Well I think that is full circle...

 

Many full circles already

 

"BTW: Aren't you the one using semi tones on your software? I thought you were starting to get all this but now I have second thoughts... lack of context causes silly questions like yours."

That's just to define the key. It can go across octaves. Lots of other things happen to it after that...

 

All the music that you write with that 12 semitone system will translate into staff, piano roll, audio... and it will be the same no matter what other crazy things you do with it.

Anyways, I asked you that because of the tone of your prior question. You're the one using that semitone system and you coming up with that thing about describing music to other musicians didn't seem right.. unless you think that any method to notate or think about music has the sole purpose of being handed to other people, which would defeat the way you're thinking your software.

 

Last edited: Oct 22, 2015

Of course it will translate to audio, it is ultimately making a noise.

The rest of it isn't strictly true. You can precisely bend pitches however you'd like, down to 100ths of a frequency. It was actually part of an experiment into different types of musical temperaments...

 

That was not the point of what I wrote.

Let's just move along.

 

It'd be easier to discuss these things if you made new posts rather than going back and editing previous ones...

I wasn't using it to show other musicians anything. I was using different programming interfaces, the main one being Supercollider.

http://supercollider.github.io/

To experiment with synthesis and sound. Weird stuff...

 

It wasn't about your software, I only thought it was weird that the person who's using semitones as a framework would "defy" me with arguments about "describing music to to others in semitones". That's all.

 

About you not reading music.. it seems that your experience is more than enough to apply the intervalic approach to the staff. Maybe you never thought of looking at this way, maybe you did... but I'll let you know.

Since a staff is a diatonic framework, the dots will always represent pitches at the same relative distance. If you know just one note on the staff you'll be able to read and play all the other notes just by looking at the distances where the dots are without even thinking about note names. That's also helpful when you want to transpose on the fly.

 

It was a reasonable part of the framework for 12tet. In fact the function was called with an argument that would let you define the number of equal notes. E.g 24tet was equal quarter tones.
It was all about trying to play other musical temperaments from similar pitches, in that zero was always it's "Key". It was fairly wacky stuff in comparing and synthesizing stuff.
I can read the notes of treble clef okay. Nowhere near fast enough to read a melody sheet thrown in front of me. Especially if it contains lots of accidentals. It's learning the rhythms/rests that gets me...

 

Pure sine wave tones are the best for that kind of experiments, it let's you hear the intermodulations very clearly.

If you've got that framework written down you could even insert some preset arguments with the sine wave sound to let people hear the differences between temperaments, specially in chords. That would be cool.

Yes, rhythms are usually the tricky part, specially with multiple voices going.

 

I am actually curious how this program calculates the pitch name, and how efficient it is comparing to the method I posted on page one. I don't have my actual code uploaded on github right now though.

 

so you're the winner? @kouros

 

After all, I just want to appreciate all the guys who attended this thread with their lovely comments. I even love your infuriation. Pain with pleasure reminds me p.... movies.

Hot topic in Audiosex you know!

 

If my posts made anyone learn more or gain new insights about music, then those people are the only winners. Even if they didn't believe me but got curious and went to look for the info themselves, those are the ones who won something. I just lost my patience.

 

I'm not sure, it'll take me a few months or so to digest this heavy stuff

 

Context is key, that's the reason why it's so much easier to understand things if you know how they evolved. That's why I tell people to read about music history. At some point we had just one scale, then the intermediate notes were added and further along the distances between all the notes were made equal for a reason... knowing about this stuff will not only make you understand everything I've said but also will give you a new way of looking at music.

Instead of just doing things because "that's the way it is" you'll actually KNOW WHY they are the way they are.. and that's the point where you really own the knowledge and gain deeper understanding. Your mind's elasticity towards music will increase immensely as well as your capability of understanding things you hear and following their framework (not copying). It's a musical paradigm shift.. and I am not trying to sell you anything, all I am asking is that you (and everyone) look up things for yourself and make up your own mind and views. Seems like a fair deal to me.

 

Before anyone asks...

No, you don't handle your own views and thoughts to other musicians. For that you have to communicate, that's why we have standard languages/representations for music. Choose one of those.

No, this isn't about any "new age" music theory or quick shortcuts. It is in fact new if you don't know it already, that's all. Consider it as having a deeper knowledge of music.

 

Last edited: Oct 22, 2015

what would someone read to get this stuff... seems like way over head for most people except you
and battlebot there..

 

I've been studying for years, this isn't a race. I just want to create awareness on people about the benefits of diggin a little deeper.


Well, if you want to get a global picture, maybe you could read "How music works" by John Powell.

Howard Goodall as a series by the same name (I think) on youtube, you could check that too.


I guess that would be a good starting point to get your feet wet and open up your curiosity to expand your views. Then you can look for other sources to dig deeper into each subject according to your interests.

I believe that if you take your time to understand that stuff, then you'll understand the different ways and methods that people have to process musical thought and hopefuly you'll end up refining your own.


Don't be fooled by "barking", that doesn't imply knowledge. Pick your sources well and always use your critical thinking to separate what's useful from the noise.