Singingax deletes another thread?

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by qwerty 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?

 

 

Weel Nashville system is, essentially, a shorthand...nothing wrong with shorthand, most communication systems build up shorthand.

 

It's primarliy deisgned as a "charting" language where one is showing blocks of monolithic chords and lead sheets containing a melody.

 

Concepts that need more structure voice leading, counterpoint, etc aren't shown. Basically you don't fully score in the system.

 

That's why I bring up things like canon/fugue...the voices need to be read as independant melodies WHILE keeping tracl of harmonic implications. This is is most important if a single instrumentalist is playing the piece solos.

 

Like Jazz Charts, Bass figures, etc thater is most definitely a place for it and much popular music is based on them, but it has a wall....

Kind of like the Scott Henderson 'Piano for Busy people' type system (He calls it 'piano in a flash' or something) works off left-hand chords/right hand melodies --or the guitar songbooks we are all familiar with where you have chord melody.

The Henderson method specifically calls out "Not for classical piano", it hits its horizon there.

 

It is somewhat related to another thread where we were talking about theory and how many guitarists (and other istruments too) focus on theory as "here are the chords, how am I going to solo over them"

[MorePaul]

I'm still gonna look into the CMN-ist Bicolor system and, if the "you can work with Winston Smith" is a sincere suggestion, I'll check that out.

 

Winston Smith is the protagonist in 1984...worked in the "Ministry of Truth" destroying (deleting) documents.

 

It was a reference to yourr deletion of previous threads, not to notation systems

 

Sorry, being in your 30s, I thought that's one you'd have read..

 

 

There are lot's of people to work with and, at first glance, you seemed open minded...which is why I tried to help you on your way.

But I believe you are too resistant to open-minded exploration so that I doubt anyone could help you.

I hope that changes for you in the future

 

[qwerty]

> Apologies for what?

Where I believe I've misunderstood you and replied with possibly inappropriate tone, I have offered unprompted apologies in good faith. That you have misunderstood some of my points is certainly no problem, but the use of constant condescending tone in those replies rooted in misunderstanding pushes the boundaries of civility.


That has been very much part of the debate all along. So far, I haven't seen real advantages relating to practical issues of music. That 12 names ensures "only" 12 keys is not a practical issue since: 1. with different tunings, it is theoretically possible to have more than 12 keys. 2. The more pedantic keys are generally ignored anyway. Changing notation to ensure that the equal tempered scale can only have 12 keys is, in my opinion, as practical an issue as worrying about the aerodynamic coefficient of my shoes.

One of my main questions is: How much advantage do you get from a notation system that cannot convey differences between certain intervals (examples: major 3rd vs diminished 4th; perfect 5th vs diminished 6th, augmented 5th vs minor 6th)? I currently don't see an advantage in replacing standard note names with a 12-name system, if the 12 names can't efficiently do much more than map frets like Tab.

How well does a 12-name system work with tunings that use different pitches for sharp, flat, and natural notes. For example, F, F#, Gb, and G can exist as 4 different pitches in a tuning. Is a 12-name system able to notate those 4 notes when it only allocates 3 letters to cover the span from F to G? If the answer is that a 12-name system is for equal tempered tunings only, then the claim that it is portable across western instruments and tunings isn't supportable.

A non-portable system brings up the issue of efficiency of learning. The advantage better be extremely large to have to learn different systems, each with different ways of determining intervals and dealing with theory. To me, there's a definite advantage to learning a single system which can be applied across all western instruments and tunings.

As for the "advantage" of having never-changing names regardless of context, you previously mentioned that you prefer to use context to determine function. I'm not sure I see an advantage in removing context from names, when you use context to determine function. In that case I'd think the advantage would lie in a naming system that enhances context.

I do suppose, though, that if we're not interested in really delving into and applying advanced theory, then perhaps it's not too important to read/play/determine whether something just functioned as a diminished 7th or major 6th, you just plunk yer finger on a fret, right?

Good luck, everybody.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax



Well, considering the fact that this is a guitar forum and that the guitar uses the half-step equal tempered scale which yields the 12 BBB, IMO, it is practical to name those 12 BBB.



Well, when you mention "CNC is gobbleygook" you are taking about an issue that isn't restricted to merely guitar

You are misunderstanding the roll of temperament, It's the fact that you have a 12-tone system, not it's tempermant that creates practical convergance (For instance, harpsichord has 12 -tones, but are rarely put in equal-temperament)

I think you mean 12-tone equal temperament, that's what it's called...half-steps are defined by the tone system, they don't define the system

Guitar isn't truly an equal tempered instrument, NOR is it fixed pitch...you yourself play slide and blues as you mentioned, but beyond that...if you TRY the Pitch bend exercise witha MIDI equipped axe, you'll see that

(here's the scary par, pianos even have a "tempering" on top of temperament...to match overtone series across octaves)



You mean like the way the CNC doesn't notate the difference between a 2nd and a 9th? Or a 4th and an 11th? Or a 6th and a 13th?

What 12 names can do is tell you what BBB you are playing without having to specify a key first like the CNC ends up making you do.


Yes and no

The strict letter names are pitch class (like Oz for instance), NOT scale degree. a 4th and 11th, for instance, are of the same pitch class.
Now, if you need to completely call it out, like OZ, you can use an octave designation (either the arabic octave numeral or the older system with primes)


But, in practice, you APPLY these names to other notation (just like you are wanting to apply a naming system to, say Nashville numbers). The full SCALE DEGREE is shown in the rest of the notation
(on the staff in the bass figure, in the chord chart number, what have you)

I believe you are misunderstanding the use of the system, this is a primary problem



And a major 3rd or a diminished 4th are both the same amount of half-steps and the same BBB. The context that BBB is being used in will "tell" you which one it's functioning as.


I think you are misunderstanding that a diatonic system uses 12BBB, that seems to be a central issue.
In Musics that are highly Chromatic or musics that don't have a diatonic function...a fully chromatic system works well.

In practice, having the information directly encoded is a huge help. I realize you don't have expeirence reading in a traditional system and are still trying to get a fully chromatic notation system going for you...
so this issue wouldn't have presented itself to you


Using the old "unfixed pitches of the natural scale" argument doesn't hold water because
the "natural" notes are used in more than one
key, which means it should change name to reflect the change in pitch but doesn't.


An "A" note is used in the key of A, Bb, C, D, E, F, and G. According to your argument
it's not the same pitch in every key. So why is it still the using the same name?



You are misunderstnding what function we are talking about (because you misunderstand things as constructed on 12BBB)

It isn't just restricted to non-fixed pitch instruments....fixed pitch instruments actually get a lot out of the functional description as it colors approach.




But you're right about one thing, I'm only dealing with the product of the half-step equal tempered scale, which are the 12 BBB.


12-tone equal tempered axe, that's the term...you are understanding more though
It started as "A440", then you went to "the tempered scale", the "Equal Temperament", now "half-step Equal Temperament"

But the BBB are really the pythagorean concordances and diatonic music doesn't use 12 blocks


If you can't see the obvious advantages of naming the 12 BBB and be able to learn there unchanging half-step relationships to each other, then what can I say? I can't make the blind see.


You are misunderstanding that the diatonic system
1) is showing musical function
2) that there are "12BBB" (that terms already been applied)...they are neither basic NOR are there 12 in a diatonic system.

These are the things you can't see


It really comes down to what the piano guy Scott Houston says; "Do you want to be a great note reader or a great musician?".


Of course, he also says "This won't teach you classical piano"
I mean, his system is "Piano in a Flash"


In my case, just give me the lead sheet (which, BTW, "tell's" you what the notes are functioning as with it's chord notation, e.g. "x7b5" or "xm7#9") and I'll handle the rest.


there's a lot you can't do with just a lead sheet - like, oh, a few hundred years of music, voice leading, counterpoint

It kinda does go back to the problem we were talking about with the "monolithic view" of Chord and lead voice




And God bless us, everyone.



P.S. To those just checking this thread out; you'll notice the traditionalist have been picking and choosing what they respond to, ignoring some of my points that they can't refute. To which I say, I understand.

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about YOU (sometimes you just erase stuff too, which is how THIS thread got started)

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax P.S. To those just checking this thread out; you'll notice the traditionalist have been picking and choosing what they respond to, ignoring some of my points that they can't refute. To which I say, I understand.

Sorry, I don't want to continue this, but look at this part of the debate, regarding major/minor thirds sharing what I call "variations of names":

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

Me: 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.

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

(This is where I lose him - talk about making hasty conclusions!)

Me: 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.


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.

Me: (I didn't get why I wouldn't reply to what my point was...) 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.

[vote4dicktaid]

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

 

 

Names changing like C to C# in a musical piece or C# to Db in two different scales?

[skatom]

Originally posted by qwerty ...as practical an issue as worrying about the aerodynamic coefficient of my shoes.

 

 

bahahahah!!!

 

qwerty, that's genius!

[skatom]

Originally posted by MorePaul Winston Smith is the protagonist in 1984...worked in the "Ministry of Truth" destroying (deleting) documents.

Sorry for straying OT, but was I the first to compare Singinax to Winston? I'm not even in my twenties yet .

Mummy was right when she said high school english would pay off.

1 exam to go (musicology), and this is my day off from studying! weeeeeeee, tommy is happy!

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax Yup, mummmy was right.

Now see axe you can improve -- THAT was kinda funny

Most of your jokes aren't,
but THAT was good


The backhanded comments in there are wrong, of course, (I find they much more to you than to others) but the joke was funny

You've seem to come a long way with understanding temperament too.

Why do I stick around? I thing the reason is twofold

Around you, we can have a good conversation.
You pick up tidbits here and there, sure you misapply some of them, but that's all part of the process.

[qwerty]

> that's genius the way you resorted to the use of humor instead of arguing directly.

There is still an argument in the humor. If I'm not misunderstanding your claim, one of the advantages to using only 12 names is that you only get 12 keys out of it instead of 17 theoretical possibilities. How much practical advantage comes from that? Again, to use an analogy, I can increase the aerodynamics of my shoes. Isn't less wind resistance an advantage? What do you want to sacrifice to gain a useless advantage?

The direct point is-- the benefit of enforcing a theoretical limit of 12 keys provides no practical benefit over a system that, while it allows for *17* theoretical keys, generally uses 12 already. Ie, there is no practical benefit.

My "good luck, everyone" is essentially my closing due to lack of interest in continuing with this discussion.

Ax, again, I wish you luck in finding a system that suits your specific needs and aesthetic.

[MorePaul]

have to use dots or #/b to name

...but you said they had to use dots...now there's more?!?...have you been peeking again?


Funny statement thoug...I assume it's a joke

sort of like the Lauri Anderson tune

"I don't think there's such a thing as the Japanese language...I mean they don't even know hoe to write, they just draw pictures of these little characters"

yup, it uses #/b, english uses vowels, etc

I think you are still misunderstanding that these "12BBB" (tones axe - they are pitch classes) aren't the basis of a diatonic system.

[MorePaul]

Axe - on a serious note

what are you trying to sample/regress?

it's not my area, but I might be able to hook you up with some help if you outline your issues
PM / email prob best as it's math weenie stuff


Let me know what you're using as a crunching engine as well, that way algs can be exchanged.

[skatom]

Originally posted by Singingax Yup, mummmy was right.

bastard!



(I laughed)

[MorePaul]

 

FROM SINGING AXE

 

 

 

I try to be terjert.

 

I would suggest that Aja name the 12 basic building blocks that the guitar and piano use, but he's had years of indoctrination in the 7 letter tone naming convention so he probably doesn't see the gobbleydygook that you get when showing the 7 letter system on a schematic of the guitar's fretboard.

 

It might be too radical for you Aja, (it certainly is for the Traditionalists here) but you could try just naming the 12 basic building blocks. Then it's just a matter of learning their location on the fretboard.

 

It's easy enough to apply the Nashville system to those 12 basic building blocks

to exercise your "musicianship".

 

Or you can swallow the sophist argument that the current naming convention is the only way to learn "musicianship".

 

 

__________________

There is no better character test

That brings out your worst or your best

Than how you treat those that are less than you

Be it by your wealth, status or IQ

 

"Language falsifies reality"

- Frederick Nietzche

 

"And the eloquent do it eloquently" - Me

 

Dear God, save us all

From the sons of Baal

 

Matthew 23:13,15,27,28

 

 

 

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

 

11-27-2003 07:55 PM

 

 

 

Singingax

Senior Member

 

Registered: Nov 2001

Location: This side of the Universe

Posts: 1688

 

 

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

quote:

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

Originally posted by Redsweater I learned the notes by getting a starting guitar book with notes in them.

 

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

 

 

 

One thing you'll notice with guitar books that teach note reading is that they start out by telling you to call the "unnatural"

notes one thing. (the black keys on a piano)

 

This is essentially doing what I am suggesting. That is, naming the 12 Basic building blocks of the half-step equal tempered scale which the piano and guitar use.

 

Using the current note naming convention means you don't know what to call some of the building blocks until you specify a key. Just look at a schematic of the guitar's fretboard with the 7 letter system shown on it to see.

 

Even tuner companies have to resort to using dots, or one of several names that are used to represent them from the 7 letter system, to name 5 of the 12 basic building blocks.

 

Again, look at a schematic of the guitar's fretboard with the 7 letter tone naming system on it. If that gobbleydgook makes perfect sense, then you're probably too much of a traditionalist (and too indoctrinated) to get what I'm suggesting.

 

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


I try to be terjert.


I would suggest that Aja name the 12 basic building blocks that the guitar and piano use, but he's had years of indoctrination in the 7 letter tone naming convention so he probably doesn't see the gobbleydygook that you get when showing the 7 letter system on a schematic of the guitar's fretboard.


Axe, please reread the content in "singingaxe deletes another thread" - you are still confused about the nature of the 12 tone system (which is what you are referring to)...the "12BBB" are far less basic and don't always equal 12


It might be too radical for you Aja, (it certainly is for the Traditionalists here) but you could try just naming the 12 basic building blocks. Then it's just a matter of learning their location on the fretboard.


axe - please remember you yourself are resistant to new ideas... you yourself refuse to give Isomorphic tunings a serious look (that and you confuse a whole class of tunings with NST...theat sure isn't the alpha...but you'd have to go...offline

but most importantly, Aja is talking about the problem of fretboard location...see, with the piano, the varying topography of the keys actually gives you landmarks.

This is actually quite similar to the overhead that can develop from isomeric systems



It's easy enough to apply the Nashville system to those 12 basic building blocks
to exercise your "musicianship".



Axe, please review the discussions on the Nashville system and how it's not a fully actualized system, but a "shorthand" system like (very like) Bass figures or Chord chart/lead sheet arrangement

Remember Axe - you did clearly state that you don't care about improving your musicianship or care about nuance.


Or you can swallow the sophist argument that the current naming convention is the only way to learn "musicianship".


I don't think anyone actually declared OR implied that it is the only way, in fact, we have given you a fair ammount of resources on alternative musical notations of which you were previosuly unaware.

The problem I see is that you declare the traditional diatonic notations "gobbleygook"...it's just a disservice as you are asking people to close their minds...even worse to close their minds to a functioning system that you just plain don't understand

Some of the alternative info we have supplied you will (gasp) require talking to people and off-line research though.
You haven't seemed to avail yourself of these

I would say that the rest of the forum is MORE open to new ideas than you yourself are.

