RE: [tuning] Re: Soft on Seven

>I'm not
>claiming that the point means the tuning MUST be JI 7-limit, only saying
>that other factors mean the chords are dissonant (the way you define it)
>no matter how they're tuned.

Right -- but it's a cop-out to then say "well, then, I might as well target
4:5:6:7 no matter what the style of music". For example, if you have a
ii-V7-I progression, the 2nd and 4th scale degrees should suffer a
noticeable retune motion -- while targeting a 4:5:6:7 for V7 is likely to
induce it if the vertical springs are moderately strong.

>I would use 5:6:7:9 for a half-diminished seventh.

In Baroque and Classical music, this is clearly inappropriate, as we found
with reference to the Bach example. The minor triad within this chord should
really be tuned 1/6:1/5:1/4, not 6:7:9, if you're not looking for an
intentionally "xenobaroque" effect.

John deLaubenfels wrote,

>Sorry, I must have missed that - where do you talk about that again?

My paper, in Xenharmonikon 17 or
http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/22ALL.pdf.

>It would be really great to hear an actual piece, tuned in 7-limit, for
>which you say, "This is good, IMO". Does such a thing exist?

Yes -- my piece TIBIA, which in on the Tuning Punks site, which uses 22-tone
"ultrachromaticism" and 9-limit harmony (with 15s); and my "Decatonic Waltz"
in the 10-tone subset of 22-tET that I propose in the paper above. Perhaps a
lot of Stravinsky, maybe some Ravel . . .