why do our scales have seven notes?? and not 8, 9, 10 or 11?

[jancivil]

Well this is indeed fun but why do you bother Jancivil? To me it is quite easy.
First of all, like we already has agreed upon, the very premise for a discussion like this is highly questionable, namely that somehow unknown forces of math dictates the use of 7 note scale beyond human history , culture, inventions of instruments, aesthetics etc.

Secondly: If we are accepting the premise after all, it is quite obvious that AD wouldn't be able to distinguish conjecture from a mathematical proof even if the former was a puddle pissing up his leg and the latter a rottweiler attached to his ass.

I am not even sure that AD understands your arguments, because I am not sure whether he really understands his own.

Anyway, AD has gone home and it doesn't seems like he will come back to play. I enjoy reading your arguments, but you are probably waisting your breath here. Just saying

It isn't about persuading this guy. It's just, I enjoy this.

He did this exact sort of thing pretending to explain melody once before. It's completely clueless, someone trying to suss music from a standpoint of obviously no real involvement with music. Trying to reduce it so extremely and with a pseudo-math? It offends me, it's a thing.

It's about destroying that. This is for me what watching television I guess is for someone more normal. He really stinks up the joint every time he wanders in. He's enjoying his own brand but I want to 86 him.

[IncarnateX]

This is for me what watching television I guess is for someone more normal.

Well if you are okay with it all, I' ll stick around too with a pile popcorn ready if he returns.

He really stinks up the joint every time he wanders in.

Please don't blame Mary Huanna. I have had an intense relation with her since I was 14 and yet I am a researcher with a degree in psychology and a general love and deep respect for science. It is who you are that matters, not what you smoke

[JumpingJackFlash]

(but I can imagine what people are coming out with).

No you can't

Seems I predicted quite well actually.

it's evolution.

So at some point in history previous scales mutated into the 7-notes scale...

Essentially, yes.

and became dominant through natural selection because they increased the organism's chance for survival?

I meant evolution in the general sense rather than the biological (which I thought was obvious from context).

What you're proposing would be like trying to explain the English language by means of a biological look at the parts of the mouth and throat - an exercise in futility.

And the language model is the one you should be looking at. Music (in practice) is not an exact science, it is a product of culture.

[jancivil]

He really stinks up the joint every time he wanders in.

Please don't blame Mary Huanna. I have had an intense relation with her since I was 14 and yet I am a researcher with a degree in psychology and a general love and deep respect for science. It is who you are that matters, not what you smoke

My reference to aroma is placed with his flatulence and his attachment to it.

[IncarnateX]

(but I can imagine what people are coming out with).

No you can't

Seems I predicted quite well actually.

it's evolution.

So at some point in history previous scales mutated into the 7-notes scale...

Essentially, yes.

and became dominant through natural selection because they increased the organism's chance for survival?

I meant evolution in the general sense rather than the biological (which I thought was obvious from context).

What you're proposing would be like trying to explain the English language by means of a biological look at the parts of the mouth and throat - an exercise in futility.

And the language model is the one you should be looking at. Music is not an exact science.

Mutating scales? Predictions that you have presented where in this thread? And where did I claim music was an exact science? If you really want to appear a little wiser than a piece of plywood, you really have to do better than this drive-by-aim-and-miss shit. At least do not take words in your mouth like evolution, if that is not what is meant.

Cheers

[fluffy_little_something]

Interesting question, I don't know much about music theory. We learned it all at school, but as with physics, maths, etc. nobody explained why things are the way they are.

Maybe it has something to do with the frequency resolution of the human ear (and voice). Since that resolution also decides on the number of keys, frets etc. an instrument must have, too big intervals might lead to primitive music, too small intervals might be too difficult to play because of the size of our fingers.

Thus, I think it is just arbitrary, a historical compromise.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Mutating scales?

That was your word, not mine.
But as an interesting aside; "mutation" is indeed what it was called when medieval singers moved from one hexachord to another.

If you really want to appear a little wiser than a piece of plywood, you really have to do better than this drive-by-aim-and-miss shit. At least do not take words in your mouth like evolution, if that is not what is meant.

Obviously you are unaware that the word "evolution" has multiple definitions.
One of which, "the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form" is completely appropriate to what we are talking about.

I could happily go into more detail, but you've already decided not to listen.
And I'd be careful about hurling insults if I were you. I suspect my musical credentials are a little more impressive than yours.

Cheers

You're welcome.

[jancivil]

Interesting question, I don't know much about music theory. We learned it all at school, but as with physics, maths, etc. nobody explained why things are the way they are.

Maybe it has something to do with the frequency resolution of the human ear (and voice). Since that resolution also decides on the number of keys, frets etc. an instrument must have, too big intervals might lead to primitive music, too small intervals might be too difficult to play because of the size of our fingers.

Thus, I think it is just arbitrary, a historical compromise.

No, here are a couple of bad premises and the problem is found right away in the statement of them.

The resolution of the human ear determined what instrument? Do you actually believe that 'the human ear' is limited to perceiving 12 in an octave? I have felt I HAD TO correct a pitch problem of around a twentieth of a cent. I used to bother myself with trying to conceive instruments with more than twelve tones.

So if we looked around us past a certain substrata of western european-derived musical activity, we will find choices that don't reflect that, that are people doing things to suit an ear/a taste that's very very different. Gamelan, the instruments in that constructed for a quite different result, a certain applied acoustical physics involved. I would say, in kind of summation of what I really want to demonstrate here, is that choices for these things come out of ideas. Seven enjoys a certain popularity evidently, but I believe it is not reducable to a glib determinism nor is there anything arbitrary about choice.

I have a friend, Hansford Rowe [Gong] that plays a [Warwick] bass made for just intonation. His hands are kind of large if you ask me. 59 different notes.

http://www.hansfordrowe.com/just.html

[IncarnateX]

That was your word, not mine.

Yes to which you replied "essentially, yes". Now used in my context, there shóuld not be any doubt about my meaning of the word, so why affirmative?

Obviously you are unaware that the word "evolution" has multiple definitions.

Obviously you have not predicted this thread very well or you would have chosen a lesser ambigious expression then, given the discussions around here.

And I'd be careful about hurling insults if I were you. I suspect my musical credentials are a little more impressive than yours.

Really? Well in that case I must stop my insults or else.......???

Anyway, Just pulling your leg and I certainly did not want to hurt you. But it seems kind of , well, a bit vulgar to drive by and pretend that you have solved this whole deal, when your statements (not to be confused with arguments) basically have been argued for and elaborated very thouroughly by others. You are not adding anything not already said. Apart from that, I think most of us agree about the development of musical scales.

[jancivil]

I didn't much like the jumping in on pg 8 of a fairly verbose discussion and essentially saying 'I predicted all this' either.

[fluffy_little_something]

Interesting question, I don't know much about music theory. We learned it all at school, but as with physics, maths, etc. nobody explained why things are the way they are.

Maybe it has something to do with the frequency resolution of the human ear (and voice). Since that resolution also decides on the number of keys, frets etc. an instrument must have, too big intervals might lead to primitive music, too small intervals might be too difficult to play because of the size of our fingers.

Thus, I think it is just arbitrary, a historical compromise.

No, here are a couple of bad premises and the problem is found right away in the statement of them.

The resolution of the human ear determined what instrument? Do you actually believe that 'the human ear' is limited to perceiving 12 in an octave? I have felt I HAD TO correct a pitch problem of around a twentieth of a cent. I used to bother myself with trying to conceive instruments with more than twelve tones.

So if we looked around us past a certain substrata of western european-derived musical activity, we will find choices that don't reflect that, that are people doing things to suit an ear/a taste that's very very different. Gamelan, the instruments in that constructed for a quite different result, a certain applied acoustical physics involved. I would say, in kind of summation of what I really want to demonstrate here, is that choices for these things come out of ideas. Seven enjoys a certain popularity evidently, but I believe it is not reducable to a glib determinism nor is there anything arbitrary about choice.

I have a friend, Hansford Rowe [Gong] that plays a [Warwick] bass made for just intonation. His hands are kind of large if you ask me. 59 different notes.

http://www.hansfordrowe.com/just.html

I mean resolution in a practical way. Of course we hear much better than those few notes, that is why most people hear when an instrument is out of tune. Still, singers know how difficult it can be to hit just one of those 12 notes right. Just imagine there were 48 in an octave.
I guess our musical listening was largely influenced by our voices, the voice was the first instrument.

[IncarnateX]

He really stinks up the joint every time he wanders in.

Please don't blame Mary Huanna. I have had an intense relation with her since I was 14 and yet I am a researcher with a degree in psychology and a general love and deep respect for science. It is who you are that matters, not what you smoke

My reference to aroma is placed with his flatulence and his attachment to it.

Oh...then Mary is safe and everything is cool

Cheers mate

[JumpingJackFlash]

it seems kind of , well, a bit vulgar to drive by and pretend that you have solved this whole deal, when your statements (not to be confused with arguments) basically have been argued for and elaborated very thouroughly by others.

Well, as I said, I hadn't read the entire thread.
These kind of things annoy me too much, invariably full of people whose knowledge is limited to what they can watch on Youtube or read on Wikipedia, all too eager to pass their misunderstandings onto others, but seldom willing to listen.

What I said was factually true. The 7-note scale developed over centuries. It was not invented in a laboratory.

I realise that is a simple statement, but entire books have been written on the subject (which anyone interested should seek out). You won't get to the bottom of it on a forum post.

"Explaining" its development using mathematics would be like "explaining" art, language, or other organic developments using mathematics.

In other words, make sure you've got the right tree before you start barking

[IncarnateX]

These kind of things annoy me too much, invariably full of people whose knowledge is limited to what they can watch on Youtube or read on Wikipedia, all too eager to pass their misunderstandings onto others, but seldom willing to listen.

Well if you had read the thread, you would know that there are competent people around who have already explained the whole deal and who do not fall under this characteristic.

And as far as I concern, I knew what you meant from the start but not like the pretentious way you said it and therefore I pulled your leg. So basically it was not the content -I agree to that- of what you said but the way it was said.

Let us put it to sleep. No real offense meant and none taken as far as I am concerned

[jancivil]

These kind of things annoy me too much, invariably full of people whose knowledge is limited to what they can watch on Youtube or read on Wikipedia, all too eager to pass their misunderstandings onto others, but seldom willing to listen.

Well, tappermike [who has actually tossed a wiki link to 'voice leading' as if for support for his definition, showing he actually had something authoritative telling him what we had, in that fiasco.] limited his participation to calling people disagreeing with the idiotic posturings of aciddose 'Mall security rats' that are easily dismissable as our only goal is defending the status quo. aciddose, who tossed a wiki link (to a page I created part of) at me to show I couldn't have possibly any experience with intonation. So if you're inclined to feel you know what happened from a couple of the latter pages, there's some context.

As far as your conclusion, I think this thread kind of does suss the matter.