Discussion:
chord
(too old to reply)
Pt
2015-08-22 03:30:03 UTC
Permalink
A C, an Eb and a G walk into a bar and ask for a shot.
The bartender says Sorry, I Can't serve minors--so the Eb leaves and the other two did a 5th.

Pt
Les Cargill
2015-08-22 03:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pt
A C, an Eb and a G walk into a bar and ask for a shot.
The bartender says Sorry, I Can't serve minors--so the Eb leaves and the other two did a 5th.
Pt
A guy walks into a bar and says "Ow. That hurt. Why is there a bar there?"
--
Les Cargill
Oci-One Kanubi
2015-08-24 14:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Pt
A C, an Eb and a G walk into a bar and ask for a shot.
The bartender says Sorry, I Can't serve minors--so the Eb leaves and the other two did a 5th.
Pt
A guy walks into a bar and says "Ow. That hurt. Why is there a bar there?"
--
Les Cargill
Two drummers walk into a bar.

Why didn't the second drummer duck?

.
Ike Naar
2015-08-22 06:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pt
A C, an Eb and a G walk into a bar and ask for a shot.
The bartender says Sorry, I Can't serve minors
--so the Eb leaves and the other two did a 5th.
The three of them could have done an Eb6. No minors involved.
e***@yahoo.com
2015-08-26 19:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ike Naar
Post by Pt
A C, an Eb and a G walk into a bar and ask for a shot.
The bartender says Sorry, I Can't serve minors
--so the Eb leaves and the other two did a 5th.
The three of them could have done an Eb6. No minors involved.
Your a bass player and can't even count to 4 ???
" A C, an Eb and a G "
pack it up bro.. ed
Ike Naar
2015-08-26 20:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Post by Ike Naar
Post by Pt
A C, an Eb and a G walk into a bar and ask for a shot.
The bartender says Sorry, I Can't serve minors
--so the Eb leaves and the other two did a 5th.
The three of them could have done an Eb6. No minors involved.
Your a bass player and can't even count to 4 ???
" A C, an Eb and a G "
pack it up bro.. ed
One doesn't have to play all the notes in a chord.
In fact, on the bass, when chording, one often plays three notes of
the chord, using only the notes that give the chord its flavour.
In case of a 6 chord, the interesting notes are the root (of course),
the 3rd (which defines the major/minor quality) and the 6th.
The 5th, the most uninteresting note, can be omitted.
For Eb6, that results in Eb(root), G(3rd), C(6th).
Sam Wilson
2015-08-27 09:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ike Naar
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Post by Ike Naar
Post by Pt
A C, an Eb and a G walk into a bar and ask for a shot.
The bartender says Sorry, I Can't serve minors
--so the Eb leaves and the other two did a 5th.
The three of them could have done an Eb6. No minors involved.
Your a bass player and can't even count to 4 ???
" A C, an Eb and a G "
pack it up bro.. ed
One doesn't have to play all the notes in a chord.
In fact, on the bass, when chording, one often plays three notes of
the chord, using only the notes that give the chord its flavour.
In case of a 6 chord, the interesting notes are the root (of course),
the 3rd (which defines the major/minor quality) and the 6th.
The 5th, the most uninteresting note, can be omitted.
For Eb6, that results in Eb(root), G(3rd), C(6th).
I thought maybe they were playing in waltz time.

Sam
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Oci-One Kanubi
2015-08-27 15:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ike Naar
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Post by Ike Naar
Post by Pt
A C, an Eb and a G walk into a bar and ask for a shot.
The bartender says Sorry, I Can't serve minors
--so the Eb leaves and the other two did a 5th.
The three of them could have done an Eb6. No minors involved.
Your a bass player and can't even count to 4 ???
" A C, an Eb and a G "
pack it up bro.. ed
One doesn't have to play all the notes in a chord.
In fact, on the bass, when chording, one often plays three notes of
the chord, using only the notes that give the chord its flavour.
In case of a 6 chord, the interesting notes are the root (of course),
the 3rd (which defines the major/minor quality) and the 6th.
The 5th, the most uninteresting note, can be omitted.
For Eb6, that results in Eb(root), G(3rd), C(6th).
Or the 1, 5, and 6 for that classic "cowboy" groove: dum-dadadah dum-dadadah...

(or, with slightly different rhythms, for Tequila Sunrise and Into the Mystic)

.
Les Cargill
2015-08-27 16:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Post by Ike Naar
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Post by Ike Naar
Post by Pt
A C, an Eb and a G walk into a bar and ask for a shot.
The bartender says Sorry, I Can't serve minors
--so the Eb leaves and the other two did a 5th.
The three of them could have done an Eb6. No minors involved.
Your a bass player and can't even count to 4 ???
" A C, an Eb and a G"
pack it up bro.. ed
One doesn't have to play all the notes in a chord.
In fact, on the bass, when chording, one often plays three notes of
the chord, using only the notes that give the chord its flavour.
In case of a 6 chord, the interesting notes are the root (of course),
the 3rd (which defines the major/minor quality) and the 6th.
The 5th, the most uninteresting note, can be omitted.
For Eb6, that results in Eb(root), G(3rd), C(6th).
Or the 1, 5, and 6 for that classic "cowboy" groove: dum-dadadah dum-dadadah...
As in "Happy Trails To You".
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
(or, with slightly different rhythms, for Tequila Sunrise and Into the Mystic)
.
Tequila Sunrise is a calypso. Categorization is erratic, epseically
since "cowboy" music was made by people other than cowboys. On their
own material/time, most of the Nashville guys played... jazz, just
like the Motown guys, just like the Wrecking Crew.

For example. I still get a reaction of surprise when I tell 'em Waylon
Jennings crossed *funk* with country music.

It should not work but it does.
--
Les Cargill
Oci-One Kanubi
2015-08-28 14:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Post by Ike Naar
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Post by Ike Naar
Post by Pt
A C, an Eb and a G walk into a bar and ask for a shot.
The bartender says Sorry, I Can't serve minors
--so the Eb leaves and the other two did a 5th.
The three of them could have done an Eb6. No minors involved.
Your a bass player and can't even count to 4 ???
" A C, an Eb and a G"
pack it up bro.. ed
One doesn't have to play all the notes in a chord.
In fact, on the bass, when chording, one often plays three notes of
the chord, using only the notes that give the chord its flavour.
In case of a 6 chord, the interesting notes are the root (of course),
the 3rd (which defines the major/minor quality) and the 6th.
The 5th, the most uninteresting note, can be omitted.
For Eb6, that results in Eb(root), G(3rd), C(6th).
Or the 1, 5, and 6 for that classic "cowboy" groove: dum-dadadah dum-dadadah...
As in "Happy Trails To You".
(^BD Or Ferde Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
(or, with slightly different rhythms, for Tequila Sunrise and Into the Mystic)
.
Tequila Sunrise is a calypso. Categorization is erratic, epseically
since "cowboy" music was made by people other than cowboys. On their
own material/time, most of the Nashville guys played... jazz, just
like the Motown guys, just like the Wrecking Crew.
For example. I still get a reaction of surprise when I tell 'em Waylon
Jennings crossed *funk* with country music.
It should not work but it does.
--
Les Cargill
Steve Freides
2015-10-02 14:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Or the 1, 5, and 6 for that classic "cowboy" groove: dum-dadadah dum-dadadah...
dum-da-do-da, dum-da-do-da.

Gotta give the sixth its due.

-S-
Oci-One Kanubi
2015-10-06 16:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Or the 1, 5, and 6 for that classic "cowboy" groove: dum-dadadah dum-dadadah...
dum-da-do-da, dum-da-do-da.
Gotta give the sixth its due.
-S-
Or, even more specifically: do--sol-la-sol, do--sol-la-sol!
Steve Freides
2015-10-07 16:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Or the 1, 5, and 6 for that classic "cowboy" groove: dum-dadadah dum-dadadah...
dum-da-do-da, dum-da-do-da.
Gotta give the sixth its due.
-S-
Or, even more specifically: do--sol-la-sol, do--sol-la-sol!
Only if it's in C major, though.

-S-
Oci-One Kanubi
2015-10-08 16:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Or the 1, 5, and 6 for that classic "cowboy" groove: dum-dadadah dum-dadadah...
dum-da-do-da, dum-da-do-da.
Gotta give the sixth its due.
-S-
Or, even more specifically: do--sol-la-sol, do--sol-la-sol!
Only if it's in C major, though.
-S-
I don't think so, Steve. I think "Do" can be the tonic of any key; the 1 of any major scale. I think that's the point of tonic Sol-Fa, that it describes intervals, not notes, and can be shifted up and down to describe the relative values in any key -- much like the Nashville Number System: the "3" is the third note in the major scale of the designated key, just as "Mi" is the third note in the major scale of the designated key.

I think.

-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
Steve Freides
2015-10-08 18:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
I don't think so, Steve. I think "Do" can be the tonic of any key;
the 1 of any major scale. I think that's the point of tonic Sol-Fa,
that it describes intervals, not notes, and can be shifted up and
down to describe the relative values in any key -- much like the
Nashville Number System: the "3" is the third note in the major scale
of the designated key, just as "Mi" is the third note in the major
scale of the designated key.
I think.
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
I'm sure we've had this conversation here before. I learned and teach
fixed-do solfege, wherein Do is always C, Re is always D, etc. It's
just singing on the names of the notes as they are used in Europe,
really, not a "system", and I far prefer it.

What you're describing is what was popular in the US for a long time and
still is, although less so than a few decades ago, which is called
Moveable Do. The current trend, which I'm delighted to see, is to use
fixed Do and to use singing on numbers when the desire is to appreciate
where a particular note is in the key.

-S-
Les Cargill
2015-10-09 05:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
I don't think so, Steve. I think "Do" can be the tonic of any key;
the 1 of any major scale. I think that's the point of tonic Sol-Fa,
that it describes intervals, not notes, and can be shifted up and
down to describe the relative values in any key -- much like the
Nashville Number System: the "3" is the third note in the major scale
of the designated key, just as "Mi" is the third note in the major
scale of the designated key.
I think.
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
I'm sure we've had this conversation here before. I learned and teach
fixed-do solfege, wherein Do is always C, Re is always D, etc. It's
just singing on the names of the notes as they are used in Europe,
really, not a "system", and I far prefer it.
What you're describing is what was popular in the US for a long time and
still is, although less so than a few decades ago, which is called
Moveable Do. The current trend, which I'm delighted to see, is to use
fixed Do and to use singing on numbers when the desire is to appreciate
where a particular note is in the key.
-S-
Is fixed preferable to moveable because this is essentially a children's
subject? IOW, it's assumed that they'll learn
about other keys later?

I'd just like it also noted that the song "Do, Re, Mi" from
at least the Julie Andrews/1969 film version of "Sound of Music" is
in Bb. :)
--
Les Cargill
benj
2015-10-09 07:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
I don't think so, Steve. I think "Do" can be the tonic of any key;
the 1 of any major scale. I think that's the point of tonic Sol-Fa,
that it describes intervals, not notes, and can be shifted up and
down to describe the relative values in any key -- much like the
Nashville Number System: the "3" is the third note in the major scale
of the designated key, just as "Mi" is the third note in the major
scale of the designated key.
I think.
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
I'm sure we've had this conversation here before. I learned and teach
fixed-do solfege, wherein Do is always C, Re is always D, etc. It's
just singing on the names of the notes as they are used in Europe,
really, not a "system", and I far prefer it.
What you're describing is what was popular in the US for a long time and
still is, although less so than a few decades ago, which is called
Moveable Do. The current trend, which I'm delighted to see, is to use
fixed Do and to use singing on numbers when the desire is to appreciate
where a particular note is in the key.
-S-
Is fixed preferable to moveable because this is essentially a children's
subject? IOW, it's assumed that they'll learn
about other keys later?
I'd just like it also noted that the song "Do, Re, Mi" from
at least the Julie Andrews/1969 film version of "Sound of Music" is
in Bb. :)
So "Do" is a deer, a female deer, but if hit by a truck can also be flat?

Sorry...
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Oci-One Kanubi
2015-10-09 18:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
I don't think so, Steve. I think "Do" can be the tonic of any key;
the 1 of any major scale. I think that's the point of tonic Sol-Fa,
that it describes intervals, not notes, and can be shifted up and
down to describe the relative values in any key -- much like the
Nashville Number System: the "3" is the third note in the major scale
of the designated key, just as "Mi" is the third note in the major
scale of the designated key.
I think.
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
I'm sure we've had this conversation here before. I learned and teach
fixed-do solfege, wherein Do is always C, Re is always D, etc. It's
just singing on the names of the notes as they are used in Europe,
really, not a "system", and I far prefer it.
What you're describing is what was popular in the US for a long time and
still is, although less so than a few decades ago, which is called
Moveable Do. The current trend, which I'm delighted to see, is to use
fixed Do and to use singing on numbers when the desire is to appreciate
where a particular note is in the key.
-S-
If this is the case, if there is a fixed relationship between do-re-mi and C-D-E, why on earth muddy the waters by changing the nomenclature? Why on earth teach someone to sing do-mi-sol-ti-sol-mi-do, which won't mean anything to any of the accompanists, when you could teach hir to sing C-E-G-B-G-E-C in the first place?

And then, how to you teach the singer to sing the same line in G? Sol-ti-re-faSharp-re-ti-sol?

"Fixed do" just seems to introduce a needless duplication of nomenclature, leading to pointless confusion (at least, ***I*** am certainly confused!), and totally dismisses the versatility of "moveable do", whereas there is an obvious value and flexibility to "moveable do"*.

What is the point of "fixed do"?

-Richard, His Bassic Travesty

* The value of "moveable do" seems equivalent to the tremendous head-start bass- and guitar-players have over horn- and keys-players: as long as we avoid open strings, every key is played with exactly the same fingering. Learn it in one key and you can transpose it up and down the fretboard into any key. 'Course, that advantage goes away when you're playing from a chart, which is why, I guess, Nashville session players favor the number system. - R, HBT
Les Cargill
2015-10-10 03:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
<snip>
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
What is the point of "fixed do"?
I am not an educational theorist. But keeping the key of C constant,
you reduce the number of degrees of freedom to encourage the children
to learn intervals.
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
* The value of "moveable do" seems equivalent to the tremendous
as long as we avoid open strings, every key is played with exactly
the same fingering.
Okay, no you've done it. Small rant at the end.
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Learn it in one key and you can transpose it up
and down the fretboard into any key. 'Course, that advantage goes
away when you're playing from a chart, which is why, I guess,
Nashville session players favor the number system. - R, HBT
No, you just cannot actually play any wind instrument completely
in ET. It takes everything you have to get them to Just intonation.

They want to be Pythagorean.

Ask any woodwind player about the flat-five interval from
the natural base note of the horn - for an Eb sax,
that's an A. For a Bb it's an E.

This is why jazz bass players never use open strings; they
have to pull the A notes sharp to meet the sax players halfway.

--
Les Cargill
Simon Turner
2015-10-10 08:31:36 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, in article
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
I don't think so, Steve. I think "Do" can be the tonic of any key;
the 1 of any major scale. I think that's the point of tonic Sol-Fa,
that it describes intervals, not notes, and can be shifted up and
down to describe the relative values in any key -- much like the
Nashville Number System: the "3" is the third note in the major scale
of the designated key, just as "Mi" is the third note in the major
scale of the designated key.
I think.
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
I'm sure we've had this conversation here before. I learned and teach
fixed-do solfege, wherein Do is always C, Re is always D, etc. It's
just singing on the names of the notes as they are used in Europe,
really, not a "system", and I far prefer it.
What you're describing is what was popular in the US for a long time and
still is, although less so than a few decades ago, which is called
Moveable Do. The current trend, which I'm delighted to see, is to use
fixed Do and to use singing on numbers when the desire is to appreciate
where a particular note is in the key.
-S-
If this is the case, if there is a fixed relationship between do-re-mi and
C-D-E, why on earth muddy the waters by changing the nomenclature? Why on
earth teach someone to sing do-mi-sol-ti-sol-mi-do, which won't mean anythi
ng to any of the accompanists, when you could teach hir to sing C-E-G-B-G-E
-C in the first place?
Perhaps you aren't aware that do, re, mi etc. *are* the names of the
notes in at least three European languages (French, Italian and
Spanish), one of which has a rather strong influence on musical
terminology. The French, Italians and Spanish don't[*] call the notes
C, D, E etc. -- that's an English thing.

http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/music/keylang.htm

The one difference is that the French, Italian and Spanish word for the
note we call "B" is "si", but that's been replaced by "ti" in the
English do, re, mi scale (presumably to avoid confusion with the note we
call "C").

The Germans have a different system, which is almost the same as English
(as you'd expect, English being a mostly Germanic language); the
exception is that B is "H", and German "B" is B flat. 8-)
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
What is the point of "fixed do"?
That's conceptually a bit like an Italian person asking "What is the
point of 'fixed C'? Why can't we just use 'C' for the tonic of the
particular key we're playing in?"

Tm my mind, the *real* question is why English speakers ever used the
non-English do, re, mi etc. in the first place, when we had our own
perfectly good English/Germanic names for the notes. But, given that we
did, "fixed do" seems pretty reasonable.


[*] of course, with the pervasive nature of English these days, they
doubtless have to cope with calling them C, D, E etc. in addition to
their own native names for them. For all I know the native names are
dying out, or have already done so. But I rather hope not.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
***@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
benj
2015-10-10 20:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Turner
On Friday, in article
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
What is the point of "fixed do"?
That's conceptually a bit like an Italian person asking "What is the
point of 'fixed C'? Why can't we just use 'C' for the tonic of the
particular key we're playing in?"
Tm my mind, the *real* question is why English speakers ever used the
non-English do, re, mi etc. in the first place, when we had our own
perfectly good English/Germanic names for the notes. But, given that we
did, "fixed do" seems pretty reasonable.
Actually "fixed do" is NOT reasonable in English. But in Latin countries
obviously do re mi etc. is fixed to mean the key of C (I don't know if
frequency comes into it and how they deal with octaves.)

English speakers adopted the relative do re mi scales basically for
singing. The key in singing (as Julie Andrews explained) is learning
what various INTERVALS sound like. Hence the system was and is widely
adopted for vocal instruction. (Though personally I was never very big
on it) As you are probably aware because of vocal range differences
between singer's voices, singers often sing in what they term "my key"
which generates a range of notes they can handle well. This
automatically makes the do re mi thing relative and "do" not fixed.

When you think about it singing and sight reading from a chart is not
such a simple thing. Usually singers are given a starting pitch as
reference and then one must interpret the intervals one sees on the
chart taking into account the key signature etc. But of course do re mi
still gives you the intervals relative to the reference pitch you were
given at the beginning.

Don't any of you dudes sing?
Post by Simon Turner
[*] of course, with the pervasive nature of English these days, they
doubtless have to cope with calling them C, D, E etc. in addition to
their own native names for them. For all I know the native names are
dying out, or have already done so. But I rather hope not.
I hope so! Given the German-English system is so much more logical and
thought out rather than the Latin thing that obviously "just growed".
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Simon Turner
2015-10-12 08:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by Simon Turner
On Friday, in article
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
What is the point of "fixed do"?
That's conceptually a bit like an Italian person asking "What is the
point of 'fixed C'? Why can't we just use 'C' for the tonic of the
particular key we're playing in?"
Tm my mind, the *real* question is why English speakers ever used the
non-English do, re, mi etc. in the first place, when we had our own
perfectly good English/Germanic names for the notes. But, given that we
did, "fixed do" seems pretty reasonable.
Actually "fixed do" is NOT reasonable in English. But in Latin countries
obviously do re mi etc. is fixed to mean the key of C (I don't know if
frequency comes into it and how they deal with octaves.)
English speakers adopted the relative do re mi scales basically for
singing. The key in singing (as Julie Andrews explained) is learning
what various INTERVALS sound like. Hence the system was and is widely
adopted for vocal instruction. (Though personally I was never very big
on it) As you are probably aware because of vocal range differences
between singer's voices, singers often sing in what they term "my key"
which generates a range of notes they can handle well. This
automatically makes the do re mi thing relative and "do" not fixed.
Perhaps I should rephrase my "real question"; I understand the value of
having a movable system (for teaching intervals to singers and other
purposes, like describing cowboy bass lines 8-), but why did we have to
choose the *fixed* European note names as the names for a *movable*
system? It seems destined to lead to confusion (as evidenced here); why
not choose a different set of syllables instead? But given that
lamentable decision (which seems to have been made in the 19th century),
ISTM that -- to avoid compounding the confusion with the European note
names, if nothing else -- standardising on "fixed do" seems reasonable.
Steve asserts downthread that this is what the US conservatoires did
from the very start, and it's clearly the way he has always seen it.

But on the other side of the coin, my wife (who, unlike me, had a
"proper" musical education, albeit not to conservatoire level) agrees
with you that "movable do" is the correct thing for English speakers to
use, and that my preference for "fixed do" is mistaken. To back up her
claim she produced her copy of the classic "Rudiments and Theory of
Music", published in 1958 by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools
of Music, and it clearly states that "doh" is the tonic of whatever key
you are using. So "movable do" is clearly not just a US thing, nor is
it limited to singers. (I'll try to find out what the ABRSM thinks
nowadays, and report back.)

This all leaves us with two apparently identical, but mutually
incompatible, systems that cannot be told apart unless someone explains
which one is in use at that point; and the proponents of both systems
believe theirs is the only sensible one. Sigh.
Post by benj
Post by Simon Turner
[*] of course, with the pervasive nature of English these days, they
doubtless have to cope with calling them C, D, E etc. in addition to
their own native names for them. For all I know the native names are
dying out, or have already done so. But I rather hope not.
I hope so! Given the German-English system is so much more logical and
thought out rather than the Latin thing that obviously "just growed".
Well, maybe. But as much as I like logical standardisation (e.g. SI
units), I also like diversity, and am dismayed by the parochial way that
English speakers tend to assume that their views, language etc. should
sweep aside and replace the myriad ways that the rest of the world do
things.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
***@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
benj
2015-10-13 05:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Turner
Perhaps I should rephrase my "real question"; I understand the value of
having a movable system (for teaching intervals to singers and other
purposes, like describing cowboy bass lines 8-), but why did we have to
choose the *fixed* European note names as the names for a *movable*
system? It seems destined to lead to confusion (as evidenced here); why
not choose a different set of syllables instead? But given that
lamentable decision (which seems to have been made in the 19th century),
ISTM that -- to avoid compounding the confusion with the European note
names, if nothing else -- standardising on "fixed do" seems reasonable.
Steve asserts downthread that this is what the US conservatoires did
from the very start, and it's clearly the way he has always seen it.
Standards are wonderful. Everybody needs to have their own! Who knows
why the fixed Latin names were chosen for the "do" movable interval
system. Most likely was the result of Eurodenizens jerking each other's
chains. Anyway English is well known for sucking in gobs of foreign
terms and adopting them and yes it does cause confusion (Euro spelling
of English words etc.) Nobody except a few diehards seems to give a crap.
Post by Simon Turner
But on the other side of the coin, my wife (who, unlike me, had a
"proper" musical education, albeit not to conservatoire level) agrees
with you that "movable do" is the correct thing for English speakers to
use, and that my preference for "fixed do" is mistaken. To back up her
claim she produced her copy of the classic "Rudiments and Theory of
Music", published in 1958 by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools
of Music, and it clearly states that "doh" is the tonic of whatever key
you are using. So "movable do" is clearly not just a US thing, nor is
it limited to singers. (I'll try to find out what the ABRSM thinks
nowadays, and report back.)
Your wife agrees with me so she must be correct! And no it's not a US
thing but an English-speaking AND German thing because in those
languages the do-re-mi etc. are NOT used for fixed note names.
Post by Simon Turner
This all leaves us with two apparently identical, but mutually
incompatible, systems that cannot be told apart unless someone explains
which one is in use at that point; and the proponents of both systems
believe theirs is the only sensible one. Sigh.
Nothing new. The English drive on the left side of the road while
everyone else drives on the right. But they think theirs is the sensible
choice.

This is not unusual. For example, in Latin music there are Spanish names
for drums and things, and then there are the English names for the same
things. Sometimes the same name means two different things depending on
if you are speaking Spanish or English. That's how things work.
Post by Simon Turner
Post by benj
Post by Simon Turner
[*] of course, with the pervasive nature of English these days, they
doubtless have to cope with calling them C, D, E etc. in addition to
their own native names for them. For all I know the native names are
dying out, or have already done so. But I rather hope not.
I hope so! Given the German-English system is so much more logical and
thought out rather than the Latin thing that obviously "just growed".
Well, maybe. But as much as I like logical standardisation (e.g. SI
units), I also like diversity, and am dismayed by the parochial way that
English speakers tend to assume that their views, language etc. should
sweep aside and replace the myriad ways that the rest of the world do
things.
I think you are over-thinking this. There is the English system and
there is the Latin system. If you are speaking French or Spanish etc.
then "do" means the note what the English speakers call"C". When you
speak English you say "C" which of course is NOT the Latin note "Si"
which English speakers call "B". Got it?

So why don't you think that all the Italian terms used in music (both
English and Latin) are not "parochial"? Why do Italians assume that
their terms for things are so much better than the rest of the world? :)

Look. Language and History are not a clean logical standardized
business. That's why they are not science.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
Simon Turner
2015-10-13 12:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by Simon Turner
Perhaps I should rephrase my "real question"; I understand the value of
having a movable system (for teaching intervals to singers and other
purposes, like describing cowboy bass lines 8-), but why did we have to
choose the *fixed* European note names as the names for a *movable*
system? It seems destined to lead to confusion (as evidenced here); why
not choose a different set of syllables instead? But given that
lamentable decision (which seems to have been made in the 19th century),
ISTM that -- to avoid compounding the confusion with the European note
names, if nothing else -- standardising on "fixed do" seems reasonable.
Steve asserts downthread that this is what the US conservatoires did
from the very start, and it's clearly the way he has always seen it.
Standards are wonderful. Everybody needs to have their own!
Absolutely. The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so
many to choose from!
Post by benj
Who knows why the fixed Latin names were chosen for the "do" movable
interval system. Most likely was the result of Eurodenizens jerking
each other's chains.
Quite possibly, or simply ignorance (e.g. familiarity with the names
without knowing whether they were fixed or movable).
Post by benj
Anyway English is well known for sucking in gobs of foreign terms and
adopting them and yes it does cause confusion (Euro spelling of
English words etc.) Nobody except a few diehards seems to give a crap.
Quite so.
Post by benj
Post by Simon Turner
But on the other side of the coin, my wife (who, unlike me, had a
"proper" musical education, albeit not to conservatoire level) agrees
with you that "movable do" is the correct thing for English speakers to
use, and that my preference for "fixed do" is mistaken. To back up her
claim she produced her copy of the classic "Rudiments and Theory of
Music", published in 1958 by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools
of Music, and it clearly states that "doh" is the tonic of whatever key
you are using. So "movable do" is clearly not just a US thing, nor is
it limited to singers. (I'll try to find out what the ABRSM thinks
nowadays, and report back.)
Your wife agrees with me so she must be correct!
8-)

Of course, being my wife, one might argue that she's correct by
definition...
Post by benj
And no it's not a US thing but an English-speaking AND German thing
because in those languages the do-re-mi etc. are NOT used for fixed
note names.
Indeed. But Steve seems under the impression that "movable do" is a
purely US thing, and I thought evidence to the contrary was interesting.
According to the utterly definitive Wikipedia, "movable do" a.k.a.
"Tonic Sol-Fa" was invented in England in the 19th century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonic_sol-fa

Incidentally, the ABRSM seem to have (wisely, if boringly for our
current purposes) dispensed with do-re-mi in the modern replacement for
their 1958 "Rudiments and Theory of Music"; their current "little red
book" is "First Steps in Music Theory" by Eric Taylor, which talks about
note names A-G and the degrees of a scale, with no mention of do-re-mi
(or doh-ray-me as the 1958 book had it).
Post by benj
Post by Simon Turner
This all leaves us with two apparently identical, but mutually
incompatible, systems that cannot be told apart unless someone explains
which one is in use at that point; and the proponents of both systems
believe theirs is the only sensible one. Sigh.
Nothing new. The English drive on the left side of the road while
everyone else drives on the right. But they think theirs is the sensible
choice.
Indeed so, but it's usually fairly obvious which side of the road one
should be driving on, and you don't generally get two people in the same
country who disagree about which way it is!
Post by benj
This is not unusual. For example, in Latin music there are Spanish names
for drums and things, and then there are the English names for the same
things. Sometimes the same name means two different things depending on
if you are speaking Spanish or English. That's how things work.
I hadn't come across the concept of the same name in music meaning
different things depending on which language you're using; that's a
pretty close analogy. Interesting.
Post by benj
Post by Simon Turner
Post by benj
Post by Simon Turner
[*] of course, with the pervasive nature of English these days, they
doubtless have to cope with calling them C, D, E etc. in addition to
their own native names for them. For all I know the native names are
dying out, or have already done so. But I rather hope not.
I hope so! Given the German-English system is so much more logical and
thought out rather than the Latin thing that obviously "just growed".
Well, maybe. But as much as I like logical standardisation (e.g. SI
units), I also like diversity, and am dismayed by the parochial way that
English speakers tend to assume that their views, language etc. should
sweep aside and replace the myriad ways that the rest of the world do
things.
I think you are over-thinking this. There is the English system and
there is the Latin system. If you are speaking French or Spanish etc.
then "do" means the note what the English speakers call"C". When you
speak English you say "C" which of course is NOT the Latin note "Si"
which English speakers call "B". Got it?
But which German speakers call "H". Got it.
Post by benj
So why don't you think that all the Italian terms used in music (both
English and Latin) are not "parochial"? Why do Italians assume that
their terms for things are so much better than the rest of the world? :)
Smiley noted, but the Italian terms were arguably the original ones, so
they didn't really replace anything (yes, there would have been local
words for some of those terms, but not really as part of a widely-used
coherent system).
Post by benj
Look. Language and History are not a clean logical standardized
business. That's why they are not science.
Indeed not. Everything would be *so* much easier if we could nip back
in time to educate the creators of things with the bebefit of our modern
experience, to ensure that things were done properly the first time
around rather than just randomly evolving...
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
***@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
Sam Wilson
2015-10-13 16:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Turner
According to the utterly definitive Wikipedia, "movable do" a.k.a.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonic_sol-fa
It's a little surprising that that page doesn't have any examples of how
Tonic Sol-Fa looks on the printed page. Many churches in the UK used to
have three sets of hymn books - one words only, one words and standard
music notation and one with words and tonic sol-fa. Searching Google
images for 'tonic sol-fa' helps though the first hit, for me at least,
is in Welsh.
Post by Simon Turner
Post by benj
Look. Language and History are not a clean logical standardized
business. That's why they are not science.
Indeed not. Everything would be *so* much easier if we could nip back
in time to educate the creators of things with the bebefit of our modern
experience, to ensure that things were done properly the first time
around rather than just randomly evolving...
<https://xkcd.com/567/>

Sam
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Derek Tearne
2015-10-13 21:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Turner
Post by benj
Nothing new. The English drive on the left side of the road while
everyone else drives on the right. But they think theirs is the sensible
choice.
This is a perfect example of a standard. There is no 'sensible' side of
the road to drive on, no inherent 'correct' value. Driving on the right
makes no better sense, in and of itself, than driving on the left. The
only thing that is sensible is to adhere to which has been defined as
the standard in the country where you live.

Incidentally, you are incorrect in your assertion that 'everyone else
drives on the right', about a third of the world's nations drive on the
left. There were more, but some European countries (eg. Sweden) got brow
beaten into conforming.

And, of course, we have weights and measures. Pretty much the entire
world has adopted the metric system, except the USA (except for their
military) and the UK (where it's all a bit of a mixed mess).

Everyone thinks their way of doing things is more sensible, for fairly
unconvincing reasons. Although having said that, metric has more better
reasons going for it than imperial (although many of those boil down to
- it's what everyone else uses).
Post by Simon Turner
Indeed so, but it's usually fairly obvious which side of the road one
should be driving on, and you don't generally get two people in the same
country who disagree about which way it is!
Fun times can be had if one drives from a right hand drive country into
a left hand drive country, or vice versa. There's usually either a one
lane bridge, or some more complicated arrangement to cope with swapping.
Post by Simon Turner
Post by benj
This is not unusual. For example, in Latin music there are Spanish names
for drums and things, and then there are the English names for the same
things. Sometimes the same name means two different things depending on
if you are speaking Spanish or English. That's how things work.
I hadn't come across the concept of the same name in music meaning
different things depending on which language you're using; that's a
pretty close analogy. Interesting.
Tabla means a different kind of drum to (some) people in the Middle
East, to most people in India.

In English, Harp means a quite different thing depending on whether you
are a classical, or blues, musician.

--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - ***@url.co.nz
Vitamin S: improvisation from New Zealand http://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/
Les Cargill
2015-10-13 23:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Tearne
Post by benj
Nothing new. The English drive on the left side of the road while
everyone else drives on the right. But they think theirs is the sensible
choice.
This is a perfect example of a standard. There is no 'sensible' side of
the road to drive on, no inherent 'correct' value. Driving on the right
makes no better sense, in and of itself, than driving on the left. The
only thing that is sensible is to adhere to which has been defined as
the standard in the country where you live.
Shifting right handed makes all kinds of sense.
Post by Derek Tearne
Incidentally, you are incorrect in your assertion that 'everyone else
drives on the right', about a third of the world's nations drive on the
left. There were more, but some European countries (eg. Sweden) got brow
beaten into conforming.
And, of course, we have weights and measures. Pretty much the entire
world has adopted the metric system, except the USA (except for their
military) and the UK (where it's all a bit of a mixed mess).
Everyone thinks their way of doing things is more sensible, for fairly
unconvincing reasons. Although having said that, metric has more better
reasons going for it than imperial (although many of those boil down to
- it's what everyone else uses).
Some things in Imperial work better. I find people still use
feet instead of purely using meters.

<snip>
Post by Derek Tearne
--- Derek
--
Les Cargill
Derek Tearne
2015-10-14 02:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Derek Tearne
Post by benj
Nothing new. The English drive on the left side of the road while
everyone else drives on the right. But they think theirs is the sensible
choice.
This is a perfect example of a standard. There is no 'sensible' side of
the road to drive on, no inherent 'correct' value. Driving on the right
makes no better sense, in and of itself, than driving on the left. The
only thing that is sensible is to adhere to which has been defined as
the standard in the country where you live.
Shifting right handed makes all kinds of sense.
As does shifting left handed - which leaves the right (statistically
likely to be dominant) hand on the wheel controlling the direction of
the vehicle.

When the decisions were made about which side of the road to drive on,
vehicles had completely different controls, heck it may even have been
before motorised vehicles were invented.

People brought up with one can, and will, create post-facto
justifications for what was essentially an arbitrary decision, or a
decision which came about due to circumstances that no longer apply.
Such as which side people carry their swords, or where the drivers seat
was on a covered wagon (both of which I think are bogus origin stories).

It's like Farhenheit vs Centigrade, people will come up with
justifications for one or other, that really boil down to "It's the one
I'm used to".
Post by Les Cargill
Some things in Imperial work better. I find people still use
feet instead of purely using meters.
Again, this boils down to '"It's what I'm used to" rather than which is
'better'. Although some people in metric countries (sometimes including
me) still use inches (although in my case rarely feet) it's more to do
with having learned that when young, than it being 'better'.

I happily use metres and kilometres for distance, and have completely
lost any understanding of lbs, ounces and the execrable 'stone' for
weights.

However, I still mostly think of peoples height in terms of feet, and I
use 'inches' to describe the scale length of a bass, or anything shorter
than about 10cm.

Fahrenheit degress are totally meaningless to me.

In my case decimalisation/metrication was starting to happen when I was
still at school, much of my experience in estimating size and distance
comes from studying for my degree, and science was fully metric in
England by the time I was at university.

I then moved as an adult to a fully metric/decimalised country.

The point is, there are these competing standards and ways of doing
things, that aren't necessarily inherently any better than the other -
but there is value in people adopting one (not necessarily the 'best').

However, people who are used to one, will vociferously defend it, while
arguing against another, simply because of familiarity.

For people brought up with do-re-mi it must make perfect sense, as does
nashville numbering for country folks.

--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - ***@url.co.nz
Vitamin S: improvisation from New Zealand http://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/
Steve Freides
2015-10-14 12:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Tearne
Post by Les Cargill
Shifting right handed makes all kinds of sense.
As does shifting left handed - which leaves the right (statistically
likely to be dominant) hand on the wheel controlling the direction of
the vehicle.
I find this conversation much too shifty.

-S-
Simon Turner
2015-10-14 13:59:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, in article
Post by Derek Tearne
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Derek Tearne
Post by benj
Nothing new. The English drive on the left side of the road while
everyone else drives on the right. But they think theirs is the sensible
choice.
This is a perfect example of a standard. There is no 'sensible' side of
the road to drive on, no inherent 'correct' value. Driving on the right
makes no better sense, in and of itself, than driving on the left. The
only thing that is sensible is to adhere to which has been defined as
the standard in the country where you live.
Shifting right handed makes all kinds of sense.
As does shifting left handed - which leaves the right (statistically
likely to be dominant) hand on the wheel controlling the direction of
the vehicle.
I've even seen some people claim that this is one of the reasons why
manual transmissions are more common in Britain than in the US. (Seems
highly unlikely; manual transmissions are also common in Europe, where
they drive on the right.)
Post by Derek Tearne
When the decisions were made about which side of the road to drive on,
vehicles had completely different controls, heck it may even have been
before motorised vehicles were invented.
The decisions started long before motorised vehicles: the Pope decreed
in 1300 that people travelling to Rome should travel on the left, and
the 18th century saw Britain mandate driving on the left, while Russia,
Denmark and (post-revolutionary) France passed laws requiring driving on
the right; Napoleon then spread this French influence around all the
places he invaded. Motorised vehicle controls didn't come into it.
Post by Derek Tearne
People brought up with one can, and will, create post-facto
justifications for what was essentially an arbitrary decision, or a
decision which came about due to circumstances that no longer apply.
Such as which side people carry their swords, or where the drivers seat
was on a covered wagon (both of which I think are bogus origin stories).
The sword one has almost universal traction, and makes sense to me; in
violent times, when you pass someone in the street, it is better for
them to pass on your right, where you can defend yourself with your
sword hand; also it is much easier to mount a horse from the left than
the right if your sword hangs to your left (which they almost
universally do), so starting and stopping on the left side of the road
makes sense. (It is also alleged that, regardless of swords,
right-handed people find it easier to mount a horse from the left -- I'm
not a horse rider, so I wouldn't know.)

The covered wagon version sounds highly unlikely, but a more plausible
one is that teamsters driving two-abreast teams of horses in the US
would sit on the rear-left horse, leaving their (right) whip hand
well-placed to control the rest of the team (as well as mounting from
the left being allegedly easier for right-handed people); and with the
width of the vehicles they found it safer to pass oncoming vehicles to
their left, where they could see the separation clearly, than to their
right.

There are lots of web pages that claim to be authoritative on this
subject, e.g.

http://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/driving-on-the-left/
http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Why-do-the-British-drive-on-the-left/
http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2015/01/brits-drive-left/

They can make interesting reading regardless of whether you believe them
or not...
Post by Derek Tearne
It's like Farhenheit vs Centigrade, people will come up with
justifications for one or other, that really boil down to "It's the one
I'm used to".
Quite so. Although I grew up with both: Fahrenheit was used for high
temperatures but Celsius (then called centigrade) was used for low ones.
8-/

Like you, Fahrenheit temperatures now means little to me: I have to
convert into Celsius to make any sense of them.
Post by Derek Tearne
Post by Les Cargill
Some things in Imperial work better. I find people still use
feet instead of purely using meters.
Again, this boils down to '"It's what I'm used to" rather than which is
'better'. Although some people in metric countries (sometimes including
me) still use inches (although in my case rarely feet) it's more to do
with having learned that when young, than it being 'better'.
Agreed, although there is an argument that dividing large things up into
multiples in the 10-20 range (12 inches, 16 ounces, 14 pounds etc.)
makes for nicer numbers than using thousands or hundreds -- yes, I know
the SI has deca- and deci- but they are rarely used (decibel being the
only one I can think of offhand).
Post by Derek Tearne
I happily use metres and kilometres for distance, and have completely
lost any understanding of lbs, ounces and the execrable 'stone' for
weights.
What has the poor stone ever done to you? 8-)

I have a much better understanding of human body mass when expressed in
stones and pounds than as large numbers of pounds; I never understood
why the US abandoned stones in favour of just using pounds. Why not
abandon feet as well and just use inches to describe someone's height?
Post by Derek Tearne
The point is, there are these competing standards and ways of doing
things, that aren't necessarily inherently any better than the other -
but there is value in people adopting one (not necessarily the 'best').
http://mentalfloss.com/article/25845/quick-6-six-unit-conversion-disasters

Not that using the correct unit conversions helps if you don't think
about what you're doing; I cringe when I read things like seed packets
instructing you to plant things "approximately 2.54 cm apart" or in rows
"about 31.5 cm apart". And it's usually easy to spot when a recipe has
been written for one unit system then converted to another, because the
quantities end up being awkward.
Post by Derek Tearne
However, people who are used to one, will vociferously defend it, while
arguing against another, simply because of familiarity.
Not that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with sticking to things
you're familiar with; people tend to fall back on prior knowledge in
times of stress, and changing from one system to another can produce
catastrophic consequences when the wrong one is unthinkingly applied.

Change for change's sake is a Bad Thing IMHO.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
***@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
Sam Wilson
2015-10-14 15:07:07 UTC
Permalink
... (It is also alleged that, regardless of swords,
right-handed people find it easier to mount a horse from the left -- I'm
not a horse rider, so I wouldn't know.)
I'm right handed and I find it much easier to mount a bike from the left.
Post by Derek Tearne
It's like Farhenheit vs Centigrade, people will come up with
justifications for one or other, that really boil down to "It's the one
I'm used to".
Quite so. Although I grew up with both: Fahrenheit was used for high
temperatures but Celsius (then called centigrade) was used for low ones.
8-/
Like you, Fahrenheit temperatures now means little to me: I have to
convert into Celsius to make any sense of them.
I'm still the other way round. 60 F is on the cool side, 70 F is quite
warm, 80 F is too hot. I don't have the same set of markers in C.
Post by Derek Tearne
I happily use metres and kilometres for distance, and have completely
lost any understanding of lbs, ounces and the execrable 'stone' for
weights.
What has the poor stone ever done to you? 8-)
I have a much better understanding of human body mass when expressed in
stones and pounds than as large numbers of pounds; I never understood
why the US abandoned stones in favour of just using pounds. Why not
abandon feet as well and just use inches to describe someone's height?
But they use feet to describe sub-mile distances on roads! Why? It's
started to infect satnavs here in the UK as well. I have no idea how
far 500 feet is until I've mentally turned it into somewhere between 150
and 200 yards. Or metres. I'm easy that way. All our road signs
express short distances in yards.

Sam
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Simon Turner
2015-10-14 17:42:40 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, in article
Post by Sam Wilson
... (It is also alleged that, regardless of swords,
right-handed people find it easier to mount a horse from the left -- I'm
not a horse rider, so I wouldn't know.)
I'm right handed and I find it much easier to mount a bike from the left.
Good point; me too, for both bicycles and motorbikes. It seems more
natural to swing the right leg.
Post by Sam Wilson
Like you, Fahrenheit temperatures now means little to me: I have to
convert into Celsius to make any sense of them.
I'm still the other way round. 60 F is on the cool side, 70 F is quite
warm, 80 F is too hot. I don't have the same set of markers in C.
I'm mostly all right with those rough markers (approx 16, 21 and 27 °C,
BTW), and would agree with your classifications, but I don't get enough
of a sense of how cool or (particularly) how much too hot until I know
what it is in Celsius. I know 90 °F is too hot, and 100 °F more so, but
until I've worked out that we're talking about 32 and 38 °C I no longer
have a handle on just how much too hot they are.

If I ruled the world it would never be allowed to be hotter than 25 °C.
Post by Sam Wilson
I have a much better understanding of human body mass when expressed in
stones and pounds than as large numbers of pounds; I never understood
why the US abandoned stones in favour of just using pounds. Why not
abandon feet as well and just use inches to describe someone's height?
But they use feet to describe sub-mile distances on roads! Why?
Aaargh. I'd forgotten that. Maybe they just like making life difficult
for themselves by using larger numbers than necessary?
Post by Sam Wilson
It's started to infect satnavs here in the UK as well.
Oh no; really? Any particular makes I should avoid?
Post by Sam Wilson
I have no idea how far 500 feet is until I've mentally turned it into
somewhere between 150 and 200 yards. Or metres. I'm easy that way.
Ditto.
Post by Sam Wilson
All our road signs express short distances in yards.
Long may it remain so! And beer in pints!

(Although I manage to cope with metres and km/h when driving in France.)
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
***@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
Sam Wilson
2015-10-23 12:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Turner
On Wednesday, in article
But [USAians] use feet to describe sub-mile distances on roads! Why?
Aaargh. I'd forgotten that. Maybe they just like making life difficult
for themselves by using larger numbers than necessary?
Maybe. Dunno. Perhaps yards were used by their erstwhile colonial
masters and they swore never to use them again. Or perhaps (and
slightly more plausibly) yards became popular in the UK after 1776 and
never caught on in the US.
Post by Simon Turner
It's started to infect satnavs here in the UK as well.
Oh no; really? Any particular makes I should avoid?
I'm sorry, but I don't know. I don't own a satnav but I've heard it on
other people's and also on Google Maps directions, but there's probably
an explanation for the latter.

Sam
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Simon Turner
2015-10-24 09:15:10 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, in article
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Simon Turner
On Wednesday, in article
But [USAians] use feet to describe sub-mile distances on roads! Why?
Aaargh. I'd forgotten that. Maybe they just like making life difficult
for themselves by using larger numbers than necessary?
Maybe. Dunno. Perhaps yards were used by their erstwhile colonial
masters and they swore never to use them again.
Didn't stop them using feet, inches, miles, ...
Post by Sam Wilson
Or perhaps (and
slightly more plausibly) yards became popular in the UK after 1776 and
never caught on in the US.
I thought yards were always in fairly widespread use in Britain (going
back to the days when the yard was defined in terms of the King's bodily
measurements), but that's certainly more plausible.

OK, left-pondians: are yards used much/at all in the US, or are you
wondering what we're talking about?
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Simon Turner
It's started to infect satnavs here in the UK as well.
Oh no; really? Any particular makes I should avoid?
I'm sorry, but I don't know. I don't own a satnav but I've heard it on
other people's
Shudder. We're all doomed, I tell you.
Post by Sam Wilson
and also on Google Maps directions, but there's probably
an explanation for the latter.
Indeed.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
***@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
Brian Running
2015-10-24 14:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Turner
But [USAians] use feet to describe sub-mile distances on roads! Why?
OK, left-pondians: are yards used much/at all in the US, or are you
wondering what we're talking about?
Yards are used more often than feet when measuring distances that are a
good portion of a mile. Or, fractions of a mile. No one would ever
say, "Take a left about 1320 feet down the road." You'd say, "Go 'bout
a quarter-mile and hang a Louie." Or, "Walk about 500 yards that way
'cross that corn field, and then cut into the woods." Never use feet in
those situations.

No one here has a 3000-foot stare, it's a 1000-yard stare.

And, any golfer will estimate any distance less than 600 yards in yards,
unless it's less than 10 yards. Then, we use millimeters. Just kidding
- we use feet then.

Vertical measurements are always in feet. Lake depths, tree heights,
deciding whether that flock of geese is within range - except for my
cousin's husband, Don, who always used to use blocks to estimate
waterfowl altitude. "They were about a block up, but I had number 2s,
so I took a poke at 'em."

Where do you guys get your (mis)information about the US, anyway?
Oci-One Kanubi
2015-10-26 15:48:03 UTC
Permalink
... Or, "Walk about 500 yards that way
'cross that corn field, and then cut into the woods."
In that situation any REAL 'Merkin would say "about five football fields."

Well, no, not actually, but I'm willing to bet that 100 yards is the standard unit by which medium distances (where 50 feet < "medium distance" < a mile) are estimated by most of us, strictly because it is the length of a football field, which is familiar to all of us.

In the US Navy during WWII, yards were the unit by which range was estimated by gunnery officers, up to at least 20,000 yards (which was, I think, near the limit of the range of a battleship's big guns). My dad was weapons officer on submarines for most of the war and his torpedoes had a range, I think, of about 10,000 yards.

-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
Sam Wilson
2015-10-26 16:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Simon Turner
But [USAians] use feet to describe sub-mile distances on roads! Why?
OK, left-pondians: are yards used much/at all in the US, or are you
wondering what we're talking about?
Yards are used more often than feet when measuring distances that are a
good portion of a mile. Or, fractions of a mile. No one would ever
say, "Take a left about 1320 feet down the road." You'd say, "Go 'bout
a quarter-mile and hang a Louie." Or, "Walk about 500 yards that way
'cross that corn field, and then cut into the woods." Never use feet in
those situations.
[plausible and humourous material deleted]
Where do you guys get your (mis)information about the US, anyway?
I got mine from driving down I-4 in Florida and coming across signs that
said things like 'CONSTRUCTION 1500 FT', and listening to satnavs that
say things like 'turn left in 500 feet', or studying the FHWA Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices warning signs
<http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part6/fig6f-04-3_longdesc.htm>.

No one in the UK would use feet for distances along the road. We would,
however, use them for dimensions of vehicles. Have a look at
<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs>.

Sam
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Brian Running
2015-10-26 18:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
I got mine from driving down I-4 in Florida and coming across signs that
said things like 'CONSTRUCTION 1500 FT', and listening to satnavs that
say things like 'turn left in 500 feet', or studying the FHWA Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices warning signs
I've seen those signs, so yes, I know what you mean. Just the same, no
one other than the various state departments of transportation give road
distances in feet.

Those DOTs have all kinds of weird sign habits. Such as abbreviating
"junction" as "JCT." Or, my pet peeve: Information signs on the big
cross-country Interstates, when you're approaching an interchange. For
instance, signs will say things like, "I-94 West, Mauston, Tomah,
Boondocks, East Jesus," when what people really want to know is, "I-94
West, Minneapolis, Fargo, Bismarck, Billings."

You know, when they do things like that, they never, ever call me first.
I give up.
Sam Wilson
2015-10-27 17:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Sam Wilson
I got mine from driving down I-4 in Florida and coming across signs that
said things like 'CONSTRUCTION 1500 FT', and listening to satnavs that
say things like 'turn left in 500 feet', or studying the FHWA Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices warning signs
I've seen those signs, so yes, I know what you mean. Just the same, no
one other than the various state departments of transportation give road
distances in feet.
Thinking on, I suspect I've also read it in some US fiction, but that
would be relatively old by now - 1930s-70s probably. But it's Google
Maps' (which I have access to on my phone) and satnavs' (which I don't
have direct access to) use of feet that made/makes me think it's still a
current habit in the US.
Post by Brian Running
Those DOTs have all kinds of weird sign habits. Such as abbreviating
"junction" as "JCT." Or, my pet peeve: Information signs on the big
cross-country Interstates, when you're approaching an interchange. For
instance, signs will say things like, "I-94 West, Mauston, Tomah,
Boondocks, East Jesus," when what people really want to know is, "I-94
West, Minneapolis, Fargo, Bismarck, Billings."
You know, when they do things like that, they never, ever call me first.
I give up.
I think our people must have called you. Most of our signs (with
notable exceptions) are pretty reasonable.

Sam
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
benj
2015-10-14 17:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Turner
On Wednesday, in article
Post by Derek Tearne
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Derek Tearne
Post by benj
Nothing new. The English drive on the left side of the road while
everyone else drives on the right. But they think theirs is the sensible
choice.
This is a perfect example of a standard. There is no 'sensible' side of
the road to drive on, no inherent 'correct' value. Driving on the right
makes no better sense, in and of itself, than driving on the left. The
only thing that is sensible is to adhere to which has been defined as
the standard in the country where you live.
Shifting right handed makes all kinds of sense.
As does shifting left handed - which leaves the right (statistically
likely to be dominant) hand on the wheel controlling the direction of
the vehicle.
I've even seen some people claim that this is one of the reasons why
manual transmissions are more common in Britain than in the US. (Seems
highly unlikely; manual transmissions are also common in Europe, where
they drive on the right.)
Post by Derek Tearne
When the decisions were made about which side of the road to drive on,
vehicles had completely different controls, heck it may even have been
before motorised vehicles were invented.
The decisions started long before motorised vehicles: the Pope decreed
in 1300 that people travelling to Rome should travel on the left, and
the 18th century saw Britain mandate driving on the left, while Russia,
Denmark and (post-revolutionary) France passed laws requiring driving on
the right; Napoleon then spread this French influence around all the
places he invaded. Motorised vehicle controls didn't come into it.
Post by Derek Tearne
People brought up with one can, and will, create post-facto
justifications for what was essentially an arbitrary decision, or a
decision which came about due to circumstances that no longer apply.
Such as which side people carry their swords, or where the drivers seat
was on a covered wagon (both of which I think are bogus origin stories).
The sword one has almost universal traction, and makes sense to me; in
violent times, when you pass someone in the street, it is better for
them to pass on your right, where you can defend yourself with your
sword hand; also it is much easier to mount a horse from the left than
the right if your sword hangs to your left (which they almost
universally do), so starting and stopping on the left side of the road
makes sense. (It is also alleged that, regardless of swords,
right-handed people find it easier to mount a horse from the left -- I'm
not a horse rider, so I wouldn't know.)
The covered wagon version sounds highly unlikely, but a more plausible
one is that teamsters driving two-abreast teams of horses in the US
would sit on the rear-left horse, leaving their (right) whip hand
well-placed to control the rest of the team (as well as mounting from
the left being allegedly easier for right-handed people); and with the
width of the vehicles they found it safer to pass oncoming vehicles to
their left, where they could see the separation clearly, than to their
right.
There are lots of web pages that claim to be authoritative on this
subject, e.g.
http://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/driving-on-the-left/
http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Why-do-the-British-drive-on-the-left/
http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2015/01/brits-drive-left/
They can make interesting reading regardless of whether you believe them
or not...
Post by Derek Tearne
It's like Farhenheit vs Centigrade, people will come up with
justifications for one or other, that really boil down to "It's the one
I'm used to".
Quite so. Although I grew up with both: Fahrenheit was used for high
temperatures but Celsius (then called centigrade) was used for low ones.
8-/
Like you, Fahrenheit temperatures now means little to me: I have to
convert into Celsius to make any sense of them.
Post by Derek Tearne
Post by Les Cargill
Some things in Imperial work better. I find people still use
feet instead of purely using meters.
Again, this boils down to '"It's what I'm used to" rather than which is
'better'. Although some people in metric countries (sometimes including
me) still use inches (although in my case rarely feet) it's more to do
with having learned that when young, than it being 'better'.
Agreed, although there is an argument that dividing large things up into
multiples in the 10-20 range (12 inches, 16 ounces, 14 pounds etc.)
makes for nicer numbers than using thousands or hundreds -- yes, I know
the SI has deca- and deci- but they are rarely used (decibel being the
only one I can think of offhand).
Post by Derek Tearne
I happily use metres and kilometres for distance, and have completely
lost any understanding of lbs, ounces and the execrable 'stone' for
weights.
What has the poor stone ever done to you? 8-)
I have a much better understanding of human body mass when expressed in
stones and pounds than as large numbers of pounds; I never understood
why the US abandoned stones in favour of just using pounds. Why not
abandon feet as well and just use inches to describe someone's height?
Post by Derek Tearne
The point is, there are these competing standards and ways of doing
things, that aren't necessarily inherently any better than the other -
but there is value in people adopting one (not necessarily the 'best').
http://mentalfloss.com/article/25845/quick-6-six-unit-conversion-disasters
Not that using the correct unit conversions helps if you don't think
about what you're doing; I cringe when I read things like seed packets
instructing you to plant things "approximately 2.54 cm apart" or in rows
"about 31.5 cm apart". And it's usually easy to spot when a recipe has
been written for one unit system then converted to another, because the
quantities end up being awkward.
Post by Derek Tearne
However, people who are used to one, will vociferously defend it, while
arguing against another, simply because of familiarity.
Not that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with sticking to things
you're familiar with; people tend to fall back on prior knowledge in
times of stress, and changing from one system to another can produce
catastrophic consequences when the wrong one is unthinkingly applied.
Change for change's sake is a Bad Thing IMHO.
"We live in the greatest nation in the history of the
world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."

-- Barack Obama (2008 election).
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Brian Running
2015-10-14 02:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Tearne
And, of course, we have weights and measures. Pretty much the entire
world has adopted the metric system, except the USA (except for their
military) and the UK (where it's all a bit of a mixed mess).
It's really time for this myth to die. The metric system is very widely
used in the US. Science and engineering use metric, exclusively. The
large majority of fasteners in cars and motorcycles - even American-made
ones - are metric. I have as many metric tools as SAE. Car engines
haven't been measured in cubic inches in decades. Track, cross-country
and long-distance running all measure their events in meters and
kilometers. Everyone buys their soda in one- and two-liter bottles.
Yes, we still measure in miles, feet and pounds, but it's not even close
to correct to say that the US has not adopted the metric system.
benj
2015-10-14 05:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Derek Tearne
And, of course, we have weights and measures. Pretty much the entire
world has adopted the metric system, except the USA (except for their
military) and the UK (where it's all a bit of a mixed mess).
It's really time for this myth to die. The metric system is very widely
used in the US. Science and engineering use metric, exclusively. The
large majority of fasteners in cars and motorcycles - even American-made
ones - are metric. I have as many metric tools as SAE. Car engines
haven't been measured in cubic inches in decades. Track, cross-country
and long-distance running all measure their events in meters and
kilometers. Everyone buys their soda in one- and two-liter bottles.
Yes, we still measure in miles, feet and pounds, but it's not even close
to correct to say that the US has not adopted the metric system.
Well Brian is right. Science in America has used Metric almost forever.
Engineering not so much. A while back there was this huge brow-beating
push to convert the USA to Metric. New Cars came with Speedometers in
Kilometers per hour (with miles/hr in smaller print). Road speed limit
signs likewise were changed, All mechanics had to buy two sizes of
wrenches, socket sets and other fastener tools. and Heaven was sure to
follow.

Only it didn't. Resistance was phenomenal! I thought the government
would just bulldoze everyone into acceptance, but they crumbled. All the
new speed signs slowly disappeared and now no matter if your car is an
import it still reads speed in miles per hour.

Some of that big push still lingers in fasteners, liter bottles (though
they also list ounces) etc. The only "compromise" was that some of the
metric sized nuts and bolts were altered slightly in size so that a set
of metric wrenches (spanners) would also sort of fit some SAE nuts and
bolts. Still lots of resistance to metric among the proles as I see it.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Les Cargill
2015-10-14 07:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by Brian Running
Post by Derek Tearne
And, of course, we have weights and measures. Pretty much the entire
world has adopted the metric system, except the USA (except for their
military) and the UK (where it's all a bit of a mixed mess).
It's really time for this myth to die. The metric system is very widely
used in the US. Science and engineering use metric, exclusively. The
large majority of fasteners in cars and motorcycles - even American-made
ones - are metric. I have as many metric tools as SAE. Car engines
haven't been measured in cubic inches in decades. Track, cross-country
and long-distance running all measure their events in meters and
kilometers. Everyone buys their soda in one- and two-liter bottles.
Yes, we still measure in miles, feet and pounds, but it's not even close
to correct to say that the US has not adopted the metric system.
Well Brian is right. Science in America has used Metric almost forever.
Engineering not so much.
It varies. Most things I have worked on that did measurement
offered both English and metric units.

Where you run into real problems is things like land measurement,
board sizes, stuff that can't easily change.
Post by benj
A while back there was this huge brow-beating
push to convert the USA to Metric.
Which was slightly goofy.
Post by benj
New Cars came with Speedometers in
Kilometers per hour (with miles/hr in smaller print).
Of course that doesn't hurt for export to Canada...
Post by benj
Road speed limit
signs likewise were changed,
Not... so much. Er, it may have been so long I've forgotten.
Post by benj
All mechanics had to buy two sizes of
wrenches, socket sets and other fastener tools. and Heaven was sure to
follow.
That had a lot more to do with import cars.
Post by benj
Only it didn't. Resistance was phenomenal! I thought the government
would just bulldoze everyone into acceptance, but they crumbled. All the
new speed signs slowly disappeared and now no matter if your car is an
import it still reads speed in miles per hour.
... and km/hr as well, usually. 100 Km/hour is about 60, so it's
more fun in metric.
Post by benj
Some of that big push still lingers in fasteners, liter bottles (though
they also list ounces) etc. The only "compromise" was that some of the
metric sized nuts and bolts were altered slightly in size so that a set
of metric wrenches (spanners) would also sort of fit some SAE nuts and
bolts. Still lots of resistance to metric among the proles as I see it.
I had a late '60s VW and you could use SAE tools on many of the
nuts and bolts on it. If you had gradations down to 1/32nd you
were in pretty good shape ( but who buys tools to that resolution? ).

After all, 14mm is close to 5/8, 1/2 is about half between 12 and 13 mm,
yadda yadda. 3/8, 10mm, 9mm were not that compatible with the other
systems much.

Then again, some cars have a *mix* of metric/SAE sizes. And other stuff
you buy may also have a mix.
--
Les Cargill
Sam Wilson
2015-10-14 15:17:14 UTC
Permalink
... The only "compromise" was that some of the
metric sized nuts and bolts were altered slightly in size so that a set
of metric wrenches (spanners) would also sort of fit some SAE nuts and
bolts. Still lots of resistance to metric among the proles as I see it.
When I was a student back in the 19-whatevers I had summer jobs working
with fitters during factory summer closedowns. The fitters carried
three sets of spanners: BSW, AF and metric. Back in the workshop there
were shared BA and BSF[1] sets to be taken out as needed.

Sam

[1] BSF spanner sizes are nominally the same as BSW but the range of
sizes in a set was at the smaller end, BSW going to larger sizes.
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Simon Turner
2015-10-14 17:17:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, in article
Post by Sam Wilson
When I was a student back in the 19-whatevers I had summer jobs working
with fitters during factory summer closedowns. The fitters carried
three sets of spanners: BSW, AF and metric. Back in the workshop there
were shared BA and BSF[1] sets to be taken out as needed.
I've still got all my BSW/BSF, AF and BA spanners and sockets; my Morris
Minor needs all three!
Post by Sam Wilson
[1] BSF spanner sizes are nominally the same as BSW but the range of
sizes in a set was at the smaller end, BSW going to larger sizes.
Ah, but BSF and BSW spanner sizes weren't strictly the same: a given
spanner would fit nuts for both, but was marked with different BSW and
BSF sizes (1/16" apart IIRC) -- the spanner size was specified by the
bolt diameter rather than its across-flats measurement, and BSF had a
smaller nut for the same bolt diameter (to reduce the likelihood of
stripping the finer thread).

I remember coming across someone who, probably confused by UNC/UNF
(Unified Coarse/Fine), was convinved that "AF" stood for "American
Fine". 8-)
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
***@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
Sam Wilson
2015-10-23 12:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Turner
On Wednesday, in article
Post by Sam Wilson
When I was a student back in the 19-whatevers I had summer jobs working
with fitters during factory summer closedowns. The fitters carried
three sets of spanners: BSW, AF and metric. Back in the workshop there
were shared BA and BSF[1] sets to be taken out as needed.
I've still got all my BSW/BSF, AF and BA spanners and sockets; my Morris
Minor needs all three!
Post by Sam Wilson
[1] BSF spanner sizes are nominally the same as BSW but the range of
sizes in a set was at the smaller end, BSW going to larger sizes.
Ah, but BSF and BSW spanner sizes weren't strictly the same: a given
spanner would fit nuts for both, but was marked with different BSW and
BSF sizes (1/16" apart IIRC) -- the spanner size was specified by the
bolt diameter rather than its across-flats measurement, and BSF had a
smaller nut for the same bolt diameter (to reduce the likelihood of
stripping the finer thread).
I left that detail out. I should have said the across-flats sizes were
compatible.
Post by Simon Turner
I remember coming across someone who, probably confused by UNC/UNF
(Unified Coarse/Fine), was convinved that "AF" stood for "American
Fine". 8-)
That's what I was told when I first came across them, but was also told
that that was a convenient abbreviation because the marked size was also
coincidentally the measurement across the flats. I think my head is
still reeling from trying to work out which bit of terminology got
mangled in which direction.

Sam
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Simon Turner
2015-10-24 09:05:27 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, in article
[...]
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Simon Turner
I remember coming across someone who, probably confused by UNC/UNF
(Unified Coarse/Fine), was convinved that "AF" stood for "American
Fine". 8-)
That's what I was told when I first came across them, but was also told
that that was a convenient abbreviation because the marked size was also
coincidentally the measurement across the flats. I think my head is
still reeling from trying to work out which bit of terminology got
mangled in which direction.
Interesting that you were told the same thing! But given that across
flats spanner sizing was used for both coarse and fine UTS threads, the
"American Fine" idea seems implausible to me; wouldn't the spanners have
been marked AF/AC to indicate that they fitted both American Fine and
American Coarse (neither of which actually existed by that name)?
Sounds more like a British misunderstanding (or a mnemonic for the
new-fangled "American" threads[*] that got taken too literally).

[*] which of course weren't really American but the product of a joint
post-war agreement between the US, Canada and the UK.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
***@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
Brian Running
2015-10-24 14:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Turner
Interesting that you were told the same thing! But given that across
flats spanner sizing was used for both coarse and fine UTS threads, the
"American Fine" idea seems implausible to me; wouldn't the spanners have
been marked AF/AC to indicate that they fitted both American Fine and
American Coarse (neither of which actually existed by that name)?
Sounds more like a British misunderstanding (or a mnemonic for the
new-fangled "American" threads[*] that got taken too literally).
[*] which of course weren't really American but the product of a joint
post-war agreement between the US, Canada and the UK.
Now, tell the truth - do you guys ever get your brains untwisted enough
from these tedious debates over useless points of trivia to make actual
music? Seriously, thread pitch is not a significant issue in the big,
mysterious U S of A. Regardless of how they're measured, the nuts have
to match the bolts.
Simon Turner
2015-10-27 08:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Simon Turner
Interesting that you were told the same thing! But given that across
flats spanner sizing was used for both coarse and fine UTS threads, the
"American Fine" idea seems implausible to me; wouldn't the spanners have
been marked AF/AC to indicate that they fitted both American Fine and
American Coarse (neither of which actually existed by that name)?
Sounds more like a British misunderstanding (or a mnemonic for the
new-fangled "American" threads[*] that got taken too literally).
[*] which of course weren't really American but the product of a joint
post-war agreement between the US, Canada and the UK.
Now, tell the truth - do you guys ever get your brains untwisted enough
from these tedious debates over useless points of trivia to make actual
music?
8-)

Of course (I can't speak for Sam, but I bet he does too); but what fun
would life be without useless points of trivia, be they how many strings
basses should/used to have or the post-war wrangling over nut and bolt
nomenclature? But it was wildly off-topic, for which apologies are due.
Post by Brian Running
Seriously, thread pitch is not a significant issue in the big,
mysterious U S of A. Regardless of how they're measured, the nuts
have to match the bolts.
Indeed so. But the "fun" to be had working on a car built with three
different and incompatible thread/nut types is deeply ingrained into me,
and it's been a while since I came across anyone else who remembers the
Good Old Days, let alone someone else who was told that AF stood for
American Fine rather than Across Flats.

In a belated attempt to get back on to topic, I recently went into one
of the few remaining local music shops around here, mostly to say hello
to the owner (a very good guitarist with whom I have the occasional
pleasure of playing), and asked him if he had any interesting basses;
before I knew it I'd bought a Kala U-Bass (after playing it for about
two minutes I had to have it!) Can't wait to see people's faces when I
turn up to a rehearsal or gig with it...

Currently trying to wrap my brain/fingers around the change to 21"
scale; I can move between 35", 34" and 32" without really noticing, but
this is a different thing altogether.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
***@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
Brian Running
2015-10-27 12:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Turner
In a belated attempt to get back on to topic, I recently went into one
of the few remaining local music shops around here, mostly to say hello
to the owner (a very good guitarist with whom I have the occasional
pleasure of playing), and asked him if he had any interesting basses;
before I knew it I'd bought a Kala U-Bass (after playing it for about
two minutes I had to have it!) Can't wait to see people's faces when I
turn up to a rehearsal or gig with it...
The only reason I don't have one already is the fact that they want $500
for one. That's about four times the right value.
Sam Wilson
2015-10-27 17:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Simon Turner
In a belated attempt to get back on to topic, I recently went into one
of the few remaining local music shops around here, mostly to say hello
to the owner (a very good guitarist with whom I have the occasional
pleasure of playing), and asked him if he had any interesting basses;
before I knew it I'd bought a Kala U-Bass (after playing it for about
two minutes I had to have it!) Can't wait to see people's faces when I
turn up to a rehearsal or gig with it...
The only reason I don't have one already is the fact that they want $500
for one. That's about four times the right value.
I've come across two of these (actually, only one was a Kala). One was
in a music shop and was set up so badly that the strings were wound
around (thread convergence warning!) the nuts that hold the tuners in.
You couldn't tune it at all. The other belongs to a friend. I didn't
get the chance to plug either in, but you're right, they do seem very
expensive for what they are. They didn't really grab me.

I played an Ashbory years ago as well, and whilst that was cheap (before
the reintroduction) it didn't really do it for me either.

Sam
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Derek Tearne
2015-10-27 20:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Brian Running
Post by Simon Turner
In a belated attempt to get back on to topic, I recently went into one
of the few remaining local music shops around here, mostly to say hello
to the owner (a very good guitarist with whom I have the occasional
pleasure of playing), and asked him if he had any interesting basses;
before I knew it I'd bought a Kala U-Bass (after playing it for about
two minutes I had to have it!) Can't wait to see people's faces when I
turn up to a rehearsal or gig with it...
The only reason I don't have one already is the fact that they want $500
for one. That's about four times the right value.
I've come across two of these (actually, only one was a Kala). One was
in a music shop and was set up so badly that the strings were wound
around (thread convergence warning!) the nuts that hold the tuners in.
You couldn't tune it at all.
I saw someone playing one of these and decided I had to have one, and it
was around christmas time. I tried one in the shop and decided it was
cool, but the intonation was out - and what's the point of a fretted
bass with poor intonation (I already have a fretless ashbory). So I went
to the dealer and tried two or three more. They all had similar
intonation or other issues (one had horrible buzzes that I could
probably fix quite easily).

I tried hard to love them, but ended up not getting one. I could have
got a fretless one, but I already have an Ashbory.

I have put Kala strings on the Ashbory, which is an improvement in terms
of the strings not always breaking, and not having all that talc making
me look like a clumsy coke fiend whenever I play it, but the tone isn't
as nice.

--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - ***@url.co.nz
Vitamin S: improvisation from New Zealand http://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/
benj
2015-10-30 02:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Brian Running
Post by Simon Turner
In a belated attempt to get back on to topic, I recently went into one
of the few remaining local music shops around here, mostly to say hello
to the owner (a very good guitarist with whom I have the occasional
pleasure of playing), and asked him if he had any interesting basses;
before I knew it I'd bought a Kala U-Bass (after playing it for about
two minutes I had to have it!) Can't wait to see people's faces when I
turn up to a rehearsal or gig with it...
The only reason I don't have one already is the fact that they want $500
for one. That's about four times the right value.
I've come across two of these (actually, only one was a Kala). One was
in a music shop and was set up so badly that the strings were wound
around (thread convergence warning!) the nuts that hold the tuners in.
You couldn't tune it at all. The other belongs to a friend. I didn't
get the chance to plug either in, but you're right, they do seem very
expensive for what they are. They didn't really grab me.
I played an Ashbory years ago as well, and whilst that was cheap (before
the reintroduction) it didn't really do it for me either.
I've seen several YouTube videos and really would like to have a Kala
but the price also keeps me backed off.

There was an Ashbory at the local guitar shop and I tried it but was not
impressed at all. The strings were just SUPER sticky and a struggle to
play. The ultra short scale made playing fretless tough too. (I don't
even play short scale bass fretless and I'm not much of a violin player!)

If I ever see a Kala U-bass cheap I'd pick one up, but as for now I'll
just wait.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Brian Running
2015-10-30 02:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
The only reason I don't have one already is the fact that they want $500
for one. That's about four times the right value.
Oh, and incidentally, that's 500 metric dollars.
Pt
2015-10-30 11:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Brian Running
The only reason I don't have one already is the fact that they want $500
for one. That's about four times the right value.
Oh, and incidentally, that's 500 metric dollars.
That equals 50 cents American.

Pt
Sam Wilson
2015-10-30 11:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Brian Running
The only reason I don't have one already is the fact that they want $500
for one. That's about four times the right value.
Oh, and incidentally, that's 500 metric dollars.
They're pretty close to the US dollar, these days.

Sam
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Sam Wilson
2015-10-27 17:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Simon Turner
Interesting that you were told the same thing! But given that across
flats spanner sizing was used for both coarse and fine UTS threads, the
"American Fine" idea seems implausible to me; wouldn't the spanners have
been marked AF/AC to indicate that they fitted both American Fine and
American Coarse (neither of which actually existed by that name)?
Sounds more like a British misunderstanding (or a mnemonic for the
new-fangled "American" threads[*] that got taken too literally).
[*] which of course weren't really American but the product of a joint
post-war agreement between the US, Canada and the UK.
Now, tell the truth - do you guys ever get your brains untwisted enough
from these tedious debates over useless points of trivia to make actual
music? ...
You can't discuss this kind of thing *while* you're making music?
Amateur!
Post by Brian Running
... Seriously, thread pitch is not a significant issue in the big,
mysterious U S of A. Regardless of how they're measured, the nuts have
to match the bolts.
Some people just think you need a longer monkey bar.

Sam
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
benj
2015-10-25 07:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Turner
On Friday, in article
[...]
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Simon Turner
I remember coming across someone who, probably confused by UNC/UNF
(Unified Coarse/Fine), was convinved that "AF" stood for "American
Fine". 8-)
That's what I was told when I first came across them, but was also told
that that was a convenient abbreviation because the marked size was also
coincidentally the measurement across the flats. I think my head is
still reeling from trying to work out which bit of terminology got
mangled in which direction.
Interesting that you were told the same thing! But given that across
flats spanner sizing was used for both coarse and fine UTS threads, the
"American Fine" idea seems implausible to me; wouldn't the spanners have
been marked AF/AC to indicate that they fitted both American Fine and
American Coarse (neither of which actually existed by that name)?
Sounds more like a British misunderstanding (or a mnemonic for the
new-fangled "American" threads[*] that got taken too literally).
[*] which of course weren't really American but the product of a joint
post-war agreement between the US, Canada and the UK.
Do I have to explain everything thing to you clowns? Originally (pre
WWII) American nuts and bolts were specified in two series termed ANF
and ANC standing for American national fine and American National
course. You can still find old taps and dies marked with it. The British
actually had a number of "standards" both for threads and wrench
(spanner) sizes.

Because of WWI compatibility (especially for aircraft parts) a committee
worked out a "new" standard for everyone for inch-measured nuts and
bolts. There were minor tweaks in thread pitch and rounding of the tops
but but generally all UNF and UNC standing for unified national fine and
unified national course threads STILL fit the all the old ANF and ANC
nuts and bolts. The one incompatibility was 1/2" bolts where the
Unified national size was 13 threads per inch while the the American
national was 12 threads per inch. Such incompatibilities were put into a
UNS class (unified national special)

However the OUTSIDE of all nuts and bolt heads remained identical for
both the fine and course series. So an American national wrench set fits
both fine and course and thus is never marked with either ANF, ANC or
anything else pertaining to threads. The nut and bolt spanner sizes were
to a different standard and in England the British Whitworth standard
was common. (Ever own a classic British sports care? I did)

And of course since the unified specifications solved the inch-measured
fastener incompatibility problem, it was necessary to create a NEW
incompatibility and that was done with the Unified vs metric sizes that
continues to this day, though as I noted some of the original metric
sizes were modified by a millimeter so American sized spanners would fit
more of them (more or less) And the bottom line of that is that thus you
need a metric wrench set that has ALL size varying by 1 mm one to the
next so you can fit both old metric and new metric nuts and bolts.
Usually they don't come that way and have several missing sizes
depending if they are old or new.

Brian is right. The whole subject should have been taken care of back in
the 19th century. Standards are great. Everybody needs to invent their own!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Simon Turner
2015-10-27 09:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by Simon Turner
On Friday, in article
[...]
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Simon Turner
I remember coming across someone who, probably confused by UNC/UNF
(Unified Coarse/Fine), was convinved that "AF" stood for "American
Fine". 8-)
That's what I was told when I first came across them, but was also told
that that was a convenient abbreviation because the marked size was also
coincidentally the measurement across the flats. I think my head is
still reeling from trying to work out which bit of terminology got
mangled in which direction.
Interesting that you were told the same thing! But given that across
flats spanner sizing was used for both coarse and fine UTS threads, the
"American Fine" idea seems implausible to me; wouldn't the spanners have
been marked AF/AC to indicate that they fitted both American Fine and
American Coarse (neither of which actually existed by that name)?
Sounds more like a British misunderstanding (or a mnemonic for the
new-fangled "American" threads[*] that got taken too literally).
[*] which of course weren't really American but the product of a joint
post-war agreement between the US, Canada and the UK.
Do I have to explain everything thing to you clowns?
Don't think so, no; we understand the assorted threads. We were just
discussing the origin of the "AF" that was usually marked on UNC/UNF
spanners over here in the UK, to distinguish them from the "normal" BSW
(often marked W or W/W), BSF, BA etc. (Asking for a half-inch spanner
in the UK was essentially meaningless, because 1/2" UNC/UNF was a
different size from 1/2" BSW which was different again from 1/2" BSF
etc. -- hence the markings.)

The only sensible answer (as backed up by any number of Internet
searches) is that AF meant "Across Flats", but there were evidently some
people in the UK who believed it was "American Fine"; I knew one
previously, and Sam was also told that, so it seems more widespread than
I'd realised. American Fine makes no sense, for many reasons, some of
which I was attempting to point out.
Post by benj
[...] The one incompatibility was 1/2" bolts where the Unified
national size was 13 threads per inch while the the American national
was 12 threads per inch. Such incompatibilities were put into a UNS
class (unified national special)
Didn't know the origin of UNS. Interesting; thanks.
Post by benj
However the OUTSIDE of all nuts and bolt heads remained identical for
both the fine and course series. So an American national wrench set fits
both fine and course and thus is never marked with either ANF, ANC or
anything else pertaining to threads.
Perhaps not over there; but they were marked AF over here, hence the
(rather silly) discussion about what AF stood for.
Post by benj
The nut and bolt spanner sizes were to a different standard and in
England the British Whitworth standard was common.
Quite so, which is more or less where we came in up-thread.
Post by benj
(Ever own a classic British sports care? I did)
Not a sports car, but my Morris Minor was made with a liberal mix of
UNC/UNF, BSW (Whitworth), BSF and BA (fortunately no metric). Trying to
find the right spanner for a particular nut was (until you learnt which
ones were used where) a matter of trial and error: if a BSW/BSF spanner
didn't fit snugly, try the nearest AF one instead. (BA was for the
small nuts, mostly in the electrical stuff.) Depending on your sports
car's age, you may have found the same thing, except your
ANC/ANF/UNC/UNF wrenches were presumably not marked AF.
Post by benj
And of course since the unified specifications solved the inch-measured
fastener incompatibility problem, it was necessary to create a NEW
incompatibility and that was done with the Unified vs metric sizes that
continues to this day
8-)

As a final (I hope!) note on this off-topicness, from Paul Crawford's
wonderful page at http://www.sat.dundee.ac.uk/psc/spanner_jaw.html (they
clearly have too much time on their hands at Dundee... 8-)

Postscript: It is a common view that the odd Whitworth/BS spanner
sizes are 'illogical' and that the newer metric system is much more
'logical', but consider this: To cover 1/4" to 3/4" in both fine (BSF)
and coarse (BSW) threads, the British system defines 9 diameters and
requires 9 spanners (or 10 if you also include the original large head
Whitworth sizes as well). The UNF/UNC system defines 8 diameters for
the same range but requires 11 spanners. For the broadly equivalent
range in metric of M6 to M18 using all the common metric standards in
use, there are 8 diameters defined but a total of 15 spanners are
required! (i.e. 69% more spanners per diameters than the British
system). Is this progress?
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
***@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
Derek Tearne
2015-10-16 21:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Derek Tearne
And, of course, we have weights and measures. Pretty much the entire
world has adopted the metric system, except the USA (except for their
military) and the UK (where it's all a bit of a mixed mess).
It's really time for this myth to die. The metric system is very widely
used in the US. Science and engineering use metric, exclusively. The
large majority of fasteners in cars and motorcycles - even American-made
ones - are metric. I have as many metric tools as SAE. Car engines
haven't been measured in cubic inches in decades. Track, cross-country
and long-distance running all measure their events in meters and
kilometers. Everyone buys their soda in one- and two-liter bottles.
Yes, we still measure in miles, feet and pounds, but it's not even close
to correct to say that the US has not adopted the metric system.
--
Derek Tearne - ***@url.co.nz
Vitamin S: improvisation from New Zealand http://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/
benj
2015-10-14 05:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Tearne
This is a perfect example of a standard. There is no 'sensible' side of
the road to drive on, no inherent 'correct' value. Driving on the right
makes no better sense, in and of itself, than driving on the left. The
only thing that is sensible is to adhere to which has been defined as
the standard in the country where you live.
This is obviously true for most of these things. However sometimes one
standard has an advantage over another such as the metric system or the
Centigrade temperature. Where in the former the fact that all the
various units are related by factors of 10 is an advantage or in the
latter that freezing and boiling of water is 0 and 100 degrees rather
than 32 and 212. (reasons for such an oddball thermometer as might be
surmised are historical)
Post by Derek Tearne
Incidentally, you are incorrect in your assertion that 'everyone else
drives on the right', about a third of the world's nations drive on the
left. There were more, but some European countries (eg. Sweden) got brow
beaten into conforming.
Of course I knew that, but I was just trolling hoping someone would rise
to the bait. They did.
Post by Derek Tearne
And, of course, we have weights and measures. Pretty much the entire
world has adopted the metric system, except the USA (except for their
military) and the UK (where it's all a bit of a mixed mess).
Everyone thinks their way of doing things is more sensible, for fairly
unconvincing reasons. Although having said that, metric has more better
reasons going for it than imperial (although many of those boil down to
- it's what everyone else uses).
Post by Simon Turner
Indeed so, but it's usually fairly obvious which side of the road one
should be driving on, and you don't generally get two people in the same
country who disagree about which way it is!
Fun times can be had if one drives from a right hand drive country into
a left hand drive country, or vice versa. There's usually either a one
lane bridge, or some more complicated arrangement to cope with swapping.
A Brit I used to work with (In the Yoo Kay he used to run a Jaguar/Land
Rover/Rolls Royce dealership...lots of fine stories!) told me that in
driving from England to France (In those days I presume he meant by
ferry) that when you went into France the road had a bridge that took
you up over top of incoming traffic and sat you down on the right side
of the road as a wee reminder.

Left and Right driving countries:

Loading Image...

Left are mostly Yoo Kay and former colonies.

A sign that really no way is best is that left or right hand drive cars
can be driven legally in both systems (though you do have to stay on the
correct side of the road).
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Derek Tearne
2015-10-14 20:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by Derek Tearne
This is a perfect example of a standard. There is no 'sensible' side of
the road to drive on, no inherent 'correct' value. Driving on the right
makes no better sense, in and of itself, than driving on the left. The
only thing that is sensible is to adhere to which has been defined as
the standard in the country where you live.
This is obviously true for most of these things. However sometimes one
standard has an advantage over another such as the metric system or the
Centigrade temperature. Where in the former the fact that all the
various units are related by factors of 10 is an advantage or in the
latter that freezing and boiling of water is 0 and 100 degrees rather
than 32 and 212. (reasons for such an oddball thermometer as might be
surmised are historical)
The proponents of farhenheit would suggest that it gives more degrees to
work with in the range of temperatures which people care for (you get a
130 degree range for typical temperatures which people are likely to
encounter in the outside world without dying, instead of a 72 degree
range for the same temperatures in centigrade).

Personally I remain unconvinced.
Post by benj
A sign that really no way is best is that left or right hand drive cars
can be driven legally in both systems (though you do have to stay on the
correct side of the road).
That's not entirely correct. In several countries, like New Zealand, you
need to have your left hand drive vehicle converted to right hand drive
if it is going to remain permenantly in the country. There are some
exemptions, for very specific uses and categories (gutter sweeping
vehicles and classic cars where conversion would ruin their classic-ness
and may also be impossible).

If you want to drive any kind of vehicle in a commercial enterprise
(except gutter sweeping), say 1950s american cadillacs for weddings,
they must be converted to right hand drive.

I think this is probably the same in a lot of other countries. If the
vehicle is permanently registered in the country it should be the
appropriate hand drive.

--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - ***@url.co.nz
Vitamin S: improvisation from New Zealand http://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/
Sam Wilson
2015-10-14 14:56:40 UTC
Permalink
... Although having said that, metric has more better
reasons going for it than imperial (although many of those boil down to
- it's what everyone else uses).
Measuring the same way as everyone else is a very powerful reason for
choosing a set of units. Ease of calculation (therefore fewer mistakes)
is a good argument for metric. Units that are more like things we're
used to (feet, maybe pounds) are a reason for staying imperial. Horses
for courses.
In English, Harp means a quite different thing depending on whether you
are a classical, or blues, musician.
Or folk - see Welsh harp and clarsach. Or jazz - see Deborah
Henson-Conant and others.

Sam
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Steve Freides
2015-10-11 19:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Turner
On Friday, in article
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
I don't think so, Steve. I think "Do" can be the tonic of any key;
the 1 of any major scale. I think that's the point of tonic
Sol-Fa, that it describes intervals, not notes, and can be shifted
up and down to describe the relative values in any key -- much
like the Nashville Number System: the "3" is the third note in the
major scale of the designated key, just as "Mi" is the third note
in the major scale of the designated key.
I think.
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
I'm sure we've had this conversation here before. I learned and
teach fixed-do solfege, wherein Do is always C, Re is always D,
etc. It's just singing on the names of the notes as they are used
in Europe, really, not a "system", and I far prefer it.
What you're describing is what was popular in the US for a long
time and still is, although less so than a few decades ago, which
is called Moveable Do. The current trend, which I'm delighted to
see, is to use fixed Do and to use singing on numbers when the
desire is to appreciate where a particular note is in the key.
-S-
If this is the case, if there is a fixed relationship between
do-re-mi and C-D-E, why on earth muddy the waters by changing the
nomenclature? Why on earth teach someone to sing
do-mi-sol-ti-sol-mi-do, which won't mean anythi ng to any of the
accompanists, when you could teach hir to sing C-E-G-B-G-E -C in the
first place?
Perhaps you aren't aware that do, re, mi etc. *are* the names of the
notes in at least three European languages (French, Italian and
Spanish), one of which has a rather strong influence on musical
terminology. The French, Italians and Spanish don't[*] call the notes
C, D, E etc. -- that's an English thing.
Yes, I mentioned this but it fell on deaf ears.
Post by Simon Turner
http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/music/keylang.htm
The one difference is that the French, Italian and Spanish word for
the note we call "B" is "si", but that's been replaced by "ti" in the
English do, re, mi scale (presumably to avoid confusion with the note
we call "C").
The Germans have a different system, which is almost the same as
English (as you'd expect, English being a mostly Germanic language);
the exception is that B is "H", and German "B" is B flat. 8-)
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
What is the point of "fixed do"?
That's conceptually a bit like an Italian person asking "What is the
point of 'fixed C'? Why can't we just use 'C' for the tonic of the
particular key we're playing in?"
Tm my mind, the *real* question is why English speakers ever used the
non-English do, re, mi etc. in the first place, when we had our own
perfectly good English/Germanic names for the notes. But, given that
we did, "fixed do" seems pretty reasonable.
[*] of course, with the pervasive nature of English these days, they
doubtless have to cope with calling them C, D, E etc. in addition to
their own native names for them. For all I know the native names are
dying out, or have already done so. But I rather hope not.
Let me try again for all the Americans in the room.

Fixed Do is singing on the names of the notes as they are pronounced in
most countries of Western Europe.

Moveable Do is a pedagogical system designed to teach interval
relationships.

Interval relationships can be taught by other means but moveable do is a
perfectly good tool for the job if nothing else is required of the
student other than learning interval relationship.

Fixed Do is part of a system, developed a long time ago and used
continuously by all of the top American conservatories to this day. The
system includes learning to read in all clefs, to be able to realize a
figured bass or an orchestral score at the keyboard, to be able to
sight-sing atonal music, and a whole host of other things, the kinds of
things the worlds best musical education institutions choose to use to
train their students.

Fixed Do is singing on the names of the notes, not a pedagogical system
designed to teach interval relationship. (Yes, I repeated myself for
emphasis.) The two aren't comparable in either ends or means, except
that educational institutions, for obvious reasons, need to choose one
or the other. Those that choose fixed do use other means to teach
interval relationship, and aspire to many things besides - "above"
instead of "besides" if you want to be snooty about it - interval
relationships.

Choose whatever you like. I have taught all manner of student over 40+
years of teaching both privately and in classrooms, and I have never
used moveable do.

-S-
Oci-One Kanubi
2015-10-12 16:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Simon Turner
On Friday, in article
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
I don't think so, Steve. I think "Do" can be the tonic of any key;
the 1 of any major scale. I think that's the point of tonic
Sol-Fa, that it describes intervals, not notes, and can be shifted
up and down to describe the relative values in any key -- much
like the Nashville Number System: the "3" is the third note in the
major scale of the designated key, just as "Mi" is the third note
in the major scale of the designated key.
I think.
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
I'm sure we've had this conversation here before. I learned and
teach fixed-do solfege, wherein Do is always C, Re is always D,
etc. It's just singing on the names of the notes as they are used
in Europe, really, not a "system", and I far prefer it.
What you're describing is what was popular in the US for a long
time and still is, although less so than a few decades ago, which
is called Moveable Do. The current trend, which I'm delighted to
see, is to use fixed Do and to use singing on numbers when the
desire is to appreciate where a particular note is in the key.
-S-
If this is the case, if there is a fixed relationship between
do-re-mi and C-D-E, why on earth muddy the waters by changing the
nomenclature? Why on earth teach someone to sing
do-mi-sol-ti-sol-mi-do, which won't mean anythi ng to any of the
accompanists, when you could teach hir to sing C-E-G-B-G-E -C in the
first place?
Perhaps you aren't aware that do, re, mi etc. *are* the names of the
notes in at least three European languages (French, Italian and
Spanish), one of which has a rather strong influence on musical
terminology. The French, Italians and Spanish don't[*] call the notes
C, D, E etc. -- that's an English thing.
Yes, I mentioned this but it fell on deaf ears.
Post by Simon Turner
http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/music/keylang.htm
The one difference is that the French, Italian and Spanish word for
the note we call "B" is "si", but that's been replaced by "ti" in the
English do, re, mi scale (presumably to avoid confusion with the note
we call "C").
The Germans have a different system, which is almost the same as
English (as you'd expect, English being a mostly Germanic language);
the exception is that B is "H", and German "B" is B flat. 8-)
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
What is the point of "fixed do"?
That's conceptually a bit like an Italian person asking "What is the
point of 'fixed C'? Why can't we just use 'C' for the tonic of the
particular key we're playing in?"
Tm my mind, the *real* question is why English speakers ever used the
non-English do, re, mi etc. in the first place, when we had our own
perfectly good English/Germanic names for the notes. But, given that
we did, "fixed do" seems pretty reasonable.
[*] of course, with the pervasive nature of English these days, they
doubtless have to cope with calling them C, D, E etc. in addition to
their own native names for them. For all I know the native names are
dying out, or have already done so. But I rather hope not.
Let me try again for all the Americans in the room.
Fixed Do is singing on the names of the notes as they are pronounced in
most countries of Western Europe.
Moveable Do is a pedagogical system designed to teach interval
relationships.
Interval relationships can be taught by other means but moveable do is a
perfectly good tool for the job if nothing else is required of the
student other than learning interval relationship.
Fixed Do is part of a system, developed a long time ago and used
continuously by all of the top American conservatories to this day. The
system includes learning to read in all clefs, to be able to realize a
figured bass or an orchestral score at the keyboard, to be able to
sight-sing atonal music, and a whole host of other things, the kinds of
things the worlds best musical education institutions choose to use to
train their students.
Fixed Do is singing on the names of the notes, not a pedagogical system
designed to teach interval relationship. (Yes, I repeated myself for
emphasis.) The two aren't comparable in either ends or means, except
that educational institutions, for obvious reasons, need to choose one
or the other. Those that choose fixed do use other means to teach
interval relationship, and aspire to many things besides - "above"
instead of "besides" if you want to be snooty about it - interval
relationships.
Choose whatever you like. I have taught all manner of student over 40+
years of teaching both privately and in classrooms, and I have never
used moveable do.
-S-
Post by Simon Turner
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Yes, I mentioned this but it fell on deaf ears.
Oh, c'mon, Steve; I know you are leagues ahead of me on theory (not to mention every other aspect of music, I am quite sure) and I have a great deal of respect for your knowledge. The "moveable do" is somewhere at the limits of my knowledge of formal singing and my remark about the A6 "cowboy" bass line (so-sol-la-sol do-sol-la-sol) reflected my previous understanding of the tonic sol-fa (which, I am learning from this thread, was not actually "wrong", except inasmuch as I did not understand that there was another, very different, use of the sol-fa concept) was based upon that understanding.

But be fair: you made just a passing reference to European usage ("It's
just singing on the names of the notes as they are used in Europe,
really, not a "system", and I far prefer it.") which "fell on [my] deaf ears" only because your brief reference did not stand out to me as an important aspect of the discussion.

Thank you (and others) for elucidating; I learn a lot here from you and others, I'm just a little bit indignant about the "deaf ears" comment because I failed to understand that your brief reference (bwaaaaah, you hurt my FEEEeeeelings! ;^). Since I never knew that those were the actual European equivalents of C-D-E-etc., I failed to pick up on the significance of "names of the notes as they are used in Europe." Be honest, now, you really did just glance over that point!

Never would I turn a deaf ear to anything you type, nor to anything I read from any of the (non-polka-playing) correspondents here in A.G.B; I'm a self-taught competent bar-band player, and in music, as in every aspect of my life, I treasure every opportunity to hang with people who are smarter or more knowledgeable than I.

-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
Steve Freides
2015-10-13 16:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Simon Turner
On Friday, in article
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
I don't think so, Steve. I think "Do" can be the tonic of any
key; the 1 of any major scale. I think that's the point of tonic
Sol-Fa, that it describes intervals, not notes, and can be
shifted up and down to describe the relative values in any key
-- much like the Nashville Number System: the "3" is the third
note in the major scale of the designated key, just as "Mi" is
the third note in the major scale of the designated key.
I think.
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
I'm sure we've had this conversation here before. I learned and
teach fixed-do solfege, wherein Do is always C, Re is always D,
etc. It's just singing on the names of the notes as they are used
in Europe, really, not a "system", and I far prefer it.
What you're describing is what was popular in the US for a long
time and still is, although less so than a few decades ago, which
is called Moveable Do. The current trend, which I'm delighted to
see, is to use fixed Do and to use singing on numbers when the
desire is to appreciate where a particular note is in the key.
-S-
If this is the case, if there is a fixed relationship between
do-re-mi and C-D-E, why on earth muddy the waters by changing the
nomenclature? Why on earth teach someone to sing
do-mi-sol-ti-sol-mi-do, which won't mean anythi ng to any of the
accompanists, when you could teach hir to sing C-E-G-B-G-E -C in
the first place?
Perhaps you aren't aware that do, re, mi etc. *are* the names of the
notes in at least three European languages (French, Italian and
Spanish), one of which has a rather strong influence on musical
terminology. The French, Italians and Spanish don't[*] call the
notes C, D, E etc. -- that's an English thing.
Yes, I mentioned this but it fell on deaf ears.
Post by Simon Turner
http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/music/keylang.htm
The one difference is that the French, Italian and Spanish word for
the note we call "B" is "si", but that's been replaced by "ti" in
the English do, re, mi scale (presumably to avoid confusion with
the note we call "C").
The Germans have a different system, which is almost the same as
English (as you'd expect, English being a mostly Germanic language);
the exception is that B is "H", and German "B" is B flat. 8-)
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
What is the point of "fixed do"?
That's conceptually a bit like an Italian person asking "What is the
point of 'fixed C'? Why can't we just use 'C' for the tonic of the
particular key we're playing in?"
Tm my mind, the *real* question is why English speakers ever used
the non-English do, re, mi etc. in the first place, when we had our
own perfectly good English/Germanic names for the notes. But,
given that we did, "fixed do" seems pretty reasonable.
[*] of course, with the pervasive nature of English these days, they
doubtless have to cope with calling them C, D, E etc. in addition to
their own native names for them. For all I know the native names
are dying out, or have already done so. But I rather hope not.
Let me try again for all the Americans in the room.
Fixed Do is singing on the names of the notes as they are pronounced
in most countries of Western Europe.
Moveable Do is a pedagogical system designed to teach interval
relationships.
Interval relationships can be taught by other means but moveable do
is a perfectly good tool for the job if nothing else is required of
the student other than learning interval relationship.
Fixed Do is part of a system, developed a long time ago and used
continuously by all of the top American conservatories to this day.
The system includes learning to read in all clefs, to be able to
realize a figured bass or an orchestral score at the keyboard, to be
able to sight-sing atonal music, and a whole host of other things,
the kinds of things the worlds best musical education institutions
choose to use to train their students.
Fixed Do is singing on the names of the notes, not a pedagogical
system designed to teach interval relationship. (Yes, I repeated
myself for emphasis.) The two aren't comparable in either ends or
means, except that educational institutions, for obvious reasons,
need to choose one or the other. Those that choose fixed do use
other means to teach interval relationship, and aspire to many
things besides - "above" instead of "besides" if you want to be
snooty about it - interval relationships.
Choose whatever you like. I have taught all manner of student over
40+ years of teaching both privately and in classrooms, and I have
never used moveable do.
-S-
Post by Simon Turner
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Yes, I mentioned this but it fell on deaf ears.
Oh, c'mon, Steve; I know you are leagues ahead of me on theory (not
to mention every other aspect of music, I am quite sure) and I have a
great deal of respect for your knowledge. The "moveable do" is
somewhere at the limits of my knowledge of formal singing and my
remark about the A6 "cowboy" bass line (so-sol-la-sol do-sol-la-sol)
reflected my previous understanding of the tonic sol-fa (which, I am
learning from this thread, was not actually "wrong", except inasmuch
as I did not understand that there was another, very different, use
of the sol-fa concept) was based upon that understanding.
But be fair: you made just a passing reference to European usage ("It's
just singing on the names of the notes as they are used in Europe,
really, not a "system", and I far prefer it.") which "fell on [my]
deaf ears" only because your brief reference did not stand out to me
as an important aspect of the discussion.
Thank you (and others) for elucidating; I learn a lot here from you
and others, I'm just a little bit indignant about the "deaf ears"
comment because I failed to understand that your brief reference
(bwaaaaah, you hurt my FEEEeeeelings! ;^). Since I never knew that
those were the actual European equivalents of C-D-E-etc., I failed to
pick up on the significance of "names of the notes as they are used
in Europe." Be honest, now, you really did just glance over that
point!
Never would I turn a deaf ear to anything you type, nor to anything I
read from any of the (non-polka-playing) correspondents here in
A.G.B; I'm a self-taught competent bar-band player, and in music, as
in every aspect of my life, I treasure every opportunity to hang with
people who are smarter or more knowledgeable than I.
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
Richard, I take pride in communicating clearly and it seems I failed
this time around. If there's anything else I can do to be of help, I'm
happy to do so. Below is a thing to try.

If you look up

Pasquale Bona

you'll find the book I used and continue to use with my own students.
We learn the various clefs shown in the beginning of the book, and then
we "pretend" the music is in different clef and practice saying the
solfege, the fixed-do names of the notes while we conducting. We
generally don't sing this music but use it for speaking while conducting
as a way of focusing on the brain side of music reading - it can
actually be _easier_ to sing with solfege than just to read.

The above author's book is called "Complete Method for Rhythmical
Articulation." I've found it in the original Italian online for free -
a print copy is $10 or so in English last time I looked.

If anyone wants a fun way to try fixed-do solfege, try this:

1. Pick a very simple song, e.g., "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" or "Mary
Had a Little Lamb" or similar.

2. Decide on a key, and now pronounce the names of the notes of the
song, in rhythm.

That's it. You can progress by a variety of methods including different
keys and harder songs. You can make it easier by allowing yourself to
sing, using the names of the notes as your 'words', instead of just
speaking the names of the notes. Since we're not bothering with sharps
and flats, you can do it in 7 different keys corresponding to the 7
different musical note names.

If you don't know fixed-do solfege, no matter! Do it on letters of the
alphabet.

And if you want to do what a conservatory student would do, learn to
conduct and conduct while you're doing all the above, with a metronome
going to keep you in time.

The only thing different in a conservatory is they won't give you music
you already know so you'll have to learn it, but the basic process is
the same - you're trying to understand what you're singing, not just
singing by ear by being able to say which notes you're singing as you're
singing them.

In my undergraduate training, we went up to around #100 in Bona, and in
all 7 clefs, at a tempo for most of them of 88 to the _eighth_ note,
which might sound slow but, given the complexity of the music, is not.
And we'd conduct sub-divided, so we'd be beating time for eighth notes
not just quarters.

Hope that's of some help or at least interesting to think about doing.
:)

-S-
Brian Running
2015-10-14 02:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Now, there's something you don't hear every day.
Steve Freides
2015-10-14 12:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Now, there's something you don't hear every day.
It can be fun, at least to certain of the geeks among us.

-S-
Brian Running
2015-10-14 02:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
I have taught all manner of student over 40+
years of teaching both privately and in classrooms, and I have never
used moveable do.
Well, that settles it for me.

By the way, it's "movable."
Steve Freides
2015-10-14 12:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Steve Freides
I have taught all manner of student over 40+
years of teaching both privately and in classrooms, and I have never
used moveable do.
Well, that settles it for me.
It wasn't intended to settle it for you, just to state a fact, ma'am.
(That's not intended to offend, either - pun on "just the facts, ma'am,"
see the old Dragnet TV show, to which it's usually attributed, see later
parodies of it.)
Post by Brian Running
By the way, it's "movable."
No, there are a bunch of words with alternate spellings in English.

http://grammarist.com/spelling/movable-moveable/

I prefer the older spelling, maybe 'cause I'm older.

Steve, Walking.
Brian Running
2015-10-14 13:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Brian Running
By the way, it's "movable."
No, there are a bunch of words with alternate spellings in English.
No, there aren't.

[insert enormous, ridiculous pedantic diatribe here]

I've been speaking English for 55 years, and I always spell it
"movable." So, that settles it.
Derek Tearne
2015-10-14 20:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Brian Running
By the way, it's "movable."
No, there are a bunch of words with alternate spellings in English.
No, there aren't.
[insert enormous, ridiculous pedantic diatribe here]
I've been speaking English for 55 years, and I always spell it
"movable." So, that settles it.
You say tomato, I say tomato.
You say potato, I say potato.

The thing that has always bothered me about that song, is that no one,
even, pronounced potato the way they claim the 'english' pronounce it.

--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - ***@url.co.nz
Vitamin S: improvisation from New Zealand http://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/
benj
2015-10-16 04:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Tearne
Post by Brian Running
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Brian Running
By the way, it's "movable."
No, there are a bunch of words with alternate spellings in English.
No, there aren't.
[insert enormous, ridiculous pedantic diatribe here]
I've been speaking English for 55 years, and I always spell it
"movable." So, that settles it.
You say tomato, I say tomato.
You say potato, I say potato.
Potatoe!
Post by Derek Tearne
The thing that has always bothered me about that song, is that no one,
even, pronounced potato the way they claim the 'english' pronounce it.
"artistic license"!

View anything from Hollywood after reading the novel and see what I mean.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Simon Turner
2015-10-16 09:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by Derek Tearne
You say tomato, I say tomato.
You say potato, I say potato.
Potatoe!
Post by Derek Tearne
The thing that has always bothered me about that song, is that no one,
even, pronounced potato the way they claim the 'english' pronounce it.
"artistic license"!
View anything from Hollywood after reading the novel and see what I mean.
Not just novels; Hollywood completely mangles history too.
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
***@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
Les Cargill
2015-10-16 14:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by Derek Tearne
Post by Brian Running
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Brian Running
By the way, it's "movable."
No, there are a bunch of words with alternate spellings in English.
No, there aren't.
[insert enormous, ridiculous pedantic diatribe here]
I've been speaking English for 55 years, and I always spell it
"movable." So, that settles it.
You say tomato, I say tomato.
You say potato, I say potato.
Potatoe!
Post by Derek Tearne
The thing that has always bothered me about that song, is that no one,
even, pronounced potato the way they claim the 'english' pronounce it.
"artistic license"!
View anything from Hollywood after reading the novel and see what I mean.
That's mostly "thirty pounds of ... marbles in a five pound bag". Books
are way more bits than movies.
--
Les Cargill
Brian Running
2015-10-17 21:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Tearne
The thing that has always bothered me about that song, is that no one,
even, pronounced potato the way they claim the 'english' pronounce it.
Don't let it bother you too much, Derek, it's just a song, intended to
be funny, not critical. If it makes you feel better, "they" are not
claiming the English speak that way, it's about American dialects, and
there are damned few people anywhere that say "erster" or "larfter."
It's a joke, see?
Jim Carr
2015-10-18 00:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Derek Tearne
The thing that has always bothered me about that song, is that no one,
even, pronounced potato the way they claim the 'english' pronounce it.
Don't let it bother you too much, Derek, it's just a song, intended to
be funny, not critical. If it makes you feel better, "they" are not
claiming the English speak that way, it's about American dialects, and
there are damned few people anywhere that say "erster" or "larfter."
It's a joke, see?
There are no jokes on Usenet.
Nil
2015-10-17 23:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Tearne
You say tomato, I say tomato.
You say potato, I say potato.
The thing that has always bothered me about that song, is that no
one, even, pronounced potato the way they claim the 'english'
pronounce it.
That's slightly irksome, but the later verse even more so,

"You say vanilla, I say vanElla.
You say sarsaparilla, I say sarsaparElla."

No. Nobody says vanella, and if they do, the difference is so slight
that nobody would notice.

The lyric is a cute joke that's beaten to death and beyond. One of my
least favorite Ira Gershwin lyrics.

(p.s. - I always thought it was "sasparilla" until my spell checker
flagged it just now. I guess I don't use that word enough.)
Steve Freides
2015-10-15 14:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Brian Running
By the way, it's "movable."
No, there are a bunch of words with alternate spellings in English.
No, there aren't.
[insert enormous, ridiculous pedantic diatribe here]
Aw, c'mon, now, let's have that diatribe - what else is the Internet
for?
Post by Brian Running
I've been speaking English for 55 years, and I always spell it
"movable." So, that settles it.
I got ya there. I've been speaking it for longer than you.

-S-
Lucky
2015-10-12 23:25:36 UTC
Permalink
I thought i might share some input on the matter.

Movable do is much easier to use for anyone, as you can use it in all the keys, do, re mi fa so la ti do. An #f in c-major would then be a "fi" there are names for all notes from c-c. Basicly, you got a solfege system for all the "pitches" in on octave that can be used in whatever key you want. This is so much easier than a fixed system.

If you want to sing a song in e major, e is do. In a major, a is do.

A fixed system makes no sence to me, I just don't see the point. If do is always c, and re is always a d(note), might as well use the note names (c d e f g a h c), whats the point of learning two fixed systems?

I studied solfege 4 years, including one year at the Zoltan Kodaly pedagogical academy in Hunagry. Ask me anything :)

Regards from Norway.
Les Cargill
2015-10-09 05:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Or the 1, 5, and 6 for that classic "cowboy" groove: dum-dadadah dum-dadadah...
dum-da-do-da, dum-da-do-da.
Gotta give the sixth its due.
-S-
Or, even more specifically: do--sol-la-sol, do--sol-la-sol!
Only if it's in C major, though.
-S-
I don't think so, Steve. I think "Do" can be the tonic of any key; the 1 of any major scale. I think that's the point of tonic Sol-Fa, that it describes intervals, not notes, and can be shifted up and down to describe the relative values in any key -- much like the Nashville Number System: the "3" is the third note in the major scale of the designated key, just as "Mi" is the third note in the major scale of the designated key.
I think.
I concur. It wouldn't make sense any other way. "Do" in C# pretty much
has to be C#.
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
--
Les Cargill
BW
2015-08-23 12:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Two musicians walk past a bar.
Could happen...
Jim Carr
2015-08-23 15:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by BW
Two musicians walk past a bar.
Could happen...
LOL.

Two musicians walk past a bar. Owner asks them if they will play gigs
for "exposure". They say yes.

Oh, wait. That's actually a joke...
Jim Carr
2015-08-23 15:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Carr
Post by BW
Two musicians walk past a bar.
Could happen...
LOL.
Two musicians walk past a bar. Owner asks them if they will play gigs
for "exposure". They say yes.
Oh, wait. That's actually a joke...
I mean, that's *not* actually a joke.
Gary Rosen
2015-08-24 02:11:47 UTC
Permalink
I've never seen it, have you?

- Gary Rosen

"BW" wrote in message news:22ec6f36-2613-4b8e-bc3d-***@googlegroups.com...

Two musicians walk past a bar.
Could happen...
Lukas
2015-10-13 07:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Edited:

Hi, interesting subject you guys got going here :)

I thought i might share my humble input on the matter.

Movable do is much easier to use for anyone. It is an easy way to sing, understand and quickly learn score, regardless of music level.

Those who teach fixed "do", do sometimes state that the fixed do system is a better system because when learning and teaching at higher levels you will be better reading atonal stuff with fixed do. I personally think it really does not matter what system you use. If you practice fixed do, you will get good at fixed do, if you use tonal (movable) do, you will be good at tonic do.

I`ve seen both systems used at high level in conducting, in vocal performers, instrument players etc. A family member of mine plays in the norwegian broadcast orchestra, Oslo philharmonic orchestra and Oslo baroque orchestra. I`ve been on some of the rehearsals before the concerts. What I experienced when the conductors or musicians used the fixed or movable do, is that movable do is much easier to understand, at higher (or any) level.

It was much easier to learn parts of a score when a conductor used movable do, it simplifies all the keys into one key; do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, etc. When the conductor ( a guy from spain) used fixed do, it just made a lot of confusion for the musicians, because it would be easier for them to just sing the notes out, c, g, e, #g, #d, etc, than using fixed do. My sister told me there was no point of using fixed do at rehearsals , when they could just as well sing the note names. It made no sense for them using two fixed systems. They preferred the movable do, one system for all the keys.


To me, as a theory teacher, I find movable do easier for me, and for the students. I`ve tried fixed do several times, in my students case it just complicated the theory and performance more than it helped, One of the advantages of movable do, is that it simplifies music. My students learns music theory and sight reading faster with movable do. If do is always c, and re is always a d(note), might as well use the note names (c d e f g a h c), whats the point of learning two fixed systems?

If anyone got a question about solfege or or the Zoltan Kodaly pedagogical institute of music http://kodaly.hu where I studied, I will gladly try to answer.

Regards from Norway.
Steve Freides
2015-10-13 16:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lukas
Hi, interesting subject you guys got going here :)
I thought i might share my humble input on the matter.
Movable do is much easier to use for anyone. It is an easy way to
sing, understand and quickly learn score, regardless of music level.
This is absolutely not true! I cannot say if it's because I have
perfect pitch, but moveable Do drives me crazy. Before I even realized
I had perfect pitch, I was in a community college ear-training course
and really had trouble with it - the teacher realized something was up,
let me sing without it, and all of sudden, I sight-sang everything
note-perfect.
Post by Lukas
Those who teach fixed "do", do sometimes state that the fixed do
system is a better system because when learning and teaching at
higher levels you will be better reading atonal stuff with fixed do.
I personally think it really does not matter what system you use. If
you practice fixed do, you will get good at fixed do, if you use
tonal (movable) do, you will be good at tonic do.
The point isn't to be good at one system or the other - the point is to
be good at your craft, which for most of us is reading music on an
instrument or sight-singing it with words.
Post by Lukas
I`ve seen both systems used at high level in conducting, in vocal
performers, instrument players etc. A family member of mine plays in
the norwegian broadcast orchestra, Oslo philharmonic orchestra and
Oslo baroque orchestra. I`ve been on some of the rehearsals before
the concerts. What I experienced when the conductors or musicians
used the fixed or movable do, is that movable do is much easier to
understand, at higher (or any) level.
It was much easier to learn parts of a score when a conductor used
movable do, it simplifies all the keys into one key; do, re, mi, fa,
so, la, ti, etc. When the conductor ( a guy from spain) used fixed
do, it just made a lot of confusion for the musicians, because it
would be easier for them to just sing the notes out, c, g, e, #g, #d,
etc, than using fixed do. My sister told me there was no point of
using fixed do at rehearsals , when they could just as well sing the
note names. It made no sense for them using two fixed systems. They
preferred the movable do, one system for all the keys.
I have _never_ heard of any conductor, especially a European one, use
moveable do.
Post by Lukas
To me, as a theory teacher, I find movable do easier for me, and for
the students. I`ve tried fixed do several times, in my students case
it just complicated the theory and performance more than it helped,
One of the advantages of movable do, is that it simplifies music. My
students learns music theory and sight reading faster with movable
do. If do is always c, and re is always a d(note), might as well use
the note names (c d e f g a h c), whats the point of learning two
fixed systems?
Moveable do only simplifies simple music - that is one of its biggest
shortcomings. Not all music is tonal, and if you've ever spent time
with things like Wagner's overture to Tristan, you'll know that even
though it's technically tonal music, you'd be hard pressed to assign a
key to anything longer than 2 measures at a time.
Post by Lukas
If anyone got a question about solfege or or the Zoltan Kodaly
pedagogical institute of music http://kodaly.hu where I studied, I
will gladly try to answer.
Kodaly is great for teaching kids and, again I do not intend to be
condescending here, it's great if your aspirations for fluency in the
language of music are limited to things not much more complex than
childrens' songs.

-S-
Post by Lukas
Regards from Norway.
Brian Running
2015-10-14 02:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Before I even realized I had perfect pitch, I was in a community college ear-training course
and really had trouble with it - the teacher realized something was up,
let me sing without it, and all of sudden, I sight-sang everything note-perfect.
Community college?! I've been taking musical advice from a
community-college grad? God, I feel so... dirty. No... yes, dirty. Ack!
Steve Freides
2015-10-14 12:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Running
Before I even realized I had perfect pitch, I was in a community
college ear-training course and really had trouble with it - the
teacher realized something was up, let me sing without it, and all of
sudden, I sight-sang everything
note-perfect.
Community college?! I've been taking musical advice from a
community-college grad? God, I feel so... dirty. No... yes, dirty.
Ack!
Yessir, Bucks Couny Community College, Newtown, PA. I am not only a
community college graduate; it took me 5 years to get that 2-year
degree.

And later, a community college teacher, too. Bergen Community College,
Paramus, NJ. With three more college degrees and 14 more years
in-betwixt.

I wear size ate shoes.

My dog has fleas.

-S-
Oci-One Kanubi
2015-10-15 16:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Brian Running
Before I even realized I had perfect pitch, I was in a community
college ear-training course and really had trouble with it - the
teacher realized something was up, let me sing without it, and all of
sudden, I sight-sang everything
note-perfect.
Community college?! I've been taking musical advice from a
community-college grad? God, I feel so... dirty. No... yes, dirty.
Ack!
Yessir, Bucks Couny Community College, Newtown, PA. I am not only a
community college graduate; it took me 5 years to get that 2-year
degree.
And later, a community college teacher, too. Bergen Community College,
Paramus, NJ. With three more college degrees and 14 more years
in-betwixt.
I wear size ate shoes.
My dog has fleas.
-S-
I used to drive from the DC suburbs of Maryland to Bucks County annually. First weekend in October, IIRC, but it could have been as late as early November, because some years it was mighty cold and snowing.

I am a whitewater canoeist and I used to organize a club trip to the Fall Tohickon Creek release. Twice a year they would release water from the dam at Lake Nockamixon, to draw down the reservoir so it could accommodate Winter and Spring precipitation.

We used to camp at Tohickon Valley Park and paddle from Ralph Stover State Park to Point Pleasant Canoe at the mouth of the creek, on the Delaware River.

We'd drive up Friday evening, paddle the creek twice on Saturday, have dinner in Doylestown or Horsham (a terrific Chinese buffet), and paddle the creek once on Sunday before heading home.

The Fall release was a treat because by that late in the year most of our local streams had become too low to run, but we never drove up for the Spring release because by then we had many, and much more exciting, options as Spring runoff filled the Western Maryland, southwest Pennsylvania, and northern West Virginia creeks and rivers.

-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
Steve Freides
2015-10-16 17:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oci-One Kanubi
Post by Steve Freides
Post by Brian Running
Before I even realized I had perfect pitch, I was in a community
college ear-training course and really had trouble with it - the
teacher realized something was up, let me sing without it, and all
of sudden, I sight-sang everything
note-perfect.
Community college?! I've been taking musical advice from a
community-college grad? God, I feel so... dirty. No... yes, dirty.
Ack!
Yessir, Bucks Couny Community College, Newtown, PA. I am not only a
community college graduate; it took me 5 years to get that 2-year
degree.
And later, a community college teacher, too. Bergen Community
College, Paramus, NJ. With three more college degrees and 14 more
years in-betwixt.
I wear size ate shoes.
My dog has fleas.
-S-
I used to drive from the DC suburbs of Maryland to Bucks County
annually. First weekend in October, IIRC, but it could have been as
late as early November, because some years it was mighty cold and
snowing.
I am a whitewater canoeist and I used to organize a club trip to the
Fall Tohickon Creek release. Twice a year they would release water
from the dam at Lake Nockamixon, to draw down the reservoir so it
could accommodate Winter and Spring precipitation.
We used to camp at Tohickon Valley Park and paddle from Ralph Stover
State Park to Point Pleasant Canoe at the mouth of the creek, on the
Delaware River.
We'd drive up Friday evening, paddle the creek twice on Saturday,
have dinner in Doylestown or Horsham (a terrific Chinese buffet), and
paddle the creek once on Sunday before heading home.
The Fall release was a treat because by that late in the year most of
our local streams had become too low to run, but we never drove up
for the Spring release because by then we had many, and much more
exciting, options as Spring runoff filled the Western Maryland,
southwest Pennsylvania, and northern West Virginia creeks and rivers.
-Richard, His Bassic Travesty
Niiiice.

I owned a canoe as a teenage - used to get my folks to put me in up
river somewhere and end up in New Hope. My wife is from outside of
Doylestown but I was a near-city boy, grew up just over the line in
Cornwells Heights in lower Bucks. We still get down there to visit -
one elderly relative still there, and it's still a beautiful part of the
world.

My Mom was a cat kinds person - we'd take the canoe on the Delaware
Canal and take the cat in the canoe. It was quite a sight.

When we lived in a rent-stabilized apartment in NYC, we toyed with the
idea of keeping that and buying a house in central Bucks, but we ended
up moving out of the city altogether.

-S-
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...