Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1892

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

>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:07:41 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1890
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:

>>
>> I certainly agree in principle, George. However, in my experience,
> the
>> tension in the dominant seventh chord is further enhanced when 7-
> limit is
>> employed. 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.
>>
>> The "high third" that "locks" in such a chord, however, seems to me
> *not* to
>> be a Pythagorean third--which to my ear is too high. (Again, not to
> re-open
>> past discussion, but simply to keep it in mind.)
>>
>> Gerald Eskelin
>
> gerry, isn't it also true that you, unlike george, feel/felt that
> the 'high third' could/would/should be used in the *tonic* chord?

Yes, Paul. That has been my observation. At a choral convention where group
after group sang for three days, I and a keen-eared buddy took notice of
final-chord tuning. The major thirds were all over the place--mostly some
shade of "high." Many were right on my sense of high-third "locking." Some
were uncomfortably higher. And, as one would expect, there were many 12-tET
thirds. But, surprisingly, not many JI thirds on final chords.

(I didn't get into tonic tuning in my response to George's post since my
point was not to exclude 7-limit sevenths.)

Gerald Eskelin

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

> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:13:50 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1890
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Paul and I have been talking about the ear's limitations regarding
> a few
>> cents of difference. I think I hear adjustments that are extremely
> small and
>> he thinks such adjustments are not perceptible.
>
> we were actually talking about adjustments of *less* than one cent.
> no, scratch that, this doesn't really get the context across either.
> you said that your impression of where the 'lock' occured, when
> listening to electronically-generated intervals incremented in 1-cent
> steps, varied considerably from trial to trial, and was never very
> strong, leading you to the conclusion that the lock had to occur
> *between* the quantized cents values. i merely suggested a different
> conclusion.

That's correct, Paul. But elsewhere you (and the Harvard Dictionary of
Music) indicated that the ear does not discriminate such small pitch
differences as 3 or 4 cents.

The search for a "lock" among one-cent options was a very frustrating
experience. I (and my singers and students) have no trouble finding what
appear to be acoustic small-number tuning. Yet I was unable to settle on a
"best" tuning when the increments were presented in cents.

Last night I taught the second session of my Music 101 class. The "topics"
were (1) matching pitches and tuning them carefully, (2) finding the perfect
fifth and tuning it carefully and (3) finding the major third and tuning it
carefully. Everyone in a class of 30 (mostly beginners) was able to find the
"beatless" zone for these intervals.

Now here's the point. The Harvard Dictionary article states that the pitch
difference between a just fifth and a keyboard fifth is only three cents. My
kids can hear the difference *clearly*. It would seem, therefore, that
adjusting pitches to JI tuning may in fact require something less than a
one-cent increment.

As I remember, the different conclusion you suggested had to do with
stylistic preferences and/or psychoacoustic phenomena. Correct? Or am I
confusing that with another issue we discussed? (Your photographic memory is
better suited than mine to recall such details. :-)

Now, here's something interesting. While matching single pitches last night,
a small number of students sang thirds (mostly above) and/or fifths (mostly
below) instead of singing the sounding pitch. Interestingly, their tuning of
those "wrong notes" were *always* locked in tune (which gave me the
opportunity to compliment them on their "good ears"). No one floated "in the
cracks" (except when I asked them to slide the pitch up or down until it
found the next locking point. So, even "tin ears" can find "nature's
pitches" when given the opportunity. Very encouraging, don't you think?

Gerald Eskelin

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

> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:22:08 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: 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 . . .

At this point, I'm a bit gun shy of electronic sound examples. Perhaps I can
find some examples of what I would consider "perfectly tuned vocal cadences"
among my recordings and you and others can analyse them--both by ear and by
machine. (Hopefully digitizing won't be a problem.)

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 2/12/02 10:13 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...>
> wrote:
>
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:13:50 -0000
> > From: "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
> > Subject: Re: Digest Number 1890
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul and I have been talking about the ear's limitations
regarding
> > a few
> >> cents of difference. I think I hear adjustments that are
extremely
> > small and
> >> he thinks such adjustments are not perceptible.
> >
> > we were actually talking about adjustments of *less* than one
cent.
> > no, scratch that, this doesn't really get the context across
either.
> > you said that your impression of where the 'lock' occured, when
> > listening to electronically-generated intervals incremented in 1-
cent
> > steps, varied considerably from trial to trial, and was never very
> > strong, leading you to the conclusion that the lock had to occur
> > *between* the quantized cents values. i merely suggested a
different
> > conclusion.
>
> That's correct, Paul. But elsewhere you (and the Harvard Dictionary
of
> Music) indicated that the ear does not discriminate such small pitch
> differences as 3 or 4 cents.

not in this context, gerry. one can easily discriminate far small
pitch differences in _harmonic_ intervals, just by noting the rate of
beating.

> As I remember, the different conclusion you suggested had to do with
> stylistic preferences and/or psychoacoustic phenomena. Correct?

yes.

> Now, here's something interesting. While matching single pitches
last night,
> a small number of students sang thirds (mostly above)

were these 'high thirds'?

> and/or fifths (mostly
> below) instead of singing the sounding pitch. Interestingly, their
tuning of
> those "wrong notes" were *always* locked in tune (which gave me the
> opportunity to compliment them on their "good ears"). No one
floated "in the
> cracks" (except when I asked them to slide the pitch up or down
until it
> found the next locking point. So, even "tin ears" can find "nature's
> pitches" when given the opportunity. Very encouraging, don't you
think?

sure . . . wonder what those thirds were.