>standard tuning
Standard was a mistake
I personally believe tuning as a concept should be more dynamic
periodicity is underrated
but then so is jazz
>new standard tuning
Just listen to Sonic Youth then
>>73519787
periodicity tuning?
seriously idk what that is
>can't play well
>change tuning
wow such genius much craft
>>73519827
just intonation has periodicity, 12-TET does not
but without 12-TET you wouldn't have jazz, so
>>73520163
lmao this so much
i know people like this, so pretentious
>change tuning
>string breaks
>>73520172
Dude I'm a brainlet, I don't know what any of that means. Could you explain?
>>73519756
There is a lot of non-western music that does not have standard tuning. Wanna know why nobody listens to it? :^)
>>73520205
in just intonation all the little waveforms line up all nice and neat
people like the sound of that, it's what set pythagoras off on his mathematical purity mission, he thought the relationships were heavenly
you can easy make a 5 note or 7 note scale this way but as you try to add notes it gets harder (because maths)
but people wanted to squeeze more notes in (european egocentrism), and eventually someone worked out you could have 12 notes if you changed all the pitches slightly, but that ruined all the nice neat waveforms lining up
but hey, more notes, so now we have 12 notes per octave, all equally spaced, but none of them align with each other properly, they are all slightly 'out of tune' with each other (or at least pythagoras would say so)
(that's a highly inaccurate condensed version, it actually went thru many revisions over the years)
>>73520205
*
this is a good vid on the subject, he explains it better than i just tried to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n3qMB6AD_0
>>73519803
My favorite SY song (Disappearer) uses standard tuning, ironically enough.
>>73520376
and a longer one if you feel inclined to continue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fHi36dvTdE
>>73520172
>just intonation has periodicity
No one ever says that
>>73520287
>Wanna know why nobody listens to it? :^)
because they're not smart enough to appreciate something that sounds unfamiliar
>>73520993
must be particular to my school
>>73520993
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_periodicity_block
>>73521052
okay but that doesn't refer to just intonation having perfect intervals with no beating. it's describing a lattice, not the quality of the intervals
Meh, the pitches you are using aren't all that important... go listen to Louis Armstrong's one note solo on West End Blues.
If you've got the rhythm, dynamics, tone, all that there, what pitches you're using become secondary
>>73521136
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.6458.pdf
just providing examples of the term being used in a musical context
it's not an unusual term, and it's used by at least two of my professors
>>73521163
christ you are autistic as fuck
yes, "periodicity" is a word, I'm well aware of that
>>73521229
assuming you know what it means, i see no reason to continue this conversation
>>73521160
intervals are important
theres nothing wrong with standard tuning or any other tuning. standard is what everyone is taught with unless you're learning the blues back in 1925
the only thing wrong is people adhering to a certain ~sound~ or ~vibe~ and not just playing what sounds good
good rock music can still be made in standard tuning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RheJW2nhkb8 this is arguably one of the most popular and catchy rock songs of the 10s and its in standard (albeit played using a capo)
some of the best rock music has been made in standard tuning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q08jK2banI this is, in my opinion obviously, one of the best rock tracks ever written and performed and one of the guitars in this is in standard
the problem is not with standard tuning, its with rock musicians doing the same tired thing
>>73519756
>440hz conspiracy
>>73522569
no one in this thread mentioned anything about that, it's a confused discussion of guitar tunings and temperaments
>>73519756
i agree 100% op. standard is bland as fuck, on guitar at least
>>73522569
it's true
*ahem*
>>73523765
no it's not