rickman wrote:> On 6/15/2015 2:39 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> On 6/15/15 8:04 AM, Les Cargill wrote: >>> rickman wrote: >>>> On 6/14/2015 7:38 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote: >>>>> >> .... >>>>> >>>>> A few things may be making it sound bad, and one might be the lack of >>>>> harmonics, which may be why it sounds a little better when overdriven. >>>>> >>>>> Another is what Steve Pope suggested a while back, which is to used a >>>>> tempered interval instead of the perfect interval, i.e., ~1.498 >>>>> instead of 1.5. Again, this will matter more with harmonics than >>>>> without. >> >> i don't think the difference between 700 cents and 702 cents should make >> any audible difference. ones electric guitar won't be perfectly tuned >> anyway and, even if it was, the differing string tension as you slap >> your fingers down on the E and A strings (or A and D strings) will >> detune things from perfect (or possibly detune from imperfect to >> "perfect"). >> >>>> >>>> I thought the tempering worked because it brought some of the harmonics >>>> closer to the proper ratios. The music scale is based on the 12th root >>>> of 2 which gives good results for combinations of certain notes, but >>>> some of the harmonics don't align as well as we would like. Moving some >>>> of the notes of the scale a bit makes the harmonic alignment better. >>>> >>>> 1:1.5 is in perfect alignment. The first and fifth are in the ratio >>>> 1.33483985417 which is a bit off from 1.33_, so tempering helps. The >>>> seventh is at 1.498307076877 which is pretty durn close, but would be >>>> aligned in the other direction to reach 1.5. At 1.5 the third harmonic >>>> of the first is exactly the same as the second harmonic of the seventh. >>>> >>>> Am I remembering this wrong? >> >> >> 4/3 (which is approximately 498 cents) is a perfect fourth, not a >> perfect fifth (which is 3/2 or 702 cents, note 498+702 = 1200). a >> perfect fifth is one octave down from the 3rd harmonic. > > I thought the naming was from the half steps. It starts on the first > (the fundamental) and the next key is the second, the next is the third > and so on. Each key is the twelfth root of 2 above the last. So the > fifth would be 1.059463094359**5 = or 1.33483985417. The seventh would > be 1.059463094359**7 or 1.498307076877. What do I have wrong here? > > Ah! I checked our old friend, the Internet, and found that they count > the intervals on the diatonic scale, not the semitones. So a "fifth" is > seven semitones. It's been a while since I looked at a music theory book. >The ratios for Just & Pythagorean. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation#Diatonic_scale> I wonder if music will ever go metric? Will that make a "fifth" into > 750 ml? >Only in Tennessee. -- Les Cargill
Power Chords
Started by ●June 13, 2015
Reply by ●June 16, 20152015-06-16
Reply by ●June 16, 20152015-06-16
Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:>rickman wrote:>> I wonder if music will ever go metric? Will that make a "fifth" into >> 750 ml?>Only in Tennessee.In the EU it'd only be 700 ml ... Way out of tune. Steve
Reply by ●June 16, 20152015-06-16
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:> On 6/15/2015 2:39 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> On 6/15/15 8:04 AM, Les Cargill wrote: >>> rickman wrote: >>>> On 6/14/2015 7:38 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote: >>>>> >> .... >>>>> >>>>> A few things may be making it sound bad, and one might be the lack of >>>>> harmonics, which may be why it sounds a little better when overdriven. >>>>> >>>>> Another is what Steve Pope suggested a while back, which is to used a >>>>> tempered interval instead of the perfect interval, i.e., ~1.498 >>>>> instead of 1.5. Again, this will matter more with harmonics than >>>>> without. >> >> i don't think the difference between 700 cents and 702 cents should make >> any audible difference. ones electric guitar won't be perfectly tuned >> anyway and, even if it was, the differing string tension as you slap >> your fingers down on the E and A strings (or A and D strings) will >> detune things from perfect (or possibly detune from imperfect to >> "perfect"). >> >>>> >>>> I thought the tempering worked because it brought some of the harmonics >>>> closer to the proper ratios. The music scale is based on the 12th root >>>> of 2 which gives good results for combinations of certain notes, but >>>> some of the harmonics don't align as well as we would like. Moving some >>>> of the notes of the scale a bit makes the harmonic alignment better. >>>> >>>> 1:1.5 is in perfect alignment. The first and fifth are in the ratio >>>> 1.33483985417 which is a bit off from 1.33_, so tempering helps. The >>>> seventh is at 1.498307076877 which is pretty durn close, but would be >>>> aligned in the other direction to reach 1.5. At 1.5 the third harmonic >>>> of the first is exactly the same as the second harmonic of the seventh. >>>> >>>> Am I remembering this wrong? >> >> >> 4/3 (which is approximately 498 cents) is a perfect fourth, not a >> perfect fifth (which is 3/2 or 702 cents, note 498+702 = 1200). a >> perfect fifth is one octave down from the 3rd harmonic. > > I thought the naming was from the half steps. It starts on the first > (the fundamental) and the next key is the second, the next is the > third and so on. Each key is the twelfth root of 2 above the last. > So the fifth would be 1.059463094359**5 = or 1.33483985417. The > seventh would be 1.059463094359**7 or 1.498307076877. What do I have > wrong here? > > Ah! I checked our old friend, the Internet, and found that they count > the intervals on the diatonic scale, not the semitones. So a "fifth" > is seven semitones. It's been a while since I looked at a music > theory book.Rick, I think it may be more proper to use the term "major scale" instead of "diatonic scale" when speaking of intervals in the context of tuning (e.g., fifths). There are other types of diatonic scales in which the 5th term is not an interval of a "fifth" (in the major sense), for example B-C-D-E-F-G-A-B: B to F is not a "fifth". Yeah, yeah, everyone's an expert, right? :) -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●June 16, 20152015-06-16
On 6/15/2015 11:44 PM, Randy Yates wrote:> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 6/15/2015 2:39 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>> On 6/15/15 8:04 AM, Les Cargill wrote: >>>> rickman wrote: >>>>> On 6/14/2015 7:38 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote: >>>>>> >>> .... >>>>>> >>>>>> A few things may be making it sound bad, and one might be the lack of >>>>>> harmonics, which may be why it sounds a little better when overdriven. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another is what Steve Pope suggested a while back, which is to used a >>>>>> tempered interval instead of the perfect interval, i.e., ~1.498 >>>>>> instead of 1.5. Again, this will matter more with harmonics than >>>>>> without. >>> >>> i don't think the difference between 700 cents and 702 cents should make >>> any audible difference. ones electric guitar won't be perfectly tuned >>> anyway and, even if it was, the differing string tension as you slap >>> your fingers down on the E and A strings (or A and D strings) will >>> detune things from perfect (or possibly detune from imperfect to >>> "perfect"). >>> >>>>> >>>>> I thought the tempering worked because it brought some of the harmonics >>>>> closer to the proper ratios. The music scale is based on the 12th root >>>>> of 2 which gives good results for combinations of certain notes, but >>>>> some of the harmonics don't align as well as we would like. Moving some >>>>> of the notes of the scale a bit makes the harmonic alignment better. >>>>> >>>>> 1:1.5 is in perfect alignment. The first and fifth are in the ratio >>>>> 1.33483985417 which is a bit off from 1.33_, so tempering helps. The >>>>> seventh is at 1.498307076877 which is pretty durn close, but would be >>>>> aligned in the other direction to reach 1.5. At 1.5 the third harmonic >>>>> of the first is exactly the same as the second harmonic of the seventh. >>>>> >>>>> Am I remembering this wrong? >>> >>> >>> 4/3 (which is approximately 498 cents) is a perfect fourth, not a >>> perfect fifth (which is 3/2 or 702 cents, note 498+702 = 1200). a >>> perfect fifth is one octave down from the 3rd harmonic. >> >> I thought the naming was from the half steps. It starts on the first >> (the fundamental) and the next key is the second, the next is the >> third and so on. Each key is the twelfth root of 2 above the last. >> So the fifth would be 1.059463094359**5 = or 1.33483985417. The >> seventh would be 1.059463094359**7 or 1.498307076877. What do I have >> wrong here? >> >> Ah! I checked our old friend, the Internet, and found that they count >> the intervals on the diatonic scale, not the semitones. So a "fifth" >> is seven semitones. It's been a while since I looked at a music >> theory book. > > Rick, > > I think it may be more proper to use the term "major scale" instead of > "diatonic scale" when speaking of intervals in the context of tuning > (e.g., fifths). There are other types of diatonic scales in which the > 5th term is not an interval of a "fifth" (in the major sense), for > example B-C-D-E-F-G-A-B: B to F is not a "fifth". > > Yeah, yeah, everyone's an expert, right? :)I tried, I really tried. I dug around on the Internet to try to find the right language, but music is actually worse than DSP I believe. There are a lot of details and they are *all* significant. At least no one is challenging my statement that it has been a long time since I read music theory. lol ;) -- Rick
Reply by ●June 16, 20152015-06-16
On 16/06/2015 04:44, Randy Yates wrote: ..> > I think it may be more proper to use the term "major scale" instead of > "diatonic scale" when speaking of intervals in the context of tuning > (e.g., fifths). There are other types of diatonic scales in which the > 5th term is not an interval of a "fifth" (in the major sense), for > example B-C-D-E-F-G-A-B: B to F is not a "fifth". > > Yeah, yeah, everyone's an expert, right? :) >That is Locrian Mode - not exactly widely used in the West ("of theoretical interest only"). There are Indian ragas that are very similar, e.g. in not having a note a perfect fifth above the tonic ("Sa"). "Diatonic scale" simply means "two tones", i.e. semitones and tones; all the classical church modes are diatonic, e.g. Dorian mode has the sound when you play the white notes starting on D: E,F,G...D. A common shorthand term these days is "the natural scale" - the white notes on the piano, the lines and spaces on the staff. We also extend this to refer to "natural major" and "natural minor". The other aspect that applies to this discussion is that the names of musical intervals don't simply refer to the span in semitones, they refer to spelling. Thus the span of three semitones may be a minor third (D-F) or an augmented second (D-E#). The latter would be the correct notation in F# minor. The tritone (lit. three tones) can be an augmented fourth or a diminished fifth depending on the spelling (C-F# or C-Gb). The attribute "fourth" means the span is four letter names as in C something to F something (or - which lines or spaces they appear on). Of course when we just listen to intervals, we don't know the spelling (though if the music is diatonic and not heavily chromatic we can deduce it easily enough). One of the "rules" of scales is that every letter name is represented. Thus in G# minor the leading note (seventh step) is an F## ("double sharp"). With all this stuff, it is a wonder sometimes we ever get around to playing anything. Richard Dobson
Reply by ●June 16, 20152015-06-16
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:20:53 +0100, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:>On 16/06/2015 04:44, Randy Yates wrote: >.. >> >> I think it may be more proper to use the term "major scale" instead of >> "diatonic scale" when speaking of intervals in the context of tuning >> (e.g., fifths). There are other types of diatonic scales in which the >> 5th term is not an interval of a "fifth" (in the major sense), for >> example B-C-D-E-F-G-A-B: B to F is not a "fifth". >> >> Yeah, yeah, everyone's an expert, right? :) >> >That is Locrian Mode - not exactly widely used in the West ("of >theoretical interest only"). There are Indian ragas that are very >similar, e.g. in not having a note a perfect fifth above the tonic >("Sa"). "Diatonic scale" simply means "two tones", i.e. semitones and >tones; all the classical church modes are diatonic, e.g. Dorian mode >has the sound when you play the white notes starting on D: E,F,G...D. > >A common shorthand term these days is "the natural scale" - the white >notes on the piano, the lines and spaces on the staff. We also extend >this to refer to "natural major" and "natural minor". > >The other aspect that applies to this discussion is that the names of >musical intervals don't simply refer to the span in semitones, they >refer to spelling. Thus the span of three semitones may be a minor third >(D-F) or an augmented second (D-E#). The latter would be the correct >notation in F# minor. The tritone (lit. three tones) can be an augmented >fourth or a diminished fifth depending on the spelling (C-F# or C-Gb). >The attribute "fourth" means the span is four letter names as in C >something to F something (or - which lines or spaces they appear on). >Of course when we just listen to intervals, we don't know the spelling >(though if the music is diatonic and not heavily chromatic we can deduce >it easily enough). One of the "rules" of scales is that every letter >name is represented. Thus in G# minor the leading note (seventh step) is >an F## ("double sharp"). > >With all this stuff, it is a wonder sometimes we ever get around to >playing anything. > >Richard DobsonThen there are those of us who skip 99% of that stuff and just play by ear. More playing time that way. ;) Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com
Reply by ●June 16, 20152015-06-16
eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) writes:> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:20:53 +0100, Richard Dobson > <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>On 16/06/2015 04:44, Randy Yates wrote: >>.. >>> >>> I think it may be more proper to use the term "major scale" instead of >>> "diatonic scale" when speaking of intervals in the context of tuning >>> (e.g., fifths). There are other types of diatonic scales in which the >>> 5th term is not an interval of a "fifth" (in the major sense), for >>> example B-C-D-E-F-G-A-B: B to F is not a "fifth". >>> >>> Yeah, yeah, everyone's an expert, right? :) >>> >>That is Locrian Mode - not exactly widely used in the West ("of >>theoretical interest only"). There are Indian ragas that are very >>similar, e.g. in not having a note a perfect fifth above the tonic >>("Sa"). "Diatonic scale" simply means "two tones", i.e. semitones and >>tones; all the classical church modes are diatonic, e.g. Dorian mode >>has the sound when you play the white notes starting on D: E,F,G...D. >> >>A common shorthand term these days is "the natural scale" - the white >>notes on the piano, the lines and spaces on the staff. We also extend >>this to refer to "natural major" and "natural minor". >> >>The other aspect that applies to this discussion is that the names of >>musical intervals don't simply refer to the span in semitones, they >>refer to spelling. Thus the span of three semitones may be a minor third >>(D-F) or an augmented second (D-E#). The latter would be the correct >>notation in F# minor. The tritone (lit. three tones) can be an augmented >>fourth or a diminished fifth depending on the spelling (C-F# or C-Gb). >>The attribute "fourth" means the span is four letter names as in C >>something to F something (or - which lines or spaces they appear on). >>Of course when we just listen to intervals, we don't know the spelling >>(though if the music is diatonic and not heavily chromatic we can deduce >>it easily enough). One of the "rules" of scales is that every letter >>name is represented. Thus in G# minor the leading note (seventh step) is >>an F## ("double sharp"). >> >>With all this stuff, it is a wonder sometimes we ever get around to >>playing anything. >> >>Richard Dobson > > Then there are those of us who skip 99% of that stuff and just play by > ear. More playing time that way. ;)Hear, Hear! I've been trying to learn some of those gospel-ish riffs where they "roll" the notes, like in the introduction of Billy Preston's "Nothing from Nothing": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjzkG_QeJfA or in the Johnny River's remake of "Rockin' Pneumonia and the Boogie Woogie Flu" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvJ78hYI6wk but I'm not quite getting the technique. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●June 16, 20152015-06-16
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:41:03 -0400, Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> wrote:>eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) writes: > >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:20:53 +0100, Richard Dobson >> <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>On 16/06/2015 04:44, Randy Yates wrote: >>>.. >>>> >>>> I think it may be more proper to use the term "major scale" instead of >>>> "diatonic scale" when speaking of intervals in the context of tuning >>>> (e.g., fifths). There are other types of diatonic scales in which the >>>> 5th term is not an interval of a "fifth" (in the major sense), for >>>> example B-C-D-E-F-G-A-B: B to F is not a "fifth". >>>> >>>> Yeah, yeah, everyone's an expert, right? :) >>>> >>>That is Locrian Mode - not exactly widely used in the West ("of >>>theoretical interest only"). There are Indian ragas that are very >>>similar, e.g. in not having a note a perfect fifth above the tonic >>>("Sa"). "Diatonic scale" simply means "two tones", i.e. semitones and >>>tones; all the classical church modes are diatonic, e.g. Dorian mode >>>has the sound when you play the white notes starting on D: E,F,G...D. >>> >>>A common shorthand term these days is "the natural scale" - the white >>>notes on the piano, the lines and spaces on the staff. We also extend >>>this to refer to "natural major" and "natural minor". >>> >>>The other aspect that applies to this discussion is that the names of >>>musical intervals don't simply refer to the span in semitones, they >>>refer to spelling. Thus the span of three semitones may be a minor third >>>(D-F) or an augmented second (D-E#). The latter would be the correct >>>notation in F# minor. The tritone (lit. three tones) can be an augmented >>>fourth or a diminished fifth depending on the spelling (C-F# or C-Gb). >>>The attribute "fourth" means the span is four letter names as in C >>>something to F something (or - which lines or spaces they appear on). >>>Of course when we just listen to intervals, we don't know the spelling >>>(though if the music is diatonic and not heavily chromatic we can deduce >>>it easily enough). One of the "rules" of scales is that every letter >>>name is represented. Thus in G# minor the leading note (seventh step) is >>>an F## ("double sharp"). >>> >>>With all this stuff, it is a wonder sometimes we ever get around to >>>playing anything. >>> >>>Richard Dobson >> >> Then there are those of us who skip 99% of that stuff and just play by >> ear. More playing time that way. ;) > >Hear, Hear! I've been trying to learn some of those gospel-ish riffs >where they "roll" the notes, like in the introduction of Billy Preston's >"Nothing from Nothing": > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjzkG_QeJfA > >or in the Johnny River's remake of "Rockin' Pneumonia >and the Boogie Woogie Flu" > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvJ78hYI6wk > >but I'm not quite getting the technique.These days I spend more time on the guitar than keyboard. I've also been wanting to dig the saxophones back out, which have been sitting for more than a decade...argh, will probably have to learn everything all over again. Hobbies are good to have. I think I have too many. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com
Reply by ●June 16, 20152015-06-16
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:33:52 +0000, Eric Jacobsen wrote:> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:41:03 -0400, Randy Yates > <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> wrote: > >>eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) writes: >> >>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:20:53 +0100, Richard Dobson >>> <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>On 16/06/2015 04:44, Randy Yates wrote: >>>>.. >>>>> >>>>> I think it may be more proper to use the term "major scale" instead >>>>> of "diatonic scale" when speaking of intervals in the context of >>>>> tuning (e.g., fifths). There are other types of diatonic scales in >>>>> which the 5th term is not an interval of a "fifth" (in the major >>>>> sense), for example B-C-D-E-F-G-A-B: B to F is not a "fifth". >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, yeah, everyone's an expert, right? :) >>>>> >>>>That is Locrian Mode - not exactly widely used in the West ("of >>>>theoretical interest only"). There are Indian ragas that are very >>>>similar, e.g. in not having a note a perfect fifth above the tonic >>>>("Sa"). "Diatonic scale" simply means "two tones", i.e. semitones and >>>>tones; all the classical church modes are diatonic, e.g. Dorian mode >>>>has the sound when you play the white notes starting on D: E,F,G...D. >>>> >>>>A common shorthand term these days is "the natural scale" - the white >>>>notes on the piano, the lines and spaces on the staff. We also extend >>>>this to refer to "natural major" and "natural minor". >>>> >>>>The other aspect that applies to this discussion is that the names of >>>>musical intervals don't simply refer to the span in semitones, they >>>>refer to spelling. Thus the span of three semitones may be a minor >>>>third (D-F) or an augmented second (D-E#). The latter would be the >>>>correct notation in F# minor. The tritone (lit. three tones) can be an >>>>augmented fourth or a diminished fifth depending on the spelling (C-F# >>>>or C-Gb). The attribute "fourth" means the span is four letter names >>>>as in C something to F something (or - which lines or spaces they >>>>appear on). Of course when we just listen to intervals, we don't know >>>>the spelling (though if the music is diatonic and not heavily >>>>chromatic we can deduce it easily enough). One of the "rules" of >>>>scales is that every letter name is represented. Thus in G# minor the >>>>leading note (seventh step) is an F## ("double sharp"). >>>> >>>>With all this stuff, it is a wonder sometimes we ever get around to >>>>playing anything. >>>> >>>>Richard Dobson >>> >>> Then there are those of us who skip 99% of that stuff and just play by >>> ear. More playing time that way. ;) >> >>Hear, Hear! I've been trying to learn some of those gospel-ish riffs >>where they "roll" the notes, like in the introduction of Billy Preston's >>"Nothing from Nothing": >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjzkG_QeJfA >> >>or in the Johnny River's remake of "Rockin' Pneumonia and the Boogie >>Woogie Flu" >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvJ78hYI6wk >> >>but I'm not quite getting the technique. > > These days I spend more time on the guitar than keyboard. I've also > been wanting to dig the saxophones back out, which have been sitting for > more than a decade...argh, will probably have to learn everything all > over again. > > Hobbies are good to have. I think I have too many.Not to mention you'll probably have to take that Sax to the repair shop to have all the leaky pads replaced (ask me how I know!) When I took my old clarinet (two different species of wood and at least two different plastics) in to be refurbished the repair guy went into Instant Extreme Diplomatic Mode to explain to me that when he was done it probably wouldn't be worth much more than the repair, and I should only consider it if it had some sentimental value. When I explained that when I was starting band in 5th grade it was a hand- me-down from my mother, who played it in band in 5th grade, he just took the thing and said "we'll have it ready for you in a week". (It's a crappy clarinet. We thought we'd lost it recently so I bought some no- name one at a pawn shop for $150, which is much better.) -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●June 16, 20152015-06-16
Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> writes:> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:33:52 +0000, Eric Jacobsen wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:41:03 -0400, Randy Yates >> <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> wrote: >> >>>eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) writes: >>> >>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:20:53 +0100, Richard Dobson >>>> <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 16/06/2015 04:44, Randy Yates wrote: >>>>>.. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it may be more proper to use the term "major scale" instead >>>>>> of "diatonic scale" when speaking of intervals in the context of >>>>>> tuning (e.g., fifths). There are other types of diatonic scales in >>>>>> which the 5th term is not an interval of a "fifth" (in the major >>>>>> sense), for example B-C-D-E-F-G-A-B: B to F is not a "fifth". >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, yeah, everyone's an expert, right? :) >>>>>> >>>>>That is Locrian Mode - not exactly widely used in the West ("of >>>>>theoretical interest only"). There are Indian ragas that are very >>>>>similar, e.g. in not having a note a perfect fifth above the tonic >>>>>("Sa"). "Diatonic scale" simply means "two tones", i.e. semitones and >>>>>tones; all the classical church modes are diatonic, e.g. Dorian mode >>>>>has the sound when you play the white notes starting on D: E,F,G...D. >>>>> >>>>>A common shorthand term these days is "the natural scale" - the white >>>>>notes on the piano, the lines and spaces on the staff. We also extend >>>>>this to refer to "natural major" and "natural minor". >>>>> >>>>>The other aspect that applies to this discussion is that the names of >>>>>musical intervals don't simply refer to the span in semitones, they >>>>>refer to spelling. Thus the span of three semitones may be a minor >>>>>third (D-F) or an augmented second (D-E#). The latter would be the >>>>>correct notation in F# minor. The tritone (lit. three tones) can be an >>>>>augmented fourth or a diminished fifth depending on the spelling (C-F# >>>>>or C-Gb). The attribute "fourth" means the span is four letter names >>>>>as in C something to F something (or - which lines or spaces they >>>>>appear on). Of course when we just listen to intervals, we don't know >>>>>the spelling (though if the music is diatonic and not heavily >>>>>chromatic we can deduce it easily enough). One of the "rules" of >>>>>scales is that every letter name is represented. Thus in G# minor the >>>>>leading note (seventh step) is an F## ("double sharp"). >>>>> >>>>>With all this stuff, it is a wonder sometimes we ever get around to >>>>>playing anything. >>>>> >>>>>Richard Dobson >>>> >>>> Then there are those of us who skip 99% of that stuff and just play by >>>> ear. More playing time that way. ;) >>> >>>Hear, Hear! I've been trying to learn some of those gospel-ish riffs >>>where they "roll" the notes, like in the introduction of Billy Preston's >>>"Nothing from Nothing": >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjzkG_QeJfA >>> >>>or in the Johnny River's remake of "Rockin' Pneumonia and the Boogie >>>Woogie Flu" >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvJ78hYI6wk >>> >>>but I'm not quite getting the technique. >> >> These days I spend more time on the guitar than keyboard. I've also >> been wanting to dig the saxophones back out, which have been sitting for >> more than a decade...argh, will probably have to learn everything all >> over again. >> >> Hobbies are good to have. I think I have too many. > > Not to mention you'll probably have to take that Sax to the repair shop > to have all the leaky pads replaced (ask me how I know!) > > When I took my old clarinet (two different species of wood and at least > two different plastics) in to be refurbished the repair guy went into > Instant Extreme Diplomatic Mode to explain to me that when he was done it > probably wouldn't be worth much more than the repair, and I should only > consider it if it had some sentimental value. > > When I explained that when I was starting band in 5th grade it was a hand- > me-down from my mother, who played it in band in 5th grade, he just took > the thing and said "we'll have it ready for you in a week". (It's a > crappy clarinet. We thought we'd lost it recently so I bought some no- > name one at a pawn shop for $150, which is much better.)Hey, maybe we can put together a "Greatest Hits of Comp.Dsp"?!? :) -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
