Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)

Monz,

The single most important change to your dictionary definition of JI would
be to get rid of the part that says "Any tuning system which exclusively
employs intervals defined by ratios of integers may be called Just
Intonation".

This probably means you can't have the definition from 'Tetrachord' at all.

In fact I think you should add to your definition:

It is a common mistake to overgeneralise and say that any tuning system
which exclusively employs intervals defined by ratios of whole numbers may
be called justly intoned. But _any_ tuning may be approximated as closely
as one likes by using ratios of large enough whole numbers. For example the
Hammond organ tuning, which is indistinguishable from 12 tone equal
temperament and is therefore not justly intoned, is based on ratios of
whole numbers no larger than 85. It has all its intervals within 1 cent of
a perfect 12-tET.

The opposite mistake is to attempt to define JI by limiting the size of the
whole numbers such that ratios of greater than 5, 19, 43, or whatever, are
said never to be JI. The fact is that chords with more notes, and sustained
for longer periods, allow higher number ratios to be experienced as justly
intoned. The most extreme form we are aware of is the Dream House
installation of LaMonte Young, which goes beyond the ratios used in the
Hammond organ tuning, but is considered JI by many.

Some of William Sethares' spectrum-based scales for timbres having
inharmonic partials are considered a form of just intonation, but they
involve irrational numbers.

Also, barbershop singing uses just intonation, but no arithmetic of any
kind is involved. It's all done by ear.

The problem in all cases is the attempt to define what is fundamentally an
auditory experience, in (overly simple) mathematical terms. Here's one way
to _experience_ what is meant by just intonation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injunctive definition of a "just interval"

Take a sustained harmonic timbre such as human voice, strings or a
synthetic sawtooth wave (or almost any timbre if it's played loud enough).
Do not use vibrato, reverb, chorus or any other special effects. While
sounding one tone at constant pitch, very slowly sweep another tone up from
that. Sometimes you hear "wah wah wah". This is called beating. Notice when
the beating slows down and eventually stops before speeding up again. Those
sharply defined regions where the beats seem to stop are the "just
intervals", "justly intoned intervals", "JI intervals", "pure intervals".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the above case, with a typical harmonic timbre and only two simultaneous
notes, the just intervals _will_ correspond to regions within a few cents
either side of small whole number ratios of frequency, where the product of
the two sides of the ratio (in lowest terms) is no greater than about 100.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Descriptive definition of "just intonation"

Intonation is the property of having accurate pitch or the process of
obtaining accurate pitch.

Just intonation is accuracy of one pitch in relation to another pitch, such
that the resulting interval sounds harmonically pure; perfectly in tune;
without beating. Such an interval is called a "just interval", "justly
intoned interval", "JI interval" or "pure interval".

The property of just intonation is also said to be posessed by a musical
work, a body of musical works, or parts of a musical work, such as a
passage, tuning, scale or chord, when these contain a significant number of
appropriately related just intervals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what counts as a "significant number" of just intervals for these
various musical entities, and what is "appropriately related".

Definition:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justly intoned scale or Just scale (abbreviated JI scale)

A justly intoned scale is is one where every pitch can be reached from
every other pitch by some chain of justly intoned intervals.

Consider a graph with a vertex for each pitch of the scale and an edge for
each justly intoned interval, then a JI scale corresponds to a connected
graph. It has at least a single spanning tree. A non-JI scale has two or
more unconnected subgraphs.

If an interval is only perceptible as justly intoned when in some harmonic
context larger than the bare interval, such an interval will count as
justly intoned for the purpose of the above definition only if the scale is
capable of providing that context.

If the intervals needed to connect the graph are only perceptible as justly
intoned when a particular (usually inharmonic) timbre (or class of timbres)
is used, then we say the scale is justly intoned for that timbre (or class
of timbres).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

What goes for "JI scale" above also goes for "JI tuning" and "JI chord" or
"JI sonority".

