TUNING digest 1272

I haven't seen such a level of activity since Brian took his ball and went home!

(I wonder how Mr. Gibson feels about Fernyhough.)
==========================================================================
David B. Doty jinetwk@dnai.com
Just Intonation Network http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk
Phone:(415) 694-4727 535 Stevenson Street
FAX: (415) 864-8726 San Francisco, CA 94103


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: Gregg Gibson
Subject: More of Septimals
PostedDate: 20-12-97 02:24:48
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 02:22:40-20-12-97 02:22:41,20-12-97 02:22:16-20-12-97 02:22:17
DeliveredDate: 20-12-97 02:22:17
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 C1256573.00078F7A; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 02:24:31 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA22367; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 02:24:48 +0100
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 02:24:48 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA22373
Received: (qmail 3831 invoked from network); 19 Dec 1997 17:24:44 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 19 Dec 1997 17:24:44 -0800
Message-Id: <349B7FCB.6517@ww-interlink.net>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

Paul Erlich wrote:

>In 12-equal, a 3-limit chord progressing to a 5-limit one almost always
>sounds like an increase in dissonance. So, just as Western Common Practice
>music avoids bare 3-limit harmonies, so decatonic music will avoid bare
>5-limit chords.

Indeed so, and your theory is entirely consistent on this point.
However, I stated that I prefer to keep to triads when using 7-limit
harmony, and I also like to keep the 5-limit consonances. We have
an aesthetic disagreement here, but nothing worth arguing about.

Now, Mr Gibson on the other hand:

> Graham Breed said:
>> Exactly what are you trying to say, Gregg? You come up with an
>> "undeniable" argument, and then deny it! Or, am I
>> misunderstanding? To my ears, these chords are certainly more
>> concordant than their constituent dyads. Three examples are quite
>> enough to disprove that little theory.
>
> I mean, for example, if you add a fourth note to the triad 4:6:7, e.g.
> 4:6:7:8 or 4:6:7:12 you very often get an undoubtedly dissonant chord.
> 4:6:7:8 is dissonant because of 8:7, 4:6:7:12 is dissonant because of
> 12:7. This is what I mean when I say the senario (i.e. the consonant
> chords of the senario, the least consonant of which are more consonant
> than the least disssonant septimal chords) are consistent with
> themselves, while the septimal chords give rise to dissonance when a
> fourth tone is added.

Gregg, I'm getting sick of this. I say a chord has a degree of
consonance because of its sound, and you tell me it is a dissonance
because of one of its intervals. I have justified my viewpoint,
and you have simply ridiculed it. You have never given any clue as
to what these chords sound like, and therefore what property of that
sound you consider to be dissonant. Neither have you given a
definition of dissonance. As you began the discussion, the onus
is on you to explain what you mean.

You _have_, it is true, said that you do like 7-limit chords.
However, the fact that you advocate a tuning in which they are
poorly approximated deserves explanation.

In this particular case, you have not answered my point. Look
carefully. I did not say any chords were consonant. I said
thay were more consonant than the worst of their intervals heard
as a dyad. Do you agree?

If you add F# to the 5-limit triad C-E-G, you get an undoubtedly
dissonant chord. The 7-limit is special in that adding an octave
can sometimes dramatically affect the sound of a chord. However,
you have never said this.

FWIW, 3:4:6:7 sounds more consonant than 4:6:7. 4:6:7:8 is clearly
more dissonant than 4:5:6:8, but is much less so than the triad
6:7:8. Do you agree?

> For what it is worth, I find the septimal triads 4:6:7 and 4:5:7 more
> 'major' in effect than 'minor', but definitely dissonant. I have heard
> them in many different temperaments, but of course the just versions are
> the standard.

I've already said that a binary consonant/dissonant argument will get
us nowhere. I find that a small amount of tempering (ie, 41 equal)
can improve the sound of these chords. Do you agree?

> There are excellent acoustical reasons for supposing the septimals
> dissonant. Musical dissonance and consonance are not absolutely
> relative, but must remain to the physical constraints of nature if they
> are to have any artistic meaning.

Gregg, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!! stay with in the constraints of the English
language! The terms "absolute" and "relative" are diametric opposites.
What on earth does "absolutely relative" mean? What are these
acoustical reasons, and what are the physical constraints that I
am violating? Or, are you again making unspecific accusations of
straw men?

> By such reasoning one could argue that 15:8 is consonant, because 48:25
> is even rougher. Your argument is therefore evidently invalid.

Paul Erlich's argument is not in the least invalidated. He did not
declare any chord to "be" consonant. His argument is, in fact,
very good.

To move away from music for a paragraph. Gregg has stated Paul's
tone to be "insolent" in this discussion. I, on the other hand,
feel Paul has very patiently attempted to make Gregg see the
omissions and inconsistencies in his argument. Gregg's attitude
in the exchange, however, I find to be highly offensive. He has
never considered Paul's ideas, as published on the Internet, and
I suggest he has not even read that paper. It would be a simple
courtesy for Gregg to spell Paul's surname correctly. I make these
points in case Paul's modesty or civility prevent him from doing so
himself. While I'm at it, to state that a tuning system is
"useless" is offensive to people who use that tuning system, and
who place value on their aesthetic judgements. I have certainly
been offended by much of what Gregg has said.

> The '5-limit' and '7-limit' habit of thought can be very dangerous if it
> is not carefully borne in mind that each include very different
> intervals and chords, with different effects. I have heard people wrap
> themselves in knots trying to 'hear' 9:7 as consonant because they got
> it into their muddled heads (I was one of them, boy have I had some
> strange notions) that it somehow had something to do with the 'consonant
> 7-limit'.

Which, of course, it does not, as it is only a 9-limit interval.
I have taken care not to step outside the Partchian 7-limit. I
have also made clear distinctions between 7-limit chords. I'm
not saying stupid people can write 7-limit music, simply that it
deserves exploration.


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: neuwirth
Subject: multimedia product about historical tunings
PostedDate: 20-12-97 17:03:23
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 17:01:22-20-12-97 17:01:23,20-12-97 17:00:57-20-12-97 17:00:57
DeliveredDate: 20-12-97 17:00:57
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 C1256573.0058008C; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:03:09 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA22734; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:03:23 +0100
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:03:23 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA22668
Received: (qmail 26936 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1997 08:03:19 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 20 Dec 1997 08:03:19 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

I have tried to remain silent, allowing the wave of Gibsonia to wash by
(perhaps even depositing a few valuables), at least when the discussion
dealt with the arcana of 19 vs. 22 or some such thing. But I have a hard
time letting this pass:

Gregg Gibson:
>There are excellent acoustical reasons for supposing the septimals
>dissonant. Musical dissonance and consonance are not absolutely
>relative, but must remain to the physical constraints of nature if they
>are to have any artistic meaning.

Why must a musical value be absolute to be artistically meaningful?
Loudness is certainly relative and a spectrum of values. Timbre is relative
along many different axes. In painting, brightness, saturation, and, of
course, the spectrum itself change by degrees, in addition to altering the
perception of each other in context. While there have been some great
painting using only black and white, I would go so far as to claim that the
parameters of media are most valuable BECAUSE they are relative.

It makes no difference to me personally whether you call a 7/6 consonant,
dissonant, assonant, or Gibsonant (tm). A 7/6 is a 7/6, and it has a
particular quality to me that is quite beautiful in a lot of music. It is
certainly not discordant and has no particular compulsion to resolve, to my
ears, though that, too, may depend on the musical context. An
equal-tempered minor seventh has no need to resolve when used in blues
piano music, at least to me. (If you hear its function unchanged from
Mozart, then I can understand why you might dislike blues piano.)

Nor do dissonances always have to resolve. To insist that they do would rob
us of the spice and wonder of Perotin, Bartok, Ligeti, and certain
Bulgarian folk music. Likewise, insisting that a melody must be singable by
amateurs (presumably those trained in the Western tradition, because
Indonesian singers from childhood find the near-septimal intervals of
slendro no problem) is an arbitrary constraint that would rule out much of
Beethoven, Debussy, even rock and jazz. A universe of music of the type
that Mr. Gibson seems to advocate I would find a much poorer place indeed.

Even if I were to concede that Mr. Gibson's conclusions derive entirely
from physical facts as he claims, and not from a selective combination of
acoustics and certain highly debatable and subjective premises about the
nature of music, I would still not accept his conclusion that music must at
least approximate the path that he has found in order to be at all
artistically successful or profound. Does this mean that I have a
terminally open mind? I hope so. Does this mean that I like all music
equally and uncritically? Of course not.

I have encountered many times and can even understand those that believe
that art is ultimately objective, and that anything that fails to fulfill
those objective criteria is "bad art." What offends me, and, I think,
others on this forum, Mr. Gibson, is the implication that anyone who does
not arrive at your conclusion either has not examined your evidence, is
incapable of logical reason, or is intentionally perverse. Or perhaps you
will condescend to express understanding of the unenlightened masses who
still effect the same muddled thinking and wrong ideas that you once did
because of the influence of either the evil hegemony of 12TET or the
aforementioned intentionally perverse xenharmonicists.

Music to me is not about following acoustical norms. It's about exploiting
one's (learned or intuitive) knowledge of acoustics, psychology, and
culture towards artistically expressive ends. Sometimes that means working
"with" or sometimes "against" acoustics, but thank goodness that human
expression is so rich that it can provide us with truly moving art in such
a wide variety of musical systems.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: alves@orion.ac.hmc.edu (Bill Alves)
Subject: re:Chestnut help
PostedDate: 21-12-97 01:36:36
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: 21-12-97 01:34:25-21-12-97 01:34:25,21-12-97 01:33:59-21-12-97 01:34:00
DeliveredDate: 21-12-97 01:34:00
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 C1256574.000325A2; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 01:36:18 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA22884; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 01:36:36 +0100
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 01:36:36 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA22881
Received: (qmail 10241 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1997 16:36:31 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 20 Dec 1997 16:36:31 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu