We have scales but why??

[Trakstar]

the art of scartching

You're right, there's art in scartching. Not sure about scratching, though.

Yup , a new technique with the decks thats similar to "scratching" but doesnt exist because i made a dumb spelling mistake. Thanks for pointing that out, your powers of observation astound me.

Oh come on, it was just a lighthearted comment based no the fact that the typo incidentally included the segment "art". I didn't mean to offend. If it offended you, perhaps you should take some inspiration from Vurt's excellent ideas on how to approach this forum as posted earlier in this thread. But I get the idea, you don't like comments on your spelling. Note taken.


Oh, and sure, some posters may have used excessive force when contesting your posts, but if you swallow your pride and try to understand their arguments, you may actually get something useful out of the discussion. What looks like nitpicking may in fact be the pointing out of subtle but important points.

It was kind of a sarcastic answer that was meant to be funny, thus the funny faces. No hard feelings were meant, I dont even get upset over this, its only a forum when all is said and done. The spelling mistakes are due to a computer keyboard I am using that has the most ridiculous keys to press which feel like they have springs attached to them. The problem is the way people answer you, and then make formal accusations like "you only have a passing familiarity" or " you are only trying to show off and make yourself look big". It seems trying to get or receive an intelligent answer is sometimes beyond reason because people are too busy trying to show they are the most Intelligent person by using the longest words they can think of, or only selecting the few things wrong with a statement rather than focus on all the things that are right, Nitpicking like you say. No, the day i get into a futile vain argument on whose got the most IQ on an internet forum where you dont even know who you are speaking to is the day I shall stop making music altogether and call it a day. Twas only yesterday where a forum was started by the same person signed in with two identities, the other being a sock puppet. He was asking the question and then adding his own replies further down. Meffy caught up with it and banned the sock puppet one, just shows how strange some people really are. You never know, could be talking to 3 people but theyre all the same one. Yeah, Ill learn from my mistakes and think twice before ever trying to help on a forum where I dont know everything about the subject and my "simple person" answers do not pass the all seeing Audio geeks eyes that are quick to swoop down and let you know just how wrong you were in a really childish way. Peace and goodwill to all men I suppose.
trakstar.
PS_ I dont think you need to use "Excessive force" as you put it, Its an internet forum not a University debate or Mastermind competition

[Trakstar]

The above comments are against nobody in particular, so please dont nobody take offence. I wish to bow out of this forum gracefully. If you think the above is intended to offend and offends you personally, it is not intended so my uttermost apologies in advance. Im only human and I have feelings, just as I hope some of the other KVR people will, and from now on I will do my uttermost to respect and be as civil as possible. If on the other hand you like to treat people like they crawled out of the nearest toilet, please ignore this post and apply the mute button for my username so as to avoid any further inconveniences on my behalf. Again my sincerest apologies, If Mr or Miss Jan Civil feels the comments are towards him or her, they are not. I shall indeed endeavour to read through this forum again and study the detailed replies I received from the different individuals, and take notes upon their suggestions and work towards correcting the lack of musical knowledge of various cultures, history and the beginnings of the foundation of music through out the known hemisphere that I am lacking therein.
Trackstar

[Trakstar]

Some interesting reading Ive been doing, surprised nobody mentioned him earlier. Noticeably, to do with natural frequencies or Nodal lines within metal plates (harmonic frequencies I think). The resonating frequencies would reveal their natural vibrating waveforms when the metal plates were bowed while sand covered the top of the plate. Apparently named the father of acoustics, he invented several musical instruments from the above theories of sound which included filling glasses with different amounts of beer and using the resultant sound compositions for church music. Fascinating if your into this kind of thing. Someone has desribed it as natural patterns hidden deep within each object until the sounds or frequencies are revealed by some form of application. Similar to geometric patterns which are found in snowflakes, very interesting.

Chladni plates




One of Chladni's best-known achievements was inventing a technique to show the various modes of vibration of a rigid surface. A plate or membrane vibrating at resonance is divided into regions vibrating in opposite directions, bounded by lines of zero vibration called nodal lines. Chladni repeated the pioneering experiments of Robert Hooke of Oxford University who, on July 8, 1680, had observed the nodal patterns associated with the vibrations of glass plates. Hooke ran a bow along the edge of a plate covered with flour, and saw the nodal patterns emerge.[7][8]
Chladni's technique, first published in 1787 in his book, Entdeckungen über die Theorie des Klanges ("Discoveries in the Theory of Sound"), consisted of drawing a bow over a piece of metal whose surface was lightly covered with sand. The plate was bowed until it reached resonance, when the vibration causes the sand to move and concentrate along the nodal lines where the surface is still, outlining the nodal lines
Variations of this technique are still commonly used in the design and construction of acoustic instruments such as violins, guitars, and cellos. Since the 20th century it has become more common to place a loudspeaker driven by an electronic signal generator over or under the plate to achieve a more accurate adjustable frequency.
[edit]Musical instruments

Since at least 1738, a musical instrument called a "Glassspiel" or "Verillon" created by filling 18 beer glasses with varying amounts of water was popular in Europe.[9] The beer glasses would be struck by wooden mallets shaped like spoons to produce "church and other solemn music".[10] Benjamin Franklin was sufficiently impressed by a verillon performance on a visit to London in 1757 that he created his own instrument, the "armonica" in 1762.
Franklin's armonica inspired several other instruments, including two created by Chladni. In 1791, Chladni invented the musical instrument called "Euphon" (not to be confused with the brass instrument euphonium), consisting of glass rods of different pitches. Chladni's euphon is the direct ancestor of the modern day musical instrument known as the Cristal Baschet.[11] Chladni also improved on the Hooke "musical cylinder" to produce another instrument, the "Clavicylinder", in 1799.[7][8][10]
Chladni travelled throughout Europe with his instruments giving demonstrations.[6]

trakstar

[JumpingJackFlash]

which is why ancient instruments still follow "modern" scale and intervals.

Not completely accurate. You won't find any medieval instruments tuned the same way as our modern piano for example.

Which is also why you don't have to know a thing about wavelengths to know when someone can't sing in tune.

And just what is "in tune"? - Is a pure major third in tune, or is an equal-tempered major third in tune?


In actual fact, we will never know the true origins of the pitch system we use (and have always used) in the West. The stuff about Pythagoras was a legend even to the ancient Greeks, written long after he was dead. Certainly we now know that music corresponding to our pitch system existed centuries before Pythagoras.

A lot of stuff that people have "deduced" in recent times has very little to do with history. They are just rationalisations, designed to show that our musical system is "natural". - Maybe it is to some degree, but often this involves gross oversimplification.

People evidently had some internal grasp of our pitch set for as far back into musical history as is possible to go (three and a half thousand years ago). Of course, the way people organise those pitches has changed significantly throughout that time.

[chj]

Certainly we now know that music corresponding to our pitch system existed centuries before Pythagoras.

People evidently had some internal grasp of our pitch set for as far back into musical history as is possible to go (three and a half million years ago)

Could be because the ratio of wavelengths at certain intervals was the same three and a half million years ago. Just a thought.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Could be because the ratio of wavelengths at certain intervals was the same three and a half million years ago. Just a thought.

But did people know that at the time?

[Doug1978]

Probably best to ask Lucy or Ardi.

[Tricky-Loops]

Could be because the ratio of wavelengths at certain intervals was the same three and a half million years ago. Just a thought.

But did people know that at the time?

The question is: Is the sense of (musical) harmony congenital, or is it acquired during education?

And why in the Arabian world what we would call disharmony is perceived as harmony?

So does it depend on the culture?

[chj]

Could be because the ratio of wavelengths at certain intervals was the same three and a half million years ago. Just a thought.

But did people know that at the time?

A baby recognizes music vs. noise. Notice their reaction, they often even try to "sing" or "dance". They know nothing about wavelengths. When a caveman wanted to sing along with a cavewoman but couldn't sing as high, he sang an octave below. He had no idea his wavelengths were twice as long as hers, he just knew it sounded right. Why? Because of the physics. Another, more talented caveman started harmonizing and got laid. Both cavemen went hunting and threw spears the next day. They hit their targets according to the laws of physics without ever taking a physics class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics

[NKF]

that doesn't account for why we prefer say a raised leading tone and a flat tone that resolves down. We often prefer things that aren't perfect which makes those natural laws of ratios somewhat problematic. I remember a study done at Mcgill using intervals where people preferred the adjusted intervals rather than the perfect ratios. Appreciation and interpretation is cultural and learned. I think there is a component based in physics but it is drenched in human baggage. We also consider the 7th 11th 13 and 14 harmonic out of tune.

YOu mentioned babies which is also interesting. They tend to prefer music they were subject to in the womb. Indian children tend to enjoy their modes and are more open to dissonance. SO clearly, it isn't just physics at work.

[JumpingJackFlash]

When a caveman wanted to sing along with a cavewoman but couldn't sing as high, he sang an octave below. He had no idea his wavelengths were twice as long as hers, he just knew it sounded right. Why? Because of the physics. Another, more talented caveman started harmonizing and got laid.

That might explain the octave, but why in the west has the octave always been divided up into 7 different basic notes? Why not 5 or 15? - That's just one example.

In retrospect, we can hazard a guess, but people at the time did not think of things the way we do so you end up with a historical fallacy.

[NKF]

When a caveman wanted to sing along with a cavewoman but couldn't sing as high, he sang an octave below. He had no idea his wavelengths were twice as long as hers, he just knew it sounded right. Why? Because of the physics. Another, more talented caveman started harmonizing and got laid.

That might explain the octave, but why in the west has the octave always been divided up into 7 different basic notes? Why not 5 or 12? - That's just one example.

In retrospect, we can hazard a guess, but people at the time did not think of things the way we do so you end up with a historical fallacy.

it explains all the intervals in theory but it practice, it doesn't quite work that way. Like most things, there is a nature nurture component.

[herodotus]

You know, I really don't hang out here enough these days.

KVR at its best is just about the most amusing place on the interwebs.

[jopy]

YOu mentioned babies which is also interesting. They tend to prefer music they were subject to in the womb. Indian children tend to enjoy their modes and are more open to dissonance.

do you actually have any research to support this claim? i ask because most studies suggest infants can adapt to and recognize the sounds of just about any language until they turn one or two years old, at which point their preferences for their native language kick in. i would have assumed that the same would hold for music, but i don't honestly know of any research one way or the other that would address this issue.

[egbert]

Could be because the ratio of wavelengths at certain intervals was the same three and a half million years ago. Just a thought.

But did people know that at the time?

They didn't need to know about the numbers - when you have a consonant sounding interval the interference pattern is simpler (less chaotic) than with a dissonant interval and this is something you can feel. Naive singers attempting to sing along with others will sing an octave higher or lower (to put the tune in their own vocal range) without even realising they are doing it.

You can demonstrate this stuff about interference patterns visually with motorised devices which disturb the surface of a water tank rhythmically - put the two devices at frequencies with integer ratios eg F and 2F, or F and 3F, or F and 1.5F and you see one kind of interference patter - orderly. Put them at F and 1.437F and - not so much. Your hearing apparatus depends on things (hair cells in your cochlea) vibrating in sympathy with incoming variations in air pressure. It seems that what we sense subjectively as consonance has a connection to objective ratios of frequencies.