Re: AW: [tuning] Re: Mozart's ideas-Carl

In a message dated 12/18/03 3:20:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

> By now everyone here knows that I think you
> have no clue what you're talking about, so why provoke? Time and
> time again you refuse to provide any sound recordings at all to
> illustrate any of your esoteric ideas.

Since you know nothing really about what I and my musicians do in New York,
you speak of a flat world in the guise of a scientist. That's really
scientific, Carl. I have refused nothing. The only issue is making these same
recordings available to the greater public. Take note: there are no complaints I
have heard from those familiar with what we do.

I've seen you perform live > on several occasions and I have your
> album Raven and I claim the advertised accuracy of 1 cent everywhere is not even
> remotely
> demonstrated.

And here is an important distinction. As a composer I care not a whit to
create anything but a good work, not to demonstrate theoretical models. As a
performer I play all and any tunings, as a bassoonist, recorder player, and
vocalist. It doesn't phase me that some of that music (like much of Raven) is in a
soup of tunings. I do not play or compose so that Carl Lumma can examine the
product in a laboratory to declare his judgments. It is now 8 a.m. and I can
still recall your ET brass quintet under the guise of JI on the first
Microthon.)

Now you have another chance to provide an mp3 or >
> something to back up your ego-crazed claims.

Carl, I don't have mp3 so I must be a charlatan, no? Ego-crazed? Man, you
just don't hear as accurately. It's not a sin. People hear differently.
Check out the deaf Saveur, for example, he promoted 43-tET. Carl, feel free to
theorize just as all are free to compose. Performance is, however, more
strictly received as people will howl at poor performances.

The reasons this surfaces again is because we are in a public forum. You
continue to deny the realities that you do not share and promulgate them. That I
hear a cent is as clear as day to me. Read Seashore to find that hearing a
single cent could be expected by a musician. It's in the literature for almost
a century. And I can vocalize them, and play a line of them on a recorder.
This is no more an ego-driven statement than devoting one's life to microtonal
music performance.

You should shut up about what you know nothing about and avoid calling people
names, as we all should. We do not share each other's realities on every
issue. Luckily we all know that you are rather thick skinned and stubborn. So
here we go again....

best, Johnny Reinhard

This kind of attack doesn't belong here. I have learned a lot from
Carl's messages over two years, and admire how he reads other
messages closely and also admire his ability to change his mind on
the basis of better arguments or data. As a beginner to composition,
that is an honest viewpoint that I can trust and learn from. Johnny
Reinhard, on the other side, will never change his mind, because he
comes here with his mind already made up, so this forum is for him
just self-advertisement.

Carl's message here was polite and reasonable, Afmmjr respond with
unverified statements like:

"Man, you just don't hear as accurately."

Please either retract this statement and stop making such statements
in the future, or if you want to make such statements, I will be
happy to propose a test of the truth of the statement. And Johnny
Reinhard wouldn't refuse such a test like Sylvia Browne refuses James
Randi, would he?

Gabor Bernath

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Carl, I don't have mp3 so I must be a charlatan, no? Ego-crazed?
Man, you
> just don't hear as accurately. It's not a sin. People hear
differently.
> Check out the deaf Saveur, for example, he promoted 43-tET. Carl,
feel free to
> theorize just as all are free to compose. Performance is, however,
more
> strictly received as people will howl at poor performances.
>
> The reasons this surfaces again is because we are in a public
forum. You
> continue to deny the realities that you do not share and promulgate
them. That I
> hear a cent is as clear as day to me. Read Seashore to find that
hearing a
> single cent could be expected by a musician. It's in the
literature for almost
> a century. And I can vocalize them, and play a line of them on a
recorder.
> This is no more an ego-driven statement than devoting one's life to
microtonal
> music performance.
>
> You should shut up about what you know nothing about and avoid
calling people
> names, as we all should. We do not share each other's realities on
every
> issue. Luckily we all know that you are rather thick skinned and
stubborn. So
> here we go again....
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 12/18/2003 10:13:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
alternativetuning@yahoo.com writes:

> "Man, you just don't hear as accurately."
>
> Please either retract this statement and stop making such statements
> in the future, or if you want to make such statements, I will be
> happy to propose a test of the truth of the statement. And Johnny
> Reinhard wouldn't refuse such a test like Sylvia Browne refuses James
> Randi, would he?
>
> Gabor Bernath
>

Too bad, Gabor. The statement holds. The truth hurts. But this forum needs
to be based on truth and we have never shirked away from it. Thank heavens I
don't have to be tested by Gabor Bernath, I could never leave my home ever
again. However, I don't live in Hungary, only in the tiny hamlet of Manhattan
where I teach and concertize. Once again, read the Seashore literature to know
there are indeed musicians that can hear one cent, and move on.

I understand the sensitivity that people have with hearing a cent. But when
these communication channels are used for amateur pronouncements on the
abilities of others, it is important to address them.

best, Johnny Reinhard

Johnny Reinhard

You do not need to leave your home to take the test I propose, you
just need to invite a neutral party over to play a cd for you. I
assume that you have a cd player at home. I will make a cd with 101
sounds, each 5 seconds long, each separated by 5 seconds of silence.
The first sound will be A=440 as a reference. The other sounds will
be random tones in the range c to c", each with a random deviation
from 12 tone equal temperament of plus or minus 0 to 50 cents. The
tones can be any timbre of your choice, and all you have to do is
dictate the note and the cent deviation. The cd will be sent to
someone from the list who lives near you, who will then supervise
your test (to make certain you use no assistance) in a location and
time of mutual agreement. The supervisor of the test will then mail
your dictation to a third party for grading.

Do you agree to take such a test?

I am open to any suggestions for the refinement of this test.

Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/18/2003 10:13:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> alternativetuning@y... writes:
>
> > "Man, you just don't hear as accurately."
> >
> > Please either retract this statement and stop making such
statements
> > in the future, or if you want to make such statements, I will be
> > happy to propose a test of the truth of the statement. And
Johnny
> > Reinhard wouldn't refuse such a test like Sylvia Browne refuses
James
> > Randi, would he?
> >
> > Gabor Bernath
> >
>
> Too bad, Gabor. The statement holds. The truth hurts. But this
forum needs
> to be based on truth and we have never shirked away from it. Thank
heavens I
> don't have to be tested by Gabor Bernath, I could never leave my
home ever
> again. However, I don't live in Hungary, only in the tiny hamlet
of Manhattan
> where I teach and concertize. Once again, read the Seashore
literature to know
> there are indeed musicians that can hear one cent, and move on.
>
> I understand the sensitivity that people have with hearing a cent.
But when
> these communication channels are used for amateur pronouncements on
the
> abilities of others, it is important to address them.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard
>
> Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 12/18/2003 10:42:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
alternativetuning@yahoo.com writes:

> You do not need to leave your home to take the test I propose, you
> just need to invite a neutral party over to play a cd for you.

Firstly, you are certainly not a neutral party. Secondy, you are
miscontruing what I have said. Thirdly, who said I agree to be tested in such an amateur
manner?

assume that you have a cd player at home. I will make a cd with 101 >
> sounds, each 5 seconds long, each separated by 5 seconds of silence.
> The first sound will be A=440 as a reference. The other sounds will
> be random tones in the range c to c", each with a random deviation
> from 12 tone equal temperament of plus or minus 0 to 50 cents.

You must be confusing me with someone with perfect pitch. I do not have such
a gene for pitch memory. What I can do, repeated ad nauseum, is distinguish
a single cent in my voice, in my mind, on the alto recorder, and in my
teaching. This is a gift of someone with relative pitch, not perfect pitch,
sometimes called absolute pitch. These individuals could do it as well, with
awareness and training.

The > tones can be any timbre of your choice, and all you have to do is
> dictate the note and the cent deviation.

This is foolishness, though I thank you for choosing my very own timbre. A
sine wave, or close to a sine wave, would be easiest to distinguish a specific
pitch. This means sustained and without vibrato.

The cd will be sent to
> someone from the list who lives near you, who will then supervise
> your test (to make certain you use no assistance) in a location and
> time of mutual agreement.

Save your money, and your haughtiness.

The supervisor of the test will then mail >
> your dictation to a third party for grading.

Sure, insult me with proposed tests that miss the mark completely.

Johnny

> Do you agree to take such a test?
>
> I am open to any suggestions for the refinement of this test.
>
> Gabor

>I do not play or compose so that Carl Lumma can examine the product
>in a laboratory to declare his judgments.

Of course not! But if you're here making theoretical claims you
are then obliged to follow up with the normal (for this list) means
of theoretical discourse.

>Carl, I don't have mp3 so I must be a charlatan, no?

No, it means your claims cannot be verified one way or the other.
By the way, I do not necessarily mean to subject your music samples
to computer analysis (though it would be interesting), but rather
just to let people listen.

>And I can vocalize them, and play a line of them on a recorder.

But this cannot be captured by a recording?

-Carl

In a message dated 12/18/2003 2:49:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ekin@lumma.org writes:

> ! But if you're here making theoretical claims you
> are then obliged to follow up with the normal (for this list) means
> of theoretical discourse.
>

Carl, that's crap. This is not theoretical discourse. It is a musician
describing what he can hear, and not hear, as the case may be. Theory is not the
reason I am on this list.

> >Carl, I don't have mp3 so I must be a charlatan, no?
>
> No, it means your claims cannot be verified one way or the other.
> By the way, I do not necessarily mean to subject your music samples
> to computer analysis (though it would be interesting), but rather
> just to let people listen.

It only means that what you call "claims" but which are very much part of my
day-to-day reality, cannot be verified over the Internet. It can be done in
person and that number grows all the time. In fact, a new 14-year old student
of mine can also distinguish and vocalize a single cent. John Eaton is
composing a new work for her, myself on bassoon, and Anastasia Solberg on viola.
John Eaton had no problem believeing me that 14-year old Kailyn can perform with
this accuracy.

>
> >And I can vocalize them, and play a line of them on a recorder.
>
> But this cannot be captured by a recording?
>
> -Carl
>

I'm sure it can. However, I do not have a recording device. Although, I do
not have the need to prove anything to anyone that in my enviornment. And I
have nothing to prove, for it is amateur to argue with the pro on this issue.
It is as clear to me as night and day.

best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 12/18/03 10:13:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
alternativetuning@yahoo.com writes:

> And Johnny
> Reinhard wouldn't refuse such a test like Sylvia Browne refuses James
> Randi, would he?
>

Gabor,

Could you explain this reference as I am unfamiliar with these names? Johnny

Johnny Reinhard,

I did not propose to visit your house, I proposed to send a cd to a
neutral party near you who would come to you.

My proposed test has a reference tone. Thus, it is a test of relative
pitch perception.

It is no bigdeal to hear the difference between a' and a'+ one cent,
in the right situation, most of this list can do that. But you have
consistantly claimed general accuracy to one cent and advocated cents
accuracy as a way of getting performers to be accurate and this test
is designed to prove those claims.

I do not believe that I have been "haughty"; please do not forget
that it was you who insulted the hearing of another list person when
you wrote:

"Man, you just don't hear as accurately."

The terms of your insult were comparative and this was designed as an
objective test of that comparison. I am open to the possibility that
your claim is accurate. I am open to any suggestions for improving
my test. But I must insist that you either accept such a test or
retract your insult, because there is no way that you can compare
your hearing ablities with someone else's without such a test.

As to James Randi and Sylvia Browne, any search engine will get you
that information. But don't worry, I won't put a Johnny Reinhard
challenge clock on my webpage!

Gabor

>>But if you're here making theoretical claims you
>>are then obliged to follow up with the normal (for this list)
>>means of theoretical discourse.
>
>Carl, that's crap. This is not theoretical discourse. It is a
>musician describing what he can hear, and not hear, as the case
>may be. Theory is not the reason I am on this list.

"Cents" and the like are clearly under the rubric of music
theory, Johnny. I'd love to hear more about what the AFMM is
doing, critical reviews, what music means to you, etc. But I
seldom see it. What I see is pseudo-theoretical mumbo-jumbo.

>It only means that what you call "claims" but which are very
>much part of my day-to-day reality, cannot be verified over
>the Internet.

"The internet"? What does this really mean? Cannot be
recorded? Then it must be pretty esoteric stuff indeed that
is part of your daily musical reality.

>It can be done in person and that number grows all the time.
>In fact, a new 14-year old student of mine can also distinguish
>and vocalize a single cent. John Eaton is composing a new work
>for her, myself on bassoon, and Anastasia Solberg on viola.
>John Eaton had no problem believeing me that 14-year old Kailyn
>can perform with this accuracy.

Eaton shmeeton. How did you determine your student is singing
a cent? Have you measured it with ...?

By the way, singing cent intervals and being able to execute
arbitrary musical intervals to an accuracy of a cent at
performance speed are two very different things.

>I'm sure it can. However, I do not have a recording device.

A pro musician without a recording device?

>Although, I do not have the need to prove anything to anyone
>that in my enviornment. And I have nothing to prove, for it
>is amateur to argue with the pro on this issue. It is as
>clear to me as night and day.

It is ideas that have merit; it is a fallacy to consider their
source (amateur, pro, etc.).

-Carl

In a message dated 12/18/03 8:25:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

> "Cents" and the like are clearly under the rubric of music
> theory, Johnny.

You are absolutely wrong, Carl. Cents, and their configuration real time, is
not theory at all. This is what I have been trying to make clear on this
List for years now.

There are aspects to making great music, Horatio, that are greater than has
been your experience (or something like that).

best, Johnny

who does not have a recording device. the ex took it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_50085.html#50105

A
> sine wave, or close to a sine wave, would be easiest to distinguish
a specific
> pitch. This means sustained and without vibrato.
>

***Is it true that it's easier to distinguish pitch in a sine wave
than in tones with some kind of partial component...??

[Drat... where's Paul Erlich when we need him... :( ]

J. Pehrson

>/tuning/topicId_50085.html#50105
>
>> A sine wave, or close to a sine wave, would be easiest to
>> distinguish a specific pitch. This means sustained and
>> without vibrato.
>>
>
>
>***Is it true that it's easier to distinguish pitch in a sine wave
>than in tones with some kind of partial component...??
>
>[Drat... where's Paul Erlich when we need him... :( ]
>
>J. Pehrson

No, or at least Paul always seemed willing to assume the
opposite (that pitch perception was more accurate for harmonic
complex tones) when choosing the variable in his harmonic
entropy calculations.

-Carl

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

/tuning/topicId_50085.html#50120

> >/tuning/topicId_50085.html#50105
> >
> >> A sine wave, or close to a sine wave, would be easiest to
> >> distinguish a specific pitch. This means sustained and
> >> without vibrato.
> >>
> >
> >
> >***Is it true that it's easier to distinguish pitch in a sine wave
> >than in tones with some kind of partial component...??
> >
> >[Drat... where's Paul Erlich when we need him... :( ]
> >
> >J. Pehrson
>
> No, or at least Paul always seemed willing to assume the
> opposite (that pitch perception was more accurate for harmonic
> complex tones) when choosing the variable in his harmonic
> entropy calculations.
>
> -Carl

***Thanks, Carl... I *thought* I remember that.

Joseph

On Thursday 18 December 2003 08:56 pm, Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/18/03 8:25:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> ekin@lumma.org
>
> writes:
> > "Cents" and the like are clearly under the rubric of music
> > theory, Johnny.
>
> You are absolutely wrong, Carl. Cents, and their configuration real time,
> is not theory at all. This is what I have been trying to make clear on
> this List for years now.
>
> There are aspects to making great music, Horatio, that are greater than has
> been your experience (or something like that).
>
> best, Johnny
>
> who does not have a recording device. the ex took it.

