the entire room is able to sing along quite nicely. And even if a high-pitched woman or child starts everyone off, the low-pitch males can easily adjust their singing down an octave or two quite naturally to blend with the crowd. I find it amazing that we are wired this way.
Not at the birthday parties that I've attended. People start in different keys, and proceed to get louder and louder, and even less in tune at the end. .......................................
David, that was not my quote. That was Bass Thumpers. My Happy Birthday experience was exactly like yours.
It takes courage for a man to admit his wife was wrong.
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
And as they bring out the cake, someone starts singing Happy Birthday. Nobody is carrying a pocket tuner with them and no one has any preconceived ideas on “the proper key”. But as soon as the first note is sung, the entire room is able to sing along quite nicely.
Ha Ha. Well, you're half right. This bit works: "But as soon as the first note is sung..." But this bit Never Works:"..the entire room is able to sing along quite nicely" You need to extract the words: 'quite nicely' and consider replacing with 'cringeworthy'.
Never mind, as long as the party's good, what else matters?
BIAB & RB2026 Win.(Audiophile), Windows 10 Professional & Windows 11, Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors
I have a singer in my Sunday group who thinks he can.
He asks if I changed the key every time he has trouble singing his part.
Hmmm, I wonder if Anthony Amusia has a pathology of some kind affecting his inner ear, subcortical structures or hippocampus. Perhaps a brain worm, injury or other cognitive decline? Absent any pathology, he should easily be able to sing along to simple familiar songs. Children can do this at very early ages.
“The latter years of childhood are characterized by a general singing competency for the majority. Relatively few children are reported as singing “out-of-tune” at the age of eleven years (Howard et al, 194; Welch, 1979;2002).”
In any event, I hope “Anthony” isn’t preventing you from grasping the underlying “Happy Birthday Concept”; that healthy humans are wired and capable of cooperatively singing with one another.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
Hmmm, I wonder if Anthony Amusia has a pathology of some kind affecting his inner ear, subcortical structures or hippocampus. Perhaps a brain worm, injury or other cognitive decline? Absent any pathology, he should easily be able to sing along to simple familiar songs. Children can do this at very early ages.
You misunderstand. He's quite capable of singing on key. And he can sing tenor parts as well as the melody.
But every now and then, I'll be on the piano playing a song written in Fm and think "Em is a much easier key to play this in.", and proceed to do just that without telling the choir. You've already made the case for relative pitch, and a half step isn't generally going to change much, especially for the tenors.
But this singer has caught on to my ploy. So if he's got trouble singing his part, his first thought is that the problem is that the key has changed, rather than the more probable we're all getting older and he's not listening closely enough.
Quote
In any event, I hope “Anthony” isn’t preventing you from grasping the underlying “Happy Birthday Concept”; that healthy humans are wired and capable of cooperatively singing with one another.
What's this "cooperatively singing" thing? I thought the goal was to sing louder, so everyone would have to sing in the right key (i.e.: the key I chose).
As a youngster in church, I quickly figured out that my Dad and my Uncle Rich (seated a few pews back) weren't just singing loudly because they were into the hymn.
But this singer has caught on to my ploy. So if he's got trouble singing his part, his first thought is that the problem is that the key has changed, rather than the more probable we're all getting older and he's not listening closely enough.
As a youngster in church, I quickly figured out that my Dad and my Uncle Rich (seated a few pews back) weren't just singing loudly because they were into the hymn.
No, each was trying to out-sing the other.
To them, singing was a competitive sport.
David, we seem to be talking past each other. I can’t add meaningful value by drawing conclusions or offering opinions about the individual people close to you. Even if I tried, such conclusions would only apply to them, not more broadly. That’s called anecdotal and subjective and not what science is interested in.
I, and Levitin's book are more interested in how science seeks to understand the generalized big picture. In this field, that means longitudinal studies, brain imaging, animal research, and cross-cultural observations. The book that we’re discussing here aims to explain how humans experience music and which areas of the brain are responsible for processing, interpreting, and enjoying it.
So while your uncle Rich and your dad may have a personal singing competition going on, I can’t see how that fact contributes to the scientific knowledge base about music at our species or brain level. Science isn’t interested in individuals unless they are so exceptional that they warrant specific investigation; think of the interest in dissecting Einstein’s brain, for example.
The paper I shared by Graham Welch illustrates this point: the initial phase of the study assessed 3,510 children across 77 schools. A sample of that size provides far more insight compared to two individuals in a singing rivalry or one person who has figured out your piano ploy.
Of course, exceptions exist, but exceptions don’t make general conclusions. The weight of the data does. And one conclusion that many have made is that humans, even young children, can blend and emulate in singing when a simple song (like Happy Birthday) is started in an unpredictable key. It suggests that music, and our ability to understand and produce it, is deeply rooted in the brain. As far as we know, crayfish can’t do this. 😊
And who knows? Could it be that we all come out of the womb with some innate understanding of music? If so, an A440 basis is where I’d put my money 😉
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
David, we seem to be talking past each other.... I can’t see how that fact contributes to the scientific knowledge base about music at our species or brain level.
I can't comment unless I add to the scientific knowledge base instead giving my typical smart alec remarks?
I can't comment unless I add to the scientific knowledge base instead giving my typical smart alec remarks?
FWIW I don't consider your remarks "smart alec" but there is plenty of one-sentence (or less) anecdotal, personal and hometown banter here already. I'm hoping that an intellectual discussion on our brains on music would be educationally stimulating, different and fun.
And it isn't so much about adding to the scientific knowledge base (although that would be great if you can) it's more about exploring the scientific and music base; discussing the ground that has already been plowed by very smart people. Adam Neely is a good example.
Clearly, Daniel Levitin is quite well-studied and can teach us much. Who amoungst us here could write such a book?
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
“. . . and music is often described as having two dimensions, one that accounts for tones going up in frequency (and sounding higher and higher) and another that accounts for the perceptual sense that we’ve come back home again each time we double a tone’s frequency.”
I can understand the “higher and higher” but the doubling of frequency (an octave) is quite interesting. I wonder how much this is biological and neural vs culturally learned.
And could there be a 3rd dimension, time, since all music progresses thru time as opposed to a painting which is essentially static and "frozen" in time.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
Yes However, doesn't that require that those biological and neural responses mean we inherently have a 'snapshot', if you will, of those overtones-over-time that allows us to respond? Comparable to a static painting, say .. or ROM
// My 'snapshot' library is probably much different than most, at least it appears to me that way
Last edited by rharv; 12/07/2512:55 PM.
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome Make your sound your own!
I can understand the “higher and higher” but the doubling of frequency (an octave) is quite interesting. I wonder how much this is biological and neural vs culturally learned
I imagine it's how we perceive/anticipate tension and resolution. It's quite likely innate as some aspect like that are common around the world in different musical cultures.
Jazz relative beginner, starting at a much older age than was helpful. AVL:MXE Linux; Windows 11 BIAB2025 Audiophile, a bunch of other software. Kawai MP6, Ui24R, Focusrite Saffire Pro40 and Scarletts .
A minor pentatonic is usually the first scale a guitarist learns. Also a pentatonic scale fits in two different key signatures. For instance an A minor pentatonic scale is also a C major pentatonic scale, i.e. same notes in both key signatures.
It takes courage for a man to admit his wife was wrong.
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
Yes However, doesn't that require that those biological and neural responses mean we inherently have a 'snapshot', if you will, of those overtones-over-time that allows us to respond? Comparable to a static painting, say .. or ROM
We (even non-musicians) may very well have a "snapshot" or natural understanding of what an octave is even if we may be unable to articulate that understanding in words.
I agree with Levitin when he says "we’ve come back home again each time we double a tone’s frequency". But have we really fully "come back home"? We've doubled the frequency so we are no longer "home" in the frequency domain but I think we are "home" in some other domain that appears to be circular; think circle of 5ths.
Moving from A440 to A880 may sound equivalent from one perspective but those two notes are quite different from another perspective. Perhaps the brain is wired to collapse 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, etc. frequency ratios into a single category that we percieve as "similar". And maybe it does this because these integer ratios don't allow any dissonance from happening. Non integer ratios would introduce dissonance because the pressure pulses reaching the inner ear are out of sync.
Just a thought . . .
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
Yes However, doesn't that require that those biological and neural responses mean we inherently have a 'snapshot', if you will, of those overtones-over-time that allows us to respond? Comparable to a static painting, say .. or ROM
We (even non-musicians) may very well have a "snapshot" or natural understanding of what an octave is even if we may be unable to articulate that understanding in words. ... Just a thought . . .
I think it's much deeper than that, but no argument here.
Why do we think a guitar should be tuned a certain way? I mean, even if 436 is used versus 440, it is tuned to itself from there. What about a sitar? Why are the horns in a typical orchestra all universally accepted as opposed to other horns created in history? Why are all the conventional brass instruments in Bb and not the others? Most importantly, why on earth is there a 'C' trumpet ?
.. just having fun asking questions, as it makes one think sometimes
Last edited by rharv; 12/07/2507:47 PM.
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome Make your sound your own!
A minor pentatonic is usually the first scale a guitarist learns. Also a pentatonic scale fits in two different key signatures. For instance an A minor pentatonic scale is also a C major pentatonic scale, i.e. same notes in both key signatures.
This also, (I think) is much deeper than that. Pentatonic is handy/easy/fundamental on any instrument it can apply to, which is most.
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome Make your sound your own!
I can understand the “higher and higher” but the doubling of frequency (an octave) is quite interesting. I wonder how much this is biological and neural vs culturally learned.
Hearing starts as a physical phenomena - sound/vibrations trigger pitch recognition via sympathetic vibrations.
A vibration at n times a frequency will activate the pitch receptors from frequency to n * frequency from 1..n, obviously in different proportions.
Yes, that is my understanding also. The human nature is to more easily adapt to similar harmonic frequencies. Doubling / halving of frequencies is the natural launching point.
BIAB & RB2026 Win.(Audiophile), Windows 10 Professional & Windows 11, Sonar Platinum, Cakewalk by Bandlab, Izotope Prod.Bundle, Roland RD-1000, Synthogy Ivory, Kontakt, Focusrite 18i20, KetronSD2, NS40M Monitors, Pioneer Active Monitors
A minor pentatonic is usually the first scale a guitarist learns. Also a pentatonic scale fits in two different key signatures. For instance an A minor pentatonic scale is also a C major pentatonic scale, i.e. same notes in both key signatures.
This also, (I think) is much deeper than that. Pentatonic is handy/easy/fundamental on any instrument it can apply to, which is most.
Yes, I agree. I was just using a guitarist point of view. But after rereading it I should have been more specific. A guitarist whom reads music learns the major scale first. Those who do not read music learns the minor pentatonic scale first, at least in my experience.
It takes courage for a man to admit his wife was wrong.
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
Yeah, I think I learned of this video from you last year, thanks for sharing. Everytime I watch it I smile, it's as if the audience is an instrument and McFerrin is playing that instrument.
I wonder if similar results would be achieved in a class of kindergarteners, I'm thinking yes.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
There's a good mapping between the overtone series and how we perceive harmonic tension. I have no doubt that's tied to the mechanics of how we decode pitch.
If we take a frequency and divide it by ascending integers, we get the harmonic series:
f/1, f/2, f/3, f/4 ...
This yields the notes
C1, C2, G2, C3, E3, G3 ...
These map fairly well from least dissonant intervals to most dissonant intervals:
1, 5, 3, ...
We can add inversions (fourth, sixth) which gives a fairly complete scale:
1 3 4 5 6 8 ...
So in C major:
C E F G A C
It's not the same as the pentatonic scale, but more on that later. It also has some large gaps in it, between 1..3 and 6...8. There are various ways of filling in those gaps.
The other primary relation can be shown using the circle of fifths. For example, we can use the circle of fifths to derive the entire chromatic scale, ignoring the issue of the pythagorean comma:
C, G, D, A, E, B, F#/Gb, C#/Db, G#/Ab, D#/Eb, A#/Bb, F, C ...
We get the pitch set of any major scale by choosing one note to the left of the root, and five from the right. So the key of A major yields:
C, G, D, A, E, B, F#/Gb, C#/Db, G#/Ab, D#/Eb, A#/Bb, F
which rearranged gives:
A, B, C#, D, E, F#, G#, A
Back to the pentatonic scale. Given a major scale, we can reduce it by removing the half-steps, which are pretty universally heard as dissonances (of course, context changes this). So given a major scale, there are two scale degrees that are within a half-step: the 3-4 and the 7-8:
C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C
To get the most harmonically pleasing scale, we remove the clashing notes with the highest dissonance. That means we keep the 1, 3 and 5 (they are harmonically strongest, per the circle of fifths). So with the 3-4 we remove the 4, and 7-8 we remove the 7. This yields a major pentatonic scale, called a "gapped" scale to recognize that notes have been removed from it, leaving spaces:
C, D, E, G, A
These two principles - the overtone series and circle of fifths - provide a strong basis for explaining chords and scales. The circle of fifths also gives insight into harmonic movement, especially V->I movement.
A minor pentatonic is usually the first scale a guitarist learns. Also a pentatonic scale fits in two different key signatures. For instance an A minor pentatonic scale is also a C major pentatonic scale, i.e. same notes in both key signatures.
I built this table awhile ago but never figured out how to actually use it in constructing my bass lines. Maybe I should investigate this.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
I read once that the oldest instrument to be found, a bone with holes in it, plays a pentatonic scale. I also read that most cultures have independently come up with the pentatonic scale, it's just that they don't always start on the same note.
The major pentatonic in C is the minor pentatonic in A.
This tells me there is something organic about the pentatonic scale.
I use them a lot in my improvisations, sometimes mixing minor and major, depending on the song. Perhaps over half. Why? The audience seems to like it.
Charlie Parker played a lot of major pentatonic, even though he was a bebop player.
I discovered minor pentatonic, on sax when I was a child, in a rock band. Added flat 5 and 9 for passing or tension, and transposed to all keys (unlike the guitar, the fingering for each key is different). I've built on from there throughout my life, but I can always depend on the pentatonic to keep me grounded.
There's a good mapping between the overtone series and how we perceive harmonic tension. I have no doubt that's tied to the mechanics of how we decode pitch.
Overtones (or higher harmonics) is what so many of us enjoy about the sound of musical instruments. Sure, pure tones as produced by synths are nice and have their place.
But when even a single note is played on an instrument its overtones define the "color" or timbre of that instrument. The sweet metallic sound of a muted trumpet or the bow drawn across a string of a cello produce a series of harmonics specific to that instrument. I'm sure instrument designers have understood this for centuries.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2025 Windows For me there’s no better place in the band than to have one leg in the harmony world and the other in the percussive. Thank you Paul Tutmarc and Leo Fender.
Overtones (or higher harmonics) is what so many of us enjoy about the sound of musical instruments. Sure, pure tones as produced by synths are nice and have their place.
But when even a single note is played on an instrument its overtones define the "color" or timbre of that instrument. The sweet metallic sound of a muted trumpet or the bow drawn across a string of a cello produce a series of harmonics specific to that instrument. I'm sure instrument designers have understood this for centuries.
Yes, you can use and Fourier Transform to show the harmonic makeup of instrument timbre. But I doubt that "instrument designers have understood this for centuries" helped in the design of instrument. Rather, it was the general guidelines of mechanics, such as the type of bore (cylindrical vs. conical) and instrument materials that guided designers. Additionally, most changes to instruments were incremental changes, such as the Boehm fingering system, which built on other similar developments. Even the saxophone was an extension of prior designs.
But that's not what I was talking about.
