Members vote4dicktaid Posted July 25, 2003 Members Share Posted July 25, 2003 I'm sorry to keep this going, but it's a matter of principles... Singingax, you keep saying we don't have real arguments against you, and just call you names and so on... In one of the other threads I posted a reply which you don't seem to have replied to yet , including some of my own counter arguments. So here you have it - other forumites feel free to contribute: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Singingax Considering the fact that no REAL counter-argument has been offered against why one wouldn't name ALL the definitive pitches that are used in the tempered scale. (as the poster shows so well) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've searched a little in some of the other threads - here are my "real" counter arguments: Me: "And you're not right - a C or an A can be called B# and Bbb, depending on their function. The point is, when they do so, they aren't C or A anymore! Now you think that I'm proving your point 'cause they change name despite the fact that it's the same pitch. Maybe I am, but at the same time I prove my own and many others' point..." Your response was that it's a matter of viewing the notes as "tones" or "pitches", or in other words looking at it from a musically logical/practical or only logical point of view. And this is why we'll never agree - I make my point as clear as I can, and at the same time it proves (to you) that you're the one who's right! You add: "I, obviously, think you should name the pitches, because I'm using the tempered scale on a fretted instrument" Isn't that a very selfish way of thinking (although it's quite hypothetic)? Think about the piano players - they'd be totally screwed up. There's a reason for the white and black tangents... Here's another example: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Singingax "I wouldn't say you were "off-topic". You're helping me prove my point that giving ALL 12 definitive pitches their OWN name would work better. (on a tuner and the fretboard, at least)" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Me: "Perhaps on the tuner and the fretboard, but when it comes to playing music, I'll stick to the diatonic system, not despite the multiple names, but because of them!" And in our discussion about intervals: Me: "Yeah, I thought that would be misunderstood. Physically on the fretboard an interval can have two different names. The famous 7#9 chord is called so because of its nature - 3rds stabled upon each other. So in a C7#9 you'd have C, E, G, Bb and D#. C to D# is an interval that looks a lot like Eb, and on the fretboard it's the same interval, yes. Theoretically, however (I am talking Diatonic, yes!), we have two completely different intervals, a #2nd and a b3rd. And diatonically (if that's a word...) this makes a lot of sense. It's all about looking at the intervals not as something physical, but musical. But thinking about it, an interval can have two different names theoretically as well - a third is an interval which can be both major and minor, still, it's a third. Very useful - and logical!" Here are some of our counter arguments. The problem is, you don't care... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted July 25, 2003 Author Members Share Posted July 25, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 1) A matter of priniples or pride? 2) Many have used means other than a real counter-argument, name calling included. (it's just water off a ducks back to me) 3) Yes. I got tired of trying to anticpate how YOU would interpret what I was saying. 4) By name, yes. By pitch, absolutely NOT. 5) That you like a tone naming system instead of a pitch naming system. 6) It proves that one pitch is being called more than one name, yes. 7) And I do! 8) Beeep! Sorry, you lose. Saying it's a selfish way of thinking is not a good counter-argument. The reason for the white and black tangents is because it's diatonically based on the C Ionian mode. Speaking of piano playing (which, btw, has nothing to do with my argument) there was a mid 20th century composer who had a piano built so he could lift up the keyboard and move it up or down by half-steps. Can you think of why he would do such a thing? (I certainly can) 9) Great. If naming the tones works for you, great. I, OTOH, can see the advantages of using a pitch naming system. Obviously not eveyone can. 10) Physically on the fretboard an interval is the same. It CAN certainly have more than one FUNCTION, but it's still the same interval. (in half-steps) 11) When you work with a 7 tone naming system you're FORCED to look at it that way. 12) Here's where you lose me. A #2nd and a b3rd are two different functions based on the same interval (in half-steps) but a major and minor 3rd are two different functions that are also two different intervals, (in half-steps) so what's your point? P.S. Why did you turn off the smilies option? You say I take what you say in ten other ways. i don't think that's true - I do realize your point is about the 12 pitches being named equally, so to say - I just can't seem to apply it to the way I think music. And all I've done is tell you why, and try to convince you that the system we have is as logical and to me much more musical than the one you're suggesting. Now to your points: 1) Principles, definately. You want counter arguments, but you didn't bother to reply when I actually posted a number of arguments. 2) My point being, I think we have actually come up with quite a lot of arguments for the system we have. 3) As I said above - I was just trying to convince you about the logic of the notation system, which you still haven't realized, obviously. And you wanted counter arguments instead of name calling - the least you could do is to actually reply to them... 4) By name and function, yes. Musically, yes. Pitchwise, no. But this is the part we'll never agree on... 5) Yep! 6) And that it's a logical, practical and musical way to do it. 7) Really? 8) I don't want to argue with you on this one... but there just might be a reason the piano is built the way it is. 9) That's cool. Go for it! 10) Yes. 11) I don't feel forced, I just find it extremely logical. 12) My point is, the minor and major third a variations of the same (musical) interval, the third. So it makes sense to let them share names, I think. You don't, but seriously - can't you see the point??? It's been a fun discussion, actually. I have proven nothing to you, and you nothing to me! But anyway... About the smilies option - I don't know... must have been a mistake. But they're back on. Shall we consider this argument closed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted July 27, 2003 Members Share Posted July 27, 2003 Oh hey dude! I think I see where you're getting hung up -- you are misusing the system The "Nashville" system is sort of Solfege Jr. (notice how it still uses "number and modifier") If you want to name notes in terms of function outside of key - just use soflege and just use ascending (there is descending too, but you can just use soflege for identification). I mean, that's why soflege has been around so damn long The cool thing is, if you WANT to highlight the special function, you can always use the descending and everyone will know what you are talking about willis. the great thing is that in reading the music, the key sig normalized you...so you read accidentals (just like in the Nashville system). With good old staff music, if you are reading at level, you shouldn't be translating VERBALLY, you should read relative position...That way when the director comes in and makes a key change to...oh fit a vocalist or the horn guy only has a single and isn't very good (yeah, like when has the horn been anything but the bad-ass)...you change the key sig with your pencil and it reads the same. Now, put your axe in new standard tuning...you've freed up your vertical motion AND all the violin pieces magically open up for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted July 28, 2003 Author Members Share Posted July 28, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax You keep trying to make the argument ABOUT the notation system Oh, it's me who does that? Who started the thread about memorizing the notes on the fretboard, pointing out the notation system's alleged weaknesses...? Originally posted by Singingax You say that the C Ionian diatonic NTP (NTP = Note/Tone/Pitch, take your pick) naming system tells you what the function of the NTP is, by using accidentals. Yep, and as you are about to show me in this thread, indeed it does! Originally posted by Singingax If one were to list the NTP names of the F Mixolydian mode one would do what you normally do. (with the present NTP naming convention) All you have to do now to convince me of the merits of C Ionian diatonic NTP naming system is to show me how the flat accidental used with the B indicates that it's function is a 4th of the F Mixolydian mode. (good luck) This is the best argument you've had so far! On the surface, that is... The explanation takes a little of music history knowledge... back in the old days when the notation system was made, they did not use accidentials. They just played the modes and sounded nice to them. Except one interval - the tritone - B to F or F to B. When playing the Lydian mode, F, it just didn't sound right, they thought. They called it the "devil of music". Then they realized that by lowering this note one step, you'd have a perfectly good Ionian scale. This is how the world of flats and later on sharps began. Back then, the formula for a F scale was W-W-W-H-W-W-H. To make this a mixolydian scale you lower the forth and lower the seventh. And there you have it - W-W-H-W-W-H-W Originally posted by Singingax Now lets try applying the C Ionian diatonic NTP naming system to the A Mixolydian mode. 1-2-3--4-5-6--b7-8 A-B-C#-D-E-F#-G--A Again, how does the sharp accidental used with the C tell me that it's function is a 4th, or the sharp used with the F tell me that it's function is a 6th, within the A Mixolydian mode. All I can see it tell me is that it's been altered from the C Ionian mode. Also, the G representing the b7 of A doesn't use a flat like in the previous example of F Mixolydian with the Eb. The C functions as a 4th? You don't believe in that yourself, do you...? The sharp tells you that the C is a major third, one pitch above the other version of the muscial interval third And the F# indicates that this is indeed a major 6th, again, altered from the original A Aeolian, which features, yes - a minor 6th! And the G is the minor 7th of A mixolydian per defination, so it's not an alteration, the alteration would be adding a #, thereby making it a major 7th. And in the F mixolydian, it would be removing the b from E, rasing the note one semitone. You just have to look at in context! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted July 28, 2003 Members Share Posted July 28, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 1) Yes, the Nashville system is like diatonic system in that it's based on the Ionian mode tones. (the solfege is to I believe) The Solfege system isn't really diatonic -- it's just that's usually what people are exposed to, there's actually 12 different names for the 12 tones (there is a descending system too, well there's more than one, but you don't have to use it -- just the 12 ascending) 3) What you talkin' about Willis? As I said I'm not sure soflege is the way to go when I just want 12 names for 12 pitches. That's the beauty of Solfege it's already designed, in use AND here's the biggy -- unlike a lettered system, the syllables aren't already tied to an ordered system. Like if you go C-#-D-E-F.... The problem is the letters are already an ordered system..the mind goes "hmm, C well next comes D" 5) I might have gone with tuning in 4ths if I hadn't learned to play guitar using standard tuning but at this point I'll stick with the old standard. That's exactly the resistance you re running into with others. "Oh, I already do it this way...so what if it has problems" You are being victimized by the indoctrination to which you've been exposed -- Why cheat yourself by going half-way? Hit it with a fresh open mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted July 28, 2003 Author Members Share Posted July 28, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 1) When applied to the definitive pitches of the tempered scale (on the fretboard or NOT) it IS a weakness to only name 7. 2) Yep, back in the day they didn't have the tempered scale. 3) What's an "F scale"? A mixolydian mode doesn't lower the 4th just the 7th. (from the Ionian mode) 4) Actually, it's C# and no I noticed my mistake and corrected it. 5) Only if you been well indoctrinated in the C Ionian diatonic tone naming system. (and only someone who has been would think so) 8) You're right, the context of the C Ionian mode's tone names. 1) Or more precisely, to let all pitches have multiple names. And as you know, I don't see this as a weakness. Besides, that wasn't my point here. You were the one accusing me of trying to make the argument about the notation system. 2) So...what? The logic remains the same, doesn't it? 3) I meant the F Lydian scale, the only scale back then that had F as root. And the F mixolydian scale does lower the 4th if your starting point is F Lydian. 4) Of course C#, yes. 5) Indoctrinated, manipulated, surpressed, enslaved - call it whatever you want... 8) Or the A Aeolian mode, or the D Dorian or G mixolydian or just all of the base for Western music...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted July 28, 2003 Members Share Posted July 28, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 2) The explanation takes a little of music history knowledge... back in the old days when the notation system was made, they did not use accidentials. They just played the modes and sounded nice to them. Except one interval - the tritone - B to F or F to B. When playing the Lydian mode, F, it just didn't sound right, they thought. They called it the "devil of music". Then they realized that by lowering this note one step, you'd have a perfectly good Ionian scale. This is how the world of flats and later on sharps began. Worse than that! the modal system was developed to describe and classify ALREADY EXISTING chant...stuff that had been around for a long time. I think that's why you are cheating yourself, as a progressive musician, by using a fingerboard logic used to accompany folk singling during this period I mean these things predated the violin! Hell, they are so old and crusty their idea of a fret was to tie a used string aroung the neck of the instrument! You can leverage your thoughts on making the naming more symmetrical and put it to practical use right on your fretboard. You are thinking progressively here...just don't pull up short because you've been indoctrinated into a system that's so old that it predates formalized music notation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted July 28, 2003 Author Members Share Posted July 28, 2003 I forgot some points here, it seems... Originally posted by Singingax 2) More musical? Is that another faux attempt at a counter-argument by saying that it's more musical? (whatever that means) Actually, you're right, that is a wrong way to put it. But in the Western music tradition, there's a reason for letting minor and major 7ths, 3ths, perfect and altered 5ths and 4ths share note names. Originally posted by Singingax 5) I don't think it ever really got opened. I was too busy defining my argument in an attempt to get you to understand it. At some points of the discussion you really made me think, I'll admit that - and I do see your point, I just think you are getting a bit too logical - I don't think I'd be able to cope with 12 names. There were a few times though when I could actually follow you some of the way. But - nah...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dann'sTheMan Posted July 30, 2003 Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by vote4dicktaid At some points of the discussion you really made me think, I'll admit that - and I do see your point, I just think you are getting a bit too logical - I don't think I'd be able to cope with 12 names. There were a few times though when I could actually follow you some of the way. But - nah...! Oh, don't back down yet, vote4dicktaid, you are doing so well! I'm an engineer, and I like things logical. I also like things organised, because it simplifies the amount of material I have to make sense of. Put simply, if stuff is organised for me, there's less for me to have to organise for myself and I can get on with the job of being musical. Both the Nashville system and the Notation system organise those 12 NTPs around 7. The reason being that most music will only use seven of them at a time. That really helps me make sense of things because it's easier for me to think of the Mixolydian mode as being "the same" as the Ionian mode with a flattened 7 (for any given key), it's easy for me to think of the third as being either a Major or Minor interval (for any given key). Organising music around 7, helps me to build those relatationships and those patterns. Singingax - I believe I'm right in saying that you don't want to abandon organising music around 7. It just annoys you that the 5 "black note" names are variable, but you want to keep the 7 "white note" names (CDEFGAB). If I've misunderstood you, Singinax, then can we briefly explore the consequences? Would you be in favour of 12 completely independent NTPs? Let's say Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec. This would, of course, require a score system that accommodates 12 NTPs. On the face of it, it might seem logical: just read the NTPs that are placed in front of you and you can play anything without the need for key signatures and those "for any given key" qualifiers could disappear (could be great for free jazz). However, all of the relationships and patterns based around 7 would disappear too and IMO it would turn into an organisational nightmare. C Ionian would become Jan, Mar, May, Jun, Aug, Oct, Dec - much more effort to learn this formula IMHO than CDEFGAB . Transposing to D Ionian involves learning yet another formula - Mar, May, Jul, Aug, Oct, Dec, Feb which again is much more effort to mentally organise than applying DEF#GABC# (even if it is the same TTtTTTt formula). I can already hear you complaining about those two #s (they ARE annoying you, Singinax, aren't they ) - but for any proficient musician they are not in the least bit confusing... Why? because those two #s only appear at the beginning of the score in the key signature in order to identify the key. The rest of the time, the musician will be reading DEFGABC, but applying the "pattern" for the D major scale i.e. two black notes. Witness the similarity to the Nashville system where the key is also identified at the beginning and we use 1234567 (for both C and D). (Thanks for the brief excursion) Organising around 7, be it Nashville or Notational system, helps me organise most of my music thinking. And yes, it can cause some problems for whole note scales, diminished scales and other exotica, but the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. I suspect you agree Singinax - and that you don't want to abandon organising around 7. Furthermore, you seem happy with the names already chosen for those 7 "white notes". So what about those annoying 5 black notes. Well why not drop using the name "flat" - everything can be a sharp. Never use the name Db, only C#. I think you could probably get away with it - simply because most other musicians would understand what you were trying to communicate (the point is effective communication after all). There is a hiccough however: Musical score - which is also organised around 7. The key of F would need 11 #s in the key signature. Painful, but I think we could musicians could get past this - it's simply applying the Circle of Fifths and it would soon become second nature. Furthermore, remember that the key signature is only telling what key we're on so that we'll apply the right "pattern" when reading FGABCDE. The other hiccough with Musical score is the problem with accidentals - you know those interesting passing notes from outside the current key. What about representing the flattened 7th from the C Mixolydian mode - is it really an A#? Or does calling it a Bb help you make sense of it. Are the notes of C Mixolydian CDEFGAA#C, or CDEFGABbC. Even if you were lazy with the score and show the key signature as F, avoiding the need for any accidentals in the main score - what you are in fact saying is that NTP being played that gives that characteristic Mixolydian sound is related to the B, not the A i.e. A# is illogical. Speaking of effective communication, if you were to drop the use of the term "flat", and we could never flatten a note, but only sharpen it, then that bluesy flat-5 NTP would become a sharpened-4th. NOT an insurmountable problem as other musicians would "work out" what you were trying to communicate(even if they might look at you a little funny ). In summary, we need a system, organised around 7, that shows a note being flattened as well as sharpened. The Nashville system helps us do precisely that, as does the Notational system, as does Musical score. Q.E.D. Logical hey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted July 30, 2003 Author Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Great post, a much more thorough explanation of my thoughts than I could have given myself... There was just one thing I didn't get: Originally posted by Dann'sTheMan The key of F would need 11 #s in the key signature. Painful, but I think we could musicians could get past this - it's simply applying the Circle of Fifths and it would soon become second nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dann'sTheMan Posted July 30, 2003 Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by vote4dicktaid Great post, a much more thorough explanation of my thoughts than I could have given myself... There was just one thing I didn't get: Thanks for the encouragement, vote4dicktaid, although I'm really the one who is supporting YOU. You've been doing a fantastic job. Apologies for the lack of clarity on the key of F issue. As you know, the key of F is usually designated with a single flat (b). Similarly the key of G is usually designated with a single sharp (#). The number of sharps or flats required can be worked out from the Circle of Fifths or Circle of Fourths. Going up by a fourth would entail adding another flat (e.g. the key of F has one more flat than the key of C). Similarly, going up by a fifth would entail adding another sharp (e.g. the key of G has one more sharp than the key of C). The whole point of it being a Circle of Fifths(or Fourths), is that you can keep on adding sharps or flats until you arrive back at the starting point. In other words, you could represent any key that is usually depicted by a certain number of flats, with an appropriate number of sharps i.e. the key of F, which is usually depicted as one flat, is the equivalent of having 11 sharps. Check out this table: Key No. of #s -C- ---0--- -G- ---1--- -D- ---2--- -A- ---3--- -E- ---4--- -B- ---5--- -F#- --6--- -C#- --7--- -G#- --8--- -D#- --9--- -A#- --10-- -E#- --11-- Yeah, it looks a little strange, because we no longer use flats, we are technically playing in the key of E# (that's why we need 11 sharps!) rather than F Notation system's "logic" is flexible enough to allow both sharps and flats to be used, allowing us to choose the name which makes the most sense (e.g. F rather than E#) giving us the Circle of Fifths chart with which we are most familiar. (see http://www.cavpromusic.com/jazz_resort/circle5ths.gif) The question is, is Singinax's logic flexible enough, too? FWIW, it get's really ugly if we decide to abandon using sharps and use only flats.... Key No. of bs -C- ---0--- -F- ---1--- -Bb- --2--- -Eb- --3--- -Ab- --4--- -Db- --5--- -Gb- --6--- -Cb- --7--- -Fb- --8--- -Bbb- -9-- -Ebb- -10- -Abb- -11- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted July 30, 2003 Author Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Dann'sTheMan In other words, you could represent any key that is usually depicted by a certain number of flats, with an appropriate number of sharps i.e. the key of F, which is usually depicted as one flat, is the equivalent of having 11 sharps.Check out this table:Key No. of #s-C- ---0----G- ---1----D- ---2----A- ---3----E- ---4----B- ---5----F#- --6----C#- --7----G#- --8----D#- --9----A#- --10---E#- --11-- Oh, I hear you loud and clear then. So the 11 sharps would be be spread like so: E#F##G##A#HC##D##E# That's pretty sick indeed! I'll just stick with F major I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dann'sTheMan Posted July 30, 2003 Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by vote4dicktaid Oh, I hear you loud and clear then. So the 11 sharps would be be spread like so: E# F## G## A# H C## D## E# That's pretty sick indeed! I'll just stick with F major I think... Exactly ...Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted July 30, 2003 Author Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 2) So what? So the pitches are fixed! Why not their designations? The formulas logic remains the same not the tone naming. 4) It's really the pitch between C and D but it borrows a letter using an accidental. 8) That's an argument for using it as a basis for the formulas, (which the Nashville system DOES) not for only using 7 names with 12 definitive pitches. 2) With the risk of being accused of "clairvoyance", I'll claim that you do not actually want to understand, or see the obvious logic of the system. 4) Yes - smart, right? 8) Nope, it was an argument for 7 names instead of 12. You have a major scale CDEFGABC, you alter some of the steps - C Db E F G A Bb C - now you have a oriental sound (I can' remember the name of this scale), you change more notes - C D Eb F G Ab Bb C - now it's a minor scale. Now let me se you do this with 12 definitive names, and show me how that would be more logical. Or come up with another example of how 12 names would work better. Bring it on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted July 30, 2003 Author Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 2) Actually, you would never cope with 12 names at one time. As you point out, most of music is diatonically based, so you would only have to deal with 7 of the 12 names. Oh no, you're so wrong here! When playing in C major there is a major possibility of meeting both F#s, G#s and C#s in various dominants, Ab in a minor subdominant or a Bb in a C7 chord. This would make 11 different possible pitches used here. But I don't know what kind of music you play, of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dann'sTheMan Posted July 30, 2003 Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax What's so hard about having 12 fixed names for 12 fixed pitches? Do you want to have your music organised around 7, Singinax? or around 12? If 12 - refer to my earlier post. If 7 - refer to my earlier post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted July 30, 2003 Author Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax Let me get this straight, first you say that diatonic system is good enough but then make the argument that it there's more than that? More than that? Of course, that has been my argument throughout - that these alterations (which are a VERY important part of most diatonic music - ever heard of modulations?) are indicated by s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted July 30, 2003 Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax Wow, you diatologists sure are well indoctrinated. The communist could have learned a thing or two. I almost feel sorry for you. 7 of 12 (not to be confused with 7 of 9) 12 building blocks (pitches) of the tempered scale. 7 of those blocks (pitches) to make a typical scale. (of western music) You're totally on your way dude, once you release the fear and let go of a tuning that predates your instrument, you'll start on your way. Don't let your own indoctrination make you a victim -- you're thinking progressively...keep going -- don't cheat yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted July 30, 2003 Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Exactly, tempered scales allow the pitches to be the same, it leads to even interval distances. So take that logic of evenness and put that directly on your instrument instead of a system that predates tempering! you're thinking along good lines, just let yourself be hypnotized by indoctrination! move beyond - there are people on the other side to help you on your way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Auggie Doggie Posted July 30, 2003 Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 3) Considering the fact that a pitch can have more than one function at the same time, using a name to show it can only work with one of them. An F in the G7 chord in the C major scale is the b7 of the G7 but the 4thof the C major scale. Can your accidentals indicate both fuctions at the same time? Unfortunately for you, if you wish to abolish the current naming system, mentioning "major, minor, 4th, and G7" makes no sense, as those terms no longer have any meaning in your anti-tonal music system. What are your new names for those things? (I know how hung up you are on names) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MorePaul Posted July 30, 2003 Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax Hey, if you want to send several hundred dollars so I can purchase a cheap guitar and set it up in NST, I won't mind. Compared to the importance naming the 12 basic building blocks (fixed pitches) of the tempered scale a guitar's tuning is incidental. I'm saying make the commitment and switch your current guitar over. Just getting a cheap guitar is like biuying a K-mart bike...you haven't made a serious commitment. The instrument is of PRIMARY importance (notice that you are advocating a system for a CLASS of instruments...the notation serves the instrument). That's how the music is actually made Using a modern naming system with an antiquated tuning system is doing yourseelf a disservice. remember when you first were talking about the fretboard schematic...that's EXACTLY it! you were thinking along good lines, but your fear is stopping you as go time approaches! You are only running into resistance because you are having trouble letting go of your indoctrination- just as you are seeing others let go of their indoctrination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted July 30, 2003 Author Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 1) Not as pitches of the tempered scale. Sorry, didn't get that. Would you please read what you just replied to and tell me what you mean? And yes, I do use the tempered scale. Originally posted by Singingax I've already shown that simply adding a # or b has more to do with altering a name than giving it's fuction. (modulation or no modulation) Are you talking about that "how can a Bb be a natural 4th of the F mixolydian mode" thing. If so, I'm pretty confident I proved you wrong. Read it again and tell me honestly that you don't understand it, then I'll explain it to you again... or maybe I won't. Adding a # or b has everything to do with function. If you don't realize that you are simply ignorant. Originally posted by Singingax 2) Still the same pitch in the tempered scale. I'm beginning to lose hope in you... Originally posted by Singingax 3) Considering the fact that a pitch can have more than one function at the same time ...have one function at a time is what you're trying to say. Originally posted by Singingax An F in the G7 chord in the C major scale is the b7 of the G7 but the 4th of the C major scale. Can your accidentals indicate both fuctions at the same time? Your example contains no accidentals, but whatever... Just tell me one thing: What is the name of the major 7th of a Gmaj7 chord? And the accidentals does not indicate multlipe functions at the same time. Don't know where you got that impression... and you seem to realize it here: Singingax"- There still the same pitch, but have different functions depending on how you look at it." Oh yeah, and you still haven't answered riffdaddy's questions about what kind of music you play. I'd like to know as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Auggie Doggie Posted July 30, 2003 Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 1) Say what? Naming the 12 fixed pitches of the tempered scale would change NOTHING about their relationships, functions and contexts. It would change EVERYTHING. The biggest complaint you've had is that some notes share a letter in their names. For example, F and F#. In a D major chord (D F# A), the F# is a MAJOR THIRD. In a D minor chord, the F is a MINOR THIRD. Using your 'system', what we call F would be the 4th note counting from D....what we call F# would be the fifth. So, instead of D major, you would have to call it something like X5/8, where X=your name for D, and the 5 and 8 are the intervals from X. Since you refuse to comprehend the concept of 2 different types of thirds sharing a letter in their name, major/minor thirds would no longer exist, and as such, major/minor chords could not retain those designations. 2) AS I said naming the 12 fixed pitches wouldn't change a thing when it comes to how their used. 'their'???? You can't use proper grammar....no wonder you can't understand music theory. And noboby's more hung up names than you diatologists. You started the whole mess based upon your silly notion of a naming system. You made your bed....now lie in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dann'sTheMan Posted July 30, 2003 Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax Wow, you diatologists sure are well indoctrinated. The communist could have learned a thing or two. I almost feel sorry for you. 7 of 12 (not to be confused with 7 of 9) 12 building blocks (pitches) of the tempered scale. 7 of those blocks (pitches) to make a typical scale. (of western music) I'm not American, Singinax, and the communist jibe doesn't upset my delicate sensibilities - nice try though. It seems I had misunderstood you and ACTUALLY advocate 12 completely independent names for the 12 NTPs. 12 independent names such as: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec. Am I wrong? or would these 12 designations for the 12 NTPs indeed satisfy the "logic" of your proposed "system". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vote4dicktaid Posted July 30, 2003 Author Members Share Posted July 30, 2003 Originally posted by Singingax 1) It doesn't have a name using the present tone naming convention but the pitch between F and G (you know, the one a half-step down from G) is the major 7th of the G major 7th chord. It's also the 5th of another fixed pitch and the 2nd of another fixed pitch and the 4th of another fixed pitch, etc, etc. It has a name. One name. It's F#. Repeat: the major 7th of Gmaj7 has ONE name. Not 2, or 5, or 7 but ONE! It's F#. Oh, and by the way: It's obvious that I'm the one who takes what you say ten other ways than it was written, right? My question was fairly simple - "what is the major 7th of a Gmaj7 chord"? My point also being that one can easily see that the F must then of course be a b7, despite (no wait, because of) its lack of accidentals. Originally posted by Singingax 2) Your reading comprehension could use some work cause that's EXACTLY my point. (see 1) Any fixed pitch of the tempered scale has multiple functions. This is what you wrote: "Considering the fact that a pitch can have more than one function at the same time" and "An F in the G7 chord in the C major scale is the b7 of the G7 but the 4th of the C major scale. Can your accidentals indicate both functions at the same time?" Think about what you've written, go back and read my previous posts, and tell me again that I'm the one who should work on my reading... Originally posted by Singingax 3) That's because it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Oh, ok - and neither had the diatonic notation system, or? Still you may want to reply when asked a question, I would say. Anyway, not my business (except that I asked a similar question long ago in one of the other threads... well, whatever!). So, you play all kinds of music. Then you've heard of major and minor chords and such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.