review of di Veroli's book "Unequal Temperaments"

My review of Claudio di Veroli's book is now published as of today. It is available in a free PDF file through here:
http://www.vdgs.org.uk/publications-Journal.html
Pages 137-163, as numbered; pp 25-51 in the PDF file.

It is a long and detailed review that addresses not only this book, but also the methodology in John Barnes's EM article from 1979.

Enjoy,

Brad Lehman

"In the instructions to set equal and nearly-equal temperaments, UT makes some prescriptive statements that look like pure speculation, not a report from practice. Is anyone honestly able to `count alternatively 7 beats in a second and 8 in the next second', working with a timekeeping device? It might be barely feasible to count to 15 beats quickly across 2 seconds, but UT asks the reader to observe one second that has 7 beats and another that has 8, accurately. This section also asks for the direct but accurate counting of very slow rates such as `2 beats in 3 seconds' and `3 beats in 4 seconds'."

These are common 12-TET piano tuning beat rates. I don't
understand what the problem is.

Cris Forster

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "bplehman27" <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> My review of Claudio di Veroli's book is now published as of today. It is available in a free PDF file through here:
> http://www.vdgs.org.uk/publications-Journal.html
> Pages 137-163, as numbered; pp 25-51 in the PDF file.
>
> It is a long and detailed review that addresses not only this book, but also the methodology in John Barnes's EM article from 1979.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Brad Lehman
>

Claudio di Veroli has already published a first response:

http://temper.braybaroque.ie/lehman.htm

Regards
Charles

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@...> wrote:
>
> "In the instructions to set equal and nearly-equal temperaments, UT makes some prescriptive statements that look like pure speculation, not a report from practice. Is anyone honestly able to `count alternatively 7 beats in a second and 8 in the next second', working with a timekeeping device? It might be barely feasible to count to 15 beats quickly across 2 seconds, but UT asks the reader to observe one second that has 7 beats and another that has 8, accurately. This section also asks for the direct but accurate counting of very slow rates such as `2 beats in 3 seconds' and `3 beats in 4 seconds'."
>
> These are common 12-TET piano tuning beat rates. I don't
> understand what the problem is.
>
> Cris Forster

I like this quote from the abstract of Lindley & Ortigies' review of
Lehman's "theories":

"Lehman's premise that a mathematically rigid tuning-scheme is hidden
cryptically in a decorative scroll on the title-page of WTC I is daft"

and also this withering remark:

"That his wife agrees with him is not substantial evidence as to 17th- or
18th-century taste"

both quotes from here:

http://em.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/cal065v1

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Johann Sebastian B <Francis@...>wrote:

>
>
> Claudio di Veroli has already published a first response:
>
> http://temper.braybaroque.ie/lehman.htm
>
> Regards
> Charles
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, "c_ml_forster"
> <cris.forster@...> wrote:
> >
> > "In the instructions to set equal and nearly-equal temperaments, UT makes
> some prescriptive statements that look like pure speculation, not a report
> from practice. Is anyone honestly able to `count alternatively 7 beats in a
> second and 8 in the next second', working with a timekeeping device? It
> might be barely feasible to count to 15 beats quickly across 2 seconds, but
> UT asks the reader to observe one second that has 7 beats and another that
> has 8, accurately. This section also asks for the direct but accurate
> counting of very slow rates such as `2 beats in 3 seconds' and `3 beats in 4
> seconds'."
> >
> > These are common 12-TET piano tuning beat rates. I don't
> > understand what the problem is.
> >
> > Cris Forster
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
>
> I like this quote...:
> "Lehman's premise that a mathematically rigid tuning-scheme is
> hidden cryptically in a decorative scroll on the title-page of WTC > is daft"
> and also this withering remark:
> "That his wife agrees with him is not substantial evidence as to
> 17th- or 18th-century taste"
>
Dears Charles & Dante,
...also I like Ibo's additional remarks referring to the above statements:

http://sites.google.com/site/iboortgies/errataandcorrigendatolindleyortgies:%22bac
"
In it we discuss some of the historically wild and methodologically wrong speculations published last year (2005) by Bradley Lehman in his article in Early Music (Note 1), where he claimed to have discovered "Bach's temperament."
The Lehman temperament is of modern design. It is, like the one designed by the late Herbert Anton Kellner on July 7th, 1977 (i.e. 7/7/77 – so Kellner said), based on an imaginative interpretation of a small image from the year 1722: for Kellner, Bach's seal; for Lehman, the ornamental scroll at the top of the title-page of Part 1 of Das Wohltemperirte Clavier ("The Well-tempered Clavier").
Lehman is following previous musings, especially by Andreas Sparschuh, who published the ornamental-scroll idea on September 9th, 1999 (9/9/99) as a kind of practical joke to make fun of Kellner.

( /tuning/topicId_25902.html#25913 )

Some difficulties in the Oxford-University-Press editorial process prevented certain corrections at proofreading stage from being implemented in our article...
"

But personally in that particular case I do agree with Lehman's wife:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/discovery.html
Quote:
'In a favorite term from my wife's field, this caused a "cognitive dissonance" in my mind as I studied Bach's drawing.'

bye
A.S.

The late Dr Kellner told me he had coffee and cake with your good self, so one presumes you shared the "joke".

Kind regards
Charles

> Dears Charles & Dante,
> ...also I like Ibo's additional remarks referring to the above statements:
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/iboortgies/errataandcorrigendatolindleyortgies:%22bac
> "
> In it we discuss some of the historically wild and methodologically wrong speculations published last year (2005) by Bradley Lehman in his article in Early Music (Note 1), where he claimed to have discovered "Bach's temperament."
> The Lehman temperament is of modern design. It is, like the one designed by the late Herbert Anton Kellner on July 7th, 1977 (i.e. 7/7/77 – so Kellner said), based on an imaginative interpretation of a small image from the year 1722: for Kellner, Bach's seal; for Lehman, the ornamental scroll at the top of the title-page of Part 1 of Das Wohltemperirte Clavier ("The Well-tempered Clavier").
> Lehman is following previous musings, especially by Andreas Sparschuh, who published the ornamental-scroll idea on September 9th, 1999 (9/9/99) as a kind of practical joke to make fun of Kellner.
>
> ( /tuning/topicId_25902.html#25913 )
>
> Some difficulties in the Oxford-University-Press editorial process prevented certain corrections at proofreading stage from being implemented in our article...
> "
>
> But personally in that particular case I do agree with Lehman's wife:
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/discovery.html
> Quote:
> 'In a favorite term from my wife's field, this caused a "cognitive dissonance" in my mind as I studied Bach's drawing.'
>
> bye
> A.S.
>

"Johann Sebastian B" <Francis@...> wrote:
> Claudio di Veroli has already published a first response:
>
> http://temper.braybaroque.ie/lehman.htm

And more to come. This one could run and run!

One thing I've noted, the review says "However, some of
those hyperlinks have already become dysfunctional during
2009, such as those that go to postings in the archive of
HPSCHD-L." In my copy of the book, at least, I could only
find one reference to HPSCHD-L in a section called
"Lehman". So there's a certain conflict of interest in his
objection.

Yes, there should be a more precise date. The current
archives are here:

http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A1=ind0901&L=HPSCHD-L

I'm not sure which message is the relevant one. Maybe this?

http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0901&L=HPSCHD-L&T=0&F=&S=&P=143608

http://tinyurl.com/ycf6gxc

Graham

The crux of the problem appears to be that of music theory demanding
(in Bradley's terms) "musicians to adhere to mathematically-based
standards of intonation (and sometimes practically impossible
standards, at that), rather than cultivating this tasteful freedom [of
inflecting notes deliberately according to taste]."

The dichotomy between "rigid" theory and "free" practice is ever more
stressed in Maqam music circles, exacerbated by the fact that our
theoretical models are at an even greater loss to account for the
mysterious intonation of maqam perdes in myriad melodic contexts.

Hence, is "tuning and temperament" a practical approach to a very
complicated millenia-old problem or the very solution to beautiful and
accurate music-making?

If we are to subscribe utterly to the first propositon, musical
mathematics and psycho-acoustics face the danger of crumbling down to
mere curiosities and futile pursuits.

If, on the other hand, the latter case was absolutely true, the danger
of corrupting performance traditions by forcing them into "unsavoury
synthetic molds" would arise.

The benefits of music theory despite its rigid guidelines are
obvious... it leads to the development of advanced techniques in music
that result in a feedback facilitating the better creation and
manipulation of compositional materials.

The benefits of free practice are also evident, in that new intervals
and harmonies explode in esoteric and unforeseen novelties that
inspire later theorists to explore these phenomena.

But isnt't there any middle ground in the battle between theory and
practice?

Surely, theorists would be at a loss without any guidance from
practice. Likewise, executants would be at a loss to explain and
impart what they do without the aid of some kind of theory.

So, could we not say that theory and practice are two sides of the
same coin?

I think both should be given full accord for their merits: Theory for
being a promising tool to explain and guide all perceptual phenomena,
and practice as a field of authenticity, free discovery and innovation.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:37 PM, bplehman27 wrote:

> My review of Claudio di Veroli's book is now published as of today.
> It is available in a free PDF file through here:
> http://www.vdgs.org.uk/publications-Journal.html
> Pages 137-163, as numbered; pp 25-51 in the PDF file.
>
> It is a long and detailed review that addresses not only this book,
> but also the methodology in John Barnes's EM article from 1979.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Brad Lehman
>

Psychoacoustics bridges the gap between theory and
practice, as it is neither theory nor practice, but the
study of our perception, which for music can involve
both theory and practice. What psychoacoustics tells
us is that *what a person hears subjectively*
(a pitch = what I hear) is not the same as
*what is quantified mathematically*
(a tone = a number). They may correlate, but that
correlation is not exactly fixed and not entirely
quantifiable beyond establishing averages such
as the JND. Psychoacoustics confirms both
practice and theory, and chastens both, bridging
the gap.

AAH

P.S. I found in Lehman's article a message of
*feeling trumps thinking*, in the Meyers-Briggs
sense. I don't discount everything he says
because of something he wrote previously,
nor do I agree with all that he says uncritically.
I found his article to be thought provoking,
even if much more polemical than a book review
ought to be (IMHO).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> The crux of the problem appears to be that of music theory demanding
> (in Bradley's terms) "musicians to adhere to mathematically-based
> standards of intonation (and sometimes practically impossible
> standards, at that), rather than cultivating this tasteful freedom [of
> inflecting notes deliberately according to taste]."
>
> The dichotomy between "rigid" theory and "free" practice is ever more
> stressed in Maqam music circles, exacerbated by the fact that our
> theoretical models are at an even greater loss to account for the
> mysterious intonation of maqam perdes in myriad melodic contexts.
>
> Hence, is "tuning and temperament" a practical approach to a very
> complicated millenia-old problem or the very solution to beautiful and
> accurate music-making?
>
> If we are to subscribe utterly to the first propositon, musical
> mathematics and psycho-acoustics face the danger of crumbling down to
> mere curiosities and futile pursuits.
>
> If, on the other hand, the latter case was absolutely true, the danger
> of corrupting performance traditions by forcing them into "unsavoury
> synthetic molds" would arise.
>
> The benefits of music theory despite its rigid guidelines are
> obvious... it leads to the development of advanced techniques in music
> that result in a feedback facilitating the better creation and
> manipulation of compositional materials.
>
> The benefits of free practice are also evident, in that new intervals
> and harmonies explode in esoteric and unforeseen novelties that
> inspire later theorists to explore these phenomena.
>
> But isnt't there any middle ground in the battle between theory and
> practice?
>
> Surely, theorists would be at a loss without any guidance from
> practice. Likewise, executants would be at a loss to explain and
> impart what they do without the aid of some kind of theory.
>
> So, could we not say that theory and practice are two sides of the
> same coin?
>
> I think both should be given full accord for their merits: Theory for
> being a promising tool to explain and guide all perceptual phenomena,
> and practice as a field of authenticity, free discovery and innovation.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:37 PM, bplehman27 wrote:
>
> > My review of Claudio di Veroli's book is now published as of today.
> > It is available in a free PDF file through here:
> > http://www.vdgs.org.uk/publications-Journal.html
> > Pages 137-163, as numbered; pp 25-51 in the PDF file.
> >
> > It is a long and detailed review that addresses not only this book,
> > but also the methodology in John Barnes's EM article from 1979.
> >
> > Enjoy,
> >
> > Brad Lehman
> >
>

Dear Aaron Andrew,

I have a habit of stacking what Glen Haydon calls the "theory of music
theory" along with what is plainly known as "music theory" itself.
Allow me to elucidate further. In my view, music theory is a broad
interdisciplinary area in musicology which may be categorized under two headings:

1. Practical Music Theory (for helping educators teach music-making to
musician & composer candidates)

a) Rudiments (Pitches and intervals, scales, transpositions, time and
bars, beats and melody all studied via notation in a given tone-system)
b) Musical expressions and terms (signs for tempo, dynamics, nuances,
etc...)
c) Solfege and dictation
d) Tones, keys, modes, maqams, dastgahs, rags and their procedures
(functional degrees, intonations, modulations, common-practice harmony
and chord progressions, etc...)
e) Rhythmic patterns
f) Styles of harmony, counterpoint, homophony, microtonal polyphony,
etc...
g) Musical forms, music analysis and prosody.
h) Instrumentation, orchestration, timbre coloration.
i) Instrumental Methods

2. Empirical Music Theory (investigating the physical, acoustical and
psycho-physiological phenomena in music-making)

a) Sonic wave, interval, frequency, frequency ratio, beat, brat,
etc... calculations
b) Anatomy of musical scales (relationships between tones and
perception by the auditory nerve)
c) Tunings and Temperaments (advanced mathematical and psycho-
acoustical modelling)
d) Engineering modality, tonality and polyphony (exploring musical
aesthetics)
e) Research of historical treatises
f) Instrument modelling and production
h) Audio-Sound technologies

This is a rather rough sketch, but you get the idea. As such, I
consider psycho-acoustics as a branch of Empirical Music Theory. This
might be the bridge betwen common theoretical knowledge and practice
you are talking about.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, hpiinstruments wrote:

> Psychoacoustics bridges the gap between theory and
> practice, as it is neither theory nor practice, but the
> study of our perception, which for music can involve
> both theory and practice. What psychoacoustics tells
> us is that *what a person hears subjectively*
> (a pitch = what I hear) is not the same as
> *what is quantified mathematically*
> (a tone = a number). They may correlate, but that
> correlation is not exactly fixed and not entirely
> quantifiable beyond establishing averages such
> as the JND. Psychoacoustics confirms both
> practice and theory, and chastens both, bridging
> the gap.
>
> AAH
>
> P.S. I found in Lehman's article a message of
> *feeling trumps thinking*, in the Meyers-Briggs
> sense. I don't discount everything he says
> because of something he wrote previously,
> nor do I agree with all that he says uncritically.
> I found his article to be thought provoking,
> even if much more polemical than a book review
> ought to be (IMHO).
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> The crux of the problem appears to be that of music theory demanding
>> (in Bradley's terms) "musicians to adhere to mathematically-based
>> standards of intonation (and sometimes practically impossible
>> standards, at that), rather than cultivating this tasteful freedom
>> [of
>> inflecting notes deliberately according to taste]."
>>
>> The dichotomy between "rigid" theory and "free" practice is ever more
>> stressed in Maqam music circles, exacerbated by the fact that our
>> theoretical models are at an even greater loss to account for the
>> mysterious intonation of maqam perdes in myriad melodic contexts.
>>
>> Hence, is "tuning and temperament" a practical approach to a very
>> complicated millenia-old problem or the very solution to beautiful>> and
>> accurate music-making?
>>
>> If we are to subscribe utterly to the first propositon, musical
>> mathematics and psycho-acoustics face the danger of crumbling down to
>> mere curiosities and futile pursuits.
>>
>> If, on the other hand, the latter case was absolutely true, the
>> danger
>> of corrupting performance traditions by forcing them into "unsavoury
>> synthetic molds" would arise.
>>
>> The benefits of music theory despite its rigid guidelines are
>> obvious... it leads to the development of advanced techniques in
>> music
>> that result in a feedback facilitating the better creation and
>> manipulation of compositional materials.
>>
>> The benefits of free practice are also evident, in that new intervals
>> and harmonies explode in esoteric and unforeseen novelties that
>> inspire later theorists to explore these phenomena.
>>
>> But isnt't there any middle ground in the battle between theory and
>> practice?
>>
>> Surely, theorists would be at a loss without any guidance from
>> practice. Likewise, executants would be at a loss to explain and
>> impart what they do without the aid of some kind of theory.
>>
>> So, could we not say that theory and practice are two sides of the
>> same coin?
>>
>> I think both should be given full accord for their merits: Theory for
>> being a promising tool to explain and guide all perceptual phenomena,
>> and practice as a field of authenticity, free discovery and
>> innovation.
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Oz.
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:37 PM, bplehman27 wrote:
>>
>>> My review of Claudio di Veroli's book is now published as of today.
>>> It is available in a free PDF file through here:
>>> http://www.vdgs.org.uk/publications-Journal.html
>>> Pages 137-163, as numbered; pp 25-51 in the PDF file.
>>>
>>> It is a long and detailed review that addresses not only this book,
>>> but also the methodology in John Barnes's EM article from 1979.
>>>
>>> Enjoy,
>>>
>>> Brad Lehman
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hmm, well what you are calling empirical theory there is covering
quite a wide range of activity. Psychoacoustics is actually rarely
undertaken by professional musicians, and although this is a big
problem that results in musically faulty and dubious tests, in my
view this is also a big part of why psychoacoustics as a discipline
can act as a bridge, precisely because it is outside of both music
theory and music practice. The results require interpretation from
the musical community, through interdisciplinary cooperation.

AAH

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Aaron Andrew,
>
> I have a habit of stacking what Glen Haydon calls the "theory of music
> theory" along with what is plainly known as "music theory" itself.
> Allow me to elucidate further. In my view, music theory is a broad
> interdisciplinary area in musicology which may be categorized under
> two headings:
>
> 1. Practical Music Theory (for helping educators teach music-making to
> musician & composer candidates)
>
> a) Rudiments (Pitches and intervals, scales, transpositions, time and
> bars, beats and melody all studied via notation in a given tone-system)
> b) Musical expressions and terms (signs for tempo, dynamics, nuances,
> etc...)
> c) Solfege and dictation
> d) Tones, keys, modes, maqams, dastgahs, rags and their procedures
> (functional degrees, intonations, modulations, common-practice harmony
> and chord progressions, etc...)
> e) Rhythmic patterns
> f) Styles of harmony, counterpoint, homophony, microtonal polyphony,
> etc...
> g) Musical forms, music analysis and prosody.
> h) Instrumentation, orchestration, timbre coloration.
> i) Instrumental Methods
>
> 2. Empirical Music Theory (investigating the physical, acoustical and
> psycho-physiological phenomena in music-making)
>
> a) Sonic wave, interval, frequency, frequency ratio, beat, brat,
> etc... calculations
> b) Anatomy of musical scales (relationships between tones and
> perception by the auditory nerve)
> c) Tunings and Temperaments (advanced mathematical and psycho-
> acoustical modelling)
> d) Engineering modality, tonality and polyphony (exploring musical
> aesthetics)
> e) Research of historical treatises
> f) Instrument modelling and production
> h) Audio-Sound technologies
>
> This is a rather rough sketch, but you get the idea. As such, I
> consider psycho-acoustics as a branch of Empirical Music Theory. This
> might be the bridge betwen common theoretical knowledge and practice
> you are talking about.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, hpiinstruments wrote:
>
> > Psychoacoustics bridges the gap between theory and
> > practice, as it is neither theory nor practice, but the
> > study of our perception, which for music can involve
> > both theory and practice. What psychoacoustics tells
> > us is that *what a person hears subjectively*
> > (a pitch = what I hear) is not the same as
> > *what is quantified mathematically*
> > (a tone = a number). They may correlate, but that
> > correlation is not exactly fixed and not entirely
> > quantifiable beyond establishing averages such
> > as the JND. Psychoacoustics confirms both
> > practice and theory, and chastens both, bridging
> > the gap.
> >
> > AAH
> >
> > P.S. I found in Lehman's article a message of
> > *feeling trumps thinking*, in the Meyers-Briggs
> > sense. I don't discount everything he says
> > because of something he wrote previously,
> > nor do I agree with all that he says uncritically.
> > I found his article to be thought provoking,
> > even if much more polemical than a book review
> > ought to be (IMHO).
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
> >>
> >> The crux of the problem appears to be that of music theory demanding
> >> (in Bradley's terms) "musicians to adhere to mathematically-based
> >> standards of intonation (and sometimes practically impossible
> >> standards, at that), rather than cultivating this tasteful freedom
> >> [of
> >> inflecting notes deliberately according to taste]."
> >>
> >> The dichotomy between "rigid" theory and "free" practice is ever more
> >> stressed in Maqam music circles, exacerbated by the fact that our
> >> theoretical models are at an even greater loss to account for the
> >> mysterious intonation of maqam perdes in myriad melodic contexts.
> >>
> >> Hence, is "tuning and temperament" a practical approach to a very
> >> complicated millenia-old problem or the very solution to beautiful
> >> and
> >> accurate music-making?
> >>
> >> If we are to subscribe utterly to the first propositon, musical
> >> mathematics and psycho-acoustics face the danger of crumbling down to
> >> mere curiosities and futile pursuits.
> >>
> >> If, on the other hand, the latter case was absolutely true, the
> >> danger
> >> of corrupting performance traditions by forcing them into "unsavoury
> >> synthetic molds" would arise.
> >>
> >> The benefits of music theory despite its rigid guidelines are
> >> obvious... it leads to the development of advanced techniques in
> >> music
> >> that result in a feedback facilitating the better creation and
> >> manipulation of compositional materials.
> >>
> >> The benefits of free practice are also evident, in that new intervals
> >> and harmonies explode in esoteric and unforeseen novelties that
> >> inspire later theorists to explore these phenomena.
> >>
> >> But isnt't there any middle ground in the battle between theory and
> >> practice?
> >>
> >> Surely, theorists would be at a loss without any guidance from
> >> practice. Likewise, executants would be at a loss to explain and
> >> impart what they do without the aid of some kind of theory.
> >>
> >> So, could we not say that theory and practice are two sides of the
> >> same coin?
> >>
> >> I think both should be given full accord for their merits: Theory for
> >> being a promising tool to explain and guide all perceptual phenomena,
> >> and practice as a field of authenticity, free discovery and
> >> innovation.
> >>
> >> Cordially,
> >> Oz.
> >>
> >> âÅ"© âÅ"© âÅ"©
> >> www.ozanyarman.com
> >>
> >> On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:37 PM, bplehman27 wrote:
> >>
> >>> My review of Claudio di Veroli's book is now published as of today.
> >>> It is available in a free PDF file through here:
> >>> http://www.vdgs.org.uk/publications-Journal.html
> >>> Pages 137-163, as numbered; pp 25-51 in the PDF file.
> >>>
> >>> It is a long and detailed review that addresses not only this book,
> >>> but also the methodology in John Barnes's EM article from 1979.
> >>>
> >>> Enjoy,
> >>>
> >>> Brad Lehman
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > 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.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Psycho-acoustics employs mathematical, analytical and audiological
tools that fall under the category of what I previously referred to as
"Empirical Music Theory". The common purpose here is to understand,
quantify and systematize the human perceptual processing of music.
Physics of sound, auditory physiology and sonance in a given pitch-
universe (musical aesthetics and psychology) are all part of Empirical
Music Theory.

Would you not agree?

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 23, 2010, at 3:16 AM, hpiinstruments wrote:

> Hmm, well what you are calling empirical theory there is covering
> quite a wide range of activity. Psychoacoustics is actually rarely
> undertaken by professional musicians, and although this is a big
> problem that results in musically faulty and dubious tests, in my
> view this is also a big part of why psychoacoustics as a discipline
> can act as a bridge, precisely because it is outside of both music
> theory and music practice. The results require interpretation from
> the musical community, through interdisciplinary cooperation.
>
> AAH
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Aaron Andrew,
>>
>> I have a habit of stacking what Glen Haydon calls the "theory of
>> music
>> theory" along with what is plainly known as "music theory" itself.
>> Allow me to elucidate further. In my view, music theory is a broad
>> interdisciplinary area in musicology which may be categorized under
>> two headings:
>>
>> 1. Practical Music Theory (for helping educators teach music-making
>> to
>> musician & composer candidates)
>>
>> a) Rudiments (Pitches and intervals, scales, transpositions, time and
>> bars, beats and melody all studied via notation in a given tone-
>> system)
>> b) Musical expressions and terms (signs for tempo, dynamics, nuances,
>> etc...)
>> c) Solfege and dictation
>> d) Tones, keys, modes, maqams, dastgahs, rags and their procedures
>> (functional degrees, intonations, modulations, common-practice
>> harmony
>> and chord progressions, etc...)
>> e) Rhythmic patterns
>> f) Styles of harmony, counterpoint, homophony, microtonal polyphony,
>> etc...
>> g) Musical forms, music analysis and prosody.
>> h) Instrumentation, orchestration, timbre coloration.
>> i) Instrumental Methods
>>
>> 2. Empirical Music Theory (investigating the physical, acoustical and
>> psycho-physiological phenomena in music-making)
>>
>> a) Sonic wave, interval, frequency, frequency ratio, beat, brat,
>> etc... calculations
>> b) Anatomy of musical scales (relationships between tones and
>> perception by the auditory nerve)
>> c) Tunings and Temperaments (advanced mathematical and psycho-
>> acoustical modelling)
>> d) Engineering modality, tonality and polyphony (exploring musical
>> aesthetics)
>> e) Research of historical treatises
>> f) Instrument modelling and production
>> h) Audio-Sound technologies
>>
>> This is a rather rough sketch, but you get the idea. As such, I
>> consider psycho-acoustics as a branch of Empirical Music Theory. This
>> might be the bridge betwen common theoretical knowledge and practice
>> you are talking about.
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Oz.
>>
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, hpiinstruments wrote:
>>
>>> Psychoacoustics bridges the gap between theory and
>>> practice, as it is neither theory nor practice, but the
>>> study of our perception, which for music can involve
>>> both theory and practice. What psychoacoustics tells
>>> us is that *what a person hears subjectively*
>>> (a pitch = what I hear) is not the same as
>>> *what is quantified mathematically*
>>> (a tone = a number). They may correlate, but that
>>> correlation is not exactly fixed and not entirely
>>> quantifiable beyond establishing averages such
>>> as the JND. Psychoacoustics confirms both
>>> practice and theory, and chastens both, bridging
>>> the gap.
>>>
>>> AAH
>>>
>>> P.S. I found in Lehman's article a message of
>>> *feeling trumps thinking*, in the Meyers-Briggs
>>> sense. I don't discount everything he says
>>> because of something he wrote previously,
>>> nor do I agree with all that he says uncritically.
>>> I found his article to be thought provoking,
>>> even if much more polemical than a book review
>>> ought to be (IMHO).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The crux of the problem appears to be that of music theory
>>>> demanding
>>>> (in Bradley's terms) "musicians to adhere to mathematically-based
>>>> standards of intonation (and sometimes practically impossible
>>>> standards, at that), rather than cultivating this tasteful freedom
>>>> [of
>>>> inflecting notes deliberately according to taste]."
>>>>
>>>> The dichotomy between "rigid" theory and "free" practice is ever
>>>> more
>>>> stressed in Maqam music circles, exacerbated by the fact that our
>>>> theoretical models are at an even greater loss to account for the
>>>> mysterious intonation of maqam perdes in myriad melodic contexts.
>>>>
>>>> Hence, is "tuning and temperament" a practical approach to a very
>>>> complicated millenia-old problem or the very solution to beautiful
>>>> and
>>>> accurate music-making?
>>>>
>>>> If we are to subscribe utterly to the first propositon, musical
>>>> mathematics and psycho-acoustics face the danger of crumbling
>>>> down to
>>>> mere curiosities and futile pursuits.
>>>>
>>>> If, on the other hand, the latter case was absolutely true, the
>>>> danger
>>>> of corrupting performance traditions by forcing them into
>>>> "unsavoury
>>>> synthetic molds" would arise.
>>>>
>>>> The benefits of music theory despite its rigid guidelines are
>>>> obvious... it leads to the development of advanced techniques in
>>>> music
>>>> that result in a feedback facilitating the better creation and
>>>> manipulation of compositional materials.
>>>>
>>>> The benefits of free practice are also evident, in that new
>>>> intervals
>>>> and harmonies explode in esoteric and unforeseen novelties that
>>>> inspire later theorists to explore these phenomena.
>>>>
>>>> But isnt't there any middle ground in the battle between theory and
>>>> practice?
>>>>
>>>> Surely, theorists would be at a loss without any guidance from
>>>> practice. Likewise, executants would be at a loss to explain and
>>>> impart what they do without the aid of some kind of theory.
>>>>
>>>> So, could we not say that theory and practice are two sides of the
>>>> same coin?
>>>>
>>>> I think both should be given full accord for their merits: Theory
>>>> for
>>>> being a promising tool to explain and guide all perceptual
>>>> phenomena,
>>>> and practice as a field of authenticity, free discovery and
>>>> innovation.
>>>>
>>>> Cordially,
>>>> Oz.
>>>>
>>>> âÅ"© âÅ"© âÅ"©
>>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:37 PM, bplehman27 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My review of Claudio di Veroli's book is now published as of
>>>>> today.
>>>>> It is available in a free PDF file through here:
>>>>> http://www.vdgs.org.uk/publications-Journal.html
>>>>> Pages 137-163, as numbered; pp 25-51 in the PDF file.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a long and detailed review that addresses not only this
>>>>> book,
>>>>> but also the methodology in John Barnes's EM article from 1979.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enjoy,
>>>>>
>>>>> Brad Lehman
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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@...m - 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.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

No, not really, for reasons I've already stated. But it's not that
big of a deal - certainly not worth arguing over ;)
Cheers,
Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Psycho-acoustics employs mathematical, analytical and audiological
> tools that fall under the category of what I previously referred to as
> "Empirical Music Theory". The common purpose here is to understand,
> quantify and systematize the human perceptual processing of music.
> Physics of sound, auditory physiology and sonance in a given pitch-
> universe (musical aesthetics and psychology) are all part of Empirical
> Music Theory.
>
> Would you not agree?
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Jan 23, 2010, at 3:16 AM, hpiinstruments wrote:
>
> > Hmm, well what you are calling empirical theory there is covering
> > quite a wide range of activity. Psychoacoustics is actually rarely
> > undertaken by professional musicians, and although this is a big
> > problem that results in musically faulty and dubious tests, in my
> > view this is also a big part of why psychoacoustics as a discipline
> > can act as a bridge, precisely because it is outside of both music
> > theory and music practice. The results require interpretation from
> > the musical community, through interdisciplinary cooperation.
> >
> > AAH
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Aaron Andrew,
> >>
> >> I have a habit of stacking what Glen Haydon calls the "theory of
> >> music
> >> theory" along with what is plainly known as "music theory" itself.
> >> Allow me to elucidate further. In my view, music theory is a broad
> >> interdisciplinary area in musicology which may be categorized under
> >> two headings:
> >>
> >> 1. Practical Music Theory (for helping educators teach music-making
> >> to
> >> musician & composer candidates)
> >>
> >> a) Rudiments (Pitches and intervals, scales, transpositions, time and
> >> bars, beats and melody all studied via notation in a given tone-
> >> system)
> >> b) Musical expressions and terms (signs for tempo, dynamics, nuances,
> >> etc...)
> >> c) Solfege and dictation
> >> d) Tones, keys, modes, maqams, dastgahs, rags and their procedures
> >> (functional degrees, intonations, modulations, common-practice
> >> harmony
> >> and chord progressions, etc...)
> >> e) Rhythmic patterns
> >> f) Styles of harmony, counterpoint, homophony, microtonal polyphony,
> >> etc...
> >> g) Musical forms, music analysis and prosody.
> >> h) Instrumentation, orchestration, timbre coloration.
> >> i) Instrumental Methods
> >>
> >> 2. Empirical Music Theory (investigating the physical, acoustical and
> >> psycho-physiological phenomena in music-making)
> >>
> >> a) Sonic wave, interval, frequency, frequency ratio, beat, brat,
> >> etc... calculations
> >> b) Anatomy of musical scales (relationships between tones and
> >> perception by the auditory nerve)
> >> c) Tunings and Temperaments (advanced mathematical and psycho-
> >> acoustical modelling)
> >> d) Engineering modality, tonality and polyphony (exploring musical
> >> aesthetics)
> >> e) Research of historical treatises
> >> f) Instrument modelling and production
> >> h) Audio-Sound technologies
> >>
> >> This is a rather rough sketch, but you get the idea. As such, I
> >> consider psycho-acoustics as a branch of Empirical Music Theory. This
> >> might be the bridge betwen common theoretical knowledge and practice
> >> you are talking about.
> >>
> >> Cordially,
> >> Oz.
> >>
> >>
> >> âÅ"© âÅ"© âÅ"©
> >> www.ozanyarman.com
> >>
> >> On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, hpiinstruments wrote:
> >>
> >>> Psychoacoustics bridges the gap between theory and
> >>> practice, as it is neither theory nor practice, but the
> >>> study of our perception, which for music can involve
> >>> both theory and practice. What psychoacoustics tells
> >>> us is that *what a person hears subjectively*
> >>> (a pitch = what I hear) is not the same as
> >>> *what is quantified mathematically*
> >>> (a tone = a number). They may correlate, but that
> >>> correlation is not exactly fixed and not entirely
> >>> quantifiable beyond establishing averages such
> >>> as the JND. Psychoacoustics confirms both
> >>> practice and theory, and chastens both, bridging
> >>> the gap.
> >>>
> >>> AAH
> >>>
> >>> P.S. I found in Lehman's article a message of
> >>> *feeling trumps thinking*, in the Meyers-Briggs
> >>> sense. I don't discount everything he says
> >>> because of something he wrote previously,
> >>> nor do I agree with all that he says uncritically.
> >>> I found his article to be thought provoking,
> >>> even if much more polemical than a book review
> >>> ought to be (IMHO).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The crux of the problem appears to be that of music theory
> >>>> demanding
> >>>> (in Bradley's terms) "musicians to adhere to mathematically-based
> >>>> standards of intonation (and sometimes practically impossible
> >>>> standards, at that), rather than cultivating this tasteful freedom
> >>>> [of
> >>>> inflecting notes deliberately according to taste]."
> >>>>
> >>>> The dichotomy between "rigid" theory and "free" practice is ever
> >>>> more
> >>>> stressed in Maqam music circles, exacerbated by the fact that our
> >>>> theoretical models are at an even greater loss to account for the
> >>>> mysterious intonation of maqam perdes in myriad melodic contexts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hence, is "tuning and temperament" a practical approach to a very
> >>>> complicated millenia-old problem or the very solution to beautiful
> >>>> and
> >>>> accurate music-making?
> >>>>
> >>>> If we are to subscribe utterly to the first propositon, musical
> >>>> mathematics and psycho-acoustics face the danger of crumbling
> >>>> down to
> >>>> mere curiosities and futile pursuits.
> >>>>
> >>>> If, on the other hand, the latter case was absolutely true, the
> >>>> danger
> >>>> of corrupting performance traditions by forcing them into
> >>>> "unsavoury
> >>>> synthetic molds" would arise.
> >>>>
> >>>> The benefits of music theory despite its rigid guidelines are
> >>>> obvious... it leads to the development of advanced techniques in
> >>>> music
> >>>> that result in a feedback facilitating the better creation and
> >>>> manipulation of compositional materials.
> >>>>
> >>>> The benefits of free practice are also evident, in that new
> >>>> intervals
> >>>> and harmonies explode in esoteric and unforeseen novelties that
> >>>> inspire later theorists to explore these phenomena.
> >>>>
> >>>> But isnt't there any middle ground in the battle between theory and
> >>>> practice?
> >>>>
> >>>> Surely, theorists would be at a loss without any guidance from
> >>>> practice. Likewise, executants would be at a loss to explain and
> >>>> impart what they do without the aid of some kind of theory.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, could we not say that theory and practice are two sides of the
> >>>> same coin?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think both should be given full accord for their merits: Theory
> >>>> for
> >>>> being a promising tool to explain and guide all perceptual
> >>>> phenomena,
> >>>> and practice as a field of authenticity, free discovery and
> >>>> innovation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cordially,
> >>>> Oz.
> >>>>
> >>>> âÅ"© âÅ"© âÅ"©
> >>>> www.ozanyarman.com
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:37 PM, bplehman27 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> My review of Claudio di Veroli's book is now published as of
> >>>>> today.
> >>>>> It is available in a free PDF file through here:
> >>>>> http://www.vdgs.org.uk/publications-Journal.html
> >>>>> Pages 137-163, as numbered; pp 25-51 in the PDF file.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is a long and detailed review that addresses not only this
> >>>>> book,
> >>>>> but also the methodology in John Barnes's EM article from 1979.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Enjoy,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Brad Lehman
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> 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@...m - 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.
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > 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.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Johann Sebastian B" <Francis@...> wrote:
>
> The late Dr Kellner told me he had coffee and cake with your good
> self, so one presumes you shared the "joke".

Yes in deed Charles,
Herbert Anton Kellner and I myself had at that occasion
a lot of fun in analyzing and compareing ours different
interpretations of JSB's seal and squiggles in humourous
friendly atmosphere in the 'Cafe-Bormuth' at Darmstadt
market-place, which is esteemed as the best cafe in town.
The last time I discussed with my friend HAK alive,
was on a conference in Köthen back at 2003:

http://www.music.qub.ac.uk/tomita/bachbib/review/bb-review_Rampe-WK1.html

even about Kristian's proposal "joke"
http://www.wegscheider.eu/html/artikel.php?filename=artikel.php&tabname=Artikel&sz=14&Unterpunkt=Weihnachtsbriefe

http://www.wegscheider.eu/html/datorgel/snerha_bachtabelle.htm
"
Tabelle über die Bachstimmung nach H.C.Snerha

Ton Hz

Es 295,111111
B 442,666667
F 332
C 248,7
D 278
A 416
Fs 349,70625
Cs 262,279688
Gs 393,419531
"

Have also a lot of fun especially with that particular one.

bye
A.S.

My rebuttal of Brad Lehman's review is now published. It is available in a free PDF file through
http://www.vdgs.org.uk/files/VdGSJournal/Vol-04.pdf
(a 7Mb download with the full issue where the article is on pp. 137-163), or else in a reduced 0.2Mb file containing only the article available from
http://temper.braybaroque.ie/VdGS-Lehman-Rebuttal-Vol-04-CDV.pdf

Enjoy,
Claudio Di Veroli
http://temper.braybaroque.ie/

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "bplehman27" <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> My review of Claudio di Veroli's book is now published as of today. It is available in a free PDF file through here:
> http://www.vdgs.org.uk/publications-Journal.html
> Pages 137-163, as numbered; pp 25-51 in the PDF file.
>
> It is a long and detailed review that addresses not only this book, but also the methodology in John Barnes's EM article from 1979.
>
> Enjoy,
> Brad Lehman