Paul's Blackjack Lattices and other things.

I've just been studying Paul's Blackjack lattices in the files section.
There's some discrepancey with the notation of 8 of the notes that I
have, I think from an earlier posting by Dave Keenan.

Paul's lattice left, the one I have on the right.

Db^ C#+
D[ Dv
E[ E-
Gbv F#-
Gb^ F#+
Ab^ G#+
A[ Av
B[ B-

I realise that some of the accidentals might be for keyboard
convenience, but four of the discrepancies have differing note names.
Any particular reason for this? I've trawled through the previous
postings on notation but I find it difficult to see any consensus.

Back to the lattices, which by the way are beautifully loud and clear.
I've lost the colour legend. I've figured out Red = 3, Blue = 5, Green =
7. That leaves Yellow, Turquoise and Purple . Any help most appreciated.

I've been looking at the closest JI ratios to Blackjack and I reckon
they should all be singable by well trained singers, certainly up to
the ratios of 7. The tones either side of the tonic at 33.3333 cents
might have to be handled carefully in mixed part writing. Perhaps
singers could sing the higher tone as a very sharp leading tone. I'm
sure there's a precedent.

Also I noticed, probably weeks after the rest of the world, that
Blackjack is inversional, so my 6 course zithers will be able to have 12
Blackjack tones with the addition of mini bridges.

Regards.

Best wishes

Just curious, Alison. When you say well-trained, do you mean well-
trained in JI or just well-trained singers in the conventional sense
of the term? I'm a singer, so this terminology raises my eyebrow a
bit if the assumption is that just any old well-trained singer will
perform with this kind of intonational precision. If this is what you
mean, I wouldn't bet the flea on my left ear that you're going to get
what you want.

Not making a judgment or any assumptions. Just curious to know what
your practical conditions and assumptions are. Most of the "well-
trained" singers I've run into in my life (many, many, meaning
professional or semi-professional with years of vocal study) make
frequent pitch errors in the range of 15-25 cents from just
intervals. Of course, 15 cents is pretty normal on the sharp side for
thirds in 12-tET, but even variations from 12-tET accompaniments are
often in the 15-25 cent range.

Just listen to professionals in typical classical recordings and
you'll get an earful of errors at this order of magnitude if their
vibratos are not so wide they eliminate the possibility for an
accurate judgment. These latter singers don't even count. They
usually do it, whether consciously or not, to cover up their aural
incompetence. I never cease to be amazed at how high their careers
can climb, though. Just demonstrates what kind of strange judges can
live in high places.

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> I've just been studying Paul's Blackjack lattices in the files
section.
> There's some discrepancey with the notation of 8 of the notes that I
> have, I think from an earlier posting by Dave Keenan.
>
> Paul's lattice left, the one I have on the right.
>
>
> Db^ C#+
> D[ Dv
> E[ E-
> Gbv F#-
> Gb^ F#+
> Ab^ G#+
> A[ Av
> B[ B-
>
> I realise that some of the accidentals might be for keyboard
> convenience, but four of the discrepancies have differing note
names.
> Any particular reason for this? I've trawled through the previous
> postings on notation but I find it difficult to see any consensus.
>
> Back to the lattices, which by the way are beautifully loud and
clear.
> I've lost the colour legend. I've figured out Red = 3, Blue = 5,
Green =
> 7. That leaves Yellow, Turquoise and Purple . Any help most
appreciated.
>
> I've been looking at the closest JI ratios to Blackjack and I reckon
> they should all be singable by well trained singers, certainly up
to
> the ratios of 7. The tones either side of the tonic at 33.3333 cents
> might have to be handled carefully in mixed part writing. Perhaps
> singers could sing the higher tone as a very sharp leading tone. I'm
> sure there's a precedent.
>
> Also I noticed, probably weeks after the rest of the world, that
> Blackjack is inversional, so my 6 course zithers will be able to
have 12
> Blackjack tones with the addition of mini bridges.
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best wishes

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> I've just been studying Paul's Blackjack lattices in the files
section.
> There's some discrepancey with the notation of 8 of the notes that I
> have, I think from an earlier posting by Dave Keenan.
>
> Paul's lattice left, the one I have on the right.
>
>
> Db^ C#+
> D[ Dv
> E[ E-
> Gbv F#-
> Gb^ F#+
> Ab^ G#+
> A[ Av
> B[ B-
>
> I realise that some of the accidentals might be for keyboard
> convenience, but four of the discrepancies have differing note
names.
> Any particular reason for this?

You're looking at two different scales -- mine is centered on C, Dave
Keenan's is transposed to be centered on D.

> I've trawled through the previous
> postings on notation but I find it difficult to see any consensus.

Well, don't get too hung up on ASCII notations -- you probably won't
be writing them in your scores anyway. Look at the real score
notations I mentioned, and then use whatever suits you.
>
> Back to the lattices, which by the way are beautifully loud and
clear.
> I've lost the colour legend.

The color legend is the one in _The Forms of Tonality_.

> I've figured out Red = 3, Blue = 5, Green =
> 7. That leaves Yellow, Turquoise and Purple . Any help most
appreciated.

Yellow = Red "+" Green = 7:3 or 3:7
Turquoise (Cyan) = Green "+" Blue = 7:5 or 5:7
Purple (Magenta) = Blue "+" Red = 5:3 or 3:5
>
> I've been looking at the closest JI ratios to Blackjack and I reckon
> they should all be singable by well trained singers, certainly up
to
> the ratios of 7. The tones either side of the tonic at 33.3333 cents
> might have to be handled carefully in mixed part writing.

Not sure why these would be especially difficult. Want to elaborate
on your thinking?
>
> Also I noticed, probably weeks after the rest of the world, that
> Blackjack is inversional, so my 6 course zithers will be able to
have 12
> Blackjack tones with the addition of mini bridges.

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure how the logarithmic
inversionality will be relevant for zither tuning, but I'd like to
learn.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:

> Just listen to professionals in typical classical recordings and
> you'll get an earful of errors at this order of magnitude if their
> vibratos are not so wide they eliminate the possibility for an
> accurate judgment. These latter singers don't even count. They
> usually do it, whether consciously or not, to cover up their aural
> incompetence.

Callas was one of the greats, but when I listen to her it's hard to
tell what scale she is trying to sing in. Does this show there's more
to this business than good intonation? It's not just singers, either--
I am astonished how far off key top violinists often seem to be,
though perhaps it's my ears that are at fault.

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

> I am astonished how far off key top violinists often seem to be,
> though perhaps it's my ears that are at fault.

There a lot of variability here -- Itzhak Perlman and L. Shankar have
excellent intonation, while Isaac Stern's diminished scales sound
like 8-tET.

Right on, both Paul and Gene! Yes, yes, yes! There is so much
intonational incompetence at high levels (meaning power to either get
or grant performance exposure) it makes me sick! Just in case anyone
is wondering, my attitude is not due to any personal affronts I've
experienced, since I'm not technically competent in anything but
voice for any of that to pertain to me, and in voice I've never tried
to be a contender for high rank as a performer.

Callas was one of the greats mostly because of her very praiseworthy
dramatic talents. She was fortunate that she was born with an
extremely robust vocal mechanism that she was able to abuse wantonly
for years and still perform.

Music is so paramount for me, though, in any medium that involves it,
that her vocal abuses put her outside my range of tolerability, so I
intentionally miss out on her dramatic capabilities out of a sense of
musical self-preservation. That's why I generally hate performances
of American musicals. Simply can't stand them because of the lousy
singing.

I love Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and Hermann Prey, although neither
were intonationally perfect; but they sure knew how to use their
voices! Callas didn't have a clue! I know that will offend some, but
only great ignorance of good vocal technique (which is rampant now in
high circles even among so-called vocal pedagogues) would incline
anyone to argue with that statement. Any normal mortal would have
bashed their voice to bits in record time with her technique. As my
old voice teacher, Lav Vrbanic of the Academy of Music in Zagreb
would have said, "She was very talented from nature."

And as a violinist of modest means (capable of little more than well-
tuned, musically expressive performance of simple baroque trio
sonatas and the like), I'm nuts about Perlman and never cared for
Stern much on two counts: his old-school, inappropriate stylistic
approach to earlier music and his sloppy intonation. Yehudi Menuhin
was even sloppier intonation-wise.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
>
> > I am astonished how far off key top violinists often seem to be,
> > though perhaps it's my ears that are at fault.
>
> There a lot of variability here -- Itzhak Perlman and L. Shankar
have
> excellent intonation, while Isaac Stern's diminished scales sound
> like 8-tET.

Right on, both Paul and Gene! Yes, yes, yes! There is so much
intonational incompetence at high levels (meaning power to either get
or grant performance exposure) it makes me sick! Just in case anyone
is wondering, my attitude is not due to any personal affronts I've
experienced, since I'm not technically competent in anything but
voice for any of that to pertain to me, and in voice I've never tried
to be a contender for high rank as a performer.

Callas was one of the greats mostly because of her very praiseworthy
dramatic talents. She was fortunate that she was born with an
extremely robust vocal mechanism that she was able to abuse wantonly
for years and still perform.

Music is so paramount for me, though, in any medium that involves it,
that her vocal abuses put her outside my range of tolerability, so I
intentionally miss out on her dramatic capabilities out of a sense of
musical self-preservation. That's why I generally hate performances
of American musicals. Simply can't stand them because of the lousy
singing.

I love Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and Hermann Prey, although neither
were intonationally perfect; but they sure knew how to use their
voices! Callas didn't have a clue! I know that will offend some, but
only great ignorance of good vocal technique (which is rampant now in
high circles even among so-called vocal pedagogues) would incline
anyone to argue with that statement. Any normal mortal would have
bashed their voice to bits in record time with her technique. As my
old voice teacher, Lav Vrbanic of the Academy of Music in Zagreb
would have said, "She was very talented from nature."

And as a violinist of modest means (capable of little more than well-
tuned, musically expressive performance of simple baroque trio
sonatas and the like), I'm nuts about Perlman and never cared for
Stern much on two counts: his old-school, inappropriate stylistic
approach to earlier music and his sloppy intonation. Yehudi Menuhin
was even sloppier intonation-wise.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
>
> > I am astonished how far off key top violinists often seem to be,
> > though perhaps it's my ears that are at fault.
>
> There a lot of variability here -- Itzhak Perlman and L. Shankar
have
> excellent intonation, while Isaac Stern's diminished scales sound
> like 8-tET.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:

> never cared for
> Stern much on two counts: his old-school, inappropriate stylistic
> approach to earlier music and his sloppy intonation.

The two are not independent -- one hears Stern attempting a sharps-
sharper, flats-flatter, Pythaogean-like "expressive intonation" even
in Bach where it is surely inappropriate -- and one would hope the
early-music movement had made that point loud and clear by now.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
>
> > never cared for
> > Stern much on two counts: his old-school, inappropriate stylistic
> > approach to earlier music and his sloppy intonation.
>
> The two are not independent -- one hears Stern attempting a sharps-
> sharper, flats-flatter, Pythaogean-like "expressive intonation"
even
> in Bach where it is surely inappropriate -- and one would hope the
> early-music movement had made that point loud and clear by now.

Bob:
Agreed, but I would contend that his sloppy intonation exceeds the
bounds of even his own conception of it. And the inappropriateness of
his style extends way beyond his approach to intonation.

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

> > I am astonished how far off key top violinists often seem to be,
> > though perhaps it's my ears that are at fault.
>
> There a lot of variability here -- Itzhak Perlman and L. Shankar
have
> excellent intonation, while Isaac Stern's diminished scales sound
> like 8-tET.

I think Arthur Grumiaux, Eugene Fodor, Pinchas Zukerman are all good
in the intonation department also.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:

> Agreed, but I would contend that his sloppy intonation exceeds the
> bounds of even his own conception of it. And the inappropriateness
of
> his style extends way beyond his approach to intonation.

Agreed on both counts!

Paul Erlich wrote:

> > I've been looking at the closest JI ratios to Blackjack and I reckon
> > they should all be singable by well trained singers, certainly up
> to
> > the ratios of 7. The tones either side of the tonic at 33.3333 cents
> > might have to be handled carefully in mixed part writing.
>
> Not sure why these would be especially difficult. Want to elaborate
> on your thinking?

I'm thinking that if I write a piece with a lot of chordal movement and counterpoint for voices
and instruments, I have a feeling that the voices would find those intervals hardest to target.
Perhaps this is just because I find them tricky to pitch as well asthe others. Just a hunch, mind
you

>
> >
> > Also I noticed, probably weeks after the rest of the world, that
> > Blackjack is inversional, so my 6 course zithers will be able to
> have 12
> > Blackjack tones with the addition of mini bridges.
>
> Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure how the logarithmic
> inversionality will be relevant for zither tuning, but I'd like to
> learn.

Hmmm. I don't think I've made my thoughts clear here. I'm thinking in JI, that if I have a string
length with a mini-bridge, one side at 8:7 the other will be at 7:4. I should have said "so my 6
course zithers will be able to have 12 approximate Blackjack tones with the addition of mini
bridges." I'm going to give it a try for some tones and see if they blend well enough with the
Blackjack tones, given that they are so close.

Regards

>

BobWendell@technet-inc.com wrote:

> Just curious, Alison. When you say well-trained, do you mean well-
> trained in JI or just well-trained singers in the conventional sense
> of the term? I'm a singer, so this terminology raises my eyebrow a
> bit if the assumption is that just any old well-trained singer will
> perform with this kind of intonational precision. If this is what you
> mean, I wouldn't bet the flea on my left ear that you're going to get
> what you want.

I too sing and I direct two choirs, a church choir and a Community group, so I know a little of
the problem. I'm concentrating on intonation with the Community choir who are all beginners or
enlightened amateurs. Ironically it's with them that I have the greatest chance of exploring
intonation. I know of nobody in Scotland dealing with JI seriously, bar yours truly, so I can see
your point. I work with two well trained (in the conventional sense) singers in my Early Music
Trio and rather suspect that given time and direction that they could deliver the goods, ie.,
perform my music. It's a question of attitude. Your " just any old well-trained singer " as you so
aptly put it includes the usual rake of aspiring prima donnas who are terrified of approaching JI.
But I have to think positively about the potential for change. It WILL be done.

We are quite an affluent nation as regards the arts and funding is available for new music
projects. I have a few plans up my sleeve. These involve the usual string pulling act. My theory
is that if they are paid well enough the singers will put in the necessary work. One thing that
many well trained singers do have is discipline.

> Not making a judgment or any assumptions. Just curious to know what
> your practical conditions and assumptions are. Most of the "well-
> trained" singers I've run into in my life (many, many, meaning
> professional or semi-professional with years of vocal study) make
> frequent pitch errors in the range of 15-25 cents from just
> intervals. Of course, 15 cents is pretty normal on the sharp side for
> thirds in 12-tET, but even variations from 12-tET accompaniments are
> often in the 15-25 cent range.

In my Early Music work; French, English and Scottish Renaissance song with a soprano,
counter-tenor and me on lute (12tet) taking the lower voices, the settings are very lean and
sparse. It exposes the singers and encourages good intonation. The counter-tenor has expressed an
interest in me using my home made bowed psaltery to accompany some of our repertoire. So I'll
probably use some form of meantone or Pythagorean tuning and try to influence the voices in that
way.

> Just listen to professionals in typical classical recordings and
> you'll get an earful of errors at this order of magnitude if their
> vibratos are not so wide they eliminate the possibility for an
> accurate judgment. These latter singers don't even count. They
> usually do it, whether consciously or not, to cover up their aural
> incompetence. I never cease to be amazed at how high their careers
> can climb, though. Just demonstrates what kind of strange judges can
> live in high places.

Absolutely. That's why I'm so confident that there is room for so much more. And respect goes to
those like yourself who empower the forces of change.

Best Wishes.

>

> From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Paul's Blackjack Lattices and other things.
>
> --- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
>
> > I am astonished how far off key top violinists often seem to be,
> > though perhaps it's my ears that are at fault.
>
> There a lot of variability here -- Itzhak Perlman and L. Shankar have
> excellent intonation, while Isaac Stern's diminished scales sound
> like 8-tET.
>

Maybe he wanted them to be that way...

Bob Valentine

> From: BobWendell@technet-inc.com
> Subject: Re: Paul's Blackjack Lattices and other things.
>
> Right on, both Paul and Gene! Yes, yes, yes! There is so much
> intonational incompetence at high levels (meaning power to either get
> or grant performance exposure) it makes me sick!

Which means either that intonation is not that important OR that
it is a much more sophisticated phenomena than trying to figure out
what note they should hit by looking at the score.

We've had discussions on this list about the sophisticated
microtonality of blues singers and goat-herders, some of which
falls way into the "out of tune" range of the notes they might have
been expected to hit in the sometimes diatonic music they seem to
be playing.

Why should we be less generous with the artistic intent of Western
performers, or is this the usual post-modernist West bashing at work.

On the other hand, the big vibrato bel canto singing style should
be banished forever. And I like blues singers etc...

Bob Valentine

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also I noticed, probably weeks after the rest of the world, that
> > > Blackjack is inversional, so my 6 course zithers will be able to
> > have 12
> > > Blackjack tones with the addition of mini bridges.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure how the logarithmic
> > inversionality will be relevant for zither tuning, but I'd like to
> > learn.
>
> Hmmm. I don't think I've made my thoughts clear here. I'm thinking in JI,
that if I have a string
> length with a mini-bridge, one side at 8:7 the other will be at 7:4.

Well, if the mini-bridge is movable, you can arrange for _any_ two pitches
(you mean pitches, not intervals, right) to occur on the string -- I'm not sure
how inversional symmetry helps you here.

>I'm going to give it a try for some tones and see if they blend well enough
with the
> Blackjack tones, given that they are so close.

Don't get it . . . what is so close to what?

Thanks so much for your lovely reply, Alison. Maybe I should move to
Scotland! Sounds like wonderful support for the arts of a kind that
is totally lacking here. I would have no problems in getting and
training the singers I need if I could pay them even a little bit.
We're all volunteer where I am. And discipline? Pretty much a foreign
concept.

I love your positive attitude. Go for it! Too few are those who
really go for excellence!

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
>
> BobWendell@t... wrote:
>
> > Just curious, Alison. When you say well-trained, do you mean well-
> > trained in JI or just well-trained singers in the conventional
sense
> > of the term? I'm a singer, so this terminology raises my eyebrow a
> > bit if the assumption is that just any old well-trained singer
will
> > perform with this kind of intonational precision. If this is what
you
> > mean, I wouldn't bet the flea on my left ear that you're going to
get
> > what you want.
>
> I too sing and I direct two choirs, a church choir and a Community
group, so I know a little of
> the problem. I'm concentrating on intonation with the Community
choir who are all beginners or
> enlightened amateurs. Ironically it's with them that I have the
greatest chance of exploring
> intonation. I know of nobody in Scotland dealing with JI seriously,
bar yours truly, so I can see
> your point. I work with two well trained (in the conventional
sense) singers in my Early Music
> Trio and rather suspect that given time and direction that they
could deliver the goods, ie.,
> perform my music. It's a question of attitude. Your " just any old
well-trained singer " as you so
> aptly put it includes the usual rake of aspiring prima donnas who
are terrified of approaching JI.
> But I have to think positively about the potential for change. It
WILL be done.
>
> We are quite an affluent nation as regards the arts and funding is
available for new music
> projects. I have a few plans up my sleeve. These involve the usual
string pulling act. My theory
> is that if they are paid well enough the singers will put in the
necessary work. One thing that
> many well trained singers do have is discipline.
>
> > Not making a judgment or any assumptions. Just curious to know
what
> > your practical conditions and assumptions are. Most of the "well-
> > trained" singers I've run into in my life (many, many, meaning
> > professional or semi-professional with years of vocal study) make
> > frequent pitch errors in the range of 15-25 cents from just
> > intervals. Of course, 15 cents is pretty normal on the sharp side
for
> > thirds in 12-tET, but even variations from 12-tET accompaniments
are
> > often in the 15-25 cent range.
>
> In my Early Music work; French, English and Scottish Renaissance
song with a soprano,
> counter-tenor and me on lute (12tet) taking the lower voices, the
settings are very lean and
> sparse. It exposes the singers and encourages good intonation. The
counter-tenor has expressed an
> interest in me using my home made bowed psaltery to accompany some
of our repertoire. So I'll
> probably use some form of meantone or Pythagorean tuning and try to
influence the voices in that
> way.
>
> > Just listen to professionals in typical classical recordings and
> > you'll get an earful of errors at this order of magnitude if their
> > vibratos are not so wide they eliminate the possibility for an
> > accurate judgment. These latter singers don't even count. They
> > usually do it, whether consciously or not, to cover up their aural
> > incompetence. I never cease to be amazed at how high their careers
> > can climb, though. Just demonstrates what kind of strange judges
can
> > live in high places.
>
> Absolutely. That's why I'm so confident that there is room for so
much more. And respect goes to
> those like yourself who empower the forces of change.
>
>
> Best Wishes.
>
> >

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> > From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
> > Subject: Re: Paul's Blackjack Lattices and other things.
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> >
> > > I am astonished how far off key top violinists often seem to
be,
> > > though perhaps it's my ears that are at fault.
> >
> > There a lot of variability here -- Itzhak Perlman and L. Shankar
have
> > excellent intonation, while Isaac Stern's diminished scales sound
> > like 8-tET.
> >
>
> Maybe he wanted them to be that way...
>
> Bob Valentine

Bob:
Well then, in the musical context in which he has been working,
that's just another strike against him. You can excuse any kind of
musical incompetence whatsoever that way, you know, but maybe that's
your goal in the first place? You tell me.

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also I noticed, probably weeks after the rest of the world, that
> > > > Blackjack is inversional, so my 6 course zithers will be able to
> > > have 12
> > > > Blackjack tones with the addition of mini bridges.
> > >
> > > Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure how the logarithmic
> > > inversionality will be relevant for zither tuning, but I'd like to
> > > learn.
> >
> > Hmmm. I don't think I've made my thoughts clear here. I'm thinking in JI,
> that if I have a string
> > length with a mini-bridge, one side at 8:7 the other will be at 7:4.
>
> Well, if the mini-bridge is movable, you can arrange for _any_ two pitches
> (you mean pitches, not intervals, right) to occur on the string -- I'm not sure
> how inversional symmetry helps you here.

Yes, the mini-bridges are movable. The tones of Blackjack as far as I can see are very close to
just intervals. So two pitches can lie on a string, for example the pitch at 150 cents and the
pitch at 1050 cents, roughly 12:11 and 11:6 respectively. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm
looking at a list of Just ratios that are within less than 3 cents of Blackjack and which are
symmetrical at the mid point between tones 11 and 12.

>
> >I'm going to give it a try for some tones and see if they blend well enough
> with the
> > Blackjack tones, given that they are so close.
>
> Don't get it . . . what is so close to what?

Meaning that the Just tones that I'd hope to have on the movable bridge zither are, as you know,
very close to Blackjack tones. So I would hope that the very small pitch differences between Just
and Blackjack wouldn't be too noticable in some musical contexts.

Regards

>
>
> -

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
> > From: BobWendell@t...
> > Subject: Re: Paul's Blackjack Lattices and other things.
> >
> > Right on, both Paul and Gene! Yes, yes, yes! There is so much
> > intonational incompetence at high levels (meaning power to either
get
> > or grant performance exposure) it makes me sick!
>
> Which means either that intonation is not that important OR that
> it is a much more sophisticated phenomena than trying to figure out
> what note they should hit by looking at the score.
>
Bob Wendell:
Of course it's more sophisticated than simply figuring out which
"note to hit". You have to hit it square on and not any old thing in
between that's just closer to the right one than to adjacent 12-tET
pitches. That's part of what consitutes basic musicianship, and
historical evidence is strong that intonational standards were quite
high throughout much of European musical evolution.

Precisely because I'm a singer, albeit with a string background, I am
keenly aware of how poorly prepared intonationally many professional
singers (and their judges), not to mention amateurs, are today.

> We've had discussions on this list about the sophisticated
> microtonality of blues singers and goat-herders, some of which
> falls way into the "out of tune" range of the notes they might have
> been expected to hit in the sometimes diatonic music they seem to
> be playing.
>
I personally do not defend out of tune singing as "folksy" and
therefore cool. The best folk singers sing in tune, and the non-
diatonically conventional pitches they sing, if they exist in their
tradition, should be consistent and not just consitute random misses
of pitches they would have hit had they been more competent
musically.

> Why should we be less generous with the artistic intent of Western
> performers, or is this the usual post-modernist West bashing at
work.
>
Bob Wendell:
I'm not more generous with either. Musicians should be intonationally
competent within the parameters of their dominant tuning systems. If
not, I am personally not interested in listening to their music
unless there are no others who perform it better and it also holds
some interesting aspects conceptually that could inform my musical
inclinations and creativity.

> On the other hand, the big vibrato bel canto singing style should
> be banished forever. And I like blues singers etc...
>
> Bob Valentine

Bob Wendell:
First, true "bel canto" does not have a big vibrato. At the height of
the bel canto era when Monteverdi and Caccini were in business,
vibrato was used conservatively. The singers of that era were
possessed of incredible power, range, and virtuosic skill, typically
improvising and/or reading ornamentation that few singers today can
even begin to emulate properly (although some few specialists still
exist who can) and which would be reserved for coloratura sopranos
today instead of the baritone and tenor parts for which they were
also written.

Very few who sing opera and other classical genres today know
much about bel canto. As John de Laubenfels mentioned in an
offline message to me, his wife also studied bel canto with great
benefit. Yet she has run into vocal professors who argue that bel
canto doesn't exist, as if it were "some kind of long-lost ninja
technique in the martial arts" as he put it.

This is all too typical. I had the good fortune to study under one of
the greatest masters of bel canto in the 20th century when he was a
visiting professor of vocal pedagogy at New England Conservatory from
the Zagreb Academy of Music under invitation by then-president
Gunther Schuller. Many of the other vocal professors considered him
"old fashioned" and basically ignored him. Unbelievably stupid! They
couldn't begin to touch his level of competence in the vocal arts,
and in my view, this is how they managed their relative incompetence
to keep themselves comfortable. (Remember Mozart.)

Of course, bel canto means literally "beautiful singing", and in our
pop and folk cultures, there is often no premium whatsoever placed
on beautiful singing. So many people grow up being embarassed by the
beautiful singing of people like Dietrich Fischer-Diskau simply
because it's alien to their cultural conditioning.

If this is what you want to banish, you should be locked in a lovely
room with the likes of Fischer-Diskau, Hermann Prey, etc. until your
ears get fixed and you actually start to hear the profound beauty of
their voices and what they do with them.

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

> Yes, the mini-bridges are movable. The tones of Blackjack as far as
I can see are very close to
> just intervals. So two pitches can lie on a string, for example the
pitch at 150 cents and the
> pitch at 1050 cents, roughly 12:11 and 11:6 respectively.

The fact that these are inversions of one another in no way bears on
their ability or inability or appropriateness for sharing a string.
Perhaps you are being fooled by the fact that these intervals add up
to an octave, and you are somehow thinking of the "whole string" as
that octave. But it doesn't work that way at all.

> Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm
> looking at a list of Just ratios that are within less than 3 cents
of Blackjack and which are
> symmetrical at the mid point between tones 11 and 12.

Blackjack does have this symmetry, but I'd warn you against (a)
correlating this with a physical symmetry in terms of string lengths,
which doesn't follow; and (b) representing Blackjack by a single list
of 21 Just ratios -- it represents far more than that!

> > >I'm going to give it a try for some tones and see if they blend
well enough
> > with the
> > > Blackjack tones, given that they are so close.
> >
> > Don't get it . . . what is so close to what?
>
> Meaning that the Just tones that I'd hope to have on the movable
bridge zither are, as you know,
> very close to Blackjack tones. So I would hope that the very small
pitch differences between Just
> and Blackjack wouldn't be too noticable in some musical contexts.

Why not just tune the strings directly to Blackjack?

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
> > From: BobWendell@t...
> > Subject: Re: Paul's Blackjack Lattices and other things.
> >
> > Right on, both Paul and Gene! Yes, yes, yes! There is so much
> > intonational incompetence at high levels (meaning power to either
get
> > or grant performance exposure) it makes me sick!
>
> Which means either that intonation is not that important OR that
> it is a much more sophisticated phenomena than trying to figure out
> what note they should hit by looking at the score.

I like to think I'm enough of a musician to know the difference
between sloppy intonation and sophisticated intonation in certain
styles, including the one that was being discussed here.

> We've had discussions on this list about the sophisticated
> microtonality of blues singers and goat-herders, some of which
> falls way into the "out of tune" range of the notes they might have
> been expected to hit in the sometimes diatonic music they seem to
> be playing.
>
> Why should we be less generous with the artistic intent of Western
> performers, or is this the usual post-modernist West bashing at
work.

I would never be less generous. If I hear a blues singer or guitarist
with sloppy intonation, I'll be the first to point it out. Just
because a style of music doesn't conform to a 12-tET grid, or any
grid for that matter, doesn't mean one loses the right or ability to
distinguish between sloppy and sophisticated intonation in that style.

>And I like blues singers etc...

Well, I like the good ones, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize
those with sloppy intonation! For example, Chuck Berry was a very
important musician, but I wouldn't call him a "great blues
singer" . . .

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> > Yes, the mini-bridges are movable. The tones of Blackjack as far as
> I can see are very close to
> > just intervals. So two pitches can lie on a string, for example the
> pitch at 150 cents and the
> > pitch at 1050 cents, roughly 12:11 and 11:6 respectively.
>
> The fact that these are inversions of one another in no way bears on
> their ability or inability or appropriateness for sharing a string.
> Perhaps you are being fooled by the fact that these intervals add up
> to an octave, and you are somehow thinking of the "whole string" as
> that octave. But it doesn't work that way at all.

Thanks for your patience Paul. I'm not quite 'there' yet with understanding why this won't work.
More study required.

>
>
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm
> > looking at a list of Just ratios that are within less than 3 cents
> of Blackjack and which are
> > symmetrical at the mid point between tones 11 and 12.
>
> Blackjack does have this symmetry, but I'd warn you against (a)
> correlating this with a physical symmetry in terms of string lengths,
> which doesn't follow; and (b) representing Blackjack by a single list
> of 21 Just ratios -- it represents far more than that!
>
> > > >I'm going to give it a try for some tones and see if they blend
> well enough
> > > with the
> > > > Blackjack tones, given that they are so close.
> > >
> > > Don't get it . . . what is so close to what?
> >
> > Meaning that the Just tones that I'd hope to have on the movable
> bridge zither are, as you know,
> > very close to Blackjack tones. So I would hope that the very small
> pitch differences between Just
> > and Blackjack wouldn't be too noticable in some musical contexts.
>
> Why not just tune the strings directly to Blackjack?

I was trying to find a way round having only 6 courses on my zithers. I'll now have to be very
selective as to how I tune these instruments now.

Many thanks

Regards

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

> > Perhaps you are being fooled by the fact that these intervals add
up
> > to an octave, and you are somehow thinking of the "whole string"
as
> > that octave. But it doesn't work that way at all.
>
> Thanks for your patience Paul. I'm not quite 'there' yet with
understanding why this won't work.
> More study required.

Well, there are two things you need to be clear on:

1) Frequency is _inversely_ proportional to string length. So if you
have a string whose frequency is x, and you divide it into two with a
bridge, the new frequencies y and z will satisfy the equation
1/y + 1/z = 1/x
and _not_
y + z = x.

2) Intervals in cents are proportional to _log_ of frequency, not
frequency itself.

>
> I was trying to find a way round having only 6 courses on my
zithers. I'll now have to be very
> selective as to how I tune these instruments now.

I don't see how a JI vs. a non-JI tuning would have anything to do
with how many courses you'd need. You could just as easily arrange
for two Blackjack tones to shars a string, as for two JI tones to
share a string.

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

> I would never be less generous. If I hear a blues singer or
guitarist
> with sloppy intonation, I'll be the first to point it out. Just
> because a style of music doesn't conform to a 12-tET grid, or any
> grid for that matter, doesn't mean one loses the right or ability
to
> distinguish between sloppy and sophisticated intonation in that
style.
>

I'm rather wondering if, possibly, we are all just so *sick* of the
kind of "swoopy" hyper-romantic style that, if I remember correctly,
Isaac Stern favored that we no longer see any artistry in it??

Certainly I would be in that camp. I generally hate even vibrato in
practically *any* instrument, including the voice...

_______ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

In a message dated 10/22/01 10:07:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> I'm rather wondering if, possibly, we are all just so *sick* of the
> kind of "swoopy" hyper-romantic style that, if I remember correctly,
> Isaac Stern favored that we no longer see any artistry in it??
>
>

It's now called "old school" and also includes a refusal to play in exact
rhythms.

Johnny Reinhard (back after a breath of fresh air in Nederland)

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps you are being fooled by the fact that these intervals add
> up
> > > to an octave, and you are somehow thinking of the "whole string"
> as
> > > that octave. But it doesn't work that way at all.
> >
> > Thanks for your patience Paul. I'm not quite 'there' yet with
> understanding why this won't work.
> > More study required.
>
> Well, there are two things you need to be clear on:
>
> 1) Frequency is _inversely_ proportional to string length. So if you
> have a string whose frequency is x, and you divide it into two with a
> bridge, the new frequencies y and z will satisfy the equation
> 1/y + 1/z = 1/x
> and _not_
> y + z = x.
>
> 2) Intervals in cents are proportional to _log_ of frequency, not
> frequency itself.
>
> >
> > I was trying to find a way round having only 6 courses on my
> zithers. I'll now have to be very
> > selective as to how I tune these instruments now.
>
> I don't see how a JI vs. a non-JI tuning would have anything to do
> with how many courses you'd need. You could just as easily arrange
> for two Blackjack tones to shars a string, as for two JI tones to
> share a string.

How is this done? The string sharing was what I had hoped to do but I thought it couldn't be done
for the reasons you give. Now I'm confused.

I have been looking at the earlier12 out of Blackjack ideas discussed on the list and with some of
these might work for my ideas with two 6 string zithers.

Best wishes.

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> How is this done? The string sharing was what I had hoped to do but
I thought it couldn't be done
> for the reasons you give. Now I'm confused.

You can have any two tones share a string because you have two
variables to play with: the tension of the string, and the position
of the bridge.
>
> I have been looking at the earlier12 out of Blackjack ideas
discussed on the list and with some of
> these might work for my ideas with two 6 string zithers.

Interesting . . . do you want to have all 21 notes available between
the two? Plus perhaps 3 octave-equivalents?

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> >
> > How is this done? The string sharing was what I had hoped to do but
> I thought it couldn't be done
> > for the reasons you give. Now I'm confused.
>
> You can have any two tones share a string because you have two
> variables to play with: the tension of the string, and the position
> of the bridge.

Yes, but according to the maths I can't have two Blackjack tones on the same string at the same
time?

>

> >
> > I have been looking at the earlier12 out of Blackjack ideas
> discussed on the list and with some of
> > these might work for my ideas with two 6 string zithers.
>
> Interesting . . . do you want to have all 21 notes available between
> the two? Plus perhaps 3 octave-equivalents?

That in fact would be an ideal situation.

BTW the "21" card game we play over here is commonly called Pontoon.

Many thanks.

>

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > You can have any two tones share a string because you have two
> > variables to play with: the tension of the string, and the
position
> > of the bridge.
>
> Yes, but according to the maths I can't have two Blackjack tones on
the same string at the same
> time?

Why do you say that? Again, you can have any two tones share a string.

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
> >
> > > You can have any two tones share a string because you have two
> > > variables to play with: the tension of the string, and the
> position
> > > of the bridge.
> >
> > Yes, but according to the maths I can't have two Blackjack tones on
> the same string at the same
> > time?
>
> Why do you say that? Again, you can have any two tones share a string.

Then I'd have two of the Just approximations to Blackjack on the same string.

On another Blackjack topic, I've decided to use 36 bars laid out in three sets of twelve. This is
purely practical in the first instance - the longest bar is about 21" long, the C#v below A440. I
want the player to be able to reach every bar from one position. He or she will have 4 note chords
to navigate. Then I'll go up to a 2:1 above A440. For reasons of length the bars have to be set
out xylophone fashion as opposed to end to end. I'll have 3 levels for each of the 12 bars, each
level slightly offset. There is a photo on the Anaphorian pages of a very elegant design, the crib
or something similar. It'll be like that but with resonators. I intend laying out the pitches in
ascending order from left to right along the first 12 then back to the left for the second 12 and
so on. There is a slight resemblance to the Bosanquet designs but I can't see any resemblances
otherwise. Comments welcome.

Regards

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Erlich wrote:
> > >
> > > > You can have any two tones share a string because you have two
> > > > variables to play with: the tension of the string, and the
> > position
> > > > of the bridge.
> > >
> > > Yes, but according to the maths I can't have two Blackjack
tones on
> > the same string at the same
> > > time?
> >
> > Why do you say that? Again, you can have any two tones share a
string.
>
> Then I'd have two of the Just approximations to Blackjack on the
same string.

Why use Just approximations to Blackjack? You'd be breaking many of
Blackjack's consonances by doing so.
>
> On another Blackjack topic, I've decided to use 36 bars laid out in
three sets of twelve. This is
> purely practical in the first instance - the longest bar is about
21" long, the C#v below A440. I
> want the player to be able to reach every bar from one position. He
or she will have 4 note chords
> to navigate. Then I'll go up to a 2:1 above A440. For reasons of
length the bars have to be set
> out xylophone fashion as opposed to end to end. I'll have 3 levels
for each of the 12 bars, each
> level slightly offset. There is a photo on the Anaphorian pages of
a very elegant design, the crib
> or something similar. It'll be like that but with resonators. I
intend laying out the pitches in
> ascending order from left to right along the first 12 then back to
the left for the second 12 and
> so on. There is a slight resemblance to the Bosanquet designs but I
can't see any resemblances
> otherwise. Comments welcome.

