Hello Everyone!
This may seem like a silly question to a lot of you, but a student asked me this and I can't honestly say I know the answer. Why do we have to know intervals? How will they help us with playing and learning music? I was never told the reason- neither during my own lessons nor during my experience at music school. If anyone knows I would greatly appreciate some help. Thank you so much for your time!
God bless you,
Amanda

Amanda - IMHO, intervals are the "outline" of music. If you know the intervals of melodies and harmonies, then changing keys is much easier, hearing the changes becomes second nature, patterns are more easily recognized and all of this together helps retention.

I tend to see/hear in patterns and intervals instead of notes/chords. The downside of this is I am a very poor reader and I spend a lot of time trying to improve. So, my opinion is you need both to be a well rounded musician.

One thing intervals help with is being able to read the music without having to figure out each individual note first. When I took beginning lessons no one ever taught me what an interval was. So, I learned music by figuring out individual notes, combining them, and playing them over and over until I could put a measure or so together. I remember sitting there saying, "ok, that's a C, then that's a G . . . " also figuring out fingers too, literally figuring out music more note by note. This is a painstaking way of going about it. When I finally learned about intervals and how to read, and play them, I could look at the music and automatically know the distance between notes and it became much more efficient reading to read by distance playing up a 2nd, or down a 3rd on the keys and so forth. It becomes so automatic.

Also, when playing notes stacked up harmonically as in a chord or group of notes, it's more efficient playing if you recognize 3 harmonic notes as nothing more for example than stacked up thirds. You just determine the bottom note and stack the rest of the notes up according to intervals. Or if the top two notes are a 3rd apart then the bottom note is a 4th down, you just stack it according (a 4th on the bottom, a 3rd on the top) rather than figuring out each individual note on a chord and then playing it which is painstakingly slow.

Also, intervals are the building blocks of chords.

I spent a lot of beginning years figuring out music note by note before I learned to recognize intervals and chords in music. Again, it makes for learning a piece of music a much, much slower process. It was a huge eye opener when I learned what intervals were and how chords were made up. I was left wondering why I had never learned it before.

Of course jazz musicians constantly use intervals for such things as communicating with fellow musicians, memorizing the root movement in chord progressions, and lifting licks from recordings to name a few.

Music has linear shape ... having dimensions of pitch and duration .

An interval is the space between notes ... invariably a chord as with
C-C#, C-D, C-Eb, C-E, etc. ...

The diagram shown on
http:/www.pianoworld.com/Uploads/files/Int.JPG
gives an visual indication of interval differences ... increasing from
the skinny C-C# to the fat octave C-C.
web page

That chart contains a mistake, though (the location of "F").

Thanks Max K ... the diagram has been corrected putting F next to E.Thanks for the tip.

As an organist as well as a pianist, I find an awareness of intervals essential!

Because I can feel the distance between two keys (or pedals, on the organ), I have less need to look down at my hands and feet as I play. And that makes my reading and playing (especially hymns and choral music, which tends to be four-part) MUCH easier and smoother.

I also sing in an acappella chamber choir, and there's a BIG advantage to being able to recognize intervals by sight and sound while singing. Those of us who know how particular intervals should sound pick up the part much quicker than those who have to rely on listening to the practice CD.

For me, intervals are an indispensible tool--and I definitely feel they're worth studying & practicing!

As a child I had 9 yrs. of classical lessons,
at the end of which I was playing fairly
advanced Romantic Era salon pieces, like
preludes, nocturnes, etc. I was taught in
the "classical" way, that is, with no theory,
no sight-reading, no transposition, no
improvisation, etc.--I would simply practice
each piece, and then memorize it, and then play
it at recital. At the end of 9 yrs. of
lessons I could not sight-read anything,
not even a beginner's piece, and I knew
no theory--I had no idea what an interval
was (and yet I was playing fairly advanced
pieces). Thus, this demonstrates that for
a classical pianist, knowing what an
interval is is not really necessary.

Then I had a long absence from the piano of
20 yrs. When I started up again
on my own as an adult, I thought that I should
learn theory to improve my playing, but
as I started to study theory books I soon
found that in order to understand them
you have to know what an interval is, since
everything is explained in terms of
intervals.

Thus, I think the answer to this question
is that a classical pianist can play
any piece without knowing what an interval is,
but if you're going to study books on
theory, then you'll need to know what intervals
are, since everything is explained in
terms of intervals in these books.

Fascinating descriptions (quite different) by lalakeys and Gyro without giving away the secret of how they register intervals.

Is lalakeys saying ... that with 4-part music (hymns and choral) ... sight-reading is eased by recognizing 2 intervals instead of the 4-parts?
Gyro’s sharp aural memory sidesteps the need to sight-read intervals.