There is no need to rigorously define what a "significant number" is for a
passage or work or body of work, but if more than half of it consists of
just chords or uses a just scale or tuning, I would be inclined to call it
JI. But of course "microtonal" is a good catch-all for non 12-tET tunings.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan
http://dkeenan.com

--- In tuning@egroups.com, David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16287
>
> Monz,
>
> The single most important change to your dictionary definition
> of JI would be to get rid of the part that says "Any tuning
> system which exclusively employs intervals defined by ratios of
> integers may be called Just Intonation".
>
> <etc. ...snip>

Thanks, Dave K. I've simply added your entire post to my
Dictionary entry and will upload it tonight.

To others on the List: give me your opinions about whether
I should actually remove the part Dave suggests removing and
omit his comment, or just leave it in with his comment following.

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
'All roads lead to n^0'

[Dave Keenan:]
>>The single most important change to your dictionary definition
>>of JI would be to get rid of the part that says "Any tuning
>>system which exclusively employs intervals defined by ratios of
>>integers may be called Just Intonation".

[Monz:]
>Thanks, Dave K. I've simply added your entire post to my
>Dictionary entry and will upload it tonight.

>To others on the List: give me your opinions about whether
>I should actually remove the part Dave suggests removing and
>omit his comment, or just leave it in with his comment following.

To the extent that there are schools of thought that believe the
original definition is correct, I would recommend leaving it in place,
breaking out as far as is reasonable each school of thought into a
separate definition, if possible with qualifying labels to help people
who want to use the term communicate clearly.

JdL

--- In tuning@egroups.com, " Monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:
>
> To others on the List: give me your opinions about whether
> I should actually remove the part Dave suggests removing and
> omit his comment, or just leave it in with his comment following.
>

Monz,

Even though I find myself in harmony with the Keenanian definition,
like a "justly intoned" beatless interval, I still maintain some of
the feeling expressed in:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16178

> Are you afraid of losing something
> valuable. If so, please try to explain to me what it is.

"My fear is that we might lose the flexibility to expand this
definition to include the broader meaning that it has assumed for
many. Who wants to be the person to tell Kraig Grady or La Monte
Young - or anyone using high prime ratios, that what they call Just
Intonation, has been ruled incorrect by our friendly forum? Surely a
consensus here would be meaningless without the input from these
masters, who have helped to broaden the meaning of JI."

IMHO, it would only be important to folks on this list to clear the
slate of the transformed "contemporary" definition. Since there are
many important composers that may still feel or perceive it otherwise.

I personally do not feel compelled to wrongfully use it to describe
my rational tuning activities, as I have been disarmed by the nimble
Judo-like logic and dialectic of Dave Keenan.

A royal "Check Mate" if I ever did see one!!!

In humblest possible gratitude,

Jacky Ligon

Monz wrote:

>Thanks, Dave K. I've simply added your entire post to my
>Dictionary entry and will upload it tonight.
>
>To others on the List: give me your opinions about whether
>I should actually remove the part Dave suggests removing and
>omit his comment, or just leave it in with his comment following.
>
I've tried to keep out of arguments over definitions, but when it comes to
posting one that web surfers may take as fact, I feel I must dissent. While
it's certainly fine to acknowledge that people may disagree and give
alternatives within the post, I am of the school that likes the simple
definition of JI as tuning by integer ratios.

I don't wish to recapitulate this whole endless debate, but to insert my
1/600th of an octave: I think that there is value in defining JI from the
perspective of the composer/tuner. That is, if they think of it in terms of
ratios, then it's JI, even if those ratios are large, even if they function
non-harmonically, even if they are not derived from harmonics, even if
there are tiny but inevitable mistakes due to human error or
non-linearities of the material etc.

To say that this or that ratio is too large to be considered JI first of
all becomes highly subjective. I think that La Monte Young has demonstrated
that in certain contexts, there is an audible difference between rational
ratios and close but irrational ones. Secondly, just because a ratio is
complex with respect to a particular 1/1 does not mean that it will be at
all points in the piece.

I think that there is a great benefit to communication to distinguish
between tuning intended to be by integer ratios (just intonation) and
tuning by ratios not meant to be reducible to integers (temperament).
Inserting various exceptions based on subjective interpretations will
only breed confusion, in my opinion, so please, Joe, at least acknowledge
these different interpretations of the term.

And, by the way, I don't see how under any stretch of a definition that
Sethares' use of non-harmonic partials as a basis for tuning could be
considered just intonation. JI is not about matching partials -- that's
just one effect when the tuning is otonal and the timbres harmonic.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Right on Bill Alves!

db

--
* 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

Many thanks to:

John deLaubenfels
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16292

Jacky Ligon
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16293

Bill Alves
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16296

and David Beardsley
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16297

for responding to my request for opinions on how to
update my Tuning Dictionary entry for 'just intonation'.

My inclination is to leave my original definitions intact
in cases where other *interpretations* can be added,
and to simply include those additional perspectives
and let the entries grow. I prefer to make changes
in the original definitions only in those cases where
it is clear that those definitions are actually incorrect.

I wish it were feasible to include the entire debate
we've had here recently on the definition of JI, but
it's simply too big and far too messy. I encourage
anyone who so desires to edit this mass of info into
something manageable which I may add to the Dictionary.
(If anyone wants to edit what I will already have after
tonight, along the lines suggest by John deL., that
would be great too.) As always, full credit will be
given to the editor.

In keeping with my usual procedure then, I will simply
leave my original definition intact with Dave K.'s
post as an addendum, and will also include Bill Alves's
post as a further addendum.

More opinions are encouraged. Bring 'em on!

(It would really be great to have Kraig Grady and Daniel
Wolf participate in this too...)

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
'All roads lead to n^0'

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Bill Alves <ALVES@O...> wrote:

> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16296
>
> ... I don't see how under any stretch of a definition that
> Sethares' use of non-harmonic partials as a basis for tuning
> could be considered just intonation. JI is not about matching
> partials -- that's just one effect when the tuning is otonal
> and the timbres harmonic.

Hmmm, Bill... I do.

Dave K. is basing his definition of JI in large part on
the definition given in the Oxford Dictionary, which (as
should be expected of this awesome guidebook to the history
of the English language) emphasizes the etymology of the
term 'just', meaning 'correct', 'right', 'proper', etc.

Coming from this angle, I can see very well why Dave K. would
say that Setharian harmonic principles could be construed as
a form of JI. Certainly, however, it should be characterized
with some kind of qualifier... maybe 'Setharian JI'?

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
'All roads lead to n^0'

Jacky Ligon wrote,

"My fear is that we might lose the flexibility to expand this
definition to include the broader meaning that it has assumed for
many. Who wants to be the person to tell Kraig Grady or La Monte
Young - or anyone using high prime ratios, that what they call Just
Intonation, has been ruled incorrect by our friendly forum? Surely a
consensus here would be meaningless without the input from these
masters, who have helped to broaden the meaning of JI."

Dave Keenan's latest definition would actually includes Kraig Grady's and La
Monte Young's music as JI. Read it again!

Bill Alves wrote,

>To say that this or that ratio is too large to be considered JI first of
>all becomes highly subjective. I think that La Monte Young has demonstrated
>that in certain contexts, there is an audible difference between rational
>ratios and close but irrational ones. Secondly, just because a ratio is
>complex with respect to a particular 1/1 does not mean that it will be at
>all points in the piece.

This remark shows a considerable lack of understanding of what Dave Keenan
is saying. Go back and read his definition again -- I think you may have
been ascribing ideas to Dave that he isn't actually putting forth.

>JI is not about matching partials -- that's
>just one effect when the tuning is otonal and the timbres harmonic.

When the tuning is utonal, pairs of partials match just as much as when the
tuning is otonal, and triplets and larger sets of partials match even more.

Monz wrote,

>In keeping with my usual procedure then, I will simply
>leave my original definition intact with Dave K.'s
>post as an addendum, and will also include Bill Alves's
>post as a further addendum.

I would recommend waiting for the results of further debate and scrutiny on
both of these items, as something better may supercede one or both of them
in the days to come.

Bless you Paul Erlich. Everything you said is true.

Bill Alves, John deLaubenfels, Jacky Ligon, Dave Beardsley,

It is clear that I have not explained the definition well enough. Or
maybe folk just aren't ready to understanding anything that doesn't
fit the mold of the usual acrimonious "limit vs. no-limit" way that
these discussions have gone in the past.

There is a real chance for reconciliation of views here, especially
since some folk are happy to refer to certain other things as Rational
Intonation (RI) or Rational Continuum Intonation (RCI).

I am close to despair. I think I will just go off and build myself a
Hammond organ. But THIS TIME I will _INTEND_ it to be JI, so that it
_will_ be. And then we can hear all our favourite 12-tET pieces
retuned to JI without any of the trouble that John deLaubenfels is
going to.

Can some other folk who have actually understood this definition, (and
the fact that it doesn't exclude Krag Grady or LaMonte Young or
barbershop, but does exclude Hammond Organs and digital synths which
are indistinguishable from 12-tET), please try to explain it in your
own words. I'm exhausted. You might also explain why its limited
subjectivity isn't a huge problem and how it's too early to be able
use math to remove that subjectivity entirely.

When I read that some piece is in JI, I'd like that to tell me
something about how the harmonies will _sound_, not merely the
composer's favourite way of doing their arithmetic. Wouldn't you?

Thanks Monz for explaining why it makes sense to include some Sethares
tunings, with qualification. I already specified the qualification "JI
for <timbre x> only".

Monz, why not ask John Chalmers if he still thinks it is strictly true
that "all rational is JI".

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

No composer is coming forth proclaiming the Hammond organ is JI... no
composer is claiming happy birthday taken at the piano in octaves is
JI...

It just seems to me that if an iota of common sense were mixed into
all of this, these "problems" would by and large take care of
themselves.

To my mind all of Dave's points, even the ones that bend towards
inclusion under 'special' circumstances, pull the whole in the
unnecessarily narrow direction of censor and conservatism in a musical
and artistic sense.

Cleaning up the ideas behind the aural causation in JI is one thing,
one which I think Dave is as usual arguing very well, but there's
something about this thread that really rubs me the wrong way.

Oh well, nothing I haven't groaned and grumbled about already I
guess...

--Dan Stearns

>When I read that some piece is in JI, I'd like that to tell me
>something about how the harmonies will _sound_, not merely the
>composer's favourite way of doing their arithmetic. Wouldn't you?

No.

How a piece will sound depends on a multitude of factors and subjective
interpretations. To take another example, "serialism" is a term that refers
to "a composer's favourite way of doing their arithmetic," but nevertheless
has important uses in talking about music. Different pieces created
serially can sound very different, but this particular term refers to the
composer's intentions and is no less useful for that.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

--- In tuning@egroups.com, David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16287

Wow... Dave Keenan really seems to make quite a case for an "audible"
Just Intonation definition. I saved this post....

Now to hear some more from some of our other "knowledgables..."

________ ___ __
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, ligonj@n... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16293

>
> "My fear is that we might lose the flexibility to expand this
> definition to include the broader meaning that it has assumed for
> many. Who wants to be the person to tell Kraig Grady or La Monte
> Young - or anyone using high prime ratios, that what they call Just
> Intonation, has been ruled incorrect by our friendly forum?

Jacky... you're a "scream." As we all recall, things were not quite
so "friendly" when all of that happened. Fortunately, everybody has
"moved on..."
__________ ____ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

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

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16303

I think you may have been ascribing ideas to Dave that he isn't
actually putting forth.
>

It seemed to me that Dave really included quite a broad definition,
making it possible even to think of HUGE ratios as JI! But, the
"underlying" criteria for it all was LISTENING... or at least it
seemed that way to me...
_______ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16307

> I am close to despair. I think I will just go off and build myself
a Hammond organ. But THIS TIME I will _INTEND_ it to be JI, so that
it _will_ be. And then we can hear all our favourite 12-tET pieces
> retuned to JI without any of the trouble that John deLaubenfels is
> going to.

I'm sorry... but this whole Hammond organ thing again is just
hysterical... and now it's getting even MORE hysterical. I realize
I'm not supposed to be having this much fun here... sorry...
_______ ___ __ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16308

> To my mind all of Dave's points, even the ones that bend towards
> inclusion under 'special' circumstances, pull the whole in the
> unnecessarily narrow direction of censor and conservatism in a
musical and artistic sense.
>

Could it be, Dan, that the definition of Just Intonation by abstract
numbers or integers, or whatever, not based upon hearing is a kind of
"augenmusik" or non-musical procedure that is a *PART* of certain
kinds of art... a subject we were discussing on the list recently.

Maybe that's what you're missing. Dave's definition seems that of a
scientist-musician really trying to find a firm perceptual
groundwork... But maybe for some people these abstract non-musical
elements are part of the experience... like Margo Schulter's cited
inaudible canons... and for some these aspects are missed if
eliminated... (??)
______ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

David C Keenan wrote:

> Monz,
>
> The single most important change to your dictionary definition of JI would
> be to get rid of the part that says "Any tuning system which exclusively
> employs intervals defined by ratios of integers may be called Just
> Intonation". [snip]

>
> There is no need to rigorously define what a "significant number" is for a
> passage or work or body of work, but if more than half of it consists of
> just chords or uses a just scale or tuning, I would be inclined to call it
> JI. But of course "microtonal" is a good catch-all for non 12-tET tunings.

No need for me to quote the whole post - just enough here so you know which one I mean when I
say:

BRAVO!

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
--

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

<< Maybe that's what you're missing. Dave's definition seems that of
a scientist-musician really trying to find a firm perceptual
groundwork... But maybe for some people these abstract non-musical
elements are part of the experience... like Margo Schulter's cited
inaudible canons... and for some these aspects are missed if
eliminated... >>

Worse than that I'd say... situations like Wendy Carlos' "Partch's
Folly" are the inevitable place that Dave's line of reasoning leads IF
it is overextended into actual music/art.

These things have a way of taking care of themselves...

Much like the risks theology takes if it chooses to ignore science, so
too is the case for composers... However, not many scientist are in
the business of qualifying and disqualifying deities based solely on
the measure of their own "standardized" criterion <g>! They do what
they do to the best of their abilities, and everything more or less
shakes out in the end...

Listening to tuning has damn little to do with "listening" to music in
too many relevant ways to ignore.

I don't object to what Dave's saying, far from it in fact, it's just
the context: Spilling this line of reasoning on music is only going to
make a mess.

At least that's how I see it... I wouldn't expect everyone to agree.

--Dan Stearns

[Dave Keenan:]
>I am close to despair. I think I will just go off and build myself a
>Hammond organ. But THIS TIME I will _INTEND_ it to be JI, so that it
>_will_ be. And then we can hear all our favourite 12-tET pieces
>retuned to JI without any of the trouble that John deLaubenfels is
>going to.

I know you're kidding, 'cause that'd still be a fixed-pitch instrument,
and would suffer from all the problems JI has in fixed-pitch, starting
with the conflict of D in the key of C, etc., etc., etc.

But please don't despair, Dave. I think your definition has great
merit, and has found lots of resonance on this list. I ALSO see that
other definitions of JI have many passionate defenders.

I feel I'm in danger of becoming a harping nag on this subject, but I
find that I'm passionate about trying to sell the idea that we don't
need to fight over words! It does of course make sense to try to reduce
where possible a proliferation of meaning for a particular term, but
sometimes we try to catch the problem too late, when there are already
well established groups who understand a term to mean different things
than some other group does. In this case, once it's clear that a
single definition is not universally acceptable, we need to emulate
a "normal" dictionary, in which any given word has different, often
widely different, definitions, each with a number (or some other tag).

I think we all suffer from a territorial instinct, which can raise
primitive emotions when someone seems to be trying to steal "our"
definition for something. So, let's give up the idea that there must
be a victor. The true goal, the one that brings us together, is clear
communication. There, what is important is that when we use a term, we
make it clear what meaning we intend for the term to have.

If a dictionary, such as Monz's, includes multiple definitions for a
word (or phrase), anyone can refer to it, with the correct particular
definition, when using the term in a post.

JdL

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" wrote:

> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16316
>
> Could it be, Dan, that the definition of Just Intonation
> by abstract numbers or integers, or whatever, not based
> upon hearing is a kind of "augenmusik" or non-musical
> procedure that is a *PART* of certain kinds of art...
> a subject we were discussing on the list recently.
>
> Maybe that's what you're missing. Dave's definition seems
> that of a scientist-musician really trying to find a firm
> perceptual groundwork... But maybe for some people these
> abstract non-musical elements are part of the experience...
> like Margo Schulter's cited inaudible canons... and for
> some these aspects are missed if eliminated... (??)

Thanks, Joe. I was going to write something along these lines
in response to Dan, Bill, and Dave K.

Dave is striving for as exact and unambiguous a definition of
JI as possible, as any scientist or mathematician would. But
I'm afraid this is one of those cases where musicians have
such varied ideas about the meaning of the term that it refuses
to submit to one single definition.

As Joe suggests here, I think perhaps the main definition of
JI should be 'ear-based' as Dave K. desires, but that there
must be a secondary 'eye-based' definition to satisfy composers
who regard it in that sense. [ pun intended :) ]

I didn't get the chance to update the Dictionary entry last
night as I wished, so I think I'll follow Paul Erlich's
suggestion that I wait a bit longer, for some of the debate
to be resolved, before updating the webpage.

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
'All roads lead to n^0'

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16318

> Worse than that I'd say... situations like Wendy Carlos' "Partch's
> Folly" are the inevitable place that Dave's line of reasoning

Could someone please run this by me... It's something I should know
about, but don't. "Sounds" interesting...
___________ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16320
>
> ... In this case, once it's clear that a single definition
> is not universally acceptable, we need to emulate a "normal"
> dictionary, in which any given word has different, often
> widely different, definitions, each with a number (or some
> other tag).
>
> I think we all suffer from a territorial instinct, which
> can raise primitive emotions when someone seems to be trying
> to steal "our" definition for something. So, let's give
> up the idea that there must be a victor. The true goal,
> the one that brings us together, is clear communication.
> There, what is important is that when we use a term, we
> make it clear what meaning we intend for the term to have.

It's clear to me that Dave Keenan, Paul Erlich and I are all
in general agreement, and that John deL. and I are in *total*
agreement, about how to write the definition of JI.

And I'm very happy that this time around, as opposed to what
happened a few months ago, the 'primitive emotions' so far
have not gotten the upper hand. Let's stay calm and clear-
headed while we hammer out a path that will lead to enriched
discourse!

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
'All roads lead to n^0'

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@p...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16318
>
> > Worse than that I'd say... situations like Wendy Carlos' "Partch's
> > Folly" are the inevitable place that Dave's line of reasoning
>
> Could someone please run this by me... It's something I should
know
> about, but don't. "Sounds" interesting...
> ___________ ___ __ _
> Joseph Pehrson

Joseph,

I believe that it was that Wendy felt Partch's timbres and music
style didn't match up with his theoretical work - the fact that he
used many inharmonic timbres for his just intonation compositions and
that his music "moved along quickly", was something that she found
difference with; feeling that this was inappropriate from his
theoretical views about JI.

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

Although I've been away from the computer receiving these tuning emails for a couple of weeks and not following these definition messages, I wanted to comment on the Hammond, for those not familiar with it.
The Hammond organ is the oldest electronic organ design capable of maintaining exact 12 tet because of its use of twelve tuning wheels on a single motor driven shaft. Were you to add an electronic speed control to that motor, you could produce gliding or sliding tones and chords (glissandos) still maintaining 12 tet relationships. Perhaps someone has done this to use it for the Hawaiian guitar style of music. Not only that, but all the partials are in 12 tet, which gives it a somewhat unique sound compared to other electronic organs or pipe organs. Were you to replace most of the tuning wheels to create a different scale, that would be an interesting project!

>>> jdl@adaptune.com 12/07/00 08:11AM >>>
[Dave Keenan:]
>I am close to despair. I think I will just go off and build myself a
>Hammond organ. But THIS TIME I will _INTEND_ it to be JI, so that it
>_will_ be. And then we can hear all our favourite 12-tET pieces
>retuned to JI without any of the trouble that John deLaubenfels is
>going to.

I know you're kidding, 'cause that'd still be a fixed-pitch instrument,
and would suffer from all the problems JI has in fixed-pitch, starting
with the conflict of D in the key of C, etc., etc., etc.

But please don't despair, Dave. I think your definition has great
merit, and has found lots of resonance on this list. I ALSO see that
other definitions of JI have many passionate defenders.

I feel I'm in danger of becoming a harping nag on this subject, but I
find that I'm passionate about trying to sell the idea that we don't
need to fight over words! It does of course make sense to try to reduce
where possible a proliferation of meaning for a particular term, but
sometimes we try to catch the problem too late, when there are already
well established groups who understand a term to mean different things
than some other group does. In this case, once it's clear that a
single definition is not universally acceptable, we need to emulate
a "normal" dictionary, in which any given word has different, often
widely different, definitions, each with a number (or some other tag).

I think we all suffer from a territorial instinct, which can raise
primitive emotions when someone seems to be trying to steal "our"
definition for something. So, let's give up the idea that there must
be a victor. The true goal, the one that brings us together, is clear
communication. There, what is important is that when we use a term, we
make it clear what meaning we intend for the term to have.

If a dictionary, such as Monz's, includes multiple definitions for a
word (or phrase), anyone can refer to it, with the correct particular
definition, when using the term in a post.

JdL

You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.

The idea that both harmonic and inharmonic partials work against any sort of JI is probably just a smokescreen created by the defenders of 12 tet who are trying to conceal that the real problem with 12 tet is the beating of the fundamentals, especially the semitone. Such beating works against any "scale" other than one of octaves only and even then the inharmonic partials work against it. With most instruments, the partials are weaker by far than the fundamentals and this beating is not a very significant problem. The alternative is to go with the Hammond organ type of tone generation, in which all the partials are also in 12 tet.
As for the frenetic pace of much of Western music up to New Age music, I believe it is partly to conceal this beating but also to prevent the building up of standing wave resonances in rooms with parallel pairs of reflective surfaces (walls, floors and ceilings). The exception that might prove this is pipe organs, which are voiced (adjusted pipe by pipe in volume output) to match the resonances of the room, hall, church or auditorium they are played in.

>>> ligonj@northstate.net 12/07/00 10:41AM >>>
--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@p...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16318
>
> > Worse than that I'd say... situations like Wendy Carlos' "Partch's
> > Folly" are the inevitable place that Dave's line of reasoning
>
> Could someone please run this by me... It's something I should
know
> about, but don't. "Sounds" interesting...
> ___________ ___ __ _
> Joseph Pehrson

Joseph,

I believe that it was that Wendy felt Partch's timbres and music
style didn't match up with his theoretical work - the fact that he
used many inharmonic timbres for his just intonation compositions and
that his music "moved along quickly", was something that she found
difference with; feeling that this was inappropriate from his
theoretical views about JI.

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, ligonj@n... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16326

>
> Joseph,
>
> I believe that it was that Wendy felt Partch's timbres and music
> style didn't match up with his theoretical work - the fact that he
> used many inharmonic timbres for his just intonation compositions
and that his music "moved along quickly", was something that she
found
> difference with; feeling that this was inappropriate from his
> theoretical views about JI.
>

OH! So this is a DISCOURSE. I thought maybe it was a piece of music
somehow illustrating these principles...

_________ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "John F. Sprague" <jsprague@d...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16333

> As for the frenetic pace of much of Western music up to New Age
music, I believe it is partly to conceal this beating but also to
prevent the building up of standing wave resonances in rooms with
parallel pairs of reflective surfaces (walls, floors and ceilings).

This is very interesting... I had never thought of it!
_________ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

Dave Keenan wrote,

>>I am close to despair. I think I will just go off and build myself a
>>Hammond organ. But THIS TIME I will _INTEND_ it to be JI, so that it
>>_will_ be. And then we can hear all our favourite 12-tET pieces
>>retuned to JI without any of the trouble that John deLaubenfels is
>>going to.

John deLaubenfels wrote,

>I know you're kidding, 'cause that'd still be a fixed-pitch instrument,
>and would suffer from all the problems JI has in fixed-pitch, starting
>with the conflict of D in the key of C, etc., etc., etc.

John, you missed Dave's joke. He meant for his Hammond organ to be tuned in
the standard way, with the 2-digit ratios I posted, i.e., within 0.7 cents
of 12-tET. Of course he's poking fun of those who say music with very
complex ratios can be JI if that is the _INTENT_ of the composer.

[I wrote:]
>>I know you're kidding, 'cause that'd still be a fixed-pitch
>>instrument, and would suffer from all the problems JI has in
>>fixed-pitch, starting with the conflict of D in the key of C, etc.,
>>etc., etc.

[Paul E:]
>John, you missed Dave's joke. He meant for his Hammond organ to be
>tuned in the standard way, with the 2-digit ratios I posted, i.e.,
>within 0.7 cents of 12-tET. Of course he's poking fun of those who say
>music with very complex ratios can be JI if that is the _INTENT_ of the
>composer.

Paul, you're right. Now I get it.

JdL

Bill Alves wrote:
[Dave Keenan wrote:]

> >When I read that some piece is in JI, I'd like that to tell me
> >something about how the harmonies will _sound_, not merely the
> >composer's favourite way of doing their arithmetic. Wouldn't you?
>
> No.
>
> How a piece will sound depends on a multitude of factors and subjective
> interpretations.

Professor Alves,

May I respectfully point out that your response is over broad. Dave K. specified "how the
harmonies will sound," not "how a piece will sound." How harmonies sound does bear a direct
relation to tuning, regardless of the multitude of other factors that bear on the sound of a
piece. However different particular performances of two pieces of music may sound overall, if
the harmonies of both are intoned justly, as defined specifically and usefully by Dave K., that
common characteristic will be appreciable.

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
--

Dave Keenan wrote:

> I am close to despair. I think I will just go off and build myself a
> Hammond organ. But THIS TIME I will _INTEND_ it to be JI, so that it
> _will_ be. And then we can hear all our favourite 12-tET pieces
> retuned to JI without any of the trouble that John deLaubenfels is
> going to.

Good humor!

> Can some other folk who have actually understood this definition, (and
> the fact that it doesn't exclude Krag Grady or LaMonte Young or
> barbershop, but does exclude Hammond Organs and digital synths which
> are indistinguishable from 12-tET), please try to explain it in your
> own words. I'm exhausted.

Dave K.,

You should be exhausted - you've done an awful lot of work. But don't despair. You succeeded in
firmly planting your flag near the top of the big hill. We can all see it there now, and many of
us understand what it represents. That's worth a lot. I'm not sure I could explain any of it
any better than you already have.

Simply that two or three of us independently arrived at "RI" as a new term for what we do is a
major refinement, well worth the trouble, IMO. Thanks to Margo for her eloquent descriptions of
RI and RCI - brilliant as usual!

I thought JdL's suggestion that more than one definition be included in Monz's dictionary was
insightful, and I agree with whoever it was who said that Dave K.'s should be listed first.

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
--

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@b...> wrote:
>
> You should be exhausted - you've done an awful lot of work. But
don't despair. You succeeded in
> firmly planting your flag near the top of the big hill.

No David, you are mistaken, that was my chest he planted the flag in!
And uncomfortably close to my heart I might add!

We can all see it there now, and many of
> us understand what it represents. That's worth a lot. I'm not
sure I could explain any of it
> any better than you already have.
>

So let it be written so let it be done! King Dave has defeated the JI
hoards!

}: )

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@egroups.com, ligonj@n... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16363

> So let it be written so let it be done! King Dave has defeated the
JI hoards!
>

Hey, Jacky!

I know you're joking, but, seriously, I though Keenan's definitions
were quite sensitive to all kinds of Just Intonation, particularly
the higher-ratio types. He just didn't like the definition to be
based on some mathematical rather than audible construct. Actually,
considering Dave's significant mathematical prowess, this is
"largesse" in my book!

Joseph

Joseph,

Yeah, I was being a bit "colorful", but truthfully, I've been
enriched by the whole discussion, and have found it invaluably
instructive.

Since I was one among the hordes who did hoard all of my intervals
under one grand JI banner, I can only feel the deepest possible
gratitude to Dave for firmly planting the flag of victory (oouch -
not so hard next time!).

}: )

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@c...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, ligonj@n... wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16363
>
> > So let it be written so let it be done! King Dave has defeated
the
> JI hoards!
> >
>
> Hey, Jacky!
>
> I know you're joking, but, seriously, I though Keenan's definitions
> were quite sensitive to all kinds of Just Intonation, particularly
> the higher-ratio types. He just didn't like the definition to be
> based on some mathematical rather than audible construct.
Actually,
> considering Dave's significant mathematical prowess, this is
> "largesse" in my book!
>
> Joseph