|
|
#1
11-24-2017, 10:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
How to play ALL THE NOTES?!
Hi there. I'm more of a composer/theory nerd than a guitarist, but I wanted to share something with with the guitar world, since I hear you all get all the chicks.
Basically, I wrote a program that takes in a tone row and spits out a table of chords with their corresponding scales you can play over them (and vice versa: a table scales with their corresponding chords.) A tone row, thought of in basic terms, is just an ordering of the chromatic scale, eg: C G D A E B F# C# G# D# A# F So what all this does for you is it makes it easy to play stuff that 1) Uses all 12 notes available to you, and 2) that actually sounds like music. So this is what I have so far, the numbers correspond to semitones, so on guitar it'd work like 0=e,1=f,2=f#, etc. How can I make this more useful and easier for guitar players? As an example, these are the charts my program generates for the circle of fourths tone row: 0, 5, 10, 3, 8, 1, 6, 11, 4, 9, 2, 7 This is the table of chords with their corresponding scales. The left column is chords, and each row of the right column is a list of scales that would 'fit' over that chord: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1K0...7H749MYWMI9l1t This second chart is the same information, except reverse-tabulated. The leftmost column is scales, then to the right of each scale is a list of all the chords that fit that scale: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CX...KDzTOG5voDOfzY Well, tell me how I can make my charts more 'readable' for guitarists. I know they're just a bunch of numbers right now! 
|
|
#2
11-25-2017, 11:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
OK, I'm off now to pull some chicks. Good luck! 
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen.
|
|
#3
11-25-2017, 01:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Good Grief!
__________________
Derek Coombs Youtube -> Website -> Music -> Tabs Guitars by Mark Blanchard, Albert&Mueller, Paul Woolson, Collings, Composite Acoustics, and Derek Coombs "Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Woods hands pick by eye and ear
Made to one with pride and love To be that we hold so dear A voice from heavens above
|
|
#4
11-25-2017, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speaking just for myself, I would find it more 'readable' without the numbers.
I understand what C is, or D# or whatever musical note or chord that is specified by its musical name. I'd even be fine with using musical terms like 3rds, 4ths & 5ths; because those terms have musical relevance and are understood by people when talking about music. I don't understand things like 11. 11 what? (semi-tones, is what I'd guess, but that might not be right) 11 away from what? You asked how you could make it more helpful for guitarists, and to me (as a mediocre guitarist) I would find it much easier if it was presented in terms that I already understand in music, and not in a "new math" sort of presentation that requires me to learn something entirely new just for this application. From what you've presented, your idea might be very helpful; or it might not be helpful at all. I honestly can't tell, because I don't understand it.
|
|
#5
11-26-2017, 12:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A little confused here...does this apply only to 12-tone serial music? If so, I still don't see why you need a computer program to generate possible intervals or clusters -- it's all kind of implied in the row, isn't it?
But if this is supposed to apply to functional, diatonic music -- I don't see how it's an improvement. For 8-note sets of pitches (standard scales and keys), and triadic harmonies, I've never seen a system that's better than standard staff notation and traditional nomenclature. If one is familiar with the system, it presents the interrelationships between scales, chords and keys all at a glance. Applying a 12-tone POV to 8-note scales just confuses the issue.
__________________
https://www.christophervolak.com/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCen...TNrJcTiGu9aPkw
|
|
#6
11-26-2017, 11:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Schoenberg and adherents have nothing that helps ME make popular western music, although it does work for movie backing tracks and such. To me, there's no beginning, no middle, and no end ... just a string of unrelated passages. Yes, I know ... it's because I'm not hip enough to appreciate his genius ...
 So for me, this is just useless academic theorizing ... and has little use in composing western music of any ilk, and even less when demonstrated on guitar. Shoenberg thought he was ushering in a new way of thinking about music ... and was disappointed that it never had the impact he had hoped. Give this a listen ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEY9lmCZbIc And this a read ... https://www.britannica.com/biography/Arnold-Schoenberg Nothing takes the music out of music more than useless theory. (IMO, of course)
|
|
#7
11-26-2017, 12:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dear Pickles...
It's nice that you've found an endeavor which interests you. However, after a lifetime of playing music for a living I find it difficult to see how this approach could be helpful in any artistic way. Can you explain how your project is supposed to enable an aspiring player?
__________________
Harmony Sovereign H-1203 "You're making the wrong mistakes." ...T. Monk Theory is the post mortem of Music. Last edited by Wyllys; 11-26-2017 at 01:39 PM.
|
|
#8
11-26-2017, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I kind of like this because it reminds me of how complicated music theory seemed to be before I actually learned it. Now I've learned music theory, why should I learn this? There's nothing here that isn't in guitar theory already is there?
I suspect that, as a septuagenarian old folkie who already thought he played all the notes, I'm not all that unrepresentative of others who hang out here. We all speak the same language. Why, exactly, do we need to learn another? Last edited by stanron; 11-26-2017 at 04:44 PM.
|
