Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Harmonic Experience

> >I second that: "The Harmonic Experience" is a great
> >book to begin with.
> >
> >Micah
>
> My experience with "The Harmonic Experience" was extremely
> negative, on the other hand. To each his own.
>
> -C.

What was bad about it? Possible to summarize?
(Something tells me this has been discussed before. . . anyone remember
when (or better, what message #)?

>>> I second that: "The Harmonic Experience" is a great book to
>>> begin with.
>>
>> My experience with "The Harmonic Experience" was extremely
>> negative, on the other hand. To each his own.
>
> What was bad about it? Possible to summarize?
> (Something tells me this has been discussed before. . . anyone
> remember when (or better, what message #)?

Ok, "extremely negative" isn't fair (I was overstating things).
Mainly it's way too long. Like, by more than a factor of 10.
That's kinda damning in my view. It has been discussed, but I
can't remember when.

(searching...)

Here's stuff. I don't have message numbers; I'm going to paste.

>Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:13:23 -0700
>
>Some comments regarding
>W. A. Mathieu's book _The Harmonic Experience_
>and tuning issues (in particular, 31 notes)
>
>As a private student of Mathieu, he's personally gone over most of this
>book with me, and corrected many of my misunderstandings of it--so I
>think the below is a good (but very summary) representation of the
>author's intention.
>
>Mathieu's approach to harmony is fundamentally about coming to hear how
>12-tone equal-temperment can _represent_ 5 and/or 7-limit just
>intonation. For example, if you play a C major triad, and then an E
>major triad, and then a C major triad, and then a Ab major triad, then
>the G# and the Ab are the same key on a 12-tet keyboard, but the G# is
>heard as representing 25/16 while the Ab is heard as representing 8/5.
>
>The real magic comes, though, when you play CMajor, EMajor, AbMajor,
>CMajor, because a big zap occurs when the same equal-tempered note
>changes from representing 25/16 G# to 8/5 Ab.
>
>So, from an hearing perspective, it's about hearing what
>just-intonation harmony is being represented in an equal-tempered
>harmonic progressions, and especially hearing how notes are modulating
>from representing one just-intonation note to another.
>
>The final element to the mix is symmetrical harmony, such as whole tone
>or symetrical diminished harmony, because this type of harmony
>_depends_ upon the equal-spacing of 12-tet to work. So, for example,
>if you play the notes C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C-Bb-Ab-F#-E-D-E-F#-G-A-B-C#-D,
>somewhere in there, between Bb and F#, is distributed the sensation of
>modulating from 5-limit just harmony in C to symmetrical 12-tet, and
>then to 5-limit just harmony in D.
>
>Now, Mathieu outlines in the book the 31 just intervals which are
>easiest to represent in 12-tet. For example, while the Great Deisis
>above is easy to play in 12-tet, it is almost impossible to create a
>pythagorean comma, because this would require modulating through 12
>keys fast enough that sense memory would remember the first key you
>played.
>
>So, although Mathieu is a fan of alternative tunings, was a student of
>Easley Blackwood, author of "The Structure of Recognizable Diatonic
>Tunings", and can sing (and expects his students to be able to sing) 31
>just intervals, tuning-wise he is a big fan of 12-tet harmony with
>variable-pitch solo instruments that can hone in on the just-intoned
>intervals being represented, or ensembles such as Renaissance singers,
>who can adjust there harmony continously to be in just-intonation,
>without being limited to only being perfectly in tune in one key.
>
>I love this group!
>
>Louis

>Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 09:01:50 -0700
>
>>>mathieu's book is great, and i just mentioned it in this thread, but
>>he does a very poor job of discussing which commas are associated with
>>which temperaments, and leaves you thinking ET and JI are the only
>>worlds. meantone in fact has been more important in western music than
>>either -- 81:80 vanishes in meantone, but other "commas" don't.
>
>He's (for right or wrong) coming from the point of view that
>_perceptually_, the brain processes music as JI if it can find a
>tonality. You reduce or eliminate the brain's ability to determine
>tonality by going symmetrical or pantonal. ET is the optimal symmetric
>or pan-tonal scale par excellance, because it has maximum ambiguouty
>(sp?) between tonalities. So, I understand him to be saying that the
>only two interesting tunings from the standpoint of the deep perceptual
>processes of the brain are JI and ET, though there are lots of possible
>choices in actual performance on the spectrum between these. It's sort
>of like saying that the brain only processes three colors, red, blue,
>and green, although obviously the color pallete achievable from mixing
>these three is enourmous.
>
>>>i'm not sure how you would project both an "unequivocal 25:16" and an
>>"unequivocally 2^(8/12) interval" unless you are speaking literally of
>>the exact tuning used in some sort of polymicrotonal composition. can
>>you explain?
>
>By unequivocal, I mean there only being one interpretation of the tone
>in the deep perceptual structures of the brain. For example, if I play
>a C and an E on the piano, nice and slow, the brain thinks it's hearing
>a (slightly out of tune) 5:4 third. On the other hand if I play a C
>major triad and then a G7 chord, and play a symmetrical diminished
>scale over that features a Ab/G#, the brain cannot resolve whether that
>note is the 16:15 of G or the 45:32 of D without context--is it the
>Phrygian of G or the Lydian of the secondary dominant of G? So that
>note does not have an unambigous JI interpretation. And, if you play a
>whole-tone scale up and down repeatedly, after a while, it all melds
>together and you notice the equal spacing in the intervals--the brain
>is hearing the intervals as equally spaced, as opposed to JI harmonic
>relations.
>
>I'll next see Mathieu this Thursday, and I'm sure he would appreciate
>questions and feedback. All mistakes in my interpretation of his work
>are my own damn fault.
>
>Louis

>Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:01:56 +0100
>
>> It occurs to me that maybe I'm not doomed just because Mathieu thinks
>> twelve notes of 5-limit 12-et define a lattice, because he also thinks
>> 1 is a prime number. If I can correctly assume most musicians are not
>> going to follow this usage simply because Mathieu says so, maybe there
>> is hope for "lattice" also. I'd be interested to learn what people
>> here think a "lattice" ought to refer to, and whether twelve notes of
>> 5-limit 12-et can be one.
>
>I can't find where Mathieu says either of these things. Do you have
>references? The only problem I can see with his use of "lattice" is
>that he confuses it with "structure". My reference being:
>
>"We should here differentiate between the terms `structure' and
>`lattice' which are often used synonymously. By `structure' we mean the
>actual pattern of the arrangement of atoms in space. The term
>'lattice', although loosely used to denote the atoms in a crystal,
>should be reserved to describe the network of points which show the
>simple translation vectors on which a structure is based."
> H.M.Rosenberg, "The Solid State",
> Oxford University Press, 3rd Edition 1988, p.2
>
>Translate that into musical terms, and cut him some slack for using
>"lattice" as a synonym for "structure", and I can't find any problems
>with Mathieu's usage. I can't find where he calls ET a lattice, but I
>wouldn't disagree with that.
>
>Page 27 of Harmonic Experience clearly implies that 1 is *not* a prime
>number. Page 164 explicitly states that a lattice should strictly be
>infinite.
>
> Graham

>Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 19:03:23 -0000
>
>> I can't find where Mathieu says either of these things. Do you have
>> references?
>
>On pp 64-65 we find "A *prime number* is a positive whole number that
>has factors only of itself and one. There is an infinite array of
>prime numbers, but only the first few (1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11) have obvious
>musical significance." This definition is clear, explicit, and wrong.
>
>Later on he discusses music in the prime limits, which includes the
>1-limit, where you bang away at a unison.
>
>> Page 27 of Harmonic Experience clearly implies that 1 is *not* a prime
>> number.
>
>Page 27 says five is the next prime after three, and two the prime
>before it. It does not say one is not a prime.
>
>Page 164 explicitly states that a lattice should strictly be
>> infinite.
>
>Chapter 10 is called "The Five-Limit Lattice of Twelve Notes"; this is
>also the chapter that misdefines prime numbers. On page 65 he says
>"Later we extend the lattice outward in both dimensions, but so far we
>have confined our field to a specific field of twelve notes. Hence a
>'five-limit lattice of notes'". People who think vague, murky
>defintions are good and precise ones bad might want to ponder the
>implications. What is a "field" of notes? Is the specific "field" in
>question something like a Fokker block (the Ellis duodene seems to fit
>the discussion pretty well, and Ellis is someone he is quite familiar
>with) or are we assuming temperament, so the lattice is rolled up into
>a torus (donut?) We can't really know unless he tells us.

And what's this.... Paul Erlich did a search, and *he* provides
message #s...

...there, that oughta keep you busy! :)

-Carl

on 22/11/04 01:04, Christopher Bailey at chris@music.columbia.edu wrote:

>
>>> I second that: "The Harmonic Experience" is a great
>>> book to begin with.
>>>
>>> Micah
>>
>> My experience with "The Harmonic Experience" was extremely
>> negative, on the other hand. To each his own.
>>
>> -C.
>
>
> What was bad about it? Possible to summarize?
> (Something tells me this has been discussed before. . . anyone remember
> when (or better, what message #)?

I remember. Coupla years ago. Paul Erlich disliked some of the analogies in
the book as well as the comma flip psychological theory and lots of people
were afraid to argue with him so the book took a hit. Shame because it makes
more sense to me than some of the stuff I read here.

mopani

I think he's a perfectly able musician and teacher, whether you like his style or not. And his emphasis on singability I thought was sound, even though he did rule out 11-limit intervals (boooo!... :-). I studied with him, a little.

He's conservative (not to say, "reactionary" :-), but a great music person.

mopani@tiscali.co.uk wrote:

on 22/11/04 01:04, Christopher Bailey at chris@music.columbia.edu wrote:

mopani

You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

Yahoo! Groups Links

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

on 12/1/04 4:32 PM, Pete McRae <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think he's a perfectly able musician and teacher, whether you like his style
> or not. And his emphasis on singability I thought was sound, even though he
> did rule out 11-limit intervals (boooo!... :-).

Yes, boo.

However, if you mean ruling out the singability of 11-limit intervals, that
may be merely practical. ;)

On the other hand I'm terribly interested in the possibility of 11- and
13-limit intervals becoming somehow singable, without pitch tracks a la
Twining, or absurd levels of training that would not represent a culturally
sustainable approach to music. (Like, wouldn't it be great to do music that
didn't depend on technology for its creation?)

Curious thing is I think even harmonic chanters often omit the 11, having
perhaps a distaste for it. But this is based more on memory than actual
research--I noticed it after the fact and haven't listened much lately to
confirm it.

-Kurt

>> And his emphasis on singability I thought was sound, even though he
>> did rule out 11-limit intervals (boooo!... :-).
>
>Yes, boo.
>
>However, if you mean ruling out the singability of 11-limit intervals,
>that may be merely practical. ;)

>On the other hand I'm terribly interested in the possibility of 11- and
>13-limit intervals becoming somehow singable, without pitch tracks a la
>Twining, or absurd levels of training that would not represent a
>culturallysustainable approach to music. (Like, wouldn't it be great
>to do music that didn't depend on technology for its creation?)

Denny and I used to sing 11-limit intervals all the time. It's easy
for one person to sing a root and the other to walk up a series. Then
you build on that. Why don't we get together and do it sometime?

-Carl

hi Carl,

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

> > On the other hand I'm terribly interested in the possibility
> > of 11- and 13-limit intervals becoming somehow singable,
> > without pitch tracks a la Twining, or absurd levels of
> > training that would not represent a culturallysustainable
> > approach to music. (Like, wouldn't it be great to do music
> > that didn't depend on technology for its creation?)
>
> Denny and I used to sing 11-limit intervals all the time.
> It's easy for one person to sing a root and the other to
> walk up a series. Then you build on that. Why don't we get
> together and do it sometime?
>
> -Carl

and "harmonic singing" (Tuvan style, for instance) is
better still. if you can learn to sing a really low note
while changing the shape of your mouth cavity so as to
emphasize a variety of higher harmonics, you can actually
produce an 11:1 ratio all by yourself. it's a great way
to learn how to sing 11-limit intervals.

