Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Summing up and brief hiatus

Hi all,

I'd like to thank everyone for engaging in the recent discussion about
"minorness," and giving me much-needed critical feedback on the
onslaught of new ideas I've been having.

I'm going to drop out of the discussion now, for a few reasons:

1) It is proving to be unproductive for me to put forth out my ideas
before having really sorted them through internally to a high level of
rigor, and impossible for me to even attempt to defend them when
they're changing.
2) I am continually refining my ideas on this, and I don't want to
barrage everyone's inbox with my thinking out loud and developing
things as I go.
3) I'm going to Haiti tomorrow to do volunteer work for the next 3
weeks and I've been staying up talking about this until 5 AM, writing
one 8-paragraph message after the other, making listening examples,
and detuning overtones in Scala like an idiot, when I should probably
be packing.
4) So stressful is the reality of #3 that it's making me feel stupid
to even type this.

That being said, something I've figured out in the last few days has
completely transformed the way I see music, which is what I've been
trying to describe. So just for the record, this is just the model I
propose and am exploring for now, for anyone who is interested:

I believe that
1) Minorness is dissonance, in small doses. The sound of fingernails
on a chalk board is dissonance, in larger doses. The sound of a dom7#9
Hendrix chord is dissonance, in smaller doses.
2) Dissonance really does boil down to entropic discordance; at least
the kind that causes minorness.
3) 4:5:6:7:8:9:10:11:... has a very strong field of attraction, as
does 1/1 and 2/1 in dyadic entropy.
4) By deliberately detuning this sonority to find areas of dissonance,
we can bypass the HE model completely and go right to the listening
test part.
5) If you do this carefully, and put your "artist" hat on while you do
it, you can "design" sonorities that have a certain amount of "pain"
in them.
6) I believe that a significant part of musical feeling or meaning and
even "musical consonance" comes from the careful placement of this
"pain," in carefully designed quantities, and resolving it to less (or
more) pain. This is a restatement of #1.
7) There are chords "equivalent" in sadness to minor that do not have
minor thirds in them, some examples of which I have given; whether
this will hold for impartial listeners has yet to be determined. It
may be that they need to be placed in a musical context for the
"sadness" to come through, which from a psychoacoustic perspective
means that a shifting of the "pain" may be what causes the emotion.
8) The "depriming interval" is a concept I have abandoned entirely,
and think that it boils down to n-adic discordance.
9) I need to work my generalization of HE out before anything useful
can come out of this at all.
10) I think that cognitive and learned factors can override all of
this, and they function as a way of "pre-priming" the auditory system
(part of what leads to musical "expectation"). Feeling can come from
this as well.

I invite anyone interested to message me offlist to flesh this out
more. Otherwise, I'd just like to thank everyone again for the
critical feedback so far (Carl, Igs, Michael, Gene, Cameron, etc). But
at this point I need to take a hiatus, at least from this subject and
publicly on this list. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to post
from Haiti anyway, so this might be goodbye for a little bit.

Peace

-Mike

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Let me throw out here an idea I had yesterday since what I thought was
being said is here explicitly.

Without testing it woth *any* tone yet - I propose that *any* tone
between a perfect fifth (that doesn't breach the critical band) is
more or less a consonance.

My evidence to this are the following chords in ~ET

G G G G G
D Eb Eb+ E F
C C C C C

(where Eb+ = neutral 3rd)

I don't know about the rest of you - I use all of these *regularly* as
consonant chords.
It would seem the perfect 5th anchors things well enough to provide
such flexibility to *contemporary* ears.

Also the following work for me

Bb Bb+ B D
G G G G
C C C C

And I would propose that these work for the same reason.
and I use all of these *regularly* as consonant chords.

Chris

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

It's painfully obvious that "otonality" and rootedness (a silly neologism for "harmonic", in case normal people are reading along here :-) ) do not account for the sensation of "major", for the 12-tEt major third is neither "otonal" nor rooted. Nor does dissonance equate with minor: once again, on the physical level, abstracted from musical context, the 12-tET M3 can only be described as a dissonance or dischord. It buzzes, and its difference tone is an octave-displaced semi-tone (and a maximally entropylicious semitone according to the theory of harmonic entropy at that) from the root.

So, according to Mike's hypothesis, the 12-tET major third must be minor. In order to defend both the hypothesis and the major quality of the 12-tET major third, there is no other choice than to resort to the concept of ham-fisted "approximation". But that would make a mockery of presenting examples such as 7:9:13 and so on, for if we're so splapdash with the fifth partial, how could possibly be discerning such differences in more complex harmonic and subharmonic entities?

Anyway, Chris, I agree with you that there is a great big field open to musical/contextual "consonance" within an established 3:2, irrespective of rational simplicity or harmonic and subharmonic identities. This doesn't negate the idea of concord, which is actually very simple and dry. It does argue against the idea of pain=minor.

-Cameron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Let me throw out here an idea I had yesterday since what I thought was
> being said is here explicitly.
>
> Without testing it woth *any* tone yet - I propose that *any* tone
> between a perfect fifth (that doesn't breach the critical band) is
> more or less a consonance.
>
> My evidence to this are the following chords in ~ET
>
> G G G G G
> D Eb Eb+ E F
> C C C C C
>
> (where Eb+ = neutral 3rd)
>
> I don't know about the rest of you - I use all of these *regularly* as
> consonant chords.
> It would seem the perfect 5th anchors things well enough to provide
> such flexibility to *contemporary* ears.
>
> Also the following work for me
>
> Bb Bb+ B D
> G G G G
> C C C C
>
> And I would propose that these work for the same reason.
> and I use all of these *regularly* as consonant chords.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> I believe that
> 1) Minorness is dissonance, in small doses. The sound of fingernails
> on a chalk board is dissonance, in larger doses. The sound of a dom7#9
> Hendrix chord is dissonance, in smaller doses.
>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

Haha, I'm off my rocker, right? Well be afraid, for I only plan on
continuing! Next I'll launch a campaign to perpetuate my ideas by
labeling all music that doesn't use them as "out of tune."
Battaglia-JI is here to stay! (I joke, I joke)

I'm doing this from my phone at the airport, so I can't really quote
anything. But in response to Gene: if that were true, then the example
I posted that you described as "sounding like one big 15-limit
otonality pointing to a minor chord" shouldn't have sounded that way,
because it was pretty tonal. And minor. So tonalness doesn't destroy
minorness. I may be wrong, but the "tonalness destroys minorness"
theory is also not quite it.

Cameron: I don't think that it's all/nothing like that. I think that
as you get sharper than the 12-tet third, itdoes pass into a region of
something like sadness (to the extent that the lower noot and not the
VF is established as the root), and I think that's significant. You
yourself have said you hear supermajor triads sometimes as being
"sad." The effect is noticeably more prominent with supermajor 7
chords vs JI 5-limit major 7 chords, and 9/7 may not be the ideal
third for the particular mixture of consonance and dissonance one
might call something like "sadness," being slightly on the dissonant
side methinks. Perhaps something like 14/11, or 17-tet's supermajor
third would be better. (maybe it differs for everyone due to
tolerance).

-Mike

--
-Mike

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

One moe comment (lol delayed flights)

"But that would make a mockery of presenting examples such as 7:9:13
and so on, for if we're so splapdash with the fifth partial"

You're only splapdash with hearing 7:11 as a "distorted fifth partial"
(which is a bit of a simplification as to how I see it) if the 7 is
the root. So something like 7:9:11 will be much more dissonant if you
"force" the perception of the root as 7, by voicing it something like
1.75:3.5:7:9:11.

Something like 1:7:9:11, with the 1 way in the bass (and maybe softer
for effect) would be perceived as less dissonant, I think. I'm going
to experiment with this in my free time as best as possible - rather
than just doubling the root down in the bass, to double the desired
fundamental in the bass. For all of common practice music, the two are
equivalent.

"how could possibly be discerning such differences in more complex
harmonic and subharmonic entities?"

I just want to point out that I no longer believe in the 70 cent
interval having any particular special properties, as I took special
pains to point out in my first post in this thread.

But for those criticizing the notion minorness is related directly to
dissonance for lack of psychoacoustic rigor (which at this embryonic
stage is admittedly true), I'd like to point out that the notion of
"subharmonic sounds" being minor also lacks rigor. Why should this be
significant, then? Because all of the notes share a common overtone?

1/1 - 6/5 - 3/2 - 12/7 sounds like an "extension" of minor. Doesn't
1/1 - 6/5 - 3/2 - 27/14 as well? :) Both are discordant sonorities
that lie nearly adjacent to the huge field of attraction that is
4:5:6:7.

Whoops, boarding!

On 9/21/10, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> It's painfully obvious that "otonality" and rootedness (a silly neologism
> for "harmonic", in case normal people are reading along here :-) ) do not
> account for the sensation of "major", for the 12-tEt major third is neither
> "otonal" nor rooted. Nor does dissonance equate with minor: once again, on
> the physical level, abstracted from musical context, the 12-tET M3 can only
> be described as a dissonance or dischord. It buzzes, and its difference tone
> is an octave-displaced semi-tone (and a maximally entropylicious semitone
> according to the theory of harmonic entropy at that) from the root.
>
> So, according to Mike's hypothesis, the 12-tET major third must be minor. In
> order to defend both the hypothesis and the major quality of the 12-tET
> major third, there is no other choice than to resort to the concept of
> ham-fisted "approximation". But that would make a mockery of presenting
> examples such as 7:9:13 and so on, for if we're so splapdash with the fifth
> partial, how could possibly be discerning such differences in more complex
> harmonic and subharmonic entities?
>
> Anyway, Chris, I agree with you that there is a great big field open to
> musical/contextual "consonance" within an established 3:2, irrespective of
> rational simplicity or harmonic and subharmonic identities. This doesn't
> negate the idea of concord, which is actually very simple and dry. It does
> argue against the idea of pain=minor.
>
> -Cameron
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>>
>> Let me throw out here an idea I had yesterday since what I thought was
>> being said is here explicitly.
>>
>> Without testing it woth *any* tone yet - I propose that *any* tone
>> between a perfect fifth (that doesn't breach the critical band) is
>> more or less a consonance.
>>
>> My evidence to this are the following chords in ~ET
>>
>> G G G G G
>> D Eb Eb+ E F
>> C C C C C
>>
>> (where Eb+ = neutral 3rd)
>>
>> I don't know about the rest of you - I use all of these *regularly* as
>> consonant chords.
>> It would seem the perfect 5th anchors things well enough to provide
>> such flexibility to *contemporary* ears.
>>
>> Also the following work for me
>>
>> Bb Bb+ B D
>> G G G G
>> C C C C
>>
>> And I would propose that these work for the same reason.
>> and I use all of these *regularly* as consonant chords.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>>
>> I believe that
>> 1) Minorness is dissonance, in small doses. The sound of fingernails
>> on a chalk board is dissonance, in larger doses. The sound of a dom7#9
>> Hendrix chord is dissonance, in smaller doses.
>>
>
>
>

--
-Mike

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@...> wrote:
>
>
>

> Wouldn't the fact that sine waves tuned to 1:2:2^(19/12):4:2^(28/12):2^
> (31/12) (as in my Warbling.wav-example) evoke a single pitch be
> evidence that the 12-equal major third is rooted? Why not?

We can percieve- or choose- the root of a tone with quite inharmonic spectra. Agreement among listeners as to the root goes down with the complexity/inharmonicity of the tone or chord.

The point was, there is no harmonic-series explaination for the 12-tET M3 sounding major and rooted. It isn't, according to the harmonic series and "otonality" and so on. (Whereas the 12-tET minor third can be described quite accurately as part of an "otonal" structure, yet another argument against the o/u>M/m dichotomy)

I think the point that you missed though, was that the 12-tET M3 obviously sounds both major and rooted to those accustomed to it.

Remember that Mike was proposing that mild dissonance accounts for "minor"? The 12-tET M3 buzzes quite strongly: it cannot claim, outside of cultural context, to be a consonance. "Mild dissonance" would be a good neutral term for the sonority. But it doesn't sound minor, and it sounds consonant to those used to it. But mildly "painful" to those expecting a 5/4... surely you can see my point. I can use Mike's definitions to call the 12-tET M3 "minor", a patent absurdity.

> Also, an interval is neither otonal or utonal.

We're talking about vertical sonorities.

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

I'd suggest right away forgetting the o/u-tonal stuff. 16:19:24 is otonal and it sure isn't major. And getting too positivistic/evolutionary, for that approach when taken in the arts always requires rigging the evidence by conveniently ignoring the individual and minority groups. Generally, more or less, it's major chords that tend to cause me discomfort and minor chords sound sweet and soothing, and it's been that way as long as I can remember. But sometimes it's augmented chords that are sweet, and major chords neutral... and so on. So you'd have to say that I and who knows how many others with similar sensations simply "don't count" in order to establish your hypothesis in a positivistic way.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Haha, I'm off my rocker, right? Well be afraid, for I only plan on
> continuing! Next I'll launch a campaign to perpetuate my ideas by
> labeling all music that doesn't use them as "out of tune."
> Battaglia-JI is here to stay! (I joke, I joke)
>
> I'm doing this from my phone at the airport, so I can't really quote
> anything. But in response to Gene: if that were true, then the example
> I posted that you described as "sounding like one big 15-limit
> otonality pointing to a minor chord" shouldn't have sounded that way,
> because it was pretty tonal. And minor. So tonalness doesn't destroy
> minorness. I may be wrong, but the "tonalness destroys minorness"
> theory is also not quite it.
>
> Cameron: I don't think that it's all/nothing like that. I think that
> as you get sharper than the 12-tet third, itdoes pass into a region of
> something like sadness (to the extent that the lower noot and not the
> VF is established as the root), and I think that's significant. You
> yourself have said you hear supermajor triads sometimes as being
> "sad." The effect is noticeably more prominent with supermajor 7
> chords vs JI 5-limit major 7 chords, and 9/7 may not be the ideal
> third for the particular mixture of consonance and dissonance one
> might call something like "sadness," being slightly on the dissonant
> side methinks. Perhaps something like 14/11, or 17-tet's supermajor
> third would be better. (maybe it differs for everyone due to
> tolerance).
>
> -Mike
>
> --
> -Mike
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

Layover! Ugh.

> The point was, there is no harmonic-series explaination for the 12-tET M3 sounding major and rooted. It isn't, according to the harmonic series and "otonality" and so on.

..What? Yes it is. It's just not discordant enough to sound "sad",
just enough to sound a bit excited or nervous. A similar effect can be
reached by sharpening the 7 in 4:5:6:7, although you will have to get
it to somewhere between 16/9 and 9/5 to do so.

> (Whereas the 12-tET minor third can be described quite accurately as part of an "otonal" structure, yet another argument against the o/u>M/m dichotomy)

...I agree. Are you saying I disagree? That is the whole point.

> Remember that Mike was proposing that mild dissonance accounts for "minor"? The 12-tET M3 buzzes quite strongly: it cannot claim, outside of cultural context, to be a consonance.

