Major/minor paradox file uploaded

This one's for Igs- apparently the Yahoo problem that makes most of my posts disappear has also taken away the "upload file" link at the Tuning List.

Igs wanted an an example of a case in which a minor chord sounds happier than a major chord, with the chords on the same root.

So, I took the worst possible scenario for attempting a paradox, tonal music in 12-tET, same timbre, same exact piece of music except for a couple of notes changed, swapping out C major for C minor in one example.

Which example has the C Majors, which the C minors? Which sounds "happier", brighter, sweeter, etc?

By the way, Igs, if you'd been able to read my many disappeared posts, you'd know that you've radically misinterpreted and made a grotesque out of my position! Scary. I've never thought you had some cartoon B/W stance.

-Cameron Bobro

Oh- it's in my folder in "files", curiously named "Cameron Bobro".
--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> This one's for Igs- apparently the Yahoo problem that makes most of my posts disappear has also taken away the "upload file" link at the Tuning List.
>
> Igs wanted an an example of a case in which a minor chord sounds happier than a major chord, with the chords on the same root.
>
> So, I took the worst possible scenario for attempting a paradox, tonal music in 12-tET, same timbre, same exact piece of music except for a couple of notes changed, swapping out C major for C minor in one example.
>
> Which example has the C Majors, which the C minors? Which sounds "happier", brighter, sweeter, etc?
>
> By the way, Igs, if you'd been able to read my many disappeared posts, you'd know that you've radically misinterpreted and made a grotesque out of my position! Scary. I've never thought you had some cartoon B/W stance.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

I envision a future where we actually get to say chords Joni Mitchell used.....40 years ago.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 28/09/10 9:26 PM, cameron wrote:
> Oh- it's in my folder in "files", curiously named "Cameron Bobro".
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron"<misterbobro@...> wrote:
>> This one's for Igs- apparently the Yahoo problem that makes most of my posts disappear has also taken away the "upload file" link at the Tuning List.
>>
>> Igs wanted an an example of a case in which a minor chord sounds happier than a major chord, with the chords on the same root.
>>
>> So, I took the worst possible scenario for attempting a paradox, tonal music in 12-tET, same timbre, same exact piece of music except for a couple of notes changed, swapping out C major for C minor in one example.
>>
>> Which example has the C Majors, which the C minors? Which sounds "happier", brighter, sweeter, etc?
>>
>> By the way, Igs, if you'd been able to read my many disappeared posts, you'd know that you've radically misinterpreted and made a grotesque out of my position! Scary. I've never thought you had some cartoon B/W stance.
>>
>> -Cameron Bobro
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Hahaha! On the old Joni Mitchell albums she used her own custom open string tunings, that's part of it (voicing).

Amelia is a very beautiful song.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
>
> I envision a future where we actually get to say chords Joni
> Mitchell used.....40 years ago.
>
>
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
> Mesotonal Music from:
> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>
> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria
> <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
> a momentary antenna as i turn to water
> this evaporates - an island once again
>
> On 28/09/10 9:26 PM, cameron wrote:
> > Oh- it's in my folder in "files", curiously named "Cameron Bobro".
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron"<misterbobro@> wrote:
> >> This one's for Igs- apparently the Yahoo problem that makes most of my posts disappear has also taken away the "upload file" link at the Tuning List.
> >>
> >> Igs wanted an an example of a case in which a minor chord sounds happier than a major chord, with the chords on the same root.
> >>
> >> So, I took the worst possible scenario for attempting a paradox, tonal music in 12-tET, same timbre, same exact piece of music except for a couple of notes changed, swapping out C major for C minor in one example.
> >>
> >> Which example has the C Majors, which the C minors? Which sounds "happier", brighter, sweeter, etc?
> >>
> >> By the way, Igs, if you'd been able to read my many disappeared posts, you'd know that you've radically misinterpreted and made a grotesque out of my position! Scary. I've never thought you had some cartoon B/W stance.
> >>
> >> -Cameron Bobro
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

At 04:22 AM 9/28/2010, you wrote:
>This one's for Igs- apparently the Yahoo problem that makes most of my
>posts disappear has also taken away the "upload file" link at the
>Tuning List.

While you're being moderated for acting like a jerk, you won't
be able to upload files there. -Carl

Carl>"While you're being moderated for acting like a jerk, you won't be able to
upload files there. -Carl" (concerning Cameron on the tuning list)

Sadly, this type of dictatorial action by moderators is rather common on the
tuning list. Most often you don't even have to be a "jerk"...simply disagreeing
with the moderators on what constitutes enough effort to make your research
"real science" and thus "worth posting" is enough to get them name-calling. It
really gets frustrating when you've done weeks if not months of honest research
into something and pose to the list a "what's your opinion?" question only to
have your posts or uploads about it wiped off because you supposedly "know
nothing and make no effort".

If something you put a lot of effort into mysteriously doesn't get uploaded on
the tuning list because of things like "imperfect quoting" or "excessive
posting" supposedly by Yahoo...chances are it is Carl doing it manually, not
Yahoo...and, despite what anyone like Carl says, virtually everyone on the
tuning list DOES know a good deal about tuning, work hard on learning and
researching, and is well worth listening to if not always agreeing with.

Cameron>"Igs wanted an an example of a case in which a minor chord sounds
happier than a major chord, with the chords on the same root.

So, I took the worst possible scenario for attempting a paradox, tonal music in
12-tET, same timbre, same exact piece of music except for a couple of notes
changed, swapping out C major for C minor in one example. Which example has the
C Majors, which the C minors? Which sounds "happier", brighter, sweeter, etc?"

I am interested to see this result as it seems obvious to me Cameron is
making an honest effort to do research and not being a jerk at all. The study
itself seems to carefully follow the concept of "all else equal" far as timbre,
phrasing, notes used, etc. I'm thinking minor can be happier than major in a
few cases...but, on the average, major chords will be happier.
Anyhow, it's about time we all got to hear the example...and also perhaps the
Carl vs. Cameron musical example (suggested as a challenge from Cameron to Carl
earlier) of NOT just how much they know about psychoacoustics in tuning, but how
well it actually translates into their music. Let's hear some of these results!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey Michael, the file is "MajorMinorMud.mp3" here, under "files". I'm curious as to how you'll compare the two versions of the little tune.

As I mentioned several times in posts that haven't appeared, I think the "inherent", psycoacoustic, etc. characteristics are best compared to things like "red/blue", "wet/dry", "rising/sinking".

From these things we can construct all kinds of meaning, and people can have all kinds of reactions to them. Sure, we're more likely to use "red" for danger, but that's not "the" meaning of red! Sometimes it can mean completely different things.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Carl>"While you're being moderated for acting like a jerk, you won't be able to
> upload files there. -Carl" (concerning Cameron on the tuning list)
>
> Sadly, this type of dictatorial action by moderators is rather common on the
> tuning list. Most often you don't even have to be a "jerk"...simply disagreeing
> with the moderators on what constitutes enough effort to make your research
> "real science" and thus "worth posting" is enough to get them name-calling. It
> really gets frustrating when you've done weeks if not months of honest research
> into something and pose to the list a "what's your opinion?" question only to
> have your posts or uploads about it wiped off because you supposedly "know
> nothing and make no effort".
>
> If something you put a lot of effort into mysteriously doesn't get uploaded on
> the tuning list because of things like "imperfect quoting" or "excessive
> posting" supposedly by Yahoo...chances are it is Carl doing it manually, not
> Yahoo...and, despite what anyone like Carl says, virtually everyone on the
> tuning list DOES know a good deal about tuning, work hard on learning and
> researching, and is well worth listening to if not always agreeing with.
>
>
>
> Cameron>"Igs wanted an an example of a case in which a minor chord sounds
> happier than a major chord, with the chords on the same root.
>
> So, I took the worst possible scenario for attempting a paradox, tonal music in
> 12-tET, same timbre, same exact piece of music except for a couple of notes
> changed, swapping out C major for C minor in one example. Which example has the
> C Majors, which the C minors? Which sounds "happier", brighter, sweeter, etc?"
>
> I am interested to see this result as it seems obvious to me Cameron is
> making an honest effort to do research and not being a jerk at all. The study
> itself seems to carefully follow the concept of "all else equal" far as timbre,
> phrasing, notes used, etc. I'm thinking minor can be happier than major in a
> few cases...but, on the average, major chords will be happier.
> Anyhow, it's about time we all got to hear the example...and also perhaps the
> Carl vs. Cameron musical example (suggested as a challenge from Cameron to Carl
> earlier) of NOT just how much they know about psychoacoustics in tuning, but how
> well it actually translates into their music. Let's hear some of these results!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Cameron,

This one's for Igs- apparently the Yahoo problem that makes most of my posts
> disappear has also taken away the "upload file" link at the Tuning List.
>
> Igs wanted an an example of a case in which a minor chord sounds happier
> than a major chord, with the chords on the same root.
>
> So, I took the worst possible scenario for attempting a paradox, tonal
> music in 12-tET, same timbre, same exact piece of music except for a couple
> of notes changed, swapping out C major for C minor in one example.
>
> Which example has the C Majors, which the C minors? Which sounds "happier",
> brighter, sweeter, etc?
>
> By the way, Igs, if you'd been able to read my many disappeared posts,
> you'd know that you've radically misinterpreted and made a grotesque out of
> my position! Scary. I've never thought you had some cartoon B/W stance.
>

Since I'm banned from the tuning list (reason for beeing banned was that I
complained that I was moderated, you should try that one too lol), I did not
follow the discussion that lead to this mp3 example.
Mind telling me what it's about.
As it's about the least clear example of major vs minor that I've ever
heard. (both sound like crap to me, perhaps the 2nd one slightly more crap)

-Marcel

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:09 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Michael, the file is "MajorMinorMud.mp3" here, under "files". I'm curious as to how you'll compare the two versions of the little tune.
>
> As I mentioned several times in posts that haven't appeared, I think the "inherent", psycoacoustic, etc. characteristics are best compared to things like "red/blue", "wet/dry", "rising/sinking".
>
> From these things we can construct all kinds of meaning, and people can have all kinds of reactions to them. Sure, we're more likely to use "red" for danger, but that's not "the" meaning of red! Sometimes it can mean completely different things.
>
> -Cameron Bobro

The sound of a human scream can also create a completely different
feeling, say if it's Robert Plant singing Black Dog vs a person
fleeing some kind of disaster. Doesn't mean that there's no possible
way to analyze anything. -Mike

Cameron wrote:

>Hey Michael, the file is "MajorMinorMud.mp3" here, under "files". I'm
>curious as to how you'll compare the two versions of the little tune.

I don't hear two versions of the same thing.

>As I mentioned several times in posts that haven't appeared, I think
>the "inherent", psycoacoustic, etc. characteristics are best compared
>to things like "red/blue", "wet/dry", "rising/sinking".

Funny, I said the same thing.

-Carl

Context as Daniel pointed out.

But you can analyze yourself and however that comes out will be your language.
The best way to put it into practice is really ones ears.

For instance are you going to have a chart of all the chords in all their inversions ( i suspect range would be left out) in order to compose or improvise as to what you are going to do next?. Sometimes such objects are useful.
If i get really stuck i might "chart out" a bunch of variations to see which one works.
More than working though they merely help me stumble into something.

Recently spent over 50 hours on 20 secs in a piece rewriting it more than 12 times. I would give up if it was always like, this which is what science promises to become if given the reins.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 29/09/10 4:28 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:09 PM, cameron<misterbobro@...> wrote:
>> Hey Michael, the file is "MajorMinorMud.mp3" here, under "files". I'm curious as to how you'll compare the two versions of the little tune.
>>
>> As I mentioned several times in posts that haven't appeared, I think the "inherent", psycoacoustic, etc. characteristics are best compared to things like "red/blue", "wet/dry", "rising/sinking".
>>
>> From these things we can construct all kinds of meaning, and people can have all kinds of reactions to them. Sure, we're more likely to use "red" for danger, but that's not "the" meaning of red! Sometimes it can mean completely different things.
>>
>> -Cameron Bobro
> The sound of a human scream can also create a completely different
> feeling, say if it's Robert Plant singing Black Dog vs a person
> fleeing some kind of disaster. Doesn't mean that there's no possible
> way to analyze anything. -Mike
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> Context as Daniel pointed out.
>
> But you can analyze yourself and however that comes out will be
> your language.
> The best way to put it into practice is really ones ears.
>
> For instance are you going to have a chart of all the chords
> in all their inversions ( i suspect range would be left out) in
> order to compose or improvise as to what you are going to do
> next?. Sometimes such objects are useful.
> If i get really stuck i might "chart out" a bunch of
> variations to see which one works.
> More than working though they merely help me stumble into
> something.

I have a mental "chart" of a lot of things; I find it useful to think
in terms of the "background pitch set" at any point in time, which is
constantly being created and shifted due to things like priming. So in
a sense, I always know which "mode" is "active" at any moment (which
doesn't always mean the 7 normal diatonic modes). And I am very
sensitive to how each mode can create its own feeling, and how a minor
chord can sound completely different depending on which pitch set is
viewed as surrounding it.

I assumed, in fact, that we were all on a level such that this simple
fact didn't need to be mentioned, so I just didn't mention it. I only
thought it might be a good idea to start by analyzing individual
chords, as per Rothenberg's idea that chords and scales can both be
analyzed as "reference frames" so to speak, and as a way of building
up to scales. Instead, the discussion has gone into a sort of
endlessly trivial lecture about how minor can sound different in
different contexts.

> Recently spent over 50 hours on 20 secs in a piece rewriting it
> more than 12 times. I would give up if it was always like, this
> which is what science promises to become if given the reins.

I don't know what you mean by that last sentence, but in general I
like to have all of these mental charts and then "shut them off" when
playing. And when I stumble on something that sounds a certain way
that I wouldn't have expected from my current paradigm, I generally
stop and try to figure out what I just did, try to generalize it and
find more "colorful" examples of the same thing, figure out what the
deeper order is that I was missing in my limited approach, etc. So art
and science aren't really all that fundamentally opposed.

-Mike

I don't think that art and science are oppose.
I am not sure that the part of myself that creates is the same as that which analyzes.
Not opposed to it, just don't find it always expedient. I listen to the material i am using and listen to what it wants to do.

Obviously using Wilson's material there is much a priori decisions being made by myself. It sounds like what your pursuit might be about is to cut down on the infinity of choices in some logical way. One wants a material that offers us a broad range of expression while being manageable.

Ivor had his idea of different EDO having it own flavor or ambience.
I did notice this about 31 and how not having a whole tone of a certain size made it hard ( at the time) to really invoking an assertiveness when i wanted it . It can be done but It seems best to go with the material that has an inclination to that.

Where science might stop as useful though is one might reject some material for use today and find it the best thing a year from now. So "taste" has it own logic and maybe we don't even know what it is either. Science might also give us a pattern but taste would tell us when to throw it out and do something different. Yet this is a working together.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 29/09/10 7:42 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:
>
>> Recently spent over 50 hours on 20 secs in a piece rewriting it
>> more than 12 times. I would give up if it was always like, this
>> which is what science promises to become if given the reins.
> I don't know what you mean by that last sentence, but in general I
> like to have all of these mental charts and then "shut them off" when
> playing. And when I stumble on something that sounds a certain way
> that I wouldn't have expected from my current paradigm, I generally
> stop and try to figure out what I just did, try to generalize it and
> find more "colorful" examples of the same thing, figure out what the
> deeper order is that I was missing in my limited approach, etc. So art
> and science aren't really all that fundamentally opposed.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Michael, the file is "MajorMinorMud.mp3" here, under "files". I'm curious as to how you'll compare the two versions of the little tune.
>
> As I mentioned several times in posts that haven't appeared, I think the "inherent",
> psycoacoustic, etc. characteristics are best compared to things like "red/blue", "wet/dry",
> "rising/sinking".
>
> From these things we can construct all kinds of meaning, and people can have all kinds of
> reactions to them. Sure, we're more likely to use "red" for danger, but that's not "the"
> meaning of red! Sometimes it can mean completely different things.
>

Well crikey, man, I was never suggesting anything different than this! But it's that "likely" that interests me. All sounds are flexible in their meaning, but most have a "pull" to them. Just because that pull can be resisted or even reversed, doesn't mean it's not there or that it doesn't permit us to understand and describe it.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
Which example has the C Majors, which the C minors? Which sounds "happier", brighter, sweeter, etc?
>

I can barely tell the difference, since there's a lot of extended-voicings and rapid chord-changes going on here. Both have a very "wistful" sound to me. I don't hear either one as being happier or brighter or sweeter etc.; which one do you hear as that? Maybe if I really squint my ears, the chord at the end of the 2nd versions sounds a bit more "relaxed". But that could simply be because it's lower in pitch. There are a few notes that "clash" more overtly in the middle of the 2nd one as well. But either way, these two versions seem to be comparing chords of a higher complexity than I currently wish to look at. Getting even into seventh chords totally mixes up emotions in a whole lot of ways, and is one case where I clearly hear "major" chords as reliably "sadder" than "minor" chords (so long as we're talking maj7 vs min7). If we move up to ninth chords, I start to lose my ability to make emotional associations all together.

>
By the way, Igs, if you'd been able to read my many disappeared posts, you'd know that you've radically misinterpreted and made a grotesque out of my position! Scary. I've never thought you had some cartoon B/W stance.
>

Then I invite you to clarify your position off-list, or over at tuning-research (the new, unmoderated list that Mike started to continue discussing this topic without annoying the piss out of the uninterested members). I feel like my position has been made into a grotesque by others as well...such is the nature of electronic correspondence.

-Igs

To describe it with language though.
i would venture to say that music not only expresses emotion but would expand it to say that certain emotions are only possible with music.
So there is a problem at the core that music can be reduced to a description via words. There is much disagreement here though as many are only interested in music as a conveyor of ideas and philosophical representations.
I am inclined away from this.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 29/09/10 9:49 AM, cityoftheasleep wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron"<misterbobro@...> wrote:
>> Hey Michael, the file is "MajorMinorMud.mp3" here, under "files". I'm curious as to how you'll compare the two versions of the little tune.
>>
>> As I mentioned several times in posts that haven't appeared, I think the "inherent",
>> psycoacoustic, etc. characteristics are best compared to things like "red/blue", "wet/dry",
>> "rising/sinking".
>>
>> From these things we can construct all kinds of meaning, and people can have all kinds of
>> reactions to them. Sure, we're more likely to use "red" for danger, but that's not "the"
>> meaning of red! Sometimes it can mean completely different things.
>>
>
> Well crikey, man, I was never suggesting anything different than this! But it's that "likely" that interests me. All sounds are flexible in their meaning, but most have a "pull" to them. Just because that pull can be resisted or even reversed, doesn't mean it's not there or that it doesn't permit us to understand and describe it.
>
> -Igs
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

> Mind telling me what it's about.
> As it's about the least clear example of major vs minor that I've ever
> heard. (both sound like crap to me, perhaps the 2nd one slightly more crap)
>
> -Marcel

They both sound like crap to me, too, Marcel. That's not the point.

Take a listen and tell me in which version the second-to-last chord sounds "brighter", "happier", etc.

Igs, the example is just very ordinary triads with a couple of passing tones, and both times only ends at a tall chord. The first chord and last chord, and all the chords inbetween except the three C chords, are exactly the same. The C minors in one are C majors in the other, just triads. Copy-paste midi rendition, then three changes of Eb to E, and two notes with voicing changes (bass idententical in both versions)

It does sound "taller", more complex, than it is. I think that's because it ends on a tall chord and because we've been conditioned (myself as well!) to associate simplicity in 12-tET tonal music with... enforcing a major/minor duality!

If major and minor triads are strongly different things, why don't these examples sound completely different to you?

I'm not yet going to say how it sounds to me. :-)

And I'll check out the new list!

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> Which example has the C Majors, which the C minors? Which sounds "happier", brighter, sweeter, etc?
> >
>
> I can barely tell the difference, since there's a lot of extended-voicings and rapid chord-changes going on here. Both have a very "wistful" sound to me. I don't hear either one as being happier or brighter or sweeter etc.; which one do you hear as that? Maybe if I really squint my ears, the chord at the end of the 2nd versions sounds a bit more "relaxed". But that could simply be because it's lower in pitch. There are a few notes that "clash" more overtly in the middle of the 2nd one as well. But either way, these two versions seem to be comparing chords of a higher complexity than I currently wish to look at. Getting even into seventh chords totally mixes up emotions in a whole lot of ways, and is one case where I clearly hear "major" chords as reliably "sadder" than "minor" chords (so long as we're talking maj7 vs min7). If we move up to ninth chords, I start to lose my ability to make emotional associations all together.

> >
>
> Then I invite you to clarify your position off-list, or over at tuning-research (the new, unmoderated list that Mike started to continue discussing this topic without annoying the piss out of the uninterested members). I feel like my position has been made into a grotesque by others as well...such is the nature of electronic correspondence.
>
> -Igs
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> >Hey Michael, the file is "MajorMinorMud.mp3" here, under "files". >I'm
> >curious as to how you'll compare the two versions of the little >tune.
>
> I don't hear two versions of the same thing.

That's fine- it's copy-paste with a few tones changed, so technically it is two versions of the same thing, but there's no reason anyone would have to hear it that way.

Regardless: which one sounds brighter/happier etc. than the other?

Looks like noone here has worked with pop/commercial music, the examples are not even close as far as bright/cheerful from that "professional" standpoint. Not that I place any genuine value on that standpoint, nor consider the money I've made in commercial production that much different than getting paid for performing fellatio on policemen. :-)

>
> >As I mentioned several times in posts that haven't appeared, I think
> >the "inherent", psycoacoustic, etc. characteristics are best compared
> >to things like "red/blue", "wet/dry", "rising/sinking".
>
> Funny, I said the same thing.
>
> -Carl
>

Of course, why wouldn't you? It's just that the EMOTIONS associated with those things aren't inherent. Falling into the arms of my beloved... falling into a pit of despair. "Falling" itself is emotionally neutral.

