>Gosh, I personally would be amazed if anybody looks down on Just >Intonation for that sort of reason. I've never heard anybody >make such a claim anyway.
I don't see it as the sort of thing that actually makes it to the conscious level. It's a subliminal hit, built into the language we use, which may mean that it has all the more influence because it is a vector most of us are not taking into account in our calculations.
>But perhaps that's not terribly important in the long run.
Perhaps not, but it may also be that the language will change to place a positive subliminal spin on whatever tunings supplant the 12et regime which would surely be coming to an end.
I personally think that recognizing the connotations of the language we use is the only way to achieve an objective viewpoint. We may decide that the "spin" the language we use puts on things is right an proper, but if we don't even know we are doing it, then we are not truly objective.
Also, I've been thinking that there's another way to look at the whole ET vs JI thing.
Most of the time the discussions of ET I read concern such topics as selection of the [fifth|fourth|second|etc.] that is closest to the JI interval. Or perhaps is the comma 81/80 or 123/120, or some such.
It seems that much discussion of ET is framed in JI terminology, so that the study of ET scales could just be viewed as a study of a limited subset of JI scales--those that approximate ET spacing.
Marion
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 6 May 1997 14:42 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA05823; Tue, 6 May 1997 14:42:11 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA05855 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id FAA27457; Tue, 6 May 1997 05:39:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 05:39:33 -0700 Message-Id: <970506083657_-64057081@emout12.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu
I made some more in-depth comments on punning earlier on the list, but I cannot let PAULEs comments go uncorrected.
While temperaments can create ''stable'' puns by way of a kind of portmanteau construction (e.g. the interval 4 in 12tet can be read as a pun on 5/4 and 81/64), just intonations create puns by changing rational interpretations in time. For example, a given tone can be approached as the 5/4 third of one chord and departed as the subharmonic septimal seventh of another. This kind of pivot-tone modulation functions in both tempered and just environments to similar effect, but under different constraints. The just environment may require altering the tonal reference points (e.g. slipping commas), while each temperament favors particular sets of puns.
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 6 May 1997 21:21 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA06121; Tue, 6 May 1997 21:21:18 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA06115 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id MAA29366; Tue, 6 May 1997 12:18:17 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 12:18:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199705061445_MC2-160C-ABD2@compuserve.com> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu
On Tue, 6 May 1997, Daniel Wolf wrote: > While temperaments can create ''stable'' puns by way of a kind of > portmanteau construction (e.g. the interval 4 in 12tet can be read as a pun > on 5/4 and 81/64), just intonations create puns by changing rational > interpretations in time. For example, a given tone can be approached as the > 5/4 third of one chord and departed as the subharmonic septimal seventh of > another.
I don't see this as particularly punny at all. A tone might be the 8/7 of a 5/4 chord and the 5/4 of an 8/7 chord, but it's still 10/7 of the tonic either way. If these are puns, then one is punning every time one changes chords. But this essentially drains the meaning from the term.
I would only consider something a pun (in more traditional terminology, an enharmonic substitution) if a tone were reinterpreted to a different part of the lattice, e.g. suddenly treating 15/8 as 48/25.
--pH http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote <*> O /\ "Well, so far, every time I break he runs out. -\-\-- o But he's gotta slip up sometime . . . "
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 6 May 1997 23:04 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA06198; Tue, 6 May 1997 23:04:39 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA06196 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id OAA10278; Tue, 6 May 1997 14:02:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 14:02:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199705062049.NAA08646@ella.mills.edu> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Message text written by INTERNET:tuning@ella.mills.edu >A tone might be the 8/7 of a 5/4 chord and the 5/4 of an 8/7 chord, but it's still 10/7 of the tonic either way. If these are puns, then one is punning every time one changes chords. But this essentially drains the meaning from the term.
I would only consider something a pun (in more traditional terminology, an enharmonic substitution) if a tone were reinterpreted to a different part of the lattice, e.g. suddenly treating 15/8 as 48/25.<
Although the tone in my example may be heard as 10/7 of some pitch, it is not neccessarily heard as 10/7 above a tonic. A tonic is established from within a collection of pitches, and a pun is a function not of a single intervallic relationship but of a set of relationships. If I establish a tone as the 5/4 above a tonic and then suddenly present it as the 8/7 of a tone _not_ present in the initial collection, I am, in effect, moving our center of reference to a different part of the lattice. (If you still disagree, then please define how far apart on a given lattice two tones would have to be to qualify...).
I cannot identify intonational puns with ''enharmonic substitutions'' alone. Above and beyond my discomfort with the term ''enharmonic'' when used in this context (I prefer to save ''enharmonic'' for the classical tetrachord with the narrowest pycnon), ''enharmonic substitutions'' arise in temperaments where series of intervals coincide and a single pitch can be notated in more than one way. Intonational puns (and no one has yet challenged my priority for the term) can cover a broader range of phenomena, including the deliberate use of close but wrong pitches, and pivot tones. Earlier on the list I distinguished portmonteau puns which are heard simultaneously in more than one sense and those that are heard differently over time.
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 7 May 1997 03:43 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA06451; Wed, 7 May 1997 03:43:17 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA06452 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id SAA03151; Tue, 6 May 1997 18:41:32 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 18:41:32 -0700 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu
[In view of David's message, I am sending this again. If you get two copies of this, apologies. --pH]
On Tue, 6 May 1997, Daniel Wolf wrote: > Although the tone in my example may be heard as 10/7 of some pitch, it is > not neccessarily heard as 10/7 above a tonic. A tonic is established from > within a collection of pitches, and a pun is a function not of a single > intervallic relationship but of a set of relationships. If I establish a > tone as the 5/4 above a tonic and then suddenly present it as the 8/7 of a > tone _not_ present in the initial collection, I am, in effect, moving our > center of reference to a different part of the lattice. (If you still > disagree, then please define how far apart on a given lattice two tones > would have to be to qualify...).
This misses the point. The above description would fit modulation or even a simple chord change. I don't think anyone is served by using such an overbroad definition. I don't consider the progression I-IV a pun on the tonic note, even though it is being construed as 1/1 of one set of pitches and 3/2 of another. I would consider I-IV-ii-V-I a pun on the supertonic, because it has to be construed as 10/9 at one point and 9/8 at another (relative to the starting and ending point--and no, I don't want to get into comma drifts right now).
BTW, I chose the term "enharmonic substitution" not becaues it precisely fits the meaning we're trying to discuss, but rather because it is analogous to it, i.e. in each case two differently notated pitches are being represented by one physical pitch.
--pH http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote <*> O /\ "Well, so far, every time I break he runs out. -\-\-- o But he's gotta slip up sometime . . . "
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 9 May 1997 21:07 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA08494; Fri, 9 May 1997 21:07:38 +0200 Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 21:07:38 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA08436 Received: (qmail 7236 invoked from network); 9 May 1997 19:06:49 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 May 1997 19:06:49 -0000 Message-Id: <970509125501_120886073@emout01.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
''This misses the point. The above description would fit modulation or even a simple chord change. I don't think anyone is served by using such an overbroad definition.''
My definition is not overbroad, it is quite strict:
A tonic is established from > within a collection of pitches, and a pun is a function not of a single > intervallic relationship but of a set of relationships.
In the most familiar tonal repertoires, the fixed collection establishes tonic/dominant relationships clearly so that common tones between such chords will not be heard as puns. A pun will be heard when the ear requires some reorientation, that is when the membership in the collection has been altered in some way.
Think of it this way: the collection consists of those (usually) closely related pitches accessable during a given time span in some music. A temporal pun occurs when a single pitch from an initial collection is now heard in terms of new collection. Expressed in of just intonation, _any_ such pun will envolve collections upon the same lattice, and puns can be composed at _any_ distance on the lattice.
It is true that when the collection is ignored the function I describe is identical for common tones in a tonic-dominant pair and for a more exotic interval pair, the function alone is insufficient to make a pun. A pun must be supported by some musical form of ''syntax'' that supports both interpretations, or it will not be heard as a pun. For that reason, it has to be framed in terms of distinct operative collections of pitches. I assume that I needn't note that the effectiveness of an intonational pun depends upon the identity of this function with that founds in familiar modulations or chord changes; the difference is not strictly one of degree - i.e. distance on the lattice - but of context.
This might be positively contrasted with a pitch-saturated music like Princetonian serialism, where 12 tone aggregates are the basic collections. In such a music, the lack of content distinctiveness among collections leads to a situation where all the puns fall flat. (Although intervallic diversity may create very different lines - or lynes, as they would have it - in the end all of them map onto the same set of pitches).
Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 12 May 1997 00:28 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA09393; Mon, 12 May 1997 00:28:29 +0200 Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 00:28:29 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA09407 Received: (qmail 7740 invoked from network); 11 May 1997 22:28:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 May 1997 22:28:19 -0000 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu