Talk:Dynamic tonality

New paradigm != paradigm shift

As the initial author of the article on Dynamic Tonality, let me just start this discussion by emphasizing the distinction between a paradigm and a paradigm shift. According to Wikipedia,

• In science and philosophy, a paradigm (/ˈpærədaɪm/) is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field.
• A paradigm shift is a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline.

I submit that two relevant insights to be taken from this:

• Every paradigm shift starts with the proposal of a new paradigm, and at the time of proposal, there is no evidence of a paradigm shift (obviously).
• Not all new paradigms result in paradigm shifts.

Therefore, citing the lack of evidence for such a shift does not, in any way, support the argument that a claimed paradigm is not, in fact, a paradigm. --JimPlamondon (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Limitations of the Dynamic Tonality paradigm

Dynamic Tonality can apply only to sounds that are digitally processed. Such processing can be applied to any acoustic sound, but such processing is "native" only to controllers of digitally synthesized or sampled sounds, such as the jammer keyboard.

Changing the tuning of a temperament in real time -- thus affecting the tuning of notes, of partials, and of note-controlling buttons on a keyboard -- requires a keyboard that is isomorphic with that temperament, such as the jammer keyboard.

Hence, Dynamic Tonality is "native" only to the jammer keyboard.

The expressive potential of the jammer keyboard -- with up to 10 degrees of freedom -- combined with physical modeling synthesis enables the jammer to expressively control the sound of any traditional or imagined instrument. Therefore, Dynamic Tonality's application is not limited to the sound of any instrument; it is universally applicable to any and all instrument sounds. --JimPlamondon (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"Puffery"?

The Wikipedia editor Kvng attempted to delete, from the phrase "new musical effects which could expand the frontiers of tonality" the phrase "which could expand the frontiers of tonality" as puffery, despite the phrase being followed by a reference to a publication -- the proceedings of peer-reviewed presentations at a respected, non-fringy conference -- which detailed the meaning of the phrase and how Dynamic Tonality accomplished this expansion.

Kvng may be unaware that the phrase "frontiers of tonality" was used by Arnold Schoenberg in the title of Chapter XIV of [the English translation of] his book, Theory of Harmony, (among other places). In his oft-stated view, the history of music could be seen as a progressive exploration of the frontiers of harmony, pushing towards ever greater dissonance. He presented his own harmonic innovations in that context. For Wikipedia's article on Dynamic Tonality to ignore this historical context would do a disservice to the reader.

To support the claim that Dynamic Tonality could expand the frontiers of tonality, a example is analyzed at the end of the article which introduces tension and release into a single chord through dynamic changes in tuning and timbre that can be achieved only through Dynamic Tonality. This is a demonstration of Dynamic Tonality's claimed ability to expand the frontiers of tonality, proving the claim, and hence making it manifestly not "puffery."

Arguably, the whole problem here is the word "could," which implies that such expansion is merely hypothetical, rather than having already been demonstrated as by the example cited above.

It is not puffery to make a sufficiently well-supported claim. --JimPlamondon (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

JimPlamondon, The only thing deleted was, "that could expand the frontiers of tonality". I think we get by just fine with the remaining statement, "enables many new musical effects". Why do we need both? There are plenty of examples of WP:PEACOCK in reliable sources but that doesn't mean they should be transcribed to Wikipedia. ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent question: "Why do we need both?" I submit that most new musical effects do not, in fact, expand the frontiers of tonality. The wah-wah pedal was once new; the whammy bar; the vocoder; the Theremin; the Yamaha DX7 (with FM synthesis); sampling; etc. None of these expanded the frontiers of tonality. They just offered new musical effects within the existing frontiers.

Dynamic tonality goes beyond these other musical effects by enabling truly new tonal structures. Chord progressions that require a polyphonic tuning bend. New sources of tension and release, as demonstrated in C2ShiningC. Temperament modulations: start with P5=696 meantone using a syntonic temperament, then slide up to Pythagorean P5=702 as a pivot tuning for a temperament modulation to the schismatic temperament, then back to meatone/syntonic/P5=696 -- all while maximizing consonance with tuning-aligned timbres. You can't do that without Dynamic Tonality. It opens up a wider frontier of new tonal possibilities than was opened up by the transition from meantone to 12-TET, which sparked a century of musical innovation. I don't detail all of this in the article (except for the detailed example of C2ShiningC); it's in the references.

That's why the article needs to say, explicitly, that these new musical effects "expand the frontiers of tonality." Because they DO, and that's new and different.

--JimPlamondon (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

JimPlamondon, I'm unconvinced. You seem to be promoting this idea. Do you have any COI to WP:DISCLOSE? ~Kvng (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I beg to differ: This article on does not "promote" Dynamic Tonality any more than, say, this section of Wikipedia's article on Equal temperament "promotes" 12-tet:

"In the end, twelve-tone equal temperament won out. This allowed new styles of symmetrical tonality and polytonality, atonal music such as that written with the twelve tone technique or serialism, and jazz (at least its piano component) developed and flourished."

Is describing what 12-tet "allowed" a "promotion" of 12-tet? Or just a statement of fact? If one were to assert that Giants Steps could only have been written in 12-tet, would that be puffery? (Only in 12-tet does a stack of three major thirds, each four semitones wide, precisely equal one octave, thereby making the Giant Steps' "Coltrane changes" chord progression come back to the tonic without commatic drift.)

I have just re-read Wikipedia's page describing COIs, and no, I do not have any COIs as described therein. I am the co-author of some of the key papers, and the co-creator of some of the core ideas, as published in frequently-cited, peer-reviewed articles in mainstream scientific journals. Knowing the concepts well, and wanting them to be more-widely understood, is not a conflict of interest, as I understand it.

In the end, you are unconvinced, and question my motives. So: what would convince you?

--JimPlamondon (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not Kvng, but would be convinced if musicians of Coltrane's caliber, or B.B. King's, adopted Thummer keyboards and used tonal dynamics to make the kind of music whose reach into the core of the human spirit cannot be denied. Until that happens, I must content myself with things like Simon Thoumire playing James Hill's "Bee's Wing" hornpipe on a squeezebox. regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Just Plain Bill,

That would convince me, too! 🙂

However, please note that:

• Coltrane started playing the saxophone in 1943, nearly a century after it was introduced to the market in 1846.
• Likewise, the piano was a curiosity when it was introduced in c. 1700; it did not gain widespread popularity until it had been radically improved over more than a century.
• B.B. King started playing a Silvertone electric guitar in 1937, soon after it was introduced, but of course the un-electrified guitar had been around for centuries and had a large "installed base" on which the electric guitar could draw.

Point being: it takes time for virtuosos to start exploiting the unique musical possibilities of a new musical instrument.

By comparison, there are not yet any commercially-available Jammer keyboard instruments that would enable the emergence of such artists using Dynamic Tonality. Musicians must currently cobble together much less-expressive versions from bits and pieces.

Furthermore, there were no Coltrane-like sax players when the sax was introduced, nor Beethoven-like pianists when the piano was introduced. Even with the electric guitar, which could draw on the "installed base" of non-electric guitar players, it took decades for the electric guitar to be used as something other than "a louder guitar" -- that is, for the unique expressive potential of the combination of electric guitar and amp (let alone whammy bar, foot pedals, etc.) to be exploited.

Patience, please, Just Plain Bill. Patience.

More importantly, this article is not about the jammer or its expressive potential. This page is about Dynamic Tonality, a paradigm of music theory. Saying that you want to proof of the theory's application before recognizing the notability of the theory itself is like saying that you want to see the atomic bomb explode before you recognize the notability of Einstein's special relativity.

Please do not require that the cart precede the horse.

Respectfully,

--JimPlamondon (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Reminds me of the time elapsed between having a monophonic source, sel-synced, multi-tracked, sometimes literally cut and spliced (if the stories I heard about Switched-On Bach were true) using months of studio time, and the availability of commercial multi-voiced, even polyphonic synthesizers suitable for live performance, using piano-style keyboards as a primary input device. It was a bit less than a decade, if I've got the timelines right.

Circumspection is appropriate in encyclopedic treatment of new systems at an embryonic stage, to keep the aspirational parts from bumping into WP:CRYSTALBALL. regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

"Fringe theory"?

Some Wikipedians have suggested that Dynamic tonality is a "fringe theory." Please allow me to discuss the data that proves that this assertion is false.

Wikipedia states that "fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." Yet Dynamic Tonality's key papers were published in respected peer-reviewed publications, such as the Computer Music Journal (H-Index: 41), the Journal of Mathematics and Music (H-Index: 14), and the Proceedings of the College Music Society.

Furthermore, the key publications on Dynamic Tonality are cited frequently, according Google Scholar:

Dynamic tonality papers' citations

Paper	Citations
Spectral tools for dynamic tonality and audio morphing	52
Isomorphic controllers and dynamic tuning: Invariant fingering over a tuning continuum	51
Tuning continua and keyboard layouts	39
Dynamic tonality: Extending the framework of tonality into the 21st century	7

This is an impressive level of citation for papers in the humanities (which includes music theory), in which 65% of papers are never cited even once. Indeed, in all but one of the cases listed above, the number of citations is higher than the average for the publications in which they appeared.

This above-average frequency of citations, in respected, mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, proves that Dynamic tonality is not a "fringe theory." It is merely a new paradigm. Such things take time to gain momentum. 🙂 --JimPlamondon (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Advert"?

At least one Wikipedian (AllanW) has tagged this article with the tag "Advert." This section will discuss why that assertion is false.

To quote Wikipedia:

---

The issue this tag addresses is the policy WP:PROMO, which forbids content that reflects:

• Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.
• Self-promotion.
• Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about people, organizations, issues, and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.

If an article appears to be any of the above, this tag is appropriate.

---

First, the article is written in Inverted pyramid style, which is one of the styles specifically preferred by Wikipedia. As demanded by this style, assertions come first, with the explanations and supporting evidence coming after. The assertions may seem promotional, but so long as they are supported by credible evidence published in credible secondary sources, they are not -- by definition -- "advertisements."

Second, there is the issue of "neutral point of view." At present, to the best of my knowledge, the scientific literature does not contain any papers which contradict anything written in the article, or which criticizes any of Dynamic Tonality's assertions as entirely or even partially false. If evidence of such contradiction can be found, I would be happy to include a discussion of it in the article. In the meantime, so long as all of the citations of Dynamic Tonality in the scientific literature reflect the same perspective that is presented in the article, then the article does indeed present a neutral point of view. Alternatively put: If everyone who cares to comment on the blueness of the sky agrees that the sky is blue, and a Wikipedia article states that "the sky is blue," is that as "advert" for the hypothesis that the sky is blue? Or just a neutral statement of the consensus position on the blueness of the sky? Obviously, it is the latter.

Anyone adding the "advert" tag to this article is respectfully requested to use the form {{Advert|the section or text that you think is promotional}}.

"Essay-like"?

Anyone who might otherwise tag this article as "essay-like" is respectfully requested to instead use the in-line tag {{Editorializing|date=April 2024}}, so that the offending section, sentence, or phrase can be identified specifically.

"Pseudo-just" tunings?

"Pseudo-just tunings" looks like a neologism. A tuning may be just, tempered, or something else, but to call a tempered tuning "pseudo-just" does not contribute to the clarity of the article, IMHO. One remedy, perhaps heavy handed, would be a globsl replacement of "pseudo-just" with "tempered". Open to suggestions for a slicker way to fix it, Just plain Bill (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Just Plain Bill --

I appreciate your interest in improving this article. 🙂

I encourage you not to replace "pseudo-Just tunings" with "tempered tunings" or "pseudo-Harmonic timbres" with "tempered timbres," for the following reason.

There's always a trade-off in nomenclature. Using an existing word to describe a novel concept makes the similarities between the old and new concepts easier to grasp, but hides the differences. For example, Dynamic Tonality uses the word "temperament" to mean "a tuning system as defined by a list of generators including a comma sequence" (following Gene Ward Smith). This adds a new meaning to a traditional musical term. However, as Hucbald Saint Armand has pointed out, this new meaning partially conflicts with previous meanings of the word. Using "tempered timbres" and "tempered tunings" would similarly add new meanings that, in part, conflicted with established meanings.

The advantage of the "pseudo-Just tuning" and "pseudo-Harmonic timbre" nomenclature, IMHO, is that these phrases emphasize that the relationship (in Sethares' sense of "related") between Just tunings and Harmonic partials is maintained despite changes in tuning within, or among, temperaments. Generalizing this relationship is the key novelty of Dynamic Tonality, so a nomenclature that reinforces this relationship is preferred over one that does not.

Rather than replacing the "pseudo-" nomenclature, I would be happy to add a sentence or two to clarify it, if you thought that appropriate.

Respectfully,

--JimPlamondon (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. "Inharmonic" could be a better choice than "tempered", there being different degrees of inharmonicity, from 12TET and stretched piano tuning (which is meant to ameliorate the inharmonicity of physical strings) to the timbres of various gamelan gongs. Brass instrument makers have their own ways of tweaking a horn's partials, which is almost certainly TMI for this article. At any rate, clarification will be helpful. regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Just Plain Bill's bowdlerizations of 22 August 2021

Just Plain Bill: Your most recent change (15:39, 22 August 2021) replaced the clear and correct "unalterably determined by the physics of the harmonic series. The resulting misalignment between "pseudo-just" tempered tunings and fully-harmonic untempered timbres" to read "largely determined by the physics of their sound production. The resulting misalignment between "pseudo-just" tempered tunings and untempered timbres."

This change does nothing to clarify the article. The change simply obscures the relationship between the just intonation and the harmonic series, which is the relationship being generalized by Dynamic Tonality.

I appreciate your pointing out that "Skilled players can shape the timbre of many string and wind instruments to some extent. Some timbres are naturally inharmonic." This is true but irrelevant. Two notably inharmonic timbres, the Indonesian gamelan and the Thai renat ek, are supported at the respective endpoints of the syntonic temperament's valid tuning range, as the article makes clear later on. So, Dynamic Tonality does a better job of supporting inharmonic timbres than the Static Timbre Paradigm does. The paragraph you edited is just not the place to make that point.

Likewise, the inharmonicity of the piano's strings in its highest and lowest notes is well known (see the Railsback curve, but not relevant in this context.

Therefore, I will be reverting your edit and adding some text to make the points to which you are alluding. --JimPlamondon (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

At least you got rid of the erroneous word salad: "unalterably determined by the physics of the harmonic series."

A supporting citation for "Most of the acoustic musical instruments used throughout European ... history had harmonic timbres" is needed. The timbre of many standard Western wind instruments is only approximately harmonic. This has to do with the acoustics of a tube open at one end, and the methods manufacturers use to fudge the partials into line. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point; thank you for making it. Arguably, temperament is primarily an issue for keyboard instruments, and the keyboard instruments during the "battle of the temperaments" had timbres that were largely harmonic. I will add a phrase or sentence that narrows the scope of the issue accordingly. I am reasonably sure that I can find a supporting quote. I can't do that today, though.

--JimPlamondon (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You may be aware of WP:NOHURRY.

The following may be more detail than this context calls for, but I find it interesting: rosin buildup in the bowing area of violin family strings can disturb their mass distribution and hence the harmonic alignment of the overtone structure. When the inharmonicity can't be remedied by cleaning, it's time to swap out the false string.

In other words, the harmonic basis for timbre of instruments in the violin family may not hold still even over the course of a single busy day, with players having to deal with it routinely. Sometimes all it takes is a quick wipe with a shirt sleeve to restore what I hear as a "clean" sound. Some other times, more thorough treatment is needed. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

C2ShiningC

Thank you, Drmies, for reminding me of the need for a citation that proves that the example C2ShiningC is not original research, which is excluded from Wikipedia (and rightly so).

I have restored the example, with the addition of a citation to the 2009 Spectral Tools paper, published in the peer-reviewed Computer Music Journal, in which C2ShiningC was first described and included.

Please let me know if this apparently iron-clad proof of C2ShiningC NOT being original research, is, for whatever reason, insufficient in your opinion.

Respectfully,

JimPlamondon (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)*

JimPlamondon, thanks for the note, and for the mp3--that's really interesting. The opening minute reminds me of the Kronos Quartet. I can't see more than the abstract for the source, and I can't judge if your text is verified by that. What I would like to ask you is to do something else with the mp3, something other than putting it there inline--and if that source indeed verifies the whole thing, which it should, put the footnote at the end. Take care, Drmies (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Drmies: You wrote above that "I can't see more than the abstract for the source, and I can't judge if your text is verified by that." Today, I edited the Spectral_Tools citation to include a quote tag and a quote-page tag. The quote (from page 13 of the original article) refers the reader to the "Spectral Tools home page", which is at https://www.dynamictonality.com/spectools.htm. I then added an External Links section to the Wikipedia article, with one entry, to the given link. There, you will find a discussion of C2ShiningC, which is quoted nearly verbatim in this section, as it is the only detailed written analysis, of which I am aware, of a song that uses Dynamic Tonality. This example and analysis, together, make tangible the theoretical points made in the Wikipedia article, and hence (I argue) are as illustrative to music theory as a map is to geography, or a graph to economics. Also, you will please note that the Spectral Tools home page ends with the notice, "The Spectral Toolbox and the text on this webpage are released under the GNU General Public License v2.0."

So, to reiterate, (1) as shown in the quote that I added today, the C2ShiningC analysis was incorporated by reference into a peer-reviewed journal article, and hence is not original research under Wikipedia's definition, as I understand it; (2) this auditory example and its analysis are extremely valuable to the reader of this article; and (3) this analysis is quoted at length with the author's express permission via a copyleft license.

I trust that this proof of prior publication satisfactorily disproves your argument that the section on C2ShiningC should be deleted as "original research." Unless you explicitly state otherwise in reply below, other editors should please assume that this C2ShiningC section should not be deleted on "original research" grounds.

Getting the C2ShiningC section into this Wikipedia article has been such a struggle, that I would not be surprised if yet another argument were made for excluding it. If so (sigh), then I look forward to countering that new argument as productively as I have now countered the "original research" argument. However, please do not take that as a challenge! I suspect that the point of diminishing returns has been reached wrt further improvements to this section. 🙂

Thank you, Drmies, for helping to ensure that this article's content is above reproach!🙏

P.S.: You stated, "What I would like to ask you is to do something else with the mp3, something other than putting it there inline." I do not understand what you are proposing. Please offer as specific action that would satisfy this proposal, and I will take that action if I can. On the other hand, perhaps you could make the proposed change yourself, since you already know what you intend.

JimPlamondon (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

JimPlamondon, I don't see a link to a secondary source. I see a link to a website, but that is not the same thing. That website is as clear as mud to me. You should not make the reader or other editors look for things. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Peacock, Essay-like, and COI

I expect to delete the Peacock, Essay-like, and COI tags from this article shortly, as they have all been refuted with contrary evidence.

If you object to the deletion of these tags, please cite specific evidence as to how this article merits those each tag, and what counter-evidence would overcome your objection. Thank you for help in improving this article! 🙂

JimPlamondon (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I missed the part where COI was "refuted with contrary evidence." Could you kindly point it out? Just plain Bill (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Just plain Bill, thank you. The COI is abundantly clear, since the name of the editor occurs seven times in the bibliography, and not all those citations are to proper secondary sources. That website is NOT an acceptable secondary source as far as I can tell, in part because it it entirely unclear who runs it and what the editorial principles are. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)