On Sun, 23 Mar 1997 11:37:55 -0800 Atlas Eclipticalis said: >Well you know, my dad can produce an exact 440Hz at will ever since >interfacing with a flying tire on Hwy101 in South San Jose which detatched >his sinus cavity, which just happens to resonate at 440Hz. I guess that >really tuned him up. >rick > This begs the question: If your dad (or anyone else....) were to dynamically interface with a flying tire (tyre) in Europe, would he then resonate at 442 Hz? -- Brian B.
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:21 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA12201; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:21:16 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA12192 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id LAA08331; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 11:37:28 -0800 Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 11:37:28 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu
'' What other culture deliberatively writes unsingable melodies, uses unplayable (and undanceable) rhythms, and specifies unnatural intervals? ''
While I do agree that western Art musics have gone to extremes in this direction, I think that there are plenty of examples of cultures where the ''unsingable'' is a constituent part of instrumental music, or more precisely, where instrumental realizations of song become ''unsingable''. The most virtuosic Mbira music is one example. Chinese, Korean, and Japanese court musics often fall into this category with marked differences between the sung and instrumental versions of a work; the legal limitations on music making (e.g. forbidding melodies from exceeding a seventh) at certain points in their histories certainly turned melodies into ''unsingable''. There are also instrumental traditions which are constructed on relatively abstract bases (Balophone playing based on patterns, the Balinese ritual 7-tone orchestras whose melodies are extracted mechanically from the vowels of texts).
The question of ''unplayable'' musics, on the other hand, is much more complicated. Perhaps from San Diego, John, you might be better able to disambiguate what the Ferneyhoughites have in mind when notating a rhythm that is impossible to perform accurately - do they want the failed performance (a kind of improvisation on the composer's notation), or is there an ideal performance which is to be eventually achieved? I suspect that the general disinterest by the complexity folk in computer realizations (a significant difference from Babbitt, by the way) indicates that they are more interested in failure...
Could you perhaps be more specific about what you mean by ''unnatural intervals''? (I assume that it requires mature and consenting pitches).
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 20:33 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA13717; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 20:33:15 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA13722 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id LAA17957; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:31:30 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:31:30 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu
John Chalmers wrote: >Frankly, just because something is old doesn't make it right. >Astrology developed during Hellenistic times largely on the basis >of earlier Babylonian astronomy and only makes sense if one believed >that the planets are gods. Since we now know that they are material >bodies, this justification is removed.
OTOH, just because something is old doesn't mean that it is wrong. Actually Babylonian astrology and astronomy was very good. The Greeks bastardised it (astrology) for roughly the equivalent of trash horoscopes in women's magazines today. It does not require the planets to be gods, only to influence life on earth. It may even be that the idea that they are gods came from the scientific observation that they do influence life.
If you doubt this, I recommend that you read Michel Gaquelin's books. In his second book (or maybe later) he addresses the issue of Babylonian astrology. He does this because his truly scientific study showed that some ancient astrology was right and some wrong. On tracing the errors back he found that they were introduced in Greek times but he did require new and careful translations of some ancient texts. It is all based on good scholarship. Gauquelin's work has been confirmed in multiple studies with samples of about 30,000 each in several countries. The same significant results were found each time.
-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 13:55 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA18012; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 13:55:10 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA18020 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id EAA25747; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 04:52:04 -0800 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 04:52:04 -0800 Message-Id: <009B1D74E1CFDEFB.8C4E@vbv40.ezh.nl> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:37:34 -0800 Ray Tomes said: > . . . Michel Gaquelin's books. > . . . It is all >based on good scholarship. . . .
While I doubt the foundation of this claimed scholarship, I second a post of a few days ago that requests that this current debate go elsewhere. Unless it can be steered clearly back to Tuning issues, it really doesn't fit here. Let's get back to tuning, and leave the hocus pocus of astrology to the dial-in 900 Psycic Hotline (I'm thinking of starting my own service; the money is reported to be great. Besides, my wife -- Queen Sophia of the Gypsies -- is in tune with spirits that really control our lives. For $10, she'll tell you your true future!) -- Brian B.
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:44 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA18450; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:44:08 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA18456 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id JAA07261; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:42:39 -0800 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:42:39 -0800 Message-Id: <199703261737.JAA06852@ella.mills.edu> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu
On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, John Chalmers wrote: > > Bruce: Could you give some examples of mystical givens in science? > I'll stipulate that I, you, and the rest of the universe exist and > neither it or we are entirely irrational and chaotic.... >
Oh, I was thinking of things like the existence of particles, time, conservation of mass/energy, that a repeatable observation has any bearing on the nature of the universe. Any axiomatic principle that forms the basis of scientific observation and experimentation has its existence in some "mystical" insight, whether acknowledged or "self-evident", IMHO.
Thanks for your thoughts-they are always thorough and stretch my thinking.
Bruce Kanzelmeyer
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 07:04 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA18948; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 07:04:41 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA18915 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id WAA17704; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:03:18 -0800 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:03:18 -0800 Message-Id: <333A1FDF.4F4D@dnvr.uswest.net> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu