Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning return of I-IV-V7-I (was: Digest Number 1890)

On 2/12/02 10:13 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

>
> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:28:08 -0800
> From: "monz" <joemonz@yahoo.com>
> Subject: return of I-IV-V7-I (was: Digest Number 1890)
>
>
>> From: paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
>> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:22 PM
>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Digest Number 1890
>>
>>
>> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>>
>>> Contrary to what my teachers believed, the seventh partial is not
>>> "unusable." Combine a "high third" with a super-flat seventh over a
>> dominant
>>> root and you've got tension that *cries* for resolution.
>>
>> again, i wonder if we would feel quite as comfortable with these
>> pronouncements if they'd been accompanied by monz's actually audible
>> examples . . .
>
>
> ok, Paul, i hear you . . . monz to the rescue (i hope).
>
> i'm pretty sure this is the webpage you've been wanting:
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/td/monzo/i-iv-v7-i/I-IV-V-I.htm
>
>
>
> -monz

Thanks (I think), Monz, for finding these . I spent about an hour with this
page and some lights are going on. I'll get back to you on it. Right now I
feel the lure of the little white ball.

Soon,

Jerry

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_34142.html#34187

> >
> > i'm pretty sure this is the webpage you've been wanting:
> > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/td/monzo/i-iv-v7-i/I-IV-V-I.htm
> >

***Well, it certainly was great to revisit this page again, and my
experience with it was quite a bit different than it was 2 years ago
when I first heard it. Of course, I think I have different
*expectations* now, since I really didn't know what I was "supposed"
to be listening to two years ago! :) Well, I guess
that's "progress..."

Anyway, it truly seems like Dave Keenan's Just example is
an "elegant" solution. Very smooth.

The only "rival" now for me was the meantone example. Except, there
seemed more beating in the fifths, so it wasn't really totally JI..
well it isn't.

I was surprised at how "beaty" 12-tET sounded. I can't remember if
it had the same effect on me 2 years ago...

All the other examples seemed to have "comma" problems of one kind or
another...

A great Monzpage! A real "keeper."

Monz, could you please put this prominently in your home
page "index??"

best,

Joe

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_34142.html#34249

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_34142.html#34187
> >
> > > >
> > > > i'm pretty sure this is the webpage you've been wanting:
> > > > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/td/monzo/i-iv-v7-i/I-IV-V-I.htm
> > > >
> >
> >
> > ***Well, it certainly was great to revisit this page again, and
my
> > experience with it was quite a bit different than it was 2 years
> ago
> > when I first heard it. Of course, I think I have different
> > *expectations* now, since I really didn't know what I
> was "supposed"
> > to be listening to two years ago! :) Well, I guess
> > that's "progress..."
> >
> > Anyway, it truly seems like Dave Keenan's Just example is
> > an "elegant" solution. Very smooth.
> >
> > The only "rival" now for me was the meantone example. Except,
> there
> > seemed more beating in the fifths, so it wasn't really totally
JI..
> > well it isn't.
>
> perhaps we need a vicentino example as well.

****I meant to say "adapted just." Thanks for the off-line correx
Paul.

Oh, and if anybody ever has trouble playing MIDI files from the web,
there is a place embedded 'way in the "control panel" that selects
devices for playing, specifically, MIDI. One needs to select ones
current sound card. I'm surprised this isn't done automatically.
Well, maybe it is sometimes, but *mine* got messed up. Now it's
working....

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Monz I-IV-V7-I page

someone post the cents values and i'll make the MIDI.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: paulerlich <paul@s...>
> To: <tuning@y...>
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:25 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Monz I-IV-V7-I page
>
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > >
> > > /tuning/topicId_34142.html#34187
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > i'm pretty sure this is the webpage you've been wanting:
> > > > > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/td/monzo/i-iv-v7-i/I-IV-V-
I.htm
> > > > >
> > >
> > > ... Anyway, it truly seems like Dave Keenan's Just example
> > > is an "elegant" solution. Very smooth.
> > >
> > > The only "rival" now for me was the meantone example.
> > > Except, there seemed more beating in the fifths, so
> > > it wasn't really totally JI.. well it isn't.
> >
> > perhaps we need a vicentino example as well.
>
>
> someone post the cents values and i'll make the MIDI.

would it be satisfactory if i said it was in 1/4-comma meantone with
certain notes inflected by 1/4-comma, and i told you which notes
those were? let me use this notation: unmarked means 1/4-comma
meantone, + means raised 1/4-comma. actually, since dominant seventh
chords didn't exist in vicentino's time, there would be three
possible versions:

first chord is always C E G+
second chord is always F A C+
third chord is either G B D+ F++ or G B D+ F+ or G B D+ F
fourth chord is always C E G+

is that enough information for you to make the three vicentino
versions?

🔗dkeenanuqnetau <d.keenan@uq.net.au>

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_34142.html#34187
>
...
> Anyway, it truly seems like Dave Keenan's [adaptive] Just example is
> an "elegant" solution. Very smooth.

It's pure barbershop.

I understand it's the kind of thing John de Laubenfel's algorithm
would do automatically if you specified 7-limit and made the vertical
springs infinitely strong.

The funny thing is I didn't believe in it myself at the time. You were
supposed to notice that there was too little dissonance in the 4:5:6:7
"dominant 7th" chord, too little need to resolve. Now I'm not so sure
about the need for more dissonance.

Monz still hasn't got around to doing the one I actually proposed as
"the right one", which is based on a 5[4:5:6|5:6]9 dominant 7th, with
the roots in 1/3-comma meantone. [You'll need "Message Index/Expand
Messages" to make sense of this on Yahoo's dopey web interface].

F 4/3 27/20
E 5/4 5/4
D 9/8
C 1/1 1/1 1/1
B 15/8
A 5/3
G 3/2 3/2 3/2

all all
+7.2c -7.2c

> I was surprised at how "beaty" 12-tET sounded. I can't remember if
> it had the same effect on me 2 years ago...

I think Monz may be using a cleaner timbre now.

> A great Monzpage! A real "keeper."

Yes indeed.

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34142.html#34336

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_34142.html#34187
> >
> ...
> > Anyway, it truly seems like Dave Keenan's [adaptive] Just example
is
> > an "elegant" solution. Very smooth.
>
> It's pure barbershop.
>
> I understand it's the kind of thing John de Laubenfel's algorithm
> would do automatically if you specified 7-limit and made the
vertical
> springs infinitely strong.
>
> The funny thing is I didn't believe in it myself at the time. You
were
> supposed to notice that there was too little dissonance in the
4:5:6:7
> "dominant 7th" chord, too little need to resolve. Now I'm not so
sure
> about the need for more dissonance.
>
> Monz still hasn't got around to doing the one I actually proposed
as
> "the right one", which is based on a 5[4:5:6|5:6]9 dominant 7th,
with
> the roots in 1/3-comma meantone. [You'll need "Message Index/Expand
> Messages" to make sense of this on Yahoo's dopey web interface].
>
> F 4/3 27/20
> E 5/4 5/4
> D 9/8
> C 1/1 1/1 1/1
> B 15/8
> A 5/3
> G 3/2 3/2 3/2
>
> all all
> +7.2c -7.2c
>
> > I was surprised at how "beaty" 12-tET sounded. I can't remember
if
> > it had the same effect on me 2 years ago...
>
> I think Monz may be using a cleaner timbre now.
>
> > A great Monzpage! A real "keeper."
>
> Yes indeed.

***I really think Monz should add the Vicentino and *this*
progression to the page and then make it *really* accessible from his
Website.

Although it's not so "exciting" there is nothing much more
fundamental to, at least, Western tonal music than trying to figure
out an optimal tuning for I-IV-V7-I!

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 2/17/02 1:25 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:42:43 -0000
> From: "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@uq.net.au>
> Subject: Re: Monz I-IV-V7-I page
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>>
>> /tuning/topicId_34142.html#34187
>>
> ...
>> Anyway, it truly seems like Dave Keenan's [adaptive] Just example is
>> an "elegant" solution. Very smooth.
>
> It's pure barbershop.

Assuming the reference is to the first item on Monz's MIDI page, I keep
listening to it and find that it bothers my ear. To me, the second chord (F)
is flat. Also, the third chord (G7) sounds jarring and disconnected from the
progression.

I see in the numbers that Dave has lowered the second chord--evidently to
move the F in the IV chord toward the F in the V7. (I'm assuming that Dave's
comment about my singers "hiding" something has to do with the concept of
"comma" that I see mentioned frequently on the List. Right?) That may signal
a basic difference between current microtuning practice (for keyboards?) and
what I call "flexible" tuning (by ear) for singers--as well as for string
and wind players.

I believe I would much rather the F chord be tuned (likely 2:3) *to* the
original C. (That's the tonality around which the cadence centers and
hopefully is being strongly maintained in a singer's ear.) I also think that
the G in the third chord would relate directly to the C tonic (instead of
raising it 9.1 cents).

I think the "rub" here is that I would have no problem with the F "moving"
during the change from the second to third chord. No need to worry about a
"comma." That's what flexible tuning, in my mind, is all about.

One of the drills I do with my students is to have them sing and tune E-F-E
while hearing roots move C-F-C and then C-G-C. The difference in the tuning
of the F is clearly evident (even when singing to 12edo keyboard roots) and
hopefully will become a part of the contextual-tuning "vocabulary" the
student takes with him into the real world.

The only other feature I would likely "adjust" is the tuning of the leading
tone (B) in the V7 chord. As you likely remember, I like a higher tuning of
the third, particularly in the context of a contracting d5 tritone. Of
course, we decided last year that my "high third" was likely a personal
stylistic deviation. Okay. So be it. I like it! (And, apparently, so do a
great many other tuning-sensitive musicians.)

Do I sense correctly that the Blackjack scale is intended to offer a kind of
flexible tuning to keyboard composition that is akin to "intuitive" vocal
tuning?

Thanks again to Monz for preparing his page of progressions. I want to get
back to that as soon as I can. When I do, I'll be happy to offer again (but
hopefully with "better" ears) my whatever-they're-worth reactions.

Gerald Eskelin

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> I think the "rub" here is that I would have no problem with the F
"moving"
> during the change from the second to third chord. No need to
worry about a
> "comma." That's what flexible tuning, in my mind, is all about.

well, monz does include such an example on his page. what do
you think about how it sounds? i think is sounds truly awful, and
not like what i've ever heard any good singers do. by contrast,
even the best vocal groups on the cd that carl made for me seem
to adjust the melodic intervals between the roots of chords by at
least as much as dave keenan does in his example.

> Do I sense correctly that the Blackjack scale is intended to offer
a kind of
> flexible tuning to keyboard composition that is akin to "intuitive"
vocal
> tuning?

not really. you can't do diatonic scales at all in blackjack, let
alone adaptive ones. vicentino's second tuning of 1555 has
been discussed as a model for intuitive vocal tuning . . . at least
for renaissance music.

p.s. if you feel the high third of the major triad truly 'locks in' with
an accuracy tighter than one cent, perhaps we could narrow
down its value (more precisely than 404 cents). hows about i
produce several .wav files for you in this vicinity and ask you to
pick the one you like best?

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_34142.html#34374

> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> > I think the "rub" here is that I would have no problem with the F
> "moving" during the change from the second to third chord. No need
to worry about a "comma." That's what flexible tuning, in my mind, is
all about.
>
> well, monz does include such an example on his page.

****I'm still having some problems thoroughly understanding this
page, and any help would be *greatly* appreciated! At least I have a
better grasp than 2 years ago (and it *was* about 2, not just 1) when
it appeared (Monz was still living in Philadelphia!)

In the first place, aren't there *two* examples where the
7th "moves..?":

the "5-limit 5:9" and the "7-limit," yes??

Getting back to a comparison of these various 7ths, I'm having a
little problem understanding some of it. I didn't understand it two
years ago and it didn't bother me. Now I don't understand it and it
*does* bother me, so that's progress of a sort...

For example, in the 5-limit 9:16 it looks like everything is "stable"
and the 4/3 of the seventh constructed from an "F-root" is maintained
over into the V-7 chord.

So, the big "comma jump" in that particular example is between the
first and the second chords??

And what does *this* mean??:

36:45:54:64 = 4:5:6|27:32.

How is this derived, and what's being divided, again? (I
say, "again" just to appear less ignorant...)

And, by the way, why is it called a 5-limit 9:16? Where's the 9:16
(again??)

So, curiously enough, for that particular example, I didn't have so
much trouble with it. It seems pretty smooth, and I "liked" it. All
the "comma displacement" is being absorbed between the first two
chords, yes? Seemingly, I don't seem to notice it.

Going on to the "5-limit 5:9":

Here, obviously, the "F" of the seventh moves, and I'll have to say
that the V-7 chord seems "out of tune" to me (whatever *that* means
in the xenharmonic realm... :) )

Since I'm asking questions, what does *this* mean and how is it
derived (again?):

20:25:30:36 = 4:5:6|5:6.

And where do we get the "5:9?"

(obviously, I'm having the *same* problems with *this* example as
with the *last* one...)

Now, on to the "7-limit" example:

Is *this* an example of what Jerry Eskelin wants to do with his
choir, pretty much? Obviously, the F moves, and it doesn't seem
quite as "out of tune" as the 5-limit 5:9 example, but I *still*
think that the "5-limit 9:16" example where the "F" stays the same is
preferable...

For me the "Pythagorean" example really gives a *lot* of beating on
the V-7 chord. It doesn't seem optimal.

Then, it's on to the 7-limit 61:84

Again, I'll need a little help with the "math..." (I'd put this on
the "math list" but it's so remedial and general that I believe it
belongs here...)

Since I didn't understand the math on the *other* examples, it's
unlikely that I'll understand it *here* so:

How do we get, *this??*:

576:729:864:1008 == 3^2 : 3^3 : 3^6 | 6:7

I see that the indication is various "chains of fifths" but, what and
why are we dividing by 6:7 (again?) and where do we get the 61:84??

I guess *this* one is the *very optimal" Jerry Eskelin example, yes?
with the major third raised like Pythagorean and the 7th lowered...

All apologies to Jerry, I really think this one sounds
pretty "baaad..."

One final question (for now! :) ) on the math:

In Monz' meantone example he gives *this* for "E":

E ( (2^-6)*(3^ 4) )

That looks like a 81/64, yes?

How do you get a 5/4 out of that??

Any help would be *greatly* appreciated!

Thanks!

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_34142.html#34374
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the "rub" here is that I would have no problem with
the F
> > "moving" during the change from the second to third chord.
No need
> to worry about a "comma." That's what flexible tuning, in my
mind, is
> all about.
> >
> > well, monz does include such an example on his page.
>
> ****I'm still having some problems thoroughly understanding
this
> page, and any help would be *greatly* appreciated! At least I
have a
> better grasp than 2 years ago (and it *was* about 2, not just 1)
when
> it appeared (Monz was still living in Philadelphia!)
>
>
> In the first place, aren't there *two* examples where the
> 7th "moves..?":
>
> the "5-limit 5:9" and the "7-limit," yes??

sounds right.

>
> Getting back to a comparison of these various 7ths, I'm having
a
> little problem understanding some of it. I didn't understand it
two
> years ago and it didn't bother me. Now I don't understand it
and it
> *does* bother me, so that's progress of a sort...
>
> For example, in the 5-limit 9:16 it looks like everything is
"stable"
> and the 4/3 of the seventh constructed from an "F-root" is
maintained
> over into the V-7 chord.
>
> So, the big "comma jump" in that particular example is
between the
> first and the second chords??

no, i don't think there are any comm jumps there. this is the
popular favorite on mark nowitzky's page, as i recall.
>
> And what does *this* mean??:
>
> 36:45:54:64 = 4:5:6|27:32.
>
> How is this derived, and what's being divided, again? (I
> say, "again" just to appear less ignorant...)

i like how you do that :)

this just means that 36:45:54 = 4:5:6, and that 54:64 = 27:32, as
a little arithmetic should confirm.

> And, by the way, why is it called a 5-limit 9:16?

well, the prime limit of the *whole chord* is 5.

> Where's the 9:16
> (again??)

between the root and the seventh -- 36:64 = 9:16. if this
arithmetic is causing you trouble, we can help you on the
tuning-math list (and no, for goodness sake, i'm not trying to
foster competition between lists).

> So, curiously enough, for that particular example, I didn't have
so
> much trouble with it. It seems pretty smooth, and I "liked" it. All
> the "comma displacement" is being absorbed between the
first two
> chords, yes?

there's no "comma displacement". this is not a comma pump
progression. I-vi-ii-V-I and I-IV-ii-V-I are comma pump
progressions.

> Since I'm asking questions, what does *this* mean and how is
it
> derived (again?):
>
> 20:25:30:36 = 4:5:6|5:6.

20:25:30 = 4:5:6

30:36 = 5:6

> And where do we get the "5:9?"

20:36 = 5:9.

>
> Now, on to the "7-limit" example:
>
> Is *this* an example of what Jerry Eskelin wants to do with his
> choir, pretty much?

so he says, except he thinks the major third should be about 18
cents higher.

> Again, I'll need a little help with the "math..." (I'd put this on
> the "math list" but it's so remedial and general that I believe it
> belongs here...)

ok -- let's see if my explanations are good enough for you

> Since I didn't understand the math on the *other* examples, it's
> unlikely that I'll understand it *here* so:
>
> How do we get, *this??*:
>
> 576:729:864:1008 == 3^2 : 3^3 : 3^6 | 6:7

i think there's a typo there.

576:729:864 = 3^2 : 3^6 : 3^3

864:1008 = 6:7

> where do we get the 61:84??

you mean 64:81, yes? 576:729 = 64:81.

> I guess *this* one is the *very optimal" Jerry Eskelin example,
yes?

very close to it, though jerry would have the major third of the
dominant chord about 4 cents lower than this. perhaps after
monz is done with dave keenan's additional one and my
additional three examples (all of which are extremely similar to
one another, btw), monz can put up a 'true jerry' example.

> One final question (for now! :) ) on the math:
>
> In Monz' meantone example he gives *this* for "E":
>
> E ( (2^-6)*(3^ 4) )
>
> That looks like a 81/64, yes?

right.

> How do you get a 5/4 out of that??

only by lowering it a syntonic comma:

(81/64) / (81/80) = 5/4

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_34142.html#34418

****Thanks so much, Paul, for getting back on this, and all this is
*much* clearer now! I have a couple questions on the way the numbers
are presented which I will direct to "Tuning Math." Gene had
me "scared" that I had to finish Euclid before I could go and post
over there... :)

> >
> > And what does *this* mean??:
> >
> > 36:45:54:64 = 4:5:6|27:32.
> >
>
> this just means that 36:45:54 = 4:5:6, and that 54:64 = 27:32, as
> a little arithmetic should confirm.

****This is funny, because I thought it was something "exotic"
involving *division.* Monz was simply *separating* the 7-th from the
rest of the chord in his illustration. Couldda fooled me! (and did!)

>
> > And, by the way, why is it called a 5-limit 9:16?
>
> well, the prime limit of the *whole chord* is 5.
>
> > Where's the 9:16
> > (again??)
>
> between the root and the seventh -- 36:64 = 9:16.

****That would make sense as a description.

> >
> > How do we get, *this??*:
> >
> > 576:729:864:1008 == 3^2 : 3^3 : 3^6 | 6:7
>
> i think there's a typo there.
>
> 576:729:864 = 3^2 : 3^6 : 3^3
>
> 864:1008 = 6:7
>
> > where do we get the 61:84??
>
> you mean 64:81, yes? 576:729 = 64:81.
>

***Maybe Monz should correct that typo when he revises the page, so
that people like (or unlike) me don't get confused...

> > How do you get a 5/4 out of that??
>
> only by lowering it a syntonic comma:
>
> (81/64) / (81/80) = 5/4

***After thinking about this a bit, I suddenly realized that we were
talking about a *Pythagorean* base, so that was the reason it wasn't
coming out to a Just interval! :)

Thanks so much, Paul!

Joseph

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 2/17/02 5:04 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 22
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 23:19:33 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Monz I-IV-V7-I page
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>>
>> I think the "rub" here is that I would have no problem with the F
> "moving"
>> during the change from the second to third chord. No need to
> worry about a
>> "comma." That's what flexible tuning, in my mind, is all about.
>
> well, monz does include such an example on his page.

Yes, he does. Thanks for the reminder.

> what do
> you think about how it sounds? i think is sounds truly awful, and
> not like what i've ever heard any good singers do.

Truly awful???? It sounds very much better with an F chord that agrees with
the C chord. However, the G7 does sound quite noisy to me. Could that be
caused by the timbre? I wonder what this progression would sound like in the
mellow timbre Margo used in her tritone examples at:

</tuning/topicId_25376.html#25376>

Actually, this 7-limit tuning sounds more like what I hear good singers
doing than any of the other tunings on Monz's page. As you might expect, I'd
like to hear all of the thirds slightly higher. But then, what's new?

> by contrast,
> even the best vocal groups on the cd that carl made for me

Can you burn me a copy? I'd love to hear what you're referring to.

> seem
> to adjust the melodic intervals between the roots of chords by at
> least as much as dave keenan does in his example.

Well, I've never heard good singers produce such a flat sounding IV-chord
following a tonic--whether or not they were preparing for a V7.

BTW, did you ever get my MP3s up and running? I'd be interested to get your
feedback on the tuning produced by those well-seasoned college kids fresh
from a tour of Europe.
>
> p.s. if you feel the high third of the major triad truly 'locks in' with
> an accuracy tighter than one cent, perhaps we could narrow
> down its value (more precisely than 404 cents). hows about i
> produce several .wav files for you in this vicinity and ask you to
> pick the one you like best?
>
Sound great, Paul. Shoot.

Jerry

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> Truly awful???? It sounds very much better with an F chord that
agrees with
> the C chord. However, the G7 does sound quite noisy to me.
Could that be
> caused by the timbre?

hmm . . . i guess it couldn't hurt to try a different timbre, but i think
monz is rather swamped at the moment. but the 4:5:6:7 chord
sounded fine to me, as i recall (it's been a while since i listened
to this example). what troubled me is how the F note was
'adjusted' by a sudden 27-cent downward motion. assuming this
progression occured in a piece of diatonic music, that would
strike me as a very disturbing melodic effect. in an inner voice it
might not bother me so much, but in the melody, it doesn't sound
like anything i've heard from professional western musicians.

i've heard claims based on rigorous measurements of
barbershop quartets (i recall john starrett and john link providing
some links) that the melody (i think usually in the
second-highest voice) is sung very much with a fixed-pitch
template (close to 12-equal or pythagorean) in mind, and the
other voices adjust their pitches so as to produce nearly just
harmonies with that. monz hasn't produced a version like this,
but that would seem to be the complete opposite of what you're
maintaining . . .

> Actually, this 7-limit tuning sounds more like what I hear good
singers
> doing than any of the other tunings on Monz's page. As you
might expect, I'd
> like to hear all of the thirds slightly higher. But then, what's
new?

but jerry, there is an example on monz's page that has the third
in the dominant chord much closer to your 'high third' -- he uses
a pythagorean third, so it's 4 cents higher than 404 cents instead
of 18 cents lower than 404 cents. what do you think of that one?

> > by contrast,
> > even the best vocal groups on the cd that carl made for me
>
> Can you burn me a copy? I'd love to hear what you're referring
to.

i'll have to refer you to carl. carl?

> > seem
> > to adjust the melodic intervals between the roots of chords by
at
> > least as much as dave keenan does in his example.
>
> Well, I've never heard good singers produce such a flat
sounding IV-chord
> following a tonic--whether or not they were preparing for a V7.

i believe you. note that dave keenan and i have both asked monz
to put up some versions with far smaller adjustments . . . though
without the low seventh. joseph, at least, seems to feel that a
high minor seventh as in meantone works about as well as the
low seventh.

> BTW, did you ever get my MP3s up and running? I'd be
interested to get your
> feedback on the tuning produced by those well-seasoned
college kids fresh
> from a tour of Europe.

i'll try again when i get back to the office.

> > p.s. if you feel the high third of the major triad truly 'locks in'
with
> > an accuracy tighter than one cent, perhaps we could narrow
> > down its value (more precisely than 404 cents). hows about i
> > produce several .wav files for you in this vicinity and ask you
to
> > pick the one you like best?
> >
> Sound great, Paul. Shoot.

ok . . . when i get back to the office . . .

🔗dkeenanuqnetau <d.keenan@uq.net.au>

The vertical bar means "stacked with" and combines chord or interval
ratios into a larger chord while allowing the parts to remain in
lowest terms. It's particularly useful for those cases where making a
single extended-ratio for the whole chord would obscure what was
really going on.

So 4:5:6|5:6 is read as if it were grouped like this (4:5:6) | (5:6)
and means a minor third stacked on top of a major triad.

To calculate the corresponding single extended-ratio we need to get
the numbers on either side of the vertical bar being equal. In this
case the LCM of 6 and 5 is just 6*5 = 30. So we multiply the 4:5:6 by
5 and the 5:6 by 6, and then we can combine them as follows.

4:5:6 | 5:6
= 20:25:30 | 30:36
= 20:25:30:36

4:5:6|5:6 is a lot more meaningful (to me at least) than 20:25:30:36.
Looking at those big numbers, it's easy to miss that there are some
very small number ratios in there.

