You, as the songwriter, get to decide.

If it stayed in A minor, it would likely be a B and F power chord.

But if you like F# better, then go with F#!

I'd recommend trying both to see what you prefer, but either one is okay.

B and F would make the vamp fully in A minor.

Using an F# would give it a bit of a Dorian feel and would mean you're just moving around using perfect fifths.

Both are 100% acceptable in various environments.

Remember, too, that music theory often comes after composition.

Thus theory is a way of explaining things, not a set of rules which you can never break.

The '5' chord is essentially a P5: a root, and the '5' 7 semitones above it.

Sometimes with the root doubled an octave above.

If you play a dim5 at some point in the song, with all (most of?)

the others as just '5' chords, it will probably sound odd.

Especially in punk.

Yes, it's worth considering the theoretical side of music when you're playing or composing, but in this case, the theory won't help the way the song sounds.

And it'll dampen the flow of the (presumable) guitar playing.

Having said that, it may even be a good move in that it will create tension - being a tritone - that the song needs.

One person can and will have to decide, unless it ends up on the cutting room floor, which is better.

As

Richard and most people here say - theory only tries to explain what has happened, certainly not how something must be done.

Hence theory not law !

If you want the 'power chord' sound, I think you'll only be happy with B and

F#.

(And 'B5' means B and F#, whatever key the piece is based in.

Being 'in A minor' does not restrict your choice of notes or chords.

It just tells you what note and chord feels like 'home'.

You could sprinkle in e.g. a load of Bb5 chords and, as long as you came back to A minor, you'd still be firmly 'in A minor'.

You wouldn't be setting up a new 'home' of Bb major.

You'd just be playing a chord that contrasted strongly with your home chord of A minor.

'Theory describes, it does not command'.

You can do what you like, typically power chords are neither minor nor major in themselves as they don't contain a 3rd interval

and they are generally used in the same way that you would use single notes in a melody

so the overall tonality is more abut the root notes of the chords than anything else.

Often with power chord riffs you have a second guitar, bass or keyboard filling out the chord structure.

In particular it's probably worth having a look at how bands like Korn, Iron Maiden and Metallica structure their songs as they often have quiet melody driven riffs but with fairly complex harmonic structures underpinning how the wehole song works

Does your melody contain a F natural or a F sharp at this point, and are you unwilling to change the melody there?

If so, the chord you pick has already been decided for you.

Does your melody contain both or neither instead?

Only then will it truly be your decision to make.

Question: I'm trying to write a rock/punk song in the key of A minor and the chorus goes: B5, C5, G5, F5. The B chord in A minor is B diminished, does that mean I have to use the diminished chord or can I use the power chord?

B5 power chord in A minor

Often with power chord riffs you have a second guitar, bass or keyboard filling out the chord structure.  You can do what you like, typically power chords are neither minor nor major in themselves as they don't contain a 3rd interval and they are generally used in the same way that you would use single notes in a melody so the overall tonality is more abut the root notes of the chords than anything else. .  In particular it's probably worth having a look at how bands like Korn, Iron Maiden and Metallica  structure their songs as they often have quiet melody driven riffs but with fairly complex harmonic structures underpinning how the whole song works.

Power chords are neither minor nor major in themselves as they don't contain a 3rd interval. They are generally used in the same way that you would use single notes in a melody. Often with power chord riffs you have a second guitar, bass or keyboard filling out the chord structure. In particular it's probably worth having a look at how bands like Korn, Iron Maiden and Metallica structure their songs.


The "notes with a 6 above them" (sextuplet) is equivalent to two adjacent sets of sixteenth-note triplets.

What is a sixteenth-note triplet?

Well a "regular" (eighth-note)

triplet is three notes over the span of one quarter note, and so a sixteenth-note triplet is three notes over the span of one eighth note.

Here's how I would count the first bar of the pattern in your picture (with a plain eighth-note count below it):

1 trip let And trip let 2 And trip let |1 And 2 And |

Given the 2/4 tim sig., the first six semis need to be evenly played in the time of one crotchet, or two quavers .

That leaves the other crotchet beat to play one quaver followed by three semis in the time of two - an ordinary triplet.

The second half of this bar is obviously the same timing as bar 3, and the second bar timing simply puts that mini rhythm the opposite way round.

You ask how to count it.

Count a slow 1-2-3-4. 1

= 1st 3 tuplets, 2 =

next 3, 3

= the only quaver, 4 = last 3 triplets. EDIT: You're going to have fun strumming this UNLESS

- you do two ghost strums after the quaver strum, which down will be down (up, down) - otherwise your pattern will be a mess.

It is called a sextuplet and is essence six in the time of four or a pair of triplets.

So basically 6 semi-quavers in the time of four semi-quavers or one crotchet.

The other one is triplets or three in the time of two or three semi-quavers in the time of two.

This is fairly simple to play if you can play the 3's.

Simply do double-strokes instead of single strokes.

The rule is identical to 3, meaning that in this case you play 6 notes in the length of one quarter note.

When playing percussion, simply double-up the strokes.

Then it is still three hand moves but double-strokes will result in playing six notes instead of three.

When a three appears in or above/below a bracket, or above/below a beamed group of notes, the meaning is fairly straightforward:

each note in that group should last 2/3 of its normal duration.

When a two appears likewise in a piece which is in compound meter (e.g. 6/8 or 12/8), it means that each note should be lengthened to 1.5 times its normal duration.

With numbers other than 2 or 3, things can be a little more nebulous.

The general concept is that the group of notes should be lengthened or (more often) shortened by whatever proportion would make them fit some other number of beats.

If a group of five sixteenth notes with a 5 over it appears in the space of a quarter note, the notes should be played at 4/5 of their normal duration.

If a group of seven sixteenth notes appears with a 7 over it in the space of a half note, they should be played at 8/7 of their normal duration.

In the extant example, a group of six sixteenth notes appears with a 6 in the space of a quarter note, so they should be played at 4/6 normal duration.

A couple of alternative way of writing the same thing would be to have two groups of three sixteenths, with a three centered over each, and with a single (rather than double) beam connecting them, or as three pairs of sixteenths, with the pairs of sixteenths joined by single beams, and a bracketed 3 over the whole thing.

Both of those would yield the same durations as the music as printed, but the latter ways of printing it would tend to suggest that it should be "felt" as being subdivided as a pair of threes or three pairs, respectively, while putting a 6 over the whole thing suggests that it should feel like six uniform notes.

Question: It's on 2/4 meter. I know we all are much familiar with 3 on top of any note which is a triplet. Here I'm confuse today: What is 6? Please describe to me what the 6 is about and how to count those red boxed notes. I want help so that I can count the beat in the right way of this whole measure shown in above picture.

How to count a note which has 6 on above it?

Anote with a 6 above it is called a sextuplet and is essence six in the time of four or a pair of triplets. So basically 6 semi-quavers in the time of four semi-quavers or one crotchet.

Basically 6 semi-quavers in thetime of four.

It is called a sextuplet and is essence six in the time of four or a pair of triplets. So basically 6 semi-quavers in thetime of four.


From personal experience: it's very common on guitar as well, and ukulele is a more limited instrument, no reason to have to use all root position chords.

Reasons: Voice leading .

Inversions can, in essence, allow playing two notes from two chords with a unison or semitone interval between them on the same string.

Wow that was a bad explanation.

Here you go .

Extended chords .

No, this doesn't apply that much to ukulele.

But 7/9/11/13 chords are often hard to play on guitar, unless you allow for inversions, which make some of them trivial.

In fact, in the larger extended chords, it is common to omit the fifth, and if necessary, omit the root (with the assumption another instrument will be playing it).

And on (a 4-string) ukulele, it is impossible to play a complete 5+ tone chord.

Inversions can help you move your hand less.

If you are limiting yourself to root inversion only, you will find yourself going all up and down the neck.

Simply put, it has to do with how ukulele is played in common practice.

It's similar to guitar in that you strum chords both up and down in rapid succession, the difference being someone had the bright idea to put a higher string as the 4th string, making it sound as if all the chords were up strums.

This hides which strums are up and down and overall gives a brighter and more regular sound to it.

Since chords aren't always constructed with the root on the top as well as the bottom of the chord, and a ukuleles small range and less strings, inversions start to sound very similar to root position chords.

This is also helped by the fact that the ukulele is not often played as a solo instrument compared to being an accompaniment for singing or another ukulele.

If you add a bass instrument the inversions don't really matter anymore.

Just a little addition to Ye Dawg's answer

: I think that the obvious reason is that guitar has 2 strings more.

(Note: I'm a classical guitarist, but I've never played ukulele, so take it with a grain of salt.)

Let's have a look at triads (minor/major chords (mostly)).

If you play them on the guitar, you will find that you play all three tones on the higher strings in any inversion.

But, fingering these three strings, you still have three strings left.

That gives you a possibility to add any root whatsoever (try playing a chromatic scale from the lowest E to the next higher E — the farthest you need to go is the 4th fret) and possibly more.

On the contrary, after fingering these three strings, you have only one string left.

So there's not a real choice, most likely there will be only one of the tones of the triad within reach, and so you just finger that one.

Moreover, if you strum the guitar, you can choose where to start strumming and not strum some of the lower strings.

Since on the ukulele, as far as I know, the lowest string is actually not the 4th, but the 3rd, you have to finger it somehow in order to be able to strum the other three without some weirdnesses like muting the string with your left hand.

And if this applies even to triads, then the more complicated chords, like 7ths, will make even more problems, and it looks like you should rejoice when you manage to finger them at least somehow :—).

True, on guitar, most chords - particularly the basic ones - seem to be shown and taught as root position chords.

Often eventually played as all sorts of inversions, but root basically.

The reason is that the most common triads can be played in E and A shapes, which often come together in pieces played, and use 6th and 5th strings as the root notes, respectively.

That leaves 5 or 4 other strings available for other notes, some of which will be octave copies of those already played.

With 4 instead of 6 the uke is somewhat restricted in that field.

Playing a shape which puts root on the bottom string leaves 3 others, pretty good.

But playing a different shape around the same fret place will leave only a couple of other strings.

Notes missing could be found on the bottom string, which then means an inversion is being played.

So, it's more convenient for the player to stay around the same few frets and use inversions than to chase up and down the neck - which doesn't sound as good anyway.

I think the dominant reason is simply that ukulele is higher-pitched.

In its register, you scarcely perceive any note as a “bass note”, hence there's also not really a strong effect of “inversion”.

Indeed, when you're playing with a guitarist or even bassist, what the uke does is completely irrelevant for the question of inversion, because it's always the bass instrument that defines this.

Even when no bass notes are actually played, listeners may “mentally add” them.

All of this also holds true for other high-pitched plucked string instruments, like mandolin and balalaika.

Question: As a long time guitar player, I'm a bit confused, it seems on ukulele, it's quite common to use inverted chords (i.e. the root note is not necessarily the lowest note, in term of pitch) in substitute of those in root position (in order to simplify fretting I think). Is it true and widely acceptable?

Does ukulele chord often use inversions instead?

Inversions can, in essence, allow playing two notes from two chords with a unison or semitone interval between them on the same string. As a ukulele is a more limited instrument than a guitar, no reason to have to use all root position chords.

it's very common on guitar as well, and ukulele is a more limited instrument, no reason to have to use all root position chords. Inversions can, in essence, allow playing two notes from two chords with a unison or semitone interval between them on the same string.


There is so much jazz music written for pipe organ it'll make your head spin.

(Just last month I played a nice toccata on O when the saints for my congregation.)

In general, at least some practitioners of most religions, and certainly of most Christian denominations, embrace almost any musical style there is.

The reason you don't hear it more often is the same reason as for many other styles: location, location, location!

Pipe organs are found almost exclusively in churches and concert halls, while jazz is more often played in clubs and bars.

You are aware that the Hammond organ was created as a church organ?

It became one of the seminal instruments for Jazz, with the main reasons being portability (well, compared to a pipe organ that is) and affordability (well, again compared to a pipe organ).

The Leslie rotary speakers helped setting its sound off from congregational use.

It took a number of decades before Hammond accepted them as a legit extension of the organ: he changed the organ connectors several times in order to stop the use of Leslie speakers.

The previous compromise, namely a theater organ was still rather immobile and expensive and many were scrapped eventually when silent film died.

Since Hammond organs were designed as church organs, it is probably fair to say that price and venue were the main impediment for pipe organs as a mainstream Jazz instrument.

After all, Jazz was the music of the devil, so practice and performance in a church would have been somewhat tricky.

Two Reasons that I'd suggest: Location, Context, Cost: Where are church organs?

In churches... jazz is commonly a rejected genre preference by churches that own church organs.

Remember that is today, just ponder on the rejection jazz would of received from churches in the era in which jazz originated.

Clearly the church organ wasn't off to a good start in the culture of jazz.

Many of the instruments in main stream jazz aren't that all expensive in the time of early jazz and back then it was a source of income for many families.

So there would always be a neighbour or household in the street with a piano or other affordable instruments (guitar and woodwinds).

Many of the homes would contain mini church organs too, but who wants to lunk that thing around gig to gig when you're trying to make an income?

Sound: Just like any genre,

the culture of a jazz defined its basic 'what's allowed' instruments many years ago, most of us still stick to today.

In fact, Google's definition of jazz literally contains those main stream instruments that were defined in its making.

You'll notice that all the instruments that are mentioned all share a common theme, they're mellow instruments or can be played that way.

Since the church organ is reliant on great amounts of air pressure, being mellow is simply not an option.

The church organ would simply overpower a jazz band.

Therefore, a church organ would simply throw off main stream jazz.

Overall, the reason why the church organ isn't commonly seen in jazz is because the instrument was impractical in era in which jazz was defined.

Think of rock'n'roll, it was defined by electric guitars, drums and some crazy singing, why don't we add bag-pipes to rock'n'roll?

The same goes with church organs and jazz, mainstream musical culture.

However, as technology progressed having a church organ can now be as accessible as clicking a button on your keyboard.

Since that, the organ occasionally makes an appearance in jazz, usually with the rotary effect.

See!

But still not that common because of the genre's culture.

It does happen occasionally, but it's not common.

One example off the top of my head is Barbara Dennerlein's numerous pipe organ albums.

But it's not common for exactly the same reasons as why, for example, rock typically features guitars.

Each genre of music has its own typical instrument lineup, and while some people will experiment with other instruments most people will stick to what's standard.

"Church" organs are basically permanently installed in the building and can't be moved around to church socials in the basement (which is why the Hammond was created for the church ), or to honkytonks, juke joints or other clubs, or recording studios (which is where jazz is played).

Question: I'm just curious as to what about let's say a saxophone makes it very well suited to jazz music and what about the church organ makes it unsuitable for jazz music.  Is there something innate to the character of those instruments that leads them to be played in certain styles or is Jazz church organ just a style waiting to be created by some young whippersnapper?

Why don't we see jazz music played on the church organ?

"Church" organs are basically permanently installed in the building and can't be moved around to church socials in the basement (which is why the Hammond was created  for the church ), or to honkytonks, juke joints or other clubs, or recording studios (which is where jazz is played).

Church organs can't be moved around to church socials or honkytonks, juke joints or other clubs, or recording studios.


All of these answers are correct, but I thought it would be helpful to the OP (and hopefully future readers) to give some clear examples.

The above example is just a clear use of a German augmented sixth in C minor.

The Ger+6 is on beat three of the first measure, and it proceeds to a V on beat 4 and then to tonic in the next measure.

(For the sake of simplicity I'm ignoring the parallel perfect fifths between beats 3 and 4.)

Hear this example.

This example shows how one can use the Ger+6 to modulate up a half step.

(We can also say it "modulates to the Neapolitan," because the Neapolitan is the lowered second scale degree, which is just a half step above tonic.)

Notice that beat 3 of this first measure is the exact same chord as it was in the first example.

On beat 3 here, we have another Ger+6 in C minor.

But on beat 4, I respell the F♯ to show that it is enharmonic to G♭.

Because of this, beat 4 is suddenly a V7 in the key of D♭, which is where it resolves in the next measure.

The key point here is that a Ger+6 sounds just like a V7, but they aren't spelled the same.

Hear this example.

To take this one step further, this example is now in D♭.

It's just a basic D♭ progression with a V7 on beat 3 of the first measure.

(You'll notice that beat 3 is exactly the same in each of these examples.)

Hear this example.

We've shown that the Ger+6 and a V7 sound the same, and we've used that to turn a Ger+6 into a V7 of another key.

But why not turn a V7 into a Ger+6 of another key?

That's what I show in this example.

On beat 3 of the first measure, I write a V7 in D♭.

But notice that I use F♯ and not G♭, because now I'm using the V7 in D♭ as a Ger+6 in C. Beat 4

is then a V7 in C, and I return to C in the final measure.

Hear this example.

Lastly, you may also be interested in checking out "Punning chord"

Hippie answer:

You can do whatever you want.

Constructive answer:

Yes, this is a good way to modulate up a half step.

Yes, the German Augmented 6th in C is a re-spelt Ab7, which will naturally lead to Db.

Some might say a little TOO naturally - but then, 'up a semitone' is the ultimate cliché modulation, so why not revel in it!

A German Augmented 6th sounds like a dominant, but the entire reason for the goofy spelling is to change the function / voice-leading of the chord.

Gr+6 typically function as pre-dominants, so as long as you make it a pre-dominant for your secondary-dominant or secondary leading-tone chord, then you’re good to go for modulations.

Whether one of these chords is a "pre-dominant" or "dominant" depends on usage.

If the tones comprising the outer interval (the augmented sixth or dominant seventh enharmonic) each move outward by a half-step, the chord is being resolved as a dominant sixth.

For example, the chord Ab-C-Eb-F# resolves to G-C-E-G and then to G-B-D-G (or G-B-D-F), the first chord is acting as an augmented sixth.

The German Sixth acts a pre-dominant moving to the dominant through another pre-dominant the C64.

If the chord is notated (or could be thought of as being notated) as Ab-C-Eb-Gb and the Ab moves to Db with the Gb dropping down to F, and other intervals moving to notes of the Db chord (being careful to avoid parallel, etc.)

the German Sixth is behaving (and is notated) as an ordinary dominant.

In both cases, the tritone resolves correctly as either an augmented fourth or a diminished fifth (outwardly and inwardly respectively.)

Enharmonically speaking, the German Sixth is the dominant of the Neapolitan Sixth.

While the above operations are not symmetric, they are reversible.

With proper voice leading into the German Sixth (or dominant seventh), either is useful.

The main difference in the interpretations is that in the German Sixth, the lowest and highest notes each expand by a half step; in the dominant seventh, the highest note moves up and the lowest note moves up a fourth or down a fifth.

Chopin's Op 40 Polonaise # enters as a German Sixth and exits as an dominant seventh.

Some other examples (also using the idea of tritone substitution) are given here: http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.08.14.2/mto.08.14.2.biamonte.html

Question: Can I use the German sixth chord to modulate up a half step?  For example, the Ger6/5 chord in C major is: Ab-C-Eb-F#, which is enharmonically equivalent to G#-B#-D#-F#, i.e. the dominant chord of C# major.

Can I use the German sixth chord to modulate to another key?

A German Augmented 6th sounds like a dominant, but the entire reason for the goofy spelling is to change the function / voice-leading of the chord.   Gr+6 typically function as pre-dominants, so as long as you make it a pre-dominant for your secondary-dominant or secondary leading-tone chord, then you’re good to go for modulations.


A piano/keyboard with its usual 88 notes covers the range of most other instruments put together.

A lot of instruments have a range of two or three octaves only.

A lot of instruments can (usually) only play one note at a time, whereas keys are capable of many.

So, someone who is writing music for several instruments has it all covered with piano/keyboard.

Want to hear roughly what a bass line or piccolo part is like, in its correct register?

Use a keyboard.

Want to hear what eight different notes, some high, some low, sound like together?

use a keyboard.

By the way, a director is usually the one who conducts the other musos, although, chances are, he'll be sitting at a keyboard for the performance.

It's a composer who writes the music - usually, as you say, at a piano/keyboard.

Because on a piano you can try out single-note melodies, block chords, broken chords, polyphonic musical lines... and all at once, over a wide range.

A composer CAN get along without keyboard skills, but it's hard work.

Particularly if he's composing the sort of music that will end up on paper as notation for other musicians to play.

A film composer usually uses as synthesizer/midi controller connected to a computer.

Same with any kind of music producers (rap producers, edm producers, pop music).

For music production there is no other competition to keyboards.

Once you connect it to a computer, you use software known as Digital Audio Workstations (DAW) such as a FL Studio, Ableton, Logic, Protools to create music and any sound you can imagine.

So you can recreate an orchestra if you wanted to just from a little laptop.

So you don't need need to physically own alot of instruments (strings, wind instruments)

you basically just need a computer and a midi controller connected to it to create any sound/music.

MIDI keyboards have become de facto input method of musical notes into computers.

Composers use MIDI keyboards to create musical scores like writers use QWERTY keyboards to create prose.

Moreover, piano is compulsory instrument in most music schools, so anyone who received formal musical education can play piano.

That's not really the case.

Not all conductors use keyboards.

Of course, there are a lot who use them, and they do it because they can get the picture of the piece they are dealing with.

They can have a better idea of the music they're going to perform as conductors.

If you used a violin, for example, you could not have more than 4 sounds playing simultaneously, with a keyboard you can have at most 10 sounds at the same time, which would represent the sound of 10 instruments.

If you had an organ, this could be even better because you could use your 10 fingers plus your 2 feet, that's 12 instrument families at the same time.

That is more than enough to represent instrument families in an orchestra.

On the other hand, electronic keyboards are widely used as they enormously facilitate interaction with computer music software.

In my case, as a classical musician, I use keyboards and when carrying one is not possible, I use any harmonic instrument, be it a guitar, a cuatro and when none of those are at hand, I use my recorder.

Cheers.

Another point I haven't seen mentioned here is that composing music, in your context, sounds like getting it scored on paper for others to read.

Writing music on paper is a very visual process, and the piano is a very visual instrument; every key is directly related to the note it's playing, and no other note.

On a violin, for example, playing a B on the low string is really playing the A string and shortening it a bit with your finger.

But on paper, a concert B isn't related to concert A in that way.

Speaking of concert instruments, composing music on something like the Bb Clarinet would be a bit of a struggle (unless you were writing for other Bb instruments), as you would need to transpose every note.

The piano is great because that's the note, right there.

You don't even have to be able to play the piano to play the note.

You just point at it, poke it some, and the note comes out.

Question: I have seen that most of the film music directors use keyed music instruments for composing music. I hardly saw directors use other instruments like strings or wind instruments for the same. What would be the reason for this behaviour?

Why do music directors use keyboard (or similar) instruments for composing music?

S0: A piano/keyboard with its usual 88 notes covers the range of most other instruments put together. So, someone who is writing music for several instruments has it all covered with piano/keyboard. On a piano you can try out single-note melodies, block chords, broken chords, polyphonic musical lines...  and all at once, over a wide range.  Once you connect it to a computer, you use software known as Digital Audio Workstations (DAW) such as a FL Studio, Ableton, Logic, Protools to create music and any sound you can imagine. Writing music on paper is a very visual process, and the piano is a very visual instrument; every key is directly related to the note it's playing, and no other note.

The piano/keyboard has 88 keys, making it useful for covering a majority of the instruments in a band's usual range. You can explore single-note melodies, broken chords and polyphonic musical lines on a piano.

Film composer usually uses as synthesizer/midi controller connected to a computer. You use software known as Digital Audio Workstations (DAW) such as FL Studio, Ableton, Logic, Protools to create music.

Electronic keyboards are widely used as they enormously facilitate interaction with computer music software.

Writing music on paper is very visual and every key represents a note.


There are two types of synthesizer that you'd look to if you wanted to recreate a realistic orchestral performance - sample-based synthesizers, and physical modelling synthesizers.

Sample-based synthesizers (and sample libraries)

actually 'cheat', in that they actually contain recordings of real players playing the different instruments - with a high quality library containing a large number of techniques played on that instrument.

So how close you can get to an orchestral sound depends on how extensive your sample library is, and your knowledge of the library and how to use it.

Even with a very extensive library, it might be that some instrumental lines - especially in prominent solos - are, in practical terms, easier and cheaper to record using a real soloist if a realistic sound is what you want.

Physical modelling synthesizers are a mathematical model of the physical behaviour of a real instrument.

Some of them are starting to get very good.

However, it is not necessarily easy to get them to respond in the way you want -

a lot of detailed control information is probably needed, such that creating a realistic line may, again, be harder in some cases than getting a real player to play the line for you.

So in summary - you can probably get close to a real orchestral performance with synthesizers, but getting really close would require so much effort that it might not save you any time or money over using a real orchestra.

Synth manufacturers have, for the most part, been happy to focus on what synths do well rather than really make the effort to put orchestral musicians on the street...

Computerized reproduction of orchestral music gets better all the time, and whether it's good enough for some purpose depends on the purpose.

I would say that the percentage of needs where a software-based automatic interpretation is "good enough", increases all the time, at the same time as the general public (i.e. audience) gets more and more used to all sorts of artificial sound.

Here's an example of Note Performer 3 by Wallander Instruments playing a Star Wars score notated in the Sibelius notation application.

Good enough for ... something?

The main idea with Note Performer is that in combination with a score-writing program it interprets traditional musical notation into a performance, rather than relying on a "programmer" musician doing the translation and feeding it low-level geek-oriented MIDI data.

Because Note Performer is driven by higher-level notation symbols like hairpins and slurs from a notation program like Sibelius, Finale or Dorico, it knows (or tries to reverse-engineer) a bigger picture.

I'm not sure (after looking at the PDF manual) at which software layer the interpretation from symbols to data happens in each case, but

anyway, Note Performer constructs a fluid continuous flow of expression, controlled by musical symbols.

(And it needs a one-second delay for doing this)

With traditional sequencers and sample libraries, everything needs to be "programmed" in terms of, say, note velocity numbers, key switches, control changes and program changes, which end up triggering samples and switching or cross-fading between sampled notes.

Wallander's synthesis engine is not based on entire sampled notes, but a "component-sampling + acoustic behaviour modeling" approach where each instrument's sound has been sampled as small components that are used to construct the whole sound in an additive fashion, guided by complicated behavioral instrument models which decide how much of which components are needed in order to produce the requested notes and pitches with the requested expression parameters.

I'd say it's more of a synthesizer, definitely not a sampler.

And it's not based on physical component modeling either.

My answer is no.

At least for now.

Let's compare with a professional symphony orchestra.

All players have played their instruments full time at least 5 years, often up to 45 years.

The requirements are brutal, you could compare with the top teams in NHL ice hockey or perhaps Harlem Globetrotters.

Before these at least five years, most players started in "minor leagues" some 10 to 15 years, often starting playing from five years old.

The orchestral instruments has often been developed over a long time.

I play the bassoon and the instrument went through a long development period, starting somewhere in the 17th century, accelerating in the 19th century and still ongoing.

(To be very clear, I am an amateur player and the pros are far, far, far ahead of me).

Synths can come close in sound and expression, but there are few players that can use the full potential of expression.

I believe that over time, a few players will reach high levels, and with time smarter programs (AI) can move the field forward.

But, alas, I really can see that in the near future (but that is me).

But in playing other types of sounds or music, the classical instruments fall short.

The palette of sounds is much larger for synths.

My five cents....

There are some high end sound modules and synths that have multiple pristine samples for every note every orchestral instrument can play.

The problem to me would be intonation, how to play a keyboard

so it sounds like I am blowing a french horn.

But I think a skilled player with an aftertouch enabled keyboard might do a pretty good job with some diligence.

It can get pretty darn close!

And, although a convincing rendition requires a lot of skill, it's probably nowhere near the amount of skill each member of a live orchestra has to bring to the job.

Depressing, isn't it?

Vienna Symphonic Library https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Music/MusicBrowse

Unless I misunderstand what those audio samples are, or the company is faking it, they offer a sample of famous orchestral works, performed on their virtual symphony.

Listen to

The Rites of Spring

, it's absolutely impossible to tell that it wasn't a "real" orchestra.

I put "real" in quotes to point out these are extremely detailed, digital sample libraries of real instruments.

Get ready to shell out big money, these products are not cheap!

The full library is $14,000 US!!!

Also, I'm sure the learning curve to using these virtual orchestra - to sound very realistic - is steep.

Question: To what degree can technically demanding scores such as Tom and Jerry's (Scott Bradley's music) be performed on synthesizers? Which specific synthesizers are capable of the best quality performance?  I'm a layman, so if my question is wrong or embarrassing. I apologize in advance.  Thank you.

Can synthesizers match orchestras in terms of complexity and quality?

How close a synthesizer can get to an orchestral sound depends on how extensive the sample library is, and your knowledge of the library and how to use it.  Even with a very extensive library, it might be that some instrumental lines - especially in prominent solos - are, in practical terms, easier and cheaper to record using a real soloist if a realistic sound is what you want.  Physical modelling synthesizers are a mathematical model of the physical behaviour of a real instrument. Computerized reproduction of orchestral music gets better all the time, and whether it's good enough for some purpose depends on the purpose. There are some high end sound modules and synths that have multiple pristine samples for every note every orchestral instrument can play.

Instrumental lines are easier and cheaper to record using a real soloist if a realistic sound is what you want. Some high end sound modules and synths have multiple pristine samples for every note every instrument can play. Physical modelling synthesizers are a mathematical model of the physical behaviour of a real instrument. Computerized reproduction of orchestral music gets better all the time, and whether it's good enough for some purpose depends on the purpose.


TLDR; a sharp or flat before numeral mean raise or lower the chord root from its normal diatonic spelling In the usual Roman numeral analysis we have these conventions:

First we have to give a label for a key like

E: for E major or Em: for E minor.

Then we have these points... capital numeral means major triad lower case numeral means minor triad 'o' after numeral means diminished triad '7' means a diatonic seventh above root a sharp or flat

before numeral mean raise or lower the chord root from its normal diatonic spelling That last rule is the crux of your question.

In E major the diatonic chord of the sixth degree is C# minor and gets labelled vi .

In E minor the diatonic chord of the sixth degree is C major and gets labelled VI .

If the VI from E minor is used in E major the chord root is altered from C# to C natural.

(This is called chord borrowing.)

When in E major that change in the chord root is made explicit in the Roman numeral figure by using the flat to show the change of chord root: bVI .

The reason your book's example is confusing is because the key signature on the staff is E minor, but the analysis key shows E which is read as

E major (it should be

Em: to mean minor)

and then the Roman numeral figures are labeled with flats which makes things seem like the assumed key is E major.

Basically the labeling is a mess and it makes confusing the use of sharps and flats on Roman numeral figures.

As others point out, the book doesn't even label the chords as 7th chords!

The book seems sloppy. @Tim makes a good point that Roman numeral analysis can be tricky with rock music.

The real conundrum to me is the final chord.

It's an E dominant 7th with a G natural on top.

That is a very bluesy sound.

It's a very familiar sound, but Roman numerals are a poor way to label it.

There is no way to indicate the simultaneous G# and G natural... and the minor 7th.

About the only thing the I label gets right is a root on E and a perfect fifth of B .

Tread carefully with harmonic analysis of rock music.

You might find a lot of inappropriate labels.

The notation seems a bit confusing.

The first chord is a D7 in the key of either E-Major or e-minor; the author isn't quite so clear.

The key signature indicates e-minor in which case the chord is VII (no flat needed.)

If the author shows keys in ALL CAPS (which has been outdated since 1834), the chord VII7 but that disagrees with the single sharp signature.

The author also leaves off the seventh indicator.

Perhaps we can assume the author uses E irrespective of Major or minor mode and that he leaves off the seventh.

This still leaved the bVII vs VII

so it's still still.

The (V) must mean the seventh of G. The author shows a descending scale (the caratted numerals above some of the chords)

so perhaps that may help.

I think he's using the Roman numerals associated with E-Major but the score is written as e-minor; he's assuming that all chords have sevenths (OK, but limiting).

Then we have (if the score were in e-minor):

VII7, VII7, VII7, VI7, III, VII7, VI7, V7, IM7 (at least as I would notate it.)

Are you confused because the song's in E minor, but the Roman numeral chord names are relative to E MAJOR?

Yes, that's how it works.

The numbers only care that E is the tonic.

E minor triad is i, E major triad is I.

The uppercase Roman number doesn't mean 'diatonic', 'in key' or 'correct', it just means 'major'.

Similarly for modified numerals.

G is the 'correct' third note of E minor, but G B D is called ♭III.

That's ♭ because G is the flattened 3rd of E major, III because it;s a major triad.

G B♭ D would be ♭iii.

That's ♭ because it's built on the flat 3rd of E major, iii because it's a minor triad.

I repeat, these names would be the same whether we were in E major, E minor or E anything-else.

RNA isn't designed for analysing 'rock' music.

It sort of works when non-diatonic chords need naming, as we use 'b' in certain circumstances.

As in key E. There is no D and no C, only D# and C#.

So, we have to call the D chord bVII and C chord bVI.

It gets as close as we can.

The bIII represents G, again because there's no G in key E:

G# is iii (III) but we need the flattened G#, making G. Thus bIII.

The trouble is: The key sign is G-major/e-minor:

(in e-minor the flat should be a natural sign to explain the VI and VII degree are not of the harmonic scale!)

Indeed this progression is notated in respect of E-major!

D - D - D - C - G - C - D - E

If you transpose this figure to C you will understand that the flats are concerning Bb - Bb - Bb - Ab - Eb - Ab - Bb - G - C (with the blue note b10)

Question: I am working my way through an article on transformations in rock harmony, but I am getting stuck trying to read the author's roman numeral analysis.  I would really appreciate some help understanding how to read flattened roman numerals. Here is an example of what I mean:   Thank you!

Trouble reading roman numeral notation with flats

RNA isn't designed for analysing 'rock' music. It sort of works when non-diatonic chords need naming, as we use 'b' in certain circumstances. As in key E. There is no D and no C, only D# and C#. So, we have to call the D chord bVII and C chord bVI. The bIII represents G, again because there's no G in key E. G# is iii (III) but we need the flattened G#, making G. Thus bIII.

RNA isn't designed for analysing 'rock' music. It sort of works when non-diatonic chords need naming. There is no D and no C, only D# and C#. The bIII represents G, again because there's no G in key E.


Assuming your question is dealing with pre-recorded tracks that aren't already into your clipping range and you are having problems with the main output being too loud when you mix:

No, when dealing with high signal levels a clipper is going to create distortion.

A clipper can be used pre limiter/compressor.

Here's a good explanation: clipping vs limiting Usually on the master output you may add a compressor to maintain the perceived volume level while reducing the over all level to the range you want.

The Compressor will have a gain setting, and you can adjust the amount of compression vs gain to adjust the sound of your master output.

That being said, the better approach is to use compression and EQ on the individual tracks to get the master output to sound the way you want at the volume you want.

Compressing the master is usually done at the Mastering stage, and you shouldn't be relying on compressing the master output to make your mix sound the way you want.

You like your mix because your DAW and soundcard have headroom.

You can go past the nominal 0dBFS and still have it work, because of headroom in the software and electronics.

A CD or MP3 has no headroom, so it will clip if you go past 0dB.

Clipping sounds "broken" and is absolutely unacceptable on your master mix.

The result is that however much you like your current mix, you cannot record it .

This is pretty normal for novice mixers, so don't be too disappointed.

Generally a mix engineer will aim for a peak of around -3dB to -6dB, to give the mastering engineer.

From there, the mastering engineer uses their skill with limiters and EQ to push this level louder to peak at 0dBFS without clipping.

This is a skilled job.

You can do something like it yourself, of course, using plugins on your DAW (or even real hardware!).

The 1176 was the classic mastering compressor-limiter, but there are many others.

Your DAW almost certainly has some software limiters which do not try to emulate hardware but simply set levels.

As you'll quickly find, setting this up so you don't mess up your mix takes some work.

A mix which has its elements well-controlled is a good start though.

It's usually easier to reduce large transients from signals on that signal, with a compressor or filter, instead of allowing everything to go through unchanged.

Carving out frequency ranges for instruments, whether in the arrangement/playing or in the mix with EQ, can also help.

And an arrangement which inherently doesn't try to be "everything louder than everything else" will also tend to record better.

Of course, if you like how your mix sounds then there's a simple solution.

Turn down the master gain so that the mix never goes above 0dBFS, and print that.

The level will be lower than commercial recordings, but that's not a big deal.

When you're playing it, simply turn up the volume on whatever you're playing it on!

If by a "clipper" you mean something like a distortion pedal - in a word -

"No".

Definitely not.

It's going to sound horrible.

(Unless of course that's what you want.)

You need to reduce the level at least at your master fader, and/or possibly pull back the faders of the various channels in the mix.

(As a general rule, the more channels you are mixing together, the lower the average level of the input faders should be.)

If you want to keep the mix more or less the same, you just pull each one back by the same amount.

using clipping is actually a very common way of retaining the transient info and dynamics of your track, if the track can handle it.

you'd basically be trading lack of dynamics for distortion, so it's a matter of context.

many edm and hip hop tracks are mastered solely with a hardclipper because the distortion isn't audible, and the dynamic loss from a limiter is more noticeable.

If you are recording analogue it is definitely acceptable and common to take advantage of a desk's (drive) or tape's (saturation) natural clipping.

That's not using a "clipper" (whatever that is?)

but does produce clipping that many find desirable.

Still not the same as compression.

Question: I ask because I get too hot on master and I like the mix. I don't want to change anything. I want to keep it there as it is, but maintain the same volume.Some people tell me that a limiter is a compressor and when I put a limiter on the master that is why my signal gets quieter. But I need the same volume. The only solution I think is to use a clipper. Is this right or wrong; what do you advise?

Is it normal to use a clipper instead of a limiter?

If you are recording analogue it is definitely acceptable and common to take advantage of a desk's (drive) or tape's (saturation) natural clipping. It produces clipping that many find desirable. It is not the same as compression.

If you are recording analogue it is acceptable and common to take advantage of natural clipping.


Quick answer:

The chord symbol is wrong.

Want a long answer?

This is what is normally seen in song copies.

This is what The Beatles actually played - according to 'The Beatles - Complete Scores', which is usually reliable.

That's OK.

Song copies are frequently only approximate.

The usual published version and your version are not quite accurate, but they sound nice.

Possibly even nicer than what the boys actually played

(now, there's a can of worms!)

The chord naming in all three versions is a bit approximate.

- A7 often gets changed to Em7/A - A7.

Maybe 'sus' chords are too hard to be put in published song copies?

And your version shows a (correctly labeled) chord box for Em7 - but that does not take account of the A note in the upper stave!

I could go on.

But the main point is that published versions of pop songs are often sloppy and chord naming is often even sloppier.

Your primary source is what was played on the record.

Both song copies seem to get it wrong.

But if you're GOING to play that copy, believe the notes, not the chord symbols.

Chord symbols can't always fully describe the music.

That's why we have notation.

(I just dialled up the original recording.

Funny how it's now possible the LEAST familiar version of the song :-)

The chord is Em7

and you’re

right, the piano part is playing all the notes in an Em7 chord except the E. Paul

plays an Em with the E root on the guitar but

the cello in the string quartet plays a low note of A at that moment both times.

The A dominates the low register because the note is sustained and it seems the piano part is likely based more on the string arrangement than the guitar part.

That chord ends up sounding more like a G/A or an A7sus4 than an Em7.

Another interesting thing, Paul plays this song in G on a guitar tuned down a step.

You can tell by the low D’s he plays at the ends of the verses.

The Em is actually played as an F#m and on some videos you can see he uses his thumb to play the low F# (that sounds as an E).

The Em7 label pertains to (is part of) the guitar chord diagram, not to the score below, and is accurate.

The diagram shows a standard open-string Em chord with an alteration to the minor seventh.

The guitar chord diagrams in pop music sheets like this are almost always rubbish.

If at all the original pop music recording has any guitar part in it at all those diagrams rarely represent anything remotely similar to what the guitar is actually doing.

Also, even in situations where the chord fits, the name is sometimes wrong in that it doesn't reflect the true function of the chord in the music.

For instance, maybe a chord shown as Em7 is functionally a GM6.

The chord diagrams, name and all, are just canned symbols from a chord diagram library.

If you're not playing guitar, just ignore that.

If you are, ignore it with greater fervor.

The chord names above the staff are not naming the total harmony but the part to be played by the guitar, as indicated by the fretboard diagram.

This is an excerpt from a version intended to be playable by piano/keyboard and guitar in parallel.

It usually also works as mere piano instrumental (containing the melody voice in the piano chord sequences) or as singing accompanied only by guitar.

But the guitar chords/voicings are not fully included in the piano parts, so the chord names will not necessarily coincide with the piano part when it is not duplicating the guitar.

Looking at the original example given, I’d lean towards an A9(sus4) as a more accurate chord.

You’ve got the A, the B natural (9th), the D (sus 4), and the G (dom 7).

Don’t really need the E, and the C (3rd) is replaced by the suspended 4.

The Beatles don’t use the B (above)

so the 9th would be out of place in their score -

the A7(sus) works.

There's nothing wrong with the notation, if you see it as instructions for players , instead of an analytical description of all of the pitches heard in the song.

Even if you look at this as a transcription of the original recording, it's not far off.

(well this is a "remastered" version, but I guess the remastering didn't change the notes that were played) The part in question is at 0:39.

If you listen to the right side with headphones, you'll hear only the vocal and the guitar, which is clearly playing an E bass note .

If you listen to the left side with headphones, you'll hear only the vocal and the strings, which are clearly playing an A bass note .

Out of these two, the guitar's E is actually the lower pitch .

Let's confirm it with the Transcribe!

application :

Here's strings and guitar separated, taken from the left and right sides of the audio:

So, what you have in the notation, isn't it quite close to what you should have, if the piano part is mimicing the string section?

Did the music copy, song book or something, come with instructions on how to read it?

If you want to be picky about the chosen guitar fingering diagram from a transcription point of view, they could have left out the low B note on the A string.

Question: So I was analyzing "Yesterday" by The Beatles when I got to the word "Why". How come it has Em7 over the note when the score doesn't feature the note E? It doesn't look like an Em7 chord at all to me.

Why is this chord notated as an Emin7 when it has no Es in it?

The Em7 label pertains to (is part of) the guitar chord diagram, not to the score below, and is accurate. The diagram shows a standard open-string Em chord with an alteration to the minor seventh.

The Em7 label pertains to (is part of) the guitar chord diagram, not to the score below. The diagram shows a standard open-string Em chord with an alteration to the minor seventh. The guitar chord diagrams in pop music sheets like this are almost always rubbish.


A duo is two people performing or singing.

A duet is the piece they are performing or singing.

So, it's a duet for piano & flute.

Think most people would consider a duo as two players, just as a trio is three.

And consider a duet as a piece for two players.

However, the words appear to be synonymous, so you could use either for the piece, although duet would make more sense to more people.

If you make it for three, trio gets even more confusing...

I would have argued like Tim and Tetsujin, but my research has shown that e.g. Beethoven calls a piece: Duo in Eb.

Thus it seems that the term duo is also used like trio to name the piece and not only the performers, while duett is mostly used for the note arrangement but it can also be related to the formation and performers: Duo or Duett A Duo or Duett of this description, is a piece for two concerting instruments, without accompaniment.

It must not only contain as complete an harmony throughout, as has been required for Solos without accompaniments, (§ 7 :) but the two parts should also be constantly imitating each other, or at least the one have as good a share in the harmony and the passages as the other.

It may be set, either for two performers on one Keyed Instrument, such as the Organ or the Piano Forte; or for two familiar instruments, such as two Violins or two Violoncellos ; or for two inftruments of å different nature, such as a Violin and Hautboy ; or a Violin and Violoncello.

And in all three cases it may consist either of two regular parts or melodics only ; or of passages which contain a harmony of three and four parts.

See my Essay on Harmony, Chap.

XIII, § 14, 15.

I shall endeavour to speak of the pieces in question in the following order: 1,

Duetts for two Performers on one Keyed Instrument may be set for three or four hands.

Of the former sort is Haesssler's grand Sonata for three hands, published by Wornum; and my Fugue at Plate XVIII, which also may be considered as a trio on one instrument ; and of the latter fort Dussek's grand overture for two performers; and similar fine works by Kozeluch, Clementi, and other composers.

These duetts for four hands may also be set as Quatuors on one instrument, when each hand has an obligato part different from the others; of which sort, I have not yet feen a good example.

The particular rule for pieces of all these descriptions is, that the parts must be distributed according to what I have said in my Essay on Harmony, Chap.

III, § 2 ; and so, that neither the bass be too noisy for the upper parts, nor the parts of the first and second performer be in each other's way.

2, Duetts for two keyed instruments are the most refpectable fort of the fecond clafs; or of thofe for similar instruments: but as it is seldom that two such instruments can be found in the same room, as well as the same pitch of tune, there have been but few attempts made to write them.

But two excellent Fugues of this description are in Seb.

Bach's Art of the Fugue, which might be played on the two Sets of keys of one Organ.

This great Author has also written Concertos for two, three, and even four Keyed Instruments.

Duetts for two Violins or two Flutes, or two Hautboys, &c. are more frequent.

But in regard to these Duetts, I must mention a fault which is very frequently committed, viz : that of repeating a passage with the mere change of primo for secondo, or vice versa.

This change in similar instruments such as the above-mentioned, has no other effect than a mere repetition without a change of the parts; and consequently is no proper variety for the duetts in question.

But for those of the following class it produces a variety in the effect.

The third class of Duetts are those, for two different instruments.

In regard to these, one of the principal considerations is : to choose such instruments as may have a good effect together.

Another consideration is : that if a Duett is set for a Bass and a Treble Instrument, and intended to be alfo executed by two Basses or two Trebles, the harmony must be calculated accordingly.

If thereforeDuett for a Violin and Violoncello shall ..also calculated lated for two Violins or two Violoncellos, care must be taken, that it produces no irregular intermixture, or no disallowed inversion of the parts when contracted on two similar instruments.

$ 16.

There is some ambiguity, particularly when we stray outside the English language.

But I think I can safely say that it will never be WRONG to call the piece a Duet, the players a Duo.

IME: A song for two singers (with or without instruments) is a duet.

A piece for two players at a single piano is a piano duet.

A piece for two instruments, or for a larger ensemble with two soloists, may be called a duo.

Weber's sonata for clarinet and piano op.48, and Alkan's sonata for violin and piano op.21, are each called Grand Duo Concertant.

Question: I wrote a peice for piano and flute but I don't know if it should be called duet or duo. I see that duet is when the players have equal importance but that is not necessarily the case fo my composition. Would duo work? There is no Wikipedia article for it. Also, I'm not referring to pop terms like "duo"=a pair for singersDid classical composers write pieces named "duo per/pour x and y"?

What is the difference between a duet and a duo?

The term  duo  is also used like  trio  to name the piece and not only the performers, while  duett  is mostly used for the note arrangement but it can also be related to the formation and performers:  Duo or Duett   A Duo or Duett of this description, is a piece for two concerting instruments, without accompaniment. the two parts should also  be constantly imitating each other, or they should at least equally share a good amount in the harmony and the passages.

Duo is also used like trio to name the piece and not only the performers. Duett is mostly used for the note arrangement but it can also be related to the formation and performers. A Duo or Duett of this description, is a piece for two concerting instruments, without accompaniment. It may be set, either for two performers on one Keyed Instrument, such as the Organ or the Piano Forte. It can consist of two regular parts or melodics only or of passages which contain a harmony of three and four parts.


Elm Street is one of the most common street names in the United States .

If you exclude numbers (because numbers in a title are strongly connoted to having several in a series, whether it's streets or movies), the most common names are Park, Main, Oak, Pine, Maple, Cedar, Elm.

So “Elm Street” has a “generic street” feel to it.

In fiction , Elm and Pine have traditionally dominated over the other tree names that are more popular in real life.

Park is even above, but the word “park” has connotations (of nature, empty spaces, that kind of stuff) that “elm” doesn't have.

This points towards Elm or Pine as a generic street name for a movie.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/185/Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'

I've always seen it as just a very generic suburban name.

There's a complete difference in tone and setting between (for example)

A Nightmare on 5th Ave, A Nightmare in the Bronx, and a nightmare in peaceful suburbia.

To my knowledge there's nothing deeper to it, and my guess is that it just helps set the tone.

The wiki page says that maybe a 1968 student film project made by students of Craven's at Clarkson University inspired the movies.

The student film parodied contemporary horror movies, and was filmed along Elm Street in Potsdam, New York.

I'm not sure if it's true or not, maybe it was just for the tone, like Stephan Muller said.

I was watching the video of the assassination of JFK tonight and the street where it happened was called Elm Street, which may bring back the memories of the people who lived in that time and for those who follow history.

Could be a clever way of marketing a movie title.

Craven decided to make A Nightmare on Elm Street after reading a series of L.A. Times articles about a group of teenage Khmer immigrants who, after moving to the U.S. from refugee camps, died in their sleep after suffering from disturbing nightmares.

There was also sleep paralysis experiments conducted in the 1970's by a doctor named Ravenscroft that lived on Elm Street.

Question: What does  Elm  depict in  A Nightmare on Elm Street ? Does  Elm tree  represent something bad in the horror context?

Why is it 'Elm' in 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'?

Craven decided to make A Nightmare on Elm Street after reading a newpaper article about a group of teenage refugees that died in their sleep after suffering from nightmares. In addition, there were also sleep paralysis experiments conducted by Doctor Ravenscroft in the 1970's that lived on Elm Street.

After reading a series of L.A. Times articles about a group of teenage Khmer immigrants who died in their sleep after relocating to the United States, Craven decided to make A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Craven decided to make A Nightmare on Elm Street after reading a series of L.A. Times articles about a group of teenage Khmer immigrants who, after moving to the U.S., died in their sleep.


I imagine that Jacob is referring to some aspect of himself.

It could either be his 'past self' - i.e. Jacob before he learned to be a stylish womanizer, perhaps - or it could be the nice and sentimental part of him that still exists in his character.

(We know that some part of him like that exists because he falls in love with Cal's daughter.)

I imagine it is some combination of the two.

Nobody realises this, but Jacob fell in love with Hannah instantly and helps Cal because he reminds Jacob of Hannah.

Jacob never thinks "you remind me of Hannah," but he just feels some sort of connection to him.

Hannah doesn't display any qualities of Cal but it's some sort of psychic thing.

If I remember right, Jacob once said that his dad was kind of too honest, too fair or something.

That is why his wife (Jacob's mom) treated him not in a good way (maybe cheated

too)Maybe it was the scene where Hannah and him are chatting in his bedroom.

This is something I too pondered, however thanks to DVR and rewind/replay you can see that Gossling's character Jacob actually answers Carrell's character Cal's question "Why are you doing this?"

with "Maybe you remind me of ME" - the Audio track was edited in post production to what we all hear, "Maybe you remind me of SOMEONE".

Because Gossling's facial expression and limited mouth movement when he speaks... it was an easy edit to make and unless your looking for it will probably easily miss.

As for my theory for the change...

I understand a fair amount of Gossling's lines were ad libbed.

To that end, When he's in bed with Stone's character Emma and they're talking and Jacob asks for 'a kindness' and reveals his fathers softness and that his mother easily took advantage of him is part one element.

My additional association is that when Hanna blows him off in the bar and he gives her the long stare... I think he also see's Hanna in Cal.

My reason for the latter is Jacob says the same line when he 'honks' both of their noses.

I realize Jacob's character is shocked when he ultimately meets Cal in the back yard 'meet the Mother & daughters - however, I still think there is some subliminal and intriguing tie between what he sees in Father Weaver and Daughter Weaver characters.

I too also pondered this, I even found this website looking for the answer.

However, I think I've solved it.

Jacob describes his parents at one point in the evening with Hannah, he says his mother was cold and vain and his father couldn't handle her.

It makes for a strong argument that Jacob's parents got a divorce, and his father either died shortly after from that broken heart syndrome, or committed suicide.

Realistically Jacob in this movie can't be older then early thirties.

So for him to have had all this wealth and time to "try and buy happiness

" his father must have died some time ago.

id say at least a few years, if not more.

It's not Hannah, it's Jacob's father.

He describes Cal when he is in the bedroom with Hannah.

He calls him for fatherly advice when he is about to meet Hannah's mother.

Cal gives off a fatherly vibe.

From the moment that Jacob meets him he's devastated about his family falling apart, showing Jacob how important family is to him.

Jacob was looking for a father figure and he saw it in Cal and wanted to help him and have him play a key role in his life.

That's why it's so difficult for Jacob to have Cal angry with him and Hannah, it's why he craves his approval and why he's so hurt when Cal doesn't give it to him.

I don't think that Jacob was ever any different than he is in the movie-

I think he was always a womanizer.

Even if the line was originally "Maybe you remind me of me" then they would have changed it to suit the purpose of Cal being a father figure.

Cal reminds Jacob of his father.

The qualities of being kind and sweet he describes to Hanna in the bedroom are traits that I believe Cal has.

Proof of this is when the kids stay up and Jessica talks to Emily.

Jessica told Emily "That when she babysits most kids will stay up late for moms but not for dad."

He also said his father was very successful in business.

Cal works for a business firm in the movie.

Jacob stated that his mother was very vain and that his father "couldn't handle her.

" Cal's progression in the movie though Jacob's help is evident.

Cal is devastated by Emily in the beginning of the movie.

Cal throughout the moviel is more vocal with Emily expressing how he feels about the situation.

This adds to what Jacob says to him when coming out of the fitting room, "Your wife cheated on you because you lost sight as who you are as husband, a father, and even a lover."

Cal admits towards the end of the movie he did not fight for his relationship.

Jacob lost his father very young according to the movie.

Perhaps he helps Cal because he sees him headed down the same potential path as his father.

It is meant to mean Cal reminds him of himself.

It's not that hard, this line makes you immediately think that Jacob is talking about himself, not his father.

He didn't even mention his father until later.

Question: In the bar Cal and Jacob meet for the first time in  Crazy, Stupid, Love .  Cal asks Jacob why he is helping him (Cal), to which Jacob replies   Maybe you remind me of someone   Who is Jacob referring to? Is it his father?

Who did Cal Weaver remind Jacob of in Crazy Stupid Love?

Jacob helps Cal because he reminds him of Hannah, who he instantly fell in love with.

Nobody realises this, but Jacob fell in love with Hannah instantly. Hannah doesn't display any qualities of Cal but it's some sort of psychic thing.


There can be a number of theories but I think the primary one is because it would have few viewers, certainly not enough to make the show profitable.

TV shows are a conveyance for advertising - it is meant to be a profit center, and cannot be just ART .

Ideally every television show's advertisers want millions of viewers each week, something that is difficult if the audience is expected to reboot their thinking at every return from a commercial.

"Are we in universe 1 or the alter-1?" is easier to handle than, "Are we in universe 1, alter-1, alter-2, alter-3, or _alter-N?"

The writers would get confused, the actors would miscue which one they were supposedly in, the writers/actors would have to develop/portray different back story and keep them alive (but separate) simultaneously.

All this is a lot of trouble, and would develop a diligent core viewership of art followers who, granted would like to keep expanding the universe until it filled their heads.

But, honestly, the number of viewers dwindles each time the alter-N is increased because, "It's just too damn hard" to make it, to portray it, and, frankly, for the average viewer to watch it.

And every time an audience member leaves, the show's sponsor's pockets gets slightly emptier.

So, they've acknowledged it through dialog that there are theoretically greater than two universes.

However, I think they have kept the universes to two to keep the dedicated audience, and to help the actors and the writers.

You can possibly rectify this with string theory by extrapolating that these two universes are already converging, making it easier to cross between them as opposed to other universes.

This would also explain why they both have so many similarities like the fact that human life exists on a planet with identical composition and that many of the people have genetic equals in both universes.

Any more and we'd either be watching sliders (with them unable to get home and constantly moving) or stargate (inevitable hostile universes trying to invade)..

The story simply demands only 2...

As I remember, I think that their reasoning came from the fact that those two universes were the closest.

Those were the two overlapping.

To get to a farther universe would be theoretically and fictionally, impossible

Actually, my opinion is a bit anthropic; it's how it is because this is how it happened.

Walter opened a door between two universes.

Most doors only go to two places.

Thus, these two universes are linked because of the door.

