19:10 as major 7th

hello tuning experts. How would 19:10 sound? like a major 7th, or more like an octave? If the former, is it a pretty good sounding major 7th? are there any web sites where you can type in the ratio and the interval will be 'played' for you? thanks, Kelly

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:18 AM, kellyjohnson5001
<kellyjohnson5001@...> wrote:
>
> hello tuning experts. How would 19:10 sound? like a major 7th, or more
> like an octave? If the former, is it a pretty good sounding major 7th? are
> there any web sites where you can type in the ratio and the interval will be
> 'played' for you? thanks, Kelly

It's 1111.1993 cents, so it falls pretty solidly in the "major 7th"
bucket to my ears. Sounds nice to me, slightly sharp of what I'm used
to.

I don't think there's anything special about 19/10 in particular;
that's a pretty complex interval to my ears. Most intervals around
that area sound about the same to me. I just kind of habitually
imagine them as being a part of a chord like C-E-B or C-G-B (or maybe
8:10:15 or 8:12:15), which is how they become meaningful to me. The
ratio by itself doesn't seem to have any special effect.

You can download scala and mess with that, or you can use my handy
online app here (only works in Firefox for now):

http://www.mikebattagliamusic.com/microscalegen/midigenerator.html

Uncheck both checkboxes, type in 19/10 and hit "Go!" to play it.

-Mike

Why the interest in this specific ratio? Definitely more like a major 7th than an octave. Being only about 11 cents sharp of a 12-TET major 7th, that shouldn't be surprising.

-Igliashon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "kellyjohnson5001" <kellyjohnson5001@...> wrote:
>
> hello tuning experts. How would 19:10 sound? like a major 7th, or more like an octave? If the former, is it a pretty good sounding major 7th? are there any web sites where you can type in the ratio and the interval will be 'played' for you? thanks, Kelly
>

Ryan Avella noted in XA chat that one awesome thing you can do with
this chord is play 10:12:15:19 with it, which is a spicy spicy
minor/major 7 chord. Everyone should play this intonation for that
chord as much as humanly possible.

-Mike

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Why the interest in this specific ratio? Definitely more like a major 7th than an octave. Being only about 11 cents sharp of a 12-TET major 7th, that shouldn't be surprising.
>
> -Igliashon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Ryan Avella noted in XA chat that one awesome thing you can do with
> this chord is play 10:12:15:19 with it, which is a spicy spicy
> minor/major 7 chord. Everyone should play this intonation for that
> chord as much as humanly possible.

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs#Nestoria

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Ryan Avella noted in XA chat that one awesome thing you can do with
> this chord is play 10:12:15:19 with it, which is a spicy spicy
> minor/major 7 chord. Everyone should play this intonation for that
> chord as much as humanly possible.
>
> -Mike

Are you sure a min/maj 7th chord isn't a bland bland version
of 10:12:15:19?

-Carl

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ryan Avella noted in XA chat that one awesome thing you can do with
> > this chord is play 10:12:15:19 with it, which is a spicy spicy
> > minor/major 7 chord. Everyone should play this intonation for that
> > chord as much as humanly possible.
> >
> > -Mike
>
> Are you sure a min/maj 7th chord isn't a bland bland version
> of 10:12:15:19?

I've considered that before, but the phrase "min/maj 7 chord" refers
to a category of chord I have in my head, and 10:12:15:19 refers to an
intonation of that chord. So it's the same sort of question as asking
me if a "major third" isn't a bland version of 5/4.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> I've considered that before, but the phrase "min/maj 7 chord" refers
> to a category of chord I have in my head, and 10:12:15:19 refers to an
> intonation of that chord. So it's the same sort of question as asking
> me if a "major third" isn't a bland version of 5/4.

I thought you were all about malleability of categories.

-Carl

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > I've considered that before, but the phrase "min/maj 7 chord" refers
> > to a category of chord I have in my head, and 10:12:15:19 refers to an
> > intonation of that chord. So it's the same sort of question as asking
> > me if a "major third" isn't a bland version of 5/4.
>
> I thought you were all about malleability of categories.
>
> -Carl

I am, but you were asking me if a category I had was really just a
bland version of a certain intonation of that category. So that's like
comparing apples to, I dunno, redness. That's like asking if 12-EDO
minor chords are really bland versions of 10:12:15. Well, maybe they
are, but why not bland versions of 6:7:9 or 16:19:24? etc.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> Are you sure a min/maj 7th chord isn't a bland bland version
> of 10:12:15:19?

Do you mean min/maj 7th as the 12-TET tuning, or the general category of chord that a trained listener might describe a variety of different intonations (perhaps roughly 0-(260 to 340)-(660 to 740)-(1060 to 1140) cents) as falling into?

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> That's like asking if 12-EDO minor chords are really bland
> versions of 10:12:15. Well, maybe they are, but why not bland
> versions of 6:7:9 or 16:19:24? etc.

Exactly. Why not add categories? -Carl

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > That's like asking if 12-EDO minor chords are really bland
> > versions of 10:12:15. Well, maybe they are, but why not bland
> > versions of 6:7:9 or 16:19:24? etc.
>
> Exactly. Why not add categories? -Carl

The category-building process is still somewhat of a mystery to me, so
I don't want to say any specifics as though they're set in stone. But,
if I hypothetically train myself to add a separate category for
10:12:15:19, which I would probably find incredibly difficult since
all of the notes are only like 15 cents away from things in 12-EDO,
then the answer to your original question is still "no," because now a
minor/maj7 chord would be a totally different thing than 10:12:15:19,
and not a bland version of it at all (or any kind of version of it).

-Mike

why the interest in 19/10? It's numerogical and esoteric -- centered on the number 10 (Pythagorean, Kabbalah)...10/9 gives you the whole step...and staying in the "10 orbit", how to get a major 7th? 19/10.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Why the interest in this specific ratio? Definitely more like a major 7th than an octave. Being only about 11 cents sharp of a 12-TET major 7th, that shouldn't be surprising.
>
> -Igliashon
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "kellyjohnson5001" <kellyjohnson5001@> wrote:
> >
> > hello tuning experts. How would 19:10 sound? like a major 7th, or more like an octave? If the former, is it a pretty good sounding major 7th? are there any web sites where you can type in the ratio and the interval will be 'played' for you? thanks, Kelly
> >
>

If you like 9 and 10, I suggest you look at Negri temperament, which
generates MOS pf size 9 and 10 in 19-EDO.

You should also look at porcupine temperament, which has a generator that's
a tempered 10/9 and 11/10 all at once. Two of them is both 6/5 and 11/9,
and 3 is 4/3.

You can't go wrong with either of these.-

-Mike

On Mar 2, 2012, at 7:29 PM, kellyjohnson5001 <kellyjohnson5001@...>
wrote:

why the interest in 19/10? It's numerogical and esoteric -- centered on the
number 10 (Pythagorean, Kabbalah)...10/9 gives you the whole step...and
staying in the "10 orbit", how to get a major 7th? 19/10.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Why the interest in this specific ratio? Definitely more like a major 7th
than an octave. Being only about 11 cents sharp of a 12-TET major 7th, that
shouldn't be surprising.
>
> -Igliashon
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "kellyjohnson5001" <kellyjohnson5001@>
wrote:
> >
> > hello tuning experts. How would 19:10 sound? like a major 7th, or more
like an octave? If the former, is it a pretty good sounding major 7th? are
there any web sites where you can type in the ratio and the interval will
be 'played' for you? thanks, Kelly
> >
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "kellyjohnson5001" <kellyjohnson5001@...> wrote:
>
> why the interest in 19/10? It's numerogical and esoteric -- >centered on the number 10 (Pythagorean, Kabbalah)...10/9 gives you the >whole step...and staying in the "10 orbit", how to get a major 7th? >19/10.

Surely a 10-tone tuning would be more centered on the number 10 than a 7 or 12 tone tuning.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:36 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "kellyjohnson5001" <kellyjohnson5001@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > why the interest in 19/10? It's numerogical and esoteric -- >centered on
> > the number 10 (Pythagorean, Kabbalah)...10/9 gives you the >whole step...and
> > staying in the "10 orbit", how to get a major 7th? >19/10.
>
> Surely a 10-tone tuning would be more centered on the number 10 than a 7
> or 12 tone tuning.

And if you're into mysticism, you can't beat miracle temperament,
which has a 10-note MOS.

