apples and oranges?? (Sethares)

Ok... just to elaborate further...

Let's say Sethares were to come along and say "Well, I've got an
interesting idea to create some new scales... I'll plot some spectra
of inharmonic sounds and then derive the ratios from that down many
octaves, and we should get some interesting scalar patterns!"

So, there surely would be no objection to that.

The question, which undoubtedly everybody got from the last post, but
which I'm still going to doggedly pursue :) is whether the following
continuing statement is correct:

"And after I create these new scales, without a doubt these scales
will sound best in the timbres from which they were created!"

This is where I have the questioning.

It seems like "apples and oranges" to me.

Is there *anything* to that presumptive collelation???

_______ _______ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:40:18 -0000, jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

>Ok... just to elaborate further...
>
>Let's say Sethares were to come along and say "Well, I've got an
>interesting idea to create some new scales... I'll plot some spectra
>of inharmonic sounds and then derive the ratios from that down many
>octaves, and we should get some interesting scalar patterns!"
>
>So, there surely would be no objection to that.
>
>The question, which undoubtedly everybody got from the last post, but
>which I'm still going to doggedly pursue :) is whether the following
>continuing statement is correct:
>
>"And after I create these new scales, without a doubt these scales
>will sound best in the timbres from which they were created!"
>
>This is where I have the questioning.

I'm not sure that Sethares' method necessarily leads to that conclusion.
You might expect those scales to sound better with those timbres than
scales not specifically designed for those timbres. You might also expect
that scales designed from the partials of inharmonic timbres wouldn't sound
as good as JI or near-JI scales for harmonic timbres. But if the timbres
you start with are inherently dissonant, the same scales might sound better
with more consonant timbres.

--
see my music page ---> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/index.html>--
hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Ok... just to elaborate further...
>
> Let's say Sethares were to come along and say "Well, I've got an
> interesting idea to create some new scales... I'll plot some
spectra
> of inharmonic sounds and then derive the ratios from that down many
> octaves, and we should get some interesting scalar patterns!"
>
> So, there surely would be no objection to that.
>
> The question, which undoubtedly everybody got from the last post,
but
> which I'm still going to doggedly pursue :) is whether the
following
> continuing statement is correct:
>
> "And after I create these new scales, without a doubt these scales
> will sound best in the timbres from which they were created!"
>
> This is where I have the questioning.
>
> It seems like "apples and oranges" to me.
>
> Is there *anything* to that presumptive collelation???

There's something to it, Joseph. You'll get an array of intervallic
relationships with which certain partials of two notes match up. Not
necessarily the most possible for the given timbre and number of
notes, but a good number nonetheless.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_28024.html#28035

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > Ok... just to elaborate further...
> >
> > Let's say Sethares were to come along and say "Well, I've got an
> > interesting idea to create some new scales... I'll plot some
> spectra
> > of inharmonic sounds and then derive the ratios from that down
many
> > octaves, and we should get some interesting scalar patterns!"
> >
> > So, there surely would be no objection to that.
> >
> > The question, which undoubtedly everybody got from the last post,
> but
> > which I'm still going to doggedly pursue :) is whether the
> following
> > continuing statement is correct:
> >
> > "And after I create these new scales, without a doubt these
scales
> > will sound best in the timbres from which they were created!"
> >
> > This is where I have the questioning.
> >
> > It seems like "apples and oranges" to me.
> >
> > Is there *anything* to that presumptive collelation???
>
> There's something to it, Joseph. You'll get an array of intervallic
> relationships with which certain partials of two notes match up.
Not necessarily the most possible for the given timbre and number of
> notes, but a good number nonetheless.

Thanks, Paul.... I believe this somewhat answers the question I just
posted previously....

___________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson