Re: G Bv D

I believe Georges notation is supposed to address this issue
by having one set of arrows ignored in meantones (playing a
piece in 72 in 31 for example). So, in 31, I would play the
same thing for G Bv D as G B D.

The issue arises because traditional intonation maps
meantone onto the "solution to the riddle of the universe",
which is more pythagorean sounding, but preserves meantone
identities (in fact preserves both identities
4 * P5 = M3
8 * P4 = M3).

Keeping M3 <> best(5/4) in 72 seems like inventing the
appendix except that it is a big part of the development of
our 72 club :

1) it is very good 11-limit JI approximating system

2) it is a superset of ubiquitous Western music practice

3) 72 is even studied and advocated by musicians in a real
Western style conservatory

These are powerful concepts for a hoping-to-be-performed
composer.

This Swiss army knife doesn't solve a lot of other problems.
The best meantone in 72 is 12et, so for performing Western
music written in the past 1000 years it doesn't solve the
problem of how to play G B D (choices are : "play it in 12",
"wedge in a 16c comma somewhere", "adapt it beyond 72 as you
adapt beyond 12 today"). There is no one answer which can
answer the G B D question as historically it may have meant
pythagorean, meantone, etc, etc... I just don't think that
72 addresses this, and perhaps its not meant to address it.

In my opinion, M3 = best(5/4) but thats probably just not
going to work in 72. [72 is neither meantone
nor pythagorean since neither identity works (in other words,
bicycle chains are fine but if I can't find M3 on a circle of
fifths then it needs a new set of rules, is the best one that
going up 30 M3 gets you to -23 * best(4/3)???)].

But perhaps real musicians will feel comfortable with M3
matching an accepted sound and behavior. But why go into
"tclM3" when you mean "just M3" (where just means
approximately beat-free)? Unless you really want a 3 cents
flat 5/4, you are making one of the oft repeated mistakes
of Western notation which is to tell a musician how to do
something rather than tell them what you want to hear.

If you want the best( 5/4 ) they can produce, then
ask for it. They should be able to find an M3 thats not
beating, (it takes guitarists years to figure out that the
B that makes the G cowboy chord sound great is wrong and
you have to have your cowboy chords jangle to be "in tune").

I guess if I were to start thinking in 72 and wanted to
preserve 12-ness it would be something like the following

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
sM2 M2 hM2 sm3 m3 jm3 ln3 N3 hn3 jM3 M3 hM3

Bob Valentine

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:

> In my opinion, M3 = best(5/4) but thats probably just not
> going to work in 72. [72 is neither meantone
> nor pythagorean since neither identity works

pythagorean does not depend on any identities. perhaps you really
meant schismic?

>(in other words,
> bicycle chains are fine but if I can't find M3 on a circle of
> fifths then it needs a new set of rules, is the best one that
> going up 30 M3 gets you to -23 * best(4/3)???)].

no that's not the best one. think of 72 as acting like ji in the 5-
limit -- it's not a system you get by tempering out useful 5-limit
commas. however in the 7-limit or especially 11-limit one can think
of such rules/identities defining 72-equal -- in the 7-limit, you
might use 225=224 and 1029=1024 identities, while in the 11-limit,
you might use 225=224, 441=440, and 540=539.

> But perhaps real musicians will feel comfortable with M3
> matching an accepted sound and behavior. But why go into
> "tclM3" when you mean "just M3" (where just means
> approximately beat-free)? Unless you really want a 3 cents
> flat 5/4,

in blackjack, you do

> you are making one of the oft repeated mistakes
> of Western notation which is to tell a musician how to do
> something rather than tell them what you want to hear.

because ji isn't taught in conservatories and not all composers can
spend their lives training players. say 'just' or '5/4' and 99% of
musicians will just look at you funny.

> If you want the best( 5/4 ) they can produce, then
> ask for it. They should be able to find an M3 thats not
> beating,

in eighth notes at 150 bpm?? plus, some of the best musicians i know
with perfect pitch simply can't hear beating, no matter how much time
i spend showing it to them and unbelieving that they're missing it.

> I guess if I were to start thinking in 72 and wanted to
> preserve 12-ness it would be something like the following
>
> 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
> sM2 M2 hM2 sm3 m3 jm3 ln3 N3 hn3 jM3 M3 hM3

that's great for you since it's meaningful for you.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 08:46:52 -0000, SOMEONE articulated, I'd better
not say who :

>in eighth notes at 150 bpm?? plus, some of the best musicians i know
>with perfect pitch simply can't hear beating, no matter how much time
>i spend showing it to them and unbelieving that they're missing it.

