Members MorePaul Posted September 1, 2003 Members Share Posted September 1, 2003 Axe Why did you deleteyour previous thread on the OZ subject? - I think it covered a lot of the issues we are talking about here. Please repost that thread's contents as I think it will save us a lot of retyping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted September 1, 2003 Members Share Posted September 1, 2003 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'tenter 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. 1) ITS convenience. 2) So you admit you're being incredibly selfish? 3) You are beginning to sound very stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted September 1, 2003 Members Share Posted September 1, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 1) For natural scaled instruments, maybe. 2) Am I? Maybe to someone who's been taught one way and doesn't want to consider another (and possibly better) way. 3) If you say so. 1) Why more likely for natural scaled instruments?2) I'm just being reasonable, I think. It is quite convenient to have a system that works both written and verbally (right word?), for maximum understanding and communication - music is a language, you know.3) It's jsut that some of your earlier points did make sense to me, but your latest posts have made this whole debate seem more silly than ever, to me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thliu Posted September 1, 2003 Members Share Posted September 1, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 1) Happy to. {takes step back}2) First off, others before me have suggested using 12 distinct designations if not more.Second, that's how the present naming convention has been defended so far.(by keeping the debate about ST Not.)3) Again, not MY system. And there are MANY ways to communicate musical ideas. Just because the current naming system predominates doesn't mean it should.4) See 3).5) You can use more than a few ways to communicate musical ideas besides usingstandard notation or what I'm suggesting.ANYTHING that standard notation shows can be shown in other ways, though I will admit that standard notation handles timimg pretty well.But for a tempered instrument, and especially one that can play one note in more than one place like the guitar can, standard isn't the best.OZ should be able to handle Rock, Blues, Jazz AND classical. And TAB can too.6.) The reason standard notation predominates in Jazz and Classical is because those genres are predominated with natural scaled instruments, which I'm happy to concede the possibilty that standard notation may be a better choice. Ok, I think we're getting somewhere. 1.) Thanks. 2. to 4.) I know your 12 building block system is not yours nor unique nor the first time someone has thought of it. That, of course, is not a rebuttal to the standard notation argument. If anything, it lends credence to our argument because many other tangential systems have existed before but the diatonic system has never been replaced. In other words, the diatonic system is the system by which the musical world has used to communicate despite the existence of many other systems, regardless of how creative or efficient that they are. 5.) I visited that OZ link but didn't read it in detail. However, I do know that TAB sucks for rock, blues, classical, AND jazz. It can be convenient to beginners, but is just not practical to any sort of accomplished musician. The sole reason is its inability to convey rhythm. How can anything be considered reading music if there is not information regarding timing? 6.) If you concede that "standard notation may be a better choice" in jazz and classical because those genres are "predominated with natural scaled instruments," then does it not follow that any sort of nondiatonic system will never become the predominant system in the musical world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thliu Posted September 1, 2003 Members Share Posted September 1, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 3) I'm not looking for a system that will predominate the musical world and I'm not interested in note reading either.I'm just looking for a logical naming system for the 12 basic building blocks that are an intergral component of the several tempered scaled instruments I play. Ok, I think this discussion is over. I think I understand you and I hope you understand me. Thanks for contributing your ideas. They have been interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted September 2, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax You fail to see anything illogical because you are thinking of it from the perspective of sheet music, where as I am NOT. OK, let's try some real, actual logic then If you want to change the way notes are named you will also have to change how they are written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted September 2, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax Your your lack of willingness to defend it's logicalness OUTSIDE of sheet music just go to prove that it only makes sense from the perspective of sheet music. Sheet music has been developed from the perspective of the keyboard. I think it was originally invented for vocals, but as it looks now it's really a keyboard thing. Since on guitar you can have several fingerings and play the same notes in different positions the notation system has it's "flaws". On piano, the notes written on the sheet don't just give you the music, they give you the exact way to play it too. For guitar tabulature has always been the most natural system. I suppose for other instruments there are other "notation" systmes, cause it's different on every instrument. So tab is great for showing how something's played on guitar. But for reading the music, not just the way something is played, the notation system is far superior to tabulature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted September 2, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax To read sheet music, which is NOT what I'm talking about. Yes it is. Again, logic is not one of your strengths man. You are complaining that the current notaion system is illogical, but you have no knowledge of what logic actually is. If you want a differnt system for naming the notes then you will have to change how we i]write them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted September 2, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax When it seen from THIS perspective, like when used on a guitar's fretboard schematic, it is so obviously illogical that you refuse to argue about it but from the perspective of sheet music. I've just said, probably not for the first time, that for guitar tab