I refute the concept of octaves

>>71892688
nigger are you trying to refute regular periods of waves

>>71892688
No you don't.

I demand a formal proof within 10 minutes or else you fail the assignment, OP.

>>71892858
proof of what?

>>71892794
Yes

>>71892818
Ok

>>71892858
C1 C2 are not the same sound: C1 J1

>>71892895
But C1 and C2 are the same note, you're just forgetting to pitch down your music player by an octave each time C2 is played you pleb

>>71892918
>by an octave ea
You know that doesn't work

>>71892895
>C1 C2 are not the same sound
Duh, that's why they put 1 and 2 lmao

File: Untitled.png (10KB, 705x341px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 705x341px

I refute the concept of flat and sharp notes.

>>71892895
Nobody is saying that they are the same note, altough C1 is implied in C2, please explain what are you actually refuting.

>>71892895
The system of octaves is to put multiples of the same wave-forms in some sort of order instead of every differentiation of Hz being its own unique snowflake, would you prefer there be a different system? One where we use numbers for each key on a piano, or something?

>>71892988
Well, eastern music is way different so I guess that's OK.

How many big music systems are in the world, /mu/?

>caring about notes

sure is pleb in here

>>71893005
gotta find something to argue about, everything in the world is objectively wrong and everyone's right about it

>>71892895
okay, so this is an argument abbout how wer represent two notes.

The two notes do have different frequencies, I think we an all agree there.
C1, lets say has a certain frequency x over [0,2pi]
C2, (y definition) has a frequency x*2 over [0,2pi]

so you can see CLEARLY that C1 and C2 are related by their frequency, namely x. so regardless of what you call C2, it willl still sound similar to c1 because it is a linear transformation of c1. you double the frequency for each octave.

are you retarded?

>>71892989
That C1 to C2 is the same sound or note or even an octave. I think I might be able to take it further through the examination of vibration when the sound is played

>>71893002
Eastern music isn't really different.
They just have notes between the western notes created using the same mathematical equation

>>71893027
they are a different pitch, so they are a different sound. yet they sound similar because of the frequency relationship

>>71893000
I would like a system that acknowledges the so called "doubling of waves" as incorrect in creating the actual relative or parent and child notes (if you will)

>>71892688
Is this bait, or are you special needs?

File: cage.jpg (14KB, 251x300px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 251x300px

I refute the idea of music

>>71893058
ohhhhh, I see what you are saying.
You claim that Freq(C2) =/= 2*Freq(C1)

In reaality this probably is the case because of minute tuning errors, but it's all just theory and notation anyway. Would you rather we put a tolerance on each note in the scale?

File: 1490951857625.jpg (20KB, 251x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 251x300px

>>71893081
i refute the idea of physical objects because waves of light bouncing off of them do not exist as i do not see them because i am blind

>>71893089
>Freq(C2) =/= 2*Freq(C1)
I think there's a better formula out there somewhere

>>71893081
Cages literally refuted any idea.

>>71892688
Do you also believe the Earth is flat?

File: black.jpg (54KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1000x1000px

>>71893099
one refutes the idea of self, just because one has indivdual thoughts doesn't mean one isn't connected to the all the way the one can't perceive

>>71893148

>>

>>71893143
I've been thinking about the relationship of the visual appearance of a curve to the straight line and with time; now if we add form, not mass I think I have a foothold to take us back a step from some crazy ideas

>>71893058
But isn't the octave basically the only stable point of reference in music, all other intervals start to clash depending on the type of intonation that you use, I don't see what other relation could serve as a standard. There surely can't be one that is even more simple than octaves. Also a bit of detour, I have absolute pitch, and octaves do have the same "colour" to them, but I know this is not the part that you are refuting, I just tought it would be interesting to share.

File: 2016-10-27-1477586294-6421376-children.jpg (17KB, 979x651px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 979x651px

>>71893176
As a silly mate in acknowledgement of the potential and destructive capabilities of every unique personality, i refute your idea of nothing in belief something must exist to mean nothing

File: hmm.jpg (10KB, 193x262px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 193x262px

>>71893259

>

>>71893279
i said that nothing cant exist because something needs to exist for the sole purpose of me calling it retarded on the internet

File: hqdefault (3).jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>71893313

File: Baby-hippos-are-the-best.jpg (44KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x375px

>>71893313
nothing is something is nothing

>>71893344
wasnt this thread about octaves being stupid or something

>>71893344
these legs protruding out of its neck

>>71893148
I refute

>>71892688
>I refute a fundamental physical property

good luck with that op