Re: [tuning] Digest Number 982

No unsolicited 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 25 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. RE: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> 2. RE: Re: Towards a hyper MOS and Dissertation on MOS, Ste inhaus, etc
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> 3. RE: Re: Towards a hyper MOS and Dissertation on MOS, Ste inhaus, etc
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> 4. RE: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> 5. RE: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> 6. Re: Towards a hyper MOS and Dissertation on MOS, Ste inhaus, etc
> From: "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>
> 7. RE: Re: Towards a hyper MOS and Dissertation on MOS, Ste inhaus, etc
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> 8. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>
> 9. Re: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>
> 10. Re: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: Bill Alves <ALVES@ORION.AC.HMC.EDU>
> 11. Re: exposing folks to microtones
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> 12. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> 13. Re: Complexity and inaudible primeness (was: 64:75:9 6)
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> 14. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> 15. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> 16. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> 17. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> 18. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@bellsouth.net>
> 19. Re: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>
> 20. Re: exposing folks to microtones
> From: ligonj@northstate.net
> 21. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@adaptune.com>
> 22. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: " Monz" <MONZ@JUNO.COM>
> 23. Re: exposing folks to microtones
> From: " Monz" <MONZ@JUNO.COM>
> 24. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@pubmedia.com>
> 25. Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
> From: " Monz" <MONZ@JUNO.COM>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:25:21 -0500
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> Subject: RE: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> 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!
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:28:25 -0500
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> Subject: RE: Re: Towards a hyper MOS and Dissertation on MOS, Ste inhaus, etc
>
> Dave Keenan wrote,
>
> >It seems that the denominators of the convergents give the
> >cardinalities of the strictly proper scales, while the
> >semi-convergents give improper (or merely proper) scales. Do you know
> >whether that is always the case?
>
> I stated as much in this summer's posts here in reply to Jason Yust, but I
> don't know if I had a mental proof or not at the time. My mind is far too
> fuzzy now.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:36:05 -0500
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> Subject: RE: Re: Towards a hyper MOS and Dissertation on MOS, Ste inhaus, etc
>
> Thanks for this spreadsheet Dave. I don't know how I feel about your minimax
> beat rate criterion -- your meantone fifth of 695.63 cents is smaller than
> the Zarlino (2/7-comma meantone) fifth -- besides the other objections we've
> raised to using beat rate without any provision for beat amplitude, it may
> be that you're focusing too narrowly on only one voicing of one chord (the
> 4:5:6), leading to such a skewed result.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 18:01:56 -0500
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> Subject: RE: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> 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.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 18:11:03 -0500
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> Subject: RE: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> 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.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:37:05 -0000
> From: "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>
> Subject: Re: Towards a hyper MOS and Dissertation on MOS, Ste inhaus, etc
>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> > Thanks for this spreadsheet Dave. I don't know how I feel about your
> minimax
> > beat rate criterion -- your meantone fifth of 695.63 cents is
> smaller than
> > the Zarlino (2/7-comma meantone) fifth -- besides the other
> objections we've
> > raised to using beat rate without any provision for beat amplitude,
> it may
> > be that you're focusing too narrowly on only one voicing of one
> chord (the
> > 4:5:6), leading to such a skewed result.
>
> My approach has been to maximise the consonance of the most consonant
> chord. But you're right. The 695.63 meantone fifth shows clearly that
> minimax beat rate is not doing that. It is too hard on the fifths. I
> calculated those optima ages ago.
>
> This is getting off the topic of this thread and onto something
> JdL was chasing. What would be a simple way to include some sort of
> "typical" beat amplitudes in the optimisation? I feel that the
> tolerance for mistuning is greatest for intervals with a*b complexity
> of about 30 to 35 and less for both simpler and more complex ratios.
>
> Note that the weighting of the cents values implied by beat-rate alone
> is (to a good approximation for deviations of less than 20 cents) the
> LCM of the interval, as it appears in the extended ratio of the chord
> (not reduced to lowest terms). If the interval appears more than once
> e.g. 4:6 and 6:9 in 4:5:6:7:9, then the highest LCM is used, i.e.
> LCM(6,9) = 18.
