Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: [tuning] Digest Number 2360

OK!
I have stayed out of this one but since i was brought up, even though mistakenly i have a few comments
There are a whole bit of assumptions that are made that you really need to answer.
you assume.
1. That your subjective response is objective. or to be more generous that even a group subjective response can be objective
wheather a minority or not.
2. That an objective evaluation of a tuning can be made. This assumes that all people hear exactly the same. WHat can you present to prove this or that all people want exactly the same thing from music and the way they tune.
3. That only one tuning system can be the best.

you have to justify these assunmptions as being possible before we can even discuss what the possible answer would be.
In iy placew here is at least one question i can ask

Why did other cultures not use 12 ET from the beginning
why don't all cultures use chords.
Are there certain instruments that are objective better than others?
Is there one style of singing that is objectively better.
Is there also a best tempo, meter, compositional form, duration, time of day of performance, extramusical intent, etc?
and if not. why?
and if not why would there be a best tuning?

>
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 22:10:48 -0500
> From: Kyle Gann <kgann@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Thou Shalt Not Mention ET!
>
> >I have seen your Anaphoria website, and been impressed by its great beauty,
> >creativity and cultural significance. I have even recorded some of my own
> >music (12-ET pop) in response to its inspiration. It saddens me that you
> >feel it necessary to employ such derisive tactics in discussion and debate.
>
> Anaphoria is Kraig Grady's site. We have the same initials, but are
> different people. I didn't call anyone specific an asshole, I merely
> made a general statement. But I wouldn't want Kraig Grady blamed for
> my personality flaws.
>
> Kyle Gann
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST

Hi Kraig,

>OK!
>I have stayed out of this one but since i was brought up, even though
>mistakenly i have a few comments
>There are a whole bit of assumptions that are made that you really
need to
>answer.
>you assume.
>1. That your subjective response is objective. or to be more
generous that
>even a group subjective response can be objective
>wheather a minority or not.

If you're referring to the response of a tuning, then it is very
difficult (but perhaps not impossible) to justify scientifically. If
you're referring to music in general, then if one piece of music can
be better than another (see my other post for why I believe this),
then it is safe to assume that people who prefer that better music
will have better taste in music - whether they are in the minority or
majority.

>2. That an objective evaluation of a tuning can be made. This
assumes that all
>people hear exactly the same. WHat can you present to prove this or
that all
>people want exactly the same thing from music and the way they tune.

(If I may change the word 'want' in your last sentence to 'should
want' to clarify the question). I have no actual proof again as such.
I won't attempt an answer because this question leads off into too
many sub-questions, and requires me to pinpoint the
(speculative) 'evidence' for/against each tuning or music 'style'
(which would take more than a few paragraphs! :). It is something I
fundamentally believe though - but I could be wrong... :)

About your point about whether people hear the same; maybe some might
hear one note as a slightly different pitch instead. What do others
think? Could people hear one pitch as really another slightly
different pitch?

>3. That only one tuning system can be the best.

Another question is whether any measure would be at a point
from 'worst' to 'best'.... or more like: 'right'/'degree of wrong' or
even a mix. (Personally, I believe it is the 'right/wrong' approach).
As for proof (or rather lack of it), see my answer to Q2.

Well, I managed to get through that lot without mentioning "12-teT" -
wow ;)

>you have to justify these assunmptions as being possible before we
can even
>discuss what the possible answer would be.
>In iy placew here is at least one question i can ask
>
>Why did other cultures not use 12 ET from the beginning

Many answers, but here are a few possibilities:
a: They didn't have the means to easily produce a 12-eT instrument
(or did, but by habit - produced only non 12-eT instruments).
b: You'll often find new systems take a while to catch on because of
tradition, especially if the aforementioned instruments are
arbitrarily tailored to non-12eT temperaments in the initial stage.
c: Music isn't just melody and harmony. It can still sound quite good
relying just on texture, rhythm and sound. (All of the attributes
though, are best for any given tune IMHO ;)

>why don't all cultures use chords.

See my previous answer (C).

>Are there certain instruments that are objective better than others?

My personal answer would be indeed - yes :) Even the qualities of
orchestral instruments could be improved (or 'tweaked')
mathematically - if those qualities were determined accurately. It
goes without saying that a particular timbre should be tailored
according to the other timbres present in the tune (and the content
of the tune generally).
For proof of why certain timbres/sounds are better than others, I
would need to explain why certain fundamental patterns are better
than others - not exactly an easy task! ;)

>Is there one style of singing that is objectively better.

The voice is a mathematically elaborated and 'evolving' variation of
a multi-spectral sine wave (wow, did I ever make /that/ sound dull! ;)
And yes, of course there is IMHO - but this will change according to
the general content of the tune :)
Given the same tune, I would say that there is one best singing
style, but that other 'styles' could be better in different ways
(but 'worse' on the /average/ maybe). Same goes for different singers
too.

>Is there also a best tempo, meter, compositional form, duration,
time of day
>of performance, extramusical intent, etc?

Very good questions! I'll answer a couple of those...

Tempo: To truly rate the quality of a tempo, one would first need to
take all of the other attributes of the tune into account.
I don't like to seperate the attribute of 'tempo' from the rest of
the tune, but if forced, I would say that on 'average',
all 'reasonable' 'tempos' are close to each other in objective
quality. To answer any further would need a more thorough definition
of 'tempo' :)

Duration: Perfect length for a tune? Yes, the longer it is, the more
you can pack into it :) (...not many good tunes can be made lasting
only a few seconds - or with only a few notes ;)
Using this logic, the longer a tune is, the better it will be. The
question would then be; would it improve at a linear (logarithmic
even?) rate forever, or would there be a curve/vanishing point to a
tune's quality according to its length? Your guess is as good as mine
here ;)

As to your other points (compositional form etc.), they need to be
split up into more fundamental attributes before they can easily be
answered, but ultimately, yes - I believe they all have objective
degrees of quality. Obviously, they all depend on each other too (for
example, one tempo might be best with a certain compositional form,
while another tempo might be best with another form etc. etc. - all
very, very complex).

> and if not why would there be a best tuning?

Regards,
Daniel (soundburst@lycos.com)

Re: [tuning] Digest Number 2360

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Daniel White <soundburst@lycos.com> <soundburst@lycos.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com> <jpehrson@rcn.com>