Singingax, let's give it another go!

[MorePaul]

I'm not sure Axe is aware that there is chromatic staff notation as well.

Of course, he wasn't aware of OZ either.

[riffdaddy]

Singingax, I would like you to respond to each of these questions in a rational manner, without calling people names.

Originally posted by Singingax 1) You're right. Anyone who can look at the CNC on a SOTGF and call it logical HAS to be diatonically indoctrinated. There's no other way to explain it. Do you understand the meaning of the word "diatonic"? You keep calling us "diatonics", but how would you know? As it turns out, my compositions are highly chromatic. Without using the word "indoctrinated", explain to me how my music is diatonic. 2) A: this is a guitar forum. And B: not everybody has been indoctrinated (and IMO shouldn't automatically be) into the CNC. OZ, the Nashville and CAGED system ARE legitimiate subjects for discussion on here whether you like it or not. (and as a sheet music inductee, you obviously don't) Yes, OZ, Nashville, and CAGED are legitimate subjects for discussion. All three have inherent weaknesses and flaws, particularly CAGED. CAGED is often used as a crutch for players who don't want to take the time to learn basic music theory. Nashville has some advantages and some disadvantages. I think it's pertinent to say at this point in time that Nashville is actually a watered down version of figured bass, which us classical musicians have been using for about 400 years now. Here is my question: regardless of the fact that you don't care about sheet music, don't you think that standard notation is also a valid topic for discussion? Considering that musicians other than guitarists don't read standard notation, I think it's important to know how to communicate on that level. In fact, OZ and the Nashville, CAGED systems could easily be considered of MORE value than your sacred sheet music BS FOR guitar! I DON'T CARE that you have so little confidence in the CNC that you would prefer it to remain unchallenged. This is a guitar forum, but guitarists generally interact with other musicians. Thus, sheet music is important. I would like you to explain your thoughts as to how we can preserve the music of Bach and Mozart without the use of sheet music--and don't tell me you're not interested in preserving the music of Bach and Mozart. Bach is the cornerstone of all Western music, thus, his music must be preserved. Please give me your thoughts. I'll take your don't "question sheet music" inspired opinion for what it's worth. Actually, I never said anything about not questioning sheet music. It is, however, an invaluable tool for preserving music. Sheet music is just like the written English language. It would be highly impractical for us to attempt to preserve the entire works of every great author over the past 2000 years by oral tradition alone. In fact, it would be nearly impossible. I have two more questions for you: 1) What kind of music do you play? You have dodged this question in the past. Perhaps you feel that the question was asked in a rhetorical manner, implying that you play some God-awful genre like polka or disco-metal. That is not the case here. I'm asking the question out of genuine curiosity. I know what many of the other regulars on this forum play, and I want to know what you play also. Please tell us. 2) Do you believe there is any validity or usefullness to the current system (a) for guitarists, and (b) for other musicians? Once again, I ask that you answer these questions in a calm and rational manner, and don't call people names.

 

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Naming notes?? I'm not talking about "naming notes".

This is when it's actually OK to call you things like dumb{censored}... please observe that I didn't do it, I just said it would be OK.

You've said that you don't like the fact that our notation system has 7 names for the natural notes and that the 5 other notes have double names. If this isn't about naming the notes then I'm your dad and you need to go to bed.

Tone deaf? I must be tone deaf if I don't except sheet music BS, huh? Ah, yes. More natural scaled arguments when the debate is actually about tempered scaled instruments.

You're not really paying attention, are you? I'm telling you that these differences are still there. We hear them. We want to lower the major 3rd in a major chord. The same note that later sounds OK as the 3rd of a minor chord. The tempered scale only goes this far, cause we still hear the other one.

This difference between the notes G# and Ab (for instance) is reflected in the notation system and is actually valid even if pianists can't do anything about it.

I have defended the notation system lots of times, I'll do it again too. But first you still have to offer us your very specific version of what logic mean since you're the only one who thinks the notation system isn't logical. That was my initial question and you still haven't answered it, cause you're intellectually weak.

[MorePaul]

If nothing else - there are some well reasoned opinions (terje, Riff, etc) going on

[FroggyFrog]

Umm.. thread summary from an ignorant observer?

Person A:

Saying "big", "large" or "massive" is illogical to describe something when you can just say "plasony" (a new word created for such things).

You are indoctrinated in English if you say "big", "large" or "massive". Just use the basic building word of "plasony".

It shouldn't matter to you if "big", "large" or "massive" are in books because I don't read books.

Just look at the dictionary to see how illogical "big", "large" and "massive" really are.

Group B:

Sure, that's fine. But the person I get my cafe latte from only knows the word large.

Plus, I have to know the words "large", "big" and "massive" because I enjoy reading books. And they don't have the word "plasony" in them. It might be simpler if they did, but they just don't... And well, I've learned the words so it's really not too hard anymore.

Also, you know.. being "big" isn't quite the same as being "massive"... and "large" implies other nuances. I'm not sure it's going to help me to communicate effectively if I simplify it.


Peace,
Gerry

[Terje]

Well put Gerry. The analogy works all the way.

Our friend Singingax won't get it though...

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax What's your definition of "definition"?

"Definition", from the Consice Oxford Dictionary... "Stating the precise nature of a thing or meaning of a word;... "

Moving on to "logical"... this is the part where I want you to be preicise, OK. This is the first part of your argument, I think it's flawed, completely flawed, you need to defend or give up this point if we are to continue.

"Logical"... "... deducible, defensible on ground of consistency, reasonably to be belived or done... "

The notation system is consistent, it follows its own rules and you can learn how to use it. Unlike the spelling of the English language, which doesn't follow any consistent rules. But yet, you've mastered that pretty well, funny isn't it

Just cause the notation system isn't built the way you'd like it to be does not mean it's illogical. If this is your stand point you need to be albe to defnd it. One way would be to do so with a new, brave definition of the word logical. Go ahead, be my guest.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 4) More sheet music logic, huh? Funny how the CNC can't be truly defended for use OUTSIDE of sheet music.

 

 

What do you mean by "outside of sheet music"? I still don't get it.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax What does your music have to do with anything? When I say diatonic, it's in reference to the 7 letter sheet music derived CNC.

 

 

Sheet music derived from the CNC, not the other way around, I'm quite sure.

[Terje]

C'mon, lazy ass! Define logic or get out!

[Terje]

Weak...

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax No, I said I don't like the fact that the 12 BBB don't have 12 distinct designations.

From The Oxford Dictionary again...

designation, n. Appointing to office; name, description, title.

You're starting to look so damn silly

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax ...proof that there's no good counter-argument.

This again proves that you are dumb. You want new names (yes you do!) for the 12 BBB as you call them. One problem we'll encounter by doing this is that we already have names that everyone understands, a system that works. This will lead to communication problems.

However, they are not of more importance than if it showed that you have a better system to come up with than the already existing one we'd all happily change right now. But I'm getting ahead of myself...

... you still haven't defended your first argument, you still haven't explained how music notation, the current way of designating the pitches with note names, 7 for the natural notes and accidentals for the others, a system that follows its own rules, how this system can be defined as illogical. Until you do that you're just a troll with nothing to say.

Or, you could stop calling the notation system for illogical, and we can go on from there.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax Not OUTSIDE of sheet music and/or the natural scale. (though I totally understand why)

You keep on saying that, and I have no idea what your point is. Care to explain it to me?

[Gui]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but the CNC doesn't require as much memorization.

You do have to remember this order: F C G D A E B...

If you know the circle of fifths (or fourths), then you can figure out what notes are in the key you are playing without having memorized it before. All keys always have the same number of sharps (or flats). If you are playing in D major, you know that there are 2 sharps: F# & C#. This gives you D E F# G A B C#. It's easy for me to think in this way because I already have the alphabet memorized. It works all the way around the circle. Seems logical to me.

This is used whether or not you are playing with sheet music in front of you. A saxophonist trying to improvise who doesn't have all the keys memorized can still make his way through the chord changes using this. And he is not really reading sheet music at this point. The page only contains chord changes.

The OZ system names the notes in order chromatically. Also logical. If I was using the OZ system, it may intially be easier to learn the notes outside of any context, but most people learn music that is played in a key.

[MorePaul]

Computer Numerical Control?

hey axe -- why'd you delete the other thread?

I think it had a lot of info in there of value to this conversation.

I'm sure you can relate to "indoctrination"...you never really did give NST or other (there are a few of them) isomorphic tuning systems a try...
as you said "I'm used to the squirrel"

[MorePaul]

Again, woah there!

you've been exposed to the OZ system for about a month there big fella and it doesn't sound like you've done much research beyond a web page.
I mean, WE even had to point out the system b/c you weren't doing your legwork


One thing to note is that the OZ letters were chosen at is allows it to coexist with the traditional western diatonic boethian system.

I think one thing you are failing to understand with the traditional scheme is what information is actually being carried.

I realize that you don't care about nuances and don't care to improve your musicianship (as you stated earlier), and hobby music is totally cool.
But I think that it's not very open-minded to dismiss a working system when you don't really have a good working knowledge of it.
It's probably also a good idea to check out the spectrum of notation systems before getting married to one after a month of use.
remember the good 'ole days (like 5-6 weeks ago) when you were reinventing the wheel?

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 3) Correction, you know that you are playing in a key that has notes outside of the C major scale.

 

 

That wasn't a correction, just another way of saying the same. Not as precisely, though.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax Really? Try looking at a SOTGF with the CNC, which is the same that sheet music uses, for a clue. It's truly exhibit #1 for my side of the debate. (and undeniable proof thereof)

 

 

So you're sying that it may work within sheet music, even though it can't actually be palyed on guitar, according to you?

 

If it doesn't work "outside" of sheet music, it doesn't work inside of sheet music either. Those two aspects are closely related, you see.

 

Piano players wouldn't agree with you, by the way (try to look at a SOT Piano's Keyboard)

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax And still no good counter-arguments for using the CNC instead of 12 distinct designations. (I understand, what else can you say?)

 

 

You refuse to see our counter arguments - you know, there is an old thread on page 4 and 5, entitled "The arguments agaisnt naming all 12 pitches". Check that one out again, will ya?

[Poparad]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Just making an observation. No, your'e not. Childish name calling is not an observation. 2) You're wrong, as a SOTGF with the sheet music derived CNC proves. Again with the tones. Hey, whatever your sheet music indoctrination makes you see is fine with me. But I can see that what the CNC shows on a SOTGF.

What's that supposed to mean? This entire debate is about how to name the tones used in western music. Why are they now irrelevent?

3) I'm certainly not going to use a sheet music inspired CNC and it's 7 letters to designate 12 BBB, that's for sure.

You've got it backwards. Sheet music came over a century after the current system.

4) More sheet music logic, huh? Funny how the CNC can't be truly defended for use OUTSIDE of sheet music. Hell, along with seven letters, there are only seven NOTES. (per octave) Why do you think you have to use accidentals in the first place. 5) Being well indoctrinated in sheet music, I wouldn't expext you to have any confusion. When I talk about the CNC being illogical, I'm talking about it when it's used in applications OUTSIDE of sheet music. It's logic or non-logic within sheet music is of NO interest to me. Hey, if you would stop and actually read my posts, you would see that I am bringing up relevant points about the system when used OUTSIDE of the realms of sheet music. Not once in the post you were replying to did I explain things as a byproduct of sheet music, or in application of sheet music. Everything I said was in the application of music outside of the realms of written notation. It seems to me that everytime I give you a valid point to your demands of "how is it logical outside of sheet music" you just thow around the words "indoctrination" to demean my understanding and knowledge as if it were to be somesort of foolish intellectual pursuit. You also ignore many other valid points around here by claiming we're using "sheet music logic" when most of the time these explanations offered to you are very valid outside of written notation. When you don't have a back up argument you start throwing in words like "hyperbole" and "type A personality" which again fall into the catagories of ignoring valid points and childish name calling. Of course, it's too late now for you to swallow your argumentive pride and admit that standard notation is a good system. You will have to admit your're wrong and I don't think you can do that. So what does it matter if I say you're wrong? Well, whenever someone says something logical about standard musical nomenclature, you just say it's 'illogical' and ignore all the valid points raised, saying that they are 'wrong' without any supportive reasoning. You've never said why we're wrong, you just say that we are as if that were a substantial enough argument to hold its weight without support. So, then, in turn, why should I have to say any more than "You are wrong" to counter it? This is where the stalemate begins. I've said my peace on the subject and explained it beyond a doubt that the standard system is logical, works outside of sheet music, and it a valid system to use. I'm not going to waste my breath anymore against someone who is deaf to reason and refuses to accept counterarguments without namecalling and ignoring the points. Then you have the gall to hyprocritically accuse everyone else of namecalling and ignoring your points as if you'd done nothing wrong yourself. I've offered myself up for civilized debate but only recieve the juvenile equivalent of a kid putting their hands over their ears screaming "I can't hear you" to every counterargument I have to offer. I've succeeded at giving a good debate, but I've failed to find a civilized debater in Singingaxe.

[Gui]

Ok, first of all, what's with the 'indoctrinated' comments. It really doesn't mean anything. You can call me 'diatonically indoctrinated' as much as I could call you 'OZ indoctrinated.' All this means is that I understand the CNC and that you understand OZ.

Here's what I find logical about the CNC. The number of sharps or flats tells me something about what key I am in. 3 sharps means I am in A major. 2 flats means I am in Bb. What you consider the CNC's weaknesses, I consider its strengths. If I was using OZ, and I wanted to know what key I am in, I would have to have every key memorized. I'm not saying that I shouldn't have them memorized. I'm just pointing out that the CNC does have some logic to it. I'm not saying OZ is illogical either. But I am not OZ indoctrinated, so I don't have any of the keys memorized in OZ.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Gui You can call me 'diatonically indoctrinated' as much as I could call you 'OZ indoctrinated.' All this means is that I understand the CNC and that you understand OZ.

Well, I don't know you can really call him 'indoctrinated' - he' only been aware of OZ about a month and I think his research consists of this forum telling him about it and a quicky google search.

[FroggyFrog]

Proofs?

SingingAx maintains that:

O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

is logical.

But

O P/I Q R/J S T U/K V W/L X Y/M Z

is not logical.

To test this, everybody pick a basic building block by number.

Whichever system gives you a different result when you pick a number is the illogical system.

We tested this many times in our lab and both systems gave the exact same results each time. For example, the fourth building block always came back as R in system one, and always came back as R/J in system two.

As a side issue, the second system is used by millions of people and is taught and learned and written and spoken by millions of people.

Given the above facts, which one is the better system to learn?

Wuv
Gerry

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax What does your music have to do with anything? When I say diatonic, it's in reference to the 7 letter sheet music derived CNC.

 

 

Here is how my music is relavent: you keep referring to me as a "diatonic". That would imply that my music is diatonic. It isn't, thus, it would be incorrect of you to call me "diatonic". It would also be incorrect to call me a "diatologist", since there is no such word. Of course, you'll probably call this particular statement "humor and hyperbole". The CNC is not derived from sheet music. Sheet music was created out of the CNC. Thus, your argument that the CNC doesn't work outside of sheet music is invalid. Not only does the CNC work outside of sheet music, it evolved independently of sheet music. Do you have an argument for this?