Second thought

To Paul Erlich's post:

>> What I was talking about was musicians who were using their ears, their
>> knowledge of what the music that _they_ made sounded like, apart from any
>> theory. Their own reactions to various tunings were as valid to them as your
>> reactions are to you. Like you, they made music in the way that sounded most
>> natural to them, and heard various proposed tunings relative to that. What
>> is fascinating is the conviction with which one set of norms felt "natural"
>> to a set of musicians in one period, a different set of norms being
>> "natural" in another period, and occasionally the _same_ musician will
>> express a _different_ opinion of what sounds best early vs. late in their
>> life (if they lived in a transitional period).

I originally responded:
>
> No problem here.

Upon rereading that passage, and now having the benefit of Margo's post, it
is clear that Paul and I are using the term "natural" differently. (And it
has been going on since before I joined the List.) Paul evidently is using
the word to mean "preferred" and I am using the word to mean "acoustic," or
pure JI. In fairness, Paul appears also to believe that _all preference
(therefore "natural," or "comfortable") generates from culturization. While
that may be true, that is not primarily what I am concerned with. Because I
have observed pitch-sensitive singers approximating what I believe are JI
tunings (except for the "high third"), I believe (as apparently Zarlino did)
they are "listening to mother nature."

Thanks again, Margo.

Jerry

Jerry wrote,

>Upon rereading that passage, and now having the benefit of Margo's post, it
>is clear that Paul and I are using the term "natural" differently. (And it
>has been going on since before I joined the List.) Paul evidently is using
>the word to mean "preferred" and I am using the word to mean "acoustic," or
>pure JI. In fairness, Paul appears also to believe that _all preference
>(therefore "natural," or "comfortable") generates from culturization. While
>that may be true, that is not primarily what I am concerned with. Because I
>have observed pitch-sensitive singers approximating what I believe are JI
>tunings (except for the "high third"), I believe (as apparently Zarlino
did)
>they are "listening to mother nature."

Jerry, you have evidently failed to understand my point of view (as
expressed yesterday, for example). I _do_ believe that JI tunings for chords
are "natural" and "preferred" in many ways -- even Margo's post refers to a
kind of adaptive tuning that I, and Vicentino in 1555, advocate, and tunes
all vertical triads in JI. What I have been trying to emphasize is that the
"high third" is not this kind of "natural" phenomenon and its seemingly
"natural" nature to today's singers probably stems from cultural, and
musico-contextual, causes.

I wrote:
>
>>Upon rereading that passage, and now having the benefit of Margo's post, it
>>is clear that Paul and I are using the term "natural" differently. (And it
>>has been going on since before I joined the List.) Paul evidently is using
>>the word to mean "preferred" and I am using the word to mean "acoustic," or
>>pure JI. In fairness, Paul appears also to believe that _all preference
>>(therefore "natural," or "comfortable") generates from culturization. While
>>that may be true, that is not primarily what I am concerned with. Because I
>>have observed pitch-sensitive singers approximating what I believe are JI
>>tunings (except for the "high third"), I believe (as apparently Zarlino
> did)
>>they are "listening to mother nature."

And Paul Erlich clarified:
>
> Jerry, you have evidently failed to understand my point of view (as
> expressed yesterday, for example). I _do_ believe that JI tunings for chords
> are "natural" and "preferred" in many ways -- even Margo's post refers to a
> kind of adaptive tuning that I, and Vicentino in 1555, advocate, and tunes
> all vertical triads in JI. What I have been trying to emphasize is that the
> "high third" is not this kind of "natural" phenomenon and its seemingly
> "natural" nature to today's singers probably stems from cultural, and
> musico-contextual, causes.

Thanks for your clarification, Paul. On this we can agree to agree. (Jon
Szanto will be ecstatic!) As I have said recently, I am moving toward the
conclusion that the "high third" cannot be quantified by any single
small-number ratio, however I'm still puzzled by the fact that this
phenomenon can be observed consistently, even with inexperienced singers
whose "culturization" is very suspect and certainly not practiced (in the
"habitual" sense).

Jerry