Re: Digest Number 457

> Gerald Eskelin wrote,
>
>>This suggests that
>>singers do NOT tend to sing a 4:5:6 major triad. (Forget the Pythagorean
>>third. It is way too sharp.)

Paul Erlich replied:
>
> Gerald, this seems odd. In our off-list discussion, you told me that the
> singers sing a major third _higher_ than the 12-tET one in a major triad,
> and yet now you say the Pythagorean third is _way_ too sharp. There is only
> 8 cents difference between the two. 8 cents is about the smallest
> distinguishable melodic interval.

Paul, you are right. (Again!) Thanks for the correction. John link noted the
same point and commented off list.

I suspect that what I remember about the aural comparison (experienced many
years ago) was that they were not nearly the same. John did some
experimenting on his guitar regarding the "high third" and will likely be
posting some interesting findings after he finishes his CD and has the time
to get back into the list discussions. In general, he experienced the "high
third" as being considerably higher than Pythagorean. He played it for me
over the phone (remember those?) and it is indeed the third that I commonly
hear as the "singer's third."

Jerry

I wrote:

>>(It also seems unlikely that this "high third"
>>is a product of culture, since it appears to be arrived at in terms of
>>consonance, as opposed to learned preference.)

And Paul Erlich replied:
>
> I don't know how you propose to back up that assertion. In fact, studies
> have shown that untrained listeners tend to fall into two groups, one group
> preferring a just major triad, and another group preferring a major triad
> with the third either 15 cents sharp (as in 12-tET) or 15 cents flat, over
> the just major triad. I would argue that these listeners have been
> conditioned by a lifetime of exposure to the characteristic beating thirds
> of 12-tET.

Actually, I don't propose to back up that assertion. It is simply an opinion
that to me seems to reflect common tuning practices of the singers I have
worked with over a half century.

Perhaps the experiment you cite does not really apply since it seems to have
been conducted using listeners rather than singers. Nevertheless, it is
interesting and thanks for mentioning it. BTW, wouldn't that be THREE
groups? 1) just, 2) 15 cents sharp, 3) 15 cents flat. ??? If the "another"
group was responding to "either" the sharp or the flat tunings, we still
don't know whether they might have preferred some other tuning. Perhaps the
"another" group were lumped together as simply "wrong." (Many questions
unanswered here.)

I personally don't find a "consonant" tuning below what I hear as the 4:5
third (until I reach the 5:6 third, of course). Also, the singers I have
been listening to (since high school) always move upward when the fifth is
introduced and lock in at the "high third." The reason I am confident in
making that statement is that I have "always" tuned my thirds in the high
position and was surprised (naively) to learn, a few years back, that the
acoustic third 4:5 is actually below 12-tET major third. (Old dogs---new
tricks---etc.)

Regarding your reference to the "lifetime of exposure to the characteristic
beating thirds of 12-tET," if such a third were "preferred" by singers it
seems to me that they would gravitate toward a 400 cent third. They
apparently don't--likely because it simply doesn't "lock" there. The point
here is that when the "high third" is sounding "in tune" with the root and
fifth, beating is minimal and the tuning "locks."

Understand, Paul, none of this is intended as a refutation of anything you
have said above. I am simply trying to clarify my description of what I have
observed. Since we all interpret words in terms of our own experience,
descriptions sometimes create more confusion than insight. I guess that's
what "conversation" is for. :-)

Your turn. (If you care to.)

(A friend is helping me get my MP3 s--- together and perhaps I will be able
soon to post the "experiment" I have been referring to so you can hear it.)

GRE

I wrote:

>>Also, diminished triads, contrary to Mr. Wolf's description, in my
>>experience seem NOT to conform to a tempered configuration.

And Paul Erlich (as well as others) was kind enough to clarify:
>
> Gerald, Mr. Wolf was speaking specifically of diminished _seventh_ chords,
> not diminished triads. Besides augmented triads, another class of chords
> that cry out for tempering are those consisting of 4-7 consecutive fifths,
> such as a major chord with added 6th and 9th.

Of course. That makes sense.

Yes. I'm quite sure that the ear does "temper" such chords "naturally." I
commonly hear singers make slight pitch modifications in notationally
"repeated" or "sustained" notes as the fundamental shifts. And, believe me,
very few of those singers have any notion of numbers, ratios or tuning
"systems." They simply have sensitive ears.

GRE

Joseph Monzo kindly responded to my misinterpretation of Daniel Wolf,s
earlier post:

> I think what Mr. Wolf really meant was 'diminished *7th*'
> chords. His point was (one made in this List over and over
> again) that chords which divide the 'octave' into a certain
> number of identical intervals, for example, an 'augmented
> triad' with 3 'major 3rds' or a 'diminished 7th' with 4
> 'minor 3rds', generally only 'work' when tuned in an appropriate
> ET; 12-tET in the case of the two examples given.
>
> Some have argued that composers would not have used these
> two particular chords in the particular ways they did (and do),
> especially around 100 years ago (say from around Wagner to
> Schoenberg and Debussy), if 12-tET had not become the accepted
> norm and thus influenced these composers's thinking.
>
> I think it's significant that Schoenberg in particular found
> so much to explore among the 'augmented triads', 'diminished 7th
> chords', and '4th-chords', all of which pretty much require
> 12-tET, since it is the smallest ET which can produce them all
> within a closed system.

Thanks, Monz, for your clarification, and also for your informative
elaboration regarding historical use.

Speaking of Schoenberg, are you familiar with William Thompson's book
"Schoenberg's Error"? Essentially, he proposes that Schoenberg appears to
have noted the "trend" toward atonality and, because he didn't look back in
history far enough for a larger perspective, simply jumped in front of the
parade. His point, of course, is that the parade has now largely dissipated.
(Thank goodness!!!)

G. Eskelin

From DWolf:

> If you go back to WWII era recordings during the period when the musician's
> union refused to allow instrumentals, you can find some fantastic
> unaccompanied vocal ensemble performances with real intonational virtuosity,
> particularly by African-American groups: try the Golden Gate Quartet for
> starters. Also very much worth hearing are the "Madrigals" of William
> Brooks, especially as performed by Electric Phoenic; one of the four
> madrigals, a setting of Stephen Foster's _Nelly was a Lady_ , demonstrates
> just how far beyond the constraint of the barbershop style one might
> potentially go.

Any known available recordings? Suggestions for locating?

[Gerald Eskelin wrote...]
>Yes. I'm quite sure that the ear does "temper" such chords "naturally." I
>commonly hear singers make slight pitch modifications in notationally
>"repeated" or "sustained" notes as the fundamental shifts. And, believe me,
>very few of those singers have any notion of numbers, ratios or tuning
>"systems." They simply have sensitive ears.

Jerry, this doesn't sound anything like temperament to me. It sounds like
the singers you describe are making commatic adjustments consistent with
singing in JI.

-Carl