One could try to make another door go to another universe, but they never try that; they are pretty much focused on the universe that Peter came from.

Question: I mean according to Walter, there could be any number of infinite universes if I'm not wrong. So why do they only talk about two universes and only one remaining in the end. What about others?

Why is there only a single parallel universe in Fringe?

You can possibly rectify this with string theory by extrapolating that these two universes are already converging, making it easier to cross between them as opposed to other universes. This would also explain why they both have so many similarities.

These two universes are already converging.

You can possibly rectify this with string theory by extrapolating that these two universes are already converging. This would also explain why they both have so many similarities.


How Bruce Banner found the Avengers: When Banner was aboard the Hellicarrier, his gamma ray search algorithm had worked out where the Tesseract was (Stark Tower), but before he could tell anyone Loki's machinations kicked in and he turned into the Hulk.

After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled.

How Thor found the Avengers:

This one's a bit more problematic.

Thor seems to have the ability to track down Loki.

Witness how Thor knew Loki was held inside the jet after he was captured by S.H.I.E.L.D..

How he does that isn't known.

So I'm assuming that, however he does it, Thor simply tracked down Loki to Stark Tower.

Thor magically knew where to find Loki the first time, when he abducted him from the Quinjet.

I suppose the same magic could have helped him find Loki the second time, too.

(Perhaps Odin infused Mjolnir with some sort of spell to track Loki quickly.)

As for Banner, that one's actually easier to answer.

He's the only one who saw the location of the Tesseract on the helicarrier's computer screen, just before Hawkeye blew up the engine.

To elaborate a little Banner was brought in initially to trace the gamma signature from the Tessaract.

So i think he would've been easily able to spot the place where the show down is going to be by tracking those gamma signatures of that

Loki's sceptre.

As for Thor he is an Asgardian and brother of Loki

plus he is the guardian of Earth.

So he could've easily sensed the interference and the opening in the sky which brought Loki's army.

I am pretty sure about Banner because Nick Fury points out in the movie that Banner was tracked to join the team to identify the gamma signature from the Tessaract.

No, remember when right before Hawkeye attacked the S.H.I.E.L.D. ship, Banner gets a hit on the Tesseract and goes "oh my god".

That was Stark Tower but he couldn't tell everyone because Hawkeye's bomb exploded and he turned into the Hulk.

Before Hawkeye's arrow explodes, Banner is the one member of the team who walks over to the screen as sees the location of the Tesseract.

He never gets the chance to tell anyone else.

I don't know about Thor.

I found this page by searching for the answer to that question.

i think the theory that he can find Loki is a good one, since he found him on the place (as stated above).

Question: In the middle of  The Avengers , the team is split up after coming together on the S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier.  Bruce Banner/Hulk end up in an abandoned warehouse.  Thor ends up in a field.  Shortly afterwards, Tony Stark determines Loki's next destination, Stark Tower.  This information is never transmitted to Banner or Thor.  However, both of them show up in New York City and join in the climactic battle.  How did they know where to go?

How did Thor and Banner know where to go?

Thor magically knew where to find Loki the first time, when he abducted him from the Quinjet. I suppose the same magic could have helped him find Loki the second time, too.

Thor is the only one who saw the location of the Tesseract on the helicarrier's computer.

Thor knew where to find Loki the first time he abducted him from the Quinjet. He's the only one who saw the location of the Tesseract on the helicarrier's computer.


Well, most people often forget how easy it is to recognize somebody by voice and Bruce Wayne is kind of a celebrity.

So changing his voice is a natural consequence of Nolan's making Batman more realistic.

Of course Superman can't be Clark Kent, as he's obviously missing the characteristic glasses ;)

And well, it surely also contributes to his dramatic appearance, but this more as a second goal, I think.

I do agree that disguise is one reason.

But this is Nolan, there's always more.

In Batman Begins, Bruce tells Alfred: Bruce Wayne : People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathyand

I can't do that as Bruce Wayne, as a man I'm flesh and blood

I canbe ignored I can be destroyed but as a symbol, as a symbol I can beincorruptible, I can be everlasting.

Alfred Pennyworth : What symbol?

Bruce Wayne : Something elemental, something terrifying.

Though, the consequent scenes do not talk much about the symbol part and everybody pretty much forgets Bruce's original idea of Batman.

We start thinking of Batman as Bruce with a costume on and fighting the bad guys.

Which is true but to Bruce it's something more, like he says to Alfred.

It's a symbol to terrify people.

If you were a villain it wouldn't be easy for you to think that Batman is just a guy with a mask on.

That makes it more terrifying.

The idea of someone powerful than the ordinary human.

And Bruce takes every possibility to make the idea a very real and unshakable threat to the bad guys.

The voice, the bat ears, the dramatic entrances and exits - all these are trivial to the plot.

Either way it's not going to change the output of a scene if Batman enters sneakily with a very chilly line or just through the door.

But Bruce takes the extra step to go through all the mumbo-jumbo just to keep the idea real.

The idea of a legend.

The idea of a permanent warrior who is going to fight the bad guys every turn and forever.

It all makes sense.

Come to think of it.

Joker says something similar to: "You'll be outcast too.

They'll see you as a freak when they are done."

Joker is a schizophrenic villain who wears face paint all day long and he empathizes with Bruce.

He actually identifies himself with Batman.

You can understand the similarities - Bruce goes to great extents to protect the man behind the mask.

Same thing goes for Joker - he wears face paint 24x7.

Without it, he wouldn't be as scary.

And scary is important to him.

Summary: Bruce takes the idea of Batman more seriously than the audience are led to believe.

The outcome of it is one thing - crimefighting.

He does take that seriously.

But he also takes the very idea of Batman personally and he is proud of it.

Probably a bit of both.

The main reason would be to disguise his voice so that people don't recognise him as Bruce Wayne.

But in selecting the how to disguise his voice he wouldn't want it to sound intimidating.

It would make for a very different movie if he sounded all cute and fluffy!

Well, firstly, it must be noted that this was actually not Christian Bale's overacting, but Nolan's directing.

He even went as far as to push bale to growl more while filming and even more in post.

There was a cut detail about the cowl housing some apparatus that disguises his voice to what it sounds like.

Being that this is a Nolan move, I'm sure there is a symbolic purpose behind this voice.

I would venture to say the batman voice is as different to Wayne's as the characters themselves.

All Batman mythos harps on the duality of he character, or characters, rather.

MTV was able to ask Bale about that process of his bat-voice while he is out doing press for his new movie Out of the Furnace .

"I got there.

They put me in Val Kilmer's suit.

It didn't even fit properly, and I stood in it

and I went '

I feel like an idiot.'

What kind of guy walks around, dressed like a bat?

And is then going to go '

Hello, how are you?

Just ignore that I'm dressed as a bat.'

Of course, he's meant to be doing this," Bale said.

"If you look at the history of the guy and the pain that he went through.

I went 'I can't do this in a normal voice.

I have to become a beast in order to sell this to myself.'

you can see his first Batman Audition in the link down below: Bale's Batman Audition

What I got from it was his voice gets lower and darker as the films go on.

This to me sounds like he is becoming what he is fighting against.

Which was a major theme in dark knight and dark knight rises.

Then again he could just be doing it for reasons stated above.

But Nolan seems to have a reason for everything in a film.

My guess would be he was becoming or he would have to become a bad guy in order to take down other bad guys.

In the dark knight he said as much.

Question: Like almost every Batman fan, I enjoy Christopher Nolan's interpretation of the role of Batman in The Dark Knight Trilogy. But why does Christian Bale change his voice to such a great extent when playing Batman?   Is it to scare off/intimidate people? Or to hide he's Bruce Wayne?

Why does Christian Bale change his voice when playing Batman

It must be noted that this was actually not Christian Bale's overacting, but Nolan's directing. I would venture to say the batman voice is as different to Wayne's as the characters themselves.

Director Christopher Nolan pushed Bale to growl more while filming and even more in post. The cowl housing some apparatus that disguises his voice to what it sounds like. All Batman mythos harps on the duality of the character, or characters, rather. The voice is as different to Wayne's as the characters themselves.


According to a review in the Wall Street Journal: The fly has become a symbol of the loss of control in Walt’s life, so its defeat is all that’s important to him right now.

I think it's about little things escalating to big things.

The episode starts with Walt noticing .14% of each batch coming up short.

He's detected Jesse's skimming but doesn't know it yet.

The fly represents nagging doubt.

A little minor annoying thing, which leads to a bigger thing (losing his shoe) which leads to a bigger thing (falling off the mezzanine).

What problem, little today, if neglected will escalates?

A downfall starts tiny.

Walt has his secret betrayal too, about Jane's death, which he almost discloses after Jesse drugs his coffee with sleeping pills.

One more candidate for Walt's undoing.

By the way, this is what is known as a "bottle" episode .

Small setting, small cast, small budget.

Like a fly in a bottle.

I think the meaning of the fly was that Walt's cancer came back.

On the same episode, Jessie talked about his aunt and the raccoon that she used to see.

He mentioned that even after that they killed it, his aunt kept seeing it.

Some time after that, they found out she had cancer

and it was one of the side-effects.

I thought it could possibly be a role reversal.

Walt was Hank constantly trying to catch the fly and obsessing with it to the point where he was hurting himself and doubting his life which is exactly what has happened to Hank through is obsession with finding Heisenberg.

Also, Jessie ends up killing the fly which could possibly foreshadow Jessie killing Walt.

But that's every unlikely...

The entire episode reminded me of the "Theatre of the Absurd," which I studied with mild frustration in college: Sartre, Camus, Pinter, Ionesco, Albee.

To paraphrase: '

man is a meaning-making animal, alive in a meaningless universe; ergo, all his efforts are absurd!'

I thought Vince gave the main actors a chance to interact for an entire episode, like Didi and Gogo in Sartre's "Waiting for Godot."

Question: One of the Breaking Bad episodes involves a scene with a fly. Walter is obsessed by a fly in the lab and tries to kill it in order to keep the room clean.  I was told there's a special meaning but I have no clue about it...

What is the meaning of the "fly scene" in Breaking Bad?

According to a review in the Wall Street Journal: The fly has become a symbol of the loss of control in Walt's life, so its defeat is all that's important to him right now.

The fly has become a symbol of the loss of control in Walt’s life, so  its defeat is all that’s important to him right now.


Not 100% definitive, but I always thought that he did.

Evidence that he kills her:

Its explicitly stated that he does in the book

The shot of him inspecting his boots on the way out implies that he is checking for blood

The cattle gun Chigurh used was with him while he sat frozen like a statue.

Carla wouldn't call the coin toss so he got up slowly and pointed it at her forehead.

Her last words were "now I know why the sheriff told me about this."

He took her car keys, left the cattle gun behind and was on his way to retirement...

sort of...

Chigurh was in a vehicle accident shortly after.

I googled the question and came upon this discussion and if it's up to speculation then I agree with him checking the boots.

That implies looking for blood and in addition no mentions the car wreck shorty after leaving her house.

If he killed her, he wouldn't want anyone to connect the dots of her murder and the car accident as they were only a few feet apart.

Him walking away versus waiting for medical attention.

Also adds to the fact that he did not want to be caught or connected to that location.

The point of that scene is he has no conscious and no qualms killing her.

The coin flip in a way shows he had a hint of remorse about killing her.

He definitely killed her.

His coin toss offer was a genuine offer to let her off the hook, just like the guy at the gas station.

The movie has left the outcome to the viewer's imagination so fill in the blank

anyway you like.

I prefer not to have to fill in blanks and am going with what's in the book.

The "issues" pointing to him killing Carla Jean Moss seem to be:

He's a psychopath/sociopath (sociopaths have a total lack of empathy)

He checks both of his boots when he's "leaving" the house and the that we see inside the house

has no blood up to that point.

His urgency to "leave the scene" points to that.

It's "what he

does"o

She refuses to engage in his coin toss and instead "leaves it up to him" (which, being who he is, was a bad choice) and her intransigence denied her of a 50/50 chance of living, so perhaps the director wanted the double emphasis of her stubbornness and his evil nature to more than suggest that he did kill her.

And, as someone else pointed out, apparently the book makes it clear that...

Chigurh did break into the house and is wanted by the sheriff.

He might want to get away even if he didn't kill her.

The movie is intentionally ambiguous.

Maybe she convinced Chigurh not to kill her.

Maybe he's a changed man.

Odd that he would check for blood on his shoes

(that's why he puts his feet up) if he didn't kill her.

I wonder if he did kill her, he didn't kill the two boys who could identify him just down the street from where a body is soon to be discovered?

I think he left her alive and that's why he didn't need to harm the boys either.

The boots being checked on the way out is just a smokescreen.

Question: Towards the end of No Country for Old Men, Anton Chigurh tracks down Carla Jean Moss. They are sitting in a room together and he gives her the option of heads or tails to decide her fate. Is there any definitive evidence that he killed/didn't kill her?

Does Anton Chigurh kill Carla Jean Moss?

In the film it is not 100% definitive but it is explicitly stated that he does in the book. He also checks both his boots for traces of blood while ''leaving'' the house.

There is a lot of evidence proofing that he he killed her

Proof of killing her:
He expressly stated in the book
The shot of him checking out his boots suggests he checks his blood on the way out.

The "issues" pointing to him killing Carla Jean Moss seem to be. He's a psychopath/sociopath. He checks both of his boots when he's "leaving" the house.His urgency to "leave the scene" points to that.


The relationship between Leon and Mathilda is a rather complicated one, and is pretty much the cornerstone of the whole movie.

Leon is hinted to be mentally challenged in some capacity.

He can't read and despite his prowess as an assassin is very naive and is easily fooled by Tony (and Mathilda).

He also has problems with intimacy and letting people get close to him.

His only real friend before Mathilda was his plant.

At first he struggled a lot with allowing Mathilda to enter his life, going as far as attempting to kill her while she slept.

Soon enough, Mathilda becomes his friend and a surrogate daughter figure.

Mathilda on the other hand is smart and savvy beyond her years.

She comes from a dysfunctional home where she is despised by everyone.

She too has no real friends.

She's go starved for human contact that Leon's passing attempt at small talk immediately makes her latch on to him and offer to get him his groceries.

Eventually, as her relationship with Leon progresses, she finds herself falling in love with him.

Leon (and the audience) are left to ponder if it's true attraction or just an infatuation with the only adult-figure who has been kind to her.

The two broken human beings flock together and form a family-unit of sort.

To an audience used to normal families, a very young girl with a crush on a mentally and emotionally challenged hitman is very uncomfortable.

In fact, American test audiences were so uncomfortable that a scene where Mathilda (unsuccessfully) propositions Leon to sleep with her was cut for the American release.

One could argue that this discomfort is an intentional part of the movie.

Despite the guns and knives and bombs and drugs, the relationship is innocent.

Leon is essentially a child in a man's body, he cannot read, Tony is his surrogate father taking care of him financially

and he and maltilda play "dress up".

In this relationship he learns for the first time about love and he develops into matilda's surrogate parent.

movies.stackexchange.com/users/4637/The Wandering Dev Manager

In the original draft, Mathilda (aged 13 or 14) and Léon become lovers.

Besson reportedly altered the script to remove this aspect of the story (possibly due to pressure from Portman's parents).

The initial cut of the film had more scenes with "awkward sexual tension" between Mathilda and Léon.

These scenes were later removed for the American release, dubbed The Professional, but were included in the 1996 European release, as well as in the deleted scenes of the special edition DVD.

They were reintegrated back into the film for the "International Cut," which is now available on Blu-ray/DVD.

When the film was first tested in Los Angeles, the movie included a short scene where Mathilda asks Léon to be her lover.

However, the audience became extremely uncomfortable and began to laugh nervously, completely destroying the tone of the film.

Because of this, the movie received terrible test scores and Besson and producer Patrice Ledoux decided to cut the scene for the American theatrical release.

Younger and the relationship would either have to be totally creepy or transform into more obviously paternal relationship.

Older, say 16+, and the relationship likely is forced to take on more romantically charged aspects.

At 12-14, the character can be old enough to be somewhat independent and for the relationship to be a friendship rather than paternal and young enough for it to avoid romantic questions.

Definitely romantic (controversial scene):

Mathilda:

Leon, I think I'm kinda falling in love with you.

[Leon chokes on his milk]

Mathilda:

It's the first time for me, you know?

Léon: [wiping himself off]

How do you know it's love if you've never been in love before?

Mathilda:

'Cause

I feel it.

Léon:

Where?

Mathilda: [stoking her stomach]

In my stomach.

It's all warm.

I always had a knot there

and now... it's gone.

Léon:

Mathilda, I'm glad you don't have a stomach ache any more.

I don't think it means anything.

Question: Roger Ebert mentioned in his review of  Léon: The Professional   But always at the back of my mind was the troubled thought that there  was something wrong about placing a 12-year-old character in the  middle of this action.   How would you describe the relation that developed between Mathilda and Leon in the movie?

How would you describe the relation between Mathilda and Léon?

The relationship between Leon and Mathilda is rather complicated. Leon is hinted to be mentally challenged in some capacity and his only friend before Mathilda was his plant.

The relationship between Leon and Mathilda is a rather complicated one, and is pretty much the cornerstone of the whole movie.Leon is hinted to be mentally challenged in some capacity.


No, there is not meaning of them in TV series till now.

It is noted as Trivia in Wikia Howard wears alien pins on his collar in every episode, yet the pin has not been mentioned thus far.

To expand panthers answer, actually they confirmed that the pin has a meaning, but it is a secret.

It is not only one pin, but different pins with different shape and color, but all showing an alien.

You can find several discussion and theories of fans about the theme in the net, but no confirmed answer.

There is a short behind the scenes video about this with the actor here:

Possible Reason #1 Being regular viewer of TBBT I could say this that we are missing a big fact here.

Howard is an astronaut I think the pin depicting the alien is a badge that he wears for being out of space or at least traveled in space.

As in our modern society someone coming from space is usually considered to be an alien .

Possible Reason #2 Apart from Howard using that as pin that symbol of alien is also logo of Alienware which is also the brand Sheldon uses.

and Howard also owns one computer of same brand. .

So maybe it's about branding.

Howard says in season 3 when they go through the box where they find the ring (this is a paraphrase

I don't remember the exact quote)

what he says is I use to have one of these dolls I pretended my dad was ubtucted by aliens and that this guy would bring him back.

So Howard wears it because of his childhood life so he would remember to take a step back and be a kid again

The show is about disclosure and acceptance.

The show might be a well thought out way to show aliens for the first time.

There are many references used subtly throughout the series.

Question: Besides skinny jeans and a wide variety of belt buckles, one of Howard's signature items in  The Big Bang Theory  is an alien lapel pin. Is there any Reason or Meaning behind it?

What's the meaning behind Howard's alien pin?

The show might be a well thought out way to show aliens for the first time There are many subtle references throughout the series.

The show is about disclosure and acceptance. The show might be a well thought out way to show aliens for the first time.