Tuning in Japan and China

Hello everyone
I play the shakuhachi, and I am interested as to what the exact scale
would have been before the Japanese turned to western music, which was
in Meiji time, so more than 100 years ago. Does anyone know the tuning
for pre-20th century Japan? Also I am interested in the same for
China. I've seen charts with comparisons in cents for western tunings
but never for Japan.
Thanks
Best wishes
Justin.

justinasia wrote:
> Hello everyone

Hiya Justin!

> I play the shakuhachi, and I am interested as to what the exact scale > would have been before the Japanese turned to western music, which was > in Meiji time, so more than 100 years ago. Does anyone know the tuning > for pre-20th century Japan? Also I am interested in the same for > China. I've seen charts with comparisons in cents for western tunings > but never for Japan.

There are two Koto tunings in the Scala archive: hirajoshi.scl and hirajoshi2.scl. Neither or them state the provenance. Worse than that, there's nothing to say when or where they come from.

I'm interested to know why you, as a performer on the instrument, think that the shakuhachi has an exact scale, and that it's been influenced by western music.

There are a few Chinese scales in the Scala archive, most of them pre-C20th and with references you can follow up. They're bamboo.scl and those starting with a chin_. I'd be interested in anything you come up with. Maybe you don't know, but 12-equal was described in China before Europe. I don't know of any scientific tuning theory in China -- that is, exact numbers based on real-world tuning. I don't even know if such a theory would have much relevance if the music has a lot of pitch gliding. But, like I said, let me know if you find anything!

If you don't have the Scala archive, it's on http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf somewhere. There is a download separate from the software.

Graham

> There are two Koto tunings in the Scala archive:
> hirajoshi.scl and
> hirajoshi2.scl. Neither or them state the
> provenance. Worse than that,
> there's nothing to say when or where they come from.

Hi Graham
I couldn't locate that. If you have it could you just
email it to me?

> I'm interested to know why you, as a performer on
> the instrument, think
> that the shakuhachi has an exact scale,

Why would it not have an exact scale? To be more
precise I'm not acking for the exact tuning of the
instrument, but of the music. Does music gererally
have an exact tuning? Isn't it that in a particular
place and time and within a particular genre of music,
there will be a tuning which is used? And the music
will be composed based on that? And then for
performing, of course we can control the pitch in our
performance. But it helps to know what pitch is
correct! One could grow accustomed to any particular
pitch so to feel it os "correct", but why not find out
actually what was originally played? This also bares
relevance to the different genres and lineages of
shakuhachi, and is also relevant in the context of
transmition of the music to the west, not to mention
the importance in shakuhachi making.

> and that
> it's been influenced by
> western music.

The time changed, and so also the predominant genre of
music. In the schools the only music education was
western. So you have a generation of people who feel
western tuning is correct (equal temperament) and then
learn classicla Japanese music, but play it in equal
temperament. They may not know that this is different
than anything else. Most Japanese are far more
familiar with western music than traditional Japanese
music.

>
> There are a few Chinese scales in the Scala archive,
> most of them
> pre-C20th and with references you can follow up.
> They're bamboo.scl and
> those starting with a chin_.

If you've got these files I'd love them if you could
mail them.
Thanks for the response
Best wishes
Justin.

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

The string instruments have pretty much been tuned to a Pythagorean chain, although i sent you a link to someone who knows a bit on the different shadings in some of the specific scales and modes. It is my understanding that Japan has tuned to a particular bell also which happens to be A=440.
While Chinese string instruments are tuned the same, there is certain variations caused by the upper frets and there is one string instrument which uses 5 limit harmonics exclusively.
There is great variation among the wind instruments in both countries.
especially China where there are all types of regional folk musics with their own intonational practices.
Many of the mouth organs have pentatonics with large whole tones and small minor thirds.
beyond that it is a matter of the player.

It seems though that Shakuhachi intonation is determined by the actual construction of the instrument as well as the body of music written for it.
It seems they do not think of a pitch as a rationally fixed point on the continuum, as opposed to something that lived in a particular area.

Regardless i would appreciate if you keep me informed of what else you might run accross

Message: 10 Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 05:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Justin ." <justinasia@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Tuning in Japan and China

>> There are two Koto tunings in the Scala archive:
>> hirajoshi.scl and >> hirajoshi2.scl. Neither or them state the
>> provenance. Worse than that, >> there's nothing to say when or where they come from.
> >

Hi Graham
I couldn't locate that. If you have it could you just
email it to me?

>> I'm interested to know why you, as a performer on
>> the instrument, think >> that the shakuhachi has an exact scale,
> >

Why would it not have an exact scale? To be more
precise I'm not acking for the exact tuning of the
instrument, but of the music. Does music gererally
have an exact tuning? Isn't it that in a particular
place and time and within a particular genre of music,
there will be a tuning which is used? And the music
will be composed based on that? And then for
performing, of course we can control the pitch in our
performance. But it helps to know what pitch is
correct! One could grow accustomed to any particular
pitch so to feel it os "correct", but why not find out
actually what was originally played? This also bares
relevance to the different genres and lineages of
shakuhachi, and is also relevant in the context of
transmition of the music to the west, not to mention
the importance in shakuhachi making.

>> and that
>> it's been influenced by >> western music.
> >

The time changed, and so also the predominant genre of
music. In the schools the only music education was
western. So you have a generation of people who feel
western tuning is correct (equal temperament) and then
learn classicla Japanese music, but play it in equal
temperament. They may not know that this is different
than anything else. Most Japanese are far more
familiar with western music than traditional Japanese
music.

>> >> There are a few Chinese scales in the Scala archive,
>> most of them >> pre-C20th and with references you can follow up. >> They're bamboo.scl and >> those starting with a chin_. > >

If you've got these files I'd love them if you could
mail them.
Thanks for the response
Best wishes
Justin.

__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

It is my understanding that there are rival shakuhachi schools
who bitterly argue among other thing intonation.

But what makes an exact scale? we have our notion of 12 ET as our exact scale , when it actuality , it is a broad generalization.
Maybe the way they think of it is far more sensitive as to exactly what goes on in music. From: "Justin ." <justinasia@yahoo.com>

Why would it not have an exact scale? To be more precise I'm not acking for the exact tuning of the instrument, but of the music. Does music gererally have an exact tuning? Isn't it that in a particular place and time and within a particular genre of music, there will be a tuning which is used? And the music will be composed based on that? And then for performing, of course we can control the pitch in our performance. But it helps to know what pitch is correct! One could grow accustomed to any particular pitch so to feel it os "correct", but why not find out actually what was originally played? This also bares relevance to the different genres and lineages of shakuhachi, and is also relevant in the context of transmition of the music to the west, not to mention the importance in shakuhachi making.

>> and that
>> it's been influenced by >
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Dear Justin,

The following text is from my manuscript _Musical Mathematics: A
Practice in the Mathematics of Tuning Instruments and Analyzing
Scales_

******************************

The Chinese _ch'in_ (or _qin_) is one of the most expressive musical
instruments created by man. The fact that it has survived without
significant modifications for over 3000 years is a testament to its
musical beauty and acoustic integrity. Performers on the _ch'in_
produce three different kinds of sounds: open string tones,
flageolet tones, and stopped tones. Moreover, the underlying
mathematical organization of the _ch'in_ categorizes these sounds
into four distinct yet interdependent tuning systems: (1) the
flageolet system, (2) the stopped hui integer system, (3) the open
string pentatonic system, and (4) the stopped hui fraction system.
Before we discuss these tuning systems in full detail, let us first
examine the construction of this instrument.

******************************

To read the entire article, please visit:

******************************

http://www.chrysalis-foundation.org/China's_Ch'in.htm

******************************

Sincerely,

Cris Forster, Music Director
www.Chrysalis-Foundation.org

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "justinasia" <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> Hello everyone
> I play the shakuhachi, and I am interested as to what the exact
scale
> would have been before the Japanese turned to western music, which
was
> in Meiji time, so more than 100 years ago. Does anyone know the
tuning
> for pre-20th century Japan? Also I am interested in the same for
> China. I've seen charts with comparisons in cents for western
tunings
> but never for Japan.
> Thanks
> Best wishes
> Justin.

--- Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com> wrote:

>
> It is my understanding that there are rival
> shakuhachi schools
> who bitterly argue among other thing intonation.

There are different schools, but I've not heard them
arguing about intonation. Often many things are
actually not talked about generally, in Japan. But
maybe?

> But what makes an exact scale? we have our notion of
> 12 ET as our exact scale , when it actuality , it is
> a broad generalization.

Don't most western musicians use equal temperament
exactly? Or is there a concious choice that the
musicians are making, deliberately choosing to play
slightly flat or sharp from the ET scale? I would love
to know more about this, especially about the CHOICE
that the musicians make. I was under the impresoin
that they would use a specific scale, like ET or just
intonation, and still rigidly to it. But, what do they
really do then?

> Maybe the way they think of it is far more
> sensitive as to exactly what goes on in music.

Well, I don't know about "them". But, for example,
many of us at least I think, play what we call
tsu-meri, and also u, flater than on the western
scale. I think on a standard size instrument that
means for you Eb and Ab.
Love to hear more, and I'll try to remember to get
back to you if I get info elsewhere.
Justin.

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

> > There are two Koto tunings in the Scala archive:
> > hirajoshi.scl and
> > hirajoshi2.scl. Neither or them state the
> > provenance. Worse than that,
> > there's nothing to say when or where they come from.
>
> Hi Graham
> I couldn't locate that. If you have it could you just
> email it to me?

http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/scales.zip

-Carl

Hiya Justin,

> Don't most western musicians use equal temperament
> exactly? Or is there a concious choice that the
> musicians are making, deliberately choosing to play
> slightly flat or sharp from the ET scale? I would love
> to know more about this, especially about the CHOICE
> that the musicians make. I was under the impresoin
> that they would use a specific scale, like ET or just
> intonation, and still rigidly to it. But, what do they
> really do then?

MIDI keyboards are in ET, except when someone is using the
pitch bend wheel, portamento (glide between pitches), a patch
with built-in detuning, or (most rarely of all) an alternate
tuning on their synth.

Pianos are pretty close to ET, except that their inharmonic
partials means the tuning is usually stretched (octaves
wider than 2:1). That, and most piano tuners don't set a
very good ET.

Guitars are next. They're largely ET. Intonation varies a
bit depending on where you are on the neck. And many
styles emphasize string bending (blues especially).

After that, things get ever farther from ET. It requires
many years of skill and training to play strings or wind
instruments in ET... and in ensemble situations many
performers tend to make their chords closer to just
intonation. Melodies usually wind up being 'all over the
place'.

The voice is perhaps the most flexible instrument of all.

Nevertheless, most western music assumes ET, or at least
"adaptive JI" (jargon we've developed on this list) where
the 81:80 (syntonic comma) vanishes.

One way to think of alternative tunings is as an effort
to increase the precision, or level of discrimination, of
tuning in music.

-Carl

They think they are playing 12 Et but in fact the intonation vary any chance their instruments allow them too.
for all types of difference reasons,. cadences for example. No really good study has been done, because statistical methods would not take into consideration context, and then we would all argue what constitutes a different context.Their are many on this list who feel that different composers hear different things represented by 12 ET and the way they notate it as an example.
I wouldn't doubt it. but the question is very complex and am not going to tackle it , except by keeping my ears as open as possible.

Thanks to Mr. Forster for the info but most of all to his dedication to the subject in general.

From: "Justin ." <justinasia@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Tuning in Japan and China

Don't most western musicians use equal temperament
exactly? Or is there a concious choice that the
musicians are making, deliberately choosing to play
slightly flat or sharp from the ET scale? I would love
to know more about this, especially about the CHOICE
that the musicians make. I was under the impresoin
that they would use a specific scale, like ET or just
intonation, and still rigidly to it. But, what do they
really do then?

>> Maybe the way they think of it is far more
>> sensitive as to exactly what goes on in music.
> >

Well, I don't know about "them". But, for example,
many of us at least I think, play what we call
tsu-meri, and also u, flater than on the western
scale. I think on a standard size instrument that
means for you Eb and Ab.
Love to hear more, and I'll try to remember to get
back to you if I get info elsewhere.
Justin. __________________________________________________

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

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

> Don't most western musicians use equal temperament
> exactly?

One might claim that only recently, with the introduction of
electronics and midi, has exactness become a working standard rather
than a hypothetical ideal.

Of course one might claim otherwise also. What counts as "exactly"?

Or is there a concious choice that the
> musicians are making, deliberately choosing to play
> slightly flat or sharp from the ET scale?

Sometimes, certainly.

I would love
> to know more about this, especially about the CHOICE
> that the musicians make. I was under the impresoin
> that they would use a specific scale, like ET or just
> intonation, and still rigidly to it. But, what do they
> really do then?

Period performances have pretty well abandoned the equal temperament
paradigm for performances of music up to the 18th century; that was
not always the case, but times change.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...> wrote:

> The Chinese _ch'in_ (or _qin_) is one of the most expressive musical
> instruments created by man. The fact that it has survived without
> significant modifications for over 3000 years is a testament to its
> musical beauty and acoustic integrity.

Given the very spotty records we have from China of 3000 years ago, how
do we know that?

http://www.chrysalis-foundation.org/China's_Ch'in.htm

Footnote:

[13](a) Sachs, C. (1940). The History of Musical Instruments, p. 185.
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York.

Sachs cites ch'in poetry from about 1100 b.c.

(b)Gulik, R.H., Translator (1941). Poetical Essay on the Lute, by Hsi
K'ang (223–262 a.d.), pp. 51–70. In Gulik's Hsi K'ang and His Poetical
Essay on the Lute, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan.

This essay recounts the ancient musical traditions of the ch'in.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...>
wrote:
>
> > The Chinese _ch'in_ (or _qin_) is one of the most expressive
musical
> > instruments created by man. The fact that it has survived without
> > significant modifications for over 3000 years is a testament to its
> > musical beauty and acoustic integrity.
>
> Given the very spotty records we have from China of 3000 years ago,
how
> do we know that?

Thank you, Kraig.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> They think they are playing 12 Et but in fact the intonation vary
any chance their instruments allow them too.
> for all types of difference reasons,. cadences for example. No
really good study has been done, because statistical methods would
not take into consideration context, and then we would all argue
what constitutes a different context.Their are many on this list who
feel that different composers hear different things represented by
12 ET and the way they notate it as an example.
> I wouldn't doubt it. but the question is very complex and am not
going to tackle it , except by keeping my ears as open as possible.
>
> Thanks to Mr. Forster for the info but most of all to his
dedication to the subject in general.
>

Hi guys
I'll respond in between:

> > Don't most western musicians use equal
> temperament
> > exactly?

> One might claim that only recently, with the
> introduction of
> electronics and midi, has exactness become a working
> standard rather
> than a hypothetical ideal.
>
> Of course one might claim otherwise also. What
> counts as "exactly"?

And Chris has said: "They think they are playing 12 Et
but in fact the intonation vary
any chance their instruments allow them too."

Hi Gene and Chris
I suppose I was wrong to use the term "exactly". What
I suppose I mean ws that they are deliberately AIMING
for ET. So for me as a player, my aim cond=cerning
pitch would be to become more and more sensitive to
hearing my pitch (I have noticed that this is a skill
lacking in quite a few shakuhachi players it seems)
and then of course controlling it. One example of
course is that as the breath decreases to the end of
the note, the pitch drops. So we must counter that
effect, and so on. And then as a MAKER, I must try to
create the instrument in such a way that it is as
close as possible to ET thus making the job of the
player much easier. The added difficulty with
shakuhachi is that there are only 5 holes, so we can
tune those 5, but the other pitches are totally
controlled by the player.
So what I really meant was, don't most western
musicians AIM for exact equal temperament?
More below:

> Or is there a concious choice that the
> > musicians are making, deliberately choosing to
> play
> > slightly flat or sharp from the ET scale?
>
> Sometimes, certainly.

Do you mean that they sometimes use just intonation?
I.e. for certain performances they chose just
intonation instead of ET? That seems fine. But I am
more interested in whether they might make a moment to
moment choice, or note to note. I.e. let's say they
are playing in a specific tuning (or aiming to let's
say!), eg ET or just or whatever. Now, in the piece,
would they ever DELIBERATELY stray from that tuning? I
mean, not accidently, but, for example feel "I want
this note to be a little higher" or whatever. I am not
talking about glissando or such things. Actually my
question is largely from an experience I had in a
baroque concert I went to. There was one note played
on a violin at one point in the melody. At that point,
I felt "Oh, that is an interesting choice!" I felt
that I would have played the note at a different
pitch. It did not sound WRONG. It sounded fine. And
that is why it occured to me that there might be a
choice. I am not trained in western music. I don't
know about that note. But I felt, that it COULD have
been played at a different pitch, and have been nice.
So it occured to me that there might be not a RIGHT
way, but a CHOICE. And I was wondering if in the
western music scene there actually IS this kind of
choice. So that is my question.
Thanks again for all the response from everyone. I'm
glad to have found you all!
Best wishes
Justin.

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

Hello,
Again it's in the context of shakuhachi making. I'm
thinking about tuners. I have seen the Peterson
website. Their stuff looks really good. The Autostrobe
490 or 590 look like they should really do the job for
tuning well, but also the VS-II Programmable Virtual
Strobe Tuner looks good, and is portable (a big bonus)
and far cheaper. Do any of you know about these
tuners? Is the VS-II good? If it would really do the
job then there would be no point in buying the more
expensive one, but I don't know anyone who has
experience using them.
Any advise appreciated.
Thanks
Justin.

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> Hello,
> Again it's in the context of shakuhachi making. I'm
> thinking about tuners. I have seen the Peterson
> website. Their stuff looks really good. The Autostrobe
> 490 or 590 look like they should really do the job for
> tuning well, but also the VS-II Programmable Virtual
> Strobe Tuner looks good, and is portable (a big bonus)
> and far cheaper. Do any of you know about these
> tuners? Is the VS-II good? If it would really do the
> job then there would be no point in buying the more
> expensive one, but I don't know anyone who has
> experience using them.

The virtual strobe is nice, I use it while playing bassoon. I would
compare the virtual strobe to a typical needle tuner- VS is more
accurate by far. The display is jumpy compared to an analog strobe.
If your tuning is very critical, you will be happier and poorer with
an analog.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
>
> Don't most western musicians use equal temperament
> exactly? Or is there a concious choice that the
> musicians are making, deliberately choosing to play
> slightly flat or sharp from the ET scale? I would love
> to know more about this, especially about the CHOICE
> that the musicians make. I was under the impresoin
> that they would use a specific scale, like ET or just
> intonation, and still rigidly to it. But, what do they
> really do then?
>

My woodwind professors, who are union opera pit players, perform with
their tuners. When asked about it, the general feeling is you have to
be very consistent, and they choose to follow an accepted standard.
Its not that they need to tune visually- they all understand JI and
can adjust their intonation depending on which interval in the chord
they are playing. Its not constant adjustment- in melody, they follow
ET, when part of an inner harmony part, they adjust to JI. So they
really switch back and forth based on the music.

Also, each individual instrument has slight deviations from the ET
scale, which change constantly depending on physical environmental
factors. To acheive exact ET while watching a tuner requires
adjustment in technique. For instance, to play in equal temperment on
a bassoon requires the player to use a slightly different air
pressure, jaw pressure, throat cavity size etc for each tone. In
bassoon the instrument must be tuned, the reed must be tuned, and the
embochure must be tuned.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Eldon Barber"
<bassooner42@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Don't most western musicians use equal temperament
> > exactly? Or is there a concious choice that the
> > musicians are making, deliberately choosing to play
> > slightly flat or sharp from the ET scale? I would love
> > to know more about this, especially about the CHOICE
> > that the musicians make. I was under the impresoin
> > that they would use a specific scale, like ET or just
> > intonation, and still rigidly to it. But, what do they
> > really do then?
> >
>
> My woodwind professors, who are union opera pit players, perform
with
> their tuners. When asked about it, the general feeling is you have
to
> be very consistent, and they choose to follow an accepted standard.
> Its not that they need to tune visually- they all understand JI and
> can adjust their intonation depending on which interval in the chord
> they are playing. Its not constant adjustment- in melody, they
follow
> ET, when part of an inner harmony part, they adjust to JI. So they
> really switch back and forth based on the music.

Sounds like you're talking about adaptive JI, rather than strict JI.
I don't like the use of the word "algorithm" in the first sentence --
substitute "intuition" in this case perhaps -- but here goes:

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/a/adaptive-ji.aspx

> Also, each individual instrument has slight deviations from the ET
> scale, which change constantly depending on physical environmental
> factors. To acheive exact ET while watching a tuner requires
> adjustment in technique. For instance, to play in equal temperment
on
> a bassoon requires the player to use a slightly different air
> pressure, jaw pressure, throat cavity size etc for each tone. In
> bassoon the instrument must be tuned, the reed must be tuned, and
the
> embochure must be tuned.

Must be what makes the bassoon such an effective microtonal
instrument in Johnny Reinhard's hands!

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

> So what I really meant was, don't most western
> musicians AIM for exact equal temperament?

That would make sense for a Schoenberg string quartet, but not really
for the 19th century and earlier repertorie. Apparently musicians do
all kinds of things, in any case.

> > Or is there a concious choice that the
> > > musicians are making, deliberately choosing to
> > play
> > > slightly flat or sharp from the ET scale?
> >
> > Sometimes, certainly.
>
> Do you mean that they sometimes use just intonation?

Just intonation is not normally what anyone uses, but when playing
triads, for example, it makes perfect sense to adjust the tuning of
the thirds so that it is closer to just.
> So it occured to me that there might be not a RIGHT
> way, but a CHOICE. And I was wondering if in the
> western music scene there actually IS this kind of
> choice. So that is my question.

Certainly when playing baroque music tuning choices are present in
great abundence, and we enjoy arguing about which ones are best on
this list. But starting from any fixed system as the presumptive
ideal, what the musicians actually do is yet another question.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Eldon Barber"
> <bassooner42@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't most western musicians use equal temperament
> > > exactly? Or is there a concious choice that the
> > > musicians are making, deliberately choosing to play
> > > slightly flat or sharp from the ET scale? I would love
> > > to know more about this, especially about the CHOICE
> > > that the musicians make. I was under the impresoin
> > > that they would use a specific scale, like ET or just
> > > intonation, and still rigidly to it. But, what do they
> > > really do then?
> > >
> >
> > My woodwind professors, who are union opera pit players, perform
> with
> > their tuners. When asked about it, the general feeling is you have
> to
> > be very consistent, and they choose to follow an accepted standard.
> > Its not that they need to tune visually- they all understand JI and
> > can adjust their intonation depending on which interval in the chord
> > they are playing. Its not constant adjustment- in melody, they
> follow
> > ET, when part of an inner harmony part, they adjust to JI. So they
> > really switch back and forth based on the music.
>
> Sounds like you're talking about adaptive JI, rather than strict JI.
> I don't like the use of the word "algorithm" in the first sentence --
> substitute "intuition" in this case perhaps -- but here goes:
>
> http://tonalsoft.com/enc/a/adaptive-ji.aspx

Players also adjust according to the intonation of the dominant timbre
in whatever ensemble is playing the chord, as well as fixed pitch
instruments like piano or harp. For example, if a bassoon and flute
have a duet, the bassoon adjusts as far as possible to match the
flautist, and if any beat remains, the flautist then adjusts,
especially trying for JI or big octaves (bassoons can have severe
inharmonicity). Also if a soloist wants to drift into unknown
intonation zones, the players will adjust or drift to match that, so
as to properly accompany.
I know there is a lot written about String Quartet intonation, you
could google that. Woodwind ensemble intonation is similar, but the
inharmonicity of overblown overtones is more severe than in string
instruments.

> ...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> Hello,
> Again it's in the context of shakuhachi making. I'm
> thinking about tuners. I have seen the Peterson
> website. Their stuff looks really good. The Autostrobe
> 490 or 590 look like they should really do the job for
> tuning well, but also the VS-II Programmable Virtual
> Strobe Tuner looks good, and is portable (a big bonus)
> and far cheaper. Do any of you know about these
> tuners? Is the VS-II good? If it would really do the
> job then there would be no point in buying the more
> expensive one, but I don't know anyone who has
> experience using them.
> Any advise appreciated.
> Thanks
> Justin.

Hi Justin,

I bought the V-SAM when it came out, but returned it. I
already owned one of their mechanical strobe tuners, and
had planned to sell it in favor of the V-SAM. I forget the
details of why I chose to stick with the larger unit...
here they are...

/tuning/topicId_46075.html#46075

...anyway, I don't know how close the VS-II is to the
V-SAM, but if you don't plan to use the audio output
feature it might work out for you... I might have been
more open to it had I not already owned the, I think
it is, the 590.

-Carl

> The virtual strobe is nice, I use it while playing bassoon. I would
> compare the virtual strobe to a typical needle tuner- VS is more
> accurate by far. The display is jumpy compared to an analog strobe.
> If your tuning is very critical, you will be happier and poorer with
> an analog.

Note also that they now seem to be selling a PC version of the
virtual strobe software...

http://www.strobosoft.com/

-Carl

> > Do you mean that they sometimes use just intonation?
>
> Just intonation is not normally what anyone uses,

I find that most musicians I talk to (who are aware of
the idea of just intonation in ensembles) use the term
in a way synonomous with "adaptive JI". That's at least
the way I had always used it before coming to this list.
Fixed or "classic JI" seems to be the less common usage,
only prominent in theoretical circles, and the American
Gamelan / JI Network scene.

-Carl

Richard Eldon Barber wrote:

>>Sounds like you're talking about adaptive JI, rather than strict JI. >>....
>>
>>http://tonalsoft.com/enc/a/adaptive-ji.aspx
> Thank you for posting that link. This response is several years too late, but I find the Lassus example rather astonishingly wrong:

surely the excerpt uses this matrix, in pure just intonation with no deviation required, simply adjusted tuning on suspensions, first on the alto G, then on the soprano A (a lovely composerly touch, too).

>> G---D---A---E---B---F#
>> \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
>> Bb---F---C---G---D---A
>>

A tuned recording (just string sounds, sorry) is here:

http://www.guglielmomusic.com/lassus+ave_regina_1.mp3

and the score example with tuning indications here: http://www.guglielmomusic.com/ave_regina_1.gif

I apologize if this has been thrashed out already, perhaps repeatedly!

Guglielmo

For comparison, here is an mp3 using the same sounds as my pure-tuned example, and using the suggested vicentino tuning (as programmed in the midi file on the referenced site):

www.guglielmomusic.com/lassus_vicentino_1.mp3

Guglielmo

Guglielmo wrote:
> > Richard Eldon Barber wrote:
> > >>>http://tonalsoft.com/enc/a/adaptive-ji.aspx
>>
> > >> G---D---A---E---B---F#
> >> \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
> >> Bb---F---C---G---D---A
> >>
> > A tuned recording (just string sounds, sorry) is here:
> > http://www.guglielmomusic.com/lassus+ave_regina_1.mp3
> > and the score example with tuning indications here: > http://www.guglielmomusic.com/ave_regina_1.gif
>

> Fixed or "classic JI" seems to be the less common
> usage,
> only prominent in theoretical circles, and the
> American
> Gamelan / JI Network scene.

Why? What's wrong with JI? And isn't there old music
that was composed in JI? Bear in mind this is all new
to me! I greatly appreciate all you guys are teaching
me.
Justin

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- Guglielmo <gugliel@guglielmomusic.com> wrote:

> For comparison, here is an mp3 using the same sounds
> as my pure-tuned
> example, and using the suggested vicentino tuning
> (as programmed in the
> midi file on the referenced site):
>
> www.guglielmomusic.com/lassus_vicentino_1.mp3

I prefer this sample to the previous one. Not sure
what that means though.
Justin

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> > Fixed or "classic JI" seems to be the less common
> > usage, only prominent in theoretical circles, and
> > the American Gamelan / JI Network scene.
>
> Why? What's wrong with JI? And isn't there old music
> that was composed in JI? Bear in mind this is all new
> to me! I greatly appreciate all you guys are teaching
> me.
> Justin

Here I was distinguishing between two different
terms (jargon): "adaptive JI" and "classic JI".
There's nothing "wrong" with either of them. The
former specifies that chords are justly tuned
while melodies may be tuned some other way. The
latter generally requires that melodies and chords
come from the same scale (which is composed of
ratios). This jargon was developed on this list.
Outside of the list, it's really not clear who's
making this distinction and who isn't.

Old music composed in JI... depends what you mean
by "old". Aside from some theoretical musings,
I don't know of any music composed in JI prior to
Helmholtz (unless you count Pythagorean intonation,
which was the dominant tuning before the Renaissance).

-Carl

> > Richard Eldon Barber wrote:
> >
> >>>http://tonalsoft.com/enc/a/adaptive-ji.aspx
> >
> > >> G---D---A---E---B---F#
> > >> \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
> > >> Bb---F---C---G---D---A
> > >>
> >
> > A tuned recording (just string sounds, sorry) is here:
> >
> > http://www.guglielmomusic.com/lassus+ave_regina_1.mp3
> >
> > and the score example with tuning indications here:
> > http://www.guglielmomusic.com/ave_regina_1.gif
>
> For comparison, here is an mp3 using the same sounds as my
> pure-tuned example, and using the suggested vicentino
> tuning (as programmed in the midi file on the referenced site):
>
> http://www.guglielmomusic.com/lassus_vicentino_1.mp3
>
> Guglielmo

Both versions sound good, but the "vicentino" version sounds
more open and stately, while the "ave_regina" one sounds
pinched or constrained. The difference is subtle, but the
"vicentino" version sounds, to my ear, just as I would expect
a fine string ensemble to tune this.

Everybody on this list should listen to these!!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > Richard Eldon Barber wrote:
> > >
> > >>>http://tonalsoft.com/enc/a/adaptive-ji.aspx
> > >
> > > >> G---D---A---E---B---F#
> > > >> \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
> > > >> Bb---F---C---G---D---A
> > > >>
> > >
> > > A tuned recording (just string sounds, sorry) is here:
> > >
> > > http://www.guglielmomusic.com/lassus+ave_regina_1.mp3
> > >
> > > and the score example with tuning indications here:
> > > http://www.guglielmomusic.com/ave_regina_1.gif
> >
> > For comparison, here is an mp3 using the same sounds as my
> > pure-tuned example, and using the suggested vicentino
> > tuning (as programmed in the midi file on the referenced site):
> >
> > http://www.guglielmomusic.com/lassus_vicentino_1.mp3
> >
> > Guglielmo
>
> Both versions sound good, but the "vicentino" version sounds
> more open and stately, while the "ave_regina" one sounds
> pinched or constrained. The difference is subtle, but the
> "vicentino" version sounds, to my ear, just as I would expect
> a fine string ensemble to tune this.
>
> Everybody on this list should listen to these!!
>
> -Carl

Yes, v. nice. And senza vibrato, too!

Now, thinking of that string sound, you could apply the same sort of
adaptive JI technology to some portions of Sibelius 7th symphony and
see what happens...

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Eldon Barber"
<bassooner42@y...> wrote:

> For example, if a bassoon and flute
> have a duet, the bassoon adjusts as far as possible to match the
> flautist, and if any beat remains, the flautist then adjusts,
> especially trying for JI or big octaves (bassoons can have severe
> inharmonicity).

I have not seen any evidence for bassoon inharmonicity (other than in
multiphonics) but would love to! Bring it on.

> Woodwind ensemble intonation is similar, but the
> inharmonicity of overblown overtones is more severe than in string
> instruments.

Inharmonicity of the modes of vibration (set of overblown notes with
a given fingering) is a very different thing than inharmonicity in
the spectrum (set of frequencies sounding simultaneously in the
musical tone). No wind instrument is perfectly harmonic in its modes
of vibration for any fingering, but I have yet to see any evidence
for inharmonicity in the spectra of their normally-sounding tones.
For the issue of a bassoon and flute duet, it seems the spectrum
would be the relevant item, since no direct comparisons between
overblown notes over the same fingering would appear to enter the
picture (?)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
>
> > Fixed or "classic JI" seems to be the less common
> > usage,
> > only prominent in theoretical circles, and the
> > American
> > Gamelan / JI Network scene.
>
> Why? What's wrong with JI? And isn't there old music
> that was composed in JI?

The vast majority of Ancient Greek music, much of which was likely in
Pythagorean and other forms of JI, is lost to us.

Since the Christian era, the predominant paradigms for old music in
the Western Hemisphere were Pythagorean tuning (<800-c.1450),
Meantone tuning (c.1450-1850), and Well-temperament (c.1680-1880),
with Equal Temperament slowly creeping in and pretty much taking over
by over a century ago.

Some of the very late Pythagorean stuff may have used a chain of
fifths from Gb to B, allowing for an approximate "Just Major" scale
in D and an approximate "Just Minor" scale in F#. But Major and Minor
scales as we know them were still two centuries away.

So we have virtually no music composed in so-called "classic JI"
before the last century.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Guglielmo <gugliel@g...> wrote:
>
>
> Richard Eldon Barber wrote:
>
> >>Sounds like you're talking about adaptive JI, rather than strict
JI.
> >>....
> >>
> >>http://tonalsoft.com/enc/a/adaptive-ji.aspx
> >
>
> Thank you for posting that link. This response is several years
too
> late, but I find the Lassus example rather astonishingly wrong:
>
> surely the excerpt uses this matrix, in pure just intonation with
no
> deviation required, simply adjusted tuning on suspensions, first on
the
> alto G, then on the soprano A (a lovely composerly touch, too).
>
>
> >> G---D---A---E---B---F#
> >> \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
> >> Bb---F---C---G---D---A
> >>
>
> A tuned recording (just string sounds, sorry) is here:
>
> http://www.guglielmomusic.com/lassus+ave_regina_1.mp3
>
> and the score example with tuning indications here:
> http://www.guglielmomusic.com/ave_regina_1.gif
>
> I apologize if this has been thrashed out already, perhaps
repeatedly!
>
> Guglielmo

Like Tom and Carl, I like the adaptive JI version better than your
strict JI proposal. In general, the adaptive JI idea
isn't "astonishingly wrong", or wrong at all, in my opinion, based on
*musical* criteria of right or wrong. I believe composers like Lassus
and Bach, when they wrote a note (say D), may have expected the
result to be within a narrow range, narrower than -- let me guess
based on my own reactions to different tuning experiments -- 11
cents. Adjusting written notes by a syntonic comma (21.5 cents)
depending on context, in an effort to ply the strict-JI ideal, yields
audible motivic/melodic effects that, IMHO, do a disservice to what
the composers actually wrote. I also agree with the poster (was
Michael Zapf?) who recently wrote that authentic Renaissance - mid-
Baroque performance practice for flexibly-tuned instruments
essentially starts from a meantone framework (the keyboard standard
at the time) and then makes adjustments from their to put each
vertical sonority (chord) into JI within itself. This is exactly what
Vicentino's version seeks to accomplish, and with simple enough
music, achieves perfectly. In practice, this of course wouldn't have
taken place with the exact 1/4-comma shifts Vicentino seems to
specify. But what would have happened based on the intuition and
practice of the performers, especially in an inherently polyphonic
music, is (I believe) likely to have been closer to the Vicentino
ideal than to any strict-JI framework for most pieces, since the
latter would involve too much shifting around in certain pitches
whose melodic integrity is an essential part of the ethos of the
music. At least, that's the way I hear it. The diatonic scale came
first chronologically, and I feel is still "aethetically prior" as a
musical entity in this music. Vicentino's adaptive JI preserves the
diatonic scale's integrity (to my ears) while still normally allowing
for each chord to be in JI within itself. What more could one want,
and why?

I agree entirely with Paul on this one. JI is a utopia that should best remain as a seperate entity / special curiosity in the music-making process.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 20 Eylül 2005 Salı 0:49
Subject: [tuning] Re: Lassus (was Tuning in Japan and China)

Like Tom and Carl, I like the adaptive JI version better than your
strict JI proposal. In general, the adaptive JI idea
isn't "astonishingly wrong", or wrong at all, in my opinion, based on
*musical* criteria of right or wrong. I believe composers like Lassus
and Bach, when they wrote a note (say D), may have expected the
result to be within a narrow range, narrower than -- let me guess
based on my own reactions to different tuning experiments -- 11
cents. Adjusting written notes by a syntonic comma (21.5 cents)
depending on context, in an effort to ply the strict-JI ideal, yields
audible motivic/melodic effects that, IMHO, do a disservice to what
the composers actually wrote. I also agree with the poster (was
Michael Zapf?) who recently wrote that authentic Renaissance - mid-
Baroque performance practice for flexibly-tuned instruments
essentially starts from a meantone framework (the keyboard standard
at the time) and then makes adjustments from their to put each
vertical sonority (chord) into JI within itself. This is exactly what
Vicentino's version seeks to accomplish, and with simple enough
music, achieves perfectly. In practice, this of course wouldn't have
taken place with the exact 1/4-comma shifts Vicentino seems to
specify. But what would have happened based on the intuition and
practice of the performers, especially in an inherently polyphonic
music, is (I believe) likely to have been closer to the Vicentino
ideal than to any strict-JI framework for most pieces, since the
latter would involve too much shifting around in certain pitches
whose melodic integrity is an essential part of the ethos of the
music. At least, that's the way I hear it. The diatonic scale came
first chronologically, and I feel is still "aethetically prior" as a
musical entity in this music. Vicentino's adaptive JI preserves the
diatonic scale's integrity (to my ears) while still normally allowing
for each chord to be in JI within itself. What more could one want,
and why?

You're going a lot further than me, Ozan (and completely surprising
me in the process). I think *vertical* or *simultaneous* JI is more
than a utopia and is perfectly appropriately applicable to much
music. I'd love to hear lots of Western music performed in adaptive
JI, and I think it would be great for the music. It's just that a
*strict* JI approach -- where vertical *and* horizontal intervals are
simple ratios or compounds thereof -- to Western music has certain
problems and I feel one can usually do better. On the other hand,
strict JI is a perfectly good starting point for *new* compositions
and styles and I don't think those making music in it consitute
a "special curiosity" or are pursuing a "utopia". It's simply
something different from what occured in the history of Western
music. North Indian music, on the other hand, *is* largely based on a
strict JI framework. I see no reason to relegate certain cultures or
compositional paths into a "separate entity" apart from the
mainstream of music-making, just because they happen to use strict JI
tuning systems . . .

Perhaps your true meaning was somewhat different that how I
interpreted it (which was in the context of this thread)?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> I agree entirely with Paul on this one. JI is a utopia that should
best remain as a seperate entity / special curiosity in the music-
making process.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 20 Eylül 2005 Salý 0:49
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Lassus (was Tuning in Japan and China)
>
>
>
>
> Like Tom and Carl, I like the adaptive JI version better than
your
> strict JI proposal. In general, the adaptive JI idea
> isn't "astonishingly wrong", or wrong at all, in my opinion,
based on
> *musical* criteria of right or wrong. I believe composers like
Lassus
> and Bach, when they wrote a note (say D), may have expected the
> result to be within a narrow range, narrower than -- let me guess
> based on my own reactions to different tuning experiments -- 11
> cents. Adjusting written notes by a syntonic comma (21.5 cents)
> depending on context, in an effort to ply the strict-JI ideal,
yields
> audible motivic/melodic effects that, IMHO, do a disservice to
what
> the composers actually wrote. I also agree with the poster (was
> Michael Zapf?) who recently wrote that authentic Renaissance -
mid-
> Baroque performance practice for flexibly-tuned instruments
> essentially starts from a meantone framework (the keyboard
standard
> at the time) and then makes adjustments from their to put each
> vertical sonority (chord) into JI within itself. This is exactly
what
> Vicentino's version seeks to accomplish, and with simple enough
> music, achieves perfectly. In practice, this of course wouldn't
have
> taken place with the exact 1/4-comma shifts Vicentino seems to
> specify. But what would have happened based on the intuition and
> practice of the performers, especially in an inherently
polyphonic
> music, is (I believe) likely to have been closer to the Vicentino
> ideal than to any strict-JI framework for most pieces, since the
> latter would involve too much shifting around in certain pitches
> whose melodic integrity is an essential part of the ethos of the
> music. At least, that's the way I hear it. The diatonic scale
came
> first chronologically, and I feel is still "aethetically prior"
as a
> musical entity in this music. Vicentino's adaptive JI preserves
the
> diatonic scale's integrity (to my ears) while still normally
allowing
> for each chord to be in JI within itself. What more could one
want,
> and why?

<So we have virtually no music composed in so-called
"classic JI" before the last century.>

In Western Music, that is. Oriental Music never lost
its tradition, and there has been an uninterrupted
"Pythagorean" musical history there.
Michael

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

Yea let get rid of all the music from India for instance and much of Iran and the the rest of the mid east!
it would be much better to have some system where we have a chain of beating triads all at different rates unrelated to each other/
These systems seems to be the utopian and are excellent for a special curiosity in the music-making process.

From: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@superonline.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Lassus (was Tuning in Japan and China)

I agree entirely with Paul on this one. JI is a utopia that should best remain as a seperate entity / special curiosity in the music-making process.

Cordially,
Ozan

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Paul, with a constantly flowing music where modulation/transposition is frequent, design-limited fretted/keyboard instruments play a significant role in the determination of absolute pitches and a plethora of timbres affect simple integer ratios adversely, strict Just Intonation cannot be a reality in my opinion, unless we are talking about some auto-controlled means to achieve this as with `Hermode Tuning` or some complex `extended JI` solution that yields a continuous pitch-drift as a consequence.

Maybe I have to rephrase everything from the beginning. The fact that Baroque temperaments are meantone, quotidian keyboards are tuned to 12-EQ, Near-Eastern tuning systems deviate from JI and Gamelan tones are not properly tuned to simple integer ratios, we cannot speak of a `pure JI heaven` in the music-making process.

I have yet to see a JI solution that can execute without fault the Chopin Etudes, A Fasl Taqim comprising at least 15 Maqamat and a Gagaku ensemble in one shot. Although a strict JI tuning is aimed by all, even Blues music does not adhere to it entirely. This includes ANY musical genre, be it North Indian or African.

Yes, simple chords in JI sound wonderful, if not esoteric. But theoretical practice of simple chords as independent entities cannot represent the actual structure of perpetual flow of melody and harmony in my view. The day a perfectly tuned JI machine executes all the sounds heard from all the cultures of the world the way they are performed, I will abandon my shocking hypothesis.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 20 Eylül 2005 Salı 2:13
Subject: [tuning] Re: Lassus (was Tuning in Japan and China)

You're going a lot further than me, Ozan (and completely surprising
me in the process). I think *vertical* or *simultaneous* JI is more
than a utopia and is perfectly appropriately applicable to much
music. I'd love to hear lots of Western music performed in adaptive
JI, and I think it would be great for the music. It's just that a
*strict* JI approach -- where vertical *and* horizontal intervals are
simple ratios or compounds thereof -- to Western music has certain
problems and I feel one can usually do better. On the other hand,
strict JI is a perfectly good starting point for *new* compositions
and styles and I don't think those making music in it consitute
a "special curiosity" or are pursuing a "utopia". It's simply
something different from what occured in the history of Western
music. North Indian music, on the other hand, *is* largely based on a
strict JI framework. I see no reason to relegate certain cultures or
compositional paths into a "separate entity" apart from the
mainstream of music-making, just because they happen to use strict JI
tuning systems . . .

Perhaps your true meaning was somewhat different that how I
interpreted it (which was in the context of this thread)?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> I agree entirely with Paul on this one. JI is a utopia that should
best remain as a seperate entity / special curiosity in the music-
making process.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 20 Eylül 2005 Salı 0:49
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Lassus (was Tuning in Japan and China)
>
>
>
>
> Like Tom and Carl, I like the adaptive JI version better than
your
> strict JI proposal. In general, the adaptive JI idea
> isn't "astonishingly wrong", or wrong at all, in my opinion,
based on
> *musical* criteria of right or wrong. I believe composers like
Lassus
> and Bach, when they wrote a note (say D), may have expected the
> result to be within a narrow range, narrower than -- let me guess
> based on my own reactions to different tuning experiments -- 11
> cents. Adjusting written notes by a syntonic comma (21.5 cents)
> depending on context, in an effort to ply the strict-JI ideal,
yields
> audible motivic/melodic effects that, IMHO, do a disservice to
what
> the composers actually wrote. I also agree with the poster (was
> Michael Zapf?) who recently wrote that authentic Renaissance -
mid-
> Baroque performance practice for flexibly-tuned instruments
> essentially starts from a meantone framework (the keyboard
standard
> at the time) and then makes adjustments from their to put each
> vertical sonority (chord) into JI within itself. This is exactly
what
> Vicentino's version seeks to accomplish, and with simple enough
> music, achieves perfectly. In practice, this of course wouldn't
have
> taken place with the exact 1/4-comma shifts Vicentino seems to
> specify. But what would have happened based on the intuition and
> practice of the performers, especially in an inherently
polyphonic
> music, is (I believe) likely to have been closer to the Vicentino
> ideal than to any strict-JI framework for most pieces, since the
> latter would involve too much shifting around in certain pitches
> whose melodic integrity is an essential part of the ethos of the
> music. At least, that's the way I hear it. The diatonic scale
came
> first chronologically, and I feel is still "aethetically prior"
as a
> musical entity in this music. Vicentino's adaptive JI preserves
the
> diatonic scale's integrity (to my ears) while still normally
allowing
> for each chord to be in JI within itself. What more could one
want,
> and why?

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.

SPONSORED LINKS Music education Music production education Music education degree
Degree education music online Music business education Music industry education

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "tuning" on the web.

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please refer to my last answer to Paul, Kraig. I hardly insinuated 12-EQ or any other non-proportional beating solution.

Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: Kraig Grady
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 20 Eylül 2005 Salı 15:09
Subject: [tuning] Re: Re: Lassus (was Tuning in Japan and China)

Yea let get rid of all the music from India for instance and much of Iran and the the rest of the mid east!
it would be much better to have some system where we have a chain of beating triads all at different rates unrelated to each other/
These systems seems to be the utopian and are excellent for a
special curiosity in the music-making process.

Dear Kraig,

I share your frustration and disbelief. It reminds me of the old
debate: concert poodles vs. band saws.

Cris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Yea let get rid of all the music from India for instance and much of
>Iran and the the rest of the mid east!

wallyesterpaulrus said:

>The diatonic scale came
>first chronologically, and I feel is still "aethetically prior" as a
>musical entity in this music. Vicentino's adaptive JI preserves the
>diatonic scale's integrity (to my ears) while still normally allowing
>for each chord to be in JI within itself. What more could one want,
>and why?

sorry for the delay in replying, my email hasn't delivered any messages for a few days: to answer your last question, SINGABILITY, and, TO SING! Seems quite easy to find pure tuning as you sing the Lassus, (easier than to program slightly out-of-tune samples) but to make the 1/4 comma adjustments while singing in Vicentino's way seems fantastical to me.

guglielmo

>>The diatonic scale came first chronologically, and I feel is
>>still "aethetically prior" as a musical entity in this music.
>>Vicentino's adaptive JI preserves the diatonic scale's integrity
>>(to my ears) while still normally allowing for each chord to be
>>in JI within itself. What more could one want, and why?
>
> sorry for the delay in replying, my email hasn't delivered any
> messages for a few days: to answer your last question,
> SINGABILITY, and, TO SING! Seems quite easy to find pure
> tuning as you sing the Lassus, (easier than to program slightly
> out-of-tune samples) but to make the 1/4 comma adjustments
> while singing in Vicentino's way seems fantastical to me.

Hi Guglielmo,

In my experience, the singing ear also finds melodic continuity
very natural. Comma shifts are also difficult to perform, and
going flat is no fun either.

I don't believe performers implement Vicentino's scheme exactly,
but I think melodic evenness and the pitch standard guide them
over time more strongly than a fixed just intonation scale.
They naturally arrive at a solution like Vicentino's by tuning
chords pure. In fact I very regularly hear them slide notes
into just position after hitting them somewhat inaccurately at
first. And in quicker passages, vertical intonation is given up
before melodic 'correctness'.

Note that by "melodic continuity" above, I mean not only the
absence of comma shifts and pitch drift that Paul mentioned, but
also the fact that the meantone scale (and the Pythagorean scale,
which I think may be closer to what happens in practice) have a
lower "mean variety" (Rothenberg) than JI scales -- there are
fewer different types of intervals between scale tones (famously,
there are only whole- and half- tones). A high "mean variety"
leads, I believe, to the "pinched" sound of your first audio
example.

To answer Paul's question, I think the pinched sound may be
desirable in some cases.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Guglielmo <gugliel@g...> wrote:
> wallyesterpaulrus said:
>
> >The diatonic scale came
> >first chronologically, and I feel is still "aethetically prior"
as a
> >musical entity in this music. Vicentino's adaptive JI preserves
the
> >diatonic scale's integrity (to my ears) while still normally
allowing
> >for each chord to be in JI within itself. What more could one
want,
> >and why?
>
> sorry for the delay in replying, my email hasn't delivered any
messages
> for a few days: to answer your last question, SINGABILITY, and, TO
> SING! Seems quite easy to find pure tuning as you sing the
Lassus,
> (easier than to program slightly out-of-tune samples) but to make
the
> 1/4 comma adjustments while singing in Vicentino's way seems
fantastical
> to me.
>
> guglielmo

I believe the nature of singing of *horizontal* intervals such as
major seconds in this music is something that relies completely on
environment and training and not at all on the nature of singing.
Many musical cultures, such as those of Indonesia and parts of
Africa, are characterized by vocal melodic intervals far outside any
supposed "Western Classic JI" paradigm or anything like it.

Meanwhile, as I said the "1/4-comma adjustments" will of course vary
quite a bit in practice, and let me repeat that in no way did I state
or mean that the Vicentino model *is* followed by actual singers
(Vicentino himself intended it for an elaborate *keyboard*)-- it's
just another special point in the space of theoretical possibilities,
around which actual singing groups would travel quite liberally. But
these adjustments or their like occur almost automatically when any
harmonically solid singing group, such as a skilled Barbershop
quartet, sing with their ears open. Just about every chord quickly
slides into vertical JI.

So the general idea is, on the part of the singers:

() melodic framework in which the written pitches are conceived and
(almost -- within less than 10 cents) sung;

() sensitivity to the beatings, combinational tones, and other sonic
qualities of the harmonies yielding minimal (less than 10 cent)
adjustment toward, and acheiving, pure JI in each chord within itself.

Perhaps the Lassus example is not the best; an example that would
more assuredly induce drift in strict JI might be better . . .

The scheme you proposed, Guglielmo, would seem to require of a D
major to D minor progression that the root and fifth move by a whole
syntonic comma (21.5 cents). I'm not sure if you meant it only for
this Lassus example, though?

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> () melodic framework in which the written pitches are conceived and > (almost -- within less than 10 cents) sung;
> > () sensitivity to the beatings, combinational tones, and other sonic > qualities of the harmonies yielding minimal (less than 10 cent) > adjustment toward, and acheiving, pure JI in each chord within itself.

I agree with this, and with Carl Lumma's somewhat similar position.
> > The scheme you proposed, Guglielmo, would seem to require of a D > major to D minor progression that the root and fifth move by a whole > syntonic comma (21.5 cents). I'm not sure if you meant it only for > this Lassus example, though?
> Yes! According to the Guglielmo theory of musical history, that is one of the secret rules that got as far as Mozart via Padre Martini before, careless as Wolfgang was, it was forgotten and died early. The self-taught Haydn never discovered it, and led music to a new equal-tempered phase.

guglielmo

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Guglielmo <gugliel@g...> wrote:
>
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> > () melodic framework in which the written pitches are conceived
and
> > (almost -- within less than 10 cents) sung;
> >
> > () sensitivity to the beatings, combinational tones, and other
sonic
> > qualities of the harmonies yielding minimal (less than 10 cent)
> > adjustment toward, and acheiving, pure JI in each chord within
itself.
>
> I agree with this, and with Carl Lumma's somewhat similar position.
> >
>
> > The scheme you proposed, Guglielmo, would seem to require of a D
> > major to D minor progression that the root and fifth move by a
whole
> > syntonic comma (21.5 cents). I'm not sure if you meant it only
for
> > this Lassus example, though?
> >
> Yes!

Yes, you meant it only for the Lassus example? The below seems to
indicate something else; you'll have to clarify.

> According to the Guglielmo theory of musical history, that is one
> of the secret rules that got as far as Mozart via Padre Martini
before,
> careless as Wolfgang was, it was forgotten and died early. The
> self-taught Haydn never discovered it, and led music to a new
> equal-tempered phase.
>
> guglielmo

This doesn't accord with the history of intonation as we know it.
Mozart's own teaching of intonation is clear: comma-sized shifts
occur between enharmonic pairs of notes (G# - Ab), but not between
instances of the same note (D - D or A - A). We have the intonation
sources that his father, Leopold, used as well, and it all paints a
very meantone-based picture for what was held to be "correct
intonation" by these musicians. What is the evidence for your "theory
of musical history"?

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>>>The scheme you proposed, Guglielmo, would seem to require of a D >>>major to D minor progression that the root and fifth move by a >>> whole syntonic comma (21.5 cents). I'm not sure if you meant it only >>>for this Lassus example, though?
>>>
>>
>>Yes!
> > > Yes, you meant it only for the Lassus example? The below seems to > indicate something else; you'll have to clarify.
> > No! I meant YES to the comma difference between a major key and its parallel minor. But no, the tuning as I described works for all music, not just Lassus, as long as that music does NOT use major and parallel minor juxtapositions which would force the tonic/dominant to remain fixed (as Haydn through Bartok did). Without a forced juxtaposition, the parallel minor is reached by a modulation 3 or 4 steps along a circle of fifths: from C major you need to move through F and Bb to Eb (or Ab). In the new key of Eb or Ab major, the C will be a comma lower than the C of C major, and it is THIS C, the comma-lower C, that is the tonic of C minor.

Further, the "comma-pump" is (imo) simply a part of harmonic tension: the farther away from tonic you go, the farther out from the original notes the tuning requires. For most tonal music, there is a return to tonic that also returns the intonation choices to the beginning.

>>According to the Guglielmo theory of musical history, that is one >>of the secret rules that got as far as Mozart via Padre Martini >> before, careless as Wolfgang was, it was forgotten and died early. The >>self-taught Haydn never discovered it, and led music to a new >>equal-tempered phase.
>>

> This doesn't accord with the history of intonation as we know it. > Mozart's own teaching of intonation is clear: comma-sized shifts > occur between enharmonic pairs of notes (G# - Ab), but not between > instances of the same note (D - D or A - A). We have the intonation > sources that his father, Leopold, used as well, and it all paints a > very meantone-based picture for what was held to be "correct > intonation" by these musicians. What is the evidence for your "theory > of musical history"?
> The only statement about Mozart intonation I've read talked about intonation moving up with sharps and down with flats, as it would with the circle of fifths, or something similarly vague. Don't remember the enharmonic commas, and don't believe it, even, since in some situations the enharmonic shift will be 4 cents and in others nearly 2 commas -- but I'm only an artist so my "evidence" is neglible, just a deck of personal rule cards with which my card houses are being built. Leopold Mozart was not the composer Wolfgang was, so perhaps his rules were not quite as good either - though if you have the time to point me to some of Leopolds intonation sources, it would be appreciated.

guglielmo

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Guglielmo <gugliel@g...> wrote:
>
>
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> >>>The scheme you proposed, Guglielmo, would seem to require of a D
> >>>major to D minor progression that the root and fifth move by a
> >>> whole syntonic comma (21.5 cents). I'm not sure if you meant it only
> >>>for this Lassus example, though?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Yes!
> >
> >
> > Yes, you meant it only for the Lassus example? The below seems to
> > indicate something else; you'll have to clarify.
> >
> >
> No! I meant YES to the comma difference between a major key and its
> parallel minor. But no, the tuning as I described works for all music,
> not just Lassus, as long as that music does NOT use major and parallel
> minor juxtapositions

There's a tremendous amount of music that *does* juxtapose them. Let's start early -- the
Picardy third. How would you deal with that?

> which would force the tonic/dominant to remain
> fixed (as Haydn through Bartok did).

I don't understand what you mean. But let me bring up another point -- the dominant
(major) - to - tonic (minor) progression in a minor key. Am I correct that your scheme
would have the dominant note shift by a comma in this progression?

> Further, the "comma-pump" is (imo) simply a part of harmonic tension:
> the farther away from tonic you go, the farther out from the original
> notes the tuning requires.

But the "comma pump" progression keeps coming back to the tonic, and yet the tuning
drifts further and further away. What does this have to do with harmonic tension?

> For most tonal music, there is a return to
> tonic that also returns the intonation choices to the beginning.

It's been found that most tonal music, if rendered in strict JI with common tones held
constant, the intonation drifts significantly, usually in the flat direction. Are you just saying
that in *your* scheme, the intonation doesn't drift?

> >>According to the Guglielmo theory of musical history, that is one
> >>of the secret rules that got as far as Mozart via Padre Martini
> >> before, careless as Wolfgang was, it was forgotten and died early. The
> >>self-taught Haydn never discovered it, and led music to a new
> >>equal-tempered phase.
> >>
>
> > This doesn't accord with the history of intonation as we know it.
> > Mozart's own teaching of intonation is clear: comma-sized shifts
> > occur between enharmonic pairs of notes (G# - Ab), but not between
> > instances of the same note (D - D or A - A). We have the intonation
> > sources that his father, Leopold, used as well, and it all paints a
> > very meantone-based picture for what was held to be "correct
> > intonation" by these musicians. What is the evidence for your "theory
> > of musical history"?
> >
> The only statement about Mozart intonation I've read talked about
> intonation moving up with sharps and down with flats, as it would with
> the circle of fifths, or something similarly vague.

Have you read Chesnut's article?
Take a look at this (Monz's opinions remain his own):
http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/55edo/55edo.htm

> Don't remember the
> enharmonic commas, and don't believe it, even, since in some situations
> the enharmonic shift will be 4 cents

Can you please elaborate on this statement?

> and in others nearly 2 commas --
> but I'm only an artist so my "evidence" is neglible, just a deck of
> personal rule cards with which my card houses are being built.

I respect your artistic choices more highly than anything, when it comes to *your* music or
even your performances. But we are no longer living in Mozart's century, and we cannot
expect our culturally-nourished (perhaps even culturally-defined?) artistic choices to be
the same today as they would have been then. I try to advocate for the characteristics that
may actually sound alien to modern ears at first, but informed the creation of the music in
an important way that seems to reveal itself upon repeated listening.

>Leopold
> Mozart was not the composer Wolfgang was, so perhaps his rules were not
> quite as good either - though if you have the time to point me to some
> of Leopolds intonation sources, it would be appreciated.

Those are mentioned on Monz's page above too, though I agree Mozart's own teaching is
more important.

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> There's a tremendous amount of music that *does* juxtapose them. Let's start early -- the > Picardy third. How would you deal with that?

Even before getting interested in tuning, I always thought "picardy thirds" were over-emphasized theorists' readings of a common practice, which was "tune the final chord best". A tuned minor third and a tuned major third are pretty close together already (only about 70 cents apart) and a major triad tunes better than a minor one.

>>which would force the tonic/dominant to remain >>fixed (as Haydn through Bartok did).
> > I don't understand what you mean. But let me bring up another point -- the dominant > (major) - to - tonic (minor) progression in a minor key. Am I correct that your scheme > would have the dominant note shift by a comma in this progression?

No, the dominant note would not shift in such a progression. Further, the root of the minor chord on the fifth scale degree of a minor key is tuned the same as the root of the major chord on the fifth scale degree, offering one place where major/minor juxtapositions can be used without tuning contradictions. Shifting from the minor key to the relative major key, then you can have a major/minor juxtaposition without tuning changes on the third scale degree of major -- Waldstein sonata?

> > >>Further, the "comma-pump" is (imo) simply a part of harmonic tension: >>the farther away from tonic you go, the farther out from the original >>notes the tuning requires.
> > > But the "comma pump" progression keeps coming back to the tonic, and yet the tuning > drifts further and further away. What does this have to do with harmonic tension?
> Maybe I'm misusing the term. The tuning drifts further and further away along with harmonic motion away (by fifths) from tonic.
> > It's been found that most tonal music, if rendered in strict JI with common tones held > constant, the intonation drifts significantly, usually in the flat direction. Are you just saying > that in *your* scheme, the intonation doesn't drift?
Intonation drift happens in my scheme, too, usually in the flat direction. And that's just fine, because it drifts back up on the return to tonic.
> > > > Have you read Chesnut's article?
> Take a look at this (Monz's opinions remain his own):
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/55edo/55edo.htm
First reading of this -- seems to me a strong case of taking a few historical fragments and weaving a theory out of them. The jump to mean-tone happens quickly, unsupportedly, and then is held fast throughout.

> > in some situations >>the enharmonic shift will be 4 cents
> > > Can you please elaborate on this statement?
> Maybe 2 cents, to be precise: from a C major ET, take a pure F# as third of major D triad after a modulation to D major. That is down about 10 cents from ET equivalent. Take a Gb as lowered 7th after modulation to Ab major. That is down 12 cents from ET equivalent. There's a case for 2 cents difference. There are other cases, depending on what function a note and its enharmonic play: maybe they would all reduce to 2 cents, comma + 2 cents, and 2 commas + 4 cents for extreme modulation in opposite direction and opposing scale function?
> > I respect your artistic choices more highly than anything, when it comes to *your* music or > even your performances. But we are no longer living in Mozart's century, and we cannot > expect our culturally-nourished (perhaps even culturally-defined?) artistic choices to be > the same today as they would have been then. I try to advocate for the characteristics that > may actually sound alien to modern ears at first, but informed the creation of the music in > an important way that seems to reveal itself upon repeated listening.
Me too: I was honestly shocked that people seemed to prefer the mean-tone tuning for Lassus. Even in the crude and imperfectly tuned recording the just tuned version seemed far better to me, and far more easily sung and tuned by singers.

Guglielmo

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Guglielmo <gugliel@g...> wrote:

> > Have you read Chesnut's article?
> > Take a look at this (Monz's opinions remain his own):
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/55edo/55edo.htm
> First reading of this -- seems to me a strong case of taking a few
> historical fragments and weaving a theory out of them. The jump to
> mean-tone happens quickly, unsupportedly, and then is held fast
> throughout.

The description is of a regular tuning of some kind with a single size
of whole tone, but with chromatic and diatonic semitones distinguished.
What, other than meantone, could that be?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Guglielmo <gugliel@g...> wrote:
>
>
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>
> > There's a tremendous amount of music that *does* juxtapose them.
Let's start early -- the
> > Picardy third. How would you deal with that?
>
> Even before getting interested in tuning, I always thought "picardy
> thirds" were over-emphasized theorists' readings of a common
practice,
> which was "tune the final chord best". A tuned minor third and a
tuned
> major third are pretty close together already (only about 70 cents
> apart) and a major triad tunes better than a minor one.

I don't get what you're saying here.

> >>which would force the tonic/dominant to remain
> >>fixed (as Haydn through Bartok did).
> >
> > I don't understand what you mean. But let me bring up another
point -- the dominant
> > (major) - to - tonic (minor) progression in a minor key. Am I
correct that your scheme
> > would have the dominant note shift by a comma in this progression?
>
> No, the dominant note would not shift in such a progression.

Then I have no idea what your proposal is. According to the lattice
you drew earlier, the only way you can construct a major dominant in
a minor key is to use a dominant note a comma apart in the two chords.

> Further,
> the root of the minor chord on the fifth scale degree of a minor
key is
> tuned the same as the root of the major chord on the fifth scale
degree,
> offering one place where major/minor juxtapositions can be used
without
> tuning contradictions.

So your scheme is more complicated that you've explained so far.
Sounds like you may sometimes have to make "judgmental" choices as to
what qualifies as the "key" when you're in the middle of a
harmonically tricky section. Or can this be automated?

> Shifting from the minor key to the relative
> major key, then you can have a major/minor juxtaposition without
tuning
> changes on the third scale degree of major -- Waldstein sonata?
>
> >
> >
> >>Further, the "comma-pump" is (imo) simply a part of harmonic
tension:
> >>the farther away from tonic you go, the farther out from the
original
> >>notes the tuning requires.
> >
> >
> > But the "comma pump" progression keeps coming back to the tonic,
and yet the tuning
> > drifts further and further away. What does this have to do with
harmonic tension?
> >
> Maybe I'm misusing the term. The tuning drifts further and further
away
> along with harmonic motion away (by fifths) from tonic.

Take a look at this:

/tuning/topicId_40327.html#40367

> > It's been found that most tonal music, if rendered in strict JI
with common tones held
> > constant, the intonation drifts significantly, usually in the
flat direction. Are you just saying
> > that in *your* scheme, the intonation doesn't drift?
> Intonation drift happens in my scheme, too, usually in the flat
> direction. And that's just fine, because it drifts back up on the
> return to tonic.

Most tonal music drifts *in spite* of its returns to the tonic.
That's what I was talking about. I don't know what you could mean by
drifting "in the flat direction" if you're *not* talking about
returning to the pitch(es) you started with. If you're not back on
the same notes, how could you measure drift?

> > Have you read Chesnut's article?
> > Take a look at this (Monz's opinions remain his own):
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/55edo/55edo.htm

> First reading of this

Did you find Chesnut's actual article? I'd be happy to send you a
photocopy if you wish.

> -- seems to me a strong case of taking a few
> historical fragments and weaving a theory out of them. The jump to
> mean-tone happens quickly, unsupportedly, and then is held fast
> throughout.

It didn't happen quickly but by the 16th century it was quite
predominant. By Mozart's time, it had been in force for 200 years!

> > in some situations
> >>the enharmonic shift will be 4 cents
> >
> >
> > Can you please elaborate on this statement?
> >
> Maybe 2 cents, to be precise:

The schisma or 32768:32805 must be what you're talking about then.
Other "enharmonic intervals" (defined with respect to
the 'conventional' 'diatonic' system) found in "Classic JI" or strict
5-limit JI include the Pythagorean comma 531441:524288 or 23.4 cents,
the diaschisma 2048:2025 or 19.6 cents, and the dieses 128:125 = 41.1
cents and 648:625 = 62.6 cents.

> > I respect your artistic choices more highly than anything, when
it comes to *your* music or
> > even your performances. But we are no longer living in Mozart's
century, and we cannot
> > expect our culturally-nourished (perhaps even culturally-
defined?) artistic choices to be
> > the same today as they would have been then. I try to advocate
for the characteristics that
> > may actually sound alien to modern ears at first, but informed
the creation of the music in
> > an important way that seems to reveal itself upon repeated
listening.

> Me too: I was honestly shocked that people seemed to prefer the
> mean-tone tuning for Lassus.

It wasn't meantone, it was adaptive JI.