Dissonance curves for unit amplitude versus scaled amplitude

Well, the picture is posted -- very interesting! Both curves used 11
partials and intervals in the range of 1/1 to 2/1, with 1/1 equal to
G 392. The curves are scaled so the dissonance peak equals 1.0 for
both, so I could compare relative dissonance. The black curve was
generated with all 11 partials having unit amplitude, and the red
curve was generated using partials scaled by 1/n, that is, the
fundamental has amplitude 1, the first overtone has amplitude 1/2,
etc.

The red curve (scaled partials) is *overall* less dissonant than the
black curve. And there are really prominent consonances only at 1/1,
3/2 and 2/1 on the red curve. There are two secondary consonances at
4/3 and 5/3, and two more lesser consonances at 5/4 and 7/4, but
that's about it. There's no hint of the consonant possibilites of
more complex ratios that can be seen on the black curve.

I think this red curve represents the way the bulk of non-musical and
semi-musical listeners hear intervals. This makes even more sense
when you take into consideration two other facts. Most conventional
instruments have spectra with amplitudes that decay with frequency,
like the spectrum that generated the red curve, and one's high-
frequency sensitivity decays with age.

The black curve more closely represents the consonances in the One-
Footed Bride, which clearly *Partch* was able to hear. I suspect most
musically-trained people, at least the younger ones, would most
likely be able to hear these as well. The other conclusions I draw
from these curves:

1. I should use musical sources rich in harmonics to get the most out
of Monophony. That isn't a problem with electronic instruments,
although I do need to stay under the Nyquist limit to avoid aliasing.
The "buzz" unit in CSound or SAOL can do this. Curiously enough, it
is the buzz unit that is the driver for many simulations of the human
voice.

2. The Chromelodeon and reed organs (harmoniums) in general may have
more harmonically rich spectra than other instruments, since Partch
was able to hear his intervals very clearly on the Chromelodeon.

3. Microtonal music using conventional instruments, even if they are
modified to use just ratios, is likely to sound "pleasant but weird"
to typical audiences. Indeed, that was my reaction to Bill Sethares'
compositions on _Xentonality_, Easley Blackwood's microtonal etudes
and Wendy Carlos' alternative scales: pleasant but weird. So I'm
beginning to think that there is a *natural* limit to the potential
audience for microtonality in addition to the more obvious economic
ones.

That doesn't deter me from continuing down this path, since I'm not
in this for the money, and I doubt very seriously if a century from
now, my name will be ranked up there with Partch, Xenakis, Lou
Harrison or any other well-known avant garde composers. But I think
it is another reason why today's composers, young and old alike,
compose mostly in 12-TET for conventional instruments and ensembles --
the audiences can't hear the difference.
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, Chief Scientist, Borasky Research
http://www.borasky-research.net http://www.aracnet.com/~znmeb
mailto:znmeb@... mailto:znmeb@...

If there's nothing to astrology, how come so many famous men were
born on holidays?

Ed,

--- In crazy_music@y..., "Ed Borasky" <znmeb@a...> wrote:
> But I think
> it is another reason why today's composers, young and old alike,
> compose mostly in 12-TET for conventional instruments and
> ensembles -- the audiences can't hear the difference.

A superbly salient point, Ed. Maybe with the addendum that if they
can, it apparantly doesn't matter much. Many people, even on this
list, have said that all the intonational accuracy and tweaking of
microtonal scalar and harmonic materials matter not if the content
that they are in service of is lacking.

As for Partch, I know *for a fact* that a large part of the audience,
when I used to perform his music, couldn't give a shit about "43
tones to the octave" or anything else; it was the music written in
that system, the instrumental resources, and all the extra-musical
elements that made for an affecting experience.

And as for *you*, I am emminantly fascinated by your approach to
this, coming as it does from such a different angle, and I very much
look forward to some of the interim, as well as final, results.

Damn, I sure am glad someone invented the comma (punctuation, not
shoe)...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In crazy_music@y..., "Ed Borasky" <znmeb@a...> wrote:

/crazy_music/topicId_168.html#168

> 3. Microtonal music using conventional instruments, even if they
are modified to use just ratios, is likely to sound "pleasant but
weird" to typical audiences. Indeed, that was my reaction to Bill
Sethares' compositions on _Xentonality_, Easley Blackwood's
microtonal etudes and Wendy Carlos' alternative scales: pleasant but
weird. So I'm beginning to think that there is a *natural* limit to
the potential audience for microtonality in addition to the more
obvious economic ones.
>
> That doesn't deter me from continuing down this path, since I'm not
> in this for the money, and I doubt very seriously if a century from
> now, my name will be ranked up there with Partch, Xenakis, Lou
> Harrison or any other well-known avant garde composers. But I think
> it is another reason why today's composers, young and old alike,
> compose mostly in 12-TET for conventional instruments and
ensembles -- the audiences can't hear the difference.

Well, but of course Ed here you are discussing the larger "general
audiences" for art music. Essentially, some of them can't tell the
difference between Mozart and Haydn. Well, OK, some have to be
awakened even during the obligatory Beethoven selection...

They're mostly there for the dinner that preceded it...

However, "new music" audiences, although considerably smaller,
include performers, composers and other aficionados and there is no
question but that they know microtonality (and some like it!) when
they hear it...

________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson