Just Intonation Harmony as "Artificial??"

I'm reading an interesting book on the music of Bela Bartok by Erno
Lendvai. I'll bet some of you are familiar with this book.

His analyis of geometry and the golden section as it pertains to the
music of Bartok is particularly fascinating.

He also makes an interesting pronouncement about pentatonic scales
and "tonal" harmony.

His thesis, it seems, is that simple pentatonic scales are native, or
natural to the human ear and to all societies basically because of
the construction of the cochlea in the ear, which he says has
a "logarithmic structure" which would correspond to what he terms
the "so-la-so-mi" (2:3:5) (??) relations of pentatonic scales.

He claims that the later development of tonality came only with the
advent of instruments, and harmonies based upon the overtone series
(hence just intonation as we frequently know it) are
somewhat "artificial" to the basic human animal and not, essentially,
corporeal at all.

Has anyone heard a similar analysis or have impressions of these
thoughts?

Thanks again!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@...> wrote:
>
> I'm reading an interesting book on the music of Bela Bartok by Erno
> Lendvai. I'll bet some of you are familiar with this book.
>
> His analyis of geometry and the golden section as it pertains to
the
> music of Bartok is particularly fascinating.
>
> He also makes an interesting pronouncement about pentatonic scales
> and "tonal" harmony.
>
> His thesis, it seems, is that simple pentatonic scales are native,
or
> natural to the human ear and to all societies basically because of
> the construction of the cochlea in the ear, which he says has
> a "logarithmic structure" which would correspond to what he terms
> the "so-la-so-mi" (2:3:5) (??) relations of pentatonic scales.
>
> He claims that the later development of tonality came only with the
> advent of instruments, and harmonies based upon the overtone series
> (hence just intonation as we frequently know it) are
> somewhat "artificial" to the basic human animal and not,
essentially,
> corporeal at all.
>
> Has anyone heard a similar analysis or have impressions of these
> thoughts?
>
> Thanks again!
>
From Robert. The magic number (in psychology) of 7 plus or minus 2
when applied to equal temperaments can explain much of the "native"
music of the world, particularly that of S.E. Asia.

Hi Joseph!

> I'm reading an interesting book on the music of Bela Bartok by
> Erno Lendvai. I'll bet some of you are familiar with this book.

I wasn't, so thanks for mentioning it.

> His thesis, it seems, is that simple pentatonic scales are
> native, or natural to the human ear and to all societies
> basically because of the construction of the cochlea in the
> ear, which he says has a "logarithmic structure" which would
> correspond to what he terms the "so-la-so-mi" (2:3:5) (??)
> relations of pentatonic scales.

Sounds wrong to me. :)

> He claims that the later development of tonality came only
> with the advent of instruments, and harmonies based upon the
> overtone series (hence just intonation as we frequently
> know it) are somewhat "artificial" to the basic human animal
> and not, essentially, corporeal at all.
>
> Has anyone heard a similar analysis or have impressions of
> these thoughts?

I've read arguments that extended JI harmony will never have
the same importance as 5-limit harmony (in Martin Braun's
papers for example), or that > 7-limit harmony will never
sound appealing (e.g. by David Doty, though he later wrote at
least a couple of pieces going up to at least 13, so I guess
he changed his mind). I've never been persuaded by these
arguments. Especially since I know of 15-limit music that
most people I've played it for find perfectly pleasant. :)

However, I think for melody, it is very hard to use much
more than 7 tones. Many diatonic melodies don't use all
7 tones, and when they do, often some tones occur only as
passing tones. Serialism is sort-of based on the notion
that 12-tone melodies are intelligible, but I don't think
they are to most listeners. My hunch is that this has to
do with limitations of human short-term memory. You may
be familiar with George Miller's famous paper:

http://musanim.com/miller1956/

In other words, it's not a matter of training. I mean,
you can learn to hear 12-tone rows I'm sure. But even
then I don't think they're experienced in the same way as
normal melodies. Could be wrong about that. Anyway,
there's nothing in any of this that points to 5 in
particular.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Joseph!
>
> > I'm reading an interesting book on the music of Bela Bartok by
> > Erno Lendvai. I'll bet some of you are familiar with this book.
>
> I wasn't, so thanks for mentioning it.
>
> > His thesis, it seems, is that simple pentatonic scales are
> > native, or natural to the human ear and to all societies
> > basically because of the construction of the cochlea in the
> > ear, which he says has a "logarithmic structure" which would
> > correspond to what he terms the "so-la-so-mi" (2:3:5) (??)
> > relations of pentatonic scales.
>
> Sounds wrong to me. :)
>
> > He claims that the later development of tonality came only
> > with the advent of instruments, and harmonies based upon the
> > overtone series (hence just intonation as we frequently
> > know it) are somewhat "artificial" to the basic human animal
> > and not, essentially, corporeal at all.
> >
> > Has anyone heard a similar analysis or have impressions of
> > these thoughts?
>
> I've read arguments that extended JI harmony will never have
> the same importance as 5-limit harmony (in Martin Braun's
> papers for example), or that > 7-limit harmony will never
> sound appealing (e.g. by David Doty, though he later wrote at
> least a couple of pieces going up to at least 13, so I guess
> he changed his mind). I've never been persuaded by these
> arguments. Especially since I know of 15-limit music that
> most people I've played it for find perfectly pleasant. :)
>
> However, I think for melody, it is very hard to use much
> more than 7 tones. Many diatonic melodies don't use all
> 7 tones, and when they do, often some tones occur only as
> passing tones. Serialism is sort-of based on the notion
> that 12-tone melodies are intelligible, but I don't think
> they are to most listeners. My hunch is that this has to
> do with limitations of human short-term memory. You may
> be familiar with George Miller's famous paper:
>
> http://musanim.com/miller1956/
>
> In other words, it's not a matter of training. I mean,
> you can learn to hear 12-tone rows I'm sure. But even
> then I don't think they're experienced in the same way as
> normal melodies. Could be wrong about that. Anyway,
> there's nothing in any of this that points to 5 in
> particular.
>
> -Carl
>

***Thanks for the comment, Carl. I remember back a couple of years
ago, someone directed us to some studies that said that the ear drum
vibrated in sections similar to simple ratios of just intonation.
Maybe Paul Erlich had some of these articles. In any case, there
seems to be some controversy about this. Lendvai really sets up a
dichotomy between "constructed" scales, like the pentatonic and
others derived from what he considers "golden section" or "Fibonacci
series" and the like and harmonic constructs from the harmonic series.

Bartok uses both in his work, sometimes for contrast.

I've never before seen arguments where the "constructed" scales were
considered the "natural" ones and the harmonic ones were
the "artificial" so this was an entirely different take on things for
me... :) Certainly a curiosity.

Hi Carl.

Forgive me for responding vaguely to the last few months worth of posts.

-Your new tuning resources group sounds great and I intend to join up...I plead disorganization, stupidity, and laziness.

-I'm definitely one of those people who has done a lot of research, but is surprised by the sophistication of these groups, as you mentioned a while back.
The biggest obstacle to my improvement, believe it or not, is simply finding the information.

-Some theorists here and elsewhere seem to confuse units of measurement with elements of their system--but these are obviously different things.
So, you could have a music where the pitches are measured to the hundredth of a cent, but in practice there are only a few pitches, and they are categorized with, say, 20 cent leeway.

-All music is artificial. It just has to be do-able.

-Ok, on to serialism and intelligibility.

-I love to compose using 12-tone serial techniques, although maybe the love is unrequited.

-The techniques are generative and don't guarantee intelligibility. Intelligibility is achieved only with simplicity, for me.

-I've known a few savants--with absolute pitch and unusual mathematical abilities--who could really hear the series in a Babbitt piece. They were maybe 1 out of 1,000 conservatory students. Several of them were close personal friends with Mr. Babbitt. Small world. Too small. I don't belong.

-I only have one set of ears, one brain, and I hear all music the same way--I don't have some special mode for listening to 12-tone.

-I never hear the aggregate and become satisfied. Rather, I get a feeling of breadth, richness, complexity when I hear melodies with more than say, 9 or 10 different notes. And a sense of grayness and nausea if they are used indifferently.

-In practice, all the 12-tone stuff I write is embellished tonal music. 12 notes get chunked into smaller groups--say mutually opposed hexachords, 3 tetrachords, etc. Notes can be omitted, or sent to the Siberia of extreme registers, or otherwise de-emphasized.

-It's a Rube Goldberg technique, in a way.

-We/I also have the assistance of software that can make some aspects of 12-tone composition easier..(Carter once remarked that he'd need a computer to do 12-tone...)

