Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning One more barbershop JI track

This is the result of a quartet that DID NOT know the music much (a
few rehearsals with some piano help and I'm the only one who reads music).

We recorded each part, just got MOST of the contour and general ideas
and at least halfway decent rhythm and at least decent singing quality.

Changed all the notes and edited rhythms and other things.

Result: we can listen to ourselves singing it correctly so we can
learn it.

This is strictly JI. It sounds great to me, and I will again assert
that I'm PROVING that issues about comma shift are only contextual and
depend on how they are used. Furthermore, comma shift is completely
an issue of expectation and what you are used to.

If you have a system for understanding the value and effect of the
shift, it sounds totally normal. We all know that voices shift
around, so that doesn't sound weird. I think the "weirdness" people
talk of in comma shifts is the same mental affect as hearing a symbol
pitch bend or hearing a piano suddenly crescendo a note. It's a
congnitive dissonance issue. For many, hearing that shift sounds
unnatural and breaks the mold of their understanding of how the world
works.

In other words, comma shift in itself is not a problem at all. But
inserting comma shifts into piano pieces by Chopan IS, because that
isn't the way the piano or those pieces work. Shifting in vocals is
so normal that most people barely notice that my recordings aren't
totally normal, except for maybe sounding a little "edited."

Listen for yourself. Here's the latest one, and again, if we learn
from this and THEN re-record, it could be significantly better than
this even.

mix:
http://www.ozmusic.com/aaron/mp3/WMeetAgain/WMeetAgain.mp3

Parts:
http://ozmusic.com/aaron/mp3/WMeetAgain/WMeetAgain_BARI.mp3
http://www.ozmusic.com/aaron/mp3/WMeetAgain/WMeetAgain_BASS.mp3
http://www.ozmusic.com/aaron/mp3/WMeetAgain/WMeetAgain_LEAD.mp3
http://www.ozmusic.com/aaron/mp3/WMeetAgain/WMeetAgain_TENOR.mp3

In Harmony,
Aaron Wolf

P.S. as to the specifics of this piece, there is one augmented chord
that occurs a couple times and I don't like it much, but couldn't
easily come up with a better arrangement, and so I just stuck with it
for here. But other than that, I think this arrangement works great.
There are a lot of "dips" where the whole chord just goes down and
back up, and they could have been ANY amount desired, because the
effect is the dip, and it has no other harmonic function.

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Carl,

Thanks for the enthusiastic encouragement. I wasn't going to bother,
but fine... here it is:

http://ozmusic.com/aaron/mp3/WMeetAgain/WMA.pdf

I wrote in pencil and I scanned it quickly, it isn't perfect.

I've been trying to figure out what notation will be easiest for me to
read musically, easiest to use when editing on the computer, and
easiest to explain to others...

I first was writing full ratios but within one octave range like
189/128. That was too confusing.

With this, I simplified to basic primes and powers ignoring 2.
BUT, to show the value of the chord roots, I came up with a variation.

When I used to write 9/8, now I will write a couple different ways.
If it is a 9th of a I chord, then I'll just write "9"
If it is the fifth of a V chord, I'll write "3*3"
If it is the root of a II7 chord, I'll write "3^2"

I know that is not the ideal system either, but this way I can see at
a glance what element of the chord any note is. After moving away
from very close to tonic, I used one symbol, say "3^4" (= 81/64) for
the root and then apply a *# for what element of the chord anything
else is.

This way I'm getting a specific tuning for every note, but the context
is still clear.

But I do want to also consider notation that makes comma issues more
clear... but in the end, I don't feel that the commas are what makes
the music, what makes the music is what the fundamental root movements
are, and everything just finds its place within that.

If there's specific questions on this piece, let me know. Otherwise,
this pdf and the individual part tracks should make it pretty darn clear.

Though I might do more soon, I will probably not post again for a
while. I'm going to try to figure out how to have a normal web page
sharing what I can more publicly, and I also want to eventually work
toward having all parts re-recorded and end up with even more natural
sounding final products.

I'll post when anything major like that happens.

Thanks to everyone here. The tuning list is part of how I was able to
get far enough to make sense of things and get to this point.

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > This is strictly JI. It sounds great to me, and I will again
> > assert that I'm PROVING that issues about comma shift are only
> > contextual and depend on how they are used.
>
> You are. Good work! I think it'd be great to be able to
> see the score with the ratios you used written in. Actually
> what I have done is write the simplest harmonic series
> interpretation of each vertical chord, ie I write "5" next
> to E's note head and "4" next to C's. Then I draw lines
> connecting common tones between vertical chords. If there's
> a comma shift, I use a dotted line and write the comma's
> ratio on the line, with a + or - sign to indicate direction.
> If there's a comma drift, I write its ratio and direction next
> to the "1" of the new chord, or write for example "1 -81/80"
> below the bass staff if "1" doesn't occur in the chord.
>
> But really even a quick description of times in the track that
> certain shifts/drifts happen, would be great.
>
> Grateful I get to hear this stuff in my lifetime,
>
> -Carl
>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> Thanks for the enthusiastic encouragement. I wasn't going to
> bother, but fine... here it is:
>
> http://ozmusic.com/aaron/mp3/WMeetAgain/WMA.pdf
>
> I wrote in pencil and I scanned it quickly, it isn't perfect.

Thanks! I'll try to set aside time this weekend to crunch on
this.

> I've been trying to figure out what notation will be easiest
> for me to read musically, easiest to use when editing on the
> computer, and easiest to explain to others...

From my point of view, you aren't there yet. :)

What did you think of my suggestion (did it make any sense
to you)?

> I first was writing full ratios but within one octave range
> like 189/128. That was too confusing.
>
> With this, I simplified to basic primes and powers ignoring 2.
> BUT, to show the value of the chord roots, I came up with a
> variation.
>
> When I used to write 9/8, now I will write a couple different
> ways.
> If it is a 9th of a I chord, then I'll just write "9"
> If it is the fifth of a V chord, I'll write "3*3"
> If it is the root of a II7 chord, I'll write "3^2"

Have you considered ditching the absolute pitch interpretation
of the ratios, and going to relative pitch entirely (as I
suggested)?

> After moving away from very close to tonic, I used one symbol,
> say "3^4" (= 81/64) for the root and then apply a *# for what
> element of the chord anything else is.

I'm confused. Maybe examination of the score will make it
clearer.

> But I do want to also consider notation that makes comma issues
> more clear... but in the end, I don't feel that the commas are
> what makes the music, what makes the music is what the
> fundamental root movements are, and everything just finds its
> place within that.

If you ever decide to compose new music, and/or if you start
using things like 11, you'll find out that not keeping track
of commas can land you in real trouble real quick, like your
concert pitch becoming subsonic. Just take this example:

http://lumma.org/music/score/Retrofit_JI.pdf
(this is 4MB, might take a while to load)

It's a formative showing of the notation I suggested in my
previous message, but I haven't gone through and made sure
the commas don't accumulate. I really should get around to
doing that one day.

> The tuning list is part of how I was able to
> get far enough to make sense of things and get to this point.

Well, I am quite proud that I suggested Melodyne to you.

-Carl

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> My idea for something to be taught to actual singers is something
> like this:
>
> How about this? a notation that indicates the fundamental of
> each chord in such a way that is simple and clear, and if it is
> a pythagorean note, then indicate what power of 3 that it is
> (in other words, like the old time barbershopper's "clock"
> system that says how many fifths away on the circle of fifths
> we are). Then use different note heads to simply indicate a
> 3, 5, 7 etc identity in relation to the fundamental. If that
> could be combined with a very simple indication of melodic
> comma shifts (no need to specify different commas), that should
> cover everything. What do you think?

Sounds good, except I don't like the part about the fundamental's
absolute pitch. First off, what happens if it isn't a power
of 3? Secondly, I don't think performers (or composers) need
to know this. There's no way a bass is going to be able to say,
"Oh, 3129/8080, I was a bit flat there, wasn't I?"

Performers are more likely to be interested in which note
remain unchanged or nearly unchanged between chords. They
can then tune pure to it/them. For nearly unchanged notes,
yes I agree plenty of mileage could be gotten out of only one
type of "nearly". I like drawing lines to make the common
tones obvious. Then one doesn't even have to read music (or
both clefs) to know that he's got to match the bari's previous
pitch. Dotted lines make a good nearly, with perhaps a plus
or minus sign above them to indicate direction.

That takes care of shifts. Drift I think is best shown as a
cumulative cents offset from concert pitch. Every time the
offset changes direction -- say it's been going flat and
starts going sharp -- the current offset should be printed
above the barline. Say we start out at A=440, go 20 cents
flat every other bar for 5 bars, then go 20 cents sharp every
other bar for 5 bars and end on A=440. The notation would
show "-100" above the 6th barline and "+-0" above the last
barline. The point is that this is something that should
happen naturally if one tunes pure and respects the shifts
notation (above). It's just there as a check so you can
troubleshoot whether you're going flat 'cause you're tired
or because the composer/arranger intended it.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > My idea for something to be taught to actual singers is something
> > like this:
> >
> > How about this? a notation that indicates the fundamental of
> > each chord in such a way that is simple and clear, and if it is
> > a pythagorean note, then indicate what power of 3 that it is
> > (in other words, like the old time barbershopper's "clock"
> > system that says how many fifths away on the circle of fifths
> > we are). Then use different note heads to simply indicate a
> > 3, 5, 7 etc identity in relation to the fundamental. If that
> > could be combined with a very simple indication of melodic
> > comma shifts (no need to specify different commas), that should
> > cover everything. What do you think?
>
> Sounds good, except I don't like the part about the fundamental's
> absolute pitch. First off, what happens if it isn't a power
> of 3? Secondly, I don't think performers (or composers) need
> to know this. There's no way a bass is going to be able to say,
> "Oh, 3129/8080, I was a bit flat there, wasn't I?"
>
> Performers are more likely to be interested in which note
> remain unchanged or nearly unchanged between chords. They
> can then tune pure to it/them. For nearly unchanged notes,
> yes I agree plenty of mileage could be gotten out of only one
> type of "nearly". I like drawing lines to make the common
> tones obvious. Then one doesn't even have to read music (or
> both clefs) to know that he's got to match the bari's previous
> pitch. Dotted lines make a good nearly, with perhaps a plus
> or minus sign above them to indicate direction.
>

Carl,

I like a lot of your ideas, but we always need to remember what the
mindset of a stylistic performer is. Everything you are talking about
comes from the world of POLYPHONY. When everyone is concerned about
what their particular part is, then your points make sense. And even
in barbershop there is definitely a bit of that. However,
barbershoppers do best when they hear themselves as part of a whole.

Put further, woodshedders historically were concerned first with what
the root harmonic movement was and secondly with simply whether they
were staying on a note or moving. But whether they move a third or
fifth isn't important, but what place they have in the new chord.

Watch Dave Steven's "What Are We Trying To Preserve" at barbershop.org
for a very wonderful entertaining presentation:

<a
href="http://stellent.spebsqsa.org/web/groups/public/documents/native/cb_00083.ram">What
Are We Trying To Preserve</a>

He discusses a system used by the old folks who did not read music:

They basically used a system to say that the chord was "home" or 1, 2,
3, or 4 away on the 5ths-system (meaning 3 identities). They just
held up 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 fingers, and everyone knew what that chord
sounded like and found a note that fit into that chord.

That is a great way to work when working in a style which is totally
based around those progressions.

My concept is to get away from everyone treating their own part as the
focus and go toward listening to the unified result of all the parts.

Anyway, recognizing that different sorts of music work differently, I
feel pretty confident that identifying the root of each chord is
extremely useful in barbershop specifically. Realize that 95% of all
barbershop roots fit a very small number of different roots.

Main point is I'm not imposing my ideas of what people should know.
The style is built on the tradition of knowing certain basic chord
progressions and then knowing how to sing the different identities of
each chord. So I'm trying to reflect that more clearly. Just because
classical singers are so polyphonically focused and don't listen to
each other doesn't mean I should compromise my notation to fit that
mindset.

-Aaron

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

>>> How about this? a notation that indicates the fundamental of
>>> each chord in such a way that is simple and clear, and if it
>>> is a pythagorean note, then indicate what power of 3 that it
>>> is (in other words, like the old time barbershopper's "clock"
>>> system that says how many fifths away on the circle of fifths
>>> we are). Then use different note heads to simply indicate a
>>> 3, 5, 7 etc identity in relation to the fundamental. If that
>>> could be combined with a very simple indication of melodic
>>> comma shifts (no need to specify different commas), that
>>> should cover everything. What do you think?
>>
>> Sounds good, except I don't like the part about the fundamental's
>> absolute pitch. First off, what happens if it isn't a power
>> of 3? Secondly, I don't think performers (or composers) need
>> to know this. There's no way a bass is going to be able to say,
>> "Oh, 3129/8080, I was a bit flat there, wasn't I?"
>>
>> Performers are more likely to be interested in which note
>> remain unchanged or nearly unchanged between chords. They
>> can then tune pure to it/them. For nearly unchanged notes,
>> yes I agree plenty of mileage could be gotten out of only one
>> type of "nearly". I like drawing lines to make the common
>> tones obvious. Then one doesn't even have to read music (or
>> both clefs) to know that he's got to match the bari's previous
>> pitch. Dotted lines make a good nearly, with perhaps a plus
>> or minus sign above them to indicate direction.
>
> Carl,
>
> I like a lot of your ideas, but we always need to remember
> what the mindset of a stylistic performer is. ... When
> everyone is concerned about what their particular part is,
> then your points make sense. ... woodshedders historically
> were concerned first with what the root harmonic movement
> was and secondly with simply whether they were staying on
> a note or moving. But whether they move a third or fifth
> isn't important, but what place they have in the new chord.

Hi Aaron,

There's obviously a disconnect somewhere, because you seem
to be agreeing with what I said!

> He discusses a system used by the old folks who did not read
> music:
>
> They basically used a system to say that the chord was "home"
> or 1, 2, 3, or 4 away on the 5ths-system (meaning 3 identities).
//
> That is a great way to work when working in a style which is totally
> based around those progressions.

Exactly. And not a good way for music that isn't.

> My concept is to get away from everyone treating their own part
> as the focus and go toward listening to the unified result of all
> the parts.

Such a focus would tend to come from a notation that emphasized
absolute pitch, would it not? And be discouraged by one that
emphasized vertical harmony?

> Anyway, recognizing that different sorts of music work
> differently, I feel pretty confident that identifying the
> root of each chord is extremely useful in barbershop
> specifically.

That's why the notation I suggested labels all the roots in
the music.

> Just because
> classical singers are so polyphonically focused and don't listen to
> each other doesn't mean I should compromise my notation to fit that
> mindset.

Where did you get this from?

-Carl

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

Hi Aaron,

> I'd like to see a symbol of some sort that indicates the chord
> progression for everyone to see, and then indicate what part of
> the chord each singer is on. Though indicating comma shifts and
> common tones is definitely useful, that doesn't do either of the
> things I'm wanting.

I've said all along I intend to indicate the identity of each
note, and I posted a score where I did so. The WMA score by
contrast seems to use absolute pitches. Take for example the
chord at measure 22. It's a 4 6 7 10 chord but it's notated
3^2 3*3^3 7*3^2 5*3^2.

> You didn't exactly tell me what you think of the idea of
> indicating fundamentals and then using note-head shapes to
> indicate chord identities.

I like it. I've always just labeled each note with its
identity number, which is easier in the notation program I
use. I also would like at some point to use note head shape
to indicate rhythmic division -- e.g. a triangular note with
various numbers of flags being 1/3, 1/6, 1/12 etc. of a beat.
So for that I'd like to keep shape open. But it's a fine
way to go if you're not interested in the rhythm thing and
your software can hack it.

> I guess I don't understand why you say that indicating a
> fundamental of 3^3 (meaning 27/16) has anything to do
> with "absolute pitch." What it tells me is I'm 3 steps away
> from home in a certain predictable progression that I know,
> and that's a totally relative concept.

By "home" you mean some sort of pitch standard which you
are referencing. Typically harmonies involving 27 are not
consonances in barbershop. There's nothing wrong with
knowing you're 'three fifths from home' if you know how to
use that information. It may not be very user-friendly,
though, when singing music that (for example) modulates by
thirds in a tuning where the pythagorean and syntonic commas
don't vanish.

-Carl

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> > I'd like to see a symbol of some sort that indicates the chord
> > progression for everyone to see, and then indicate what part of
> > the chord each singer is on. Though indicating comma shifts and
> > common tones is definitely useful, that doesn't do either of the
> > things I'm wanting.
>
> I've said all along I intend to indicate the identity of each
> note, and I posted a score where I did so. The WMA score by
> contrast seems to use absolute pitches. Take for example the
> chord at measure 22. It's a 4 6 7 10 chord but it's notated
> 3^2 3*3^3 7*3^2 5*3^2.
>

How is that absolute? I'm indicating by the 3^2 that the root is TWO
perfect fifths away from home, home being the key center, tonic,
whatever you want to call it. It may be Ab in this case, but if you
change the key of the song, it is still 3^2 root (or 9/8 if you like).

Then I simply indicated that above that root (the bass happens to be
on the root) there is a 3 identity, a 7 identity and a 5 identity.

I still don't see how that is "absolute." Everything I'm indicating
says something relative to an unspecified key center (except that the
normal music indicates an Ab key).

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't indicate how the root relates to
the key?!?

> By "home" you mean some sort of pitch standard which you
> are referencing. Typically harmonies involving 27 are not
> consonances in barbershop. There's nothing wrong with
> knowing you're 'three fifths from home' if you know how to
> use that information. It may not be very user-friendly,
> though, when singing music that (for example) modulates by
> thirds in a tuning where the pythagorean and syntonic commas
> don't vanish.
>

"Home" is just whatever people choose as the key center. It's the
sound in their memory that they regard as the resolution back to
tonic. I don't tell them what frequency that has to be, but I'm
sticking with the generally accepted idea that it shouldn't generally
change throughout the song (in other words, no overall tonic drift).

27 as a ROOT is very sensible in barbershop, because pythagorean CHORD
ROOTS fit the style perfectly. I'm not saying average singers will
like referencing that number, which may be hard to understand. But
barbershoppers definitely should and do sharp the root of a VI chord
in a VI-II-V-I progression. It is NOT tuned to 5/3 of tonic. Unless
you don't like something about my recording or feel the tuning is
un-barbershop, then I don't see where you are coming from arguing
against a 27 root for VI in that progression. There's still no 27
harmony vertically at any point, and I'm not advocating it.

-Aaron

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > Hi Aaron,
> >
> > > I'd like to see a symbol of some sort that indicates the chord
> > > progression for everyone to see, and then indicate what part of
> > > the chord each singer is on. Though indicating comma shifts and
> > > common tones is definitely useful, that doesn't do either of the
> > > things I'm wanting.
> >
> > I've said all along I intend to indicate the identity of each
> > note, and I posted a score where I did so. The WMA score by
> > contrast seems to use absolute pitches. Take for example the
> > chord at measure 22. It's a 4 6 7 10 chord but it's notated
> > 3^2 3*3^3 7*3^2 5*3^2.
>
> How is that absolute? I'm indicating by the 3^2 that the root
> is TWO perfect fifths away from home,

A notion of home implies absolute pitch.

> I still don't see how that is "absolute." Everything I'm indicating
> says something relative to an unspecified key center (except that
> the normal music indicates an Ab key).

Relative pitch usually refers to a relation involving two
simultaneous notes (in the case of harmonic relative pitch)
or notes on consecutive beats (in the case of melodic
relative pitch).

> Are you suggesting that we shouldn't indicate how the root relates
> to the key?!?

I don't think it's necessary, and if it is you'll have to
come up with a more general solution if you want to use your
notation for anything other than barbershop (or even for
some adventurous barbershop).

> > By "home" you mean some sort of pitch standard which you
> > are referencing. Typically harmonies involving 27 are not
> > consonances in barbershop. There's nothing wrong with
> > knowing you're 'three fifths from home' if you know how to
> > use that information. It may not be very user-friendly,
> > though, when singing music that (for example) modulates by
> > thirds in a tuning where the pythagorean and syntonic commas
> > don't vanish.
>
> "Home" is just whatever people choose as the key center. It's the
> sound in their memory that they regard as the resolution back to
> tonic.

Q: Does all music evoke such sound in memory?

> I don't tell them what frequency that has to be, but I'm
> sticking with the generally accepted idea that it shouldn't
> generally change throughout the song (in other words, no
> overall tonic drift).

Is that generally accepted?

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

> Relative pitch usually refers to a relation involving two
> simultaneous notes (in the case of harmonic relative pitch)
> or notes on consecutive beats (in the case of melodic
> relative pitch).
>

That is way too strict a definition. This has to be considered on a
spectrum and it relates to memory and perception. For instance, if I
say C-E is a relative 5/4 and then I leave the rhythmic placement of
those notes alone and insert a passing tone D, that doesn't mean that
all of a sudden I can't talk about the relation of C to E!

Relative pitch is completely based on the particular musician or
listeners ability to RELATE a pitch to others. If the person has only
a vague idea in their head what the tonic sounded like when we are on
another chord, then that's different from a situation in which the
listener totally feels how the chord relates to a tonic firmly remembered.

How far away notes are, what the listener's background is, what their
pre-conception of the style is, etc etc all effect this. In a I-IV-V
progression, the V is TOTALLY related to the I in almost anyone's
perception, even though the IV is in between.

The idea of using pythagorean roots and having it be consistent in
barbershop AIDS the listener to get used to the style and learn to
relate these distant chords directly to how they fit a relative
pattern to the I chord. Listeners not as familiar with that sound
will not be able to do that.

In barbershop, certain progressions are so common that relating them
to I is a skill that should be taught to all barbershop singers and
that could pay off significantly in everyone's sense of the harmonies.
I'm not saying any singer off the street would hear it that way.

> > Are you suggesting that we shouldn't indicate how the root relates
> > to the key?!?
>
> I don't think it's necessary, and if it is you'll have to
> come up with a more general solution if you want to use your
> notation for anything other than barbershop (or even for
> some adventurous barbershop).

I think adding a notation for HOME that would be allowed to be changed
is a possibility.

Obviously, the compositional control is an issue here. We could
simply allow some quartets to sharp and some to flat and just say it
is all good just different. As a composer or arranger, one must
decide how much detail to control, and how much to make just a vague
guide that will allow for interpretation. I'm not saying everything
needs to be strict, but there certainly is no harm in having a way to
clearly express a strict pitch interpretation when that is wanted.

>
> > > By "home" you mean some sort of pitch standard which you
> > > are referencing. Typically harmonies involving 27 are not
> > > consonances in barbershop. There's nothing wrong with
> > > knowing you're 'three fifths from home' if you know how to
> > > use that information. It may not be very user-friendly,
> > > though, when singing music that (for example) modulates by
> > > thirds in a tuning where the pythagorean and syntonic commas
> > > don't vanish.
> >
> > "Home" is just whatever people choose as the key center. It's the
> > sound in their memory that they regard as the resolution back to
> > tonic.
>
> Q: Does all music evoke such sound in memory?

Every person has a different way of listening based on culture,
training, upbringing and many other factors. Certainly memory plays a
big part in relating musical events to each other. It is possible to
listen to a piece and use only short term memory and listen just one
instant to another. It is also possible to remember whole sections
and themes and relate them to parts heard much later. There is no
wrong way to listen. In barbershop, I feel most singers and most
listeners are likely able to keep track of tonic, because the style
doesn't stray too far for too long. But again, there's a range of
sensitivity to that from person to person.

This sort of discussion even leads towards saying that since most
listeners will follow words and facial expressions, exact pitch and
blend aren't even the important thing in barbershop. Point is,
there's a lot of artistic decisions and opinions here.

As for other styles of music, if a barbershopper listens to rock with
a barbershop attitude, they'll focus on totally different things than
a rock listener who's focus is dancing and moshing. I'd say that
outside of extremely obvious stuff, there's a HUGE range of pitch
relations that are vague enough but not so vague, and the result is
that there's a WIDE distribution of how much different listeners are
able to follow and use their short term memory to relate things.

Once we go to music that is adventurous enough that no audience exists
that really understands it and is used to it, then we are on totally
different terms as far as how much relation and memory they can
functionally and make sense of.

One more perspective: many listeners of temperament, I've found, feel
weird listening to other tunings because they don't have a way to
relate the tones to others. This is both trained and less trained
musicians. But after being showed a way to understand the
relationships, it then becomes very easy to hear.

It's like language: Some barbershoppers are able to appreciate the
difference between many subtle pronunciation options. Others simply
want clear choices: "Is it an AH or an AW?" After focusing on these
things, some will hear a performance and be annoyed that the vowel was
hard to identify, and others will not care or even have thought that
way. And lots more perspectives. And these all have real impact on
the listener's experience of the music.

So it's very complicated. And I'm arguing that barbershoppers can and
do learn to relate pythagorean chords to the tonic within a normal,
not excessively challenging barbershop style. I never said anything
about that relating to another style. But if the notation exists and
doesn't apply to some other style, then you can leave that part out.

I do want to find perhaps a better more accessible notation than
either 27/16 or 3^3. Some have proposed the clock system, meaning an
actual little clock symbol that would show 3:00...

>
> > I don't tell them what frequency that has to be, but I'm
> > sticking with the generally accepted idea that it shouldn't
> > generally change throughout the song (in other words, no
> > overall tonic drift).
>
> Is that generally accepted?
>
> -Carl
>

It is generally accepted within the ranks of anyone who cares to focus
on the pitch content of the style. To a degree, everyone accepts
exceptions. But my experience is very much that barbershoppers don't
want to hear a short progression go flat. Some like the sound of
going sharp. In the end, it does relate to the specific content of
the music and whether that effect enhances the piece or not. But as a
general guideline, I've heard very little argument against the goal of
maintaining tonal center throughout a song. And I've heard a lot of
barbershoppers do a good job staying on a tonal center over a long song.

In fact, this relates to my entire post. Memory of tonal center is
often so strong that messed up chords that weren't learned well can
have a whole section sound all wrong and yet when it gets back to
tonic everyone sort says "oh yeah, well, I remember what tonic was"
and things get back on track. If such memory were not at play, this
would not be possible. I'm sure you've heard the same thing. Any
good musician can even do this with tempo to a degree. You could play
a steady tempo and then go totally free and then instantly go back to
tempo and be pretty damn close if you are any good. Memory is a huge
part of music and it spans a lot more than note-to-note.

-Aaron

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron,
>
> PS- I don't mean to be obtuse. There's a whole back story on
> the 'absolute pitch' thing. The "American Gamelan" school of
> just intonation (think Lou Harrison*) tends to use JI ratios
> to indicate pitches, e.g. 27/16 is a pitch relative to 1/1.
> But what barbershoppers mean by "JI" is more like what we've
> been calling "adaptive JI" on this list -- the harmonic
> intervals are just, but the melodic intervals are free to
> wander as appropriate to arrive at the shift/drift indicated
> by the composer (or felt by the performers). As far as
> indicating position relative to home, I think it's a fine
> thing -- by all means use it if it works for you! I have
> modest training in the roman numeral system used in classical
> music, which is similar. I think I'd prefer exponents though
> for readability, e.g. 3^3 rather than 27/16 (I think that's
> what you were suggesting anyway).
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Carl
>
> * Of course Harrison also composed in something he called
> "Free Style" which is closer to "adaptive JI" in spirit.
>

Thanks for clarifying. Sorry for the length of my other post, though
I don't regret any of the content.

I would prefer 3^3 for many reasons over 27/16.

I'm familiar with the idea of 27/16 as an absolute pitch to a set 1/1.
I guess I see what you mean about "absolute" but technically
"absolute" usually means A440 as opposed to A441 or A438.94. It means
absolute in the sense of truly absolute. And I've never said anything
about that.

I AM suggesting that in barbershop (and other styles such as doo-wop
or blues and many others that have common progressions throughout the
whole style) absolute relations to 1/1 aren't out of the question.
What I'm showing in my whole part tape thing is that vague "adaptive
JI" is only one possible way to do barbershop. I think such
adaptativeness is not unnatural or wrong, but I think it happens
primarily because of conflicting teachings about how barbershop should
work. Some say the lead should be melodic and everyone else follow
that. Some say the bass should be the foundation. Some say everyone
should adapt continuously. I say everyone should learn to remember
the tonic and relate themselves to absolute chord progressions around
the tonic.

My version makes the harmonic progression more effective, does not
harm the melody, and makes clarity and therefore better tuning and
better singing possible.

To say it is not a matter of taste would be wrong. But my concept is
shared by others I've spoken to and fits very strongly within the
tradition of barbershop style. Reality will show everything from
singers who feel they know their part and won't adapt to anything to
singers who will be so adaptive that they'll go off pitch on single
notes just because someone else slightly wavered.

I should/could do more scientific testing, but preliminary
observations show this:
Typical barbershoppers listening to a chord on 1/1 followed by a
4:5:6:7 rooted on 81/64 hear the progression as part of a pythagorean
III-VI-II-V-I progression. When they hear a 1/1 rooted chord followed
by a 4:5:6:7 rooted on 5/4, they hear it as leading to the relative
minor in a III-vi progression. It is very strong to me, as I'm now
used to that difference.
Since barbershoppers already hear that difference somewhat and can
EASILY be taught to hear the difference moreso... well, the
notational difference between 27/16 (or 3^3) vs a 5/4 (or just 5) root
indicates a totally different chord progression. In vague adaptive JI
these useful and musical distinctions may be lost or may be
arbitrarily up to the performers to realize by chance if they are
aware enough. I'm adding clarity and function to the concept.

And so I'm not just talking off the top of my head, there's part tapes
that clearly demonstrate this exact tuning, and so far nobody has said
they even sound like a new way to do barbershop. Everyone thinks they
just sound good, if a bit computerized and sterile.

So yes, I'm challenging the entire "adaptive JI" concept of barbershop
tuning. I think the point that it is more realistic is not relevant.
We don't say that a serious student violinist playing with piano
accompanimant is "adaptive ET" do we? I think the goal is more about
understanding the musical value of these choices and about
understanding how everyone is placing the tones within their
understanding in their head.

It's not about obsessively describing the complex, imperfect reality
of real human performances. That's a different discussion. Using the
issues of real human performance to support the "adaptive JI" theory
would be like saying that performers intend to never actually be 100%
in sync rhythmically, just because we can scientifically show that
they never are. Some performers intend to be synced and some don't.
That's why this is artistic. It's about intent. And I don't think
barbershoppers tend to want to be vague and adaptive. They want to
ring chords and sing the words and use harmonic progressions to
embellish tonic. That's why almost none of them find my JI recordings
to violate anything of their understanding of barbershop.

-Aaron

P.S. Congratulations to anyone who actually completely reads both my
new posts! Geez, that was quite a rant... I'm tired...

P.P.S. for a concise and wonderful view of the memory and other
perceptual issues involved with all of this, check out a wonderful new
book: "This Is Your Brain On Music" by Dan Levitin. See
yourbrainonmusic.com

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

Aaron,

> > Relative pitch usually refers to a relation involving two
> > simultaneous notes (in the case of harmonic relative pitch)
> > or notes on consecutive beats (in the case of melodic
> > relative pitch).
>
> That is way too strict a definition. This has to be considered
> on a spectrum and it relates to memory and perception. For
> instance, if I say C-E is a relative 5/4 and then I leave the
> rhythmic placement of those notes alone and insert a passing tone
> D, that doesn't mean that all of a sudden I can't talk about the
> relation of C to E!

Of course not, but it must be a matter of degrees before it
becomes "absolute". Even in "perfect pitch", we're comparing
pitches to a standard in order to name them.

> > I don't think it's necessary, and if it is you'll have to
> > come up with a more general solution if you want to use your
> > notation for anything other than barbershop (or even for
> > some adventurous barbershop).
>
> I think adding a notation for HOME that would be allowed to be
> changed is a possibility.

It boils down to how many home changes are you using/notating.
In Retrofit there are 24 changes out of 54 bars.

> Obviously, the compositional control is an issue here. We could
> simply allow some quartets to sharp

The first thing we should establish is, are we cooking a
notation for barbershop only, or adaptive JI in general?

> and some to flat and just say it
> is all good just different.

That's what we're currently doing.

> As a composer or arranger, one must
> decide how much detail to control, and how much to make just a
> vague guide that will allow for interpretation. I'm not saying
> everything needs to be strict, but there certainly is no harm
> in having a way to clearly express a strict pitch interpretation
> when that is wanted.

What did you think of the strictness of my proposal? I agreed
that only one comma pair is needed (+/-), and implied the
root should be changed as often as necessary to spell all chords
in 'lowest terms'. I further suggested that drift could be
accounted for with a running total of cents offset that would
only be displayed in the score when its direction changed.

> > Q: Does all music evoke such sound [home] in memory?
>
> Every person has a different way of listening based on culture,
> training, upbringing and many other factors.

What about Webern?

> So it's very complicated. And I'm arguing that barbershoppers
> can and do learn to relate pythagorean chords to the tonic

I don't think "pythagorean" is the word you're looking for.

> > > I don't tell them what frequency that has to be, but I'm
> > > sticking with the generally accepted idea that it shouldn't
> > > generally change throughout the song (in other words, no
> > > overall tonic drift).
> >
> > Is that generally accepted?
>
> It is generally accepted within the ranks of anyone who cares
> to focus on the pitch content of the style.

To me it depends if the song ends on the same chord it starts on.

> my experience is very much that barbershoppers don't
> want to hear a short progression go flat.
> Some like the sound of going sharp.

That's my experience as well.

So that going sharp can be desirable is one reason we might
want to control the shift/drift tradeoff at the notation level.

Another case is symmetric progressions that drift away and
then back to home by the time they complete. The drift in
such cases may be preferrable to shifts going in and coming
out.

-Carl

🔗Robin Perry <jinto83@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> I AM suggesting that in barbershop (and other styles such as
> doo-wop or blues and many others that have common progressions
> throughout the whole style) absolute relations to 1/1 aren't
> out of the question.

I guess the question is whether the ratios get too long to
write (and read/understand). In many simpler pieces, they
won't. In others, they will. My idea of writing each chord
in lowest terms is one way to make the call. One could
certainly use less frequent root changes than that, and then
use some other device to indicate chord identities (like
note shape).... but I wouldn't recommend it. :)

> My version makes the harmonic progression more effective, does
> not harm the melody, and makes clarity and therefore better
> tuning and better singing possible.

Your version sounds a lot like 'everyone should adapt
continually' to me. Which also happens to be my version.

> I should/could do more scientific testing, but preliminary
> observations show this:
> Typical barbershoppers listening to a chord on 1/1 followed by
> a 4:5:6:7 rooted on 81/64 hear the progression as part of a
> pythagorean III-VI-II-V-I progression. When they hear a 1/1
> rooted chord followed by a 4:5:6:7 rooted on 5/4, they hear it
> as leading to the relative minor in a III-vi progression. It
> is very strong to me, as I'm now used to that difference.

Interesting!

> Since barbershoppers already hear that difference somewhat and
> can EASILY be taught to hear the difference moreso... well,
> the notational difference between 27/16 (or 3^3) vs a 5/4 (or
> just 5) root indicates a totally different chord progression.

Have you ever heard Nitelife do It Never Ocurred to Me?
I think a more flexible notation that what you're suggesting
would be needed to capture a performance like that. But
I could be wrong.

> In vague adaptive JI
> these useful and musical distinctions may be lost or may be
> arbitrarily up to the performers to realize by chance if they
> are aware enough. I'm adding clarity and function to the
> concept.

I don't know what you mean by "vague adaptive JI", but I'm
pretty sure the notation I've outlined is both more general
(usable outside of barbershop) and more precise (even within
barbershop). But it does look like there are details to
your proposal you haven't yet disclosed.

> So yes, I'm challenging the entire "adaptive JI" concept of
> barbershop tuning.

Not at all. What you seem to be saying is that in addition to
each performer keeping the tonic in mind and applying shifts
(instead of drifts) to keep it on target, that only a certain
subset of the possible 'shift solutions' are actually used in
barbershop for each basic chord progression (or turn-around).
That's a very interesting asserition, and if you could produce
a list pairing chord progressions and tunings I'd say you
made a huge contribution to music theory.

> It's not about obsessively describing the complex, imperfect
> reality of real human performances.

I'm certainly not suggesting that.

> Using the
> issues of real human performance to support the "adaptive JI"
> theory

You seem to be very fond of dismissing the "adaptive JI theory",
but I'm not sure exactly what theory you're referring to.

> And I don't think
> barbershoppers tend to want to be vague and adaptive.

Er...

-Carl

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

> Of course not, but it must be a matter of degrees before it
> becomes "absolute". Even in "perfect pitch", we're comparing
> pitches to a standard in order to name them.
>

Sure, of course. So my point is I agree about not worrying about
absolute pitch, but I feel a lot more relativity is possible in
musicians and listeners, and we can have a lot more before we call it
"absolute" IN THE CASES where the music follows reliable predictable
relationships.

> It boils down to how many home changes are you using/notating.
> In Retrofit there are 24 changes out of 54 bars.
>

I think this should be considered a little on a case by case basis.

> The first thing we should establish is, are we cooking a
> notation for barbershop only, or adaptive JI in general?
>

Well, I'd like to say extended barbershop... or rather that I think a
lot of music, including stuff that wouldn't sound ANYTHING like
barbershop can still fit in the basic realm of these harmonies. I'm
talking about mostly 7-odd-limit music that mostly stays within a
certain reasonable distance of a tonic key center. I'm not
necessarily suggesting that this is sensible for all adaptive JI.

I'm basically using harmonies that include three main functions:

1. Supporting a tonic in a utonal fashion such as otonal chords rooted
on 8/5, 4/3, or 16/9.

2. Pythagorean roots that accomplish fifths-style cadences

I'm also using a few other related chords, but not going too darn far out.

> What did you think of the strictness of my proposal? I agreed
> that only one comma pair is needed (+/-), and implied the
> root should be changed as often as necessary to spell all chords
> in 'lowest terms'. I further suggested that drift could be
> accounted for with a running total of cents offset that would
> only be displayed in the score when its direction changed.
>

I don't know about running drift totals... that sounds "absolute" to
me, using your concept of "absolute."
I like the comma idea, because I could see that being useful.

I think it is a composer's judgment how often to indicate overall
tonal center change. I'm using the term "root" to relate to each and
every chord fundamental. I think the tonal center change is both a
question of how people hear things, and what is intended. 3-4 time
signature vs 6-8 says things about how to feel the music even though
the number of notes in the measures is the same. Likewise, a composer
choosing to indicate a key change versus using accidentals indicates
how they would like the musicians to treat the notes. If we don't
have a key change indicated, then I'll assume the chords are treated
as per their relation to the original key. If there's a key change,
then more likely we can make our way to the new key and forget what
the old one sounded like.

> > > Q: Does all music evoke such sound [home] in memory?
> >
> > Every person has a different way of listening based on culture,
> > training, upbringing and many other factors.
>
> What about Webern?
>

Him too. He also had his particular way of listening.

> > So it's very complicated. And I'm arguing that barbershoppers
> > can and do learn to relate pythagorean chords to the tonic
>
> I don't think "pythagorean" is the word you're looking for.
>

I meant pythagorean ROOTS not chords, and I don't mean for them to be
exclusively pythagorean. I am meaning that barbershoppers can relate
a small number of specific JUST chords that are rooted on pythagorean
notes to the original tonic 1/1.

> > > > I don't tell them what frequency that has to be, but I'm
> > > > sticking with the generally accepted idea that it shouldn't
> > > > generally change throughout the song (in other words, no
> > > > overall tonic drift).
> > >
> > > Is that generally accepted?
> >
> > It is generally accepted within the ranks of anyone who cares
> > to focus on the pitch content of the style.
>
> To me it depends if the song ends on the same chord it starts on.
>

Of course! But that would be different for the arranger or composer's
intentional effect.

> > my experience is very much that barbershoppers don't
> > want to hear a short progression go flat.
> > Some like the sound of going sharp.
>
> That's my experience as well.
>
> So that going sharp can be desirable is one reason we might
> want to control the shift/drift tradeoff at the notation level.
>
> Another case is symmetric progressions that drift away and
> then back to home by the time they complete. The drift in
> such cases may be preferrable to shifts going in and coming
> out.
>
> -Carl
>

After listening and trying things, I know that I prefer the sharpness
of the pythagorean roots in the fifths-progressions, but that I like
returning to the same home chord. I haven't found many barbershoppers
who consistently disagree with that. If we keep sharping forever,
we'll be singing only in the highest parts of our range!

-Aaron

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > I AM suggesting that in barbershop (and other styles such as
> > doo-wop or blues and many others that have common progressions
> > throughout the whole style) absolute relations to 1/1 aren't
> > out of the question.
>
> I guess the question is whether the ratios get too long to
> write (and read/understand). In many simpler pieces, they
> won't. In others, they will. My idea of writing each chord
> in lowest terms is one way to make the call. One could
> certainly use less frequent root changes than that, and then
> use some other device to indicate chord identities (like
> note shape).... but I wouldn't recommend it. :)
>

I think the question isn't whether the ratios get too long, but how
many and which chords can clearly be categorized in a typical
musician's mind as useful to independently remember. Then, coming up
with notation is the issue. So I'm saying a chord rooted on 3^3 is
useful to identify, as it comes up often in barbershop. I'm not
saying 3^3 is a great or simple symbol. Maybe we can use a
NON-numeral symbol for perfect fifths and then add the number to that,
so 27/16 would become 3∫ or something, and 81/64 would be 4b+.

> > My version makes the harmonic progression more effective, does
> > not harm the melody, and makes clarity and therefore better
> > tuning and better singing possible.
>
> Your version sounds a lot like 'everyone should adapt
> continually' to me. Which also happens to be my version.
>

Yes, but I'm suggesting a clear goal of where to "adapt" and I
wouldn't teach it to people that way necessarily. In fact, I'm saying
that whoever is on the root of each chord should identify specific
notes related to the tonic and everyone else should adapt to that. So
instead of a part being non-adaptive, I'm saying the roots should be
non-adaptive, and should fit a pretty darn set scale, with few exceptions.

> > I should/could do more scientific testing, but preliminary
> > observations show this:
> > Typical barbershoppers listening to a chord on 1/1 followed by
> > a 4:5:6:7 rooted on 81/64 hear the progression as part of a
> > pythagorean III-VI-II-V-I progression. When they hear a 1/1
> > rooted chord followed by a 4:5:6:7 rooted on 5/4, they hear it
> > as leading to the relative minor in a III-vi progression. It
> > is very strong to me, as I'm now used to that difference.
>
> Interesting!
>
> > Since barbershoppers already hear that difference somewhat and
> > can EASILY be taught to hear the difference moreso... well,
> > the notational difference between 27/16 (or 3^3) vs a 5/4 (or
> > just 5) root indicates a totally different chord progression.
>
> Have you ever heard Nitelife do It Never Ocurred to Me?
> I think a more flexible notation that what you're suggesting
> would be needed to capture a performance like that. But
> I could be wrong.
>

I would never assume that they are doing a strict performance of my
theoretical analysis of this stuff.
That's a wonderful example of some stuff a bit jazzier than typical
barbershop.

I DO feel that my notation and theory could totally work for that
performance though, and whether they do exactly what I'd notate is
comparable to whether a band would absolutely strictly follow the
notated rhythm of a piece to an absolute. But the implications of how
the chords are related and where they lead... I still think this song
would fit. But I'd have to do more work and get a score and stuff to
know more. What a cool song.

> > In vague adaptive JI
> > these useful and musical distinctions may be lost or may be
> > arbitrarily up to the performers to realize by chance if they
> > are aware enough. I'm adding clarity and function to the
> > concept.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "vague adaptive JI", but I'm
> pretty sure the notation I've outlined is both more general
> (usable outside of barbershop) and more precise (even within
> barbershop). But it does look like there are details to
> your proposal you haven't yet disclosed.
>
> > So yes, I'm challenging the entire "adaptive JI" concept of
> > barbershop tuning.
>
> Not at all. What you seem to be saying is that in addition to
> each performer keeping the tonic in mind and applying shifts
> (instead of drifts) to keep it on target, that only a certain
> subset of the possible 'shift solutions' are actually used in
> barbershop for each basic chord progression (or turn-around).
> That's a very interesting asserition, and if you could produce
> a list pairing chord progressions and tunings I'd say you
> made a huge contribution to music theory.

Ok, sounds like a terminology thing about the specific nature of the
term "adaptive." I don't have a scientific definition, do you? What
can we agree on?

I could probably produce such a list eventually if I had a more clear
concept of what you mean...

>
> > It's not about obsessively describing the complex, imperfect
> > reality of real human performances.
>
> I'm certainly not suggesting that.
>
> > Using the
> > issues of real human performance to support the "adaptive JI"
> > theory
>
> You seem to be very fond of dismissing the "adaptive JI theory",
> but I'm not sure exactly what theory you're referring to.
>

The one that talked about barbershoppers slightly sharping each time
the go through a progression, spreading out commas in complex ways
over the course of a progression. The one that basically says that
although each chord may be just, the relation of one chord to another
is not necessarily any sort of simple relationship. The one saying
that barbershop cannot be described in straightforward extended JI.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > The first thing we should establish is, are we cooking a
> > notation for barbershop only, or adaptive JI in general?
>
> Well, I'd like to say extended barbershop... or rather that
> I think a lot of music, including stuff that wouldn't sound
> ANYTHING like barbershop can still fit in the basic realm
> of these harmonies.

I think if you had a harmonic language based on modulations
by 3rds, people trained to recognize 5th-based progressions
with the clock notation would be lost.

> 1. Supporting a tonic in a utonal fashion such as otonal chords
> rooted on 8/5, 4/3, or 16/9.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Barbershop as 7-limit
music is notable for its paucity of utonal chords.

> I'm also using a few other related chords, but not going too
> darn far out.

Even if you stay within 12 fifths, the tuning 'problems' that
occur with a progression like CM - EM - Amin - G#min - BM -
EbM - CM are non-obvious and only get solved through lots of
practice singing them... or from a score where the composer's
worked them out ahead of time. No?

> > What did you think of the strictness of my proposal? I agreed
> > that only one comma pair is needed (+/-), and implied the
> > root should be changed as often as necessary to spell all chords
> > in 'lowest terms'. I further suggested that drift could be
> > accounted for with a running total of cents offset that would
> > only be displayed in the score when its direction changed.
> >
>
> I don't know about running drift totals... that sounds "absolute"
> to me,

It is, but it's just a running total, it's not specifying the
pitch of any note in particular. It just lets you check if
you're going flat because of the score or because you're not
standing up straight.

> > > So it's very complicated. And I'm arguing that barbershoppers
> > > can and do learn to relate pythagorean chords to the tonic
> >
> > I don't think "pythagorean" is the word you're looking for.
> >
>
> I meant pythagorean ROOTS not chords, and I don't mean for them
> to be exclusively pythagorean. I am meaning that barbershoppers
> can relate a small number of specific JUST chords that are rooted
> on pythagorean notes to the original tonic 1/1.

Are they really on such roots, though, or do you just mean to
indicate a number of approximate fifths? Aren't there cases
where the appropriate comma shift means the root is not in a
Pythagorean relation to the first root of the song?

> > > > > I don't tell them what frequency that has to be, but I'm
> > > > > sticking with the generally accepted idea that it shouldn't
> > > > > generally change throughout the song (in other words, no
> > > > > overall tonic drift).
> > > >
> > > > Is that generally accepted?
> > >
> > > It is generally accepted within the ranks of anyone who cares
> > > to focus on the pitch content of the style.
> >
> > To me it depends if the song ends on the same chord it starts
> > on.
>
> Of course! But that would be different for the arranger or
> composer's intentional effect.

Right, and shouldn't the notation allow them to notate what they
want to achieve? For example, they prefer going sharp a semitone
over the course of a piece to having lots of comma shifts.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > > My version makes the harmonic progression more effective, does
> > > not harm the melody, and makes clarity and therefore better
> > > tuning and better singing possible.
> >
> > Your version sounds a lot like 'everyone should adapt
> > continually' to me. Which also happens to be my version.
>
> Yes, but I'm suggesting a clear goal of where to "adapt" and I
> wouldn't teach it to people that way necessarily. In fact, I'm
> saying that whoever is on the root of each chord should identify
> specific notes related to the tonic and everyone else should
> adapt to that. So instead of a part being non-adaptive, I'm
> saying the roots should be non-adaptive, and should fit a pretty
> darn set scale, with few exceptions.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You're saying roots should stick
to a scale, not the melody, and not necessarily the bass, but
almost always the bass because the bass almost always has the
root. That's an interesting theory. I wonder if you will find
it successful for sequencing more complicated tunes, medlies,
etc. (have you?).

> > Have you ever heard Nitelife do It Never Ocurred to Me?
> > I think a more flexible notation that what you're suggesting
> > would be needed to capture a performance like that. But
> > I could be wrong.
>
> I would never assume that they are doing a strict performance
> of my theoretical analysis of this stuff.
> That's a wonderful example of some stuff a bit jazzier than
> typical barbershop.
>
> I DO feel that my notation and theory could totally work for
> that performance though, and whether they do exactly what I'd
> notate is comparable to whether a band would absolutely
> strictly follow the notated rhythm of a piece to an absolute.
> But the implications of how the chords are related and where
> they lead... I still think this song would fit. But I'd have
> to do more work and get a score and stuff to know more. What
> a cool song.

Isn't it?

Of course no human performance can (nor would I want it to)
exactly capture either intonation or rhythm from a score.
The question is, how much abstraction should a score have?
A MIDI file is a kind of score, but it doesn't have nearly
enough rhythmic abstraction for humans to read. "Oh, I
came in 3ms late there, sorry." Not going to happen.

Currentnly, b-shop is notated in 12-tone ET and performed
in 7-limit JI. The discrepency is big enough that finally
people started talking about it, and doing work like you're
doing. Clearly I think the point of this list is that folks
feel they want more intonation subtly in their music. How
much more is hard to say.

In this case, the bass is singing some seriously weird
stuff. Being a jazz standard, the roots will be 5ths-based,
but Jeff's tuning here is interesting. It may just be off
of JI in a stylistic way. But to me it evokes a utonal sound.
Probably because utonal chords have bass notes that tend
to clash with the 'virtunal fundamental' of the chord.
Anyway, it's a tune I've long wanted to subject to spectral
analysis.

> > > So yes, I'm challenging the entire "adaptive JI" concept of
> > > barbershop tuning.
> >
> > Not at all. What you seem to be saying is that in addition to
> > each performer keeping the tonic in mind and applying shifts
> > (instead of drifts) to keep it on target, that only a certain
> > subset of the possible 'shift solutions' are actually used in
> > barbershop for each basic chord progression (or turn-around).
> > That's a very interesting asserition, and if you could produce
> > a list pairing chord progressions and tunings I'd say you
> > made a huge contribution to music theory.
>
> Ok, sounds like a terminology thing about the specific nature
> of the term "adaptive." I don't have a scientific definition,
> do you? What can we agree on?

The way I use the term, it just means melodic intervals (as
opposed to harmonic intervals) are not neccesarily in JI --
even if they are, this is not reflected in the numeric notation
of the pitches. For example, every 4:5:6:7 chord in the score
will be notated the same way, whether the parts move into it
via pure 3:2s or via a tempered fifth.

> I could probably produce such a list eventually if I had a
> more clear concept of what you mean...

You presented one recently. You said iii V IV I progressions
tend to be tuned a certain way, sound most natural to
barbershoppers... Collect those, and you're in business.

> > You seem to be very fond of dismissing the "adaptive JI theory",
> > but I'm not sure exactly what theory you're referring to.
> >
>
> The one that talked about barbershoppers slightly sharping each
> time the go through a progression, spreading out commas in
> complex ways over the course of a progression.

Yes that is one adaptive JI theory, and could be explained by
everyone having a tonic memory, but I haven't been pushing it
here.

> The one saying that barbershop cannot be described in
> straightforward extended JI.

A comma shift paradigm is not what I'd call "straightforward
extended JI". Well, I would, but lots of people wouldn't,
and it caused a great deal of confusion on this list until
it was clarified.

I think your point that shifts are a lot less noticable in
a capella singing is a significant one, and I encourage you
to write a little something on it with examples. I personally
don't think melodic intervals are held to JI as well as
harmonic ones in human performances. I don't think they're
held to the precise tempered values called for by Vicentino's
brand of adaptive JI, for example, but ....

-Carl

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > The first thing we should establish is, are we cooking a
> > > notation for barbershop only, or adaptive JI in general?
> >
> > Well, I'd like to say extended barbershop... or rather that
> > I think a lot of music, including stuff that wouldn't sound
> > ANYTHING like barbershop can still fit in the basic realm
> > of these harmonies.
>
> I think if you had a harmonic language based on modulations
> by 3rds, people trained to recognize 5th-based progressions
> with the clock notation would be lost.
>

Fine, I agree. But I know of no way to notate progressions by 3rds in
any sort of short-hand way, and I know of nobody who has ingrained the
way that sort of modulation sounds. Fact is, progressions modulating
by 5 identities are simply not as common because that is a higher
identity to function off of. Once we are in the realm of music that
nobody is used to then we might as well just notate everything
specifically and not look for standards or shortcuts. We can always
stick to using ratio notation.

> > 1. Supporting a tonic in a utonal fashion such as otonal chords
> > rooted on 8/5, 4/3, or 16/9.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Barbershop as 7-limit
> music is notable for its paucity of utonal chords.

Ok, not Utonal CHORDS, but utonal roots in relation to 1/1. As I
said, otonal chords rooted on things like 8/5 or 4/3 or 16/9. Those
are all very very common. Those chords allow for a held tonic note in
one part that is embellished by making that 1/1 become a 5 identity or
a 3 or a 9, or sometimes a 15. Those chords are very common. But not
any chord like that, mostly those. There doesn't tend to be an 8/7
rooted chord.

Point is that the circle-of-fifths progressions are common, and so are
these chords that temporarily harmonize a stable tonic to become
different parts of a chord.

>
> > I'm also using a few other related chords, but not going too
> > darn far out.
>
> Even if you stay within 12 fifths, the tuning 'problems' that
> occur with a progression like CM - EM - Amin - G#min - BM -
> EbM - CM are non-obvious and only get solved through lots of
> practice singing them... or from a score where the composer's
> worked them out ahead of time. No?
>

I don't recall ever seeing something like G#min in a CM song in the
barbershop world, or almost any other for that matter. Sure it is a
fine progression, but as it would not be obvious to an ear-singer, it
would have to be up to the composer to indicate how it was intended.

A lot of my whole perspective is arguing that most of everything I've
been using and seen in most barbershop is stuff that is apparent by
ear and that woodshedders and ear-singers could arrive at on their
own. That is my limiting factor, ear-singing, that divides the more
simple progressions from the more thought out and difficult ones. So
even in my circle-of-fifths progressions, I think we can only go to
about 3^5 at the most, and MAYBE 3^6, but anything past that is
certainly way too far for ear-singers to follow.

> >
> > I don't know about running drift totals... that sounds "absolute"
> > to me,
>
> It is, but it's just a running total, it's not specifying the
> pitch of any note in particular. It just lets you check if
> you're going flat because of the score or because you're not
> standing up straight.
>

I can see the use of that. I'd just only use it when it seemed needed.

> > > > So it's very complicated. And I'm arguing that barbershoppers
> > > > can and do learn to relate pythagorean chords to the tonic
> > >
> > > I don't think "pythagorean" is the word you're looking for.
> > >
> >
> > I meant pythagorean ROOTS not chords, and I don't mean for them
> > to be exclusively pythagorean. I am meaning that barbershoppers
> > can relate a small number of specific JUST chords that are rooted
> > on pythagorean notes to the original tonic 1/1.
>
> Are they really on such roots, though, or do you just mean to
> indicate a number of approximate fifths? Aren't there cases
> where the appropriate comma shift means the root is not in a
> Pythagorean relation to the first root of the song?
>

I'm arguing that it can make sense to an ear singer, after hearing and
exploring these progressions to really hear the pythagorean roots.
Singers evolved from having just V-I, to then trying II-V-I, and
little by little they add one more fifth by remembering the sounds of
what they already have. So it makes sense to make them true perfect
fifths.

> > > > > > I don't tell them what frequency that has to be, but I'm
> > > > > > sticking with the generally accepted idea that it shouldn't
> > > > > > generally change throughout the song (in other words, no
> > > > > > overall tonic drift).
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that generally accepted?
> > > >
> > > > It is generally accepted within the ranks of anyone who cares
> > > > to focus on the pitch content of the style.
> > >
> > > To me it depends if the song ends on the same chord it starts
> > > on.
> >
> > Of course! But that would be different for the arranger or
> > composer's intentional effect.
>
> Right, and shouldn't the notation allow them to notate what they
> want to achieve? For example, they prefer going sharp a semitone
> over the course of a piece to having lots of comma shifts.
>

Sure, if that's what happens, but I haven't seen that in any piece
I've done yet, except ones that notated that traditionally with a
specific key change.

-Aaron

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

> Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You're saying roots should stick
> to a scale, not the melody, and not necessarily the bass, but
> almost always the bass because the bass almost always has the
> root. That's an interesting theory. I wonder if you will find
> it successful for sequencing more complicated tunes, medlies,
> etc. (have you?).
>

I've got it to work with everything I've tried so far.
And although you are right that it is often the bass on the roots, the
bass is also commonly on fifths of chords in barbershop. Which
totally makes sense as far as low number identities being lowest in
the chord.

> Of course no human performance can (nor would I want it to)
> exactly capture either intonation or rhythm from a score.
> The question is, how much abstraction should a score have?
> A MIDI file is a kind of score, but it doesn't have nearly
> enough rhythmic abstraction for humans to read. "Oh, I
> came in 3ms late there, sorry." Not going to happen.
>
> Currentnly, b-shop is notated in 12-tone ET and performed
> in 7-limit JI. The discrepency is big enough that finally
> people started talking about it, and doing work like you're
> doing. Clearly I think the point of this list is that folks
> feel they want more intonation subtly in their music. How
> much more is hard to say.
>

The only people I've talked to who don't agree are either those who
hate any complaint about whatever is the status quo, or those who
really don't even care if the tuning is good at all because they care
more about lyrics or fellowship or some distant thing that has nothing
to do with any of this. In the barbershop world I've found virtually
no resistance to the idea of making intonation issues more clear and
understandable.

> In this case, the bass is singing some seriously weird
> stuff. Being a jazz standard, the roots will be 5ths-based,
> but Jeff's tuning here is interesting. It may just be off
> of JI in a stylistic way. But to me it evokes a utonal sound.
> Probably because utonal chords have bass notes that tend
> to clash with the 'virtunal fundamental' of the chord.
> Anyway, it's a tune I've long wanted to subject to spectral
> analysis.
>

I'd love to see that done. Wish I had time, but I can't say I will do
that anytime soon. I'm going to struggle to keep myself from making
unsubstantiated speculation.

> > Ok, sounds like a terminology thing about the specific nature
> > of the term "adaptive." I don't have a scientific definition,
> > do you? What can we agree on?
>
> The way I use the term, it just means melodic intervals (as
> opposed to harmonic intervals) are not neccesarily in JI --
> even if they are, this is not reflected in the numeric notation
> of the pitches. For example, every 4:5:6:7 chord in the score
> will be notated the same way, whether the parts move into it
> via pure 3:2s or via a tempered fifth.
>

I think I'm using it the same way then. I'm arguing that these things
are only "adaptive" in the way that exact measured MIDI rhythm versus
live performance rhythm is not the same. In other words, there are
times when we can really say that something can be open to
interpretation. For example I notated "dips" in the recent score to
indicate sections that are effectively just a chord dipping and coming
back. Those do not in any way need to be JI or anything, they can be
whatever is adapted to, within the idea of flatting and returning to
where we were. That is adaptive, and in that sense I feel there are
sections or chords that can be adaptively done in barbershop. But I
feel that the majority is NOT adaptive, but is essentially extended JI
plus or minus normal human error and issues of reality of live music.
But not as adaptive as the "dips" that really could be any amount
within reason.

> > I could probably produce such a list eventually if I had a
> > more clear concept of what you mean...
>
> You presented one recently. You said iii V IV I progressions
> tend to be tuned a certain way, sound most natural to
> barbershoppers... Collect those, and you're in business.
>

Adding common 7ths, I'd say that would be iii: 5/4, 3/2, 15/8; V7:
3/2, 15/8, 9/8, 21/16; IV7: 4/3, 5/3, 1/1, 7/6; I: 1/1, 5/4, 3/2.

Obviously, the iii has only one note different from the V, and only
one note different from a I chord. So whether the singer hears iii as
relating to I or V it will still be tuned as I've indicated. V is
obvious and in barbershop will be a harmonic seventh chord.
Regardless of the issues between V and IV, barbershoppers will always
hear both as relating to I. Both V-I and IV-I cadences are common,
and the singers quickly learn to relate those. V leads to I, but
going to IV first allows a melody or other prominent note to still hit
1/1, but be harmonized differently by the other parts making the IV
chord. Barbershoppers certainly do not relate V and IV to each other
as much as they relate them each to I.

Is this the sort of discussion and chart or whatever that you are
talking about? I suppose I could definitely compile such a discussion
of progressions and tunings. That would be a good way to get to
prepare a real website making these ideas accessible. So, yes or no
is this what you had in mind?

> A comma shift paradigm is not what I'd call "straightforward
> extended JI". Well, I would, but lots of people wouldn't,
> and it caused a great deal of confusion on this list until
> it was clarified.
>

I'm baffled. Extended JI inherently has notes that are distant by
commas. So somehow you are saying that "straightforward extended JI"
can't include moving between these notes that are a comma apart???

> I think your point that shifts are a lot less noticable in
> a capella singing is a significant one, and I encourage you
> to write a little something on it with examples. I personally
> don't think melodic intervals are held to JI as well as
> harmonic ones in human performances. I don't think they're
> held to the precise tempered values called for by Vicentino's
> brand of adaptive JI, for example, but ....
>
> -Carl
>

I think melody is based mostly on two factors: contour and memory. In
other words, simply hearing a note as "that's like that one from
earlier" along with generally having the pitch go up and down, that's
what governs melody.

The only reason JI would play into it is either:

1. from (subconsciously) remembering the sound of various harmonics
and relating that another note sounds similar because some of it's
harmonics remind you of ones from a previous note
or
2. from remembering JI relationships generally heard in harmonic
contexts. This is an issue of being musically trained or having
cultural experience to expect certain notes in a melody.

So for the most part, I agree about JI being more important
harmonically than melodically. I'd go so far as to say that tuning as
a whole is not so important in totally unaccompanied (no drone) melodies.

-Aaron

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > I think if you had a harmonic language based on modulations
> > by 3rds, people trained to recognize 5th-based progressions
> > with the clock notation would be lost.
> >
>
> Fine, I agree. But I know of no way to notate progressions
> by 3rds in any sort of short-hand way, and I know of nobody
> who has ingrained the way that sort of modulation sounds.

Plenty of musicians do, but there may not be a niche of
performers dedicated to such music.

If there were, I suppose the clock notation could be used,
except it would means 3rds instead of 5ths!

But anyway, I guess my point in this thread has been to
encourage questions like 'What would I have to change to
make my microtonal notation suitable for all kinds of
music (new and old), and would those changes damage its
usefulness in my application much?'

> Fact is, progressions modulating
> by 5 identities are simply not as common because that is a
> higher identity to function off of.

That's probably true. But as you note below, they do allow
modulations with common tones if there are 5-identities in the
chords.

> There doesn't tend to be an 8/7 rooted chord.

I would guess it'd be the preferred motion between a pair of
4-5-6-7 chords a whole tone apart, all else being equal. I
wonder if such modulations are just rare in barbershop, or if
even when they occur singers tend not to use 8/7...

> > Are they really on such roots, though, or do you just mean to
> > indicate a number of approximate fifths? Aren't there cases
> > where the appropriate comma shift means the root is not in a
> > Pythagorean relation to the first root of the song?
>
> I'm arguing that it can make sense to an ear singer, after
> hearing and exploring these progressions to really hear the
> pythagorean roots. //
> it makes sense to make them true perfect fifths.

You don't think they might fudge them a little if they hear
that otherwise the lead sounds a bit off?

> > ... shouldn't the notation allow them to notate what they
> > want to achieve? For example, they prefer going sharp a
> > semitone over the course of a piece to having lots of comma
> > shifts.
>
> Sure, if that's what happens, but I haven't seen that in any
> piece I've done yet, except ones that notated that
> traditionally with a specific key change.

You haven't seen comma shifts in the pieces you've done?
And you *have* seen a score where accumulated comma drift
was notated as a key signature change?

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> I feel that the majority is NOT adaptive, but is essentially
> extended JI plus or minus normal human error and issues of
> reality of live music.

Ok. Glad we got the terminology worked out.

> > > I could probably produce such a list eventually if I had a
> > > more clear concept of what you mean...
> >
> > You presented one recently. You said iii V IV I progressions
> > tend to be tuned a certain way, sound most natural to
> > barbershoppers... Collect those, and you're in business.
>
> Adding common 7ths, I'd say that would be iii: 5/4, 3/2, 15/8;
> V7: 3/2, 15/8, 9/8, 21/16; IV7: 4/3, 5/3, 1/1, 7/6;
> I: 1/1, 5/4, 3/2.
>
> Obviously, the iii has only one note different from the V, and
> only one note different from a I chord. So whether the singer
> hears iii as relating to I or V it will still be tuned as I've
> indicated. V is obvious and in barbershop will be a harmonic
> seventh chord.
//
> Is this the sort of discussion and chart or whatever that you
> are talking about?

Yup.

> I suppose I could definitely compile such a discussion
> of progressions and tunings. That would be a good way to get to
> prepare a real website making these ideas accessible. So, yes or
> no is this what you had in mind?

Yes!

> > A comma shift paradigm is not what I'd call "straightforward
> > extended JI". Well, I would, but lots of people wouldn't,
> > and it caused a great deal of confusion on this list until
> > it was clarified.
>
> I'm baffled. Extended JI inherently has notes that are distant
> by commas.

Yes, but historically the assumption seems to have been 'shifts
obviously aren't an option, so JI is acceptable if and only
if drift is acceptable'. Even Jim Richards said this is "why
some guys sing flat". But I think singing flat is a natural
human energy thing, and the shifts happen regardless. So on
that, it seems we agree. But I don't think the melodic
intervals are as close to JI as you seem to, and I don't think
the bass has sole control over the tuning.

-Carl

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

> But anyway, I guess my point in this thread has been to
> encourage questions like 'What would I have to change to
> make my microtonal notation suitable for all kinds of
> music (new and old), and would those changes damage its
> usefulness in my application much?'
>

A good question. In my mind we have to consider how much we work with
existing notation that people already have learned. If we throw that
out the window, then maybe the entire staff system is not the best
notation. If we try to fit into what people know then my question is
how many people out there have any concept of any of the things in
your or my notation ideas? In other words, the value of working
within current systems is to appeal to real people who know them. So
we must consider exactly who our musicians are that will be reading
this stuff. If your music is too far removed for anyone knowing
traditional systems to relate your music to the traditional systems,
then I wouldn't bother with traditional notation concepts at all
necessarily.

> > There doesn't tend to be an 8/7 rooted chord.
>
> I would guess it'd be the preferred motion between a pair of
> 4-5-6-7 chords a whole tone apart, all else being equal. I
> wonder if such modulations are just rare in barbershop, or if
> even when they occur singers tend not to use 8/7...
>

No, I think the issue where the chords are leading. In other words, I
progression of I-II7-I could have II7 on 8/7, but that isn't so
common. The common progression is I-II7-V7-I, so the II will be 9/8
to carry on towards the 3/2 rooted V7. And since that progression is
SO common, singers will hear that and do that anytime they see I-II7,
and then if it goes right back to I, then they'll just go back. The
end result is chords rooted on 1/1 and 9/8. To my ear using 8/7
sounds outside of the normal barbershop sound even in this case. But
I think it is musically valid, so if that were desired it could be
notated and taught to be done that way, even though it is outside what
would be common.

> > > Are they really on such roots, though, or do you just mean to
> > > indicate a number of approximate fifths? Aren't there cases
> > > where the appropriate comma shift means the root is not in a
> > > Pythagorean relation to the first root of the song?
> >
> > I'm arguing that it can make sense to an ear singer, after
> > hearing and exploring these progressions to really hear the
> > pythagorean roots. //
> > it makes sense to make them true perfect fifths.
>
> You don't think they might fudge them a little if they hear
> that otherwise the lead sounds a bit off?
>

I think that regardless of what they think of he lead when
unaccompanied, the lead fitting into the clear and precise chord is so
strong that nobody would say it is wrong. The trick is convincing
leads to care about how they fit with everyone else. Once the
harmonic context is clear, the melody still sounds fine. It's just
like I said in my last post: Melody is not as important to be exactly
tuned as is harmony. So it is no stretch for the leads to tune to the
chord and still feel that they are more or less on the right melody note.

In reality, of course that sort of fudging happens, but it isn't at a
level where singers aware of these issue choose to prefer the fudged
version when they really can hear both. I have yet to find singers
who are aware enough of these differences to have a clear preference.
Those who can hear the differences simply find it interesting and can
see my position that the chord relationships should be of primary
focus when considering tuning.

> > > ... shouldn't the notation allow them to notate what they
> > > want to achieve? For example, they prefer going sharp a
> > > semitone over the course of a piece to having lots of comma
> > > shifts.
> >
> > Sure, if that's what happens, but I haven't seen that in any
> > piece I've done yet, except ones that notated that
> > traditionally with a specific key change.
>
> You haven't seen comma shifts in the pieces you've done?
> And you *have* seen a score where accumulated comma drift
> was notated as a key signature change?
>

I've seen scores where there the key after a notated key change could
have a commatic relationship to a note or chord that was heard earlier.

My statement is more that I haven't seen a score where my tuning
approach would still have any trouble staying on key with no shift or
drift of the tonic. In other words, every score I've seen can be
realized in a way that has no shifts or drifts of the tonic. All
shifting or drifting can be placed in departures from tonic, so no
tonic shifting/drifting is ever necessary.

-Aaron

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > Just a note - I haven't been using "shift" and "drift" in
> > this thread interchangeably. Drift is by definition a
> > change in the tonic. I think your last sentence would read,
> > in my lingo, 'All shifting, no drifting'.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
>
> Carl, I fully understand the difference. In all of the musical
> circumstances I'm referencing, I've had NO shift OR drift of a
> tonic chord. What I mean is that neither does the tonic drift
> over the course of a progression, nor is it ever necessary to
> make the tonic chord itself shift at some point even to later
> return to where it was originally. So yes, all shift, no drift,
> but also all the shift takes place on CHORDS that are not tonic
> chords (though single melodic tonic notes do shift when necessary).

Aaron, shift does not refer to the pitch of a chord root, but to
comma jumps between successive (or nearly successive) common
tones between chords. If all tonic chords in a piece are rooted
on the same pitch, then we say there is no drift. If some tonic
chords in the middle of the piece are rooted on a slightly sharper
or flatter root and then the tonic at the end returns to the
initial one, there was drift away and then drift back. The roots
of non-tonic chords are not addressed by this terminology.

An example of a comma shift is C7 -> D7, where the D7 is rooted
on 9/8 relative to C = 1/1. In this case the common tone (which
may well be tied) "C" will *shift* downward by 64/63. In this
case, the shift can be avoided by rooting the D on 8/7 instead.
If shifts are continually avoided in this way, the inevitable
result will be *drift* in the tonic chord in many if not most
pieces of music.

-Carl

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > Just a note - I haven't been using "shift" and "drift" in
> > > this thread interchangeably. Drift is by definition a
> > > change in the tonic. I think your last sentence would read,
> > > in my lingo, 'All shifting, no drifting'.
> > >
> > > -Carl
> > >
> >
> > Carl, I fully understand the difference. In all of the musical
> > circumstances I'm referencing, I've had NO shift OR drift of a
> > tonic chord. What I mean is that neither does the tonic drift
> > over the course of a progression, nor is it ever necessary to
> > make the tonic chord itself shift at some point even to later
> > return to where it was originally. So yes, all shift, no drift,
> > but also all the shift takes place on CHORDS that are not tonic
> > chords (though single melodic tonic notes do shift when necessary).
>
> Aaron, shift does not refer to the pitch of a chord root, but to
> comma jumps between successive (or nearly successive) common
> tones between chords. If all tonic chords in a piece are rooted
> on the same pitch, then we say there is no drift. If some tonic
> chords in the middle of the piece are rooted on a slightly sharper
> or flatter root and then the tonic at the end returns to the
> initial one, there was drift away and then drift back. The roots
> of non-tonic chords are not addressed by this terminology.
>
> An example of a comma shift is C7 -> D7, where the D7 is rooted
> on 9/8 relative to C = 1/1. In this case the common tone (which
> may well be tied) "C" will *shift* downward by 64/63. In this
> case, the shift can be avoided by rooting the D on 8/7 instead.
> If shifts are continually avoided in this way, the inevitable
> result will be *drift* in the tonic chord in many if not most
> pieces of music.
>
> -Carl
>

Ok, I follow all that. But to me, drift had the connotation of a
change over time. I thought of drift as what happens when held notes
are kept steady in a progression like I-vi-ii-V-I, where keeping 5/4
in the first two, means an 81/80 drift over the whole progression. So
shift would be what would happen if we did that progression with the
drift and then started back at the beginning. It would be a shift to
go from the ending I back to the beginning I.

While I completely agree and will try to use your explanation of the
terminology from here on, if we considered the fusing unified sound of
barbershop as though each chord were just a big huge rich note, then I
could stick with saying that there is little if any shifting or
drifting. On the other hand, we could say every music that exists has
shifts in it if we consider relationships between different harmonics
within each note. Because barbershop blurs this line between separate
parts and individual notes, that is one factor that makes the tuning
and scales work differently than other styles. And it blurs how we
can apply the terminology.

-Aaron