Jerry's high third example

On 3/30/02 11:07 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

> Message: 24
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 06:43:07 -0000
> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: jerry's high third example
>
> jerry --
>
> last time you were here on this list, you provided us with an example
> to listen to, in which a bunch of your students sang first a 2:5
> dyad, then added the 3, while you periodically played the nearest
> note to the 5 on a piano. the piano note sounded sharp (compared with
> the nearest vocal note) at first, then as the 3 was added, the piano
> note began to sound flatter and flatter, until it matched the vocal
> note, and perhaps even sunk below it.
>
> right now you seem to me to be making a whole lot of logical leaps
> with your purported explanation of this phenomenon, nearly going so
> far as to accuse some people of being disingenuous. we'll see where
> the future discussions (which i hope will occur) on the jerry10
> example will take us, but i fear that they (and any other 'jerries')
> may fail to resolve these differences in our points of view (though i
> certainly won't stop trying).

As you say, Paul, I call 'em as I see 'em. If I'm wrong...I'm wrong. And if
I'm not wrong...there's an outside chance I may be right.

My wife Marlene and I have two principles to which we credit our nearly 50
years of successful marriage: (1) keep talking and listening until we think
we understand what the other is saying, and (2) if one is horny the other is
horny.

My point is that there are a number of clear disagreements that Marlene and
I are content to "live with." But the key to living with them is to clearly
understand what the disagreements are. I don't think we always do that here.
In fact, I'm not sure we all *intend* to do that here. (I guess that means
we don't really have to worry here about the second part of our credo. :-)))
>
> but the recording you provided us with, way back when, certainly
> demonstrated the phenomenon that seems to have started you off on all
> this. it would be great if you could resurrect that recording if at
> all possible. it may help some people understand where you're coming
> from, and perhaps francois or others could actually measure what's
> going on in the example. perhaps it will suggest other ideas that may
> help us get beyond our seeming differences in hearing/interpreting
> the synthesized examples.

Voila!

<http://stage3music.com/soundpage.html/>

As I listen to this again, I note that some women (likely not realizing what
the "experiment" is), after locking in at 4:5 move their third upward in
response to the piano's sounding E. Nevertheless, when the tenors enter,
their third continues upward and holds steady at a point clearly *above* the
piano's E. I invite the list members to opine whether the women actually
raise their pitch when the tenor fifth is heard or whether it is simply an
illusion. (Is that clearly stated enough, Gene?)

While this recording is made by brand spanking new singers, the same thing
*always* happens, even with seasoned singers. Naïveté makes no difference
here.

> hoping for positive developments and mutual edification in all this,
> paul

I heartily agree. :-)

Jerry

On 3/30/02 11:07 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

> Message: 24
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 06:43:07 -0000
> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: jerry's high third example
>
> jerry --
>
> right now you seem to me to be making a whole lot of logical leaps
> with your purported explanation of this phenomenon, nearly going so
> far as to accuse some people of being disingenuous. we'll see where
> the future discussions (which i hope will occur) on the jerry10
> example will take us, but i fear that they (and any other 'jerries')
> may fail to resolve these differences in our points of view (though i
> certainly won't stop trying).

An additional thought:

I do sincerely appreciate your efforts to correct my "logical leaps,"
however, I'm having some trouble incorporating your "corrections" into my
experience bank. After all, that's the only honest way to modify our
individual and personal views of the world. You don't "swallow" ideas that
make no sense to you; and neither do I. I only ask that you give something
close to equal considerations to what I have to report compared to what
"others" may have to say. If what I say doesn't make sense to you, please
ask for clarification before you assume that we disagree.

Jerry

OK, boy! Here we go! I just listened to the first example
called "High Third" at Jerry's Website on /soundpage.html. I also
listened to the Root-Fifth-hi3 demo further down the list.

Here's what I hear, and I am rock solid sure of what I hear. I do
work this fine all the time with my choir. (This is not to say
they are always consistent or that I don't have to stay on it all the
time. After all, they are amateur singers in rural southeast Iowa in
the "greater" region around a town of 10,000 from which you have to
drive a half hour in any direction to find anything more than a tenth
its size.):

In the high third example -

1) The first thing that happens is the basses are unsteady to the
sharp side and do not stay cleanly in unison with the piano. One of
the basses goes slightly sharp right away and stays there for the
duration. The others oscillate slowly between him and the piano
pitch. It's borderline, but enough so I would tend to make a
correction to that pitch error in my choir.

2) The sopranos sing very slightly high to a just third from the
outset, probably prompted by the bass tendency to sharp slightly.
When the piano sounds its third (these are actually tenths), the
sopranos, led by one of them, swing immediately afterwards to the
piano third and then on up beyond it well before the tenors' entry on
the fifth.

3) The tenors are tuned rather well to the just fifth initially and
stay so tuned to the bass throughout, although they do drift upwards
with the bass.

4) After the tenors enter on the fifth, the sopranos' third actually
lowers toward it a bit, but the bass has meanwhile drifted further
upwards to retune with the high piano third, no other reference
having been provided them since their initial pitch was given.

5) The sopranos quickly drift back sharp to the piano third once
again. Even though this third is high to the piano, it is only very
slightly high to the bass, and the tenor has remained tuned a just
fifth above the upward drifting bass. The so-called high third is
indeed actually high to the absolute reference of the piano third,
but the bass and tenor have shifted upward sufficiently to make the
triad almost just. (No wonder the "high third" sounds so good.)

The Root-Fifth-hi3 demo -

1) The sung pitch here oscillates periodically and somewhat
sporadically between a just and a sharp third. I found this demo
quite amusing, since it clearly demonstrates the almost irresistable
attraction the just third has for the ear in spite of the apparent
attempt to sing sharp to it.

On 4/1/02 11:45 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Message: 24
>> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 06:43:07 -0000
>> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
>> Subject: jerry's high third example
>>
>> jerry --
>>
>> last time you were here on this list, you provided us with an example
>> to listen to, in which a bunch of your students sang first a 2:5
>> dyad, then added the 3, while you periodically played the nearest
>> note to the 5 on a piano. the piano note sounded sharp (compared with
>> the nearest vocal note) at first, then as the 3 was added, the piano
>> note began to sound flatter and flatter, until it matched the vocal
>> note, and perhaps even sunk below it.
>>
--------

>> the recording certainly
>> demonstrated the phenomenon that seems to have started you off on all
>> this. it would be great if you could resurrect that recording if at
>> all possible. it may help some people understand where you're coming
>> from, and perhaps francois or others could actually measure what's
>> going on in the example. perhaps it will suggest other ideas that may
>> help us get beyond our seeming differences in hearing/interpreting
>> the synthesized examples.
>
> Voila!

Whoops! Faulty URL.

Corrected URL:

<http://stage3music.com/soundpage.html>

Or if that doesn't work:

<http://www.stage3music.com/soundpage.html>

While I was digging this out, Paul, I ran across five other mp3s I must have
made after having left the list. (I don't remember making them much less
posting them. Do you?) They are also now on my "soundpage."

They demo the high and low thirds vocally (if that's what you can call my
wobbly voice). The last one might be particularly useful since it contains
only the "adjusting" third (the root and third muted for the recording).
That should make it easy for francois to measure the amount of change.

This should be fun, if not informative. What shall we call these five? Since
your suggestion unearthed them, how about Paul01, Paul02, etc. :-)

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> OK, boy! Here we go! I just listened to the first example
> called "High Third" at Jerry's Website on /soundpage.html. I
also
> listened to the Root-Fifth-hi3 demo further down the list.
>
> Here's what I hear, and I am rock solid sure of what I hear. I do
> work this fine all the time with my choir.

work this fine all the time?

[bob's observations snipped]

i wonder if francois or someone could confirm these
observations with a computer analysis.