Barbershop and Equal-Step Tuning

-----
As regards Mr. Szanto's thread on Barbershop....

>Also, tonight/today Carl Mumma wrote:

My name, not that I am offended, is spelled "lumma".

>which is only my obtuse shorthand for 'quartet fan' (the wife has her
>own string 4tet, you know). Sorry for the confusion. BTW, are their bbshop
>5tets, etc. (not mass choirs)?

You've got to watch it, with all these people using "tet" instead of "tone
equal temperament". Does anyone like this nomenclature? Why not call
equal-step tunings by the size of the step, or maybe by the number of
divisions per space (I referred to 12tet in each of these ways in a previous
posting to try them out, "100 equal" and "12:2 equal" respectively), as both
of these are consistent for octave and non-octave based temperaments. Any
ideas? I can say I am not particularly endeared to McLaren's favorite
Xtyith root of Nth scheme, found in Xenharmonikon 14.

Anyway, all Barbershop is 4-part, be it quartet or chorus. Barbershop is a
unique type of style-> rigidly defined by the one organization that saved
it, and then made it, www.SPEBSQSA.org.

I sing with my local Barbershop chorus, and I have found it highly
rewarding, both for my vocal technique and for my understanding of the 7-limit.

And on the topic of choral work, I think we should dispatch at once quartets
to sing in the 13-limit. A Society for the Encouragement of Just Intonation
Choral Singing at www.SEJICS.org? Why not?

-----
As regards Paul Hahn's statements on 22 vs. 24 equal step/octave tunings....

>To get back to the question, 22TET is consistent up to the 11-limit,
>while 24TET is only consistent to the 5-limit. (In this respect it is
>actually worse than its subset 12TET, which is consistent to the
>9-limit.)

>Peter, if you are interested I could dredge up some of the messages from
>the last time we discussed this. (Hey, is the list archived anywhere?)

I for one would be interested in anything you've got on this. I think I
remember seeing this term "consistency" in an article in an old issue of the
Xenharmonikon, but I didn't understand it until now. Thanks, Paul!

There was also another term that Ivor used, "symmetry". He never defined it
too well, but he complained that 12-tone was too symmetric, and that when
one first began Xenharmonic exploration, it was crucial to "knock the ear
out" with a non-symmetric tuning like 19-tone. Could this be the same
thing, Ivor's term for consistency?

Wouldn't it be nice to have a chart that measured both the "approximation"
and "consistency" values for each limit for each temperament?

Carl



SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: Paul-Hahn@library.wustl.edu
Subject: Re: Barbershop and Equal-Step Tuning
PostedDate: 25-09-97 21:52:35
SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH
ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
$UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH
RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH
RouteTimes: 25-09-97 21:52:17-25-09-97 21:52:17,25-09-97 21:51:21-25-09-97 21:51:21
DeliveredDate: 25-09-97 21:51:21
Categories:
$Revisions:

Received: from ns.ezh.nl by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) with SMTP id
C125651D.006D25F2; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:52:11 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA31111; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:52:35 +0200
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:52:35 +0200
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA31072
Received: (qmail 26216 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1997 12:52:32 -0700
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 25 Sep 1997 12:52:32 -0700
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu