That pretty much says it about guitars.....

zohn · 2010-06-23T06:52:13+00:00

I don't care what you play !! ..........because it isn't a contest! If your guitar(s) cost more than mine, I don't need to justify that mine are just as good, or tell you that yours couldn't possibly be "worth it". If my guitar(s) are more expensive than yours, I don't need to convince you that they're "better", they just need to be worth it to me. If you like brand X and I like brand Y, that's really OK. If you can't hear a difference between an inexpensive guitar and a very expensive guitar I'll assume you are being honest, please allow that someone else is being honest when they say they can hear a difference. I won't assume what's right for me is right for you. I'll give my opinion when asked, but I won't give opinions about instruments I haven't actually played. So yes, the music is more important than the instrument, one man's grail is another's "not so much", and too many people worry far too much about the other guy/gal. Shamelessly lifted from a post on the Larrivee Forum....

Renesongs

To deepen the rabbit hole a tad... I think that mathematics is a language we invented to succinctly describe predictable observations, patterns if you will, like the season, the movement of planets moons and stars, tides, weather and music. IMO It is not accidental that music has a number of patterns that are well defined in mathematics it's more that the language of mathematics was designed to accommodate such observations. some of the earlies musical theories go back to at least 2500 years (Pythagorean Intervals)

Keira-WitherKay

Wizard wrote

Also not good for self-esteem ... those who don't know the theory, or who can't read music often apologise for it, as if they are less worthy.

i see no reason to apologise at all...or that the "play by ear" muso's should in any way feel intimidated by the " theory wise" musicians .. not at all..........

but the message that should be conveyed..and understood......... by the non theory players is that they can with minimum effort (7 yr olds learn theory effortlessly) make the "mystery" of many musical problems you encountered in your playing can be easily remedied by some simple theory knowledge and it's application............. it de"mystifies" music ..........

and also remember many musicians think reading 5 line scores is what theory is about .......to me reading 5 line staff is just a way of transcribing and sharing musical idea's............ and to read music is easy ........ but i agree to sightread 5 line staff fluently is an art and a skill which is dead easy but like learning to read any language can take hours and even years to get to the stage of being fluent ..........

but the most usefull theory can be learnt without spending the literally months/years required in learning to sightread 5 line staff.and can just as easily be transcribed on TAB ........ but this understanding of basic theory /keys/ chord formula's /scales/modes/ chord substitution/ can help you be a better musician in any genre of music..........

raithza

Renesongs wrote I think that mathematics is a language we invented to succinctly describe predictable observations, patterns if you will, like the season, the movement of planets moons and stars, tides, weather and music. IMO It is not accidental that music has a number of patterns that are well defined in mathematics it's more that the language of mathematics was designed to accommodate such observations. some of the earlies musical theories go back to at least 2500 years (Pythagorean Intervals)

NERD INTERVENTION

Not quite... Math is not a human invention, but a natural phenomena that is studied, the understanding of which can be used to describe other natural phenomena.

Someone said that physics is the study of the nature of the universe, math is the study of all possible universes - which is why it is handy in understanding everything from music to stock markets.

xkcd: http://xkcd.com/435/

Renesongs

Not quite... Math is not a human invention, but a natural phenomena that is studied, the understanding of which can be used to describe other natural phenomena.

ROLFLMAO - that was joke right? :roflmao:

raithza

Renesongs wrote
Not quite... Math is not a human invention, but a natural phenomena that is studied, the understanding of which can be used to describe other natural phenomena.
ROLFLMAO - that was joke right? :roflmao:

I guess 'that pretty much says it about mathematicians' ?

not but seriously... I guess if you consider numbers to be a human invention then math is. matter of opinion ?

going to slip away silently now :-\

[deleted]

raithza wrote going to slip away silently now :-\

Please don't. I'd like to know how and why nature decided on a base ten number system, and where we first observed and learned about nature using that number system to calculate things.

TomCat

Stratisfear wrote
raithza wrote going to slip away silently now :-\
Please don't. I'd like to know how and why nature decided on a base ten number system, and where we first observed and learned about nature using that number system to calculate things.

I think nature did not decide anything.......Maths is purely a human interpretation of nature and everything else around us.......same applies to time.....

Another interesting thing......very few things in life are linear........nearly all phenomena is based on a logarithmic progression.....i.e base2.

Warren

Interesting debate ?

My 2c on MK:

I think most people have misread that MK quote. He's not saying that music theory is a waste of time, simply that you shouldn't consider your own ideas that sound good to you as somehow being "invalid" if they don't quite fit the theory. If you think the Mixolydian mode sounds hot over the ii chord, don't automatically discount the idea just because the literature doesn't like it. Many classical composers would never have used certain progressions, considering them "weak" changes or whatever, yet today almost anything goes.

MK gave us memorable, tasteful melody lines with his fingers on an electric guitar when everyone else was upping the distortion and playing with picks (I'm generalising) ?

In short: it's ok to know all the rules, just be prepared to break them.

My 2c on theory:

I avoided theory for a long time because I associated learning theory with the classical approach, and having to read notation. I just couldn't figure out how I was going to do all the legwork required before I could understand the theory, or how to apply it practically.

Obviously, I was very wrong, and there are plenty of ways in which theory knowledge can now be built. The web is a wealth of this sort of info, though as always you should cobble together the best bits to get a real understanding of how things work. I've learned about chord progressions, scale structures and modes etc. without having to learn classical notation, and it has helped my playing (and made me more aware of composition structure) no end.

And of course, one day when I "know everything" there is to know, I will toss it away and do my own thing. Sometimes you have to learn the ropes to understand how to climb outside them, and not just in music.

My 2c on maths:

?

Of course, maths and music theory are closely related, because ultimately the equal temperament scale we all use today is just a clever way of dividing up the sonic spectrum so that we can write stuff down, remember it or communicate ideas to others. Because these patterns are repeatable, and based on ratios, they give rise to all sorts of other patterns and groups like scales or chords. Then people go and give those patterns different names, some of which have been passed down through history, some of which are relatively new, and the end result is lots of "stuff" for the newbie to absorb...but if you distill it down to how each note of music relates to the next, it gives you a good idea of WHY everything else is automatically related in some way.

Oh yes, and maths is very much a human invention, which helps us explain certain stuff about the "real" world. The concept of "0" is a popular topic in philosophy, since nobody can really observe "0" (unless you check my bank balance) but is nonetheless a central (but abstract) concept we use in daily life.

raithza

Stratisfear wrote
raithza wrote going to slip away silently now :-\
Please don't. I'd like to know how and why nature decided on a base ten number system, and where we first observed and learned about nature using that number system to calculate things.

Base 10 is irrelevant and has no effect on math - it's just how people chose to describe what they observed mathematically. But you can argue nature decided base10 by giving us 10 fingers ?

rant:

If I observe a plant and say 'That plant is green', I use the word green (a human invention) to describe the plant (a natural phenomena). Similarly mathematicians use numbers and equations to describe mathematics.

ezietsman

Mathematics is not a human invention. The whole of our current mathematical knowledge can be derived from simple numbers using logic only. Think of it as a very complex system describing how numbers (and there are many kinds of numbers) work together. Mathematical notation however, is a human invention. I'm pretty sure an advanced alien civilization will also know about calculus and algebra and how to find the slope of a parabola but their notation may (probably) look very different to ours.

Nature however, doesn't exactly follow mathematics. We have very nice mathematical formulae for many things we observe in nature e.g. the relationship between frequency, length and linear mass of a guitar string, but these are all based on simplified physics making assumptions (in the case of the string the big assumption is that the displacements are very small).

DonovanB

raithza wrote If I observe a plant and say 'That plant is green', I use the word green (a human invention) to describe the plant (a natural phenomena). Similarly mathematicians use numbers and equations to describe mathematics.

Redundancy right there.... You use the word Mathematics as an adjective to describe Mathematics the Noun...

DonovanB

I play with some brass musicians and there is always debate about which instrument is more difficult.

They say guitar is easier because I don't have to read music to play it. Whereas they read all the time.
The real issue comes in when you decide how you want to play. If you want to play orchestral music, or play what you are told with none of your own interpretation then you would read directly from sheet music.
If you want to play something of your own accord, there is no sheet music to read so it would come from inside your mind. How you choose to write it down is up to you in the end; if you want anyone in the world to be able to play it, then use what is the common standard notifications.

I can read and write staff, but slowly. I don't practice it because most of my time is spent being creative. With our instrument, creativity and originality is condoned. With an orchestral instrument, staying within strict lines is condoned; imagine if a whole orchestra started improvising. It would be a nightmare.

As it turns out, my improv work is much better than theirs. Mainly because I practice my improv, and they practice reading...

Warren

ezietsman wrote Mathematics is not a human invention. The whole of our current mathematical knowledge can be derived from simple numbers using logic only. Think of it as a very complex system describing how numbers (and there are many kinds of numbers) work together. Mathematical notation however, is a human invention. I'm pretty sure an advanced alien civilization will also know about calculus and algebra and how to find the slope of a parabola but their notation may (probably) look very different to ours.

Nature however, doesn't exactly follow mathematics. We have very nice mathematical formulae for many things we observe in nature e.g. the relationship between frequency, length and linear mass of a guitar string, but these are all based on simplified physics making assumptions (in the case of the string the big assumption is that the displacements are very small).

I don't think we'll solve this debate here, as it's a debate that goes on all over the place. Do "numbers" actually exist in the real world, or are they just ideas we attach to stuff we perceive? Can. Worms. Big. ? I know which side of the fence I'm on...

It's interesting how this relates to music though. In fact, I see music itself as very much an invention, an abstraction. If a random bunch of water droplets in a cave make up a pleasing little "melody", it's only the human being listening that perceives the music. The music doesn't exist on its own (or does it?). Music theory, is then a further abstraction which gives us a framework and a system for understanding and creating music of our own.

It's amazing that all these bits of noise lumped together are the focus of so much human time, effort and emotion. ?

singemonkey

Well, if we actually want an answer, let's not reinvent the wheel shall we?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

I don't have time to read this right now. But I'll get round to it and post a summary of my findings.

Renesongs

I don't wish to debate much further who came first the humans or the equation. I think that Steven Hawkins history of mathematical thinking humorously titled "And God Invented the Integer" would put forward my point of view much more eloquently. What does fascinate me is the notion that we find simple relationships between events more pleasing than complex ones for instance a perfect 5th in just intonation has a relationship 3/2 to the principal note is considered the most pleasant intervals (powerchord for you n00bs) where as a relationship like 45/32 is considered so unpleasant that it is called the devils tritone (Purple Haze you n00bs)

Fingerpicker

This thread was last seen lost and wandering into the Himalayas

Renesongs

This thread was last seen lost and wandering into the Himalayas

Really - I saw it dash off into an n dimensional array at the speed of light but Heisenberg won't allow me to determine it's exact location ???

singemonkey

Renesongs wrote
This thread was last seen lost and wandering into the Himalayas
Really - I saw it dash off into an n dimensional array at the speed of light but Heisenberg won't allow me to determine it's exact location ???

I believe the Pythagorean cult actually believed that integers were sacred, partly because of their relationship to music and the "perfect" intervals. I think our classical modes are based on their concepts?

Heisenberg. He should have gone to see one of those motivational speakers to gain a bit of confidence. ?

Wizard

I started this distraction.
I'm only saying it would be really cool if someone would help make theory more accessible to people who don't like the mathematical format.
Keira - you going to create a tutorial?

Keira-WitherKay

Wizard wrote I started this distraction.
I'm only saying it would be really cool if someone would help make theory more accessible to people who didn't like the mathematical format.
Keira - you going to create a tutorial?

seriously wizard if you ever in jhb or i come down there .......... call me......... and if there's just 2 hours to set aside i could show you enough theory to demystify most of your musical worries.....

obviously thats assuming you can then over the next few weeks process it and then apply it.......learning music theory is just like learning a language.......... it takes practise to speak it fluently .... and isn't instantaneous but with practise will become easy ......... thats where many fail at it . they don't apply it regulary enough for it to be second nature.....

damn i studied latin...and passed well back 25 yrs ago but never use it so don't ask me the most basic translations i will not get it ............
why cos i don't use it ....... mmmmmmmmmm use it or lose it

but yeah i'm always keen to teach theory if anyones interested.........

« Previous Page Next Page »