Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning synchronous beating

> Synch. beating well temperaments got a huge response here
> (and on tuning-math) after Bob Wendell introduced the idea
> in 2004 (IIRC). Several people designed WTs of this kind
> and posted them, including George, Aaron Johnson, Gene,
> and myself. Dave K. also had some very interesting things
> to say, and I posted three batches of audio samples.
> Gene gave equations that make it possible to find synch-
> beating versions of any well temperament, and he put
> some synch-tuned MIDI files on his site. Manuel added
> beat ratios to Scala. I can't think how the response
> could have been bigger.

Some of us, or maybe it's just me stuck in mud, fail to see how synchronous beating is of much use on any non-electronic instruments to be played by humans. It's INTERESTING in an intellectual way, I guess, to know that the beating is theoretically lining up in there, but:

Who's ever gonna hear it and notice it on any non-electronic instrument? The tones would have to be so consistently sustained, and so free of any fluctuation (as with an organ pipe or similar: the unavoidable random turbulence in the pitch), that there would be some chance of the synchronous beating to emerge from the texture. And wouldn't the music have to be specially composed to take advantage of playing open and carefully-spaced intervals that happen to be interesting? And most of all (maybe), wouldn't the notes have to be struck EXACTLY TOGETHER better than any human player is ever going to do, so the beating doesn't accidentally get out of phase for the entire duration of the held notes?

Maybe I'm just over-reacting to the overemphasis of "proportional beating triads" in Owen Jorgensen's two books (as a way of tallying up some supposed superiority of "proportional beating" over "theoretically correct" versions of temperaments), but I've always thought that that concept was pretty much a crock. If the 5th and the 3rd in some triad are "proportionally beating" and the beating of both of them happens not to be zero (no pure 5th allowed here!), I don't see how it's of any musical use other than for PIANO tuners trying to set the temperament by ear in the first place -- which is indeed the thrust of Jorgensen's first book, the brown one. Again, the notes aren't gonna be PLAYED by real human musicians exactly together, plus the temperament isn't gonna stay exactly on spot for more than a half day anyway, plus the listeners aren't going to pick out any "proportional beating" hearing it in ordinary music... so what's the point of striving for such a goal, beyond the (um...) intellectual stimulation?

For use in electronically-generated music, I have no objections. That's not in my area of much interest, and those who fancy it more than I do are welcome to it. I'm just saying: "the response could have been bigger" if synchronous beating were a concept wherein I could see any practical use for it, on any of the instruments I play and tune.

Brad Lehman

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:

> Who's ever gonna hear it and notice it on any non-electronic
> instrument? The tones would have to be so consistently
> sustained, and so free of any fluctuation (as with an organ
> pipe or similar: the unavoidable random turbulence in the
> pitch), that there would be some chance of the synchronous
> beating to emerge from the texture.

Organ pipes are capable of sustaining the required accuracy
of pitch ( unless you're playing a theater organ :P ). The
claim Bob made is not that listeners are aware of the beat
synchronicity as such (though Kraig may have applications
where they would be), but rather that the simpler beating
pattern leads to a smoother gestalt in the music. If this
is true it's a subtle effect.

> And wouldn't the music have to be specially composed to
> take advantage of playing open and carefully-spaced
> intervals that happen to be interesting?

No, because the beat ratios remain simple as you transpose
the tones of the triad by octaves.

> And most of all (maybe), wouldn't the notes have to be
> struck EXACTLY TOGETHER better than any human player is
> ever going to do, so the beating doesn't accidentally
> get out of phase for the entire duration of the held notes?

The beat ratios will still be simple.

-Carl

🔗kraiggrady@anaphoria.com

synchonous beating chords are more consonant. throw out the concept ofsimpler ratios are more consonant, it is true only because of thisquality.this explains why the 7-9-11 is more consonant than one wouldexpect. some ET approach such things also and explains why some ofthemsound better than what any of those charts tell you.
I have a whole ensemble tuned to a tuning of this nature all acoustic.
tune up some of secors tuning and try the sound for yourself. i tried afew and i noticed the sound immediately.

,',',',Kraig Grady,',',',
'''''''North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
'''''''South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria
',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Lumma [mailto:carl@lumma.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 09:33 AM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: synchronous beating

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:

> And wouldn't the music have to be specially composed to
> take advantage of playing open and carefully-spaced
> intervals that happen to be interesting?

No, because the beat ratios remain simple as you transpose
the tones of the triad by octaves.

The beat ratios will still be simple.

-Carl

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

Yes Kraig;

That makes total sense to me.

At last, someone on the tuning list has clearly agreed that the beat rates are more significant than the integer ratios in producing/understanding/measuring consonance/dissonance.

Am I right to assume that you might also agree with me that the importance of the integer ratios is that they are "reference" intervals that "generate" the beating?

My hope is that the tunaniks might soon begin to list the ubiquitous fractions found in 9 out of 10 of the postings; as reference ratios for beating,

rather than the "perfect" ratios and hence the only "best" musical intervals for which all tuning systems should aim and from which musical tunings should be "judged".

On 8 Apr 2008, at 20:46, kraiggrady@anaphoria.com wrote:

> synchonous beating chords are more consonant. throw out the concept > of simpler ratios are more consonant, it is true only because of > this quality.this explains why the 7-9-11 is more consonant than one > would expect. some ET approach such things also and explains why > some ofthem sound better than what any of those charts tell you.
> I have a whole ensemble tuned to a tuning of this nature all acoustic.
> tune up some of secors tuning and try the sound for yourself. i > tried afew and i noticed the sound immediately.
>
>
> ,',',', Kraig Grady ,',',',
> ''''''' North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
>
> ''''''' South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:carl@lumma.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 09:33 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: synchronous beating
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> > Who's ever gonna hear it and notice it on any non-electronic
> > instrument? The tones would have to be so consistently
> > sustained, and so free of any fluctuation (as with an organ
> > pipe or similar: the unavoidable random turbulence in the
> > pitch), that there would be some chance of the synchronous
> > beating to emerge from the texture.
>
> Organ pipes are capable of sustaining the required accuracy
> of pitch ( unless you're playing a theater organ :P ). The
> claim Bob made is not that listeners are aware of the beat
> synchronicity as such (though Kraig may have applications
> where they would be), but rather that the simpler beating
> pattern leads to a smoother gestalt in the music. If this
> is true it's a subtle effect.
>
> > And wouldn't the music have to be specially composed to
> > take advantage of playing open and carefully-spaced
> > intervals that happen to be interesting?
>
> No, because the beat ratios remain simple as you transpose
> the tones of the triad by octaves.
>
> > And most of all (maybe), wouldn't the notes have to be
> > struck EXACTLY TOGETHER better than any human player is
> > ever going to do, so the beating doesn't accidentally
> > get out of phase for the entire duration of the held notes?
>
> The beat ratios will still be simple.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
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

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

> > Who's ever gonna hear it and notice it on any non-electronic
> > instrument? The tones would have to be so consistently
> > sustained, and so free of any fluctuation (as with an organ
> > pipe or similar: the unavoidable random turbulence in the
> > pitch), that there would be some chance of the synchronous
> > beating to emerge from the texture.
> > Organ pipes are capable of sustaining the required accuracy
> of pitch ( unless you're playing a theater organ :P ). The
> claim Bob made is not that listeners are aware of the beat
> synchronicity as such (though Kraig may have applications
> where they would be), but rather that the simpler beating
> pattern leads to a smoother gestalt in the music. If this
> is true it's a subtle effect.

Wait. Wait. Wait. Are some of you, with the phrase "synchronous
beating", referring to beats of a simple two-note interval that line up
with the fundamental (or perhaps an overtone) of one or both notes,
neatly into phase? Or something else involving three or more notes?

My complaint was about the situation in some triad C-E-G wherein the C-E interval makes some beat rate ("x"), and the C-G interval makes some other beat rate ("y"), and the "synchronous beating" assumes some
simple relationship between x and y such as 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, etc., making "proportionally beating triads". That is: the beats themselves line up and reinforce one another (presuming that they start at the same time!), regardless of what the three fundamentals and their other overtones are doing amongst themselves, and the "synchronous beating" of such a carefully chosen C-E-G is somehow "better" than the beating in some other C-E-G where x and y don't line up. We supposedly get an orderly recurring pattern with these beat speeds in phase...and it's supposedly useful outside the process of tuning a piano by ear, where it's a convenience for checking intervals.

This measure of quality (from Owen Jorgensen's books, especially the first one, _Tuning the historical temperaments by ear_) is what I'm saying is a crock, as far as I'm concerned. That's the type of example that is the context for my remarks: a major 3rd and a 5th each beating by some amount above the same bass note, and something pseudo-magical happening when those two beat rates coincide and can stay in phase...somehow prominently enough that somebody is going to hear and appreciate it. "Proportionally beating triads" were to Jorgensen somehow "better" than triads in which the several beat speeds of 3rd and 5th have no obvious correlation. And, many of the triads he tallied on his "proportionally beating" side had zero beats in either the 3rd or the 5th...so, indeed, there's no conflict of two different beat speeds competing with one another. If either x or y is 0, the other one encounters no interference. La-di-da! Pythagorean triads count as "proportionally beating" (even though the 3rd is wildly sharp) just because anything goes within a pure 5th, with beat rate 0?! And 1/4 comma meantone triads count as proportionally beating, even when the 5th has been sloppily done, because the 3rd has beat rate 0?!

Now, if "synchronous beating" in discussion *here* is about something other than such an argument, where two intervals are both reckoned from the same bass note and their beating x vs y is then compared for any synchronization, somebody, please explain what it "is".

What is being synchronized here, and touted as "more consonant" than when "synchronous beating" isn't present?

Thank you,
Brad Lehman

🔗Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@yahoo.com>

1-well said, better than I could. I look forward to
the response.

2-but then, I'm just a "simple" extended
just-intonation guy, or a "simple" equal temperament
guy.

3-general comment about the forum. I'm like any of
the perhaps 100 people in Boston who know or care
about alternate tunings. I should get Scala, but it
doesn't run on Mac, and I can't afford another
computer (or maybe I can, but in any case I don't have
it)

4-I *do* respect a mathematical perspective, an
interest in a problem purely in itself.

5- But, for us simpletons, when discussing a
particular tuning, it would greatly help to have it
listed in cents. Note-names, not important.
Diagrams, not important. Geometries, not important.
Just a list of the pitches in cents, with perhaps a
few reflections on how it sounds, subjectively. And,
as a luxery, a soundfile with a brief excerpt of some
kind.

6-Then I'd be able to tell whether a certain scale
attracts my ear or not, or whether it would have some
significant advantage over extended-just. The
objections to extended just are often wrong. Or they
are practical difficulties that can be overcome by
moving the 1/1 around, and by practice, practice,
practice, and some fudging where necessary. Bricolage.

7-A scale, to be a useful means, must be practiced and
internalized. It took me something like 5 or 6 years
to really get as fluent with an 11-limit just scale as
I was with 12-tone equal. This means, being able to
more or less hear in your head while you imagine your
hands playing certain keys, and being right about it.
So, the question is, if I make an other investment of
effort and time, in what scale?

--- Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu> wrote:

> > > Who's ever gonna hear it and notice it on
> any non-electronic
> > > instrument? The tones would have to be so
> consistently
> > > sustained, and so free of any fluctuation
> (as with an organ
> > > pipe or similar: the unavoidable random
> turbulence in the
> > > pitch), that there would be some chance of
> the synchronous
> > > beating to emerge from the texture.
> >
> > Organ pipes are capable of sustaining the
> required accuracy
> > of pitch ( unless you're playing a theater
> organ :P ). The
> > claim Bob made is not that listeners are aware
> of the beat
> > synchronicity as such (though Kraig may have
> applications
> > where they would be), but rather that the
> simpler beating
> > pattern leads to a smoother gestalt in the
> music. If this
> > is true it's a subtle effect.
>
> Wait. Wait. Wait. Are some of you, with the
> phrase "synchronous
> beating", referring to beats of a simple two-note
> interval that line up
> with the fundamental (or perhaps an overtone) of one
> or both notes,
> neatly into phase? Or something else involving
> three or more notes?
>
> My complaint was about the situation in some triad
> C-E-G wherein the C-E
> interval makes some beat rate ("x"), and the C-G
> interval makes some
> other beat rate ("y"), and the "synchronous beating"
> assumes some
> simple relationship between x and y such as 1:1,
> 2:1, 3:1, etc., making
> "proportionally beating triads". That is: the beats
> themselves line up
> and reinforce one another (presuming that they start
> at the same time!),
> regardless of what the three fundamentals and their
> other overtones are
> doing amongst themselves, and the "synchronous
> beating" of such a
> carefully chosen C-E-G is somehow "better" than the
> beating in some
> other C-E-G where x and y don't line up. We
> supposedly get an orderly
> recurring pattern with these beat speeds in
> phase...and it's supposedly
> useful outside the process of tuning a piano by ear,
> where it's a
> convenience for checking intervals.
>
> This measure of quality (from Owen Jorgensen's
> books, especially the
> first one, _Tuning the historical temperaments by
> ear_) is what I'm
> saying is a crock, as far as I'm concerned. That's
> the type of example
> that is the context for my remarks: a major 3rd and
> a 5th each beating
> by some amount above the same bass note, and
> something pseudo-magical
> happening when those two beat rates coincide and can
> stay in
> phase...somehow prominently enough that somebody is
> going to hear and
> appreciate it. "Proportionally beating triads" were
> to Jorgensen
> somehow "better" than triads in which the several
> beat speeds of 3rd and
> 5th have no obvious correlation. And, many of the
> triads he tallied on
> his "proportionally beating" side had zero beats in
> either the 3rd or
> the 5th...so, indeed, there's no conflict of two
> different beat speeds
> competing with one another. If either x or y is 0,
> the other one
> encounters no interference. La-di-da! Pythagorean
> triads count as
> "proportionally beating" (even though the 3rd is
> wildly sharp) just
> because anything goes within a pure 5th, with beat
> rate 0?! And 1/4
> comma meantone triads count as proportionally
> beating, even when the 5th
> has been sloppily done, because the 3rd has beat
> rate 0?!
>
> Now, if "synchronous beating" in discussion *here*
> is about something
> other than such an argument, where two intervals are
> both reckoned from
> the same bass note and their beating x vs y is then
> compared for any
> synchronization, somebody, please explain what it
> "is".
>
> What is being synchronized here, and touted as "more
> consonant" than
> when "synchronous beating" isn't present?
>
> Thank you,
> Brad Lehman
>
>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@yahoo.com>

Only rates makes sense here, the frequencies of the various beatings
being equal or in some simple proportion.

There is absolutely no need for the partials to be "phase-locked", or
the tones to be initiated simultaneously, or whatever, just as there
is no need for them to be so for us to percieve, for example a 4:5
relationship between tones.

I don't know about the term "synchronous" here- I understand it here
to mean the sharing of periods but I don't know if the definitions of
"period" can cover this or not.

By the way, "perfect" Just Intonation and proportional beating, which
can only be achieved in direct digital synthesis, is a strange and
eerie thing, and has a different "feel" than these things do in "real
life" conditions.

Anyway, I think the best thing to do is try some "equal beating"
temperaments and judge for yourself. Both George Secor and Carl Lumma
have these kinds of temperaments in the Scala archive, IIRC, and
others must also.

On a side note, as someone who plays the Theremin and an old analog
synth that can only be roughly tuned if the moon is in the right
phase, or whatever (ie. every note must be pitch-bent into place), I
find the idea of catagorically equating "electronic" with "easily-
tuned and stable" to be pretty funny.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> > > Who's ever gonna hear it and notice it on any non-
electronic
> > > instrument? The tones would have to be so consistently
> > > sustained, and so free of any fluctuation (as with an organ
> > > pipe or similar: the unavoidable random turbulence in the
> > > pitch), that there would be some chance of the synchronous
> > > beating to emerge from the texture.
> >
> > Organ pipes are capable of sustaining the required accuracy
> > of pitch ( unless you're playing a theater organ :P ). The
> > claim Bob made is not that listeners are aware of the beat
> > synchronicity as such (though Kraig may have applications
> > where they would be), but rather that the simpler beating
> > pattern leads to a smoother gestalt in the music. If this
> > is true it's a subtle effect.
>
> Wait. Wait. Wait. Are some of you, with the phrase "synchronous
> beating", referring to beats of a simple two-note interval that
line up
> with the fundamental (or perhaps an overtone) of one or both notes,
> neatly into phase? Or something else involving three or more notes?
>
> My complaint was about the situation in some triad C-E-G wherein
the C-E
> interval makes some beat rate ("x"), and the C-G interval makes
some
> other beat rate ("y"), and the "synchronous beating" assumes some
> simple relationship between x and y such as 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, etc.,
making
> "proportionally beating triads". That is: the beats themselves
line up
> and reinforce one another (presuming that they start at the same
time!),
> regardless of what the three fundamentals and their other overtones
are
> doing amongst themselves, and the "synchronous beating" of such a
> carefully chosen C-E-G is somehow "better" than the beating in some
> other C-E-G where x and y don't line up. We supposedly get an
orderly
> recurring pattern with these beat speeds in phase...and it's
supposedly
> useful outside the process of tuning a piano by ear, where it's a
> convenience for checking intervals.
>
> This measure of quality (from Owen Jorgensen's books, especially
the
> first one, _Tuning the historical temperaments by ear_) is what I'm
> saying is a crock, as far as I'm concerned. That's the type of
example
> that is the context for my remarks: a major 3rd and a 5th each
beating
> by some amount above the same bass note, and something pseudo-
magical
> happening when those two beat rates coincide and can stay in
> phase...somehow prominently enough that somebody is going to hear
and
> appreciate it. "Proportionally beating triads" were to Jorgensen
> somehow "better" than triads in which the several beat speeds of
3rd and
> 5th have no obvious correlation. And, many of the triads he
tallied on
> his "proportionally beating" side had zero beats in either the 3rd
or
> the 5th...so, indeed, there's no conflict of two different beat
speeds
> competing with one another. If either x or y is 0, the other one
> encounters no interference. La-di-da! Pythagorean triads count as
> "proportionally beating" (even though the 3rd is wildly sharp) just
> because anything goes within a pure 5th, with beat rate 0?! And 1/
4
> comma meantone triads count as proportionally beating, even when
the 5th
> has been sloppily done, because the 3rd has beat rate 0?!
>
> Now, if "synchronous beating" in discussion *here* is about
something
> other than such an argument, where two intervals are both reckoned
from
> the same bass note and their beating x vs y is then compared for
any
> synchronization, somebody, please explain what it "is".
>
> What is being synchronized here, and touted as "more consonant"
than
> when "synchronous beating" isn't present?
>
> Thank you,
> Brad Lehman
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

Brad wrote...

> Wait. Wait. Wait. Are some of you, with the phrase "synchronous
> beating", referring to beats of a simple two-note interval that
> line up with the fundamental (or perhaps an overtone) of one or
> both notes, neatly into phase? Or something else involving three
> or more notes?

We're talking about "brats". You were on the list at the time
they were developed. In fact, Yahoo has one of the big threads
about it with your name on it. It's the ratio of the beat
rates of the major 3rd to the minor 3rd (or in some scales, the
ratio between the octave and the 5th).

> We supposedly get an orderly
> recurring pattern with these beat speeds in phase...and it's
> supposedly useful outside the process of tuning a piano by
> ear, where it's a convenience for checking intervals.

It turns out you get an orderly recurring pattern for most of
the phase relationships between the notes.

But I do happen to agree that for classical music, and most
kinds of music, brats don't matter. This is pretty clear if
you listen to chords with different brats but with similar
RMS error from JI (which we've done). If anything, the more
complicated beat ratios sound *better* (6 out of 6 people
informally surveyed agree).

Nevertheless, brats do capture an audible difference, so
it could be exploited in music, so you can't say it's a
crock. It might be a crock the way Jorgensen exposed it;
I can't speak to that.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

Hi Caleb,

I was running Scala on Tiger just fine. Haven't
tried Leopard yet... -C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> 1-well said, better than I could. I look forward to
> the response.
>
> 2-but then, I'm just a "simple" extended
> just-intonation guy, or a "simple" equal temperament
> guy.
>
> 3-general comment about the forum. I'm like any of
> the perhaps 100 people in Boston who know or care
> about alternate tunings. I should get Scala, but it
> doesn't run on Mac, and I can't afford another
> computer (or maybe I can, but in any case I don't have
> it)
>
> 4-I *do* respect a mathematical perspective, an
> interest in a problem purely in itself.
>
> 5- But, for us simpletons, when discussing a
> particular tuning, it would greatly help to have it
> listed in cents. Note-names, not important.
> Diagrams, not important. Geometries, not important.
> Just a list of the pitches in cents, with perhaps a
> few reflections on how it sounds, subjectively. And,
> as a luxery, a soundfile with a brief excerpt of some
> kind.
>
> 6-Then I'd be able to tell whether a certain scale
> attracts my ear or not, or whether it would have some
> significant advantage over extended-just. The
> objections to extended just are often wrong. Or they
> are practical difficulties that can be overcome by
> moving the 1/1 around, and by practice, practice,
> practice, and some fudging where necessary. Bricolage.
>
> 7-A scale, to be a useful means, must be practiced and
> internalized. It took me something like 5 or 6 years
> to really get as fluent with an 11-limit just scale as
> I was with 12-tone equal. This means, being able to
> more or less hear in your head while you imagine your
> hands playing certain keys, and being right about it.
> So, the question is, if I make an other investment of
> effort and time, in what scale?

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Brad wrote...
>
> > Wait. Wait. Wait. Are some of you, with the phrase "synchronous
> > beating", referring to beats of a simple two-note interval that
> > line up with the fundamental (or perhaps an overtone) of one or
> > both notes, neatly into phase? Or something else involving three
> > or more notes?
>
> We're talking about "brats". You were on the list at the time
> they were developed. In fact, Yahoo has one of the big threads
> about it with your name on it. It's the ratio of the beat
> rates of the major 3rd to the minor 3rd (or in some scales, the
> ratio between the octave and the 5th).
>
> > We supposedly get an orderly
> > recurring pattern with these beat speeds in phase...and it's
> > supposedly useful outside the process of tuning a piano by
> > ear, where it's a convenience for checking intervals.
>
> It turns out you get an orderly recurring pattern for most of
> the phase relationships between the notes.
>
> But I do happen to agree that for classical music, and most
> kinds of music, brats don't matter. This is pretty clear if
> you listen to chords with different brats but with similar
> RMS error from JI (which we've done). If anything, the more
> complicated beat ratios sound *better* (6 out of 6 people
> informally surveyed agree).
>
> Nevertheless, brats do capture an audible difference, so
> it could be exploited in music, so you can't say it's a
> crock. It might be a crock the way Jorgensen exposed it;
> I can't speak to that.
>
> -Carl

Brad is just applying a typically Socratic, thoroughgoing scepticism
(requiring that the exact logical basis for everything be challenged,
restated and explained from the ground up every time it is mentioned).
Which is a bit pointless if you do it repeatedly on the same subject
and don't refer to what people said the last time.

... When someone applies this same method to one of Brad's own pet
theories, what happens? Huge clouds of subjectivity ('But it sounds
wonderful!!') and complaints about nitpicking and 'logical positivism'
and 'restrictive epistemology' and who knows what, which amounts to
'don't ask me for any kind of unambiguous evidence or reasoning, that
would be unreasonable, just believe me and do as I say and everything
will be fine, since I have such wonderful musical judgement'.

Anyway, I think it is reasonable to say that tunings with proportional
beating chords 1) are sufficiently well-defined mathematical entities
and 2) can sound distinctive, whether or not the individual tones or
beats happen to be exactly in phase with each other. The beat pattern,
whatever it is, has a recognizable periodicity. Whether this is
significant/desirable or not is, so far as anyone can tell, totally
subjective to taste.

(Now you can replace 'proportional beating chords' with 'temperaments
with C-E about 6 cents sharp and E-G# wider than G#-C', and 'whether
or not one exact pattern of fifths is followed', and 'the tuning has a
recognizable character' and so on...)
~~~T~~~

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@yahoo.com>

> Anyway, I think it is reasonable to say that tunings with
proportional
> beating chords 1) are sufficiently well-defined mathematical
entities
> and 2) can sound distinctive, whether or not the individual tones or
> beats happen to be exactly in phase with each other. The beat
pattern,
> whatever it is, has a recognizable periodicity. Whether this is
> significant/desirable or not is, so far as anyone can tell, totally
> subjective to taste.

And I think it's reasonable to say that with "inharmonic" timbres,
proportional beating is probably what is most perceivabley "Just"
when the instrument has the fundamentals tuned to Just proportions.
In this case it certainly can't be the numerous coincidence of
harmonic partials above the fundamental, or Tonverschmelzung etc.

Because both literal consonance and dissonance can be taken to absurd
poles (unison sines in phase vs. chainsaw through corrugated tin duet
with Michael Bolton, etc), I personally don't find them that
interesting as absolutes. It's the shifting shades of consonance and
dissonance, in terms of the music and internal context of the tuning,
that are most important. To each their own of course.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

> Anyway, I think it is reasonable to say that tunings with proportional
> beating chords 1) are sufficiently well-defined mathematical entities
> and 2) can sound distinctive, whether or not the individual tones or
> beats happen to be exactly in phase with each other. The beat pattern,
> whatever it is, has a recognizable periodicity. Whether this is
> significant/desirable or not is, so far as anyone can tell, totally
> subjective to taste.

Hands up by anyone whose ears can definitely detect either a proportional-beating chord, or a LACK OF proportional beating within some chord, in any of Thomas Dent's own harpsichord samples. If your hand goes up, please explain exactly which chord you're listening to, and what manner of beating you're hearing in it. Let's hear all about that "recognizable periodicity", and about the way it determines the consonance (or not) of that particular chord, in detail, please. Use the RESULTING SOUND in one or more of his demonstrable recordings, and not merely a mathematical model of the beating that temperament X or Y or Z would deliver if Tom had set it exactly spot-on by numbers. Thank you.

As I opined and asked before: if this stuff isn't clearly audible on ordinary acoustical instruments, without composing special music or taking any other special precautions, of what practical use is it on those instruments? Playing ordinary music such as William Byrd snippets, is "proportional beating" (or its lack) of any import, or not?

Brad Lehman

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I think it is reasonable to say that tunings with
proportional
> > beating chords 1) are sufficiently well-defined mathematical
entities
> > and 2) can sound distinctive, whether or not the individual
tones or
> > beats happen to be exactly in phase with each other. The beat
pattern,
> > whatever it is, has a recognizable periodicity. Whether this
is
> > significant/desirable or not is, so far as anyone can tell,
totally
> > subjective to taste.
>
> Hands up by anyone whose ears can definitely detect either a
> proportional-beating chord, or a LACK OF proportional beating
within
> some chord, in any of Thomas Dent's own harpsichord samples. If
your
> hand goes up, please explain exactly which chord you're listening
to,
> and what manner of beating you're hearing in it. Let's hear all
about
> that "recognizable periodicity", and about the way it determines
the
> consonance (or not) of that particular chord, in detail, please.
Use
> the RESULTING SOUND in one or more of his demonstrable recordings,
and
> not merely a mathematical model of the beating that temperament X
or Y
> or Z would deliver if Tom had set it exactly spot-on by numbers.
Thank you.
>
> As I opined and asked before: if this stuff isn't clearly audible
on
> ordinary acoustical instruments, without composing special music or
> taking any other special precautions, of what practical use is it
on
> those instruments? Playing ordinary music such as William Byrd
> snippets, is "proportional beating" (or its lack) of any import, or
not?
>
> Brad Lehman
>

The major and minor 3ds/6ths in nevelground2 have a striking similar
and even static zhhhhhhh, so I wouldn't be suprised if it's in an
simple-proportioned- or equal- beating temperament. Nevelground1 goes
dark/pale/dark/pale too much, and too regularly, for my tastes and
I'd be surprised if has proportional beating. If it does, it's in the
wrong proportions, hahaha!

The real test is to tune up without proportional or equal beating,
and with, and pick which one sounds best to you, then use that
tuning, even if you can't lay a finger on the "why". Well that would
be a practical musical test.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

> 5- But, for us simpletons, when discussing a
> particular tuning, it would greatly help to have it
> listed in cents. Note-names, not important.
> Diagrams, not important. Geometries, not important.
> Just a list of the pitches in cents, with perhaps a
> few reflections on how it sounds, subjectively. And,
> as a luxery, a soundfile with a brief excerpt of some
> kind.
>
> 6-Then I'd be able to tell whether a certain scale
> attracts my ear or not, or whether it would have some
> significant advantage over extended-just. The
> objections to extended just are often wrong. Or they
> are practical difficulties that can be overcome by
> moving the 1/1 around, and by practice, practice,
> practice, and some fudging where necessary. Bricolage.
>
> 7-A scale, to be a useful means, must be practiced and
> internalized. It took me something like 5 or 6 years
> to really get as fluent with an 11-limit just scale as
> I was with 12-tone equal. This means, being able to
> more or less hear in your head while you imagine your
> hands playing certain keys, and being right about it.
> So, the question is, if I make an other investment of
> effort and time, in what scale?

Hi Caleb, hope you don't mind an "unauthorized" response.

An enormous amount of time and thought has been invested over the
years, by the Alternative Tuning Group, on the subject of tempering
JI. This is easily verified by going through the archives, and the
previous archives of the Mills tuning list. As a
relative newcomer, I would expect, as you might do, that just
about any reasonable request for a specific kind of tuning
that is based on JI could be answered. The answer would essentially
be like this: so-and-so temperament does that, here are some tunings
that are made using that temperament scheme.

So your request needs to be more specific- what are you looking for?

Of course whether or not you are pleased with the resulting answers
is up to you. I'm looking forward to your reactions to whatever
specific answers you do get, in that case.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗kraiggrady@anaphoria.com

my response to a ET being able to do something is that there is a JI that does was an ET does :).
In the former case i would argue that something is often lost in the translation, often the very intent.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Bobro [mailto:misterbobro@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 08:26 AM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: synchronous beating & giving scales in cents, and a few other things

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

Hi Caleb, hope you don't mind an "unauthorized" response.

So your request needs to be more specific- what are you looking for?

Of course whether or not you are pleased with the resulting answers
is up to you. I'm looking forward to your reactions to whatever
specific answers you do get, in that case.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraiggrady@... wrote:
>
> my response to a ET being able to do something is that there is a
>JI that does was an ET does :).
> In the former case i would argue that something is often lost in
>the translation, often the very intent.

Well as you know I take a dim view of "approximation". The reasons
for using approximations of JI, if it's JI you really want, are not
convincing, to me. Even less convincing than the grounds for
tempering, which actually can be reasoned, are the audible results,
to my ears. The "temperaments" that sound very good to me are not
really temperaments, but tunings: in them, that which is not JI has a
rhyme and reason and euphony of its own.

However, even those who have already practiced what I preach will
probably never concede the point I've made countless times, "sheer
proximity to Just intervals is not enough". For example, equal-
beating temperaments are an example of trying to give the tempered
intervals a rhyme and reason beyond their sheer proximity to Just
intervals, and the tuning as a whole a "cohesiveness".

Without the fundamental understanding that a non-Just tuning requires
an internal rhyme and reason of its own, and cannot be judged by
tallying up its "errors", the list of wonky-sounding hodge-podge
"temperaments" will just keep growing.

Of course to each their own! Caleb Morgen may find the whole lot of
ATL temperaments to be the cat's pajamas, so he must judge for
himself. Enjoy!

-Cameron Bobro

>
> ,',',',Kraig Grady,',',',
> '''''''North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
> '''''''South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cameron Bobro [mailto:misterbobro@...]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 08:26 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: synchronous beating & giving scales in cents,
and a few other things
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@> wrote:
>
> > 5- But, for us simpletons, when discussing a
> > particular tuning, it would greatly help to have it
> > listed in cents. Note-names, not important.
> > Diagrams, not important. Geometries, not important.
> > Just a list of the pitches in cents, with perhaps a
> > few reflections on how it sounds, subjectively. And,
> > as a luxery, a soundfile with a brief excerpt of some
> > kind.
> >
> > 6-Then I'd be able to tell whether a certain scale
> > attracts my ear or not, or whether it would have some
> > significant advantage over extended-just. The
> > objections to extended just are often wrong. Or they
> > are practical difficulties that can be overcome by
> > moving the 1/1 around, and by practice, practice,
> > practice, and some fudging where necessary. Bricolage.
> >
> > 7-A scale, to be a useful means, must be practiced and
> > internalized. It took me something like 5 or 6 years
> > to really get as fluent with an 11-limit just scale as
> > I was with 12-tone equal. This means, being able to
> > more or less hear in your head while you imagine your
> > hands playing certain keys, and being right about it.
> > So, the question is, if I make an other investment of
> > effort and time, in what scale?
>
> Hi Caleb, hope you don't mind an "unauthorized" response.
>
> An enormous amount of time and thought has been invested over the
> years, by the Alternative Tuning Group, on the subject of tempering
> JI. This is easily verified by going through the archives, and the
> previous archives of the Mills tuning list. As a
> relative newcomer, I would expect, as you might do, that just
> about any reasonable request for a specific kind of tuning
> that is based on JI could be answered. The answer would essentially
> be like this: so-and-so temperament does that, here are some
tunings
> that are made using that temperament scheme.
>
> So your request needs to be more specific- what are you looking for?
>
> Of course whether or not you are pleased with the resulting answers
> is up to you. I'm looking forward to your reactions to whatever
> specific answers you do get, in that case.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

🔗kraiggrady@anaphoria.com

I agree with your points wholeheartedly. ,',',',Kraig Grady,',',',
'''''''North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
'''''''South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria
',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Bobro [mailto:misterbobro@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:30 PM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: synchronous beating & giving scales in cents, and a few other things

Of course to each their own! Caleb Morgen may find the whole lot of
ATL temperaments to be the cat's pajamas, so he must judge for
himself. Enjoy!

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com>

🔗Mark Rankin <markrankin95511@yahoo.com>

Graham,

You're right. The link between Madagascar and
Indonesia *has* been established beyond doubt, and not
just by comparing musical instruments.

Linguists have long shown that there is a clear,
undenyable connection between the Malayo-Polynesian
languages (Malaya and Indonesia, etc) and the Malagasy
languages of Madagascar.

Mark Rankin

--- Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com> wrote:

> Charles Lucy wrote:
> > A friend sent me a link to this site which
> suggests that African and
> > Indonesia instruments and tunings may have had a
> common root (route?)
> >
> > Can any of the ethnomusicological tunaniks confirm
> or deny the
> > validity of the suggestions on this page?
> >
> > http://www.phantomvoyagers.com/musictrail.htm
>
> I thought the link between Madagascar and Indonesia
> was
> established beyond doubt. Tarika made an album with
>
> Indonesian musicians and found plenty of common
> ground. I
> think they even know specifically which islands the
> migrants
> came from.
>
> What's true for Madagascar may not be for Africa in
> general.
> But we should hardly be surprised if people were
> sailing
> around the Indian Ocean and not writing accounts of
> the
> journeys. That's all it takes to escape history.
>
>
> Graham
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

That reminds me, I never gave the results of my ear test.

As everyone seems to have gotten, nevelground2 and quipasse2 are
quarter-comma meantone. It *is* a 'proportional'-beating temperament
in that the major thirds are pure, therefore the 5th and the minor 3rd
ar equally mistuned and their beats have a more or less simple ratio.
(Any triad with a pure fifth also has some proportional beating
quality...) But I believe the 'proportional beats' are not the *main*
reason it sounds distinctive.

The other two recordings are actually the old warhorse 'Kirnberger
III' - i.e. keep meantone for C-G-D-A-E and tune all the rest in pure
fifths (or a minute amount flat around B-F#-C#). Very easy to convert
one to the other. If I had had the energy to do ET I would have done,
but KIII is a reasonable beginning for a crude kind of circulation.
(Davitt Moroney's complete recording of Byrd is also in KIII, which I
think was a misjudgement since basically none of his pieces require
circulation.)

I don't think KIII has clear 'proportional' relations except for C
major (pure M3), and the chords with pure fifths. But 'proportional
beats' are most likely to be heard as such with sustained chords where
beating continues for some seconds. I.e. *not* most harpsichords.

I think there was an experiment here some time ago with triads played
in synthesized organ-like tones, and for certain types of
proportionality the sound of beating *was* noticeably periodic.
~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> To put my previous comment another way, the 3ds in "nevelground1"
> sound like out-of tune thirds, while the "thirds" in nevelground2
> sound like in-tune intervals of a third-like nature. That's how I
> hear it.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
> >
> > The major and minor 3ds/6ths in nevelground2 have a striking
> similar
> > and even static zhhhhhhh, so I wouldn't be suprised if it's in an
> > simple-proportioned- or equal- beating temperament. Nevelground1
> goes
> > dark/pale/dark/pale too much, and too regularly, for my tastes and
> > I'd be surprised if has proportional beating. If it does, it's in
> the
> > wrong proportions, hahaha!
> >
> > The real test is to tune up without proportional or equal beating,
> > and with, and pick which one sounds best to you, then use that
> > tuning, even if you can't lay a finger on the "why". Well that
> would
> > be a practical musical test.
> >
> > -Cameron Bobro
> >
>

🔗Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@wanadoo.fr>

le 15/04/08 8:07, Charles Lucy à lucy@harmonics.com a écrit :

A friend sent me a link to this site which suggests that African and
Indonesia instruments and tunings may have had a common root (route?)

Can any of the ethnomusicological tunaniks confirm or deny the
validity of the suggestions on this page ?

http://www.phantomvoyagers.com/musictrail.htm

Thanks.

Charles Lucy

About the instruments I don't know (but there are obvious similarities),
about the tunings, we have definitively strong similarities at least in
actual use.
Many pentatonic african balafons of the "feast tuning" (and not funeral
tuning) that I heard were, for me, pure slendro tunings of the Surakarta or
Jogyakarta genera.
Many others make use here and there of semi-fourths, that are more discrete
in slendro tunings but not excluded.
The article mentions also Cambodia and Thailand, and we have of course
similar heptatonic scales in Africa.
Common musical routes (if not roots...)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Jacques Dudon

🔗Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello.cz>

🔗Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@wanadoo.fr>

le 15/04/08 18:47, Petr Parízek à p.parizek@chello.cz a écrit :

Jacques Dudon wrote:

> Many pentatonic african balafons of the "feast tuning" (and not funeral
tuning)
> that I heard were, for me, pure slendro tunings of the Surakarta or Jogyakarta
genera.
> Many others make use here and there of semi-fourths, that are more discrete
> in slendro tunings but not excluded.
> The article mentions also Cambodia and Thailand, and we have of course
> similar heptatonic scales in Africa.

1. Which ones?

2. What are Surakarta or Jogyakarta genera?

3. Maybe this could also explain the similarities between some of the 7-tone
pelog scales of the Indonesian gamelan and the scales of ... Oh dear, was
that Ethiopia, perhaps? - Anyway, I still wonder why Erv Wilson called
mavila temperaments mavila. :-D

Petr

1. Griot-type of heptatonic balafon or djeli-balafon from Guinea. Generally
no such precise tuning models, but more or less similar tendancies. It was
just a blink on the "similarities" pointed by this article, since it easily
mixes Indonesian and Siamo-Khmer cultures - but in fact it's true, they both
have their counterpoints in Africa...

2. I am refering to the five families of slendro models I describe in my
article "Seven-Limit Slendro Mutations" - 1/1 journal vol. 8 # 2, 1994,
based on Lou Harrison works.
I call those slendros N, M, A, S, J and any javanese-style slendro can be
situated in between those five.
The S and J are the most equal-tendency of them, they have no perceptible
9/8 and a maximum of perceptible 8/7, in different order.

3. Ethiopian scale and Pelog ??? Well, let me think about it... But
certainly, Africa is such a big country you know ! ;-)

- - - - - - - - - - -
Jacques Dudon

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com>

🔗kraiggrady@anaphoria.com

the book is rycycling old material from years ago that was argued in journal of african studies between a j jones and others.

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Lucy [mailto:lucy@harmonics.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:07 PM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Indonesian and African instrument and tuning connections?

A friend sent me a link to this site which suggests that African and
Indonesia instruments and tunings may have had a common root (route?)

Can any of the ethnomusicological tunaniks confirm or deny the
validity of the suggestions on this page?

http://www.phantomvoyagers.com/musictrail.htm

Thanks.

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

🔗kraiggrady@anaphoria.com

Mavila was a chopi village that i had supplied him the name and tuning of.