Carl and Johnny-

I've been peeking at this thread a bit and I wanted to make a couple of
points:

No one here, Carl included, doubts you are a pro and a respected member of the
American alt-tuning scene, Johnny !!! This should be besides the point, and
it's a fallacy to use the argument from authority to counter Carl's points.

I would be interested, as well as Carl, in seeing a demonstration of the
singing and/or sensitivity to very small intervals that Johnny describes.
It sounds, well, extraordinary!

I think all Carl is trying to say is something equal to the 'skeptic's motto',
which is ever justified: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence".

Cheers,
Aaron.

hi Gabor,

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

> You do not need to leave your home to take the test
> I propose, you just need to invite a neutral party
> over to play a cd for you. I assume that you have
> a cd player at home. I will make a cd with 101 sounds,
> each 5 seconds long, each separated by 5 seconds of
> silence. The first sound will be A=440 as a reference.
> The other sounds will be random tones in the range c to c",
> each with a random deviation from 12 tone equal temperament
> of plus or minus 0 to 50 cents. The tones can be any
> timbre of your choice, and all you have to do is dictate
> the note and the cent deviation. The cd will be sent to
> someone from the list who lives near you, who will then
> supervise your test (to make certain you use no assistance)
> in a location and time of mutual agreement. The supervisor
> of the test will then mail your dictation to a third party
> for grading.
>
> Do you agree to take such a test?
>
> I am open to any suggestions for the refinement of this test.
>
> Gabor

i would be happy to take this test, just because i am curious
as to exactly what pitch-resolution my hearing apparatus
can perceive.

i know that i have been able to discern 1-cent differences
in 2 pitches played with any timbre i choose on my soundcard
plus headset in Cakewalk, since i did this test on my new
system in July to find out the MIDI resolution of my soundcard.

but the way i designed my test, two notes which were 1 cent
apart would beat, and i could determine the 1-cent difference
by counting the beats.

i never measured any of the resolutions, but when i was
finished i could see that the hardware produced 100 divisions
within each 12edo semitone, and i'm sure that it's an
equal division, and thus cents.

this is different from my previous soundcard, which gave
hexamu resolution: 64 equal divisions per semitone. i could
see that the divisions were equal because the test was
carried out in dodekamus, which are 4096 (= 64*64) equal
divisions per semitone, and the beating only occured every
64th value. the divisions for the 100-cent soundcard are
obviously not going to be exactly even, because 4096 and 100
are incommensurable.

-monz

hi Joe,

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_50085.html#50105
>
>
> > A sine wave, or close to a sine wave, would be easiest
> > to distinguish a specific pitch. This means sustained
> > and without vibrato.
>
>
> ***Is it true that it's easier to distinguish pitch in a
> sine wave than in tones with some kind of partial component...??

it's generally considered to be true that humans can
distinguish pitch differences best with a plain sine wave.
but of course, that's only under test conditions.

in a "real" musical situation, other factors certainly
make affect tuning perception. tonality is one big factor.

> [Drat... where's Paul Erlich when we need him... :( ]

paul told me in private email that he's been quite ill,
but he's recovering.

the Sault "imbroglio" played a role too, and there won't
be any closure to that until Peter gives a clear explanation
of his published writings. (any more on this goes to metatuning)

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> i would be happy to take this test, just because i am curious
> as to exactly what pitch-resolution my hearing apparatus
> can perceive.
>

Great! I will be happy to do this with you. But I still want any
feed-back on my proposal, so it is not controversial. I am certain it
can be improved.

>
> this is different from my previous soundcard, which gave
> hexamu resolution: 64 equal divisions per semitone.

This is frustrating with the midi implementation of many card -- no
easy-available information on pitch resolution. But the problem is
not the card itself but the midi programming. Do DSP or convert midi-
to-wav with good software, then the resolution is at the same quality
as the sampling rate.

There is so much variation in midi implementation of pitch bend
messages that if you put a microtuned midi file on line, you should
may be also put a short audio file of the beginning of the same piece
on line too. That way, the listener can be sure to hear what the
composer wants.

Gabor

hi Gabor,

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > i would be happy to take this test, just because i am curious
> > as to exactly what pitch-resolution my hearing apparatus
> > can perceive.
> >
>
> Great! I will be happy to do this with you. But I still
> want any feed-back on my proposal, so it is not controversial.
> I am certain it can be improved.

oops ... i had also meant to add "time permitting".
i'm extremely busy these days. but i am interested in
doing this.

> > this is different from my previous soundcard, which gave
> > hexamu resolution: 64 equal divisions per semitone.
>
> This is frustrating with the midi implementation of many
> card -- no easy-available information on pitch resolution.

absolutely true. that's why i had to perform my elaborate
test, but it was worth it, to know exactly what tuning
resolution my hardware is giving me.

> There is so much variation in midi implementation of
> pitch bend messages that if you put a microtuned midi file
> on line, you should may be also put a short audio file of
> the beginning of the same piece on line too. That way,
> the listener can be sure to hear what the composer wants.

i've been doing exactly that for about the last two years,
usually not even bothering to upload the MIDI's anymore but
just the mp3's.

-monz

In a message dated 12/19/2003 12:40:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
monz@attglobal.net writes:

> it's generally considered to be true that humans can
> distinguish pitch differences best with a plain sine wave.
> but of course, that's only under test conditions.

The less information to discern, the easier it is to label. Johnny

In a message dated 12/18/2003 11:52:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
akjmicro@comcast.net writes:

> No one here, Carl included, doubts you are a pro and a respected member of
> the
> American alt-tuning scene, Johnny !!! This should be besides the point, and
> it's a fallacy to use the argument from authority to counter Carl's points.
>
> I would be interested, as well as Carl, in seeing a demonstration of the
> singing and/or sensitivity to very small intervals that Johnny describes.
> It sounds, well, extraordinary!
>
> I think all Carl is trying to say is something equal to the 'skeptic's
> motto',
> which is ever justified: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence".
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron

Hi Aaron,

I never doubted for a moment my purpose on this list. It seems I am the only
person on this list that performs microtonal music with flexible pitch.
Rather than focusing on my history or accomplishments, let us focus on this alone.

As the single person that performs in all tunings and directs others to do so
as well, I have a different take on the List's subjects. It is not theory
for someone in practice.

Now as for interrogation, testing, and Gabor's rite of punishment, I have
this to say:

All my life people questioned what I could do in music: no one believed I
could play quartertones on a bassoon, for example. When I played in Jon
Catler's Microtones band in 31-tone ET a room of ethnomusicologists in the audience
argued with me that there were no microtones to be heard (and that with a
31-tone per octave fretted fingerboard).

New York has its own music world: here it is against union rules even to
audition someone for a gig...less testing. I hate tests, period.

However, I have demonstrated this issue of distinguising a single cent
vocally (and instrumentally) to many microtonal luminaries. Some people cannot
hear these difference. Last March I did a performance piece called "Hearing a
Cent" and learned as a result that only a few people could distinguish a cent,
let alone produce it. This is similar to perfect pitch, as well as
synaesthesia.

It does not anger me that people doubt me or complain about my releasing
music to them. What does anger me is when the amateur in music, or anywhere else
(like government), audatiously expound upon these matter to others, even more
naive than they are.

Cut the crap, already. Of course some musicians hear better than
non-professional music lovers. Of course I hear better than most because of my work in
directing microtonal music of all styles in different tunings. Of course the
work must stand up to analysis. And when the 20 PITCH CDs do come out, there
will plenty of analysis potential to go around.

But right now, I say Crap to taking tests, or to giving them. All one needs
to do is hold a single, unwavering pitch as the pure fifth above a tonic, and
then to hold the 12-tET perfect fifth above the same tonic. Then isolate the
2 distinct pitches that are 2 cents apart (and mathematically smaller).
Finally, place a pitch in between those 2 pitches, and one has single cent
distinguishment. Try it with your friends.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_50085.html#50105
>
>
> A
> > sine wave, or close to a sine wave, would be easiest to
distinguish
> a specific
> > pitch. This means sustained and without vibrato.
> >
>
>
> ***Is it true that it's easier to distinguish pitch in a sine wave
> than in tones with some kind of partial component...??
>
> [Drat... where's Paul Erlich when we need him... :( ]
>
> J. Pehrson

We don't usually spend much of our time listening to pure sines
although my experience is that I can more easily recognize pitches in
pure sines.

I have been writing some music teaching software for children. The
first module is pitch recognition. Maybe you'd like to find out what
your score is with sines against with viols? (Output is to MIDI
devices).

Peter

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>

/tuning/topicId_50085.html#50123

wrote:
> On Thursday 18 December 2003 08:56 pm, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 12/18/03 8:25:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > ekin@l...
> >
> > writes:
> > > "Cents" and the like are clearly under the rubric of music
> > > theory, Johnny.
> >
> > You are absolutely wrong, Carl. Cents, and their configuration
real time,
> > is not theory at all. This is what I have been trying to make
clear on
> > this List for years now.
> >
> > There are aspects to making great music, Horatio, that are
greater than has
> > been your experience (or something like that).
> >
> > best, Johnny
> >
> > who does not have a recording device. the ex took it.
>
> Carl and Johnny-
>
> I've been peeking at this thread a bit and I wanted to make a
couple of
> points:
>
> No one here, Carl included, doubts you are a pro and a respected
member of the
> American alt-tuning scene, Johnny !!! This should be besides the
point, and
> it's a fallacy to use the argument from authority to counter Carl's
points.
>
> I would be interested, as well as Carl, in seeing a demonstration
of the
> singing and/or sensitivity to very small intervals that Johnny
describes.
> It sounds, well, extraordinary!
>
> I think all Carl is trying to say is something equal to
the 'skeptic's motto',
> which is ever justified: "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary
> evidence".
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron.

***Hello Aaron!

Actually, Johnny did conduct an experiment some time ago with
composer Patrick Grant, and had Patrick post the results to this very
Tuning List.

Some people seem to have trouble with this Yahoo search engine, but
*I* never do... I think it is quite good. I've found lots of stuff I
needed from quite far back...

Anyway, Patrick Grant's comments are on this list in this post:

/tuning/topicId_44851.html#44873

best,

Joseph

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi Joe,
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_50085.html#50105
> >
> >
> > > A sine wave, or close to a sine wave, would be easiest
> > > to distinguish a specific pitch. This means sustained
> > > and without vibrato.
> >
> >
> > ***Is it true that it's easier to distinguish pitch in a
> > sine wave than in tones with some kind of partial component...??
>
>
> it's generally considered to be true that humans can
> distinguish pitch differences best with a plain sine wave.
> but of course, that's only under test conditions.
>
> in a "real" musical situation, other factors certainly
> make affect tuning perception. tonality is one big factor.
>
>
>
> > [Drat... where's Paul Erlich when we need him... :( ]
>
> paul told me in private email that he's been quite ill,
> but he's recovering.
>
> the Sault "imbroglio" played a role too, and there won't
> be any closure to that until Peter gives a clear explanation
> of his published writings. (any more on this goes to metatuning)
>
> -monz

Hi - to anybody who's the slightest bit interested in the above.

Joe has made it quite clear where your duty lies. You are required to
browbeat me into submission. The question is, how do you do that
without making yourself look like a complete idiot?

"I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking, did he fire six
shots or only five? Well to tell you the truth, I forgot myself in
all this excitement. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most
powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off,
you've got to ask yourself a question: do I feel lucky? Well do ya,
punk?"

Peter

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Afmmjr@aol.com [mailto:Afmmjr@aol.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2003 16:24
An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [tuning] Re: Mozart's ideas-Carl

In a message dated 12/18/2003 10:13:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
alternativetuning@yahoo.com writes:

"Man, you just don't hear as accurately."

Please either retract this statement and stop making such statements
in the future, or if you want to make such statements, I will be
happy to propose a test of the truth of the statement. And Johnny
Reinhard wouldn't refuse such a test like Sylvia Browne refuses James
Randi, would he?

Gabor Bernath

> Too bad, Gabor. The statement holds. The truth hurts.
> But this forum needs to be based on truth and we have never
> shirked away from it. Thank heavens I don't have to be
> tested by Gabor Bernath, I could never leave my home ever
> again. However, I don't live in Hungary, only in the tiny
> hamlet of Manhattan where I teach and concertize. Once again,
> read the Seashore literature to know there are indeed musicians
> that can hear one cent, and move on.

> I understand the sensitivity that people have with hearing a cent.
> But when these communication channels are used for amateur
> pronouncements on the abilities of others, it is important to
> address them.

> best, Johnny Reinhard

Johnny,

Truth is one subject. Your unbraked temperament is the other one.
In order to come back to a pertinant discussion and as I have
deleted all former mails regarding this subject (and as I don't
like to rummage in the list):
Do you speak of hearing the change of one single tone? Then indeed,
I never have realized that a change of less than 2 Cents has been
recognized. But this has been in group tests and maybe, in l
aboratory tests someone may hear still finer.
Or - do you speak of hearing the change of beats by an interval?
Than we need not discuss it.
I never would doubt the sentences of professionals. But I already
joined discussions where or more "professionals" fighted for
opposite theories. In such situations I like to go back to the
"amateur" status and to reflect and weight the different theories
by intellect.

best

Werner

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Werner Mohrlok [mailto:wmohrlok@hermode.com]
Gesendet: Samstag, 20. Dezember 2003 05:32
An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: AW: [tuning] Re: Mozart's ideas-Carl

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Afmmjr@aol.com [mailto:Afmmjr@aol.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2003 16:24
An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [tuning] Re: Mozart's ideas-Carl

In a message dated 12/18/2003 10:13:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
alternativetuning@yahoo.com writes:

"Man, you just don't hear as accurately."

Please either retract this statement and stop making such statements
in the future, or if you want to make such statements, I will be
happy to propose a test of the truth of the statement. And Johnny
Reinhard wouldn't refuse such a test like Sylvia Browne refuses James
Randi, would he?

Gabor Bernath

> Too bad, Gabor. The statement holds. The truth hurts.
> But this forum needs to be based on truth and we have never
> shirked away from it. Thank heavens I don't have to be
> tested by Gabor Bernath, I could never leave my home ever
> again. However, I don't live in Hungary, only in the tiny
> hamlet of Manhattan where I teach and concertize. Once again,
> read the Seashore literature to know there are indeed musicians
> that can hear one cent, and move on.

> I understand the sensitivity that people have with hearing a cent.
> But when these communication channels are used for amateur
> pronouncements on the abilities of others, it is important to
> address them.

> best, Johnny Reinhard

Johnny,
Truth is one subject. Your unbraked temperament is the other one.In
order to come back to a pertinant discussion and as I have deleted all
former mails regarding this subject (and as I don't like to rummage in the
list):Do you speak of hearing the change of one single tone? Then indeed, I
never have realized that a change of less than 2 Cents has been recognized.
But this has been in group tests and maybe, in laboratory tests someone may
hear still finer.
Or - do you speak of hearing the change of beats by an interval?
Than we need not discuss it.

Werner

I repeat this mail as it was finished at this point
As a result of an error there followed a sentence which was not written
for this mail and could cause misunderstandings.
Besides: Johnny, you need not answer, I meanwhile understood your
ideas by reading the other mails.

W.

You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold
for the tuning group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
/tuning/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

On Friday 19 December 2003 11:09 am, Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/18/2003 11:52:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>
> akjmicro@comcast.net writes:
> > No one here, Carl included, doubts you are a pro and a respected member
> > of the
> > American alt-tuning scene, Johnny !!! This should be besides the point,
> > and it's a fallacy to use the argument from authority to counter Carl's
> > points.
> >
> > I would be interested, as well as Carl, in seeing a demonstration of the
> > singing and/or sensitivity to very small intervals that Johnny describes.
> > It sounds, well, extraordinary!
> >
> > I think all Carl is trying to say is something equal to the 'skeptic's
> > motto',
> > which is ever justified: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> > evidence".
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Aaron
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> I never doubted for a moment my purpose on this list. It seems I am the
> only person on this list that performs microtonal music with flexible
> pitch. Rather than focusing on my history or accomplishments, let us focus
> on this alone.

