From: mclaren
Subject: Will Grant's interesting post
--
In topic 2 of Digest 810, Will Grant answered
my statement that "Lou Harrison has not explained
how to reconcile these facts [that is, the prevalence
of tunings which cannot be explained easily in
terms of small integer ratios in other cultures] with
the notion that just intonation forms the basis of
world music."
Will Grant pointed out that "an arbitrary octave of 1150
cents does not preclude reference to a just standard."
Will's counter-argument is that "the music I've listened to
from Central Africa...relies on a 'gamut'... of a major
third..." And that "tetrachords carry
inevitably a potential toward modulation... Nevertheless,
sharping thirds can be pleasant. (..) The central African
musics aren't concerned about melodic modulatory
implications... Therefore I do not see that the specific
use of wide octaves can be used to discredit the
theoretical notion of a just standard." [Will Grant]
Will makes some excellent points, with considerable
insight.
First, Will G. is certainly right that in many parts of
Africa the overall "gamut" of pitch is somewhere
in the neighborhood of a third. This is not simply
based on my listening, but on the research printed
in the Journal of Ethnomusicology, etc., the bulk
of which supports Will Grant's statement--for
*many* African musics.
However, this is not the case for *all* musical
traditions in Africa, and may not be the case
for a majority. I don't know enough about
African music to decide whether a majority
of the cultures use a gamut of a third.
However, I do know of several specific exceptions
to that rule--and where there are several
excpetions to a general ethnomuiscological
"rule," experience has taught me that there
are apt to be many more. The "weeping song"
of the Gisalo, if memory serves, exceeds the
compass of a third by a considerable amount,
and the ugubhu is typically played using harmonics
up to 7.
Second:
While Will Grant's argument is ingenious and
very well thought out, it does not appear to apply
to the example cited in my post. Permit me
to quote the full text of my original citation:
"This definition is refused by the practices
to quote the full text of my original citation:
"This definition is refused by the practices
of these musicians, who tune their xylophones
using adjacent intervals, step by step. Our
experimentation verified that 'perfect'
consonances are not a consituent of Central
African concept of the scale. These musicians
do not judge a strict octave (1200 cents) to
be better than a large major seventh (1150
cents) in any rgister, probably because of the
roughness it creates on the octaves that are
always played simultaneously with double
sticks in each hand." [Voisin, Frederic, "Musical
Scales in Central Africa and Java: Modeling by
Synthesis," Leonardo Music Journal, Vol. 4,
pp. 85-90, 1994]
This specific quote appears to crush most
of Will Grant's objections. On the other
hand, it's possible that I've misunderstood
of Will Grant's objections. On the other
hand, it's possible that I've misunderstood
the text. In any case Will might want to
study the article in question in detail.
Others examples (some outside Africa):
The panpipes of the 'Are-'are of the Solomon
Islands are tuned in 7 equal-tempered tones
to the octave which cannot be understood
in terms of the harmonic series (unless, of
course, there's something I've overlooked or
not taken account of--always possible); the same
seems to be true of the xylophones of the Kwaiker
indians of central Mexico and Guatamala.
The Burmese oboe-like instruments,
the drums of the Akan in West Africa,
and much of the vocal music of the Kaluli
of highland New Guinea and other music
from sub-Saharan Africa all seem to use
pitches which systematically avoid just ratios.
Of course the most spectacularly non-just
non-equal-tempered musical traditions
are those of Bali and Java, along with
Thailand. No one has succeeded in
explaining these musical traditions
in terms of small integer ratios, to the
best of my knowledge, and so my case
seems to stand. However, it's quite
possible I've made some silly error or
failed to see some crucial point. Perhaps
Will Grant can show me what I've overlooked.
--mclaren
