About standing in key
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
good, thanks
Since this is now officially about anything I would like actually to go into meantone temperament (and other things).
The idea is from Pythagorean basics, you construct your gamut via multiplying the Perfect Fifth and since this ratio [3:2] contains the number 3 it geometrically never agrees with 2:1/the octave, there are measures taken to correct the result to get something useful fit in an octave and thereby replicated coherently.
There's a good Wiki, and I like the clarity of this statement from it:
"Meantone" can receive the following equivalent definitions:
: The meantone is the geometric mean between the major whole tone (9:8 in just intonation) and the minor whole tone (10:9 in just intonation).
: The meantone is the mean of its major third (for instance the square root of 5:4 in quarter-comma meantone).
To focus on definition number 1:
The difference between 10:9 and 9:8 is 81:80, known as the syntonic comma.
I came to this probably first through a Hindu convert, Alain Danielou's theories on intonation in Hindustani music. The perfect fifth, being perfect and all, is desirable per se. So while all of this intonation serves linear, melodic music with no real harmony added, the idea here is to obtain that concord where it's absent in a 12 note octave.
To wit:
1:1; next up is your semitone which is one of two ideas: 256:243 or 16:15. Difference is the syntonic comma.
Next, your tone: 10:9 is the minor tone, 9:8 is the major tone.
Here's my account of this theory at the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_into ... ian_scales
(this is a 22 to the octave system; every note has a sister except 1:1 and 3:2, which is an aesthetic preference)
But by this system each tone has a 3:2 (or inverted 3:4) concord available. I won't waste a lot more space, have a look at the chart if interested.
There is only one, consistent note name given to the pairs in the chart as it stands now. There is no pressing need to do more because of the context (the names are not letter names in that music anyway).
But let's talk about spellings now in order to clarify the waters muddied by bringing this in.
The two 'minor seconds' or semitone from the fundamental or tonic, let's just use C for the basis: you could call the one closer to home 'Db' and the other 'C#', you could. Is this diatonic system? Maybe it is. Maybe this is chromatic; depends on what happens.
The thing is here is that there are two schools of thought as to the musical meanings.
One, which to me makes sense easily, is that in descending by the semitone the flat is used. Db to C. Ascending, C# is say a leading tone (by definition/in the original key or secondarily) to D, this too makes sense to me.
HOWEVER, apparently there is a whole school of pedagogy for [western/classical] stringed instruments where it's the other way around. I had an allergic reaction to this and haven't delved into it.
But this changes spellings in key not at all. So the statement bringing this in, a temperament on the way to forming the diatonic system as though that argues against normal alteration, only begs its own question.
For example, let's say you have C# as a secondary leading tone to D from the key of C. Probably a secondary dominant, A C# E or C# E G, like that. It is not expansive, and there is no question of its musical meaning or its spelling.
If we get seriously chromatic, we may get into ambiguity, but the ambiguity itself is a product of having a coherent system where signs have meaning.
It's easier for me to come up with a jazz example of this: let's say you have a dominant seventh type of chord and have thought an extension for your purposes as #9. A typical move now in its resolution is to move that part to b9. Let's have a look, we're headed to A so E7#9 has Fx. E G# D Fx. Fx to F now. But we're part-writing, why not just say G to F, the G# notwithstanding and the chord name notwithstanding because of the idea to write linearly.
ALSO TOO! Is it not what we call from modern '20th century music' practice a major/minor chord? Blues music theory too.
This is a whole new ballgame. And these spellings may be objected to pedantically, but one thing you can't escape is the recognition that the spelling has a real point musically. It's not up for grabs, it never is. That's that postmodern crap all over again.
Since this is now officially about anything I would like actually to go into meantone temperament (and other things).
The idea is from Pythagorean basics, you construct your gamut via multiplying the Perfect Fifth and since this ratio [3:2] contains the number 3 it geometrically never agrees with 2:1/the octave, there are measures taken to correct the result to get something useful fit in an octave and thereby replicated coherently.
There's a good Wiki, and I like the clarity of this statement from it:
"Meantone" can receive the following equivalent definitions:
: The meantone is the geometric mean between the major whole tone (9:8 in just intonation) and the minor whole tone (10:9 in just intonation).
: The meantone is the mean of its major third (for instance the square root of 5:4 in quarter-comma meantone).
To focus on definition number 1:
The difference between 10:9 and 9:8 is 81:80, known as the syntonic comma.
I came to this probably first through a Hindu convert, Alain Danielou's theories on intonation in Hindustani music. The perfect fifth, being perfect and all, is desirable per se. So while all of this intonation serves linear, melodic music with no real harmony added, the idea here is to obtain that concord where it's absent in a 12 note octave.
To wit:
1:1; next up is your semitone which is one of two ideas: 256:243 or 16:15. Difference is the syntonic comma.
Next, your tone: 10:9 is the minor tone, 9:8 is the major tone.
Here's my account of this theory at the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_into ... ian_scales
(this is a 22 to the octave system; every note has a sister except 1:1 and 3:2, which is an aesthetic preference)
But by this system each tone has a 3:2 (or inverted 3:4) concord available. I won't waste a lot more space, have a look at the chart if interested.
There is only one, consistent note name given to the pairs in the chart as it stands now. There is no pressing need to do more because of the context (the names are not letter names in that music anyway).
But let's talk about spellings now in order to clarify the waters muddied by bringing this in.
The two 'minor seconds' or semitone from the fundamental or tonic, let's just use C for the basis: you could call the one closer to home 'Db' and the other 'C#', you could. Is this diatonic system? Maybe it is. Maybe this is chromatic; depends on what happens.
The thing is here is that there are two schools of thought as to the musical meanings.
One, which to me makes sense easily, is that in descending by the semitone the flat is used. Db to C. Ascending, C# is say a leading tone (by definition/in the original key or secondarily) to D, this too makes sense to me.
HOWEVER, apparently there is a whole school of pedagogy for [western/classical] stringed instruments where it's the other way around. I had an allergic reaction to this and haven't delved into it.
But this changes spellings in key not at all. So the statement bringing this in, a temperament on the way to forming the diatonic system as though that argues against normal alteration, only begs its own question.
For example, let's say you have C# as a secondary leading tone to D from the key of C. Probably a secondary dominant, A C# E or C# E G, like that. It is not expansive, and there is no question of its musical meaning or its spelling.
If we get seriously chromatic, we may get into ambiguity, but the ambiguity itself is a product of having a coherent system where signs have meaning.
It's easier for me to come up with a jazz example of this: let's say you have a dominant seventh type of chord and have thought an extension for your purposes as #9. A typical move now in its resolution is to move that part to b9. Let's have a look, we're headed to A so E7#9 has Fx. E G# D Fx. Fx to F now. But we're part-writing, why not just say G to F, the G# notwithstanding and the chord name notwithstanding because of the idea to write linearly.
ALSO TOO! Is it not what we call from modern '20th century music' practice a major/minor chord? Blues music theory too.
This is a whole new ballgame. And these spellings may be objected to pedantically, but one thing you can't escape is the recognition that the spelling has a real point musically. It's not up for grabs, it never is. That's that postmodern crap all over again.
Last edited by jancivil on Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
- Rad Grandad
- 38041 posts since 6 Sep, 2003 from Downeast Maine
if you dont have anything positive to offer please just stay out of the thread, there are people here who see it much different and do really appreciate the time people put into sharing their knowledge here.
The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose‐larger‐than‐the‐self kind of understanding.
-
- KVRAF
- 16798 posts since 8 Mar, 2005 from Utrecht, Holland
Well, imho this thread went more like:
Q: one plus one is two, right?
A: yes, but one times one is still one.
B: the square root of one is also one. And minus one times minus one is also one.
A: but you cannot have the square root of minus one.
Q: thanks guys! (not what I asked)
B: but if you take irrational numbers, you can have the square root of minus one
A: how will that ever help to prove the Hoffman theorem?
Q: one plus one is two, right?
A: yes, but one times one is still one.
B: the square root of one is also one. And minus one times minus one is also one.
A: but you cannot have the square root of minus one.
Q: thanks guys! (not what I asked)
B: but if you take irrational numbers, you can have the square root of minus one
A: how will that ever help to prove the Hoffman theorem?
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. 
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
-
- KVRAF
- 11162 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal
Which one is you?BertKoor wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:46 pm Well, imho this thread went more like:
Q: one plus one is two, right?
A: yes, but one times one is still one.
B: the square root of one is also one. And minus one times minus one is also one.
A: but you cannot have the square root of minus one.
Q: thanks guys! (not what I asked)
B: but if you take irrational numbers, you can have the square root of minus one
A: how will that ever help to prove the Hoffman theorem?
Fernando (FMR)
-
- KVRAF
- 5440 posts since 4 Aug, 2006 from Helsinki
Pls dont mix me with this kind of attitude. I'm a honest fan.Hink wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:08 pmif you dont have anything positive to offer please just stay out of the thread, there are people here who see it much different and do really appreciate the time people put into sharing their knowledge here.
-
- Rad Grandad
- 38041 posts since 6 Sep, 2003 from Downeast Maine
no worries
The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose‐larger‐than‐the‐self kind of understanding.
-
- KVRAF
- 5440 posts since 4 Aug, 2006 from Helsinki
Yes, I worry a bit, when that kind of feedback is under my quoted comment, someone might get it wrong. Its easy to edit the quota and leave only the necessary part of it.
-
- KVRAF
- 16798 posts since 8 Mar, 2005 from Utrecht, Holland
You have to ask, which is good since I left myself out of the short version.fmr wrote:which one is you
what I wrote could have happened. He did come back. You missed that?jancivil wrote:Second iteration of Q never hsppened
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
-
- KVRAF
- 2772 posts since 28 Mar, 2007
I apologize if I caused any offense, I have deleted my post. For the record, I was upset at the way a poster was vilified in this thread.Hink wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:08 pmif you dont have anything positive to offer please just stay out of the thread, there are people here who see it much different and do really appreciate the time people put into sharing their knowledge here.
-
- KVRAF
- 11162 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal
Of courseBertKoor wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:02 amYou have to ask, which is good since I left myself out of the short version.fmr wrote:which one is you?
Fernando (FMR)
-
- KVRAF
- 5440 posts since 4 Aug, 2006 from Helsinki
Which poster you are referring to?dellboy wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:07 amI apologize if I caused any offense, I have deleted my post. For the record, I was upset at the way a poster was vilified in this thread.Hink wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:08 pmif you dont have anything positive to offer please just stay out of the thread, there are people here who see it much different and do really appreciate the time people put into sharing their knowledge here.
The only slanderer I have noticed in this thread is you.
-
- KVRAF
- 2772 posts since 28 Mar, 2007
I slandered someone ?Harry_HH wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:59 am
Which poster you are referring to?
The only slanderer I have noticed in this thread is you.
How can you slander music theory ?
-
- Banned
- 3946 posts since 25 Jan, 2009
Hey. The tone here is not always pedagogical, I will give you that, but the poster who was spanked has spread completely bull in two threads now, without listening to corrections. Thus, we are in streams of misinfo that serve no one with genuine interests in music theory any good. When e.g. I wrote “rubbish”, it is not personal really, but because it is the truth. If it was personal, I would not take time to explain myself. Music theory is holy ground to those care, easy to get emotional if people start spreading shit in insisting ways. Jan, fmr and I may have different degrees of annoyance in play but I think the base is the same.
On another note. About the Hoffman’s Theorem aka “you are obscure” , which visitors have told us in two threads now, I do dare to wonder what people are doing in a music theory thread, where they do not understand the language and apparently not ask us what it is about but just declare their distance to theory.
Case is, the best of these otherwise doomed threads to me is that I understand what Jan, fmr, cham and others say and I learn from ereas apart from my own. Music theory is too extensive to be inside one person’s head only, so it is an endlessly interesting subject, and we do come around many aspects to mutually learn from.
Finally, I do not give a fck about egocentric self promotion in this regard. My primary occupation is not composer nor teacher nor brass player and certainly not DJ either, thus I do not have issues of identity in play, I already have one. This is a hobby. A subject of my genuine interest. If I fck up, I take corrections without losing self-esteem, learn and move on.
On another note. About the Hoffman’s Theorem aka “you are obscure” , which visitors have told us in two threads now, I do dare to wonder what people are doing in a music theory thread, where they do not understand the language and apparently not ask us what it is about but just declare their distance to theory.
Case is, the best of these otherwise doomed threads to me is that I understand what Jan, fmr, cham and others say and I learn from ereas apart from my own. Music theory is too extensive to be inside one person’s head only, so it is an endlessly interesting subject, and we do come around many aspects to mutually learn from.
Finally, I do not give a fck about egocentric self promotion in this regard. My primary occupation is not composer nor teacher nor brass player and certainly not DJ either, thus I do not have issues of identity in play, I already have one. This is a hobby. A subject of my genuine interest. If I fck up, I take corrections without losing self-esteem, learn and move on.