Singingax deletes another thread?

[MorePaul]

hey axe...remember you did say...


(this will
be my last post of yours that I waste time responding to since it's back on the list for you)


Ignore away

[qwerty]

> I prefer to use 12 designations for the 12 BBB FOR A REASON! (it's better)

Until you actually try to use it to communicate theory, if in that theory you want to distinguish between, for example, whether something is a minor 3rd or aug 2nd, or between augmented 4th or diminished 5th, etc.

The problem is that theory just doesn't start or end with 12 "BBB." Even Nashville acknowledges that. And, yep Nashville can communicate all the theoretical intervals, but you cannot go from Nashville to OZ, then back to Nashville again and know you got the intervals right-- it's an imperfect transfer; there's no 1:1 correlation. You *can* however, go from Nashville to Standard, then from Standard back to Nashville and you will maintain all the information correctly (if you know how to use Standard notation correctly, which I don't think you do).

Regardless, that's fine if you want to learn different notations for different scales, but unfortunately "portability" and communication suffers when you do. Anyways, more power to you.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax The 12 BBB of the half-step equal tempered scale are absolute! I'm "viewing" the 12 BBB. (something that you seem to have the inability to conceive)

 

 

As Qwerty mentions...The musical function function ISN'T absolute however, that's what those Letters are showing...that's why you are misunderstanding the system.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


Hey, I'm just going by what riffdaddy said. "The third letter is what makes it a third".

Since there's only seven letters used in the CNC, the 9th, 11th and 13th can't be tones.


Please reread my previous post again, I think you just skimmed it.
His use of "tone" is intervallic, while we are talking Tone in a Pitch Class sense



ME: " And, despite your impressive ability to over- intellectualize, you still can't envision the 12 BBB. (or don't want to)


Sure I can, That's the operating premise behind some of the chromatic notational systems.
What YOU are misunderstanding is a diatonically based system...you can't seem to envision this


I'd say that's untrue...I am comfortable with 12-tone notational systems. Remember who had to show you about OZ?


It's great that you are comfortable with 12-tone notational systems. Too bad I'm talking about the 12 BBB and not tones.


Actually you are, Tones are Pitch classes....you are looking at 12 pitch classes (ie your BBB).

I believe you are misunderstanding the use of the word "tone" (as in 12-tone music) -- so I'll put pitch class in parens to help you distinguish


And you did inform me about the OZ system, which at least has 12 designation, but it's just a stop gap til I find a better way to designate the 12 BBB. (I'm open to suggestions)


I already gave you a bunch of suggestions and some resources to check out..but you are going to have to get off the web to do a lot of it (Gasp!)



Really? Well get a hold of the Sabine tuner company and tell them that the 5 dots they're using are simply a misuse of the system.


Please reread our previous posts on the tuner topic...>1 person described the WHYs behind this


The only "context" I want to use a notation system in is for the 12 BBB. (like they have on a tuner!)


That's why you aren't understanding traditional diatonic naming...because you aren't understanding HOW it is to be used


You're right. I prefer to use 12 designations for the 12 BBB FOR A REASON! (it's better)

But you siad it was irrefutable evidence...we refuted it.

You think it's better
1) because you are new to it
2) haven't fully used it (As you say, you are using OZ as a stop-gap...so your system isn't fully actualized)
3) you only understand one of the systems you are comparing

[MorePaul]

Why would I try to understand a system that doesn't use 12 designations for the 12 BBB?

 

I "bash it" because of that fact.

 

Again, diatonic naming isn't really trying to designate 12 BBB - once you understand that it'll become more clear.

 

As you move forward and learn how these 12 pitch classes came to be, you'll start to understand why the system developed as it did...it's limitations AND its strengths.

 

Now I realize you are "only interested in" these 12BBB (pitch classes), which is why you can't really relate to other systems and why I initially suggested the resources I sent to you.

 

It has, however, led you to misunderstand the nature of diatonic naming.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


And you did inform me about the OZ system, which at least has 12 designation, but it's just a stop gap til I find a better way to designate the 12 BBB. (I'm open to suggestions)


My point being that you keep saying I'm blind and indoctrinated, which is incorrect as I'm comfortable with 12 tone (as in pitch class Axe...that's the concept behind your BBBs) chromatic type schemes. You, however, can't see,m to wrap your head around other systems.

