Re: Digest Number 476

Paul Erlich commented:

>I can readily identify a 14:18:21 triad, and when I hear it in vocal music,
>it is by singers with rather inconsistent intonation (hence "poor" singers)
>rather than ones who consistently shoot for this tuning.
>
>Mandelbaum, p. 64:
>
>"In experiments related to the writing of this paper, the septimal minor
>chord [6:7:9] was enthusiastically received while the septimal major
>[14:21:28] was not."

Paul, I value your input on this subject, and as you know I am honestly in
search of a reasonable mathematical description of what I have been
describing herein. It would be helpful to know what you mean by
"inconsistent." My singers constantly modify tunings to find the optimum
tuning for each important sonority. To my sense of tuning, "inconsistency"
is a virtue. Ideally, the inconsistency of tuning various scale steps in the
context of prevailing harmony results in stunning "homogenized" vocal
sonorities. The goal is to hear the "color" of the chord without hearing the
individual pitches--a la Singers Unlimited. If singers were to sing the same
tuning of a given scale step without regard for harmonic context, they would
be "poor singers" in my estimation.

Also, the quote from Mandelbaum (who incidentally was a grad student at IU
at the same time I was there and whose work was known to me but not
examined) apparently describes a 14:21:28 triad. What does that have to do
with the topic at hand?

Jerry

I wrote,

>>I can readily identify a 14:18:21 triad, and when I hear it in vocal
music,
>>it is by singers with rather inconsistent intonation (hence "poor"
singers)
>>rather than ones who consistently shoot for this tuning.
>>
>>Mandelbaum, p. 64:
>>
>>"In experiments related to the writing of this paper, the septimal minor
>>chord [6:7:9] was enthusiastically received while the septimal major
>>[14:21:28] was not."

Gerald Eskelin wrote,

>Paul, I value your input on this subject, and as you know I am honestly in
>search of a reasonable mathematical description of what I have been
>describing herein. It would be helpful to know what you mean by
>"inconsistent." My singers constantly modify tunings to find the optimum
>tuning for each important sonority. To my sense of tuning, "inconsistency"
>is a virtue. Ideally, the inconsistency of tuning various scale steps in
the
>context of prevailing harmony results in stunning "homogenized" vocal
>sonorities. The goal is to hear the "color" of the chord without hearing
the
>individual pitches--a la Singers Unlimited. If singers were to sing the
same
>tuning of a given scale step without regard for harmonic context, they
would
>be "poor singers" in my estimation.

Let me rephrase -- I meant "singers with rather inconsistent intonation of
major triads." Better?

>Also, the quote from Mandelbaum (who incidentally was a grad student at IU
>at the same time I was there and whose work was known to me but not
>examined) apparently describes a 14:21:28 triad. What does that have to do
>with the topic at hand?

Whoops, I copied that wrong. It actually was a 14:18:21 triad, the very one
we're discussing.