19 and melodic lemons

>I wish to comment again (briefly) on the melodic limen as it affects the
>determination of temperament.

OK, so we know by now that you are a fan of 19-tet.

>Instead of attending to real issues, microtonalists have ...

Real? Are you seriously suggesting that the melodic difference limen
is the single most important aspect in choice of tuning? I can think of
three counterarguments...

(1) Melody is only one aspect of musical performance. Harmony is
also important, and you will agree that there are many tunings that
give more consonant (and more dissonant) harmonies than 19-tet.

(2) Even within melody, intonation is very variable among
instrumentalists. Often, this is intentional. The "flat" blues third may
not give a "new" melody, but it sure does give a new feeling to the
music. Such feelings are a *very* important aspect of many kinds of
music, and may be of any size that is perceptible, not just those sizes
that create "new" melodies.

(3) Even if we grant the melodic difference limen at 1/3 tone, this
says nothing about 19-tet per octave (or per stretched pseudo-octave
as you prefer). Indeed, the octave of a note is *not* a substitute for
that note in a melody. There is a paper (Diana Deutsch in Music
Perception, I believe) in which simple melodies such as Yankee
Doodle are played with the octaves of the notes scrambled up. Most
people cannot recognize the melodies, though they can follow them
once they are told what the melody is "supposed" to be. Thus melodic
concerns cannot be used to justify *any* scale based on the octave.

>I do _not_ believe it is possible to be inspired in 13-
or 20-tone equal; the lack of even the shadow of any possible musical
order is too great.

Humbug. Ask people who have composed in these scales (I am one,
and there are others, both on and off this list). Inspiration is
something that can strike at any time, in any tuning. The notion of an
"impoverished" scale is equally foolish. Different scales have
different stories to tell. Would you really have us all fall into line, all
playing with the newest greatest next best thing (in your opinion 19-
tet)?

>This is as far as the most charitable informed person can
go in the way of an open mind.

Perhaps this is some new notion of the word "charity" that I am
unfamiliar with.

Now I have to admit that I like 19-tet also. I have composed several
pieces (one was on the ill fated 19 for the 90's collection, another is
on my forthcoming Xentonality CD). In my opinion the best feature of
19-tet is how familiar everything is. Hence, yes Bob Lee, it might be
fun to tune a steel guitar that way. 19-tet makes a great bridge into
alternative tunings, and it may well be useful as a tool for "seducing"
people, for introducing them to the whole idea that non-12-tet music
exists. But let's not get carried away. I suggest, Greg Gibson, that you
try some of the other tunings that you have been so condescendingly
diss-ing for the past several weeks.

Bill Sethares


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: "Paul H. Erlich"
Subject: Re G. Gibson in TD1265 and on the sensitivity of intervals to mistuning
PostedDate: 18-12-97 02:23:17
SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH
ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
$MessageStorage: 0
$UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH
RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH
RouteTimes: 18-12-97 02:21:12-18-12-97 02:21:12,18-12-97 02:20:49-18-12-97 02:20:50
DeliveredDate: 18-12-97 02:20:50
Categories:
$Revisions:

Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2
9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256571.00076D4F; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 02:23:03 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA17892; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 02:23:17 +0100
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 02:23:17 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA18582
Received: (qmail 2997 invoked from network); 17 Dec 1997 17:23:14 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 17 Dec 1997 17:23:14 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

>>}In the more usual timbres at least, the 7:6 interval beats too much to
>>}be consonant, affected as it is by the unison.

Speaking for my own experience, I don't concur with that whatsoever. I
don't find 7:6 to be unpleasant or beating at all. (And I certainly have a
lot of experience with 7:6, since my current main microtonal fascination
approximates it well, and uses it as one of several basic building blocks).

In comparison to 6:5, I find that 7:6 is no less discordant, but it is
certainly darker in character, and has a certain "zap" sensation in place
of 6:5's sweetness.

Now Gregg spoke earlier about splitting a fifth in the same sense that
an interval and its inversion split an octave. He seemed to suggest that
if you split up a consonant interval such that one of the two intervals is
discordant, that the other must be discordant. I think that that's a risky
overgeneralization. For example, I find 7:6 to be much less discordant
than 9:7, and I personally think that 8:7 sounds about as "good"
("consonant" if you'd like) as anybody could expect a second to sound.

That being said, I personally think that, although "dissonant" may be a
livable choice of adjectives to describe 9:7, two that describe it better
to my ears are "shocking" and "startling".

And also related to septimals, I don't find 7:4 to be even slightly
discordant. I have described it over the list as like "a fifth with an
attitude". Now I freely acknowledge that that's a self-contradictory
description because of the obvious fact that 7:4 isn't ANY kind of fifth
(except maybe a way-sharp augmented one!). Still to my ears 7:4's auditory
effect has some curious similarities with 3:2's. I don't know if I can put
those similarities into words any better than this: As with 3:2 or 2:1,
7:4 fuses pitches very tightly, and its lack of the sweetness of major and
minor thirds and sixths makes it seem quasi-perfect. But unlike any
perfect interval, it has a flourescent "zap" much like 7:6's, which is the
"attitude" part.


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison)
Subject: Re: 19 tone/20 tone
PostedDate: 20-12-97 06:28:22
SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH
ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
$MessageStorage: 0
$UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH
RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH
RouteTimes: 20-12-97 06:26:13-20-12-97 06:26:14,20-12-97 06:25:49-20-12-97 06:25:49
DeliveredDate: 20-12-97 06:25:49
Categories:
$Revisions:

Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2
9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256573.001DDC14; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 06:28:05 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA22489; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 06:28:22 +0100
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 06:28:22 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA22462
Received: (qmail 13513 invoked from network); 19 Dec 1997 21:27:43 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 19 Dec 1997 21:27:43 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu