I don't want to sound rude, but it seems that you only understand bits and pieces of what you are trying to explain. If you understood what you were talking about well, then your posts would be well structured and easy to understand, because this is how it would appear in your mind. If you want people to take you seriously you should try doing this, for the benefit of yourself as well.
anyone get into harmonics?
- Thread starter houseofthesun
- Start date
houseofthesun
New member
"I don't want to sound rude, but it seems that you only understand bits and pieces of what you are trying to explain."
i dont want to bring up the obvious but i have allready said that myself in different words. but i do belive it is more than just bits and peices that i do understand and know. and if the reader does not understand some basic concepts here than its hard to explain to begin with. of course i would sound like i speak jibberish to people like your self.
thats like going to learn physics but you still dont know your times tables.
i dont want to bring up the obvious but i have allready said that myself in different words. but i do belive it is more than just bits and peices that i do understand and know. and if the reader does not understand some basic concepts here than its hard to explain to begin with. of course i would sound like i speak jibberish to people like your self.
thats like going to learn physics but you still dont know your times tables.
D
djvartan
Guest
a good link on harmonics
http://www.harmony-central.com/Guitar/harmonics.html
http://www.harmony-central.com/Guitar/harmonics.html
houseofthesun
New member
"tell me what knowledge
Well please then, it is that you have, - so I can be enlightened by
that I don't
your wisdom."
what is it that you didnt understand?
please leave this sarcastic crap out of this. i never came into this thread with the idea to teach and feel allmighty with great wisdom or what ever you want to think iam doing. i just wonderd if anyone els has investigated these theroys and what experiments they had carried out to find answers in these theroys that is all. for fukks sake im the first to call myself the idiot the first to challange what i have to say. if you have not carried out any of these experiments or looked at these theroys then please dont write anything, if you would like to add to the disscussion on what you have found with the relationship between QP and music feel free to share your knowlage.
if you can say more than just nah thats bull**** qp is not inside music your smoking to much crak, then please do so, because it leaves me with the feeling that you have no understanding of what has been said when i get an ignoarant responce like that. someone earlier said that they had looked into this but only said that they got nowhere. I would really prefer it if that person had of said, here are the experiments i caried out to come to my conclusion. and for now on i will ignore any posts that have nothing to do with the original reason for the thread to start, and give no evidence to my theroys being incorrrect or correct. im sorry if i sound rude or sounded rude in the above post i assure i didnt want to be, i am just sick of ignorance and people opting for the its al bull**** full stop answer. sorry to take it all a bit persanoll its just i am getting really sick of ignorance in this world.
if you do have a real interest in this find the book music of the spheres volume 2 chapter 11, also the book the dancing wu li masters chapter the dance on page 230.
once again i am only a student in this and would like to further disscussions in this with other people that are looking at these insights the same or in a similar way or anyone that has looked at it and thinks they have the answers, please leave your theroys your experiments and your answers, not your ignorants of not understanding something then your quick dismissal of a theroy which was not understood. i may have the answer to a question you have that you dont understand or i may not have the answer but that question could be a question i am looking for.
Well please then, it is that you have, - so I can be enlightened by
that I don't
your wisdom."
what is it that you didnt understand?
please leave this sarcastic crap out of this. i never came into this thread with the idea to teach and feel allmighty with great wisdom or what ever you want to think iam doing. i just wonderd if anyone els has investigated these theroys and what experiments they had carried out to find answers in these theroys that is all. for fukks sake im the first to call myself the idiot the first to challange what i have to say. if you have not carried out any of these experiments or looked at these theroys then please dont write anything, if you would like to add to the disscussion on what you have found with the relationship between QP and music feel free to share your knowlage.
if you can say more than just nah thats bull**** qp is not inside music your smoking to much crak, then please do so, because it leaves me with the feeling that you have no understanding of what has been said when i get an ignoarant responce like that. someone earlier said that they had looked into this but only said that they got nowhere. I would really prefer it if that person had of said, here are the experiments i caried out to come to my conclusion. and for now on i will ignore any posts that have nothing to do with the original reason for the thread to start, and give no evidence to my theroys being incorrrect or correct. im sorry if i sound rude or sounded rude in the above post i assure i didnt want to be, i am just sick of ignorance and people opting for the its al bull**** full stop answer. sorry to take it all a bit persanoll its just i am getting really sick of ignorance in this world.
if you do have a real interest in this find the book music of the spheres volume 2 chapter 11, also the book the dancing wu li masters chapter the dance on page 230.
once again i am only a student in this and would like to further disscussions in this with other people that are looking at these insights the same or in a similar way or anyone that has looked at it and thinks they have the answers, please leave your theroys your experiments and your answers, not your ignorants of not understanding something then your quick dismissal of a theroy which was not understood. i may have the answer to a question you have that you dont understand or i may not have the answer but that question could be a question i am looking for.
Ok, here's a theory.
You are illiterate. You can't spell to save your life. You can't structure a sentence, let alone a coherent argument. These are all working against you (I'm sorry to say).
You have read a few things here and there that sound very impressive and that you think you understand, and you're regurgitating bits and pieces of them in a clumsy fashion to try and sound erudite and learned. You seem to be doing this to foster discussion and scientific debate, and are clouding all your wishy washy pontification in the guise of 'theoretical' discussion. Yet as soon as somebody coherently points out one of the many obvious holes in your 'fundamentals', you get aggressive and start accusing people of being patronising and closed minded, simultaneously displaying tremendous arrogance on your own part.
This is not my opinion, this is simply my theory, based on the facts available to me right in front of my eyes.
Here's an experiment.
This answer was calculated to enrage you, and leave you with no option but to post your magnificent research and theories and experiments that will floor us all and change the way music is written forever. But it is my belief that it will in fact only enrage you, and that the facts will forever remain a mystery to us, and that missing fundamentals will remain just that - missing. You are definitely missing many fundamentals, but I don't think they're the ones you are looking for. I suggest you start at the dictionary rather than the edge of the universe or spacetime continuum.
The thing with the guitar and a 'third' note being created? That's not quantum physics, that's basic acoustics.
I am actually an audio professional. And a teacher. And you are, quite frankly, talking absolute **** (this is my theory).
You are illiterate. You can't spell to save your life. You can't structure a sentence, let alone a coherent argument. These are all working against you (I'm sorry to say).
You have read a few things here and there that sound very impressive and that you think you understand, and you're regurgitating bits and pieces of them in a clumsy fashion to try and sound erudite and learned. You seem to be doing this to foster discussion and scientific debate, and are clouding all your wishy washy pontification in the guise of 'theoretical' discussion. Yet as soon as somebody coherently points out one of the many obvious holes in your 'fundamentals', you get aggressive and start accusing people of being patronising and closed minded, simultaneously displaying tremendous arrogance on your own part.
This is not my opinion, this is simply my theory, based on the facts available to me right in front of my eyes.
Here's an experiment.
This answer was calculated to enrage you, and leave you with no option but to post your magnificent research and theories and experiments that will floor us all and change the way music is written forever. But it is my belief that it will in fact only enrage you, and that the facts will forever remain a mystery to us, and that missing fundamentals will remain just that - missing. You are definitely missing many fundamentals, but I don't think they're the ones you are looking for. I suggest you start at the dictionary rather than the edge of the universe or spacetime continuum.
The thing with the guitar and a 'third' note being created? That's not quantum physics, that's basic acoustics.
I am actually an audio professional. And a teacher. And you are, quite frankly, talking absolute **** (this is my theory).
Last edited:
chiragkotak
New member
hi...
i have read this whole thread of posts...
why do there need to be so many arguements??????
i dont see the harm in someone wanting to discuss something they came across and got interested in..
this guy 'houseofthesun' even mentioned many times that he's no expert and is a student and stuff like that..and he himself is learning about this 'missing fundamental' stuff..and still dosent know everything about it...
isnt this what learning is all about...
u never know it all...always start with an interest and then slowly pick things up as we go along..very few are born einstiens and mozarts...
maybe people dont really understand what he's trying to say because of the way he is saying it...its defenately not like the text books..its in little bits and pieces...
maybe if the arguements stopped then this whole thread would go somewhere or move in some direction...
anyway...
"well one thing i came across was. i was jaming with a friend she was on the flute and i was on the guitar and at one point she hit a note and i hit a note and what felt from out of nowhere the third bass note i speak of appeard. it blew me away for the fact that this bass note felt like it was sitting only in one place, and if you know anything about bass, bass just moves all around a room. we created the missing fundamental from playing 2 seperate instruments but this missing fundamental also felt phisical in some sense"
the part about the flute and guitar and both simeltanously hitting a note...
this reminds me of synthesis...where two seperate timbres or waveforms layered togather create a new timbre...
this also makes me wonder about fundamentals and harmonics...
in the acoustic world can frequencies from two seperate instruments have common harmonics or in this case a common missing fundamental???
i dont know if i'm right about this-
what note does it sound like??are the two notes u played in the harmonic series of this note??this would have to be so for the bass note to be the fundamental..and the notes played to be harmonics..
'the overtone series, which its ratios match the same of the hydrogen atom'
could u explain a little more about this...the overtone series match what ratios in the hydrogen atom?? are u talking about 2nsquared- number of electrons in shells????
" But Einstein, pushing his hungry baby through the streets of bern, could not afford to limit himself to common sense or even the earthly view. when a man explores aush abstrations as space, time and the speed of light, it would hardly seem appropriate for him to confine his thoughts to any single star or planet. Besides, the very word fantastic in such a context could well be expected to unfurl a new deminsion in its own meaning.
So Einstein let his thoughts soar freely into both space and time, disciplined only by the most universal and abstract logic. ELephants were no longer "large" to him. Ants no longer "small". fo rthat would be looking at them through provincial human eyes, as if a mere man had the right to set an ABSOLUTE STANDARD OF SIZE. Insted, Einstein looked out of the sun and saw that elephants could be tinier than germs. And he looked out of the atom and saw that an ant could spread across the sky like the milky way! He taught himself that human words like long short tall small near far hot soft loud strong are all relative and therefore meaningless unless you assume some standard view point, WHICH NEED NOT BE A HUMAN VEIW POINT."
mmm thats really nice...
what if the universe full of stars planets ....were like atoms and molecules,electrons spinning around in valence shells of just some material or matter in some other world..our whole universe like particles in some object like a little boys ball on a gigantic proportion for us...but just a regular part of the boys world...and they themselves are part of their whole universe and it can just go on and on...then we ourselves are QP...and within our daily objects are whole universes...
see u..
i have read this whole thread of posts...
why do there need to be so many arguements??????
i dont see the harm in someone wanting to discuss something they came across and got interested in..
this guy 'houseofthesun' even mentioned many times that he's no expert and is a student and stuff like that..and he himself is learning about this 'missing fundamental' stuff..and still dosent know everything about it...
isnt this what learning is all about...
u never know it all...always start with an interest and then slowly pick things up as we go along..very few are born einstiens and mozarts...
maybe people dont really understand what he's trying to say because of the way he is saying it...its defenately not like the text books..its in little bits and pieces...
maybe if the arguements stopped then this whole thread would go somewhere or move in some direction...
anyway...
"well one thing i came across was. i was jaming with a friend she was on the flute and i was on the guitar and at one point she hit a note and i hit a note and what felt from out of nowhere the third bass note i speak of appeard. it blew me away for the fact that this bass note felt like it was sitting only in one place, and if you know anything about bass, bass just moves all around a room. we created the missing fundamental from playing 2 seperate instruments but this missing fundamental also felt phisical in some sense"
the part about the flute and guitar and both simeltanously hitting a note...
this reminds me of synthesis...where two seperate timbres or waveforms layered togather create a new timbre...
this also makes me wonder about fundamentals and harmonics...
in the acoustic world can frequencies from two seperate instruments have common harmonics or in this case a common missing fundamental???
i dont know if i'm right about this-
what note does it sound like??are the two notes u played in the harmonic series of this note??this would have to be so for the bass note to be the fundamental..and the notes played to be harmonics..
'the overtone series, which its ratios match the same of the hydrogen atom'
could u explain a little more about this...the overtone series match what ratios in the hydrogen atom?? are u talking about 2nsquared- number of electrons in shells????
" But Einstein, pushing his hungry baby through the streets of bern, could not afford to limit himself to common sense or even the earthly view. when a man explores aush abstrations as space, time and the speed of light, it would hardly seem appropriate for him to confine his thoughts to any single star or planet. Besides, the very word fantastic in such a context could well be expected to unfurl a new deminsion in its own meaning.
So Einstein let his thoughts soar freely into both space and time, disciplined only by the most universal and abstract logic. ELephants were no longer "large" to him. Ants no longer "small". fo rthat would be looking at them through provincial human eyes, as if a mere man had the right to set an ABSOLUTE STANDARD OF SIZE. Insted, Einstein looked out of the sun and saw that elephants could be tinier than germs. And he looked out of the atom and saw that an ant could spread across the sky like the milky way! He taught himself that human words like long short tall small near far hot soft loud strong are all relative and therefore meaningless unless you assume some standard view point, WHICH NEED NOT BE A HUMAN VEIW POINT."
mmm thats really nice...
what if the universe full of stars planets ....were like atoms and molecules,electrons spinning around in valence shells of just some material or matter in some other world..our whole universe like particles in some object like a little boys ball on a gigantic proportion for us...but just a regular part of the boys world...and they themselves are part of their whole universe and it can just go on and on...then we ourselves are QP...and within our daily objects are whole universes...
see u..
Last edited:
I say, chaps, what an interesting thread.
As a fledging to the group I hope you don't think I'm too forward in throwing my hat into this ring.
I've done a quick squiz at the thread and I reckon that there are quite a few angles flying in different directions.
Might I be so bold as to summarise,
1) There is a Quantum Mechanics angle.
The current model for the atom envisages the electron shells as being equivalent to the harmonic points on a guitar string or
even a tube. One doesn't have to draw a long bow to realise the implications here.
I believe that Bohr determined the electron velocities in each atomic shell as 2,160..1,080, 720, 540kps etc. which are very equivalent to the "musical' proportions 12:6:4:3 ...definitely equivalent to the 'Pythagorean"' stuff.
2) The harmonic series, therefore, relates to the aforementioned stuff. I find it interesting that it defines a major modality, initially, but then becomes a 'dominant' form. i.e. C C
G C (Rock power chord stuff here) E G (Enter country/folk and some classical)
Bb (More classical and blues) C D (hello jazz) E F# etc. The weird thing is that whenever one enters an interval into a chromatic tuner the fundamental appears.
Play E and G (with E in bass) and the resultant fundamental is not E but C!
Does this mean that only major keys
are valid?
Bit of an elephant the whole subject, by gosh, but it can be quite deep... especially if we start to explore music
in its most fundamental form.
Cheerio
Algy
As a fledging to the group I hope you don't think I'm too forward in throwing my hat into this ring.
I've done a quick squiz at the thread and I reckon that there are quite a few angles flying in different directions.
Might I be so bold as to summarise,
1) There is a Quantum Mechanics angle.
The current model for the atom envisages the electron shells as being equivalent to the harmonic points on a guitar string or
even a tube. One doesn't have to draw a long bow to realise the implications here.
I believe that Bohr determined the electron velocities in each atomic shell as 2,160..1,080, 720, 540kps etc. which are very equivalent to the "musical' proportions 12:6:4:3 ...definitely equivalent to the 'Pythagorean"' stuff.
2) The harmonic series, therefore, relates to the aforementioned stuff. I find it interesting that it defines a major modality, initially, but then becomes a 'dominant' form. i.e. C C
G C (Rock power chord stuff here) E G (Enter country/folk and some classical)
Bb (More classical and blues) C D (hello jazz) E F# etc. The weird thing is that whenever one enters an interval into a chromatic tuner the fundamental appears.
Play E and G (with E in bass) and the resultant fundamental is not E but C!
Does this mean that only major keys
are valid?
Bit of an elephant the whole subject, by gosh, but it can be quite deep... especially if we start to explore music
in its most fundamental form.
Cheerio
Algy
J
James McFadyen
Guest
Whatever happend to enjoying the craft of composition and writing from the heart!
Come on, a mean, am classically trained, but all this 'harmonic' stuff just isn't nessesary for composition.
It might be very very useful if u were doing a degree in Digital Signal Processing.
Composition is about aesthetics, no amount of maths or physics is ever gonna compete with that, your humanity and ur own artistic sense.
Sometimes ppl can just take it too far.
If I asked u what Fifth-Species Counterpoint was, or what Sonata form was, or even if u could make effective use of the cycle of fifths, then this would show real talent, which is useful to create music without alienating ur audience or other composers.
u want real music maths - read Convertable Counterpoint in the Strict Style (by Serge Ivanovitch Taneiev) I think you will find this book fantastic, but it truly is a book for pro's, it ain't a beginner book, but it's what us real composers dabble in, not science that would only interested geeks or DSP enthusiasts.
There, piece said
Come on, a mean, am classically trained, but all this 'harmonic' stuff just isn't nessesary for composition.
It might be very very useful if u were doing a degree in Digital Signal Processing.
Composition is about aesthetics, no amount of maths or physics is ever gonna compete with that, your humanity and ur own artistic sense.
Sometimes ppl can just take it too far.
If I asked u what Fifth-Species Counterpoint was, or what Sonata form was, or even if u could make effective use of the cycle of fifths, then this would show real talent, which is useful to create music without alienating ur audience or other composers.
u want real music maths - read Convertable Counterpoint in the Strict Style (by Serge Ivanovitch Taneiev) I think you will find this book fantastic, but it truly is a book for pro's, it ain't a beginner book, but it's what us real composers dabble in, not science that would only interested geeks or DSP enthusiasts.
There, piece said
Silas Holmes
New member
Hey houseofthesun, I had no time to read the whole thread, but the questions you brought up in your first post might be explained here:
http://www.completechords.com/Pages_Pathway_Books/Book_How_Music_REALLY_Works.htm
The part of the site I talk about is down right now for revision, but you might want to bookmark it and check back. I think you will really like it.
Cheers.
http://www.completechords.com/Pages_Pathway_Books/Book_How_Music_REALLY_Works.htm
The part of the site I talk about is down right now for revision, but you might want to bookmark it and check back. I think you will really like it.
Cheers.
"Whatever happend to enjoying the craft of composition and writing from the heart!"
Ah, the intuitive composition, songs plucked from the ether, the composer as a form of wicket keeper or batsman in anticipation of Euterpe's gift. The waiting for the inspiration.
Personally I love to entice Euterpe by dabbling in esoteric music exploration. Is there anything to be lost by engaging in a somewhat "Tao" approach and balancing the heart and mind? My work often calls for "instant" compositions and that's when I
engage the theoretical gears to get an answer, otherwise I dabble and wait for the muse to hit.
"Come on, a mean, am classically trained, but all this 'harmonic' stuff just isn't nessesary for composition."
Personally, old boy, I use it as a template in the studio whenever a piece gets bogged down with that "it's not quite there" situation. It jolly well saved my arse the first time I used it. The composer had written a trumpet line that was perfect on paper but created mayhem when played back.A quick referral to the chart solved the problem. The studio is not it's only application but I must say, it certainly puts the bread on the table. Absolutely!!
"Composition is about aesthetics, no amount of maths or physics is ever gonna compete with that, your humanity and ur own artistic sense."
What cheer! Arnold Schoenberg, a great classical composer if there ever was one, would certainly dispute that. My goodness, I could never envisage serial technique as "aesthetic". There's more than a bit of "maths and physics" in there as well. I believe that Frank Zappa was quite an expert in this field.
Given a choice, on a hot night with cicadas in the background and a chilled ale in the hand, what is wrong with Dolly Parton as she certainly
fulfills the "aesthetics, no amount maths or physics", "humanity" and her "own artistic sense" elements of your argument.
Cheerio
Algy
Ah, the intuitive composition, songs plucked from the ether, the composer as a form of wicket keeper or batsman in anticipation of Euterpe's gift. The waiting for the inspiration.
Personally I love to entice Euterpe by dabbling in esoteric music exploration. Is there anything to be lost by engaging in a somewhat "Tao" approach and balancing the heart and mind? My work often calls for "instant" compositions and that's when I
engage the theoretical gears to get an answer, otherwise I dabble and wait for the muse to hit.
"Come on, a mean, am classically trained, but all this 'harmonic' stuff just isn't nessesary for composition."
Personally, old boy, I use it as a template in the studio whenever a piece gets bogged down with that "it's not quite there" situation. It jolly well saved my arse the first time I used it. The composer had written a trumpet line that was perfect on paper but created mayhem when played back.A quick referral to the chart solved the problem. The studio is not it's only application but I must say, it certainly puts the bread on the table. Absolutely!!
"Composition is about aesthetics, no amount of maths or physics is ever gonna compete with that, your humanity and ur own artistic sense."
What cheer! Arnold Schoenberg, a great classical composer if there ever was one, would certainly dispute that. My goodness, I could never envisage serial technique as "aesthetic". There's more than a bit of "maths and physics" in there as well. I believe that Frank Zappa was quite an expert in this field.
Given a choice, on a hot night with cicadas in the background and a chilled ale in the hand, what is wrong with Dolly Parton as she certainly
fulfills the "aesthetics, no amount maths or physics", "humanity" and her "own artistic sense" elements of your argument.
Cheerio
Algy
houseofthesun
New member
well james i did say i would ignore all posts that have nothing to do with the thread but from conversations we have had in the past im a bit confused on where you are coming from here.
"Come on, a mean, am classically trained, but all this 'harmonic' stuff just isn't nessesary for composition."
i do remeber you saying that you are aware of musical history, how far back in history maybe another point.
for bach to start tuning his clivichord to equal temperament, many things happend before this. we got to equal temperament, thru the works of pythagoras, Aristoxenos Ptolemy and many more. our music history did not start at the 18th century with equal temperamant. please because you can not see that your classical training is all from this in the end, dont rule out the want to find new things, and an understanding of music in other ways then what you refer to.
your "just use your ears" post really seems to contradict what you say now.
"See theory extends way beyond reading music, it's about understanding music on a higher technical level one which is not based on creative madness (like Yono Oko!) but one which is creative in it's own right by pertaining to a certain disapline or of technical hierarchy.
So the reading of music isn't important, notation is just a means to an end of getting performers to accurately perform your work time and time again, what is essensial is the understanding of how music is put together. "
ok so here you feel that the understanding of how music is put together is important, so then the understanding of how scales were found and put together, and also equal temperament then lets take another step back, a string being plucked, must also be important.
i do understand that these things maybe hard to understand when looking at music in a concrete fashion.
but i have allways felt that first i jam play around with sounds then when i have found something i like i then like to research and understand what i have really done, which is our theory.
"Whatever happend to enjoying the craft of composition and writing from the heart!"
oh come on cant we all enjoy things at our own levels. and what is wrong with looking at music in another way, well maybe an old fashioned 5th century BC way but still none the less another way. and what makes you think i dont just pick up my guitar and play and jam which i do remember you saying wont invent anything new.
But do you mean playing from the heart as in jamming just playing music for the fun, or sitting down and making shure your composition is aesthetic in sound.
which usally this choice is for the masses eg pop music.
Silas Holmes nice link there i will have a look at it when it gets back up, its been book marked.
and Algyp yes finally thankyou for understanding my incoherent theroys. your on to what im talking about exactly, and it seems your maths is alot better then my own, so i hope you can help me out on that side.
"Does this mean that only major keys
are valid?"
very interesting question here ( also interesting to see no one has picked this up ) as i have seen the relationship of the harmonic series and the major intervals. please feel free to to show any of your research on this as you would know i am very very interested. im shure we will get alot deeper into this subject.
"C C
G C (Rock power chord stuff here) E G (Enter country/folk and some classical)
Bb (More classical and blues) C D (hello jazz) E F# etc. The weird thing is that whenever one enters an interval into a chromatic tuner the fundamental appears.
Play E and G (with E in bass) and the resultant fundamental is not E but C!"
yes i also found the fundamental on a tuner not shure if i said this in earlier posts. also i found that when you go to the interval 1:2 on a guitar and play it ( they way you get a guitar to produce harmonics by lightly touching the string ) the tuner tells you it is an octave lower but your ears say its an octave higher, i feel this shows that something is moving in 2 directions here have you noticed this aswell?
sorry if i am not to clear here i hope you understand.
"Come on, a mean, am classically trained, but all this 'harmonic' stuff just isn't nessesary for composition."
i do remeber you saying that you are aware of musical history, how far back in history maybe another point.
for bach to start tuning his clivichord to equal temperament, many things happend before this. we got to equal temperament, thru the works of pythagoras, Aristoxenos Ptolemy and many more. our music history did not start at the 18th century with equal temperamant. please because you can not see that your classical training is all from this in the end, dont rule out the want to find new things, and an understanding of music in other ways then what you refer to.
your "just use your ears" post really seems to contradict what you say now.
"See theory extends way beyond reading music, it's about understanding music on a higher technical level one which is not based on creative madness (like Yono Oko!) but one which is creative in it's own right by pertaining to a certain disapline or of technical hierarchy.
So the reading of music isn't important, notation is just a means to an end of getting performers to accurately perform your work time and time again, what is essensial is the understanding of how music is put together. "
ok so here you feel that the understanding of how music is put together is important, so then the understanding of how scales were found and put together, and also equal temperament then lets take another step back, a string being plucked, must also be important.
i do understand that these things maybe hard to understand when looking at music in a concrete fashion.
but i have allways felt that first i jam play around with sounds then when i have found something i like i then like to research and understand what i have really done, which is our theory.
"Whatever happend to enjoying the craft of composition and writing from the heart!"
oh come on cant we all enjoy things at our own levels. and what is wrong with looking at music in another way, well maybe an old fashioned 5th century BC way but still none the less another way. and what makes you think i dont just pick up my guitar and play and jam which i do remember you saying wont invent anything new.
But do you mean playing from the heart as in jamming just playing music for the fun, or sitting down and making shure your composition is aesthetic in sound.
which usally this choice is for the masses eg pop music.
Silas Holmes nice link there i will have a look at it when it gets back up, its been book marked.
and Algyp yes finally thankyou for understanding my incoherent theroys. your on to what im talking about exactly, and it seems your maths is alot better then my own, so i hope you can help me out on that side.
"Does this mean that only major keys
are valid?"
very interesting question here ( also interesting to see no one has picked this up ) as i have seen the relationship of the harmonic series and the major intervals. please feel free to to show any of your research on this as you would know i am very very interested. im shure we will get alot deeper into this subject.
"C C
G C (Rock power chord stuff here) E G (Enter country/folk and some classical)
Bb (More classical and blues) C D (hello jazz) E F# etc. The weird thing is that whenever one enters an interval into a chromatic tuner the fundamental appears.
Play E and G (with E in bass) and the resultant fundamental is not E but C!"
yes i also found the fundamental on a tuner not shure if i said this in earlier posts. also i found that when you go to the interval 1:2 on a guitar and play it ( they way you get a guitar to produce harmonics by lightly touching the string ) the tuner tells you it is an octave lower but your ears say its an octave higher, i feel this shows that something is moving in 2 directions here have you noticed this aswell?
sorry if i am not to clear here i hope you understand.
Last edited:
GhettoAudio
New member
Practical Application of Multiphonic Harmonics in Composing
Woah, what a lot of psychobabble bullsh!t mixed in with some good ideas; to cut the chase and get back to the game at hand:
Examples of the practical applications of harmonics to composition can be found in the works of Robert Dick, Edgar Varese, and Sergio Gazellioni [sic] and Eric Dolphy, and James Newton--all on flute. The flute is perhaps the perfect physical instrument for bringing out harmonics (also referred to as multiphonics).
Truly curious composers should check out Robert Dick's mammoth text: The Other Flute, which is reference manual for hundreds of multiphonics via unusual key combinations and embouchure adjustments.
And to think most people only think the flute can produce a single note at a time!
Woah, what a lot of psychobabble bullsh!t mixed in with some good ideas; to cut the chase and get back to the game at hand:
Examples of the practical applications of harmonics to composition can be found in the works of Robert Dick, Edgar Varese, and Sergio Gazellioni [sic] and Eric Dolphy, and James Newton--all on flute. The flute is perhaps the perfect physical instrument for bringing out harmonics (also referred to as multiphonics).
Truly curious composers should check out Robert Dick's mammoth text: The Other Flute, which is reference manual for hundreds of multiphonics via unusual key combinations and embouchure adjustments.
And to think most people only think the flute can produce a single note at a time!
Last edited:
D
dj funkifize
Guest
back in ancient Greece, music was science and there was no possible way to disconnect the two. Music was (and still is as far as I can figure out) the science (and art) of ratios. Polyphonic music (and monophonic too for that matter) is completely based off of harmonic ratios and the interactions of frequencies. Whether you think of it as a fifth or a C and G, or a 2:3 ratio... it's still a fraction - a mathematical ratio. And it will always be that way. And a 1:2 ratio (an octave) will always be more consonant than a 8:9 ratio (a major second) and a 4:5 (a major 3rd) will be somewhere in the middle.
And no matter whether you're thinking "C and C, C and D, then C and E" or "ratios of 1, then 8:9, then 4:5" it's still going to sound the same.
As applying this to quantum physics, I believe algyp already mentioned that earlier. So I won't saying anything I don't know about.
Now as a composer, or any musician... I don't see how knowing the ratios and numerics behind the notes (which are all really just numeric frequencies with letter names arbitrarilly ascribed to them) is going to make your music any more or less musical.. And I don't understand how having a greater knowledge or understanding is going to make it more or less mathematical.
Another way to put my point is... you can say that Palestrina avoided the tritone and wouldn't write an interval of a 9th on the strong beat... or you could just as validly say he avoided harmonic ratios of ?2 and wouldn't write a harmonic ratio of 4:9 on the strong beats.
wait... what was my point... whatever that's not the point....
my point is... there's plenty of relevance between music and math and physics. Just because you decide it doesn't interest you or you haven't pursued that area to know how involved the different areas are (not saying that would make you stupid or ignorant... because it wouldn't - it would just make you not interested in that) doesn't mean they aren't closely related.
and vice versa... just because you do see the relationship doesn't mean that it's necessary to see that.
and yet again I lost my point...
it's not a bunch of psychobabble bull.... (psychobabble is acutally the wrong word here... I don't think anyone brought up anything dealing with pshychoacoustics or any form of psychology)... what it is is just another area of music to pursue an interest in if you so choose.
anyway... my ultimate point here is that
1.
it seems to me that there is a connection...
2.
houseofthesun was just trying to start a discussion and got upset at the people saying he was full of crap....
3.
and the reason people were saying he is full of crap is because a) he doesn't know as much as people seem to have assumed he claimed to about the subject he brought up (which he never really claimed in the first place) and b) he was just inarticulate with what he did say...
(sorry guy, not any kind of insult... just how I saw it)
so ... uh... yeah...
that's all I have to say about this
thanks for listening... I mean reading
And no matter whether you're thinking "C and C, C and D, then C and E" or "ratios of 1, then 8:9, then 4:5" it's still going to sound the same.
As applying this to quantum physics, I believe algyp already mentioned that earlier. So I won't saying anything I don't know about.
Now as a composer, or any musician... I don't see how knowing the ratios and numerics behind the notes (which are all really just numeric frequencies with letter names arbitrarilly ascribed to them) is going to make your music any more or less musical.. And I don't understand how having a greater knowledge or understanding is going to make it more or less mathematical.
Another way to put my point is... you can say that Palestrina avoided the tritone and wouldn't write an interval of a 9th on the strong beat... or you could just as validly say he avoided harmonic ratios of ?2 and wouldn't write a harmonic ratio of 4:9 on the strong beats.
wait... what was my point... whatever that's not the point....
my point is... there's plenty of relevance between music and math and physics. Just because you decide it doesn't interest you or you haven't pursued that area to know how involved the different areas are (not saying that would make you stupid or ignorant... because it wouldn't - it would just make you not interested in that) doesn't mean they aren't closely related.
and vice versa... just because you do see the relationship doesn't mean that it's necessary to see that.
and yet again I lost my point...
it's not a bunch of psychobabble bull.... (psychobabble is acutally the wrong word here... I don't think anyone brought up anything dealing with pshychoacoustics or any form of psychology)... what it is is just another area of music to pursue an interest in if you so choose.
anyway... my ultimate point here is that
1.
it seems to me that there is a connection...
2.
houseofthesun was just trying to start a discussion and got upset at the people saying he was full of crap....
3.
and the reason people were saying he is full of crap is because a) he doesn't know as much as people seem to have assumed he claimed to about the subject he brought up (which he never really claimed in the first place) and b) he was just inarticulate with what he did say...
(sorry guy, not any kind of insult... just how I saw it)
so ... uh... yeah...
that's all I have to say about this
thanks for listening... I mean reading
D
daokelly
Guest
The quantum physics thing seems interesting, but the missing fundamental is purely a psychoacoustical phenomenon. Its to do with vibrations on the basilar membrane in your cochlear becoming confused by tones spectrally close together. Look up Helmholtz's theories on the web.
M
misconduct
Guest
you can use harmonis to play two notes at the same time on a flute not bab for a supposedly monophonic woodwind instrument.....just thought i'd mention it......(i accidently keep posting the same thing twice--this time it went to a different forum!!!! instead of this reply)
I don't know if this has been mentioned;
When you play two notes that are close to each other (such as bending an A up towards a B ) the vibrations of each note will match and re-enforce each other every so many cycles.
These re-enforcements will be ocurring at a much lower frequency (because they happen once evey so many cycles of the original 2 notes) than the 2 original notes and create a lower note.
It's simple acoustics.
When you play two notes that are close to each other (such as bending an A up towards a B ) the vibrations of each note will match and re-enforce each other every so many cycles.
These re-enforcements will be ocurring at a much lower frequency (because they happen once evey so many cycles of the original 2 notes) than the 2 original notes and create a lower note.
It's simple acoustics.
H
HIP-HOPKING1
Guest
i'll come back to this when i finish reading my book on thoery........hip-hopking1.
Jason Kitchen
New member
Hello,
Found some information I think is pertinent to this thread on the Waves Audio Plugins Site www.waves.com look under products tips and tricks preparing audio for multimedia speakers.
They claim that maxx bass uses a “Missing Fundamental” algorithm.
From what I understand of it what they are saying is that every note has a fundamental and an overtone series.If the overtone series for a given fundamental is created naturally (acoustic instruments) or artificially(waves maxx bass) then our ear can extrapolate the missing fundamental even if the instrument(s) or speakers did not actually produce the fundamental.
The obvious implications of this would be the ability to get your mixes to sound good on small speakers incapable of actually producing the bass frequencies that you desire for your listener.
Does anyone know of any other plugins that do this? What is the algorithm? How many overtones must be present? I think I will experiment with orchestrating the overtone series on some string patches to see if I can trick my ear into hearing the missing fundamental.
Hope this helps.
Peace
Found some information I think is pertinent to this thread on the Waves Audio Plugins Site www.waves.com look under products tips and tricks preparing audio for multimedia speakers.
They claim that maxx bass uses a “Missing Fundamental” algorithm.
From what I understand of it what they are saying is that every note has a fundamental and an overtone series.If the overtone series for a given fundamental is created naturally (acoustic instruments) or artificially(waves maxx bass) then our ear can extrapolate the missing fundamental even if the instrument(s) or speakers did not actually produce the fundamental.
The obvious implications of this would be the ability to get your mixes to sound good on small speakers incapable of actually producing the bass frequencies that you desire for your listener.
Does anyone know of any other plugins that do this? What is the algorithm? How many overtones must be present? I think I will experiment with orchestrating the overtone series on some string patches to see if I can trick my ear into hearing the missing fundamental.
Hope this helps.
Peace
F
FiLtHy crOOk
Guest
OMG deeeeeep thread....i know a bit of theory...but this is waaay above my head....im a system programmer ( only 18 months left in college) minor in music...and the theory you speak of..ive never heard one professor mention....but it is veeery interesting..ill be looking into it..to see how it effects reason