-Cameron

Cameron wrote:

>> I don't hear two versions of the same thing.
>
>That's fine- it's copy-paste with a few tones changed, so technically
>it is two versions of the same thing, but there's no reason anyone
>would have to hear it that way.

I don't know what to listen for then... I hear a longer thing,
then a pause, then a shorter thing.

-Carl

?1? The length of the two is the same- it's a rendering of two midi sequences, and one sequence has a few changes inside.
--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> >> I don't hear two versions of the same thing.
> >
> >That's fine- it's copy-paste with a few tones changed, so technically
> >it is two versions of the same thing, but there's no reason anyone
> >would have to hear it that way.
>
> I don't know what to listen for then... I hear a longer thing,
> then a pause, then a shorter thing.
>
> -Carl
>

Cameron wrote:

>?1? The length of the two is the same- it's a rendering of two midi
>sequences, and one sequence has a few changes inside.

Sorry, the change in melodic direction between the two last chords
threw me... anyway I didn't know I was supposed to be listening for...

>Take a listen and tell me in which version the second-to-last chord
>sounds "brighter", "happier", etc.

The second to last chord sounds happier in the second version.

-Carl

Oh come on you guys, you're costing me money, and killing my belief in internet society! My fellow professional musicians/music/arts-industry/institution-guys laugh at me for wasting my time with amateurs, and I defend internet communities with vigor. And bets. And I lose...

Win me five euros, please! Answer, which of the two little riffs I just posted sounds happier/brighter/etc? Noone here in "real-life" has a problem with this ridiculously easy judgement. Listen specifically to the "cadence"- as the last chord is identical, that means, which one is the happier/brighter/etc. second-to-last chord?

The two riffs are almost identical, same length, they begin and end on the same chord, it's midi copy-paste with a couple of small internal changes. If you're getting something different than that, you're not getting the file.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
> ?1? The length of the two is the same- it's a rendering of two midi sequences, and one sequence has a few changes inside.
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > Cameron wrote:
> >
> > >> I don't hear two versions of the same thing.
> > >
> > >That's fine- it's copy-paste with a few tones changed, so technically
> > >it is two versions of the same thing, but there's no reason anyone
> > >would have to hear it that way.
> >
> > I don't know what to listen for then... I hear a longer thing,
> > then a pause, then a shorter thing.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
>

>Oh come on you guys, you're costing me money, and killing my belief in
>internet society! My fellow professional
>musicians/music/arts-industry/institution-guys laugh at me for wasting
>my time with amateurs, and I defend internet communities with vigor.
>And bets. And I lose...

My friends tell me not to waste time with loudmouthed idiots,
but here we are.

-Carl

?!? There are no idiots here, and I know you wouldn't be so rude as to claim such, for that's would mean you'd have to be "moderated", ie. censored.

I'd say, it's more like an unusually bright and talented bunch, all. Probably mostly unaware of what it's like in the hard world of the arts though. Physical assault is nothing particularly rare. Ever been attacked by skinheads on stage? I have. Physical and verbal violence among artists, common practice. It would be suspicious if this were not so, for artists feel passionately about that about which they feel. :-)

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> >Oh come on you guys, you're costing me money, and killing my belief in
> >internet society! My fellow professional
> >musicians/music/arts-industry/institution-guys laugh at me for wasting
> >my time with amateurs, and I defend internet communities with vigor.
> >And bets. And I lose...
>
> My friends tell me not to waste time with loudmouthed idiots,
> but here we are.
>
> -Carl
>

Okay! Great. Would you say this makes for a brighter/happier cadence? Would you say that the second example is more cheerful/brighter than the first?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> >?1? The length of the two is the same- it's a rendering of two midi
> >sequences, and one sequence has a few changes inside.
>
> Sorry, the change in melodic direction between the two last chords
> threw me... anyway I didn't know I was supposed to be listening for...
>
> >Take a listen and tell me in which version the second-to-last chord
> >sounds "brighter", "happier", etc.
>
> The second to last chord sounds happier in the second version.
>
> -Carl
>

For what it's worth, I hear the second part of the/Cameron's major/minor example
as being both minor and more relaxed than the first. Both examples sound very
hazy though...and I'd be interested to know why.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, Michael. I'm waiting for some more comments. There's a reason why they sound "hazy", I'll explain later. But if you'd get that textbook I suggest earlier, and go through it, you'd know why they sound hazy! :-)

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, I hear the second part of the/Cameron's major/minor example
> as being both minor and more relaxed than the first. Both examples sound very
> hazy though...and I'd be interested to know why.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cameron wrote:

>> The second to last chord sounds happier in the second version.

>Okay! Great. Would you say this makes for a brighter/happier cadence?
>Would you say that the second example is more cheerful/brighter than
>the first?

Overall, the first example sounds happier to me. -Carl

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:22 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> This one's for Igs- apparently the Yahoo problem that makes most of my posts disappear has also taken away the "upload file" link at the Tuning List.
>
> Igs wanted an an example of a case in which a minor chord sounds happier than a major chord, with the chords on the same root.
>
> So, I took the worst possible scenario for attempting a paradox, tonal music in 12-tET, same timbre, same exact piece of music except for a couple of notes changed, swapping out C major for C minor in one example.
>
> Which example has the C Majors, which the C minors? Which sounds "happier", brighter, sweeter, etc?
>
> By the way, Igs, if you'd been able to read my many disappeared posts, you'd know that you've radically misinterpreted and made a grotesque out of my position! Scary. I've never thought you had some cartoon B/W stance.
>
> -Cameron Bobro

I'm listening to this now finally, and on the crappiest speakers ever,
so it's hard to hear. But it sounds like you didn't actually swap out
the minor for major in the second example all the way; the second
chord in the second example sounds like you have a Cmaj with an Eb
still in the bass, and at one point in the second example I still hear
Cm/G coming through clear as day (at 10 secs into the file). So you're
really comparing like a very clear minor scale, which is the first
one, to a sort of polymodal blend of major and minor that doesn't make
much sense at all until the second to last chord which is finally a
clear major chord in inversion, and is much brighter than any part of
the first example. You also keep playing Bb in the bass in the second
example, and I don't know if that's intentional.

If you take the entire thing you played in the first example, and
reharmonize it to conform to a major scale, I guarantee you the reharm
will sound "happier" or "brighter" or what have you. And that is a
concrete musical prediction I am making right now that I would bet my
life on will hold true.

-Mike

Cameron wrote:

>?!? There are no idiots here, and I know you wouldn't be so rude as
>to claim such, for that's would mean you'd have to be "moderated",
>ie. censored.

I was talking about you. I actually don't think you're an idiot,
just that your posts of late have made it seem that way. Like the
one where you threaten me with repercussions if I blocked it. Or
the ones where you accuse everyone of sophistry. Or the ones just
now where you keep randomly bringing up something or other about
professionalism in music.

All the stuff I've heard from you has been really cool, and
immediately identifiable as yours, which is also cool. I think
I've complimented you on your music several times and I'll
probably do it again. I saw a photo of you with your son and you
both looked like cool people. So I'm not sure what's going on.

I'm not a moderator here, and they can block or accept this as
they choose.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> >?!? There are no idiots here, and I know you wouldn't be so rude as
> >to claim such, for that's would mean you'd have to be "moderated",
> >ie. censored.
>
> I was talking about you. I actually don't think you're an idiot,
> just that your posts of late have made it seem that way. Like the
> one where you threaten me with repercussions if I blocked it. Or
> the ones where you accuse everyone of sophistry. Or the ones just
> now where you keep randomly bringing up something or other about
> professionalism in music.

I didn't threaten you with "repercussions". I said I'd show what I'd written to all kinds of people if it were to be blocked. That's not a threat- it's nothing more than saying, you can't censor me.

>
> All the stuff I've heard from you has been really cool, and
> immediately identifiable as yours, which is also cool. I think
> I've complimented you on your music several times and I'll
> probably do it again. I saw a photo of you with your son and you
> both looked like cool people. So I'm not sure what's going on.

I think it's probably as simple as, me bristling up "too much". But I think if you'd experienced first-hand stuff like (and I swear to G-d this actually happened), from a choir director, portamento in Western music is due the corrupting influence of a "certain group of people", you'd be just as prickly. You can guess the "certain group", it's the same group to which the name "Bobro" belongs. :-) Don't even get me started on stuff like "dark" or "sad" or "depressing" an so on.

And it's actually worse in the West. It's easy to blow off some guy who explains the "evil cabal" nature of anything that isn't 12-tET Major, or otherwise instantly digestible, but in the West you get these really convincing-sounding stuff about psychoacoustics and how "scientists say...".

And on the other hand: you avoiding discussing certain things. You used your moderator status to simply block me from responding. You said that 9:7 lies within the field of attraction of 5:4. You did not say that this is a speculative theory, you stated it as psychoacoustic (I presume) fact. I say, this statement is horseshit, and I can demonstrate that it is horseshit by creating a musical example. You say, such things can't be demonstrated in music. End of discussion.

Is that fair? No way.

Is this all just "bad" goings-on? Nope. It turns out that the idea that 5:4 does NOT have the field of attraction it is claimed to have has a real beauty of truth to it, and the piece I made as a simple, methodical, even mechanical- almost algroithmic- demonstration of how meagre the actual strength of this field is turns out to be something I quite like as music. So I'm not wasting my time in these lists.

-Cameron Bobro

Great, Mike- you've saved me lots of time by pointing out things I would have had to point out, now I can just explain them!

But before I explain, can you just say, in a multiple-choice fashion without further comment or qualification, which of the two examples sounds "brighter", lighter, or some such, to you?

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:22 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> > This one's for Igs- apparently the Yahoo problem that makes most of my posts disappear has also taken away the "upload file" link at the Tuning List.
> >
> > Igs wanted an an example of a case in which a minor chord sounds happier than a major chord, with the chords on the same root.
> >
> > So, I took the worst possible scenario for attempting a paradox, tonal music in 12-tET, same timbre, same exact piece of music except for a couple of notes changed, swapping out C major for C minor in one example.
> >
> > Which example has the C Majors, which the C minors? Which sounds "happier", brighter, sweeter, etc?
> >
> > By the way, Igs, if you'd been able to read my many disappeared posts, you'd know that you've radically misinterpreted and made a grotesque out of my position! Scary. I've never thought you had some cartoon B/W stance.
> >
> > -Cameron Bobro
>
> I'm listening to this now finally, and on the crappiest speakers ever,
> so it's hard to hear. But it sounds like you didn't actually swap out
> the minor for major in the second example all the way; the second
> chord in the second example sounds like you have a Cmaj with an Eb
> still in the bass, and at one point in the second example I still hear
> Cm/G coming through clear as day (at 10 secs into the file). So you're
> really comparing like a very clear minor scale, which is the first
> one, to a sort of polymodal blend of major and minor that doesn't make
> much sense at all until the second to last chord which is finally a
> clear major chord in inversion, and is much brighter than any part of
> the first example. You also keep playing Bb in the bass in the second
> example, and I don't know if that's intentional.
>
> If you take the entire thing you played in the first example, and
> reharmonize it to conform to a major scale, I guarantee you the reharm
> will sound "happier" or "brighter" or what have you. And that is a
> concrete musical prediction I am making right now that I would bet my
> life on will hold true.
>
> -Mike
>

Thanks- just waiting to get Mike's answer on this.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> >> The second to last chord sounds happier in the second version.
>
> >Okay! Great. Would you say this makes for a brighter/happier cadence?
> >Would you say that the second example is more cheerful/brighter than
> >the first?
>
> Overall, the first example sounds happier to me. -Carl
>

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:27 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Great, Mike- you've saved me lots of time by pointing out things I would have had to point out, now I can just explain them!
>
> But before I explain, can you just say, in a multiple-choice fashion without further comment or qualification, which of the two examples sounds "brighter", lighter, or some such, to you?

The straight minor one sounds brighter than the polytonal major/minor
at the same time one.

-Mike

Yip, I agree with you and Carl on this. You see what I did of course- even though they're both deliberately fuzzy, the first one is more clearly written. The second one has more major chords, but the voicing and voice leading sucks (technically speaking- there's no accounting for taste), and voila, it's darker.

Basic counterpoint stuff- weak or strange voice leading and voicing makes for muddier or darker music, regardless of mode or chords.

I made them deliberately fuzzy trying to avoid pre-fab associations. Glad you mentioned the Bb in the bass in the second one... it's also in the first one, copy-paste! But it just blends in there. I wanted the rootedness of the thing to be obviously suffering, for a very specific reason:

Igs original challenge "does not compute". Can't be done. :-) He wanted an example of a minor chord sounding happier than a major... ON THE SAME ROOT. But what really is the root of a minor chord remains debatable to this day. Harry Partch solved this old puzzle quite slickly: the composer's fancy! Yeah!

Anyway, thanks for suffering through that example guys. I think we already agreed on Mike's list that we're all cooler with the much more neutral, and more measurable to boot, continuum of dark/light than happy/sad or whatever. Dense/dispersed (considering critical bands) for example can be measured quite well.

Is ascending and opening more likely to be interpreted as "happy" or some other positve emotion than descending and closing? Well yeah, that would be a rule of thumb in any art form.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:27 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> > Great, Mike- you've saved me lots of time by pointing out things I would have had to point out, now I can just explain them!
> >
> > But before I explain, can you just say, in a multiple-choice fashion without further comment or qualification, which of the two examples sounds "brighter", lighter, or some such, to you?
>
> The straight minor one sounds brighter than the polytonal major/minor
> at the same time one.
>
> -Mike
>

Cameron wrote:

>from a choir director, portamento in Western
>music is due the corrupting influence of a "certain group of people",

I've lately been noticing my growing fondness for all things
portamento.

>And on the other hand: you avoiding discussing certain things. You
>used your moderator status to simply block me from responding.

I allowed your responses through and continue to do so and I'm
headed over there in a bit to unmoderate you completely. In all
I blocked 3 or 4 posts (mostly test messages) and sent you a msg
explaining why every time.

>You said that 9:7 lies within the field of attraction of 5:4.

It does! That's been established in many cases studies on the
tuning list, and agrees with harmonic entropy, a model with one
free variable that's also been tested extensively.

>I say, this statement is horseshit, and I can
>demonstrate that it is horseshit by creating a musical example.

It would be very difficult if not impossible to control for
everything you'd need to control for in a musical example.
That's why nobody does it that way. Please note, 9:7 means 9:7
not 14:18:21 or anything else.

>It turns out that the idea
>that 5:4 does NOT have the field of attraction it is claimed to have
>has a real beauty of truth to it, and the piece I made as a simple,
>methodical, even mechanical- almost algroithmic- demonstration of how
>meagre the actual strength of this field is turns out to be something
>I quite like as music.

The example we were just discussing? I'm looking forward to
finding out what it's meant to demonstrate.

-Carl

At 10:47 AM 9/30/2010, you wrote:
>Yip, I agree with you and Carl on this.

It looks like Mike's agreeing, but I'm not completely sure
what he's saying...

>> The straight minor one sounds brighter than the polytonal major/minor
>> at the same time one.

>You see what I did of course-
>even though they're both deliberately fuzzy, the first one is more
>clearly written. The second one has more major chords, but the voicing
>and voice leading sucks (technically speaking- there's no accounting
>for taste), and voila, it's darker.

Yes, voicing is important. No argument here! Putting on the
psychoacoustics hat for a moment, 4:3 is more discordant
than 3:2, 5:6:8 more than 4:5:6, etc etc. And that is probably
one of the underlying reasons why voicing is important in
musical consonance and perception.

>Basic counterpoint stuff- weak or strange voice leading and voicing
>makes for muddier or darker music, regardless of mode or chords.

You bet! Also, I thought they both sounded cool even though
they were really short.

-Carl

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> At 10:47 AM 9/30/2010, you wrote:
> >Yip, I agree with you and Carl on this.
>
> It looks like Mike's agreeing, but I'm not completely sure
> what he's saying...

Saying about what? I just pointed out that the example wasn't really
minor vs major, but like minor vs some kind of major/minor polytonal
thing. He could have worked it out so that for the second example the
minor stuff was played on top and the major stuff was played on bottom
and it might have sounded more like the blues, but he did it the other
way so it sounded like mush. But it isn't really a comparison of major
vs minor in the sense that I was expecting.

-Mike

Mike:

>> It looks like Mike's agreeing, but I'm not completely sure
>> what he's saying...
>
>Saying about what?

Did you read what you wrote (which I quoted but you clipped)?

-Carl

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Mike:
>
> >> It looks like Mike's agreeing, but I'm not completely sure
> >> what he's saying...
> >
> >Saying about what?
>
> Did you read what you wrote (which I quoted but you clipped)?
>
> -Carl

Sorry, I didn't realize you were quoting me. You mean this:

>> The straight minor one sounds brighter than the polytonal major/minor
>> at the same time one.

Yeah, my point was that the second one isn't "really" major, so this
example only proves that minor is "brighter" than a polytonal mush of
major and minor mixed together.

-Mike

Mike wrote:

>Sorry, I didn't realize you were quoting me. You mean this:
>
>>> The straight minor one sounds brighter than the polytonal major/minor
>>> at the same time one.
>
>Yeah, my point was that the second one isn't "really" major, so this
>example only proves that minor is "brighter" than a polytonal mush of
>major and minor mixed together.

I didn't want you to explain, I wanted you to correct.

-Carl

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> >Sorry, I didn't realize you were quoting me. You mean this:
> >
> >>> The straight minor one sounds brighter than the polytonal major/minor
> >>> at the same time one.
> >
> >Yeah, my point was that the second one isn't "really" major, so this
> >example only proves that minor is "brighter" than a polytonal mush of
> >major and minor mixed together.
>
> I didn't want you to explain, I wanted you to correct.

I have no idea what this means.

-Mike

Mike wrote:

>> >Sorry, I didn't realize you were quoting me. You mean this:
>> >
>> >>> The straight minor one sounds brighter than the polytonal major/minor
>> >>> at the same time one.
>> >
>> >Yeah, my point was that the second one isn't "really" major, so this
>> >example only proves that minor is "brighter" than a polytonal mush of
>> >major and minor mixed together.
>>
>> I didn't want you to explain, I wanted you to correct.
>
>I have no idea what this means.

And I have no idea what your original statement means, because
it's not in the English language.

-Carl

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

> And I have no idea what your original statement means, because
> it's not in the English language.

The "straight minor" one sounds brighter than the polytonal "major-and-minor-at-the-same-time" one.

Does that help?

-Igs

Igs wrote:

>> And I have no idea what your original statement means, because
>> it's not in the English language.
>
>The "straight minor" one sounds brighter than the polytonal
>"major-and-minor-at-the-same-time" one.
>
>Does that help?

Not at all.

-Carl

Mike & Igs!

>>The "straight minor" one sounds brighter than the polytonal
>>"major-and-minor-at-the-same-time" one.
>>
>>Does that help?
>
>Not at all.

Sorry! My bad. I'm parsing it now. I thought it was a typo.
Boy do I feel salty. -Carl

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Mike & Igs!
>
> >>The "straight minor" one sounds brighter than the polytonal
> >>"major-and-minor-at-the-same-time" one.
> >>
> >>Does that help?
> >
> >Not at all.
>
> Sorry! My bad. I'm parsing it now. I thought it was a typo.
> Boy do I feel salty. -Carl

Haha! It's all good

-Mike

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

>
> >You said that 9:7 lies within the field of attraction of 5:4.
>
> It does! That's been established in many cases studies on the
> tuning list, and agrees with harmonic entropy, a model with one
> free variable that's also been tested extensively.

This should continue on the tuning list.

I'd like you to define what you mean by "lies within the field of attraction".

I already posted on the Tuning list saying, don't try to throw "Partch" at me, and explained why.

Tell me what, concretely, you mean by "lies within the field of attraction".

Who knows, your definition might even be something I can agree with as a general statement of fact, and have to say, wow, you're right! But I need a concrete definition, and a description of what it means in real-life.

For certainly not Partch's usage, nor any sane definition of "field of attraction" that I can think of, justifies the statement that 9:7 lies within the field of attraction of 5:4.

Keep in mind that when I mentioned that I can sometimes hear 9:7 as a kind of "major third", I meant major third in the bright, jangling, UPWARDLY DRIVING (NB!), buzzing, non-resolved, non-restful sense. That is, in the Pythagorean ditone sense. In that conception of major third, 5:4 doesn't even count as a "major third", it's more like a high middle third.

-Cameron Bobro

Oh, I should add that the description of 9:7 I gave was how I generally hear it in context as a supermajor third. As a lone diad, it's just a bright sounding "thing", pretty strongly feeling rooted on the upper member, bearing no resemblance whatsoever to 5:4, nor having the slightest urge to resolve to 5;4, nor having anything to do with 5:4 at all.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
>
> >
> > >You said that 9:7 lies within the field of attraction of 5:4.
> >
> > It does! That's been established in many cases studies on the
> > tuning list, and agrees with harmonic entropy, a model with one
> > free variable that's also been tested extensively.
>
> This should continue on the tuning list.
>
> I'd like you to define what you mean by "lies within the field of attraction".
>
> I already posted on the Tuning list saying, don't try to throw "Partch" at me, and explained why.
>
> Tell me what, concretely, you mean by "lies within the field of attraction".
>
> Who knows, your definition might even be something I can agree with as a general statement of fact, and have to say, wow, you're right! But I need a concrete definition, and a description of what it means in real-life.
>
> For certainly not Partch's usage, nor any sane definition of "field of attraction" that I can think of, justifies the statement that 9:7 lies within the field of attraction of 5:4.
>
> Keep in mind that when I mentioned that I can sometimes hear 9:7 as a kind of "major third", I meant major third in the bright, jangling, UPWARDLY DRIVING (NB!), buzzing, non-resolved, non-restful sense. That is, in the Pythagorean ditone sense. In that conception of major third, 5:4 doesn't even count as a "major third", it's more like a high middle third.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>