Theory & Impro transposition - please do justify it (once and for all)

[rudjarl]

@rudjari, I am intrigued by the analogy to written language.

It didn't come easy I'll tell you. It forced me to think. I really hate it when that happens.

 

[old git]

It didn't come easy I'll tell you. It forced me to think. I really hate it when that happens.

Does your brain hurt too?

 

[rudjarl]

Does your brain hurt too?

Only when in use :shocked:

 

[Young Col]

Well I wasn't going to contribute to this thread as I'm inclined to think that if you want to play every instrument as though it is in concert pitch that's fine. It's also fine if people like me are content to play the instrument in its transposed way as constructed. I seem to remember Taz saying he had worked out a way to play tenor in concert, mainly as he didn't read. That's fine too but Taz wasn't telling everyone to do the same (profound apologies Taz if I have misrepresented you).

However, Skinner has come up again. What bothers me is that the positive reinforcement argument is the wrong way round. If you take negative reinforcement first, just like the rats in Skinner's box, I should get an electric shock or an equivalent unpleasantness when I finger my sax in transposed mode until I play it detransposed. But I don't. Nothing bad happens. So the positive reinforcement is that when I play in transposed mode nothing bad happens, indeed good things happen: I make quite a good sound, I can read transposed music happily or play by ear (sometimes); I can play another instrument of the sax family knowing that it is a transposing instrument but also knowing the fingering is the same as my instrument; I can even take satisfaction in writing out transpositions. Why should I risk change? Yup, Skinner works for me - despite his behaviourist theory being decried and his electrocution of rats!
YC

 

[zannad]

Well I wasn't going to contribute to this thread as I'm inclined to think that if you want to play every instrument as though it is in concert pitch that's fine. It's also fine if people like me are content to play the instrument in its transposed way as constructed. I seem to remember Taz saying he had worked out a way to play tenor in concert, mainly as he didn't read. That's fine too but Taz wasn't telling everyone to do the same (profound apologies Taz if I have misrepresented you).

However, Skinner has come up again. What bothers me is that the positive reinforcement argument is the wrong way round. If you take negative reinforcement first, just like the rats in Skinner's box, I should get an electric shock or an equivalent unpleasantness when I finger my sax in transposed mode until I play it detransposed. But I don't. Nothing bad happens. So the positive reinforcement is that when I play in transposed mode nothing bad happens, indeed good things happen: I make quite a good sound, I can read transposed music happily or play by ear (sometimes); I can play another instrument of the sax family knowing that it is a transposing instrument but also knowing the fingering is the same as my instrument; I can even take satisfaction in writing out transpositions. Why should I risk change? Yup, Skinner works for me - despite his behaviourist theory being decried and his electrocution of rats!
YC

Your views made me smile 🙂 (have you just discovered about Skinner? You should at least send my a thanks then...).
You have a very limited view about the positive/negative reinforcement described by Skinner - it's much broader than that...;}

 

[zannad]

Playing in D when Concert pitch is C shouldn't be a problem because you have to be able to play in D anyway. In fact you should be able to play any note in any key (preferably in any Clef). On the other hand it would be a bloody nuicance if I read the note C and had to use different fingering from C-Melody, Bb and Eb saxes. (C/Bb/Eb/F... trumpet/Horn/Barythone etc.)

You have to learn how to play different keys anyway, so why add to the burden of making people having to learn different fingering for read note?

Learning to play music is just like learning a different language. If you learn it by ear only, you won't have to bother with letters like 'æ', 'ø', and 'å' (which may be considered transposing letters). Then, in fact, you'd be an illiterate in that language. No big deal for a second or third language. If, on the other hand, the written language is of interest (which it should be) then transposing suddenly start making sense. Take the letter 'æ'. It's the same as the letter 'a' in 'bad'. Why not use 'a' in Norwegian like any normal bloke would, you might argue. That's because a Norwegian 'a' is like the Latin note 'a' in 'LA'. This is transposing. It's no way around it unless you make an alphabet that contains all the letters imaginable. And that has been tried... and rejected.

The reason why this discussion has moved from trying to find the truth about transposition to "me suggesting you a new approach" is because no one has a good grasp of the transposition - it's you (transposers like yourself) that's feeding into the latter branch of this discussion not me...
I'm just waiting and feeding this thread on and off while hoping some kind of deity is climbing down to enlighten us all about transposition - (as common mortals have lost their ways about it - apparently).
Aren't you all ashamed? Been using something for years/decades and not being able to explain it? That's what i call a dogma...

About your reasoning about all those A's...
It doesn't work...in a comparison with music you'll have those A's as pitches (maybe C#, D, D# - just an example). All transposition does, is to call a certain 'æ' with a different letter e.g. "f". Yet the sound is still a 'æ' as in BAD example (you are really funny).
I'm aware Norwegians use many vowels - I wanted to use a couple of them for my chromatic solfege - as there are advantages not to repeat vowels names in a solfege system (to better identify the pitch) but I gave up because I can't really pronounce them (bugger).

btw: here's an insight of my chromatic solfege:
DO, PA, RE, TU, MI, FA, BU, SO, VE, LA, NO, SI
As you can see is a mix of the conventional ones with some additions: PA=C#/Db, TU=D#/Eb, BU=F#/Gb, VE=G#/Ab and NO=A#/Bb
Simple as that really...but it took me a while to design it.

 

[rudjarl]

Fredrik Burrhus Skinner has no more say in music than Pavlov and his dogs. Whether you teach someone by jolting them with electricity or you consider them empty (tabula rasa (Vygotsky, Piaget)) as other would , filling them with obvious intel that makes them not listen in the first place makes no difference to me.
When it comes to playing sax the fundamental truth is: they all have the same fingerings. So why the hell call the same fingering a different name? A C is a D is an A makes no sense. A C sound like C or D or A on the other hand, makes sense.
You don't feel like transposing?... bad luck mate. I don't feel like paying taxes either, but it can't be helped.

 

[zannad]

Fredrik Burrhus Skinner has no more say in music than Pavlov and his dogs. Whether you teach someone by jolting them with electricity or you consider them empty (tabula rasa (Vygotsky, Piaget)) as other would , filling them with obvious intel that makes them not listen in the first place makes no difference to me.
When it comes to playing sax the fundamental truth is: they all have the same fingerings. So why the hell call the same fingering a different name? A C is a D is an A makes no sense. A C sound like C or D or A on the other hand, makes sense.
You don't feel like transposing?... bad luck mate. I don't feel like paying taxes either, but it can't be helped.

You might call them different names because the same fingering unfortunately produce different sounds?!
Call them with their sounds = better ear
Call them with their finger-position = better fingers!! 🙂

 

[rudjarl]

btw: here's an insight of my chromatic solfege:
DO, PA, RE, TU, MI, FA, BU, SO, VE, LA, NO, SI
As you can see is a mix of the conventional ones with some additions: PA=C#/Db, TU=D#/Eb, BU=F#/Gb, VE=G#/Ab and NO=A#/Bb
Simple as that really...but it took me a while to design it.

You completely miss the point (deliberately I suspect).
A C is a C is a C on any saxophone. The same fingering no matter what. It sound different, but that is another story. The fingering of a C is the same no matter what, Easy, simple, intuitive and in no way possible to misunderstand

 

[zannad]

You completely miss the point (deliberately I suspect).
A C is a C is a C on any saxophone. The same fingering no matter what. It sound different, but that is another story. The fingering of a C is the same no matter what, Easy, simple, intuitive and in no way possible to misunderstand

It sounds different and therefore is JUST "another story"?!...just like that?
Tell me a bit more about that other story then...
(you are reeeeeally funny).

 

[rudjarl]

It sounds different and therefore is JUST "another story"?!...just like that?
Tell me a bit more about that other story then...
(you are reeeeeally funny).

You have done you fair bit of the other story, and it makes no sense. Why should I convince you that the way things have been done for a few hundred years is the right way, when you do nothing to make a different approach easier to comprehend?

I feel that you point of view is that 'the world is wrong and only I see sense.' And to argue against that is futile. I might be funny, and to what extent you know not. Convince me that naming a particular set of fingering should be called differently for different instruments, then maybe I would pay your raving any attention.

 

[rudjarl]

Eyyy zannad, pay attention.....
besides
2+2=4
10+10=100
2+2=10
It's only recognizable from your point of view (where you are standing). (They are all two plus two equals four)
Same fingering different notation.

 

[Saxade]

After reading all the posts here.... I think we can say that 99% are happy to live with transposition ( :welldone ) and 1% is not......

 

[Sweet Dreamer]

After reading all the posts here.... I think we can say that 99% are happy to live with transposition ( :welldone ) and 1% is not......

Truly. And the 1% who isn't happy is upset because the 99% are happy. 🙂))

Very strange indeed.

 

[zannad]

Eyyy zannad, pay attention.....
besides
2+2=4
10+10=100
2+2=10
It's only recognizable from your point of view (where you are standing). (They are all two plus two equals four)
Same fingering different notation.

I give you the forumula: +/-4th = 5 semitones....that's all it takes to remap the keys from Tenor to Alto (and viceversa) and if you have a good hear you aren't even going to bother about that.

 

[zannad]

I give you the forumula: +/-4th = 5 semitones....that's all it takes to remap the keys from Tenor to Alto (and viceversa) and if you have a good hear you aren't even going to bother about that.

and even if you get it wrong you are pretty safe because the keys a 4th up/down are closely related.

 

[Tenor Viol]

You completely miss the point (deliberately I suspect).

Agreed and sums it up I think. The old Latin legal speak applies here I think: res ipse loquitur - the thing speaks for itself. As meaningful as a medieval theological debate on the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin...

 

[Young Col]

I'm actually very familiar with Skinner's work and I have a much greater understanding of motivational theory as well. +1 for what my friend the Red Earl says about him (and Pavlov) in this context. Now I have more important things to do, like playing my transposed sax and using my meagre music knowledge to help people like Dave with real problems.

 

[zannad]

Agreed and sums it up I think. The old Latin legal speak applies here I think: res ipse loquitur - the thing speaks for itself. As meaningful as a medieval theological debate on the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin...

Tell us all on what you agreed from the guy up north then? C'mon have a go...
Don't you understand that guy's logic's gone bonkers? That's due to the long terms effects of using transposition. Your acceptance on his "ideas" and "logic" is perverse and explains why transposition has gone that far (unchecked)...

 

[Saxade]

Hey guys... we are all here because we Love Music... in most of the cases it involves the Saxophone Eb , Bb , whatever.. & we struggle to achieve what ever goal we Aim for... I know for me this discussion ... no matter how intellectual this argument is ... it is interesting & irrelevant... we have to get on and do what we love.... listen.... Play .... Enjoy what we do..... and most of all......
Transpose ;}

Ade