Most of the people who are experts in music theory do it from a scale perspective. I think that is wrong if you want to understand theory from a chord perspective. All the best theory books (my opinion) start by saying there is an argument as to whether chords come from scales or scales come from chords. If you think the answer is one or the other, then I don't regard you as an expert in music theory. And even if you are an expert, it doesn't mean there is only one opinion. Of course, being derogatory on a public forum can prevent other opinions from appearing, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

An unexamined or undefended theory is dogma in my book.
An opinion backed up by a whole bunch of other people who agree with it is still just an opinion.
=================================================================

If you want to start with chords, then the scalar theory of modes taught in standard jazz isn't correct.

Take a simple 1,4,5 song in the key of C. If you wish to improvise over the chords of that song using your knowledge of scales, then you would play a C scale during the C chords. When the F or G chords are played, you would also play a C scale but you would start it on the F or G or at least 'think' of it that way because that is how scales work for you. Those are two other modes. Those are why modes are used that way.

OTOH, if you want to start with chords, then if you take the C,F,G regular chords and mash all 9 different notes together, 3 from each chord, and remove duplicate notes and put them in order you get the major scale. If you add other chords, you get other notes to add to your scale, however it is no longer called a scale in modern theory but it is a scale-like thing of individual notes arranged in ascending order. A chord player can use that instead of the scales that single note players need (because flutes cannot play chords).

Banjoholic:

Point taken. It is fun to ponder publicly, but i always have concern for the newbies who assume everybody who is more experienced in playing (or posting) than them is accurate in their comments. Just ain't so.

Discussion groups should come with a warning label. "For entertainment purposes only! Do not assume all comments are true and accurate. This discussion group is not responsible for wasted practice hours due too inaccurate information" haha (groan)

Jack

I think it should be obvious that scales exist first and that is what generates chords. Where else would chords come from, random selection of notes? You could say chord could be constructed by building stacks of pre-conceived intervals, but this is the more difficult (to concieve) way of looking at it, and IMO the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate. It s also the most teachable and learn-able. Besides, intervals and scales go hand in hand as well, a scale is a prescribed group of intervals played in consecutive ascending or descending order. So, saying chords come from intervals and chords come from scales is saying the same thing. I have never heard of anybody constructing a scale based on a chord. Maybe as an exercise in randomness or trlal-and-error...but not as a useful musical technique. Saying scales come from chords is like saying the egg lays the chicken. Only the chicken has the ability to lay.

You can play a melody (a re-arranged scale) without chords, it's MUSIC. Play a chord progression by itself...it is musical sounds, to be sure, but not even something you could hum...you can't sing more than one note at a time. A chord progression is not a complete musical composition. A linear melody (ordered scale) is. You can't copyright a chord progression. Yo CAN copyright a melody with no chords prescribed.

Jack

Banjoholic:

I just think a "theory" topic is a little different than an "opinion" topic like "who is your favorite picker" or "how do you back up a vocal" etc. A theory topic is by nature a TEACHING forum, teaching mostly well defined musical concepts that have been theorized and defined and taught by master musicians and teachers for centuries. IMO the standards should be higher in this kind of thread. People should be more responsible and check their facts, not post opinions or suppositions or outright guesses as "fact". I would like to have seen see more "IMO" abbreviations used in this thread. Yes, much of music theory IS debatable among scholars or anybody who thinks about music at any level...there ARE ambiguities and gray areas in music theory. However, some things are clearly defined and are NOT debatable. I don't think it is debatable that a "key" is not a tonal center...A tonal center is a single NOTE in the key and/or scale (just using this for an example...not trying to browbeat those who stated this.)

I would also like to see people honor the spirit of the thread title. This is supposed to be "BEGINNER theory 101". Some of the posts contained info that although is accurate and factual, would not be addressed until a second or third year college theory course!

Jack

Scales obvious? Chords obvious? Then why do other cultures have different harmonic structures. The only obvious thing is that notes exist, and that notes have certain unalterable phisical properties.

c'mon...
I'm not talking about other cultures. I'm talking about the Western system we all use I thought THAT was obvious! Why would we even discuss a system we don't ever use or recognize as music to our ears? The thread topic is "Beginning BANJO Theory 101" What other cultures with different musical systems even use a banjo?

You missed the point. The point is: if scales, or chords, were obvious in their construction everyone, across the world, would play them the same way.

BTW, Everything I've seen on this post is in the first semester of college theory.

BTW, did you see the Bela Fleck video where he traces the roots of the banjo? You know, west africa.

AGAIN... we are not talking about some other culture we are talking about the BANJO played in Western music not the three-string banjar played 200 years ago in Africa. I really don't think this needs to be stated.

Please cite the first-year theory book that uses the terms "Gapped Scale", or: Hungarian Major; Neopolitan Major and Minor; 8 Tone Spanish; Bebop Locrian, Dominant, Dorian and Major; Persian; Hindu; Kumoi; Hirojoshi...

or "secondary dominant"...

I'm not even sure Penatonic scale or modes would be discussed in a first year class, for that matter. Possibly, but I would not bet on it.

Jack

Again, you missed my point. Notes. Everything, chords and scales, are based on notes. The overtone series contains the intervals that create common chords and scales; leading to relationships between notes.

Scales aren't a given in music. Notes and intervals between them are the only things that are given.

If someone thinks that scales are 'natural' for some reason, then have them explain the difference between well-tempered (natural) and equal-tempered (modern chromatic) scales.

Chords come from harmony the same way scales come from harmony. Chords just occurred later in history than scales but that doesn't mean anything in a theoretical sense. Ptolemaic Astronomy came before modern astronomy but that doesn't mean anything as far as the underlying theory of astronomy is concerned.
==========================
The concept of key is highly amorphous.
G major key is different than G minor key which are both different than G phrygian key.

Scales aren't a "given"? Then why does practically every theory book and music theory course start with them, or at least get to them very quickly? What theory book starts with intervals?

Scales are a way of ordering the notes, just like rolls are a way of ordering the right hand string and note selections in bluegrass banjo. YES, we could play bluegrass banjo without understanding the concept of rolls. Earl certainly did. But it makes the whole concept easier to grasp and provides an EASY way to teach it.

No doubt humans made music before there was written or even "verbally communicated" music theory. The theory just tries to explain why and how the sounds are ordered in such a way we consider it to BE musical. IMO an explaination of scales is the among most fundamental of all concepts necessary to understand Western music.

"All the best theory books (my opinion) start by saying there is an argument as to whether chords come from scales or scales come from chords. If you think the answer is one or the other, then I don't regard you as an expert in music theory."

Things in nature progress in order from simple to more complex. They evolve that way. First the ameoba, then the multi-celled organisms, reptiles, birds/mammals, primates, ending with the present homo sapiens. No biology teacher would start out in an introductory class teaching the anatomy of homo sapiens!

In music, first there is a note, the most basic component of music. Then there is a scale, a group of notes, a way to organize the notes. Organizing the notes in a scale into esthetically pleasing phrases generates melodies, the end result. Then there is the chord, several notes played simultaneously, then a chord progression. But of what use is an isolated chord progression? It's value is to harmonize a melody, to enhance the melody. The melody can stand on its own as a composition, one we could hum and remember. A chord progression is a useless musical phenomenon without the melody. This is why, in the LOGICAL order of things, I would teach about chords only after teaching about scales (which generate melodies and so is more fundamental to PLAYING music). That's just me... I'm sure plenty of people prefer to put the cart before the horse, or beside the horse...or in the next county.

In music, first there is a note, the most basic component of music. Then there is a scale, a group of notes, a way to organize the notes. Organizing the notes in a scale into esthetically pleasing phrases generates melodies, the end result. Then there is the chord, several notes played simultaneously, then a chord progression. But of what use is an isolated chord progression? It's value is to harmonize a melody, to enhance the melody. The melody can stand on its own as a composition, one we could hum and remember. A chord progression is a useless musical phenomenon without the melody. This is why, in the LOGICAL order of things, I would teach about chords only after teaching about scales (which generate melodies and so is more fundamental to PLAYING music). That's just me... I'm sure plenty of people prefer to put the cart before the horse, or beside the horse...or in the next county.
[/quote]

I agree with the theoretical evolution presented here-its logic. If were we discussing teaching folks "Theory", then Jack is exactly right in the order for learning these things. Scales are the basis for everything we play and you cannot escape the logic.
In terms of teaching folks to play 'music' with others, I have found that chords are of prime importance, even more so than scale study, when teaching folks basic concepts like how to play with others. But thats an obvious statement to me, as chords make up 'chord melodies' and playing backup in any style.
This thread is dealing with "Theory 101". So, some things cannot be conjectured or argued as 'opinion' when it comes to fundamental concepts. Scales are as fundamental to understanding how sounds are ordered to make music as atoms are to understanding the basic component of matter. To argue that "atoms arent foundational to matter "or " its not so", is to ignore what has been proven ,and to suppose your 'opinion' supercedes established fact. while it boosts our ego to say it and print it in threads and may be fun to start flame wars, in the end, its a waste of energy. Just my opinion....

Which scale comes first, the major or minor? Is the minor scale the major scale with a flatted third or is the major scale a minor scale with a sharped third? If the answer changes depending on which century you are talking about, then neither scale is fundamental.

If you wish to start with the idea of scales as being fundamental, you can. Many do but I think only because it is common. Given a melody, I can harmonize it different ways (using different chords) so having a scale doesn't tell me which chords to use; all it can tell me is which ones to not use (chords that don't use notes in the scale).

OTOH, given a harmony (a chord progression), I can tell you the scale used.

Note that either place you start, you are still starting from desired sounds (aesthetics) which have nothing to do with theory. Once you begin theorizing, then you have to apply aesthetics to the competing theories. For me, the simpler and more comprehensive a theory, the better.

Scales drop out of a chord progression. The same scales drop out of different chord progressions because of the different harmonizations people add to songs (Em or CM7 instead of G). Scale theory tells me nothing about alternate harmonizations and trying to build chords and chord progressions from scales results in the huge mishmash of various scales (with different roots different from the basic key) that is currently all the rage in jazz theory. It reminds me of the circles within circles of Ptolemaic astronomy.
Manufacturing a chord progression from scales is not definitive at all so the scale doesn't help describe the complete song.

==========================
Dropping into practical matters, if I show you the G scale on the banjo, you still can't play at a jam. OTOH, if I show you the G,C,D chords, you can play a song and help out at a jam in one key AND YOU CAN FIND THE G SCALE JUST BY FEEL.

I start students off with the most simple and comprehensive musical knowledge possible, not with scales.

Teaching is my perspective.

I think what should be taught first is:

A) the most commonly used aspects of the subject, so the student can PLAY recognizable music as soon as possible

and

B) the easiest techniques to perform, again to get the student playing and boost their confidence and motivation and get them hooked.

Single note melodies are easier to play than chords. It has always befuddled me why most guitar teachers teach chords first. Why not teach single note melodies, then two note partial chords, then triads? This would make more sense to me. One could argue it is so the student can accompany their own singing, but this is asking them to perform two tasks at once, walking and chewing bubble gum.

SO, though it can be a matter of debate as to which evolved first, chords or scales, IMO SCALES are more important to teaching a beginner, because melodies are simply notes selected from a scale and re-ordered into a pleasing arrangement. I am not favor teaching scales "per se" to a beginner...but melodies, which is what they want.

Playing with others?...sure chords are great for playing accompaniment, but what true beginner plays with others (besides the teacher in the lesson) immediately? The student has to develop his sense of rhythm to play well with others, and like I said, it takes longer to train the fingers to form chords than it does to play single note melodies. Luckily on the open tuned banjo, many triads can be formed with two finger or none (open G triad), but still...learn the easiest thing than can sound like music first, then proceed to the harder aspects. More people will stick with it long enough to play. On three-finger banjo the chords are simple enough, single note melodies do not sound "complete" if bluegrass is the goal, and the roll is a basic components of the style, so a simple melody worked into a repeating roll is OK. But even so, in my "First Lessons Banjo" book, Mel Bay asked me to write to a child's comprehension level, so I start with a single note melody and then work that melody into a repeated roll. In my more advanced beginner book "Bluegrass Banjo Method Book One", I start right out with a roll arrangement BUT boldface the melody so the student can pick it out as a single note melody if they want.

Major or minor scale? Again, because the Major scale/key is used in the real world SO much more than the minor, I think we should teach Major key songs first.

I have heard that young children with no musical background who make up songs lean toward the minor keys first. For some reason they hear the minor third interval more readily then the Major third. SO there is an argument that Minor is more "fundamental" than Major to the human brain, but I do not think this tendency is strong enough to make the argument that minor key songs should be taught first.

