On Wednesday 11 July 2001 15:40, you wrote:
> Wendy Galovich wrote:
> Please don't be offended but I have concluded that you haven't read or
> do not understand the two quotes which I included in my last e-mail.
Um.. Actually I did read and understand them, and my own conclusion is that
the main problem here is one of semantics and context.. more on that below.
> The last line in the Turtis quote bears repeating here, "
> I am concerned that we may be boring others on the list with this
> discussion. If you wish to communicat further perhaps we snould do it
> off list.
Not yet. I have a question for you that I would like to ask in the forum of
the list, because I think it would benefit many of us, if you would be so
kind as to answer it; it has to do with the semantics issue, and revolves
around the definitions of the following terms:
- tempered scale
- alternate scale
I am not disputing exact scientific/musical definition of the tempered scale
(which is not new information to me or to most of the rest of the list), nor
am I challenging your comments about "alternate scales" per se. But the
practical reality here is that English language is such that we often we find
ourselves having to use it in an imprecise way, not out of ignorance but
simply because the language lacks a specific word or short phrase to
precisely describe the particular concept we're trying to express.
We're in the midst of just such a situation, where the above terms end up
getting used, with the intent of a slightly different definition, as follows:
1) tempered scale: a scale structure in which the individual pitch intervals
are *approximately* 1.059, but with fine adjustments to correct each note so
that it is in tune, in relation to its neighboring notes. (This is the
concept I had in mind when I said that the CT and MA fiddlers tend to stick
to the "tempered scale".
2) alternate scale: a scale in which the pitch of one or more of its notes
deviates from the tempered scale as described in 1).
Both of the above are *rough* "working definitions", if you will, employed
for the sake of being able to discuss the concepts described without having
to use the entire description each time; I'm well aware of what you've
already said about each. In truth I've seen quite a few occasions on a number
of lists where pitch intervals have been discussed using that framework, by
participants who were well aware of the scientific and musical theory behind
them, and understood that they were using the terms in a very loosely-defined
way, but did so because they *needed* an agreed-upon parlance for discussing
the *concepts* in 1) and 2).
So what we really need, if we shouldn't be using those particular terms to
describe those concepts, is a better set of terms. I am personally not aware
of any terms that fit this particular need, but it's pretty clear to me that
we have to do that before any productive discussion of the concepts can
occur. Can you help with that?
Thanks,
Wendy
Posted to Scots-L - The Traditional Scottish Music & Culture List - To
subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
