Keep in mind John McLauglin had a guitar specially made for him with drone strings too and I believe he experimented with some tunings, so while that is certainly not an explanation, I do think his setup contributed to how he managed to get some amazing sounds.

I think you have nailed it more on the familiarity aspect rather than what is what should be or what sounds etcetera - not because that approach is necessarily incorrect, but more because if any musician thinks back to the first time they heard something musically unusual. As a poor representation because it's the first thing I thought of... a 13#9 chord decades ago.... when I first heard that, my head turned left then right... then I realised it was the two tri-tones in it that made it sound what my then untrained ears thought 'might' be wrong. Now it's second nature.

I think when you say the 'hearing' or getting used to the sound of microtones is everything is accurate. Familiarity is also a form of comfort. Some as you said are definitely more pleasant than others. In the very guts of the midrange, some of them are pleasant.

I also meant to say you were spot on with the lower microtones. As a bassist, I have recorded many times. I am very aware of the natural harmonics generated in certain frequencies. In very low notes/frequencies any clustering is not a pleasant sound and as you indicated the harmonics especially in microtones clash very badly.

 

Last edited: Jun 29, 2021

You should probably go back to remembering what you were taught about the caveman through to today and what instruments were used to make sounds and music. The human voice, rocks, log drum variants, wooden flutes...etc etc...

If you really want to go into semantics and call their method of playing them theory that's pushing it. Then again if you do that, a 12 year old metal guitarist who learned everything by ear, cannot read or understand a note of music still has a method. An untrained method, but a method nonetheless.

 

Learning music theory is the easiest thing someone can do. No matter how complicated it is, it's simple to learn. The important and crucial issue is the use of music theory efficiently and I've never met or heard about anyone who uses music theory in the best way.

 

Dave Liebman and George Garzone to name but two of many. If you mean for a large part I'd agree. But those two developed and worked on their own theories. Liebman on modal chromaticism and Garzone on triadic chromatic approach and they put it into action. In their case their best way was in their own music.

 

But I don't consider Saxophone a musical instrument, let alone trying to hear theory from them.

 

Well in Pop music you'd have to tell the world that Baker street by Gerry Rafferty is not Pop music, In R&B you'd have to tell the world that Pick up the Pieces by Average white band is not music, that Tower of Power and Parliament were not Funk music, that David Sanborn is not music and the entire jazz repertoire is not music or any contemporary classical is not music, or a lot of Reggae and even some country has it... Then again there are some people who consider people who write EDM and cannot play an instrument non-musicians and rappers who cannot sing well glorified DJ's spouting rhyming poetry and also not musicians. It's all opinion.
You do know that 99% of all good saxophonists play most of the woodwinds well including Garzone and Liebman and can do the same things?
Ambiguity in statements like yours are always funny because they're full of holes.
Garzone's theory is played by all instruments as is Liebman's - all over the world. Just like most great music exponents are.
I figure it's a pisstake otherwise I'd be concerned for you.

 

Last edited: Jun 29, 2021

we/I have good ears lol, today I did a wow improvements to the app that i have in mind, I followed this tutorial and learned how to use many of the available audio libraries

maybe I should create a new thread but well here a lot of pros on music theory, but this is somewhat still on topic or I hope helpful in some way, this is a representation of all "named" chords combinations for any tonic or root, I am using the library "tonaljs" now the hard part will be adding microtones, not really hard about the coding but about the name conventions, all the current chords are base on TET 12 and here is my question: What kind of notation I can use to represent different equal temperaments or Pythagorean tune or harmonic ones in a chord, starting from the basics... How can I point out that the sound of a chord is using a perfect third (550hz) instead of the tempered one?

I think naming the intervals in a scale is rather easy and well documented, but what about chords? In the future I will show multiple layers of representations, hz, interval, cents, commas, in score, colors, tab, fraction, but I really don't know the naming process or convention used to name chords. Suggestions, ideas?

 

Send a private request message to @Olymoon - He is already in the loop that there are several of us who would like the music education aspects separated into pure theory, theory with practical demonstrations and practical education (instrument teaching/learning). And - probably a Pro section.
That's cool what you have found

Just remember, a layman looking at what you are doing will likely not understand it. I am always conscious of this. The requests to Ollie were so various levels are implemented so maybe add some suggestions to him when you PM him too

 

Tower of Power will always be Legends,
even if you gave them a Bagpipe and a Djembe.. they will still Rock!

However Country + Sax is almost a Provocation..

Unless we're talking about "Yakety Sax" ofc...

Without it there's no Benny Hill type Chase,
and I would never mess with Donut Nyamer's morning ring tone..

 

There is no universal standard system. There are many types of theoretical systems, it depends on what you want to notate.
Earlier in the thread you mentioned the "harmonic seventh" - it is actually an augmented sixth in standard music theory (because the theory is based on meantone temperament).(Actually, things are not that simple: it is both a type of sixth and seventh in 19 equal, then it splits and goes to 26 equal ((which is kind of flatter meantone, called "flattone" and there it is a type of seventh)) or 31 equal ((historical 1/4 comma meantone and there it is a type of "heptatonic sixth")).
So, 947.368421 cents (19 equal) ->
a) 969.230769 (26 equal) => Barbershop chord will be root, major third, perfect fifth, diminished seventh; 7/4 is almost perfectly in tune(0.4 cents error), but E and G (in standard C major chord) are worse than in 31 equal
b) 967.741935 (31 equal) => Barbershop chord will be root, major third, perfect fifth, augmented sixth (7/4 is out of tune by 1.08 cents)

You want to use 12 equal as basis of notation. Since there is not standard mapping for many of the higher harmonics that are represented in 12 equal, there is no coherent system that can be used to map them unambiguously, you need to use a multiple of 12 to do that. 72 equal is kind of good for such stuff, but even it starts to fail at some point, because of enharmonic equivalences and missing harmonics.

 

Also not a bad idea to separate the Theory forums..

At least having a Basic + Practical /and/ Advanced sections will make sense,
although.. where do you draw the line?

For instance the Modes is surely a basic/necessary thing to deal with at the beginning, until it clicks..
but will you include Harmonic/Melodic minor modes in the Basic section, or is it Advanced?

Knowing them is one thing..
but Harmonizing them, and trying to make something useful out of them can actually get quite complex..

 

I do not know if a PM discussion mapping can be opened by @Olymoon that would make sense - I can lay it out like a Music school, but that defeats the forum purpose. It certainly needs a better structure though not too dissimilar.

Yes to the modes but as a tiny example, 'Modes of the Melodic Minor Scale' is a different topic to 'How to get the most out of the modes of a Melodic Minor scale on your instrument'.
One is the roadmap, the other shows how to perform them and different ways to experiment with them

EDIT: Maybe the Theory section needs subsections might be more appropriate? I can name eight straight off the top of my head, but that;'s too much. However, it would allow people of different levels to find what is appropriate for them more easily, if each section had subsections.

 

Last edited: Jun 29, 2021

Well maybe 8 sections is a bit overkill,
but it's hard to say with certainty what's the best way..

I'd say 2 or 3 Big sections could be more practical in the long run


Also music theory is a bit like Algebra..
a complete Noob might look at a page with let's say my analysis of Vivo Sonhando,
with chords, intervals and stuff.. and be allright I guess.

But then something just a bit more advanced, like the Armando's harmonic layout,
could Blow his mind, like "is this chinese or what?"

But for just a bit more advanced student it will be perfectly adequate,
while for us is like Nothing..

All I'm saying is, it depends a lot on who's looking into it..


If you gave me the most Simple C++ code you'd blow my mind,
because I wouldn't know the implications of any of it, and I will have to imagine/calculate or research Everything..
and that's very steep.

But someone more experienced will know exactly what's going on at first glance,
and even regard it as the easiest thing ever/possible..

So what do you do?

In a sense it's also about "is this info for you?",
If it's for you it will easily Click, or you will understand it instantly.
If it's not you will see it codified like the Matrix..

But maybe that's the way it oughta be,
you can try to be clear/comprehensive with the stuff,
but you cannot chew and hand-feed the stuff for everyone..

IOW, If it's for you > you'll see it/get it.

 

See PM

 

Don't take my word for it but, as enticing as it may seem the idea of categorizing chords like that, there's a very hard wall waiting down the road. I really hope you succeed in transposing it.

Best of luck. Cheers

 

Maybe my subjective impression but, I see the wagons derailing once more... shall we put them back?

 

A brief wrap up before continuing:

Correct me if I'm wrong but, as soon as well-intentioned thread attendants' engage themselves into a proclive discussion (meaning main topic's pertinent), like Ŧยχøя and Ad Heesive were doing lately, or even when something starts being progressively shaped around it, the same old ones, who recurrently don't bring anything to the table but noise, start astraying everybodyelses' attention with the same dead-flogged symptomatic artifacts.
Hopefully mistaken, I'd risk saying that I unknowingly steped onto someonelses' lawn, thus unwantedly jeopardizing their usual fishing net of new paying students, reason why they can't help keep fostering their curriculum show-offs nor dragging others to showdowns.

This being the case, Zappa have mercy, but I have to quote him (once more): Dummy Up

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2021

So what's your thoughts on Bartok's Polymodal Chromaticism?
Ever considered it?

And what about the supposed way in which it retains harmonic/diatonic Function vs being seen as Alterations?
Is this strictly for 12tone chromatic music, or could it be applied more broadly?

 

I actually don't play the "modes" with all 7 tones, but only 5, at first. Once the modal intention is set (to the ears) by these intervals, then I may or may not add the other 2 initially left out, e.g. depending on the chords involved/context.

To avoid early passion-frothing about the subject (you know whose by), I will PM you what to me justifies such approach, once I was not planning getting to it so soon. I will also try to address your questioning. Thanks for asking.

Nonetheless, herewith how I layout the modes, but in this case following the chromatic Polymodal chart previously provided (statically over the same root until half-step down, which I normally wouldn't do)...




PS.: If one cares taking a closer look at the Phrygian and Locrian as per above, would glimpse why Bartók has chosen the pair Lydian/Phrygian instead of Ionian/Locrian.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2021