Confucius

Seeing as there's some talk of Chinese music lately, try this from the Analects of Confucius:

"The Master instructing the grand music-master of Lu said, 'How to play music may be known. At the commencement of the piece, all the parts should sound together. As it proceeds, they should be in harmony while severally distinct and flowing without break, and thus on to the conclusion.'" (III:XXIII)

http://www.romanization.com/books/confucius

I don't know how it comes out in other translations, but it's not far off Renaissance polyphony. If that's accurate, then, we should expect the tunings to favour vertical consonance.

Graham

Graham, maybe he is talking about unison heterophony?
----- Original Message -----
From: Graham Breed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Eylül 2005 Pazar 13:51
Subject: [tuning] Confucius

Seeing as there's some talk of Chinese music lately, try this from the
Analects of Confucius:

"The Master instructing the grand music-master of Lu said, 'How to play
music may be known. At the commencement of the piece, all the parts
should sound together. As it proceeds, they should be in harmony while
severally distinct and flowing without break, and thus on to the
conclusion.'" (III:XXIII)

http://www.romanization.com/books/confucius

I don't know how it comes out in other translations, but it's not far
off Renaissance polyphony. If that's accurate, then, we should expect
the tunings to favour vertical consonance.

Graham

Ozan Yarman wrote:
> Graham, maybe he is talking about unison heterophony?

It says "severally distinct" though. The idea of counterpoint is that the lines are distinct, but in harmony. The original Chinese could mean all kinds of things, all I have is this one translation.

Graham

Uh, I did not know that counterpoint - without serious expertise in
polyphonic notation - was possible to execute! Surely, the staff notation
was then and still is the most advanced form of transcribing music. Did the
Chinese have access to the Renaissance notation of Europe?

I sense that `severally distinct` refers to instrumentation and richness of
timbre instead.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Breed" <gbreed@gmail.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 18 Eyl�l 2005 Pazar 16:05
Subject: Re: [tuning] Confucius

> Ozan Yarman wrote:
> > Graham, maybe he is talking about unison heterophony?
>
> It says "severally distinct" though. The idea of counterpoint is that
> the lines are distinct, but in harmony. The original Chinese could mean
> all kinds of things, all I have is this one translation.
>
>
> Graham
>
>

Ozan Yarman wrote:
> Uh, I did not know that counterpoint - without serious expertise in
> polyphonic notation - was possible to execute! Surely, the staff notation
> was then and still is the most advanced form of transcribing music. Did the
> Chinese have access to the Renaissance notation of Europe?

Confucius was thousands of years before the European Renaissance. There's a notation for the qin which is supposed to go back a long way, but the Chinese do tend to exaggerate the age of their traditions.

We know the theory is all about Pythagorean pentatonics. It's easier to get harmony with pentatonics than diatonics because there are fewer bad intervals. English bell ringing works on this principle. I think it's quite plausible they were doing something like counterpoint, but it's all speculation on one short and unreliable reference.

> I sense that `severally distinct` refers to instrumentation and richness of
> timbre instead.

It could mean all kinds of things, I just thought I'd mention it...

Graham

The reference to harmony and counterpoint is to a music that is put together quite differently than the European tradition.

We should also note that Confucius, like Plato , was concerned with the behavior of the individual within the state at the expense of the former. In this light one could interpret a music based on pure harmony ( in opposition to melody) as the perfect forum for nationalism and fascism. Of course ( this is all for humor BTW) that a purely harmonic music might be the most democratic and that Fascism would be best symbolized by a single melody 'harmonized' ( hey you, keep in step!) by non entity block chords.
If we subscribed to such way of thinking, and i remind you these guys started this not me, Jazz Standards would be at the top of the charts. Even here the argument might be that the chords are not non entitles at all being what player bother to develop over, letting others address the crowd.

There are Nuclear Melodies which are tones that all the player play . in between these points the various melodies develop along their own lines , only to come back together on these designated pitches. each country seem to develop this idea with there own variations.
But even in Baroque music we had improvisers who would elaborate melodic lines in almost a similar fashion.

Also we are talking about Pentatonic scales which the crowning achievement of 'Yasser's Theory of Evolving Harmony' is his chapters on infra diatonic harmony. Which is turn often became the framework for the same type of development above.

Margo Schulter's work shows how these harmonies developed within the context of a diatonic scale with it preference for fourths and fifths.

The development of counterpoint in Indonesian music is as elaborate of a music that can be found anywhere else on the globe.
the idea that Europe is the peak of such type of development is sadly mistaken. Lou Harrison remarked that he much preferred writing counterpoint for a gamelan orchestra because he had the opportunity to write more parts to.
With the Western orchestra he said he would always run out of instruments and instrumental groups.

By coincidence , I had my first rehearsal of a group based on Nuclear melodies, called the Nuclear Family.
We had ten people, many not be able to make this first rehearsal. Wildly successful.
A page on this group being http://anaphoria.com/nuclear.html

--
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, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> Ozan Yarman wrote:
> > Graham, maybe he is talking about unison heterophony?
>
> It says "severally distinct" though. The idea of counterpoint is that
> the lines are distinct, but in harmony. The original Chinese could
mean
> all kinds of things, all I have is this one translation.

There are several on the web. I would sugest seeking an authentic
edition and have it translated by a professor of music who understands
the language.

from http://www.hm.tyg.jp/~acmuller/contao/analects.htm

『3-23』子語魯大師樂, 曰：「樂其可知也：始作, 翕如也; 從之, 純如也, 皦
如也, 繹如也, 以成。」

3:23 Confucius, when talking with the Grand Music Master of Lu, said,
"In my understanding of music, the piece should be begun in unison.
Afterwards, if it is pure, clear and without break, it will be perfect."

Graham and Kraig,

Kong Fu Tzu lived between 551-479 BCE. That's only 2500 years ago. He was
obviously the younger contemporary of Pythagoras (c. 580-500 BCE).

Furthermore, according to my understanding, his teachings contradict that of
Daoism to a large extent since the doctrine of Lao Zi stresses harmony with
nature rather than an unquestioning adherence to royal Chinese morals. I
have read not a long time ago the conflict between Confucius and a famous
Daoist philosopher on the very issue of morality.

As to the matter of music and notation, pentatonic counterpoint should at
least have some written theory behind it from that or a later era, no?

The assertion about pure harmony leading to a nationalist/fascist school of
music intrigues me. Were it that this was nothing but humor! As a matter of
fact, harmonization of Folk Music melodies was a state-sponsored agenda
during the foundation of the young Turkish Republic to the detriment of
Maqam Music theory and education.

While I am in full agreement that a particular genre of music should never
claim superiority over any other in the globe, I nevertheless think that the
tools of composition aka counterpoint, polyphony, canon, fugue, etc... are
signs as to how much advanced a musical culture is in its stages of
development.

I agree with Lou Harrison! The Classical Philarmonic Orchestra does not
provide all the tone colors one could ask for. Yet, although Western
Classical school of music (which may be thought to comprise the Jazz
tradition) does not and cannot represent the peak of musical evolution
(as many conditioned people in Turkey might tend to think), it still is
doing great with the tools at its disposal.

Why, the Western Classical tradition possesses a superior methodology by
which it educates virtuosos in legions. Maqam Music culture would do well to
benefit from these tools and methods for music production instead of
shunning them on basis of cultural discrimination.

Of course, this should be realized without any harm to its
historical/traditional context!

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Breed" <gbreed@gmail.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 19 Eyl�l 2005 Pazartesi 16:05
Subject: Re: [tuning] Confucius

> Ozan Yarman wrote:
> > Uh, I did not know that counterpoint - without serious expertise in
> > polyphonic notation - was possible to execute! Surely, the staff
notation
> > was then and still is the most advanced form of transcribing music. Did
the
> > Chinese have access to the Renaissance notation of Europe?
>
> Confucius was thousands of years before the European Renaissance.
> There's a notation for the qin which is supposed to go back a long way,
> but the Chinese do tend to exaggerate the age of their traditions.
>
> We know the theory is all about Pythagorean pentatonics. It's easier to
> get harmony with pentatonics than diatonics because there are fewer bad
> intervals. English bell ringing works on this principle. I think it's
> quite plausible they were doing something like counterpoint, but it's
> all speculation on one short and unreliable reference.
>
> > I sense that `severally distinct` refers to instrumentation and richness
of
> > timbre instead.
>
> It could mean all kinds of things, I just thought I'd mention it...
>
>
> Graham
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Kraig Grady
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 19 Eyl�l 2005 Pazartesi 18:20
Subject: [tuning] Confucius

The reference to harmony and counterpoint is to a music that is put
together quite differently than the European tradition.

We should also note that Confucius, like Plato , was concerned with the
behavior of the individual within the state at the expense of the
former. In this light one could interpret a music based on pure harmony
( in opposition to melody) as the perfect forum for nationalism and
fascism. Of course ( this is all for humor BTW) that a purely harmonic
music might be the most democratic and that Fascism would be best
symbolized by a single melody 'harmonized' ( hey you, keep in step!) by
non entity block chords.
If we subscribed to such way of thinking, and i remind you these guys
started this not me, Jazz Standards would be at the top of the charts.
Even here the argument might be that the chords are not non entitles at
all being what player bother to develop over, letting others address the
crowd.

There are Nuclear Melodies which are tones that all the player play .
in between these points the various melodies develop along their own
lines , only to come back together on these designated pitches. each
country seem to develop this idea with there own variations.
But even in Baroque music we had improvisers who would elaborate
melodic lines in almost a similar fashion.

Also we are talking about Pentatonic scales which the crowning
achievement of 'Yasser's Theory of Evolving Harmony' is his chapters on
infra diatonic harmony. Which is turn often became the framework for the
same type of development above.

Margo Schulter's work shows how these harmonies developed within the
context of a diatonic scale with it preference for fourths and fifths.

The development of counterpoint in Indonesian music is as elaborate of a
music that can be found anywhere else on the globe.
the idea that Europe is the peak of such type of development is sadly
mistaken. Lou Harrison remarked that he much preferred writing
counterpoint for a gamelan orchestra because he had the opportunity to
write more parts to.
With the Western orchestra he said he would always run out of
instruments and instrumental groups.

By coincidence , I had my first rehearsal of a group based on Nuclear
melodies, called the Nuclear Family.
We had ten people, many not be able to make this first rehearsal.
Wildly successful.
A page on this group being http://anaphoria.com/nuclear.html

Hi
I know this is an old post that I am responding to, but I remembered
it and it caught my mind. And I know it may have not been totally
serious, but nevertheless - it seems the suggestion is that
Confusionism would lead to development of harmony, in opposition to
melody. But isn't it that China goes more in for melody than
harmony? Please forgive my total lack of musical education. I have
heard that it is the west that has focussed on harmony, and the east
has largely stayed away from harmony, concentrating instead on
melody. Could anyone explain to me why? Is it by nature of their
scales? Or a path they went down which ened up giving that
limitaiton of not being able to change direction? And/or does it
come from the different social/philosophical mentality?
I would be very interested to hear about this.
Best wishes
Justin.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> The reference to harmony and counterpoint is to a music that is
put
> together quite differently than the European tradition.
>
> We should also note that Confucius, like Plato , was concerned
with the
> behavior of the individual within the state at the expense of the
> former. In this light one could interpret a music based on pure
harmony
> ( in opposition to melody) as the perfect forum for nationalism
and
> fascism. Of course ( this is all for humor BTW) that a purely
harmonic
> music might be the most democratic and that Fascism would be best
> symbolized by a single melody 'harmonized' ( hey you, keep in
step!) by
> non entity block chords.
> If we subscribed to such way of thinking, and i remind you these
guys
> started this not me, Jazz Standards would be at the top of the
charts.
> Even here the argument might be that the chords are not non
entitles at
> all being what player bother to develop over, letting others
address the
> crowd.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "justinasia" <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> Hi
> I know this is an old post that I am responding to, but I
> remembered it and it caught my mind. And I know it may have not
> been totally serious, but nevertheless - it seems the suggestion
> is that Confusionism would lead to development of harmony, in
> opposition to melody. But isn't it that China goes more in for
> melody than harmony? Please forgive my total lack of musical
> education. I have heard that it is the west that has focussed on
> harmony, and the east has largely stayed away from harmony,
> concentrating instead on melody. Could anyone explain to me why?
> Is it by nature of their scales? Or a path they went down which
> ened up giving that limitaiton of not being able to change
> direction? And/or does it come from the different
> social/philosophical mentality?
> I would be very interested to hear about this.
> Best wishes
> Justin.
>

Well I got to say I highly doubt that it can be answered clearly
what exactly happened why... But speaking of the subject, this
reminds me something I read a while ago. The idea is by Ernest
Ansermet, and it goes as follows:
A (monophonic) melody can be compared to a movement in a space -
while a harmonized melody is much like a movement in a space that is
itself moving. And in the perception of listening to a harmonized
piece of music, an additional level of abstraction is involved:
there is a primary movement (the harmonic context) and a secondary
one of the melody relative to that context.
Now, this thought process is analogous to the idea that the
seeminlgy so fix earth we are living on is in fact moving around the
sun, and not vice versa. Because of this, Ansermet calls the
development of harmony "the copernican turn in music" - and draws
the obvious consequences about why harmony developed exactly in
Europe, and exactly at a certain historical period.
As I said, I am rather skeptical whether this can be asserted so
clearly - but the thought is in any case an interesting one!
--
Hans Straub

Would that perchance imply that Maqam Music Culture is stuck in the Dark Ages?

----- Original Message -----
From: hstraub64
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 27 Eylül 2005 Salı 20:34
Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "justinasia" <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> Hi
> I know this is an old post that I am responding to, but I
> remembered it and it caught my mind. And I know it may have not
> been totally serious, but nevertheless - it seems the suggestion
> is that Confusionism would lead to development of harmony, in
> opposition to melody. But isn't it that China goes more in for
> melody than harmony? Please forgive my total lack of musical
> education. I have heard that it is the west that has focussed on
> harmony, and the east has largely stayed away from harmony,
> concentrating instead on melody. Could anyone explain to me why?
> Is it by nature of their scales? Or a path they went down which
> ened up giving that limitaiton of not being able to change
> direction? And/or does it come from the different
> social/philosophical mentality?
> I would be very interested to hear about this.
> Best wishes
> Justin.
>

Well I got to say I highly doubt that it can be answered clearly
what exactly happened why... But speaking of the subject, this
reminds me something I read a while ago. The idea is by Ernest
Ansermet, and it goes as follows:
A (monophonic) melody can be compared to a movement in a space -
while a harmonized melody is much like a movement in a space that is
itself moving. And in the perception of listening to a harmonized
piece of music, an additional level of abstraction is involved:
there is a primary movement (the harmonic context) and a secondary
one of the melody relative to that context.
Now, this thought process is analogous to the idea that the
seeminlgy so fix earth we are living on is in fact moving around the
sun, and not vice versa. Because of this, Ansermet calls the
development of harmony "the copernican turn in music" - and draws
the obvious consequences about why harmony developed exactly in
Europe, and exactly at a certain historical period.
As I said, I am rather skeptical whether this can be asserted so
clearly - but the thought is in any case an interesting one!
--
Hans Straub

--- hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net> wrote:

> A (monophonic) melody can be compared to a movement
> in a space -
> while a harmonized melody is much like a movement in
> a space that is
> itself moving.

Hi
Okay please forgive my extremem ignorance. Actually I
don't really know what harmony means! (I'd be so glad
if someone could explain but understand that might be
far too tedious for many of you.) With your analogy of
space moving, it feels to me like chord changes? When
you say "there is a primary movement (the harmonic
context) and a secondary one of the melody relative
to that context." is it that the primary one is a
chord which changes, or a drone perhaps or whatever.
Like a basic mood-space. Then the melody is a dynamic
"dancer", a sequence of changing pitches enertaining
and ornamenting that space?
What about if 2 instruments play together, but with
equal dynamic character. Like, two oboes for example,
playing away. If they are not playing the same
sequence of notes, is that 2 melodies or a harmony? I
mean, if they are making sense with each other. At
what point is it called a harmony?
Understanding this will help me to gain a clearer
picture which I would love so as to explore the
question further.
Yours gratefully
Justin.

And in the perception of listening to
> a harmonized
> piece of music, an additional level of abstraction
> is involved:
> there is a primary movement (the harmonic context)
> and a secondary
> one of the melody relative to that context.

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

That is a conclusion that certain people indeed might draw - and that
is one of the reasons I am so highly skeptic of it...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Would that perchance imply that Maqam Music Culture is stuck in the
Dark Ages?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: hstraub64
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 27 Eylül 2005 Salý 20:34
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius
>
>
> Well I got to say I highly doubt that it can be answered clearly
> what exactly happened why... But speaking of the subject, this
> reminds me something I read a while ago. The idea is by Ernest
> Ansermet, and it goes as follows:
> A (monophonic) melody can be compared to a movement in a space -
> while a harmonized melody is much like a movement in a space that is
> itself moving. And in the perception of listening to a harmonized
> piece of music, an additional level of abstraction is involved:
> there is a primary movement (the harmonic context) and a secondary
> one of the melody relative to that context.
> Now, this thought process is analogous to the idea that the
> seeminlgy so fix earth we are living on is in fact moving around the
> sun, and not vice versa. Because of this, Ansermet calls the
> development of harmony "the copernican turn in music" - and draws
> the obvious consequences about why harmony developed exactly in
> Europe, and exactly at a certain historical period.
> As I said, I am rather skeptical whether this can be asserted so
> clearly - but the thought is in any case an interesting one!
> --
> Hans Straub

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi
> Okay please forgive my extremem ignorance. Actually I
> don't really know what harmony means! (I'd be so glad
> if someone could explain but understand that might be
> far too tedious for many of you.) With your analogy of
> space moving, it feels to me like chord changes? When
> you say "there is a primary movement (the harmonic
> context) and a secondary one of the melody relative
> to that context." is it that the primary one is a
> chord which changes, or a drone perhaps or whatever.
> Like a basic mood-space. Then the melody is a dynamic
> "dancer", a sequence of changing pitches enertaining
> and ornamenting that space?
> What about if 2 instruments play together, but with
> equal dynamic character. Like, two oboes for example,
> playing away. If they are not playing the same
> sequence of notes, is that 2 melodies or a harmony? I
> mean, if they are making sense with each other. At
> what point is it called a harmony?

Ah, well, things are indeed a little more complicated than they look
at first sight! The word "harmony" as such has a rather broad meaning
- the examples you give above can all fall into that - so, in this
sense, "harmony" is present in nearly all music...

But to elaborate a little more on Ansermet's idea - drones are a good
keyword. Imagine a melody played over a drone - and then the same
melody played over a different drone. The perceptions will be quite
different, since the effect of a drone is to emphasize a kind of base
or reference tone - it is often the tone the melody starts or stops
on, so the melody will be heard relative to that base tone.
A single drone, however, is rather a non-moving space, so music with
just one drone would still be called, so to say, "pre-copernican".
But imagine a piece where the drone changes in the middle - then the
reference tone changes: moving ground! Maybe the word "modulation" is
a good keyword that describes what I mean.
Which brings me to another point. On the website about maqam music you
posted here a whlie ago, I read that in maqam music there are
modulations, too - just not "harmony", but, as far as I understand it,
between different kinds of melody. So far for the question about maqam
music and "Dark Ages"!
I am sorry I do not know much about maqams (nor did Ansermet, I
suppose) - but I am just imagining that the concept of modulation may
not always have been present in maqam music and entered at a certain
period of time - maybe Ozan can tell something here?
--
Hans Straub

--- hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net> wrote:

> But imagine a piece where the drone changes in the
> middle - then the
> reference tone changes: moving ground!

What about a solo instrument then, playing a melody
which includes a change in key? Is that called
harmony? I know there is no drone, but doesn't the key
it's played in kind of give our mind that space
naturally, even if silently? Like it is implied.

And then with this changing background space, is that
possible with instruments not tuned in ET? Or is it ET
that enabled these shifting chords to operate? This
would lead to a question of whether a certain level of
technical advancement is necessary for a culture to
evolve this thing called harmony.
Justin.

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

Ok, this reminds me of a type of piece I've written a few times, using
a harmonic scale, usually from 7 to 14. It was purely harmony driven,
there are only a few intervals that can be transposed at all, so I
used the interval as the music bearing entity around which I composed
the pieces, and any melody is just a side effect of the changing
intervals.

So I get a piece like

14 #-----
13 #
12 #---- #-------------
11 #---------
10 #---- #-----
9 #
8 #---- #---- #-----
7 #----

Where the melody is nearly nonexistant but the harmonies resolve into eachother.

--
~Tristan Parker
http://www.myspace.com/rozencrantz
"Western music is fast because it's out of tune"
-- Terry Riley

Hi Tristan,

> So I get a piece like
>
> 14 #-----
> 13 #
> 12 #---- #-------------
> 11 #---------
> 10 #---- #-----
> 9 #
> 8 #---- #---- #-----
> 7 #----
>
> Where the melody is nearly nonexistant but the harmonies resolve
> into eachother.

Do you have an audio file you'd care to share? I happen to
love melodies like this.

-Carl

> Do you have an audio file you'd care to share? I happen to
> love melodies like this.
>
> -Carl
>

Bah. I'm still learning how to type in pitch bends by hand. It's all
locked up in here. Beautiful music, though. I'll try to put something
together through brute force. Don't know how successful I'll be.

--
~Tristan Parker
http://www.myspace.com/rozencrantz
"Western music is fast because it's out of tune"
-- Terry Riley

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Rozencrantz the Sane <rozencrantz@g...>
wrote:

> Bah. I'm still learning how to type in pitch bends by hand. It's all
> locked up in here. Beautiful music, though. I'll try to put something
> together through brute force. Don't know how successful I'll be.

Why do that?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
>
> What about a solo instrument then, playing a melody
> which includes a change in key? Is that called
> harmony? I know there is no drone, but doesn't the key
> it's played in kind of give our mind that space
> naturally, even if silently? Like it is implied.
>

Hmm, that's a tricky one! Something like the sonatas for solo flute by
J.S. Bach? There is only one tone at the time, so strictly speaking
(as in the definitions in Haresh's posting), there is indeed no
"harmony" - but OTOH, as you write, harmony is somehow there
"silently". Sometimes the instrument performs an arpeggio to emphasize
the chord, but often it does not, and yet, in the listener's mind, it
is there! I would not say "naturally" - it is more a question of
tradition: there is a number of standard melody phrases that come
along with standard chord progressions, and a listener familiar with
the music of this style will recognize these. I assume that a listener
who never has heard anything by Bach and his contemporaries before
will not perceive the piece in the same way.

> And then with this changing background space, is that
> possible with instruments not tuned in ET? Or is it ET
> that enabled these shifting chords to operate? This
> would lead to a question of whether a certain level of
> technical advancement is necessary for a culture to
> evolve this thing called harmony.
>

ET tuning is not necessary - though it sure makes modulating easy
(this is one of the reasons ET became popular), especially into keys
that are "far away" (note the spacial metaphor here!). But modulations
were there before ET; unequal well temperament can do it, of course,
and meantone, too - just less easy and into a limited number of keys.
In a tuning that is based entirely on the overtone series, modulation
is probably rather difficult, though.
--
Hans Straub

I believe, certain well-temperaments and meantones are no worse when it comes to modulability as compared to 12-EQ.

----- Original Message -----
From: hstraub64
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 29 Eylül 2005 Perşembe 14:24
Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius

ET tuning is not necessary - though it sure makes modulating easy
(this is one of the reasons ET became popular), especially into keys that are "far away" (note the spacial metaphor here!). But modulations were there before ET; unequal well temperament can do it, of course, and meantone, too - just less easy and into a limited number of keys. In a tuning that is based entirely on the overtone series, modulation is probably rather difficult, though.
--
Hans Straub

Hello Tristan!

Kathleen Schlesinger in her book "The Greek Aulos" makes a big to do about the inversion of this series. this subharmonic being found on many flutes around the world.
i have done quite a few pieces based on the idea of taking a single sonority in which i exhibit only a piece at a time. often extracting as much melodic material as possible. the most recent i have an excerpt here
http://anaphoria.com/chordpodexcerpt.ogg
if you don't have a player that con open thois they are available for free( you can contact me off list about this) the sound quality superior to Mp3s.
i have similar pieces where i take a single chord and play through different inversions of the same chord in which to extract melodies from which i have on the following page. http://anaphoria.com/tun.per.html
in which the above piece also has a link to it. like carl, would like to hear what you are doing with this stuff

Message: 4 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:18:02 -0700
From: Rozencrantz the Sane <rozencrantz@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Confucius

Ok, this reminds me of a type of piece I've written a few times, using
a harmonic scale, usually from 7 to 14. It was purely harmony driven,
there are only a few intervals that can be transposed at all, so I
used the interval as the music bearing entity around which I composed
the pieces, and any melody is just a side effect of the changing
intervals.

So I get a piece like

14 #-----
13 #
12 #---- #-------------
11 #---------
10 #---- #-----
9 #
8 #---- #---- #-----
7 #----

Where the melody is nearly nonexistant but the harmonies resolve into eachother.

--
~Tristan Parker
http://www.myspace.com/rozencrantz
"Western music is fast because it's out of tune"
-- Terry Riley

--
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

Maybe tell us all how to get the ogg thing?
Thanks
Justin

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <hstraub64@t...> wrote:

> ET tuning is not necessary - though it sure makes modulating easy
> (this is one of the reasons ET became popular), especially into keys
> that are "far away" (note the spacial metaphor here!). But modulations
> were there before ET; unequal well temperament can do it, of course,
> and meantone, too - just less easy and into a limited number of keys.

Actually, meantone can take you into an unlimited number of keys,
unlike ET or well-temperaments, which have only 12 major and 12 minor
keys.

But maybe you were talking about a keyboard with only 12 notes per
octave? If so, you should say so.

:)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> Actually, meantone can take you into an unlimited number of keys,
> unlike ET or well-temperaments, which have only 12 major and 12
> minor keys.
>
> But maybe you were talking about a keyboard with only 12 notes per
> octave? If so, you should say so.
>
> :)

That was indeed what I meant - with a limited number of notes in any
case. Actually, I thought that sort of followed implicitly from the
word "meantone" - wasn't that what meantone was developed for at
all: to be able to modulate with a limited number of notes (on a
keyboard, especially)? I mean, if you have an unlimited number of
notes, there is much less necessity for a temperament, since you can
use just intonation in any key then...
--
Hans Straub

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <hstraub64@t...> wrote:
>
> That was indeed what I meant - with a limited number of notes in any
> case. Actually, I thought that sort of followed implicitly from the
> word "meantone" - wasn't that what meantone was developed for at
> all: to be able to modulate with a limited number of notes (on a
> keyboard, especially)? I mean, if you have an unlimited number of
> notes, there is much less necessity for a temperament, since you can
> use just intonation in any key then...

Meantone grew out of Renaissance vocal polyphonic practice, so I don't
think this is a good analysis.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <hstraub64@t...> wrote:
> >
> > That was indeed what I meant - with a limited number of notes in
any
> > case. Actually, I thought that sort of followed implicitly from the
> > word "meantone" - wasn't that what meantone was developed for at
> > all: to be able to modulate with a limited number of notes (on a
> > keyboard, especially)? I mean, if you have an unlimited number of
> > notes, there is much less necessity for a temperament, since you
can
> > use just intonation in any key then...
>
> Meantone grew out of Renaissance vocal polyphonic practice, so I don't
> think this is a good analysis.

New tunings do not inspire great music.
Great music inspires new tunings.

Such as the Maqam Music of today.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cris Forster
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 01 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 21:35
Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius

New tunings do not inspire great music.
Great music inspires new tunings.

On Saturday 01 October 2005 2:52 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> Such as the Maqam Music of today.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cris Forster
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 01 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 21:35
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius
>
>
>
>
> New tunings do not inspire great music.
> Great music inspires new tunings.

I think in the hands of a great composer, new tunings can inspire great new
music.

I think of it being like an artist using colors.

-Aaron.

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

> New tunings do not inspire great music.
> Great music inspires new tunings.

I think one could argue that Beethoven is a counterexample, and
perhaps Bach also.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...>
wrote:
>
> > New tunings do not inspire great music.
> > Great music inspires new tunings.
>
> I think one could argue that Beethoven is a counterexample, and
> perhaps Bach also.

"It is a superstition to think that the fullest development of a man is
impossible without the art of reading and writing."

Mahatma Gandhi

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
wrote:
> On Saturday 01 October 2005 2:52 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> > Such as the Maqam Music of today.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Cris Forster
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: 01 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 21:35
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > New tunings do not inspire great music.
> > Great music inspires new tunings.
>
> I think in the hands of a great composer, new tunings can inspire
great new
> music.
>
> I think of it being like an artist using colors.
>
> -Aaron.

Surely, you are not suggesting a number painting analogy.

-Cris

le r�ve de l��tat
est d��tre seul
alors que le r�ve
des individus
est d��tre deux

Jean Luc Godard

>-----Original Message-----
>From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
>Cris Forster
>Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 11:19 PM
>To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius
>
>
>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...>
>wrote:
>>
>> > New tunings do not inspire great music.
>> > Great music inspires new tunings.
>>
>> I think one could argue that Beethoven is a counterexample, and
>> perhaps Bach also.
>
>
>"It is a superstition to think that the fullest development of a man is
>impossible without the art of reading and writing."
>
>Mahatma Gandhi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> le rêve de l'état
> est d'être seul
> alors que le rêve
> des individus
> est d'être deux
>
> Jean Luc Godard

Why only "two?"

>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of
> >Cris Forster
> >Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 11:19 PM
> >To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius
> >
> >
> >--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> >> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster"
<cris.forster@c...>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > New tunings do not inspire great music.
> >> > Great music inspires new tunings.
> >>
> >> I think one could argue that Beethoven is a counterexample, and
> >> perhaps Bach also.
> >
> >
> >"It is a superstition to think that the fullest development of a
man is
> >impossible without the art of reading and writing."
> >
> >Mahatma Gandhi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Works of art, in my opinion, are the only objects in the material universe to possess internal order, and that is why, though I don’t believe that only art matters, I do believe in Art for Art’s sake.

E. M. Forster (1879–1970) British novelist. Art for Art’s Sake

© 1994 by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. All rights reserved.

----- Original Message -----
From: Cris Forster
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 02 Ekim 2005 Pazar 6:19
Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius

"It is a superstition to think that the fullest development of a man is impossible without the art of reading and writing."

Mahatma Gandhi

Processes of invention and discovery are never orderly.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Works of art, in my opinion, are the only objects in the material
universe to possess internal order, and that is why, though I don't
believe that only art matters, I do believe in Art for Art's sake.
>
>
> E. M. Forster (1879–1970) British novelist. Art for Art's Sake
>
> © 1994 by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. All rights reserved.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cris Forster
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 02 Ekim 2005 Pazar 6:19
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius
>
>
>
> "It is a superstition to think that the fullest development of a
man is impossible without the art of reading and writing."
>
> Mahatma Gandhi

pourquoi demandez pourquoi?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
>Cris Forster
>Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 11:30 PM
>To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius
>
>
>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
>> le r�ve de l'�tat
>> est d'�tre seul
>> alors que le r�ve
>> des individus
>> est d'�tre deux
>>
>> Jean Luc Godard
>
>
>Why only "two?"
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com]On
>Behalf Of
>> >Cris Forster
>> >Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 11:19 PM
>> >To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>> >Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius
>> >
>> >
>> >--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
>wrote:
>> >> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster"
><cris.forster@c...>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > New tunings do not inspire great music.
>> >> > Great music inspires new tunings.
>> >>
>> >> I think one could argue that Beethoven is a counterexample, and
>> >> perhaps Bach also.
>> >
>> >
>> >"It is a superstition to think that the fullest development of a
>man is
>> >impossible without the art of reading and writing."
>> >
>> >Mahatma Gandhi
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
wrote:
> On Saturday 01 October 2005 2:52 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> > Such as the Maqam Music of today.
> >
> > New tunings do not inspire great music.
> > Great music inspires new tunings.
>
> I think in the hands of a great composer, new tunings can inspire
great new
> music.
>

I would say: great music comes from great composers, no matter what
the tuning is. (And no matter whether there is harmony or not.)
--
Hans Straub

parce que réponse parce que

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> pourquoi demandez pourquoi?
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of
> >Cris Forster
> >Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 11:30 PM
> >To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius
> >
> >
> >--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> >> le rêve de l'état
> >> est d'être seul
> >> alors que le rêve
> >> des individus
> >> est d'être deux
> >>
> >> Jean Luc Godard
> >
> >
> >Why only "two?"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com]On
> >Behalf Of
> >> >Cris Forster
> >> >Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 11:19 PM
> >> >To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> >> >Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> >wrote:
> >> >> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster"
> ><cris.forster@c...>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > New tunings do not inspire great music.
> >> >> > Great music inspires new tunings.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think one could argue that Beethoven is a counterexample,
and
> >> >> perhaps Bach also.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"It is a superstition to think that the fullest development of
a
> >man is
> >> >impossible without the art of reading and writing."
> >> >
> >> >Mahatma Gandhi
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >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
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> New tunings do not inspire great music.
> Great music inspires new tunings.

Hi Chris,

I actually completely disagree with this. I believe there's
an unlimited amount of great music in any tuning. But it
gets harder and harder to find (at least, if you're obsessed,
as I am, with the post-Beethoven notion of every composer
inventing his/her own genre/sound). I think changing tunings
is the most obvious and single most fruitful place to go to
find new resources. Any random tuning will do, but if you're
obsessed, as I am, with Western polyphonic goodness, a good
linear temperament, as we've defined them on the tuning-math
list, is indispensable.

-Carl

> > > New tunings do not inspire great music.
> > > Great music inspires new tunings.
> >
> > I think in the hands of a great composer, new tunings can
> > inspire great new music.
> >
> > I think of it being like an artist using colors.
> >
> > -Aaron.
>
> Surely, you are not suggesting a number painting analogy.
>
> -Cris

"It is a superstition that a hatred of numbers is productive."
- Carl Lumma

Carl, I agree with you entirely. Some people apparently take tuning for granted hereabouts and imagine that refined music can be produced in any sound system.

Not only that, but our interests in the music making process coincide too!

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 02 Ekim 2005 Pazar 20:11
Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius

> New tunings do not inspire great music.
> Great music inspires new tunings.

Hi Chris,

I actually completely disagree with this. I believe there's
an unlimited amount of great music in any tuning. But it
gets harder and harder to find (at least, if you're obsessed,
as I am, with the post-Beethoven notion of every composer
inventing his/her own genre/sound). I think changing tunings
is the most obvious and single most fruitful place to go to
find new resources. Any random tuning will do, but if you're
obsessed, as I am, with Western polyphonic goodness, a good
linear temperament, as we've defined them on the tuning-math
list, is indispensable.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > New tunings do not inspire great music.
> > Great music inspires new tunings.
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I actually completely disagree with this. I believe there's
> an unlimited amount of great music in any tuning. But it
> gets harder and harder to find (at least, if you're obsessed,
> as I am, with the post-Beethoven notion of every composer
> inventing his/her own genre/sound). I think changing tunings
> is the most obvious and single most fruitful place to go to
> find new resources. Any random tuning will do, but if you're
> obsessed, as I am, with Western polyphonic goodness, a good
> linear temperament, as we've defined them on the tuning-math
> list, is indispensable.
>
> -Carl

In the sciences, theory may predict reality.
In the arts, theory more often than not fails to predict reality.

Cris (Please note the Latin, or non-Greek, spelling of my name.)

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

> In the sciences, theory may predict reality.
> In the arts, theory more often than not fails to predict reality.

That's *your* theory. In don't think it is specific enough in its
meaning to predict anything however.

Is there a point to these fortune cookies?

Nope, they are just chinese crackers.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ward Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 4:01
Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius

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

> In the sciences, theory may predict reality.
> In the arts, theory more often than not fails to predict reality.

That's *your* theory. In don't think it is specific enough in its
meaning to predict anything however.

Is there a point to these fortune cookies?

neither fortunes nor cookies nor chinese nor crackers. lost once again
Subject: Re: Re: Confucius

Nope, they are just chinese crackers.

Is there a point to these fortune cookies?

--
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

I have started my analysis of pitch in shakuhachi
recoerdings of the honkyoku repetoire (that played by
wandering buddhist monks). I have a long way to go
yet, but here are my initial findings of pitch use by
one player whom I think is a good representative:
The notes used and how much they differ (if they do)
from 12ET (this is roughly what it seems so far but it
may well be more subtle than this):
D
Eb -25c
F
G
Ab -25c
A
Bb -25c
C
Db -25c

By the way not all the notes are used in each piece.
Justin

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

--- Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com> wrote:

> Carl, I agree with you entirely. Some people
> apparently take tuning for granted hereabouts and
> imagine that refined music can be produced in any
> sound system.

But can't it? I would think it can be. I liked the
artist's palette analogy for the temperaments. Sure
the great music was not BECAUSE of the temperament,
but, there came a temperament, and then a musician
created amazing music with the temperament. Or maybe a
musician created a temperament in order that he could
create a certain great music with it. So I'm sure
music in diferent temperaments will be different, but
can be great in so many different tunings right? I
would expect that the great composers would still have
composed great pieces had the temperament been
different. Surely they would have been totally
different pieces though, the artist manifesting the
music appropriate to the medium (temperament).
Aren't all the gamelans in Indonesia tuned differently
from each other? Could they even be a bit random? But
then, on each gamelan (is that how you spell it?)
greta ("refined") music has been developed. And each
is characteristically different (maybe due to the
different tuning leading to different characters of
creation).
Just some unqualified thoughts
Justin.

>
> Not only that, but our interests in the music making
> process coincide too!
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
>
>
> --- Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> > Carl, I agree with you entirely. Some people
> > apparently take tuning for granted hereabouts and
> > imagine that refined music can be produced in any
> > sound system.
>
> But can't it? I would think it can be. I liked the
> artist's palette analogy for the temperaments. Sure
> the great music was not BECAUSE of the temperament,
> but, there came a temperament, and then a musician
> created amazing music with the temperament. Or maybe a
> musician created a temperament in order that he could
> create a certain great music with it. So I'm sure
> music in diferent temperaments will be different, but
> can be great in so many different tunings right? I
> would expect that the great composers would still have
> composed great pieces had the temperament been
> different. Surely they would have been totally
> different pieces though, the artist manifesting the
> music appropriate to the medium (temperament).
> Aren't all the gamelans in Indonesia tuned differently
> from each other? Could they even be a bit random? But
> then, on each gamelan (is that how you spell it?)
> greta ("refined") music has been developed. And each
> is characteristically different (maybe due to the
> different tuning leading to different characters of
> creation).
> Just some unqualified thoughts
> Justin.
>
>
> >
> > Not only that, but our interests in the music making
> > process coincide too!
> >
> > Cordially,
> > Ozan
>

Justin

You will never squeeze a non-discouraging word from practitioners of
Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Cris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
>
>
> --- Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> > Carl, I agree with you entirely. Some people
> > apparently take tuning for granted hereabouts and
> > imagine that refined music can be produced in any
> > sound system.
>
> But can't it? I would think it can be. I liked the
> artist's palette analogy for the temperaments. Sure
> the great music was not BECAUSE of the temperament,
> but, there came a temperament, and then a musician
> created amazing music with the temperament. Or maybe a
> musician created a temperament in order that he could
> create a certain great music with it. So I'm sure
> music in diferent temperaments will be different, but
> can be great in so many different tunings right? I
> would expect that the great composers would still have
> composed great pieces had the temperament been
> different. Surely they would have been totally
> different pieces though, the artist manifesting the
> music appropriate to the medium (temperament).
> Aren't all the gamelans in Indonesia tuned differently
> from each other? Could they even be a bit random? But
> then, on each gamelan (is that how you spell it?)
> greta ("refined") music has been developed. And each
> is characteristically different (maybe due to the
> different tuning leading to different characters of
> creation).
> Just some unqualified thoughts
> Justin.
>
>
> >
> > Not only that, but our interests in the music making
> > process coincide too!
> >
> > Cordially,
> > Ozan
>

Justin,

You will never squeeze a non-discouraging word from practitioners of
Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Cris

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

> > > New tunings do not inspire great music.
> > > Great music inspires new tunings.
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I actually completely disagree with this. I believe there's
> > an unlimited amount of great music in any tuning. But it
> > gets harder and harder to find (at least, if you're obsessed,
> > as I am, with the post-Beethoven notion of every composer
> > inventing his/her own genre/sound). I think changing tunings
> > is the most obvious and single most fruitful place to go to
> > find new resources. Any random tuning will do, but if you're
> > obsessed, as I am, with Western polyphonic goodness, a good
> > linear temperament, as we've defined them on the tuning-math
> > list, is indispensable.
>
> In the sciences, theory may predict reality.
> In the arts, theory more often than not fails to predict reality.

It's hard to know what this means, but it reminds me of the
Spock vs. McCoy thing on Star Trek, which even as a kid I
thought was nonsense. The success of existing theories (or
the ones you happen to choose to test) says nothing about the
utility of theory-building. In fact, it seems likely that
the arts and sciences and everything else can be generated in
a finite amount of time by simply testing all possible computer
programs in order with a proof-checker. Clearly, emotions (in
general) have adaptive value for humans -- they are useful --
so they must have internal logic. A book I'd recommend is
The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch.

> Cris (Please note the Latin, or non-Greek, spelling of my name.)

Oop; apologies.

-Carl

> > Carl, I agree with you entirely. Some people
> > apparently take tuning for granted hereabouts and
> > imagine that refined music can be produced in any
> > sound system.
>
> But can't it? I would think it can be.

For the record, I do think that music of the highest
order can be made in any tuning, including a random one.

But a random tuning will very likely fail to provide
a deep musical universe that fosters new and interesting
musical sytles for generations of musicians, as
traditional tunings of Europe and the Middle East have
done.

Therefore I (for one) think it's potentially useful to
hunt for new tunings that might have power equivalent
to these traditional ones... tunings that might allow
the continued growth of the traditional forms... tunings
to allow the creation of entirely new forms. I also
think it's fun to hunt for tunings.

> I liked the artist's palette analogy for the temperaments.
> Sure the great music was not BECAUSE of the temperament,
> but, there came a temperament, and then a musician created
> amazing music with the temperament.

Yes.

> Or maybe a musician created a temperament in order that he
> could create a certain great music with it.

That's a more recent phenomenon. Some of my favorite music,
though, has been made this way (and has been first presented
on this mailing list).

> I would expect that the great composers would still have
> composed great pieces had the temperament been different.

Yes.

> Aren't all the gamelans in Indonesia tuned differently
> from each other?

Yes, but not as differently as many of the tunings proposed
here are from 12-tET.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>Carl, I agree with you entirely. Some people
>>>apparently take tuning for granted hereabouts and
>>>imagine that refined music can be produced in any
>>>sound system.
>>
>>But can't it? I would think it can be.
> > > For the record, I do think that music of the highest
> order can be made in any tuning, including a random one.
> > But a random tuning will very likely fail to provide
> a deep musical universe that fosters new and interesting
> musical sytles for generations of musicians, as
> traditional tunings of Europe and the Middle East have
> done.

I think that the problem of measuring lies at the root all systematic tunings. The first consciously measured pitches, I guess, occured when players of string instruments discovered the 3:2 relationship and used it consistently. Meantone occured when the harmonic English third entered Continental polyphonie, and people eventually demonstrated fractions of the comma on the monochord. I am kind of waiting for the general acceptance of a system that integrates the 7:4. But in the age of electronic tuners it is just as possible to compose in and communicate a tuning by its cent values note for totally random note.

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> I have started my analysis of pitch in shakuhachi
> recoerdings of the honkyoku repetoire (that played by
> wandering buddhist monks). I have a long way to go
> yet, but here are my initial findings of pitch use by
> one player whom I think is a good representative:
> The notes used and how much they differ (if they do)
> from 12ET (this is roughly what it seems so far but it
> may well be more subtle than this):
> D
> Eb -25c
> F
> G
> Ab -25c
> A
> Bb -25c
> C
> Db -25c
>
> By the way not all the notes are used in each piece.
> Justin

Great. What method did you wind up using?

Looks like 48-ET is the thing for this scale.

Does a typical Honkyoku piece use all of these tones, or
only some of them?

Thanks!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <hstraub64@t...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, meantone can take you into an unlimited number of keys,
> > unlike ET or well-temperaments, which have only 12 major and 12
> > minor keys.
> >
> > But maybe you were talking about a keyboard with only 12 notes per
> > octave? If so, you should say so.
> >
> > :)
>
> That was indeed what I meant - with a limited number of notes in any
> case. Actually, I thought that sort of followed implicitly from the
> word "meantone"

A limitation on the number of notes? No, "meantone" doesn't imply that at all.

> - wasn't that what meantone was developed for at
> all: to be able to modulate with a limited number of notes (on a
> keyboard, especially)?

Not necessarily -- meantone could have arisen just from playing in a *single key* and
trying to have all 7 thirds, 7 sixths, 3 major triads, and 3 minor triads sound harmonious.

> I mean, if you have an unlimited number of
> notes, there is much less necessity for a temperament, since you can
> use just intonation in any key then...

I disagree . . . Based on what my ears say, I don't think strict just intonation "works" even
in a single key for most common-practice music . . . but you've been around for a while,
surely you've seen some of my postings about this? Like some of my recent ones about
adaptive JI, which is kind of like temperament but keeps the simultaneities sounding in JI
within themselves?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
> wrote:
> > On Saturday 01 October 2005 2:52 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> > > Such as the Maqam Music of today.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Cris Forster
> > > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: 01 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 21:35
> > > Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > New tunings do not inspire great music.
> > > Great music inspires new tunings.
> >
> > I think in the hands of a great composer, new tunings can inspire
> great new
> > music.
> >
> > I think of it being like an artist using colors.
> >
> > -Aaron.
>
>
> Surely, you are not suggesting a number painting analogy.
>
> -Cris

Sorry to burst in, but I wonder if anyone else has had my experience: subtly different
tunings change the way I end up shaping melodies as I improvise/compose them. It almost
as if the amount of tension different intervals have in different tunings alters the relative
amount of time you want to spend on them when executing a musical gesture/phrase/
sound-painting. Or something. Nothing mathematical, of course -- the process is purely
intuitive. And tunings/scales that aren't subtly different, well, there one perhaps needs to
purposely work against one's (cultural) grain for a while, but sometimes this seems to pay
rewards later, and again the tuning seems to shape the way the musical ideas want to play
out, rhythmically and so on.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > New tunings do not inspire great music.
> > Great music inspires new tunings.
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I actually completely disagree with this. I believe there's
> an unlimited amount of great music in any tuning. But it
> gets harder and harder to find (at least, if you're obsessed,
> as I am, with the post-Beethoven notion of every composer
> inventing his/her own genre/sound). I think changing tunings
> is the most obvious and single most fruitful place to go to
> find new resources. Any random tuning will do, but if you're
> obsessed, as I am, with Western polyphonic goodness, a good
> linear temperament, as we've defined them on the tuning-math
> list, is indispensable.
>
> -Carl

My decatonic/"pajara" approach, which is described in a couple of papers you've kindly
hosted on your website, doesn't lend itself to a linear temperament as "we've" defined that,
for better or for worse.

--- Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ."
> <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> > I have started my analysis of pitch in shakuhachi
> > recoerdings of the honkyoku repetoire (that played
> by
> > wandering buddhist monks). I have a long way to go
> > yet, but here are my initial findings of pitch use
> by
> > one player whom I think is a good representative:
> > The notes used and how much they differ (if they
> do)
> > from 12ET (this is roughly what it seems so far
> but it
> > may well be more subtle than this):
> > By the way not all the notes are used in each
> piece.
> > Justin
>
> Great. What method did you wind up using?

Melodyne. Luckily the demo is sufficient. Actually I
find the program pretty frustrating. But it has
certainly helped a lot. Some other notes also may be
slightly different but I have to do a lot more
analysis to eliminate other factors first.

>
> Looks like 48-ET is the thing for this scale.
>
> Does a typical Honkyoku piece use all of these
> tones, or
> only some of them?

Only some. Eg:
1 2 3 4 5
D y y y y y
Eb -25c y y y y
F y y y y
G y y y y y
Ab -25c y y y y
A y y y y
Bb -25c y y y y
C y y y y
Db -25c y y y

>
> Thanks!
>
> -Carl

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

Clearly,
> emotions (in
> general) have adaptive value for humans -- they are
> useful --
> so they must have internal logic.

That sounds like the cold voice of a scientist. I
might recommend a book "The Spell of the Sensuous" for
an analysis of how humans started on their strange
journey of thinking that the world around us is not
animate.
As an alternative to the dry nihilistic science which
is resulting in the destruction of our planet, I
recommend Goethe's approach to science (see for
example a book on the subject by Henri Bortoft).
Better still, perhaps by thoroughly embrasing music
(with our hearts) we may come closer to "truth" than
the disecting determinist scientists are ever able.
Just another thought
Justin.

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> Sorry to burst in, but I wonder if anyone else has had my
experience: subtly different
> tunings change the way I end up shaping melodies as I
improvise/compose them. It almost
> as if the amount of tension different intervals have in different
tunings alters the relative
> amount of time you want to spend on them when executing a musical
gesture/phrase/
> sound-painting.

Count me in, including the second sentence. Not only that, but the
amount of time you spend sitting on an interval can be relevatory in
and of itself. Or something. But you've probably already figured that
this is my approach to tunings - use them with your ears in gear.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> Better still, perhaps by thoroughly embrasing music
> (with our hearts) we may come closer to "truth" than
> the disecting determinist scientists are ever able.
> Just another thought

Ouch. I'm with you, but you are in for a rough ride around these
parts. Science tends to trump pretty much everything else.

BTW, on the shakuhachi stuff: what about pitch bends? I'm not very
well versed in shakuhachi history/ethnomusicology, but I've done a
fair bit of playing with a very accomplished player -

http://www.pacificsites.com/~jneptune/

- and it doesn't seem like there are many pitches that *aren't*
inflected; I notice this especially in the traditional solo piece. Do
you really think everything fits into a 1/4-tone grid, or are those
just the basic notes and then the player bends?

Cheers,
Jon

> > I actually completely disagree with this. I believe there's
> > an unlimited amount of great music in any tuning. But it
> > gets harder and harder to find (at least, if you're obsessed,
> > as I am, with the post-Beethoven notion of every composer
> > inventing his/her own genre/sound). I think changing tunings
> > is the most obvious and single most fruitful place to go to
> > find new resources. Any random tuning will do, but if you're
> > obsessed, as I am, with Western polyphonic goodness, a good
> > linear temperament, as we've defined them on the tuning-math
> > list, is indispensable.
>
> My decatonic/"pajara" approach, which is described in a couple
> of papers you've kindly hosted on your website, doesn't lend
> itself to a linear temperament as "we've" defined that, for
> better or for worse.

I thought pajara was the name of a linear temperament with a
5-note DE at the half-octave. No?

-Carl

> > > I have started my analysis of pitch in shakuhachi
> > > recoerdings of the honkyoku repetoire (that played
> > > by wandering buddhist monks). I have a long way to go
> > > yet, but here are my initial findings of pitch use
> > > by one player whom I think is a good representative:
> > > The notes used and how much they differ (if they
> > > do) from 12ET (this is roughly what it seems so far
> > > but it may well be more subtle than this):
> > > By the way not all the notes are used in each
> > > piece.
> > > Justin
> >
> > Great. What method did you wind up using?
>
> Melodyne. Luckily the demo is sufficient.

Great!

> Actually I find the program pretty frustrating.

Me too. Though whenever I see it demonstrated, it
looks like simplicity itself. Go figure.

> > Does a typical Honkyoku piece use all of these
> > tones, or only some of them?
>
> Only some. Eg:
> 1 2 3 4 5
> D y y y y y
> Eb -25c y y y y
> F y y y y
> G y y y y y
> Ab -25c y y y y
> A y y y y
> Bb -25c y y y y
> C y y y y
> Db -25c y y y

Are the numbers pieces, so that pieces 3 and 5 use all
9 tones?

-Carl

Jon Szanto wrote:

>BTW, on the stuff: what about pitch bends? I'm not very
>well versed in shakuhachi history/ethnomusicology, but I've done a
>fair bit of playing with a very accomplished player -
>
>http://www.pacificsites.com/~jneptune/
>
>- and it doesn't seem like there are many pitches that *aren't*
>inflected; I notice this especially in the traditional solo piece. Do
>you really think everything fits into a 1/4-tone grid, or are those
>just the basic notes and then the player bends?
>
Them is 8th tones Jon. Take a clooooser look at those cents.

>D >Eb -25c
>F
>G
>Ab -25c
>A
>Bb -25c
>C
>Db -25c
>
1/4 tones would be +/- 50 cents.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

> > Clearly, emotions (in general) have adaptive value
> > for humans -- they are useful -- so they must have
> > internal logic.
>
> That sounds like the cold voice of a scientist.

Why is it cold?

> I might recommend a book "The Spell of the Sensuous"
> for an analysis of how humans started on their strange
> journey of thinking that the world around us is not
> animate.

I'll check it out. I didn't say I didn't think the
world was animate, though. :)

> As an alternative to the dry nihilistic science

Come now, it's surely not nihilistic.

> which is resulting in the destruction of our planet,

I hardly think it has. Humans succeeded in hunting
all of the large land animals on three continents to
extinction 60,000 years before you seem to be claiming
the nihilistic view arose. Meanwhile, it may be
surprising that I'm a tribalist of sorts, who believes
odd things like that toilets and routine infant
circumcision are the greatest evils in the world and
that we should all be living in dome communities in
the forest.

> I recommend Goethe's approach to science (see for
> example a book on the subject by Henri Bortoft).
> Better still, perhaps by thoroughly embrasing music
> (with our hearts) we may come closer to "truth" than
> the disecting determinist scientists are ever able.

I've been quite fond of the Goethe I've read, though
none of it mentioned science. I disagree with most
critiques of science I've seen, by Nietzsche and others.
As for the "determininist scientists", how many do you
know? I count among my closest friends and both of my
parents at least a dozen professional scientests (and
many more I've partied with). They're all more religious
than I am.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> I thought pajara was the name of a linear temperament with a
> 5-note DE at the half-octave. No?

I think Paul's point is that it has a 1/2 octave period, and hence is
rank two but not linear in the strict sense.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> I've been quite fond of the Goethe I've read, though
> none of it mentioned science.

Goethe did a lot of scientific work, but so far as I know failed to
discover anything of much significance. Rudolf Steiner and the
Anthroposophists embraced him, which kept the faith alive. Apparently,
there has been a resurgance of interest.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> Them is 8th tones Jon. Take a clooooser look at those cents.
> 1/4 tones would be +/- 50 cents.

OK, I've put it off long enough: time to send in my membership to AARP.

:(

Thanks, Dave, my brain wasn't in gear. I guess I can believe 1/8th
tones a little bit more than 1/4 tones!

Cheers,
Jon

Jon Szanto wrote:

>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> >
>>Them is 8th tones Jon. Take a clooooser look at those cents.
>>1/4 tones would be +/- 50 cents.
>> >>
>
>OK, I've put it off long enough: time to send in my membership to AARP. >
>:(
>
>Thanks, Dave, my brain wasn't in gear. I guess I can believe 1/8th
>tones a little bit more than 1/4 tones!
>
>Cheers,
>Jon
>
We have them slips....

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> We have them slips....

As in "Help! I've (slipped and) fallen and I can't get up!"?

Cheers,
Jon

To say nothing of the practitioners of ad misericordiam et nauseam.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cris Forster
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 17:57
Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius

Justin,

You will never squeeze a non-discouraging word from practitioners of Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Cris

--- Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Actually I find the program pretty frustrating.
>
> Me too. Though whenever I see it demonstrated, it
> looks like simplicity itself. Go figure.

Especially strange for me is that the sound and the
picture are out of synch! The sound is earlier than
the visual display (especially if you slow down the
timing as I had to do for my analysis). Crazy. And
other such things.

>
> > > Does a typical Honkyoku piece use all of these
> > > tones, or only some of them?
> >
> > Only some. Eg:
> > 1 2 3 4 5
> > D y y y y y
> > Eb -25c y y y y
> > F y y y y
> > G y y y y y
> > Ab -25c y y y y
> > A y y y y
> > Bb -25c y y y y
> > C y y y y
> > Db -25c y y y
>
> Are the numbers pieces, so that pieces 3 and 5 use
> all
> 9 tones?

Yes each number is a piece. You've got it. And, for
example, even in the pieces where Db occurs, it is
rare. And, in other genres a few other notes are used
too. And by the way, actually I have given the results
here as if they were played on the common lengh
shakuhachi of 1shaku 8sun. But these were played on
longer shakuhachi. I made it like this for
convenience.
Justin.
By the way, the notes which are flatter than ET are
also "dark" in colour. This is very important.

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

--- David Beardsley <db@biink.com> wrote:

> Jon Szanto wrote:
>
> >BTW, on the stuff: what about pitch bends? I'm not
> very
> >well versed in shakuhachi history/ethnomusicology,
> but I've done a
> >fair bit of playing with a very accomplished player
> -
> >
> >http://www.pacificsites.com/~jneptune/
> >
> >- and it doesn't seem like there are many pitches
> that *aren't*
> >inflected; I notice this especially in the
> traditional solo piece. Do
> >you really think everything fits into a 1/4-tone
> grid, or are those
> >just the basic notes and then the player bends?
> >
> Them is 8th tones Jon. Take a clooooser look at
> those cents.

For some reason Jon I never got that mail of yours in
my mailbox!
Okay, the notes are bent a lot, especially those notes
which I displayed as flatter. They are called meri
notes, and as I have just said they are dark. They are
creted by finger shading and lowering your head. Even
if you want to get the western pitch you have to use
those techniques to get it. And then, in this music
you bend it a lot, especially lower. What I have done
is basically taken the HIGHEST values for the notes,
and then averaged them. For example, we make play
tsu-meri, which I have said is Eb-25, but we may
actually start it at the pitch of D! It is still
written tsu-meri (whereas the note which is properly D
is called ro). And so we might start at D, and then
play around between D and Eb-25, cruising around in
between, or alternating from one extreme to the other.
Sometimes we just hang around for a bit in the middle
of them. (Actually technically tsu-meri at D would be
called tsu-dai-meri, dai meaning big or great). But my
point is that even if we play such a variety, it is
based around a particular scale of particular pitch
values. It seems not all western shakuhachi players
appreciate that those values are not the same as 12ET.
Another point is that the pitches may be different in
different lineages. I'm not sure how much of a factor
that is exactly, but certainly I know that some of the
anciant honkyoku pieces are working on a different set
of pitches.
I hope this makes it a bit clearer. I also want to
know what pitches koto players are using as that will
be very informative in an extra way to me. If anyone
knows of studies done please let me know.
Best wishes
Justin.

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

--- Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Clearly, emotions (in general) have adaptive
> value
> > > for humans -- they are useful -- so they must
> have
> > > internal logic.
> >
> > That sounds like the cold voice of a scientist.
>
> Why is it cold?

Hi Carl
I think I must have been a bit too tired when I wrote
that! Sorry!
Well, it does seem a bit cold to me. To me it had a
Darwinian flavour of things only arising in nature by
total accident and chance, and then being selected
merely by the competetive forces of natural selection.
I may of course have been totally misreading you.
Anyway, I think that Darwinian view is at the very
least extremely one-sided, and misses out the inherent
creative force of the universe and all that is in it.
Darwin's story simply can't explain the facts we have.

>
> > I might recommend a book "The Spell of the
> Sensuous"
> > for an analysis of how humans started on their
> strange
> > journey of thinking that the world around us is
> not
> > animate.
>
> I'll check it out. I didn't say I didn't think the
> world was animate, though. :)

I'm glad to hear it. I think one's experience of life
can be much more meaningful with such a view.

> > As an alternative to the dry nihilistic science
>
> Come now, it's surely not nihilistic.

I suppose what I meant is that if science says that we
live in a universe which is an accident, where all
events are purely by chance, and we are alive on a
dead (inanimate) planet by absolute chance because of
the infinitesimally small chance of some random
molecules colliding, and everything about our past and
future is again merely the product of random
collisions and chance events all with no inherent
meaning at all, and life and mind are no different
from anything else (as inherently meaningless), that
when we die that is it, as our mind is merely the
effemeral effect of interacting neurons in our brain
(just so that we are more efficient at reproducing
(the force of natural selection at work)), then to me
that seems rather nihilistic.

> > which is resulting in the destruction of our
> planet,
>
> I hardly think it has. Humans succeeded in hunting
> all of the large land animals on three continents to
> extinction 60,000 years before you seem to be
> claiming
> the nihilistic view arose.

I would suggest that that was not due to any
nihilistic view, but parhaps due the foolishness and
imaturity inherent in ethnoi in their early stages of
development (Ethnoi being the plural of ethnos,
basically meaning ethnic group. See a fantastic book
on the subject by Lev Gumilev, available in English
under the title "Ethnogenesis and the Bioshpere").
When ethnoi mature they develop very fine tuned
balance with their surroundings, such as the various
aboriginal peoples of the world had done before we
wiped most of them out.
I think the main trouble seemed to come with the
advent of agriculture. And that brings a huge
philosophical shift. Hunter gatherers are in an
animate world in which they are not seperate from
nature. Agriculturalists automatically generate a
division between themselves and nature, and that
starts off a division in their mind (or amplifies it).
This is the whole "human" as opposed to "nature"
thing, which leads on to ideas of a paradise seperate
from "here", eg going to heaven in another place etc.
The idea of here and our experience being not as real
as a heavenly perfection (eg the realm of form and the
realm of ideas, the Greek idea from which leads a
continuous philosophic lineage to present day
science). This connects with the Christian church
believing that the next life is more important than
this one. And with their idea that the world with all
it's abundant resourses was created by God for us. It
also leads to the idea that our experience is somehow
not valid (we are in the realm of form) in the same
way as the truth which produces it (realm of ideas)
and so qualities become secondary, measurable
quantities primary. With measurements we can then
derive formulae and MATHEMATICS, which is a far
"truer" reality (realm of ideas).
An effect of this is a removal from emotions. This
mindset also implies no ethics. Science is science,
not ethics.
The destruction we are carrying out today is clearly
on a radically different scale to ever before. I think
that can only be carried out when we are disconnected
from nature in this way.

> Meanwhile, it may be
> surprising that I'm a tribalist of sorts, who
> believes
> odd things like that toilets and routine infant
> circumcision are the greatest evils in the world

What's wrong with toilets? You don't want to shit all
over the place like they do in India do you? That
really does cause a lot of sickness! Or is it flush
toilets that you disapprove of. i could understand
that. Compost toilets are good. Or you can even make
gas for cooking/heating from some toilets! (Hey, maybe
someone could make a gas powered organ toilet!)

> and
> that we should all be living in dome communities in
> the forest.

Start one in Europe and I might join you!

> > I recommend Goethe's approach to science (see for
> > example a book on the subject by Henri Bortoft).
> > Better still, perhaps by thoroughly embrasing
> music
> > (with our hearts) we may come closer to "truth"
> than
> > the disecting determinist scientists are ever
> able.
>
> I've been quite fond of the Goethe I've read, though
> none of it mentioned science.

Apparently he considered himself primarily as a
scientist. People don't remember this because they
thought his science was total nonsence. One place now
taking his science seriously is the Schumacher College
in Dartington, Devon (UK). His was a science of
qualities. It is very very good. Maybe try Henri's
book. Basically his approach was that he wanted to
understand phenomena "from their own side". Understand
things "as they are". He thought the scientific
approach of trying to explain things by explaining
what is "behind" them, eg. in terms of formulae, maths
etc was misguided and perhaps going further from the
truth of the phenomena. Something like that.

I disagree with most
> critiques of science I've seen, by Nietzsche and
> others.

I've never read them. I get the impression they might
have many many words, which usually puts me off.

> As for the "determininist scientists", how many do
> you
> know?

I've met quite a few. Actually the sciences were alway
smy favourite subjects at school, and i continue to
like science, though my emphasis has shifted since
school as I have been exposed to different methods and
views. And isn't mainstream science deterministic?
Linear causation and all that?

> I count among my closest friends and both of
> my
> parents at least a dozen professional scientests
> (and
> many more I've partied with). They're all more
> religious
> than I am.

That's interesting. Are you in the States? I can't say
for sure, but I thin here in the UK most scientists
are atheist. I wonder how they could hold belief in
the Christian doctrines (if they're Christian) at the
same time as their scientific views.
Anyway, if any of this has much to do with tuning,
perhaps it would be, that to approach tuning from
either a quantitative, or a qualitative perspective,
would probably have very different effects on things.
Then I am assuming that as an art, qualities will
anyway take prescidence.
Best wishes
Justin.

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

Shakuhachi sound in the Kinko Honkyoku is very powerful and should not be rendered impotent by indiscriminate use without distinguishing the place or attitude of those present. It is not necessary to preserve these traditions by non-Japanese people. There is no obligation to do so, but if it is not done, what a lost opportunity for one's self and those who hear! It is lost if shakuhachi is studied as another thing to do or play, another thing to show off (ego trip), instead of as "Chikudo" (The Bamboo Way) where it can become a great aid to satisfactory life from a deep innerness of being.

* This happened at the time of the Meiji Restoration roughly 150 years ago when the shakuhachi began to be cut in the middle for the first time in order to play with other instruments. Before then, it was enough for it to be tuned to itself. By governmental decree in Japan (1868) the shakuhachi and traditional Honkyoku were to be divorced from any religious practice. At this time, the element of "entertainment" became part of shakuhachi music, such as Minyo (folk music), Shinkyoku (modern, new music), and Sankyoku (referring to music played with three instruments: koto, shamisen [sangen], and shakuhachi).
http://www.shakuhachi.org/HONKYOKU.html

chiptruth@excite.com

--- On Tue 10/04, Justin . < justinasia@yahoo.com > wrote:
From: Justin . [mailto: justinasia@yahoo.com]
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [tuning] shakuhachi

<html><body>

<tt>
<BR>
<BR>
--- David Beardsley <db@biink.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Jon Szanto wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> >BTW, on the stuff: what about pitch bends? I'm not<BR>
> very<BR>
> >well versed in shakuhachi history/ethnomusicology,<BR>
> but I've done a<BR>
> >fair bit of playing with a very accomplished player<BR>
> -<BR>
> ><BR>
> ><a href="http://www.pacificsites.com/~jneptune/">http://www.pacificsites.com/~jneptune/</a><BR>
> ><BR>
> >- and it doesn't seem like there are many pitches<BR>
> that *aren't*<BR>
> >inflected; I notice this especially in the<BR>
> traditional solo piece. Do<BR>
> >you really think everything fits into a 1/4-tone<BR>
> grid, or are those<BR>
> >just the basic notes and then the player bends?<BR>
> ><BR>
> Them is 8th tones Jon. Take a clooooser look at<BR>
> those cents.<BR>
<BR>
For some reason Jon I never got that mail of yours in<BR>
my mailbox!<BR>
Okay, the notes are bent a lot, especially those notes<BR>
which I displayed as flatter. They are called meri<BR>
notes, and as I have just said they are dark. They are<BR>
creted by finger shading and lowering your head. Even<BR>
if you want to get the western pitch you have to use<BR>
those techniques to get it. And then, in this music<BR>
you bend it a lot, especially lower. What I have done<BR>
is basically taken the HIGHEST values for the notes,<BR>
and then averaged them. For example, we make play<BR>
tsu-meri, which I have said is Eb-25, but we may<BR>
actually start it at the pitch of D! It is still<BR>
written tsu-meri (whereas the note which is properly D<BR>
is called ro). And so we might start at D, and then<BR>
play around between D and Eb-25, cruising around in<BR>
between, or alternating from one extreme to the other.<BR>
Sometimes we just hang around for a bit in the middle<BR>
of them. (Actually technically tsu-meri at D would be<BR>
called tsu-dai-meri, dai meaning big or great). But my<BR>
point is that even if we play such a variety, it is<BR>
based around a particular scale of particular pitch<BR>
values. It seems not all western shakuhachi players<BR>
appreciate that those values are not the same as 12ET.<BR>
Another point is that the pitches may be different in<BR>
different lineages. I'm not sure how much of a factor<BR>
that is exactly, but certainly I know that some of the<BR>
anciant honkyoku pieces are working on a different set<BR>
of pitches. <BR>
I hope this makes it a bit clearer. I also want to<BR>
know what pitches koto players are using as that will<BR>
be very informative in an extra way to me. If anyone<BR>
knows of studies done please let me know.<BR>
Best wishes<BR>
Justin. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________________________________ <BR>
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 <BR>
<a href="http://mail.yahoo.com">http://mail.yahoo.com</a><BR>
</tt>

<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

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

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->

<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<br><br>
<div style="width:500px; text-align:right; margin-bottom:1px; color:#909090;">
<tt>SPONSORED LINKS</tt>
</div>
<table bgcolor=#e0ecee cellspacing="13" cellpadding="0" width=500px>
<tr valign=top>
<td style="width:25%;">
<tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Music+education&w1=Music+education&w2=Music+production+education&w3=Music+education+degree&w4=Degree+education+music+online&w5=Music+business+education&w6=Music+industry+education&c=6&s=176&.sig=Jwf3zOTelccN4pxR147P6Q">Music education</a></tt>
</td>
<td style="width:25%;">
<tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Music+production+education&w1=Music+education&w2=Music+production+education&w3=Music+education+degree&w4=Degree+education+music+online&w5=Music+business+education&w6=Music+industry+education&c=6&s=176&.sig=klho2DLC_xeL4JsFj9bgkQ">Music production education</a></tt>
</td>
<td style="width:25%;">
<tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Music+education+degree&w1=Music+education&w2=Music+production+education&w3=Music+education+degree&w4=Degree+education+music+online&w5=Music+business+education&w6=Music+industry+education&c=6&s=176&.sig=lGRmEEq7CW7Fp2vFUWsDmQ">Music education degree</a></tt>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign=top>
<td style="width:25%;">
<tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Degree+education+music+online&w1=Music+education&w2=Music+production+education&w3=Music+education+degree&w4=Degree+education+music+online&w5=Music+business+education&w6=Music+industry+education&c=6&s=176&.sig=Lzk8OXiXs33DPW-_ldnBnw">Degree education music online</a></tt>
</td>
<td style="width:25%;">
<tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Music+business+education&w1=Music+education&w2=Music+production+education&w3=Music+education+degree&w4=Degree+education+music+online&w5=Music+business+education&w6=Music+industry+education&c=6&s=176&.sig=1gHSd8Pd-rexNuMQ4QhnUw">Music business education</a></tt>
</td>
<td style="width:25%;">
<tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Music+industry+education&w1=Music+education&w2=Music+production+education&w3=Music+education+degree&w4=Degree+education+music+online&w5=Music+business+education&w6=Music+industry+education&c=6&s=176&.sig=RlCDfPsElNT3SN3H2_A_Vw">Music industry education</a></tt>
</td>
</tr>
</tr>
</table>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->

<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<br>
<div style="text-align:center; color:#909090; width:500px;">
<hr style="border-bottom:1px; width:500px; text-align:left;">
<tt>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS</tt>
</div>
<br>
<ul>
<tt><li type=square> Visit your group "<a href="tuning"">/tuning">tuning" on the web.<br> </tt>
<tt><li type=square> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br> <a href="mailto:tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br> </tt>
<tt><li type=square> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
</ul>
<br>
<div style="text-align:center; color:#909090; width:500px;">
<hr style="border-bottom:1px; width:500px; text-align:left;">
</div>
</br>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->

</body></html>
<p>

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

--- Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:
> Goethe did a lot of scientific work, but so far as I
> know failed to
> discover anything of much significance. Rudolf
> Steiner and the
> Anthroposophists embraced him, which kept the faith
> alive. Apparently,
> there has been a resurgance of interest.

I am absolutely not an expert about Goethe. But my
general feeling is that his science is about the
scientist somehow really knowing the phenomena. That
is a very experiencial thing. For example, if you read
a file of information about someone, you have
information about them. But if you live with them,
love them, travel with them, go through extremely
tough times, and wonderful times too, there is a good
chance that you might actually feel that you have in
some way come to "know" them. That is, not know
"about" them, but actually know them. It's like almost
"being" them. Like you know their "being".
Perhaps I could put it like this - mainstream science
might gather lots of information about what things
"do", and his method may be more about how things
"be". So it's hard talk about whether science like
that makes big "discoveries". I guess if you discover
"doings", then you can public the accumulated
"information". When you discover "beings" (or
"beingness") then I think it is an internal experience
(which may well be very profound and is perhaps a
"felt" thing), so you don't exactly have information
to publish, but you have experience to carry. Well,
actually I think it changes you. As an example, a
physicist may discover with his instruments that
subatomic particles arise and dissapear, and thus
deduce that everthing is impermanent in some way. This
in itself might not have a profound effect on him.
Maybe the then just has that information. But ,for
example, a buddhist meditator make directly experience
with his/her mind that everything arises and passes
away, and experience directly in a very concrete way
that everything is impermanent, and that may utterly
change her life and her way of experiencing the world
for ever.
The methods are interesting, and the results very
interesting. i would love to see more of that style
about.
Best wishes
Justin.

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

> > I thought pajara was the name of a linear temperament with a
> > 5-note DE at the half-octave. No?
>
> I think Paul's point is that it has a 1/2 octave period, and hence is
> rank two but not linear in the strict sense.

That's a pretty lame point.

-Carl

> > > Actually I find the program pretty frustrating.
> >
> > Me too. Though whenever I see it demonstrated, it
> > looks like simplicity itself. Go figure.
>
> Especially strange for me is that the sound and the
> picture are out of synch! The sound is earlier than
> the visual display (especially if you slow down the
> timing as I had to do for my analysis). Crazy. And
> other such things.

Hm, I haven't noticed that. Is your computer fairly
new?

> > > > Does a typical Honkyoku piece use all of these
> > > > tones, or only some of them?
> > >
> > > Only some. Eg:
> > > 1 2 3 4 5
> > > D y y y y y
> > > Eb -25c y y y y
> > > F y y y y
> > > G y y y y y
> > > Ab -25c y y y y
> > > A y y y y
> > > Bb -25c y y y y
> > > C y y y y
> > > Db -25c y y y
> >
> > Are the numbers pieces, so that pieces 3 and 5 use
> > all 9 tones?
>
> Yes each number is a piece. You've got it.

Cool. Say, what do you think of writing the scale

D Eb F G G# A A# C C#

?

Any better or worse? Would it violate shakuhachi
convention?

> By the way, the notes which are flatter than ET are
> also "dark" in colour. This is very important.

Interesting.

-Carl

> For some reason Jon I never got that mail of yours in
> my mailbox!
> Okay, the notes are bent a lot, especially those notes
> which I displayed as flatter. They are called meri
> notes, and as I have just said they are dark. They are
> creted by finger shading and lowering your head. Even
> if you want to get the western pitch you have to use
> those techniques to get it. And then, in this music
> you bend it a lot, especially lower. What I have done
> is basically taken the HIGHEST values for the notes,
> and then averaged them. For example, we make play
> tsu-meri, which I have said is Eb-25, but we may
> actually start it at the pitch of D! It is still
> written tsu-meri (whereas the note which is properly D
> is called ro). And so we might start at D, and then
> play around between D and Eb-25, cruising around in
> between, or alternating from one extreme to the other.
> Sometimes we just hang around for a bit in the middle
> of them. (Actually technically tsu-meri at D would be
> called tsu-dai-meri, dai meaning big or great). But my
> point is that even if we play such a variety, it is
> based around a particular scale of particular pitch
> values. It seems not all western shakuhachi players
> appreciate that those values are not the same as 12ET.
> Another point is that the pitches may be different in
> different lineages. I'm not sure how much of a factor
> that is exactly, but certainly I know that some of the
> anciant honkyoku pieces are working on a different set
> of pitches.
> I hope this makes it a bit clearer. I also want to
> know what pitches koto players are using as that will
> be very informative in an extra way to me. If anyone
> knows of studies done please let me know.
> Best wishes
> Justin.

Excellent work, Justin!

-Carl

Hi Justin,

I'm replying on

/metatuning

if you want to follow this further.

-Carl

> Hi Carl
> I think I must have been a bit too tired when I wrote
> that! Sorry!
> Well, it does seem a bit cold to me. To me it had a
> Darwinian flavour of things only arising in nature by
> total accident and chance, and then being selected
> merely by the competetive forces of natural selection.
> I may of course have been totally misreading you.
> Anyway, I think that Darwinian view is at the very
> least extremely one-sided, and misses out the inherent
> creative force of the universe and all that is in it.
> Darwin's story simply can't explain the facts we have.

...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > Especially strange for me is that the sound and the
> > picture are out of synch! The sound is earlier than
> > the visual display (especially if you slow down the
> > timing as I had to do for my analysis). Crazy. And
> > other such things.
>
> Hm, I haven't noticed that. Is your computer fairly
> new?

Not exactly, but it works fine for everything else. Also if the
track is even only about 10 minutes long I need to cut it in half
before trying to load it! Otherwise it just sits for 10 minutes and
then crashes without ever opening the file!

> > > > > Does a typical Honkyoku piece use all of these
> > > > > tones, or only some of them?
> > > >
> > > > Only some. Eg:
> > > > 1 2 3 4 5
> > > > D y y y y y
> > > > Eb -25c y y y y
> > > > F y y y y
> > > > G y y y y y
> > > > Ab -25c y y y y
> > > > A y y y y
> > > > Bb -25c y y y y
> > > > C y y y y
> > > > Db -25c y y y

Hey! Where are all the spaces?! For some reason the mails from this
list have now started to not come to my mailbox immediately, and
seem to be delayed by a differing amount of time. So I have come to
the website to read these mails now. And now I see my chart, but all
messed up. Did you all get it like that? Sorry if you did - I lined
it all up neatly with spaces and everything. Now it ... ehh??? as I
see it above me now, it is fine again! But, on the site it is all
squashed up and deformed! Oh well! Mysteries!

> > >
> > > Are the numbers pieces, so that pieces 3 and 5 use
> > > all 9 tones?
> >
> > Yes each number is a piece. You've got it.
>
> Cool. Say, what do you think of writing the scale
>
> D Eb F G G# A A# C C#

Yeah, fine! Actually in my mind it is really neither. It is
ro, tsu-meri, tsu, re, u(and then chi-meri in the upper octave. U by
the way is a very juicy note. Perhaps my favorite.), chi, ri-meri(hi-
meri in upper),ri(hi in upper) go-no-hi-meri/i-meri.

> Any better or worse? Would it violate shakuhachi
> convention?

Equally foreign. I'm happy with both! Anyway, actually I trasposed
the results. Shakuhachi can be of different lengths. I analysed
pieces played on more than one length. The results are displayed as
if it were the most common length of 1 shaku 8 sun. But the names of
the notes do not change with changing lengths. So for us ro is ro,
whether that is D or C or anything. If you told me to play a "C" I'd
be lost!

> > By the way, the notes which are flatter than ET are
> > also "dark" in colour. This is very important.
>
> Interesting.

It is often said that the colour is more important than the pitch.
This though is less common these days! (when we try to care about
both!)
Justin.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> I'm replying on
>
> /metatuning
>
> if you want to follow this further.
>
> -Carl

Hi Carl
I couldn't find your reply there.
Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
> Carl Lumma wrote:
> >>>Carl, I agree with you entirely. Some people
> >>>apparently take tuning for granted hereabouts and
> >>>imagine that refined music can be produced in any
> >>>sound system.
> >>
> >>But can't it? I would think it can be.
> >
> >
> > For the record, I do think that music of the highest
> > order can be made in any tuning, including a random one.
> >
> > But a random tuning will very likely fail to provide
> > a deep musical universe that fosters new and interesting
> > musical sytles for generations of musicians, as
> > traditional tunings of Europe and the Middle East have
> > done.
>
> I think that the problem of measuring lies at the root all
systematic
> tunings. The first consciously measured pitches, I guess, occured
when
> players of string instruments discovered the 3:2 relationship and
used
> it consistently.

According to Chinese lore, it was wind instruments (pipes), many
millenia ago. Since they didn't know about the end correction back
then, Hornbostel was able to claim "blown fifths" of about 678 cents
would have been the result of this relationship, and I believe he
tries to explain some Pelog tunings as a direct result of this. I
think that's pretty far-fetched, but hey.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > Sorry to burst in, but I wonder if anyone else has had my
> experience: subtly different
> > tunings change the way I end up shaping melodies as I
> improvise/compose them. It almost
> > as if the amount of tension different intervals have in different
> tunings alters the relative
> > amount of time you want to spend on them when executing a musical
> gesture/phrase/
> > sound-painting.
>
> Count me in, including the second sentence. Not only that, but the
> amount of time you spend sitting on an interval can be relevatory in
> and of itself. Or something. But you've probably already figured
that
> this is my approach to tunings - use them with your ears in gear.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

This is my approach to virtually all the music I play or create -- I
play with my ears, not with my hands (though it may look as if my
hands are involved :) ). But I'm glad you have experienced what I'm
talking about above! New tunings *can* give rise to new forms of
musical expression, even if this only is a necessary result of the
listening composer adapting to the new tuning.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> > Better still, perhaps by thoroughly embrasing music
> > (with our hearts) we may come closer to "truth" than
> > the disecting determinist scientists are ever able.
> > Just another thought
>
> Ouch. I'm with you, but you are in for a rough ride around these
> parts. Science tends to trump pretty much everything else.

There's virtually no science around here, so if anything is trump on
this list, it has to be something else.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > I actually completely disagree with this. I believe there's
> > > an unlimited amount of great music in any tuning. But it
> > > gets harder and harder to find (at least, if you're obsessed,
> > > as I am, with the post-Beethoven notion of every composer
> > > inventing his/her own genre/sound). I think changing tunings
> > > is the most obvious and single most fruitful place to go to
> > > find new resources. Any random tuning will do, but if you're
> > > obsessed, as I am, with Western polyphonic goodness, a good
> > > linear temperament, as we've defined them on the tuning-math
> > > list, is indispensable.
> >
> > My decatonic/"pajara" approach, which is described in a couple
> > of papers you've kindly hosted on your website, doesn't lend
> > itself to a linear temperament as "we've" defined that, for
> > better or for worse.
>
> I thought pajara was the name of a linear temperament with a
> 5-note DE at the half-octave. No?

No, "linear" to me (and George Secor, and seemingly many others)
means a single chain of pitch classes. Both of the decatonic scales
(one of which does have a 5-note MOS structure within each half-
octave span) require *two* chains of pitch classes, as does the
pajara temperament.

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

> As an alternative to the dry nihilistic science which
> is resulting in the destruction of our planet,

Whoa -- I missed this. Selfishness is resulting in the destruction of
our planet; science gives us the means to diagnose this problem and
come up with a cure, if only we would be less selfish. But this is off-
topic.

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

> No, "linear" to me (and George Secor, and seemingly many others)
> means a single chain of pitch classes. Both of the decatonic scales
> (one of which does have a 5-note MOS structure within each half-
> octave span) require *two* chains of pitch classes, as does the
> pajara temperament.

It would be nice to agree on a meaning, so I don't need to keep saying
"linear in the strict sense" all the time.

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
The first consciously measured pitches, I guess, occured
> > when > >>players of string instruments discovered the 3:2 relationship and > > used > >>it consistently.
> > > According to Chinese lore, it was wind instruments (pipes), many > millenia ago. Since they didn't know about the end correction back > then, Hornbostel was able to claim "blown fifths" of about 678 cents > would have been the result of this relationship, and I believe he > tries to explain some Pelog tunings as a direct result of this. I > think that's pretty far-fetched, but hey.
>

Yup, but that's too far off my radar. Isn't making guesses about the "Pythagorean belt" (from India to the Mediterranean) bad enough? Of course, I could go on guessing that the Greeks stole everything from the Sumerians. Wouldn't that beat the Chinese?

But the Chinese pulled the stunt of tuning 12et with an organ pipe that held 1200 grains of millet. They actually had the key for reproducing any arbitrary tuning within half a cent. This had to happen in a culture that had their tuning set in stone millenia ago ...

klaus

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

> And isn't mainstream science deterministic?
> Linear causation and all that?

Sounds like a description of "mainstream science" from a past century,
perhaps the 18th. In physics, determinism has been gone since 1900 at
the latest, and causation is now discussed by philosophers instead.

But back to tuning . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> This is my approach to virtually all the music I play or create -- I
> play with my ears, not with my hands (though it may look as if my
> hands are involved :) ).

"Look, Ma, no hands!"

> But I'm glad you have experienced what I'm
> talking about above! New tunings *can* give rise to new forms of
> musical expression, even if this only is a necessary result of the
> listening composer adapting to the new tuning.

The difference for me is the development of tunings within and around
the context of creating music. I don't find any interest, nor
inspiration, in creating tunings simply to create tunings. I hear
musics that require something new, and I have to search. Along the
way, other musics present themselves. I find the two 'tasks' fairly
inseperable (even though I am meagre at both endeavors), and muse with
this in mind. I'm well aware that it is different for others.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > > I thought pajara was the name of a linear temperament with a
> > > 5-note DE at the half-octave. No?
> >
> > I think Paul's point is that it has a 1/2 octave period, and
hence is
> > rank two but not linear in the strict sense.
>
> That's a pretty lame point.
>
> -Carl

I beg your pardon, Carl. George Secor, who has been at this longer
than both of us, and I had a long, intensive discussion about this.
We came to the agreed conclusion that "linear tunings" and "linear
scales" refer to single chains of pitch-classes (where each link in
the chain is a single "generator" interval-class). Systems like the
diminished, augmented, and pajara/srutal require multiple chains of
pitch-classes, so they're not "linear". I've made this point
repeatedly on the tuning-math list and elsewhere, and considering
that these terms come up in Erv Wilson's writings (remember that
discussion?), I don't think it's "lame" at all. Notice that the
scales Mark Gould is posting are all linear in this sense and he's
omitting scales that have 1/3 octave periods from his list for 18-
equal . . . not to mention other academic music theory and
its "nondegenerate well-formed scales" and such . . . so the
distinction George and I are trying to make is clearly a significant
one for some people.

The half-octave is no kind of interval of equivalence, or even
similarity. Who hears it as such?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> There's virtually no science around here, so if anything is trump on
> this list, it has to be something else.

You make me laugh! Is measurement a science or an art? Is psycho-
acoustics a science or an art? For that matter, is math an art or a
science (while considering that it contains elements of both)? Lastly,
if one uses the terms "science" and "art" as two approaches, and you
invited a large selection of musicians to read a few days of the
tuning list, do you think they would view it as art or science?

It's funny: for whatever reason, I happened to go back to the very
first week of posts when this list moved to Onelist. As Yogi Berra
said, its deja vu all over again.

Cheers,
Jon

> > > I thought pajara was the name of a linear temperament with
> > > a 5-note DE at the half-octave. No?
> >
> > I think Paul's point is that it has a 1/2 octave period, and
> > hence is rank two but not linear in the strict sense.
>
> That's a pretty lame point.

Maybe I should answer this now:

>> Period = identity interval.
>
>No, it isn't necessarily. For example, most composers who use
>the octatonic (diminished) scale in 12-equal still consider the
>identity interval to be the octave, even though the period of
>the scale is 1/4 octave.

It seems like more a matter of instrument design than anything
else. For instance, do I tune my piano in an octave-equivalent
tuning or a 700cents-equivalent one? I suppose the best answer
is: in the center octaves I tune the latter and at either end
I tune the former. Kurt Bigler took the radical step of using
different pitch classes at octave-equivalent keys on his
harpsichord, and it's worked reasonably well for him. The most
fruitful way to catalog popular scales in 12-equal is probably
with a list of tetrachords rather than a list of octave-spanning
scales. I do believe we hear octave equivalence unless a context
is carefully constructed to avoid it. But it isn't clear how
this could be determined by looking at instruments or music. If
I write a piece in the diminished scale, themes will probably be
repeated (and played together) at the octave and at the minor
third. Since temperamets must approximate octaves well to be
rated well under any of the schemes proposed on tuning-math (and
weighting schemes favor 2s over all other identities), I can see
no need of intervals of equivalence in a theory of scales.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...>
wrote:
> The first consciously measured pitches, I guess, occured
> >
> > when
> >
> >>players of string instruments discovered the 3:2 relationship and
> >
> > used
> >
> >>it consistently.
> >
> >
> > According to Chinese lore, it was wind instruments (pipes), many
> > millenia ago. Since they didn't know about the end correction
back
> > then, Hornbostel was able to claim "blown fifths" of about 678
cents
> > would have been the result of this relationship, and I believe he
> > tries to explain some Pelog tunings as a direct result of this. I
> > think that's pretty far-fetched, but hey.
> >
>
> Yup, but that's too far off my radar. Isn't making guesses about
the
> "Pythagorean belt" (from India to the Mediterranean) bad enough?

Huh?

> Of
> course, I could go on guessing that the Greeks stole everything
from
> the Sumerians. Wouldn't that beat the Chinese?

No, probably not.

> But the Chinese pulled the stunt of tuning 12et with an organ pipe
> that held 1200 grains of millet.

Source?

> They actually had the key for
> reproducing any arbitrary tuning within half a cent. This had to
> happen in a culture that had their tuning set in stone millenia
ago ...

Pythagorean and 12-equal are different, so I'm not sure what you
mean . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:

> > There's virtually no science around here, so if anything is trump
on
> > this list, it has to be something else.
>
> You make me laugh! Is measurement a science or an art?

Measurement? It's a rare treat when someone actually measures something
around here, as Justin recently attemped to do with the shakuhachi
tuning, but that's not necessarily science.

I'm not going to bother to respond to the individual questions you
posted here, because you're setting up a false dichotomy. Just because
there's been very little science here doesn't been there's been a lot
of art here! Most stuff doesn't fall into either category.

Sadly, I have to agree with every point Jon makes Paul.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Szanto
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 0:44
Subject: [tuning] Re: Confucius

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> There's virtually no science around here, so if anything is trump on
> this list, it has to be something else.

You make me laugh! Is measurement a science or an art? Is psycho-
acoustics a science or an art? For that matter, is math an art or a
science (while considering that it contains elements of both)? Lastly,
if one uses the terms "science" and "art" as two approaches, and you
invited a large selection of musicians to read a few days of the
tuning list, do you think they would view it as art or science?

It's funny: for whatever reason, I happened to go back to the very
first week of posts when this list moved to Onelist. As Yogi Berra
said, its deja vu all over again.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> Measurement? It's a rare treat when someone actually measures something
> around here

Then why would people be discussing different sizes of fifths? Aren't
the differences something that is being measured?

> I'm not going to bother to respond to the individual questions you
> posted here

That's fine, they were fairly rhetorical.

Cheers,
Jon

> > > > > > Does a typical Honkyoku piece use all of these
> > > > > > tones, or only some of them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Only some. Eg:
> > > > > 1 2 3 4 5
> > > > > D y y y y y
> > > > > Eb -25c y y y y
> > > > > F y y y y
> > > > > G y y y y y
> > > > > Ab -25c y y y y
> > > > > A y y y y
> > > > > Bb -25c y y y y
> > > > > C y y y y
> > > > > Db -25c y y y
>
> Hey! Where are all the spaces?! For some reason the mails from
> this list have now started to not come to my mailbox immediately,

Welcome to Yahoo!

> and seem to be delayed by a differing amount of time. So I have
> come to the website to read these mails now. And now I see my
> chart, but all messed up. Did you all get it like that?

Welcome to Yahoo. They don't display the spaces unless you
click "reply". But don't worry, most folks here are aware
of this.

> > Cool. Say, what do you think of writing the scale
> >
> > D Eb F G G# A A# C C#
>
> Yeah, fine!
//
> > Any better or worse? Would it violate shakuhachi
> > convention?
>
> Equally foreign.

Ok.

> actually I trasposed the results. Shakuhachi can be of
> different lengths. I analysed pieces played on more than
> one length. The results are displayed as if it were the
> most common length of 1 shaku 8 sun. But the names of
> the notes do not change with changing lengths. So for us
> ro is ro, whether that is D or C or anything. If you told
> me to play a "C" I'd be lost!

Cool.

> > > By the way, the notes which are flatter than ET are
> > > also "dark" in colour. This is very important.
> >
> > Interesting.
>
> It is often said that the colour is more important than the
> pitch. This though is less common these days! (when we try
> to care about both!)
> Justin.

Shakuhachi is fairly popular around the San Francisco area.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > > > I thought pajara was the name of a linear temperament with
> > > > a 5-note DE at the half-octave. No?
> > >
> > > I think Paul's point is that it has a 1/2 octave period, and
> > > hence is rank two but not linear in the strict sense.
> >
> > That's a pretty lame point.
>
> Maybe I should answer this now:
>
> >> Period = identity interval.
> >
> >No, it isn't necessarily. For example, most composers who use
> >the octatonic (diminished) scale in 12-equal still consider the
> >identity interval to be the octave, even though the period of
> >the scale is 1/4 octave.
>
> It seems like more a matter of instrument design than anything
> else. For instance, do I tune my piano in an octave-equivalent
> tuning or a 700cents-equivalent one?

That's nonsense to me, because the question of interval of
equivalence has nothing to do with how you tune your piano. If you
hear octaves as having 'equivalence' or 'similarity', then octave-
equivalence is at work; if you don't, it isn't. It has nothing to do
with, and no impact on, the actual notes on your piano.

> I suppose the best answer
> is: in the center octaves I tune the latter and at either end
> I tune the former.

Huh? Did you mean 702 cents when you said 700 cents above or
something? Otherwise, I don't see a practical difference. And in any
case, I'm suspsicious that you actually hear fifths as equivalent!

> Kurt Bigler took the radical step of using
> different pitch classes at octave-equivalent keys on his
> harpsichord, and it's worked reasonably well for him.

Yes, there's no rule that says your set of pitches has to repeat at
the octave.

> The most
> fruitful way to catalog popular scales in 12-equal is probably
> with a list of tetrachords rather than a list of octave-spanning
> scales.

Go for it! I'd love to see this.

> I do believe we hear octave equivalence unless a context
> is carefully constructed to avoid it. But it isn't clear how
> this could be determined by looking at instruments or music. If
> I write a piece in the diminished scale, themes will probably be
> repeated (and played together) at the octave and at the minor
> third.

I disagree with the latter assertion. Nor would themes in the
decatonic scale be played together at the tritone (or half-octave).

> Since temperamets must approximate octaves well to be
> rated well under any of the schemes proposed on tuning-math (and
> weighting schemes favor 2s over all other identities), I can see
> no need of intervals of equivalence in a theory of scales.

Almost all descriptions of scales rely on an interval of equivalence.
But your suggestion is in fact what Gene and I ended up following
when it comes to the theory of temperament! Then only ETs can be
considered "linear" (we say 1-D or rank 1 to avoid confusion), and
then tunings with an infinite linear chain of pitch classes, as well
as those with multiple, equally-spaced chains, are 2-D or rank 2.

If you're going to call meantone and miracle "linear", then clearly
you *are* invoking an (octave) interval of equivalence to collapse
the 2-D array of pitches into a line of *pitch-classes*. And this is
precisely what *doesn't* happen with pajara, diminished, augmented,
etc., where you end up not with a line but with multiple lines
equally spaced around a circle, hence a cylinder, of pitch classes.
Thus, just as Erv Wilson discusses many 2D systems where the octave
is one of the generators and calls them "linear", so George Secor
suggests the 2D systems that can't use the octave as one of the
generators (but still have octaves) should be called "cylindrical".

> > > > I thought pajara was the name of a linear temperament with a
> > > > 5-note DE at the half-octave. No?
> > >
> > > I think Paul's point is that it has a 1/2 octave period, and
> > > hence is rank two but not linear in the strict sense.
> >
> > That's a pretty lame point.
>
> I beg your pardon, Carl. George Secor, who has been at this longer
> than both of us, and I had a long, intensive discussion about this.
> We came to the agreed conclusion that "linear tunings" and "linear
> scales" refer to single chains of pitch-classes (where each link in
> the chain is a single "generator" interval-class). Systems like the
> diminished, augmented, and pajara/srutal require multiple chains of
> pitch-classes, so they're not "linear". I've made this point
> repeatedly on the tuning-math list and elsewhere, and considering
> that these terms come up in Erv Wilson's writings (remember that
> discussion?), I don't think it's "lame" at all. Notice that the
> scales Mark Gould is posting are all linear in this sense and he's
> omitting scales that have 1/3 octave periods from his list for 18-
> equal . . . not to mention other academic music theory and
> its "nondegenerate well-formed scales" and such . . . so the
> distinction George and I are trying to make is clearly a
> significant one for some people.

Ok, I'll say "rank ... 2" is that the magic number now? And
equal temperaments are rank 1, right? No problem. I said it
was lame because I felt you did (or should have) understand
what I meant.

-Carl

> > > > > I thought pajara was the name of a linear temperament with
> > > > > a 5-note DE at the half-octave. No?
> > > >
> > > > I think Paul's point is that it has a 1/2 octave period, and
> > > > hence is rank two but not linear in the strict sense.
> > >
> > > That's a pretty lame point.
> >
> > Maybe I should answer this now:
> >
> > >> Period = identity interval.
> > >
> > >No, it isn't necessarily. For example, most composers who use
> > >the octatonic (diminished) scale in 12-equal still consider the
> > >identity interval to be the octave, even though the period of
> > >the scale is 1/4 octave.
> >
> > It seems like more a matter of instrument design than anything
> > else. For instance, do I tune my piano in an octave-equivalent
> > tuning or a 700cents-equivalent one?
>
> That's nonsense to me, because the question of interval of
> equivalence has nothing to do with how you tune your piano. If you
> hear octaves as having 'equivalence' or 'similarity', then octave-
> equivalence is at work; if you don't, it isn't. It has nothing to
> do with, and no impact on, the actual notes on your piano.

Right, that's what I'm saying, it has nothing to do with
temperament. You seem to be saying it's a fixed psychoacountic
thing, and I agree completely.

> > The most
> > fruitful way to catalog popular scales in 12-equal is probably
> > with a list of tetrachords rather than a list of octave-spanning
> > scales.
>
> Go for it! I'd love to see this.

Clearly there are fewer unique tetrachords in popular use than
there are scales. My theory textbook taught scales in terms of
tetrachords.

> > If I write a piece in the diminished scale, themes will
> > probably be repeated (and played together) at the octave
> > and at the minor third.
>
> I disagree with the latter assertion.

Really?

> > Since temperamets must approximate octaves well to be
> > rated well under any of the schemes proposed on tuning-math (and
> > weighting schemes favor 2s over all other identities), I can see
> > no need of intervals of equivalence in a theory of scales.
>
> your suggestion is in fact what Gene and I ended up following
> when it comes to the theory of temperament! Then only ETs can be
> considered "linear" (we say 1-D or rank 1 to avoid confusion),
> and then tunings with an infinite linear chain of pitch classes,
> as well as those with multiple, equally-spaced chains, are 2-D
> or rank 2.

All this has been nitpicking over "linear" and "equivalence"?
It looks here like you're agreeing with me!

> If you're going to call meantone and miracle "linear", then
> clearly you *are* invoking an (octave) interval of equivalence
> to collapse the 2-D array of pitches into a line of *pitch-
> classes*.

No, I was using the term *linear* with no thought to pitch
classes or anything line-like. I just thought it was the
term.

-Carl

> No, I was using the term *linear* with no thought to pitch
> classes or anything line-like. I just thought it was the
> term.

And the reason I said period = identity interval is because
I thought the latter term had been dispatched with entirely.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > Measurement? It's a rare treat when someone actually measures
something
> > around here
>
> Then why would people be discussing different sizes of fifths? Aren't
> the differences something that is being measured?

Not necessarily -- you could implement different sizes of fifts as many
people around here do, by typing scales into Scala or pitch bend
numbers into a MIDI file (or even putting frets on an acoustic
instrument according to some calculation) and having faith that the
sounds that come out are the ones you intended. Few people try to
actually measure the sounds that are produced to ascertain that they
got what they intended, even though quite often, they didn't.

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

> Almost all descriptions of scales rely on an interval of equivalence.
> But your suggestion is in fact what Gene and I ended up following
> when it comes to the theory of temperament!

Exactly. The definition of regular temperament does not rely on the
use of anything as an interval of equivalence or a period.

Then only ETs can be
> considered "linear" (we say 1-D or rank 1 to avoid confusion), and
> then tunings with an infinite linear chain of pitch classes, as well
> as those with multiple, equally-spaced chains, are 2-D or rank 2.

Whether the chains are single or multiple, however, *does* depend on a
choice of an interval of equivalence. Ennealimmal, which divides the
octave into nine parts, is obviously far from linear. Yet use 5/3 as
the interval of equivalence, and it is wrt 5/3 linear. Meantone is
linear, but use 5 for the interval of equivalence, and the period
becomes a fourth of that--the meantone fifth.

> > Hi Justin,
> >
> > I'm replying on
> >
> > /metatuning
> >
> > if you want to follow this further.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> Hi Carl
> I couldn't find your reply there.
> Justin

/metatuning/topicId_9310.html#9310

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > > I thought pajara was the name of a linear temperament with a
> > > > > 5-note DE at the half-octave. No?
> > > >
> > > > I think Paul's point is that it has a 1/2 octave period, and
> > > > hence is rank two but not linear in the strict sense.
> > >
> > > That's a pretty lame point.
> >
> > I beg your pardon, Carl. George Secor, who has been at this
longer
> > than both of us, and I had a long, intensive discussion about
this.
> > We came to the agreed conclusion that "linear tunings"
and "linear
> > scales" refer to single chains of pitch-classes (where each link
in
> > the chain is a single "generator" interval-class). Systems like
the
> > diminished, augmented, and pajara/srutal require multiple chains
of
> > pitch-classes, so they're not "linear". I've made this point
> > repeatedly on the tuning-math list and elsewhere, and considering
> > that these terms come up in Erv Wilson's writings (remember that
> > discussion?), I don't think it's "lame" at all. Notice that the
> > scales Mark Gould is posting are all linear in this sense and
he's
> > omitting scales that have 1/3 octave periods from his list for 18-
> > equal . . . not to mention other academic music theory and
> > its "nondegenerate well-formed scales" and such . . . so the
> > distinction George and I are trying to make is clearly a
> > significant one for some people.
>
> Ok, I'll say "rank ... 2" is that the magic number now?

I don't want a magic number. I want you to see the logic in this, or
to give an objection.

> And
> equal temperaments are rank 1, right? No problem. I said it
> was lame because I felt you did (or should have) understand
> what I meant.

I'm sorry. But you were not only not talking to me, you were posting
to the whole list. I think it's important to point out that some of
the systems we are enthusiastic about are *not* linearly-generated
chains of pitch-classes, the way Pythagorean and Meantone are.
Particularly when some people here are providing lists of scales that
*only* include the linearly-generated-chains-of-pitch-classes cases,
and omit the other cases that are also rank 2 in a no-interval-of-
equivalence framework.

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:

>>Yup, but that's too far off my radar. Isn't making guesses about > the >>"Pythagorean belt" (from India to the Mediterranean) bad enough?
> > > Huh?

The area where string instruments took the lead and tuning by 3:2 was prevalent at one time or another.

> > >>Of >>course, I could go on guessing that the Greeks stole everything > > from > >>the Sumerians. Wouldn't that beat the Chinese?
> > > No, probably not.
> > >>But the Chinese pulled the stunt of tuning 12et with an organ pipe >>that held 1200 grains of millet.
> > > Source?

This list? I can't have invented it, since I would assume that an organ pipe behaves like a string.

> > >>They actually had the key for >>reproducing any arbitrary tuning within half a cent. This had to >>happen in a culture that had their tuning set in stone millenia > > ago ...
> > Pythagorean and 12-equal are different, so I'm not sure what you > mean . . .

I'm talking about tuning systems being defined by the available ways of measuring intervals, so it's not Pythagorean vs 12et, but simple string ratios vs something inherently fine-grained.

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> Not necessarily -- you could implement different sizes of fifts as many
> people around here do, by typing scales into Scala or pitch bend
> numbers into a MIDI file (or even putting frets on an acoustic
> instrument according to some calculation) ...

Frets need to be measured. Pitch bends aren't arbitrary. This is the
draftsman at work.

> Few people try to
> actually measure the sounds that are produced to ascertain that they
> got what they intended, even though quite often, they didn't.

I never restricted it to measuring the sounds. I think a lot of people
don't even listen to the tunings that are talked about, but that's
conjecture, even if backed by observation. If you could stop looking
at trees and see the forest, you can discern my meaning. But no need
to go any further, I'll just offer Justin back-up offlist...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > > If I write a piece in the diminished scale, themes will
> > > probably be repeated (and played together) at the octave
> > > and at the minor third.
> >
> > I disagree with the latter assertion.
>
> Really?

Absolutely (the latter assertion being the parenthetical one)! And I
gave you another example (pajara) that might help clarify this . . .
Maybe if you're simply embellishing a diminished seventh chord, you'd
play a theme in parallel minor thirds, but in the truly octatonic
music I've heard (such as in one of Badings' string quartets), many
major and minor chords make an explicit or implicit appearance, and
if a theme is harmonized in parallel, it's more likely going to be at
the 3-step interval in the scale, which is either a major third or
perfect fourth depending on where you are in the scale.

> > > Since temperamets must approximate octaves well to be
> > > rated well under any of the schemes proposed on tuning-math (and
> > > weighting schemes favor 2s over all other identities), I can see
> > > no need of intervals of equivalence in a theory of scales.
> >
> > your suggestion is in fact what Gene and I ended up following
> > when it comes to the theory of temperament! Then only ETs can be
> > considered "linear" (we say 1-D or rank 1 to avoid confusion),
> > and then tunings with an infinite linear chain of pitch classes,
> > as well as those with multiple, equally-spaced chains, are 2-D
> > or rank 2.
>
> All this has been nitpicking over "linear" and "equivalence"?
> It looks here like you're agreeing with me!

I'm not agreeing with you that period = interval of equivalence, and
I'm also not agreeing with you that pajara or diminished or augmented
are linear.

> > If you're going to call meantone and miracle "linear", then
> > clearly you *are* invoking an (octave) interval of equivalence
> > to collapse the 2-D array of pitches into a line of *pitch-
> > classes*.
>
> No, I was using the term *linear* with no thought to pitch
> classes or anything line-like. I just thought it was the
> term.

Then I'd ask you to spend some time thinking about it. "Linear"
implies a line; in Erv Wilson's writings, it means a mapping of all
the pitch classes in a tuning or scale to a single series of
(normally consecutive) integers in the order that the generator
generates them. I ask you: Do pajara, diminished, augmented fit this
description?

Also, did this tetrachord-based book of yours not recognize octave-
equivalence? How was Western music explained without it? Do we find
scales that repeat at the fourth, instead of at the octave, in much
Western music?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > No, I was using the term *linear* with no thought to pitch
> > classes or anything line-like. I just thought it was the
> > term.
>
> And the reason I said period = identity interval is because
> I thought the latter term had been dispatched with entirely.

If a term has been dispatched with entirely, how are we entitled to
then equate it with some other terms??

Meanwhile, is only *after* one specifies the equivalence interval as
an octave that one is entitled to say somewhat unambiguously that
meantone has a period of 1 octave, diminished a period of 1/4 octave,
etc. Otherwise, meantone, diminished, etc. can each be specified
using any of an infinite set of pairs of generators. If one of these
two generators is employed as a period for constructing a scale,
that's fine, but there's no reason this period needs to carry
any "equivalence" or "similarity" in it. For example, without an
interval of equivalence, we could construct meantone using a period
of a major second and a generator of a minor second. Does that make
the major second "equivalent" or "similar" in any way?

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

>Not necessarily -- you could implement different sizes of fifts as many >people around here do, by typing scales into Scala or pitch bend >numbers into a MIDI file (or even putting frets on an acoustic >instrument according to some calculation) and having faith that the >sounds that come out are the ones you intended. >
What on earth is a fift? Is this another one of those tuning terms you guys invented,
Monzo is going to make a web page out of it and copyright to himself?

I think I'm going to patent the 17th harmonic....

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:

> >>But the Chinese pulled the stunt of tuning 12et with an organ
pipe
> >>that held 1200 grains of millet.
> >
> >
> > Source?
>
> This list? I can't have invented it, since I would assume that an
> organ pipe behaves like a string.

You've lost me even further. You got this "stunt" story from this
list? You assumed that an organ pipe would behave like a string
before you heard this story, or after?

> >>They actually had the key for
> >>reproducing any arbitrary tuning within half a cent. This had to
> >>happen in a culture that had their tuning set in stone millenia
> >
> > ago ...
> >
> > Pythagorean and 12-equal are different, so I'm not sure what you
> > mean . . .
>
> I'm talking about tuning systems being defined by the available
ways
> of measuring intervals, so it's not Pythagorean vs 12et, but simple
> string ratios vs something inherently fine-grained.

So what was set in stone, and what arbitrary tunings were being
reproducted? I don't get it. I'm sorry if I seem dense, actually it's
almost time to go . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > Not necessarily -- you could implement different sizes of fifts
as many
> > people around here do, by typing scales into Scala or pitch bend
> > numbers into a MIDI file (or even putting frets on an acoustic
> > instrument according to some calculation) ...
>
> Frets need to be measured. Pitch bends aren't arbitrary. This is the
> draftsman at work.
>
> > Few people try to
> > actually measure the sounds that are produced to ascertain that
they
> > got what they intended, even though quite often, they didn't.
>
> I never restricted it to measuring the sounds. I think a lot of
people
> don't even listen to the tunings that are talked about, but that's
> conjecture, even if backed by observation. If you could stop looking
> at trees and see the forest, you can discern my meaning. But no need
> to go any further, I'll just offer Justin back-up offlist...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

OK, Jon, I'm sorry I failed so miserably :(

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>
> >Not necessarily -- you could implement different sizes of fifts as
many
> >people around here do, by typing scales into Scala or pitch bend
> >numbers into a MIDI file (or even putting frets on an acoustic
> >instrument according to some calculation) and having faith that
the
> >sounds that come out are the ones you intended.
> >
> What on earth is a fift?

Fifth, sorry (typo).

> Is this another one of those tuning terms you
> guys invented,
> Monzo is going to make a web page out of it and copyright to
himself?

Heh heh :)

> I think I'm going to patent the 17th harmonic....

Do it!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> What on earth is a fift?

A small bottle of liquor, frequently carried by New Jersey youts
(pronounced "yoots").

Cheers,
Jon

Jon Szanto wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" > >>This is my approach to virtually all the music I play or create -- I >>play with my ears, not with my hands (though it may look as if my >>hands are involved :) ).
> > > "Look, Ma, no hands!"
> > >>But I'm glad you have experienced what I'm >>talking about above! New tunings *can* give rise to new forms of >>musical expression, even if this only is a necessary result of the >>listening composer adapting to the new tuning.
> > > The difference for me is the development of tunings within and around
> the context of creating music. I don't find any interest, nor
> inspiration, in creating tunings simply to create tunings. I hear
> musics that require something new, and I have to search. Along the
> way, other musics present themselves. I find the two 'tasks' fairly
> inseperable (even though I am meagre at both endeavors), and muse with
> this in mind. I'm well aware that it is different for others.

I can agree with both of these statements, to some extent. I've had the experience a couple of times already of having melodies that I've had in the back of my head for a couple of years, and then in the process of exploring a new tuning, I realize that this is the one I've been looking for all along to fit that melody. I've also been playing around with a new tuning purely for the sake of exploration and in the process discovered a new melody that hadn't occurred to me before. Sometimes this happens at the keyboard, or occasionally while using the Cakewalk piano roll, but it always involves my ears; I don't often get results that satisfy me by juggling numbers. But the numbers are useful guides to finding the good tunings and keep from getting lost in the maze of possibilities.

> > All this has been nitpicking over "linear" and "equivalence"?
> > It looks here like you're agreeing with me!
>
> I'm not agreeing with you that period = interval of equivalence,
> and I'm also not agreeing with you that pajara or diminished or
> augmented are linear.

I didn't say you were.

> > > If you're going to call meantone and miracle "linear", then
> > > clearly you *are* invoking an (octave) interval of equivalence
> > > to collapse the 2-D array of pitches into a line of *pitch-
> > > classes*.
> >
> > No, I was using the term *linear* with no thought to pitch
> > classes or anything line-like. I just thought it was the
> > term.
>
> Then I'd ask you to spend some time thinking about it.

No thanks.

> "Linear" implies a line;

Oh my god, I hadn't noticed. Thanks, Paul, for this very
helpful bit of tutelage.

> I ask you: Do pajara, diminished, augmented fit this description?

Why don't you tell us what you think?

> Also, did this tetrachord-based book of yours not recognize
> octave-equivalence?

It did.

-Carl

> > > No, I was using the term *linear* with no thought to pitch
> > > classes or anything line-like. I just thought it was the
> > > term.
> >
> > And the reason I said period = identity interval is because
> > I thought the latter term had been dispatched with entirely.
>
> If a term has been dispatched with entirely, how are we entitled
> to then equate it with some other terms??

In terms of how MOS is often explained, the IE *could be*, to
someone such as myself who can't tell his MOS from a hole in
the ground, taken to be synonomous with the period. So I'm
really glad you stepped in to clear this up for me, and everyone.

> Meanwhile, is only *after* one specifies the equivalence interval
> as an octave that one is entitled to say somewhat unambiguously
> that meantone has a period of 1 octave, diminished a period of 1/4
> octave, etc. Otherwise, meantone, diminished, etc. can each be
> specified using any of an infinite set of pairs of generators.

So what??

> For example, without an interval of equivalence, we could
> construct meantone using a period of a major second and a
> generator of a minor second. Does that make the major
> second "equivalent" or "similar" in any way?

Gee, now that you put it that way, what was I thinking?
Thanks again for this helpful memory aid. I should remember
that every term around here has a meaning plainly implied
by the literal meaning of its parts.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:
> But the numbers are useful guides
> to finding the good tunings and keep from getting lost in the maze of
> possibilities.

Oh, without a doubt. That just happens to be my biggest area of
weakness, one that I'm usually trying to improve on. OTOH, I don't see
a lifetime of searching for new tunings, as I'm finding areas that I
can stick with for a long time to come.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
>
> > >>But the Chinese pulled the stunt of tuning 12et with an organ
> pipe
> > >>that held 1200 grains of millet.
> > >
> > >
> > > Source?
> >
> > This list? I can't have invented it, since I would assume that an
> > organ pipe behaves like a string.
>
> You've lost me even further. You got this "stunt" story from this
> list?

I can't imagine otherwise.

> You assumed that an organ pipe would behave like a string
> before you heard this story, or after?

My intuition was and still is that a pipe and a string, when their
length is increased by equal increments, produce a utonal series. The
Chinese trick (and I think it referred to Chu Tsai-yü who beat
Stevin
by a couple of months describing 12et) was to fill a pipe with 1200
grains of ... millet, I believe, and then take out 100 at a time,
supposedly resulting in a 12et scale. The quote from a web page below,
on the other hand, seems to refer to the same person (the same year,
that's for sure) and says nothing about pipes. What's more, the
writer, Tran Van Khe, stresses that no division of the octave was
involved, but a principle of averages; this doesn't necessarily imply
an absolutely equal temperament.

> So what was set in stone,

The standard Chinese pitches, and literally:

from http://www.vn-style.com/vim/english/information/bai_Dan%20da.htm

A thousand years B.C ago, China had precious or marble stones in cubic
meter-shape or fish-shape called Qing (Khanh). An instrument with 16
stones of the same size but different thickness is called Bian Qing
(Bien Khanh). The first stone gives the lowest sound called Hoang
Chung sound. The stones give out different sounds of semitone and in
an 12-tone octave. The last 4 stones make the first 4 sounds of a
higher octave. Bien Khanh is not an instrument to produce melody but
to be used as " standard " for tones played in festival music. A sound
of khanh is used to begin a musical sentence or some musical
sentences. A chime sound is used to end a musical sentence or some
musical sentences.

The 12 tones are called Luat Lu (6 Luat are Yang and 6 Lu are Yin)
with the

following names :
Hoàng chung is pronounced like Fa
é?i l? Fa#
Tha;i th?c Sol
Gia;p chung Sol #
Ca;% t?y La
Tr?ng l? La#
Nhuy tõn Si
Lõm chung Do
Di t?c Do#
Nam l? Ra;
Va;% x? Ra;#
?ng chung Mi

However, in the documents of China about Luat Lu, music researchers
found out that since Minh dynasty, when mentioning about 12 Luat Lu
(circa 1595), Chau Tai Duc talked about average principle. He pointed
out that average princile did not create a scale by dividing an octave
into 12 equal semitone but focused on 12 Luat Lu regulated in Hoang
chung based on the rule "Tam phan ton ich". These 12 Luat Lu were
arranged from low to high to create a dodecaphonic in an octave.
However, as we mentioned above, they are "standard" tones and Chinese
people never use them. For example when performing Nhac chuong in the
sacrifice ceremony for Duc Khong Tu, Cung must have the pitch as high
as Giap chung in the spring and Nam lu in the fall.

Hi all
I will soon have less time and so I will no longer
receive the mails from this group. It has been a
pleasure being here and I thank you all very much. And
if anyone wants to contact me personally for any
reason (such as if you find anything more about
Japanese tuning!)I welcome your mails.
Best wishes to you all,
Justin.

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

Jon Szanto wrote:

>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> >
>>wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>>What on earth is a fift?
>> >>
>
>A small bottle of liquor, frequently carried by New Jersey youts
>(pronounced "yoots").
>
>Cheers,
>Jon
>
Damm kids. Off my, I say...off my lawn! Leaving fifts and pnts around and playing that damm music.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Oh my god, I hadn't noticed. Thanks, Paul, for this very
> helpful bit of tutelage.

Do I sense sarcasm? (rhetorical question) But sometimes the simplest
points can be the most elusive -- by no means was I intending to insult
your intelligence here.

> > I ask you: Do pajara, diminished, augmented fit this description?
>
> Why don't you tell us what you think?

I think they don't. But maybe this was just a rhetorical question on
your part.

> > Also, did this tetrachord-based book of yours not recognize
> > octave-equivalence?
>
> It did.

So how would you proceed without it?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > Meanwhile, is only *after* one specifies the equivalence interval
> > as an octave that one is entitled to say somewhat unambiguously
> > that meantone has a period of 1 octave, diminished a period of 1/4
> > octave, etc. Otherwise, meantone, diminished, etc. can each be
> > specified using any of an infinite set of pairs of generators.
>
> So what??

I see Gene made the same point as me. The point is that the interval of
equivalence has not been dispatched with, and that the very choice of
an interval of equivalence can determine whether the period of a given
system is or isn't the same as the interval of equivalence.

I'm still engaging in an honest attempt to communicate with you, and
I'll assume you're interested in same. If not, just say so -- that'll
be more effective than sarcasm (possibly sarcastic comments snipped).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "kschmir" <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...>
wrote:
> >
> > > >>But the Chinese pulled the stunt of tuning 12et with an organ
> > pipe
> > > >>that held 1200 grains of millet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Source?
> > >
> > > This list? I can't have invented it, since I would assume that
an
> > > organ pipe behaves like a string.
> >
> > You've lost me even further. You got this "stunt" story from this
> > list?
>
> I can't imagine otherwise.

OK . . .

> > You assumed that an organ pipe would behave like a string
> > before you heard this story, or after?
>
> My intuition was and still is that a pipe and a string, when their
> length is increased by equal increments, produce a utonal series.

Essentially, yes, though pipes have an end correction you need to
worry about.

> The
> Chinese trick (and I think it referred to Chu Tsai-yü who beat
> Stevin
> by a couple of months describing 12et) was to fill a pipe with 1200
> grains of ... millet, I believe, and then take out 100 at a time,
> supposedly resulting in a 12et scale.

Of course, the true result would be nowhere near 12-equal, even with
pipes, and no, this isn't Chu Tsai-yü's solution (which did give 12-
equal correct to many decimal places) -- see Partch or Isaacoff . . .

> The quote from a web page below,
> on the other hand, seems to refer to the same person (the same year,
> that's for sure) and says nothing about pipes. What's more, the
> writer, Tran Van Khe, stresses that no division of the octave was
> involved, but a principle of averages;

If it is indeed the same person (which I doubt), it says "He pointed
out that average princi[p]le did not create a scale by dividing an
octave into 12 equal semitone" -- so what (and exactly!)? This person
(be it Chu Tsai-yü or someone else) could still have been well aware
of what *did* create a scale dividing an octave into 12 equal
semitones.

> A thousand years B.C ago,

A thousand years B.C., or a thousand years ago? That matters.

> However, in the documents of China about Luat Lu, music researchers
> found out that since Minh dynasty, when mentioning about 12 Luat Lu
> (circa 1595), Chau Tai Duc talked about average principle. He
pointed
> out that average princile did not create a scale by dividing an
octave
> into 12 equal semitone but focused on 12 Luat Lu regulated in Hoang
> chung based on the rule "Tam phan ton ich". These 12 Luat Lu were
> arranged from low to high to create a dodecaphonic in an octave.
> However, as we mentioned above, they are "standard" tones and
Chinese
> people never use them. For example when performing Nhac chuong in
the
> sacrifice ceremony for Duc Khong Tu, Cung must have the pitch as
high
> as Giap chung in the spring and Nam lu in the fall.

> the very choice of an interval of equivalence can determine
> whether the period of a given system is or isn't the same as
> the interval of equivalence.

How could it be otherwise?

> I'm still engaging in an honest attempt to communicate with
> you, and I'll assume you're interested in same. If not, just
> say so -- that'll be more effective than sarcasm (possibly
> sarcastic comments snipped).

I think we've had a massive miscommunication here, and I'm
not really in the mood to sort it out at the present time.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > the very choice of an interval of equivalence can determine
> > whether the period of a given system is or isn't the same as
> > the interval of equivalence.
>
> How could it be otherwise?

Let me rephrase:

the very choice of an interval of equivalence can determine the period
of a given system, and this period sometimes is and sometimes isn't the
same as the interval of equivalence, depending on said choice.

It could be otherwise if either the period is pre-defined (such as if
you're talking about the tuning of an instrument, which will have a
finite number of pitches per octave), or if the "interval of
equivalence" is *defined* as the period.

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "kschmir" <KSchmir@o...> wrote:

>>The
>>Chinese trick (and I think it referred to Chu Tsai-yü who beat
>>Stevin
>>by a couple of months describing 12et) was to fill a pipe with 1200
>>grains of ... millet, I believe, and then take out 100 at a time,
>>supposedly resulting in a 12et scale.
>
>
> Of course, the true result would be nowhere near 12-equal, even with
> pipes, and no, this isn't Chu Tsai-yü's solution (which did give 12-
> equal correct to many decimal places) -- see Partch or Isaacoff . . .

Does Isaacoff give the method? I don't remember that Partch does, but
I will check tomorrow.

>
>
>>The quote from a web page below,
>>on the other hand, seems to refer to the same person (the same year,
>>that's for sure) and says nothing about pipes. What's more, the
>>writer, Tran Van Khe, stresses that no division of the octave was
>>involved, but a principle of averages;
>
>
> If it is indeed the same person (which I doubt), it says "He pointed
> out that average princi[p]le did not create a scale by dividing an
> octave into 12 equal semitone" -- so what (and exactly!)? This person
> (be it Chu Tsai-yü or someone else) could still have been well aware
> of what *did* create a scale dividing an octave into 12 equal
> semitones.
>

Yes, I probably read that wrong. It seems that an old standard
lithophone was tuned according to averages (when was that thread about
the temperament of the ancient Chinese bells? This /&%$ Yahoo group
search that seems to time out on purpose is not very useful. Mildly
spoken), whereas some person in 1595 critized it for its different
step sizes and remedied the situation by applying the "tam phan ton
ich" rule.

My distrust of transliterations and the fact that Vietnamese is there
as an intermediate language tells me that Chau Tai Duc does indeed =
Chu Tsai-yü.

>
>>A thousand years B.C ago,
>
>
> A thousand years B.C., or a thousand years ago? That matters.

The imperial music bureau was established 200 BC, so he is talking
about something else. I can think of nothing that happened around 1000
AD, so he seems to mean 1000 BC, probably the very first signs of
Chines music.

klaus

>
>
>>However, in the documents of China about Luat Lu, music researchers
>>found out that since Minh dynasty, when mentioning about 12 Luat Lu
>>(circa 1595), Chau Tai Duc talked about average principle. He
>
> pointed
>
>>out that average princile did not create a scale by dividing an
>
> octave
>
>>into 12 equal semitone but focused on 12 Luat Lu regulated in Hoang
>>chung based on the rule "Tam phan ton ich". These 12 Luat Lu were
>>arranged from low to high to create a dodecaphonic in an octave.
>>However, as we mentioned above, they are "standard" tones and
>
> Chinese
>
>>people never use them. For example when performing Nhac chuong in
>
> the
>
>>sacrifice ceremony for Duc Khong Tu, Cung must have the pitch as
>
> high
>
>>as Giap chung in the spring and Nam lu in the fall.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
> I don't remember that Partch does, but I will check tomorrow.

Chapter 15 might be what you are looking for.

Cheers,
Jon

> > > the very choice of an interval of equivalence can determine
> > > whether the period of a given system is or isn't the same as
> > > the interval of equivalence.
> >
> > How could it be otherwise?
>
> Let me rephrase:
>
> the very choice of an interval of equivalence can determine
> the period of a given system, and this period sometimes is
> and sometimes isn't the same as the interval of equivalence,
> depending on said choice.

I stand by my statement that the IE has to do with
psychoacoustics, and perhaps notation and instrument
design, and nothing to do with temperament. Would
you care to illustrate otherwise with an example?
I know that generator/period representations are not
unique for a given temperament, so if that's what
you're on about, don't bother.

My frustration here can be traced to your insistence on
owning the definition of IE, your assumption that I was
using the same definition as you, and then I think us
being out of synch when I tried to switch.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
>
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "kschmir" <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
>
> >>The
> >>Chinese trick (and I think it referred to Chu Tsai-yü who beat
> >>Stevin
> >>by a couple of months describing 12et) was to fill a pipe with
1200
> >>grains of ... millet, I believe, and then take out 100 at a time,
> >>supposedly resulting in a 12et scale.
> >
> >
> > Of course, the true result would be nowhere near 12-equal, even
with
> > pipes, and no, this isn't Chu Tsai-yü's solution (which did give
12-
> > equal correct to many decimal places) -- see Partch or
Isaacoff . . .
>
> Does Isaacoff give the method?

He gives a simplified version of it, as he does of most things.

> I don't remember that Partch does, but
> I will check tomorrow.

Maybe it was somewhere else where I read the details about many
correct decimal places . . .

> >>The quote from a web page below,
> >>on the other hand, seems to refer to the same person (the same
year,
> >>that's for sure) and says nothing about pipes. What's more, the
> >>writer, Tran Van Khe, stresses that no division of the octave was
> >>involved, but a principle of averages;
> >
> >
> > If it is indeed the same person (which I doubt), it says "He
pointed
> > out that average princi[p]le did not create a scale by dividing
an
> > octave into 12 equal semitone" -- so what (and exactly!)? This
person
> > (be it Chu Tsai-yü or someone else) could still have been well
aware
> > of what *did* create a scale dividing an octave into 12 equal
> > semitones.
> >
>
> Yes, I probably read that wrong. It seems that an old standard
> lithophone was tuned according to averages (when was that thread
about
> the temperament of the ancient Chinese bells? This /&%$ Yahoo group
> search that seems to time out on purpose is not very useful.

Really? I heard it's become quite useful of late.

> Mildly
> spoken), whereas some person in 1595 critized it for its different
> step sizes and remedied the situation by applying the "tam phan ton
> ich" rule.

OK, this seems different from what you said before, and sounds like a
second-order correction is being applied to a first-order
approximation.

> My distrust of transliterations and the fact that Vietnamese is
there
> as an intermediate language tells me that Chau Tai Duc does indeed
=
> Chu Tsai-yü.

Huh? Your distrust tells you this?

> >>A thousand years B.C ago,
> >
> >
> > A thousand years B.C., or a thousand years ago? That matters.
>
> The imperial music bureau was established 200 BC, so he is talking
> about something else. I can think of nothing that happened around
1000
> AD, so he seems to mean 1000 BC, probably the very first signs of
> Chines music.

Perhaps, though traditionally, the Chinese ascribe that to a far
earlier date.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > > > the very choice of an interval of equivalence can determine
> > > > whether the period of a given system is or isn't the same as
> > > > the interval of equivalence.
> > >
> > > How could it be otherwise?
> >
> > Let me rephrase:
> >
> > the very choice of an interval of equivalence can determine
> > the period of a given system, and this period sometimes is
> > and sometimes isn't the same as the interval of equivalence,
> > depending on said choice.
>
> I stand by my statement that the IE has to do with
> psychoacoustics, and perhaps notation and instrument
> design, and nothing to do with temperament. Would
> you care to illustrate otherwise with an example?
> I know that generator/period representations are not
> unique for a given temperament,

They're unique if you want the scales you use to repeat at the
interval of equivalence, and thus be specifiable purely in terms of
pitch classes. So here's an example: Given meantone, if you take 2:1
as the interval of equivalence, the period is equal to the interval
of equivalence; but if you take 5:1 as the interval of equivalence,
the period is 1/4 of the interval of equivalence.

> so if that's what
> you're on about, don't bother.

Sorry if I unnecessarily bothered.

> My frustration here can be traced to your insistence on
> owning the definition of IE, your assumption that I was
> using the same definition as you, and then I think us
> being out of synch when I tried to switch.

Sorry, I probably just have too many things on my plate . . . but I
do try to be logical and straightforward when it comes to posting
about this stuff on a forum with so many people. In private
conversation with you, I'd be different. I can probably do a lot
better even on this list, though . . . my apologies.

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:

>>My distrust of transliterations and the fact that Vietnamese is
>
> there
>
>>as an intermediate language tells me that Chau Tai Duc does indeed
>
> =
>
>>Chu Tsai-yü.
>
>
> Huh? Your distrust tells you this?

How literal can you get? My distrust tells me they need not be
different persons. Better? Yes it's hardly the same logically, but
within a world of beliefs, and distrust belongs there, it comes out
equivalent.

Partch refers to Barbour, Equal Temperament (and to Yasser). Footnote
66 on page 381 in Partch's 15th chapter, History of Intonation:

The prince intended his ratios of Equal Temperament for a set of lü,
in the ancient manner. He also determined the size of the fumdamental
lü in an ancient manner, as one that would hold 1200 grains of millet.
Barbour points out that this gives the Chinese another priority in
musical science, since each succeeding pipe - in theory - would hold
100 fewer grains, thus anticipating Ellis' measure of cents. A
European constructed a set of pipes after Chu Tsai-yü's directions
(which included computations for pipe "correction") and found them
"exactly in tune." Barber, /op. cit./, 143-145.

There you have it. Maybe the pipes have to be conical or something.

klaus

I'm not sure if this 'millet' is meant to be literal or not. What does the actual Barber/
Barbour reference say? Meanwhile, Isaacoff gives a more direct specification for Chu Tsai-
yu's proposal . . . off the top of my head, was it fifths of ratio 749/500?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
>
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
>
>
> >>My distrust of transliterations and the fact that Vietnamese is
> >
> > there
> >
> >>as an intermediate language tells me that Chau Tai Duc does indeed
> >
> > =
> >
> >>Chu Tsai-yü.
> >
> >
> > Huh? Your distrust tells you this?
>
> How literal can you get? My distrust tells me they need not be
> different persons. Better? Yes it's hardly the same logically, but
> within a world of beliefs, and distrust belongs there, it comes out
> equivalent.
>
> Partch refers to Barbour, Equal Temperament (and to Yasser). Footnote
> 66 on page 381 in Partch's 15th chapter, History of Intonation:
>
> The prince intended his ratios of Equal Temperament for a set of lü,
> in the ancient manner. He also determined the size of the fumdamental
> lü in an ancient manner, as one that would hold 1200 grains of millet.
> Barbour points out that this gives the Chinese another priority in
> musical science, since each succeeding pipe - in theory - would hold
> 100 fewer grains, thus anticipating Ellis' measure of cents. A
> European constructed a set of pipes after Chu Tsai-yü's directions
> (which included computations for pipe "correction") and found them
> "exactly in tune." Barber, /op. cit./, 143-145.
>
>
> There you have it. Maybe the pipes have to be conical or something.
>
> klaus
>

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> I'm not sure if this 'millet' is meant to be literal or not.

Maybe sorghum changes the results -- but the numbers must be for real. Measuring volume instead of length of course could be hint that the "pipe" is used for its ocarina aspects and that what matters is the volume/opening ratio. (Still wanting it to be true. Wasn't it Barbour's job to be suspicious?)

What does the actual Barber/
> Barbour reference say? No idea, I've never seen this book in a German library.

Meanwhile, Isaacoff gives a more direct specification for Chu Tsai-
> yu's proposal . . . off the top of my head, was it fifths of ratio 749/500?

In Partch's summary, he just calculated the cubic root once and the square root twice ...

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
>
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if this 'millet' is meant to be literal or not.
>
> Maybe sorghum changes the results -- but the numbers must be for
real.
> Measuring volume instead of length of course could be hint that the
> "pipe" is used for its ocarina aspects and that what matters is the
> volume/opening ratio. (Still wanting it to be true. Wasn't it
> Barbour's job to be suspicious?)
>
>
> What does the actual Barber/
> > Barbour reference say?
>
> No idea, I've never seen this book in a German library.
>
> Meanwhile, Isaacoff gives a more direct specification for Chu Tsai-
> > yu's proposal . . . off the top of my head, was it fifths of
ratio 749/500?
>
> In Partch's summary, he just calculated the cubic root once and the
> square root twice ...
>
> klaus
>
Huh? I thought you just said that Partch's explanation of Chu Tsai-
yu's proposal involved linear divisions of 1200 grains of millet. Now
it's cube roots and square roots (which of course would give you the
right answer)? How could both be true at once? Or am I
misunderstanding you?

Meanwhile, I think I have a copy of Barbour at home . . . next
week . . .

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
>
>>wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm not sure if this 'millet' is meant to be literal or not.
>>
>>Maybe sorghum changes the results -- but the numbers must be for
>
> real.
>
>>Measuring volume instead of length of course could be hint that the
>>"pipe" is used for its ocarina aspects and that what matters is the
>>volume/opening ratio. (Still wanting it to be true. Wasn't it
>>Barbour's job to be suspicious?)
>>
>>
>> What does the actual Barber/
>>
>>>Barbour reference say?
>>
>>No idea, I've never seen this book in a German library.
>>
>>Meanwhile, Isaacoff gives a more direct specification for Chu Tsai-
>>
>>>yu's proposal . . . off the top of my head, was it fifths of
>
> ratio 749/500?
>
>>In Partch's summary, he just calculated the cubic root once and the
>>square root twice ...
>>
>>klaus
>>
>
> Huh? I thought you just said that Partch's explanation of Chu Tsai-
> yu's proposal involved linear divisions of 1200 grains of millet. Now
> it's cube roots and square roots (which of course would give you the
> right answer)? How could both be true at once? Or am I
> misunderstanding you?

"Partch's summary" is in the body of his text; what I have given before

> Partch refers to Barbour, Equal Temperament (and to Yasser). Footnote
> 66 on page 381 in Partch's 15th chapter, History of Intonation:
>
> The prince intended his ratios of Equal Temperament for a set of lü,
> in the ancient manner. He also determined the size of the fumdamental
> lü in an ancient manner, as one that would hold 1200 grains of millet.
> Barbour points out that this gives the Chinese another priority in
> musical science, since each succeeding pipe - in theory - would hold
> 100 fewer grains, thus anticipating Ellis' measure of cents. A > European constructed a set of pipes after Chu Tsai-yü's directions
> (which included computations for pipe "correction") and found them
> "exactly in tune." Barber, /op. cit./, 143-145.

was a footnote to that - less about Chu Tsai-yu's method than about
his predecessors, the guys with the grains.

>
> Meanwhile, I think I have a copy of Barbour at home . . . next
> week . . .

waiting ...

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:

> was a footnote to that - less about Chu Tsai-yu's method than about
> his predecessors, the guys with the grains.

I thought you were saying that Chu Tsai-yu's method, according to the
Vietnamese music website, was not a material advance over "guys with
the grains", at least by Western standards. Did I completely
misunderstand you?

> > Meanwhile, I think I have a copy of Barbour at home . . . next
> > week . . .
>
> waiting ...

Oops! I'll dig when I get home tonight . . . or maybe someone will beat
me to it?

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
>
>
>>was a footnote to that - less about Chu Tsai-yu's method than about
>>his predecessors, the guys with the grains.
>
>
> I thought you were saying that Chu Tsai-yu's method, according to the
> Vietnamese music website, was not a material advance over "guys with
> the grains", at least by Western standards. Did I completely
> misunderstand you?

Yes. All this started when I wanted to reverse the direction of
reasoning in a statement by Carl Lumma that "a deep musical universe
that fosters new and interesting musical styles for generations" needs
sytematic tuning. I said it needs reproducible tunings, and these
depend on methods of measuring. I probably said something to the
effect that 1200 grains are a finer and more versatile measure than an
exact 12et.

The site on Vietnamese music was just the only place where I found an
allusion to the 12 lü being "carved in stone".

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:

> > Meanwhile, I think I have a copy of Barbour at home . . . next
> > week . . .
>
> waiting ...

Well, no surprise, Barbour's account does not agree with Isacoff's.
I'm beginning to think Isacoff wrote his whole book in one sitting at
a coffee shop!

Anyway, Barbour says:

'At the same time that Stevin was setting down the figures for equal
temperament, or perhaps a few years earlier (1595), Prince Tsai-yü in
China was making a much more elaborate and careful calculation of the
same roots of 2. We are not told how he performed his calculation,
but, since it is correct to nine places, he must have extracted the
appropriate root for each note separately -- and without the aid of
logarithms, which were to simplify the problem so greatly for men who
attempted it a few decades later . . .

Barbour includes Tsai-yü's Monochord, a set of string lengths for ET
that start with half a billion and end with a billion, to which
Barbour assigns the Western letter names from C to C.

Isacoff's claim for Tsai-yü's fifth, 749/500, would give the length
for F as 749,000,000; Barbour gives Tsai-yü's relevant figure as
749,153,538 -- about a million times more accurate!

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
>
>
>>>Meanwhile, I think I have a copy of Barbour at home . . . next
>>>week . . .
>>
>>waiting ...
>
>
> Well, no surprise, Barbour's account does not agree with Isacoff's.
> I'm beginning to think Isacoff wrote his whole book in one sitting at
> a coffee shop!
>
> Anyway, Barbour says:
>
> 'At the same time that Stevin was setting down the figures for equal
> temperament, or perhaps a few years earlier (1595), Prince Tsai-yü in
> China was making a much more elaborate and careful calculation of the
> same roots of 2. We are not told how he performed his calculation,
> but, since it is correct to nine places, he must have extracted the
> appropriate root for each note separately -- and without the aid of
> logarithms, which were to simplify the problem so greatly for men who
> attempted it a few decades later . . .
>
> Barbour includes Tsai-yü's Monochord, a set of string lengths for ET
> that start with half a billion and end with a billion, to which
> Barbour assigns the Western letter names from C to C.
>
> Isacoff's claim for Tsai-yü's fifth, 749/500, would give the length
> for F as 749,000,000; Barbour gives Tsai-yü's relevant figure as
> 749,153,538 -- about a million times more accurate!

I have always wondered who wrote the logarithm tables, and how.
Anyway, they say you can do square and cubic roots on an abacus which
is probably what he used (and which, in a way, amounts to the five
fingers on a couple of hands -- amazing).

klaus

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

> I'm beginning to think Isacoff wrote his whole book in
> one sitting at a coffee shop!
>
> <snip>
>
> Isacoff's claim for Tsai-yü's fifth, 749/500, would give
> the length for F as 749,000,000; Barbour gives Tsai-yü's
> relevant figure as 749,153,538 -- about a million times
> more accurate!

A website community i joined a few months ago has a section
on each member's profile for "Last Book Read", and i had
just borrowed a copy of Isacoff's _Temperament_ from an
adult student and read it (in about 3 visits to the bathroom).
Here's what i wrote about it:

Last Book Read:
>> "Temperament" by Stuart Isacoff. It's a good popular
>> treatment of a highly technical subject ... but i know
>> a lot more about it than he does, so it was mostly
>> entertainment for me.

I think the best thing in it was the historical background
he gave on how visual artists developed the geometry of
perspective, and how that related to what tuning theorists
were doing in music at the same time (late Medieval /
early Renaissance).

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:

> I have always wondered who wrote the logarithm tables, and how.

It goes back to Joost Burgi and John Napier; interestingly log base 10
took a while to be discovered, despite the fact that once you have
natural logs they are easily found. The first tables of logarithms
were calculated using high powers of numbers very close to 1.

> Anyway, they say you can do square and cubic roots on an abacus which
> is probably what he used (and which, in a way, amounts to the five
> fingers on a couple of hands -- amazing).

Square and cube roots would be easier with iterative methods on an
abacus but I don't know if the Chinese knew that.