Re: My misattribution of quote on 53-tet

Please let me express my gratitude to John deLaubenfels for calling my
attention very gracefully to the fact that a passage I recently
"quoted" from Paul Erlich was written by John:

> 22-tET, 34-tET, 41-tET, and 53-tET all widen the fifth compared to
> 12-tone, and compared to just (except 53TET, which is ALMOST exactly
> right!). All support the syntonic comma (i.e., show net microtonal
> motion) in the progression I-vi-ii-V-I. All have two major second
> intervals: four fifths do NOT equal a major third.

As it turns out -- if only I had noticed -- "Paul H. Erlich" was part
of the _title_ of the article, not the author. Since no quotes were
involved in this message, I suppose that my "correct attribution
guard" was relaxed -- but the lesson here may be that to misattribute
is human, and to forgive, divine.

Of course, I can now express my appreciation to the correct person,
John, for giving me occasion to consider the way in which 53-tet
permits approximating an M3 of 81:64, 5:4, or 9:7; at the same time,
I'm delighted to affirm that Paul Erlich has indeed also been an
inspiration in my own study of matters xenharmonic.

Most appreciatively, with due apologies,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net