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 2026 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.
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.
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.
When I say that instrument designers have understood harmonics for centuries, I wasn’t referring to a Fourier analysis understanding. Fourier invented Fourier analysis in the 1800s.
Rather I was referring to the knowledge and skill that craftsmen in Europe and elsewhere had in building instruments centuries ago. The harpsichord for example was invented in the late 1300s and around that time they had an understanding of how string length, string tension, materials, soundboard thickness, ribbing and other parameters had on the overall sound quality and hence harmonics of the instrument they were building. It was a slow, grinding process and I’m sure trial and error was a major tool in their toolbox.
But I agree, all this is not the subject of the book.
From what I understand at this point, the concepts of consonance and dissonance appear as an outcome of neurological processing resulting in to what degree we find a given audio input as pleasing. Another non-Boolean spectrum where we have degrees of pleasing (or non-pleasing) audio inputs.
Certainly, without physics, there would be no pressure fluctuations and no sound. So physics provides the input. But the brain needs to interpret said input. I doubt a tree could perceive the difference between musical consonance and musical dissonance, much less prefer one over the other. So I would say that neurology does play a major role.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 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.
From what I understand at this point, the concepts of consonance and dissonance appear as an outcome of neurological processing resulting in to what degree we find a given audio input as pleasing. Another non-Boolean spectrum where we have degrees of pleasing (or non-pleasing) audio inputs.
I don't know that's something that's generally accepted.
That consonant and dissonant intervals align closely to physical phenomena - such as the overtone series and beating - would put a strong weight towards physical explanation, rather than a neurological one.
The concept of a critical band is well known, where frequencies are "close enough" that the ear can't distinguish between them. The psycho-acoustic phenomena of masking is when weaker harmonic signals that are "masked" by stronger, nearby harmonic signal and thus not heard. Audio compression algorithms take advantage of this by removing the weaker harmonic signals, thus reducing the signal complexity.
Similarly, it is hypothesized that different tones that lie in the same critical band are perceived as dissonant. The timbre of tones will come into play, as richer timbres with more overtones will share more critical bands.
In short, although it's been known the ratio has been a factor in how consonant an interval is likely to be heard, it's only relatively recently that we've identified a probably underlying physical explanation in the auditory systems. Critical bands provide this sort of explanation.
Obviously, hearing consonance in music instead of simple intervals is more complex.
I don't know that's something that's generally accepted.
I really can’t speak to what is generally accepted. I’m sure there is much research ongoing. But when I connect the dots that I’m familiar with it seems that our neural processors prefer patterns that are easy to process. Complex ratios create irregular patterns resulting in dissonance while simple ratios produce pleasing neural firings resulting in consonance.
But expectation and familiarity also come into play and hence historical and cultural principles must be factors.
As a very simple example, this may be why bands like the Beatles, Eagles and other artists that write “easy to digest” music are more popular than bands like Yes or ELP. This may also explain why many (including myself) don’t understand and can’t appreciate some forms of jazz.
Critical bands and more broadly, the fact that our auditory system is a highly sophisticated transducer which transforms sound pressure waves into an understandable phenomenon we call music is quite interesting.
The Wiki page amplifies the point that we have filters in our auditory system. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if we have dozens of “filters” and probably as many “descrete processors” that make up the total signal chain. And I’m guessing that this signal chain is not a simple serial chain but a distributed chain with parallel and feedback loops involving long and short-term memory. There is a LOT going on that we all take for granted.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 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.
This is what I was talking about during one of our conversations about breaking the rules. This is not one of my favorite jazz genres but I can listen to it as I have listened to this entire song. I was exposed to jazz at an early age. In fact when other guitarist were listening to Jimi, Cream, etc I was listening to Coltrane, Cannonball, Miles, etc.
I think a lot of the "easy to digest" pop/rock/rap songs are because a lot of people have not been exposed to other forms of music. Back in the 1960's, before corporate music took over the industry, FM radio played all music genres. You could get everything from folk, country, jazz, classical and everything in between. That does not exist today, at least not is the same quantities. But don't get me wrong as some people would listen and not like jazz, country, rap, etc. Its just a personal choice. YMMV
OK, a random thought; Why does toilet paper need a commercial? Who's not buying it?
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
This is called free form jazz or free jazz. It is where jazz musicians break virtually every rule: I think a lot of the "easy to digest" pop/rock/rap songs are because a lot of people have not been exposed to other forms of music.
You may be onto something. Could it be that I'm a "rule follower" in music because if the rules are broken I don't understand the result? And could it be that I don't understand broken rules because I was never exposed to them in my musical formative years?
Make no mistake, just because I don't understand free form or other types of music doesn't necessarily mean I don't admire those rule breakers for their talent. As a matter of fact, for decades I've often lamented the fact that others could understand "broken rule music" while I couldn't, even though Yes and ELP were amoung my favorite bands. I suppose that on the rule-breaking spectrum, Yes and ELP are probably light weights.
And I wonder how "edge" plays into all this
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 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.
This is called free form jazz or free jazz. It is where jazz musicians break virtually every rule: I think a lot of the "easy to digest" pop/rock/rap songs are because a lot of people have not been exposed to other forms of music.
You may be onto something. Could it be that I'm a "rule follower" in music because if the rules are broken I don't understand the result? And could it be that I don't understand broken rules because I was never exposed to them in my musical formative years?............................. And I wonder how "edge" plays into all this
I am a strong believer of teaching music and other art forms in middle to high school should be on all school's curriculum. That is where I learned about jazz and classical music. Early exposure to all art forms is necessary IMHO.
You've got to admit that listening to free form jazz is very edgy - ducking and running for cover.
OK, a random thought; Why does toilet paper need a commercial? Who's not buying it?
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
I really can’t speak to what is generally accepted. I’m sure there is much research ongoing. But when I connect the dots that I’m familiar with it seems that our neural processors prefer patterns that are easy to process. Complex ratios create irregular patterns resulting in dissonance while simple ratios produce pleasing neural firings resulting in consonance.
I'm going to belabor the point a bit more.
When you say "Complex ratios create irregular patterns", it feels like there's some handwaving going on. It's not as if our ears are sending pure signals to the brain, and the neurons are comparing pitch ratios. That's just not how hearing works.
The processing of signal to pitch takes place in the ear, not in the brain. The ear functions as a pitch discriminator. However, there are limits to what pitches can be discriminated between. When two pitches fall within that margin - the critical band - they land on the same receptor. And that receptor complains I'm having trouble differentiating between these two pitches.
That's a much simpler mechanism than what you seem to be proposing, and it seems to be borne out by studies.
We have other examples of processing taking place at the sensor level, such as the eye. The image on the eye's receptors passes through multiple layers, and determinations are made at the within the eye, not the brain. For example, a frog's eyes has specialized "bug detectors" for detecting small moving shapes and "event detectors" for general movement. To reiterate, this processing happens in the frog's eye, not its brain.
Music is much more than simply "consonance" and "dissonance". It's the creative use of these elements, structuring them in time and motion, as well as setting and sometimes evading expectations.
But research indicates that that simple concept of "concept" and "dissonance" can be explained via critical bands within the ear, rather than a higher-level neural processing.
You've got to admit that listening to free form jazz is very edgy - ducking and running for cover.
Here is where terminology and vocabulary is crucial. I’m not convinced that free form jazz is edgy per how my definition of “edge” is developing.
Rather I would describe free form jazz (at least the bit of “Out to Lunch” that I listened to) as atonal, non-harmonic, dissonant and altogether non-inspiring and unpleasing. I would also add structureless, untethered from traditional expectations and unmoored from any “home base”. Indeed, I’d say that this genre blurs the boundaries of what it means to be music and I could see how many would not consider it music at all because of the difficulty in understanding it. Would the typical non-musican consider this music? Is it organized sound? I’d say yes, but so is a fire truck’s siren or the sound of a truck with no muffler.
In my opinion, most people have a boundary beyond which music become non-music. Do you consider this performance music?
“Edge” on the other hand I’d say can easily be compatible with what most of the world considers music. And can be increased up to a point before crossing the music/non-music boundary.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 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.
The "this is non-music" boundary your reference is real (I believe) but not universal. My dad didn't think rock music was music. He was sincere, and I respect him deeply, but I think he was wrong. I think free form jazz is music, but a lot of people don't. I get it. I'll just be me. FWIW, I think Yoko makes noise, not music. But she has fans, so...
It's a matter of taste.
I do think the "edge" feature has a lot of merit.
