Tuning systems and composition?

I'm just going to dodge all the hodgepodge and respond to the OP without the bias of all the madness that's apparently been going on in this thread. So, my thoughts...

What are your collective experiences with different tuning systems, scales and otherwise 12tet?

I'm a pianist by trade so I think the majority of my experiences are centered around 12 tone ET. Additionally, I believe MIDI is in ET as well and we all have probably worked with it at some point - I've probably been happier with it than most people with higher sonic standards. So I can say my ear is pretty used to ET which makes me wonder if my sense of pitch can even determine just intervals. I like to think yes, even though I don't see how. I know when I spend a while tuning my violin or guitar fifths or practicing lip slurs a lot on the overtone series of a brass instrument and I go back to the piano/electric keyboard, I can somehow tell that the fifths are slightly distorted from what my ear wants to hear. So I tried out the other temperaments on my Clavinova since it has that feature and I found I actually like them. Especially in historic music, it's just so pleasing to here just intervals where they were intended in the music. By comparison ET tuning has no colour - everything is a bland shade of grey because each interval is a mathematically identical ratio.

Experience with scales other than 12 tones to the octave? Never tried it. I've listened to it, but I just don't it sounds good. Especially temperaments based on odd things like 19 tone ET or whatnot. More on this later.

Are you interested in using this type of stuff? What kind of use do you think you could give such freedom to control intervals/scales/tuning?

Not really. I find historic temperaments refreshing, but ET based on non-12 tone really I think tends to go against what the ear naturally wants to hear. I think something can said of the harmonic series to this effect because it does indeed exist in nature without doubt. In 9- or 13-tone ET there really is no perfect fifth (and in some cultures I know there is no perfect octave in certain tunings). It really comes down to high school level physics - the concept of resonance. Waves of a certain frequency amplify other waves of closely related frequencies. How close is determined by the simplicity of the ratio. 1:1 - same frequency, 1:2 - octave, twice the vibrations per second and so on. When an orchestra plays in just intonation, you can say it is playing in terms of the harmonic series that already occurs in nature. When intervals are pure, they amplify each other and such octaves and fifths and major thirds are reinforced - hence a generally pleasing sound. When intervals are impure, the phenomenon of "beats" occur, which are jarring to the ear because they are not in line with the natural harmonic series. As such, no ET scale can fully satiate the laws of nature in music, but the closest approximation we have (for keyboards and such) exists in 12 tone ET because we use 12 similar tones in just intonation.

So really, I write music with 12 tones to the octave because it abides by the laws of nature. When I want sounds to resonate, I can do that. When I want to contrast with dissonance, I can do that, even if it does mean using intervals smaller than a minor second. With some other scales, there are hardly any pure intervals and therefore I don't have this contrast to work with which is why I choose not to use them. I don't mean to devalue other scales/temperaments, they offer a glorious variety of sounds and colours to choose from, but I personally do see them rather as a spectacle of human imagination and experimentation rather than something that is fundamentally sound in nature which is what most people want to hear to some degree. (unless they are experimental people and are solely interested in hearing wacky new things that deviate from the norm/nature)

It really comes down to high school level physics - the concept of resonance. Waves of a certain frequency amplify other waves of closely related frequencies. How close is determined by the simplicity of the ratio. 1:1 - same frequency, 1:2 - octave, twice the vibrations per second and so on.

Well, resonance is when a certain system oscillates with higher amplitudes at certain frequencies than at others. When you pull a string or hit an object, the frequencies at which it vibrates the most are its resonance frequencies. Similarly, when you have a crystal vase and sing different tones close to the vase, you can hear its vibrations when you are close to its resonance frequency. "Waves of a certain frequency amplify other waves" sounds like interference. The fact that harmonic instruments are more resonant at harmonic frequencies isn't a valid proof that systems other than 12-tone ones are bad, unsuitable or whatever.

Not really. I find historic temperaments refreshing, but ET based on non-12 tone really I think tends to go against what the ear naturally wants to hear.

Not really. Unless you imply we are genetically different from cultures that used different tuning systems and found THEM "natural" as much as you find 12-tet "natural" (protip: we really aren't.) If you're talking about the cognitive aspects of how the brain perceives dissonances, this is very much independent from whatever tuning system. In fact, the brain only really recognizes based on the vibrations between two tones (dissonance) and it doesn't care about the CONTEXT of these tones specifically. It uses the context then later for other things, yes, but specifically then it has nothing to do with inherent capacity but rather conditioning and the link to the language center of the brain.

I posted a while ago on the forum a series of scientific papers that dealt with various subjects concerning music perception and cognition, etc etc. Check them out.

When intervals are impure, the phenomenon of "beats" occur, which are jarring to the ear because they are not in line with the natural harmonic series. As such, no ET scale can fully satiate the laws of nature in music, but the closest approximation we have (for keyboards and such) exists in 12 tone ET because we use 12 similar tones in just intonation.

Err, why do people often forget that ALL sounds also contain harmonic overtones? I mean a fart and a jet engine also work acoustically the same way as a violin or a piano. I don't see the point of bringing in the harmonic series unless you can put up some solid evidence it has anything to do with the formation of the ear and/or the cognitive mechanisms that affect hearing perception. We are able to recognize timbre due to the harmonic series, yes, but again this has VERY little to do with tunning and much less any particular use of a scale. A lot of this comes down to simple culture conditioning and then trying to explain preferences which really have very little foundation in biology. If you were arguing about inherent rejection of certain sounds (or more specifically timbres and specific frequencies) then I would concede a biological reason (nails on chalkboard as the famous example.)

Oh, and just to clarify, the 12-tet you have on your piano has all but the octave imperfect compared to the harmonic series proper. According to what you just declared, you should avoid it since it strays (greatly) from the your preferred model. And yes, one can hear the difference between a 5th in 700 cents and a 5th in 701.955 cents, likewise if you actually look up all the proper ratios for the intervals you'll notice that 12-tet is rather artificial if you are strictly talking about the natural acoustic ratios.

We also don't need "close approximations" really, we can have the proper intervals if we wanted to. If your hypothesis there were to hold any ground, we would need to see a vast majority of people preferring just intonation rather than 12-tet (since it's "what the ear wants to hear" according to you,) but instead we see the opposite. People quite well adjusted to "imperfect" intervals that stray from the harmonic series, so I don't see where you get these ideas.

So really, I write music with 12 tones to the octave because it abides by the laws of nature.

Correction, you write music with 12 tones to the octave in ET because you were born in a culture where this was the norm. If you were born in China 2000 years ago, chances are what you would find "natural" would be drastically different than what you find now "natural." Likewise if you were born in Mesopotamia or in the Inca empire.

Note that I'm not arguing that there are no similarities between the systems, but that things such as tuning system and instruments vary wildly from culture to culture, and they don't seem to have a problem with it, so why would WE have a problem with it? Genetically different? Not very likely if you consider that people can migrate cultures no problem in less than two generations and adopt the music system they are using.

I don't mean to devalue other scales/temperaments, they offer a glorious variety of sounds and colours to choose from, but I personally do see them rather as a spectacle of human imagination and experimentation rather than something that is fundamentally sound in nature which is what most people want to hear to some degree. (unless they are experimental people and are solely interested in hearing wacky new things that deviate from the norm/nature)

Wacky new things such as 2000+ year old tunings? Seriously now?

Be honest and just say "It sounds bad to me," rather than get knee deep into fields that you have absolutely no knowledge of. Of course you could also drop the Euro-centrism from the whole subject, since Europe itself has passed through tons of different phases where people were using different tuning systems. Hell back then in Europe each town could have its own particular system because there was no "norm," and people just sung by ear and we can verify this thanks to surviving organs which have their pipes cut to a tuning that was only found in the region and nowhere else. This is practically the reason why we can somewhat accurately track the history of tuning systems in Europe otherwise they would've been lost like they were with the Greeks, Egyptians, etc etc.

So much for "norm," eh?

Experience with scales other than 12 tones to the octave? Never tried it. I've listened to it, but I just don't it sounds good. Especially temperaments based on odd things like 19 tone ET or whatnot. More on this later.

Not really. I find historic temperaments refreshing, but ET based on non-12 tone really I think tends to go against what the ear naturally wants to hear. I think something can said of the harmonic series to this effect because it does indeed exist in nature without doubt. In 9- or 13-tone ET there really is no perfect fifth (and in some cultures I know there is no perfect octave in certain tunings). It really comes down to high school level physics - the concept of resonance. Waves of a certain frequency amplify other waves of closely related frequencies. How close is determined by the simplicity of the ratio. 1:1 - same frequency, 1:2 - octave, twice the vibrations per second and so on. When an orchestra plays in just intonation, you can say it is playing in terms of the harmonic series that already occurs in nature. When intervals are pure, they amplify each other and such octaves and fifths and major thirds are reinforced - hence a generally pleasing sound. When intervals are impure, the phenomenon of "beats" occur, which are jarring to the ear because they are not in line with the natural harmonic series. As such, no ET scale can fully satiate the laws of nature in music, but the closest approximation we have (for keyboards and such) exists in 12 tone ET because we use 12 similar tones in just intonation.

If you had actually read this thread you would have already seen my post about ETs that approximate Just intervals way better than 12tET. ETs like 19tET, 31tET, and 65tET.

...Just to point out yet another flaw in your arguments.

Oh, and speaking of historic tunings and 12 divisions of the octave, again if you had read this thread before you posted you would have seen that 16-, 19-, and 31-tone meantone tunings were being used 1600s. So... yeah...

I don't really get this, when I choose 31 tet, then I still have only 19 different tones to play, the others are octaves of the first 19...or did I understand something wrong?

You are correct that when you set the slider to 31-edo you are still only given 19 tones per octave to use. That is because what the keyboard is actually giving you is the first 9 stacks of fifths above and below the symmetrical center "Re", and the slider you are adjusting is adjusting the size of the fifth, therefor adjusting the size of all intervals defined by their location in the stack of fifths. These notes given by a continuous stack of fifths are the only notes you will need tonally for a given tonic, regardless of a tuning's number of tones per octave. In fact, the pentatonic, diatonic, and chromatic scales are defined as the notes created by a continuous stack of fifths, symmetrical around "Re".

So, getting back to your question, when you set the slider to 31-edo, the size of the fifth that you have chosen to stack is (about) 697 cents wide and were this stack of fifths to be continued on beyond the nine stacks given on your keyboard, it would take *31* total stacks to get you back to an octave equivalent of Re. Tadaa, 31 tones per octave! =)

Well, resonance is when a certain system oscillates with higher amplitudes at certain frequencies than at others. When you pull a string or hit an object, the frequencies at which it vibrates the most are its resonance frequencies. Similarly, when you have a crystal vase and sing different tones close to the vase, you can hear its vibrations when you are close to its resonance frequency. "Waves of a certain frequency amplify other waves" sounds like interference. The fact that harmonic instruments are more resonant at harmonic frequencies isn't a valid proof that systems other than 12-tone ones are bad, unsuitable or whatever.

Sympathetic resonance, btw. Forgot to mention it specifically. And yes, I meant interference as well, these terms are related, of course.

Oh, and just to clarify, the 12-tet you have on your piano has all but the octave imperfect compared to the harmonic series proper. According to what you just declared, you should avoid it since it strays (greatly) from the your preferred model. ... If your hypothesis there were to hold any ground, we would need to see a vast majority of people preferring just intonation rather than 12-tet...

I did say that 12 tone ET was merely our closest approximation. The reason I did say this is because it has all the same pitches as "just intonation" which is based on a scale that developed over hundreds and hundreds of years, these pitches are just adjusted. We still have the perfect fifth to a recongniseable extent, as well the major third and others. Remember we are immersed in a world of just intonation as well - orchestras tune most chords (fifths and thirds) justly, it's ridiculous to count beats and tune anything else more complex on the fly. So if our just scale is 12 tone, why not our approximated scale as well? In some other temperaments a close approximation of 3:2 and 5:4 don't really exist, and that's what I am getting at because these simple ratios I feel are important relationships in music. They happen to be where beats are least noticeable in just tuning and explains how we can tune intervals by ear - they seem to disappear. Some other cultural scales aren't based on such simple mathematical principles and as such tuning two notes against each other is more complex because they are physically not in tune - the correct number of beats must be found.

And answering your question as to why people can deal with 12 tone ET and why just tuning pretty much died (in keyboard) - ET brought equal motion to music. Movements could be made to very unrelated keys without sacrificing just intervals by such a jarring degree. You'll notice 19 or 31 tone ET hasn't spread across the world like 12 tone has. It is used in the Americas, Asia, Australia, and Europe. The only footholds it fails to have I think are the middle East, Africa, and some islandic cultures, but I know nothing about that. What I do know is that it spans orchestra music and popular music in a variety of cultures on all separate continents now and binds us together as a human culture. Not 9 tone, not 27 tone, but 12 tone. Those cultures didn't have to accept this European influence, but they embraced it. I think there has to be an underlying reason for that.

Also, I never said anything about norms. Besides, if I personally abided by local norms I wouldn't be a classical musician. I'd be in an alt rock or country band or something. :P

And last note, I don't think the answers to problems in music are to always be found in science. Sure, I know a few scientific things about music but where I don't know I bridge with the gap with my own creative thought processes/solutions. Never in the OP did you say anything about replies having to be thoroughly scientifically founded. You wanted to know our experiences, whether we were interested, and what we thought we could do with it. I gave you my thoughts, but I leave it as just that - they are thoughts. I'm not trying to be correct, unlike you, I'm just trying to formulate my own viewpoint and I'm rather happy with it for the time being - I don't feel compelled to convince you of anything. Loosen up a bit every once in a while.

In some other temperaments a close approximation of 3:2 and 5:4 don't really exist, and that's what I am getting at because these simple ratios I feel are important relationships in music. They happen to be where beats are least noticeable in just tuning and explains how we can tune intervals by ear - they seem to disappear. Some other cultural scales aren't based on such simple mathematical principles and as such tuning two notes against each other is more complex because they are physically not in tune - the correct number of beats must be found.

What's "physically not in tune"? What seems hard to tune to you due to your lack of familiarity with other systems is pretty much just a practice thing.

I think there has to be an underlying reason for that.

Like the fact that Europe conquered the hell out of a lot of the world? Forcing it's culture down everyone's throat with the threat of death if the locals didn't accept it? Ever heard of the jesuit missions in Brazil? Or how about the fact that they wiped out tons of native cultures? ETC. Acceptance of a cultural norm can be done through many means, it doesn't necessarily mean that the norm makes sense or is any better than what it's replacing.

And there's also things like the industrial era and the accordion pretty much wiped out local tuning systems from eastern Europe, as the instrument became popular and people had to just deal with the change. So yeah, "underlying reason," sure.

Never in the OP did you say anything about replies having to be thoroughly scientifically founded. You wanted to know our experiences, whether we were interested, and what we thought we could do with it. I gave you my thoughts, but I leave it as just that - they are thoughts. I'm not trying to be correct, unlike you, I'm just trying to formulate my own viewpoint and I'm rather happy with it for the time being - I don't feel compelled to convince you of anything. Loosen up a bit every once in a while.

My problem is that instead of saying "I have no idea, I don't have any experience with the thing" you tried to "explain yourself" in some way, but by doing so you end up making tons of factual errors. And well I guess some people aren't interested in being correct about things, eh? That's great but you know that just welcomes mockery if you'll post gibberish without a single speck of research or thought.

But your example here is NOT what I want others to follow, so no I'm not going to "loosen up." If people just outright post their fantasies rather than anything actually accurate they are not only going against the guidelines but poisoning the forum with gibberish and giving the message "hey it's OK to talk bullshit!" Something I'm not going to allow.

Yeah, the argument that "it's now used all over the world, so it must be good", doesn't quite cut it. Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Christmas, the seven day week, football (or "soccer" if you prefer :P), English... all are spread widely around the world, without being objectively "better" drinks, restaurants, holidays, sports, languages than others. But SSC already pointed this out.

Furthermore. I find the whole discussion about what is the "closest approximation" a bit silly. There is no such thing as a "closest" approximation - we can approximate the harmonic series as closely as we desire. The question is just what balance we choose between approximating specific intervals and other things we want our scales to have (the ability to modulate freely without changing the sound between different harmonic functions, octave identity, whatever). It is never a question of "closest approximation" - as I've said numerous times: If our only goal was to approximate the harmonic series, we'd -use- the harmonic series, and not some scales with a fixed number of notes per octave. But obviously, what we may require of our tuning system to provide for us can vary wildly.

And answering your question as to why people can deal with 12 tone ET and why just tuning pretty much died (in keyboard) - ET brought equal motion to music. Movements could be made to very unrelated keys without sacrificing just intervals by such a jarring degree.

Sure. But you may as well take this and point out the other side of the same phenomenon. Bluntly put: equal temperament sacrifices the very basis of traditional tonality, by making all keys you modulate to sound the same. Dominant functions in harmony are classically defined by adding characteristic dissonances such as the seventh which is then resolved into a consonant tonic. Likewise, in just intonation and many other tuning systems/temperaments, keys that are further away from your tonic will have a more dissonant sound, which increases the tension towards the tonic and thus the final resolution, creating a strong sense of tonal gravity. 12TET is therefore the first step away from strong tonal centers, towards an atonical music. This is neither good nor bad. It's great if you compose 12 tone music. It's not so great for other things. So clearly I don't mean to say composing with 12TET is a bad thing (most of my music is 12TET as well) - I'm just saying one should be aware of the context in which one uses it and what it implies.

What I personally find most problematical about this whole discussion is the strong focus on scales in the first place, with set numbers of notes per octave. Admittedly, the OP addressed harpsichord music and such, so this focus is understandable, but this doesn't apply to composing for other instruments, whose microtonal abilities usually vary quite a bit depending on the register you are playing in. For most instruments, I do not find composing with scales in fixed tunings which repeat at twice the frequency an octave higher to be very adequate - especially concerning certain instruments, such as brass, which naturally gets finer in frequency resolution the higher you go.

P.S.

In some other temperaments a close approximation of 3:2 and 5:4 don't really exist, and that's what I am getting at because these simple ratios I feel are important relationships in music. They happen to be where beats are least noticeable in just tuning and explains how we can tune intervals by ear - they seem to disappear. Some other cultural scales aren't based on such simple mathematical principles and as such tuning two notes against each other is more complex because they are physically not in tune - the correct number of beats must be found.

I don't quite get that. If you tune your fifths and thirds until you don't hear any beats anymore, you won't get any 12TET. If you want to tune to 12TET by ear you also have to find the correct number of beats - which is what piano tuners do, unless they're tuning solely with an electrical tuner (but most tuners would do it with a tuner -and- their ear listening to the beats). It's irrelevant if 12TET is still based on those ratios in the end (which it certainly is) for the argument that it's easier to tune, because it isn't. It may at times be less noticeable for fifths, but if you don't hear any beats when you play a major third on your piano, then your piano is clearly "out of tune".

Like the fact that Europe conquered the hell out of a lot of the world? Forcing it's culture down everyone's throat with the threat of death if the locals didn't accept it? Ever heard of the jesuit missions in Brazil? Or how about the fact that they wiped out tons of native cultures? ETC. Acceptance of a cultural norm can be done through many means, it doesn't necessarily mean that the norm makes sense or is any better than what it's replacing.

And there's also things like the industrial era and the accordion pretty much wiped out local tuning systems from eastern Europe, as the instrument became popular and people had to just deal with the change. So yeah, "underlying reason," sure.

Where is the evidence for any of these other tuning systems being any more balanced or representative of the mechanics of sound? Someone posts that Just Tuning is the harmonic series. Okay, if we accept that it is, it doesn't mean there are no other explanations for why we stopped using it beyond the "cultural" issue. Reducing all of this down to European tyranny and violence doesn't really explain why we're still using 12tET. After all, there is no record of Europeans going to war over music... maybe land and power, but not music itself. I fail to see the connection.

My problem is that instead of saying "I have no idea, I don't have any experience with the thing" you tried to "explain yourself" in some way, but by doing so you end up making tons of factual errors. And well I guess some people aren't interested in being correct about things, eh? That's great but you know that just welcomes mockery if you'll post gibberish without a single speck of research or thought.

But your example here is NOT what I want others to follow, so no I'm not going to "loosen up." If people just outright post their fantasies rather than anything actually accurate they are not only going against the guidelines but poisoning the forum with gibberish and giving the message "hey it's OK to talk bullshit!" Something I'm not going to allow.

If you're talking about not going against the guidelines by posting bullshit about a topic instead of comments that are precise and accurate, then where is the accuracy in saying that music is how it is now because Europeans imposed 12tET with brute force and the threat of death? To be fair, I can see the case for this in Russia during Stalin, but that had more to do with style than with tuning - an example of "Nationalism" in music or unification of styles under the context of a prescribed national "style" or something.

Where is the support for this specific imposition of "tuning" in history? Surely we'd hear about this at some point, that someone using some other tuning system was imprisoned, tortured, beheaded, and his head put on a stake for using a different tuning system. When did that (or something like it) happen, exactly? Let's hear the evidence to support this claim: "Like the fact that Europe conquered the hell out of a lot of the world? Forcing it's culture down everyone's throat with the threat of death if the locals didn't accept it? Ever heard of the jesuit missions in Brazil? Or how about the fact that they wiped out tons of native cultures? ETC."

So, I'm wondering where the evidence of this is... and if anyone's watched The Mission (and fallen in love with Ennio Morricone's film score for it) inspired by the events surrounding the San Miguel mission in Brazil, there is clearly a disconnect to highlight here. The short wikipedia article on this is here: http://en.wikipedia....as_Miss%C3%B5es

Until the Treaty of Madrid, the cultures were largely introduced (not necessarily "forced") to European culture. Many of the cultural aspects of European culture (to include music) were shared with the tribes and later adopted into the traditions of those cultures that survived following the signing of the Treaty, which included a provision that the natives would leave lands which at that point belonged to Portugal. The bloodbath didn't occur because the natives rejected the culture... it happened because the inhabitants of those lands wouldn't leave.

Clearly, this is being glossed over with statements like, "Oh, they didn't adopt the culture (its tuning systems, etc), so they were murdered," which is entirely false. Another point to make...

Jesuit missionaries founded the mission in the 18th century in part to catechise the Guaraní indian population and to protect the natives from the Portuguese slave traders known as the Bandeirantes.

The Jesuit missionaries never seemed intent on replacing the musical traditions of native cultures with their own. If anything, any music culture brought to these natives was in the spirit of sharing knowledge, not imposing culture. The purpose of the missions was to protect the natives from slave traders. I'm skeptical of any evidence of "culture" being "imposed" on others... historically, culture was shared in good faith while political currents often led to underminding those efforts for the sake of acquiring land and riches. This is common-place throughout many periods of history between the 15th and 20th centuries.

At the very least, we can say...

The degree to which the Jesuits controlled the indigenous population for which they had responsibility and the degree to which they allowed indigenous culture to function is a matter of debate, and the social organization of the reductions have been variously described as jungle utopias or as theocratic regimes of terror.

With this still up for debate, there's little certainty, truth, or factual evidence to support the claim that music tuning systems are what they are now because of European/Spanish tyranny "imposing" culture. You can only make the case as strong in support of the theocratic regime side of the debate as anyone here can make the case for the "jungle utopia" as support. Where's your evidence?

I'm skeptical of any evidence of "culture" being "imposed" on others... historically, culture was shared in good faith while political currents often led to underminding those efforts for the sake of acquiring land and riches.

I had typed a long post to address AA's bullshit on history, but it made me so absolutely and incredibly angry I'll just boil it down to this:

WE ALL SPEAK EUROPEAN LANGUAGES IN THE AMERICAS.

WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS?

And let's speak of this topic no more.

---

Also, AA, please do direct your "ask for evidence" crap at James, since he was the first one doing the claims. I'd also LOVE to know what his evidence is, so let's not shift the burden of proof.

I had typed a long post to address AA's bullshit on history, but it made me so absolutely and incredibly angry I'll just boil it down to this:

WE ALL SPEAK EUROPEAN LANGUAGES IN THE AMERICAS.

WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS?

And let's speak of this topic no more.

Why do I think we all speak English in the Americas? Because the majority of our ancestors (not all, mind you) migrated from Europe where English was the predominant language of those people who migrated here. The whole country began as a new world for these European settlers who spoke, GASP, English.

How does this answer for the historical proof of your claim? It's just another statement that glosses over hundreds of years of history. It has nothing to do with why Western Classical music uses 12tET instead of some other tuning system, either. Furthermore, to draw a comparison between language (a form of communication) and music (a form of art) gets us nowhere. What are you trying to prove?

Also, AA, please do direct your "ask for evidence" crap at James, since he was the first one doing the claims. I'd also LOVE to know what his evidence is, so let's not shift the burden of proof.

Who is shifting the burden of proof? It seems like every time someone asks for evidence that the development of 12tET was largely the result of something other than aesthetic preference for 12 tones to closely, equally approximate the harmonic series, no such evidence is given in support of such contrary claims. Why is it that when we ask for such answers, we get such glossed-over information touted as "factual" followed by insults? James may not have support or evidence either, but it doesn't make your claims any more correct than his.

Why do I think we all speak English in the Americas? Because the majority of our ancestors (not all, mind you) migrated from Europe where English was the predominant language. The whole country began as a new world for European settlers who spoke, GASP, English.

Yeah because they speak English in Peru for precisely those reasons.

---

Oh yeah, I'm waiting for you to focus the same skepticism on James' claims.

Yeah because they speak English in Peru for precisely those reasons.

I'm not interested in taking on investigation after investigation about irrelevant information just to put the cultural issue to rest. Yes, you can say culture has everything to do with it, but it says nothing about -why- it happened. THAT important question is why we debate.

Oh yeah, I'm waiting for you to focus the same skepticism on James' claims.

Just intonation doesn't work for every pitch in Just tuning. If we take a C and G (interval of a fifth) and match that to, say, an E and B, the intervals don't sound the same in Just tuning. In 12tET, the intervals are consistent among all tones while closely approximating the same harmonic series that naturally occurs in Just intonation. This makes perfect sense to me, and James pretty much covered it. Beyond that, the underlying reason for why we still use 12tET in Western music is aesthetic. If it weren't, we wouldn't use it. Many people that don't use it are not aesthetically drawn to using it or are more aesthetically drawn to another tuning system (growing up with a different tuning system will influence one's aesthetic, for example).

James didn't really say anything to the contrary. So, what kind of "skepticism" are you looking for? He's not making wild claims about history as factual support to oppose anyone's opinion. He's responding to the OP while you're trying to fact-check him with glossed-over historical proofs that aren't "factual" and largely debatable in their own right. What did you expect to gain from doing this anyway?

I'm not interested in taking on investigation after investigation about irrelevant information just to put the cultural issue to rest. Yes, you can say culture has everything to do with it, but it says nothing about -why- it happened. THAT important question is why we debate.

Uh. The point I was making was, there are many reasons why a tuning system can be taken over any other and that it sometimes has absolutely nothing to do with any aesthetic preference (or whatever james was talking about with "underlying reason.") The slaughter and destruction of the Maya, Inca, Aztec civilizations as well as many smaller tribes by the Spanish was used as an example of culture being forced into land and people of that land regardless of what their tastes or opinions were. In other words, the european tuning systems (and instruments) is used in the areas that used to be Inca not because the Inca decided willingly to try the European system and found it better, but because they were destroyed and whatever was left of their people were taken into a foreign culture they were forced to adapt to. This is seen throughout tons of regions and perfectly illustrates my example, it's also entirely verifiable if you happen to stumble on a history book once in your life.

And no, the destruction of those empires are not "debatable." The genocide and bloodbath is not "debatable." What you're saying is similar to me declaring that whether or not the holocaust happened is "debatable." That these cultures were eradicated and in their place the europeans took hold, is not "debatable." It's what we have in actuality, it's why almost nobody speaks the native languages or knows of their traditions, music, instruments and so on. Please, I beg you, think before you say things like this because it makes me extremely uncomfortable to see such ignorance, to say the least.

Just intonation doesn't work for every pitch in Just tuning. If we take a C and G (interval of a fifth) and match that to, say, an E and B, the intervals don't sound the same in Just tuning. In 12tET, the intervals are consistent among all tones while closely approximating the same harmonic series that naturally occurs in Just intonation. This makes perfect sense to me, and James pretty much covered it. Beyond that, the underlying reason for why we still use 12tET in Western music is aesthetic. If it weren't, we wouldn't use it. Many people that don't use it are not aesthetically drawn to using it. James didn't really say anything to the contrary.

The reason we still use 12tet in western music is tradition for most part, and also that most people simply don't know there are other things than this. Justifying a trend that in part is still in vigor due to the ignorance of those who partake on it is intellectually dishonest. People are born into a culture that uses a system, so they use it. I already mentioned the other cultures that use different systems and how they probably thought it was great too, after all there's a whole movement in many countries (such as Korea and Chile) that attempt to keep their original instruments, tunings and so forth to try to prevent westernization and ignorance from wiping them out and part of the reason too is probably because they don't think it's garbage.

So, what kind of "skepticism" are you looking for? He's not making wild claims about history as factual support to oppose anyone's opinion. He's responding to the OP while you're trying to fact-check him with glossed-over historical proofs that aren't "factual" and largely debatable in their own right. What did you expect to gain from doing this anyway?

Errr, he's making QUITE wild claims about history.

Let me remind you of ONE of the things that struck me as not only completely ignorant (to the point of being insulting) but also rather naive:

Those cultures didn't have to accept this European influence, but they embraced it. I think there has to be an underlying reason for that."

As I pointed out earlier, this was in many cases NOT the case. European influence forced by the sword isn't to be "embraced," like he states, but to be accepted since there's no other choice. Again, I refer to the destruction of the civilizations I mentioned above, along with the substitution of their culture, religion, and even language. But also refer to French, Portuguese and English colonies and their effects on overriding (or outright destroying) the native culture, customs and language.

Read a book, please.

Please.

Hey guys, I'm a newbie, but this topic intrigued me

I just want to say, first off, that I agree mostly with what SSC has been saying. While James H and AntiA are entitled to their opinions, as the old saying goes, they are not entitled to their own facts. It's fairly glib to say something like...

After all, there is no record of Europeans going to war over music... maybe land and power, but not music itself. I fail to see the connection.

...do you see how that might be taken as ignorant, or glib?

Conquest and imperialism are pretty endemic to human history, so it's not really a slight against European empires (or any other empires and dynasties which have existed in the history of mankind), it's just an iteration of the truth. European emigration to the Americas wasn't peaceful, war was had, we know all know this. I really hope your schools did a better job at instilling critical thinking skills and facts than you're showcasing on this thread, JamesH and AntiA.

Uh. The point I was making was, there are many reasons why a tuning system can be taken over any other and that it sometimes has absolutely nothing to do with any aesthetic preference (or whatever james was talking about with "underlying reason.") The slaughter and destruction of the Maya, Inca, Aztec civilizations as well as many smaller tribes by the Spanish was used as an example of culture being forced into land and people of that land regardless of what their tastes or opinions were. In other words, the european tuning systems (and instruments) is used in the areas that used to be Inca not because the Inca decided willingly to try the European system and found it better, but because they were destroyed and whatever was left of their people were taken into a foreign culture they were forced to adapt to. This is seen throughout tons of regions and perfectly illustrates my example, it's also entirely verifiable if you happen to stumble on a history book once in your life.

And no, the destruction of those empires are not "debatable." The genocide and bloodbath is not "debatable." What you're saying is similar to me declaring that whether or not the holocaust happened is "debatable." That these cultures were eradicated and in their place the europeans took hold, is not "debatable." It's what we have in actuality, it's why almost nobody speaks the native languages or knows of their traditions, music, instruments and so on. Please, I beg you, think before you say things like this because it makes me extremely uncomfortable to see such ignorance, to say the least.

You're still missing the question of WHY these things happen. You're so biased by how you process this information that you can't see past your own interpretation of the facts.

Wars aren't fought over music, tuning, or what-have-you. They're fought over possessions like land, wealth, etc. Step BACK from your books and THINK about why these things happen before you make outright ridiculous connections between unrelated events. For example, the only reason we know that another tuning system or music tradition existed in these lands that were taken over is because some form of that culture survived somewhere, whether in adapting to a more powerful culture or by migrating away from disputed lands. Otherwise, we assume something we cannot ascertain because of the conditions that existed. That's NO BASIS for "fact-checking" James.

The reason we still use 12tet in western music is tradition for most part, and also that most people simply don't know there are other things than this.

Bullshit. If people didn't like it, they'd use something else. They have that option. You're assuming ignorance of tuning systems as a reason for why different ones aren't largely used... there are people HERE that know about these tuning systems and STILL don't use them for whatever reason. We're not the only ones, but it's definitely NOT because we don't know about them. Hell, we have them shoved down our throat here in this thread and we're still not interested.

Justifying a trend that in part is still in vigor due to the ignorance of those who partake on it is intellectually dishonest. People are born into a culture that uses a system, so they use it. I already mentioned the other cultures that use different systems and how they probably thought it was great too, after all there's a whole movement in many countries (such as Korea and Chile) that attempt to keep their original instruments, tunings and so forth to try to prevent westernization and ignorance from wiping them out and part of the reason too is probably because they don't think it's garbage.

No one said these other tuning systems are garbage. James (and earlier me) both went that extra mile to say just that.

Errr, he's making QUITE wild claims about history.

Let me remind you of ONE of the things that struck me as not only completely ignorant (to the point of being insulting) but also rather naive:

"Those cultures didn't have to accept this European influence, but they embraced it. I think there has to be an underlying reason for that."

Ugh. SERIOUSLY, you make no sense. Unless you have specific evidence that someone's culturally derived music led to some extreme consequence for them (prison, execution, etc), then while those cultures had to adapt to European culture and life, they had the CHOICE to continue creating music from their tradition. If it largely held true that this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have all the plethora of styles and traditions we have today. Get a grip!

As I pointed out earlier, this was in many cases NOT the case. European influence forced by the sword isn't to be "embraced," like he states, but to be accepted since there's no other choice. Again, I refer to the destruction of the civilizations I mentioned above, along with the substitution of their culture, religion, and even language. But also refer to French, Portuguese and English colonies and their effects on overriding (or outright destroying) the native culture, customs and language.

Point out EUROPEAN MUSIC being forced BY THE SWORD! EVIDENCE! PLEASE!

Read a book, please.

Please.

O dear... I just don't know how to respond. You're clearly well-read, but I'm stumped as to how you process information in this way. Do you actually form "factual" understanding of what you read at all, or are you just reading to regurgitate every ounce of each author's bias? That a bloodbath happened in San Miguel is "factual." Why it happened is debatable. Understand the difference, because you're saying that European music was being imposed on other cultures by force... I'd tell you to read a book or two yourself, but at this point, I don't think it will help.

Understand the difference, because you're saying that European music was being imposed on other cultures by force... I'd tell you to read a book or two yourself, but at this point, I don't think it will help.

He isn't saying that though, if I understand this correctly, SSC can feel free to elucidate his own points.

You see AntiA, when, say, a belligerent tribe decides to attack and take over another tribe, the whole purpose of the conquest is to eradicate most, if not all, of the defending tribe. If you're in the defending tribe and certain aspects of your culture are destroyed, including art and music, that information probably isn't collected, probably not written down, and you won't be able to pass down that information...because you'd be dead. I know that's abstracting the situation from real events a bit, but it isn't THAT FAR OFF from what generally happens throughout history.

It really is just incredibly naive of you to say, "Well there was never any war over music, so how do you know," that's obviously not what SSC or I am talking about. I'm not on the up and up when it comes to cultural hegemony and all whatnot, but we KNOW that these things happen when conquest occurs. They're more like externalities than anything, collateral damage. The main mission was to take Nation-State X's mineral deposits and their crops, but usually in the process a lot of, umm, death occurs, and destruction of property. This isn't like...radical Marxist/Hegelian historical methodology or anything, it's just...it's loving there. I LOLed when you said this...

Do you actually form "factual" understanding of what you read at all, or are you just reading to regurgitate every ounce of each author's bias?

He isn't saying that though, if I understand this correctly, SSC can feel free to elucidate his own points.

You see AntiA, when, say, a belligerent tribe decides to attack and take over another tribe, the whole purpose of the conquest is to eradicate most, if not all, of the defending tribe. If you're in the defending tribe and certain aspects of your culture are destroyed, including art and music, that information probably isn't collected, probably not written down, and you won't be able to pass down that information...because you'd be dead. I know that's abstracting the situation from real events a bit, but it isn't THAT FAR OFF from what generally happens throughout history.

It really is just incredibly naive of you to say, "Well there was never any war over music, so how do you know," that's obviously not what SSC or I am talking about. I'm not on the up and up when it comes to cultural hegemony and all whatnot, but we KNOW that these things happen when conquest occurs. They're more like externalities than anything, collateral damage. The main mission was to take Nation-State X's mineral deposits and their crops, but usually in the process a lot of, umm, death occurs, and destruction of property. This isn't like...radical Marxist/Hegelian historical methodology or anything, it's just...it's loving there. I LOLed when you said this...

Thanks for your input. Just to be clear, the issue at hand is supporting your claims with facts, not debatable issues being touted as factual. SSC is doing an end-run around aesthetics using culture and social acquisition to gloss over the issue even more - forgetting that if there was an alternative aesthetic, people were free to pursue it - which they did well before the 20th Century. It obviously didn't "catch on" because we still use 12tET in Western Music. The reasons for this are also debatable, but that's -not- what the OP suggests that we discuss or debate.

Thanks for your input. Just to be clear, the issue at hand is supporting your claims with facts, not debatable issues being touted as factual. SSC is doing an end-run around aesthetics using culture and social acquisition to gloss over the issue even more - forgetting that if there was an alternative aesthetic, people were free to pursue it - which they did well before the 20th Century. It obviously didn't "catch on" because we still use 12tET. The reasons for this are also debatable.

Let me get this straight...AntiA..

Are you implying that imperialism and conquest function in the same way as a free market of goods, services and ideas?

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament#History

Wars aren't fought over music, tuning, or what-have-you.

Why colonization happened has nothing to do with my point. I also never, ever, claimed that wars were fought over music or tuning. What I DID imply is that if your culture is destroyed, you have very little incentive to try to keep it alive and be seen as an enemy of the culture that won that war (and took over the territory.) Nevermind of course cases where it was outright forbidden for natives to practice their rituals (including music) by either slavers, religious evangelists (not much different in most cases) and what have you. This is all documented.

Bullshit. If people didn't like it, they'd use something else. They have that option. You're assuming ignorance of tuning systems as a reason for why different ones aren't largely used... there are people HERE that know about these tuning systems and STILL don't use them for whatever reason. We're not the only ones, but it's definitely NOT because we don't know about them. Hell, we have them shoved down our throat here in this thread and we're still not interested.

They'd use something else, eh? They have that option, eh? Yes, as if it wasn't hard enough to even get performance of things like these, saying people can just up and switch is ludicrous. There's a HUGE cultural pressure not to do this and we can see it being demonstrated in James' arguments of why 12-tet is superior to him. Cultural bias manifests itself this way, it's easy to see.

But beyond cultural bias and pressure, there's also the fact that everyone other than composers or people who specifically research other musical cultures are oblivious to these options. Or that you can even do that kind of stuff. They don't think about it (and many composers don't either) because it's comfortable to use a system that everyone uses. This same comment goes to ANY culture that has a specific system and that the members of such culture all use the system rather than alternatives, it's simple cultural mechanisms at work.

No one said these other tuning systems are garbage. James (and earlier me) both went that extra mile to say just that.

And yet both of you tried to give "objective" reasons to support your arguments of why you think 12-tet is superior and hence why you use the "superior" tuning. Right.

Ugh. SERIOUSLY, you make no sense. Unless you have specific evidence that someone's culturally derived music led to some extreme consequence for them (prison, execution, etc), then while those cultures had to adapt to European culture and life, they had the CHOICE to continue creating music from their tradition. If it largely held true that this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have all the plethora of styles and traditions we have today. Get a grip!

Again with the strawman.

AA, do you have any IDEA of how much was lost? How many tribes, cultures, etc were squashed and we only have a slight record because of references to others that did survive somewhat (if only sometimes again in records of yet other tribes and cultures, and so on.)

To say that people who survived the destruction of their homes and culture and then were taken as slaves, captives, etc etc had a "choice" to continue to practice their things is, again, demonstrating a level of ignorance that I simply rather pretend I didn't read. So I'll do just that.

Point out EUROPEAN MUSIC being forced BY THE SWORD! EVIDENCE! PLEASE!

Oh so the Europeans politely asked everyone they invaded and didn't kill to consider taking their culture?

And at this point, I REALLY do have to ask, do you read a word that I'm saying? Did you look this up? AT ALL?

O dear... I just don't know how to respond. You're clearly well-read, but I'm stumped as to how you process information in this way. Do you actually form "factual" understanding of what you read at all, or are you just reading to regurgitate every ounce of each author's bias? That a bloodbath happened in San Miguel is "factual." Why it happened is debatable. Understand the difference, because you're saying that European music was being imposed on other cultures by force... I'd tell you to read a book or two yourself, but at this point, I don't think it will help.

You have done absolutely nothing to prove the contrary, AA. Do you seriously mean to tell me that European culture was not adopted, ever, because they simply smashed whoever opposed the colonization attempts? Seriously?

When you replace (after a war) the rule, religion and so on, you inevitable also replace culture and hence music. You seriously mean to tell me this didn't happen?

It's like you're telling me I don't speak portuguese because the portuguese took over and implanted their language, etc on the land I was born in (which before the portuguese had different people, culture and language), since you're arguing against the simple fact that culture (and thus also MUSIC) WAS imposed by force. How else do you do it? How else do you IMPOSE culture? Unless it's a very slow gradual change of mixing cultures due to trade and other factors not specifically related to war (which can be seen in other examples, such as the history of Asian languages and traditions which is a mix of these), it's often literally by the sword.

And after all this I really don't have much patience left, so please just stop. If you really won't research this, then avoid the topic.

By the way, AntiA, what's you're saying is the equivalent of saying...

"Well if the African slaves had such great religions before they were captured, why did so many of the African-American slaves convert to Christianity, and why is a country like Haiti practically 99% Catholic?? If Christianity weren't better they wouldn't have converted!!!"

By the way, AntiA, what's you're saying is the equivalent of saying...

"Well if the African slaves had such great religions before they were captured, why did so many of the African-American slaves convert to Christianity, and why is a country like Haiti practically 99% Catholic?? If Christianity weren't better they wouldn't have converted!!!"

Or similarly why is it that most people in the US speak English? If they seriously didn't like English they could just switch and learn whatever other language! They must speak it then because they LIKE it better than other languages!

I'm thoroughly confused as to what the fight is all about here.

12-tet emigrated from European culture to the Americas. Once the Americas used said system, it migrated to practically the whole world and almost every "industrialized" culture now uses it. "Classical" and "Pop" music alike uses it with few exceptions.

So, the point some have made is that they use 12tET instead of other tuning systems because it more closely approximates the harmonic series than other Equal Temperament systems. But when someone states this as their reason, they are decisively attacked for believing such a "culturally imposed" idea. Essentially, we're victims of culture and not free-minded enthusiasts of music. We're ignorant... these "enlightened" individuals are prophetic.

And that's how potentially intelligent discussions quickly become laughable troll-motors.

So, the point some have made is that they use 12tET instead of other tuning systems because it more closely approximates the harmonic series than other Equal Temperament systems. But when someone states this as their reason, they are decisively attacked for believing such a "culturally imposed" idea. Essentially, we're victims of culture and not free-minded enthusiasts of music. We're ignorant... these "enlightened" individuals are prophetic.

And that's how potentially intelligent discussions quickly become laughable troll-motors.

It's like this, AA. Pay attention:

If I tell you:

I don't like cars because the color blue looks stupid on airplanes.

Do you think my dislike of cars is then justified given the reason I stated? Of course I'm exaggerating a little bit, but this is what all these arguments for 12-tet sound like. The reasons for disliking other systems (or liking 12-tet more) are all at best rather questionable and at worst totally bogus. Hence why people constantly step in.

But hey, whatever right?