Re: Acoustic Instrument Fallacy

Bill - you bring up a very interesting general topic. My own interest is in just intonation on acoustic instruments, and I have just finally progressed to the composing stage, after years of acquiring information (mostly anecdotal, and from all sorts of sources) and working up the nerve.
My own position, based on empirical observation, is that theoretical/acoustical objections to JI on acoustic instruments are vastly overstated. Acoustic instruments can clearly project intervals up to at least a 13 limit, regardless of the decimal points, phase shifting, etc. A few examples : in Ben Johnston's Suite for Microtonal Piano (which has been recorded) intervals of 7 & 11 are clear and convincing (the tuning is actually 19-limit); brass instruments can more or less easily play up to at least 13 (up to 23 on horn) (also, valves can be tuned subharmonically, e.g. to give 1/16:1/17:1/18...1/22); on my cello (which I just got last month) I can reach the 31st harmonic, intervals of 11 & 13 are clearly consonant, and I've even been able to tune a 17:1 beat-free.
Complexity and voicing of the interval applies, of course; an 11:4 is much easier to tune than an 11:9, etc. Doubtlessly there are limitations, also - I've heard chords like 11:13:15:17:19 sound audibly beat-free electronically, but it may be a bit of a stretch for acoustic instruments! Even then, it might work on harpsichord, or on French horns (with enough rehearsal).
I don't recall if you mentioned your instrument or resources; thanks to the miracle of internet wholesale you can get a cello for $250 or an alto or baritone horn for c. $100 - if its within your means, I'd highly recommend picking up whatever you can make a sound on and start exploring!
Chris

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:49:38 -0000
From: "Bill Flavell"
Subject: Acoustic Instrument Fallacy? (timbral "richness" vs tuning accuracy):

With all due respect to the alleged pioneers and
innovators of alternative tuning systems, and, adding
the caveat that I have a woefully restricted listening
background in regard to alternative tunings (having
only heard a couple of snatches of some Harry Partch
music via what I'm sure was a combination of both a
mediocre PC sound card and set of headphones), I
can't help but wonder how the alleged superiority of
any alternative tuning system can possibly be perceived,
when that tuning system is embodied in an analog
acoustical instrument, which is subject to the
expansion/contraction cycles of the changing temperature
and humidity (among who knows what other factors) of
the physical universe.

And I don't mean to "beat up on" alternative tuning
systems enthusiasts in particular, either, since the
psychopathological fetshisation of acoustic instruments
is certainly the norm in 12TET music performance, theory,
and education also. But I do consider this mailing list to be
concerned with the loftiest and most general principles
of musical aesthetics, and the most general principles
will of necessity be non-tuning-system-specific.

I just thought I'd put my 2 cents worth out there and see
if anybody else had contemplated on these issues or not.

Bill Flavell

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
Skip the bars and set-ups and start using Yahoo! Personals for free

Thanks very much for the response, Christopher.

Bill Flavell

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher John Smith
<christopherjohn_smith@y...> wrote:
>
> Bill - you bring up a very interesting general topic. My own
interest is in just intonation on acoustic instruments, and I have
just finally progressed to the composing stage, after years of
acquiring information (mostly anecdotal, and from all sorts of
sources) and working up the nerve.
> My own position, based on empirical observation, is that
theoretical/acoustical objections to JI on acoustic instruments are
vastly overstated. Acoustic instruments can clearly project intervals
up to at least a 13 limit, regardless of the decimal points, phase
shifting, etc. A few examples : in Ben Johnston's Suite for
Microtonal Piano (which has been recorded) intervals of 7 & 11 are
clear and convincing (the tuning is actually 19-limit); brass
instruments can more or less easily play up to at least 13 (up to 23
on horn) (also, valves can be tuned subharmonically, e.g. to give
1/16:1/17:1/18...1/22); on my cello (which I just got last month) I
can reach the 31st harmonic, intervals of 11 & 13 are clearly
consonant, and I've even been able to tune a 17:1 beat-free.
> Complexity and voicing of the interval applies, of course; an
11:4 is much easier to tune than an 11:9, etc. Doubtlessly there are
limitations, also - I've heard chords like 11:13:15:17:19 sound
audibly beat-free electronically, but it may be a bit of a stretch
for acoustic instruments! Even then, it might work on harpsichord, or
on French horns (with enough rehearsal).
> I don't recall if you mentioned your instrument or resources;
thanks to the miracle of internet wholesale you can get a cello for
$250 or an alto or baritone horn for c. $100 - if its within your
means, I'd highly recommend picking up whatever you can make a sound
on and start exploring!
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:49:38 -0000
> From: "Bill Flavell"
> Subject: Acoustic Instrument Fallacy? (timbral "richness" vs tuning
accuracy):
>
>
> With all due respect to the alleged pioneers and
> innovators of alternative tuning systems, and, adding
> the caveat that I have a woefully restricted listening
> background in regard to alternative tunings (having
> only heard a couple of snatches of some Harry Partch
> music via what I'm sure was a combination of both a
> mediocre PC sound card and set of headphones), I
> can't help but wonder how the alleged superiority of
> any alternative tuning system can possibly be perceived,
> when that tuning system is embodied in an analog
> acoustical instrument, which is subject to the
> expansion/contraction cycles of the changing temperature
> and humidity (among who knows what other factors) of
> the physical universe.
>
> And I don't mean to "beat up on" alternative tuning
> systems enthusiasts in particular, either, since the
> psychopathological fetshisation of acoustic instruments
> is certainly the norm in 12TET music performance, theory,
> and education also. But I do consider this mailing list to be
> concerned with the loftiest and most general principles
> of musical aesthetics, and the most general principles
> will of necessity be non-tuning-system-specific.
>
> I just thought I'd put my 2 cents worth out there and see
> if anybody else had contemplated on these issues or not.
>
>
> Bill Flavell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Personals
> Skip the bars and set-ups and start using Yahoo! Personals for free
>