Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Barbershop and JI vs. adaptive issues

Greetings. I wrote a longer e-mail, and my computer
crashed. I apologize for the cut down explanations, I
can explain more later.

Here's the deal:

Been singing Barbershop for a while, talked this
summer with Dr. Jim Richards, physicist, and author of
"The Physics of Barbershop Sound."

My conclusion: idea about Barbershoppers using
adaptive tuning that resembles temperament is crap.
Barbershoppers sing nearly always exact JI ratios.
Here's how they solve the comma problem:

When going away from tonic to a chord which will
proceed around the circle of fifths, they raise the
root to a pythagorean note. the progression
III7-VI7-II7-V7-I has the roots 81/64, 27/16, 9/8, 3/2
and 1/1. Above these roots are perfect JI chords
7:6:5:4. This is made easier to sing by the voicing,
example: Bass rarely on the third of the chord, so
almost never sings 5/4, much more often sings 81/64.
When the voicing is unusual is where most quartets
have problems. But the quartet DOES NOT adjust to
whatever the lead sings. They adjust to the ROOTS of
the chords, which function generally in a Pythagorean
fashion.

Additionally, my ear tells me that a ii7 minor seven
chord should actually be made up of 9/8, 21/16, 27/16,
63/32. This chord provides complete smooth voice
leading and held notes to a barbershop 7th chord on V
(3/2). Thus the issue of what is the ii chord is
solved.

My sense tells me that nearly everything musically can
be done with exact JI ratios. I think the unsolved
delimma of comma problems is people looking in the
wrong places. I think that good voice leading avoids
the weirdest of problems and that if it can't be
solved by voice leading and further out adjustments
WITHIN strict ratios, it probably doesn't sound good
period. I think the use of temperament is only good
for two things: practical use of instruments, and
ambiguity (a valid artistic goal).

Feel free to challenge my ideas or ask further
questions. Thanks everyone!

Aaron Wolf
backfromthesilo@yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

There follows off-list correspondence between Paul Erlich
and I...

>Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:22:40 -0000
>From: "Paul Erlich" <perlich@aya.yale.edu>
>To: Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>
>Subject: Re: Barbershop and JI vs. adaptive issues
>
>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>> >Been singing Barbershop for a while, talked this
>> >summer with Dr. Jim Richards, physicist, and author of
>> >"The Physics of Barbershop Sound."
>>
>> Did you take his class at harmony college?
>>
>> >My conclusion: idea about Barbershoppers using
>> >adaptive tuning that resembles temperament is crap.
>> >Barbershoppers sing nearly always exact JI ratios.
>> >Here's how they solve the comma problem:
>>
>> Around here, we call such a solution "adaptive tuning".
>> Or, "adaptive JI" (since it doesn't involve any
>> irrational intervals).
>
>aaron says "adaptive tuning" is crap, and carl says aaron's solution
>is called "adaptive tuning". i'm afraid i must disagree with both!
>adaptive tuning or adaptive JI imply irrational *horizonal*
>intervals, which aaron is rejecting in the strongest of terms!

>Did you mean to send this to the list?
>
>>aaron says "adaptive tuning" is crap,
>
>He says the idea that barbershopers use a tuning
>that "resembles temperament" is crap. Since I
>don't believe barbershopers have any way of
>consistently tuning irrational intervals, I agree.
>
>>and carl says aaron's solution is called "adaptive
>>tuning". i'm afraid i must disagree with both!
>>adaptive tuning or adaptive JI imply irrational
>>*horizonal* intervals,
>
>That has been the traditional definition around
>here, but it's clear Aaron's suggestion is an
>adaptive-like scheme. What should we call it?
>
>I don't think the root tuning can be controlled
>accurately enough to differentiate pythagorean
>from 12-tET or even a more aggressive meantone.
>
>-Carl

>From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>To: "'Carl Lumma'" <carl@lumma.org>
>Subject: RE: Barbershop and JI vs. adaptive issues
>Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:48:01 -0400
>
>>Did you mean to send this to the list?
>
>>>aaron says "adaptive tuning" is crap,
>
>>He says the idea that barbershopers use a tuning
>>that "resembles temperament" is crap.
>
>Namely, adaptive tuning. He said so!
>
>> Since I
>>don't believe barbershopers have any way of
>>consistently tuning irrational intervals, I agree.
>
>Who said anything about consistently? On the flip side, consider
>the difficulty of *consistently* adjusting by exactly a comma!
>
>>>and carl says aaron's solution is called "adaptive
>>>tuning". i'm afraid i must disagree with both!
>>>adaptive tuning or adaptive JI imply irrational
>>>*horizonal* intervals,
>
>>That has been the traditional definition around
>>here, but it's clear Aaron's suggestion is an
>>adaptive-like scheme.
>
>Huh?
>
>>What should we call it?
>
>Strict ji, as we always have!
>
>>I don't think the root tuning can be controlled
>>accurately enough to differentiate pythagorean
>>from 12-tET or even a more aggressive meantone.
>
>You speak the truth!
>
>But I think you should delete/correct/clarify your post.

>>>>aaron says "adaptive tuning" is crap,
>>
>>>He says the idea that barbershopers use a tuning
>>>that "resembles temperament" is crap.
>>
>>Namely, adaptive tuning. He said so!
>
>He said the idea was crap, not the tuning.
>
>>>Since I don't believe barbershopers have any way of
>>>consistently tuning irrational intervals, I agree.
>>
>>Who said anything about consistently?
>
>That's a criterion for temperament.
>
>>On the flip side, consider the difficulty of *consistently*
>>adjusting by exactly a comma!
>
>I didn't say they could do that either.
>
>>>>and carl says aaron's solution is called "adaptive
>>>>tuning". i'm afraid i must disagree with both!
>>>>adaptive tuning or adaptive JI imply irrational
>>>>*horizonal* intervals,
>>
>>>That has been the traditional definition around
>>>here, but it's clear Aaron's suggestion is an
>>>adaptive-like scheme.
>>
>>Huh?
>
>The horizontal intervals are far more complex
>than the vertical ones. Writing a score like
>this in strict JI would be a mistake.
>
>>>I don't think the root tuning can be controlled
>>>accurately enough to differentiate pythagorean
>>>from 12-tET or even a more aggressive meantone.
>>
>>You speak the truth!
>>
>>But I think you should delete/correct/clarify your post.
>
>I'll forward these to the list.
>
>-Carl

Received: from [66.218.67.128] by n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Sep 2003 19:22:41 -0000

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Sorry for any confusion, but let me clarify my claims.

First, yes, I am talking STRICT JI, which is by definition not
adaptive tuning. Additionally, what is apparently unclear is how
adjustments by comma take place.

Granted there may be exceptions, the essential functioning of a
barbershop arrangement avoids most comma shifts by putting
the new note in a different part, usually in a different octave.
Simply because the parts tend to stay on similar parts of the
chord, when E changes from being a third of a chord to a root, it
usually is not held over, but rather appears in a different part.
Certainly many notes are held over through chords, but once the
SINGLE jump in root has been made after leaving tonic, the
circle of fifths progression back no longer needs any shifts.

As for the accuracy, certainly we are dealing with real world, but I
am pretty confident that I can accurately sing 81/64 instead of 5/4
when appropriate. For the most part, the bass often has the root
and generally sings 81/64 because 5/4 would only occur with a
tonic chord (because barbershop harmony uses relative minor
and mediant chords far less often than dominant circle of fifths
chords). The other parts do not actually need to hear the root to
sing correctly, they only need to sense that the harmony needs to
be based on 81/64, and they will sing JI intervals for that chord.

I believe that every successful barbershop arrangement
(meaning that excellent barbershoppers could comfortably sing
it) could be spelled out in strict JI.

And the most controversial statement I'm making is this: If it
cannot be spelled in strict JI, then I believe it is either completely
innaccessible music that does not have real musical function, or
(more likely) its musical function relies on ambiguity and
vagueness. Put another way, if a piece is not intended to be
vague (for various musical reasons) then it can be spelled in
STRICT JI.

I'll form this as a question/challenge: can you find a musical
phrase that could be both impossible to have in strict JI, and
also completely clear and precise as far as pitch intention as
percieved by the intended audience? (surely you as a composer
could truly intend that exact 11EDO note, but could a listener
understand it that way?)

Oh and to answer your question, I did not take Dr. Richards'
class. I hope to at some point, but I did have a lengthy
discussion with him about my perceptions and questions, and
I've read his book.

Thanks for the excellent thoughts everyone, keep 'em coming.

Aaron
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> The official definition of "adaptive JI" may be found at...
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/dict/adaptiveji.htm
>
> -Carl

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:
...
> And the most controversial statement I'm making is this: If it
> cannot be spelled in strict JI, then I believe it is either completely
> innaccessible music that does not have real musical function, or
> (more likely) its musical function relies on ambiguity and
> vagueness. Put another way, if a piece is not intended to be
> vague (for various musical reasons) then it can be spelled in
> STRICT JI.

Sigh. Another JI fundamentalist. Of the kind Julie Werntz complained
about in her thesis. I'm quite fond of JI myself, but this sort of
intolerance of other tuning paradigms, which usually comes from
ignorance, just gives JI a bad name.

> I'll form this as a question/challenge: can you find a musical
> phrase that could be both impossible to have in strict JI, and
> also completely clear and precise as far as pitch intention as
> percieved by the intended audience?
...

Paul already did that. In fact he gave you a _single_chord_ whose
maximum consonance is _not_ achieved in JI.

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> And the most controversial statement I'm making is this: If it
> >> cannot be spelled in strict JI, then I believe it is either
> >> completely innaccessible music that does not have real musical
> >> function, or (more likely) its musical function relies on
> >> ambiguity and vagueness.
> //
> >> I'll form this as a question/challenge: can you find a musical
> >> phrase that could be both impossible to have in strict JI, and
> >> also completely clear and precise as far as pitch intention as
> >> percieved by the intended audience?
>
> Ok, this is interesting. Maybe Paul would like to pick a
> particular Bach example, and then maybe Aaron would care to
> render it in the tuning of his choice, and then maybe we can
> all listen to the result.
>
> -Carl

ok -- since aaron said he would like to manipulate the *voice
leading*, and bach to a large extent isn't bach anymore if you alter
the voice leading (that being one of the crucial elements of his
music), why don't we allow an *arrangement* of bach instead -- any
arrangement of bach's chaconne in d minor for solo violin. you may
start with bunji hisamori's MIDI file of busoni's arrangement of this
piece if you wish . . .

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Paul already did that. In fact he gave you a _single_chord_
whose
> >maximum consonance is _not_ achieved in JI.
>
> Have you ever tried tuning this chord various ways, Dave? In
> some voicings, the pure-fifths version sounds more consonant
> to me.
>
> -Carl

First off, sorry to be fundamentalist, I'm more kinda playing
devil's advocate. I'm still testing these ideas, and I am not one to
truly make final conclusions without gathering all evidence
possible. My ear tells me kinda what Carl is getting at- that 1.
yes the most obvious voicing/tuning of some chords is bad in JI,
but 2. that a less obvious, or revoiced version of the chord might
be better, and 3. that the tempered version is vague in its
musical affect!

So what I'm saying isn't "kill all temperaments!" What I'm saying
is that I don't feel that temperament accomplishes musical
CLARITY the way JI does; and that unless the artistic decision is
to be unclear or vague than strict JI should/could be used. In
other words, a composer may want to write a chord that is does
not have a direct strict JI derivation and also have no vagueness
in its musical affect, but sorry, he can't do that, it's impossible.

That's my hypothesis. That if there isn't a clear strict JI
interpretation, then it will sound vague. So a good composer will
write such a chord only when vagueness is a desired or at least
accepted part of the intended affect.

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

First, I have to say that I unfortunately do not have the time to
follow up on every suggestion within the limits of continuing this
discussion. I will keep studying and come back at some future
time with any new thoughts.

I can quickly respond to a couple things though:

By vague affect I mean that the chord itself has a clear musical
affect without considering the broad context. That a typical
trained listener would know exactly what the chord's expression
is without any context.

I think that the chords in jazz or Bach, or other examples which
do not translate to strict JI, function by being vague. In other
words, when a tempered note is not clearly implying one JI note
over another that allows the music to proceed in either/any
direction. It is this ability that creates the affect. Because the
"vague" note or chord only completes its clarity of affect after the
context is established.

I believe this to be a completely useful musical tool. But I also
believe that composers and musicians should be careful only to
use temperament when this is the goal. The only other musical
value of temperament that I'm aware of (besides the practicality
for instrument design and playability) is the out-of-tune feel when
a note is intentionally not JI in order to have the buzz/ring/beating
etc. that out of tune notes produce. This is also a valid musical
use of temperament.

I'm very curious if people have more to add to this list of uses of
temperament. But what seems wrong to me is this idea: "but
temperament is necessary because how else could you have
this chord: (x-x-x-whatever)" My feeling is still that what you need
beyond JI is vagueness, or chorus effects, or practicality, but I
don't believe you actually want/need that specific chord that
somehow can't work in JI. A question: out of context, how can
anyone actually KNOW they want this or that chord if it isn't clear
in JI??

I simply can't imagine someone sitting down to write a piece and
deciding to want any non-JI chord without it being defined by
either context or technical/theoretical concept.

Furthermore, I believe that if a chord that results from context /
voice-leading cannot be done well in JI that either the composer
should desire vagueness or should admit that it is bad
voice-leading and produces an unclear chord.

My main hypothesis goes both directions: I propose first that
many seemingly unclear chords in JI can be made to work
convincingly with beyond the most obvious of ratio choices.
Secondly, I hypothesize that (as an example) the theoretical
problems with the progression IV-II-V-I in JI result from EITHER
an unwillingness to define the IV or II chords as quite different
from the strict scale tones, OR a problem with the progression
altogether. Perhaps that is a lousy progression that only works
in temperament because of the vagueness and really actually
needs an additional passing chord in there to function well.

I will have to experiment to see if I can make that progression
convincing to myself in strict JI. What I have trouble accepting is
this: That the progression is somehow logical and clear even if
it can't be done in JI. It is definitely musical, sure.

Ok, the final wording: I have trouble believing that anyone would
ever come up with, and desire to use, progressions that fail in JI
unless the origin of the progression is in a technical idea that
was then forced into the music. I will grant that musical value
can be found from incorporating the technical ideas, but I still
insist that it is the musical value of vagueness itself rather than
some other new musical expression. I'm not making a claim as
to how much of the or which examples are vague, technically
derived ones vs. ones that have less obvious JI realizations.

Sorry I don't have the time to work this through more right away.
If anything I've said could be clarified though, please let me know
and I'll attempt it. I'd still love to hear everyone's thoughts.

Aaron

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@mappi.helsinki.fi>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:

> A question: out of context, how can
> anyone actually KNOW they want this or that chord if it isn't clear
> in JI??

The answer is obvious: simply by playing an instrument (for example
piano or guitar which already has a temperament build in) and
improvising and hitting a chord (which might not be clear in JI) that
sounds interesting! Unless you say that the instrument's tuning
itself is part of this *context*.

> I simply can't imagine someone sitting down to write a piece and
> deciding to want any non-JI chord without it being defined by
> either context or technical/theoretical concept.

Same answer as above.

> Ok, the final wording: I have trouble believing that anyone would
> ever come up with, and desire to use, progressions that fail in JI
> unless the origin of the progression is in a technical idea that
> was then forced into the music.

Opposing this I think that melodic/horizontal just intonation is a
very technical and theoretical idea. I have trouble thinking that our
essentially tempered diatonic scale is a technical idea. Maybe (and
just maybe) it once was but in the western world today it is part of
our basic and passive cultural education. Thus I think that only a JI
fundamentalist who has technical/mathematical prejudices can claim
that IV-II-V might be a lousy and unclear progression.

Kalle

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

Hello,

From what I have read in this list and around about barbershop
intonation, there seems to be two competing divergent theories:

- the lead voice provide the melodic framework, the other voices
settle arount it in JI
- the root voice provide the framework, the other voices settle arount
it in JI (Aaron)

I have made some measurement (not enough, unfortunately, and in other
genre than barbershop) that suggest that there is no such hard rule.
In a given ensemble, let say SSATB I observed that sometime S1 takes
the lead, sometime S2, sometime B, for some chords, this or this voice
takes more time to settle. Sometime an innervoice seems totally at
lost, even though it is not auditorily obvious at all (for me, but I
am not an example of good ear).

I think that in any ensemble, the most likely "natural leader" is the
most self assured voice (the one with absolute or nearest to absolute
pitch?). In some (extreme) case it may be an inner voice if this inner
voice is song by someone more experienced than the rest of the group.

> Aaron :
> They adjust to the ROOTS of the chords, which function generally in
a Pythagorean
> fashion.

I do not buy the Pythagorean scale for singers. For violin family
perhaps, due to the tuning in fifth, but not for singer. Anyway, at
reachable pitch measurement accuracy, and with the great interval
variability of any given signer, it is difficult to distinguish
Pythagorean from ET interval. I think (without any proof) that the
pervasiveness of ET induces mental representation of melodic interval
as ET.

Anyways, I totally agree that whatever is the actual intonation, any a
capella ensemble are strongly attracted to simple ratios, so if there
is no fix pitch instrument around, there is no real tendency to settle
around a given "temperament". There is a lot of fiddling around to the
point that a given note in the same piece may be song at many very
different pitches.

Singing just (simple) harmonic intervals is, in my mind and
experience, a natural tendency. Signing just melodic interval is
completely another game. For reasons I do not know, on the average,
there is a tendency to sing larger interval downward than upward
("going south"). Staying in pitch is more a fight against this
tendency to drift (melodicaly) downward that to compensate a
theoritical comma drift to "adapt" JI to some chord progression.

The actual intonation of 7th chord depends on a lot of factors. One of
the most important is the ensemble spacial setting and room accoustic.
It is probably "relatively" easy to get to 4:5:6:7 when singer are on
a circle, facing each other. But on usual, in line stage setting, of
let say TTBB, the upper voice T1 shall be physicaly near T2, so that
the B2 is not clearly perceived. In this case the 6:5 may be a much
stronger "attractor" than 7:6 for T1:T2. That may be explained because
6:5 has a lower "local harmonic entropy" even though it raises the
"global entropy". It can be explain more simply by just saying that
6:5 is more common to western music than 7:6...

Things get even harder when there is more than a singer per part,
because disagreement may appear within each part. Singer on the border
of a section may have an auditory landscape quite diffrent from one
within the section.

As an amateur choir singer I had extremely bad experiences of some
inverted dom7th chord in "acousticaly challenging environment" (nearly
impossible to hear upper voices) on the chord inversion where T:B are
just a tone appart, but which tone? 6:7? 9:10? 8:9? 15:18? plain ET? A
lot of work needed to get to an agreement an produce just a "decent
chord" whatever that mean.

For sure, training and rehearsal can enhance a lot this tendency in
"acousticaly challenging environment". The "real nature of JI harmony"
is a question on the borderline of the nature/culture debate. I my
opinion, (without any proof) I think that triadic JI is mostly
"nature", but whenever we go beyond triadic harmony, we enter the
"culture" area. In other words, actual realizatioons of 7th chord may
differ largely, depending on training, genre, stage setting etc.

Yours truly

François Laferrière

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akj@rcn.com>

On Wednesday 24 September 2003 11:25 pm, backfromthesilo wrote:

> That's my hypothesis. That if there isn't a clear strict JI
> interpretation, then it will sound vague. So a good composer will
> write such a chord only when vagueness is a desired or at least
> accepted part of the intended affect.

It's nice to now know that Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin,
Bartok, Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy, etc. were either 'vague' or 'not good',
and that LaMonte Young and Terry Riley are 'good'. Thank you.....

But seriously...have you considered the fact that any sounded interval can
have a rational representation if you use enough digits? Thus, ET in practice
is really JI, with complex ratios? (another way of saying this is that the
irrational numbers are mental/mathematical idealizations that are never
really realized in physical reality)....I don't understand why you would fume
against complex ratios, and, you have the added problem of defining
'complex'. Then, you haven't considered timbres with non-harmonic spectra,
and what sounds good for them, and JI is not the best for them...(assuming
that you haven't eliminated them from your mental universe as evil, for 'a
priori' reasons). Assuming complex for you means 'above the 7 limit', I still
think your argument reeks of an unthought-out fundamentalism, which is the
most precise way to describe it, I think. I think, for whatever reason, JI
attracts fundamentalism like Islam does.

Anyway, if you think 'vagueness' is a bad thing, I think the whole edifice of
art is half dependent on it, the other half being clarity. (hehe)

The best thing (IMO) you can do is retract your statements, and chalk them up
to an unbridled enthusiasm for JI (we've all felt it, after all....it sounds
cool!!). Or, you can stay the course on what I think is going to be a
fruitless argument. But a man who can admit his error and poke fun at himself
will always earn my instant respect and admiration. It takes balls, to say
'oops'. And in spite of what our instinct tells us, 'save face' is never as
powerful as 'oops'. You actually gain respect and love from people, because
they see you are as human as they are, and can admit it!

And, if it helps, I think we have all been guilty of this in life (I sure
have). We're all human......

Best,
Aaron.

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@m...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
> <backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:
>
> > A question: out of context, how can
> > anyone actually KNOW they want this or that chord if it isn't
clear
> > in JI??
>
> The answer is obvious: simply by playing an instrument (for
example
> piano or guitar which already has a temperament build in) and
> improvising and hitting a chord (which might not be clear in JI)
that
> sounds interesting! Unless you say that the instrument's
tuning
> itself is part of this *context*.
>
> > I simply can't imagine someone sitting down to write a piece
and
> > deciding to want any non-JI chord without it being defined by
> > either context or technical/theoretical concept.
>
> Same answer as above.
>
> > Ok, the final wording: I have trouble believing that anyone
would
> > ever come up with, and desire to use, progressions that fail
in JI
> > unless the origin of the progression is in a technical idea that
> > was then forced into the music.
>
> Opposing this I think that melodic/horizontal just intonation is a
> very technical and theoretical idea. I have trouble thinking that
our
> essentially tempered diatonic scale is a technical idea. Maybe
(and
> just maybe) it once was but in the western world today it is part
of
> our basic and passive cultural education. Thus I think that only
a JI
> fundamentalist who has technical/mathematical prejudices
can claim
> that IV-II-V might be a lousy and unclear progression.
>
> Kalle

Well, one thing is, I orginally listed the using an instrument
possibility before deleting that reference. I guess I should've
kept it in. I think that using a tempered instrument involves
technical theory, because I don't believe people will approach
music from a tempered perspective without the instrument's
influence which comes from the theory over centuries. Basically,
I hypothesize that if you play a tempered chord on an instrument
and decide you like it then either it does have a good JI version
or you like the vagueness of the chord.

Good point about JI being a technical idea, but I think the history
of JI's use in all cultures, folk musics, and especially the fact that
so much of music played on tempered instruments does fit with
JI shows that people gravitate to it without the theory. Also, I'm
not aware of any music that uses temperament without any
historical connection to theory. Which isn't to say it doesn't exist,
but I haven't heard of it.

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere"
<francois.laferriere@o...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> From what I have read in this list and around about barbershop
> intonation, there seems to be two competing divergent
theories:
>
> - the lead voice provide the melodic framework, the other
voices
> settle arount it in JI
> - the root voice provide the framework, the other voices settle
arount
> it in JI (Aaron)

My computer keeps crashing trying to let me type to respond. I'll
try to do this short and simple:

First, that other theory is a complete myth. The lead is followed
for other things, interpretation, etc. but the tuning is more often
set by the bass, but it is really set only by the various parts
understanding their part of the chord and the chord relative to
tonic. This myth of lead/melody set tuning is mostly spread by
tuning people or inexperienced singers. Please everyone stop
spreading it. ANY top-notch (really top-notch) barbershopper will
tell you the same thing I am saying. I've talked to many myself.

Barbershop cannot be directly compared to other choral singing.
Barbershop is all about perfect harmonic tuning above nearly
any other aspect of the music. And no vibrato. And 35% plus of
a good barbershop piece is 7:6:5:4 chords, which any good
barbershopper could tune without carefully standing in a square.

Also to clarify the pythagorean issue, the circle of fifths style
III-VI-II-V-I progression is common in barbershop, where the
roots of such a progression must be pythagorean to not go flat. I
have even tested singing 81/64 vs. 5/4 to unknowing
barbershoppers who have repeatedly successfully identified
whether I jumped to a III chord or stayed on tonic just from the
one bass note. Other progressions and other parts are
decidedly not pythagorean.

I further assert (my ideas now) that choral music that does not
do as much to have careful tuning is lousy or intentionally vague.
Many choirs go flat, have too much vibrato, etc. etc. and this in my
view should not be studied to understand the tuning affect of the
music. Only the top choirs that represent the intended ideal of
the music should be studied. What THEY do is more likely worth
understanding from a tuning perspective and other choirs
thought of as not quite acheiving the correct tuning. Obviously
there's still questionable, complex elements, but I believe that if
the choir can't sing it just then the only musical function is
vagueness (my case all along).

Anyway, what I do know is barbershop, and I hope it's been clear
when I postulating my own hypotheses and when I'm trying to
impart factual information so people on the tuning list can be
more clear when referencing barbershop.

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akj@rcn.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Wow. First, you need to know that only a small portion of
communication is the specific textual content. Sorry I can't be
there in person. I never "fumed" and I have tried to emphasize
words like "hypothesis," "idea," and "thought." These are not
exactly end-all be-all terms and certainly are not prescriptive. I
wish that I'd gotten more useful feedback instead of such
defensive comments. I know I'm still working through these
ideas, but I posted them because they held up to most of my
own challenges and seemed right to me so far.

Second, I never said vagueness was bad, I've constantly said it
is a valid intention.

As far as complex ratios, I know that I'd accept 11-limit, and feel
comfortable with 13, and I'm not even outright rejecting higher
limits, but I'm highly skeptical of them.

Some of my statements, specifically regarding barbershop are
not conjecture, they are facts that people here seem to
misunderstand. The rest of the ideas are my own conjecture.
(not something a fundamentalist would say, note).

Anyway, I believe that all of the EXCELLENT composers you've
listed are in varying balances of music that is workable in JI and
has tension due to vagueness. What I'm postulating is that the
use of music that fails in JI functions only to build tension due to
vagueness of affect. I'm not rejecting any music. I'm suggesting
that maybe all progressions outside of JI function based on their
level of ambiguity but do not in any other way impart a particular
musical affect! This mixed with progressions close enough to JI
to truly imply JI can produce excellent music. This music in my
view functions on the various affects of the different JI
relationships plus ambiguity of the other parts. What I don't
believe is that the non-JI parts can have the variety of musical
affect that differing JI relationships produce. I think that
vagueness overshadows any other feeling a listener might have.
But I also think that the tension and release of the vague
progression into a JI-implied one is a valid and excellent
musical goal.

Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akj@r...>
wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 September 2003 11:25 pm,
backfromthesilo wrote:
>
> > That's my hypothesis. That if there isn't a clear strict JI
> > interpretation, then it will sound vague. So a good composer
will
> > write such a chord only when vagueness is a desired or at
least
> > accepted part of the intended affect.
>
> It's nice to now know that Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven,
Brahms, Chopin,
> Bartok, Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy, etc. were either 'vague' or
'not good',
> and that LaMonte Young and Terry Riley are 'good'. Thank
you.....
>
> But seriously...have you considered the fact that any sounded
interval can
> have a rational representation if you use enough digits? Thus,
ET in practice
> is really JI, with complex ratios? (another way of saying this is
that the
> irrational numbers are mental/mathematical idealizations that
are never
> really realized in physical reality)....I don't understand why you
would fume
> against complex ratios, and, you have the added problem of
defining
> 'complex'. Then, you haven't considered timbres with
non-harmonic spectra,
> and what sounds good for them, and JI is not the best for
them...(assuming
> that you haven't eliminated them from your mental universe as
evil, for 'a
> priori' reasons). Assuming complex for you means 'above the 7
limit', I still
> think your argument reeks of an unthought-out
fundamentalism, which is the
> most precise way to describe it, I think. I think, for whatever
reason, JI
> attracts fundamentalism like Islam does.
>
> Anyway, if you think 'vagueness' is a bad thing, I think the whole
edifice of
> art is half dependent on it, the other half being clarity. (hehe)
>
> The best thing (IMO) you can do is retract your statements, and
chalk them up
> to an unbridled enthusiasm for JI (we've all felt it, after all....it
sounds
> cool!!). Or, you can stay the course on what I think is going to
be a
> fruitless argument. But a man who can admit his error and
poke fun at himself
> will always earn my instant respect and admiration. It takes
balls, to say
> 'oops'. And in spite of what our instinct tells us, 'save face' is
never as
> powerful as 'oops'. You actually gain respect and love from
people, because
> they see you are as human as they are, and can admit it!
>
> And, if it helps, I think we have all been guilty of this in life (I
sure
> have). We're all human......
>
> Best,
> Aaron.

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akj@r...>
wrote:
> On Thursday 25 September 2003 10:03 am, backfromthesilo
wrote:
> > Basically,
> > I hypothesize that if you play a tempered chord on an
instrument
> > and decide you like it then either it does have a good JI
version
> > or you like the vagueness of the chord.
>
> Either way, you like it, so what does it matter? Does one need
a 'theory' or
> rational framework to justify one's aesthetic tastes?
>
> -Aaron. (the other Aaron ;), your evil twin)

No, of course not. Personally, my aesthetic sense tells me that
there's not enough totally clear (JI) music out there, and that it's
too bad that many, many people write completely JI-possible
music in temperaments. I think it is not coincidence that millions
of musicians, unknowingly handed tempered instruments write
and play music that never needed the temperament. I think that
speaks to the power of JI and I think that it is unfortunate that any
music that completely works in JI is realized in some other way
(usually without the composer or musician having made the
specific decision, but instead being unaware of the possibility)

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:

> Well, one thing is, I orginally listed the using an instrument
> possibility before deleting that reference. I guess I should've
> kept it in. I think that using a tempered instrument involves
> technical theory, because I don't believe people will approach
> music from a tempered perspective without the instrument's
> influence which comes from the theory over centuries.

What about all that a capella music of the Renaissance? Singing was
where the quest for the sweet major third started.

Basically,
> I hypothesize that if you play a tempered chord on an instrument
> and decide you like it then either it does have a good JI version
> or you like the vagueness of the chord.

You've never defined "vagueness". Most chords are not augmented
triads or diminished sevenths, after all, which I suppose you might
call vague.

> Good point about JI being a technical idea, but I think the history
> of JI's use in all cultures, folk musics, and especially the fact
that
> so much of music played on tempered instruments does fit with
> JI shows that people gravitate to it without the theory.

Where is the evidence for this?

Also, I'm
> not aware of any music that uses temperament without any
> historical connection to theory.

See above re the Renaissance.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:

if that's true, then the vast majority of western composers
consistently used progressions that originated in a "technical idea"
that was then "forced" into the music. i have trouble swallowing that
wording.

> but I still
> insist that it is the musical value of vagueness itself rather than
> some other new musical expression.

well, this "vagueness" (which is really only vagueness relative to a
strict-JI mindset, which is *not* a natural one but must be acquired
by someone playing with strict JI) comes in many distinct flavors,
which according to mathieu's book _the harmonic experience_

http://www.gotoit.com/titles/harexp.htm

*are* the new musical expressions that formed the milestones in the
history of western music. please read this book if you have a chance,
it seems far closer to your philosophy than to mine in many ways, yet
it should give you an appreciation of the powerful and important
*creative* role that these various flavors of "vagueness" played in
western musical history.

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

are you referring to the fact that any irrational tuning can be
approximated with arbitrary accuracy by a rational one? for example,
the hammond organ uses ratios of two-digit numbers to get within
about 1 cent of A-440 12-equal:

1/1 = 320 Hz (internal gear only; does not get heard)

ratio freqen. ET freq deviation (cents)
71/82 277.073 277.183 -0.68
67/73 293.699 293.665 0.20
35/36 311.111 311.127 -0.09
69/67 329.552 329.628 -0.40
12/11 349.091 349.228 -0.68
37/32 370.000 369.994 0.03
49/40 392.000 391.995 0.02
48/37 415.135 415.305 -0.71
11/08 440.000 440.000 0.00
67/46 466.087 466.164 -0.29
54/35 493.714 493.883 -0.59
85/52 523.077 523.251 -0.58

> (another way of saying this is that the
> irrational numbers are mental/mathematical idealizations that are
never
> really realized in physical reality)

why would you say that? if you throw a dart at a number line, the
probability of hitting a rational number is zero! meanwhile,
irrational numbers like pi are everywhere in "physical reality" (if
it means anything for a rational number to be realized in physical
reality).

> I think, for whatever reason, JI
> attracts fundamentalism like Islam does.

a doubly dangerous thing to say, but it's very much what i've
observed, too. (here come the flames!)

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:

> I think that using a tempered instrument involves
> technical theory, because I don't believe people will approach
> music from a tempered perspective without the instrument's
> influence which comes from the theory over centuries.

not necessarily -- for example, meantone temperament existed well
before the theory required to understand/describe it.

> Basically,
> I hypothesize that if you play a tempered chord on an instrument
> and decide you like it then either it does have a good JI version
> or you like the vagueness of the chord.

ok, but surely JI "utonal" chords like partch's "utonal hexad" are
highly vague as well?

> Good point about JI being a technical idea, but I think the history
> of JI's use in all cultures,

ha! this is what the fundamentalists would like you to believe.

> Also, I'm
> not aware of any music that uses temperament without any
> historical connection to theory.

i'm not aware of any music that uses just intonation without any
historical connection to theory.

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

First, I defined vagueness as being unclear in musical affect.
That a listener isn't sure whether it is a happy chord, a sad
chord, or a chord that has a specific feeling that can't be said in
so many words. Instead it confuses the listener as to what the
musical statement of that chord is. That it needs CONTEXT in
order to be functional. It's like a blurry shot of a camera sweep in
a movie that would make sense if you watched the movie but is
blurry and unclear on its own. Even if you knew WHERE it was
filmed it would be unclear, just as knowing tonic may not enough
context to make many chords clear. Sorry it is so hard to
describe in words the feeling of music, but I'm trying.

Anyway, your Rennaissance music reference totally supports
what I'm saying. You have no proof that people started singing
thirds because of the technical idea of them. I think it is clear
that people determined aurally that they liked thirds and the
temperament comes from wanting those to be right. The
resulting music in anything but distant from JI.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
> <backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:
>
> > Well, one thing is, I orginally listed the using an instrument
> > possibility before deleting that reference. I guess I should've
> > kept it in. I think that using a tempered instrument involves
> > technical theory, because I don't believe people will approach
> > music from a tempered perspective without the instrument's
> > influence which comes from the theory over centuries.
>
> What about all that a capella music of the Renaissance?
Singing was
> where the quest for the sweet major third started.
>
> Basically,
> > I hypothesize that if you play a tempered chord on an
instrument
> > and decide you like it then either it does have a good JI
version
> > or you like the vagueness of the chord.
>
> You've never defined "vagueness". Most chords are not
augmented
> triads or diminished sevenths, after all, which I suppose you
might
> call vague.
>
> > Good point about JI being a technical idea, but I think the
history
> > of JI's use in all cultures, folk musics, and especially the fact
> that
> > so much of music played on tempered instruments does fit
with
> > JI shows that people gravitate to it without the theory.
>
> Where is the evidence for this?
>
> Also, I'm
> > not aware of any music that uses temperament without any
> > historical connection to theory.
>
> See above re the Renaissance.

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
> <backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
> > <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> > > Do you know of any midi versions which demonstrate how
it's
> > done?
> >
> > Sorry I don't. And I hate this but I don't have time to make
one.
> I';;
> > admit I haven't actually developed a real understanding of
using
> > any tuning programs besides JI Calc. If you could suggest
the
> > easiest way for me to start getting into MIDI retuning I'd
> > appreciate it. I have a Mac.
>
> Scala has a Mac version; I'd start by getting that.

Is there anyone out there using Scala on Mac currently? Do you
think you could help me get started? I tried it once but couldn't
figure out the interface. It appears the Mac version is only an
older version not up to date with PCs and I couldn't find a usable
tutorial or help file or manual that made sense how to use the
program. Thanks for any help.

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

> > Good point about JI being a technical idea, but I think the
history
> > of JI's use in all cultures,
>
> ha! this is what the fundamentalists would like you to believe.
>
> > Also, I'm
> > not aware of any music that uses temperament without any
> > historical connection to theory.
>
> i'm not aware of any music that uses just intonation without any
> historical connection to theory.

Ok, look, what about African singing? And do you really think
Indian music came AFTER the Indian theory? What about
Ganga singing?

As per the topic, I know that barbershop is connected to western
music history, but most barbershoppers I know, and through the
barbershop history are not even remotely aware of tuning theory.
Is there any singing style out there where singers get together
and theory aside just go and sing in temperament? Honest
question, not just a challange, ok?

Oh and to answer your question, I have read Mathieu and
generally agree with his ideas on temperament's function,
though I do no feel everything he says is quite right.

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

Hi folks,

I know I should take responsibility for starting what has in some
quarters descended to name calling. Comparisons between religious
fundamentalists and JI fundamentalists are completely uncalled for.
And the implication that only one particular religion attracts
fundamentalists is also odious.

Aaron "backfromthesilo" seems to be genuinely interested in being
educated by the list, and his way of doing it is simply to make bold
claims and see if we can refute them.

So Aaron, I'm sorry I labelled you a "JI fundamentalist". Although the
claims you are putting up for test, are rightly described as JI
fundamentalism. And there should be no implication that JI
fundamentalists are bad people. It's unfortunate that this connotation
carries over from the use of the term in regard to religion.

But if someone says, "Try X and you'll se that things are not quite so
simple", and you always say, "I don't have time to try X", then we'll
start to think you are wasting our time.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Dave,

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I do want more than anything
to increase my understanding of these issues. I do hope
however that it's been clear when I am making what I would call
conjecture versus truly making a knowledgeable claim. I
suppose it should have been clearer.

While I do not have a doctorate in physics, nor have I done years
worth of scientific tests, I do have significant experience both
singing and listening to barbershop quartets, and every
particular tuning issue I've come upon so far shows
barbershoppers singing in JI. I don't like hearing otherwise from
people on this list who are repeating hearsay without actual
experience with and study of the style.

On the other hand, I respect your opinions on temperament in
general and I want to keep working on these issues. I was just
very frustrated trying to learn the old Mac version of Scala and I've
been using only my ears, voice, articles and MIDI files online,
and JI Calc to study tuning. Should I go try and get a cheap PC
so I can start using the new Scala? I certainly do not want to
waste your time with things I could figure out on my own.

Thanks

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan"
<d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I know I should take responsibility for starting what has in
some
> quarters descended to name calling. Comparisons between
religious
> fundamentalists and JI fundamentalists are completely
uncalled for.
> And the implication that only one particular religion attracts
> fundamentalists is also odious.
>
> Aaron "backfromthesilo" seems to be genuinely interested in
being
> educated by the list, and his way of doing it is simply to make
bold
> claims and see if we can refute them.
>
> So Aaron, I'm sorry I labelled you a "JI fundamentalist".
Although the
> claims you are putting up for test, are rightly described as JI
> fundamentalism. And there should be no implication that JI
> fundamentalists are bad people. It's unfortunate that this
connotation
> carries over from the use of the term in regard to religion.
>
> But if someone says, "Try X and you'll se that things are not
quite so
> simple", and you always say, "I don't have time to try X", then
we'll
> start to think you are wasting our time.
>
> Regards,
> -- Dave Keenan

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:
> While I do not have a doctorate in physics, nor have I done years
> worth of scientific tests, I do have significant experience both
> singing and listening to barbershop quartets, and every
> particular tuning issue I've come upon so far shows
> barbershoppers singing in JI. I don't like hearing otherwise from
> people on this list who are repeating hearsay without actual
> experience with and study of the style.

I don't think anyone doubts that barbershop _harmony_ is justly
intoned, and I think we agree that your ears can be relied upon to
tell you that. But to convince us that there is no significant tonic
drift through time, or that all melodic motion keeps within a few
cents of a single 12-note JI scale (or whatever), I'm afraid you'd
have to present some measurements. Most ears are notoriously
unreliable here.

> On the other hand, I respect your opinions on temperament in
> general and I want to keep working on these issues. I was just
> very frustrated trying to learn the old Mac version of Scala and I've
> been using only my ears, voice, articles and MIDI files online,
> and JI Calc to study tuning. Should I go try and get a cheap PC
> so I can start using the new Scala? I certainly do not want to
> waste your time with things I could figure out on my own.

I can't answer this for you. But perhaps it would be more useful if
you get hold of some spectrum analysis/pitch extraction software and
learn how to use it properly (FFTs and audio-compression make it very
easy to fool yourself into thinking you've found JI when it isn't
really there), and use it to analyse the horizontal motion of some
good Barbershop recordings.

Ideally you'd have every singer on a separate track, in which case
you'd probably have to make these recordings yourself.

This would be a major contribution.

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akj@rcn.com>

On Thursday 25 September 2003 03:47 pm, Paul Erlich wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akj@r...> wrote:

> > (another way of saying this is that the
> > irrational numbers are mental/mathematical idealizations that are
>
> never
>
> > really realized in physical reality)
>
> why would you say that? if you throw a dart at a number line, the
> probability of hitting a rational number is zero! meanwhile,
> irrational numbers like pi are everywhere in "physical reality" (if
> it means anything for a rational number to be realized in physical
> reality).

I think the probability is 1....unless you can show me an infinitely
fine-grained piece of paper....

Or for that matter, a perfectly round circle, which also challenges what you
say about pi...

Not that I deny the existence of irrational numbers as mathematical objects,
or what you say about there being infinately many more of these irrational
numbers than the rationals, but that they are impossible to manifest in
physical reality as we now understand it (i.e. quanta, which could be in
error, but seems unlikely, as it has been the most successful scientific
theory of the 20th century!!!)

> > I think, for whatever reason, JI
> > attracts fundamentalism like Islam does.
>
> a doubly dangerous thing to say, but it's very much what i've
> observed, too. (here come the flames!)

Ok, a half-truth, but I've noticed that the magic of JI, when you first taste
it, makes one abandon all reason. I've experienced it first hand, and had my
moments of fundamentalism...therefore, I deserve the right to recognize it!!!

Best,
Aaron K. Johnson (the akjmicro guy)

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>I do not buy the Pythagorean scale for singers. For violin family
>perhaps, due to the tuning in fifth,

Across strings, but what about finger placement!

>I think (without any proof) that the pervasiveness of ET induces
>mental representation of melodic interval as ET.

I think (without any proof) that there is fundamentally an ordering
of melodic intervals by size. I have some intuition about this
based on playing melodies on 'drums' (hitting things around me with
my hands). When harmony is present, there is probably bending to
the harmonic series. When tonality is present, there are probably
effects like raised leading tones. I also subscribe to Paul
Erlich's omnitetrachordality idea. I think all of these factors
outweigh any bias to 12-tET.

>Staying in pitch is more a fight against this
>tendency to drift (melodicaly) downward that to compensate a
>theoritical comma drift to "adapt" JI to some chord progression.

I suspect you're right. This could be tested by singing progressions
that don't drift... maybe Bob Wendell has some experience with this,
if he's following the list...

>The actual intonation of 7th chord depends on a lot of factors. One
>of the most important is the ensemble spacial setting and room
>accoustic. It is probably "relatively" easy to get to 4:5:6:7 when
>singer are on a circle, facing each other.
//

Francois, have you listened to much Barbershop? I think you'll
find the maj/min 7th chords reliably and accurately (to within
the resolution of measurement) tuned to 4:5:6:7, where they are
held for any length of time.

In woodshedding, barbershopers do stand in a circle, and this is
considered ideal. We stand in a line only for performance. But
we still manage 4:5:6:7's!

[Note: I say "we", even though I haven't been active in barbershop
for several years.]

>For sure, training and rehearsal can enhance a lot this tendency in
>"acousticaly challenging environment". The "real nature of JI harmony"
>is a question on the borderline of the nature/culture debate. I my
>opinion, (without any proof) I think that triadic JI is mostly
>"nature", but whenever we go beyond triadic harmony, we enter the
>"culture" area. In other words, actual realizatioons of 7th chord may
>differ largely, depending on training, genre, stage setting etc.

In fact I have never heard 4:5:6:7 chords consistently from any
genre other than barbershop.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>>From what I have read in this list and around about barbershop
>>intonation, there seems to be two competing divergent theories:
>>
>> - the lead voice provide the melodic framework, the other
>> voices settle arount it in JI
>>
>> - the root voice provide the framework, the other voices settle
>>around it in JI (Aaron)
//
>First, that other theory is a complete myth. The lead is followed
>for other things, interpretation, etc. but the tuning is more often
>set by the bass, but it is really set only by the various parts
>understanding their part of the chord and the chord relative to
>tonic. This myth of lead/melody set tuning is mostly spread by
>tuning people or inexperienced singers. Please everyone stop
>spreading it.

I must be mixing my Aarons. Didn't you start this thread by
claiming that the roots of JI chords were rooted on pythagorean
Lead tones in Barbershop?

>ANY top-notch (really top-notch) barbershopper will
>tell you the same thing I am saying. I've talked to many myself.

I was never "top-notch", but I don't think there's such any
such consensus. Myself, I agree with Francois that there is
no hard and fast rule. The root will depend on different factors
depending on the music, group, and chance.

>Also to clarify the pythagorean issue, the circle of fifths style
>III-VI-II-V-I progression is common in barbershop, where the
>roots of such a progression must be pythagorean to not go flat.
>I have even tested singing 81/64 vs. 5/4 to unknowing
>barbershoppers who have repeatedly successfully identified
>whether I jumped to a III chord or stayed on tonic just from the
>one bass note.

Exactly what have you tested? Can you give any more detail?

-Carl

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

Hello

> Frano?=ois

> I do not buy the Pythagorean scale for singers. For violin family
> >perhaps, due to the tuning in fifth,

> Carl
> Across strings, but what about finger placement!

The idea is that open string resonates when no bowed and provides a
sort of pythagorean background. But that is a totalyu other topic.

> Frano?=ois:
> >I think (without any proof) that the pervasiveness of ET induces
> >mental representation of melodic interval as ET.

> Carl:
> I think (without any proof) that there is fundamentally an ordering
> of melodic intervals by size. I have some intuition about this
> based on playing melodies on 'drums' (hitting things around me with
> my hands). When harmony is present, there is probably bending to
> the harmonic series. When tonality is present, there are probably
> effects like raised leading tones. I also subscribe to Paul
> Erlich's omnitetrachordality idea. I think all of these factors
> outweigh any bias to 12-tET.

We nearly agree there, search for consonance outweight bias to 12-tET
in harmonic context. Neverteless, it can be observed that at the
begining of a vocal chord (or in quick parts), when singers had not
had the time to hear each other, the initial melodic interval (of each
individual voice) is often close to ET.

> Frano?=ois:
> >Staying in pitch is more a fight against this
> >tendency to drift (melodicaly) downward that to compensate a
> >theoritical comma drift to "adapt" JI to some chord progression.

> Carl:
> I suspect you're right. This could be tested by singing progressions
> that don't drift... maybe Bob Wendell has some experience with this,
> if he's following the list...

Bob ?

> Frano?=ois:
> >The actual intonation of 7th chord depends on a lot of factors. One
> >of the most important is the ensemble spacial setting and room
> >accoustic. It is probably "relatively" easy to get to 4:5:6:7 when
> >singer are on a circle, facing each other.
> //

> Carl:
> Francois, have you listened to much Barbershop? I think you'll
> find the maj/min 7th chords reliably and accurately (to within
> the resolution of measurement) tuned to 4:5:6:7, where they are
> held for any length of time.

I must admit that have not listen to much barbershop, and probably not
by top notch specialised quartet anyways.

> In woodshedding, barbershopers do stand in a circle, and this is
> considered ideal. We stand in a line only for performance. But
> we still manage 4:5:6:7's!

Thanks to (a lot of) rehearsal, and practice it is possible to achieve
a very precise mental image of the whole line, with relatively
accurate melodic interval. At this point, singing in line is less a
problem.

> Carl:
>
> >For sure, training and rehearsal can enhance a lot this tendency in
> >"acousticaly challenging environment". The "real nature of JI harmony"
> >is a question on the borderline of the nature/culture debate. I my
> >opinion, (without any proof) I think that triadic JI is mostly
> >"nature", but whenever we go beyond triadic harmony, we enter the
> >"culture" area. In other words, actual realizatioons of 7th chord may
> >differ largely, depending on training, genre, stage setting etc.

> Carl:
> In fact I have never heard 4:5:6:7 chords consistently from any
> genre other than barbershop.

I am definitely one that come on the list to get educated :-)

Would it be possible for someone (one of Aaron?) to push on the file
server of the list a .wav file of a representative barbershop piece or
extract.

The selected piece should be a slow one and feature some 4:5:6:7 chords
It should be song by a topnotch quartet
Having the score would be great(there are a few of them in pdf on
cpdl.org i think)?

Then we would have something more concrete to discuss about.

any suggestion?

yours truly

François Laferrière

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:

> First, I defined vagueness as being unclear in musical affect.
> That a listener isn't sure whether it is a happy chord, a sad
> chord, or a chord that has a specific feeling that can't be said in
> so many words. Instead it confuses the listener as to what the
> musical statement of that chord is. That it needs CONTEXT in
> order to be functional. It's like a blurry shot of a camera sweep
in
> a movie that would make sense if you watched the movie but is
> blurry and unclear on its own. Even if you knew WHERE it was
> filmed it would be unclear, just as knowing tonic may not enough
> context to make many chords clear. Sorry it is so hard to
> describe in words the feeling of music, but I'm trying.

you're still talking about a single chord though, right? what about a
chord *progression*, of chords that are just in themselves, but
involving *horizontal* movement that would not be possible in strict
ji (assuming you don't use very complex ratios to simulate
temperament)? in such a case, i definitely don't agree that the
listener is confused as to affect. i think the listener is least
confused when the *scale* (typically diatonic) is clear, and then any
play of harmonies from within that scale, done artfully, is going to
evoke feelings, which are not inherently more or less ambiguous as
the pitches are tempered or strict JI. in fact, the strict JI
solutions typically carry more ambiguity to my ear, since either
comma shifts or comma drift will ambiguate the pitch level of one or
more scale pitches, and pitch memory is one of the strongest
organizing forces in tonal music. that's how i hear it, at least.

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:
>
> As per the topic, I know that barbershop is connected to western
> music history, but most barbershoppers I know, and through the
> barbershop history are not even remotely aware of tuning theory.
> Is there any singing style out there where singers get together
> and theory aside just go and sing in temperament?

you might not call it temperament, but what francois and carl
described seems far closer to reality for most styles of western
music that something like your description of barbershop would. each
singer has some amount of pitch memory for each of the scale tones,
and will have more or less luck (often less) adjusting around
this "fixed" reference to make each pitch sound right in each chordal
context, while all the other singers do the same. as francois pointed
out, the presence of a "confident" singer in the group can help
expedite the process of getting agreement, as everyone simply locks
into the "confident one"'s pitch cues without worrying that
the "confident one" will try to lock into theirs. in barbershop, this
may very well be the bass, but barbershop is one of the most
homophonic western musical styles. in polyphonic music, the voices
weave a tapestry of independent melodies, with the root often passing
between voices like a game of hot potato, and commas
typically "tangled" into the music in a far more "insiduous" way than
in your simple barbershop example. in such a case, pitch memory is
the vocalist's best friend, and a skillful performance will give the
illusion of the impossible combination of stable scale pitches and
purely tuned verticalities -- and this will come out of the group
simply practicing the music, without any thought given to theoretical
matters. in the idealized extreme, this process is "adaptive tuning"
in the particular, "theoretically" defined senses that have been
discussed around here. in reality, the fluctuations are far more
haphazard, but it's still going to show none of the characteristics
of the theoretical "strict JI" solutions, such as a variable 2nd
degree in major and even weirder effects in minor. i've never heard
singers get together and theory aside do *that*.

you might be interested in the long discussions in the archives here
about a capella singing groups. jerry eskelin, director of the l.a.
jazz choir, was involved with these at the highest level. he and his
colleagues observed a large number of the best choirs at conventions
and competitions and estimated that about two-thirds tend to intone
their major triads with a "high third" (major third c. 404 cents) and
only about one-third use the "just third".

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akj@r...> wrote:
> On Thursday 25 September 2003 03:47 pm, Paul Erlich wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akj@r...>
wrote:
>
> > > (another way of saying this is that the
> > > irrational numbers are mental/mathematical idealizations that
are
> >
> > never
> >
> > > really realized in physical reality)
> >
> > why would you say that? if you throw a dart at a number line, the
> > probability of hitting a rational number is zero! meanwhile,
> > irrational numbers like pi are everywhere in "physical reality"
(if
> > it means anything for a rational number to be realized in physical
> > reality).
>
> I think the probability is 1....unless you can show me an
infinitely
> fine-grained piece of paper....

wherever the grains are, they're far more likely to be at irrational
positions than rational ones.

> Or for that matter, a perfectly round circle, which also challenges
what you
> say about pi...

why would any 'defects' in circles conspire to make the circumference
and diameter have a *rational* ratio? sounds like fairies to me . . .

> Not that I deny the existence of irrational numbers as mathematical
objects,
> or what you say about there being infinately many more of these
irrational
> numbers than the rationals, but that they are impossible to
manifest in
> physical reality as we now understand it (i.e. quanta, which could
be in
> error, but seems unlikely, as it has been the most successful
scientific
> theory of the 20th century!!!)

if you think that quantum mechanics in some way limits natural
proportions to be rational numbers, you're mistaken. i'd love to
discuss quantum mechanics with you (that's my field of education),
but this is not the place -- maybe the metatuning list?

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

Hello

> > > Frano?=ois
> >
> > > I do not buy the Pythagorean scale for singers. For violin family
> > > >perhaps, due to the tuning in fifth,
> >
> > > Carl
> > > Across strings, but what about finger placement!
> >
> > The idea is that open string resonates when no bowed and provides a
> > sort of pythagorean background. But that is a totalyu other topic.
>
> ok, so on that other topic, how does that make any sense? describe
> this to me in more detail, with some examples.
>

I thought that it was a "generally admited" idea.

But perhaps I overinterpreted something somewhere....

It is generally said that the most brillant key for (string) orchestra
is C major (is that right?). Why is it so? I suppose that it is
because all the note of the C scale can excite some (in fact many)
modes (overtones) of the remaining open strings (G3, D4, A4, E5).

So, if the violinist seeks brilliance, he/she shall try to lock with
the overtones of the remaining open strings. To do so he/she shall
bases the scale on the (very short indeed) chain of fifth of the
string tuning + their overtones. That should produce a biais toward
pythagorean tuning.

I have not checked the actual possibilities (check each fingering
against remaining open string and see what interval shall lock to
maximum number of mode on open string). Doing so may be sufficient to
proves me right or wrong.

Further, I am not sure of the importance of the coupling between the
bowed strings and the others strings, but it is probably significant,
as long as some renaissance and early baroque instruments have
sometimes "sympathetic strings" just for this purpose.

Finally this biais toward pythagorean tuning, (if it exists at all) is
of less and less importance as we go to tonalities that farther and
farther away from C major.

That is the idea.

yours truly

François Laferrière

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere"
<francois.laferriere@o...> wrote:

> I have not checked the actual possibilities (check each fingering
> against remaining open string and see what interval shall lock to
> maximum number of mode on open string). Doing so may be sufficient
to
> proves me right or wrong.
>
> Further, I am not sure of the importance of the coupling between the
> bowed strings and the others strings, but it is probably
significant,
> as long as some renaissance and early baroque instruments have
> sometimes "sympathetic strings" just for this purpose.

yes, but have you considered the extent to which the unbowed strings
are *muted* by the player's left hand?

also, weren't the sympathetic strings very different in construction,
so that they would sustain much longer than the bowed strings, and
thus work much better to provide sympathetic resonance than the
unplayed bowed strings ever could?

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

> Francois:
> > Further, I am not sure of the importance of the coupling between the
> > bowed strings and the others strings, but it is probably
> significant,
> > as long as some renaissance and early baroque instruments have
> > sometimes "sympathetic strings" just for this purpose.

> Paul:
> yes, but have you considered the extent to which the unbowed strings
> are *muted* by the player's left hand?

No, I didn't considered that, this probably dramatically limit this
possility.

> also, weren't the sympathetic strings very different in construction,
> so that they would sustain much longer than the bowed strings, and
> thus work much better to provide sympathetic resonance than the
> unplayed bowed strings ever could?

You are correct again,

So all this discourse about the "brightness" of C major is just a
matter of keyboard instrument tuning? I hardly believe it!!!

François Laferrière

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere"
<francois.laferriere@o...> wrote:

> It is generally said that the most brillant key for (string)
>orchestra
> is C major (is that right?). Why is it so? I suppose that it is
> because all the note

all of them?

> of the C scale can excite some (in fact many)
> modes (overtones) of the remaining open strings (G3, D4, A4, E5).

> So, if the violinist seeks brilliance, he/she shall try to lock with
> the overtones of the remaining open strings. To do so he/she shall
> bases the scale on the (very short indeed) chain of fifth of the
> string tuning + their overtones. That should produce a biais toward
> pythagorean tuning.

but how would C and F be tuned according to this strategy? the
pythagorean C and F are not overtones of any of the open strings. B
would seem to have two possible tunings according to this theory . . .

now you said string orchestra . . . wouldn't that include 'cello,
whose lowest note is C? i think that's the whole reason for the C
major thing right there -- a solid, vibratoless tonic low bass note
that is reliably in tune!

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

> I don't think anyone doubts that barbershop _harmony_ is
justly
> intoned, and I think we agree that your ears can be relied upon
to
> tell you that. But to convince us that there is no significant tonic
> drift through time, or that all melodic motion keeps within a few
> cents of a single 12-note JI scale (or whatever), I'm afraid you'd
> have to present some measurements. Most ears are
notoriously
> unreliable here.
>
First, tonic drift can happen but is a bad thing to be avoided. The
best quartets have no real drift at all. Also, I NEVER said
anything about limiting to a 12-note scale. What a weird
assumption from microtonalists that I would bother limiting to
that. Tests I'm aware of so far, such as by Dr. Jim Richards
show barbershoppers singing in 7-limit ratios with tonic without
drift. These ratios are as complex as 567/512, which is needed
to sing a 7th over an 81/64 root. I don't know if that ratio has
been tested, but I do not that no tests so far have shown notes
clearly outside of JI (within the BEST quartets).

> perhaps it would be more useful if
> you get hold of some spectrum analysis/pitch extraction
software and
> learn how to use it properly (FFTs and audio-compression
make it very
> easy to fool yourself into thinking you've found JI when it isn't
> really there), and use it to analyse the horizontal motion of
some
> good Barbershop recordings.

Great suggestion. Any idea where I would start even looking for
that software? And is it something I could afford or learn to use?
I definitely would be interested in following up on this. Thanks
again.

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:
>
> > I don't think anyone doubts that barbershop _harmony_ is
> justly
> > intoned, and I think we agree that your ears can be relied upon
> to
> > tell you that. But to convince us that there is no significant
tonic
> > drift through time, or that all melodic motion keeps within a few
> > cents of a single 12-note JI scale (or whatever), I'm afraid you'd
> > have to present some measurements. Most ears are
> notoriously
> > unreliable here.
> >
> First, tonic drift can happen but is a bad thing to be avoided.
The
> best quartets have no real drift at all. Also, I NEVER said
> anything about limiting to a 12-note scale. What a weird
> assumption from microtonalists that I would bother limiting to
> that.

no one made that assumption. the person who wrote the above probably
hasn't followed all your posts, which is why they wrote "whatever".

> Tests I'm aware of so far, such as by Dr. Jim Richards
> show barbershoppers singing in 7-limit ratios with tonic without
> drift. These ratios are as complex as 567/512, which is needed
> to sing a 7th over an 81/64 root. I don't know if that ratio has
> been tested, but I do not that no tests so far have shown notes
> clearly outside of JI (within the BEST quartets).

i'd like to know exactly what tests were done and what they *do* show
(using solid statistical inference, rather than biased interpretation
of data).

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

> i'd like to know exactly what tests were done and what they *do*
show
> (using solid statistical inference, rather than biased
interpretation
> of data).

Ok, while I don't have the tests myself I can tell you exactly what
Dr. Richards wrote in his book and told me personally when I
asked him about further details:

He explains in his book the problem of drift, and then says that
the solution is to go sharp to the pythagorean note at the exact
point that the harmony leaves the tonic chord and then to tune
everything justly in a return to tonic. When I discussed this with
him, he added this comment: When he analyzed the singing of a
lead alone, the tuning was diatonic (not in tune with pythagorean
roots ever), but when he asked the same lead to imagine the
harmony around him and sing again the result was different and
tuned correctly with the would-be raised roots of certain chords.

Wish I had more to give you, but that's what I've got right now.

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere"
> <francois.laferriere@o...> wrote:
>
> > It is generally said that the most brillant key for (string)
> >orchestra
> > is C major (is that right?). Why is it so? I suppose that it is
> > because all the note

> Paul:
> all of them?

> François:
> > of the C scale can excite some (in fact many)
> > modes (overtones) of the remaining open strings (G3, D4, A4, E5).
>
> > So, if the violinist seeks brilliance, he/she shall try to lock with
> > the overtones of the remaining open strings. To do so he/she shall
> > bases the scale on the (very short indeed) chain of fifth of the
> > string tuning + their overtones. That should produce a biais toward
> > pythagorean tuning.
>
> but how would C and F be tuned according to this strategy? the
> pythagorean C and F are not overtones of any of the open strings. B
> would seem to have two possible tunings according to this theory .

Oups... I suppose you are right again. So the violin scale should be
(at least in C major) a sort of hybrid between "natural" and
pythagorean (if any coupling with open string exists).

> now you said string orchestra . . . wouldn't that include 'cello,
> whose lowest note is C? i think that's the whole reason for the C
> major thing right there -- a solid, vibratoless tonic low bass note
> that is reliably in tune!

I like it! I like simple explanations! Having a solid root to give
confidence to the other fretless musicians should produce a sound of a
certain defined quality. Does that qualify for "brilliant"?

yours truly

François Laferrière

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

> >Also to clarify the pythagorean issue, the circle of fifths style
> >III-VI-II-V-I progression is common in barbershop, where the
> >roots of such a progression must be pythagorean to not go
flat.
> >I have even tested singing 81/64 vs. 5/4 to unknowing
> >barbershoppers who have repeatedly successfully identified
> >whether I jumped to a III chord or stayed on tonic just from the
> >one bass note.
>
> Exactly what have you tested? Can you give any more detail?
>
> -Carl

First off the Pythagorean roots is only for circle of fifths type
progressions. And I'm not aware of any barbershop piece that
has other camma problem progressions like IV-ii-V. I don't think
that happens in barbershop that I'm aware of, at least not
typically.

As for MY tests, well, this is less than scientific I'll admit, but I've
done two things: 1. sang what I believe is 81/64 vs. 5/4 and
asked barbershoppers to sing for me what might happen next /
where I am in the music, and 2. played the exact tones produced
by JI Calc and asked the same question. Consistently 81/64
makes a barbershopper feel that we're about to head around the
circle of fifths back to tonic, and 5/4 does not feel that way. Also,
there is zero doubt that when a quartet sings tonic they use 5/4.

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Very good point. I would have to say that I think what Mathieu
says makes sense to me. That temperament allows for a
"strange, magical (whatever)" jump between otherwise distant
harmonic relationships. But I believe there is some sort of
sleight of ear that allows this, that the listener is missing the
whole picture of what is happening. The listener is not as
confident in being really inside the music as in JI. But that in no
way degrades the usefulness of such an effect. My feeling is that
even a tempered major chord has a degree of "vagueness" that
JI does not have, and this will be there whether we discuss a
single somewhat vague chord or a progression of them.

I also find it interesting that barbershop harmony (one of the
most tuning conscious styles I know of) is absent of many of the
seemingly simple temperament-needing progressions that
you're talking about. I also think that the vibrato that is common
in many other singing styles produces similar effects to that of
temperament regardless of any attempt otherwise to sing purely.

I will see what I can figure out to get a good barbershop
recording and score available for the list. On your end do you
think you could send a recording in which one of these
progressions you're mentioning is done with each chord having
clarity and resonance even similar to that of barbershop? I'm not
sure I've ever heard such a thing. And I'd like to see what
non-theoretically barbershoppers might think of it.

Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> you're still talking about a single chord though, right? what
about a
> chord *progression*, of chords that are just in themselves, but
> involving *horizontal* movement that would not be possible in
strict
> ji (assuming you don't use very complex ratios to simulate
> temperament)? in such a case, i definitely don't agree that the
> listener is confused as to affect. i think the listener is least
> confused when the *scale* (typically diatonic) is clear, and then
any
> play of harmonies from within that scale, done artfully, is going
to
> evoke feelings, which are not inherently more or less
ambiguous as
> the pitches are tempered or strict JI. in fact, the strict JI
> solutions typically carry more ambiguity to my ear, since either
> comma shifts or comma drift will ambiguate the pitch level of
one or
> more scale pitches, and pitch memory is one of the strongest
> organizing forces in tonal music. that's how i hear it, at least.

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> you might not call it temperament, but what francois and carl
> described seems far closer to reality for most styles of western
> music that something like your description of barbershop
would. each
> singer has some amount of pitch memory for each of the scale
tones,
> and will have more or less luck (often less) adjusting around
> this "fixed" reference to make each pitch sound right in each
chordal
> context, while all the other singers do the same.

This agrees with my understanding too. I've sung in many
groups over the years with this feeling too. However, I would
also agree my barbershop description is different. Barbershop
is extremely unique and I have trouble comparing it to any other
style of western choral music. The clarity and resonance of
Barbershop is beyond what I've experienced in nearly any other
context.

As far as using specific notes etc. my barbershop ear tells me
that 81/64 and 5/4 are two different notes, and it'd rankle my ear
to hear one of them slide or be off. They do not function in the
same section of the music and they each have a unique feel and
musical pull. In barbershop Basses are used to singing 81/64
because arrangers almost never give them 5/4. Thus a typical
barbershop problem is that when a bass has to be on the third
of a chord (5/4) there is often difficulty. But the best singer will
remember that the note in that place is a different note. They do
not think only "I have to sing flatter" they lower their pitch until they
get the feeling and sense of this new note and remember its
feeling. I believe (I'll do tests when I get the tools) that an
excellent bass will clearly sing a different pitch depending on
whether they are on the third of the chord or not if they know the
song well even when singing alone. I think barbershoppers
learn not just to adapt pitches, but to identify by feeling far more
than 12 discreet pitches which are needed both for context and
could alone imply the surrounding context when sing alone.

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akj@rcn.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:
>
> > >Also to clarify the pythagorean issue, the circle of fifths
style
> > >III-VI-II-V-I progression is common in barbershop, where the
> > >roots of such a progression must be pythagorean to not go
> flat.
> > >I have even tested singing 81/64 vs. 5/4 to unknowing
> > >barbershoppers who have repeatedly successfully identified
> > >whether I jumped to a III chord or stayed on tonic just from the
> > >one bass note.
> >
> > Exactly what have you tested? Can you give any more detail?
> >
> > -Carl
>
> First off the Pythagorean roots is only for circle of fifths type
> progressions. And I'm not aware of any barbershop piece that
> has other camma problem progressions like IV-ii-V. I don't think
> that happens in barbershop that I'm aware of, at least not
> typically.
>
> As for MY tests, well, this is less than scientific I'll admit, but
I've
> done two things: 1. sang what I believe is 81/64 vs. 5/4 and
> asked barbershoppers to sing for me what might happen next /
> where I am in the music, and 2. played the exact tones produced
> by JI Calc and asked the same question. Consistently 81/64
> makes a barbershopper feel that we're about to head around the
> circle of fifths back to tonic, and 5/4 does not feel that way.
Also,
> there is zero doubt that when a quartet sings tonic they use 5/4.

sorry to be so blunt, but it seems like you're basing an awful lot on
this one observation concerning this one chord progression in this
one style of music!

interestingly, i've had very much this same experience playing around
with 22-equal, where the 5/4 is nearly just, but a chain of four
fifths yields something extremely close to 9/7! after hearing a few
chord changes in 22-equal, a chord built on this 9/7 consistently
makes me feel that i'm about to head around the circle of fifths back
to the tonic. this leads to many scale tones occuring in two
positions, 1/22 octave apart from one another, which my ear can't
accept unless i hide them by filling in the scale chromatically or
hyperchromatically.

so i agree that root progression by perfect fifth is very powerful
and can be imagined out several steps. however,

() minor triads have a more ambiguous root than major triads;

() the perfect fifths themselves are somewhat mutable and the ear
will adapt to the context.

my interpretation of your observation would be as follows: barbershop
is sung in block chords, not contrapuntally -- the voices, tuned to a
harmonic series chord in each verticality, lose their independence
and fuse into a single "timbre" with a clear fundamental and harmonic
overtones. the fundamental pitch of this fused "timbre" is then the
primary pitch information that is being tracked, the individual
voices tending to determine timbral elements rather than making their
individual pitches consciously heard, much like the partials do in a
single voice or other instrument with clear pitch. now, as to these
overall fundamental pitches that are making themselves known, the
listener will rely on internal templates of horizontal intervals to
assess the appropriateness of, and to mentally target before singing,
the intervals by which the fused chord will progress. these internal
templates of horizontal intervals are, based on all the evidence i've
seen and my extensive experimentation with alternate tuning systems,
extremely mutable and almost entirely determined by experience. given
that today in the areas where barbershop is practiced, very few
people ever get to experience solidly produced intervals (between
fundamental pitches) very different from those of 12-equal, but
instead get virtually their entire instrumental musical diet in 12-
equal, i'm not surprised that barbershop quartets are inclined to
have their fundamental pitches move by such intervals (which are
close to the pythagorean ones you think they're targeting). the 5/4
would be familiar to the singer only through the experience of
vertically "locking in", and since, experientially, it sounds "wrong"
as a horizontal interval between fundamental pitches, the
barbershopper understands the interval in the former terms.

i don't think you have nearly enough evidence to decide between my
interpretation and yours, and it still only concerns one kind of
progression in one kind of music. a single purple cow doesn't provide
(much) evidence that there exist no green pigs. listen to some
georgian choral music, or african balafon music, or balinese gamelan,
or robert johnson (pick only one) for a solid week or two. you'll be
amazed as to how radically altered your internal template of
horizontal intervals will be, and you might even find yourself
wanting to sing intervals you never thought it possible, or at
least "natural", to sing! maybe a barbershop quartet going though
such an experience together will come out creating a new style of
music where locked-in, harmonic series chords progress by such
intervals. now there's something that would be a progressive
contribution to our culture, and that would be interesting to listen
to!

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:

> Very good point. I would have to say that I think what Mathieu
> says makes sense to me. That temperament allows for a
> "strange, magical (whatever)" jump between otherwise distant
> harmonic relationships.

actually, i don't buy mathieu's theory of "jumps" at all! instead,
it's clear to me that the lattice, in the case of temperament,
smoothly bends around to meet itself, and there is no point where a
mental "jump" occurs unless one has specifically trained oneself in
strict JI and hears everything in terms of such a template.

> But I believe there is some sort of
> sleight of ear that allows this, that the listener is missing the
> whole picture of what is happening. The listener is not as
> confident in being really inside the music as in JI. But that in
no
> way degrades the usefulness of such an effect.

> My feeling is that
> even a tempered major chord has a degree of "vagueness" that
> JI does not have,

this i can agree with. but that says nothing about adaptive ji, since
each verticality there is just (taken alone).

> and this will be there whether we discuss a
> single somewhat vague chord or a progression of them.

what if the vague chords progress by just intervals? does that
decrease the vagueness in any way?

> I will see what I can figure out to get a good barbershop
> recording and score available for the list. On your end do you
> think you could send a recording in which one of these
> progressions you're mentioning is done with each chord having
> clarity and resonance even similar to that of barbershop?

it may not be one of these progressions, but there's a perfect
example of something like this on the page that, according to

http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/me.htm

should be at

http://sonic-arts.org/td/monzo/i-iv-v7-i/I-IV-V-I.htm

but doesn't seem to be up right now. monz, can you restore this page?

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> >Also to clarify the pythagorean issue, the circle of fifths style
>> >III-VI-II-V-I progression is common in barbershop, where the
>> >roots of such a progression must be pythagorean to not go
>> >flat. I have even tested singing 81/64 vs. 5/4 to unknowing
>> >barbershoppers who have repeatedly successfully identified
>> >whether I jumped to a III chord or stayed on tonic just from the
>> >one bass note.
>>
>> Exactly what have you tested? Can you give any more detail?
>>
>> -Carl
>
>First off the Pythagorean roots is only for circle of fifths type
>progressions.

Ok.

>And I'm not aware of any barbershop piece that
>has other camma problem progressions like IV-ii-V.

????!

>As for MY tests, well, this is less than scientific I'll admit, but
>I've done two things: 1. sang what I believe is 81/64 vs. 5/4 and
>asked barbershoppers to sing for me what might happen next /
>where I am in the music, and 2. played the exact tones produced
>by JI Calc and asked the same question. Consistently 81/64
>makes a barbershopper feel that we're about to head around the
>circle of fifths back to tonic, and 5/4 does not feel that way.

Ok.

-Carl

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

This is one of the most thought-out responses I have read.
There's a lot of excellent observations there. I will have to admit
that I don't have evidence against nor do I even have any problem
with most of these conclusions. However, I am still questing to
truly figure this out for myself. Thanks for the encouragement.

There still is one thing your explanation doesn't quite get to. Yes,
to a large extent barbershop harmony functions like a single
sound. However single sounds cannot approach the
barbershop effect of having a clear, flowing melody within
relatively stable yet moving harmonic structures. The interesting
thing is that if a lead is singing a melody while imaging the
harmony and adjusting for it, both 5/4 and 81/64 (or in your thoery
some higher close by note) will be clearly used in a single part
that is singing a melody.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> interestingly, i've had very much this same experience playing
around
> with 22-equal, where the 5/4 is nearly just, but a chain of four
> fifths yields something extremely close to 9/7! after hearing a
few
> chord changes in 22-equal, a chord built on this 9/7
consistently
> makes me feel that i'm about to head around the circle of fifths
back
> to the tonic. this leads to many scale tones occuring in two
> positions, 1/22 octave apart from one another, which my ear
can't
> accept unless i hide them by filling in the scale chromatically or
> hyperchromatically.
>
> so i agree that root progression by perfect fifth is very powerful
> and can be imagined out several steps. however,
>
> () minor triads have a more ambiguous root than major triads;
>
> () the perfect fifths themselves are somewhat mutable and the
ear
> will adapt to the context.
>
> my interpretation of your observation would be as follows:
barbershop
> is sung in block chords, not contrapuntally -- the voices, tuned
to a
> harmonic series chord in each verticality, lose their
independence
> and fuse into a single "timbre" with a clear fundamental and
harmonic
> overtones. the fundamental pitch of this fused "timbre" is then
the
> primary pitch information that is being tracked, the individual
> voices tending to determine timbral elements rather than
making their
> individual pitches consciously heard, much like the partials do
in a
> single voice or other instrument with clear pitch. now, as to
these
> overall fundamental pitches that are making themselves
known, the
> listener will rely on internal templates of horizontal intervals to
> assess the appropriateness of, and to mentally target before
singing,
> the intervals by which the fused chord will progress. these
internal
> templates of horizontal intervals are, based on all the evidence
i've
> seen and my extensive experimentation with alternate tuning
systems,
> extremely mutable and almost entirely determined by
experience. given
> that today in the areas where barbershop is practiced, very few
> people ever get to experience solidly produced intervals
(between
> fundamental pitches) very different from those of 12-equal, but
> instead get virtually their entire instrumental musical diet in 12-
> equal, i'm not surprised that barbershop quartets are inclined
to
> have their fundamental pitches move by such intervals (which
are
> close to the pythagorean ones you think they're targeting). the
5/4
> would be familiar to the singer only through the experience of
> vertically "locking in", and since, experientially, it sounds
"wrong"
> as a horizontal interval between fundamental pitches, the
> barbershopper understands the interval in the former terms.
>
> i don't think you have nearly enough evidence to decide
between my
> interpretation and yours, and it still only concerns one kind of
> progression in one kind of music. a single purple cow doesn't
provide
> (much) evidence that there exist no green pigs. listen to some
> georgian choral music, or african balafon music, or balinese
gamelan,
> or robert johnson (pick only one) for a solid week or two. you'll
be
> amazed as to how radically altered your internal template of
> horizontal intervals will be, and you might even find yourself
> wanting to sing intervals you never thought it possible, or at
> least "natural", to sing! maybe a barbershop quartet going
though
> such an experience together will come out creating a new style
of
> music where locked-in, harmonic series chords progress by
such
> intervals. now there's something that would be a progressive
> contribution to our culture, and that would be interesting to
listen
> to!

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:

> However single sounds cannot approach the
> barbershop effect of having a clear, flowing melody within
> relatively stable yet moving harmonic structures.

a single voice can, if skilled enough in overtone singing. david
hykes calls it the fourth or fifth level of harmonic singing, where
the singer has independent control over the fundamental and over
which harmonic is resonating at any particular time.

> The interesting
> thing is that if a lead is singing a melody while imaging the
> harmony and adjusting for it, both 5/4 and 81/64 (or in your thoery
> some higher close by note) will be clearly used in a single part
> that is singing a melody.

yes -- in fact, despite my debating you (which hopefully isn't over,
now that carl has joined in), i've proposed exactly the same solution
as you for barbershop quite a while ago (possibly in the mills
archives), since starting with a pythagorean spine would mean a
maximum 'leeway' of only 27 cents in any note would be required to
get 4:5:6:7 dominant seventh chords over every root. meanwhile, your
description reminds me of singing the microtonal melody of my
piece 'tibia' in the shower -- totally impossible unless i'm
imagining the harmony at the same time . . .

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> However single sounds cannot approach the
>> barbershop effect of having a clear, flowing melody within
>> relatively stable yet moving harmonic structures.
>
>a single voice can, if skilled enough in overtone singing. david
>hykes calls it the fourth or fifth level of harmonic singing, where
>the singer has independent control over the fundamental and over
>which harmonic is resonating at any particular time.

That is cool, but I don't think it's quite the same effect as
multiphonic music. Barbershop isn't unique in this, though, as
you point out. Any good a cappella chamber choir or brass
choir should do it. What makes Barbershop unique is the 7-limit.

>yes -- in fact, despite my debating you (which hopefully isn't over,
>now that carl has joined in), i've proposed exactly the same solution
>as you for barbershop quite a while ago (possibly in the mills
>archives), since starting with a pythagorean spine would mean a
>maximum 'leeway' of only 27 cents in any note would be required to
>get 4:5:6:7 dominant seventh chords over every root. meanwhile, your
>description reminds me of singing the microtonal melody of my
>piece 'tibia' in the shower -- totally impossible unless i'm
>imagining the harmony at the same time . . .

Not sure what exactly what issue you're hoping I can help out on.
But surely, imagining a harmony has a profound effect on how I
sing a melody.

-Carl

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
>
> > I will see what I can figure out to get a good barbershop
> > recording and score available for the list. On your end do you
> > think you could send a recording in which one of these
> > progressions you're mentioning is done with each chord having
> > clarity and resonance even similar to that of barbershop?
>
> it may not be one of these progressions, but there's a perfect
> example of something like this on the page that, according to
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/me.htm
>
> should be at
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/td/monzo/i-iv-v7-i/I-IV-V-I.htm
>
> but doesn't seem to be up right now. monz, can you restore
> this page?

thanks for pointing that out. i never did upload the
files for that page when the Sonic Arts site changed domains.
it's done now ... but i might have to change the MIDI
filenames from upper- to lower-case -- let me know if
the MIDIs do or don't work for you.

-monz

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"

/tuning/topicId_47131.html#47290
> As far as using specific notes etc. my barbershop ear tells me
> that 81/64 and 5/4 are two different notes, and it'd rankle my ear
> to hear one of them slide or be off. They do not function in the
> same section of the music and they each have a unique feel and
> musical pull. In barbershop Basses are used to singing 81/64
> because arrangers almost never give them 5/4. Thus a typical
> barbershop problem is that when a bass has to be on the third
> of a chord (5/4) there is often difficulty. But the best singer
will
> remember that the note in that place is a different note. They do
> not think only "I have to sing flatter" they lower their pitch
until they
> get the feeling and sense of this new note and remember its
> feeling. I believe (I'll do tests when I get the tools) that an
> excellent bass will clearly sing a different pitch depending on
> whether they are on the third of the chord or not if they know the
> song well even when singing alone. I think barbershoppers
> learn not just to adapt pitches, but to identify by feeling far
more
> than 12 discreet pitches which are needed both for context and
> could alone imply the surrounding context when sing alone.

***To Paul and others: When Jerry Eskelin was doing his testing on
the "high third" did we determine that the "high third" was closer to
81/64 than to 5/4, or was is someplace inbetween. I can't recall...

Joseph P.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47131.html#47299

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
> <backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:
>
> > On your end do you
> > think you could send a recording in which one of these
> > progressions you're mentioning is done with each chord having
> > clarity and resonance even similar to that of barbershop?
>
> i've heard recordings of palestrina like this. but you might want
to
> try the lassus midi file here:
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/dict/adaptiveji.htm
>
> unfortunately for me, one of the voices comes out with a lot of
> vibrato on my soundcard, so it doesn't have the locked-in sound of
> barbershop. but maybe someone can go in and change them all to
> vibrato-less timbres, and then you might have an example of the
kind
> of thing you're asking for.

***I was kinda hoping this would be a beautiful choir singing Lasso,
but instead it was a singing sound card...

J. Pehrson

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_47131.html#47323

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"
> >
> > > I will see what I can figure out to get a good barbershop
> > > recording and score available for the list. On your end do you
> > > think you could send a recording in which one of these
> > > progressions you're mentioning is done with each chord having
> > > clarity and resonance even similar to that of barbershop?
> >
> > it may not be one of these progressions, but there's a perfect
> > example of something like this on the page that, according to
> >
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/me.htm
> >
> > should be at
> >
> > http://sonic-arts.org/td/monzo/i-iv-v7-i/I-IV-V-I.htm
> >
> > but doesn't seem to be up right now. monz, can you restore
> > this page?
>
>
>
> thanks for pointing that out. i never did upload the
> files for that page when the Sonic Arts site changed domains.
> it's done now ... but i might have to change the MIDI
> filenames from upper- to lower-case -- let me know if
> the MIDIs do or don't work for you.
>
>
>
> -monz

***The MIDIs are working. At least I tried *two* of them. Thanks,
Monz!

Joe P.

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Monz just reposted it:

http://sonic-arts.org/td/monzo/i-iv-v7-i/I-IV-V-I.htm

Anyway, I'd like to say two things about this page. First, my
feeling about these versions is this: The 12ET one is buzzy and
"vague," the one with JI calues and 4/3 held over is acceptible
but almost too extreme in contrast of consonance and
dissonance between the chords, and the adaptive tuning one
sounds at least as if not more off/strange/wrong to me as the
one in which 4/3 changes to 21/16. I had my roommates listen
without telling them anything about what this was and the
response was that if anything, the adaptive one was weird and
wrong while most of the others (besides the STUPID ones like
4/3 going to 27/20) sounded just different but all ok. Maybe that's
just a bad example of adaptive tuning.

Anyway, my second point is that, as logical and simple and
common as this progression seems, and while it certainly
doesn't brake any arranging rules, this exact arrangement of
notes is not something I think I recall ever hearing in
barbershop. I think this progression would simply sound better
with some revoicing between chords. I think the result would be
a better sound, with the same harmonic feeling and less
weirdness. And I don't see why revoicing would be considered
any more radical a solution than applying some form of adaptive
tuning!

Anyway, I really tried to be objective and I think that if I HAD to
have these notes in this exact sequence, I'd choose the JI
version where 4/3 dips to 21/16. It sounds unusual at first, but is
a more easily acquired taste to me than the adaptive one.

Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_47131.html#47276
>
> > [aaron wrote:]
> >
> > >Also to clarify the pythagorean issue, the circle of fifths style
> > >III-VI-II-V-I progression is common in barbershop, where the
> > >roots of such a progression must be pythagorean to not go
flat.
> >
> > must be pythagorean? there are myriad other possibilities.
> >
>
> ***I think we need to go over Monz' wonderful webpage with
tunings
> for I-IV-V7-I... of course, there was no "II" in that one.
>
> By the way, Monz, where is this page now?? Did you move it to
the
> new website.
>
> best,
>
> Joe P.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"

/tuning/topicId_47131.html#47335

<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:
> Monz just reposted it:
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/td/monzo/i-iv-v7-i/I-IV-V-I.htm
>
> Anyway, I'd like to say two things about this page. First, my
> feeling about these versions is this: The 12ET one is buzzy and
> "vague," the one with JI calues and 4/3 held over is acceptible
> but almost too extreme in contrast of consonance and
> dissonance between the chords, and the adaptive tuning one
> sounds at least as if not more off/strange/wrong to me as the
> one in which 4/3 changes to 21/16. I had my roommates listen
> without telling them anything about what this was and the
> response was that if anything, the adaptive one was weird and
> wrong while most of the others (besides the STUPID ones like
> 4/3 going to 27/20) sounded just different but all ok. Maybe
that's
> just a bad example of adaptive tuning.
>

***That's funny, since, as I recall, the adaptive one that Dave
Keenan dreamed up seemed the smoothest of all. I guess I'll listen
to all of them again...

J. Pehrson

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

hello Carl

I have checked out barbershop-specrtogram file. And especially the
up.wav file.
In this file, I have performed a FFT with a much longer window than
you (65536 sample instead of 8192) so that the frequency resolution is
much better. It is possible to do so because the signal is remarquably
stable throughout the sample.

To estimate the four pitches I used an heuristic that pick the "most
reliable" harmonic instead of using only fundamental or computing a
weighted average of harmonics.

My results confirm yours, with some more accuracy. The root C3 is at
128,28 which suggest a rather low tuning fork (34 cents below A440).

---------------------
C3 128.28 0
G3 193.37 +10
E4 322.01 -4
B4b 453 -14

The minor third E-G is quite just 5:6 at 314 (316) cents. The small
G3-B4b at 276 suggest a (267) 6:7 but is still rather large. At 396,
the C-E is too large to qualify for just 4:5 (386) but a litlle small
for a pythagorean 408; in fact it is just in between.

You state in your text that it is a recording that cannot match the
intonation technique of "modern" barbershop.