The best musicians really deserve a good beating.
Why not let them 'feel' it ;)

"XBOX - Don't make any fuckin' plans today" ;)

http://www.ampcast.com/guiseppimendoza
http://www.ampfea.org/sln/browse.php?num=3&a_id=132

> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: G Bv D
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, M3 = best(5/4) but thats probably just not
> > going to work in 72. [72 is neither meantone
> > nor pythagorean since neither identity works
>
> pythagorean does not depend on any identities. perhaps you really
> meant schismic?

Yes.

>
> no that's not the best one. think of 72 as acting like ji in the 5-
> limit -- it's not a system you get by tempering out useful 5-limit
> commas.

Got it.

>
> > you are making one of the oft repeated mistakes
> > of Western notation which is to tell a musician how to do
> > something rather than tell them what you want to hear.
>
> because ji isn't taught in conservatories and not all composers can
> spend their lives training players. say 'just' or '5/4' and 99% of
> musicians will just look at you funny.
>
> > If you want the best( 5/4 ) they can produce, then
> > ask for it. They should be able to find an M3 thats not
> > beating,
>
> in eighth notes at 150 bpm?? plus, some of the best musicians i know
> with perfect pitch simply can't hear beating, no matter how much time
> i spend showing it to them and unbelieving that they're missing it.

Of course, eighth notes at 150 bpm are going to be 'out' no matter
what.

I guess the issue that concerns me is that I believe that
current players of non-fixed-pitch instruments (including those that
are fixed but dynamically tuneable like woodwinds) when faced with
G B D are probably going to attempt to make it sound "in tune". I
would also conject (and believe I hear this in recordings) that this
is to make it somewhat beat-free (or at least the center pitches
if vibrato is being applied). Of course, this may change depending
on if it is the I chord at a point of repose, or some other chord
at a point of tension.

In other words (to reply to JP) I don't think Anyone thinks that
12eq is "in tune". I think that if they have an instrument that is
capable of it, they will correct the errors when they can.

So when faced with G B D or G Bv D, one is already faced with having
to explain that G B D MUST stay in 12 regardless of the situation
(no adapting) so that G Bv D can do what it is supposed to.

But I suppose this is what they do at NEC.

Bob Valentine

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_33649.html#33687

> I guess the issue that concerns me is that I believe that
> current players of non-fixed-pitch instruments (including those that
> are fixed but dynamically tuneable like woodwinds) when faced with
> G B D are probably going to attempt to make it sound "in tune". I
> would also conject (and believe I hear this in recordings) that this
> is to make it somewhat beat-free (or at least the center pitches
> if vibrato is being applied). Of course, this may change depending
> on if it is the I chord at a point of repose, or some other chord
> at a point of tension.
>

****Hi Bob!

Well, I might have thought that, too, but Paul Erlich has cited some
studies, I believe that show that even string players, for instance,
if left with no further instructions tend to play close to 12-tET...

??

JP

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:

> I guess the issue that concerns me is that I believe that
> current players of non-fixed-pitch instruments (including those that
> are fixed but dynamically tuneable like woodwinds) when faced with
> G B D are probably going to attempt to make it sound "in tune".

listening to the top classical string quartets, i find that the vast
majority of them prefer to intonate their major triads close to 12-
equal rather than just intonation. one hears many claims to the
contrary but those who have really composed in meantone or just (such
as kyle gann) can easily hear and attest to this phenomenon. one can
see the tide turning in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries toward this 'anti-just' paradigm of teaching intonation in
the western classical world. this is the world that is fluent in
reading notation of the sort we're discussing, and therefore their
habits should be taken into account. two hundred years of momentum
are hard to break.

> In other words (to reply to JP) I don't think Anyone thinks that
> 12eq is "in tune". I think that if they have an instrument that is
> capable of it, they will correct the errors when they can.

i think you and bob wendell and many other people would, but
unfortunately this is the minority opinion among 'western musicians
on the street', particularly those who sight-read and are interested
in microtonality.

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ****Hi Bob!
>
> Well, I might have thought that, too, but Paul Erlich has cited
some
> studies, I believe that show that even string players, for
instance,
> if left with no further instructions tend to play close to 12-tET...
>
> ??

not only this, but you may recall that gerry eskelin, one of our
country's top choral directors, was convinced that when singers 'lock
in' a major triad, the major third is not just but is in fact *wider*
than a 12-equal major third. after some time on this list, he ended
up conceding that perhaps a *minority* of the top choral groups
(including most of those that specialize in renaissance music) 'lock
in' to a just intonation major triad, but that the *majority* use
the 'high third' instead . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_33649.html#33702

> not only this, but you may recall that gerry eskelin, one of our
> country's top choral directors, was convinced that when
singers 'lock in' a major triad, the major third is not just but is
in fact *wider* than a 12-equal major third. after some time on this
list, he ended
> up conceding that perhaps a *minority* of the top choral groups
> (including most of those that specialize in renaissance
music) 'lock in' to a just intonation major triad, but that the
*majority* use the 'high third' instead . . .

****Yes! But when this was happening on the list a couple of years
ago, I kept thinking it was something "mystical..."

Do you think it just simply reflects 12-tET training??

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> not only this, but you may recall that gerry eskelin, one of our
> country's top choral directors, was convinced that when singers
'lock
> in' a major triad, the major third is not just but is in fact
*wider*
> than a 12-equal major third. after some time on this list, he ended
> up conceding that perhaps a *minority* of the top choral groups
> (including most of those that specialize in renaissance music) 'lock
> in' to a just intonation major triad, but that the *majority* use
> the 'high third' instead . . .

Did anyone ever measure that or are we still relying on Gerry's ears?

> From: "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@uq.net.au>
> Subject: Re: G Bv D
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > not only this, but you may recall that gerry eskelin, one of our
> > country's top choral directors, was convinced that when singers
> 'lock
> > in' a major triad, the major third is not just but is in fact
> *wider*
> > than a 12-equal major third. after some time on this list, he ended
> > up conceding that perhaps a *minority* of the top choral groups
> > (including most of those that specialize in renaissance music) 'lock
> > in' to a just intonation major triad, but that the *majority* use
> > the 'high third' instead . . .
>
> Did anyone ever measure that or are we still relying on Gerry's ears?
>

Great question. Note that his book takes a much more JI approach to
what music and musicians do, even implying the use of 11 and 13
limit entities in the performance of "in tune" Western music. Since
this doesn't match at all what I hear, I have some scepticism about
theorizing he may make, regardless of the quality of his choral
directing.

He came to this list in search of the "high third" (which he
seemed to believe was a third that would 'lock' IN ADDITION to
the 5/4, beat-free third). After listening to a bunch of major
triads, the one he seemed to believe best matched his experience
had a third of around 404c. (He did seem to think that 408 was
too high).

It may well be that all of Western music theory should be based
on

1/1 9/8 24/19 4/3 3/2 32/19 36/19

or casting it into a 12 tone system

1/1 19/18 9/8 19/6 24/19 4/3 27/19 3/2 19/12 32/19 57/32 36/19

with a 3 and 19 lattice

Db Ab Eb Bb
F C G D
A E B F#

and that {3,19} is the spiritual coupling with all of creation
rather than just little integers, but thats probably a different
discussion.

Bob Valentine

I just found this in my "unable to deliver" email folder. Just in case it
never went, here it is--for what it's worth.

GE

On 2/5/02 7:27 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 18
> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:11:22 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: G Bv D
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_33649.html#33702
>
>> not only this, but you may recall that gerry eskelin, one of our
>> country's top choral directors, was convinced that when
> singers 'lock in' a major triad, the major third is not just but is
> in fact *wider* than a 12-equal major third. after some time on this
> list, he ended
>> up conceding that perhaps a *minority* of the top choral groups
>> (including most of those that specialize in renaissance
> music) 'lock in' to a just intonation major triad, but that the
> *majority* use the 'high third' instead . . .
>
> ****Yes! But when this was happening on the list a couple of years
> ago, I kept thinking it was something "mystical..."
>
> Do you think it just simply reflects 12-tET training??
>
> JP

I assure you, Joe, that it does not. Every new semester I had to spend
considerable time weaning 'experienced' young singers from keyboard-
influenced 12-tET thinking. Once I got them off the tempered perfect fifth,
the rest of it quickly followed--including the high third (which I didn't
teach but simply observed).

BTW, I *still* think it's something "mystical" (but I've learned to live
with it).

Gerald Eskelin

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_33649.html#34611

>
> I assure you, Joe, that it does not. Every new semester I had to
spend
> considerable time weaning 'experienced' young singers from keyboard-
> influenced 12-tET thinking. Once I got them off the tempered
perfect fifth,
> the rest of it quickly followed--including the high third (which I
didn't teach but simply observed).
>
> BTW, I *still* think it's something "mystical" (but I've learned to
live with it).
>
> Gerald Eskelin

***So, Jerry, did you listen to Paul's "Jerries??" And, which one
did you like the best??

Joe