| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 13 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 15 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
March 14 Information
Why are Hollywood stars so lecherous??? Is it their profession that makes them so or is it their nature?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 ( talk) 01:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources that say that they're any more lecherous than the rest of the population? Going along with your assumption for the moment though, I'd say it's probably like people who win the lottery and then go out spending lots of money. They're just gluttons. Dismas| (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict)Note that activities that you see in newspapers will be massively exaggerated, overreported, and generally distorted. They're trying to sell papers - lechery (real word?) sells papers. There is also the fact that good deeds tend to go unreported; they're less interesting. You don't often see the headline "Star continues to live happy life with wife". So even if the premise "Hollywood stars are lecherous" is true, it won't be as bad as the media present it.
Vimescarrot (
talk) 01:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the publicity, they're generally much more beautiful/handsome, rich, and glamorous than the average person, attracting lots of
groupies, so they get more opportunities.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict)I was about to point out the media angle as well. You don't hear about the long lasting marriages because they don't sell newspapers (tabloids). If you Google "Hollywood's longest marriages" you find quite a few names. High profile names include
Tom Hanks &
Rita Wilson (married since 1988),
Will Smith &
Jada Pinkett Smith (1997),
Danny DeVito &
Rhea Perlman (1982),
Catherine Zeta Jones &
Michael Douglas (2000), and others who I'm not going to bother looking up include
Kevin Bacon &
Kyra Sedgwick,
Sarah Jessica Parker &
Matthew Broderick, and
Melanie Griffith &
Antonio Banderas. And there was an actor that died last year, whose name I can't recall right now, who was married for something more than 50 years.
Dismas|
(talk) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- The media coverage does figure into the perception that actors get married and divorced a lot, although it's not exactly a new perception. Will Rogers once joked about being "as happy as a Hollywood ac-tore with a new divorce!" Divorce was perhaps less common, percentagewise, among the masses, but that's due to a phenomenon aptly described by Alan King: "Divorce was a luxury that few could afford." While some argue that the rise in divorce rate of the general US population during the last half-century is a sign of moral decay, it can also be argued that it's now much more affordable, thanks to post-WWII prosperity, and people are less willing to put up with bad situations than they once were. Actors, at least the well-paid ones, were always in a better position to afford it. But nowadays, it would be difficult to prove that actors get married and divorced more than the general population. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict)I was about to point out the media angle as well. You don't hear about the long lasting marriages because they don't sell newspapers (tabloids). If you Google "Hollywood's longest marriages" you find quite a few names. High profile names include
Tom Hanks &
Rita Wilson (married since 1988),
Will Smith &
Jada Pinkett Smith (1997),
Danny DeVito &
Rhea Perlman (1982),
Catherine Zeta Jones &
Michael Douglas (2000), and others who I'm not going to bother looking up include
Kevin Bacon &
Kyra Sedgwick,
Sarah Jessica Parker &
Matthew Broderick, and
Melanie Griffith &
Antonio Banderas. And there was an actor that died last year, whose name I can't recall right now, who was married for something more than 50 years.
Dismas|
(talk) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the publicity, they're generally much more beautiful/handsome, rich, and glamorous than the average person, attracting lots of
groupies, so they get more opportunities.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Dismas, the dude that was married for 50 years was Paul Newman to his wife Joanne Woodward. 24.189.90.68 ( talk) 03:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was slightly off on the date as he died in 2008, but yes, I believe I was thinking of Newman. Thanks,
Dismas|
(talk) 04:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, he was married to someone else before that.
Adam Bishop (
talk) 07:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I think that few people would label him "lecherous" for that. Is the OP one of those? I don't know.
Dismas|
(talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably the OP is referring more to the serial monogamists such as Zsa Zsa Gabor, Liz Taylor, etc. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I think that few people would label him "lecherous" for that. Is the OP one of those? I don't know.
Dismas|
(talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, he was married to someone else before that.
Adam Bishop (
talk) 07:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Being a Hollywood star is not a profession, it's an occupation. Being a doctor or lawyer for example is a profession.
89.242.120.116 (
talk) 18:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's an outmoded and elitist position. These days, everyone is expected to act professionally in the performance of the thing they're being paid for - it's often written into their job requirements or contract - in return for which, they're surely entitled to refer to what they do as their "profession". --
Jack of Oz
... speak! ... 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- So you'd be happy to be treated by a doctor or surgeon with six months training who could never get barred for incompetence? 92.24.26.120 ( talk) 02:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- For example, this receptionist is particularly noted for her professionalism (note the alt-text). — Akrabbim talk 19:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is being a professional athlete a profession? ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly. Why wouldn't it be? --
Jack of Oz
... speak! ... 07:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Precisely the point. A professional athlete or a professional actor, both are professions. But not like doctors and lawyers, as pro athletes and pro actors typically get way much more money. :) ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 08:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- As much as doctors and lawyers practice, you would think they would be good at their jobs.
- Hey! The ref desk is a serious place! Grow up! Act your age! Dare to be dull! ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- As much as doctors and lawyers practice, you would think they would be good at their jobs.
- Precisely the point. A professional athlete or a professional actor, both are professions. But not like doctors and lawyers, as pro athletes and pro actors typically get way much more money. :) ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 08:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly. Why wouldn't it be? --
Jack of Oz
... speak! ... 07:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's an outmoded and elitist position. These days, everyone is expected to act professionally in the performance of the thing they're being paid for - it's often written into their job requirements or contract - in return for which, they're surely entitled to refer to what they do as their "profession". --
Jack of Oz
... speak! ... 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are all confusing a profession with behaving with professionalism. A profession is characterised by "a) Altruism. A commitment to to serving the client and society. b) A specialist body of knowledge acquired during a long periosd of education and training. c) Control over training, qualification, recruitment and expulsion. d) A code of ethics. e) Fee earning." From Chapter 12 of Sociology by Stephen Harris. The essential characteristic is that a profession is regulated by a professional body, and unless you belong to that body you cannot practise in that profession. Professionalism is a very good thing and everyone should strive towards it, but it is not the same as a profession. See, for example this http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/183/2/95 which includes description of the characteristics of professions. Unfortunately the word professional is also used to mean not-amateur - having at least two meanings for one word causes confusion. 92.24.26.120 ( talk) 02:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- My Webster's generally defines a profession as a "public declaration", which is what it literally means. The concept focused originally on clergy who would declare or "profess" belief in their faith. From there is progressed to any kind of "calling" that requires long and intensive study. It is also used to mean "a principle calling, vocation, or employment." By extension, it also means "the whole body of persons engaged in a calling". In that sense, actors and athletes are professionals just as surely as doctors and lawyers (and clergy) are. This would contrast with, say, a laborer, who could learn his job in a matter of days or even hours. Hence you might get paid to detassel corn, but you probably wouldn't call detasseling a "profession". ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 10:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- You need to tease out the different meanings of the same word when having discussions like this. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, sixth edition, gives at least three different meanings to Profession. The first meaning is as you write, declaration or avowal, including a religious declaration. The second meaning is vocation or calling that requires advanced learning or science. The learned professions are divinity, law, and medicine. The third meaning is the body of persons engaged in a profession. Interestingly, it says that "the profession" is theatre slang for actors and actresses. It also describes professional: meanings include belonging to a profession or being the opposite of amateur. Professionalism is "qualities or typical features of a profession or professionals".
- I think giving a clear and correct description of professionalism is very important. People around the world are going to be looking at that Wikipedia article for guidence on how to behave in a professional way: with integrity, impartiality, altruism, honesty, reflection (in the sense of thinking about what you did and how to improve it next time you do it), etc. More professionalism means less corruption and less wars. If everyone at Enron had behaved with professionalism then it wouldnt have happened. I looked at the profession article some time ago and it was really terrible. I'm truely afraid to look at it now. The Chapter 12 of the Sociology book by Stephen Harris would make a great article on profession, but I'm fully aware that copying isnt allowed. 92.24.123.30 ( talk) 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- My Webster's generally defines a profession as a "public declaration", which is what it literally means. The concept focused originally on clergy who would declare or "profess" belief in their faith. From there is progressed to any kind of "calling" that requires long and intensive study. It is also used to mean "a principle calling, vocation, or employment." By extension, it also means "the whole body of persons engaged in a calling". In that sense, actors and athletes are professionals just as surely as doctors and lawyers (and clergy) are. This would contrast with, say, a laborer, who could learn his job in a matter of days or even hours. Hence you might get paid to detassel corn, but you probably wouldn't call detasseling a "profession". ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 10:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I've only recently done a few of these puzzles. I've attempted some of the harder ones and it has me wondering if any guessing is ever involved. Is there always a logical path or does finding the solution sometimes rely on making a guess and seeing if that helps you? Dismas| (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure having to guess means it's an example of a bad puzzle. So, maybe you will have to guess - but you shouldn't have to. It's not like there's a regulatory body for sudoku, after all. ;) Vimescarrot ( talk) 01:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- As reference: This website doesn't address the question correctly, but includes the line They actually required guessing at a certain point, which sudoku purists consider a real no-no. You'll find similar things on Google; I searched "sudoku requires guess". Vimescarrot ( talk) 01:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if "guessing" is quite the right word, but I will suppose that a certain number belongs in one position, then fill in the rest until it's either completed (if my supposition was correct) or I find a conflict (in which case my supposition was wrong). If it was wrong, I try a different number in that spot and see if that works out. For more complex puzzles, I may need to "guess" the values of several spots at once, and try out many combos until I find the correct one. StuRat ( talk) 03:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- This process I have tried, but it sucks for me because I use a pen. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The question is based on a false premise. Since there are a limited number of possibilities for each position, making a guess and seeing if it leads to a contradiction is a "logical path" to a solution. There's no logical difference between saying "this square can't be a 4 because there's already a 4 in that row" and "this square can't be a 4 because then that square would have to be a 6, and so that square would have to be a 1, but there's already a 1 in that row." Of course there is a big difference in terms of how easy it is to solve the puzzle. --Anonymous, 04:55 UTC, March 14, 2010.
- Yeah, but you know what he means and didn't have to be pedantic about a slightly-off choice of 2 words. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I can be plenty pedantic, but I wasn't being pedantic here. As soon as you say "this square can't be a 4 because", you are making a guess (4) and rejecting it. For the simple cases, you get so used to doing it that you don't realize that is what you're doing. If you learn to handle more complex situations, you will no longer see them as guessing-and-rejecting. There really is no distinction. --Anonymous, 08:43 UTC, March 15, 2010.
- You should never have to guess. Of the thousands of sudoku that I've done, not a single one has required guessing. You could guess, of course, but you'd be roughly as successful as when you guess while doing a crossword. (Well, I guess you'd be 2.6 times as likely, but you get the point...:-). Don't guess: figure. Matt Deres ( talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you find them enjoyable, I'd suggest getting one of the many sudoku puzzle books out there that offer puzzles in varying degrees of difficulty. If a hard one gets frustrating, go back and do a couple of easy ones to regain the feel for the logic you'll require. The "cheat" (kind of) is to pencil in all the possible numbers in each square and then work back through to find the hidden clues. I say it's a cheat because there's no way to not get the answer at the end (provided you're careful of your steps); doing the work portion in your head is the challenge. Matt Deres ( talk) 01:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You never have to guess. Sudoku is an excellent puzzle because there are many different techniques required to complete the more tricky ones - you'll encounter occasional eureka moments as you find them. Enjoy. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, but often times on the harder problems, the logical method involves thinking several moves ahead in your mind. ("I can't put a four here, because then I'd have to put a 3 in the top row and that would conflict with the three in the top right corner.") If you worked that out with a pencil instead of in your head it would definitely count as a "guess" in my mind. APL ( talk) 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how that could possibly be a guess. Guessing involves not being sure - but you are sure, based on the restrictions of the game, that the move you're about to make must be correct. That's more like "thinking through the consequences logically". I also don't understand what difference it makes whether you're tracking the logic in your head or with a pencil; either you've used logic or you haven't. A guess in sudoku would be more like this: "I can't figure out the next move. I know the bottom right 9-box is missing the 3 and the 6, so I'll put the 3 here and the 6 there and I'll have a 50% chance of getting it right." That's a guess because it involves the risk of being wrong and it's not how the game is supposed to be played. Matt Deres ( talk) 13:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- So perhaps it depends on one's interpretation of what guessing means. I too see characteristics of trial and error problem solving techniques, which apparently are sometimes also called "guess and check". --- Sluzzelin talk 13:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I consider it a "guess" once you write it down. Consider an analogy with driving to a destination and wondering "do I need to turn right or left here ?" If you're able to recall the correct direction with 100% certainty before turning, that's not a guess. If you can't recall and turn one way at random, hoping it's the correct way (and reversing direction if it turns out not to be), then that's a "guess". So, to me, it qualifies as a guess if you take any concrete action based on uncertain info, regardless of whether that action can be reversed. StuRat ( talk) 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- When I do suduko, I don't think "This can't be 4 because XYZ", I think "XYZ, therefore this can't be 4". The difference may seem inconsequential, but it isn't. The former is guessing, the latter isn't. --
Tango (
talk) 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how the first one can be called a guess. I agree with Anonymous above - there is no difference. A guess would be to randomly chuck a 4 into the grid and then go from there - I don't think anyone plays like that. Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 14:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- When I do suduko, I don't think "This can't be 4 because XYZ", I think "XYZ, therefore this can't be 4". The difference may seem inconsequential, but it isn't. The former is guessing, the latter isn't. --
Tango (
talk) 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- See the article Backtracking for a way to program a computer to solve sudokus. It seems to me that it is this algorithm which people above disagree over whether should be called "guessing" or not. Aenar ( talk) 18:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, no matter how you play you're going to be checking and ruling out possibilities until you're left with only one possible answer. Whether you check a possibility by writing down some numbers or you do it all in your head is not fundamentally different. Rckrone ( talk) 20:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, I consider "guessing" to be when you have two spaces in a 9 box and you know that they have to be a 3 and a 6. You can't figure it out, so you just put them in and take your chances. You have a fifty percent chance of being right. Dismas| (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a book of guitar chords that begins at C and lists thirty or forty billion different chords. My question refers to the sharp and flat chords - sometimes the book refers to a flat, and othertimes to a sharp, so the whole sequence of chords in my book runs: C C# D Eb E F F# G Ab A Bb B Is this standard in music? I would have thought the author of the book would have picked either sharps or flats and stuck with that throughout, this way seems a bit arbitrary. So I wonder if musicians always use these chords - not referring to D# if they can refer to Eb.
I am aware that on the stave, sometimes circumstances dictate which notes are used for ease of reading, sometimes so much that double sharps and flats have to be used, I'm asking really if I were to compose a tune and announce to musicians that it was in A#, if they'd all laugh. FreeMorpheme ( talk) 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- This may not be the definitive answer, but as a musician myself, when I look at this sequence I see the names of chords most frequently used in bands of mixed instruments. You see, Eb and Bb are very common in music written to include saxes or other brass instruments. While they may well be equivalent to D# and A#, you may not encounter these chords/keys called that very often. At a guess your book is aimed at jazz guitarists or pop/rock/blues guitarists, rather than classical. -- TammyMoet ( talk) 16:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is that because saxes and other brass work naturally better in those flat keys? Reading now about the cycle of fiths it seems that the convention has arisen from this - I'm currently struggling with why C# has seven sharps but the same key represented in Db only has five flats - but I'll get there!
FreeMorpheme (
talk) 16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- And while researching the answer I have found that certain keys are consistently annotated with flats rather than sharps - for instance C minor is always said to have three flats, whereas as far as I am concerned it may just have well have three sharps. Is there a resource anywhere that explains this? The wiki articles are by no means set up for a lay explanation. FreeMorpheme ( talk) 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is that because saxes and other brass work naturally better in those flat keys? Reading now about the cycle of fiths it seems that the convention has arisen from this - I'm currently struggling with why C# has seven sharps but the same key represented in Db only has five flats - but I'll get there!
FreeMorpheme (
talk) 16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- C minor has the same key signature as E♭ major: B♭, E♭ and A♭. That means that every instance of the notes B, E and A is flattened. It is NOT the same as the rarely encountered key signature D♯ major, in which every instance of every note is sharpened, and F and C are doubly sharpened. You could get the same performing result as C minor by, instead of playing B♭, E♭ and A♭ where B, E and A are written, you played A♯, D♯ and G♯, because they're exactly the same notes. But you could NOT get the same result by having the key signature consist of A♯, D♯ and G♯ rather than B♭, E♭ and A♭. That would mean that every time you see an A written on the page, you'd play a different note, A♯; but you'd leave B untouched as B, whereas you should be playing a B♭. It would sound completely weird, unmusical and wrong. --
Jack of Oz
... speak! ... 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- So am I right in thinking this is just a convention that's arisen due to problems with the stave notation? You say that a musician would play a B natural if only the A is written is sharpened, but if we take the music off the stave then the notes A# and Bb are identical. So somewhere there must be a list of all the keys and whether or not they are conventionally referred to as sharp or flat...
FreeMorpheme (
talk) 22:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- You mean like the graphic at circle of fifths? Staecker ( talk) 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- So am I right in thinking this is just a convention that's arisen due to problems with the stave notation? You say that a musician would play a B natural if only the A is written is sharpened, but if we take the music off the stave then the notes A# and Bb are identical. So somewhere there must be a list of all the keys and whether or not they are conventionally referred to as sharp or flat...
FreeMorpheme (
talk) 22:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- C minor has the same key signature as E♭ major: B♭, E♭ and A♭. That means that every instance of the notes B, E and A is flattened. It is NOT the same as the rarely encountered key signature D♯ major, in which every instance of every note is sharpened, and F and C are doubly sharpened. You could get the same performing result as C minor by, instead of playing B♭, E♭ and A♭ where B, E and A are written, you played A♯, D♯ and G♯, because they're exactly the same notes. But you could NOT get the same result by having the key signature consist of A♯, D♯ and G♯ rather than B♭, E♭ and A♭. That would mean that every time you see an A written on the page, you'd play a different note, A♯; but you'd leave B untouched as B, whereas you should be playing a B♭. It would sound completely weird, unmusical and wrong. --
Jack of Oz
... speak! ... 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- The convention with sharps and flats, and the apparent confusion thereof, arises from the usage of tempered scales because most modern instruments are incapable of playing more than one scale in Just intonation. The deal is, in any just intonation scheme, the sizes of the intervals do NOT fit perfectly into an octave the way that one would expect them to when playing, say, the guitar or the piano. Musical scales and keys are written from the perspective of just intonation, and as such, D♯ and C♭ are not actually the same note. Depending on the tuning system and the particular key, those notes could be up to 1/2 a semitone apart. Most modern instruments are tuned to equal temperament, which fudges just intonation in such a way as to make playing fretted or keyed instruments possible in multiple keys without retuning, but as such, it makes certain approximations, such as making flats and shaps enharmonic. We are so used to playing in equal temperament that the harmonic reasons for writing a note as D♯ rather than C♭ are lost to us; but they are not really the same note. That's also why you get keys with notes like F♯♯ instead of just writing it as G. The twin situations of making a written key transposable for transposing instruments (as noted above) AND the fact that music is written in just intonation but usually played on a tempered instrument is why people are being confused. -- Jayron 32 00:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just one comment to avoid confusion, Jayron: Where you're comparing D♯ with C♭, the comparison ought to be between C♯ and D♭. (D♯ and C♭ are indeed very different notes, as different as E♭ and B. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Jayron's explanation is incorrect. Any double-sharp or double-flat (which incidentally would never be a key, only a note or the tonic of a chord) would be used instead of a whole tone higher/lower not because of intonation but because of internal logic; otherwise they are the same note, at least in terms of transcription. Here's the answer in terms of keys (which provide the names of basic guitar chords as if the chords were built on the tonic triad of the key; however, a chord could have a tonic that is the "non-standard" one if the context calls for it, e.g., you could have a C-flat chord under some circumstances even though there is no key of C-flat): F is used instead of E# because F has one flat and E# has eleven sharps; G is used instead of A-flatflat because G has one sharp and A-flatflat has eleven flats. It's simply the choice between which enharmonic key has six or fewer flats/sharps. The "tie" is between F# and G-flat, which both have six; thus, either key may be used. So: C; F, G; B-flat, D; E-flat, A; A-flat, E; D-flat, B; G-flat/F#: these are the keys because they have 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 flats or sharps, and any other key would have 7 or more. As for minor keys, they are equivalent to their relative majors. C#m would be used instead of D-flat-m because one has has four sharps and the other has eight flats. Once the key is determined, the application of "accidentals" (in the notes themselves) is based on internal logic.
63.17.34.176 (
talk) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- C-flat can be a key, as can C-double-flat, etc. No one writes music that way because it would be highly annoying. But lots of music, especially classical, has a clear harmonic logic involving modulations from key to key. Sometimes the notated key signature is changed when the music modulates, sometimes it isn't and you just get an increase in the number of accidentals. Either way if the harmonic logic clearly indicates a modulation from, say, C major to the dominant G major, then the music is in the key of G major. Bach was always very careful to notate pitch accidentals "correctly" for whatever key the music had modulated to, but the temperaments of his day did not allow one to modulate to remote double flat or sharp keys. By Beethoven's time, however, equal temperament (or at least an approximation of it) had progressed to the point of smoothly eliminating all of the almost-enharmonic-but-not-quite pitch
commas. This allowed composers like Beethoven to do funny modulation tricks; like following a path of harmonic logic that "should" end up in a different key but doesn't. For example: Beethoven's
Appassionata piano sonata's first movement starts in F minor and after a bunch of harmonically downward modulations ends in the key of Abbbb minor. Of course Beethoven notated Abbbb minor as if it was F minor, even though the harmonic logic of the modulations points to Abbbb minor. Writing it in the "correct" key would be ridiculous. Quadruple flats? And anyway, Beethoven was likely making a point about how you can do such a thing in equal temperament (or whatever precursor temperament he was using at the time). He's saying, check it out, all these modulations should end up in a key far far from where we started, but as if by magic it is the *same* key, dude! It was a sneaky trick--in his time a sonata in F minor should begin and end in F minor. The Appassionata modulates to a key quite remote from F minor yet ends on F minor anyway. Nice trick. Harmonic magic! From the F minor start the key modulates ever flatter, "passing through" two commas (a Great
Diesis making Fb=E and a
diaschisma making Gb=F#), which combined result in the key of Abbbb minor being eventually attained. Over the two centuries since Beethoven's day this "virtual key return" trick became so commonplace that is no longer remarkable in the least. The weirdness is lost to us--it's just F minor, who ever heard of Abbbb minor? Anyway, while no one in their right mind would consider dealing with the key of Abbbb minor, it does exist. I know, I'm being a music theory pedant. I apologize.
Pfly (
talk) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, "It's simply the choice between which enharmonic key has six or fewer flats/sharps." Of course C##### (or whatever) "can" be a "key." Also, the OP says "I have a book of guitar chords," which strongly implies modern "pop" notation in which one might run into (e.g.) a C-flat CHORD but would never run into the KEY of C-flat. See, e.g., Miss Macbeth in the Spike songbook based on the Elvis Costello album of the same name; there's a splendid A-double-flat chord to begin the bridge. Also, a song on Paul Simon's album One-Trick Pony, as transcribed in the songbook for that album, "modulates" from one key to its enharmonic equivalent (different "letter") tonic but in the parallel minor, if I remember correctly (I think the song is Oh, Marion). For a really complex modern "pop" songbook, see that of Joni Mitchell's Mingus, with many C-flat chords and double-sharps and the like (and which was unkindly mocked in a biography of Charles Mingus for over-complicating the chord-names in the song Goodbye Porkpie Hat -- those chords thrilled my teenage imagination long ago ...) 63.17.69.4 ( talk) 07:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- C-flat can be a key, as can C-double-flat, etc. No one writes music that way because it would be highly annoying. But lots of music, especially classical, has a clear harmonic logic involving modulations from key to key. Sometimes the notated key signature is changed when the music modulates, sometimes it isn't and you just get an increase in the number of accidentals. Either way if the harmonic logic clearly indicates a modulation from, say, C major to the dominant G major, then the music is in the key of G major. Bach was always very careful to notate pitch accidentals "correctly" for whatever key the music had modulated to, but the temperaments of his day did not allow one to modulate to remote double flat or sharp keys. By Beethoven's time, however, equal temperament (or at least an approximation of it) had progressed to the point of smoothly eliminating all of the almost-enharmonic-but-not-quite pitch
commas. This allowed composers like Beethoven to do funny modulation tricks; like following a path of harmonic logic that "should" end up in a different key but doesn't. For example: Beethoven's
Appassionata piano sonata's first movement starts in F minor and after a bunch of harmonically downward modulations ends in the key of Abbbb minor. Of course Beethoven notated Abbbb minor as if it was F minor, even though the harmonic logic of the modulations points to Abbbb minor. Writing it in the "correct" key would be ridiculous. Quadruple flats? And anyway, Beethoven was likely making a point about how you can do such a thing in equal temperament (or whatever precursor temperament he was using at the time). He's saying, check it out, all these modulations should end up in a key far far from where we started, but as if by magic it is the *same* key, dude! It was a sneaky trick--in his time a sonata in F minor should begin and end in F minor. The Appassionata modulates to a key quite remote from F minor yet ends on F minor anyway. Nice trick. Harmonic magic! From the F minor start the key modulates ever flatter, "passing through" two commas (a Great
Diesis making Fb=E and a
diaschisma making Gb=F#), which combined result in the key of Abbbb minor being eventually attained. Over the two centuries since Beethoven's day this "virtual key return" trick became so commonplace that is no longer remarkable in the least. The weirdness is lost to us--it's just F minor, who ever heard of Abbbb minor? Anyway, while no one in their right mind would consider dealing with the key of Abbbb minor, it does exist. I know, I'm being a music theory pedant. I apologize.
Pfly (
talk) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 13 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 15 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
March 14 Information
Why are Hollywood stars so lecherous??? Is it their profession that makes them so or is it their nature?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 ( talk) 01:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources that say that they're any more lecherous than the rest of the population? Going along with your assumption for the moment though, I'd say it's probably like people who win the lottery and then go out spending lots of money. They're just gluttons. Dismas| (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict)Note that activities that you see in newspapers will be massively exaggerated, overreported, and generally distorted. They're trying to sell papers - lechery (real word?) sells papers. There is also the fact that good deeds tend to go unreported; they're less interesting. You don't often see the headline "Star continues to live happy life with wife". So even if the premise "Hollywood stars are lecherous" is true, it won't be as bad as the media present it.
Vimescarrot (
talk) 01:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the publicity, they're generally much more beautiful/handsome, rich, and glamorous than the average person, attracting lots of
groupies, so they get more opportunities.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict)I was about to point out the media angle as well. You don't hear about the long lasting marriages because they don't sell newspapers (tabloids). If you Google "Hollywood's longest marriages" you find quite a few names. High profile names include
Tom Hanks &
Rita Wilson (married since 1988),
Will Smith &
Jada Pinkett Smith (1997),
Danny DeVito &
Rhea Perlman (1982),
Catherine Zeta Jones &
Michael Douglas (2000), and others who I'm not going to bother looking up include
Kevin Bacon &
Kyra Sedgwick,
Sarah Jessica Parker &
Matthew Broderick, and
Melanie Griffith &
Antonio Banderas. And there was an actor that died last year, whose name I can't recall right now, who was married for something more than 50 years.
Dismas|
(talk) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- The media coverage does figure into the perception that actors get married and divorced a lot, although it's not exactly a new perception. Will Rogers once joked about being "as happy as a Hollywood ac-tore with a new divorce!" Divorce was perhaps less common, percentagewise, among the masses, but that's due to a phenomenon aptly described by Alan King: "Divorce was a luxury that few could afford." While some argue that the rise in divorce rate of the general US population during the last half-century is a sign of moral decay, it can also be argued that it's now much more affordable, thanks to post-WWII prosperity, and people are less willing to put up with bad situations than they once were. Actors, at least the well-paid ones, were always in a better position to afford it. But nowadays, it would be difficult to prove that actors get married and divorced more than the general population. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict)I was about to point out the media angle as well. You don't hear about the long lasting marriages because they don't sell newspapers (tabloids). If you Google "Hollywood's longest marriages" you find quite a few names. High profile names include
Tom Hanks &
Rita Wilson (married since 1988),
Will Smith &
Jada Pinkett Smith (1997),
Danny DeVito &
Rhea Perlman (1982),
Catherine Zeta Jones &
Michael Douglas (2000), and others who I'm not going to bother looking up include
Kevin Bacon &
Kyra Sedgwick,
Sarah Jessica Parker &
Matthew Broderick, and
Melanie Griffith &
Antonio Banderas. And there was an actor that died last year, whose name I can't recall right now, who was married for something more than 50 years.
Dismas|
(talk) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the publicity, they're generally much more beautiful/handsome, rich, and glamorous than the average person, attracting lots of
groupies, so they get more opportunities.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Dismas, the dude that was married for 50 years was Paul Newman to his wife Joanne Woodward. 24.189.90.68 ( talk) 03:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was slightly off on the date as he died in 2008, but yes, I believe I was thinking of Newman. Thanks,
Dismas|
(talk) 04:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, he was married to someone else before that.
Adam Bishop (
talk) 07:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I think that few people would label him "lecherous" for that. Is the OP one of those? I don't know.
Dismas|
(talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably the OP is referring more to the serial monogamists such as Zsa Zsa Gabor, Liz Taylor, etc. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I think that few people would label him "lecherous" for that. Is the OP one of those? I don't know.
Dismas|
(talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, he was married to someone else before that.
Adam Bishop (
talk) 07:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Being a Hollywood star is not a profession, it's an occupation. Being a doctor or lawyer for example is a profession.
89.242.120.116 (
talk) 18:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's an outmoded and elitist position. These days, everyone is expected to act professionally in the performance of the thing they're being paid for - it's often written into their job requirements or contract - in return for which, they're surely entitled to refer to what they do as their "profession". --
Jack of Oz
... speak! ... 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- So you'd be happy to be treated by a doctor or surgeon with six months training who could never get barred for incompetence? 92.24.26.120 ( talk) 02:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- For example, this receptionist is particularly noted for her professionalism (note the alt-text). — Akrabbim talk 19:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is being a professional athlete a profession? ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly. Why wouldn't it be? --
Jack of Oz
... speak! ... 07:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Precisely the point. A professional athlete or a professional actor, both are professions. But not like doctors and lawyers, as pro athletes and pro actors typically get way much more money. :) ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 08:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- As much as doctors and lawyers practice, you would think they would be good at their jobs.
- Hey! The ref desk is a serious place! Grow up! Act your age! Dare to be dull! ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- As much as doctors and lawyers practice, you would think they would be good at their jobs.
- Precisely the point. A professional athlete or a professional actor, both are professions. But not like doctors and lawyers, as pro athletes and pro actors typically get way much more money. :) ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 08:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly. Why wouldn't it be? --
Jack of Oz
... speak! ... 07:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's an outmoded and elitist position. These days, everyone is expected to act professionally in the performance of the thing they're being paid for - it's often written into their job requirements or contract - in return for which, they're surely entitled to refer to what they do as their "profession". --
Jack of Oz
... speak! ... 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are all confusing a profession with behaving with professionalism. A profession is characterised by "a) Altruism. A commitment to to serving the client and society. b) A specialist body of knowledge acquired during a long periosd of education and training. c) Control over training, qualification, recruitment and expulsion. d) A code of ethics. e) Fee earning." From Chapter 12 of Sociology by Stephen Harris. The essential characteristic is that a profession is regulated by a professional body, and unless you belong to that body you cannot practise in that profession. Professionalism is a very good thing and everyone should strive towards it, but it is not the same as a profession. See, for example this http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/183/2/95 which includes description of the characteristics of professions. Unfortunately the word professional is also used to mean not-amateur - having at least two meanings for one word causes confusion. 92.24.26.120 ( talk) 02:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- My Webster's generally defines a profession as a "public declaration", which is what it literally means. The concept focused originally on clergy who would declare or "profess" belief in their faith. From there is progressed to any kind of "calling" that requires long and intensive study. It is also used to mean "a principle calling, vocation, or employment." By extension, it also means "the whole body of persons engaged in a calling". In that sense, actors and athletes are professionals just as surely as doctors and lawyers (and clergy) are. This would contrast with, say, a laborer, who could learn his job in a matter of days or even hours. Hence you might get paid to detassel corn, but you probably wouldn't call detasseling a "profession". ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 10:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- You need to tease out the different meanings of the same word when having discussions like this. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, sixth edition, gives at least three different meanings to Profession. The first meaning is as you write, declaration or avowal, including a religious declaration. The second meaning is vocation or calling that requires advanced learning or science. The learned professions are divinity, law, and medicine. The third meaning is the body of persons engaged in a profession. Interestingly, it says that "the profession" is theatre slang for actors and actresses. It also describes professional: meanings include belonging to a profession or being the opposite of amateur. Professionalism is "qualities or typical features of a profession or professionals".
- I think giving a clear and correct description of professionalism is very important. People around the world are going to be looking at that Wikipedia article for guidence on how to behave in a professional way: with integrity, impartiality, altruism, honesty, reflection (in the sense of thinking about what you did and how to improve it next time you do it), etc. More professionalism means less corruption and less wars. If everyone at Enron had behaved with professionalism then it wouldnt have happened. I looked at the profession article some time ago and it was really terrible. I'm truely afraid to look at it now. The Chapter 12 of the Sociology book by Stephen Harris would make a great article on profession, but I'm fully aware that copying isnt allowed. 92.24.123.30 ( talk) 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- My Webster's generally defines a profession as a "public declaration", which is what it literally means. The concept focused originally on clergy who would declare or "profess" belief in their faith. From there is progressed to any kind of "calling" that requires long and intensive study. It is also used to mean "a principle calling, vocation, or employment." By extension, it also means "the whole body of persons engaged in a calling". In that sense, actors and athletes are professionals just as surely as doctors and lawyers (and clergy) are. This would contrast with, say, a laborer, who could learn his job in a matter of days or even hours. Hence you might get paid to detassel corn, but you probably wouldn't call detasseling a "profession". ←
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots→ 10:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I've only recently done a few of these puzzles. I've attempted some of the harder ones and it has me wondering if any guessing is ever involved. Is there always a logical path or does finding the solution sometimes rely on making a guess and seeing if that helps you? Dismas| (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure having to guess means it's an example of a bad puzzle. So, maybe you will have to guess - but you shouldn't have to. It's not like there's a regulatory body for sudoku, after all. ;) Vimescarrot ( talk) 01:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- As reference: This website doesn't address the question correctly, but includes the line They actually required guessing at a certain point, which sudoku purists consider a real no-no. You'll find similar things on Google; I searched "sudoku requires guess". Vimescarrot ( talk) 01:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if "guessing" is quite the right word, but I will suppose that a certain number belongs in one position, then fill in the rest until it's either completed (if my supposition was correct) or I find a conflict (in which case my supposition was wrong). If it was wrong, I try a different number in that spot and see if that works out. For more complex puzzles, I may need to "guess" the values of several spots at once, and try out many combos until I find the correct one. StuRat ( talk) 03:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- This process I have tried, but it sucks for me because I use a pen. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The question is based on a false premise. Since there are a limited number of possibilities for each position, making a guess and seeing if it leads to a contradiction is a "logical path" to a solution. There's no logical difference between saying "this square can't be a 4 because there's already a 4 in that row" and "this square can't be a 4 because then that square would have to be a 6, and so that square would have to be a 1, but there's already a 1 in that row." Of course there is a big difference in terms of how easy it is to solve the puzzle. --Anonymous, 04:55 UTC, March 14, 2010.
- Yeah, but you know what he means and didn't have to be pedantic about a slightly-off choice of 2 words. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I can be plenty pedantic, but I wasn't being pedantic here. As soon as you say "this square can't be a 4 because", you are making a guess (4) and rejecting it. For the simple cases, you get so used to doing it that you don't realize that is what you're doing. If you learn to handle more complex situations, you will no longer see them as guessing-and-rejecting. There really is no distinction. --Anonymous, 08:43 UTC, March 15, 2010.
- You should never have to guess. Of the thousands of sudoku that I've done, not a single one has required guessing. You could guess, of course, but you'd be roughly as successful as when you guess while doing a crossword. (Well, I guess you'd be 2.6 times as likely, but you get the point...:-). Don't guess: figure. Matt Deres ( talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you find them enjoyable, I'd suggest getting one of the many sudoku puzzle books out there that offer puzzles in varying degrees of difficulty. If a hard one gets frustrating, go back and do a couple of easy ones to regain the feel for the logic you'll require. The "cheat" (kind of) is to pencil in all the possible numbers in each square and then work back through to find the hidden clues. I say it's a cheat because there's no way to not get the answer at the end (provided you're careful of your steps); doing the work portion in your head is the challenge. Matt Deres ( talk) 01:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You never have to guess. Sudoku is an excellent puzzle because there are many different techniques required to complete the more tricky ones - you'll encounter occasional eureka moments as you find them. Enjoy. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, but often times on the harder problems, the logical method involves thinking several moves ahead in your mind. ("I can't put a four here, because then I'd have to put a 3 in the top row and that would conflict with the three in the top right corner.") If you worked that out with a pencil instead of in your head it would definitely count as a "guess" in my mind. APL ( talk) 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how that could possibly be a guess. Guessing involves not being sure - but you are sure, based on the restrictions of the game, that the move you're about to make must be correct. That's more like "thinking through the consequences logically". I also don't understand what difference it makes whether you're tracking the logic in your head or with a pencil; either you've used logic or you haven't. A guess in sudoku would be more like this: "I can't figure out the next move. I know the bottom right 9-box is missing the 3 and the 6, so I'll put the 3 here and the 6 there and I'll have a 50% chance of getting it right." That's a guess because it involves the risk of being wrong and it's not how the game is supposed to be played. Matt Deres ( talk) 13:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- So perhaps it depends on one's interpretation of what guessing means. I too see characteristics of trial and error problem solving techniques, which apparently are sometimes also called "guess and check". --- Sluzzelin talk 13:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I consider it a "guess" once you write it down. Consider an analogy with driving to a destination and wondering "do I need to turn right or left here ?" If you're able to recall the correct direction with 100% certainty before turning, that's not a guess. If you can't recall and turn one way at random, hoping it's the correct way (and reversing direction if it turns out not to be), then that's a "guess". So, to me, it qualifies as a guess if you take any concrete action based on uncertain info, regardless of whether that action can be reversed. StuRat ( talk) 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- When I do suduko, I don't think "This can't be 4 because XYZ", I think "XYZ, therefore this can't be 4". The difference may seem inconsequential, but it isn't. The former is guessing, the latter isn't. --
Tango (
talk) 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how the first one can be called a guess. I agree with Anonymous above - there is no difference. A guess would be to randomly chuck a 4 into the grid and then go from there - I don't think anyone plays like that. Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 14:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- When I do suduko, I don't think "This can't be 4 because XYZ", I think "XYZ, therefore this can't be 4". The difference may seem inconsequential, but it isn't. The former is guessing, the latter isn't. --
Tango (
talk) 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- See the article Backtracking for a way to program a computer to solve sudokus. It seems to me that it is this algorithm which people above disagree over whether should be called "guessing" or not. Aenar ( talk) 18:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, no matter how you play you're going to be checking and ruling out possibilities until you're left with only one possible answer. Whether you check a possibility by writing down some numbers or you do it all in your head is not fundamentally different. Rckrone ( talk) 20:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, I consider "guessing" to be when you have two spaces in a 9 box and you know that they have to be a 3 and a 6. You can't figure it out, so you just put them in and take your chances. You have a fifty percent chance of being right. Dismas| (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a book of guitar chords that begins at C and lists thirty or forty billion different chords. My question refers to the sharp and flat chords - sometimes the book refers to a flat, and othertimes to a sharp, so the whole sequence of chords in my book runs: C C# D Eb E F F# G Ab A Bb B Is this standard in music? I would have thought the author of the book would have picked either sharps or flats and stuck with that throughout, this way seems a bit arbitrary. So I wonder if musicians always use these chords - not referring to D# if they can refer to Eb.
I am aware that on the stave, sometimes circumstances dictate which notes are used for ease of reading, sometimes so much that double sharps and flats have to be used, I'm asking really if I were to compose a tune and announce to musicians that it was in A#, if they'd all laugh. FreeMorpheme ( talk) 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- This may not be the definitive answer, but as a musician myself, when I look at this sequence I see the names of chords most frequently used in bands of mixed instruments. You see, Eb and Bb are very common in music written to include saxes or other brass instruments. While they may well be equivalent to D# and A#, you may not encounter these chords/keys called that very often. At a guess your book is aimed at jazz guitarists or pop/rock/blues guitarists, rather than classical. -- TammyMoet ( talk) 16:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is that because saxes and other brass work naturally better in those flat keys? Reading now about the cycle of fiths it seems that the convention has arisen from this - I'm currently struggling with why C# has seven sharps but the same key represented in Db only has five flats - but I'll get there!
FreeMorpheme (
talk) 16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- And while researching the answer I have found that certain keys are consistently annotated with flats rather than sharps - for instance C minor is always said to have three flats, whereas as far as I am concerned it may just have well have three sharps. Is there a resource anywhere that explains this? The wiki articles are by no means set up for a lay explanation. FreeMorpheme ( talk) 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is that because saxes and other brass work naturally better in those flat keys? Reading now about the cycle of fiths it seems that the convention has arisen from this - I'm currently struggling with why C# has seven sharps but the same key represented in Db only has five flats - but I'll get there!
FreeMorpheme (
talk) 16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- C minor has the same key signature as E♭ major: B♭, E♭ and A♭. That means that every instance of the notes B, E and A is flattened. It is NOT the same as the rarely encountered key signature D♯ major, in which every instance of every note is sharpened, and F and C are doubly sharpened. You could get the same performing result as C minor by, instead of playing B♭, E♭ and A♭ where B, E and A are written, you played A♯, D♯ and G♯, because they're exactly the same notes. But you could NOT get the same result by having the key signature consist of A♯, D♯ and G♯ rather than B♭, E♭ and A♭. That would mean that every time you see an A written on the page, you'd play a different note, A♯; but you'd leave B untouched as B, whereas you should be playing a B♭. It would sound completely weird, unmusical and wrong. --
Jack of Oz
... speak! ... 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- So am I right in thinking this is just a convention that's arisen due to problems with the stave notation? You say that a musician would play a B natural if only the A is written is sharpened, but if we take the music off the stave then the notes A# and Bb are identical. So somewhere there must be a list of all the keys and whether or not they are conventionally referred to as sharp or flat...
FreeMorpheme (
talk) 22:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- You mean like the graphic at circle of fifths? Staecker ( talk) 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- So am I right in thinking this is just a convention that's arisen due to problems with the stave notation? You say that a musician would play a B natural if only the A is written is sharpened, but if we take the music off the stave then the notes A# and Bb are identical. So somewhere there must be a list of all the keys and whether or not they are conventionally referred to as sharp or flat...
FreeMorpheme (
talk) 22:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- C minor has the same key signature as E♭ major: B♭, E♭ and A♭. That means that every instance of the notes B, E and A is flattened. It is NOT the same as the rarely encountered key signature D♯ major, in which every instance of every note is sharpened, and F and C are doubly sharpened. You could get the same performing result as C minor by, instead of playing B♭, E♭ and A♭ where B, E and A are written, you played A♯, D♯ and G♯, because they're exactly the same notes. But you could NOT get the same result by having the key signature consist of A♯, D♯ and G♯ rather than B♭, E♭ and A♭. That would mean that every time you see an A written on the page, you'd play a different note, A♯; but you'd leave B untouched as B, whereas you should be playing a B♭. It would sound completely weird, unmusical and wrong. --
Jack of Oz
... speak! ... 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- The convention with sharps and flats, and the apparent confusion thereof, arises from the usage of tempered scales because most modern instruments are incapable of playing more than one scale in Just intonation. The deal is, in any just intonation scheme, the sizes of the intervals do NOT fit perfectly into an octave the way that one would expect them to when playing, say, the guitar or the piano. Musical scales and keys are written from the perspective of just intonation, and as such, D♯ and C♭ are not actually the same note. Depending on the tuning system and the particular key, those notes could be up to 1/2 a semitone apart. Most modern instruments are tuned to equal temperament, which fudges just intonation in such a way as to make playing fretted or keyed instruments possible in multiple keys without retuning, but as such, it makes certain approximations, such as making flats and shaps enharmonic. We are so used to playing in equal temperament that the harmonic reasons for writing a note as D♯ rather than C♭ are lost to us; but they are not really the same note. That's also why you get keys with notes like F♯♯ instead of just writing it as G. The twin situations of making a written key transposable for transposing instruments (as noted above) AND the fact that music is written in just intonation but usually played on a tempered instrument is why people are being confused. -- Jayron 32 00:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just one comment to avoid confusion, Jayron: Where you're comparing D♯ with C♭, the comparison ought to be between C♯ and D♭. (D♯ and C♭ are indeed very different notes, as different as E♭ and B. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Jayron's explanation is incorrect. Any double-sharp or double-flat (which incidentally would never be a key, only a note or the tonic of a chord) would be used instead of a whole tone higher/lower not because of intonation but because of internal logic; otherwise they are the same note, at least in terms of transcription. Here's the answer in terms of keys (which provide the names of basic guitar chords as if the chords were built on the tonic triad of the key; however, a chord could have a tonic that is the "non-standard" one if the context calls for it, e.g., you could have a C-flat chord under some circumstances even though there is no key of C-flat): F is used instead of E# because F has one flat and E# has eleven sharps; G is used instead of A-flatflat because G has one sharp and A-flatflat has eleven flats. It's simply the choice between which enharmonic key has six or fewer flats/sharps. The "tie" is between F# and G-flat, which both have six; thus, either key may be used. So: C; F, G; B-flat, D; E-flat, A; A-flat, E; D-flat, B; G-flat/F#: these are the keys because they have 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 flats or sharps, and any other key would have 7 or more. As for minor keys, they are equivalent to their relative majors. C#m would be used instead of D-flat-m because one has has four sharps and the other has eight flats. Once the key is determined, the application of "accidentals" (in the notes themselves) is based on internal logic.
63.17.34.176 (
talk) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- C-flat can be a key, as can C-double-flat, etc. No one writes music that way because it would be highly annoying. But lots of music, especially classical, has a clear harmonic logic involving modulations from key to key. Sometimes the notated key signature is changed when the music modulates, sometimes it isn't and you just get an increase in the number of accidentals. Either way if the harmonic logic clearly indicates a modulation from, say, C major to the dominant G major, then the music is in the key of G major. Bach was always very careful to notate pitch accidentals "correctly" for whatever key the music had modulated to, but the temperaments of his day did not allow one to modulate to remote double flat or sharp keys. By Beethoven's time, however, equal temperament (or at least an approximation of it) had progressed to the point of smoothly eliminating all of the almost-enharmonic-but-not-quite pitch
commas. This allowed composers like Beethoven to do funny modulation tricks; like following a path of harmonic logic that "should" end up in a different key but doesn't. For example: Beethoven's
Appassionata piano sonata's first movement starts in F minor and after a bunch of harmonically downward modulations ends in the key of Abbbb minor. Of course Beethoven notated Abbbb minor as if it was F minor, even though the harmonic logic of the modulations points to Abbbb minor. Writing it in the "correct" key would be ridiculous. Quadruple flats? And anyway, Beethoven was likely making a point about how you can do such a thing in equal temperament (or whatever precursor temperament he was using at the time). He's saying, check it out, all these modulations should end up in a key far far from where we started, but as if by magic it is the *same* key, dude! It was a sneaky trick--in his time a sonata in F minor should begin and end in F minor. The Appassionata modulates to a key quite remote from F minor yet ends on F minor anyway. Nice trick. Harmonic magic! From the F minor start the key modulates ever flatter, "passing through" two commas (a Great
Diesis making Fb=E and a
diaschisma making Gb=F#), which combined result in the key of Abbbb minor being eventually attained. Over the two centuries since Beethoven's day this "virtual key return" trick became so commonplace that is no longer remarkable in the least. The weirdness is lost to us--it's just F minor, who ever heard of Abbbb minor? Anyway, while no one in their right mind would consider dealing with the key of Abbbb minor, it does exist. I know, I'm being a music theory pedant. I apologize.
Pfly (
talk) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, "It's simply the choice between which enharmonic key has six or fewer flats/sharps." Of course C##### (or whatever) "can" be a "key." Also, the OP says "I have a book of guitar chords," which strongly implies modern "pop" notation in which one might run into (e.g.) a C-flat CHORD but would never run into the KEY of C-flat. See, e.g., Miss Macbeth in the Spike songbook based on the Elvis Costello album of the same name; there's a splendid A-double-flat chord to begin the bridge. Also, a song on Paul Simon's album One-Trick Pony, as transcribed in the songbook for that album, "modulates" from one key to its enharmonic equivalent (different "letter") tonic but in the parallel minor, if I remember correctly (I think the song is Oh, Marion). For a really complex modern "pop" songbook, see that of Joni Mitchell's Mingus, with many C-flat chords and double-sharps and the like (and which was unkindly mocked in a biography of Charles Mingus for over-complicating the chord-names in the song Goodbye Porkpie Hat -- those chords thrilled my teenage imagination long ago ...) 63.17.69.4 ( talk) 07:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- C-flat can be a key, as can C-double-flat, etc. No one writes music that way because it would be highly annoying. But lots of music, especially classical, has a clear harmonic logic involving modulations from key to key. Sometimes the notated key signature is changed when the music modulates, sometimes it isn't and you just get an increase in the number of accidentals. Either way if the harmonic logic clearly indicates a modulation from, say, C major to the dominant G major, then the music is in the key of G major. Bach was always very careful to notate pitch accidentals "correctly" for whatever key the music had modulated to, but the temperaments of his day did not allow one to modulate to remote double flat or sharp keys. By Beethoven's time, however, equal temperament (or at least an approximation of it) had progressed to the point of smoothly eliminating all of the almost-enharmonic-but-not-quite pitch
commas. This allowed composers like Beethoven to do funny modulation tricks; like following a path of harmonic logic that "should" end up in a different key but doesn't. For example: Beethoven's
Appassionata piano sonata's first movement starts in F minor and after a bunch of harmonically downward modulations ends in the key of Abbbb minor. Of course Beethoven notated Abbbb minor as if it was F minor, even though the harmonic logic of the modulations points to Abbbb minor. Writing it in the "correct" key would be ridiculous. Quadruple flats? And anyway, Beethoven was likely making a point about how you can do such a thing in equal temperament (or whatever precursor temperament he was using at the time). He's saying, check it out, all these modulations should end up in a key far far from where we started, but as if by magic it is the *same* key, dude! It was a sneaky trick--in his time a sonata in F minor should begin and end in F minor. The Appassionata modulates to a key quite remote from F minor yet ends on F minor anyway. Nice trick. Harmonic magic! From the F minor start the key modulates ever flatter, "passing through" two commas (a Great
Diesis making Fb=E and a
diaschisma making Gb=F#), which combined result in the key of Abbbb minor being eventually attained. Over the two centuries since Beethoven's day this "virtual key return" trick became so commonplace that is no longer remarkable in the least. The weirdness is lost to us--it's just F minor, who ever heard of Abbbb minor? Anyway, while no one in their right mind would consider dealing with the key of Abbbb minor, it does exist. I know, I'm being a music theory pedant. I apologize.
Pfly (
talk) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)