Singingax deletes another thread?

[riffdaddy]

It appears that Singingax has once again folded, right around the point in time when he actually began to make a little sense! Do you suppose that having a logical thought turned out to be of some detrement to his well-being?

[Gui]

i thought that last thread was hilarious. i'm sad to see it deleted.

[riffdaddy]

 

Originally posted by Gui i thought that last thread was hilarious. i'm sad to see it deleted.

 

 

It definitely had its moments. I particularly liked the part where he quibbled over whether or not the quote from the professor at UNT had anything to do with letters. I underlined the word "letter", put it in boldface, and even made it twice as big as the rest of the text, and still he claimed that the quote wasn't about letters. Good times.

[Terje]

He's such a coward. He's going up on my ingore list again. No need to talk to an idiot.

[qwerty]

Riffdaddy,

 

There was a post you did about my statement about whether letters and scale degrees could be interchanged to arrive at what an interval is. Pretty much, you brought up a circumstance where what I said wouldnt work.

 

Do you remember what you said, because I'd like to understand it better. Obviously, I cant go back to re-read it.

 

Thx.

[qwerty]

> gloss over the inconsistancies in their system.

 

Without going back into this argument again, I'll just say that from my point of view, inconsistancies arise in standard note names only when you take the equal tempered scale as *the* foundation, and attempt to draw conclusions about what the note names should/should not do from there.

 

I believe there is a lot of misunderstanding about what the note names are actually supposed to accomplish, and how they are supposed to accomplish it.

 

I've had an extremely difficult time following all the arguments, because I apparently just dont think about note names in the same way Ax does. There appears to be agreement among all those who use standard note names.

 

I'm glad that Ax finds OZ easier and more consistent dealing with the equal tempered scale. Kudos to him. But for me, standard note names are consistent, in and out of equal tempered tunings.

 

I think I have to just simply leave it at that. It *does* make sense to me. Trying to tell me that it doesnt make sense *to me* both in terms of theory and "schematic" on the fretboard is not possible.

 

Good Luck, everyone.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax The "logical thought turned out to be" that I was being drawn into a debate on how notes are named.

 

"Drawn into"? Hardly.

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax And since I have no interest in note reading (or naming) whatsoever, I was wasting my time debating it. OTOH, what to name the 12 BBB of the equal tempered scale is something I would consider worth debating. Haven't had much luck getting a debate started on that though.

 

Since the tonal music's basic building blocks is the 12 basic building blocks (with your words) I can't see how we have not debated this almost all the time...

[vote4dicktaid]

 

Originally posted by Singingax It best to simply except the indoctrination.

 

 

I was never indoctrinated into the system. I like it, however.

[arasmith]

 

Originally posted by Singingax ... That's so true! If you can look at a SOTGF with the CNC on it and not see that it's gobbdleydgook or that a "natural" note name remains the same in all the major scales while a "non-natural" note's name changes then there's probably nothing I or anyone else can say to show you otherwise. It best to simply except the indoctrination.

 

 

Ax,

Are you just lonely or something? Let it lay, man. This is just winding down into a peaceful "agree to disagree" equilibrium. Why do you need to stir it up with more incendiary remarks? People perceive things differently. Let it be.

[arasmith]

Originally posted by Singingax No. I'm supposed to be a troll, haven't you heard? It's Terje and others who've stirred things up with incendiary remarks. (calling me a weakling, coward, etc) Not that it bothers me in the least.

 

Your responses indicate that it does bother you, and you have certainly joined them in the name-calling.

 

And I have to agree with you though, people must perceive things differently (from an indoctrinated perspective perhaps?) to see a SOTGF with the CNC as making sense or gloss over the inconsistantcies in the CNC.

 

See, now you could have just stopped the sentence after the word "differently" but you apparently felt the need to get in a shot. This is the behavior that made me ask about being lonely. It seems to be about attention and not about seeking agreement.

 

I don't see the CNC proponents as very willing to "let it be". Just look at Terje's thread or this thread. I'm just letting it loose in response to them.

 

To what end?

 

Here is my point: When I scan this forum, I see (outside of this thread, and its relatives) Terje, Riffdaddy, MorePaul, and most of the others contributing in a positive way. This is the only place in here that I see you post. Always the same topic, always the lonely defender of logic against the deluded masses. From what I have been able to tell outside this thread, these folks are pretty seasoned musicians (or, due to the limitations of online interaction, seasoned thoereticians). My experience to date is that the info passed around in this forum is a pretty reliable indicator of experience. Great! I love being the little fish - I learn more that way.

 

Try asking some questions that aren't meant to demonstrate your knowledge or to deepen a rift. Try asking questions from which you can learn. You will have to ask them with an open mind.

 

---david

[riffdaddy]

 

Originally posted by Singingax I didn't say the quote wasn't about letters.

 

 

Lets refresh ourselves with a little review of some of the dialogue:

 

 

Me: WOW--let me get this straight--so every theory text written over the last 500 years is wrong, and you're right? We're not talking about a matter of opinion here. We're talking about you being wrong--which you are. Like I said, I don't know who taught you differently, but interval names are based on letters.

 

Singingax: Show me one theory book that says a major third is called that because it's the third LETTER.

 

Me: Example A is from Elementary Harmony by Robert W. Ottman (professor of theory at North Texas State University), page 6: "An interval is the distance between two pitches. An interval is identified by the number of letter names it encompasses. For exapmple, from C up to E is a third because three letter names (C, D, and E) are encompassed."

 

Singingax: An interval is the distance between two pitches. The letters of the CNC happen to denote the pitches of the C major scale.

 

Me: So you're saying that these texts are incorrect?

 

Singingax: Yes I did. And, at least with the first one, it said the distance between PITCHES, not letters. (which is my contention)

 

As it turns out, you did say the quote wasn't about letters. You also said the quote was incorrect.

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax Just like the debating tactics of you CNC proponents, appearances can be deceiving. (like assuming I "folded") The "logical thought turned out to be" that I was being drawn into a debate on how notes are named.

 

Actually, I wasn't baiting you. I was making a point.

 

Originally posted by Singingax OTOH, what to name the 12 BBB of the equal tempered scale is something I would consider worth debating. Haven't had much luck getting a debate started on that though.

 

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

 

de

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax Oh, please do! (but make sure it's your ignore list, not ingore list) And I'll put you on my ignorance list.

 

Dude, it's a guitar forum, not an English class. You don't need to point out people's spelling errors. It's pointless and a little rude, especially considering that you're making fun of somebody whose primary language isn't English. Once again, GROW UP.

[riffdaddy]

 

Originally posted by Singingax It best to simply except the indoctrination.

 

 

Gee Axe, don't you mean "It's" and "accept"?

 

 

 

See what I mean? It really isn't that clever.

[vote4dicktaid]

 

Originally posted by Singingax You liked the indoctrination.

 

 

There never was any.

[vote4dicktaid]

 

Originally posted by Singingax Ok. How about tricked into?

 

 

You started the whole thing by pointing out the notation system's alleged weaknesses (Oh my God, I'm writing the exact same sentence as about two months ago!).

 

You were never tricked into anything.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax Debating how notes are named has to do with how notes are read. I was trying to debate how the 12 BBB are (and should) be named, which has nothing to do with note reading.

 

 

Yes it has, since it's the same damn pitches we're talking about!

 

New names _would_ impact note reading. Not to you, I know - so let me rephrase it:

 

If you want new names, you have to get rid of the old ones, right? So you have to know it would work better when playing music, right?

[idm13]

Okay...I missed all the original stuff...but this whole thing is ridiculous. Names of notes...hell even the frequencies we use are just variables. Just names to represent the pitch we hear. Scew what they are. They are just names. Calling the current naming convention inconsistent is like calling the names of streets inconsistent. It's a waste of time. Calling any word inconsistent is a waste of time.

 

Some one else told you this dude...but I will say it to. Grow up. You are debating nothing. You are just wasting time. You can call something anything you want to. The society of musicians decided many...many hundreds of years ago what to call things. If you don't like it...tough. Get over yourself. That's just the way it is. Names...variables...all of this is how we as musicians comminicate. If you don't like our language...move out the house.

 

The names are representations in the first place. Those representations were there when I got here. I wasn't indoctrinated. Dude that statement is so weak...like this is the Nazi party or the Cult of the 12 Note Names, and some dude came to my house in a robe.

 

This is so stupid I can't even talk about it anymore.

 

You are not right. Because this is not a right or wrong topic. This is a how it is topic. Just like the words we use in the English language have certain definitions...this is the same thing. You can't change it. And you are stupid to think you can debate it.

 

You can all 110 hz what ever the hell you want to...when I am talking to other musicians...I am going to call it an A. That way they don't look at me like I am a moron. But if you like being called stupid...idiot...moron...you just go ahead and call it what you want to.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax

 

No. I'm supposed to be a troll, haven't you heard?

 

It's Terje and others who've stirred things up with incendiary remarks. (calling me a weakling, coward, etc) Not that it bothers me in the least.

 

You mean like your "you must have a small penis"? remark

 

And I have to agree with you though, people must perceive things differently (from an indoctrinated perspective perhaps?) to see a SOTGF with the CNC as making sense or gloss over the inconsistantcies in the CNC.

 

It doesn't have to do with indocrination...I'm comfortable with multiple systems AND I can see the consistancy in diatonic systems.

Other's comments show me that they have an understanding as well.

 

I think your use of the OSSOTTTGF is one reason for this

 

I don't see the CNC proponents as very willing to "let it be". Just look at Terje's thread or this thread. I'm just letting it loose in response to them.

 

The discussion serves some good function...I mean that's how we finally got you on OZ over building your own system.

I noticed you are now a little more clear and are referring the equal temperament (as you continue your studies, this will help - but I think you are really talking about 12 tone equal temperament).

 

Just don't delte the threads b/c they contain some good info

 

You still aren't quite understanding what traditional diatonic systems are actually doing, but that may yet come.

 

I believe you're still looking at notation as a string of discreet events to be executed (like a piano roll) - this is common among players, esp if they indoctrinate themselves into that view with too much TAB

[MorePaul]

 

Originally posted by riffdaddy Gee Axe, don't you mean "It's" and "accept"? See what I mean? It really isn't that clever.

 

 

Well, regardless of the main topic - that's pretty much point RiffDaddy.

[MorePaul]

OTOH, what to name the 12 BBB of the equal tempered scale is something I would consider worth debating.

 

Haven't had much luck getting a debate started on that though.

 

 

No need for debate - just discussion -- that''s what the other guys do

 

Unfortunately, you don't do your homework, erase threads, and just say stuff like "you're overintellectualizing" and "I don't care to improve my musicianship"

 

 

 

I gave you a bunch of leads, but you only follow those that can be googled...but like you said (you) "don't care about improving musicianship"

 

 

Of course, you'll ignore this message -- but you are ignoring too much, I wonder if you realize there are a couple of active societies interested in notational reform...nah probably not

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax

 

I agree. They're just names. (or letters)

 

But the 12 BBB of the equal tempered scale are always the same, so why not use 12 designations that are always the same too?

 

 

Because their musical functions are different. This can affect such things as intonation, approach even perception of consonance!

 

Diatonic construction uses 7(8) BBB

 

I'm through arguing whether the CNC is inconsistent or not when naming tones but when it comes to naming the 12 BBB it is inconsistent!

 

It's not so much inconsistant as you consistantly misunderstand it

 

Oh,.....I'll grow up and accept the CNC, because.......the society of musicians decided many...many hundreds of years ago what to call things, and because......that's the way it is, and because that's the way musicians comminicate, and because if I don't like your language...I'll have to move out the house.

 

Well, that was pretty much your reasoning behind sticking with your tuning system

 

You're right though. You can call the 12 BBB anything you want to. Like 12 distinct names, perhaps?

 

You're RIGHT...hey wait don't you use TAB? that will show the same note in 2 different places - guess you better start another revolution!

 

They actually do have 12 distinct names within each key that outlines their musical function.

 

 

 

When learning anything, much less the 7 letter C major scale "natural" note system that the CNC is, there is a certain amount of indoctrination.

 

"indoctrination" as in the 1stt definition -- gaining familiarity with doctrine...sure

 

as in the 2nd definition -- "subjugation to dogma"...nope the guys have shown well reasoned opinions.

 

 

Stupid to think I can debate how to best name the 12 BBB of the equal tempered scale in a forum dominated by the CNC indoctrinees?

 

You're right there!

 

That's funny - I feel quite welcome here and everyone seems to be open to discussion on the topic

 

When an A, B##, C#, Db, Ebbb, Fbbbb, Gbbbbbb, all apply to 440hz, I get the feeling that using 1 designation would be better.

 

Actually, there is one designation for each function (you are thinking like a player piano, not a musician)

 

But I thought you liked TAB and it uses more than one designation for each BBB

 

 

 

Now admit it. The Sabine tuner 7 letter and 5 dots thing really gets to you CNC indoctrinees, doesn't it?

 

It's actually very much in keeping with diatonic tradition. It's not the ONLY way to note it (when you get to better tuners you'll see that)

 

But it is convenient, DIATONICALLY TRADITIONAL, and easy to read...you can see a topography...chromatic, uncentered systems don't show this (advantages and disadvantages...which is why you can use both if you're open minded)

[MorePaul]

I do think it would work better when playing music with the 12 BBB of the equal tempered scale.

 

That's because you've only been at it a couple of months

 

 

And when showing the 12 BBB on a tuner.

 

Kinda makes it harder, esp with those sabines that just use the LEDs. If you get too far away it's harder to read the letters, but you can still sorta make out the dot pattern of a C scale (like looking at piano keys).

 

Notice how sabine changed their Rack design away from the little LED s?

 

Or the Big-ass Petersen strobe station that technicians use stagger the displays based on C diantonics? easier to poke your head up and see where you are

 

And when shown on a SOTGF.

 

I think you've been indoctrinated into the OSSOTTTGF

[riffdaddy]

The layout of the LED's on the tuner match the placement of the keys on the piano. Sabine does it that way because everybody knows what the note layout is on a piano. I'm not sure what you would like them to use instead--would you prefer them to use OZ on a tuner used by musicians who are indoctrinated into the CNC?

 

Well, I'm off to bed. I have to get up early and go to work. You see, I've been indoctrinated into going there five or six times a week. My boss has been indoctrinated into giving me a paycheck for being there. I really have to get off the computer now...I'm indoctrinated into using a pillow for sleeping, and I don't have a pillow in this room. Oh well.

 

Deprograming

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax

 

The LED's match the layout of the keys on the piano? (the guitar and most equal tempered scaled instruments use 12 BBB too)

 

I'm glad to see you're now seeing the distinction that we are talking about EQUAL temperament. I think you are still a little confused though...it would be that a system is 12 tone, not it's temperament that would define the number of tones.

 

you can Equally Temper, say, a 19 tone scale as well (there are even guitars set up this way)

 

Hey - did you get a chance to audit a MIDI note bend channel while you play? you'll be shocked (esp the G string) -- guitar tries but doesn't do a very good job of static temperament (one of the problems with using the same string to sound different pitches)

 

Then why don't they use the note names of the 5 keys instead of dot's?

 

Space and it's easier to read quickly and from a distance with just the dots - if they used a bunch of letters, there would be a sea of letters without the visual contrast.

Ever notice the difference in the colors of keys on a clavier?

 

 

It's similar to (not exactly the same, but hints of) the efficiency that diatonic notations represent.

 

Could it be that the CNC lacks a distinct name for them?

 

nah, it's the space and clarity issue....they revamped their rack line b/c of the clarity issue with just the small LEDs.

 

Check out the higher end tuners - esp the Peterson tuners used by piano tuners and such.

 

You still aren't quite getting what information is being carried by traditional diatonic nomenclature. It's describing MUSICAL FUNCTION.

Think about it in terms of TAB...you like that right? yet it has >1 designation for a note EVEN if it serves the same musical function.

 

It's not that tradional diatonic nomenclature LACKS distinction, it's that it HAS the ability to show distinct musical function. It can even be used for >12 designations and guess who was a strong proponent of this (not the only one to be sure, but one you've definitely heard of) in the last century ...a pianist!

 

 

 

I would prefer that they use a naming system that actually names the 12 BBB instead of the wacky CNC that ends up forcing Sabine to use dots to show 5 of the BBB.

 

That's because you aren't really fully conversant twith he two systems you compare (there are others of course, but you might need more that Google)

OZ you've been playing with for weeks

Traditional Bothian Diatonics...you've never really used properly

[MorePaul]

Wow! the Fleche does work!

 

Axe...have you been peeking?

 

naughty naughty - very naughty

 

 

BTW, what does OSSOTTGF mean?

 

OverSimplified Schematic Of Traditonally Tuned Guitar Fretboard

 

(I mean, hey, I'm all for simplification...remember our tuning deal...but if you simplify to misunderstanding...well that's no good)

 

It's just that you are using the designations incorrectly, which is why you misunderstand them as gobbleygook

Language you aren't familiar with sound funny til you understand them

 

Do my homework? This isn't a class professor.

(professor of overextrapolation, no less)

 

But it is an educational opportunity.

When you run your scales, practice your craft, study the theory - this is all homework.

You know, like when you play in an ens and someone has polished the piece to a mirror shine while eveyone else is struggling and someone says "well, she did her homework. She put in the hours and it shows"

 

I (try to) do my homework, Terje, Riff, Pop and the others obviously have

 

You do overintellectualize, that's proven by most of what you post.

 

because I actually think about the issues, ask others, study the history and explore new concepts...

 

Meanwhile you seems to just ignore whole systems

 

um, you DO realize that a lot of OZ work is math translations don't you?

 

Naming the 12 BBB will improve my musicianship just fine.

 

Earlier you siad you were not interested in improving your musicianship and

that you weren't interested in nuance (of course you deleted that entire thread)

 

Well, as I've said before, if I need to use a notational system, TAB will do just fine for me.

 

----

 

It's hard to get indoctrinated into a view based on using too much TAB when I hardly use it at all. (nice try though)

 

I suppose you can have your cake and eat it too...if you vomit.

 

hmm, ingestion without digestion...if that what you really want?

The Nashville system's basic formula (and basis) is the traditional diatonic system.

 

Yeah, it's a good start, but (gasp) watch out for those bad bad accidentals - and it's incomplete

It's essentially a harmonic outline (like figured bass or soflege notation) - course, can't really do a fugue in it.

 

You didn't get me on OZ over building my own system.

 

Of course not you had to fail first. Remember when you went through the "I'm having problems with it" phase , then I suggested OZ to you - before that, you were not into looking at previous developments

I'd say "why not leverage some previous work"...you'd say "what's to leverage"

 

and now that the "morepaul suggest use of OZ" thread has been deleted, you can work with Winston Smith.

 

I mean, it's no big deal...it just ain't Axe against the world of 'indoctrinated folks'.

 

People have been using system like these before we were born.

 

 

 

 

I'm just using O-Z for the 12 distinct designations.

 

That's what it's made for. But what you aren't understanding iss traditional diatonic bothean diatonic naming and what IT'S made for

It's not gobbeleygook....you just aren't understanding it

 

 

And I'll decide if and when I'm going to delete a thread I start. If all you're interested in is upping your post count or reading your overintellectualiztions, then

don't post.

exactly If all I were interested in is upping my post count and overintellectualizing, I would not post.

 

But, since, that's not my mission I do.

 

Besides, you have me on ignore...this conversation isn't really happening

 

 

 

As usual you can't think outside of tones.

 

I don't think you are really getting what tones are. But we are talking about construction and notation of tonal systems.

I think that there is a lot of valuable background info that would help you, but you would get upset and ignore it.

 

besides, you don't seem to like microtonality, you mentioned in another thread you really weren't interested in chromatic music.

 

 

(I ubderstand, you are thinking like a player piano)

 

How so?

 

See, the reason I say you are thinking like a player is that you are looking at the naming as an execution map, not a musical map

 

with phrases like

"I'm not interested in nuance" (now deleted)

and and conversation with Riff, I believe, about "after human error, what's left?"

 

It is apparent.

 

You aren't understanding WHY diatonic naming is as it is.

 

 

A better tuner has names for all 12 BBB? That's a hoot.

 

yup, The Letter displays usually just use a sharp designation.

Now with a complex instrument like pipe organ, you're going to have to read the strobe and set beats because the # and b won't converge in actual use

 

On a statically tuned instrument like piano, the # and b will converge, but they aren't the same in musical practice

 

(Remember the Isacoff thing and the Stravisnky thing I was talking about earlier?)

That's WHY the differentiation exists!

 

Check out even the higher-end sabines

 

Now on really really good ones, each tone has a fully different, programmable display.

 

 

You really like that Good ole DIATONICALLY TRADITIONAL indoctrination, don't you?

 

Sure do! (that as in the primary definition - becoming familiar with doctrine)

 

It's a decent functional system! Like other systems, it has its context.

 

 

I feel comfortable with other systems in other contexts ( did you get a chance to read the 'alternative notation sourcebook' yet?)

 

 

Now I know you are "used to the squirrel" and don't really want to look into other systems.

 

and really don't like concepts like dynamic intonation (which exists on most instruments), != 12 tone systems, !=12 tone notations,

isomorphic tunings, alternative keyboard layout (which seems to dovetail nicely with your interests)

 

 

 

Naming the 12 BBB doesn't make them a chromatic, uncentered system. (you must be overintellectualizing again)

 

Sure it does

 

Naming all 12 makes it chromatic

 

giving equal 'weight' to them makes it uncentered (now, since they are mapped to a

 

 

Correction. There would be 7 letters using accidentals where the dots are used.

 

Nope, you are misunderstanding the system - that's the whole thing behind an accidental and an essential

I don't think you are understanding what an 'accidental' is

 

 

-----

I'm a little surprised that my mentioning of the 12 BBB doesn't clue you in to the fact that I'm talking about the half-step equal tempered scale. It just goes to show that Socrates was right all along when he talks about the "experts".

 

I understand, but I think you are missing the point..like (half-step equal Temp) 1/2 steps don't really imply 12 tones either

 

See kepp trying to distinguish 12 tone systems with

"I'm talking about the Tempered scale"

Then later

"The equal Tempered Scale"

 

when what you are trying to say is a 12-tone scale.

 

See, it's the definition of 12 tones, not the tempering...you really aren't getting what tempering is.

 

 

Correction. Diatonic construction uses 7 of the 12 BBB. (try not overintellectualizing and you'll see this)

 

Nope - diatonic construction uses 7(8) tones (actually built on 4BBB). The construction predates chromaticism and it's confied to a 12-tone system

 

Issacoff (you know, the Equal Temperament hard-ass) actually shows only 4 BBB

 

 

Even with your ability to overintellectualize you still can't think outside of the tones of your CNC indoctrination? (I undertsand)

 

Well, definition and noation of tonal system is the subject at hand. I'm OK with N-tone systems, you don't seem to be though

you are always the one with "I'm only interested in guitar and piano", "I'm not interested in improving my musicianship", etc

 

Are you sure you're interested in music?

 

 

 

 

Does that have anything to do with naming the 12 BBB or is it just more of your overintellectualizing?

 

Since you can't seem to fathom the 12 BBB in the first place, I'll assume it's just more overintellectualizing. (and put you back on my ignore list)

 

It has to do with your outlook

I content that you are overintellectualizing as you have THOUGHT about it, but haven't really had enough time to fully subject the

system to the day to day. Remember how you were sure it was a better system before you had actually 'developed' it?

THAT'S overintellectualizing...thought, not practice.

 

I'm not saying don't think about it...think about it honestly, check it out with application, and just maybe there is stuff to leverage (like OZ)

 

 

but, of course, I'm on your ignore list so you won't be seeing this