Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Density of tonality in chords

I am pretty sure I am not the only one who has noticed this...

Take the chord
A) CEG =4:5:6

I've found when you shift it to

B) CDEG = 8:9:10:12
C) CDFG = 24:27:32:36

...there is a significant difference in the sense of tone and color/"timbre" you get from the chord.
However when you switch to the combination of the two chords IE

CDEG + CDFG = CDEFG AKA 24:27:30:32:36

...I've found there is little change in color from B or C and it just begins to sound simply more dense rather than different.

Have there been any studies about how this kind of "tonal density" works? Any idea how to gauge when the mind begins to switch gears from hearing separate tones to noise due to too many notes in too close an area within a chord? I'd simply search for information on it...but have no clue what to search for,

-Michael

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_cluster

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> I am pretty sure I am not the only one who has noticed this...
>
> Take the chord
> A) CEG =4:5:6
>
> I've found when you shift it to
>
> B) CDEG = 8:9:10:12
> C) CDFG = 24:27:32:36
>
> ...there is a significant difference in the sense of tone and
> color/"timbre" you get from the chord.
> However when you switch to the combination of the two chords IE
>
> CDEG + CDFG = CDEFG AKA 24:27:30:32:36
>
> ...I've found there is little change in color from B or C and it just
> begins to sound simply more dense rather than different.
>
> Have there been any studies about how this kind of "tonal density" works?
> Any idea how to gauge when the mind begins to switch gears from hearing
> separate tones to noise due to too many notes in too close an area within a
> chord? I'd simply search for information on it...but have no clue what to
> search for,
>
> -Michael
>
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_cluster"

Chris,

Thank you for the very useful "Tone Cluster" link.

Some interesting notes:

"As noted by Alan Belkin, however, instrumental timbre can have a significant impact on their effect: "Clusters are quite
aggressive on the organ, but soften enormously when played by strings
(possibly because slight, continuous fluctuations of pitch in the
latter provide some inner mobility.)"
My guess is that while the root tones "clash" in a tone cluster, the modulation of harmonics in the strings makes it so it's less likely any two close overtones are at maximum amplitude at the same time and "fighting for tonal space" with overtones of other notes in a chord.

>"In 1922, composer Dane Rudhyar,
a friend of Cowell's, declared approvingly that the development of the
tone cluster "imperilled [the] existence" of "the musical unit, the
note."
If I'm reading this correctly, it seems to say that putting too many notes together works against the brain's ability to recognize each tone added. If so, that would match my suspicion.

However, I didn't see any experiment on the wiki as to determining at what point the brain starts clustering too many close notes in a chord together as "noise" and not picking up any the additional notes/tones added. So, personally, I experimented with chords to see how much I could cluster tones before they started to "mute/'mask' each other out" from being too close. And I came up with the following chords

1) C D G A B C (5 tone)
2) C D E G A B C (6)
3) C D E F G A B C (all 7)

It seems to me some of the patterns are that
A) Any more than 5 unique tones per octave begins to "blur" IE 1 and 2 barely sound any different
B) There seems to be a limit to how many half-steps you can use in a chord the second half-step in the third chord blurs so much you can barely even hear it
C) I wonder if, for example, the brain hears multiple root tones in 1 via virtual pitch and still can handle it fairly well...but by around 2 or 3 it is handling so many virtual pitches it partly gives up and "forgets" to hear much of the F.

Of course, I'd be eager to hear if anyone has done a more formal experiment concerning this sort of thing, especially concerning psychoacoustics of several notes close together (as opposed to just 2 note ala Plomp and Llevelt). Any ideas?

The greater application I'm looking for in tuning is would it maximize consonance for large chords to, say, distribute small intervals within a chord in a certain fashion and/or should we have a note-per-octave limit system to help us gauge the consonance of a chord?

_,_._,___

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

You are welcome

(Though much of what many post seems to ignore register I find register is
vitial to many observations of the quality of a chord as well as spacing)

And.. please explain the meaning of "root tones" in the context of clusters.

And Mike, the next place to stop with regard to tone clusters and their
musical meaning is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Ruggles

and listen here:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=youtube+carl+ruggles&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=SaB1S9bmGoWMNqrWzZcP&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQqwQwAA#

This music is all about texture in my opinion. It is akin to oil painting
with a spatula instead of a brush in my mind.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> >"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_cluster"
>
> Chris,
>
> Thank you for the very useful "Tone Cluster" link.
>
> Some interesting notes:
>
> "As noted by Alan Belkin, however, instrumental timbre<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbre>can have a significant impact on their effect: "Clusters are quite
> aggressive on the
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

specifically listen to "sun treader" and "Men and Mountians"

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

> You are welcome
>
> Register is crucially important with clusters - more so than "normal"
> chords.
>
> (Though much of what many post seems to ignore register I find register is
> vitial to many observations of the quality of a chord as well as spacing)
>
> And.. please explain the meaning of "root tones" in the context of
> clusters.
>
> And Mike, the next place to stop with regard to tone clusters and their
> musical meaning is
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Ruggles
>
> and listen here:
>
>
> http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=youtube+carl+ruggles&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=SaB1S9bmGoWMNqrWzZcP&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQqwQwAA#
>
> This music is all about texture in my opinion. It is akin to oil painting
> with a spatula instead of a brush in my mind.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> >"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_cluster"
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> Thank you for the very useful "Tone Cluster" link.
>>
>> Some interesting notes:
>>
>> "As noted by Alan Belkin, however, instrumental timbre<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbre>can have a significant impact on their effect: "Clusters are quite
>> aggressive on the
>>
>
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Philippe_Rameau#Treatise_on_Harmony.2C_1722"

Interesting...it seems Rameau is very keen on the idea that the root/bass tone defines the chord and can not be inverted and does seem to imply that you have to keep certain elements in chords to keep them pointing to a root...and problems come up if you swap the wrong ones.

>"I'm not sure how to see things either but there is something about a single major or minor chord beeing a main "structure", sorry don't know how to explain well yet,
having a root. And if you mix enough tones then this isn't clear
anymore."

Exactly, I guess the idea I'm coming to suspect (that may conflict with what a lot of people accept as gospel) is that chords don't have to point to just one root tone.
For example, if you take, say, a 5-tone chord of
18:21:24:26:28

...your brain may well split it up into the two (more strict JI) tones of

6:7:8 (summarizing 18:21:24)
and
12:13:14 (summarizing 24:26:28)

Then the brain would likely summarize the chord into a "double tonality", rather than a single one and the implied harmonic series "root tones" would be in different places. My question is, if that's true, how many "multiple tonalities" can the brain handle without stumbling?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

🔗Steven Grainger <srgrainger@...>

Hi Michael,
I relate to your question because I am trying to figure how La Monte Young's 'Magic Opening Chord' can sound so gloriuosly consonant as it is used in Dave Seidel's peice 'Gyre'
http://mysterybear.net/article/45/gyre

In the Magic Opening Chord there are 5 notes between 1/1 and 9/8 and another 5 notes between 7/4 and 2/1. I can't for the life of me figure how it is so gloriously consonant when all notes are played at once. The first harmonic ratio used is partial 512 so the music is based on higher partials without the 'bottom end'.

I wonder if there is an optimum frequency for a chord to sound clear, cause even a 4;5;6 sounds like mud when played too low. So maybe a close clusters can sound shimmering and consonant in their optimum frequency without 'interference from other notes.

Just brainstorming and thanks for the question
Steve

________________________________
From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 13 February, 2010 1:35:09 AM
Subject: [tuning] Density of tonality in chords

I am pretty sure I am not the only one who has noticed this...

Take the chord
A) CEG =4:5:6

I've found when you shift it to

B) CDEG = 8:9:10:12
C) CDFG = 24:27:32:36

...there is a significant difference in the sense of tone and color/"timbre" you get from the chord.
However when you switch to the combination of the two chords IE

CDEG + CDFG = CDEFG AKA 24:27:30:32: 36

...I've found there is little change in color from B or C and it just begins to sound simply more dense rather than different.