... the hard part is being able to produce that 11th
harmonic in the first place, but i learned how to do it
from Jonathan Glasier when he and Denny and i were jamming
together a lot in '98. ah, the good old days ...

when i was at my peak, i think i recall being able to
go all the way up to a 17th harmonic. but i can't seem
make it past 11 anymore. just out of practice, i suppose.

-monz

>> > On the other hand I'm terribly interested in the possibility
>> > of 11- and 13-limit intervals becoming somehow singable,
>> > without pitch tracks a la Twining, or absurd levels of
>> > training that would not represent a culturallysustainable
>> > approach to music. (Like, wouldn't it be great to do music
>> > that didn't depend on technology for its creation?)
>>
>> Denny and I used to sing 11-limit intervals all the time.
>> It's easy for one person to sing a root and the other to
>> walk up a series. Then you build on that. Why don't we get
>> together and do it sometime?
>>
>> -Carl
>
>and "harmonic singing" (Tuvan style, for instance) is
>better still. if you can learn to sing a really low note
>while changing the shape of your mouth cavity so as to
>emphasize a variety of higher harmonics, you can actually
>produce an 11:1 ratio all by yourself. it's a great way
>to learn how to sing 11-limit intervals.

I'm not a big fan of harmonic singing, myself. Though
Jonathan and Elizabeth are good at it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> ...or absurd levels of training that would not represent a
culturally
> sustainable approach to music. (Like, wouldn't it be great to do
music that
> didn't depend on technology for its creation?)

This gets real sticky to me. Someone said to me the other day, the
study of music IS ethnomusicology. Hmmm. One of the things I
admire most about the CPS scales is how good they are
for "reprogramming" your emotional expectations of musical content.

An argument I had with Alauddin was about microtonality
being "number-crunching", and "weird for weird's sake". I argued
that it was as good a means as any for arriving at a language that
was articulate for the user. He agreed.

on 12/2/04 8:54 AM, ambassadorbob <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>> ...or absurd levels of training that would not represent a
> culturally
>> sustainable approach to music. (Like, wouldn't it be great to do
> music that
>> didn't depend on technology for its creation?)
>
> This gets real sticky to me. Someone said to me the other day, the
> study of music IS ethnomusicology.

I think I was thinking something like that last statement myself, except
I've never studied ethnomusicology per-se, and so I'm making some
assumptions there. Yet I think you are taking it in another direction...

> Hmmm. One of the things I
> admire most about the CPS scales is how good they are
> for "reprogramming" your emotional expectations of musical content.

I think of it as a broadening of experience, not a denial of the
original/older meanings but rather a broadening of the context within which
older meanings can be embedded. We broaden our experience, increase our
capacities for sustaining/integrating cognitive disonance, become stronger
in a sense, more able to find resolution for more difficult (complex) kinds
of demands/tensions.

> An argument I had with Alauddin was about microtonality
> being "number-crunching", and "weird for weird's sake". I argued
> that it was as good a means as any for arriving at a language that
> was articulate for the user. He agreed.

I'm just thinking in terms of what has happened so far with technology,
trying to learn from the experience of that. Technology is not something
that has ever created decentralized culture. It so far always requires an
elite. So you can't deny that that exists, but it exists as a subculture,
necessarily a subculture so far because it depends for its survival on the
marketability of the results of specialization, i.e. the tech elite depends
on the consumer and the continued ability to engage the consumer.

In a way the same thing is true for music, that a the moment it looks like
musicians represent a subculture, a kind of elite. But is that the
necessary state of things or is it a reflection of the tendency towards
specialization which is so prevelent now? I think it is not an inherent
limitation, just something that has happenned. On the other hand,
superimposing a technological elitism on top of the current musical elitism
would is not something that I would wish for. This may to some degree
happen, but it is not the vision I want to foster.

The unfolding of my own microtonal experience has so far depended a lot on
technological resources. I could conceive of how that would not have to
have been the case, yet I wonder what limitations there would have been on
the scope of what I could learn without the availability of "technology" to
expand/facilitate my available experiences. The science/technology of the
past is something I could have learned enough from to know how to "do the
math" of microtonality, and based on that I could have tuned real
instruments, with some limitations.

So I think of myself as a member of a kind of transitional/provisional
elite. Yet because of my own life experiences with my own elitism, I do not
seek to deepen it, and rather I seek ways to create more relationship. So I
believe it is important for us as the transitional technology-bound elite o
be looking for how we can clarify our own experiences with less reference to
anything technological, because it will be more important and more
sustainable, or more important *because* it is more sustainable. How can it
be passed on and to whom? What do I already experience that doesn't depend
on "technology". (This is of course very related to concerns about notation
which are being discussed a lot lately, yet is a little broader in scope.)

I'm wanting to use the word technology fairly loosely, and perhaps its too
vague, yet I want to refer to anything that requires experience that is not
likely to become innate in the absense of skills more specialized than what
a "typical" musician is likely to be interested in getting involved in. Yet
harmonic chanting, also coming up in this thread, is the proof of something
containing what might otherwise be "technological" information that is
actually innate. And then utonality (for example) is already a step removed
from that, a separate "leap". And indeed things that do make their way into
musical culture that depend on a series of conceptual leaps. Really the
course of this can not be predicted, and maybe the truth of it is that we
transitional elite are not so much givine direction to what is to come as
much as being simply a lucky few who get a sneak preview as to some of the
possibilities. The "real stuff" will have to constantly redevelop from the
ground up, to become part of a broader culture.

To the degree and for the time that the culture as a whole goes more and
more in a technological direction, then certain things will tend to unfold
that I may not consider "sustainable". Yet I have no clue what is really
going to happen. Nonetheless I don't think we are in a good balance and I
am interested in looking in other directions that seem simpler. Some of
this is purely practical and comes from an interest in being able to engage
ordinary musicians who play particular "real" (physical) instruments that I
am interested in. It is a simple desire for relationship and a sense of
reward in sharing, for discovering ways to convey experiences beyond the
confines of my own specialized background and habits of thought. I'm just
utimately more interested in that than I am in technological developments
and the "micraculous" (never mind potentially disastrous) things that such
will make possible.

-Kurt

on 12/1/04 8:05 PM, Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org> wrote:

>
>>> And his emphasis on singability I thought was sound, even though he
>>> did rule out 11-limit intervals (boooo!... :-).
>>
>> Yes, boo.
>>
>> However, if you mean ruling out the singability of 11-limit intervals,
>> that may be merely practical. ;)
>
> ?
>
>> On the other hand I'm terribly interested in the possibility of 11- and
>> 13-limit intervals becoming somehow singable, without pitch tracks a la
>> Twining, or absurd levels of training that would not represent a
>> culturallysustainable approach to music. (Like, wouldn't it be great
>> to do music that didn't depend on technology for its creation?)
>
> Denny and I used to sing 11-limit intervals all the time. It's easy
> for one person to sing a root and the other to walk up a series. Then
> you build on that. Why don't we get together and do it sometime?

Yea, I just tend to think 2 people isn't enough. I guess I'm just spoiled
as a keyboardist. I know you can add voices over a keyboard, yet that
doesn't draw me.

I was thinking that without enough voices you don't get the clear feedback
of when you are on-pitch. I'm saying this based on my experience tuning the
11- and 13-limit intervals on my harpsichord. I don't think I could find
the pitches without playing 3 notes at a time (e.g. I tend to use 8:10:11 or
7:9:11 to tune the 11). But maybe the false beating and slight
inharmonicity of the harpsichord makes it more difficult in ways that
wouldn't be a problem for vocals.

So heck, we should try it, next time you're here.

-Kurt

on 12/1/04 10:40 PM, monz <monz@tonalsoft.com> wrote:

> hi Carl,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
>>> On the other hand I'm terribly interested in the possibility
>>> of 11- and 13-limit intervals becoming somehow singable,
>>> without pitch tracks a la Twining, or absurd levels of
>>> training that would not represent a culturallysustainable
>>> approach to music. (Like, wouldn't it be great to do music
>>> that didn't depend on technology for its creation?)
>>
>> Denny and I used to sing 11-limit intervals all the time.
>> It's easy for one person to sing a root and the other to
>> walk up a series. Then you build on that. Why don't we get
>> together and do it sometime?
>>
>> -Carl
>
> and "harmonic singing" (Tuvan style, for instance) is
> better still. if you can learn to sing a really low note
> while changing the shape of your mouth cavity so as to
> emphasize a variety of higher harmonics, you can actually
> produce an 11:1 ratio all by yourself. it's a great way
> to learn how to sing 11-limit intervals.
>
> ... the hard part is being able to produce that 11th
> harmonic in the first place, but i learned how to do it
> from Jonathan Glasier when he and Denny and i were jamming
> together a lot in '98. ah, the good old days ...
>
> when i was at my peak, i think i recall being able to
> go all the way up to a 17th harmonic. but i can't seem
> make it past 11 anymore. just out of practice, i suppose.

I pretty often practice a crude 8 through 16 series because I want to have
that available as something I can demonstrate when I'm explaining the
harmonic series and demonstrating an actual harmonic-series-based 12-tone
tuning to people. Getting to 16 is adequate for that purpose.

I just got to 20 but then I think the bandwidth starts to get too wide for
the resonance to take in only a single harmonic--instead it starts to sound
like an ambiguous smear of pitch. Can anyone get beyond 20?

-Kurt

Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com> wrote:

> Yea, I just tend to think 2 people isn't enough.

I can't swear that I actually have the skills, yet, but I'd sure like to try out for the choir, if it could happen! :-) (seriously!)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

> I just got to 20 but then I think the bandwidth starts to get too
> wide for the resonance to take in only a single harmonic--instead
> it starts to sound like an ambiguous smear of pitch. Can anyone
get beyond 20?

Yes, and it can be done clearly, especially by using the "Kargiraa"
technique of harmonic/throat singing where the harmonics are coming
off of a much lower fundamental pitch.

I (and others) have been able to sing above harmonic 20 using regular
harmonic overtone singing techniques, but I agree that it often
starts to sound weak and smeary - only on rare days does it clarify.

BTW, I love using 11 and 13 while doing harmonic overtone melodies.

Best,

~Jim

http://www.spectralvoices.com

In this discussion on apprehending and initiating 11th and 13th harmonic
intervals it may be worth noting that 12-tET is even more difficult. Unless
learned by rote over many years of training, equally dividing any interval, let
alone an octave into 12 equal parts, is impossible.

A good example I like to use is the 7/4 of 969 cents. Try to find the
mid-point by ear. No go. Just intervals, contained in the instruments producing
them (e.g., voice, strings, winds, etc.) are eminently more likely to produce
them accurately by rote than irrational intervals, IMHO.

Johnny Reinhard

Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com> wrote:

> the tech elite depends
> on the consumer and the continued ability to engage the consumer.

Hi Kurt,

I could try to get into this more, but I'm pretty stretched right now, sorry...

To sort of keep it on topic, I'll say I don't think singing is necessarily the purest musical experience anymore, if it ever really was (but that doesn't mean I won't keep trying!).

/makemicromusic/topicId_8075.html#8075

This post is probably THE single best news I've gotten about "movements" in "education". At least that I can remember right now. Making instruments is one thing, doing something true and new another, but if that elitist-consumer cycle of exploitation is to be mitigated at all, then something like what Paul has done is absolutely essential. I got in on the very tail end of a time when machines came with parts lists, and R & R instructions. I haven't seen one of those in awhile, have you? :-)

I especially like the part where he says he has plans to have them build a simple amp circuit to go with their guitars! I need to take this guy's class myself!

I mean, at some point, professional expertise becomes indispensable, but it sure does help when the "consumer" can do so _advisedly_, and especially young people who may never have experienced anything (?) first hand that ISN'T completely commercialized.

Cheers,

Pete

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.

>In this discussion on apprehending and initiating 11th and 13th harmonic >intervals it may be worth noting that 12-tET is even more difficult.
>Unless learned by rote over many years of training, equally dividing any
>interval, let alone an octave into 12 equal parts, is impossible.
>
>A good example I like to use is the 7/4 of 969 cents. Try to find the
>mid-point by ear. No go. Just intervals, contained in the instruments
>producing them (e.g., voice, strings, winds, etc.) are eminently more
>likely to produce them accurately by rote than irrational intervals,
>IMHO.

Agreed.

-Carl

on 12/3/04 11:09 AM, Pete McRae <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com> wrote:
>
>> the tech elite depends
>> on the consumer and the continued ability to engage the consumer.
>
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
> I could try to get into this more, but I'm pretty stretched right now,
> sorry...

Thanks for taking the time. Maybe when you come out of your stretch you
will have more to say. ;)

> To sort of keep it on topic, I'll say I don't think singing is necessarily the
> purest musical experience anymore, if it ever really was (but that doesn't
> mean I won't keep trying!).

Well if singing is less than pure, that doesn't make it any less essential.
As I see it, singing will always have a special importance.

> /makemicromusic/topicId_8075.html#8075
>
> This post is probably THE single best news I've gotten about "movements" in
> "education". At least that I can remember right now. Making instruments is
> one thing, doing something true and new another, but if that elitist-consumer
> cycle of exploitation is to be mitigated at all, then something like what Paul
> has done is absolutely essential. I got in on the very tail end of a time
> when machines came with parts lists, and R & R instructions. I haven't seen
> one of those in awhile, have you? :-)

Hmm, no. But I still have a lot of schematics, etc. in my files.

> I especially like the part where he says he has plans to have them build a
> simple amp circuit to go with their guitars! I need to take this guy's class
> myself!

Well I hate making circuits, but a little wood/metal shop experience would
be good for me, and darn useful.

> I mean, at some point, professional expertise becomes indispensable, but it
> sure does help when the "consumer" can do so _advisedly_, and especially young
> people who may never have experienced anything (?) first hand that ISN'T
> completely commercialized.

A lot of what we consider indispensable is pretty luxurious.

But I'm all for empowering the "consumer".

-Kurt

on 12/3/04 7:13 AM, Jim Cole <thejimcole@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> I just got to 20 but then I think the bandwidth starts to get too
>> wide for the resonance to take in only a single harmonic--instead
>> it starts to sound like an ambiguous smear of pitch. Can anyone
> get beyond 20?
>
> Yes, and it can be done clearly, especially by using the "Kargiraa"
> technique of harmonic/throat singing where the harmonics are coming
> off of a much lower fundamental pitch.

Right, I had discounted that when doing my little test. For some reason I
was thinking the result would be the same, but apparently the ability to
keep a sharp resonance is better an octave lower.

> I (and others) have been able to sing above harmonic 20 using regular
> harmonic overtone singing techniques, but I agree that it often
> starts to sound weak and smeary - only on rare days does it clarify.
>
> BTW, I love using 11 and 13 while doing harmonic overtone melodies.

Me too.

-Kurt

on 12/3/04 12:51 AM, Pete McRae <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com> wrote:
>
>> Yea, I just tend to think 2 people isn't enough.
>
> I can't swear that I actually have the skills, yet, but I'd sure like to try
> out for the choir, if it could happen! :-) (seriously!)

Well Carl and I are in Berkeley, so let us know if you are in the area.

-Kurt

Harmonic Experience

🔗Christopher Bailey <chris@music.columbia.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗mopani@tiscali.co.uk

🔗Pete McRae <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗ambassadorbob <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Pete McRae <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com>

🔗Jim Cole <thejimcole@yahoo.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Pete McRae <ambassadorbob@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>