LET'S MAKE A FAQ!

On Thursday, I will stop receiving e-mails from this group, and check the web at my
convenience . . . which means I may not give all posts as much attention as I have in the
past. I'd like to propose that what we need more than anything else is a tuning FAQ.
Perhaps we could all take some time out from our posting schedule to put something
together that could end up being a big time-saver in the future. I'd propose that
everyone with a field of expertise come up with some basic questions and a set of very
patient and broad answers. For now, we need a volunteer to collect the questions in
private e-mail and then post them to see what holes we need to fill, if any . . . So, who
would like to be the great e-mail collector?

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#18895

>So, who would like to be the great e-mail collector?

Well, Paul, wouldn't *YOU* really be the most logical person to do
this,since it's YOUR idea and you know so much about the subject
matter? You could easily screen for duplicates and assemble it as
text.

Probably it would be best to put it up on a Web page... and Joe
Monzo's site or John Starrett's sites immediately come to mind...

I really hope you will continue to monitor the list carefully as you
have in the past. Lots of us will be VERY disappointed if you no
longer do that! :(

_________ _____ ____ __
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_18895.html#18895
>
> >So, who would like to be the great e-mail collector?
>
> Well, Paul, wouldn't *YOU* really be the most logical person to do
> this,since it's YOUR idea and you know so much about the subject
> matter? You could easily screen for duplicates and assemble it as
> text.

I could . . . but that presumes that people would trust me to be blind and impartial in this task. . .
rather than favoring those contributors with whom I tend to agree over those with whom I tend to
disagree . . . of course, if it turns out that no one has any serious objections, then yes, I'd be
honored to take on the role of editor of a FAQ.

> I really hope you will continue to monitor the list carefully as you
> have in the past. Lots of us will be VERY disappointed if you no
> longer do that! :(

Joseph, I don't know . . . hopefully, a well-constructed FAQ will eliminate the need for a lot of this
monitoring . . .

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#18948

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_18895.html#18895
> >
> > >So, who would like to be the great e-mail collector?
> >
> > Well, Paul, wouldn't *YOU* really be the most logical person to
do
> > this,since it's YOUR idea and you know so much about the subject
> > matter? You could easily screen for duplicates and assemble it
as
> > text.
>
> I could . . . but that presumes that people would trust me to be
blind and impartial in this task. . . rather than favoring those
contributors with whom I tend to agree over those with whom I tend to
> disagree . . . of course, if it turns out that no one has any
serious objections, then yes, I'd be honored to take on the role of
editor of a FAQ.
>

That would be great. Maybe you could post ALL the submissions
somewhere along with your final preferences. Then if anybody has any
objections we can all discuss them... (??)

> > I really hope you will continue to monitor the list carefully as
you have in the past. Lots of us will be VERY disappointed if you no
> > longer do that! :(
>
> Joseph, I don't know . . . hopefully, a well-constructed FAQ will
eliminate the need for a lot of this monitoring . . .

It sounds as though you may be leaving us off here in this Tuning
jungle, with no compass and where nameless warring tribes abound...

That's TERRIBLE! There are WOLVES around here...!

_________ ______ ______ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> It sounds as though you may be leaving us off here in this Tuning
> jungle, with no compass

The FAQ should be the compass . . .

>There are WOLVES around here...!

Aaoooooo! There's one kindly Wolf named Daniel who will help you through the jungle . . .

Excellent idea Paul (especially since you've volunteered). Long
overdue.

Many questions of the kind "What is a ..." can be answered by
reference to Monz's dictionary. But a FAQ needs to be more structured
to lead folk into it gently.

What is tuning?
Why isn't standard tuning good enough?
What things do people care about in a tuning?
What kinds of tunings are there?
How did the western world arrive at equal temperament?
What is just intonation? (eek!) :-)

-- Dave Keenan

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

> What is tuning?
> Why isn't standard tuning good enough?
> What things do people care about in a tuning?
> What kinds of tunings are there?
> How did the western world arrive at equal temperament?
> What is just intonation? (eek!) :-)
>
Since you're providing these questions, I take it you'd like to write
up answers for at least some of them? I sure hope so!

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#18978

> --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> > What is tuning?
> > Why isn't standard tuning good enough?
> > What things do people care about in a tuning?
> > What kinds of tunings are there?
> > How did the western world arrive at equal temperament?
> > What is just intonation? (eek!) :-)
> >
> Since you're providing these questions, I take it you'd like to
write
> up answers for at least some of them? I sure hope so!

Certainly for the Just Intonation question, I believe Dave Keenan
already has! It would just [:)] be a matter of "culling" it from the
recent discussion of about a month ago... And, of course, there were
"disagreements" and probably some of those "dissenting" arguments
should be posted also. So much of the work has, seemingly, already
been done...

_______ _____ ___ _
Joseph Pehrson

List!
I have a problem with this in that it implies a consensus. Such a
list would do more to nip ideas in the bud by intimidation and allow
those who are already on the list as the supreme "experts" that must be
assumed to be valid. If it is going to be assumed that I should already
know a large amount of the theories put forth, it would be overwhelming.
I think more is gained by allowing fresh ideas to come to full
expression, even if they are wrong.
Frankly i have gotten more out of these posters than you can imagine.

To include "dissident" points of views already regulates them to the
back. Everyone here has valid points and should state them in their own
forum. Also many people answering the same questions is more valid. You
say there is room for everyone to contribute but what will happen is he
who can post the most will taint the outlook of those entering before
any discussion even starts.

a list like this is infinitely important but we need to recognize its
downfalls. One being it is all too easy for those who have more resource
and time to post to win and dominate arguments. I can't tell you how
many differences of opinions I have let die on the vine not because i
didn't have more rebuttals , but that i didn't have the time or
determination. It is hard to win when the tactic of filibustering is
always an option or unavoidable consequence of just how this forum is
but together. I say this not to put blame or point fingers, but only to
point out with a downfall of the medium itself.

Also I am not inclined to fall for the old Plato trick where the
questions determine the answers. The second to last chapter in Joyce's
Ulysses shows the absurdity of this method.

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_18895.html#18978
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> >
> > > What is tuning?
> > > Why isn't standard tuning good enough?
> > > What things do people care about in a tuning?
> > > What kinds of tunings are there?
> > > How did the western world arrive at equal temperament?
> > > What is just intonation? (eek!) :-)
> > >
> > Since you're providing these questions, I take it you'd like to
> write
> > up answers for at least some of them? I sure hope so!
>
> Certainly for the Just Intonation question, I believe Dave Keenan
> already has! It would just [:)] be a matter of "culling" it from the
> recent discussion of about a month ago... And, of course, there were
> "disagreements" and probably some of those "dissenting" arguments
> should be posted also. So much of the work has, seemingly, already
> been done...
>
> _______ _____ ___ _
> Joseph Pehrson
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
www.

>
> 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.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19024

> List!
> I have a problem with this in that it implies a consensus.
Such
a
> list would do more to nip ideas in the bud by intimidation and allow
> those who are already on the list as the supreme "experts" that
must
be assumed to be valid. If it is going to be assumed that I should
already know a large amount of the theories put forth, it would be
overwhelming. I think more is gained by allowing fresh ideas to come
to full expression, even if they are wrong. Frankly i have gotten
more
out of these posters than you can imagine.
>

So Paul will have to go back to "ye olde way" by popular demand (and
debate!)

________ ____ ____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

>So Paul will have to go back to "ye olde way" by popular demand (and
>debate!)

Which means what . . . finding an impartial volunteer?

A FAQ should be kept SIMPLE! Complicated
answers just intimidate newbes.

--
* 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
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

David Bearsley wrote,

>A FAQ should be kept SIMPLE! Complicated
>answers just intimidate newbes.

Hear, here!

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

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19034

> >So Paul will have to go back to "ye olde way" by popular demand
(and debate!)
>
> Which means what . . . finding an impartial volunteer?

Probably there is no such thing! Or, otherwise, it is somebody with
absolutely *NO* point of view, which might not be the most
interesting
of editors!

I just meant going back to the old days where you examine every ratio
and number on this list! I am half kidding, since I can't imagine
how
you have been able to do this free of charge for so long!!!!

_________ _____ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

>I just meant going back to the old days where you examine every ratio
>and number on this list! I am half kidding, since I can't imagine
>how
>you have been able to do this free of charge for so long!!!!

Well you're half missing the point, since a FAQ won't correct any ratios,
it'll give people the reasons for using, and reasons they shouldn't use,
ratios in the first place!

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

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19040

> >I just meant going back to the old days where you examine every
ratio and number on this list! I am half kidding, since I can't
imagine how you have been able to do this free of charge for so
long!!!!
>
> Well you're half missing the point, since a FAQ won't correct any
ratios, it'll give people the reasons for using, and reasons they
shouldn't use, ratios in the first place!

Well... that's why YOU should play the FAQ-MAN!

_________ _____ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

I think Paul should put up as much as he can on his own site as he has
investigated quite a bit of all this. it should not be associated with
the consensus of the group. or am i going off list after only two days@!

His basic assumptions as in absolute at polar odds with myself or
doesn't that matter.

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> Well... that's why YOU should play the FAQ-MAN!

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

[Kraig Grady wrote:]
>List!

>I have a problem with this in that it implies a consensus. Such a list
>would do more to nip ideas in the bud by intimidation and allow those
>who are already on the list as the supreme "experts" that must be
>assumed to be valid. If it is going to be assumed that I should
>already know a large amount of the theories put forth, it would be
>overwhelming. I think more is gained by allowing fresh ideas to come to
>full expression, even if they are wrong.

>Frankly i have gotten more out of these posters than you can imagine.

>To include "dissident" points of views already regulates them to the
>back. Everyone here has valid points and should state them in their own
>forum. Also many people answering the same questions is more valid. You
>say there is room for everyone to contribute but what will happen is he
>who can post the most will taint the outlook of those entering before
>any discussion even starts.

>a list like this is infinitely important but we need to recognize its
>downfalls. One being it is all too easy for those who have more
>resource and time to post to win and dominate arguments. I can't tell
>you how many differences of opinions I have let die on the vine not
>because i didn't have more rebuttals , but that i didn't have the time
>or determination. It is hard to win when the tactic of filibustering is
>always an option or unavoidable consequence of just how this forum is
>but together. I say this not to put blame or point fingers, but only to
>point out with a downfall of the medium itself.

>Also I am not inclined to fall for the old Plato trick where the
>questions determine the answers. The second to last chapter in Joyce's
>Ulysses shows the absurdity of this method.

Kraig, all these are potential pitfalls, but, if the list has no FAQ,
who is going to answer all the basic questions that each newbie has?
Are _you_ going to volunteer?

[Kraig Grady again:]
>I think Paul should put up as much as he can on his own site as he has
>investigated quite a bit of all this. it should not be associated with
>the consensus of the group. or am i going off list after only two
>days@!

>His basic assumptions as in absolute at polar odds with myself or
>doesn't that matter.

Even if it turned out that a FAQ was truly biased in some way (and I
don't concede that point in advance), isn't that at least better than
the present situation? People come and go on this list - I've lost
count of the number of times you've taken a break - so wouldn't your
perspectives be better served by being included in a set of FAQ's than
being omitted altogether when you're off-list and someone new asks the
same basic questions that so many have already asked before?

If you don't think Paul would be a good collector and compiler of FAQ's,
who would you recommend in his place?

I think the idea of having FAQ's for the tuning list is a great one.
Many people could be involved in its preparation, if some are concerned
that their own perspectives aren't getting enough, or prominent enough,
coverage.

JdL

John!
I see no reason for Paul or anyone else putting up a FAQ under their
own name on his own site, and new comers can be referred to it by list
members who think the person might benefit from it.

"John A. deLaubenfels" wrote:

> Kraig, all these are potential pitfalls, but, if the list has no FAQ,
> who is going to answer all the basic questions that each newbie has?
> Are _you_ going to volunteer?

Are not they referred to some of the written data on the subject,
depending on their interest. There are plenty of books as it is.
There are plenty of people to answer questions. If I am around i will
answer if i feel qualified to answer.
If we don't accept beginners, or find them nothing more of an
inconvenience, then the list is useless.

