RE: [tuning] More of that awful Jeff Harrington

>(I found his comments on JI timbres very interesting... something I
>hadn't thought about...)

We've brought that up before and though Jeff severely exaggerates the point,
some of us (Dave Keenan, etc.) have suggested that, in music where the
individual voices need to be heard clearly, it is best to stay a cent or so
off JI for that reason.

The traditional prohibition against parallel fifths and octaves in
counterpoint is typically explained the same way -- the tones lose their
independence, blending into a timbre, and the melody lines disappear.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
>
> We've brought that up before and though Jeff severely exaggerates
the point,
> some of us (Dave Keenan, etc.) have suggested that, in music where
the
> individual voices need to be heard clearly, it is best to stay a
cent or so
> off JI for that reason.

Paul,

In past posts, it has been mentioned that a certain study of
listening tests found that people fit roughly into two categories: 1.
Those that prefer some beating in intervals, and 2. Those that find
beatless or Just intervals more pleasing. I'm wondering if you might
know if this paper is available on the internet - or do you know how
I may learn more about this? That tuning away from Just is something
that is in keeping with the aesthetics of Gamelan, I do find it
interesting. Certainly this is used to beautiful effect in a
centuries old musical practice. But again, as before stated, IMHO -
these are the raw resources of any particular tuning, rather than
something that must be avoided - something to be harnessed and
exploited - not rejected. It's just whatever you may be trying to
achieve, in whatever context, that - to me - validates these
important choices.

>
> The traditional prohibition against parallel fifths and octaves in
> counterpoint is typically explained the same way -- the tones lose
their
> independence, blending into a timbre, and the melody lines
disappear.

Would it be incorrect to say that this may be more true of the lower
number ratios, but when one makes choices from higher up the harmonic
series - the same kinds of distictions may be obtained? Not to
mention that the timbres one chooses will impact on this "blending
into a timbre" effect (the context thing again). I personally have
never seen this as a problem in my exploration of JI.

Thanks,

Jacky

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12825

> >(I found his comments on JI timbres very interesting... something
I hadn't thought about...)
>
> We've brought that up before and though Jeff severely exaggerates
the point, some of us (Dave Keenan, etc.) have suggested that, in
music where the individual voices need to be heard clearly, it is
best to stay a cent or so off JI for that reason.
>
> The traditional prohibition against parallel fifths and octaves in
> counterpoint is typically explained the same way -- the tones lose
their independence, blending into a timbre, and the melody lines
disappear.

Of course, Paul! I remember this all now! And what an interesting
seque into the "just" octaves of traditional music!

Joe

________ ____ __ __
Joseph Pehrson