Re: [tuning] Re: Brian McLaren's "Introduction to Microtonality" take aways...

> The context is a result of using such singular elements. not the other way
> around. You have to have the noun before the verb.

The context is a result of many such singular elements, not just the one 4:5:6:7
chord. It's a function of what precedes it, what succeeds it, how long that
particular chord sounds, whether it's strictly a vertical structure or arpeggiated,
what timbre(s) are sounding the chord, what the melody or melodies that momentarily
form this chord sound like, and a lot of other factors.

> As i have stated before, Just intonation has been and continues to be used by
> cultures that are melodically based not harmonically. That westerners have a
> preference for JI intervals in melody is supported By Boomsliter and Creel.

I won't step into this one any further than to assure you that Brian can cite just as
studies that disagree with that conclusion.

My guess is that this means, because the factors determining what pitch sounds "in
tune" are so many and varied, by virtue of differences in how those studies are
conducted, they are not really measuring the same phenomenon.

BVAL@IIL.INTEL.COM wrote:

> This seems strange and completely backwards to me.
>
> In other words
>
> 1) JI (or near JI) is important for chords. A chord
> (not in a functional sense but in an audible sense)
> includes a melody sung against a drone, particularly
> if that drone is a 3:2 dyad.

I was not saying it could not be important with chords. Just what has been the case

>
>
> 2) An unaccompanied melodist in a non-resonant room
> can be 'off' by a large amount (including resultant
> drift) and the pitch class vibe will be coming
> through. In other words, the targets may be
> interpreted as JI, however the execution will
> be far off and tolerated.

I assume this refers to some test you know about. The set up of this test seems to be quite odd.
Why a non resonant room. why not plug their ears all together so they had no feed back at all.

>
> 3) There are lots of cultures which deal with identical
> step sizes as in Western diatonic, pythagorean tuning
> of Eastern pentatonics, close approximate to 7-ET
> used in other Asian countries.

Pythagorean tunings do exist on many string instruments in Japan, China Vietnam. The tuning is
done by fourths and fifth not by successive scale steps all with the goal to make the former
interval beatless. The scale I have seen referred to as 7 ET or ET appears in all the cent
measurements I have seen to be consistently not ET at all

>
>
> 4) I'm inclined to think that since the ear is a
> logarithmic machine, low-number ETs may be easier
> to "grok" psychoacoustically than medium high
> RI type numbers (16/13, things in the range between
> being tunable and being indistinquishable from
> an "out of tune lower valued JI"

I know of no one tuning any ET by Ear whereas JI can and is done repeatedly

> 5) There is a lot of expressive singing that doesn't
> seem to match anything mathematic, whether JI
> or otherwise. I tend to look at some of the bent
> blues notes that way, (with no disrespect for Monz
> RI analysis of said notes) and Gerald Eskelins
> search for the high third may have been the same
> (it seemed to be somewhere between 12ED2 and
> pythagorean, but what and why?)

I will fully agree that the emotional intent of a line will change the intonation in ways that no
one has examined in a way to see what the results are, whether JI or not. It does seem quite
possible that deviations from a JI base might be perceived as just that, extension either up or
down from points of reference. There is no way of knowing how these things happen.

But let us look at the problem on a larger scale. McLaren is right when he says that many
cultures do not use JI. The fact is most do not use JI.

So what is it they are doing.

It seems they are hearing something, that like with us, has been culturally developed. If we
accept this we have to infer that there is some acoustical phenomenon going on that can be
perceived and can be recreated in making a scale. Being acoustical in root of some kind means that
the tuner has no need of mathematics in it creation. Here i think Brian will agree with me.

Logically, i do not see how any scale could be made without an acoustical method of
construction, or as in our case, without a mathematical imitation or elaboration of such
phenomenon.

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

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