Originally Posted by tommac

the math goes like this ( lets assume that the volume = 1 l )

1l * infinity + 1l * 5 ( arbitrary ) + 1l * 4 ( arbitrary ) + 1l *3 ( arbitrary ) + 1l * 3 ( arbitrary ) / 5 = infinity

vs

1l * 10000 ( arbitrarily big number ) + 1l * 5 ( arbitrary ) + 1l * 4 ( arbitrary ) + 1l *3 ( arbitrary ) + 1l * 3( arbitrary ) / 5 = 10015/5 = 2003 l

Originally Posted by worzel

You said learning and practise of scales wasn't required to be able to play Chopin. Fingering has everything to do with playing scales, and kleindoofy was bang on about the likelihood of missing that all important cross over technique without instruction (teacher, or book).

Originally Posted by tommac

No it doesnt.

Originally Posted by blueshift

Someone who doesn't practice one's music lessons can play as well as someone who does. Usually the reason is not nature but a different mechanical usage that likely has established a different mechanical foundation, allowing the so-called untrained individual to play as well as the trained or drilled individual.

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Well, the music comes from the scales. YOu can't improvise a guitar break if you don't know the scales and chords for the key or the complimentary key (for you Pete Green and Santana fans)
I haven't played seriously for years but back in the day I would practice scales for at least an hour a day at my most intense I still practice scales several times a week, that's how you build up your fingering dexterity and 'muscle memory'.

All this talk of Hendrix and Miles and their 'feel' is all very well but they play as fluently as they do because they don't have to think about what will work, they have done the practice, they know the scales and chords like second nature. That's why they know where they can 'break the rules' or miss something out.
Take it from me if you are serious you need to practice and know your scales and progressions otherwise all you will ever play is the riff from 'Smoke on the Water' or the first few bars of 'Stairway to Heaven'

Same with Math and Physics. IF you don't know or do the math you will only ever do the equivalent of Smoke on the Water and never produce that big solo from Freebird.

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Well, the music comes from the scales. YOu can't improvise a guitar break if you don't know the scales and chords for the key or the complimentary key (for you Pete Green and Santana fans)
I haven't played seriously for years but back in the day I would practice scales for at least an hour a day at my most intense I still practice scales several times a week, that's how you build up your fingering dexterity and 'muscle memory'.

All this talk of Hendrix and Miles and their 'feel' is all very well but they play as fluently as they do because they don't have to think about what will work, they have done the practice, they know the scales and chords like second nature. That's why they know where they can 'break the rules' or miss something out.
Take it from me if you are serious you need to practice and know your scales and progressions otherwise all you will ever play is the riff from 'Smoke on the Water' or the first few bars of 'Stairway to Heaven'

Same with Math and Physics. IF you don't know or do the math you will only ever do the equivalent of Smoke on the Water and never produce that big solo from Freebird.

Originally Posted by captain swoop

All this talk of Hendrix and Miles and their 'feel' is all very well but they play as fluently as they do because they don't have to think about what will work, they have done the practice, they know the scales and chords like second nature. That's why they know where they can 'break the rules' or miss something out.

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Same with Math and Physics. IF you don't know or do the math you will only ever do the equivalent of Smoke on the Water and never produce that big solo from Freebird.

Originally Posted by blueshift

I think that some of the exchanges here do not have to do with what is "natural" verses what is "trained" but what is learned without supervision verses some repeated drill dependency?

The reason I bring this up is because Robert Pirzig made a good point in his book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" when he claimed that a socket wrench is as natural as a flower. We humans think and create because it is our nature. We picked up large branches and used them as tools to whack an apple out of a tree so that we could satisfy our hunger. All of the technology around us is an offspring of the plans and actions from the brains nature provided reshaping the resources nature provided.

Someone who doesn't practice one's music lessons can play as well as someone who does. Usually the reason is not nature but a different mechanical usage that likely has established a different mechanical foundation, allowing the so-called untrained individual to play as well as the trained or drilled individual.

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

This is more elementary arithmetic than math, however, you still managed to get your equations incorrect. You need to set parenthesis correctly. It should read for the second equation, for example:
(1l * 10000 + 1l * 5 + 1l * 4 + 1l *3 + 1l * 3) / 5 = 1l *10015/5 = 2003 l

Think I see why you don't like math...

Originally Posted by worzel

Then wouldn't we study this untrained genius to figure out what this different mechanical foundation is teach that as good technique instead?

Originally Posted by tommac

Great post. I fully agree.

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Which is great, except most of the time, it's wrong. 99% or better of the time, the person who practices is better than the person who doesn't. Don't believe me? Actually spend some time learning about music instead of just arguing with people who have. That's another place the analogy holds--when people who know what they're talking about tell you that you're doing it wrong, you might want to stop to consider that they might know what they're talking about.

Originally Posted by tommac

I play music ... so not sure what your point is. also what is wrong? here is what I was agreeing with:

Originally Posted by tommac

The reason I dont like math is because of people like you. You know what I mean ... but rather than ignore the oversite and address what is being discussed ... you have to focus on the oversite. The math didnt matter in the thread and doesnt matter here ...

Originally Posted by Gillianren

What is wrong is the idea that someone who doesn't practice can play as well as someone who can. That simply isn't true, and to say it is shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how playing an instrument works.

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

You don't have to like me... By the way, the word is oversight... and one does not include infinity in mathematical expressions...

Originally Posted by tommac

I didnt say I didnt like you ... I said the reason I dont like to do the math is because of people like you who focus totally on the irrelevant and cant see the forest for the trees.

Originally Posted by tommac

Who said that?

Originally Posted by blueshift

Someone who doesn't practice one's music lessons can play as well as someone who does.

Originally Posted by tommac

I didnt say I didnt like you ... I said the reason I dont like to do the math is because of people like you who focus totally on the irrelevant and cant see the forest for the trees.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

If you think your dislike of mathematics is due to the actions of others, then I suggest that you not let other people drive your likes and dislikes.

I further suggest that you are kidding yourself, and that your dislike of mathematics is self-generated. I think that if you were more adept and comfortable with mathematics that there would be no dislike.

Proper application of mathematics, not just arithemetic, is actually and exercise in recognizing the isolating the important from the unimportant. It is the quintessential excercise is describing the forest, and only worrying about the important features of the trees.

Originally Posted by Gillianren

The person whose post you were agreeing with.

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax

Parentheses and order of operations are in no way irrelevant. This is the mathematical analog of "eats, shoots, and leaves." They're very important, and if you cannot follow these rules then you will have a hard time communicating effectively with another person.

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax

Parentheses and order of operations are in no way irrelevant. This is the mathematical analog of "eats, shoots, and leaves." They're very important, and if you cannot follow these rules then you will have a hard time communicating effectively with another person.