Reply to Paul Hahn

On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Paul H. Erlich wrote:
>How are they effectively the same? One is the inverse of the other, but are
>major and minor triads effectively the same?

Well . . . yeah, in many ways. They both have the same number of
pitches and the identical interval content. If you were doing a
Forte-style set analysis, you damn betcha they'd be considered the same.
Of course major and minor triads aren't _identical_, but when we're
talking about scale resources, I'd say that the difference between 2)5
and 3)5 dekanies (on the same set of factors) aren't even in the same
ballpark as the differences between either one and a 2)6 pentadekany (is
that the right term?) or a 3)6 eikosany. I wasn't trying to imply
anything more than that.

--pH http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote <*>
O
/\ "Foul? What the hell for?"
-\-\-- o "Because you are chalking your cue with the 3-ball."

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:50 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA26558; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:51:23 +0200
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:51:23 +0200
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA18916
Received: (qmail 17955 invoked from network); 10 Jul 1997 16:59:14 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 10 Jul 1997 16:59:14 -0000
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu