Re: [tuning] Re: Re: Defining Just intonation (was: Graylessness and limit)

"David J. Finnamore" wrote:
>
> David Beardsley wrote:
>
> > > 8:5 5:3 12:7 16:9 13:10 7:4 11:6
> > >
> > > Is that a Just tuning? Odd limit = 13.
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > But, no, it's arbitrary.
> > > It's meaningless as a set of Just ratios.
> >
> > Only because you can't find a pattern. But there IS a pattern in
> > this collection of numbers. Ratios.
>
> The fact that they're all ratios is a common characteristic, not a
> pattern. To put it another way, is it possible to construct a
> logical tuning system that would yield this as a complete set? It
> can't be proven that it isn't because that's a universal negative.
> But it seems highly unlikely to me. I chose them arbitrarily.
> Well, not quite - I chose to list 7 items, and specifically excluded
> choices that would tend to result in anything resembling a
> recognizable scale. That's harder to do than it sounds, a testimony
> to the inherent musical vigor of low-ratio JI. Once you concoct a
> set like this, though, what you've got is a "tuning" that is almost
> inevitably going to yield "music" that is little more than a jumble
> of meaningless tones, provided that the style of music is one in
> which musical interest relies on tonal relationships.

Meaningless? Tonal relationships?

I should tune up that scale and see what it sounds like.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm