Your "Natural" Scale/Key/Mode

[millionrainbows]

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.

[millionrainbows]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Madiel]

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?

[Karl Henning]

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

[Karl Henning]

Why am I reminded of the grassroots indignation over GMOs?... Frankenfood!

Atonal music? Frankensound!!

[prémont]

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.

[millionrainbows]

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.

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?

I disagree with the way you are arbitrarily setting parameters on this 'discussion.' You are more interested in invalidation than in the ideas presented.

[Madiel]

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.

[Monsieur Croche]

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.

[Monsieur Croche]

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.

[Karl Henning]

I am making my point to my satisfaction.

You are only formalizing what has long been observed:  the onanist character of your participation here.

[Gurn Blanston]

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

[Monsieur Croche]

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]

[Gurn Blanston]

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...

[LKB]

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. 

Humming,

LKB