That said, I really do not think an extended discussion about what aspect of music evolved first is relevant to banjo players...it remains an intellectual exercise to discuss it, since music emerged long before the printed word and neither argument could be proved. It is also useless to discuss which aspect (chords or scales) is more fundamental to the human brain,and that even if it could be proven, it would not further the teaching of banjo. Neither topic is relevant to this thread, Beginning BANJO Theory. If anyone wants to ponder these perhaps they would like to start a new thread.... like "the Evolution and Psychology of Music"...in "Non-Banjo Related Topics".

fwiw, i am glad this 'discussion' ensued.. it is helpful for me to hear how different people view music differently. i actually learned a lot from the latter part of this thread.. thanks!

Hey guys... Im brand spankin new to to banjo and this seems to be exactly where I oughtta be so I can get a firm grip on theory once and for all. Ive played guitar for almost a decade before I learned any music theory... I wish someone had explained theory to me back then the way its described in this forum - I'd probably have a much more advanced understanding. I learned quite a bit just looking through some of the comments.

Seems to me so far that both guitar and banjo are reliant on many of the same theoretic priciples. The intervals are close enough to transpose pretty easily, music theory itself looks to be pretty much the same no matter what instrument your talking about, the rolls and finger picking in general is pretty new to me although Im very stubborn and plan to have a fair chunk committed to second nature fairly soon.

My knowledge of theory overall is very rudimentary - I have the concept of scales, modes, chord composition, etc. under my belt but there are a few things that just will not permeate my thick skull. Although I havent read all of the comments on this forum, I havent seen anything mentioned about the Circle of 5ths... a tool whose purpose completely eludes me. I can understand how its built, the spacing of the notes is straightforward, I just have no idea how to use it.

Regardless of what instrument - my main focus in music is improv. I dont have a musical career, but I love sitting in with a bar band, open mic's or just having a few freinds over just to jam. Somewhere on this forum, I read a comment where someone mentioned "proper chord/scale relation" as if were a formula or basic guideline that dictates which scales complement a particular chord. Im not sure if this is somehow related to the Circle of 5ths, but I feel that it would greatly influence my abliity to improv and as of yet... I just dont understand it. I mean, I know the major scales and all the modes - as I understand it, the Gmaj scale for example works pretty well with the Gmaj chord, but I cant just make a song out of Gmaj? What do I do when I change chords to C or Am? My brain wants to look at it like a color wheel... but I cant figure out how to make green out of blue and yellow?

I also cant seem to figure out the term "Key" or "Key Sig." They seem to be the same thing unless you start referring to what key and instrument is in - in a song though, theres no difference? In any case, how do you determine what key a song is in? Or if a song says its in a specific key, how do I use that knowledge to locate the applicable scales? Can the Circle of 5ths tell me which chords or notes make up a particular key or is it one of those things you just have to memorize?

As you may have noticed, Ive never taken a lesson in my life - these questions Im sure are very very basic and after almost 20 years of playing, one would hope I'd understand at least some of it by now. Ive read endless diatribes on theory and written lessons and I think I may have jumped to the advanced stuff before building a solid foundation. My house of music is slowly crumbling and I could sure use some detailed help form someone who can explain this to me in a way that I can grasp.

I'll try to answer some of your questions, although there are those on here who are much more knowledgeable than I am.

1. How do you figure out the key to a song. If you're listening to a song, normally the first bar of the song is the key; i.e.,
if the first bar of the song is a G, then the key is the key of G. This is not always right, but as a general rule, it is.

2. If a song is in a specific key.... how do you locate applicable scales, etc. If a song is in the key of G, the G chord will use
the G Scale; i.e., G, A, B, C, D, E, F# and G. The CHORDS to the G scale are G, Am, Bm, C, D, Em, F and G. Most bluegrass
songs have 3 chords the 1, 4 and 5 (or using Nashville Numbering I, IV, V). So, if the song is in the key of G, the chords will
be G (the 1st note in the scale), C (the 4th note in the scale) and D (the 5th note in the scale). These are also called Major
Chords.

You can use the Circle of 5ths to show you what chords go with what keys, just look at the alphabetical letter and then look
on the right and left of it and it'll give you the 1, 4, 5 chord.

Does any of that help?

There are two ways to go about knowing which scales go with which songs.

One is to know the modes that go with each chord: 1, 4 or 5.

Example. Playing in C, the regular chords would be C,F and G. Now since you're in C, you only want to play C scale, so when you are in the F or G chord when the key is C, you would not play the regular F or G scale, you would play a mode of F and a mode of G that only uses the notes of the C scale. This doesn't seem too hard until you start getting into more complex chord progressions such as Salty Dog or Five Foot Two.

The other way is to just realize that the complete set of notes you may hit with whatever the chords are _is_ the 'scale' you are allowed to use. Notice that if you play the 1,4,5 chords in C (or in G), you make the major scale of C (or G) with no additional notes. If you add other chords, then all you do is add the the extra note to your 'scale' (it is no longer an official scale if it goes: c d e f g g# a b c but it works for Salty Dog in the key of G and Five Foot Two in the key of C

Both approaches leave you in the same place. When you are in the F or G chord (4 or 5 chord or whatever) while in C, then you still use the same notes of the scale you've made up from the set of chords or you use the correct modal scale by method one, but you emphasize either the main notes of the chord or the main notes of the melody to the song (which should be similar to each other for the most part).

Wow... first of all, thanks guys - you have no idea how valuable help like this is to me! Theres a lot of info here to try and digest, please bear with me while I try to understand it all. What Ive determined so far about the "key" of a song is close to what youre talking about. I didnt really look at it as the first note in the song, but the note thats most predominant in the song - either way, if you consider an improv situation where someone says "we're gonna play Cripple Creek in the key of C" (I dont know what it is originally, but for this example - lets say its normally G) ...does that just mean I take the whole song and start in on C instead of G and then take the subsequent chords and transpose them all in the same interval from C to G? That makes sense... is it loose enough to not worry about an actual definition, or will I eventually need to know the exact rules when I start getting into advanced compositions?

As far as the chord/scale relationship... both responses seem to be consistent although some of it is still pretty foriegn to me. The I IV V thing makes sense as far as composing a tune, if Im playing a song in the key of G, all I have to do is follow the Gmaj scale along with it... is it really that simple? I mean, my phrasing needs a lot of work - Ive seen people do some pretty amazing things using different variations of only a few notes, Im just not there yet. I understand the part about changing the mode (Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, etc) with the chord changes of the song. Maybe Im just not getting the big picture but that seems kind of confining just chasing each chord with its respective mode of the major scale? What about altered scales? Melodic minor for example... I know that its the same as the major scale only with a flatted third - but what does that mean in terms of the I IV V format? Does that mean each chord in the C, F, G tune now has to include the flatted third in order to sound right? I know melodic minor is commonly used in jazz music, if I were to play major chords and solo using a melodic minor scale - is that what gives it the jazzy undertone or am I off base altogether?

Ive heard songs - most of them instrumental pieces - where the rhythm is the same the whole way through the song, but each verse seems to use a different style of scale. You'll hear something with a bluesy feel, maybe some southern rock or rockabilly - these I understand are more technique based influence, but there are also verses with jazz lines, middle eastern, asian sounding passages - which are all scalar changes within the song. Thats what kinda confuses me - if its the same three chords played over and over for the rhythm, how can I determine which scales besides the major I can use to keep things fresh? When does the minor scale come into play... or any of the other ones for that matter?

I realize a lot of this doesnt pertain to banjo exclusively and almost excludes bluegrass banjo altogether - even moreso, Im sure this is just spilling over with guitar innuendo - my grand plan is to build a song that incorporates the use of drums, guitar, bass, ukelele and banjo. Im just trying to gather all the music theory I can so I can find a way to meld all these instruments together to create something nobody has heard before.

The explanation of the Circle of 5ths helps too, someone tried to explain the dominant vs. sub-dominant to me before but then we got into double flats and thats about the time my brain overloaded. Thanks to your answers, I can dig that the intervals are in 4ths going in the sub-dom direction - Ive heard that before, just didnt realize why I shoud care. I can also see that if one space clockwise is gonna be the 5th of my "I" note, and one space counter clockwise is gonna be my 4th - that gives me the I IV V in one nice neat little package (thats a big step toward piecing all of this together!) That helps tremendously as the circle relates to bluegrass banjo, but how do I apply it to music in general. Is there anything about relative notes (relative minor/major) that would help me develop a cohesive and unique rhythm using the Circle? Also, what are the limitations of the circle? Is it mainly for coming up with a rhythm or can it be used for scales and soloing too?

Here is a recent discussion of the circle of fifths that I think had some good info in it..

banjohangout.org/topic/169222

Theres an incredible amount of info on that thread that helps… if someone doesn’t mind entertaining my questions though – again, I apologize that most of my examples are guitar related – my only hands on experience with theory has been on a guitar.
I think I may be getting two fundamental aspects of music confused – chord composition and building chord progressions.
I remember back when I was about 17, I played drums in a bar cover band – one night the singer invited one of his friends to come up on stage and play “Hey Joe” with us. Our singer jumped on my drum kit, I played the leads and fills and this guy took over rhythm guitar and played the creamiest most beautiful rhythm section to that song I have ever heard in my life! He literally took a paint by numbers tune and turned it into the Sistine Chapel! I asked him after the set how he came up with those chords and he told me he had just been messing around with some new jazz chords he stumbled on, we didn’t have time to get really detailed about it but I was in awe to say the least!
To this day – that has been my musical conquest! Not necessarily “Hey Joe” … I want to understand how to not only compose and create chords that ultimately change the feel and mood of a song but also how to complement them with an appropriate rhythm section. Some of these comments are great but theres still something that isn’t clicking. I gotta say folks – I hope Im not coming across as stupid as this stuff makes me feel, I have scrutinized every piece of theory literature with a fine tooth comb over the past several years and theres just too much information for me to tell what I can use for practical purposes and what stuff doesn’t really matter unless youre applying for Julliard.
When people talk about “Nashville Notation” or any of the other names it goes by… how is that developed? I got the numbers vs notes down (I=1st scale degree, II= 2nd, etc) I get so far that most bluegrass banjo is played using I IV V (I know, I know …except Salty Dog!) but how did that come to be? What about other progressions that list the 7th in the notation? Theres a guy on here that says you can use the 7th chords whenever you move counter clockwise in the circle – that’s an awful handy piece of info, but how did he figure that out besides trying it out for himself? How can I look at the circle and be like “OK, Im starting my song in the key of C... and based on the circle, heres where I should go for the rest of it.” Don’t get me wrong, I love to sit there and just “trial and error” until I stumble on something that I’d be willing to put my artistic stamp on, but let’s say I come up with a decent sounding progression – how can I use the circle, or theory in general to expand on it. How can I take my plain old “Hey Joe” song and transform those simple chords into something really beautiful?
I don’t quite understand what makes 4ths and 5ths so special in the first place, what if I built a song in 3rds? Why doesnt the circle include all intervals? When you create a song, do you normally try to follow a traditional progression based on Nashville notation or is that just a way of writing it out once you’ve created something? Sorry again guys, I know it’s asking a lot of dumb and redundant questions - this is just where I landed, Ive tried learning other ways and nothing has worked yet. I wrote this whole thing yesterday here at work, I held off posting it so I could go home and take one another crack at it and see if anything changes… I still got nothin’! Maybe Im trying to make more out of it than there is?

I don't think you can get far analyzing bluegrass in terms of chords since most of classic BG was I IV V. And the emotive part was mainly done with voice and dynamics. There is very little in music theory that can be put to productive use in BG, IMO. By that I mean theory that is printed.

i feel like there is a lot of room for using theory in BG, but I'm no expert so I could be wrong.

Ternyerhedncoph, there is one thing you said that caught my eye.. you asked why I IV V is used so much.. i think this is a crucially important question and is key to understanding what the whole point (at least one of them) of the circle of fifths is.

In a nutshell, the reason is the physics of acoustics. Essentially the frequencies of the perfect fourth and fifth have most consonance (ie not dissonance) with the root note (with the exception of the same note in higher or lower octaves). In simplistic terms, their vibrations 'align' often over time. Notes that are more dissonant align less often. Consonance/Dissonance can be represented by a ratio of these vibrations to each other (essentially a representation of how often they 'align'). These ratios are talked about in the links below.

Here is a really cool graph of two tones, one of which stays the same, the other which moves up an octave. As it approaches these more consonant areas you can actually see how this impacts the overtones. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dis...tated.jpg
you can click the image to zoom in..

and if you're really up for some reading, check this out (in PDF format):
iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/7...23f24374d

its a mathematical analysis of the blues. I havent read the whole thing yet, but early on it goes over some of these physical properties in much more accurate terms than I have.

Here's some homework, an application ( I hope). To me, this is an important "what if:"

What if practically none of my partner's fiddle music books show chords. What if I'm eager to play along (guitar) behind her work. From that Western, standard, music notation, how can I spot the chords and the chord changes?
That is, if I see F# note , does that suggest a 'D' chord? if I see a C-note, does that suggest a 'C' chord?

For every question asked by a student in any university class. . . polls show that >50% of the class is interested in the answer.