source file: mills3.txt Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:35:32 +0100 Subject: Re: More of Septimals From: gbreed@cix.compulink.co.uk (Graham Breed) Paul Erlich wrote: >In 12-equal, a 3-limit chord progressing to a 5-limit one almost always >sounds like an increase in dissonance. So, just as Western Common Practice >music avoids bare 3-limit harmonies, so decatonic music will avoid bare >5-limit chords. Indeed so, and your theory is entirely consistent on this point. However, I stated that I prefer to keep to triads when using 7-limit harmony, and I also like to keep the 5-limit consonances. We have an aesthetic disagreement here, but nothing worth arguing about. Now, Mr Gibson on the other hand: > Graham Breed said: >> Exactly what are you trying to say, Gregg? You come up with an >> "undeniable" argument, and then deny it! Or, am I >> misunderstanding? To my ears, these chords are certainly more >> concordant than their constituent dyads. Three examples are quite >> enough to disprove that little theory. > > I mean, for example, if you add a fourth note to the triad 4:6:7, e.g. > 4:6:7:8 or 4:6:7:12 you very often get an undoubtedly dissonant chord. > 4:6:7:8 is dissonant because of 8:7, 4:6:7:12 is dissonant because of > 12:7. This is what I mean when I say the senario (i.e. the consonant > chords of the senario, the least consonant of which are more consonant > than the least disssonant septimal chords) are consistent with > themselves, while the septimal chords give rise to dissonance when a > fourth tone is added. Gregg, I'm getting sick of this. I say a chord has a degree of consonance because of its sound, and you tell me it is a dissonance because of one of its intervals. I have justified my viewpoint, and you have simply ridiculed it. You have never given any clue as to what these chords sound like, and therefore what property of that sound you consider to be dissonant. Neither have you given a definition of dissonance. As you began the discussion, the onus is on you to explain what you mean. You _have_, it is true, said that you do like 7-limit chords. However, the fact that you advocate a tuning in which they are poorly approximated deserves explanation. In this particular case, you have not answered my point. Look carefully. I did not say any chords were consonant. I said thay were more consonant than the worst of their intervals heard as a dyad. Do you agree? If you add F# to the 5-limit triad C-E-G, you get an undoubtedly dissonant chord. The 7-limit is special in that adding an octave can sometimes dramatically affect the sound of a chord. However, you have never said this. FWIW, 3:4:6:7 sounds more consonant than 4:6:7. 4:6:7:8 is clearly more dissonant than 4:5:6:8, but is much less so than the triad 6:7:8. Do you agree? > For what it is worth, I find the septimal triads 4:6:7 and 4:5:7 more > 'major' in effect than 'minor', but definitely dissonant. I have heard > them in many different temperaments, but of course the just versions are > the standard. I've already said that a binary consonant/dissonant argument will get us nowhere. I find that a small amount of tempering (ie, 41 equal) can improve the sound of these chords. Do you agree? > There are excellent acoustical reasons for supposing the septimals > dissonant. Musical dissonance and consonance are not absolutely > relative, but must remain to the physical constraints of nature if they > are to have any artistic meaning. Gregg, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!! stay with in the constraints of the English language! The terms "absolute" and "relative" are diametric opposites. What on earth does "absolutely relative" mean? What are these acoustical reasons, and what are the physical constraints that I am violating? Or, are you again making unspecific accusations of straw men? > By such reasoning one could argue that 15:8 is consonant, because 48:25 > is even rougher. Your argument is therefore evidently invalid. Paul Erlich's argument is not in the least invalidated. He did not declare any chord to "be" consonant. His argument is, in fact, very good. To move away from music for a paragraph. Gregg has stated Paul's tone to be "insolent" in this discussion. I, on the other hand, feel Paul has very patiently attempted to make Gregg see the omissions and inconsistencies in his argument. Gregg's attitude in the exchange, however, I find to be highly offensive. He has never considered Paul's ideas, as published on the Internet, and I suggest he has not even read that paper. It would be a simple courtesy for Gregg to spell Paul's surname correctly. I make these points in case Paul's modesty or civility prevent him from doing so himself. While I'm at it, to state that a tuning system is "useless" is offensive to people who use that tuning system, and who place value on their aesthetic judgements. I have certainly been offended by much of what Gregg has said. > The '5-limit' and '7-limit' habit of thought can be very dangerous if it > is not carefully borne in mind that each include very different > intervals and chords, with different effects. I have heard people wrap > themselves in knots trying to 'hear' 9:7 as consonant because they got > it into their muddled heads (I was one of them, boy have I had some > strange notions) that it somehow had something to do with the 'consonant > 7-limit'. Which, of course, it does not, as it is only a 9-limit interval. I have taken care not to step outside the Partchian 7-limit. I have also made clear distinctions between 7-limit chords. I'm not saying stupid people can write 7-limit music, simply that it deserves exploration. SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: neuwirth Subject: multimedia product about historical tunings PostedDate: 20-12-97 17:03:23 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 17:01:22-20-12-97 17:01:23,20-12-97 17:00:57-20-12-97 17:00:57 DeliveredDate: 20-12-97 17:00:57 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 C1256573.0058008C; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:03:09 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA22734; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:03:23 +0100 Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:03:23 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA22668 Received: (qmail 26936 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1997 08:03:19 -0800 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Dec 1997 08:03:19 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu