Jump to content

Singingax, let's give it another go!


Terje

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

i don't think there's anything illogical about naming all 12 notes with different, unique names - in fact it's completely logical

 

the only problem is that 99% of other musicians, all the musical literature that you come across and several hundred years of musical history means that if you learn using this method, then you're setting yourself up for some problems later...

 

the only analogy i can think of is that if person thinks that French is a more logical and eloquent language than English and only learns French but they're living in an English speaking country and all the TV is in English and all the books are in English, then they may be very fluent in French and speak it beautifully, but how are they going to communicate with anybody? how are they going to able to watch TV, or read the paper, or buy anything in the shops? sure, they'll get by, but it'll be a struggle...!

 

i'm of the opinion that whatever learning method anybody cares to utilise is fine - everybody is different and different things work for different people - there's really no right or wrong, but i can't see how using a different naming convention than 99% of other musicians can be at all helpful - especially when the conventional system has worked for thousands of musicians over hundreds of years and isn't even that difficult or confusing!

 

just my 2 pence worth...

 

:)

 

cheers

 

sim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Singingax

Hey, if you can look at a schematic of the guitar's fretboard with the present naming convention on it and say it's logical, then there's probably nothing I can offer as an agrument to alter you belief in the logic of the current notational system.

 

 

Logic does not mean that you need to have 12 distinct names for 12 distinct pitches. If you have another system (like the one we've got) and it's consistent it can still be, and it actually is, logical.

 

This is why I asked you to define what you mean by the word logic. You still haven't done that really.

 

 

IMO, it's logical to name all 12 of the basic building blocks you get with a standard fretted guitar.

 

 

Do you see what you're trying to do here? You're trying to create a musical notation system based on the guitar. Apart from the fact that we already have one, it's called tabulature, it does come with some of the same problems as the ones we have with a notation system based ont he keyboard.

 

 

Hell, even the piano proves my point...

 

 

No it doesn't. I'll tell you why.

 

 

... since it is actually built upon the same priciple as the current notation system is. There are keys pianists hate to play in because of the fact that it (like current notation) is based on the C major scale.

 

 

You don't play a lot with other people do you? Have you ever tried to play in E with a horn player? Have you ever tried to play in Eb with another guitarist? All instruments have their "natural" keys, that are easier on a surface level.

 

 

P.S. I've been confining my posts to one thread because the diatonics have been complaining (erroneously) that I've been wasting time and space here at the Lesson Loft.


The last thing I want is to waste more of their precious time and space by debating this in another thread.

 

 

That's cool, I'll stick to this thread too.

 

 

But, that aside, let me ask you a question.


What's illogical about naming ALL of the 12 basic building blocks of the tempered scale with 12 seperate and distinct designations?

 

 

There's nothing illogical about it, so from that perspective it's cool. We're getting ahead of ourselves though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Quoting you from another thread*:

 

"Why are you so obsessed in defending the illogic that a schematic of the guitar's fretboard so readily shows when using the 7 letter system?"

 

Because the notation system is not centered around the guitar. Which is a great blessing cause this way I can read music that's not written for guitar. Maybe that doesn't matter to you but for most of us this is a great part of why the notation system is superior to tabulature for instance.

 

What doesn't matter to me though is how it looks on this schematic of the guitar's fretboard that you're constantly nagging about. It's easy to learn the notes on the guitar. Both as names and as positions/functions. I think you're creating a problem just to have something to discuss here.

 

*In keeping with what we've said about having this debate in only one thread I took the liberty to answer this particular question of your here :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by simeon

i'm not sure Singingax is "creating a problem just to have something to discuss here"....that's making a bit of an assumption... !

 

It's called teasing :D

 

Actually he is creating a problem. Or trying to create one. Cause knowing the notes on the fretboard isn't hard no matter what naems they may or may not have. Transposing isn't hard either.

 

So he's making a big deal out of something that basically only bothers him in this big wide world we live in. Then again, I'm not sure if I live in the same world as Singingax :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

oh, teasing!:p

 

i agree with you though - he may think he's making life easier for himself, but actually he's gonna make it harder in the future...

 

let's see what he says - i'm sure he'll come up with a good argument!

 

;)

 

 

sim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ok, I've stayed out of the other threads regarding this, but if people are going to keep it confined to this new thread, I'll participate.

 

Singingax, I can admit that your system has logic to it. But to Terje's point, the current system has logic too. Though you find the current system encumbering, it does have a systematic methodology for usage, which in itself means that it is logical.

 

You also always brush off the argument that naming all 12 notes would make reading notation extremely difficult. You claim that because you don't need or want to read notation, you don't care about this argument. By doing this, you're making your system relative. Relative to you and relative to guitar.

 

That's fine and dandy. All the power to you. But by implying that your system is relative, it's hard for us to take you seriously when you proceed to say that us "diatonics" have been brainwashed.

 

I will also admit that reading standard notation for guitar is a bitch. But it's not the notation's fault. It's not the notation's fault that the guitar has multiple areas in which you can play one note. And it's not notation's fault that the guitar IMPLIES that certain enharmonic notes are the same when in fact they FUNCTION differently depending on the context of the song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

i have to disagree singingax - i think terje has made some sound counter-arguements and it's you who have side-stepped the main issues and really only presented one point - and that you find it illogical dealing with 7 designations for 12 notes

 

saying "it's their problem" when referring to 99% of other musicians isn't really offering an intelligent rebuttal...

 

i don't think any of us disagree that using 12 unique designations for 12 notes isn't logical in itself - and i think we can all appreciate the potential confusion that might arise from giving 5 notes 2 names, but what i think me, terje and others can't understand is why you seem unable, or unwilling to overcome that small hurdle and use the same system that everybody else uses to learn music (and it is music we are learning here - not just "guitar music")

 

i think we've all said just about as much on this topic as can be said without repeating ourselves - we've all made ourselves very clear - so i for one am going to stop contributing to this particular thread and all i can say is - if it works for you - then it works for you!

 

cheers

 

sim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Might I play devil's advocate for a second and ask to see this new notation system? Or at least direct me to a past thread? From what I've read (up until this because an insult fight) I can agree with both sides of the coin. I suppose it could be like the metric system of music. Some people use it and some people think it's crazy. But, guitar does already have tablature. I think someone should come up with a new tab system. What's the major problem with tab? NO RHYTHM! How do you know (assuming there's no staff above the tab line) if you're playing quarter notes or 32nd notes? You don't. Maybe I'll invent that new tab. I'm claiming the patent right now! Muahaha it's mine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Singingax



1) If you can keep from using hubris, humor and hyperbole in place of a good counter-argument, GREAT!


2) Again, (and again, and again) It's not "my system". (OZ or the tempered scale)


The current system may be logical for natural scaled instruments, but since the guitar uses 12 basic building blocks, why only have 7 designations?


3) I would argue that it's relative to ALL of instruments that get 12 basic building blocks from using the tempered scale.


But this IS a guitar forum.


4) I've never said "brainwashed". Indoctrinated, yes, but not brainwashed.
:)

5) Function is a part of context. That doesn't change the fact that it's still

the SAME block.


I would rather learn that the SAME block can have more than one function then to have that SAME block change what it's called because it just happens to change function in a particular context. It's still going to be the SAME block however it's used.


A has many functions, but it's still A! (and in the same location too)

 

1. If you read my other posts, you will see that I debate very systematically.

 

2. Fine, it's not your system. I understand that there are 11 semitones but 7 note names. But my point was that this current system is still not illogical. To repeat myself, it still has a standard systematic methodology for usage.

 

3. You missed my point. I'm talking about standard notation. A system based on 11 names (not 12, which you've incessantly repeated). It would be difficult to read notation based on 11 names. That's pretty obvious, but you've responded this statement by saying it doesn't matter to you. Do you agree?

 

Also, by stating that "this IS a guitar forum," you are again implying that this system is for guitar. And again, that is fine for you and others if they like it, but it's not a replacement for standard notation.

 

4. I stand corrected. Indoctrinated, not brainwashed.

 

5. You are right, it is the same block. I understand the logic behind having a note from every semitone. We all do. It's painfully obvious to anyone. 11 notes. 11 names. 11=11. That needs no explanation.

 

But when you think about music in an analytical way, the name is much less important than the function. A #4 is vastly differently from a b5, for example. A #9 is vastly different from a minor 3rd. The note name doesn't matter much to me, but the accidental next to the note name gives me tons of information. The corollary is that losing the accidental would rob me of tons of information.

 

Music itself is a system of RELATIONSHIPS, not DESIGNATIONS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Singinax,

 

You claim that although you might appear to be a troll, that all you are really interested in is intelligent debate. You claim that are willing to show the same courtesy that has been shown to you, by accepting valid points that are made in this debate. Let's see if you measure up to your claims.

 

Here is my basic point - do you accept it as valid:

 

This house asserts that it is logical to organise music around a KEY and SEVEN SEQUENTIALLY NAMED notes.

 

You keep claiming that the current system is based around the key of C and its modes. I disagree. All of the keys in the current system (including C) are based around Seven Sequentially Named notes; with the number of Sharps or Flats determine what the Key/Mode is. C is merely a special case that happens to have Zero Sharps and Flats.

 

But why assert organising around SEVEN rather than any other number? We already have 12 note chromatic scales in Western music. However, chromaticism is generally used as an effect, rather than composing an entire piece from a chromatic scale. Music is generally organised around SEVEN notes and then the repeating octaves.

 

SO, do you accept my basic point? It has nothing to do with history, nor does it have anything to do with other instruments. In case you've forgotten, my basic point is:

 

This house asserts that it is logical to organise music around a KEY and SEVEN SEQUENTIALLY NAMED notes.

 

Do you accept this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Singingax

No counter-argument so you resort to "teasing", huh? I understand.

 

 

Not at all, you're the one who is side-stepping the issue (as already pointed out) by not defining what you mean by logic. The thing is that I think you're definition is very, very narrow.

 

And before I go on and argue anything else with you in this thread you need to do this. Tell me what you mean by logic, tell me why the current notation system isn't logical according to this definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Terje




And before I go on and argue anything else with you in this thread you need to do this. Tell me what you mean by logic, tell me why the current notation system isn't logical according to this definition.

 

 

 

Terje, I tried to reason with him for quite some time, as did many others. He simply does not LISTEN; his ears, eyes, and mind are completely closed. He's been brainwashed by some half-wit pianist wannabe on public television into thinking that music notation is evil. He doesn't want to read...he doesn't want to learn....he doesn't address anyone's points; he simply hops on his soapbox and starts preaching like some deranged chromatic tv evangelist.

 

You've given him MORE than enough chances, and yet he fails to debate the subject; he just keeps blabbering louder and louder. He is, in every way, shape, and form, a TROLL. Ignore him as many of us are trying to do, and the forum will be a better place as a result. Look at what it's become since he started with this building block nonsense; the forum's quality has dropped considerably since too many of us have wasted too much time and energy dealing with his crap instead of constructively contributing to the forum in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Singingax



I consider you're "define what you mean by logic" as another attempt to not deal directly with the basic argument.

 

That was my intial question. You're avoiding it like the plague though :p

 

Show me that you can actually argue a point.

 

Maybe it's because you're a type A personality or whatever reason, but your resorting to hyperbole and humor

just makes me not want to debate with you.

 

Exactly who is resorting to what here? :rolleyes:

 

If you are going to keep caliming that our current notation system is illogical, then you're gonna have to define what logical means. Cause it's obvious to me that you mean something else than I do.

 

The reason our current system isn't illogical is that even though 5 notes are marked by accidentals there is a system that is consistent and logical on how to name these notes depending on the key.

 

Using 12 distinct names for 12 notes is just as logical not more logical. Either something is logical or it isn't.

 

But anyway, stop avoiding the questions and actually argue your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Singingax

 

1) Maybe in the natural scale, and if you're dealing with classical music. (and diatonic scales)

I agree that music is generally organised around seven notes...

 

THANK YOU!!!

That wasn't so hard was it. Maybe we can have an intelligent debate after all. Please don't return to your soapboxing, rather graciously accept valid points so that we can move on to debating the strengths and the weaknesses of those valid points. Much better than the recent stuck-in-a-rut pontificating which are the hallmarks of trolling.

 

The DEBATE should now be about whether the seven notes (around which music is generally organised) should be SEQUENTIALLY NAMED - as in standard notation and as in Nashville notation. In the interests of moving this debate forward:

 

This house asserts it is perfectly logical to SEQUENTIALLY NAME the 7 notes around which music is generally organised.

 

Do you accept this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Dann'sTheMan

Originally posted by Singingax

The DEBATE should now be about whether the seven notes (around which music is generally organised) should be SEQUENTIALLY NAMED - as in standard notation and as in Nashville notation. In the interests of moving this debate forward:


This house asserts it is perfectly logical to SEQUENTIALLY NAME the 7 notes around which music is generally organised.


Do you accept this point?

 

I like the way you think.

 

Structured debates usually progress in relation to the points raised. Here's how they are usually done (in Lincoln-Douglas style debate):

 

The affirmative (Singingax), who has the burden of proof, states his argument. The negative (the rest of us) will rebut. Then the affirmative responds to the negative's rebuttal. Then the negative responds to that again. The affirmative then has one last statement to conclude the debate by stating why he has satisfied his burden of proof.

 

So let's tackle this. This is how I understand everything so far so please let me know if I have represented any side wrongly:

 

1. The affirmative stated that the diatonic system is illogical and a system built on 12 building blocks is superior.

 

2. The negative have responded that a.) the diatonic system, which does reuse names with accidentals and is seemingly more cumbersome, is in fact logical because there is still systematic methodology for usage and b.) the proposed system would wreak havoc on notation

 

3. The affirmative responds with a.) the diatonic system is still illogical because 12 names is better than 7 names with the other 5 having accidentals (just a restatement of #1) but also admits that "music is generally organized around 7 notes." and b.) the affirmative doesn't care about notation.

 

4. This is where we are. The negative now states a.) if you have granted us that "music is generally organized around 7 notes" then any sort of system not based around those 7 notes would seem to be the encumbering one and b.) not caring about notation does not prove the fact that notation is important in music, especially the communication of music.

 

Singingax, now it's your turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Singingax

I can recognize a type A when I see one so I'm more than happy to laugh off your "Don Rickles" type posts.
:p

 

You're still avoiding my initial question. Probably qause you've realized that your argument that the notation system is illogical is false but you're too arrogant to admit it.

 

Now you're calling me a type A personality and other stuff. Let's not forget who started this post and let's not forget the question I asked you. Either reply or get out.

 

Define logic. Please, this is the first step you need to take if you want to defend your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Singingax

The affirmative stated that using the tones of the C major scale (you know, the "natural" notes) as a basis for a naming convention IS illogical.

 

 

Why? I fail to see anything illogical about it. Could you please answer the question just once?

 

Using one of the major scales as the starting point isn't illogical it's just a way of doing it. It's done very consistently, following certain rules as to how the other notes that are not part of this scale are treated.

 

It is not the system you'd like to see, I can agree to that. But tha'ts not the same as the notation system being illogical. Please be careful with the words you use and what they mean and all that stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

BTW, there is a way of using the notation system that should really appeal to you (I'm talking to Singingmax here of course :p ). You simply write everything as if in the key of C, no accidentals at the top, and then you use accidentals throughout to mark whatever note there is that's been lowered (or raised if that's how you choose to mark it).

 

This way, if you for instance decide that you'll only raise the notes that don't belong to the C major scale, every note gets only one name. It'll be C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B. Guess you're too late with your ideas even :p

 

Above the staff lines you write out the harmony as usual. I've seen it used in a couple of Aebersold books now and then, mainly when writing blues. You know, cause there are so many notes that don't belong to the given key then.

 

Oh, and it's not very practical, even though I thought so at first. It's much easier to read the other way, the old fashioned way. That's why it's not done like this so often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Singingax



As usual, the only way to defend the current naming convention is for you to keep the argument within the confines of sheet music.

(I understand)


Since I have no interest in sheet music I'm certainly not going to argue whether it's logical or illogical WITHIN the confines of sheet music.


 

 

You do realize the convenience of sheet music, right?

 

And you are suggesting a system that should not neccesarily be transcribeable?

 

Your points get weaker and weaker...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Singingax



1) I have NO interest in sheet music, so why would I realize it's convenience?


OUTSIDE of sheet music, it sucks in more ways than I care to mention.


2) I'm not interested in written music outside of TAB transciption doesn't

enter into it.


3) Only when viewed from the perspective of written (and maybe just sheet) music.


And that's where arguments for the current naming system REALLY get weaker and weaker.

 

 

Singingax, I'm not going to respond to your points this time because I'm going to take a step back. Please step back with me.

 

When we talk about standard notation or sheet music, we're not trying to find a logistical avenue that trumps your proposed system on a mere technicality. We're not using this argument because we can't think of anything else and this is just convenient.

 

To us, standard notation or sheet music isn't merely just a piece of paper with lines and markings on it. It is a means of communicating music. How can music evolve or spread if fellow musicians cannot communicate their ideas to each other? Yes, your system has logic to it, but we do have to be mindful of the ease of communication.

 

If the current system is a bit more cumbersome with the use of accidentals and repeated note names, then so be it as long as the communication of the music continues.

 

Maybe we can end this discussion once and for all. Can you admit that your system could be useful for things like rock or blues guitar, but would never become the predominant system because of its lack of usability in other musical genres like classical and jazz?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...