maybe because on certain instruments every note is different and u have to think it rather relying to fimger memory to play?maybe

 

read above

 

This sums up your take on this.

Yeah, now you're concerned with foster911, the original poster...

If you're going to keep taking things out of context, go ahead.. but do it by yourself and remember that you were the one who asked me more about what this other approach was.

Of course, to a person who truly believes that there is a "right" approach to musical thought, there's no point in going any further, he is already prepared to deny any other view.

 

itried to help him, until i realized he s got no will to things as they should be done,trying to expalin him that he needsed to study things thoroughly,even if he doesn t use them.U didn t even get close to that,because obviously if something isnt necessary to u,it s useless,isn t it?

 

A topic about intervals where you insisted to bring up staff considerations, further along you brought up a strange need for note naming, and now we're already at instrumentation... your mind is really complicated dude.

I haven't even mentioned finger memory or anything related to playing actual notes... but let's put it this way... You know what the notes on the staff (since we have to have staff...) are on your instrument..

...why the hell do you need names??

If you can read distances correctly on a staff, why the shitballs do you need names??

Now forgeting about the fucking staff and instruments... If Iam composing and I know how my intervals relate to sound, why the fuck would I be concerned about names?

Don't tell me it is because of the printed sheet music that I'll have to hand out to the musicians...that would atest your stupidity and total diesregard for context in a conversation.

 

I gave him lots of help and endlessly said that what he was doing was stupid. Am I lying??

Just because I explained things to him in a way that is different from your way, that doesn't make my explanations wrong nor does it negate the validity of what you told him.

 

I give up, u r the new wagner,hat off to u

 

it negates it s validity the moment that u say that enharmony is useless because there is the piano roll,but i m tired, im doing ear trining right now and i m fucking trying to sing the trtone correctly,go on with your life and whatever method works for u

 

You can't prove your claim because I've never said that so.. You are a LIAR.

Keep making excuses but at least be honest and play it clean. Lying about things is for losers with weak arguments.

 

..And before you go cropping stuff out of context lol

The original poster said that he was doing this interval stuff TO BE USED IN PIANO ROLL mode set to all flats.

I told him that in a piano roll there are no enharmonic considerations to be made. That's WAY different than saying that enharmony is useless because there is the piano roll.

In fact I've been saying many times that enharmony is needed for staff writing, surely you missed those 50 posts where I brought that up.

 

To anyone else who might be reading this and starting to get something out of it...


The last two chords constitute a perfect authentic cadence (or PAC):



If you look at the staff, you recognize that it is a V to I with both roots as the lowest note..

If the same thing was represented in any other way rather than the staff above (audio, guitar tab, piano roll, roman numerals, intervals as numbers, chromatic staff, etc), would it change your perception AND theoretical analysis of this being a PAC (V to I)?

If so, please explain.

 

This was the original question, would've thought that the OP was trying to define something in the western musical theory idiom.

Everything that has been debated with Kouros since then has gone from the physics and science of sound, through over-tones and even comparisons with actual frequency(Hz).

The original poster has even titled the table with the word transposition.

We were not trying to argue that if two milk bottles, filled with water, do not produce an interval in terms of difference of frequency. Merely that among most theoretical musical education the term interval IS defined by the KEY you are currently in. Hence the Db - E being an Aug 2nd. Not a b3.

You have gone to extremes to make the debate more along the lines of "If a tree falls over and no one is there to see it, does it really exist ?"

In answer to your question, that staff doesn't mean anything to me as I can't read music, especially the bass clef...

In order to have a V - I then you must already be inside of the western music theory idiom. An engineer with no musical theory knowledge would say, "We have these frequencies and they move up or down in pitch to these frequencies."

Not, "We have these frequencies that move up or down in pitch to the I chord".

You have succumbed to arguing with yourself.

 

i was going to post that

 

As in every conversation, people talk and eventually you know what they want. Too bad you only read the first post.

Never said that musical education is wrong, all I said is that it serves a purpose within a context. Just because someone is not aware of methods beyond what they were taught, that doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't widely used. Most good musicians think in intervals and not absolute note names, that doesn't mean they can't read or write a proper staff.

You should've stopped at where you said that you can't read music. What comes next reflects that.

But anyways, no.. you don't need to know how to read a staff in order to be proficient at intervals, harmony, etc.

Totally flawed conclusion but that was expected given the rest of the post.


Probably you never heard of Jamey Aebersold, he has this table (and no, it's not just me and him who think in this intervalic way):


You can find this sort of table with numbers instead, which is the way I prefer to use in my thought process (and most musicians too).

So, are we all wrong and people who only relate theory to staff notation are the only ones who are right?

I know it's easier to refuse things and stick to what you already know and the way you think (or were taught too think) but to consider that all this info and methodology is a thing that only a few geeks are into... well, that's not only dumb but also rude.

 

That's how you guys interpret it because your ignorance won't let you see past your own bellies.

 

In case one day you find that you really want to understand this:

All that I've been saying is "inside the western music theory idiom". My question was simply "do you need it written in staff to know that it is a V to I?"

The answer is "No." Because analysis isn't dependant on the format you have the music on. You can hear a V to I, you can see it in a piano roll, staff, by numbers, intervals... the essence that makes it a V to I are the absolute intervals, not the way you represent them or how you decide to name the notes.


Example:

I (R - 3 - 5)
V ("R a fifth above the I" - 3 - 5)

Apply these formulas and you'll have a V to I in ANY KEY (R)

Want to do it in all keys with note names and enharmonics? Ok, prepare yourself to write the same thing I just wrote but 12 times.

Use whatever thought process suits you better.

 

Last edited: Oct 22, 2015

u r the one who started talking about stafs and enharmonics related to staff,i repeated u to the nausea that it s got nothing to do with staff, yet u go on with the same song.

no ,it doesn t serve it within a context, it serves the purpose, amd the purpose is music,that s all.
If u put it as u did than u can can say that grammar serves the purpose to get though school education.Pretty wrong, dont u think?

 

Wrong. You could easily figure this one out by yourself (with a little reading maybe), yet you choose to force erroneous info in hope that it will become true.

Purpose: teach music

Context: epoch, style, part of the world, etc

You still don't understand what the word "theory" means and that there's no absolute theory.

That analogy sucks, you're just spitting meaningless nonsense.

 

U donnt necessarily need the written staff if someone tells u what notes they are or if u find a why to foind it out on your own,if u dont, u necessarily need it.And u need it if u want to share it.
And if u consider the perfect cadence in absolute terms, eventualy u have to apply it to music that has to be played,since music doesnt exist if it isn t played, and to be played it has to be shared , showed or performed somehow.
Now,if u r the only performer of your music,u can use whatever method u want to compose it and remember it,if u r not the only performer,u have to share with with others in an understandlable way,this means that u have all the necessary information to the performers.And all the necessary information include tempo, note names.Not key signature because nobody said it has to be shared in a written way.But even if u share it orally, u can t keep yurself from giving the necessary information.Or u think u can go to your band tell them to play a II min7 ,Valtered I without telling them the key at least?DO u expect that they all, have perfect pitch so they hear u and they recognizxe the pitch so they can play in your key?Or again they r all supposed to just see your hands on the guitar and know what notes u r playing?

 

purpose: KNOW music
context: KNOW music
if u weren t so full of yourself, or full your shit, that in your case is the same thing,I d explain u that it s called theory because it has no absolute laws,the last judge is the ear,but usually music theory keeps u from doing wrong things.
Music theory and harmony are different things by the way, different courses , different.Music theory si studied and completed the first two ears of conservatory together with solfege.

U don t need to prove more that u r desperate to try to be right,i noticed that when u skipped the relation between your method and how it doesn t apply to certain instrumentalists