Secondary vs. primary intervals (was Re: prime vs. odd limits)

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Paul H. Erlich wrote:
> Paul H., I know we've argued this before, but let me now ask: since the
> secondary and tertiary ratios result from progressions, and not from
> being present in a basic, consonant sonority with the 1/1, why worry
> about those ratios' agreement with JI? Isn't it enough to require that
> the primary ratios be sufficiently accurate and consistent? Then the
> secondary and tertiary ratios will still result from stringing together
> the primary ratios in progressions -- whether these secondary and
> tertiary ratios approximate JI well is irrelevant since they are not
> supposed to be consonant.

Yes, we've argued it before, several times--I don't know if I'm just not
explaining things well, or if there is some unstated basic premise on
which we disagree, or what. If my previous attempts haven't been enough
for you, I'll have to undertake a more thorough explication, and frankly
I don't know exactly when I'll get the time. I can't seem to toss off
long, carefully thought-out essays the way Margo can. I'll try to do it
soon though. (For "soon" in this case read "before classes resume next
week".)

--pH <manynote@lib-rary.wustl.edu> http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote
O
/\ "Well, so far, every time I break he runs out.
-\-\-- o But he's gotta slip up sometime . . . "

NOTE: dehyphenate node to remove spamblock. <*>