Re: [tuning] Digest Number 4191 - Distinction between Scales and Tunings - elephant trap

As George wrote:

On 8 Nov 2006, at 12:27, tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> I believe I need to clarify the distinction between a scale and a
> tuning. I define a scale as a set of tones that may be used to write
> a melody, in which the tones are related by (more or less) specific
> interval-classes. A tuning is a set of tones for which specific
> frequencies or frequency-ratios (either rational or irrational) are
> given; tunings may be defined by one or more generating intervals, in
> which case they may consist of an indefinite number of tones.

I totally agree, yet this distinction goes beyond "used to write a melody"; and should also include ALL NOTES USED in a "piece" of music.
This then covers notes which may be used in the harmony, yet absent remain from the melody.

A longer "piece" of music may contain shorter "pieces", each of which may use its own "possibly different" scales (or tunings)

I had myself fallen into this "muddled-thinking" elephant trap for a few years.
When I realised my confusion, I changed the name from Lucy "Scale", to LucyTuning.

It seems that some tunaniks, still have yet to escape this naming confusion trap and "muddled-thinking".

Charles Lucy - lucy@lucytune.com ------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning ------- for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com
for LucyTuned Lullabies, go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> As George wrote:
>
> On 8 Nov 2006, at 12:27, tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > I believe I need to clarify the distinction between a scale and a
> > tuning. I define a scale as a set of tones that may be used to
write
> > a melody, in which the tones are related by (more or less)
specific
> > interval-classes. A tuning is a set of tones for which specific
> > frequencies or frequency-ratios (either rational or irrational)
are
> > given; tunings may be defined by one or more generating
intervals, in
> > which case they may consist of an indefinite number of tones.
>
> I totally agree, yet this distinction goes beyond "used to write a
> melody";

Observe that I said: *may* be used. By this wording I am *not*
requiring that each and every composition using a particular scale
*must* have a melody, nor do I intend to imply either 1) that all of
the notes in the scale *must* be present in a melody, or 2) that a
melody *may not* contain any notes foreign to the scale. Instead, my
intention is to *exclude* such off-the-wall sets of tones as "middle
C, plus the lowest and highest notes on the piano" from consideration
as musical scales on the basis that they're clearly unsuitable (in
most everyone's opinion) for writing melodies.

But I think that my two definitions could use a little rewording,
possibly replacing "related by (more or less) specific interval-
classes" by "related by generic interval-classes".

> and should also include ALL NOTES USED in a "piece" of music.
> This then covers notes which may be used in the harmony, yet
absent
> remain from the melody.

I don't think that this agrees with common usage of the
term "scale." For example, if I'm correct in thinking that a piece
of diatonic music uses a diatonic scale, then it's not entirely out
of the realm of possibility to find notes (i.e., accidentals), in
either the melody or the harmony, that are foreign to the scale.

In other words, what I'm *not* saying is that the members of the
scale are determined by where they're used in a piece. Rather, what
I *am* saying is that, if some arbitrary set of pitches isn't
suitable for writing a melody, then it's not a musical scale.

> A longer "piece" of music may contain shorter "pieces",

or sections, or even passages in a "development" section

> each of which
> may use its own "possibly different" scales (or tunings)

Yes, I think we would call them modulations, whereby one scale is
replaced by another.

> I had myself fallen into this "muddled-thinking" elephant trap for
a few years.
> When I realised my confusion, I changed the name from
Lucy "Scale",
> to LucyTuning.

A wise decision.

> It seems that some tunaniks, still have yet to escape this naming
> confusion trap and "muddled-thinking".

Many of us tend to take certain concepts for granted, and it's when
we step outside common practice into the realm of new tunings (and
the new scales contained therein) that we discover that our
understanding of them may not have been all that clear.

--George

George D. Secor wrote:

> Many of us tend to take certain concepts for granted, and it's when > we step outside common practice into the realm of new tunings (and > the new scales contained therein) that we discover that our > understanding of them may not have been all that clear.

It especially gets confusing when you run across something that's similar, but not exactly the same as a familiar scale. Some tunings support quasi-diatonic scales that don't quite match the familiar meantone diatonic scale, but can be used in similar ways. Hanson temperament with its chain of minor thirds has a good octatonic scale which seems to have a lot in common with the octatonic scale as used by composers like Stravinsky, and lemba temperament has a whole-tone scale that sounds a lot like the familiar one. Many tunings have something close to the pelog and slendro scales of Indonesian music, but it's hard to find one that sounds like a really close match.

The thing about the almost-diatonic and almost-octatonic scales is that you can be tempted into using familiar patterns, but watch out! Before long you might run across something that sounds out of place.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
> Many tunings have something close to the pelog and slendro scales
>of Indonesian music, but it's hard to find one that sounds like a
>really close match.

I don't think it's possible to divorce tuning from timbre (unless
you're working with an orchestra of sinewaves, or belligerently
imposing the ideals of one reality on another).

Number is adjective, not noun- 2:1 would usually be better written as
2°:1° .

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> this distinction goes beyond "used to write a
> melody"; and should also include ALL NOTES USED in a "piece" of music.
> This then covers notes which may be used in the harmony, yet absent
> remain from the melody.
>

All notes - or all pitches? - and does that mean all pitches in some
kind of ideally tuned version, or all pitches produced in a specific
performance by live musicians?

I think it obvious that both scales and tunings are some kinds of
abstraction which deliberately (and with good reason) omit to quantify
some pitches actually present in performance - for example scoops and
portamenti - and some very small differences of pitch.

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cameron Bobro wrote:
>
[snip]
> Number is adjective, not noun- 2:1 would usually be better written as
> 2°:1° .

I think the two of us may have to discuss this further!

Regards,
Yahya