Piaji I

Keenan,

Let me inform you that when you asked information on Piaji I, I already had discarded it and was working on PIAJI II. Since I don´t have information about Mr. Helmholzt works, the Piaji II scale derivation I sent you didn´t use any of his findings.

I apologize for the unfair words I used in the first paragraphs of my latest message.

Thanks

Mario

November, 21

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mario Pizarro" <piagui@...> wrote:
>
> Keenan,
>
> Let me inform you that when you asked information on Piaji I, I already had discarded it and was working on PIAJI II. Since I don´t have information about Mr. Helmholzt works, the Piaji II scale derivation I sent you didn´t use any of his findings.

Right, I didn't mean to imply that you had read Helmholtz (note spelling) and consciously used that information in your scale. Rather, I stated that the scale you came up with, completely independently of Helmholtz or anyone else, just *happened* to be related to a kind of tempering named in honor of Helmholtz.

Mathematically, this isn't as unlikely as it might seem, because the schisma (the comma of helmholtz temperament) is such an unusually good comma - being quite small, yet simple enough to appear by accident in a 12-note JI scale.

> I apologize for the unfair words I used in the first paragraphs of my latest message.

No worries.

Now, one big question I want to ask you is this: What do you like about the PIAJI II scale? What are its attractive properties? And specifically, what properties are useful for ACTUAL MUSIC using this scale? That's what I want to know.

Keenan