E# and B# where did they go?
WAL
flats between B and C and between E and F. I have heard afew
explanations but none of them are easy to understand.
Thanks
WAL
Joey Goldstein
taking a series of 7 perfect 5th intervals
F C G D A E B
and transposing them all to be within a single octave
F G A B C D E F
It can be seen, even in Pythagorean tuning, that there are 2 different
sizes of adjacent steps.
F-G is a large 2nd, aka a major 2nd
G-A is a large 2nd, aka a major 2nd
A-B is a large 2nd, aka a major 2nd
B-C is a smaller 2nd, aka a minor 2nd
C-D is a large 2nd, aka a major 2nd
D-E is a large 2nd, aka a major 2nd
E-F is a smaller 2nd, aka a minor 2nd
Musicians then looked for other useful sounds in smaller and smaller
proportions between the tones in this template.
The 21 tone palette that we use today can be seen as a series of 21 perf
5ths
Fb Cb Gb Db Ab Eb Bb F C G D A E B F# C# G# D# A# E# B#
all transposed to lay within a single octave
Fb F F# Gb G G# Ab A A# Bb B B# Cb C C# Db D D# Eb E E#
So in this system between the major 2nds there are two very small 2nds.
Eg. Between F and G we have F# and Gb, between G and A we have G# and
Ab, etc.
In this system there also exists two very very small intervals between
the minor 2nds B and C (B# and Cb) and between E and F (E# and Fb).
In the 12 tone equally tempered scale used on fretted instruments and
keyboards for the last few hundred years we have rounded things off so
that the smallest interval is the minor 2nd and we have spaced things
out so that there are only 12 tones all equidistant from each other. But
there are still two possible names for the "in between" notes depending
on how they are functioning within a key.
E#/F F#/Gb G G#/Ab A A#/Bb B/Cb B#/C C#/Db D D#/Eb E/Fb
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
As a matter of fact sometimes F is rightfully written (and even played
... see below) as Gbb or G as Fx (double sharp). I don't think anyone
has ever used triple flats or sharps though, thank God.
Players of non fretted instruments like violin routinely play E# and F,
F# and Gb, etc. slightly differently though depending on context.
There's lots of the story (other types of temperaments for starters)
that I've left out here (mostly because I am not a music history scholar
and don't really know) but the outlines should be clear enough.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
<joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
paramucho
wrote:
>Can anyone explain (in simple terms please) why there are no sharps or
>flats between B and C and between E and F. I have heard afew
>explanations but none of them are easy to understand.
The notes C E D F G A B C are separated by two kinds of interval. Most
have a two semitone interval. B-C and E-F have a one semitone
interval:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
C D E F G A B C
Only the notes separated by two semitones have space for a sharp or
flat note in between.
Get someone to show you this on a guitar or similar on a single
string.
SHARPS:
A sharp raises a note by a semitone. So, B# would raise to the same
note as C and E# would rise to F:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
C D E F G A B C
C# D# E# F# G# A# B#
FLATS:
A flat lowers a note by a semitone. So, Cb is the same pitch as B and
Fb is the same pitch as E.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
C D E F G A B C
Db Eb Fb Gb Ab Bb Cb
Ian
M. Schulter
> Thanks
> WAL
Hello, there, and pleaase note that both your question and the answers
given by others apply to the tuning scheme known as 12-note equal
temperament, or 12-tET, where the octave is divided into 12 equal parts,
each an identically-sized semitone.
This tuning is the norm for most 20th-century keyboard instruments -- what
the standard might be like in 50 or 100 years is an open question,
depending on how styles and tastes develop.
When keyboards are placed in other kinds of tuning systems, C and B# can
be quite different notes, and likewise F and E#. For instruments with more
than 12 notes per octave, both notes of such a pair might be present, and
the distinction used to musical advantage.
For example, in some music around 1600, B# is almost a quartertone _lower_
than C, and composers of the era such as Gesualdo sometimes use this
contrast very expressively; keyboards with 19 or even 31 notes per octave
were in use at the time, making it possible to observe this difference on
keyboard as well as in singing or playing with flexible-pitch instruments.
In the 21st century, electronic keyboard instruments with multiple or
custom microtonal tuning features permit these kinds of effects also.
Again, in 12-tET, the notes F/E# or C/B# happen to map identically; but in
other tuning systems, they are often dramatically distinct.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
Roger Blumberg
confusion(s) that arise from them.
You might need to understand better how chromatic scales are spelled.
The chromatic scale includes 12 equal-ratioed uniform chromatic scale
tones -- 12 if you start your count at 0, or 13 if you start your count at
1. In the end, there are enharmonic (alternate) letter-names for all degrees
of a chromatic scale, even E-F and B-C. At the outset though, the note pairs
E-F and B-C don't have flats or sharps between them. But nothing is
"missing". There are no missing chromatic tones between them. What "is"
missing (as far as making things easy to understand goes) is more available
letters to help name the chromatic tones between the "other" letters of the
(seven toned Major) scale.
Music theory's diatonic or seven-thing oriented "spelling system" may be
causing you this problem. The chromatic scale is a "12-thing system", but
music's spelling system is only built for 7 things, 7 tones. (our spelling
system is designed around the seven letters and seven tones of the Major
scale and the C Major scale specifically.) So you know that we're going to
have problems communicating efficiently about our music (it's called
questionable systems-design -- forcing a 12 thing field of tones into a
spelling system originally designed for only 7). We had to find a way to
"name" 12 tones using only seven letters. This is why (today) we use the
qualifying symbols, flats and sharps, in the first place. In medieval music
or in any music that uses more naturally tuned scales, flats and sharps and
enharmonic letter-names were often really indicating micro-tonal differences
in pitch, rather than full large semitones of pitch difference. But flats
and sharps in an equal tempered chromatic scale (the one we use today) are
band-aids, quick-fixes, patch-jobs. They're the remnants and result of
trying to name 12 tones using only 7 letters (or 7 numerals).
You might do better to see it as if B and C, and E and F are the only
"correct" part of the spelling sequence and everything else, everything that
requires a flat or sharp in it's name, is the problem. By this I mean, the
only way to efficiently name the 12 tones of any equal tempered chromatic
scale with letters would be to use 12 different and unique letters, not 7.
This would help to better represent our 12 equal-ratioed uniform divisions
of the octave, and give each tone truly equal-value treatment and equal
worth within our conceptual model of the chromatic scale. [Mind you, I'm not
advocating 12 letters necessarily, I'm just saying it would help with
peoples understanding and conceptualizations of the chromatic octave.]
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
A, A#, B, C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, A
The spellings of "all" chromatic scales are based on one thing, one long
continuous (multi-octave) letter line. That single letter-line is designed
around the C Major scale's seven lettered tones. You start with the seven
letters of the C Major scale C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C. Then you insert the
five other tones we left out the first time around (hundreds of years ago
[if not millennia] when we were first evolving our spelling system), the
five other tones needed to form a chromatic scale. When you insert those
five other tones you won't have "proper" names for them because all of the
existing available letter names (the seven letters A through G used in the C
Major scale) have already been used. So we'll have to re-use some of the
original letters but qualify them with accidental marks (a flat or sharp).
Where ever a "whole-step" occurred within our original C major scale
letter-line we'll spit that whole-step into two semitones (two half-steps),
re-use an existing letter but dress it up with an accidental mark so we'll
know that we're talking about a new and different tone - in this case full
semitones of pitch different.
The C Major scale is made up of whole-steps (i.e. increments that are 2
semitones wide) except for the widths between (B and C) and (E and F). Those
two pairs of adjacent C Major scale tones are only distanced by one semitone
(one half-step, one increment of a chromatic scale <---- read that again,
there's only one increment of a chromatic scale between E, F and B,C. That's
why I said earlier that you might consider E,F and B,C as being the only
correctly spelled spot (or logically correct spelling) in any chromatic
scale spelling. And it's also the reason that there are no b's or #'s
between E-F and B-C.
When you insert the five new tones (and tone names) to create the 12 tone
chromatic scale and it's (screwy) chromatic scale spelling, here's what you
wind up with:
C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B, C
Every place you see a sharp (#), and there a five of them, is where we
inserted in one of the five new tones (and tone names) in and among the C
Major scale's original seven lettered tones. Notice that E, F and B, C still
don't have any flated or sharped tones or letters between them. This is
because in the C Major scale there is no room between those two tone-pairs
to insert another tone. There is no whole-step to split in two at those two
spots. They are (and were) already only one semitone apart. So the spelling
of this chromatic scale (the C chromatic scale) is based upon the C Major
scale, it's inate intervals, it's pattern of whole-steps and half-steps, AND
it's limited number of available letters (7 rather than 12).
To derive the spellings of the remaining chromatic scales (we'll say 11 more
chromatic scales and their spellings to make it easy), write out a two
octave sample of that C Major scale based (and biased) C chromatic scale
spelling and then "bracket out" any consecutive 12 (or 13) chromatic scale
tones.
C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B, C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A,
A#, B, C
Here (below), I'll bracket out the twelve chromatic steps from D to D so you
can see it's spelling. This of course is the spelling for the "D" chromatic
scale:
D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B, C, C#, D
Here again, there's no flated or sharped tones or letters between E-F and
B-C. Why, because the D chromatic scale spelling is (also) based on the "C"
chromatic scale spelling, which in turn was based on the C Major scale
spelling. Indeed all 12 chromatic scale spellings are based on this same C
chromatic letter line and therefore the C Major scale itself. [Note,
eventually, you'll add the enharmonically equivalent letter-names to your
chromatic letter-line, e.g. D# = Eb and F# = Gb, but those additions only
effect the five "fill spots" the five places we inserted new tones and
tone names. The E-F B-C occurrences will remain intact however --- [ that
is,
most of the time. There are a couple exceptions however, some arising simply
from our need for more enharmonic spellings (even though they break the EF
BC rule!), but other times they would really be indicating microtonal
differences in pitch rather that full semi-tones or half-steps of pitch.]
The problem of course is that these hatchet-jobs (pardon me) of spelled
chromatic scales
(or any spelled scale for that matter, even seven tones scales, Major or
minor scale, etc), make it very difficult for us to know the true underlying
"intervallic distances" between the tones of any and all such letter-spelled
musical materials (and that I suspect is why you had to ask this question in
the first place). The same is true for music's number-named materials. All
of music's materials and formula are made more complex to understand (and to
communicate about) because we have too few core designates to name our
tones -- 7 letters only, and 7 numerals only, when (perhaps) we should (in
today's world) have 12 of each, 12 letters and 12 numerals. We do (thank
God) have 12 numbers to use if we choose to (0-12 for one octave of
chromatic scale tones), but 12 unique letters in music will probably never
happen, or never gain acceptance at any rate.
Roger
P.S. if you're interested in seeing what using 12 numbers to communicate
about music looks like, it's the primary subject and purpose of my web site
P.P.S. Matt, Joey, and Paramucho, "The Cipher" is what I was being a bit
cagey about a few months ago within the "Music theory doesn't make sense"
thread (which, again, I didn't initiate). That thread is in fact what
inspired me to spend the summer building the web site.
The Cipher is about learning intervals (intervals being the key to
understanding all of
music theory and the key to understanding and navigating any stringed
instrument) and applying chromatic number formula (for intervals, scales and
chords) to the guitar fretboard (or any instrument tuned to 4ths or 5ths.)
Chromatic numbers (integrated with diatonic numbers) are a pedagogically
good thing. And this is the first time we've had a way to "apply" chromatic
numbers to musical instruments (via the "Five Degree Calculation Line" for
guitar http://www.thecipher.com/5degree-calc-line.html, and "Seven Degree
Calculation Line" for the violin family {5ths tuned}
http://www.thecipher.com/other-instruments.html ).
The "Three minute introduction" page should give you the idea quickly
http://www.thecipher.com/3_minute_intro.html .
Thanks
Roger
"WAL" <wadea....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4c390b46.02102...@posting.google.com...
