Re: Digest Number 497

> Gerald Eskelin wrote, regarding the Monz examples:
>
>>The last two are so high they sound more like sus chords than major triads.
>>Certainly the 7:9 third, which sounds nothing like a perfect fourth, is not
>>as high as these.
>
>>There are 7 items on your sound example and only 6 described here. What did
>>I miss?

Paul Erlich responded:
>
> This is what you missed: On Wed 1/19/00 12:41 PM, Joe Monzo wrote,
>
>>I've added another rendition of the chord to the end of the
>>MIDI file, with a glissando from 4:5 to 7:9.

I saw that post and downloaded it. I couldn't open it for some reason. This
is a bit confusing, I know, since I've been about a day behind in keeping up
with the flow due to an OVERflow of other important matters. So does this
mean that if I got seven items I got the new one? I assume yes unless
corrected. And if so, my impression of Monz's 7:9 was that it is far too
high. Nevertheless, John Link's 7:9 third and the "young9.mid" chord (see my
other post coming in this batch) have raised the 7:9 third as "most likely
to succeed," in my opinion.
>
>>http://www.ixpres.com/interval/td/monzo/high3rd.mid
>
> So it appears the two chords you thought sounded like a sus chord were in
> fact the ones with 32:25 and 7:9 third. Vibrato aside, it seems, as I
> suspected you would, that you've now judged the 7:9 major third as too high
> for even the "high third". Furthermore, I'll venture a guess as to the
> reason you thought these were sus chords: due to the thirds in the example
> getting larger and larger, and the fact that you're not used to hearing
> microtonal climbs in pitch, your ear at some point decided that the pitch
> was a half-step above the major third, i.e., a perfect fourth.

Perhaps. However, my judgement that it sounded like a sus chord was not an
intellectual conclusion drawn from the highness of the third, rather it was
a perceptual gestalt--a sonority, a quality, a color--that I recognized from
years of having heard and used a sus chord. This is not a rebuttal, merely a
subjective report. I'll keep an open mind on the subject.

> However, if
> the example started with a 6:8:9 (sus chord) and then went down to 14:18:21
> (chord with 7:9 major third), you would probably hear it as a major triad,
> albeit still an out-of-tune one. Joe?

Sounds like a worthwhile effort. I'm open.
>
> Anyway, Jerry, you evidently did not express an opinion about the fifth
> chord, the one with a 11:14 major third. Given the amount of vibrato in the
> example, I don't blame you. Still, I'm curious.

At this point, I'm not sure what the fifth chord is (was). As I mentioned to
Monz, the whole thing might be more helpful to add sustain after the bend
arrives.

Jerry
>

Jerry wrote,

>Perhaps. However, my judgement that it sounded like a sus chord was not an
>intellectual conclusion drawn from the highness of the third, rather it was
>a perceptual gestalt--a sonority, a quality, a color--that I recognized
from
>years of having heard and used a sus chord.

Such is the nature of auditory illusions! Anyway, I'd really like Joe to add
the sus chord, and perhaps other intermediary chord, to his file.

>This is not a rebuttal, merely a
>subjective report. I'll keep an open mind on the subject.

I really hope you do!

I wrote,

>> However, if
>> the example started with a 6:8:9 (sus chord) and then went down to
14:18:21
>> (chord with 7:9 major third), you would probably hear it as a major
triad,
>> albeit still an out-of-tune one. Joe?

Jerry wrote,

>Sounds like a worthwhile effort. I'm open.

Joe, can we beg you to do this? Oh, and can you switch to a vibrato-less
sound, please? I don't think vocal simulation is an issue at this point, as
the current timbre sounds nothing like a voice.

>At this point, I'm not sure what the fifth chord is (was). As I mentioned
to
>Monz, the whole thing might be more helpful to add sustain after the bend
>arrives.

Right!