I maintain that a generalized keyboard design would be your best bet,
especially if you are using the Anaphorian pages as a point of
reference. Can you give a URL for the "crib" design you're referring
to?

If you are using three rows of 12, I would suggest that you tune each
row to an ascending Mohajira scale (every third note of Blackjack),
with A appearing in the middle row. This should be much more
negotiable for players than the boustophredon design you've proposed,
I would guess.

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

/tuning/topicId_29334.html#29565

> string.
> >
> > Then I'd have two of the Just approximations to Blackjack on the
> same string.
>
> Why use Just approximations to Blackjack? You'd be breaking many of
> Blackjack's consonances by doing so.
> >

Actually.. this is a big point in the discussion between Allison and
Paul, as I understand it.

Allison keeps mentioning using Blackjack and then having other
instruments construct "just" intervals based on Blackjack pitches.

However, Paul's important point is that it is the *temperament* that
makes the *greatest number* of near-just sonorities, and,
unexpectedly enough, using "real" just intervals in combination with
Blackjack actually creates *fewer* near just intervals on the overall!

At least, that's how *I'm* understanding it...

________ _________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_29334.html#29565
>
> > string.
> > >
> > > Then I'd have two of the Just approximations to Blackjack on
the
> > same string.
> >
> > Why use Just approximations to Blackjack? You'd be breaking many
of
> > Blackjack's consonances by doing so.
> > >
>
> Actually.. this is a big point in the discussion between Allison
and
> Paul, as I understand it.
>
> Allison keeps mentioning using Blackjack and then having other
> instruments construct "just" intervals based on Blackjack pitches.
>
> However, Paul's important point is that it is the *temperament*
that
> makes the *greatest number* of near-just sonorities, and,
> unexpectedly enough, using "real" just intervals in combination
with
> Blackjack actually creates *fewer* near just intervals on the
overall!

Right . . . this is of course true even for the diatonic scale, if a
JI tuning of it is compared with a meantone tuning.

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
> >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paul Erlich wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You can have any two tones share a string because you have two
> > > > > variables to play with: the tension of the string, and the
> > > position
> > > > > of the bridge.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but according to the maths I can't have two Blackjack
> tones on
> > > the same string at the same
> > > > time?
> > >
> > > Why do you say that? Again, you can have any two tones share a
> string.
> >
> > Then I'd have two of the Just approximations to Blackjack on the
> same string.
>
> Why use Just approximations to Blackjack? You'd be breaking many of
> Blackjack's consonances by doing so.

Well, I'd prefer to use Blackjack, but I understood that I can't because of the arithmetical
reasons you gave before. Excuse my density here.

> > On another Blackjack topic, I've decided to use 36 bars laid out in
> three sets of twelve. This is
> > purely practical in the first instance - the longest bar is about
> 21" long, the C#v below A440. I
> > want the player to be able to reach every bar from one position. He
> or she will have 4 note chords
> > to navigate. Then I'll go up to a 2:1 above A440. For reasons of
> length the bars have to be set
> > out xylophone fashion as opposed to end to end. I'll have 3 levels
> for each of the 12 bars, each
> > level slightly offset. There is a photo on the Anaphorian pages of
> a very elegant design, the crib
> > or something similar. It'll be like that but with resonators. I
> intend laying out the pitches in
> > ascending order from left to right along the first 12 then back to
> the left for the second 12 and
> > so on. There is a slight resemblance to the Bosanquet designs but I
> can't see any resemblances
> > otherwise. Comments welcome.
>
> I maintain that a generalized keyboard design would be your best bet,
> especially if you are using the Anaphorian pages as a point of
> reference. Can you give a URL for the "crib" design you're referring
> to?

http://www.anaphoria.com/musinst.html

>
>
> If you are using three rows of 12, I would suggest that you tune each
> row to an ascending Mohajira scale (every third note of Blackjack),
> with A appearing in the middle row. This should be much more
> negotiable for players than the boustophredon design you've proposed,
> I would guess.

I'll investigate that possibility. Thanks.

Kind regards

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Erlich wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul Erlich wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You can have any two tones share a string because you have two
> > > > > > variables to play with: the tension of the string, and the
> > > > position
> > > > > > of the bridge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, but according to the maths I can't have two Blackjack
> > tones on
> > > > the same string at the same
> > > > > time?
> > > >
> > > > Why do you say that? Again, you can have any two tones share a
> > string.
> > >
> > > Then I'd have two of the Just approximations to Blackjack on the
> > same string.
> >
> > Why use Just approximations to Blackjack? You'd be breaking many of
> > Blackjack's consonances by doing so.
>
> Well, I'd prefer to use Blackjack, but I understood that I can't because of the arithmetical
> reasons you gave before. Excuse my density here.

Again, you can put _any two pitches_ on a string by varying (a) the string's tension and (b) the
position of the bridge.

> > I maintain that a generalized keyboard design would be your best bet,
> > especially if you are using the Anaphorian pages as a point of
> > reference. Can you give a URL for the "crib" design you're referring
> > to?
>
> http://www.anaphoria.com/musinst.html

I'll look at that shortly.