Where's all that hostility coming from?

Wow, where's all that hostility coming from? Yes, I do think that I am
the first person to come up with a quantifiable definition of
consonance. Set me straight if I'm wrong.
I doubt that my theories are going to have a profound impact on very
many people's music. Milton Friedman, as an economist, had his good
days and his bad days. He said that pool [pocket billiards] players
play pool as if they understand the laws of physics, whether they do or
not. Businessmen behave as if they understand the laws of economics,
whether they do or not. Everybody on this list plays as if they
understand consonance, whether they do or not. I've run into a few
people that have been using the methods I recommend for quite some
time. Conventional music is also very focused on consonance, whether
you recognize it or not. Many people in the world in a variety of
endeavors seek to understand what they do and why they do it. Now why
did someone post that I am being critical of art? Hmmmm!

Hi bjosephmex,

I haven't followed the thread closely -- I missed the
hostilities. But let me address a couple points below...

> Wow, where's all that hostility coming from? Yes, I do think
> that I am the first person to come up with a quantifiable
> definition of consonance.

Why do you think that?

> Set me straight if I'm wrong.

There are probably over 1,000 messages on this list discussing
quantitative measures of consonance (out of 78,000+ messages
and counting).

Modern psychoacoustiscs goes back to Helmholtz circa 1863.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "bjosephmex" <bjosephmex@...> wrote:
>
> Wow, where's all that hostility coming from? Yes, I do think that
I am
> the first person to come up with a quantifiable definition of
> consonance. Set me straight if I'm wrong.
> I doubt that my theories are going to have a profound impact on
very
> many people's music. Milton Friedman, as an economist, had his
good
> days and his bad days. He said that pool [pocket billiards]
players
> play pool as if they understand the laws of physics, whether they
do or
> not. Businessmen behave as if they understand the laws of
economics,
> whether they do or not. Everybody on this list plays as if they
> understand consonance, whether they do or not. I've run into a few
> people that have been using the methods I recommend for quite some
> time. Conventional music is also very focused on consonance,
whether
> you recognize it or not. Many people in the world in a variety of
> endeavors seek to understand what they do and why they do it. Now
why
> did someone post that I am being critical of art? Hmmmm!
>

From Robert. I joined your group and looked at your file section
which appears to be filled with lots of data. So much data, in
fact, that I was scared away because it was not immediately
evident what it all meant. So I quit the group. Perhaps you can
explain your ideas in more simple terms so that the more
intellectually challenged musicians like myself can understand
what you intend to convey. I am not hostile but I only devote a
limited time to the tuning group and spend most of my spare time
with my own group. An abstract of your thesis or idea would not go
astray and would better serve your purposes.

well said, Robert.

btw my comments contributed nothing and I apologize for them

whether there's anything here to make my pocket pool more erotic and satisfying remains to be seen.

On Oct 30, 2008, at 7:56 AM, robert thomas martin wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "bjosephmex" <bjosephmex@...> wrote:
> >
> > Wow, where's all that hostility coming from? Yes, I do think that
> I am
> > the first person to come up with a quantifiable definition of
> > consonance. Set me straight if I'm wrong.
> > I doubt that my theories are going to have a profound impact on
> very
> > many people's music. Milton Friedman, as an economist, had his
> good
> > days and his bad days. He said that pool [pocket billiards]
> players
> > play pool as if they understand the laws of physics, whether they
> do or
> > not. Businessmen behave as if they understand the laws of
> economics,
> > whether they do or not. Everybody on this list plays as if they
> > understand consonance, whether they do or not. I've run into a few
> > people that have been using the methods I recommend for quite some
> > time. Conventional music is also very focused on consonance,
> whether
> > you recognize it or not. Many people in the world in a variety of
> > endeavors seek to understand what they do and why they do it. Now
> why
> > did someone post that I am being critical of art? Hmmmm!
> >
>
> From Robert. I joined your group and looked at your file section
> which appears to be filled with lots of data. So much data, in
> fact, that I was scared away because it was not immediately
> evident what it all meant. So I quit the group. Perhaps you can
> explain your ideas in more simple terms so that the more
> intellectually challenged musicians like myself can understand
> what you intend to convey. I am not hostile but I only devote a
> limited time to the tuning group and spend most of my spare time
> with my own group. An abstract of your thesis or idea would not go
> astray and would better serve your purposes.
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
>
> well said, Robert.
>
> btw my comments contributed nothing and I apologize for them
>
> whether there's anything here to make my pocket pool more erotic
and
> satisfying remains to be seen.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2008, at 7:56 AM, robert thomas martin wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "bjosephmex" <bjosephmex@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Wow, where's all that hostility coming from? Yes, I do think
that
> > I am
> > > the first person to come up with a quantifiable definition of
> > > consonance. Set me straight if I'm wrong.
> > > I doubt that my theories are going to have a profound impact on
> > very
> > > many people's music. Milton Friedman, as an economist, had his
> > good
> > > days and his bad days. He said that pool [pocket billiards]
> > players
> > > play pool as if they understand the laws of physics, whether
they
> > do or
> > > not. Businessmen behave as if they understand the laws of
> > economics,
> > > whether they do or not. Everybody on this list plays as if they
> > > understand consonance, whether they do or not. I've run into a
few
> > > people that have been using the methods I recommend for quite
some
> > > time. Conventional music is also very focused on consonance,
> > whether
> > > you recognize it or not. Many people in the world in a variety
of
> > > endeavors seek to understand what they do and why they do it.
Now
> > why
> > > did someone post that I am being critical of art? Hmmmm!
> > >
> >
> > From Robert. I joined your group and looked at your file section
> > which appears to be filled with lots of data. So much data, in
> > fact, that I was scared away because it was not immediately
> > evident what it all meant. So I quit the group. Perhaps you can
> > explain your ideas in more simple terms so that the more
> > intellectually challenged musicians like myself can understand
> > what you intend to convey. I am not hostile but I only devote a
> > limited time to the tuning group and spend most of my spare time
> > with my own group. An abstract of your thesis or idea would not go
> > astray and would better serve your purposes.
> >
> >
> >
> Reply from Robert. This is my honest criticism. If the previously
mentioned material is divided into things, meanings and values
then the articles in the File section are "things" with unknown
meaning and value. If this same material is divided scientifically
into descriptions, explanations and predictions then it it is not
clear whether the data are descriptions or predictions. They are
certainly not explanations. There might be potential with this
fellow's ideas but his presentation leaves a lot to be desired. If
he presents his ideas more coherently then more people will no
doubt take up his cause if they turn out to have meaning and
value.

   Bill Sethares already has devised a formula for consonance which proves why just intonation is an ideal tuning for whole-number multiple overtone instruments.  Even then it's not really "his", it's an equation that summarizes the curve of Plompt and Llevelt (sp.)'s experiments with consonance.  Especially if you have gotten your dissonance formula from and entirely different method I'd love to know how it works.  What a direct link to your research?

   I am interested to know what makes this different than his formula.  For sure, his formula does not "summarize what makes notes sound in key" completely.  But...it does seem to get a lot closer to solving the mystery, IMVHO, then the idea of "limits" in scales as it, unlike "limits", can deal with making ideal scales for any overtone schema (not just usual odd/even overtones).

   For example, you can play many notes in scales in his keys that don't beat or sound "dissonant"...but do sound "out of mood" for that key.  I think this explains a lot of why tempering notes slightly up/down relative the just-intonation actually can yield more desirable moods than Just Intonation itself.

   For sure, we've got a long way to go until we can define "mood consonance" in a mathematical way...rather than just things like eliminating beats or trying to find the perfect estimate of the critical band curve of human hearing. 

I am VERY interested to see if any of you have any ideas on that note.

-Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>    Bill Sethares already has devised a formula for consonance
> which proves why just intonation is an ideal tuning for whole-
> number multiple overtone instruments.

It also lets you calculate the "sensory dissonance" of a complex
of partials. But it's only half the story. Probably less than
half actually.

> What a direct link to your research?

Or, better yet, follow the normal convention for mailing lists
and share information on them.

>    I am interested to know what makes this different than his
> formula.  For sure, his formula does not "summarize what makes
> notes sound in key" completely.  But...it does seem to get a lot
> closer to solving the mystery, IMVHO, then the idea of "limits"
> in scales as it, unlike "limits", can deal with making ideal
> scales for any overtone schema (not just usual odd/even overtones).

Limits are a crude measure, and are intended as such. However,
Tenney Height is a good measure of consonance for any pitched
timbre (not only those with harmonic spectra) where the pitches
are related by simple ratios. For arbitrary timbres and
relationships, harmonic entropy is the best single measure of
consonance.

Sethares' equations don't work for simple extended utonal
chords (Bill: I'm certainly open to you showing otherwise).

-Carl

Michael~
I really am not sure what you re saying here. Could you elaborate.

If we don't want JI why would we want timbres that match in the same sort of way? this is contradictory it seems. or if what you imply is the case we want timbres that are slightly off. ( This doesn't even approach the question of what it is we are trying to do. or the underlying assumption, the more consonant the better musically)

For example, you can play many notes in scales in his keys that don't beat or sound "dissonant".
..but do sound "out of mood" for that key. I think this explains a lot of why tempering notes slightly up/down relative the just-intonation actually can yield more desirable moods than Just Intonation itself.
--

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

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

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

caleb writes: the warm, yummy center of the argument, right there:

On Oct 31, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Kraig Grady wrote:

> or the underlying
> assumption, the more consonant the better musically)

caleb wrongs: Life is all about premises, not logical consistency

Ok, now I'll shut up.

No hostility from me;-)

I am continuing to develop my scales database, and am finding some unexpected (by me) and interesting patterns.

I made one record in my flat database for each of the possible scales in 12 edo i.e. 2048 unique scales in 12edo.

I am then attempting, from the 110101010111 (12 binary digit coding) to spell some of the possible interpretations e.g.

110111011011 seems to be commonly called Moorish Phrygian and treating the notes as naturals and obvious sharps gives us:

1 1# 2# 3 4 5 5# 6# 7 which (from C) = C C# D# E F F# G# A# B and a string of fifths of F-C-G-x-x-E-B-x-C#-G#-D#-A# i.e. chain 11 steps with steps 4,5, and 8 missing and the tonic in position 2.

Ascending pattern of intervals is (s) (2L-2s) (s) (s) (L) (s) (2L-2s) (s) (s)

i.e. ScaleCoding therefore is 11/458/2

Mapping this other ways gives diverse results.

e.g. (an extreme example) 1 2b 2# 3 4 5 6b 6# 7 = C Db D# E F G Ab A# B string of fifths Db-Ab-x-x-F-C-G-x-x-E-B-x-x-x-D#-A# and ScaleCoding of 15/3489121314/6

Interval pattern is (L-s) (L) (s) (s) (L) (L-s) (L) (L) (s) (s)

or:

(a shorter chain example) 1 2b 3b 4b 4 5 6b 7b 8b = D Db Eb Fb F G Ab Bb Cb string of fifths Fb-Cb-x-Db-Ab-Eb-Bb-F-C-G ScaleCoding 9/3/9

Interval Pattern is:

(s) (L) (s) (L-s) (L) (s) (L) (s) (L-s)

Each of these different scales (which are treated identically and ambiguously in 12 edo) enable players to voice entirely different harmonies, which can be expressed as triads of Major, minor, augmented or diminished chords.

I am sure that tunaniks will be able to figure out the possible triads with little difficulty.

The concept that surprised me was that to produce the shortest chain using all the notes required for the scale required using "unusual" note positions.

In the third example Both Fb and Cb as 4b and 8b.

My hypothesis is that intervals that are closer on the chain of fourths and fifths are more "consonant", so what surprised me was that these "unusual" note spellings and intervals (Fb and Cb) should be required to produce the most "consonant"

and maybe the most "harmonious" note assignment.

More info and work in progress is at:

http://www.lucytune.com/scales/

On 31 Oct 2008, at 10:09, Kraig Grady wrote:

> Michael~
> I really am not sure what you re saying here. Could you elaborate.
>
> If we don't want JI why would we want timbres that match in the same
> sort of way? this is contradictory it seems. or if what you imply is > the
> case we want timbres that are slightly off. ( This doesn't even > approach
> the question of what it is we are trying to do. or the underlying
> assumption, the more consonant the better musically)
>
> For example, you can play many notes in scales in his keys that don't
> beat or sound "dissonant".
> ..but do sound "out of mood" for that key. I think this explains a lot
> of why tempering notes slightly up/down relative the just-intonation
> actually can yield more desirable moods than Just Intonation itself.
> -->
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
> Mesotonal Music from:
> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>
> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://> anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- 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

caleb writes: cents?

On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

>
>
> I
>
> 110111011011 seems to be commonly called Moorish Phrygian and > treating the notes as naturals and obvious sharps gives us:
>
> 1 1# 2# 3 4 5 5# 6# 7 which (from C) = C C# D# E F F# G# A# B and a > string of fifths of F-C-G-x-x-E-B-x-C#-G#-D#-A# i.e. chain 11 steps > with steps 4,5, and 8 missing and the tonic in position 2.
>
>
>
> e.g. (an extreme example) 1 2b 2# 3 4 5 6b 6# 7 = C Db D# E F G Ab > A# B string of fifths Db-Ab-x-x-F-C-G-x-x-E-B-x-x-x-D#-A# and > ScaleCoding of 15/3489121314/6
>
>
> cents?

>
>
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (10)Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
> Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | > Calendar
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> MARKETPLACE
> From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods
>
> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch > format to Traditional
> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
> RECENT ACTIVITY
> 7
> New Members
> Visit Your Group
> New business?
> Get new customers.
> List your web site
> in Yahoo! Search.
> Sitebuilder
> Build a web site
> quickly & easily
> with Sitebuilder.
> Find helpful tips
> for Moderators
> on the Yahoo!
> Groups team blog.
> .
>
>

The cents values that I personally use are derived from pi, although this system of ScaleCoding can be used for any meantone-type tuning system, and with a "stretch" could also analyse Pythagorian and other "positive" spiral tunings.

i.e. where the fifth is > 700 cents.

see this page for the values in cents.

http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_02.html

Whichever tuning system you may choose, it is possible to assign notenames by their approximation to the LucyTuned values.

Try it with 88edo; it gives a good approximation:

see:

http://www.lucytune.com/tuning/equal_temp.html

You could even make intelligent notename "guesses" for the dreaded "non-beating" JI values.

see:

http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_01.html

On 31 Oct 2008, at 14:00, caleb morgan wrote:

>
> caleb writes: cents?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I
>>
>> 110111011011 seems to be commonly called Moorish Phrygian and >> treating the notes as naturals and obvious sharps gives us:
>>
>> 1 1# 2# 3 4 5 5# 6# 7 which (from C) = C C# D# E F F# G# A# B and a >> string of fifths of F-C-G-x-x-E-B-x-C#-G#-D#-A# i.e. chain 11 >> steps with steps 4,5, and 8 missing and the tonic in position 2.
>>
>>
>>
>> e.g. (an extreme example) 1 2b 2# 3 4 5 6b 6# 7 = C Db D# E F G >> Ab A# B string of fifths Db-Ab-x-x-F-C-G-x-x-E-B-x-x-x-D#-A# and >> ScaleCoding of 15/3489121314/6
>>
>>
>> cents?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Messages in this topic (10)Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
>> Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | >> Calendar
>> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
>> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
>> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
>> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
>> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
>> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
>> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual >> emails.
>> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>> MARKETPLACE
>> From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods
>>
>> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
>> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch >> format to Traditional
>> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
>> RECENT ACTIVITY
>> 7
>> New Members
>> Visit Your Group
>> New business?
>> Get new customers.
>> List your web site
>> in Yahoo! Search.
>> Sitebuilder
>> Build a web site
>> quickly & easily
>> with Sitebuilder.
>> Find helpful tips
>> for Moderators
>> on the Yahoo!
>> Groups team blog.
>> .
>>
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- 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

----this is contradictory it seems. or if what you imply is the

case we want timbres that are slightly off. ( This doesn't even approach

the question of what it is we are trying to do. or the underlying

assumption, the more consonant the better musically)

      In general I agree "the more consonant (mathematically) the better musically", but not 100%. 
      Rather than "staying off topic", I am simply trying to say "I don't think that kind of consonance is the whole story, just a large part of it". 

     Thus, I think we have more than one problem...

A) I DO agree mathematical consonance (IE what you seem to be describing) is a MAJOR key in making a scale sound good musically.  You always try to at least get close to maximizing mathematical consonance.

....HOWEVER THERE IS A SECOND FACTOR......

B) I am sure there is a SECOND type of consonance IE "mood consonance" or "tonal character consonance" that also has to be met within a good degree of accuracy

....AND....that the ideal scale will sacrifice a bit, though not
much, of mathematical consonance for mood consonance and thus find a happy medium between the two that makes it musical.

**********************************************************
Further Details Below.....
************************************************************
----If we don't want JI why would we want timbres that match in the same

sort of way?
  Just Intonation, as I understand it, assumes that
A) the instruments we use have even-numbered overtones IE
     root-frequency   2*root (first overtone)  3*root (second overtone)  4*root (third overtone) etc.
   And, of course, just-intonation uses low numbered ratios IE 1/2 (IE the "5th") to make
sure the overtones coincide with root notes on higher octaves.
*******************************************************************************
      The thing is...just intonation seems to assume the mathematically making root notes
and overtones match makes for the most musically comprehensible sound.  It is the most "mathematically consonant" scale system, but does not seem to consider "mood consonance".

     The problem, I believe, is, that equation does not summarize musically completely.    

    Some people think a 7-note scale in 12ET actually sounds better than Just Intonation, for example, even though the root notes and overtones do not coincide but instead "nearly match". 
      That is a HUGE reason, in my book, why people don't use Just Intonation all the time: tempered scales do so much for making strong moods.

    Even if you play a just-intonation scale with pure sine waves, no clashing overtones to worry about, you'll see what I mean. 
     Same goes with playing 10TET with sine waves...it sounds a bit musically sour even played mono-phonically vs. 12TET. 
     And same goes for 5TET with sine waves...which you'd think would sound VERY consonant considering how far apart the notes are placed: yet sounds only "fairly musical" though most consonance formulas say "very far apart sine waves are more
consonant than fairly close ones (unless the two waves are extremely close and thus are often interpreted as one tone)". 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  There is obviously a second-force taking place aside from mathematical matching of root tones and overtones...that needs to be settled for a scale to sound musical.  Call it "tonal character" or "the mood/non-mathematical part of consonance...but there is no denying it exists.

Please let me know if this makes sense or where you need clarification.  I am trying to stay on topic, I promise you. :-)

-Michael

I believe that I have found the basic underlying formulas.

The integer frequency ratios (sometimes naively labelled as "harmonics") are "just" landmarks of zero beating.

It seems that musical harmonics "should" beat.

Details here:

http://www.lucytune.com

On 31 Oct 2008, at 15:20, Michael Sheiman wrote:

>
> ----this is contradictory it seems. or if what you imply is the
> case we want timbres that are slightly off. ( This doesn't even > approach
> the question of what it is we are trying to do. or the underlying
> assumption, the more consonant the better musically)
>
> In general I agree "the more consonant (mathematically) the > better musically", but not 100%.
> Rather than "staying off topic", I am simply trying to say "I > don't think that kind of consonance is the whole story, just a large > part of it".
>
> Thus, I think we have more than one problem...
>
> A) I DO agree mathematical consonance (IE what you seem to be > describing) is a MAJOR key in making a scale sound good musically. > You always try to at least get close to maximizing mathematical > consonance.
>
> ....HOWEVER THERE IS A SECOND FACTOR......
>
> B) I am sure there is a SECOND type of consonance IE "mood > consonance" or "tonal character consonance" that also has to be met > within a good degree of accuracy
>
>
> ....AND....that the ideal scale will sacrifice a bit, though not > much, of mathematical consonance for mood consonance and thus find a > happy medium between the two that makes it musical.
>
> **********************************************************
> Further Details Below.....
> ************************************************************
> ----If we don't want JI why would we want timbres that match in the > same
> sort of way?
> Just Intonation, as I understand it, assumes that
> A) the instruments we use have even-numbered overtones IE
> root-frequency 2*root (first overtone) 3*root (second > overtone) 4*root (third overtone) etc.
> And, of course, just-intonation uses low numbered ratios IE 1/2 > (IE the "5th") to make
> sure the overtones coincide with root notes on higher octaves.
> *******************************************************************************
> The thing is...just intonation seems to assume the > mathematically making root notes
> and overtones match makes for the most musically comprehensible > sound. It is the most "mathematically consonant" scale system, but > does not seem to consider "mood consonance".
>
> The problem, I believe, is, that equation does not summarize > musically completely.
> Some people think a 7-note scale in 12ET actually sounds better > than Just Intonation, for example, even though the root notes and > overtones do not coincide but instead "nearly match".
> That is a HUGE reason, in my book, why people don't use Just > Intonation all the time: tempered scales do so much for making > strong moods.
>
>
> Even if you play a just-intonation scale with pure sine waves, > no clashing overtones to worry about, you'll see what I mean.
> Same goes with playing 10TET with sine waves...it sounds a bit > musically sour even played mono-phonically vs. 12TET.
> And same goes for 5TET with sine waves...which you'd think > would sound VERY consonant considering how far apart the notes are > placed: yet sounds only "fairly musical" though most consonance > formulas say "very far apart sine waves are more consonant than > fairly close ones (unless the two waves are extremely close and thus > are often interpreted as one tone)".
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> There is obviously a second-force taking place aside from > mathematical matching of root tones and overtones...that needs to be > settled for a scale to sound musical. Call it "tonal character" or > "the mood/non-mathematical part of consonance...but there is no > denying it exists.
>
>
> Please let me know if this makes sense or where you need > clarification. I am trying to stay on topic, I promise you. :-)
>
> -Michael
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- 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

Michael~
The cultures that use JI scales India and the Mideast, are melodically based and have more different scales for 'moods' than anywhere else on the globe. So much so that in India the language has more words for emotions than anywhere else. I am not following you where tempering has more moods. I would state that the opposite is the case. Even mathematically JI scales are unequal scales and as such have more different intervals contain within them. This alone would give one the possibility of more different moods.
--

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

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

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

   I never said tempering has "more moods", but rather that it can yield more effective moods at times.  Again I go back to the fact many people prefer typical 7-tone scale 12TET over a 7-tone Just Intonation scales, just as one example.  Another example: the "blue tones" in blues which, although "off" far as consonance is concerned, change to a new "tint" in the mood.
 
  I'm not saying just-intonation can not produce many moods...of course it can.
  I am simply saying if someone took, say, an Indian scale and started bending strategic notes a tad...he/she could get a sound that seems to connect more in mood.
  
 
  
    And...sure Just Intonation does not have equal intervals...but, then again, they share that commonality with many other scales which are not JI. 
 
**********************************************************
  Another note, if Just Intonation truly were the Holy Grail...why have so many microtonalists
bothered to "bend it" in so many interesting ways? 
**********************************************************
 
  Another note, if Just Intonation truly were the Holy Grail...why have so many microtonalists
bothered to bend it in interesting ways? 
   To set the record straight...I am trying to discuss temperment in terms of mood "quality" rather than mood "quantity"
  

--- On Fri, 10/31/08, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:

From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re:Where's all that hostility coming from?: what's the basic formula?
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 1:39 PM

Michael~
The cultures that use JI scales India and the Mideast, are
melodically based and have more different scales for 'moods' than
anywhere else on the globe. So much so that in India the language has
more words for emotions than anywhere else. I am not following you where
tempering has more moods. I would state that the opposite is the case.
Even mathematically JI scales are unequal scales and as such have more
different intervals contain within them. This alone would give one the
possibility of more different moods.
--

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

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

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