Singingax, let's give it another go!

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax Then use the Nashville system's generic formulas and let other musicians that don't read standard notation, or even the CNC that's derived from it and/or the natural scale, to communicate on all levels.

 

 

You didn't answer my question. Don't dodge the bullet here. My question was "don't you think that sheet music is also a valid topic for discussion?". My question is unrelated to the Nashville system. Please respond.

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax Is that your attempt at an argument for NOT naming ALL 12 BBB?

I'm actually not arguing against your system here. What I'm arguing against is your claim that the current system is completely invalid. If we were to scrap the entire system and not teach it to anybody, how do we preserve music? You propose a system for musicians where written music is non-existent (if this is not what you propose, please correct me). How do we record our musical thoughts?

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax Originally posted by riffdaddy 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. [/QOUTE] 1) All kinds. 2) I believe the CNC is not a very useful way of naming (or giving designations to) the 12 BBB. (just look at a SOTGF to see) 1) Like what? I want specific examples. Do you play jazz? Do you play rock? Do you play celtic? Do you play bluegrass? Do you play country? Do you play R&B? Do you play soul? Do you play classical? Throw me a bone. I'm not leading you here, I just want an answer. 2) I'm still not clear on your answer. Are you saying the system is useless only for guitarists or for all musicians?

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax Names that everyone understands? Or are they just names that you've been indoctrinated to understand?

 

 

Makes no difference. The names that everyone uses and everyone understands are more practical until a better system is invented.

 

 

Check the OZ website if you want to see what might be a better system. (for written notation)

 

 

Give me a link.

 

 

I'm just looking for a logical way to have designations for the 12 BBB.

 

 

Then you can stick with the one we have cause it is logical. It's still up to you to prove what's illogical with our current system.

 

No, the fact that it uses accidentals for some notes isn't proof enough that the notation system is illogical, cause there is a system for when and how to use the accidentals, these rules are followed in the system and hence the system is logical.

 

Now, it's up top you to back up this statement that the notation system is illogical, give it up or shut up.

[Terje]

Actually, let me rephrase the initial question so it's not as easy to escape it...

Singinax, how can a system that consistenly follows its own rules be illogical?

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Terje Actually, let me rephrase the initial question so it's not as easy to escape it... Singinax , how can a system that consistenly follows its own rules be illogical?

Singingax doesn't seem to care about the functionality of the system, he simply looks at his guitar and refuses to even try to understand. Talk of being narrow-minded...

[Terje]

Originally posted by vote4dicktaid Singingax doesn't seem to care about the functionality of the system...

 

 

I know, but that's the next step. First he has to prove that his initial statement is true, that the notations system is illogical. This is his starting point. Which I say is totally flawed.

 

Now, let's see if the weakling can actually manage to come up with something even close to an argument in favor of his own statements.

[MorePaul]

The "difficulties" of reading staff for guitar is a reflection of its freedom...since you have a couple of different ways to play something...the musician has to make up his mind
(remember the Segovia transcription example fom earlier?)

These difficulties/freedoms aren't unique to guitar obviously.


Just like if you are reading chord charts, there are a number of ways to voice any given chord...it's up to the musician to voice it in an appropriate manner.

Now on staff music arranged for guitar, there will often be suggestions (position as marked by roman numeral above the staff, left hand fingerings with digits, right hand fingerings with p-i-m-a-c) but the musician is free to make other deisions.
My decisions may differ from Segovia's (I don't have a hauser, so struggling for the 'Hauser A' isn't really warranted) and that may differ from your plan.

The great thing is, since you are reading musical structure, you can also see the musical (as opposed to mechanical) structure, so you can choose things to drop, add, ornament, or just generally how to phrase.

unfortuntely, mechanical tab - while OK for instruction if you want to expose a certain technique (as do suggested fingerings)...doesn't really give you the freedom inherent in a guitar.

I realize you are more of of a hobbyist ('piano in a flash' type courses, etc) and it does take time to develop a whole understanding (as one is not simply reading and executing as a piano roll)


Why'd you delete the other thread?

[MorePaul]

Axe it's good to note that keys can have different tone color, so the feel changes. that is one reason the keyboard is as it is, the topology changes with color...as can guitar.

Remember "The Well-Tempered Clavier" that was the point behind all the modulations. Not merely to show that you can temper to allow modulations (remember it isn't THE tempered scale, it's A tempered scale - there are a bunch of them, yup sometimes even pianos are prepped, harpsichords typically are, pipe organs change their inotnation dynamically, clavs have to be played lightly to avoid pulling out of tune) remember, JS would actually chage tuning between pieces

One thing of interest is that our pitch perception varies with cultural tonal center (which may be one reason A has shifted from A=415 Baroque to A=440 and was, I think in some parts of Europe, A-435 for a while) ...remember the tritone and shepard function paradox stuff we discussed?


As we discussed earlier, there have been a number of alternative keybaords throughout the instrument's history (some of which were too mechanically complex until modern machining) including "non-centered" and >12 tone keyboards.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, you deleted the post where we talked about this in greater detail.

Have you had a chance to read the Issacoff (he's the editor of Piano Today) texts yet? they give a pretty good history of the development in easy-to-swallow language

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax 2) Why not stick with the CNC?

 

 

because machine shops are dirty dangerous places to work

[Gui]

Originally posted by Singingax First you ask me about indoctrination then you make a point FROM that indoctrination?

I was trying to get you to see what it sounds like when you hear someone calling another person 'indoctrinated' in their argument: it doesn't mean anything. You do see that us calling each other indoctrinated does not really mean anything from the other person's perspective don't you? Ok. How about if you stop using the word indoctrinated, I will stop using it as well.

That's your whole point? I thought your point was that the CNC was illogical.

In fact, I was about to concede that the CNC does have some points OUTSIDE of sheet music with the circle of fifths until I realized that you going with the C major scale (which IS diatonic) as the starting point.

I don't see your point here. How does starting at C major make the CNC invalid?

I wonder if it still works when you DON'T start from the C major scale. (as sheet music and the CNC do)

If I start from A major (A B C# D E F# G#), and go to the next key, I have E major (E F# G# A B C# D#), which has 4 sharps. Looks like it works to me.


I think your usage of the word 'logical' differs from everyone else's. A number of points have been shown that the CNC has sets of consitent rules that always work. If the system was not logical, then there would be inconsistencies everywhere.

Your main argument for showing that the CNC is illogical is telling us to look at the gobbledygook on the fretboard. This does not show that it is illogical. It shows that it is confusing. While it can be confusing at first, it does not make it illogical.

What am I talking about? Let's try the sequence of prime numbers:

1 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19...

This does not make sense to someone who doesn't know how to divide or multiply. That does not make it illogical.

And about sheet music, I already mentioned that jazz musicians can improvise outside of sheet music. Yes, guitarists can be jazz musicians too.

you saying it makes sense when you see it from a diatonic (and not only that but C major scale) perspective. And THAT'S my whole point! That's the very reason the number of sharps or flats tell you something about what key you're in.

[MorePaul]

Axe - please remember that you yourself are quite indoctrinated --
remember the reasons you gave for not trying a more isomorphic tuning?

'I am used to this other system'

While I am OK with 12 tone chromatic notation (remember who pointed OZ out to you in the first place).

I think you are making some mistakes

1) Critizing folks when you, yourself, are resistant to new systems.

2) Misunderstanding the purpose behind traditional diatonic namings.


I realize that you, as you mentioned, don't really care to expand your, musicianship, but please understand that there are many here who do.

I realize you are probably not reading my posts (I assuming using the "ignore" facility on this board) as it doesn't help your "indoctrinated diatologist" argument that I am OK with alternative notation systems

I continue to post because there are others interested in the topic that seem to have more open minds

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax

And I ask back, "isn't naming all 12 of the BBB, that are an intergral part of the tempered scaled guitar, a valid topic for discussion?"


Sure it's valid! unfortunately, you deleted a whole bunch of info on it.

It's OK man, I'm not offended at the "small penis" remarks, it's fully a natural defense mechanism as stress is a natural part of the learning process


I don't see what sheet music or the natural scale have to do with it other than that's where the CNC that we use is (unfortunately) derived from.

Axe you got it backward diatonic boethian names predates staff music

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax This MAY make sense when you don't have the 12 BBB you do with most tempered scaled instruments like the guitar, but just look at it when it's APPLIED to a tempered scaled instrument like it is on a SOTGF. I've been writing for other instruments my entire life, and I don't know of a single modern instrument (short of non-pitched percussion) that operates on a natural scale. All instruments play fully chromatically these days. I don't know where you got the notion that some instruments don't use all 12 pitch classes. That's why the Nashville system works for me. You get do-re-mi-fa-so-la-te-do as a basic FORMULA, not a naming system. Such as; 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8. You do realize that the Nashville system is a diatonic system, don't you? I don't mind that formula telling me what tones I'm playing, depending on the context, but having the tones of the C major scale as a basis, like in CNC, isn't a logical naming system for a tempered scaled instrument and it's 12 BBB. That's the whole point of key signatures. Has anybody explained to you the concept of key signatures?