-Michael

Hi Michael

__________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Cox Franklin <franklincox@...>

I would strongly advocate double-checking any Wikipedia entry against a real (i.e., scholarly) source.
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Fri, 2/12/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Density of tonality in chords
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 12, 2010, 11:19 PM

>"http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Jean-Philippe_ Rameau#Treatise_ on_Harmony. 2C_1722"

Interesting. ..it seems Rameau is very keen on the idea that the root/bass tone defines the chord and can not be inverted and does seem to imply that you have to keep certain elements in chords to keep them pointing to a root...and problems come up if you swap the wrong ones.

>"I'm not sure how to see things either but there is something about a single major or minor chord
beeing a main "structure", sorry don't know how to explain well yet,
having a root. And if you mix enough tones then this isn't clear
anymore."

...your brain may well split it up into the two (more strict JI) tones of

6:7:8   (summarizing 18:21:24)
        and
      12:13:14 (summarizing 24:26:28)

Then the brain would likely summarize the chord into a "double tonality", rather than a single one and the implied harmonic series "root tones" would be in different places. My question is, if that's true, how many "multiple tonalities" can the brain handle without
stumbling?
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"In the Magic Opening Chord there are 5 notes between 1/1 and 9/8 and
another 5 notes between 7/4 and 2/1. I can't for the life of me figure
how it is so gloriously consonant"

A few hints I noticed to how he may have managed it:

A) If there are 5 notes between 1/1 and 9/8, it's reasonable to assume many of the tones are close enough together to form a chorus effect...in which case the brain combines two slightly different tones into one. Also note: Plomp and Llevelt's roughness experiment noted two sine waves actually get more consonant when extremely close (IE within under 15 cents of each other).

B) He says specifically "The trick here is that I made the beating proportional to the pitch. In other words, the highest note beats at the fastest rate". This also makes sense: Plomp and Llevelt's dissonance curves show critical band gets smaller at higher frequencies IE tones can be closer together. On another level, it makes sense as the beating between two tones creates its own tone (which is the rate of beating).
So if you have the tones 200hz and 300hz the beating rate is 100hz....and if you also have 400hz and 450hz the beating rate is 50hz. So the tones you hear are 50,100,200,300,400,450...giving the impression of a 1:2:4:6:8:9 chord from "only" 4 notes. My guess is he's doing something quite similar.

C) In general, the ear becomes more tolerant of dissonance when notes are split binaurally (another trick Dave Seidel appears to exploit). This is easy enough to try yourself: put on headphones and play the chord C E F G A C in both ears. Now play C E G in one ear and F A C in the other...much clearer isn't it?

>"I wonder if there is an optimum frequency for a chord to sound clear, cause even a 4;5;6 sounds like mud when played too low."
So do I...honestly that question is at least partly beyond me. I do know the critical band at low frequencies (on Plomp and Llevelt's curve) is quite wide and that causes the mind to have more trouble distinguishing tones at very low frequencies. But I swear there is also an emotional/psychological aspect I don't understand IE why does the exact same chord (IE 4:5:6) have different moods when played at different root pitches?

>"So maybe close clusters can sound shimmering and consonant in their optimum frequency without 'interference from other notes."

Indeed, maybe there is a loophole in there somewhere that can give more options through which to achieve consonance (at least mathematically). It seems putting close clusters in the right places can bring focus to one of the two close tones, rather than come across as two separate clashing tones.

What I really find interesting about the experiment is the idea of creating the illusion of tones via beating that are not actual notes in the chords (as in my 200hz 300hz...example above). I figure this could be used to give the illusion of larger chords without much of the added dissonance usually associated with larger chords.

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Chris>"bitonality is actually a bit hard to do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytonality"

If I read that correctly, polytonality has to do with the use of two different keys simultaneously.
My example of the chord
18:21:24:26:28
........being split by the mind into
6:7:8 (summarizing 18:21:24)
and
12:13:14 (summarizing 24:26:28)
...assumes the chord 18:21:24:26:28 is in just one key (albeit a rather "high limit" one).
So I doubt it fits into the polytonallity paradigm. I'm assuming if a chord is too high-limit (JI-wise) and complex for the brain to handle it tries to split it up into lower-limit sections and interpret it as such.
And if the brain can't figure a way to split it up...I figure it takes it as noise and/or "lack of resolve".

I also figure a 18:21:24:25:28 chord would be enough to confuse the brain as the 24:25:28 part can't be digested/divided into a lower limit form since even though 24 and 28 can be divided evenly by 2, 25 can not. I could be wrong but so far, of all the chord types I've tried I found the brain starts having trouble when it can't reduce a chord into parts of around the twelfth harmonic or less (IE 13/12)...and 25/24 would obviously be beyond that.

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>> Chris>"bitonality is actually a bit hard to do
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytonality"
>>
>> If I read that correctly, polytonality has to do with the use of
>> two different keys simultaneously.
Daniel>Not exactly. This is bitonality.

Argh....this is going way of topic.
My original example has >one< chord.
That one chord can be split into two sub chords.
And...each of those sub-chords can be reduced to significantly different segments of the harmonic series.
Thus...the "virtual 'root' pitch" implied by those two chords is different..that's what has two tones..
And my theory is...the brain may split one complex chord into two lower-limit simpler ones that way.

This has >nothing< to do with multiple keys...the chord is in a single key. Ok, so I used the term "bi-tonality" incorrectly and bi-tonality means concerning two keys (and not two virtual pitches) at once. What I meant is I'm betting the brain can derive two root :"virtual pitch" tones from a so-called "of one root pitch" chord.
And my question again (which no one seems able to either answer or admit to not knowing) becomes is there a limit to how many virtual-pitch-implied tones the mind can derive from a chord before the chord starts to sound like noise IE "too clustered"?

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Mike,

My guess is that there is not one answer - my guess is that it is akin to
critical bandwidth and depends on register (which octave[s]) and how many
notes in each octave(s).

For instance - that "barking e minor chord" barks in part because of the
register it is written in. Without the minor 3rd from the closed form e
minor in the bass I doubt it would sound nearly the same....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms_chord

And my question again (which no one seems able to either answer or admit
> to not knowing) becomes is there a limit to how many virtual-pitch-implied
> tones the mind can derive from a chord before the chord starts to sound like
> noise IE "too clustered"?
>
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> Argh....this is going way of topic.
> My original example has >one< chord.
> That one chord can be split into two sub chords.
> And...each of those sub-chords can be reduced to significantly different segments of the harmonic series.
> Thus...the "virtual 'root' pitch" implied by those two chords is different..that's what has two tones..
> And my theory is...the brain may split one complex chord into two lower-limit simpler ones that way.

Every chord can be split into a whole bunch of sub-chords, sub-dyads,
sub-triads, and so on, which all overlap, and which all imply
different segments of the harmonic series. Take 10:12:15, for example
- the root of that chord is commonly heard as the 10, because of the
strength of the pitch produced by the 3:2 on the outside.

> This has >nothing< to do with multiple keys...the chord is in a single key. Ok, so I used the term "bi-tonality" incorrectly and bi-tonality means concerning two keys (and not two virtual pitches) at once. What I meant is I'm betting the brain can derive two root :"virtual pitch" tones from a so-called "of one root pitch" chord.
> And my question again (which no one seems able to either answer or admit to not knowing) becomes is there a limit to how many virtual-pitch-implied tones the mind can derive from a chord before the chord starts to sound like noise IE "too clustered"?

Depends on what floats your boat. In my experience, no. Check out
Miles' "In a Silent Way" for an example of all kinds of ridiculous
polytonal chords that sound intuitively natural. Of course, if you
threw that in out of nowhere while listening to Mozart's variations on
Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, it would start to sound pretty noisy.

I think your brain can adjust to an environment with more "noise" so
to speak, kind of like your eyes can adjust to see better in the dark.
This would have had distinct evolutionary advantages, and I think it's
somewhat responsible for the phenomenon of things sounding better in
the right "musical context," and so on.

-Mike

🔗Steven Grainger <srgrainger@...>

Re: And my question again (which no one seems able to either answer or admit to not knowing) becomes is there a limit to how many virtual-pitch- implied tones the mind can derive from a chord before the chord starts to sound like noise IE "too clustered"?

Perhaps it is about exposure and experience as well as capacity. I can hear a lot more harmonic relationships than I could 3 months ago, so what once was noise is now a web of sonic relationships which I think is one way of hearing a chord.

________________________________
From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 14 February, 2010 7:27:37 AM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Density of tonality in chords

Mike,

My guess is that there is not one answer - my guess is that it is akin to critical bandwidth and depends on register (which octave[s]) and how many notes in each octave(s).

For instance - that "barking e minor chord" barks in part because of the register it is written in. Without the minor 3rd from the closed form e minor in the bass I doubt it would sound nearly the same....

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Psalms_chord

And my question again (which no one seems able to either answer or admit to not knowing) becomes is there a limit to how many virtual-pitch- implied tones the mind can derive from a chord before the chord starts to sound like noise IE "too clustered"?
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Perhaps I can answer this directly

stacks of thirds that are from a major or minor scale are heard by me as a
chord no matter how many are stacked starting from about C3.

Stacks of 4ths or 5ths are heard by me as a chord regardless of number or
register.

A cluster of major seconds supported by a 4th is a chord starting from C3 or
C4
for instance cfga - read that as a sus 4th with add major 6th

From about C4 major seconds sound consonant to me. fgac is a nice chord an d
so is acde

smeared 5 note runs (sustain pedal down on piano) for instance abcde sound
consonant C4 and above.

Chris

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Steven Grainger
<srgrainger@...>wrote:

>
>
> Re: And my question again (which no one seems able to either answer or
> admit to not knowing) becomes is there a limit to how many virtual-pitch-
> implied tones the mind can derive from a chord before the chord starts to
> sound like noise IE "too clustered"?
>
> Perhaps it is about exposure and experience as well as capacity. I can hear
> a lot more harmonic relationships than I could 3 months ago, so what once
> was noise is now a web of sonic relationships which I think is one way of
> hearing a chord.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
> *To:* tuning@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Sun, 14 February, 2010 7:27:37 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [tuning] Density of tonality in chords
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> register, and density is going to be extremely important to answer this
> question.
>
> My guess is that there is not one answer - my guess is that it is akin to
> critical bandwidth and depends on register (which octave[s]) and how many
> notes in each octave(s).
>
> For instance - that "barking e minor chord" barks in part because of the
> register it is written in. Without the minor 3rd from the closed form e
> minor in the bass I doubt it would sound nearly the same....
>
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Psalms_chord<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms_chord>
>
>
>
> And my question again (which no one seems able to either answer or
>> admit to not knowing) becomes is there a limit to how many virtual-pitch-
>> implied tones the mind can derive from a chord before the chord starts to
>> sound like noise IE "too clustered"?
>>
>
> Re
>
>
>
>

🔗Steven Grainger <srgrainger@...>

I am very interested in the ideal register for a particular chord to have clarity (which is not always desirable0, but Iam new to making music.

I can't wait to try Chris Vaisvil's, "From about C4 major seconds sound consonant to me. fgac is a nice chord an d so is acde"

Would anyone be able to tell me some other of their favourite JI or 12et chords that sound great in a particular register.

In what register does does the Eminor bark best?

Would there be some articles or theory about this.

Steve

________________________________
From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 15 February, 2010 1:47:54 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Density of tonality in chords

Perhaps I can answer this directly

stacks of thirds that are from a major or minor scale are heard by me as a chord no matter how many are stacked starting from about C3.

Stacks of 4ths or 5ths are heard by me as a chord regardless of number or register.

A cluster of major seconds supported by a 4th is a chord starting from C3 or C4
for instance cfga - read that as a sus 4th with add major 6th

From about C4 major seconds sound consonant to me. fgac is a nice chord an d so is acde

smeared 5 note runs (sustain pedal down on piano) for instance abcde sound consonant C4 and above.

Chris

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Steven Grainger <srgrainger@yahoo. com.au> wrote:

>Re: And my question again (which no one seems able to either answer or admit to not knowing) becomes is there a limit to how many virtual-pitch- implied tones the mind can derive from a chord before the chord starts to sound like noise IE "too clustered"?
>
>Perhaps it is about exposure and experience as well as capacity. I can hear a lot more harmonic relationships than I could 3 months ago, so what once was noise is now a web of sonic relationships which I think is one way of hearing a chord.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@ gmail.com>
>To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Sun, 14 February, 2010 7:27:37 AM
>Subject: Re: [tuning] Density of tonality in chords
>
>
>Mike,
>
>register, and density is going to be extremely important to answer this question.
>
>My guess is that there is not one answer - my guess is that it is akin to critical bandwidth and depends on register (which octave[s]) and how many notes in each octave(s).
>
>For instance - that "barking e minor chord" barks in part because of the register it is written in. Without the minor 3rd from the closed form e minor in the bass I doubt it would sound nearly the same....
>
>http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Psalms_chord
>
>
>
>
> And my question again (which no one seems able to either answer or admit to not knowing) becomes is there a limit to how many virtual-pitch- implied tones the mind can derive from a chord before the chord starts to sound like noise IE "too clustered"?
>>
>Re
>

I am very interested

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

the 'barking " e minor is the "psalms chord"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms_chord

Also try smearing

fabc (there is a minor second Michael!!)
df#ga (and another!!)

One of the keys to make it work in my ears is not to "strike it"

play it soft.

Chris

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Steven Grainger
<srgrainger@...>wrote:

>
>
> I am very interested in the ideal register for a particular chord to have
> clarity (which is not always desirable0, but Iam new to making music.
>
> I can't wait to try Chris Vaisvil's, *"From about C4 major seconds sound
> consonant to me. fgac is a nice chord an d so is acde"*
>
> Would anyone be able to tell me some other of their favourite JI or 12et
> chords that sound great in a particular register.
>
> In what register does does the Eminor bark best?
>
> Would there be some articles or theory about this.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
> *To:* tuning@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Mon, 15 February, 2010 1:47:54 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [tuning] Density of tonality in chords
>
>
>
> Perhaps I can answer this directly
>
> stacks of thirds that are from a major or minor scale are heard by me as a
> chord no matter how many are stacked starting from about C3.
>
> Stacks of 4ths or 5ths are heard by me as a chord regardless of number or
> register.
>
> A cluster of major seconds supported by a 4th is a chord starting from C3
> or C4
> for instance cfga - read that as a sus 4th with add major 6th
>
> From about C4 major seconds sound consonant to me. fgac is a nice chord an
> d so is acde
>
> smeared 5 note runs (sustain pedal down on piano) for instance abcde sound
> consonant C4 and above.
>
> Chris
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Steven Grainger <srgrainger@yahoo.
> com.au <srgrainger@...>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Re: And my question again (which no one seems able to either answer or
>> admit to not knowing) becomes is there a limit to how many virtual-pitch-
>> implied tones the mind can derive from a chord before the chord starts to
>> sound like noise IE "too clustered"?
>>
>> Perhaps it is about exposure and experience as well as capacity. I can
>> hear a lot more harmonic relationships than I could 3 months ago, so what
>> once was noise is now a web of sonic relationships which I think is one way
>> of hearing a chord.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@ gmail.com <chrisvaisvil@...>>
>> *To:* tuning@yahoogroups. com <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Sun, 14 February, 2010 7:27:37 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [tuning] Density of tonality in chords
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> register, and density is going to be extremely important to answer this
>> question.
>>
>> My guess is that there is not one answer - my guess is that it is akin to
>> critical bandwidth and depends on register (which octave[s]) and how many
>> notes in each octave(s).
>>
>> For instance - that "barking e minor chord" barks in part because of the
>> register it is written in. Without the minor 3rd from the closed form e
>> minor in the bass I doubt it would sound nearly the same....
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Psalms_chord<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms_chord>
>>
>>
>>
>> And my question again (which no one seems able to either answer or
>>> admit to not knowing) becomes is there a limit to how many virtual-pitch-
>>> implied tones the mind can derive from a chord before the chord starts to
>>> sound like noise IE "too clustered"?
>>>
>>
>> Re
>>
>>
>>
>
> I am very interested
>
>
>
>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 15 Feb 2010, at 12:47 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

>
> Perhaps I can answer this directly
>
> stacks of thirds that are from a major or minor scale are heard by > me as a chord no matter how many are stacked starting from about C3.
>
> Stacks of 4ths or 5ths are heard by me as a chord regardless of > number or register.
>

You mean probably diatonic chords. What about chromatic constructions until 12-tone? Like:

C-E-G#-B-D#-Fx-A#-Cx-Ex-Gx-Bx-Dx#

And what about chords combining thirdal and quartal structure, like

C-E-G-Bb-Eb-Ab-Db

where Eb can be understood also as 9+, Ab as 13-, Dd as 9-...

>
> A cluster of major seconds supported by a 4th is a chord starting > from C3 or C4
> for instance cfga - read that as a sus 4th with add major 6th
>

I don't think so, I will hear this as an inversion of F2add (F-G-A-C). In my opinion our brain tries to find at first thirdal structure of the chord, this is primary, even when it's in inversion. The other notes are understood as additional.

Daniel Forro

🔗Steven Grainger <srgrainger@...>

Michael, Chris et el,

Thanks Michael, I will read over your email a few times. So much to think about.

The chorus effect idea is interesting and makes sense. Will look up Plomp and Llevelt about close intervals getting more consonate. (Making beating proportional to the pitch - mmmmm).

Also interesting that La Monte Youngs chord/scale is based on a mere dozen partials between 512 adn 1024 (the fundamental being really really low so that the chord is in a nice register) so there many partials left out and lots of space between them.

Interesting too that splitting notes/chords left and right influences out perception of them.

And it is fascinating that chords and inversions have different moods in different registers.

++++

Thanks Chris for some hints about chords and registers and links to the Psalm Chord

Steve

________________________________
From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 13 February, 2010 4:03:37 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Density of tonality in chords

>"In the Magic Opening Chord there are 5 notes between 1/1 and 9/8 and another 5 notes between 7/4 and 2/1. I can't for the life of me figure how it is so gloriously consonant"

A few hints I noticed to how he may have managed it:

B) He says specifically "The trick here is that I made the beating proportional to the pitch. In other words, the highest note beats at the fastest rate". This also makes sense: Plomp and Llevelt's dissonance curves show critical band gets smaller at higher frequencies IE tones can be closer together. On another level, it makes sense as the beating between two tones creates its own tone (which is the rate of beating).
So if you have the tones 200hz and 300hz the beating rate is 100hz....and if you also have 400hz and 450hz the beating rate is 50hz. So the tones you hear are 50,100,200,300, 400,450.. .giving the impression of a 1:2:4:6:8:9 chord from "only" 4 notes. My guess is he's doing something quite similar.

>"I wonder if there is an optimum frequency for a chord to sound clear, cause even a 4;5;6 sounds like mud when played too low."
So do I...honestly that question is at least partly beyond me. I do know the critical band at low frequencies (on Plomp and Llevelt's curve) is quite wide and that causes the mind to have more trouble distinguishing tones at very low frequencies. But I swear there is also an emotional/psycholog ical aspect I don't understand IE why does the exact same chord (IE 4:5:6) have different moods when played at different root pitches?

>"So maybe close clusters can sound shimmering and consonant in their optimum frequency without 'interference from other notes."

Indeed, maybe there is a loophole in there somewhere that can give more options through which to achieve consonance (at least mathematically) . It seems putting close clusters in the right places can bring focus to one of the two close tones, rather than come across as two separate clashing tones.

michae

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"What do you think of these two...what are the advantages in this case of "strict JI" vs. "tempered"?"

Tempered seems to have an obvious advantage to me in that it can be used to avoid extreme levels of periodicity buzz with large chords, especially when relatively small intervals (IE smaller than a perfect 4th) are involved in the chord..

"Strict JI" (or, you're right, in this example/case it's probably called Extended JI in technically correct terms) seems to have the advantage of giving you the right tonal classes per each note, making all beating "in sync" with each other..making the side effect of periodicity buzz even at higher limit JI.

The question to a certain extent becomes a matter of taste AKA do you like a stronger sound with periodicity buzz or would you rather have a slightly fluctuating motion-like more ambiguous sound with less "grating" but also less feeling of certainty? It's kind of like comparing an organ sound to a cello sound, in a sense.

Far as a musical example...I'll gladly follow up with one. :-)