Re: Musings on Vocal Tunings

Jason_Yust wrote:

> the question of tuning in unaccompanied melody has been a
topic of
> discussion the past few days and I'm wondering to what degree people
on the
> list feel that rational intervals matter in contexts where no harmony
is
> present. [snip] In unaccompanied
> singing without a drone, is the difference even between 9/8 and 10/9
going
> to effect the experience of the music? [snip]
> Could we possibly percieve tuning in remembered pitches?
> How can tuning happen linearly? Any feelings?

Here's a good one: What do you get when you cross a harmony with a
rhythm?

Melody and harmony (and rhythm) are not necessarily as distinct as we
have come to view them in Western music theory. The tendency of the
West is to dissect, which can be helpful as long as you keep in mind
that the parts synergistically make up the whole. Melody, even
unaccompanied, can be seen as the product, or intersection, of harmony
and rhythm. Take a scale - an abstract set of pitches which harmonize
with each other to varying degrees - and intone them one at a time in a
rhythm: that's the backbone of melody. Conversely, take any bare melody
and reduce it to its scale and its tuning: that's the backbone of
harmony. None of the three can exist as music without the others. If
you care for mystical connections to music theory, this is a true
reflection of the principle of the Trinity combined with the symbolism
of the Cross.

Now to the question of how tuning affects the performance of
unaccompanied melody. On this I have only my experiences and
perceptions to go on. For me, even the subtlest of tuning differences
alter, to a corresponding degree, the color of the emotional content.
The difference between 9:8 and 10:9 in a melodic figure is one that
really jumps out at me sometimes. The effect depends on the context,
including the vertical direction of the melody at the moment, the part
of the phrase the tone is found in, the size of the steps or leaps from
which is it approached and whence it departs, and the tuning of the rest
of the scale. But very generally in diatonic contexts, a 9:8 offers a
strong stance with a bright solid color, while a 10:9 gives a more
subtle, plaintive, slippery or gooey feeling with a darker, softer, and
more muted color. Again, just my perception.

For those who occasionally communicate with me off-list, please note the
new email address. I'll keep checking my freewwweb account sporadically
for a couple of months but this is one will replace it as my daily.

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://members.xoom.com/dfinn.1
--

On 26 Apr 00, at 9:51, tuning@egroups.com wrote:

> > >When someone is singing a tune by himself, how does he proceed? Is it
> > >not by incrementing off of the previous note? So, if I'm singing a 'C'
> > >at, say, 256 Hz, then I would increment this frequency by 1+1/9, at
> > >arrive at my 'D' of 288 Hz (to the best of my ability). Others, when
> > >singing a tune to the Ptolemaic syntonon diatonic, we'll increment up;
> > >1+1/10; and if singing to the Zalzal's intonation, we'll go up 1+1/11.
> >
> > >Clearly someone can sing a tune without harmony.
> >
> > Yes, but most of the world's melodic tunings do not conform to your
> > logic above.
>

I'd like to expand upon this concept some. The Ancient Greeks developed
*instrumental* tunings (via the monochord, et. al.), and this would serve
as an accompaniment to voice. This tuning, it seems, is uncritically
applied to vocal tunings. While the monochord division allows for complex
division of the octave, a vocalist does not have the facility to generate
such complex tones, Rather, he is consigned to singing simple tones, +/-
the best that he can produce them. I have not seen this distinction made
between instrumental & vocal tunings.

One reference documents which suggested this this conclusion to me is a
PhD dissertation done in the 1960's on the vocal music of the Arab
Christians in Jerusalem and its environs. The reseacher used a "melograph"
to plot the intervals of various chanters and clerics (=informants) for the
purpose of characterize the tunings in use. The reseacher notes that
often the tunings used were inconsistent from "informant" to "informant";
and even for repeat performances of the same informant. He concludes by
calling into question the tetrachordal basis of the music.

But consider, these chants use intervals that differ from Ptolemy's
syntonic diatonic (PSD), in particular, the use of neutral tones (e.g.,
12/11 = 151c) and small minor tones (e.g., 11/10 = 165c). These tones,
less than the 10/9 of PSD, partly provide for the 'oriental' feel of this
music. (Confer also the minor tone in Ptolemy's equable diatonic).

Now consider: let us say that a chanter with drone wants to proceed with
Al Sibn's (fl. c. 1100?) tuning of : 9/8, 12/11, 88/81 (204c, 151c, 143c).
His cumulative intervals, if he were an instrument and not a human, would
be 9/8, 27/22, 4/3. Now, I understand that the tone 27/22 is too complex
(per tonal entropy) for him to be able to tune his voice to hit that
interval with the drone . So, likely he will land on 11/9ths, (making his
step up from 9/8 to be 88/81, 143c., (a step too complex for him to make
without harmonic assistance). So, for vocalist's tunings, the actual
tuning of this scale turned out to be 9/8, 88/81, 12/11. His intended
tetrachordal with the last two intervals interchanged! Thus for
monophonic or drone singing, these two tetrachords are equivalent.

Recall, that our chanter, if chanting without the instrumental
accompaniment could not sing Al Sibn's intervals to begin with--being
unable to accurately judge the size of the 88/81 step. He might sing,
instead, 9/8, 12/11, 13/12 (cumm=9/8, 27/22, 117/88 = 204c, 355c, 493c).
This would be heard by him and his audience as 9/8, 11/9, 4/3). So this
too, is equivalent.

Re-capping the findings, the tetrachords:

9/8, 12/11, 88/81 (cumm= 9/8, 27/22, 4/3; 204c, 355c, 498c)
9/8, 88/81, 12/11 (cumm= 9/8, 11/9, 4/3; 204c, 347c, 498c)
9/8, 12/11, 13/12 (cumm=9/8, 27/22, 117/88; 204c, 355c, 493c)

Note that while the 3rd tetrachord cited above with 493c is shy of the
perfect 4th, other possible combinations, like:

9/8, 11/10, 13/12 (cumm= 9/8, 99/80, 429/320; 204c, 369c, 507c).

will yield a tetrachord (507c) that is greater than a perfect fourth. This
too, I suggest is an equivalent tetrachord.

Our poor 60's researcher may have been befuddled by his readings on the
"melograph", seeing all these as "different tunings" and even tetrachords
not based on perfect 4ths. The the reality of how a chanter can chain his
intervals together unaccompanied, and what "harmonic points" are available
to him with a drone, provides an important consideration.

If I am mistaken here, I would appreciate being corrected at this early
point, before I get to confident in this.

Best regards,

Polychroni