MIDI Data & Time Signature: Does 1/8th triplet grid equal 12/8 time?

[IncarnateX]

I express my frustration a lot of the time.

No shit.

Can't help getting the impression that your identity is too fused with this music theory thing. You blow off too easily when you disagree with people, think they are trying to teach you something, or when they simply do not get your points.

You should be more patience with people. Music theory ain't easy reading.

And FYI with regard to our Christmas debate last year: tentatively stating a principle or a rule, is not the same as saying it is universal, flawless, and that there are no exceptions. IMO you often read things like that and other into statements, that hardly have been thought through, and work yourself up on it. Result that the mood around here becomes patronizing at best and hostile at worst.

[jancivil]

Well, that's a self-serving revision of what actually happened. "Tentatively stating..." that's rich. Where the thread went was, in fact, you insisting that all polyrhythm was "ambiguous" and ultimately this term 'bistable' was introduced. And me granting this was true, when it's true.

the actual thread

I wanted to talk about something past a meter where everything is a factor of it. You didn't like it, you had this first principle this flew in the face of. "If you are heading for 2 against 3 against 5, you would need 2 x 3 x 5 = 30 beats". No, beat = pulse. I went to 11 in order to break the necessity of factors of the meter. But no! 11 in the time of a half note had to be the meter of 22. Which is nonsense.

"The right way to score this": No. I have actual experience forcing that type of thing into notation that does not allow for 'in the time of', and showed that once you (11 is now the denominator) start to subdivide that 2, by 2, that notation is unwieldy to even consider (except as a sort of masochism). So of course 11 in the time of 2 is the same problem. Therefore, the statement '11 in the time of 2'* (equally 2 in the time of 11) is the most useful statement possible. Then you doubled down, in service of nothing better than the impossibility of you having such an invalid argument.
(*: The example I showed is absolutely, undeniably in 4/4. There is no way those 11s result in the meter becoming 11 or 22 or 44. Like suddenly everybody that's playing the pulse are not playing the pulse.) Then things went south. By now you had dismissed my understanding as "subjective".

The thread is linked to above. Check it. It's a great f**king thread for cross-rhythm understanding despite your meltdown. I would say that the example you were interested in as 'bi-stable', where 6:4 was 'primed' and possibly perceived as 4:6 is illuminating. Agreement wasn't enough, your "all music is rhythmically ambiguous" had to be right and I wrong. Your story is revisionist history.

[IncarnateX]

I could have been wrong 100 times in that thread and I still think, your apparantly emotional reactions are out of proportions, just like some got the impression that you are in this thread are getting personal, or that you are agressive like in the "sexist"-thread. You do not mean to be aggressive, apparently, but that is how you are read and I understand why. This is not to say I am not aggressive too, because I am, but at least I know when and why and thus able to do something about it. How about you?

[jancivil]

Now you seem to get upset again. I could have been wrong 100 times in that thread and I still think, your apparantly emotional reactions are out of proportions, just like some got the impression that you are in this thread are getting personal, or that you are agressive like in the "sexist"-thread. You do not mean to be aggressive, apparently, but that is how you are read and I understand why. This is not to say I am not aggressive too, because I am, but at least I know when and why and thus able to do something about it. How about you?

Me, I think you want to be right so badly you are assigning an emotional state to me as a total ad hominem in service of that. You don't know me, you have an impression which is, I think rather fully based in you. I think you should check the thread because you're essentially lying now. Numerous lies, in fact. You can make that remark into whatever self-serving crap you like, it isn't about me. Other than I do have a strong distaste for dishonesty. This is bullshit, you came into a thread just to comment on how people are. Check yourself. Check that thread.

[IncarnateX]

Lies?

[jancivil]

Yeah: "FYI with regard to our Christmas debate last year: tentatively stating a principle or a rule, is not the same as saying it is universal, flawless, and that there are no exceptions."

"Every count should have equal impact within a cyclus. A cyclus in this sense is one where every count is fulfilled within the same period of time. Thus to fulfill a cyclus of 4 against 3 you will need at least 4 x 3 = 12 beats. If you are heading for 2 against 3 against 5, you would need 2 x 3 x 5 = 30 beats and so forth. The right way to score this would simply be on a sheet where there are no barlines. Use the barlines to signify the start and end of a cyclus and write each count within those to avoid reading it in one base or another."

This is tentative? You stated this, a first principle as it turns out, and then when the situation doesn't fit, even as you argued you did:
"For the rest, you have lost me to an extent where I do not find it useful to continue. In the end we are talking about subjective preferences to subjective matters and as far as I am concerned I use my principles when e.g. programming sequencers that do not have the signatures I am seeking, such as making 4 against 7 by having a cyclus of 7 bars of 4, or on a sheet when writing variations over such a rhythm. And if I should explain it to a student, I would use them as well. It works for me. ...

You do seem to generalize a lot from yor own anectdotes but basically that only tells something about your view."

So, at this point you had reduced the problem you didn't want to hear about to 'subjective preferences', stated your anecdote to stand for your reasoning (per a problem you don't understand: 4:7 needing to go out to 28 isn't it) and then went to tell me my reasoning is all about my anecdotes. Then you contradicted your own premise ('there is no necessary base') by granting that 'priming' was what made the new emphasis, and refused that there was this obvious contradiction. Finally, I know I'm being bullshitted. It's essentially dishonest. "Tentative" is not true, and where you granted the exception you reverted to the cherished first principle. That's the word I used, I expressed my frustration and your next move is to call me an aggressive piece of shit. For being patronizing. (Which is nonsensical.)

I'll be perfectly straight, your first post in that thread was irritating to me. It isn't like I don't realize I'm being assertive in my statement. I found that premise to be potentially misleading (to no good point) and as such a bad idea. I think the way you state things is the opposite of 'tentative', but overconfident and a mistaken assessment of how you've done. I rather stayed irritated, I could have on reflection been more charitable, but actually I really tried there. Check yourself for that.

I can call bullshit from a very stable state of mind. It would seem you'd understand this, but telling a story about the person you're arguing with's emotional state, or their emotional health typically means you're arguing from a weak standpoint. It's a case of arguing at the person, a tactic to pull them down to a more advantageous position.
You didn't like me in the 'sexist thread'? You want to speak for all of the people that are basically you in that they didn't like it? I understand why people are like that, and I'm not abashed about my part at all. I mean I can't even tell you how unmoved I am by that thought. (NB: appeal to the people fallacy) EDIT: Wait, I'm thinking about a thread about sexism in criticism of women composers. One of my better moments afaic if that's it. If you're thinking about my fights with Doug1978, that's even worse as a use case for your deal here. I don't have to take shit off of people. It seems like you feel I should be real docile or some shit. LOL.

[IncarnateX]

You still don't get it do you? Your behavior is aggressive (and paranoid too like in the above) and you try to counter this impression that I and others get with further aggressive behavior? I am reporting an impact you have on people. An impression may be false but this has nothing to do with lying. Your defences are childish. Make of it what you want and yes put it all on me if that makes the pain go away but my impression remains, not at least confirmed by your last three posts.

Have a nice day

[jancivil]

Wait, another lie is you telling us you tried to move away from the disagreement gracefully but I wouldn't let it go. That moment never happened. It was 'there is no use to continue' and then you mischaracterized my statements (I had lost you but you argued the point anyway), continuing to be argumentative.

What IS upsetting to me on a more emotional level is you telling me how I am. The whole sound of that is arrogant and for whatever reason kind of pisses me off. There is no sign of me losing my cool in my first reply to you here, but you needed 'You seem to be upset again'. Manipulative much?

My identity is not especially tied to 'music theory'. if you must know, my assessment of myself as a musician is far more expansive. That's like telling a master chef their identity is too tied to their prowess in chopping vegetables. My assessment of myself vis a vis other people's thing is not mistaken. I fully recognize where another person has done better than I have at this or the other thing. The thing is, I have tested myself in a seriously competitive milieu. (I'm not falsely modest, I find that distasteful.) I've had to concede failure quite concretely and embrace the process and the result. Here, it occurs to me that you became quite upset by your idea not really being competitive, where you were so confident of really a not terrifically well thought-through thesis. If that remark seems tough, well here is the difference between your world and mine, I guess. Your assessment of how well you did on the test appears to be inaccurate.

I don't know if you have any business analyzing other people's psyche, you should check yourself and your own impulses and project less. I know who I am, I will come on strong. I come from a line of prosecutors, actually. When you see me get mean, my POV is that someone is bullshitting me, a lot of it outrageously. I think that you were is really clear if one examines it. I'm not perfect and I know I can have been more charitable than I was. But compared to you, I'm not that worried.

[D.H. Miltz]