Re: numbers vs. "natural"

Paul Erlich, regarding Joe Monzo's 32:25 major third:

> In the context of the discussion with Gerald Eskelin, 32/25 would probably
> not be a viable answer, since its numbers (32 and 25) are far to high to
> produce any noticeable reduction of beating. Try tuning a 32/25 accurately
> by ear, without tuning any intermediary notes. It can't be done. However,
> 9/7 can be tuned pretty comfortably by ear in the higher register.

I'll buy that.
>
> As for it being the "natural" vocal tuning for a major triad, certain list
> members have expressed the view (with which I agree) that 14:18:21 (or
> closer to the voicing Gerald discusses, 14:21:36) is a very nasty-sounding
> major triad.

The "voicing Gerald Discusses"? Just for the record, I have no mechanism
(yet) by which to know which numbers fit "my" major triad. I'm just here for
the input from those of you who are hip to the numbers.
>
> I would like to encourage those of you on this list you have worked with
> Indian music to please respond to Gerald's assertion that it is natural to
> sing a high third over a root-fifth drone, regardless of cultural
> environment.

I'm all "ears."

Is that India "Indian" music? If so (or even if not so), do you know of the
CD by Sheila Chandra called "Moonsung: A Real World Retrospective"? This
lady is one of a kind. She is to vocal sound what Wolfgang Puck is to food.
She says:

"A drone will at once both support and form a contrast or harmony with the
note of the lead vocal over it. Following this changing relationship, or
counterpoint of intervals between these two notes, is often where the
interest lies. At the same time, whilst it will offer an instant atmosphere,
the drone will not colour the melody in emotional terms, as chords do. It
throws the responsibility back on the singer to create enough interest and
emotion to engage the listener. The drone empowers the singer even though
its harmonics contain seeds of melody."

Aside from her philosophy, her major thirds in band one alternate between
what appear to be both the JI third and the "high third." Her opening phrase
follows this scale-step contour: 3-3-3-5-4-3, 1-3-1-b7. Her initial pitches
appear to be the JI major third (below 12-tET); however, when she arrives at
the third following scale step 4, her third is clearly tuned well above
12-tET. Her b7 is deliciously low, and approximates the "blue seventh"
commonly heard in rhythm-and-blues vocals.

But I digress. I anxiously await the input requested by Paul. Perhaps I'll
have to find a term to replace "natural." I'm certainly willing. But until
shown differently, I'll continue to use the term. (God, this is fun.)

Jerry

>> As for it being the "natural" vocal tuning for a major triad, certain
list
>> members have expressed the view (with which I agree) that 14:18:21 (or
>> closer to the voicing Gerald discusses, 14:21:36) is a very
nasty-sounding
>> major triad.

>The "voicing Gerald Discusses"? Just for the record, I have no mechanism
>(yet) by which to know which numbers fit "my" major triad. I'm just here
for
>the input from those of you who are hip to the numbers.

You misunderstood. All I meant was that you were discussing a voicing with
the third in the soprano. I simply took the triad with 9:7 major third and
transposed the third so that the chord would be in, or "closer to" "your
voicing". OK?

>Is that India "Indian" music?

Yes.