tuning : Messages : 96283-96289 of 97351 Yahoo! My Yahoo!

Mail
#96283From: "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...>
Date: Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:40 pm
Subject: Review of "The Mathematics of Music" By John O'Sullivan
cityoftheasleep
Offline
Send Email
Hi all. John gave me a copy of his book and asked me to post a rev
iew of it to
the Tuning List, so I'm obliging him. I don't expect the content of my review
will be of much interest to most here, as you're all already familiar with his
work and have your own opinions. You know me as well, and I'm sure most of you
could guess at what I think of his book. This review is thus mostly for John's
benefit, and the benefit of the lurkers.
To start off, I have to say John deserves a lot of credit for his modesty.
Throughout the book he makes plain that his work is based on educated guesses
and his own psychoacoustic preferences, and he acknowledges he is probably not
the first to look into these ideas and that some or most of his conclusions may
turn out to be mistaken. This modesty and honesty is rare among those filled
with the eager joy of breaking the confines of the 12-TET paradigm.
That said, the title of the book is quite the misnomer, and very much at odds
with John's attitude throughout the book. If he'd called it "My Search for a
Better 12-Tone Scale" or something like that, I would approve whole-heartedly,
as that's *really* what this book is. However, calling it "The Mathematics of
Music" makes it sound much more definitive and authoritative than it really is,
especially considering John is not a mathematician and is apparently ignorant of
all the mathematical models and theories of music and consonance--and most
importantly, temperament--that have been proposed throughout history (and
especially on the Yahoo Tuning List).
Reading this book, it is clear that John did hardly any research into the
history of tuning and temperament, aside from reading Doty's "The Just
Intonation Primer". That lack of research is a massive detriment to his
writing. For instance, in his search for a musical formula to quantify the
consonance of a ratio, he settles on 1/x+1/y (i.e. 1/numerator+1/denominator)
and says he considered but did not actually try 1/xy. However, if he had done
any research, he would have found that the product xy is known as "Tenney
Height" and is used as a standard measure of dissonance for ratios below a
certain complexity threshold, so 1/xy would have given him a better (although
still not problem-free) model. If he had done a little more research, he would
have discovered the work of Paul Erlich and the theory of harmonic entropy,
which would allow him to quantify the discordance of *any* dyad, even if it is
irrational, and this model works considerably better than his 1/x+1/y
formulation.
More importantly, if he had done his music history homework, he would have
discovered not just that he is not the first person to undertake the task of
temperament, but that he is only one of many people throughout history to seek
the very same goal of a maximally-consonant 12-tone octave-repeating scale. He
would have discovered the different varieties of Meantone tunings, and more
importantly, the various "well-temperaments" that circulated (no pun intended)
prior to the adoption of 12-TET. He would greatly have benefited from study at
least the works of Andreas Werckmeister, and a comparison between his Blue
Temperament and the "best" well-temperaments that have been historically
documented would have lent much greater strength to his conclusions about his
temperament's superiority.
Lack of research aside, John also makes the same fallacious assumption of the
vast majority of tuning theorists: the assumption that a greater quality of
consonance means an objectively better scale. Let me state this as plainly as
possible: there is no such thing as a universally "best" scale. A scale is only
good or bad relative to the wishes of a composer, and it _should_not_be_assumed_
that all composers would be happier with an unequally-tempered scale where a
handful of keys approximate simple Just harmonies while a few keys are
unacceptable. To assume this ignores all the reasons that 12-TET came to be
adopted in the first place: namely, that composers began to desire that all 12
keys should work equivalently so that they could modulate freely. 12-TET
conquered the musical world due to the demands of composers, not because it is
the "best sounding" tuning but because of the sort of compositions its structure
enables. Neither of John's tunings would likely be acceptable to a composer who
shares compositional goals with the likes of Schonberg, Stravinsky, or perhaps
even Beethoven. And though John mentions alternative EDOs like 19, 22, and 31
off-hand at one point, he does not mention the fact that any of these tunings do
a much better job of approximating the ratios that he likes than does 12-TET,
but without sacrificing key equivalence. Any of those EDOs would be a viable
alternative to his Blue Temperament in terms of the quality of consonance they
offer, and I suspect John did not delve further into them only because they
would have weakened his case for his own temperament (or else out of a fear of
more than 12 notes).
To continue this point, I should note that neither of John's tunings fit my own
compositional desires, either. Like many musicians with an interest in
microtonality, I sought escape from 12-TET not because I thought it sounded "out
of tune" and wanted something that sounded "better", but because I sought
alternative tonal frameworks, new scales, new harmonies--ways of making music
that is totally impossible in 12-TET and capable of expressing emotions and
concepts that 12-TET only hints at. I have found far and away the most success
in this endeavor using tunings that deviate significantly from ideals of
consonance and/or rely heavily on nontraditional consonances. I am admittedly
somewhat of a maverick in this regard, but nevertheless I am a great example of
a composer whose "best" tuning would be nowhere near either of John's tunings.
All of these issues notwithstanding, I do have to admit that John succeeded in
meeting his own goals for the tuning. As far as 12-note temperaments that seek
to approximate as many simple-ratio consonances as possible go, John's is
definitely up there. It is a slight improvement on 1/4-comma Meantone, and
though not as versatile as, say, Werckmeister III in terms of modulational
flexibility, in its "good" keys it sounds a bit better. So despite his lack of
research and rather informal methodology, he did in fact arrive at a "good"
scale for his stated purposes. Whether other composers will find his scale
preferable to any of the number of Meantones and well-temperaments that once
flourished in the Western musical community, I cannot say, but John's Blue
Temperament is definitely worthy competition.
In conclusion, I can't say it's a "bad" book; it is well-written, honest,
succinct, and clear. But I cannot recommend it, because it does not include any
of the thoroughly-researched and tested (and much more general and elegant)
mathematical-musical theories of the modern age (harmonic entropy, the regular
temperament paradigm, Tenney-Optimal tuning optimization, etc.); nor does it
include any of the vast and relevant history of temperament. Also, the failure
to include any competitive tunings, such as various well-temperaments,
alternative EDOs, TOP temperaments such as TOP Meantone or TOP Pajara (both of
these latter can produce 12-note scales, too) makes for a very shallow book, and
their absence is very conspicuous to those who know better. This book is not an
authoritative source on the relationship between music and mathematics, it is
only a documentation of one man's individual quest for a certain type of
harmony. It is my sincere hope that John will take my advice and immerse
himself in some research so that he can come to understand both the historical
evolution of temperament and the modern advances in temperament-math that have
arisen from the Yahoo Tuning List in the last few decades, and that he actually
explores some of the alternatives to his Blue Temperament and comes to
understand their relative strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps then he might be
prepared to write a book *worthy* of the title "The Mathematics of Music".
-Igs

Reply
#96285From: "john777music" <jfos777@...>
Date: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: Review of "The Mathematics of Music" By John O'Sullivan
john777music
Offline
Send Email
Thanks Igs,
you promised me a fair and unbiased review of my book and that's exactly what
you gave and I am very happy with it. I am also very grateful that you took the
time to read and review my book.
One point: you said "he considered but did not actually try 1/xy".
On the top of page 18 I say "In the end, just to be sure, I had a look at the
1/xy formula and found one clear inconsistency and so ruled it out".
Thanks again and I know I have a lot more to learn.
John.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:

>
> Hi all. John gave me a copy of his book and asked me to post a review of it
to the Tuning List, so I'm obliging him. I don't expect the content of my
review will be of much interest to most here, as you're all already familiar
with his work and have your own opinions. You know me as well, and I'm sure
most of you could guess at what I think of his book. This review is thus mostly
for John's benefit, and the benefit of the lurkers.
>
> To start off, I have to say John deserves a lot of credit for his modesty.
Throughout the book he makes plain that his work is based on educated guesses
and his own psychoacoustic preferences, and he acknowledges he is probably not
the first to look into these ideas and that some or most of his conclusions may
turn out to be mistaken. This modesty and honesty is rare among those filled
with the eager joy of breaking the confines of the 12-TET paradigm.
>
> That said, the title of the book is quite the misnomer, and very much at odds
with John's attitude throughout the book. If he'd called it "My Search for a
Better 12-Tone Scale" or something like that, I would approve whole-heartedly,
as that's *really* what this book is. However, calling it "The Mathematics of
Music" makes it sound much more definitive and authoritative than it really is,
especially considering John is not a mathematician and is apparently ignorant of
all the mathematical models and theories of music and consonance--and most
importantly, temperament--that have been proposed throughout history (and
especially on the Yahoo Tuning List).
>
> Reading this book, it is clear that John did hardly any research into the
history of tuning and temperament, aside from reading Doty's "The Just
Intonation Primer". That lack of research is a massive detriment to his
writing. For instance, in his search for a musical formula to quantify the
consonance of a ratio, he settles on 1/x+1/y (i.e. 1/numerator+1/denominator)
and says he considered but did not actually try 1/xy. However, if he had done
any research, he would have found that the product xy is known as "Tenney
Height" and is used as a standard measure of dissonance for ratios below a
certain complexity threshold, so 1/xy would have given him a better (although
still not problem-free) model. If he had done a little more research, he would
have discovered the work of Paul Erlich and the theory of harmonic entropy,
which would allow him to quantify the discordance of *any* dyad, even if it is
irrational, and this model works considerably better than his 1/x+1/y
formulation.
>
> More importantly, if he had done his music history homework, he would have
discovered not just that he is not the first person to undertake the task of
temperament, but that he is only one of many people throughout history to seek
the very same goal of a maximally-consonant 12-tone octave-repeating scale. He
would have discovered the different varieties of Meantone tunings, and more
importantly, the various "well-temperaments" that circulated (no pun intended)
prior to the adoption of 12-TET. He would greatly have benefited from study at
least the works of Andreas Werckmeister, and a comparison between his Blue
Temperament and the "best" well-temperaments that have been historically
documented would have lent much greater strength to his conclusions about his
temperament's superiority.
>
> Lack of research aside, John also makes the same fallacious assumption of the
vast majority of tuning theorists: the assumption that a greater quality of
consonance means an objectively better scale. Let me state this as plainly as
possible: there is no such thing as a universally "best" scale. A scale is only
good or bad relative to the wishes of a composer, and it _should_not_be_assumed_
that all composers would be happier with an unequally-tempered scale where a
handful of keys approximate simple Just harmonies while a few keys are
unacceptable. To assume this ignores all the reasons that 12-TET came to be
adopted in the first place: namely, that composers began to desire that all 12
keys should work equivalently so that they could modulate freely. 12-TET
conquered the musical world due to the demands of composers, not because it is
the "best sounding" tuning but because of the sort of compositions its structure
enables. Neither of John's tunings would likely be acceptable to a composer who
shares compositional goals with the likes of Schonberg, Stravinsky, or perhaps
even Beethoven. And though John mentions alternative EDOs like 19, 22, and 31
off-hand at one point, he does not mention the fact that any of these tunings do
a much better job of approximating the ratios that he likes than does 12-TET,
but without sacrificing key equivalence. Any of those EDOs would be a viable
alternative to his Blue Temperament in terms of the quality of consonance they
offer, and I suspect John did not delve further into them only because they
would have weakened his case for his own temperament (or else out of a fear of
more than 12 notes).
>
> To continue this point, I should note that neither of John's tunings fit my
own compositional desires, either. Like many musicians with an interest in
microtonality, I sought escape from 12-TET not because I thought it sounded "out
of tune" and wanted something that sounded "better", but because I sought
alternative tonal frameworks, new scales, new harmonies--ways of making music
that is totally impossible in 12-TET and capable of expressing emotions and
concepts that 12-TET only hints at. I have found far and away the most success
in this endeavor using tunings that deviate significantly from ideals of
consonance and/or rely heavily on nontraditional consonances. I am admittedly
somewhat of a maverick in this regard, but nevertheless I am a great example of
a composer whose "best" tuning would be nowhere near either of John's tunings.
>
> All of these issues notwithstanding, I do have to admit that John succeeded in
meeting his own goals for the tuning. As far as 12-note temperaments that seek
to approximate as many simple-ratio consonances as possible go, John's is
definitely up there. It is a slight improvement on 1/4-comma Meantone, and
though not as versatile as, say, Werckmeister III in terms of modulational
flexibility, in its "good" keys it sounds a bit better. So despite his lack of
research and rather informal methodology, he did in fact arrive at a "good"
scale for his stated purposes. Whether other composers will find his scale
preferable to any of the number of Meantones and well-temperaments that once
flourished in the Western musical community, I cannot say, but John's Blue
Temperament is definitely worthy competition.
>
> In conclusion, I can't say it's a "bad" book; it is well-written, honest,
succinct, and clear. But I cannot recommend it, because it does not include any
of the thoroughly-researched and tested (and much more general and elegant)
mathematical-musical theories of the modern age (harmonic entropy, the regular
temperament paradigm, Tenney-Optimal tuning optimization, etc.); nor does it
include any of the vast and relevant history of temperament. Also, the failure
to include any competitive tunings, such as various well-temperaments,
alternative EDOs, TOP temperaments such as TOP Meantone or TOP Pajara (both of
these latter can produce 12-note scales, too) makes for a very shallow book, and
their absence is very conspicuous to those who know better. This book is not an
authoritative source on the relationship between music and mathematics, it is
only a documentation of one man's individual quest for a certain type of
harmony. It is my sincere hope that John will take my advice and immerse
himself in some research so that he can come to understand both the historical
evolution of temperament and the modern advances in temperament-math that have
arisen from the Yahoo Tuning List in the last few decades, and that he actually
explores some of the alternatives to his Blue Temperament and comes to
understand their relative strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps then he might be
prepared to write a book *worthy* of the title "The Mathematics of Music".
>
> -Igs
>

Reply
#96287From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Date: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:50 pm
Subject: Re: Review of "The Mathematics of Music" By John O'Sullivan
djtrancendance
Offline
Send Email
Igs>"However, if he had done any research, he
would have found that the product xy is known as
"Tenney Height" and is used as a standard measure
of dissonance for ratios below a certain
complexity threshold, so 1/xy would have given him
a better (although still not problem-free) model."
Tenney height is a model I am certainly NOT a
big fan of. Numerator times denominator,
wow...any fifth grader could have easily come
across it.
What exactly proves Tenney Height as so
superior in the first place? For example, it
fails miserably for dyads with a complexity over
about 70...at best, it's a good "very low limit
dyad-only" model.
Tenney Height throws a whole lot of 11-limit and
a fair deal of 9-limit straight out the window,
and leaves so much of what makes Middle Eastern
and Eastern music work ignored. It basically
points of right back at Western theory for the
most part.

>"He would greatly have benefited from study at

least the works of Andreas Werckmeister, and a
comparison between his Blue Temperament and the
"best" well-temperaments"
IMVHO, if you're serious about that point,
this warrants a dyad-by-dyad analysis of the best
well temperaments vs. John's temperaments (since
John's work is based on dyadic analysis).
Actually (on the side), since my "Dimension" scale
is really a cross between Mohajira and Meantone, I
would not mind a bit if people challenged by scale
against those two.

>"the assumption that a greater quality of

consonance means an objectively better scale"
Well, considering just about every person I've
asked outside the list says microtonal music
sounds too dissonance...I'll at least say
increasing consonance vis-a-vis most existing
microtonal scales would be an improvement in most
people's ears. Of course, that's not 100% across
the board...but...close enough.

>"he does not mention the fact that any of these

tunings do a much better job of approximating the
ratios that he likes than does 12-TET, but without
sacrificing key equivalence."
But, Igs, key equivalence is no more a
universal truth than the idea more consonance is
always better. If I'm reading this correctly, you
are saying anything that fails to make the EDO
"perfect transposition" standard is ignorant
garbage...and if that's not blatant subjective
opinion I don't know what is.
 >"I have found far and away the most success in
this endeavor using tunings that deviate
significantly from ideals of consonance and/or
rely heavily on nontraditional consonances. I am
admittedly somewhat of a maverick in this regard,
but nevertheless I am a great example of a
composer whose "best" tuning would be nowhere near
either of John's tunings."
But who said there was an effort made to write
something that would work for 100% everyone? I
don't see it...but I do hear you being cocky. A
more appropriate way to say it "not to say it
wouldn't work for other people but...it's simply
not my cup of tea...to me half the fun is
non-traditional consonances, something John does
not appear to focus on".

>"But I cannot recommend it, because it does not

include any of the thoroughly-researched and
tested (and much more general and elegant)
mathematical-musical theories of the modern age
(harmonic entropy, the regular temperament
paradigm, Tenney-Optimal tuning optimization,
etc.);"
This is the equivalent of saying "I don't care
about how scales sound or what emotions they
contain...but I care much more about the lack of
current/less-complex mathematical models they are
based on".
That's bass ackwards and elitist as heck (and
elitist, with no goal except insulting those who
'aren't', IMVHO...is you're going to attack
something, attack how certain
chords/dyads/progressions...in the scale
sound...and then go about proving how a "better"
mathematical model would yield a better answer.

Reply
#96289From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Date: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:04 pm
Subject: Re: Review of "The Mathematics of Music" By John O'Sullivan
battaglia01
Offline
Send Email
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote
:
>
> Igs>"However, if he had done any research, he would have found that the
product xy is known as "Tenney Height" and is used as a standard measure of
dissonance for ratios below a certain complexity threshold, so 1/xy would have
given him a better (although still not problem-free) model."
>
> Tenney height is a model I am certainly NOT a big fan of. Numerator times
denominator, wow...any fifth grader could have easily come across it.
> What exactly proves Tenney Height as so superior in the first place? For
example, it fails miserably for dyads with a complexity over about 70...at best,
it's a good "very low limit dyad-only" model.
> Tenney Height throws a whole lot of 11-limit and a fair deal of 9-limit
straight out the window, and leaves so much of what makes Middle Eastern and
Eastern music work ignored. It basically points of right back at Western theory
for the most part.
That's where something like Harmonic Entropy comes more in handy. Or,
if what you're mainly concerned with is beating, Sethares' dissonance
model. I've wanted to expand on Sethares' model for quite some time
now to incorporate some of the periodicity buzz stuff we were delving
into last month.
-Mike