Re: [tuning] Re: retreat to 24-tET possible...

Guys, I think you're missing some experience on this. Yes, the players can
play accurately with 50 cents. Sorry if you can't imagine that they can:
they simply can.

It is not possible to have only a FEW players play accurately to the cent:
ALL must play accurately or the music is out of tune.

Each instrument negotiates the cent distinctions differently. However, when
the mind is crystal clear and the technique is a given (as with the jobbing
musicians) then they can and do play accurately to the cent. Now, this
situation is still improving and has been, steadily over the last 2 decades
in New York. Certainly, you might realize that there are different stratum
of musicians to deal with. Partch dealt with non-virtuosi intentionally.
Happily, I am most comfortable with the virtuosi.

Johnny Reinhard

Reinhard's "cents-ers" has nothing to do with "censures." Matter of fact,
cents notations allows for all tunings. And there is little to no music
composed in 31-TET in Amsterdam today (where discussion of a national
notation system is near moot).

72-TET notation appears to have negated an easy transition to certain
particular tunings (for which it does not correspond as well).

Johnny Reinhard

> [Johnny Reinhard]
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12256
>
> Reinhard's "cents-ers" has nothing to do with "censures."

Right - never intended that connection. Maybe I should have
called you guys '1200-tET-ers'.

> 72-TET notation appears to have negated an easy transition to
> certain particular tunings (for which it does not correspond as
> well).

Right again - in fact, in my own experience with the Manieri
& Van Duyne book on 72-tET ear training, I couldn't get away
from hearing the 72-tET intervals as 13-limit JI intervals
with which I'm already familiar, which is exactly *not* what
Maneri was trying to train his students to hear. I guess the
good consistency of 72-tET forced me into this pattern.
I posted on this last year.

I suppose that's another reason why the *lower* JI consistency
of 144-tET notation makes work well for both my complex JI
applications and Stearns complex ET ones.

But certainly, I agree that your use of cents-notation is a
good one. I guess I just prefer the logic and simplicity
of the 144-tET, and it's no more than 4.1/6 cents error from
any specific frequency. Maybe I like it simply because ever
since my childhood I've been fascinated by symbols, glyphs,
codes, writing systems, etc.; cents-values are just plain
old numbers. (Tongue somewhat in cheek here... they're
symbols too...)

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html

--- In tuning@egroups.com, " Monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12257

>
> But certainly, I agree that your use of cents-notation is a
> good one. I guess I just prefer the logic and simplicity
> of the 144-tET, and it's no more than 4.1/6 cents error from
> any specific frequency.

Maybe I like it simply because ever
> since my childhood I've been fascinated by symbols, glyphs,
> codes, writing systems, etc.; cents-values are just plain
> old numbers. (Tongue somewhat in cheek here... they're
> symbols too...)

This is a little funny, Monz. But, actually, it would not be funny
at all to a "working musician." It appeals, certainly, to your
theoretical side as an accomplished theoretician, but it is JUST one
of the reasons that 72-tET and 144-tET might be problematic...

__________ ____ ___ ___ _
Joseph Pehrson

Johnny Reinhard wrote,

>72-TET notation appears to have negated an easy transition to certain
>particular tunings (for which it does not correspond as well).

Agreed -- particularly meantone and related tunings. But I still defend the
"doability" of 72-tET by classical musicians against Joseph.