Approach to JI: Why yourself?

>
>>Anyway, I think the best advice for a beginner is to draw a
>>lattice first in 5-limit, then move on to 7, then 11 if you
>>want. See how everything is related to each other. I was told
>>the same thing by some of the veterans.
>
>Didn't Jay say he wanted a non-theoretical approach, based
>on listening to his playing and talking to himself?
>
>-Carl

My approach to JI is not to think in terms of limits, but rather, just go
straight to the raw Overtone Series. Especially if you're just thinking,
"I've got chord X, what's the best way to tune chord X?"

Then I'd think one might want to try looking in the raw Overtone Series,
looking for where that chord "fits", so to speak, regardless of limit.

So in the case of the G#-B-D-F--C, why not go for a
10:12:14:17:26, That is, thinking of it as a
complex dominant (without root) over E. then those numbers are the
literal overtones.

Factored out, it's 5:6:7:17:13, or in other words, a 17-limit
sonority. though it's 17-limit, the 7 and 13 are the true sources of
juiciness here.

C Bailey

this is a valid way of looking at it as limits are pretty arbitrary.
One perspective though i would like to throw into this is that i have noticed that if i have a good scale or just one that i like, , i can accept just about most forms of harmony i can develop from it. regardless of the ratios and such. On the other hand the best harmonies or sequence there in do not always produce the best scales and melodic material.
Historically ( not that history needs or should be the finally word) harmonies have been the result of scales and melodic movement, not the other way around. Even though i compose starting form both points of departure, i keep wondering why i bother to start with harmonies at all since those results are less satisfying to myself.
I would like to add that within a scale , it is the intervals over the disjunction that define the scale. in the case of the minor and major, it is the diminished chord then the dominant. These being the most "out of tune" in terms of simple ratios. It seems in the case of just intervals the chord with the 40/27 and or the 27/20 would serve the same function of definability.
My point being that the more dissonant such chords might be as the result of how they occur in a scale, the more definable they might be.

Christopher Bailey wrote:

>>
>> >> >>
>
>
>My approach to JI is not to think in terms of limits, but rather, just go >straight to the raw Overtone Series. Especially if you're just thinking, >"I've got chord X, what's the best way to tune chord X?"
>
>Then I'd think one might want to try looking in the raw Overtone Series,
>looking for where that chord "fits", so to speak, regardless of limit.
>
>So in the case of the G#-B-D-F--C, why not go for a >10:12:14:17:26, That is, thinking of it as a >complex dominant (without root) over E. then those numbers are the >literal overtones.
>
>Factored out, it's 5:6:7:17:13, or in other words, a 17-limit >sonority. though it's 17-limit, the 7 and 13 are the true sources of >juiciness here.
>
>
>
>C Bailey
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Hi all,

Kraig Grady wrote, in reply to Christopher Bailey:
> this is a valid way of looking at it as limits are pretty arbitrary.
> One perspective though i would like to throw into this is that i have
> noticed that if i have a good scale or just one that i like, , i can
> accept just about most forms of harmony i can develop from it.
> regardless of the ratios and such. On the other hand the best harmonies
> or sequence there in do not always produce the best scales and melodic
> material.
[YA] That's pretty much my own experience, too. What _feels_ best
doesn't depend very much on theory.

> Historically ( not that history needs or should be the finally word)
> harmonies have been the result of scales and melodic movement, not the
> other way around. Even though i compose starting form both points of
> departure, i keep wondering why i bother to start with harmonies at all
> since those results are less satisfying to myself.
[YA] I've tried starting from harmony, but I do find it limits the style
of the work. I prefer an architecture of melodic and rhythmic curves
to one of harmonic towers and pillars ... Harmony in my work tends to
be the accidental result of concurrent melodies; point, counterpoint.

> I would like to add that within a scale , it is the intervals over the
> disjunction that define the scale. in the case of the minor and major,
> it is the diminished chord then the dominant. These being the most "out
> of tune" in terms of simple ratios. It seems in the case of just
> intervals the chord with the 40/27 and or the 27/20 would serve the same
> function of definability.
[YA] Lost me there, Kraig! "Over the disjunction"? Are you talking
about the step from seventh to octave in a major scale? I see that the
dim and dom chords involve higher numbers in their JI ratios. However,
in what sense do they _define_ the scale? Not its notes, surely - perhaps
its character or flavour.

> My point being that the more dissonant such chords might be as the
> result of how they occur in a scale, the more definable they might be.
[YA] ... definable ...?

Christopher Bailey wrote:
>My approach to JI is not to think in terms of limits, but rather, just go
>straight to the raw Overtone Series. Especially if you're just thinking,
>"I've got chord X, what's the best way to tune chord X?"
>
>Then I'd think one might want to try looking in the raw Overtone Series,
>looking for where that chord "fits", so to speak, regardless of limit.
>
>So in the case of the G#-B-D-F--C, why not go for a
>10:12:14:17:26, That is, thinking of it as a
>complex dominant (without root) over E. then those numbers are the
>literal overtones.
>
>Factored out, it's 5:6:7:17:13, or in other words, a 17-limit
>sonority. though it's 17-limit, the 7 and 13 are the true sources of
>juiciness here.

[YA] minor 9th, minor 13th over an implied E root. I'd say these
two added tones were the "juiciest", first the minor 13th on C - the
13-limit note, then the minor 9th on the F - the 17-limit note. Not to
argue - that's "just" the way I hear it.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 6/5/05

Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:

>
>[YA] I.. Harmony in my work tends to
>be the accidental result of concurrent melodies; point, counterpoint.
> >
this is pretty much what i have been circling around in this thread

> >
>> >>
>[YA] Lost me there, Kraig! "Over the disjunction"? Are you talking
>about the step from seventh to octave in a major scale? I see that the
>dim and dom chords involve higher numbers in their JI ratios. However,
>in what sense do they _define_ the scale? Not its notes, surely - perhaps
>its character or flavour.
> >
If one look at the scale as a series of fifth starting on f and ending on B ( as in Cmajor) b to f is the disjunction. It defines the scale in the sense that as soon as you hear g& or B dim you know where you are in the scale. Of course composers moved away from the obvious resolutions rather quickly

> >
>>My point being that the more dissonant such chords might be as the
>>result of how they occur in a scale, the more definable they might be.
>> >>
>[YA] ... definable ...?
>
> >
yes it is the dissonances that tell us where we are in the scale. Since there are a few major and minor chords, one cannot be sure.

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles