New Wilson/Grady stuff

>

FIrst a very excellent letter from a Lorne Temes which no one can seem to
track down in the Wilson archive Tresure Chest otherwise known as
http://www.anaphoria.com/tres.html

and as promise

The score of Lullaby at http://www.anaphoria.com/tun.per.html the numbers
next to each note, notes, or chords are my index of consonance so I expect
you hordes to get in there are rip it apart. (you might try playing it
too!). The numbers were determined by adding up the harmonics and first
generation differance tones and omit any duplications.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com

>FIrst a very excellent letter from a Lorne Temes which no one can seem to
>track down in the Wilson archive Tresure Chest otherwise known as
>http://www.anaphoria.com/tres.html

This concerns something we discussed recently, the golden ratio. Lorne
conjectures that it is "'maximally' dissonant. As well, (or moreover) the
harmonics involved here interweave in an especially peculiarly _uniform_
manner. This suggests that the dissonance involved, as part of being
maximal, will be _uniquely_ 'white'." As we know, there are some problems
with this interpretation, and the golden ratio is not maximally dissonant
after all.

Paul H. Erlich wrote:

> >FIrst a very excellent letter from a Lorne Temes which no one can seem to
> >track down in the Wilson archive Tresure Chest otherwise known as
> >http://www.anaphoria.com/tres.html
>
> This concerns something we discussed recently, the golden ratio. Lorne
> conjectures that it is "'maximally' dissonant. As well, (or moreover) the
> harmonics involved here interweave in an especially peculiarly _uniform_
> manner. This suggests that the dissonance involved, as part of being
> maximal, will be _uniquely_ 'white'." As we know, there are some problems
> with this interpretation, and the golden ratio is not maximally dissonant
> after all.

One of the problems of this list is how "white" this whole discussionabout
consonance and dissonance is. I hear this variable
but can't understand why a few people on this list will
go on for months on end about this subject. You define it
wth a formula?

In my experience with just intonation, there is
no dissonance - it only exists in equal temperaments.
In JI there exists consonance and a magic something else
that I'd have problems defining outside of prime limits.

Something else I don't understand is why some folks post
scales to this list that don't have ratios OR cents - are
they even relevant to this list??? or Mozno's post about
Webern: non-tuning? Whats it got to do with the list?
Consult the Monzo shrine?

> --

* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

David Beardsley wrote,

>In my experience with just intonation, there is
>no dissonance - it only exists in equal temperaments.
>In JI there exists consonance and a magic something else
>that I'd have problems defining outside of prime limits.

That is nonsense. Just intonation and equal temperaments can approximate one
another arbirarily closely. For example, the "schismatic and syntonic equal
temperament" discussed at
http://smt.ucsb.edu/mto/issues/mto.98.4.4/mto.98.4.4.scholtz_essay.html
(section 8) and earlier by Margo Schulter and Kirnberger. That is a
5-prime-limit just intonation tuning system, but it sounds identical to
12-tone equal temperament, since the fifths of the two systems differ by
1/1000 of a cent! I will not accept that an infinitesimal change in tuning
will make the difference between "dissonance" and "magic".

Paul H. Erlich wrote:

> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>
> David Beardsley wrote,
>
> >In my experience with just intonation, there is
> >no dissonance - it only exists in equal temperaments.
> >In JI there exists consonance and a magic something else
> >that I'd have problems defining outside of prime limits.
>
> That is nonsense. Just intonation and equal temperaments can approximate one
> another arbirarily closely.

If you can't hear it, it would make nonsense.

> For example, the "schismatic and syntonic equal
> temperament" discussed at
> http://smt.ucsb.edu/mto/issues/mto.98.4.4/mto.98.4.4.scholtz_essay.html
> (section 8) and earlier by Margo Schulter and Kirnberger. That is a
> 5-prime-limit just intonation tuning system, but it sounds identical to
> 12-tone equal temperament, since the fifths of the two systems differ by
> 1/1000 of a cent! I will not accept that an infinitesimal change in tuning
> will make the difference between "dissonance" and "magic".

Sounds like an incredible waste of time. Why on earth
would anyone want a 5-prime-limit just intonation tuning
system that sounds identical to 12-tone equal temperament?

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

David!
When Just intonation involves tones of a single or closely related series,
there is no dissonance. When you get more remote tones, like harmonics of
harmonics of harmonics, you definitely get dissonances. or take for instance some
of the big organ chords at the end of Delusion. Some of the scariest chords I
have ever heard. The thing is that they are no longer ambiguous as with ET's, so
aren't dissonant in the way we are use to think of dissonance.
dissonance=ambiguity. With Lullaby, Yes, I used a formula, but that formula which
has all types of holes in the theory, produces musically interesting results.
Which is all we can hope for with any theory, as the truth seems to remain
forever beyond our reach.The infinite complexity inherent in musical perception
much less consciousness itself is a code we will probably master. How can we when
we are "in"it.
Hopefully Lullaby pokes holes in other theories, like prime limits and odd limits
and especially the one that is the most absurd, Octave Equivalence. (Rameau out
the window even though we have to admit it produced musically interesting
results). Pick out a four note chord in this piece near the begimning with a low
number and look toward the end and find the same notes in another spacing with a
high number and compare. I did a whole series of pieces on tetrads that was
shaped entirely on inversions. Those with western instruments a few notes.
At the end I realized that maybe we need to reevaluate what the purpose of
theory is.
In contradicting what I said above in part. I now come to the following. THE
PURPOSE
OF THEROY IS TO GUIDE US TOWARD MUSICALLY INTERESTING RESULTS. The wider the
range of poetic expression, the better the theory.

David Beardsley wrote:

> > >In my experience with just intonation, there is
> > >no dissonance - it only exists in equal temperaments.
> > >In JI there exists consonance and a magic something else
> > >that I'd have problems defining outside of prime limits.
> >

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com

[Paul H. Erlich TD244.3]
>the golden ratio is not maximally dissonant after all.

I only expect it to be a *local* dissonance maximum. are you saying it's
not even that, and you have theory as to why?

-- Dave Keenan
http://dkeenan.com

> [David Beardsley]
> In my experience with just intonation, there is
> no dissonance - it only exists in equal temperaments.
> In JI there exists consonance and a magic something else
> that I'd have problems defining outside of prime limits.

> [Paul Erlich, TD 245.6]
> That is nonsense. Just intonation and equal temperaments can
> approximate one another arbirarily closely. <etc., snip>
> I will not accept that an infinitesimal change in tuning will
> make the difference between "dissonance" and "magic".

> [Kraig Grady, TD 245.11]
> When Just intonation involves tones of a single or closely
> related series, there is no dissonance. When you get more
> remote tones, like harmonics of harmonics of harmonics, you
> definitely get dissonances. or take for instance some
> of the big organ chords at the end of Delusion. Some of the
> scariest chords I have ever heard. The thing is that they are
> no longer ambiguous as with ET's, so aren't dissonant in the
> way we are use to think of dissonance. dissonance=ambiguity.

I think this idea of dissonance=ambiguity can be used as a
characterization in any kind of tuning system, JI, ET, or other.

I, and many other theorists, subscribe to the idea that
consonance and dissonance are opposite poles of a continuum
of sonance, and are not differences in kind but rather in degree.

Traditionally in JI the numbers of the ratios themselves have
been assumed to measure the value of the sonance, i.e., the
degree to which an interval is consonant or dissonant.

Many of the experiments and discussions in the complexity thread
here earlier this year cast some doubt on the validity of that
assumption, but to my mind, the concept still holds that the
more complex (in any given measurement system) an interval is,
the more dissonant it is; or, if one accepts that consonance
and dissonance are indeed different in kind, at least we could
say the less consonant the interval is. This greater complexity
can certainly be equated with greater ambiguity. The more
complex an interval is (by any type of measurement) the less
certain we are of its 'harmonic essence', and thus the less
consonant it is.

> With Lullaby, Yes, I used a formula, but that formula which
> has all types of holes in the theory, produces musically
> interesting results. Which is all we can hope for with any
> theory, as the truth seems to remain forever beyond our reach.
> The infinite complexity inherent in musical perception
> much less consciousness itself is a code we will probably
> master. How can we when we are "in" it.

Isn't that a typo? Didn't you mean 'the infinity complexity...
is a code we will probably *NOT* master'?

> At the end I realized that maybe we need to reevaluate what
> the purpose of theory is. In contradicting what I said above in
> part. I now come to the following. THE PURPOSE OF THEROY IS TO
> GUIDE US TOWARD MUSICALLY INTERESTING RESULTS. The wider the
> range of poetic expression, the better the theory.

Amen. That sounds to me like a great yardstick for the
evalutation of a theory.

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo Philadelphia monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Kraig Grady wrote:

> David!
> When Just intonation involves tones of a single or closely related series,
> there is no dissonance. When you get more remote tones, like harmonics of
> harmonics of harmonics, you definitely get dissonances.

For example: is a microtone like 49/48 a dissonance?

> or take for instance some
> of the big organ chords at the end of Delusion.

Delusion of the Furry? ;-) My turn tableneeds a needle but when I get a new one, I'll
give it a spin.

> Some of the scariest chords I
> have ever heard. The thing is that they are no longer ambiguous as with ET's, so
> aren't dissonant in the way we are use to think of dissonance.
> dissonance=ambiguity.

That might explain why I don't hear any dissonance in JI.All the intervals mean
something *specific*. A while back
we discussed modulation in JI and you pointed me in the
direction of a specific Music from the Land of Anaphoria
recording. The movement was so smooth that I didn't
even hear it as modulation.

> With Lullaby, Yes, I used a formula, but that formula which
> has all types of holes in the theory, produces musically interesting results.
> Which is all we can hope for with any theory, as the truth seems to remain
> forever beyond our reach.The infinite complexity inherent in musical perception
> much less consciousness itself is a code we will probably master. How can we when
> we are "in"it.
> Hopefully Lullaby pokes holes in other theories, like prime limits and odd limits
> and especially the one that is the most absurd, Octave Equivalence. (Rameau out
> the window even though we have to admit it produced musically interesting
> results). Pick out a four note chord in this piece near the begimning with a low
> number and look toward the end and find the same notes in another spacing with a
> high number and compare. I did a whole series of pieces on tetrads that was
> shaped entirely on inversions. Those with western instruments a few notes.

Do you have a recording of Lullaby? I didn't seeit on any of the cds I have by you.

> At the end I realized that maybe we need to reevaluate what the purpose of
> theory is.
> In contradicting what I said above in part. I now come to the following. THE
> PURPOSE
> OF THEROY IS TO GUIDE US TOWARD MUSICALLY INTERESTING RESULTS. The wider the
> range of poetic expression, the better the theory.

I'll agree with that. But theorists shouldn't lose sight of the real
goal: make music.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

David Beardsley wrote,

>>>In my experience with just intonation, there is
>>>no dissonance - it only exists in equal temperaments.
>>>In JI there exists consonance and a magic something else
>>>that I'd have problems defining outside of prime limits.

I wrote,

>>That is nonsense. Just intonation and equal temperaments can approximate
one
>>another arbirarily closely.
>>For example, the "schismatic and syntonic equal
>>temperament" discussed at
>>http://smt.ucsb.edu/mto/issues/mto.98.4.4/mto.98.4.4.scholtz_essay.html
>>(section 8) and earlier by Margo Schulter and Kirnberger. That is a
>>5-prime-limit just intonation tuning system, but it sounds identical to
>>12-tone equal temperament, since the fifths of the two systems differ by
>>1/1000 of a cent! I will not accept that an infinitesimal change in tuning
>>will make the difference between "dissonance" and "magic".

>Sounds like an incredible waste of time. Why on earth
>would anyone want a 5-prime-limit just intonation tuning
>system that sounds identical to 12-tone equal temperament?

One reason would be to expose statements like yours as fallacies. Another
would be to tune 12-tone equal temperament very accurately by ear.

Kraig wrote,

>Joe!
> I don't agree with the following. for instance yo can have a 8-9-10-11
>tetrad and completely "know what the tonic is. The nearest comparison in
>12et c-d-e-f or c-d-e-f# ones ear is completely confused as to what is
>meant.

I think Joe and I would agree with that and it doesn't in any way contradict
what Joe said, which was,

>> I think this idea of dissonance=ambiguity can be used as a
>> characterization in any kind of tuning system, JI, ET, or other.

David Beardsley wrote,

>For example: is a microtone like 49/48 a dissonance?

I would say that it is quite dissonant.

>That might explain why I don't hear any dissonance in JI.All the intervals
mean
>something *specific*.

Unless there are other notes in the context, I don't see how you could
distinguish 49/48 from either the 7-prime-limit 50/49, the 47-prime-limit
48/47, or the irrational 35 cents. Certainly there is ambiguity here by any
measure, and all of these intervals must have about the same level of
dissonance because they sound the same.

We've also discussed how certain chords are actually more consonant in
tempered tunings since they fit together nearly just intervals that wouldn't
fit together in JI.

Paul!
I think David and I would agree that we both enjoy the unambiguousness of
just :)

"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:

"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:

> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>
> Kraig wrote,
>
> >Joe!
> > I don't agree with the following. for instance yo can have a 8-9-10-11
> >tetrad and completely "know what the tonic is. The nearest comparison in
> >12et c-d-e-f or c-d-e-f# ones ear is completely confused as to what is
> >meant.
>
> I think Joe and I would agree with that and it doesn't in any way contradict
> what Joe said, which was,
>
> >> I think this idea of dissonance=ambiguity can be used as a
> >> characterization in any kind of tuning system, JI, ET, or other.
>

>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com

Paul!
Let me put it this way. It is possible to have high dissonance in Just
without being ambiguous. For instance a cluster 48-96 of the harmonic series.
The tonal center would be highly defined. This type of thing falls apart rather
quickly in just about any ET that anyone would actually use.

"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:

> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>
> David Beardsley wrote,
>
> >For example: is a microtone like 49/48 a dissonance?
>
> I would say that it is quite dissonant.
>
> >That might explain why I don't hear any dissonance in JI.All the intervals
> mean
> >something *specific*.
>
> Unless there are other notes in the context, I don't see how you could
> distinguish 49/48 from either the 7-prime-limit 50/49, the 47-prime-limit
> 48/47, or the irrational 35 cents. Certainly there is ambiguity here by any
> measure, and all of these intervals must have about the same level of
> dissonance because they sound the same.
>
> We've also discussed how certain chords are actually more consonant in
> tempered tunings since they fit together nearly just intervals that wouldn't
> fit together in JI.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com

Kraig Grady wrote,

>For instance a cluster 48-96 of the harmonic series.
>The tonal center would be highly defined. This type of thing falls apart
rather
>quickly in just about any ET that anyone would actually use.

I agree with this (though I'd be very impressed if one could pull it off
with 49 acoustic instruments), just as I agreed with your harmonics 8-11
example. My one point, which was that this does not contradict what Joe
Monzo said,

> >> I think this idea of dissonance=ambiguity can be used as a
> >> characterization in any kind of tuning system, JI, ET, or other.

stands. My other point, the absurdity of drawing a sharp distinction between
the aural quality of low-prime-limit JI intervals and that of irrational
intervals, stands as well.

Paul H. Erlich wrote:

> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>
> David Beardsley wrote,
>
> >For example: is a microtone like 49/48 a dissonance?
>
> I would say that it is quite dissonant.

Hmm...I don't know, it's one of the special ones.Superparticular ratios have a
special zing to 'em.

How about a 49/32? - pretty in a melody, kinda rough
in harmony, sounds like a out-of-tune 3/2.

> >That might explain why I don't hear any dissonance in JI.All the intervals
> mean
> >something *specific*.
>
> Unless there are other notes in the context, I don't see how you could
> distinguish 49/48 from either the 7-prime-limit 50/49, the 47-prime-limit
> 48/47, or the irrational 35 cents. Certainly there is ambiguity here by any
> measure, and all of these intervals must have about the same level of
> dissonance because they sound the same.
>
> We've also discussed how certain chords are actually more consonant in
> tempered tunings since they fit together nearly just intervals that wouldn't
> fit together in JI.

And how can they not *fit together*?

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, I was either
working or making music.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

David Beardsley

>> >For example: is a microtone like 49/48 a dissonance?
>
>> I would say that it is quite dissonant.

>Hmm...I don't know, it's one of the special ones.Superparticular ratios
have a
>special zing to 'em.

Sure, but certainly not for numbers above 20. There's no difference in
"zing" between 49/48 and 493/483, or between 49/48 and 3 steps in 100-tET.

>How about a 49/32? - pretty in a melody, kinda rough
>in harmony, sounds like a out-of-tune 3/2.

That's another interval where the numbers are too high for JI to make a
difference, assuming there are no additional notes in the chord or phrase.

>> We've also discussed how certain chords are actually more consonant in
>> tempered tunings since they fit together nearly just intervals that
wouldn't
>> fit together in JI.

>And how can they not *fit together*?

Like the 6/9 chord we're discussing. One of the fourths has to be
dissonantly tuned (27:20) in JI, while in a meantone temperament all fourths
and thirds in the chord can be consonant.

Paul H. Erlich wrote:

> >> >For example: is a microtone like 49/48 a dissonance?
> >
> >> I would say that it is quite dissonant.
>
> >Hmm...I don't know, it's one of the special ones.Superparticular ratios
> have a
> >special zing to 'em.
>
> Sure, but certainly not for numbers above 20. There's no difference in
> "zing" between 49/48 and 493/483, or between 49/48 and 3 steps in 100-tET.
>
> >How about a 49/32? - pretty in a melody, kinda rough
> >in harmony, sounds like a out-of-tune 3/2.
>
> That's another interval where the numbers are too high for JI to make a
> difference, assuming there are no additional notes in the chord or phrase.

Obviously it would exist in a scale, silly rabbit. Trix are for kids.Have you
ever heard or used a 49/32? In a musical context?

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

gents
i think that we need to differentiate sometimes because some folks are more
interested in chords and some in melodies but i will say that the 49/32 is an
interval i have been using alot lately and it is viable in both terms
and sounds nice in the chord 147/128-49/32-441/256
ciao
Pat

David Beardsley wrote:

> From: David Beardsley <xouoxno@home.com>
>
> Paul H. Erlich wrote:
>
> > >> >For example: is a microtone like 49/48 a dissonance?
> > >
> > >> I would say that it is quite dissonant.
> >
> > >Hmm...I don't know, it's one of the special ones.Superparticular ratios
> > have a
> > >special zing to 'em.
> >
> > Sure, but certainly not for numbers above 20. There's no difference in
> > "zing" between 49/48 and 493/483, or between 49/48 and 3 steps in 100-tET.
> >
> > >How about a 49/32? - pretty in a melody, kinda rough
> > >in harmony, sounds like a out-of-tune 3/2.
> >
> > That's another interval where the numbers are too high for JI to make a
> > difference, assuming there are no additional notes in the chord or phrase.
>
> Obviously it would exist in a scale, silly rabbit. Trix are for kids.Have you
> ever heard or used a 49/32? In a musical context?
>
> --
> * D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
> * xouoxno@virtulink.com
> *
> * J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
> * M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
> *
> * http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Create a list for FRIENDS & FAMILY...
> http://www.onelist.com
> ...and you can WIN $100 to Amazon.com. See homepage for details.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.

David Beardsley wrote,

>>>How about a 49/32? - pretty in a melody, kinda rough
>>>in harmony, sounds like a out-of-tune 3/2.

I wrote,

>> That's another interval where the numbers are too high for JI to make a
>> difference, assuming there are no additional notes in the chord or
phrase.

David wrote,

>Obviously it would exist in a scale, silly rabbit. Trix are for kids.

Right.

>Have you
>ever heard or used a 49/32? In a musical context?

I don't think so. I would imagine this interval could become meaningful if
constructed by stacking two 7/4s. Let's say each of the 7/4s is about 1 cent
sharp. They will still be recognizable 7/4s for all intents and purposes.
However, the result of stacking them will be closer to 23/15 than to 49/32.
If the 7/4s are 1 cent flat, you get a 26/17. Will that change the musical
function of effect of the interval? No. Whether the resultant interval is
49/32 or 23/15 or 26/17 or anything in-between, its only audible relation to
JI will be through the 7/4s that made it up.

If not constructed from simpler intervals via an additional note(s), the
interval 49/32 has no audible qualities that could distinguish it from
nearby rational or irrational intervals.