-Coherence in the piece is probably provided in other ways than strictly by serial ordering, but that ordering does make a difference: One hears the same (somewhat abstract) harmonies and contours over and over. A sufficiently different series sounds, well...different, in context.

-back to tuning: I want to get my tuning tech to the next level, guess I'll ask you questions over in your other group...

On Jul 20, 2008, at 6:58 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> ...
>
> However, I think for melody, it is very hard to use much
> more than 7 tones. Many diatonic melodies don't use all
> 7 tones, and when they do, often some tones occur only as
> passing tones. Serialism is sort-of based on the notion
> that 12-tone melodies are intelligible, but I don't think
> they are to most listeners. My hunch is that this has to
> do with limitations of human short-term memory. You may
> be familiar with George Miller's famous paper:
>
> http://musanim.com/miller1956/
>
> In other words, it's not a matter of training. I mean,
> you can learn to hear 12-tone rows I'm sure. But even
> then I don't think they're experienced in the same way as
> normal melodies. Could be wrong about that. Anyway,
> there's nothing in any of this that points to 5 in
> particular.
>
> -Carl
>
>

>

Hi Caleb,

> I've known a few savants--with absolute pitch and unusual
> mathematical abilities--who could really hear the series in a
> Babbitt piece.

I wish I had a dime for every time I've heard this exact
statement. Babbitt is always the composer mentioned!
I'm not saying it isn't true, but I would *still* question
whether they hear them with the same sort of sensation that
they hear common diatonic melodies. And if so, can they
also surpass the other limits mentioned in Miller's paper?

> -In practice, all the 12-tone stuff I write is embellished
> tonal music. 12 notes get chunked into smaller groups

To do this, isn't it necessary to use a tone twice without
all other tones occurring in between?

> -back to tuning: I want to get my tuning tech to the next level,
> guess I'll ask you questions over in your other group...

That group is more for software development. This list or

/tuning-math

are best for theory questions.

-Carl

not urgent, but just to follow up on the part I bolded.

My point, of course, was that these people (savants) are in a tiny minority, by definition.

You're right to point out the Babbitt cliche. Actually, that was a stand-in for 3 different incidents I remember--Joel Smirnoff playing a Sessions Concerto; a blind pianist named Kevin Gibbs playing Anthony Braxton and a (to me) random-sounding piece by Robert Ceely; and finally, a violinist by the name of David Fulmer listening to Babbitt, and demonstrating these abilities with the music of Carter, Babbitt, Davidovsky, and others. James Levine is probably similar. In these cases, these 3 musicians demonstrated an amazing ability to play what they heard by ear--immediately or in one case after a year's time--or to comprehend something they heard by writing it down.

Those three people demonstrated something I could never do, no matter how much I practiced.

I simply thought it was fun to mention some of the wonders I've witnessed. These people are outside the curve.

I can't imagine their "sensations" but I suspect that for some people with absolute pitch and unusual abilities such as the ones I mentioned, there is a *simpler* cognitive process than with listeners with relative pitch--at least with pitch recognition. It's just a look-up in long-term memory without conscious effort.

Babbitt is a point of reference for some of us. Maybe I should have used Brian Ferneyhough as an example, instead.

On Jul 21, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Hi Caleb,
>
> > I've known a few savants--with absolute pitch and unusual
> > mathematical abilities--who could really hear the series in a
> > Babbitt piece.
>
> I wish I had a dime for every time I've heard this exact
> statement. Babbitt is always the composer mentioned!
> I'm not saying it isn't true, but I would *still* question
> whether they hear them with the same sort of sensation that
> they hear common diatonic melodies. And if so, can they
> also surpass the other limits mentioned in Miller's paper?
>
> > -In practice, all the 12-tone stuff I write is embellished
> > tonal music. 12 notes get chunked into smaller groups
>
> To do this, isn't it necessary to use a tone twice without
> all other tones occurring in between?
>
> > -back to tuning: I want to get my tuning tech to the next level,
> > guess I'll ask you questions over in your other group...
>
> That group is more for software development. This list or
>
> /tuning-math
>
> are best for theory questions.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

Fair enough. -Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

> Those three people demonstrated something I could never do, no
> matter how much I practiced.
>
> I simply thought it was fun to mention some of the wonders I've
> witnessed. These people are outside the curve.
>
> I can't imagine their "sensations" but I suspect that for some