Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)

To Michael:
I've listened to your example. Obviously, it's melodically interesting, but I can't imagine how you would treat chords there. And whatever you may think, my personal view is that a tuning which doesn't offer many possibilities for "homophonic" music is missing something.
> BTW >>IMPORTANT NOTE<< using 2 as the octave all the overtones
> clash (this, I think, was the one major flawed assumption in Petr's
> Golden Ratio scale).

Not sure what you mean.

Petr

--Obviously, it’s melodically interesting
   At least to me, it seems far easier to compose melodies in than any sort of scale which emulates the close cousins of meantone/JI/12ET...and relatively easy to find strong chords in.

--but I can’t
imagine how you would treat chords there.
    It's a valid point, traditional theory here simply can't work.
  There's no obvious equivalent of, for example, the classic 3rd, 5th, or 7th intervals: traditional music theory would likely fall to pieces under this tuning, so one would need to start building a new theory altogether...or do as I do and play by ear.
 
    I have also found, even simple things like the Ionian mode can't make scales...and my best results have come by figuring out the gaps "by ear" rather than the traditional LLsLLLs type gap structures.
   Perhaps someone better at finding mathematical patterns than me could work out the theory?  And/or, you could always do what I do and simply list all the chords combinations you come up with that work and then, perhaps, look for interval patterns within those.
****************************************************
 
---doesn’t offer many possibilities for
„homophonic“ 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophony
   As I read it homophony basically means when two parts playing the exact same melody starting on different notes in such a way that they come together to form harmony.
  While I'm pretty sure those two parts won't be say, a traditional interval like a 5th apart...I don't see why homophony would be impossible (or at least, maintaining the same emotional feel as homophony). 
   If you can confirm I have the definition right...I'd be happy to take a shot at making a musical attempt at "homophony under the Golden Ratio tuning".

>
BTW >>IMPORTANT NOTE<< using 2 as the octave all the
>overtones clash (this, I think, was the one major flawed >assumption in
Petr's Golden Ratio scale).
---------Not
sure what you mean.
   I mean the octave in the golden ratio tuning should wrap around 1.618033 and not 2/1. 
   The problem with using 2/1 as the octave is that when you don't observe that convention the first or second overtone of almost any note in the first octave falls within the critical band of the root tone in the second octave...thus causing terrible harmonic entropy when you play notes not coming from the same octave together.  In fact, when and only when you make that mistake in constructing it along the wrong octave ratio, I can see how people came to think of the Golden Ratio as the "most dissonant
tuning".

-Michael

--- On Sun, 2/8/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello.cz> wrote:

From: Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...>
Subject: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:32 PM

To Michael:
I've
listened to your example. Obviously, it’s melodically interesting, but I can’t
imagine how you would treat chords there. And whatever you may think, my
personal view is that a tuning which doesn’t offer many possibilities for
„homophonic“ music is missing something.

>
BTW >>IMPORTANT NOTE<< using 2 as the octave all the
overtones
> clash (this, I think, was the one major flawed assumption in
Petr's
> Golden Ratio scale).
Not
sure what you mean.
Petr
 
 

Michael wrote:

> As I read it homophony basically means when two parts playing the exact same melody
> starting on different notes in such a way that they come together to form harmony.

Not sure if you can put it this way. The „same voice“ concept, AFAIK, mainly applies to the lengths of notes rather than to their pitches. And if I’m not mistaken, the primary homophonic works were heavily based on triadic progressions, even though the tonal „understanding“ or „feeling“ was not developed in the way we know it nowadays.

> I mean the octave in the golden ratio tuning should wrap around 1.618033 and not 2/1.

> The problem with using 2/1 as the octave is that when you don't observe that convention
> the first or second overtone of almost any note in the first octave falls within the critical
> band of the root tone in the second octave...

How do you want to make a scale with „phi“ as the period if „phi“ is the generator -- or isn’t it? Or do you want to use simple chains of „phi“ as an equal tuning? Or what other intervals do you want to use if the period is „phi“?

Petr

==============================

--- On Sun, 2/8/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:

From: Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...>
Subject: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:32 PM

To Michael:

I've listened to your example. Obviously, it’s melodically interesting, but I can’t imagine how you would treat chords there. And whatever you may think, my personal view is that a tuning which doesn’t offer many possibilities for „homophonic“ music is missing something.

> BTW >>IMPORTANT NOTE<< using 2 as the octave all the overtones
> clash (this, I think, was the one major flawed assumption in Petr's
> Golden Ratio scale).

Not sure what you mean.

Petr

---How
do you want to make a scale with „phi“ as the period if ---„phi“ is the
generator -- or isn’t it?
    If I have it right, the way I do it phi IS the generator (IE the way I make the tuning is to take phi^x where x = about 1 to 15...and then divide anything outside/over the range of numbers 1 to 2 repeatedly by 2 repeatedly until it fits within the octave.
  If you do that you will find...that the interval gap is the same between 1.618033 and the next note and the note after that...as it is between 1 and the next note and the note after that (IE 1.1618033 is the octave and where the symmetry of intervals between notes begins repeating.
   Also to note, nothing in the chain phi^x intersects at 2/1...which also explains why 2/1 would not work as an octave while preserving the repeating nature of phi.
   Far as homophonic tuning, argh, I still don't quite understand what it is.  But I don't want to litter the boards with questions about it.  If you think you could explain what it is in a personal e-mail, though, I would greatly appreciate it.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:

From: Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...>
Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 9:30 AM

Michael
wrote:

>  
As I read it homophony basically means when two parts playing the exact
same melody
> starting on different notes in such a way that they
come together to form harmony.
Not
sure if you can put it this way. The „same voice“ concept, AFAIK, mainly
applies to the lengths of notes rather than to their pitches. And if I’m
not mistaken, the primary homophonic works were heavily based on triadic
progressions, even though the tonal „understanding“ or „feeling“ was not
developed in the way we know it nowadays.
>  
I mean the octave in the golden ratio tuning should wrap around 1.618033
and not 2/1. 
>  
The problem with using 2/1 as the octave is that when you don't observe
that convention
> the first or second overtone of almost any note in
the first octave falls within the critical
> band of the root tone
in the second octave...
Petr
 
 
============ ========= =========

---
On Sun, 2/8/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>
wrote:

From:
Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>
Subject: Fw: [tuning] Why the
Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To:
tuning@yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:32
PM
To
Michael:
I've
listened to your example. Obviously, it’s melodically interesting, but I
can’t imagine how you would treat chords there. And whatever you may
think, my personal view is that a tuning which doesn’t offer many
possibilities for „homophonic“ music is missing
something.
>
BTW >>IMPORTANT NOTE<< using 2 as the octave all the
overtones
> clash (this, I think, was the one major flawed
assumption in Petr's
> Golden Ratio scale).
Not
sure what you mean.
Petr

Mike the key to western homophonic is the example of playing chords in the left hand and melody in the right on piano. With variation almost all pop music follows this model - its just spread out among several instruments.

If a scale does not create some type of useful harmonies, be them traditional or not, then you are looking at doing what the Indians have done so well for a very long time. If you consider that world music is following the western homophonic model one might conclude that the traditional indian music model is not the popular one anymore.
I essentially agree with Petr's assessment about harmony.

Chris
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@yahoo.com>

Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:47:44
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)

---How
do you want to make a scale with „phi“ as the period if ---„phi“ is the
generator -- or isn’t it?
    If I have it right, the way I do it phi IS the generator (IE the way I make the tuning is to take phi^x where x = about 1 to 15...and then divide anything outside/over the range of numbers 1 to 2 repeatedly by 2 repeatedly until it fits within the octave.
  If you do that you will find...that the interval gap is the same between 1.618033 and the next note and the note after that...as it is between 1 and the next note and the note after that (IE 1.1618033 is the octave and where the symmetry of intervals between notes begins repeating.
   Also to note, nothing in the chain phi^x intersects at 2/1...which also explains why 2/1 would not work as an octave while preserving the repeating nature of phi.
   Far as homophonic tuning, argh, I still don't quite understand what it is.  But I don't want to litter the boards with questions about it.  If you think you could explain what it is in a personal e-mail, though, I would greatly appreciate it.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello.cz> wrote:

From: Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello.cz>
Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 9:30 AM

Michael
wrote:

>  
As I read it homophony basically means when two parts playing the exact
same melody
> starting on different notes in such a way that they
come together to form harmony.
Not
sure if you can put it this way. The „same voice“ concept, AFAIK, mainly
applies to the lengths of notes rather than to their pitches. And if I’m
not mistaken, the primary homophonic works were heavily based on triadic
progressions, even though the tonal „understanding“ or „feeling“ was not
developed in the way we know it nowadays.
>  
I mean the octave in the golden ratio tuning should wrap around 1.618033
and not 2/1. 
>  
The problem with using 2/1 as the octave is that when you don't observe
that convention
> the first or second overtone of almost any note in
the first octave falls within the critical
> band of the root tone
in the second octave...
Petr
 
 
============ ========= =========

---
On Sun, 2/8/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>
wrote:

From:
Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>
Subject: Fw: [tuning] Why the
Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To:
tuning@yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:32
PM
To
Michael:
I've
listened to your example. Obviously, it’s melodically interesting, but I
can’t imagine how you would treat chords there. And whatever you may
think, my personal view is that a tuning which doesn’t offer many
possibilities for „homophonic“ music is missing
something.
>
BTW >>IMPORTANT NOTE<< using 2 as the octave all the
overtones
> clash (this, I think, was the one major flawed
assumption in Petr's
> Golden Ratio scale).
Not
sure what you mean.
Petr

Michael wrote:

> If I have it right, the way I do it phi IS the generator (IE the way I make the tuning is
> to take phi^x where x = about 1 to 15...and then divide anything outside/over the range
> of numbers 1 to 2 repeatedly by 2 repeatedly until it fits within the octave.

Well, then I don’t understand your point that you want the octave equal to „phi“, saying that a 2/1 octave „wouldn’t work“. Now you’re saying that the octave is 2/1.

> Far as homophonic tuning, argh, I still don't quite understand what it is. But I don't want
> to litter the boards with questions about it. If you think you could explain what it is in
> a personal e-mail, though, I would greatly appreciate it.

I was speaking about „homophonic music“ which can be understood, in a simple case, as more voices playing or singing different melodies but in the same rhythm. If you listen to some Renaissance music, for example, very often you’ll hear dense polyphonic parts alternating with clearly homophonic ones. Because the voices in homophonic music are essentially all in the same rhythm, its primary „building blocks“ are, obviously, chords.

Petr

==============================

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:

From: Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello.cz>
Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 9:30 AM

Michael wrote:

> As I read it homophony basically means when two parts playing the exact same melody
> starting on different notes in such a way that they come together to form harmony.

Not sure if you can put it this way. The „same voice“ concept, AFAIK, mainly applies to the lengths of notes rather than to their pitches. And if I’m not mistaken, the primary homophonic works were heavily based on triadic progressions, even though the tonal „understanding“ or „feeling“ was not developed in the way we know it nowadays.

> I mean the octave in the golden ratio tuning should wrap around 1.618033 and not 2/1.

> The problem with using 2/1 as the octave is that when you don't observe that convention
> the first or second overtone of almost any note in the first octave falls within the critical
> band of the root tone in the second octave...

Petr

============ ========= =========

--- On Sun, 2/8/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz> wrote:

From: Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>
Subject: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:32 PM

To Michael:

I've listened to your example. Obviously, it’s melodically interesting, but I can’t imagine how you would treat chords there. And whatever you may think, my personal view is that a tuning which doesn’t offer many possibilities for „homophonic“ music is missing something.

> BTW >>IMPORTANT NOTE<< using 2 as the octave all the overtones
> clash (this, I think, was the one major flawed assumption in Petr's
> Golden Ratio scale).

Not sure what you mean.

Petr

--Mike the key to western homophonic is the example of playing chords --in
the left hand and melody in the right on piano. With variation almost
--all pop music follows this model - its just spread out among several
--instruments.
   Ah, ok...that makes perfect sense (thank you for the short and sweet explanation).
    So it comes down to little more than using the left hand to make "chordal backup" for the right-handed "lead" melody.

    In that case, I don't see why the Golden Ratio tuning would have any problems with that...in the same way I don't see how any other MOS-type scale would have a problem with accomplishing that (remember, the Golden Ratio tuning is composed of variations of 2 intervals, thus making it an MOS scale just like Wilson's "Horagram" Moment of Symmetry scales).  Like you said, it's not important that the chords be almost exactly the same as in 12TET, but rather it's important that you have the ability to use chords to "back" a melody.

--If a scale does not create some type of useful harmonies, be them --traditional or not
..however
--If you consider that world music is following the western homophonic
--model one might conclude that the traditional indian music model is not
--the popular one anymore.

   For sure, the Golden Ratio can smoothly have chords and melodies over them IF you use 1.618 and not 2/1 as the octave.  In fact, if you listen carefully to my Golden Tuning example you'll notice my example has the notes DRONE on purpose...to show the fact you can have droning chords that follow the melodies.
  I get what you are saying, about the relatively mono-phonic Indian music model vs. models based on consonant polyphony...and, to make it blatantly obvious, my subset scale of the Golden Ratio tuning is built for supporting harmonies and additional melodies over them.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, chrisvaisvil@... <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: chrisvaisvil@... <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 11:01 AM

Mike the key to western homophonic is the example of playing chords in the left hand and melody in the right on piano. With variation almost all pop music follows this model - its just spread out among several instruments.

If a scale does not create some type of useful harmonies, be them traditional or not, then you are looking at doing what the Indians have done so well for a very long time. If you consider that world music is following the western homophonic model one might conclude that the traditional indian music model is not the popular one anymore.
I essentially agree with Petr's assessment about harmony.

Chris Sent via BlackBerry from T-MobileFrom: Michael Sheiman
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:47:44 -0800 (PST)
To: <tuning@yahoogroups. com>
Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
---How do you want to make a scale with „phi“ as the period if ---„phi“ is the generator -- or isn’t it?
    If I have it right, the way I do it phi IS the generator (IE the way I make the tuning is to take phi^x where x = about 1 to 15...and then divide anything outside/over the range of numbers 1 to 2 repeatedly by 2 repeatedly until it fits within the octave.
  If you do that you will find...that the interval gap is the same between 1.618033 and the next note and the note after that...as it is between 1 and the next note and the note after that (IE 1.1618033 is the octave and where the symmetry of intervals between notes begins repeating.
   Also to note, nothing in the chain phi^x intersects at 2/1...which also explains why 2/1 would not work as an octave while preserving the repeating nature of phi.
   Far as homophonic tuning, argh, I still don't quite understand what it is.  But I don't want to litter the boards with questions about it.  If you think you could explain what it is in a personal e-mail, though, I would greatly appreciate it.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz> wrote:

From: Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>
Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 9:30 AM

Michael wrote: >   As I read it homophony basically means when two parts playing the exact same melody
> starting on different notes in such a way that they come together to form harmony. Not sure if you can put it this way. The „same voice“ concept, AFAIK, mainly applies to the lengths of notes rather than to their pitches. And if I’m not mistaken, the primary homophonic works were heavily based on triadic progressions, even though the tonal „understanding“ or „feeling“ was not developed in the way we know it nowadays. >   I mean the octave in the golden ratio tuning should wrap around 1.618033 and not 2/1.  >   The problem with using 2/1 as the octave is that when you don't observe that convention
> the first or second overtone of almost any note in the first octave falls within the critical
> band of the root tone in the second octave...
Petr     ============ ========= =========

--- On Sun, 2/8/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz> wrote:
From: Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>
Subject: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:32 PM To Michael: I've listened to your example. Obviously, it’s melodically interesting, but I can’t imagine how you would treat chords there. And whatever you may think, my personal view is that a tuning which doesn’t offer many possibilities for „homophonic“ music is missing something. > BTW >>IMPORTANT NOTE<< using 2 as the octave all the overtones
> clash (this, I think, was the one major flawed assumption in Petr's
> Golden Ratio scale). Not sure what you mean. Petr  

Petr wrote:
> Well, then I don't understand your point that you want the
> octave equal to „phi", saying that a 2/1 octave "wouldn't work".
>Now you're saying that the octave is 2/1.

I believe Michael's scale uses phi as the generator and
interval of equivalence, and 2/1 as the period. -Carl

To Chris and Michael,

you should not confuse "homophonic" with "monodic" music ... Which I'm afraid has just happened.

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> To Chris and Michael,
>
> you should not confuse "homophonic" with "monodic" music ...
> Which I'm afraid has just happened.
>
> Petr

I've never heard of monodic. I've heard of:

polyphonic - many voices and many melodies
homophonic - many voices and one melody
monophonic - one voice only

Hm, there is this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monody

-Carl

--Well,
then I don’t understand your point that you want the octave --equal to
„phi“, saying that a 2/1 octave „wouldn’t work“. Now --you’re saying that
the octave is 2/1.
   No I'm not.   I'm saying you divide the result of phi^x by 2^y
IE phi^x / 2^y
(where y and x are both any numbers 1 to 15) and then take the set of numbers from the results of that function that fit within 1 to 1.618033 to get my tuning.
    About my wording before, I said "DIVIDE BY 2/1"...I never said the octave itself was 2/1, again, the octave should be 1.618033.
--I
was speaking about „homophonic music“ which can be --understood, in a simple
case, as more voices playing or singing ---different melodies but in the same
rhythm.  Well, my example didn't have that...but I get what you are saying and the next example will have that.  I'm still trying to comprehend, how quickly you came up with the idea "playing melodies at the same time/rhythm to form chords" must be impossible in the Golden Ratio...I don't see why it would be so tricky.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:

From: Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...>
Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 11:06 AM

Michael
wrote:
>   
If I have it right, the way I do it phi IS the generator (IE the way I
make the tuning is
> to take phi^x where x = about 1 to 15...and
then divide anything outside/over the range
> of numbers 1 to 2
repeatedly by 2 repeatedly until it fits within the
octave.
Well,
then I don’t understand your point that you want the octave equal to
„phi“, saying that a 2/1 octave „wouldn’t work“. Now you’re saying that
the octave is 2/1.
>  
Far as homophonic tuning, argh, I still don't quite understand what it
is.  But I don't want
> to litter the boards with questions
about it.  If you think you could explain what it is in
> a
personal e-mail, though, I would greatly appreciate
it.
I
was speaking about „homophonic music“ which can be understood, in a simple
case, as more voices playing or singing different melodies but in the same
rhythm. If you listen to some Renaissance music, for example, very often
you’ll hear dense polyphonic parts alternating with clearly homophonic
ones. Because the voices in homophonic music are essentially all in the
same rhythm, its primary „building blocks“ are, obviously,
chords.
Petr
 
============ ========= =========
 
 
 
 

---
On Mon, 2/9/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>
wrote:

From:
Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>
Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why
the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To:
tuning@yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 9:30
AM
Michael
wrote:

>  
As I read it homophony basically means when two parts playing the
exact same melody
> starting on different notes in such a way
that they come together to form harmony.
Not
sure if you can put it this way. The „same voice“ concept, AFAIK,
mainly applies to the lengths of notes rather than to their pitches.
And if I’m not mistaken, the primary homophonic works were heavily
based on triadic progressions, even though the tonal „understanding“
or „feeling“ was not developed in the way we know it
nowadays.
>  
I mean the octave in the golden ratio tuning should wrap around
1.618033 and not 2/1. 
>  
The problem with using 2/1 as the octave is that when you don't
observe that convention
> the first or second overtone of
almost any note in the first octave falls within the
critical
> band of the root tone in the second
octave...
 
Petr
============
========= =========

---
On Sun, 2/8/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello.
cz> wrote:

From:
Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>
Subject: Fw: [tuning]
Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To:
tuning@yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:32
PM
To
Michael:
I've
listened to your example. Obviously, it’s melodically interesting,
but I can’t imagine how you would treat chords there. And whatever
you may think, my personal view is that a tuning which doesn’t offer
many possibilities for „homophonic“ music is missing
something.
>
BTW >>IMPORTANT NOTE<< using 2 as the octave all the
overtones
> clash (this, I think, was the one major flawed
assumption in Petr's
> Golden Ratio
scale).
Not
sure what you mean.
Petr

Petr, I humbly disagree. In reading again the definition of homophonic, this
describes pop music.

monodic, judging by the definition just posted is a subset of homophonic.

I do think, with all due respect, Micheal's orientation is towards modern
pop not Renaissance music.

Chris

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:

> To Chris and Michael,
>
> you should not confuse "homophonic" with "monodic" music ... Which I'm
> afraid has just happened.
>
> Petr
>
>
>
>

And there is heterophonic as well - which... I think Charles Ives delved
into if I understand the definition correctly though as the definition says,
it is not well represented in western music. I always confused heterophonic
and homophonic so I looked it up.

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Petr Parízek
> <p.parizek@...> wrote:
> >
> > To Chris and Michael,
> >
> > you should not confuse "homophonic" with "monodic" music ...
> > Which I'm afraid has just happened.
> >
> > Petr
>
> I've never heard of monodic. I've heard of:
>
> polyphonic - many voices and many melodies
> homophonic - many voices and one melody
> monophonic - one voice only
>
> Hm, there is this...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monody
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

Before we get off on too deep of a tangent - the issue is if Micheal's scale
will yield useable harmony regardless of what you call the application of
the scale.

Mike,

Do we have the scala file somewhere. I'll give it a go for harmonies.

Thanks,

Chris

>
>

To Chris,

if by "the definition" you mean the Wikipedia article, then I have to inform
you that this very article makes quite a clear distinction between what I
would call "clean" homophony (of which the Talis excerpt given there is a
good example) and what they call "melody-dominated homophony". It seems that
I was describing the former while you were describing the latter.

Petr

Not exactly. What you describe is accompanied monody. Homophony itself doesn't need melodic line far from the other voices like in your example (which even doesn't sound well). Very often one of the voices is melody, usually the highest one, but not always.

And beg you pardon, which world music follows the Western homophonic model? There are still living musical cultures which preserve their own ways, far from homophony. Not only Indian music. And opposite there are some which developped their own using of harmony, and some are based on very advanced polyphony different from European.

Daniel Forro

On 10 Feb 2009, at 4:01 AM, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:

> Mike the key to western homophonic is the example of playing chords > in the left hand and melody in the right on piano. With variation > almost all pop music follows this model - its just spread out among > several instruments.
>
> If a scale does not create some type of useful harmonies, be them > traditional or not, then you are looking at doing what the Indians > have done so well for a very long time. If you consider that world > music is following the western homophonic model one might conclude > that the traditional indian music model is not the popular one > anymore.
> I essentially agree with Petr's assessment about harmony.
>
> Chris

Homophonic music not always needs to have all voices syrrythmic.

And do not forget that polyphonic music has also its harmonic
skeleton, vertical element, more or less latent harmony.

Daniel Forro

On 10 Feb 2009, at 4:06 AM, Petr Parízek wrote:

> I was speaking about „homophonic music“ which can be understood, in
> a simple case, as more voices playing or singing different melodies
> but in the same rhythm. If you listen to some Renaissance music,
> for example, very often you’ll hear dense polyphonic parts
> alternating with clearly homophonic ones. Because the voices in
> homophonic music are essentially all in the same rhythm, its
> primary „building blocks“ are, obviously, chords.
>
> Petr

He wanted to say "accompanied monody" which is right term for music
which started approximately with Early Baroque opera.

And to be more exact - homophonic music doesn't need a melody.

Monophonic is used mainly for world of synthesizers, as well as
multiphonic.

Daniel Forro

On 10 Feb 2009, at 5:11 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
> >
> > To Chris and Michael,
> >
> > you should not confuse "homophonic" with "monodic" music ...
> > Which I'm afraid has just happened.
> >
> > Petr
>
> I've never heard of monodic. I've heard of:
>
> polyphonic - many voices and many melodies
> homophonic - many voices and one melody
> monophonic - one voice only
>
> Hm, there is this...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monody
>
> -Carl
>

Exactly - it is a case when two or more almost same melodies go together, sometimes meet in unison, then again differing, and they have different rhythm. Typical for Japanese traditional music for example.

Daniel Forro

On 10 Feb 2009, at 5:56 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> And there is heterophonic as well - which... I think Charles Ives > delved into if I understand the definition correctly though as the > definition says, it is not well represented in western music. I > always confused heterophonic and homophonic so I looked it up.
>

Primary European homophonic music was based on parallel fifths
+octaves or fourths+octaves mixtures. But in fact we can consider it
monophonic, the other voices followed same melodic line, just
transposed.

This way continued even later in "faux burdon" style, where simply
said parallel sixth chords were used as a mixture.

Even some Late Renaissance/Early baroque works use still this
parallel mixture movement, this time with third chord structure.

Daniel Forro

On 10 Feb 2009, at 2:30 AM, Petr Parízek wrote:

>
> Michael wrote:
>
> > As I read it homophony basically means when two parts playing
> the exact same melody
> > starting on different notes in such a way that they come together
> to form harmony.
>
> Not sure if you can put it this way. The „same voice“ concept,
> AFAIK, mainly applies to the lengths of notes rather than to their
> pitches. And if I’m not mistaken, the primary homophonic works were
> heavily based on triadic progressions, even though the tonal
> „understanding“ or „feeling“ was not developed in the way we know
> it nowadays.
>
> Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> Mike the key to western homophonic is the example of playing chords
in the left hand and melody in the right on piano. With variation
almost all pop music follows this model - its just spread out among
several instruments.
>
> If a scale does not create some type of useful harmonies, be them
traditional or not, then you are looking at doing what the Indians
have done so well for a very long time. If you consider that world
music is following the western homophonic model one might conclude
that the traditional indian music model is not the popular one anymore.
> I essentially agree with Petr's assessment about harmony.
>
> Chris
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>
>
> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:47:44
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH
audio example)
>
>
> ---How
> do you want to make a scale with „phi" as the period if
---„phi" is the
> generator -- or isn't it?
> If I have it right, the way I do it phi IS the generator (IE the
way I make the tuning is to take phi^x where x = about 1 to 15...and
then divide anything outside/over the range of numbers 1 to 2
repeatedly by 2 repeatedly until it fits within the octave.
> If you do that you will find...that the interval gap is the same
between 1.618033 and the next note and the note after that...as it is
between 1 and the next note and the note after that (IE 1.1618033 is
the octave and where the symmetry of intervals between notes begins
repeating.
> Also to note, nothing in the chain phi^x intersects at
2/1...which also explains why 2/1 would not work as an octave while
preserving the repeating nature of phi.
> Far as homophonic tuning, argh, I still don't quite understand
what it is. But I don't want to litter the boards with questions
about it. If you think you could explain what it is in a personal
e-mail, though, I would greatly appreciate it.
>
> -Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> From: Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...>
> Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH
audio example)
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 9:30 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
> As I read it homophony basically means when two parts playing
the exact
> same melody
> > starting on different notes in such a way that they
> come together to form harmony.
> Not
> sure if you can put it this way. The „same voice" concept,
AFAIK, mainly
> applies to the lengths of notes rather than to their pitches.
And if I'm
> not mistaken, the primary homophonic works were heavily based
on triadic
> progressions, even though the tonal „understanding" or
„feeling" was not
> developed in the way we know it nowadays.
> >
> I mean the octave in the golden ratio tuning should wrap
around 1.618033
> and not 2/1.
> >
> The problem with using 2/1 as the octave is that when you
don't observe
> that convention
> > the first or second overtone of almost any note in
> the first octave falls within the critical
> > band of the root tone
> in the second octave...
> Petr
>
>
> ============ ========= =========
>
>
>
> ---
> On Sun, 2/8/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>
> wrote:
>
> From:
> Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>
> Subject: Fw: [tuning] Why the
> Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
> To:
> tuning@yahoogroups. com
> Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:32
> PM
> To
> Michael:
> I've
> listened to your example. Obviously, it's melodically
interesting, but I
> can't imagine how you would treat chords there. And whatever
you may
> think, my personal view is that a tuning which doesn't offer many
> possibilities for „homophonic" music is missing
> something.
> >
> BTW >>IMPORTANT NOTE<< using 2 as the octave all the
> overtones
> > clash (this, I think, was the one major flawed
> assumption in Petr's
> > Golden Ratio scale).
> Not
> sure what you mean.
> Petr
>
> I'm not sure what you mean either. The octave is the half-way
point of a stretched string, the first harmonic, that is its name.
This convention is not a 'western prejudice' but is directly grounded
in nature. It probably comes from the fact that when we take the
absolute value of a wave (which is what we hear) its frequency
doubles. Sure, Pyth discovery (560B.C) that string-lengths = periods
allowed time to be represented by geometrical lengths in space. But
this doesn't necessarily mean that all geometrical progressions have a
direct meaning for music (there are countless interesting geometrical
recursive progressions besides the golden ratio which probably have
nothing to do with music). Recursive definition which DO have
something to do with music are equal divisions of the octave. The
tet-3 augmented triad gives intrvals very close to the golden ratio
when spread out over two octaves. Saying "oh this sounds out of tune
because we have been conditioned by equal temperament" unfairly
brushes over the actual history and complex evolution of western
music. It is a prejudice.

Rick

--I'm not sure what you mean either. The octave is the half-way
--point of a stretched string
    What I mean by "octave" is the point where intervals begin to reoccur.  I don't technically mean the 2/1 ratio or "what happens when you divide a string in half".  If I meant 2/1 I would have not even bothered saying "the octave is 1.618033" because myself and others know the octave, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, is 2/1.

  When I say "octave", I am talking about the area of mathematical symmetry which a scale stems from, NOT the formal definition that define how acoustic instruments are tuned.
***************************************************************
For an example,
   Take a very simple scale IE 1 4/3 5/3     20/9 25/9

   Here the "octave" is 5/3 and the scale is 2 notes long.  This is because only at 5/3 is the interval gap between itself and the next note (20/9) 4/3 again and the gap between 5/3 and 25/9 is 5/3.   So the intervals begin "repeating themselves again" starting at 5/3.

   I know people have various terms IE if a scale repeats in said above manner in the ratio 3/1, 3/1 is the "tri-tave".  And, that also seems to defy this "rule of the octave" you seem to be attempting to enforce on me as "not western, but universal and necessary".

  HOWEVER, the fact is there is NO formal name for repeating the around the ratio 1.614033/1...there is not a "golden-tave" or whatever on earth you'd want to call it.
  Hence why I am calling it the "octave", not because it technically is the octave, but because that's the closest terminology I knew of to approximate how it acts.

   And, no...it doesn't follow historical terms 100%.  Think about it, if it did follow such terms so closely (IE enforce the octave at 2/1, the 5th at 3/2....), how could it possibly be a truly new concept and not just a slight modification of age-old theories?

-Michael

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...> wrote:

From: rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>
Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 10:30 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, chrisvaisvil@ ... wrote:

>

> Mike the key to western homophonic is the example of playing chords

in the left hand and melody in the right on piano. With variation

almost all pop music follows this model - its just spread out among

several instruments.

>

> If a scale does not create some type of useful harmonies, be them

traditional or not, then you are looking at doing what the Indians

have done so well for a very long time. If you consider that world

music is following the western homophonic model one might conclude

that the traditional indian music model is not the popular one anymore.

> I essentially agree with Petr's assessment about harmony.

>

> Chris

> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@ ...>

>

> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:47:44

> To: <tuning@yahoogroups. com>

> Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH

audio example)

>

>

> ---How

> do you want to make a scale with „phi" as the period if

---„phi" is the

> generator -- or isn't it?

> If I have it right, the way I do it phi IS the generator (IE the

way I make the tuning is to take phi^x where x = about 1 to 15...and

then divide anything outside/over the range of numbers 1 to 2

repeatedly by 2 repeatedly until it fits within the octave.

> If you do that you will find...that the interval gap is the same

between 1.618033 and the next note and the note after that...as it is

between 1 and the next note and the note after that (IE 1.1618033 is

the octave and where the symmetry of intervals between notes begins

repeating.

> Also to note, nothing in the chain phi^x intersects at

2/1...which also explains why 2/1 would not work as an octave while

preserving the repeating nature of phi.

> Far as homophonic tuning, argh, I still don't quite understand

what it is. But I don't want to litter the boards with questions

about it. If you think you could explain what it is in a personal

e-mail, though, I would greatly appreciate it.