 

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Does it really matter? (I don't think so) If it doesn't matter, why are you so adamant about hiding it? 2) First off, I don't think sheet music or the CNC "is useless". I do think it's for natural scaled instruments though. I just think guitarists (or any musician that plays a tempered scaled instrument that has 12 BBB) would be much better served by having 12 distinct designations instead of having to resort to a tone based naming system, (and one that uses the 7 tones of the C major scale at that) all of which requires you to play musical chairs with 7 names to name 5 of the 12 BBB. Explain to me what a "natural scaled" instrument is.

 

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax And I ask back, "isn't naming all 12 of the BBB, that are an intergral part of the tempered scaled guitar, a valid topic for discussion?"

 

 

Hmm... isn't that what we're discussing here?

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax To answer you're question; when debating whether to name the 12 BBB, I don't see what sheet music or the natural scale have to do with it other than that's where the CNC that we use is (unfortunately) derived from.

 

 

Wrong again. Repeat: Sheet music derived from the CNC*, not the other way around. People were singing long before they began writing it down as well. It may be a detail, but the fact that you obviously lack knowledge about certain aspects of the current notation/BBB-naming system just makes you look ignorant. Especially as it isn't the first time you've shown hints of that.

 

And your 12 BBB goes for the tempered scale only, right? So you want two separate systems for violin and guitar?

 

Besides, I still don't see why you think the natural scale is more suited for the CNC than the tempered one. The logic (or lack thereof) is quite consistent no matter what you use - as it is when playing sheet music as when by ear.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax Originally posted by Terje: Singinax, how can a system that consistenly follows its own rules be illogical? When it's used for something that is OUTSIDE that system.

 

 

Examples, please?

 

 

 

*This is actually a half truth - flats and sharps as we know them today did arrive in sheet music first, for obvious harmonic reasons, though.

 

 

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) If you stop using natural scale and sheet music logic as a defense for things OUTSIDE it, then I will stop. 2) From your indoctri... well, just see 1). 3) What's logical can be a matter of perspective. The fact that you can look at a SOTGF with the CNC and call it logical is proof of that. And the CNC IS inconsistant when it comes to naming the 12 BBB. 4) Yes it does. From your sheet music and natural scaled perspective, it may not, but OUTSIDE that it certainly does.

 

 

1) You keep on saying that - explain it to me. Name some actual music, that would benefit from 12 names instead of 7.

 

3) No it isn't. Each note gets named depending on function and context. It's consistent, practical and logical.

 

4) See 1

[Gui]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) If you stop using natural scale and sheet music logic as a defense for things OUTSIDE it, then I will stop.

I did not use sheet music in my defense. And I am not sure what you mean by natural scale. Is it the same as the diatonic scale? Most music I come across (classical, jazz, rock, pop) is based on this. It's everywhere. So unless we are talking specifically about non-western music from india or japan, I am going to have to use the natural scale. If you are talking about playing non-Western-influenced music, than we can just let it go.

3) What's logical can be a matter of perspective. The fact that you can look at a SOTGF with the CNC and call it logical is proof of that. And the CNC IS inconsistant when it comes to naming the 12 BBB.

I think we are arguing different topics here. It seems what you really are trying to tell us is that is not logical for you to learn the CNC based on SOTGF. Wheras the rest of us are arguing that the CNC is not an illogical system. I think this is why this thread is so long. We are not even arguing over the same stuff.

4) Yes it does. From your sheet music and natural scaled perspective, it may not, but OUTSIDE that it certainly does.

Again, I didn't even mention sheet music in my last argument.

5) You make my point and don't even realize it. The prime numbers don't make sense inside of addition and subtraction, (multiplication and division are OUTSIDE of addition and subtraction) just like CNC doesn't make sense inside of the tempered scale and a SOTGF.

You seem to be missing my point.
You are correct that prime numbers do not have any application unless you are going to use them for mult/div/etc. It would not be logical to use them for addition and subtraction. But prime numbers ARE used in math involving mult/div. Just as the BBB ARE used in music.
You seem to be concerned only with what the names look like on a guitar fretboard. Sure it doesn't make sense if i just draw it and try to memorize it without using it for anything. What are you using the guitar for if not to play music?

If you are not using the BBB to play music, then the CNC is illogical. If you are playing music based on the Whole Tone scale, then the CNC is illogical. Riffdaddy asked you what music you play and you said it wasn't relevant, but if we are talking about when the CNC is logical and when it is not, then the music you play is relevant.

6) Say what?

I said that jazz musicians do not read sheet music when improvising. They read charts or chord changes. There is no notation here except for what chord changes are. This is written with notes in the same manner as the Nashville system. There are no notes on the staff. It's not reading sheet music.

*edited for markup

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by vote4dicktaid 1) You keep on saying that - explain it to me. Name some actual music, that would benefit from 12 names instead of 7.

 

 

He gets a little confused as to the nature of tempering (I think he doesn't understand how variable temperaments are and I can't, for the life of me, get him to read or try an exercise to show him -- we had to hand feed him OZ).

 

 

 

It's really highly chromatic music that sometimes can benefit. Often this music is composed with means other than a human thinking harmonically)

Serialism is a good example.

Greschak (the OZ guy axe quotes) does a lot of 'translation'...mapping chess moves to music, mapping solids to music...that kind of stuff.

[Gui]

Well, as far as I am concerned, we are not even arguing about the same thing. (read my previous post) I seem to be arguing that our current naming conventions are logical. To me, it seems that Singingaxe is arguing that between OZ and the CNC, it is more logical for him to use OZ. These are not the same issue.

[MorePaul]

Computer Numerical Control?


I wouldn't worry too much about it.

As Axe mentioned, he's not fully versed in musical notation systems and he's not real interested in improving his musicianship (lordy knows we've given him some sources, but he doesn't seem to follow through)

he's only ben exposed to OZ for about a month, so he doesn't really have any miles on it.

I think it's the only alternative system he's looked at b/c we spoon fed it to him and he could do a web search (he doesn't seem much for off-line research, where a lot of this info resides).

I think axe isn't quite getting the information that is being carried by traditional notation systems.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax That's what you get when you use a system that may be logical within itself (natural scale and sheet music) but isn't as logical OUTSIDE itself. (

This discussion is reaching a turning point now...

Singingax, I'd like to ask you a similar question: Would you explain to us all how naming all 12 pitches would work inside the world of diatonic music (which is, after all, a quite noticeable part of "all kinds of music")?

And I promise you, if you can convince me that twelve names would work better diatonically, you'll get your first convent.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by MorePaul It's really highly chromatic music that sometimes can benefit. Often this music is composed with means other than a human thinking harmonically) Serialism is a good example. B]

 

 

Serialism?

[Gui]

Originally posted by vote4dicktaid Serialism?

 

 

Serialism is wacky stuff. It's sorta like writing a program to write music for you. It can be interesting but I wouldn't pay to hear it.

[FroggyFrog]

1) As shown on a SOTGF and for the 12 BBB of the tempered scale? Most definitely YES!

 

Agreed! OZ is logical.

 

2) Why not stick with the CNC?

 

C-?-D-?-E-F-?-G-?-A-?-B

 

Or better yet, show both on a SOTGF.

 

Um.. you didn't answer this question.

 

The system:

 

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

 

is topologically the same as the CNC. It just had different names.

 

I am convinced that the largest part of your complaint about the CNC is the use of the symbols # and b.

 

I think that they appear messy to you and that there is very little else that is real that you have trouble with with CNC.

 

4) Hey, was that an approved lab?

 

And the R could come back as a D# or a Eb or a Fbb using the CNC.

It could, yes. But not much, in practice.

5) Oh, well then that must be proof (in and of itself) that it's the better system, even for the 12 BBB of the tempered scaled guitar.

It is one part of the proof, yes

 

6) First you fudged the "lab" results by not using the CNC (I understand why you didn't) and then you call them facts?

 

I say look at them (OZ and CNC, not what you used instead) on a SOTGF and judge for yourself.

 

"What I used instead" is the same as the CNC but I was being polite and took out the pesky symbols that seem to annoy you.

 

Anyhow, your suggestion is a good idea. So I did look at the two schematics. And I came up with the following judgements.

 

1)

OZ is logical.

CNC is logical.

 

2)

OZ is simpler to understand at first glance.

CNC is harder to understand at first glance.

 

3)

OZ is harder to remember because I have to remember 12 alphabetic positions on the fretboard with a part of the alphabet who's relative positions I find difficult to remember.

CNC is easier to remember because I only have to remember 7 alphabetic positions on the fretboard, and because of the notation's syntax I can deduce the other notes quickly and easily (#=up one, b=down one).

 

3)

All the music I read doesn't refer to OZ

All the music I read refers to CNC (even TAB)

 

4)

All my bandmates don't know OZ

All my bandmates know CNC

 

Thanks for suggesting the experiment. I found the two systems practically the same, except for one has immediate benefits in communiations. The symbols might scare you, but have a go and I'm sure you'll see how the two systems are fundamentally the same.

 

If you choose one, you'll be alone (like now), but not have any real musical benefit.

 

Choose the other and come play some music with us!

 

Or don't. Whatever. No pressure.

 

Wuv

Gerry