theories vs. theories

Margo, Kraig, and Cameron,

We may characterize theories that originate in the
existence of physical evidence, such as a theory of
sound, of light, etc. as intellectual projections.

We may characterize theories that originate in the
destruction of physical evidence, such as a theory
based on the remains of human beings
(anthropology), or based on the remains of a city
(archeology), etc. as intellectual introspections.

When one studies ancient tuning theory and one
encounters either the intentional or the
unintentional destruction of physical texts, certain
aspects of knowledge will forever exist in the realm
of intellectual introspection. Whenever I am faced
with such a difficulty, I ask myself a very simple
question, "Does this theory about the unknown, or
about the forever unknowable, add to (enhance) or
subtract from (set back) my knowledge of human
(including my own) music-making?"

In reading extant texts of ancient musical
civilizations from around the world, it never
occurred to me that these writers were not
speaking directly to me, or speaking directly to the
likes of me. I read these texts not only with my
mind, but also with my soul. Little wonder that they
have permeated almost every facet of my life.

Cris

I thank you for sharing in your book the knowledge of those which were not available otherwise.
It already has changed my view of the past. In no sense is it a fast read as each chapter calls for that introspection you mention. I am still thinking about the chapter on the Chinese which i have read in more detail than the others.
I think of Secor mentioning how the 8-9-11-12 gave to his ear a 'neo-renaissance' feeling (see MMM)and remembered hearing Doug Leedy singing Landini accompanied by himself on a retuned Piano that stuck me as correct despite the instrument.
I remember also the first time i play Ptolemy's soft Chromatic and was struck by how beautiful and fresh sounding it was. Here was a scale that showed no sign of its unfathomable age.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@...> wrote:
>
> Margo, Kraig, and Cameron,
>
> We may characterize theories that originate in the
> existence of physical evidence, such as a theory of
> sound, of light, etc. as intellectual projections.
>
> We may characterize theories that originate in the
> destruction of physical evidence, such as a theory
> based on the remains of human beings
> (anthropology), or based on the remains of a city
> (archeology), etc. as intellectual introspections.
>
> When one studies ancient tuning theory and one
> encounters either the intentional or the
> unintentional destruction of physical texts, certain
> aspects of knowledge will forever exist in the realm
> of intellectual introspection. Whenever I am faced
> with such a difficulty, I ask myself a very simple
> question, "Does this theory about the unknown, or
> about the forever unknowable, add to (enhance) or
> subtract from (set back) my knowledge of human
> (including my own) music-making?"
>
> In reading extant texts of ancient musical
> civilizations from around the world, it never
> occurred to me that these writers were not
> speaking directly to me, or speaking directly to the
> likes of me. I read these texts not only with my
> mind, but also with my soul. Little wonder that they
> have permeated almost every facet of my life.
>
> Cris
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@...> wrote:
>

> When one studies ancient tuning theory and one
> encounters either the intentional or the
> unintentional destruction of physical texts, certain
> aspects of knowledge will forever exist in the realm
> of intellectual introspection. Whenever I am faced
> with such a difficulty, I ask myself a very simple
> question, "Does this theory about the unknown, or
> about the forever unknowable, add to (enhance) or
> subtract from (set back) my knowledge of human
> (including my own) music-making?"

This is a kind of touchstone, sounds like a very positive
stance favoring fruitful living. I'm going to float the idea
past a friend of mine who is an archeology professor,
next time I see him, because I get the feeling that in the po-mo
world a lot of archeology seems to be about how we can't do
archeology, or something like that, and I wonder what he'll say.

And frankly I feel that a lot of sophisticated
po-mo reasoning and the resulting uncommitted fog is really
based on a fear of being "wrong". Quite unlike, say, Schlesinger. But what does a reasonable and knowledgable establishment of the last century have to offer in the way of advancing tuning systems? Sub-Lullus combinatorics in a childish doubling of an inherited system doesn't even come close to the potential of Schlesinger's "wrongness".

