Singingax, let's give it another go!

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Terje 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.

 

 

Sorry, didn't read your previous post carefully enough it seems!

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Yes, how A is used in sheet music IS an example of the fact that it doesn't name an interval like some were claiming that the accidentals do. But since I don't use (and don't care to use) sheet music, and I'm not well versed in it, I've decided not to argue the merits of (or lack of) the CNC (CNC=current naming convention) as it's used in sheet music. 2) See 1). 3) Hey, someone finally understood. (after I said it a hundred times)

1) That's exactly what you are doing here, though. And in the case about the A note, it's the Bb that tells us the the function of A as a leading note - so the accidentals do indeed tell everything about function. But this is the point you constantly fail to see. Tell me of an accidental that doesn't tell something about that note's function (in context).

3) Oh, I've understood your main reasoning all along - it's your way of arguing that I don't agree with.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1)What accidentals happen to "tell" you doesn't interest me in the least. 3) Of course you don't. If you try to support the CNC OUTSIDE of sheet music, you can't. (at least so far)

 

 

1) Then there's really no point in debating it - why didn't you say that earlier?

 

3) That's not why. What annoys me is the way you argue your case, not myself.

 

And guess what - the logic and advantages (what you consider disadvantages, though, but still) of our notation system remains when used outside of sheet music as well (big surprise, obviously). So when we're defending the notation system, we are talking about the both the written and non-written version, they happen to be similar.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax I doubt we'd EVER come to an agreement on what's logical considering the fact that you can look at a fretboard schematic with the CNC on it (if you have) and call it logical.

 

 

Try to play a major scale starting from, say, A. Up and down, back and forth on the fretboard.

 

Then play a F# major scale up and down, back and forth.

 

Doesn't that look logical, more so than at first on a piano?

 

It is logical as hell - you don't like it, that's another thing. Claiming that the notation system is illogical, though, is ignorant - fixed names or not.

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax I think you'll find a majority of guitarists don't read sheet music for the very fact that it's not centered around the guitar. And I would argue, it's not centered around 12 basic building blocks you get from using the tempered scale on a standard fretted guitar. (as well as other tempered scaled instruments)

 

 

I've been off the forums for about a month now. I can't believe that this is still considered a valid line of discussion. There is no discussion here. There is one guy who does not listen to anybody but himself. Face it guys--we're not talking to him. We're talking at him. And he doesn't get it. Why doesn't he get it? Because he isn't listening. Why isn't he listening? Because he's right....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

at least in his own mind. Furthermore, when somebody here demonstrates that they clearly posess a greater wealth of knowledge on the subject, he reverts to simple name-calling. Odd, considering that he was the one initially complaining about people calling him names. I would love to see him surmount any sort of argument without calling somebody a "diatonic" (or some other made-up variation on the word, such as diatologist) or using the word "indoctrinated". His only line of defense against the several intellegent arguments against his concept has been to portray the authors of said arguments as brainwashed followers of an archaic system. Interesting, seeing as how he fails to even make a simple effort to understand this system.

 

I will now address the quote above. Singingax, the notation system isn't centered around any instrument. Just because it isn't centered around yours doesn't make it useless. The reason most guitarists don't learn to read music is because the guitar culture doesn't encourage reading. Most other instruments require reading. Most other instruments have a repertoire which would be rather difficult to learn exclusively by ear. Thus, notation is a necessity. I don't give a {censored} if you don't care about notation or the ramifications of your proposed system when it comes to notation. It does matter, and you are wrong. Beginning and end of story. So unless you can figure out an acceptable manner for me to communicate Bach, Mozart, and Stravinsky by means other than notation, your system is fatally flawed and therefore invalid.

[arasmith]

Originally posted by riffdaddy ... Thus, notation is a necessity. I don't give a {censored} if you don't care about notation or the ramifications of your proposed system when it comes to notation. It does matter, and you are wrong. Beginning and end of story. So unless you can figure out an acceptable manner for me to communicate Bach, Mozart, and Stravinsky by means other than notation, your system is fatally flawed and therefore invalid.

 

 

First off, yes, yes, and yes.

 

Second, let's not leave any wiggle room for "someone" claiming that "it's okay for classical, but nothing else." To broaden the target, what about communicating jazz standards (Real Book) to the rest of a band?

 

Moreover, I'd like to know what a typical jam with you (Singingax) actually sounds like.

 

e.g. "Okay guys, Takin Care of Business in R - 1, 2, 1234..."

 

Can you not find a Bb on the fretboard? Are the folks you play with too dumb for you to say "hey, make sure you keep F# in the bass?"

[MorePaul]

Axe - Why did you erase the other thread?

I think it contained a lot of information that might be valuable to the discussion here.

Have you had a chance to pick up the "alternate notation Sourcebook" ?(he also wrote a great book on microtonality, but you won't see that until you try that MIDI experiment I was talking about).

Don't get too married to the OZ system without checking out the whole range over the last few hundred years. Seriously, OZ is just one idea - I realize your not much for off-line research, but that's where you are going to find the meat of the issues.
Websites are just not thorough enough (since you're in your 30's the library will feel like home anyway)

As mentioned earlier, I have some disagreements with Greschak's analysis of traditional pitch naming, at which point you decided I was overintellectualizing.
It's weird b/c I thought you'd feel the same about Grescak as he's a big "math in music" type guy. He actually has a lot in common with the serialist movement, so you probably want to look into that history as well.

[arasmith]

Originally posted by Singingax ... 3) How about, "okay guys, Takin' Care of Business in E## or is that F# or is that Gb ah, well it's the one between G and F now - 1, 2, 1234..." 4) Can I find a BBB, that is called Bb or F#, because it's not a natural note and has to use an accidental with a natural note to have a name? Absolutely. But, since I have only 12 BBB, and I'm not using sheet music, why the hell should I? ...

 

 

Let me help you out, since we are using a written medium for describing all this {censored}. Pretend that you are playing with other musicians. Glance to your left and say "hey, make sure you play the (and I'll help here) ef-sharp in the bass." Is that in any way ambiguous? Do you playing partners stare open-mouthed at their fretboards? Or do they play the damn F# without a second thought?

 

Do you ever play with other musicians?

-or-

Do you just like to argue?

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax Uh, a SOTGF shows you to be el wrongo.

No it shows you that it doesn't work - and it shows me that it does work. No rights or wrongs here, only opinions.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Using the 7 letter system? I'll pass. 2) Using a named note with an accidental to name one of the BBB? I'll pass. 3) Using accidentals to represent 1 of 5 of the 12 BBB's because it doesn't have a designation? Again, I'll pass on using your sheet music logic. 4) When used OUTSIDE of sheet music and the natural scale the CNC IS illogical. Just look at a SOTGF to see. (unless you're ignorant of it)

I'm preaching to deaf ears, and so are you.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 2) That's laughable. I started this debate because I found the CNC doesn't work OUTSIDE of sheet music, at least very well. (as a SOTGF shows) I then got called all sorts of names. So saying you'd like to see any sort of argument without calling someone a name applies to those trying to defend the CNC more than it does to me.

Come on, don't play holy - you've had your share of the name calling.

And I really don't get it. You say that one can play sheet music on a guitar easily enough, but when you put away the sheet music you are suddenly screwed? (And don't argue against that, it's exactly what you've written above)

You should be as confused (if not more) when playing sheet music as when playing by ear, if you don't understand the system, I'd say.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Yes. But it was in response to others and not all by itself. 2) I see. You can't argue the merits of the CNC OUTSIDE of sheet music, so you put words into my mouth. (nice try)

 

 

1) Yep - and it's not that it really bothers me.

 

2) But would you say it works for sheet music when one can't actually play it on guitar?

 

It works as well/bad inside sheet music as outside of it - the point of sheet music is for people to play it - I assumed this was also your point of view (despite that you don't use it yourself).

 

If this is the way you look at sheet music, look at what you wrote: "I started this debate because I found the CNC doesn't work OUTSIDE of sheet music, at least very well." Do I put words in your mouth - I don't think so. But this has been your way of defending yourself throughout, so I'm not really surprised.

 

If that's not the way you look at sheet music, then what is your point???

 

 

[MorePaul]

diatonic letter naming predates staff music by hundreds of years...I think you've got the master and the servant reversed on that one

Hey axe - why'd you erase the other threads? we covered a lot of ground there that may be some use here

[Poparad]

I am a semi-pro jazz guitarist and I do a lot of playing both with and without sheet music. When reading charts and arrangments, it's skill I have to be able to use. However, when improvising I don't use the charts, I just play with a mental picture of the fretboard, or whatever acronym it's being called now... The point is, I think in terms of the 7 letter names with sharps and flats and I have no confusion over to how scales lie on the fretboard and how I visualize things. To me, if someone says "play an F#" I can visually picture it just as fast as if they were to say "play an F". Doesn't matter that "F#" is an F a half step higher, it's engrained into my mind as being it's own individual note. If I were playing on the low E string, my mind would instantly call up the 2nd fret, without any reference to the F on the first fret. In fact, I'd probably reference (if I needed a reference point) E or G or G# more since those are notes commonly found in scales along with F# (Emajor or Eminor in this case).

My point being is that although the notes with accidentals take their name from the natural notes, in practical application they are their own unique entities. Each of the 5 'inbetween' notes aren't really inbetween when you learn them, they become just as prominant as the other 7, creating a set of 12 pitches that are all as individual as the other.

As for the 5 having two names, it's just an alternate name that follows a very logical system and having 5 more names is not really a huge challenge, and I certianly hope everyone here can count to 17 as easily as they can 12. They system is logical for this reason: When the key you're in has sharps, note of the 5 notes will be flat if they're present. Let's pick a key with a good amount of accidentals, such as E major. The 4 notes with accidentals are all sharp. Always. In Ab major, there are four notes with accidentals, an they're all flat, always. There's logic right there. How about a chromatic scale? The logic: descenting=flats, ascending=sharps. That makes total sense. When you're going down, the pitches are getting lower so flats make complete logical sense, and vice versa for ascending. There is the logic for the use of standard notational letter names.

Don't like sheet music? Fine by me, choose your poison I guess, but as for playing away from any form of written notation, I do it every day with the standard seven letter names with no confusion and total command of major/minor keys. When people tell me to play this chord or that chord, I have no problem finding where it's supposed to go on the fretboard whether or not it has an accidental or not. Besides, I already made the point that having an accidental to me doesn't make it any less of a prominant note that the seven notes that don't have accidentals. Through practice they each have developed a unique idenity in my mind.

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Poparad I am a semi-pro jazz guitarist and I do a lot of playing both with and without sheet music. When reading charts and arrangments, it's skill I have to be able to use. However, when improvising I don't use the charts, I just play with a mental picture of the fretboard, or whatever acronym it's being called now... The point is, I think in terms of the 7 letter names with sharps and flats and I have no confusion over to how scales lie on the fretboard and how I visualize things. To me, if someone says "play an F#" I can visually picture it just as fast as if they were to say "play an F". Doesn't matter that "F#" is an F a half step higher, it's engrained into my mind as being it's own individual note. If I were playing on the low E string, my mind would instantly call up the 2nd fret, without any reference to the F on the first fret. In fact, I'd probably reference (if I needed a reference point) E or G or G# more since those are notes commonly found in scales along with F# (Emajor or Eminor in this case). My point being is that although the notes with accidentals take their name from the natural notes, in practical application they are their own unique entities. Each of the 5 'inbetween' notes aren't really inbetween when you learn them, they become just as prominant as the other 7, creating a set of 12 pitches that are all as individual as the other. As for the 5 having two names, it's just an alternate name that follows a very logical system and having 5 more names is not really a huge challenge, and I certianly hope everyone here can count to 17 as easily as they can 12. They system is logical for this reason: When the key you're in has sharps, note of the 5 notes will be flat if they're present. Let's pick a key with a good amount of accidentals, such as E major. The 4 notes with accidentals are all sharp. Always. In Ab major, there are four notes with accidentals, an they're all flat, always. There's logic right there. How about a chromatic scale? The logic: descenting=flats, ascending=sharps. That makes total sense. When you're going down, the pitches are getting lower so flats make complete logical sense, and vice versa for ascending. There is the logic for the use of standard notational letter names. Don't like sheet music? Fine by me, choose your poison I guess, but as for playing away from any form of written notation, I do it every day with the standard seven letter names with no confusion and total command of major/minor keys. When people tell me to play this chord or that chord, I have no problem finding where it's supposed to go on the fretboard whether or not it has an accidental or not. Besides, I already made the point that having an accidental to me doesn't make it any less of a prominant note that the seven notes that don't have accidentals. Through practice they each have developed a unique idenity in my mind.

 

 

You and I are very much on the same page here. I think you worded your argument very well. However, Auggie Doggie and I made the same argument about six weeks ago. He's gonna call you names (either "diatonic" or "diatologist", which he still uses despite the fact that it isn't a real word) and he isn't going to listen to a thing you say. The important thing to understand here is that he's right in his own mind.

 

Singingax, I'm very happy that you found a naming system that works for you. Considering that it is highly unlikely that I'll ever play with you, I really don't give a damn what you call the notes. You can do things your own way. However, your only function on this forum is telling people that they're wrong and you're right. We quit calling you names a long time ago. You haven't had two posts in a row where you've managed to keep from calling people names. Furthermore, you seldom contribute to anything other than arguing your little philosophy. Guess what? WE DON'T CARE. For the majority of the rest of us, systems like OZ, Nashville Numbering, and CAGED don't really serve any practical function. Many of us here are trying to learn styles of music where systems like these just don't have any value. If they work for you, fine. Just quit being an asshole about it, and quit hijacking other peoples' threads to start arguments.

 

You are undoubtedly one of the most abrasive individuals I have ever come into contact with. You really ought to learn to tone it down.

[Poparad]

Originally posted by riffdaddy You and I are very much on the same page here. I think you worded your argument very well. However, Auggie Doggie and I made the same argument about six weeks ago. He's gonna call you names (either "diatonic" or "diatologist", which he still uses despite the fact that it isn't a real word) and he isn't going to listen to a thing you say. The important thing to understand here is that he's right in his own mind.

 

 

Yeah, I wasn't really arguing against his system (I don't think many people here have wanted to make a case against it). All I'm doing (and most everyone else) if defending our system and explaining why it works.

 

I've never said anything against his system, and he can very well use it if that's what he wants to do. I've never said it was illogical (although in regards to the saturation of the current system through the past 400 years of music, I would say it's impractacle, although serialism certainly would be a good setting to implement it). All I've tried to do is explain how the standard system is logical as well; not instead of.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 2) The only thing sheet music has to do with it is that's where the CNC comes from. (and is used to defend the 7 letter BS) 5) I don't look at sheet music. Unfortunately that's where the CNC comes from. 6)My POINT is that the CNC is not the way to go when you have 12 BBB.

 

 

2) Has to do with what?

 

5) Maybe I should've written "look upon sheet music" , because you do have an opinion about it, it seems. The "it doesn't work OUTSIDE of sheet music phrase" hasn't been explained yet.

 

6) I know, and you are just to say so - but don't say things that really aren't true to defend your case - even if it's just a misunderstanding, it makes you look like you're lacking a counter argument - and I know you're not!

 

(edited to fix grammar!)

[simeon]

jeez - you guys are still hacking around this topic?

why don't we agree to disagree and let it go - we could spend some time discussing some other topics, or something!

personally, i don't care very much what system singingax uses - i only contributed to this topic originally, because i was worried that by using the OZ system, he would be limiting his own musical development - he obviously doesn't want to play with other musicians or use sheet music now - but who knows, in ten years he might change his mind and then what's he gonna do?

i'd like to take this opportunity to suggest a learning method that uses a schematic of a guitar fretboard, but doesn't rely on naming the notes and is incredibly flexible - here it is...

as an excersise, do this - draw a picture of the guitar fretboard, but give it 36 frets and make them all the same width

then draw circles on on all the frets that contain notes from the C major scale - assuming the zero fret on the picture is the nut of the guitar (don't name the notes - just draw circles)

now you have to use your brain a bit - you can see all the notes of C major, but remember you're also looking at all the notes of the modes as well and you can reference the picture to your guitar neck - see patterns and shapes - all the chords etc

but here's the clever bit where you can use your noggin - imagine the nut of your guiatr is on the third fret of your picture - if you do that, you're looking at a major scale in the key of A, or E mixolydian if you're starting on the lowest note (which is on the third fret of you're picture) - by moving the "nut" around the picture - you can see any mode in any key

you could make another picture for melodic minor and one for harmonic minor and even one for diminished

and it doesn't matter which mode you draw the picture in (if you've got something against C major, then pick another major - C major will still be in there - you'll just have to move the "imaginary nut" to see it)

this is really useful for getting a snapshot of the neck in any key and visualising all the note possibilities

doesn't solve the problem of naming the notes, of course (you still have to do that in your mind) - but it can be useful, especially if you're stuck in a bit of a rut and you're playing the same patterns all the time

cheers

sim

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Sheet music logic as it applies to things OUTSIDE of sheet music? You're right there.

 

 

Any system for naming the notes is going to be a theory. As opposed to the actual playing which is going to be the practical part of music. Your system would have this "problem" too.

 

 

2) And your reference to the natural scale has nothing to do with the tempered scale's 12 BBB. (nice try though)

 

 

Yes, it does my tone deaf friend. The notes Gb and F# (for instance) are not played exactly the same still in this day and age, by the people who have instruments that can intonate them differently (violin, voice, trumpet, slide players... there's actaully sa bunch of us). For these instruments the notatin system reflects the reality of what we hear. So would you if you only listened.

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax I doubt we'd EVER come to an agreement on what's logical...

You giving your definition of what you view as logical would be a start though

That was the intial question and you still haven't answered it.

[MorePaul]

Woah there big fella - you've had exposure to the OZ system for about a month now (I assume mainly from that web page)

Too early for you to fully evaluate


Did you get a chance to try the MIDI cc stream audit experiment? - I think you'll be shocked by how much wiggle you'll do (tempering on a guitar is imperfect at best...notice how the measurements are taken 'unstressed' and we have to use saddle compensation)


Why'd you delete that other 'small penis' thread? It had some info in there.

[MorePaul]

Axe - it appears you aren't interested in having open, honest discourse on the topic.

[335clone]

Jeeze,
2 months and a dozen threads later and it's the same arguments as before. Give it a rest.


Do you have ANY converts to your side yet, or is it still singingaxe vs. the world?

[Poparad]

Originally posted by 335clone Jeeze, 2 months and a dozen threads later and it's the same arguments as before. Give it a rest. Do you have ANY converts to your side yet, or is it still singingaxe vs. the world?

 

 

It hasn't been two months... besides, this thread hasn't been about Singingaxe convincing us his system is right, it's us defending our views on the standard system as being a valid and correct system as well.

[Poparad]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Of course you can "visualize" it. You've obviously, unlike me, been well indoctrinated in the CNC system. (e.g. sheet music)

Again with the name calling... I've never sunk to that level, why do you have to resort to that with me instead of actually raise points?

2) If there's 12 BBB that are their "unique entities", there should be 12 designations. That's my point, there are no inbetween BBB, just ones that aren't used in a certain context. The CNC ASSumes there will be seven. 3) Why have to count to 17 when you're dealing with 12 BBB??? Only using sheet music (and/or diatonic) based arguments can you defend NOT naming ALL the BBB.

If you reread what I had said, you'll see that I very much stressed the fact that all the notes are indeed named. An F natural and an F# are two distinct names. Just because there's an F in both of them doesn't make the F# a 'filler' for the tone. I am naming all of the tones. Each one of these tones does have it's own unique designation, I thought I was pretty clear on that. While there are only 7 alphabetic letters used, there are not just seven names for the notes.

4) Since I don't use sheet music, (thank God) I don't have an opinion about whether I like it or not. What I don't like is using it's 7 designations for 12 BBB. Just look at your "logical" CNC on a SOTGF!

Certainly sounds like you have a rigid opinion about it to me... Whether or not you like it is your choice, I never said you had to use sheet music.

Once again, there are not just 7 designations. Seven letters, but each of the 12 tones have names that indicate that tone and that tone alone. There is not abmiguity with it. And F# will never be an F. A Gb will never be a G. There are more than just 7 designations. Each pitch has a nomenclature that indicates 1 individual tone.

As for the logic, on the fretboard, I have no confusion using it. It works completely for me and I see it as totally logical. I fail to see why you're so hell bent on persuading people to think that only your system can be logical and nothing else. Both can be logical. I see the logic in using the letters O-Z. I see the logic in using the letters A-G. They are both systems that use rules and predictable methods to achieve an outcome. That is pure logic right there.

(Disclaimer: By 'your' system I mean the one that you are advocating, with no implication that you invented it, and vice versa for me and everyone else for the systems that we advocate. I realize you've stressed that and I'm aknowledging that I understand that.)