RE: Re: Paul Erlich's citation of a listeners' preferenc e experiment...

>Thanks, Paul for the added info. Evidently, no other "consonant" thirds
>(than 4:5) were presented for evaluation.

Such as?

I said:
>
>>Thanks, Paul for the added info. Evidently, no other "consonant" thirds
>>(than 4:5) were presented for evaluation.

Paul Erlich said:
>
> Such as?
>
Understanding the "high third" is my burning passion at the moment. I'm very
interested in seeing responses to John Link's 9/7 "solution." If that turns
out to be valid, it raises the question as to WHY the "high third" would be
"preferred" over the 4:5:6 tuning of the major triad, which is clearly more
"consonant" by JI standards. Also, it raises considerable concern as to the
"root" occurring as partial 7. Perhaps roots are beside the point in this
regard and are only important to writers of harmony books. Maybe we are
looking in all the wrong places.

Perhaps the answer lies in the combination of partials emanating from two
fundamentals (the root and the fifth, in this case), each sponsoring certain
frequencies and perhaps "agreeing" and "disagreeing" at certain points. What
do you think?

Jerry

>
> I said:
> >
> >>Thanks, Paul for the added info. Evidently, no other "consonant" thirds
> >>(than 4:5) were presented for evaluation.
>
> Paul Erlich said:
> >
> > Such as?
> >
> Understanding the "high third" is my burning passion at the moment. I'm very
> interested in seeing responses to John Link's 9/7 "solution." If that turns
> out to be valid, it raises the question as to WHY the "high third" would be
> "preferred" over the 4:5:6 tuning of the major triad, which is clearly more
> "consonant" by JI standards. Also, it raises considerable concern as to the
> "root" occurring as partial 7. Perhaps roots are beside the point in this
> regard and are only important to writers of harmony books. Maybe we are
> looking in all the wrong places.

Is the "high third" on a I chord, a V chord (etc...) and where is it
going melodically? Despite your paragraph here, I think you have
been looking in the right places, those being what is appropriate for
the melody and harmony of the moment.

9/7, even for a leading tone, seems a bit more sharp than I would expect.
I'd be more inclined to think pythagorean, which is only 8 cents sharper
from just than 12tet. Heres a few different leading tones, the first is
based on 9/7, the second is pythagorean, for those who like primes and
overtones then "the 11/8 of the 11/8" is almost deadon to 12tet, and
the last two are a pair of "next overtone" from 15/8.

ratio 27/14 243/128 121/64 61/32 31/16
cents 1137 1110 1103 1117 1145

of course, 36/19 is also a nice leading tone at 1106 cents (and comes
from the classic 38:48:57 triad...) Beats me, as Charlie Parker said,
its "still gone music."

Bob Valentine