new webpage: JI modulation

Hello all.

I've put up a new webpage:
_Examination of Fox-Strangways and Partch on JI modulation_

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm

This includes a complete quote of Partch's quoting of
Fox-Strangways's letter and his refutation of the latter's
points on JI modulation, with additional footnotes and
commentary by me.

There are MIDI-files and lattice-diagrams of the 3 modulations
demonstrated by Partch, and 4 others I created myself to
demonstrate further points left unexamined by Partch.

Thanks very much to Jon Szanto for helping me to get the
musical illustration graphic right.

I've posted some stuff here (somewhere in the archive) about
Partch's 3 examples, which I'll add to the webpage when I find it.
It's also in the 'General Introduction to Notation' section of
my book, the text of which (a Microsoft Word file; no diagrams)
can be downloaded here in zipped format:

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/book/JustMusic3ed.zip

Enjoy! As always, feedback appreciated.

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

Monz,

Thanks for this page! This helped me to refresh my memory about this.
This is percisely what I was refering to in a recent post - about
what Partch's listening tests revealed about modulating within JI.

I also think there are many questions left unanswered about this
issue, as it has been my experience and perception that there are
many acceptably stable modulations that are possible within a closed
JI system. Perhaps we should take this into the Lab as well, to see
what some listening experiments might reveal amongst us.

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@egroups.com, " Monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:
>
> I've put up a new webpage:
> _Examination of Fox-Strangways and Partch on JI modulation_
>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Jacky Ligon" <jacky_ekstasis@y...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12450

>
> I also think there are many questions left unanswered about this
> issue, as it has been my experience and perception that there are
> many acceptably stable modulations that are possible within a
closed JI system. Perhaps we should take this into the Lab as well,
to see what some listening experiments might reveal amongst us.
>

The more listening experiments the better, as far as I am
concerned... also by a variety of people!
_________ ___ __ __ __
Joseph Pehrson

>I've put up a new webpage:
>_Examination of Fox-Strangways and Partch on JI modulation_
>
>http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm

Well done, Monz! Partch's 3rd, and your 2nd examples rock!

-Carl

[Paul Erlich:]
>>OK, Monz -- I'm glad you asked me to do this myself, because the
>>Vicentino idea doesn't really work for chords like that C-G-A
>>chord . . . perhaps, instead, John deLaubenfels can tell us what
>>pitch-bend values he gets for the optimal adaptive 5-limit JI
>>tuning for the example (in
>>http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm)

[Monz:]
>OK, cool... that works for me. I'd love for him to calculate
>a version, and I'll put it on my webpage. John?

Sure, guys... I'm looking at it right now. Monz, I hafta admit, I'm
getting a bit CONFUSED. The score near the top of the web page shows
the bass note in the 2nd beat of the 2nd measure as being an A, but
that's not right, is it? It's actually a B, in line with the ratios
written below.

Anyway, my "adaptive" program tunes each note in a fixed place, no
doubt because the sequence is so short! The values are:

C: +11.37 cents from 12-tET
D: -6.43 cents from 12-tET
E: -2.45 cents from 12-tET
F: +9.39 cents from 12-tET
F# -20.27 cents from 12-tET
G: +13.35 cents from 12-tET
A: -4.45 cents from 12-tET
B: -0.49 cents from 12-tET

This is an odd sequence: D and G nowhere sound together, which allows
their tuning to be out of sync even though the piece is "in G". It's
not really a good test for adaptive methods, IMHO.

I can send a tuned General MIDI file to someone (Monz?) if desired;
my own web pages are in limbo at the moment, a long-distance phone call
away from where I live...

JdL

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12565
>

> >>http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm)
>
> ... I'm looking at it right now. Monz, I hafta admit, I'm
> getting a bit CONFUSED. The score near the top of the web page
> shows the bass note in the 2nd beat of the 2nd measure as being
> an A, but that's not right, is it? It's actually a B, in line
> with the ratios written below.

OOPS!! Thanks for noticing and pointing that out John. Yes,
you're correct - the note is a 'B' which Partch gave the ratio
5/4. I'll have to fix the graphic when I get a chance.

> This is an odd sequence: D and G nowhere sound together, which
> allows their tuning to be out of sync even though the piece is
> "in G". It's not really a good test for adaptive methods, IMHO.

Perhaps it's not a good test, but we wanted to see what your
'adaptive JI' values sound like compared to the various regular
JI versions I put on the page. I made note of how strange I
think Fox-Strangways's example is too.

> I can send a tuned General MIDI file to someone (Monz?) if
> d;

That works fine, and saves me *all* the work after all! :)
Send it along and I'll include it.

Hmmm... perhaps I should include a good-ol' 12-tET version too,
just for comparison.

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

Hello all.

John deLaubenfels (in private communication) kindly informed
me of yet another mistake on my 'JI modulation' webpage:

>
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm
>
> Hey, Monz - just happened to notice, your fourth example
> brings back the same midi file as your third example;

It's been fixed; so has the musical example.

I've also added two more versions of the modulation:
one in John's adaptive JI tuning, and one in 12-tET.

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

>OK, Monz -- I'm glad you asked me to do this myself, because the Vicentino
>idea doesn't really work for chords like that C-G-A chord . . .

What a drag! This looks to be a serious limitation of the Vicentino method.

>I get it -- the D note in the D chord is not held over into the G chord.
>So, with G as 1/1, you're retuning the sequence as
>
>4/3 ---- 4/3 5/4 10/9-10/9 1/1
>
>5/3 16/9 1/1 --- 1/1 50/27 5/4
>
> 10/9 1/1 5/4 4/3 40/27 1/1
>
>Which is the same as Monz' second example.

Yup, this looks to be the optimum solution, as far as a ground for 5-limit
JI. Is anybody actually unhappy with this version? I like it.

>Guys, this problem would be a lot more interesting if the D sustained into
>the final G chord.

In this case, the optimum version must be Partch's 3rd instance. There are
only two places for the hate to go, and it's a scientifically proven fact
that you feel hate a bagillion times more when it's sent to the tonic, so
the optimum solution is the one that puts it all on the 2nd.

Is anybody at all unhappy with Partch's 3rd instance?

-Carl

I wrote:
>
> >Guys, this problem would be a lot more interesting if the D
sustained into
> >the final G chord.

Carl Lumma wrote,

> In this case, the optimum version must be Partch's 3rd instance.

Oh no, John deLaubenfels will (I hope) find a
much better solution for the case where the D is
sustained into the final G chord.

There are
> only two places for the hate to go, and it's a scientifically
proven fact
> that you feel hate a bagillion times more when it's sent to the
tonic, so
> the optimum solution is the one that puts it all on the 2nd.

Hate?
>
> Is anybody at all unhappy with Partch's 3rd instance?

Yup!

Paul Erlich wrote...

>>Guys, this problem would be a lot more interesting if the D sustained into
>>the final G chord.

I wrote...

>In this case, the optimum version must be Partch's 3rd instance. There are
>only two places for the hate to go, and it's a scientifically proven fact
>that you feel hate a bagillion times more when it's sent to the tonic, so
>the optimum solution is the one that puts it all on the 2nd.

Or, you could tune the C-G-A chord 27/20-81/80-9/8, and drag the comma
all the way back to the beginning (the first chord would then be C-E =
27/20-27/16). I wonder how this would sound. Monz?

-Carl

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Carl Lumma <
CLUMMA@N...> wrote:
>
> What a drag! This looks to be a serious limitation of the
Vicentino method.

It's not that bad -- when you have minor seventh
chords, you would need a third meantone chain in
order to tune the chord to a just 10:12:15:18, and
the largest retune motion rises from 1/4 comma to
1/2 comma. Still better than Partch's solution,
where A gets retuned by a full comma. But John
deLaubenfels can no doubt do better . . .

OK! I modified Monzo's sequence in

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm

So that the D sustains through the final chord; then ran the sequence
thru my adaptive program, 5-limit. Results:

Measure 1, beat 3 (the first notes of the piece):
C: +9.32 cents from 12-tET
E: -4.52 cents from 12-tET

Measure 1, beat 4:
C: +9.34 cents from 12-tET
F: +8.01 cents from 12-tET
A: -4.92 cents from 12-tET

Measure 2, beat 1:
C: +8.77 cents from 12-tET
G: +8.85 cents from 12-tET

Measure 2, beat 2:
G: +8.40 cents from 12-tET
B: -6.62 cents from 12-tET

Measure 2, beat 3:
C: +10.01 cents from 12-tET
G: +9.34 cents from 12-tET
A: -2.89 cents from 12-tET

Measure 2, beat 4:
D: +2.30 cents from 12-tET
F# -14.78 cents from 12-tET
A: -1.26 cents from 12-tET

Measure 3, beat 1:
D: +5.29 cents from 12-tET
G: +5.66 cents from 12-tET
B: -8.50 cents from 12-tET

Because of give in other areas, the A moves up only slightly between
the 3rd and 4th beats of the 2nd measure, yet this is the supposed
"crunch point" of the sequence.

I'm using fairly weak vertical springs here; if there is interest I can
run it again with stronger springs that will tend to move the intervals
closer to JI. The piece is well tuned here, however, IMHO.

The COFT target bends are:

C: +9.32 cents from 12-tET
D: +4.31 cents from 12-tET
E: -4.52 cents from 12-tET
F: +8.01 cents from 12-tET
F# -14.79 cents from 12-tET
G: +7.27 cents from 12-tET
A: -2.83 cents from 12-tET
B: -7.64 cents from 12-tET

JdL

>>There are only two places for the hate to go, and it's a scientifically
>>proven fact that you feel hate a bagillion times more when it's sent to
>>the tonic, so the optimum solution is the one that puts it all on the 2nd.
>
>Hate?

The comman, man, the comma.

Of course, you can spread it out across the entire sequence, so there
are actually six places for it to go, if you can tolerate a shift of
almost 4 cents between every chord. But I doubt this would be much
better than my version where the first chord is sharp by the entire
comma.

>> Is anybody at all unhappy with Partch's 3rd instance?
>
>Yup!

You mean the two A's bother you when you listen to it in Joe's particular
rendition, or you don't like it in theory?

-Carl

I've updated my 'JI modulation' webpage
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm

to include two new MIDI-files tuned according to John
deLaubenfels's latest post
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12632

one with dynamic retuning and the other with the static COFT
tuning (BTW, I need a definition for COFT).

Further comments:

John:

Actually, IMO John deLaubenfel's dynamic version doesn't sound
bad at all, my only objection being a slight beating on the
'D' chord. I'd like to include the dynamic version of your
first retuning, John (the one which didn't sustain the 'D'
into the final chord). Please post the results.

Carl:

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Carl Lumma <CLUMMA@N...> wrote:
> Or, you could tune the C-G-A chord 27/20-81/80-9/8, and drag the
> comma all the way back to the beginning (the first chord would
> then be C-E = 27/20-27/16). I wonder how this would sound.
> Monz?

It uses exactly the same ratios as my '1st example', but a comma
higher, so essentially it would sound the same.

Paul:

I'd still like to make a version using Vicentino's tuning, just
to hear what it sounds like. Please post the values.

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

Sheesh! Take a coupla hours off for errands or actual "work", and you
stand a chance of missing a whole LOT of dialog!

[I wrote:]
>>I'm using fairly weak vertical springs here; if there is interest I
>>can run it again with stronger springs that will tend to move the
>>intervals closer to JI.

[Paul Erlich:]
>That would probably be better, as the sequences we are comparing this
>with use strict JI. Use as strong a set of springs as you can.

Paul, you are the perfect antidote to a swelled head! Just when I'm
ready to take a bow for a job well done, you're not satisfied! See
more exact JI results below...

[Paul (to Joe Monzo):]
>By the way, the link from the definition of "pain" in your dictionary,
>on the word "adaptive", would better lead to a definition for
>"adaptive tuning" rather than "adaptive JI". In adaptive JI the pain
>of having vertical sonorities deviate from JI is infinite, while in
>adaptive tuning, all the different components of pain get traded off
>against one another.

Agreed.

[Joe Monzo:]
>Actually, IMO John deLaubenfel's dynamic version doesn't sound
>bad at all, my only objection being a slight beating on the
>'D' chord.

Whad'ya mean, "Actually"? ;->

[Monz:]
>>I'd like to include the dynamic version of your
>>first retuning, John (the one which didn't sustain the 'D'
>>into the final chord). Please post the results.

[Paul:]
>You must have misunderstood John's post. The result he posted _was_ the
>dynamic retuning, identical to your second example. The reason this
>didn't have any retune motion for any notes was that one already has
>all chords perfectly in JI without encountering any retune motion or
>drift, which you must have appreciated when you created your second
>example.

Correct, Paul.

[Monz:]
>>(BTW, I need a definition for COFT).

[Paul:]
>Optimal tuning for short -- the definition is the same as the incorrect
>definition you previously had for "adaptive JI" -- namely, a form of
>temperament where some function (say, sum-of-squares) of the deviation
>of the intervals from JI is minimized.

Well, COFT stands for "Calculated Optimum Fixed Tuning"; I'll post a
more amplified definition in a separate post.

[Monz:]
>>I'd still like to make a version using Vicentino's tuning, just
>>to hear what it sounds like. Please post the values.

[Paul:]
>As I said, Vicentino's method is not defined for minor seventh aka
>added 6th chords, since retuning them to JI would require three, rather
>than two, meantone chains. There are two ways of doing that, and also
>two ways of sticking with one meantone chain and allowing one harmonic
>interval to be in meantone rather than JI. So there are four
>near-Vicentino solutions. . . .

Poo. Vicentino is deflated. But then, I'm not sure you ever pushed
his method for more recent music, Paul.

[Monz:]
>>But I'm not sure why you say (in private email) that 'adaptive JI' is
>>*not* a temperament... I think it is.

[Paul:]
>I think of JI and temperament as mutually exclusive opposites . . .
>maybe I shouldn't.

I suggest that we DO use the term "adaptive JI" when vertical intervals
are held to exact JI, and "adaptive tuning" for the general case where
vertical pain is not infinite. As for the application of the word
"temperament", I agree that adaptive JI is not a temperament; adaptive
tuning (non JI) to some extent IS dynamic temperament.

[Monz:]
>>How about giving me a nice general definition for 'adaptive tuning'

[Paul:]
>That would be a form of tuning, often specific to a single piece of
>music, where the exact pitch of each pitch class changes at each
>instance in order to minimize pain. If the pain of having vertical
>deviations from JI is considered infinite, one obtains adaptive JI.
>Harald Waage had described one form of adaptive JI in the pages of 1/1.

A good definition.

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>Finally, I was surprised on how smooth and proportioned John
>deLaubenfels' examples seemed again. He's really "onto" something,
>whether it's a "temperament" or not... but it wouldn't actually be a
>"temperament" would it?? It's too dynamic, and changes all the time!

>It really sounds gooood.

Thanks, Joe! I like it too...

[Joe:]
>But, am I possibly being influence by what I am HOPING to hear??
>That I don't know, since I haven't been "blindfolded" or "earfolded."

Nah, this is nice 'n' smooth, I think. If I do say so myself.

[Paul:]
>A similar question is the one Monz and I are currently grappling with,
>whether adaptive JI should be considered a temperament. I initially
>thought not since the chords are in JI within themselves, but perhaps
>you've given me another reason to think not, Joseph: in a temperament,
>each pitch-class would only have one pitch associated with it, while
>something more dynamic shouldn't be considered a temperament at all? Or
>maybe it should . . . geez, do we have any linguistic precedents to
>guide us here?

Apparently not! We can decide our own terms, unimpeded by the past.
Again, my suggestion would be that adaptive tuning (non exact JI) should
be considered a temperament; adaptive JI should not.

OK! After all that preamble, Monzo's sequence in

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm

modified with the D sustained through the final chord: now have run it
thru my adaptive program, 5-limit, with a very stiff set of vertical
springs. Results:

Measure 1, beat 3 (the first notes of the piece):
C: +10.90 cents from 12-tET
E: -2.94 cents from 12-tET

Measure 1, beat 4:
C: +10.85 cents from 12-tET
F: +8.90 cents from 12-tET
A: -4.94 cents from 12-tET

Measure 2, beat 1:
C: +9.96 cents from 12-tET
G: +11.94 cents from 12-tET

Measure 2, beat 2:
G: +11.34 cents from 12-tET
B: -2.47 cents from 12-tET

Measure 2, beat 3:
C: +12.78 cents from 12-tET
G: +14.76 cents from 12-tET
A: -3.02 cents from 12-tET

Measure 2, beat 4:
D: -0.49 cents from 12-tET
F# -14.36 cents from 12-tET
A: +1.46 cents from 12-tET

Measure 3, beat 1:
D: +7.17 cents from 12-tET
G: +5.19 cents from 12-tET
B: -8.63 cents from 12-tET

There are slight rounding errors caused by reading integer bend values
from my tuning files (major thirds are at least .1 cents wide), but
these intervals are very close to exact JI. Motion within the sequence
is therefore substantially increased! The D at the end moves by 7.66
cents, possibly audible to our "golden eared" members.

I would tend to prefer the version that I previously posted, but for
exact JI, this is not bad, IMHO.

JdL

>Measure 1, beat 3 (the first notes of the piece):
> C: +10.90 cents from 12-tET
> E: -2.94 cents from 12-tET
>
>Measure 1, beat 4:
> C: +10.85 cents from 12-tET
> F: +8.90 cents from 12-tET
> A: -4.94 cents from 12-tET
>
>Measure 2, beat 1:
> C: +9.96 cents from 12-tET
> G: +11.94 cents from 12-tET
>
>Measure 2, beat 2:
> G: +11.34 cents from 12-tET
> B: -2.47 cents from 12-tET
>
>Measure 2, beat 3:
> C: +12.78 cents from 12-tET
> G: +14.76 cents from 12-tET
> A: -3.02 cents from 12-tET
>
>Measure 2, beat 4:
> D: -0.49 cents from 12-tET
> F# -14.36 cents from 12-tET
> A: +1.46 cents from 12-tET
>
>Measure 3, beat 1:
> D: +7.17 cents from 12-tET
> G: +5.19 cents from 12-tET
> B: -8.63 cents from 12-tET
>
>There are slight rounding errors caused by reading integer bend values
>from my tuning files (major thirds are at least .1 cents wide), but
>these intervals are very close to exact JI. Motion within the sequence
>is therefore substantially increased! The D at the end moves by 7.66
>cents, possibly audible to our "golden eared" members.
>
>I would tend to prefer the version that I previously posted, but for
>exact JI, this is not bad, IMHO.

Guys, this is a short sequence with common monads only. Not a hard
problem. As I've been suggesting...

| | | | | | | |
A (10/9) A (10/9) A (9/8)
D (3/2) D (3/2)
C (4/3) C (4/3) C (4/3) C (4/3)
B (5/4) B (5/4)
G (1/1) G (1/1) G (1/1) G (1/1)
F# (15/8)
F (16/9)
E (5/3)
| | | | | | | |
+/- 0.0 +3.1 +6.1 +9.2 +12.3 -6.1 -3.1

The numbers across the bottom indicate the tuning change, in cents, to be
applied to the pitches in their respective columns. For example, the
pitches of the d-major chord would be, in cents, D=695.9, F#=1082.2, and
A=197.8.

-Carl

[Carl Lumma:]
>Guys, this is a short sequence with common monads only. Not a hard
>problem. As I've been suggesting...
>
>| | | | | | | |
> A (10/9) A (10/9) A (9/8)
> D (3/2) D (3/2)
> C (4/3) C (4/3) C (4/3) C (4/3)
> B (5/4) B (5/4)
> G (1/1) G (1/1) G (1/1) G (1/1)
> F# (15/8)
> F (16/9)
> E (5/3)
>| | | | | | | |
> +/- 0.0 +3.1 +6.1 +9.2 +12.3 -6.1 -3.1
>
>The numbers across the bottom indicate the tuning change, in cents, to
>be applied to the pitches in their respective columns. For example,
>the pitches of the d-major chord would be, in cents, D=695.9,
>F#=1082.2, and A=197.8.

Let's compare your results to mine, when I use exact vertical intervals.
All the ratios are the same (luckily, this sequence contains no tritones
to argue about!); the only issue is drift. Adapting your notation, I
come up with:

+12.86 +12.81 +11.94 +11.34 +14.76 -2.45 +5.19

Shifting these values to average the same as yours, I've got:

+6.44 +6.39 +5.52 +4.92 +8.34 -8.87 -1.23

Our prescriptions are within a few cents of each other. Notable
differences (counting the chords as 1 .. 7):

. most striking is that you have G (1/1) fall by 15.4 cents between
the 5th and 7th chords; I drop it by 9.57 cents, still a sizeable
amount! It does not sound in the intervening 6th chord, but the
tuning change might still be objectionable to some.

. you have 9.2 cents of upward motion between chords 1 and 4; I'm
almost flat, actually falling slightly.

I dunno, Carl - can you make a sequence doing it your way? Or will
Monz volunteer? We may be getting down to splitting hairs here.

JdL

Helloa all. I've uploaded the latest version of my 'JI webpage'
to my website at:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm

It includes the 'strong spring' dynamic adaptive JI tuning
posted by John de Laubenfels at
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12660

and the version by Carl Lumma at
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12698

Note that the retuned pitches of all de Laubenfels tunings and
of Lumma's differ by only a few cents.

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

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12660

> [Monz:]
> >>I'd still like to make a version using Vicentino's tuning, just
> >>to hear what it sounds like. Please post the values.
>
> [Paul:]
> >As I said, Vicentino's method is not defined for minor seventh aka
> >added 6th chords, since retuning them to JI would require three,
rather than two, meantone chains. There are two ways of doing that,
and also
> >two ways of sticking with one meantone chain and allowing one
harmonic interval to be in meantone rather than JI. So there are four
> >near-Vicentino solutions. . . .
>

I know there have been several extensive posts on this topic... but
I'm trying to understand if I am on the right track... In
Vincentino's tuning, vertical sonorities... or at least a sizable
percentage of them are JUST, and the ROOTS are tuned in meantone.

But, how could that possibly come out right??

I need a short "Vincentino for Dummies..."

Sorry!

________ _____ __ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

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

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12717

> Helloa all. I've uploaded the latest version of my 'JI webpage'
> to my website at:
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm
>

I'm having trouble accessing the Monzo webpage now... anybody else
having that difficulty??
________ ___ __ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

>Let's compare your results to mine, when I use exact vertical intervals.
>All the ratios are the same (luckily, this sequence contains no tritones
>to argue about!); the only issue is drift. Adapting your notation, I
>come up with:
//
>
> +6.44 +6.39 +5.52 +4.92 +8.34 -8.87 -1.23
>
>Our prescriptions are within a few cents of each other.

Well, they'd almost have to be. I think our prescriptions are actually
fairly different.

> . most striking is that you have G (1/1) fall by 15.4 cents between
> the 5th and 7th chords; I drop it by 9.57 cents, still a sizeable
> amount! It does not sound in the intervening 6th chord, but the
> tuning change might still be objectionable to some.

Probably to me, judging by Monz' 1st example. But I'd like to hear it.

>I dunno, Carl - can you make a sequence doing it your way? Or will
>Monz volunteer? We may be getting down to splitting hairs here.

I hope Monz will, since I don't have a convenient way to do the sequence.
'd Love to compare these with Partch #3; see how important the tonic
really is.

-Carl

I wrote...

>I hope Monz will, since I don't have a convenient way to do the sequence.
>'d Love to compare these with Partch #3; see how important the tonic
>really is.

Ain't the list grand? It's done before I even request it. Thanks Monz!

>I dunno, Carl - can you make a sequence doing it your way? Or will
>Monz volunteer? We may be getting down to splitting hairs here.

Ours do sound alike. Both are on the verge of being wishy washy, but
aren't really. Spooky. I think I like yours better, but it could be
a trick.

I still can't get the A's in Partch #3 to bother me. Maybe it's just the
way my sound card is performing it. I have a pretty smooth reed organ
patch, and I can hardly hear the A in D-chord at all...

-Carl

[Paul E:]
>At this hour, Carl's adaptive JI version sounds just fine to me -- one
>doesn't notice the 15¢ shift when there's intervening chord that
>doesn't contain that note.

Wow, I'm surprised! Not that _I_ would be likely to hear the 15¢, but
it seems like you've balked at less in the past. Must've been
different circumstances. Or different hour?

[Carl Lumma:]
>Ours do sound alike. Both are on the verge of being wishy washy, but
>aren't really. Spooky. I think I like yours better, but it could be
>a trick.

Dang, you caught me! I've been putting in subliminal messages, "This
tuning is smooooooth! You are getting drowsy..."

JdL