>

> -Michael

>

>

>

>

>

> --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@. ..> wrote:

>

> From: Petr Parízek <p.parizek@. ..>

> Subject: Re: Fw: [tuning] Why the Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH

audio example)

> To: tuning@yahoogroups. com

> Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 9:30 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Michael

> wrote:

>

>

>

>

> >

> As I read it homophony basically means when two parts playing

the exact

> same melody

> > starting on different notes in such a way that they

> come together to form harmony.

> Not

> sure if you can put it this way. The „same voice" concept,

AFAIK, mainly

> applies to the lengths of notes rather than to their pitches.

And if I'm

> not mistaken, the primary homophonic works were heavily based

on triadic

> progressions, even though the tonal „understanding" or

„feeling" was not

> developed in the way we know it nowadays.

> >

> I mean the octave in the golden ratio tuning should wrap

around 1.618033

> and not 2/1.

> >

> The problem with using 2/1 as the octave is that when you

don't observe

> that convention

> > the first or second overtone of almost any note in

> the first octave falls within the critical

> > band of the root tone

> in the second octave...

> Petr

>

>

> ============ ========= =========

>

>

>

> ---

> On Sun, 2/8/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>

> wrote:

>

> From:

> Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello. cz>

> Subject: Fw: [tuning] Why the

> Golden Ratio Scale works (WITH audio example)

> To:

> tuning@yahoogroups. com

> Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 2:32

> PM

> To

> Michael:

> I've

> listened to your example. Obviously, it's melodically

interesting, but I

> can't imagine how you would treat chords there. And whatever

you may

> think, my personal view is that a tuning which doesn't offer many

> possibilities for „homophonic" music is missing

> something.

> >

> BTW >>IMPORTANT NOTE<< using 2 as the octave all the

> overtones

> > clash (this, I think, was the one major flawed

> assumption in Petr's

> > Golden Ratio scale).

> Not

> sure what you mean.

> Petr

>

> I'm not sure what you mean either. The octave is the half-way

point of a stretched string, the first harmonic, that is its name.

This convention is not a 'western prejudice' but is directly grounded

in nature. It probably comes from the fact that when we take the

absolute value of a wave (which is what we hear) its frequency

doubles. Sure, Pyth discovery (560B.C) that string-lengths = periods

allowed time to be represented by geometrical lengths in space. But

this doesn't necessarily mean that all geometrical progressions have a

direct meaning for music (there are countless interesting geometrical

recursive progressions besides the golden ratio which probably have

nothing to do with music). Recursive definition which DO have

something to do with music are equal divisions of the octave. The

tet-3 augmented triad gives intrvals very close to the golden ratio

when spread out over two octaves. Saying "oh this sounds out of tune

because we have been conditioned by equal temperament" unfairly

brushes over the actual history and complex evolution of western

music. It is a prejudice.

Rick

take the time to listen to *popular* music from India or the middle east.
or from the central asian republics or japan for that matter.
therein you will find the true answer

internet radio is a wonderful thing.
except that music, like culture, is tending towards homogenization ala world
village.

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:

> Not exactly. What you describe is accompanied monody. Homophony
> itself doesn't need melodic line far from the other voices like in
> your example (which even doesn't sound well). Very often one of the
> voices is melody, usually the highest one, but not always.
>
> And beg you pardon, which world music follows the Western homophonic
> model? There are still living musical cultures which preserve their
> own ways, far from homophony. Not only Indian music. And opposite
> there are some which developped their own using of harmony, and some
> are based on very advanced polyphony different from European.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> On 10 Feb 2009, at 4:01 AM, chrisvaisvil@...<chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Mike the key to western homophonic is the example of playing chords
> > in the left hand and melody in the right on piano. With variation
> > almost all pop music follows this model - its just spread out among
> > several instruments.
> >
> > If a scale does not create some type of useful harmonies, be them
> > traditional or not, then you are looking at doing what the Indians
> > have done so well for a very long time. If you consider that world
> > music is following the western homophonic model one might conclude
> > that the traditional indian music model is not the popular one
> > anymore.
> > I essentially agree with Petr's assessment about harmony.
> >
> > Chris
>
>

Oh so, but this has not so much to do with the traditional music of those cultures nor with their original microtonality (with some exceptions), even they don't use their traditional instruments, or use them tuned to 12ET and combined with synthesizers and western instruments. I personally consider this trend of westernization as devastating original cultures, not as a fruitful synthesis. This is just cheap consumer pop where the most common harmonic cliches of western pop are combined with some local pentatonics or other cliches in the melody. I see enough bad examples in Japan where I live, starting with Meiji educational songs shoka, continuing in enka and J-pop. Same with afro-pop, Turkish, Iranian, Indian bhangra, Chinese, Korean, Indonesian pop... Most of Hawaiian music was created artificially in 19th century by European missionaries and German bandleader Berger, if somebody wonders why it sounds like Serbian/Croatian/Austrian songs... I wouldn't call it homogenization. This is rather decadence. Unfortunately nothing can be done against it when those cultures want it this way. Sometimes we foreigners living here know more about their own music.

Daniel Forro

On 10 Feb 2009, at 8:50 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> take the time to listen to *popular* music from India or the middle > east.
> or from the central asian republics or japan for that matter.
> therein you will find the true answer
>
> internet radio is a wonderful thing.
> except that music, like culture, is tending towards homogenization > ala world village.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> > wrote:
> Not exactly. What you describe is accompanied monody. Homophony
> itself doesn't need melodic line far from the other voices like in
> your example (which even doesn't sound well). Very often one of the
> voices is melody, usually the highest one, but not always.
>
> And beg you pardon, which world music follows the Western homophonic
> model? There are still living musical cultures which preserve their
> own ways, far from homophony. Not only Indian music. And opposite
> there are some which developped their own using of harmony, and some
> are based on very advanced polyphony different from European.
>
> Daniel Forro

but that's the point.... the traditions are fading. I said westerization
earler which you took issue with.

I don't like it - but just like McDonalds is in almost (is?) every country
it is an inescapable fact.

I do consider it homogenization - just like the midwest accent becoming
dominant in the US.

It is probably a predicable outcome of increased and faster communication.
Another result no doubt is the fact we mostly type in English in this list
and that my son and daughter are enamored with anime.

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:

> Oh so, but this has not so much to do with the traditional music of
> those cultures nor with their original microtonality (with some
> exceptions), even they don't use their traditional instruments, or
> use them tuned to 12ET and combined with synthesizers and western
> instruments. I personally consider this trend of westernization as
> devastating original cultures, not as a fruitful synthesis. This is
> just cheap consumer pop where the most common harmonic cliches of
> western pop are combined with some local pentatonics or other cliches
> in the melody. I see enough bad examples in Japan where I live,
> starting with Meiji educational songs shoka, continuing in enka and J-
> pop. Same with afro-pop, Turkish, Iranian, Indian bhangra, Chinese,
> Korean, Indonesian pop... Most of Hawaiian music was created
> artificially in 19th century by European missionaries and German
> bandleader Berger, if somebody wonders why it sounds like Serbian/
> Croatian/Austrian songs... I wouldn't call it homogenization. This is
> rather decadence. Unfortunately nothing can be done against it when
> those cultures want it this way. Sometimes we foreigners living here
> know more about their own music.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> On 10 Feb 2009, at 8:50 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> > take the time to listen to *popular* music from India or the middle
> > east.
> > or from the central asian republics or japan for that matter.
> > therein you will find the true answer
> >
> > internet radio is a wonderful thing.
> > except that music, like culture, is tending towards homogenization
> > ala world village.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...<dan.for%40tiscali.cz>>
>
> > wrote:
> > Not exactly. What you describe is accompanied monody. Homophony
> > itself doesn't need melodic line far from the other voices like in
> > your example (which even doesn't sound well). Very often one of the
> > voices is melody, usually the highest one, but not always.
> >
> > And beg you pardon, which world music follows the Western homophonic
> > model? There are still living musical cultures which preserve their
> > own ways, far from homophony. Not only Indian music. And opposite
> > there are some which developped their own using of harmony, and some
> > are based on very advanced polyphony different from European.
> >
> > Daniel Forro
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> Oh so, but this has not so much to do with the traditional music
of
> those cultures nor with their original microtonality (with some
> exceptions), even they don't use their traditional instruments, or
> use them tuned to 12ET and combined with synthesizers and western
> instruments. I personally consider this trend of westernization as
> devastating original cultures, not as a fruitful synthesis. This
is
> just cheap consumer pop where the most common harmonic cliches of
> western pop are combined with some local pentatonics or other
cliches
> in the melody. I see enough bad examples in Japan where I live,
> starting with Meiji educational songs shoka, continuing in enka and
J-
> pop. Same with afro-pop, Turkish, Iranian, Indian bhangra,
Chinese,
> Korean, Indonesian pop... Most of Hawaiian music was created
> artificially in 19th century by European missionaries and German
> bandleader Berger, if somebody wonders why it sounds like Serbian/
> Croatian/Austrian songs... I wouldn't call it homogenization. This
is
> rather decadence. Unfortunately nothing can be done against it
when
> those cultures want it this way. Sometimes we foreigners living
here
> know more about their own music.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 10 Feb 2009, at 8:50 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> > take the time to listen to *popular* music from India or the
middle
> > east.
> > or from the central asian republics or japan for that matter.
> > therein you will find the true answer
> >
> > internet radio is a wonderful thing.
> > except that music, like culture, is tending towards
homogenization
> > ala world village.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...>
> > wrote:
> > Not exactly. What you describe is accompanied monody. Homophony
> > itself doesn't need melodic line far from the other voices like in
> > your example (which even doesn't sound well). Very often one of
the
> > voices is melody, usually the highest one, but not always.
> >
> > And beg you pardon, which world music follows the Western
homophonic
> > model? There are still living musical cultures which preserve
their
> > own ways, far from homophony. Not only Indian music. And opposite
> > there are some which developped their own using of harmony, and
some
> > are based on very advanced polyphony different from European.
> >
> > Daniel Forro
>Yeah Daniel, I made s similar point some time ago that "world music"
and "globalism" are for the most part just other forms of Anglo-
American imperialism. Like all advertising, it consumes, digests and
regurgitates everything in its path, even to the point of selling a
peoples own "kulcha" back to them in order to turn it into a
profitable commodity item. It also promotes a particularly insidious
form of arrogance which clothes itself as "open mindedness" so that
all criticism can be automatically disarmed by being branded
as "closed minded". Teenagers, those perpetual followers, are
particularly prone to this "argument". It can also be described as
(what I have nick-named) creative megalomania, the attempt of lazy
music students to get out of study and practice by claiming that they
are seeing the "bigger musical picture". (Needless to say we can only
improve on something by building on its strengths). Ironically, I
find that older western music which, even in its occasional snobbery,
ends-up being more the respectfull because it keeps to itself and
doesn't museumify tribal cultures by "trying to understand them".
(eg: here in Australia we have aboriginals playing didgeridoo to a
techno track, in complete disregard for its traditional religeous
function).

Rick