M&D 172

[Brian D. McCary]

Thanks to everybody for their input on the question about the emotional
impications of scales.  I'm gonna summerize, and then consider the question
more or less spent.  First, frewsie's point that scales are probably value
free and that emotional content would be socially learned (and the
suggestion that Tom is ribbing the pseudo-scientific) is worth noting,
but it sort of precludes debate, and I can't waste enough of my time or
yours ruminating on it, so I will acknowledge it and move on.  davemarc's
post from Paul Siskind was also fascinating.

Next, several people (I forgot some names and lost some mail) came up with 
historical referances to F# minor compositions, one of which was about 
departing.  That, combined with the mention of the down-beat article 
suggests that scholors of high or low degree have, at one point, 
tried to value the differant scales.   If so, I'm sure TRP could have
run across such a value scale, either in Down-Beat or in some eighteenth
century music primer (remember that Umberto Rossi writer-research
story: sounds much like some of Pynchon's comments about his own 
research methods) and just decided to use it.

But I'm loath to believe that the story ends there.  Why, barring
general human inanity - a reasonable possibility - would people hear
and try to quantify differances between the scales?  Do those differances
exist?  And it turns out, they could.

In modern tempered scales, the frequency ratio of any two adjoining
halftones is constant, the twelfth root of two (appr. 1.0595)  These
scales are used on modern pianos, and tuned percussion instruments 
like xylophone.  In tempered scales, any minor scale should sound 
exactly like any other minor scale.

However, before tempered scales, the most obvious scale to use is a
harmonically-based scale, where the freqencies are determined from 
the harmonics of a root tone.  Somebody's harpsicord comment got me thinking
about this.  If you try to tune a harpsicord in A, a logical place to
start, you can get exact values for only eight notes: A, B, C#, D, E,
F#, G, and G# (using the terms approximately).  The other four have to 
be obtained by some other method.  So songs played using only these
notes will sound most "in tune".  It turns out that F# minor is the
minor scale associated with A major: that is, it is the minor scale
which uses only these notes.  Therefore, it is the minor scale most
likely, on a harmonically tuned instrument, to sound "in tune".  Other
scales will sound less in tune.  The intervals which are in tune will
vary from scale to scale, so each scale will have it's own subtle 
character.  That's enough for people who listen closely (not me!) to 
begin to make distinctions and assign emotional values, although those
values may well be learned, rather than intrinsic.

But this gets more interesting.  The four tones which have to be obtained
through other means (via circle of fifth's tunings, I'm guessing) are
B flat, C, E flat, and F.  These include the root, fourth, and fifth of
the key of B flat major.  Depending on how one would tune these notes on
a harmonically tuned harpsichord three centuries ago, it's possible that
the chords would be exceptionally out of tune, creating a dissonant
sensation.  Hence, the martial feel.  This could be a reason for the
question Jeremy raised.

If composers and manufacturers came to associate B flat with the martial
feel, they might begin to make horn instruments for military bands in 
B flat.  This, in turn, would drive band compositions toward B flat, which
would re-enforce the association.  Even after one drifts away from 
natural to tempered tunings, or even if you started tuning the B flat
instrument scales harmonically, the idea might continue to propogate.

So, that's my conclusions at this point.  The math looks right.  Sorry
to go on at length about such a tangential topic, but, hey, that's why
we are all here, right?

Brian McCary