Talk:Mason Green's New Common Practice Notation: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 173: / Line 173: @@
 --[[User:Bozu|Bozu]] ([[User talk:Bozu|talk]]) 13:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
+== Changes to the article ==
+Reading the title of the article, the article digresses off the stated topic almost immediately.  Perhaps the title of the article should have been "Chord progressions in 19-note systems," but that's not what it is, either.  I think the article is simply missing the information that ties back to the first section, which doesn't tie back to the title of the article anyway.  The first section is also not written to any formal standard.  Who is Mason Green, and why does it matter which is his favourite scale?  The first section doesn't tie into anything else in the article, and doesn't summarize the article, and to me, it doesn't offer any useful information relating to the title, so I propose deletion of the first section.
+The second section is entitled "New intervals," but proposes an entirely new notation for intervals already presented in a much clearer fashion in the main 19-EDO article, as well as proposing this "NCP" notation.  The first sentence confuses me.  Is "these scales" the three listed in the first section?  If so, I strongly believe that the statement is not true.  The sentences that follow don't seem to matter in reference to the table, or, from what I can tell, anything else in the article nor on the wiki, and, perhaps the statement about the harmonic seventh is unclear to me, but I don't believe that it contributes anything to the topic.  The statement above the table has an asterisk that doesn't seem to correspond to anything.  The table itself has some problems I've discussed at length in previous comments, and the paragraphs following the table as well.  But my main problem with the notation is that it is visually identical to a conflicting notation.  I believe that the proposed NCP notation would merely confuse people familiar with more widely understood notation standards.  Do we really want to propose a notation standard for 19-EDO that is visually identical to standard notation, and impossible to use with other EDO tunings?  So, here are my proposition is to create a new article with this NCP notation explained the best we can explain it and remove it entirely from the article entitled "Chord progressions in 19edo-family scales."
+The next section: Expanding Beyond Triads...
+"In 12edo, triads containing the tonic, mediant (third) and fifth are considered the basic chordal harmonies."  Only in 12-EDO?
+"Occasionally tetrads (seventh chords) appear but they are wildly out of tune and considered unstable."  In 12-EDO?!  At any rate, this is entirely untrue!
+"In NCP, triads may be considered incomplete depending on the context, and pentads, hexads, and even higher-order chords can appear and sound great." This is unclear to me.  Why are triads incomplete?  What context?  The fact that pentads and hexads can appear is an obvious statement, and how "great" they sound is just opinion.
+"Also, there are many different possible chords, rather than just the major and minor."  Same as any literally other tuning.
+"As a result, generalizing Roman numeral analysis presents problems."  Based on thelack of accuracy of the arguments presented, I don't think it does.
+"My solution is to add a string of subscripted lowercase letters to the Roman numeral."  Whose solution?  Mason Green?
+I propose cleaning this up and moving the remaining information into the new NCP article.
+The last section: Chord progressions
+"Porting is the process of translating chord progressions from 12edo to enneadecimal. Most chord progressions can be ported in some way, although it's important to note that some commas are not tempered out anymore, and there are chord progressions that close in 12edo that don't close in 19 (so that you will end up one semitone higher or lower than where you started). Most of the time, however, this can easily be remedied."
+I think that's pretty good.  I think one nit to pick about the wording is that it could be generalized.  For example, porting could attempt to translate a chord progression from any tuning system into any other tuning system arbitrarily, and the same sorts of challenges could exist, or not, depending solely on the natures of the tuning systems and the chord progressions.
+"For instance, the Coltrane changes no longer work as before because three major thirds do not make an octave. However, a variant can be constructed in which one of the major thirds is replaced with a supermajor third; this version does close."
+That's very interesting, and I wish there was more of that sort of thing in the article.
+"Porting the following progressions is trivial:
+All progressions using only I, IV, and V.
+The circle progression (vi - ii- V - I).
+The following progressions can be ported in more than one way:
+The 50s progression (can become I – vi - IV - V, or I - vi# - IV - V)
+"Axis of Awesome" (can become I - V - vi - IV, or I - V - vi# - IV).
+Pachelbel (several ways, some of which close and some don't)"
+I disagree.  The vi chord clearly translates to the vi chord, not the #vi chord.  I cannot believe this is anything short of a mistake.  Pachelbel's Canon ports very nicely in one very specific way into 19-EDO.   Since the piece wasn't written in 12-EDO in the first place, I think that is also a mistake.  Since these statements are not true, they need to be removed, but then there are frankly no examples of why this notation is at all necessary.
+So, I propose replacing this entire section with some other information, but since I believe it is necessary for this article to be completely rewritten, this section needs to reflect that.
+Furthermore, I get the feeling that the NCP notation is probably something developed solely by Mason Green for his own purposes, whatever those may be.  Perhaps other people would find the notation useful, perhaps not, but, either way, it clearly doesn't belong here.  If you remove NCP from this article, and then remove the mistakes, there is literally nothing left of the article.  Here are the options:
+. Leave the article as is.
+. Delete the article.  (Could be options to recreate the article or not)
+. Move the article to a new article for NCP.
+   a. Do or don't create a new article for 19-EDO chord progressions
+   b. Do or don't remove the errant information in this article from the resultant NCP article.
+I really don't like option one.  There are too many problems with this article, which I've outlined.  Perhaps you disagree with the assessment that some of these are problems.  I'd like to hear from you if that's the case.  I don't think Mason Green would be particularly keen on option 2, since he was interested enough in NCP to take the time to create the article for it, albeit with a misleading title.  So, that leaves option 3.  Since I came here looking for an article about 19-EDO chord progressions, I'd appreciate "do" to option 3a and since I made this comment, I'd appreciate "do" to option 3b.  Thoughts?
+--[[User:Bozu|Bozu]] ([[User talk:Bozu|talk]]) 12:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)