A Higher-Level Comment on Gregg Gibson's Limen

I and several others have reacted skeptically to some of Gregg Gibson's
recent thoughts. I think I should state my opinion on this idea of his a
little bit more precisely.
1. The essential idea he's getting at I don't by any means think to be
ridiculous or anything like that. If Gregg's suggestion can be summarized
that there is a certain level of detail in pitch below which we view their
melodic effects will be perceived as subtle flavorings of the same original,
and above which they will be perceived as an essentially different melody,
then my opinion is that it's an interesting concept. Proposing that such
a "limen" exists is a sign of insightfulness in that he's come up with an
underlying concept I don't recall having been discussed on the list.
2. It's an interesting concept that could perhaps become a useful rule of thumb
for composers (e.g., if you're composing something under the assumption
that the audience will hear at greater resolution than this, you probably
won't get your idea across).
3. Despite that, I think it's important to note that its area of direct appli-
cability is fairly narrow. (A narrow field of applicability doesn't neces-
sarily imply unimportance.) I say that based upon the examples he's given
and the counterexamples others and I have suggested. For example, this
limen has potential applicability to comparatively familiar melodic
structures like diatonic melodies, but it's more difficult to relate to
microtonal melodic runs, or to melodies pulled from entirely nontraditional
scales (e.g., 9TET, 8TET, 11TET, Pierce-Bohlen, and 88CET to name a few).
Also, its direct applicability to other than melody seems somewhat limited
as well.
4. The idea is based upon an assumption of a fairly abrupt change in peoples'
perception of tuning errors, that change being centered around the limen he
proposes to be around 60 cents. Tuning ... "surprises" I'll say ... smaller
than 30 cents (i.e., to the nearest 60-cent-resolution point) will be viewed
as coloring of the familiar melody, whereas tuning surprises larger than
that fundamentally change the melody. I'm inclined to think that the
attitude change from melodic coloring to fundamental melodic change is a
greatly more gradual one. Standard melodic variation techniques and modal
changes (for example) show clearly that melodies can undergo some extremely
enormous permutations before our ears perceived them to be fundamentally
different. Given that recognizability of a melody blurs out that far, it
seems surprising that there would be sharp, sudden changes in attitude
toward subtle changes.
5. He seems to suggest that the sub-30-cent coloring effects of a different
rendition of a diatonic melody are comparatively unimportant. I don't think
that the distinction between a familiar melody rendered in, say, QC meantone
vs. 19TET, vs. Ptolemiac JI are as audibly significant as the variations
available across entirely nondiatonic frameworks. But even still, I don't
think it wise to underestimate the musical impact of those coloring effects.


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison)
Subject: Partch CDs
PostedDate: 20-12-97 11:01:00
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 10:58:56-20-12-97 10:58:56,20-12-97 10:58:31-20-12-97 10:58:32
DeliveredDate: 20-12-97 10:58:32
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 C1256573.0036D20F; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:00:43 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA22578; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:01:00 +0100
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:01:00 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA22322
Received: (qmail 19134 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1997 02:00:52 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 20 Dec 1997 02:00:52 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu