scales vs. tunings, Ivor's moods, etc.

Bravo, or to use that most annoying wor--"kudos"--to the person who pointed out that there is a difference between a "Scale" and a "tuning."

I've always been a bit suspicious of Darreg's idea that different tunings have different moods . . .really? If I can make 12-tet sound in a million different moods, then you're going to tell me that I CAN'T do that with 26-tet? That 26-tet has only 1 mood? Wouldn't logic dictate that there would be even MORE mood possibilities? I think a "tuning" is a very abstract object, especially when one gets above, say, 13-16 tet; from which one can extract actual scales (in my mind a scale has somewhere between 3 and 10 notes) which may have 1 (or more---look at the diatonic scale, depending on which "mode" (phrygian, lydian, etc.) one emphasizes, even just those 7 notes can project many moods) moods to project.

I think this is basically correct but at the same time the one ET i know well, 31, i found it was just too restful and not having a really good 9/8 made it lack what that interval brings.
i am sure i could get at the mood i wanted regardless but not by using the whole tone available.
While 12T has been pushed just about everywhere it maybe is what makes us look so much everywhere.
Dealing with allot of world music , often we find it translated into 12 ET which so often missed the mark and starts to sound like the wave.
Without what Doug Leedy calls mid tones, tones between the semitone and whole tone, there are all those sentiments thats of neutral intervals that remain beyond our reach in 12.
Leedy also points out that many cultures tune these intervals by a desired 'sentiment'.
the rest of us are limited by the few cents we have.

Christopher Bailey wrote:
> Bravo, or to use that most annoying wor--"kudos"--to the person who > pointed out that there is a difference between a "Scale" and a "tuning."
>
> I've always been a bit suspicious of Darreg's idea that different tunings > have different moods . . .really? If I can make 12-tet sound in a million > different moods, then you're going to tell me that I CAN'T do that with > 26-tet? That 26-tet has only 1 mood? Wouldn't logic dictate that there > would be even MORE mood possibilities? I think a "tuning" is a very > abstract object, especially when one gets above, say, 13-16 tet; from > which one can extract actual scales (in my mind a scale has somewhere > between 3 and 10 notes) which may have 1 (or more---look at the diatonic > scale, depending on which "mode" (phrygian, lydian, etc.) one > emphasizes, even just those 7 notes can project many moods) moods to project.
>
>
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Kraig,

{you wrote...}
> the rest of us are limited by the few cents we have.

I guess we could refer to that as "intonational poverty".

Cheers,
Jon

Chris wrote,

> I've always been a bit suspicious of Darreg's idea that
> different tunings have different moods . . .really? If I
> can make 12-tet sound in a million different moods, then
> you're going to tell me that I CAN'T do that with 26-tet?

Yah, I think Chris & Kraig are onto something. You can't just say tuning X
has mood(s) A, B, C. It may be true that some range of moods (or whatever)
fall out naturall from some set of pitches... But it's a complicated
relation, especially as the number of available tones increases. It's the
*restricted* sets and the relationships within limited sets of pitches that
impart the moods -- or rather "flavors". E.g., you get different flavors
with 12-ET than in unequal 12 tunings. You get different flavors from
15-tet than 12-tet. But as you go up in the number of available tones, you
tend to have more intervals that can emulate the intervals in sets with
fewer available tones.

Rick

At 08:38 AM 12/17/2006, you wrote:
>Bravo, or to use that most annoying wor--"kudos"--to the person who
>pointed out that there is a difference between a "Scale" and a "tuning."

That was Jon Smith. Gene is actually the first person (that I know of)
to offer concrete definitions of these.

>I've always been a bit suspicious of Darreg's idea that different tunings
>have different moods . . .really? If I can make 12-tet sound in a million
>different moods, then you're going to tell me that I CAN'T do that with
>26-tet? That 26-tet has only 1 mood?

I don't think that's what Ivor meant. I think his observation was
that if you play the same thing (or same kind of material) in different
(especially in lower-numbered, like < 24 or 53) ETs, you notice they
each impart a "mood" to the material. At least, that's something I
can agree with. An easy way to check it out is Herman Miller's warped
canon page:

http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/warped-canon.html

>I think a "tuning" is a very abstract object, especially when
>one gets above, say, 13-16 tet; from which one can extract actual
>scales (in my mind a scale has somewhere between 3 and 10 notes)
>which may have 1 (or more---look at the diatonic scale, depending
>on which "mode" (phrygian, lydian, etc.) one emphasizes, even
>just those 7 notes can project many moods) moods to project.

Agree. Though not all music uses scales (of course), it is the
kind of music I'm personally most interested in (listening to
and making).

-Carl

>> I've always been a bit suspicious of Darreg's idea that
>> different tunings have different moods . . .really? If I
>> can make 12-tet sound in a million different moods, then
>> you're going to tell me that I CAN'T do that with 26-tet?
>
>Yah, I think Chris & Kraig are onto something. You can't just say tuning X
>has mood(s) A, B, C. It may be true that some range of moods (or whatever)
>fall out naturall from some set of pitches... But it's a complicated
>relation, especially as the number of available tones increases. It's the
>*restricted* sets and the relationships within limited sets of pitches that
>impart the moods -- or rather "flavors".

Hi Rick,

If I may, I'd like to offer a hand-wavy explanation of the kind
of moods I think I've observed with ETs. There are two things:

1. The minimum step size. If you use it.
2. The mistuning amount and direction of the various
consonances, if you use them.

So it's certainly possible to avoid this kind of mood, and of
course any scales used will introduce less subtle moods on top.
But the fact that the ear is wired to hear the consonances means
that it has a way of comparing different tunings.

I'm not saying I can hear the smallest step size difference
between 16 and 17 (unless I try to listen for it under ideal
conditions in a sample that's just slowly trilling the steps
perhaps), or the consonance difference in a triad in 34 or
one in 54 (unless I'm counting beats under ideal conditions
perhaps). But with lowish number ETs (the kind Ivor was
mostly dealing with), I think there may be somtehing to his
observation.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> I think this is basically correct but at the same time the one ET i
know
> well, 31, i found it was just too restful and not having a really good
> 9/8 made it lack what that interval brings.

I think facts like that do give 31 a particular character. Of course
you can sound very unrestful, but not in any way you might desire--for
instance by using sharp fifths. There really aren't any; if you go up
a diesis you get an interval which is a small fraction of a cent from
that fine 17-limit interval, 26/17. If you force the poor thing to
play the role of a fifth a la McLaren, it's not going to sound much
like the sharp fifth of 46 or even 22.

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

> I'm not saying I can hear the smallest step size difference
> between 16 and 17 (unless I try to listen for it under ideal
> conditions in a sample that's just slowly trilling the steps
> perhaps), or the consonance difference in a triad in 34 or
> one in 54 (unless I'm counting beats under ideal conditions
> perhaps).

I'd be surprised if you couldn't tell the difference between 34 and 54
in a side-by-side. There are two different versions of the 5-limit
triad, one of which is the 27-et version, and neither of which is much
like 34-et.

>> I'm not saying I can hear the smallest step size difference
>> between 16 and 17 (unless I try to listen for it under ideal
>> conditions in a sample that's just slowly trilling the steps
>> perhaps), or the consonance difference in a triad in 34 or
>> one in 54 (unless I'm counting beats under ideal conditions
>> perhaps).
>
>I'd be surprised if you couldn't tell the difference between 34 and 54
>in a side-by-side.

That was a typo for 53.

-Carl