Hey! I'm failing so badly at prompt replies this year. My apologies.
Anyway:
If what we're reacting to is the smallness of the natural numbers in the ratios that make up musical intervals, then why can't the average listener tell the difference between equal temperament and just intonation? We can't really argue that the listener ought to prefer JI, since recordings are built to suit the instruments available, and the instruments available are must more likely to be in ET, so listeners are more accustomed to ET -- but if the numerical intervals really make that big of an aural difference to us, then just intonation ought to sound better instinctively, or at least vaguely more correct somehow. And it doesn't, since most non-musicians can't tell the difference; it's something one has to be trained to hear.
For that matter, if this is true, why isn't extended just intonation a much bigger deal? I've never conducted this kind of experiment myself, but I'm guessing the average person couldn't tell the difference between Partch or Johnston and a more aribitrarily-microtonal composer. Logically, if the ratios themselves matter, Johnston should sound more "correct" than Ligeti, but I doubt we'd find that in practice.
Also, if the exact intervals matter, why do they only matter for pitch, not for rhythm or any other facet of the musical experience? Cowell's Quartet Romatic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUgCure2uKo) organizes its rhythms by the overtone series (e.g., one instrument on half notes, one instrument on half-note triplets --> 3/2 ratio --> rhythmic "perfect fifth"), and it's... absolutely an acquired taste.
There's no evidence that we're hard-wired this way. It's a pretty idea -- like the doctrine of affects or the music of the spheres or the undertone series -- but just because it's pretty doesn't make it true.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 12:54 am (UTC)Anyway:
If what we're reacting to is the smallness of the natural numbers in the ratios that make up musical intervals, then why can't the average listener tell the difference between equal temperament and just intonation? We can't really argue that the listener ought to prefer JI, since recordings are built to suit the instruments available, and the instruments available are must more likely to be in ET, so listeners are more accustomed to ET -- but if the numerical intervals really make that big of an aural difference to us, then just intonation ought to sound better instinctively, or at least vaguely more correct somehow. And it doesn't, since most non-musicians can't tell the difference; it's something one has to be trained to hear.
For that matter, if this is true, why isn't extended just intonation a much bigger deal? I've never conducted this kind of experiment myself, but I'm guessing the average person couldn't tell the difference between Partch or Johnston and a more aribitrarily-microtonal composer. Logically, if the ratios themselves matter, Johnston should sound more "correct" than Ligeti, but I doubt we'd find that in practice.
Also, if the exact intervals matter, why do they only matter for pitch, not for rhythm or any other facet of the musical experience? Cowell's Quartet Romatic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUgCure2uKo) organizes its rhythms by the overtone series (e.g., one instrument on half notes, one instrument on half-note triplets --> 3/2 ratio --> rhythmic "perfect fifth"), and it's... absolutely an acquired taste.
There's no evidence that we're hard-wired this way. It's a pretty idea -- like the doctrine of affects or the music of the spheres or the undertone series -- but just because it's pretty doesn't make it true.