Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1994

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

> On 4/1/02 6:07 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 12
> > Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 21:42:52 -0000
> > From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...>
> > Subject: Re: To Jerry and Paul, and also all: "High thirds"
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_36035.html#36083
> >
> >> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> >>> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> i'd love it if bob w. and others will listen to the
> > latest 'jerry10'
> >>>> example and tell us what they hear . . .
> >>>
> >>> What are we listening *for*?
> >>
> >> does the upper note appear to rise, fall, or stay put?
> >
> > ***My feeling in this experiment was that it appeared to "stay
put"
> > but "jiggled..." !
> >
> > jp
>
> So which is it, Joe. Did it jiggle *or* stay put? :-)
>
> To the extent it jiggled, can you tell which way it moved?
>
> Jerry

***Hi Jerry!

Well, initially I believed the jerry had the "wobblies."

In other words, it "wobbled" and "warbled" but pretty much stayed
put -- or at leaast *I* didn't discern a change.

Today, however, upon intent jerrie listening, I detect the wobbles,
but now a very teeny, teeny, teeny, teeny, teenage, teeny rise in
pitch.

Actually, that would accord with Bob Wendel's observations, but
fortunately I forgot about them while doing the experiment.

I only remembered them later... :)

On 4/1/02 6:07 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 18
> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 22:55:23 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: Jerry's high third example
>
> OK, boy! Here we go!

Any particular meaning to this opening phrase, Bob?

> 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.):

Isn't it a bit dangerous to assume that we are "rock solid sure" of what we
hear? I have learned a lot about what I *think* I hear during my stay on the
list, and in some cases found that I was mistaken. (Discovery of the high
third "illusion," for example.

Okay. Here we go.
>
> 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.

Bob is right. The basses raise the pitch almost immediately. That, of
course, makes the piano reference pitch closer to the women's 4:5 third. Too
bad Bob wasn't there that day to catch the basses' sharp root.
>
> 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.

Also true. Evidently, one of the sopranos hears the piano comparison tone
and (perhaps from habit) goes to it. The final "resting place" in the
soprano pitch actually goes well beyond that piano third as can be heard
when the piano re-sounds its reference third.
>
> 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.

Once the tenors enter with their fifth, the pitch does not change. As I pop
back and forth in the recording, the final root is consistently the same as
before the sopranos first entered. (Too bad the basses started too high.)
>
> 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.

Actually, the basses don't move once they establish the pitch before the
girls enter. Skip around on the recording (after the piano's initial pitch)
and you'll hear no change.
>
> 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.)

It is unfortunate that the basses began high. Nevertheless, one can hear the
shift in the women's third (tenth-- Sorry Paul) in relation to the basses'
and tenors' locked root/fifth. The main problem is that the effect is
exaggerated here in relation to the piano's reference pitch.

Unfortunately, I don't have a choir anymore to go back and do it right. Bob,
I suggest you do the "experiment," and with your fine singers I'm sure
you'll do it better than I may have done with my novices. Then, let's talk.

>
> 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.
>
Thanks for responding, Bob. By the way, those posts were intended simply to
demonstrate what I *think*. They may not *prove* anything, particularly
since they were sung by a 67 year old guy who can't sing a decent straight
tone anymore. Believe me, that is not very "amusing" (as you put it) from
*my* standpoint.

Did you listen to any of the others, Bob? You might have found those amusing
also.

After listening to them again (and trying to ignore the wobbly pitch), I
couldn't help but wonder how much difference there is between my 4:5 third
and my high third, if any. Perhaps they are the same. Then we could all go
back to doing something more productive. :-)

Hopefully, Francois will help in that regard.

Hope to get some more responses.

Jerry

Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1994

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>