I'm not sure where this question belongs. I know that in Britain there are quavers while in other parts of the English world there are quarter notes. How is it for "tone" and "step"? In discussing intervals, my Canadian theory refers to "tone and semitone". I like using "whole tone" just to be double sure. Recently I was told that this is not the standard term, and that "whole step" and "half step" are correct.
I thought that "step" referred to the physical distance that your fingers travel on instruments such as piano and string instruments, and "tone, semitone" referred to the distance in sound. Actually I never thought about it.
Is it "step" in the U.S. and "tone" in Canada and maybe Britain? In an international community the American terms seem to prevail - I'd like to get it right.

The terminology I've always used is whole- and half-step. The only time I used "whole-tone" is when I'm describing the scale consisting of only whole-steps (e.g. c-d-e-f#-g#-a#)

The English (and Australian) terminology is TONE and SEMITONE for whole and half step. We would use the term WHOLE TONE when talking about the whole-tone scale, for example because to say the scale has six tones might be misunderstood.

What is "standard" depends on where you are. I would consider both to be "correct".

If I could dare to suggest why the American terms seem to prevail in an international forum - I think it's because we quaver and semitone people are more aware of the American system than the Americans are with ours. Perhaps because of all the beginner piano books which have the American system.

Thank you 8ude and Currawong.

8ude, I had not thought of the "whole tone scale" before. "Half step scale" would sound odd. I did see "half step / whole step scale" in guitar forums, which I think is another name for the octatonic scale. (Doesn't it also have another name? The oct. is the one that has continual minor thirds, and so continual diminished sevenths, I think.)

Currawong - thinking - it's an international forum based in the U.S. but also, we have to be using some kind of terminology and maybe remain consistent so we can understand each other. I've seen both 'quaver' and 'quarter note' used in PW.

I did some googling. Wikki suggests that it is actualy a controversial question. They say that possibly "step" is American, and "tone" belongs to the other countries, but they're not sure.
Wikki article
Bottom footnotes:
Semitone, half step, half tone, halftone, and half-tone are all variously used in sources. Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, and others use "half tone". One source says that step is "chiefly US",and that half-tone is "chiefly N. Amer."

The theory book used by the RCM (Canadian) uses the term "tone, semitone", but the practical book for violin refers to "step, half step".

For this reason, I thought that "tone, semitone" referred to the interval as sound, and "step" referred to the distance the fingers take on some instruments such as piano and violin.

Oh yes, me too. In fact, when I'm talking about quavers and crotchets for example, I'll usually put "eighth notes and quarter notes" in brackets, just to be sure. I personally don't like the quarter note type terminology and it goes against the grain to use it, like spelling favourite as "favorite" but I'm ok with using both, just for clarity. And also so that people know that there are two systems which are both "correct".

By the way, I'd known about the half-note, quarter-note terminology for ever, but it's only fairly recently I've realised that Americans don't usually use the terms tone/semitone. I was rather surprised. I'd heard the terms "half-step" etc, but I actually thought it was just a simplified way of describing semitones, perhaps for young piano students.

I tend to always type "bar"(English) instead of "measure"(US) on the forums because, well, it's less typing, isn't it .

Here's a couple of references for terms:

http://www.dolmetsch.com/introduction.htm

http://ninagilbert.googlepages.com/British.html

I'm not sure how accurate some portions of the latter are, especially the section on cadences.

Rich

Interesting - I've never heard that referred to as a "half-step/whole-step" scale, the only term I'm familiar with for that one is octatonic.

Bar and measure seem to be completely interchangeable in the US, with the exception that no-one here, or hopefully anywhere, would ever describe a particular type of music as a "12-measure blues."

yd

You mean that you are a fan of "hemidemisemiquaver?" Do you think that the words actually affect how one perceives the note?
Yesterday, for me.
Hey, that's another one I was wondering about. "Measure" sound so sophisticated, though.

What I'm wondering is whether there is any official "standard" of terminology belonging to countries.

DragonPianplayer, thanks for the links. Dolmetsch points out some important things - the difference between "note/tone" and the fact that "tone" can simply mean a sound. I prefer to write "whole tone" instead of just "tone".

Actually the one thing we don't see in the link is usage in Canada (or Australia). We seem to be British for tone/semitone, but American for quarter note etc.

In Canada, we have the additional handicap of being officially bilingual French/English. So you'll be in a choir where some people are accustomed to "do re mi" and the others "C D E".

I'm lifting this out of DragonPianoPlayer's second link:
My Canadian theory book uses both terms. Is it in order to span both countries? Or do we use both terms over here?

(This is getting interesting)

Do you really prefer hemidemisemiquaver to 64th?

Oops… Just saw that KS mentioned the same thing. (Eerie…)

To me this is like holding on to the US measurements and resisting metrics, which I find infinitely more practical. I mean using metrics!

For semitones or halfsteps, I have no preference. Both seem equally clear.

From Dolmetsch:

Tone/Whole-step, Semitone/Half-step
In Britain, "a tone" (in musical usage) is defined as an interval of a major second. Americans refer to this as a "whole-step".

A semitone is half a tone, the interval of a minor second, one-twelfth of an octave, the smallest interval between two notes on a piano. Americans call this a "half-step".

A major scale consists of the intervals TTSTTTS where T=tone and S=semitone.

PLEASE NOTE THIS AS WRITTEN ABOVE (A major scale consists of the intervals TTSTTTS where T=tone and S=semitone) IS IN ERROR (BP)because the diagramming of 2 tetrachords requires 8 tones being accounted for. (Please read the "What are missing in lessons" topic where I made my last response about what the error was as I see it.)

I am sying this is NOT correct: A major scale consists of the intervals TTSTTTS where T=tone and S=semitone.

It would be nice if we could see and verify what the problem is and maybe even fix it. Is my concern for how this is being inaccurately said being understood?

TTSTTTS not correct? Or correct? I can't work out from your post which you are saying.

8 notes ARE being accounted for. T and S refer to the distances between the notes. The diagram TTSTTTS really means:
1-T-2-T-3-S-4-T-5-T-6-T-7-S-8, where the numbers are the notes themselves, and the T or S the distance between them.
There are certainly 8 notes there!

Yes I do - though I don't find I have much occasion to actually say hemidemisemiquaver . I suppose it boils down to what you learnt first. I think quarter notes work well when you're explaining time signatures, so you know what that bottom number means, but I have seen some confusion about odd things like "three-quarter time" being somehow not a "whole" bar . Truly.

I'm with you on the metrics. We've had metrics here for 35 years.

Question to all:

Is there any way to imagine that "T" is not two notes, meaning moving a whole tone or whole step or two keys (both colors) from a starting place?

TTSTTTS

OR

WWHWWWH means to me:

X-2-2-1-2-2-2-1(octave of X)

X is just the starting point…

Really?

OK, stupid question! I say "three quarter" time.

Now I'm trying to figure out how to say:

A dotted 16th is a 16th plus a 32nd.

A dotted semiquaver is a semiquaver plus a semidemiquaver.

Is there even a slight hesitation when you say to a student:

Four crotchets equal a semibreve. That doesn't seem as mathematically precise as "four quarters equals a whole", which is mathematical. I wonder how we (US) inherited the German system, which does the same thing?
Trust me when I tell you that few people here could tell you how hot it is when it is 25C, or how tall you are if you are 2 meters tall.

That is an interesting question, Gary. I must say that in my mind's ear a "tone" is a whole thing, and a "semitone" is a partial thing. But if I had started on piano instead of voice I would probably seen it as two semitones and one semitone. I think it has to do with the solfege, which was my first introduction to music. The solid steps of a ladder with two uneven rungs, but most of the rungs were a whole tone apart. So mentally for me a semitone is like a whole tone that has been split in two.

I think that the semitone might be a more accurate unit to think in. ??

I THINK that I started out with the concept of a whole step or tone as being more or less that default, with BC and EF being the exceptions. But we get to chromatic scales and movement so quickly at the piano. I describe a minor third as three half steps, but a major third as two whole steps, not four half steps. So I probably flip from system to system, according to what is most handy at the moment.

No, there's not even a slight hesitation . I have to stop and think when I translate it into whole notes and quarter notes, though. I have got a bit better at this through using Finale, where the shortcuts are "q" for quarter note, "e" for eighth etc.

With my littlies, I tend to use Kodaly time-names a fair bit (you know, ta, ta-a, ti-ti.

It depends on the context. In the US, you
would say "go up a half-step" or "go
down a half-step." The phrase "go up/down
a half-tone" (or just the term "half-tone")
is avoided in the US in almost all contexts.
Similarly, you would say "go up/down
a whole-step." However, the
term "whole-step" is awkward in adult
speech in the US. This sounds like something you
would say to a child. Thus, you'd might
hear instead, "go up/down a major second."

The term "whole-tone" would not be used
in casual speech, as in "go up/down a
whole-tone." This term would be reserved
for only the most serious theoretical discussions.

The term "semitone" would not be used
in casual speech in the US, as in "go up/down
a semitone." This term would be reserved
for serious theoretical discussions only.

Thank you, Gyro.

Had any lately?

Betty,

There are eight notes, but only seven intervals between them.

A tetrachord is WWH or TTS. 4 notes separated by 3 intervals.

The two tetrachords are separated by a W (T).
So it is
WWH W WWH
or
TTS T TTS

Rich

Thank you Rich, I know that.

If you are teaching a young person how to find notes in tetrachord formation it is important to show each and every note of the 8 note tetrachord pattern.

The key note must be included as the starting place.

In key of C, the C is the first and last note to play.

Learning tetrachords is about which note to play - which note sounds - it is not about the distance of the interval between except to help us find the note to play. The notes that gets placed on the music staff in major scale order.

8 is the accountability note.

In teaching someone else, it needs to be explained as I am doing. If you have never taught someone sitting next to you to do tetrachords (and lets ask that you have also taught all 12 degrees as the starting point of the tetrachords, and then written them on the music, or had access to show the written music as the outcome of your work in finding the 8 notes of the tetrachord.

I am asking for accurate work and accurate explanation.

You are leaving out some things if you do not provide what I think is the most important note of the sequence - the keynote.

* W W H is this not a tetrachord?
* W W H is the second tetrachord, yes?
Both are joined together by a whole step.
Joined by a whole step to another tetrachord?

Therefore the formula is:

* W W H *W W W H
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Do you use fingers LH 5 4 3 2 and 5H 2 3 4 5 in teaching the tetrachord from keynote to keynote, or do you count the intervals between with your pointer or your eyes?

Using the fingering for a tetrachord position may enlighten why this is necessary to be explained this way in teaching others to play tetrachords to form the major scales.

C D E F G A B C
5 4 3 2 2 3 4 5 (Fingering Left to Right)

Explore this with the other notes on which a scale could start, and you have achieved what I am saying.

When you take a short cut you do not get all of the instruction or the understanding at one time.

Finding the distances between notes says little (minimum) about how and why one would use my approach.

To teach comprehension, my job is to identify all 8 notes of the major scale using tetrachords, being able to finger them consistently, being able to identify them my name, knowing how to write them on the music, and understanding key signatures and sightreading scales accurately because they have been learned in every potential domain of teaching. (Visual, tactile, Aural.)

I am teaching major scale degrees when I teach tetrachords and I expect the information to last a life time if done properly with a focused student.

So, those who are not in agreement with me, or haven't read my posts about tetrachords, believe me, I am not off in what I am preaching here.

If you would follow through what I am saying, just maybe you would see the difference.

A teacher not knowing or using tetrachords to teach with is really doing injustice to the learning of major scales, and all other scales.

Patterns is what music is built upon, let's teach patterns. Tetrachord being 8 notes, needs 8 notes to discuss the intervals with - it is the 8 notes that are the answers you are looking for.

The tetrachord pattern is the helping device (pattern) to accomplish that. Every major scale needs 8 tones. Thus you need to account for the key note (the first tone you are building upon).

I think this difference in opinion between us is an important one to seriously consider by checking out what I am saying at the piano using the suggested fingering and writing the results of the named notes on paper.

Are we teaching in depth, or are we short-cutting?

Betty, the fact that someone may not use your notation (the asterisk representing the starting note) does not mean that they are not teaching the concept. I think this is the point.

There's also a language problem. A scale does not have 8 "tones" in the British sense of the word. It has 8 notes.

Also, the use of tetrachords seems to be something of a matter of preference among teachers. It's basically a tool for teaching students to find the notes of any given scale. Other teachers simply use the "W W H W W W H" approach just as effectively.

And another matter of language, a 'tetrachord' has four notes in it. The notes in a major scale make up two tetrachords, both of which have the same intervallic content.

I also think it's a mistake to assume that student understanding is dependent upon the method of instruction. Different students understand in different ways. I have seen students' eyes opened by the tetrachord explanation, and I have seen students in the same class become completely confused.

If it was possible for a single explanation to guarantee student understanding, there would be only one theory textbook. No others would be necessary. But teaching theory is often a matter of preference. Just as in piano pedagogy, there are many different flavors of theory pedagogy, all of which are valid when the right students and teachers connect.

Oh rot!

I have repeatedly said that I never heard of tetrachords until I watched a college professor, mine, teaching them to other vocal students who had no instrument to relate to physically.

Meanwhile, whose of us who played instruments well all knew all the scales backwards, forwards and upside down. We were bored.

You keep preaching the gospel of tetrachords as if it is the solution to all problems, and you insist that your method of teaching them is the only way.
Good grief, do you think we are all morons? You can't MOVE a whole step without starting somewhere. W to me means to MOVE a whole step, from some point. OK, if you feel the need to put in an asterisk, fine. But there are SO many ways you could use these patterns, creatively.

How about one per key?

F = F G A Bb
C = C D E F
G = G A B C
D = D E F# G

Just learn the first four notes of any scale. Just four. Then combine sets.

F set + C set = F scale.
C set + G set = C scale.
G set + D set = G scale.

This is not rocket science. There are unlimited ways to think about this and combine, morph, play around.

The first four notes always go:

WWH

OR
* W W H

OR
X-2-4-5

OR
X-2-2-1

The METHOD does not matter. It's the pattern itself that matters, and the way people think patterns and internalize them is not the same from person to person. I just throw different solutions at different people, looking for something that makes the quickest and most intuitive connection. The same method most definitely does not work for all people.

Some people count keys but don't make a quick "sound connection". Some people just link sound to keys, at first, and analyze later. Some use key counting *and* sound, from the beginning. But no matter what you do, the tetrachord system is key counting. Everyone does not count the same way.
Are we adapting our teaching to individuals, or are we insisting that all individuals adapt to our method?

This highlights an important point. I would think that most of the teachers on this board are teaching in depth. It would seem impossible to really set out how you teach in a forum. I teach in teaching units, for example, which means a sequence of lessons, activities, and assignments which are based on well thought out aims, objectives, method and processes, which is what teaching is about. Seasoned with this is the interaction with the actual student within whatever situation and context you find yourself.

If any teacher describes something, I believe I am seeing a sliver of something larger which has many dimensions in time. I would hate anyone to think that the fragment of a larger exercise that I posted the other day was a "how to" on teaching scales, especially since it is not meant to teach scales - though ripped out of the context of that particular discussion it seems to have been considered such. I am not qualified to post any "how to", and even if I were, I'm not sure that I would because the entire teaching unit could not be sufficiently presented: time line, intermeshing of different elements, tools and support material etc.

The question I quoted is an important one. I wouldn't begin to know what a "shortcut" looks like, but it certainly doesn't sound like a good idea. The warning is an important one.

Back on topic, now.... ?

Hey, this feels a bit naughty entering the 'composer's lounge'. I've never been in here before.

On topic - We (UK) say tones and semitones. We do know what whole and half steps are though. Time names are controversial. Most of my colleagues use semibreve, minim etc. but I use whole note, half note. The fraction names are more useful IMO because you can relate the length of one note to another. It also helps with understanding time signatures. People over here can get quite irate about it.

Off topic again - If I were to walk a mile I would not need to explain that I am walking a *mile. If you play the tetrachord on C you already have your starting note. I can't see the need for the *. Sorry Betty. If it works for you then great.

Thank you Chris. When it was first pointed out to me that the terminology that I learned might not be familiar everywhere, it seemed important to see what is actually what across the English speaking world. Communication about ideas could go serious amiss, otherwise.

"tone" is used in the UK and Australia to mean an interval of two semitones, or two half steps, or one whole step. But in another part of the world it means a pitch. I didn't know that one week ago. How about everyone else? We could talk right past each other. This is just one example.

There was a link a page back where cadences were given different names. What else?

The theory book that I use is the one on which RCM exams are based. They told me that 100,000 students per annum write the exams in Canada. So there are an awful lot of people learning this terminology. But there has to be an awful lot of students doing the same thing in the US, Australia, the UK, New Zealand, according to whatever system is prevalent there. Suddenly we're internation meeting in one place and talking to each other. "hemidemisemiquaver" tends to stand out , but two meanings for "tone" don't.

"Step" is probably more common, but it doesn't really matter much.

You're right, it doesn't matter. "Tone" matters if it is misunderstood to mean pitch and an interval is meant. If something is ambivalent depending on background, maybe that's what matters the most.

You .... you mean ..... there are composers in here? It just looked like the ...... teachers forum to me.

:D Some of us are teachers and composers.
But what are you doing out of the Parents' Forum!!? Get back there immediately

I've come to the conclusion that we are actually in a giant ship underwater that sometimes springs a leak, so that things from one forum leak into the other. The ship shape shifts from time to time so that everything looks odd and unfamiliar. Tone and tenor can be more than one thing, and often not what we think.

Now THAT is funny!

I'm thinking maybe we should make up a song before we get kicked out?

To the tune of Mr. ED, perhaps?

A tone is a tone, a tone, a tone,
A semitone twice is a tone, alone,
Unless, in the US, or in the rest
of the world a note's a tone!

Noting that I got the lyrics wrong, here's the original:
Mr. Ed song

Back to terms. I just noticed "parallel scales (keys) / relative keys" where I've learend "tonic major /relative major". Is this another difference between Canada and the US or something else? Is "tonic major / minor" used when discussing, for example, B major and B minor?

In the key of B; B minor is the parallel minor.
G# minor(same key signature)is the relative minor.

If major and minor have the same tonic they are said to be parallel. If they have the same key signature they are called relative major and minor keys.

Thank you, jw. Your answer confirms that we are talking about the same thing. What I am trying to find out in the context of this thread, is where the terms I learned fit in.

What you call "parallel minor" I was taught to call "tonic minor". "Relative minor" stays the same. So in Canada, or at least the material I studied via RCM, we say "tonic minor" and "relative minor ". Is this used throughout Canada, is parallel also used? How is this in other English speaking countries: US, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand?

"A major scale and a minor scale that share the same tonic .. are called 'tonic major' and 'tonic minor'. Thus, C major is the tonic major of C minor, and vice versa."

The term "relative major / minor" is the same.

Keystring; I've never heard the term "tonic minor" before. I'm from the U.S and I read many forums that have international members.

Look up the term 'parallel keys' in the Virginia Tech Dictionary of Musical Terms:

http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/

This is the most complete resource of musical terms that I have found. It's on line and free.

I'm trying to sort out the terms used in different countries for a number of reasons. One is communication: there has already been one misunderstanding because "tone" designates an interval in some countries, but a pitch in another country. In one link somebody gave, some cadences had different names. I'm thinking now that this thread is turning into a bit of an international glossary of English terms.

I've just done some googling, and have found a lot of hits on "major tone" so at least we know it's also used. Dolmetschonline unravels part of the mystery here:
Dolmetsch - see point 5
So now - WHO uses which WHEN, and WHERE geographically? In fact, I'm curious whether "parallel" is used in Canada, and how often in comparison to "tonic".

When asked such questions, I immediately Google and see what comes up.

Both parallel minor scale and tonic minor scale get me to the same place, so I would just be aware of both, to be flexible.

Anyone from Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand (did I leave anyone out?) - we already have the US - what say ye hie and yonder?

In the US, you would normally hear only
the term "relative minor," which is
used to describe the (natural)
minor key that uses the same
notes as a particular major key. For
example, A (natural) min. is the relative
min. of C maj. I suppose one might also
then say that C maj. is the relative maj.
of A min., but that's cumbersome usage
that you would not normally hear in the
US. I've never heard it.

In the US, you sometimes hear C maj. and
C min. referred to as "parallel keys,"
since they share the same tonic. But this
is mainly just to drive home the point in
theory classes that the relative min.
of C maj. is A min., not C min., which
can be confusing to novice theory students.
This term could easily be eliminated from
the music vocabulary with no harm done.

In the US, the term "parallel scales"
would not normally be used as a
synonym for "parallel keys," as in the
US, the words "key" and "scale" generally
have very different connotations.

In the US, the term "relative keys" would
not be heard, as this would sound
ambiguous to American ears. There are
many keys that have relations to each
other: C maj. and C min., C maj. and
A min., C maj. and G maj., etc.--which
one do you mean? The terms
"tonic maj./min." would not be used in
the US, as this sounds redundant to
American ears: a key is determined
by the tonic note, and a tonic determines
a key.

In casual speech in the US, the words
"tone" and "cadence" do not immediately
bring to mind the music theory field. "Tone"
is typically heard in sentences like
"I don't like the tone of your voice."
or "He's building a tone generator for
his physics project." "Cadence" in
the US is normally associated with keeping
a rhythmic motion, like in marching.

Tone and cadence also has those meanings in Canada for the non-musician. This is a piano forum comprising musicians, students, and music teachers discussing music and we're discussing terms as they are used in music. And since we're international, it's not a bad idea to be aware of how those terms have developed in the various English speaking countries. Most of the time we would tend toward American terms simply in order to have a common vocabulary. Once in a while some of us are caught out unexpectedly.

In Australia we tend to use the same terms as in UK - so we use the relative minor/tonic minor terminology. I hadn't heard of the "parallel" minor until very recently (here on PW). What could be also confusing is the use of terms to describe scale playing - we (and the Brits) use similar and contrary motion to describe the two ways of playing scales on the piano - it seems self-explanatory, but I believe in US they use other terms. Parallel motion for similar?

This is getting more and more interesting. It seems that Canadian terms are more in line with British. What bothered me about parallel major is that it's not really parallel. A lot of the notes are different though they begin and end on the same note.

"Parallel minor" doesn't need to be any more different that relative minor is. Remember, there are three degrees of the scale that may be lowered, but often only one is. That makes ascending melodic minor very close to major. We would need some very sophisticated analysis to find out how often 6 and 7 are actually lowered, at least in music written in the last two centuries or so.!

Regardless, worrying about what makes sense will just give you headaches. A crotchet doesn't have to make more or less sense than a quarter. Both names exist, so we just have to learn both.

Wise advice .

Quartering a doily isn't necessarily the same as crocheting a doily.

Quartering a doily and wrapping a doily around a quarter or having doilies in these quarters are also different things. For the British and American terms, the "crotchet" makes me think of the shape of the thing (the hook-like flag) while "quarter" reminds me of its time value relative to a whole note.