Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning 11 & 7 (wasRe: hi, i'm back & a few ???)

I am sick of the subject heading _Re: hi, i'm back & a few ???_ so... ::BiG
GRiNNie::

In a message dated 2003:05:02 05:49:11 PM, wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, czhang23@a... wrote:
>
>> You want specific contexts? How about ferinstanz both 11-limit
>>and extended 11-prime-only, and let's say utonal (minor) from both Eb1
>>and F#1 (some of the very lowest notes generally playable on a double
>> bass/contrabass...)
>> 1. 11-limit utonalities from Eb1
>> 2. 11-limit utonalities from F# 1
>
>as chords, i've never been able to summon a sense of "rightness" out
>of 11-limit utonalities.

Hmm, is this "rightness" being gauged from some sort of 12tET chordal
aesthetic? I think 11 utonalities are great in voice-leading and/or
dronality, fantastic in timbral soundscapes, pretty much any string sounds
(I'd love to hear retuned Indian sarangi and tambura play such ratios).

>11-limit otonalities, definitely . . . 9-limit utonalities, just barely . . .

I notice a lot of microtonalists are somewhat drawn to otonalities a tad
more than utonalities thus to my mind perhaps "betraying" their unconscious
or conscious socio-culturalization in a 12tET sensibility.

>> 3. extended 11-prime-only Eb1 utonalities
>> 4. extended 11-prime-only F#1 utonalities
>
>i don't understand what an "extended 11-prime-only utonality" is. can
>you explain?

Tuning systems based entirely on ratios with 11 and multiples of 11 in
them - either in the denomimator or the numerator.

>anyway, the 11-limit otonality is a great sound, one i use all the
>time both in acoustic just intonation and electric 22-tone equal
>temperament. it's kind of lost a bit of flavor for me, but can
>occasionally inspire me anew, primarily through the melodic ideas it
>(or some outside spirit) evokes . . . i don't find it tropical; the
>11th, though, is so totally convincing and so totally outside the
>12-equal framework that i'm at a loss for adjectives to capture the
>magnificence of its feeling . . .

:) well put.

>it's screaming out to the 12-equal hegemony, "just TRY and deny this"!

::clap-clap::

and now for a blast from the past, something from deep in the list archives:

Fri Jun 3 1994

[SNiP . . .]
So by the time we come to non major-minor harmony, we are at the
7th harmonic or 7-limit. It seems to me that in most natural
sounds the amount of energy on the 7th harmonic is small.
The 7th harmonic occurs in unnatural sounds like square waves
and sawtooth waves. Could this be the reason, as you state,
that 7-limit intervals have a glow-in-the-dark or "zap" feel
to them? Could it be the sound of the barbers shaver, recalling
for us the anxiety we feel as we await the scalping?

Or is it the other way arround? Do we interpret the square wave
sound of the barbers clipers as a "zap" because it has this
7-limit in it?

Am I way off course in theorizing that we tend to hear 2, 3 and 5
limits in nature often, and that rarely do we tend to hear 7, 11,
13, and higher limits in pitched sounds?

Sourdough and Ham AA0PV

--David C. Adams internet: dadams@cray.com
Statistician uunet: uunet!cray!dadams
Cray Research Inc.

---
Hanuman Zhang
§ ∞ 69 ∞ § @ § ∞ 69 ∞ § @ § ∞ 69 ∞ § @ § ∞ 69 ∞ §

"O wise humanity, terribly wise humanity! Of thee I sing. How inscrutable is
the civilization where men toil and work and worry their hair gray to get a
living and forget to play!" - Lin Yutang, _The Importance of Living_

"...So what is life for? Life is for beauty and substance and sound and
colour; and even those are often forbidden by law [socio-cultural
conventions]. . . . Why not be free and live your own life? Why follow other
people's rules and live to please others?..." ~Lieh-Tzu/Liezi, Taoist Sage
(c. 450- c. 375 BCE)

"...we may be able to prove conclusively that all men are born with
potentially brilliant intellects...and that the source of cultural creativity
is the consciousness that springs from social cooperation and loving
interaction...the majority of us live far below our potential, because of the
oppressive nature of most societies." - John Blacking

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage --- to move in
the opposite direction."
- E. F. Schumacker

"Excess is excrement. Excrement retained in the body is poison." - Ursula
Le Guin

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, czhang23@a... wrote:
>
> I am sick of the subject heading _Re: hi, i'm back & a few ???_
so... ::BiG
> GRiNNie::
>
> In a message dated 2003:05:02 05:49:11 PM, wallyesterpaulrus@y...
writes:
>
> >--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, czhang23@a... wrote:
> >
> >> You want specific contexts? How about ferinstanz both
11-limit
> >>and extended 11-prime-only, and let's say utonal (minor) from
both
Eb1
> >>and F#1 (some of the very lowest notes generally playable on a
double
> >> bass/contrabass...)
> >> 1. 11-limit utonalities from Eb1
> >> 2. 11-limit utonalities from F# 1
> >
> >as chords, i've never been able to summon a sense of "rightness"
out
> >of 11-limit utonalities.
>
> Hmm, is this "rightness" being gauged from some sort of 12tET
chordal
> aesthetic?

no, of course not. it's just that on most instruments, including all
synthesizer sounds i've tried, it's extremely difficult to bring the
sixth chord member into tune given the other five already in the
appropriate tuning. whereas with the otonalities, it's extremely easy
to do this. as a result, the otonality usually strikes me as far more
"resolved".

> I notice a lot of microtonalists are somewhat drawn to
otonalities a tad
> more than utonalities thus to my mind perhaps "betraying" their
unconscious
> or conscious socio-culturalization in a 12tET sensibility.

that doesn't make any sense, since 12tET is completely symmetrical on
an otonal/utonal axis.

>
> >> 3. extended 11-prime-only Eb1 utonalities
> >> 4. extended 11-prime-only F#1 utonalities
> >
> >i don't understand what an "extended 11-prime-only utonality" is.
can
> >you explain?
>
> Tuning systems based entirely on ratios with 11 and multiples of
11 in
> them - either in the denomimator or the numerator.

your first two examples, i thought, referred to chords, so made for
some kind of context. this latter example needs one too. but you
should still clarify what you mean by this tuning system. are any
other factors besides 11 allowed? how about 2? any references on such
tuning systems you can provide?

there's been mention of a system where 17 appears once as a factor in
each ratio, but this setup provides no "17-ness" to the system, since
any chord formed from the ratios with 17 in the numerator is a
utonality (the 17s cancel out), any chord formed from the ratios with
17 in the denominator is an otonality (again 17s cancel out), and any
chord formed from both kinds of ratios includes intervals that are
ratios of 17*17 = 289, which, if anything, are going to be interpreted
as approximations to simpler ratios. so if you're talking about
something similar with 11, i'd probably say something similar.

>
> >anyway, the 11-limit otonality is a great sound, one i use all the
> >time both in acoustic just intonation and electric 22-tone equal
> >temperament. it's kind of lost a bit of flavor for me, but can
> >occasionally inspire me anew, primarily through the melodic ideas
it
> >(or some outside spirit) evokes . . . i don't find it tropical; the
> >11th, though, is so totally convincing and so totally outside the
> >12-equal framework that i'm at a loss for adjectives to capture the
> >magnificence of its feeling . . .
>
> :) well put.
>
> >it's screaming out to the 12-equal hegemony, "just TRY and deny
this"!
>
> ::clap-clap::
>
> and now for a blast from the past, something from deep in the list
archives:
>
> Fri Jun 3 1994
>
> [SNiP . . .]
> So by the time we come to non major-minor harmony, we are at the
> 7th harmonic or 7-limit. It seems to me that in most natural
> sounds the amount of energy on the 7th harmonic is small.
> The 7th harmonic occurs in unnatural sounds like square waves
> and sawtooth waves. Could this be the reason, as you state,
> that 7-limit intervals have a glow-in-the-dark or "zap" feel
> to them? Could it be the sound of the barbers shaver, recalling
> for us the anxiety we feel as we await the scalping?
>
> Or is it the other way arround? Do we interpret the square wave
> sound of the barbers clipers as a "zap" because it has this
> 7-limit in it?
>
> Am I way off course in theorizing that we tend to hear 2, 3 and 5
> limits in nature often, and that rarely do we tend to hear 7, 11,
> 13, and higher limits in pitched sounds?

over on the specmus list, martin braun has been claiming that the
latest neurological evidence shows that we preferentially respond to
the 3rd, 4th, and 5th harmonics (and are aided by a hard-wired
octave-equivalence mechanism) in our efforts to determine the pitches
of instrumental and vocal tones. however, martin has claimed a lot of
things . . .

🔗czhang23@aol.com

In a message dated 2003:05:04 12:32:08 PM, wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com quotes
me and writes:

>> Hmm, is this "rightness" being gauged from some sort of 12tET
>chordal aesthetic?
>
>no, of course not. it's just that on most instruments, including all
>synthesizer sounds i've tried, it's extremely difficult to bring the
>sixth chord member into tune given the other five already in the
>appropriate tuning. whereas with the otonalities, it's extremely easy
>to do this. as a result, the otonality usually strikes me as far more
>"resolved".

Hmm... that's something I have been wanting to understand better & why...
thanx.

>> I notice a lot of microtonalists are somewhat drawn to
>>otonalities a tad more than utonalities thus to my mind perhaps "betraying"
their
>>unconscious or conscious socio-culturalization in a 12tET sensibility.
>
>that doesn't make any sense, since 12tET is completely symmetrical on
>an otonal/utonal axis.

I meant in practise and composition (and even improvisation) - not in
acoustics or even JI theory. And this is just an impression/opinion from a
musico-cultural viewpoint. Western music theory has been based mainly on the
otonal energies of the so-call "major scale" - even in some forms of
Serialism. Helmholtz even claimed that the minor tonalities are "inferior" to
the tones of the major scale.

>> >> 3. extended 11-prime-only Eb1 utonalities
>> >> 4. extended 11-prime-only F#1 utonalities
>
>> >i don't understand what an "extended 11-prime-only utonality" is.
>>can you explain?
>
>> Tuning systems based entirely on ratios with 11 and multiples of
>>11 in them - either in the denomimator or the numerator.
>
>your first two examples, i thought, referred to chords, so made for
>some kind of context. this latter example needs one too. but you
>should still clarify what you mean by this tuning system. are any
>other factors besides 11 allowed?

I'd hope so. I can't think of any other way to do this otherwise :)

>how about 2?

LOL, Yes. *snarfle*
All this Higher Primate math chatter reminds me of 3 JI scales that are
at the edges of bizarre tuneability:

in C 1:1 5:4 32:25 25:16 8:5 2:1

1/1 14/13 16/13 4/3 56/39 3/2 2/1

1/1 80/79 40/39 4/3 3/2 120/79 20/13 2/1

> any references on such tuning systems you can provide?

Here's an example in 13-limit JI...
Mayumi Reinhard's 13-Limit JI:
1/1
14/13
13/12
16/13
13/10
18/13
13/9
20/13
13/8
22/13
13/7
208/105
2/1

... for a "extended 13-prime-only utonality" one just would replace all
the otonal 13-ratios with ... whatever is
theoritically/aesthetically/subjectively "suitable" like Pythagorean
"equivalents" ... or - in act of Transgressive Intonational Heresy and
Iconoclasm (TIHI) - even decimal numbers from some _n_-ET like 78tET or the
decimal numbers from the Schumann Resonance Spectrum for an non-octave scale
approximation of the 13 limit with inversional symmetry as suggested by an
idea from Jacky Ligon:

Schumann Resonanant Tuning
Below is a tuning which will allow one to play the Schumann Resonance
spectrum proportions from each point in the scale:

Schumann Resonance Spectrum Scale, with transposability ("B" @ 62.4 Hz)

Cents Consecutive
0
247.741 247.741
289.21 41.469
412.745 123.535
454.214 41.469
536.951 82.737
617.488 80.537
701.955 84.467
866.959 165.004
949.696 82.737
1012.657 62.961
1071.702 59.045
1156.169 84.467
1260.398 104.229
1403.91 143.512
1484.447 80.537
1549.608 65.161
1630.145 80.537
1773.657 143.512
1877.886 104.229
1962.353 84.467
2021.398 59.045
2084.359 62.961
2167.096 82.737
2332.1 165.004
2416.567 84.467
2497.104 80.537
2579.841 82.737
2621.31 41.469
2744.845 123.535
2786.314 41.469
3034.055 247.741

