Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1875

On 2/7/02 2:02 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> 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 . . .
>
> (Geeeez.... If I had seen this before sending my earlier posts I *could*
> have kept me mouth shut. Damn! -- Jerry)

I'm afraid this didn't make much sense since my "earlier" posts didn't get
posted. I didn't realize I had to use the same email address I signed up
with. Dah! (They're on their way.)

Jerry

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

> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:47:10 +0200 (IST)
> From: Robert C Valentine <BVAL@IIL.INTEL.COM>
> Subject: Re: G Bv D
>
>> 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.
>
I join you in that skepticism, Bob. I learned a lot during my months on the
list. Too bad I can't go back and modify all the copies of my books. At
least I'll be a bit more cautious in any future writing.

> 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).

That's what I remember.
>
> 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

While I find the further search among number ratios interesting, I suspect
the "explanation" of the high third lies elsewhere--perhaps in the
physiology of hearing. On that happy thought--anyone for a round of golf?

Gerald Eskelin

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

> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:15:52 -0800
> From: "monz" <joemonz@yahoo.com>
> Subject: bob v's 12-tone (3,19) tuning (was: G Bv D)
>
>
>> From: Robert C Valentine <BVAL@IIL.INTEL.COM>
>> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:47 PM
>> Subject: [tuning] Re: G Bv D
>>
>>
>> [Gerry Eskelin] 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). >
>
> you say that Gerry felt that the Pythagorean third 81:64
> = ~408 cents was too high, which means that to him there
> is a perceptible difference between 81:64 and 24:19.
> this difference is precisely the same nondecimal schisma
> i refer to above. so here's an example of someone who
> audibly perceives and places some importance on this
> small interval. paul, please take note.
>
>
> note that Eratosthenes made use of a different 3==19 bridge:
> [2 3 5 19] [ 6 -5 -1 1] = 1216:1215 = ~1.424297941 cents
> as long ago as the 200s BC (during Macedonian rule of Greece),
> as i wrote in message 26618 (Thu Aug 2, 2001 6:31pm)
> /tuning/topicId_26618.html#26618?expand=1
>
I'm all ears (no pun intended).

Jerry

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

> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:24:47 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: bob v's 12-tone (3,19) tuning (was: G Bv D)
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
>> so here's an example of someone
>
> maybe -- we're speculating quite a bit. when i originally suggested
> the 19-limit Utonal explanation of Gerry's major chord, he didn't buy
> it for a second.
>
>> who
>> audibly perceives and places some importance on this
>> small interval.
>
> so that would be the opposite of a xenharmonic bridge.

Huh? What's a "xenharmonic bridge"? I know what "19-limit" means but I don't
know what "Utonal" means. So, at this point, I don't know what it was that I
didn't buy for a second. Want to try it again, Paul?

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> but I don't
> know what "Utonal" means. So, at this point, I don't know what it
was > that I
> didn't buy for a second. Want to try it again, Paul?

i suggested an admittedly far-fetched explanation of the high third
phenomenon. if a major triad were tuned 1/(24:19:16), then the 24th
harmonic of the root, the 19th harmonic of the third, and the 16th
harmonic of the fifth would all coincide. this is "Utonal", while
"Otonal" chords have all the notes as overtones of an "implied"
fundamental. anyway, the 1/(24:19:16) chord is, in cents, 0 404 702,
so it seemed the best "acoustical" match to "your" high third major
chord. since you came onto the list seemingly convinced that there was
an acoustical explanation for it from overtones and the like, this is
what i offered you as your 'best bet'.

like you, i feel that this 'coinciding overtones' phenomenon is too
weak, especially with such high overtones, to explain much of musical
practice. i think it's more a matter of getting the third to 'stand
out' -- it kind of disappears in just intonation, which was fine for
renaissance harmony, but not necessarily appropriate to the aesthetics
of the type of music you're working in . . .