Singingax, let's give it another go!

[Terje]

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. (AS a tempered scaled based SOTGF shows so well)

Gotcha!

So, you're now finally admitting that the notation system may be logical. Actually you know it is logical.

Systems, theoretical systems especially, have the limitation of being logical within themselves. Actually that's why we call them systems and theories.

[Gui]

What is the natural scale?

[MorePaul]

Hey axe - I notice you seem unwilling to address my comments and you erased our previous conversation.

Seems you are selecting your sample here which is bad science

[MorePaul]

Axe

I noticed that you deleted our other conversation thread.

It appears that open conversation and historical reference undermine your "oh nobody gets it you hypnotized diatologists" so you just ignore them. I mean we can't be that far off, after all...we had to point you to OZ after you were unsuccessful devising your own system.

I think having a whole month with it under your belt simply isn't enough time for a valid evaluation.
That and you seem unwilling to answer (or most probably read) my opinions.

I do ask, 3 things of you

1) please do some actual legwork. There is a ton of information on alternative forms of notation - take a look into that.

now you may be saying "I've got all I need" - but you were of the same mindset just a few weeks ago in your "pre-OZ" days

2) try the system in practical situations for a year or so. A month is just too short a time to really get the ins and outs.

You may also want to check out chrostaff type noations (yup, staff noation comes in chromatic flavors too).

There are literally hundreds of years of development...check out some of the developments

3) See the resistance of others as a mirror to your own resistance to an alternative, isomorphic tuning. I think it will help you see where others are coming from

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax I agree. And it's not what I'm talking about. But certain people overintellectualize and end up thinking so.

I don't think you are into serialism...that would probably require you actually look into it's history, maybe even (gasp!) talk to a practitioner.

um, you *DO* realize that Greschak does a lot of music mapping math sequences to music...don't you?


please reread the source of that comment.

[MorePaul]

The web isn't probably the best place to get that info - I mean, it's a start and it's easy, but you sort of get the "reader's digest" a lot of the time using the web as a primary source (that's why web citations are dicey biz)

remember it's not "THE" tempered scale, it's "A" tempered scale - there has to be, crap, maybe 2 dozen temperaments in common use and probably 200 commonly recognized.

It's also useful to note that guitars are really tricky beasts and aren't really a true equal temperament (since each string is responsible for multiple notes, you can develop tuning error).
Harps, most claviers (not including organ and maybe clavichord), some tuned drums (tympani), glock/vibes...these kind of instruments can be truely temped as there is an individual mechanism for each note.

The modern guitar player often adjusts for this slightly, often without realizing it. this is so common, back in the 80s there was talk of a special "guitar" protocol like MIDI to deal with all the micro pitch-bend info coming down the line

Temperament is sort of a continuum, you are smearing the comma. When you do, you "take away" from somewhere else.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) I knew that, to start with, CNC names tones and that sheet music came after that. But, hey, latch onto anything you can to use as a counter-argument against naming ALL 12 BBB. (what else can you do) 2) Absolutely! The tempered scale and the natural scale can be considered as two separate systems. (and it's the 12 BBB of the tempered scale, not MY 12 BBB) 3) The fact that you need me to answer that question speaks volumes about your ignorance for the differences between the two. Here's a hint, one has 12 BBB.

1) Then don't use the phrase "sheet music derived" - though it's actually half right as I pointed out earlier.

2) You don't think that would be unpractical? (And by "your", I just meant your phrase, the "BBB")

3) Earlier on you argued that the CNC didn't work with the natural scale (the old G#/Ab, A/A) discussion. It just seems to me that you alter your opinions just to make you come up on top, which is a very cheap way of arguing.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by vote4dicktaid It just seems to me that you alter your opinions just to make you come up on top, which is a very cheap way of arguing.

Now...that's not completely true...

