Re: [tuning] Digest Number 2721

> none of this data coressponds to the bagpipe tunings i have seen. Never have ever heard a bagpipe play a 7/4. bagpipes are still tuned to the
> traditional scales found on my site which represent the official scortish tunings. If you have a slow moving bagpipe melody such as piobairchd
> recordings. just ratios would stop the melody dead in its track. The tuning requires the ability to repeat these melodies over and over again for
> hours without creating too strong of cadence. Hence neutral trirds are not onlty the case in the british isles but almost universal among bagpipes.,
> lyllian (sp/) pipes are a more rest pipe designed to modilate and can be concidered not representative of the true tradition. The tone and power is
> also rather lacking in them also.
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 23:13:37 -0000
> From: "Paul Erlich" <perlich@aya.yale.edu>
> Subject: Re: harmonic halves of the fourth
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Braun" <nombraun@t...> wrote:
> > Paul:
> >
> > > the bagpipes are sometimes played this way, but the 7:6 is further
> > > divided into two scale steps:
> >
> > > http://www-
> personal.umich.edu/~emacpher/pipes/acoustics/hearscales.html
> >
> > Thanks. This was interesting. The link to the data page is this:
> >
> > http://www-
> personal.umich.edu/~emacpher/pipes/acoustics/chanterdata.html
> >
> > We do not see a harmonic division of the fourth, though. It also
> >seems
> > doubtful if the scales have a bias towards "7-limit Just
> >Intonation".
>
> the Gs usually form clear ratios of 7 with the drone.
>
> > It
> > looks more like a "5-limit" one, with the two Gs and the high A
> being flat
> > for some reasons. In bagpipes the coexistance of the melody tones
> with the
> > "drones" may in some cases be more important than exact scale
> intervals.
>
> yes, this is why the high G *is* so close to 7:4 from the drone in
> general. it's a very easy interval to lock into by ear.
>

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

hi kraig, living in an area (highly irish) where i hear bagpipes all
the time (outside churches, in bars, etc.), i find that the
measurements reported below are quite accurate, including the 7/4
(and clearly landing on it is no kind of cadence compared with
several of the other notes). i've never heard anything approaching
neutral thirds on them. surely there is more than one valid piping
tradition in the world -- perhaps yours is the "scottish" one -- i
don't know. there's no need to denigrate others by claiming that
there is one "true" tradition. and surely there's no reason to get
into a debate just because you've observed one tradition and the
measurements below apply to another. i can tell you that the men in
the irish pubs around here would not sit down and write a polite e-
mail if you told them their pipers didn't correspond to the "true
tradition"! :)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > none of this data coressponds to the bagpipe tunings i have seen.
Never have ever heard a bagpipe play a 7/4. bagpipes are still tuned
to the
> > traditional scales found on my site which represent the official
scortish tunings. If you have a slow moving bagpipe melody such as
piobairchd
> > recordings. just ratios would stop the melody dead in its track.
The tuning requires the ability to repeat these melodies over and
over again for
> > hours without creating too strong of cadence. Hence neutral
trirds are not onlty the case in the british isles but almost
universal among bagpipes.,
> > lyllian (sp/) pipes are a more rest pipe designed to modilate and
can be concidered not representative of the true tradition. The tone
and power is
> > also rather lacking in them also.
> >
> > Message: 13
> > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 23:13:37 -0000
> > From: "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
> > Subject: Re: harmonic halves of the fourth
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Braun" <nombraun@t...>
wrote:
> > > Paul:
> > >
> > > > the bagpipes are sometimes played this way, but the 7:6 is
further
> > > > divided into two scale steps:
> > >
> > > > http://www-
> > personal.umich.edu/~emacpher/pipes/acoustics/hearscales.html
> > >
> > > Thanks. This was interesting. The link to the data page is this:
> > >
> > > http://www-
> > personal.umich.edu/~emacpher/pipes/acoustics/chanterdata.html
> > >
> > > We do not see a harmonic division of the fourth, though. It also
> > >seems
> > > doubtful if the scales have a bias towards "7-limit Just
> > >Intonation".
> >
> > the Gs usually form clear ratios of 7 with the drone.
> >
> > > It
> > > looks more like a "5-limit" one, with the two Gs and the high A
> > being flat
> > > for some reasons. In bagpipes the coexistance of the melody
tones
> > with the
> > > "drones" may in some cases be more important than exact scale
> > intervals.
> >
> > yes, this is why the high G *is* so close to 7:4 from the drone in
> > general. it's a very easy interval to lock into by ear.
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

kraig, you and i apparently missed this the first time around -- the
measurement page below says:

"These data suggest that the conventional tuning of the chanter's G's
and D has changed significantly since MacNeill's measurements in the
mid 1950s." and the other page says "the tuning derived by Seumas
MacNeill from his measurements of 18 pipers in the early 1950's . . .
features . . . the sharp D (27/20) and high G (9/5). "

so you may be right about the "true tradition" being different --
clearly there has been significant change over time. since the
measurements were taken from "the Piping Centre 1996 Recital Series
CDs (Temple Records) as a corpus of recent, expert performances,"
while the mid 50s measurements cited include a 27/20 and a 9/5, the
tuning could have been completely different from either back when
irish and scottish traditions first began to depart from one another.

anyhow, *respect* for varying experiences i think is the key -- i
don't doubt your ear and the range of your experience with various
world musics; i would hope you'd afford others the same courtesy.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > none of this data coressponds to the bagpipe tunings i have seen.
Never have ever heard a bagpipe play a 7/4. bagpipes are still tuned
to the
> > traditional scales found on my site which represent the official
scortish tunings. If you have a slow moving bagpipe melody such as
piobairchd
> > recordings. just ratios would stop the melody dead in its track.
The tuning requires the ability to repeat these melodies over and
over again for
> > hours without creating too strong of cadence. Hence neutral
trirds are not onlty the case in the british isles but almost
universal among bagpipes.,
> > lyllian (sp/) pipes are a more rest pipe designed to modilate and
can be concidered not representative of the true tradition. The tone
and power is
> > also rather lacking in them also.
> >
> > Message: 13
> > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 23:13:37 -0000
> > From: "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
> > Subject: Re: harmonic halves of the fourth
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Braun" <nombraun@t...>
wrote:
> > > Paul:
> > >
> > > > the bagpipes are sometimes played this way, but the 7:6 is
further
> > > > divided into two scale steps:
> > >
> > > > http://www-
> > personal.umich.edu/~emacpher/pipes/acoustics/hearscales.html
> > >
> > > Thanks. This was interesting. The link to the data page is this:
> > >
> > > http://www-
> > personal.umich.edu/~emacpher/pipes/acoustics/chanterdata.html
> > >
> > > We do not see a harmonic division of the fourth, though. It also
> > >seems
> > > doubtful if the scales have a bias towards "7-limit Just
> > >Intonation".
> >
> > the Gs usually form clear ratios of 7 with the drone.
> >
> > > It
> > > looks more like a "5-limit" one, with the two Gs and the high A
> > being flat
> > > for some reasons. In bagpipes the coexistance of the melody
tones
> > with the
> > > "drones" may in some cases be more important than exact scale
> > intervals.
> >
> > yes, this is why the high G *is* so close to 7:4 from the drone in
> > general. it's a very easy interval to lock into by ear.
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > none of this data coressponds to the bagpipe tunings i have seen.
Never have ever heard a bagpipe play a 7/4. bagpipes are still tuned
to the
> > traditional scales found on my site which represent the official
scortish tunings. If you have a slow moving bagpipe melody such as
piobairchd
> > recordings. just ratios would stop the melody dead in its track.
The tuning requires the ability to repeat these melodies over and over
again for
> > hours without creating too strong of cadence. Hence neutral trirds
are not onlty the case in the british isles but almost universal among
bagpipes.,

Hi Kraig,

I understand your data is via Erv from
Podnos, Theodor H.
Title: Bagpipes and tunings [by] Theodor H. Podnos.
Published/distributed: Detroit, Mich., Information Coordinators, 1974.
Physical description: 125 p. illus. 23 cm.
Series: Detroit monographs in musicology ; no. 3
Notes: Bibliography: p. 107-111.
Subject(s): Bagpipe.

I first learned of this from you in March 2001 and emailed Ewan
MacPherson who said he would try to get to read a copy of it. I'm
guessing he never did find it, or didn't know what to make of it,
since I've emailed him a few times since, to ask if any progress, and
have had no reply.

My guess is that the great highland bagpipes started off with an
approximately neutral third and sixth (due to their Arabic past?) and
approximate Pythagorean fourth and minor sevenths. (They have
apparently always had Pythagorean fifth and major second). But these
have moved around over the years according to what may be no more than
fashion (which may have been influenced by the fashion for 12-equal on
other instruments. But never outside a range of about 50 cents. And
undoubtedly there are always many old pipes around with unfashionable
tunings at any given time, and if you wait long enough they'll come
back into vogue again. Anyway, that's my guess.

I expect Ewan MacPherson's measurements are quite accurate and
represent the current fashion.

You can see an official tuning sheet from the Australian Pipe Band
college in 1991, on my website at
http://dkeenan.com/Music/AFBPAtuning.gif
They apparently hadn't caught up with the fashion for a 7/4 seventh
and a narrow octave, since it is
9/10 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 9/5 2/1

But there is apparently no such thing as _THE_ bagpipe tuning. It is
apparently a somewhat flexible thing. Most flexible are the third and
sixth, next the seventh, and also apparently the fourth. Here are what
would seem to be the upper and lower limits.

9/10 1/1 9/8 5/4 27/20 3/2 5/3 9/5 2/1
7/8 1/1 9/8 350c 4/3 3/2 850c 7/4 2/1-30c

I love the bagpipes for the fact that, of all instruments used
commonly in the west, they alone have held out against the 12-equal tide.

-- Dave Keenan

>
>

hi Paul!
I accept you word for what they are doing in boston. i have quite a big irish music collection and can't say ( even though personally it would be
something i would like) i have heard this tuning. have very little scottish. There is a big community in San francisco also which i have spent time with.
I have played quite a bit of this music. Wouldn't expect, if fact would be dissapointed to get a polite e-mail about said subject. the fact remains
though they would be allot closer to their tradition dumping those guitars
AHHH wait. bothy band, i hear the 7th!

>
> kraig, you and i apparently missed this the first time around -- the
> measurement page below says:
>
> "These data suggest that the conventional tuning of the chanter's G's
> and D has changed significantly since MacNeill's measurements in the
> mid 1950s." and the other page says "the tuning derived by Seumas
> MacNeill from his measurements of 18 pipers in the early 1950's . . .
> features . . . the sharp D (27/20) and high G (9/5). "
>
> so you may be right about the "true tradition" being different --
> clearly there has been significant change over time. since the
> measurements were taken from "the Piping Centre 1996 Recital Series
> CDs (Temple Records) as a corpus of recent, expert performances,"
> while the mid 50s measurements cited include a 27/20 and a 9/5, the
> tuning could have been completely different from either back when
> irish and scottish traditions first began to depart from one another.

I can only assume that as the music changes so would the tuning. This is to be expected.
Unfortunately we have seen little of the opposite in our field of interest here, of music changing with the tuning.
if one writes the same way one does with 12, then one is either insensitive or deaf,o r maybe just can't change old habits

>
>
>
> > -- -Kraig Grady
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> > http://www.anaphoria.com
> > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:18:12 -0700
> From: Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>
> Subject: Re: Barbershop and JI vs. adaptive issues
>
> >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).
>
> This conclusion is not new re. Barbershop, btw.
>
> -Carl
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:58:06 -0700
> From: Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>
> Subject: Re: Barbershop and JI vs. adaptive issues
>
> 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:02:35 -0000
> From: "Paul Erlich" <perlich@aya.yale.edu>
> Subject: Re: Barbershop and JI vs. adaptive issues
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> > There follows off-list correspondence between Paul Erlich
> > and I...
>
> without my consent, and against my wishes. goodbye.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:20:04 -0700
> From: Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>
> Subject: Re: Barbershop and JI vs. adaptive issues
>
> The official definition of "adaptive JI" may be found at...
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/dict/adaptiveji.htm
>
> -Carl
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:29:34 -0000
> From: "backfromthesilo" <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Barbershop and JI vs. adaptive issues
>
> 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Robert T. Kelley" <contrapunctus@yahoo.com>
> Subject: More on Neidhardt (was: Re: Fux's tuning )
>
> "monz" wrote:
> > i believe that the "C" in the "tenor range" is indeed
> > "middle-C". that's the "C" which lies right near the center
> > of the tenor clef, which is what anyone singing a
> > tenor part would have been reading in Niedhardt's day.
>
> According to my calculations, Aaron's bearing plan is correct
> from small c (ASA C3, below middle C). C3 is at the *bottom* of
> the traditional tenor range, hence the name. Remember the beat
> ratios are from clashes of harmonics, not fundamentals:
>
> If C3 = 128 Hz, the fifth partial of C3 is:
> (5 * 128) = 640 Hz
> and the E3 that is beating against this partial at 2 Hz is:
> (640 + 2) / 4 = 160.5 Hz
>
> 160.5 / 128 ~= 391.7 cents
>
> Best regards,
> Robert Kelley
>
> =====
> ________________
> Robert T. Kelley
> composer@thekeyboard.com
> http://www-student.furman.edu/users/r/rkelley/
> "It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Krishnamurti
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:58:24 -0000
> From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> Subject: More on Neidhardt (was: Re: Fux's tuning )
>
> hi Robert,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert T. Kelley"
> <contrapunctus@y...> wrote:
>
> > "monz" wrote:
> > > i believe that the "C" in the "tenor range" is indeed
> > > "middle-C". that's the "C" which lies right near the center
> > > of the tenor clef, which is what anyone singing a
> > > tenor part would have been reading in Niedhardt's day.
> >
> > According to my calculations, Aaron's bearing plan is correct
> > from small c (ASA C3, below middle C). C3 is at the *bottom* of
> > the traditional tenor range, hence the name. Remember the beat
> > ratios are from clashes of harmonics, not fundamentals:
>
> ah, yes ... my oversight!
>
>
> > If C3 = 128 Hz, the fifth partial of C3 is:
> > (5 * 128) = 640 Hz
> > and the E3 that is beating against this partial at 2 Hz is:
> > (640 + 2) / 4 = 160.5 Hz
> >
> > 160.5 / 128 ~= 391.7 cents
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Robert Kelley
>
> thanks for correcting that.
>
> -monz
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:57:24 -0000
> From: "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: bagpipe tunings
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > > none of this data coressponds to the bagpipe tunings i have seen.
> Never have ever heard a bagpipe play a 7/4. bagpipes are still tuned
> to the
> > > traditional scales found on my site which represent the official
> scortish tunings. If you have a slow moving bagpipe melody such as
> piobairchd
> > > recordings. just ratios would stop the melody dead in its track.
> The tuning requires the ability to repeat these melodies over and over
> again for
> > > hours without creating too strong of cadence. Hence neutral trirds
> are not onlty the case in the british isles but almost universal among
> bagpipes.,
>
> Hi Kraig,
>
> I understand your data is via Erv from
> Podnos, Theodor H.
> Title: Bagpipes and tunings [by] Theodor H. Podnos.
> Published/distributed: Detroit, Mich., Information Coordinators, 1974.
> Physical description: 125 p. illus. 23 cm.
> Series: Detroit monographs in musicology ; no. 3
> Notes: Bibliography: p. 107-111.
> Subject(s): Bagpipe.
>
> I first learned of this from you in March 2001 and emailed Ewan
> MacPherson who said he would try to get to read a copy of it. I'm
> guessing he never did find it, or didn't know what to make of it,
> since I've emailed him a few times since, to ask if any progress, and
> have had no reply.
>
> My guess is that the great highland bagpipes started off with an
> approximately neutral third and sixth (due to their Arabic past?) and
> approximate Pythagorean fourth and minor sevenths. (They have
> apparently always had Pythagorean fifth and major second). But these
> have moved around over the years according to what may be no more than
> fashion (which may have been influenced by the fashion for 12-equal on
> other instruments. But never outside a range of about 50 cents. And
> undoubtedly there are always many old pipes around with unfashionable
> tunings at any given time, and if you wait long enough they'll come
> back into vogue again. Anyway, that's my guess.
>
> I expect Ewan MacPherson's measurements are quite accurate and
> represent the current fashion.
>
> You can see an official tuning sheet from the Australian Pipe Band
> college in 1991, on my website at
> http://dkeenan.com/Music/AFBPAtuning.gif
> They apparently hadn't caught up with the fashion for a 7/4 seventh
> and a narrow octave, since it is
> 9/10 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 9/5 2/1
>
> But there is apparently no such thing as _THE_ bagpipe tuning. It is
> apparently a somewhat flexible thing. Most flexible are the third and
> sixth, next the seventh, and also apparently the fourth. Here are what
> would seem to be the upper and lower limits.
>
> 9/10 1/1 9/8 5/4 27/20 3/2 5/3 9/5 2/1
> 7/8 1/1 9/8 350c 4/3 3/2 850c 7/4 2/1-30c
>
> I love the bagpipes for the fact that, of all instruments used
> commonly in the west, they alone have held out against the 12-equal tide.
>
> -- Dave Keenan
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 01:55:35 -0000
> From: "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: Barbershop and JI vs. adaptive issues
>
> --- 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.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:46:29 -0000
> From: "Ed Borasky" <znmeb@aracnet.com>
> Subject: Schillinger Books Reprinted!
>
> I have received excellent news! Joseph Schillinger's books are back
> in print! I just got a copy of "The Schillinger System of Musical
> Composition". The publisher is
>
> Clock And Rose Press
> Harwich Port, Cape Cod, MA
> info@clockandrose.com
>
> If you want to discuss this with me, please reply off-list as I'm
> currently receiving in digest mode and not really tracking the list.
> Suffice it to say that Joseph Schillinger is about to join my team,
> alongside of Harry Partch, Iannis Xenakis and William Sethares. :)
>
> Ed Borasky, Algorithmic Microtonal Composer
> http://www.borasky-research.net/RunYourOwnBrain/
> znmeb@cesmail.net
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:17:07 -0500
> From: "Aaron K. Johnson" <akj@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Fux's tuning
>
> Hey Johnny,
>
> My responses are inter-mixed below....
>
> On Monday 22 September 2003 11:36 am, Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
> > Hi Aaron,
> >
> > > I don't mean to say that it is 'inappropriate', just that Neidhardts
> > > tunings
> > > were widely regarded by contemporaries as a sort of high point in
> > > well-temperment, and the early music scene is, in general, largely stuck
> > > in Valotti/Young, Kirnberger, and Werckmeister land....
> >
> > I agree that the early music scene has not spent much time with Neidhardt's
> > tunings. His influence is also still yet undetermined.
> >
> > > >Werckmeister III is easily applied to all
> > > >instruments.
> > >
> > > What does that prove? So is meantone, Kirnberger, and...more to the
> > > point, so
> > > is the Neidhardt tuning I described, and it has more modulation ability
> > > without the harsher thirds of Werck III, and the era was starting to
> > > really like that kind of thing.
> >
> > I though you were saying Werckmeister III was more an "organ tuning" and I
> > just wanted to say that it is rather easy to perform on winds and strings,
> > let alone harpsichord. And it modulates just as easily as the other well
> > temepraments. The "harsher" thirds are not harsh at all if they are used
> > melodically, as was the custom through JS Bach.
>
> I was wondering what you made of the quote from Paul Poletti's article, where
> he talked about Werckmeisters approach to tuning the harpsichord note being
> based on Werck III, but on a rough 1/6 comma meantone starting point...the
> evidence is apparantly from Werckmeister's own work. Yes it's not conclusive,
> but it does suggest something about the use of different tuning based on
> whether it was an organ setting or not.
>
> >
> > >To these ears, Neidhardts' tuning IS more beautiful
> > > than Werckmeisters', but then were not arguing facts. To see what I mean,
> > > tune your keyboard instrument to it and listen to it. The rest is useless
> > > sophistry. It's all about delighting the ear, no?
> >
> > Sorry to be a curmudgeon, but my ears love Werckmeister as beautiful.
> > Modern ears are not the issue, though. For example, many modern ears care
> > little for the microtonal interals that tickle so many on this List.
>
> True enough...although I'd say that the intervals are not as much the problem
> as how they are used...as a small example, I can see an audience being turned
> off by 11:8 ratios when used in the low bass register as a bare dyad---then
> being delighted by the same when reinforced by a full five voice 4:5:6:7:9
> underneath......and rightly so!
>
> > To the past generations as >
> >
> > > much as to us....why wouldn't they use a more 'rich tuning' like
> > > Neidhardt when they had a choice (i.e., they weren't on an organ)
> >
> > There are many reasons. Inertia of a previous tuning (as Werckmeister
> > predates Neidhardt), different compositional choices (as melodic versus
> > harmonic interest), relevance to other prominent tunings (such as a
> > significant meantone match to a well-temperament), and ease and speed of
> > tuning (Werckmeister is rapid in comparison to the "paper" temperaments of
> > Neidhardt).
>
> I don't buy it. In fact, the Neidhardt tuning I described is about the same
> effort as Werck III, less just fifths notwithstanding. You could, I suppose,
> only advance your argument against Neidhardt IV (ET), but that was really
> never what I was ever referring to....
>
> Besides, 'inertia' and 'ease and speed' seem to have not worked against the
> onslaught of ET anyway !!! If that argument held, we would still be doing 1/4
> comma meantone in an ubiquitous way today.....(it would be nice for pop music
> and folk music, I think, and have always thought--I've even written
> progressive folk-rock tunes in meantone!)
>
> >
> > > >And Werckmeister was instrumental (pardon the pun) in
> > > >bringing other instruments into the church to make music with the organ.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I follow what you mean.....
> >
> > Just that. Werckmeister made an early pitch (pardon the pun again) for
> > instruments to be allowed into the church to make music with the organ. It
> > was more usual at the time for there to be a segregation of the organ with
> > the other instruments.
>
> Off-kilter humor: He probably said to the priests, "listen, I can get you more
> young boys to molest if you allow more instrumentalists to play here."
>
> > > >Also, what makes you think Werckmeister self-deprecates his circular
> > > >chromatic temperaments? I haven't seen anything of this kind anywhere
> > > > and I am on the look out.
> > >
> > > I was mistakenly giving the wrong impression. Not some much
> > > 'self-deprication', but a healthy sense of what works in a given
> > > practical setting, and what is best, even if it's not 'your own
> > > tuning'....plus, there
> > >
> > > was a common practice tuning that defied specific mathematical
> > > description, i.e., one used one's ears and 'guess-timated'. In other
> > > words, no one 'owned'
> > > the 'ordinary temperament' of the 18th century, because its description
> > > was not as mathematically precise as we now are. They didn't use cents.
> > > They used
> > > their ears!
> >
> > Yes, but ears are trained. They are not given a sense of musical
> > temperament perfection at birth. The ears are best judges when there are
> > specific and exact intervals that they are measuring against, for example
> > pure fifths and octaves.
>
> So we agree!?
>
> > As you may know a young Neidhardt was in a contest in 1706 in Jena with an
> > elder Bach. He lost the contest of tuning the organ because the Bach
> > tuning was considered by all listening to be more singable. It is likely
> > that Neidhardt was tuning to the equal temperament he first promoted. The
> > Bach, eldest son of Johann Christoph Bach (Uncle to J.S.) was certainly
> > unequal at this time (and likely Werckmeister III in my estimation). This
> > is a tuning duel, essentially, and ET lost.
>
> Where is the source for this interesting story. How do you know it was ET?
> Neidhardt has at least 4 tuning we know of.....
>
> The statement that it was likely Werckmeister III is purely speculative.
> Kellner tried to reconstruct Bach's tuning, but his ideas are also
> speculative. This is history, an impure science, like astronomy. Are there
> Black holes for sure? We think so. But history, without written records, is
> even fuzzier. Again, Bach left nothing on the subject to my knowledge.
>
> Best,
> Aaron.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 05:50:32 -0000
> From: "alternativetuning" <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>
> Subject: new notation program with microtones
>
> I have not checked what happens for playback yet, but the graphics
> look good:
>
> http://www.turandot.hu/notation.htm
>
> Gabor
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 07:09:31 -0000
> From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> Subject: finally ... webpage about monz's Solar System piece
>
> hi Joe Pehrson, and anyone else who's interested,
>
> after only 3 years, i've finally made a webpage about
> my Solar System piece ... which is *still* in only the
> most rudimentary form, compared to the wonderfully dynamic
> piece that i hope to eventually turn it into.
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/solarsystem/solar-system.htm
>
> ... and please be forewarned that this webpage was also
> a "quickie", and i plan to make it much better in future
> updates.
>
> (Joe, i singled you out because, of all those who have
> commented on this piece, you have been by far the most excited
> about it. i figured you'd want to bookmark this page.)
>
> -monz
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:42:41 -0000
> From: "alternativetuning" <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: finally ... webpage about monz's Solar System piece
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > hi Joe Pehrson, and anyone else who's interested,
> >
> >
> > after only 3 years, i've finally made a webpage about
> > my Solar System piece ... which is *still* in only the
> > most rudimentary form, compared to the wonderfully dynamic
> > piece that i hope to eventually turn it into.
> >
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/solarsystem/solar-system.htm
> >
>
> Do you know Laurie Spiegel's 1977 Kepler's "Harmony Of The Planets"
> (computer realization of Kepler treatise)? A sample of this is on
> the NASA "golden record" for the Voyagers.
>
> Gabor
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:45:02 -0000
> From: "alternativetuning" <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: new notation program with microtones
>
> I checked it out. Smart interface, but no microtone playback. It is
> a new product, may be we can "lobby" for changes.
>
> Gabor
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
> <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> > I have not checked what happens for playback yet, but the graphics
> > look good:
> >
> > http://www.turandot.hu/notation.htm
> >
> > Gabor
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 23
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:21:19 EDT
> From: Afmmjr@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Fux's tuning
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> Thought I'd get back to your recent points. Some of my support material is
> in a different location, but my memory should be okay. (These are subject
> areas dear to my heart.)
>
> Re the Paul Poletti reasoning: I don't think you can rely on his
> interpretation. First off, Werckmeister never ever mentioned sixth comma meantone (let
> alone fifth comma). All Werckmeister's work is based on quarter comma meantone
> (which is Werckmeister II tuning). The fact that sixth comma works to mirror
> some of WIII is more of an after the fact that before the fact situation.
>
> Also, Poletti is referring ot something that has been fully translated into
> English now, the directions for the harpsichord tuning attached to the 1698
> treatise on the Figured Bass treatise, and it smells more like ET than any
> meantone-derived tuning. Poletti says the "somewhat imprecise" instructions are
> with little doubt another "meantone modification." This is simply untrue,
> unless ET is considered in fact a meantone modification as well.
>
> Besides, descriptions like "primitive economy-class" is too biased for me to
> take seriously. I have performing Brandenburg Concerti in this "primitive
> econmy class tuning" of Werckmeister III to grand effect.
>
> Regarding some of your points:
> When I listed reasons for using a tuning other than the apparent modern sense
> of richness, I was being very general, not specific to either Werckmeister or
> Neidhardt. And I can think of still more reasons. Werckmeister III can be
> tuned in 15 minutes according to Werckmeister, and Bach was reputed to do
> likewise. Neidhardt is likely more labor intensive, no?
>
> But yes, ease and speed did not help ET. And so we have the guild of piano
> tuners taking over.
>
> As to Werckmeister and little boys...well, I'd hate to sully his reputation,
> once again, based on moderns of a different Christian denomination.
>
> Finally, the story of Neidhardt and a Bach in competition of tunings at Jena
> is quite famous. Look for it in the Mendel/David source material on J.S.
> Bach. I only provided the info on who the Bach actually was. Also, Neidhardt's
> first published tuning was ET, so any tuning duel as early as 1706 would likely
> be with this as his ammunition.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:43:41 +0200
> From: "Martin Braun" <nombraun@telia.com>
> Subject: Re: harmonic halves of the fourth
>
> Paul:
>
> >> If the 8/7 and 7/6 intervals are sung with as much deviations as is
> >> customary with "our familiar minor seconds", the singers would lose
> >> the narrow bounds of harmonicity effects with these intervals most of
> >> the time.
>
> > what harmonicity effects? we're talking *horizontal* intervals,
> > aren't we?
>
> Yes, of course. But we assume that also melodic ("horizontal") intervals
> cause harmonicity effects in the brain, don't we? Why else should it be much
> easier to sing a fourth or a fifth than a tritone? Physiologically, we
> assume a "reverberation" of oscillating pitch detector neurons.
>
> So, if a melodic 7/6 is attractive to a singer, it must be so because it
> causes harmonicity effects. But to reach these effects, the singer must hit
> the interval much more precisely than when hitting a melodic fourth (as seen
> in your "entropy" graphs). That's why 7/6 and 8/7 are more difficult to sing
> than 5/4 and 6/5.
>
> But, as I said, it may be possible, and I would love to see some data.
>
> Martin
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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

[Kraig wrote...]
>I accept you word for what they are doing in boston. i have quite a big
>irish music collection and can't say ( even though personally it would
>be something i would like) i have heard this tuning. have very little
>scottish. There is a big community in San francisco also which i have
>spent time with. I have played quite a bit of this music. Wouldn't
>expect, if fact would be dissapointed to get a polite e-mail about said
>subject. the fact remains though they would be allot closer to their
>tradition dumping those guitars AHHH wait. bothy band, i hear the 7th!

There's a guy who practices highland (Scottish) pipes across the street
from my apartment now and then. I spoke to him last week about tuning.
He had electrical tape on the holes on his chanter, placed by ear -- he
had no knowledge of just intonation ratios. I did get him to play some
Piobreach (wow, I actually spelled it correctly). His high 7th was
definitely closer to 7/4 than 9/5, but wasn't beatless. His low 7th was
less than an octave below the high one.

Clearly there is a lot of variance in bagpipe tuning (even during his
performance, let alone from one set of pipes to another). However,
Ewan's scale is the best fixed-pitch model I've seen for highland
pipes. The Piobreach sampler album I brought back from Scotland in
1990 certainly adheres very closely to it.

I have two recordings of uilleann (Irish) pipes, and I don't remember
hearing septimal intervals at all, but I'll listen again.

Some mention was made of the mid-eastern origin of pipes. Piobreach
certainly has much in common with middle-eastern and Indian music...
but I wonder how much of middle-eastern music (scales and structure)
was established before the migration (this did actually happen, right?)
and how much evolved independently.

I suspect the highland pipe scale started as a plain diatonic scale
and struggles against harmonic-series adjustments. I see no reason
to suspect a neutral 3rd was involved.

-Carl

Damnit Kraig, how many times are you going to do the quote-the-whole-
digest thing?

>I love the bagpipes for the fact that, of all instruments used
>commonly in the west, they alone have held out against the 12-equal
>tide.

Holy moly, do I disagree with this statement. Bagpipes aren't as
common as, oh, pedal steel, harpsichords, harmonicas, ...

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> I suspect the highland pipe scale started as a plain diatonic scale
> and struggles against harmonic-series adjustments. I see no reason
> to suspect a neutral 3rd was involved.

I understand that Ellis and Podnos both quote measurements that show a
neutral third and sixth.

Another thing I find highly suggestive of these being neutral
intervals at some stage, is the fact that the music is notated with
the tonic (i.e. the drone pitch-class) as A (the real pitch is
currently above Bb) and the third and sixth are notated as C and F,
with an empty key signature. Whereas, as a diatonic mode they would be
C# and F#, with a D-major/B-minor type key signature.

And of course there's the supposed Arabic origin that suggests neutral
third and sixth.

>I understand that Ellis and Podnos both quote measurements that show a
>neutral third and sixth.

Hmm. It wouldn't surprise me, but I've never heard anything that
comes close, or seems to 'call out' for them (whatever that means).

>Another thing I find highly suggestive of these being neutral
>intervals at some stage, is the fact that the music is notated with
>the tonic (i.e. the drone pitch-class) as A (the real pitch is
>currently above Bb) and the third and sixth are notated as C and F,
>with an empty key signature. Whereas, as a diatonic mode they would be
>C# and F#, with a D-major/B-minor type key signature.
>
>And of course there's the supposed Arabic origin that suggests neutral
>third and sixth.

Did you read the bit about the timing of this? I suppose Arabic
neutral-3rd theory dates to 600 AD, or whatever, whereas pipes could
have arrived in the Isles around, 1200, eh? Just a guess.

Anyway, I'm not familiar with notation for pipes... certainly a very
recent development.

-Carl