SAKryukov
Joined 23 November 2020
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 450: | Line 450: | ||
:::::::::::::::::::: If an overtone can suggest missing chord degrees, it stands to reason that an undertone can do the same thing. For example, when high-pitched power chords are put through a more extensive version of the same process used to produce extra bass sounds, they generate minor chords. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | :::::::::::::::::::: If an overtone can suggest missing chord degrees, it stands to reason that an undertone can do the same thing. For example, when high-pitched power chords are put through a more extensive version of the same process used to produce extra bass sounds, they generate minor chords. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::::::::::::: I do in fact disagree with you when it comes to the idea of the fundamental frequency being entirely outside the problems of tonal systems. The way I see it, the Tonic is at its strongest when it not only has the smallest possible rational intervals relative to all the notes in the scale, but is also the note that can generate all the other notes in the set purely through its own overtone series and | :::::::::::::::::::: I do in fact disagree with you when it comes to the idea of the fundamental frequency being entirely outside the problems of tonal systems. The way I see it, the Tonic is at its strongest when it not only has the smallest possible rational intervals relative to all the notes in the scale, but is also the note that can generate all the other notes in the set purely through its own overtone series and undertone series. It's not just one of these facets that provides a sense of tonality but both. If tonality is like an entire building, then matching fundamental frequencies are the material that makes for the strongest type of foundation- does this analogy make sense? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
::::::::::::::::: Now, about the problem, how "exactly to program complicated tonal values". First, the problems are solved using the "divide and conquer" method and "separation of concerns". In particular, tone values can be abstracted from the technical means of sound production. Another thing is: it's good to "think by hands". (In our case, "hands" is the generalization of several things: hands, fingers, hearing, etc.) When you don't understand how to solve the problem, of, course, think about understanding but also start working with incomplete understanding and uncertainties. As you try, you can get a better feeling of the problem, will be able to get rid of some illusionary ideas and get new ones... Moreover, in some analogous ways, I many times recommended people to... avoid reading literature. Here is what I mean: it's good to try to solve a problem from scratch by yourself. Why? First, you won't miss a pretty rare chance of inventing something really new. More realistically, when you read, you don't quite understand reading at first, because the illusionary understanding is quite common, besides, you can be affected by some well-established ideas and reduce your chances for a fresh look. And when you tried hard and broke some of your teeth at the problem, you can use what you learned, and then you will ready with much better understanding. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 04:01 UTC'' | ::::::::::::::::: Now, about the problem, how "exactly to program complicated tonal values". First, the problems are solved using the "divide and conquer" method and "separation of concerns". In particular, tone values can be abstracted from the technical means of sound production. Another thing is: it's good to "think by hands". (In our case, "hands" is the generalization of several things: hands, fingers, hearing, etc.) When you don't understand how to solve the problem, of, course, think about understanding but also start working with incomplete understanding and uncertainties. As you try, you can get a better feeling of the problem, will be able to get rid of some illusionary ideas and get new ones... Moreover, in some analogous ways, I many times recommended people to... avoid reading literature. Here is what I mean: it's good to try to solve a problem from scratch by yourself. Why? First, you won't miss a pretty rare chance of inventing something really new. More realistically, when you read, you don't quite understand reading at first, because the illusionary understanding is quite common, besides, you can be affected by some well-established ideas and reduce your chances for a fresh look. And when you tried hard and broke some of your teeth at the problem, you can use what you learned, and then you will ready with much better understanding. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 04:01 UTC'' | ||