Q2: For tonal, modal or both?

Thanks to everyone who answered my first question ('What is our
aim?').

I had three questions but the answers of first one have partly
answered the others. Here is the second question (Probably it will be
needles to ask third one):

Second question:

In your subjective judgement, do you feel a thorough, in-depth
investigation into pitches and pitch intervals might be essential
more for polyphonic/tonal musics or for melody-based monophonic/modal
musics such as Turkish music?

M. Kemal Karaosmanoðlu
www.musiki.org

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "musiki_2" <mkemal@p...> wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who answered my first question ('What is our
> aim?').
>
> I had three questions but the answers of first one have partly
> answered the others. Here is the second question (Probably it will
be
> needles to ask third one):
>
> Second question:
>
> In your subjective judgement, do you feel a thorough, in-depth
> investigation into pitches and pitch intervals might be essential
> more for polyphonic/tonal musics or for melody-based
monophonic/modal
> musics such as Turkish music?

both, though i believe that if the investigation is centered around
the philosophy of using simple just ratios for the intervals between
notes, it will tend to have a lot more relevance for polyphonic
music, homophonic music, and monophonic music with a drone, and less
relevance for monophonic music without a drone. this is because
simultaneously sounding notes exhibit very clear, unique, well-
documented, and well-understood effects when their frequency ratios
are simple rational numbers, while judgments of melodic intervals
seem to rely almost entirely on experience and training, and one
finds an incredible diversity of "correct" melodic intervals when one
surveys the cultures of the world.

however, i would certainly not extend this judgment to your
tonal/modal dichotomy. if anything, the demise of modality and the
ascent and development of tonality in western music made the purity
of simple frequency ratios *less* important, as the "panconsonant"
music of the renaissance and early baroque gave way to music with
more "directed" progressions and, by the time of beethoven,
enharmonic equivalence. let me know if you want this explained in
more detail.

Paul:

> however, i would certainly not extend this judgment to your
> tonal/modal dichotomy. if anything, the demise of modality and the
> ascent and development of tonality in western music made the purity
> of simple frequency ratios *less* important, as the "panconsonant"
> music of the renaissance and early baroque gave way to music with
> more "directed" progressions and, by the time of beethoven,
> enharmonic equivalence. let me know if you want this explained in
> more detail.

While it seems clear to me what you mean by ""panconsonant" music of the
renaissance and early baroque" and "enharmonic equivalence" after Beethoven,
I have no idea what you mean by "music with more "directed" progressions".
Could you explain this?

Martin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Braun" <nombraun@t...> wrote:
> Paul:
>
> > however, i would certainly not extend this judgment to your
> > tonal/modal dichotomy. if anything, the demise of modality and the
> > ascent and development of tonality in western music made the
purity
> > of simple frequency ratios *less* important, as the "panconsonant"
> > music of the renaissance and early baroque gave way to music with
> > more "directed" progressions and, by the time of beethoven,
> > enharmonic equivalence. let me know if you want this explained in
> > more detail.
>
> While it seems clear to me what you mean by ""panconsonant" music
of the
> renaissance and early baroque" and "enharmonic equivalence" after
Beethoven,
> I have no idea what you mean by "music with more "directed"
progressions".
> Could you explain this?
>
> Martin

according to margo schulter, 1670 is probably a good choice for a
year in which western music became essentially "tonal" in the modern,
western-music sense of the word. in tonal music, chromatic
alterations (other than ornamental ones) have specific harmonic
meanings and resolve in set patterns. more importantly, the single
chromatic (that is, not perfect, major, or minor) interval in the
unaltered diatonic scale, the tritone, resolved in contrary motion
through diatonic semitones to members of a tonic-function triad
separated by a major third. this created the functional cadence of
tonal music that replaced the older, medieval-derived cadential
formulae in which a major or minor interval would resolve in contrary
motion through one diatonic semitone and one whole tone to a perfect
interval. it is through the newer cadential pattern that the modern
major and minor modes were established as the only two allowable
choices. the diminished seventh chord (and the related harmonic minor
mode), where three chromatic intervals (two tritones and a diminished
seventh) each resolve by contrary stepwise motion to the tonic-
function triad, was a hallmark of tonally-conceived music. diatonic
modes other than major or minor were rendered archaic, since any of
them would have its tritone sharing a pitch with the tonic triad,
such that the occurence, and proper resolution, of the tritone would
immediately contradict the 'tonality' of the mode. the older modes
did persist in theory (even in bach's key signatures) for some time,
though, even after they fell out of use in practice.

why is this relevant for tuning? it seems somewhat possible that the
shift from more consonant meantones such as 1/4-comma and 2/7-comma
and 19-equal and 31-equal in the renaissance and early baroque, to
1/5-comma and 1/6-comma meantones and 55-equal in the late baroque
and classical periods, might have stemmed from a desire to make the
cadential diatonic semitones more "incisive", as margo puts it. as
far as i know, this is pure speculation. but cadences do somehow
seem "stronger" to many people when the motions involved are smaller;
margo has used idea this to analyze medieval and neo-medieval
progressions, while harry partch mentions it as a "law" surrounding
microtonal progressions in just intonation.

Paul:

>> I have no idea what you mean by "music with more "directed"
>> progressions". Could you explain this?

> according to margo schulter, 1670 is probably a good choice for a
> year in which western music became essentially "tonal" in the modern,
> western-music sense of the word. in tonal music, chromatic
> alterations (other than ornamental ones) have specific harmonic
> meanings and resolve in set patterns.
........
> why is this relevant for tuning? it seems somewhat possible that the
> shift from more consonant meantones such as 1/4-comma and 2/7-comma
> and 19-equal and 31-equal in the renaissance and early baroque, to
> 1/5-comma and 1/6-comma meantones and 55-equal in the late baroque
> and classical periods, might have stemmed from a desire to make the
> cadential diatonic semitones more "incisive", as margo puts it. as
> far as i know, this is pure speculation. but cadences do somehow
> seem "stronger" to many people when the motions involved are smaller;

OK, thanks. So, by "more directed" you meant "possibly more incisive", and a
shift in tuning preferences might have co-occurred with a shift in cadential
preferences. Is this correct?

Martin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Braun" <nombraun@t...> wrote:

> OK, thanks. So, by "more directed" you meant "possibly more
>incisive",

well, i really meant that now that the music was *tonal*, the "pull
toward the tonic" may have needed to be strenghted by altering the
tuning.

> and a
> shift in tuning preferences might have co-occurred with a shift in
cadential
> preferences. Is this correct?

yes.