Discussion:
Return to Arestoxenus harmony
(too old to reply)
Vilen
2011-05-26 11:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Arestoxenus (3400 BC) was author of first musical book "Elements of
harmony" and inventor of majority of now used music notions.
Characteristic that he understand harmony essential othervise as it is
established now as the sound of two or more notes heard
simultaneously. Just he saw content of harmony in determination of
pertinent melody intervals. "In ancient Greek writings on the subject
of music, harmony was the study of the formation of melody."( see
http://science.jrank.org/pages/9577/Harmony-Harmony-in-Ancient-Greek-Writings-on-Music.html)
From the other hand Arestoxenus made very important observation
relative difference of singing and speech. The peculiarity of singing
(also instrumental music) consists in constancy of perceived pitch
on separate time intervals. Now it is possible to make on basis of
comtemporary knoledge important conclusions from that. Clearly this
constancy is necessary to fix the pitch in memory. But now it is known
that music sound includes several sinusoidal components at the same
time. If this sound is made by voice or common music istrument these
components are overtone series with frequency ratios 2,3,4,5.... ,
they are remembered ( if they enough strong) and corresponding pitches
can serve as steps for next melody notes. Thus good singing without
accompaniment may be compared with action of montaineer which
prepares his new positions himself.
. Thus notes with harmonic melody intervals must include coincident
sinusoidal components (partials). But the analogous and the more
severe demand functions for simultaneously existing notes in chords:
they are able to have concident partials and not have strong
partials with near pitches with ca semitone distance. The major and
minor triads fulfils this demand and therefore their sets of notes
were elicited by practice as melody notes in major-minor system. This
fact was asserted by Rameau in his well known work about harmony.
Of course chords were impossible in Aristoxenus epoch but their main
function is providing of music horizontal ties i.e. harmony in sence
of Arestoxenus. The chord as simultaneously existing notes may be
compared with bridge pier which joins its spans.
There is another aspect of Arestoxenus view which was not adopted his
contemporaries and following generations.That is concerning role of
ratious of small integers in perception of music. And as that good
said in http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Complete_Encyclopaedia_of_Music/A/Aristoxenus
" He held it was absurd to aim at an artificial accuracy in gratifying
the ear beyond its own power of distinction! That he had anticipated
the satisfactory discoveries of modern ages by his doctrine, is
sufficiently clear nowadays". Indeed psychogic researches shows that
human brain isn't able quickly estimate quantities more as 4, then is
difficult to imajine that during small music intervals brain
is able to identificate such ratios as 3/2, 4/3, 5/4.... Nevertheless
it seems to me that majority of musicians aren't agree with
Aristoxenus even now. This question is of principle importance: before
frequency partials of all music instruments correspond roughly
overtone series, now another instruments is possible and if exact
values of ratios aren't essential then the road to thes ones is open.
Besides Aristoxenus asserted that music scale must be build on ear,
i.e.accordingly human perception. Now is known that perception of
pitch intervals correspond logarithmic law and it is long time since
music scale is build in this way. Thereby exist contradictions with
customary music instruments which partials don't exactly accord the
scale. Therefore refusal from overtone series as basis of note's
structure would improve many problems as enharmonicand inharmonicity.
But most important that instead unique note structure many are
possible which may be much better.

Yuri Vilenkin
LJS
2011-05-28 13:42:14 UTC
Permalink
I wonder if you realize that you have provided a strong case to
support many of my opinions concerning the influence of the harmonic
series on the evolution of music? I had forgotten or did not know of
the writings of Arestoxenus concerning the ear being the guide to
music.
Post by Vilen
" He held it was absurd to aim at an artificial accuracy in gratifying
the ear beyond its own power of distinction! That he had anticipated
the satisfactory discoveries of modern ages by his doctrine, is
sufficiently clear nowadays"
Its unfortunate that you misinterpret some of the natural conclusions
Post by Vilen
Indeed psychogic researches shows that
human brain isn't able quickly  estimate quantities more as 4, then is
difficult to imajine that during small music intervals brain
is able to identificate such ratios as 3/2, 4/3, 5/4.... Nevertheless
it seems to me that majority of musicians aren't agree with
Aristoxenus even now. This question is of principle importance: before
frequency partials of all  music instruments correspond roughly
overtone series, now another instruments is possible and if exact
values of ratios aren't essential then the road to thes ones is open.
Besides Aristoxenus asserted that music scale must be build on ear,
i.e.accordingly human perception.
I don't consider myself an exceptional musician and yet I have no
problem identifying ratios mentioned above and your statement that the
majority of musicians don't agree with him even now. Agreement with
him would be to let your ear be the guide and most of the musicians
that I have come across in folk music, popular music, jazz, and
classical music all use there ear as a guide and respect its
limitations as well as its importance in playing and listening to
music.

Then this statement is using logic that is not substantiated as fact
and ignores all but a very small segment of the musical population.
Post by Vilen
Besides Aristoxenus asserted that music scale must be build on ear,
i.e.accordingly human perception. Now is known that perception of
pitch intervals correspond logarithmic law and it is long time since
music scale is build in this way. Thereby exist contradictions with
customary music instruments which partials don't exactly accord the
scale. Therefore refusal from overtone series as basis of note's
structure would improve many problems as enharmonicand inharmonicity.
But most important that instead unique note structure many  are
possible which may be much better.
These conclusions are only opinion based on a very limited amount of
evidence and some false conclusions assumed to be fact.

Musicians did not sit down with a logarithmic rule and calculate the
musical scale. Nor did they sit down and calculate the harmonic series
and recreate the notes there and arrange them into a musical scale.
Instead, after the musical ear of the musicians created the music,
then the scientists found that the logarithmic law and the harmonic
series approximated the scale that were created by the musicians.
Neither is exactly in accord with the sounds that the musicians
produced and neither is that far off. The only common denominator is
the the musicians ear.

When one understands that the music came before the analysis, it
becomes apparent that the music comes from the experiences and the
consciousness of the musician. Since the musician, as well as the
audience, has heard the overtone since they were prenatal. It stands
to reason that the OTS would be the guiding force in both melody and
harmony as the "ear of the musician" guided the evolution of music
from the ancient Greeks to the music of today.

When going back to the times of Plato, you should refresh your
understanding of logical conclusions based upon the evidence of the
primary sources. I don't have the time to go thorough all of your
logical fallacies that were used to get to your conclusions, but if
you need them I will supply a link that will list them for you and you
can then see what they are. The only way you can understand them is if
you take the time to learn about them yourself. There were some other
blatant offenses that I skipped in your statements. I only took the
last part as it was concerning a topic much discussed in this
newsgroup.
Other than you conclusions, it was a good presentation. The key to
trying to analyze facts are to pay attention to the facts and to
develop the ability to evaluate them for what they are in total and
not to limit them to a narrow perspective based on projected
conclusions. The conclusion needs to be based on the facts. The facts
can not be interpreted to fit the conclusion.

I am, however, very happy to see that you went further than Music
Appreciation sources for your research even though it was the Wiki
synopsis for the most part. That is a significant step. The upper part
of your article, the part with the other source, was omitted as the
information was even more supportive of the OTS even though you seemed
to use it to support your opposing views. Because that part brings up
more of the logical fallacies to support your conclusions in the lower
part, I decided to wait and address those issues if you decide that
you want to actually analyze what you wrote and to have a real
discussion about your facts and conclusions.

If you do, I will take the time to discuss. If you want to argue
instead and evade the issues, well, then so be it and you can continue
to stew in your own juices. I hope that you would decide to discuss
it. It could be a learning process for all.

LJS
Vilen
2011-05-29 09:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJS
I wonder if you realize that you have provided a strong case to
support many of my opinions concerning the influence of the harmonic
series on the evolution of music? I had forgotten or did not know of
the writings of Arestoxenus concerning the ear being the guide to
music.
Post by Vilen
" He held it was absurd to aim at an artificial accuracy in gratifying
the ear beyond its own power of distinction! That he had anticipated
the satisfactory discoveries of modern ages by his doctrine, is
sufficiently clear nowadays"
Its unfortunate that you misinterpret some of the natural conclusions
Post by Vilen
Indeed psychogic researches shows that
human brain isn't able quickly  estimate quantities more as 4, then is
difficult to imajine that during small music intervals brain
is able to identificate such ratios as 3/2, 4/3, 5/4.... Nevertheless
it seems to me that majority of musicians aren't agree with
Aristoxenus even now. This question is of principle importance: before
frequency partials of all  music instruments correspond roughly
overtone series, now another instruments is possible and if exact
values of ratios aren't essential then the road to thes ones is open.
Besides Aristoxenus asserted that music scale must be build on ear,
i.e.accordingly human perception.
I don't consider myself an exceptional musician and yet I have no
problem identifying ratios mentioned above and your statement that the
majority of musicians don't agree with him even now. Agreement with
him would be to let your ear be the guide and most of the musicians
that I have come across in folk music, popular music, jazz, and
classical music all use there ear as a guide and respect its
limitations as well as its importance in playing and listening to
music.
Then this statement is using logic that is not substantiated as fact
and ignores all but a very small segment of the musical population.
Post by Vilen
Besides Aristoxenus asserted that music scale must be build on ear,
i.e.accordingly human perception. Now is known that perception of
pitch intervals correspond logarithmic law and it is long time since
music scale is build in this way. Thereby exist contradictions with
customary music instruments which partials don't exactly accord the
scale. Therefore refusal from overtone series as basis of note's
structure would improve many problems as enharmonicand inharmonicity.
But most important that instead unique note structure many  are
possible which may be much better.
These conclusions are only opinion based on a very limited amount of
evidence and some false conclusions assumed to be fact.
Musicians did not sit down with a logarithmic rule and calculate the
musical scale. Nor did they sit down and calculate the harmonic series
and recreate the notes there and arrange them into a musical scale.
Instead, after the musical ear of the musicians created the music,
then the scientists found that the logarithmic law and the harmonic
series approximated the scale that were created by the musicians.
Neither is exactly in accord with the sounds that the musicians
produced and neither is that far off. The only common denominator is
the the musicians ear.
When one understands that the music came before the analysis, it
becomes apparent that the music comes from the experiences and the
consciousness of the musician. Since the musician, as well as the
audience, has heard the overtone since they were prenatal. It stands
to reason that the OTS would be the guiding force in both melody and
harmony as the "ear of the musician" guided the evolution of music
from the ancient Greeks to the music of today.
When going back to the times of Plato, you should refresh your
understanding of logical conclusions based upon the evidence of the
primary sources. I don't have the time to go thorough all of your
logical fallacies that were used to get to your conclusions, but if
you need them I will supply a link that will list them for you and you
can then see what they are. The only way you can understand them is if
you take the time to learn about them yourself. There were some other
blatant offenses that I skipped in your statements. I only took the
last part as it was concerning a topic much discussed in this
newsgroup.
Other than you conclusions, it was a good presentation. The key to
trying to analyze facts are to pay attention to the facts and to
develop the ability to evaluate them for what they are in total and
not to limit them to a narrow perspective based on projected
conclusions. The conclusion needs to be based on the facts. The facts
can not be interpreted to fit the conclusion.
I am, however, very happy to see that you went further than Music
Appreciation sources for your research even though it was the Wiki
synopsis for the most part. That is a significant step. The upper part
of your article, the part with the other source, was omitted as the
information was even more supportive of the OTS even though you seemed
to use it to support your opposing views. Because that part brings up
more of the logical fallacies to support your conclusions in the lower
part, I decided to wait and address those issues if you decide that
you want to actually analyze what you wrote and to have a real
discussion about your facts and conclusions.
If you do, I will take the time to discuss. If you want to argue
instead and evade the issues, well, then so be it and you can continue
to stew in your own juices. I hope that you would decide to discuss
it. It could be a learning process for all.
LJS
Dear LJS,
I don't understand Your logic. If Your opponent uses numerous logical
fallacies and makes many blatant offences then You can hardly hope on
his reform.
Honestly,
Yuri
LJS
2011-05-29 13:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vilen
Post by LJS
I wonder if you realize that you have provided a strong case to
support many of my opinions concerning the influence of the harmonic
series on the evolution of music? I had forgotten or did not know of
the writings of Arestoxenus concerning the ear being the guide to
music.
Post by Vilen
" He held it was absurd to aim at an artificial accuracy in gratifying
the ear beyond its own power of distinction! That he had anticipated
the satisfactory discoveries of modern ages by his doctrine, is
sufficiently clear nowadays"
Its unfortunate that you misinterpret some of the natural conclusions
Post by Vilen
Indeed psychogic researches shows that
human brain isn't able quickly  estimate quantities more as 4, then is
difficult to imajine that during small music intervals brain
is able to identificate such ratios as 3/2, 4/3, 5/4.... Nevertheless
it seems to me that majority of musicians aren't agree with
Aristoxenus even now. This question is of principle importance: before
frequency partials of all  music instruments correspond roughly
overtone series, now another instruments is possible and if exact
values of ratios aren't essential then the road to thes ones is open.
Besides Aristoxenus asserted that music scale must be build on ear,
i.e.accordingly human perception.
I don't consider myself an exceptional musician and yet I have no
problem identifying ratios mentioned above and your statement that the
majority of musicians don't agree with him even now. Agreement with
him would be to let your ear be the guide and most of the musicians
that I have come across in folk music, popular music, jazz, and
classical music all use there ear as a guide and respect its
limitations as well as its importance in playing and listening to
music.
Then this statement is using logic that is not substantiated as fact
and ignores all but a very small segment of the musical population.
Post by Vilen
Besides Aristoxenus asserted that music scale must be build on ear,
i.e.accordingly human perception. Now is known that perception of
pitch intervals correspond logarithmic law and it is long time since
music scale is build in this way. Thereby exist contradictions with
customary music instruments which partials don't exactly accord the
scale. Therefore refusal from overtone series as basis of note's
structure would improve many problems as enharmonicand inharmonicity.
But most important that instead unique note structure many  are
possible which may be much better.
These conclusions are only opinion based on a very limited amount of
evidence and some false conclusions assumed to be fact.
Musicians did not sit down with a logarithmic rule and calculate the
musical scale. Nor did they sit down and calculate the harmonic series
and recreate the notes there and arrange them into a musical scale.
Instead, after the musical ear of the musicians created the music,
then the scientists found that the logarithmic law and the harmonic
series approximated the scale that were created by the musicians.
Neither is exactly in accord with the sounds that the musicians
produced and neither is that far off. The only common denominator is
the the musicians ear.
When one understands that the music came before the analysis, it
becomes apparent that the music comes from the experiences and the
consciousness of the musician. Since the musician, as well as the
audience, has heard the overtone since they were prenatal. It stands
to reason that the OTS would be the guiding force in both melody and
harmony as the "ear of the musician" guided the evolution of music
from the ancient Greeks to the music of today.
When going back to the times of Plato, you should refresh your
understanding of logical conclusions based upon the evidence of the
primary sources. I don't have the time to go thorough all of your
logical fallacies that were used to get to your conclusions, but if
you need them I will supply a link that will list them for you and you
can then see what they are. The only way you can understand them is if
you take the time to learn about them yourself. There were some other
blatant offenses that I skipped in your statements. I only took the
last part as it was concerning a topic much discussed in this
newsgroup.
Other than you conclusions, it was a good presentation. The key to
trying to analyze facts are to pay attention to the facts and to
develop the ability to evaluate them for what they are in total and
not to limit them to a narrow perspective based on projected
conclusions. The conclusion needs to be based on the facts. The facts
can not be interpreted to fit the conclusion.
I am, however, very happy to see that you went further than Music
Appreciation sources for your research even though it was the Wiki
synopsis for the most part. That is a significant step. The upper part
of your article, the part with the other source, was omitted as the
information was even more supportive of the OTS even though you seemed
to use it to support your opposing views. Because that part brings up
more of the logical fallacies to support your conclusions in the lower
part, I decided to wait and address those issues if you decide that
you want to actually analyze what you wrote and to have a real
discussion about your facts and conclusions.
If you do, I will take the time to discuss. If you want to argue
instead and evade the issues, well, then so be it and you can continue
to stew in your own juices. I hope that you would decide to discuss
it. It could be a learning process for all.
LJS
Dear LJS,
I don't understand Your logic. If Your opponent uses numerous logical
fallacies and makes many blatant offences then You can hardly hope on
his reform.
Honestly,
Yuri
No, you understand it perfectly. I am just a little bit surprised that
you admit it.
I guess your next logical step will be to start your own school and
confer upon yourself an honorary degree OR write a book to redefine
logic so that you don't continue to look like an idiot.

We now know that you are either an idiot or a liar. The only question
is why you want to engage in fantasy music theory. Its really not
rocket science. You could learn it. But as you imply in your post, you
would rather just make things up.

Of course, you could just live someplace where you can not be with
real people and you have endless hours at hand, then I suppose that
you could just be a troll. What ever the case you have shown that you
do not care about logic and you have not demonstrated any
understanding of music as we know it. Maybe you should address your
theories to WeReo_BoY. His authority status of music seems to be more
in the sand lot that you want to play in. Have fun.
LJS
Vilen
2011-05-29 17:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJS
Post by Vilen
Post by LJS
I wonder if you realize that you have provided a strong case to
support many of my opinions concerning the influence of the harmonic
series on the evolution of music? I had forgotten or did not know of
the writings of Arestoxenus concerning the ear being the guide to
music.
Post by Vilen
" He held it was absurd to aim at an artificial accuracy in gratifying
the ear beyond its own power of distinction! That he had anticipated
the satisfactory discoveries of modern ages by his doctrine, is
sufficiently clear nowadays"
Its unfortunate that you misinterpret some of the natural conclusions
Post by Vilen
Indeed psychogic researches shows that
human brain isn't able quickly  estimate quantities more as 4, then is
difficult to imajine that during small music intervals brain
is able to identificate such ratios as 3/2, 4/3, 5/4.... Nevertheless
it seems to me that majority of musicians aren't agree with
Aristoxenus even now. This question is of principle importance: before
frequency partials of all  music instruments correspond roughly
overtone series, now another instruments is possible and if exact
values of ratios aren't essential then the road to thes ones is open.
Besides Aristoxenus asserted that music scale must be build on ear,
i.e.accordingly human perception.
I don't consider myself an exceptional musician and yet I have no
problem identifying ratios mentioned above and your statement that the
majority of musicians don't agree with him even now. Agreement with
him would be to let your ear be the guide and most of the musicians
that I have come across in folk music, popular music, jazz, and
classical music all use there ear as a guide and respect its
limitations as well as its importance in playing and listening to
music.
Then this statement is using logic that is not substantiated as fact
and ignores all but a very small segment of the musical population.
Post by Vilen
Besides Aristoxenus asserted that music scale must be build on ear,
i.e.accordingly human perception. Now is known that perception of
pitch intervals correspond logarithmic law and it is long time since
music scale is build in this way. Thereby exist contradictions with
customary music instruments which partials don't exactly accord the
scale. Therefore refusal from overtone series as basis of note's
structure would improve many problems as enharmonicand inharmonicity.
But most important that instead unique note structure many  are
possible which may be much better.
These conclusions are only opinion based on a very limited amount of
evidence and some false conclusions assumed to be fact.
Musicians did not sit down with a logarithmic rule and calculate the
musical scale. Nor did they sit down and calculate the harmonic series
and recreate the notes there and arrange them into a musical scale.
Instead, after the musical ear of the musicians created the music,
then the scientists found that the logarithmic law and the harmonic
series approximated the scale that were created by the musicians.
Neither is exactly in accord with the sounds that the musicians
produced and neither is that far off. The only common denominator is
the the musicians ear.
When one understands that the music came before the analysis, it
becomes apparent that the music comes from the experiences and the
consciousness of the musician. Since the musician, as well as the
audience, has heard the overtone since they were prenatal. It stands
to reason that the OTS would be the guiding force in both melody and
harmony as the "ear of the musician" guided the evolution of music
from the ancient Greeks to the music of today.
When going back to the times of Plato, you should refresh your
understanding of logical conclusions based upon the evidence of the
primary sources. I don't have the time to go thorough all of your
logical fallacies that were used to get to your conclusions, but if
you need them I will supply a link that will list them for you and you
can then see what they are. The only way you can understand them is if
you take the time to learn about them yourself. There were some other
blatant offenses that I skipped in your statements. I only took the
last part as it was concerning a topic much discussed in this
newsgroup.
Other than you conclusions, it was a good presentation. The key to
trying to analyze facts are to pay attention to the facts and to
develop the ability to evaluate them for what they are in total and
not to limit them to a narrow perspective based on projected
conclusions. The conclusion needs to be based on the facts. The facts
can not be interpreted to fit the conclusion.
I am, however, very happy to see that you went further than Music
Appreciation sources for your research even though it was the Wiki
synopsis for the most part. That is a significant step. The upper part
of your article, the part with the other source, was omitted as the
information was even more supportive of the OTS even though you seemed
to use it to support your opposing views. Because that part brings up
more of the logical fallacies to support your conclusions in the lower
part, I decided to wait and address those issues if you decide that
you want to actually analyze what you wrote and to have a real
discussion about your facts and conclusions.
If you do, I will take the time to discuss. If you want to argue
instead and evade the issues, well, then so be it and you can continue
to stew in your own juices. I hope that you would decide to discuss
it. It could be a learning process for all.
LJS
Dear LJS,
I don't understand Your logic. If Your opponent uses numerous logical
fallacies and makes many blatant offences then You can hardly hope on
his reform.
Honestly,
Yuri
No, you understand it perfectly. I am just a little bit surprised that
you admit it.
I guess your next logical step will be to start your own school and
confer upon yourself an honorary degree OR write a book to redefine
logic so that you don't continue to look like an idiot.
We now know that you are either an idiot or a liar. The only question
is why you want to engage in fantasy music theory. Its really not
rocket science. You could learn it. But as you imply in your post, you
would rather just make things up.
Of course, you could just live someplace where you can not be with
real people and you have endless hours at hand, then I suppose that
you could just be a troll. What ever the case you have shown that you
do not care about logic and you have not demonstrated any
understanding of music as we know it. Maybe you should address your
theories to WeReo_BoY. His authority status of music seems to be more
in the sand lot that you want to play in. Have fun.
LJS- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
The text is interesting.

Vilen
2011-05-28 14:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vilen
Arestoxenus (3400 BC) was author of first musical book "Elements of
harmony" and inventor of majority of now used music notions.
Characteristic that he understand harmony essential othervise as it is
established now as the sound of two or more notes heard
simultaneously. Just he saw content of harmony in determination of
pertinent melody intervals. "In ancient Greek writings on the subject
of music, harmony  was the study of the formation of melody."( seehttp://science.jrank.org/pages/9577/Harmony-Harmony-in-Ancient-Greek-...)
From the other hand Arestoxenus made very important observation
relative difference of singing  and speech. The peculiarity of singing
(also instrumental music)  consists in constancy of  perceived pitch
on separate time intervals. Now it is possible to make on basis of
comtemporary knoledge important conclusions from that. Clearly this
constancy is necessary to fix the pitch in memory. But now it is known
that music sound  includes several sinusoidal components at the same
time. If this sound is made by voice or common music istrument these
components are overtone series with frequency ratios 2,3,4,5.... ,
they are remembered ( if they enough strong) and corresponding pitches
can serve as steps for next melody notes. Thus good singing without
accompaniment may be compared with action of montaineer which
prepares  his new positions himself.
. Thus notes with harmonic melody intervals must include coincident
sinusoidal components (partials). But the analogous and the  more
they are able to have concident partials and  not have strong
partials with near pitches with ca semitone distance. The major and
minor triads fulfils this demand and therefore their sets of notes
were elicited by practice as melody notes in major-minor system. This
fact was asserted by Rameau in his well known work about harmony.
Of course chords were impossible in Aristoxenus epoch but their main
function is providing of music horizontal ties i.e. harmony in sence
of  Arestoxenus. The chord as simultaneously existing notes may be
compared with bridge pier which joins its spans.
There is another aspect of Arestoxenus view which was not adopted his
contemporaries and following generations.That is concerning role of
ratious of small integers in perception of music. And as that good
said inhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Complete_Encyclopaedia_of_Music/A/Arist...
" He held it was absurd to aim at an artificial accuracy in gratifying
the ear beyond its own power of distinction! That he had anticipated
the satisfactory discoveries of modern ages by his doctrine, is
sufficiently clear nowadays". Indeed psychogic researches shows that
human brain isn't able quickly  estimate quantities more as 4, then is
difficult to imajine that during small music intervals brain
is able to identificate such ratios as 3/2, 4/3, 5/4.... Nevertheless
it seems to me that majority of musicians aren't agree with
Aristoxenus even now. This question is of principle importance: before
frequency partials of all  music instruments correspond roughly
overtone series, now another instruments is possible and if exact
values of ratios aren't essential then the road to thes ones is open.
Besides Aristoxenus asserted that music scale must be build on ear,
i.e.accordingly human perception. Now is known that perception of
pitch intervals correspond logarithmic law and it is long time since
music scale is build in this way. Thereby exist contradictions with
customary music instruments which partials don't exactly accord the
scale. Therefore refusal from overtone series as basis of note's
structure would improve many problems as enharmonicand inharmonicity.
But most important that instead unique note structure many  are
possible which may be much better.
Unfortunately, I distorted name of famous Aristoxenus and my previous
post must be entitled "Return to Aristoxenus".
Sorry.

Yuri Vilenkin
Loading...