Otonality and utonality: Difference between revisions

Given a JI chord, how can we decide whether it is otonal or utonal? This might seem obvious at first, but it's actually surprisingly subtle. For example, the chord 10:12:15 is a 5-limit utonality (1/6:1/5:1/4), but it's also a 15-limit otonality, consisting of the 10th, 12th, and 15th harmonics of a fundamental. One reasonable definition is to say that a chord is otonal if its largest odd number is smaller than the largest odd number of its inverse, and utonal if the inverse has a smaller largest-odd-number. In other words, if inverting a chord increases its odd limit, it's otonal, and if it reduces it, it's utonal. That way 4:5:6 is otonal because it's simpler than its inverse, 10:12:15, and 10:12:15 is utonal because it is more simply expressed as 1/6:1/5:1/4. Because we're using odd limit and not integer limit, this definition is independent of the chord's voicing. Thus 4:5:6 is otonal even if voiced 3:4:5 or 2:3:5.

A chord's inverse can be visualized in a 2-D drawing of the harmonic lattice as a rotation by 180 degrees around 1/1.

To make that definition more precise, we can define a JI chord to be a set of positive rational numbers, the all-odd voicing of a JI chord to be a set of positive rational numbers obtained by removing all factors of two from all numerators and denominators, followed by removing any duplicate ratios, and the reduced JI chord to be the set of odd integers resulting from clearing denominators in the all-odd voicing by multiplying each member of the chord by the LCM (least common multiple) of the denominators, followed by dividing out the GCD (greatest common denominator).  

By this definition all monads, dyads and intervals are ambitonal. (Dyads and intervals are <u>not</u> the same thing; 2:3:4 is a dyad but not an interval, and 2/1 is an interval but not a dyad.)

Assume a chord is ambitonal. Then its largest integer, max(chord), is equal to the largest integer of its inverse, which is LCM(chord)/min(chord). Therefore min(chord)*max(chord) = LCM(chord). Conversely, if a set of integers has gcd 1 and also satisfies this, then it is an ambitonal chord.

Thus, for any given odd number N (where N is not prime), all ambitonal chords with LCM N can easily be found by considering subsets of the factors of N. If a subset has at least three factors, has a GCD of 1, an LCM of N, and also satisfies min(subset)*max(subset) = N, then it is an ambitonal chord. These conditions are satisfied by any subset which includes 1 and N. There are usually other valid subsets as well.

For N = 45, the factors are 1, 3, 5, 9, 15 and 45. One ambitonal chord is {1, 3, 5, 9, 15, 45}, which octave-reduces to {1/1, 5/4, 3/2, 15/8, 9/4, 45/16} = 16:20:24:30:36:45 = maj9(#11) chord. Any note or notes can be dropped except the root and the 11th, and the chord will still be ambitonal. The only other chord is {3, 5, 9, 15} = {1/1, 5/4, 3/2, 5/3} = maj6 chord, or its homonym the min7 chord. {3, 9, 15} is not ambitonal because the GCD isn't 1. {3, 5, 15} is not ambitonal because the LCM isn't 45.

These definitions apply equally as well to JI scales as they do to JI chords. For instance, the reduction of the Ptolemy-Zarlino just diatonic, 1/1-9/8-5/4-4/3-3/2-5/3-15/8-2, is {1, 3, 5, 9, 15, 27, 45}. The reduction of the Redfield diatonic, 1/1-10/9-5/4-4/3-3/2-5/3-15/8-2, is {3, 5, 9, 15, 27, 45, 135}. These are inversely related, so the Zarlino diatonic is otonal and the Redfield diatonic is utonal. From the manner of their construction, certain types of scales can be classed in certain ways. For instance, Euler genera, combination product sets, or tonality diamonds are necessarily ambitonal, whereas dwarf scales are always either otonal or ambitonal.