I was addressing that question you had about the perception of consonance and dissonance - especially in the pentatonic scale - and what the basis was.
The properties of the overtone series of come from physics, as does how our hearing works. They are inextricably linked together. The fact that melodic and harmonic systems have been developed that match properties of these overtone ([i]i.e.[i] being able to come up with a measure of harmonic consonance using the series) as well as being able to fill in the scale via the Circle of Fifths makes - to my mind, anyway - a compelling argument that this isn't something that's based in neurology.
Join Tobin as he takes you on a tour of the new user interface in Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows®! This modern GUI redesign offers a sleek new look with updated toolbars, refreshed windows, and a smoother workflow. The brand-new side toolbar puts track selection, the MultiPicker Library, and other essential tools right at your fingertips. Plus, our upgraded Multi-View lets you layer multiple windows without overlap, giving you a highly flexible workspace. Many windows—including Tracks, Piano Roll, and more—have been redesigned for improved usability and a cleaner, more intuitive interface, and more!
Introducing XPro Styles PAK 10 – Now Available for Windows Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 10 for Windows & Mac Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 28 RealTracks and RealDrums!
Few things are certain in life: death, taxes, and a brand spankin’ new XPro Styles PAK! In this, the 10th edition of our XPro Styles PAK series, we’ve got 100 styles coming your way! We have the classic 25 styles each from the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, and rounding out this volume's wildcard slot is 25 styles in the Praise & Worship genre! A wide spanning genre, you can find everything from rock, folk, country, and more underneath its umbrella. The included 28 RealTracks and RealDrums can be used with any Band-in-a-Box® 2026 (and higher) package.
Here’s just a small sampling of what you can look forward to in XPro Styles PAK 10: Soft indie folk worship songs, bumpin’ country boogies, gospel praise breaks, hard rockin’ pop, funky disco grooves, smooth Latin jazz pop, bossa nova fusion, western swing, alternative hip-hop, cool country funk, and much more!
Special offers until December 31st, 2025!
All the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 10 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Order now!
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
Introducing Xtra Styles PAK 21 – Now Available for Windows Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher!
Xtra Styles PAK 21 for Windows & Mac Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) is here with 200 brand new RealStyles!
We're excited to bring you our latest Xtra Styles PAK installment—the all new Xtra Styles PAK 21 for Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher)!
Rejoice, one and all, for Xtra Styles PAK 21 for Band-in-a-Box® is here! We’re serving up 200 brand spankin’ new styles to delight your musical taste buds! The first three courses are the classics you’ve come to know and love, including offerings from the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, but, not to be outdone, this year’s fourth course is bro country! A wide ranging genre, you can find everything from hip-hop, uptempo outlaw country, hard hitting rock, funk, and even electronica, all with that familiar bro country flair. The dinner bell has been rung, pickup up Xtra Styles PAK 21 today!
In this PAK you’ll discover: Energetic folk rock, raucous train beats, fast country boogies, acid jazz grooves, laid-back funky jams, a bevy of breezy jazz waltzes, calm electro funk, indie synth pop, industrial synth metal, and more bro country than could possibly fit in the back of a pickup truck!
Special offers until December 31st, 2025!
All the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 21 are on special for only $29 each (reg $49), or get all 21 PAKs for $199 (reg $399)! Order now!
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 21 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
Introducing XPro Styles PAK 10 – Now Available for Mac Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 10 for Mac & Windows Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 28 RealTracks and RealDrums!
Few things are certain in life: death, taxes, and a brand spankin’ new XPro Styles PAK! In this, the 10th edition of our XPro Styles PAK series, we’ve got 100 styles coming your way! We have the classic 25 styles each from the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, and rounding out this volume's wildcard slot is 25 styles in the Praise & Worship genre! A wide spanning genre, you can find everything from rock, folk, country, and more underneath its umbrella. The included 28 RealTracks and RealDrums can be used with any Band-in-a-Box® 2026 (and higher) package.
