Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Psychoacoustics and the Major Third

Without going into detail, the essence of what I know is:

1. Differential effect of complex versus simple tones. A sine wave sonud
inherently 'flat' compared with another complex tone of the same pitch, and
so forth.

2. Beating. The human ear likes sensation. Hence anything which reduced
sensation is considered 'uninteresting.' This is an informationist approach,
which by inference also implies that bright major thirds are more
information rich than JI ones.

3. Pythagoras. (There is something in the Fifth, and keeping it true has
some value to the listener.

There we go. Without any science at all.

> From: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: 18 Mar 2002 11:16:17 -0000
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Digest Number 1970
>
>> Message: 10
>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:18:41 -0000 (GMT)
>> From: "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@argonet.co.uk>
>> Subject: Jerries and the list
>>
>> I'd comment on the psychoacoustic properties of the high third, but, there
>> are many on this list who have not done any pschoacoustics, and they flatly
>> refuse to accept that such things exist. It's a shame that this list is not
>> the free discussion area that it should be. Opinions are fine, but I've
>> stopped making theoretical comment as obviously four years study of
>> acoustics counts for nothing on this list.
>>
>> M
>>
> Thanks for "coming out" on this, Mark. I'd love to hear your assessment of
> our "quest." You sound like the kind of guy who'd have something of value to
> say.
>
> Jerry

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Mark Gould <mark.gould@a...> wrote:
> Without going into detail, the essence of what I know is:
>
> 1. Differential effect of complex versus simple tones. A sine wave
sonud
> inherently 'flat' compared with another complex tone of the same
pitch, and
> so forth.

can you explain what you mean by this, and how it is relevant here?

>
> 2. Beating. The human ear likes sensation. Hence anything which
reduced
> sensation is considered 'uninteresting.' This is an informationist
approach,
> which by inference also implies that bright major thirds are more
> information rich than JI ones.

and pure random noise would of course be the most information rich
sound of all. some musicians, quite often of a minimalist
orientation, consciously prefer the 'information poor' condition as
it promotes clarity and transpersonal meditative states. for the most
part, though, different musical styles find their own way of striking
a balance between information poverty and information overload.

if you read the musical aesthetic literature in the 18th century and
surrounding centuries, you'll begin to appreciate that this is purely
a stylistic issue. for centuries before the mid-18th, pure "low-
information" thirds were largely recognized as the norm, the
desideratum, and can still be heard in authentic early-music
performances today. in the documentation mid 18th century, one
observes an aesthetic shift, in which musicians consciously began to
reject the pure thirds of their forebears in favor of a more 'modern'
aesthetic. by the way, this is the reverse of what is observed in the
late 15th century, if you care to read back that far. in each case,
musical style dictates whether thirds are to be 'interesting'
or 'uninteresting', if you must use those adjectives.

if you care to pursue the informationist approach further, i invite
you to join the group

harmonic_entropy@yahoogroups.com

as you may know, entropy is the fundamental measure in information
theory by which you'd make a judgment about which scenario
is 'information rich' and which is 'information poor'. i hope you'll
join us in explorations of mathematical models of how to apply this
to musical intervals and ultimately, chords.

> 3. Pythagoras. (There is something in the Fifth, and keeping it
true has
> some value to the listener.

agreed. and note that these are 'uninteresting' fifths, by your
criteria above (in fact, far more 'uninteresting' than even the
purest thirds, according to a harmonic entropy model). the power of
this phenomenon may be very much behind the intonational norms before
the late 15th century and since the late 18th century. musical style
between those dates, however, put the 'clarity' of the thirds and
sixths on a higher level of importance, and a look at the
compositions of mid-17th century composers such as say, nicolo
fontei, barbara strozzi, and lurezia vizzana should help demonstrate
how such a musical style differs markedly from those that beg for a
framework of pure fifths.

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 3/18/02 6:10 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 18:12:39 +0000
> From: Mark Gould <mark.gould@argonet.co.uk>
> Subject: Psychoacoustics and the Major Third
>
> Without going into detail, the essence of what I know is:
>
> 1. Differential effect of complex versus simple tones. A sine wave sonud
> inherently 'flat' compared with another complex tone of the same pitch, and
> so forth.
>
> 2. Beating. The human ear likes sensation. Hence anything which reduced
> sensation is considered 'uninteresting.' This is an informationist approach,
> which by inference also implies that bright major thirds are more
> information rich than JI ones.

Obviously, true. Some of the folks who dropped into my office whom I asked
to listen to the jerries found the JI example "boring." My curiosity is
focused on why a *particular* high third stands out as being more "in tune"
than some others.
>
> 3. Pythagoras. (There is something in the Fifth, and keeping it true has
> some value to the listener.

Laudable, to be sure. So???
>
> There we go. Without any science at all.

Input, with or without science, is helpful, Mark.
>
> <ducks and exits left>
>
<applause is heard as Mark fades into the wings>

Jerry

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 3/19/02 3:19 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 04:47:41 -0000
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: Psychoacoustics and the Major Third
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Obviously, true. Some of the folks who dropped into my office whom I asked
>> to listen to the jerries found the JI example "boring."
>
> Paul's timbres were not the most interesting in the world, a fact which works
> differently with jerry0 than with the others, which beat like mad and in which
> the tenth does not blend.
>
>
> My curiosity is
>> focused on why a *particular* high third stands out as being more "in tune"
>> than some others.
>
> Is that what the idea was--find which of the high jerries seemed most in tune?

Gene, it didn't start out that way, particularly in Paul's mind. He was
curious about whether or not I (and others) would favor one of the jerries
over the others. The exerciase took a significant turn for me when I
realized that jerry00 was JI and yet sounded like the "high third."

> These sort of experiments need to come with instructions!

I can see why it has become a bit confusing for anyone who hasn't followed
each step rather closely. But I think, at this point, Paul and I might offer
different "instructions." I guess you'll just have to make of it what you
will.

Jerry

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

Gene earlier:
> > Is that what the idea was--find which of the high jerries seemed
most in tune?
>
Jerry replied:
> Gene, it didn't start out that way, particularly in Paul's mind. He
was
> curious about whether or not I (and others) would favor one of the
jerries
> over the others. The exercise took a significant turn for me when I
> realized that jerry00 was JI and yet sounded like the "high third."
>
Bob W. now:
OK, here we go! I absolutely cannot understand this statement:
"The exercise took a significant turn for me when I
> realized that jerry00 was JI and yet sounded like the "high third."

It was clear to me from the get-go that Jerry00 was JI. It sounds
substantially lower to my ear than the truly high thirds in all the
following Jerries. As stated earlier, I DO notice the subjective
tendency to perceive a pitch drop when the third is left alone.
However, *THIS IN NO WAY IMPLIES TO ME OR MY EAR* that the third in
context with the full chord was "high". It merely sounds to my ear as
if a good, just third suddenly went *FLAT*, but as also stated
earlier, attention focused on that specific pitch throughout clearly
reveals this to be an "aural illusion". This is objectively confirmed
by matching the pitch with my voice and noting that there is no shift
in pitch with respect to my rock-steady sung pitch.

P.S. My "lost post" finally showed up, by the way, but that and the
other post previous to this one are reversed in order
chronologically. Yahoooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 3/19/02 8:34 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Subject: Re: Psychoacoustics and the Major Third
>
> Gene earlier:
>>> Is that what the idea was--find which of the high jerries seemed most in
>>>tune?
>>
> Jerry replied:
>> Gene, it didn't start out that way, particularly in Paul's mind. He was
>> curious about whether or not I (and others) would favor one of the jerries
>> over the others. The exercise took a significant turn for me when I
>> realized that jerry00 was JI and yet sounded like the "high third."
>>
> Bob W. now:
> OK, here we go! I absolutely cannot understand this statement:
>> "The exercise took a significant turn for me when I
>> realized that jerry00 was JI and yet sounded like the "high third."
>
> It was clear to me from the get-go that Jerry00 was JI. It sounds
> substantially lower to my ear than the truly high thirds in all the
> following Jerries. As stated earlier, I DO notice the subjective
> tendency to perceive a pitch drop when the third is left alone.
> However, *THIS IN NO WAY IMPLIES TO ME OR MY EAR* that the third in
> context with the full chord was "high". It merely sounds to my ear as
> if a good, just third suddenly went *FLAT*, but as also stated
> earlier, attention focused on that specific pitch throughout clearly
> reveals this to be an "aural illusion". This is objectively confirmed
> by matching the pitch with my voice and noting that there is no shift
> in pitch with respect to my rock-steady sung pitch.
>
Jerry now:
Suppose I had said that I had heard the naked third in jerry00 clearly as a
4:5 third (in relation to my imaginary extension of the root). Therefore,
since Paul wouldn't have intentionally changed the actual pitch as it
emerged, and because the sounding triad was quite beatless, I concluded that
jerry00 was JI. Yet the third sounding in the triad appeared higher than the
naked one. *That* was my moment of insight. My whole world (well, *this* one
anyway) changed.

Bob, you call the naked third "flat." Okay, but it *is* JI. (Otherwise, why
would the triad be beatless.) You're very reluctant to acknowledge it, but I
think we're pretty much hearing the same thing. You're just describing it
differently. To you, evidently, the third in the triad is the *true* JI, and
the *real* one is "flat." Think about it. (I knew your involvement here
would be valuable.)

Incidentally, most of the other jerries sound rather high to me, as well
they should, since they are somewhat "out of "tune." Since my vocalized
*intentional* high third (as opposed to the JI one) sounds rather good with
jerry00, I'm curious as to whether a "well-tuned" real high third might also
sound "right," if not "consonant." Maybe the damn thing works backwards, as
well.

(Hey, guys and gals, I've got a golf tournament today. I'll get back to the
rest of this interesting looking Digest menu tomorrow. Have a good one. J)

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_35698.html#35836

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ****Hi Paul.
> >
> > Thanks. I'm listening to these again. Jerry0 *really* doesn't
> sound like Just Intonation to me. It almost sounds like a 12-tET
third.
> > Are you sure that Matlab is doing this right??
>

> yeah, baby. not only has this been confirmed by robert wendell's
> combinational-tone-trained ears, but by robert walker's and
francois' *software* analyses of the chords.

***You know, I'm starting to have some different thoughts about this
matter which, actually, I'm finding *extremely* interesting.

In fact, I was going to post a sound file of a little experiment I
was doing here, since it's *very* easy for me to produce JI thirds
and triads, obviously, using the Blackjack scale which is set up
here, and then compare it to 12-tET. However, for some reason the
timbre in 12-tET was doing some "flakey" things, apparently dropping
partials or such like on repeated playing, so I didn't want to post
this experiment for the ears of our Tuning List... :) [or I'd get
caught, "in flagrante delicto" so to speak...]

However, this is what I currently am hearing:

When I play a "regular" 12-tET major third it sounds
pleasing, "normal"....

However, when I play a full 12-tET triad, it now sounds really
*terrible.* This, I believe, is due to the fact that I have been
listening to the Just triads, which are *far* preferable.

Now, when I play a *just* major third (ok Dave Keenan, you win, I
*really* meant a major third 12th tone low... :) ) I hear it as
being "flat" like I would expect a 4:5 to sound.

HOWEVER, when I play the *full just triad* it seems so balanced and
beautiful that, I believe, the third is somehow integrated into the
fabric in such a way that I don't think of it as being low at all.
The psychological perception of it has made me think it is *more*
like a 12-tET major third, or "higher" but it is really more the
*balance* that makes the third *appear* that way when, of course, it
hasn't really changed in pitch at all.

I think this rather fits in with other people's perception of
this "high third" phenomenon. There really *is* something to this.
The full triad *definitely* makes a different impression of the just
third than just the 4:5 diad...

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 3/22/02 1:13 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 19
> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 04:44:50 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Psychoacoustics and the Major Third
>
> ***You know, I'm starting to have some different thoughts about this
> matter which, actually, I'm finding *extremely* interesting.
>
> In fact, I was going to post a sound file of a little experiment I
> was doing here, since it's *very* easy for me to produce JI thirds
> and triads, obviously, using the Blackjack scale which is set up
> here, and then compare it to 12-tET. However, for some reason the
> timbre in 12-tET was doing some "flakey" things, apparently dropping
> partials or such like on repeated playing, so I didn't want to post
> this experiment for the ears of our Tuning List... :) [or I'd get
> caught, "in flagrante delicto" so to speak...]
>
> However, this is what I currently am hearing:
>
> When I play a "regular" 12-tET major third it sounds
> pleasing, "normal"....
>
> However, when I play a full 12-tET triad, it now sounds really
> *terrible.* This, I believe, is due to the fact that I have been
> listening to the Just triads, which are *far* preferable.
>
> Now, when I play a *just* major third (ok Dave Keenan, you win, I
> *really* meant a major third 12th tone low... :) ) I hear it as
> being "flat" like I would expect a 4:5 to sound.
>
> HOWEVER, when I play the *full just triad* it seems so balanced and
> beautiful that, I believe, the third is somehow integrated into the
> fabric in such a way that I don't think of it as being low at all.
> The psychological perception of it has made me think it is *more*
> like a 12-tET major third, or "higher" but it is really more the
> *balance* that makes the third *appear* that way when, of course, it
> hasn't really changed in pitch at all.
>
> I think this rather fits in with other people's perception of
> this "high third" phenomenon. There really *is* something to this.
> The full triad *definitely* makes a different impression of the just
> third than just the 4:5 diad...
>
> ??
>
> jp

Well, how 'bout that? Hoodathunckit? ;-)))

Jerry

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 3/22/02 1:13 AM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 19
> > Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 04:44:50 -0000
> > From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...>
> > Subject: Re: Psychoacoustics and the Major Third
> >
> > ***You know, I'm starting to have some different thoughts about
this
> > matter which, actually, I'm finding *extremely* interesting.
> >
> > In fact, I was going to post a sound file of a little experiment I
> > was doing here, since it's *very* easy for me to produce JI thirds
> > and triads, obviously, using the Blackjack scale which is set up
> > here, and then compare it to 12-tET. However, for some reason the
> > timbre in 12-tET was doing some "flakey" things, apparently
dropping
> > partials or such like on repeated playing, so I didn't want to
post
> > this experiment for the ears of our Tuning List... :) [or I'd get
> > caught, "in flagrante delicto" so to speak...]
> >
> > However, this is what I currently am hearing:
> >
> > When I play a "regular" 12-tET major third it sounds
> > pleasing, "normal"....
> >
> > However, when I play a full 12-tET triad, it now sounds really
> > *terrible.* This, I believe, is due to the fact that I have been
> > listening to the Just triads, which are *far* preferable.
> >
> > Now, when I play a *just* major third (ok Dave Keenan, you win, I
> > *really* meant a major third 12th tone low... :) ) I hear it as
> > being "flat" like I would expect a 4:5 to sound.
> >
> > HOWEVER, when I play the *full just triad* it seems so balanced
and
> > beautiful that, I believe, the third is somehow integrated into
the
> > fabric in such a way that I don't think of it as being low at all.
> > The psychological perception of it has made me think it is *more*
> > like a 12-tET major third, or "higher" but it is really more the
> > *balance* that makes the third *appear* that way when, of course,
it
> > hasn't really changed in pitch at all.
> >
> > I think this rather fits in with other people's perception of
> > this "high third" phenomenon. There really *is* something to
this.
> > The full triad *definitely* makes a different impression of the
just
> > third than just the 4:5 diad...
> >
> > ??
> >
> > jp
>
> Well, how 'bout that? Hoodathunckit? ;-)))
>
> Jerry

Bob:
Well, I feel like a party pooper here, but I play just thirds when I
double stop on my violin and they sound fine to me without the fifth.
I hate the way 12-tET thirds sound in a dyad. They sound sharp and
tonally "dirty". In a word, I don't need the fifth present to hear
just thirds as in tune.

To clarify previous discussions in light of responses from Jerry,
please let me know, Jerry, if this is a fair summary of your
perceptions:

1) You, as I have (but no longer seem to), hear a difference in
subjective pitch between a stand-alone third and that same third
(frequency and timbre unchanged) in context with the root and fifth
justly tuned to each other and the third. The stand-alone third
sounds subjectively lower than the third in context with the justly
tuned triad.

2) You feel that this subjective perception of a relative upward
shift in pitch in the triad as opposed to the stand-alone perception
of pitch conditions the ear to hear the "right" third as higher than
the 4:5 third alone, and therefore musicians tend intuitively to
compensate for the shift by singing or playing the stand-alone pitch
higher than 4:5.

3) You further feel that this new, higher third gets injected back
into the triad so that is is no longer just, but is rather even
higher than a 12-tET third.

4) You also feel that this new higher third sounds "in tune" to
musicians' ears; even more in tune than either the 12-tET or the just
third.

I welcome your corrections to or confirmation of this summary of your
hypotheses on this issue, Jerry.

Gratefully,

Bob

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 3/29/02 2:46 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 23
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:23:38 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: Psychoacoustics and the Major Third
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>> On 3/22/02 1:13 AM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>>
>>> Message: 19
>>> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 04:44:50 -0000
>>> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...>
>>> Subject: Re: Psychoacoustics and the Major Third
>>>
>>> ***You know, I'm starting to have some different thoughts about this
>>> matter which, actually, I'm finding *extremely* interesting.
>>>
>>> In fact, I was going to post a sound file of a little experiment I
>>> was doing here, since it's *very* easy for me to produce JI thirds
>>> and triads, obviously, using the Blackjack scale which is set up
>>> here, and then compare it to 12-tET. However, for some reason the
>>> timbre in 12-tET was doing some "flakey" things, apparently dropping
>>> partials or such like on repeated playing, so I didn't want to post
>>> this experiment for the ears of our Tuning List... :) [or I'd get
>>> caught, "in flagrante delicto" so to speak...]
>>>
>>> However, this is what I currently am hearing:
>>>
>>> When I play a "regular" 12-tET major third it sounds
>>> pleasing, "normal"....
>>>
>>> However, when I play a full 12-tET triad, it now sounds really
>>> *terrible.* This, I believe, is due to the fact that I have been
>>> listening to the Just triads, which are *far* preferable.
>>>
>>> Now, when I play a *just* major third (ok Dave Keenan, you win, I
>>> *really* meant a major third 12th tone low... :) ) I hear it as
>>> being "flat" like I would expect a 4:5 to sound.
>>>
>>> HOWEVER, when I play the *full just triad* it seems so balanced and
>>> beautiful that, I believe, the third is somehow integrated into the
>>> fabric in such a way that I don't think of it as being low at all.
>>> The psychological perception of it has made me think it is *more*
>>> like a 12-tET major third, or "higher" but it is really more the
>>> *balance* that makes the third *appear* that way when, of course, it
>>> hasn't really changed in pitch at all.
>>>
>>> I think this rather fits in with other people's perception of
>>> this "high third" phenomenon. There really *is* something to this.
>>> The full triad *definitely* makes a different impression of the just
>>> third than just the 4:5 diad...
>>>
>>> ??
>>>
>>> jp
>>
>> Well, how 'bout that? Hoodathunckit? ;-)))
>>
>> Jerry
>
> Bob:
> Well, I feel like a party pooper here, but I play just thirds when I
> double stop on my violin and they sound fine to me without the fifth.
> I hate the way 12-tET thirds sound in a dyad. They sound sharp and
> tonally "dirty". In a word, I don't need the fifth present to hear
> just thirds as in tune.

Bob, you don't seem to understand that we (at least, I) are saying that the
major third sounds "high" when, and *only* when, the root and fifth are also
sounding. No one I know thinks one "needs the fifth present to hear just
thirds as in tune."
>
> To clarify previous discussions in light of responses from Jerry,
> please let me know, Jerry, if this is a fair summary of your
> perceptions:

Didn't we just do this? Okay, let's go.
>
> 1) You, as I have (but no longer seem to), hear a difference in
> subjective pitch between a stand-alone third and that same third
> (frequency and timbre unchanged) in context with the root and fifth
> justly tuned to each other and the third. The stand-alone third
> sounds subjectively lower than the third in context with the justly
> tuned triad.

Yep.
>
> 2) You feel that this subjective perception of a relative upward
> shift in pitch in the triad as opposed to the stand-alone perception
> of pitch conditions the ear to hear the "right" third as higher than
> the 4:5 third alone, and therefore musicians tend intuitively to
> compensate for the shift by singing or playing the stand-alone pitch
> higher than 4:5.

I don't know what the "right" third is. What I have been calling the "high
third" is higher than the ET third. I don't know that I would call it
"compensate." I sang the "high third" all of my professional life (I
believe) simply because I didn't know any better. Judging from what I hear
around me, other folks do too.
>
> 3) You further feel that this new, higher third gets injected back
> into the triad so that is is no longer just, but is rather even
> higher than a 12-tET third.

As you surely remember, you initially heard a third in jerry00 higher than
the naked 4:5. From what you said at that time, that third was not "new" to
you. It simply was the "right" third and the naked one was "flat."

The "high" third is not something I invented. It's something I have
observed. By the way, have you done the "experiment" yet with your choir?
>
> 4) You also feel that this new higher third sounds "in tune" to
> musicians' ears; even more in tune than either the 12-tET or the just
> third.

More in tune than the 12-tET third, to be sure. And certainly *not* more in
tune than the just third. The issue here, as I see it, is simply to
determine what actual "high third" pitch (if any) seems to sound "in tune"
when sung with the JI triad. If we find one--cool. If we don't find
one--also cool. Either way, it doesn't change my *perception* of the "high
third," but it might change our understanding of it.

> I welcome your corrections to or confirmation of this summary of your
> hypotheses on this issue, Jerry.

I hope this helps, Bob. Thanks for asking. (Please forgive my impatience.)
>
> Gratefully,
>
> Bob

Do the experiment!!!! :-)

Jerry

Psychoacoustics and the Major Third

🔗Mark Gould <mark.gould@argonet.co.uk>

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>