User talk:Jimishol

Hi Jimishol! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Just plain Bill (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to comment at talk:Circle of fifths#Umbilic torus gif. regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jimishol. Thank you for an interesting discussion about the circle (or the cycle) of fifths. There is no point to continue it there, let's wait for other reactions. About the mathematical vs musical definition of "function", I think that there are publications dealing with that problem; I look for them and let you know. For the time being (if you have time for that question), I'd like to know your opinion about a paper that you'll find here: https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.18.24.4/mto.18.24.4.meeus.html, which apparently proposes a different definition of the function in music. I'll follow your page, so that you may answer me here. Best, Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much.

I am particularly touched by the kindness, courtesy and respect with which you have responded to any reservations I may have had.

Indeed, I had also intended firstly not to proceed with another post, since what I had to say has been said and is in the discussions, and to wait, out of curiosity, to see the participation of others. Many others. But I am disappointed, I hope only temporarily, because only you and I seem to be interested in such a crucial subject as the cycle of fifths and chord progression.

You asked for my opinion! on the paper but I'm afraid you will be disappointed that, as I clearly state in my profile, I am not a reliable source. I do hold a degree in higher education engineering but unfortunately I do not have a degree in mathematics and much less a degree in music.  This of course does not prevent me from living with mathematics and my knowledge, fifteen years ago, reaching at least the beginning of a PhD on the general theory of relativity, which unfortunately life did not let me complete. It was completely unexpected that this knowledge recently appeared on its own to support what I call my views on harmonic progressions.

I read the paper with great interest and really, although it just draws attention to the fact that there is, in addition to the usual, another way ("Theory of harmonic vectors," or THV) of studying harmonic progressions, without going into the details of its development, I found it very enjoyable. Much closer to my own thinking than the "kings" and "successors" mentioned by Arnold Schoenberg in his two books, which, as far as my abilities allowed, I have tried in the last year to understand.

You have not revealed to me your own views on the paper but I will not be afraid to admit that I am in full agreement with the perspective it tries to introduce in the first chapter (1. The Theory of Harmonic Vectors). Paragraphs [3], [6] and probably [7], which my recent reply probably reminded you of, are my favourites. I sense that the directed curved gif segments, with a little work, could be used by THV as vectors. Perhaps I had not encountered THV on the web until now because the majority of those who have worked on harmonic theory seem almost axiomatically, and probably incorrectly, to start with the representation of chords and triads as surfaces and triangles. In this way there is the illusion of creating relationships between triangles and surfaces, omitting their justification in principle, which obscure, amidst a daisy chain of irrelevant information, a clearer and perhaps more efficient view which could indeed be THV, if I have understood correctly what I have read.

I cannot disagree with the second chapter (2. Constraints), because it rather simply states the obvious in the compact paragraph [11.4].

The analysis of chapter 3 is not easily accessible to me. I would have to calculate in my own way and by hand each progress so that through the comparison I could express an opinion. And it would both inflate and not be useful in this answer.

Here I have to expose myself because, to ask my opinion, you probably haven't followed the details (see Details) of the gif or maybe you didn't connect the fact that my name is Dimitrios Cholidis with username Jimishol. How an "ignoramus" got to the point of daring editing on wikipedia is mentioned in the "monologue" discussion How musecore motivated me to read about harmony. I am proud of my one and only composition, mentioned in my monologue above, but ultimately I am much prouder of my recorded views on musical harmony in the 44 page pdf of my website Tonality structure in music. I had been tearing up for two days and yelling "Eureka" when the idea of the umpilic torus first appeared in front of me. I am convinced that I was not far off the mark, and the latest entry of Further reading Toroidal Models in Tonal Theory and Pitch-Class Analysis and our topic paper on THV seem to confirm this. My pdf is "too long to read" but what I believe about musical harmony emerged from a systematic recording of my thoughts, which began after I had finished reading Schoenberg. If you give it a look, consider it a novel to pass the time. Ignore all the mathematical formulas with which you are unfamiliar, since almost all of them are definitions with which my five years of studying general relativity familiarized me, and beyond the definitions they prove nothing of substance. Several friends, playing on my last name, refer to my Cholidean humor. An extension of this humor is the name I gave to the second image you might see on my website.

I cross my fingers and hope I haven't disappointed you.

Again, thank you very much.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version) Jimishol (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The definition problem remains. As functions are not functions, so vectors are not vectors. I would like more "Theory of variations" from Calculus of variations but both term Variation (music) and Theory of variations exist.

A few points:

1. The problem of definition results from your thinking that the "true" definition (both of "function" and of "vector") is the mathematical one. This involves our usage of language; nothing prevents anyone to create new definitions or to use words in different senses, provided that the definitions are meaningful and coherent. The term "function", in music theory, is the creation of Hugo Riemann, in his Vereinfachte Harmonielehre oder die Lehre von den tonalen Funktionen der Akkorde (1893). But the term of course is much older, it derives from Latin and has been used in English since the 16th century. The mathematical usage is more recent, perhaps not much older than the music-theoretical one. As to "vector", the article explains that "The use of the term 'vector' to describe root progressions does not refer so much to its mathematical meaning as to the somewhat metaphorical usage of process philosophy" (etc., [2]).

2. I am a professional music theorist and historian of music theory and, if I write on Wikipedia under a pseudonym (a Wikipedia itself recommends), it is that otherwise the exchanges, especially about music theory, would become unbalanced. For the same reason, I won't add comments about the article on THV that I mentioned. The fact that I quoted it suffices to say that I appreciate it. Note that a lot more has been written about THV: see the website of the author, mainly http://nicolas.meeus.free.fr/NMVecteurs.html.

3. I had seen your website and I should take more time to read what you propose there. But I am too busy with other things just now.

In the meanwhile, I hope that others will react on the Circle of fifths talk page. And do work on other WP pages, it is fun. Best, — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]