User talk:SAKryukov: Difference between revisions

Line 446:

:::::::::::::::::: Right. I guess that means my only question on this front concerns whether or not my aforementioned concepts and considerations in this sphere actually make logical sense in light of known phenomena like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_fundamental virtual fundamental effect] and your own observations of the sound sample of two different CM6 chords that I provided. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: First of all, the phenomenon of fundamental ~~frequency~~ goes outside the problems of tonal systems, and I'm not sure if you understand it or disagree. I suspect you overestimate its importance. We can afford to ignore this phenomenon for almost all practical purposes. By the way, the case when an overtone suggests a missing degree of a chord is more important. This is why so-called "power chord" works. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 08:30 UTC''

::::::::::::::::::: First of all, the phenomenon of <EDIT>missing fundamental<end EDIT> goes outside the problems of tonal systems, and I'm not sure if you understand it or disagree. I suspect you overestimate its importance. We can afford to ignore this phenomenon for almost all practical purposes. By the way, the case when an overtone suggests a missing degree of a chord is more important. This is why so-called "power chord" works. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 08:30 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 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 fundamental frequencies matching the tonic's pitch class are like the type of material that makes for the strongest type of foundation- does this analogy make any practical sense? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::: I never meant "the idea of the fundamental frequency being entirely outside...", it was a typo, sorry. Please see above: <EDIT>...<end EDIT>. Are you sure you understand the phenomenon correctly? In this Wikipedia article, some important considerations are missing. It needs some time to describe the idea and the questionable parts. It actually comes to theoretical mechanics (not "theoretical mechanics" learned by engineers, but the real thing, mostly the formalism of Lagrange, Hamilton, and then Emmy Noether), where the orthogonal space of modes can be understood, as well as the role of linearity and non-linear effects. (The usual myth of musicians is to call the physical-mathematics basis of music "acoustics", but in fact, there is next to nothing about real acoustics in music theory, but there is a lot of theoretical mechanics, abstract algebra, infinite-dimension functional spaces, theory of numbers, and the like.) Even for linear mechanics, this Wikipedia article considers only the sets of "similar" modes, like string or air vibrations with different number of nodes. Real life is more complicated. On this site, or maybe on some referenced sites, I sow a simple marimba example with some unrelated modes (all real modes do not interact due to linearity, but some modes are also "unrelated"). Now, we can always have a fundamental on an unrelated type of modes, which is lower than the most perceivable fundamental, and, in this case, these frequencies can be also totally unrelated, without any integer-number fractions. ...I understand my text is messy here. If you are interested, I can explain it properly. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 20:35 UTC''

::::::::::::::::::::: By the way, do you know about the nonlinear properties of our aural system? It was even used in historical organs. I mean, the phenomenon has nothing to do with brain processing. The sound is physically generated in the head out of the sound waves. It can generate a sound which does not physically present in the air, say, combination frequencies which cannot appear in any linear systems due to the superposition principle. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 20:35 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''

@@ Line 446: / Line 446: @@
 :::::::::::::::::: Right.  I guess that means my only question on this front concerns whether or not my aforementioned concepts and considerations in this sphere actually make logical sense in light of known phenomena like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_fundamental virtual fundamental effect] and your own observations of the sound sample of two different CM6 chords that I provided. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::::::: First of all, the phenomenon of fundamental frequency goes outside the problems of tonal systems, and I'm not sure if you understand it or disagree. I suspect you overestimate its importance. We can afford to ignore this phenomenon for almost all practical purposes. By the way, the case when an overtone suggests a missing degree of a chord is more important. This is why so-called "power chord" works. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;08:30&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::::: First of all, the phenomenon of <EDIT>missing fundamental<end EDIT> goes outside the problems of tonal systems, and I'm not sure if you understand it or disagree. I suspect you overestimate its importance. We can afford to ignore this phenomenon for almost all practical purposes. By the way, the case when an overtone suggests a missing degree of a chord is more important. This is why so-called "power chord" works. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;08:30&nbsp;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 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 fundamental frequencies matching the tonic's pitch class are like the type of material that makes for the strongest type of foundation- does this analogy make any practical sense? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::: I never meant "the idea of the fundamental frequency being entirely outside...", it was a typo, sorry. Please see above: <EDIT>...<end EDIT>. Are you sure you understand the phenomenon correctly? In this Wikipedia article, some important considerations are missing. It needs some time to describe the idea and the questionable parts. It actually comes to theoretical mechanics (not "theoretical mechanics" learned by engineers, but the real thing, mostly the formalism of Lagrange, Hamilton, and then Emmy Noether), where the orthogonal space of modes can be understood, as well as the role of linearity and non-linear effects. (The usual myth of musicians is to call the physical-mathematics basis of music "acoustics", but in fact, there is next to nothing about real acoustics in music theory, but there is a lot of theoretical mechanics, abstract algebra, infinite-dimension functional spaces, theory of numbers, and the like.) Even for linear mechanics, this Wikipedia article considers only the sets of "similar" modes, like string or air vibrations with different number of nodes. Real life is more complicated. On this site, or maybe on some referenced sites, I sow a simple marimba example with some unrelated modes (all real modes do not interact due to linearity, but some modes are also "unrelated"). Now, we can always have a fundamental on an unrelated type of modes, which is lower than the most perceivable fundamental, and, in this case, these frequencies can be also totally unrelated, without any integer-number fractions. ...I understand my text is messy here. If you are interested, I can explain it properly. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;20:35&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::::::: By the way, do you know about the nonlinear properties of our aural system? It was even used in historical organs. I mean, the phenomenon has nothing to do with brain processing. The sound is physically generated in the head out of the sound waves. It can generate a sound which does not physically present in the air, say, combination frequencies which cannot appear in any linear systems due to the superposition principle. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;20:35&nbsp;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. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;04:01&nbsp;UTC''