Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1934

Paul!
I recommend you pick up any of the recordings on Ocora, Unesco, AUVIDIS, Institut Du Monde Arabe, La Chant De Monde. Or talk to any of mid east musicians at the faculty of Univ. of Washington or UCLA and as i
will continue to state, The use of 24 Et is frowned upon by the best musicians. It is for this reason that they have ALWAYS allowed to have there fret moveable to Adjust to the different modes. If they want 24 they
wouldn't need moveable frets. you need a neutral interval, it called 27/22 .
They also point out that there are great regional fluctuations to the point where one palestinian says he can locate where someone is from by their intonation and ornaments to within 20 miles. 24 is common among
your pop/disco clubs and station of the Mediterranean area. What i have heard in 24 Et as in the trumpet example i found harsh and lack the subtlety that so characterizes this music.
I still await a written reference to 24 ET being what they all use.

tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
>
>
> option (b) sounds reasonable to me -- also i personally haven't heard
> any arabic music that sounds like it uses the al-farabi system, but
> that may just be a matter of the many centuries of change that have
> occured since al-farabi.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:29:09 -0000
> From: "lev36" <lev@heartistry.com>
> Subject: Re: Middle-eastern tunings: Arabic, Turkish, Saz
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "lev36" <lev@h...> wrote:
> > > or to an older, somewhat
> > > Pythagorean system devised by al-Farabi (c.f. Touma, 1995, pp.18-
> > > 28), which includes tones close to 24-TET quartertones.
> >
> > are you sure about that? the medieval arabic system, which
> consists
> > of an extended chain of pure 3/2 fifths, does not resemble 24-
> equal
> > quartertones at all, but rather is extremely close to a subset of
> the
> > turkish koma system.
>
> Touma (p. 21) gives an example of one of the tone rows devised by al-
> Farabi in the 10th c. CE. Expressed in cents:
> C 0
> D 204
> E 355
> F 498
> G 702
> A 853
> B 996
> C 1200
>
> As you can see, the third and the 6th are very neary quarter-tones,
> while the rest resemble Pythagorean values.
>
> On p. 19, Touma lists the ten possible intervals al-Farabi
> postulated for the tetrachord:
> 1/1
> 256/243
> 18/17
> 162/149
> 54/49
> 9/8
> 32/27
> 81/68
> 27/22
> 81/64
> 4/3
>
> Of the above, 162/149 clocks in at 145 cumulative cents, and 27/22
> at 355 cents. Touma goes as far as saying of this 355 cent interval
> that the approximately three-quarter tone interval is what gives
> Arabian music its particular character, as early as the 10th century.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:33:41 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Middle-eastern tunings: Arabic, Turkish, Saz
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "lev36" <lev@h...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "lev36" <lev@h...> wrote:
> > > > or to an older, somewhat
> > > > Pythagorean system devised by al-Farabi (c.f. Touma, 1995,
> pp.18-
> > > > 28), which includes tones close to 24-TET quartertones.
> > >
> > > are you sure about that? the medieval arabic system, which
> > consists
> > > of an extended chain of pure 3/2 fifths, does not resemble 24-
> > equal
> > > quartertones at all, but rather is extremely close to a subset of
> > the
> > > turkish koma system.
> >
> > Touma (p. 21) gives an example of one of the tone rows devised by
> al-
> > Farabi in the 10th c. CE. Expressed in cents:
> > C 0
> > D 204
> > E 355
> > F 498
> > G 702
> > A 853
> > B 996
> > C 1200
> >
> > As you can see, the third and the 6th are very neary quarter-tones,
> > while the rest resemble Pythagorean values.
>
> the whole thing is very close to a subset of 24-equal.
>
> ok, i was thinking of something different, then, not al-farabi . . .
> i'll have to look it up . . . it's the one in partch's and
> helmholtz's books . . .
>
> > Of the above, 162/149 clocks in at 145 cumulative cents, and 27/22
> > at 355 cents. Touma goes as far as saying of this 355 cent interval
> > that the approximately three-quarter tone interval is what gives
> > Arabian music its particular character, as early as the 10th
> century.
>
> that's fine by me. there is a 17-tone chain of 3/2 fifths, though,
> that's often called the 'medieval arabic' system, and some have
> claimed (erroneously, i feel) that it continues to govern arabic
> music to this day. it doesn't have any neutral thirds in it (355
> cents, or 345 cents, or anything in the vicinity), so it seems to be
> far removed from any arabic music i've heard.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:41:39 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: 4:5:6:7
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_28308.html#34972
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> > > > best is to hear them!
> > > >
> > > >> 4:5:6:7 in cents is about 0 386 702 969.
> > > >
> > > > that's the second example at
> > > > http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/140/tuning_lab.html
> > >
> > > The 4:5:6:7 example sounds terrible, Paul.
> >
> > i would like to hear *joseph* and others chime in with their
> opinions on 4:5:6:7 at this point.
>
> ***Well, it was fun listening to the Tuning Lab page again, since, on
> the overall, I know more about "Tuning" than when it was set up! :)
>
> However, my basic responses to the chords remain pretty much the same.
>
> My "favorites" are the virtually "beatless" ones:
>
> 4:5:6:7
>
> 1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4 the utonal
>
> and the corresponding otonal: 5:6:7:9
>
> I have no problem hearing the 7th in the 4:5:6:7 (??)
>
> The difference between the utonal 5:6:7:9 and the utonal above is
> still fascinating. Not a difference in "beating" per se but some
> kind of strange "warbling" in the utonal chord. It's "going against
> nature" buddies... :)
>
> And, the 22-tET and 12-tET examples get further and further "out" in
> terms of more "chorusing" and beating. Most for the 12-tET, of
> course...
>
> jp
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:43:12 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Notating 28-EDO (was: Comments about Isacoffs book and notation)
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_34935.html#34974
>
> >
> > dave was talking about 84-tone equal temperament (harald waage's
> > system).
> >
> > 43 cents is simply 3 steps of 84-equal . . .
> >
> > 84 = 7*12, so it's 7 'bicycle chains' . . .
>
> ***Oh... Got it. So, it's not a specific "comma" per se...
>
> jp
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:47:53 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: 4:5:6:7
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_28308.html#34972
> >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > best is to hear them!
> > > > >
> > > > >> 4:5:6:7 in cents is about 0 386 702 969.
> > > > >
> > > > > that's the second example at
> > > > > http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/140/tuning_lab.html
> > > >
> > > > The 4:5:6:7 example sounds terrible, Paul.
> > >
> > > i would like to hear *joseph* and others chime in with their
> > opinions on 4:5:6:7 at this point.
> >
> >
> >
> > ***Well, it was fun listening to the Tuning Lab page again, since,
> on
> > the overall, I know more about "Tuning" than when it was set up! :)
> >
> > However, my basic responses to the chords remain pretty much the
> same.
> >
> > My "favorites" are the virtually "beatless" ones:
> >
> > 4:5:6:7
> >
> > 1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4 the utonal
> >
> > and the corresponding otonal: 5:6:7:9
> >
> > I have no problem hearing the 7th in the 4:5:6:7 (??)
> >
> > The difference between the utonal 5:6:7:9 and the utonal above is
> > still fascinating. Not a difference in "beating" per se but some
> > kind of strange "warbling" in the utonal chord. It's "going
> against
> > nature" buddies... :)
> >
> > And, the 22-tET and 12-tET examples get further and further "out"
> in
> > terms of more "chorusing" and beating. Most for the 12-tET, of
> > course...
>
> well, we all seem to agree on that last point . . . but . . .
>
> ironic, isn't it, that the big champion of 'acoustic tuning' thinks
> the just 4:5:6:7 chord sounds 'terrible'? i mean, what could be
> more 'locked in' than that?
>
> i think this may support my contention that 4:5:6:7 is *not* what
> most people like to hear in the context of common-practice, western,
> diatonic music. since that's the context that jerry works in, more so
> than joseph pehrson or david beardsley, at least . . .
>
> note also that jerry really liked the 22-equal chord, where the
> tritone is, strangely enough for jerry, exactly 600 cents . . .
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:53:39 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: 4:5:6:7
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_28308.html#34985
>
> >
> > ironic, isn't it, that the big champion of 'acoustic tuning' thinks
> > the just 4:5:6:7 chord sounds 'terrible'? i mean, what could be
> > more 'locked in' than that?
> >
> > i think this may support my contention that 4:5:6:7 is *not* what
> > most people like to hear in the context of common-practice,
> western, diatonic music. since that's the context that jerry works
> in, more so than joseph pehrson or david beardsley, at least . . .
> >
>
> ****I agree, Paul, that this seems to support your contention...
>
> jp
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:55:08 -0800
> From: Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>
> Subject: the "jerries?"
>
> On 2/27/02 10:21 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Message: 17
> > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:23:50 -0000
> > From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> > Subject: the "jerries?"
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_28308.html#34967
> >
> >>
> >> the other explanations were already sufficient as far as basic
> > theory
> >> goes (if you want to get into psychoacoustics, that's another
> >> matter). but surely it's better to know what these chords actually
> >> sound like before going on theoretical flights of fancy, isn't it?
> >
> > ***Did I miss something, or was there never a total recap of the
> > various "jerry" major thirds that Paul posted? I don't believe I
> > read Jerry's ultimate opinions on them or what size, finally, they
> > were...
> >
> > ??
>
> I posted a prelim response last Friday (I think) but intended to do a more
> detailed one over the weekend. I got distracted with a publishing thing and
> didn't got back to it. My apology.
>
> I'll try to do it today or tomorrow. Thanks for the prod, Joe.
>
> Jerry
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:06:50 -0000
> From: "kpeck77" <kris.peck@telex.com>
> Subject: Re: Some reflections on tuning strings and bars
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes, I use a combination of visual and aural as my tuner does both.
> And like you I find myself
> > hearing a 2/1 above the fundamental I'm trying to tune and it's
> screaming out at me from the tone
> > generator. As you say, an interesting acoustic phenemenon. I wonder
> if it hasn't something to do
> > with the ear becoming distracted to the high partial that the bar
> gives off on being struck and so
> > being led to the 2/1 on the tone generator which is in the same
> octave.
>
> I had been thinking I was tuning to the 2nd harmonic of the tone
> generator, but now you got me re-thinking. You're right-- it's the
> other direction-- I had the tone generator 2/1 *above* the tube freq,
> so there wouldn't be any matching partial. Your explanation doesn't
> quite convince me, but I can't think of a better one either.
>
> > I have various EQ and effects modules, one of which has a range of
> filters. Also I'm tuning
> > straight into the tuner's built in mic instead of blasting it
> through my studio system.
>
> If the tuner has an input jack you might be able to run an external
> mic through one effect box and into the tuner.
>
> > Yes, it's in the Hopkin book. You start by drilling evenly spaced
> small holes ( 2-3 depending on
> > tube length, best check the book ) in the tube, a tricky job at
> times. Then you blow across the
> > holes, flute like, to establish whether the breathy tone is around
> the fundamental tone, enlarging
> > the holes as needed. So there's no need to calculate lengths as in
> a
> flute. I've found by
> > comparing drilled and undrilled tubes that the drilled tubes have a
> far more pleasing tone, richer
> > and rounder perhaps. Drilling holes lowers the fundamental a little
> so you have to play catch up
> > in little increments. Lots of hard labour with 3'4" tube.
>
> Yes, sounds like a LOT of work. But also sounds like it might be
> worth it in the long run. Intriguing.
>
> > >The
> > > tubulong I'm working on is a golden meantone pentatonic in two
> > > octaves, using 1/2" conduit.
> >
> > I'd be grateful if you would pass me the cent values for that
> tuning
> as I like tinkering with
> > pentatonics with my zither improvisation group.
>
> Here's my 2-octaves with C=0 cents.
> Note Cents Hz
> G 696.21 787.4
> A 888.64 880.0
> C 0.00 1053.4
> D 192.43 1177.2
> E 384.86 1315.6
> G 696.21 1574.9
> A 888.64 1760.0
> C 0.00 2106.8
> D 192.43 2354.5
> E 384.86 2631.3
> G 696.21 3149.7
>
> Technical stuff: The 5th generator (696.21c) lands somewhere between
> 1/4 and 1/3comma meantone. Also is the golden generator between the
> 3/5 - 4/7 on the scale tree or horagram. Every Large step size is
> Phi (1.618...) times the small step size. This remains true if you
> carry it out to 7, 12, 19, 31, etc... Is any of this important
> musically? I dunno.
>
> kp
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:25:55 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: 4:5:6:7
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_28308.html#34985
> >
> > >
> > > ironic, isn't it, that the big champion of 'acoustic tuning'
> thinks
> > > the just 4:5:6:7 chord sounds 'terrible'? i mean, what could be
> > > more 'locked in' than that?
> > >
> > > i think this may support my contention that 4:5:6:7 is *not* what
> > > most people like to hear in the context of common-practice,
> > western, diatonic music. since that's the context that jerry works
> > in, more so than joseph pehrson or david beardsley, at least . . .
> > >
> >
> > ****I agree, Paul, that this seems to support your contention...
>
> although we must admit, joseph, that dave keenan's first I-IV-V7-I
> calls this into some doubt, doesn't it? since there the V7 *is*
> 4:5:6:7 . . .
>
> i really think, as i have all along (how convenient for me to say
> this now), that it's really a *scalar* phenomenon rather than a
> *vertical* one (perhaps i go a bit brainwashed by forte's _tonal
> harmony_? well, it sure is convincing). the *vertical* phenomena are
> the triads, but the *scalar* template seems to be the more important
> phenomenon (just about every culture in the world uses *some* scalar
> template for any given segment of music, usually with four to nine
> tones per octave). then the dominant seventh chord invokes the
> *characterstic interval* within the diatonic scalar template, namely
> the tritone, which then sets up a powerful drive toward resolution
> (in contrary motion via semitones to notes of the tonic triad)
> *regardless of fine tuning*.
>
> so in dave keenan's example, none of the *scale pitches* moves around
> by more than 9 cents, so the scalar template is fairly secure.
>
> however, in the 'just 7-limit' example, the fourth scale degree moves
> by 27 cents from the IV chord to the V7 chord. this is a large enough
> step to disturb the scalar template, it seems, and to disturb joseph
> and me when we listen to this progression.
>
> jerry, though, likes this latter progression (though strangely he
> *dislikes* the 4:5:6:7 chord in isolation) . . . perhaps he had
> already decided he *should* like it in advance once he knew *what* he
> was going to be listening to . . . ????
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:27:59 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Some reflections on tuning strings and bars
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "kpeck77" <kris.peck@t...> wrote:
>
> > Technical stuff: The 5th generator (696.21c) lands somewhere
> between
> > 1/4 and 1/3comma meantone. Also is the golden generator between
> the
> > 3/5 - 4/7 on the scale tree or horagram. Every Large step size is
> > Phi (1.618...) times the small step size. This remains true if you
> > carry it out to 7, 12, 19, 31, etc...
>
> btw, this whole idea dates back at least to kornerup's 1930
> presentation of it. it's often referred to as 'kornerup's golden
> meantone', or simply 'golden meantone' around here.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:48:12 -0800
> From: Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>
> Subject: 4:5:6:7
>
> On 2/27/02 10:21 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Message: 13
> > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:05:39 -0000
> > From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> > Subject: Re: 4:5:6:7
> >
> I said:
> >>
> >> The 4:5:6:7 example sounds terrible, Paul. I can't hear
> >> the "seventh" at
> >> all. If this is intended to show what "partials" four through seven
> >> sounds
> >> like, I'm missing something.
> >
> > i don't know what you mean, jerry. all this is is a chord, just like
> > the others, but with the pitches tuned in the ratios 4:5:6:7. it's
> > what a lot of people seem to think the dominant seventh
> > chord 'should' be.
>
> Yes. I'm one of them (almost). I think the recording just doesn't play well
> for some reason. Oh, well.
> >
> >> In contrast, the 22-tET sounds *wonderful* to me. It's one of
> >> the "best"
> >> things I've heard in all of our messing around with tuning
> >> examples. (Any
> >> clues here for our "quest"?)
> >
> > hey, welcome to the 22-equal fan club (please don't use it for
> > triadic diatonic music, though).
>
> I'd ask why but I probably wouldn't understand the answer. I'll just let it
> go at that. :-)
> >
> >> The 12-tET sounds awful. Why, do you think?
> >
> > 'cause you haven't played a piano for a while? :)
>
> True. But then this recording doesn't sound much like a piano.
> >
> >> BTW, why do you say that "it's best to hear them" in order to know
> > what
> >> 4:5:6:7 means? No reference to partials? Is that fair?
> >
> > the other explanations were already sufficient as far as basic theory
> > goes (if you want to get into psychoacoustics, that's another
> > matter). but surely it's better to know what these chords actually
> > sound like before going on theoretical flights of fancy, isn't it?
> >
> I probably shouldn't have responded as I did here. I didn't read the earlier
> entries in this thread. I agree.
>
> Jerry
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:00:20 -0800 (PST)
> From: Nathaniel Braddock <nbraddo@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: 4:5:6:7
>
> Actually, I appreciated frequency-based explanation in
> conjuction with the others.
>
> Paul-
> Thanks for having these examples posted out there. I
> don't currently have a set-up to start trying to
> create some of this myself, which I think inhibits my
> understanding at times, so having some basic examples
> is great.
>
> -Nathaniel
>
> >
> > Message: 23
> > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:03:19 -0500
> > From: "David Beardsley"
> > <davidbeardsley@biink.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: 4:5:6:7
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@uq.net.au>
> >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., Nathaniel Braddock
> > <nbraddo@y...> wrote:
> > > > Hi-
> > > > Could someone explain to me the meaning of
> > "4:5:6:7
> > > > chords"? I'm pretty lost in most of these
> > > > discussions.
> > >
> > > It refers to any chord of four notes where the
> > frequencies of the
> > > notes (in hertz or cycles-per-second (Hz)) are in
> > those ratios. e.g.
> > > if the lowest note was 440 Hz (an A) then the
> > others would be
> > > (reasonably close to) 550 Hz, 660 Hz and 770 Hz.
> > I'd call it a
> > > harmonic seventh chord or a major subminor seventh
> > chord since it
> > > sounds quite different from a dominant seventh
> > (major minor seventh)
> > > chord in the usual 12 tone equal temperament. It
> > really "sings". We
> > > say it is in just intonation
> > >
> > > If you want to work out the frequencies in hertz
> > of the notes in
> > > 12-equal, start with A at 440 Hz and multiply by
> > the 12th root of 2
> > > (about 1.059) each time you go up a semitone.
> >
> > I thought my explanation was fine. What's the point
> > in dragging frequencies
> > in?
> > You're just making it more complicated than an
> > explanation should be.
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:03 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
> From: graham@microtonal.co.uk
> Subject: Re: Middle-eastern tunings: Arabic, Turkish, Saz
>
> lev36 wrote:
>
> > Touma (p. 21) gives an example of one of the tone rows devised by al-
> > Farabi in the 10th c. CE. Expressed in cents:
> > C 0
> > D 204
> > E 355
> > F 498
> > G 702
> > A 853
> > B 996
> > C 1200
> >
> > As you can see, the third and the 6th are very neary quarter-tones,
> > while the rest resemble Pythagorean values.
>
> I haven't seen a full list of al Farabi's tunings. You can get some from
> Manuel's scale archive, somewhere at http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf
>
> Probably the idea with that scale is to express quartertones with simple
> integer ratios. They didn't have cents in those days. There's a strong
> Greek influence in all this -- al-Farabi was well read in Greek texts,
> more so than European scholars of his day as more had been translated to
> Arabic than Latin. The first part of al-Farabi's treatise is a list of
> Ptolemy's scales, which must therefore include the equable diatonic, which
> is essentially the one Touma gives on p.21.
>
> The Pythagorean scale from al-Urmawi (Touma pp21-22) is what Paul was
> thinking of. It is more recent than al-Farabi, but has less to do with
> modern Arab tuning. It's a lot more like Persian tuning, and may have
> been Persian influenced back then. Owen Wright's book (it's in Touma's
> bibliography) is excellent for this. It seems that the
> Pythagorean/schismic notation was intended to show neutral thirds although
> if you take it literally it doesn't sound like that.
>
> Incidentally, Farmer's "An Old Moorish Lute Tutor" happens to have fallen
> into my lap. The subject, probably earlier than the late C16th Morocco,
> describes a Pythagorean tuning and fretting.
>
> Graham
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:04:13 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: 4:5:6:7
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Nathaniel Braddock <nbraddo@y...> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I appreciated frequency-based explanation in
> > conjuction with the others.
>
> yeah, i didn't see what was wrong with that as an addendum.
>
> > Paul-
> > Thanks for having these examples posted out there. I
> > don't currently have a set-up to start trying to
> > create some of this myself, which I think inhibits my
> > understanding at times, so having some basic examples
> > is great.
>
> you're welcome! hope you'll keep asking questions!
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:10:26 -0500
> From: "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@biink.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: 4:5:6:7
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:04 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: 4:5:6:7
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Nathaniel Braddock <nbraddo@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I appreciated frequency-based explanation in
> > > conjuction with the others.
> >
> > yeah, i didn't see what was wrong with that as an addendum.
>
> I don't think of frequencies when I look at the neck of my guitar,
> I think about ratios.
>
> * David Beardsley
> * http://biink.com
> * http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:31:46 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: 4:5:6:7
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
> > To: <tuning@y...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 4:04 PM
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: 4:5:6:7
> >
> >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., Nathaniel Braddock <nbraddo@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually, I appreciated frequency-based explanation in
> > > > conjuction with the others.
> > >
> > > yeah, i didn't see what was wrong with that as an addendum.
> >
> > I don't think of frequencies when I look at the neck of my guitar,
> > I think about ratios.
>
> fair enough, but i'm guessing a few more musicians out there know
> what A-440 means, than would know what these ratios are supposed to
> mean. it never hurts to try to answer a question from a few different
> angles, to try to get the questioner over the initial 'hump'.
> different answers only complement one another, they're
> not 'competing'.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:49:23 -0000
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> Subject: Limit? (Re: A common notation for JI and Ets)
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:
>
> > > 27 limit means
> > > take the set S27 of odd numbers from 1 to 27 inclusive, and form the set of
> > > ratios R27 = {p/q| p, q are in S27}.
>
> > Errr... You mean 3:1, 5:3, 7:5, 11:7, etc? The sort of umm
> > superduperparticular? Or are you including *all* permutations, like 7:3,
> > 11:3, 17:5 and so on.
>
> I'm including the lot--p and q are in S27 is the only condition.
>
> > I think of ANYTHING historical, the only thing we ever stuck by was the Brun
> > algorithm and variations of it we came up with.
>
> That sounds like an interesting topic for tuning-math.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:34:12 -0000
> From: "joemonz" <joemonz@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Middle-eastern tunings: Arabic, Turkish, Saz
>
> hi lev36 and paul,
>
> > From: "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
> > Date: Wed Feb 27, 2002 2:33 pm
> > Subject: Re: Middle-eastern tunings: Arabic, Turkish, Saz
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "lev36" <lev@h...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > > --- In tuning@y..., "lev36" <lev@h...> wrote:
> > > > > or to an older, somewhat
> > > > > Pythagorean system devised by al-Farabi (c.f. Touma,
> > > > > 1995, pp.18-28), which includes tones close to 24-TET
> > > > > quartertones.
> > > >
> > > > are you sure about that? the medieval arabic system, which
> > > > consists of an extended chain of pure 3/2 fifths, does not
> > > > resemble 24-equal quartertones at all, but rather is
> > > > extremely close to a subset of the turkish koma system.
> > >
> > > Touma (p. 21) gives an example of one of the tone rows devised
> > > by al-Farabi in the 10th c. CE. Expressed in cents:
> > > C 0
> > > D 204
> > > E 355
> > > F 498
> > > G 702
> > > A 853
> > > B 996
> > > C 1200
> > >
> > > As you can see, the third and the 6th are very neary
> > > quarter-tones, while the rest resemble Pythagorean values.
> >
> > the whole thing is very close to a subset of 24-equal.
> >
> > ok, i was thinking of something different, then, not
> > al-farabi . . . i'll have to look it up . . . it's the one
> > in partch's and helmholtz's books . . .
> >
> > > Of the above, 162/149 clocks in at 145 cumulative cents,
> > > and 27/22 at 355 cents. Touma goes as far as saying of this
> > > 355 cent interval that the approximately three-quarter tone
> > > interval is what gives Arabian music its particular character,
> > > as early as the 10th century.
> >
> > that's fine by me. there is a 17-tone chain of 3/2 fifths,
> > though, that's often called the 'medieval arabic' system,
> > and some have claimed (erroneously, i feel) that it continues
> > to govern arabic music to this day. it doesn't have any neutral
> > thirds in it (355 cents, or 345 cents, or anything in the
> > vicinity), so it seems to be far removed from any arabic music
> > i've heard.
>
> i have a couple of webpages touching on this:
>
> Arab Lute Frettings
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/arablute/arablute.htm
>
> the fretting originally gave a typical Pythagorean scale.
> Zalzal moved some frets so that his fretting produced some
> Notes that are approximately *-tones:
>
> String, fret ~cents ~ratio ~cents
> 1,3 558 11:8 551
> 2,3 1057 11:6 1049
> 3,3 355 11:9 347
>
> (hmm... i see that i left some frets off the graph...
> and in general there's not much numerical data...
> someday I'll have to do a lot more work on that page.)
>
> and others (actually more) that are approximately 1/6-tones.
>
> String,fret ~cents
> 1,1 372
> 2,1 870
> 3,1 168
> 4,1 666
>
> An Examination of Partch's comparison of Equal Temperaments
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/et/partch-on-et.htm
>
> Partch got the data for the Arabic scale from Helmholtz's book.
> i illustrate it about 2/3 of the way down the page. it's a
> Pythagorean system tuned 3^(-12ï¿½4).
>
> also, list-member Can Akkoc has done some interesting research
> into Turkish classical music.
>
> -monz
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:58:31 -0500
> From: "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@biink.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: 4:5:6:7
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
> > > > --- In tuning@y..., Nathaniel Braddock <nbraddo@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, I appreciated frequency-based explanation in
> > > > > conjuction with the others.
> > > >
> > > > yeah, i didn't see what was wrong with that as an addendum.
> > >
> > > I don't think of frequencies when I look at the neck of my guitar,
> > > I think about ratios.
> >
> > fair enough, but i'm guessing a few more musicians out there know
> > what A-440 means, than would know what these ratios are supposed to
> > mean.
>
> Not everybody tunes to A-440 anyways - I tune my JI guitar (and synths)
> to A=426.7. After it's tuned, I have no idea or interest in knowing what
> freq.
> 13/8 or 7/4 is.
>
> dB
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:58:56 -0000
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: Fractala Presents: 22TechXture
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > a great one. if you'd like to free yourself from the equal-
> > temperament shackles, you could try e.g. graham's optimal versions of
> > this generator:
> >
> > 271.3ï¿½ (for 7-limit harmony)
> > 271.6ï¿½ (for 9-limit harmony)
> > 271.4ï¿½ (for 11-limit harmony)
> >
> > gene calls this set of generators and their associated temperaments
> > and mos scales 'orwell' because the optimal generator is very close
> > to 19/84 octave.
>
> I even wrote a piece in it, using 53-et shackles and a generator
> of 271.7ï¿½.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:02:31 -0000
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: A common notation for JI and ETs
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > meantone is the biggie, of course. at least 152-equal can do adaptive
> > (as in adaptive ji) meantone.
>
> If we really want to get serious about using a micro-et to represent everything JI, there's always 2460. I thought seriously about adopting it as a system before settling on 612, and it does just about everything.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 23
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:27:20 -0000
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: Middle-eastern tunings: Arabic, Turkish, Saz
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> there is a 17-tone chain of 3/2 fifths, though,
> > that's often called the 'medieval arabic' system, and some have
> > claimed (erroneously, i feel) that it continues to govern arabic
> > music to this day. it doesn't have any neutral thirds in it (355
> > cents, or 345 cents, or anything in the vicinity), so it seems to be
> > far removed from any arabic music i've heard.
>
> The scale here looks like 24-et, but it is also close to 17-et.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:33:07 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Middle-eastern tunings: Arabic, Turkish, Saz
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > there is a 17-tone chain of 3/2 fifths, though,
> > > that's often called the 'medieval arabic' system, and some have
> > > claimed (erroneously, i feel) that it continues to govern arabic
> > > music to this day. it doesn't have any neutral thirds in it (355
> > > cents, or 345 cents, or anything in the vicinity), so it seems to
> be
> > > far removed from any arabic music i've heard.
> >
> > The scale here looks like 24-et, but it is also close to 17-et.
>
> indeed, and 31-equal isn't so far either. but you clipped it ("the
> scale here") from this message, so your response may make no sense to
> many readers, who will assume it refers to the bit that you did
> retain in this message. so, everyone note: gene's remark does *not*
> refer to the 17-tone chain of 3/2 fifths that's often called
> the 'medieval arabic' system, and is mentioned in helmholtz, partch,
> etc. . . . but refers to a previously posted scale, which i believe
> goes 1/1, 9/8, 27/22, 4/3, 3/2, 18/11, 16/9 . . . and *does* resemble
> scales actually used in arabic music today.
>
> hope i haven't confused things even further!
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 25
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:49:02 -0000
> From: "lev36" <lev@heartistry.com>
> Subject: Re: Middle-eastern tunings: Arabic, Turkish, Saz
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "joemonz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> > i have a couple of webpages touching on this:
> >
> >
> > Arab Lute Frettings
> > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/arablute/arablute.htm
>
> Thanks, that's very helpful!
>
> Can you tell me when Zalzal, Mahmoud & Adbulqadir made their
> respective fret-adjustment suggestions? Are they medieval, modern,
> what?
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1934

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>