Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1971

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

> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:36:08 -0000
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, experienced singers can sing the "high third" at will, even in
>> a dyad (when the fifth is not sounding), but I think that is because they
>> know from experience what it sounds like.
>
> I can't even hear the "high third", and you can't prove by me there is such a
> phenomenon. The other jerries just seem sharp, and if the fifth drops out they
> seem to go down in pitch if anything. The third on jerry0 doesn't seem to have
> anything to do with anything, and I've been lost by this whole discussion.

Gene, don't feel bad about that. Paul says he doesn't hear the "high third"
either. Apparently, it is "learned" through extended vocal or string tuning.
Who know? We may conclude that the whole thing is in my imagination.
However, there is too much collaborating evidence in my experience to accept
that without checking it out as thoroughly as we can.

Thanks for reporting your experiences with this, Gene. Even "negative" input
has positive value. Possibly, if Paul "nails" the high third, it will help
to "point to" what I'm talking about. We'll see.

Jerry

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

> Message: 22
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:43:10 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Watch your language, Paul. There may be children on this list! (Besides me.)
>> What--pray tell--is a non-monotonic function?
>
> one that always increases -- it may speed up or slow down, but an increase in
> frequency doesn't ever result in a decrease in pitch, does it?

Okay??? What always increases? What speeds up or slows down? In relation to
what? The last part I understand, but what does that have to do with
anything?
>
>> I'm buying your categorical perception hypothesis. I just think we need to
>> fine tune it. The question in my mind is: what is the basis for the
>> commonplace experiences that give rise to the concepts by which musicians
>> (young and old) "recognize" (and/or produce) a specific high third (in
>> context).
>
> my 'null-hypothesis' answer: experience. the point of the 'jerries', to me, is
> to falsify this null hypothesis, or to fail to do so.

Clear enough. Shall we carry on?

Jerry

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

/tuning/topicId_35731.html#35739

> > my 'null-hypothesis' answer: experience. the point of
the 'jerries', to me, is to falsify this null hypothesis, or to fail
to do so.
>
> Clear enough. Shall we carry on?
>
> Jerry

***Well, personally I always enjoy falsifying null hypotheses. One
gets something done in this manner...

I don't very much enjoy, though, failing to falsify a null hypothesis.

That's a real zero.

jp

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

> The last part I understand, but what does that have to do with
> anything?

you seem to be suggesting that a ji third leads to a perception of a
high third, but that a slightly higher third would lead to a
perception of a third *lower* than the high third. right?

On 3/19/02 1:26 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 22
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:51:09 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1971
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> The last part I understand, but what does that have to do with
>> anything?
>
> you seem to be suggesting that a ji third leads to a perception of a
> high third, but that a slightly higher third would lead to a
> perception of a third *lower* than the high third. right?

First phrase: yes.

Second phrase: huh?

Final question: no. (I think.)

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 3/19/02 1:26 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 22
> > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:51:09 -0000
> > From: "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
> > Subject: Re: Digest Number 1971
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> >> The last part I understand, but what does that have to do with
> >> anything?
> >
> > you seem to be suggesting that a ji third leads to a perception
of a
> > high third, but that a slightly higher third would lead to a
> > perception of a third *lower* than the high third. right?
>
> First phrase: yes.
>
> Second phrase: huh?

you're saying that if the actual third is *between* the ji position
and the 'high' position, the perceived third will be *lower* than the
perceived third from either a *true* ji third or a *true* high third.
right?