Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Soft on Seven

[I wrote:]
>>Why, Paul! Can it be that you're "softening on seven"? My impression
>>has been that you pretty much consider a 7-limit treatment of pieces
>>originally written in 12-tET to be inappropriate, or am I mistaken?

[Paul E:]
>You are mistaken -- read the exchanges again. It is for Baroque and
>Classical-period music that I found a 7-limit treatment inappropriate.
>For Schoenberg, like Wagner or Stravinsky, I'd say go for it!

Where do you put Brahms? Schubert? Beethoven? I guess if Wagner's in
then Ravel could be. Some 20th century pieces (12 tone row, for
example) would seem to be intimately wedded to 12-tET, to my thinking.

I guess it comes back to the difference in our perception of the 7-limit
dom 7th: I feel that its sense of needing resolution is strengthened
by its tuning, you feel that the sense is weakened (again, correct me if
I am misrepresenting you!).

Here's a thought: in distinguishing between consonance and concordance,
you used the example of a perfect fourth being dissonant under some
circumstances (and I do agree that a chord in second inversion is not
stable; it pulls toward V in root position). If a perfect fourth can be
dissonant and concordant at the same time, then surely the much more
complex 4:5:6:7 chord can as well! And the ear can hear it just as
strongly as needing resolution.

Also, to harken back to your point that the type of music being played
alters the meaning of the word consonance (major triads are dissonant
in old music, seventh chords are consonant in the Blues). This point
can be taken to strengthen the argument for using 4:5:6:7 dom 7ths for
a wide range of music for which the context already establishes that a
7th chord needs to resolve (however it is tuned).

JdL

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

[I wrote:]
>>Also, to harken back to your point that the type of music being played
>>alters the meaning of the word consonance (major triads are dissonant
>>in old music, seventh chords are consonant in the Blues). This point
>>can be taken to strengthen the argument for using 4:5:6:7 dom 7ths for
>>a wide range of music for which the context already establishes that a
>>7th chord needs to resolve (however it is tuned).

[Paul E:]
>That sounds like a cop-out to me . . .

Please explain. Doesn't your point imply that 7th chords are consonant
in blues music whether or not the actual chords are tuned JI or 12-tET
or something else? Wouldn't the same apply to other music? I'm not
claiming that the point means the tuning MUST be JI 7-limit, only saying
that other factors mean the chords are dissonant (the way you define it)
no matter how they're tuned.

[Paul:]
>I love Ravel, but I think it would depend on the piece. And it might
>also be worth making a distinction between utonal and otonal chords --
>as we've heard Joseph Pehrson attest, 4:5:6:7 is far more clearly the
>"target" tuning for a dominant seventh than 1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4 is for a
>half-diminished seventh.

I would use 5:6:7:9 for a half-diminished seventh. I tried
1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4 and didn't care for it.

JdL

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

[I wrote:]
>>I would use 5:6:7:9 for a half-diminished seventh.

[Paul E:]
>In Baroque and Classical music, this is clearly inappropriate, as we
>found with reference to the Bach example. The minor triad within this
>chord should really be tuned 1/6:1/5:1/4, not 6:7:9, if you're not
>looking for an intentionally "xenobaroque" effect.

Yes, I remember the example, and for 5-limit tuning I added a "5-limit
utonal" tuning file to the mix to give the half-diminished chord another
way to go. But, after listening to the same for 7-limit music, I found
I preferred 5:6:7:9. It has nothing to do with being "intentionally
xenobaroque".

Which brings us to a point made before, but not in this latest exchange,
so at the risk of saying the obvious: all this intellectual hand-waving
(I speak of myself as well as anyone else) is subordinate to what the
ear likes. I went through a period of listening, now years ago, when
seven was tough for me to swallow, but, in my experience at least, once
its beauty sinks in, there's no going back. I can listen to little bits
of five now, but not for long.

Paul, it's very clear that you prefer 5-limit tuning; that would be true
whether you held all the intellectual justifications (as you believe you
do) or they stood facing the other way. So, when we have an exchange
such as:

[JdL:]
>>I'm not claiming that the point means the tuning MUST be JI 7-limit,
>>only saying that other factors mean the chords are dissonant (the way
>>you define it) no matter how they're tuned.

[Paul:]
>Right -- but it's a cop-out to then say "well, then, I might as well
>target 4:5:6:7 no matter what the style of music".

I think you're side-stepping the larger point. It can never be a
"cop-out" to tune music in a way that pleases one! If I knock out one
of your intellectual underpinnings and leave a dozen in place, that is
of relevance only in the intellectual sphere.

You continue:

>For example, if you have a ii-V7-I progression, the 2nd and 4th scale
>degrees should suffer a noticeable retune motion -- while targeting a
>4:5:6:7 for V7 is likely to induce it if the vertical springs are
>moderately strong.

Yes, 7-limit music "suffers" from a lot of retune motion, and even I,
quite tolerant of that motion, agree that it's a significant price to
pay. Adjusting down the strength of the vertical springs greatly helps,
while keeping most chords within a few cents of just.

JdL

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>For what it's worth, I have mentioned the Heinrich Schenker quote
>from his _Harmony_ before. Section I, 11, entitled: "No Overtone
>beyond the Fifth in the Series Has Any Application to Our Tonal
>System."
>
>SCHENKER:
>
>"In reality, the artistic relation between the overtone series and
>our tonal system is as follows: The human ear can follow Nature as
>manifested to us in the overtone series only up to the major third as
>the ultimate limit; in other words, up to that overtone which results
>from the fifth division. This means that those overtones resulting
>from higher subdivisions are too complicated to be perceived by our
>ear, except in those cases, wehre the number of divisions is a
>composite which can be reduced to a number rempresenting the lowest,
>perceivable, order of division by two, three or five. Thus six can
>be recognized as two time three or three times two; nine as three
>times three; ten as five times two, etc., wheras the overtones 7, 11,
>13, 14, etc., remain totally extraneous to our ear." ...

I'm afraid I have little patience for such words: Schenker is clearly
referring to HIS ear and HIS experience, which is just fine, but when he
thinks he speaks for the whole universe of ears, it becomes so much hot
air, and wrong. Perhaps he never heard a 4:5:6:7:8:9 chord in JI vs.
with the 7 mistuned; it is hard for me to imagine that if he did he'd
make such a statement.

JdL

🔗Joseph Pehrson <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12855

> [Joseph Pehrson:]
> >For what it's worth, I have mentioned the Heinrich Schenker quote
> >from his _Harmony_ before. Section I, 11, entitled: "No Overtone
> >beyond the Fifth in the Series Has Any Application to Our Tonal
> >System."
> >
> >SCHENKER:
> >
> >"In reality, the artistic relation between the overtone series and
> >our tonal system is as follows: The human ear can follow Nature as
> >manifested to us in the overtone series only up to the major third
as the ultimate limit; in other words, up to that overtone which
results from the fifth division. This means that those overtones
resulting from higher subdivisions are too complicated to be
perceived by our ear, except in those cases, wehre the number of
divisions is a composite which can be reduced to a number
rempresenting the lowest, perceivable, order of division by two,
three
or five. Thus six can be recognized as two time three or three times
two; nine as three times three; ten as five times two, etc., wheras
the overtones 7, 11, 13, 14, etc., remain totally extraneous to our
ear." ...
>

> I'm afraid I have little patience for such words: Schenker is
clearly referring to HIS ear and HIS experience, which is just fine,
but when he thinks he speaks for the whole universe of ears, it
becomes so much hot air, and wrong. Perhaps he never heard a
4:5:6:7:8:9 chord in JI vs. with the 7 mistuned; it is hard for me to
imagine that if he did he'd make such a statement.
>
> JdL

Hi John!

I believe I mentioned that many consider Schenker a "crank" and that,
certainly, his observations of perceptions of extended just chords do
not pertain! I only brought it up in reference to Paul Erlich's
contention that "common practice" period music... Baroque, Classical
and Romantic could conceivably be though of as extending only to the
5th partial, and that's what Schenker perceived. That was all there
was to it!

Best,

________ ___ __ __
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

> Paul, it's very clear that you prefer 5-limit tuning;

Really? Then why am I trying to create a foundation for a 7-limit
tonality? But yes, ultimately our disagreement comes down to our
aesthetic sensibilities concerning common-practice tonal music. All I
can suggest at this point is that you read Blackwood's book and see
if any of the historical/aesthetic/theoretical arguments there hold
any weight for you. Perhaps they won't, and then maybe you'll simply
aim for the most concordant tuning for every single simultaneity. I
will still be interested in helping you in that area, but to my mind
you'll be missing an important aesthetic feature of many styles of
music.