source file: mills3.txt Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:00:20 +0100 Subject: A Higher-Level Comment on Gregg Gibson's Limen From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison) I and several others have reacted skeptically to some of Gregg Gibson's recent thoughts. I think I should state my opinion on this idea of his a little bit more precisely. 1. The essential idea he's getting at I don't by any means think to be ridiculous or anything like that. If Gregg's suggestion can be summarized that there is a certain level of detail in pitch below which we view their melodic effects will be perceived as subtle flavorings of the same original, and above which they will be perceived as an essentially different melody, then my opinion is that it's an interesting concept. Proposing that such a "limen" exists is a sign of insightfulness in that he's come up with an underlying concept I don't recall having been discussed on the list. 2. It's an interesting concept that could perhaps become a useful rule of thumb for composers (e.g., if you're composing something under the assumption that the audience will hear at greater resolution than this, you probably won't get your idea across). 3. Despite that, I think it's important to note that its area of direct appli- cability is fairly narrow. (A narrow field of applicability doesn't neces- sarily imply unimportance.) I say that based upon the examples he's given and the counterexamples others and I have suggested. For example, this limen has potential applicability to comparatively familiar melodic structures like diatonic melodies, but it's more difficult to relate to microtonal melodic runs, or to melodies pulled from entirely nontraditional scales (e.g., 9TET, 8TET, 11TET, Pierce-Bohlen, and 88CET to name a few). Also, its direct applicability to other than melody seems somewhat limited as well. 4. The idea is based upon an assumption of a fairly abrupt change in peoples' perception of tuning errors, that change being centered around the limen he proposes to be around 60 cents. Tuning ... "surprises" I'll say ... smaller than 30 cents (i.e., to the nearest 60-cent-resolution point) will be viewed as coloring of the familiar melody, whereas tuning surprises larger than that fundamentally change the melody. I'm inclined to think that the attitude change from melodic coloring to fundamental melodic change is a greatly more gradual one. Standard melodic variation techniques and modal changes (for example) show clearly that melodies can undergo some extremely enormous permutations before our ears perceived them to be fundamentally different. Given that recognizability of a melody blurs out that far, it seems surprising that there would be sharp, sudden changes in attitude toward subtle changes. 5. He seems to suggest that the sub-30-cent coloring effects of a different rendition of a diatonic melody are comparatively unimportant. I don't think that the distinction between a familiar melody rendered in, say, QC meantone vs. 19TET, vs. Ptolemiac JI are as audibly significant as the variations available across entirely nondiatonic frameworks. But even still, I don't think it wise to underestimate the musical impact of those coloring effects. SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison) Subject: Partch CDs PostedDate: 20-12-97 11:01:00 SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu $MessageStorage: 0 $UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH RouteTimes: 20-12-97 10:58:56-20-12-97 10:58:56,20-12-97 10:58:31-20-12-97 10:58:32 DeliveredDate: 20-12-97 10:58:32 Categories: $Revisions: Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256573.0036D20F; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:00:43 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA22578; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:01:00 +0100 Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:01:00 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA22322 Received: (qmail 19134 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1997 02:00:52 -0800 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Dec 1997 02:00:52 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu