In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chuck Israels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >On Oct 14, 2004, at 2:55 PM, Owain Sutton wrote: > >> Darcy James Argue wrote: >> >>> Owain, >>> It's a different theoretical model. Of course it's "wrong" according >>> to the standard theoretical model -- it's an alternative theory of >>> tonality, modality, harmony, etc. If it didn't reject the norms of >>> the standard model it wouldn't be an alternative theory, would it? >> >> Sure it's wrong, but only as wrong as the claims that western tonality >> is some inherent product of the overtone series. > >Isn't it? Where else did it come from? > >Chuck > It is probably a product of the partials of the main instruments of European music. Because these have forced vibrations (being blown or bowed) their partials are harmonic (this is described in Benade's book). Western scales and modes incorporate intervals that provide local minima of the acoustic roughness that we elaborate into dissonance. Other musical cultures whose main instruments have non-harmonic partials use different scales and intervals; e.g. Javanese and Balinese gamelan, whose scales are related to the metallophones they use, according to W A Sethares. See his book "Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale".
-- Ken Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://www.mooremusic.org.uk/ I reject emails > 100k automatically: warn me beforehand if you want to send one _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
