blue intervals

Paul Erlich posted:
>
> Jerry claimed that the blue third "is" 7/6, but in actual blues music you'll
> find not only the 7/6 but also (more often) neutral thirds (between 6/5 and
> 5/4). Same goes for sevenths. I agree that there is great fluidity in the
> intonation of these intervals but these seem to me to be two completely
> different categories of "blue thirds".

Another way to say the same thing is that some blues music includes thirds
that are not "blue thirds." :-)

To me, blue thirds are, by definition, lower (smaller) than minor thirds. I
have no problem with the notion of "neutral thirds" (now that it has been
defined for me), but these cannot possibly be aurally confused with what I
have been calling "blue thirds."

So, just to clarify, I did not "claim" that the blue third _is_ 7:6. I
simply expressed that, for me, the ratio 6:7 is about as close to what I
perceive the common practice of blues performers to be in regard to their
use of a third that is smaller than the minor third.

Jerry

Jerry wrote,

>To me, blue thirds are, by definition, lower (smaller) than minor thirds.

I don't care to start an argument about definitions, but every book or
guitar magazine I've ever seen mention blue notes and every musician I've
played with or talked to about blue notes places the blue third between the
major and minor thirds -- pianists will play both as a slide and/or
simultaneously to evoke the "blue third". I guess there are at least a
couple of distinct "worlds" of terminology in this regard.

>So, just to clarify, I did not "claim" that the blue third _is_ 7:6. I
>simply expressed that, for me, the ratio 6:7 is about as close to what I
>perceive the common practice of blues performers to be in regard to their
>use of a third that is smaller than the minor third.

OK. By the way, Jerry, from your responses to the minor triad examples it
seems that you like a "minor third" 18-23� flat relative to 5:6 (but not as
low as your "blue third") as much as you like a "high major third" relative
to 4:5, if not more so. Any thoughts?

You also found that a really low minor third, but 15� higher than 6:7, best
evoked the sixth and seventh partials of a missing fundamental. Perhaps your
"blue third" is as far from 6:7 as your "minor third" is from 5:6 and your
"high major third" is from 4:5?

To my post, in which I attempted to clarify my meaning:
>
>>To me, blue thirds are, by definition, lower (smaller) than minor thirds.

Paul Erlich responded:
>
> I don't care to start an argument about definitions, but every book or
> guitar magazine I've ever seen mention blue notes and every musician I've
> played with or talked to about blue notes places the blue third between the
> major and minor thirds -- pianists will play both as a slide and/or
> simultaneously to evoke the "blue third". I guess there are at least a
> couple of distinct "worlds" of terminology in this regard.

I agree that an "argument" is not in order here. But isn't it great that we
discovered this different use of terms _before_ going on about it for a
month like we have done in the past. Now _there's_ progress.

I have heard the term applied to the concept you describe, and I have done
the piano thing many times to simulate a sound that the piano can't make.
However, the overwhelming number of instances where blues singers (and
guitarist, etc.) consistently perform a third considerably lower than a
minor third fully warrants the use of such a term to describe this interval.

At least, now you and others will know what I mean by the term.
>
>>So, just to clarify, I did not "claim" that the blue third _is_ 7:6. I
>>simply expressed that, for me, the ratio 6:7 is about as close to what I
>>perceive the common practice of blues performers to be in regard to their
>>use of a third that is smaller than the minor third.
>
> OK. By the way, Jerry, from your responses to the minor triad examples it
> seems that you like a "minor third" 18-23� flat relative to 5:6 (but not as
> low as your "blue third") as much as you like a "high major third" relative
> to 4:5, if not more so. Any thoughts?

First let me say that the minor triad experiment was very helpful and
informative. Thanks very much for providing it. It is interesting to me (and
to you as well, I would think) that I did not initially "prefer" the JI
minor triad. When I repeated the listening the next day (before seeing your
"solutions"), I actually preferred the one next closer to the JI. Perhaps if
I had repeated the listening one more day I might have gotten it "right."
LOL

However, I wouldn't make any hard conclusions on the basis of my response.
I, like Carl (I think), noted that when you turn your head from side to side
the pitches seemed to "float" a bit. Perhaps the timbre contributed to that
effect.
>
> You also found that a really low minor third, but 15� higher than 6:7, best
> evoked the sixth and seventh partials of a missing fundamental. Perhaps your
> "blue third" is as far from 6:7 as your "minor third" is from 5:6 and your
> "high major third" is from 4:5?

Paul, remember that this listening exercise involved _triads_, not
intervals. And as we know, the position of thirds can be affected by the
simultaneous sounding of the fifth. I assure you that my perception of
isolated pure intervals is far more consistent than my "preference" for
minor triads. I have done the "sliding thing" enough times to be able to
hear the pure low-number intervals lock. In that sense, I believe "my"
major, minor and subminor thirds are those of natural acoustics. (Do I sense
a challenge in the works? :-)

Jerry