Urgent call to @Lenny Belardo II. Lenny we are in desperate need of your papal guidance.

It all started a few comments back when @Lois Lane asserted something along the lines of "we hear what we want to hear"
damn those relativists;
why can't they just see that good music is when God says it's good and the rest is all just the work of the devil.

Lois started pushing this point using pictures - "we see what we want to see, blah blah."
and he gave us a Rothko painting to contemplate.

We all know that some people see the face of the Virgin Mary in slices of cheese on toast, and some see Jesus in a potato crisp
(God is everywhere)


But now what we have is embarrassing and I'm scared.
When I look at that Rothko painting I think I see a fish
(I'm still looking for the scales but they're too diminished - almost on topic here)

But @Freetobestolen says that when he looks at that Rothko painting he can see Lois's avatar.


I am baffled.
a) Either @Freetobestolen is smoking better stuff than I can get my hands on and is simply hallucinating,
OR
b) Is it possible that others will also see Lois's avatar?
Do we have a real miracle here? and if so, is this the start of a new religion?
Will we need to start referring to Lois as "St Lois - the Phryggin Dominant"

Your papal pronouncements on this matter are urgent and overdue.

 

ha ha... yeah yeah, alright, calm down. point taken, but i think conventional chromatisism sufficiently implied within the context of this thread. "conventional structures" being vertical aspects of the 12 ET pitches resolving or modulating to a chosen tonal gravity. i do not think anything outside of that was in question. no need to go full ligheti. there seems to be some consternation about mutation, which is understandable when 12 pitches are in play, hence the rubbing point of modality. i do not think there is any dissatisfaction with the temperament of the pitches themselves. maybe you are just being rhetorical [if that is the case i am glad my post moved you].

i am fine with just conveying the day to day intricacies of the lived experience [weird enough for me]. we can discount deep inquiry into the conscious experiences of a divergent who is loaded up with legal or illegal pharmaceuticals -- unless you are one, which is fine, then express yo' damn self.

the trouble with slicing the spectrum to finely is that differentiation becomes a real problem. the ear is not the most precise tool, especially when the pharmaceuticals kick in.

just out of interest, what instruments do you propose we 'play' these potential songs on? in the electronic/computer age it is a triviality, but otherwise...? i do not think retuning the old upright would cut it.

 

do you mean mushrooms or a heart attack? last time i checked, i'm still here.

 

You didn't manage to understand what I say -> even using conventional pitches there are non-standard tonalities that require slightly different music theory (maybe that's why they are not that popular, you need a different way of using them compared to diatonic stuff.)
Some of them are these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_limited_transposition
Chromaticism is also different, standard diatonic sequences are chromatic from the point of octatonic tonality etc.
If you want retuning, intonation doesn't change the unique music theory behind any of these tonalities (except when you do enharmonic modulations between them possible only in 12 ET, so before the time of Liszt there were no augmented chords employed compositionally).
If you want to treat 12 ET as a type of scale with unique resources, that's also possible in equal divisions 13 to 23. It is basically an extension of these diatonic and non-diatonic tonalities.
About instruments - there are tons of keyboard designs since 1800s - none of them became popular except on accordions.
Still, you can buy something like Roger Linn's Linnstruments or Novation Launchpad, or use app with touchscreen. There exist boutique keyboards, but they are quite expensive. Another option is rearranging black and white keys of a midi keyboard - let's say you can get two whole tone scales (so you can play in any small equal tuning - that you can retune to your liking).
I don't know about old uprights, but many piano tuners already tune to historical temperaments, if their clients demand it - it's the same thing as retuning to 12 notes subset of some big division of octave.
Any good luthier can also make you a custom fretboard in any tuning (again, preferably unequal, so it's easier to play).

 

Re: Messiaen and his modes of limited transposition - I love his systematising in this area.
I also love the fact that he experienced synaesthesia - i.e., he perceived colours when he heard chords.
I'm uncertain whether I'm jealous of that but if I could turn synaesthesia on and off, optionally on-demand, I would be thrilled.
How nice that this is coincidentally topical with my leg pulling Lois's "we hear what we want to hear" "we see what what we want to see" (all of which is so very true at a deep level in our perception)
So for Messiaen I guess we could also say "he saw what he wanted to hear and heard what he wanted to see"

---
Re: that amazing microtonal guitar. A mind boggling fretboard. My other half suggests I buy one.
She knows that I would be instantly totally paralysed and everything would be quieter around here.

 

*expanding* the major tonality range <--

"a prescriptive view to -->A<-- structural cromaticism" -- looking at possibilities of *a*, not *the*, cromaticism that would function as a expansion of the major tonality, with it as an organizational principle.

while it may be of interest, none of what you are writing relates to what i wrote or the topic in general. i am vaguely familiar with the concepts, though it has been a long time, but there is no relation. what is there to understand? i politely told you, and clarified, that you did not understand what i was trying to say. is that ok, or there something else you are trying to say?

you said yourself, "I think some people (mostly amateurs) take music theory too seriously and think that it describes some kind of ultimate truth". which i agree with BTW. why now is it so imperative to adhere to some concept as cannon? can we not just play and make useful what we have?

"Chromaticism is also different". "a prescriptive view to a structural cromaticism", is different yet again. you have to assemble the words of a phrase together to divine the hidden (not-so-hidden) meaning within the current context. if are you trying to describe your prescription to me. i can save you valuable time, interesting as it may be, i am not really interested until i see some use for a deeper understanding.

it is all going to sound like a dissonant mess anyway. a mathematically correct mess is not much different to a microtonally inaccurate one. you are just adding unnecessary complexity for no real gain, unless a person wants to pursue such things as a purely technical exercise. it could be fun. god knows i have done some fruitless experimentation. i have heard attempts, and known people who dabble but the results are varied and ultimately no more satisfying than anything else. probably more a function of who is writing the stuff more than what tools they are using.

"If you want to treat 12 ET as a type of scale with unique resources", a person can look at it in whatever way they want to achieve their intended goal. that it is pretty edge case stuff. probably not preferable to look at it that way in this context, but again, you are suggesting something that i do not think anyone was proposing.

i do not want retuning. i use to play the guitar exclusively in alternate tunings. i do not anymore. i do not know why i would retune the piano to play things i expressed no interest in playing.

the question was mostly rhetorical but, "in the electronic/computer age it is a triviality", and i have played (attempted to play) some of those bizzare looking things, and have played a just intoned guitar (just not my thing) -- i will leave that to you, and continue reserving my judgment.

 

I'm a dude, dude...but I'm flattered.

 

I know - and I'm straight - so grounds for panic mode.
Anyway I still see a fish, so I'm safe - it's @Freetobestolen that sees your avatar

 

LOL, I make not judgment on anything you said but rather am expanding your seeming definition of what is music and art in that it can be created and interpreted piece by piece with vastly different tools and without the need for rules outside of what the artist considers her/his own asthetic. And also to extrapolate, both paintings were created in this universe and so must conform to this universe's specific rules, but fuck the rules, my paintings and music are interdimensional and will last forever and a day. Why? Because I say so. They do not depend on light to be seen, an ear to be heard or even a being to be witnessed. They transcend space and time. R2R agrees with this and that's all the reinforcement that I need...

I am proud to be

Lois Lane

The chord progression of this post is...

ii V7 IV9 XXIVadded14th CCV#

 

@Ad Heesive @Lois Lane

I just hopped in the goof-wagon for kicks, and that payed-off, once yielded me some good laughs... up to now.

The mystique over Ad Heesive's lame watermarking job could simply have been kept, but no... that had to be given away and spoil all the fun - what a drag.

Now I have to step back, looking at the painting as that coal-chalk blur - shame on you.

 

Whatever you say Sir. You've got the right to speak your mind freely. I'm happy for you and whatnot...

Allow me just a mild final digression: the eyeglasses through which you can focally appreciate anything at your sight's reach, were probably materialized out of the Ether.

Not quite certain about it yet, but I hope we are cool.

Cheers

 

No offence intended, but I'd wish I could unsee that...

 

An axe like that, featuring such an oppressive witchcrafted fretboard, the first impression: Is this guy about to summon the dead ?!

Then he starts playing...

 

Too polite

 

What are our rights to choose in dealing with rules?

1. Understanding the rules and respecting them
2. Knowing the rules and breaking them
3. Understanding the rules and developing them
4. No need to know the rules and disregarding or disrespecting them

What I saw in this thread was mostly option 4.

 

Last edited: Sep 15, 2021

Options 1 - 3 are all good, and not mutually exclusive, and all well practiced here.
Sorry to hear about your blindness in seeing only option 4 - but your problem - no-one else's

 

Alright, now that some steam has been blown-off, let's go back to the chase, shall we?

Question #1: What a tonal-center is about?

Question #2: How can a tonal-center be established?

Question #3: What are the minimal requirements for accomplishing such?


PS.: It would be even more interesting if the answers could be accompanied by insights into "tension-resolution".

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2021

@Freetobestolen guilty of lowering the tone again

 

@Ad Heesive

Not quite... just getting back to standard tuning.

on the steam comment: my bad... fine then, let's pretend so.

I would like to keep the spirits high for the core issues as well (such as these questions). Help me out on that one too, will'ya?

I'm counting on you, @Ŧยχøя, @refix and @23322332, to get the party started.


Chee-chee-cheers