Re: [tuning] more on srutis

If I may add a minority view (and one I have expressed previously on this list, if long ago), I believe that it is be instructive to take a step back from centuries, if not millenia, of attempts to precisely quantify both srutis and Aristoxenean parts as either rational or equally-sized units, with the contrapuntal din of ages of musicians complaining that they "don't think of music in that way".

Instead, perhaps both srutis and the Aristoxenean parts can be better heard as conceptual units, with a strict order, but not precise sizes beyond the framework of octaves and/or fifths and/or (tetrachord-defining) fourths. As far as I can tell, this would then conform more closely to both the theoretical projects of Aristonexenus and his immediately followers and to those found in most tradional Indian music theory (quote Partch quoting Ellis: "Indian treatises 'ostentatiously eschew arithmetic'") as well as contemporary performance practice, whether in Dehli, Chennai or in the Greek Orthodox Church.

I'm not a mathematician, but I suspect that a viewpoint like this -- ordered but not strictly quantified -- is an interesting one in its own right. (And I stand by my earlier remark, that Aristoxenus is a much more interesting read if you don't think of him as a scale collector (Ptolemy is definitely more interesting there) but rather as the first psychoacoustician).

Monochords and their mechanical or electronic successors have never been difficult to obtain, yet projects describing the pitches used by real musicians without resource to these measuring devices have been a constant in both music theory and in the transmission of music. While it may be possible that same rational or equal-unit approach could satisfactorily interpret the 22 srutis or the Aristoxenean parts of a fourth, I think that we ought also take these projects more literally as explanations that find advantage outside of such measurements.

DJW

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...> wrote:

> I'm not a mathematician, but I suspect that a viewpoint like this --
> ordered but not strictly quantified -- is an interesting one in its own
> right.

It sounds interesting but I don't know what it means. It brings to
mind things like the various well-temperament scales.

Would srutis be "ordered but not quantified" if it were always true
that 13 srutis gave something which serves as a fifth? If so,
Bosanquet's guess that srutis are all more or less equal in a rough
kind of way would be true. One could then have fun proposing
circulating temperament versions. But if it is true, you cannot get
away from temperament.

> Monochords and their mechanical or electronic successors have never
been
> difficult to obtain, yet projects describing the pitches used by real
> musicians without resource to these measuring devices have been a
> constant in both music theory and in the transmission of music.

Some mathematical features emerge without them. You know the
Babylonians appeared to be using some sort of diatonic scale if you
discover that they tuned up a circle of major or minor thirds, which
was also a chain of fifths with one "wolf" tritone tossed in. You
don't need any monochords to determine that much. In the same way, if
13 of the old, authentic srutis *always* made up a fifth, there are
severe constraints on what they could have been like, monochords or no
monochords.

Hi Daniel and Gene, thanks for your messages.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...> wrote:

>> I'm not a mathematician, but I suspect that a viewpoint like this --
>> ordered but not strictly quantified -- is an interesting one in its own
>> right.

[Gene:]
> It sounds interesting but I don't know what it means. It brings to
mind things like the various well-temperament scales.

Would srutis be "ordered but not quantified" if it were always true
that 13 srutis gave something which serves as a fifth? If so,
Bosanquet's guess that srutis are all more or less equal in a rough
kind of way would be true. One could then have fun proposing
circulating temperament versions. But if it is true, you cannot get
away from temperament. >>>>

When sung (or played), shruti-s are ORDERED BUT NOT QUANTIFIED.
But, during analysis, during their study as a part of
tuning/temperament, shruti-s are BOTH ORDERED AND QUANTIFIED.
Theoretical discussion freezes a particular scenario; while singing
the shruti-s is a constantly changing picture. The first is theory,
the latter, aesthetics. The first is in isolation, the second is a
part of a dynamic process. Each has a valid place.

Let me illustrate this speculation with an example:

Think of the region between, and including, Sa and Re [we may call
them C and D.] This implies the following part of the modern Indian gamut
1/1
256/243 (though 135/128 is 2 cents away) [Thanks, Paul.]
16/15
10/9
9/8

Thus, we have five (or six) intervals selected out of 'infinity'.
Now we listen to the singer singing in this same range. His choice of
'Re' is NOT guided by any of those ratios: his choice depends upon
several factors which are not included in the picture presented by
those ratios -- like, the raga, the notes around Re, glissando,
aesthetic taste, even his gharana, the note(s) he stays on before
entering our selected region, the cluster of notes he executes in
keeping with the raga structure, etc. In effect, he touches several
other intervals (they are shruti-s, too) not included in our set,
staying on those other intervals for a short enough time so as not to
sound 'off-key' (this is what we do in any glissando and other similar
embellishments).

Compare Db of the raga Todi with the Db of, say, Bhairava. Here, the
singer, intuitively, selects a lower Db for Todi, compared to Db of
Bhairava. He is guided not by the intervals, but by other conditions
mentioned above.

If this sounds obstruse, for lack of lucidity on my part, I am willing
to present it differently.

Regards,
Haresh.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Haresh BAKSHI" <hareshbakshi@...> wrote:
> Let me illustrate this speculation with an example:
> Think of the region between, and including, Sa and Re [we may call
> them C and D.] This implies the following part of the modern Indian
>gamut
> 1/1
> 256/243 (though 135/128 is 2 cents away) [Thanks, Paul.]
> 16/15
> 10/9
> 9/8
>
define in Bosanquet-Helmholtz terms an further accidentials "/"
for the Pythagorean comma PC too, as already for the apotme "#",
and their reverses: "\" and "b":

"#":= 2187/2048 = 3^7/2^11 Pyth. apotome sharp elevation
"b":= 1/"#" = 2^11/3^7 reverse apotome

"/":= 513441/528244 = 3^12/2^19 Bosanquets comma "elevation"
"\":= 1/"/" = 2^19/3^12 Bosanquets reverse comma "depression"

also define as:
"s":=32805/32768=5*3^8/2^15 the schisma PC/SC with SC=81/80

and the cocomma:
"%" := 2^65/3^41 ~19.8..cents (to be read as interval, not percent)

according Philolaos we have then 9 commata
steps inbeween 1/1 to the 2nd tone: Sa=1/1=C>D=9/8=Re
signature: Sa//%////%//Re

00 C = 1/1 or Sa
/1 C/
/2 C//
%3 Db\
/4 Db = 256/243 = 2^8/5^3 = (135/128)/s the limma: #\=///%
/5 C# = 2187/2048 = (16/15)*s
/6 C#/
%7 D\\
/8 D\ = 65536/59049 = 2^16/3^10 = (10/9)/s
/9 D = 9/8 or Re
...
/22 F = 4/3
...
/31 G = 3/2
...
/49 B = 243/128
/50 B/
%51 C\\' ~B// rem: (/)/(%)=(B//)/(C//')=3^53/2^84 ~3.6...cents
/52 C\'
/53 C' = 2 or Sa'

0..........9..........18...22.........31.........40.........49...53
C//%////%//D//%////%//E/%//F//%////%//G//%////%//A//%////%//B/%//C'
0..........9..........18...22.........31.........40.........49...53

or
00 C //%////%//
09 D //%////%//
18 E /%// limma
22 F //%////%//
31 G //%////%//
40 A //%////%//
49 B /%// limma
53 C'

or al Farabis 17 out of 53 gamut with 12 times l(imma)=256/243=#\=///%
and 5 times the /=PC as scale steps:

_ 00 C
l 04 Db
/ 05 C#
l 09 D
l 13 Eb
/ 14 D#
l 18 E
l 22 F
l 26 Gb
/ 27 F#
l 31 G
l 35 Ab
/ 36 G#
l 40 A
l 44 Gb
/ 45 A#
l 49 B
l 53 C'

Consider that only 22 shrutis do not cover all 53 steps,
like in the smaller division of the octave 2 = limma^12 * PC^5
into the traditional 17 steps of al Farabi.
hence:
Some of the single shrutis contain some few commata steps,
depending on their different seize like:
1. limma: #\=///%
2. tripe comma combinations: /// or //%
3. double comma: // or /%
4. /

The complete Pythagorean 53 scale consists all in all
of 41 PCs "/" and 12 cocommata "%" total:

Proof: /^41 * %^12 = 2

Watch the 12 % cocommatic steps located at:
%2>3 C//>Db\
%6>7 C#/>D\\
%...
%50>51 B/>C\\'

0..........9..........18...22.........31.........40.........49...53
C//%////%//D//%////%//E/%//F//%////%//G//%////%//A//%////%//B/%//C'
...^....^.....^....^....^.....^....^.....^....^.....^....^....^....

all other 41 (...dotted...) steps amount an "/"=PC.

I.m.o:
May be perhaps that: Bahrata considered probably already
the complete 53 system as to much complicated
for his contemporaries, as i do that still too,
so he limited his concept down to an lower number:
say 22 shrutis, somehow like the old ottomanian maquam gamuts
use local different subsets of 53, that are still in use.

Bosanquets "/" & "\" comma "up" & "down" accidentials notation
system suits well for the ancient 53 system of Philolaous,
Bahrata and Jing Fang if extended by % the cocomma ^2^65/3^41,
leading to the 53-comma:
(/)/(%)=(B//)/(C//')=3^53/2^84 ~3.6...cents

Cave, but:
He and Helmholtz used the 2-limit-53et approximation of that
instead real 3-limit-53, so they used the symbols / and \ as:

"/":=2^(1/53) with 1200cents/53 = ~ 22.6415094....cents
"\":=1/("/")

identifing /=% as equal.
In that 2-limit-53et all 53 5ths
amount 2^(31/53)= ~1.4999409...
as ordinary approximation of 1.5=3/2

kind regards
A.S.

One has only to make a monochord to see how easily things can go eschew. even with the precision of one like Colvig's which i have had access to, the variation compared to a tuned can be discerned. I would support you notion here as such theoretical ideas were in conjunct with actual hearing , or oral tradition.
even with a completely accurate monochord Aristoxenean ideas could be interpreted as a subharmonic series.
On the music of India , it is hard for me not to speculate that the music of neighboring cultures to the east , having under gone extensive Hindu influence, might not have gotten their tunings from India in the first place or some area within. If these are the result of such influence, we have reason to believe that the tuning of at least areas of India have a history in tuning which is now lost.
> Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:29:16 +0100
> From: Daniel Wolf <djwolf@snafu.de>
> Subject: Re: more on srutis
>
> If I may add a minority view (and one I have expressed previously on > this list, if long ago), I believe that it is be instructive to take a > step back from centuries, if not millenia, of attempts to precisely > quantify both srutis and Aristoxenean parts as either rational or > equally-sized units, with the contrapuntal din of ages of musicians > complaining that they "don't think of music in that way".
>
> Instead, perhaps both srutis and the Aristoxenean parts can be better > heard as conceptual units, with a strict order, but not precise sizes > beyond the framework of octaves and/or fifths and/or > (tetrachord-defining) fourths. As far as I can tell, this would then > conform more closely to both the theoretical projects of Aristonexenus > and his immediately followers and to those found in most tradional > Indian music theory (quote Partch quoting Ellis: "Indian treatises > 'ostentatiously eschew arithmetic'") as well as contemporary performance > practice, whether in Dehli, Chennai or in the Greek Orthodox Church.
>
> I'm not a mathematician, but I suspect that a viewpoint like this -- > ordered but not strictly quantified -- is an interesting one in its own > right. (And I stand by my earlier remark, that Aristoxenus is a much > more interesting read if you don't think of him as a scale collector > (Ptolemy is definitely more interesting there) but rather as the first > psychoacoustician).
>
> Monochords and their mechanical or electronic successors have never been > difficult to obtain, yet projects describing the pitches used by real > musicians without resource to these measuring devices have been a > constant in both music theory and in the transmission of music. While it > may be possible that same rational or equal-unit approach could > satisfactorily interpret the 22 srutis or the Aristoxenean parts of a > fourth, I think that we ought also take these projects more literally as > explanations that find advantage outside of such measurements.
>
> DJW
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:39:47 +0000
> From: Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: How do microtonal people hear?
>
> Jon Szanto wrote:
> >> Graham,
>>
>> Great post, lots of personal insights into your musical soul (so to
>> speak...)
>> >
> Why thank you! I notice I'd made two posts that seemed to agree with > what Neil had said while I was offline. I count that as a good sign :)
>
> >>> What I seem to have is an unusual desire >>> to persist with unfamiliar music until is stops sounding like a racket. >>> Maybe that's something we share, and have to expect from our
>>> >> listeners.
>>
>> The music you make has to please and communicate with you first,
>> before anyone else. All you can expect from listeners is a listen, and
>> if the music you make is honest, you will find the right people who
>> will like it. As to something we share, it certainly is a very small
>> niche in the larger experience, and it probably isn't fruitful to
>> expect masses of people liking the particular music that you (or I)
>> happen to like. When I compose, I usually can't imagine others liking
>> it (at least in the way that I do), and when positively received it is
>> an awfully nice surprise.
>> >
> I don't agree with your first point. Solitary music making's an > unusual, and maybe perverted activity. Music's a part of a wide range > of communal activities. You can easily look at it as a tool for > bringing people together. If microtonality acts as a barrier between me > and other people I know with an interest in music then it's a problem. > It's a problem that goes to the heart of what music making should be about.
>
> OTOH, as I've changed jobs and homes so much in the past few years, the > largely online microtonal community is the most enduring one in my life > beyond my family. So that's worth thinking about as well.
>
> >>> How should we manipulate the context?
>>> >> Well, I don't look at it that way, nor do I view my writing as
>> composing in some way to justify the use of microtones. I use them
>> when they seem like the only way to express what I want to express.
>> >
> I got interested in microtonality because I thought I could use it to > make better music. Because music's a subjective thing that means other > people have to agree. If microtonality's something that means people > like my music less (i.e. it's worse in their subjectivity) then it's a > waste of time. If I thought I could make better music in 12-equal then > I'd do that. It'd be a lot less trouble. Leave microtonlity as > theory-only. Or maybe produce microtonal music for my own pleasure and > round everything off to 12 notes before I make it public. I'd much > rather keep working on good microtonal music, so that it sounds better > than anything I could have done otherwise. That means I have to think > about how people are actually going to hear it.
>
> >>> It'd be super if I could learn from the experience of my betters but I >>> really don't know how other people have approached this problem.
>>> >> I'd say one would want to view music creation on a larger scale, and
>> not simply "how does everyone else make music out of microtones". If
>> that is the only tack you take, it is probably going to sound just
>> like the description, instead of an inevitable result of a creative act.
>> >
> I'm not interested in how people do it, but how they've been successful > in doing it. How do you make explicitly microtonal music that a naive > (but open minded) listener can understand on a first hearing? Or, > alternatively, how do you make microtonal music that sounds good?
>
> There are standard techniques in all the enduring classical traditions I > know of that help listeners to understand the tonal structure of the > music they're listening to. And this usually assumes those listeners > will be familiar with the particular style. How much more important to > make listeners understand an unfamiliar harmonic style!
>
>
> Graham
>
> >> Cheers,
>> Jon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:56:53 +0100
> From: klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>
> Subject: Re: Re: van halen on guitar tuning
>
> monz wrote:
>
> >> Hi klaus (and Paul),
>>
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
>>
>> >>> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >>>> P.S. Why is there an accent on the *silent* e in "barr�"? Clearly >>>> this isn't French . . . (?)
>>>> >>> It is, and it's not silent. It doesn' mean "bar", but "barred".
>>> >>
>>
>> Ah, thanks for that ... so then it's us ignorant Americans
>> who call pronounce it "bar kord" -- every heavy-metal guitarist
>> i've ever known (and i've known *several*) prounounces it >> that way.
>> >
> remember when it's happened: i'm the one who introduced the > "beret chord" into american music.
>
> klaus
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:47:58 +0100
> From: Petr Par�zek <p.parizek@chello.cz>
> Subject: Jeste jedno upresnen�
>
> Oprava.
> Kdyz to nekomu posles, jako pr�m� odes�latel tam samozrejme budes Ty. Ale
> uvnitr toho textu bude naps�no, ze puvodn� zpr�va prisla od Sarny.
> Petr
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:51:27 +0100
> From: Petr Pa��zek <p.parizek@chello.cz>
> Subject: An apology
>
> Hi all.
> If you see a mail in Czech from me, it's because of a mistake I've made. The
> last mail I've sent, of course, should have been sent to a totally different
> destination, not to the list. Sorry for that.
> Petr
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:46:35 -0000
> From: "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@cox.net>
> Subject: Composing the tiny notes (was Re: How do microtonal people hear?)
>
> Graham,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> >> I don't agree with your first point. Solitary music making's an >> unusual, and maybe perverted activity.
>> >
> Oh, I don't know that's really the case, and I'm speaking of just one
> activity: composing. There have been an awful lot of composers over
> the millenia, and rarely were they doing group efforts. I acknowledge,
> and take part in, a lot of other music activities, including
> improvisatory music that *does* occur with others. But to write music,
> in the quietude of one's environment, to be shared later, doesn't seem
> that perverted to me.
>
>
> >> Music's a part of a wide range of communal activities. >> You can easily look at it as a tool for >> bringing people together.
>> >
> Certainly.
>
> >> If microtonality acts as a barrier between me >> and other people I know with an interest in music then it's a problem. >> It's a problem that goes to the heart of what music making should be
>> > about.
>
> But you don't know for sure that it is the microtonality that is
> putting them off, do you? If the people you are concerned with
> reaching have 12tet as a lingua franca, the only way you are going to
> be allowed to fret (no pun intended) over your success is if you also
> managed to alienate (or bore) them with some 12tet music. Have you
> played them anything you wrote that *wasn't* microtonal?
>
> >> OTOH, as I've changed jobs and homes so much in the past few years, the >> largely online microtonal community is the most enduring one in my life >> beyond my family. So that's worth thinking about as well.
>> >
> As you choose.
>
> >> I got interested in microtonality because I thought I could use it to >> make better music. Because music's a subjective thing that means other >> people have to agree.
>> >
> Are *you* happy with the music you've made?
>
> >> I'd much >> rather keep working on good microtonal music, so that it sounds better >> than anything I could have done otherwise. That means I have to think >> about how people are actually going to hear it.
>> >
> Well, Graham, I guess we have to depart a bit: I honestly think you
> are selling short your own experience. It almost sounds like it is
> inconsequential as to whether you yourself enjoy the music, so long as
> it pleases others. That sounds like a recipe for profound regret, or
> at the very least a diminution of your talents into a common
> denominator market.
>
> >> How do you make explicitly microtonal music that a naive >> (but open minded) listener can understand on a first hearing? Or, >> alternatively, how do you make microtonal music that sounds good?
>> >
> Well, I don't have an answer. I have to say that, if your most
> enduring community has been this list (and derivatives), you may have
> been tainted by some of the thinking. I don't say that in a
> mean-spirited way, but if the entire or main focus of creating a piece
> is to explicitly thrust the microtonal nature of the fabric to the
> forefront, without considering the many other aspects of a
> communicative music, you are looking at a very small chance of
> pleasing people. "These are microtones, eat them, they're good for you!"
>
> >> How much more important to >> make listeners understand an unfamiliar harmonic style!
>> >
> That makes a good question: just how much more *important*? Frankly, I
> don't listen to music just for some harmonic content - that harmonic
> content is a servant in a bigger task.
>
> You might (I said _might_, I'm not sure) find interest in reading the
> musings of people who are active in composition on a daily or regular
> basis, and just stand back and see how they approach some of your
> situations. I imagine there are forums or blogs for popular
> composers/performers, but one place I check occasionally are the
> discussions at Sequenza 21:
>
> http://www.sequenza21.com/
>
> Best,
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:55:00 -0000
> From: "Haresh BAKSHI" <hareshbakshi@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: More on shruti-s
>
> Dear Ozan, thanks for your input.
>
> With moorchchhana-s replaced by raga-s, and with the Tanpura now an
> integral part in Hindustani music, even a semblance of modulation is
> ruled out.
>
> A fourth or a fifth above the fundamental certainly may become a kind
> of tonal center around which raga patterns are woven for elaboration
> and improvisation; but such activity, however intense, continues to
> exist only in relation to the fundamental (streaming from the Tanpura).
>
> However, the more important centers in a raga are its Sonant note
> (vaadi) and Consonant note (samvaadi). During improvisation, note
> patterns are woven around these two notes. Vaadi and Samvaadi do not
> necessarily bear a fourth or fifth relationship with the fundamental.
> But they do bear such relationship between themselves. Let me give an
> example:
>
> Take a raga, say, Yaman. Sa Re Ga Ma# Pa Dha Ni. Here Ga is the Sonant
> and Ni is the Consonant. Neither has the fourth or fifth relationship
> with Sa; but they have the fifth relationship between themselves.
> For a modulation to take place, Ga or Ni should be treated as the new
> fundamental (Sa). But this never happens. If this were to happen, the
> intervallic relationship among the various notes would be changed, and
> the raga would no more sound the same.
>
> Regards,
> Haresh. >
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
> >> Haresh, what about modulations of the tetrachord - however scarce -
>> > a fourth
> >> or a fifth above the fundamental tone? That would be enough
>> > information to
> >> deterimine the key.
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Ozan
>>
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:03:10 -0500
> From: Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>
> Subject: Bach/Lehman temperament - getting the Early Music article
>
>
> >> From: prophecyspirit@aol.com
>> http://www.goshen.edu/news/pressarchive/04-20-05-bach-temper.html
>> Your link led me to more links on the subject:
>>
>> Bradley Lehman Feb & May 2005 articles on Bach's temperament
>> Click here: Early Music -- Search Result
>> I didn't read these PDFs, as I had to register.
>> >
>
> Pauline and others: the complete paper is available for free download > through the page:
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/outline.html
> There are seven component PDF files to it: the two large main halves, > and the five "web supplements" on Oxford's web site.
>
> Oxford provides that courtesy free-download link for an article's > author to use on his/her own web site, to promote the material and > encourage inquiry traffic back to OUP. Hence my permission to link > to them in this way.
>
> Recordings:
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/recordings.html
>
> FAQ (3 web pages):
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/faq.html
>
>
> Bradley Lehman
> http://www.larips.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:34:43 +0200
> From: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: More on shruti-s
>
> Dear Haresh, can you provide the cent values of the principal scale of the
> Raga Yaman? I believe I may draw some parallels with Maqam Penchgah.
>
> Still, we may not be referring to the same phenomenon when we speak of
> modulation. There are many Maqams that modulate (repeat their tetrachordal
> or pentachordal structure over the other degrees of their principal scale)
> and I suspect that Ragas are not much different in that respect.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Haresh BAKSHI" <hareshbakshi@hotmail.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 01 �ubat 2006 �ar�amba 18:55
> Subject: [tuning] Re: More on shruti-s
>
>
> >> Dear Ozan, thanks for your input.
>>
>> With moorchchhana-s replaced by raga-s, and with the Tanpura now an
>> integral part in Hindustani music, even a semblance of modulation is
>> ruled out.
>>
>> A fourth or a fifth above the fundamental certainly may become a kind
>> of tonal center around which raga patterns are woven for elaboration
>> and improvisation; but such activity, however intense, continues to
>> exist only in relation to the fundamental (streaming from the Tanpura).
>>
>> However, the more important centers in a raga are its Sonant note
>> (vaadi) and Consonant note (samvaadi). During improvisation, note
>> patterns are woven around these two notes. Vaadi and Samvaadi do not
>> necessarily bear a fourth or fifth relationship with the fundamental.
>> But they do bear such relationship between themselves. Let me give an
>> example:
>>
>> Take a raga, say, Yaman. Sa Re Ga Ma# Pa Dha Ni. Here Ga is the Sonant
>> and Ni is the Consonant. Neither has the fourth or fifth relationship
>> with Sa; but they have the fifth relationship between themselves.
>> For a modulation to take place, Ga or Ni should be treated as the new
>> fundamental (Sa). But this never happens. If this were to happen, the
>> intervallic relationship among the various notes would be changed, and
>> the raga would no more sound the same.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Haresh.
>>
>> >
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:55:42 -0000
> From: "a_sparschuh" <a_sparschuh@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Lehmans questionable "Rosetta-Stone" Temperment , the origins and sources
>
> >> Dear Pauline,
>> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, prophecyspirit@a... wrote:
> > Goshen College alum solves Bach's temperamental puzzle;
> >> http://www.goshen.edu/news/pressarchive/04-20-05-bach-temper.html
>> > :...."Then in March 2004, Lehman received an e-mail message from > British harpsichord and clavichord enthusiast David Hitchin who > reported that two German researchers suggested that the drawing might > be a clue to a temperament. But Lehman felt the temperament that the > Germans were proposing didn't make sense"......for himself in
> his own mind and private opinion, that i do fully respect.
> So he decided to avoid referring to the original source paper
> of the year 1998, that he knew, but didn't liked,
> availbale on:
> http://www.strukturbildung.de/Andreas.Sparschuh/
> http://homepages.bw.edu/bachbib/script/bach1.pl?0=Sparschuh,%20Andreas
>
> All other autors before Lehman refer to that initial first work on > Bach squiggels in citeting my paper correctly until in 2005
> "Rosetta-stone" as an further reinterpretation appeared,
> by neglecting academic citation standards,
> that other scientists urgently need in order to identify the primary > sources.
>
> http://lists2.wu-wien.ac.at/pipermail/earlyml/2005December/002271.html
> /tuning/topicId_59217.html#59217
> the former president of the german clavichord soc.:
> Michael Zapf comments such an behaviour adaequate:
> "This, and his complete omission of
> Andreas Sparschuh's name and discovery in the Early
> Music article makes him a plagiarizer, nothing less."
> http://clavichord.info/engl/23bre1e.htm
>
> >> It was very interesting.... too,
>> > how Oxford University Press reacted on that complete flop,
> presenting proudly Lehmans remake as theirs world premiere debut
> performance as first Bach WTC squiggle discovery interpretation > in theirs "unrivaled" journal Early-Music.
> >> He wrote his tuning method on his Well-tempered music so it made no >> > sense to > >> others outside his family. And no one till Bradley Lehman very >> > recently in > >> 2005 was able to decipher it!
>> >
> Amazingly:
> Alone one single man worldwide alone claims to assert that fiction
> in his own individual private point of view still again and again,
> that exclusively only he, but nobody else too,
> could have been so far able to find his "Rosetta-stone" version > reconstruction, even after centuries,
> that Bach one had tuned his WTC just in his strange way.
> That person seems to consider evidently that nobody else
> would be apt enough to do that too, as he assumes about himself.
>
> Look, to confirm that in:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-Tempered_Clavier
> for the historys background.
> Sorry, excuse-moi : but i.m.o. there is no cure for that. Pardon!
> All we can do here is: regarding his insights respectfully with
> demanded carefullness and file his meanwhile obsolete pamphlet for > storing aside ad acta, > in order to get rid -by applying occams razor- from superfluous > versions, that can be evidently excluded as ahistorical neobaroque > fake without any relevance.
>
> >> Bach's Well-temperament would play in 12 major and >> minor keys. But differently than was supposed. It was neither >> Meantone (MT), >> Werckmeister (WM), nor Equal Temperament (ET). Today it's properly >> called >> Bach/Lehman Temperament (BLT).
>> > Correct labeld:
> Lehmans Reinterpretation Try (LRT) of at least 3 prior other works.
>
> >> 0, -1/12 (1.792 cents) and -1/6 (3.584 cents) comma (21.506 cents) >> > subtracted > >> from equal-tempered intervals were used. >>
>> Bach didn't write the cents.
>> > never!
> >> Neither did Lehman give them on his page below. >> Neither did the pipe organ firm give the numbers which tuned a pipe >> organ to >> Bach/Lehman.
>> > I asked in an email the organ builders Boody&Talor for that too
> futile to get at least some absoulte frequencies or according > relative beating rates, as i tryed already six months ago: > After all my effords: No reply.
> All attempts were to no avail.
> Has anybody else here the concrete frequencies of T&Bs op.41 > avialable? > It seems that they try to hide their values so much secret that
> they probably do not anymore know themselfes how they had really > detuned the instrument anyhow in an other way than specified,
> as in "Rosetta"
>
> So far as my associctated professional organ tuner colleagues report
> from listening about records of the organ op.41:
> Many intervals deviate from the "Rosetta" own specification.
> The defects actual tuning needs touching up amendmend. >
> But in any case i do recommend strongly to retune back the instument:
> http://www.etruth.com/News/Content.aspx?ID=344215&page=
> "Opus 41, the organ in the Rieth Recital Hall at Goshen College, was > originally set to be tuned using the Bach-Kellner system"
> because it sounds weak in the actual somehow applied actual PC^(1/6) > sound espeically in the mainly used major 3rds turn out worser than > in the formery intended
> superior Kellner PC^(1/5) as formerly planed a priori by the > experts in organ acustics.
> > May be that aggravation in worsening the 3rds
> is one reason among others to refuse us to communicate
> any secrete frequenies or arcane beating-ratios.
> That looks only vague without knowinh the real > concrete beating rates in practice, like preciesely given in
> Silbermanns instructions in counts of pulse-heart-beatings at
> of 60 strokes/sec specified each peciesely for the individual > labeld 5ths in the circle, easily to determine from his work-sheet.
>
> >> I calculated them here to the 3rd decimal point. Since I'm >> experimenting with Just Intonation *JI), I'm used to calculating >> > pitches and > >> intervals.
>>
>> With Bach's scale each key has its own characteristic sound.
>>
>> Notes/keys C, C#(Db), D, Eb(D#), >> > E, F, > >> Cents -3.584 98.208 196.416 298.202 400 496.416
>> Notes/keys F#(Gb), G, G#(Ab), A, (A#)
>> > Bb, B.
> >> 600 696.416 798.208 896.416 >> > 998.208 1100
> >> Major 3rds vary +/- 400 cents. Minor 7ths are large..
>> > so far the "Rosetta" theory, > but my best students identified T&B as Kellners PC^(1/5) by ear.
> One needs an spectum analyzer to verify that scientifical,
> but i found yet nobody conisdering it worth wasting time > to determine the concrete detuning. > >> Bradley Lehman Feb & May 2005 articles on Bach's temperament
>> Click here: Early Music -- Search Result
>> I didn't read these PDFs, as I had to register.
>> > Because OUP demands money for downloading?
> >> Click here: larips.com Bradley Lehman's page
>>
>> Click here: Goshen College Music Center: Opus 41 Pipe Organ
>> Only pipe organ tuned to Bach's tuning...
>> > ....only in Lehmans claim.
> How would Bach comment that tiny ~2cents sharp meantonic tamed mini-
> wolf, called "Dackel-sousage-dog-5th" A#>F amouning ~704 cents wide?
> disposed in Werckmeister #3 in 1681, already 4 years before
> Bachs birth in 1685. The documents reports that Bach critizied
> Gottfied Silbermann for the dackel-5th G#>Eb in Freiberg chathedral
> organ, playin it so long until Silbermann absconded anyoed
> out of the the church.
> Why should Bach went back again to Arnold Schlicks
> 1511 obsolete tuning-base tone F ear intstead using the common
> A=~410Hz cammerthone on A tuning forks, like for instance
> Pascal Taskin, harpsichord builder, Paris opera and chapelle du roi,
> and generally applied in Hamburgs contemporary organs.
> Does anybody anybody know here about the existence of an baroque F-
> tuning fork, where "Rosetta-tuning" starts and ends?
> like in Alexander Ellis "History of musical pitch" many A-forks.
>
> >> However interesting Bach's tuning ... ????
>> > one gets from the 1998 standard interpretation
>
> _____1/1_______ == 1
> C#__132/125____ == 1.056
> D____28/25_____ == 1.12
> Eb__297/250____ == 1.188
> E___157/125____ == 1.256
> F___667/500____ == 1.334
> F#__176/125____ == 1.408
> G___187/125____ == 1.496
> G#__198/125____ == 1.584
> A____42/25_____ == 1.68
> Bb___89/50_____ == 1.78
> B____47/25_____ == 1.88
> C'___ 2/1______ == 2
>
> by a dozen arbitrary chosen transition-factors(in lower case letters)
>
> c#:==2^(11/3)_*3^-2*5^3/11_~= 1.00214... ~+0.21 % ~+3.7C worst-sh.
> _d:==2^(4/3)__*3^-2*5^2/7__~= 0.99994... ~-0.006% ~-0.1C best-fl.
> eb:==2^(17/6)_*3^-4*5^3/11_~= 0.99989... ~-0.011% ~-0.1C flat
> _e:==2^(20/3)_*3^-4*5^3/157~= 0.9986.... ~-0.14 % ~-2.4C flat
> _f:==2^(5/6)__*3^+1*5^3/667~= 1.00176... ~+0.17 % ~+3.0C sharp
> f#:==2^(11/3)_*3^-2*5^3/11_~= 1.00214... ~+0.21 % ~+3.7C worst-sh.
> _g:==2^(13/6)_*3^-1*5^3/187~= 1.00041... ~+0.04 % ~+0.7C best-sh.
> g#:==2^(5/4)__*3^-3*5^3/11_~= 1.00101... ~+0.10 % ~+1.7C sharp
> _a:==2^(9/2)_ *3^-4*5^2/7__~= 0.99768... ~-0.23 % ~-4.0C worst-fl.
> bb:==2^(41/12)*3^-1*5^2/89_~= 0.99988... ~-0.011% ~-0.2C flat
> _b:==2^(17/3)_*3^-3*5^2/47_~= 1.000725.. ~+0.07 % ~+1.2C sharp
>
> into Lehmans 2005 "Rosetta-Stone" reinterpretation by mutilying > them simply with the above 1998 original:
>
> C*c__:==2^0_____/3^0 == 1
> C#*c#_:==2^(5/3)_/3__ ~= 1.0582...
> D*d__:==2^(10/3)/9__ ~= 1.1199...
> Eb*eb_:==2^(11/6)/3__ ~= 1.1879...
> E*e__:==2^(20/3)_/81_~= 1.2543...
> F*f__:==3/2^(7/6)___ ~= 1.3363...
> F#*f#_:==2^(11/3)/9__ ~= 1.4110...
> G*g__:==2^(13/6)/3__ ~= 1.4966...
> G#*g#_:==2^(9/4)_/3__ ~= 1.5856...
> A*a__:==2^(11/2)/27_ ~= 1.6761...
> Bb*bb_:==2^(28/12)/3_ ~= 1.7798...
> B*b__:==2^(17/3)/27_ ~= 1.8813...
> C'____:==2^1/3^0_____ == 2
>
> by easy undergaduate maths-level.
>
> In 1998 i assumed by mistake Gottfied Silbermanns Dresden 1725 > tuning-fork of 420 Hz guessing its frequency wrongly
> as Bachs normal pitch of a' for the 1722 WTC, also
> confirmed by Sauveurs 1704 determaination of c"=500 Hz standard.
> But meanwhile Bruce Haynes has reconstucted Bachs > intended normal Cammerthone pitch more preciesely:
> http://www.goldbergweb.com/fr/magazine/essays/2005/06/31980_8.php
> He made an convincing correction down to a'=~410 Hz absoulte, well > agreeing with my recent g'=410 Hz Werckmeister reconstruction at
> the respecting cornetthone level at a'=456Hz:
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_11464.html#11491 >
> C 2173 Hz start absolute begin
> G (6561)6560,3280,1640,820,410,205(204,102,51) Cammerthone=410Hz
> D 153(152,76,38,19)
> A 57 Chorthone 456Hz:=57Hz*8, 3 octaves above 57 Hz
> E 171
> H 513(512,256Hz,128,..,1) > F# 3
> C# 9
> G# 27
> D# 81
> B 243
> F 729
> C 2173 cycle closed
>
> PC=3^12/2^19=(6561/6560)(205/204)(153/152)(513/512)=531441/528244
>
> so the formerly wrong 420Hz must be excluded now and has
> be abandoned and replaced by the lower
> Haynes woodwind cammerthone 410 Hz compatible to Werckmeister: > in the now actual valid 2005 version:
>
> A3 = 205,410 Hz :=a' or A4 absolute begin
> E4 = 307,614(615:=A3*3)
> H2 = 115,230,460,920(921:=307*3)
> F#1= 43,86,172,344(345)
> C#3= 129
> G#4= 387
> D#6= (145,290,580,1160)1161:=387*3
> B4 = (217,434)435
> F5 = (325,650)651
> C6 = (487,974)975
> G6 = (365,730,1460)1461
> D6 = (547,1094)1095
> A4 = 410,820,1640(1641)
>
> the last concluding 5th D>A > flatness amounts (1095/1094)*(1641/1640)=657/656
> hence the PC is subdivided into 9 superparticular factors:
> 3^12/2^19=531441/524288=
> (615/614)(921/920)(345/344)(1161/1160)(435/434)(651/650)(975/974)
> (1461/1460)(657/656)
>
> have a lot of fun with that tunings
> A.S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11 > Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:04:32 -0000
> From: "Haresh BAKSHI" <hareshbakshi@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: More on shruti-s
>
> Dear Ozan, >
> Raga Yaman
> ==========
>
> Ascending scale and cent values:
>
> Sa Re Ga Ma# Pa Dha Ni Sa'
> 0 204 408 612 702 906 1110 1200
>
> Descending scale, of course, is the exact reverse.
>
> [By the way, the improvisation of Yaman does not follow the
> sequence indicated in the above scales.]
>
> I do hope this dialogue paves the way for me to learn more about maqam
> music. My Guru ji, Ustad Gulam Kader Khan, has often talked to me
> about the striking similarities between raga-s and maqam-s.
>
> Please let me know about what you mean by modulation in maqam singing.
>
> Regards,
> Haresh.
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
> >> Dear Haresh, can you provide the cent values of the principal scale
>> > of the
> >> Raga Yaman? I believe I may draw some parallels with Maqam Penchgah.
>>
>> Still, we may not be referring to the same phenomenon when we speak of
>> modulation. There are many Maqams that modulate (repeat their
>> > tetrachordal
> >> or pentachordal structure over the other degrees of their principal
>> > scale)
> >> and I suspect that Ragas are not much different in that respect.
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Ozan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Haresh BAKSHI" <hareshbakshi@h...>
>> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: 01 �ubat 2006 �ar�amba 18:55
>> Subject: [tuning] Re: More on shruti-s
>>
>>
>> >>> Dear Ozan, thanks for your input.
>>>
>>> With moorchchhana-s replaced by raga-s, and with the Tanpura now an
>>> integral part in Hindustani music, even a semblance of modulation is
>>> ruled out.
>>>
>>> A fourth or a fifth above the fundamental certainly may become a kind
>>> of tonal center around which raga patterns are woven for elaboration
>>> and improvisation; but such activity, however intense, continues to
>>> exist only in relation to the fundamental (streaming from the
>>> > Tanpura).
> >>> However, the more important centers in a raga are its Sonant note
>>> (vaadi) and Consonant note (samvaadi). During improvisation, note
>>> patterns are woven around these two notes. Vaadi and Samvaadi do not
>>> necessarily bear a fourth or fifth relationship with the fundamental.
>>> But they do bear such relationship between themselves. Let me give an
>>> example:
>>>
>>> Take a raga, say, Yaman. Sa Re Ga Ma# Pa Dha Ni. Here Ga is the Sonant
>>> and Ni is the Consonant. Neither has the fourth or fifth relationship
>>> with Sa; but they have the fifth relationship between themselves.
>>> For a modulation to take place, Ga or Ni should be treated as the new
>>> fundamental (Sa). But this never happens. If this were to happen, the
>>> intervallic relationship among the various notes would be changed, and
>>> the raga would no more sound the same.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Haresh.
>>>
>>> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 12 > Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:16:45 -0500
> From: David Beardsley <db@biink.com>
> Subject: Re: Composing the tiny notes (was Re: How do microtonal people hear?)
>
> Jon Szanto wrote:
>
> >> Graham,
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I don't agree with your first point. Solitary music making's an >>> unusual, and maybe perverted activity.
>>> >>>
>>> >> Oh, I don't know that's really the case, and I'm speaking of just one
>> activity: composing. There have been an awful lot of composers over
>> the millenia, and rarely were they doing group efforts. I acknowledge,
>> and take part in, a lot of other music activities, including
>> improvisatory music that *does* occur with others. But to write music,
>> in the quietude of one's environment, to be shared later, doesn't seem
>> that perverted to me.
>> >>
>> >
> I don't know what Graham is up to, but as long as he washes his hands > when he's
> done, no big deal.
>
> -- 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

SNIP

> On the music of India , it is hard for me not to speculate that the
> music of neighboring cultures to the east , having under gone extensive
> Hindu influence, might not have gotten their tunings from India in the
> first place or some area within.

SNIP

You would love that to be the case, wouldn't you?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> One has only to make a monochord to see how easily things can go
eschew.
> even with the precision of one like Colvig's which i have had access
to,
> the variation compared to a tuned can be discerned.

What does this mean?

Clark

by eschew i mean that monochords are only so accurate because the slightest deviation produces different results

From: "threesixesinarow" <CACCOLA@NET1PLUS.COM>
Subject: Re: more on srutis

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:

> >
> > One has only to make a monochord to see how easily things can go > eschew. > > even with the precision of one like Colvig's which i have had access > to, > > the variation compared to a tuned can be discerned. > What does this mean?

Clark

--
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

Hard to decipher what you might be implying. I honestly have not investment with History being one way or the other. I am much more interested in the truth I do hope that such historical artifacts still persist and do believe that musical proof is proof that is valid. Maybe the influence is just Chinese then as normally assumed. But why would Hindus opt for Chinese tuning practices. Maybe it comes from Africa which has many of the same type of tunings. We know that north India learn from the Persians, i don't assume they already had the tunings before this time. Being someone who leans toward just tunings , what i propose would be least supportive of my own activities. From: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com> Subject: Re: Re: more on srutis SNIP

> > On the music of India , it is hard for me not to speculate that the > > music of neighboring cultures to the east , having under gone extensive > > Hindu influence, might not have gotten their tunings from India in the > > first place or some area within. > SNIP

You would love that to be the case, wouldn't you?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

--
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

Trace it back far enough, you will see that music is a gift of God to our
first human father, Adam.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kraig Grady" <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 03 �ubat 2006 Cuma 22:46
Subject: [tuning] Re: Re: more on srutis

> Hard to decipher what you might be implying. I honestly have not
> investment with History being one way or the other. I am much more
> interested in the truth I do hope that such historical artifacts still
> persist and do believe that musical proof is proof that is valid. Maybe
> the influence is just Chinese then as normally assumed. But why would
> Hindus opt for Chinese tuning practices. Maybe it comes from Africa
> which has many of the same type of tunings. We know that north India
> learn from the Persians, i don't assume they already had the tunings
> before this time. Being someone who leans toward just tunings , what i
> propose would be least supportive of my own activities. From: "Ozan
> Yarman" <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com> Subject: Re: Re: more on srutis SNIP
>
> > > On the music of India , it is hard for me not to speculate that the
> > > music of neighboring cultures to the east , having under gone
extensive
> > > Hindu influence, might not have gotten their tunings from India in the
> > > first place or some area within.
> >
>
> SNIP
>
> You would love that to be the case, wouldn't you?
>
>
>

That is very true. But even less remotely, it is the folk music
from the aborigines belonging to some place(s), thousands of years ago,
that has given rise to Indian music -- and all music.

Haresh.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Trace it back far enough, you will see that music is a gift of God
to our
> first human father, Adam.
>
> Oz.

Would that perchance imply that Australia was where Adam and Eve were sent?
Or do we propose other locations as the precursor to musico-cultural
custodianship?

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Haresh BAKSHI" <hareshbakshi@hotmail.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 04 �ubat 2006 Cumartesi 0:42
Subject: [tuning] Re: more on srutis

> That is very true. But even less remotely, it is the folk music
> from the aborigines belonging to some place(s), thousands of years ago,
> that has given rise to Indian music -- and all music.
>
> Haresh.
>
>

Dear Ozan, Whatever music I may have studied takes me to 2 A.D. at
best. All references prior to that are from my little study of Indian
music where we find raga-s which had their origin in folk music --
raga-s like kafi, maand etc.

Also, I happen to have read reports about an ancient bone flute
segment, estimated at about 43,ooo up to 82,ooo years old, at a
Neanderthal campsite.

Regards,
Haresh.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Would that perchance imply that Australia was where Adam and Eve
were sent?
> Or do we propose other locations as the precursor to musico-cultural
> custodianship?
>
> Oz.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Haresh BAKSHI" <hareshbakshi@...>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 04 Þubat 2006 Cumartesi 0:42
> Subject: [tuning] Re: more on srutis
>
>
> > That is very true. But even less remotely, it is the folk music
> > from the aborigines belonging to some place(s), thousands of years
ago,
> > that has given rise to Indian music -- and all music.
> >
> > Haresh.
> >
> >
>

>
> >Date: Thu Feb 02 07:34:20 CST 2006
> >To: tuning-owner@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: more on srutis

> >--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Haresh BAKSHI" <hareshbakshi@...> wrote:
>> >>
> >
>> >> [Gene:]
>>> >> > It sounds interesting but I don't know what it means. It brings to
>> >> mind things like the various well-temperament scales.
> >
> >Inasmuch as a large amount of real repertoirs can be played
> >adequately/sufficiently/recognizeably in a huge number of meantone,
> >well- and equal tunings, yes. But such scales -- designed as they are
> >for polyphonic music, with voice-leading, and reiteration of a single
> >modal type (major) -- would seem to exist under a larger number of
> >constraints than a tuning system designed for a primarily monophonic
> >context.
> >
>> >>
>> >> Would srutis be "ordered but not quantified" if it were always true
>> >> that 13 srutis gave something which serves as a fifth?
> >
> >
> >It depends upon the meaning of the word "gave" here. If gave=sum up
> >to, then I disagree, as we've agreed that there is no single "size" of
> >a shruti. But if, instead, it means simply that there are 12 pitches
> >between Sa and Pa, then, yes. In other words, we're moving away from
> >the sruti=interval idea (I assume that we already agree that there is
> >no single size) and towards the shruti=pitch idea.
> >
> >I think that the Carnatic 72-melakarta system might be relevant here.
> > Although usually presented as a mapping onto 12 tones, it doesn't
> >strike me as necessary to make such a mapping, and is probably
> >misleading. The melakarta system describes 72 ragas, divided into two
> >groups, the first with a standard Ma (fourth degree, F), the other
> >with raised Ma (F#), otherwise the two groups are identical. The 36
> >scales within a group given all six of the possible tetrachordal
> >possibilities where Re (D) can be lowered, natural, raised or twice
> >raised and Ga (E) can be twice lowered, lowered, or natural, but Re
> >cannnot be higher than or equal to Ga multiplied by the six
> >possibilities for the upper tetrachord (Pa Dha, Ni Sa').
> >
> >(i.e. all of the combinations of each of these:
> >C Db Ebb F
> >C Db Eb F
> >C Db E F
> >C D Eb F
> >C D E F
> >C D# E F
> >with each of these:
> >G Ab Bbb C
> >G Ab Bb C
> >G Ab B C
> >G A Bb C
> >G A B C
> >G A# B C)
> >
> >One traditional presentation of the melacartas lines up the scales so
> >that all the "enharmonic equivalences" (d=ebb, d#=eb etc.) are the
> >same. Instead of accepting these are intonationally the same, perhaps
> >it would be useful to note that no such equivalences are allowed in a
> >tetrachord (e.g. no C D# Eb F) and this is due to use of a "rule"
> >disallowing microtonal melodic intervals in the scale (if the
> >intonation was identical, then this would be a rule against
> >redundancy, also interesting but not where I'm going). We can then
> >define a pitch in terms of order with some interesting precision: the
> > lowered ga, eb, for example, is then a pitch higher than Db or D or
> >Ebb, higher or lower than D#, and lower than E and F. I'm not certain
> >how to sum up these ranges, but having said this, it strikes me that
> >Gene's analogy is more right than I thought, in that, common practice
> >repertoire is strict about scale order but does have a tolerance at
> >the point of the enharmonic equivalences such that D# can sometimes be
> >higher than Eb and vice versa, without affecting recognition.
> >
> >But maybe this is all trivial...
> >
> >Best,
> >
> >DJW

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Haresh BAKSHI" <hareshbakshi@...> wrote:
> Also, I happen to have read reports about an ancient bone flute
> segment, estimated at about 43,ooo up to 82,ooo years old, at a
> Neanderthal campsite.

is that:
http://www.greenwych.ca/fl-compl.htm
with discussion:
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/FluteDebate.html
?

A.S.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@...> wrote:

> Some mathematical features emerge without them. You know the
> Babylonians appeared to be using some sort of diatonic scale if you
> discover that they tuned up a circle of major or minor thirds,

Surely you must mean major *and* minor thirds, right?

> which
> was also a chain of fifths with one "wolf" tritone tossed in. You
> don't need any monochords to determine that much. In the same way, if
> 13 of the old, authentic srutis *always* made up a fifth, there are
> severe constraints on what they could have been like, monochords or no
> monochords.

Not true if only certain subsets of notes from the 22 were ever
available from which the 13-sruti intervals might have been drawn.

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

> In that 2-limit-53et all 53 5ths
> amount 2^(31/53)= ~1.4999409...

This isn't 2-limit.

> as ordinary approximation of 1.5=3/2

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > On the music of India , it is hard for me not to speculate that
the
> > music of neighboring cultures to the east , having under gone
extensive
> > Hindu influence, might not have gotten their tunings from India in
the
> > first place or some area within.
>
> SNIP
>
> You would love that to be the case, wouldn't you?

Ozan, this was a very odd remark to make to Kraig. Perhaps I'm better
off in blissful ignorance about what may have been behind this. But are
you familiar with ga-grama?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "threesixesinarow" <CACCOLA@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@> wrote:
> >
> > One has only to make a monochord to see how easily things can go
> eschew.
> > even with the precision of one like Colvig's which i have had
access
> to,
> > the variation compared to a tuned can be discerned.
>
>
> What does this mean?
>
> Clark

Probably a reference to things like string bending corrections which
are not normally taken into account in monochord design calculations.

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

> < In the same way, if
> > 13 of the old, authentic srutis *always* made up a fifth, there are
> > severe constraints on what they could have been like, monochords or no
> > monochords.
>
> Not true if only certain subsets of notes from the 22 were ever
> available from which the 13-sruti intervals might have been drawn.

That simply says if my premises are not met, my conclusion may not follow.

I am guessing ga grama would be a scale starting on the diatonical degree
ga:

http://www.carnaticcorner.com/articles/22_srutis.htm

But I fail to see what relevance this has to our discussion.

----- Original Message -----
From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 18 Şubat 2006 Cumartesi 3:29
Subject: [tuning] Re: more on srutis

SNIP

> >
> > You would love that to be the case, wouldn't you?
>
> Ozan, this was a very odd remark to make to Kraig. Perhaps I'm better
> off in blissful ignorance about what may have been behind this. But are
> you familiar with ga-grama?
>
>

Ga-grama is not similar to any of the (comprehensive selection of diatonic modes) found in Indian music today or in the past millenium. I posted more about it a few days ago, so I'll say no more right here.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I am guessing ga grama would be a scale starting on the diatonical degree
> ga:
>
> http://www.carnaticcorner.com/articles/22_srutis.htm
>
> But I fail to see what relevance this has to our discussion.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@...>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 18 Þubat 2006 Cumartesi 3:29
> Subject: [tuning] Re: more on srutis
>
>
> SNIP
>
> > >
> > > You would love that to be the case, wouldn't you?
> >
> > Ozan, this was a very odd remark to make to Kraig. Perhaps I'm better
> > off in blissful ignorance about what may have been behind this. But are
> > you familiar with ga-grama?
> >
> >
>

Your Indian Music vs my Maqam Music then. LOL

----- Original Message -----
From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 22 �ubat 2006 �ar�amba 1:03
Subject: [tuning] Re: more on srutis

Ga-grama is not similar to any of the (comprehensive selection of diatonic
modes) found in Indian music today or in the past millenium. I posted more
about it a few days ago, so I'll say no more right here.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I am guessing ga grama would be a scale starting on the diatonical degree
> ga:
>
> http://www.carnaticcorner.com/articles/22_srutis.htm
>
> But I fail to see what relevance this has to our discussion.
>