DC Ron BiaB Audiophile Presonus Studio One ASUS I9-12900K DAW, 32 GB RAM Presonus Faderport 16 Too many guitars (is that a thing?)
The "this is non-music" boundary your reference is real (I believe) but not universal. My dad didn't think rock music was music. He was sincere, and I respect him deeply, but I think he was wrong. I think free form jazz is music, but a lot of people don't. I get it. I'll just be me. FWIW, I think Yoko makes noise, not music. But she has fans, so...
It's a matter of taste.
I do think the "edge" feature has a lot of merit.
I agree totally. What one calls music another calls noise. The definition of good music, bad music, noise, edge, intensity, etc is just a personal choice. It will vary with every person.
PS - I get free form music also.
OK, a random thought; Why does toilet paper need a commercial? Who's not buying it?
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
But research indicates that that simple concept of "concept" and "dissonance" can be explained via critical bands within the ear, rather than a higher-level neural processing.
Here is one research paper that address the consonance/dissonance question we are discussing.
They conclude with this: “By examining the subcortical response to musical intervals we found that consonance, dissonance, and the hierarchical ordering of musical pitch are automatically encoded by preattentive, sensory-level processing. Brainstem responses are well correlated with the ordering of consonance obtained behaviorally suggesting that a listener's judgment of pleasant- or unpleasant-sounding music may be rooted in low-level sensory processing. Though music training is known to tune cortical and subcortical circuitry, the fundamental attributes of musical pitch we examined here are encoded even in nonmusicians. It is possible that the choice of intervals used in compositional practice may have originated based on the fundamental processing and constraints of the auditory system.”
And if I skip ahead of where I am in the subject book, we have: “. . . it was found that infants do show a preference for consonance over dissonance. Appreciating dissonance comes later in life, and people differ in how much dissonance they can tolerate. There probably is a neural basis for this. Consonant intervals and dissonant intervals are processed via separate mechanisms in the auditory cortex.”
Two terms we have not used yet are "discernment" and "judgement". These are more psychologically related as opposed to neurobiologically related and can explain why some can tolerate dissonance more than others. Those that tolerate lots of dissonance could be called "musically liberal" while those that can't could be called "musically conservative" . . . yet another spectrum.
So we have tonal vs.atonal, traditional vs. experimental, or mainstream vs. avant‑garde.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 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.
The "this is non-music" boundary your reference is real (I believe) but not universal. My dad didn't think rock music was music. He was sincere, and I respect him deeply, but I think he was wrong. I think free form jazz is music, but a lot of people don't. I get it. I'll just be me. FWIW, I think Yoko makes noise, not music. But she has fans, so...
It's a matter of taste.
I do think the "edge" feature has a lot of merit.
In school, I was taught, to be music, it needs all 3 of these — melody, harmony, and rhythm.
An example was a bird's song. It could be pleasant and beautiful, it could have melody, and even rhythm, but without harmony, it's not music. Another is Gregorian chant.
If the music has melody, harmony and rhythm, and I don't care for it, that doesn't mean it's not music. It means it's music for someone else.
I like my music to be predictable most of the time but with nice surprises mixed in. I like themes and/or motif development, as that adds interest to me. I think melody is important, probably because my primary instrument is saxophone. Too much repetition bores me, as it becomes too predictable. I also like a release from the tonic key somewhere in the song. Too much of the same becomes too predictable, too.
But that's just me. My tastes are my tastes, and I don't pretend to be the sole arbiter of good taste.
[quote=Notes Norton]But that's just me. My tastes are my tastes, and I don't pretend to be the sole arbiter of good taste./quote] I think it would be a very boring world if we all had the same tastes.
One person's tension is another's dissonance and long may it be so.
Mostly I like music that challenges me; well, things that challenge me. I'm actually uncomfortable being comfortable, if that makes sense.
Jazz relative beginner, starting at a much older age than was helpful. AVL:MXE Linux; Windows 11 BIAB2026 Audiophile, a bunch of other software. Kawai MP6, Ui24R, Focusrite Saffire Pro40 and Scarletts .
They conclude with this: “By examining the subcortical response to musical intervals we found that consonance, dissonance, and the hierarchical ordering of musical pitch are automatically encoded by preattentive, sensory-level processing. Brainstem responses are well correlated with the ordering of consonance obtained behaviorally suggesting that a listener's judgment of pleasant- or unpleasant-sounding music may be rooted in low-level sensory processing. Though music training is known to tune cortical and subcortical circuitry, the fundamental attributes of musical pitch we examined here are encoded even in nonmusicians. It is possible that the choice of intervals used in compositional practice may have originated based on the fundamental processing and constraints of the auditory system.”
Note the points of emphasis - low-level sensory processing and fundamental processing and constraints of the auditory system.
That means the ear, not the neural processing.
But by itself, it's only enough to explain the basic building blocks. How they get used is much more interesting. It's like tension and release in a story, or sweet and bitter in food. Making art is the act of creatively using these elements. And for that, it's a lot more complex to explain because of learned expectations, form, sequence, and a ton of other factors.
I listen to all genres of music. Some I like while others not so much. I keep an open mind when it comes to music. I have learned at least one thing from every genre. It could be a short section, a short bass or lead line, rhythms, chord progressions, etc. I don't speak for any group. I only speak for myself.
OK, a random thought; Why does toilet paper need a commercial? Who's not buying it?
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
You are not understanding basic biology and the Bidelman paper.
The brainstem is packed with neurons. And their activity is “well correlated” with consonance according to the findings. You actually bold-faced the section of the conclusion that addresses this.
They say “Brainstem responses are well correlated with the ordering of consonance obtained behaviorally . . .” What does this mean? It means that observed brainstem (neural activity) responses correlated well with consonance. This is talking about neural activity, not air pressure to electrical signal transduction in the ear. This brainstem activity is happening downstream of the ear.
Then they say “. . . suggesting that a listener's judgment of pleasant- or unpleasant-sounding music may be rooted in low-level sensory processing.” What does “low-level sensory processing” mean? It means that the processing is taking place downstream of the ear and in the brainstem.
Obviously, the various parts of the ear are crucial to hearing. These are all subsystems of the overall auditory system. But the ear is primarily a transducer. The heavy-lift processing takes place in the brain and in the brainstem. That is what brains do.
Maybe a description of the division of labor and diagrams will help you understand this better. 1. Outer Ear collects sound waves 2. Middle Ear amplifies vibrations 3. Inner Ear breaks down sound into frequency components 4. Brainstem is responsible for early central processing with phase-locking neurons for consonance detection 5. Auditory Cortex and Memory regions aid in music interpretation and recollection.
https://soundcloud.com/user-646279677 BiaB 2026 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.
XPro & Xtra Styles PAK Sets On Sale Now - Until May 15, 2026!
All of our XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAKs are on sale until May 15th, 2026!
It's the perfect time to expand your Band-in-a-Box® style library with XPro and Xtra Styles PAKs. These additional styles for Band-in-a-Box® offer a wide range of genres designed to fit seamlessly into your projects. Each style is professionally arranged and mixed, helping enhance your songs while saving you time.
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 1-10 includes 1,000 styles!
Xtra Styles PAKs are styles that work with the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). Xtra Styles PAKs 1-21 includes 3,700 styles (and 35 MIDI styles)!
The XPro & Xtra Styles PAKs are not included in any Band-in-a-Box® package.
The XPro Styles PAKs 1-10 are available 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 Mac or for Windows.
The Xtra Styles PAKs 1-21 are available for only $29 ea (reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the Xtra Styles PAK Bundle for only $199 (reg. $349)! Listen to demos and order now! For Mac or for Windows.
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.
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 as they require the RealTracks included in the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
Supercharge your Band-in-a-Box today with XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAK Sets!
With the release of Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac, we’re rolling out a collection of brand-new videos on our YouTube channel. We’ll keep this forum post updated so you can easily find all the latest videos in one convenient spot.
Whether you're exploring new features, checking out the latest RealTracks or Style PAKs, this is your go-to guide for Band-in-a-Box® 2026.
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac 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 100 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 Mac and save up to 50% on most upgrade packages during our special offer—available until May 15, 2026. 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 Mac packages, but you can unlock even more—including 20 unreleased RealTracks—by upgrading to the 2026 49-PAK for just $49.
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® users: Build 904 now available!
If you're already using Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®, make sure to grab the latest update! Build 904 is now available for download and includes the newest additions and enhancements from our team.
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
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean