Question for Bob Wendell

Bob,

In exchanges on this list, I get the feeling that we both like to hear
dominant 7th chords tuned 4:5:6:7, in apparent conflict with past
practice.

I wonder, to what extent to you use this tuning in your choir, Cantus
Angelicus?

I should probably have a better idea of the answer than I do, since I've
listened to both CD's several times. But the number of dom 7ths in
these pieces is sparse, and my attention at the particular moments may
have been improperly focused to answer the question.

My vague sense is that you _don't_ bring the 7th degree as low as it
would need to be for 7:4 status. In contrast, I hear your 5:4's (of
which there are many) as wonderfully consonant. Is this your sense as
well?

Thanks,

JdL

Hi, John! I answered this post in great detail, but now I see that
even though the Reply link cookie indicates with the appropriate
color change that I did, I see no reply listed and it doesn't seem to
be anywhere in the archives. Did you ever see the reply? It may have
gotten lost. The behavior of this Yahoo list has been a bit erratic
lately.

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> In exchanges on this list, I get the feeling that we both like to
hear
> dominant 7th chords tuned 4:5:6:7, in apparent conflict with past
> practice.
>
> I wonder, to what extent to you use this tuning in your choir,
Cantus
> Angelicus?
>
> I should probably have a better idea of the answer than I do, since
I've
> listened to both CD's several times. But the number of dom 7ths in
> these pieces is sparse, and my attention at the particular moments
may
> have been improperly focused to answer the question.
>
> My vague sense is that you _don't_ bring the 7th degree as low as it
> would need to be for 7:4 status. In contrast, I hear your 5:4's (of
> which there are many) as wonderfully consonant. Is this your sense
as
> well?
>
> Thanks,
>
> JdL

[Bob wrote:]
>Hi, John! I answered this post in great detail, but now I see that
>even though the Reply link cookie indicates with the appropriate
>color change that I did, I see no reply listed and it doesn't seem to
>be anywhere in the archives. Did you ever see the reply? It may have
>gotten lost. The behavior of this Yahoo list has been a bit erratic
>lately.

Hi, Bob. No, sorry to say your response has never made it through!
I even thought of writing you off-list to see if you'd seen my post
(I know things are pretty crazy right now for all of us).

Hope you saved a copy! I'm looking forward to your response.

JdL

Rats! (My heaviest language...chuckle.) No, and I spent a good deal
of time on it. I'll just have to start over. Don't even remember
exactly what I said, but whatever I come up with when I get to it
should be essentially the same. Sorry!

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> [Bob wrote:]
> >Hi, John! I answered this post in great detail, but now I see that
> >even though the Reply link cookie indicates with the appropriate
> >color change that I did, I see no reply listed and it doesn't seem
to
> >be anywhere in the archives. Did you ever see the reply? It may
have
> >gotten lost. The behavior of this Yahoo list has been a bit
erratic
> >lately.
>
> Hi, Bob. No, sorry to say your response has never made it through!
> I even thought of writing you off-list to see if you'd seen my post
> (I know things are pretty crazy right now for all of us).
>
> Hope you saved a copy! I'm looking forward to your response.
>
> JdL

In the meantime, take a look at my reply to Harold in 28314, Re:
4:5:6:7. It more succinctly addresses the same issue.

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> [Bob wrote:]
> >Hi, John! I answered this post in great detail, but now I see that
> >even though the Reply link cookie indicates with the appropriate
> >color change that I did, I see no reply listed and it doesn't seem
to
> >be anywhere in the archives. Did you ever see the reply? It may
have
> >gotten lost. The behavior of this Yahoo list has been a bit
erratic
> >lately.
>
> Hi, Bob. No, sorry to say your response has never made it through!
> I even thought of writing you off-list to see if you'd seen my post
> (I know things are pretty crazy right now for all of us).
>
> Hope you saved a copy! I'm looking forward to your response.
>
> JdL

I was eagerly looking for a reply to this too. I've known others who
_thought_ they were producing 4:5:6:7 dominant seventh chords, but
were in fact rather far from it . . . also cases where 10:12:15 minor
triads, and various supposed half-diminished tunings, were thought to
have been being used, but weren't.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> Hi, John! I answered this post in great detail, but now I see that
> even though the Reply link cookie indicates with the appropriate
> color change that I did, I see no reply listed and it doesn't seem
to
> be anywhere in the archives. Did you ever see the reply? It may
have
> gotten lost. The behavior of this Yahoo list has been a bit erratic
> lately.
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> > Bob,
> >
> > In exchanges on this list, I get the feeling that we both like to
> hear
> > dominant 7th chords tuned 4:5:6:7, in apparent conflict with past
> > practice.
> >
> > I wonder, to what extent to you use this tuning in your choir,
> Cantus
> > Angelicus?
> >
> > I should probably have a better idea of the answer than I do,
since
> I've
> > listened to both CD's several times. But the number of dom 7ths
in
> > these pieces is sparse, and my attention at the particular
moments
> may
> > have been improperly focused to answer the question.
> >
> > My vague sense is that you _don't_ bring the 7th degree as low as
it
> > would need to be for 7:4 status. In contrast, I hear your 5:4's
(of
> > which there are many) as wonderfully consonant. Is this your
sense
> as
> > well?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > JdL