Singingax, let's give it another go!

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax I guess you better tell ALL those blues musicians, that play using a tempered scaled instrument, that they're not playing the blues. :rolleyes:

I play a tempered instrument - two, in fact - guitar and bass. That doesn't mean I don't bend my blues notes. You're talking nonsense.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Of course not. Since you've been indoctrinated into seeing things as the CNC's tones. 2) And, again, I'm not talking about notes or the tones they represent. (I guess your indoctrination won't let see past this) ONE BBB, 7 BBB, or 12 BBB, can be used to make music. The CNC reflects the need to deal with the natural scales unfixed pitches. I don't know why everyone thinks that should apply to the tempered scale, and it's fixed pitches, too.

 

 

1) That's really not it. It's just that when it comes to playing music, there really is no need to be completely aware of all the tones you play, name-wise. It's how they interact that makes the difference, so when playing a major scale over some chord changes, I'll think in formulas, always knowing where my root, 3rd and so on is situated on the fretboard. If accidentals occure (sp?), I'll have to be aware of that, because the formula has changed. It works the exact same way practically.

 

2) Maybe not, you said that they had to make a non-12-names-system back then to deal with the natural scale - I don't think that's true. I think they wanted a system that reflected their musical ideas (which happend to be diatonic). The reason why it applies to the tempered scale is that the music hasn't changed because of the tempering of instruments - so the logic remains for both natural and tempered instruments - allowing us to play together with no true problems, natural scale or not.

[arasmith]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Having 12 distinct designation will most definitely assist learning the rudimentary locations as well as the basuc 12 half-step relatyionships between the 12 BBB that are used on the fretboard and with most tempered scaled instruments. 2) True. Except one actually names the 12 BBB that are used in ALL contexts. (not all at the same time, of course) 3) Thanks to the illogicalness of using the natural scale based CNC with tempered scale like the guitar, I also rely on shapes. That's why I want 12 designations for the 12 BBB. So I can think outside of patterns. 4) I disagree. Leraning the half-step relationships of the 12 BBB (by using 12 distinct designations) has tremendous value. For the fretboard and otherwise. 5) Hey, if you want to use the natural scale based CNC with tempered scaled instruments, great.

 

 

1) Designations are an abstraction of the fretboard. Once one learns the fretboard, the designations fall away to a distant second place in importance.

 

2) Both systems use distinct symbols. Both systems have rules for where the symbols appear on the fretboard. Both systems employ a subset of those symbols to indicate the appropriate tones for a given key. Neither system is subject to ambiguity within a given key.

 

3) First, my statement has nothing to do with the logic or lack thereof of either system in question. Everything I play is a pattern - it may be a new patter to me, but it's music. It is patterned and that patern is represented on any instrument you use to play it. We have an advantage with guitar in that the patterns are highly repetitive, independent of key.

 

4) I said "lasting value". Once locations are learned, why do you still need to employ the crutch? Neither system poses any tremendous advantage in memorization. It is just memorization.

 

5) I said "given A". If you do not agree with "A" then "B" is irrelevant. I was trying to help you resist the temptation to respond to everything regardless of its dependence on previous statements. Thus, you are taking my comment out of context and trying to make a point. That's a yellow card.

 

 

I want to treat the following separately:

But giving 12 distinct designations to the 12 BBB can and does communicate well beyond the confines of ANY tempered scaled instrument. (it a shame you can't see that)

 

 

Communicate to whom? You have strongly resisted previous attempts to bring to bear the relevance of CNC for communication purposes. Are you opening that door? You previous argumentation indicates that you know you will lose points in that arena. Did you just slip here, or would you like to incorporate communication into this debate?

 

---david

[arasmith]

Singingax,

Quick question:
Why do you not respond to MorePaul?

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax Still trying to bring the natural scale into the debate? I understand.

 

 

I'm not sure you do. But then again I've started to come to the conclusion that you're really, really dumb. Cause I've been trying to tell you now, for I don't know how long, that the absolute (or natural) scale is still there cause of the overtones that are part of every damn note you hear.

 

These overtones are not tempered and because of this we still hear the natural scale as the real one. And you'll hear this, if you actually sit down and listen instead of making silly arguments about things you have no clue about.

 

If you did that, you'd hear that the major 3rds are too sharp in the tempered scale. Especially on such a badly tempered instrument as the guitar where it's virtually impossible to get all chords in all keys to sound clean.

 

So, whether we like it or not the natural scale is still there, we do hear. Well, the rest of us do, you don't cause you are tone deaf, but that's another thing and you can't really base your whole argumentation on your own limitations.

 

Anyway, with the tempered scale in use since so long, and in symphony orchestras where it really has to be tempered or it will sound bad, the instruments that can will still make fine adjustments of the major 3rds. This is not wrong or anything, it's the way we like to hear things.

 

The notation system stil reflects this and I think that's a good thing. You hate it but that's cause you can't hear this difference anyway, so waht good is it to you?

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax I guess you better tell ALL those blues musicians, that play using a tempered scaled instrument, that they're not playing the blues. :rolleyes:

The blues scale is not a tempered thing at all. It doesn't even fit within our ideas of major and minor. It wasn't made up on any instrument but the human voice, it's a sung scale to begin with.

Three of the notes in the scale are not fixed, they're in motion. The b3, b5 and b7 of the blues scale are to be bent, mainly upwards. If they were to be fixed pitches I'd say the b3 should be a little higher than a regular b3, the b5 a little lower than a regular b5 and the b7 a bit higher again.

But as I said, this would be wrong cause they are in motion, unstable. On a piano you can't really duplicate this sound. Does that mean that piano players can't play the blues? Of course not, as we all know it's been done. But they can't really play the blues scale. No instrument with fixed pitches, no matter if it is tempered ornot, can really play the blues scale.

Why do you think those blues musicians who can bend their notes do that all the time? Why do you think slide playing isso popular in the blues? You say that you play this type of music, this isappearantly one of the reasons you want another note naming system, cause you play so many notes "outside of the diatonically indoctrinated music" or whatever you call it.

And then when we actually start talking about this music it shows that you have no idea of how it is supposedto be played. That the notes the rest of us are going for in this style of music doesn't even exist within the chromatric scale. It goes outside it for real.

I mean really, you're beginning to show us just how enormously uninformed and totally stupid you actually are.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax Yes. Arguing that a b3rd ISN'T a blues tone IS nonsense. But that seems to be what you're trying to do.

 

 

You just don't get it, do you? It's the clash between the minor and major 3rd that (to me) defines the sound of blues - playing or singing a b3rd over a D7 chord, which is still unthinkable in classical music.

 

If you listen closely, tho

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Thinking in formulas IS thinking in tones! 2) They had to deal with NON-FIXED pitches. The fact that they went with a 7 toned naming system (and, unfortunately, only the tones of the C major scale) reflects their diatonic musical ideas. Since the tempered scale has FIXED pitches, why not have FIXED names (12) and let the context (and pattern, on the fretboard) tell you the tone?

 

 

1) So?

 

2) You see, it does work that way now - 12 fixed names or not. Afterall, you seldom play in more than one key/tonality at a time.

 

And we still deal with non-fixed pitches, we have the ability of changing them - when playing any sort of melody, there is no harm in highering (is that a word?) the leading tone of that key a little, like a singer would do to stay in key, just to underline its relationship to the root. This would include bending, though, like in blues music and such, so you may not get it.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Oh, I see. You couldn't get into an argument about non-fixed pitches (and away from the true debate about naming the 12 BBb of the fixed pitched tempered scale) so now it's this. I understand.

 

 

So you still claim the blues notes are found within the _fixed_ pitches of the tempered scale, as you stated earlier?

 

And if it's off-topic (and obviously not your point of interest either), why do you argue about it at all, instead of sticking to your main point? Don't throw stones when you live in a house of glass yourself.

[arasmith]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Sounds like a bad counter-argument to me. Designations are a representation of the 12 BBB. The 12 BBB are what you use to make music.

 

 

Careful. Two yellow cards = red card = ejection. You should strike the first sentence. That you don't agree or don't like the argument is a long way from saying it's bad.

 

You just said it yourself: "Designations are a representation" Once learned, they become replaceable (possibly even irrelevant). I am not the one who has spent so much time concentrating on the SOTGF. I am just indicating the relative importance of that schematic once the positions (and by extension, their relationships) have been learned.

 

 

 

2) And one system names the tones (which is the way to go for NON-FIXED PITCHES) and the other doesn't. (which is, IMO, the way to go for FIXED PITCHES) 3) Those patterns are based on a formula as it's applied to some of the 12 BBB. (just look at a SOTGF with O-Z on it) 4) Naming the 12 BBB poses tremendous advantages for learning the basic 12 half-step relationships between them. You need to name them to memorize them.

 

 

2) Huh? WTF? What do O-Z name? If you say "BBB" then what do BBB name? What is the difference between tones and pitches? Maybe I am totally missing something here.

 

3) It doesn't matter what the SOTGF has on it. They are the same patterns. Of course they're based on a formula - it is music. They are based on reams of theory and reams of history. They are not based on any given representation. This argument is not that there are not 12 elements, it is that how you name the elements is largely immaterial.

 

You say it yourself in...

4) "learning the basic 12 half-step relationships..."

What is the usefulness beyond the basics? I've gotten that far.

 

 

 

By the way, are you selectively replying? That is, do you just choose to argue only those points where you are not exposed?

[Gui]

Originally posted by Singingax It does make sense when viewed as a FORMULA. (and not notes) A major scale FORMULA gives you the intervals. 1 is the root and the first step. 2 is the second step in a major scale and is called a major second. 3 is the third step in a major scale and is called a major third.

 

 

The interval names would work better if they represented the relationships between the notes. The major scale formula would then be 0 2 4 5 7 9 11. It's more clear which intervals are separated by half steps and which are separated by whole steps.

[arasmith]

Originally posted by Singingax ... The following website on the OZ system would probably be a better source for WHY naming the fixed pitches of the tempered scale is a better way to go; http://www.greschak.com/notation/oz/ozpitch.htm 6) I'm arguing about the best way to name the 12 BBB that the tempered scale gets from it's fixed pitches. I prefer to selectively reply to those points that deal with that argument.

 

 

First, I read through the site. Thanks for the link. The lion's share of the argument made for OZ is ease of reading and writing the notation (with precious little supporting evidence, I might add). That I patently disagree (except, perhaps, for machine reading) is not pertinent here. What I do find interesting, though, is that you avoid written/read OZ like the plague. [And for good reason.]

 

Let me requote soas to focus your attention on the point I would like to see addressed:

 

You wrote:

 

But giving 12 distinct designations to the 12 BBB can and does communicate well beyond the confines of ANY tempered scaled instrument. (it a shame you can't see that)

 

 

To which I responded:

 

 

Communicate to whom? You have strongly resisted previous attempts to bring to bear the relevance of CNC for communication purposes. Are you opening that door? You previous argumentation indicates that you know you will lose points in that arena. Did you just slip here, or would you like to incorporate communication into this debate?

 

 

Care to give it a go?

 

---david

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Show me one theory book that says a major third is called that because it's the third LETTER. 2) Common sense. The same common sense that tells me a major third is the third step (and/or third tone) in a major scale.

Okay, you asked for it. Here's your dinner, open wide:

Example A is from Elementary Harmony by Robert W. Ottman (professor of theory at North Texas State University), page 6: "An interval is the distance between two pitches. An interval is identified by the number of letter names it encompasses. For exapmple, from C up to E is a third because three letter names (C, D, and E) are encompassed."

Example B is from Tonal Harmony (with an Introduction to Twentieth-Century Music) by Stefan Kostka (theory professor at The University of Texas at Austin) and Dorothy Payne (theory professor at The University of Arizona), page 19: "There are two parts to any interval name: the numerical name and the modifier that percedes the numerical name. The numerical name is a measurement of how far apart the notes are vertically on the staff, regardless of what accidentals are involved."

It seems that the "common sense" that mysteriously made you smarter than all of us who actually study this stuff has turned out to be neither common nor sensible.

[riffdaddy]

BTW, has anybody here other than me taken the time to listen to Greschak's compositions? I'm into atonal music, but this guy blows. It's athematic, texturally simplistic to a fault, and (based on reading his descriptions of the music) exceedingly contrived.

On top of that, he doesn't even back up his arguments for OZ. He mentions that OZ would be easier to read, then fails to provide a single example of OZ in some sort of notation. Also, check out his pneumonic devices for learning OZ. What an idiot--sure, let's try to teach kids this system by reminding them that the highest pitch perceivable to the average human ear has the same symbol as the element zinc. Great. I'm sure a third grader in a vocal music class is gonna remember that. "Billy, what's the highest note in OZ?" "Ms. Jacobs, I don't know." "It's easy Billy, just think of your periodic table!" "Oh, right! It's Zn!"

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) I completely agree! The clash between the b3rd and 3rd could be thought of as what defines the blues. In fact, the 3rd within the minor penatonic. And that CAN be played on a 12 BBB tempered scaled instrument like a piano.

 

 

Not in the "right" way, though. The blues has to express feelings, when playing you really have to make your instrument "sing", you know that. When singing the blues you sort of slide your voice (I can't do that properly, but I know some who can), when playing the blues you try to imitate that expression, which can be done on guitar, but not in the same way on the piano. I'm glad you agree, though, I was about to lose hope in you...

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax But , as I said, that's getting off the debate about naming the 12 BBB. 2) Again, that's something that isn't really pertinent to the debate.

 

 

If you hadn't argued that the b3rd, b5th and b7th of the blues scale is found within the 12 "BBB" this would have been unnecessary, yes.

 

 

Originally posted by Singingax A piano (with it's fixed 12 BBB) CAN play the blues. (which is NOT nonsense)

 

 

That is sort of true, yes. But then the major 3rd, major 5th and major 7th would be as important elements of the blues scale as the b-versions of the same intervals.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) So that's non-fixed pitch thinking. 2) I don't see that as a reason to use 7 names for the 7 tones of the C major scale for the tempered scale's fixed 12 BBB. And a SOTGF with the CNC on it shows this without a doubt. 3) First, you can DAMN well play the blues on a piano, so your "blues music" argument is laughable. (and, as usual, off topic) 4) Again, (and again and again) the tempered scale has fixed pitches which yield 12 BBB. 5) You CAN think of ANY of those as tones (or even quarter-tones between them) in whatever the context puts them. I don't see that (or that you use mainly diatonic scales) as a reason NOT to name them ALL. (instead of 7 C major scale tones) 6) That's what I LOVE about a SOTGF. It SHOWS these 12 BBB. (a keyboard too) It (the SOTGF) also shows why the CNC's 7 C major scale tone naming system is inferior to just naming the damn 12 BBB with 12 distinct designations. 7) I would MUCH rather know what each of the 12 BBB's 12 FIXED half-step relationships are to each other. ( a MAJOR advantage, IMO, of the fixed pitches of the tempered scale)

 

 

1) Thinking in formulas is non-fixed pitch thinking??? You are contradicting yourself yet again. You like thinking in formulas, right? You don't use the natural scale, right?

 

2) My point being, when playing in one key you have 7 fixed names, all you need in most situations - and any alteration can be inclined by simply adding a # or a b.

 

3) It would't be off-topic if you cared to read our posts carefully before answering.

 

4) Which is not blues notes, yes.

 

5) 1: Blues isn't about quarter-tones. It's about motion between "BBB's". OK? 2: It just happens that I am not the only one who uses diatonic music as base. That in itself is a good reason for making a system around that.

 

6) Again, play the A major scale , the minor, then Lydian, the Mixolydian, then the Melodic Minor Modes and so on - then you might realize that practically, the system does work.

 

7) We does know that as well. And as stated earlier (which you haven't replied to), it really isn't those half-steps that are important - it's indeed the formulas, the tones, the actual music. It seems you sometimes forget all about that aspect.

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax That DOESN'T change the FACT that the tempered scale, thanks to it's fixed pitches, gives you 12 BBB.

 

 

Fixed pitches... I'm not so sure. On the piano yes, but not on other instruments. I've been trying to tell you this for God knows how long now, we make small adjustments (those of us who can, and who actually hear it), still with the tempered scale.

 

And the pitches in the natural scale are fixed too, just not the same for Gb and F# for instance. F# is lower, but it's a fixed pitch. I think the tempered scale is more unfixed actually, since you have both instruments that make adjustments and those that can't, so it's all a bit out of tune.

 

There's no way around that, the tempered scale is out of tune. That's why it took some time and convincing before people started to use it. That's why people still don't use it unless they have to.

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax Yes. Arguing that a b3rd ISN'T a blues tone IS nonsense.

 

 

The b3 and the b5 and the b7 in the blues scale aren't fixed pitches. Got that? Saying that the b3, as a fixed pitch, is a blues tone is showing just how little knowledge you have of the music you claim to be playing.

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) An interval is the distance between two pitches. The letters of the CNC happen to denote the pitches of the C major scale. It's the FORMULA contained in the CNC (starting from C, of course) that gives you the distance of the major scale. 2) See 1). 3) See 1).

 

 

WTF? So you're saying that these texts are incorrect? You asked me to show you an example of a music theory textbook that said intervals are named by the number of letters, not the degrees of the scale. I gave you two examples, and you're still arguing? I suppose you think you know more than the people who wrote these books? Who the hell do you think you are? You're wrong, why can't you admit it?

 

Once again, just for clarity: "The numerical name is a measurement of how far apart the notes are vertically on the staff, regardless of what accidentals are involved." In other words, the numerical name has nothing to do with a C major scale. It has to do with "the number of letter names it encompasses."

[Gui]

I found this thread very amusing. It was sort of like a reality show in message board format. Oh well. At least I actually found the off-topic stuff informative.

[vote4dicktaid]

Originally posted by Singingax The half-steps (between the BBB) are what the FORMULAS (and it's tones) are built from!

 

 

Interesting - you said earlier that thinking in formulas is non-fixed pitch thinking, now it seems thinking in formulas include the 12 "BBB". You change your opinion from day to day, it seems...

[riffdaddy]

Originally posted by Singingax 1) Yes I did. And, at least with the first one, it said the distance between PITCHES, not letters. (which is my contention)

So the texts are wrong and you're right. Professors of theory at North Texas State, UNT Austin, the University of Arizona, and Eastman Conservatory (the editor of the second book teaches there) know less about music theory than you, who took a year's worth of guitar lessons from a guy who taught you the Nashville system. Are you even a little bit surprised that nobody here takes you seriously?

As for the first text, we'll go over this one more time for those of us who didn't get it the first two times: "An interval is the distance between two pitches. An interval is identified by the number of letter names it encompasses." It very clearly states that an interval is identified by letters. How is this not clear to you?

Originally posted by Singingax 2) How is a letter a numerical name?

Okay, let's take the second text one step at a time.

"There are two parts to any interval name: the numerical name and the modifier that precedes the numerical name."

The numerical name is the number part (2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.) and the modifier is the text part (major, minor, diminished, augmented, perfect, etc.).

"The numerical name is a measurement of how far apart the notes are vertically on the staff, regardless of what accidentals are involved."

While I don't care for this description as much as I like Ottman's, it still makes the same point. The numerical name is tied very strictly to the number of letters encompassed. Thus, G to Cb is a 4th. G to B is a 3rd. They have the same number of half-steps, but the spelling gives the two intervals distinct names.

Originally posted by Singingax The distance between pitches is measured by half-steps. (in the tempered scale) How the CNC notates those half-step distances doesn't magically make a 3rd is a 3rd. The fact that it's the 3rd tone in the major scale is what makes it a major 3rd.

See the two examples above. Your "common sense" does not give you a superior intellect over professors at prestigious music schools. You are wrong.

Originally posted by Singingax You know, some have accused me of taking up too much space here at the Lesson Loft. And between that and all the off topic stuff that's being brought into the debate, I'm going to stop posting in this thread.

I, for one, don't think you're taking up too much space. I think the general complaint here has to do with your confrontational attitude, your refusal to answer simple questions, your unwillingness to admit that anybody here other than you might have a valid point, and your inability to back up your arguments with evidence. The funny thing is, pretty much everybody here would be encouraging and supportive of you in your endeavor if you bothered to show a shred of decency toward other participants' ideas. Many of our posts were designed to help you see flaws in your system, not to try to get you to abandon your system, but to try to help you make it work! If you want to use OZ, great. Go ahead. But at least take the time to do it right.

I've had plenty of philisophical differences with other participants on this forum. Terje and I have had a couple of arguments that I can remember. The big difference is that we conducted ourselves in a civilized manner (for the most part ). Thus, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if Terje and I agree on something or not. Our common respect for eachother's ideas allows us to remain friends regardless. That's the purpose of a forum like this.

Originally posted by Singingax I may start another one framing the debate as I see it but it's time to put this one out to pasture. I'd like to thank everyone who sincerely responded, it was fun for the most part.

Who, praytell, do you feel responded sincerely? I wouldn't bother trying to post another debate on the subject here unless you're going to take the time to work out some of your logic (I'll give you a hint--you should start with intervals). You'll just draw the same responses from the same people.

Originally posted by Singingax A third's a third because it's the third letter..... yeah,right. I wonder what us non-CNC musicians have been playing when we play a tone 4 half-steps up from the root. It couldn't have been a 3rd because it wasn't 3 letters.

Again, you really shouldn't spend your time denouncing the knowledge of individuals who clearly know more about the subject than you (and no, I'm not talking about myself here, though I would definitely qualify in that category).

Here's the simple fact about the majority of "non-CNC musicians". First off, 99% of all musicians use the CNC and don't struggle with it at all. Second, most people who elect not to use the CNC and elect to use something like OZ already have a detailed understanding of the inner workings of the CNC. Thus, they are fluent in both. Furthermore, when they take to a system like OZ, they're almost always doing it as a method to abandon tonality and create dissonant, atonal music where pitch centers don't exist (or at least not to the same degree). Thus, they will abandon the interval system attached to the CNC and elect to use Set Class Theory (aka Pitch Class Theory) instead. Set Class Theory categorizes intervals strictly by the number of half-steps encompassed, which is essentially what you're trying to do. The primary difference is that Set Class Theory gives these intervals a different nomenclature altogether. In Set Class Theory, terms like "major third" and "perfect fifth" have absolutely no meaning. I recommended that you might want to look into this about two months ago. I doubt you will look into it, however, because learning SCT requires some hard work.

The other "non-CNC musicians" out there, primarily guitarists and bassists, don't actually have a remote clue as to what they're playing. They don't know the first thing about the names of the notes or intervals. To them, what you and I refer to as a major third would be "four frets up" or "one string up and one fret back". And don't get the idea that these guys didn't learn music theory or note reading because it was too difficult to do on guitar. They didn't learn these things because it requires more effort than they are willing to put into it. Guitar, like many things in life, requires a serious investment of time.

Originally posted by Singingax Thanks for the laugh!

No, thank you! Your demonstration of ignorance provided more than a few laughs for the majority of us. What amuses me most is what you're doing right now--tucking your tail between your legs and running to the nearest corner. We have finally posted incontrovertible evidence that you are incorrect, and all you can do is leave. You aren't gracious enough to admit you are incorrect, therefore you choose to leave instead. Your last few responses on the interval thing reminds me of the scene from Monty Python: Quest for the Holy Grail where the knight guarding the bridge gets his arms and legs cut off. Each time one of us proves you wrong, you simply sit back and say "no, you didn't!".

It's an interesting manner by which to live your life, one which I shall avoid.

[Terje]

Originally posted by Singingax Yes they are! When using the tempered scale.

 

 

It's got nothing to do with the tempered scale you moron. I mean, at this point I need to ask if you even hear anything when you listen to music.

 

You can't play the blues scale on a piano, that's a fact and even piano players will admit it.

 

You can play blues, there are ways of implying the scale, ways to imply bends, but eventually it will not be "right". It sounds great together with other instruments that can bend their notes though.

[Terje]

Fascinating how this weakling gives up when he's proven wrong. Not so fun then, eh?

[Dann'sTheMan]

Congratulations to all those who had the patience to withstand Singinax's grandstanding (I'm feeling charitable - if I weren't, I'd characterise it as trolling).

Well done!