The spectrum-scale relationship occupies a middle ground between intonational naturalism and intonational relativism

‘Intonational naturalism’ holds that musical scales are grounded in physical/biological universals (e.g., the harmonic series). ‘Intonational relativism’ holds that scales are purely cultural constructs. Sethares argues that the spectrum-scale relationship is neither fully naturalist nor fully relativist: (a) Plomp-Levelt sensory dissonance curves are cross-cultural psychoacoustic universals — to this extent the analysis is naturalistic; (b) but the specific spectra that instruments produce, and hence the scales they favor, are the result of cultural and physical co-evolution of instruments and musical practices — to this extent it is relativistic. Both Javanese and Thai music follow the same underlying laws as Western music, but with different instruments and therefore different scales. The framework avoids Eurocentrism: Western 12-tet is not more ‘natural’ than pelog or 7-tet, just matched to different timbres.

Examples

The claim ‘the harmonic series is universal’ is false — it is one special case among many possible spectral structures. The Javanese gamelan’s pelog scale is just as ‘naturally’ derived from its instruments’ spectra as Western intervals are from harmonic timbres. Both follow the same psychoacoustic principle; neither is more primitive or advanced.

Assessment

A music theorist claims that Western scales are universally ‘correct’ because they are based on the harmonic series. Using Sethares’ framework, write a response that acknowledges the naturalistic component of Western tuning while refuting the universal claim.