I'd consider your arguments more sophist, but they lack the subtlety of sophist debate (wholesale deletion of threads, obviously dogmatic thinking, ignoring whole responses, etc)


__________________
Paul's Mood today : FRIDAY!!! -- and slacking at work

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


One thing you'll notice with guitar books that teach note reading is that they start out by telling you to call the "unnatural"
notes one thing. (the black keys on a piano)


No they don't

As an example - The Berklee Modern method covers sharps and flats on the same page.

The Carcassi method doens't either...never in those methods are notes that should the Sharp designated as Flat or Natural

You are misunderstanding WHAT the notation system is showing



This is essentially doing what I am suggesting. That is, naming the 12 Basic building blocks of the half-step equal tempered scale which the piano and guitar use.


Well, a guitar isn't really equally tempered...to make up for this, there are "compensation" systems and a modern steel player tends to actively adjust intonation
Axe - please, actually TRY to cc audit experiement I mentioned a few months back - it will make this more clear to you.

More centrally, it isn't the tempering that affects "building blocks" it's simply a definition of pitch classes...other temperments can have more or fewer tones than 12 just as equal temperment can.

The term you are looking for is "12 tone equal temperment" -- half step is defined within the system

It's also good to note that there are really 4 BBBs (pythagorean concordances) which yield more tones...Isacoff uses the term "basic build blocks" more correctly there.
from those 7 PBB are formed and extend into 5 or more EBBs


Using the current note naming convention means you don't know what to call some of the building blocks until you specify a key.


Correct! The names are DIATONIC IN NATURE -- more accurately, you CAN call it a couple of different things when not in a diatonic context (ie it doesn't have a diatonic function)


Just look at a schematic of the guitar's fretboard with the 7 letter system shown on it to see.

OK, done -- I find it quite a bit easier actually (yes Axe, I have used other systems, remember I told you about OZ, etc b/c you were struggling developing your own system)


Even tuner companies have to resort to using dots, or one of several names that are used to represent them from the 7 letter system, to name 5 of the 12 basic building blocks.


A few weeks ago it was "just dots" -- you've been peeking again

hey whatever it takes, you're learning

More accurately, they are using "just one name" for each of the 12 tones in a 12 tone system....see these "natural" notes also have more than one name out of a diatonic context.

We've covered this, so please review my comments above
It may also be of interest to look at the 20th century movement of using 17+ tone notation...ESP ON PIANO


Again, look at a schematic of the guitar's fretboard with the 7 letter tone naming system on it. If that gobbleydgook makes perfect sense, then you're probably too much of a traditionalist (and too indoctrinated) to get what I'm suggesting.

It seem gobbldeygook b/c you are misunderstanding the system and what it's telling you.

You're dogmatic chanting "it's because you are indoctrinated" is partially true...let us review the definition


Mirriam Webster dictionary

Main Entry: in

[Little Pete]

So assuming your system replaced the convention of notes and sharp/flat signs.
By getting musicians to learn that system will that be indoctrination also?

Yes it is a convention issue that we name notes and provide certain altering signs (sharp/flat) but for the majority of people it would make little difference.I personally know some theory but not a lot on the construction of modes and interval theory.

To me it would make little difference calling the 4th fret A string (standard tuning) C# or whatever you would prefer it termed.

The reason i would disagree with adopting your system is the monumental scale of altering something that matters little to 99.99% of musicians.From a logical perspective though you are completely right and i do support you.From a practical perspective it seems like it would be a little too much effort for small reward.

[MorePaul]

These systems have been around for a while and are in active use in some circles.

They have advantages and disadvantages (you often see them used in musics where a note may not HAVE a diatonic function...ie it isn't in a "key" as such...one sn't thinking in terms of essentials and accidentals there)

But yeah, to teach people any system is "indoctrination" ie showing them doctrine...
The term often has a negative spin associated with it as "trained into dogma"...but that winds up being a 2 way street...old and new alike aren't immune from dogma.

New ideas need dogmatic zealots like they need a hole in the head.