EDO Tuning Subscale "Inversions" Are NOT "Structural":

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> But, as the page atop points out, Forte's 'primes' or whatever
> equate major and minor triads

The reason for that is because they were trying to be very
strict/rigourous in terms of what is structural and what is
not structural.

An inversion does not change the structure of an EDO
subscale, IT ONLY ROTATES THE VIEWING POSITION
180 DEGRESS.

Of course, it sounds different, and is arguably one of the
most important operations that can be performed in EDO
tunings, but it is still not structural, and is therefor less
musically significant than a change to another pitch class
set /subscale, which is a structural operation.

Bill Flavell

> Of course, it sounds different, and is arguably one of the
> most important operations that can be performed in EDO
> tunings, but it is still not structural, and is therefor less
> musically significant than a change to another pitch class
> set /subscale, which is a structural operation.

Sorry: if it sounds different, it's structural.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry: if it sounds different, it's structural.

That's the same logic that says that the diatonic major "keys"
are "different", which is utter bullshit. They're only different
transposition levels of the same tired old insipid scale.

Bill Flavell

Carl Lumma escreveu:
>>Of course, it sounds different, and is arguably one of the
>>most important operations that can be performed in EDO
>>tunings, but it is still not structural, and is therefor less
>>musically significant than a change to another pitch class
>>set /subscale, which is a structural operation.
> > > Sorry: if it sounds different, it's structural.
> > -Carl

I agree they are different...

Forte's theory is intended to analise atonal music, which frequently uses inversions as basic variants of a pitch-class set. This sense, inversion-related pitch-class sets are `equivalent'.

This feature can be a bug for other musical approaches.

Hudson

--
'-------------------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
*N�o deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Ap�ie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________ Novo Yahoo! Messenger com voz: Instale agora e fa�a liga��es de gra�a. http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/

> > Sorry: if it sounds different, it's structural.
>
> That's the same logic that says that the diatonic major "keys"
> are "different", which is utter bullshit. They're only different
> transposition levels of the same tired old insipid scale.

The diatonic keys sound different to the extent the hearer
has absolute pitch. Most hearers have some degree of AP,
but only a vanishing amount. Their use is structural to
that extent.

Transposition in a piece is another matter -- clearly that is
also a structural device.

-Carl

> >>Of course, it sounds different, and is arguably one of the
> >>most important operations that can be performed in EDO
> >>tunings, but it is still not structural, and is therefor less
> >>musically significant than a change to another pitch class
> >>set /subscale, which is a structural operation.
> >
> >
> > Sorry: if it sounds different, it's structural.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> I agree they are different...
>
> Forte's theory is intended to analise atonal music, which
> frequently uses inversions as basic variants of a pitch-class
> set. This sense, inversion-related pitch-class sets are
> `equivalent'.

I understand that... note that on the page in question, the
author points out that Forte himself uses the technique to
analyse tonal music like that of Scriabin and Stravinsky.

-Carl