terminology

Anyone comments on this?

Definitions
------------
monophonic - one part

homophonic - one melody with accompaniment

polyphonic - multiple parts
heterophonic - one melody, harmonized
contrapuntal - multiple melodies

Examples
---------
monophonic - chant

homophonic - delta blues

polyphonic
heterophonic - barbershop
contrapuntal - bach

My statement about b-shop being the only systematic
polyphonic 7-limit musical culture is based on the
above. Of course, "only" is a strong word. It's a
matter of degrees, but if you randomly pick a b-shop
recording and randomly pick a spot to listen, your
chances of hearing 7-limit harmony are waay better
than anything else.

-Carl

I would say that monody = one melody harmonized; and heterophony = one melody,
freely ornamented in group playing... Turkish music is heterophonic; Baroque-period
Monteverdi is monody. I don't think barbershop is heterophonic, at least by the
ethnomusicological definition. -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> Anyone comments on this?
>
> Definitions
> ------------
> monophonic - one part
>
> homophonic - one melody with accompaniment
>
> polyphonic - multiple parts
> heterophonic - one melody, harmonized
> contrapuntal - multiple melodies
>
> Examples
> ---------
> monophonic - chant
>
> homophonic - delta blues
>
> polyphonic
> heterophonic - barbershop
> contrapuntal - bach
>
> My statement about b-shop being the only systematic
> polyphonic 7-limit musical culture is based on the
> above. Of course, "only" is a strong word. It's a
> matter of degrees, but if you randomly pick a b-shop
> recording and randomly pick a spot to listen, your
> chances of hearing 7-limit harmony are waay better
> than anything else.
>
> -Carl

I would say that monody = one melody harmonized; and heterophony = one melody,
freely ornamented in group playing... Turkish music is heterophonic; Baroque-period
Monteverdi is monody. I don't think barbershop is heterophonic, at least by the
ethnomusicological definition. -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> Anyone comments on this?
>
> Definitions
> ------------
> monophonic - one part
>
> homophonic - one melody with accompaniment
>
> polyphonic - multiple parts
> heterophonic - one melody, harmonized
> contrapuntal - multiple melodies
>
> Examples
> ---------
> monophonic - chant
>
> homophonic - delta blues
>
> polyphonic
> heterophonic - barbershop
> contrapuntal - bach
>
> My statement about b-shop being the only systematic
> polyphonic 7-limit musical culture is based on the
> above. Of course, "only" is a strong word. It's a
> matter of degrees, but if you randomly pick a b-shop
> recording and randomly pick a spot to listen, your
> chances of hearing 7-limit harmony are waay better
> than anything else.
>
> -Carl

hi Carl,

Justin is right.

"heterophony" has an established meaning of several
instruments all playing their own version of the
same melody simultaneously, and they generally vary
a bit in rhythm and intonation. in addition to
Turkish music, another fine and plentiful example
is traditional (i.e., pre-European-influence)
Chinese music.

-monz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@usa.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:58 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: terminology
>
>
> I would say that monody = one melody harmonized; and
> heterophony = one melody,
> freely ornamented in group playing... Turkish music is
> heterophonic; Baroque-period
> Monteverdi is monody. I don't think barbershop is
> heterophonic, at least by the
> ethnomusicological definition. -Justin
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > Anyone comments on this?
> >
> > Definitions
> > ------------
> > monophonic - one part
> >
> > homophonic - one melody with accompaniment
> >
> > polyphonic - multiple parts
> > heterophonic - one melody, harmonized
> > contrapuntal - multiple melodies
> >
> > Examples
> > ---------
> > monophonic - chant
> >
> > homophonic - delta blues
> >
> > polyphonic
> > heterophonic - barbershop
> > contrapuntal - bach
> >
> > My statement about b-shop being the only systematic
> > polyphonic 7-limit musical culture is based on the
> > above. Of course, "only" is a strong word. It's a
> > matter of degrees, but if you randomly pick a b-shop
> > recording and randomly pick a spot to listen, your
> > chances of hearing 7-limit harmony are waay better
> > than anything else.
> >
> > -Carl

>hi Carl,
>
>
>Justin is right.
>
>"heterophony" has an established meaning of several
>instruments all playing their own version of the
>same melody simultaneously, and they generally vary
>a bit in rhythm and intonation. in addition to
>Turkish music, another fine and plentiful example
>is traditional (i.e., pre-European-influence)
>Chinese music.

Heya monz,

But wouldn't Barbershop fit this definition exactly?

Traditional Turkish music seems more like blues,
with a single melody line and an accompaniment. No?

-Carl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:ekin@lumma.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:41 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: terminology
>
>
> >hi Carl,
> >
> >
> >Justin is right.
> >
> >"heterophony" has an established meaning of several
> >instruments all playing their own version of the
> >same melody simultaneously, and they generally vary
> >a bit in rhythm and intonation. in addition to
> >Turkish music, another fine and plentiful example
> >is traditional (i.e., pre-European-influence)
> >Chinese music.
>
> Heya monz,
>
> But wouldn't Barbershop fit this definition exactly?

no.

perhaps my description of heterophony is not good enough.
what the various instruments play is similar enough
that a listener can tell that they're all versions
of the same melody (IMPORTANT: *basically* the same pitches),
but different enough to tell that the parts are not the same.
there's quite a lot of rhythmic variation between the parts,
and different kinds of ornamentation happening simultaneously.

barbershop, on the other hand, generally has all parts
singing essentially the same rhythm, with the 3 accompaniment
parts clearly being harmonized melodies which run parallel
with (1 over and 2 under) the 2nd-tenor lead vocal. nice
vertical slices of harmony, which is very different from
the kind of heterophony in Chinese music.

> Traditional Turkish music seems more like blues,
> with a single melody line and an accompaniment. No?

i'm not familiar enough with Turkish music to make any
general assessment ... i've only heard a few things,
and can't recall right now what they were like.
i was simply assuming that Justin chose it because
he knows it to be a good example -- i defer to Can
and any other experts on it. i know Chinese music
is heterophonic, so i'll stick with that as my example.

gamelan is also basically heterophonic ... if you're
more familiar with that, then perhaps that helps you
to understand the general-consensus meaning of
"heterophony".

-monz

>perhaps my description of heterophony is not good enough.
>what the various instruments play is similar enough
>that a listener can tell that they're all versions
>of the same melody (IMPORTANT: *basically* the same pitches),
>but different enough to tell that the parts are not the same.
>there's quite a lot of rhythmic variation between the parts,
>and different kinds of ornamentation happening simultaneously.
>
>barbershop, on the other hand, generally has all parts
>singing essentially the same rhythm, with the 3 accompaniment
>parts clearly being harmonized melodies which run parallel
>with (1 over and 2 under) the 2nd-tenor lead vocal. nice
>vertical slices of harmony, which is very different from
>the kind of heterophony in Chinese music.
>
//
>gamelan is also basically heterophonic ... if you're
>more familiar with that, then perhaps that helps you
>to understand the general-consensus meaning of
>"heterophony".

So...

1. What is barbershop?

2. Does heterophonic belong under polyphonic in my
tree?

-Carl

> From: Joe Monzo [mailto:monz@attglobal.net]On Behalf Of
> monz@attglobal.net
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 12:35 AM
> To: 'tuning@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: 11-limit in blues (was: more on twining)
>
>
> <snip>
>
> i'd also like to point to this one:
> /tuning/topicId_2179.html#2179?expand=1
>
> in which i found that several interesting pitch-bends
> in the vocal part of a MIDI-file version of an Etta James
> tune were essentially "extended reference" 11-limit ratios.
> (and one that was a basic 7-limit ratio).
>
> (i consider that post to be one of my finest efforts
> in writing tuning theory.)
>
>
>
> if you don't know what i mean by "extended reference" ...
> http://sonic-arts.org/dict/extref.htm

upon re-reading my analysis of the Etta James tune,
i realized that the MIDI-file no longer exists at
that URL.

luckily, i suspected that this would one day disappear
so i saved it, and i'm a pack-rat and have kept everything
that i've ever done on all my PCs, so i found it and
uploaded it to the "files" section of this list:

/tuning/files/monz/EJames-AtLast.mid

or

http://tinyurl.com/ipkl

also, i should note that i wrote this before i was
familiar with Boomsleiter & Kreel, and so i came up
with my own terminology: what i call "cross-exponent"
in that post is called "extended reference" by B&K
and most other theorists.

-monz

>Boomsleiter & Kreel, and so i came up
>with my own terminology: what i call "cross-exponent"
>in that post is called "extended reference" by B&K
>and most other theorists.

That s/b "Boomsliter & Creel" and "B&C".

-C.

hi Carl,

> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:ekin@lumma.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 12:52 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: terminology
>
>
> > perhaps my description of heterophony is not good enough.
> > what the various instruments play is similar enough
> > that a listener can tell that they're all versions
> > of the same melody (IMPORTANT: *basically* the same pitches),
> > but different enough to tell that the parts are not the same.
> > there's quite a lot of rhythmic variation between the parts,
> > and different kinds of ornamentation happening simultaneously.
> >
> > barbershop, on the other hand, generally has all parts
> > singing essentially the same rhythm, with the 3 accompaniment
> > parts clearly being harmonized melodies which run parallel
> > with (1 over and 2 under) the 2nd-tenor lead vocal. nice
> > vertical slices of harmony, which is very different from
> > the kind of heterophony in Chinese music.
> >
> //
> > gamelan is also basically heterophonic ... if you're
> > more familiar with that, then perhaps that helps you
> > to understand the general-consensus meaning of
> > "heterophony".
>
> So...
>
> 1. What is barbershop?

good question. my tendency is to call it homophony,
but it's certain a different kind of homophony than
the usual melody-with-chordal-accompaniment variety,
since in that type the accompaniment is usually somewhat
differentiated from the melody, whereas in babershop
it's not -- the only difference in barbershop is pitch.

perhaps Justin's description of barbershop as "monody"
is OK ... but too me "monody" is basically the same as
"monophony".

> 2. Does heterophonic belong under polyphonic in my
> tree?

that's a good question too. heterophony shares
characteristics of both monophony and polyphony,
being similar to both in some ways but different
from both in others. i'd say it falls into its
own category somewhat midway between the two.

-monz

The only reason I jumped on this was because heterophony happens to be my favorite
style of music-- it's also the style I'd like to pursue in JI for myself. I'm working on
creating my own "chant culture" with heterophonic accompaniments-- the modes,
tuning and gestures of the chant are not culture-specific however, unless I consider
myself a culture :) -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi Carl,
>
>
> Justin is right.
>
> "heterophony" has an established meaning of several
> instruments all playing their own version of the
> same melody simultaneously, and they generally vary
> a bit in rhythm and intonation. in addition to
> Turkish music, another fine and plentiful example
> is traditional (i.e., pre-European-influence)
> Chinese music.
>
>
>
> -monz
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@u...]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:58 PM
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: terminology
> >
> >
> > I would say that monody = one melody harmonized; and
> > heterophony = one melody,
> > freely ornamented in group playing... Turkish music is
> > heterophonic; Baroque-period
> > Monteverdi is monody. I don't think barbershop is
> > heterophonic, at least by the
> > ethnomusicological definition. -Justin
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > > Anyone comments on this?
> > >
> > > Definitions
> > > ------------
> > > monophonic - one part
> > >
> > > homophonic - one melody with accompaniment
> > >
> > > polyphonic - multiple parts
> > > heterophonic - one melody, harmonized
> > > contrapuntal - multiple melodies
> > >
> > > Examples
> > > ---------
> > > monophonic - chant
> > >
> > > homophonic - delta blues
> > >
> > > polyphonic
> > > heterophonic - barbershop
> > > contrapuntal - bach
> > >
> > > My statement about b-shop being the only systematic
> > > polyphonic 7-limit musical culture is based on the
> > > above. Of course, "only" is a strong word. It's a
> > > matter of degrees, but if you randomly pick a b-shop
> > > recording and randomly pick a spot to listen, your
> > > chances of hearing 7-limit harmony are waay better
> > > than anything else.
> > >
> > > -Carl

In the ethno definition, you can't have any harmony that isn't incidental to the
melody. Now, if you gave all the barbershop singers the same melody and they could
produce the harmonies they do just from the 'lead sheet', then *maybe* you could call
this extended heterophony. In the Middle Eastern music ensemble at UC Santa
Barbara, Prof. Scott Marcus gives *everyone* the vocal or instrumental melody--(from
the lead instruments to the percussion to the voices to the modern interpolated
western instruments like String Bass!). That's all they get and using that melody they
improvise a wildly ornamented, highly intonationally complex, thoroughly organic
piece of music. But there's no real harmony in the Western sense. It's more like
phasing and coming back together again with all the ornamentations. -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >hi Carl,
> >
> >
> >Justin is right.
> >
> >"heterophony" has an established meaning of several
> >instruments all playing their own version of the
> >same melody simultaneously, and they generally vary
> >a bit in rhythm and intonation. in addition to
> >Turkish music, another fine and plentiful example
> >is traditional (i.e., pre-European-influence)
> >Chinese music.
>
> Heya monz,
>
> But wouldn't Barbershop fit this definition exactly?
>
> Traditional Turkish music seems more like blues,
> with a single melody line and an accompaniment. No?
>
> -Carl

>
> So...
>
> 1. What is barbershop?

Barbershop is fauxbourdon (falsobodorno).

>
> 2. Does heterophonic belong under polyphonic in my
> tree?

I'd say no, because there's no independence of the parts.

-Justin

>Now, if you gave all the barbershop singers the same melody and they
>could produce the harmonies they do just from the 'lead sheet',

That's how barbershop started. It's a practice now known (in the
age of written arrangements) as "woodshedding".

-C.

>Barbershop is fauxbourdon (falsobodorno).

According to the web,

"In hymn singing, a fauxbourdon is a treble descant superimposed
upon the melody sung by the congregation."

-Carl

>> 1. What is barbershop?
>
>good question. my tendency is to call it homophony,
>but it's certain a different kind of homophony than
>the usual melody-with-chordal-accompaniment variety,
>since in that type the accompaniment is usually somewhat
>differentiated from the melody, whereas in babershop
>it's not -- the only difference in barbershop is pitch.
>
>perhaps Justin's description of barbershop as "monody"
>is OK ... but too me "monody" is basically the same as
>"monophony".

b-shop, along with evangelical hymns, would seem to be
polyphony of some sort.

-Carl

What's the etymology of 'woodshedding'?

At any rate, I think fauxbourdon is a good term for the barbershop practice. -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Now, if you gave all the barbershop singers the same melody and they
> >could produce the harmonies they do just from the 'lead sheet',
>
> That's how barbershop started. It's a practice now known (in the
> age of written arrangements) as "woodshedding".
>
> -C.

That's kind of the ur-fauxbourdon, but the term can be used to apply to any
harmonic singing that is derived directly from the melody. -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Barbershop is fauxbourdon (falsobodorno).
>
> According to the web,
>
> "In hymn singing, a fauxbourdon is a treble descant superimposed
> upon the melody sung by the congregation."
>
> -Carl

>What's the etymology of 'woodshedding'?

It's a term that generally means "going off
alone to study". Maybe it came from a time
when one would literally go out to the woodshed
to practice?

>At any rate, I think fauxbourdon is a good term
>for the barbershop practice.

I can't find any other term.

I find the available terminology for discussing
musical forms woefully lacking.

-Carl

Maybe it's because the non-melody parts were "going off alone" on their own parts...?
That's the metaphor probably. -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >What's the etymology of 'woodshedding'?
>
> It's a term that generally means "going off
> alone to study". Maybe it came from a time
> when one would literally go out to the woodshed
> to practice?
>
> >At any rate, I think fauxbourdon is a good term
> >for the barbershop practice.
>
> I can't find any other term.
>
> I find the available terminology for discussing
> musical forms woefully lacking.
>
> -Carl

hi Carl,

i agree again with Justing: according to my
understanding of this class of terms, "fauxbourdon"
is the best description of typical barbershop style,
as well as to typical hymns and, for that matter,
the infamous Bach chorales too.

-monz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@usa.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 12:33 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: terminology
>
>
> That's kind of the ur-fauxbourdon, but the term can be used
> to apply to any
> harmonic singing that is derived directly from the melody. -Justin
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > >Barbershop is fauxbourdon (falsobodorno).
> >
> > According to the web,
> >
> > "In hymn singing, a fauxbourdon is a treble descant superimposed
> > upon the melody sung by the congregation."
> >
> > -Carl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: monz@attglobal.net [mailto:monz@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 8:27 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: terminology
>
>
> hi Carl,
>
>
> i agree again with Justing:

oops ... of course i meant "Justin". sorry.

-monz

I think for barbershop we're definitely best to stick with fauxbourdon, if we need
terminology at all. This is true of many hymn traditions as well, but not all. As for the
more complex hymns and Bach chorales, I don't think fauxbourdon applies because
the harmony is too complex to be improvised in congregational mass from the
melody alone-- fauxbourdon implies some sort of semi-intuitive systematicity which
is lacking in a Bach chorale. I think maybe "conductus" is the right term-- hymns and
chorales are, in fact, directly descended in tradition from the Medieval conductus,
which started out as a 3-part note-on-note harmonization of a melody-- this was
ultimately extended to the hymn and four-part Baroque chorale. -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi Carl,
>
>
> i agree again with Justing: according to my
> understanding of this class of terms, "fauxbourdon"
> is the best description of typical barbershop style,
> as well as to typical hymns and, for that matter,
> the infamous Bach chorales too.
>
>
> -monz
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@u...]
> > Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 12:33 PM
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: terminology
> >
> >
> > That's kind of the ur-fauxbourdon, but the term can be used
> > to apply to any
> > harmonic singing that is derived directly from the melody. -Justin
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > > >Barbershop is fauxbourdon (falsobodorno).
> > >
> > > According to the web,
> > >
> > > "In hymn singing, a fauxbourdon is a treble descant superimposed
> > > upon the melody sung by the congregation."
> > >
> > > -Carl

hi Justin,

> From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@usa.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 8:56 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: terminology
>
>
> I think for barbershop we're definitely best to stick
> with fauxbourdon, if we need terminology at all.

OK, you and i are in complete agreement about that.

> This is true of many hymn traditions as well,
> but not all. As for the more complex hymns and
> Bach chorales, I don't think fauxbourdon applies
> because the harmony is too complex to be improvised
> in congregational mass from the melody alone--
> fauxbourdon implies some sort of semi-intuitive
> systematicity which is lacking in a Bach chorale.

hmmm ... now that's a *very* interesting observation,
because many composers (myself included) have traditionally
been given the melodies of Bach chorales to "harmonize",
more or less in the "semi-intuitive systematic" way
you describe.

> I think maybe "conductus" is the right term-- hymns and
> chorales are, in fact, directly descended in tradition from
> the Medieval conductus, which started out as a 3-part
> note-on-note harmonization of a melody-- this was
> ultimately extended to the hymn and four-part Baroque
> chorale. -Justin

good observation. just to fill in some background for
those who don't know about it: the main reason (i think)
for the divergence of the chorales and hymns from the
conductus was the Protestant Reformation. if you or
someone else knows more, i'd be happy to learn. :)

-monz

monz@attglobal.net wrote:

> hmmm ... now that's a *very* interesting observation,
> because many composers (myself included) have traditionally
> been given the melodies of Bach chorales to "harmonize",
> more or less in the "semi-intuitive systematic" way
> you describe.

they just set you up for (likely unfair) comparison: the melodies (as opposed to the parts) bach took were mostly traditional, i.e. they were composed or collected by martin luther or his followers. part of the reformation idea idea was to use (ahem) folk music and german words instead of the traditional chants in latin, or at least music similarly structured. nothing foreign, nothing artsy; all for the simple folk. oh yes, and nothing polyphonic for them either. you want a little conductus? revelling in sound, are we?

klaus
catholic elitist

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> b-shop, along with evangelical hymns, would seem to be
> polyphony of some sort.
>
> -Carl

it's definitely not polyphony, carl, since there's only one "lead"
line. homophony would seem a more accurate decription.

>> b-shop, along with evangelical hymns, would seem to be
>> polyphony of some sort.
>>
>> -Carl
>
>it's definitely not polyphony, carl, since there's only one "lead"
>line. homophony would seem a more accurate decription.

I'm going to disagree. Google for "evangelical hymns polyphony"
returns 7X more results than with homophony.

-Carl

>>> b-shop, along with evangelical hymns, would seem to be
>>> polyphony of some sort.
>>
>>it's definitely not polyphony, carl, since there's only one "lead"
>>line. homophony would seem a more accurate decription.
>
>I'm going to disagree. Google for "evangelical hymns polyphony"
>returns 7X more results than with homophony.

OK, I take it back. If you look at the results, it does seem
that hymns are homophonic...

>monophony - music consisting of a single melodic line.
>
>homophony - music in which all voices move in the same
>rhythm, or a melody supported by a chordal accompaniment.
>
>polyphony - music that simultaneously combines two or
>more independent melodic lines.

This setup means polyphony and counterpoint would have to be
nearly sonorous, and indeed that's how one source defines them.
It seems, though, that I've often heard that common practice
music is generally polyphonic. It certainly isn't generally
contrapuntal.

-Carl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:ekin@lumma.org]
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 11:24 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: terminology
>
>
> >> b-shop, along with evangelical hymns, would seem to be
> >> polyphony of some sort.
> >>
> >> -Carl
> >
> >it's definitely not polyphony, carl, since there's only one "lead"
> >line. homophony would seem a more accurate decription.
>
> I'm going to disagree. Google for "evangelical hymns polyphony"
> returns 7X more results than with homophony.
>
> -Carl

the available references really don't help much:

===========================

from
_Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music_, 4th edition
by Michael Kennedy and Joyce Bourne,
Copyright C 1996 Oxford University Press:
(with annoying abbreviations expanded by me)

>> polyphony (Gr.).
>> Many sounds. Mus[ic] in which several simultaneous
>> v[oice] or instr[umental] parts are combined contrapuntally,
>> as opposed to monophonic mus[ic] (single melody)
>> or homophonic mus[ic] (one melodic line, the other parts
>> acting as acc[ompaniment]). In historical terms, polyphonic
>> era is defined as 13th-16th cent[urie]s, but polyphony
>> survived beyond 1700.

while dictionary.com gives:

po.lyph.o.ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-lf-n)
n. pl. po.lyph.o.nies
Music with two or more independent melodic parts sounded together.

po.lypho.nous adj.
po.lypho.nous.ly adv.

Source:
_The American HeritageR Dictionary of the
English Language_, Fourth Edition
Copyright C 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

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

polyphony

\Po*lyph"o*ny\, n. [Gr. ?.]

1. Multiplicity of sounds, as in the reverberations of an echo.

2. Plurality of sounds and articulations expressed
by the same vocal sign.

3. (Mus[ic]) Composition in mutually related, equally
important parts which share the melody among them;
contrapuntal composition; -- opposed to homophony,
in which the melody is given to one part only, the
others filling out the harmony. See Counterpoint.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, C 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

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

polyphony

n : music arranged in parts for several voices or instruments
[syn: polyphonic music, concerted music]

Source: WordNet R 1.6, C 1997 Princeton University

================================

none of these definitions really emphasize the
fact that polyphony specifically refers to different
*melodies* occuring simultaneously.

that's the main reason why i would not classify
barbershop as polyphony. it's clearly one main melody,
which is supported in parallel "vertically" with
simultaneous melodies at different pitches, which
harmonize with the main melody but which more-or-less
follow the *same rhythm* as the main melody.

polyphony, on the other hand, uses different melodies
which all have different rhythmical characteristics,
and which are clearly differentiated from one another,
and in which the movement of the different voices is
generally *contrary or oblique* rather than parallel.

-monz

-monz

monz@attglobal.net wrote:

> none of these definitions really emphasize the
> fact that polyphony specifically refers to different
> *melodies* occuring simultaneously.

Here's one that does:

polyphony (Gr., multiplication of sounds; Ger., Mehrstimmmigkeit), the style of music in the writing of which the composer plays particular attention to the melodic value of each part, as distinct from homophony, the style consisting of melody with chordal accompaniment.

Collins Encyclopedia of Music

> that's the main reason why i would not classify
> barbershop as polyphony. it's clearly one main melody,
> which is supported in parallel "vertically" with
> simultaneous melodies at different pitches, which
> harmonize with the main melody but which more-or-less
> follow the *same rhythm* as the main melody.

I've heard the definition by rhythm, but I'm sure I've also heard note against note counterpoint defined as "polyphonic".

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> b-shop, along with evangelical hymns, would seem to be
> >> polyphony of some sort.
> >>
> >> -Carl
> >
> >it's definitely not polyphony, carl, since there's only one "lead"
> >line. homophony would seem a more accurate decription.
>
> I'm going to disagree. Google for "evangelical hymns polyphony"
> returns 7X more results than with homophony.
>
> -Carl

is that how you test the truth of a proposition???? anyway, i was
talking about barbershop, not evangelical hymns.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>> b-shop, along with evangelical hymns, would seem to be
> >>> polyphony of some sort.
> >>
> >>it's definitely not polyphony, carl, since there's only
one "lead"
> >>line. homophony would seem a more accurate decription.
> >
> >I'm going to disagree. Google for "evangelical hymns polyphony"
> >returns 7X more results than with homophony.
>
> OK, I take it back. If you look at the results, it does seem
> that hymns are homophonic...
>
> >monophony - music consisting of a single melodic line.
> >
> >homophony - music in which all voices move in the same
> >rhythm, or a melody supported by a chordal accompaniment.
> >
> >polyphony - music that simultaneously combines two or
> >more independent melodic lines.
>
> This setup means polyphony and counterpoint would have to be
> nearly sonorous, and indeed that's how one source defines them.
> It seems, though, that I've often heard that common practice
> music is generally polyphonic.

in the baroque period, yes.

> It certainly isn't generally
> contrapuntal.

in the baroque period, it was.

hi Graham,

> From: Graham Breed [mailto:graham@microtonal.co.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 11:59 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: terminology
>
>
> monz@attglobal.net wrote:
>
> > none of these definitions really emphasize the
> > fact that polyphony specifically refers to different
> > *melodies* occuring simultaneously.
>
> Here's one that does:
>
> polyphony (Gr., multiplication of sounds; Ger.,
> Mehrstimmmigkeit), the style of music in the writing
> of which the composer plays particular attention to
> the melodic value of each part, as distinct from
> homophony, the style consisting of melody with
> chordal accompaniment.
>
> Collins Encyclopedia of Music

i think that's a pretty good definition of "polyphony".

> > that's the main reason why i would not classify
> > barbershop as polyphony. it's clearly one main melody,
> > which is supported in parallel "vertically" with
> > simultaneous melodies at different pitches, which
> > harmonize with the main melody but which more-or-less
> > follow the *same rhythm* as the main melody.
>
> I've heard the definition by rhythm, but I'm sure
> I've also heard note against note counterpoint defined
> as "polyphonic".

yes, of course, you're right. "note-against-note"
is the literal meaning of the original latin terminology
for counterpoint: "punctus contra punctum".

strict note-against-note style is known as "organum",
and in fact is considered to be the origin of polyphony,
c. 800 AD.

so barbershop should be characterized as basically
homophonic, but dwells within a grey area near the
boundary with polyphonic. ... isn't that where this
thread started?

-monz

>anyway, i was talking about barbershop, not evangelical hymns.

Both would have to be in the same category. The basic form of
both is single melody with block harmony, and both also branch
out into what could properly be considered polyphony.

-Carl

>the available references really don't help much:
//
>from
>_Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music_, 4th edition
>by Michael Kennedy and Joyce Bourne,
>Copyright C 1996 Oxford University Press:
>(with annoying abbreviations expanded by me)
>
>>> polyphony (Gr.).
>>> Many sounds. Mus[ic] in which several simultaneous
>>> v[oice] or instr[umental] parts are combined contrapuntally,
>>> as opposed to monophonic mus[ic] (single melody)
>>> or homophonic mus[ic] (one melodic line, the other parts
>>> acting as acc[ompaniment]). In historical terms, polyphonic
>>> era is defined as 13th-16th cent[urie]s, but polyphony
>>> survived beyond 1700.

No, that helps!

-Carl

>
> hmmm ... now that's a *very* interesting observation,
> because many composers (myself included) have traditionally
> been given the melodies of Bach chorales to "harmonize",
> more or less in the "semi-intuitive systematic" way
> you describe.

But could a congregation do it in real time? You could teach a congregation to
woodshed barbershop in fewer lessons than you could teach them to emergently
produce Bach. There are too many nuances.
>
>
>
> good observation. just to fill in some background for
> those who don't know about it: the main reason (i think)
> for the divergence of the chorales and hymns from the
> conductus was the Protestant Reformation. if you or
> someone else knows more, i'd be happy to learn. :)
>

That's basically true, but Catholic hymns since the 19th century have been
harmonized Bach-style as well. -Justin

hi Justin,

> From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@usa.net]
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 5:28 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: terminology
>
>
> > [me, monz]
> > good observation. just to fill in some background for
> > those who don't know about it: the main reason (i think)
> > for the divergence of the chorales and hymns from the
> > conductus was the Protestant Reformation. if you or
> > someone else knows more, i'd be happy to learn. :)
> >
>
> That's basically true, but Catholic hymns since the 19th
> century have been harmonized Bach-style as well. -Justin

ah, another good observation!

-monz

on 1/8/03 17:06, Justin Weaver at improvist@usa.net wrote:

> The only reason I jumped on this was because heterophony happens to be my
> favorite
> style of music-- it's also the style I'd like to pursue in JI for myself. I'm
> working on
> creating my own "chant culture" with heterophonic accompaniments-- the modes,
> tuning and gestures of the chant are not culture-specific however, unless I
> consider
> myself a culture :) -Justin
>

Yes, I've been on to something similar with chant for a couple of years now.
Seems to be one of the best ways to go with JI and choirs in conjunction
with exploring dronal and modal avenues.

