re: Subminor and supermajor

Dave Keenan wrote...

>I suppose, if you accept 4:5:6:7 as a possible tuning of a major 7th chord
>(which I don't, at least not as a dominant 7th unless you are seeking the
>barbershop style of adaptive JI) then I suppose you would have to allow
>that 6:7:9 is a form of minor chord. But it sounds quite distinct to me,
>from either 16:19:24 or 1/(6:5:4) = 1/6 : 1/5 : 1/4 = 10:12:15. I don't
>think even barbershop ever uses 6:7:9 as a tuning of a minor triad.

Quite right. At least, I can't say I've ever heard it. Problem is
rootedness again, methinks. I would say the 6: is even less the root of
6:7:9 than 10: is of the 10:12:15. This owing to the fact that 6:7:9 can
sometimes evoke a 1: sensation.

-Carl

Carl wrote,

>Quite right. At least, I can't say I've ever heard it. Problem is
>rootedness again, methinks. I would say the 6: is even less the root of
>6:7:9 than 10: is of the 10:12:15. This owing to the fact that 6:7:9 can
>sometimes evoke a 1: sensation.

Yes, a capella maestro Gerry Eskelin described a case where he has singers
singing a minor triad, and had them lower the third until it stopped
beating. At this point, a very prominent phantom subdominant bass became
apparent, that would usually be wholly unacceptable in the context of any
conventional music. Of course, the 4:6:7:9 can be a wonderful chord to base
changes and melodies on, as I demonstrated in the bridge section of my third
22-tET piece at the Microthon.