Re : the system we use today

Jerry E. wrote:

> Joseph Pehrson posted:
>
>> For this reason, in meantone, Db, on the left of the scale becomes *HIGHER*
>> than the corresponding enharmonic C#. This actually corresponds to more
>> how we would think today in 12-tET where it would seem that a Db should be
>> higher in performance than a C#. This also makes a lot of sense since
>> meantone is *essentially* the system we use today, with the Pythagorean
>> comma "ironed" a little differently and spread evenly as 12v 2...
>
> Don't tell the string players. It'll ruin their day. They appear to believe
> (evidenced by their performance) that C# is higher than Db.

This is exactly the example I wanted to mention for some time. As an
occasional banjoist I sometimes play the Gershwin repertory with classical
symphony orchestras. As far as I could discover their intonation is more
based on Pythagorean principles than on meantone. Emmanuel Krivine,
conductor of the Orchestre National de Lyon spotted a C# in the flute part,
which apparently sounded too high (C#s on flutes *are* already higher than
usual). The C# was a long note played as a major third in a tenuto A major
chord. So, what did he ask the flute player? I was sitting right next to her
and I was astonished. "Could yoy please play that note as if it was a Db?"
That's what she did and the A major sounded perfectly in tune!
>
> I have "known" all my early and professional life that raised pitches are
> normally tuned higher than lowered pitches.

That's the result of the Pythagorean approach. Andreas Stoehr (Paris,
conductor at the Op®¢F°ßra Comique) *tuned* the string section in The
Emperor of
Atlantis (Victor Ullman) by imposing: "The sharps should be higher and the
flats are not low enough". The strings played the same passage again and
there was no real improvement. And then it was time for a coffee-break.

> It has been rather shocking to
> discover that some experienced musicians believe otherwise. Excuse me,
> folks, if I suspect a bit of "ivory tower" here.

I do conclude that it's shocking for you that experienced musicans believe
that raised pitches are normally tuned *lower* than lowered pitches. Is that
how your last sentence should be understood?

--Wim H.

I wrote:

>> This is exactly the example I wanted to mention for some time. As an
>> occasional banjoist I sometimes play the Gershwin repertory with classical
>> symphony orchestras.

To which Jerry responded:
>
> What a hoot! (Is that a good term or what!?!)

The four string banjo *is* a real hoot, especially if you normally play a
soft instrument, like the classical guitar.
>
>> As far as I could discover their intonation is more
>> based on Pythagorean principles than on meantone.
>
> Why Pythagorean, Wim? Just because the historians suggested it? (If so,
> okay; if not, why?) God knows, the natural ear does not operate on meantone.
> It may be that there is more to the story than "history." What if human
> perception operates on principles not yet known? How exciting to be "in the
> hunt."

All musicians in France *learn* straight from the beginning the Pythagorean
cercle of fifths. Only the term Pythagorean doesn't occure until much later
and the fifths are already tempered, so the cercle closes after twelve
fifths. Some of them learn that the Pythagorean whole tone (9/8), as a
result of this circle, can be split up into 9 commas, five of which to make
a sharp upwards and five of which to make a flat downwards. So they logicall
conclude that C# is higher than Db. Other musicians just take it for
granted. Calculations disturb them, and they simply say: "Sharps high, flats
low". That's a princip, isn't it? So, if they want a low C# they play it "as
a Db". It's a communication convention, which I thought was noteworthy and
rather funny. For me it prooved that there is still no universal intonation
system to which categorically all music is obedient.
>
>> Emmanuel Krivine,
>> conductor of the Orchestre National de Lyon spotted a C# in the flute part,
>> which apparently sounded too high (C#s on flutes *are* already higher than
>> usual). The C# was a long note played as a major third in a tenuto A major
>> chord. So, what did he ask the flute player? I was sitting right next to her
>> and I was astonished. "Could yoy please play that note as if it was a Db?"
>> That's what she did and the A major sounded perfectly in tune!
>
> Wow! Too bad you didn't have a tape recorder in your lap to capture the
> moment. That would bring the "team" to life, for sure.

I wish I had!
>
> Me:
>
>>> I have "known" all my early and professional life that raised pitches are
>>> normally tuned higher than lowered pitches.
>
> Wim:
>
>> That's the result of the Pythagorean approach.
>
> Not really. I never heard of Pythogoras during the early time that my
> musical ear was developing (and I'm not crazy about the notion of
> piled-up-fifths influencing perception). No "approach" was suggested by
> anyone. I simply
> listened to the way pitches seemed to fit together. As a young group singer
> (choral and barbershop), I simply followed my aural instincts.

Rules and laws follow nature. Do we have to learn about Newton before
dropping something on the floor? I ment to say that "raised pitches are
normally tuned higher than lowered pitches" is described by the Pythagorean
approach. Not the fact that you "knew" it.
>
>> Andreas Stoehr (Paris,
>> conductor at the Op®¢F°ßra Comique) *tuned* the string section in The
>> Emperor of Atlantis (Victor Ullman) by imposing: "The sharps should be higher
>> and the flats are not low enough". The strings played the same passage again
>
>> and there was no real improvement. And then it was time for a coffee-break.
>
> Again, a recording might be illuminating.

(How did I make this typo? I just wanted to type "Op�ra Comique" , typed too
fast, hit some wrong keys and then everything went wrong. Impossible to
correct!) Sorry, still no recording. But it was another example of how this
princip didn't work at all.

--Wim