In support of 22, among others

[Apologies in advance for the lengthly babbling...]

Given that I've been spending quite a bit of time with 22tet over the
past several months, I was rather taken aback by the statement made on
the digest recently that it was a "useless" tuning, so I'd like to
throw my 54.54 cents worth into the discussion. I'm not much of a
theorist in practice, so I won't make my argument along
cyclic-group-theor-set-ical or meta-chromato-substi-modulational
grounds, but rather a more simplistic artsy-feely-philosophical
approach.

IMHO, something can only be described as "useless" when there is an
express or implied "use" to which one wishes to put it, and it isn't
suitable for the intended purpose. That doesn't mean there aren't
*other* purposes for which it may be perfect! Harry Partch made
musical instruments out of so much material that was discarded as
"useless".

If doing the traditional heptatonic-diatonic, tried-and-true type of
harmonic progressions in 22 "hurts", don't do that. I, for one, no
longer accept that paradigm as the be-all and end-all, and I'm
sometimes suprised that for all the effort expended on this list to
break one mold, an equal amount of effort seems to be expended
clinging to another. Along those lines I've had the power [if you
will] of 22tet, and the constructs that seem, or should I say *sound*
natural to it, [at least to my ears] demonstrate themselves only too
well to me.

The first instance was shortly after I had initially tuned up 22 on my
synth and discovered a very pleasing 10 tone melodic scale [which led
to my contacting Paul Erlich and learning of his theories], and much
more recently when analyzing a chord progress I had found while
noodling around on my 22 tone guitar proved it to fit (again) Pauls
theories -- I had "rediscovered" Pauls decatonic minor modes, just by
following my ear. To me, any tuning which can effect me to such a
degree that "following my ear" leads to something like that is far
from useless.

I had made the trek up a number of the small ETs, from 17 to 19 to 22,
and I have to admit that I plain didn't like 17 (but I've heard
effective music made in it!), and while 19 didn't offer me anything
that resonated with my minds ear, I've heard some *very* effective
music made in 19. That doesn't make them "useless", only "not what I
was looking for".

22, as it happens *does* offer what I've been looking for, and I'm
forever grateful for the likes of Ivor Darreg, Brian McLaren, and
eveyone on this list for providing alternative viewpoints, and the
encouragement to explore -- I'd have probably given up long ago had I
listened to the sources I had in my pre-list days, sources that
described oh so many tunings as "useless" because they didn't fit the
"7 tone I-IV-V" mold.

If I've learned one thing from this list, it's that there is no single
"best" tuning, but rather as many "best" tunings as there are emotions
and pieces of music to express them. To me, the only "useless" tuning
is one which has not been put to use. If nothing else, 22 is keeping
me interested in music, and that's pretty good use for *any* tuning,
IMO.

Tune on,

Steve

PS. I know that email sometimes lacks critical cues, so I want to
state outright that I intend nothing personal in the above, it's just
my opinion on the subject.


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: alves@orion.ac.hmc.edu (Bill Alves)
Subject: Re: More on the 19-tone Equal Temperament
PostedDate: 09-12-97 18:29:44
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: 09-12-97 18:27:52-09-12-97 18:27:53,09-12-97 18:27:39-09-12-97 18:27:39
DeliveredDate: 09-12-97 18:27:39
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 C1256568.005FECCF; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:27:45 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA10662; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:29:44 +0100
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:29:44 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA10660
Received: (qmail 4881 invoked from network); 9 Dec 1997 09:29:40 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 9 Dec 1997 09:29:40 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu