What this is leading up to: dissonance as an active process

Greetings from Miami, and soon Haiti,

8 hours of flying leaves one a lot of time to think. And I think that
Cameron is clearly right. Different things do sound very different to
different people, and cognitive factors can play into things as well.
So perhaps at this point, making concrete predictions about how
"everyone" will label or perceive a specific stimulus as being is a
bit premature.

But there is clearly something that's universal that's going on on
some level - universal psychoacoustic features do exist, and they are
harnessed in music somehow - as with the periodicity mechanism. And
after an insane 8 hour travel excursion in which I had nothing to do
but try to balance these two issues, I had time to think about this a
bit, and this is what I came to, which is something that I think
everyone intuitively knows anyway. So perhaps if I get rid of all
speculation and just try to communicate what I have realized, maybe I
can drag some of you onto a similar wavelength (or alternatively,
perhaps I'm nuts. wouldn't be the first time.).

I don't think that anyone would argue that extreme discordance is
unpleasant. But just to remind yourself, go into scala or whatever
program you want, start with the harmonic series, and set up the most
obnoxious sonority possible. Something that just hurts to listen to
and is painful and makes you really just want to shut it off.
Roughness is okay, but see how much damage you can do without it
(throw it in for special effect if you want).

Now ask yourself, as you're listening to this spectacular torture
device of your own construction, is there anything specific about the
laws of the universe that should really make it sound so unpleasant?
It's just a bunch of harmonic series aligned in an inharmonic pattern.

Perhaps it's just that the brain responds to a lack of concordance
this way? If so, why are we not grabbing our ears and howling in pain
when we're in a crowd of people and everyone's voices happen to not
end up in a bunch of nice pretty JI relationships? Why are we not
grabbing at our ears and howling whenever an air conditioner is turned
on, or white noise is played? Why is it that although this signal is
far below the 130 dB physical threshold of pain, it's so damned
painful? If you replaced this sound with the sound of a single sine
wave at middle C that's 3 dB louder, which would be more annoying?
(There's a listening test for you.)

The answer seems to be, to me, that this is just another
psychoacoustic mechanism in the brain at work, and one that I believe
is of nearly-equal importance with the periodicity mechanism. We can
all speculate as to why it evolved. Perhaps it's just a response that
emerges when a tone is constructed with spectral characteristics that
it interfere with the rest of scene analysis. It's like virtual
nociception.

Either way, assuming that everyone is in agreement that yes, the
presence of dissonance causes pain in a way that the absence of
consonance does not, then I'll just note that the rabbit hole here
runs particularly deep. What happens when this stimulus is removed -
does your heart rate drop a little bit and go back to normal? If it
was increased in the first place, does that indicate catecholamines
were released when this sound was played? Perhaps levels of cortisol
went up?

Or for a shameless conjecture, perhaps the mechanism, like everything
else in the brain involving what clearly seems to be some kind of
stress response, is subject to in vivo adaptations and this response
can change as the organism learns that a more pleasurable stimulus is
likely to follow (classical conditioning; "musical consonance"). Hence
when you listen to the Rite of Spring once it just sounds awfully
chaotic and terrifying, and after a few listens and once the
downregulation has taken place it sounds much more coherent, and once
you've listened to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds a million times in a
row it just doesn't make you feel anything anymore (barring something
else that might override this, like certain musician recreational
habits). Or maybe you come to associate certain chords with personal
symbolic ideas, and the classical conditioning takes place that way -
hence one may not ever truly be able to predict if a chord will cause
"sadness" with 100% certainty. Hence Cameron Bobro's insight.

Back to reality - either way, this is something I have long sought to
find: a concrete way that music can cause feelings. Well, here is the
first such concrete example I can think of: pseudo-noxious aural
stimuli can cause a stress response, which has to mean you're seeing
sympathetic nervous system activation in some form, and which suggests
that something similar to a release of epinephrine and/or cortisol is
taking place. Hence we have witnessed sound causing a predictable
neurotransmitter modulation in a very concrete and specific way;
"music." There are clearly other mechanisms which much exist that also
contribute this process, some of which may completely override this
one too.

And my hypothesis is that this mechanism of the brain is at work when
minor chords are played, more at work when diminished chords are
played, and increasingly more at work when the xenharmonic chords in
my "series of negativity" are played.

-Mike

Certainly we all do share a great deal of positivistic experience- otherwise we wouldn't agree on distinguishing between major and minor and so in the first place! Complete relativism is nonsense, and ultimately leads to simple capitulation to whomever has the biggest guns, in hard reality. It's the human reactions to concrete, positivistic phenomena that cannot be strictly catagorized and treated as "hard facts". The physical concordance of simple JI is a hard fact, regardless of what cranks and propagandists might say- but I enjoy it and my wife hates it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Greetings from Miami, and soon Haiti,
>
> 8 hours of flying leaves one a lot of time to think. And I think that
> Cameron is clearly right. Different things do sound very different to
> different people, and cognitive factors can play into things as well.
> So perhaps at this point, making concrete predictions about how
> "everyone" will label or perceive a specific stimulus as being is a
> bit premature.
>
> But there is clearly something that's universal that's going on on
> some level - universal psychoacoustic features do exist, and they are
> harnessed in music somehow - as with the periodicity mechanism. And
> after an insane 8 hour travel excursion in which I had nothing to do
> but try to balance these two issues, I had time to think about this a
> bit, and this is what I came to, which is something that I think
> everyone intuitively knows anyway. So perhaps if I get rid of all
> speculation and just try to communicate what I have realized, maybe I
> can drag some of you onto a similar wavelength (or alternatively,
> perhaps I'm nuts. wouldn't be the first time.).
>
> I don't think that anyone would argue that extreme discordance is
> unpleasant. But just to remind yourself, go into scala or whatever
> program you want, start with the harmonic series, and set up the most
> obnoxious sonority possible. Something that just hurts to listen to
> and is painful and makes you really just want to shut it off.
> Roughness is okay, but see how much damage you can do without it
> (throw it in for special effect if you want).
>
> Now ask yourself, as you're listening to this spectacular torture
> device of your own construction, is there anything specific about the
> laws of the universe that should really make it sound so unpleasant?
> It's just a bunch of harmonic series aligned in an inharmonic pattern.
>
> Perhaps it's just that the brain responds to a lack of concordance
> this way? If so, why are we not grabbing our ears and howling in pain
> when we're in a crowd of people and everyone's voices happen to not
> end up in a bunch of nice pretty JI relationships? Why are we not
> grabbing at our ears and howling whenever an air conditioner is turned
> on, or white noise is played? Why is it that although this signal is
> far below the 130 dB physical threshold of pain, it's so damned
> painful? If you replaced this sound with the sound of a single sine
> wave at middle C that's 3 dB louder, which would be more annoying?
> (There's a listening test for you.)
>
> The answer seems to be, to me, that this is just another
> psychoacoustic mechanism in the brain at work, and one that I believe
> is of nearly-equal importance with the periodicity mechanism. We can
> all speculate as to why it evolved. Perhaps it's just a response that
> emerges when a tone is constructed with spectral characteristics that
> it interfere with the rest of scene analysis. It's like virtual
> nociception.
>
> Either way, assuming that everyone is in agreement that yes, the
> presence of dissonance causes pain in a way that the absence of
> consonance does not, then I'll just note that the rabbit hole here
> runs particularly deep. What happens when this stimulus is removed -
> does your heart rate drop a little bit and go back to normal? If it
> was increased in the first place, does that indicate catecholamines
> were released when this sound was played? Perhaps levels of cortisol
> went up?
>
> Or for a shameless conjecture, perhaps the mechanism, like everything
> else in the brain involving what clearly seems to be some kind of
> stress response, is subject to in vivo adaptations and this response
> can change as the organism learns that a more pleasurable stimulus is
> likely to follow (classical conditioning; "musical consonance"). Hence
> when you listen to the Rite of Spring once it just sounds awfully
> chaotic and terrifying, and after a few listens and once the
> downregulation has taken place it sounds much more coherent, and once
> you've listened to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds a million times in a
> row it just doesn't make you feel anything anymore (barring something
> else that might override this, like certain musician recreational
> habits). Or maybe you come to associate certain chords with personal
> symbolic ideas, and the classical conditioning takes place that way -
> hence one may not ever truly be able to predict if a chord will cause
> "sadness" with 100% certainty. Hence Cameron Bobro's insight.
>
> Back to reality - either way, this is something I have long sought to
> find: a concrete way that music can cause feelings. Well, here is the
> first such concrete example I can think of: pseudo-noxious aural
> stimuli can cause a stress response, which has to mean you're seeing
> sympathetic nervous system activation in some form, and which suggests
> that something similar to a release of epinephrine and/or cortisol is
> taking place. Hence we have witnessed sound causing a predictable
> neurotransmitter modulation in a very concrete and specific way;
> "music." There are clearly other mechanisms which much exist that also
> contribute this process, some of which may completely override this
> one too.
>
> And my hypothesis is that this mechanism of the brain is at work when
> minor chords are played, more at work when diminished chords are
> played, and increasingly more at work when the xenharmonic chords in
> my "series of negativity" are played.
>
> -Mike
>

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:59 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Certainly we all do share a great deal of positivistic experience- otherwise we wouldn't agree on distinguishing between major and minor and so in the first place! Complete relativism is nonsense, and ultimately leads to simple capitulation to whomever has the biggest guns, in hard reality.

Indeed. But the notion that there is an active "discordance" process
happening in the brain is something that I haven't heard talked about
much... has this idea been explored? I remember Carl saying there used
to be someone knowledgeable about neuroscience on here.

But it seems like all signs point to it. Gene described the 13-tet
fifth as "stabbing him in the ear." My friend described my "series of
negativity" as "ear shrapnel," I believe. Hell, look at the response I
got to my listening examples. I remember when the peak series of
negativity chord hit, and it started resolving, I noted my heart rate
going down. I mean, these kinds of reactions to sound don't just arise
spontaneously... The physical threshold level of sonic pain in dB is
far, far higher than the levels at which a discordant sound will start
to "hurt your ears."

> It's the human reactions to concrete, positivistic phenomena that cannot be strictly catagorized and treated as "hard facts". The physical concordance of simple JI is a hard fact, regardless of what cranks and propagandists might say- but I enjoy it and my wife hates it.

No, but the reactions can be studied and observed. And honestly, just
knowing there is a positivistic dissonance process is all that I
really wanted to know, as it just gives me a new toy to play with to
write music, which is something I haven't done yet outside of 12-tet.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:59 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> > Certainly we all do share a great deal of positivistic experience- otherwise we wouldn't agree on distinguishing between major and minor and so in the first place! Complete relativism is nonsense, and ultimately leads to simple capitulation to whomever has the biggest guns, in hard reality.
>
> Indeed. But the notion that there is an active "discordance" process
> happening in the brain is something that I haven't heard talked about
> much... has this idea been explored? I remember Carl saying there used
> to be someone knowledgeable about neuroscience on here.
>
> But it seems like all signs point to it. Gene described the 13-tet
> fifth as "stabbing him in the ear." My friend described my "series of
> negativity" as "ear shrapnel," I believe. Hell, look at the response I
> got to my listening examples. I remember when the peak series of
> negativity chord hit, and it started resolving, I noted my heart rate
> going down. I mean, these kinds of reactions to sound don't just arise
> spontaneously... The physical threshold level of sonic pain in dB is
> far, far higher than the levels at which a discordant sound will start
> to "hurt your ears."

Creed or Barbara Streisand in C-Major make me wince in pain far more than any sheer dischord that I've ever heard. So I don't think "pain" is right approach to positivistic exploration. Complexity eluding simple analysis, something like that, would be better. "Harmonic entropy" is a good term that way. It really simply refers to the level of difficulty in resolving an interval to a harmonic series. That's a pretty solid and positivistic approach, musical applicability being another question.

>
> > It's the human reactions to concrete, positivistic phenomena that cannot be strictly catagorized and treated as "hard facts". The physical concordance of simple JI is a hard fact, regardless of what cranks and propagandists might say- but I enjoy it and my wife hates it.
>
> No, but the reactions can be studied and observed. And honestly, >just
> knowing there is a positivistic dissonance process is all that I
> really wanted to know, as it just gives me a new toy to play with to
> write music, which is something I haven't done yet outside of 12-tet.

As long as don't take "studied human reactions" as hard facts of the truly measurable kind. I'd think that reading the statements of the "great dictators" on music and art, try Germany late '30s or USSR late '40s, would cure anyone of making concrete general statements about things like happiness and sadness in music, but this tidbits of history are understandably ignored as they are too alarmingly reminiscent of what the MTV generation spouts as self-understood truths about art.

It's a hard line to walk- accepting physical reality but respecting human variability. There's an interplay between the two, maybe that's the key thing to remember.

-Cameron

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:52 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Creed or Barbara Streisand in C-Major make me wince in pain far more than any sheer dischord that I've ever heard. So I don't think "pain" is right approach to positivistic exploration. Complexity eluding simple analysis, something like that, would be better. "Harmonic entropy" is a good term that way. It really simply refers to the level of difficulty in resolving an interval to a harmonic series. That's a pretty solid and positivistic approach, musical applicability being another question.

I already addressed this! I even made a shameless neurological
conjecture, probably in far too much detail, about how it all ties in
together! And I put your name in parentheses thereafter!

So it has to do with harmonic entropy, you say? Intervals that are
more difficult to resolve just cause pain all by themselves, do they?
What has more entropy, the sound of an air conditioner or the horrific
discordant sonority that I suggested you make in the first post? How
about a crowd speaking? There are more notes in the sound of a crowd
speaking than in any chord we can come up with, and it doesn't sound
like it's "stabbing a pencil into my ear" or anything like that (the
previous description being given to the 13-tet "fifth").

There is a space in which between the brain just gives up placing the
sound and hears it as inharmonic (like with the sound of the ocean or
something) - which doesn't cause displeasure, and when it's perceived
it as perfectly concordant and hears it as a note, which also doesn't
cause displeasure. Somewhere in between there are where the sounds
cause displeasure. So it's certainly not correlated 100% with harmonic
entropy, and this would seem to be something else.

> > No, but the reactions can be studied and observed. And honestly, >just
> > knowing there is a positivistic dissonance process is all that I
> > really wanted to know, as it just gives me a new toy to play with to
> > write music, which is something I haven't done yet outside of 12-tet.
>
> As long as don't take "studied human reactions" as hard facts of the truly measurable kind. I'd think that reading the statements of the "great dictators" on music and art, try Germany late '30s or USSR late '40s, would cure anyone of making concrete general statements about things like happiness and sadness in music, but this tidbits of history are understandably ignored as they are too alarmingly reminiscent of what the MTV generation spouts as self-understood truths about art. It's a hard line to walk- accepting physical reality but respecting human variability. There's an interplay between the two, maybe that's the key thing to remember.

Haha, uh, don't you think it's a little bit unfair to compare what I'm
doing with the policies of fascist Nazi Germany? And just make a
comparison straight away like that too? :)

I'm not too concerned with how people cognize things - I find it
interesting, but now I have a concrete psychoacoustic toy to play
around with for you to cognize as you wish. I just want to explore
dissonance as fully as possible, really. And if you come up with some
composition that has one dissonant chord in a way that some model I
make doesn't predict, rest assured I will listen to it over and over
and over until I figure out what you're doing. I'm more concerned with
writing music than models anyway, but for the moment this is fun.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:52 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> > Creed or Barbara Streisand in C-Major make me wince in pain far more than any sheer dischord that I've ever heard. So I don't think "pain" is right approach to positivistic exploration. Complexity eluding simple analysis, something like that, would be better. "Harmonic entropy" is a good term that way. It really simply refers to the level of difficulty in resolving an interval to a harmonic series. That's a pretty solid and positivistic approach, musical applicability being another question.
>
> I already addressed this! I even made a shameless neurological
> conjecture, probably in far too much detail, about how it all ties in
> together! And I put your name in parentheses thereafter!

Sure, I was just making a general observation.
>
> So it has to do with harmonic entropy, you say?

I didn't say that. I said the h.e. is a positivistic approach. It could be all wet as far as actual experience, that's not the point.

>Intervals that are
> more difficult to resolve just cause pain all by themselves, do >they?

Not at all- quite the opposite of what I've been saying on this list for several years now. My idea of "shadow tuning" is based on idea that the most difficult intervals to resolve can become asonances, or even some kind of strange "consonance".

> What has more entropy, the sound of an air conditioner or the >horrific
> discordant sonority that I suggested you make in the first post? How
> about a crowd speaking? There are more notes in the sound of a crowd
> speaking than in any chord we can come up with, and it doesn't sound
> like it's "stabbing a pencil into my ear" or anything like that (the
> previous description being given to the 13-tet "fifth").

Try a diad with 466 cents. To me (and, it seems, plenty of others, but certainly not "all" of course) it more resembles the air-conditioner than the pencil. Kind of pink noise. This is a vital part of my compositional practice.
>
> There is a space in which between the brain just gives up placing the
> sound and hears it as inharmonic (like with the sound of the ocean or
> something) - which doesn't cause displeasure, and when it's perceived
> it as perfectly concordant and hears it as a note, which also doesn't
> cause displeasure. Somewhere in between there are where the sounds
> cause displeasure. So it's certainly not correlated 100% with >harmonic
> entropy, and this would seem to be something else.

H.E. curves don't agree 100% with my own perceptions. But there's timbre involved, so I can't say for sure either way. I most certainly don't equate H.E. with dissonance or pain.

>
> Haha, uh, don't you think it's a little bit unfair to compare what >I'm
> doing with the policies of fascist Nazi Germany? And just make a
> comparison straight away like that too? :)

I'm warning you not to do, not saying you're doing it. I'm not exaggerating though, though I'm probably a little paranoid from having lived in Austria, where a couple of beers is enough to discover what some insist major keys are natural and happy REALLY think.

>
> I'm not too concerned with how people cognize things - I find it
> interesting, but now I have a concrete psychoacoustic toy to play
> around with for you to cognize as you wish. I just want to explore
> dissonance as fully as possible, really. And if you come up with some
> composition that has one dissonant chord in a way that some model I
> make doesn't predict, rest assured I will listen to it over and over
> and over until I figure out what you're doing. I'm more concerned >with
> writing music than models anyway, but for the moment this is fun.
>
> -Mike
>

I've found the concept of shadow intervals and chords- the fuzzy ones so discordant that they are downright soft, like pink noise- extremely rewarding. So go for it!

-Cameron Bobro

On 22 Sep 2010, at 6:52 PM, cameron wrote:
>>
> As long as don't take "studied human reactions" as hard facts of > the truly measurable kind. I'd think that reading the statements of > the "great dictators" on music and art, try Germany late '30s or > USSR late '40s, would cure anyone of making concrete general > statements about things like happiness and sadness in music, but > this tidbits of history are understandably ignored as they are too > alarmingly reminiscent of what the MTV generation spouts as self-> understood truths about art.
>
> It's a hard line to walk- accepting physical reality but respecting > human variability. There's an interplay between the two, maybe > that's the key thing to remember.
>
> -Cameron
>

Nice words, nothing that agreement from my side.
Those attempts to control culture by state and use it as a part of state propaganda to control mind of people I know well, in my old country this was daily reality until 1989 (when I was 31, and this also make the start of my music carrier more difficult as I was against that establishment). So I'm also a little bit sensitive and allergic to similar themes, and that's also reason why I don't take part in this funny discussion about major/minor...

Those cultural advisors wanted simple music in major diatonics mainly (do you remember Orwell's 1984 - primitive popular songs for common people were composed by machines). Minor was not accepted, they thought it will make people sad. For Hitler even neoclassical Hindemith was too avantguard and fell into the cathegory "entartete Art" (= perverse art)... And Zhdanov in Russia for sure was guilty for destroying Prokofiev and mentally torturing Shostakovitch and many others... Just few days ago I found in one of my scorebooks Shostakovitch's mass song composed in the beginning of 50ies. Poor guy, but at least he managed to smuggle there an interesting modulation and one simple melodic imitation between voice and piano accompaniment... Oh, such complexity must have been shocking for authorities, but probably it was accepted when it was published. For sure he was terribly unhappy to write such crap for working classes...

And such things like quartertone music, dodecaphony, later aleatorics, timbre music, electronic music etc. were strictly prohibited as bourgeois western capitalistic dekadence. (That's the reason why Haba and his quartertone class were expelled from Prague conservatory after communistic cup in 1948 in Czechoslovakia.) There was little bit more freedom during 60ies until 1968 and Warsaw pact armies occupation, but again since 1970 cultural purges started and unable carrieristic characters were supported and could control from their high positions suppression of much clever composers (and other artists).

Daniel Forro

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

> > There are more notes in the sound of a crowd
> > speaking than in any chord we can come up with, and it doesn't sound
> > like it's "stabbing a pencil into my ear" or anything like that (the
> > previous description being given to the 13-tet "fifth").
>
> Try a diad with 466 cents. To me (and, it seems, plenty of others, but certainly not "all" of course) it more resembles the air-conditioner than the pencil.

It was Mike, not me, who characterized the 13edo "fifth" in terms of pain. I do have pain responses to some kinds of music, which sometimes rise to the level of the completely intolerable. But that requires something more complex, like thrash or grunge.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Greetings from Miami, and soon Haiti,
>
> 8 hours of flying leaves one a lot of time to think. And I
> think that Cameron is clearly right.

Cameron's not right. But I'm so tired of beating the dead
horse of such misconceptions I've given up. Not everybody's
open to new ideas, and nothing I do will change that.

-Carl

That is some pretty pathetic sophistry, Carl. I'll bet you can't actually point out a single misconception, or a single new idea.

From what I read, probably not all considering the recent volume, you and Mike are both ultimately basing your hyphotheses on the most tired old musical misconception of them all, dualism. Otonality/utonality, pleasure/pain, gimme a break.

-Cameron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings from Miami, and soon Haiti,
> >
> > 8 hours of flying leaves one a lot of time to think. And I
> > think that Cameron is clearly right.
>
> Cameron's not right. But I'm so tired of beating the dead
> horse of such misconceptions I've given up. Not everybody's
> open to new ideas, and nothing I do will change that.
>
> -Carl
>

Cameron wrote:

> That is some pretty pathetic sophistry, Carl. I'll bet you can't
> actually point out a single misconception, or a single new idea.

You're right, we've been over it all before. You reject the
idea of approximation and we're not going to get anywhere
without it. In past threads, you admitted some degree of
approximation takes place. So it seems we're regressing instead
of making progress.

Don't confuse Mike's ideas with mine.

-Carl

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:49 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> > > There are more notes in the sound of a crowd
> > > speaking than in any chord we can come up with, and it doesn't sound
> > > like it's "stabbing a pencil into my ear" or anything like that (the
> > > previous description being given to the 13-tet "fifth").
> >
> > Try a diad with 466 cents. To me (and, it seems, plenty of others, but certainly not "all" of course) it more resembles the air-conditioner than the pencil.
>
> It was Mike, not me, who characterized the 13edo "fifth" in terms of pain. I do have pain responses to some kinds of music, which sometimes rise to the level of the completely intolerable. But that requires something more complex, like thrash or grunge.

I believe you said that it sounded like it was stabbing a pencil into
your ear...?

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> > It was Mike, not me, who characterized the 13edo "fifth" in terms of pain. I do have pain responses to some kinds of music, which sometimes rise to the level of the completely intolerable. But that requires something more complex, like thrash or grunge.
>
> I believe you said that it sounded like it was stabbing a pencil into
> your ear...?

I didn't. You said it was a combination of "fifth" and "pain", and I compared that combination to listening to a fifth while someone stabbed a pencil in your ear.

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings from Miami, and soon Haiti,
> >
> > 8 hours of flying leaves one a lot of time to think. And I
> > think that Cameron is clearly right.
>
> Cameron's not right. But I'm so tired of beating the dead
> horse of such misconceptions I've given up. Not everybody's
> open to new ideas, and nothing I do will change that.

He's not right in the sense that 400 cents clearly does approximate
5/4, as I said. But he is right in the sense that my making concrete
predictions as to what will be heard as "sad" are premature.

Cameron wrote:
> From what I read, probably not all considering the recent volume, you and Mike are both ultimately basing your hyphotheses on the most tired old musical misconception of them all, dualism. Otonality/utonality, pleasure/pain, gimme a break.

Cameron: I just have no patience for this argument anymore. I have
said that I don't believe in the otonality/utonality thing so many
times now that for you to have just missed it seems more and more
unlikely.

-Mike

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:56 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > > It was Mike, not me, who characterized the 13edo "fifth" in terms of pain. I do have pain responses to some kinds of music, which sometimes rise to the level of the completely intolerable. But that requires something more complex, like thrash or grunge.
> >
> > I believe you said that it sounded like it was stabbing a pencil into
> > your ear...?
>
> I didn't. You said it was a combination of "fifth" and "pain", and I compared that combination to listening to a fifth while someone stabbed a pencil in your ear.

Sorry then, I misunderstood.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> He's not right in the sense that 400 cents clearly does
> approximate 5/4, as I said. But he is right in the sense that
> my making concrete predictions as to what will be heard as
> "sad" are premature.

Ok I agree.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > That is some pretty pathetic sophistry, Carl. I'll bet you can't
> > actually point out a single misconception, or a single new idea.
>
> You're right, we've been over it all before. You reject the
> idea of approximation and we're not going to get anywhere
> without it. In past threads, you admitted some degree of
> approximation takes place. So it seems we're regressing instead
> of making progress.
>
> Don't confuse Mike's ideas with mine.
>
> -Carl

Anyone paying attention to my posts will note that "just a moment ago" I referred to a "nearly perfect 3:2". So your sweeping statement that I "reject the idea of approximation" is obviously a smokescreen or some other kind of sophistry.

I suspect that you don't actually understand "approximation". My evidence for this is the omnious absence of any mention of one of the most glaring implications of the "regular temperament paradigm", something that should be noted in capitals rhinestone-encrust'd, in any and all introductions to the "RTP", yet, if stated at all, has been so discretely done that I in all my searching have not found it.

I'm not confusing Mike's ideas with yours. Mike isn't doing o/utonal jive, and you're not doing "pain" jive. You're both strapped onto 19th century horseshit in completely different ways. :-P

-Cameron

My long posts from this morning failed to appear. But let me cut to the chase:

tell me which qualities, in isolation and in practice, 400 cents shares with 5:4?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
>
> > He's not right in the sense that 400 cents clearly does
> > approximate 5/4, as I said. But he is right in the sense that
> > my making concrete predictions as to what will be heard as
> > "sad" are premature.
>
> Ok I agree.
>
> -Carl
>

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:40 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> My long posts from this morning failed to appear. But let me cut to the chase:
>
> tell me which qualities, in isolation and in practice, 400 cents shares with 5:4?

Nothing. There is not a single thing I can think of

-Mike

There's a couple of non-unique qualities shared by the two- they can both form triads as Gene pointed out, and the triads are similar in that they're divided into unequal parts, one of which we call major and the other minor. This quality we could describe as, "roughly a certain size in relation to 3:2".

The other quality is, they both fit into the same place in a diatonic grid.

But, the first quality, roughly a certain size in relation to 3:2, is heavily offset by 3:2 and "M3" in action. Tempering out 81:84 or not is a very big deal in real life.

And the second quality hits steps aboard the great sinking ship of Failure the moment we monkey with the old "diatonic map".

So, wouldn't you say that "clearly an approximation" isn't that right way to put it?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:40 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> > My long posts from this morning failed to appear. But let me cut to the chase:
> >
> > tell me which qualities, in isolation and in practice, 400 cents shares with 5:4?
>
> Nothing. There is not a single thing I can think of
>
> -Mike
>

Can't forget- it's a quality of any interval within a range which includes 5:4 and 400 cents, that we can perceive a triad including these intervals as rooted on it's "traditional" root. You might call it C-X-G, C percieved as root, X being a pretty darn wide region in actual practice. This quality is of course not uniquely shared by 5:4 and 400 cents, and extends far in both directions, well past the region we could sanely call "major", but it must be mentioned.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> There's a couple of non-unique qualities shared by the two- they can both form triads as Gene pointed out, and the triads are similar in that they're divided into unequal parts, one of which we call major and the other minor. This quality we could describe as, "roughly a certain size in relation to 3:2".
>
> The other quality is, they both fit into the same place in a diatonic grid.
>
> But, the first quality, roughly a certain size in relation to 3:2, is heavily offset by 3:2 and "M3" in action. Tempering out 81:84 or not is a very big deal in real life.
>
> And the second quality hits steps aboard the great sinking ship of Failure the moment we monkey with the old "diatonic map".
>
> So, wouldn't you say that "clearly an approximation" isn't that right way to put it?
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:40 AM, cameron <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > >
> > > My long posts from this morning failed to appear. But let me cut to the chase:
> > >
> > > tell me which qualities, in isolation and in practice, 400 cents shares with 5:4?
> >
> > Nothing. There is not a single thing I can think of
> >
> > -Mike
> >
>

Cameron wrote:

> My long posts from this morning failed to appear. But let me cut
> to the chase:
> tell me which qualities, in isolation and in practice, 400 cents
> shares with 5:4?

400 cents is within the field of attraction of 5:4, which
means it generally is interpreted by the harmonic series
detector in the brain as a 5:4.

That's not a "quality". Then again, I don't know what a
quality is.

Now let me cut to the chase: do you have anything concrete
and useful to say, or do you just intend to throw around
insulting words like "sophistry" forever, and attack ideas
by claiming they are associated with older ideas?

-Carl

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:50 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> So, wouldn't you say that "clearly an approximation" isn't that right way to put it?

And 5/4 and 400 cents both produce a fundamental about two octaves
down if you play them simultaneously. Can you just run the Yankee
Doodle test please? Play something else if you don't like Yankee
Doodle. Make it the Happy Birthday test or something.

This is just a simple, easily testable fact, and I don't see why you
have to be resistant to it or project some kind of artistic meaning
onto it. It doesn't mean that the two are indistinguishable, and you
probably shouldn't attach so much meaning to the VF principle.

But I think that this is just silly, because they are clearly
"similar" for a number of reasons, some of which you have touched on
and some of which you haven't. It seems like you are trying to put
yourself out there as being so artistically inclined that you can
distinguish between two whole different worlds of meaning in 5/4 and
400 cents. While this might be true, your projecting this principle
onto the periodicity mechanism in the brain is somewhat misguided, I
think, as the whole concept of organizing percepts into "groups" that
involve concepts of "same" and "different" is an entirely different
level than the VF one.

-Mike

Gentlemen. Let us please not lose ourselves in a tangent about the validity of approximation.

Mike's theory has nothing to do with the dichotomy of otonality/utonality, nothing to do with approximations, and everything to do with auditory pain. Cameron's objection to the the theory rests in the fact that 400 cents is more painful than a pure 5/4, and yet it is not considered minor. He also seems to be suggesting that 300 cents, which is probably indistinguishable from a pure 19/16, is less painful than 400 cents, and yet is still considered minor.

The strongest objection to Mike's hypothesis right now is the fact that the concept of "pain" is not defined in a rigorous or quantifiable way. Mike is not relating it to rootedness, otonality (though he seems to be defining the harmonic series as the "minimum" of painfulness"), periodicity, or beat-frequency, making it thus unrelated to concepts of discordance/concordance. Presumably, the concept of pain would be quantified according to something like "average elevation in markers of stress response" brought about by hearing various intervals. I say this because the way Mike talks about "pain", it seems to be a psychological concept, NOT a psychoacoustic one.

If this is, in fact, the case that this is what Mike is suggesting, then I think this hypothesis will fail to accurately predict minorness. There are a variety of auditory mechanisms that can raise stress response (including volume, discordance, and musical context). Simply knowing that one sound produces a stronger stress response ("pain sensation") than another will not be able to tell us that that sound is perceived as "minor". Proving that detuning the harmonic series will elevate stress response is not the same as proving that an elevated stress response equates to minorness, or that a detuned harmonic series equates to minorness.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > My long posts from this morning failed to appear. But let me cut
> > to the chase:
> > tell me which qualities, in isolation and in practice, 400 cents
> > shares with 5:4?
>
> 400 cents is within the field of attraction of 5:4, which
> means it generally is interpreted by the harmonic series
> detector in the brain as a 5:4.
>
> That's not a "quality". Then again, I don't know what a
> quality is.
>
> Now let me cut to the chase: do you have anything concrete
> and useful to say, or do you just intend to throw around
> insulting words like "sophistry" forever, and attack ideas
> by claiming they are associated with older ideas?
>
> -Carl
>

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> The strongest objection to Mike's hypothesis right now is the fact that the concept of "pain" is not defined in a rigorous or quantifiable way. Mike is not relating it to rootedness, otonality (though he seems to be defining the harmonic series as the "minimum" of painfulness"), periodicity, or beat-frequency, making it thus unrelated to concepts of discordance/concordance.

No. That's the whole point of this thread. The point is that white
noise, or something like crowd noise, is more discordant than most
other sounds you can come up with from an entropy standpoint, but for
you to come up with a more "dissonant" sound, or more irritating one,
would be a trivial exercise in Scala.

So the point is that there is nothing fundamental about the universe
that makes dissonant sounds actually cause pain. They are just
unpleasant and cause some kind of stress response. So the point is
that there is clearly some kind of "discordance" mechanism in the
brain, as is there a "concordance mechanism" - except that the
discordance one sends a powerful aversion signal for you to remove the
dissonant stimulus from your environment. The most discordant sounds
seem to be the ones in which they aren't so inharmonic that the brain
perceives them as noise, but they are just inharmonic enough that the
brain can't figure out if it's a tonal signal, or multiple tonal
signals, or noise, and hence the whole thing makes auditory processing
difficult to continue.

So the way to rigorously quantify all of this is for me to find the
spectral characteristics that cause a sound to be maximally
discordant, as a counterpart to the spectral characteristics that
cause a sound to be maximally concordant - alignment with a harmonic
series, high frequency rolloff, etc.

I have given up even using the phrase "predicting minorness" at this
point, because I think it's just too loosely defined to be meaningful.
Obviously there are a million things that fit into your schema for
"minor." The point is now more of an investigation into what makes
minor sound the way it does, and my hypothesis is that part of it
activates this discordance mechanism slightly, and the other chords in
the series of negativity activate it more.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:50 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> > So, wouldn't you say that "clearly an approximation" isn't that right way to put it?
>
> And 5/4 and 400 cents both produce a fundamental about two octaves
> down if you play them simultaneously. Can you just run the Yankee
> Doodle test please? Play something else if you don't like Yankee
> Doodle. Make it the Happy Birthday test or something.

I believe it might very well have "Happy Birthday" when I first "ran the test" some 20 years ago. I've also been trained to hear the "root" of a 12-tET M3 diad and triad in the "correct" way. The actual difference tone is 67 cents shy of two octaves down. As I noted earlier- my earlier posts still haven't shown- I hear a number of virtual pitches and difference tone with 400 cents, the strongest typically being a comma-flatted fifth, the difference tone between 400 cents and 2:1, beats me why this one pops out.

>
> This is just a simple, easily testable fact, and I don't see why you
> have to be resistant to it or project some kind of artistic meaning
> onto it. It doesn't mean that the two are indistinguishable, and you
> probably shouldn't attach so much meaning to the VF principle.

I'm not resisting anything, and I'm not attaching so much meaning, this is not actually very important to what I'm saying.
>
> But I think that this is just silly, because they are clearly
> "similar" for a number of reasons, some of which you have touched on
> and some of which you haven't.

Then name these similarities. Tell me what they are. The fact that we (including myself) can be trained to hear them as rooted the same doesn't mean much, we can learn to hear C-Eb-G as rooted on C too. The actual primary difference tone is a whopping 67 cents off, hardly an argument for similarity in the (sub)harmonic realm.

WHAT are these similarities? So far not one really concrete similarity
has been named.

Carl says 400 cents is "in the field of attraction" of 5/4. That's jive for, close proximity. Sure they're not far apart. Does that magically change a buzzing interval into a beatless one? No.

You guys aren't getting it. I also have no problem hearing 400 cents as similar to 5:4! Is this due to proximity? Well, let's see- I also have no problem hearing a 14/11 as a major third, and therefore similar to 5/4! That's 31 cents higher. Let's go 31 cents lower... nope, doesn't sound like major third at all. Clearly a middle third. Proximity my ass.

How slow do I have to go? THE ANSWER TO WHAT CREATES WHAT WE CALL "MAJORNESS" IS NOT FOUND IN 5/4, NOR IN (SUB)HARMONIC IDENTITY, NOR IN ROOTEDNESS (does a clear octave root pop out 14:11?) NOR IN ANY DAMN EASILY MEASURED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC.

Same for "minorness".

For crying out loud you guys, 5/3 sounds "major", we can hear it as "similar" to, say, 81/64. While 16:19:24 is clearly minor. O/U-tonal explanations are patently bunk.

"Pain" is bunk, there are some nasty nasties in the high "major thirds".

Cut the pseudo-science. The fuzzy "diatonic map" idea is the only sensible one I read in the entire discussion.

BTW thanks Igs for that nice post!

-Cameron Bobro

It seems like you are trying to put
> yourself out there as being so artistically inclined that you can
> distinguish between two whole different worlds of meaning in 5/4 and
> 400 cents. While this might be true, your projecting this principle
> onto the periodicity mechanism in the brain is somewhat misguided, I
> think, as the whole concept of organizing percepts into "groups" that
> involve concepts of "same" and "different" is an entirely different
> level than the VF one.
>
> -Mike
>

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:21 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> I believe it might very well have "Happy Birthday" when I first "ran the test" some 20 years ago. I've also been trained to hear the "root" of a 12-tET M3 diad and triad in the "correct" way. The actual difference tone is 67 cents shy of two octaves down. As I noted earlier- my earlier posts still haven't shown- I hear a number of virtual pitches and difference tone with 400 cents, the strongest typically being a comma-flatted fifth, the difference tone between 400 cents and 2:1, beats me why this one pops out.

I don't know why you're bringing difference tones into this -
first-order difference tones aren't even barely produced in the ear.
It's cubic difference tones that are most prominently produced, at
certain volumes, and they're things like 2f1-f2 and 2f2-f1, not f1-f2.

> > But I think that this is just silly, because they are clearly
> > "similar" for a number of reasons, some of which you have touched on
> > and some of which you haven't.
>
> Then name these similarities. Tell me what they are. The fact that we (including myself) can be trained to hear them as rooted the same doesn't mean much, we can learn to hear C-Eb-G as rooted on C too. The actual primary difference tone is a whopping 67 cents off, hardly an argument for similarity in the (sub)harmonic realm.
>
> WHAT are these similarities? So far not one really concrete similarity
> has been named.

THEY BOTH FIT IN FOR 5/4 IN A HARMONIC SERIES. Seriously, what else do
you want? Why are you bringing "difference tones" now?

> You guys aren't getting it. I also have no problem hearing 400 cents as similar to 5:4! Is this due to proximity? Well, let's see- I also have no problem hearing a 14/11 as a major third, and therefore similar to 5/4! That's 31 cents higher. Let's go 31 cents lower... nope, doesn't sound like major third at all. Clearly a middle third. Proximity my ass.

Middle thirds can also sound like major thirds sometimes.

> "Pain" is bunk, there are some nasty nasties in the high "major thirds".

You just said:

"Pain" is bunk, there are some painful intervals that happen as you
sharpen the major third.

> Cut the pseudo-science. The fuzzy "diatonic map" idea is the only sensible one I read in the entire discussion.

You're telling me to cut the pseudoscience? And your point about that
400 cents can't substitute for 5/4, which makes reference to
first-order difference tones, is supposed to be the real science that
explains everything?

If you play 2/5, do you hear 3 popping out or 1? How about with 4/7,
5/8, or 7/10?

-Mike

Cameron wrote:

> You guys aren't getting it. I also have no problem hearing
> 400 cents as similar to 5:4! Is this due to proximity? Well,
> let's see- I also have no problem hearing a 14/11 as a
> major third, and therefore similar to 5/4!

Yep, 14:11 is also in the 5:4 field of attraction.

> That's 31 cents
> higher. Let's go 31 cents lower... nope, doesn't sound like
> major third at all. Clearly a middle third.

I have no doubt people can learn to recognize middle thirds
as distinct, functional intervals. However they do not have
their own field of attraction. They are in fact near a
harmonic entropy maximum, so they should be maximally unlikely
to produce a VF on their own.

> Proximity my ass.

Yes, you've thoroughly debunked your own idea! Amazing!

The fields of attraction are not always symmetrical around
their minima, if that's what you're on about.

> How slow do I have to go?

You couldn't go much slower... how many messages in this
thread so far and not a single constructive claim?

> THE ANSWER TO WHAT CREATES WHAT WE CALL "MAJORNESS" IS NOT
> FOUND IN 5/4, NOR IN (SUB)HARMONIC IDENTITY, NOR IN ROOTEDNESS
> (does a clear octave root pop out 14:11?) NOR IN ANY DAMN
> EASILY MEASURED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC.

I never claimed THE ANSWER to all of MAJORNESS.

> For crying out loud you guys, 5/3 sounds "major",

It certainly does.

> While 16:19:24 is clearly minor.

It certainly is.

> O/U-tonal explanations are patently bunk.

They certainly are not.

> "Pain" is bunk,

As a minorness explanation, I tend to suspect so.

-Carl

Carl>"I have no doubt people can learn to recognize middle thirds as distinct,
functional intervals. However they do not have their own field of attraction.
They are in fact near a harmonic entropy maximum, so they should be maximally
unlikely to produce a VF on their own."

So "field of attraction" is supposedly exclusive to intervals rated as having
low Harmonic Entropy? I believe that's far over-simplifying it.
You may say "but Michael, you're stating a problem without an alternative!"
While listen up; here is an alternative. Try listening to 15/8 and intervals
around it...do you hear them gravitate toward sounding like 15/8? Or how about
11/8 vs. the intervals around it or 18/11 (specifically 18/11 vs. 13/8)? None
of these fractions are on the Harmonic Entropy curve as described on
http://tonalsoft.com/enc/h/harmonic-entropy.aspx.

Carl>> O/U-tonal explanations are patently bunk.
MikeB>They certainly are not.

I agree in general with Carl here so far based on my own experience. For
example 9/9 9/8 9/7 vs. 7:8:9...the former obviously sounds more minor. Mike
B...I'd be interested to hear a counter-example.
However this "o-tonal vs. u-tonal" explanation for "minor feel" seems to
assume the chords must be either o-tonal or u-tonal...what about chords which
are neither IE 1/1 9/8 22/15?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:21 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> > I believe it might very well have "Happy Birthday" when I first "ran the test" some 20 years ago. I've also been trained to hear the "root" of a 12-tET M3 diad and triad in the "correct" way. The actual difference tone is 67 cents shy of two octaves down. As I noted earlier- my earlier posts still haven't shown- I hear a number of virtual pitches and difference tone with 400 cents, the strongest typically being a comma-flatted fifth, the difference tone between 400 cents and 2:1, beats me why this one pops out.
>
> I don't know why you're bringing difference tones into this -
> first-order difference tones aren't even barely produced in the ear.
> It's cubic difference tones that are most prominently produced, at
> certain volumes, and they're things like 2f1-f2 and 2f2-f1, not f1-f2.

You said, do the Yankee Doodle test. So I told you what I hear in the test: a bunch of stuff. Mostly difference tones. Why wouldn't I bring up difference tones if that's what I'm hearing?

I do NOT hear a pure lower octave of C pop out when I play 12-tET C-E.
I can imagine it and sing it, I've been trained to do so. I don't hear it. The tone that I actually hear down there is "out of tune". Nothing wrong with that, a bunch of inharmonic difference tones and VPs is groovy.

Mike said:
> THEY BOTH FIT IN FOR 5/4 IN A HARMONIC SERIES.

400 cents doesn't "fit in for 5/4 in harmonic series", it's an inharmonic interval. You've presented 0 evidence that it "fits" other than a specific VP-which I don't hear! Terhardt's claim that we hear more than one VP fits my experience.

> You're telling me to cut the pseudoscience? And your point about >that
> 400 cents can't substitute for 5/4, which makes reference to
> first-order difference tones, is supposed to be the real science that
> explains everything?

No. I am not "trying to explain everything".

I did not say 400 cents cannot substitute for 5/4, I said it CAN.
It can in spite of almost everything measurable about it being different!

The reason it can substitute for 5/4 is not because it sounds like 5/4- it most certainly does not! and 14/11 most certainly does not!- is because THEY BOTH CAN FILL THE BILL AS "MAJOR THIRD".

As soon as you change the criteria to "BEATLESS MAJOR THIRD", or "soft major third", for example, all of a sudden 400 cents FAILS to fit the bill. Other way around too: if we want "hella bright!" major thirds, it's 14:11 that's a good model, and 5/4 that fails dismally.

>
> If you play 2/5, do you hear 3 popping out or 1? How about with 4/7,
> 5/8, or 7/10?

As I keep saying, I hear a number of things popping out.

Carl wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > You guys aren't getting it. I also have no problem hearing
> > 400 cents as similar to 5:4! Is this due to proximity? Well,
> > let's see- I also have no problem hearing a 14/11 as a
> > major third, and therefore similar to 5/4!
>
> Yep, 14:11 is also in the 5:4 field of attraction.

Read my previous post to Mike.

The "field of attraction" is scalar, Carl. Therefore flexible. 5:4 is NOT responsible for what we call "major". In fact 5:4 itself doesn't even sound like a proper major third when we want a bright, jangly major third.

>
> > That's 31 cents
> > higher. Let's go 31 cents lower... nope, doesn't sound like
> > major third at all. Clearly a middle third.
>
> I have no doubt people can learn to recognize middle thirds
> as distinct, functional intervals. However they do not have
> their own field of attraction.

They most certainly do have a scalar field of attraction. And there most certainly are specific little spots of resonance/smoothness within that region.

>They are in fact near a
> harmonic entropy maximum, so they should be maximally unlikely
> to produce a VF on their own.
>
> > Proximity my ass.
>
> Yes, you've thoroughly debunked your own idea! Amazing!

I haven't debunked the idea of flexible scalar proximity at all.
>
> The fields of attraction are not always symmetrical around
> their minima, if that's what you're on about.
>
> > How slow do I have to go?
>
> You couldn't go much slower... how many messages in this
> thread so far and not a single constructive claim?

Your failure to comprehend constructive claims doesn't disprove their existence. But I'll connect some dots for you later.
>
> > THE ANSWER TO WHAT CREATES WHAT WE CALL "MAJORNESS" IS NOT
> > FOUND IN 5/4, NOR IN (SUB)HARMONIC IDENTITY, NOR IN ROOTEDNESS
> > (does a clear octave root pop out 14:11?) NOR IN ANY DAMN
> > EASILY MEASURED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC.
>
> I never claimed THE ANSWER to all of MAJORNESS.

That's good, because I didn't see any sound explanations from you at all.
>
> > "Pain" is bunk,
>
> As a minorness explanation, I tend to suspect so.

We're in agreement there. The counter-example is too easy: major, but painful.

Michael wrote:

> So "field of attraction" is supposedly exclusive to intervals
> rated as having low Harmonic Entropy?

No. -Carl

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

> The "field of attraction" is scalar, Carl. Therefore flexible.

Therefore spin 0, but why flexible?

I don't know what spin 0 means.

What I meant is, what is "attracting" is a scalar structure. It interacts with the harmonic series of course. The whole concept of a scalar structure may have originated in the harmonic series. Scalar structures can be constructed of harmonic series proportions. But it's not the proportions of the harmonic series that are the only "attractors".

Change the scale/cognitive structure, change what windows of identity. I often use scales (tetrachords actually but regardless) with two intervals which fall into what Carl calls the field of attraction of 5:4, yet they are two distinctly different intervals, effortlessly distinguished and scanned. In no way do they sound like two versions of the same interval. And they can be tuned in various ways: as long as they fall within the proper scalar windows.

And let us not forget something extremely important, which is, how things actually sound. Their character.

How can we define a major third as those intervals falling within the field of attraction, or claim that intervals sound like major thirds because they fall within the field of attraction of 5:4? This is nonsense, FOR 5:4 DOES NOT SOUND LIKE A MAJOR THIRD. That's right. If you define/hear "major third" as it has been defined/heard for the bulk of Western history (Pythagorean era and contemporary era) as a bright, buzzing "cheerful" etc. interval, 5:4 SUCKS. This is how my wife hears it- depressing, sub-major, a funereal tone.

A sensible harmonic-series "gravitional center" of the "major third", for millions of people over many centuries, would be 81/64. Whaddya know, the 12-tET M3 is functionally as well as in isolation essentially indistinguishable from a 81/64.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > The "field of attraction" is scalar, Carl. Therefore flexible.
>
> Therefore spin 0, but why flexible?
>

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Carl>> O/U-tonal explanations are patently bunk.
> MikeB>They certainly are not.

I don't remember saying that, but if I did, I was either being
sarcastic or too tired to really be typing.

-Mike

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:50 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> How can we define a major third as those intervals falling within the field of attraction, or claim that intervals sound like major thirds because they fall within the field of attraction of 5:4? This is nonsense, FOR 5:4 DOES NOT SOUND LIKE A MAJOR THIRD. That's right. If you define/hear "major third" as it has been defined/heard for the bulk of Western history (Pythagorean era and contemporary era) as a bright, buzzing "cheerful" etc. interval, 5:4 SUCKS. This is how my wife hears it- depressing, sub-major, a funereal tone.
>
> A sensible harmonic-series "gravitional center" of the "major third", for millions of people over many centuries, would be 81/64. Whaddya know, the 12-tET M3 is functionally as well as in isolation essentially indistinguishable from a 81/64.
>

You know, I actually made a listening example demonstrating this very
point a while ago, in which I used a superpyth tuning to set 9/7 up as
the "major third" of the diatonic scale, and 5/4 as the augmented
second. I remember you having some kind of ideological problem with it
back then. Now that I've shifted my focus onto strictly
psychoacoustics, you seem to have changed your mind about that to take
the opposite position. I couldn't help but notice means that this
generally means that whatever I say, you say the opposite.

-Mike

Cameron said the first line, Carl said the 2nd line.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> >
> > Carl>> O/U-tonal explanations are patently bunk.
> > MikeB>They certainly are not.
>
> I don't remember saying that, but if I did, I was either being
> sarcastic or too tired to really be typing.
>
> -Mike
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:50 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> > How can we define a major third as those intervals falling within the field of attraction, or claim that intervals sound like major thirds because they fall within the field of attraction of 5:4? This is nonsense, FOR 5:4 DOES NOT SOUND LIKE A MAJOR THIRD. That's right. If you define/hear "major third" as it has been defined/heard for the bulk of Western history (Pythagorean era and contemporary era) as a bright, buzzing "cheerful" etc. interval, 5:4 SUCKS. This is how my wife hears it- depressing, sub-major, a funereal tone.
> >
> > A sensible harmonic-series "gravitional center" of the "major third", for millions of people over many centuries, would be 81/64. Whaddya know, the 12-tET M3 is functionally as well as in isolation essentially indistinguishable from a 81/64.
> >
>
> You know, I actually made a listening example demonstrating this very
> point a while ago, in which I used a superpyth tuning to set 9/7 up as
> the "major third" of the diatonic scale, and 5/4 as the augmented
> second. I remember you having some kind of ideological problem with it
> back then. Now that I've shifted my focus onto strictly
> psychoacoustics, you seem to have changed your mind about that to take
> the opposite position. I couldn't help but notice means that this
> generally means that whatever I say, you say the opposite.
>
> -Mike
>

?! I know that you grievously misinterpret what I write sometimes- for instance you understood my description of a hypothetical positivistic "listener" as somehow being an insult to somebody. This took me quite aback. Wha...huh?

And it's entirely possible that I grievously misinterpret things you say.

But let me be blunt- if you've heard even just my tuning examples here and don't realize that I must have very concrete and consistent ideas, even if they're "wrong" and even if the purpleness of my prose doesn't help in getting them across, then you are missing some real fundamentals of musical understanding.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> So the way to rigorously quantify all of this is for me to find the
> spectral characteristics that cause a sound to be maximally
> discordant, as a counterpart to the spectral characteristics that
> cause a sound to be maximally concordant - alignment with a harmonic
> series, high frequency rolloff, etc.

Yes, and my point is that the spectral characteristics capable of causing an aversion response are too multi-dimensional to be useful. Things like high volume (dBl), high pitch, and a highly-noticeable beat-frequency are all well-documented causes of aversion responses. You are possibly stumbling on another dimension of aversion-causing spectral characteristics. However, your claim that "degree of aversion response" corresponds to something like "mood" or "emotional content" of musical interval is invalidated by the fact that you can increase the aversion response of an interval by varying these other dimensions as well (volume, pitch, etc.) without changing the "mood" of the interval. IOW, the "aversion response" is not the important thing, but rather the mechanism by which the aversion response is produced. The first two examples I mentioned--volume and pitch--produce aversion responses by physical mechanisms in the ear drum, and beating produces aversion response by a psychological mechanism (apparently). You seem to be looking for another psychological mechanism capable of producing an aversion response, and you should pursue it, but you'll also have to show how the aversion response it produces is *different* from the others for it to explain anything about mood/emotion of intervals.

> I have given up even using the phrase "predicting minorness" at this
> point, because I think it's just too loosely defined to be meaningful.
> Obviously there are a million things that fit into your schema for
> "minor." The point is now more of an investigation into what makes
> minor sound the way it does, and my hypothesis is that part of it
> activates this discordance mechanism slightly, and the other chords in
> the series of negativity activate it more.

Mike, I know you agree that supermajor chords are both painful and major. If painfulness is related to minorness, how can there be painless minor chords and painful major chords? You just keep ignoring this objection, and I don't know why.

-Igs

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:42 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > So the way to rigorously quantify all of this is for me to find the
> > spectral characteristics that cause a sound to be maximally
> > discordant, as a counterpart to the spectral characteristics that
> > cause a sound to be maximally concordant - alignment with a harmonic
> > series, high frequency rolloff, etc.
>
> Yes, and my point is that the spectral characteristics capable of causing an aversion response are too multi-dimensional to be useful. Things like high volume (dBl), high pitch, and a highly-noticeable beat-frequency are all well-documented causes of aversion responses. You are possibly stumbling on another dimension of aversion-causing spectral characteristics.

Right, which can kick in even if the volume is below the pain
threshold, and if there's no beating, and if it's not in an extremely
high register.

> However, your claim that "degree of aversion response" corresponds to something like "mood" or "emotional content" of musical interval is invalidated by the fact that you can increase the aversion response of an interval by varying these other dimensions as well (volume, pitch, etc.) without changing the "mood" of the interval.

That's a very good point and I haven't thought about that before. I
guess if you put a major chord up in the upper register and make it so
loud that it hurts your ears, I'm not sure that would still be too
"happy."

> IOW, the "aversion response" is not the important thing, but rather the mechanism by which the aversion response is produced. The first two examples I mentioned--volume and pitch--produce aversion responses by physical mechanisms in the ear drum, and beating produces aversion response by a psychological mechanism (apparently).

I'm not entirely sure that beating and periodic discordance aren't
caused by similar processes, if you factor in that one of the reasons
that Paul developed HE was that the critical band causes some kind of
uncertainty with pitch. Either way, that's another can of worms
entirely.

> You seem to be looking for another psychological mechanism capable of producing an aversion response, and you should pursue it, but you'll also have to show how the aversion response it produces is *different* from the others for it to explain anything about mood/emotion of intervals.

To see a correlation between some spectral characteristic of a sound
with some concrete musical percept that it produces would be enough
research for me (even despite whether people label the sound with the
word "sad" or "frightening" or even "cool"). Should that happen, l'll
leave it up to the neurologists to figure out why that kind of
discordance has a musical effect, but other types of discordance
don't.

> Mike, I know you agree that supermajor chords are both painful and major. If painfulness is related to minorness, how can there be painless minor chords and painful major chords? You just keep ignoring this objection, and I don't know why.

Sorry, I don't mean to ignore anything, it's just that I haven't had
as much time to respond as carefully as when I was in the states. My
view is that "minor" and "major" are two concepts that we all hold
that really share a number of qualities. For example, for major you
might have

1) Sounds "happy" for some reason (perhaps by remembering the diatonic scale)
2) It's rooted, so doesn't sound like it's in some kind of inversion
3) Some intuitive knowledge that the third is reachable by four
fifths, or reachable in some other way if you're familiar with a lot
of xenharmonic systems
4) Perhaps if you're used to 12-tet, the canonical major third for you
will be a little bit sharp and nervous or excited sounding
5) Part of the major scale and other scales you might know

All of those are "major." Those are all separate qualities that
converge on this entity that we call "the major chord." Now, if we
want to find other chords that have the same quality, we'd have to
pick one or a set of those and find a set of different chords sharing
those. And at that point, someone could always say "Yes, but those
chords aren't MAJOR, because they don't have (insert the other quality
from the list that these new chords lack)." And sometimes we
substitute the mood of the chord for its name - like during that
phrygian dominant middle eastern example I posted a while here ago.
Carl heard the root as "happy," I heard it taking on more of a
"mystical" quality. The point is that it was still a major chord.

Now let's look at minor. Here are some minor chord qualities

1) Sounds "sad" for some reason
2) It still sounds rooted and not in inversion, but can also sound
rooted in first inversion too in a different way
3) Some intuitive knowledge that the third is reachable by three
fourths, or some other magical way you might have learned
4) We might be aware that it is, apparently, a "utonal" chord
5) Part of the minor scale and other scales you might know.

So here's a question then, Igs. You play minor thirds all the time
when you play the blues, but they take on a totally different meaning,
and feeling, and context. Do they still count as "minor thirds?" Or
are they something else now, like a #9 or a blue note?

Anyway, point is, the only thing that fits -all- of the different
qualities we've attributed to the minor chord is the minor chord. I
hear everything in the "series of negativity" example as just a minor
chord with different extensions on top of it. However, I asked myself
- what makes the minor chord sound so sad? - and the answer I'm now
exploring is that it causes some kind of aversive response to fire
very slightly. It seems perfectly plausible to me and I'm well aware
it's just a hypothesis, but you have to use some kind of heuristic for
plausibility if you're ever going to spend time investigating anything
at all.

So your objection, that supermajor chords can sound sad and/or
irritating, but they're still major isn't anything I haven't addressed
- I used supermajor chords to create the three "equivalent sadness"
chords at the end of the listening example I posted. They do sound
"major" in the sense that you know it could sort of fit into the
"major" box into your brain too. They also do sound irritating and/or
painful and, if you do them right, might even take on a bit of a "sad"
quality too (and I -know- I'm not the first person on here to say
that). I do believe I've even heard Cameron say that various
supermajor thirds sound "minor" in that regard.

So the point is that even discordant chords that would otherwise sound
"major" can cause that aversive response to fire slightly. I don't
think (or care either way really) that we should start calling
supermajor chords "minor." It's just important to me to find out WHY
minor sounds the way it does, and find other chords that might sound
similar.

The point is that if we want to come up with some generalized version
of minor, we have to take some subset of the qualities that it has and
find other chords that have that too. And no matter what you come up
with, someone can say "well, these don't sound 'minor' because they
lack other quality 'z'." Quality z might have led to a different set
of chords, and the only chord that meets every single one of the
qualities that some person has might just be the 5-limit minor triad.

So I am simply looking to explore what makes minor chords sound the
way they do (sad or whatever word you want to use), and find other
chords that may produce similar feelings, even if for other reasons we
wouldn't use the word "minor" for them. Note again that we don't
really think of the minor third in the blues as being minor in the
same sense that a minor third would take in some classical fugue in
minor. (what?)

Of course, I didn't want to type all of that originally, so I just
said "these chords kind of sound sad like minor," not expecting that
everyone would then say "yes but they don't share this other quality
that the minor chord also has," etc.

-Mike

Cameron wrote:

> > Yep, 14:11 is also in the 5:4 field of attraction.
>
> Read my previous post to Mike.

My eyes are still burning from it.

> The "field of attraction" is scalar, Carl.

Wrong, Cameron.

> 5:4 is NOT responsible for what we call "major".

No disagreement here.

> > I have no doubt people can learn to recognize middle thirds
> > as distinct, functional intervals. However they do not have
> > their own field of attraction.
>
> They most certainly do have a scalar field of attraction.

"Field of attraction" is Partch's terminology and has nothing
to do with scales. Stop muddying the water.

> > > Proximity my ass.
> >
> > Yes, you've thoroughly debunked your own idea! Amazing!
>
> I haven't debunked the idea of flexible scalar proximity at all.

You debunked the idea of proximity, which was yours.

> But I'll connect some dots for you later.

Your poor attitude is doing nothing to help your understanding
of these matters.

-Carl

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:36 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> ?! I know that you grievously misinterpret what I write sometimes- for instance you understood my description of a hypothetical positivistic "listener" as somehow being an insult to somebody. This took me quite aback. Wha...huh?
>
> And it's entirely possible that I grievously misinterpret things you say.
>
> But let me be blunt- if you've heard even just my tuning examples here and don't realize that I must have very concrete and consistent ideas, even if they're "wrong" and even if the purpleness of my prose doesn't help in getting them across, then you are missing some real fundamentals of musical understanding.

I haven't heard your examples, because I can't really listen to them
here. I'll dial them up when I can use a computer with speakers.

But whether you intended to be abrasive or not, I have just about had
it with the fact that this conversation has become so uncivil. This
ought to be a relatively simple discussion, or something that people
at least enjoy talking about. Instead it has become very unpleasant
all around.

We have
- You calling me a sophist
- You calling Carl a sophist
- You saying that my ideas are "bunk" while not really understanding
what they are, or giving them the benefit of the doubt
- Ozan demanding Carl step down as mod
- Ozan filtering me out and talking shit about me on Chris's facebook wall
- Everyone trying to get Igs on their side since he's, as usual,
polite and trying to not burn bridges

Had I known that anything I said would have ever touched off this type
of shitstorm, I frankly would have never said a damn thing at all. I
thought, that after spending the last few years being the new guy and
NOT contributing any new ideas, that at this juncture I might finally
have something decent to contribute. I chose to ruminate without
having a concrete theory formed yet because I sensed everyone was on
the same wavelength, and thought some nice synergy might have come
from it. And in part, it did, but I'm not sure it was worth the
headache.

And for the record, I didn't think I was saying anything really
esoteric or stupid or different. I noted that the most unpleasant
signals are not the most harmonically discordant ones, and suggested
the existence of some active discordance mechanism in the brain, and
postulated this might be activated in part when minor chords are
played. I don't think this is really that much of a stretch and I
don't see why I should be drawing comparisons to Nazi fascism or
derided as lacking artistic talent. And furthermore, I have taken
every pain to take other people's ideas, when they have pointed out
something that I've missed (as Igs just did with his last post), and
modify my entire paradigm of music accordingly.

Then I speculated that perhaps my posting too much was putting people
off, so I suggested a separate forum for this discussion, which got
one responder who seemed half-interested. So I'm giving up. It's just
not really that fun to talk about anymore. If I ever get around to
calculating triadic entropy, I'll post it here.

-Mike

Hi Mike,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> Right, which can kick in even if the volume is below the pain
> threshold, and if there's no beating, and if it's not in an extremely
> high register.

And is also distinct from H.E., I presume?

> That's a very good point and I haven't thought about that before. I
> guess if you put a major chord up in the upper register and make it so
> loud that it hurts your ears, I'm not sure that would still be too
> "happy."

You don't even have to do both. Making it really high only or really loud only does the job.

> I'm not entirely sure that beating and periodic discordance aren't
> caused by similar processes, if you factor in that one of the reasons
> that Paul developed HE was that the critical band causes some kind of
> uncertainty with pitch. Either way, that's another can of worms
> entirely.

Is it, though? So far, all you seem to be saying is that pain increases with deviation from the harmonic series, which seems to be exactly the same thing H.E. says.

> Sorry, I don't mean to ignore anything, it's just that I haven't had
> as much time to respond as carefully as when I was in the states. My
> view is that "minor" and "major" are two concepts that we all hold
> that really share a number of qualities. For example, for major you
> might have:
> 1) Sounds "happy" for some reason (perhaps by remembering the diatonic scale)
> 2) It's rooted, so doesn't sound like it's in some kind of inversion
> 3) Some intuitive knowledge that the third is reachable by four
> fifths, or reachable in some other way if you're familiar with a lot
> of xenharmonic systems
> 4) Perhaps if you're used to 12-tet, the canonical major third for you
> will be a little bit sharp and nervous or excited sounding
> 5) Part of the major scale and other scales you might know

I disagree with every single one of these. The terms "major" and "minor" are being grossly abused in this discussion. A major 7th is not happy, and a minor 6th is an inversion of a major 3rd (for instance); everyone in this discussion has become hung up on "major and minor thirds" and completely forgotten that there are a host of other major/minor intervals, all of which have different emotional qualities. If we were talking about the decatonic scale in Pajara, we'd have a variety of other major/minor interval classes with different psychoacoustic identities associated with them. Could we possibly expect any generalization about majorness or minorness to hold up if we classed intervals differently? NO! All the terms "major" and "minor" are good for is in differentiating two sizes of interval within an interval class. We over-simplify and over-extend them to refer to various ratios. And even in 12-tET, there is no one thing all major intervals have in common with each other (other than that they are the wider of two intervals in their respective classes).

> However, I asked myself
> - what makes the minor chord sound so sad? - and the answer I'm now
> exploring is that it causes some kind of aversive response to fire
> very slightly. It seems perfectly plausible to me and I'm well aware
> it's just a hypothesis, but you have to use some kind of heuristic for
> plausibility if you're ever going to spend time investigating anything
> at all.

Wait, really? Mike, I don't mean to be a jerk, but how can you reduce an emotion like "sadness" to simply a quantity of "aversion response"? An aversive response comes with so many different emotions--anger, fear, disgust, contempt, etc.--so it's ludicrous to think that you can describe any one emotion as simply a quantity of aversive response. These emotions can all be associated with pain, but the quality of pain is SO DIFFERENT from one emotion to the next that if all you're looking at is *quantity* of pain, you're missing out on the important stuff.

> So I am simply looking to explore what makes minor chords sound the
> way they do (sad or whatever word you want to use), and find other
> chords that may produce similar feelings, even if for other reasons we
> wouldn't use the word "minor" for them. Note again that we don't
> really think of the minor third in the blues as being minor in the
> same sense that a minor third would take in some classical fugue in
> minor. (what?)

Okay, so now you seem to be defeating your own argument from another perspective, saying that the quality is not in the interval itself but in the context. The minor third in blues does not come from any different sort of "detuning" a harmonic series, nor does it cause any more or less psychoacoustic "pain". No offense, man, but I really think you've pulled a Wile E. Coyote move and are standing on thin air with this theory.

-Igs

On 9/26/10, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> I disagree with every single one of these.

*head bang on table*

> Wait, really? Mike, I don't mean to be a jerk, but how can you reduce an
> emotion like "sadness" to simply a quantity of "aversion response"? An
> aversive response comes with so many different emotions--anger, fear,
> disgust, contempt, etc.--so it's ludicrous to think that you can describe
> any one emotion as simply a quantity of aversive response. These emotions
> can all be associated with pain, but the quality of pain is SO DIFFERENT
> from one emotion to the next that if all you're looking at is *quantity* of
> pain, you're missing out on the important stuff.

32867ryiufhj;fdsl;lasdfll;;;

i'm responding offlist.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> Sorry, I don't mean to ignore anything, it's just that I haven't had
> as much time to respond as carefully as when I was in the states. My
> view is that "minor" and "major" are two concepts that we all hold
> that really share a number of qualities. For example, for major you
> might have
>
> 1) Sounds "happy" for some reason (perhaps by remembering the diatonic scale).

I remember a friend of mine, fantastically talented musician, coming home from school just tripping about having heard his first demonstration that the generalization that major=happy isn't true. IIRC, late Scubert is the classic example and I think that's what the professor used to illustrate the point. The other traditional counterexample to this are the Frelikhs of klezmer- "joyful tunes", "minor" as all get out.

I apologize for the bilious nature of my responses. But you should understand that what pushes my red button is not irrational or historically unrooted.

Daniel Forro understood the source of my ire- he lived through it. Everyone doing truly "alternative" music is eventually going to experience this to some degree. Having heard all my life first-hand accounts of where ham-fisted attitudes about music and the arts (and everything else) can lead (my dad is an esapee from Stalin), I'm alert to them. As every thoughtful artist should be regardless of their background.

So, I think that right off the bat it's a good idea to heavily qualify
the happy/sad nature of major/minor. Ignoring these associations altogether would be ahistorical soggy-minded relativism which leads to a mental power-vaccuum into which the most heavily armed will surely step, though. It's a complex thing, tread with care.

> 2) It's rooted, so doesn't sound like it's in some kind of inversion

Once again, the example of 9:7. I can hear this as a kind of "major 3rd" in context, but the diad is pretty strongly rooted on the 9/7, ie. it sounds like some kind of inversion.

And I think you guys should pay attention to Chris Vasail's point. There's a big range within 3:2 into which we can stick all kinds of intervals and it's going to work as a "rooted triad".

The "noble mediant" "thirds" are particularly interesting. Within a 3:2, both 282 cents and 423 cents are, to my ears, very concretely rooted on the "C". The reason for this, I believe, is that these intervals are very fuzzy in terms of the harmonic series. Their lack of resolution leaves the stark rootedness of the 3:2 very, er, dominant. So much for any concrete or simple "field of attraction" of simple intervals, for I hear (as Terhardt predicts BTW) the strongest virtual pitch root of a triad with 6:5 in a "sixth" relation to the triad, that is, the strongest "root" of A-C-E as F. Less so in 12-tET.

> 3) Some intuitive knowledge that the third is reachable by four
> fifths, or reachable in some other way if you're familiar with a lot
> of xenharmonic systems

Scanned according to accustomed position in modal context. I said earlier that this is reasonable (so much for your bizarre idea that I just say the opposite of what you say, Mike. :-P )

> 4) Perhaps if you're used to 12-tet, the canonical major third for >you
> will be a little bit sharp and nervous or excited sounding

Used to Pythagorean tuning would be a better way of putting it.

This brings up a major, hehe, problem with "aversion" hypotheses. As I have mentioned several times already, there is also aversion to beatlessness. Kyle Gann has mentioned this, I encounter it occaisionally.

> 5) Part of the major scale and other scales you might know
>
> All of those are "major." Those are all separate qualities that
> converge on this entity that we call "the major chord." Now, if we
> want to find other chords that have the same quality, we'd have to
> pick one or a set of those and find a set of different chords sharing
> those. And at that point, someone could always say "Yes, but those
> chords aren't MAJOR, because they don't have (insert the other quality
> from the list that these new chords lack)." And sometimes we
> substitute the mood of the chord for its name - like during that
> phrygian dominant middle eastern example I posted a while here ago.
> Carl heard the root as "happy," I heard it taking on more of a
> "mystical" quality. The point is that it was still a major chord.
>
> Now let's look at minor. Here are some minor chord qualities
>
> 1) Sounds "sad" for some reason

Sounds deeply joyful for some reason. Whoops, you have to just write me off in order support a strong dichotomy here.

> 2) It still sounds rooted and not in inversion, but can also sound
> rooted in first inversion too in a different way

A-C-E generally sounds most rooted on F to me and apparently others- but any interval within a broad range can be taken as the middle tone of a triad which still retains its traditional "root". So I don't see anything wrong with this observation.

> 3) Some intuitive knowledge that the third is reachable by three
> fourths, or some other magical way you might have learned

I'm cool with this, see above in the "major" section.

> 4) We might be aware that it is, apparently, a "utonal" chord

But the 12-tET minor triad can fairly reasonably be described as Otonal. So I doubt that this one flies. You could argue that the 12-tET m3 lies within the field of attraction of 6:5 and therefore has the Utonal quality, but those who would do so would surely insist that 282 cents also lies within the field of attraction of 6:5, and 282 cents behaves in an Otonal manner.

> quality too (and I -know- I'm not the first person on here to say
> that). I do believe I've even heard Cameron say that various
> supermajor thirds sound "minor" in that regard.

Yes, I find that they can have that kind calmness/sweetness/joy. But it's highly contextual, for in practice supermajor thirds can be real bullies as far as implied motion. If you're looking for harmonic series explanations, I should mention that I find these positive qualities in supermajor thirds in jangly timbres and in chalmeau (odd partial) timbres, and not, to my memory, in most timbres.

>
> Of course, I didn't want to type all of that originally, so I just
> said "these chords kind of sound sad like minor," not expecting that
> everyone would then say "yes but they don't share this other quality
> that the minor chord also has," etc.
>
> -Mike
>

The reason why people say "yes but they don't share this other quality
> that the minor chord also has" is to point out that you can't claim that quality is what makes something sound "minor".

-Cameron Bobro

If you're going to use Partch as your Authority on psychoacoustics, you might as well go ahead and affix the big round red nose and hydroballistic corsage.

But I should use different terminology.

I'll say rather that we have windows of (sub)harmonic identity, and windows of scalar/modal identity, and that these windows are flexible and interact with other.

> Your poor attitude is doing nothing to help your understanding
> of these matters.

Within hours of your first step toward actually understanding what you're talking about, you'll be busting out with great big piles of good music. It cannot be otherwise, for from an actual understanding of sound, even a most basic one, music naturally flows. Everyone's got soul and creativity, that's the easy part.

-Cameron Bobro

MikeB>"We have
- You calling me a sophist
- You calling Carl a sophist
- You saying that my ideas are "bunk" while not really understanding
what they are, or giving them the benefit of the doubt
- Ozan demanding Carl step down as mod
- Ozan filtering me out and talking shit about me on Chris's facebook wall
- Everyone trying to get Igs on their side since he's, as usual,
polite and trying to not burn bridges"

I don't like bringing up "non-tuning" problems like this unless I feel
solving such problems would help us "de-cloud" the forum focus on tuning a lot
more. In short, I think the above problems (and several more) is what we get
for treating music as for the most part a science: lots of people arguing the
other people don't understand the "real science" where each person has their own
definition of such real science but says they "probably have the 'real' truth".
It's like trying to rate basketball players solely by how they understand the
mechanical physics of their own plays!

Suppose we could make it "legal" on this list to have someone take an idea
related to tuning, ANY idea, while use sound examples to back it up and have it
taken seriously (IE at least judged/rated by people on a scale of, say 1 to 10
rather than just 1 or 10). That and stop all the backstabbing (for crying out
loud, posting insults on Facebook pages...what is this 9th grade?!).

If we did those things, we might be able to work together and find some
answers that apply to many if not most musical listeners. Then again, we seem
to have lost sight of this on this list: the idea of making things typical
musicians can actually use.

It seems anyone who dares to present an opinion on this list and say more
than "I agree, I disagree" on this list is bound to be accused of
"psuedo-science" or "mucking up the list with too many comments" or "going off
topic" or even being "a pure useless idiot" by at least one and likely several
members (or, in my case, even being asked to "honestly", for example, "admit" to
holding a "completely unresearch" view when I spent the last month or more
studying it and gave specific, if not "perfect", examples?!).

This is NOT quality control, this is chaos! Can we at least make a mature
effort to help each other conduct research rather than nit-picking and bashing
typically honest efforts by our members to do research?

-Michael

Igs>"I really think you've pulled a Wile E. Coyote move and are standing on thin
air with this theory."
I think the whole way this forum often seems to imply everything on here
must have backing by science or be "completely subjective BS" reminds me a lot
of Wile E. Coyote.
It's hilarious...this whole forum seems to be using ACME products (science
without artistic guide) and wondering why they often don't work and making fun
of each other for using them or when they don't work (lol)! ACME FTW!

I'm a relative novice and a new lister, and not involved in the turbulence
here, but maybe I can offer a small voice from the sidelines.
My feeling (sleep-deprived as I may be) is that there is nothing wrong with
a few lengthy discussions as long as they are kept within non-branching
threads, relate to tuning, and remain on-topic. I can understand some of the
frustration, though.

Michael's sentiment about exhibiting audio samples is exactly what I've had
in mind. Someone wary to step in with a new topic can do so more easily if
they can carry their audience along with pellets. It really seems to be a
detriment to the discussions on this list when audio samples are not
available, which also show some effort has been invested.

That said, I know how much work I put into my projects, so it is not
surprising to me that when such theorizing is done "aloud" on the forum, it
might seem to be excessive inundation. Modern mail servers can keep such
replies in-thread, though, so that does not become too much of an issue.

One's own theories might be useful to one context of musical study, but they
do not necessarily invalidate other forms of exploration. And if strong
theories do preclude the constructs backing other discussions, these can
hopefully be referenced. Focus can be good; myopia isn't. I don't really see
the harm in allowing others to stir the primordial soup on-list and
on-record. If nothing else, this can sometimes help to recrystallize one's
own initial conceptions. Just my take, which I probably won't invest much
effort to defend.

Dan N

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Carl>"I have no doubt people can learn to recognize middle thirds as distinct,
> functional intervals. However they do not have their own field of attraction.
> They are in fact near a harmonic entropy maximum, so they should be maximally
> unlikely to produce a VF on their own."

Michael, Carl is once again presenting a mixture of speculative ideas as if they were "fact". What is implied in what he said is that it is intervals producing a virtual fundamental which are exerting fields of attraction. Although he tells me (who read "Genesis..." when he was in
elementary school) that "field of attraction" is Partch's term, he forgets that Partch resolved the old problem of the root of a minor triad very neatly: "the composer's fancy". Partch's fields of attraction aren't based on virtual fundamentals.

Also, he ignores the possibility- which I've brought up many times- that NOT having a virtual fundamental can be a positive and discernable characteristic, that is, we can desire and search for intervals that "float" as far as rootedness. So, those intervals which are maximally unrooted or indeterminate as far as virtual fundamental can exert their own "gravitation".
>
> So "field of attraction" is supposedly exclusive to intervals rated as having
> low Harmonic Entropy? I believe that's far over-simplifying it.
> You may say "but Michael, you're stating a problem without an alternative!"
> While listen up; here is an alternative. Try listening to 15/8 and intervals
> around it...do you hear them gravitate toward sounding like 15/8? Or how about
> 11/8 vs. the intervals around it or 18/11 (specifically 18/11 vs. 13/8)? None
> of these fractions are on the Harmonic Entropy curve as described on
> http://tonalsoft.com/enc/h/harmonic-entropy.aspx.
>
> Carl>> O/U-tonal explanations are patently bunk.
> MikeB>They certainly are not.
>
> I agree in general with Carl here so far based on my own >experience.

Carl didn't say "O/U-tonal explanations are patently bunk", I did. The context was, bunk as far as explaining "major/minor". Of course you agree with me, you don't have your head up your ass. :-) Seriously, it's sad to hear a great composer parroting that 19th-century (Riemann?) dualist horseshit about major/minor as he mallets up and down his u/o-tonal arrays, when anyone, including most obviously him, cf his compositions, can hear the mixtures and multicolors within.

>For
> example 9/9 9/8 9/7 vs. 7:8:9...the former obviously sounds more >minor. Mike
> B...I'd be interested to hear a counter-example.
> However this "o-tonal vs. u-tonal" explanation for "minor feel" >seems to
> assume the chords must be either o-tonal or u-tonal...what about >chords which
> are neither IE 1/1 9/8 22/15?
>

You haven't got any answers on these questionings of 0/Utonalities, have you? Don't worry, you won't. Trust your own judgement, don't be afraid to cast down false gods.

-Cameron Bobro

Me>> However this "o-tonal vs. u-tonal" explanation for "minor feel" >seems
to

>> assume the chords must be either o-tonal or u-tonal...what about chords which

>> are neither IE 1/1 9/8 22/15?
Cameron>"You haven't got any answers on these questionings of 0/Utonalities,
have you? Don't worry, you won't. Trust your own judgement, don't be afraid to
cast down false gods."
If I'm hearing you correctly, you are saying chords without an obvious VF
or with a "floating" VF can "still" be incredibly useful and the idea that
o-tonal/u-tonal arrangements are the only usable ones is a fallacy IE "false
god".

>"Michael, Carl is once again presenting a mixture of speculative ideas as if
>they were "fact"."
I see this a lot. Don't get me wrong, Carl knows a LOT of prominent ideas in
tuning both historical and futurist and I respect his knowledge on existing
theories, just not the extent to which he says they apply IE "always" (which
Carl claims they do, and is virtually never impossible to have that in any sort
of artform).
It just seems a lot of us (and not just us two) run into problems when we
state any idea that shows any conflict in his "pet" theories. I, for one, have
given up trying to find compromise with him, as every time I've tried, no matter
how hard, he blames me for "not listening, not reading enough papers/books, and
not showing any humility".

I'd love to be able to give a full example with hundreds of references to
papers Carl favors for some of the ideas/alternatives I hear as very usable, but
as you said "Don't worry, you won't."...sometimes there just isn't some obvious
documented explanation of every phenomenon I or anyone else hears and that
shouldn't be a crime in and of itself.

I guess the question then becomes, do you (or anyone else) see any general
patterns in chords that do NOT have a fixed/non-floating VF that you consider
useful?

I said "so much for this and that's silly theories" in jest in
reference to a video by Chris demonstrating the fabulous "microtonal
polyphonic" music-making by three African balophone musicians hardly
conforming to any narrow-minded reductionist-universalist wannabe
theorism flaunted since near a year hereabouts. If you perceive that
as talking "shit about you", then, Michael, you may have a terrible
case of megalomania. Relax, I do not believe any of the unmentionables
are quite that "important" to the science of music at this juncture.

And your manner of quoting is still a torture to the eyes. I retreat
to my slumber in weariness.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 26, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Michael wrote:

>
>
> MikeB>"We have
> - You calling me a sophist
> - You calling Carl a sophist
> - You saying that my ideas are "bunk" while not really understanding
> what they are, or giving them the benefit of the doubt
> - Ozan demanding Carl step down as mod
> - Ozan filtering me out and talking shit about me on Chris's
> facebook wall
> - Everyone trying to get Igs on their side since he's, as usual,
> polite and trying to not burn bridges"
>
> I don't like bringing up "non-tuning" problems like this unless
> I feel solving such problems would help us "de-cloud" the forum > focus on tuning a lot more. In short, I think the above problems
> (and several more) is what we get for treating music as for the most
> part a science: lots of people arguing the other people don't
> understand the "real science" where each person has their own
> definition of such real science but says they "probably have the
> 'real' truth". It's like trying to rate basketball players solely
> by how they understand the mechanical physics of their own plays!
>
> Suppose we could make it "legal" on this list to have someone
> take an idea related to tuning, ANY idea, while use sound examples
> to back it up and have it taken seriously (IE at least judged/rated
> by people on a scale of, say 1 to 10 rather than just 1 or 10).
> That and stop all the backstabbing (for crying out loud, posting
> insults on Facebook pages...what is this 9th grade?!).
>
> If we did those things, we might be able to work together and
> find some answers that apply to many if not most musical
> listeners. Then again, we seem to have lost sight of this on this
> list: the idea of making things typical musicians can actually use.
>
> It seems anyone who dares to present an opinion on this list and
> say more than "I agree, I disagree" on this list is bound to be
> accused of "psuedo-science" or "mucking up the list with too many
> comments" or "going off topic" or even being "a pure useless idiot"
> by at least one and likely several members (or, in my case, even
> being asked to "honestly", for example, "admit" to holding a
> "completely unresearch" view when I spent the last month or more
> studying it and gave specific, if not "perfect", examples?!).
>
> This is NOT quality control, this is chaos! Can we at least make
> a mature effort to help each other conduct research rather than nit-
> picking and bashing typically honest efforts by our members to do
> research?
>
> -Michael
>
>
>

Ozan>"If you perceive that as talking "shit about you""
I did not say anything of the sort (assuming by saying "Michael" you meant
me...as Mike B. is typically called "Mike" on this list).
As I recall Mike B (not myself!) said the following:

MikeB>"- Ozan filtering me out and talking shit about me on Chris's facebook
wall"
And I said I agree with him that's ridiculous behavior if you did talk crap
about him.

>"And your manner of quoting is still a torture to the eyes. I retreat to my
>slumber in weariness."
First of all (again), which Mike are you talking about, Mike B or myself?
And if it is about me, what on earth is so bad a manner of quoting as using the
following format I use:
Person's-name/>"the quote"

...especially considering virtually everyone on the list uses that format!

-Michael (not "Mike")

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 3:42 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> I remember a friend of mine, fantastically talented musician, coming home from school just tripping about having heard his first demonstration that the generalization that major=happy isn't true. IIRC, late Scubert is the classic example and I think that's what the professor used to illustrate the point. The other traditional counterexample to this are the Frelikhs of klezmer- "joyful tunes", "minor" as all get out.

Cameron: I'm responding offlist.

-Mike

Ah, sorry there Michael, due to the "monochromatic way" you quote
people with the text inseperably arranged, I don't know anymore who
says what. Consider me addressing Mike Battaglia there. Nevertheless,
I don't believe that any of the "new theorists" are to be taken
seriously yet when taking refuge in bombastic claims backed by such
superficial "research".

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 26, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Michael wrote:

>
>
> Ozan>"If you perceive that as talking "shit about you""
> I did not say anything of the sort (assuming by saying "Michael"
> you meant me...as Mike B. is typically called "Mike" on this list).
> As I recall Mike B (not myself!) said the following:
>
> MikeB>"- Ozan filtering me out and talking shit about me on Chris's
> facebook wall"
> And I said I agree with him that's ridiculous behavior if you did
> talk crap about him.
>
> >"And your manner of quoting is still a torture to the eyes. I
> retreat to my slumber in weariness."
> First of all (again), which Mike are you talking about, Mike B
> or myself? And if it is about me, what on earth is so bad a manner
> of quoting as using the following format I use:
> Person's-name/>"the quote"
>
> ...especially considering virtually everyone on the list uses that
> format!
>
> -Michael (not "Mike")
>
>
>

Michael wrote:

> ...especially considering virtually everyone on the list uses
> that format!

Your posts are formatted strangely. You use a giant font or
something -- I recommend not to use the rich text editor or
to send HTML formatted mail to the list. You also put quotation
marks around things you're quoting instead of angle brackets
on each line. The result is very hard to read.

-Carl

Cameron wrote:

> Michael, Carl is once again presenting a mixture of speculative
> ideas as if they were "fact".

It's considered rude to discuss members in the 3rd person.
And I think we've had enough of your rude language overall.
I suggest you employ your energies at making music, at which
you seem to have some talent.

-Carl

Ozan>"due to the "monochromatic way" you quote people with the text inseperably
arranged"

Ozan, what are you talking about by "inseperably arranged"? My quoting style
is
Person>"quote
more of the quote
"

And if I say
>"another quote"
...that means it is from the same person.
Just to keep anal-retentive people happy though, I will mention the person I am
quoting's name on every single line of the quote.
Do any of the rest of you (beside Ozan or Carl) really think it's that necessary
or find my style of quoting that confusing?

Ozan>"I don't believe that any of the "new theorists" are to be taken seriously
yet when taking refuge in bombastic claims backed by such superficial
Ozan>"research".
Who on earth gets the "holy power" to define whose claims are "bombastic"
without giving specific reasons?
You seem to at random define people's claims as bombastic a whole lot (as you
did in the above quote), yet don't seem to be able to give specific examples why
you think so. I absolutely do not see how such behavior makes the list more
productive...it seems like the equivalent of saying a plant that produces
automobiles has bad "quality control" because you don't like the colors of the
cars or think the paint (and nothing else) looks cheap.

Ozan and Michael, please take this discussion offlist. -Carl

> Ozan, what are you talking about by "inseperably arranged"?
[snip]
> Who on earth gets the "holy power" to define whose claims
> are "bombastic" without giving specific reasons?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> > The "field of attraction" is scalar, Carl.
>
> Wrong, Cameron.

Wrong? What does it mean? Obviously, not spin 0, but then what?

I think it would be helpful if people quit using the word "scalar" in musical contexts unless they know what it means and use it correctly. "Scalar badness", "scalar fields", scalar anything. Just please stop.

Check Wikipedia if you want to know what "scalar", "scalar field" etc mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar

Gene wrote:

> > > The "field of attraction" is scalar, Carl.
> >
> > Wrong, Cameron.
>
> Wrong? What does it mean? Obviously, not spin 0, but then what?

I sent this post over a week ago, and Yahoo just spit it out now.
So let's not dig it up now.

Did you have any comments on my suggestion for defining tuning
ranges using badness?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> Did you have any comments on my suggestion for defining tuning
> ranges using badness?

It sounded pretty convoluted, but the basic idea strikes me as promising.

Gene wrote:

> > Did you have any comments on my suggestion for defining
> > tuning ranges using badness?
>
> It sounded pretty convoluted, but the basic idea strikes me as
> promising.

A simpler way is just to pick a standard complexity cutoff,
use it to generate a top 1000 list, and use that for everything.
I thought it would be more natural to increment the cutoff
independently for each temperament. The idea being that only
a temperament's peers should terminate its tuning range.

Another possibility, which you probably addressed years ago...
What about poptimal tuning ranges? You used to give those.

Finally, something else I think you had discussed, are the
tunings that make primes just. For ETs, we can always and at
most make 1 prime just at a time, and we can take the extrema
of those tunings.
For rank 2, can we always make 2 primes just? If so, one
could find a tuning for each 2-combination of primes and take
the extrema.

In all of this though, it seems the ranges are going to be
complicated for rank 2, since the generator and period
interact...

-Carl

On 1 October 2010 21:40, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> For rank 2, can we always make 2 primes just?  If so, one
> could find a tuning for each 2-combination of primes and take
> the extrema.

Yes, and one of those primes can be 2. The result will be that
Pythagorean intonation is one extreme of meantone, and 1/4-comma
meantone is the other. 1/3-comma meantone is off the scale.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> A simpler way is just to pick a standard complexity cutoff,
> use it to generate a top 1000 list, and use that for everything.
> I thought it would be more natural to increment the cutoff
> independently for each temperament. The idea being that only
> a temperament's peers should terminate its tuning range.

The idea seems good, but the details seem to be a problem.

> Another possibility, which you probably addressed years ago...
> What about poptimal tuning ranges? You used to give those.

Those are very small, and not appropriate for the problem.

> Finally, something else I think you had discussed, are the
> tunings that make primes just. For ETs, we can always and at
> most make 1 prime just at a time, and we can take the extrema
> of those tunings.

Those are just some of the diamond eigenmonzos. The range between all of them would be more interesting, I think.

> For rank 2, can we always make 2 primes just? If so, one
> could find a tuning for each 2-combination of primes and take
> the extrema.

Yes; for rank r we have a choice of r eigenmonzos. Buwt I'm more inclined to choose 2 always, and find the range from a diamond.

Graham wrote:

> > For rank 2, can we always make 2 primes just?  If so, one
> > could find a tuning for each 2-combination of primes and take
> > the extrema.
>
> Yes, and one of those primes can be 2. The result will be that
> Pythagorean intonation is one extreme of meantone, and 1/4-comma
> meantone is the other. 1/3-comma meantone is off the scale.
>
> Graham

Right. But if we make 3 and 5 just, then we get 1/3-comma.
That's what I meant by 2-combinations of primes.

-Carl

Gene wrote:

> > Another possibility, which you probably addressed years ago...
> > What about poptimal tuning ranges? You used to give those.
>
> Those are very small, and not appropriate for the problem.

Ok thanks.

> > Finally, something else I think you had discussed, are the
> > tunings that make primes just. For ETs, we can always and at
> > most make 1 prime just at a time, and we can take the extrema
> > of those tunings.
>
> Those are just some of the diamond eigenmonzos. The range
> between all of them would be more interesting, I think.

I think you have posted on that actually.

> Yes; for rank r we have a choice of r eigenmonzos. But I'm
> more inclined to choose 2 always, and find the range from a
> diamond.

Two would restrict us to dyads, which seems artificial.
Why not have eigentriads in rank 3? Hey, have you considered
that monzos can (non-uniquely) represent triads?

If we are talking 2 only, I think the diamond gives the
same result as the primes, unless you're using the odd-limit
diamond at the >= 15-limit. Then you get stuff like 15/8,
which requires 3 primes.

-Carl

I wrote:
[Graham wrote]
> Right. But if we make 3 and 5 just, then we get 1/3-comma.
> That's what I meant by 2-combinations of primes.

But as I noted, this means we need ranges for both the period
and generator, which can interact to make discontinuous ranges,
right?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> On 1 October 2010 21:40, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > For rank 2, can we always make 2 primes just?  If so, one
> > could find a tuning for each 2-combination of primes and take
> > the extrema.
>
> Yes, and one of those primes can be 2. The result will be that
> Pythagorean intonation is one extreme of meantone, and 1/4-comma
> meantone is the other. 1/3-comma meantone is off the scale.

Using the 5-limit diamond makes the range from 1/3 comma to Pythagorean, which is much more reasonable I think.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> Right. But if we make 3 and 5 just, then we get 1/3-comma.
> That's what I meant by 2-combinations of primes.

No we don't; we get an octave 1/4 comma sharp.

On 1 October 2010 23:51, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> Graham wrote:
>
>> > For rank 2, can we always make 2 primes just?  If so, one
>> > could find a tuning for each 2-combination of primes and take
>> > the extrema.
>>
>> Yes, and one of those primes can be 2.  The result will be that
>> Pythagorean intonation is one extreme of meantone, and 1/4-comma
>> meantone is the other.  1/3-comma meantone is off the scale.

[Oh, yes, I used a non-musical meaning for "scale" there.]

> Right.  But if we make 3 and 5 just, then we get 1/3-comma.
> That's what I meant by 2-combinations of primes.

We get 1/3-comma under some strange equivalence that I can't get my
head around. It would have to conserve the interval 3/5, which will
have zero error in both cases. But not 6/5, which has zero error for
1/3-comma meantone with pure octaves bot not with 3 and 5 just. (Note
that 6/5 involves three primes.) And you won't get one from t'other
by applying a uniform scale stretch.

3 and 5 just also leads to 9/5 just, which would transform to a
different pure-octaves meantone. At least, assuming the
transformation I don't understand has this property. Perhaps you
could say making 9 and 5 just gives a different result to making 3 and
5 just. Then, if you're only considering primes, 9/5 is excluded.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Two would restrict us to dyads, which seems artificial.
> Why not have eigentriads in rank 3? Hey, have you considered
> that monzos can (non-uniquely) represent triads?

I don't know what an eigentriad is, and have not thought about monzos representing triads.

Gene wrote:
> > Right. But if we make 3 and 5 just, then we get 1/3-comma.
> > That's what I meant by 2-combinations of primes.
>
> No we don't; we get an octave 1/4 comma sharp.

Oh yeah, sorry.

Graham wrote:
> It would have to conserve the interval 3/5, which will
> have zero error in both cases. But not 6/5,

Right, sorry.

-Carl

Scalar- b. Mathematics A number, numerical quantity, or element in a field.

We, or rather I, was talking about Partch's field of attraction,
which he also refers to as magnetism, gravity- and he specifically measures the extents of attractions in a field.

His grand "field" is the "Monophonic Fabric". He calls it a field. He says, so and so many degrees of attracton for the 5 identity, so many for the 11 identity, within that field.

He gives numerical quantities and elements in a field. See the definition above?

The thing is, Partch doesn't claim that the magnitudes of his "attractions" apply in the field of "everything". To the contrary, he points out problems of conflicting/negating attractions (in Observation 2, IIRC), and correctly points out that this is not a problem in what he is doing, for the intervals that would create this problem don't exist in his Monophonic Fabric.

What I said was very poorly worded- but what I meant is soundly thought. It's not being scalar that makes a field of attraction "flexible", it's that being scalar means, in a field. In *A* field.

And, different fields means different magnitudes for the attractions.

Note that Partch's Observations are in the chapter titled "Resolution". He's talking about a compositional matter. He doesn't claim universal psychoacoustic applicability. Not science, not metaphysics, but a little of both. That's what he said, look it up.

It's trivial to establish a field, any number of alternatives to Partch's set-up, in which the elements and magnitude of the attractions place 9:7 well out of the reach of 5:4. (Carl- your statement that 9:7 lies within the field of attraction of 5:4 is what generated my response). Am I saying anything new? Certainly not. Bohlen-Pierce is based on a radical break with the strong 2 and 5 Identities, to use Partchian language, and even such an extreme case pretty much works, sometimes very well.

What I think you guys have done is to have taken the fact that the theory of harmonic identity supports Partch's first Observation, then used the Observation as an argument for the validity of harmonic entropy. Meahwhile forgetting the actual Observations and what they're really all about, which is primarily composition, not psychoacoustics.

Genesis of a LANGUAGE, guys.

Oh I may be "wrong"- but "don't know what I'm freaking talking about"?
Yeah right.

-Cameron Bobro

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

> Scalar- b. Mathematics A number, numerical quantity, or element in a field.
>
> We, or rather I, was talking about Partch's field of attraction,
> which he also refers to as magnetism, gravity- and he specifically measures the extents of attractions in a field.
>
> His grand "field" is the "Monophonic Fabric". He calls it a field.

If he called it a cow, does that mean it would have given milk?

He says, so and so many degrees of attracton for the 5 identity, so many for the 11 identity, within that field.
>
> He gives numerical quantities and elements in a field. See the definition above?

You don't understand what the word "field" means in the definition above. "Field" can unfortunately mean a lot of completely different things; in the above definition, it means this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28mathematics%29

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > Scalar- b. Mathematics A number, numerical quantity, or element in a field.
> >
> > We, or rather I, was talking about Partch's field of attraction,
> > which he also refers to as magnetism, gravity- and he specifically measures the extents of attractions in a field.
> >
> > His grand "field" is the "Monophonic Fabric". He calls it a field.
>
> If he called it a cow, does that mean it would have given milk?

(weeps with joy). Finally someone gets it. Just because Harry Partch called it a cow, doesn't mean it gives milk!

I guessed you missed the post in which I said that if you're going to use Partch as a psychoacoustic Authority, you might as well put on a clown suit.

>
> He says, so and so many degrees of attracton for the 5 identity, >so many for the 11 identity, within that field.
> >
> > He gives numerical quantities and elements in a field. See the definition above?
>
> You don't understand what the word "field" means in the definition above. "Field" can unfortunately mean a lot of completely different things; in the above definition, it means this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_%28mathematics%29
>

Yes I do understand it. It's amazing that you'd think I wouldn't. It was Carl (hi Carl!) who said that "field of attraction" is Partch's term. It is I who am actually talking about it in Partch's terms. How many times to I have to say "Partch says..." "in Genesis..." to make it clear that I'm describing PARTCH'S "field of attraction"?

On a psychoacoustic level, the Observations and all those other capitolized Partchian things are probably pseudo-scientific waffle. He doesn't really even claim otherwise.

On a COMPOSITIONAL level, they are not waffle at all! But they can be demonstrated on the level at which they are not waffle to NOT be universal "rules". Partch said so himself.

Now if you read the previous point again.

It is not Partch, nor is it I, who is conflating what are essentially poetic descriptions of compositional elements (poetic, but concrete in practice)with psychoacoustics.

I do have a question for you though, Gene- using the definition above, is it right to say some things "are scalar", like an adjective, or " are scalars" like a noun?

-Cameron Bobro

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

> I do have a question for you though, Gene- using the definition above, is it right to say some things "are scalar", like an adjective, or " are scalars" like a noun?

"This vector space is over the rationals, meaning the scalars are rational numbers" uses the word as a noun. "By scalar multiplication we can clear denominators" uses it as an adjective. But you don't say something "is scalar", you say "is a scalar" or "are scalars".

Thanks, Gene.

I'm going to read Myers, because, on reflection, I begin to wonder if Partch's "big rig" isn't his own mathematically vague (no reflection on artistic excellence there) interpretation of Myers' work. And in Myer's work, perhaps there is a more concrete mathematical entity that really would qualify as, I don't know, something like a field in which you really could address scalars and scalar operations.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > I do have a question for you though, Gene- using the definition above, is it right to say some things "are scalar", like an adjective, or " are scalars" like a noun?
>
> "This vector space is over the rationals, meaning the scalars are rational numbers" uses the word as a noun. "By scalar multiplication we can clear denominators" uses it as an adjective. But you don't say something "is scalar", you say "is a scalar" or "are scalars".
>

Sorry- Meyer, of course.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Gene.
>
> I'm going to read Myers, because, on reflection, I begin to wonder if Partch's "big rig" isn't his own mathematically vague (no reflection on artistic excellence there) interpretation of Myers' work. And in Myer's work, perhaps there is a more concrete mathematical entity that really would qualify as, I don't know, something like a field in which you really could address scalars and scalar operations.
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > > I do have a question for you though, Gene- using the definition above, is it right to say some things "are scalar", like an adjective, or " are scalars" like a noun?
> >
> > "This vector space is over the rationals, meaning the scalars are rational numbers" uses the word as a noun. "By scalar multiplication we can clear denominators" uses it as an adjective. But you don't say something "is scalar", you say "is a scalar" or "are scalars".
> >
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Gene.
>
> I'm going to read Myers, because, on reflection, I begin to wonder if Partch's "big rig" isn't his own mathematically vague (no reflection on artistic excellence there) interpretation of Myers' work.

I wasn't intending to comment on Partch, whom I think was using "field" in another sense, a simile involving a "field of attraction" which is supposed to be in some sense like gravity or magnetism.

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

> I wasn't intending to comment on Partch, whom I think was using >"field" in another sense, a simile involving a "field of attraction" >which is supposed to be in some sense like gravity or magnetism.
>

Yes. He discusses it in the chapter "Resolution", which begins humorously enough "Modulation..."

Partch deliberately varies his descriptions- gravity here, magnetism there, attraction elsewhere. Whether he thought of his Monophonic Fabric or tonality diamond as proper "fields" I can't tell- it doesn't help that he starts off with describing the "fields of attraction" as existing within a series, then footnotes it with Meyer's definition of modulation as "multiplication of number symbols"... then says this definition is insufficient for his "Monophony"... and so on.

At any rate, rather than trying to unravel Partch, I think we may solidly agree that while Partch probably believed in a rock-solid psychoacoustic basis for what he was doing (let us gently pass over what looks to me a lot like appeals to Helmhotzian authority on one foot and dismal of Helmholtz on the other), he didn't claim to be wielding some psychoacoustic Truth. Rather he emphasizes his own practical experience.

Partch's "field of attraction" exists in the realm of musical composition. It is quantized, as he points out in different ways, "snapped to the grid", of his Monophonic Fabric.

There already exists a mainstream musicological concept of intervallic "attraction", you'll find it in probably most ethnomusicological studies in descriptions of the ligatures and melodic tendencies of Eastern music, and you probably heard it in school long ago when you learned voice-leading. For example it's in Schenker's Kontrapunkt I believe for example.

To make a long story short: Partch's "field of attraction"? Compositional. Specific to the materials (whether series, set, field or whatever).

We can't seriously quote Partch's "field of attraction" as support for a general psychoacoustic statement. (And it might not be wise to quote it in musical contexts outside of those resembling Partch's in some tangible way.)

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron:
>
> > We can't seriously quote Partch's "field of attraction" as
> > support for a general psychoacoustic statement.
>
> Sure we can. His "observation one" is that the extent
> of a ratio's field of attraction is inversely proportional
> to its complexity. That's a well-established principle,
> e.g. by Vos & van Vianen as I wrote to you offlist.

Vos and van Vianen addressed thresholds of distinction between tempered and pure intervals. Their (quite nice, IMO) work on this is really based on the ancient concepts of beating and Tonverschmelzung,
which means it is something that musicians can relate to and experience first-hand. Vos and van Vianen are good sources to quote if you wish to illustrate concrete ways in which psychoacoustics and music are linked.

V +vV documented the gradual increase in threshold of determination between beatless and beating (tempered intervals). And they noted that this changing threshold is influenced by spectral content.

Nowhere do they say things like, the field of attraction of the 3 Identity is 400 cents wide. Or that the field of the 11 Identity is submerged within that of the third, but they're both within the field of 1....Partch can say things like that (he did say them, look it up, it's in his explaination of Observation One). He can say them because
he's not talking about the same thing as V+vV, which is thresholds of distinction between tempered and pure intervals, but about tonal, compositional, "magnetisms", "attractions", etc. As I have said several times already, Partch's Observations are in the chapter titled
"Question of Resolution", which starts off a discussion of modulation.

"The urge for resolution inherent in an arrangement of temporarily magentized tones is an artificial one, since it is arbitrarily set up to produce a specific psychological result."- Harry Partch

As I keep saying, regardless of whether Partch believed that there was a sound psychoacoustic basis for his Observations, or whether there actually IS a sound psychoacoustic basis, his Observations and "fields of attractions" are NOT psychoacoustic laws nor even general psychoacoustic claims.

So:

If Partch says, 9:7 lies within the field of attraction of 5:4, that is irrelevant to the psychoacoustic validity of the statement.

And, there is nothing in Vos and van Vianen to support the claim that "9:7 lies within the field of attraction of 5:4"".

How is it that I'm able to tune 9:7 every day? Easy- it has it's own field of attraction, I can hear it going "Just", Tonverschmelzung, doing that "Just" thing.

Same with 11:9 and 16:13. Square root of 3:2 as middle third? Nope, I can't find that spot except by matching a previous pitch. Unlike 11:9 and 16:13, it doesn't seem to have- FOR ME AND TIMBRES I USE- a field of attraction except as a kind of "black hole". 11:9? Strong clear attraction, it does that zwooooozhhh... JI thing like many other Just intervals.

-Cameron Bobro

Cameron>"And, there is nothing in Vos and van Vianen to support the claim that
"9:7 lies within the field of attraction of 5:4"".
I don't hear them as alike either, and agree 9/7 has it's own strong field,
if a much more narrow one.

>"11:9? Strong clear attraction, it does that zwooooozhhh... JI thing like many
>other Just intervals."
Finally, someone (Cameron/"you') seems to say flat out that 11/9 does not
get mysteriously sucked into either being a bad 6/5 or 5/4. I am wondering what
you all think of 22/15 and 13/9 as well...

Michael wrote:

> Finally, someone (Cameron/"you') seems to say flat out that
> 11/9 does not get mysteriously sucked into either being a bad 6/5
> or 5/4.

Actually that's the normal conclusion around here. It is
a "metastable" interval.

-Carl

I wrote:
> Finally, someone (Cameron/"you') seems to say flat out that
> 11/9 does not get mysteriously sucked into either being a bad 6/5
> or 5/4.

Carl replied:
>Actually that's the normal conclusion around here. It is
>a "metastable" interval.

So what equation specifically defines something between 6/5 ("0") and 5/4
("1") as "either ultimately stabilizing to one or the other"?
At first glance it appears 5/4 and 6/5's low-limit nature defines this and
anything 5-odd-limit or under is meta-stable...but I am pretty sure it is not
that simple.
Of course, my ears still hear otherwise (to them several 7 limit dyads, some
9 limit dyads and few 11-limit dyads have obvious "fields of attraction", though
typically not as strong)...but I am wondering how bias toward metastable
"poles"/"minimum and maximum limits" are decided beyond what appears to be
simple "injected/forced bias toward low-limit fractions.

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Michael wrote:
>
> > Finally, someone (Cameron/"you') seems to say flat out that
> > 11/9 does not get mysteriously sucked into either being a bad 6/5
> > or 5/4.
>
> Actually that's the normal conclusion around here. It is
> a "metastable" interval.

OK, then how come when I said this a few weeks ago:

> > When you listen to a neutral triad, you can either hear it
> > as a very flat major triad, or a very sharp minor triad.

You responded:

> I suppose it depends on the context, but generally I'm more
> like Cameron in that I tend to hear it as a neutral triad.

?

-Mike

Michael wrote:

>> Actually that's the normal conclusion around here. It is
>> a "metastable" interval.
>
> So what equation specifically defines something between
> 6/5 ("0") and 5/4 ("1") as "either ultimately stabilizing to
> one or the other"?

11:9 is very near the entropy maximum between these two, so
anything flatter tends to goes to 6:5 and anything sharper
to 5:4. The local maxima of harmonic entropy are excellent
candidates for metastable intervals -- arguably better than
the silver intervals originally suggested by Schulter &
Keenan. They are the weakest intervals at establishing roots,
but perhaps not the most discordant. As Igs noticed, it may
be worse to be a bad 3:2 (e.g. 680 cents) than ambiguous
(e.g. 651 cents).

> Of course, my ears still hear otherwise (to them several
> 7 limit dyads, some 9 limit dyads and few 11-limit dyads have
> obvious "fields of attraction",

It depends on the timbre and register, but generally 9:4 and
11:4 do have fields of attraction, as do 7:4 and 7:5.

-Carl

Mike wrote:

> > > Finally, someone (Cameron/"you') seems to say flat out
> > > that 11/9 does not get mysteriously sucked into either
> > > being a ad 6/5 or 5/4.
> >
> > Actually that's the normal conclusion around here. It is
> > a "metastable" interval.
>
> OK, then how come when I said this a few weeks ago:
>
> > > When you listen to a neutral triad, you can either hear it
> > > as a very flat major triad, or a very sharp minor triad.
>
> You responded:
>
> > I suppose it depends on the context, but generally I'm more
> > like Cameron in that I tend to hear it as a neutral triad.

First off, neutral triads have NOTHING to do with 11:9 the
dyad. That kind of assumption is behind several disagreements
around here, I think.

But even if they did, my two statements would be completely
consistent: it is the 'normal conclusion that 11:9 does NOT
necessarily get sucked into 6:5 or 5:4', and 'I tend to be
like Cameron in hearing a neutral triad'. See?

-Carl
to what you quoted above.

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> But even if they did, my two statements would be completely
> consistent: it is the 'normal conclusion that 11:9 does NOT
> necessarily get sucked into 6:5 or 5:4', and 'I tend to be
> like Cameron in hearing a neutral triad'. See?

Oh, my fault. I thought you were saying that 11/9 DOES get sucked into
5/4 and 6/5. I misunderstood.

-Mike

Right, which begs the question why do 7:4 and 7:5 but not 7:6
get "rewarded" fields of attraction and 9:4 and 11:4 get them,
but not, say, 11:9 or 14:9 (for the record, I agree 14/9 doesn't
have one by ear, but not by just looking at the numbers)?
As of now the answers given, on the surface, seem to say "they
just do", both assuming the Harmonic Entropy graph is always
right and doing so without explaining why certain intervals have
low entropy (and indirectly saying their and only their mediants
have high entropy). It all seems to be far too blindly just
taken as a truth all the while Cameron and I (and maybe some
others as well...not sure) appear to simply not be hearing it.

_,_._,___

Cameron wrote:

> V +vV documented the gradual increase in threshold of
> determination between beatless and beating (tempered
> intervals). And they noted that this changing threshold
> is influenced by spectral content.

They noted the opposite conclusion. Even when the spectra
were manipulated to reduce beating, they got the same result.

However you're right that their results don't establish
fields of attraction. Instead they establish that a given
degree of mistuning is more noticeable in simpler intervals
(this observation goes back at least to Werckmeister
http://www.polettipiano.com/Pages/werckengpaul.html
and is the basis of Tenney-weighted error in TOP tuning).
So sorry about that.

> As I keep saying, regardless of whether Partch believed that
> there was a sound psychoacoustic basis for his Observations,
> or whether there actually IS a sound psychoacoustic basis,
> his Observations and "fields of attractions" are NOT
> psychoacoustic laws nor even general psychoacoustic claims.

Partch's "observation one" is a falsifiable psychoacoustic
claim. If you don't like Partch that's fine by me; I only
used his terminology because it was available.

> How is it that I'm able to tune 9:7 every day?

Did you read the part where I said, "I'm not saying it's
impossible to learn how to tune a 9:7, but it does not seem
to be an ability most people innately have, as they do the
ability to tune a 3:2 and the other dyads conventionally
identified as belonging to just intonation"?

-Carl

Just to clarify, I also misunderstood

I had wrote:
> Finally, someone (Cameron/"you') seems to say flat out that
> 11/9 does not get mysteriously sucked into either being a bad 6/5
> or 5/4.

Carl replied:
>Actually that's the normal conclusion around here. It is
>a "metastable" interval.

I assumed by "that", Carl meant that the conclusion that 11/9 either acts as
a 6/5 or 5/4 (IE the argument Cameron COUNTERED). So I assume Carl was agreeing
with the opinion BEFORE Cameron and my shared opinion.

Much of the reason I assumed that is that the definition of meta-stable
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metastable?&qsrc=) denotes something
between two stable states, which seems to imply more stable means more
prominent But apparently not...apparently "between stable states" is its own
prominent state...and this would appear to contradict harmonic entropy in this
example.

Now that I finally have what Carl originally meant straight (right?)...my
question is still how can we identify meta-stable intervals mathematically IE
what's a "litmus test" to prove and interval is metastable AND (if the
calculation involves other intervals such as 5/4 and 6/5) how can we generate
such intervals?

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>     Now that I finally have what Carl originally meant straight (right?)...my question is still how can we identify meta-stable intervals mathematically IE what's a "litmus test" to prove and interval is metastable AND (if the calculation involves other intervals such as 5/4 and 6/5) how can we generate such intervals?

There was that whole noble mediant thing as a good way to get started.

-Mike

Michael wrote:

> Now that I finally have what Carl originally meant straight
> (right?)...

Right.

> my question is still how can we identify meta-stable intervals
> mathematically IE what's a "litmus test" to prove and interval
> is metastable

I already told you. Are you blind or just ignorant?

/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93504

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > V +vV documented the gradual increase in threshold of
> > determination between beatless and beating (tempered
> > intervals). And they noted that this changing threshold
> > is influenced by spectral content.
>
> They noted the opposite conclusion. Even when the spectra
> were manipulated to reduce beating, they got the same result.
>
> However you're right that their results don't establish
> fields of attraction. Instead they establish that a given
> degree of mistuning is more noticeable in simpler intervals
> (this observation goes back at least to Werckmeister
> http://www.polettipiano.com/Pages/werckengpaul.html
> and is the basis of Tenney-weighted error in TOP tuning).
> So sorry about that.

I think V+vV does have relevance to "fields of attraction", though. Surely you must have something we could call "windows of recognition" as part of "fields of attraction". That is, where does that which is "attracting" actually live (perceptually)? So I think it was a fine reference.

>
> > As I keep saying, regardless of whether Partch believed that
> > there was a sound psychoacoustic basis for his Observations,
> > or whether there actually IS a sound psychoacoustic basis,
> > his Observations and "fields of attractions" are NOT
> > psychoacoustic laws nor even general psychoacoustic claims.
>
> Partch's "observation one" is a falsifiable psychoacoustic
> claim. If you don't like Partch that's fine by me; I only
> used his terminology because it was available.

But the observations are about a different thing. They're about voice-leading, melody writing, resolution and modulation. As I keep pointing out over and over. He's not talking about psychoacoustically resolving 391 cents to 5:4. He describes for example 4:3 being in the field of attraction of 5:4. That's a 4-3 suspension, in conventional terms. All leading to the "1", as he continually points out.

His "scientific" reference is given in the footnote to the second sentence of Observation One. It is a shockingly provincial music theory statement from a psychology journal: "every melodic interval trends toward one of the tones of the tonic chord of the tonality which it arouses. The law (of melodic progression) is based upon the tendency of every interval, yes, of even a single musical sound, to establish a tonality attitude."

Reread the Question of Resolution chapter and you will see.

I suggest we find other terms than "field of attraction".

>
> > How is it that I'm able to tune 9:7 every day?
>
> Did you read the part where I said, "I'm not saying it's
> impossible to learn how to tune a 9:7, but it does not seem
> to be an ability most people innately have, as they do the
> ability to tune a 3:2 and the other dyads conventionally
> identified as belonging to just intonation"?

But I cannot ignore my own experience in having found 9:7 by ear before I had any idea what it was other than "some kind of microtone". It "pops out", like 11:9 or any other simple Just interval does.

If you want to quote me studies testing people tuning intervals, I insist on studies using huge numbers of people of disparate backgrounds, and people from cultures with "quarterone", "maquam" etc. music. I think it would unscientific to the point of "suspicious" not to realize that there must be a general intervallic "map" to which we are conditioned which influences our listening and listening skills.

And nothing you have said so far supports your statement that 9:7 lies in the field of attraction of 5:4. There is zero scientific support for this statement- what the f*ck does it even MEAN, scientifically?- and if Partch said it, he meant it in terms of voice-leading, resolution and so on. BTW 9:7 - 5:4 as a "resolution" is awkward and weak- it could be neato effect, but very much "against the ear". This suspension would be strong evidence that 9:7 is NOT in the field of attraction of 5:4 in the, er, field of composition as well.

-Cameron Bobro

11:9 is not a "metastable interval", it is a simple Just interval. When I play it on instruments of unfixed pitch, I use the audible Just effect to tune it. It takes a concious effort to tune away from it in small increments once you're there, and when intervals are near it, you get the feeling that they "are", or "are supposed to be", it. That's the genuine "magnetism" of harmonic intervals showing its power.

Other intervals and regions described as maxima of harmonic entropy do agree very precisely with my experience, though. 464 cents, yes.
12:7 is in a high entropy zone according to harmonic entropy, and I find it a trippy, trippy interval. This is an example of where I find my brain flip-flopping between effortlessly resolving it as a smooth bright "la" and not being able to tell what the hell it is.

I think harmonic entropy sounds like an excellent idea on paper, but I can't support it because it gives results that sometimes jibe completely with my experience and sometimes gives results that are wildly off. Some applications of the harmonic entropy idea I've seen here on the list, as far as ideas of approximation and perception ("windows of recognition") seem egregiously false.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Michael wrote:
>
> >> Actually that's the normal conclusion around here. It is
> >> a "metastable" interval.
> >
> > So what equation specifically defines something between
> > 6/5 ("0") and 5/4 ("1") as "either ultimately stabilizing to
> > one or the other"?
>
> 11:9 is very near the entropy maximum between these two, so
> anything flatter tends to goes to 6:5 and anything sharper
> to 5:4. The local maxima of harmonic entropy are excellent
> candidates for metastable intervals -- arguably better than
> the silver intervals originally suggested by Schulter &
> Keenan. They are the weakest intervals at establishing roots,
> but perhaps not the most discordant. As Igs noticed, it may
> be worse to be a bad 3:2 (e.g. 680 cents) than ambiguous
> (e.g. 651 cents).
>
> > Of course, my ears still hear otherwise (to them several
> > 7 limit dyads, some 9 limit dyads and few 11-limit dyads have
> > obvious "fields of attraction",
>
> It depends on the timbre and register, but generally 9:4 and
> 11:4 do have fields of attraction, as do 7:4 and 7:5.
>
> -Carl
>

Cameron wrote:

> I think V+vV does have relevance to "fields of attraction",
> though. Surely you must have something we could call "windows
> of recognition" as part of "fields of attraction". That is,
> where does that which is "attracting" actually live
> (perceptually)? So I think it was a fine reference.

They measured how much quieter one of two tones has to be
before you can't tell if the interval is pure (vs. tempering
to 2, 4, and 8 beats per second). For the unison and octave,
you can make one tone 30dB quieter. For the 7-limit
intervals, only 10 dB quieter. The difference between
tempering amounts was pretty consistent across all intervals.
So it really doesn't support fields of attraction like I
first thought (however it certainly is evidence in support
of TOP weighted error).

> > Partch's "observation one" is a falsifiable psychoacoustic
> > claim. If you don't like Partch that's fine by me; I only
> > used his terminology because it was available.
>
> But the observations are about a different thing. They're
> about voice-leading, melody writing, resolution and
> modulation.

Yes, I know. But see his Conclusions on Consonance, in
the chapter on the One-Footed Bride.

> I suggest we find other terms than "field of attraction".

Suggestions?

> If you want to quote me studies testing people tuning intervals,
> I insist on studies using huge numbers of people of disparate
> backgrounds, and people from cultures with "quarterone", "maquam"
> etc. music. I think it would unscientific to the point of
> "suspicious" not to realize that there must be a general
> intervallic "map" to which we are conditioned which influences
> our listening and listening skills.

No traditional (or particularly popular) music, anywhere,
uses 9:7 as a consonance, nor are these psychoacoustic
things particularly sensitive to cultural conditioning.
Note in the V+vV paper, the differences between subjects
were 1/6 the magnitude of the differences between intervals.

> And nothing you have said so far supports your statement
> that 9:7 lies in the field of attraction of 5:4.

Sure it does. The model says so, Benade's experiments say
so, many comments here have said so. What is lacking is
any evidence that anyone, anywhere, can tune a 9:7 cold.
Can you find a single example in the literature?

-Carl

Simple Just intervals don't get sucked into other simple Just intervals, no. Nor are they "metastable"- they're simple Just.

I don't think these arguments would even occur if more people spend more time tuning acoustically. Superparticular intervals and (can't remember the word for it) n+2/n intervals are acoustically very strong.

The 11th and thirteenth partial are not some weird far out inaudible things, they have been bog-standard partials used in common practice Western music for centuries. Please, please, anyone thinking about telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about here, think, think, think first.

22/15? I'll have to listen to it a bit. I'd be shocked silly if I could tune it by feeling for its Just element though- highly unlikely!
13:9, though not particularly high, isn't n+1/n or n+2/n, and I would guess that it's hard to find out of context. Have to try!

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron>"And, there is nothing in Vos and van Vianen to support the claim that
> "9:7 lies within the field of attraction of 5:4"".
> I don't hear them as alike either, and agree 9/7 has it's own strong field,
> if a much more narrow one.
>
> >"11:9? Strong clear attraction, it does that zwooooozhhh... JI thing like many
> >other Just intervals."
> Finally, someone (Cameron/"you') seems to say flat out that 11/9 does not
> get mysteriously sucked into either being a bad 6/5 or 5/4. I am wondering what
> you all think of 22/15 and 13/9 as well...
>

Cameron wrote:

> I don't think these arguments would even occur if more people
> spend more time tuning acoustically.
[snip]
> 22/15? I'll have to listen to it a bit. I'd be shocked
> silly if I could tune it by feeling for its Just element
> though- highly unlikely!

On the contrary, my experience tuning a wide variety of
acoustic and electroacoustic instruments (including some I've
built) in extended JI is central to my understanding of
the widespread extended JI numerology that exists on these
mailing lists. People somehow become emotionally invested
in arbitrary ideas about rational numbers... I don't know why.

-Carl

Cameron>"11:9 is not a "metastable interval", it is a simple Just interval."
Your opinion is what I (and my ears, of course) think, though Carl seems to say
that saying it is metastable is the norm on this list...indirectly implying
metastable is the "correct" term for it.

Cameron>"12:7 is in a high entropy zone according to harmonic entropy, and I
find it a trippy, trippy interval."
Agreed...in that case my ears say the same. I just find it odd HE (if I have it
right) says 11:9 is high entropy (when it doesn't sound that way to me), even
though it (agreeably) finds 12:7 to be high entropy in agreement with my
hearing.

Cameron>"I think harmonic entropy sounds like an excellent idea on paper, but I
can't support it because it gives results that sometimes jibe completely with my
experience and sometimes gives results that are wildly off."
Exactly...it's not that Harmonic Entropy is wrong, but that it misses the mark
in a fair % of cases, as if it's a half-baked theory. Don't get me wrong, the
half that's "done" seems to explain a lot but, like you said, sometimes it gives
results that are not just a bit off, but wildly off...and IMVHO that should
definitely be investigated.

Cameron>"Some applications of the harmonic entropy idea I've seen here on the
list, as far as ideas of approximation and perception ("windows of recognition")
seem egregiously false."
Indeed, it as if people take the pretty good idea of HE, and then treat it
like a perfect gospel of sorts. I would add 11/9, 18/11, 22/15, 13/9 and a
handful of other intervals as having "windows of recognition"...acknowledging
that those windows are much more narrow but often also much steeper.
This all goes back to my original question why are 6/5, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2,
7/4....considered low entropy while things like 11/9 are not...explained in pure
mathematical equations? If I had the exact equations rather than abstract
mumbo-jumbo about what HE means without explaining why it works...I (and maybe
we) could perhaps find a fundamental point in the formula that could be improved
and close correlate with what we actually hear.

Cameron> "I don't think these arguments would even occur if more people spend
more time tuning acoustically. [snip]
> "22/15? I'll have to listen to it a bit. I'd be shocked silly if I could tune
>it by feeling for its Just element though- highly unlikely!"

So we are assuming that ability to tune and interval and its ability to "have a
unique sound" are intrinsically related concepts? If so, how come?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron> "I don't think these arguments would even occur if more people spend
> more time tuning acoustically. [snip]
> > "22/15? I'll have to listen to it a bit. I'd be shocked silly if I could tune
> >it by feeling for its Just element though- highly unlikely!"
>
> So we are assuming that ability to tune and interval and its ability to "have a
> unique sound" are intrinsically related concepts? If so, how come?
>

I don't think so- there are surely hordes of people who can, for example, differentiate between major, minor, augmented and dimished triads yet would find it difficult to tune even a 3:2 on an acoustic intstrument. Tuning (as in, turning the key or adjusting embouchure etc) is also a skill. Learning, practice.

It's just that we were talking earlier about tuning by ear- it's a lot easier when you've got audible harmonic partials to reference.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron>"11:9 is not a "metastable interval", it is a simple Just >interval."
> Your opinion is what I (and my ears, of course) think, though Carl >seems to say
> that saying it is metastable is the norm on this list...indirectly >implying
> metastable is the "correct" term for it.
>

I'm going to go with the billion and more people on this earth who find the neutral thirds "natural", "natural" intervals being, as far as I've been able to determine, always something in the audible harmonic spectrum or something close to those reference points.

>
> Cameron>"12:7 is in a high entropy zone according to harmonic >entropy, and I
> find it a trippy, trippy interval."
> Agreed...in that case my ears say the same. I just find it odd HE >(if I have it
> right) says 11:9 is high entropy (when it doesn't sound that way to >me), even
> though it (agreeably) finds 12:7 to be high entropy in agreement >with my
> hearing.
>
> Cameron>"I think harmonic entropy sounds like an excellent idea on >paper, but I
> can't support it because it gives results that sometimes jibe >completely with my
> experience and sometimes gives results that are wildly off."
> Exactly...it's not that Harmonic Entropy is wrong, but that it >misses the mark
> in a fair % of cases, as if it's a half-baked theory. Don't get me wrong, the
> half that's "done" seems to explain a lot but, like you said, sometimes it gives
> results that are not just a bit off, but wildly off...and IMVHO that should
> definitely be investigated.
>
> Cameron>"Some applications of the harmonic entropy idea I've seen here on the
> list, as far as ideas of approximation and perception ("windows of recognition")
> seem egregiously false."
> Indeed, it as if people take the pretty good idea of HE, and then treat it
> like a perfect gospel of sorts. I would add 11/9, 18/11, 22/15, 13/9 and a
> handful of other intervals as having "windows of recognition"...acknowledging
> that those windows are much more narrow but often also much steeper.
> This all goes back to my original question why are 6/5, 5/4, >4/3, 3/2,
> 7/4....considered low entropy while things like 11/9 are >not...explained in pure
> mathematical equations? If I had the exact equations rather than >abstract
> mumbo-jumbo about what HE means without explaining why it works...I (and maybe
> we) could perhaps find a fundamental point in the formula that >could be improved
> and close correlate with what we actually hear.
>

If you read older literature- and get access to JSTOR, man!- you'll find there's been a continuous and persistent presence in muscial theory which will go to any lengths to "prove" that western tonal diatonic major/minor is "the" "natural" state of affairs, and anything deviating from that is artificial in some way. A lot of the JI/alternative-tuning world is, deep inside, just a branch of that.
Harmonic entropy was developed with Harry Partch's "One-Footed Bride" (consonance/dissonance/charcter chart) in mind, and the OFB is basically the same as Helmholtz's (19th Century) chart, only presented differently visually. Is it any surprise that the prejudiced view of the neutral third as a dissonance continues? Nope.

The starkly provincial view of Hindemith on the "neutral third" is much worse than the Helmholtz/Partch/H.E. chart, though. He considered the minor third a kind of "dirty" or altered (I forget the exact description) version of the 5:4 major third. This sounds funny today, we expect him to bust out with some comment about how 6:5 was made from 5:4's rib or something- but get this: he didn't acknowledge a middle third! Just a continuum from major to minor. So much for all those deluded heathen of the Near East and Central Asia, eh? At least H.E. distinctly marks the little region around 11:9/sqrt1.5.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > I don't think these arguments would even occur if more people
> > spend more time tuning acoustically.
> [snip]
> > 22/15? I'll have to listen to it a bit. I'd be shocked
> > silly if I could tune it by feeling for its Just element
> > though- highly unlikely!
>
> On the contrary, my experience tuning a wide variety of
> acoustic and electroacoustic instruments (including some I've
> built) in extended JI is central to my understanding of
> the widespread extended JI numerology that exists on these
> mailing lists. People somehow become emotionally invested
> in arbitrary ideas about rational numbers... I don't know why.
>
> -Carl
>

Yeah, I don't know why people would get emotionally invested in arbitrary ideas about rational numbers. Harmonic entropy is probably numerology, but I do not think that it is *arbitrarily* rigged to produce the results it does.

I don't talk about numbers, I talk about sounds. Numbers are just convenient names for sounds. Long-oblong-smooth-golden-shouldering is actually what I tune when I tune a "9:7", and of course it's understood that there's a tolerance zone (coupla cents up and a few cents down from 9:7 in this case). That, I think is a wee bit too subjective a moniker for public discourse.

-Cameron Bobro

Hey- how come I can't upload files? Is the space full or something?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > Cameron wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think these arguments would even occur if more people
> > > spend more time tuning acoustically.
> > [snip]
> > > 22/15? I'll have to listen to it a bit. I'd be shocked
> > > silly if I could tune it by feeling for its Just element
> > > though- highly unlikely!
> >
> > On the contrary, my experience tuning a wide variety of
> > acoustic and electroacoustic instruments (including some I've
> > built) in extended JI is central to my understanding of
> > the widespread extended JI numerology that exists on these
> > mailing lists. People somehow become emotionally invested
> > in arbitrary ideas about rational numbers... I don't know why.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
>
> Yeah, I don't know why people would get emotionally invested in arbitrary ideas about rational numbers. Harmonic entropy is probably numerology, but I do not think that it is *arbitrarily* rigged to produce the results it does.
>
> I don't talk about numbers, I talk about sounds. Numbers are just convenient names for sounds. Long-oblong-smooth-golden-shouldering is actually what I tune when I tune a "9:7", and of course it's understood that there's a tolerance zone (coupla cents up and a few cents down from 9:7 in this case). That, I think is a wee bit too subjective a moniker for public discourse.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

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

> The starkly provincial view of Hindemith on the "neutral third" is
much worse than the Helmholtz/Partch/H.E. chart, though. He considered
the minor third a kind of "dirty" or altered (I forget the exact
description) version of the 5:4 major third.

I believe he said that the minor triad is a "clouding" of the natural
major triad.

Kalle

Thanks! I'm going to have to hunt down "The Craft...", preferably in German.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > The starkly provincial view of Hindemith on the "neutral third" is
> much worse than the Helmholtz/Partch/H.E. chart, though. He considered
> the minor third a kind of "dirty" or altered (I forget the exact
> description) version of the 5:4 major third.
>
> I believe he said that the minor triad is a "clouding" of the natural
> major triad.
>
> Kalle
>

Comeron>"Harmonic entropy was developed with Harry Partch's "One-Footed Bride"
(consonance/dissonance/charcter chart) in mind, and the OFB is basically the
same as Helmholtz's (19th Century) chart, only presented differently visually.
Is it any surprise that the prejudiced view of the neutral third as a dissonance
continues? Nope."

Ah finally, a definition somewhat of where HE actually came from instead of
just a demand of sorts that says "it's proven, so follow it". I'm definitely
going to look up "One-Footed Bride" and see how much it in itself is biased
toward rewarding major and minor and virtually nothing in-between. Perhaps this
is the historical root of the apparent "pet hypothesis" narrow-mindedness
against neutral intervals.

>"He considered the minor third a kind of "dirty" or altered (I forget the exact
>description) version of the 5:4 major third. This sounds funny today, we expect
>him to bust out with some comment about how 6:5 was made from 5:4's rib or
>something- but get this: he didn't acknowledge a middle third! Just a continuum
>from major to minor."

>"So much for all those deluded heathen of the Near East and Central Asia, eh?"
Ye[...and I figure that would throw any Turkish polyphonic idealisms
regarding use of neutral intervals (or anything very near them) down the toilet
as well. Not to mention the countless examples of minor key songs that sound
unbalanced when forced into major keys IMVHO being there and heavily conflicting
with Hindemith's idea that 6/5 is just a "dirty" 5/4. Nasty things seem to
happen when people try to force their ideas of how they believe something worse
into exclusive cultural ideas...I guess you could say that's perhaps the main
major problem I have when people in any artistic field seem to say "it has to be
that way (the last way defined in depth by their immediate culture)...history
says so...if you are hearing anything else you are just wrong".

Cameron wrote:

> I'm going to go with the billion and more people on this earth
> who find the neutral thirds "natural",

Which billion are those?

> If you read older literature- and get access to JSTOR, man!-
> you'll find there's been a continuous and persistent presence
> in muscial theory which will go to any lengths to "prove" that
> western tonal diatonic major/minor is "the" "natural" state of
> affairs, and anything deviating from that is artificial in some
> way. A lot of the JI/alternative-tuning world is, deep inside,
> just a branch of that.

Yes, it's all just a conspiracy.

> Harmonic entropy was developed with Harry Partch's "One-Footed
> Bride" (consonance/dissonance/charcter chart) in mind,

No, it wasn't. Harmonic entropy was essentially developed
by Van Eck, who probably never even heard of the one-footed
bride.

-Carl

Cameron wrote:

> Hey- how come I can't upload files? Is the space full or something?
>

Sorry, you should be able to now. In the future, such matters
are best addressed offlist.

-Carl

the one footed bride

http://users.rcn.com/dante.interport/bride.html

Had to look it up.

Chris

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

>
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > I'm going to go with the billion and more people on this earth
> > who find the neutral thirds "natural",
>
> Which billion are those?
>
>
> > If you read older literature- and get access to JSTOR, man!-
> > you'll find there's been a continuous and persistent presence
> > in muscial theory which will go to any lengths to "prove" that
> > western tonal diatonic major/minor is "the" "natural" state of
> > affairs, and anything deviating from that is artificial in some
> > way. A lot of the JI/alternative-tuning world is, deep inside,
> > just a branch of that.
>
> Yes, it's all just a conspiracy.
>
>
> > Harmonic entropy was developed with Harry Partch's "One-Footed
> > Bride" (consonance/dissonance/charcter chart) in mind,
>
> No, it wasn't. Harmonic entropy was essentially developed
> by Van Eck, who probably never even heard of the one-footed
> bride.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

Cameron wrote:

> and the OFB is basically the
> same as Helmholtz's (19th Century) chart, only presented
> differently visually.

And it may be worth pointing out that OFB is an octave-
equivalent curve, whereas Helmoltz's chart and harmonic
entropy are not. They are fundamentally different, not
just presented differently visually.

-Carl

Since we mention Partch here I will comment on this:

I am listening for the first time to Delusions of Fury
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6buNHKzS-Nc&feature=related

and I got to say it doesn't sound "microtonal" it just sounds... correct.

I'm thinking this indicates it is holding together on its own apart from the
12 edo microcosmos instead of being in comparison to it.

Chris

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > and the OFB is basically the
> > same as Helmholtz's (19th Century) chart, only presented
> > differently visually.
>
> And it may be worth pointing out that OFB is an octave-
> equivalent curve, whereas Helmoltz's chart and harmonic
> entropy are not. They are fundamentally different, not
> just presented differently visually.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

Carl:
> > > Partch's "observation one" is a falsifiable psychoacoustic
> > > claim. If you don't like Partch that's fine by me; I only
> > > used his terminology because it was available.
> >
Cameron:
> > But the observations are about a different thing. They're
> > about voice-leading, melody writing, resolution and
> > modulation.
Carl:
>
> Yes, I know. But see his Conclusions on Consonance, in
> the chapter on the One-Footed Bride.

Cameron:

Can you show me anywhere there where he gives figures putting 9:7 into the field of attraction of 5:4? In one part of the book, he gives a psychoacoustic basis, in the other he extrapolates this to a compositional approach. They are not to be confused.

Cameron:
>
> > I suggest we find other terms than "field of attraction".
>
Carl:
> Suggestions?

I don't know, but how about trying to address what actually happens? You could say, rather than "9:7 is within the field of attraction of 5:4", rather that relationship between the 9th and 7th partials can be more difficult to hear because it tends to be obscured by activity in the usually more prominent 5th and 4th partials. That would have the refreshing quality of being actually true, and not sounding like something from Dianetics.

And it would suggest that if we were to remove or weaken one or both of the harmonic partials 5 and 4, 9:7 would be more apparent. And whaddya know- this psychoacoustic fact is an integral part of musical practice in the Bohlen-Pierce tuning.

I already told you that my real discovering- hey, wow!- of 9:7 came on the clarinet.

Cameron:
>
> > If you want to quote me studies testing people tuning intervals,
> > I insist on studies using huge numbers of people of disparate
> > backgrounds, and people from cultures with "quarterone", "maquam"
> > etc. music. I think it would unscientific to the point of
> > "suspicious" not to realize that there must be a general
> > intervallic "map" to which we are conditioned which influences
> > our listening and listening skills.

Carl:
>
> No traditional (or particularly popular) music, anywhere,
> uses 9:7 as a consonance, nor are these psychoacoustic
> things particularly sensitive to cultural conditioning.
> Note in the V+vV paper, the differences between subjects
> were 1/6 the magnitude of the differences between intervals.
>

Cameron:
> > And nothing you have said so far supports your statement
> > that 9:7 lies in the field of attraction of 5:4.
>

Carl:
> Sure it does. The model says so, Benade's experiments say
> so, many comments here have said so. What is lacking is
> any evidence that anyone, anywhere, can tune a 9:7 cold.
> Can you find a single example in the literature?

As soon as I noticed this statement, I sang a 9:7 harmonic interval, cold, into the Adobe Audition multitrack on my laptop. Sorry for the poor recording quality, I used the built-in mic. It's uploaded here in my folder. Perfect, no, not with my diesel-tractor voice. Clearly 9:7? Yes. And easier with tunable oscillators, especially in a higher range.

Let's see, am I going to go with "the literature" (not that there's much of it at all in the great scheme of things) or with, well, real
life?

-Cameron Bobro

So you'd say that in those areas where they address the same intervals, they do NOT show basically the same results.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > and the OFB is basically the
> > same as Helmholtz's (19th Century) chart, only presented
> > differently visually.
>
> And it may be worth pointing out that OFB is an octave-
> equivalent curve, whereas Helmoltz's chart and harmonic
> entropy are not. They are fundamentally different, not
> just presented differently visually.
>
> -Carl
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > I'm going to go with the billion and more people on this earth
> > who find the neutral thirds "natural",
>
> Which billion are those?

I suggest you take a basic course in ethnomusicology.
>
> > If you read older literature- and get access to JSTOR, man!-
> > you'll find there's been a continuous and persistent presence
> > in muscial theory which will go to any lengths to "prove" that
> > western tonal diatonic major/minor is "the" "natural" state of
> > affairs, and anything deviating from that is artificial in some
> > way. A lot of the JI/alternative-tuning world is, deep inside,
> > just a branch of that.
>
> Yes, it's all just a conspiracy.

I disagree with you there, though, as you seem to be more knowledgable than I in general, perhaps you could cite me some studies demonstrating your belief that it's all just a conspiracy?

I don't think cultural bias, prejudice, reactionary positions, etc. are "conspiracies".

>
> > Harmonic entropy was developed with Harry Partch's "One-Footed
> > Bride" (consonance/dissonance/charcter chart) in mind,
>
> No, it wasn't. Harmonic entropy was essentially developed
> by Van Eck, who probably never even heard of the one-footed
> bride.
>
> -Carl
>

Harmonic entropy as it is evangelized on this list was fleshed out by Paul Erlich:

"By the way, I intend to model Partch's "one-footed bride" with a sort of octave-equivalent harmonic entropy function... I will let the odd limit approach infinity, and I expect that for some realistic assumption about pitch resolution, the one-footed bride will emerge."

-Cameron Bobro

Michael, I think you should go to a university library, preferably a big one, and really start reading books, and going through papers at JSTOR.

They're phasing out the old books in the university library here, and getting new ones. Hey, I wonder where they go, I could probably buy them... They used to have more pre-War stuff in, which is where you could really see highly opinionated stuff openly expressed. There was an old dictionary of music which had under Just Intonation just one or two sentences- then a whole essay on how Just Intonation is useless, and an explanation of 12-tET. :-) Read Barbour's "Just Intonation Confuted" for a famous example of this kind of approach.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/727984

free to read (and save as pdf for personal use) at your university library! It's great fun digging into the roots of what goes on today.
Be prepared to laugh out loud, especially if you read stuff from the 19th Century through the 1950's.

Find yourself the American encyclopedia "World Book Encyclopedia" from the mid 1950's and look up "mink". It's worth it, trust me.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Comeron>"Harmonic entropy was developed with Harry Partch's "One-Footed Bride"
> (consonance/dissonance/charcter chart) in mind, and the OFB is basically the
> same as Helmholtz's (19th Century) chart, only presented differently visually.
> Is it any surprise that the prejudiced view of the neutral third as a dissonance
> continues? Nope."
>
> Ah finally, a definition somewhat of where HE actually came from instead of
> just a demand of sorts that says "it's proven, so follow it". I'm definitely
> going to look up "One-Footed Bride" and see how much it in itself is biased
> toward rewarding major and minor and virtually nothing in-between. Perhaps this
> is the historical root of the apparent "pet hypothesis" narrow-mindedness
> against neutral intervals.
>
> >"He considered the minor third a kind of "dirty" or altered (I forget the exact
> >description) version of the 5:4 major third. This sounds funny today, we expect
> >him to bust out with some comment about how 6:5 was made from 5:4's rib or
> >something- but get this: he didn't acknowledge a middle third! Just a continuum
> >from major to minor."
>
> >"So much for all those deluded heathen of the Near East and Central Asia, eh?"
> Ye[...and I figure that would throw any Turkish polyphonic idealisms
> regarding use of neutral intervals (or anything very near them) down the toilet
> as well. Not to mention the countless examples of minor key songs that sound
> unbalanced when forced into major keys IMVHO being there and heavily conflicting
> with Hindemith's idea that 6/5 is just a "dirty" 5/4. Nasty things seem to
> happen when people try to force their ideas of how they believe something worse
> into exclusive cultural ideas...I guess you could say that's perhaps the main
> major problem I have when people in any artistic field seem to say "it has to be
> that way (the last way defined in depth by their immediate culture)...history
> says so...if you are hearing anything else you are just wrong".
>

Cameron:

> Can you show me anywhere there where he gives figures
> putting 9:7 into the field of attraction of 5:4?

Did I ever say Partch said this?

> In one part of the book, he gives a psychoacoustic basis,
> in the other he extrapolates this to a compositional approach.
> They are not to be confused.

I'm glad you agree.

> I don't know, but how about trying to address what actually
> happens? You could say, rather than "9:7 is within the field
> of attraction of 5:4", rather that relationship between the
> 9th and 7th partials can be more difficult to hear because it
> tends to be obscured by activity in the usually more prominent
> 5th and 4th partials. That would have the refreshing quality
> of being actually true, and not sounding like something
> from Dianetics.

I don't think it has much to do with the prominence of
partials.

> And it would suggest that if we were to remove or weaken one
> or both of the harmonic partials 5 and 4, 9:7 would be more
> apparent. And whaddya know- this psychoacoustic fact is an
> integral part of musical practice in the Bohlen-Pierce tuning.

Pierce suggested weakening the even partials.

> As soon as I noticed this statement, I sang a 9:7 harmonic
> interval, cold, into the Adobe Audition multitrack on my
> laptop. Sorry for the poor recording quality, I used the
> built-in mic. It's uploaded here in my folder. Perfect, no,
> not with my diesel-tractor voice. Clearly 9:7? Yes. And
> easier with tunable oscillators, especially in a higher range.
>
> Let's see, am I going to go with "the literature" (not that
> there's much of it at all in the great scheme of things) or
> with, well, real life?

This isn't about you and I already said twice it's not
impossible to learn this skill. But something seems to be
wrong with the file - it's only 135K, and Yahoo says it's
"not available". Probably Yahoo's fault but maybe try
uploading again.

-Carl

Cameron wrote:

> > > and the OFB is basically the
> > > same as Helmholtz's (19th Century) chart, only presented
> > > differently visually.
> >
> > And it may be worth pointing out that OFB is an octave-
> > equivalent curve, whereas Helmoltz's chart and harmonic
> > entropy are not. They are fundamentally different, not
> > just presented differently visually.
>
> So you'd say that in those areas where they address the same
> intervals, they do NOT show basically the same results.

Paul showed that if you average the harmonic entropy of
5/3 and 6/5, etc. you get something like the OFB. Otherwise
I don't know what you mean.

-Carl

Cameron wrote:

> > > I'm going to go with the billion and more people on this earth
> > > who find the neutral thirds "natural",
> >
> > Which billion are those?
>
> I suggest you take a basic course in ethnomusicology.

Big man! I suggest you start making sense.

> > > If you read older literature- and get access to JSTOR, man!-
> > > you'll find there's been a continuous and persistent presence
> > > in muscial theory which will go to any lengths to "prove" that
> > > western tonal diatonic major/minor is "the" "natural" state of
> > > affairs, and anything deviating from that is artificial in some
> > > way. A lot of the JI/alternative-tuning world is, deep inside,
> > > just a branch of that.
> >
> > Yes, it's all just a conspiracy.
>
> I disagree with you there, though, as you seem to be more
> knowledgable than I in general, perhaps you could cite me some
> studies demonstrating your belief that it's all just
> a conspiracy?

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I meant, "Your argument
against the idea is a fallacious attack based on a highly
speculative account of its purported history".

> > No, it wasn't. Harmonic entropy was essentially developed
> > by Van Eck, who probably never even heard of the one-footed
> > bride.
>
> Harmonic entropy as it is evangelized on this list was fleshed
> out by Paul Erlich:
>
> "By the way, I intend to model Partch's "one-footed bride" with
> a sort of octave-equivalent harmonic entropy function...

Note the key words, "octave-equivalent". This was a side
project, not to do with fleshing out harmonic entropy.

-Carl

Cameron>"Michael, I think you should go to a university library, preferably a
big one, and really start reading books, and going through papers at JSTOR.

Will likely do so.

>"Read Barbour's "Just Intonation Confuted" for a famous example of this kind of
>approach. http://www.jstor.org/pss/727984"
Indeed I would consider not this conclusion but the method of proving it WAY
off, but it sure was amusing to read. :-D I'd modify one of his quotes
though...people should NOT "keep JI in it's place, hidden in the pages of a
physics text".

He notes a few obvious flaws...like that you can't have all major and minor
triads pure in a JI diatonic scale (at least one of the major-minor chords must
not be pure and must, as I understand it, have an interval off by about a
comma). He also notes that the sense of root would change if all chords were
forced to be pure...but does not seem to note that the chance in general would
be incredibly slight (IE the same kind of effect Adaptive JI has on slight
'commatic shifts', for example...despite that listening tests on this list,
among other places, seem to say people still OFTEN prefer that type of error to
the errors of 12TET). He also says higher TET scales like 53 are just "scales
full of commas", but never seems to specify exactly what those commas are
relative to (IE meantone, 12TET, pythagorean?)

He also makes one huge error IMVHO...saying JI is only useful for
triads...when obviously you can make a scale out of JI tetrads or larger
chords...or go the other way (as I often do) and forego triads and, via, JI,
concentrate on make all the dyads "pure" (which can be done, at least within 8
cents or so of perfect, unlike making a scale with all possible triads pure).

He also brings up an organist "N. Lindsey Norden" and makes a bizarre claim
that no singer can sing in proper "acapella" JI...while Barbershop Quartets and
other types of singer do this regularly. He also claims tempered intervals are
"fused" by the mind as pure intervals, but provides no example. He also notes
that singers fluctuate both in pitch/portamento and vibrato around a note, but
listeners do not mind...he uses it as proof of that being "a bit off just
doesn't matter"...but I would guess it comes down to such fluctuations' being
sudden and short, with most of the emphasis being on far less
vibrating/pitch-modulating tones that are held much longer. He seems to note
the errors of JI in playing enharmonic equivalents, but appears to go off on a
limb and say Pythagorean based meantone tuning is the ultimate because it
handles enharmonic equivalents and usage so well for "historical" music. Dare I
say it, even his reasoning beyond why JI is bad at enharmonic equivalents seems
wrong IE several 12TET tones get "blurred" between enharmonic equivalents as
well.

His main fault seems to be he rates JI for how much it approaches
"meantone" common practice usage and properties exclusive to TET scales (IE
"perfect" transposition an how intervals are equally distant from any "root
tone")....but he also bizarrely notes the lack of the popularity of JI
instruments, but uses bizarre examples like Bosanquet's 83!! notes to the octave
piano...and then complains how they are two complex to play (he seems to assume
all instruments involving approach of JI must both only be TET-based and have a
huge number of notes). Pet hypothesizing at its best (or worst?!) :-D

So what did you (Cameron and others) think of this article?

Cameron > > > I'm going to go with the billion and more people on this earth
> > > who find the neutral thirds "natural",
Carl> > Which billion are those?
Cameron>> I suggest you take a basic course in ethnomusicology.
Carl>Big man! I suggest you start making sense.

Arab, Persian, Asian...I have heard of neutral intervals being used in chords
in all of these cultures, and that's just gathering the tip of the iceberg from
messages this list!
Hey, if not "billions" believe...at least several millions under such cultures.
;-)

Michael wrote:

> Arab, Persian, Asian...I have heard of neutral intervals
> being used in chords in all of these cultures, and that's just
> gathering the tip of the iceberg from messages this list!

Maybe you can point me to an example then?

-Carl

I wrote:

> > Arab, Persian, Asian...I have heard of neutral intervals
> > being used in chords in all of these cultures, and that's just
> > gathering the tip of the iceberg from messages this list!
>
> Maybe you can point me to an example then?

Not to say such an example doesn't exist, and I'd love to
hear one. But as an exceedingly accurate generalization,
none of these cultures (nor any others) employ the 11:9 or
18:22:27 as a consonance, and in fact there is no evidence
11:9 has anything to do with the neutral third used in Arab
music, which, like all intervals it uses, is melodically
conceived. 9:7 has even less a legacy, appearing only in
rare instances in 4:5:7:9 and 4:6:7:9 tetrads in barbershop
music, and of course I don't dispute it is perfectly tunable/
singable in such chords, even by naive subjects.

-Carl

Michael wrote:

> Arab, Persian, Asian...I have heard of neutral intervals
> being used in chords in all of these cultures, and that's just
> gathering the tip of the iceberg from messages this list!

Carl wrote:
>Maybe you can point me to an example then?

From http://www.chrysalis-foundation.org/Al-Farabi%27s_%27Uds.htm (an article
concerning Persian music),

"The middle finger of Zalzal was named after the famous lutenist Mansur
Zalzal (d. 791).[10] He is credited with the implementation of length ratio
27/22 [355 ¢], known in the West as the “neutral third” because it approximates
the average between the Pythagorean “major third,” ratio 81/64 [408 ¢], and the
Pythagorean “minor third”; or (408 ¢ + 294 ¢) ÷ 2 = 351 ¢."

Perhaps more interestingly it is said
"In his book and dissertation entitled The Dastgah Concept in Persian Music,
Hormoz Farhat[11] distinguishes between such tones and the notorious tempered
“quarter-tone” — 50.00 ¢ exactly — of Western music:"

This mirrors what I read in Ozan Yarman's thesis...that the tempered quarter
tone (IE in 24TET) is, in fact, a gross oversimplification of what actually
happens in Persian music.

Carl>"But as an exceedingly accurate generalization, none of these cultures (nor
any others) employ the 11:9 or
18:22:27 as a consonance"

Ah ok, so you are saying that interval is used purely for melodic purposes
(as the "African" quarter tone in blues also are) and finding an actual chord in
such cultural music that uses them may well be impossible. I'm going to see
what Scala can find far as chords in that "area" and back-track research from
there to find out who originated such chords and for what use. BTW, it might
not be "exactly" use 11/9, it might be a few cents off (to learn why read my
last reply).

Michael wrote:

> >Maybe you can point me to an example then?
>
> From http://www.chrysalis-foundation.org/Al-Farabi%27s_%27Uds.htm

I thought you said you'd heard musical examples, so that's
what I was looking for.

> This mirrors what I read in Ozan Yarman's thesis...that the
> tempered quarter tone (IE in 24TET) is, in fact, a gross
> oversimplification of what actually happens in Persian music.

Recent analysis of one Libyan ud performance revealed it to
conform almost exactly to 24-ET. Actually the quartertone
intervals are given much less airtime than the others, so in
fact it conforms very closely to 12-ET and/or Pythagorean
tuning if you prefer. Of course the pitch is all over the
place, and this is used creatively by the artists in a way
that no scale of fixed pitches fully captures. The claim you
are quoting from al-Farabi and/or Forster, that musicians
reliably distinguish between 350 cents and 27/22, is patently
wrong. Most of the instruments used in maqam music have
tuning accuracy of at best 5 cents, with the possible
exception of the qanun. There's no evidence for 11-prime-
limit ratios on qanun's anywhere, unless you happen to be
at Ozan's house. :) Most scholars agree that al-Farabi,
like Ptolemy and other theorists of antiquity, were engaged
in creative number games that did not accurately model the
performances of the day.

As far as Akkoc et al, you can read my recent remarks on
their most recent paper here:

/tuning/topicId_89711.html#90119?var=0&l=1

-Carl

Michael wrote:

>> But as an exceedingly accurate generalization, none of these
>> cultures (nor any others) employ the 11:9 or 18:22:27 as a
>> consonance
>
> Ah ok, so you are saying that interval is used purely for
> melodic purposes

Some interval near 350 cents, or a host of them, are used
in maqam music, in certain locales. Maqam music does not
employ chords per se (sometimes they appear polyphonically
in ensemble playing, but they are not a primary focus of the
music). -Carl

>"Most scholars agree that al-Farabi, like Ptolemy and other theorists of
>antiquity, were engaged in creative number games that did not accurately model
>the performances of the day."

And this somehow indicates that such performances are not possible? It's
odd because I'm a huge fan of Ptolemy's tunings as well...and I still wonder why
people give Pythagorean-based tunings the "nod" over Ptolemy's tunings so
easily. You are right though...finding musical examples of quarter tones on
chords is tricky to do...it's like comparing the number of songs written in
12TET to those written in Adaptive JI. :-S

The other funny thing is you said is
"There's no evidence for 11-prime- limit ratios on qanun's anywhere, unless you
happen to be at Ozan's house. :)"
Meanwhile, from what little I've heard of Ozan's music, I think his "Saba
Storm" based on the Saba Maqam actually sounds much easier to listen to than
most "quarter tone over 12TET chords" Arabic music. And he won a fairly major
music competition with that song. Just a hunch...I think that's definite, ahem,
MUSICAL evidence that people lack "marketing awareness" of systems like
Ozan's...and they do ultimately have potential to be incredibly well received by
larger audiences (even if they have not been in history).
The same, I figure, could easily be argued for 31TET vs. 12TET.

>"As far as Akkoc et al, you can read my recent remarks on
their most recent paper here:
/tuning/topicId_89711.html#90119?var=0&l=1"

Bizarre...in "saba 1.75 7/6 4.25 4/3 3/2--8 10 2/1" -your above
response
...what am I supposed to interpret 1.75 4.25 and --8 10 as?
And...is this in fact the original Saba mode in it's entirety or just, say, an
estimate of what notes are used "on average"?
When Ozan posted his Saba Storm scale I recall it had MANY more ratios of many
more types than that.

Michael wrote:

> "saba 1.75 7/6 4.25 4/3 3/2--8 10 2/1" -your above
> response
> ...what am I supposed to interpret 1.75 4.25 and --8 10 as?

Those are multiples of 100 cents.

> And...is this in fact the original Saba mode in it's entirety
> or just, say, an estimate of what notes are used "on average"?

Read the paper.

> When Ozan posted his Saba Storm scale I recall it had MANY more
> ratios of many more types than that.

Ozan is a xenharmonic musician. :)

-Carl

Carl, please, refrain from such hobbyist comments that have no bearing
on maqam reality. :)

Let the corrections be made:

1. Only qanuns, tanburs and a few other instruments are fixed-pitched,
and in fact only keyboard instruments are ACTUALLY played as fixed-
pitched. A huge majority of instruments in Maqam music (including
tanburs and especially neys) are executed on a continuous spectrum of
frequencies with tuning accuracies greater than 5 cents indeed.

2. 24-tET and 48-tET are "very rough" and "crude" approximations of
maqam scales. Better fixed-pitch options exist in the form of 41, 53
equal as well as more than a dozen suggestions by many theorists in
the know out there - notwithstanding the fact that a particular
suggestion best serves its own culture and geography ascribing to the
maqam idiom.

3. A close scrutiny of qanuns in the Middle East will reveal a
prominence of "11-limit" middle second and middle third approximations
in maqams such as Ushshaq, Hijaz, Saba, Huzzam, etc... in the body of
24-tET and 72-tET as well as my alternative formulations as Michael
pointed out.

4. While Rauf Yekta & co. have denounced Ancient Greek theory as
having engaged itself in play of numbers and nothing more (implying
the same for Muslim theorists), most scholars of this day and age DO
NOT agree that Islamic Middle Ages music theory have no bearing on
practice. In fact, the existence of middle seconds and middle thirds
in these treatises that are found today in frequency measurements
reveal a truth much warped by nationalistic ideologies of the 20th
Century in the Middle East.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 9, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Michael wrote:
>
>>> Maybe you can point me to an example then?
>>
>> From http://www.chrysalis-foundation.org/Al-Farabi%27s_%27Uds.htm
>
> I thought you said you'd heard musical examples, so that's
> what I was looking for.
>
>> This mirrors what I read in Ozan Yarman's thesis...that the
>> tempered quarter tone (IE in 24TET) is, in fact, a gross
>> oversimplification of what actually happens in Persian music.
>
> Recent analysis of one Libyan ud performance revealed it to
> conform almost exactly to 24-ET. Actually the quartertone
> intervals are given much less airtime than the others, so in
> fact it conforms very closely to 12-ET and/or Pythagorean
> tuning if you prefer. Of course the pitch is all over the
> place, and this is used creatively by the artists in a way
> that no scale of fixed pitches fully captures. The claim you
> are quoting from al-Farabi and/or Forster, that musicians
> reliably distinguish between 350 cents and 27/22, is patently
> wrong. Most of the instruments used in maqam music have
> tuning accuracy of at best 5 cents, with the possible
> exception of the qanun. There's no evidence for 11-prime-
> limit ratios on qanun's anywhere, unless you happen to be
> at Ozan's house. :) Most scholars agree that al-Farabi,
> like Ptolemy and other theorists of antiquity, were engaged
> in creative number games that did not accurately model the
> performances of the day.
>
> As far as Akkoc et al, you can read my recent remarks on
> their most recent paper here:
>
> /tuning/topicId_89711.html#90119?var=0&l=1
>
> -Carl
>
>

Ozan wrote:

> Let the corrections be made:
>
> 1. Only qanuns, tanburs and a few other instruments are fixed-
> pitched, and in fact only keyboard instruments are ACTUALLY
> played as fixed-pitched. A huge majority of instruments
> in Maqam music (including tanburs and especially neys) are
> executed on a continuous spectrum of frequencies with tuning
> accuracies greater than 5 cents indeed.

Sorry, not a chance. We do not see fretted strings with
better than 5 cents performance resolution across the neck
and I have listened to enough tanbur to wonder if you have
your head on straight making such a claim.

> 2. 24-tET and 48-tET are "very rough" and "crude" approximations
> of maqam scales.

In fact, the performance I analyzed could not be better
approximated than by 24-ET. You can check it for yourself
with any pitch-tracking software.

> 3. A close scrutiny of qanuns in the Middle East will reveal
> a prominence of "11-limit" middle second and middle third
> approximations in maqams such as Ushshaq, Hijaz, Saba, Huzzam,
> etc...

Has such scrutiny been published?

> In fact, the existence of middle seconds and middle thirds
> in these treatises that are found today in frequency
> measurements

By all means, point us to such.

-Carl

Sorry Carl, you've reached the maximum allotted patience I harbour
toward pretentiousness to knowledge on which one does not exercise
faithful profession. Proper research on the matter will answer your
questions (a certain humble dissertation might yield some clues) and
hopefully deter you from making bold generalizing statements such as
those below.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 10, 2010, at 8:33 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Ozan wrote:
>
>> Let the corrections be made:
>>
>> 1. Only qanuns, tanburs and a few other instruments are fixed-
>> pitched, and in fact only keyboard instruments are ACTUALLY
>> played as fixed-pitched. A huge majority of instruments
>> in Maqam music (including tanburs and especially neys) are
>> executed on a continuous spectrum of frequencies with tuning
>> accuracies greater than 5 cents indeed.
>
> Sorry, not a chance. We do not see fretted strings with
> better than 5 cents performance resolution across the neck
> and I have listened to enough tanbur to wonder if you have
> your head on straight making such a claim.
>
>> 2. 24-tET and 48-tET are "very rough" and "crude" approximations
>> of maqam scales.
>
> In fact, the performance I analyzed could not be better
> approximated than by 24-ET. You can check it for yourself
> with any pitch-tracking software.
>
>> 3. A close scrutiny of qanuns in the Middle East will reveal
>> a prominence of "11-limit" middle second and middle third
>> approximations in maqams such as Ushshaq, Hijaz, Saba, Huzzam,
>> etc...
>
> Has such scrutiny been published?
>
>> In fact, the existence of middle seconds and middle thirds
>> in these treatises that are found today in frequency
>> measurements
>
> By all means, point us to such.
>
> -Carl
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
Proper research on the matter will answer your
> questions

In which case, you ought to be able to answer them.

I can attempt to answer them if I had the time and patience to devote
myself to intense tutoring of minds bent towards their own incomplete,
grandiloquent, and even false conclusions on matters they have not yet
researched with due dedication and discipline in every possible facet.
As it happens, at the moment I do NOT.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 10, 2010, at 8:50 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> Proper research on the matter will answer your
>> questions
>
> In which case, you ought to be able to answer them.
>

> Sorry Carl, you've reached the maximum allotted patience I
> harbour toward pretentiousness to knowledge on which one
> does not exercise faithful profession. Proper research on the
> matter will answer your questions (a certain humble
> dissertation might yield some clues) and hopefully deter you
> from making bold generalizing statements such as those below.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.

Ozan, this list is for the exchange of ideas. If you do not
intend to contribute any, please refrain from petty remarks.
Quite frankly I have been more than generous over the years in
my assessments of your posts and publications. There is no one
who has felt the power of maqam music more deeply than I, but
I maintain that its proud heritage is best served by the truth,
and as always I will endeavor to serve the truth.

-Carl

24tET: 150.000 cents
11-limit: 12/11 150.637

11-limit: 11/9 347.408
24-tET: 350.000 cents

24-tET: 550.000 cents
11-limit: 11/8 551.318

24-tET 800.000 cents
11-limit: 18/11 852.592

ll-limit: 11/6 1049.363
24-tET: 1050.000 cents

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> There's no evidence for 11-prime-
> limit ratios on qanun's anywhere, unless you happen to be
> at Ozan's house. :)

You can't insist on 24tET AND deny the 11-limit. Not unless you want to throw out the idea of approximation altogether, for these are examples of very good to superb (microtemperament) approximations. On one hand you accept a dubious approximation, 400 cents as 5:4, yet reject these obvious near-identities?

(If I'm not mistaken, a sophisticated performance in maqam Iraq might be using every one of the intervals in a single performance.)

-Cameron Bobro

Cameron, "maqam Iraq according to which performance tradition?" is the
question that escapes the casual enthusiast. Although I admit 24-EDO
is a "viable" approximation for some maqams and in some (rather recent
and 12-equal affected) recordings (So is 17, 22 and even 19-EDO by the
way), it is IN FACT a very CRUDE approximation for all maqams in all
traditions in all of history - let alone all Maqam music recordings.

I shall resist being dragged any deeper into the whirlpool of inflated
musings that is Carl. I suggest you do the same here.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 10, 2010, at 10:13 AM, cameron wrote:

> 24tET: 150.000 cents
> 11-limit: 12/11 150.637
>
> 11-limit: 11/9 347.408
> 24-tET: 350.000 cents
>
> 24-tET: 550.000 cents
> 11-limit: 11/8 551.318
>
> 24-tET 800.000 cents
> 11-limit: 18/11 852.592
>
> ll-limit: 11/6 1049.363
> 24-tET: 1050.000 cents
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>> There's no evidence for 11-prime-
>> limit ratios on qanun's anywhere, unless you happen to be
>> at Ozan's house. :)
>
> You can't insist on 24tET AND deny the 11-limit. Not unless you want
> to throw out the idea of approximation altogether, for these are
> examples of very good to superb (microtemperament) approximations.
> On one hand you accept a dubious approximation, 400 cents as 5:4,
> yet reject these obvious near-identities?
>
> (If I'm not mistaken, a sophisticated performance in maqam Iraq
> might be using every one of the intervals in a single performance.)
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

Dr. Oz, my point was that it is immediately and obviously self-contradictory to insist on both 24-tET and on the absence of 11-limit intervals. If it were the case that 24-tET is the actual tuning of maqam music, then it would be undeniable that 11-limit intervals are part and parcel of maqam music.

I realize that the reality is far richer and more subtle. But even the most crude analysis still certifies "11-limit at least".

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron, "maqam Iraq according to which performance tradition?" is the
> question that escapes the casual enthusiast. Although I admit 24-EDO
> is a "viable" approximation for some maqams and in some (rather recent
> and 12-equal affected) recordings (So is 17, 22 and even 19-EDO by the
> way), it is IN FACT a very CRUDE approximation for all maqams in all
> traditions in all of history - let alone all Maqam music recordings.
>
> I shall resist being dragged any deeper into the whirlpool of inflated
> musings that is Carl. I suggest you do the same here.
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Oct 10, 2010, at 10:13 AM, cameron wrote:
>
> > 24tET: 150.000 cents
> > 11-limit: 12/11 150.637
> >
> > 11-limit: 11/9 347.408
> > 24-tET: 350.000 cents
> >
> > 24-tET: 550.000 cents
> > 11-limit: 11/8 551.318
> >
> > 24-tET 800.000 cents
> > 11-limit: 18/11 852.592
> >
> > ll-limit: 11/6 1049.363
> > 24-tET: 1050.000 cents
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >> There's no evidence for 11-prime-
> >> limit ratios on qanun's anywhere, unless you happen to be
> >> at Ozan's house. :)
> >
> > You can't insist on 24tET AND deny the 11-limit. Not unless you want
> > to throw out the idea of approximation altogether, for these are
> > examples of very good to superb (microtemperament) approximations.
> > On one hand you accept a dubious approximation, 400 cents as 5:4,
> > yet reject these obvious near-identities?
> >
> > (If I'm not mistaken, a sophisticated performance in maqam Iraq
> > might be using every one of the intervals in a single performance.)
> >
> > -Cameron Bobro
> >
>

Yes, yes of course, your point was well made Cameron. I agree totally.
Forgive me for my frustration arising from Carl's unsupported and
misinformed claims on makamlar. I fear this will not be the last,
however.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 10, 2010, at 10:33 AM, cameron wrote:

> Dr. Oz, my point was that it is immediately and obviously self-
> contradictory to insist on both 24-tET and on the absence of 11-
> limit intervals. If it were the case that 24-tET is the actual
> tuning of maqam music, then it would be undeniable that 11-limit> intervals are part and parcel of maqam music.
>
> I realize that the reality is far richer and more subtle. But even
> the most crude analysis still certifies "11-limit at least".
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> Cameron, "maqam Iraq according to which performance tradition?" is
>> the
>> question that escapes the casual enthusiast. Although I admit 24-EDO
>> is a "viable" approximation for some maqams and in some (rather
>> recent
>> and 12-equal affected) recordings (So is 17, 22 and even 19-EDO by
>> the
>> way), it is IN FACT a very CRUDE approximation for all maqams in all
>> traditions in all of history - let alone all Maqam music recordings.
>>
>> I shall resist being dragged any deeper into the whirlpool of
>> inflated
>> musings that is Carl. I suggest you do the same here.
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2010, at 10:13 AM, cameron wrote:
>>
>>> 24tET: 150.000 cents
>>> 11-limit: 12/11 150.637
>>>
>>> 11-limit: 11/9 347.408
>>> 24-tET: 350.000 cents
>>>
>>> 24-tET: 550.000 cents
>>> 11-limit: 11/8 551.318
>>>
>>> 24-tET 800.000 cents
>>> 11-limit: 18/11 852.592
>>>
>>> ll-limit: 11/6 1049.363
>>> 24-tET: 1050.000 cents
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In tuning@...m, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>>>> There's no evidence for 11-prime-
>>>> limit ratios on qanun's anywhere, unless you happen to be
>>>> at Ozan's house. :)
>>>
>>> You can't insist on 24tET AND deny the 11-limit. Not unless you want
>>> to throw out the idea of approximation altogether, for these are
>>> examples of very good to superb (microtemperament) approximations.
>>> On one hand you accept a dubious approximation, 400 cents as 5:4,
>>> yet reject these obvious near-identities?
>>>
>>> (If I'm not mistaken, a sophisticated performance in maqam Iraq
>>> might be using every one of the intervals in a single performance.)
>>>
>>> -Cameron Bobro
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Cameron>" Dr. Oz, my point was that it is immediately and obviously
self-contradictory to insist on both 24-tET and on the absence of 11-limit
intervals. If it were the case that 24-tET is the actual tuning of maqam music,
then it would be undeniable that 11-limit intervals are part and parcel of maqam
music."

Agreed! And I find it very hard to believe all "schools" of such music
insist in limiting chords/backing to 12TET subsets under 24TET.
Now that (perhaps minus Carl), we can agree some variation exists of 11-limit
EVEN if we are assuming 24TET (which Ozan is making clear true Maqams vary from
anyhow)...perhaps we can manage to answer against Carl's apparent suspicion that
quarter tones are NOT used in chords in Persian (or in fact any world music)
music?

It amazes me that, even if something clearly exists in music and sound or
even in an example in someone else's song...often times on this list unless you
have a reference to a paper proving it exists your claim holds almost no weight.

Cameron wrote:

> You can't insist on 24tET AND deny the 11-limit.

Of course I can! JI is defined for vertical structures, of
which maqam music has relatively few. Those it does have
are not in 11-limit JI.

> On one hand you accept a dubious approximation,
> 400 cents as 5:4, yet reject these obvious
> near-identities?

11-limit intervals require more accurate approximations than
5-limit intervals. Some 11-limit intervals can't even be
approximated by the intervals themselves, as bare dyads.
At any rate, the 400 cents approximation appears in Western
music only on MIDI instruments, pianos, and to some extent
guitars. Other ensembles often do much better, even when
accompanied by a piano. That more or less establishes that
5:4 is the intended target. Where are the Libyan choirs
singing otonal hexads accompanied by ud?

> (If I'm not mistaken, a sophisticated performance in maqam
> Iraq might be using every one of the intervals in a single
> performance.)

FWIW, I happen to be a big fan of the traditional music
of Iraq. I don't need pseudoscientific explanations of
the incredible intonation feats its artists peform to
appreciate them. Also FWIW, Can Akkoc was on the right
track representing maqam intonation with probability
distributions, and I expect continued work in this area
will bring valuable insights.

-Carl

Ozan wrote:

> Yes, yes of course, your point was well made Cameron. I agree
> totally. Forgive me for my frustration arising from Carl's
> unsupported and misinformed claims on makamlar. I fear this
> will not be the last, however.

It is sad to see you, who I respect, behave this way.
Scholarship requires frank discussion of facts. Those who
are unwilling or unable to handle opposing views are doomed
to never know the truth. You and Cameron can of course
outnumber me, and wallow in your own fancies ad nauseum.
The intellectual fathers of this list are no longer here
to support me.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> The intellectual fathers of this list are no longer here
> to support me.

A tragedy, certainly. However an answer to the question of how someone can know an interval is intended as 11-limit without introducing vertical considerations would be nice to have before you throw in the towel. One way would be if someone used a tuning method with that goal in mind, such as a monochord, but that seems not to be the case. Evidence of *consistently* hitting near to 11-limit intervals when not using a fixed-pitch instrument would be another. Saying 24et has good 11-limit approximations, and therefore people using it are making essential use of them, strikes me as a fallacy. I'd like something better, partly because I'd be delighted if the proposition that 11-limit is being employed were true.

Michael wrote:

>> If it were the case that 24-tET is the actual tuning of maqam
>> music, then it would be undeniable that 11-limit intervals are
>> part and parcel of maqam music.
>
> Agreed! And I find it very hard to believe all "schools"
> of such music insist in limiting chords/backing to 12TET
> subsets under 24TET.

In addition to what I already replied to Cameron, it might
be worth pointing out that 24-ET is not a very good 11-limit
system. If maqam musicians accepted it from the West to use
in place of 11-limit JI, they weren't very smart.

Of course 24-ET did not appear in the Arabic world until
relatively recently, on a handful of electronic keyboard
instruments. What appeared in the late 19th century was the
idea of notating the music. Western notation naturally
served as the basis for such efforts, since the West had
the only demonstrated time-pitch notation for music.
In the Cairo conference in the 1930s, it was expanded to
24 pitch classes with the understanding that performance
would NOT be in 24-ET.

> often times on this list unless you have a reference to a
> paper proving it exists your claim holds almost no weight.

I only ask for sources when somebody says something I think
is false, which for you is most of the time. I ask because
I want to know if I'm wrong. After many years of doing
this, I started to be wrong a little less often.

But no studies are needed to determine if maqam music
employs 11-limit JI. You don't even need to spend many
hundreds of dollars on recordings, as I did. You can just
pop over to Youtube and hear for yourself. It's plain as
day to anyone of even modest xenharmonic ear training that
no 11-limit JI is present.

Unfortunately scholars with both quantitative and musical
backgrounds are in very short supply, which is why so much
nonsense gets published in ethnomusicology.

If you're interested in learning more about maqam music,
in addition to listening on Youtube I suggest sites like
this as a starting point:

http://www.maqamworld.com
http://www.musiq.com/makam/page4.php

-Carl

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Ozan, this list is for the exchange of ideas. If you do not
> intend to contribute any, please refrain from petty remarks.

Yes, it's a great time to finally chime in with this now that he's
attacking you personally. I remember when the personal attacks were
being launched at me, your response was to offer to make him a
moderator.

-Mike

Gene wrote:

> > The intellectual fathers of this list are no longer here
> > to support me.
>
> A tragedy, certainly.

:)

> However an answer to the question of how someone can know
> an interval is intended as 11-limit without introducing
> vertical considerations would be nice to have before you
> throw in the towel. One way would be if someone used a
> tuning method with that goal in mind, such as a monochord,
> but that seems not to be the case. Evidence of
> *consistently* hitting near to 11-limit intervals when
> not using a fixed-pitch instrument would be another.
> Saying 24et has good 11-limit approximations, and therefore
> people using it are making essential use of them, strikes
> me as a fallacy. I'd like something better, partly because
> I'd be delighted if the proposition that 11-limit is being
> employed were true.

I've noticed a tendency in certain cases for performers to
hit short harmonic series segments like 10,11,12 melodically,
especially when they're in a hurry to put something between
10 & 12, e.g. in jazz scat singing and Baroque melismata.
It isn't hard, on a stringed instrument like my Cosmolyra,
to tune a decent 11 by playing 10:11:12 repeatedly with a
wrench on the middle string.

As far as I know, no maqam employs larger 11-limit harmonic
series segments. It's a tetrachordal universe which,
according to Ozan's data, may favor 6,7,8 as a tetrachord
backbone. Certainly Ozan's claim that there is significant
regional variation, and variation over the past century,
is well taken. The key point I am making is that theory is
too often way ahead of practice.

It's worth saying again that a lot of what's going on is
going on while 'notes' are being sustained. This can be
readily heard or observed in a pitch tracker. The tuning
of single 'notes' is often sculpted in a way that isn't done
justice by a term like "ornamentation".

Melody is powerful thing and there is no shame in a style
that explores it deeply. I find that exact 12-ET melodies
fatigue my ear, probably because I have heard them so much.
MIDI performances of orchestral instruments are particularly
disappointing in this respect, because I'm used to hearing
those timbres played with more melodic freedom.

Here is an interesting blog:

http://iraqimaqam.blogspot.com

-Carl

Mike wrote:

> > Ozan, this list is for the exchange of ideas. If you do not
> > intend to contribute any, please refrain from petty remarks.
>
> Yes, it's a great time to finally chime in with this now that he's
> attacking you personally. I remember when the personal attacks were
> being launched at me, your response was to offer to make him a
> moderator.

My response was to try to smooth things over by mentioning
a few of his earlier indiscretions, and my own. I forget if
I said I thought he got his lists of greats and goons a bit
mixed up. I also called his bluff offering the moderator
job: he has not enough support to become a moderator (or at
least there is not enough support for his suggested policies
for him to implement them if he did). When and if this
changes I would happily give him my spot. In the meantime
I will offer it to you.

-Carl

Such a hallow display of ignorance was bound to arise if one did not -
contrary to recommendations - read pertinent passages of a certain
stated work easily downloadable in PDF form and the literature it
comprises that fully mention Kantemir's notation, Tanbur-player
Artin's notation, Hamparsum's notation and Nasir Dede's Abjad notation
prior to 19th Century ALL OF WHICH are demonstrable time-pitch
notations totally capable of ~17 tones to the octave resolution and
sufficient note length information. And if one were to follow the
literature being pointed out since (what?) years in this list, one
could likewise find Shirazi's notation based again on Abjad as well as
Ali Ufki's modified staff notation for Ottoman court music in the 17th
Century possessing those capabilities. Similarly, one could notice the
TUNING INFORMATION by Mushaqah which lucidly describes a rational
approach to 24-EDO in early 19th Century.

We now have to suffer a bombastic attitude twisting the clearly
underlined notion of "11-limit intervallic ratio approximation" in our
messages (openly signifying the idiomatic "middle second/third" region
a.k.a the so-called "mujannab zone" in melody-making) to put words in
our mouth as if we meant to say 11-limit JI harmony/polyphony/
chordalism/verticalism. Do we really have to endure such a play on
words until all established nomenclature fly out the window including
the "concept of interval in temporal monophonic music passages" and
our options to identify such intervals with the mathematical tools at
our disposal?

And now Dr. Oz. has to suffer an attitude judging him with poor
scholarship and wallowing in fancy. Great show!

If one TRULY wants to become a scholar of Maqam music, one should
commit himself to SERIOUS research and objective handling of
innumerable facets of Maqam music, not put up an ostentatious display
of lordliness based on just a handful of articles (a few of which I
have authored myself as it appears) and a rather simple melograph
analysis of a certain oud improvisation of questionable value.

I have no more time to engage anyone in these pointless circles of
illiteracy. I leave you to your devices.

Cordially,
Dr. Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 10, 2010, at 10:32 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

It is sad to see you, who I respect, behave this way.
Scholarship requires frank discussion of facts. Those who
are unwilling or unable to handle opposing views are doomed
to never know the truth. You and Cameron can of course
outnumber me, and wallow in your own fancies ad nauseum.
The intellectual fathers of this list are no longer here
to support me.

-Carl

> Michael wrote:
>
>>> If it were the case that 24-tET is the actual tuning of maqam
>>> music, then it would be undeniable that 11-limit intervals are
>>> part and parcel of maqam music.
>>
>> Agreed! And I find it very hard to believe all "schools"
>> of such music insist in limiting chords/backing to 12TET
>> subsets under 24TET.
>
> In addition to what I already replied to Cameron, it might
> be worth pointing out that 24-ET is not a very good 11-limit
> system. If maqam musicians accepted it from the West to use
> in place of 11-limit JI, they weren't very smart.
>
> Of course 24-ET did not appear in the Arabic world until
> relatively recently, on a handful of electronic keyboard
> instruments. What appeared in the late 19th century was the
> idea of notating the music. Western notation naturally
> served as the basis for such efforts, since the West had
> the only demonstrated time-pitch notation for music.
> In the Cairo conference in the 1930s, it was expanded to
> 24 pitch classes with the understanding that performance
> would NOT be in 24-ET.
>
>> often times on this list unless you have a reference to a
>> paper proving it exists your claim holds almost no weight.
>
> I only ask for sources when somebody says something I think
> is false, which for you is most of the time. I ask because
> I want to know if I'm wrong. After many years of doing
> this, I started to be wrong a little less often.
>
> But no studies are needed to determine if maqam music
> employs 11-limit JI. You don't even need to spend many
> hundreds of dollars on recordings, as I did. You can just
> pop over to Youtube and hear for yourself. It's plain as
> day to anyone of even modest xenharmonic ear training that
> no 11-limit JI is present.
>
> Unfortunately scholars with both quantitative and musical
> backgrounds are in very short supply, which is why so much
> nonsense gets published in ethnomusicology.
>
> If you're interested in learning more about maqam music,
> in addition to listening on Youtube I suggest sites like
> this as a starting point:
>
> http://www.maqamworld.com
> http://www.musiq.com/makam/page4.php
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I wrote:

> Here is an interesting blog:
> http://iraqimaqam.blogspot.com

From there I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjGHy5e1iso

A recent recording, but consequently of good fidelity.
Here is what I hear as the main theme from the jawzah
starting around 0:15:

http://lumma.org/temp/FjGHy5e1iso.png

Every horizontal line dashed on solid is a 12-ET pitch
@ A440. The first three tones are G, which you can see
he nails consistently. There is also a prominent
2nd degree at around 150 cents. Maybe our maqam experts
can tell us what, other than that, it is.

I also found this, which has some interesting microtonal
stuff going on and is potentially of interest because
it's much older

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frLVMaoy74E

but unfortunately the poor fidelity and presence of
percussion prevents successful pitch extraction. I tried
bandpass filtering to no avail.

-Carl

Method:
* Flash video files taken from browser cache
* audio tracks extracted to Redbook wav with VLC
* normalized/filtered in Audition 3
* pitch analysis via Tartini

Ozan wrote:

> Such a hallow display of ignorance was bound to arise if one
> did not - contrary to recommendations - read pertinent passages
> of a certain stated work easily downloadable in PDF form and
> the literature it comprises that fully mention Kantemir's
> notation, Tanbur-player Artin's notation, Hamparsum's notation
> and Nasir Dede's Abjad notation prior to 19th Century ALL OF
> WHICH are demonstrable time-pitch notations

So despite the issue at hand you are going to focus on one
incidental phrase from my recent posts, "the West had the only
demonstrated time-pitch notation for music". Fine, I've
started a new thread and for now I stand by the statement
100 percent.

By "demonstrated" I meant widely used, as in a standard that
most musicians used. By time-pitch, I meant a 2-dimensional
notation with time represented on one axis and pitch on another.
I see no examples of such exhibited in your thesis, or your
paper Comparative Evaluation of Pitch Notations in Makam Music
but by all means, point them out.

> Ali Ufki's modified staff notation for Ottoman court music
> in the 17th Century possessing those capabilities.

Are any examples extant? The string "Ufki" does not appear
in your thesis, according to Acrobat.

> We now have to suffer a bombastic attitude twisting the clearly
> underlined notion of "11-limit intervallic ratio approximation"
> in our messages (openly signifying the idiomatic "middle
> second/third" region a.k.a the so-called "mujannab zone" in
> melody-making)

11-limit is a precise term with a precise meaning. That a
melody contains the interval 11/9 -- even perfectly intoned --
does not make it "11-limit". The "limit" part indicates the
presence of the lower primes (usually all of them). That's
because Partch and those using the term since recognized the
importance of the lower primes in establishing the identity
of the higher.

> to put words in
> our mouth as if we meant to say 11-limit JI harmony/polyphony/
> chordalism/verticalism.

This discussion started, I forget how, with Michael and
Cameron. I did not imply you meant anything other than what
you posted, interpreted as always in the context of the
ongoing thread. But I would happily apologize for any
misunderstanding and would welcome any clarifications.

-Carl

Ozan wrote:

> > Ali Ufki's modified staff notation for Ottoman court music
> > in the 17th Century possessing those capabilities.
>
> Are any examples extant? The string "Ufki" does not appear
> in your thesis, according to Acrobat.

Heh- he was a Polish musician, kidnapped and sold to the
Ottoman court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojciech_Bobowski

He came up with a staff notation! I'll be darned.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > You can't insist on 24tET AND deny the 11-limit.
>
> Of course I can! JI is defined for vertical structures, of
> which maqam music has relatively few. Those it does have
> are not in 11-limit JI.

"ll-limit" here obviously refers to the odd-limit. I even listed the intervals- clearly there was never a claim that a complete "11-limit diamond" or some such vertical structure was in question, how silly.

JI can be "defined for vertical structures" but that is NOT the "definition of JI". Just Intonation refers to the intonation of intervals, melodic as well as harmonic. "11-limit" is used to describe even single, isolated, intervals.
>
> > On one hand you accept a dubious approximation,
> > 400 cents as 5:4, yet reject these obvious
> > near-identities?
>
> 11-limit intervals require more accurate approximations than
> 5-limit intervals. Some 11-limit intervals can't even be
> approximated by the intervals themselves, as bare dyads.
> At any rate, the 400 cents approximation appears in Western
> music only on MIDI instruments, pianos, and to some extent
> guitars. Other ensembles often do much better, even when
> accompanied by a piano. That more or less establishes that
> 5:4 is the intended target.

No, 5:4 is A target, not THE target.

>Where are the Libyan choirs
> singing otonal hexads accompanied by ud?

Noone suggested such a thing, but now that you have, I wonder what it would sound like?

Anyway, if you are actually responding to what I wrote, and not off on a tangent, it looks like you're telling me that 150 cents is not an approximation of 12:11. We'd have to agree to disagree on that one- I think that it is an excellent approximation.

-Cameron Bobro

Cameron>"JI can be "defined for vertical structures" but that is NOT the
"definition of JI". Just Intonation refers to the intonation of intervals,
melodic as well as harmonic. "11-limit" is used to describe even single,
isolated, intervals. "

So vertical structure = straight-line o-tonal structure (such as 4:5:6)?

If so, I realize it is supposedly "common knowledge" that 4/4 5/4 6/4
(4:5:6) is a "more strict JI chord" and 6/6 6/5 6/4 = 10:12:15 is a "less
strict JI chord" far as triadic odd-limit. However I disagree with the idea
that more o-tonally means a more "just" chord as the aforementioned two chords
contain the exact same dyadic ratios and thus have the same dyadic odd-limit.
It all seems to boil down to what type of JI are you rating...dyadic, triadic,
etc.?

In the case of dyadic I agree with Cameron that "11-limit is used to describe
even single, isolated, intervals" and, furthermore, that 11-limit chords in that
sense are not uncommon assuming dyadic JI in Maqam music. I'm not a master of
Maqam music, but I'm sure someone like Ozan could give a list loaded with
specific examples of this.

>"We'd have to agree to disagree on that one- I think 150 cents it is an
>excellent approximation of 12/11.
Those are incredibly close....that's about 150.637 for the exact value of
12/11 vs. 150 under 24TET...less than a cent of difference. Saying they are not
close is like saying a washed car is clean because you can see dust (though only
when) using a microscope.

In general (and this is something I've argued for ages)...what is the point
of forcing everything into very low-limit triadic chords in order to "count as
chords" rather than also accepting chords that have fairly low-limit dyadic JI
form?

The latter gives you tons of options for some very strong chords with a
fairly low number of notes...the former (only having triadic o/u-tonality count
in chords) appears to force you to either use some sort of diatonic JI or
meantone to get such chords (plus you still get wolves) OR use a huge number of
tones and keep alternating which tones you use to form such chords (ALA Adaptive
JI or very high numbered temperaments). Correct me if you can give a counter
example but it seems to me Ptolemy's scales, Persian scales, some Asian
scales...and much more simply differ from Western scales in that they openly
accept "dyadic JI" as a way of rating chords and don't enforce triadic (or
higher) "vertical structures" to "qualify" chords.

Carl...you and others may not particularly like the sound of
dyadic-only-compliant JI chords vs. triadic-or-higher JI chords, but that
doesn't make them less correct but, rather, correct in a different (but equally
well calculated, to many people) way.

Cameron wrote:

> > Of course I can! JI is defined for vertical structures, of
> > which maqam music has relatively few. Those it does have
> > are not in 11-limit JI.
>
> "ll-limit" here obviously refers to the odd-limit. I even
> listed the intervals- clearly there was never a claim that
> a complete "11-limit diamond" or some such vertical
> structure was in question, how silly.

Yes, odd limit. Maqam music employs loose 3-limit vertical
structures, and the melodic intervals may be attracted to
ratios of 5 and 7 in some cases (but that is incidental to
their primary functionality in the music).

> JI can be "defined for vertical structures" but that is
> NOT the "definition of JI". Just Intonation refers to the
> intonation of intervals, melodic as well as harmonic.

You're probably talking about American Gamelan -style JI,
or what in list parlance is called rational intonation (RI).

> "11-limit" is used to describe even single, isolated,
> intervals.

Sometimes it is, with certain understandings in place.
More accurate is the term "ratio of 11". Ratios of 11
are not systematically used in maqam music.

> > 11-limit intervals require more accurate approximations than
> > 5-limit intervals. Some 11-limit intervals can't even be
> > approximated by the intervals themselves, as bare dyads.
> > At any rate, the 400 cents approximation appears in Western
> > music only on MIDI instruments, pianos, and to some extent
> > guitars. Other ensembles often do much better, even when
> > accompanied by a piano. That more or less establishes that
> > 5:4 is the intended target.
>
> No, 5:4 is A target, not THE target.

I don't know what you mean.

> it looks like you're telling me
> that 150 cents is not an approximation of 12:11.

It depends on the circumstances.

-Carl

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:19 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Anyway, if you are actually responding to what I wrote, and not off on a tangent, it looks like you're telling me that 150 cents is not an approximation of 12:11. We'd have to agree to disagree on that one- I think that it is an excellent approximation.

I can't keep track of this discussion anymore. So now you do believe
in fields of attraction?

-Mike

Michael wrote:

> So vertical structure = straight-line o-tonal structure (such
> as 4:5:6)?

It means a vertical structure on a score. A simultaneity.

> Carl...you and others may not particularly like the sound of
> dyadic-only-compliant JI chords vs. triadic-or-higher JI chords,
> but that doesn't make them less correct but, rather, correct
> in a different (but equally well calculated, to many people)
> way.

Michael... you and others may like not like homosexuals,
but that doesn't mean gay love is wrong.

-Carl

>> So vertical structure = straight-line o-tonal structure (such
>> as 4:5:6)?
>It means a vertical structure on a score. A simultaneity.
Where vertical = frequency and horizontal = time IE vertical = of a chord with
all notes starting to sound at the same time? The wording appears to try and
make it look a lot more sophisticated than it is (and yes I mean referencing the
Sophists and in terms of adding lots of rhetoric/complication with little to no
actual added value).

Me>> " Carl...you and others may not particularly like the sound of
>> dyadic-only-compliant JI chords vs. triadic-or-higher JI chords,
>> but that doesn't make them less correct but, rather, correct
>> in a different (but equally well calculated, to many people)"
>> way.

Carl>"Michael... you and others may like not like homosexuals,
>but that doesn't mean gay love is wrong."

Carl may not be blond, but he most certainly just had a blond moment.

Oh, for "Bob"'s sake, Cameron! Carl's objection is well-founded: there are a lot of ratios within 8 cents or so of 12/11 or 11/9 (or a lot of 11-ratios) that would be rather difficult to differentiate by ear from those 11-ratios; so, lacking vertical structures, what evidence is there that those 11-ratios are being "approximated"? What reason is there to assume that a 350-cent interval is approximating 11/9 as opposed to 39/32, 27/22, or even 16/13, unless a larger vertical harmonic context is given? Or that 150 cents is approximating 12/11, rather than 13/12, 23/21, 25/23, or 35/32? What reason is there to say that these intervals are approximating ANYTHING, in the first place, if there's no vertical context?

Sure, you can look at 24-EDO as offering good approximations of 11-limit intervals, but that doesn't mean music made in it is necessarily 11-limit. You can imply all sorts of different odd- and prime-limits, depending on how you construct your harmonies...and if you don't construct anything more complex than dyads (or even triads), the "limit" is ambiguous. Hell, given the fact that most quarter-tonal intervals are at maxima of harmonic entropy, it might be the case than even tetrads and pentads are pretty ambiguous as far as limit goes. You'd have quite the task ahead of you if you wanted to prove that 24-EDO music is inherently 11-limit.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > Cameron wrote:
> >
> > > You can't insist on 24tET AND deny the 11-limit.
> >
> > Of course I can! JI is defined for vertical structures, of
> > which maqam music has relatively few. Those it does have
> > are not in 11-limit JI.
>
> "ll-limit" here obviously refers to the odd-limit. I even listed the intervals- clearly there was never a claim that a complete "11-limit diamond" or some such vertical structure was in question, how silly.
>
> JI can be "defined for vertical structures" but that is NOT the "definition of JI". Just Intonation refers to the intonation of intervals, melodic as well as harmonic. "11-limit" is used to describe even single, isolated, intervals.
> >
> > > On one hand you accept a dubious approximation,
> > > 400 cents as 5:4, yet reject these obvious
> > > near-identities?
> >
> > 11-limit intervals require more accurate approximations than
> > 5-limit intervals. Some 11-limit intervals can't even be
> > approximated by the intervals themselves, as bare dyads.
> > At any rate, the 400 cents approximation appears in Western
> > music only on MIDI instruments, pianos, and to some extent
> > guitars. Other ensembles often do much better, even when
> > accompanied by a piano. That more or less establishes that
> > 5:4 is the intended target.
>
> No, 5:4 is A target, not THE target.
>
> >Where are the Libyan choirs
> > singing otonal hexads accompanied by ud?
>
> Noone suggested such a thing, but now that you have, I wonder what it would sound like?
>
> Anyway, if you are actually responding to what I wrote, and not off on a tangent, it looks like you're telling me that 150 cents is not an approximation of 12:11. We'd have to agree to disagree on that one- I think that it is an excellent approximation.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >> So vertical structure = straight-line o-tonal structure (such
> >> as 4:5:6)?
> >It means a vertical structure on a score. A simultaneity.
> Where vertical = frequency and horizontal = time IE vertical = of >a
chord with
> all notes starting to sound at the same time?

The idea of vertical and horizontal, rather than harmonic and melodic,
actually makes sense. We use the terms to indicate that we're not
talking about "classical" or "common practice" Western music. This is
because common-practice music carries so much theoretical baggage with
it (or, "is such a rich tradition", if you prefer :-) ) that terminology
gets loaded with stuff that doesn't apply to other musics.

Note- in this day and age, "vertical" is not restricted to what's
indicated as vertical in the score, but to vertical events in actual
sound.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > > Of course I can! JI is defined for vertical structures, of
> > > which maqam music has relatively few. Those it does have
> > > are not in 11-limit JI.
> >
> > "ll-limit" here obviously refers to the odd-limit. I even
> > listed the intervals- clearly there was never a claim that
> > a complete "11-limit diamond" or some such vertical
> > structure was in question, how silly.
>
> Yes, odd limit. Maqam music employs loose 3-limit vertical
> structures, and the melodic intervals may be attracted to
> ratios of 5 and 7 in some cases (but that is incidental to
> their primary functionality in the music).

I've never noticed tendency to ratios of 5 (which doesn't mean it
doesn't happen of course), but have noticed lots of weight of ratios of
7, specifically 8:7 and 7:6.

But, within the basic Pythagorean framework, what are, in a primarily
melodic and strongly step-wise music, "justly intoned" or not are the
melodic steps themselves.

What's exerting attraction here are steps of superparticular nature.

>
> > JI can be "defined for vertical structures" but that is
> > NOT the "definition of JI". Just Intonation refers to the
> > intonation of intervals, melodic as well as harmonic.
>
> You're probably talking about American Gamelan -style JI,
> or what in list parlance is called rational intonation (RI).

I'm thinking of the term ina mainstream western classical way. Of
course, where Mozart writes a 12:11, it's understood that you do NOT
perform it in Just intonation (or Naturstimmung, or whatever term) .
Nevertheless, there that interval is, known and understood by everyone
with a solid foundation in western theory. In using the term "Just" I
limit myself (haha) to the centuries-old standard of, about the first
sixteen partials and the relationships between them.

This is clearer in the languages I'm usually using to discuss these
things in real life because it's normal to refer to "pure", "aliquot",
etc.

>
> > "11-limit" is used to describe even single, isolated,
> > intervals.
>
> Sometimes it is, with certain understandings in place.
> More accurate is the term "ratio of 11".

Ratio of N is good, I'll stick to that.

> Ratios of 11
> are not systematically used in maqam music.

I doubt that that is a true statement.

> > No, 5:4 is A target, not THE target.
>
> I don't know what you mean.

400 cents only approximates 5:4 in some circumstances.

-Cameron Bobro

Extending a tentacle from my cave.

Really Igs, when a solo singer is sounding the whereabouts of 702
cents in a melodic passage without any harmonic backing (vertical
sonority, if you will), do you assume that anything besides 3:2 is
being aimed for? And do you assume that the 700 cents interval in 24-
EDO is good for anything else but an approximation for 3:2 in any
given context?

In similar respect, do you support the notion that equal semitone
steps can approximate Huzzam, Saba, Ushshaq of Karjighar intervals no
more worrisomely than quarter-tonal steps can be made to correspond to
the likes of 10/9, 11/10, 13/12, 14/13?

Moreover, what would you say is the limit of this scale?

|Something Sabaish
12/11
32/27
9/7
3/2
128/81
243/128
2/1

Lastly, did you hear yourself when you constructed the sentence below
(emphases mine)?

> you can look at 24-EDO as offering good approximations of 11-limit
> intervals, but that doesn't mean music made in it is necessarily 11-
> limit.

Please don't answer the questions, as they are completely rhetorical.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 15, 2010, at 6:35 AM, cityoftheasleep wrote:

> Oh, for "Bob"'s sake, Cameron! Carl's objection is well-founded:
> there are a lot of ratios within 8 cents or so of 12/11 or 11/9 (or
> a lot of 11-ratios) that would be rather difficult to differentiate
> by ear from those 11-ratios; so, lacking vertical structures, what
> evidence is there that those 11-ratios are being "approximated"?
> What reason is there to assume that a 350-cent interval is
> approximating 11/9 as opposed to 39/32, 27/22, or even 16/13, unless
> a larger vertical harmonic context is given? Or that 150 cents is
> approximating 12/11, rather than 13/12, 23/21, 25/23, or 35/32?
> What reason is there to say that these intervals are approximating
> ANYTHING, in the first place, if there's no vertical context?
>
> Sure, you can look at 24-EDO as offering good approximations of 11-
> limit intervals, but that doesn't mean music made in it is
> necessarily 11-limit. You can imply all sorts of different odd- and> prime-limits, depending on how you construct your harmonies...and if
> you don't construct anything more complex than dyads (or even
> triads), the "limit" is ambiguous. Hell, given the fact that most
> quarter-tonal intervals are at maxima of harmonic entropy, it might
> be the case than even tetrads and pentads are pretty ambiguous as
> far as limit goes. You'd have quite the task ahead of you if you
> wanted to prove that 24-EDO music is inherently 11-limit.
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In tuning@...m, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Cameron wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can't insist on 24tET AND deny the 11-limit.
>>>
>>> Of course I can! JI is defined for vertical structures, of
>>> which maqam music has relatively few. Those it does have
>>> are not in 11-limit JI.
>>
>> "ll-limit" here obviously refers to the odd-limit. I even listed
>> the intervals- clearly there was never a claim that a complete "11-
>> limit diamond" or some such vertical structure was in question, how
>> silly.
>>
>> JI can be "defined for vertical structures" but that is NOT the
>> "definition of JI". Just Intonation refers to the intonation of
>> intervals, melodic as well as harmonic. "11-limit" is used to
>> describe even single, isolated, intervals.
>>>
>>>> On one hand you accept a dubious approximation,
>>>> 400 cents as 5:4, yet reject these obvious
>>>> near-identities?
>>>
>>> 11-limit intervals require more accurate approximations than
>>> 5-limit intervals. Some 11-limit intervals can't even be
>>> approximated by the intervals themselves, as bare dyads.
>>> At any rate, the 400 cents approximation appears in Western
>>> music only on MIDI instruments, pianos, and to some extent
>>> guitars. Other ensembles often do much better, even when
>>> accompanied by a piano. That more or less establishes that
>>> 5:4 is the intended target.
>>
>> No, 5:4 is A target, not THE target.
>>
>>> Where are the Libyan choirs
>>> singing otonal hexads accompanied by ud?
>>
>> Noone suggested such a thing, but now that you have, I wonder what
>> it would sound like?
>>
>> Anyway, if you are actually responding to what I wrote, and not off
>> on a tangent, it looks like you're telling me that 150 cents is not
>> an approximation of 12:11. We'd have to agree to disagree on that >> one- I think that it is an excellent approximation.
>>
>> -Cameron Bobro
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Igs>"What reason is there to assume that a 350-cent interval is approximating
11/9 as opposed to 39/32, 27/22, or even 16/13, unless a larger vertical
harmonic context is given? Or that 150 cents is approximating 12/11, rather than
13/12, 23/21, 25/23, or 35/32? What reason is there to say that these intervals
are approximating ANYTHING, in the first place, if there's no vertical context?
"

But this, again, appears to hint at the idea that the only correct way to
make a chord is as in o-tonal or u-tonal series, correct? Otherwise the
vertical context that would decide between, say, 11/9 and 27/22, would not
matter (because they are so close in a dyadic sense), correct? Suppose you
even take 1/1 39/32 47/32 (o-tonally correct) vs. 1/1 11/9 47/32 (not o-tonally
correct)...they are so close, would it really make that much of a difference?
Granted the 16/13 would sound off here, but that's nearing 13 whole cents off
the 11/9!

>"You can imply all sorts of different odd- and prime-limits, depending on how
>you construct your harmonies...and if you don't construct anything more complex
>than dyads (or even triads), the "limit" is ambiguous."
If anyone is going that far to say multiple intervals within a few cents of
each other matter that much because of "vertical structure", I figure, you might
as well say that something must be within one cent of a "goal" interval like
11/9 to be "made for that limit". You could even start an argument, I figure,
that 1/1 11/9 383/256 is wrong and that only 1/1 313/256 383/256 is right.

>"Hell, given the fact that most quarter-tonal intervals are at maxima of
>harmonic entropy, it might be the case than even tetrads and pentads are pretty
>ambiguous as far as limit goes. You'd have quite the task ahead of you if you
>wanted to prove that 24-EDO music is inherently 11-limit."
Dyadically, it's just so close I agree with Cameron it would at least be
11-limit in a majority of cases (where it's not 3,5,7 limit). 1.09051 in 24TET
is virtually the same as 1.090909. 1.22405 is virtually the same as 1.22222.
1.373 is a bit of a hybrid...but seems to waver between acting as an 11/8 and a
15/11. 1.45565 rounds to 16/11. 1.5421 rounds to 17/11. 1.63392 rounds to
18/11. 1.73107 rounds to 19/11 (though also 26/15 almost as well). 1.83401
rounds to 11/6.

I think it's more than coincidence virtually all those dyads are within a few
cents of just 11-limit intervals. And even if you say those few cents
difference matter that much...you'd have to assume some incredibly high limit
chords (like those made with dyads like 27/22) to assume there was some other
type of o-tonality taking place...certainly not even something "relatively
lower" like 13 or even 15-limit. And even then, with that kind of tiny accuracy
difference who could hear the difference?

It amazes me how misunderstood the term "approximation" is, by some of the most learned people of the list. Just because a tempered interval *can* be looked at as an approximation to some ratio, does that mean the tempered interval is *necessarily identified with* that ratio? No, it doesn't. And especially not in a monophonic context: if a singer sings a note 702 cents above a starting note, you might say it's a 3/2 if there is some implication that the starting note is to be held over the 702-cent note, but what if that implication doesn't exist? A note is only a 3/2 in relation to some other note, so that 702-cent interval could just as well be a 5/4 or 6/5 or a 7/4 or what have you if it's related to a note other than the "starting note" that precedes it.

The biggest difference between a 3/2 and most 11-limit ratios is that all ratios within 8 cents of 3/2 are astronomically more complex than it. Many, if not most, 11-limit ratios are surrounded very closely by other ratios that are not significantly more complex.

And even though this question wasn't to you, Ozan, I'd appreciate if you could answer it: what reason is there to assume that an interval near 350 cents is approximating 11/9, rather than 27/22, 16/13, or 39/32? Heck, why can't we say it's approximating 21/17, or 23/19, or 26/21? What is the purpose of talking about rational approximations at all for such an interval?

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Extending a tentacle from my cave.
>
> Really Igs, when a solo singer is sounding the whereabouts of 702
> cents in a melodic passage without any harmonic backing (vertical
> sonority, if you will), do you assume that anything besides 3:2 is
> being aimed for? And do you assume that the 700 cents interval in 24-
> EDO is good for anything else but an approximation for 3:2 in any
> given context?
>
> In similar respect, do you support the notion that equal semitone
> steps can approximate Huzzam, Saba, Ushshaq of Karjighar intervals no
> more worrisomely than quarter-tonal steps can be made to correspond to
> the likes of 10/9, 11/10, 13/12, 14/13?
>
> Moreover, what would you say is the limit of this scale?
>
> |Something Sabaish
> 12/11
> 32/27
> 9/7
> 3/2
> 128/81
> 243/128
> 2/1
>
> Lastly, did you hear yourself when you constructed the sentence below
> (emphases mine)?
>
> > you can look at 24-EDO as offering good approximations of 11-limit
> > intervals, but that doesn't mean music made in it is necessarily 11-
> > limit.
>
>
> Please don't answer the questions, as they are completely rhetorical.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Oct 15, 2010, at 6:35 AM, cityoftheasleep wrote:
>
> > Oh, for "Bob"'s sake, Cameron! Carl's objection is well-founded:
> > there are a lot of ratios within 8 cents or so of 12/11 or 11/9 (or
> > a lot of 11-ratios) that would be rather difficult to differentiate
> > by ear from those 11-ratios; so, lacking vertical structures, what
> > evidence is there that those 11-ratios are being "approximated"?
> > What reason is there to assume that a 350-cent interval is
> > approximating 11/9 as opposed to 39/32, 27/22, or even 16/13, unless
> > a larger vertical harmonic context is given? Or that 150 cents is
> > approximating 12/11, rather than 13/12, 23/21, 25/23, or 35/32?
> > What reason is there to say that these intervals are approximating
> > ANYTHING, in the first place, if there's no vertical context?
> >
> > Sure, you can look at 24-EDO as offering good approximations of 11-
> > limit intervals, but that doesn't mean music made in it is
> > necessarily 11-limit. You can imply all sorts of different odd- and
> > prime-limits, depending on how you construct your harmonies...and if
> > you don't construct anything more complex than dyads (or even
> > triads), the "limit" is ambiguous. Hell, given the fact that most
> > quarter-tonal intervals are at maxima of harmonic entropy, it might
> > be the case than even tetrads and pentads are pretty ambiguous as
> > far as limit goes. You'd have quite the task ahead of you if you
> > wanted to prove that 24-EDO music is inherently 11-limit.
> >
> > -Igs
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Cameron wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You can't insist on 24tET AND deny the 11-limit.
> >>>
> >>> Of course I can! JI is defined for vertical structures, of
> >>> which maqam music has relatively few. Those it does have
> >>> are not in 11-limit JI.
> >>
> >> "ll-limit" here obviously refers to the odd-limit. I even listed
> >> the intervals- clearly there was never a claim that a complete "11-
> >> limit diamond" or some such vertical structure was in question, how
> >> silly.
> >>
> >> JI can be "defined for vertical structures" but that is NOT the
> >> "definition of JI". Just Intonation refers to the intonation of
> >> intervals, melodic as well as harmonic. "11-limit" is used to
> >> describe even single, isolated, intervals.
> >>>
> >>>> On one hand you accept a dubious approximation,
> >>>> 400 cents as 5:4, yet reject these obvious
> >>>> near-identities?
> >>>
> >>> 11-limit intervals require more accurate approximations than
> >>> 5-limit intervals. Some 11-limit intervals can't even be
> >>> approximated by the intervals themselves, as bare dyads.
> >>> At any rate, the 400 cents approximation appears in Western
> >>> music only on MIDI instruments, pianos, and to some extent
> >>> guitars. Other ensembles often do much better, even when
> >>> accompanied by a piano. That more or less establishes that
> >>> 5:4 is the intended target.
> >>
> >> No, 5:4 is A target, not THE target.
> >>
> >>> Where are the Libyan choirs
> >>> singing otonal hexads accompanied by ud?
> >>
> >> Noone suggested such a thing, but now that you have, I wonder what
> >> it would sound like?
> >>
> >> Anyway, if you are actually responding to what I wrote, and not off
> >> on a tangent, it looks like you're telling me that 150 cents is not
> >> an approximation of 12:11. We'd have to agree to disagree on that
> >> one- I think that it is an excellent approximation.
> >>
> >> -Cameron Bobro
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> > of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> > tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> > tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> > tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> > tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> > tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> > tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> you'd have to assume some incredibly high limit
> chords (like those made with dyads like 27/22) to assume there was some other
> type of o-tonality taking place...certainly not even something "relatively
> lower" like 13 or even 15-limit. And even then, with that kind of tiny accuracy
> difference who could hear the difference?

"Who could hear the difference" indeed! That's my entire POINT, Michael--these 11-ratios are so close to so many other ratios that really aren't that much more complex (considering that if you put an 11/9 between a root and a perfect fifth, you get an 18:22:27 chord--not much less complex than a 22:27:33 chord or a 32:39:48 chord). The whole point behind the idea of approximation is that certain tempered intervals can be "heard" as ratios, so to say a tempered interval approximates a ratio, you have to have some evidence to show that the brain is, in fact, interpreting that interval as that ratio. It's easy to do this with low-limit intervals like 5/4 or 3/2, because they are of such lower complexity than their near-by neighbors. 11-ratios like 11/8 and 11/9 are not of such drastically lower complexity than their near-by neighbors. That's not to say you can't get close to them when tuning by ear, it's quite simple to tune to a quarter-tone interval by ear just by feeling for the "halfway point"--but there's just no justification to say for sure that a specific ratio is being approximated, unless we have a larger framework that treats those intervals unambiguously as approximations.

-Igs

Primarily melodic, strongly stepwise music is what we're talking about,
Igliashon. No need to go off battling some straw-man idea of 11-limit
utonilites or some such. Within the basic Pythagorean structure of modal
tetrachordal music in general, what is "Just" is primarily the
interrelationships of the steps.

The burden of proof lies on those who would claim that this is NOT so.
Take for instance, Carl's descriptions of maqam tunes as being in 24-tET
with tiny variations/expressive intonation. This is a completely fair
description of plenty (but certainly not all or even the majority) of
"maqam music" I have heard! BUT- we have 2000+ years of theorists
claiming division of the basic Pythagorean structure in a manner that
favors/seeks superparticular ratios. We have maqam theorists insisting
on this to this day. And personally, I have found this to be a
structural approach of astounding strength and acoustical validity.

So- we've got a tune that's almost precisely in 24-tET. Some half-comma
deviation here and there... whoops, that looks and more importantly
sounds just like what's been claimed for, literally, ages!

Sure, english the ball a bit at 350 cents. How do I know it's not 27/22?
I don't! It probably IS 27/22! And it does not have to be exact to be
27/22! For 27/22, in maqam music, and all tetrachordal modal music for
that matter, is NOT really "27:22", it is a step of 9/8 plus a step of
12/11 (which happens to make a leap of 11/9 to the first tone of the
usual disjunct tetrachord, sweet). 39/32? That's not a "complex
interval", it's a superparticular step from 9/8 (a step of 13/12 in
this case). Which happens to make a great pun with 11/9 from the
"tonic", while making a very tasty leap of 16/13 tothe first tone of the
usual disjunct tetrachord... and so on and so forth.

Is this what happens in all "maqam music" and its relatives in the
southern and eastern Slavic regions and who knows where else? I don't
think so, I would guess that it's the "old way", or "high way"; it's the
nature of the limpid, sensual stuff as well as the spiritual stuff: it's
the intonation of the finer, the deeper. I would guess that there's
plenty of maqam music that purposely does not adhere to this, for
purpose of the dry, the harsh, the clangorous, the boisterous.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> It amazes me how misunderstood the term "approximation" is, by some of
the most learned people of the list. Just because a tempered interval
*can* be looked at as an approximation to some ratio, does that mean the
tempered interval is *necessarily identified with* that ratio? No, it
doesn't. And especially not in a monophonic context: if a singer sings
a note 702 cents above a starting note, you might say it's a 3/2 if
there is some implication that the starting note is to be held over the
702-cent note, but what if that implication doesn't exist? A note is
only a 3/2 in relation to some other note, so that 702-cent interval
could just as well be a 5/4 or 6/5 or a 7/4 or what have you if it's
related to a note other than the "starting note" that precedes it.
>
> The biggest difference between a 3/2 and most 11-limit ratios is that
all ratios within 8 cents of 3/2 are astronomically more complex than
it. Many, if not most, 11-limit ratios are surrounded very closely by
other ratios that are not significantly more complex.
>
> And even though this question wasn't to you, Ozan, I'd appreciate if
you could answer it: what reason is there to assume that an interval
near 350 cents is approximating 11/9, rather than 27/22, 16/13, or
39/32? Heck, why can't we say it's approximating 21/17, or 23/19, or
26/21? What is the purpose of talking about rational approximations at
all for such an interval?
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman ozanyarman@ wrote:
> >
> > Extending a tentacle from my cave.
> >
> > Really Igs, when a solo singer is sounding the whereabouts of 702
> > cents in a melodic passage without any harmonic backing (vertical
> > sonority, if you will), do you assume that anything besides 3:2 is
> > being aimed for? And do you assume that the 700 cents interval in
24-
> > EDO is good for anything else but an approximation for 3:2 in any
> > given context?
> >
> > In similar respect, do you support the notion that equal semitone
> > steps can approximate Huzzam, Saba, Ushshaq of Karjighar intervals
no
> > more worrisomely than quarter-tonal steps can be made to correspond
to
> > the likes of 10/9, 11/10, 13/12, 14/13?
> >
> > Moreover, what would you say is the limit of this scale?
> >
> > |Something Sabaish
> > 12/11
> > 32/27
> > 9/7
> > 3/2
> > 128/81
> > 243/128
> > 2/1
> >
> > Lastly, did you hear yourself when you constructed the sentence
below
> > (emphases mine)?
> >
> > > you can look at 24-EDO as offering good approximations of 11-limit
> > > intervals, but that doesn't mean music made in it is necessarily
11-
> > > limit.
> >
> >
> > Please don't answer the questions, as they are completely
rhetorical.
> >
> > Cordially,
> > Oz.
> >
> > � � �
> > www.ozanyarman.com
> >
> > On Oct 15, 2010, at 6:35 AM, cityoftheasleep wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, for "Bob"'s sake, Cameron! Carl's objection is well-founded:
> > > there are a lot of ratios within 8 cents or so of 12/11 or 11/9
(or
> > > a lot of 11-ratios) that would be rather difficult to
differentiate
> > > by ear from those 11-ratios; so, lacking vertical structures, what
> > > evidence is there that those 11-ratios are being "approximated"?
> > > What reason is there to assume that a 350-cent interval is
> > > approximating 11/9 as opposed to 39/32, 27/22, or even 16/13,
unless
> > > a larger vertical harmonic context is given? Or that 150 cents is
> > > approximating 12/11, rather than 13/12, 23/21, 25/23, or 35/32?
> > > What reason is there to say that these intervals are approximating
> > > ANYTHING, in the first place, if there's no vertical context?
> > >
> > > Sure, you can look at 24-EDO as offering good approximations of
11-
> > > limit intervals, but that doesn't mean music made in it is
> > > necessarily 11-limit. You can imply all sorts of different odd-
and
> > > prime-limits, depending on how you construct your harmonies...and
if
> > > you don't construct anything more complex than dyads (or even
> > > triads), the "limit" is ambiguous. Hell, given the fact that most
> > > quarter-tonal intervals are at maxima of harmonic entropy, it
might
> > > be the case than even tetrads and pentads are pretty ambiguous as
> > > far as limit goes. You'd have quite the task ahead of you if you
> > > wanted to prove that 24-EDO music is inherently 11-limit.
> > >
> > > -Igs
> > >
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Cameron wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> You can't insist on 24tET AND deny the 11-limit.
> > >>>
> > >>> Of course I can! JI is defined for vertical structures, of
> > >>> which maqam music has relatively few. Those it does have
> > >>> are not in 11-limit JI.
> > >>
> > >> "ll-limit" here obviously refers to the odd-limit. I even listed
> > >> the intervals- clearly there was never a claim that a complete
"11-
> > >> limit diamond" or some such vertical structure was in question,
how
> > >> silly.
> > >>
> > >> JI can be "defined for vertical structures" but that is NOT the
> > >> "definition of JI". Just Intonation refers to the intonation of
> > >> intervals, melodic as well as harmonic. "11-limit" is used to
> > >> describe even single, isolated, intervals.
> > >>>
> > >>>> On one hand you accept a dubious approximation,
> > >>>> 400 cents as 5:4, yet reject these obvious
> > >>>> near-identities?
> > >>>
> > >>> 11-limit intervals require more accurate approximations than
> > >>> 5-limit intervals. Some 11-limit intervals can't even be
> > >>> approximated by the intervals themselves, as bare dyads.
> > >>> At any rate, the 400 cents approximation appears in Western
> > >>> music only on MIDI instruments, pianos, and to some extent
> > >>> guitars. Other ensembles often do much better, even when
> > >>> accompanied by a piano. That more or less establishes that
> > >>> 5:4 is the intended target.
> > >>
> > >> No, 5:4 is A target, not THE target.
> > >>
> > >>> Where are the Libyan choirs
> > >>> singing otonal hexads accompanied by ud?
> > >>
> > >> Noone suggested such a thing, but now that you have, I wonder
what
> > >> it would sound like?
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, if you are actually responding to what I wrote, and not
off
> > >> on a tangent, it looks like you're telling me that 150 cents is
not
> > >> an approximation of 12:11. We'd have to agree to disagree on that
> > >> one- I think that it is an excellent approximation.
> > >>
> > >> -Cameron Bobro
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to
one
> > > of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the
list):
> > > tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> > > tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> > > tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> > > tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> > > tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual
emails.
> > > tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Cameron wrote:

> Within the basic Pythagorean structure of modal tetrachordal
> music in general, what is "Just" is primarily the
> interrelationships of the steps.

But maqam music uses intervals that aren't just, like
150 cents, prominently.

/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93615

There's nothing just about this interval at all.

> The burden of proof lies on those who would claim that this
> is NOT so.

Actually the burden of proof lies with those making
extraordinary claims. Claims like, 'maqam music employs
ratios of 11, without any harmonic reference, any extant
bearing plans, or any historical precedent in any other style
of music anywhere'. By now we've seen that the best evidence
put forward is simply a case of fitting data to the rationals.

> BUT- we have 2000+ years of theorists claiming division of
> the basic Pythagorean structure in a manner that favors/seeks
> superparticular ratios.

We also have 2000+ years of people claiming that magical
entities have commanded them to rule certain lands. At
least the old music scholars have the excuse of not knowing
about logarithms.

> Which happens to make a great pun with 11/9 from the "tonic",
> while making a very tasty leap of 16/13

Sorry, but this is just pseudoscience. If numbers inspire
you, great. Good stuff to discuss on MMM or elsewhere.

-Carl

Igs>"A note is only a 3/2 in relation to some other note, so that 702-cent
interval could just as well be a 5/4 or 6/5 or a 7/4 or what have you if it's
related to a note other than the "starting note" that precedes it."
Right...but in equal temperament, the starting tone does not affect the ratio
between that tone an the x-th tone from it where x is constant (that's why it's
called "equal"). If you play a major chord from any root, it's still going to
have the same intervals regardless of the root.

>"Many, if not most, 11-limit ratios are surrounded very closely by other ratios
>that are not significantly more complex."
But, if we're talking 13 or 15 limit...usually that difference is at least
around 12 cents...definitely noticeable.

>"What is the purpose of talking about rational approximations at all for such an
>interval?
Assuming we are talking in terms of dyadic consonance...it is about "fields
of attraction". And no, I'm not talking about just the typical 3, 5 and 7 limit
fields in Harmonic Entropy, but also 9 and 11-limit ones (IE "mid/not-low limit
fractions") that HE quite often fails to notice. You seem to be arguing "ok but
why doesn't the mind round things to, say, 27/22 instead?" and my answer would
be "it's just so high-limit that there is a faint chance it has any substantial
"field of attraction" as such. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a
counter-question to this would be "why would the brain consider 11/9 to be a
sour 27/22 or vice-versa....and, even if not, do those two really sound
different enough for it to matter and what specific examples would prove
that?" Try 1/1 11/9 3/2 vs. 1/1 27/22 3/2...or each of those two compared to
each other but multiplied by 5/4 (IE with 5/4 as the starting/root tone)...do
you hear any startling difference?

>"It's easy to do this with low-limit intervals like 5/4 or 3/2, because they are
>of such lower complexity than their near-by neighbors."

Right, but compare 11-limit to their nearest by 13 or 15-limit...I swear, there
is quite a difference.

>"11-ratios like 11/8 and 11/9 are not of such drastically lower complexity than
>their near-by neighbors."
Try 13/8 vs. 18/13 or, better yet, 13/8 vs. 18/11. Even stepping up to
13-limit often causes substantial difference. Sure if you get HUGE numbers like
27/22 that change...but then you can argue it's getting so abstract that 27/22
is really just a slightly detuned 11/9...rather than some "competing" 13-limit
ratio.

>"unless we have a larger framework that treats those intervals unambiguously as
>approximations. "
From experience I would suggest such a framework extent to many 11-limit
intervals...and not simply the 3,5,7 intervals typical in Harmonic Entropy.
IMVHO that's a major flaw in Harmonic Entropy...that it seems to consider, say,
an 11/9 as a weak/wavering 6/5 or 5/4 and not as its own center of sorts.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"It's easy to do this with low-limit intervals like 5/4 or 3/2, >because they are
> >of such lower complexity than their near-by neighbors."
>
> Right, but compare 11-limit to their nearest by 13 or 15-limit...I >swear, there
> is quite a difference.

Trust your ears. :-)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Right...but in equal temperament, the starting tone does not affect the ratio
> between that tone an the x-th tone from it where x is constant (that's why it's
> called "equal"). If you play a major chord from any root, it's still going to
> have the same intervals regardless of the root.

You missed the point. If you go C to G, is the G a fifth? Only if the C is still playing. Play a D, and the G is a fourth; play an E, and it is a minor 3rd. You cannot identify a note as a ratio unless you have another note to reference it with.

> >"Many, if not most, 11-limit ratios are surrounded very closely by other ratios
> >that are not significantly more complex."
> But, if we're talking 13 or 15 limit...usually that difference is at least
> around 12 cents...definitely noticeable.

Why limit it to 13 or 15? Take it up to 21 or 22, and you're looking at much less than 12 cents. Either way, there's not much evidence that something like 11/9 is noticeably more concordant than something like 27/22--you have noted yourself there's barely a noticeable difference.

> Assuming we are talking in terms of dyadic consonance...it is about "fields
> of attraction". And no, I'm not talking about just the typical 3, 5 and 7 limit
> fields in Harmonic Entropy, but also 9 and 11-limit ones (IE "mid/not-low limit
> fractions") that HE quite often fails to notice. You seem to be arguing "ok but
> why doesn't the mind round things to, say, 27/22 instead?" and my answer would
> be "it's just so high-limit that there is a faint chance it has any substantial
> "field of attraction" as such.

No, I'm arguing that 11/9 is already too complex for the mind to "round" to it, since it is so close to 27/22 and we all know the threshold for discrimination between intervals is on average probably something like 8 cents. Whatever "field of attraction" there is to the neutral-third range, I think it has nothing to do with periodicity or odd-limit, and probably more to do with another perceptual faculty, like a form of absolute pitch or something.

> Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a
> counter-question to this would be "why would the brain consider 11/9 to be a
> sour 27/22 or vice-versa....and, even if not, do those two really sound
> different enough for it to matter and what specific examples would prove
> that?" Try 1/1 11/9 3/2 vs. 1/1 27/22 3/2...or each of those two compared to
> each other but multiplied by 5/4 (IE with 5/4 as the starting/root tone)...do
> you hear any startling difference?

No, and that's the point. If there's no audible difference, what basis is there to assign ANY interval the role of "attractor"?

-Igs

Igs>"You missed the point. If you go C to G, is the G a fifth? Only if the C is
still playing. Play a D, and the G is a fourth; play an E, and it is a minor
3rd. You cannot identify a note as a ratio unless you have another note to
reference it with."
But what makes that any different than saying you need two notes to make a
dyad?

>"Why limit it to 13 or 15? Take it up to 21 or 22, and you're looking at much
>less than 12 cents."

Heh, well, excuse me for "pulling a Cameron" by using my ears first and
foremost. But, above 11-limit (in general)...my ears seem to associate the
emotion with the nearest 11-or-lower-limit interval. If you use 21 or 22
odd-limit...of course the difference is under 12 cents...then again, the
difference is so small from the nearest 11-limit I (at least) can not tell a
difference in mood minus lack of purity. How to say this: Harmonic Entropy
seems to imply tones that define emotions are limited to 3,5, and 7 limit
(minus, for example, the slight exceptions of 15/8 and 11/6)...I'm saying that
my ears tell me fields of attraction happen all the way up to 11-limit so far as
dyads go.

>"No, I'm arguing that 11/9 is already too complex for the mind to "round" to it,
>since it is so close to 27/22 and we all know the threshold for discrimination
>between intervals is on average probably something like 8 cents."

Here's a test (assuming the same root note is used for all dyadic ratios, of
course). Compare 27/22 to 11/9. Now compare 28/23 to 11/9 (about the same log
distance under 11/9 that 27/22 is over 11/9). They all sound about the same,
right? But now try the same log distance below 28/23 that 11/9 is above 28/23
AKA 40/33. Does 40/33 sound as much like 11/9 as 28/23 sounds like 27/22? My
theory says no because 28/23 and 27/22 are within 11/9's field of attraction but
40/33 is not...but let's see what you think....

What I'm saying is...the comparisons' having a similar logarithmic distance
is over-run by 11/9 having its own field of attraction of which 28/23 and 27/22
are a part of but 40/33 is not.

>"probably more to do with another perceptual faculty, like a form of absolute
>pitch or something."
Could be...you could also try the above example with all root-tones raised by
a whole tone for grins. I'd love to find a theory concerning absolute
pitch....but I honestly have no clue by which basis to start building one (in
fact, I haven't seen a single paper or test concerning this and my perception of
where a "strong pitch area" starts seems to vary too wildly and randomly to draw
any conclusions from my usual testing-by-ear method...I admit defeat on testing
that one).

>"No, and that's the point. If there's no audible difference, what basis is there
>to assign ANY interval the role of "attractor"?"
You know, that's perhaps my major gripe about Harmonic Entropy. Why use 5/4
as a stronger center of attraction....for example...beside the fact it is
low-limit?

I'd love to believe a limit or other simple formula would summarize
everything but the more I experiment, the more I find ratios like 22/15 and 15/8
and 13/7, 50/33 and 13/9 which are high-limit yet sound more confident and
emotionally unique to me than things like 11/8, 16/11, 17/11 and other
lower-limit fractions...but it seems above 7-limit or so there are a LOT of
exceptions to Harmonic Entropy or limit-based theories in general.

I honestly will admit I don't have any basis that defines which intervals
will have the role of "attractors".
But I have found that 15-limit works rarely (IE only for 22/15 and 15/8),
11-limit works maybe half the time (IE 15/11 works well but 14/11 doesn't,
perhaps because it is "over-ruled by 9/7" in that range), 9-limit works most of
the time (14/9 and 17/9 being the exceptions with 17/9 being "over-ruled" by
it's neighbor 15/8). I have yet to find something either 13-limit OR higher
than 15-limit which does not simply sound like a weak version of a simpler
ratio. Siding with Kraig and Cameron (I believe)...I follow my ear first and
foremost because formulas have too many exceptions (especially when you go
beyond 7-limit).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

But, above 11-limit (in general)...my ears seem to associate the
> emotion with the nearest 11-or-lower-limit interval. If you use 21 or 22
> odd-limit...

I wasn't aware 22 was an odd number.

> 9-limit works most of
> the time (14/9 and 17/9 being the exceptions with 17/9 being "over-ruled" by
> it's neighbor 15/8).

17/9 is 17-limit, not 9-limit.

> But, above 11-limit (in general)...my ears seem to associate the
> emotion with the nearest 11-or-lower-limit interval. If you use 21 or 22
> odd-limit...
My bad, I meant that general range...IE 21, 23, etc. ...of course 22 isn't an
odd number.

> 9-limit works most of
> the time (14/9 and 17/9 being the exceptions with 17/9 being "over-ruled" by
> it's neighbor 15/8).
>17/9 is 17-limit, not 9-limit.
Again a slip...of course that then would seem to defeat the exception for 17/9
as 17/9 would be automatically "counted out" for being above 15-limit.

A side question seems to be why do 22/15 (15 limit) and 15/8 seem to work so
well despite being 15-limit? Neither are particularly near any low-limit
ratios' fields of attraction (or are super-particular ratios) or have
particularly little beating either... Sure 9/5 and 3/2 sound better...but
likely not by as much as you would think by just looking at the numbers.
One thing they don't seem to have is any ratios with low Harmonic Entropy
competing with them for "tonal gravitation/attraction"...perhaps that suspicion
can lead to research which can provide some answers.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> But what makes that any different than saying you need two notes to make a
> dyad?

Nothing, that's the point: ratios = dyads. Not necessarily sounded simultaneously, but at least implied.

> >"Why limit it to 13 or 15? Take it up to 21 or 22, and you're looking at much
> >less than 12 cents."
>
> Heh, well, excuse me for "pulling a Cameron" by using my ears first and
> foremost. But, above 11-limit (in general)...my ears seem to associate the
> emotion with the nearest 11-or-lower-limit interval. If you use 21 or 22
> odd-limit...of course the difference is under 12 cents...then again, the
> difference is so small from the nearest 11-limit I (at least) can not tell a
> difference in mood minus lack of purity.

But Michael, some of your favorite ratios are well above the 15-limit. 22/15 is 21-limit, 50/33 is 49-limit, etc. Oh, but let me encourage you to compare 22/15 to 25/17 and tell me if you think 22/15 is really that special. Then do the same with 50/33 and 44/29.

> Here's a test (assuming the same root note is used for all dyadic ratios, of
> course). Compare 27/22 to 11/9. Now compare 28/23 to 11/9 (about the same log
> distance under 11/9 that 27/22 is over 11/9). They all sound about the same,
> right? But now try the same log distance below 28/23 that 11/9 is above 28/23
> AKA 40/33. Does 40/33 sound as much like 11/9 as 28/23 sounds like 27/22? My
> theory says no because 28/23 and 27/22 are within 11/9's field of attraction but
> 40/33 is not...but let's see what you think....

I think 40/33 is in 6/5's field of attraction.

It is my belief that harmonic entropy minima and maxima both exert fields of attraction, but in different ways. The difference between them is that the field of attraction of the minima arise from the periodicity of the single simple ratio at the core, whereas at the maxima it arises from something else (I'm not sure what, but I'm pretty sure it's not periodicity and it's not tied to a specific ratio). Regardless, I think the hardest regions of pitch-space to tune reliably are those between minima and maxima of H.E., or in other words, those where the slope of H.E. has a high value.

At any rate, the obvious periodicity of low-limit intervals is what I think makes them strong attractors, especially because nothing near them is remotely as obviously periodic. But there is definitely another mechanism at work that makes intervals at H.E. maxima "stand out" on the pitch-spectrum. But this is why I don't like using ratios: they give the illusion of discrete identities, when in fact, the identity is more tied just to a region of pitch-space than it is to anything as exact as a frequency ratio.

-Igs

Igs wrote:

> But Michael, some of your favorite ratios are well above the
> 15-limit. 22/15 is 21-limit, 50/33 is 49-limit, etc.

You'll probably kick yourself, but 22/15 is 15-limit, and
50/33 is 33-limit.*

* More accurately, they are "ratios of" 15 and 33, respectively.

-Carl

On 15 October 2010 20:15, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> The burden of proof lies on those who would claim that this is NOT so.
> Take for instance, Carl's descriptions of maqam tunes as being in 24-tET
> with tiny variations/expressive intonation. This is a completely fair
> description of plenty (but certainly not all or even the majority) of
> "maqam music" I have heard! BUT- we have 2000+ years of theorists
> claiming division of the basic Pythagorean structure in a manner that
> favors/seeks superparticular ratios. We have maqam theorists insisting
> on this to this day.  And personally, I have found this to be a
> structural approach of astounding strength and acoustical validity.

Carl's claim is that as far as there's any pattern to the pitch
distribution, it's consistent with 24-tET. He also analyzed a
performance to demonstrate it. The only way he could prove that all
maqam music is the same is to analyze all maqam music ever performed,
which is obviously unreasonable. If you claim to have heard maqam
music that fits a different pattern, the burden of proof is absolutely
on you to demonstrate it.

It's well established that 2000+ years of theory has had little regard
for musical practice. Now we have the tools to check what musicians
are actually doing.

> So- we've got a tune that's almost precisely in 24-tET.  Some half-comma
> deviation here and there... whoops, that looks and more importantly
> sounds just like what's been claimed for, literally, ages!

Only if the deviations are systematically favoring some other scale
structure, which you haven't established.

Graham

Igs> But Michael, some of your favorite ratios are well above the 15-limit.
22/15 is 21-limit, 50/33 is 49-limit, etc.

Regardless of that the limits you noted are wrong (hey I've made that
mistake a few times by writing more quickly than I think for limits)...I get
your point (and I can't stand it when people sight not-so-huge errors as reason
for not understanding a point at all and the topic is lost).

In an example I posted before, I basically said there ARE 11-limit,
13-limit, and 15-limit intervals that work surprisingly well at having their own
fields of attraction...and a few 11-limit intervals have fields of attraction
and that certain 15-limit ones have them as well.

The funny thing is, if you read my last example, you'd see I DID mention
22/15 and 15/8 (and 15/11) as 15-limit intervals that appear to work well.

BTW 13/9 and 13/7 were my examples of 13-limit intervals that "work"...
.......18/11, 11/6, 11/8, 11/9, 11/10 and 12/11 (though 12/11 and 11/10 can be
argued as being "attracted" toward 9/8) and my examples of good 11-limit
intervals.

Now try those: 22/15, 15/8, 13/9, 13/7, 18/11, 11/6, 11/8, 11/9, 11/10 and
12/11...do you think these intervals have fields of attraction (albeit fairly
narrow ones) by ear and that anything very near those intervals (say 10-14 cents
off) sounds like a weak version of those intervals?
The most obvious example I can think of is the starting difference between
the sour 16/11 and the much sweeter 22/15 only a handful of cents away!

That's my point, that Harmonic Entropy is missing a level and there is a
level where our minds assign fields of attraction to intervals all the way up to
the 15-th limit....the tough thing is I have yet to find an explanation on why
this works for some 11,13,15-limit intervals much better than others.

The overall point is that HOPEFULLY some of the experts here should be
taking a look into why these intervals work, rather than saying "if they aren't
3,5,7...they have no place in 'strict-Just' music".

I don't think I mentioned 50/33...but, to note, it does seem an obvious side
effect that 3/2's "field of attraction" seems to attract notes a tad higher than
it better than notes a tad below it IE I doubt it warrants research into "how
33-limit intervals can work" (I'm still not convinced the far higher limits mean
anything beyond being rounded lower limits).

Down the chute goes the notion of "interval" in temporal melodic
settings altogether.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 15, 2010, at 6:33 PM, cityoftheasleep wrote:

> It amazes me how misunderstood the term "approximation" is, by some
> of the most learned people of the list. Just because a tempered
> interval *can* be looked at as an approximation to some ratio, does
> that mean the tempered interval is *necessarily identified with*
> that ratio? No, it doesn't. And especially not in a monophonic
> context: if a singer sings a note 702 cents above a starting note,
> you might say it's a 3/2 if there is some implication that the
> starting note is to be held over the 702-cent note, but what if that
> implication doesn't exist? A note is only a 3/2 in relation to some
> other note, so that 702-cent interval could just as well be a 5/4 or
> 6/5 or a 7/4 or what have you if it's related to a note other than > the "starting note" that precedes it.
>
> The biggest difference between a 3/2 and most 11-limit ratios is
> that all ratios within 8 cents of 3/2 are astronomically more
> complex than it. Many, if not most, 11-limit ratios are surrounded
> very closely by other ratios that are not significantly more complex.
>
> And even though this question wasn't to you, Ozan, I'd appreciate if
> you could answer it: what reason is there to assume that an interval
> near 350 cents is approximating 11/9, rather than 27/22, 16/13, or
> 39/32? Heck, why can't we say it's approximating 21/17, or 23/19,
> or 26/21? What is the purpose of talking about rational
> approximations at all for such an interval?
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> Extending a tentacle from my cave.
>>
>> Really Igs, when a solo singer is sounding the whereabouts of 702
>> cents in a melodic passage without any harmonic backing (vertical
>> sonority, if you will), do you assume that anything besides 3:2 is
>> being aimed for? And do you assume that the 700 cents interval in 24-
>> EDO is good for anything else but an approximation for 3:2 in any
>> given context?
>>
>> In similar respect, do you support the notion that equal semitone
>> steps can approximate Huzzam, Saba, Ushshaq of Karjighar intervals no
>> more worrisomely than quarter-tonal steps can be made to correspond
>> to
>> the likes of 10/9, 11/10, 13/12, 14/13?
>>
>> Moreover, what would you say is the limit of this scale?
>>
>> |Something Sabaish
>> 12/11
>> 32/27
>> 9/7
>> 3/2
>> 128/81
>> 243/128
>> 2/1
>>
>> Lastly, did you hear yourself when you constructed the sentence below
>> (emphases mine)?
>>
>>> you can look at 24-EDO as offering good approximations of 11-limit
>>> intervals, but that doesn't mean music made in it is necessarily 11-
>>> limit.
>>
>>
>> Please don't answer the questions, as they are completely rhetorical.
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Oz.
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2010, at 6:35 AM, cityoftheasleep wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, for "Bob"'s sake, Cameron! Carl's objection is well-founded:
>>> there are a lot of ratios within 8 cents or so of 12/11 or 11/9 (or
>>> a lot of 11-ratios) that would be rather difficult to differentiate
>>> by ear from those 11-ratios; so, lacking vertical structures, what
>>> evidence is there that those 11-ratios are being "approximated"?
>>> What reason is there to assume that a 350-cent interval is
>>> approximating 11/9 as opposed to 39/32, 27/22, or even 16/13, unless
>>> a larger vertical harmonic context is given? Or that 150 cents is
>>> approximating 12/11, rather than 13/12, 23/21, 25/23, or 35/32?
>>> What reason is there to say that these intervals are approximating
>>> ANYTHING, in the first place, if there's no vertical context?
>>>
>>> Sure, you can look at 24-EDO as offering good approximations of 11-
>>> limit intervals, but that doesn't mean music made in it is
>>> necessarily 11-limit. You can imply all sorts of different odd- and
>>> prime-limits, depending on how you construct your harmonies...and if
>>> you don't construct anything more complex than dyads (or even
>>> triads), the "limit" is ambiguous. Hell, given the fact that most
>>> quarter-tonal intervals are at maxima of harmonic entropy, it might
>>> be the case than even tetrads and pentads are pretty ambiguous as
>>> far as limit goes. You'd have quite the task ahead of you if you
>>> wanted to prove that 24-EDO music is inherently 11-limit.
>>>
>>> -Igs
>>>
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Cameron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't insist on 24tET AND deny the 11-limit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I can! JI is defined for vertical structures, of
>>>>> which maqam music has relatively few. Those it does have
>>>>> are not in 11-limit JI.
>>>>
>>>> "ll-limit" here obviously refers to the odd-limit. I even listed
>>>> the intervals- clearly there was never a claim that a complete "11-
>>>> limit diamond" or some such vertical structure was in question, how
>>>> silly.
>>>>
>>>> JI can be "defined for vertical structures" but that is NOT the
>>>> "definition of JI". Just Intonation refers to the intonation of
>>>> intervals, melodic as well as harmonic. "11-limit" is used to
>>>> describe even single, isolated, intervals.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On one hand you accept a dubious approximation,
>>>>>> 400 cents as 5:4, yet reject these obvious
>>>>>> near-identities?
>>>>>
>>>>> 11-limit intervals require more accurate approximations than
>>>>> 5-limit intervals. Some 11-limit intervals can't even be
>>>>> approximated by the intervals themselves, as bare dyads.
>>>>> At any rate, the 400 cents approximation appears in Western
>>>>> music only on MIDI instruments, pianos, and to some extent
>>>>> guitars. Other ensembles often do much better, even when
>>>>> accompanied by a piano. That more or less establishes that
>>>>> 5:4 is the intended target.
>>>>
>>>> No, 5:4 is A target, not THE target.
>>>>
>>>>> Where are the Libyan choirs
>>>>> singing otonal hexads accompanied by ud?
>>>>
>>>> Noone suggested such a thing, but now that you have, I wonder what
>>>> it would sound like?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, if you are actually responding to what I wrote, and not off
>>>> on a tangent, it looks like you're telling me that 150 cents is not
>>>> an approximation of 12:11. We'd have to agree to disagree on that
>>>> one- I think that it is an excellent approximation.
>>>>
>>>> -Cameron Bobro
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
>>> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
>>> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
>>> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
>>> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
>>> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
>>> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
>>> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hi Graham,

> Carl's claim is that as far as there's any pattern to the pitch
> distribution, it's consistent with 24-tET. He also analyzed a
> performance to demonstrate it. The only way he could prove that
> all maqam music is the same is to analyze all maqam music ever
> performed, which is obviously unreasonable. If you claim to
> have heard maqam music that fits a different pattern, the burden
> of proof is absolutely on you to demonstrate it.

Thanks for the support, but I have also observed things that
don't seem fit to 24-ET. And Cam agrees some things do.
So this seems to be something we agree on.

> It's well established that 2000+ years of theory has had little
> regard for musical practice.

Yes. Despite Ozan's claim, a web search reveals most English-
language accounts agree.

> Now we have the tools to check what musicians
> are actually doing.

Weighing Diverse is a huge achievement in this regard. All
that remains is to take the data and model it.

> Only if the deviations are systematically favoring some other
> scale structure, which you haven't established.

In the Ud piece I keep talking about, there weren't any
deviations to speak of. Which is pretty impressive considering
the speed at which he's playing a fretless instrument with
relatively short strings.

-Carl

Michael wrote:
> I basically said there ARE 11-limit,
> 13-limit, and 15-limit intervals that work surprisingly well at
> having their own fields of attraction...

The only one I can think of off the top of my head is 11:4.

> if you read my last example, you'd see I DID mention
> 22/15 and 15/8 (and 15/11) as 15-limit intervals that appear
> to work well.

Why do you say that? 15:8 has barely a nub in ideal
circumstances, and the other two have none at all.

-Carl

When you (Carl) posted a recording that sounded like 24-tET to me, I immediately responded "sounds like 24-tET to me". It can't be any shock that there is 24-tET maqam music, as the tuning has been taught in different regions for decades now: kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

But in my experience there's too much music consistently different from 24-tET. That maqam mansuri you linked to? That's not 24-tET. The graphic representation shows pitches close to 24-tET, but so what? It simply doesn't sound like 24-tET, tune it up for yourself and try it out.

When I was in Istanbul, I heard a Turkish third step of just-shy-of-5/4 many times. It's... characteristic. That interval simply doesn't exist in 24-tET. And the guys playing it will be more than happy to explain to you that it's a commatic alteration. 53-tET is alive and well (even if it's called "commas"), just go to the street of music shops in Bayoglu and hang out for some days like I did, and find out for yourself. Neither does 7/6 occur in 24-tET, yet it's a signature sound in maqam musics; my six-year-old recognizes it as "desert-ly" or "really Egyptian" for crying out loud.

Now, you could make a case for 48-tET and it would be much more difficult to argue with. But it still can't compete with a most ancient description, which happens to be that favored by Occam's razor as well: Pythagorean framework, local/stylistic/expressive divisions within, with those divisions favoring the acoustically more resonant (simple and superparticualr ratios).

Ancient. Bonehead simple. Not imported from the West. Tunable by ear.

So for an "about 150 cents interval", for example, instead of dicking around with 24 and approximate cents you can just go up a Pythagorean ditone, down a 6/7 and whoops there you have an "about 150 cents" step that actually sounds "desert-like". And what do you know, you didn't need a machine to tune it, and it has NOTHING to do with numerology: in my sons terms and dropping octaves, you could just go up "soldierly" four times and down "desert-ly" once and there you are. Final result indistinguishable from 13/12 by the way, but numbers are just names, it's the sounds that are real.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Graham,
>
> > Carl's claim is that as far as there's any pattern to the pitch
> > distribution, it's consistent with 24-tET. He also analyzed a
> > performance to demonstrate it. The only way he could prove that
> > all maqam music is the same is to analyze all maqam music ever
> > performed, which is obviously unreasonable. If you claim to
> > have heard maqam music that fits a different pattern, the burden
> > of proof is absolutely on you to demonstrate it.
>
> Thanks for the support, but I have also observed things that
> don't seem fit to 24-ET. And Cam agrees some things do.
> So this seems to be something we agree on.
>
> > It's well established that 2000+ years of theory has had little
> > regard for musical practice.
>
> Yes. Despite Ozan's claim, a web search reveals most English-
> language accounts agree.
>
> > Now we have the tools to check what musicians
> > are actually doing.
>
> Weighing Diverse is a huge achievement in this regard. All
> that remains is to take the data and model it.
>
> > Only if the deviations are systematically favoring some other
> > scale structure, which you haven't established.
>
> In the Ud piece I keep talking about, there weren't any
> deviations to speak of. Which is pretty impressive considering
> the speed at which he's playing a fretless instrument with
> relatively short strings.
>
> -Carl
>

Me>> "I basically said there ARE 11-limit, 13-limit, and 15-limit intervals
that work surprisingly well at
>> having their own fields of attraction..."
Carl>"The only one I can think of off the top of my head is 11:4."

According to harmonic entropy, of course, that's correct. Unfortunately, a
major crux of my point is that this is one of Harmonic Entropy's weak points. I
mean don't get me wrong, I believe there is strong evidence 11-limit ratios are
not as strong far as fields of attraction as 5 and 7-limit ones...but I don't
believe such ratios are just "tiny dips" (if recognized at all) in the curve,
but rather significant dips. Another analogy: 5 and 7 limit seem to have a more
"major" feel of stability while some 11-limit and a few 13 and 15-limit ratios
seem to have a "minor" feel of stability...but "even" those 15-limit dyads are
stable enough that I think it's through a certain degree of ignorance that they
are simply not included in theories like Harmonic Entropy.

>"Why do you say that? 15:8 has barely a nub in ideal circumstances, and the
>other two have none at all."

What do you mean by "barely a nub" (I suppose 'nub' is a 'technical' term? :-D
).

A bizarre thing is that the whole range from 13/7 to 15/8, including
11/6...sounds quite good to me. The exception being 20/11 which seems to have a
small sour range around it.

Case in point (at least for 15/8): look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-limit_tuning
Sure, one version of 5-limit diatonic JI uses 9/5 (which I agree is more
stable than 15/8, but not exponentially so), but the other version (along with
12TET) essentially uses 15/8. Harmonic Entropy (though I don't agree with what
it indicates over about 13/7) does include a point not too far from 13/7 (1060
cents) as a small low point.

If you think 9/5 IS exponentially more stable than 15/8 and have a base of
subjects to listen double-blind test it on (I would gladly conduct it myself,
but I simply don't have enough subjects available!) be my guest. But otherwise,
perhaps we should guess agree to disagree about how perfectly Harmonic Entropy
summarizes what listeners actually hear vs. what they "in theory should hear".

Michael, I think it's important to remember that it's not about numbers, but about sounds. And sounds in real life are sounds in contexts. So don't worry about "complexity"- maybe something just has a complex "name" (number). Or maybe it's "complex" naked and alone, but in context very simple.

In my relentless pursuit of truth in sound, regardless of number, the other day I sang "low tritones" over a drone. You just solfege it and settle on where it blends together or otherwise sounds best to you in some consistent way. I sang consistently 11/8's (within a couple of cents). They're very "blended". My attempts at 7/5 are flat, and doing the analysis later I could hear and measure it drooping... pulled by 11:8. That is, apparently, a "natural low tritone" for me, whereas 7/5 just doesn't have that drive to blend in- for me.

But when I do clarinet over clarinet (multitrack), the n/7 and 7/n intervals are easy to find, incredibly strong and audibly Just, whereas an 11/8 tritone and ratios of 11 in general do not have much of a concrete presence at all.

(By the way you have to ear in the tones in a wind instrument, especially with the funky fingerings needed for microtones. Fingering just puts you within about, I don't know, it varies, a 50+ cent range and you have to use your ear and embouchure from there. In fact I sometimes use the same fingerings for tones up to 70 cents apart, because there are fewer options in some places, like right around the register key.)

Does 13:8 exert a "gravity"? I've found, trying lower middle 6ths, that it's too hard for me NOT to hit 13:8, within 5 cents, even if I'm deliberately trying for something else! So there's definitely a pull of gravity there. Not on my erhu, though- it sings at ratios of 11. 11:6 is really easy to find, and sounds very smooth and natural- but the instrument has an unusually strong 11th and 6th partials so the simplest explanation for this might lie there.

Anyway- trust your ears. Other people's ears will be different in some ways, similar in others.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Me>> "I basically said there ARE 11-limit, 13-limit, and 15-limit intervals
> that work surprisingly well at
> >> having their own fields of attraction..."
> Carl>"The only one I can think of off the top of my head is 11:4."
>
> According to harmonic entropy, of course, that's correct. Unfortunately, a
> major crux of my point is that this is one of Harmonic Entropy's weak points. I
> mean don't get me wrong, I believe there is strong evidence 11-limit ratios are
> not as strong far as fields of attraction as 5 and 7-limit ones...but I don't
> believe such ratios are just "tiny dips" (if recognized at all) in the curve,
> but rather significant dips. Another analogy: 5 and 7 limit seem to have a more
> "major" feel of stability while some 11-limit and a few 13 and 15-limit ratios
> seem to have a "minor" feel of stability...but "even" those 15-limit dyads are
> stable enough that I think it's through a certain degree of ignorance that they
> are simply not included in theories like Harmonic Entropy.
>
>
> >"Why do you say that? 15:8 has barely a nub in ideal circumstances, and the
> >other two have none at all."
>
> What do you mean by "barely a nub" (I suppose 'nub' is a 'technical' term? :-D
> ).
>
> A bizarre thing is that the whole range from 13/7 to 15/8, including
> 11/6...sounds quite good to me. The exception being 20/11 which seems to have a
> small sour range around it.
>
> Case in point (at least for 15/8): look at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-limit_tuning
> Sure, one version of 5-limit diatonic JI uses 9/5 (which I agree is more
> stable than 15/8, but not exponentially so), but the other version (along with
> 12TET) essentially uses 15/8. Harmonic Entropy (though I don't agree with what
> it indicates over about 13/7) does include a point not too far from 13/7 (1060
> cents) as a small low point.
>
> If you think 9/5 IS exponentially more stable than 15/8 and have a base of
> subjects to listen double-blind test it on (I would gladly conduct it myself,
> but I simply don't have enough subjects available!) be my guest. But otherwise,
> perhaps we should guess agree to disagree about how perfectly Harmonic Entropy
> summarizes what listeners actually hear vs. what they "in theory should hear".
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:

> Nothing, that's the point: ratios = dyads. Not necessarily sounded >simultaneously, but at least implied.

This is simply not correct. Ratios are used to describe melodic "horizontal" movement as well. And a strict line between horizontal and vertical doesn't exist in phyical reality, anyway. Unless you were to write music with, say, sine tones playing a monophonic line with long pauses between each note.

Igliashon wrote:
> But this is why I don't >like using ratios: they give the illusion >of discrete identities, when in fact, the identity is more tied just >to a region of pitch-space than it is to anything as exact as a >frequency ratio.

This sounds sensible at first glance, but I don't think that it is a good interpretation.

First of all, what happened to the "harmonic series detector in the brain"? (quote from intro to Harmonic Entropy). If the brain does indeed have a harmonic series detector, then ratios are the best "names" for intervals.

Second, ratios only give the illusion of discrete identities, or of dubiously high precision, to those who think in terms of numbers and not in terms of actual sounds. Other than strictly synthesized timbres, which are of course famous for their "dead" and "unnatural" sound (no aesthetic judgement there, could be just what's needed for something), partials are stochastic entities. They're "fuzzy", at any given moment up or down a bit from the "official address" that is the integer. This fuzz does not have to be symmetrically weighted, and the integer address is not a "noun" but an "adjective", so to speak (otherwise the work of Sethares would not function even slightly).

It's understood that there is a "plus/minus" to these numbers. It is "cents" which would be more likely to suggest an illusory accuracy.
One reason I say this is very practical: for thousands of years frets have been placed with the aid of measurement, and the simpler the measurment the better. I'd much rather place seven eighths by ruler and fine tune by ear than "231.1741 cents". And the cents value does not immediately describe interrelationships as the ratio does- 8/7? Oh, hi 7/4 to the octave!

-Cameron Bobro

>"This is simply not correct. Ratios are used to describe melodic "horizontal"
>movement as well. And a strict line between horizontal and vertical doesn't
>exist in phyical reality, anyway. Unless you were to write music with, say, sine
>tones playing a monophonic line with long pauses between each note."

This seems to point to harmony and melody being similarly mappable goals in
terms of making scales since, by that virtue, all a melody is, to some extent,
is a series of "chords broken-up into different time slots and then chained
together". The one exception seems to be what happens when you add a note to a
melody that would be "comma shifted" to make the next chord perfect ALA Adaptive
JI. This would happen if you, say, had a melody C then E then G followed by one
that was E then A then F....and the frequency used for E shifts to keep the E->A
fifth perfect, for example. Thinking "arpeggios" may make it more obvious...
.

>"One reason I say this is very practical: for thousands of years frets have been
>placed with the aid of measurement, and the simpler the measurement the better.
>I'd much rather place seven eighths by ruler and fine tune by ear than "231.1741
>cents". And the cents value does not immediately describe interrelationships as
>the ratio does- 8/7? Oh, hi 7/4 to the octave!"

This seems to go back to my decimal vs. ratio vs. cents argument which was
cast off the list as "completely irrelevant". People are free to call me a
psuedo-scientist or what not for saying this...but I still lean heavily toward
using
A) Fractions (identifying direct harmonic series relationships)
B) Interval classes on top of the fractions
...and I still see cents as amazingly hard to remember (far as how they fit the
harmonic series) despite I agree with many that they have a nice advantage in
being logarithmic.

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

Igs:
> > Nothing, that's the point: ratios = dyads. Not necessarily sounded simultaneously,
> > but at least implied.

> This is simply not correct. Ratios are used to describe melodic "horizontal" movement as > well. And a strict line between horizontal and vertical doesn't exist in phyical reality,
> anyway. Unless you were to write music with, say, sine tones playing a monophonic line > with long pauses between each note.

What part of "not necessarily sounded simultaneously" failed to register? I never said they were inherently vertical, but a ratio is a relationship between two notes. Obviously, an arpeggiated chord is still a chord. But if you're going to say a note is a 3/2, it's only a 3/2 in relationship to another note. Two notes = a dyad.

> This sounds sensible at first glance, but I don't think that it is a good interpretation.
>
> First of all, what happened to the "harmonic series detector in the brain"? (quote from
> intro to Harmonic Entropy). If the brain does indeed have a harmonic series detector,
> then ratios are the best "names" for intervals.

Not if the ratios are near a maximum of H.E., where the harmonic series detector is basically short-circuited.

> Second, ratios only give the illusion of discrete identities, or of dubiously high precision, > to those who think in terms of numbers and not in terms of actual sounds.
[snip]
> It's understood that there is a "plus/minus" to these numbers. It is "cents" which would > be more likely to suggest an illusory accuracy.

I meant "accuracy" in terms of perception, not performance. Since you agree that ratios have a fuzz around them, then surely you see the absurdity of assigning a rational identity to an interval where several "fuzzy zones" of near-by ratios are overlapped. Like 350 cents, for instance. It's right in the middle of the fuzzy zones of 11/9, 16/13, 27/22, 38/31, 39/32, 43/35 etc. etc. Especially on an acoustic instrument, where there is plenty of fluctuation in pitch and partials, an interval of (nominally) 350 cents might waver through all of those intervals. And yes, I understand that this means the interval is really 350+/- maybe 8 or 10 cents, but since ratios suggest a relationship to the harmonic series and cents don't, I think it's better to use cents for intervals that don't produce clear harmonic-series relationships.

On the other hand, I do agree that as a bench-mark for measurement or performance, ratios might be simpler to conceive and easier to deal with than cents. Not if what you desire is a perfectly-equal temperament, of course, but if pitch discretion is not of tantamount importance and/or if you are playing music with very small or no vertical structures (where exact intonation is not necessary), and/or if you are playing in Just Intonation, then yeah, ratios are what you want for performance and instrument design. It's the idea that they are useful for describing a perceptual identity that I (and I believe Carl as well) disagree with.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> Igs:
> > > Nothing, that's the point: ratios = dyads. Not necessarily >sounded simultaneously,
> > > but at least implied.
>
> > This is simply not correct. Ratios are used to describe melodic "horizontal" movement as > well. And a strict line between horizontal >and vertical doesn't exist in phyical reality,
> > anyway. Unless you were to write music with, say, sine tones playing a monophonic line > with long pauses between each note.
>
> What part of "not necessarily sounded simultaneously" failed to >register? I never said they were inherently vertical, but a ratio >is a relationship between two notes. Obviously, an arpeggiated >chord is still a chord. But if you're going to say a note is a 3/2, >it's only a 3/2 in relationship to another note. Two notes = a >dyad.

The general term is simply "interval". "Dyad" when used in tonal music refers a vertical sonority. It's "set theory" that uses "dyad" for two tones whether in the vertical and horizontal, but they're a "dyad" as part of theoretical "set", not simply two tones. Two tones are distinguished by an "interval".

I think it's important to distinguish.

>
> > This sounds sensible at first glance, but I don't think that it is a good interpretation.
> >
> > First of all, what happened to the "harmonic series detector in the brain"? (quote from
> > intro to Harmonic Entropy). If the brain does indeed have a harmonic series detector,
> > then ratios are the best "names" for intervals.
>
> Not if the ratios are near a maximum of H.E., where the harmonic series detector is basically short-circuited.

That's speculation. Personally, I think it is quite reasonable speculation, but that doesn't mean it's "true", or even that I agree with it.

>It's the idea that they are useful for describing a perceptual >identity that I (and I believe Carl as well) disagree with.

You disagree that there are audible consequences of the coincidence of partials in a 3:2... :-) dyad? "Harmonic entropy" is actually based on the idea of ratios defining perceptual identity!

-Cameron Bobro

Graham, the problem is that there is no doubt that "maqam music" cannot be described by 24-tET, not without absurd concepts of approximation which would make this entire list pointless. Or by simply ignoring whole nations and regions in your definition of "maqam music".

Right here beside me is the cura saz I bought in Istanbul. It came with the frets placed- carefully placed, using a system of dividing string length. The marks are still on it, each on a millimeter mark, the precision is admirable. The desired ratios were marked out, and the frets tied according to the marks, which are also on the back of the neck. It's very deliberate work.

The first tetrachordal space was fretted, in round cents:
92 cents
145 cents
202 cents
269 cents
370 cents
498 cents

That's a Pythagorean limma, a "quartertone" second, a 9/8, a 7/6, a 26/21, and a 4/3.

That is NOT 24-tET. These ARE intervals Ozan has long insisted are used in "maqam music" and what do you know? They are.

The Turkish (and, I think, Turkic in general) tendency to consistently and very deliberately put a tone pretty much right smack
in the middle of 350 and 400 cents soundly disqualifies the 24-tET generalization.

As does the the audible presence of 7/6 all over the place- once again, right about in the middle of two 24-tET intervals!

24-tET as the generalization? Simply wrong.

-Cameron Bobro

Thank you Cameron, for this neat demonstration of the tuning of small
baglamas from Turkiye. We have been researching this matter for years,
utilizing pitch analysis methods for hundreds to thousands of
recordings and have written scientific/theoretical articles some of
which have been published in international journals. But still, this
will not stop Graham and gang to jump at the first Carlish notions on
Maqam music based on melodyning a single taksim from out of Egypt not
in the least representative of the final - let alone autochtonous -
landscape.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:12 AM, cameron wrote:

> Graham, the problem is that there is no doubt that "maqam music"
> cannot be described by 24-tET, not without absurd concepts of
> approximation which would make this entire list pointless. Or by
> simply ignoring whole nations and regions in your definition of
> "maqam music".
>
> Right here beside me is the cura saz I bought in Istanbul. It came > with the frets placed- carefully placed, using a system of dividing
> string length. The marks are still on it, each on a millimeter mark,
> the precision is admirable. The desired ratios were marked out, and
> the frets tied according to the marks, which are also on the back of
> the neck. It's very deliberate work.
>
> The first tetrachordal space was fretted, in round cents:
> 92 cents
> 145 cents
> 202 cents
> 269 cents
> 370 cents
> 498 cents
>
> That's a Pythagorean limma, a "quartertone" second, a 9/8, a 7/6, a
> 26/21, and a 4/3.
>
> That is NOT 24-tET. These ARE intervals Ozan has long insisted are
> used in "maqam music" and what do you know? They are.
>
> The Turkish (and, I think, Turkic in general) tendency to
> consistently and very deliberately put a tone pretty much right smack
> in the middle of 350 and 400 cents soundly disqualifies the 24-tET
> generalization.
>
> As does the the audible presence of 7/6 all over the place- once
> again, right about in the middle of two 24-tET intervals!
>
> 24-tET as the generalization? Simply wrong.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

Ozan wrote:

> But still, this will not stop Graham and gang to jump at the
> first Carlish notions on Maqam music based on melodyning a
> single taksim from out of Egypt not in the least representative
> of the final - let alone autochtonous - landscape.

You haven't responded to any of the points I've raised,
other than to hurl meaningless insults. Time to put up or
shut up, Ozan. Does even your own data support your claims?
No. Have a look for yourself!

-Carl

Review of "The Mathematics Of Music" by John O'Sullivan - ISBN 974-9-9566492-0-1 October 2010.

This thin tome (less than 80 pages) is encumbered with an extravagantly ambitious title.

If you want a short introduction to integer frequency ratios, and accept that these are a prerequisite to produce harmonious music, you can remain in naive bliss. Assuming that you already have Helmholtz, Partch, etc in your library, you need look no further for a lightweight intro to give to curious friends and acquaintances to explain your extraordinary interests.

This book contains the usual doctrine from the Just Intonation advocates and all voyeurism for small integer ratios will be more than satiated with full-frontal small integer ratios on almost every single page.

There are three original illustrations, two of guitar fretboards with partial frets: "Blue Just Tuning" and "Blue Temperament".
which are repeated within the book and then again duplicated on the back cover. The other illustration is of eleven named "white" notes (F to B) on a conventional piano keyboard. Although far short of coffee table, fulltone, artbook presentation, they are perfect for the colourblind musical novice, who isn't yet ready for the other notes in the woodpile.

Unlike David Doty, who when reviewing one of my books, questioned my entirely legitimate engineering qualifications, I have no doubts about Mr. O'Sullivan's sincerity, originality and honourable intent in making this work available to the public.

After chapter four the book seems to take a turn towards "Blue Tuning", a system which the remainder of the book explains in some detail, and for which it appears that a patent application has been made.

In the Afterword the author writes that "…… in the late nineties I developed a musical temperament which I thought was unique." " ….. Meantone Temperament." Meantone seems to be able to achieve almost everything that "Blue" is capable of and much more. I wonder why he rejected Meantone, in favour of a new and unique system derived from JI, and went to the trouble of publishing a book to explain it.

>

Charles Lucy
lucy@...

-- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning --

For more information on LucyTuning go to:

http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world) can found at:

http://www.lullabies.co.uk

ohh, slobber...full-frontal ratios. Curvacious 9's. Stern 10ths. Funky but strangely alluring 11s...first I want them, then I don't.

On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

>
> Review of "The Mathematics Of Music" by John O'Sullivan - ISBN 974-9-9566492-0-1 October 2010.
>
> This thin tome (less than 80 pages) is encumbered with an extravagantly ambitious title.
>
> If you want a short introduction to integer frequency ratios, and accept that these are a prerequisite to produce harmonious music, you can remain in naive bliss. Assuming that you already have Helmholtz, Partch, etc in your library, you need look no further for a lightweight intro to give to curious friends and acquaintances to explain your extraordinary interests.
>
> This book contains the usual doctrine from the Just Intonation advocates and all voyeurism for small integer ratios will be more than satiated with full-frontal small integer ratios on almost every single page.
>
> There are three original illustrations, two of guitar fretboards with partial frets: "Blue Just Tuning" and "Blue Temperament".
> which are repeated within the book and then again duplicated on the back cover. The other illustration is of eleven named "white" notes (F to B) on a conventional piano keyboard. Although far short of coffee table, fulltone, artbook presentation, they are perfect for the colourblind musical novice, who isn't yet ready for the other notes in the woodpile.
>
> Unlike David Doty, who when reviewing one of my books, questioned my entirely legitimate engineering qualifications, I have no doubts about Mr. O'Sullivan's sincerity, originality and honourable intent in making this work available to the public.
>
> After chapter four the book seems to take a turn towards "Blue Tuning", a system which the remainder of the book explains in some detail, and for which it appears that a patent application has been made.
>
> In the Afterword the author writes that "…… in the late nineties I developed a musical temperament which I thought was unique." " ….. Meantone Temperament." Meantone seems to be able to achieve almost everything that "Blue" is capable of and much more. I wonder why he rejected Meantone, in favour of a new and unique system derived from JI, and went to the trouble of publishing a book to explain it.
>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> -- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning --
>
> For more information on LucyTuning go to:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world) can found at:
>
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dr. Carl Lumma, you are truly great, for you have bested Dr. Oz. & co.
singlehandedly by dealing them a deadly blow in the crotch with your
fabulous research into maqam intonation through just a simple
melograph analysis of a dubious oud player of some talent conditioned
to sound 24-EDO pitches. Congratulations!

From here forth, I shall forever dedicate myself to answer every itsy-
bitsy point you may raise by nitpicking our papers to shreds, and to
respond to your most merciful grace as pleases your lordship. No
matter my important work that awaits prompt attention, I shall
perpetually devote my time and patience to elucidate every syllable in
my lowly studies for your placation.

Do you also desire me to do your reading for you your Majesty?
Consider it done Effendi! I shall nitpick my papers myself lest you
tire, so as to prevent, God forbid, fatigue to touch your grace.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Ozan wrote:
>
>> But still, this will not stop Graham and gang to jump at the
>> first Carlish notions on Maqam music based on melodyning a
>> single taksim from out of Egypt not in the least representative
>> of the final - let alone autochtonous - landscape.
>
> You haven't responded to any of the points I've raised,
> other than to hurl meaningless insults. Time to put up or
> shut up, Ozan. Does even your own data support your claims?
> No. Have a look for yourself!
>
> -Carl
>

Ozan>"Dr. Carl Lumma, you are truly great, for you have bested Dr. Oz. & co.
singlehandedly by dealing them a deadly blow in the crotch with your fabulous
research into maqam intonation through just a simple melograph analysis of a
dubious oud player"
Yet I digress...that was hilarious! :-D

I think the fact Ozan make not just a strong paper but his entire
Doctorate thesis on Maqams should be enough of a hint the Ozan knows a large
majority (if not every single detail) of what he is talking about and I
understand his frustration with Carl's apparent asking of him to prove it all
again starting from scratch with a bunch of nit-picky counter-proofs (as if his
first effort with his thesis was not enough!).

But what questions remain? For one (and perhaps others here are in the
same boat)...what entails Egyptian and other Arabic music...many of which does
appear to focus on 24TET?
Once we get that clear, perhaps it will be more obvious why Persian
tradition differs from that. If anything, if there's something Ozan can
improve here, I think it's simplifying his examples, assuming others on the list
know relatively little about Persian music. I don't think Ozan's work lacks in
detail, complexity, and proof at all...but, rather, may need to be simplified in
summaries on this list so we can better understand...and, hopefully, listen to
what he says first before guessing what he means and calling it wrong under
prejudice.

I haven't been following this debate closely, but, this much is certainly true: The Ozmeister knows what he's talking about. However, it's always a logical possibility that someone could be an expert but be eccentric or have an agenda or a great imagination.

I would love to hear some of this stuff, if anyone can post some.

caleb

On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Michael wrote:

>
> Ozan>"Dr. Carl Lumma, you are truly great, for you have bested Dr. Oz. & co. singlehandedly by dealing them a deadly blow in the crotch with your fabulous research into maqam intonation through just a simple melograph analysis of a dubious oud player"
> Yet I digress...that was hilarious! :-D
>
> I think the fact Ozan make not just a strong paper but his entire Doctorate thesis on Maqams should be enough of a hint the Ozan knows a large majority (if not every single detail) of what he is talking about and I understand his frustration with Carl's apparent asking of him to prove it all again starting from scratch with a bunch of nit-picky counter-proofs (as if his first effort with his thesis was not enough!).
>
>
> But what questions remain? For one (and perhaps others here are in the same boat)...what entails Egyptian and other Arabic music...many of which does appear to focus on 24TET?
> Once we get that clear, perhaps it will be more obvious why Persian tradition differs from that. If anything, if there's something Ozan can improve here, I think it's simplifying his examples, assuming others on the list know relatively little about Persian music. I don't think Ozan's work lacks in detail, complexity, and proof at all...but, rather, may need to be simplified in summaries on this list so we can better understand...and, hopefully, listen to what he says first before guessing what he means and calling it wrong under prejudice.
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Dr. Carl Lumma, you are truly great, for you have bested

More insults, still no music theory. Too bad.

-Carl

wow. Oz I didn't know you took drama too! :-) Excellent creative writing!

And I see a recent post by Charles Lucy who obviously is still stinging
from a Doty review

I'll admit I still have a hard time with Cameron who pestered me
mercilessly about "tall chords" and totally missed the fact The Pond was in
pentatonic thus its popularity. Actually - I'm more amazed at that fact
being missed more then anything else.

One has to admit we really got some personalities on this list, in fact this
is a room chock full of "artistic personalities". And we really have some
experts as well.

However, I don't know about anyone else but I like pretty much everyone who
frequents this list and some who unfortunately don't anymore. In calmer
times I imagine more people agree with that statement then do not.

So can I do the bi-monthly - "if you don't like the post - then ignore it"
reminder?

Chris

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...m>wrote:

>
>
> Dr. Carl Lumma, you are truly great, for you have bested Dr. Oz. & co.
> singlehandedly by dealing them a deadly blow in the crotch with your
> fabulous research into maqam intonation through just a simple
> melograph analysis of a dubious oud player of some talent conditioned
> to sound 24-EDO pitches. Congratulations!
>
> From here forth, I shall forever dedicate myself to answer every itsy-
> bitsy point you may raise by nitpicking our papers to shreds, and to
> respond to your most merciful grace as pleases your lordship. No
> matter my important work that awaits prompt attention, I shall
> perpetually devote my time and patience to elucidate every syllable in
> my lowly studies for your placation.
>
> Do you also desire me to do your reading for you your Majesty?
> Consider it done Effendi! I shall nitpick my papers myself lest you
> tire, so as to prevent, God forbid, fatigue to touch your grace.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > Ozan wrote:
> >
> >> But still, this will not stop Graham and gang to jump at the
> >> first Carlish notions on Maqam music based on melodyning a
> >> single taksim from out of Egypt not in the least representative
> >> of the final - let alone autochtonous - landscape.
> >
> > You haven't responded to any of the points I've raised,
> > other than to hurl meaningless insults. Time to put up or
> > shut up, Ozan. Does even your own data support your claims?
> > No. Have a look for yourself!
> >
> > -Carl
> >
>
>
>

>"I'll admit I still have a hard time with Cameron who pestered me mercilessly
>about "tall chords" and totally missed the fact The Pond was in pentatonic thus
>its popularity."
Side note...pentatonic scales tend to allow a high degree of tall chords per
note. "even" in plain old pentatonic under 12TET, you can virtually use the
entire scale as one huge chord. As a very small child...I used to use only
black keys on the piano (IE C# D# F# G# A#) all the time because of this...it's
virtually "idiot proof"! :-D

>"One has to admit we really got some personalities on this list, in fact this is
>a room chock full of "artistic personalities"."
And I don't see there being any problem with that...minus the point we get
into arguments along the lines of people saying "I'm right and everything else
must therefore be wrong". Marcel has done that. Carl has done it. I have
frequently been accused of doing it when I refer to AN alternative and someone
else on the list misquotes me as saying it's the ONLY alternative...

>"So can I do the bi-monthly - "if you don't like the post - then ignore it"
>reminder? "
Count me in on that one! I've been suggesting that for ages.
Why does it seem so many of these quarrels start with someone who thinks
their answer is the only correct answer and shamelessly interrupts someone's
productive thread and tells them to be quiet and stop spreading
"misinformation"?!

We should agree to disagree sometimes...after all artistic variation is
"inevitably" a huge part of music. If someone has what another person says is a
"completely wrong" way of doing things, someone else may pick up those ideas and
find good uses for them...and if no one does and everyone ignores such an
idea...the "irrelevant topic" will die on its own in silence. Why not simply
take that approach, instead of complaining about who's more right?

Maybe time to establish maqam group where all those experts with big
egos can continue their ridiculous quarrels leading to nowhere.

I have enough of it, besides percentage of delete presses became so
high I don't see any reason to stay here. Nice date today, isn't it?
Back to music.

Happy quarreling! And better tuning (some people need to tune
themselves first).

Daniel Forró

On 20 Oct 2010, at 3:21 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

>
>
> wow. Oz I didn't know you took drama too! :-) Excellent creative
> writing!
>
> And I see a recent post by Charles Lucy who obviously is still
> stinging from a Doty review
>
> I'll admit I still have a hard time with Cameron who pestered me
> mercilessly about "tall chords" and totally missed the fact The
> Pond was in pentatonic thus its popularity. Actually - I'm more
> amazed at that fact being missed more then anything else.
>
> One has to admit we really got some personalities on this list, in
> fact this is a room chock full of "artistic personalities". And we
> really have some experts as well.
>
> However, I don't know about anyone else but I like pretty much
> everyone who frequents this list and some who unfortunately don't
> anymore. In calmer times I imagine more people agree with that
> statement then do not.
>
> So can I do the bi-monthly - "if you don't like the post - then
> ignore it" reminder?
>
>
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Ozan Yarman
> <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Dr. Carl Lumma, you are truly great, for you have bested Dr. Oz. & co.
> singlehandedly by dealing them a deadly blow in the crotch with your
> fabulous research into maqam intonation through just a simple
> melograph analysis of a dubious oud player of some talent conditioned
> to sound 24-EDO pitches. Congratulations!
>
> From here forth, I shall forever dedicate myself to answer every itsy-
> bitsy point you may raise by nitpicking our papers to shreds, and to
> respond to your most merciful grace as pleases your lordship. No
> matter my important work that awaits prompt attention, I shall
> perpetually devote my time and patience to elucidate every syllable in
> my lowly studies for your placation.
>
> Do you also desire me to do your reading for you your Majesty?
> Consider it done Effendi! I shall nitpick my papers myself lest you
> tire, so as to prevent, God forbid, fatigue to touch your grace.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe time to establish maqam group where all those experts with big egos can continue their ridiculous quarrels leading to nowhere.
> I have enough of it, besides percentage of delete presses became so high I don't see any reason to stay here. Nice date today, isn't it? Back to music.
> Happy quarreling! And better tuning (some people need to tune themselves first).
> Daniel Forró

I wonder what the point of starting tuning-research was. It didn't end
any discussion here, Oz only became more inflammatory after doing it,
and it seems to have had a neutral effect on everything.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> The general term is simply "interval". "Dyad" when used in tonal music refers a vertical
> sonority. It's "set theory" that uses "dyad" for two tones whether in the vertical and
> horizontal, but they're a "dyad" as part of theoretical "set", not simply two tones. Two
> tones are distinguished by an "interval".

If by "vertical" you mean "notes sounded simultaneously", this is just wrong. As I said before, an arpeggiated chord is still a chord. You can arpeggiate a triad and still call it a triad, so why can't you do the same with dyad? Either way, I think we both know what I meant, and arguing over semantics is just goofy.

My point was, if you sing a C, and then a G 702 cents up from the C, is the G a 3/2? It is and isn't, in a sort of Schrödinger way. It's a 3/2 in relation to the C, but the C is not sounding, and furthermore, depending on what other notes are in the sequence, that G could be a 6/4, a 15/10, etc. etc. As you've pointed out to me before (on the Xenharmonic Ning, iirc), it's not always appropriate to reduce ratios to lowest terms! Or do you rescind that remark?

> That's speculation. Personally, I think it is quite reasonable speculation, but that doesn't > mean it's "true", or even that I agree with it.

Let's back-track a little, shall we? You initially argued that one can't insist on 24-TET and deny the 11-limit. This is, in essence, a claim that those odd-quarter-tone intervals, like 150 cents and 350 cents, are essentially and unambiguously interpreted by the ear/brain as 11-limit ratios, specifically 12/11 and 11/9 (respectively), apparently even as bare melodic intervals absent any vertical harmony. But then you agreed that rational intervals have a bit of perceptual "fuzz" around them, maybe of 8-10 cents (or something). Then when I argued that there are lots of ratios within that fuzz-zone of 150 and 350 cents--which thus makes them high in harmonic entropy--you dismissed harmonic entropy as speculation, but failed to offer any argument as to why those 11-limit intervals you insist on have any perceptual precedence over the other ratios I mentioned which are within the fields of "fuzz" of those quarter-tonal intervals. So I still don't see how you can insist on 24-TET being necessarily/essentially 11-limit.

-Igs

MikeB>"I wonder what the point of starting tuning-research was. It didn't end
any discussion here, Oz only became more inflammatory after doing it, and it
seems to have had a neutral effect on everything."

Personally, I think 'tuning-research' is a fantastic group.

In it, Marcel has in many ways calmed down and gave some very clever points
related to difference tones leading to an alternative forms of "resting" minor
chords, we all continued the major vs. minor chord discussion and actually
generated a few provable answers, and much more.
But, best of all, we did all of the above WITHOUT flaming despite the
"disadvantage" that we have many people deemed supposed "trolls" on the tuning
list...miraculously over there everyone seems well behaved.

Had the Maqam discussion popped up on the "tuning-research" list, I'm pretty
sure we would have come up with a pretty strong list of alternatives by now and
at the very least agreed both that Maqams aren't so simple as 24TET and, when
they do fit into 24TET, a fair deal of not-12TET-compatible chords can be formed
(even if they only occur via "polyphony" over multiple instruments). Quite
likely we'd have several people giving several different examples of Persian
chords, without finding random reasons to say "my chord is right, therefore
yours isn't".

I think the tuning-research group has picked up, leaving most of the
"inflammatory-ness" behind in this group. Meanwhile there is some
could-be-quite interesting discussion on things like Maqams going on here, which
is sadly being short circuited constantly by the typical "only one person can
have a valid way of doing this and all others must be banished" type of ego
battling on this list.

Igs>"But then you agreed that rational intervals have a bit of perceptual "fuzz"
around them, maybe of 8-10 cents (or something)."

Argh....have any of you tried my "quasi-JI" interval test?
Here is how it works...
A) take an 11 cents dyad like 11/9.
B) Now subtract 8 cents from it and compare.
C) Then subtract 8 more cents and compare to B. This is about 40/33.

Then ask yourself...does 40/33 sound more like 11/9 or 40/33 (after all they
are about the same distance apart)? If B sounds more like 11/9 I figure we can
assume that either

1) 11/9 has some sort of field of attraction or
2) something virtually indistinguishably close to it does...and if you think,
for example, that 28/21 really is that much different than 11/9 I'm curious to
hear in what exact musical context you believe it is.

>"Then when I argued that there are lots of ratios within that fuzz-zone of 150
>and 350 cents--which thus makes them high in harmonic entropy--you dismissed
>harmonic entropy as speculation"
I think harmonic entropy simply doesn't take into account the idea that
11-limit intervals can have fields of attraction of their own...and that using
HE's "fuzz zones" as a proof that there must not be any way of finding a field
of attraction is giving HE a monopoly. As I understand it, Cameron (unlike you)
does not think HE solves every "fuzz zone" correctly...therefore he is not
contradicting himself, as I read it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Argh....have any of you tried my "quasi-JI" interval test?
> Here is how it works...
> A) take an 11 cents dyad like 11/9.
> B) Now subtract 8 cents from it and compare.
> C) Then subtract 8 more cents and compare to B. This is about 40/33.

Did my response not go through last time? I did try this, and 40/33 sounds to me like a sharp 6/5. And in fact in 18-EDO, you can use it as a 6/5 to make a good 5:6:7 triad with the good 7/6 that 18-EDO offers.

But to be correct, I don't really know what 11/9 "sounds like" any better than I know what 27/22 or 39/32 or 38/31 sound like. Can you hear a difference between those 3 if you listen to each one "cold" (i.e. not in sequence, but do a random test with a nice long gap between each triad and see if you can reliably guess each one).

> >"Then when I argued that there are lots of ratios within that fuzz-zone of 150
> >and 350 cents--which thus makes them high in harmonic entropy--you dismissed
> >harmonic entropy as speculation"
> I think harmonic entropy simply doesn't take into account the idea that
> 11-limit intervals can have fields of attraction of their own...and that using
> HE's "fuzz zones" as a proof that there must not be any way of finding a field
> of attraction is giving HE a monopoly. As I understand it, Cameron (unlike you)
> does not think HE solves every "fuzz zone" correctly...therefore he is not
> contradicting himself, as I read it.

It's not that H.E. has some sort of prejudice against 11-limit intervals. 11/6 gets a field of attraction (sort of) as does 11/4. It's not even that 11/9 doesn't have a field of attraction, per se...it's that there are other intervals around it, like 38/31, 27/22, even 16/13, which also have fields of attraction, and all those fields overlap. What happens when a bunch of fields of attraction overlap? You have ambiguity, that's what. So it may be easy to tune to an interval in "the range" of 11/9, but there's just so many other intervals you could be tuning/hearing, it's just really tough to say for sure whether it's the 11/9 that's exerting the force of attraction.

That's the rub of H.E.: both the minima and the maxima have fields of attraction, but for different reasons. The minima exert attraction because of one really strong ratio at the core; the maxima exert attraction because of several different weak/moderate ratios all overlapping on the same pitch region. The hardest parts of the pitch-continuum to tune or perceive are the parts of the harmonic entropy graph where the slope is high--the points between minima and maxima.

Does that make sense yet?

-Igs

I will say, I've actually gained a bit of respect for Marcel thanks to the tuning-research list. After playing with 19-EDO a bit, I do feel like the 6/5 is often too sharp for what I want to hear in a minor chord with diatonic-type music. It's really weird, actually. He still hasn't sold me on the 40/27 wolf on the ii, but 19/16 for a minor tonic? Surprisingly yes. Or at least, 300 cents.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> MikeB>"I wonder what the point of starting tuning-research was. It didn't end
> any discussion here, Oz only became more inflammatory after doing it, and it
> seems to have had a neutral effect on everything."
>
> Personally, I think 'tuning-research' is a fantastic group.
>
> In it, Marcel has in many ways calmed down and gave some very clever points
> related to difference tones leading to an alternative forms of "resting" minor
> chords, we all continued the major vs. minor chord discussion and actually
> generated a few provable answers, and much more.
> But, best of all, we did all of the above WITHOUT flaming despite the
> "disadvantage" that we have many people deemed supposed "trolls" on the tuning
> list...miraculously over there everyone seems well behaved.
>
> Had the Maqam discussion popped up on the "tuning-research" list, I'm pretty
> sure we would have come up with a pretty strong list of alternatives by now and
> at the very least agreed both that Maqams aren't so simple as 24TET and, when
> they do fit into 24TET, a fair deal of not-12TET-compatible chords can be formed
> (even if they only occur via "polyphony" over multiple instruments). Quite
> likely we'd have several people giving several different examples of Persian
> chords, without finding random reasons to say "my chord is right, therefore
> yours isn't".
>
>
> I think the tuning-research group has picked up, leaving most of the
> "inflammatory-ness" behind in this group. Meanwhile there is some
> could-be-quite interesting discussion on things like Maqams going on here, which
> is sadly being short circuited constantly by the typical "only one person can
> have a valid way of doing this and all others must be banished" type of ego
> battling on this list.
>

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:50 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> I will say, I've actually gained a bit of respect for Marcel thanks to the tuning-research list. After playing with 19-EDO a bit, I do feel like the 6/5 is often too sharp for what I want to hear in a minor chord with diatonic-type music. It's really weird, actually. He still hasn't sold me on the 40/27 wolf on the ii, but 19/16 for a minor tonic? Surprisingly yes. Or at least, 300 cents.
>
> -Igs

I actually really dig some of Marcel's newer ideas. And when I have
some more time to devote to the new group I'll post some of my own new
ideas as well.

It's really helpful that triadic entropy was calculated here, however,
and if it turns out that 4:5:7 comes out to have a lower entropy than
4:5:6, that'll express something significant to me. Everyone clearly
wants it to be the other way around, with a nice gaussian-shaped taper
around the peaks.

-Mike

Sorry, I'm pretty fried here, and forgot what I was going to say. I
just think it to be amusing that I created the list to try and end the
flamewar that I'd started on the list, that I ended up taking a hiatus
from everything because I was tired of the fighting, and that the
flamewar ended up continuing anyway, and now it's been about a month.

-Mike

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:50 PM, cityoftheasleep
> <igliashon@...> wrote:
>>
>> I will say, I've actually gained a bit of respect for Marcel thanks to the tuning-research list. After playing with 19-EDO a bit, I do feel like the 6/5 is often too sharp for what I want to hear in a minor chord with diatonic-type music. It's really weird, actually. He still hasn't sold me on the 40/27 wolf on the ii, but 19/16 for a minor tonic? Surprisingly yes. Or at least, 300 cents.
>>
>> -Igs
>
> I actually really dig some of Marcel's newer ideas. And when I have
> some more time to devote to the new group I'll post some of my own new
> ideas as well.
>
> It's really helpful that triadic entropy was calculated here, however,
> and if it turns out that 4:5:7 comes out to have a lower entropy than
> 4:5:6, that'll express something significant to me. Everyone clearly
> wants it to be the other way around, with a nice gaussian-shaped taper
> around the peaks.
>
> -Mike

>"Did my response not go through last time? I did try this, and 40/33 sounds to
>me like a sharp 6/5. And in fact in 18-EDO, you can use it as a 6/5 to make a
>good 5:6:7 triad with the good 7/6 that 18-EDO offers."

Funny, I didn't get that one but I believe you that you sent it (yahoo/SBC
mail isn't exactly reliable). That was rather my point...that 8 cents from a
ratio 8 cents below 11/9 makes a lot more tonal difference than 11/9 vs. 8 cents
below 11/9. And that, indirectly, it seems there is either a field of
attraction around 11/9 or that 11/9 has a unique zone around it that is "absent
of attraction" from 5/4 and 6/5.

>"I don't really know what 11/9 "sounds like" any better than I know what 27/22
>or 39/32 or 38/31 sound like. Can you hear a difference between those 3 if you
>listen to each one "cold""
Not really...then again they are all just a few cents apart and, guess what,
centered around 11/9. :-D One way to to an extent disprove my hunch about 11/9
would be to choose a ratio just a few cents from it (like those you mentioned)
and prove via listening tests that the area with the "mood" of 11/9 is centered
lower on average than 11/9. But then the worst I figure you could say is "hey
guess what, you missed by 2 cents!" :-D

>"It's not that H.E. has some sort of prejudice against 11-limit intervals. 11/6
>gets a field of attraction (sort of) as does 11/4."
True...it includes some 11-limit intervals, but not others. But Maqam, as I
understand it, has a whole slew full of very near-11-limit intervals while
Harmonic Entropy has only the two or so you just mentioned. And, maybe an
expert can clarify, but why does HE say those two are better in the first place
(IE why do they have less "entropy")?

>"What happens when a bunch of fields of attraction overlap? You have ambiguity,
>that's what. "
So you are assuming 6/5 and 5/4 must overlap? On what basis? I get a
very strong sense 5/4's real span of influence ends around 23/19 and 5/4's at
about 21/17...just by listening. What makes us have to force a judgment that
something right smack in between a 5/4 and 6/5 must be labeled "ambiguity"
rather than it's own (if narrow) field of influence...or can we at least agree
11/9 sounds like neither 5/4 and 6/5 rather than "the two mixed together"?

>"the maxima exert attraction because of several different weak/moderate ratios
>all overlapping on the same pitch region. "
Again, what's your proof of that it's an "overlap of 5/4 and 6/5" rather than
an "absence of 5/4 and 6/5 influence" (and perhaps, as I suspect, an attraction
of its own 11/9 character that's not a mix of 5/4 and 6/5)?

>"Does that make sense yet?"
I understand what you are proposing, I just don't agree that it *MUST* be that
way...I don't hear small parts of 5/4 or 6/5 "summing up" to make a field of
attraction for 11/9 but, rather, I hear something weaker but of its own
character able to be heard because it's far enough from the pulls of 5/4 and 6/5
to express itself clearly and be heard easily.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Not really...then again they are all just a few cents apart and, guess what,
> centered around 11/9. :-D One way to to an extent disprove my hunch about 11/9
> would be to choose a ratio just a few cents from it (like those you mentioned)
> and prove via listening tests that the area with the "mood" of 11/9 is centered
> lower on average than 11/9. But then the worst I figure you could say is "hey
> guess what, you missed by 2 cents!" :-D

So you think that 11/9 is the attractor because it is, pitch-wise, near the center of the region?

> >"What happens when a bunch of fields of attraction overlap? You have ambiguity,
> >that's what. "
> So you are assuming 6/5 and 5/4 must overlap?

No, I'm not. Where did you get 6/5 and 5/4? I said that 11/9 is overlapped with 27/22, 16/13, 38/31, 39/32, etc., and that all of *those* intervals have fields of attraction as well. Now re-read my post with that in mind, instead of the incorrect interpretation that I was talking about 5/4 and 6/5 overlapping.

Though I dunno, I'm actually starting to sour on the idea of ratios having fields of attraction beyond the +/-8 cent margin of error "fuzz region" that exists because of the inaccuracy in human perceptive mechanisms. I'll say more about that later.

-Igs

Igs>"So you think that 11/9 is the attractor because it is, pitch-wise, near the
center of the region?"
Well, either the attractor or anything that is the attractor is, say, a cent
or two max from it...in which case I figure...who cares?

>"No, I'm not. Where did you get 6/5 and 5/4? I said that 11/9 is overlapped with
>27/22, 16/13, 38/31, 39/32, etc., and that all of *those* intervals have fields
>of attraction as well"

Ah ok. I was guessing that because when you've discussed Harmonic Entropy
before I don't recall you mention those higher-limit ratios as "part of a larger
accumulating blur of intervals" so to speak.

But say we did just call all those intervals an "accumulative blur"...then
how could we optimize tunings and scales based on this "float criteria"? I
don't see a way we can, hence I'm opting for a "central" value like a 11/9 and a
not-so-huge range around it so at least we can make mini-max or
least-square-error scales based on that. If 11/9 is not your ideal center
around that general area, what is (that could be used as a single "center" ratio
from which to measure accuracy and not a just a "blur") and why?

>"Though I dunno, I'm actually starting to sour on the idea of ratios having
>fields of attraction beyond the +/-8 cent margin of error "fuzz region" that
>exists because of the inaccuracy in human perceptive mechanisms."

Funny, I don't think ratios do have fields beyond 8 cents or so in most cases
(including 11/9 and "even" supposed favored ratios in Harmonic Entropy such as
3/2 and 4/3). To me it becomes a game of "how few ratios can you use to
summarize all possible clear dyadic moods well"? And it seems quite a few of
such moods seem to have centers at or amazingly near (think within 3 cents of)
11-limit intervals...not as many as 3,5,7-limit intervals but far too many to be
ignored. I'm be interested to hear what your take on the limits of "centers of
attraction" are in contrast....

Mike wrote:

> It's really helpful that triadic entropy was calculated here,

It was many years between the first computation of dyadic
entropy and a formulation that was well-vetted...

> if it turns out that 4:5:7 comes out to have a lower entropy
> than 4:5:6,

We already know that was an artifact of too low a Tenney
limit, and even before that we knew the entropy of just chords
is proportional to the cube root of their Tenney height so we
knew that result was wrong.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > The general term is simply "interval". "Dyad" when used in tonal
music refers a vertical
> > sonority. It's "set theory" that uses "dyad" for two tones whether
in the vertical and
> > horizontal, but they're a "dyad" as part of theoretical "set", not
simply two tones. Two
> > tones are distinguished by an "interval".
>
> If by "vertical" you mean "notes sounded simultaneously", this is
>just wrong. As I said before, an arpeggiated chord is still a >chord.
You can arpeggiate a triad and still call it a triad, so why >can't you
do the same with dyad? Either way, I think we both know >what I meant,
and arguing over semantics is just goofy.

I reminding you of definitions is not we arguing over semantics. The
reason it is important to distinguish here is that if you are interested
in discussing and implementing alternative tuning in new music in the
wider world, it is wise to avoid the eccentric or reactionary position
that Just intonation is defined by vertical structures. It is not. Out
in the real world, Just Intonation means the Just intonation of
something. That something is, intervals, and the Just part means either
beatless, or, tuned according to how it appears in a harmonic series-
"naturally". And "dyad" means of something, too- of a "set", whether an
"atonal" set or of a "tonal" set (chord). "Interval" is neutral- and
correct here.

>
> My point was, if you sing a C, and then a G 702 cents up from the C,
is the G a 3/2? It is and isn't, in a sort of Schrödinger >way.
It's a 3/2 in relation to the C, but the C is not sounding, and
furthermore, depending on what other notes are in the >sequence, that G
could be a 6/4, a 15/10, etc. etc. As you've pointed out to me before
(on the Xenharmonic Ning, iirc), it's >not always appropriate to reduce
ratios to lowest terms! Or do you rescind that remark?

I agree with what you're saying here, in that the G has more than one
identity, certainly! and am not rescinding anything. Using the term
"dyad" confuses what you are saying.
>
> > That's speculation. Personally, I think it is quite reasonable
speculation, but that doesn't > mean it's "true", or even that I >agree
with it.
>
> Let's back-track a little, shall we? You initially argued that one
can't insist on 24-TET and deny the 11-limit. This is, in >essence, a
claim that those odd-quarter-tone intervals, like 150 cents and 350
cents, are essentially and unambiguously >interpreted by the ear/brain
as 11-limit ratios, specifically 12/11 and 11/9 (respectively),
apparently even as bare melodic >intervals absent any vertical harmony.
But then you agreed that rational intervals have a bit of perceptual
"fuzz" around >them, maybe of 8-10 cents (or something). Then when I
argued that there are lots of ratios within that fuzz-zone of 150 and
>350 cents--which thus makes them high in harmonic entropy--you
dismissed harmonic entropy as speculation, but failed to >offer any
argument as to why those 11-limit intervals you insist on have any
perceptual precedence over the other ratios I >mentioned which are
within the fields of "fuzz" of those quarter-tonal intervals. So I
still don't see how you can insist on >24-TET being
necessarily/essentially 11-limit.

That statement was made in the context of talking about "maqam music". I
assumed, incorrectly, that everyone in the discussion had a basic
understanding of what we're calling "maqam music", and maqam tuning. In
maqam music, there is enormous evidence of the tendency to stepwise
movement by superparticular interval, and of superparticular and simple
(n+1/n for example) relationships within the basic Pythagorean
structure. The enormous rational figures that appear in Islamic texts
as a result of Pythagorean "bearing plans" don't change this- once
you've figured out where those intervals lie, you'll find that you still
have those superparticular and simple intervals. Even if you insist that
the 317 and 384 cent intervals don't sound like 6/5 and 5/4, the layout
of superparticular and simple intervals within a Pythagorean structure,
whether exact or extremely close, doesn't change.

Haven't you ever noticed how step-wise and sinuous maqam music generally
is? An interval like 27:22 is not complex in that context- it is simply
a step of 12/11 from a step of 9/8. This is the nature of ratios of 11
approximated in 24-tET in the context of maqam music, not some Partchian
harmonic structure LOL (probably the most stupid straw man mocked up
here yet).

heh, gotta go, c-ya later,

Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> As I understand it, Cameron (unlike you)
> does not think HE solves every "fuzz zone" correctly...therefore he
>is not
> contradicting himself, as I read it.
>

Yes you understood exactly what I meant. My problem with the speculative
idea of harmonic entropy is that it agrees in part with what I hear,
quite a bit actually, and in part does not. I don't view harmonic
entropy like I do, say, "Lucytuning" which I think is a bunch of
gibberish ultimately resulting in a quite nice, but tame, meantone
tuning.

I think HE is a really good idea, but I think there's something wrong
with it, or, more likely IMO, its implementation. I suspect the problem
is that it is HE, and not SHE. :-) Seriously, it should be Spectral
Harmonic Entropy- calculated for different spectra.

Many- many! times I have pointed out that the feeling of a sort of
gravity exerted by different intervals is DIFFERENT ON INSTRUMENTS OF
DIFFERENT TIMBRES. Can I feel, strongly, the sudden dip in "harmonic
entropy" (aka, a sweet spot) at 11/6 on my erhu? Yes. Can I feel the
same on my clarinet? No.

Yet noone, not once, has commented on this! Out here in real life
though, even a plain old-fashioned basic education in orchestration
teaches you that you can mess up clarity, pitch and root perception
(ie., the stuff that HE addresses, or should address if it means to be
more than a bunch of numbers irrlevant to music) when writing the
clarinets into voicings.

-Cameron Bobro

MikeB>> "if it turns out that 4:5:7 comes out to have a lower entropy than
4:5:6"
Carl (in response)>"We already know that was an artifact of too low a Tenney
limit, and even before that we knew the entropy of just chords
is proportional to the cube root of their Tenney height so we
knew that result was wrong."

If I heard this correctly...couldn't this be fixed by using the cube root of
the Tenney height and not just the Tenney Height as the parameter for that part
of the equation?

I have my personal doubts about Tenney height, such as the arbitrary cut-off
of its validity over a certain value (think it was 70 per a single dyad) which
seems to throw things like 9 and 11-limit into oblivion and not even consider
them in many cases. But if I can see an example of Tenney Height working for
such examples (IE triads containing higher-limit dyads)...then so be it. :-)

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

> I reminding you of definitions is not we arguing over semantics. The
> reason it is important to distinguish here is that if you are interested
> in discussing and implementing alternative tuning in new music in the
> wider world, it is wise to avoid the eccentric or reactionary position
> that Just intonation is defined by vertical structures.

I never said it was! My OP had the caveat--"not necessarily sounded at the same time".

> It is not. Out
> in the real world, Just Intonation means the Just intonation of
> something. That something is, intervals, and the Just part means either
> beatless, or, tuned according to how it appears in a harmonic series-
> "naturally". And "dyad" means of something, too- of a "set", whether an
> "atonal" set or of a "tonal" set (chord). "Interval" is neutral- and
> correct here.

A single ratio, of x/y where x and y are integers, implies a two-note set. What's the problem?

> I agree with what you're saying here, in that the G has more than one
> identity, certainly! and am not rescinding anything. Using the term
> "dyad" confuses what you are saying.

Only if you insist that dyad=notes sounded simultaneously (i.e. a vertical structure), which I don't think is a legitimate thing to insist upon.

> That statement was made in the context of talking about "maqam music".

Duh.

> I assumed, incorrectly, that everyone in the discussion had a basic
> understanding of what we're calling "maqam music", and maqam tuning.

Maqam tuning is what was being debated.

> In maqam music, there is enormous evidence of the tendency to stepwise
> movement by superparticular interval, and of superparticular and simple
> (n+1/n for example) relationships within the basic Pythagorean
> structure. The enormous rational figures that appear in Islamic texts
> as a result of Pythagorean "bearing plans" don't change this- once
> you've figured out where those intervals lie, you'll find that you still
> have those superparticular and simple intervals.

Why? What gives the actual intervals played any identity with superparticular ratios? The fact that ancient Islamic texts say they do?

Well, I suppose if people can insist that 12-tET is "5-limit" because that is what the ancient European theorists were aiming for with meantone, it's a bit hypocritical to turn around and insist that 24-tET maqam music is not 11-limit. But that's more an argument against assuming 12-tET common-practice music is 5-limit than anything else.

> Haven't you ever noticed how step-wise and sinuous maqam music generally
> is? An interval like 27:22 is not complex in that context- it is simply
> a step of 12/11 from a step of 9/8.

But if 27:22 is what is being approximated by a 350-cent interval, then that's not 11-limit...or at least, not 11-odd-limit. That's 27-limit.

> This is the nature of ratios of 11
> approximated in 24-tET in the context of maqam music, not some Partchian
> harmonic structure LOL (probably the most stupid straw man mocked up
> here yet).

The straw man here is YOU insisting that the rest of us are fighting some kind of harmonic/Partchian straw man.

You still have not produced one ounce of argument as to WHY 24-tET maqam music has to be interpreted as being 11-limit. All the superparticular steps and such that you have mentioned as being used in maqam music suggest anything BUT 11-limit, and I've yet to see any evidence that these superparticular rational steps are a necessary interpretation of the actual music played.

The argument is that 24-tET is not, in itself and outside of a musical context, inherently 11-limit. So if a given piece of maqam music (I'd never dream of generalizing about the tuning of maqam in general) fits "perfectly" into 24-tET, if you want to insist that it is 11-limit, you have to back that insistence up with something other than how the notes are actually intonated in practice. I mean, if one is trying to figure out how maqam music is "really" tuned, and one analyzes a piece of maqam music and discovers that it fits an intervallic gamut of multiple-of-50-cent intervals neat as you please, there is any number of rational and irrational intonational systems one can ascribe to that pitch-set. Show me a clear and compelling rationale for insisting on one interpretation over another.

And for the record, I'm not insisting that maqam music is in 24-tET, because I know jack s*** about maqam music. But if maqam music IS in 24-tET, then evidence for it being "11-limit" music has to come from somewhere other than its actual tuning, because the actual tuning of 24-tET is ambiguous in terms of odd- and prime-limit.

-Igs

Igs>"But if 27:22 is what is being approximated by a 350-cent interval, then
that's not 11-limit...or at least, not 11-odd-limit. That's 27-limit."
But, if you listen, it is only about 7 cents from 11/9, which is (of course)
11-limit. To say 27/22 is not just a slightly tempered 11/9, I figure, will
require much further proof on your part.

>"The straw man here is YOU insisting that the rest of us are fighting some kind
>of harmonic/Partchian straw man."
Well, since you seem to be implying 27:22 acts "musically different" than
11/9...the first thing that comes to mind is o-tonal/u-tonal relationships ALA
Partch, which would explain previous examples you've that are much like the
example of a 22:27:39 chord acting different from a 9:11:16 chord because of the
different o-tonal base (9 vs. 22). If you are not implying that sort of
things....what are you implying?

>"All the superparticular steps and such that you have mentioned as being used in
>maqam music suggest anything BUT 11-limit"
I'll say this much....from what I see it seems fair that Maqam music contains
many 11-limit intervals, but I don't think anyone here is implying is is by any
means exclusively 11-limit...just that it uses 11-limit (unlike common practice
theory-based music, obviously).

>"But if maqam music IS in 24-tET, then evidence for it being "11-limit" music
>has to come from somewhere other than its actual tuning, because the actual
>tuning of 24-tET is ambiguous in terms of odd- and prime-limit."
The question seems to become, does Maqam music (via chords on a single
instrument or polyphonically) use sustained several quarter tones played in
close timing (IE as an arpeggio) or exactly the same time (IE as a chord)?
I've read several articles that say Maqam music rarely uses chords or polyphony
but, question becomes, when it does use chords what does it use? At least just
looking at the ratios for Maqam scales in Scala...it would seem the scales use
quarter tones...and I'm guessing they aren't limited exclusively to melody. And
suppose they were...in which case hearing any of Ozan's music (at least that
I've heard) I believe will shout loud and clear to many (if not most)
people...that even if non-meantone-style (IE quarter-tone-like, be it 27/11,
11/9, etc. containing) chords were not widespread in Maqam past....they can
sound great and perhaps should be ADDED to the tradition. :-)

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:14 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Many- many! times I have pointed out that the feeling of a sort of gravity exerted by different intervals is DIFFERENT ON INSTRUMENTS OF DIFFERENT TIMBRES.  Can I feel, strongly, the sudden dip in "harmonic entropy" (aka, a sweet spot) at 11/6 on my erhu? Yes. Can I feel the same on my clarinet? No.
>
>  Yet noone,  not once, has commented on this! Out here in real life though, even a plain old-fashioned basic education in orchestration teaches you that you can mess up clarity, pitch and root perception (ie., the stuff that HE addresses, or should address if it means to be more than a bunch of numbers irrlevant to music) when writing the clarinets into voicings.

I've mentioned this several times. More times than I care to recall
actually. HE is just a simple model and it has some drawbacks in its
current formulation. Carl and I are both working on ways to come up
with an entropy calculation for any signal of any timbre, and that
will expand on this more basic model. But it's just a basic model.
It's not perfect. If you hate it you hate it.

-Mike

Cameron>"Many- many! times I have pointed out that the feeling of a sort of
gravity exerted by different intervals is DIFFERENT ON INSTRUMENTS OF DIFFERENT
TIMBRES. Can I feel, strongly, the sudden dip in "harmonic entropy" (aka, a
sweet spot) at 11/6 on my erhu? Yes. Can I feel the same on my clarinet? No."

This is the one huge advantage Sethares' critical band dissonance
timbre-based formula has compared to Harmonic Entropy. If you two manage to
tweak HE to be "timbre optimized" I figure it should make HE a very clear choice
in most cases. Another related question seems to be...are higher limit
fractions made optimal in some cases under HE >IF< HE is expanded to take timbre
into account?

Huh?

This is just offensive.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> Review of "The Mathematics Of Music" by John O'Sullivan - ISBN 974-9-9566492-0-1 October 2010.
>
> This thin tome (less than 80 pages) is encumbered with an extravagantly ambitious title.
>
> [ et cetera et cetera ]

Wondering why on Amazon the used copy costs more than the new copy. .

Dan N

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > I reminding you of definitions is not we arguing over semantics. The
> > reason it is important to distinguish here is that if you are interested
> > in discussing and implementing alternative tuning in new music in the
> > wider world, it is wise to avoid the eccentric or reactionary position
> > that Just intonation is defined by vertical structures.
>
> I never said it was! My OP had the caveat--"not necessarily sounded at the same time".

Yes- then you fogged this with the term "dyad".
>
> > It is not. Out
> > in the real world, Just Intonation means the Just intonation of
> > something. That something is, intervals, and the Just part means either
> > beatless, or, tuned according to how it appears in a harmonic >series-
> > "naturally". And "dyad" means of something, too- of a "set", >whether an
> > "atonal" set or of a "tonal" set (chord). "Interval" is neutral- >and
> > correct here.
Igliashon:
> A single ratio, of x/y where x and y are integers, implies a two-note set. What's the problem?

What you say is perfectly reasonable- but I already told you the problem. The problem is the way the words are already used. The tonal use won't fly, because an interval doesn't have to be a simultaneity, and the "musical set-theory" use won't fly because set-theory makes all kinds of assumptions, mostly specific to equal divisions of the octave, leading to conclusions about, for example, equivalencies.

If you conflate "interval" with "dyad", you're implying vertical simultaneity or suggesting, via association with set-theory usage, things like, 3/2 is the same thing as 4/3.

I'm not arguing with you. There's nothing wrong with your reasoning.
Music terminology is full of unfortunate uses, misuses, abuses, and geese that should be gooses.

But in this case we do have an approriate word- you wish to speak about intervals, why not just say "intervals"?

Igliashon:
> Only if you insist that dyad=notes sounded simultaneously (i.e. a >vertical structure), which I don't think is a legitimate thing to >insist upon.

I don't either. I don't think the lovely word "dyad" should have to be associated with either the vertical implication it has in tonal music usage, or the equivalency crap it has in the set-theory usage. Sadly it does.

>
> > That statement was made in the context of talking about "maqam >music".
>
> Duh.

Not "duh". Things get quoted out of context all the time on this list. Things get missed.

>
> > I assumed, incorrectly, that everyone in the discussion had a >basic
> > understanding of what we're calling "maqam music", and maqam >tuning.
>
> Maqam tuning is what was being debated.

So a debate must be about those things about which we do not have a basic understanding? :-) I disagree.

>
> > In maqam music, there is enormous evidence of the tendency to stepwise
> > movement by superparticular interval, and of superparticular and simple
> > (n+1/n for example) relationships within the basic Pythagorean
> > structure. The enormous rational figures that appear in Islamic texts
> > as a result of Pythagorean "bearing plans" don't change this- once
> > you've figured out where those intervals lie, you'll find that you still
> > have those superparticular and simple intervals.

Igliashon
> Why? What gives the actual intervals played any identity with >superparticular ratios? The fact that ancient Islamic texts say >they do?

Does 19683/16384 LOOK like a superparticular interval to you? Don't be silly- what gives actual intervals identity with superparticular ratios is that they sound like superparticular intervals.

>
> Well, I suppose if people can insist that 12-tET is "5-limit" >because that is what the ancient European theorists were aiming for >with meantone, it's a bit hypocritical to turn around and insist >that 24-tET maqam music is not 11-limit. But that's more an >argument against assuming 12-tET common-practice music is 5-limit >than anything else.

There's that, too, glad you caught it. :-)

Igliashon:
> But if 27:22 is what is being approximated by a 350-cent interval, >then that's not 11-limit...or at least, not 11-odd-limit. That's >27-limit.

Once again, that's just numerology in this context. If 27:22 is what's being approximated, then it's the superparticular ratio of 12:11 from the Pythagorean(and superparticular) ratio of 9:8 that's being approximated.

Igliashon:
> The straw man here is YOU insisting that the rest of us are >fighting some kind of harmonic/Partchian straw man.

But you are, otherwise you wouldn't have just now come up with that "27-limit" nonsense.

> You still have not produced one ounce of argument as to WHY 24-tET >maqam music has to be interpreted as being 11-limit. All the >superparticular steps and such that you have mentioned as being used >in maqam music suggest anything BUT 11-limit, and I've yet to see >any evidence that these superparticular rational steps are a >necessary interpretation of the actual music played.

There you are, still fighting the straw man of an 11-limit harmonic structure, rather than addressing melodic intervals of ratios of 11. W

> The argument is that 24-tET is not, in itself and outside of a >musical context, inherently 11-limit.

I never said it was. It is potentially so, more so than the obviously Pythagorean 12-tET is "5-limit", but that is not relevant here. We're talking about a primarily melodic, strongly stepwise music.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron>"Many- many! times I have pointed out that the feeling of a sort of
> gravity exerted by different intervals is DIFFERENT ON INSTRUMENTS OF DIFFERENT
> TIMBRES. Can I feel, strongly, the sudden dip in "harmonic entropy" (aka, a
> sweet spot) at 11/6 on my erhu? Yes. Can I feel the same on my clarinet? No."
>
> This is the one huge advantage Sethares' critical band dissonance
> timbre-based formula has compared to Harmonic Entropy. If you two manage to
> tweak HE to be "timbre optimized" I figure it should make HE a very clear choice
> in most cases. Another related question seems to be...are higher limit
> fractions made optimal in some cases under HE >IF< HE is expanded to take timbre
> into account?
>

I don't have a good for feel HE, but my basic understanding is that it is based on one's likelihood to resolve an interval into a ratio of small whole numbers right? What would be the point of calling it "Harmonic Entropy" when basing it off of different timbres, which may not have fields of attraction at the usual whole number ratios? That is, I feel like the definition of HE makes the concept of taking into account timbres pointless, and at that point one should just resort to Sethares' model.
Or do I not have a correct understanding of Harmonic Entropy?

John M

I was talking about different harmonic timbres (of course it's only stochastically true that spectra of most acoustic instruments are harmonic).

This means, different weights to the partials, or more or less completely missing partials.

The assumed timbre with which HE is calculated at the moment seems to be a 1/n "sawtooth", probably the most reasonable place to start.

Calculating for a half-duty pulse ("square wave"- phases of partials aside, a kind of cartoon, but practical as a generalization, version of chalmeau timbres) would be the next step, and will reveal much about the fundamental validity, or lack thereof, of HE, I would think. I eagerly await this.

If you spend some time with additive synthesis and interval testing, I think you will find that simple-interval premise of HE, which appears numerological as soon as the question of timbre is raised, reflects an actual psychoacoustic reality: comprehension of intervalic simplicity is NOT entirely dependent on spectra. This is why Sethares' (wonderful) work doesn't work "perfectly".

Until HE is calculated using different timbres, though, we won't know if the premise is being properly implemented. The results, if in keeping with observed reality, should not change radically, for this would indicate the work of Sethares and all the classic stuff of Tonverschmelzung and so on as more realistic, and it should not change hardly at all, for this would mean that it overrates the "harmonic detector in the brain" to the point where measure it is indistinguishable from just doing numbers while ignoring observed differences in interval perception with different timbres.

-Cameron Bobro

-Cameron Bobro
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "John Moriarty" <JlMoriart@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:
> >
> > Cameron>"Many- many! times I have pointed out that the feeling of a sort of
> > gravity exerted by different intervals is DIFFERENT ON INSTRUMENTS OF DIFFERENT
> > TIMBRES. Can I feel, strongly, the sudden dip in "harmonic entropy" (aka, a
> > sweet spot) at 11/6 on my erhu? Yes. Can I feel the same on my clarinet? No."
> >
> > This is the one huge advantage Sethares' critical band dissonance
> > timbre-based formula has compared to Harmonic Entropy. If you two manage to
> > tweak HE to be "timbre optimized" I figure it should make HE a very clear choice
> > in most cases. Another related question seems to be...are higher limit
> > fractions made optimal in some cases under HE >IF< HE is expanded to take timbre
> > into account?
> >
>
> I don't have a good for feel HE, but my basic understanding is that it is based on one's likelihood to resolve an interval into a ratio of small whole numbers right? What would be the point of calling it "Harmonic Entropy" when basing it off of different timbres, which may not have fields of attraction at the usual whole number ratios? That is, I feel like the definition of HE makes the concept of taking into account timbres pointless, and at that point one should just resort to Sethares' model.
> Or do I not have a correct understanding of Harmonic Entropy?
>
> John M
>

Cameron wrote:

> I was talking about different harmonic timbres (of course it's
> only stochastically true that spectra of most acoustic
> instruments are harmonic).

The human voice, all brass and reed instruments, and all bowed
strings produce perfectly harmonic spectra. I don't know if
that's most, but it's a lot.

> The assumed timbre with which HE is calculated at the moment
> seems to be a 1/n "sawtooth", probably the most reasonable
> place to start.

HE is computed assuming sine tones but timbres with harmonic
spectra shouldn't affect the results.

> comprehension of intervalic simplicity is NOT entirely
> dependent on spectra. This is why Sethares' (wonderful) work
> doesn't work "perfectly".

I agree.

> Until HE is calculated using different timbres, though, we
> won't know if the premise is being properly implemented.

Mike has the beginnings of an HE variant that can accept
different timbres. I predict the timbre won't matter. That
is: for inharmonic timbres the HE curve should be about flat,
and for harmonic ones it should look about the same as it
does for sines.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > I was talking about different harmonic timbres (of course it's
> > only stochastically true that spectra of most acoustic
> > instruments are harmonic).
>
> The human voice, all brass and reed instruments, and all bowed
> strings produce perfectly harmonic spectra. I don't know if
> that's most, but it's a lot.

Yes, I know- and I believe *most* is not an exaggeration. This belief comes for untold hours (don't tell my wife! :-) ) measuring animal song as well as instruments. What I meant by stochastically true, is that it's not true that you have a first partial of "1" and a second partial of "2", but "1 +/- " and "2 +/-" and so on. You can demonstrate this with a reed instrument very easily. Blast it, the partials will sharp (surpisingly little, considering), blow breathy they're pretty fuzzy, use a kinked reed and they're all centered a tiny bit off of integer, etc. I said that because it's important not to think of discrete "numbers", but of actual sounds in real life, with their +/-. Which is shockingly little. Recently I stunned a young "nothing is natural" po-mo-educated (but fortunately intelligent) kid demonstrating this.

Yes indeed we're surrounded by "natural" spectra which are integer within a minute stochastic window. Can't barrel on without acknowledging that window, though.

>
> > The assumed timbre with which HE is calculated at the moment
> > seems to be a 1/n "sawtooth", probably the most reasonable
> > place to start.
>
> HE is computed assuming sine tones but timbres with harmonic
> spectra shouldn't affect the results.

I will post an audio example which I think both both validates the premise of HE, and demonstrates that it needs to be a SHE as well, ASAP.

>
> > comprehension of intervalic simplicity is NOT entirely
> > dependent on spectra. This is why Sethares' (wonderful) work
> > doesn't work "perfectly".
>
> I agree.

Once again, this why I mentioned the stochastic nature of "integer partials". The "integer" nature survives being fuzzed and even
asserts itself in unfavorable circumstances, indicating that it has a
force of its own. Most likely in the realm of human perception, as we
probably don't want a postal code in a Platonic reality.

>
> > Until HE is calculated using different timbres, though, we
> > won't know if the premise is being properly implemented.
>
> Mike has the beginnings of an HE variant that can accept
> different timbres. I predict the timbre won't matter. That
> is: for inharmonic timbres the HE curve should be about flat,
> and for harmonic ones it should look about the same as it
> does for sines.

We'll see! I agree that for inharmonic timbres without deliberately radical natures (eg. partials at nothing but multiples of phi), we should see roughly the same thing. But there should be, for example, new dips at low-ish odd-numbered ratios when calculations are done for chalmeau timbres, because the effect is so audible.

-Cameron Bobro

Carl>"Mike has the beginnings of an HE variant that can accept different
timbres. I predict the timbre won't matter."
Oh boy, especially after hearing Sethares' experiments, I am something like
95% sure it WILL matter.

But HE isn't measuring what Sethares is working with, with his altered timbres. If HE is radically different with different timbres, that means either its basic premise or its implementation of that premise is wrong.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Carl>"Mike has the beginnings of an HE variant that can accept different
> timbres. I predict the timbre won't matter."
> Oh boy, especially after hearing Sethares' experiments, I am something like
> 95% sure it WILL matter.
>

>"But HE isn't measuring what Sethares is working with"
I realize that, but what I'm saying is the way HE measured seems to have an
obvious advantage in that it takes timbres directly into account.

>"If HE is radically different with different timbres, that means either its
>basic premise or its implementation of that premise is wrong."
My guess is the basis for HE is not really "wrong", but simply incomplete.
Perhaps incorporating timbres into the calculation of "S-HE" will provide those
fairly obvious (to my ears, at least) 9,11,13,15 -limit "low entropy points"
that I keep hearing whenever I used non-sine-wave instruments/timbres.

Given a pitch of "1", HE basically attempts to measure how "clear" for example "1.25" is when sounded with "1", or rather, how clear this generally sounds to the human ear.

This might sound nuts when put so bluntly, but it is not nuts because this instant effortless ability to judge proportions seems to be hard-wired into our perception.

I have a simple explanation as to why timbre would make a difference to HE calculations when strictly speaking it should have no effect at all.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"But HE isn't measuring what Sethares is working with"
> I realize that, but what I'm saying is the way HE measured seems to have an
> obvious advantage in that it takes timbres directly into account.
>
> >"If HE is radically different with different timbres, that means either its
> >basic premise or its implementation of that premise is wrong."
> My guess is the basis for HE is not really "wrong", but simply incomplete.
> Perhaps incorporating timbres into the calculation of "S-HE" will provide those
> fairly obvious (to my ears, at least) 9,11,13,15 -limit "low entropy points"
> that I keep hearing whenever I used non-sine-wave instruments/timbres.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> But in this case we do have an approriate word- you wish to speak about intervals, why > not just say "intervals"?

Alright, then, "interval" it is.

> > Maqam tuning is what was being debated.
>
> So a debate must be about those things about which we do not have a basic
> understanding? :-) I disagree.

If we already knew how the tuning worked, there'd be nothing to debate.

Igliashon:
> > Why? What gives the actual intervals played any identity with >superparticular ratios? The fact that ancient Islamic texts say >they do?

Cameron:
> Does 19683/16384 LOOK like a superparticular interval to you? Don't be silly- what gives actual intervals identity with superparticular ratios is that they sound like superparticular intervals.
>

So superparticular ratios have a "sound" that distinguishes them from non-superparticular ratios near the same pitch? How do you describe that sound?

Igliashon:
> > But if 27:22 is what is being approximated by a 350-cent interval, >then that's not 11-limit...or at least, not 11-odd-limit. That's >27-limit.

Cameron:
> Once again, that's just numerology in this context. If 27:22 is what's being
> approximated, then it's the superparticular ratio of 12:11 from the Pythagorean(and
> superparticular) ratio of 9:8 that's being approximated.

Why aren't the superparticular ratios "numerology" as well, then? Why are those ratios important in determining the limit, but the ratios formed by their combinations not?

> Igliashon:
> > The straw man here is YOU insisting that the rest of us are >fighting some kind of harmonic/Partchian straw man.
>
> But you are, otherwise you wouldn't have just now come up with that "27-limit"
> nonsense.

Look, just using the term 11-limit invokes the idea of Partch and harmony. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to classify the "limit" of a pitch-set, whether it be melodic or harmonic, you have to look at the intervals in that set. Even melodically, 12/11 is not the highest-limit interval that can be implied by 24-TET with a typical melodic step. I really just don't understand why you're so hell-bent on insisting that maqam music, when played in 24-TET, is 11-limit.

-Igs

Cameron wrote:

> Yes, I know- and I believe *most* is not an exaggeration. This
> belief comes for untold hours (don't tell my wife! :-) )
> measuring animal song as well as instruments. What I meant by
> stochastically true, is that it's not true that you have a first
> partial of "1" and a second partial of "2", but "1 +/- " and
> "2 +/-" and so on. You can demonstrate this with a reed
> instrument very easily.

Reed instruments produce absolutely perfect harmonic partials.
Anything else you are seeing is an artifact of your analysis.
See for instance

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/harmonics.html
and
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/clarinetacoustics.html#registerhole

-C.

Cameron>"Given a pitch of "1", HE basically attempts to measure how "clear" for
example "1.25" is when sounded with "1", or rather, how clear this generally
sounds to the human ear.

This might sound nuts when put so bluntly, but it is not nuts because this
instant effortless ability to judge proportions seems to be hard-wired into our
perception. "

Agreed (and yes I knew low HE = clear/distinct and high HE = scrambled AKA
with many frequencies in an area sounding much alike and thus hard to separate
is "distinct"). Again I said, I agree the basis/foundation of HE seems good,
just not complete...why does it I seem on this list I must either say HE is
virtually perfect or HE is useless...but not what I think IE that HE comes
across to me as generally solid but also incomplete in some fairly significant
aspects?

>"I have a simple explanation as to why timbre would make a difference to HE
>calculations when strictly speaking it should have no effect at all."
...And I'm very eager to hear it. From experience I'm lead to believe it
(timbre) does make a difference, that it skews our sense of what a clear ratio
is a bit....and that it does so to any method of analyzing consonance, not just
Sethares'.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > But in this case we do have an approriate word- you wish to speak about intervals, why > not just say "intervals"?
>
> Alright, then, "interval" it is.

That's groovy.
>
> > > Maqam tuning is what was being debated.
> >
> > So a debate must be about those things about which we do not have a basic
> > understanding? :-) I disagree.
>
> If we already knew how the tuning worked, there'd be nothing to debate.

There are basics, and details. It's a basic that there are maqam musics that characteristically and consistently use intervals that are definitely not to be found in 24-tET. My saz came fretted with two of them in the first tetrachord for crying out loud.

>
> Igliashon:
> > > Why? What gives the actual intervals played any identity with >superparticular ratios? The fact that ancient Islamic texts say >they do?
>
> Cameron:
> > Does 19683/16384 LOOK like a superparticular interval to you? >Don't be silly- what gives actual intervals identity with >superparticular ratios is that they sound like superparticular >intervals.
> >
>
> So superparticular ratios have a "sound" that distinguishes them >from non-superparticular ratios near the same pitch? How do you >describe that sound?

You don't think that 6/5 and 7/6 for example have a sound that distinguishes them? Anyway, don't forget: context. A series of superparticular intervals sounds what I'd call "smooth" and has
a kind of "integrity" to it. Also, don't forget that I said, a strong tendency toward superparticular intervals within a Pythagorean framework, not "all maqam music is tuned this way". I'll leave such grand statements to those claiming absurdities like, 24-tET explains the intonational content of maqam music.

> Why aren't the superparticular ratios "numerology" as well, then? >Why are those ratios important in determining the limit, but the >ratios formed by their combinations not?

Everything audible is important. What is not important are things like complete harmonic structures. Irrelevant in this case.

>
> Look, just using the term 11-limit invokes the idea of Partch and >harmony.

We already agreed that I should use "ratios of 11", and avoid "limit" due to its connotations, which I have. I'm happy to take corrections on terminology usage.

> I really just don't understand why you're so hell-bent on insisting >that maqam music, when played in 24-TET, is 11-limit.

Ratios of 11. I think it is dishonest to pretend that 150 cents is indistinguishable from 12/11, that 200 cents clearly evokes 9/8, 550 cents 11/8 (appropriately 12/11 from the 400 cent approximation of the
Pythagorean ditone), etc. Remember, I'm not the one supporting 24-tET.
Every time I've heard "24-tET", except for that one oud player Carl posted, who really was, I'm convinced, hearing and playing 24-tET, the intervals are consistently and characteristically off of 24. And they're off in a way consistent with the very basic and general way I've described maqam tuning. And of course a general statement can only be very basic, even conceptual, because a very defining essence of maqam tuning is variety!

-Cameron Bobro

Can you do me a favor and quote the whole thing rather than slicing out a chunk and changing the meaning?

You certainly can play inharmonic timbres on a reed instrument, doing so is a standard part of modern reed playing. Do I really have to post a bunch of satanic sounds to demonstrate this? The point was, it takes deliberate and even radical techniques to do so. There's a kind of "locking" effect on a clarinet, too, so when you get an altered harmonic series- with a damaged reed for example- it still wants to lock into an integer harmonic series. "Perfect" is not the right word,
though, that's not the reality we live in. "Perfect enough" would be more realistic.

I also think that arguments against JI based on the inharmonicity of strings are bunk- given undamaged strings and clean playing, the harmonic series is also "perfect enough".

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > Yes, I know- and I believe *most* is not an exaggeration. This
> > belief comes for untold hours (don't tell my wife! :-) )
> > measuring animal song as well as instruments. What I meant by
> > stochastically true, is that it's not true that you have a first
> > partial of "1" and a second partial of "2", but "1 +/- " and
> > "2 +/-" and so on. You can demonstrate this with a reed
> > instrument very easily.
>
> Reed instruments produce absolutely perfect harmonic partials.
> Anything else you are seeing is an artifact of your analysis.
> See for instance
>
> http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/harmonics.html
> and
> http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/clarinetacoustics.html#registerhole
>
> -C.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> There are basics, and details. It's a basic that there are maqam musics that
> characteristically and consistently use intervals that are definitely not to be found in
> 24-tET. My saz came fretted with two of them in the first tetrachord for crying out loud.

Well, I'm not debating anything about how actual maqam music is tuned; I know jack s*** about maqam music. I'm debating that if any of it *is* tuned to 24-tET, there's nothing audible in it that justifies an insistence that ratios of 11 are being approximated.

> You don't think that 6/5 and 7/6 for example have a sound that distinguishes them?

Yes: their harmonic beatlessness. Played melodically, I doubt there would be anything that audibly distinguished 6/5 or 7/6 from other nearby ratios and irrationals.

> Anyway, don't forget: context. A series of superparticular intervals sounds what I'd call
> "smooth" and has
> a kind of "integrity" to it.

Really? So you think you could, by ear, identify which of the following two tetrachords a melody was played in:

Tetrachord 1: 4/3, 6/5, 9/8, 1/1
Tetrachord 2: 4/3, 77/64, 287/256, 1/1

>
Also, don't forget that I said, a strong tendency toward superparticular intervals within a Pythagorean framework, not "all maqam music is tuned this way". I'll leave such grand statements to those claiming absurdities like, 24-tET explains the intonational content of maqam music.
>

Yet another straw man: NO ONE HERE is arguing that all maqam music is tuned to 24-TET! Carl said one piece he analyzed nailed 24-TET on the dot, and that he didn't think it right to classify it as 11-limit, or that any non-harmonic music can properly be ascribed to employ 11-limit JI. Neither he, nor I, am arguing anything about the universal applicability of 24-tET to maqam music.

> Everything audible is important. What is not important are things like complete harmonic structures. Irrelevant in this case.
>

Yeah, no one is insisting on complete harmonic structures, just that ratios of 11 cannot be identified as such WITHOUT a harmonic structure. Still no one has advanced any evidence that ratios of 11 are uniquely identifiable from surrounding ratios/irrationals in the context of a primarily step-wise melodic music.

> Ratios of 11. I think it is dishonest to pretend that 150 cents is indistinguishable from 12/11, that 200 cents clearly evokes 9/8, 550 cents 11/8 (appropriately 12/11 from the 400 cent approximation of the
> Pythagorean ditone), etc. Remember, I'm not the one supporting 24-tET.

Really? You really can distinguish between those rational intervals and 24-tET? Well, if you can, then you should agree that if a piece of maqam music DOES match 24-tET, then it's NOT using ratios of 11. So maybe the real argument you want to make is that Carl's analysis is mistaken and the piece is NOT in 24-TET?

> Every time I've heard "24-tET", except for that one oud player Carl posted, who really was, I'm convinced, hearing and playing 24-tET, the intervals are consistently and characteristically off of 24. And they're off in a way consistent with the very basic and general way I've described maqam tuning. And of course a general statement can only be very basic, even conceptual, because a very defining essence of maqam tuning is variety!
>

Right, sure, but again, this was *never* about maqam tuning in general. This was about one piece analyzed as being in 24-TET, and whether or not being in 24-TET qualifies it as using ratios of 11. So if anyone is going after straw men, it's you, Cameron.

-Igs

Cameron wrote:

> Can you do me a favor and quote the whole thing rather than
> slicing out a chunk and changing the meaning?

Sorry for any misunderstanding... I didn't know how else
to parse

> of course it's only stochastically true that spectra of most
> acoustic instruments are harmonic

and

> What I meant by stochastically true, is that it's not true
> that you have a first partial of "1" and a second partial
> of "2", but "1 +/- " and "2 +/-" and so on.

So what did you mean?

-Carl

Except for synthesized sound, which isn't actually "perfect" strictly speaking, especially after playback on speakers, there are no "perfect" partials. There's no perfect air to carry them for that matter. Instruments aren't perfect, and their precision varies- reeds are remarkable, but saxophones, at least cheap saxophones, can have body-induced inharmonicities in certain ranges, strings aren't perfect, and so on. So for all these instruments with harmonic partials, we have to acknowledge that they're harmonic stocahstically speaking. It must be understood that there is "+/-", varying of course.

It's easy to demonstrate that you don't need perfection- or even close to perfection- to create a functional harmonic series. I have a
Csound instrument I've used in concert that takes one hour to gradually apply a bank of bandpass filters, centered at a harmonic series and starting from zero effect to very steep at the end, to incoming pinkish noise. The audibility of a harmonic tone comes amazingly early, all it takes is the most vague and fuzzy sketch of a harmonic series and you can already identify pitch and "character".
(At the very end it sounds like some kind of breathy "ethnic flute").

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > Can you do me a favor and quote the whole thing rather than
> > slicing out a chunk and changing the meaning?
>
> Sorry for any misunderstanding... I didn't know how else
> to parse
>
> > of course it's only stochastically true that spectra of most
> > acoustic instruments are harmonic
>
> and
>
> > What I meant by stochastically true, is that it's not true
> > that you have a first partial of "1" and a second partial
> > of "2", but "1 +/- " and "2 +/-" and so on.
>
> So what did you mean?
>
> -Carl
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:

>
> Really? So you think you could, by ear, identify which of the following two tetrachords a melody was played in:
>
> Tetrachord 1: 4/3, 6/5, 9/8, 1/1
> Tetrachord 2: 4/3, 77/64, 287/256, 1/1

I don't know- I would guess that the "harmonic series detector in my brain" would scan them both as being composed of superparticular intervals, that is, comprehend them in terms of harmonic relationships.

Why don't you tune them up on a synth, noodle around a bit to make a midi file and render two versions? Upload them and let's see how they sound.

-Cameron Bobro

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

> Why don't you tune them up on a synth, noodle around a bit to make a midi file and render > two versions? Upload them and let's see how they sound.

I'll try to get on that this weekend, maybe I'll even add some more extreme examples to see how good your melodic ear really is. My hunch, though, is that if we're looking at a monophonic melody, where the partials of the notes don't get to interact with each other, the "harmonic series detector" of the brain (if it exists) won't be operating, and something else will. I'm pretty sure H.E. is not really valid at all unless there's actually interaction between waveforms, though I could well be mistaken.

-Igs

Looking forward to it! I often wonder if what I'm talking about isn't much more apparent to the performer than the listener- you can feel the instrument "singing" more if it's tuned as close as possible to rationals within the audible spectrum.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > Why don't you tune them up on a synth, noodle around a bit to make a midi file and render > two versions? Upload them and let's see how they sound.
>
> I'll try to get on that this weekend, maybe I'll even add some more extreme examples to see how good your melodic ear really is. My hunch, though, is that if we're looking at a monophonic melody, where the partials of the notes don't get to interact with each other, the "harmonic series detector" of the brain (if it exists) won't be operating, and something else will. I'm pretty sure H.E. is not really valid at all unless there's actually interaction between waveforms, though I could well be mistaken.
>
> -Igs
>