-Mike

DId you read his review of Ross Duffin's "How Equal Temperment ruined harmony"?

http://www.uni-graz.at/richard.parncutt/publications/Pa07_Duffin.pdf

I have a foot in both camps. The recently discussed chord 10-12-15-19, with it's prominant augmented triad g-b-d#, makes we wonder why, to under understand the chord, there is no mention of root support theory (Parncutt, 1987, 2006), or issues of equal spacing in the perception of chords (Norman Cook, 2006). In my opinion, there is some truth in all camps. Those two theories are very usefull, but especially for the funtional harmoncy context (as Parncutt argues in his article), whereas the enjoyment of the individual chord sonorities and alternate tuning music, and new yet to be fully explored 'xenoharmony' music, etc, bring up tuning theory and the fine work you guys do (which I have no expertise in...but this list a great resource.)

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:08 AM, kellyjohnson5001
<kellyjohnson5001@...> wrote:
>
> I have a foot in both camps. The recently discussed chord 10-12-15-19,
> with it's prominant augmented triad g-b-d#, makes we wonder why, to under
> understand the chord, there is no mention of root support theory (Parncutt,
> 1987, 2006), or issues of equal spacing in the perception of chords (Norman
> Cook, 2006).

What is "root support theory?"

When you talk about equal spacing, do you mean Norman Cook's "Why Not
Study Polytonal Psychophysics?" paper?

-Mike

> What is "root support theory?"

Terheardt, Parncutt papers, for example, Parncutt 1987a. Of the 3 things which determine chord perception in this approach, one is the strength of the chord root, per a 'subharmonic matching' routine which ranks root position major, and V7 chord, as having strongest roots. (The other two factors are roughness, and familiarity, according to this theory).
>
> When you talk about equal spacing, do you mean Norman Cook's "Why Not
> Study Polytonal Psychophysics?" paper?

Yes, that's the paper, from a whole series he wrote on the topic IT's espeically pertinant to augmented triad I mentioned, per the interesting observation, going back to the music psychologist Leanord Meyer, that semitone movement from any note of an augmented chord, up or down, produces all 6 'harmonic triads' (major and minor chords and their inversions)

-Kelly
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:08 AM, kellyjohnson5001
> <kellyjohnson5001@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have a foot in both camps. The recently discussed chord 10-12-15-19,
> > with it's prominant augmented triad g-b-d#, makes we wonder why, to under
> > understand the chord, there is no mention of root support theory (Parncutt,
> > 1987, 2006), or issues of equal spacing in the perception of chords (Norman
> > Cook, 2006).
>
> What is "root support theory?"
>
> When you talk about equal spacing, do you mean Norman Cook's "Why Not
> Study Polytonal Psychophysics?" paper?
>
> -Mike
>

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 7:37 AM, kellyjohnson5001
<kellyjohnson5001@...> wrote:
>
> > What is "root support theory?"
>
> Terheardt, Parncutt papers, for example, Parncutt 1987a. Of the 3 things
> which determine chord perception in this approach, one is the strength of
> the chord root, per a 'subharmonic matching' routine which ranks root
> position major, and V7 chord, as having strongest roots. (The other two
> factors are roughness, and familiarity, according to this theory).

OK, but then what about things like minor 7 chords with the 5th omitted?

> > When you talk about equal spacing, do you mean Norman Cook's "Why Not
> > Study Polytonal Psychophysics?" paper?
>
> Yes, that's the paper, from a whole series he wrote on the topic IT's
> espeically pertinant to augmented triad I mentioned, per the interesting
> observation, going back to the music psychologist Leanord Meyer, that
> semitone movement from any note of an augmented chord, up or down, produces
> all 6 'harmonic triads' (major and minor chords and their inversions)

I saw this paper a while ago and hated it. He fails to explain why
4:6:9, 8:9:10, and 9:12:16 aren't dissonant. It didn't even seem like
he was trying, really. Maybe there's something about it that I don't
understand.

-Mike

> I saw this paper a while ago and hated it. He fails to explain why
> 4:6:9, 8:9:10, and 9:12:16 aren't dissonant. It didn't even seem like
> he was trying, really. Maybe there's something about it that I don't
> understand.
>
> -Mike
>

I had the same objection. Equidistance as a rule doesn't seem dissonant, except for the case of the augmented triad/whole tone scale. The gestalt aspects of equal spacing are very interesting and important for chord perception, I believe.