Poor singers and major thirds

Thank you, Paul (Erlich), for your clarifications regarding recent posts.
Now to the matter itself.

You said:
>
>>>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."

It seems strange to me that this triad that you hear as the one in question
would be sung inconsistently by "poor" singers. The triad I am talking about
"locks" in tune. There is no doubt about that. It would seem to me that
"poor" singers may not be listening carefully for adjustments that create
this locked-in tuning. I have to think we are talking about two different
things.

As Dan Stearns suggested, it seems that we are more or less at an impasse
here until we introduce some actual sounds into the exchange. I am working
on that from my end, but that may take a bit of time. When the
sound-analysis software comes that I ordered, I will attempt to create (or
record and analyze) a 14:18:21 triad and see whether this is the same as
"my" triad. In the meantime, how difficult would it be for you to create one
and upload it?

Incidentally, Sheila Chandra, one of the best singers I have heard (CD:
"Moonsung: A Real World Retrospective,") is "inconsistent" in that she seems
to use both the 4:5 third and the "high" third, even within in the same
phrase, over a double drone (tonic and dominant). She sings the opening
thirds below "piano pitch" and the later thirds above it. In both cases the
thirds lock beautifully. If you haven't heard her, I highly recommend
finding her album. (Real World label)

Aside, I know very well that the 6:7:9 minor triad locks vividly. Creating a
sound illustration for my book CD, I was moving the third of a C triad
downward gradually from a "locked" major third position to a "locked" minor
third position while holding the root and fifth constant. When I moved it
"too far" down to what was apparently a 6:7 ratio, I got a very audible low
F in my recording. It took considerable time to find a "compromise" position
that would both illustrate the point and avoid the low F. (Why should life
be this hard? But then what would we do with the extra spare time anyway?)

Jerry

Gerald Eskelin wrote,

>As Dan Stearns suggested, it seems that we are more or less at an impasse
>here until we introduce some actual sounds into the exchange. I am working
>on that from my end, but that may take a bit of time. When the
>sound-analysis software comes that I ordered, I will attempt to create (or
>record and analyze) a 14:18:21 triad and see whether this is the same as
>"my" triad. In the meantime, how difficult would it be for you to create
one
>and upload it?

I'm sure someone can do this quite easily. Nowitzky? deLaubenfels? Wauchope?

>Aside, I know very well that the 6:7:9 minor triad locks vividly. Creating
a
>sound illustration for my book CD, I was moving the third of a C triad
>downward gradually from a "locked" major third position to a "locked" minor
>third position while holding the root and fifth constant. When I moved it
>"too far" down to what was apparently a 6:7 ratio, I got a very audible low
>F in my recording. It took considerable time to find a "compromise"
position
>that would both illustrate the point and avoid the low F.

Why don't you think the tuning of the major triad with high third involves
similar compromises? If you insist it doesn't, what did you think of my post
where I suggested 1/24:1/19:1/16?