17 guitar

So Chris, why not just get a 34, cause you then have two 17's...is it cause the frets are so small? I've found that not to be a problem, except for barre type chords...good for you...Hstick

_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Neil -- I personally am afraid of too many frets. Perhaps I should get a guitar made up with like 31 or 34 per octave and just see. It just seems like I would have a tough time playing chords accurately. I have had no big problem with 19 edo on a guitar -- perhaps I should just try it sometime!

Jay

Quoting "Neil Haverstick" <microstick@...>:

>
> So Chris, why not just get a 34, cause you then have two 17's...is > it cause the frets are so small? I've found that not to be a > problem, except for barre type chords...good for you...Hstick
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Well, maybe not everyone WANTS two 17s...I know I'm perfectly happy with one! Yeah, going 34 opens up a lot more possibilities, but (as I learned with 31) sometimes having more possibilities is not necessarily better. Though with 34, you could get Mavila and Father temperament happening on top of Mosh and Pythagorean...use it to get MORE xenharmonic instead of going closer to 5-limit JI the way 34 is typically approached.

But then, a lot of the beauty of 17 is in its elegant simplicity. A 17-tone guitar is as easy to play as a 12-toner, if perhaps a little more difficult than a 19-tone (the larger semitone of 19 I imagine makes major barre-chords easier on the hand, and the flatter fifth makes for less of a stretch). Though I can't say I use barre-chords much anyway, given how anti-xenharmonic they tend to be. Also, 17 will be a cheaper conversion at any rate, given that it will take half the work of 34.

-Igliashon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Neil Haverstick <microstick@...> wrote:
>
>
> So Chris, why not just get a 34, cause you then have two 17's...is it cause the frets are so small? I've found that not to be a problem, except for barre type chords...good for you...Hstick
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Neil,

Right now I feel 17 has more notes than 12 but not excessively so. 34 is
just too much at this time. I think 22 would be my limit.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

Chris

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Neil Haverstick <microstick@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> So Chris, why not just get a 34, cause you then have two 17's...is it cause
> the frets are so small? I've found that not to be a problem, except for
> barre type chords...good for you...Hstick
>
> __________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
>
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]