Naked Science Forum

General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: roscoe on 27/04/2009 01:18:38

Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: roscoe on 27/04/2009 01:18:38
Quoting Fr Rueben Parsons Studies In Church History v2 pg 7

"That music may be now called a science is due to Guido of Arezzo, an Italian monk, who in 1124 determined the scale , hitherto uncertain. His solmisation or the use of the ut, re, mi, fa ,sol, la was signified by means of the words of the first verse of the Vesper Hymn for the Feast of The Baptist."

I guess ut gets changed to do at some later date and ti is also found later( kind of like Pluto). The ancient modes such as Ionian, Phrygian, Aeolian etc are also from the Church.

b-- 494 cps
a#- 467 cps
a-- 440 cps
etc
 
All musical instruments, irrespective of their physical location on the Globe must necessarily conform to the system of the Roman Church-- unless one digs Ravi Shankar.

The reason this is the product of a Cath Monk in a cloister is that music is one way we communicate with God and that is why the Mass is accompanied with music.

Of course it is true that the way frequencies interact existed before being discovered because God created it that way. The same is true of Calculus before it was discovered by Newton and Liebniz. 
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: Chemistry4me on 27/04/2009 11:30:44
What are we talkin' about here?
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: lyner on 27/04/2009 12:03:58
The diatonic scale is one thing, and it relates to the overtones of strings and wind instruments and the subjective effect of pairs or groups of notes on the human ear. A 'pleasing' combination of notes (say a perfect fifth) is nice to hear because it contains frequencies  which have a simple ratio.
The ratios of frequencies on the diatonic scale are what would get if you played a simple wind pipe (no holes or valves) in a high enough register (many octaves above it's fundamental) to get eleven notes between two adjacent octaves.

The actual ratios of the even tempered scale are bases on equal ratios between every note (the twelfth root of two). That is what we are used to. Pianos are all tuned to this and the chords (even the major chords) all sound a bit different because the even tempered scale departs from what you'd expect from the diatonic scale.
We don't need to involve god in this any more than in any other subjective feeling about our surroundings. If you look deep enough into 'pleasure', you can usually find some survival basis for it. I don't see why music should be any different.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: dentstudent on 27/04/2009 12:09:03
SC - you really think that a reasonable argument like that is going to affect anything?
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: Don_1 on 27/04/2009 16:35:37
....... because God created it that way.

Good grief!!!

Talk about singing the same old song. (Pun intentional).
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: roscoe on 27/04/2009 19:37:46
Human reason is not capable of explaining everything. It did not create the way the atmosphere functions.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: JimBob on 27/04/2009 20:05:11
I will not mention that Pythagoras first described the mathematics of musical harmony, mentioned above, about 540 BC. I AM JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT ! You can't force me!!
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: lyner on 27/04/2009 21:11:12
Are we to expect more of such enlightenment from this young man, I wonder?
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: roscoe on 27/04/2009 21:14:43
The atomic materialist Pythagoras( who believed the Sun to be stationary) didn't have everything wrong as he had a ballpark estimation of how harmony worked. However, the Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony in the form of the modes and refined scale used today as the music of Western Civilisation is a product of the Roman Catholic Church. The only alternative is Ravi Shankar-- sorry fellas.  
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: MonikaS on 27/04/2009 21:21:21
I will not mention that Pythagoras first described the mathematics of musical harmony, mentioned above, about 540 BC. I AM JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT ! You can't force me!!

Oooooh, be strong! Don't you dare to mention Pythagoras. Poor roscoe's head might explode and then you'll have to clean the forum.

What's called "pleasant" is partly learned by listeners: see the diabolus in musica the tritone. This interval is considered dissonant in so called classical musc, but very common in jazz and other modern music. As a result most people don't feel the dissonance as strong as before. We got used to it.

It's the same with cadences (a melodic configuration or series of chords marking the end of a phrase, section, or piece of music). We know when a phrase, section, or piece of music ends. Those cadences have changed over time, you feel that when you listen to medieval music. The cadences used there don't feel like the end until you get used to them.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: JimBob on 27/04/2009 21:57:09
Oh,oh,oh - he just threw out more than half the world's music - Oriental music, very pleasant to Orientals, by the way, and it is based on a completely different harmonic system. My gosh! Should we then say they do not have music????

When I see "Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony" I see inflexibility, intolerance to other belief systems besides their own and a person who is setting themselves up for an abundance of ridicule. 

At least I am willing to change my mind when presented with new evidence. I have done this whenever new data is available.

The question for discussion should be "Why does he do this to himself and what is the pay-off for him?" It seems to me thaat he gets to feel smug and self-righteous in his beliefs. We are just poor schmucks that don't know the truth.

Oh, and I enjoy Ravi Sankara a lot. I first heard him on the Beatles album "A Concert for Bangladesh" Very pleasing to the ear.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/04/2009 22:15:05
Just when I was starting to get the hang of where the former Soviet bloc countries were, some bastard seems to have relocated Bulgaria to the Orient.
If that link doesn't work try searching for "Polegnala e Todora"
It's one of my favorite tunes (though lots of people say I'm odd)
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: JimBob on 27/04/2009 22:45:32
You're not that weird. But still weird.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: Variola on 27/04/2009 23:19:45
Quote
Of course it is true that the way frequencies interact existed before being discovered because God created it that way.

Crop circes are aso known to have perfect diatonic ratios, does that mean God makes crop circles?

http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/diatonics.html (http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/diatonics.html)


Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: roscoe on 28/04/2009 00:22:20
No but he created the mathematics that were used by whomever to create the patterns in diatonic ratios.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: roscoe on 28/04/2009 00:36:27
Most oriental people accept the Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony. If anyone has been to Japan, they happen to be very fond of Western Music. There were many Christian Martyrs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is why the cities were pulverised in WWII as part of the anti-christ plot to destroy the Catholic Church.   And if there are any pianos or guitars in China I can assure you that they are tuned to the resonance of the Catholic Church. And yes it is inflexible because I don't think anyone wants to listen to noise. Ravi Shankar sucks imo-- I think he was used at Gitmo to torture the poor wretches who ended up there.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: BenV on 28/04/2009 01:13:50
No but he created the mathematics that were used by whomever to create the patterns in diatonic ratios.
Only if you decide to make the assumption that he/it/they exist(s).

I choose not to make that assumption, so your explanation is nonsense to me.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: JimBob on 28/04/2009 01:22:41
Most oriental people accept the Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony. If anyone has been to Japan, they happen to be very fond of Western Music. There were many Christian Martyrs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is why the cities were pulverised in WWII as part of the anti-christ plot to destroy the Catholic Church.   And if there are any pianos or guitars in China I can assure you that they are tuned to the resonance of the Catholic Church. And yes it is inflexible because I don't think anyone wants to listen to noise. Ravi Shankar sucks imo-- I think he was used at Gitmo to torture the poor wretches who ended up there.

And they also have their own music system as well. It was developed well before eastern Europe began to think about being civilized and before Christ.

Dismissing the oriental couture as not a culture will not work It must be accommodated. There are TWO systems otherwise , as I said, you disregard more then half the world.   
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: roscoe on 28/04/2009 03:56:05
There certainly are two systems-- Christ and anti-christ. Western music is a product of the Roman Catholic Church.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: JimBob on 28/04/2009 04:17:55
Rosco, please read http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0

After reading this please consider that you have been given all the information you need as to whether you belong here. These policies have been around for longer than you have and it has not been changed.

You agreed to them when you signed up for the privilege of posting to this site.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: Don_1 on 28/04/2009 08:55:49
There certainly are two systems-- Christ and anti-christ. Western music is a product of the Roman Catholic Church.

BLOODY GARBAGE!


Talk sense or shut up!
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: Don_1 on 28/04/2009 09:21:24
Consider this roscoe, according to you, all things are God's will, so why do you condemn Ravi Shankar? Why do you question my atheism? Why do you question scientists who support evolution? Does it not occur to you that, if you are right and God does exist and is responsible for all things, then Ravi Shankar, atheism and scientists who support evolution are your God's will, He made us what we are. Do you presume to question your God??? Is that not the greatest of all sins???
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: JimBob on 28/04/2009 15:50:46
The Greeks had a word for it Don -  HUBRIS

Don, if he is the righteous person he claims to be, reading the acceptable use policy he agreed to abide by when he signed up will cause him to quit evangelizing us. It is not allowed here and as a man of God the only recourse for him is to follow the rules we set up before he joined the forum. If he continues to evangelize after reading the AUP, he is a person who has cannot keep the bargains he made. He thus can't be taken seriously - if anyone took him seriously in the first place.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: roscoe on 28/04/2009 19:15:56
I thought this was the 'Just Chat' section. Evangelisation is only an offshoot of my purpose-- which is simply to show that science is compatable with Scripture and the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/04/2009 20:07:38
Why are we putting up with the troll?
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: roscoe on 28/04/2009 21:03:49
Bc-- no one is forcing you to read my posts.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: Variola on 28/04/2009 21:09:45
I thought this was the 'Just Chat' section. Evangelisation is only an offshoot of my purpose-- which is simply to show that science is compatable with Scripture and the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

So far all you have done is try to prove that God is behind science, and also to attempt to defend the Catholic Church. That is not an offshoot of anything, that happens with a design and purpose.
In essence there is nothing wrong with that, except that you avoid answering questions put to you,you ignore other points of view and insist on persuing your point doggedly rather than exploring other avenues. That,is what people are fed up with.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: JimBob on 28/04/2009 21:27:46
Evangelisation is only an offshoot of my purpose--

Then don't do it - Period. Those are the rules we all agreed to when we signed up. It just isn't allowed at all.

In cased you missed it the AUP says "The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory."

Consider this a warning.  If you continue to not allow any flexibility in your "discussion," then you will not be able to continue to participate in this forum.

Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: roscoe on 28/04/2009 22:44:36
My purpose is simply to show that science is compatable with the teachings of the Church. I am sorry if this seems to amount to evangelisation to some. I am not a cleric, only a Church historian. I realise that in a scientific forum, mere mention of the possibility of God can seem as evangelisation to some-- my apologies. Could someone be specific as to a question I am avoiding.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/04/2009 23:25:13
Bc-- no one is forcing you to read my posts.
No one forced you to post in violation of the AUP.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: JimBob on 29/04/2009 01:28:16
My purpose is simply to show that science is compatable with the teachings of the Church. I am sorry if this seems to amount to evangelisation to some. I am not a cleric, only a Church historian. I realise that in a scientific forum, mere mention of the possibility of God can seem as evangelisation to some-- my apologies. Could someone be specific as to a question I am avoiding.

It isn't the questions you are avoiding - it is the inflexibility of thinking and the certainty that there is only one explanation. this is diametrically opposed to any scientific, or for that matter, rational discussion. You are strongly in violation of this sentence in th AUP:

"The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory." 

It has nothing to do with religion, or the existence of God, just the inflexibility to recognize  any other opinion but your own as valid. Only a few percent of the population in this world are as narrow minded as you appear to be.

Intolerance is not only poor manners, it is morally wrong. Would you allow comments AGAINT you on your web site?

Think of others, not just yourself and your opinion. Other people have valid opinions. Otherwise you are participating in a Jesuit "jehad."  That is evangelising.

Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: TheD on 29/04/2009 02:09:44
There certainly are two systems-- Christ and anti-christ. Western music is a product of the Roman Catholic Church.

Roscoe makes a valid point.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: TheD on 29/04/2009 02:12:11
There certainly are two systems-- Christ and anti-christ. Western music is a product of the Roman Catholic Church.

BLOODY GARBAGE!


Talk sense or shut up!

I as a Roman Catholic find that statement offensive and disturbing.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: JimBob on 29/04/2009 03:23:51
As a scientist I find you offensive
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: JimBob on 29/04/2009 03:31:08
NO rosco - you can't get away with bringing in your friends to help.  You are responsible for your own posts and no amount of help can turn this into a psuedo-discussion trying to uphold some pet belief, no matter WHAT it might be. It could be that the moon is made of green cheese. This intolerance to other ideas and utter inflexibility has gone on long enough.

I did try to reason with you but because you evangelize, there was no reasoning.
Title: Infallible Definition of Diatonic Harmony
Post by: BenV on 29/04/2009 09:15:03
It's worth saying at this point for other people reading this thread that we are not a theology forum.  There's plenty of other webspace for you to discuss the finer points of your chosen religion in.