I gave you some suggestions earlier, but I don't think spoon-feeding you anymore is a good idea as you don't seem to be willing to do the work to actually understand the systems.


Nothings more fundamental then the 12 BBB. (if you could only fathom them, you'd know)

You are kidding me, after all this time, you haven;t even bothered to take a look at how any why the musical relationships exist.
Well, that does explain why you completely misunderstand so much...I don't think you really understand where tempering comes from, how consonance/dissonance fit together, etc

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax Why would I try to understand a system that doesn't use 12 designations for the 12 BBB? I "bash it" because of that fact. It was sort of fun when you didn't realize the above and thought I was wrong. Now that you've been shown that the CNC sucks when it comes to naming the 12 BBB, it's "lame" and is not "fun anymore". (I understand)

The problem all along has been that I obviously have misunderstood you all the time. I thought you wanted a new written system, you didn't, I tried to show you the consistancy of the CNC, you didn't care at all - even acted like a jerk when I sincerely tried to explain to you how "unnatural" notes are "natural"/essentials in some keys.

And we don't even agree on the 12 BBB-thing. Western music is based around 7 notes at a time. Its based on functionality, harmony and melody. This is where the CNC shines, it shines when it comes to the basic use of those 12 BBB.

Since our arguments for 7 names are pretty much the same arguments that you have for 12 names, it has been a pretty lame debate, don't you think?

Originally posted by Singingax Yup. The two pieces of evidence that show only too well your systems flaws when it comes to naming the 12 BBB.

You're right, that is the original argument, the whole naming thing. *goes 3 months back in time...omits replying to pointless debate...*

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax You have misunderstood me. And I think it may be intentional.

 

 

It wasn't - you talked about the way the CNC names BBB (which are used to create tones), we tried to explain to you the basic logic of why it is so. That you apparently have no interest in tonal music was something I did not grasp until much later.

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax I'm talking (or have been trying to talk) about the best way to name the 12 BBB. Unnatural/natural/essentials notes don't have anything to do with it.

 

 

Yes they do - they are a part of the naming convention we think is better. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them invalid.

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax Your perception of me as "acting like a jerk" is just that, your perception .

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax Yes, only 7 of the 12 BBB are used at one time in most of Western music. I don't see that as a reason to only use 7 distinct designations.

 

 

Ok, whatever.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax Lame is the CNC when shown on a SOTGF or a tuner. The arguments aren't the same. The CNC is a tone naming system, naming the 12 BBB isn't.

 

 

You see the multiple names as a disadvantage, I see them as an advantage. What's to discuss? And again, the CNC does name the 12 BBB - in fact, they all have multiple names.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax Since your system (the system you use) is the one that comes up short, when it comes to naming the 12 BBB, I can see why you would consider it a "pointless debate". It's "pointless" to argue against how the SOTGF shows the inadequacies of the CNC. (when it comes to naming the 12 BBB)

 

 

Our arguments have been dealing with the actual performing of music, the practical use of the system when playing music, your main argument is the above. It's up to the individual to judge which argument carries the greater weight.

 

And your saying that the naming system comes short when naming the 12 BBB is just your perception.

 

My statement about pointless debate is as much stated against myself as everyone else - no need to be all defensive like that.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax Show me how using "Standard notation correctly" would alter the fact that it looks like gobbleydgook on a SOTGF or lacks a name for 5 BBB on a tuner.

You wouldn't look at it the same way once you understand the system behind.

You'd be indoctrinated.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


The context is what you look at to "distinguish" any BBB's function.


That's the point around which the systems reflect.

With traditional diatonic naming, the information is encoded directly in the name (aids in analysis and communication...you are alkin in music function)
It makes sight reading, analysis, etc easier as you can talk about a note's function directly.

In some modern 20th (21st) century music (highly chromatic music, music that doesn't actully HAVE diatonic function) the system can become cumbersome...like driving a racecar on a potholed street.

For some modern music, however, it helps in that it allows the use of extended functions (like the Stravinsky I keep mentioning, I figure he's pretty famous, so he's a good one to stick to).




Theory is theory and the 12 BBB are the 12 BBB.


Um, then they'd call it "theorem"

That's simply not true. Most of the world doesn't even use a 12 tone (that's pitch class axe - remember pitch class theory). Even modern western music can use other-than 12 tone (pitch class axe).


As Dick pointed out, in Western music, it's more like 7BBB

That may be a big problem you are facing, you are seeing a 12 tone (pitch class axe - pitch class)


You don't go from Nashville to the 12 BBB, you apply Nashville to the 12 BBB.

The Nashville system deals with tones in a generic way. Standard deals with tones too. (but not in a generic way)


(Note : there you are using tones in the sense of relative intervals, as opposed to pitch class. I think you are confusing my use of "tone"..I'm using tone in it's fundamental sense.
I think you are misunderstanding the use of the word "tone" because it can dovetail so nicely as "scale degree" or "pitch class". Your use of BBB is closer to pitch class...though, they really aren't the basic elements)

Actually traditional systems allows for relative (as opposed to absolute) distinction as well...for instance you can use soflege, you use Roman Numerals below the staff for harmonic analysis.

It's simply a matter of, as you state, applying the right system.


Show me how using "Standard notation correctly" would alter the fact that
it looks like gobbleydgook on a SOTGF


Actually someone already did.. I found it to look cleaner and more readable.
Now MISapplying it (using all possible designation) could lead to confusion, but then again, you'd be misapplying it


or lacks a name for 5 BBB on a tuner.


Please reread out previous posts on that. It actually makes it easier to read from a distance (if you actually printed a name for all, it's harder to read from any distance....because there is no distinction)
when you move up to better tuners you find that they even use a distinct, programmable display for each (the tempering is programmable, you learn to read the strobe beats)



All I want to learn is what BBB's are used in whatever context and function that I apply to them. (using the Nashville system)


That's exactly what we are saying you are misunderstanding about traditional naming. There are elements more Basic than these BBBs (well, Issacoff uses the term for the 4 BBBs...which is a little more accurate)


One thing about CNC that's often over looked is that it's key specific. All that info you seem to think it relays is only applicable to the keynote.


Um, that's sort of the point behind a DIATONIC system. It's designed to be played within a key For highly chromatic music, it CAN get cumbersome .

The point is, that doesn't make it gobbleygook -- it makes it


Looking at the 12 BBB as I suggest allows you to see them as they relate to all the BBB, not just the keynote.

The problem is, as we've mentioned, that these 12BBBs are neither Basic nor absolute.
You are too caught up in the idea that there are 12 atomic elements which are unmoving (Know why I keep bringing up the fact that I showed you OZ? I was once like you...seriously, not a slight, just alread been down that road...years later it clicked why diatonic naming works as it does).

In practice (as in actually using these types of systems), I have found that the isomorphic nature tends to cause a few things to happen.

1 - Density increases for diatonic music. In a traditional diatonic system, you see essentials as "home" and accidentals as more "point of interest"...so you learn to view the topology of the music. With chromatic type designations, each note has an equal weight, so it's harder to see the tension and release inherent in a diatonic construction.
For highly Chromatic music, the chromatic system allows for easier reading

2 - systems showing strictly pitch class membership (as opposed to music function) can lead to mechanistic feel as the musical function isn't directly exposed.

That's one problem I have with TAB, it uses >1 designation for note AND doesn't tell you it's musical function. It commands a single, mechanical approach...one that might not be appropriate (emember the Segovia/Hauser thing I was talking about?)


Axe - at least TRY to do the reading and exercises we discussed some months ago

The thing is, I think everyone here is "more power to YA!" -- you just are misunderstanding the use of Traditional diatonic systems.

(Hint : know one reason why the letters OZ were chosen? -- they coexist with A-G)

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


Oh, they share names. Then the it's a letter therefore it's a tone theory goes out the window. (don't tell riffdaddy or his professors)


I think you are confused about

1) the use of the term "tone"...riffdaddy's use is essentially describing scalar degree. Your (and my)use tends to be more in a pitch class sense. Now, these dovetail nicely in a diatonic system (but not as cleanly perhpas in a chromatic system applied to diatonic music) which is why you are having the confusion.

Of course they share names...same pitch class. Axe, think about it in terms of modulo math.

------------------

on another note -- What was it you were sampling?

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax One thing about CNC that's often over looked is that it's key specific. All that info you seem to think it relays is only applicable to the keynote. Looking at the 12 BBB as I suggest allows you to see them as they relate to all the BBB, not just the keynote.

 

 

That's not true. It's key specific yes, but within that key, the relationship to all the 12 pitches is in fact shown with the CNC.

 

And "all that info" is enough in 99% of all cases, since most Western music is tonal.

[qwerty]

> Show me how using "Standard notation correctly" would alter the fact that

I dont judge its functionality and usefulness by how it cosmetically looks on one particular style of tuner, and whether it pleases arbitrary aesthetic values as a fretboard schematic. I find the schematic diagram easy, functional, and practical. The tuners I've used have always been easy, functional, and practical.

For me, a tool that is easy, functional, and practical is not goobledygook.

Good luck, Ax, I hope you find a system that works best for you.

[skatom]

Originally posted by Singingax Oh, they share names. Then the it's a letter therefore it's a tone theory goes out the window. (don't tell riffdaddy or his professors)

 

 

The 13th note above C is A. The 6th note above C is A. That's the simple way to view it. If you look at it that way, sure the letter=tone concept may not make sense.

 

Let's look at it in practise -

 

C6 = C E G A

 

C13 = C E G Bb (D) (F) A

 

See the difference?

 

That the A is in a different register is irrelevant - tonal function is not affected by octave, which is a good reason why both a 6th and a 13th have the same designation. However, as you consistently fail to realise, more music is being conveyed by the CNC than where to put your fingers.

 

 

I understand.

 

 

That statement irritates me - in my opinion (just opinion), if you really understood, this thread wouldn't exist.

 

- tommy

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax I have no interests in having the name of a BBB change with the function. Especially when it's done to make up for the fact that only 7 of the 12 BBB have a distinct name. (in the CNC)

We've been through that. It's not because of the alleged lack of names, it's to indicate function. This is getting old...

Originally posted by Singingax It's invalid when it comes to naming the 12 BBB. (remember, BBB, not tones)

You play a lot of atonal music?

Originally posted by Singingax Naming the 12 BBB with 12 distinct designations would in no way alter the "actual performing of music".

Maybe not, but that really wasn't my point. All I'm saying is that to me it makes sence to let minor and major thirds (you accept these interval names, right?) share names.

Originally posted by Singingax Oh, please feel free to contact the companies that make tuners and tell them their perceptions are wrong.

They aren't wrong. You're right, the CNC is key specific. Which isn't really a disadvantages since most of our music is also key specific.

Originally posted by Singingax Actually, your statement about the debate being pointless is what's defensive. (and I understand) You can't defend the fact that the CNC doesn't work very well when it comes to naming the 12 BBB (I'd be tempted to say the same about tones as well but I won't) so the debates "lame" and "pointless".

You may have noticed that I really haven't participated in the debate the last couple of weeks - simply because it didn't interest me anymore. It seemed to me like it was dead-locked (which it is, we are still bringing up the same old arguments...), so I commented on that. It was directed at everyone, however you took it as an attack. I'm sorry.

The reason I find the debate lame is the fact that we have been discussing how the CNC names tones (maybe because that is what matters in the music most of us play) which according to you is actually off-topic. So this has more or less been three months or so of serious off-topic arguing. That doesn't make much sense to me.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax That's, "the relationship to all the 12 pitches is in fact shown with the CNC" from the keynote ! (you are aware of this aren't you?)

 

 

Didn't quite get that, sorry. If we're in D major, and I see an E and a B, I would know their relationship. If I see a C# and Gb, I would know their relationship. Or what is you point here?

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax Ah, back to the "99% of all cases" argument. Well, since you lack a good counter-argument, I understand.

 

 

That's actually the first time I've used that argument, I'm pretty sure. You may go back and check.

 

The fun thing (ha, ha) is that - you're right. We do lack a good counter argument for naming all of the 12 BBB, besides from "we want to name tones instead"! There isn't more to it than that! This is what makes the whole debate pointless.

 

You understand a lot, it seems. Do you understand this?

[MorePaul]

I have no interests in having the name of a BBB change with the function.

 

Well, I think that's the big problem here...you simply have no interest.

You aren't going to be able to fully grasp it if you have no interest.

 

 

 

Especially when it's done to make up for the fact that only 7 of the 12 BBB have a distinct name. (in the CNC)

 

once again you are failing to understand that diatonic systems are built on 7(8)/PBB and a number of EBBs which are derived from 4 BBBs

 

It's invalid when it comes to naming the 12 BBB. (remember, BBB, not tones)

 

Axe I believe you are misunderstanding the use of the word "tone" -- "Tone" is primarily a pitch class. As I'm sure you understand, the superset of pitchclasses (ie your Tonal system...you know where you hear 5-tone system 8-tone system 12-tone system 24-tone system)

is NOT ordered.

Now, if you are APPLYING these tones (pitch classes) to a scalar system (as you might apply naming to a notation system like Nashville), you have an ordering and then you can start talking about tone numbers.

 

Now, you can call out specific register in a number of ways (it's seen directly in staff-based notation), a note name can have it's octave defined with numbers (or a modification to the letter such as primes or its case in an older system), or you can even use a figured bass

 

 

Oh, please feel free to contact the companies that make tuners and tell them their perceptions are wrong.

You know I tried, but as I was typing my indignant response to them I realized

 

I looked at display on the 'ole peterson and it said C#3

(Peterson even has the audacity to mention leaving their strobes on for prformance intonation practice - what, like static tuning isn't enough?!?)

 

So I decided to write Sabine (those bastards), but this describtion for their RT-7100 "professional" rack tuner poped up and low and behold it would display F#!!! (must be a malfunction)

 

Korg, ah, Korg wouldn't let me down CRAP -- once again notes designated with a # modifier

 

weh, Boss -- a good little boss foot pedal... WHAT!!!,say it an't so Joe, not A#

 

 

 

That's a nice rationalization for your indoctrination.

 

There's nothing "arbitrary" about the 12 BBB.

 

Actually qwerty was talking about the fact that your aesthetic values are arbitrary.

 

But even so, there is some arbitrartiness in these 12 "BBB" - notice that in perfomance their pitch isn't fixed.

There are a number of temperaments (you are only interested in 12-tone ET...but THAT's what makes it arbitrary...you are using individual discretion, not absolute authority...ie arbitrary)

 

Naming the 12 BBB with 12 distinct designations would in no way alter

the "actual performing of music".

 

I completely disagree. It can affect the performance. That's the point behind my comment about "player pinao" thinking.

 

It can promote a view of mechanical execution as opposed to thinking in musical terms.

So it doesn;t carry with it information about intent and use

 

Axe - remember the Stravinsky thing 17-notes to describe playing 12 keys? why? expression and musicality

 

Now, I realize you have no interest in improving your musicianship, but I think you are cheating yourself by closing your mind

 

 

 

I have the same problem with TAB, it is a system describing mechanical execution and doesn't readily show musical information.

Now, in staff notation, you can call out fingering suggestions (roman numerals above the staff for position, arabic numerals for fingers, pima-c for picking, even thumb damping can be called out) BUT

the musician has direct access to the musical information which helps in a number of ways

-helps organize phrasing

-allows one to drop, add, or substitute with understanding

-allows one to anticipate upcoming events

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by vote4dicktaid


The fun thing (ha, ha) is that - you're right. We do lack a good counter argument for naming all of the 12 BBB, besides from "we want to name tones instead"!

Chromatic notation can be quite effective in its realm.

I know axe isn't interesedt in things like serialism and such, but that's where A lot of the notation work he seems interested in comes from. The OZ system is used a lot for mapping of other phenomenon (chess moves, solids, etc)
So this stuff usually doesn't HAVE diatonic structure
Some of these 20th century musics forbade, by rule, diatonic construction

They can be fairly mechanical musics...that's not a bad thing, I think it was a reaction to or appreciation of our modern times

Where I've found, in practice, they tend not to work as well is with diatonic musics because they tend not to as readily expose the underlying structure.
Things like accidentals, key signatures, etc give "landmarks" to the music off which you can spring into tension or drift into release...yeah, these are the things that you actually wind up reading after a while.

isomorphic systems (like equal naming of 12 BBB) have great uses, but their lack of feature can also require the user to have to IMPOSE character onto them..which can add more overhead (kind of like Keith Code's $10 of concentration deal)


My point is not that chromatic notation isn't useful (I like it for some things quite a bit), but that diatonic notations aren't nonsensical.


but yeah, in actual daily use, they both can give you a headache...because music is a big deal.

[MorePaul]

 

That's one thing I'll give old Terje, he finally admitted that the CNC names the

tones of the C major scale (at least the

first 7) and that's why it ends up doing

what it does. (playing musical chairs with

the names of some of the BBB)

 

 

 

You know, so are our ears -- remember, we covered that about 2 months ago? oh wait you dleted that

 

I don;'t suppose you bothered to actually look at the "cultural tonal center" literature did you?

remember, the Sci Am citaions.

 

 

but, no, that's NOT why it plays "musical" chairs....but most importantly it plays MUSICAL chairs....not all tones (pitch classes axe, pitch classes)

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax Better get out your accidentals if you need to "name a tone" outside it. (and if not, one of it's "named tones" will do)

 

 

You DO realize that sharps, flat, and naturals are only accidentals with relationship to their tonal center...ie just having a# sitting there doesn't make the # and accidental...remember essentials and accidentals?

[MorePaul]

Like naming the 2nd tone which is also the 9th tone? Or the 4th tone which is also the 11th tone? Or the 6th tone which is also the 13th tone? (I understand)

same pitch class, allows inversions

 

Or still calling an A note an A when it's being used as different tones? What's an "A" til it's used in some context?

 

um, sometimes A is named differently

 

Doesn't seem to me like you're (or the CNC) is really "naming tones" to me.

 

That's because you really aren't understanding what a "tone" is and how it fits into a system.

 

The Nashville system is what truly names tones. A b3rd, or a 5th is "naming a tone". The context and function you use the BBB in are what "names tones".

 

Well, you still don't quite understand what a "tone" is, but you;'ll get there (I hope)

 

As you mentioned you want to APPLY your 12BBB to the Nashville system. Now, the same is true for staff notation.

See the Nashville system is basically a form of chart (like a figured bass in staff notation), but it isn't a fully actualized system...you can't do full scoring in it, so you can't, for instance, write a canon in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MorePaul]

The reasons I don't like the way the CNC is set up (being based on the C major scale) is the same reasons I don't like the way a piano is set up with the white keys representing the C major scale. (now that's a squirrel)

 

There are 2 reasons really

 

1) It gives each key it's own "feel" topology

2) They are used to the squirrel -- just like you

 

Of course, there is always the Janko

[arasmith]

Originally posted by Singingax It's been you CNC inductees who've kept coming back (or dragging the argument into) a discussion about how the CNC names tones. All in a vain attempt to defend how the CNC looks when shown on a SOTGF or a tuner. (which are prime examples of the 12 BBB and the failure of the CNC to name them) ... The reasons I don't like the way the CNC is set up (being based on the C major scale) is the same reasons I don't like the way a piano is set up with the white keys representing the C major scale. (now that's a squirrel)

 

 

Would you prefer not to have black keys? Great idea! That would make playing really easy! (not) If that is not your suggestion, then I guess I don't understand your point. But let's see if I understand the larger picture here...

 

Ax: Doesn't like CNC, thinks it's illogical, those who like it are (fill in the adjective)

 

Others: Are fine with CNC, see no reason to change, and yet continue to feed this non-debate.

 

The arguments for retaining the current notational system, even with its bumps and bruises, have been noted again and again. I cannot help that you don't like them. I cannot help that you see no value in communicating with other musicians. I cannot help that you see no value in written music. I cannot help that you blindly eschew tradition. It all leads me to think that you enjoy arguing more than you enjoy music. Please use whatever system you find most helpful.

 

Ax, your mind and ears are closed. Perhaps your mouth should follow suit.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax It's been you CNC inductees who've kept coming back (or dragging the argument into) a discussion about how the CNC names tones. All in a vain attempt to defend how the CNC looks when shown on a SOTGF or a tuner. (which are prime examples of the 12 BBB and the failure of the CNC to name them)

 

 

Why won't you read what I'm saying? That is my point exactly!!! We have indeed been discussing tones, and I promise you, there hadn't been a debate at all, if we had just figured out from the beginning that you wasn't interested in discsussing tones and tonal, functional music. I just couldn't grasp it, sorry.

 

 

I'll come back to the rest of your post tomorrow...

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax The Nashville system is what truly names tones. A b3rd, or a 5th is "naming a tone". The context and function you use the BBB in are what "names tones".

 

 

Ok, fine. This is where you show you don't really know anyhting about the notation system. We've agreed that the CNC is key specific, right? So, a G in E minor tells you everything you need to know, as would a B in E minor.

 

If you don't want to use or understand the system, don't make arguments that are based on that system. It makes you look dumb.