Re:deployment

I wrote...

>The point of [7+ limit] JI is that it offers an expanded compositional model.

Mr. Paul H. Erlich replied...

>I agree! That's why I'm more interested in 22-tet than 19, 31, or 50-tet.

Even tho my comment was about Just Intonation, he continues...

>>19, 31, and 50-tet are meantone tunings and thus conform to the compositional
>>and notational conventions of the Common Practice era. 22-tet does not, but
>>it provides an interesting arena for 7-limit activity. Being more interested
>>in exploring new territory than finding better ways of rehashing the same old
>>melodies and harmonies, I'm giving 22-tet a try.

I believe equal-step tunings are best used not as immitations of just
tunings, but as what they are: equal-step tunings. Why? Well, for 22
pitches per duple you can afford an amazingly powerful 7-limit just tuning.
But if you choose to use 7-limit JI as the compositional model and tune your
instrument to 22 equal, then your reply was appropriate.

I also wrote...

>then maybe we can be free to appreciate the excellent musicianship that thrives
>in every idiom the world over.

And Mr. Erlich had replied...

>Whoops! I lost your train of thought.

Crucial to understading my train of thought was reading the "pop in
microtones" message to which I was responding. The jyst of this message was
that "pop" musicians sometimes play music written in 12:2 equal with pitches
outside of that tuning. My response was on behalf of the fact that this is
almost always the case in any style of music, and that the main point of JI
is the expanded resources it offers for composition.

I said that performers of the future will play music composed in JI with
notes outside of the tuning it was written for, without changing that this
music will be more powerful than music composed for 12 equal. I was trying
to make clear the difference between a compositional model and the nature of
performance.

After depriving performance of the role that Johnny Reinhard (author of the
original "pop in microtones" message) tried to give it, my last statement
was to point out that it can be appreciated for what it really is.

I hope this was worth it,

Carl


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: "Paul H. Erlich"
Subject: RE: "Blackwood's proof"
PostedDate: 30-09-97 22:34:07
SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH
ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
$MessageStorage: 0
$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: 30-09-97 22:33:44-30-09-97 22:33:45,30-09-97 22:32:41-30-09-97 22:32:42
DeliveredDate: 30-09-97 22:32:42
Categories:
$Revisions:

Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2
9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256522.0070F0BE; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:33:36 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA02754; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:34:07 +0200
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:34:07 +0200
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA02755
Received: (qmail 8870 invoked from network); 30 Sep 1997 13:33:56 -0700
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 30 Sep 1997 13:33:56 -0700
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu