Reply to Daniel Wolf from Julie Werntz

------- Start of forwarded message -------

> --- In metatuning@y..., "Daniel James Wolf" <djwolf1@m...> wrote:

> we do have to deal with the prospect that the harmonic series, or a segment
> thereof, appears to be built into the programming or organic
> structure that evolution gave us for both music and language.

"Appears" to, to some people ... apparently. There is absolutely no proof of
this, whatsoever, anywhere, period. If I've understood him correctly, that
is.

> Does the presence of of simple harmonic subsets on an otherwise complex
surface constitute an orientation point or a kind
> of psychoacoustic graffiti (like Schoenberg's forbidden octaves)?

Don't understand this. There must be something wrong with me...
>

------- End of forwarded message -------

My argument is with his use of the term "music" in that statement. Tones are
one thing, and of course there is plenty of proof about how we perceive
isolated tones. There is no proof about how we are programmed to hear music,
even if it is comprised of tones and their overtones, etc. There are too
many different kinds of music and people, and it's about exposure and
acculturation (just like Lee Humphries said). Acoustics have some role, of
course, but it's far too variable and evasive to ever pin down.

This, for me is a fundamental error with most just intonation arguments, and
the other types of theories relating to pure tuning.

------- End of forwarded message -------