Wikipedia: Limit (music)

More like Limit_(wikipedia). Jesus H.

I completely rewrote this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limit_(music)&oldid=240565621

But I'm not sure it's better than the article as I originally wrote it
in 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limit_(music)&oldid=9220787

What do you guys think? Should we keep it as is, or revert it to the
2004 version?

-Carl

Edited since I am challenged...
>
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>
> More like Limit_(wikipedia). Jesus H.
>
> I completely rewrote this article:
http://tinyurl.com/3jqcwd
>
> But I'm not sure it's better than the article as I
> originally wrote it in 2004:
http://tinyurl.com/4olj8t
>
> What do you guys think? Should we keep it as is, or revert it to the
> 2004 version?
>
> -Carl

I like this one better. I edited the last paragraph slightly.

Also, this statement:

"This story is suggestive of evolution through a regime of punctuated
equilibria, wherein the predominant technology of each epoch (e.g.
triads) almost completely replaces that of previous epochs (e.g.
medieval open fourths and fifths), at least in the genre undergoing
the revolution (plain triads are very seldom used in jazz). This can
be taken as justification for describing harmony with upper bounds on
its complexity."

While this is true, I think it might be a little bit complex for the
average reader to understand. I think the choice of vocabulary could
be toned down a bit. After all, we don't want the only people reading
the article to be the ones who already know what a limit is :)

-Mike

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> More like Limit_(wikipedia). Jesus H.
>
> I completely rewrote this article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limit_(music)&oldid=240565621
>
> But I'm not sure it's better than the article as I originally wrote it
> in 2004:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Limit_(music)&oldid=9220787
>
> What do you guys think? Should we keep it as is, or revert it to the
> 2004 version?
>
> -Carl
>
>

Carl Lumma schrieb:
> Edited since I am challenged...
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>> More like Limit_(wikipedia). Jesus H.
>>
>> I completely rewrote this article:
> http://tinyurl.com/3jqcwd
>> But I'm not sure it's better than the article as I
>> originally wrote it in 2004:
> http://tinyurl.com/4olj8t
>> What do you guys think? Should we keep it as is, or revert it to the
>> 2004 version?
>>
>> -Carl

Not sure what you edited in this third post I'm answering; I went to the links given in the first one.

I miss a mention of "factor" or "product" in both articles - I'm sure the word "complexity" alone wouldn't explain anything to me if didn't know what this was about. Also, the limit applies directly to intervals, not scales.

About the odd and prime limits: I don't think Partch was unaware of prime limits. He just called them the odd limit before the next prime (he mentions 9/8 after the basics when he constructs his 5-limit scale, but he calls 9-limit what is known as 7-limit hereabouts). So either the prime limit school from your new article is really limited to the harmonic series, maybe with octave equivalents, or there is no difference except in naming convention. Or I didn't get it.

klaus

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

> Not sure what you edited in this third post I'm answering; I
> went to the links given in the first one.

On the web, yahoo failed to hotlink the long links, due
to the open parens I think. So I replaced them with tinyurls,
then goofed, and had to repost the tinyurls. Sorry.

> I miss a mention of "factor" or "product" in both articles -

The current article mentions "factors of 2", and both
articles explain how to calculate the limits (the earlier
one does a bit of a better job at that).

> I'm sure the word "complexity" alone wouldn't explain
> anything to me if didn't know what this was about.

There should be an article on harmonic complexity.

> Also, the limit applies directly to intervals, not scales.

Limits apply to intervals, chords, scales, and even
musical scores, as I attempt to explain in the article.

> About the odd and prime limits: I don't think Partch was
> unaware of prime limits.

I think there may be an instance of him using prime
limit in his book, or at least prime-limit reasoning.
The 2004 version of the article explains that a bit,
saying that he called his 43-tone scale "11-limit".

> He just called them the odd limit before the
> next prime (he mentions 9/8 after the basics when he
> constructs his 5-limit scale, but he calls 9-limit what
> is known as 7-limit hereabouts). So either the prime
> limit school from your new article is really limited to
> the harmonic series, maybe with octave equivalents, or
> there is no difference except in naming convention.
> Or I didn't get it.

You don't get it. :) Maybe have another pass at the
articles?

-Carl

May I make two suggestions about the Limit article?

The first is that the emphasis on "complexity" may, misleadingly, distract from another quality and that is "variety" which is not so readily quantifiable, but clearly one reason why a musician would be interested in music of one limit or another.

The second is that the paragraph on American Gamelan gets things wrong. While Partch's ontonalities and untonalities are harmonic series segments, and his theory of consonance clearly depends upon regular harmonic spectra, Partch himself avoids discussion of the harmonic series. Indeed, I suspect from his practical experience with the real overtones of real instruments, that Partch was extremely cautious about this point. On the other hand, one of Lou Harrison's initial impulses in designing Gamlean Si Betty, his and Bill's first large Javanese style instrument, was to find a tuning from within the upper reaches of the harmonic series, i.e. as a "cloud of harmonics" (Lou's own phrase). He had Bill make up a series of aluminum slabs tuned in the proportions of the first 64 partials. He chose a slendro and a pelog from the series and received approval from Pak Cokro, who was teaching in a neighboring office at the time. Later, with the Mills gamelan, he went with a trichordal model and revised one tone in Si Betty to also conform to a trichordal scheme (making my own piece for trombone and gamelan unplayable, by the way). But these trichordal tunings are also to be found within a reasonably low segment of the harmonic series. The other just intonation gamelan of the era used a variety of approaches, the most interesting being perhpas that of Other Music, which used the cross set associated with Max F. Meyer. (Ironically, I remember one of the Other Musicians complaining about Erv Wilson's CPS structure, and had to laugh because their system housed a CPS or two as well).

Altogether, I don't think that the paragraph on American gamelan belongs here. Gamelan tunings are made in the context of a mixture of simple harmonic and complex spectra, and the connection to this topic is tenuous.

Daniel Wolf

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Wolf" <djwolf@...> wrote:
>
> May I make two suggestions about the Limit article?

Sure. And you can edit it yourself!

> The second is that the paragraph on American Gamelan gets things
> wrong. While Partch's ontonalities and untonalities are harmonic
> series segments, and his theory of consonance clearly depends
> upon regular harmonic spectra, Partch himself avoids discussion
> of the harmonic series. Indeed, I suspect from his practical
> experience with the real overtones of real instruments, that
> Partch was extremely cautious about this point.

The section was just meant to convey the first point, that the
o- and utonalities are harmonic series scales.

> On the other hand, one of Lou Harrison's initial impulses in
> designing Gamlean Si Betty, his and Bill's first large Javanese
> style instrument, was to find a tuning from within the upper
> reaches of the harmonic series, i.e. as a "cloud of harmonics"
> (Lou's own phrase).

Ok, that's the first impulse, but it doesn't speak to the
central tendency of the movement. Perhaps Lou's name should
be taken out, though, because his approach to scale
construction does seem to have been mainly empirical and not
fitting any of the theoretical approaches discussed. I mainly
mentioned him to explain what the A.M. movement was, only to
discover later that there was already a wikipedia entry
for A.M.

> The other just intonation gamelan of the era used a variety of
> approaches, the most interesting being perhpas that of
> Other Music, which used the cross set associated with Max F.
> Meyer.

I believe I'm aware of all the extant references on the scales
used in Other Music recordings, as well as having, like you,
discussed the subject with Henry, Carola, et al (and on one
occasion I helped tune the big gender). The trend is
overwhelmingly lattice-section based.

> Gamelan tunings are made in the context of a mixture of simple
> harmonic and complex spectra, and the connection to this topic
> is tenuous.

The use of prime limits appears to have arisen in A.M.
Do you disagree? Would it be better, in your view, to say
that the use of prime limits arose in the Just Intonation
Network? Or...?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>...
> I believe I'm aware of all the extant references on the scales
> used in Other Music recordings, as well as having, like you,
> discussed the subject with Henry, Carola, et al (and on one
> occasion I helped tune the big gender). The trend is
> overwhelmingly lattice-section based.

Hi Carl,

I'd be interested in knowing what those scales were. I bought a vinyl
album of Other Music many years ago and was somewhat disconcerted that
the ratios in the 14-tone JI tuning were not listed in the notes.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >...
> > I believe I'm aware of all the extant references on the scales
> > used in Other Music recordings, as well as having, like you,
> > discussed the subject with Henry, Carola, et al (and on one
> > occasion I helped tune the big gender). The trend is
> > overwhelmingly lattice-section based.
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> I'd be interested in knowing what those scales were. I bought
> a vinyl album of Other Music many years ago and was somewhat
> disconcerted that the ratios in the 14-tone JI tuning were not
> listed in the notes.
>
> --George

Heh- I have two of their records, and I thought that I
first got the ratios of that scale from the liner notes.
Maybe I'm misremembering and actually read it in 1/1 or
maybe it was the record you don't have. Anyway, all my
1/1s and records are in Montana. I thought I'd posted
the scale here, but didn't find it in a search. Anyway,
it was a convex thing in the 7-limit rectangular lattice
with a few 5th pigtails as I recall. Oh, it's probably
in the Scala scale archive... nope, doesn't seem to be!

Zonk.

-Carl