"poly-Tonalness"

(BTW, I apologize for my insulting behavior towards Monz on the other
list last month, and hope I can still participate here.)

I should probably prepare my thoughts more for the perspecacious
attention of the commentators here, but here it goes. From the
writings of Paul Erlich of the late 90's on Tonalness (eg, the
interview with Monz), mention was made of how the component dyads of a
triad can have a higher tonalness than the overall triad. In the
context of the article on Tonalness, this 'dyad power' seemed to be
considered only as an abberation from, or an interference with, the
perception of a singe root or series. Is it possible that there is
also a psychoacoutic mechanism which 'thrives' on hearing multiple
roots in a chord? The way the theory was presented seemed to imply
that the ear only tries to hear a single root, or series, and any
deviation from this (examle, dyads more tonal than the tetrad they're
part of) is only an abberation. Or, that ambiguity and multiplicity
in root suggestiveness (eg, like which you get from the triad 12-15-
20) is just a deviation from tonalness. I agree it's a deviation from
tonalness as the theory stands, but wonder why there is no
psychoacoustical theory to account for what seem to be much more
interesting chords (eg, 12-15-20 compared to 4-5-6.) Is this why
harmonic entropy theory only applies --as far as I know -- to
intervals, and not triads?) thanks, Kelly

Does this fall under the theory of harmonic entropy

--- In harmonic_entropy@yahoogroups.com, "traktus5" <kj4321@h...>
wrote:
>
> (BTW, I apologize for my insulting behavior towards Monz on the
other
> list last month, and hope I can still participate here.)

Of course! I just insulted Monz myself :)

> I should probably prepare my thoughts more for the perspecacious
> attention of the commentators here, but here it goes. From the
> writings of Paul Erlich of the late 90's on Tonalness (eg, the
> interview with Monz), mention was made of how the component dyads
of a
> triad can have a higher tonalness than the overall triad. In the
> context of the article on Tonalness, this 'dyad power' seemed to be
> considered only as an abberation from, or an interference with, the
> perception of a singe root or series. Is it possible that there is
> also a psychoacoutic mechanism which 'thrives' on hearing multiple
> roots in a chord? The way the theory was presented seemed to imply
> that the ear only tries to hear a single root, or series, and any
> deviation from this (examle, dyads more tonal than the tetrad
they're
> part of) is only an abberation. Or, that ambiguity and
multiplicity
> in root suggestiveness (eg, like which you get from the triad 12-15-
> 20) is just a deviation from tonalness. I agree it's a deviation
from
> tonalness as the theory stands, but wonder why there is no
> psychoacoustical theory to account for what seem to be much more
> interesting chords (eg, 12-15-20 compared to 4-5-6.)

It depends what you mean by "account for". I think our theories
account for this just fine, in that "interesting" is a perfect way to
describe something that's different from the bland, obvious, harmonic-
series norm and yet is quite similar in terms of critical band
roughness.

> Is this why
> harmonic entropy theory only applies --as far as I know -- to
> intervals, and not triads?)

Of course it applies to triads -- otherwise you couldn't have spoken
of "a higher tonalness than the overall triad" above! Did you forget
that in half a paragraph? :)

>(BTW, I apologize for my insulting behavior towards Monz on the
>other list last month, and hope I can still participate here.)

Heh, all of the regulars on these lists I can think of have been
involved in at least one vicious flame war.

>I should probably prepare my thoughts more for the perspecacious
>attention of the commentators here, but here it goes. From the
>writings of Paul Erlich of the late 90's on Tonalness (eg, the
>interview with Monz), mention was made of how the component dyads of
>a triad can have a higher tonalness than the overall triad. In the
>context of the article on Tonalness, this 'dyad power' seemed to be
>considered only as an abberation from, or an interference with, the
>perception of a singe root or series. Is it possible that there is
>also a psychoacoutic mechanism which 'thrives' on hearing multiple
>roots in a chord? The way the theory was presented seemed to imply
>that the ear only tries to hear a single root, or series, and any
>deviation from this (examle, dyads more tonal than the tetrad they're
>part of) is only an abberation. Or, that ambiguity and multiplicity
>in root suggestiveness (eg, like which you get from the triad 12-15-
>20) is just a deviation from tonalness. I agree it's a deviation
>from tonalness as the theory stands, but wonder why there is no
>psychoacoustical theory to account for what seem to be much more
>interesting chords (eg, 12-15-20 compared to 4-5-6.)

Lots of chords have low tonalness -- three random pitches will
likely, but they'll also likely have high roughness. Chords like
12:15:20 have low roughness and relatively low tonalness. I've
toyed with the idea that such chords are "minor". Partch equated
subharmonic chords with minorness, and subharmonic chords, in the
right circumstances, do tend to fit the low roughness/tonalness
bill.

>Is this why harmonic entropy theory only applies --as far as I
>know -- to intervals, and not triads?) thanks, Kelly

Maybe you mean you haven't seen any plots of harmonic entropy
for triads? There actually have been some, but they've been
exploratory -- the method of calculating triadic harmonic
entropy hasn't been fully figured out yet (last I heard). But
as I think Paul was trying to say (in his own unique way), he
believes harmonic entropy does apply to triads and larger chords.

-Carl

--- In harmonic_entropy@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Maybe you mean you haven't seen any plots of harmonic entropy
> for triads? There actually have been some, but they've been
> exploratory -- the method of calculating triadic harmonic
> entropy hasn't been fully figured out yet (last I heard).

The method was actually posted many years ago. Only parts have been
followed through on so far, though.

>
> > Is this why
> > harmonic entropy theory only applies --as far as I know -- to
> > intervals, and not triads?)
>
> Of course it applies to triads -- otherwise you couldn't have spoken
> of "a higher tonalness than the overall triad" above! Did you forget
> that in half a paragraph? :)

Yes, no...I don't know! I work in a fog. (Is this payback time?!) I
think a great deal about this topic, and feel there is something
incomplete here. For example, you once mentioned that I
was "partially correct" (and left it at that) when I asked if the
tonalness idea conflicted with utonal theory. -Kelly

>> Maybe you mean you haven't seen any plots of harmonic entropy
>> for triads? There actually have been some, but they've been
>> exploratory -- the method of calculating triadic harmonic
>> entropy hasn't been fully figured out yet (last I heard).
>
>The method was actually posted many years ago. Only parts have been
>followed through on so far, though.

I have a fast CPU, and I'll sell time on it in exchange for
virtual hugs.

-Carl

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> >(BTW, I apologize for my insulting behavior towards Monz on the
> >other list last month, and hope I can still participate here.)
>
> Heh, all of the regulars on these lists I can think of have been
> involved in at least one vicious flame war.

Carl! How dare you!!

:-)

Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.7/214 - Release Date: 23/12/05

--- In harmonic_entropy@yahoogroups.com, "traktus5" <kj4321@h...>
wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > Is this why
> > > harmonic entropy theory only applies --as far as I know -- to
> > > intervals, and not triads?)
> >
> > Of course it applies to triads -- otherwise you couldn't have
spoken
> > of "a higher tonalness than the overall triad" above! Did you
forget
> > that in half a paragraph? :)
>
> Yes, no...I don't know! I work in a fog. (Is this payback time?!)
I
> think a great deal about this topic, and feel there is something
> incomplete here. For example, you once mentioned that I
> was "partially correct" (and left it at that) when I asked if the
> tonalness idea conflicted with utonal theory. -Kelly

It conflicts with *duality*, the idea that there is some parity
or "mirror-equivalence" between otonal and utonal chords.

When I listen to full chords of the 11-limit or higher (or even
sometimes 9-limit), the otonal chords sound totally coherent and in
tune, and the utonal chords sound like out-of-tune noise. So duality
seems like a myth to me.

I wrote...

>Lots of chords have low tonalness -- three random pitches will
>likely, but they'll also likely have high roughness. Chords like
>12:15:20 have low roughness and relatively low tonalness. I've
>toyed with the idea that such chords are "minor". Partch equated
>subharmonic chords with minorness, and subharmonic chords, in the
>right circumstances, do tend to fit the low roughness/tonalness
>bill.

Here's a related page:

http://web.telia.com/~u57011259/mode%20perception.htm

-Carl