prove it

>Subject: Re: Question for Johnny Reinhard/DS
>
>Johnny said:
>
>>If we can agree that I can conceptualize pitch to >exact frequencies
in my
>>head, without actually playing aloud, and I think we >do, then someone
can
>>produce just those pitches. Frankly, if you, >yourself, couldn't hear
less
>>than 6 seconds, then it's a moot point, because you'll >never hear
what I can
>>hear...or anyone else that can navigate pitch >accurately.
>
>Thats quite a claim there. I find it EXTREMELY far fetched , and saying
that if you >can't here less than six cents that you'll never really get
it is a complete cop out, >basically saying well I'm making a claim and
you cant prove otheriwise cause you >aren't me (or within some category
of some greater ability of listening which may or >may not actually
exist). If you really can do that then prove it!
>
>Andy

Get a recording and score of Johnny's music and use a pitch analyzer to
determine the accuracy of his statement. Solo bassoon should be easy to
analyze.

--
John Starrett
"We have nothing to fear but the scary stuff."
http:\www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/microtone.html

In a message dated 6/8/2001 10:12:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jstarret@carbon.cudenver.edu writes:

> Get a recording and score of Johnny's music and use a pitch analyzer to
> determine the accuracy of his statement. Solo bassoon should be easy to
> analyze.
>
> --
> John Starrett
> "We have nothing to fear but the scary stuff."
>

Where is this stuff available? I have a pitch analyzer, but where can I get a
score and recording of this stuff?

Andy

--- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24533.html#24539

> In a message dated 6/8/2001 10:12:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jstarret@c... writes:
>
>
> > Get a recording and score of Johnny's music and use a pitch
analyzer to
> > determine the accuracy of his statement. Solo bassoon should be
easy to
> > analyze.
> >
> > --
> > John Starrett
> > "We have nothing to fear but the scary stuff."
> >
>
> Where is this stuff available? I have a pitch analyzer, but where
can I get a
> score and recording of this stuff?
>
> Andy

I'm sure that Johnny Reinhard would be more than happy to provide
various scores and recordings for this type of analysis.

It would be great to be able to prove the kind of uncanny accuracy
with which the AFMM performers are capable...

Maybe, in fact, it would be good for press releases, and we could put
it in brochures, etc...

Thanks!

________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson
AFMM recording secretary

Actually, John, it's not so simple to analyze. Simply using a spectrograph to give an absolute figure for a pitch in comparison to one I've notated is not enough.

A musician does not merely play pitches on paper like a machine. One doesn't play 12-tET that way. And frankly, I haven't submitted to auditions since college. If you are so bent out of shape, Andy, it is indeed unfortunate. I have nothing to proove that I don't do every day that I perform. If you think that perfect pitch is 6 cents wide open (and is that in both directions from a target pitch?), or that one cannot match an exact pitch in the mind and then sing it accurate to a cent, it will just have to lay there I'm afraid.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

(sorry, I'm losing patience in this thread)

>> Get a recording and score of Johnny's music and use a pitch analyzer
to
>> determine the accuracy of his statement. Solo bassoon should be easy
to
>> analyze.
>>
>> --
>> John Starrett
> >"We have nothing to fear but the scary stuff."
>>
>
>Where is this stuff available? I have a pitch analyzer, but where can I
get a
>score and recording of this stuff?
>
>Andy

Johnny's music on CD (and excerpts in other formats) can be found at
www.stereosociety.com.

--
John Starrett
"We have nothing to fear but the scary stuff."
http:\www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/microtone.html

>Actually, John, it's not so simple to analyze. Simply using a
spectrograph to give an >absolute figure for a pitch in comparison to
one I've notated is not enough.
<snip>
>
>Best, Johnny Reinhard

I agree, it is not that simple. The sort of measurements and procedures
necessary to resolve the pitch discrimination of an individual are far
more difficult than the suggestion in my reply. However, if I was
interested in doing some exploratory analysis of someone's playing, this
is still where I'd start.

--
John Starrett
"We have nothing to fear but the scary stuff."
http:\www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/microtone.html

In a message dated 6/8/2001 1:30:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Afmmjr@aol.com
writes:

> Actually, John, it's not so simple to analyze. Simply using a spectrograph
> to give an absolute figure for a pitch in comparison to one I've notated is
> not enough.
>
> A musician does not merely play pitches on paper like a machine. One
> doesn't play 12-tET that way. And frankly, I haven't submitted to
> auditions since college. If you are so bent out of shape, Andy, it is
> indeed unfortunate. I have nothing to proove that I don't do every day
> that I perform. If you think that perfect pitch is 6 cents wide open (and
> is that in both directions from a target pitch?), or that one cannot match
> an exact pitch in the mind and then sing it accurate to a cent, it will
> just have to lay there I'm afraid.
>
> Best, Johnny Reinhard
>
>

Well I meant no offense first of all. Second I didn't claim six cents someone
else suggested a study, I remember making a guess of 6 to 10 in either
direction, but that is a guess and nothing more...

I do however suggest that you are greatly overestimating what is actually
possible for performers to do. The fact that you say it must just be "layed
there" and not tested just makes me think you must have reason for not
submitting yourself to tests of accuracy ... to satisfy your own claims no
less!!!!

You said it yourself that musicians dont just play pitches on paper like a
machine. The purpose of testing then would be to see what musicians, such as
yourself or whomever, actually can do. It is by no means meant to bash you,
and I am by no means bent out of shape as you seem to think.

Cheers,
Andy

In a message dated 6/8/2001 5:49:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jstarret@carbon.cudenver.edu writes:

> I agree, it is not that simple. The sort of measurements and procedures
> necessary to resolve the pitch discrimination of an individual are far
> more difficult than the suggestion in my reply. However, if I was
> interested in doing some exploratory analysis of someone's playing, this
> is still where I'd start.
>
> --
> John Starrett
> "We have nothing to fear but the scary stuff."
>

Yes I agree as well, but there is certainly stuff available now to do this,
or at least to get pretty damn close. I use Supercollider as I think I
mentioned once before on this thread and it has a built in pitch
analyzer(nowadays). I'm going to have to mess with it though and test its
accuracy. If it works accurately then theres no prob, but if not I will have
to ask around over there to see how I can mess with it and make it more
accurate. I'm not sure how long this will take though I will have to mess
with it...

Cheers,
Andy

In a message dated 6/8/01 7:44:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JoJoBuBu@aol.com
writes:

> I do however suggest that you are greatly overestimating what is actually
>

Really? You must not know what I do for a living.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

In an earlier message, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> I have a real problem with people who have researched the accuracy
> of performers. I hear better than they account for.

...followed a little later by:

> "don't you think that someone with perfect pitch can zero in on a
> single frequency?"

Which sort-of makes sense. And then:

> I've [a] parlor trick: pick any number up to 1200 and I'll sing it
> for you.

Hmmm. Now *that* is pretty astounding, by any accounts! Pick a
frequency, and you can sing it. I'm ready to line up for a ticket,
but then, in a message just a few down the pike comes:

> For example I can pick out the exact frequency on my bassoon to
> match, blend or overtake whatever is called for. I can't tell the
> list "how" this is done. ... Frankly, you guys should have faith.
> Faith that the people that move you musically can do so because of
> mysteries that they possess. And I am telling you all that I hear
> and perform finer than research has suggested. Call it anecdotal
> evidence.

"Frankly, you guys should have faith." Well, the new era has arrived:

Faith-Based Tuning.

Johnny, in the first message you said when Skip questioned your pitch
discretion, though not meant to insult, you felt insulted. I post
this in the same way as Skip did: not meant to demean you or impune
your abilities -- there are too many people on the list that speak
admirably of what you can do. But you propose that you can pick a
frequency out of the air, accurate to a cent, and then say that it
can't be measured, you wouldn't care to try if it could, and we
should just take it on faith anyway.

OK, I believe you. Or, at least, I believe that you believe it to be
true.

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Johnny,

I can well believe you can discriminate to one cent.

I'd be interested to hear from Haresh on this. To judge by
the amount of time Indian musicians spend tuning up their
instruments, one wonders if they develop exceedingly
fine sensitivity. I wonder how common it is for an Indian
musician to be able to discriminate to within less than a cent.

I seem to remember Haresh saying something about two cents
discrimination in pitch, but can't remember it clearly.

It is possible, and rather easy, to test if one is able to hear
the pitch of notes in melodic context to within a single cent.

I do this in FTS. Can just play two notes at random,
differing in pitch in a single cent, and see if one can distinguish
them (random chord quiz can be used for that) or can play an ascending
scale in 1200-tet as
0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 (cents)
then as
0 1 0 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 4 3, ...
and see if one can tell which is which, again using random chord quiz
button to select.

If one can tell which is which, then it is reasonable to say that
one can distinguish to within a single cent. If not, then one tries
0 0 0 2 2 2 4 4 4,
0 2 0 2 4 2 4 6 4,
etc.

These things certainly vary; some non-musicians apparently can't distinguish
in pitch even between notes a semitone apart. Some can tell them apart but
don't know which is sharp and which is flat of the two, while a few think
both notes sound identical in pitch.

I think one can make much finer discriminations in context of a piece
of music, when simultaneous notes are played, and not just by counting beats
- if one note in a chord is a cent sharp, I think one might be able
to detect that, given two midi clips, one with it sharp and one without.
(but haven't done proper tests of this, just anecdotal - once hearing
two of John's midi clips, noticed in one of them a particular note that I
was especially interested in was a bit sharper than it was in the other,
and was curious enough to look at a midi clip hex dump, found it was about
half a cent sharp. There's one in two chances of getting it right, so
not very good as evidence! But I did think I could hear it, and found
that I'd got it right, so that's something).

Are you able to play to within nearest cent when no-one else is playing,
or only when accompanied?

I'm sure one can learn to improve ones pitch discrimination, just as
astronomers can learn to see details in a telescope image of a galaxy,
or of Jupiter, or whatever. Doesn't mean their eyes collect more light,
or that their retina is more sensitive to light, just more used to
intepreting what one sees in conditions where there is little light
(in case of a galaxy) or (in case of planet) little in the way of contrast.

So a one cent discrimination doesn't seem too hard to accept to me.

I'm sure there will be a fuzzy cut off point though, there always is.
Maybe 0.1 cents yields random scores for everyone, or 0.01 cents,
or whatever.

Anyone who has FTS can use the random chord quiz to test their pitch
discrimination, and I could explain how it is done if it isn't clear.

Or, would be possible to do a zip of midi clips, randomly chosen,
and then one has to try to tell which is which, and provide the correct
answers either at another date (say, a week later), or at another
url, so long as it isn't in the same zip (too easy to "peek",
and it is hard to resist looking at the answers when in the middle
of a test).

Might be fun to do if people want to give it a go.

N.B. my own pitch discrimination by this test seems to be 5-6 cents
for unambiguous discrimination, perhaps better, e.g. 4 cents, if
alert. I used to think it was far better than that, but the tests
don't bear it out.

Robert

Hmmm. are you hinting about starting a new tuning list?:)

JSZANTO@ADNC.COM wrote:

>
> Faith-Based Tuning.
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

KG,

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Hmmm. are you hinting about starting a new tuning list?:)
>
> JSZANTO@A... wrote:
> >
> > Faith-Based Tuning.

Yeah, it's the Evil-Twin list diametrically across from:

/spiritual_tuning/

You can see Rev. Jim Baker sing beatless shape note hymns, and
homeless people line up to get a warm meal, only to find out they
have to form quartets and hum a perfect 4:5:6:7 chord before they'll
get some grub...

OK, end of thread.

Cheers,
Jon

On 6/9/01 12:09 AM, "Kraig Grady" <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com> wrote:

> Hmmm. are you hinting about starting a new tuning list?:)
>
> JSZANTO@ADNC.COM wrote:
>
>>
>> Faith-Based Tuning.

Yes this should be separate from spiritual tuning.
Spirituality and faith are from two different temperament mindsets.
Then this post should probably have been on metatuning.

On 6/9/01 12:32 AM, "JSZANTO@ADNC.COM" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> wrote:

>>> Faith-Based Tuning.
>
> Yeah, it's the Evil-Twin list diametrically across from:
>
> /spiritual_tuning/

Szanto 1, Jones (disqualified, too late)

I spoke too soon.

On 6/9/01 12:34 AM, "JSZANTO@ADNC.COM" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> wrote:

> You can see Rev. Jim Baker sing beatless shape note hymns, and
> homeless people line up to get a warm meal, only to find out they
> have to form quartets and hum a perfect 4:5:6:7 chord before they'll
> get some grub...
>
> OK, end of thread.

Yet you posted this twice?

Oh *I* get it. "Re: prove it". Ah ha.
You're subliminally telling everyone to REPROVE IT?

Yes find more fault.

Hi,

--- In tuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:
> Yet you posted this twice?

Um, no, I think I only posted once on the original subject, and then
a reply (of a different nature) to Kraig. Oh, and I posted to the
list and deleted and reposted, all that just to fix a wrong subject
header. Sorry if you happened to get two msgs...

> Oh *I* get it. "Re: prove it". Ah ha.
> You're subliminally telling everyone to REPROVE IT?

No, just changing from the original thread name, which I had nothing
to do with at all. I don't think Johnny *has* to prove anything,
because he is successful at both performing and producing concerts,
and has opened a lot of doors to people in this field (microtonality).

> Yes find more fault.

Nope, not here. Just watching the passing parade...

Cheers,
Jon

On 6/9/01 1:10 AM, "JSZANTO@ADNC.COM" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> wrote:

> Oh, and I posted to the
> list and deleted and reposted, all that just to fix a wrong subject
> header. Sorry if you happened to get two msgs...

Ah I see. I get direct emails. This time of night, every 8 minutes.
Never mind then.

Johnny,

I am also getting sick of this thread... it is a waste of time... I frankly could give a rat's b-hind on YOUR abilities since you are not available to me as a performer... I will say that I do believe in your abilites and I respect them greatly... especially since I have a friend who defies this research also... your abilities have no bearing on me (unless you want to play at my senior recital this coming fall for free). How, then, could I approach say a small group of instrumentalist to perform a microtonal work of mine... is it even worth it to try since we have no experience... should I go for it, and if so, how? or should I just stick to writing for the piano or electronics... your abilities matter, but they are of no use to me... but how can I approach un-microtrained performers?

Thanks and with Respect,

Steven Kallstrom

Those tired of this thread!
Once one begins on a path where Pitch discrimination becomes
important, the ear adjust in maybe a year or few. I myself have taken a
tuner that puts out a pitch and sung it without looking at the screen
and then opening my eyes, seeing a perfect match. I had a classically
trained french horn player do the same, even though she had NEVER played
any microtonal music. Recorder is not the most stable of woodwinds
either.

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/8/01 7:44:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> JoJoBuBu@aol.com
> writes:
>
>
>
>> I do however suggest that you are greatly overestimating what is
>> actually
>> possible for performers to do.
>
> Really? You must not know what I do for a living.
>
> Best, Johnny Reinhard
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

In a message dated 6/9/01 1:39:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
skallstr@sun.iwu.edu writes:

> ... I frankly could give a rat's b-hind on YOUR abilities since you are not
> available to me as a performer...

Well, I guess it's not so easy to be generous to your questions as well, yet
here I am. And frankly, I'm out here representing you in the world, probably
before you were born. You might not be thinking microtones if not for the
performers that put microtones on the map. Composers, too.

The one thing a composer has is the conviction of the notes that are written
down. If you push yourself to hear the universe of sounds and label them,
you can use these to impress upon new listeners. IF you can hear intervals
sharply (here not referring to pitch direction) in the mind, a person will
receive some "meaning" in that particular interval. It's a sublime process.
In this way, ANY interval that you can make "sensible" can leave a definite
impression on a listener.

Players are the conduit between composer and the general listener. Yes, you
should approach players from the higher position (here meaning "perspective).
The composer sings to the player, if necessary. Paper notation is never
enough. Jazz players can't get a "feel" to a chart if they never hear anyone
play it for them (or on recording).

Yes, try to work with people. Use empathy if you can. Smile and be
encouraging, and demonstrate with the knowledgeable belief you seem to have
in your music. It is the only way to upgrade, and I believe it can work.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 6/8/01 11:52:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
robertwalker@ntlworld.com writes:

> Are you able to play to within nearest cent when no-one else is playing,
> or only when accompanied?
>
>

It makes no difference. It is the mind that drives the pitch, before there
is sound. A professional musician hears a measure in his or head before it
is ever played. This allows for more than note/rhythm accuracy. It also
induces physical memory of previously phrased phrases. In other words, you
are more "singing" when you seen at least a measure ahead. It also prepares
the player for slow downs and holds.

Measuring after the point of playing is pointless. One must take into
account the intent of the player. Even vibrato is measurable by pitch. BTW,
different tunings require different vibrato widths, some requiring no vibrato.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> Measuring after the point of playing is pointless. One must take
into
> account the intent of the player.

This doesn't make any sense to me. How can you measure "the intent
of the player"? The only thing that the listener can evaluate, the
only thing that counts, is what the player actually plays, and that
is physically real. If it's real, it can be measured.

Or else, do you just mean to say "I'm a professional. I know what I'm
doing. So, if I say that I have played Eb minus 33 cents, then that's
what I have played, no matter what your FFT analysis says?

Xavier

Johnny,

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Players are the conduit between composer and the general listener.
> The composer sings to the player, if necessary. Paper notation is
> never enough. Jazz players can't get a "feel" to a chart if they
> never hear anyone play it for them (or on recording).
>
> Yes, try to work with people. Use empathy if you can. Smile and
> be encouraging, and demonstrate with the knowledgeable belief you
> seem to have in your music. It is the only way to upgrade, and I
> believe it can work.

Excellent advice, every bit of it. If a composer is going to ask
people to step outside of their normal boundaries, he/she must not
only believe profoundly in their creation but find effective and
creative ways to help performers perform it! *You* must make the
effort, because, save a few centers of micro-work and a few
ensembles, it isn't 'common practice' yet. Johnny's AFMM is still the
exception to the rule, though hopefully (through their work) there
will be more like them in the future.

Regards,
Jon

For Johnny (and everyone esle too),

I need to apologize for sounding like a jerk in my e-mail... when I
said that I didn't care about your abilities, I was refering to the current
discussion only... your abilities are great and what you have done in the
musical world is great... my composer friends, bassoonist friends, and even
my composition teacher hold you in high regard... I don't want to seem
apathetic towards your accomplishments... and I realize that what I said in
my late night e-mail comes off as apathetic... your abilities cannot help
any of us to hear better, but your work does give me, at least, and I assume
all, a certain ideal to attain, a certain goal to work towards... the
current thread on your hearing claims is a waste, everyone saying prove it
prove it prove it... I don't want you to prove it, don't need you to prove
it, I beleive you, I just feel that having you on this list is a great
thing, (like having Babbitt, Boulez, or Ferneyhough on a Complex Music
listserv) and we are abusing it by attacking your abilities instead of
tapping them to further our own abilities... I'm sorry that I may have
gotten off on the wrong foot with you by my comment towards your abilities,
I do care, I just feel that on the list, we should be less concerned about
your abilites themselves, and more concerned about what we can learn from
your wisdom and ability.

Steven Kallstrom

How about a simple ear test? Play a random 1200-tET interval, and have someone name it
without "peeking". One test for melodic intervals, one test for harmonic intervals.

Hi Johnny,

> "don't you think that someone with perfect pitch can zero in on a
> single frequency?"
(earlier post)

I'm prob. taking this out of context, but there's something may
be worth saying here:

At A = 440, one cent = 0.254 Herz, so if
someone says they can discriminate to within 1 Hz at A=440,
that means, to within 4 cents. That is not so remarkable
as to be able to distinguish to within a single cent.

One cent = a quarter of a herz at A = 440. So one is saying one can
distinguish A=440 from A=440.254.

Just thought this is worth clarifying - prob. not the situation here,
but I have seen it done elsewhere! May also confuse newbies to the
subject.

> It makes no difference. It is the mind that drives the pitch, before there
> is sound. A professional musician hears a measure in his or head before it
> is ever played. This allows for more than note/rhythm accuracy. It also
> induces physical memory of previously phrased phrases. In other words, you
> are more "singing" when you seen at least a measure ahead. It also prepares
> the player for slow downs and holds.

> Measuring after the point of playing is pointless. One must take into
> account the intent of the player. Even vibrato is measurable by pitch. BTW,
> different tunings require different vibrato widths, some requiring no vibrato.

Here's a thought on this. If one has an internal representation of pitch to
one cent resolution, but actually produces the notes at somewhat
less than that resolution, then one would expect that ones notes
for 440 Hz would have a mean pitch lower than ones notes intended
for 440.254 Hz, even if some of the individual notes played for
each class overlap with those from the other one.

In principle, that could be measured, and one could use
statistical tests of significance to see if there is something
of that type going on, but would require many performances of
the same piece, enough for results to be statistically significant.

Same thing applies for listening trials.

Standard deviation s for Bernouilli trials =sqrt(n*p*(1-p))
where n = number of trials and p = prob. of getting it
right, here s = sqrt(n*0.5*0.5)

E.g. for n = 36, s = 3.

Three standard deviations away from mean is highly
significant (at 99.73% level).

So for example, if one has a clip with two notes played one
after another, with one of the notes sharp by one cent,
and another with the notes in the opposite order, and
one is asked to listen to 36 random copies of the clips,
then if one gets 27 of them right, that is highly statistically
significant.

With larger numbers, the proportions drop. So if one listens
to 400 clips, s=10, so if one gets 230 right, that now is
highly significant.

One could do the same trick for performances too, at
least in principle - maybe if someone with one cent
internal resolution of pitch were to do hundreds of performances of
the same piece, say, one with two notes in it differing by
a single cent, one could measure this internal representation!

Naturally attracted to the title of this thread as a mathematician,
and for those interested in proofs of things, maybe these
remarks may help.

Of course, mathematicians also do a lot of internalising in geometrical
work, and even when one draws rough diagrams on a piece of paper,
maybe it is only roughly circular, but one calls it a perfect
circle. Or a freehand squiggle that one calls a perfect straight
line. Mathematicians are perfectly happy with this, works perfectly
well. One just makes sure that the things one draws have enough of the
properties of the original to illustrate the point one is making.

Then if one does need an accurate diagram, one then sets about making
one to the best of ones ability.

Best,

Robert

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
>
> N.B. my own pitch discrimination by this test seems to be 5-6 cents
> for unambiguous discrimination, perhaps better, e.g. 4 cents, if
> alert. I used to think it was far better than that, but the tests
> don't bear it out.
>
> Robert

Your results are exactly in line with the large body of psychological experiments testing the
melodic pitch discrimination of human subjects. Perhaps if one specifically trains oneself, one can
do better. But this is where the vast majority of people start.

In a message dated 6/9/2001 8:22:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Afmmjr@aol.com
writes:

> Measuring after the point of playing is pointless.
>

Well thats your opinion. What players really do in performance is much more
interesting to me than what some player claims he or she can do, or for that
matter what a composer writes down should happen(including myself). Sure
players might not play exactly whats on the page, but thats why its
interesting. If a good player consistently changes the pitch from whats
notated its a very interesting question to ask why? Did they not hear it, was
there an expressive reason, or did the player just not have 1 cent, or more,
accuracy ... or whatever amount of accuracy.

Andy

In a message dated 6/9/01 12:00:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
xjhouston7@yahoo.com writes:

> This doesn't make any sense to me. How can you measure "the intent
> of the player"?

Just consider me a "glorified informant" or perhaps, a talking chimpanzee.
Without any undue arrogance, the intent of the player is exactly what the
player tells you he or she is aiming for. Without this calculation, all
results are worthless. "There are more things, Horatio..."

Best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 6/9/2001 1:26:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
robertwalker@ntlworld.com writes:

> Hi Johnny,
>
> > "don't you think that someone with perfect pitch can zero in on a
> > single frequency?"
> (earlier post)
>
> I'm prob. taking this out of context, but there's something may
> be worth saying here:
>
> At A = 440, one cent = 0.254 Herz, so if
> someone says they can discriminate to within 1 Hz at A=440,
> that means, to within 4 cents. That is not so remarkable
> as to be able to distinguish to within a single cent.
>
> One cent = a quarter of a herz at A = 440. So one is saying one can
> distinguish A=440 from A=440.254.
>
> Just thought this is worth clarifying - prob. not the situation here,
> but I have seen it done elsewhere! May also confuse newbies to the
> subject.
>
> > It makes no difference. It is the mind that drives the pitch, before
> there
> > is sound. A professional musician hears a measure in his or head before
> it
> > is ever played. This allows for more than note/rhythm accuracy. It also
> > induces physical memory of previously phrased phrases. In other words,
> you
> > are more "singing" when you seen at least a measure ahead. It also
> prepares
> > the player for slow downs and holds.
>
> > Measuring after the point of playing is pointless. One must take into
> > account the intent of the player. Even vibrato is measurable by pitch.
> BTW,
> > different tunings require different vibrato widths, some requiring no
> vibrato.
>
> Here's a thought on this. If one has an internal representation of pitch to
> one cent resolution, but actually produces the notes at somewhat
> less than that resolution, then one would expect that ones notes
> for 440 Hz would have a mean pitch lower than ones notes intended
> for 440.254 Hz, even if some of the individual notes played for
> each class overlap with those from the other one.
>
> In principle, that could be measured, and one could use
> statistical tests of significance to see if there is something
> of that type going on, but would require many performances of
> the same piece, enough for results to be statistically significant.
>
> Same thing applies for listening trials.
>
> Standard deviation s for Bernouilli trials =sqrt(n*p*(1-p))
> where n = number of trials and p = prob. of getting it
> right, here s = sqrt(n*0.5*0.5)
>
> E.g. for n = 36, s = 3.
>
> Three standard deviations away from mean is highly
> significant (at 99.73% level).
>
> So for example, if one has a clip with two notes played one
> after another, with one of the notes sharp by one cent,
> and another with the notes in the opposite order, and
> one is asked to listen to 36 random copies of the clips,
> then if one gets 27 of them right, that is highly statistically
> significant.
>
> With larger numbers, the proportions drop. So if one listens
> to 400 clips, s=10, so if one gets 230 right, that now is
> highly significant.
>
> One could do the same trick for performances too, at
> least in principle - maybe if someone with one cent
> internal resolution of pitch were to do hundreds of performances of
> the same piece, say, one with two notes in it differing by
> a single cent, one could measure this internal representation!
>
> Naturally attracted to the title of this thread as a mathematician,
> and for those interested in proofs of things, maybe these
> remarks may help.
>
> Of course, mathematicians also do a lot of internalising in geometrical
> work, and even when one draws rough diagrams on a piece of paper,
> maybe it is only roughly circular, but one calls it a perfect
> circle. Or a freehand squiggle that one calls a perfect straight
> line. Mathematicians are perfectly happy with this, works perfectly
> well. One just makes sure that the things one draws have enough of the
> properties of the original to illustrate the point one is making.
>
> Then if one does need an accurate diagram, one then sets about making
> one to the best of ones ability.
>
> Best,
>
> Robert
>

Robert. An excellent post and absolutely not out of context. This is exactly
the sort of thing we are discussing.

Thats a wonderful analogy between drawing a squigly line to represent
something and actually showing an accurate model of something. I couldn't
agree more.

What would be your thoughts then on taking longer pieces and doing an
analysis of them. Does it need to be multiple performances of the same work,
or would it be significant to do longer songs measuring all the way through.

Or perhaps several songs measuring the average accuracy compared to
the notated score? I dont think it will be possible to get hundreds of
recordings of the same work if nothng else for practical reasons, but it
might be possible to get many recordings and scores of different songs that
fit certain criteria dont ya think? How many works, or minutes, or notes, or
what have you, do you think would be necessary to analyze in order to come
out with evidence that is statistically significant?

This post was great because it discussed really making models of this sort of
thing. I would love to discuss this more.

Cheers,
Andy

Hi Johnny

I've just been doing a bit of practice, bearing what you said in mind,
and a thought has occurred to me:

It would be quite possible for a player to play to greater accuracy
than he or she can actually hear!

Consider a contrived example - a monochord with a very long string.
Then one could just divide it up visually into smaller pitch intervals
than one can hear.

For voice / wind instrument, seems one could learn the change in
breath pressure corresponding to an increase in pitch by one
cent. Then, increasing pressure by that much would give a one cent
increase in pitch even if one can't actually hear it.

For example, to play 0 1 2 3 4 in 400-tet (which is beyond my usual
melodic interval resolution) I can find out what pitch the 1 is,
and what pitch the 4 is, then play five notes spread equally in
pitch between the two. Can't actually tell by hearing if they
are equally spaced, but I think chances are that they probably
are.

I can then imagine that one would then go on, with training, to do
the same thing in 1200-tet, and then learn not only to play
any sequence of notes, but to jump to any of the cents values
too.

I can also imagine one would be able to learn to actually hear
much finer pitch discriminations than the usual 5 - 6 cents, and
would be interested to find out how far one can go.

Robert

In a message dated 6/9/2001 4:37:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
robertwalker@ntlworld.com writes:

> Hi Johnny
>
> I've just been doing a bit of practice, bearing what you said in mind,
> and a thought has occurred to me:
>
> It would be quite possible for a player to play to greater accuracy
> than he or she can actually hear!
>
> Consider a contrived example - a monochord with a very long string.
> Then one could just divide it up visually into smaller pitch intervals
> than one can hear.
>
> For voice / wind instrument, seems one could learn the change in
> breath pressure corresponding to an increase in pitch by one
> cent. Then, increasing pressure by that much would give a one cent
> increase in pitch even if one can't actually hear it.
>
> For example, to play 0 1 2 3 4 in 400-tet (which is beyond my usual
> melodic interval resolution) I can find out what pitch the 1 is,
> and what pitch the 4 is, then play five notes spread equally in
> pitch between the two. Can't actually tell by hearing if they
> are equally spaced, but I think chances are that they probably
> are.
>
> I can then imagine that one would then go on, with training, to do
> the same thing in 1200-tet, and then learn not only to play
> any sequence of notes, but to jump to any of the cents values
> too.
>
> I can also imagine one would be able to learn to actually hear
> much finer pitch discriminations than the usual 5 - 6 cents, and
> would be interested to find out how far one can go.
>
>

Well. If one was going to try and hear very small intervals it would be best
to use a computer. A monochord wth a long string would be tough. Measurements
would have to be EXACT. Even then if you think your measurements are exact
you still wouldn't hear it and couldn't really be sure. With a computer if
its programmed correctly at least you would know its playing what you want
exactly even though you dont hear it. (or at least as accurately as the
computer system allows)

With any live instruments though before doing something like that an
exploration should occur of the possible accuracy of an instrument, whatever
it is. It doesn't seem fair to say that many wind instruments, although
maybe, can even play intervals 1 cent wide only, let alone less, and let
alone accurately.

Cheers,
Andy

In a message dated 6/9/01 5:04:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JoJoBuBu@aol.com
writes:

> . It doesn't seem fair to say that many wind instruments, although
> maybe, can even play intervals 1 cent wide only, let alone less, and let
> alone accurately.
>
>

Any interval that can play a continuum, that can perform a straight
glissando, could theoretically stop at any point. Why not imagine for
yourself that the players can stops accurately enough that a 386 5/4 would be
unacceptable at 392 (at 6 cents higher). When I play this interval I
approach it from below and stop at the 386th cent. Why couldn't I, or any
other player that can slide, slide up to and only up to a particular pitch,
conceptualizeable in cents a priori? Answer IMHO is we do.

Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 6/9/2001 5:54:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Afmmjr@aol.com
writes:

> In a message dated 6/9/01 5:04:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JoJoBuBu@aol.com
> writes:
>
>
>
> >> . It doesn't seem fair to say that many wind instruments, although
>> maybe, can even play intervals 1 cent wide only, let alone less, and let
>> alone accurately.
>>
>>
>
>
> Any interval that can play a continuum, that can perform a straight
> glissando, could theoretically stop at any point. Why not imagine for
> yourself that the players can stops accurately enough that a 386 5/4 would
> be
> unacceptable at 392 (at 6 cents higher). When I play this interval I
> approach it from below and stop at the 386th cent. Why couldn't I, or any
> other player that can slide, slide up to and only up to a particular pitch,
> conceptualizeable in cents a priori? Answer IMHO is we do.
>
> Johnny Reinhard

IMHO. I dont know that accronym.

Well first the player would have to know that he/she is stopping on the 386th
cent. If they dont or perhaps cant, and its not tested with a reliable source
of testing, aka, a computer or some other scientifically accurate method,
then your guess, and I do mean guess, by ear that you are landing on the
386th cent may or may not be accurate. Secondly I did not suggest 6 cents as
you keep saying, nor did I say anything about 5/4 being acceptable to any
reasonable amout of error(six cents or otherwise). Nor did I define what it
would mean for an interval to be acceptable, which that statement would
require - do you mean a 5/4 with no beat frequency?. I also didn't say a
pitch can be or can not be conceptualized in cents. I am disputing accuracy
of pitch here not the conceptual idea of using cents to think about tones if
thats what you are trying to get at.

Why couldn't a player hit to exactly the right cent when bending, sliding, or
what not? Well all sorts of reasons could be, and if anyone else has any
evidence on this please say so, but the width of the finger on string
instruments, the way the lips are, the smallest amount you can move the
tremolo bar on an electric guitar, what kind of guitar it is, or other
simple mechanical reasons. Dont assume that just because you can
conceptualize the idea of an infinite contiuum of pitch, the idea of pitch
not the physical reality of it, that you can also hear pitches or play
pitches up to whatever arbitrary amount, in this case a cent, that you seem
to think you or other players are able to do.

>Why couldn't I, or any
>other player that can slide, slide up to and only up to a particular pitch,
>conceptualizeable in cents a priori?

a pri·o·ri (ä pr-ôr, -r, pr-ôr, -r)
adj.
Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect;
deductive.

Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to
particular facts or experience.

Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.

Good choice of words with a priori. Thats the whole point is that your guess
is made before or without examination; not supported by factual study. Yes
you;ve worked with microtones, but your guess's are likely inaccurate. This
area is something that should be tested objectively. I am not even
suggesting that you are wrong or right about the accuracy you suggest
(although I do find it highly doubtful), but instead I am saying that you are
making an unsubstatianted claim which should be emperically analysed and
scientifically thought through to exactitude. You are giving a hypothesis and
have nothing but your best guess to back it up.

Andy

--- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:
> IMHO. I dont know that accronym.

In My Humble Opinion. Many people, when being forthright, simply put
IMO, thereby admitting they aren't too humble!

Not unexpectedly, some people respond with TACOS, or That's A Crock
Of Spumoni...

Cheers,
Jon

On 6/9/01 4:37 PM, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Hi Johnny
>
> I've just been doing a bit of practice, bearing what you said in mind,
> and a thought has occurred to me:
>
> It would be quite possible for a player to play to greater accuracy
> than he or she can actually hear!

OH MY GOD... Johnny... I think you actually *reached* someone...

Robert,

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> It would be quite possible for a player to play to greater accuracy
> than he or she can actually hear!

Sure: just attach the keyboard to whatever Scala-tuned synth you have
and - voila! - accuracy beyond what they (may) actually hear!

In reality though, and leaving aside any beyond-mortal beings, there
are so many aspects that relate to live performance on both
instruments and voice that your "contrived example" is pretty much
just that. Great performers can do miraculous things, but I don't
think that it is fair (or remotely sane!) to say that any more than a
few 'touched' individuals could play with greater accuracy then they
can hear. After all, how would they know? The concert hall stage is
pretty far removed from the audio lab...

After a cup of tea and a moments reflection, wouldn't you agree?

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 6/9/2001 7:46:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
JSZANTO@ADNC.COM writes:

> --- In tuning@y..., JoJoBuBu@a... wrote:
> > IMHO. I dont know that accronym.
>
> In My Humble Opinion. Many people, when being forthright, simply put
> IMO, thereby admitting they aren't too humble!
>
> Not unexpectedly, some people respond with TACOS, or That's A Crock
> Of Spumoni...
>
> Cheers,
>

LOL. I'll have to remember the tacos one I haven't heard that either.

Andy