Kraig Grady kicked me off

Kraig Grady kicked me off his "Newjustintonation" Tuning List.

What did I do, Kraig, to deserve this??

_________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

Hi Joseph,

You did post a message about the miracle scales, which I thought
had little to do with just intonation!

Was wondering about replying to it myself in fact.

I can see the interest in a type of scale that has many near
consonances, and after all, that is one of the things that interests
composers who use 12-tet too, which is an interesting scale in its
own right.

But, idea of "fudging" the j.i. to get more consonances than you
would get in true j.i. isn't much to do with just intonation I think.

I htink it is also an interesting challenge to work within a j.i.
scale in which it isn't so easy to find the pure consonances, can
help to shape ones compositions and can be interesting for that
reason!

Would be a shame if one were to stop exploring j.i. because of
an overwhelming interest in et scales - I think both have a part
to play.

It is possible to delete a message from a group - I have
done so myself.

Robert

--- In metatuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Kraig Grady kicked me off his "Newjustintonation" Tuning List.
>
> What did I do, Kraig, to deserve this??
>
> _________ ______ ______
> Joseph Pehrson

--- In metatuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_32.html#40

> Hi Joseph,
>
> You did post a message about the miracle scales, which I thought
> had little to do with just intonation!
>

Hi Robert...

Well, I "resubscribed" to the list after I had been booted off and
was accepted. Perhaps Kraig had nothing to do with it, and it was
some kind of cumputer glitch.... Dunno.

> Was wondering about replying to it myself in fact.
>
> I can see the interest in a type of scale that has many near
> consonances, and after all, that is one of the things that interests
> composers who use 12-tet too, which is an interesting scale in its
> own right.
>
> But, idea of "fudging" the j.i. to get more consonances than you
> would get in true j.i. isn't much to do with just intonation I
think.
>

Well, OK... However since my MOTIVATION was to try to find many more
quasi just consonances than appear in 12-tET, then I thought it was
appropriate.

I think Kraig will have the final word on this. However, I *do* know
that Kraig has spoken favorably of 72-tET... one of the *few* ETs of
which he speaks favorably...

Please correct me, Kraig, if I am incorrect...

> I htink it is also an interesting challenge to work within a j.i.
> scale in which it isn't so easy to find the pure consonances, can
> help to shape ones compositions and can be interesting for that
> reason!
>
> Would be a shame if one were to stop exploring j.i. because of
> an overwhelming interest in et scales - I think both have a part
> to play.

OK... There are plenty of "strange" JI scales out there. In fact, I
have a LOT of them with lattices that Paul Erlich drew for me, just
waiting to be explored!

best,

Joseph

Robert wrote:

> Hi Joseph,
>
> You did post a message about the miracle scales, which I thought
> had little to do with just intonation!

I don't think miracle tuning should be off-topic for a New Just
Intonation list. It leads to a system of notation that specifies 11-
limit JI to within the range that a performer's unconscious beat-
reduction can take over. It's also much simpler than the Johnston or
Monzowolfellholz for doing the same job. Although it would take a
bit of retraining.

Of course, Joseph doesn't like this and so didn't mention it, but
there you go ...

> Was wondering about replying to it myself in fact.
>
> I can see the interest in a type of scale that has many near
> consonances, and after all, that is one of the things that interests
> composers who use 12-tet too, which is an interesting scale in its
> own right.
>
> But, idea of "fudging" the j.i. to get more consonances than you
> would get in true j.i. isn't much to do with just intonation I
think.

It could be useful to work out your ideas on a Miracle tuned keyboard
as well. A lot of them will translate to JI. You could even use
adaptive JI with it. None of this works yet, but it's a young theory.

Graham

I don't know what happened with his subscription. he posted this as a member
of the list so his is on that list.

Graham Breed wrote:

> Robert wrote:
>
> > Hi Joseph,
> >
> > You did post a message about the miracle scales, which I thought
> > had little to do with just intonation!
>
> I don't think miracle tuning should be off-topic for a New Just
> Intonation list. It leads to a system of notation that specifies 11-
> limit JI to within the range that a performer's unconscious beat-
> reduction can take over. It's also much simpler than the Johnston or
> Monzowolfellholz for doing the same job. Although it would take a
> bit of retraining.
>
> Of course, Joseph doesn't like this and so didn't mention it, but
> there you go ...
>
> > Was wondering about replying to it myself in fact.
> >
> > I can see the interest in a type of scale that has many near
> > consonances, and after all, that is one of the things that interests
> > composers who use 12-tet too, which is an interesting scale in its
> > own right.
> >
> > But, idea of "fudging" the j.i. to get more consonances than you
> > would get in true j.i. isn't much to do with just intonation I
> think.
>
> It could be useful to work out your ideas on a Miracle tuned keyboard
> as well. A lot of them will translate to JI. You could even use
> adaptive JI with it. None of this works yet, but it's a young theory.
>
> Graham
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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

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

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

--- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

Sorry, Kraig...

I guess we're just getting a bit "paranoid" of late....

Something happened and I got "booted off..." It seems as though you
had nothing to do with it.

And for Graham, that cracker...

No, it's a bit preliminary to say I "hate" Johnston or
Monzowolfellholtz...

I'm just "latching on" to 72-tET since it's easy to use right now.

The studies with Johnston and Monzowolfellholz were INVALUABLE to
me... and I hope to continue exploring these things...

Like they say "flexibility's the key"... so I hope to continue
exploring this stuff and writing in whatever works best.

THAT'S the thing, though... I'm tempted to want to us a notation that
let's me get to composing right away...

Sure, I enjoy theorizing... but COMPOSING's the thing!!!!

_______ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

Joe P wrote:

> No, it's a bit preliminary to say I "hate" Johnston or
> Monzowolfellholtz...
>
> I'm just "latching on" to 72-tET since it's easy to use right now.

I actually meant the decimal notation, which is 72-tET although
rarely gets credited as such. Very elegant, could have a future, but
you don't need to worry about it right now.

Graham

[Joe P wrote:]
>>No, it's a bit preliminary to say I "hate" Johnston or
>>Monzowolfellholtz...
>>
>>I'm just "latching on" to 72-tET since it's easy to use right now.

[Graham wrote:]
>I actually meant the decimal notation, which is 72-tET although
>rarely gets credited as such. Very elegant, could have a future, but
>you don't need to worry about it right now.

This may be bad timing, but just what _is_ this "decimal notation" that
I've seen mentioned with 72-tET several times? It's not, I suppose,
the same "decimal notation" that Johnny Reinhard favors (and which I
also use conceptually in my own work), i.e., cents deviation from
12-tET?

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_32.html#55

> Joe P wrote:
>
> > No, it's a bit preliminary to say I "hate" Johnston or
> > Monzowolfellholtz...
> >
> > I'm just "latching on" to 72-tET since it's easy to use right now.
>
> I actually meant the decimal notation, which is 72-tET although
> rarely gets credited as such. Very elegant, could have a future,
but
> you don't need to worry about it right now.
>
>
> Graham

I thank you for that, Graham, since I haven't been able to understand
that anyway.... :)

_________ _____ ______
Joseph Pehrson

John deLaubenfels wrote:

> This may be bad timing, but just what _is_ this "decimal notation"
that
> I've seen mentioned with 72-tET several times? It's not, I
suppose,
> the same "decimal notation" that Johnny Reinhard favors (and which
I
> also use conceptually in my own work), i.e., cents deviation from
> 12-tET?

It looks like we've drifted off-topic and into regular tuning
territory.

No, it's not the same. Is that ever called decimal?

What I mean is given at

<http://x31eq.com/decimal_lattice.htm>

and

<http://x31eq.com/decimal_notation.htm>

Graham

[I wrote:]
>>This may be bad timing, but just what _is_ this "decimal notation"
>>that I've seen mentioned with 72-tET several times? It's not, I
>>suppose, the same "decimal notation" that Johnny Reinhard favors (and
>>which I also use conceptually in my own work), i.e., cents deviation
>>from 12-tET?

[Graham wrote:]
>It looks like we've drifted off-topic and into regular tuning
>territory.

Sorry, Graham! :-( But, since this the meta list, and we've _mentioned_
the fact that we've drifted off-topic, we're suddenly back _on_ topic,
right? ;->

>No, it's not the same. Is that ever called decimal?

Oh... maybe not. I guess I just think of it as decimal. What's the
correct name, again?

>What I mean is given at

><http://x31eq.com/decimal_lattice.htm>

>and

><http://x31eq.com/decimal_notation.htm>

Thanks, Graham!

JdL