Singingax deletes another thread?

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax Is a BBB 4 half-steps up from another BBB a major 3rd (or a diminished 4th) of the original BBB? Is it the 5th of the original BBB? is it the minor 7th (or an augmented 6th) of the original BBB? Depends on what context and function the original BBB is being used in. But it will always be 4 half-steps up from the original BBB.

That's why it's so clever to have more than one name, and let the relationship to the other tones be more important than the note in itself, right? Oh, you don't think so? As a matter of fact, I do.

This is why I call the debate lame. Tell me you still think it's completely valid...!

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax You mean like with the 6th and the 13th having the same name? How does that "indicate function"? What's "getting old" is your refusal to except what a SOTFG shows only so well. .

 

 

Hey, it doesn't show me the same it shows you, so why would I accept it?

 

And seriously you think this debate isn't dead-locked, or getting old?

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax 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)

 

 

"Admitted"? It's for everyone to see. Only you seem to have a problem with it. Because when playing most music, you don't play chairs, as all you would probably need is 7 tones and their possible alterations. So you simply change one chair with another.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax No. Why do you ask. (that's a rhetorical question) Just because I would rather name the 12 BBB doesn't mean I don't use them as tones.

 

 

I just thought that since you argued against our tone naming system you might be playing something atonal music.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax Sorry, according to your side they don't share names. A G and a G# are two different names. And why have them "share names" when they're two different BBB's? (and tones too!)

 

 

It seems you have failed to read every word I've said so far. I've stated more than once that I see them as "variations of the same name", which reflects the variations of the same tonal interval a third.

 

But whatever...

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax Ah, you're doing more shucking and jiving than that lawyer who got shot at recently and hid behind the tree. (I understand) That pretty much throws your "tells you the tone" argument out the window since it only applies to the keynote, and even then you have one name for the 6th and the 13th, and for the 2nd and the 9th, and for the 4th and the 11th which one name can't "tell" you both it's functions.

 

 

I'm shucking and diving by saying that the true strength of the CNC isn't found on a Sabine tuner or whatever it was? (You understand)

 

Again, it's clever done. Chord-wise when you see a 13, you already know the 7th, 9th and 11th is present, or at least some of them. If you see the 6, it's simply an add-on to your basic chord. Still the tones in themselves sound alike. Again there's nothing to argue, since it makes perfectly sense to me, and it doesn't to you.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax You also probably don't want to see the many inconsistancies of the CNC that your indoctrination into it stops you from seeing.

 

 

Ok, this is getting old...

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax I don't know anyhthing about the notation system? The "G in E minor is telling you everything you need to know"? Oh, please tell me, what exactly is the G in E minor telling you? Or the B in E minor? How is it "telling you everything you need to know"? Is that some magical thing that happens when you're indoctrinated into the CNC? Are you sure it isn't the half-step relationships and the context of the G and the B within E minor that's what's really "telling you everything you need to Know"? How about a D or an F or an A in C major? Does the D "tell" you it's a 2nd or a 9th? Does the F "tell" you it's a 4th or an 11th? Does the A "tell" you it's a 6th or a 13th?

 

 

Fair enough, I really can't argue against that. All I can say is, it makes sense to me, and since I know the b3 of Em is G, the letter tells me it. But that's just because I'm indoctrinated so no need to discuss it.

[qwerty]

Apologies for replying,


If you call the major 3rd of D a "Gb", then you'd be wrong.

For an given note, there is only one name for each interval.

[skatom]

Originally posted by Singingax How about a D or an F or an A in C major? Does the D "tell" you it's a 2nd or a 9th? Does the F "tell" you it's a 4th or an 11th? Does the A "tell" you it's a 6th or a 13th?

Yes it does. Once again, you misunderstand *why* there is a 13th as well as a 6th, 11th and 4th, etc. For all intensive purposes, an A above C is a 6th and a 13th, it makes no difference whatsoever in that context, the designations are completely interchangeable. In this case, there is no musical reason why you would call it a 13th, so A above C should only be called the 6th (unless you are pedantic about what octave it sits in...still, I think it's a 6th).

OTOH, as explained before, C13 is different from C6.

You could call the major 3rd of D an F#, Gb, an SOB or late for dinner, it's still gonna always be the same BBB every-damn-time.

It may have the same pitch, but, (ad nauseummmmm...) a different musical context. Gb and F# are NOT interchangeable, just because they share a half-step relation to D . Tonal music is not about half-step relationships, it is about tonal relationships - around the major scale.

Hence, key-centeredness and "7 BBBs."

I know that this has been said before, but my pocket is full of 2c coins, and i feel the need to hurl them in frustration...

tom.

[skatom]

Originally posted by Singingax If you want to reply to something, how about explaining how and why the CNC yields 17 major scales, and where the extra 5 come from.

In practical use, and hence accepted theoretical convention, it only yields 12. The extra 5 are for use in very special circumstances, and are more conceptual than practical, as as I remember, were only brought up to make a point to you.

The accepted 12 are the ones shown by the 'circle of fifths' diagram.

- tommy

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax You could call the major 3rd of D an F#, Gb, an SOB or late for dinner, it's still gonna always be the same BBB every-damn-time.

 

um, not if it's a third

 

See, that's the thing you aren't getting

is the name describes funtion.

 

TAB also has >1 designation for the same note.

 

Though TAB tends to take control AWAY from the musican

[MorePaul]

If you want to reply to something, how about explaining how and why the CNC yields 17 major scales, and where the extra 5 come from.

 

Gee 17, where else did we talk about that? Remeberthe Stravinsky et al sutff we were talking about (20th century modern stuff)...and those guys generally played.....(Gasp!) piano

 

I think the problem is you have been indoctrinated into thinking in terms of 12 distinct executional units. Which isn't the case in diatonic music - you need to think in more basic terms

Isacoff applied the term BBB to the 4 concordances...that is more basic to music that the 12 pitch classes.

 

 

I realize you haven't been exposed to these concepts before, but you should really check them out man

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


Only when seen from the perspective of the CNC.


Of course, um thaat's what were talking about here. It's a litle tautological


The major third of D is the BBB that's 4 half-steps up from it no matter what your noatational system may happen to call it.


nope

You're just thinking backwards. That's exactly why you aren't understanding the system


And, as I pointed out earlier, the 2nd/9th, 4th/11th, 6th/13th intervals don't jive with your claim of "there is only one name for each interval".


acutally is does, it's your backwards thinking.

There's one name for the interval, there's more than one interval per name due to register, but notice that they are the same pitch class...that's the basic definition of "tone" (you know like 12-tone music, pentaTONIC, etc)

Of course, OZ does this too

just as you want to apply OZ or other systems to, say, Nashville notation

you can get a full description in staff notation or you can use a figured bass (as you seem to think in chord charts)or even designating the octave (traditional diatonic naming has octave designations too ya know...or maybe you don't)

Writing a fugue in Nashville Notation, however, ain't gonna happen.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax The reason I point out that a 6th and a 13th (or the 2nd/9th and 4th/11th) are the same name in the CNC is to show that the names don't change with the tones, unlike what you inductees keep claiming.

 

 

I haven't once stated that, sorry. I've said that the context is what makes the name of the tone make sense (clumsy sentence, but anyway).

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax I agree, your ignoring the inconsistancies in the CNC is getting old. You're definitely dead-locked into your indoctrinated view, that's for sure.

Yes, you got that right! And I'm glad.

Originally posted by Singingax Still lacking a good counter-argument? (I understand)

As I said several times, I don't see anything to debate, as we're not talking about the same things.

My analogy could have been a good counter argument, by the way. The fact that you see music differently than I doesn't change that.

Originally posted by Singingax Oh, like the 2nd and 9th "variations"? Or the 4th and 11th "variations"? or the 6th and 13th "variations"?

Oh, you got that all wrong! They aren't variations, they are sound-wise the exact same interval. It's the presence of other tones that change the function, not the tone in itself.

Originally posted by Singingax That's for sure.

You said the CNC was key specific, now you think I'm "shucking and diving" by agreeing with that?

Originally posted by Singingax Again, that's from the keynote. That's why I don't like the CNC. The major third of D is 4 half-steps up from the D, but, depending on what scale it's being used in and if it's the keynote of that scale, it won't have the same name. It's still the same 4 half-steps up from D, it's still the same BBB, it's still a major third of D, it's still located in the same place on the fretboard, but it's not the same name.

I see your reasoning, and it does make sense to some extent. I for one like the idea of keys and name changing since it (to me) reflects the change of mood that is likely to happen with a key change.

Originally posted by Singingax You're right there! (about your shucking and jiving getting old)

I'm just saying that you calling us indoctrinated isn't really a valid argument anymore - considering the fact that I learned the system without formal training, and not until 3 or 4 years of playing...

Originally posted by Singingax In that respect, arguing about tones and how the CNC might or might not name them, is a waste of time.

That was my point. Seems we can agree a bit after all.

Originally posted by Singingax If you want to reply to something, how about explaining how and why the CNC yields 17 major scales, and where the extra 5 come from.

It's because we only have 7 names for 12 pitches, thus playing musical chairs only to make up for this. Happy?

[qwerty]

> And, as I pointed out earlier, the 2nd/9th, 4th/11th, 6th/13th intervals don't jive with

You are misunderstanding what I said. I did not say that for any given note name, there is only one interval (which is what you are pointing at). I said that for any given note, there is only one name for each interval. That is why your "major 3rd of D can be Gb" example was erroneous, and shows that you still don't understand how standard notation actually works.

I certainly don't mind that you're criticizing standard notation. You're free to do so. But you ought to criticize from a position of knowing how it actually works, and not from a position of misconceptions and misunderstandings.

[qwerty]

> Therefore, since the F# and the Gb are both 4 half-steps up

I apologize. I replied before I read all of your responses. Yes, you're just pointing out the fact that equal temperement has created a situation where those two names occupy the same pitch. But, yes, again, standard naming says that only F# is the major 3rd of D *Because* standard note names are used in *More* than only equal-tempered tunings. The use of the system applies across all western tunings.

If you want, and you have, you can just focus on the requirements of equal tempered tuning. From there, the issue becomes, do we change notation, or do we change theory? The answer for the vast majority has become to not reform the standard notation system, because it presents no appreciable practical issues, and it allows us to maintain theory as it stands, maintain compatibility, maintain a single form of communication, maintain portability between instruments *and* tunings.

You've chosen that you'd rather change notation, and not look at the larger requirements imposed on music notation. That's up to you, but in another thread you wondered why more people haven't followed suit....


This was already shown to generate contradictions in rare circumstances. In those circumstances, music theory *indeed* goes by the number of letters, and not by the number of half steps. If you want to count by number of half steps, then that represents a change of music theory.

[skatom]

Originally posted by qwerty This was already shown to generate contradictions in rare circumstances. In those circumstances, music theory *indeed* goes by the number of letters, and not by the number of half steps. If you want to count by number of half steps, then that represents a change of music theory.

 

 

right on!

 

Ax, read what I said about the "chord of the augmented sixth" in a discussion with Poparad in a recent thread for more of my thoughts on the "pitches sharing names" thing. I think the thread title was something like "non-diatonic chord progressions."

[D8rkn3ss]

Standard music notation and theory are pretty damn efficient at conveying what needs to be conveyed. Thats why it dominates.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


A tone is a product of function!


Other way round axe

I think you are confusing pitch class and scale degree



And I like the idea of pointing out that the names changes have more to do with using 7 designations than "naming tones".


It's good you like the idea, it's just not really correct



Did you ever question why there are 17 major scales using that system?


Sure did, years ago I was like you. It lead me through much the same search. Later I came to understand what the music was telling me

You are misunderstanding what is being conveyed and how to use it.

Hopefully your search will help you understand in coming years


Did you ever question why some names stay the same while other didn't?


That I didn't because they DO change (double sharp, double flat....remember "natural" can be an accidental)


Did you ever question why it looks like it does on a tuner or SOTGF?


Sure!,but the answer was immediately apparent and I see no conflict.
Now teeeny tiny tuners like the Jr sabine line use dots, which sure makes it easier to read from a distance (hey! they are using a diatonic noation there -- that's one of the great things about a diatonic notation)
'course on the big boy tuners you get better displays (see my above post)



So, have you ever considered using 12 names (distinct designations) for the 12 BBB?

Sure have, years ago!
It works well in some situations, esp where diatonic functions don't really exist. However, it tends not to expose as much of the musical naunce for diatonic pieces and can be more dificult to read, communicate and analyze in those situations.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


Yup. Thanks to the unfixed pitches that natural scaled instruments use they did the best they could by trying to come up with a tone naming system. (since the pitches weren't fixed)



I disagree, the definition work was done on fixed pitch instruments..you know started with pythagoras using monochords.

Lyres were in typical use at the time as some bell organs (and a few pipe ones too).
Fully bellowed pipe organs were in use pre-800AD
in the 1100s, organum style was in use and many church officials saw this as display of hubris



That, in and of itself, isn't a bad thing but basing it on one major scale, (like the piano is built) IMO, is a bad thing.


While some of it undoubtedly has to do with centering an instruemtn to its temperament, it's good to note that
our ears develope a "tonal center" (remember the Sci Am citation?) and even affects pitch discretion. This tends to be culturallly based, which may explian the "drift" from 415 to modern 440 over the years



I disagree. But since you believe theory is dependant on the CNC, I can see why you defend it so intensely, though I think it's just another attempt at defending the CNC.
(I understand)


The OZ system (which I only borrow the 12 names from)

um, that's pretty much the meat of OZ..more "using OZ" than "merely borrowing"
Check out the other systems I mentioned a few months ago and score the sourcebook for more background info

You haven't provided alternatives..


can "maintain compatibilty, maintain a single form of communication, maintain portabilty between instruments *and*
tunings.


While I am comfortable with OZ, I do have some disagreeement with the above statement.

I don't think a couple of months experience and no field use with other musicians is an authoritative position on this point..now THAT would be overintellectualizing


Ah, more false clairvoyance (I've chosen and I'd rather) and bringing up something I've said, in another thread and out of context. (I understand)


Actually, these statements stand fine out of context...could be a good reason to delte threads, huh..try to mask the context so as not to be held to your statements


The fact is I don't want the notation to change, depending on what tone a BBB is functioning as. Especially since it doesn't do it consistantly in the CNC.


you are misunderstanding what the BBB is. Really take a look at the 4BBBs, se how you can construct 7/8 diatonic classes and 5 OR MORE secondary pitch classes

And a lot of people just go with one name for the 5 BBB to be named later. In that sense, they are following suit.



Oh really? I've already spanked riffdaddy on the letter = a tone BS. Do I have to do it again?


I see no evidence of that, but I DO see that
-you misunderstand the modulo nature of pitch classes
-misunderstand "tone" in terms of (unordered) "pitch class" and (ordered) "scalar degree"


Here's a clue. The Nashville system shows any and all theory, and it does it without referring to letters. In fact, it
doesn't even refer to any specific pitch!

I disagree that the system exposes any and all theory.
But more importantly, you are comparing a reading notation system to simply designating pitch class...which is an apples/oranges comparision. It' would be much more appropriate to compare the nashville system to full staff notation (in which you can note your relative functional analysis as well as absolute). Remember solfege is how you communicate relative values
But I don't find the Nashville system fully actuallized...It can't fully score

try analyzing, say a canon (those are well defined and make a good example) in Nashville

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


Traditionalism is self-reinforcing. That's why it "dominates".

The Nashville system "is pretty damn efficient at conveying what needs to
be conveyed". That's why it dominates
with the session players in Nashville!


I think it's important to point out that
1) The Nashville system isn't fully actualized, it's main use is "chord and lead-sheet" type playing situations and cant handle full musical description
(note, traditional notation also has this ability, bass figures are a good example)

2) transposition can be noted in staff music

3) Nashville numbering is an adaptive system and was developed as a shorthand..shorthand is great "CNC" has it too, but it has greater facility to back it up


Care to show me how the CNC handles the theory of 8+ note scales?

Sure! with accidentals! (yup, those can be natural). See the fact that they are accidentals does some great things including (but not limited to) showing a player that the note lies outside of the diatonic structure (and is a "point of interest" in terms of execution and musicality) allows for a >12 tone (pitch class axe, pitch class approach)...yup even (or more accurately especially) on piano

[D8rkn3ss]

Thanks MorePaul, you took the words right out my mouth.

[qwerty]

> Ah, more false clairvoyance (I've chosen and I'd rather)

Um, are you not suggesting we should change notation all this time? Are you suggesting that you'd rather not use 12 names?


Ah, I see; you misunderstood my post. What I'm saying is you'd rather change notation to reflect that a guitar uses ~essentially~ 12 pitches, and not 17. Do you agree with my interpretation of your position, or is it more "false clairvoyance." If my interpretation of your position is roughly correct, then I'd appreciate an apology similar to the likes of the unprompted apologies I have offered to you when I believe I misunderstood your position.


Ax, please re-read my statement: When you use the standard naming system, for any given note there is only one name per interval (major 3rd, diminished 4th are two separate "intervals"-- regardless that in an equal tempered tuning, they've been made to occupy the same pitch). What that means is: in the standard naming system, it is incorrect to name the major 3rd of D "Gb." Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the system's suitability, that is how that system works. I have made no argument about a letter "equalling" a tone.


Are you sure that OZ works outside of equal tempered tunings? How about notating for instruments that, for example, use 4 discreet pitches for notes like F, F#, Gb and G? Doesnt OZ only have 3 letters to cover the range from F to G?


Why cant you use OZ to show any and all theory? Is OZ unable to notate a difference between, say, a major 3rd and a diminished 4th? Or are you only talking about equal tempered scales where these occupy the same pitch? If you are, then OZ is not portable across western tunings.

Please keep using OZ if it works for you; but please also understand how other systems actually work. You believe I'm "intensely" defending a system. I'm not. I'm intensely explaining. There's a difference.

[skatom]

Originally posted by qwerty You believe I'm "intensely" defending a system. I'm not. I'm intensely explaining. There's a difference.

 

 

uh-huh!

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax Oh really? I've already spanked riffdaddy on the letter = a tone BS. Do I have to do it again? Here's a clue. The Nashville system shows any and all theory, and it does it without referring to letters. In fact, it doesn't even refer to any specific pitch!

 

 

You didn't spank me. In the first debate, you told me I was wrong and asked me to find a single theory book that supported my theory. When I quoted two well-known theory books, you retorted by saying that the authors were wrong (never mind that the authors are professors from University of North Texas, Eastman Conservatory, and University of Arizona). After making such an ignorant statement, you tried to back it up for two days. When you couldn't back it up, you tucked tail and bolted. You didn't post on the forum for two weeks. You did, however, run off to the keyboard forum and asked them (in a rather civil manner, oddly enough) which one of us was right. They ignored you.

 

In the second debate, you changed the subject twice and actually caught a few people making incorrect statements. When I went to the trouble of pointing out that you had indeed made a valid argument against some of the statements posted by others, you accused me of baiting you (exactly what I was baiting you into is still unclear--I was simply attempting to engage in a rational discussion). Less than a day later, you deleted the thread. That action caused me to start this thread.

 

Thus, until you have actually beaten me in any aspect of this discussion, you should revise your vocabulary. How about this instead? "I've already debated and lost to riffdaddy on the letter = a tone BS. Do I have to do it again?"

 

 

(Singingax will invariably label this post as humor, hyperbole, and/or off-topic. He will then call me indoctrinated, a diatonic, a diatologist, or a sophist. He may even accuse me of having a small penis.)

[qwerty]

> I'm suggesting the 12 BBB should have 12 distinct designations.

Yes, you'd "rather" use 12 names. If you wish, you can be mean-spirited and not offer an apology like I had done to you in good faith.


You're misunderstanding the rule. Pointing to a 2nd and 9th having the same letter name is not disobeying the rule. The point I'm explaining about standard note names is not that there is one interval per letter, but one letter for any interval for any given note. For example, for any given note, an interval of a 2nd is correctly called by only one name. The "2nd" of Bb is only correctly called C. At the very least, I would be incorrect to suggest that the 2nd of Bb could be called Dbb, or B# and at worst I would be mischaracterizing the system. At the hierarchical level this rule functions at, actual pitch is still irrelevant.

MorePaul, you mentioned previously that Nashville notation might not actually be able to communicate all theory. I wouldn't have realized that. Can you give me an example?

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax A tone is a product of function! And you're making my argument about a BBB being the exact same interval (but a different tone) so why not use the same designation.

 

 

Ok, if you don't see the difference between 3rds and b3rds sharing variations of the same name, and 6ths/13ths sharing the exact same name, I won't argue with you anymore. Then our disagreement is simply too deep.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax Did you ever question why some names stay the same while other didn't?

 

 

Actually, yes. I found that 1) it wouldn't bother me if that was the case, and 2) All 12 notes do change. It may not look like it when you lay out those major scales, but music is more than playing scales up and down.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax And, as I've pointed out before, the 2nd/9th, 4th/11th, 6th/13th have to disobey this rule because the CNC only has 7 distinct designations. In those cases a letter = two tones. Then there's the fact that this all only applies to the keynote.

 

 

"To the keynote"? Please elaborate, I don't quite follow...?