Sometimes he just deletes them

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Well, as usual, no one seems to be able to get the true concept of the 12 BBB of the tempered scale. The 12 BBB can be of many pitches in the way of octaves. They can be many tones, depending on the context being used. 2) To be honest, I'm not looking to convert anyone. I just want a logical naming system for the 12 BBB. And as a SOTGF shows, the CNC ain't it. But I do think that any musician who plays an instrument that uses the tempered scale could benefit (maybe greatly) from using such a system.

 

 

1) Talk about avoiding a question?! I'll repeat it: "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")?"

 

The "true" concept of the BBB? You know that? What has it to do with my question? And please explain what you mean by "The 12 BBB can be of many pitches in the way of octaves. They can be many tones, depending on the context being used" - no, not what you meant by it, but why you wrote it as an answer to my question.

 

You talk about how sheet music doesn't work outside of sheet music (...), now let's see YOUR system work inside diatonic music!

 

2) Then why do you discuss this at all? Just make it happen and take it from there!

[arasmith]

Okay, attached is a simple experiment, since we seem fixated on the fretboard.

[sorry for the image quality - I had to increase compression to avoid the stated max size for attachments.]

I will post my own conclusions from this exercise in a separate message so as not to taint the results.

Here is the experiment:
1) Look at the 6 images of the fretboard (in standard tuning)
2) Rank them in order of visual ease (for the metric, let's use speed of cognitive recognition) best to worst.
3) Rank them in order of information conveyed
4) Rank them in order of logic - where logic means that symbols are placed according to deterministic rules
5) Answer the following question: which metric seems to be of greatest value when actually playing?

For now, please answer the questions directly rather than modifying to bend it to any particular agenda.

---david

[MorePaul]

I want #3 as fretmarkers!

[arasmith]

My Response

Originally posted by arasmith 2) Rank them in order of visual ease best to worst. 3) Rank them in order of information conveyed 4) Rank them in order of logic 5) Answer the following question: which metric seems to be of greatest value when actually playing?

Visual Ease: 5, 6, 1, 4, 2, 3
5- The spaces in the "sparse fretboard" make it easier for me to see the underlying patterns
6- Colors seem to be next in line to find the various octaves of a given tone
1- The combo symbols actually help me visually "chunk" the fretboard - a powerful visual phenomenon
4- Just the sharps still allow chunking, but not quite as easy as 1
2- There is no chunking, but the alphabetic sequencing helps
3- The context-free symbols are very difficult to form into patterns. The darker symbols help some with chunking, but not enough to keep me from hating this one!

Information Content: 1=2, 4, 6, 3, 5
1 and 2 are symbolically equivalent, containing logical bidirectional sequencing info
4 is symbolically bidirectionally sequenced, but descending is more awkward than 1 or 2
6 preserves some sequencing, but is "troubled" by gaps in the information
3 and 5 suck (in a scientific sort of way )

Logical Construction: 1=2=3=4=5=6
Each can be constructed with a simple collection of production rules. I was about to comment on the complexity of the rule set but, after thinking about it, the (context-free) rules are also equivalent.

Which facilitates my playing the best? (paraphrase):
Even though it ranks low, I think I prefer 5. It is the simplest visually and I can apply very simple (fast) rules to fill in the gaps at "runtime".

YMMV

---david

[arasmith]

Originally posted by MorePaul I want #3 as fretmarkers!

 

 

Print you out some Wingdings, man!

[arasmith]

Originally posted by arasmith My Response ... Information Content: 1=2, 4, 6, 3, 5 1 and 2 are symbolically equivalent, containing logical bidirectional sequencing info 4 is symbolically bidirectionally sequenced, but descending is more awkward than 1 or 2 6 preserves some sequencing, but is "troubled" by gaps in the information 3 and 5 suck (in a scientific sort of way )

Ooops, that should read...
5 preserves some sequencing, but is "troubled" by gaps in the information
3 and 6 suck (in a scientific sort of way )

[Gui]

This whole discussion really is just about fretboard schematics isn't it? No matter how useful (inside or outside of sheet music) the current naming convention is, it will always look like gobbledygook on the fretboard. And some people just don't like looking at gobledygook. There is nothing we can do to convince these people that gobbledygook makes sense.

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by arasmith Okay, attached is a simple experiment, since we seem fixated on the fretboard. Rank them in order of visual ease (for the metric, let's use speed of cognitive recognition) best to worst.

 

 

1) 3, and here's why. If I want to find the E's (the little flag thingy), identifying an individual shape is easy. The letters of the alphabet have very similar shapes to them--the actual lines and curves have a remarkable sameness. This probably makes reading a bit easier (unless you're dyslexic), but it makes identifying letters on a structured diagram a bit more difficult. I'm imagining opening a book and trying to find all the lowercase e's on one page...

2) 4. The rows are nicely organized, and I can find the "black keys" very easily.

3) 6. The color idea is interesting, but not too terribly feasible. If we were dealing with a smaller set of values, colors might work better. However, we're working with three primary colors and nine in-between shades. How many variations of blue are on this chart? Some colors are definitely more present than others. The darker green used for C and C# orange are easy to spot. The minty-fresh G is quite difficult to find. I'm sure different eyes will see this chart differently. On the plus side, babies and monkeys could probably make sense of this chart moreso than the rest. On a very basic level, it probably is the simplest.

4) 1. The obvious disadvantage here is that the combination of sharps and flats makes the labels for those notes very large. From a strictly visual standpoint, this makes them seem superior.

5) 2. This one gets ranked below the 1st diagram because I don't remember the order of the letters that well. Furthermore, all the labels are the same size and of generally similar appearances. This makes it tough to distinguish one letter and pick out all occurences of that letter, particularly given that there isn't a true repeating pattern.

6) 5. There is missing information here, so I know I'm not getting the full perspective. The chart is deceptive. I immediately know I'm not getting all the information that I need--the info has been passed through a filter. If I knew nothing about these symbols, I would want to know why some of them were being filtered out. I would question the missing information less if there was a distinct pattern to the fretboard (MorePaul will now begin discussing isomorphic tunings, and somehow standard tuning will be referred to as "the squirrel").

 

 

Rank them in order of information conveyed

 

 

I assume you're asking this from the perspective of us all knowing what these symbols actually mean.

 

1) 1. This gives the whole perspective. All the information is here, and the user need only know how to filter it. We just poured every piece of the puzzle onto the card table. Next we start to divide them up into useful piles. Now that fourth corner has to be in here somewhere, dammit!

2) 2. If everything is somehow equal, this system actually has some serious merit. However, things are never equal in music. Certain notes have more weight. Attempting to organize a scale that is spelled QSUVXZPQ could be quite difficult. Move it up a half step and your scale becomes RTVWYOQR. Remember that we have to memorize twelve of these just to get our major scales...Next, we have to deal with harmonic and melodic minors, then modes and altered modes, then symetrical scales. On the plus side, we can play a modified version of Hangman to do tone rows...Obviously, the true value of OZ is for musicians creating fully chromatic music. While my music is chromatic in many ways, I still make use of too many elements of tonality to be able to abandon it so completely.

3) 4. This one carries the same basic information as 1, but we've applied a filter, thereby eliminating some of the information. There is a very good reason for having both sharps and flats.

4) 6. This one presents a serious problem. We've filtered out the flats now, but we're still trying to give each note an individual value (as in numero 2). This time, the value is indicated by color. Once again, defining notes to this high of a level of individualism makes it somewhat more difficult to group them together. Chromatic music still benifits from this level of division, though I find the combination of a half-assed chart 2 and a half-assed chart 1 to be...well...very half-assed. Perhaps it's even quarter-assed.

5) 5. We've now filtered down to a very specific set of notes. If we're in the key of C, this chart has some purpose. If we're in a different key or if we're working with chromatic music, this chart is utterly useless.

6) 3. On the surface, it posesses the same organizational value posessed by 2. However, I don't know how the hell I'll ever convey any of this to other musicians..."hey man, we're in the key of the smaller cross-like thingy where the vertical bars and the horizontal bars are all pretty much the same length"...having typed it, I'm now obligated to try it in a rehearsal...

 

 

Rank them in order of logic - where logic means that symbols are placed according to deterministic rules

 

 

This one really depends on what your logic is based on. If we're dealing with very basic math where all parts are equal, #2 is the best choice. However, we're dealing with music. Music generally does not exist on that level of symmetry. Music deals very much in uneven intervals. Look at the construction of a major scale. The interval between the 1st and 2nd degrees of the scale is a whole step. The interval between the 3rd and 4th degrees of the scale, however, is a half step. Thus, moving up one degree in a scale doesn't mean we're moving by a fixed interval (I hope this is making sense). Thus, our logic is very different. It is, to a degree, illogical. This has less to do with how we name the notes and more to do with how we've interpreted what mother nature has given us.

 

There actually is great mathematical logic to the frequency ratios that are imbedded in the harmonic series. However, we aren't thinking about music in the terms of ratios or frequencies. We're thinking of a way to organize an interpretation of a scientific phenomenon. We're trying to combine nature, mathematics, and history into a single logic. We're trying to do it in a vernacular that explains nature, mathematics, and history in a simple and straightforward manner. We look to create a set of rules that balances the importance of all three. The balance is delicate, and the system is by no means perfect. It is, however, adequate. It is functional. It is simple to understand. It isn't the Matrix. It isn't Scientology. It is a set of words used to describe a phenomenon of fantastic magnitude.

 

 

5) Answer the following question: which metric seems to be of greatest value when actually playing?

 

 

#1. I have to communicate with other musicians.

 

Just for fun, somebody identify the following chord (and try to do it without looking at the charts): QUXOT

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax No {censored}, sherlock. That's one of the reasons why I don't argue about whether it makes sense WITHIN sheet music or the natural scale. Now for when it's shown on a SOTGF.....

When it's shown as a schematic on the fretboard of your stupid guitar it is also logical, since it still follows the same logical system.

[Terje]

Originally posted by Gui This whole discussion really is just about fretboard schematics isn't it? No matter how useful (inside or outside of sheet music) the current naming convention is, it will always look like gobbledygook on the fretboard. And some people just don't like looking at gobledygook. There is nothing we can do to convince these people that gobbledygook makes sense.

 

 

It's the same for any instrument excapt any of the keyboards. For them notation is like tabulature is to us. But for a horn player the notation system has its own problems too.

[FroggyFrog]

Yo Arasmith!

Great idea!


1) Look at the 6 images of the fretboard (in standard tuning)
Peers carefully... adopts contemplative expression...

2) Rank them in order of visual ease (for the metric, let's use speed of cognitive recognition) best to worst.

5) easiest... less symbols to remember. If I was curious about the missing positions, I'd not rate this as highly. But for what it tries to show me, it's the easiest to recognize patterns.
4) These is really the same as 2. I'd probably be able to reproduce 2 easiest from memory because it uses the alphabet from O-Z.. but 2 has so many symbols so remembering unique names for all the positions would be hard.. but I think 4 is simpler because there are fewer different types of symbols.. some symbols look more important than others and form a memory anchor for things I would assume were important somehow...
2) see above.
1) Not as simple to look at as 2 and 4.
6) I agree with the previous comments about colour. Too many colours are a visual mess.
5) The symbols are unfamiliar..I study Japanese so I would not be intimidated by this notation. But it does not look as easy at first glance.

3) Rank them in order of information conveyed

1) Definitely. Implies some sort of formulae, and some sort of meta information about whatever this system is supposed to be conveying.
6) Shows things are identical through an extra dimension (colour)
4) Shows some extra information about some positions (the ones without #)
5) Shows that there is something special about the places that have a symbol in and the places that do not.
3) Shows that there are twelve "things" and that the information being portrayed is nothing to do with the alphabet.
2) Shows only that there are twelve "things".

4) Rank them in order of logic - where logic means that symbols are placed according to deterministic rules

Um.. k.. I'm a software engineer by profression so I've got funny eyes for patterns like this.. but surely they are all equally deterministic.. is this a trick question?

5) Answer the following question: which metric seems to be of greatest value when actually playing?

When playing?
Well, I would use 5 and work out 1 from it on the fly if I needed to.
The other ones are too hard to remember as a whole.

For now, please answer the questions directly rather than modifying to bend it to any particular agenda.

I did so! I swear!

Peace
Gerry

[arasmith]

Originally posted by FroggyFrog ... 4) Rank them in order of logic - where logic means that symbols are placed according to deterministic rules Um.. k.. I'm a software engineer by profression so I've got funny eyes for patterns like this.. but surely they are all equally deterministic.. is this a trick question?

 

Yeah, after I sent the note and was answering myself it occurred to me that the metric here needed to be a little more interesting - say, the number of production rules. But that gets a little pin-headed when talking about a fretboard.

 

 

5) Answer the following question: which metric seems to be of greatest value when actually playing? When playing? Well, I would use 5 and work out 1 from it on the fly if I needed to. The other ones are too hard to remember as a whole.

 

Exactly! I need less information fed to me and just a few simple rules for "real-time" interpretation. We humans are great at inference, but kind of challenged by raw memory.

 

---david

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by riffdaddy


I would question the missing information less if there was a distinct pattern to the fretboard (MorePaul will now begin discussing isomorphic tunings, and somehow standard tuning will be referred to as "the squirrel"



The reason I mention it as "the squirrel" to axe is from an earlier conversation with him about using CAGED shapes...
he said "I bet it'd be even more squirrely in an isomorphic tuning"

To which I respondend "It doesn't, it's nice in that E and A forms, for instance are the same. A CAGED type view actually simplifies and becomes less Squirrely"

to which he replied "Well, I'm used to the squirrel"

so it's sort of an joke between axe and myself.

Isomorphic tunings wouldn't help much with the pattern based on diatonic filtering of informaion. The diatonic information isn't evenly distributed within the octave, so will you still get an irregular (within an octave) pattern across a more regular interface.

Claviers are an interesting counterpoint in hat the topology of the interface is sort of "scaled" in parallel with the filter. This yields I liken it to using log sclae graphs.

Riff - I believe you may be misunderstanding my points. Please do not automatically put me on the group W bench.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax You could use a 12 designation system for ANY of the many tempered scaled instruments. (and with ANY formula for music)

 

 

how about with a 19 tone mean temperament?

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax Maybe from a perspective of someone who has been indoctrinated into the CNC. (and it's natural scale) But NOT when dealing with the 12 BBB of the tempered scale. Just look at a SOTGF with the CNC on it with an unbiased eye and see.

but axe, you have bias of your own, 'member...

won't really give isomorphic tunings an honest try.

"what's to leverage?" you said when I suggested checking out systems that already exist (like OZ for instance)

[arasmith]

Originally posted by Singingax 2 wins my vote:) with 3 a close second. The rest use the CNC, which SUCKS at naming the 12 BBB.

Your reply is ambiguous.
Which category?
Why is 3 a close second?

Answer the questions (or be relegated to irrelevance, insofar as this discussion is concerned).

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Ok. How about "natural scale derived"? 2) To consider the tempered scale and the natural scale two seperate systems? No. What I consider impractical is using a naming system that's derived from one for the other. 3) Hardly! I've never knowingly said that the CNC didn't work for the natural scale. What I might have said is that it doesn't do all of what people were saying it does. The fact that the note A is used in many keys and remains an A note is an example. But as I've stated, I'm no expert on the sheet music or the CNC it's derived from, so I have no interest in arguing what it's good for, just what it's NOT good for.

 

 

1) Yes, that would do.

 

2) When it comes to playing written music that involves both kinds of insruments, it would. But that's not your point of interest, I know.

 

3) Ok, I get your point. But if you care about the not so good things about sheet music, you should do yourself a favour and try to look at its advantages, too.