Lesson 005.1
My latest lesson is Lesson 005.1 (source code here), which replaces Lesson 005:
Same crummy state-controlling button-bar at the bottom, for now. I really must fix that.
This lesson defines "scale" and "diatonic scale," and introduces JiMS keyboard -- i.e., the mapping of the Wicki/Thummer note-layout to the computer keyboard.
My lessons are starting to look a lot like PowerPoint presentations, except that their "graphics" are often interactive (e.g., JiMS keyboard). I've always liked PowerPoint, so the similarity is fine with me.
Although I was very strongly tempted to introduce other scales and even tunings at this point in the lessons. However, there is absolutely no advantage to the student in introducing those concepts now; they would just be a confusing distraction -- and the student's advantage must win all such design trade-offs. Hence, my decision to re-write Lessons 4 and 5, to provide a leaner, cleaner sequence of concepts.
I expect the next lesson (6) to introduce the term "mode," and discuss the modes of the diatonic scale. I think that I've got the components I need for that, but some of them haven't been used in a lesson before, and so will probably need to be tweaked...so don;t hold your breath for the next lesson. ;-)
Same crummy state-controlling button-bar at the bottom, for now. I really must fix that.
This lesson defines "scale" and "diatonic scale," and introduces JiMS keyboard -- i.e., the mapping of the Wicki/Thummer note-layout to the computer keyboard.
My lessons are starting to look a lot like PowerPoint presentations, except that their "graphics" are often interactive (e.g., JiMS keyboard). I've always liked PowerPoint, so the similarity is fine with me.
Although I was very strongly tempted to introduce other scales and even tunings at this point in the lessons. However, there is absolutely no advantage to the student in introducing those concepts now; they would just be a confusing distraction -- and the student's advantage must win all such design trade-offs. Hence, my decision to re-write Lessons 4 and 5, to provide a leaner, cleaner sequence of concepts.
I expect the next lesson (6) to introduce the term "mode," and discuss the modes of the diatonic scale. I think that I've got the components I need for that, but some of them haven't been used in a lesson before, and so will probably need to be tweaked...so don;t hold your breath for the next lesson. ;-)
posted by JimPlamondon | 7:35 PM
2 Comments:
I have to admit Jim, so far I like the way you're structuring your lessons but I don't like some of what you're teaching. You seem to be defining some things traditionally and imposing the same constraints on musical thought that the traditional system did. You are defining the stack and fill method as stacking fifths and filling in octaves. This seems to both have increased your start up cost (forcing you to either define or ignore the octave and fifth) while also completely denying the existence of (not just omitting, but stating the lack of) other temperaments based off of other intervals.
What's wrong with defining intervals, in general, with Bob and Fred, and then defining the stack and fill method with the terms generating interval (the interval used to make stack notes) and periodic interval? (the interval where stack notes get filled into) That way you aren't defining all musical repetitive equivalence as among octaves, or all generating intervals as having the same harmonic function of the fifth.
Also, the function of the octave is retained when it is *around* 2/1, the same way the function of the fifth is retain *around* 3/2, so why define them differently, one as *only* 2/1 and the other as "around half an octave"? I can only see this leading to confusion. If you want to go into simple consonances, their ratios, and their functions, then I supposed you could, all I would recommend is your being consistent.
Going on, you could define the scales formed by the stack and fill method in general as the fundamental scales and take the special case of the fifth and octave for exploring the pentatonic, diatonic, and chromatic scales.
I don't mean to rag on your lessons, I think there's some fine stuff going on here, I'd just hate to see their initial content hold back their eventual potential. I like your definition of a note as a location in a note-grid, and your definition of a scale as a combination of pitch classes. They are reasonably abstract ideas which are defined simply given your system and terminology.
See new post above, entitled "Progressive Complexity."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home