Some of the arguments against naming all 12 pitches...

[MorePaul]

1) You thought wrong! I want the 12 basic building blocks of the tempered scale to
have 12 designations, that will get rid
of the modifiers when it comes to naming
a pitch in the tempered scale.


When you put the names into a system like Nashville a note recieves more than one name because of the modifier.

You may want to consider Solfege or OZ


2) Since naming all 12 basic building blocks of the tempered scale is TUNING-NEUTRAL your suggestion is OT.


I disagree that tempered scales are tuning-neutral...They are intimately tied to tuning. The well tempered clavier was written to show the change in COLOR as you go through key modulation on a clavier (many of which do not dynamically intonate).
That's why temperaments need to fit the pieces played (you are sliding the imperfections around)
how you tune a guitar tends to cause certain tonal centers to be favored (just as certain temperings do) - Folk tunings are very strong in this, STD guitar less so, but has it (open strings account for this)

Like you said, you are interested in being a guitar player, not a note-reader...the geometry and mechanics of the fretboard is really really important to this, esp as you aren't interested in compatability with other instruments


3) A logical fretboard schematic is what I used to (and still do) say. And the tempered scale isn't my system, I just use it and would like it's 12 basic building blocks to ALL have their own designations.


There are plenty of systems already in use.
The guitar is not a particularly "tempered" instrument


4) I'm doing nothing of the sort. If they want to use 7 letters with the 12 basic buidling blocks of the tempered scale, they're more than welcomed to do so.

Since my point is tuning-neutral there's no need to change.


I disagree that it's tuning-neutal (see above)

well, you have called people "blind".
and you are, by posting, asking them to consider it - just as I'm asking, by posting, for you to honestly consider tuning


5) Talk to the hand. What I'm talking about IS tuning-neutral. If you can't understand
or except that then you aren't getting my
point.

I disagree that it's tuning-neutral


Using the tempered scale on a fretted instrument (in any tuning) gives you
geometric systems.


Not all systems push geometric thinking...guitarcraft is one...that's why fripp talks about "tuning neutral"

Staff music is a geometric notation of music, but not of fretboard geometry.

You are thinking in geometric terms, which is great (that geometry isn't tuning neutral...like CAGED is a tuning-specific system).
so I'm saying go ahead and simplify the geometry as that's the road you decided to take.

It's ON TOPIC


6) Again, another misinterpretation. When I speak of the 12 basic building blocks of the tempered scale I'm not talking in terms of tones.


I think you misinterpreted MY statement. My statement was about geometric systems.


7) Ah, another clairvoyant wannabe. Think what you want to think.

I guess I'm in good company (you) -- you did mention that the resistance of others is due to their indoctrination.


I didn't talk about a simplified fretboard schematic, I talked about one that doesn't have a 7 letter gobbleygook on it. Changing tunings wouldn't change that, but using 12 designations would!


you used to say "look at the fretboard schematic the naming doesn't fit" - this isn't your first thread on the subject



8) The topic was how the present note naming system leads to the mess that one gets when they are applied to a guitar's fretboard schematic. (and, again, in ANY tuning)


What mess?


9) Anyone who plays music using the tempered scale is already using the system of 12 basic building blocks.


I believe their argument is that they aren't using the 12 blocks evenly. Stravinsky et, al argued that there are more than 12 blocks



10) I just wanted to see if others thought a guitar's fretboard schematic with the present note naming convention on it is illogical.


Like Jeopardy, you didn't phrase it as a question...you did call the folks "blind" and 'victims of indoctrination' (that's the definition of dogmatic)


11) No sh#t, sherlock.


You asked. I answered


12) Yes, I am thinking in shapes that the functions give me. A fretted instrument will show them automatically when applying the formulas of the Nashville system. (which gives forth the CAGED system in standard tuning)

Not simplified, just not the gobbleygook that the present note naming convention gets you.


Going from gobbleygook to clear...isn't that simplification? esp as you are remocing (unneeded) elements?
I'm just saying as long as you are looking at this simplification proceedure and you think geometrically and you are ok with instrument-specific noation and you want the system to be tonal center neutral (those are a lot of conditions, and you meet them) - you should check the tuning out.
You're not giving yourself a fair shot at it.


I'm just trying to help the blind to see!

Me too

I must admit, with statements like that I may be wrong. You aren't asking them to change, you are telling them

I'm not so concerned about your system as your methodologies ie it feels like you haven't done your research, these naming conventions aleady exist (have for a long time).
That's why I bring up the tuning issue - it seems to be in keeping with your naming philosophy and you don't seem to have any real exposure to NST -- At this point you've gotten combative so I don't expect you to actually seriously consider anything, but I urge you to check it out for real some day.

Call CU, Get the Read Sourcebook, talk to musical educators, learn your solfege syllables, learn your OZ classes, there is plenty of material out there.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax The 12 basic building blocks of the tempered scale ARE tuning neutral, whether you agree or not. Geometry and mechanics of the fretboard are another subject having to do with tunings.

 

 

I believe them to be related the tuning are more conducive to some tonal centers than others.

 

remember it's not such much THE tempered scale as it is A tempered scale...there are many different temperings, all with different properties

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


1) Again, I'm just pointing out that when one is playing an instrument that uses the tempered scale (badly or not) they automatically get 12 basic building blocks and giving them 12 designations is only logical. (I'm sure you'll say the same about NST too)


I believe you are missing my point --
my point is you an EXTEND your idea

but in all honesty -- you wind up using more than 12 building blocks (you can see how much active intonation is going on my monitoring a CC stream of a MIDI guitar not set to chroma).

Still - that doens't mean you can't apply 12 tone theory to it, if you find that is the level of ganularity you desire - but it is important to keep in mind that a A isn't an A isn't an A.

As you dynaimically intone, that value can change.


3) I've looked into it and since it and standard tuning both have their advantages, and since I'm well versed in standard, I'm sticking with it. (that's not being combative either)


Did you actually sit down and try it? maybe take a little instruction?
learn a few pieces in it? talk to others who've used the system extensively?

reading a web site doesn't really get you much.

one problem I have is you have been calling others 'victims of indoctrination' for EXACTLY the same reason.

you asked - everyone went with "I'm already comfortable with what we've got"...you call it gobbeleygook


4) I'll check those out, but all I'm really interested in is applying the decent amount of music theory I already know to the 12 basic building blocks of the tempered scale
by giving them all their own designations.


Gee, like you checked out NST.

What you are proposing isn't new. That's why I've been urging you to open you mind. At this point...just open a book.

[MorePaul]

I think however you are confusing my point (I just thought I'd point out some details in your analysis, but keep it simple may be the way to go).

what I'm saying is, if you want to make the naming system isomeric, you should consider making the fretboard isomeric (via isomorphism) for the same reasons.

Tempered scales (there are many temperings, and again, tempering isn't just 12 tone...it's about distributing the comma) aren't really tuning neutral...really check out what JS Bach was saying with the Well-tempered Clavier.
That is also why traditional keyboard proponents have their position on keyboard layout...the topology of the keyboard changes with color of the tonal center (piano may be about the only equal tempered clavier out there)

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


1) You may believe them to be related the tuning but that make not it so. (tonal centers or no tonal centers)


tonal centers are a big deal. Esp as that is the system you are looking to modify.


2) It is such much when it comes to how it plays out the fretted instrument known as a guitar. (this IS a part of the guitar forum)

But you can temper a guitar in different ways AND dynamically temper the instrument with playing style.
traditional guitar set-up introduces cumulative error (which is why those fancy schmancy intonation systems have been devised AND why players learn to correct and sweeten notes)

The situation is compounded when playing with other instruments.

There's a really good exercise for this...go hook up a MIDI unit to a guitar and let someone wail...watch the CC pitch stream.

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


1) I don't need to an extend my idea. All I need to do is give a designation to all 12 of the basic building blocks that are present on a guitar that you get from using the tempered scale.


That's because you aren't there yet.


You don't wind up using any more than the 12 basic building blocks. (sometimes less, but never more)


you sure can...that's why 20th century composers (stravinsky, fokker, et al) were proponents of larger tonal systems.

It is more obvious on a fully dynamically intoned instrument like a horn or a viol or pipe organ, but guitars do it to (polyphony tends to limit the attention we can pay to it, but we do).


2) As one of the 12 basic building blocks, an A is most certainly an A, and an A. (you really missed the boat on that one)


I disagree.

as you learn dynamic intonation it is not so. This is a big awakening when you experience an instrument without frets.
Then when you move back to an instrument with frets, you realize you were doing it "automatically"

a strict 12 tone notation doesn'tdesignate this to be sure (which is the limit that the above composers ran into)...in a practical setting, the musican uses context (either aurally or by pitch memory) to adjust these. This is one reason performances ar sub-par if you can't hear yourself...on some instruments, being able to aurally "lock in" is critical.



Only when thinking of it as a tone (which is not what I"M saying) would it change.



3) No. And I've explained why.

because you can't spend money on a set-up?
because a method that promotesNST says the method is tuning meutral?
because you alread know another system?
because some chords are harder and some are easier?

you haven't really explored the tuning system.
that's sort of dogmatic, don't yout think? (please review definition of dogmatic)


4) When someone can look at the gobbleygook that the 7 letter system gives when shown on the fretboard and says it makes sense, I can only think of diatonic indoctrination as a cause.


sounds exactly like your tuning indoctrination (note again, you've never actually tried or really talked to anyone who has used it extensively)


5) I call it what it IS, gobbleygook.


sounds pretty dogmatic


6) I didn't say it was new, or my idea or my system, or a new way of notation, or the many other things that you and others have claimed I've said, or implied, or proposed.


I'm just saying that there is a whole lot of work you should leverage to save yourself a ton of time.


I don't need to open anything (a book or my mind) to see that the 12 basic building blocks that you get from the tempered scale on a fretted instrument should ALl have ther own designations.


nah, you need to open a book to see that THAT WORK HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.

I am recommending the texts I have because they hold information that couldbe important to you and save you lots of time. the Read Sourcebook is probably not going to be cheap if it's still in print, but it will save you a lot of time and is fairly comprehensive in its coverage.

I'd suggest also looking at
temperaments -- (there are lots of "tempered" scales)
dynamic intonation, Pitch class set theory, etc


It takes a pretty closed mind to not see what I'm talking about when looking at a schematic of the guitar's fretboard that uses anything less than 12 designations for the 12 basic building blocks.

I'm with ya brother -- I'm saying EXTEND that!
as in open your mind further! take the next step!

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


1) Yes I am. I've already started using 12 designations.

nah, that's only half the battle
EXTEND it to the fretboard -- you can't see you're not there yet...because you haven't gone over that horizon.


2) As soon as you find a schematic of the fretboard that uses more than 12 please
let me know.


while there are scallop fret (sitar like), microtone fret instruments (you can do this by altering scale length or adding frets outside the rule of 17) , and fretless guitars. Even the 12 fret-per-octave guitar allows one to adjust intonation with tension.

again, please TRY (I mean really try) the MIDI exercise (or just watch a strobe tuner...the midi CC messages will give you a sense of the massive amount of info though)



3) Natural scale instruments don't use the 12 basic building blocks. You still haven't firgured that out yet?

what natural scale instruments are you talking about? (not fretless strings)
by "natural scale" you mean - diatonically construted?



4) Tones again? Oh well, it's not like I haven't tried.


well, you can't use frequency - if I drop D or switch to baroque tuning that's out.
So what do you want to use...apparently "blocks"


5) I haven't really talked to anyone who's gone with 12 designations either. Doesn't stop me from seeing it's advantages though.


You may not be seeing its full advantages (and disadvantages) as you've never actually used such a system or talked to someone who has...it's all pretty much conjecture for you at this point.


Or from seeing that how you tune has nothing to do with it.


because you haven't really tried these systems.

Again - the tuning is an EXTENSION of that type of system.


6) Yeah, those diatonics can be that way.

so can any view


7) What work is there to save myself from?


So far you have proposals, but you havne't produced a system.


Simply going with 5 more designations isn't a whole lot of work.


It's show us time


OTOH, dealing with your lack of perception has turned out to be A LOT of work.


nah, just your resistance to new ideas has created work for ya



8) Well, if you could begin to get my gist you'd realize there's really nothing much to do besides use 5 more designations.


you have to decide what those designations are..if you want them ordered or unordered. You have to decide if you want them to exclude or include other standards, if they are arbitrary, if they use current (standard typeface) symboles, If they are pronouncable...etc


9) If you were with me you wouldn't be trying to convert me to NST, brother.


No way bro! you're just seeing half the deal - you haven't seriously considered NST...maybe looked at a website, something like that...that's about it.

I mean, I mentioned a couple of alternative systems...you think maybe I could have walked this way before?


Open your perception and maybe you'll begin to see this.


There's nothing to EXTEND except that 7 designationed system. (to 12)

there's plenty to extend!
you are proposing an isomeric system of naming, I'm saying take that isomeric concept to the fretboard

I'm totally with you - a 12 tone system has its limitations (as it relies on the musican to alter intonation) ANDTHAT'S OK
that's detail work and you want to stick with 12 tone - that's fine - it's functional - you can do a lot with it (12 tone defines notes - or "blocks") -- I just wanted to point out it's not the only way of looking at the sharps and flats (17 tone is probably more accurate for that)

I'm saying take that idea and RUN with it - right to the fretboard!
make that isomeric too!

[MorePaul]

Originally posted by Singingax


1) I have EXTENDED it to the fretboard. The tuning is incidental. (something you continually fail to grasp)


I disagree - please reread my previous posts


2) Man, if I need to explain that, you're either dumb as a door knob or just trolling.

Since you seem reasonably bright, I'll assume the latter.


3) Yes. The 12 basic building blocks. Once you realize that you'll begin to understand.



I think the problem is you keep calling them "building blocks", but you don't define what they really are, I assume you are getting confused on fixed pitch systems being a tonal system


4) I see the advantages of using 12 designations. How I tune is incidental.
(when you comprehend my point)


What I'm saying is you should extend the though. It's sort of like JS Bach when he said (with his tongue in ceeck) "playing organ is easy, you press the right keys at the right time"...
in application, I beieve an isomorphic tuning will help you as you seem to sort of dig isomeric systems (like your naming system)

When you stop trying to sell me on one particular tuning over another, I'll know you have comprehended my point. Til then, keep up the good work.


5) Til you perceive my point you'll just keep thinking that tuning is an EXTENSION of that type of system, when it's really just your lack of perception.


I disagree. I believe I see your point (You think maybe I might be familiar with these systems because maybe I walked down that path about 15 years ago)


6) A system of 12 basic building blocks? That system stems from usig the tempered scale on the guitar.


It's best to define the "blocks". I'm not sure you are geting that there is all kinds of tempering


And I didn't "propose it".


sure you did...you came on the forum and proposed the system. You presented it for consideration (ie proposed).


7) How can I show you what you apparently lack the ability to see?


Quite easily I would think, implement the system.


8) Resistance to your misinterpretations? How can I not resist them?

yup - as in "did you actually go check it out?"
A : "no"


9) Ordered or unordered? Wow, you really have missed the boat when it comes to perceiving my point.


I'm not sure you are getting what ordered and unordered means.

Just keep trying to get my gist, maybe you'll get lucky.

10) Your first name wouldn't happen to be mis would it? And your last name, perception?


11) I can take the isomeric system anywhere and nowhere. You might want to contemplate
that for a while.


If you can take it nowhere -- then leave naming alone. That *would* be taking it nowhere


12) A 12 tone system might. Unfortunately for you, that isn't what I'm talking about.

I believe you might be confused in thinking that a fixed pitch system isn't a tonal system.



I think we have in an impasse'. Perhaps you could go ahead and implement the system (again, you may want to check out systems already in existance like OZ, solfege , et al)
It's show not tell time I'd say...

Since you are having trouble getting through to us this might be a good approach.

Let's put it to a vote if implementation would help.