Regards
a.m.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_46010.html#46103

> >> b-shop, along with evangelical hymns, would seem to be
> >> polyphony of some sort.
> >>
> >> -Carl
> >
> >it's definitely not polyphony, carl, since there's only one "lead"
> >line. homophony would seem a more accurate decription.
>
> I'm going to disagree. Google for "evangelical hymns polyphony"
> returns 7X more results than with homophony.
>
> -Carl

***It seems, then, Carl, that the term is being misused. Barbershop
is *most decidedly* NOT polyphonic. It's just the opposite, in
fact...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_46010.html#46120

>
> hi Graham,
>
>
> > From: Graham Breed [mailto:graham@m...]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 11:59 AM
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: terminology
> >
> >
> > monz@a... wrote:
> >
> > > none of these definitions really emphasize the
> > > fact that polyphony specifically refers to different
> > > *melodies* occuring simultaneously.
> >
> > Here's one that does:
> >
> > polyphony (Gr., multiplication of sounds; Ger.,
> > Mehrstimmmigkeit), the style of music in the writing
> > of which the composer plays particular attention to
> > the melodic value of each part, as distinct from
> > homophony, the style consisting of melody with
> > chordal accompaniment.
> >
> > Collins Encyclopedia of Music
>
>
>
> i think that's a pretty good definition of "polyphony".
>
>
>
> > > that's the main reason why i would not classify
> > > barbershop as polyphony. it's clearly one main melody,
> > > which is supported in parallel "vertically" with
> > > simultaneous melodies at different pitches, which
> > > harmonize with the main melody but which more-or-less
> > > follow the *same rhythm* as the main melody.
> >
> > I've heard the definition by rhythm, but I'm sure
> > I've also heard note against note counterpoint defined
> > as "polyphonic".
>
>
>
> yes, of course, you're right. "note-against-note"
> is the literal meaning of the original latin terminology
> for counterpoint: "punctus contra punctum".
>
> strict note-against-note style is known as "organum",
> and in fact is considered to be the origin of polyphony,
> c. 800 AD.
>
> so barbershop should be characterized as basically
> homophonic, but dwells within a grey area near the
> boundary with polyphonic. ... isn't that where this
> thread started?
>
>
>
> -monz

***But even much early music, except the *very* earliest (right out
of the chants) was somewhat melismatic, so considerably
more "polyphonic" than that ultimate example of homophony,
barbershop...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***It seems, then, Carl, that the term is being misused.
Barbershop
> is *most decidedly* NOT polyphonic. It's just the opposite, in
> fact...

Does anyone know how to find these? It's easy enough to find Sweet
Adeline along with a claim it is "barbershop", but I can't seem to
find something which actually *is* barbershop, even in a 12-et
version.

>Does anyone know how to find these? It's easy enough to find Sweet
>Adeline along with a claim it is "barbershop", but I can't seem to
>find something which actually *is* barbershop, even in a 12-et
>version.

I understand folks trade MIDIs on barbershop boards, but I don't
know of a public source.

Scores are generally available from Kenosha, for a fee. I have
a bunch.

Sweet Ad. is a tune traditionally sung in the barbershop style.
Why do you think it isn't "barbershop"?

-Carl

hi Carl,

> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:ekin@lumma.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:30 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Barbershop scores/midis
>
>
> >Does anyone know how to find these? It's easy enough to find Sweet
> >Adeline along with a claim it is "barbershop", but I can't seem to
> >find something which actually *is* barbershop, even in a 12-et
> >version.
>
> I understand folks trade MIDIs on barbershop boards, but I don't
> know of a public source.
>
> Scores are generally available from Kenosha, for a fee. I have
> a bunch.
>
> Sweet Ad. is a tune traditionally sung in the barbershop style.
> Why do you think it isn't "barbershop"?
>
> -Carl

do you have the score to _Sweet Adeline_?
can you scan a few measures (for scholarly use)
and post them?

-monz

hi again Carl (and Gene),

> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:ekin@lumma.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:30 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Barbershop scores/midis
>
>
> >Does anyone know how to find these? It's easy enough to find Sweet
> >Adeline along with a claim it is "barbershop", but I can't seem to
> >find something which actually *is* barbershop, even in a 12-et
> >version.
>
> I understand folks trade MIDIs on barbershop boards, but I don't
> know of a public source.
>
> Scores are generally available from Kenosha, for a fee. I have
> a bunch.
>
> Sweet Ad. is a tune traditionally sung in the barbershop style.
> Why do you think it isn't "barbershop"?
>
> -Carl

i have the score to a few voice-and-piano songs
by Scott Joplin which are *clearly* preferably sung
in barbershop-style. i've wanted to do a MIDI of
at least one of them like that for a long time,
but haven't gotten around to it.

Joplin sung in what was basically a "barbershop"
quartet made up entirely of African-Americans,
in the 1890s. his songs are the type of sentimental
ballads entirely typical of barbershop.

(altho i'm sure that by now the experts in the field
have adapted all manner of different material to
the barbershop style. but i'm sure that Joplin's
works are typical of what was current barbershop
style in his time.)

-monz

hi Joe,

> From: Joseph Pehrson [mailto:jpehrson@rcn.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 8:36 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: terminology
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_46010.html#46120
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >
> > yes, of course, you're right. "note-against-note"
> > is the literal meaning of the original latin terminology
> > for counterpoint: "punctus contra punctum".
> >
> > strict note-against-note style is known as "organum",
> > and in fact is considered to be the origin of polyphony,
> > c. 800 AD.
> >
> > so barbershop should be characterized as basically
> > homophonic, but dwells within a grey area near the
> > boundary with polyphonic. ... isn't that where this
> > thread started?
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
>
>
> ***But even much early music, except the *very* earliest
> (right out of the chants) was somewhat melismatic,
> so considerably more "polyphonic" than that ultimate
> example of homophony, barbershop...

ah ... well, the earliest *surviving* *notated* music
was somewhat melismatic.

but the _musica enchiriadis_, which i firmly believe
was composed (if not written down ... i think it was
probably assembled from a Frankish oral tradition)
during the "Carolingian Renaissance" of c. 780-814,
clearly shows an example of organum which is strictly
note-for-note, with a text set to it.

(other scholars who have examined the manuscripts believe
that the _musica enchiriadis_ was composed c. 860-950,
but i -- who have been lucky enough to examine one manuscript
from c. 1000 in Paris -- am convinced that it was c. 800.)

the point being: that very often during the period before
the invention of staff-notation (c. 1000), the scores
do not exist, and the only clues we really have to the
music are the descriptions of the theorists.

in fact, it really bugs me that so many music-theorists
and historians are so quick to believe that "harmony" in music,
meaning simultaneous combinations of different pitches,
was "invented" by the Franks in the 800s.

certainly, there was a long time where the paradigm was
monophonic "Gregorian" chant. but what about the period
before that? Gregorian chant developed after a period of
extreme social upheaval in Europe, namely, the
Germanic migrations of the 400s-500s.

actually, i believe that the ancient Romans had some form of
polyphony, even if it was basically this note-for-note style.
Boethius in c. 505 specifically says that a "consonance"
is the blending of two or more *simultaneous* sounds,
and Nicomachus said the same thing c. 100 AD, when
Greece was part of the Roman Empire. see the evidence
i present below. note the emphasis on sounds which are
"struck at the same time".

----- below: quotes from Boethius and Nicomachus ----

Boethius _De institutione musica_, 1.28

LATIN
http://www.music.indiana.edu/tml/6th-8th/BOEMUS1_TEXT.html

>> Quae sit natura consonantiarum.
>>
>> XXVIII. Consonantiam vero licet aurium quoque sensus
>> diiudicet, tamen ratio perpendit. Quotiens enim duo nervi
>> uno graviore intenduntur simulque pulsi reddunt permixtum
>> quodammodo et suavem sonum, duaeque voces in unum quasi
>> coniunctae coalescunt; tunc fit ea, quae dicitur consonantia.
>> Cum vero simul pulsis sibi quisque ire cupit nec permiscent
>> ad aurem suavem atque unum ex duobus compositum sonum,
>> tunc est, quae dicitur dissonantia.

ENGLISH [Bower, p 47]

>> 28. What the nature of consonance is.
>>
>> Although the sense of hearing recognizes consonances,
>> reason weighs their value. When two strings, one of which
>> is lower, are stretched and struck at the same time,
>> and they produce, so to speak, an intermingled and sweet sound,
>> and the two pitches coalesce into one as if linked together,
>> then that which is called "consonance" occurs. When,
>> on the other hand, they are struck at the same time
>> and each desires to go its own way, and they do not
>> bring together a sweet sound in the ear, a single sound
>> composed of two, then this is what is called "dissonance".

In a footnote, Bower [p 47, footnote 130] says:

>> "Compare this definition of consonance (and dissonance)
>> with Nocomachus Enchiridion 12 (JanS. 262.1-6);
>> an important element in these definitions [by Boethius]
>> and those found in Nicomachus is the phrase
>> "struck at the same time" (_simul pulsae_, a translation
>> of the Greek _[h]ana xrousthentes_). ..."

here is the passage from Nicomachus (c. 100 AD), chapter 12:

>> A system is a combination of two or more intervals.
>> But no note among the intervals is consonant with
>> the one immediately following it, but is completely
>> dissonant with it. Among the systems, however,
>> some are consonat, others dissonant. Systems are consonant
>> when the notes comprising them, though they be different
>> in compass, commingle with one another when played together
>> or are somehow sounded simultaneously, in such a way that
>> the sound produced from them is of a oneness like
>> a single voice. Notes are dissonant, however, when
>> the sound emanating from both of them is heard to be
>> disparate in some way and unblended.

Boethius _De institutione musica_, 4.1 [near the end]

LATIN
http://www.music.indiana.edu/tml/6th-8th/BOEMUS4_TEXT.html

>> Consonae quidem sunt, quae simul pulsae suavem
>> permixtumque inter se coniungunt sonum. Dissonae vero,
>> quae simul pulsae non reddunt suavem neque permixtum sonum.

ENGLISH [Bower, p 116]

>> Consonant pitches are those which when
>> struck at the same time sound pleasant and intermingled
>> with each other; dissonant pitches are those which when
>> struck at the same time do not yield intermingled sound.

Boethius _De institutione musica_, 4.18

[Boethius describes the construction of a device and labels parts of it with
letter-names. Then...]

LATIN
http://www.music.indiana.edu/tml/6th-8th/BOEMUS4_TEXT.html

>> ... atque alterutra vicissim .EK. et .KF. plectro
>> adhibito pellantur, diatessaron distantia consonabit,
>> sin vero simul utrasque percussero, diatessaron [-349-]
>> consonantiam nosco.

ENGLISH [Bower, p 160]

>> I ... using a plecturm prepared for this purpose,
>> strike EK and KF. If I strike them one after the other,
>> the interval of a diatessaron ["4th"] will sound, but
>> if I strike both at the samne time, I come to know
>> the consonance of the diatessaron.

Bower has this to say in a footnote [p 160, footnote 92]:

>> The concept of consonance as simultaneous sounds
>> found in this passage is wholly consistent with that
>> found earlier in the treatise -- e.g., at 1.28 and 4.1.
>> The distinction between consonance and interval,
>> the one struck at the same time (_simul_), the other
>> alternately (_alterutra_), is unique to this passage.

REFERENCES
----------

Thesaurus Musicarum Latinarum
http://www.music.indiana.edu/tml/start.html

Boethius, Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus. c. 505.
_De institutione musica libri quinque_.
English translation _Fundamentals of music_ by Calvin M. Bower.
Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989.

Nicomachus of Gerasa. c. 100 AD.
_Manual of Harmonics_.
English translation and commentary by Flora Rose Levin (ed.),
Phanes Press, Grand Rapids MI, 1994, 208 pages.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> I understand folks trade MIDIs on barbershop boards, but I don't
> know of a public source.

Barbershop boards? Where might these be?

> Scores are generally available from Kenosha, for a fee. I have
> a bunch.

I'll check it out.

> Sweet Ad. is a tune traditionally sung in the barbershop style.
> Why do you think it isn't "barbershop"?

It's a popular tune of a century ago; it isn't barbershop unless it is
done in barbershop style.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:

> i have the score to a few voice-and-piano songs
> by Scott Joplin which are *clearly* preferably sung
> in barbershop-style. i've wanted to do a MIDI of
> at least one of them like that for a long time,
> but haven't gotten around to it.

Anyone have PhotoScore?

> Joplin sung in what was basically a "barbershop"
> quartet made up entirely of African-Americans,
> in the 1890s. his songs are the type of sentimental
> ballads entirely typical of barbershop.

I'd love to hear it.

>> i have the score to a few voice-and-piano songs
>> by Scott Joplin which are *clearly* preferably sung
>> in barbershop-style. i've wanted to do a MIDI of
>> at least one of them like that for a long time,
>> but haven't gotten around to it.
>
>Anyone have PhotoScore?

I have two different manuscript-midi packages, but
no scanner. Actually, don't you have Sibelius? One
is included.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >Anyone have PhotoScore?
>
> I have two different manuscript-midi packages, but
> no scanner. Actually, don't you have Sibelius? One
> is included.

Really? Scanners are not expensive these days; I'd better check it
out. I thought you needed to buy PhotoScore separately.

>do you have the score to _Sweet Adeline_?
>can you scan a few measures (for scholarly use)
>and post them?

All society members get this tune when they sign
up. I don't have a scanner, however. It's on
my list of things to get...

-Carl

>> I understand folks trade MIDIs on barbershop boards, but I don't
>> know of a public source.
>
>Barbershop boards? Where might these be?

I think there are some links from the society home page. I've
never participated. And obviously, try google groups.

>> Sweet Ad. is a tune traditionally sung in the barbershop style.
>> Why do you think it isn't "barbershop"?
>
>It's a popular tune of a century ago; it isn't barbershop unless it
>is done in barbershop style.

That's all barbershop is. There are very few tunes which originated
in the style. The only one I can think of at the moment is Creole
Cutie. It was written as a diction etude, but caught on as a tune.

-Carl

hi Carl and Gene,

> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:ekin@lumma.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:04 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Barbershop scores/midis
>
>
> >> I understand folks trade MIDIs on barbershop boards, but I don't
> >> know of a public source.
> >
> >Barbershop boards? Where might these be?
>
> I think there are some links from the society home page. I've
> never participated. And obviously, try google groups.
>
> >> Sweet Ad. is a tune traditionally sung in the barbershop style.
> >> Why do you think it isn't "barbershop"?
> >
> >It's a popular tune of a century ago; it isn't barbershop unless it
> >is done in barbershop style.
>
> That's all barbershop is. There are very few tunes which originated
> in the style. The only one I can think of at the moment is Creole
> Cutie. It was written as a diction etude, but caught on as a tune.

and as i was saying, it's my belief that those songs
by Scott Joplin, which are published in piano/vocal format,
actually originated with the vocal quartet of which
he was the lead singer.

i suppose that if songs which originated as barbershop tunes
are that scarce, then Joplin's songs have some historical
significance ... if my is hypothesis is correct, that is.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_46010.html#46454
> > ***But even much early music, except the *very* earliest
> > (right out of the chants) was somewhat melismatic,
> > so considerably more "polyphonic" than that ultimate
> > example of homophony, barbershop...
>
>
>
> ah ... well, the earliest *surviving* *notated* music
> was somewhat melismatic.
>
>
> but the _musica enchiriadis_, which i firmly believe
> was composed (if not written down ... i think it was
> probably assembled from a Frankish oral tradition)
> during the "Carolingian Renaissance" of c. 780-814,
> clearly shows an example of organum which is strictly
> note-for-note, with a text set to it.
>

***Got it, Monz. And, yes, I've heard of the _Musica Enchiriadis_,
of course.

Joe

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_46010.html#46465

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> > >Anyone have PhotoScore?
> >
> > I have two different manuscript-midi packages, but
> > no scanner. Actually, don't you have Sibelius? One
> > is included.
>
> Really? Scanners are not expensive these days; I'd better check it
> out. I thought you needed to buy PhotoScore separately.

***You get a *limited* version of PhotoScore with the Sibelius
software. There is a better "professional" edition. I've never been
able to get the packaged version to work very well, in the limited
time I've worked with it...

J. Pehrson

hi Joe,

> From: Joseph Pehrson [mailto:jpehrson@rcn.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 9:01 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: ancient Roman harmony (was: terminology)
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_46010.html#46454
> > > ***But even much early music, except the *very* earliest
> > > (right out of the chants) was somewhat melismatic,
> > > so considerably more "polyphonic" than that ultimate
> > > example of homophony, barbershop...
> >
> >
> >
> > ah ... well, the earliest *surviving* *notated* music
> > was somewhat melismatic.
> >
> >
> > but the _musica enchiriadis_, which i firmly believe
> > was composed (if not written down ... i think it was
> > probably assembled from a Frankish oral tradition)
> > during the "Carolingian Renaissance" of c. 780-814,
> > clearly shows an example of organum which is strictly
> > note-for-note, with a text set to it.
> >
>
> ***Got it, Monz. And, yes, I've heard of the
> _Musica Enchiriadis_, of course.

i sure hope so ... i've only mentioned on this list
about a hundred times. :)

(apologies for the sarcasm ... i'm really tired right now.)

-monz

Carl wrote:

> There are tools to answer this question, which have uncovered
> a whole universe of temperaments, which Petr can tell you about
> perhaps more easily than I. You see some in the table I linked
> to above.

Not sure what you mean; but, anyway, my "starting point" for working with temperaments always was one particular comma which I wanted to vanish (i.e. to be "tempered out"). If the comma in question is 2-dimmensional (i.e. its factor contains 2 different prime numbers -- like 2 and 3, for example, or 3 and 5), then this gives you an equal temperament. A good example is 12-equal, where the comma to vanish is the Pyth. comma (i.e. 3^12 / 2^19), which means you go 12 steps to map the 2/1 and you go 19 steps to map the 3/1. If the comma is 3-dimmensional (i.e. the factor contains three different primes), this gives you a 2D (or "regular") temperament, where you use two intervals (one called the "period" and the other called the "generator") to map the target ones. For example, the syntonic comma (which is usually viewed as the distance between a Pythagorean third and a pure third) has a factor of "3^4 / 2^4 / 5", which can also be written as "(3/2)^4 / 5". This tells you that if you want the syntonic comma to vanish in your temperament, the interval you use to approximate 5/1 will be exactly 4 times larger than the one for approximating 3/2. And because the lowest prime in the factor is 2, this eventually tells you that the "period" of the temperament is an octave and the generator is a fifth and that you can approximate a pure major third by taking 4 fifths and subtracting 2 octaves. In fact, this is the mapping for the meantone temperament; and a good example is the "quarter-comma meantone", where the period is a pure octave and the generator is a fifth of ~696.5 cents, so that the major third really is pure there. -- Further more, if, instead of choosing one comma, you choose two 3D commas to vanish and their factors both contain the same primes, then you get an equal temperament. For example, let's say we want to find a temperament where not only the syntonic comma vanishes but where also the schisma vanishes. The factor for the schisma is "3^8 / 2^15 * 5", which means we are comparing a chain of 8 fourths to a pure major third plus 3 octaves. If you then try to make a mapping where the schisma and the syntonic comma both turn into unison, you get 12-equal.

BTW: You can also make 3D temperaments by tempering out a 4D comma, which often results in less mistuning. Again, if you také two 4D commas as your starting point, you get a 2D temperament. And if you také three 4D commas which you want to be tempered out, you get an equal temperament.

Of course, I've only shown two examples here but there are lots and lots of other commas you can use. And if you do, soon you'll realize that there are temperaments with other generators than fifths, fourths, or major or minor seconds. What I think illustrates this nicely is, among others, the "semisixth" temperament (sometimes called "sensipent"), which uses a generator of about 443 cents.

PS: Before some of the other "temperament makers" lay into me, I should probably note that it's usually better to write the factors as prime space coordinates to list the exponents in a consistent order (i.e. the syntonic comma is "-4 4 -1) and the schisma is "-15 8 1".

Also, some people like to use a fourth as a meantone generator instead of a fifth.

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> Carl wrote:
>
> > There are tools to answer this question, which have uncovered
> > a whole universe of temperaments, which Petr can tell you about
> > perhaps more easily than I. You see some in the table I linked
> > to above.
>
> Not sure what you mean;

...Czech language and all. :)

>If the comma in question is 2-dimmensional (i.e. its factor
>contains 2 different prime numbers -- like 2 and 3, for example,
>or 3 and 5), then this gives you an equal temperament. A good
>example is 12-equal, where the comma to vanish is the Pyth. comma
>(i.e. 3^12 / 2^19), which means you go 12 steps to map the 2/1
>and you go 19 steps to map the 3/1. If the comma is 3-dimmensional
>(i.e. the factor contains three different primes), this gives you
>a 2D (or "regular") temperament,

Not true, actually. 12-ET tempers out 81:80, which has factors
of 2, 3, and 5, but it is still a 1-D ("rank 1") temperament.
The rank of a temperament is determined by the rank of the
just intonation it approximates (e.g. 5-limit = rank 3, 7-limit
rank 4, etc.) minus the _number_ of commas tempered out.
E.g. 12-ET tempers out 81:80 and the pythagorean comma, so it
is a rank-1 5-limit temperament. (Counting the number of
distinct commas is a little tricky, since it is sometimes
possible to remix the factors into a new set of commas that
vanish...)

>And because the lowest prime in the factor is 2, this
>eventually tells you that the "period" of the temperament is
>an octave

Not exactly. Some temperaments have 1/2-octave periods
(like pajara) or 1/3- or 1/4-octave periods (like augmented
and diminished, respectively).

But yes, the number of generators + periods (the distinction
is somewhat artificial) needed tells the rank of the
temperament. Though here again, there is the remixing problem
(e.g. generators for meantone can be octave and fifth or
octave and fourth).

And yes, this is the general idea.

-Carl

Carl wrote:

> Not true, actually. 12-ET tempers out 81:80, which has factors
> of 2, 3, and 5, but it is still a 1-D ("rank 1") temperament.

Ahum ... I've said that if you choose one 3D comma to temper out, you get a 2D temperament, and if you choose two 3D commas, you get an equal temperament, which is what you did. The syntonic comma by itself gives you a mapping for meantone. Only adding another comma to that can give you something like 12-equal (in which case the other comma doesn't necessarily have to be 3D).

> The rank of a temperament is determined by the rank of the
> just intonation it approximates (e.g. 5-limit = rank 3, 7-limit
> rank 4, etc.) minus the _number_ of commas tempered out.

This was what I meant.

> Not exactly. Some temperaments have 1/2-octave periods
> (like pajara) or 1/3- or 1/4-octave periods (like augmented
> and diminished, respectively).

Okay, to be precise, I should say "that the interval of equivalence is an octave and the period is the same in this particular case as the prime exponents of 3 and 5 in the syntonic comma are not co-divisible" (at least I think that's the word used for numbers with a GCD greater than 1).

Petr

I wrote:

> I've said that if you choose one 3D comma to temper out, you get a 2D temperament, and if
> you choose two 3D commas, you get an equal temperament, which is what you did.

Well, you didn't, actually (the Pyth. comma has a 2D factor).

> Okay, to be precise, I should say "that the interval of equivalence is an octave and the
> period is the same in this particular case as the prime exponents of 3 and 5 in the syntonic
> comma are not co-divisible" (at least I think that's the word used for numbers with a GCD
> greater than 1).

Assuming, of course, that we are excluding multiple layers of the same comma in the first place (like 6561/6400, which is nothing more than 81/80 squared).

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> Carl wrote:
>
> > Not true, actually. 12-ET tempers out 81:80, which has factors
> > of 2, 3, and 5, but it is still a 1-D ("rank 1") temperament.
>
> Ahum ... I've said that if you choose one 3D comma to temper out,
> you get a 2D temperament, and if you choose two 3D commas, you
> get an equal temperament, which is what you did. The syntonic
> comma by itself gives you a mapping for meantone. Only adding
> another comma to that can give you something like 12-equal (in
> which case the other comma doesn't necessarily have to be 3D).

It doesn't matter how many factors the commas contain.
All that matters is that they represent independent unison
vectors. In the simplest 5-limit example, I can temper
out 3 and 5 and be left with 2-limit JI (a rank-1 system).
On the other hand, if I instead temper out 15, I get a
rank-2 system.

> > Not exactly. Some temperaments have 1/2-octave periods
> > (like pajara) or 1/3- or 1/4-octave periods (like augmented
> > and diminished, respectively).
>
> Okay, to be precise, I should say "that the interval of
> equivalence is an octave and the period is the same in this
> particular case as the prime exponents of 3 and 5 in the
> syntonic comma are not co-divisible" (at least I think that's
> the word used for numbers with a GCD greater than 1).

Ja.

-Carl

Carl wrote:

> In the simplest 5-limit example, I can temper
> out 3 and 5 and be left with 2-limit JI (a rank-1 system).
> On the other hand, if I instead temper out 15, I get a
> rank-2 system.

You've lost me here.

Petr

PS: BTW: Every time I try to link my primary email address to my Yahoo account in order I could activate "Web access" to be able to view the temperament table you link to, I'm told "The verification link is no longer valid, click ,Verify now' on the next page"; surprisingly enough, there's no ,Verify now' link on the page that comes next, I'm prompted for my Yahoo password twice in a row, then I'm redirected to my account settings page, I don't find anything I need to change there, so I click Finish, and voila, I arrive at the "My Yahoo" webpage. Thinking the link should now work the way I expected, I simply copy it to the address line of my browser once more, and guess what -- it goes the same -- I mean, even though I have just minutes ago entered my password twice ... Perhaps some high forces up there say I should not be able to view the list for whatever reason -- who knows? :-D

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:

> > In the simplest 5-limit example, I can temper
> > out 3 and 5 and be left with 2-limit JI (a rank-1 system).
> > On the other hand, if I instead temper out 15, I get a
> > rank-2 system.
>
> You've lost me here.

If I make 5:1 and 3:1 commas, then my temperament consists
only of octaves. The rank of this temperament is 1. The
rank of the 5-limit space I started with is 3. The number
of commas I tempered out is 2. The fact that each comma
contained only 1 prime has nothing to do with it.

Alternatively, I can temper out 15:1. Now I get a rank 2
temperament. The fact that the comma contains two prime
factors has nothing to do with it.

> PS: BTW: Every time I try to link my primary email address
> to my Yahoo account in order I could activate "Web access"
> to be able to view the temperament table you link to, I'm
> told "The verification link is no longer valid, click Verify
> now' on the next page"; surprisingly enough, there's no,
> Verify now' link on the page that comes next, I'm prompted
> for my Yahoo password twice in a row, then I'm redirected to
> my account settings page, I don't find anything I need to
> change there, so I click Finish, and voila, I arrive at the
> "My Yahoo" webpage. Thinking the link should now work the
> way I expected, I simply copy it to the address line of my
> browser once more, and guess what -- it goes the same --
> I mean, even though I have just minutes ago entered my
> password twice ... Perhaps some high forces up there say I
> should not be able to view the list for whatever reason --
> who knows? :-D

Try going to
/tuning
and then clicking the Database link on the left. Then
click on the first item listed. Does that work?

-Carl

Carl wrote:

> If I make 5:1 and 3:1 commas, then my temperament consists
> only of octaves. The rank of this temperament is 1. The
> rank of the 5-limit space I started with is 3. The number
> of commas I tempered out is 2. The fact that each comma
> contained only 1 prime has nothing to do with it.

I see, it seems these are the cases that lead to temperaments like blackwood or augmented or similar -- the ones where I always had a hard time deciding how to map the prime not contained in the comma. :-D ... Probably I'll have to rethink my procedures once again.

> Try going to /tuning
> and then clicking the Database link on the left. Then
> click on the first item listed. Does that work?

For some weird reason, the list which says "Files, Photos, Links, Database ..." is appearing to me only as lines of regular text, not as links. I have no idea what's going on here.

Petr

> > Try going to /tuning
> > and then clicking the Database link on the left. Then
> > click on the first item listed. Does that work?
>
> For some weird reason, the list which says "Files, Photos,
> Links, Database ..." is appearing to me only as lines of
> regular text, not as links. I have no idea what's going
> on here.
>
> Petr

Try going to
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
and seeing if the tuning list is there. If not, maybe you
are signed into yahoo under a different account than usual?

-Carl

Carl wrote:

> and seeing if the tuning list is there. If not, maybe you
> are signed into yahoo under a different account than usual?

I'm not using my Yahoo email to receive tuning messages because I was unable to set up pop3 there, which I use to manage my primary email elsewhere. I thought I could somehow connect my primary email account to my Yahoo account despite each of them being at a different domain; well, maybe I was wrong. -- Anyway, I don't mind too much -- Herman has posted quite a nice list of 2D temperaments here back in 2006 so I don't think there will be a great deal more of them in the listing you posted the link to.

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> Carl wrote:
>
> > and seeing if the tuning list is there. If not, maybe you
> > are signed into yahoo under a different account than usual?
>
> I'm not using my Yahoo email to receive tuning messages because
> I was unable to set up pop3 there, which I use to manage my
> primary email elsewhere. I thought I could somehow connect my
> primary email account to my Yahoo account despite each of them
> being at a different domain; well, maybe I was wrong. -- Anyway,
> I don't mind too much -- Herman has posted quite a nice list of
> 2D temperaments here back in 2006 so I don't think there will be
> a great deal more of them in the listing you posted the link to.
>
> Petr

It's doesn't matter what address you get the list at. You can
enter any address in your mygroups preferences. Regardless of
this choice, there is a yahoo account (not an e-mail address,
but a yahoo account) that owns the membership. To see the
links on the left side of the group homepage, you must be
signed into that yahoo account in your browser at that time.

In the upper left it should say "Welcome, [your account name]"
Hey, actually, it's not showing that you have a yahoo account
next to your messages... maybe you don't have one! What do
you see when you go to

http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups/

?

(You may reply offlist if you like.)

-Carl