15 Apr 16
Originally posted by KellyJayThumbs up for giving him extra points for "discombobulate".
I'm a great fan of irony, not hypotheticals so much but they do have their place in getting
points across. The bad thing is hypotheticals can also be far removed from the reality in
which they are being used in. One man's point of view they could be spot on and clearly
far removed from another's so they may not prove a point, but clearly be used to show ...[text shortened]... e attempting to use them.
You do receive extra points for using the word, "discombobulate" 🙂
15 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonhouseOh, yes. I had forgotten it. I saw it at work and I was going to wait until I got home because a lengthy reply sucks on a smartphone, and then I couldn't remember which thread I'd seen it in.
Suzianne, did you read my discourse on Reverse Polish notation buried in this thread?
While I understand the application of the physical preference for such a thing (I minored in music in school, and so I fully understood your explanation of the frets and the twelfth root of two, despite the fact that I am far from a math whiz), my main point about the RPN is that the structure of it seems totally arcane to me and there is no way I could keep the sequence of keypresses in my head as I do the problem because the RPN might as well be Polish to me. I do better with the parenthetical method because I already think of math in that way. Maybe it's a "girl" thing. There's a reason I went into Psych and music, STEM subjects tend to twist my head right off.
15 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneThat 12th root of 2 deal is only one way of making frets. I looked at the 18th root of 2 which is 1.039 and change and the inverse 0.9622 and after 18 iterations of that you get to the halfway point, one octave away. You can also do the 24th root of 2, which is 1.0293 and invert .97153 which after 24 interations also arrives at the halfway point.
Oh, yes. I had forgotten it. I saw it at work and I was going to wait until I got home because a lengthy reply sucks on a smartphone, and then I couldn't remember which thread I'd seen it in.
While I understand the application of the physical preference for such a thing (I minored in music in school, and so I fully understood your explanation of the fr ...[text shortened]... g. There's a reason I went into Psych and music, STEM subjects tend to twist my head right off.
Some people did the 43rd root of 2, which is 1.01625 and its invert .9840 which gives you 43 frets to the first octave. I never saw an actual instruments with 43 frets per octave, it seems it would be a sea of frets🙂
All of these notions are just approximations of scales, they are compromises that most people think sounds just fine, but really perfectly tuned scales are only good for one scale, say A flat or C but not both. So the well tempered scale approximates all of them so all scales sound more or less in tune.
In RPN, the higher the number of frets, the easier it is to find the solutions. One button push per solution as opposed to two or three for ( ) based math.\
Did I give you the myspace for my stuff? 4 of my acoustic compositions there.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
15 Apr 16
Originally posted by finneganI cannot imagine a talking cure being sufficient though it might just possibly be a useful adjunct.
There must be a pill for this. I cannot imagine a talking cure being sufficient though it might just possibly be a useful adjunct.
Perhaps in your mind' but a closer study will show it to be a more complete understanding.
Neh 8:8
So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.
NKJV
15 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonhouseRight, BUT the reason the twelfth root of two is perfect for frets is because that is the number for determining the half-tone, which is what one fret represents. If you use 18 or 24, you end up with a third-tone or a quarter-tone per fret, which, while it may be good for asian music, it's not so good for western music as our ear is used to the 12 half-tones per octave set-up. Not to mention, it would be a disaster for jazz, because certain modes would just not be possible. Can you imagine what Miles Davis or John Coltrane would've sounded like using an 18 or a 24 step octave? On the other hand, other modes we don't know about might be discovered, leading to a whole new paradigm.
That 12th root of 2 deal is only one way of making frets. I looked at the 18th root of 2 which is 1.039 and change and the inverse 0.9622 and after 18 iterations of that you get to the halfway point, one octave away. You can also do the 24th root of 2, which is 1.0293 and invert .97153 which after 24 interations also arrives at the halfway point.
Some peop ...[text shortened]... ) based math.\
Did I give you the myspace for my stuff? 4 of my acoustic compositions there.
43 frets per octave? Are you sure it wasn't the 42nd root of 2, using 42 frets per octave? To be a somewhat even division, the number should be divisible by 6, as there are 6 whole-steps per octave. 42 frets per octave would result in each fret representing a 1/7-tone. 43 would actually be something weird, like a 1/7.167-tone. At that point, you could forget about tuning, unless you had a frequency generator to produce exact tones. Ahh, but guitars tune on open strings anyways, so no worries, actually. 🙂
And yes, what you say about the well-tempered scale is totally true.
And see, I'm already thinking about all this from the performer's viewpoint, not the instrument-crafter's viewpoint. I'm on the other end of the stick, I don't care how it's made so much, as long as it sounds good. And besides, I can't see the wisdom of playing a piano with 3.5 times the number of keys (with seventh-tones). Even 1.5 times the number of keys, which I'd have with third-tones, would be too much. I have trouble doing an octave stretch right now (darn these small hands), forget doing it across 18 keys rather than 12.
15 Apr 16
Originally posted by SuzianneDo you play professionally? I think you mentioned woodwinds. That is another bag nothing like frets on a fretboard, just holes that have to be in the right place, I guess they can be built with tempered scales too. Here is 4 of my compositions on acoustic strings:
Right, BUT the reason the twelfth root of two is perfect for frets is because that is the number for determining the half-tone, which is what one fret represents. If you use 18 or 24, you end up with a third-tone or a quarter-tone per fret, which, while it may be good for asian music, it's not so good for western music as our ear is used to the 12 half-ton ...[text shortened]... ctave stretch right now (darn these small hands), forget doing it across 18 keys rather than 12.
Myspace.com/donjenningsguitar (all one word) Sorry if I already gave it to you.
BTW, it WAS 43 frets!
16 Apr 16
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseNo. Even though I have been paid on a few occasions for playing, I do not consider myself "a professional". And I am better at piano (keyboards) than the woodwinds, although I can sight read well with any woodwind except oboe.
Do you play professionally? I think you mentioned woodwinds. That is another bag nothing like frets on a fretboard, just holes that have to be in the right place, I guess they can be built with tempered scales too. Here is 4 of my compositions on acoustic strings:
Myspace.com/donjenningsguitar (all one word) Sorry if I already gave it to you.
BTW, it WAS 43 frets!
I've been thinking about this and the main issue I have with using more than 12 steps per octave is this issue with fractional tones. The music would not be recognizable to our ear. And chords would be tremendously difficult, if not impossible with anything except half-tones or quarter-tones. The intervals would be all wrong. It would just sound like you were playing way, way out of tune. And forget playing with any other instrument besides one made with exactly the same fractional tones. The dissonance would make you crazy. Tempered scales are one thing, but you can only "temper" the scales so much. Playing with fractional tones, you can just throw out everything you know about music theory and intervals and chord-making. It would be like having a conversation with someone on the phone who's speaking an entirely different language than you, one you do not know at all. And speaking of that, you'd have to develop a new notation, because the fractional tones would go way beyond the familiar sharps and flats. Imagine 7 steps between a C and a D, for example, for a 42 step octave (a 43 step octave is even worse, with 7.167 steps between the C and the D). Even for an 18 step octave, you'd have 3 steps between that C and that D. Compare this to the normal 2 steps between C and D on a regular 12 step octave. The difficulty, in playing and in listening, goes up with the number of steps per octave.
And keep in mind that making more steps per octave becomes more difficult for the simple reason that you have to cram more notes into the same space (unless you sacrifice range). You'd get to the point where the difference in location for a key (on a woodwind) or a fret (on a guitar) is smaller than the size of a key or fret. Instruments like pianos get around this by having a separate string for each note. But still, you'd run into the problem where a piano with 18 steps per octave would need 132 keys (compared to the standard 88) to have the same range, making the keyboard 1.5 times bigger. And that's just third-tones. Imagine an instrument using seventh-tones. The keyboard would be 3.5 times longer than a standard piano keyboard, with 3.5 times as many strings. I mean, it's cool to use the theory as a thought experiment, but creating these various instruments becomes a technical nightmare, if it can be done at all.
16 Apr 16
The post that was quoted here has been removedBelieve me, I did not mean to 'poke' your sacred cow.
You should know by now that Americans tend to speak with a liberal use of hyperbole.
I majored in psych, so I do have some fluency in "science". But "technical", "engineering" and "mathematics" are not my strong points. Even so, I did teach myself enough Pascal to be able to write "door" programs for the old-style BBS systems. I don't have much aptitude for it, though, and if I had to do it for a living, I'd starve.
But spare me your mantra that "women can do anything". I KNOW they can. I'm just not used to people picking apart my every thought, and so when I am speaking colloquially, I'm not exactly careful to be 100% exact, 100% of the time. Believe me, if I'd known you were peeking over my shoulder, I never would have said that in a million years. 😞
16 Apr 16
The post that was quoted here has been removedThat said, there still is a discrepancy in pay, females have always lagged behind women in pay even if they are superior at their jobs. Seems the odds are stacked against women in several ways, culturally and financially.
Did you get paid the same in your teaching job in math as a male in the same job?