Misconceptions about xenharmony: Difference between revisions
Wikispaces>guest **Imported revision 245512091 - Original comment: ** |
Wikispaces>guest **Imported revision 245512791 - Original comment: ** |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<h2>IMPORTED REVISION FROM WIKISPACES</h2> | <h2>IMPORTED REVISION FROM WIKISPACES</h2> | ||
This is an imported revision from Wikispaces. The revision metadata is included below for reference:<br> | This is an imported revision from Wikispaces. The revision metadata is included below for reference:<br> | ||
: This revision was by author [[User:guest|guest]] and made on <tt>2011-08-11 17: | : This revision was by author [[User:guest|guest]] and made on <tt>2011-08-11 17:33:41 UTC</tt>.<br> | ||
: The original revision id was <tt> | : The original revision id was <tt>245512791</tt>.<br> | ||
: The revision comment was: <tt></tt><br> | : The revision comment was: <tt></tt><br> | ||
The revision contents are below, presented both in the original Wikispaces Wikitext format, and in HTML exactly as Wikispaces rendered it.<br> | The revision contents are below, presented both in the original Wikispaces Wikitext format, and in HTML exactly as Wikispaces rendered it.<br> | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Notice that these studies present no aesthetic preference. They do not tell us that rich listeners are "better" or "more discerning" than pure listeners. These studies merely inform us that rich listeners outnumber pure listeners in Western musical audiences by a ratio of roughly 8 to 1. There is no indication that musical tunings which produce more beats are any better or any worse than musical tunings which produce fewer beats (just intonation with small integer ratios). As Warren Burt put it, "I don't hear small integers ratios as sounding any better than intervals which beat. I hear a difference -- I simply don't acknowledge that the difference produces any aesthetic superiority." Or, as William Schottstaedt, arguably the greatest living American composer, put it: "I like beats. Beats sound good." | Notice that these studies present no aesthetic preference. They do not tell us that rich listeners are "better" or "more discerning" than pure listeners. These studies merely inform us that rich listeners outnumber pure listeners in Western musical audiences by a ratio of roughly 8 to 1. There is no indication that musical tunings which produce more beats are any better or any worse than musical tunings which produce fewer beats (just intonation with small integer ratios). As Warren Burt put it, "I don't hear small integers ratios as sounding any better than intervals which beat. I hear a difference -- I simply don't acknowledge that the difference produces any aesthetic superiority." Or, as William Schottstaedt, arguably the greatest living American composer, put it: "I like beats. Beats sound good." | ||
**Myth #2: "The small integer ratios like 3/2 and 5/4 are __//the//__ original intervals from which all other musical intervals are derived."** Kyle Gann teaches this provably false claim in his course on microtonality. (Gann's discussion of microtonality is generally scrupulously accurate: this offers a rare exception. See Gann, Kyle [[http://www.kylegann.com/JIreasons.html|"Reasons for Using Just Intonation"]] for one of the best explanations of why composers may find just intonation useful.) Or, as Lou Harrison put it, "Just intonation tunings are the only real musical intervals. All other musical intervals are fake musical intervals." | **Myth #2: "The small integer ratios like 3/2 and 5/4 are __//the//__ original intervals from which all other musical intervals are derived."** Kyle Gann teaches this provably false claim in his course on microtonality. (Gann's discussion of microtonality is generally scrupulously accurate: this offers a rare exception. See Gann, <span class="wiki_link_ext">Kyle, </span>[[http://www.kylegann.com/JIreasons.html|"My Idiosyncratic Reasons for Using Just Intonation"]] for one of the best explanations of why composers may find just intonation useful.) Or, as Lou Harrison put it, "Just intonation tunings are the only real musical intervals. All other musical intervals are fake musical intervals." | ||
The actual evidence of peer-reviewed published listening tests in the psychoacoustic literature show that there exists a wide range within which listeners recognize musical interval categories like "fifth" and "third" as sounding functional and musically effective. Once again, this has been known for more than 80 years, and documented in a wide variety of peer-reviewed scientific papers going back to 1926. | The actual evidence of peer-reviewed published listening tests in the psychoacoustic literature show that there exists a wide range within which listeners recognize musical interval categories like "fifth" and "third" as sounding functional and musically effective. Once again, this has been known for more than 80 years, and documented in a wide variety of peer-reviewed scientific papers going back to 1926. | ||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
In fact, the history of modern music post-1970 shows that percussion ensembles have become increasingly prominent in contemporary music. These percussion ensembles typically use inharmonic timbres which utterly fail to match the 12-equal tuning, yet audience love the music produced by these percussion ensembles. The answer to this seeming conundrum is that audience crave variety. We like to hear compositions in which some of the timbres match the tuning, and in which some other timbres clash with the tuning. As with food, eating the same thing all the time day after day makes you sick. You get tired of it. In the same way, musical repasts which feature nothing but harmonic series timbre after harmonic series timbre perfectly matched to the musical tuning quickly grows dull. Audiences get restless. They want some variety, not the same bland vocoded-sounding hum all the time. | In fact, the history of modern music post-1970 shows that percussion ensembles have become increasingly prominent in contemporary music. These percussion ensembles typically use inharmonic timbres which utterly fail to match the 12-equal tuning, yet audience love the music produced by these percussion ensembles. The answer to this seeming conundrum is that audience crave variety. We like to hear compositions in which some of the timbres match the tuning, and in which some other timbres clash with the tuning. As with food, eating the same thing all the time day after day makes you sick. You get tired of it. In the same way, musical repasts which feature nothing but harmonic series timbre after harmonic series timbre perfectly matched to the musical tuning quickly grows dull. Audiences get restless. They want some variety, not the same bland vocoded-sounding hum all the time. | ||
**Myth #5: "Mathematics forms the basis of music, and therefore mathematical music theory must guide us when we create new tunings."**As Paul Hindemith noted in 1937, "<span class="st">Theorists, basing their reasoning on acoustical phenomena, have repeatedly come to conclusions wholly at variance with those of practical musicians.</span>" (Hindemith, P., //The Craft of Musical Composition//, Vol. 1, 1937.) The human ear/brain system stands between the acoustic wavefronts of musical instruments and the music as we perceive it. Our human sensory apparatus and our cognitive processes are highly non-linear and subject to a wide range of cognitive biases. See "Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases," Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., //Science//, new series, Vol. 185, No. 4157, September 27 1974, pp. 1124-1131. Also see [[http://psychology.about.com/od/sensationandperception/ss/gestaltlaws.htm|Gestalt Laws of Perceptual Organization]] and [[http://www.musanim.com/miller1956/|"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information," by George A. Miller, The Psychological Review, 1956, vol. 63, pp. 81-97]] | **Myth #5: "Mathematics forms the basis of music, and therefore mathematical music theory must guide us when we create new tunings."** As Paul Hindemith noted in 1937, "<span class="st">Theorists, basing their reasoning on acoustical phenomena, have repeatedly come to conclusions wholly at variance with those of practical musicians.</span>" (Hindemith, P., //The Craft of Musical Composition//, Vol. 1, 1937.) The human ear/brain system stands between the acoustic wavefronts of musical instruments and the music as we perceive it. Our human sensory apparatus and our cognitive processes are highly non-linear and subject to a wide range of cognitive biases. See "Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases," Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., //Science//, new series, Vol. 185, No. 4157, September 27 1974, pp. 1124-1131. Also see [[http://psychology.about.com/od/sensationandperception/ss/gestaltlaws.htm|Gestalt Laws of Perceptual Organization]] and [[http://www.musanim.com/miller1956/|"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information," by George A. Miller, The Psychological Review, 1956, vol. 63, pp. 81-97]] | ||
We do not hear frequency; rather, we perceive pitch. We do not hear amplitude; rather, we perceive loudness. We do not hear the wavefronts of series of atmospheric compressions or rarefaction; rather, we perceive music. And our perceptions find themselves subject to a vast multiplicity of distortions and cognitive limitations. See [[http://www.amazon.com/Music-Cognition-Computerized-Sound-Psychoacoustics/dp/0262531909|Music, Cognition and Computerized Sound: An Introduction to Psychoacoustics, MIT Press, ed. Perry Cook]] | We do not hear frequency; rather, we perceive pitch. We do not hear amplitude; rather, we perceive loudness. We do not hear the wavefronts of series of atmospheric compressions or rarefaction; rather, we perceive music. And our perceptions find themselves subject to a vast multiplicity of distortions and cognitive limitations. See [[http://www.amazon.com/Music-Cognition-Computerized-Sound-Psychoacoustics/dp/0262531909|Music, Cognition and Computerized Sound: An Introduction to Psychoacoustics, MIT Press, ed. Perry Cook]] | ||
| Line 207: | Line 207: | ||
Notice that these studies present no aesthetic preference. They do not tell us that rich listeners are &quot;better&quot; or &quot;more discerning&quot; than pure listeners. These studies merely inform us that rich listeners outnumber pure listeners in Western musical audiences by a ratio of roughly 8 to 1. There is no indication that musical tunings which produce more beats are any better or any worse than musical tunings which produce fewer beats (just intonation with small integer ratios). As Warren Burt put it, &quot;I don't hear small integers ratios as sounding any better than intervals which beat. I hear a difference -- I simply don't acknowledge that the difference produces any aesthetic superiority.&quot; Or, as William Schottstaedt, arguably the greatest living American composer, put it: &quot;I like beats. Beats sound good.&quot;<br /> | Notice that these studies present no aesthetic preference. They do not tell us that rich listeners are &quot;better&quot; or &quot;more discerning&quot; than pure listeners. These studies merely inform us that rich listeners outnumber pure listeners in Western musical audiences by a ratio of roughly 8 to 1. There is no indication that musical tunings which produce more beats are any better or any worse than musical tunings which produce fewer beats (just intonation with small integer ratios). As Warren Burt put it, &quot;I don't hear small integers ratios as sounding any better than intervals which beat. I hear a difference -- I simply don't acknowledge that the difference produces any aesthetic superiority.&quot; Or, as William Schottstaedt, arguably the greatest living American composer, put it: &quot;I like beats. Beats sound good.&quot;<br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
<strong>Myth #2: &quot;The small integer ratios like 3/2 and 5/4 are <u><em>the</em></u> original intervals from which all other musical intervals are derived.&quot;</strong> Kyle Gann teaches this provably false claim in his course on microtonality. (Gann's discussion of microtonality is generally scrupulously accurate: this offers a rare exception. See Gann, Kyle <a class="wiki_link_ext" href="http://www.kylegann.com/JIreasons.html" rel="nofollow">&quot;Reasons for Using Just Intonation&quot;</a> for one of the best explanations of why composers may find just intonation useful.) Or, as Lou Harrison put it, &quot;Just intonation tunings are the only real musical intervals. All other musical intervals are fake musical intervals.&quot;<br /> | <strong>Myth #2: &quot;The small integer ratios like 3/2 and 5/4 are <u><em>the</em></u> original intervals from which all other musical intervals are derived.&quot;</strong> Kyle Gann teaches this provably false claim in his course on microtonality. (Gann's discussion of microtonality is generally scrupulously accurate: this offers a rare exception. See Gann, <span class="wiki_link_ext">Kyle, </span><a class="wiki_link_ext" href="http://www.kylegann.com/JIreasons.html" rel="nofollow">&quot;My Idiosyncratic Reasons for Using Just Intonation&quot;</a> for one of the best explanations of why composers may find just intonation useful.) Or, as Lou Harrison put it, &quot;Just intonation tunings are the only real musical intervals. All other musical intervals are fake musical intervals.&quot;<br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
The actual evidence of peer-reviewed published listening tests in the psychoacoustic literature show that there exists a wide range within which listeners recognize musical interval categories like &quot;fifth&quot; and &quot;third&quot; as sounding functional and musically effective. Once again, this has been known for more than 80 years, and documented in a wide variety of peer-reviewed scientific papers going back to 1926.<br /> | The actual evidence of peer-reviewed published listening tests in the psychoacoustic literature show that there exists a wide range within which listeners recognize musical interval categories like &quot;fifth&quot; and &quot;third&quot; as sounding functional and musically effective. Once again, this has been known for more than 80 years, and documented in a wide variety of peer-reviewed scientific papers going back to 1926.<br /> | ||
| Line 233: | Line 233: | ||
In fact, the history of modern music post-1970 shows that percussion ensembles have become increasingly prominent in contemporary music. These percussion ensembles typically use inharmonic timbres which utterly fail to match the 12-equal tuning, yet audience love the music produced by these percussion ensembles. The answer to this seeming conundrum is that audience crave variety. We like to hear compositions in which some of the timbres match the tuning, and in which some other timbres clash with the tuning. As with food, eating the same thing all the time day after day makes you sick. You get tired of it. In the same way, musical repasts which feature nothing but harmonic series timbre after harmonic series timbre perfectly matched to the musical tuning quickly grows dull. Audiences get restless. They want some variety, not the same bland vocoded-sounding hum all the time.<br /> | In fact, the history of modern music post-1970 shows that percussion ensembles have become increasingly prominent in contemporary music. These percussion ensembles typically use inharmonic timbres which utterly fail to match the 12-equal tuning, yet audience love the music produced by these percussion ensembles. The answer to this seeming conundrum is that audience crave variety. We like to hear compositions in which some of the timbres match the tuning, and in which some other timbres clash with the tuning. As with food, eating the same thing all the time day after day makes you sick. You get tired of it. In the same way, musical repasts which feature nothing but harmonic series timbre after harmonic series timbre perfectly matched to the musical tuning quickly grows dull. Audiences get restless. They want some variety, not the same bland vocoded-sounding hum all the time.<br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
<strong>Myth #5: &quot;Mathematics forms the basis of music, and therefore mathematical music theory must guide us when we create new tunings.&quot;</strong>As Paul Hindemith noted in 1937, &quot;<span class="st">Theorists, basing their reasoning on acoustical phenomena, have repeatedly come to conclusions wholly at variance with those of practical musicians.</span>&quot; (Hindemith, P., <em>The Craft of Musical Composition</em>, Vol. 1, 1937.) The human ear/brain system stands between the acoustic wavefronts of musical instruments and the music as we perceive it. Our human sensory apparatus and our cognitive processes are highly non-linear and subject to a wide range of cognitive biases. See &quot;Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,&quot; Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., <em>Science</em>, new series, Vol. 185, No. 4157, September 27 1974, pp. 1124-1131. Also see <a class="wiki_link_ext" href="http://psychology.about.com/od/sensationandperception/ss/gestaltlaws.htm" rel="nofollow">Gestalt Laws of Perceptual Organization</a> and <a class="wiki_link_ext" href="http://www.musanim.com/miller1956/" rel="nofollow">&quot;The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information,&quot; by George A. Miller, The Psychological Review, 1956, vol. 63, pp. 81-97</a><br /> | <strong>Myth #5: &quot;Mathematics forms the basis of music, and therefore mathematical music theory must guide us when we create new tunings.&quot;</strong> As Paul Hindemith noted in 1937, &quot;<span class="st">Theorists, basing their reasoning on acoustical phenomena, have repeatedly come to conclusions wholly at variance with those of practical musicians.</span>&quot; (Hindemith, P., <em>The Craft of Musical Composition</em>, Vol. 1, 1937.) The human ear/brain system stands between the acoustic wavefronts of musical instruments and the music as we perceive it. Our human sensory apparatus and our cognitive processes are highly non-linear and subject to a wide range of cognitive biases. See &quot;Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,&quot; Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., <em>Science</em>, new series, Vol. 185, No. 4157, September 27 1974, pp. 1124-1131. Also see <a class="wiki_link_ext" href="http://psychology.about.com/od/sensationandperception/ss/gestaltlaws.htm" rel="nofollow">Gestalt Laws of Perceptual Organization</a> and <a class="wiki_link_ext" href="http://www.musanim.com/miller1956/" rel="nofollow">&quot;The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information,&quot; by George A. Miller, The Psychological Review, 1956, vol. 63, pp. 81-97</a><br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
We do not hear frequency; rather, we perceive pitch. We do not hear amplitude; rather, we perceive loudness. We do not hear the wavefronts of series of atmospheric compressions or rarefaction; rather, we perceive music. And our perceptions find themselves subject to a vast multiplicity of distortions and cognitive limitations. See <a class="wiki_link_ext" href="http://www.amazon.com/Music-Cognition-Computerized-Sound-Psychoacoustics/dp/0262531909" rel="nofollow">Music, Cognition and Computerized Sound: An Introduction to Psychoacoustics, MIT Press, ed. Perry Cook</a><br /> | We do not hear frequency; rather, we perceive pitch. We do not hear amplitude; rather, we perceive loudness. We do not hear the wavefronts of series of atmospheric compressions or rarefaction; rather, we perceive music. And our perceptions find themselves subject to a vast multiplicity of distortions and cognitive limitations. See <a class="wiki_link_ext" href="http://www.amazon.com/Music-Cognition-Computerized-Sound-Psychoacoustics/dp/0262531909" rel="nofollow">Music, Cognition and Computerized Sound: An Introduction to Psychoacoustics, MIT Press, ed. Perry Cook</a><br /> | ||