Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1972

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

> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 04:35:06 -0000
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Paul, I wonder if that is why you and others believe the JI third is
>> peculiar to early music. For what it's worth, most of the choirs I hear and
>> deal with (both church and college) in virtually all musical styles (unless
>> singing with an organ) tune final major chords with the the high third
>> (which, judging from our research here, is probably JI).
>
> If it's high, it's not JI; it surely has to be one or the other.

A month ago I might have agreed with you, Gene. Since hearing Paul's JI
jerry0 and jerry00 as an having an illusionary (presumably) high third, I no
longer do. If you have been following the conversation, you know that the
new question (in my thinking, at least) is: can we identify a *real* high
third that will tune to the illusionary "high third" that seems to result
(for some of us) from a well-tuned JI triad?

I think the high third is a learned thing that singers and string players
are more likely to perceive (conceive) than other musicians. Since there
seems to be some agreement regarding which jerries are "better," it follows
that this judgement may be based on learned experience with the illusionary
JI high third experience.

I hope that makes some sense. Anyway, that's where my head is at the moment.
Paul, on the other hand, appears to be approaching this experiment from
quite a different viewpoint (which, of course, is not a bad thing).

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> > If it's high, it's not JI; it surely has to be one or the other.
>
> A month ago I might have agreed with you, Gene. Since hearing
Paul's JI
> jerry0 and jerry00 as an having an illusionary (presumably) high
third, I no
> longer do.

It's a matter of definitions, not what you hear. In any case,
I presume you hear the other jerries as sharp thirds with
pronounced beating, and hence not JI, whatever you may be
hearing with jerry0, which is a different matter.

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

> Message: 24
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:24:12 -0000
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1972
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>>> If it's high, it's not JI; it surely has to be one or the other.
>>
>> A month ago I might have agreed with you, Gene. Since hearing Paul's JI
>> jerry0 and jerry00 as an having an illusionary (presumably) high third, I no
>> longer do.
>
> It's a matter of definitions, not what you hear. In any case,
> I presume you hear the other jerries as sharp thirds with
> pronounced beating, and hence not JI, whatever you may be
> hearing with jerry0, which is a different matter.

You are correct, my friend.

J