-Cameron Bobro

Thank you Kraig and Cameron for your reflections; you've given me much to think about.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@> wrote:
> >
>
> > When one studies ancient tuning theory and one
> > encounters either the intentional or the
> > unintentional destruction of physical texts, certain
> > aspects of knowledge will forever exist in the realm
> > of intellectual introspection. Whenever I am faced
> > with such a difficulty, I ask myself a very simple
> > question, "Does this theory about the unknown, or
> > about the forever unknowable, add to (enhance) or
> > subtract from (set back) my knowledge of human
> > (including my own) music-making?"
>
> This is a kind of touchstone, sounds like a very positive
> stance favoring fruitful living. I'm going to float the idea
> past a friend of mine who is an archeology professor,
> next time I see him, because I get the feeling that in the po-mo
> world a lot of archeology seems to be about how we can't do
> archeology, or something like that, and I wonder what he'll say.
>
> And frankly I feel that a lot of sophisticated
> po-mo reasoning and the resulting uncommitted fog is really
> based on a fear of being "wrong". Quite unlike, say, Schlesinger. But what does a reasonable and knowledgable establishment of the last century have to offer in the way of advancing tuning systems? Sub-Lullus combinatorics in a childish doubling of an inherited system doesn't even come close to the potential of Schlesinger's "wrongness".
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

If one takes the common tone modulations of the subharmonic flutes scales as pictured within the first 5 pages of her book you end up with a tuning system that overlaps Partch's.

Erv has a big collection of subharmonic flutes.
Enough to give one the Harry Partch which he used in 'Delusion'.
It iwas one of two Bolivian double flutes he had.

The potential of double flutes with different subharmonic series running is staggered parallels is a technology that offers much promise.

I have imitated in music on other instruments say 2 subharmonic series a fifth apart but doubling in thirds. I liked doing "Mexican ' music on this.

There are other features of these subharmonic flutes he has shown me not mentioned in her book probably as she did not have access to these traditions. It has the unique feature that many of the exit holes are tuned to a 4/3 or 3/2 of the series. This becomes extremely interesting when it is to relationship to the sub 11. These in turn lead directly into Tetrachordal scales if you tune it up on string instruments and double some of the others.

These scales were the very first Scales Erv taught me (and also in a beginning microtonal book he drafted but never finished) since they are so old and vastly resourceful.

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

> Quite unlike, say, Schlesinger. But what does a reasonable and knowledgable establishment of the last century have to offer in the way of advancing tuning systems? Sub-Lullus combinatorics in a childish doubling of an inherited system doesn't even come close to the potential of Schlesinger's "wrongness".
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

I should have mentioned that these were not the two the Bolivians were using.
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brofessor" <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> If one takes the common tone modulations of the subharmonic flutes scales as pictured within the first 5 pages of her book you end up with a tuning system that overlaps Partch's.
>
> Erv has a big collection of subharmonic flutes.
> Enough to give one the Harry Partch which he used in 'Delusion'.
> It iwas one of two Bolivian double flutes he had.
>
> The potential of double flutes with different subharmonic series running is staggered parallels is a technology that offers much promise.
>
> I have imitated in music on other instruments say 2 subharmonic series a fifth apart but doubling in thirds. I liked doing "Mexican ' music on this.
>
> There are other features of these subharmonic flutes he has shown me not mentioned in her book probably as she did not have access to these traditions. It has the unique feature that many of the exit holes are tuned to a 4/3 or 3/2 of the series. This becomes extremely interesting when it is to relationship to the sub 11. These in turn lead directly into Tetrachordal scales if you tune it up on string instruments and double some of the others.
>
> These scales were the very first Scales Erv taught me (and also in a beginning microtonal book he drafted but never finished) since they are so old and vastly resourceful.
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > Quite unlike, say, Schlesinger. But what does a reasonable and knowledgable establishment of the last century have to offer in the way of advancing tuning systems? Sub-Lullus combinatorics in a childish doubling of an inherited system doesn't even come close to the potential of Schlesinger's "wrongness".
> >
> > -Cameron Bobro
> >
>

Cris wrote:

> In reading extant texts of ancient musical
> civilizations from around the world, it never
> occurred to me that these writers were not
> speaking directly to me, or speaking directly to the
> likes of me. I read these texts not only with my
> mind, but also with my soul. Little wonder that they
> have permeated almost every facet of my life.

Dear Cris,

Thank you for expressing my attitude also to these
theorists, although I must emphasize that I have not put it
into practice quite as concretely as you by building and
playing acoustical instruments based on these ancient
teachers and writers.

But I do know the delights of being about to explain to
Cameron that his baglama is fretted in a way that fits the
"Medium Sundered" tetrachord of Safi al-Din al-Urmawi at
9:8-11:10-320:297 (204-165-129 cents). And I know the
pleasues of playing Maqam Rast with a tempered approximation
of this at 207-162-127 cents. The baglama tuning Cameron has
reported at 202-168-128 cents, like my tempered version, may
vary here and there from the exact mathematical values, but
the pattern seems to me clear.

And these tetrachords of the medieval Islamic theorists, as
I'm sure you discuss in your book, are beautiful!

What you say would also apply to my experience of medieval
European theory, which I've been involved in for much longer
than the Near Eastern practice and theory.

For example, Jacobus of Liege in his _Speculum musicae_
written maybe around 1325, where he was looking back on the
beloved music of his youth and lamenting that in his later
years only the "moderns" were by then getting much
attention, has some incredible insights about consonance and
polyphony which, at least in the 1970's to 1990's, weren't
getting enough notice in analyses of Gothic music.

One passage you might find of special interest, if it isn't
in your book, is the explanation in another anonymous
treatise very likely by him from around 1300 called
_Compendium de Musica_ in which he notes that in composing
for three or more voices, the voices forming an octave
should be arranged according to the "natural series" 2-3-4,
so that the fifth (3:2) is below the fourth (4:3).

Although this is maybe three centuries before the discovery
of the harmonic series, Jacobus with his series of 2-3-4,
like Zarlino some two centuries later with his senario or
series of "sonorous numbers" 1-2-3-4-5-6, is reaching
results similar to those suggested by the harmonic series.
He also notes in the _Speculum musicae_ that a harmonic
division such as 6:4:3 or 12:8:6 (the string ratios for the
"natural series" of 2-3-4, although I haven't seen this
connection drawn in his writings) is best, remarking in
relation to 12:8:6 that a cube has 12 vertices, 8 corners,
and 6 sides.

It would be interesting to know if there could be any
"etymology of concepts" linking Jacobus to Zarlino. A rule
the two share is that the simpler or better consonance
should be placed below the more complex one: for Jacobus,
the fifth below the fourth in the perfect three-voice
medieval consonance of 2:3:4 (string ratios 6:4:3); and for
Zarlino, the major third below the minor third in perfect
16th-century consonance of 4:5:6 (string ratios 15:12:10).

Some years ago I published a two-part article in _1/1_ on
Ugolino of Orvieto and his 17-note Pythagorean tuning
(comparable to that of Safi al-Din maybe 150 years before
Ugolino's treatise of somewhere around 1425-1440), in which
I discussed the "natural series" of 2-3-4 as presented by
Jacobus as a guide for composing _poliphonia_, possibly one
of the earlier appearances of that Latin term.

Anyway, your beautiful statement reminded me that while my
focus nowadays is often on Near Eastern music, I shouldn't
forget my roots in medieval European pratice and theory.

> Cris

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@...

Dear Kraig (and Cris and Cameron),

Thank you for reminding me of George Secor's chord,
which I'm guessing may be the same thing discussed
in his article on his 17-tone well-temperament in
_Xenharmonikon_ 18, pp. 69-70. If so, we're talking
about 8:9:11:13. This is an isoharmonic chord of
the kind he discusses a lot in the article, and
I'd say may relate also to 8:11:13 as a chord
people have perceived as interestingly concordant
despite the absence of an "anchoring" fifth.

He was using it as a kind of neo-clasical
xeno-dominant seventh, if I may call it that,
often resolving to a tonic chord of 6:7:9:12
or the like, so this is what I'd call a bit
post-Renaissance, maybe neo-18th-century, and
indeed highly "xeno" indeed.

As for Doug Leedy, Kraig, I recall you telling
or posting some years ago about how he would
perform Landini with a melodic figure of
8:9:10:11:12. This would fit with a comment
he makes in _Xenharmonikon_ 17 on how a book
on JI by Vogel fails adequately to consider
primes higher than 7 and their role in pure
melody, where Leedy notes that 10:11:12 seems
to show up in various world musics.

And I'll quickly add that I listened, encouraged
by this thread, to a near-just 9:12:16:21, and
can look with renewed amazement on suggestions
that it's necessarily a flaw to derive 7:3 or
the like from a chain of fourths including a
21:16. For the record, it was 0-496-993-1465
cents or 496-497-472 cents.

Best,

Margo

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Margo Schulter <mschulter@...> wrote:

If so, we're talking
> about 8:9:11:13. This is an isoharmonic chord of
> the kind he discusses a lot in the article...

Andrew Heathwaite gave a contradictory definition here:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/isoharmonic+chords

I'd like to get it clarified what the definition should be.

Dear Gene,

Thank you for raising the good question of
whether 8:9:11:13 is an isoharmonic chord
or sonority, and if so, why.

The link to which you directed interested
readers indeed states what I'd consider the
basic or strict definition: a chord or
sonority where all members share the same
difference, e.g. 7:9:11:13.

As I recall George Secor and I discussing
back in 2001-2002, there are also somewhat
freer definitions. His article in XH 18
itself explains that 8:9:11:13 includes
its three upper members in an isoharmonic
relationship (9:11:13, differences of 2),
but doesn't actually say that the full
sonority is or isn't isoharmonic.

Here there are two possible understandings
of a "looser" usage:

(1) A chord or sonority which includes
three or more members in an
isoharmonic relationship may itself
be defined as at least "partially"
isoharmonic, e.g. 8:9:11:13.

(2) Also, a chord may in a free sense
be termed "isoharmonic" when all
differences are of 1 or 2, e.g.
6:7:9 or 4:6:7:9, even if no
three members form a strict
isoharmonic pattern.

There can be yet looser usages, but that's
my first impression on the broader usaages.
I seem to recall a term like "semi-isoharmonic"
for patterns with mixed differences of 1 and 2,
and maybe the list archives would reveal more.

Best,

Margo

I deleted my prepost on this thread here. I though do feel that when something is someones personal ideas on wikispaces, the poster should identify themselves and then that makes speculative thought available to others but in a proper place. I have no problem when group efforts are put up or subjects that are circulated here. While not peer reviewed are at least contemplated by others. Some people already have things on some of these subjects that could be inserted as links. Say for just an example, Grahams Breeds pages could be added to some of this as a link to some of the temperament stuff.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Margo Schulter <mschulter@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Gene,
>
> Thank you for raising the good question of
> whether 8:9:11:13 is an isoharmonic chord
> or sonority, and if so, why.
>
> The link to which you directed interested
> readers indeed states what I'd consider the
> basic or strict definition: a chord or
> sonority where all members share the same
> difference, e.g. 7:9:11:13.
>
> As I recall George Secor and I discussing
> back in 2001-2002, there are also somewhat
> freer definitions. His article in XH 18
> itself explains that 8:9:11:13 includes
> its three upper members in an isoharmonic
> relationship (9:11:13, differences of 2),
> but doesn't actually say that the full
> sonority is or isn't isoharmonic.
>
> Here there are two possible understandings
> of a "looser" usage:
>
> (1) A chord or sonority which includes
> three or more members in an
> isoharmonic relationship may itself
> be defined as at least "partially"
> isoharmonic, e.g. 8:9:11:13.
>
> (2) Also, a chord may in a free sense
> be termed "isoharmonic" when all
> differences are of 1 or 2, e.g.
> 6:7:9 or 4:6:7:9, even if no
> three members form a strict
> isoharmonic pattern.
>
> There can be yet looser usages, but that's
> my first impression on the broader usaages.
> I seem to recall a term like "semi-isoharmonic"
> for patterns with mixed differences of 1 and 2,
> and maybe the list archives would reveal more.
>
> Best,
>
> Margo
>