3 ms·

There's not a smidgen of principle in the jump from harmonic ratios to tempered tuning and standard scales and chords. True first-principles music theory must

There's not a smidgen of principle in the jump from harmonic ratios to tempered tuning and standard scales and chords. True first-principles music theory must (A) focus primarily on psychology over physics (B) not tell people that complex ratios sound bad but simply help people notice that they are different from simple ratios (C) actually go through the full logic of how the tempered system is derived from chains of harmonic ratios adjusted to temper out commas. The easiest approach to the latter is to simply teach diatonic scales as harmonic ratios and not introduce temperament at all until much later. Far far far from perfect but having the direction that this attempt is missing: http://www.tallkite.com/AlternativeTunings.html http://www.tallkite.com/AlternativeTunings.html Anyway, I'd write the ultimate thing if I ever found the time. There's at least some good elements to this attempt so far. It really needs to be licensed CC-BY-SA though so that people can adapt and contribute and improve to get it to where it's really good.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago
I hear ya (pun not intended), but I think the current approach would work, more or less, for people who went through physics school or something. Perhaps I'm biased by my background (physics, and reasonably familiar with music theory at amateur level). I do agree that making it more intuitive would make it more useful for, e.g., kids in middle school.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  I wasn't talking about intuitive. I'm saying that to follow the first-principles premise, certain things are needed.
sabertoothed 10y ago
Don't forget: There is no ultimate best way to teach. People absorb knowledge very differently. I learnt that the hard way. Some people need to see examples first and play with it; other people (that's me) need to see the structure and principles first. The "must" in your claims seems a bit too absolute / dogmatic to me.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  The best way to learn anything is to study multiple sources, multiple approaches to the topic. The "must" in my comment is precisely about what is required to achieve the "from first principles" premise. To learn a subject, "from first principles" is not necessarily the right way to go, but there are things that are or are not from first principles.
andrepd 10y ago
>Anyway, I'd write the ultimate thing if I ever found the time. Sure you would... Here's the thing, it's not that your criticism isn't valid, because I actually agree with it, but what's the point of finishing your remarks with "So anyway, this is why you're wrong and I'm right. Also, I would actually write the ultimate thing myself except I don't have the time."? Yeah, and I would write the ultimate language and compiler, if only I had the time, and I would invent fusion and cure cancer, if only I found the time. I mean, what's the point of remarks like those?
- quadrangle 10y ago
  I meant more specifically: "I know how hard it is to get this sort aof thing optimally done. I've been considering doing this sort of thing for a long time, but it's a massive amount of work" programming languages and compilers. Which is to say, I acknowledge how hard it is to do this right. So, it's a statement of understnading along with a clarification that I'm someone with the knowledge to do this if only I had time, which I cannot say about

Florin_Andrei 10y ago

I hear ya (pun not intended), but I think the current approach would work, more or less, for people who went through physics school or something. Perhaps I'm biased by my background (physics, and reasonably familiar with music theory at amateur level). I do agree that making it more intuitive would make it more useful for, e.g., kids in middle school.

quadrangle 10y ago
I wasn't talking about intuitive. I'm saying that to follow the first-principles premise, certain things are needed.

sabertoothed 10y ago

Don't forget: There is no ultimate best way to teach. People absorb knowledge very differently. I learnt that the hard way. Some people need to see examples first and play with it; other people (that's me) need to see the structure and principles first. The "must" in your claims seems a bit too absolute / dogmatic to me.

quadrangle 10y ago
The best way to learn anything is to study multiple sources, multiple approaches to the topic. The "must" in my comment is precisely about what is required to achieve the "from first principles" premise. To learn a subject, "from first principles" is not necessarily the right way to go, but there are things that are or are not from first principles.

andrepd 10y ago

>Anyway, I'd write the ultimate thing if I ever found the time. Sure you would... Here's the thing, it's not that your criticism isn't valid, because I actually agree with it, but what's the point of finishing your remarks with "So anyway, this is why you're wrong and I'm right. Also, I would actually write the ultimate thing myself except I don't have the time."? Yeah, and I would write the ultimate language and compiler, if only I had the time, and I would invent fusion and cure cancer, if only I found the time. I mean, what's the point of remarks like those?

quadrangle 10y ago
I meant more specifically: "I know how hard it is to get this sort aof thing optimally done. I've been considering doing this sort of thing for a long time, but it's a massive amount of work" programming languages and compilers. Which is to say, I acknowledge how hard it is to do this right. So, it's a statement of understnading along with a clarification that I'm someone with the knowledge to do this if only I had time, which I cannot say about