Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: [tuning] Digest Number 983

No un solicited e-mail please

tuning@egroups.com wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are 17 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Re: exposing folks to microtones
> From: Seth Austen <acoustic@landmarknet.net>
> 2. "Partch's Folly" Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: ligonj@northstate.net
> 3. Re: exposing folks to microtones
> From: ligonj@northstate.net
> 4. Re: exposing folks to microtones
> From: ligonj@northstate.net
> 5. re: defining just intonation
> From: Carl Lumma <CLUMMA@NNI.COM>
> 6. Re: Definitions and acronyms
> From: Seth Austen <acoustic@landmarknet.net>
> 7. Re: Definitions and acronyms
> From: Clark <CACCOLA@NET1PLUS.COM>
> 8. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "John F. Sprague" <jsprague@dhcr.state.ny.us>
> 9. "Partch's Folly" Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "John F. Sprague" <jsprague@dhcr.state.ny.us>
> 10. Concert Fri. in St. Paul, MN
> From: Harold Fortuin <harold_fortuin@yahoo.com>
> 11. "Partch's Folly" Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@pubmedia.com>
> 12. Re: Definitions and acronyms
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@pubmedia.com>
> 13. "Partch's Folly" Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@pubmedia.com>
> 14. RE: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> 15. RE: re: defining just intonation
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> 16. RE: "Partch's Folly" Re: Defining Just intonation (summi ng up)
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> 17. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@adaptune.com>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 10:02:49 -0500
> From: Seth Austen <acoustic@landmarknet.net>
> Subject: Re: exposing folks to microtones
>
> on 12/6/00 12:02 AM, tuning@egroups.com at tuning@egroups.com wrote:
>
> > Message: 25
> > Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 22:05:29 -0700
> > From: Neil Haverstick <STICK@USWEST.NET>
> > Subject: exposing folks to microtones
> >
> > Jacky...I have made my microtonal pursuits an everyday part of my
> > interaction with others, especially students, of which I have many. The
> > interesting thing I've noticed is that, once they are made aware that
> > other tuning systems even exist, the rest is easy. I get people
> > constantly asking me about the subject; they've heard about something
> > unusual I'm into, and are curious. And, overall, the response is very
> > favorable. I, too, look to the day when 12 eq is not the king of the
> > tunings...and, if this does happen, I'm sure it will largely come about
> > because of all the hard work the folks on this list have put into making
> > it happen...Hstick
> >
> >
>
> Kudos. Please keep it up. It IS through people on this list, making JI
> accesible to their students and audiences that help further interest in JI
> and microtonal music.
>
> In the instances where I have explained this to my students, largely in the
> context of slide guitar or improvisation classes, people have quickly become
> fascinated with JI and were willing to ask more and more questions through
> the glazed over eyes portion of the experience to an awareness of using
> these concepts in their own music. In a couple of cases, I've turned people
> on to it to the point where they had instruments refretted to 19 or 31 tone
> ET. This is very gratifying.
>
> Seth
> --
> Seth Austen
>
> http://www.sethausten.com
> email; seth@sethausten.com
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:41:17 -0000
> From: ligonj@northstate.net
> Subject: "Partch's Folly" Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> --- 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:55:45 -0000
> From: ligonj@northstate.net
> Subject: Re: exposing folks to microtones
>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, Seth Austen <acoustic@l...> wrote:
> > on 12/6/00 12:02 AM, tuning@egroups.com at tuning@egroups.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Kudos. Please keep it up. It IS through people on this list, making
> JI
> > accesible to their students and audiences that help further
> interest in JI
> > and microtonal music.
> >
> > In the instances where I have explained this to my students,
> largely in the
> > context of slide guitar or improvisation classes, people have
> quickly become
> > fascinated with JI and were willing to ask more and more questions
> through
> > the glazed over eyes portion of the experience to an awareness of
> using
> > these concepts in their own music. In a couple of cases, I've
> turned people
> > on to it to the point where they had instruments refretted to 19 or
> 31 tone
> > ET. This is very gratifying.
> >
> > Seth
>
> Seth,
>
> This is great!
>
> You know one of my favorite demonstrations of JI is to have one of my
> midi modules playing on piano samples on two different channels,
> where I can - by changing the midi channel - be able to alternately
> sound 1/1, 5/4, 3/2 then, 0, 400, 700 cents. Also 1/1, 6/5, 3/2, - 0
> 300 700. This simple demo is so much fun because folks hear those
> nasty 12 tET 3rds in their true light (and on the familiar "piano"
> timbre, this is especially effective)! Usually recognizing it for the
> first time. A great way to lay the groundwork for other more exotic
> possibilities.
>
> Thanks for sharing this with the list!
>
> Jacky Ligon
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 16:01:58 -0000
> From: ligonj@northstate.net
> Subject: Re: exposing folks to microtones
>
> Monz,
>
> This is extremely interesting! Please let me know about anything such
> as this that you find!
>
> To other interested parties; this is available on Shareware Music
> Machine:
>
> http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/WIDI/
>
> I'll test it out soon and let the list know how it behaves for me.
> Now, where's my Tibetan Chant Cd?
>
> Thanks!!!
>
> Jacky Ligon
>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, " Monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > About a year ago I found a .wav-to-MIDI application that's
> > awesome. I don't have the URL handy now, but you should be
> > able to find it in a search. The latest version I know of
> > is called 'WIDI 2.6'. The connection was very poor: it took
> > me about 15 download attempts before I finally got the whole
> > thing around 4 am my time.
> >
> > Apparently it uses Fourier transforms or some such method
> > to break a .wav file into its component parts and then
> > put those parts on separate MIDI tracks and channels.
> >
> > I ran a .wav-file of the _Good Times_ TV theme thru it
> > (a gospel-style piece with several vocal parts, the singers
> > using lots of vibrato), and played the resulting MIDI-file
> > output with ocarina timbres (ocarinas being as close as I
> > could get to sine waves), and I swear you could almost hear
> > the words of the singers!! The program was *that* good at
> > emulating the vowel formants with pitch as well as the
> > consonants with the attack envelopes.
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 11:23:21 -0500
> From: Carl Lumma <CLUMMA@NNI.COM>
> Subject: re: defining just intonation
>
> Just a few points,
>
> o In my view, Dave has not demonstrated a need for such a precise
> definition of a common term as he has attempted.
>
> o Dave's definition of just scale is too strong, omitting scales where
> only one pitch is not connected. Such examples point out the arbitrary
> nature of such conditions -- changing the number of allowed un-connected
> pitches causes only a smooth change it the properties of the tuning.
>
> o One of Dave's central arguments that the current definition is
> insufficient is the Hammond argument. But by his definition, too, the
> Hammond organ is a just instrument.
>
> o It seems obvious to me that there is already in common use both a
> general and special definition for the term just intonation:
>
> general - Any system of tuning which organizes sounds in such a
> way that a human auditory system construes them, to some extent,
> but not completely, as components of a single timbre. This is
> usually done by appealing to one or both of the two known methods
> of pitch resolution used by the auditory system: periodicity and
> place.
>
> This covers music like Mozart's, which uses a tempered scale but which
> is clearly meant to imply just intonation in the sense above.
>
> special - Any system of tuning which organizes pitches in such a
> way that a human auditory system construes them, to a great extent,
> as components of a single timbre, such that better fusion is
> practically impossible given the pitches used... such that any
> change in the intonation, greater than some slight and precise
> amount, results in a noticable weakening of the fusion, even when
> randomly applied.
>
> This covers "just intonation", as it is used to distinguish between
> pure JI, and general JI under temperament.
>
> These definitions work in terms of a given listener, as they should.
> The Hammond organ is an instrument capable of general, and probably of
> special (although it is possible that, due to periodicity effects and
> despite some beating, tuning a Hammond patch to small ratios would
> result in greater fusion for some listeners) JI by these definitions.
>
> -Carl
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:15:10 -0500
> From: Seth Austen <acoustic@landmarknet.net>
> Subject: Re: Definitions and acronyms
>
> on 12/4/00 8:46 PM, tuning@egroups.com at tuning@egroups.com wrote:
>
> >> Another possibility could be, unfortunately, "Rational Alternate
> >> Tuning System" or, well... RATS
> >
> > Or alternately: Prime Extended Systems of Tuning
> >
> > PEST
> >
>
> here's another one;
>
> "Harmonically Attained Microtones"...or HAM
>
> I admit this is not a very kosher acronym for a Jewish vegetarian to have
> suggested... I'll stop now before I try to figure out "n'cheese"
>
> Seth
>
> ------
> Seth Austen
> http://www.sethausten.com
> email; seth@sethausten.com
>
> --
> "To be nobody-but-myself -- in a world which is doing its best, night and
> day, to make you everybody else -- means to fight the hardest battle which
> any human being can fight, and never stop fighting."
> -- e.e. cummings
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:15:20 -0200
> From: Clark <CACCOLA@NET1PLUS.COM>
> Subject: Re: Definitions and acronyms
>
> Seth wrote:
>
> > "Harmonically Attained Microtones"...or HAM
>
> Since you opened it, this one's for you:
>
> "Partial-ordered rational combinations", or an effete PORC ;)
>
> Clark
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:32:04 -0500
> From: "John F. Sprague" <jsprague@dhcr.state.ny.us>
> Subject: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> 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.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:48:54 -0500
> From: "John F. Sprague" <jsprague@dhcr.state.ny.us>
> Subject: "Partch's Folly" Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> 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.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:38:47 -0800 (PST)
> From: Harold Fortuin <harold_fortuin@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Concert Fri. in St. Paul, MN
>
> Alternate Tunists,
>
> Composer, Instrument-Builder, Bassoonist, and
> Improviser Dixie Treichel has organized the Unique
> Sounds ensemble, a group of Minneapolis/St. Paul
> instrument builders, who will present an hour's
> worth of mostly improvised music as part of the
> National
> Experimental Intermedia Art series at the Nobles
> Studios at Metro State University, St. Paul, MN.
>
> This concert is coming up on this Fri., Dec. 8 at 8
> pm at the Nobles Studios. Tickets are $6/$4 for
> students/seniors, all at the doorm (all proceeds to
> the performers). From I-94, exit
> at Mounds Blvd. just east of St. Paul. Take a left at
> the end of the ramp, and then a left on E. 7th St.
> Nobles is visible across from you as you turn on E.
> 7th.
>
> The unique and homemade instruments (and their
> tunings) include:
>
> Haroldï¿½s
> --Clavette microtonal MIDI keyboard controller
> (playing a Kurzweil K2000) in 19, 22 and 31-ET (Iï¿½m
> mostly using some 22-ET instrumental sounds)
> --The Bottlophone, built with the help of Kris Peck.
> It is a retunable rack of plastic 20 ounce soda
> bottles. Theyï¿½re mounted on three 2 by 4 inch wooden
> ranks, and held there by ï¿½ inch vinyl tubing. The
> ranks are mounted on two 5 foot high metal plumbing
> pipes, which are screwed into flanges on two 2 by 2
> foot wooden ï¿½feetï¿½. So far, Iï¿½ve tuned ï¿½em as an
> octave of 22-ET by filling ï¿½em with varying amounts of
> water.
> --(playing) the 12/17/19-ET organ built by
> undergraduate electrical engineering students at the
> University of Manitoba ca. 1980. The instrument is
> currently owned by the Schubert Club of St. Paul,
> which maintains an impressive musical instrument
> museum, and was just recently repaired.
>
> Kris Peckï¿½s
> --20-tone just intonation electric guitar
> --22-ET electric guitar
> plus delay and other effect pedals
> (described on my website)
>
> Dixie Treichel:
> --Chinese pipa
> --glass xylophone
> --hose+funnel-horn
> aesthetically tuned
>
> Steve Carlino:
>
> --bowed thundersheet
> --long shaker
>
> Ryan:
> --short bowed string instrument
> --electric saw blade chimes
> aesthetically tuned
>
> Jessie:
> --jazz voice and vocal effects
>
> Sorry I donï¿½t remember the last names of Ryan and
> Jessie.
>
> This multi-tuned, mostly improvisational event is not
> how I usually present my instruments; but all the
> musicians in the group are expressive performers, and
> with the rehearsing and the structure in Dixieï¿½s
> score, the results should be impressive.
>
> Sorry for sending this out with such little notice. I
> would post the geocities link to the Nobles series
> site, but I canï¿½t access it here at my client 3M.
>
> Alternately & sonically yours,
> Harold Fortuin
> harold_fortuin@yahoo.com
> www.geocities.com/Vienna/Studio/7358
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 18:43:54 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@pubmedia.com>
> Subject: "Partch's Folly" Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> --- 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 18:50:47 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@pubmedia.com>
> Subject: Re: Definitions and acronyms
>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, Seth Austen <acoustic@l...> wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16330
>
> > here's another one;
> >
> > "Harmonically Attained Microtones"...or HAM
> >
> > I admit this is not a very kosher acronym for a Jewish vegetarian
> to
> have suggested... I'll stop now before I try to figure out "n'cheese"
> >
> > Seth
> >
>
> Somebody beat you to it, Seth! The "famous" HAM is the "Historical
> Anthology of Music" assembled and edited by Willi Apel! (I believe
> Margo Schulter studied with or collaborated with him... I am not
> certain...)
>
> ___________ ___ __ _
> Joseph Pehrson
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 18:55:02 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@pubmedia.com>
> Subject: "Partch's Folly" Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> --- 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:48:21 -0500
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> Subject: RE: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> 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.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:01:20 -0500
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> Subject: RE: re: defining just intonation
>
> Carl wrote,
>
> >o Dave's definition of just scale is too strong, omitting scales where
> >only one pitch is not connected. Such examples point out the arbitrary
> >nature of such conditions -- changing the number of allowed un-connected
> >pitches causes only a smooth change it the properties of the tuning.
>
> >o One of Dave's central arguments that the current definition is
> >insufficient is the Hammond argument. But by his definition, too, the
> >Hammond organ is a just instrument.
>
> Whoa! In the Hammond tuning, _none_ of the pitches are connected to _any
> others_! So it certainly seems that Dave would classify that as a non-just
> tuning.
>
> > general - Any system of tuning which organizes sounds in such a
> > way that a human auditory system construes them, to some extent,
> > but not completely, as components of a single timbre.
>
> >This covers music like Mozart's, which uses a tempered scale but which
> >is clearly meant to imply just intonation in the sense above.
>
> This would be highly at odds with any use of the term JI in the literature,
> since it would include all the usual tempered scales before it would include
> utonal JI constructs.
>
> > special - Any system of tuning which organizes pitches in such a
> > way that a human auditory system construes them, to a great extent,
> > as components of a single timbre, such that better fusion is
> > practically impossible given the pitches used... such that any
> > change in the intonation, greater than some slight and precise
> > amount, results in a noticable weakening of the fusion, even when
> > randomly applied.
>
> Again, utonalities are JI constructs which couldn't be further from being
> perceived as a single timbre, though beating between partials can be used to
> tune them to great accuracy.
>
> >The Hammond organ is an instrument capable of general, and probably o

Re: [tuning] Digest Number 983

🔗Kusum <kusum@california.com>