Another post from Brian

From: mclaren
Subject: weasel-words in the discourse about tuning
--
As Sir Joshua Reynolds pointed out, "there is no expedient
to which man will not resort to avoid the real labour of
thinking." This is nowhere more true than in discussions
of musical intonation, and I have been as culpable in this
regard as anyone else.
In his essay "Politics and the English Language," George
Orwell said: "Modern English, especially written English,
is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which
can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary
trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think
more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first
step..."
An excellent example of the failure to think clearly can
be found in Tuning Digest 28, Topic 7. My contribution
includes the following statement, a textbook case
of a claim both logically unclear and essentially
meaningless:
"* All listeners, whether musically trained or not,
prefer intervals significantly wider than the just values.
This observation has been borne out by studies conducted
by Piker & Harris, Meyer, ad infinitum. References on
request." [Digest 28, Topic 7 -- mclaren]
To which David Doty rightly replied with something on the
order of: "The Universal Ear prefers such disorted intervals,
one presumes; my ears do not."
The point was well taken. My inappropriate use of "prefer"
muddied the issue and created a confusion between
sensory affect and musical affect. Since then, I've tried
to be careful to phrase the essential facts quite
differently: "The overwhelming majority of psychoacoustic
experiments performed over the last 150 years show that
both musically trained and untrained listeners consistently
hear intervals tuned significantly wider than the just values as
`pure' and 'just,' while the precise small-integer ratios are
consistently heard as 'too narrow' and 'impure.'"
My first statement of the essential facts in Digest 28
was muddleheaded and meaningless: the second statement,
above, conveys a real datum with some clarity.
Alas, my imprecision and muddiness is not a lone example.
It is all too common in the discourse on musical intonation.
Some words commonly used when discussing tuning have
subtle implications and ought to be avoided. As Orwell
points out in "Politics and the English Language,"
"Words of this kind are often used in a consciously
dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them
has his own private definition, but allows his hearer
to think he means something quite different."
Among the worst examples of deceptive and/or
meaningless terms & phrases used when discussing
tuning are the following:
[1] "In tune"
[2] "Consonance"/"Consonant," "Dissonance"/"Dissonant"
[3] "Prefer"/"Preference"/"Preferred"
[4] "Pure"
[5] "Natural"
[6] "Modern"/"Progress"/"Science"/"Scientific"
[7] "Rational"/"Irrational"
[8] "Improved"/"Better"
[9] "Musical"/"Unmusical"
[10] "Mathematical"/"Experimental"
[11] "New"/"Novel"/"Unique"/"Original"
[12] "Old"/"Old-fashioned"/"Outmoded"
[13] "history of music"/"music"
[14] "harmony" (in its aesthetic sense)
[15] "concord"/"discord"
A considerable amount of the total writing on
musical intonation can be reduced to collections
of these meaningless and muddle-headed terms
strung together like boiler-plate. For example,
one finds constantly from Isidore of Seville to
Tinctoris to Johannes Avianius to Prosdocimo de
Beldomandi to Lippius to Zarlino to Rameau to
Helmholtz sentences such as:
"The natural intonation is purer and more musical
than the inharmonious equal temperament of 12 notes
to the octave"
and
"The new equal temperament of 12 notes to the
octave is more modern and more musical than
the unscientific pitches of just intonation."
--
Advertisers know that buzz-words are largely
meaningless and thus can be used with impunity.
The main idea is to *create an impression*
while *saying nothing.*
Every new deodorant spray is touted as "new,"
"modern," "improved," "pure," and "natural." If
it were legal to sell pure dioxin, the ads would
call it "pure" and "natural," and would state that
"2 of 3 customers prefer dioxin because it's
scientifically formulated, new and improved."
--
Let me go into some detail on each of these slippery
words/phrases:
[1] "In tune" is obviously meaningless. This phrase
basically means "the intonation I like." If you
substitute "the intonation I like" instead of "in tune,"
you elicit the real meaning of the sentence. For
example: "Meantone thirds are in tune, as opposed
to the out-of-tune thirds of 12-tone equal
temperament."
This actually means: "Meantone thirds use a tuning
I like, as opposed to the thirds of 12-tone equal
temperament whose tuning I don't like."
By converting what should be a statement of
subjective musical opinion into what seems like
an acoustic edict, the phrase "in tune" creates
an infinite number of unnecessary arguments about
nothing very significant.
[2] "Consonance"/"Consonant"/"Dissonance"/"Dissonant"
This slippery pair of antitheses has at least 6
different meanings: "consonant" can mean "what I
like," or "lack of audible roughness in the partials,"
or "musically not out of place" or "musical" or
"concordant" or "schematically/logically
consistent with a given system." The classical Greeks
used the last definition: to the Greeks, a note which
was "consonant" was a note generated logically and
systematically from the genus and the tonos which
produced it. This is a meaning radically different
from most current definitions of the word
"consonant."
Very often "consonant"/"dissonant" are used merely
as statements of musical enjoyment. Thus one
often hears "Webern's music is horribly dissonant,"
which actually nothing more than "I don't like it,"
or conversely (mainly in modern music journals)
"such-and-such a composition employs wonderful
dissonances" (which means nothing more than
"most people don't like it, but I do.")
Probably the most extreme statement of this latter
aesthetic was made by John Zorn: "Grinding, horrible,
hideous noise--those are four of the highest
compliments I can receive." There are two radically
opposed aesthetics in today's avant garde music--
one elevates whatever the pop music mass audience
hates most vehemently as the "best" music, the other
elevates whatever tone combinations exhibit the
greatest sensory consonance as the "best" music.
The former is exemplified by industrial music
(viz., Einsturzende Neubauten, Michael Myers,
Nocturnal Emissions, Skinny Puppy, etc.)
the latter by the purist just intonation advocates
(viz., David B. Doty, Harry Partch, Ben Johnston,
Dane Rudhyar, etc.)
It is well to bear in mind that most music falls
somewhere in between these two extremes, and
thus the terms "consonant"/"dissonant" will
almost always be used confusingly in 2, 3, 4 or
more senses at once.
[3] "Prefer"/"Preference"/"Preferred"
It's amazing how often this term pops up in
the last 700 posts of this tuning digest. You
find it almost everywhere, in 5 different
meanings: [1] "what I like" [2] "most logically
consistent with a given system" [3] "most
sensorily consonant" [4] "most musically
appropriate" [5] "mathematically simplest."
It should be clear that arguments involving
the terms "preferred intervals" or "pitch
preference" will almost always use the
word in different senses. Such arguments
are thus not only unresolvable, but usually
meaningless as well.
[4] "pure" This is an obviously sense-free
qualifier. It can be defined to some degree
in chemistry--otherwise it's just a buzz-word,
especially where aesthetics is concerned.
[5] "natural" This word is used in at least
6 senses when discussing musical tuning:
[1] "technically impractical" [2] "small
integer ratio" [3] "resulting from the
mathematical solutions of small
perturbations of linear one-dimensional
physical oscillatory systems" [4] "consistent
with western music from 1500 A.D. - 1880 A.D."
[5] "mathematically simplest" [6] "what
I like"
The term is almost always used in 3 or 4
different senses at once. During my lecture
on non-just non-equal-tempered tunings, I
start out by blowing across the top
of a metal tube stopped at the botton with
one finger. A flute-like note results.
"That's natural," I tell the audience. Then I
hold the tube by a node and hit it with a
hammer. "That's unnatural."
At this point the audience begins to titter.
Then I repeat the process: blow across the
tube. "We can talk about this. It's natural."
Then hit the tube. "We can't talk about
this. It's unnatural."
Most of the audience is now staring with
poached-egg eyes and looking at one
another, wondering when this crazy person
will be dragged offstage.
This shock effect exploits the schism
between many conflicting usages of the
term "natural." Of course, harmonic
series tones generated by a one-dimensional
oscillator (viz., an end-stopped tube with
an airflow across the open end--those who
claim this oscillatory system is not one
dimensional need to learn some physics,
and check the rotational symmetry of the
wave equation solutions which collapses the
eigenvalues down to a 1-D case) and the non-
just non-equal-tempered inharmonic series
generated by a struck metal tube
are both equally "natural."
It makes no sense to speak of one type of
physical oscillator or set of partials as
"natural," and another type of physical
oscillator or set of partials as "unnatural."
Any set of partials generated by the physical
acoustics of vibrating bodies is de facto
natural, since that set of vibrational modes is
generated in accord with the natural laws
of physical acoustics. The term "unnatural"
doesn't even parse when speaking
of physical acoustics--a sound would have
to be produced by violating the laws of
physics in order to be "unnatural." Since no
such sound can be produced, the term is
semantically null.
"Natural" is essentially a Victorian buzz-word
when applied to the arts. It should be relegated
to ads for feminine hygiene products.
[6] "Modern"/"Progress"/"Science"/"Scientific"
are also Victorian buzz-words. These terms
are used instead of the more subjective and
thus logically indefensible phrase "what is
less easy to understand" or "what is more
complicated."
The late 20th century is characterized by a
unique confusion between quantity and quality.
To my knowledge, no other era or culture has
so persistently conflated "more X" with
"better X." (X can be anything you like.)
Thus, in late 20th century music, "more
mathematical music " means "better music."
"More incomprehensible music theory" means
"better music theory." This has carried over
to microtonality: "Higher limit JI" usually means
"better JI." "More nearly harmonic series
ratios" usually means "Better ratios." "More
unfamiliar tuning" usually means "better tuning."
Thus "modern" plays on the bizarrely late-20t
hentury delusion that newer = worthwhile,
and more = better.
Lou Harrison has turned the misuse of the Victorian
buzz-word "modern" on its head by pointing out
"how much we've lost since Boethius." Harrison's
usage so completely deflates the buzz-word
"modern" that it becomes difficult to regard
such words as anything but propaganda.
(Even so, the buzz-word misuse of "modern" persists.
I myself have been told by tenured academics that my
music isn't of interest because "it isn't modernistic
enough" or "it doesn't reflect a modernist sensibility."
To them this is brutal criticism: to me, high praise.
Son cosas de la vidas...)
[7] "Rational"/"Irrational" This is a mathematically
precise but also perfidiously subtle example of
an otherwise-meaningful term misused persistently by
proponents of just intonation. By calling a tuning
"rational" such proponents invidiously imply that the
tuning is "more sane" or "more sensible" than
equal temperament, meantone, et al. This can most
clearly be seen in the title of the cassette "Rational
Music For An Irrational World." The words "rational"
and "irrational" are used simultaneously in their
mathematical and psychological senses, creating
endless confusion.
[8] "improved"/"better" This is obviously meaningless.
Every cheapjack ripoff piece of junk sold by late-night
TV hucksters is "new and improved." The same is
true of tunings--"better" is simply senseless
when applied to an intonation, except as an indication
of personal emotional attachment.
[9] "musical"/"unmusical" This is a truly insidious
buzz-word because it has at least 4 meanings:
[1] "the tuning sounds good to me" [2] "the tuning
fits in with my mathematical/historical/performance
prejudices" [3] "the tuning is ingeniously constructed"
[4] "the tuning is consistent with 12-TET conventions"
12-TET has been called both "musical" and "unmusical."
Just intonation has been called both "musical" and
"unmusical." Perhaps it would be better to substitute
the phrase "osmotic" for "musical." This would make
completely clear the inanity of the term when applied
to intonation.
[10] "Mathematical"/"Experimental" The former term
is almost always used instead of the phrase "fits
with the mathematical system I prefer to use to
generate my particular tuning." As such, the term
is a statement of personal aesthetic pleasure or
displeasure camouflaged as a statement of scientific
rigor (or lack thereof).
The latter term is a vague means of indicating a
desire to be seen as somehow in step with the sciences,
and thus "modern," "mathmatical," ad nauseum. In
practice, a composer or artist or dancer has foudn that
s/he can do anything at all and justify it by claiming
that it's "experimental." Thus, pirouetting onstage naked
with gefilte fish on your head is idiotic if you do it
sans explanation: but if you call it "experimental," suddenly
pirouetting onstage naked with gefilte fish on your head
acquires a profound new quasi-mathematical pseudo-
scientific significance.
[11] "New"/"Novel"/"Unique" and [12] "Old"/"Old-fashioned"
/"Outmoded" are essentially identical or
antithetical (synonym/antonym) to "modern."
Just as meaningless. Very few intonational ideas
or methods are new--someone somewhere has used
all ideas and methods before. For example,
Llewellyn S. Lloyd scooped me by proposing the idea
of an "inharmonic series" that's just as natural
as the "harmonic series" in a 1941 article in JASA.
It's almost impossible to invent anything truly new.
Thus the term is itself largely a misnomer. In any
case, as with "modern," the real intent is to disguise
an aesthetic opinion as an historical fact.
[13] "history of music"/"music" This is a subtle
but pervasive distortion. Writers typically
talk about "the intonation of music," the "twelve
notes of the musical scale," and so on. These
phrases are a priori gibberish. There are many
musics throughout the world, and throughout
history. To which music does "the musical scale"
or "the conventions of music" refer? Is the
music theorist discussing the tuning of the Kwaiker
xylophone? Or the bonangs of the Javanese gamelan?
Is the music writer talking about Western music
ca. 1400 after Walter of Odington introduced the 5/4
into music theory? Or is the writer talking about
Western Music in the classical Greek period, when
genera and tonoi were the mode of discourse and
vertical harmony had no significance?
Without further qualifiers, "music" is a term
so broad as to include virtually every acoustic
phenomenon in the circumambient universe.
[14] "harmonic" and "harmony" are used in 4
different completely contrary senses: [1]
harmonic can mean "member of harmonic series,"
or [2] "consonant harmony" or [3] "concordant" or
[4] "recognizably similar to 12-TET vertical
triadic structures."
The term "harmony" can be used to mean "sounds good
to me" (the tones maketh a sweete harmony
together), or "vertical musical structure" or
"concordant" or "sensory consonance." Many of
the unresolvable and fruitless controversies in
music theory stem from the unfortunate fact that
the english language uses the same word both
to indicate an acoustic fact (vertical simultaneous
tones) and an aesthetic judgment (sounds lovely).
[1] "concord"/"discord" There is no agreement
as to what these words mean. They've been
used in at least 5 different senses:
[1] "musically conventional" [2] "sensory consonance"
[3] "within the mode" [4] "within the scale"
[5] "sounds good to me"
There is some consensus growing that "concord"
ought NOT to mean "sensory consonance," but this
does not clear up the vast confusion created by
the other 4 possible overlapping meanings of
the term.
--mclaren


Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:39 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA11053; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:39:16 +0200
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA11066
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id IAA24295; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 08:39:13 -0700
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 08:39:13 -0700
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu