source file: mills2.txt Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 06:07:21 -0700 Subject: RE: octave equivalence From: Gary Morrison <71670.2576@compuserve.com> You know, I've been pondering Bill Sethares' mention of a study "that approached octave-equivalence from a melodic perspective" (that's probably not a direct quote, but that was the idea). I don't know whether what I'm about to say will be perceived as... * a pointless statement of an obvious truism, * a surprising but insightful observation, or * utterly preposterous nonsense, but something dawned on me after I read that statement from Bill: As far as I can tell, octave equivalence is ONLY meaningful from a melodic perspective. That because the entire purpose of fusing individual tones into a chord is to have them lose their individual identities and form a single combined sound. Now that is not to suggest that two notes an octave apart have to be played in sequence rather than together, for them to be appreciated as octave equivalents. But if they are played simultaneously, you have to at least auditorially pick the pitch of one tone out of the chord, then the other, then compare the two. If you were not to do that, then they would be no more than simply a combination timbre like from an organ, rather than tones that sound like two versions of the same pitch. Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 15:49 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA00511; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 16:31:55 +0200 Received: from sun4nl.NL.net by ns (smtpxd); id XA00506 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by sun4nl.NL.net with SMTP id AA29408 (5.65b/CWI-3.3); Fri, 16 Aug 1996 16:31:38 +0200 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id HAA19443; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 07:30:17 -0700 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 07:30:17 -0700 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu