Re: strange days on tuning list

Weird aliases, strange spam, missing digests (at least for me)
and an emergence of an unsettling tone that merited its own
list but won't go where it will be welcome.

Strange days indeed.

Regarding the discussion of preference for "even tones" or my
conjecture that there may be a preference for low-numbered
ETs over similarly numbered "bumpy" series (for traditional
melodic music making, not "just" a sustained chord), no, I
know of no research supporting my conjecture.

I have my doubts such research can get around cultural biases,
but would still like to understand more about the conjecture
that JI intervals are "naturally desired" melodically. My
point about singing in a space with no resonance is to
completely isolate this tendency from tuning to the
reverberation in the environment. I do believe that short term
pitch memory will provide a bit of "internal" reverb...

Bob Valentine

I have my doubts such research can get around cultural biases,
but would still like to understand more about the conjecture
that JI intervals are "naturally desired" melodically.

1.) What about the Flute? - One of the oldest instruments, it is considered
to me melodic. The holes (which produce the pitch of the intervals) are
mesured in whole ratios - so are the melodies, played in whole ratio
intervals.

2.) Singing to a drone forces You, to hit the spectrum of the sound (which
is in almost all cases harmonic). Otherwise You do sound out of tune.

Peter Imig

[Peter Imig wrote:]
>I have my doubts such research can get around cultural biases,
>but would still like to understand more about the conjecture
>that JI intervals are "naturally desired" melodically.

>1.) What about the Flute? - One of the oldest instruments, it is
>considered to me melodic. The holes (which produce the pitch of the
>intervals) are mesured in whole ratios - so are the melodies, played in
>whole ratio intervals.

>2.) Singing to a drone forces You, to hit the spectrum of the sound
>(which is in almost all cases harmonic). Otherwise You do sound out of
>tune.

There is little doubt that, with harmonic timbres, JI intervals have a
particular ("in tune", beatless, still, ...) sound which is easy to
distinguish from non-JI intervals, at least in slow, uncluttered musical
contexts.

Many list members, however, prefer to work with intervals that occupy
other parts of sonic space. The beating is said to convey an energy not
found in JI.

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., peterimig@s... wrote:
>
> I have my doubts such research can get around cultural biases,
> but would still like to understand more about the conjecture
> that JI intervals are "naturally desired" melodically.
>
>
> 1.) What about the Flute? - One of the oldest instruments, it is considered
> to me melodic. The holes (which produce the pitch of the intervals) are
> mesured in whole ratios - so are the melodies, played in whole ratio
> intervals.

Here in the Middle East, the Beduin wind instruments seem to have the holes
cut for the comfort of the hand(s). The scale produced
is very irregular and not particularly JI.

One instrument in particular is two double
reed instruments (tubular bore, from bamboo or some similr wood)
with five holes attached together with wax. The player puts the two
reeds in his mouth, circular breathes, and mostly trills rhythmically
on one while holding a drone on the other. They can also insert an
"extender" into one of them which doubles the length of the tube,
moving the drone down an octave. Although this aspect of the natural 2/1
is JI, I don't think the rest is.

>
> 2.) Singing to a drone forces You, to hit the spectrum of the sound (which
> is in almost all cases harmonic). Otherwise You do sound out of tune.
>

Yes, I specifically stated that a "study" on this should be in a drone
free and non-reverbatory environment. If thats not the case, then you
are studying whether people tune their incidental harmonys to JI, which
I would support.

Bob Valentine

> Peter Imig

Hi Bob,

<<the Beduin wind instruments seem to have the holes cut for the
comfort of the hand(s).>>

I think this is a good and often overlooked point about intonation and
especially interface and music. On the fretless guitar especially a
lot of what I do that I feel really works involves striking some
confident balance between what the hands, the ears and the mind all
find "comfortable".

I think most music operates in this way. I also feel that instruments
often have their way with music in a certain sense, and perhaps the
study of intonation with this in mind has not been particularly well
documented -- though that's really just idle speculation on my part as
I'm not well versed in the literature.

--Dan Stearns

--- In tuning@y..., peterimig@s... wrote:

> 1.) What about the Flute? - One of the oldest instruments, it is
considered
> to me melodic. The holes (which produce the pitch of the intervals)
are
> mesured in whole ratios - so are the melodies, played in whole ratio
> intervals.

On what basis do you make this claim? Schlesinger's analysis of
equally-spaced holes on a flute producing perfect subharmonic scales
only holds good if the hole-to-hole distance has a certain precise
relationship with the tube length, and the end correction is
accounted for -- neither of which are calculations that ancient flute-
makers could have performed -- unless some unknown psychoacoustical
principle was guiding them (such as a common overtone -- seems
unlikely since it would have to be a rather high one, weak in the
flute's spectrum).

IMHO.

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

> >2.) Singing to a drone forces You, to hit the spectrum of the
sound
> >(which is in almost all cases harmonic). Otherwise You do sound
out of
> >tune.
>
> There is little doubt that, with harmonic timbres, JI intervals
have a
> particular ("in tune", beatless, still, ...) sound which is easy to
> distinguish from non-JI intervals, at least in slow, uncluttered
musical
> contexts.
>
> Many list members, however, prefer to work with intervals that
occupy
> other parts of sonic space. The beating is said to convey an
energy not
> found in JI.
>
> JdL

Granting the point that some cultures may prefer to hit some beatless
intervals against a drone, these are still _harmonic_, not _melodic_,
intervals we're talking about here. Some of the melodic intervals may
turn out to be simple ratios as a result, but others won't.

Peter!
I would say that the evidence does show it being a cultural thing. The influence of a drone is
quite correct, it leans towards JI. And possibly the other way around.
If you were using some other tuning, you would want to drop the drone rather quickly cause it was
"out of tune":)

peterimig@syrinx.de wrote:

> I have my doubts such research can get around cultural biases,
> but would still like to understand more about the conjecture
> that JI intervals are "naturally desired" melodically.

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

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

Paul!
She had exact copies of the instruments and played and measured them. Also Jim French has had
no trouble getting subharmonic scales sand as far as i know has made more wind instruments than
anyone I know. . Likewise Erv has a myriad of flutes from south america with subharmonic scales,
with and without tuned exit holes (sometimes being a 3/2 away from one of the other holes!)
How about the one he gave Partch for delusion as an example!

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., peterimig@s... wrote:
>
> > 1.) What about the Flute? - One of the oldest instruments, it is
> considered
> > to me melodic. The holes (which produce the pitch of the intervals)
> are
> > mesured in whole ratios - so are the melodies, played in whole ratio
> > intervals.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim? Schlesinger's analysis of
> equally-spaced holes on a flute producing perfect subharmonic scales
> only holds good if the hole-to-hole distance has a certain precise
> relationship with the tube length, and the end correction is
> accounted for -- neither of which are calculations that ancient flute-
> makers could have performed -- unless some unknown psychoacoustical
> principle was guiding them (such as a common overtone -- seems
> unlikely since it would have to be a rather high one, weak in the
> flute's spectrum).
>
> IMHO.

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

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

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> Paul!
> She had exact copies of the instruments and played and measured
them.

This is different from what I'd heard in the past. Do you have those
measurements handy?

>Also Jim French has had
> no trouble getting subharmonic scales sand as far as i know has
made more wind instruments than
> anyone I know.

Jim French is not an ancient instrument maker!

> . Likewise Erv has a myriad of flutes from south america with
>subharmonic scales,

Cool! Have any measurements?

Paul Erlich wrote:

Jim French is not an ancient instrument maker!

Paul,

unless Viking, Mayan, Toltec, pre-scottish, and pre-historic american indian cultures are modern,
Jim French is most certainly an ancient instrument builder.

GZ

--- In tuning@y..., George Zelenz <ploo@m...> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> Jim French is not an ancient instrument maker!
>
> Paul,
>
> unless Viking, Mayan, Toltec, pre-scottish, and pre-historic
american indian cultures are modern,
> Jim French is most certainly an ancient instrument builder.
>
> GZ

Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm familiar with Jim French's
name in the context of his 19-tET instruments. I was thinking that
the large amount of modern science and technology he would have had
to draw upon to make 19-tET instruments, would be informing him if he
were making instruments to play subharmonic scales, particularly in
such matters as calculating the end correction, etc. Clearly, you
know more about Jim French than I do, so please share this knowledge
with the list. We're here to learn!

Paul Erlich wrote:

>
> This is different from what I'd heard in the past. Do you have those
> measurements handy?

look in the greek aulos

>
> Jim French is not an ancient instrument maker!

That is the most misrepresentation of his work I have ever heard. Most all of his instruments are
ancient, very ancient.

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

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

Guys!

Knowing (a little) all three people mentioned here, I had to chuckle.
It reminds me of you-know-who (B.C.) saying "It depends on what your
definition of 'is' is."

So, could it be the difference between:

1. Jim French is not an ancient "instrument maker"!

and

2. Jim French is not an "ancient" instrument maker!

Could this be the problem, one of semantics and phrasing, or are
deeper issues involved?

Best,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Guys!
>
> Knowing (a little) all three people mentioned here, I had to
chuckle.
> It reminds me of you-know-who (B.C.) saying "It depends on what
your
> definition of 'is' is."
>
> So, could it be the difference between:
>
> 1. Jim French is not an ancient "instrument maker"!
>
> and
>
> 2. Jim French is not an "ancient" instrument maker!
>
> Could this be the problem, one of semantics and phrasing

You bet, Jon. I actually meant this:

Jim French is an instrument maker, but he's not ancient!

Thanks for looking out for us, Jon. So many times the inadequacies of
e-mail communication have hurt us on this list -- no need for it to
happen again (and yet it always does!).

> On what basis do you make this claim? Schlesinger's analysis of
> equally-spaced holes on a flute producing perfect subharmonic
> scales only holds good if the hole-to-hole distance has a certain
> precise relationship with the tube length, and the end correction
> is accounted for -- neither of which are calculations that ancient
> flute-makers could have performed -- unless some unknown
> psychoacoustical principle was guiding them (such as a common
> overtone -- seems unlikely since it would have to be a rather high
> one, weak in the flute's spectrum).

You've made this point several times. Fact is, equally-spaced
holes on the recorders and flutes I've played and heard, produce
scales that sound melodically like subharmonic series scales.
Accuracy doesn't matter that much, as these instruments are seldom
played polyphonically with eachother.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., carl@l... wrote:

> You've made this point several times. Fact is, equally-spaced
> holes on the recorders and flutes I've played and heard, produce
> scales that sound melodically like subharmonic series scales.
> Accuracy doesn't matter that much, as these instruments are seldom
> played polyphonically with eachother.

Fine. But what I don't get is . . . if accuracy doesn't matter when you're calling something a
subharmonic scale, why should it matter when you're calling something 7-tone equal
temperament?

> Fine. But what I don't get is . . . if accuracy doesn't matter
> when you're calling something a subharmonic scale, why should it
> matter when you're calling something 7-tone equal temperament?

It shouldn't.

-Carl

Wow, you guys (Dan and Carl) are hip to both the inaccuracy that gets
produced in music, as well as how the comfort of the hands on the instruments
influences the intonation to be produced.

When teaching composition, I have always stressed to the student NOT to
compose on the instrument that they play for precisely the reason that the
fingers will do too much of the talking. In other words, Hanon studies on
piano should not, but might influence the rhythms of a composition if a
pianist is composing on a piano. Many other composition teachers share in
this view. This is the latter point.

The first point refers to the lack of a need for precision in tuning...7 is
whatever, an undertone series is "close enough" for Jazz. I don't disagree
that some music gets produced through a comfort zone of fingered bliss, but
great stuff comes from master players that hear the difference and make the
difference, the instrument be damned.

I'm sorry that I got on the wrong foot with some for stating accuracy levels
that were beyond previous expectations. However, in the mind one can hear an
exact point which may or may not get produced exactly. Perhaps this is the
basis for temperament, allowing for a fudge factor which the majority can't
hear, but the few relish in.

Over the past years, Long Island math classes were teaching a new math. It
was a fudge-type math. Accuracy was exchanged for "concept" understanding.
After a few years of teaching this way, the graduates could not keep up in
later grades. The approach was scrapped and the students were furious. This
stuff happens in Long Island.

If as a bassoonist, I gave the easier fingering for a musical sound, the
listener would be short changed in pitch, timbre, character, emotion,
dynamic, and articulation. With practice, any fingering is possible.

Johnny Reinhard

Dear Kraig,
Thanks for the advice. A high drone really does help. For me,
eliminating two of the notes, thereby making them pentatonic, helps even
more.

By the way, does anybody know exactly who and what discredits
Schlesinger's theory and where it can be found. I'm trying to set up a
web site re her theory. This topic has probably already been covered in
this forum but I need a refresher.
Thanks,
Rick

Kraig Grady wrote:

> Rick!
>  Not to be labor a point to far by Kathleen's scales are beautiful,
> far from impractical. For instance, if one has a high drone with the
> melody below JI intervals would give you a subharmonic series.
>  If you take her idea of a series of subharmonic series all having
> a common tone, guess what you have- A Diamond!
>  Her discredit had more to do with the political climate than
> anything else! No way was the status quo was going to be put in their
> place by a -WOMAN!
> 

I think I've found the answer in Chalmers "Division of the Tetrachord." He even talks about the
pentatonic in this regard.

Rick Tagawa wrote:

> Dear Kraig,
> Thanks for the advice. A high drone really does help. For me,
> eliminating two of the notes, thereby making them pentatonic, helps even
> more.
>
> By the way, does anybody know exactly who and what discredits
> Schlesinger's theory and where it can be found. I'm trying to set up a
> web site re her theory. This topic has probably already been covered in
> this forum but I need a refresher.
> Thanks,
> Rick
>