That's why you don't understand this shit. You keep assuming that YOU HAVE TO USE THOSE FUCKING NOTE NAMES as if they were music itself. They are a CONVENTION, nothing more than that. Just like the traditional staff, the note names follow a diatonic pattern.. and that's it. Just look that shit up man, fuck...


To wrap it up..

kouros: says that duskwings' views are correct but that there are many other views and ways of looking at things, analyzing and understanding.

duskwing: claims that only what he was taught is right so any other view has to be wrong and there's no need to question things or learn other perspectives.

And yeah, note names and enharmonicity (which for some strange reason you think they are tied to music's DNA instead of being a mere diatonic representation of intervals) are surely helpful to atonal/serial/ avant garde composers... or, wait... maybe they aren't.. atonal sucks anyway and I don't care for it so.. it doesn't matter! (lol)

 

Is A = 440Hz? 442Hz?

Or is it 428Hz?

Oh, it depends? On what?

Ah... on CONVENTION, right right... I knew that.

 

I am writing a program at the minute which uses the 0 - 11 chromatic representation of all the notes. Not because it isn't a staff but because when programming something musical it's nice to be able to change keys. Even if it's just for the giggles. Not being able to do it is frustrating. That's not say an augmented second doesn't exist. I mean it's like saying, that there is no point in evening mentioning the relative major/minor relationship as they share exactly the same frequencies...

I seriously empathize with you Kouros, you have compared everybody else who doesn't agree with your analogy of the musical idiom of intervals as old people. I am really insulted, wouldn't wanna be your Grandma :-D !

In the very same sentence you have unwittingly said that everyone else who happens to play an instrument, maybe one that you don't play, is wrong. Good luck when transposing this list into frequency or fractions or whatever it is your trying to say, y'know scientifically speaking...

You might need this,

http://www.secretcomposer.com/Secre...rt_Pitch_-_Instrument_Transposition_chart.htm

I mean that post of the wave, piano roll and score was just ridiculous. Why don't you download SPEAR and actually see how complicated sound analysis actually is. It may help you with the overtone series and why some instruments are pitched at what they are.

Seriously though EVERYBODY should check out SPEAR, it maybe old but you can create some whacked out sounds on it.

http://www.klingbeil.com/spear/

It's not been a constructive debate for a while. I seriously hope anybody who reads through this thread takes it all with a pinch of salt as a lot of it is hypothetical none sense.

 

Q: What happens if we call "A":

"6".. or maybe "zebra"?

Answer: All theory dies, music wouldn't sound the same.

Q: What happens if we don't use the diatonic system of reference within a staff (enharmonics included)?

Answer: You lose the crutch of having to rely on note names and degrees to be able to analyze what's going on in a piece and what the leading tones are. Real musicians do it with their ear and intelect, no need to count lines and little dots to know their shit.

 

Well in the Key of C I do call A, wait for it 6, Finally we are getting somewhere....

If I am working Chromatically from a programming sense then I call A at 440 in the key of C: 9
Bb = 10
B = 11
0 = C

Thought i'd add the above to show a comparison...

 

I've never said that either but I'll remind you of the word "context" before you grab unto that.

Didn't want to insult anyone, it really reminded me of that time.

Please, copy/paste my words on that and don't cut out the context. For the time being, I won't even comment that nonsense.

Ridiculous is when someone doesn't understand and analogy, specially when it has plenty of text there to explain what I meant.

 

Ahh fuck,if u use numbers instead of note names, those numbers are the note names,u can deny as long as u want that,but the moment u associate a pitch with a number,it s exactly like associating it to a letter or a name or what the fuck u want

 

Make it 37 then, the principle is the same.

Your music with that system makes no sense, there's no distinction regarding enharmonicity, you can't possibly know where you are on the key and bla bla bla...

 

Are you serious? You can't tell the difference between:

- Having a set of notes where some of them have two names

- Having a straight row of note names without contextual ambiguity

No difference, right?

..

 

u r aware u reply to things that nobody said, aren t u?

 

now u care about enharmonic equivalents?

 

This A A# B C C# D D# E F F# G G# can represent the same as this A B C D E F G H I J K L, this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12, twelve animal species in a row...whatever, really.

If you can't understand why this is true, go study it.

If you can't understand why/when b/# appeared and why we still use them (in traditional notation at least), go study that too. "Because that's how I was taught" isn't the answer to any of these questions.

 

Erm read that back to yourself. Just to make it crystal clear 0 would be the key. It's just a simple mod 12... If I wanted to play the phrase in a different key, say A. Then A would = 0.

And in your case Ab would = 11.

Duskwings, freaking fantastic playing. I'm sure you have heard of Ted Greene. If you haven't heard his Baroque stuff you should check it out. Oh and so should you Kouros. I know we disagree about a lot but I think if you like guitar playing then you'd like it too.

 

I believe you said this "it s exactly like associating it to a letter or a name or what the fuck u want".

You either agree that A B C sharps and flats are just a convention or you don't.

 

I was being sarcastic. The answer I gave you is what your "associate" said to me when I presented an idea similar to yours.

If this is turning into a haters group party, I am about to debate my ass out of here children.

 

Memorize it by simply playing music...

 

they r not a convention, they are names,the fact u refuse to use them doesn t make them less valid

 

Sorry sarcasm was lost on this thread about 15 pages ago !

It's just another method I use, thought you may see some value in it.

 

Even if you don't know the meaning of the word "convention", it is all over music theory.. including the "how note names where choosen" chapter.

If you're feeling humble you might even want to check back in history to learn about other note naming conventions, why/how they were used, how many notes were used along the centuries, etc etc.

I've already told you to do this many times but you believe that denying something or not reading the info makes it disappear from history.

 

That "semitone starting at zero" method has been used since last century if I am not mistaken. I don't use it because I don't find it that helpful for what I do. I think things out in numeric structures, roman numerals for harmony and numbers for intervals. It applies to any root, easily transposable, also a very common thought process among improvisers.