Can you be clear what you mean by 'flexible pitch'? Anyone who sings or plays
a violin uses 'flexible pitch'. Early music players who lock onto a continuo
part tuned to an 18th century tuning are by definition 'microtonalists'.

> As the single person that performs in all tunings and directs others to do
> so as well, I have a different take on the List's subjects. It is not
> theory for someone in practice.

You seem to be taking a very defensive, ego-based approach to all of this.
Lighten up, no one here is attacking your status; we are interested in
evidence. You argument wouldn't stand up in a court right now. It's the
fallacy of 'the argument from authority'.

> Now as for interrogation, testing, and Gabor's rite of punishment, I have
> this to say:
>
> All my life people questioned what I could do in music: no one believed I
> could play quartertones on a bassoon, for example. When I played in Jon
> Catler's Microtones band in 31-tone ET a room of ethnomusicologists in the
> audience argued with me that there were no microtones to be heard (and that
> with a 31-tone per octave fretted fingerboard).
>
> New York has its own music world: here it is against union rules even to
> audition someone for a gig...less testing. I hate tests, period.

Unfortunately for you, 'tests' are routine in the world of science, and yours
is a somewhat scientific claim with a somewhat simple demonstration. If you
can do this, let's see. Until then, I take no one's word for it because they
are in some sort of 'position of authority'. In fact, it's less than
professional to expect your fellow professionals to cave to your insulting
insinuations that you are the only a) professional musician here, or b) the
only qualified person who thinks and does these matters.

Or, that living in New York or not is at all relevant.

> However, I have demonstrated this issue of distinguising a single cent
> vocally (and instrumentally) to many microtonal luminaries. Some people
> cannot hear these difference. Last March I did a performance piece called
> "Hearing a Cent" and learned as a result that only a few people could
> distinguish a cent, let alone produce it. This is similar to perfect
> pitch, as well as synaesthesia.

Again, how do you *know* you were producing a cent diffrence? Subjective
feelings do not count. Objective measures are important in this instance-I
think that that was Carl's point.

> It does not anger me that people doubt me or complain about my releasing
> music to them. What does anger me is when the amateur in music, or
> anywhere else (like government), audatiously expound upon these matter to
> others, even more naive than they are.

This egoism of yours is getting off-putting. I'm afraid the more defensive you
get on this, the less I believe you-not that that's right, but it's my
instinct. You assume you are corresponding with 'amateurs'? Is anyone who
would question your ability to hear a cent an amateur *by definition*?

> Cut the crap, already. Of course some musicians hear better than
> non-professional music lovers. Of course I hear better than most because
> of my work in directing microtonal music of all styles in different
> tunings. Of course the work must stand up to analysis. And when the 20
> PITCH CDs do come out, there will plenty of analysis potential to go
> around.

So in summary: your argument is based solely on our being willing to take your
word as an 'authority'. You are as cynical and insulting as a John Ashcroft
if that is what you believe. I'm glad your not a politician if this is your
response to being accountable to extraordinary claims (and you agree that the
ability to hear and sing/play single cent gradations is extraordinary, else
you wouldn't have put yourself in the elite category that you do.)

> But right now, I say Crap to taking tests, or to giving them.

....and thus screw objective standards....
A true fundamentalist. We just trust you, Jim Jones, that we should drink the
poison!

> All one
> needs to do is hold a single, unwavering pitch as the pure fifth above a
> tonic, and then to hold the 12-tET perfect fifth above the same tonic.
> Then isolate the 2 distinct pitches that are 2 cents apart (and
> mathematically smaller). Finally, place a pitch in between those 2 pitches,
> and one has single cent distinguishment. Try it with your friends.

Well, it's worth a shot. You may be right.

I tend to doubt it's even meaningful to say there exists such an animal as a
'single unwavering pitch' in the vocal mechanism. I say that as a trained
professional who has worked with professional singers for 12 years. Not that
I would lower myself to arguments from authority....

-Aaron.

In a message dated 12/20/03 3:07:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
akjmicro@comcast.net writes:

> Can you be clear what you mean by 'flexible pitch'? Anyone who sings or
> plays
> a violin uses 'flexible pitch'. Early music players who lock onto a continuo
>
> part tuned to an 18th century tuning are by definition 'microtonalists'.

Exactly. Anyone that can pinpoint microtones using flexible pitch on the
List? Aaron, are you an exception? Not so incidentally, "locking in," as with a
continuo harpsichord is not the same thing as initiating the pitch for others
to take.

>
> > As the single person that performs in all tunings and directs others to do
> > so as well, I have a different take on the List's subjects. It is not
> > theory for someone in practice.
>
> You seem to be taking a very defensive, ego-based approach to all of this.
> Lighten up, no one here is attacking your status; we are interested in
> evidence. You argument wouldn't stand up in a court right now. It's the
> fallacy of 'the argument from authority'.

Well, I must say I am fascinated that you see it this way. There is no court
outside of the music for me. Hmm, "argument from authority" would seem to
signify that someone placed me at a level that gave me a bully pulpit. To me, I
am only describing what I hear, which is somewhat more detailed than most
people in my experience have had the occasion to accomplish.

>
> > Now as for interrogation, testing, and Gabor's rite of punishment, I have
> > this to say:
> >
> > All my life people questioned what I could do in music: no one believed I
> > could play quartertones on a bassoon, for example. When I played in Jon
> > Catler's Microtones band in 31-tone ET a room of ethnomusicologists in the
> > audience argued with me that there were no microtones to be heard (and
> that
> > with a 31-tone per octave fretted fingerboard).
> >
> > New York has its own music world: here it is against union rules even to
> > audition someone for a gig...less testing. I hate tests, period.
>
> Unfortunately for you, 'tests' are routine in the world of science, and
> yours
> is a somewhat scientific claim with a somewhat simple demonstration. If you
> can do this, let's see.

You mean like injections in the doctor's office?

Until then, I take no one's word for it because they >
> are in some sort of 'position of authority'.

We are all participants on an Internet List, some for many years now. None
of us has any special authority other than that earned over the many years of
posting. The only exception to this is the set of individual accomplishments
of each respondent with a myriad of areas of music interest. Mine is in
microtonal performance for the greatest variety of situations. May I suggest to you
that any "position of authority" is really a fabrication on your part?

In fact, it's less than > professional to expect your fellow professionals to
> cave to your insulting
> insinuations that you are the only a) professional musician here, or b) the
> only qualified person who thinks and does these matters.

Please, offer suggestions...who? I am not insinuating anything. It's like
the difference between a surgeon and a chiropractor.

> Again, how do you *know* you were producing a cent difference? Subjective
> feelings do not count. Objective measures are important in this instance-I
> think that that was Carl's point.

Aaron, there is no again, and it is no subjective as it is to doubt any of
the intonation that I and my colleagues have made over the years. Please don't
penalize me for have put in years.

It's just that there is assurance by me that I can mete out an exact 3/2
perfect fifth vocally. I can limit the vibrato and tone so that I can give clean
pitch signals.

I can also spout a masters degree in singing a perfect fifth of 700 cents
along with my peers at the Manhattan School of Music. This is not too impress
but to signify why my fairly useless diploma exists. It was a requirement. We
had to sing an 12-tET Perfect fifth, mostly falling.

So, by isolating these two specific pitches, holding them so as to be
measurable as a cent (and not a bandwidth of approximation), one has set up the
melodic interval of 2 cents: a schisma. By placing a single pitch between said
schisma produces an adjacent cents scale, which can be continued sequentially,
accordingly.

> > It does not anger me that people doubt me or complain about my releasing
> > music to them. What does anger me is when the amateur in music, or
> > anywhere else (like government), audatiously expound upon these matter to
> > others, even more naive than they are.
>
> This egoism of yours is getting off-putting. I'm afraid the more defensive
> you
> get on this, the less I believe you-not that that's right, but it's my

> instinct. You assume you are corresponding with 'amateurs'? Is anyone who
> would question your ability to hear a cent an amateur *by definition*?

As a matter of fact, I have found people who can hear a cent that are not
musicians, though also not on the List. Talk about "locking in," this is most
pleasurable. Its the kind of human cement that allows the unbelievably
improvisations of more than 50 people as in my piece "Odysseus."

About my egoism, again? Well, I guess anything I say would be suspect at
this point. Hmmn, virtuoso player = egoistic? Makes some sense... ( but is it
measurable sense, or only some approximate bandwidth).

> > Cut the crap, already. Of course some musicians hear better than
> > non-professional music lovers. Of course I hear better than most because
> > of my work in directing microtonal music of all styles in different
> > tunings. Of course the work must stand up to analysis. And when the 20
> > PITCH CDs do come out, there will plenty of analysis potential to go
> > around.
>
> So in summary: your argument is based solely on our being willing to take
> your
> word as an 'authority'. You are as cynical and insulting as a John Ashcroft
> if that is what you believe. I'm glad your not a politician if this is your
> response to being accountable to extraordinary claims (and you agree that
> the
> ability to hear and sing/play single cent gradations is extraordinary, else
> you wouldn't have put yourself in the elite category that you do.)

Wow, what a comparison. Straight out of left field for me!

Actually it is a bit funny that you don't really understand, as it is for
each of us on different issues. It's so Socratic, "No one knows what they don't
know" enough. Better consider that it is more important to impress upon this
List that the ear does here cents specific intonation. Otherwise someone will
eventually reduce its fine detail into some kind of Pentatonic version, and a
huge loss for music expression.

> > But right now, I say Crap to taking tests, or to giving them.
>
> ....and thus screw objective standards....
> A true fundamentalist. We just trust you, Jim Jones, that we should drink
> the
> poison!

Wow! Now its about religion! And wow again, that you should equate drinking
poison with what a leading exponent of microtonal performance is capable of.

> > All one
> > needs to do is hold a single, unwavering pitch as the pure fifth above a
> > tonic, and then to hold the 12-tET perfect fifth above the same tonic.
> > Then isolate the 2 distinct pitches that are 2 cents apart (and
> > mathematically smaller). Finally, place a pitch in between those 2
> pitches,
> > and one has single cent distinguishment. Try it with your friends.
>
> Well, it's worth a shot. You may be right.

Don't hurt yourself, now.

> I tend to doubt it's even meaningful to say there exists such an animal as
> a
> 'single unwavering pitch' in the vocal mechanism. I say that as a trained
> professional who has worked with professional singers for 12 years. Not that
>
> I would lower myself to arguments from authority....
>
> -Aaron.
>

Well, there is "jitter," which is the bouncing of the heart in the chest.
But that can be accounted for, if one is relaxed enough. "Working with" and
"leading" are different concepts, Aaron. Please my comments about matching a
Baroque continuo. If you can't achieve a "single unwavering pitch" then you
can't produce individual cents. That seems clear enough.

But when matching a Korg tuner and having its arrow point unwaveringly at any
pitch, including A = 440, then the issues becomes moot.

best, Johnny Reinhard

>I can also spout a masters degree in singing a perfect fifth
>of 700 cents along with my peers at the Manhattan School of Music.

How is/was your singing a 700 cent 5th measured? Against a piano
is not sufficient. Against a synthesizer is sufficient, but one
must sing several attempts, and blindly compare against either a
700 cent fifth or a pure fifth on each trial. Have you ever done
this? It would also be desirable to check against a strobe (or
better) tuner.

By the way, while this test would show the basic skill of singing
a cent (in contradiction of numerous experimental results showing
the JND (just-noticeable difference) to be several times larger
than a cent) it's a universe-and-a-half away from anything like
being able to play harmonic intervals to this accuracy in an
arbitrary ensemble situation.

Basically, Johnny, piano tuners spend an hour or two attempting
to tune 700-cent fifths on single instrument (no cross-tibral or
spatial location concerns), with precise methods developed over
centuries, by counting beats, and they as often as not don't do
it to an accuracy of a cent. And you expect us to believe you
can play anything with this accuracy in real time? That's a very,
very, very, very, very extraordinary claim.

>About my egoism, again? Well, I guess anything I say would be
>suspect at this point. Hmmn, virtuoso player = egoistic?

Yes, people who claim they are virtuoso players are usually
egotistic, and this is especially true when they are in fact
mediocre players.

-Carl

In a message dated 12/20/03 5:19:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

Hi Carl,

> How is/was your singing a 700 cent 5th measured?

Carl, yes, I did use a synthesizer in the form of the Korg quartz memory
tuner. I used it to get all my notes, even the
12-tET "normal" notes. Only then, it goes into your inner conscious.
Overtone singing helps internalize the relationships. It also helps knock out the
vibrato and shakes of all kinds.

Against a piano > is not sufficient. Against a synthesizer is
> sufficient, but one
> must sing several attempts, and blindly compare against either a
> 700 cent fifth or a pure fifth on each trial.

Carl, the sound is already "locked in" to your voice. When you "overtone
sing" you are getting the purest and stablest tones. And if you can internalize
the sound -- so that you don't need to vocalize them or emit any sound of them
-- then like JI, it's just on and off, there is only one place where the
arrow won't move.

Have you ever done >
> this? It would also be desirable to check against a strobe (or
> better) tuner.
>
> By the way, while this test would show the basic skill of singing
> a cent (in contradiction of numerous experimental results showing
> the JND (just-noticeable difference) to be several times larger
> than a cent) it's a universe-and-a-half away from anything like
> being able to play harmonic intervals to this accuracy in an
> arbitrary ensemble situation.
>

This is true. However, there really is no musical need to pile up intervals
of a melodic cent.

> Basically, Johnny, piano tuners spend an hour or two attempting
> to tune 700-cent fifths on single instrument (no cross-tibral or
> spatial location concerns), with precise methods developed over
> centuries, by counting beats, and they as often as not don't do
> it to an accuracy of a cent. And you expect us to believe you
> can play anything with this accuracy in real time? That's a very,
> very, very, very, very extraordinary claim.

Welcome to my world. Actually, that is why I question piano tuning theory.
This inharmonic consortium of three strings -- let alone those big buzzing
ones in the bass -- is certainly not as accurate as what I have described. The
piano tuning is an approximation at its best. Pitching a cent into musical
sound -- which I believe to be more advanced than the passive attended hearing of
a cent interval. Quite often people who hear this interval cannot tell which
direction the melodic interval was going. It's almost always wrong, somehow
(like the Japanese switch of L and R).

>
> >About my egoism, again? Well, I guess anything I say would be
> >suspect at this point. Hmmn, virtuoso player = egoistic?
>
> Yes, people who claim they are virtuoso players are usually
> egotistic, and this is especially true when they are in fact
> mediocre players.
>
> -Carl
>

I would suggest one not confuse passion with ego. Please Carl, supply a list
of points of what makes a virutuoso players so that I can see if indeed I
make the grade. (If I go any further, it would be ego...)

And so, best, Johnny Reinhard

>

I have heard Johnny sing a cent. and i believe he can do so. Anyone who puts the amount of time
concentrating on such small intervals learns the emotional meaning of such things. I am quite
surprised for someone not starting with the best ear to discover how accurate my sense of pitch
is. The one thing me and Johnny have in common is actually working with microtones over many
years.
(aside)
For me the better it gets the worse western music sounds, that most tone deaf of musical cultures
:)

>
> From: Afmmjr@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Carl vs. Johnny - was "Mozarts's ideas - Carl"
>
> Well, I must say I am fascinated that you see it this way. There is no court
> outside of the music for me. Hmm, "argument from authority" would seem to
> signify that someone placed me at a level that gave me a bully pulpit. To me, I
> am only describing what I hear, which is somewhat more detailed than most
> people in my experience have had the occasion to accomplish.
>
> We are all participants on an Internet List, some for many years now. None
> of us has any special authority other than that earned over the many years of
> posting. The only exception to this is the set of individual accomplishments
> of each respondent with a myriad of areas of music interest. Mine is in
> microtonal performance for the greatest variety of situations. May I suggest to you
> that any "position of authority" is really a fabrication on your part?
>
> In fact, it's less than > professional to expect your fellow professionals to
> > cave to your insulting
> > insinuations that you are the only a) professional musician here, or b) the
> > only qualified person who thinks and does these matters.
>
> Please, offer suggestions...who? I am not insinuating anything. It's like
> the difference between a surgeon and a chiropractor.
>
> > Again, how do you *know* you were producing a cent difference? Subjective
> > feelings do not count. Objective measures are important in this instance-I
> > think that that was Carl's point.
>
> Aaron, there is no again, and it is no subjective as it is to doubt any of
> the intonation that I and my colleagues have made over the years. Please don't
> penalize me for have put in years.
>
> It's just that there is assurance by me that I can mete out an exact 3/2
> perfect fifth vocally. I can limit the vibrato and tone so that I can give clean
> pitch signals.
>
> I can also spout a masters degree in singing a perfect fifth of 700 cents
> along with my peers at the Manhattan School of Music. This is not too impress
> but to signify why my fairly useless diploma exists. It was a requirement. We
> had to sing an 12-tET Perfect fifth, mostly falling.
>
> So, by isolating these two specific pitches, holding them so as to be
> measurable as a cent (and not a bandwidth of approximation), one has set up the
> melodic interval of 2 cents: a schisma. By placing a single pitch between said
> schisma produces an adjacent cents scale, which can be continued sequentially,
> accordingly.
>
> > > It does not anger me that people doubt me or complain about my releasing
> > > music to them. What does anger me is when the amateur in music, or
> > > anywhere else (like government), audatiously expound upon these matter to
> > > others, even more naive than they are.
> >
> > This egoism of yours is getting off-putting. I'm afraid the more defensive
> > you
> > get on this, the less I believe you-not that that's right, but it's my
>
> > instinct. You assume you are corresponding with 'amateurs'? Is anyone who
> > would question your ability to hear a cent an amateur *by definition*?
>
> As a matter of fact, I have found people who can hear a cent that are not
> musicians, though also not on the List. Talk about "locking in," this is most
> pleasurable. Its the kind of human cement that allows the unbelievably
> improvisations of more than 50 people as in my piece "Odysseus."
>
> About my egoism, again? Well, I guess anything I say would be suspect at
> this point. Hmmn, virtuoso player = egoistic? Makes some sense... ( but is it
> measurable sense, or only some approximate bandwidth).
>
> > > Cut the crap, already. Of course some musicians hear better than
> > > non-professional music lovers. Of course I hear better than most because
> > > of my work in directing microtonal music of all styles in different
> > > tunings. Of course the work must stand up to analysis. And when the 20
> > > PITCH CDs do come out, there will plenty of analysis potential to go
> > > around.
> >
> > So in summary: your argument is based solely on our being willing to take
> > your
> > word as an 'authority'. You are as cynical and insulting as a John Ashcroft
> > if that is what you believe. I'm glad your not a politician if this is your
> > response to being accountable to extraordinary claims (and you agree that
> > the
> > ability to hear and sing/play single cent gradations is extraordinary, else
> > you wouldn't have put yourself in the elite category that you do.)
>
> Wow, what a comparison. Straight out of left field for me!
>
> Actually it is a bit funny that you don't really understand, as it is for
> each of us on different issues. It's so Socratic, "No one knows what they don't
> know" enough. Better consider that it is more important to impress upon this
> List that the ear does here cents specific intonation. Otherwise someone will
> eventually reduce its fine detail into some kind of Pentatonic version, and a
> huge loss for music expression.
>
> > > But right now, I say Crap to taking tests, or to giving them.
> >
> > ....and thus screw objective standards....
> > A true fundamentalist. We just trust you, Jim Jones, that we should drink
> > the
> > poison!
>
> Wow! Now its about religion! And wow again, that you should equate drinking
> poison with what a leading exponent of microtonal performance is capable of.
>
> > > All one
> > > needs to do is hold a single, unwavering pitch as the pure fifth above a
> > > tonic, and then to hold the 12-tET perfect fifth above the same tonic.
> > > Then isolate the 2 distinct pitches that are 2 cents apart (and
> > > mathematically smaller). Finally, place a pitch in between those 2
> > pitches,
> > > and one has single cent distinguishment. Try it with your friends.
> >
> > Well, it's worth a shot. You may be right.
>
> Don't hurt yourself, now.
>
> > I tend to doubt it's even meaningful to say there exists such an animal as
> > a
> > 'single unwavering pitch' in the vocal mechanism. I say that as a trained
> > professional who has worked with professional singers for 12 years. Not that
> >
> > I would lower myself to arguments from authority....
> >
> > -Aaron.
> >
>
> Well, there is "jitter," which is the bouncing of the heart in the chest.
> But that can be accounted for, if one is relaxed enough. "Working with" and
> "leading" are different concepts, Aaron. Please my comments about matching a
> Baroque continuo. If you can't achieve a "single unwavering pitch" then you
> can't produce individual cents. That seems clear enough.
>
> But when matching a Korg tuner and having its arrow point unwaveringly at any
> pitch, including A = 440, then the issues becomes moot.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>

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

>> I can also spout a masters degree in singing a perfect fifth
>> of 700 cents along with my peers at the Manhattan School of Music.

> How is/was your singing a 700 cent 5th measured? Against a piano
> is not sufficient. Against a synthesizer is sufficient, but one
>...snip...
> can play anything with this accuracy in real time? That's a very,
> very, very, very, very extraordinary claim.

> >About my egoism, again? Well, I guess anything I say would be
> >suspect at this point. Hmmn, virtuoso player = egoistic?

> Yes, people who claim they are virtuoso players are usually
> egotistic, and this is especially true when they are in fact
> mediocre players.

> -Carl

Carl,

indeed we both know us long enough so I know: You are an
almost very polite man.
Regarding this subject (human tuning by a fineness of 1 Cents)
I like to agree you.
But as long as we haven't made a test we don't know it precisely
therefore we should - as to my opinion - no longer discuss on it.
Either we make a test or we believe it - or believe it not.
And saying: A *mediocre* player ( a *half good* instrumentalist)
is a *half good* reply.
Indeed, Johnny sometimes comes in passion - and maybe,
he had in his life to answer to a lot to stupid people. This will
perhaps formed his style.
But I don't believe that he would like to regard us as such
stupids - and if ever he would do so it would be his problem
and not ours.

best:
Werner.

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

/tuning/topicId_50085.html#50127

> it's generally considered to be true that humans can
> distinguish pitch differences best with a plain sine wave.
> but of course, that's only under test conditions.

paul erlich challenged me in a private email to
produce references to back up that statement, and
i not only failed to produce them but didn't even
try ... in fact, i totally renounced my claim.

i wrote that because i remember reading something
about it, but in retrospect it seems so vague and/or
irrelevant now that i shoulnd't have said it in
the first place.

i'm glad to see that it provoked further discussion
about this issue on-list, but i don't defend what
i wrote there.

-monz

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

/tuning/topicId_50085.html#50465

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_50085.html#50127
>
> > it's generally considered to be true that humans can
> > distinguish pitch differences best with a plain sine wave.
> > but of course, that's only under test conditions.
>
>
>
> paul erlich challenged me in a private email to
> produce references to back up that statement, and
> i not only failed to produce them but didn't even
> try ... in fact, i totally renounced my claim.
>
> i wrote that because i remember reading something
> about it, but in retrospect it seems so vague and/or
> irrelevant now that i shoulnd't have said it in
> the first place.
>
> i'm glad to see that it provoked further discussion
> about this issue on-list, but i don't defend what
> i wrote there.
>
>
>
> -monz

***So, as I said, sine waves baaaaaad.... :)

JP

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_50085.html#50127
>
> > it's generally considered to be true that humans can
> > distinguish pitch differences best with a plain sine wave.
> > but of course, that's only under test conditions.
>
>
>
> > paul erlich challenged me in a private email to
> > produce references to back up that statement, and
> > i not only failed to produce them but didn't even
> > try ... in fact, i totally renounced my claim.
> >
> > i wrote that because i remember reading something
> > about it, but in retrospect it seems so vague and/or
> > irrelevant now that i shoulnd't have said it in
> > the first place.
> >
> > i'm glad to see that it provoked further discussion
> > about this issue on-list, but i don't defend what
> > i wrote there.
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz

> ***So, as I said, sine waves baaaaaad.... :)

> JP

There exisists a publication:
John R. Pierce: The science of musical sound
published in 1983 by Scientific American Books, Inc.

Pierce describes the limits of pereceptible frequency
differences at *sinus waves* as follows:

loudness in db: 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Frequency
in Hz Cents
31 220 150 97 76 70
62 120 120 85 80 74 61 60
125 100 73 52 46 43 48 47
250 61 37 22 19 18 17 17 17 17
500 28 19 12 10 9 7 6 7
1000 16 11 7 6 6 6 6 5 5
2000 14 6 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
4000 10 8 5 5 4 4 4 4
8000 11 9 7 6 5 4 4
11700 12 10 6 6 6 5

Comments?

Werner

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> But when matching a Korg tuner and having its arrow point
>unwaveringly at any
> pitch, including A = 440, then the issues becomes moot.

This kind of blind trust in technology is not healthy. As it happens,
we on this list have seen the myth of the reliability of Korg tuners
severely demolished, in articles written by the very guy paid by Korg
to write the manuals for their tuners! Though I'm sure, in your case,
your fine ear would be able to tell you when the Korg is
acting "funky" more often than not anyhow. Still, no technology can
overcome the basic mathematical limitations of defining frequency and
time together simultaneously, despite appearances (such as a needle
always pointing at a definite value at each point in time) to the
contrary on the part of some device. (Please don't read anything into
the above statement that isn't there -- this is in no way an attack
on your reported pitch discrimination abilities, though
Patrick's "very long time" is indeed a necessary caveat.)

In a message dated 12/30/2003 1:22:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
paul@stretch-music.com writes:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> >But when matching a Korg tuner and having its arrow point
> >unwaveringly at any
> >pitch, including A = 440, then the issues becomes moot.
>
> This kind of blind trust in technology is not healthy. As it happens,
> we on this list have seen the myth of the reliability of Korg tuners
> severely demolished, in articles written by the very guy paid by Korg
> to write the manuals for their tuners! Though I'm sure, in your case,
> your fine ear would be able to tell you when the Korg is
> acting "funky" more often than not anyhow.

Paul, I think there may be misunderstanding here. It's not that I am
pointing the arrow of a Korg tuner by my playing. It is that the pitch is being kept
steady -- in a kind of biofeedback -- that the pitch played is not wavering.

The technology is to assist in ascertaining pitch. Ultimately, the brain
takes over and supercedes the technology. But it is absoultely necessary to have
something reliable to tune to in earlier stages.

best, Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Werner Mohrlok" <wmohrlok@h...> wrote:

> There exisists a publication:
> John R. Pierce: The science of musical sound
> published in 1983 by Scientific American Books, Inc.

Very good book -- be sure to use the most recent edition (1983 may be
it, I don't recall)

> Pierce describes the limits of pereceptible frequency
> differences at *sinus waves* as follows:
>
> loudness in db: 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
>
> Frequency
> in Hz Cents
> 31 220 150 97 76 70
> 62 120 120 85 80 74 61 60
> 125 100 73 52 46 43 48 47
> 250 61 37 22 19 18 17 17 17 17
> 500 28 19 12 10 9 7 6 7
> 1000 16 11 7 6 6 6 6 5 5
> 2000 14 6 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
> 4000 10 8 5 5 4 4 4 4
> 8000 11 9 7 6 5 4 4
> 11700 12 10 6 6 6 5
>
> Comments?
>
> Werner

Most musical notes have harmonic partials in the 2000 Hz range. Thus,
if these partials are made loud enough (by increasing the volume of
the entire note, if necessary), one would only have to be as good as
the subjects of these experiments to distinguish a 3-cent pitch
shift, even if the fundamental is much lower than 2000Hz.

Moreover, one might reasonably expect that hearing *lots* of partials
all shift by the same amount would be easier than just hearing a
single partial (i.e., a sine wave) shift by that amount. Hence, even
the subjects of these experiments could reasonably be expected to be
able to hear pitch shifts even smaller than 3 cents in real musical
notes, at least in some range of loudness/frequency/timbre
combinations.

Finally, the subjects of these experiments most likely did not have
extensive training hearing tiny intervals. With training, no doubt
one can do better still -- as long as the duration of the notes is
long enough so that these small pitch shifts are mathematically
meaningful as such.

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Paul Erlich [mailto:paul@stretch-music.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 30. Dezember 2003 22:00
An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [tuning] Re: Johnny Reinhard interrogation

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Werner Mohrlok" <wmohrlok@h...> wrote:

> > There exisists a publication:
> > John R. Pierce: The science of musical sound
> > published in 1983 by Scientific American Books, Inc.

> Very good book -- be sure to use the most recent edition (1983 may be
> it, I don't recall)

> > Pierce describes the limits of pereceptible frequency
> > differences at *sinus waves* as follows:
> >
> > loudness in db: 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
> >
> > Frequency
> > in Hz Cents
> > 31 220 150 97 76 70
> > 62 120 120 85 80 74 61 60
> > 125 100 73 52 46 43 48 47
> > 250 61 37 22 19 18 17 17 17 17
> > 500 28 19 12 10 9 7 6 7
> > 1000 16 11 7 6 6 6 6 5 5
> > 2000 14 6 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
> > 4000 10 8 5 5 4 4 4 4
> > 8000 11 9 7 6 5 4 4
> > 11700 12 10 6 6 6 5
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > Werner

> Most musical notes have harmonic partials in the 2000 Hz range. Thus,
> if these partials are made loud enough (by increasing the volume of
> the entire note, if necessary), one would only have to be as good as
> the subjects of these experiments to distinguish a 3-cent pitch
> shift, even if the fundamental is much lower than 2000Hz.

> Moreover, one might reasonably expect that hearing *lots* of partials
> all shift by the same amount would be easier than just hearing a
> single partial (i.e., a sine wave) shift by that amount. Hence, even
> the subjects of these experiments could reasonably be expected to be
> able to hear pitch shifts even smaller than 3 cents in real musical
> notes, at least in some range of loudness/frequency/timbre
> combinations.

Indeed, this was my opinion, too.
Therefore I wanted to oppose the statement of
monz (????), that with sinus waves the best results
in hearing of frequency shifting will be achieved.
- Or did I misunderstand something?

Werner

> Finally, the subjects of these experiments most likely did not have
> extensive training hearing tiny intervals. With training, no doubt
> one can do better still -- as long as the duration of the notes is
> long enough so that these small pitch shifts are mathematically
> meaningful as such.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Werner Mohrlok" <wmohrlok@h...> wrote:

> Indeed, this was my opinion, too.
> Therefore I wanted to oppose the statement of
> monz (????), that with sinus waves the best results
> in hearing of frequency shifting will be achieved.

Yes, I agree, and monz himself actually later took back that
statement, in case you missed it.

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Paul Erlich [mailto:paul@stretch-music.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 30. Dezember 2003 22:32
An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [tuning] Re: Johnny Reinhard interrogation

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Werner Mohrlok" <wmohrlok@h...> wrote:

> > Indeed, this was my opinion, too.
> > Therefore I wanted to oppose the statement of
> > monz (????), that with sinus waves the best results
> > in hearing of frequency shifting will be achieved.

> Yes, I agree, and monz himself actually later took back that
> statement, in case you missed it.

This wouldn't require an answer, but I am happy that at least
at this subject I am in common with monz and Paul.

Werner