<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, CARSON FARLEY <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ccfarley@embarqmail.com" target="_blank">ccfarley@embarqmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif">
<p><span style="font-size:12pt">I use the harmonic overtone series in a lot of my compositional work and I have encountered a variety of different partial interpretations for specifically [with C as the fundamental] partials no. 10 and 12 - the pitches F or F# and A or Ab. </span></p>
<p>C-C-G-C-E-G-Bb-C-D-E-[<b>F or F#</b>]-G-[<b>Ab or A</b>]-Bb-B-C</p></div></div></blockquote><div>Whatever you want to call these things -- partials or overtones or harmonics -- it is clearer and notationally more useful to number them starting with the fundamental as 1. (Your references number the fundamental as 0.) Under that convention the frequency of any partial is N times the fundamental. Partial N where N is a power of two, and only those partials, are the same note under octave equivalence. (More usefully, the 2^i partial will be i octaves above the fundamental.) If two partials are related as partial N and partial (2^i)*N, they will be the same note under octave equivalence. (E.g., partials 3, 6, 12, 24 etc. will all be the perfect 5th scale degree.)</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif">
<p>I have seen at least three different interpretations. In Schoenberg's <i>Theory of Harmony</i>, Schoenberg references the tones as F and A. In <i>The Book Of Music edited by Gill Rowley</i> the partials are listed as F# and A. And from internet research I have seen the partials referenced as either F/F# and Ab. I understand that the reason for the variation is most likely related to the non tempered pitch of those partials</p>
</div></div></blockquote><div>Here is where you start to stand on inform ground! No overtone is tempered except the ones that are octaves. Assuming everyone understands that a pitch interval is a ratio (the Greeks understood millennia ago) then the ratios of an overtone to the fundamental is an integer. Since pitch is logarithmic, it is convenient to measure intervals in cents, where an equal-tempered semitone is 100 cents, and an octave is 1200 cents. _None_ of the other partials agree exactly with equal tempered pitches. Some of them are quite far off equal temperament, or perhaps it would be historically and operationally clearer to say that equal temperament doesn't agree with the partials...</div>
<div><br></div><div>Here is a table of partials 1..16 in cents, reduced to intervals within the octave by reducing the cent values mod 1200.</div><div><br></div><div><div><font face="courier new, monospace"> 1: 0.00</font></div>
<div><font face="courier new, monospace"> 2: 0.00</font></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace"> 3: 701.96</font></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace"> 4: 0.00</font></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace"> 5: 386.31</font></div>
<div><font face="courier new, monospace"> 6: 701.96</font></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace"> 7: 968.83</font></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace"> 8: 0.00</font></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace"> 9: 203.91</font></div>
<div><font face="courier new, monospace">10: 386.31</font></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace">11: 551.32</font></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace">12: 701.96</font></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace">13: 840.53</font></div>
<div><font face="courier new, monospace">14: 968.83</font></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace">15: 1088.27</font></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace">16: 0.00</font></div></div><div><font face="courier new, monospace"><br>
</font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Note that even the 5ths are sharp by about 2 cents (near the limit of human discernability under successive presentation. The "just" M3 is very flat compared to equal temperament, which is why those neat electronic tuners have hash marks somewhere on their flat-sharp indicators to show performers where to adjust M and m degrees -- the latter is adjusted upwards -- lest triads sound badly out of tune.</font></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif">
<p>and that their pitch may lie somewhere between an F and F#</p></div></div></blockquote><div>The 11th harmonic in the table above (551.32 cents) is so close to being exactly half way between F and F# that you would be better off to think of it as a quarter töne -- F half sharp. Similarly for the 13th harmonic.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif">
<p>and an Ab and A (taking into account the non tempered frequency of all the partials). I'm wondering if there is more consensus among the theory group about whether in the above overtone series [if arranged as scale with C as the root] C-D-E-?-G-?-Bb-B-C as to the fourth and sixth degrees? </p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What does consensus matter? The name you or Schoenberg or anyone else assign to these partials has nothing to do with mathematics or physics or psychology. It is more an intentional decision that one wants to think about the 11th harmonic as an F or an F#. That's an analytical or compositional choice, not a mathematical or physical property.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(In my night job, I'm a horn player -- horn as in Corno -- and in the pre-valve literature we get to think of that 11th harmonic as the 4th or 4#th degree, depending. Right hand position, embouchure, and wishful thinking (mind over matter) allow either to be achieved. Or else them modern doohickies commonly called "valves" help resolve the ambiguity.)</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif">
<p>The reason this is important to me besides the compositional implications of creating scales from overtone structure is a hypothesis/theory I have regarding the jazz/blues scale and it's ability to function with either major or minor diatonic tonalities...</p>
</div></div></blockquote><div>I don't want to comment on the ëxplanation" of the blues scale. That's a bottomless subject. But this detail:</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif"><p>When the above scale [which I call the overtone scale] is arranged as the 5th mode:</p>
<p> <span style="font-size:12pt">G-A-Bb-B-C-D-E-F#-G </span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt">There is a scale with both minor and major 3rd [a blue note] . . . and if we use the partial variation with F we are ever closer to the flat 7th character of the blues scale:</span></p>
<p></p></div></div></blockquote><div>Do you intend these notes to be the equal-tempered versions of the named notes -- what the player gets when he presses the named buttons on his instrument -- or the accurately achieved overtone tunings of these notes? They are often quite different scales! Either might make sense, and lead to different compositions, but I suggest you need to decide. The names you assign to scale degrees aren't directly related to their performance, except that those names drag along a lot of historical and pedagogical flotsam from music theory. You can't fight that, but you need to be aware of it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If I understand correctly, that Bb derived from the overtone series (969 cents) will be about 1/3 semitone flatter than equal temperament. Hard to play on lots of kinds of axes.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif"><p>This is my explanation for why the blues scale works with both major and minor modes. I'd be curious to get some feedback on my idea and more specifically the partials above in question.<br>
</p></div></div></blockquote><div>"Ëxplanations" in music theory are treacherous. I've found that the word "because" is quite rare in theoretical discourse. When it it or its analogs are used, the connection between observation and its explanation rarely survive critical (scientific?) scrutiny.</div>
<div><br></div><div>=====</div><div><br></div><div>Steve Haflich</div><div>Berkeley CA </div><div>academically unaffiliated</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>