>there's been mention of a system where 17 appears once as a factor in
>each ratio, but this setup provides no "17-ness" to the system, since
>any chord formed from the ratios with 17 in the numerator is a
>utonality (the 17s cancel out), any chord formed from the ratios with
>17 in the denominator is an otonality (again 17s cancel out), and any
>chord formed from both kinds of ratios includes intervals that are
>ratios of 17*17 = 289, which, if anything, are going to be interpreted
>as approximations to simpler ratios. so if you're talking about
>something similar with 11, i'd probably say something similar.

Ah... okay ::feels his Learning Curve jump:: ::bangs paws on quasi-12tET
toy piano:: Eureka...
Besides I am more interested in the dronal/textural/timbral possiblities
of the "alien" partials of 11, 13, 17, 31, etc. within a microtonal scale
system a la Ton de Leeuw's "extended modality." (The Dutch composer Ton de
Leeuw studied with both Messiaen and Henk Badings, obsessively interested in
Japanese, Indonesian, Chinese, Arabic, etc. musics... As to "extended
modality," hear in your mind's ear some 12tET_chromatic_ Messiaen Mode of
Limited Transposition, now make it bifurcate into _enharmonic_ Xenotonal
auditerritory... imagine the predominately blue coloured light of a colour TV
gradually panned through a prismatic kaleidoscope containing tiny
coloured-saturated phototransparency fragments taken of stained glass and
Jackson Pollock paintings.)

Jacky Ligon wrote:

>> One could argue that the human ear will perceive these as lower number
ratios, so it should be pointed out straight away, that the purpose behind
the exploration of these ratios does not pretend to object to this point;
with the primary goal being to identify and make use of the musical
possibilities of the quality of "irreducibility", by using the Prime Series
as a scale generator. And the truth is; after a point, harmonic concepts of
"limit" become completely irrelevant, and the numbers serve the sole function
of being irreducible scale degree generators. A major part of the interest in
this kind of exploration of high prime rational intonation, is to see the
many audibly "identical" intervals, along side of many that are either very
close to lower
number ratios, or ones which are altogether alien to the language of
3-5 limit Just Intonation. <<

< SNiP >
>over on the specmus list, martin braun has been claiming that the
>latest neurological evidence shows that we preferentially respond to
>the 3rd, 4th, and 5th harmonics (and are aided by a hard-wired
>octave-equivalence mechanism) in our efforts to determine the pitches
>of instrumental and vocal tones. however, martin has claimed a lot of
>things . . .

So Braun is still diggin' at that fringe deterministic theory, eh? He
must be looking for some kind of deep (self-)rationalization for "musical
universals" - how the hell does he explain non-just/nonET scales that appear
in {quoting Brian McLaren} "examples (some outside Africa): The panpipes of
the 'Are-'are of the Solomon Islands are tuned in 7 equal-tempered tones to
the octave which cannot be understood in terms of the harmonic series
(unless, of course, there's something I've overlooked or not taken account
of--always possible); the same seems to be true of the xylophones of the
Kwaiker indians of central Mexico and Guatamala. The Burmese oboe-like
instruments, the drums of the Akan in West Africa, and much of the vocal
music of the Kaluli of highland New Guinea and other music from sub-Saharan
Africa all seem to use pitches which systematically avoid just ratios. Of
course the most spectacularly non-just non-equal-tempered musical traditions
are those of Bali and Java, along with Thailand. No one has succeeded in
explaining these musical traditions in terms of small integer ratios, to the
best of my knowledge, and so my case seems to stand."

I'd sooner believe neurological preference for the 3rd, 4th, and 5th
harmonics and "a hard-wired octave-equivalence mechanism" is because of
genetic memory and level(s) of socio-cultural assimilation - compounded by
personal choice - more than anything else.
This is just my theory using a very extreme analogy: many people have the
gene that creates serial child rapist/killers, but only a very small marginal
percentage ever become "sickf*cks." * Socio-cultural assimilation and
personal choices prevent most of these people from becoming such monsters -
the indeterminism of environment and ethics triumphs over the determinism of
genetics.
_Mutatis mutandi_ for musical perception, curiosity, comprehension
/understanding and aesthetics... and pretty much everything else that makes
us Higher Primates Human Beings (sorta related;) :
http://www.abslogic.com/AnimalArt.htm ).

* (A HongKong-born Cantonese friend of mine jokes bittersweet the reason
Europeans colonized most of the world and "f**k-uped the environment" is
because their ancestors spent many more eons in caves than any other people:
"After several hundred generations cooped up in caves cowering from every
other human,... predatory animal,... shaft of lightning and rain storm and
such, everyone is a bit permanently,... neurotically,... _stir-crazy_ as
ape-sh*t. Naturally they want to take over the whole blasted wide world,...
eat tons of red meat - till they stink all the time,... re-shape and f**k
with Mother Nature, too, ... to frikkin' overcompensate for being such bloody
wimps for so bleedin' long.")

From the depths of the Tuning List archives:

> > [ . . . ] If psychoacoustics were nothing but a set of tests which
produce "I like it/I don't like it" answers, the science would indeed be of
little concern to members of this tuning forum.
That is not the case, however. This is a concern to members of this
tuning forum. That is not the case, however. This is a complete
misrepresentation of psycoacoustics.
Instead, psychoacoustic studies (when done well--not all such research is
competent or adroit) bypass such subjective aesthetic and emotional reactions
and reach directly into the details of how the human auditory system operates.
This latter issue of some concern when dealing with intonation, since it's
vital to disentangle *what the listener perceives* from *the measured
acoustic data.*
If we do not disentangle percepts from prejudices, questions of
intonation are apt to reduce to the trivial level of "such-and -such tuning
is more natural," "such-and-such tuning is purer," and so on. In short,
into meaningless wrangling over buzz-words.
--mclaren < <

---
Hanuman Zhang, Sloth-Style Gungfu Typist ;) & lingua-mang(a)leer
"the sloth is a chinese poet upsidedown" --- Jack Kerouac {1922-69}

"The sum of human wisdom is not contained in any one language,
and no single language is capable of expressing all forms and degrees of
human comprehension." - Ezra Pound

"One thing foreigners, computers, and poets have in common
is that they make unexpected linguistic associations." --- Jasia Reichardt

"There is no reason for the poet to be limited to words, and in fact the
poet is most poetic when inventing languages. Hence the concept of the poet
as 'language designer'." --- O. B. Hardison, Jr.

"La poésie date d' aujour d'hui." (Poetry dates from today)
"La poésie est en jeu." (Poetry is in play)
--- Blaise Cendrars

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, czhang23@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2003:05:04 12:32:08 PM, wallyesterpaulrus@y...
quotes
> me and writes:
>
> >> Hmm, is this "rightness" being gauged from some sort of
12tET
> >chordal aesthetic?
> >
> >no, of course not. it's just that on most instruments, including
all
> >synthesizer sounds i've tried, it's extremely difficult to bring
the
> >sixth chord member into tune given the other five already in the
> >appropriate tuning. whereas with the otonalities, it's extremely
easy
> >to do this. as a result, the otonality usually strikes me as far
more
> >"resolved".
>
> Hmm... that's something I have been wanting to understand
better & why...
> thanx.

there are several phenomena you may want to read up on:

* combinational tones (difference tones, summation tones)
* virtual pitch
* periodicity pitch

these help explain the "why" of the observation above. utonalities
look utterly, completely different, and far more complex, than
otonalities, when the ramifications of these effects are fleshed out.

> >> I notice a lot of microtonalists are somewhat drawn to
> >>otonalities a tad more than utonalities thus to my mind
perhaps "betraying"
> their
> >>unconscious or conscious socio-culturalization in a 12tET
sensibility.
> >
> >that doesn't make any sense, since 12tET is completely symmetrical
on
> >an otonal/utonal axis.
>
> I meant in practise and composition (and even improvisation)

again, i see no bias engendered by 12-equal that would lead to more
familiarity or comfort with otonalities than utonalities. there are
purely acoustical considerations that make this assymmetry evident to
any composer/improviser, at least on many instruments, and would
affect musical practice no matter what the tuning system. meanwhile,
12-equal musical practice is very rich with minor chords, half-
diminished seventh chords, etc. . . . the fact that chord functions,
as they've evolved, are not exactly invertible in 12-equal is a
reflection of the underlying acoustic reality that would play out in
any tuning system. helmholtz was certainly not a fan of 12-equal, yet
once he gets to the discussion of combinational tones, the
otonal/utonal assymmetry is evident, and comes directly from an
*acoustical*, not a *socio-culturalized*, basis.

> >> >> 3. extended 11-prime-only Eb1 utonalities
> >> >> 4. extended 11-prime-only F#1 utonalities
> >
> >> >i don't understand what an "extended 11-prime-only utonality"
is.
> >>can you explain?
> >
> >> Tuning systems based entirely on ratios with 11 and
multiples of
> >>11 in them - either in the denomimator or the numerator.
> >
> >your first two examples, i thought, referred to chords, so made
for
> >some kind of context. this latter example needs one too. but you
> >should still clarify what you mean by this tuning system. are any
> >other factors besides 11 allowed?
>
> I'd hope so. I can't think of any other way to do this
otherwise :)

ok . . . then what does the word "only" in "extended 11-prime-only"
designate?

> Here's an example in 13-limit JI...
> Mayumi Reinhard's 13-Limit JI:
> 1/1
> 14/13
> 13/12
> 16/13
> 13/10
> 18/13
> 13/9
> 20/13
> 13/8
> 22/13
> 13/7
> 208/105
> 2/1

this is a good example of what i was talking about (didn't you omit
some notes? i thought it was a 14-note scale) . . . except weakly
against 1/1, there's no "13-ness" to be found in this system, while
there is a 7:8:9:10:11 otonality (actually, i think it's
7:8:9:10:11:12, aka 1:3:5:7:9:11, aka a complete 11-limit otonality,
assuming you left out a 24/13), and a similar utonality, delineating
the strongest harmonic connections within this system . . . and there
is very little in the way of "just" resources connecting these two
harmonic spheres in this scale.

> ... for a "extended 13-prime-only utonality" one just would
replace all
> the otonal 13-ratios with ... whatever is
> theoritically/aesthetically/subjectively "suitable" like
Pythagorean
> "equivalents"

whoa . . . you lost me. can you step back and clarify, with examples?
anyway, if you're talking about a large scale or tuning system,
you're probably not talking about a single chord, so again musical
context might be an important question . . .

> So Braun is still diggin' at that fringe deterministic theory,
eh? He
> must be looking for some kind of deep (self-)rationalization
for "musical
> universals" - how the hell does he explain non-just/nonET scales
that appear
> in {quoting Brian McLaren} "examples (some outside Africa): The
panpipes of
> the 'Are-'are of the Solomon Islands are tuned in 7 equal-tempered
tones to
> the octave which cannot be understood in terms of the harmonic
series
> (unless, of course, there's something I've overlooked or not taken
account
> of--always possible);

yes, there's something brian overlooked . . . not to mention the fact
that his arguments (and "facts") always seem to turn around 180
degrees when his diatribes turn to a different subject . . .

anyway, for gamelan scales, perhaps even a more perverse example,
martin had quite a lot to say on the specmus list (check its
archives) -- he seemed to be holding out for an explanation in terms
of preference for certain *absolute* pitch frequencies! read for
yourself . . .

> I'd sooner believe neurological preference for the 3rd, 4th,
and 5th
> harmonics and "a hard-wired octave-equivalence mechanism" is
because of
> genetic memory and level(s) of socio-cultural assimilation -
compounded by
> personal choice - more than anything else.

actually you should read up on virtual pitch theory -- for example,
how do we recognize pitches over the telephone even when there is no
spectral energy transmitted at the frequency being heard. there is a
huge amount of truth to what martin said, my only problem with it is
that i'm pretty sure i've been able to evoke a clear fundamental from
just, say, the 7th, 8th, and 9th harmonics . . .