Re: [MMM] Re: Request for advice on a Just tuning system

Alison and Jacky!
First it seems that the 17 and 19 are useful both melodically and
harmonically.
La Monte's has used the 12-16-17-18 in one of his dreams of China.
Helmholtz used the 17 to explain some diminished chords.
Their closeness to 12 ET is one of the resources of the latter, giving it a
few more years of life :). If one wanted to use the resources up into this
range (17 and/or 19) though one either has to omit lower harmonics as part
of the matrix as for instance the 10-19 diamond would require 81 bars (9 x
9). I have tuned up the hebdomekontany taking the 4 out of 8 set of
1-3-5-7-9-11-13-15 and filled out the blanks to create a 72 tone just scale.
Like Jacky, I have dived into using higher harmonics mainly in a
Navarro-eque
fashion of using chords/ scales formed by having the harmonics generating a
common difference tone such as the series 11-17-23-29-35, all separated by
6. Kathleen Schlesinger used scales with these degree subharmonically as
both historical scales found in Greece, as well as explanation of different
folk melodies. In the latter cae Jim French has played me examples of even
some well known tunes that sound "more correct" in these tuning.
Like Jacky, I look forward to seeing your own take on ways to use these,
i imagine the sound would be surprising familiar to players playing in 12
and might serve as a bridge not explored enough into JI.

jacky_ligon wrote:

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...>
> wrote:
> > I notice in "The Just Intonation Primer" that the author is
> sceptical or
> > unsure as to the efficacy of ratios involving 17 and 19. I interpret
> > this as relating to harmonic music. I personally have no doubt as to
> > their usefulness in melodic music.
>
> J:L:
> Glad to read you say this. I couldn't agree more.
>
> Again I'd be interested to hear
> > from/of musicians who have used the higher primes successfully.
>
> In the same way that some use very high equal divisions of the
> octave, others prefer to do - as Margo eloquently puts - "Temper by
> Ratio". I have written music up to the 67 limit, and have improvised
> in much higer prime JIs that this. The structures I'm speaking of are
> dominated by a given prime, having it in either the numerator or
> denominator for every ratio.
>
> Some folks think I'm nutty about doing this, but too frequently the
> ones to object have not heard, played or tried to make music with
> them, but "see failure on the page" before giving things a musical
> chance.
>
> If one thinks about the musical reasons why our ears can accept the
> wild musical exotica of a broad spectrum of equal temperaments, one
> is not far from understanding why one would wish to work with the
> higher primes.
>
> This is what I find so humorous about the rejection of high prime JI -
> while on the one hand we can accept the myriad of "distorted" wide
> and narrow intervals of many ETs - which can so often lie far from
> the lower limit acoustic ratios, too frequently JI is misunderstood,
> because of one of its key beautiful melodic features - that of its
> asymmetry (where desired). It is also not void of being able to give
> very beautiful harmonies too.
>
> Alison - if I had to make a humble suggestion, it might be to keep
> your step sizes superparticular.
>
> Becoming more of a "JI Moonie" as the days go by,

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

kalleaho wrote:

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...>
> wrote:
> > Before I splatter the page with all these
> > ratios, I'd like to ask first if anyone has expanded Partch's
> > successful 11 limit system through 13,17 and 19, and used the
> > system in actual melodic and harmonic music with acoustic
> > instruments. Once I know this I can get on to my next questions.
>
> Hi Alison!
>
> Now if you are going to do this you will end up with a really BIG
> system! The mere 19-limit tonality diamond has 83 tones and if you
> even it out you are going to get a lot more.
>
> Nevertheless it's really nice to see some JI activity in the Lists.
>
> Kalle
>
> I was hoping to use a restricted set of tones, which is why I'm trying
> to find out what others might have used successfully. Though I could
> accommodate 80 or so tones using tubes I need to be able to work with
> subsets on different instruments, six tone zithers, 20 plus tone
> psalteries and so on. But thanks for the words of caution.

Kind Regards

jacky_ligon wrote:

>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...>
> wrote:
> > I notice in "The Just Intonation Primer" that the author is
> sceptical or
> > unsure as to the efficacy of ratios involving 17 and 19. I interpret
>
> > this as relating to harmonic music. I personally have no doubt as to
>
> > their usefulness in melodic music.
>
> J:L:
> Glad to read you say this. I couldn't agree more.
>
> Again I'd be interested to hear
> > from/of musicians who have used the higher primes successfully.
>
>
>
> This is what I find so humorous about the rejection of high prime JI -
>
> while on the one hand we can accept the myriad of "distorted" wide
> and narrow intervals of many ETs - which can so often lie far from
> the lower limit acoustic ratios, too frequently JI is misunderstood,
> because of one of its key beautiful melodic features - that of its
> asymmetry (where desired). It is also not void of being able to give
> very beautiful harmonies too.

>From my point of view in looking for a J.I. system it's about finding a
balance between melodic and harmonic resources, and about looking for a
cutting edge, though I lack the theoretical wherewithal to pull a system
out of the hat.
I'm not a great fan of exploring new tuning systems in order to find new
ways of presenting "common practice" harmony, though I appreciate that
there are some universal templates buried in the "common practice". In
Just Intonation I'm more interested in modal modulation, dronal music
and some of the atonal structures that Erv Wilson has researched and in
trying to get as much as I can out of a system without tempering.

>
>
> Alison - if I had to make a humble suggestion, it might be to keep
> your step sizes superparticular.

All the tetrachords I want to incorporate have pretty much
superparticular step sizes, chosen because of that very reason.

>
> Becoming more of a "JI Moonie" as the days go by,
>
> J:L
>

> Still got feet in both camps.

Best Wishes

>

>

Kraig Grady wrote:

> Alison and Jacky!
> First it seems that the 17 and 19 are useful both melodically and
> harmonically.
> La Monte's has used the 12-16-17-18 in one of his dreams of China.
> Helmholtz used the 17 to explain some diminished chords.
> Their closeness to 12 ET is one of the resources of the latter, giving
> it a
> few more years of life :). If one wanted to use the resources up into
> this
> range (17 and/or 19) though one either has to omit lower harmonics as
> part
> of the matrix as for instance the 10-19 diamond would require 81 bars
> (9 x
> 9). I have tuned up the hebdomekontany taking the 4 out of 8 set of
> 1-3-5-7-9-11-13-15 and filled out the blanks to create a 72 tone just
> scale.
> Like Jacky, I have dived into using higher harmonics mainly in a
> Navarro-eque
> fashion of using chords/ scales formed by having the harmonics
> generating a
> common difference tone such as the series 11-17-23-29-35, all
> separated by
> 6. Kathleen Schlesinger used scales with these degree subharmonically
> as
> both historical scales found in Greece, as well as explanation of
> different
> folk melodies. In the latter cae Jim French has played me examples of
> even
> some well known tunes that sound "more correct" in these tuning.
> Like Jacky, I look forward to seeing your own take on ways to use
> these,
> i imagine the sound would be surprising familiar to players playing in
> 12
> and might serve as a bridge not explored enough into JI.
> -- Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm
>

Thanks Kraig. I'll look more into these ideas, especially the
hebdomekontany. Have you or anyone else tried the eikosany with higher
primes and missing out some of the lower identities?

Regards

>
>
>

"M. Schulter" wrote:

> Hello, there, Alison, and please let me try to answer your question
> about JI in large part from experience, first giving just a bit of
> background on Partch and also Kathleen Schlesinger.
>
> An important caution, which I add after reading your question again,
> is
> that my experience is with synthesized sound rather than acoustical
> instruments -- a very big distinction that should be pointed out early
> and
> often. However, Kathleen Schlesinger built flutes using her arithmetic
>
> series, as well as tuning some of the ratios on piano, while Partch's
> interest in a 17-limit system was connected with his experiences with
> custom instruments and tunings also.
>
> Here I find it important to mention that while Harry Partch often
> focused on an 11-limit system of 43 notes, he also produced some
> beautiful diagrams for a 17-limit system which I saw in a recent
> collection from his manuscripts and correspondence.
>
> Kathleen Schlesinger, in her _The Greek Aulos_ (1939), describes
> arithmetic divisions using many ratios with these higher factors, and
> people like Erv Wilson and Jacky Ligon have developed these ideas
> further.
>
> Turning now to my own musical experience, an appropriate main focus
> for MMM, I can say that just ratios such as 14:17:21 or 46:56:69
> (23:28 below, 56:69 above) are beautiful and very musically effective
> in the kind of style I often favor. Also, I love melodic steps such as
>
> 14:13 (~128.30 cents) for a large semitone or "2/3-tone," nicely
> contrasting with small semitones or thirdtones such as 28:27 (~62.96
> cents).

Yes, one of my favourite tetrachords with 14:13 is from Avicenna. I have
especially noticed the effect of this step on other people. Several
react immediately and want to hear it again.

>
>
> In my view, the "debate" here is mostly theoretical: is there
> something "special" about a large minor or small neutral third at
> precisely 17:14 (~336.13 cents), in contrast for example to 63:52
> (~332.21 cents) or to 28:23 (~340.55 cents)? Or are they all examples
> of a general kind of interval around 330-341 cents, say, without any
> special significance for the exact integer ratios.
>
> Either way, they can be used to make some beautiful music, so I
> wouldn't be too concerned about this kind of theoretical question --
> maybe I'd consider it while making and enjoying the music, a curious
> kind of contemplation.
>
> Please note that in using these just ratios, I tune a subset of them
> rather than a complete system of the kind that Partch describes for
> ratios of 11 or 17.
>
> Also, I'm often looking at certain categories of ratios from either a
> melodic or harmonic point of view. Thus something like 14:17:21
> suggests to me a three-voice sonority often resolving to a stable
> fifth, while 14:13 suggests a melodic step, although it might also be
> used as a vertical interval, as I use 13:7 (~1071.70 cents).

I have foolowed your postings on cadential resolutions very carefully
and with great interest. As a lover and student of chant and early
polyphony medieval music myself I particularly appreciate your approach.
Many of the cadences you have offered are simple but not easy, if you
know what I mean, and many are just the sort of moves we'd all like our
choirs to be able to sing in three or four parts. One of my aims is to
burrow into this treasure trove of "suggestiveness" around these
cadences and incorporate them into my own particular style, at the
moment with my own instruments, but ultimately with voices.

> Anyway, Alison, please let me lend you lots of encouragement in
> exploring these higher just ratios.

Thank you kindly.

>
> For my own music, I already have a certain historical paradigm in
> 13th-14th century European music -- but one subject to lots of
> revisions and additions. Devising a music with these ratios involving
> fewer stylistic preconceptions -- if that's possible -- could be a
> very interesting direction, with Erv Wilson's CPS kind of approach as
> one example.
>
> Also, in reference to Harry Partch's system, I would caution that
> Partch's music is far more than just ratios or JI theory -- it's music
>
> with its own custom instruments as well as the presence of the
> performers and often the element of the text, and so forth.
>
> In other words, if the question is whether one can and should make
> beautiful music with just ratios having factors such as 13, 17, 19,
> 23, and so forth, I would say "Yes!"
>
> Exactly how or why this music can be so beautiful, I leave to a more
> theoretical discussion, emphasizing that theoretical explanations are
> at best partial and imperfect.
>
> Most appreciatively, with peace and love,
>
> Margo

As always, sound advice and inspiration.

Kind regards.

>
>
>