Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment

Hello, there Jerry and Bob and Paul and Francois and everyone, and
please let me comment briefly on this "high third" question from my
own perspective.

Mainly I would like to advocate a bit of "harmonic empathy" theory: an
assumption that people's intonational perspectives, and possibly also
perceptions, might differ, and that analyzing these differences might
call for a lot of patience and mutual support.

Curiously, I found myself reflecting on this a bit while playing
around a bit with a more-or-less "regal organ" kind of timbre in
Zarlino's 5-limit JI tuning (or actually 15 out its full 16 notes -- I
had two versions of D, Bb, and F#, while Zarlino also has a second Eb).

In a Renaissance setting, I find that 5:4 or 4:5:6 sounds "just
right," and that if I try 2:3:5 (which Zarlino himself prefers as
closer to the "natural order of the sonorous numbers"), the pitch of
the just 5:4 third does not seem to change if I remove the fifth, or
both lower notes.

Playing this is an opportunity to renew my appreciation in action of
the perfection of 16th-century music. For this music, a cadential
semitone of 16:15 (~112 cents) sounds "just right": the elements fit
together in beautiful proportion, and some patience with the comma
complications seems well rewarded. Of course, Zarlino didn't say that
this kind of keyboard would be easy to play; but it's fascinating, and
wonderful, to play an actual syntonic diatonic kind of keyboard
instrument following Zarlino's plan, albeit with "split manuals" (one
version of D, Bb, F# on each 12-note keyboard) rather than split keys.

Shift the style, and something 81:80 or 56:55 higher than a 5:4 can
sound equally "just right" and beautiful; since I can hear versions of
an interval differently depending on the context, why shouldn't
different people have a range of views and experiences also?

Bob and Jerry, as someone known to have been excluded from my high
school choir because of an inability accurately to match pitches, what
I'd mainly urge might be a more relaxed approach to this important
question -- and anything I say might carry the caution: "Such lips,
such lettuce" (said by a Roman of a donkey eating thistles, and quoted
by Thomas Morley in 1597 in his _A Plain and Easy Introduction to
Practical Music_).

It's humorous, Francois: when you suggested that the choir was singing
a major sixth at around 906 cents, and I noticed this number in some
of the posts, my reaction was: "That's a perfect 27:16!" -- or would
be, if the reading with its 5-cent error margin happened to be
precisely what was happening.

If the group were performing 13th-14th century European music, that
would be an ideal Pythagorean sixth, and quite an accomplishment --
not necessarily to endorse all of the surrounding events including the
pitch drift and an "unhistorical" type of keyboard sound, of course
<grin> -- if it had been a synthesizer simulating the Halberstadt
Organ, I'd count that as more "authentic."

Anyway, I should add that the Renaissance was my first great love when
I took a course in music appreciation/history in high school, and that
I still regard it as _one_ of the most perfect eras from my point of
view.

Musing a bit on this "high third" discussion yesterday, I read a bit
of Carl Dahlhaus. What he says about the music of Monteverdi and
others around 1600 is really fascinating, and maybe captures at least
part of how I go about improvising in this kind of style, as well as
what I hear in the music of this epoch that I play on keyboard.

One of his conclusions is that music of this kind is based on a
"society" of hexachord degrees which are "coordinate," rather than in
some kind of hierarchical relationship, whether defined by the
traditional modal system or the key system of the later 17th century.

The flow of 5-limit consonance, with smooth progressions and few
arbitrary limitations, is one of the real charms of this music; I must
admit to making the usual period compromise of meantone most of the
time, but it's nice to play now and then in real JI and take that in
also.

Of course, Gothic/neo-Gothic and Renaissance/neo-Renaissance, along
with their very different approaches to concord/discord contrasts and
intonational styles, has some common assumptions that may knit
together these sides of my musical life.

Reading Dahlhaus, and getting in touch again with both sides of this
equation, makes me ask, for example, "Why is it that the progression
from major third to fifth can be so beautiful not only a Gothic kind
of setting where it represents a resolution from instability to
stability, but also in a Renaissance setting where it guides a
progression between two 5-limit sonorities?"

Maybe that's a special charm of the 16th century: a kind of special
musical gravitation producing an orbital freefall of sorts as thirds
and sixths are moving in old and familiar patterns -- but to new
sonorities also with thirds or sixths. It's a kind of "5-limit jazz."

An open question: might a Renaissance style invite something at or
near adaptive 5-limit JI, and 17th-19th century tonality with its
higher level of dissonance and tension something with narrower
cadential semitones?

Maybe this is a bit like the old philosophical question: Is Bach
played in a 31-note meantone cycle, or even say adaptive 5-limit JI,
preferable to Bach in Werckmeister III say, or the Kellner tuning?

Anyway, Bob and Jerry, the least I can do is to appreciate the talents
and effort you exert in your work with vocal ensembles.

Music history reveals that passionate dialogues are often the source,
if not the occasion, for much vital theory; the recognition of this
potential, even in the throes of controversy, might encourage
passionate advocacy and enthusiastic friendship on all sides as the
colloquies proceed.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 4/7/02 2:36 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 16:20:21 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "M. Schulter" <MSCHULTER@V...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_36258.html#36258
>
>> Music history reveals that passionate dialogues are often the
> source,
>> if not the occasion, for much vital theory; the recognition of this
>> potential, even in the throes of controversy, might encourage
>> passionate advocacy and enthusiastic friendship on all sides as the
>> colloquies proceed.
>>
>
> ***Thank you so much, Margo, for your wise commentary and I, too, was
> finding that the exchange was getting perhaps a bit "overcooked."
> Unlike yourself, though, I was considering selling tickets to
> the "battle of the choirmasters..."
>
> jp

Bob and I are willing, just check with our "people" for a contract. :-)

Unfortunately, the ringside seats were blacked out. Those would have gone
for premium prices, for sure.

Seriously, though folks, the "exercise" was good for both Bob and me. I
understood it was to be a private affair, but then found the "wrap up" round
posted on line. Okay. So be it. You have read it.

As I see it, the bottom line difference in point of view centered on Bob's
value that an important goal regarding JI perception has to do with what he
and Paul call pitch/frequency correlation. I asked for clarification
(meaning "how does this apply?" and I got back word meanings (nothing I
didn't know before) and accusations of being "illogical."

Through that exchange, I learned that Bob believes that perception of a
"high third" or any such anomaly is to be *overcome* by persistent practice.
That would explain why he felt that his apparent "change in perception"
supported his being "right."

For a while, all hell broke out with accusations of my poor logic and
refusal to see his points. I don't particularly think pitch/perception
correlation in a worse/better sense applies here. (I won't go into the whys
unless you think it of value.) But it was helpful to me to see clearly that
there is no way that someone who views the "high third" as a *weakness* is
going to relate to what I'm trying to discover here.

That's where all of this has landed, at the moment, from my standpoint. Bob
is certainly welcome, of course, to present his impressions, as well.

I wouldn't have posted this publicly except for *Bob's* recent public post.
It's clear (by *your* delightful post) that the "battle" has become public
news.

That may in fact prove to be helpful. When you see how well Bob and I will
relate to each other, now that our points of view are understood, you'll be
impressed how persistence in getting to the heart of an apparent difference
in "logic" turns out to be a difference in *values*. Very interesting,
indeed. (Why do I know Paul will find holes in all of this?)

Thanks, Joe, (and also Margo) for knowing just what to say to discharge an
apparent explosive situation. As it works out, there *was* no explosion.
Just a clearer understanding on both our parts. (Sometimes the world is just
a wonderful place to be!)

Gratefully,

Jerry

🔗M. Schulter <MSCHULTER@VALUE.NET>

Hello, there, Jerry, and thank you for a thoughtful response which
gives me an opportunity both to confirm some of the important points
you raise, and to thank you and Bob for such a discussion between
experienced and skilled choral directors.

First, I should explain that I have no means at hand for listening to
MIDI or audio files, and so am unable to comment on either your high
third demonstrations or Paul's examples, not to mention Bob's
wonderful recordings of the Victoria performance in adaptive JI.
However, I can at least thank all of you for making such things
available for the many participants of this group who do have the
means to listen, enjoy, and participate in the dialogue as people who
have actually heard some of the evidence.

Next, I should clarify, in view of some references to my own keyboard
practices of medieval or neo-medieval intonation involving major
thirds at Pythagorean or larger, that I do understand that the "high
thirds" here being discussed are smaller, maybe somewhere around 404
cents, or roughly a 24:19, and occur in a "5-limit" kind of setting.

An interesting factor to consider here might be the judgment of Easley
Blackwood that the largest "acceptable" size for a major third in a
17th-19th century kind of setting based on stable triads is around 406
cents, slightly larger than the postulated size of the "high third"
(as also suggested by your responses to Paul's sample "jerry" files),
and about 2 cents smaller than Pythagorean.

Without attempting to address the specific kind of psychoacoustical
phenomenon you propose regarding the perceived "highness" of the third
in a pure 4:5:6 sonority, and so forth, I might comment that one
characteristic of major thirds at the upper end of Blackwood's range,
maybe here about midway between 12-tET and Pythagorean, is that they
would permit cadential semitones somewhat smaller than in 12-tET --
"minor semitones" somewhere between 90.22 cents (Pythagorean 256:243)
and 100 cents.

For example, let's consider this cadence with a "high third" at around
404 cents, or 24:19 (~404.44 cents), with vertical perfect concords
just (2:1, 3:2, 4:3):

B4 ------- +94 ------ C5
(404) (498)
G4 ------- 0 ------ G4
(902,498) (814,386)
D4 ------- +182 ------ E4
(1604,1200,702) (2400,1902,1586)
G3 ------- -702 ------ C3

This is a tree diagram with numbers in parentheses showing the
vertical intervals between a given voice and any higher voices. Here I
assume that first sonority of this cadence has a "high third," while
the sonority of arrival is a pure 4:5:6 (or actually 2:5:6:8).

The "high third" sonority is within Blackwood's "acceptable" range,
with, under one interpretation, the greater acoustical tension of this
third offering a constrast with the pure 5:4 in the following
sonority, and thus reinforcing the cadential grammar.

An interesting consequence is a cadential semitone of only 94 cents,
as opposed to the 16:15 (~111.73 cents) which would be involved if
both sonorities had pure 5:4 thirds.

In a way, this might be one of those "alternative hypotheses": might
people, at least sometimes, sing a "high third" in a cadential context
where both contextual and melodic motivations (narrower diatonic
semitones) could play a part? However, since the "high third"
reportedly may also occur in settings not involving cadential
progressions, this may not fully address the question, and is offered
as a kind of aside.

Whatever relevance this kind of hypothesis might have for the present
"high third" discussion, I mention it as of possible historical
interest for early Renaissance styles around the late 15th century,
when theorists present an interesting mixture of Pythagorean and
"5-limit" types of concepts and viewpoints. Suppose, for example, we
revise our cadence to a variety common around the time of Ockeghem and
the earlier Josquin, and indeed still common in the early 16th century
when final sonorities with thirds are coming into wider vogue:

B4 ------- +94 ------ C5
(404) (498)
G4 ------- 0 ------ G4
(902,498) (814,386)
D4 ------- +204 ------ C4
(1604,1200,702) (2400,1902,1200)
G3 ------- -702 ------ C3

In this example, the sonority with a "high third" -- or a Pythagorean
third slightly tempered in the narrow direction, one might say --
resolves to a stable consonance of 1:2:3:4, a kind of conclusion which
composers such as Palestrina still sometimes use in the later 16th
century, although by the second quarter of the century a final third
(typically major, by inflection if necessary in a given mode) is
becoming the general norm.

Theorists of the late 15th century still often speak of the diatonic
semitone as the _minor_ semitone, and here the size of 94 cents would
fit this kind of description; the "high third" sonority is somewhat
more smooth and restful than active medieval sonorities with
Pythagorean thirds, but still has considerable tension.

In this cadence, the principal two-voice progression is between the
tenor and highest voice: a major sixth (D4-B4) expands to the octave
(C4-C5). At the same time, the outer voices have an M10-15 resolution
of a kind which Zarlino (1558) will note as typical of multi-voice
cadences.

By the time of Zarlino, a pervasive "5-limit just" ethos seems quite
fitting, but in the Ockeghem/Josquin era, some kind of compromise
between Pythagorean and 5-limit adaptive JI or meantone might have
been in favor, at least in some areas.

Of course, I understand that the "high third" phenomenon you posit is
something different, in which singers heard the actual 5:4 major third
or 5:2 major tenth of a 4:5:6 or 2:3:5 sonority as having a
subjectively "higher" location, and then sing a third at this
perceived location (~404 cents?), finding the result pleasing.

Please note that I am here addressing the question of one possible
approach to flexible pitch performance of certain cadential
progressions in the later 15th century, rather than the tuning of
fixed pitch instruments such as keyboards, which around 1450-1480 were
evidently shifting from Pythagorean to meantone.

Another possible application of major thirds around 404 cents or so
might be in an interpretation of Charles Ives calling for some kind of
quasi-Pythagorean tuning where "F# is closer to G than to F, and Eb is
closer to D than to E" (a paraphrase of some of Ives' remarks reported
here).

Anyway, here's a possible question to consider in maybe analyzing some
choir performances: do "high thirds" tend to occur more in cadential
situations than elsewhere?

Again, a lot of my experience is with keyboard tunings in a medieval
or neo-Gothic kind of style where the norm for thirds is quite
different; and I should emphasize that my experiences with a
Renaissance style of 5-limit JI on keyboards, also, is a different
situation than the kind of dynamic vocal intonation here in question.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

🔗M. Schulter <MSCHULTER@VALUE.NET>

On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, M. Schulter wrote:

> B4 ------- +94 ------ C5
> (404) (498)
> G4 ------- 0 ------ G4
> (902,498) (814,386)
> D4 ------- +204 ------ C4
> (1604,1200,702) (2400,1902,1200)
> G3 ------- -702 ------ C3

Hello, everyone, and this diagram requires a correction that was all too
obvious to me when I looked at it in the Digest, although regrettably not
when I posted it: the cents values between the second-to-lowest voice and
higher voices got carried over from an earlier diagram of a cadence
including a third in the final sonority. Here's a revised version:

B4 ------- +94 ------ C5
(404) (498)
G4 ------- 0 ------ G4
(902,498) (1200,702)
D4 ------- +204 ------ C4
(1604,1200,702) (2400,1902,1200)
G3 ------- -702 ------ C3

This should confirm that the octave C4-C5 and fifth C4-G4 are equal to
values other than the 814 cents (6:5 minor sixth) and 386 cents (5:4 major
third) specified in my first and not so flawless posted version.

A kind of postscript, which at least permits me to correct the first
diagram for the cadence arriving at a sonority with a third also:

> B4 ------- +94 ------ C5
> (404) (498)
> G4 ------- 0 ------ G4
> (902,498) (814,386)
> D4 ------- +204 ------ E4
> (1604,1200,702) (2400,1902,1586)
> G3 ------- -702 ------ C3

Here the interval between the second-to-lowest and next highest voices,
E4-G4, is specified as "386" when it should obviously be "316" (a 6:5
minor third, not a 5:4 major third):

B4 ------- +94 ------ C5
(404) (498)
G4 ------- 0 ------ G4
(902,498) (814,316)
D4 ------- +204 ------ E4
(1604,1200,702) (2400,1902,1586)
G3 ------- -702 ------ C3

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 4/9/02 6:24 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "M. Schulter" <MSCHULTER@VALUE.NET>
> Subject: Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment
>
Thanks, Margo, for an informative (as always) reflection from the historical
perspective.

----------------
>
> Another possible application of major thirds around 404 cents or so
> might be in an interpretation of Charles Ives calling for some kind of
> quasi-Pythagorean tuning where "F# is closer to G than to F, and Eb is
> closer to D than to E" (a paraphrase of some of Ives' remarks reported
> here).

Perhaps I can now assume a personal affinity with Mr. Ives, since apparently
he too was afflicted by the dreaded "high third" syndrome. :-)

I had always assumed F# *was* closer to G than F, and that Gb was closer to
F than G. They just sounded better when "bent" in those directions. It was
somewhat of a shock to find that many of the folks here consider F# to be
lower than Gb. To each his own, but I would find such tuning pretty "dumpy"
sounding.

Of course, having been subject (good word) to the high third "illusion"
(apparently) all my life, I suppose that shouldn't be surprising.
>
> Anyway, here's a possible question to consider in maybe analyzing some
> choir performances: do "high thirds" tend to occur more in cadential
> situations than elsewhere?

Interesting thought. The tendency of cadence chords to be more sustained
makes it easier to identify tuning of thirds there. I, for one, do notice
high thirds in cadences but I usually have no vivid impression of the tuning
of the thirds sung elsewhere.

For example, I did "catch" high thirds in Bob's cadences (the Victoria he
posted), but when I went back to listen more carefully I wasn't sure whether
I was hearing *real* high thirds or illusionary ones.

In that regard, Paul asked me to listen again to his jerry10, in which a JI
triad was immediately followed by an ET triad. The point of that test was to
see whether folks would hear the third go up or down when the ET triad
began. I'm glad I did listen again because I learned something very
interesting.

When I downloaded it, the music sounded very quickly, catching me by
surprise. I obviously perceived the high third in this hearing as the third
clearly "went down." I played it a few more times, always hearing the ET
third lower than the "JI" third.

After a few minutes, I went back and played jerry10 again, this time making
an effort to focus on the pitch of the JI third rather than on the
experience as a whole. This time the ET third "went up." I listened a few
more times with the same result.

Then I decided to alternate my focus between JI triad as a whole and the
pitch of the third. Whenever I focused on the triad I heard the third drop,
and when I focused on the third alone, it went up.

This insight prompted my memory of Bob's suggestion that hearing the high
third for him seemed to be a product of what he called "casual" listening.
His point, as I remember it, was that he had trained himself to "overcome"
(ignore?) the "illusion" by careful listening.

I now suspect Bob and I have actually experienced the *same* phenomenon but
have expressed our descriptions in different ways. This difference in
language, incidentally, is what I think launched our "disagreements." I
evidently was bothered by his apparent attempt to *dismiss* the high third
as perceptual error. He evidently was frustrated that I "refused" to see his
reasoning. As I said to Joe, I believe our communication difficulties have
more to do with differing values than with my "faulty logic" (as Bob and
Paul maintain).

Thanks, Margo, for your expressed interest in this topic. I wish you could
hear the sound items. Nevertheless, please continue to offer your point of
view whenever you feel it may be helpful.

Jerry

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > I believe our communication difficulties have
> > more to do with differing values than with my "faulty logic" (as
> Bob and
> > Paul maintain).
>
> i'm going to get to back to this logic stuff with you in private e-
> mail, when i get a chance. the logic issue is completely
independent
> of the values issue -- the values could be exactly reversed and the
> logic problem would remain exactly as it is.

Bob comments:
For those on this list who do not know, Jerry, Paul, and I have had
extensive offline communications concerning this issue. What little I
have posted online here for the tuning list in the meantime, since
starting offline discussions, only reflects my attempt to address and
hopefully eliminate the self-contradictions and inconsistencies that
since then we have unfortunately been unable to work out even
offline. I have given up trying.

I had posted online my understanding of what Jerry has been trying to
say, and Jerry confirmed it. Jerry has never produced an assessment
of my views that even comes close, as I've previously stated. Now I
don't even know if my posted and confirmed understanding is actually
a correct reflection of what Jerry thinks, because since then there
have been serious contradicions and/or changes(?), I can't be sure
which.

Even so, both Paul and I have been told that our attempts to correct
logical contradictions and fallacies are just a blind defense of our
own positions (Paul's and my perspectives are not identical, as most
of you know). Well, if there is any merit in Jerry's position,
whatever it is, or even anything else new and independent of Jerry's
position, maybe just a new way of looking at high thirds (the real
ones Jerry proposes, that can be measured by frequency), I would be
the among the first to want to know about and understand the
phenomenon.

As Paul has stated above, none of this has anything to do with my
position. It has everything to do with untenable "logical" leaps and
indecipherable self-contradictions. This is on top of being told I
was simply stuck in a hardened position and that the attempts to
correct logical contradictions, inconsistencies and fallacies are
just an intensely defensive attempt to discredit Jerry's ideas. This
has remained true in spite of restricting myself along with Paul to
multiple attempts to establish coherent communications and lines of
reasoning independent of "positions" or perceptions.

It has become totally clear to me that I can say or do absolutely
nothing to separate logic and substance or to disabuse Jerry of his
assessment of my motivations, so I have confined myself to responding
to new Jerries as they are posted with an honest description of my
own perceptions.

>
Continuing back to Paul:
> meanwhile, bob is only one of six other people here who listened to
> the example (and margo replicated it for herself). why be so
> concerned about what *he* heard? no one here is out to get you -- i
> think the vast majority of us here are as curious about tuning
> phenomena as you are, so i hope you'll trust us that we're 'on your
> side' in trying to figure stuff out.
>
> peace,
> paul
>
> p.s. the other two incarnations of this list appear to be dead --
or
> is everyone just doing their taxes?

🔗Mark G. Ryan <mgryan@cruzio.com>

But let us not pursue the tabulation of nonsense.

--Nabokov, Pale Fire

In short, whether he was on the weak or the strong side of the
question, 'twas hazardous in either case to attack him:--And yet,
'tis strange, he had never read Cicero nor Quintilian, nor
Isocrates, nor Aristotle...[snip]...---he knew not so much what the
difference of an argument _ad_ignorantium_ and an argument _ad_hominem_
consisted...

--Sterne, Tristam Shandy

It is allowed on all Hands, that the primative way of breaking eggs,
before we eat them, is upon the larger end;

--Swift, Gulliver's Travels

This is an attempt to stop a war.

--Danny Cohen, On Holy Wars and a Plea for Peace

Forwarded message:
> From rwendell@cangelic.org Fri Apr 12 13:24 PDT 2002
> X-eGroups-Return: sentto-70605-36405-1018637010-mgryan=cruzio.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com
> X-Sender: rwendell@cangelic.org
> X-Apparently-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Message-ID: <a978dr+2oqh@eGroups.com>
> In-Reply-To: <a95cc1+5vai@eGroups.com>
> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
> X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> X-Originating-IP: 208.145.207.60
> X-Yahoo-Profile: robert_wendell
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Mailing-List: list tuning@yahoogroups.com; contact tuning-owner@yahoogroups.com
> Delivered-To: mailing list tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Precedence: bulk
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 18:18:35 -0000
> Subject: [tuning] Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment
> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Content-Length: 4322
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-UIDL: cb233fb7831f938b2c535755841adf13
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> > > I believe our communication difficulties have
> > > more to do with differing values than with my "faulty logic" (as
> > Bob and
> > > Paul maintain).
> >
> > i'm going to get to back to this logic stuff with you in private e-
> > mail, when i get a chance. the logic issue is completely
> independent
> > of the values issue -- the values could be exactly reversed and the
> > logic problem would remain exactly as it is.
>
> Bob comments:
> For those on this list who do not know, Jerry, Paul, and I have had
> extensive offline communications concerning this issue. What little I
> have posted online here for the tuning list in the meantime, since
> starting offline discussions, only reflects my attempt to address and
> hopefully eliminate the self-contradictions and inconsistencies that
> since then we have unfortunately been unable to work out even
> offline. I have given up trying.
>
> I had posted online my understanding of what Jerry has been trying to
> say, and Jerry confirmed it. Jerry has never produced an assessment
> of my views that even comes close, as I've previously stated. Now I
> don't even know if that understanding is actually a correct
> reflection of what Jerry thinks, because since then there have been
> serious contradicions and/or changes(?), I can't be sure which.
>
> Even so, both Paul and I have been told that our attempts to correct
> logical contradictions and fallacies are just a blind defense of our
> own positions (Paul's and my perspectives are not identical, as most
> of you know). Well, if there is any merit in Jerry's position,
> whatever it is, or even anything else new and independent of Jerry's
> position, maybe just a new way of looking at high thirds (the real
> ones Jerry proposes, that can be measured by frequency), I would be
> the among the first to want to know about and understand the
> phenomenon.
>
> As Paul has stated above, none of this has anything to do with my
> position. It has everything to do with untenable "logical" leaps and
> indecipherable self-contradictions. This is on top of being told I
> was simply stuck in a hardened position and that the attempts to
> correct logical contradictions, inconsistencies and fallacies are
> just an intensely defensive attempt to discredit Jerry's ideas. This
> has remained true in spite of restricting myself along with Paul to
> multiple attempts to establish coherent communications and lines of
> reasoning independent of "positions" or perceptions.
>
> It has become totally clear to me that I can say or do absolutely
> nothing to separate logic and substance or to disabuse Jerry of his
> assessment of my motivations, so I have confined myself to responding
> to new Jerries as they are posted with an honest description of my
> own perceptions.
>
> >
> Continuing back to Paul:
> > meanwhile, bob is only one of six other people here who listened to
> > the example (and margo replicated it for herself). why be so
> > concerned about what *he* heard? no one here is out to get you -- i
> > think the vast majority of us here are as curious about tuning
> > phenomena as you are, so i hope you'll trust us that we're 'on your
> > side' in trying to figure stuff out.
> >
> > peace,
> > paul
> >
> > p.s. the other two incarnations of this list appear to be dead --
> or
> > is everyone just doing their taxes?
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

--
Mark G. Ryan
mgryan@cruzio.com

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 4/12/02 2:48 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:13:37 -0000
> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> I believe our communication difficulties have
>> more to do with differing values than with my "faulty logic" (as Bob and
>> Paul maintain).
>
> i'm going to get to back to this logic stuff with you in private e-
> mail, when i get a chance. the logic issue is completely independent
> of the values issue -- the values could be exactly reversed and the
> logic problem would remain exactly as it is.

Paul, *your* concern with *my* logic seems focused on irrelevant issues, as
I see it. In fact, your insistence on logic apart from assumptions (values)
is foreign to anything I have ever read or heard of.

Try this one for "logical." If your valid logic is based on different
assumptions than my valid logic, our conclusions are likely to be different.
True? In this case, further productive communication is entirely dependent
on checking our assumptions (which are clearly based on values). So far, you
seem to avoid doing that. Until you do, I see no logical "light" coming any
time soon.
>
> meanwhile, bob is only one of six other people here who listened to
> the example (and margo replicated it for herself). why be so
> concerned about what *he* heard? no one here is out to get you -- i
> think the vast majority of us here are as curious about tuning
> phenomena as you are, so i hope you'll trust us that we're 'on your
> side' in trying to figure stuff out.

I pointed out Bob's report because it seemed to parallel my own. No one
else's seemed to do so. *That's* why I referred to it. No "concern" that
it's Bob's report. Actually, I consider his "veteran" report a kind of
confirmation of what *I* experienced. His choice of words--"casual" and
"practiced"--were particularly helpful to me in realizing that my "gestalt"
(JI triad) and "specific" (JI third) perceptions were the key to
understanding (apparently) my experience.

Let's drop the feud, Paul. I have already said *why* I thought Bob heard the
same thing I heard. If you would like to deal with *that*, I'm happy to
respond. I have no paranoia regarding being "gotten" here on the list. In
fact, I have no *problem* with being "gotten," provided the basis for the
"getting" is meaningful to me.

By the way, where is your response to my post stating that I was able to
*predict* what I would hear in jerry10 by alternating between two different
perceptual focuses? Don't you think that's important? I think it's
*enormously* important. Isn't it *logically* possible that Bob (given his
own statements about "casual" and "practiced" perceptions) had done the same
thing (whether he thought so or not)? To my *logic*, it seems highly likely.
If you think not, share your thoughts. (No blanket assumptions of poor
logic, please. Be specific.)

Bob might have responded very early by saying, "I understand the source of
your question, Jerry, but here is why I think your query is off the mark."
Instead, I got the defensive nonsense (to me) about my "challenge" of the
naked JI third in jerry00 being heard as "flat." My concerns were not
challenging that possibility, simply pointing out that, when taken as a
whole, Bob's "flat" report didn't seem to make as much sense to me as
considering the JI triad third to be "high" in contrast to it. At that
point, you simply said I was being "illogical" and ignored my reasons *why*
I posed this possibility?

Having said that, let's consider why you and Bob seem to be feeling
"persecuted" in this regard? Granted, I didn't always couch my thoughts in
diplomatic phraseology. Nevertheless, my comments were never intended to
*argue* one point over another. I was just pissed off because Bob was so
*sure* he could not have been mistaken about the interpretation of his
perceptions. (How *logical* is that?) I've changed my reports here as I've
changed my mind about what I'm hearing. (jerry10, for example.) I think
that's the best way to come up with something valid.

Again, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO PROVE HERE. And the only thing I'm "against"
is assuming other people's thinking is illogical without checking their
premises.

I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the fuss.
Please????

Jerry

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

Thank you, Joe. Here are my perceptions of Jerry00, Jerries 01-07,
Jerry10 and my understanding of the phenomenon under discussion:

First, I'm separating frequency from pitch clearly, since it is an
anomaly in the perception of the frequency/pitch relationship that is
under discussion, and to avoid infinite regression, circular logic,
and pitches or frequencies "higher than themselves", we must
rigorously make this distinction throughout the discussion even
though in common usage the distinction is less necessary.

Jerry00:

My perceptions upon first listening -

Complex harmonic timbre
Just third embedded in a 2, 3, 5 triad (root, fifth, and tenth)

When the root and fifth dropped out, heard a subjective drop in pitch
although close listening indicated the frequency did not actually
change. This was later confirmed by Paul, who implemented the
examples.

Summary Jerry00:
Fixed frequency changed apparent pitch to lower value when left alone
after first having been embedded in a just major triad in open
voicing (2,3,5).

Later listening to Jerry00 did not produce this subjective impression
of lowering pitch even with casual, unfocused listening. I do not
regard this as significant for many people, and do not propose it as
an argument "against" anything, since I did hear the phenomenon
initially, and assume many other people may do so and continue to do
so, even though I do not continue do hear it.

Jerries 00-07 -

These duplicated Jerry00 except that the thirds were no longer just.
These did not seem significantly different to me. I heard them as
having actually high thirds in terms of my pitch perception. They
seemed quite sharp in pitch ("bitterly" was my term). The subjective
drop in pitch was initially less than for the Jerry00 example. This
apparent pitch drop in Jerries 01-07 has not disappeared, however.
Not sure why.

The frequencies were actually confirmed later as between 17 and 18
cents high in every case, although the slow beat rate made me think
they were not so sharp as they seemed to me.)

Jerry10 -
I heard a just triad, same voicing as the other Jerries and with
complex harmonic tones, then the tenth moved sharp in pitch, and
there was beating.

It was later confirmed that the tenth moved from just frequency to a
roughly ET third around 14 cents.

These are all the Jerries of which I am so far aware.

In terms of a preference for the high third, I personally have none.
I find the high thirds "out of tune", and dislike the lack of
harmoniousness, but then I'm a JI addict for many purposes, although
not always. There are times when I would rather sacrifice thirds of
purer fourths and fifths in quartal harmonies and some jazz chords.

I find my initial hearing of a higher pitch in the JI triad of
Jerry00 compared to the third when left alone to be a convincing
rationale, perhaps, for raising the frequency of the standalone third
in order to match its pitch subjectively to the embedded pitch, at
least for those who continue to hear it that way.

I fail to understand this phenomenon as a rationale for raising the
embedded tone's frequency, however, if its pitch already seems high
compared to the standalone third.

I am open to any data and/or any coherent line of reasoning that
provides a convincing reason to alter these views.

Cheers,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_36258.html#36368
>
> >
> > I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the fuss.
> > Please????
> >
> > Jerry
>
> ****Could someone please post a *succinct* and *unemotional*
> (hopefully) synopsis of what Jerry and Bob each think about this,
if
> it's possible. Maybe a "(high) third party" could do it. Paul?
>
> There's been so much going on "off list" that I don't have the
> vaguest idea what's going on anymore.
>
> Not that I, necessarily, want to get in the *middle* of this triad!
>
>
> J. Pehrson

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 4/14/02 6:27 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:38:38 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:38:38 -0000
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
Subject: Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment

>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_36258.html#36368
>
>>
>> I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the fuss.
>> Please????
>>
>> Jerry
>
> ****Could someone please post a *succinct* and *unemotional*
> (hopefully) synopsis of what Jerry and Bob each think about this, if
> it's possible. Maybe a "(high) third party" could do it. Paul?
>
> There's been so much going on "off list" that I don't have the
> vaguest idea what's going on anymore.
>
> Not that I, necessarily, want to get in the *middle* of this triad!
>
>
> J. Pehrson

Joe, thanks for your continued interest here. I realize that it has been
*trying* for those attempting to follow along. Unfortunately, it has been
*trying* for those *trying* to make their statements clear to *each other*.

Last Wednesday I posted a response to Margo in which I stated (calmly and
succinctly, I think) my most recent insight. If you missed it, here is the
part that may be helpful in getting this thread back on track:

--------------

( from Message #36336)

Then I decided to alternate my focus between JI triad as a whole and the
pitch of the third. Whenever I focused on the triad I heard the third drop,
and when I focused on the third alone, it went up.

---------------

I suggest that you do a similar listen to jerry10, Joe. Alternately focus on
the triad as a whole and then on the third alone. Let us know what happens.

Jerry

🔗Mark G. Ryan <mgryan@cruzio.com>

Would much appreciate the help of the experts on this list in a little
aural experiment I have been conducting. (I usually just lurk, but
recent discussions have been something of an inspiration.)

I am investigating to the nature of the pitches and intervals contained
in certain spontaneous vocalization by local fauna. I'm trying to answer
these questions:

Do these vocalizations contain vowel sounds?
Is there a definite perceived pitch?
What is the actual frequency range?
Are particular pitches favored? Does it vary by individual?
Do successive pitches form identifiable intervals?
If such intervals are present, are they in JI, MT, or ET?

I have repeated the following experiment on five successive days: I wait
until the vocalization starts (usually around 10:00 pm at night). On the
first night I observed a large tabby colored individual and a small black
and white individual. The sound could be described as

Rrrrrrrrrrrreeerrrrr! Hssss! Hssss!

After penetration, the sound was more like:

Rrrrow! Rrrrow!

The pitch initially seemed quite variable, but on closer listening, I
was able to determine that there is definite center, but it changes
rapidly and is unstable. With the aid of a keyboard, I determined that
the approximate range from F2 to G5. I'm not sure about the vowel sounds,
but there are definitely sibilents in the "Hssss".

Days two, three and four were similar (data tables will be included
in a subsequent post).

Last night I varied my listening routine by drinking two bottles of Scotch.
At first, it seemed that the perceived pitch increased as I consumed more
Scotch, but this effect did not persist. After the second bottle, I was
surprised to find that there seemed to be definite order to the succession
of pitches and pitch-less sounds. In fact, there was an amazing resemblance
to Chinese opera music. However, the experiment was terminate prematurely
when I threw the two empty Scotch bottles out the window. A sudden silence
ensued, allowing the tired experimenter to sleep.

Thank you in advance for your assistance, as I am very anxious to understand
the tonal system of caterwaulering, and look forward to discussing it on
this list at great length and detail, and engaging in vehement and protracted
arguments about every minutia of this fascinating and important subject.

(Sorry guys: I couldn't resist. No disrespect intended. Uh, this is the
*music* tuning list right, not the automotive one? :-) Cheers, --Mark)

rwendell@cangelic.org Sun Apr 14 23:51 PDT 2002 wrote:
>
> Thank you, Joe. Here are my perceptions of Jerry00, Jerries 01-17,
> Jerry10 and my understanding of the phenomenon under discussion:
>
> First, I'm separating frequency from pitch clearly, since it is an
> anomaly in the perception of the frequency/pitch relationship that is
> under discussion, and to avoid infinite regression, circular logic,
> and pitches or frequencies "higher than themselves", we must
> rigorously make this distinction throughout the discussion even
> though in common usage the distinction is less necessary.
>
> Jerry00:
>
> My perceptions upon first listening -
>
> Complex harmonic timbre
> Just third embedded in a 2, 3, 5 triad (root, fifth, and tenth)
>
> When the root and fifth dropped out, heard a subjective drop in pitch
> although close listening indicated the frequency did not actually
> change. This was later confirmed by Paul, who implemented the
> examples.
>
> Summary Jerry00:
> Fixed frequency changed apparent pitch to lower value when left alone
> after first having been embedded in a just major triad in open
> voicing (2,3,5).
>
> Later listening to Jerry00 did not produce this subjective impression
> of lowering pitch even with casual, unfocused listening. I do not
> regard this as significant for many people, and do not propose it as
> an argument "against" anything, since I did hear the phenomenon
> initially, and assume many other people may do so and continue to do
> so, even though I did not continue do hear it.
>
>
> Jerries 00-07 -
>
> These duplicated Jerry00 except that the thirds were no longer just.
> These did not seem significantly different to me. I heard them as
> having actually high thirds in terms of my pitch perception. They
> seemed quite sharp in pitch ("bitterly" was my term). The subjective
> drop in pitch was initially less than for the Jerry00 example.
>
> The frequencies were actually confirmed later as between 17 and 18
> cents high in every case, although the slow beat rate made me think
> they were not so sharp as they seemed to me.)
>
> Jerry10 -
> I heard a just triad, same voicing as the other Jerries and with
> complex harmonic tones, then the tenth moved sharp in pitch, and
> there was beating.
>
> It was later comfirmed that the tenth moved from just frequency to a
> roughly ET third around 14 cents.
>
> This is all the Jerries to which I am so far aware.
>
>
> In terms of a preference for the high third, I personally have none.
> I find the high thirds "out of tune", and dislike the lack of
> harmoniousness, but then I'm a JI addict for many purposes, although
> not always. There are times when I would rather sacrifice thirds of
> purer fourths and fifths in quartal harmonies and some jazz chords.
>
> I find my initial hearing of a higher pitch in the JI triad of
> Jerry00 compared to the third when left alone to be a convincing
> rationale, perhaps, for raising the frequency of the standalone third
> in order to match its pitch subjectively to the embedded pitch, at
> least for those who continue to hear it that way.
>
> I fail to understand this phenomenon as a rationale for raising the
> embedded tone's frequency, however, if its pitch already seems high
> compared to the standalone third.
>
> I am open to any data and/or any coherent line of reasoning that
> provides a convincing reason to alter these views.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_36258.html#36368
> >
> > >
> > > I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the fuss.
> > > Please????
> > >
> > > Jerry
> >
> > ****Could someone please post a *succinct* and *unemotional*
> > (hopefully) synopsis of what Jerry and Bob each think about this,
> if
> > it's possible. Maybe a "(high) third party" could do it. Paul?
> >
> > There's been so much going on "off list" that I don't have the
> > vaguest idea what's going on anymore.
> >
> > Not that I, necessarily, want to get in the *middle* of this triad!
> >
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

--
Mark G. Ryan
mgryan@cruzio.com

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

Much seems to be made over my statements concerning casual versus
focused listening. This did make a difference in the context of
Jerry00 as I previously stated.

In the case of Jerry10, however, I heard a clear rise in pitch for
the third, commensurate with the rise in frequency. I do not have to
focus to hear this. It is immediately obvious to my ear that it rises
under all listening conditions, focused or casual, and has been since
the beginning.

Please note that my original posting in response to Jerry10, with no
knowledge of frequency, is consistent with this and unambiguously
stated that the pitch did rise. It is difficult for my "ear"
to "understand" anything else for Jerry10. It is a rather large,
unambiguous and immediately obvious rise for the most casual
observation.

Cheers,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 4/14/02 6:27 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:38:38 -0000
> > From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...>
> > Subject: Re: Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:38:38 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...>
> Subject: Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment
>
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_36258.html#36368
> >
> >>
> >> I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the
fuss.
> >> Please????
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >
> > ****Could someone please post a *succinct* and *unemotional*
> > (hopefully) synopsis of what Jerry and Bob each think about this,
if
> > it's possible. Maybe a "(high) third party" could do it. Paul?
> >
> > There's been so much going on "off list" that I don't have the
> > vaguest idea what's going on anymore.
> >
> > Not that I, necessarily, want to get in the *middle* of this
triad!
> >
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
> Joe, thanks for your continued interest here. I realize that it has
been
> *trying* for those attempting to follow along. Unfortunately, it
has been
> *trying* for those *trying* to make their statements clear to *each
other*.
>
> Last Wednesday I posted a response to Margo in which I stated
(calmly and
> succinctly, I think) my most recent insight. If you missed it, here
is the
> part that may be helpful in getting this thread back on track:
>
> --------------
>
>
> ( from Message #36336)
>
> In that regard, Paul asked me to listen again to his jerry10, in
which a JI
> triad was immediately followed by an ET triad. The point of that
test was to
> see whether folks would hear the third go up or down when the ET
triad
> began. I'm glad I did listen again because I learned something very
> interesting.
>
> When I downloaded it, the music sounded very quickly, catching me by
> surprise. I obviously perceived the high third in this hearing as
the third
> clearly "went down." I played it a few more times, always hearing
the ET
> third lower than the "JI" third.
>
> After a few minutes, I went back and played jerry10 again, this
time making
> an effort to focus on the pitch of the JI third rather than on the
> experience as a whole. This time the ET third "went up." I listened
a few
> more times with the same result.
>
> Then I decided to alternate my focus between JI triad as a whole
and the
> pitch of the third. Whenever I focused on the triad I heard the
third drop,
> and when I focused on the third alone, it went up.
>
> This insight prompted my memory of Bob's suggestion that hearing
the high
> third for him seemed to be a product of what he called "casual"
listening.
> His point, as I remember it, was that he had trained himself
to "overcome"
> (ignore?) the "illusion" by careful listening.
>
> I now suspect Bob and I have actually experienced the *same*
phenomenon but
> have expressed our descriptions in different ways. This difference
in
> language, incidentally, is what I think launched
our "disagreements." I
> evidently was bothered by his apparent attempt to *dismiss* the
high third
> as perceptual error. He evidently was frustrated that I "refused"
to see his
> reasoning. As I said to Joe, I believe our communication
difficulties have
> more to do with differing values than with my "faulty logic" (as
Bob and
> Paul maintain).
>
> ---------------
>
> I suggest that you do a similar listen to jerry10, Joe. Alternately
focus on
> the triad as a whole and then on the third alone. Let us know what
happens.
>
> Jerry

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> Paul, *your* concern with *my* logic seems focused on irrelevant
issues, as
> I see it. In fact, your insistence on logic apart from assumptions
(values)
> is foreign to anything I have ever read or heard of.

i take it you haven't gotten too deeply involved in any discipline
that involves logical argument, then?

> Try this one for "logical." If your valid logic is based on
different
> assumptions than my valid logic, our conclusions are likely to be
different.
> True?

yes. but i was focusing on _your_ assumptions and _your_ conclusions
in this particular debacle.

> In this case, further productive communication is entirely dependent
> on checking our assumptions (which are clearly based on values). So
far, you
> seem to avoid doing that.

what am i avoiding? as i said, my assumptions aren't even part of the
issue at hand.

> By the way, where is your response to my post stating that I was
able to
> *predict* what I would hear in jerry10 by alternating between two
different
> perceptual focuses? Don't you think that's important?

yes.

> I think it's
> *enormously* important. Isn't it *logically* possible that Bob
(given his
> own statements about "casual" and "practiced" perceptions) had done
the same
> thing (whether he thought so or not)?

yes, that's possible.

> To my *logic*, it seems highly likely.

perhaps. however, this particular point seems a rather *small* facet
of an already *small* subset of the phenomena that could be remarked
upon based on the jerry examples.

> Bob might have responded very early by saying, "I understand the
source of
> your question, Jerry, but here is why I think your query is off the
mark."
> Instead, I got the defensive nonsense (to me) about my "challenge"
of the
> naked JI third in jerry00 being heard as "flat." My concerns were
not
> challenging that possibility, simply pointing out that, when taken
as a
> whole, Bob's "flat" report didn't seem to make as much sense to me
as
> considering the JI triad third to be "high" in contrast to it. At
that
> point, you simply said I was being "illogical" and ignored my
reasons *why*
> I posed this possibility?

correct. the only way such a claim on your part would be *meaningful*
is if there were some objective experimental test which would
ascertain which of the two possibilities in question was the correct
one. however, there is no possibility in practice of ever comparing
objective frequency with subjective pitch -- one can only compare
objective frequency with objective frequency and subjective pitch
with subjective pitch. therefore, on a scientific basis, making
either such a judgment as you would try to make above, or even the
exact opposite of such a judgment (which is how you, unfairly, framed
bob's own view), *meaningless*, and *neither* can serve as the
foundation for further putative scientific explanations.

it seems that so far you have not understood this point. so satisfied
are you with your "theory", that you will not take the time to stop
and think about this objection. if you did stop and think about it,
and understood what motivation was truly behind it (that of hoping to
frame jerry's ideas in a logical way), you probably could have come
up with a *meaningful* theory that reflects your viewpoint by now,
and we wouldn't have lost bob.

bob and i tried to make the logical point above to you myriad times
but you insisted on intermingling this purely logical point with
musical preferences bob and i had expressed, and tying it all
together in a "conspiracy theory" view of our reaction to
your "theory". this was incredibly insulting, and it is completely
understandable that bob would therefore call into question your
ability to reason objectively at all, and leave the discussion.

> I suggest we focus on the evidence here and forget about the fuss.
> Please????

uh . . . okay. (but focusing on the evidence means using
scientifically logical reasoning when discussing it.)

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 4/15/02 4:11 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 01:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Mark G. Ryan" <mgryan@cruzio.com>
> Subject: Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment
>
> Would much appreciate the help of the experts on this list in a little
> aural experiment I have been conducting. (I usually just lurk, but
> recent discussions have been something of an inspiration.)
>
> I am investigating to the nature of the pitches and intervals contained
> in certain spontaneous vocalization by local fauna. I'm trying to answer
> these questions:
>
> Do these vocalizations contain vowel sounds?
> Is there a definite perceived pitch?
> What is the actual frequency range?
> Are particular pitches favored? Does it vary by individual?
> Do successive pitches form identifiable intervals?
> If such intervals are present, are they in JI, MT, or ET?
>
> I have repeated the following experiment on five successive days: I wait
> until the vocalization starts (usually around 10:00 pm at night). On the
> first night I observed a large tabby colored individual and a small black
> and white individual. The sound could be described as
>
> Rrrrrrrrrrrreeerrrrr! Hssss! Hssss!
>
> After penetration, the sound was more like:
>
> Rrrrow! Rrrrow!
>
> The pitch initially seemed quite variable, but on closer listening, I
> was able to determine that there is definite center, but it changes
> rapidly and is unstable. With the aid of a keyboard, I determined that
> the approximate range from F2 to G5. I'm not sure about the vowel sounds,
> but there are definitely sibilents in the "Hssss".
>
> Days two, three and four were similar (data tables will be included
> in a subsequent post).
>
> Last night I varied my listening routine by drinking two bottles of Scotch.
> At first, it seemed that the perceived pitch increased as I consumed more
> Scotch, but this effect did not persist. After the second bottle, I was
> surprised to find that there seemed to be definite order to the succession
> of pitches and pitch-less sounds. In fact, there was an amazing resemblance
> to Chinese opera music. However, the experiment was terminate prematurely
> when I threw the two empty Scotch bottles out the window. A sudden silence
> ensued, allowing the tired experimenter to sleep.
>
> Thank you in advance for your assistance, as I am very anxious to understand
> the tonal system of caterwaulering, and look forward to discussing it on
> this list at great length and detail, and engaging in vehement and protracted
> arguments about every minutia of this fascinating and important subject.
>
>
> (Sorry guys: I couldn't resist. No disrespect intended. Uh, this is the
> *music* tuning list right, not the automotive one? :-) Cheers, --Mark)
>
Very appropriate, Mark. No disrespect taken (at least from my view). Too bad
you weren't privy to the *private* stuff. I'm pretty sure it would have
inspired your creative juices even more. :-)))

Jerry

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 4/17/02 10:19 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:18:34 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: "High third": Peace, musicmaking, and merriment
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_36258.html#36424
>
>>
>> well, this issue is very much alive for scientists today, and
>> references to philosophers are generally to those of *this*
> century, in particular the 1970s . . .
>>
>> if you're familiar with ernst terhardt's website,
>>
>> http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter.html
>>
>> you'll know that it's one of the best places to get information on
>> what modern psychoacoustics has to say about many of the issues
> that come up on this list.
>>
>
> ****All this reminds me of the wonderful play by Pirandello, frankly
> the best play I have ever seen. It's called "Right You Are If You
> Think You Are..." The title was re-translated by the Pulse Ensemble
> Theatre into "As You See It..."
>
> J. Pehrson
>
Joe, your comments here have been a *wonderful* (and largely impartial, by
the way) commentary on the idiocy of this thread. I'm not sure why I have
persisted this long; perhaps for the sport of it, perhaps to clarify issues
in order to resume sane discussion. But the bottom line is that I need to
get back to some pressing work.

Actually, this visit has produced some valuable information. We know now
that the high third sometimes can be perceived while hearing a well-tuned JI
triad. (Thanks to Paul for preparing the original jerries.) It seems that
finding a *real* high third is not likely. (Thanks to Paul for the second
set of jerries.) It also appears that the illusion can be defeated by
focusing on the pitch of the third (tenth) as opposed to focusing on the JI
triad as a whole. (Thanks to Paul's jerry10.) Bob's input regarding
*learning* to ignore the high third was important in that regard, I think.

Whether or not ears seasoned in tuning (as here on the list) can "retrain"
to experience the high third remains a question. Another question (actually
related to the original one from last year) is why do singers tend to sing
*actual* high thirds instead of simply tuning to JI and "hearing" the
illusionary one. (Thanks to Francois for verifying frequencies on this.)

And thanks to you, Joe, for warmly welcoming me back to the list. More
importantly, thanks for participating in the process by reporting your
listening experiences. We *both* got the surprise of a lifetime when we
realized we were hearing the high third generating from a JI triad. What a
kick in the head!!!

A special thanks to Margo for offering her valuable and interesting points
of view on the subject. New friends are important in keeping us fresh and
alert to different ways of seeing things.

Finally, thanks to all who contributed to this inquiry, either by comments
or by offering jerry reports. Also, thanks to the "lurkers" who sent me
offline emails to offer encouragement, support or condolences (some of which
were an interesting mixture of all three).

See you around,

Jerry

PS: Let me know if anything comes up that might be of interest, or which
might benefit from some "illogical" thinking. ;-)