But surely there’s some accurate way of measuring intervals ... why not in terms of WHOLE TONES
(2 semitones)? We know the major scale has a
6-tone interval spread of T.T.s.T.T.T.s

The Major scale DEGREE intervals therefore are (in terms of tones)

0 (KEYNOTE)
1 (supertonic)
2 (mediant)
2.5 (subdominant)
3.5 (dominant)
4.5 (submediant)
5.5 (leading note)
6 (TONIC)

Any takers?

The purpose of intervals is very clear to me. If you read music then you should know your intervals. A melody is nothing more than a series of intervals. The distance between notes of chords can be measured in intervals. If you can internalise intervals then you can look at a score and know how it will sound before you even play it.

From a theoretical point of view it is not difficult to learn how to work out what intervals are. I like btb's accurate diagram of the distance between notes in semitones. This makes it eays to determine that C - A for example is an interval of a major 6th. What it doesn't do is help you to hear the interval in your head. One of the best ways to improve this is to sing scales, arpeggios and intervals.

Hi Chris H,
Was interested to see your reference to the major 6th interval ... which measures intervals in relationship to the degrees of the scales .

In a scientific world ... these elaborate and pupil-confusing interval descriptions bear NO RELATION to the obvious whole tone number series of the 12 basic keyboard notes.

Compare the mind-bending intervals listed when the simple 1-6 number series would click no matter whether major or minor scale.

0........ unison (C)
.5T ... diminished 2nd or augmented 1st (C-C#)
1T ... major 2nd (C-D)
1.5T ... diminished 3rd or augmented 2nd (C-Eb)
2T ... major 3rd (C-E)
2.5T ... PERFECT 4TH (C-F)
3T ... diminished 5th or augmented 4th (C-F#)
3.5T ... PERFECT 5TH (C-G)
4T ... diminished 6th or augmented 5th (C-Ab)
4.5T ... major 6th (C-A)
5T ... diminished 7th or augmented 6th (C-Bb)
5.5T ... major 7th (C-B)
6T ... Octave (C-C)

Imagine a world with no more musicologist mumbo-jumbo.

btb, I don't want to fight with you over this one but your last post shows a limited understanding of music theory (again) and I worry that it could confuse people. Your description of the intervals contains so many errors that I just can't be bothered to correct you on it.

I'm afraid in the real world we do measure intervals in relation to scale degrees. If you ask a musician to sing a major 6th they will get there much quicker than if you ask them to sing a distance of 4.5 tones. In any case, if your system is so simple then why is it that Ken had to correct your earlier diagram?

You can choose to describe intervals in any way you like. It doesn't matter unless you are studying for a theory exam. If you want to pass your theory exam then you have to measure intervals using scale degrees.

The theory of it all is not the main issue. What matters is that you are able to recognise the sound of intervals and relate them to the instrument you play. This is how people are able to play by ear and also how you can become a fluent sight reader.

Hi Chris H,
Thanks for the response.
The content of my previous post is merely a regurgitation of information on intervals from Harmony (Chapter II) New Addition by Annie O. Warburton ... a handbook to pass ABRSM theory exams.

So, if you find fault with the content ... especially as you say
"Your description of the intervals contains so many errors that I just can't be bothered to correct you on it."
you must go down with the ship .

Oh I see, please accept my apologies.

If you want to learn more about intervals then I suggest you find a better theory book. Look for one that doesn't tell you that C - C# is a diminished 2nd.

This is rudiments not musicology. Musicologists have had no influence on the development of standard music notation.


John

Pull the other Drumour ... only a musicologist could have invented such pedantic-sounding interval descriptions as diminished and augmented ... to cover up the primitive oversight of not having included the black notes ... and having to patch up the basic 12-note range with accidentals.

Just tell your students that knowing intervals help with playing by ear and with reading music.
Show your student how intervals apply *when* reading music. Do some fun eartraining games using intervals.
To me, you learn intervals naturally anyways. IMO I would not make it too big of a deal (learning them), just make it fun and make it apply.

Well, I'd guess that *theorists* came up with those descriptions for chords that were already being used, not musicologists.

Music Theory is a separate field from Musicology.

And I can imagine a world, as you suggest, with no theoretical "mumbo-jumbo."

We would know almost nothing about music.

You mean, perfect fourths and fifths bear no relation at all to science? In natural tuning, they don't result from a string divided at the ratios 3/2 and 4/3? How about octaves? (2/1) How about that dreaded tritone (diminished fifth/augmented fourth)?

You mean, triads just magically and enigmatically sound good, not because 3rds and 5ths are somehow naturally prominent in a harmonic series that can be explained by science, but because they just simply sound good for no particular reason?

You mean, a 2nd just magically sounds kind of weird; and we can't use science at all to explain the concept of beats resulting from the very close frequencies of two notes that are a 2nd apart?

Well, the quote that btb posted read:

"diminished 2nd or augmented 1st (C-C#)"

C-C# is an augmented 1st.

You're right, it's not a diminished 2nd and the book is a little misleading in that regard, but it seems to me that the author was trying to state very simply that in terms of half steps, dimished 2nds and augmented 1sts are identical (though they aren't spelled the same and they don't function the same way in music).

Thanks pianojerome,
I'm sure all the others would have nodded off
if the C# had been given the laboured alternative nicety of a Db.

'One simple note all by itself is not music -- not even a single molecule of music, not even an atom. It's more like a proton or an electron, which, as you know, is meaningless all by itself; you need at least one of each -- at least two atomic particles -- to create an atom. And in exactly the same way you need at least two notes before you can begin to have an atom of music. Because with that one lonely note, isolated, nothing is happening; it's just floating in space. But once you have two notes you suddenly feel a relationship between them, like an electrical tension. There's already the beginning of a musical meaning. And with three notes, that meaning increases...

You see what happened: those musical protons and electrons --the separate notes that is -- have combined together forming atoms, which then combined into molecules, which finally combined into recognizable matter, like this wood or this hair, or that Blue Danube Waltz. So it turns out that an atom of music is not a single note at all, as you might think, but at least two notes; and that two-note relationship is called an INTERVAL. A very important word, "interval", because it's the heart and soul of music. You see music is not made out of notes by themselves, but out of the intervals between one note and another. That's why it's so necessary for us to understand this word, interval.

Everyone knows the word in daily speech as meaning a span of time between two events. For instance, they say in the British Theatres, "Between Acts I and II, there will be an interval of fifteen minutes" -- by which they mean an intermission. So an interval usually means a measurement of time.

In music we measure time, as you know, by breaking it up into meters and rhythms and bars and tempos; but we also measure other things in music - especially pitches, those separate tones we were just talking about. And that's how we use the word interval in music: to measure the distance between one note and another.'

These things are not elaborate and pupil-confusing. They may, however, be simple and btb-confusing. They are not going to change. The standard notation system is perfect for spelling anything in any key and experienced readers have no problem recognising any of these things instantly. Theorists have codified these rudiments - composers developed them.
Decent, not even brilliant, teachers can and do teach these concepts in all their variety (which when you think about it is not that much) to any pupil. And they do this successfully on a daily basis.


John

Laboured?

This is stuff you learn in the 1st week of the 1st level course of (required) music theory.

It doesn't take brains to know that C-C# (C-C) is not a 2nd, or that C-Db (C-D) is not a 1st.

And there was I thinking that pianojerome was ahead of the game when he advised
‘ but it seems to me that the author was trying to state very simply that in terms of half steps, diminished 2nds and augmented 1sts are identical (though they aren't spelled the same and they don't function the same way in music).’

It takes some explaining (unless you’re a violinist) to put over to the younger keyboard
generation the fact that ‘diminished 2nds and augmented 1sts are identical’ ...
BUT DIFFERENT ... those chaps on their tertiary education high-horses are clearly so subjugated by their mind-sets ... that they can’t be bothered to respond to the responsible training of the younger generation ... in any terms other than antiquated dogma.

Sorry but I can't let this one go.

C - C# (or Db, call it what you like) is NOT a diminished 2nd.

C - C# is a chromatic semitone.

C - Db is a MINOR 2nd.

Most of the other examples in btb's post describing intervals are also incorrect.

If you are going to post diagrams and tables on a public forum which some people may take notice of then you must get your facts straight.

right on btb.

A diminished 2nd above C would be Dbb. Pianojerome is correct: C - C# is an augmented 1st. There is nothing right on about ignorance. And I repeat: these are rudiments - that means basics. Their assimilation, especially when accurate, provides a basis which can lead to tertiary education and beyond in music. There is nothing antiquated or dogmatic about one's attitude to standard notation. It is easy and simple, it needs to be learnt. In common with any good writing system there is nothing to understand, it just needs to be learnt and used.

I especially endorse Chris H.'s last statement and I urge the less experienced on this forum to treat any content of btb's postings which relate to the theory of music as unreliable and worthless.


John

"See", "Sea", and "C" are all pronounced the same way. But they mean entirely different things. "See" is a verb, describing what you do with your eyes (or, at other contexts, what you do with your brain, i.e. 'comprehend'). "Sea" is a noun, referring to a large body of water. "C" is the third letter of our alphabet.

Should we get rid of this antiquated dogma, because it is too confusing to young kids to teach them that these three words sound identical BUT they are different?