Joey Goldstein
--
Roger Blumberg
Sean
> ... see below) as Gbb or G as Fx (double sharp). I don't think anyone
> has ever used triple flats or sharps though, thank God.
Brief note... triple flats/sharps have been used in 20th Century music. That
cuts out the thought that no one has ever used them. It does not cut out the
thought of practicality.
S
Sean
(Key phrase: beating a dead horse.)
~beating a dead horse~
"Roger Blumberg" <rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote in message
news:cIUu9.8356$Fj6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
paramucho
<rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
>P.S. if you're interested in seeing what using 12 numbers to communicate
>about music looks like, it's the primary subject and purpose of my web site
>
>http://www.TheCipher.com
>
>P.P.S. Matt, Joey, and Paramucho, "The Cipher" is what I was being a bit
>cagey about a few months ago within the "Music theory doesn't make sense"
>thread (which, again, I didn't initiate). That thread is in fact what
>inspired me to spend the summer building the web site.
>
>The Cipher is about learning intervals (intervals being the key to
>understanding all of
>music theory and the key to understanding and navigating any stringed
>instrument)
Well, intervals are *one* of the basic building blocks.
>and applying chromatic number formula (for intervals, scales and
>chords) to the guitar fretboard (or any instrument tuned to 4ths or 5ths.)
>Chromatic numbers (integrated with diatonic numbers) are a pedagogically
>good thing. And this is the first time we've had a way to "apply" chromatic
>numbers to musical instruments (via the "Five Degree Calculation Line" for
>guitar http://www.thecipher.com/5degree-calc-line.html, and "Seven Degree
>Calculation Line" for the violin family {5ths tuned}
>http://www.thecipher.com/other-instruments.html ).
>
>The "Three minute introduction" page should give you the idea quickly
>http://www.thecipher.com/3_minute_intro.html .
It looks pretty complicated to me.
Ian
Roger Blumberg
True, but can you imagine trying to even begin to learn about music theory
*without* being familiar with intervals? I think it's fair to say that
intervals are key (if you had to pick just one). Then of course you have to
be able to locate and identify intervals on your chosen instrument, so you
can play and *hear* them -- ultimately to be able to recognize their
occurrence and usage in all larger materials -- scales, chords, inversions,
progression root movements, etc.
> It looks pretty complicated to me.
I'm not sure which pages you looked at or read. It's just counting numbers
on a grid. Childs play, literally.
http://www.thecipher.com/demo_common-materials.html Like anything else,
you'd have to devote some initial time learning the basics of the tools. But
we're talking a couple of hours verses a couple of years (orders of
magnitude at any rate).
The complicated part is explaining music's standard nomenclatures, letters
and numbers, etc -- but that's always been the case. But chromatic numbers
(semitone distance values) greatly reduce the time and effort needed to
unravel all of that pre-existing complication, plus communicate the basics
and illuminate the playing field, the fretboard. The Cipher does two things
at once (at least):
1. It provides translations of musical formula in the form of "true"
intervallic distance numbers (true mensural numbers) -- real intervals.
2. It unlocks the fretboard by showing how the fretboard *itself * actually
works (in and of itself). It reveals how and why all intervals fall on the
fretboard exactly where they do. It achieves this by using (again) chromatic
numbers --- the guitar's built-in and most natural numbers (though entirely
neglected until now).
That single set of chromatic numbers then is serving double duty -- two
birds with one stone, so to speak.
Understand that there's a distinction between "learning the fretboard" when
it means "learning the Major scale on the fretboard" and when it means
"learning how the fretboard *itself* works". By this I mean, it's clear that
the keyboard and fretboard work differently. It's this kind of innate
mechanical workings that I'm talking about. Once you understand how the
instrument works innately (which chromatic numbers alone do best) you can
then (and with absolute confidence) learn, understand, and apply any other
subsequent musical patterns and materials you choose to it -- e.g. the
Major scale. So rather than rote learning a given pattern in one or two
location instances, you'll have the knowledge to "build you're own" (any
scale, any chord voicing) on any string-set, at will and from scratch. It's
like giving a man a few (rote) fish or teaching him to fish on his own.
So this "two birds with one stone" feature of The Cipher System is
important
to understand.
Thanks
Roger
"paramucho" <i...@beathoven.com> wrote in message
news:3dc1d840...@news.supernews.com...
paramucho
<rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
>> Well, intervals are *one* of the basic building blocks.
>
>True, but can you imagine trying to even begin to learn about music theory
>*without* being familiar with intervals? I think it's fair to say that
>intervals are key (if you had to pick just one).
But I don't have to pick one. No-one does.
<snip>
>
>> It looks pretty complicated to me.
>
>I'm not sure which pages you looked at or read. It's just counting numbers
>on a grid. Childs play, literally.
Lots of text to read.
Lots of text.
Ian
Dr.Matt
19th-century, actually.
Need a lower chromatic neighbor note to Gx? It's F#x.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a trip to the bathroom."
Joey Goldstein
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
>
> In article <8o0v9.8359$US2....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> Sean <gabri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> As a matter of fact sometimes F is rightfully written (and even played
> >> ... see below) as Gbb or G as Fx (double sharp). I don't think anyone
> >> has ever used triple flats or sharps though, thank God.
> >
> >Brief note... triple flats/sharps have been used in 20th Century music. That
> >cuts out the thought that no one has ever used them. It does not cut out the
> >thought of practicality.
>
> 19th-century, actually.
> Need a lower chromatic neighbor note to Gx? It's F#x.
It just goes to show the World's a crazy place.
> --
> Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
> Music: Splendor in Sound
> "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a trip to the bathroom."
--
Dr.Matt
It's a strange application of the material found in Rahn's Basic
Atonal Theory to tonal music.
Z12 arithmetic is simple, but has very poor correspondence with
the natural patterns of tonality, which operate in overlapping sets
of 7 tones.
Scott GF Bailey
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:UTev9.90$ho1....@news.itd.umich.edu...
Ooo, if I'd tried to learn the guitar using this Cipher method, I'd
still be trying to get in my first band.
First Guitarist: "Then we go to the V."
Cipher Guitarist: "The five? Okay." (Plays IV chord)
Roger Blumberg
> Atonal Theory to tonal music.
> Z12 arithmetic is simple, but has very poor correspondence with
> the natural patterns of tonality, which operate in overlapping sets
> of 7 tones.
The material is genuinely mine as well. I developed my materials completely
independently. For many years I believed I was the only person on the planet
using chromatic number formula. Yes, I was naïve (not knowing of set theory
etc) but I was also resourceful. I needed some new tools so I went ahead
made them. This is just to explain why I say "genuinely" my materials.
And yes, the whole point is to use integer numbers (accurate and precise
mensural numbers) to communicate the elements of *Tonal* music rather than
atonal, AND to help understand how the necks of fretted string instruments
work in and of themselves, AND to help apply the patterns of tonal music to
those instruments.
And likewise, the objective is to translate and make available to people who
don't will read music, those "natural patterns of tonality", but using a
somewhat different language -- a language already familiar to anyone who can
count. I'm just using an additional set of symbols to illuminate the same
patterns. If you think of it as linguistics it might help. It's just another
language. But you may be failing to understand again that I present all
material in *both* number languages, diatonic and chromatic, integrated as
one at all times. Whichever patterns are best illustrated and understood via
diatonic numbers remain intact and there to use.
I use chromatic numbers as a means to an end -- to illuminate diatonic
numbers. If diatonic patterns were so self-explanatory and self-evident
there'd be no need for rec.music.theory, would there. Ultimately, and in
fact quickly, the goal is to *drop* the chromatic numbers and use diatonic
numbers!! Why is this so hard to understand? The chromatic numbers are
training wheels (an island of sanity, a safety zone). And they do in fact il
luminate and communicate many if not all patterns very well in and of
themselves. Why? Because they are true interval numbers. They are mensural
numbers. They describe *measurements* of pitch distance and difference.
Diatonic numbers DO NOT describe measurements of pitch. Hence they are not
"proper" interval numbers, and their ability to communicate intervallic
information is weak at best.
Roger
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:UTev9.90$ho1....@news.itd.umich.edu...
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>>>The "Three minute introduction" page should give you the idea quickly
>>>http://www.thecipher.com/3_minute_intro.html .
>>
>>It looks pretty complicated to me.
>
>It's a strange application of the material found in Rahn's Basic
>Atonal Theory to tonal music.
> Z12 arithmetic is simple, but has very poor correspondence with
>the natural patterns of tonality, which operate in overlapping sets
>of 7 tones.
The principles are simple enough to be easily reinvented. My objection
was to an overly verbose presentation which tends to obscure rather
than exploit the underlying simplicity.
Anyway, if I wanted simple then I would have done macrame.
Ian
Roger Blumberg
>rather than exploit the underlying simplicity.
Ian;
I appreciate the constructive criticism. But I honestly don't know which
page or pages you read, so I don't know which part I should consider editing
down.
Roger
"paramucho" <i...@hammo.com> wrote in message
news:3dbec8c8...@news.supernews.com...
Dr.Matt
Roger Blumberg <rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
>> It's a strange application of the material found in Rahn's Basic
>> Atonal Theory to tonal music.
>> Z12 arithmetic is simple, but has very poor correspondence with
>> the natural patterns of tonality, which operate in overlapping sets
>> of 7 tones.
>
>The material is genuinely mine as well. I developed my materials completely
>independently. For many years I believed I was the only person on the planet
>using chromatic number formula. Yes, I was naïve (not knowing of set theory
>etc) but I was also resourceful. I needed some new tools so I went ahead
>made them. This is just to explain why I say "genuinely" my materials.
This is why libraries are important.
>And yes, the whole point is to use integer numbers (accurate and precise
>mensural numbers) to communicate the elements of *Tonal* music rather than
>atonal, AND to help understand how the necks of fretted string instruments
>work in and of themselves, AND to help apply the patterns of tonal music to
>those instruments.
But the numbers are NOT accurate for tonal music at all, they're just
reflections of the particular compromise you find on the particular
fretted instruments with which you are familiar.
Your basic premise is dead wrong. A perfect fifth is NOT 7 of
any musically significant anythings. It's a frequency ratio of 3 to 2,
or a fifth step within a diatonic hexachord.
paramucho
<rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
>>My objection was to an overly verbose presentation which tends to obscure
>>rather than exploit the underlying simplicity.
>
>Ian;
>I appreciate the constructive criticism. But I honestly don't know which
>page or pages you read, so I don't know which part I should consider editing
>down.
It's a general impression, even of some of your responses to posts in
this place. You like to explain things in detail.
It's no use presenting a "simple idea" if the presentation itself is
too wordy. I found myself confronted by lots of very wordy paragraphs.
I suggest you find one or two members of your target audience and ask
them to walk through the pages with you present. Take notes and resist
the urge to "explain" anything to them while they're about it.
Short paragraphs help too.
Ian
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>In article <ysiv9.11081$6F4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>Roger Blumberg <rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
>>> It's a strange application of the material found in Rahn's Basic
>>> Atonal Theory to tonal music.
>>> Z12 arithmetic is simple, but has very poor correspondence with
>>> the natural patterns of tonality, which operate in overlapping sets
>>> of 7 tones.
>>
>>The material is genuinely mine as well. I developed my materials completely
>>independently. For many years I believed I was the only person on the planet
>>using chromatic number formula. Yes, I was naïve (not knowing of set theory
>>etc) but I was also resourceful. I needed some new tools so I went ahead
>>made them. This is just to explain why I say "genuinely" my materials.
>
>This is why libraries are important.
>
>>And yes, the whole point is to use integer numbers (accurate and precise
>>mensural numbers) to communicate the elements of *Tonal* music rather than
>>atonal, AND to help understand how the necks of fretted string instruments
>>work in and of themselves, AND to help apply the patterns of tonal music to
>>those instruments.
>
>But the numbers are NOT accurate for tonal music at all, they're just
>reflections of the particular compromise you find on the particular
>fretted instruments with which you are familiar.
Huh? All notation is based on what has been "familiar". There's no
science in it at all.
>Your basic premise is dead wrong. A perfect fifth is NOT 7 of
>any musically significant anythings. It's a frequency ratio of 3 to 2,
>or a fifth step within a diatonic hexachord.
The twelve semitones of the octave are "musically significant" and a
system based on those steps is going to be just as cumbersome as any
other system. Basing a notation system on frequency ratios makes even
less sense.
If we use X and Y to represent 10 and 11, then we have something like
this:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X Y 10
C C# D D# E F F# G G# A A# B C
0M = {0, 4, 7}
2m = {2, 5, 9}
4m = {4, 7, Y}
5M = {5, 9, 10}
7M = {7, Y, 12}
9m = {9, 10, 14}
y- = {Y, 12, 15}
It would only take a day or so to get used to the notation and in many
ways it tells you more about whats happening than the accidental
system of notation that we currently use.
Ian
Roger Blumberg
> In article <ysiv9.11081$6F4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Roger Blumberg <rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
> >> It's a strange application of the material found in Rahn's Basic
> >> Atonal Theory to tonal music.
> >> Z12 arithmetic is simple, but has very poor correspondence with
> >> the natural patterns of tonality, which operate in overlapping sets
> >> of 7 tones.
> >
> >The material is genuinely mine as well. I developed my materials
completely
> >independently. For many years I believed I was the only person on the
planet
theory
> >etc) but I was also resourceful. I needed some new tools so I went ahead
> >made them. This is just to explain why I say "genuinely" my materials.
> This is why libraries are important.
If I'd been interested in atonal music I would have looked at that section
in the library and known earlier. I was in possesion of many standard common
practice music theory texts though, some of them obtained from libraries,
and none of them mentioned anything about integer numbers or set theory,
etc.
If there wasn't such a large philosophical divide separating the two schools
of music and music education I would have know about chormatic numbers on
that first day. I would have known about that "other half" of our tool set.
Like I said, I just went ahead and made my own tools. I have successfully
*integrated* the tools from both universes. They compliment each other well,
and we'll be better off for it -- I believe and hope.
> >And yes, the whole point is to use integer numbers (accurate and precise
> >mensural numbers) to communicate the elements of *Tonal* music rather
than
> >atonal, AND to help understand how the necks of fretted string
instruments
> >work in and of themselves, AND to help apply the patterns of tonal music
to
> >those instruments.
> But the numbers are NOT accurate for tonal music at all, they're just
> reflections of the particular compromise you find on the particular
> fretted instruments with which you are familiar.
Matt, fretboards are *chromatic measureing sticks*. Key concept: measurement
of semitones in the chromatic octave (you know, the musical pallet humans
have been using lately?). Chromatic numbers ARE accurate (and appropriate)
for tonal music applied to all modern Western fretted string instruments.
The guitar is the most popularly played and listened to instrument on the
planet. I think it's only fair that we have a system/method that
acknowledges, reflects, and exploits those facts of life.
Have you turned the radio on much in the last 20 years? I'd have thought
you'd welcome anything, anything at all, that had even the slightest chance
of bringing more tonal "music" to our children. That's MY premiss Matt.
What's yours? (you and some of the other smart-alecks around here)
>
> Your basic premise is dead wrong. A perfect fifth is NOT 7 of
> any musically significant anythings. It's a frequency ratio of 3 to 2,
> or a fifth step within a diatonic hexachord.
Good lord Matt. You concider the Major scale as being the only "musically
signifcant" stuff! We don't need no stinking minor scales. We don't need no
transposions or modulations. We don't need no chromatic scale. That mind set
is why I didn't learn about integer numbers in the beginning. After hundreds
of years, many of the collective "you" (and the books you've produced) are
still in denial about the chromatic scale. It, and everything about, is a
dirty little secret, the black sheep, the system wreaker. I'm afraid it's
you who are dead wrong, and in more ways than one.
Roger
Roger Blumberg
Alright, thanks. I'll see what I can do. It might best to have two
completely different versions of the material, the current detailed version
and a nut-shell version sans all the support material.
A large part of my detailed explanation style is due to my anticipating both
the hostility to this new idea (exemplified and demonstrated here) or the
simple lack of relevant background information elsewhere. I can't expect or
rely on other people picking up the ball or filling in the blanks. I have to
assume that it's my responsibility alone to explain and support it in every
way a can.
I had hoped that the pictures alone would suffice in most cases (given it's
fundamental simplicity) and that folks would take or leave the text as
needed. I'm also very conscious of the issues we talked about months ago re
the poor quality of all the dime-store guitar methods out there and I'm
probably over-compensating for that. I'm hoping to provide much of the
foundation material lacking in those presentations, the "absolute beginner"
material that everyone expects students will have gotten from somewhere and
someone else before they arrive at the door.
Thanks
Roger
Dr.Matt
Hahaha, Roger, the joke is on you.
Come along and visit my web site and find out just what kind of
musician you're flailing these bizarre accusations at.
Dr.Matt
By the way, surely, Roger, you know that guitars are not even in the
running for most common instrument on the planet.
The most common instruments are, respectively, alto and baritone voice.
No frets on 'em at all!
Dr.Matt
paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 01:16:41 GMT, fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
>(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>>In article <ysiv9.11081$6F4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>>Roger Blumberg <rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
>>>> It's a strange application of the material found in Rahn's Basic
>>>> Atonal Theory to tonal music.
>>>> Z12 arithmetic is simple, but has very poor correspondence with
>>>> the natural patterns of tonality, which operate in overlapping sets
>>>> of 7 tones.
>>>
>>>The material is genuinely mine as well. I developed my materials completely
>>>independently. For many years I believed I was the only person on the planet
>>>etc) but I was also resourceful. I needed some new tools so I went ahead
>>>made them. This is just to explain why I say "genuinely" my materials.
>>
>>This is why libraries are important.
>>
>>>And yes, the whole point is to use integer numbers (accurate and precise
>>>mensural numbers) to communicate the elements of *Tonal* music rather than
>>>atonal, AND to help understand how the necks of fretted string instruments
>>>work in and of themselves, AND to help apply the patterns of tonal music to
>>>those instruments.
>>
>>But the numbers are NOT accurate for tonal music at all, they're just
>>reflections of the particular compromise you find on the particular
>>fretted instruments with which you are familiar.
>
>Huh? All notation is based on what has been "familiar". There's no
>science in it at all.
>
>>Your basic premise is dead wrong. A perfect fifth is NOT 7 of
>>any musically significant anythings. It's a frequency ratio of 3 to 2,
>>or a fifth step within a diatonic hexachord.
>
>The twelve semitones of the octave are "musically significant" and a
>system based on those steps is going to be just as cumbersome as any
>other system. Basing a notation system on frequency ratios makes even
>less sense.
The 12 semitones are significant to 12-tone equal temperment and
the serial music derived from it, and I use them that way all the time.
See http://www.cosmoedu.net/DoctorFields/5.htm
>If we use X and Y to represent 10 and 11, then we have something like
>this:
>
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X Y 10
> C C# D D# E F F# G G# A A# B C
This is a fretting pattern for 12-tone equal temperment, not
a structure of tonality.
> 0M = {0, 4, 7}
Dreadfully out of tune, too!
>It would only take a day or so to get used to the notation and in many
>ways it tells you more about whats happening than the accidental
>system of notation that we currently use.
Quite the contrary, it hides important information which must later
be reintroduced in statements of the form "Always bend the third of
the chord considerably 'flat'", "Always bend leading tones considerably
'sharp'", etc.
Roger Blumberg
> Hahaha, Roger, the joke is on you.
> Come along and visit my web site and find out just what kind of
> musician you're flailing these bizarre accusations at.
Matt, you're the one who said . . . "A perfect fifth is NOT 7 of any
musically significant anythings."
I saw your web site a long time ago -- really, it's not a secret, I promise
you. I just think you're being unreasonably rigid in your ideas of what
constitutes appropriate and allowable modes of communicating about and
teaching music.
There is more than one way to achieve the same or similar result in most
things. That's all I'm saying, and that's all I've done.
Roger
Roger Blumberg
Roger
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:4Vvv9.144$ho1....@news.itd.umich.edu...
Roger Blumberg
> the serial music derived from it, and I use them that way all the time.
> See http://www.cosmoedu.net/DoctorFields/5.htm
Matt, the 12 semitones are significant to much more than just serial music.
I can't believe that you're saying this or actually believing it yourself.
Much of our beloved tonal music has been dependant upon and greatly
facilitated by the availability of that larger all-at-once-and-always
pallet. You know that we can't transpose or modulate any Major scale or
minor scale or key even once! without needing one of more of those (by your
reckoning) "insignificant" other tones. I know I don't have to tell you
that, but you're just not making sense, not being consistent with what you
know to be true. Your being stubborn.
Roger
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:w0wv9.146$ho1....@news.itd.umich.edu...
Joey Goldstein
some types of atonal music but there is no need to go past 12. Even in
atonal music there is octave equivalence as long as it's based on 12 tet.
But for tonal music these numbering schemes make no sense even if they
make some things *seem* easier for guitar players. In tonal music, even
in 12 tet, C# and Db are different IDEAS even if their vibrational
frequencies are exactly the same on instruments like the guitar.
Music does not revolve around the idiosyncracies of the guitar. Its the
other way around. Guitarists have to learn to adapt musical ideas TO the
idiosyncracies of the guitar. We do not need some new music theory based
on the laziness and/or stupidity of novice guitar players.
I teach all my students to use their guitar as a little abacus for quick
identification of intervals. When you know the fretboard shape for a
perf 5th between F on the 6th string and C on the 5th string it becomes
easy as pie to figure out the note a perf 5th above Bb on the 6th
string. But whether or not you name that note Eb or D# depends on
musical ideas, specifically the ideas tied up with tonal music.
Fretboard shapes are great ways to transpose intervals, chord grips and
scales but at some point if a guitarist is playing the more serious
forms of music he will have to come to grips (no pun intended) with the
musical ideas behind the finger patterns.
paramucho wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 01:16:41 GMT, fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
> (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
> >In article <ysiv9.11081$6F4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> >Roger Blumberg <rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
> >>> It's a strange application of the material found in Rahn's Basic
> >>> Atonal Theory to tonal music.
> >>> Z12 arithmetic is simple, but has very poor correspondence with
> >>> the natural patterns of tonality, which operate in overlapping sets
> >>> of 7 tones.
> >>
> >>The material is genuinely mine as well. I developed my materials completely
> >>independently. For many years I believed I was the only person on the planet
> >>using chromatic number formula. Yes, I was naďve (not knowing of set theory
--
Joey Goldstein
Roger Blumberg wrote:
>
>
> Good lord Matt. You concider the Major scale as being the only "musically
> signifcant" stuff!
In tonal music the diatonic scale IS the most significant stuff. Any
system that ignores this is not a system that is dealing with tonality.
It is dealing with something else.
Joey Goldstein
Roger Blumberg wrote:
>
>
> A large part of my detailed explanation style is due to my anticipating both
> the hostility to this new idea (exemplified and demonstrated here) or the
> simple lack of relevant background information elsewhere. I can't expect or
> rely on other people picking up the ball or filling in the blanks. I have to
> assume that it's my responsibility alone to explain and support it in every
> way a can.
Why is it that it seems like every scientifically inclined guy who comes
along and can't get it togther to understand traditional thoery feels he
has to invent his own theory? I'm afraid we might have another Albert
Silverman on our hands.
Roger, the things you have 'invented' in your cypher system are well
known shortcuts among guitarists and theory teachers in the 12 tet age.
Most people who have studied intervals have learned about them as being
based on numbers of semitones.
Maj 2nd = 2 semitones
Maj 3rd = 4 semitones
etc.
The major scale is taught as being the following pattern of semitones 2
2 1 2 2 2 1.
etc., etc.
As I said in another post, guitarists have always been able to quickly
transpose finger shapes in order to find intervallic relationships
quickly on the fretboard.
But both these techniques are just shortcuts. at some point you have to
learn and understand the difference between things like an augmented 4th
and a diminished 5th and how these *different* ideas are used in tonal
music. Your system ignores the music and tries to elevate the shorthand
into some sort of musical revelation.
Dr.Matt
Roger Blumberg <rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
>> The 12 semitones are significant to 12-tone equal temperment and
>> the serial music derived from it, and I use them that way all the time.
>> See http://www.cosmoedu.net/DoctorFields/5.htm
>
>Matt, the 12 semitones are significant to much more than just serial music.
>I can't believe that you're saying this or actually believing it yourself.
>Much of our beloved tonal music has been dependant upon and greatly
>facilitated by the availability of that larger all-at-once-and-always
>pallet. You know that we can't transpose or modulate any Major scale or
>minor scale or key even once! without needing one of more of those (by your
>reckoning) "insignificant" other tones. I know I don't have to tell you
>that, but you're just not making sense, not being consistent with what you
>know to be true. Your being stubborn.
>
>Roger
Malarky. I've been singing in the wrong key all my life without needing
12-tone equal temperment. You put false words in my mouth when you attribute
to me "insignificant other tones". What's insignificant to tonality is
the 12th root of 2.
Roger Blumberg
stupidity of novice guitar players.
And that's not what The Cipher is, if that's what you were implying. The
Cipher is not a new music theory, it's a translated presentation of the
elements of standard Western tonal music theory.
And it's not for lazy or stupid people as you so generously put it Joey.
It's for guitarists, young and old, who can't read music -- you know, that
90% of guitarists around the world that you so arrogantly thumb your nose
at. Those guitarists, now and forever.
Roger
http://www.TheCipher.com/
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3DBEA3A0...@nowhere.net...
Dr.Matt
Roger Blumberg <rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
>>"Dr.Matt" <fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
>
>> Come along and visit my web site and find out just what kind of
>> musician you're flailing these bizarre accusations at.
>
>Matt, you're the one who said . . . "A perfect fifth is NOT 7 of any
>musically significant anythings."
>
>I saw your web site a long time ago -- really, it's not a secret, I promise
>you. I just think you're being unreasonably rigid in your ideas of what
>constitutes appropriate and allowable modes of communicating about and
>teaching music.
Nope, I'm the one who said "monolingualism can be cured". Quite the
opposite altogether.
>There is more than one way to achieve the same or similar result in most
>things. That's all I'm saying, and that's all I've done.
Throwing away the difference between C# and Db does not provide an equivalent
tool for describing tonality.
Roger Blumberg
>
>
> Roger Blumberg wrote:
> >
> >
> > Good lord Matt. You concider the Major scale as being the only
"musically
> > signifcant" stuff!
> In tonal music the diatonic scale IS the most significant stuff. Any
> system that ignores this is not a system that is dealing with tonality.
> It is dealing with something else.
The Cipher doesn't ingore the diatonic scale or it's materials in any way.
They ARE the focus and objective. Again, you see only what you want to see.
Roger
http://www.TheCipher.com/
Roger Blumberg
> known shortcuts among guitarists and theory teachers in the 12 tet age.
that's simply not true Joey
> Your system ignores the music
Untrue
> and tries to elevate the shorthand into some sort of musical revelation.
Much of it is and will be a revelation to many people now and in future,
that is indeed true.
Roger
http://www.TheCipher.com/
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3DBEA77F...@nowhere.net...
Roger Blumberg
equivalent
> tool for describing tonality.
you'll have to take your complaints about that to the folks who invented
12Tet, not me.
I haven't thrown anything away. I've added to the pool.
Roger
http://www.TheCipher.com/
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:NPxv9.152$ho1....@news.itd.umich.edu...
Joey Goldstein
Dr.Matt
Roger Blumberg <rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
>> Throwing away the difference between C# and Db does not provide an
>equivalent
>> tool for describing tonality.
>
>you'll have to take your complaints about that to the folks who invented
>12Tet, not me.
>I haven't thrown anything away. I've added to the pool.
Nope, you're the one excluding the difference from the conceptual pool.
Dr.Matt
Joey Goldstein <joegoldATsympaticoDOTca> wrote:
>Oy.
>
Agreed.
In answer to the original question, E# and B# didn't "go" anywhere, they
just don't have unique frets.
paramucho
<rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
HTML makes it easy to add links to more detailed treatments for those
who require more.
Ian
paramucho
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>Roger Blumberg wrote:
>>
>>
>> A large part of my detailed explanation style is due to my anticipating both
>> the hostility to this new idea (exemplified and demonstrated here) or the
>> simple lack of relevant background information elsewhere. I can't expect or
>> rely on other people picking up the ball or filling in the blanks. I have to
>> assume that it's my responsibility alone to explain and support it in every
>> way a can.
>
>Why is it that it seems like every scientifically inclined guy who comes
>along and can't get it togther to understand traditional thoery feels he
>has to invent his own theory? I'm afraid we might have another Albert
>Silverman on our hands.
Perhaps the statistics tell us something: that traditional notation is
felt to be inadequate by many people. I have no problems with it but I
think it's about as clumbsy as roman numbers are for math.
This *is* a *theory* group so naturally people with a *theory* come
here. It would be strange if they didn't.
The fact that the approach bears a resemblance in places to the work
of other people is almost inevitable.
Ian
Roger Blumberg
web site you'll find flats and sharps all over the place.
Don't fret Matt. Diatonic dominance is here to stay. And true "un-equal"
enharmonics are here to stay as well.
I'm not a threat, I'm an allie. It's a shame you can't recognize that.
Roger
http://www.TheCipher.com
Blumberg's Music Theory Cipher
for Guitar and other Stringed Instruments
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:zhBv9.157$ho1....@news.itd.umich.edu...
paramucho
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>I teach all my students to use their guitar as a little abacus for quick
>identification of intervals. When you know the fretboard shape for a
>perf 5th between F on the 6th string and C on the 5th string it becomes
>easy as pie to figure out the note a perf 5th above Bb on the 6th
>string. But whether or not you name that note Eb or D# depends on
>musical ideas, specifically the ideas tied up with tonal music.
>Fretboard shapes are great ways to transpose intervals, chord grips and
>scales but at some point if a guitarist is playing the more serious
>forms of music he will have to come to grips (no pun intended) with the
>musical ideas behind the finger patterns.
Right, and the scaffolding of the presentation theory becomes
irrelevant at that point because a purely musical understanding of the
sounds involves takes over.
All notational forms are artificial constructions and each has its
weaknesses. There's no need for them to be anything else since they
perform only a transitional function. A truly internalised
understanding of music needs no notation at all.
Ian
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>Hahaha, Roger, the joke is on you.
>Come along and visit my web site and find out just what kind of
>musician you're flailing these bizarre accusations at.
Perhaps your arguments thus far haven't been a true indication of who
you are sir!
Ian
David Webber
> Agreed.
> In answer to the original question, E# and B# didn't "go"
anywhere, they
> just don't have unique frets.
Of course they didn't go anywhere - they're hiding right next to Fb
and Cb respectively :-)
Dave
--
David Webber
Author of MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
Member of the North Cheshire Concert Band
http://www.northcheshire.org.uk
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt
Yes, especially the "anticipation of hostility" part. You see that
in every conspiracy theory out there. But of course there's no
hostility towards Z12 arithmetic in the field--it's bread and butter
since 1953. It's just ten times more cumbersome with half the results
when you apply it to musics other than the post-serial musics for which
it was promulgated in the '50s.
Roger Blumberg
Results? You call 10% [and that's generous] of guitar players being able to
read music "results"? Ha! All I have to do is get a small fraction of the
remaining 90% to equal or beat those stats. And that's a sinch.
Roger
http://www.TheCipher.com
Blumberg's Music Theory Cipher
for Guitar and other Stringed Instruments
>
>
>
Joey Goldstein
paramucho wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:21:41 -0500, Joey Goldstein
> <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Roger Blumberg wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> A large part of my detailed explanation style is due to my anticipating both
> >> the hostility to this new idea (exemplified and demonstrated here) or the
> >> simple lack of relevant background information elsewhere. I can't expect or
> >> rely on other people picking up the ball or filling in the blanks. I have to
> >> assume that it's my responsibility alone to explain and support it in every
> >> way a can.
> >
> >Why is it that it seems like every scientifically inclined guy who comes
> >along and can't get it togther to understand traditional thoery feels he
> >has to invent his own theory? I'm afraid we might have another Albert
> >Silverman on our hands.
>
> Perhaps the statistics tell us something: that traditional notation is
> felt to be inadequate by many people.
In my experience this is only by people who do not take the time to
study it fully. People seem to think that music is supposed to be easy.
Well at the simplest level sure there are things that any fool can grasp
and learn how to play. But music has always been created by the
intellectual elite of the society, at least in the West it has ....
until recently that is. Music is not for the simple-minded, except maybe
as listeners. The people who insist on ignoring where the music came
from and how we came to be where we are now in the scheme of things will
almost always wind up deleting more and more of the depth that was part
and parcel of music's past, unless of course they are just out and out
geniuses in which case we'll all be following them. When being an
ignoramus is the only way left to make a living as a musician that's
when I'll get out. We're not that far away from that scenario with all
these damn guitar players running about making a gazillion dollars as
rock stars! <g>
> I have no problems with it but I
> think it's about as clumbsy as roman numbers are for math.
>
> This *is* a *theory* group so naturally people with a *theory* come
> here. It would be strange if they didn't.
Hah. True enough.
> The fact that the approach bears a resemblance in places to the work
> of other people is almost inevitable.
I have a 'theory' about that.... <g>
Joey Goldstein
or numbers or chiphers.
Roger Blumberg
creative.
Roger
http://www.TheCipher.com
Blumberg's Music Theory Cipher
for Guitar and other Stringed Instruments
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3DBF0F6...@nowhere.net...
Roger Blumberg
> intellectual elite of the society, at least in the West it has ....
> until recently that is. Music is not for the simple-minded, except maybe
> as listeners.
keep digging that grave kid.
http://www.TheCipher.com
Blumberg's Music Theory Cipher
for Guitar and other Stringed Instruments
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3DBF0F21...@nowhere.net...
Joey Goldstein
Roger Blumberg wrote:
>
> You're so cute Joey. First you spelled it cypher and now chipher. Aren't we
> creative.
That's a great way to debate your points. Pointing out typos. That's
*really* cute.
Joey Goldstein
see which lasts longer, your cipher web site or traditional tonal
harmonic theory.
Ta ta.
Roger Blumberg
were.
Roger
http://www.TheCipher.com
Blumberg's Music Theory Cipher
for Guitar and other Stringed Instruments
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3DBF1BBF...@nowhere.net...
Dr.Matt
Wow, now I REALLY wanna see what happens when Albert Silverman meets
ROger Blumberg!
Joey Goldstein
Roger Blumberg wrote:
>
> if they were typos I apologize -- but I do find it hard to believe they
> were.
Oy.
paramucho
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>paramucho wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:21:41 -0500, Joey Goldstein
>> <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Roger Blumberg wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A large part of my detailed explanation style is due to my anticipating both
>> >> the hostility to this new idea (exemplified and demonstrated here) or the
>> >> simple lack of relevant background information elsewhere. I can't expect or
>> >> rely on other people picking up the ball or filling in the blanks. I have to
>> >> assume that it's my responsibility alone to explain and support it in every
>> >> way a can.
>> >
>> >Why is it that it seems like every scientifically inclined guy who comes
>> >along and can't get it togther to understand traditional thoery feels he
>> >has to invent his own theory? I'm afraid we might have another Albert
>> >Silverman on our hands.
>>
>> Perhaps the statistics tell us something: that traditional notation is
>> felt to be inadequate by many people.
>
>In my experience this is only by people who do not take the time to
>study it fully. People seem to think that music is supposed to be easy.
>Well at the simplest level sure there are things that any fool can grasp
>and learn how to play. But music has always been created by the
>intellectual elite of the society, at least in the West it has ....
>until recently that is.
Hmmm. I'm not sure that there's much difference intellectually between
the thousands of people who wrote music in the 1800's (say) and those
who do so today. The mechanics of performance and notation can be
learned by almost any child, so I certainly don't think that they're a
barrier. You still have a situation where only a small percentage of
the music made is at the top of the field (which doesn't mean that the
remaining music is all bad).
To describe the top musicians as an "intellectual elite" is perhaps a
bit wide of the point. Mozart was no intellectual, but he was
extraordinarily talented. As he relates it, he would hear a work in an
instant and then go through the drudgery of writing it out. Bach and
Beethoven were supposed to have been able to improvise complete works
-- there's no score involved there at all.
>Music is not for the simple-minded, except maybe
>as listeners.
On the contrary, I think that many excellent musicians have a pretty
simple approach to life, and, as I said, you can teach young children
the basics.
>The people who insist on ignoring where the music came
>from and how we came to be where we are now in the scheme of things will
>almost always wind up deleting more and more of the depth that was part
>and parcel of music's past,
Well, that always happens. History usually corrects that although it
can take long periods of time.
There's nothing wrong with experimenting with other ways to look at
music and this is the place to do it.
> unless of course they are just out and out geniuses in which case we'll
> all be following them.
We can agree on that although we probably have different geniuses in
mind :-)
> When being an
>ignoramus is the only way left to make a living as a musician that's
>when I'll get out. We're not that far away from that scenario with all
>these damn guitar players running about making a gazillion dollars as
>rock stars! <g>
It's lonely at the top though... all those restless hours out on the
yacht.
>> I have no problems with it but I
>> think it's about as clumbsy as roman numbers are for math.
>>
>> This *is* a *theory* group so naturally people with a *theory* come
>> here. It would be strange if they didn't.
>
>Hah. True enough.
>
>> The fact that the approach bears a resemblance in places to the work
>> of other people is almost inevitable.
>
>I have a 'theory' about that.... <g>
Funny, I'm having deja vu too....
Ian
Dr.Matt
>the thousands of people who wrote music in the 1800's (say) and those
>who do so today. The mechanics of performance and notation can be
Perhaps...
>learned by almost any child, so I certainly don't think that they're a
>barrier. You still have a situation where only a small percentage of
>the music made is at the top of the field (which doesn't mean that the
>remaining music is all bad).
>
>To describe the top musicians as an "intellectual elite" is perhaps a
>bit wide of the point. Mozart was no intellectual, but he was
>extraordinarily talented. As he relates it, he would hear a work in an
The evidence is that Mozart was a hard-working intellectual.
>instant and then go through the drudgery of writing it out. Bach and
No, there's no primary source for that myth about Mozart.
>Beethoven were supposed to have been able to improvise complete works
>-- there's no score involved there at all.
Of course. And sonatas and fugues. And then throw them away and
write out more advanced versions of same.
>
>>Music is not for the simple-minded, except maybe
>>as listeners.
>
>On the contrary, I think that many excellent musicians have a pretty
>simple approach to life, and, as I said, you can teach young children
>the basics.
And some ice cream is peppermint-flavored too, but that doesn't
address Joey's statement either.
>
>>The people who insist on ignoring where the music came
>>from and how we came to be where we are now in the scheme of things will
>>almost always wind up deleting more and more of the depth that was part
>>and parcel of music's past,
>
>Well, that always happens. History usually corrects that although it
>can take long periods of time.
>
>There's nothing wrong with experimenting with other ways to look at
>music and this is the place to do it.
In order to experiment with an "other" way of looking at music, you need
some idea what's already been done, though. Otherwise you may end up
re-inventing the wheel--or repeating all the solid research which shows
that astrology, reiki, and theraputic touch are bunk. There may even
be a lot of money in it for you to engage in such puffery.
>> unless of course they are just out and out geniuses in which case we'll
>> all be following them.
>
>We can agree on that although we probably have different geniuses in
>mind :-)
"Genius" doesn't bring anybody to my mind. It's part of the
doctrine of talent in which effort is useless--and I see no
reason to roll over and play dead for that doctrine.
>> When being an
>>ignoramus is the only way left to make a living as a musician that's
>>when I'll get out. We're not that far away from that scenario with all
>>these damn guitar players running about making a gazillion dollars as
>>rock stars! <g>
>
>It's lonely at the top though... all those restless hours out on the
>yacht.
I live right in the trenches among a widely varied bunch of people,
and I'm never lonely...
>>> I have no problems with it but I
>>> think it's about as clumbsy as roman numbers are for math.
>>>
>>> This *is* a *theory* group so naturally people with a *theory* come
>>> here. It would be strange if they didn't.
>>
>>Hah. True enough.
>>
>>> The fact that the approach bears a resemblance in places to the work
>>> of other people is almost inevitable.
>>
>>I have a 'theory' about that.... <g>
>
>Funny, I'm having deja vu too....
I'm waiting for a dramatization or an extended lecture on the
one and true meaning of irrelevance.
Joey Goldstein
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
>
>
> I'm waiting for a dramatization or an extended lecture on the
> one and true meaning of irrelevance.
Say what you will about Albert but he was entertaining. He hasn't showed
up here in an uncharacteristically long time now, eh? I wonder if he's
OK (relatively speaking of course).
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>In article <3dbffe0f...@news.supernews.com>,
>paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:17:04 GMT, fie...@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
>>(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hahaha, Roger, the joke is on you.
>>>Come along and visit my web site and find out just what kind of
>>>musician you're flailing these bizarre accusations at.
>>
>>Perhaps your arguments thus far haven't been a true indication of who
>>you are sir!
>
>Ah, ad hominem at its best. Well done.
Nonsense, the mildness of my remark matchs the mildness and humour of
your own.
Ian
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>Yes, especially the "anticipation of hostility" part.
Mate, he's just being realistic, unfortunately...
> You see that
>in every conspiracy theory out there. But of course there's no
>hostility towards Z12 arithmetic in the field--it's bread and butter
>since 1953. It's just ten times more cumbersome with half the results
>when you apply it to musics other than the post-serial musics for which
>it was promulgated in the '50s.
The fact that a particular something has already been done in 1950 or
1590 doesn't mean a great deal at all, in itself.
What changes is the *context* in which the particularly something is
used. And that's generally the more interesting thing to look at.
Ian
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>In article <3dc342e4...@news.supernews.com>,
>paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:44:13 -0500, Joey Goldstein
>>
>>Hmmm. I'm not sure that there's much difference intellectually between
>>the thousands of people who wrote music in the 1800's (say) and those
>>who do so today. The mechanics of performance and notation can be
>
>Perhaps...
>
>>learned by almost any child, so I certainly don't think that they're a
>>barrier. You still have a situation where only a small percentage of
>>the music made is at the top of the field (which doesn't mean that the
>>remaining music is all bad).
>>
>>To describe the top musicians as an "intellectual elite" is perhaps a
>>bit wide of the point. Mozart was no intellectual, but he was
>>extraordinarily talented. As he relates it, he would hear a work in an
>
>The evidence is that Mozart was a hard-working intellectual.
What evidence.
<snip>
>>Beethoven were supposed to have been able to improvise complete works
>>-- there's no score involved there at all.
>
>Of course. And sonatas and fugues. And then throw them away and
>write out more advanced versions of same.
Thanks for establishing my point.
>>>Music is not for the simple-minded, except maybe
>>>as listeners.
>>
>>On the contrary, I think that many excellent musicians have a pretty
>>simple approach to life, and, as I said, you can teach young children
>>the basics.
>
>And some ice cream is peppermint-flavored too, but that doesn't
>address Joey's statement either.
I was trying to be polite. I'll restate: many musicians border on the
moronic.
>>There's nothing wrong with experimenting with other ways to look at
>>music and this is the place to do it.
>
>In order to experiment with an "other" way of looking at music, you need
>some idea what's already been done, though. Otherwise you may end up
>re-inventing the wheel--or repeating all the solid research which shows
>that astrology, reiki, and theraputic touch are bunk. There may even
>be a lot of money in it for you to engage in such puffery.
I doubt there's much money in it. I just think you see knocking these
kinds of suggestions as form of blood sport.
>>>> I have no problems with it but I
>>>> think it's about as clumbsy as roman numbers are for math.
>>>>
>>>> This *is* a *theory* group so naturally people with a *theory* come
>>>> here. It would be strange if they didn't.
>>>
>>>Hah. True enough.
>>>
>>>> The fact that the approach bears a resemblance in places to the work
>>>> of other people is almost inevitable.
>>>
>>>I have a 'theory' about that.... <g>
>>
>>Funny, I'm having deja vu too....
>
>I'm waiting for a dramatization or an extended lecture on the
>one and true meaning of irrelevance.
Sounds like the start of an opera to me.
Scene: Four thousand litres of light blue translucent gell.
White spot on tenor dressed in slightly lighter blue.
He sings: "gurgle, gurgle, gurgle".
Ian
Chuckk Hubbard
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:44:13 -0500, Joey Goldstein
> <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >paramucho wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:21:41 -0500, Joey Goldstein
> >> <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >>
> > When being an
> >ignoramus is the only way left to make a living as a musician that's
> >when I'll get out. We're not that far away from that scenario with all
> >these damn guitar players running about making a gazillion dollars as
> >rock stars! <g>
>
> It's lonely at the top though... all those restless hours out on the
> yacht.
And being in and out of rehab and 8 miserable marriages and tabloid lies and
autographs and paparazzi and execs taking all your money and everyone
wanting a piece of you. "I was a free man in Paris"
But I'm sure you're both joking- the vast, vast majority of guitar players
who can't read music are working in gas stations or diners or living off of
relatives or girlfriends or whoever. No, I don't have the statistics.
And the ones who can read music probably too, but my point is that not
learning to read music does not increase one's chances of making millions of
dollars.
-Chuckk
Chuckk Hubbard
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 03:30:54 GMT, fie...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
> (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
> >
> >The evidence is that Mozart was a hard-working intellectual.
>
> What evidence.
Well he did learn the system, and the ways of tradition, at least enough to
teach Fux's counterpoint. I suspect Matt or someone will provide more
evidence as well.
I would think Jimi Hendrix or Duane Allman would be a better example. I
know nothing of Jimi's training, but can tell you Duane learned primarily
from poor black guys on porches and old records. He was good, he could
repeat things (being able to play 'In Memory of Elizabeth Reed' at least
took a lot of exact memorization). He played with Herbie Mann, Aretha
Franklin, King Curtis, and of course Clapton. They say he usually played
flat, though. And the only song he ever wrote entirely by himself (which,
incidentally, the already dead Hendrix played for him on a faucet in a
dream) was extremely simple.
> >>>Music is not for the simple-minded, except maybe
> >>>as listeners.
> >>
> >>On the contrary, I think that many excellent musicians have a pretty
> >>simple approach to life, and, as I said, you can teach young children
> >>the basics.
> >
> >And some ice cream is peppermint-flavored too, but that doesn't
> >address Joey's statement either.
>
> I was trying to be polite. I'll restate: many musicians border on the
> moronic.
You know, I've listened for hours to the jazz on Temple University's radio
station, and am usually pretty impressed; but whenever one of those guys
goes on with the DJ and talks, I'm in awe of their seeming
simple-mindedness. They describe things in terms of cliches, they give
inane explanations as to what they were trying to do with songs, etc. I
don't know, though, how Miles Davis or Thelonius Monk may have talked, but
of course they were both steeped in traditional notation and advanced
theory.
So, you know... I don't know.
-Chuckk
Chuckk Hubbard
news:OnIv9.178$ho1....@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
> In order to experiment with an "other" way of looking at music, you need
> some idea what's already been done, though. Otherwise you may end up
> re-inventing the wheel--or repeating all the solid research which shows
> that astrology, reiki, and theraputic touch are bunk. There may even
> be a lot of money in it for you to engage in such puffery.
Honestly, who cares if one reinvents the wheel? I agree that to decide
against learning is generally ignorance, but in reality, who can learn
everything? If one has something to contribute, there's no need to go out
and research everything that's ever been said or done on the subject before
offering up the contribution. The well-known 12-tone theory isn't so
well-known that Roger couldn't have avoided running into it. Though, as we
almost all know, having twelve tones is neither perfect nor mandated by
nature.
So Roger has begun using numbers for notes instead of the popular letter
system, and this has been done before. Just to reiterate.
Human conversation is great.
-Chuckk
paramucho
<chu...@paonline.com> wrote:
>"paramucho" <i...@hammo.com> wrote in message
>news:3dc878e9....@news.supernews.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 03:30:54 GMT, fie...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
>> (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The evidence is that Mozart was a hard-working intellectual.
>>
>> What evidence.
>
>Well he did learn the system, and the ways of tradition, at least enough to
>teach Fux's counterpoint. I suspect Matt or someone will provide more
>evidence as well.
That alone does not make him an intellectual.
>I would think Jimi Hendrix or Duane Allman would be a better example. I
>know nothing of Jimi's training, but can tell you Duane learned primarily
>from poor black guys on porches and old records. He was good, he could
>repeat things (being able to play 'In Memory of Elizabeth Reed' at least
>took a lot of exact memorization). He played with Herbie Mann, Aretha
>Franklin, King Curtis, and of course Clapton. They say he usually played
>flat, though. And the only song he ever wrote entirely by himself (which,
>incidentally, the already dead Hendrix played for him on a faucet in a
>dream) was extremely simple.
>You know, I've listened for hours to the jazz on Temple University's radio
>station, and am usually pretty impressed; but whenever one of those guys
>goes on with the DJ and talks, I'm in awe of their seeming
>simple-mindedness. They describe things in terms of cliches, they give
>inane explanations as to what they were trying to do with songs, etc. I
>don't know, though, how Miles Davis or Thelonius Monk may have talked, but
>of course they were both steeped in traditional notation and advanced
>theory.
>So, you know... I don't know.
And we don't know if Beethoven would have been any different. There's
no written evidence to suggest that he could verbalise his musical
knowledge or intuitions.
Ian
Dr.Matt
paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 03:30:54 GMT, fie...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
>(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>>In article <3dc342e4...@news.supernews.com>,
>>paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:44:13 -0500, Joey Goldstein
>>>
>>>Hmmm. I'm not sure that there's much difference intellectually between
>>>the thousands of people who wrote music in the 1800's (say) and those
>>>who do so today. The mechanics of performance and notation can be
>>
>>Perhaps...
>>
>>>learned by almost any child, so I certainly don't think that they're a
>>>barrier. You still have a situation where only a small percentage of
>>>the music made is at the top of the field (which doesn't mean that the
>>>remaining music is all bad).
>>>
>>>To describe the top musicians as an "intellectual elite" is perhaps a
>>>bit wide of the point. Mozart was no intellectual, but he was
>>>extraordinarily talented. As he relates it, he would hear a work in an
>>
>>The evidence is that Mozart was a hard-working intellectual.
>
>What evidence.
His sketchbooks, the journals of his studies with his father and
other, his teachings....
>
><snip>
>
>>>Beethoven were supposed to have been able to improvise complete works
>>>-- there's no score involved there at all.
>>
>>Of course. And sonatas and fugues. And then throw them away and
>>write out more advanced versions of same.
>
>Thanks for establishing my point.
Yes, nobody said that composers could not improvise. That's quite
a separate topic.
>>>>Music is not for the simple-minded, except maybe
>>>>as listeners.
>>>
>>>On the contrary, I think that many excellent musicians have a pretty
>>>simple approach to life, and, as I said, you can teach young children
>>>the basics.
>>
>>And some ice cream is peppermint-flavored too, but that doesn't
>>address Joey's statement either.
>
>I was trying to be polite. I'll restate: many musicians border on the
>moronic.
Some very vocal people, a mix of morons and perfectly normal people
who happen to be intellectually lazy and thus function like morons,
want to be musicians. It's okay, there's even people like this
proclaiming themselves to be great scientists.
>>>There's nothing wrong with experimenting with other ways to look at
>>>music and this is the place to do it.
>>
>>In order to experiment with an "other" way of looking at music, you need
>>some idea what's already been done, though. Otherwise you may end up
>>re-inventing the wheel--or repeating all the solid research which shows
>>that astrology, reiki, and theraputic touch are bunk. There may even
>>be a lot of money in it for you to engage in such puffery.
>
>I doubt there's much money in it. I just think you see knocking these
>kinds of suggestions as form of blood sport.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/06/westerncmp.pdf
There's HUGE money in it. That's why long-since-disproven puffery
like homeopathy, chiropracty, and foot reflexology are still practiced
today.
>>>>> I have no problems with it but I
>>>>> think it's about as clumbsy as roman numbers are for math.
>>>>>
>>>>> This *is* a *theory* group so naturally people with a *theory* come
>>>>> here. It would be strange if they didn't.
>>>>
>>>>Hah. True enough.
>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the approach bears a resemblance in places to the work
>>>>> of other people is almost inevitable.
>>>>
>>>>I have a 'theory' about that.... <g>
>>>
>>>Funny, I'm having deja vu too....
>>
>>I'm waiting for a dramatization or an extended lecture on the
>>one and true meaning of irrelevance.
>
>Sounds like the start of an opera to me.
>
>Scene: Four thousand litres of light blue translucent gell.
> White spot on tenor dressed in slightly lighter blue.
> He sings: "gurgle, gurgle, gurgle".
Yes, but does he sing it on the Root Of Central Significance?
Dr.Matt
paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:08:25 GMT, fie...@mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
>(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, especially the "anticipation of hostility" part.
>
>Mate, he's just being realistic, unfortunately...
ho ho,we should really get Silverman back here to remind us of
what this really looks like. :)
>
>> You see that
>>in every conspiracy theory out there. But of course there's no
>>hostility towards Z12 arithmetic in the field--it's bread and butter
>>since 1953. It's just ten times more cumbersome with half the results
>>when you apply it to musics other than the post-serial musics for which
>>it was promulgated in the '50s.
>
>The fact that a particular something has already been done in 1950 or
>1590 doesn't mean a great deal at all, in itself.
>
>What changes is the *context* in which the particularly something is
>used. And that's generally the more interesting thing to look at.
Yup. If you push an allen wrench onto a philips screw hard enough, you
can bend the screw. Very true!
Joey Goldstein
paramucho wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:11:05 GMT, "Chuckk Hubbard"
> <chu...@paonline.com> wrote:
>
> >"paramucho" <i...@hammo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3dc878e9....@news.supernews.com...
> >> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 03:30:54 GMT, fie...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
> >> (Dr.Matt) wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The evidence is that Mozart was a hard-working intellectual.
> >>
> >> What evidence.
> >
> >Well he did learn the system, and the ways of tradition, at least enough to
> >teach Fux's counterpoint. I suspect Matt or someone will provide more
> >evidence as well.
>
> That alone does not make him an intellectual.
As I said there are two categories of people working at the highest
levels in music, the intellectual and the genius. Mozart has a foot in
both camps but was probably more of the latter. And as I said there are
lots of dummies today making beautiful satisfying music. But those
dummies have thousands of years of the work of giants to draw upon
without even knowing it. Such is the state of things today. We are, the
vast majority of us, all the irresponsible heirs of a great amount of
musical wealth. What's the saying, "From rich to poor in how many
generations?" Still the greatest musicians in the Western serious music
traditions have never been from the bottom of the intellectual barrel.
This does not mean that a person with an intellect for music must
necessarily have an intellect for maths, sciences or languages as well.
Intellect is specialized.
> >I would think Jimi Hendrix or Duane Allman would be a better example. I
> >know nothing of Jimi's training, but can tell you Duane learned primarily
> >from poor black guys on porches and old records. He was good, he could
> >repeat things (being able to play 'In Memory of Elizabeth Reed' at least
> >took a lot of exact memorization). He played with Herbie Mann, Aretha
> >Franklin, King Curtis, and of course Clapton. They say he usually played
> >flat, though. And the only song he ever wrote entirely by himself (which,
> >incidentally, the already dead Hendrix played for him on a faucet in a
> >dream) was extremely simple.
> >You know, I've listened for hours to the jazz on Temple University's radio
> >station, and am usually pretty impressed; but whenever one of those guys
> >goes on with the DJ and talks, I'm in awe of their seeming
> >simple-mindedness. They describe things in terms of cliches, they give
> >inane explanations as to what they were trying to do with songs, etc. I
> >don't know, though, how Miles Davis or Thelonius Monk may have talked, but
> >of course they were both steeped in traditional notation and advanced
> >theory.
> >So, you know... I don't know.
>
> And we don't know if Beethoven would have been any different. There's
> no written evidence to suggest that he could verbalise his musical
> knowledge or intuitions.
Of course there is. There are his scores. A score is a quantifiable way
to verbalize a musicians musical thoughts. You think that maybe
Beethoven had a low IQ or didn't understand counterpoint yet he made all
that great music? Gimme a break. Maybe he could'nt tie his his shoelace
but he was still a genius and an intellectual.
> Ian
Dr.Matt
Beethoven actually left us a considerably deal of writing.
Chuckk Hubbard
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:11:05 GMT, "Chuckk Hubbard"
> <chu...@paonline.com> wrote:
> >> >The evidence is that Mozart was a hard-working intellectual.
> >>
> >> What evidence.
> >
> >Well he did learn the system, and the ways of tradition, at least enough
to
> >teach Fux's counterpoint. I suspect Matt or someone will provide more
> >evidence as well.
>
> That alone does not make him an intellectual.
I suppose not, but in relation to the discussion, it means he learned to
read music.
>
>
> >I would think Jimi Hendrix or Duane Allman would be a better example. I
> >know nothing of Jimi's training, but can tell you Duane learned primarily
> >from poor black guys on porches and old records. He was good, he could
> >repeat things (being able to play 'In Memory of Elizabeth Reed' at least
> >took a lot of exact memorization). He played with Herbie Mann, Aretha
> >Franklin, King Curtis, and of course Clapton. They say he usually played
> >flat, though. And the only song he ever wrote entirely by himself
(which,
> >incidentally, the already dead Hendrix played for him on a faucet in a
> >dream) was extremely simple.
> >You know, I've listened for hours to the jazz on Temple University's
radio
> >station, and am usually pretty impressed; but whenever one of those guys
> >goes on with the DJ and talks, I'm in awe of their seeming
> >simple-mindedness. They describe things in terms of cliches, they give
> >inane explanations as to what they were trying to do with songs, etc. I
> >don't know, though, how Miles Davis or Thelonius Monk may have talked,
but
> >of course they were both steeped in traditional notation and advanced
> >theory.
> >So, you know... I don't know.
>
> And we don't know if Beethoven would have been any different. There's
> no written evidence to suggest that he could verbalise his musical
> knowledge or intuitions.
I don't know if there is or not, but who cares? All I'm saying is that some
of these impressive musicians seem to lead very sheltered lives or are just
not very verbally succinct. Or maybe they're as dumb as you want to
believe.
Beethoven's different, he was taught by masters and taught masters; he
studied Goethe, Kant, and Schiller. You don't study Kant and not be able to
express abstract ideas. You just don't.
Outside music, there's the case of Bobby Fisher, and of course many others
in other fields. Bobby's probably certifiable, wherever he is. But, he
knows the names of all the moves and can supposedly recreate any of his
games from memory, explaining why he made each move.
-Chuckk
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>In article <3dc7782f....@news.supernews.com>,
>paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:08:25 GMT, fie...@mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
>>(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, especially the "anticipation of hostility" part.
>>
>>Mate, he's just being realistic, unfortunately...
>
>ho ho,we should really get Silverman back here to remind us of
>what this really looks like. :)
>
>>
>>> You see that
>>>in every conspiracy theory out there. But of course there's no
>>>hostility towards Z12 arithmetic in the field--it's bread and butter
>>>since 1953. It's just ten times more cumbersome with half the results
>>>when you apply it to musics other than the post-serial musics for which
>>>it was promulgated in the '50s.
>>
>>The fact that a particular something has already been done in 1950 or
>>1590 doesn't mean a great deal at all, in itself.
>>
>>What changes is the *context* in which the particularly something is
>>used. And that's generally the more interesting thing to look at.
>
>Yup. If you push an allen wrench onto a philips screw hard enough, you
>can bend the screw. Very true!
We're disappearing into irrelevancy here.
What was that opera?
Ian
paramucho
There's little to disagree with in what you've written, but I don't
think you exactly address the point of intellectualism, as I generally
understand it anyway (and that may be the source of disagreement).
There's a difference between being intelligent and being *An
Intellectual*. Rameau was definitely an intellectual -- he was
interested in ideas in their own right and was interested in working
with abstractions towards specific goals. That to me is an example of
*an intellectual* without qualification.
Haydn is a good example of a composer who exhibited both a purely
intellectual and what I'd call a "musically intellectual" approach to
music.
From what I've learned so far, I'd describe Beethoven as
extraordinarily "musically intellectual" but not as an intellectual in
the general, non-musical sense.
I have less exposure to Mozart, but I don't see the same "musical
intellectualism" in his piano sonatas that I see in Hadyn's or
Beethoven's. Perhaps I need to look further, but Mozart comes across
to me as the purest, unadulterateded [sic] music I know of.
Intellectualism would seem to be a blemish in his case.
J.S. and C.P.E. Bach are both obviously "musically intellectual" but
from what I've been reading recently they seem to have been
anti-intellectual regarding theory, rejecting Rameau not so much
because his ideas per se, but mainly because they saw music as a
practical craft rather than an intellectual area.
<snip>
>> And we don't know if Beethoven would have been any different. There's
>> no written evidence to suggest that he could verbalise his musical
>> knowledge or intuitions.
>
>Of course there is. There are his scores. A score is a quantifiable way
>to verbalize a musicians musical thoughts. You think that maybe
>Beethoven had a low IQ or didn't understand counterpoint yet he made all
>that great music? Gimme a break. Maybe he could'nt tie his his shoelace
>but he was still a genius and an intellectual.
His scores exhibit what I would call his "musical intellectualism". To
qualify as an "intellectual" in the general sense he would have to
have expounded on the scores himself. There is almost no evidence that
he did that. He rarely discusses that area at all.
IQ relates to intelligence (or personal inventory) rather than to
intellectualism.
Genius, as I understand it, can be entirely unrelated to intelligence
or intellectualism.
So, I guess my understanding of the word "intellectual", in the
general sense, is a "verbal intellectual".
Ian
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>Beethoven actually left us a considerably deal of writing.
So have many people. That shows nothing.
Ian
paramucho
<chu...@paonline.com> wrote:
>"paramucho" <i...@hammo.com> wrote in message
>news:3dccb840....@news.supernews.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:11:05 GMT, "Chuckk Hubbard"
>> <chu...@paonline.com> wrote:
>> >> >The evidence is that Mozart was a hard-working intellectual.
>> >>
>> >> What evidence.
>> >
>> >Well he did learn the system, and the ways of tradition, at least enough
>to
>> >teach Fux's counterpoint. I suspect Matt or someone will provide more
>> >evidence as well.
>>
>> That alone does not make him an intellectual.
>
>I suppose not, but in relation to the discussion, it means he learned to
>read music.
Very young children can do that -- I don't think that makes them
intellectuals.
<snip>
>> And we don't know if Beethoven would have been any different. There's
>> no written evidence to suggest that he could verbalise his musical
>> knowledge or intuitions.
>
>I don't know if there is or not, but who cares? All I'm saying is that some
>of these impressive musicians seem to lead very sheltered lives or are just
>not very verbally succinct. Or maybe they're as dumb as you want to
>believe.
>Beethoven's different, he was taught by masters and taught masters; he
>studied Goethe, Kant, and Schiller. You don't study Kant and not be able to
>express abstract ideas. You just don't.
I don't think that everyone who read the three authors above qualify
as intellectuals. Anyway, I'm not sure how much Kant he read.
>Outside music, there's the case of Bobby Fisher, and of course many others
>in other fields. Bobby's probably certifiable, wherever he is. But, he
>knows the names of all the moves and can supposedly recreate any of his
>games from memory, explaining why he made each move.
That makes him a genius, in my books, not necessarily an intellectual.
Ian
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>In article <3dc878e9....@news.supernews.com>,
>paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 03:30:54 GMT, fie...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
>>(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3dc342e4...@news.supernews.com>,
>>>paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:44:13 -0500, Joey Goldstein
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm. I'm not sure that there's much difference intellectually between
>>>>the thousands of people who wrote music in the 1800's (say) and those
>>>>who do so today. The mechanics of performance and notation can be
>>>
>>>Perhaps...
>>>
>>>>learned by almost any child, so I certainly don't think that they're a
>>>>barrier. You still have a situation where only a small percentage of
>>>>the music made is at the top of the field (which doesn't mean that the
>>>>remaining music is all bad).
>>>>
>>>>To describe the top musicians as an "intellectual elite" is perhaps a
>>>>bit wide of the point. Mozart was no intellectual, but he was
>>>>extraordinarily talented. As he relates it, he would hear a work in an
>>>
>>>The evidence is that Mozart was a hard-working intellectual.
>>
>>What evidence.
>
>His sketchbooks, the journals of his studies with his father and
>other, his teachings....
How do those documents show him to be an intellectual? Is anybody who
writes or reads an intellectual?
<snip>
>>>In order to experiment with an "other" way of looking at music, you need
>>>some idea what's already been done, though. Otherwise you may end up
>>>re-inventing the wheel--or repeating all the solid research which shows
>>>that astrology, reiki, and theraputic touch are bunk. There may even
>>>be a lot of money in it for you to engage in such puffery.
>>
>>I doubt there's much money in it. I just think you see knocking these
>>kinds of suggestions as form of blood sport.
>
>http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/06/westerncmp.pdf
>
>There's HUGE money in it. That's why long-since-disproven puffery
>like homeopathy, chiropracty, and foot reflexology are still practiced
>today.
Nonsense.
>>>>>> The fact that the approach bears a resemblance in places to the work
>>>>>> of other people is almost inevitable.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a 'theory' about that.... <g>
>>>>
>>>>Funny, I'm having deja vu too....
>>>
>>>I'm waiting for a dramatization or an extended lecture on the
>>>one and true meaning of irrelevance.
>>
>>Sounds like the start of an opera to me.
>>
>>Scene: Four thousand litres of light blue translucent gell.
>> White spot on tenor dressed in slightly lighter blue.
>> He sings: "gurgle, gurgle, gurgle".
>
>Yes, but does he sing it on the Root Of Central Significance?
I understand it begins in a Masonite Cathedral with a large Cauldron
Of Goo in the middle. The opening section is entirely grounded on
various permutations "gurgle", such as "le gurg" and "leg rug" etc.
Ian
Dr.Matt
Ever read any of it?
For that matter, have you ever read the op109 sonata?
Dr.Matt
So suddenly being an intellectual is distinct from having and
continuously exercising intellect.
Man, Ian, get some conditioner for your hair!
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>So suddenly being an intellectual is distinct from having and
>continuously exercising intellect.
Everybody "exercises their intellect" when they read or make the
simplist decision. That doesn't make them intellectuals unless you
extend the meaning of the word to a generality which robs it of any
means of discrimination.
Language is like that Matt, and there ain't nothing that you, nor I,
nor Mark Twain can do about it.
>Man, Ian, get some conditioner for your hair!
I walked into some place a couple of days ago and asked for a hair
cut. It took them an hour and they charged my USD30.00. I looked in
the mirror and my hair was straight. The next morning after I used my
conditioner it was curly again.
Anyway, my hairdresser told me that every second Tuesday evening they
get together and do additional training and discuss the art of
hairdressing. I guess that makes them intellectuals.
Well, that was better than my trip to the dentist today. I ended up
with this real intellectual for a dentist. He's gonna cost me
USD1500.00 and some pain.
Ian
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>In article <3dd06cd9....@news.supernews.com>,
>paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:25:07 GMT, fie...@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
>>(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Beethoven actually left us a considerably deal of writing.
>>
>>So have many people. That shows nothing.
>>
>
>Ever read any of it?
As much of it as I can lay my hands on. I have the letters, various
biographies, various studies of the sketchs, conversation books etc.
Probably 40 books all up. It's largely day to day stuff and on the few
occasions that he does touch on what might called intellectual matters
he seems to do so from a sentimental rather than intellectual
viewpoint.
I had a period of about fifteen years where I neglected the study
which I picked up again a couple of years ago, so I'm currently
working my way through it all and acquiring more recent material.
>For that matter, have you ever read the op109 sonata?
I have full score at home and usually have a pocket edition when
travelling -- that's what I have here in my city apartment.
Reading the late sonatas just before sleeping has been an abiding
pastime of mine for the last 35 years. #30 is perhaps his most perfect
egg. I played it, in my own bumbling manner, a few days ago, and it's
actually the reason I have twin 21 year old sons.
That said, I'm not sure what your point is. The piece shows, as do
almost all his (late) major works, his musical intelligence and even
his "musical intellectualism" within the language of music. But that
doesn't make him an "intellectual" in what I understand to be the
general sense of the word.
I avoid the word "genius" because it's overused and abused. But there
is something different with people like Beethoven. They're not just at
the top of the pile, but rather, in a different category. It's like my
twin sons -- being a "twin" isn't an extension of being a very close
sibling, there's something categorically different about it. That's
how I understand Chopin's playing to have been as well. In that sense,
there's an aesthetic in Beethoven that goes beyond mere
intellectualism. We see that in the sketchs as well -- after bumbling
around with this or that idea, often with utterly banal extensions, he
emerges with a final piece that's in quite a different category. The
final piece is not result of incremental composition, it's more as if
the sketchs help him toward the final vision (thing) which entails a
quantum leap.
If you said he was a "intellectual in the language of music", then I'd
agree but I don't see him as an intellectual in the general meaning of
the word and I think the distinction is important.
Ian
Chuckk Hubbard
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:27:57 GMT, "Chuckk Hubbard"
> <chu...@paonline.com> wrote:
>
> >"paramucho" <i...@hammo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3dccb840....@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >
> >I suppose not, but in relation to the discussion, it means he learned to
> >read music.
>
> Very young children can do that -- I don't think that makes them
> intellectuals.
That's a big circle.
> >> And we don't know if Beethoven would have been any different. There's
> >> no written evidence to suggest that he could verbalise his musical
> >> knowledge or intuitions.
> >
> >I don't know if there is or not, but who cares? All I'm saying is that
some
> >of these impressive musicians seem to lead very sheltered lives or are
just
> >not very verbally succinct. Or maybe they're as dumb as you want to
> >believe.
> >Beethoven's different, he was taught by masters and taught masters; he
> >studied Goethe, Kant, and Schiller. You don't study Kant and not be able
to
> >express abstract ideas. You just don't.
>
> I don't think that everyone who read the three authors above qualify
> as intellectuals. Anyway, I'm not sure how much Kant he read.
True.
> >Outside music, there's the case of Bobby Fisher, and of course many
others
> >in other fields. Bobby's probably certifiable, wherever he is. But, he
> >knows the names of all the moves and can supposedly recreate any of his
> >games from memory, explaining why he made each move.
>
> That makes him a genius, in my books, not necessarily an intellectual.
Exactly.
I'm honestly not trying to prove anything, just to have a discussion.
-Chuckk
paramucho
That's a revolutionary concept here :-)
Ian
Chuckk Hubbard
Yeah, the traditional argument didn't satisfy me so I invented the
discussion, heh. Point being that I'll share things that support whichever
argument and then say things that go against it. Usually.
Slightly... OFF-TOPIC, I know, but I came across some bizarre notation
schemes.
http://home.swipnet.se/nydana/
(click "the basics")
http://www.dmamusic.org/meloz/about.html
(A-U-B-C-Z-D-R-E-F-I-G-O)
Crikey! I guess I could learn one of these if I had to.
-Chuckk
David Lloyd
>
> read music "results"?
The lack of guitarists being able to read is due, for the most part,
to the widespread view that reading music (and knowledge of theory) is
unneccessary for their purposes.
> Ha! All I have to do is get a small fraction of the
> remaining 90% to equal or beat those stats. And that's a sinch.
I'm not sure that you will, since you're not addressing the real
problem.
What exactly is new in your theory anyway? Every guitarist I know has
used the same system for years.
Dr.Matt
paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 04:30:28 GMT, fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
>(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>>
>>So suddenly being an intellectual is distinct from having and
>>continuously exercising intellect.
>
>Everybody "exercises their intellect" when they read or make the
>simplist decision. That doesn't make them intellectuals unless you
>extend the meaning of the word to a generality which robs it of any
>means of discrimination.
Okay, so what about Op109 don't you get?
>Language is like that Matt, and there ain't nothing that you, nor I,
>nor Mark Twain can do about it.
Making the composer of Hammerklavier out to be Not An Intellectual
involves twisting the meaning of "intellectual" around to deprive
it of any referent whatsovever. Thank you for making my point for me.
>>Man, Ian, get some conditioner for your hair!
>
>I walked into some place a couple of days ago and asked for a hair
>cut. It took them an hour and they charged my USD30.00. I looked in
>the mirror and my hair was straight. The next morning after I used my
>conditioner it was curly again.
It must be badly damaged from all the split ends. You've been
splitting hairs so fast and furiously it's amazing if you even
have any hair left.
>
>Anyway, my hairdresser told me that every second Tuesday evening they
>get together and do additional training and discuss the art of
>hairdressing. I guess that makes them intellectuals.
>
>Well, that was better than my trip to the dentist today. I ended up
>with this real intellectual for a dentist. He's gonna cost me
>USD1500.00 and some pain.
And the noble Lord-high Dentist of Titipu will see you for less, I
reckon.
>Ian
Dr.Matt
presumably an idiot-savant in the rest of life.
All the evidence indicates that he was a plain ordinary brainiac
who happened to focus his brain on one field because that's where
his motivation was.
paramucho
Lloyd) wrote:
>> "ten times more cumbersome with half the results"
>>
>> Results? You call 10% [and that's generous] of guitar players being able to
>> read music "results"?
>
>The lack of guitarists being able to read is due, for the most part,
>to the widespread view that reading music (and knowledge of theory) is
>unneccessary for their purposes.
I think the reason for that widespread view is pretty easy to work
out: it's a logical conclusion of the fact that there's no evidence to
suggest that guitarists who read notation are better musicians than
those who don't. Those who think that notation is essential have yet
to show how it has produced better guitarists in a practical sense.
Thus reading seen as irrelevant.
If Clapton and Hendrix and few others had been readers and extolled
the virtues thereof then things might have been different, although
this is not a new situation. I don't think Irving Berlin, Noel Coward
and many others of that period used notation.
Elvis: "I don't use paper musicians, I use ear musicians. They know
what I want from them" (approximate memory)
Good guitarists read with their ears.
Next we'll hear that all the millions of musicians outside the western
world who also don't use notation are also illiterate...
Ian
Dr.Matt
And of course once again such distinctions as B# and E# have to be
reintroduced as pitchbends after the fact, rather than as distinct
entitites indistinctly mapped by frets. So long as you stick your
fingers in your ears and hope they'll go away, you can pretend it's
"easier", but it's actually more cumbersome for tonal music than
conventional theory.
Dr.Matt
paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>On 31 Oct 2002 04:00:21 -0800, david...@plants.ox.ac.uk (David
>Lloyd) wrote:
>
>>> "ten times more cumbersome with half the results"
>>>
>>> Results? You call 10% [and that's generous] of guitar players being able to
>>> read music "results"?
>>
>>The lack of guitarists being able to read is due, for the most part,
>>to the widespread view that reading music (and knowledge of theory) is
>>unneccessary for their purposes.
>
>I think the reason for that widespread view is pretty easy to work
>out: it's a logical conclusion of the fact that there's no evidence to
>suggest that guitarists who read notation are better musicians than
>those who don't. Those who think that notation is essential have yet
>to show how it has produced better guitarists in a practical sense.
>Thus reading seen as irrelevant.
>
>If Clapton and Hendrix and few others had been readers and extolled
>the virtues thereof then things might have been different, although
>this is not a new situation. I don't think Irving Berlin, Noel Coward
>and many others of that period used notation.
Check carefully on both scores. Tin pan alley was a high-volume paper
mill, and so was Broadway. Hendrix got curious about George Frederick
Haendel, at whose former digs he stayed when he was in London; after
one listen to Messiah (which is impractical to stage without
notation), Hendrix declared Haendel an earlier king of Cool, and thus
contributed to an American renaissance of interest in GFH's (notated)
music.
>Elvis: "I don't use paper musicians, I use ear musicians. They know
>what I want from them" (approximate memory)
Actually what he said was "I don't know anything about music. In my
business I don't have to."
>Good guitarists read with their ears.
All musicians use their ears.
>Next we'll hear that all the millions of musicians outside the western
>world who also don't use notation are also illiterate...
Yes, that's what the word illiterate means.
The fact that TV culture has tried to dilute it with "soap opera
literacy" etc. doesn't change its meaning.
Joey Goldstein
paramucho wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 04:30:28 GMT, fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
> (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
> >
> >So suddenly being an intellectual is distinct from having and
> >continuously exercising intellect.
>
> Everybody "exercises their intellect" when they read or make the
> simplist decision. That doesn't make them intellectuals unless you
> extend the meaning of the word to a generality which robs it of any
> means of discrimination.
in暗el損ec暗u戢l Pronunciation Key (ntl-kch-l)
adj.
1.
a.Of or relating to the intellect.
b.Rational rather than emotional.
2.Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an
intellectual problem.
3.
a.Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree.
See Synonyms at intelligent.
b.Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of
the intellect.
> Language is like that Matt, and there ain't nothing that you, nor I,
> nor Mark Twain can do about it.
>
> >Man, Ian, get some conditioner for your hair!
>
> I walked into some place a couple of days ago and asked for a hair
> cut. It took them an hour and they charged my USD30.00. I looked in
> the mirror and my hair was straight. The next morning after I used my
> conditioner it was curly again.
>
> Anyway, my hairdresser told me that every second Tuesday evening they
> get together and do additional training and discuss the art of
> hairdressing. I guess that makes them intellectuals.
>
> Well, that was better than my trip to the dentist today. I ended up
> with this real intellectual for a dentist. He's gonna cost me
> USD1500.00 and some pain.
>
> Ian
--
Roger Blumberg
news:d9cc9d63.02103...@posting.google.com...
> > "ten times more cumbersome with half the results"
> >
> > Results? You call 10% [and that's generous] of guitar players being able
to
> > read music "results"?
>
> The lack of guitarists being able to read is due, for the most part,
> to the widespread view that reading music (and knowledge of theory) is
> unneccessary for their purposes.
>
> > Ha! All I have to do is get a small fraction of the
> > remaining 90% to equal or beat those stats. And that's a sinch.
>
> I'm not sure that you will, since you're not addressing the real
> problem.
First of all, I was being flipant (after a couple days of this) and putting
a spin on Matts reply.
It depends on what you think the "real" problems are. I see it an "access to
information" problem", a "communications tools" problem. The road to music
education is made impassable for many people because of the clumbsiness of
conventional music notations and attendant nomenclature (letters and
numbers) -- the communications tools of Western music theory.
>
> What exactly is new in your theory anyway? Every guitarist I know has
> used the same system for years.
>
It's *not* a new theory. It's a "translation" of traditional tonal theory.
The translation is done using chromatic numbers and chromatic formula. Using
chromatic numbers, systematically, to help teach "tonal" music theory
(rather than atonal) is new enough. Perhaps the newest thing about The
Cipher is that it introduces a formalized way of applying and illustrating
chromatic numbers on chordable instruments, the guitar in particular. The
device is called "The Five Degree Calculation Line"
http://www.thecipher.com/5degree-calc-line.html .
If things look familiar to you it's because I am teaching the exact same
stuff that everyone else is! That's the point. It's just an annex system, a
tool, a translation, a new means of achieving the same thing and gaining the
same knowledge -- knowledge of two things at once, music theory and
fretboard mechanics. It's about "communicating" information, making it more
readily "accessible" to more people.
Roger
http://www.TheCipher.com
Blumberg's Music Theory Cipher
for Guitar and other Stringed Instruments
Dr.Matt
Roger Blumberg <rblumbe...@jps.net> wrote:
>
>It depends on what you think the "real" problems are. I see it an "access to
>information" problem", a "communications tools" problem. The road to music
>education is made impassable for many people because of the clumbsiness of
>conventional music notations and attendant nomenclature (letters and
>numbers) -- the communications tools of Western music theory.
This is a spin on the "most people are morons, so let's have a theory
for morons" vista. Really, most people are NOT morons.
>> What exactly is new in your theory anyway? Every guitarist I know has
>> used the same system for years.
>>
>
>It's *not* a new theory. It's a "translation" of traditional tonal theory.
>The translation is done using chromatic numbers and chromatic formula. Using
>chromatic numbers, systematically, to help teach "tonal" music theory
>(rather than atonal) is new enough. Perhaps the newest thing about The
>Cipher is that it introduces a formalized way of applying and illustrating
>chromatic numbers on chordable instruments, the guitar in particular. The
>device is called "The Five Degree Calculation Line"
>http://www.thecipher.com/5degree-calc-line.html .
>
>If things look familiar to you it's because I am teaching the exact same
>stuff that everyone else is! That's the point. It's just an annex system, a
Unfortunately, it really looks like you haven't a clue how much
useful information about tonal music you've lost in your system, and
how much really basic easy stuff you've made appear inpenetrable.
>tool, a translation, a new means of achieving the same thing and gaining the
>same knowledge -- knowledge of two things at once, music theory and
>fretboard mechanics. It's about "communicating" information, making it more
>readily "accessible" to more people.
>
>Roger
>http://www.TheCipher.com
>Blumberg's Music Theory Cipher
>for Guitar and other Stringed Instruments
Consider the original question of B# and E#. Dave had it right, though
he appeared to be being flippant: they're right next to Cb and Fb,
respectively. But they're not C or F.
David P Chabot
>intellectual elite of the society, at least in the West it has ....
This is simpley NOT the case... music originated with the people... everyday
people who sat around the fires at night and told tales and strummed ancient
stringed lyres and blew into old world flutes and kept rythyms on hand
tooled drums... American Indians... South American Indians... all the native
peoples of every continent participated in the music making of their
community... Only later... after many many years did the peoples music
become codified into a written "language"... only understood by the so
called intellectual of society.
Happy music making.
Peace...Dave www.Shemakhan.com
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before
breakfast."
Through the Looking-Glass Lewis Carroll
David P Chabot
E# equals F or G double b or D triple #... etc.
B# equals C or D double b or A triple #... etc.
It's like all those european languages were there are 3 or four ways to say
YOU...
They are all the same white key on the piano... it just depends on what key
signature you are writing in...
Dr.Matt
David P Chabot <dpch...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Ladies and Gentlemen... (I presume)...
>
>
>E# equals F or G double b or D triple #... etc.
This is erroneous. The "equivalence" is a matter of proximity and
keyboard/fret mapping.
>B# equals C or D double b or A triple #... etc.
>
>It's like all those european languages were there are 3 or four ways to say
>YOU...
It's more like being unable to distinguish New York City from Dallas because
you have just one slot for "City in USA". Under some circumstances, you
can make this work. But it doesn't make New York City into Dallas.
>They are all the same white key on the piano... it just depends on what key
>signature you are writing in...
Yes, the pianos you're accustomed to playing have only one key for them.
David P Chabot
Excuse me...? Have I missed something? Is there a piano being made that has
a key for each E# F and G double b...? I would be very interested in the
"technique" one uses to play this instrument.