Here’s just a small sampling of what you can look forward to in XPro Styles PAK 10: Soft indie folk worship songs, bumpin’ country boogies, gospel praise breaks, hard rockin’ pop, funky disco grooves, smooth Latin jazz pop, bossa nova fusion, western swing, alternative hip-hop, cool country funk, and much more!
Special offers until December 31st, 2025!
All the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 10 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Order now!
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
Introducing Xtra Styles PAK 21 – Now Available for Mac Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher!
Xtra Styles PAK 21 for Mac & Windows Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) is here with 200 brand new RealStyles!
We're excited to bring you our latest Xtra Styles PAK installment—the all new Xtra Styles PAK 21 for Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher)!
Rejoice, one and all, for Xtra Styles PAK 21 for Band-in-a-Box® is here! We’re serving up 200 brand spankin’ new styles to delight your musical taste buds! The first three courses are the classics you’ve come to know and love, including offerings from the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, but, not to be outdone, this year’s fourth course is bro country! A wide ranging genre, you can find everything from hip-hop, uptempo outlaw country, hard hitting rock, funk, and even electronica, all with that familiar bro country flair. The dinner bell has been rung, pickup up Xtra Styles PAK 21 today!
In this PAK you’ll discover: Energetic folk rock, raucous train beats, fast country boogies, acid jazz grooves, laid-back funky jams, a bevy of breezy jazz waltzes, calm electro funk, indie synth pop, industrial synth metal, and more bro country than could possibly fit in the back of a pickup truck!
Special offers until December 31st, 2025!
All the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 21 are on special for only $29 each (reg $49), or get all 21 PAKs for $199 (reg $399)! Order now!
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 21 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows is here and it is packed with major new features! There’s a new modern look, a GUI redesign to all areas of the program including toolbars, windows, workflow and more. There’s a Multi-view layout for organizing multiple windows. A standout addition is the powerful AI-Notes feature, which uses AI neural-net technology to transcribe polyphonic audio into MIDI—entire mixes or individual instruments—making it easy to study, view, and play parts from any song. And that’s just the beginning—there are over 60 new features in this exciting release.
Along with version 2026, we've released an incredible lineup of new content! There's 202 new RealTracks, brand-new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 5, two new RealDrums Stems sets, XPro Styles PAK 10, Xtra Styles PAK 21, and much more!
Special Offers
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows and save up to 50% on most upgrade packages during our special offer—available until December 31, 2025. Visit our Band-in-a-Box® packages page to explore all available upgrade options.
2026 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK Add-ons
Our Free Bonus PAK and 49-PAK are loaded with amazing add-ons! The Free Bonus PAK is included with most Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows packages, but you can unlock even more—including 20 unreleased RealTracks—by upgrading to the 2026 49-PAK for just $49. Browse the full contents of each package and listen to demos here.
XPro and Xtra Styles PAKs Special Extended Until August 31st!
XPro & Xtra Styles PAKs Special Extended Until August 31st!
The XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAKs special offers are now available until August 31st at 11:59pm PDT!
Ready to take your Band-in-a-Box® 2025 experience to the next level? Now’s the perfect time! Expand your style library with XPro and Xtra Styles PAKs—packed with a wide variety of genres to inspire your next musical creation.
What are XPro Styles and Xtra Styles PAKs?
XPro Styles PAKs are styles that work with any version (Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition) of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). XPro Styles PAKS 1-9 includes 900 styles!
Xtra Styles PAKs are styles that work with the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). With over 3,500 styles (and 35 MIDI styles) included in Xtra Styles PAKs 1-20, the possibilities are endless!
Get the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 9 for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Listen to demos and order now! For Windows or for Mac.
Note: XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
Get Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 20 are on special for only $29 each (reg $49), or get all 19 PAKs for $199 (reg $399)! Listen to demos and order now! For Windows or for Mac.
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 19 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
Don’t miss this chance to supercharge your Band-in-a-Box setup—at a great price!
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you on our Live Chat or by email. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Saturday; Closed Sunday.
Norton Music
)
and consider replacing with 'cringeworthy'.
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean