New member Mark McD recently offered a composition called Discussions in D minor which some people interpreted as a discussion about D minor!
Oddly, before his topic came up, I had been thinking about whether anyone noticed a "natural" affinity for certain keys or scales. For me, my voice finds D major/minor the easiest to sing, followed by keys based on the D triad: F major/minor and F# minor and A major/minor.
And my compositions have tended to be in those same areas, if not quite using "keys," e.g. my Exaudi me (q.v.) uses a 9-tone scale on D.
Anybody else have a "natural" tendency toward singing in one key better than another? Or a liking for one?
Definitely the all-triad hexachord 6-Z17 <012478>
Quote from: Cato on June 27, 2017, 04:48:52 AM
New member Mark McD recently offered a composition called Discussions in D minor which some people interpreted as a discussion about D minor!
Oddly, before his topic came up, I had been thinking about whether anyone noticed a "natural" affinity for certain keys or scales. For me, my voice finds D major/minor the easiest to sing, followed by keys based on the D triad: F major/minor and F# minor and A major/minor.
And my compositions have tended to be in those same areas, if not quite using "keys," e.g. my Exaudi me (q.v.) uses a 9-tone scale on D.
Anybody else have a "natural" tendency toward singing in one key better than another? Or a liking for one?
You wouldn't know it today, but in my wild youth I used to sing folk and country music in public venues (alright, bars!) and no doubt the key that fit my voice best was G major. Since it also worked very well on the guitar and tenor banjo, I developed a strong affection for it. :)
8)
I have preferences that I can't explain for B minor (as I said before) and for the flattened submediant degree, either as a minor iv chord or a ii half diminished. The fact that the latter device is used in a lot of pop music to impart instant emotion doesn't seem to stop me from responding to it strongly (though of course I feel more strongly about it when used in the context of more complex tonal patterns).
'Phrygian dominant' and scales/modes like it have always been ones I've found particularly delightful.
C-sharp major (dark gold), as mentioned in the other thread, is a key I gravitate towards for some odd reason. I don't sing and didn't really think about it in those terms, but my voice seems to naturally like A major (incandescent bright red, like fire) which is also a key I gravitate towards—and seems to end up being the tonality of a lot of my compositions. A, E and D are for me the primary colours of light (red, green and blue) and seem to end up as tonal centres by default of compositions I write that I don't intend to have tonal centres.
I also really like the raised fourth scale degree in general, and modal mixture. Or variants of modal mixture where a key is related to a different one that is colouristically similar: D-flat major (sky blue, round the edges of the sky) and B-flat minor (pale blue) or F major (cornflower blue); E-flat major (dark fuchsia) and G-flat major (light fuchsia or pale violet); G major (orange) and B major (brown, burnt sienna).
It should go without saying that all this is completely arbitrary.
I like the lydian and phrygrian modes.
How I view certain keys:
E minor is dark blue, nocturnal.
E flat major is very outdoorsy, but more standing-on-a-windswept-sea-facing-cliff outdoorsy.
B flat major is spring.
F major is summer.
E flat minor and G sharp minor are very dark and eerie places.
B minor is heroic, like an epic tragic tale is going to be told.
What comes out of the natural horn.
Quote from: Maestro267 on June 28, 2017, 12:00:52 AM
How I view certain keys:
E minor is dark blue, nocturnal.
E flat minor and G sharp minor are very dark and eerie places.
For
The Twilight Zone Bernard Herrmann's opening title music used precisely Eb minor and E minor chords to portray the "dark," "nocturnal," and "eerie" atmosphere of the stories.
Listen:
https://www.youtube.com/v/e0w9Nt0z1w8&list=RDe0w9Nt0z1w8#t=34
Quote from: α | ì Æ ñ on June 27, 2017, 05:56:18 PM
For me it's either/both the octatonic scale or this kind of thing:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Northern_Lights_chord.png)
Both just feel right and satisfying and can be twisted into so many things, it's my natural inclination ;D
Perhaps, if there is anything in particular about this chord, you could enlighten us. :)
The Dorian mode is one of My Favourite Things
E-flat major:
I realized a few years ago that a disproportionate number of the piano works I play/have played are in this key: Bach French Suite No. 4; Bach 3-part Invention No. 5; Beethoven Bagatelle Op 126, No. 3; etc. Currently I am playing Bach Prelude No. 7 from the WTC Book I (also in E-flat), the aforementioned Invention, and--quite uncharacteristically for me--a C# / F# minor piece--the glorious Debussy Arabesque No. 1 (No. 2? blech!)
Of all keys, E-flat seems to fit my hand the best; it seems the most natural to play.
Even Bach loved the key, and he (or someone) commented that it is one of the noblest and most serene sounding of keys. He used it to symbolize the trinity in his Prelude and Fugue BWV 552.
C minor:
The relative minor or E-flat of course. I also played the 3-part Invention No. 2 in this key. It seems a bit melancholic and very serious--big thoughts and fantasies are engendered by this key.
ALSO: The greatest single piece of keyboard music ever composed--the Bach BWV 552--and the greatest symphony ever written, the Bruckner 8, have the same three flats!
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on June 29, 2017, 09:48:14 PM
quite uncharacteristically for me--a C# / F# minor piece--the glorious Debussy Arabesque No. 1 (No. 2? blech!)
Don't you mean E major?
Quote from: α | ì Æ ñ on June 30, 2017, 04:08:54 AM
IMO Everything Bernard Herrmann touches is gold ;)
Amen!
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on June 29, 2017, 09:48:14 PM
C minor:
The relative minor or E-flat of course. I also played the 3-part Invention No. 2 in this key. It seems a bit melancholic and very serious--big thoughts and fantasies are engendered by this key.
ALSO: The greatest single piece of keyboard music ever composed--the Bach BWV 552--and the greatest symphony ever written, the Bruckner 8, have the same three flats!
Beethoven is the one I first thought of in reference to this key:
Symphonies III and
V, several
Piano Sonatas (especially
Opus 111 ), several quartets, etc.
I kept a "tone diary" in order to find my natural resonant frequency. I would wake up, and sing the most comfortable, natural note I could, which after a week or so turned out to be C.
I then discovered that the most resonant note for my voice is C, because with that note I can start a "throat tone" like those Tuvan singers, which I was never able to do before.
Sometimes this varies; some days the resonance is lower, on B or Bb. Bio-rhythms, I surmise.
This is a riveting thread, mine are the following:
Major 6th interval
Augmented 6th chord
Lydian mode
Quote from: α | ì Æ ñ on June 28, 2017, 04:24:39 AM
Well it's from a work that I love from Ernst Krenek (I loved it enough to use as an avatar at one point). But it's just an example of how I love lush, dissonant tutti chords :D (Messiaen and Xenakis also happen to have some prime examples in their work but even in the opening of Beethoven's third symphony. They aren't all approached the same way either!)
in my choral work,
Exaudi me, the chord which is used as a mountain-top from which the singers lament is D-Ab-Bb-F-C-Gb-Ab-C.
Again, note a D minor/major aspect to it.
See Reply #13 for the links to the score and Karl Henning's work with the MIDI version:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,26569.0.html (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,26569.0.html)
Quote from: Webernian on July 19, 2017, 03:07:06 AM
This is a riveting thread, mine are the following:
Major 6th interval
Augmented 6th chord
Lydian mode
Interesting: in my earlier years, I devised several compositions emphasizing major and minor 6ths. I even had a 6-note, multi-octave scale using 6ths ??? :D
e.g. Starting in the bass: D-Bb-G-Eb-C-Ab-F-D.
Rearranged for one octave it would of course have a sort of "double" D minor sound: D-Eb-F-G-Ab-C-D
I seem to find B major comfortable for both singing and playing.
Not THE most popular key, B major...
I have tried to write Songs in every key, or tried to mess with my comfort zone at every turn (not always a good idea).
I try to base everything on MY INSTRUMENT, which, of course, means I've had to re-Compose much to accommodate my lowering tones as I age.
This came up yesterday when someone brought up Bennington/Cornell, the fact they were friends, and that they both SCREEEEAMED like no one else, and then the fact that even Robert Plant and Stephen Tyler have had to lower the keys of their Songs in order to still perform them (anyone remember Plant's horrendous singing at that LiveAid or whatever it was?).
1) Bminor
It's just my go-to. F# is in my "node".
2) My highest "tone" is a high Eb, but, in order to sing rock-n-roll, I've had to push it up to E, very screechy but effective.
3) C#minor
My new fav
4) F#minor
Also great for me
5) G#minor
This one sets up all kinds of interesting intersections with my voice
WHITESNAKE:
'Still of the Night' is in F#. At the karaoke, it's in E, but I raise it to F# and I can sing the high notes with no problem.
'Here I Go Again' is in G, and it's just waaay to high. I lowered it to E (my super natural is Eb) and I can barely make it through, though, I can high the high note with ease.
Cher's 'Believe' is in F. In order for me to do the most awesome Cher/Elvis impersonation you've ever heard, I have to rotate the Song 360 degrees to the key of B. BUT, in that key, I sound just like Cher and Elvis combined. It's a hoot!
I WRITE IN EVERY KEY, USING MODES, TO TRY TO HIT ALL THE DIFFERENT PLATEAUS. I can sing the "heartbreak note" in every key... BUT ONE!!! :o ??? :o ???
For me to sing Benny Mardones 'Into the Night' perfectly, I have to transpose down from Cminor to F#minor.
To sing Aerosmith 'Dream On' I have to really lower it (it's in Cminor, right? keyboard song)
Quote from: ørfeo on July 24, 2017, 08:52:36 AM
I seem to find B major comfortable for both singing and playing.
Not THE most popular key, B major...
But the key many piano teachers begin to teach scales in, because it lies under the hands more easily than any other!
Though the key to which scales come most naturally to me is C#/Db major, but that's only a slight variation of B major where the hand-shapes are concerned (it's still thumb on the white notes and fingers on the black ones).
As far as my most "natural" mode, it's mixoydian. The flat 7th sounds most natural to me, and it also sounds like the blues, with the flat 7. Also, it's used in "psychedelic" music, such as "Tomorrow Never Knows" by The Beatles, and in Indian ragas.
Quote from: snyprrr on July 25, 2017, 09:04:52 AM
I have tried to write Songs in every key, or tried to mess with my comfort zone at every turn (not always a good idea)
I WRITE IN EVERY KEY, USING MODES, TO TRY TO HIT ALL THE DIFFERENT PLATEAUS. I can sing the "heartbreak note" in every key... BUT ONE!!! :o ??? :o ???
Sooo...which one?! :D Very interesting comments,
Mr. Snyprrr !
Quote from: Cato on July 19, 2017, 03:46:39 AM
in my choral work, Exaudi me, the chord which is used as a mountain-top from which the singers lament is D-Ab-Bb-F-C-Gb-Ab-C.
Again, note a D minor/major aspect to it.
See Reply #13 for the links to the score and Karl Henning's work with the MIDI version:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,26569.0.html (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,26569.0.html)
I failed to mention that the work uses a 9-tone scale of D-Eb-F-F#-G#-A-Bb-B-C-D, although the three missing tones are used by themselves at times (but not as a "scale").
Quote from: amw on July 25, 2017, 09:44:31 AM
But the key many piano teachers begin to teach scales in, because it lies under the hands more easily than any other!
Though the key to which scales come most naturally to me is C#/Db major, but that's only a slight variation of B major where the hand-shapes are concerned (it's still thumb on the white notes and fingers on the black ones).
For scales, Chopin taught C sharp major first because it was the easiest in his view, and C major last. Most teachers do almost the exact opposite!
Hello Everyone!
On Sunday I was somewhat surprised by Mrs. Cato during Mass.
A hymn called Shelter me, O God was being sung, which has a nice enough refrain, the rest of it being somewhat clumsy at times.
Toward the end she asked me: "What key is that?" and she pointed to this hymn's key signature.
I explained that the signature was either Ab-Major or F minor, this hymn using F minor, which gives it a darker sound. She nodded and said:
"That's my key. I like that." 0:)
Or...she liked it in this particular hymn! 8)
:-)
Quote from: amw on July 25, 2017, 09:44:31 AM
But the key many piano teachers begin to teach scales in, because it lies under the hands more easily than any other!
Though the key to which scales come most naturally to me is C#/Db major, but that's only a slight variation of B major where the hand-shapes are concerned (it's still thumb on the white notes and fingers on the black ones).
Yup. B major, C#/Db, and F#/Gb naturally have the hands in a position which most readily accommodate the (at first awkward and troublesome) thumb for many a beginner to intermediate keyboard player. It is not apocryphal but
a fact that because of the nature of the hand, C major -- or any mode played on all white keys -- presents the greatest challenge to play evenly, because all the keys are on an even plane and the the fingers of our hands are not.)
Because a particular scale or key is, literally,
handy, does not mean it is your innate and internal pitch -- or 'vibe.' I think if a person does have one pitch or scale they feel is more 'theirs' it has more to do with the perception of hearing than what they might comfortably play or sing.
...on the other hand,
everything vibrates.
We're all just extensions of The Big Note 0:)
Monsieur Croche: Speaking of piano fingering, this book explains what you were talking about. This is one reason Chopin wrote in weird keys like Ab, etc.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41Ca7Y-XqOL._SX383_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
[Because a particular scale or key is, literally, handy, does not mean it is your innate and internal pitch -- or 'vibe.' I think if a person does have one pitch or scale they feel is more 'theirs' it has more to do with the perception of hearing than what they might comfortably play or sing....on the other hand, everything vibrates.]
Yes, hearing seems to be a disembodied perception. I think that perhaps it does have to do with actual physical resonance, depending on what you're after. If your ideal is disembodied, then go for it.
C # major and related modes... because of its handiness in the keyboard and its particular register location (in A=440 hz).
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 18, 2017, 10:43:30 AM
Monsieur Croche: Speaking of piano fingering, this book explains what you were talking about. This is one reason Chopin wrote in weird keys like Ab, etc.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41Ca7Y-XqOL._SX383_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Yep, out of the complete rep of Chopin's piano pieces, all but one -- I've forgotten which (so much for my pedagogy cred) -- is said to be technically "against the hand." ALL the rest, no matter how difficult, once learned, "Fit your hand like a glove."
If either composers or listeners honed in on only the pitch area with which they felt the strongest sympathetic vibration (a kind of pun, if you will), I suspect droning would be a world-wide popular taste -- and it isn't. ;-)
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 18, 2017, 10:43:30 AM
[Because a particular scale or key is, literally, handy, does not mean it is your innate and internal pitch -- or 'vibe.' I think if a person does have one pitch or scale they feel is more 'theirs' it has more to do with the perception of hearing than what they might comfortably play or sing....on the other hand, everything vibrates.]
Yes, hearing seems to be a disembodied perception. I think that perhaps it does have to do with actual physical resonance, depending on what you're after. If your ideal is disembodied, then go for it.
The problem w 'disembodied' is, well, there is no body to vibrate or be vibrated. Since making and listening to music is all about vibrations... :-)
Best regards.
My hearing is fully embodied, I am happy to report.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 18, 2017, 08:25:07 AM...I think if a person does have one pitch or scale they feel is more 'theirs' it has more to do with the perception of hearing than what they might comfortably play or sing...
But singing has to do with throat resonance and vibration. If we base our pitch on perception of hearing, this seems to separate perception from the body, and 'disembodies' it. Is that still what you think?I'm getting mixed signals.
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 20, 2017, 12:27:04 PM
But singing has to do with throat resonance and vibration. If we base our pitch on perception of hearing, this seems to separate perception from the body, and 'disembodies' it. Is that still what you think?I'm getting mixed signals.
Fixating on the physicality of your vocal chords is really limited, though it is of course utterly personal. It is their length that determines what is the most easily and readily produced pitch. When we listen, it is of course via the ear, but also our entire body is affected by resonance. It is entirely -- most likely -- possible that the whole being, the ears and body, 'resonate' more fully to some pitch or harmony other than the one limited by the happenstance of the length of your vocal chords. Not a mixed message, but a distinction I had not before articulated. We don't listen with our vocal chords!
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 20, 2017, 08:44:56 PM
Fixating on the physicality of your vocal chords is really limited, though it is of course utterly personal. It is their length that determines what is the most easily and readily produced pitch. When we listen, it is of course via the ear, but also our entire body is affected by resonance. It is entirely -- most likely -- possible that the whole being, the ears and body, 'resonate' more fully to some pitch or harmony other than the one limited by the happenstance of the length of your vocal chords. Not a mixed message, but a distinction I had not before articulated. We don't listen with our vocal chords!
But isn't the point of finding a pitch which
resonates with our being a v
ibratory, physical thing? After all, resonance has to do with physical vibration. Can we detect this solely with with our ears, and would that be the goal?
It appears that you consider it possible to separate physicality and resonance of the body, from listening, as if listening were a detached, non-physical activity by comparison; or at least an activity which is not dependent upon or "limited" (as you put it) by physical factors of resonance.
It seems to me that unless listening is connected with resonance with the body, it is separated into a more cerebral or mental realm. This seems limiting in its own way.
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 21, 2017, 01:20:07 PM
But isn't the point of finding a pitch which resonates with our being a vibratory, physical thing? After all, resonance has to do with physical vibration. Can we detect this solely with with our ears, and would that be the goal?
It appears that you consider it possible to separate physicality and resonance of the body, from listening, as if listening were a detached, non-physical activity by comparison; or at least an activity which is not dependent upon or "limited" (as you put it) by physical factors of resonance.
It seems to me that unless listening is connected with resonance with the body, it is separated into a more cerebral or mental realm. This seems limiting in its own way.
I really don't think you read the post you're responding to carefully enough.
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 21, 2017, 01:20:07 PM
But isn't the point of finding a pitch which resonates with our being a vibratory, physical thing? After all, resonance has to do with physical vibration. Can we detect this solely with with our ears, and would that be the goal?
It appears that you consider it possible to separate physicality and resonance of the body, from listening, as if listening were a detached, non-physical activity by comparison; or at least an activity which is not dependent upon or "limited" (as you put it) by physical factors of resonance.
It seems to me that unless listening is connected with resonance with the body, it is separated into a more cerebral or mental realm. This seems limiting in its own way.
It seems you are hung up on a point I never argued for or made. Did you miss the BODY mention in what I said?
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 20, 2017, 08:44:56 PM
...our entire body is affected by resonance. It is entirely -- most likely -- possible that the whole being, the ears and body, 'resonate' more fully to some pitch or harmony other than the one limited by the happenstance of the length of your vocal chords."
That tiny bit of our body, the vocal chords, is not any kind of receptor of sound, but what we produce sound with... the rather arbitrary caprice of how long your vocal chords are and what pitch their owner can most readily produce is the 'home pitch', not for your body or soul, but only for and by the physical characteristics of your vocal chords. Yes, you vibrate when you sing, but not necessarily more to one pitch vs. another because one pitch is most readily produced.
Our corporeal reaction to hearing music -- and what we are most receptive to re: pitch or key area -- vs. what pitch we as individuals can most readily produce by singing are, I think, two entirely different subjects.
My natural scale is a scale most unnatural.
We make it work.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 22, 2017, 03:28:52 PM
My natural scale is a scale most unnatural.
We make it work.
B - b - b - b- but do you mean to say that
music is artificial? Gadzooks! Who would'a thunk it?
Quote from: ørfeo on October 21, 2017, 01:39:49 PM
I really don't think you read the post you're responding to carefully enough.
You don't? That is not my concern. Why don't you join in the discussion? I am making my point to my satisfaction.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 22, 2017, 05:36:34 AM
It seems you are hung up on a point I never argued for or made. Did you miss the BODY mention in what I said?
Yes, I read your posts carefully. Perhaps it's my interpretation that's giving you pause.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 22, 2017, 05:36:34 AMThat tiny bit of our body, the vocal chords, is not any kind of receptor of sound, but what we produce sound with... the rather arbitrary caprice of how long your vocal chords are and what pitch their owner can most readily produce is the 'home pitch', not for your body or soul, but only for and by the physical characteristics of your vocal chords. Yes, you vibrate when you sing, but not necessarily more to one pitch vs. another because one pitch is most readily produced.
What I'm referring to is your characterizations: "that tiny bit of our body, the vocal chords"(subordinating the physical),
"arbitrary caprice of how long your vocal chords are"(as if this were unconnected to our specific 'natural pitch identity'),
"what pitch their owner can produce" (separation of body from "owner"),
"not for body or soul, but only for and by the physical characteristics of your vocal chords" (implying again that vocal chords are separate from 'body or soul'),
and finally "Yes, you vibrate when you sing, but not necessarily more to one pitch vs. another because one pitch is most readily produced" as if physical resonance of vocal chords had nothing to do with "tuning in" to our "natural pitch identity."
I suggest you read about the Indian approach to singing and tone.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 22, 2017, 05:36:34 AMOur corporeal reaction to hearing music -- and what we are most receptive to re: pitch or key area -- vs. what pitch we as individuals can most readily produce by singing are, I think, two entirely different subjects.
Again, it shows: it is apparent that you consider our "corporeal" reaction to hearing music, and reception to pitch (corporeal means physical, tangible) as 'passive' and 'disembodied' (strange that you would use the term 'corporeal' in reference to this) is separate from what our bodies can produce and resonate with.
"Being" is sound is my point.
I think Orfeo's response also misses the point, while implying that I am careless in my response, which is not true. And yes, Monsieur, I do note your use of the term "body," although it seems you are blissfully unaware of the implications of that use.
This is the centuries-old 'separation of the soul from the body." I suggest reading some Allen Ginsberg.
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 25, 2017, 10:01:33 AM
You don't? That is not my concern. Why don't you join in the discussion? I am making my point to my satisfaction.
It SHOULD be your concern, because you are spilling a lot of pixels on something that Monsieur Croche never actually said. And you are not enhancing your reputation in doing so.
The fact is the vocal cords ARE a tiny part of the body. You seem quite confused about the difference between how you
generate resonance and how you would
feel that resonance. And so you are obsessing over the fact that the part of the body used to
generate the
pitch of the voice is just this one little part. But Monsieur Croche has said, repeatedly now, that the whole body resonates.
You threw in this stuff about resonance of the throat that has absolutely nothing to with WHICH PITCH the voice creates, which was the actual topic of the thread.
There. Is that enough of a contribution for you?
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on October 23, 2017, 01:26:35 PM
B - b - b - b- but do you mean to say that music is artificial?
Gadzooks! Who would'a thunk it?
"Keep the Art in Artifice!"
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Why am I reminded of the grassroots indignation over GMOs?... Frankenfood!
Atonal music? Frankensound!!
The question of "natural key" is a tricky one, if we talk about equal tuning, because they are essentially all alike. But if we talk meantone tuning I prefer d-minor.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 25, 2017, 01:24:45 PM
It SHOULD be your concern, because you are spilling a lot of pixels on something that Monsieur Croche never actually said. And you are not enhancing your reputation in doing so.
This is totally irrelevant. The fact is, there is an apparently unconscious assumption at work, which is separating the head from the body, and I disagree with it.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 25, 2017, 01:24:45 PMThe fact is the vocal cords ARE a tiny part of the body. You seem quite confused about the difference between how you generate resonance and how you would feel that resonance. And so you are obsessing over the fact that the part of the body used to generate the pitch of the voice is just this one little part. But Monsieur Croche has said, repeatedly now, that the whole body resonates.
You threw in this stuff about resonance of the throat that has absolutely nothing to with WHICH PITCH the voice creates, which was the actual topic of the thread.There. Is that enough of a contribution for you?
I disagree with the way you are arbitrarily setting parameters on this 'discussion.' You are more interested in invalidation than in the ideas presented.
They're not arbitrary. They're based on the title of the thread and what everyone was talking about. And they're explaining that you read Monsieur Croche's comment in a way that is out of context.
I repeat: the vocal cords determine pitch. Not the rest of the body. Whatever you think the "parameters" are, that is a fact.
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 25, 2017, 10:23:07 AM
Yes, I read your posts carefully. Perhaps it's my interpretation that's giving you pause.
What I'm referring to is your characterizations: "that tiny bit of our body, the vocal chords"(subordinating the physical),
"arbitrary caprice of how long your vocal chords are"(as if this were unconnected to our specific 'natural pitch identity'),
"what pitch their owner can produce" (separation of body from "owner"),
"not for body or soul, but only for and by the physical characteristics of your vocal chords" (implying again that vocal chords are separate from 'body or soul'),
and finally "Yes, you vibrate when you sing, but not necessarily more to one pitch vs. another because one pitch is most readily produced" as if physical resonance of vocal chords had nothing to do with "tuning in" to our "natural pitch identity."
I suggest you read about the Indian approach to singing and tone.
Again, it shows: it is apparent that you consider our "corporeal" reaction to hearing music, and reception to pitch (corporeal means physical, tangible) as 'passive' and 'disembodied' (strange that you would use the term 'corporeal' in reference to this) is separate from what our bodies can produce and resonate with.
"Being" is sound is my point.
I think Orfeo's response also misses the point, while implying that I am careless in my response, which is not true. And yes, Monsieur, I do note your use of the term "body," although it seems you are blissfully unaware of the implications of that use.
This is the centuries-old 'separation of the soul from the body." I suggest reading some Allen Ginsberg.
Whatever the pitch is we can most comfortable to produce with our vocal chords, it is the entire being, soul AND BODY, that resonates when subjected to a mass of musical vibration. It is entirely possible and most likely, (considering the entire mass of all the tissues and fluids of our physical selves) that
all of that resonates 'most sympathetically' to some other pitch or full harmony
other than the sound we can most easily make with our vocal chords.
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 25, 2017, 10:01:33 AM
I am making my point to my satisfaction.
Alrighty, then. All well and good, save for that inconvenience called "discussion," wherein it is more than a little expected you will make your point enough that it will satisfy others.
Quote from: millionrainbows on October 25, 2017, 10:01:33 AM
I am making my point to my satisfaction.
You are only formalizing what has long been observed: the onanist character of your participation here.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 31, 2017, 03:31:07 AM
You are only formalizing what has long been observed: the onanist character of your participation here.
Despite complaints concerning the characterization implied in this post, I can only say that it is eminently on point. Interesting concept, onanism, when applied to the singularly selfish manner in which a supposed 'dialog' is carried on. Maybe it will spur on some introspection. Small miracles do occasionally happen.
GB
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 01, 2017, 06:05:29 PM
Despite complaints concerning the characterization implied in this post, I can only say that it is eminently on point. Interesting concept, onanism, when applied to the singularly selfish manner in which a supposed 'dialog' is carried on. Maybe it will spur on some introspection. Small miracles do occasionally happen.
GB
It might be an auditory hallucination, but I think I hear the many voices of a great collective "Thank you, Gurn."
Always best regards,
Monsieur Croche [aka PetrB]
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 01, 2017, 08:57:20 PM
It might be an auditory hallucination, but I think I hear the many voices of a great collective "Thank you, Gurn."
Always best regards,
Monsieur Croche [aka PetrB]
Ce n'était rien, Monsieur.
I see that instead of taking my well-intended advice, our one-issue erstwhile bur has elected to depart. So it goes. It wouldn't do to have to agree with anyone else. Wouldn't be properly atonal...
8)
I have noticed a vocal affinity for A1, but I'm not sure it's completely natural. Years of orchestral playing on the oboe, which generally began by producing A 440 for tuning, might well have steered this inclination. Or maybe it's simply the seven-octave span of daybreak in Mahler's First, which has lived in my head for decades.
A far as favorite keys, F-Major for me. 8)
Humming,
LKB