-----Original Message-----
From: Petr Parízek [mailto:p.parizek@chello.cz]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 09:47 AM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Indonesian and African instrument and tuning connections?

Jacques Dudon wrote:

> Many pentatonic african balafons of the "feast tuning" (and not funeral tuning)
> that I heard were, for me, pure slendro tunings of the Surakarta or Jogyakarta genera.
> Many others make use here and there of semi-fourths, that are more discrete
> in slendro tunings but not excluded.
> The article mentions also Cambodia and Thailand, and we have of course
> similar heptatonic scales in Africa.

1. Which ones?

2. What are Surakarta or Jogyakarta genera?

3. Maybe this could also explain the similarities between some of the 7-tone pelog scales of the Indonesian gamelan and the scales of ... Oh dear, was that Ethiopia, perhaps? - Anyway, I still wonder why Erv Wilson called mavila temperaments mavila. :-D

Petr

🔗kraiggrady@anaphoria.com

Actually the tunings in Mozambique more closly resemble the tunings of thailand and burma

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Rankin [mailto:markrankin95511@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 07:40 AM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Indonesian and African instrument and tuning connections?

Graham,

You're right. The link between Madagascar and
Indonesia *has* been established beyond doubt, and not
just by comparing musical instruments.

Linguists have long shown that there is a clear,
undenyable connection between the Malayo-Polynesian
languages (Malaya and Indonesia, etc) and the Malagasy
languages of Madagascar.

Mark Rankin

--- Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com> wrote:

__________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

🔗Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello.cz>

I posted the link to one ex-schoolmate and I can't resist translating part of our correspondence for you -- I mean, neither mine nor his words will be quoted 100% they way they were said, we were discussing it in Czech so there may be a bit of "information distortion" caused by my translation.

===== Quote =====

Him: "AFAIK, the Malagasi people originally came from somewhere in the Eastern region of Indonesia and there were often contacts there. And then, the amount by which African balaphone tunings vary is fairly large and Africans are capable of playing almost anithing and "finding themselves" in it. The fact that they use heptatonic scales (which are almost like 7-equal there, not like pelog) doesn't necessarily have to be caused by contacts; Czechs and Javans are not in contact either -- or actually all the people are in contact, wasn't travelling always a normal thing?"

Me: "Anyway, you can't deny you've yourself played recordings to me about two years ago (it's really a pitty that I can't remember which part of Africa you said they came from) where I could very clearly hear (if I round it off to 16-equal) something like "2 2 5 2 5" and I think even "2 2 3 2 2 2 3". At that time, I didn't know these scales from anywhere else than the gamelan orchestras and I remember I was very surprised."

Him: "Well, maybe I sound radical. I just don't know what I should think when people are singing in a completely different scale than the accompanying xylophone is playing. There must be some sort of musical misunderstanding there (even though the tuning has a particular system, I don't think it's an especially fundamental element of the musical structure). And you yourself know that a terribly looking tuning scheme can be usable in real music without any problems. The influence of Indonesians on East Africa is undeniable, I just don't assume something could be preserved so well simply by tradition for hundreds of years (i.e., without any changes). There are always some people coming and going in Africa, the strongest "movings" happened there mainly in the 16th and 17th centuries, including language changes. -- Well, but at least this makes more people interested in it."

===== End of quote =====

Petr

🔗Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello.cz>

_____ Quote _____

_____ End of quote _____

Petr

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

Meta Mavila gets quite close to 16 equal ( i had a reed organ where i took it out this far). i will also agree that it differs from Pelog although Pelog might be a few different scales in construction. There is no way to really figure out which way the scales and tunings went, Africa or Indonesian. Kakraba Lobi played on a ballophone he said was 400 years old. when asked to play music from his grandfather he sat down and did so. So i see no problem with oral tradition keeping things around for hundred or even 1000 of years

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Petr Parï¿½zek wrote:
>
> I posted the link to one ex-schoolmate and I can't resist translating > part of our correspondence for you -- I mean, neither mine nor his > words will be quoted 100% they way they were said, we were discussing > it in Czech so there may be a bit of "information distortion" caused > by my translation.
>
> ===== Quote =====
>
> Him: "AFAIK, the Malagasi people originally came from somewhere in the > Eastern region of Indonesia and there were often contacts there. And > then, the amount by which African balaphone tunings vary is fairly > large and Africans are capable of playing almost anithing and "finding > themselves" in it. The fact that they use heptatonic scales (which are > almost like 7-equal there, not like pelog) doesn't necessarily have to > be caused by contacts; Czechs and Javans are not in contact either -- > or actually all the people are in contact, wasn't travelling always a > normal thing?"
>
> Me: "Anyway, you can't deny you've yourself played recordings to me > about two years ago (it's really a pitty that I can't remember which > part of Africa you said they came from) where I could very clearly > hear (if I round it off to 16-equal) something like "2 2 5 2 5" and I > think even "2 2 3 2 2 2 3". At that time, I didn't know these scales > from anywhere else than the gamelan orchestras and I remember I was > very surprised."
>
> Him: "Well, maybe I sound radical. I just don't know what I should > think when people are singing in a completely different scale than the > accompanying xylophone is playing. There must be some sort of musical > misunderstanding there (even though the tuning has a particular > system, I don't think it's an especially fundamental element of the > musical structure). And you yourself know that a terribly looking > tuning scheme can be usable in real music without any problems. The > influence of Indonesians on East Africa is undeniable, I just don't > assume something could be preserved so well simply by tradition for > hundreds of years (i.e., without any changes). There are always some > people coming and going in Africa, the strongest "movings" happened > there mainly in the 16th and 17th centuries, including language > changes. -- Well, but at least this makes more people interested in it."
>
> ===== End of quote =====
>
> Petr
>
> >
>