Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1558

Rami et al: The description of Byzantine music as based on a 68-tone
octave is considered wrong by modern Greek musicians. According to
George Karhrimanis, the theory was due to an arithmetic error by its
creator, Archbishop(?) Chrysanthos, who had approximately the same
mathematical education as a US Jr. High School student despite his
eminence in the church. It's a false direction.

I suggest someone query Bilalis at the upcoming AFFM concert. He was
trained in Boston, so someone there could consult the Greek Orthodox
church officials.

-John

--- In tuning@y..., John Chalmers <JHCHALMERS@U...> wrote:
> Rami et al: The description of Byzantine music as based on a 68-tone
> octave is considered wrong by modern Greek musicians. According to
> George Karhrimanis, the theory was due to an arithmetic error by its
> creator, Archbishop(?) Chrysanthos, who had approximately the same
> mathematical education as a US Jr. High School student despite his
> eminence in the church. It's a false direction.

Well, it's a fortuituous error, because

(1) 68 = 17*4, and the modern Arabic tetrachord is very well
approximated in 17;

(2) 68 is better in the 7-limit than any ET with fewer notes.

> Well, it's a fortuituous error, because
>
> (1) 68 = 17*4, and the modern Arabic tetrachord is very well
> approximated in 17;

As it is in any singly-positive linear tuning.

> (2) 68 is better in the 7-limit than any ET with fewer notes.

Does Byzantine music use complete 7-limit sonorities?

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> > Well, it's a fortuituous error, because
> >
> > (1) 68 = 17*4, and the modern Arabic tetrachord is very well
> > approximated in 17;
>
> As it is in any singly-positive linear tuning.

Huh? How do you get that? The modern Arabic tetrachord is 4 3 3 in 17.
>
> > (2) 68 is better in the 7-limit than any ET with fewer notes.
>
> Does Byzantine music use complete 7-limit sonorities?

I believe the chant style we're discussing is purely melodic; I guess
we can go check out that radio station and see.

I wrote,
>
> The modern Arabic tetrachord is 4 3 3 in 17.

Whoops . . . should be 3 2 2, or 2 2 3.

>>> Well, it's a fortuituous error, because
>>>
>>> (1) 68 = 17*4, and the modern Arabic tetrachord is very well
>>> approximated in 17;
>>
>> As it is in any singly-positive linear tuning.
>
>Huh? How do you get that? The modern Arabic tetrachord is 4 3 3
>in 17.

Saw your subsequent correction to 2 2 3 in 17.

I assumed the reference to be 3 3 4 in 24-tET, but I was wrong
that the size of the pythagorean comma has anything to do with
supporting it.

>>>(2) 68 is better in the 7-limit than any ET with fewer notes.
>>
>>Does Byzantine music use complete 7-limit sonorities?
>
>I believe the chant style we're discussing is purely melodic; I gess
>we can go check out that radio station and see.

Missed the link, but the sample on the Romeiko ensemble site,
and CDs I have of this type of stuff are all melodic with a low
(occasionally) absent drone. I've never heard any 7-limit
intervals -- rather, I hear play between the dissonances and
consonances of scale degrees with the drone.

-Carl

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> > > Well, it's a fortuituous error, because
> > >
> > > (1) 68 = 17*4, and the modern Arabic tetrachord is very well
> > > approximated in 17;
> >
> > As it is in any singly-positive linear tuning.
>
> Huh? How do you get that? The modern Arabic tetrachord is 4 3 3 in 17.
> >
> > > (2) 68 is better in the 7-limit than any ET with fewer notes.
> >
> > Does Byzantine music use complete 7-limit sonorities?
>
> I believe the chant style we're discussing is purely melodic; I guess
> we can go check out that radio station and see.

The vast majority of the music in this style is melodic, though sung against a drone. I have heard
some older melodies from Kiev harmonised in thirds against the drone. I don't know how traditional
this is.

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

> The vast majority of the music in this style is melodic, though >
sung against a drone.

This would appear to support a JI interpretation, but:

(a) is 3/2 included in this drone? Rami Vitale's system is centered
around 3/2 . . . many of the notes on the right side of the lattice
diagram would be impossible to "lock in" acoustically against a lone
1/1.

(b) the drone itself could shift by imperceptible amounts (say 2-3
cents) in "adaptive" fashion against the melody. Then it wouldn't be
right to say JI intervals are used _melodically_.

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> > The vast majority of the music in this style is melodic, though >
> sung against a drone.
>
> This would appear to support a JI interpretation, but:
>
> (a) is 3/2 included in this drone? Rami Vitale's system is centered
> around 3/2 . . . many of the notes on the right side of the lattice
> diagram would be impossible to "lock in" acoustically against a lone
> 1/1.

All the music I've heard has a very simple 1/1 tonic drone. However given the context in which the
music is sung, ie large reverberating basilicas and churches, I would guess (though I'm sure
you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that the third harmonic would be strong enough to make an audible
impression of a 3/2 in the drone.

>
> (b) the drone itself could shift by imperceptible amounts (say 2-3
> cents) in "adaptive" fashion against the melody. Then it wouldn't be
> right to say JI intervals are used _melodically_.

I can't comment with certainty on this, but it would be an interesting study topic. What I can say
is that the drone represents an important element in this music, namely the eternal principle in
the theology behind the liturgy. My guess is that the drone would be quite an important focal
point and wouldn't drift and in my listening steady drones seem to be the norm,but I'd be glad to
hear from others more knowledgeable than me.

Regards

>

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> >
> > > The vast majority of the music in this style is melodic, though >
> > sung against a drone.
> >
> > This would appear to support a JI interpretation, but:
> >
> > (a) is 3/2 included in this drone? Rami Vitale's system is centered
> > around 3/2 . . . many of the notes on the right side of the lattice
> > diagram would be impossible to "lock in" acoustically against a lone
> > 1/1.
>
> All the music I've heard has a very simple 1/1 tonic drone. However given the context in which
the
> music is sung, ie large reverberating basilicas and churches, I would guess (though I'm sure
> you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that the third harmonic would be strong enough to make an
audible
> impression of a 3/2 in the drone.

Very possible, but that would not help one, for example, in locking in a 15/14 against the drone.

>
> >
> > (b) the drone itself could shift by imperceptible amounts (say 2-3
> > cents) in "adaptive" fashion against the melody. Then it wouldn't be
> > right to say JI intervals are used _melodically_.
>
> I can't comment with certainty on this, but it would be an interesting study topic. What I can say
> is that the drone represents an important element in this music, namely the eternal principle in
> the theology behind the liturgy. My guess is that the drone would be quite an important focal
> point and wouldn't drift and in my listening steady drones seem to be the norm,

I said imperceptible amounts.