Now someone asked, "Where's the 5:9"? Dividing both sides of the
outermost pair, 20:36, by 4 shows that this is indeed a 5:9. But there
is a compact notation that makes _this_ obvious too. The square
brackets [] which are read as "whose outer interval is".

We can write 5[20:25:30:36]9 to mean "the 20:25:30:36 chord whose
outer interval is 5:9". And we can combine these two notations to give
what I find is the most meaning-full notation for this dominant 7th
chord.

5[4:5:6|5:6]9

And indeed we could write 4:5:6 as 2[4:5:6]3, but most people are
familiar with the 2:3 being in there.

In this case, adding the 5[...]9 around the chord doesn't change it in
any way, because there is strict rational agreement, but this
square-bracket notation can also be used to describe
necessarily-tempered chords. For example the 12-tET diminished triad
might be described as 5[5:6|5:6]7. i.e. two stacked 5:6s where the
outer interval is a 5:7.

If we expand 5:6|5:6 we get 25:30:36. Now 5:7 is 25:35 and does not
equal 25:36, so we see that to meaningfully render such a chord we
must temper it to distribute the 35:36 and make it "vanish".

As a more complex example, we could go crazy and describe the 12-tET
dominant 7th chord as 5[4:5|5[5:6|5:6]7]9. Just looks like a
meaningless jumble of symbols, right? Lets tease it apart to show the
groupings.

.---------------------------------.
v v
5[ 4:5 | 5[ 5:6 | 5:6 ]7 ]9
^ ^
'-------------'

Now we can read it (from the inside out and right to left) as an
approximate 5:6 minor third stacked on another approximate 5:6 minor
third with their outside interval being an approximate 5:7, and this
is stacked on an approximate 4:5 major third with the outer interval
of it all being an approximate 5:9 minor seventh.

Takes up a lot less space the other way huh?

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34142.html#34444

>
> 4:5:6|5:6 is a lot more meaningful (to me at least) than
20:25:30:36.

****Thanks so much, Dave, for this post! Yes, the "larger numbers"
are frequently lost on me at this point!

> Looking at those big numbers, it's easy to miss that there are some
> very small number ratios in there.
>
> Now someone asked, "Where's the 5:9"? Dividing both sides of the
> outermost pair, 20:36, by 4 shows that this is indeed a 5:9. But
there is a compact notation that makes _this_ obvious too. The square
> brackets [] which are read as "whose outer interval is".
>
> We can write 5[20:25:30:36]9 to mean "the 20:25:30:36 chord whose
> outer interval is 5:9". And we can combine these two notations to
give what I find is the most meaning-full notation for this dominant
7th chord.
>
> 5[4:5:6|5:6]9
>

***This is so absolutely clear! I wish this were common practice!

Joseph

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> From: dkeenanuqnetau <d.keenan@uq.net.au>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 4:38 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Gentle introduction to "|" and "[]" in chords
>
>
> The vertical bar means "stacked with" and combines chord or interval
> ratios into a larger chord while allowing the parts to remain in
> lowest terms. It's particularly useful for those cases where making a
> single extended-ratio for the whole chord would obscure what was
> really going on.
>
> So 4:5:6|5:6 is read as if it were grouped like this (4:5:6) | (5:6)
> and means a minor third stacked on top of a major triad.
>
> <etc.>

hi Dave,

i'll "third" the praise you got on this from Joe P. and Jon S.

we've explained this before, and it's in the list archives somewhere
(probably around the same time i made the I-IV-V-I page), but this
was a really great and detailed coverage of it.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 2/18/02 11:54 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

Joe:
>
> Going on to the "5-limit 5:9":
>
> Here, obviously, the "F" of the seventh moves, and I'll have to say
> that the V-7 chord seems "out of tune" to me (whatever *that* means
> in the xenharmonic realm... :) )

I agree.
>
> Now, on to the "7-limit" example:
>
> Is *this* an example of what Jerry Eskelin wants to do with his
> choir, pretty much?

Roughly, yes. This is my "favorite" example, I guess, but not quite "in the
pocket."

> Obviously, the F moves, and it doesn't seem
> quite as "out of tune" as the 5-limit 5:9 example, but I *still*
> think that the "5-limit 9:16" example where the "F" stays the same is
> preferable...

Is that because you prefer not to hear pitches moving? Or because the V7
sonority sounds better?
>
> For me the "Pythagorean" example really gives a *lot* of beating on
> the V-7 chord. It doesn't seem optimal.

Yes, I agree. However, there is some "charm" to it, in my opinion. I can
imagine a good barbershop quartet sounding rather like this. But, for my
taste, the seventh doesn't lean downward enough into the resolution.
>
> Then, it's on to the 7-limit 61:84
>
> I guess *this* one is the *very optimal" Jerry Eskelin example, yes?
> with the major third raised like Pythagorean and the 7th lowered...
>
> All apologies to Jerry, I really think this one sounds
> pretty "baaad..."

No apology needed, Joseph. I suspect we're, to some extent, listening for
different things. Like the example above, there is considerable beating in
the V7 chord, but that doesn't bother me that much. I'm trying to listen in
terms of where I think a singer would "find" his satisfactory (whatever that
means) tuning. To me, the seventh sounds better in this one. In comparison
to most of the earlier examples, this one sounds *really* good.
>
> JP

Thanks, Joseph, for getting involved in this. And also for asking the math
questions. (I hope I'll be able to follow the responses.)

Jerry

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 2/18/02 4:59 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 15
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:35:04 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Monz I-IV-V7-I page
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Truly awful???? It sounds very much better with an F chord that
> agrees with
>> the C chord. However, the G7 does sound quite noisy to me.
> Could that be
>> caused by the timbre?
>
> hmm . . . i guess it couldn't hurt to try a different timbre, but i think
> monz is rather swamped at the moment.

Just a thought. Perhaps someone else isn't.

> but the 4:5:6:7 chord
> sounded fine to me, as i recall (it's been a while since i listened
> to this example). what troubled me is how the F note was
> 'adjusted' by a sudden 27-cent downward motion. assuming this
> progression occured in a piece of diatonic music, that would
> strike me as a very disturbing melodic effect. in an inner voice it
> might not bother me so much, but in the melody, it doesn't sound
> like anything i've heard from professional western musicians.

I understand your concern here. I've pretty much learned to enjoy the
melodic/harmonic tug of a seventh tuned toward the resolution pitch--even in
the lead voice. It's no more "illogical" than a leading tone in a lead voice
leaning up toward tonic--and that's done all the time. Perhaps if more
singers "lowered" sevenths, more listeners would learn to appreciate that
particular melodic/harmonic event--indeed, "mission."
>
> i've heard claims based on rigorous measurements of
> barbershop quartets (i recall john starrett and john link providing
> some links) that the melody (i think usually in the
> second-highest voice) is sung very much with a fixed-pitch
> template (close to 12-equal or pythagorean) in mind, and the
> other voices adjust their pitches so as to produce nearly just
> harmonies with that. monz hasn't produced a version like this,
> but that would seem to be the complete opposite of what you're
> maintaining . . .

Yes. I remember that discussion the last time around. I have no particular
problem with it. It probably represents a good deal of common practice. But
then, barbershop "lead singers" are usually the least likely of the four to
deviate from a life of 12edo experience. I suppose some of that exists in my
own recordings; however, in my group everyone gets plenty of opportunity to
*not* sing the melody, so when they do they are more likely than other
singers to adjust a melody pitch to the prevailing melodic/harmonic context.
>
>> Actually, this 7-limit tuning sounds more like what I hear good
> singers
>> doing than any of the other tunings on Monz's page. As you
> might expect, I'd
>> like to hear all of the thirds slightly higher. But then, what's
> new?
>
> but jerry, there is an example on monz's page that has the third
> in the dominant chord much closer to your 'high third' -- he uses
> a pythagorean third, so it's 4 cents higher than 404 cents instead
> of 18 cents lower than 404 cents. what do you think of that one?

I mentioned in an earlier post, in response to Joe's comments,that I like
that example (7-limit 64:81?) quite well. (The Pythagorean example
containing a 4/3 seventh is not as satisfying to me.)
>
>>> by contrast,
>>> even the best vocal groups on the cd that carl made for me
>>
>> Can you burn me a copy? I'd love to hear what you're referring
> to.
>
> i'll have to refer you to carl. carl?

Very well. Carl?
>
>>> seem
>>> to adjust the melodic intervals between the roots of chords by
> at
>>> least as much as dave keenan does in his example.
>>
>> Well, I've never heard good singers produce such a flat
> sounding IV-chord
>> following a tonic--whether or not they were preparing for a V7.
>
> i believe you. note that dave keenan and i have both asked monz
> to put up some versions with far smaller adjustments . . . though
> without the low seventh. joseph, at least, seems to feel that a
> high minor seventh as in meantone works about as well as the
> low seventh.

As you may have noticed, Joe and I don't agree on that. As I said to him,
there's a good chance we're listening for different things.
>
>> BTW, did you ever get my MP3s up and running? I'd be
> interested to get your
>> feedback on the tuning produced by those well-seasoned
> college kids fresh
>> from a tour of Europe.
>
> i'll try again when i get back to the office.
>
>>> p.s. if you feel the high third of the major triad truly 'locks in'
> with
>>> an accuracy tighter than one cent, perhaps we could narrow
>>> down its value (more precisely than 404 cents). hows about i
>>> produce several .wav files for you in this vicinity and ask you
> to
>>> pick the one you like best?
>>>
>> Sound great, Paul. Shoot.
>
> ok . . . when i get back to the office . . .
>
Looking forward to it.

Jerry

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> > but the 4:5:6:7 chord
> > sounded fine to me, as i recall (it's been a while since i
listened
> > to this example). what troubled me is how the F note was
> > 'adjusted' by a sudden 27-cent downward motion. assuming this
> > progression occured in a piece of diatonic music, that would
> > strike me as a very disturbing melodic effect. in an inner voice
it
> > might not bother me so much, but in the melody, it doesn't sound
> > like anything i've heard from professional western musicians.
>
> I understand your concern here. I've pretty much learned to enjoy
the
> melodic/harmonic tug of a seventh tuned toward the resolution pitch-
-even in
> the lead voice. It's no more "illogical" than a leading tone in a
lead voice
> leaning up toward tonic--and that's done all the time.

but it's never found 27 cents different in the preceding chord --
that's the point.

> >> Actually, this 7-limit tuning sounds more like what I hear good
> > singers
> >> doing than any of the other tunings on Monz's page. As you
> > might expect, I'd
> >> like to hear all of the thirds slightly higher. But then, what's
> > new?
> >
> > but jerry, there is an example on monz's page that has the third
> > in the dominant chord much closer to your 'high third' -- he uses
> > a pythagorean third, so it's 4 cents higher than 404 cents instead
> > of 18 cents lower than 404 cents. what do you think of that one?
>
> I mentioned in an earlier post, in response to Joe's comments,that
I like
> that example (7-limit 64:81?) quite well.

wow. i'm truly shocked.

> > i'll have to refer you to carl. carl?
>
> Very well. Carl?

i'll e-mail him . . .

now to produce some .wav files for you . . .

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_34142.html#34486

> >
> > Going on to the "5-limit 5:9":
> >
> > Here, obviously, the "F" of the seventh moves, and I'll have to
say that the V-7 chord seems "out of tune" to me (whatever *that*
means in the xenharmonic realm... :) )
>
> I agree.
> >
> > Now, on to the "7-limit" example:
> >
> > Is *this* an example of what Jerry Eskelin wants to do with his
> > choir, pretty much?
>
> Roughly, yes. This is my "favorite" example, I guess, but not
quite "in the pocket."
>
> > Obviously, the F moves, and it doesn't seem
> > quite as "out of tune" as the 5-limit 5:9 example, but I *still*
> > think that the "5-limit 9:16" example where the "F" stays the
same is preferable...
>
> Is that because you prefer not to hear pitches moving? Or because
the V7 sonority sounds better?

****For some reason, the V7 sounds "better" in this example.
Better "balanced" or some such. And I feel the same way about it
*today* as yesterday. Usually that changes... :)

As to the pitches moving, that I can hardly hear in that particular
timbre. The high "F" gets kind of "subsumed" into the entire...

> >
> > For me the "Pythagorean" example really gives a *lot* of beating
on the V-7 chord. It doesn't seem optimal.
>
> Yes, I agree. However, there is some "charm" to it, in my opinion.
I can imagine a good barbershop quartet sounding rather like this.

***OH. I hear what you mean.

But, for my taste, the seventh doesn't lean downward enough into the
resolution.
> >

> > Then, it's on to the 7-limit 61:84
> >
> > I guess *this* one is the *very optimal" Jerry Eskelin example,
yes?
> > with the major third raised like Pythagorean and the 7th
lowered...
> >
> > All apologies to Jerry, I really think this one sounds
> > pretty "baaad..."
>
> No apology needed, Joseph. I suspect we're, to some extent,
listening for different things. Like the example above, there is
considerable beating in the V7 chord, but that doesn't bother me that
much. I'm trying to listen in terms of where I think a singer
would "find" his satisfactory (whatever that means) tuning. To me,
the seventh sounds better in this one. In comparison to most of the
earlier examples, this one sounds *really* good.
> >

***Hmmm. Well, I imagine it would be an *entirely* different
experience in choral vocal timbres...

>
> Thanks, Joseph, for getting involved in this.

****I've always loved theory examples like this, believe it or not.
However, *these* are much more "fun" than the "traditional" ones
since the tuning changes. This is one of my favorite pages, ever,
and I really hope Monz puts it somewhere *accessible* from his main
page, not just buried in all the other stuff.

And also for asking the math
> questions. (I hope I'll be able to follow the responses.)
>

****They're pretty elementary...no problems there!

🔗clumma <carl@lumma.org>

>>by contrast, even the best vocal groups on the cd that carl made
>>for me
>
>Can you burn me a copy? I'd love to hear what you're referring
>to.

There are two Barbershop groups in particular you may want to
check out, if you haven't already: Nitelife and The Gas House
Gang. I've got a link to the Nitelife album from which Paul
has excerpts here: http://lumma.org/

I believe Paul is referring to a tape I made him, which includes
work by the above groups as well as: Special Feature, Joker's
Wild, Happiness Emporium, and the Suntones. There are also three
old King's Singers tracks (from the 70's) which were included
mainly for charm (a hocketed Cuckoo effect, and some roudy lyrics
about smoking up and hooking up) but also as an illustration of
how far away from 12 (or any standard of pitch) you can sing and
still hit some just intervals. There's an Alan Lomax track
(prison song) that involves some really wild intonation, and a
track from everybody's favorite (by now) Bulgarian Radio Choir.

>BTW, did you ever get my MP3s up and running? I'd be interested to
>get your feedback on the tuning produced by those well-seasoned
>college kids fresh from a tour of Europe.

I missed the link. Can you re-post it?

>Sound great, Paul. Shoot.

Paul- I'm not a member of tuning2, so I can't get your files,
and due to the pissant size of these "file sections", this
list's is full, I suppose...

These yahoo groups fly in the face of everything I believe about
interacting with people. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a
less ethical design or one of as much general suck-ass-ness if I
sat down and tried. I doubt I'll be here much longer.

-Carl

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 4:48 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Monz I-IV-V7-I page
>
>
> ****I've always loved theory examples like this, believe it or not.
> However, *these* are much more "fun" than the "traditional" ones
> since the tuning changes. This is one of my favorite pages, ever,
> and I really hope Monz puts it somewhere *accessible* from his main
> page, not just buried in all the other stuff.

hi Joe,

you'll be happy to know that i finally heeded your urgings
and included this on the "My work" page:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/me.htm

which is linked from my homepage.

it's at the bottom of "MICROTONAL MUSIC THEORY"

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗clumma <carl@lumma.org>

>>These yahoo groups fly in the face of everything I believe about
>>interacting with people. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a
>>less ethical design or one of as much general suck-ass-ness if I
>>sat down and tried. I doubt I'll be here much longer.
>
>is it the ads?

It's the ads. Not only do I have to click on them, download them,
and bother to ignore them, but they go out in my messages, along
with what I write, as if I was endorsing them. Not only what I
write today, but everything I've written since onelist. They're
egregious at best, internet-clogging and a general waste of human
time probably, and unethical possibly. Then there's the lack of
reasonable search and database functions.

All this is solved by getting mail sent to a local client like
Eudora or Outlook, right? Maybe, but then you go on holliday
for the weekend and come back to find all your personal mail has
been bouncing 'cause your mailbox is jammed with 200 messages.
Or you try to check your mail from a slow connection while on
holliday to get a crucial message, and blammo, it's behind 200
others in the queue. Digest mode you say? Then you loose some
important bits of database functionality (like sort by subject,
author, etc.), and can't participate in threads in realtime. And
even though your local client can provide database functionality
that makes everything look like one list, I'll argue that one
still needs to keep track of the different lists in his head to
communicate effectively with others on them. Besides, sort by
subject isn't as good as "up thread" (which is pretty bad!).

Then I think about what it could be. Fast and reliable anonymous
ftp files area with 20 gigs, not megs, of space. Threaded
interface. Search. Topic categories, instead of muliple lists.
We even have the volume to support a slashdot-like modding system
if we want (or we could just use this for a semi-publishing-quality
section, or an evolving FAQ). No ads. Our own domain. The
software that can do all this is free, if requiring some skill and
time to set up and maintain. All I can say is, people discuss
switching the mufflers out on their VWs with as much. I think
usenet would be preferable. I can volunteer money, and my
participation. Those are two things I can't volunteer here any
more.

I don't want to be a prude. I can live (and have been living) with
ads, the works. It's the point of it. Why should we, able-bodied
humans with something valuable (a world-wide academic group of 500
members almost a decade old) sit here and let Yahoo! "feature"
creep us into a basement of... whatever they want? What do you call
doing nasty stuff slowly enough that people will put up with it?
Bait and switch? Something from Machiavelli? Well, I'm going to
call it "Yahoo!".

Ask yourself: If Mills went down today, would you move the list
here? If so, then pardon me. Now back to your regularly
scheduled program. . . .

-Carl

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34142.html#34536
>
>
> hi Joe,
>
> you'll be happy to know that i finally heeded your urgings
> and included this on the "My work" page:
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/me.htm
>
> which is linked from my homepage.
>
>
> it's at the bottom of "MICROTONAL MUSIC THEORY"
>
>

***Thank you so much for this, Monz! I guess I'm a bit "addicted" to
computer listening of these kinds of progressions ever since I did a
guest stint at the University of Delaware (this is not an ad, that's
just when it happened... :) )

They had touch screens, and I was so busy there (I had to conduct a
piece -- again no ad :) ) that I had very little sleep, so was in a
daze in the first place.

They had a "computer listening lab" which was one of the first of
it's kind in the country... well this was about 1987 or so.

All the computers had touch screens and people would do
traditional "ear training" by touching the computer screens at the
place you wanted to have certain notes.

It was all very cool... *much* better than some of the *excruciating*
traditional "ear-training" classes at such places as Eastman
(apologies to Eastman fans) and such like, with rather sadistic
professors who enjoyed seeing the actual *pain* such exercises had on
the student body. (Well, maybe that was *my* skewed perception...)

Anyway, I'd *much* prefer a machine. At least I got a bit of
*privacy* that way, in case I "messed up."

To make a long story short, although this is *already* a long story,
but it *will* eventually end up about *tuning* gratefully, one day it
was rather hot in the computer room.

Computers don't like heat very much. Well, of course, they don't
know the difference, but they don't operate very well.

The administrator of the "computer room" revved up the machines and
we got to work.

However, everthing was wrong. All the pitches for the "ear training"
exercises were "all over the place." Curiously enough, though, the
final cadences managed to be correct, and end on a "major chord..."

The instructor/administrator jocularly observed that the result,
basically, sounded like Hindemith!

So much for computerized ear-training...

Now, however, we have it in "multi-dimensions!" The "multi-
dimensions" of various "alternate" tunings!!!!!

Thanks so much, Monz!!!

Joe

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 2/19/02 6:29 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>> I've pretty much learned to enjoy the
>> melodic/harmonic tug of a seventh tuned toward the resolution pitch--even in
>> the lead voice. It's no more "illogical" than a leading tone in a lead voice
>> leaning up toward tonic--and that's done all the time.

> but it's never found 27 cents different in the preceding chord --
> that's the point.

Never? Never?? Whose "never" is that? If a JI seventh (tuned to a 2/3
dominant root) is 27 cents lower than a 2/3 subdominant root, why wouldn't a
JI sensitive ear want to go there? Who gives a rip about the distance from
the previous pitch? I sure don't. I'd like to hear from Johnny on this one.

>>> but jerry, there is an example on monz's page that has the third
>>> in the dominant chord much closer to your 'high third' -- he uses
>>> a pythagorean third, so it's 4 cents higher than 404 cents instead
>>> of 18 cents lower than 404 cents. what do you think of that one?

Just to make sure we're talking about the same example, it's not the
"Pythagorean" example I liked best (of the two), likely because it's seventh
was not 4/7 to the dominant root.

>> I mentioned in an earlier post, in response to Joe's comments,that I like
>> that example (7-limit 64:81?) quite well.
>
> wow. i'm truly shocked.

Then it would seem that I'm listening for something other than (in addition
to?) simple "beatless" harmony.
>
> now to produce some .wav files for you . . .

Ready!

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 2/19/02 9:05 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 03:04:10 -0000
> From: "clumma" <carl@lumma.org>
> Subject: Re: Monz I-IV-V7-I page
>
> There are two Barbershop groups in particular you may want to
> check out, if you haven't already: Nitelife and The Gas House
> Gang. I've got a link to the Nitelife album from which Paul
> has excerpts here: http://lumma.org/

Carl, the names of the groups recharged my memory. I ordered these when you
mentioned them before. I'll dig them out and listen specifically for
lead-line tuning. Thanks for the memory jog.
>
> I believe Paul is referring to a tape I made him, which includes
> work by the above groups as well as: Special Feature, Joker's
> Wild, Happiness Emporium, and the Suntones. There are also three
> old King's Singers tracks (from the 70's) which were included
> mainly for charm (a hocketed Cuckoo effect, and some roudy lyrics
> about smoking up and hooking up) but also as an illustration of
> how far away from 12 (or any standard of pitch) you can sing and
> still hit some just intervals. There's an Alan Lomax track
> (prison song) that involves some really wild intonation, and a
> track from everybody's favorite (by now) Bulgarian Radio Choir.

Does the tape still exist? It sounds fascinating.

Speaking of Bulgarians, my keyboardist and co-producer of LA Jazz Choir's
"From All Sides," Milcho Leviev, came to this country many years ago to play
with the Don Ellis big band. He later recorded with "Free Flight" and
others. While his main 'signature' was asymmetrical meters, his input
regarding tuning was very helpful.
>
>> BTW, did you ever get my MP3s up and running? I'd be interested to
>> get your feedback on the tuning produced by those well-seasoned
>> college kids fresh from a tour of Europe.

>I missed the link. Can you re-post it?

These were never posted, Carl. I attached them to an email sent directly to
Paul a few weeks ago. Apparently, he couldn't get them to play on his setup.
How about an even trade: my college kids for your tape??? (Email me directly
<geskelin@stage3music.com>)

I'd post them on my website but I need to check with Earthlink to see why
people can't get directly to pages on my site. (That's what I need: one more
silly problem to solve.)

Jerry

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@orphonsoul.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

>Carl, the names of the groups recharged my memory. I ordered these
>when you mentioned them before. I'll dig them out and listen
>specifically for lead-line tuning. Thanks for the memory jog.

Let me know what you think!

>Speaking of Bulgarians, my keyboardist and co-producer of LA Jazz
>Choir's "From All Sides," Milcho Leviev, came to this country many
>years ago to play with the Don Ellis big band.

Cool! Paul actually turned me on to the Don Ellis big band, though
Jonny Reinhard had mentioned Ellis to me slightly earlier.

>> BTW, did you ever get my MP3s up and running? I'd be interested to
>> get your feedback on the tuning produced by those well-seasoned
>> college kids fresh from a tour of Europe.

>>I missed the link. Can you re-post it?
>
>These were never posted, Carl. I attached them to an email sent
>directly to Paul a few weeks ago. Apparently, he couldn't get them
>to play on his setup. How about an even trade: my college kids
>for your tape???

I don't even have a tape recorder anymore, or a cd burner for that
matter. Two completely obsolete technologies! (too bad nothing is
ready to take the place of cd yet...) Some day in the far, far
future, I can rip those tracks and put them on my ftp site for you.

>I'd post them on my website but I need to check with Earthlink to
>see why people can't get directly to pages on my site. (That's what
>I need: one more silly problem to solve.)

What pages?

-Carl

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_34142.html#34642

> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > These were never posted, Carl. I attached them to an email sent
> directly to
> > Paul a few weeks ago. Apparently, he couldn't get them to play on
> his setup.
>
> i finally got these to work and they're great! reminds me of the a
> capella groups we had in college (that a lot of my friends were in)
> except that your examples have piano/instrumental accompaniment.
lots
> of great-sounding harmonies, gerald -- but i'm not sure if this is
> the best context to look for pitch shifts or adjusted root motions,
> given the prominence of the piano's cues. in any case, were there
any
> specific elements you wanted me to listen for?
>
> boy do i wish bob wendell were here. bob, where are you? (bob would
> agree with jerry on a lot of things, but not everything)

***Is it possible to post Jerry's sound files up on the Web
someplace??