Jerry Eskelin's 'high 3rd' mp3

Paul Erlich opined:

> My feeling is that Wim's way of thinking
> is on the right track: the soprano will tend to "disappear" into the chord
> if singing a just major tenth over the bass (2:5 or 1:5), while she will
> "stand out" if she sharpens it a little, the rootedness of the chord being
> secure due to that 2:3 perfect fifth below her.

Consider that I _urge my singers to "disappear into the chord." Your words
are nearly identical to ones I would use. That is how I teach them to seek
the "most agreeable" tunings. I'm pretty sure I'm on firm ground when I
suggest that the tendency to move the third higher when the fifth is
introduced has nothing to do with "standing out." To the contrary, the
singers are asked _not to stand out.
>
> I was going to say, "Anyhow, hopefully someone can analyze Jerry's mp3 and
> determine exactly what intervals are in this chord."

Since the audio level is so low (not of my choosing but of circumstantial
limitations), it may be possible to extract two slices of sound--one from
the pre-fifth tuning and one from the post-fifth tuning--and loop each of
them to create flows of consistent pitches and then match these by ear to
newly created ones for ballpark (at least) analysis.

> But then I listened to
> it. It's a mess.

Glad you liked it, Paul.

> Each singer is wavering within a large band, and the fact
> that multiple singers are singing the "same" pitch, creating erratic beats
> with one another (in addition to the technical problem of distinguishing
> overtones of low notes from fundamentals of high notes, and dealing with the
> beats between the two), is going to make a precise analysis of the intervals
> impossible (please don't let that stop anyone from trying to get some
> approximate cent numbers, though!). If this is what Jerry considers
> "locking", I suggest he re-evaluate his position on the ~1� accuracy of some
> synthesizers being insufficient to find the true "locking" intervals. Or is
> this just a "student" choir?

Perhaps you missed it, Paul. The whole idea here was to use inexperienced
students for this experiment in order to minimize cultural conditioning, a
factor that has appeared important to you (and to me as well). The first
phase was to teach them to seek "best" tuning by ear, trying not to
influence their "up and down" choices other than verifying when they arrive
at a "lock." They were not told to expect the third to rise when the fifth
was introduced.

My initial intent was to do this with the college choir, but the EKG
condensor mic I brought had a burned out battery in its power pac. The
dynamic mic at my disposal (an SM 58--great up close but not for groups)
didn't pick up much sound. So, rather than postpone five days until I met
the choir again, I opted for doing the demo with another class that I would
meet that day. There are seven men and three women participating.

One girl, an outstanding student with great ears (a cello player), had been
blown away in an earlier class when I played the the piano's third under the
two circumstances in question. This reaction by pitch sensitive people is
fairly predictable to me after performing this demonstration many dozens of
times with singers of varying skill levels. It _always works.

Interestingly, when repeating the demonstration in dry runs in preparation
for recording it, the sopranos occasionally sang the "high third" (likely
from pitch memory rather than from seeking locked tuning) even before the
fifth was sounding. I know that experienced singers/players sometimes favor
the "high third" even when the fifth is not sounding (me, for example) and
apparently these students were accepting it as the optimum lock. A student
suggested changing the key from one practice to the next, and that solved
the problem. They consistently began with the "low" third thereafter.

On the day of the recording, a new student joined the group who had not yet
developed basic "locking" skills. Since I do not (on principle) exclude
students from any class activity that might injure their self confidence, it
meant quickly training the newbie and trying to get a reasonable
demonstration. I replayed the last "take" in my earphones and thought it
demonstrated the point, so I settled for it. After all, making recordings
for the Tuning List is not the purpose of the class, and I had already taken
up a good portion of the class time in providing the basic training.

When I got it home, I noticed the flaws that I described on my post.
Nevertheless, it clearly demonstrated the phenomenon, so I went with
it--mess and all.

By the way, I don't need to reconsidering my "stand" on a synth's inability
to provide locking intervals. I simply reported my perceptual frustration
while attempting to find a locking interval. I can hear it in voices with
no problem, but not in synthesizers. My "mind" is not closed on the subject,
it is just waiting to be convinced one way or the other.

Onward!

Jerry