So I checked in the other files you posted for long stable 7th chord.
I must admit that my musical ear education is close to nothing and
without a score I am quite at lost to identify chords.

Nevertheless I found a very nice long 9th chord (A2b-C4-G4b-B4b is it
spelled correctly?) near the end of "no more sorrow" ( around 2'41")
that you post.

what I measured is

A2b 105,04 Hz (+20 wrt ET A440) 0
C4 1594 (5/4 + 8c)
G4b 2169 (7/4)
B4b 2606 (9/8)

The 7:4 and 9:8 are astonishly precise (well within the accuracy of my
measurement). As in the previous example the third id between just and
pythagorean, just a few cents short of 12ET.

Cannot really deduce anything of two example, but the great accuracy
4:7:9 in the latter make me think that the large third cannot be
random at this level of vocal skill.

If you can pinpoint (file and time) some other chords that seems of
interest, I may try to find a few hours to analyse them as well

By the way, thanks Carl for mp3 of barbershop quartet, that's really
great music.

yours truly

François Laferrière

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere"
> <francois.laferriere@o...> wrote:
>
> > By the way, thanks Carl for mp3 of barbershop quartet, that's really
> > great music.
>
> What do the numbers mean?

Sorry I forgot to explain this clearly
in the first table, the first number is frequency in hertz
the last column id the distance in cents from 12ET, assuming that C3
root is 0
---------------------
C3 128.28 0
G3 193.37 +10
E4 322.01 -4
B4b 453 -14

The next table is different, it gives the distance in cent from the
root (except 1st line which is the estimated pitch of root

A2b 105,04 Hz (+20 wrt ET A440) 0
C4 1594 (5/4 + 8c)
G4b 2169 (7/4)
B4b 2606 (9/8 - 2c)

> It would be nice to see these studied further.

yes indeed ! :-)

yours truly

François Laferrière

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>I have checked out barbershop-specrtogram file. And especially the
>up.wav file.

Awesome! Thanks, Francois!

>To estimate the four pitches I used an heuristic that pick the "most
>reliable" harmonic instead of using only fundamental or computing a
>weighted average of harmonics.

Cool. I used the score. :)

>My results confirm yours, with some more accuracy. The root C3 is at
>128,28 which suggest a rather low tuning fork (34 cents below A440).
>
>---------------------
>C3 128.28 0
>G3 193.37 +10
>E4 322.01 -4
>B4b 453 -14

Really 453.00 on B4b?

>Nevertheless I found a very nice long 9th chord (A2b-C4-G4b-B4b is it
>spelled correctly?) near the end of "no more sorrow" ( around 2'41")
>that you post.
>
>what I measured is
>
>A2b 105,04 Hz (+20 wrt ET A440) 0
>C4 1594 (5/4 + 8c)
>G4b 2169 (7/4)
>B4b 2606 (9/8)
>
>The 7:4 and 9:8 are astonishly precise (well within the accuracy of my
>measurement). As in the previous example the third id between just and
>pythagorean, just a few cents short of 12ET.

Interesting....

-Carl

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere"
<francois.laferriere@o...> wrote:
> hello Carl
>
> I have checked out barbershop-specrtogram file. And especially the
> up.wav file.
> In this file, I have performed a FFT with a much longer window than
> you (65536 sample instead of 8192) so that the frequency resolution
is
> much better. It is possible to do so because the signal is
remarquably
> stable throughout the sample.
>
> To estimate the four pitches I used an heuristic that pick the "most
> reliable" harmonic instead of using only fundamental or computing a
> weighted average of harmonics.
>
> My results confirm yours, with some more accuracy.

somehow i missed carl's original results. were they posted here, or
in private email?

> Cannot really deduce anything of two example, but the great accuracy
> 4:7:9 in the latter make me think that the large third cannot be
> random at this level of vocal skill.

yes, but note that this remarkably consistent "high third" is
still "lower" than the 12-equal major third, in contrast to jerry
eskelin's long-standing claim of a "higher" high third (in a slightly
different style of music).

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47131.html#47359

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > ***To Paul and others: When Jerry Eskelin was doing his testing
on
> > the "high third" did we determine that the "high third" was
closer
> to
> > 81/64 than to 5/4, or was is someplace inbetween. I can't
recall...
> >
> > Joseph P.
>
> jerry thought the high third was a very precise value that rounded
to
> 404 cents for quite a while, but then he said that 5/4 actually
> sounded higher to him than 400 cents in the context of a major
triad,
> he tried to "project" this illusion onto other people, and bob
> wendell and i got into a big nasty argument with him, and them he
> left . . . he's now claiming on his website that *you* (jp) heard
the
> 5/4 as higher than 400 cents initially, which is not how i remember
> things . . .
>

***I'm not seeing that, specifically, on his website, Paul. I
believe he's citing me in the context of the *triads* only, no??

I do remember that, for whatever illusory reason, a just 5/4 seemed
to "grow larger" in the context of a full triad...

But, just by itself, the 5/4 seemed, I think, about 386 cents... :)

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Thanks so much Carl for uploading these great tracks. And this
discussion is certainly getting interesting.

I will add a couple things. First, I think that Carl's tracks are
great, but he left out the ballad style pieces which often have the
most interesting and intense chords. I'm making two available:

http://www.ozmusic.com/aaron/Whatll_I_Do.mp3

is a very modern arrangement by one of the best recent quartets,
Platinum.

and

http://www.ozmusic.com/aaron/Bright_Was_The_Night.mp3

Is again the Gas House Gang, and the ultimate example of
barbershop "chord worshipping." "Bride" has something like 5
chord changes and swipes, it's fantastic.

Also, I'd to mention to everyone, that these singers are still
human, and a close approximation of a chord is pretty
acceptible. Platinum is certainly an example of near-perfect
barbershop. Still, IF what is sung chord to chord does not
introduce problems by theoretically having a just 5/4, I'd wonder if
it might be reasonable to say that it is the aim, at least
sometimes.

Well, I'd love to hear what you guys think about this stuff. I think it
is more ripe for this discussion than the older uptunes Carl gave
us (still those are great Carl, and glad to have another
barbershopper around for all this).

Aaron

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

> I will add a couple things. First, I think that Carl's tracks
> are great, but he left out the ballad style pieces which often
> have the most interesting and intense chords.

Did you miss "It never occurred to me"?

> http://www.ozmusic.com/aaron/Bright_Was_The_Night.mp3
>
> Is again the Gas House Gang, and the ultimate example of
> barbershop "chord worshipping." "Bride" has something like 5
> chord changes and swipes, it's fantastic.

I actually didn't like their performance here! But alas,
this is not a barbershop list.

>Four Voices (champions 2002) are the most tuning precise
>group I'm aware of. Noticeably more precise than most.
>Anything of there's is worth checking out.
>
>http://www.ozmusic.com/aaron/nora.mp3

That is pretty good. Looks like I need to get some
Four Voices records.

-Carl

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_47131.html#47359
>
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > ***To Paul and others: When Jerry Eskelin was doing his
testing
> on
> > > the "high third" did we determine that the "high third" was
> closer
> > to
> > > 81/64 than to 5/4, or was is someplace inbetween. I can't
> recall...
> > >
> > > Joseph P.
> >
> > jerry thought the high third was a very precise value that
rounded
> to
> > 404 cents for quite a while, but then he said that 5/4 actually
> > sounded higher to him than 400 cents in the context of a major
> triad,
> > he tried to "project" this illusion onto other people, and bob
> > wendell and i got into a big nasty argument with him, and them he
> > left . . . he's now claiming on his website that *you* (jp) heard
> the
> > 5/4 as higher than 400 cents initially, which is not how i
remember
> > things . . .
> >
>
> ***I'm not seeing that, specifically, on his website, Paul. I
> believe he's citing me in the context of the *triads* only, no??

yes, that's the context i was talking about above: "the context of a
major triad"!

> I do remember that, for whatever illusory reason, a just 5/4 seemed
> to "grow larger" in the context of a full triad...

right, but i don't recall you thinking it seemed even larger than 400
cents, which is what jerry is claiming you said.

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "backfromthesilo"

/tuning/topicId_47131.html#47391

<backfromthesilo@y...> wrote:
> Thanks so much Carl for uploading these great tracks. And this
> discussion is certainly getting interesting.
>
> I will add a couple things. First, I think that Carl's tracks are
> great, but he left out the ballad style pieces which often have the
> most interesting and intense chords. I'm making two available:
>
> http://www.ozmusic.com/aaron/Whatll_I_Do.mp3
>
> is a very modern arrangement by one of the best recent quartets,
> Platinum.
>
> and
>
> http://www.ozmusic.com/aaron/Bright_Was_The_Night.mp3
>
> Is again the Gas House Gang, and the ultimate example of
> barbershop "chord worshipping." "Bride" has something like 5
> chord changes and swipes, it's fantastic.
>
>
> Also, I'd to mention to everyone, that these singers are still
> human, and a close approximation of a chord is pretty
> acceptible. Platinum is certainly an example of near-perfect
> barbershop. Still, IF what is sung chord to chord does not
> introduce problems by theoretically having a just 5/4, I'd wonder
if
> it might be reasonable to say that it is the aim, at least
> sometimes.
>
> Well, I'd love to hear what you guys think about this stuff. I
think it
> is more ripe for this discussion than the older uptunes Carl gave
> us (still those are great Carl, and glad to have another
> barbershopper around for all this).
>
> Aaron

***Well, aesthetically I prefer these, and I think they are a better
illustration of *tuning* too...

J. Pehrson

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47131.html#47395

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_47131.html#47359
> >
> >
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > ***To Paul and others: When Jerry Eskelin was doing his
> testing
> > on
> > > > the "high third" did we determine that the "high third" was
> > closer
> > > to
> > > > 81/64 than to 5/4, or was is someplace inbetween. I can't
> > recall...
> > > >
> > > > Joseph P.
> > >
> > > jerry thought the high third was a very precise value that
> rounded
> > to
> > > 404 cents for quite a while, but then he said that 5/4 actually
> > > sounded higher to him than 400 cents in the context of a major
> > triad,
> > > he tried to "project" this illusion onto other people, and bob
> > > wendell and i got into a big nasty argument with him, and them
he
> > > left . . . he's now claiming on his website that *you* (jp)
heard
> > the
> > > 5/4 as higher than 400 cents initially, which is not how i
> remember
> > > things . . .
> > >
> >
> > ***I'm not seeing that, specifically, on his website, Paul. I
> > believe he's citing me in the context of the *triads* only, no??
>
> yes, that's the context i was talking about above: "the context of
a
> major triad"!
>
> > I do remember that, for whatever illusory reason, a just 5/4
seemed
> > to "grow larger" in the context of a full triad...
>
> right, but i don't recall you thinking it seemed even larger than
400
> cents, which is what jerry is claiming you said.

***Jerry is "stretching" the truth, as well as his major thirds when
he states:

"Another list member, Joseph Pehrson, also reported that he heard
this triad as having a third higher than tempered-tuned."

This I never said. I only said that it seemed that the third *was*
wider in the context of a complete triad, for whatever reason:
acculturation, something acoustic, dunno.

But, I never thought it was wider than 400 cents. In fact, I never
thought it even *reached* 400 cents, although it seemed to go up
somewhat from 386...

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> > Well, I'd love to hear what you guys think about this stuff. I
> think it
> > is more ripe for this discussion than the older uptunes Carl gave
> > us (still those are great Carl, and glad to have another
> > barbershopper around for all this).
> >
> > Aaron
>
>
> ***Well, aesthetically I prefer these, and I think they are a
better
> illustration of *tuning* too...
>
> J. Pehrson

still, none of these examples (thankfully) have anyone singing
*fixed* pitches of the kind you'd get out of a synth. ranging from
obvious vibrato to subtle shifts, you know these are humans singing.
and i can't even hear pitch shifts of less than 6 cents (according to
my own tests) . . .

as for the harmony, certainly a lot of the chords have intervals that
approach ji, but occasionally it seems the ji harmonies are
sacrificed for particular melodic intervals. the overall accuracy of
the ji chords is nothing to write home about either, especially
considering the high standards of some ji advocates on this list.
even disregarding those two considerations, this music certainly
gives me no reason to feel that the singers aren't operating, at
their best, in an *adaptive* fashion from an underlying melodic
template. but it'll take some measurements and valid statistical
inference to draw any real conclusions about any of this . . .

charming music, and i'm looking forward to seeing whatever
measurements get posted . . .

Barbershop and JI vs. adaptive issues

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@mappi.helsinki.fi>

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akj@rcn.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akj@rcn.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akj@rcn.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akj@rcn.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗backfromthesilo <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>