>
> Regards,
> -- Dave Keenan
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 18:40:43 -0500
> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>
> Subject: RE: Re: Towards a hyper MOS and Dissertation on MOS, Ste inhaus, etc
>
> Dave, I think tolerance for dyads within larger chords will turn out to be a
> far more complex issue than just weighting beat rates (consider the large
> differences between otonal/utonal partners, for example). For single
> intervals, I'm not sure how beat rates will help you with this:
>
> >I feel that the
> >tolerance for mistuning is greatest for intervals with a*b complexity
> >of about 30 to 35 and less for both simpler and more complex ratios.
>
> though I thought we had once discussed using a minimum of two functions for
> the tolerance (to get it to behave this way), one being based on beat rate
> and another on . . . ?
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:14:19 -0000
> From: "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>
> Subject: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 19:55:58 -0800
> From: "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>
> Subject: Re: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:00:21 -0800
> From: Bill Alves <ALVES@ORION.AC.HMC.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> >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) ^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:26:59 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: exposing folks to microtones
>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, Neil Haverstick <STICK@U...> wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16285
>
> OK... here is something to add to the mix. There are preparations
> underway for a concert of some of my works in Moscow in March. (I
> will have pieces on some other programs there too during that time,
> but one "dedicated" concert).
>
> My friend there who is organizing it... Anton Rovner, for those of
> you who might know him... he had a piece on the last microthon... was
> really afraid of presenting my new VIOLAHEXY to the young lady
> violist he had in mind... This is a piece in a hexanys scale.
>
> He thought the Russian musicians would be totally incapable of
> performing it, and would just say "I don't know how to do this..."
>
> HOWEVER, he encountered an entirely different response. Upon
> examining the notation, which involves cents deviations from the
> 12-tET staff, the young lady violist immediately replied, "Oh sure, I
> know how to do this... I've done music like this before..."
>
> The point is that younger musicians all over the globe seem to know
> what's going on with microtonality... and MANY are more and more
> interested and capable in performing it!!!
>
> ________ ___ __ _
> Joseph Pehrson
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:39:04 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> --- 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
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:44:34 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: Complexity and inaudible primeness (was: 64:75:9 6)
>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, " Monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16290
>
> > I dunno... probably this has more to do with mathematics than
> > auditory perception, and I'm *far* from being qualified enough
> > in math to explain it. But I really do think that there's a
> > connection between the two, and I'm interested enough to keep
> > pursuing it. If I'm barking up the wrong tree... oh well,
> > guess I'll eventually lose my voice, then no one will have
> > to be concerned about listening to me anymore. :)
> >
>
> Remember when Arnold Schoenberg told John Cage that Cage had no
> "feeling" for harmony and probably shouldn't be a composer since he
> would be beating his head up against a brick wall?? Cage's famous
> response was to tell Arnie that he would spend the rest of his life
> hitting his head against that wall...
>
> No overt comparisons, Monz... just the story came back to mind...
>
> ________ ___ __ _
> Joseph Pehrson
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 04:50:33 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> --- 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:04:19 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> --- 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:14:31 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> --- 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:24:54 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> --- 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:42:00 -0600
> From: "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> 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
> --
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 01:30:02 -0800
> From: "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>
> Subject: Re: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> 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
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 11:48:39 -0000
> From: ligonj@northstate.net
> Subject: Re: exposing folks to microtones
>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@c...>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@egroups.com, Neil Haverstick <STICK@U...> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16285
> >
> > HOWEVER, he encountered an entirely different response. Upon
> > examining the notation, which involves cents deviations from the
> > 12-tET staff, the young lady violist immediately replied, "Oh sure,
> I
> > know how to do this... I've done music like this before..."
> >
> > The point is that younger musicians all over the globe seem to know
> > what's going on with microtonality... and MANY are more and more
> > interested and capable in performing it!!!
> > Joseph Pehrson
>
> This is the kind of response I'd hoped to elicit, and it's really
> great to hear these kinds of things.
>
> And how encouraging to hear about this microtonal interest in Russia!
> Too bad we don't see some internet connected Russian microtonalists
> on the list. Perhaps language barriers and lack of internet access
> thwarts this for many.
>
> Thanks Joseph and Neil for sharing what's going on in your quarters!
>
> Jacky Ligon
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 06:11:20 -0700
> From: "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@adaptune.com>
> Subject: Re: Defining Just intonation (summing up)
>
> [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. T