is sometimes easier to read than conventional notation. Cause conventional notation wasn't made for guitar, it was made for piano. But you're the one who is refusing to answer my question here. Which I find rather weak. Cause even if you use the conventional notation system and lay it out on the guitar fretboard as a schematic it's not illogical. It has a system. Just cause all notes aren't treated the same way doesn't mean the system is illogical. And you have yet to even try to explain what you mean by logic. Which was my initial question. Can you please try? Or is that way too hard for you? I think you have no idea what the word actually means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poparad Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by Terje I've just said, probably not for the first time, that for guitar tab is sometimes easier to read than conventional notation. Cause conventional notation wasn't made for guitar, it was made for piano. Actually it was made for voice, and about 100 years or so later the keyboard was developed. Cause even if you use the conventional notation system and lay it out on the guitar fretboard as a schematic it's not illogical. It has a system. Just cause all notes aren't treated the same way doesn't mean the system is illogical. +1. There is logic to it. Each note has a name, 5 of them happen to have 2. Those 5 can only have the same 2 names to pick from, and if there's a designated key, then there is only 1 name assigned to it in a logical manner (only flats or only sharps). It's a systematic assignment of note names, that is 100% predictable. That seems to fit the defenition of logical right there. Chromaticism works in the direction of inflection, and it also implies the direction of resolution. (ex. Ab is a lowered A, and it implies it will resolve to G). Since music (with the exception of atonality and serialism, which we all agree none of us play much) is based on function, a system that has snippets of information about the harmonic function of notes, as well as melodic direction, is a very informative system. In the key of G, I know that F# is a note that is intended to resolve up to G (direction of inflection thing again). Also, the key of G (excluding chromaticism) will never have a Gb in it, always an F#. This is 100% predictable and therefore logical. Same with all the keys. They all operate in the same, systematic manner. Chromatisicm has already been explained and when it occurs in music it is notated in a functional sense. Example: Emajor in the key of Aminor. The G# is a chromatic alteration, but the # implies upward resolution, which it does; to A. Also, just because there is an "A" in 'Ab', doesn't mean the name isn't unique. If I saw an Ab, there would be absolutely no reason for me to play an A. Just as if I saw an E, there'd be no reason to play an F. Therefore the 5 notes with two names are derived from the other 7, but they are completely unique in their own right. So how's that? Someone actually describing the logic to the diatonic naming convention and the reason, with specific details, why it is logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted September 2, 2003 Members Share Posted September 2, 2003 Great post with a lot of well-reasoned and explained points. Only one thing bugged me:Originally posted by Poparad Each note has a name, 5 of them happen to have 2. Those 5 can only have the same 2 names to pick from, and if there's a designated key, then there is only 1 name assigned to it in a logical manner (only flats or only sharps). When you think about, many pitches has three possible namings - a F#, Gb, and E## would be the same pitch, so would C#, Db and B##. And each pitch has more than one name - the minor 3rd of Gbm wouldn't be A, but Bbb. My point being that "each note has a name" isn't an exact definition, I see your point, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poparad Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by vote4dicktaid Great post with a lot of well-reasoned and explained points. Only one thing bugged me:When you think about, many pitches has three possible namings - a F#, Gb, and E## would be the same pitch, so would C#, Db and B##. And each pitch has more than one name - the minor 3rd of Gbm wouldn't be A, but Bbb. My point being that "each note has a name" isn't an exact definition, I see your point, though. You are correct. Fortunately you don't have to deal with double sharps and double flats too much, but when you do, they work in the same way I described the chromatic inflection thing. I hadn't thought of double accidentals, but for the sake of explaination I was just covering the logical system to naming the back notes on the piano. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted September 2, 2003 Members Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 1) You might want to do a research on the differences between the Natural scale and the Tempered scale for an answer to that question. 2) Yes, the interaction of certain sound frequencies is music, but notation isn't. To paraphrase Scott Houston; sheet music is music notation, not music. 3) In what way? 1) My point being, the A of F; leading tone to Bb would be intonated higher than the A of F#, this used to be your point against us, if you remember. So within the natural scale the system actually isn't as logical as with the tempered, in my opinion. Now, if you agree with me on this, you're almost contradicting yourself - again.2) Good comeback! Yes, I agree with you, but the convenience of written music shouldn't be neglected.3) It just took me some time to realize that you really want a non-writeable system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted September 2, 2003 Members Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by Poparad I hadn't thought of double accidentals, but for the sake of explaination I was just covering the logical system to naming the back notes on the piano. And a fine job you did, too. It was merely the phrase "every note has a name" that made me react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted September 2, 2003 Members Share Posted September 2, 2003 Axe - why'd you delte those other threads (the 12 hours of the day and the morepaul you have a small penis thread) - I think that they contained a lot of coverage on the issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted September 3, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 3, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax Using semantics to try and get the debate back into sheet music, heh? (I understand) Not semantics, logic. If you want a new name for something, in this case a note, it means you're also going to have to write it in a new way. I just looking for a way to symbolize the 12 basic building blocks I get when...well, you know the rest. Using the smybols that sheet music uses don't get it. (as a schematic...well, you know) Why not? Do like I've described it for you earlier, just use only sharps to name the other 5 notes. So you get C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B, one name for each of the twelve. There's no problem doing this and you'll find eveyone you talk to will understand exactly what note you're talking about. Except those who really care about gettong the exact pitches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted September 3, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 3, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax I'm talking about the basic building blocks of the tempered scale. What you're talking about, besides tones, I don't have a clue. What you don't seem to understand is that even with the tempered scale, and even though we've had it for a long time, we still hear the absolute sacle in our minds. For two reasons from what I've been informed. One is that it is more in tune. And we hear this aslo due to the fact that we still have it when we play harmonics, and the problems with the tempered scale are heard in the overtones. Again, the guitar is just sort of tempered, you fail to understand this too if I remember correctly. Since each note can't be individually adjusted it's just a decent compromise. As a slide player I hear this immediately when I play with a piano, but unlike those who only fret I can adjust the individual pitches. So does a violin player, and for them there is definitely a difference between for instance F# and Gb. F# will be lower. The notation system reflects this difference. I think that's pretty good since it's still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted September 3, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 3, 2003 And still no definition of your perception of what logic actually is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted September 3, 2003 Members Share Posted September 3, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 1) Say what? I'm talking about the basic building blocks of the tempered scale. What you're talking about, besides tones, I don't have a clue. 2) Well, since I have no interest in written music, (besides TAB) there's nothing to neglect. 3) Exactly. I just want a set of 12 distinct symbols for the 12 basic building blocks of the tempered scale. 1)You said that within natural scale, due to its subtle interval differences, there might be a reason for the notation system. Earlier on, you argued strongly against this - and sort of won, with the statement about A, which I described above. So now I really don't know where you stand in all this (wait, I think I do, after all...) 2) You said it yourself - when there's something to show interest in or not, there's something to neglect.3) Well why didn't you just say so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted September 3, 2003 Members Share Posted September 3, 2003 Originally posted by Terje So does a violin player, and for them there is definitely a difference between for instance F# and Gb. F# will be lower. Of course you mean F# will be higher, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted September 3, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 3, 2003 Originally posted by vote4dicktaid Of course you mean F# will be higher, right? No, I think it is Gb that's higher cause Gb is the minor 3rd in Eb and the minor 3rds haven't been tampered with as much as the major 3rds in the tempered scale and the major 3rds are too damn high. And F# is the major 3rd of D major. F# is definitely too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted September 3, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 3, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax I know you've got sheet musicitisis, but I"M not talking about notes from sheet music. I"M talking about a symbol to use with EACH of the 12 BBB. (BBB=Basic building blocks) Here we go with your total failure to understand what logic is. A symbol or a name... it's the same thing. We use them to communicate ideas, verbally or by writing them. If you want to change the names, or symbols that are used verbally you are going to have to change the ones used in writing too cause otherwise you've got a real communication problem going on. I could do that, but why? because then you' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted September 3, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 3, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax Hey, please point out how ANY of that changes the fact that on a guitar (and other tempered scaled instruments) you have 12 BBB that are all in the same location (in the same tuning) and we'll be getting somewhere in our debate. This makes no sense at all. What do you actually mean? All the 12 notes are in the same place? What type of guitar are you playing? Does it have only one giant fret? And since I've made it clear that I'm not talking about sheet music, I see you're still trying to side-step the debate by talking about natural scale indocyncracies. You really can't grasp this idea that spoken and written language have any connection can you? OK then, fine, let's talk about this solely from the perspective on verbal communication. BTW, it won't make any difference to the debate but we can do it this way if you want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted September 3, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 3, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax Thanks for pointing out the advantages of playing a tempered scaled instrument. (by showing the confusing of a natural scaled instrument) You don't get it at all... The difference between the notes are still there, even though the tempered scale has been invented. So even today, a classical violinist, playing together with a piano that is well tempered, will intonate F# and Gb differently (and this goes for all other notes as well depending on function). With the tempered scale the major 3rds are too high and yes, we do hear it. Unless we play guitar too much perhaps cause as I've said the guitar is just a mere compromise when it comes to this, it's seriously out of tune no matter what scale you're using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Terje Posted September 3, 2003 Author Members Share Posted September 3, 2003 And who's side-stepping the argument? Maybe it is the guy who still has failed to answer the initial question of this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.