On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 10:38 +0800, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 20:41 -0400, Ricardus Vincente wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 17:34 -0700, Bob van der Poel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Opps ... sometimes I do type faster than my brain works. Of course I
> >> > meant to say that c e g would be G Major :)
> >>
> >> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
> >>
> >
> > Well, another chord we name it different here ;), but don't worry,
> > everybody should understand what app you wish to get.
> >
> One which automatically transposes C to G =). Or, alternatively, that
> recognizes a Gsus.
Serious, is there a command line tool or a GUI based tool that
"calculates" cords?
OT: At least I should fire up Qtractor now, but I'm still short in time.
FWIW I don't care, I only know that the OP is mistaken, because I teach
music and the pupils wished to know about theory. For "God's sake", in
Germany we also have a "theory of harmony" regarding to it's
functionality, e.g. c d# f# a is a symmetrical cord. Nobody cares about
it's name, but we care a lot about the emotions people listening to this
cord.
Computers exist because of something called the 'Digital abstraction':
How to make a complex messy 'real' thing like voltage into a neat-n-clean 'logical' 0-or-1.
See
http://6004.csail.mit.edu/Fall01/handouts/L02-1up.pdf
Musical theory is likewise: Where to put your hands on a guitar or violin or piano is very different. Musical theory gives an abstract frame where something essential common to these differences is distilled out.
The question is not so much whether that abstraction is useful so much as is it faithful.
I recently got into an argument (on the python list so more OT there than here :-) ) about whether a B# is the same as C.
They are different pointers to the same acoustic phenomenon. Which can be useful to have in one context and confusing in another one.
If we allow that they may not always be the same then we have a case where the theory-of-musical-harmony (may be) breaking.
Reminds me of Heisenbergs observation about speed and/or location of particles.
Every question I ask about the world hides a question about my thinking. So for me there's not much wrong with theories that help me structure my thoughts about one phenomenon but fail on a different one. The only value they can have is that of their application.
OTOH: for me most theoretical models are dangerous if not useless without minimal knowledge of their history and how they used to be applied. And that's quite a lot to learn from my perspective, so wanting to discard them altogether looks like an obvious idea to have.
I am nor sure if that would work though. IMO it takes a whole lot of knowledge to forget them, as they usually describe much of the listeners expectations within an individual style. As difficult listening without expectations may be, playing that way seems next to impossible for me.
It's the listening ear that turns sound into music.
That's my perspective. Feel free to find it as weird as I do.
Since I'm a guitarist most of the chords I prefer are named insane.
Jimi Hendrix: Eb(no 3rd), Aadd9 and the sharp ninth, E7#9. Set to the
situational context I simply name "E7#9" "E major", so a simple blues
gets "Voodoo Chile"-quality.
However, as long as we don't try to get a certificate from an academy,
the names of cords are completely irrelevant.
It's bullshit, nobody needs to know. For a gig we need to know what
emotion should be transmitted, so we only need scripts that remind us to
the basics, such as C or C-. If the cord is a 7, major or minor etc.
shouldn't matter.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user