Monz' I-IV-V7-I listening

I'm really so glad we're all listening to I-IV-V7-I chords. This is the
ultimate triumph of the Riemann 3^(-1,0,1) paradigm, since it seems,
according to him, that that's all there is, anyway :-).

In a way, this experiment reminded me of a time at the University of
Delaware where I had been invited as "guest" composer and conducted a large
chamber piece. [Sorry, had to blow my horny -- just human nature...]

In their computer rooms, they had "computer assisted" music theory, one of
the most developed in the nation at that time (er.. 1988). They had touch
computer screens and focused on 4-part harmony -- one would enter pitches
by touching parts of the computer screen...

Well, it was Summer, and very hot. The computers went amok, and all the
ear-training turned out entirely discordant. None of the pitches were
correct, except that, somehow they all seemed to end on nice 5-limit
triadic consonances at the end. We, ultimately, figured the computers were
unintentionally doing a "Hindemith emulation..."

In any case, I wasn't sure I had the listening experience with these kinds
of tunings to offer much and resisted posting. Upon reading Paul Erlich's
response and Monz' response, I realize my own reactions were really not
that far "off the mark" and were interesting... I have not changed them
since reading the reactions of others:

I enjoyed Dave Keenan's adaptive just intonation sample probably the most
if the JIs. The V-7 was not as "sweet" as the "big third" of the 12-tET,
which seemed almost "perfumed" to me. (Perfume the "ultimate"
fabrication?)

I thought the 5-limit 5:9, with the large ratios 27/20, 15/8 in the V-7 was
pretty terrible, pretty discordant. I think Paul Erlich came to the same
conclusion... HOWEVER, I agree with Joe Monzo and enjoyed the 7-limit
adjustment with the 21/16 rather than the 27/20 for the "F" of the V-7. I
know this is a disagreement with Paul Erlich on the 7-limit but, in a way,
it is consistent with some of my previous posts regarding the John de
Laubenfels' files. It must be that Paul is looking for some kind of
consistent tuning paradigm, and some of the rest of us are just enjoying
the "weirdness." I guess that's OK by me...

The Pythagorean, to me, had the "sweet" sound of the V-7 that was in the
12-tET. Is it supposed to do that?? I guess the thirds are quite large in
Pythagorean, right??

Finally, I have to agree with Paul Erlich (always a safe bet, but this was
BEFORE I read his post) that the 7 limit 64:81 is really terrible. It is
the woist. It seemed to combine a somewhat discordant IV and the
sickeningly "sweet" V-7. Uccch... Joe Monzo seemed to find this OK, so
there is a wide range of opinion on this sample.

Finally, curiously, I found the 1/4 comma meantone sample the best of all.
It seemed natural, balanced, and harmonious. Let's all go back to it! (??)

For what it's worth...

Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

>I agree with Joe Monzo and enjoyed the 7-limit
>adjustment with the 21/16 rather than the 27/20 for the "F" of the V-7. I
>know this is a disagreement with Paul Erlich on the 7-limit but, in a way,
>it is consistent with some of my previous posts regarding the John de
>Laubenfels' files. It must be that Paul is looking for some kind of
>consistent tuning paradigm, and some of the rest of us are just enjoying
>the "weirdness."

Joe, I also hated the 27/20. I do enjoy weirdness, and in listening to these
files I wasn't looking for a "consistent tuning paradigm". But I _was_
looking for what sounded best relative to my acculturated musical ears. What
would I enjoy hearing in a performance of "conventional" music? What would
sound like a "mistake" or "amateurish" to me?

>Finally, curiously, I found the 1/4 comma meantone sample the best of all.
>It seemed natural, balanced, and harmonious. Let's all go back to it! (??)

By the way Joe, what was your reaction to the JI version with 9:16 seventh
(the one Carl and I both liked best of all)? You left that one out. It seems
odd that your favorite was the meantone seventh, falling between 9:16 (996�)
and 5:9 (1018�), but you liked the 4:7 (969�) in both of the examples where
the V7 was 4:5:6:7.

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

>I guess the thirds are quite large in
>Pythagorean, right??

Pyth. Maj. 3rd = 408�.

>
> Finally, curiously, I found the 1/4 comma meantone sample the best of all.
> It seemed natural, balanced, and harmonious. Let's all go back to it!
(??)
>
> For what it's worth...
>
> Joseph Pehrson
>

Meantone has been seriously underrated, if not maligned. It can't do
everything, but what it can do, it does beautifully. I've been composing a
large-ish piece in 1/5 comma meantone (I had started in 1/4 comma, but found
that 1/5 comma was needed for the amount of modulation I required since I
had restricted myself to 12 pitch classes). Although I set myself the task
of working entirely from first principles, I've been constantly surprised by
the way in which features of the classical tonal language keep emerging, as
if they were immanent in the tuning itself.

By all means, let's keep up the meantone revival. And not only for
historical repertoire but for new compositions as well.

Daniel Wolf