I meant the periodic discordance of the fundamental more so than the
beating of the partials.

> But mildly "painful" to those expecting a 5/4... surely you can see my point. I can use Mike's definitions to call the 12-tET M3 "minor", a patent absurdity.

It -IS- mildly painful, just not enough to be minor. Make it sharper
still and you're getting there. As I said, you can generate the same
type of nervous excitement that 400 cents has to offer by artistically
detuning other partials as well.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

Hi Cameron, good to see you joining this discussion. I'd like to hear some more input from you on the subject, since I suspect you might have some helpful ideas.

So far, I've found within my own personal experience counter-examples to every theory of "minorness" that I can conceive. 6:7:9 is another example that I find to disagree with the utonality theory, and even Gene described that chord as "otonal but minor". Mike's theory suggests that major chords are sort of "islands of relief in a sea of pain", and that minor chords might be the "shores" of those islands, which seems to describe his experience but not mine. Sharpening the 5 in a 4:5:6 doesn't lead toward minorness in my hearing.

I came up with two theories that I kept to myself, because I swiftly found counter-examples. One of these was that minorness is simply a property of certain psychoacoustic identities, like 6/5 or 7/6 (but hearing that 5:6:7 could sound major when compared to its utonal counterpart scrapped that theory). From this followed another theory, that major and minor are comparative qualities, not inherent qualities. I suspected that in comparing two triads with the same lowest and highest notes but differing middle notes, the chord with the lower middle note would sound "minor" compared to the chord with the higher middle note. This held up well until I compared an 8:9:12 chord to a 6:7:9 chord, and heard the latter as more minor. At this point I threw up my hands and decided to take a sort of Taoist view, that in all minor there is an amount of major, and in all major there is an amount of minor, and all are really one since all are contained within the harmonic series.

But then I thought: "from whence comes my 'bias' that allows me to distinguish even alien chords as sounding 'major' or 'minor'?" Then I got flustered, and now I'm writing to you.

What is "minor", in your estimation of it, and do you think there's any way to link the phenomenon of "minorness" with a specific set of psychoacoustic identities? Or are we all fools for demanding of the universe an explanation for something that occurs inside our own minds?

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
> I'd suggest right away forgetting the o/u-tonal stuff. 16:19:24 is otonal and it sure isn't major. And getting too positivistic/evolutionary, for that approach when taken in the arts always requires rigging the evidence by conveniently ignoring the individual and minority groups. Generally, more or less, it's major chords that tend to cause me discomfort and minor chords sound sweet and soothing, and it's been that way as long as I can remember. But sometimes it's augmented chords that are sweet, and major chords neutral... and so on. So you'd have to say that I and who knows how many others with similar sensations simply "don't count" in order to establish your hypothesis in a positivistic way.
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> >
> > Haha, I'm off my rocker, right? Well be afraid, for I only plan on
> > continuing! Next I'll launch a campaign to perpetuate my ideas by
> > labeling all music that doesn't use them as "out of tune."
> > Battaglia-JI is here to stay! (I joke, I joke)
> >
> > I'm doing this from my phone at the airport, so I can't really quote
> > anything. But in response to Gene: if that were true, then the example
> > I posted that you described as "sounding like one big 15-limit
> > otonality pointing to a minor chord" shouldn't have sounded that way,
> > because it was pretty tonal. And minor. So tonalness doesn't destroy
> > minorness. I may be wrong, but the "tonalness destroys minorness"
> > theory is also not quite it.
> >
> > Cameron: I don't think that it's all/nothing like that. I think that
> > as you get sharper than the 12-tet third, itdoes pass into a region of
> > something like sadness (to the extent that the lower noot and not the
> > VF is established as the root), and I think that's significant. You
> > yourself have said you hear supermajor triads sometimes as being
> > "sad." The effect is noticeably more prominent with supermajor 7
> > chords vs JI 5-limit major 7 chords, and 9/7 may not be the ideal
> > third for the particular mixture of consonance and dissonance one
> > might call something like "sadness," being slightly on the dissonant
> > side methinks. Perhaps something like 14/11, or 17-tet's supermajor
> > third would be better. (maybe it differs for everyone due to
> > tolerance).
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > --
> > -Mike
> >
>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Layover! Ugh.
>
> > The point was, there is no harmonic-series explaination for the >12-tET M3 sounding major and rooted. It isn't, according to the >harmonic series and "otonality" and so on.
>
> ..What? Yes it is.

No it's not. What's your otonality justification of the 12-tET M3? 81/64? 161/128? LOL. Approximation? Foolishness- such ham-fisted approximation renders meaningless any other attempts at "justification" via harmonics and subharmonics.

>It's just not discordant enough to sound "sad",

???? I just got through explaining that the 12-tET M3 is MORE discordant sounding to me than the 12-tET m3. Which agrees with harmonic analysis and "otonality", btw, the 12-tET m3 being found within realistic tolerance far, far further down the harmonic series than the 12-tET M3.

+
> > (Whereas the 12-tET minor third can be described quite accurately as part of an "otonal" structure, yet another argument against the o/u>M/m dichotomy)
>
> ...I agree. Are you saying I disagree? That is the whole point.

You agree that the 12-tET m3 is more "otonal" than the 12-tET M3? Well so do I, it would be incompetent not to.
>
> > Remember that Mike was proposing that mild dissonance accounts for "minor"? The 12-tET M3 buzzes quite strongly: it cannot claim, outside of cultural context, to be a consonance.
>
> I meant the periodic discordance of the fundamental more so than the
> beating of the partials.

I don't get this.
>
> > But mildly "painful" to those expecting a 5/4... surely you can see my point. I can use Mike's definitions to call the 12-tET M3 "minor", a patent absurdity.
>
> It -IS- mildly painful, just not enough to be minor.

'Tis more discordant than the 12-tET m3. If you're equating "pain" with discordance, and strapping "minor" on to "pain", then you're telling me that the 12-tET M3 is more minor than the 12-tET m3.

>Make it sharper
> still and you're getting there. As I said, you can generate the same
> type of nervous excitement that 400 cents has to offer by >artistically
> detuning other partials as well.

We're in agreement there.
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:06 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> >
> > Layover! Ugh.
> >
> > > The point was, there is no harmonic-series explaination for the >12-tET M3 sounding major and rooted. It isn't, according to the >harmonic series and "otonality" and so on.
> >
> > ..What? Yes it is.
>
> No it's not. What's your otonality justification of the 12-tET M3? 81/64? 161/128? LOL. Approximation? Foolishness- such ham-fisted approximation renders meaningless any other attempts at "justification" via harmonics and subharmonics.

Just do the Yankee Doodle test with the timbre as sines of 0-400-700
and you'll hear 1 pop out 2 octaves below, clear as day.

> >It's just not discordant enough to sound "sad",
>
> ???? I just got through explaining that the 12-tET M3 is MORE discordant sounding to me than the 12-tET m3. Which agrees with harmonic analysis and "otonality", btw, the 12-tET m3 being found within realistic tolerance far, far further down the harmonic series than the 12-tET M3.

That's interesting, although I think that the ways in which they are
discordant differ. I don't think that the 12-tet m3 is perceived as a
detuning of M3. You already had me convinced when you started talking
about personal preferences though, so I concede the point. I think an
entirely separate psychoacoustic mechanism for dissonance is at work,
at this point.

> > > (Whereas the 12-tET minor third can be described quite accurately as part of an "otonal" structure, yet another argument against the o/u>M/m dichotomy)
> >
> > ...I agree. Are you saying I disagree? That is the whole point.
>
> You agree that the 12-tET m3 is more "otonal" than the 12-tET M3? Well so do I, it would be incompetent not to.

I'm saying that the 12-tET can be described as part of an "otonal"
structure, as can it be as part of a "utonal" structure, and that it
doesn't make a difference, and I never said "otonalness" had anything
to do with anything.

> > > Remember that Mike was proposing that mild dissonance accounts for "minor"? The 12-tET M3 buzzes quite strongly: it cannot claim, outside of cultural context, to be a consonance.
> >
> > I meant the periodic discordance of the fundamental more so than the
> > beating of the partials.
>
> I don't get this.

I meant that if you get rid of the partials and do everything with
sines, you can still come up with some pretty irritating sounds if you
try.

> > It -IS- mildly painful, just not enough to be minor.
>
> 'Tis more discordant than the 12-tET m3. If you're equating "pain" with discordance, and strapping "minor" on to "pain", then you're telling me that the 12-tET M3 is more minor than the 12-tET m3.

No. I should have never used the word "minor." You know what, Cameron,
sometimes to me the phrase "major third" means a 400 cent interval
which is slightly sharp and hence somewhat nervous and excited
sounding. That is, all of that is part of my schema for "major third."
Unless I start playing in 31-tet for a while, at which point my schema
for "major second" starts to become something like "slightly flat 193
cent interval that only sounds right in certain cases."

Nothing will ever just "sound minor" besides a minor chord. I'm saying
that the minor chord has certain characteristics, one of which is that
it evokes a certain blend of pain and pleasure, and other chords can
be created that evoke a similar blend.

> >Make it sharper
> > still and you're getting there. As I said, you can generate the same
> > type of nervous excitement that 400 cents has to offer by >artistically
> > detuning other partials as well.
>
> We're in agreement there.

Phew.

-Mike

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:06 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Layover! Ugh.
> > >
> > > > The point was, there is no harmonic-series explaination for the >12-tET M3 sounding major and rooted. It isn't, according to the >harmonic series and "otonality" and so on.
> > >
> > > ..What? Yes it is.
> >
> > No it's not. What's your otonality justification of the 12-tET M3? 81/64? 161/128? LOL. Approximation? Foolishness- such ham-fisted approximation renders meaningless any other attempts at "justification" via harmonics and subharmonics.
>
> Just do the Yankee Doodle test with the timbre as sines of 0-400-700
> and you'll hear 1 pop out 2 octaves below, clear as day.

That's the near-perfect 3:2 of 12-tET speaking. The M3 of 12-tET is pumping out an octave-displaced 67-cent difference tone. There's zero about it, in terms of harmonics, subharmonics, and difference tones, that emphasizes the root of the chord. If you play C-E in 12-tET, do you hear the -2 popping out? No. It's there with 1:1-5:4 though. They are simply different intervals. What makes them both sound "major", I don't know. Probably your "diatonic map" idea is a much better explanation.

Heh, gotta work, not enough time...

>
> > >It's just not discordant enough to sound "sad",
> >
> > ???? I just got through explaining that the 12-tET M3 is MORE discordant sounding to me than the 12-tET m3. Which agrees with harmonic analysis and "otonality", btw, the 12-tET m3 being found within realistic tolerance far, far further down the harmonic series than the 12-tET M3.
>
> That's interesting, although I think that the ways in which they are
> discordant differ. I don't think that the 12-tet m3 is perceived as a
> detuning of M3. You already had me convinced when you started talking
> about personal preferences though, so I concede the point. I think an
> entirely separate psychoacoustic mechanism for dissonance is at work,
> at this point.
>
> > > > (Whereas the 12-tET minor third can be described quite accurately as part of an "otonal" structure, yet another argument against the o/u>M/m dichotomy)
> > >
> > > ...I agree. Are you saying I disagree? That is the whole point.
> >
> > You agree that the 12-tET m3 is more "otonal" than the 12-tET M3? Well so do I, it would be incompetent not to.
>
> I'm saying that the 12-tET can be described as part of an "otonal"
> structure, as can it be as part of a "utonal" structure, and that it
> doesn't make a difference, and I never said "otonalness" had anything
> to do with anything.
>
> > > > Remember that Mike was proposing that mild dissonance accounts for "minor"? The 12-tET M3 buzzes quite strongly: it cannot claim, outside of cultural context, to be a consonance.
> > >
> > > I meant the periodic discordance of the fundamental more so than the
> > > beating of the partials.
> >
> > I don't get this.
>
> I meant that if you get rid of the partials and do everything with
> sines, you can still come up with some pretty irritating sounds if you
> try.
>
> > > It -IS- mildly painful, just not enough to be minor.
> >
> > 'Tis more discordant than the 12-tET m3. If you're equating "pain" with discordance, and strapping "minor" on to "pain", then you're telling me that the 12-tET M3 is more minor than the 12-tET m3.
>
> No. I should have never used the word "minor." You know what, Cameron,
> sometimes to me the phrase "major third" means a 400 cent interval
> which is slightly sharp and hence somewhat nervous and excited
> sounding. That is, all of that is part of my schema for "major third."
> Unless I start playing in 31-tet for a while, at which point my schema
> for "major second" starts to become something like "slightly flat 193
> cent interval that only sounds right in certain cases."
>
> Nothing will ever just "sound minor" besides a minor chord. I'm saying
> that the minor chord has certain characteristics, one of which is that
> it evokes a certain blend of pain and pleasure, and other chords can
> be created that evoke a similar blend.
>
> > >Make it sharper
> > > still and you're getting there. As I said, you can generate the same
> > > type of nervous excitement that 400 cents has to offer by >artistically
> > > detuning other partials as well.
> >
> > We're in agreement there.
>
> Phew.
>
> -Mike
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>
> > Wouldn't the fact that sine waves tuned to 1:2:2^(19/12):4:2^
> > (28/12):2^(31/12) (as in my Warbling.wav-example) evoke a single
> > pitch be evidence that the 12-equal major third is rooted? Why
> > not?
>
> We can percieve- or choose- the root of a tone with quite
> inharmonic spectra. Agreement among listeners as to the root goes
> down with the complexity/inharmonicity of the tone or chord.
>
> The point was, there is no harmonic-series explaination for the 12-
> tET M3 sounding major and rooted. It isn't, according to the
> harmonic series and "otonality" and so on.

Perhaps there is no harmonic series explanation for 12-tET M3's
majorness but I disagree about the rootedness. For me, the fact that
the approximate harmonic series of 1:2:2^(19/12):4:2^(28/12):2^
(31/12) evokes a single pitch explains the rootedness of the 12-tET
M3. Personally, I even hear the bare 1:2^(4/12) dyad as rooted as the
bare 4:5 dyad. I know that this is not your experience but don't
generalize!

> (Whereas the 12-tET minor third can be described quite accurately
> as part of an "otonal" structure, yet another argument against the
> o/u>M/m dichotomy)
>
> I think the point that you missed though, was that the 12-tET M3
> obviously sounds both major and rooted to those accustomed to it.

OK, so you claim to have some independent access to a "physical
level" where it doesn't sound that way? When I think about the
physical level, I assume things don't sound any way there. Things can
only sound some way to a subject.

> > Also, an interval is neither otonal or utonal.
>
> We're talking about vertical sonorities.

Yes, I know. Mere dyads are neither otonal or utonal.

Kalle

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > Wouldn't the fact that sine waves tuned to 1:2:2^(19/12):4:2^
> > > (28/12):2^(31/12) (as in my Warbling.wav-example) evoke a single
> > > pitch be evidence that the 12-equal major third is rooted? Why
> > > not?
> >
> > We can percieve- or choose- the root of a tone with quite
> > inharmonic spectra. Agreement among listeners as to the root goes
> > down with the complexity/inharmonicity of the tone or chord.
> >
> > The point was, there is no harmonic-series explaination for the 12-
> > tET M3 sounding major and rooted. It isn't, according to the
> > harmonic series and "otonality" and so on.
>
> Perhaps there is no harmonic series explanation for 12-tET M3's
> majorness but I disagree about the rootedness. For me, the fact that
> the approximate harmonic series of 1:2:2^(19/12):4:2^(28/12):2^
> (31/12) evokes a single pitch explains the rootedness of the 12->tET
> M3.

But all kinds of altered spectra can be heard as having a single pitch. I hear your example as wobbling up and down in pitch. Sure I can percieve that as a single pitch- I can also percieve a root pitch of snare drum if I want.

>Personally, I even hear the bare 1:2^(4/12) dyad as rooted as the
> bare 4:5 dyad. I know that this is not your experience but don't
> generalize!

???? So you can generalize that it is rooted because of your experience, but my experience that it is not a universal truth that it is rooted doesn't count? Anyway that's missing the point: the point is, there is no concrete explanation for its rootedness. If there is a concrete explanation, let's hear it. I also learned to hear it as rooted, but that was easily unlearned, for in an inharmonic spectrum I can hear a number of possible "roots". Which I obviously don't consider a bad thing, quite the contrary.

>
> OK, so you claim to have some independent access to a "physical
> level" where it doesn't sound that way? When I think about the
> physical level, I assume things don't sound any way there.

This is just sophistry. How could I possibly have "independent" access to a physical level? "Physical level" refers to that to which we all (more or less, in this case I don't know about the hearing impaired and so on) have access. If we don't agree on the existence of a shared physical level there's no point in discussing these things.

>Things can
> only sound some way to a subject.

Well there you go. But we can have a dry "subject" who does nothing but measure and doesn't venture into human perception beyond well-established and artistically neutral stuff.

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@> wrote:
>
> > > > Wouldn't the fact that sine waves tuned to 1:2:2^(19/12):4:2^
> > > > (28/12):2^(31/12) (as in my Warbling.wav-example) evoke a
> > > > single pitch be evidence that the 12-equal major third is
> > > > rooted? Why not?
> > >
> > > We can percieve- or choose- the root of a tone with quite
> > > inharmonic spectra. Agreement among listeners as to the root
> > > goes down with the complexity/inharmonicity of the tone or
> > > chord.
> > >
> > > The point was, there is no harmonic-series explaination for the
> > > 12-tET M3 sounding major and rooted. It isn't, according to the
> > > harmonic series and "otonality" and so on.
> >
> > Perhaps there is no harmonic series explanation for 12-tET M3's
> > majorness but I disagree about the rootedness. For me, the fact
> > that the approximate harmonic series
> > of 1:2:2^(19/12):4:2^(28/12):2^(31/12) evokes a single pitch
> > explains the rootedness of the 12-tET M3.
>
> But all kinds of altered spectra can be heard as having a single
> pitch. I hear your example as wobbling up and down in pitch. Sure I
> can percieve that as a single pitch- I can also percieve a root
> pitch of snare drum if I want.

With drums I generally do have some kind of sense of pitch but that
has more to do with the distribution of spectral energy and not
(quasi)periodicity. I hear multiple periodicity/virtual pitches in
church bells for example. That's the kind of pitch I'm talking about
here.

> > Personally, I even hear the bare 1:2^(4/12) dyad as rooted as the
> > bare 4:5 dyad. I know that this is not your experience but don't
> > generalize!
>
> ???? So you can generalize that it is rooted because of your
> experience, but my experience that it is not a universal truth that
> it is rooted doesn't count?

No. I think it is rooted because it (as the 4:2^(28/12) part) doesn't
pop out as a separate pitch in the 1:2:2^(19/12):4:2^(28/12):2^
(31/12) sine wave complex. It doesn't present itself as something
misplaced or extra. It is rooted at least to the extent that as part
of a larger sonority it points to the same root pitch as the other
components. At least we can agree it is not "painfully obvious" that
it is not rooted as you claimed first.

> Anyway that's missing the point: the point is, there is no concrete
> explanation for its rootedness. If there is a concrete explanation,
> let's hear it. I also learned to hear it as rooted, but that was
> easily unlearned, for in an inharmonic spectrum I can hear a number
> of possible "roots". Which I obviously don't consider a bad thing,
> quite the contrary.

Exactly, inharmonic spectra tend to evoke multiple pitches while
harmonic and almost harmonic (slightly inharmonic) spectra tend to
evoke a single overall pitch.

> > OK, so you claim to have some independent access to a "physical
> > level" where it doesn't sound that way? When I think about the
> > physical level, I assume things don't sound any way there.
>
> This is just sophistry. How could I possibly have "independent"
> access to a physical level? "Physical level" refers to that to
> which we all (more or less, in this case I don't know about the
> hearing impaired and so on) have access. If we don't agree on the
> existence of a shared physical level there's no point in discussing
> these things.

I got the "physical level" from here:

"Nor does dissonance equate with minor: once again, on the physical
level, abstracted from musical context, the 12-tET M3 can only be
described as a dissonance or dischord."

You said:

"I think the point that you missed though, was that the 12-tET M3
obviously sounds both major and rooted to those accustomed to it."

So it surely seems like you have some independent access to a level
where it doesn't sound that way.

> > Things can only sound some way to a subject.
>
> Well there you go. But we can have a dry "subject" who does nothing
> but measure and doesn't venture into human perception beyond
> well-established and artistically neutral stuff.

Is this (trying to be, doesn't apply to me) some kind of personal
insult? :)

Kalle

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Wouldn't the fact that sine waves tuned to 1:2:2^(19/12):4:2^
> > > > > (28/12):2^(31/12) (as in my Warbling.wav-example) evoke a
> > > > > single pitch be evidence that the 12-equal major third is
> > > > > rooted? Why not?
> > > >
> > > > We can percieve- or choose- the root of a tone with quite
> > > > inharmonic spectra. Agreement among listeners as to the root
> > > > goes down with the complexity/inharmonicity of the tone or
> > > > chord.
> > > >
> > > > The point was, there is no harmonic-series explaination for the
> > > > 12-tET M3 sounding major and rooted. It isn't, according to the
> > > > harmonic series and "otonality" and so on.
> > >
> > > Perhaps there is no harmonic series explanation for 12-tET M3's
> > > majorness but I disagree about the rootedness. For me, the fact
> > > that the approximate harmonic series
> > > of 1:2:2^(19/12):4:2^(28/12):2^(31/12) evokes a single pitch
> > > explains the rootedness of the 12-tET M3.
> >
> > But all kinds of altered spectra can be heard as having a single
> > pitch. I hear your example as wobbling up and down in pitch. Sure I
> > can percieve that as a single pitch- I can also percieve a root
> > pitch of snare drum if I want.
>
> With drums I generally do have some kind of sense of pitch but that
> has more to do with the distribution of spectral energy and not
> (quasi)periodicity. I hear multiple periodicity/virtual pitches in
> church bells for example. That's the kind of pitch I'm talking about
> here.
>
> > > Personally, I even hear the bare 1:2^(4/12) dyad as rooted as the
> > > bare 4:5 dyad. I know that this is not your experience but don't
> > > generalize!
> >
> > ???? So you can generalize that it is rooted because of your
> > experience, but my experience that it is not a universal truth that
> > it is rooted doesn't count?
>
> No. I think it is rooted because it (as the 4:2^(28/12) part) doesn't
> pop out as a separate pitch in the 1:2:2^(19/12):4:2^(28/12):2^
> (31/12) sine wave complex. It doesn't present itself as something
> misplaced or extra. It is rooted at least to the extent that as part
> of a larger sonority it points to the same root pitch as the other
> components. At least we can agree it is not "painfully obvious" that
> it is not rooted as you claimed first.

Er, it is "painfully" obvious because Mike was basing his hypothesis on degrees of "pain", haha.

Let me put it this way: sure a major triad in 12-tET can reasonably be considered "rooted", at the traditional root. I already said that. With that nearly perfect 3:2 in there... But surely you agree that it's NOT a harmonic structure, not unless we stretch the definition of "(sub)harmonic structure" quite a bit to include that 12-tET M3 (81/64? 19/15? 131/104?). So, though we can fairly say that the spectrum of a major triad in 12-tET reasonably resolved or understood as if it were a harmonic structure, that is, we could say that the overall inharmonicity created by that irrational interval stuck in the middle isn't strong enough to destroy the simple resolutions and understandings we'd have in a harmonic structure, it nevertheless remains true that it is NOT a harmonic structure. Therefore, we simply cannot say that this structure is major, rooted, or wears a cloisonné codpiece, or whatever! BECAUSE of so-and-so properties of harmonic structures.

A specific example: we can't describe harmonic-series and (psycho)acoustic properties of 5:4 and then just tack them onto the 12-tET M3. Like this:

1. 5:4 generally exhibits little to no audible beating. (simple observation, accurate).
2. An interval exhibiting little to no audible beating sounds "calm". (completely reasonable statement, as long as it is understood that "calm" is going to create varied subjective responses).
3. Therefore 5:4 sounds "calm". (Fine. We can argue or disagree on the artistic level about this, but we've got a reasoned positivistic description).

Now here unfortunately is what happens next:

4. 5:4 is a major third. (This floats, we could hardly have any discussion without acceptance of historical definitions).
5. 5:4 is calm (from 1,2,3- fine).
6. 400 cents is a major third. (Okay).
7. Therefore, 400 cents sounds calm. (Bzzzzzzztt)

You can repeat the "reasoning" including difference tones, character descriptions, and so on.

It looks absolutely absurd spelled out like this, but this is a very good description of the "reasoning" that appears in textbooks and elsewhere. Check it out in Stil und Gedanke, in that absurd book on symmetries by Lendavi, and so on. Happens all the time.

-Cameron

>
> > Anyway that's missing the point: the point is, there is no concrete
> > explanation for its rootedness. If there is a concrete explanation,
> > let's hear it. I also learned to hear it as rooted, but that was
> > easily unlearned, for in an inharmonic spectrum I can hear a number
> > of possible "roots". Which I obviously don't consider a bad thing,
> > quite the contrary.
>
> Exactly, inharmonic spectra tend to evoke multiple pitches while
> harmonic and almost harmonic (slightly inharmonic) spectra tend to
> evoke a single overall pitch.
>
> > > OK, so you claim to have some independent access to a "physical
> > > level" where it doesn't sound that way? When I think about the
> > > physical level, I assume things don't sound any way there.
> >
> > This is just sophistry. How could I possibly have "independent"
> > access to a physical level? "Physical level" refers to that to
> > which we all (more or less, in this case I don't know about the
> > hearing impaired and so on) have access. If we don't agree on the
> > existence of a shared physical level there's no point in discussing
> > these things.
>
> I got the "physical level" from here:
>
> "Nor does dissonance equate with minor: once again, on the physical
> level, abstracted from musical context, the 12-tET M3 can only be
> described as a dissonance or dischord."
>
> You said:
>
> "I think the point that you missed though, was that the 12-tET M3
> obviously sounds both major and rooted to those accustomed to it."
>
> So it surely seems like you have some independent access to a level
> where it doesn't sound that way.
>
> > > Things can only sound some way to a subject.
> >
> > Well there you go. But we can have a dry "subject" who does nothing
> > but measure and doesn't venture into human perception beyond
> > well-established and artistically neutral stuff.
>
> Is this (trying to be, doesn't apply to me) some kind of personal
> insult? :)
>
> Kalle
>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Hi Igs- really, I think you said it:

" So far, I've found within my own personal experience counter-examples to every theory of "minorness" that I can conceive."

Perhaps it's as simple as, major/minor is a false dichotomy.

-Cameron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Cameron, good to see you joining this discussion. I'd like to hear some more input from you on the subject, since I suspect you might have some helpful ideas.
>
> So far, I've found within my own personal experience counter-examples to every theory of "minorness" that I can conceive. 6:7:9 is another example that I find to disagree with the utonality theory, and even Gene described that chord as "otonal but minor". Mike's theory suggests that major chords are sort of "islands of relief in a sea of pain", and that minor chords might be the "shores" of those islands, which seems to describe his experience but not mine. Sharpening the 5 in a 4:5:6 doesn't lead toward minorness in my hearing.
>
> I came up with two theories that I kept to myself, because I swiftly found counter-examples. One of these was that minorness is simply a property of certain psychoacoustic identities, like 6/5 or 7/6 (but hearing that 5:6:7 could sound major when compared to its utonal counterpart scrapped that theory). From this followed another theory, that major and minor are comparative qualities, not inherent qualities. I suspected that in comparing two triads with the same lowest and highest notes but differing middle notes, the chord with the lower middle note would sound "minor" compared to the chord with the higher middle note. This held up well until I compared an 8:9:12 chord to a 6:7:9 chord, and heard the latter as more minor. At this point I threw up my hands and decided to take a sort of Taoist view, that in all minor there is an amount of major, and in all major there is an amount of minor, and all are really one since all are contained within the harmonic series.
>
> But then I thought: "from whence comes my 'bias' that allows me to distinguish even alien chords as sounding 'major' or 'minor'?" Then I got flustered, and now I'm writing to you.
>
> What is "minor", in your estimation of it, and do you think there's any way to link the phenomenon of "minorness" with a specific set of psychoacoustic identities? Or are we all fools for demanding of the universe an explanation for something that occurs inside our own minds?
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'd suggest right away forgetting the o/u-tonal stuff. 16:19:24 is otonal and it sure isn't major. And getting too positivistic/evolutionary, for that approach when taken in the arts always requires rigging the evidence by conveniently ignoring the individual and minority groups. Generally, more or less, it's major chords that tend to cause me discomfort and minor chords sound sweet and soothing, and it's been that way as long as I can remember. But sometimes it's augmented chords that are sweet, and major chords neutral... and so on. So you'd have to say that I and who knows how many others with similar sensations simply "don't count" in order to establish your hypothesis in a positivistic way.
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Haha, I'm off my rocker, right? Well be afraid, for I only plan on
> > > continuing! Next I'll launch a campaign to perpetuate my ideas by
> > > labeling all music that doesn't use them as "out of tune."
> > > Battaglia-JI is here to stay! (I joke, I joke)
> > >
> > > I'm doing this from my phone at the airport, so I can't really quote
> > > anything. But in response to Gene: if that were true, then the example
> > > I posted that you described as "sounding like one big 15-limit
> > > otonality pointing to a minor chord" shouldn't have sounded that way,
> > > because it was pretty tonal. And minor. So tonalness doesn't destroy
> > > minorness. I may be wrong, but the "tonalness destroys minorness"
> > > theory is also not quite it.
> > >
> > > Cameron: I don't think that it's all/nothing like that. I think that
> > > as you get sharper than the 12-tet third, itdoes pass into a region of
> > > something like sadness (to the extent that the lower noot and not the
> > > VF is established as the root), and I think that's significant. You
> > > yourself have said you hear supermajor triads sometimes as being
> > > "sad." The effect is noticeably more prominent with supermajor 7
> > > chords vs JI 5-limit major 7 chords, and 9/7 may not be the ideal
> > > third for the particular mixture of consonance and dissonance one
> > > might call something like "sadness," being slightly on the dissonant
> > > side methinks. Perhaps something like 14/11, or 17-tet's supermajor
> > > third would be better. (maybe it differs for everyone due to
> > > tolerance).
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > --
> > > -Mike
> > >
> >
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> Let me put it this way: sure a major triad in 12-tET can reasonably
be considered "rooted", at the traditional root. I already said that.
With that nearly perfect 3:2 in there... But surely you agree that
it's NOT a harmonic structure, not unless we stretch the definition
of "(sub)harmonic structure" quite a bit to include that 12-tET M3
(81/64? 19/15? 131/104?). So, though we can fairly say that the
spectrum of a major triad in 12-tET reasonably resolved or understood
as if it were a harmonic structure, that is, we could say that the
overall inharmonicity created by that irrational interval stuck in
the middle isn't strong enough to destroy the simple resolutions and
understandings we'd have in a harmonic structure, it nevertheless
remains true that it is NOT a harmonic structure. Therefore, we
simply cannot say that this structure is major, rooted, or wears a
cloisonné codpiece, or whatever! BECAUSE of so-and-so properties of
harmonic structures.

Are piano and guitar harmonic? None of the plucked/struck string
instruments produce strictly harmonic series but they still have
clear (virtual/periodicity) pitches. So perhaps rootedness is
something else than a "silly neologism for "harmonic"".

Have you done the Yankee Doodle test with bare sine 0-400s? I can
hear the virtual pitch two octaves down just as much as with 4:5s.

> A specific example: we can't describe harmonic-series and
(psycho)acoustic properties of 5:4 and then just tack them onto the
12-tET M3. Like this:
>
> 1. 5:4 generally exhibits little to no audible beating. (simple
observation, accurate).
> 2. An interval exhibiting little to no audible beating sounds
"calm". (completely reasonable statement, as long as it is understood
that "calm" is going to create varied subjective responses).
> 3. Therefore 5:4 sounds "calm". (Fine. We can argue or disagree on
the artistic level about this, but we've got a reasoned positivistic
description).
>
> Now here unfortunately is what happens next:
>
> 4. 5:4 is a major third. (This floats, we could hardly have any
discussion without acceptance of historical definitions).
> 5. 5:4 is calm (from 1,2,3- fine).
> 6. 400 cents is a major third. (Okay).
> 7. Therefore, 400 cents sounds calm. (Bzzzzzzztt)
>
> You can repeat the "reasoning" including difference tones,
character descriptions, and so on.
>
> It looks absolutely absurd spelled out like this, but this is a
very good description of the "reasoning" that appears in textbooks
and elsewhere. Check it out in Stil und Gedanke, in that absurd book
on symmetries by Lendavi, and so on. Happens all the time.

No one in this list is claiming 400 cents is the same interval as
4:5. Of course it isn't.

Kalle

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> Perhaps it's as simple as, major/minor is a false dichotomy.
>
> -Cameron

Well, I never said it was a dichotomy. The existence of multiple dimensions does not preclude an examination of only one dimension. Plenty of chords exist outside the spectrum of major/minor, at least to my ears, but plenty of chords also exist within the spectrum.

I was once tempted to believe that "minor" is simply anything approaching a common-practice minor triad, but I've since discovered that there exist pairs of triads where neither approximates a familiar common-practice major/minor identity, and yet I undeniably associate one member with an idea of "majorness" and another with an idea of "minorness". In other words, I perceive them as filling the contrasting "roles" that major and minor triads occupy in common-practice music.

I do feel like "pain" has something to do with it, just not "pain" in the sense of discordance. I hear "major" triads with sharper thirds as more major, not less, so I disagree with Mike's findings in that regard. I think perhaps before we can hope to isolate the psychoacoustic basis of "minorness", it might behoove us to do a pitch-analysis of some grief-stricken human voices. Perhaps our perception of minor is related to our ability to discern emotion from voices according to pitch inflections?

-Igs

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

Cameron, I've just got to know: if major and minor chords are equally-capable of expressing happiness and sadness, how is it possible to express emotions in music at all? You seem to be angling toward a musical solipsism, but I have a hard time believing this is really what you're pushing for.

It seems to me that if musical intervals lack any sort of definite emotional connotation, then any emotional meaning we get from music is purely fabricated according to our own fancy. Is this what you believe? Is there really not a single component of music that might approach the "universal"?

And seriously, mate, your use of rather excessive rhetoric is not doing much for your case. Cold logic is much better than hot venom for tearing down an argument. Unless of course you're just spouting off for the sake of pushing peoples' buttons in the hopes that they'll get so pissed that they just shut up (in which case, you seem to be succeeding).

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Igliashon wrote," I hear "major" triads with sharper thirds as more major, not less, so I disagree with Mike's findings in that regard."
>
> I also generally hear sharper as "mo' major". Depends on how I'm feeling "major" that day, of course, but generally speaking, yeah. I also hear the quality of "major" in for example the quite broad region of a "M7" interval, and seconds as well. 8:7 is often a very "major" sounding interval to me, as is 7/5. In a different way than 81/64.
>
> >I think perhaps before we can hope to isolate the psychoacoustic basis >of "minorness", it might behoove us to do a pitch-analysis of some >grief-stricken human voices. Perhaps our perception of minor is >related to our ability to discern emotion from voices according to >pitch inflections?
>
> This isn't going to work for me at all, for as I keep saying I don't generally hear minor as sad at all. 6:5 is very calm and joyful, in fact I rarely use it because it tends to get a beatific smirk.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

Music is a language consisting from chapters, articles, sentences, words and characters.

Individual interval or chord is just a character. Any character itself can't bear any information or emotion. It's neutral.

It's their connection, context, which makes music emotional. In Western music the melody, harmony, density, dynamics, tempo and form of the work are essential. Articulation and phrasing less important, instrumentation not so important. Good music can't be distroyed even in some extremely bizarre arrangement.

Therefore there'a a lot of music in minor tonality which is "happy", and touchy and "sad" music in major tonality. And don't forget there's a lot of music in other modalities (Phrygian, Dorian...), or even atonal - it has also emotional contents.

Not only purely musical elements are responsible for bringing emotions, but also education and cultural background of listener. If we don't know some language, how we can understand what does it say? With music it's similar.

The only difference is that any music has always some "basic" atmosphere, made by consonance/dissonance balance, density, rhythm, tempo, form, contrasts, sudden or processual changes. Anybody can hear such simple basic parameters of music even without any knowledge.

Daniel Forro

On 27 Sep 2010, at 6:19 AM, cityoftheasleep wrote:

> Cameron, I've just got to know: if major and minor chords are > equally-capable of expressing happiness and sadness, how is it > possible to express emotions in music at all? You seem to be > angling toward a musical solipsism, but I have a hard time > believing this is really what you're pushing for.
>
> It seems to me that if musical intervals lack any sort of definite > emotional connotation, then any emotional meaning we get from music > is purely fabricated according to our own fancy. Is this what you > believe? Is there really not a single component of music that > might approach the "universal"?
>
> And seriously, mate, your use of rather excessive rhetoric is not > doing much for your case. Cold logic is much better than hot venom > for tearing down an argument. Unless of course you're just > spouting off for the sake of pushing peoples' buttons in the hopes > that they'll get so pissed that they just shut up (in which case, > you seem to be succeeding).
>
> -Igs

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Igliashon wrote:
>
> Cameron, I've just got to know: if major and minor chords are >equally-capable of expressing happiness and sadness, how is it >possible to express emotions in music at all? You seem to be >angling toward a musical solipsism, but I have a hard time believing >this is really what you're pushing for.

You're assuming passive listeners, I think. And I have a hard time believing you're pushing for that for which you could be construed to be pushing: music as an assembly of pre-fab signs.

>
> It seems to me that if musical intervals lack any sort of definite >emotional connotation, then any emotional meaning we get from music >is purely fabricated according to our own fancy. Is this what you >believe? Is there really not a single component of music that might >approach the "universal"?

Of course I don't believe that there are no "universal" aspects to sound and music, I keep saying that I don't believe in complete relativism, and even find it a dangerous thing.

But the "universals" are better likened to things like "smooth/spiky", or "red/orange/chartreuse", "tight/loose", "wet/dry".

And verbs, man, verbs! "Falling, rising, striking, sighing, oozing..."

From these raw ingredients we can bring about all kinds of emotion- in collaboration (or other interaction) with the audience. Of course there are tendencies, cultural and perhaps even animal/evolutionary to how ingredients are used. "Big blood red spiky oozing grunting slowly" is probably not going to make for a soothing experience, though it could by virtue of brilliant usage, cultural association, or sheer accident.

>
> And seriously, mate, your use of rather excessive rhetoric is not >doing much for your case. Cold logic is much better than hot venom >for tearing down an argument. Unless of course you're just spouting >off for the sake of pushing peoples' buttons in the hopes that >they'll get so pissed that they just shut up (in which case, you >seem to be succeeding).

There was no "excessive rhetoric" is the post to which you just responded, just cold logic.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

But I'm not talking about interpretations, I'm talking about shared physical realities and finding descriptive terms that are as unloaded as possible.

Would you not agree the 500 cycles per second is faster than 100 cycles? We call it higher/lower, some African cultures call it smaller/bigger. Should we try to make some Volapuk expression like "faster/slower"? Nevertheless, whatever we call it, it is there.

That which we call rising and falling IS universal, it would happen in birdsong even if the last human were to have left the earth for elsewhere. It would happen if we called it Xerxes and Glagbrattle, or put our fingers in our ears and pretended like mad that it doesn't happen.

The subjectivity of interpretation doesn't negate the external SHARED reality. "Liberal" total relativism is savagely un-liberal in that it takes away that which we truly do all share.

We have to kick the rock together. Then our subjective experiences have something to be subjective about!

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > ...But the "universals" are better likened to things like "smooth/spiky",
> > or "red/orange/chartreuse", "tight/loose", "wet/dry".
> >
> > And verbs, man, verbs! "Falling, rising, striking, sighing, oozing..." ...
> >
> -Cameron Bobro
> >
>
> A broad range of assumed universals there. And what do we mean by
> universals? Some cultures haven't even developed a separate conceptual word
> for "chartreuse". I did notice, however, that you used quotation marks
> around the word universal. Still, it seems like this discussion could use
> better terminology on this front. Maybe "music-generating parameters" (I
> don't think it's too much of a stretch to call generated harmonic
> progressions "music" in a mostly true sense) or whatever it is we're talking
> about here. It seems dangerous to overlimit ourselves, though,
> interpretationally. Is there an identifiable basis of common interpretation?
>
> Dan N
>

🔗Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...>

Cameron, I don't see the point. It sounded like you were extrapolating on
various forms of supposed universal descriptors. If you are just saying
there are higher-level constructs than a notated musical progression itself,
I think anyone would agree.

Daniel, I don't know think I would agree that a chord is a character. It
seems to me more like a syllable - if we would attempt to analogize - and a
straight tone would be a character. Even characters, if only by their
written shape and word associations, are well known to bear some emotional
content, however (eg synaesthesia). I will admit, the New Harvard Dictionary
of Music seems to have very little to say on the emotional/metaphorical
content of even the major and minor triads, much as I would consider the
brightness distinction to be common wisdom.

I'd like to discuss this language metaphor issue more in another thread,
because, on another level, I do get the feeling that orthographic characters
are more like chords, since they have a more complicated content than a
simple order of pitches. Also, the alphabetic ordering is more related to
semantic and chronological order (like chords in progression) than a pitch
arrangement we (for whatever reason) associate with height. I have long
wanted to find ways to express letters or phonemes "musically", and would
really like to find out what ideas others have on the matter.

Dan N

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Hm, I thought I was quite clear in stating- even ranting with wild eyes- that "descriptors" are NOT universal.

Universal are the brute materials and the measurable contents. Subjectiveness has nothing to be subjective about, poetry dies, without this.

Take, for example, the physical fact that the rate of vibration of what we call middle C is "higher" (or smaller, or more flapadutious, or however you want to say it) than a tone of 130 Hz. Physical point of reference.

But, I can say with perfect musical validity things like, this middle C of 261 cycles per second is higher (smaller, more flapadutious) than this other tone of 300 cycles per second. Musically, this can be true: when one is played on the contrabassoon and the other on a piccolo!

The poetry of this is lost if we don't accept a common external reality.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron, I don't see the point. It sounded like you were extrapolating on
> various forms of supposed universal descriptors. If you are just saying
> there are higher-level constructs than a notated musical progression itself,
> I think anyone would agree.
>
> Daniel, I don't know think I would agree that a chord is a character. It
> seems to me more like a syllable - if we would attempt to analogize - and a
> straight tone would be a character. Even characters, if only by their
> written shape and word associations, are well known to bear some emotional
> content, however (eg synaesthesia). I will admit, the New Harvard Dictionary
> of Music seems to have very little to say on the emotional/metaphorical
> content of even the major and minor triads, much as I would consider the
> brightness distinction to be common wisdom.
>
> I'd like to discuss this language metaphor issue more in another thread,
> because, on another level, I do get the feeling that orthographic characters
> are more like chords, since they have a more complicated content than a
> simple order of pitches. Also, the alphabetic ordering is more related to
> semantic and chronological order (like chords in progression) than a pitch
> arrangement we (for whatever reason) associate with height. I have long
> wanted to find ways to express letters or phonemes "musically", and would
> really like to find out what ideas others have on the matter.
>
> Dan N
>

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> Hi Cameron and everyone. Permit me a few observations after enjoying the
> postings.
>
> It is the "speaking of" that you must all question, as Cameron is
> encouraging. The ineffable in music receives metaphor-based words to describe the
> very real universals that may or may not exist.
>
> Cameron seems to be arguing phenomenology ala Husserl, something I have
> enjoyed working with in the past, for an intersubjectivity. When we walk in
> each other's footsteps, at least virtually, we are best positioned to
> properly describe a phenomenon. With music, we must use words that >are
> metaphoric at best.
>
> Thus: there never was any genuine happy or sad. At one time in history,
> it was more identifiable as court and peasant. We merely use the words
> happy and sad to distinguish between two identifiable effects the music has
> upon us. (We might have called it goofing and winking.)
>
> Johnny Reinhard
>

I'll have to read up on phenomenology. I certainly agree with "metaphoric at best". And it seems obvious to me that dialectical phenomenology is basically "common sense", without claiming that it's what I *believe", or it's The Way or whatever.

In the time and place I live, radical changes (or, ominous lack of changes?) in the past 20 years in conditions of "court and peasant", and how deeply these things seem to be bound with "happiness", make your statement about this seem very sound. This I would guess is true of the entire former Socialist world.

-Cameron Bobro