> Even if it turned out that a FAQ was truly biased in some way (and I
> don't concede that point in advance), isn't that at least better than
> the present situation? People come and go on this list - I've lost
> count of the number of times you've taken a break - so wouldn't your
> perspectives be better served by being included in a set of FAQ's than
>
> being omitted altogether when you're off-list and someone new asks the
>
> same basic questions that so many have already asked before?

Those interested in my perspectives have enough arrows pointing to my
site and I prefer to let people ask me as opposed to answering before
hand

> If you don't think Paul would be a good collector and compiler of
> FAQ's,
> who would you recommend in his place?

I think Paul's FAQ on his site can be referred to along with David
Doty's book, Kyle Gann and anyone else who has done beginning
introductions. People should be referred to all! I think Paul should do
this. Also the Archives are filled with preexisting posts which i bet
would be the main source of the FAQ. Explain to me why anyone's FAQ
should be referred to over another. Also I think at times that someone's
ideas are best presented as a whole without outside comment. I think it
would be the greatest of disservice to Paul's opus for it to have to
include mine or anyone else opposing views.

As an forum, it should remain a round table where everyone can equally
pursuit their interest without preexisting formats. We have no idea who
will join in the future and what new ideas will be dropped in front of
us, but we have to keep it open where these things can happen without
hindrance.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Kraig Grady:

I've disagreed with Paul Erlich as often as anyone, but think he's eminently
suitable for putting together a FAQ with "just the facts, ma'am", indicating
some basic definitions and conventions (i.e. fractions for pitches, ratios for
intervals), some references to other web sites to turn for information, and
maybe a bit of narrative concerning some of the themes discussed over the years.
I'm also confident that in covering these themes he'll distinguish between
consensus, individual opinion, and open problems or controversies.

For example, when it comes to defining JI, there are really several competing
schools of thought each with reasonable foundations. There are traditional
finitists, who think of JI in terms of a 5-limit vocabulary, there are modern
finitists, who choose a higher limit on practical or perceptual grounds, there
are whole number purists, who claim all ratios of whole numbers are just, and
there are constructivists (ok, just me) who say that the extent of JI is
undecided and can only be articulated compositionally.

Daniel Wolf
in the windy hills of Buda...

Dan!
As I remember this categorizing of different JI schools originated
in this list.
As i remember it resulted in much pressure being put on me to redefine
what it is I do as not JI, the result placing anyone who used above 9
limit as radical. This was all done because even though the greeks used
11 and 13 at least and the Persians based many of there subdivision more
on the idea of "means" they did not use the term Just. The implication
of this dialogue was the 5 limit was normal and had a historical basis
where the other forms did not. These divisions are arbitrary and serve
nothing more than ghettoize even the most conservative of the tone space
users such as used by Partch.
As you remember it forced me of the list. I guess no matter what
ever you do someone is not going to like it. Do what you will.

Daniel Wolf wrote:

> For example, when it comes to defining JI, there are really several
> competing
> schools of thought each with reasonable foundations. There are
> traditional
> finitists, who think of JI in terms of a 5-limit vocabulary, there are
> modern
> finitists, who choose a higher limit on practical or perceptual
> grounds, there
> are whole number purists, who claim all ratios of whole numbers are
> just, and
> there are constructivists (ok, just me) who say that the extent of JI
> is
> undecided and can only be articulated compositionally.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

My list of questions was intended to show how a series of seemingly
innocent questions can in fact lead to highly contentious ones. And
no, I will not write the FAQ entry for "What is JI?" but others are
welcome to quote from what I've written already (it's in the
archives).

But there are plenty of completely uncontentious questions that are
very basic and we shouldn't be having to answer over and over again,
such as:

What are cents? What's a -tET? What is the difference between 5/4,
4/5, 4:5, 5:4? What do they mean? How do you convert a ratio to cents?
How do you convert cents to a ratio? How do you read those lattice
thingies? How do you draw those lattice thingies? What are odd and
prime limits?

As I suggested earlier, much of these can be answered by links to
existing web resources. Providing the novice with these links would be
an enormous service.

An annotated bibliography would be extremely useful too.

With contentious questions one should start by saying that it is
contentious and then "A says this .. B says that..." The FAQ need not
and should not offer any opinion as to which is "the official line"
and which is "dissent".

Does that set your mind at rest Kraig?

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

Dave!
As the only one objecting to the idea i am sure others will keep my
objections in mind. Look how quickly questions cause problems in respect
to Dan Wolf comments on JI.

Dave Keenan wrote:

> Does that set your mind at rest Kraig?

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Hello all!

I would like to comment, that at the point I was confronted with
creating the liner notes for my new CD "Galunlati", all of our past
discussion of what is JI and what isn't, came into play, and upon
evaluating the sound of the compositions which were based upon ratio
tunings, I opted to continue to call what I did Just Intonation (as I
have for 15 years!!!) - and will forever call it this. It is a
stylistic consideration, and the larger part of what I did with the
JI pieces on this CD *does* involve the OED definition of what JI is.

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Dave!
> As the only one objecting to the idea i am sure others will keep my
> objections in mind. Look how quickly questions cause problems in
respect
> to Dan Wolf comments on JI.
>
> Dave Keenan wrote:
>
> > Does that set your mind at rest Kraig?
>
> -- Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

One important detail I failed to mention about my decision to call my
ratio based music JI, is that it is in 31 Limit Just Intonation - not
5 limit (a constraint which is unacceptable to my musical style).

What I do has nothing to do with isolated dyads, but has everything
to do with the transposition of the stylistic (and even the OED
definition) meaning of JI onto full compositions.

A completely different reality comes into play here, which is not
revealed by the behavior of dyads alone. Timbre plays a huge roll in
this. And where we wish to model the meaning after Barbershop
singing, I find no difference, because there is singing in 31 limit
here too, and it sounds completely harmonious.

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> I would like to comment, that at the point I was confronted with
> creating the liner notes for my new CD "Galunlati", all of our past
> discussion of what is JI and what isn't, came into play, and upon
> evaluating the sound of the compositions which were based upon
ratio
> tunings, I opted to continue to call what I did Just Intonation (as
I
> have for 15 years!!!) - and will forever call it this. It is a
> stylistic consideration, and the larger part of what I did with the
> JI pieces on this CD *does* involve the OED definition of what JI
is.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jacky Ligon
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > Dave!
> > As the only one objecting to the idea i am sure others will keep
my
> > objections in mind. Look how quickly questions cause problems in
> respect
> > to Dan Wolf comments on JI.
> >
> > Dave Keenan wrote:
> >
> > > Does that set your mind at rest Kraig?
> >
> > -- Kraig Grady
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
> > http://www.anaphoria.com
> >
> > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Further, I would like to encourage those who have traditionally
called their music Just Intonation, to not let this debate sway you
from what you heart and ears tell you.

Your personal creative musical reality is what matters most in the
scheme of your own music. If you have considered what you do JI, then
continue to call it JI. There is in my mind nothing of substantial
worth revealed by this debate that should prevent one from
acknowledging their musical desires and personal realities. IMHO, OED
has little to do with the living musical reality of what Just
Intonation is in our time.

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
> One important detail I failed to mention about my decision to call
my
> ratio based music JI, is that it is in 31 Limit Just Intonation -
not
> 5 limit (a constraint which is unacceptable to my musical style).
>
> What I do has nothing to do with isolated dyads, but has everything
> to do with the transposition of the stylistic (and even the OED
> definition) meaning of JI onto full compositions.
>
> A completely different reality comes into play here, which is not
> revealed by the behavior of dyads alone. Timbre plays a huge roll
in
> this. And where we wish to model the meaning after Barbershop
> singing, I find no difference, because there is singing in 31 limit
> here too, and it sounds completely harmonious.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jacky Ligon
>
> --- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
> > Hello all!
> >
> > I would like to comment, that at the point I was confronted with
> > creating the liner notes for my new CD "Galunlati", all of our
past
> > discussion of what is JI and what isn't, came into play, and upon
> > evaluating the sound of the compositions which were based upon
> ratio
> > tunings, I opted to continue to call what I did Just Intonation
(as
> I
> > have for 15 years!!!) - and will forever call it this. It is a
> > stylistic consideration, and the larger part of what I did with
the
> > JI pieces on this CD *does* involve the OED definition of what JI
> is.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jacky Ligon
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > > Dave!
> > > As the only one objecting to the idea i am sure others will
keep
> my
> > > objections in mind. Look how quickly questions cause problems
in
> > respect
> > > to Dan Wolf comments on JI.
> > >
> > > Dave Keenan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does that set your mind at rest Kraig?
> > >
> > > -- Kraig Grady
> > > North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
> > > http://www.anaphoria.com
> > >
> > > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > > Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19044

> I think Paul should put up as much as he can on his own site as he
has investigated quite a bit of all this. it should not be associated
with the consensus of the group. or am i going off list after only two
days@!
>
> His basic assumptions as in absolute at polar odds with myself
or doesn't that matter.
>
> jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Well... that's why YOU should play the FAQ-MAN!
>

OK Kraig... well, I see this will need a bit more consideration from
the group!

_______ ____ ____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

Joe!
It seems if i am the only dissenting voice, it would seem ridiculous
for the list not to go ahead. Like I said, I am sure that drawing
attention to the pitfalls and the problems will only make it better.

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> OK Kraig... well, I see this will need a bit more consideration from
> the group!

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Kraig Grady and Dan Wolf,

I would dearly love your comments on the rather extensive "Defining
just intonation" thread that occurred while you were both off list.

Let me say up front that my proposed definition does not exclude
Kraig's work (or LaMonte Young's). It is based on audible qualities,
not numbers.

I believe this is what Jacky Ligon is alluding to.

It starts at
/tuning/topicId_15836.html#15836

Please respond under the subject "Defining just intonation", not in
this FAQ thread.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19060

Also I think at times that
someone's ideas are best presented as a whole without outside comment.
I think it would be the greatest of disservice to Paul's opus for it
to have to include mine or anyone else opposing views.
>

Well, Kraig has an interesting point here. Perhaps it would be good
to have MULTIPLE FAQS on different sites, with a big "link page" that
points to everyone's individual points of view...

Or would that be getting to cumbersome and complicated... (??)

______ ____ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19087

> Joe!
> It seems if i am the only dissenting voice, it would seem
ridiculous
> for the list not to go ahead. Like I said, I am sure that drawing
> attention to the pitfalls and the problems will only make it better.
>
> jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > OK Kraig... well, I see this will need a bit more consideration
from
> > the group!
>

Kraig!

I think we should ALL welcome "dissenting voices" in this group.
That's what makes things happen!!!

joe

________ _____ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Perhaps it would be good to have MULTIPLE FAQS on different sites,
> with a big "link page" that points to everyone's individual points
> of view...
>
> Or would that be getting to cumbersome and complicated... (??)

Yes, it is. C'mon folks, a little common sense (which Dave Keenan
alluded to): make up a FAQ with answers to all the very basic, easy
to delineate questions (cents? -tet?, etc.); use multiple, brief
answers for complex or disputed areas (like JI) and then, with the
brief answers, put a link to your favorite page that expounds at
length. And I'll offer to submit the answer to just one
question: "Who is/was Harry Partch?"

This will keep all the bickering down and still accomplish 99% of the
goal, which is to have the info available to newcomers, they can bone
up, and *then* ask questions about the grey areas.

Reasonable?

[...and Joe, could you refrain from the ALL CAPS stuff? It is forever
ingrained in a lot of our experiences as the substitute for SHOUTING
in ascii, and hurts the ears (eyes)...]

Best,
Jon

In the scheme of things the idea of JI is also one of attitude. When
composers and musicians choose to work in JI [especially those who choose
to work exclusively in JI, I am one myself ] there is often a certain
amount of deliberateness, a sort of unwillingness to accept intonational
compromise that is indicative of those who accept temperament equal or
otherwise. A sort of close enough is good enough attitude. It must be
pointed out that I am not including those who use ET's or temperaments for
their own sake and aesthetic properties but more those who use tempering to
approximate JI intervals. This is aimed at those who would in one breath
state that there is no audible difference between some higher prime RI
interval and some intereval in it's vicinity and then use the nomenclature
of JI and pretend that this stands for this in another sentence.
If there is no audible difference between say 11:9 and the area surrounding
it then why use a ratio in your temperament diagrams cents values and
letter names should surely suffice.

I cannot understand why some theorists will create some temperament and
then say it has this otonality and that otonality when the intervals are
sometimes as much as 20 cents removed from the target intervals. Why are
these target interevals necessary if [as these theorists say] there is no
audible difference between this exactly pinpointed [high prime] ratio and
the surrounding space. Do they want to suck us all into the tempered camp
or are they secretly longing to use just intonation themselves ?

Anyway a defination of JI should be formulated by those who actually use
JI, not provided for us by those who regard JI as impractical or too easy
mathematically.

Justin White

DAVID JONES LIMITED ACN 000 074 573

Dave Keenan:

I've read the thread now.

As generous and reasonable as your definition
/tuning/topicId_15836.html#15836 is, it is, an excellent
presentation of a particular viewpoint, the one that I characterized,
half-jokingly, as "modern finitist". For all that it has to recommend itself,
it's not going to satisfy someone who holds that JI is only five-limit, or
someone who claims all ratios of whole numbers, however large, as JI, or
someone, like myself, who say JI is made from ratios of whole numbers but leaves
the question of limit open to compositional articulation.

I stand by my suggestion that it would be best to simply indicate the major
schools of opinion on the issue.

Kraig Grady:

Let's wait for a draft of the FAQ. As I indicated before, I'm confident that
Paul Erlich will write something inclusive, that indicates the controversy over
the definition rather than set his own definition. Remember, Kraig, that your
own definition of JI, describing your own work, might very well be taken as
exclusionary by someone else with a different approach.

To all:

Perhaps we should start a list of major topics covered over the years. When the
topics come to some sort of consensus, we can indicate that, when they remain
controversial, we can indicate that. Off the top of my head, I can think of:

GRAPHING TECHNIQUES
CONSISTANCY
HAHN'S DIAMETER
PERIODICITY BLOCKS
CPS
CONSONANCE-DISSONANCE MEASURES
ERLICH'S ENTROPY
INTONATIONAL PUNS
PARTCH PERFORMANCE AUTHENTICITY
COMMON PRACTICE HARMONY AND MEANTONE TUNING(S)
ADAPTIVE TUNING
THE PIERCE-BOHLEN TUNINGS
WHAT IS JUST INTONATION?
IS THE DOMINANT SEVENTH A REPRESENTATION OF 4:5:6:7 OR A DISSONANCE?
HOW DO CHOIRS/ORCHESRAS/STRING QUARTETS TUNE?
HOW ARE "BLUES" INTERVALS TUNED?
HOW IS "BARBERSHOP" MUSIC MUSIC TUNED?
WHAT RECORDINGS ARE AVAILABLE IN HISTORICAL TUNINGS?
NOTATION
HOW TO REFRET A GUITAR
SYNTHESIZERS
RETUNING SOFTWARE

Daniel Wolf

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19100

> [...and Joe, could you refrain from the ALL CAPS stuff? It is
forever ingrained in a lot of our experiences as the substitute for
SHOUTING in ascii, and hurts the ears (eyes)...]
>
> Best,
> Jon

no problem jon...actually i was not the one to use the caps on the
faq request...although i do admit i have been guilty of such.
willdooo

_______ _____ _____ ____ _
joseph pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., justin.white@d... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19102

>
> In the scheme of things the idea of JI is also one of attitude. When
> composers and musicians choose to work in JI [especially those who
choose to work exclusively in JI, I am one myself ] there is often a
certain amount of deliberateness, a sort of unwillingness to accept
intonational compromise that is indicative of those who accept
temperament equal or otherwise. A sort of close enough is good enough
attitude.

Hello Justin...

I'm sure Paul Erlich will have something to say on this subject,
since it seem to me he would say that JI is not "close enough" to
"correct" intonation unless it is ADAPTIVE Just work... Especially
in a modulatory sense.

But then, I don't want to speak for Paul... and I know now that,
since I did, he will probably disagree with my statement... (just
joking, Paul!)
__________ _____ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

Perhaps ironically, many of Kraig's posts didn't make it into my e-mail.

But looking at this below, it's clear that Kraig misunderstood something.

What's "Paul's opus?" I was planning to write NOT ONE WORD!

-----Original Message-----
From: jpehrson@rcn.com [mailto:jpehrson@rcn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:18 AM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: LET'S MAKE A FAQ!

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19060

Also I think at times that
someone's ideas are best presented as a whole without outside comment.
I think it would be the greatest of disservice to Paul's opus for it
to have to include mine or anyone else opposing views.
>

Well, Kraig has an interesting point here. Perhaps it would be good
to have MULTIPLE FAQS on different sites, with a big "link page" that
points to everyone's individual points of view...

Or would that be getting to cumbersome and complicated... (??)

______ ____ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

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.

Hi Justin:

>It must be
>pointed out that I am not including those who use ET's or temperaments for
>their own sake and aesthetic properties but more those who use tempering to
>approximate JI intervals.

Justin, you make it sound as if these goals are incompatible. However, both
goals are clearly embodied in, for example, meantone temperament, the most
important temperament in Western music from 1500-1800!

Hi Daniel!

Thanks so much for your list!

>As I indicated before, I'm confident that
>Paul Erlich will write something inclusive,

Again, if you look at my original post, my intention was never to actually
_write_ anything; merely to aid in the compilation of a balanced,
comprehensive, and _comprehensible_ FAQ.

I'm incredibly pleased with your list of topics, especially:

COMMON PRACTICE HARMONY AND MEANTONE TUNING(S)

This is perhaps the one area a FAQ is sorely needed and where misconceptions
run most rampant.

Would you, perhaps, be willing to put some time and effort into writing an
accessible FAQ on this subject? Then others can add dissenting/alternate
viewpoints as need be . . . much like Monz' glossary, there's no need to
have just _one_ answer.

Psst -- I'm secretly hoping that Margo will make a lot of contributions to
this FAQ!

Joseph wrote,

>Hello Justin...

>I'm sure Paul Erlich will have something to say on this subject,
>since it seem to me he would say that JI is not "close enough" to
>"correct" intonation unless it is ADAPTIVE Just work... Especially
>in a modulatory sense.

Well, this is true for music within the Western common practice repertoire .
. . but certainly someone could compose in strict JI if they wanted do . . .
Joseph, you yourslef just said you were going to compose using those 19-tone
JI scales I posted, didn't you?

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

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19121

> Joseph wrote,
>
> >Hello Justin...
>
> >I'm sure Paul Erlich will have something to say on this subject,
> >since it seem to me he would say that JI is not "close enough" to
> >"correct" intonation unless it is ADAPTIVE Just work... Especially
> >in a modulatory sense.
>
> Well, this is true for music within the Western common practice
repertoire .
> . . but certainly someone could compose in strict JI if they wanted
do . . .
> Joseph, you yourslef just said you were going to compose using
those
19-tone JI scales I posted, didn't you?\

Yes I am, and the devil with "diabolus" *OR* the little wolves...
________ ______ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

Jacky Ligon wrote:

> There is in my mind nothing of substantial
> worth revealed by this debate that should prevent one from
> acknowledging their musical desires and personal realities.

I'd go further. To my mind, there was nothing of substantial worth
revealed by this debate at all. I'd prefer we buried the whole thing in a
FAQ.

Incidentally, my understanding of FAQs is that they hold answers that are
agreed on. That is, they must be a consensus of the groups the FAQ is
for.

So can't we agree on what Just Intonation is? It would be strange for a
FAQ not to mention it.

Another use of FAQs is that it gives newbies a way in to the subject. One
rule of electronic discussions is that you should read a group for at
least a week before you post to it. I reckon at least a month. But a
newbie to this group could well not understand what's going on for that
month. So either they have to ask redundant questions, and we all have to
read the answers over and over again. Or they get intimidated and leave.
Either is bad.

So, now the question's reared its ugly head again, can we attempt an
answer? Okay, I'll try. Before doing so, I'll state that I'm not telling
anybody to find a new way of describing what they're doing or forcing them
to leave the list. If anybody thinks I am, this is the last you'll hear
of it.

JI is tuning using pure intervals, typically small whole-number frequency
ratios.

There, how was that? It isn't precise, but it doesn't have to be. It's
for a FAQ, not a dictionary. Probably a health warning should be given
for all "what is?" questions, as few terms have an authoritative
definition. Monzo's tuning dictionary can be referred to for those who
really care.

Right, now for some other FAQs.

What is meantone?

A system of tuning using a chain of tempered, perfect fifths where 4
fifths approximates a 4:5 major third. Examples are 19, 31, 43, 50,
55-equal.

How do I write meantones using staff notation?

The spiral of fifths is defined:

... Eb Bb F C G D A E B F# C# ...

The pattern continues through flats and double flats in one direction, and
sharps and double sharps in the other.

In general, to use staff notation for a tuning, you need to define the
nominals, and the interval represented by a sharp or flat. In 19-equal,
the nominals are:

C D E F G A B C
0 3 6 8 11 14 17 19

And a # or b move by 1 step. In 31-equal, the nominals are:

C D E F G A B C
0 5 10 13 18 23 28 31

Graham

Justin White wrote:

> In the scheme of things the idea of JI is also one of attitude. When
> composers and musicians choose to work in JI [especially those who
> choose
> to work exclusively in JI, I am one myself ] there is often a certain
> amount of deliberateness, a sort of unwillingness to accept intonational
> compromise that is indicative of those who accept temperament equal or
> otherwise. A sort of close enough is good enough attitude.

Okay, this much seems to make sense, although it's a bit flamey.

> It must be
> pointed out that I am not including those who use ET's or temperaments
> for
> their own sake and aesthetic properties but more those who use
> tempering to
> approximate JI intervals.

Er, so exactly how are you defining "temperament"?

> This is aimed at those who would in one breath
> state that there is no audible difference between some higher prime RI
> interval and some intereval in it's vicinity and then use the
> nomenclature
> of JI and pretend that this stands for this in another sentence.

All that in one breath?

> If there is no audible difference between say 11:9 and the area
> surrounding
> it then why use a ratio in your temperament diagrams cents values and
> letter names should surely suffice.

That looks like it could do with some punctuation. Let's try

> If there is no audible difference between say 11:9 and the area
> surrounding
> it, then why use a ratio in your temperament diagrams? Cents values and
> letter names should surely suffice.

Indeed they should. Or why not

> If there is no audible difference between say 11:9 and the area
> surrounding
> it, then why use a letter name in your temperament diagrams? Cents
> values and ratios should surely suffice.

Or

> If there is no audible difference between say 11:9 and the area
> surrounding
> it, then why use a cents value in your temperament diagrams? Ratios
> and letter names should surely suffice.

Why are ratios so sacred that it's a sin for them to be used in a profane
context?

> I cannot understand why some theorists will create some temperament and
> then say it has this otonality and that otonality when the intervals are
> sometimes as much as 20 cents removed from the target intervals.

What else do you suggest we call a 6:7:9:11 chord?

> Why are
> these target interevals necessary if [as these theorists say] there is
> no
> audible difference between this exactly pinpointed [high prime] ratio
> and
> the surrounding space.

Firstly, that seems to use a straw man argument. Secondly, it answers
itself. If there's no audible difference, the surrounding space is the
same as the interval denoted by the ratio. QED.

> Do they want to suck us all into the tempered camp
> or are they secretly longing to use just intonation themselves ?

Whoa, hold on there! Somebody, somewhere, said something that contradicts
the tenets of the One True Church. As a result, they're either evil
proselytisers of the tempered path, or jealous apostates? Give me a
break!

If you have an argument, can you try forming it in a more lucid, less
confrontational manner?

> Anyway a defination of JI should be formulated by those who actually use
> JI, not provided for us by those who regard JI as impractical or too
> easy
> mathematically.

So who's going to decide who uses JI without a definition of what JI is?
Are you suggesting an inner circle of initiates be formed, who then choose
to admit novices when they have been enlightened by the True Definition?
What if a heretical faction of 1/8-schismic tuners also claim to be using
JI? Are they to be allowed to formulate the Definition, or be cast out
into utter darkness where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth?

Collection of smiley things to hope this doesn't get out of hand

:-) 8-)> }:-))> =:^)

Graham

Paul!
Your friends, admirers, including Dan Wolf Have big plans for you:)
"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:\

> What's "Paul's opus?" I was planning to write NOT ONE WORD!

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., "Daniel Wolf" <djwolf1@m...> wrote:
>
> Dave Keenan:
>
> I've read the thread now.
>
> As generous and reasonable as your definition
> /tuning/topicId_15836.html#15836 is, it is, an
excellent
> presentation of a particular viewpoint, the one that I
characterized,
> half-jokingly, as "modern finitist". For all that it has to
recommend itself,
> it's not going to satisfy someone who holds that JI is only
five-limit,

No. But if they wish to call 5-limit "JI" and call what I'm attempting
to define "Extended JI", I have no problem with that. I'm confident
that people will just naturally tend to drop the "extended".

> or someone who claims all ratios of whole numbers, however large, as
JI,

No. Clearly this is what I wanted to exclude (given that 12-tET can be
approximated as closely as you like by ratios of whole numbers). I'm
happy for such a definition of JI to appear in the FAQ provided the
above consequence is also mentioned somewhere.

>or
> someone, like myself, who say JI is made from ratios of whole
numbers but leaves
> the question of limit open to compositional articulation.

Hmm. I thought that my proposal specifically allowed for this. Can you
tell me what aspect of it you felt excluded this.

> I stand by my suggestion that it would be best to simply indicate
the major
> schools of opinion on the issue.

Oh sure. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> Jacky Ligon wrote:
>
> > There is in my mind nothing of substantial
> > worth revealed by this debate that should prevent one from
> > acknowledging their musical desires and personal realities.
>
> I'd go further. To my mind, there was nothing of substantial worth
> revealed by this debate at all. I'd prefer we buried the whole
thing in a
> FAQ.

Forcefully put, and perhaps you are right! : )

>
> Incidentally, my understanding of FAQs is that they hold answers
that are
> agreed on. That is, they must be a consensus of the groups the FAQ
is
> for.
>
> So can't we agree on what Just Intonation is? It would be strange
for a
> FAQ not to mention it.

Agreed. It really should be straight forward since all points of view
are known.

>
> Another use of FAQs is that it gives newbies a way in to the
subject. One
> rule of electronic discussions is that you should read a group for
at
> least a week before you post to it. I reckon at least a month.
But a
> newbie to this group could well not understand what's going on for
that
> month. So either they have to ask redundant questions, and we all
have to
> read the answers over and over again. Or they get intimidated and
leave.
> Either is bad.

I don't see why it wouldn't be just as effective to just guide folks
to John Starrett's page. You can access anything from the simple to
the complex. This way consensus is unnecessary.

>
> So, now the question's reared its ugly head again, can we attempt
an
> answer? Okay, I'll try. Before doing so, I'll state that I'm not
telling
> anybody to find a new way of describing what they're doing or
forcing them
> to leave the list. If anybody thinks I am, this is the last you'll
hear
> of it.

Oops, did I summon the Dark One? He, he!

> JI is tuning using pure intervals, typically small whole-number
frequency
> ratios.

Not bad.

> There, how was that? It isn't precise, but it doesn't have to be.
It's
> for a FAQ, not a dictionary.

I completely agree here.

Probably a health warning should be given
> for all "what is?" questions, as few terms have an authoritative
> definition. Monzo's tuning dictionary can be referred to for those
who
> really care.

Yes, so much already exists outside the forum here. One could just
create a page of "beginner URLs" and that's all you need. Faster
easier, more peaceful.

Sorry for bringing it back - was just to say that I finally had to
reject any limits on my limits.

Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy! Peace in Tuning Land for ALL!

Jacky Ligon

Daniel Wolf wrote:

>
> Kraig Grady:
>
> Let's wait for a draft of the FAQ. As I indicated before, I'm
> confident that
> Paul Erlich will write something inclusive, that indicates the
> controversy over
> the definition rather than set his own definition.

> Remember, Kraig, that your
> own definition of JI, describing your own work, might very well be
> taken as
> exclusionary by someone else with a different approach.

HMMM... almost an accusation
Well My definition I would only put on my OWN Website in the first
place. but mine might be

Just intonation is that variety of methods that use as it basis whole
number relationships to create the tonal pitch palette of a musical
entity.

But i would be hypocritical to bring up my problems with the idea and
then contribute.

>
>
> To all:
>
> Perhaps we should start a list of major topics covered over the years.
> When the
> topics come to some sort of consensus, we can indicate that, when they
> remain
> controversial, we can indicate that. Off the top of my head, I can
> think of:
>
> GRAPHING TECHNIQUES
> CONSISTANCY
> HAHN'S DIAMETER
> PERIODICITY BLOCKS
> CPS
> CONSONANCE-DISSONANCE MEASURES
> ERLICH'S ENTROPY
> INTONATIONAL PUNS
> PARTCH PERFORMANCE AUTHENTICITY
> COMMON PRACTICE HARMONY AND MEANTONE TUNING(S)
> ADAPTIVE TUNING
> THE PIERCE-BOHLEN TUNINGS
> WHAT IS JUST INTONATION?
> IS THE DOMINANT SEVENTH A REPRESENTATION OF 4:5:6:7 OR A DISSONANCE?
> HOW DO CHOIRS/ORCHESRAS/STRING QUARTETS TUNE?
> HOW ARE "BLUES" INTERVALS TUNED?
> HOW IS "BARBERSHOP" MUSIC MUSIC TUNED?
> WHAT RECORDINGS ARE AVAILABLE IN HISTORICAL TUNINGS?
> NOTATION
> HOW TO REFRET A GUITAR
> SYNTHESIZERS
> RETUNING SOFTWARE

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

graham@microtonal.co.uk wrote:

> I'd go further. To my mind, there was nothing of substantial worth
> revealed by this debate at all. I'd prefer we buried the whole thing
> in a
> FAQ.

Well the feeling is mutual! burying is a great way to suppress or
oppress!

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Justin White,

<<It must be pointed out that I am not including those who use ET's or
temperaments for their own sake and aesthetic properties but more
those who use tempering to approximate JI intervals.>

Graham Breed,

<<Er, so exactly how are you defining "temperament"?>>

Much as Dave Keenan attempted to distinguish between a pitch and an
interval with a virgule and a colon, I try to highlight the above
distinction by using equal and temperament... so the ubiquitous twelve
is 'twelve equal' in the sense of say Josef Hauer, and 'twelve tone
equal temperament in most other cases... and conversely, tunings like
thirteen or eleven are 'equal tunings' in most cases and 'equal
temperaments' in other special (i.e., theoretically applicable) cases.

So how about settling on a snazzy acronym to express this?

I like the n-tET for 'equal temperaments', but can't seem to settle on
one for 'equal tunings'... ? (And obviously if your trying to
distinguish between the two, letting the same initials stand for both
just ain't gonna cut it!).

How about n-E, or n-tE?

Finicky stuff to be sure, but I'd be interested in any general
consensus type feedback... let me know.

thanks,

--Dan Stearns

On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:12:10 -0800, "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>
wrote:

>I like the n-tET for 'equal temperaments', but can't seem to settle on
>one for 'equal tunings'... ? (And obviously if your trying to
>distinguish between the two, letting the same initials stand for both
>just ain't gonna cut it!).
>
>How about n-E, or n-tE?

Not very intuitive, but neither was -tet/-tET/-TET when I first saw it.
Perhaps something like n-EQ would be better. I think -TET and -CET are too
well established as a notation for equal scales in general to restrict them
to "temperaments" in the sense of intentional approximations of /
deviations from JI tuning. Similarly, x-EDO doesn't inherently exclude
scales intended as temperaments. But if someone wants to make a distinction
between equal temperaments and equal tunings that aren't temperaments,
perhaps -TET and -EDO would be a suitable shorthand.

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19137

>
> Paul!
> Your friends, admirers, including Dan Wolf Have big plans for
you:)
> "Paul H. Erlich" wrote:\
>
> > What's "Paul's opus?" I was planning to write NOT ONE WORD!
>
>

You know, it seems to me that Joe Monzo has really already started
this "FAQ" with his dictionary.

Perhaps all that would be necessary would be to expand some of the
dictionary entries to make them more "user friendly" to beginners
and, perhaps, to have a separate section of LINKS right at the
beginning of the Dictionary to the MOST CRUCIAL topics.

Most of the topics mentioned so far on this list already have some
kind of entry in the Monzo work.

Of course, this is all predicated on how willing Joe is to develop
this... and he seems rather "overwhelmed" at the moment...

_________ ______ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> Of course, this is all predicated on how willing Joe is to develop
> this... and he seems rather "overwhelmed" at the moment...

Why is he "overwhelmed"?

--
* 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
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

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

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19146

> Justin White,
>
> <<It must be pointed out that I am not including those who use ET's
or temperaments for their own sake and aesthetic properties but more
> those who use tempering to approximate JI intervals.>
>
> Graham Breed,
>
> <<Er, so exactly how are you defining "temperament"?>>
>
> Much as Dave Keenan attempted to distinguish between a pitch and an
> interval with a virgule and a colon, I try to highlight the above
> distinction by using equal and temperament... so the ubiquitous
twelve is 'twelve equal' in the sense of say Josef Hauer, and 'twelve
tone equal temperament in most other cases... and conversely, tunings
like thirteen or eleven are 'equal tunings' in most cases and 'equal
> temperaments' in other special (i.e., theoretically applicable)
cases.
>
> So how about settling on a snazzy acronym to express this?
>
> I like the n-tET for 'equal temperaments', but can't seem to settle
on one for 'equal tunings'... ? (And obviously if your trying to
> distinguish between the two, letting the same initials stand for
both just ain't gonna cut it!).
>
> How about n-E, or n-tE?
>
> Finicky stuff to be sure, but I'd be interested in any general
> consensus type feedback... let me know.
>
> thanks,
>
> --Dan Stearns

Wasn't this the same discussion that went over several weeks about a
year ago and which involved Joe Monzo??

He had proposed the acronym EDO, for "equal divisions of the octave"
as opposed to TET for the "tempered" cases where "just" intervals
were being approximated...

Wasn't that pretty much universally accepted, or at least at that
time, or am I mistaken.... (??)

_________ ______ ______ ___
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote,

<<Wasn't this the same discussion that went over several weeks about a
year ago and which involved Joe Monzo?? He had proposed the acronym
EDO, for "equal divisions of the octave" as opposed to TET for the
"tempered" cases where "just" intervals were being approximated...
Wasn't that pretty much universally accepted, or at least at that
time, or am I mistaken.... (??)>>

Hmm, ironically EDO was an acronym that I <!> came up with way back
when I first started posting a couple of years ago... The reason I
stopped using it and just started writing "equal" was because I wanted
a more generalized term that was not tied to or restricted by the
octave (even though this is almost always assumed to be the case when
someone say's n-tET anyway)... so that's the scoop.

--Dan Stearns

Joe Pehrson wrote:

>He had proposed the acronym EDO, for "equal divisions of the octave"
>as opposed to TET for the "tempered" cases where "just" intervals
>were being approximated...
>
>Wasn't that pretty much universally accepted, or at least at that
>time, or am I mistaken.... (??)

Not by me. This is exactly the sort of illusion of consensus that Kraig was
referring to.

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) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

--- In tuning@y..., David Beardsley <xouoxno@v...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19163

> jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Of course, this is all predicated on how willing Joe is to develop
> > this... and he seems rather "overwhelmed" at the moment...
>
> Why is he "overwhelmed"?
>

I guess, David, you'll have to ask *him* that question. Probably
something personal... He hasn't even had time to read the list lately,
even cursorily...

_________ _____ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19165

> Joseph Pehrson wrote,
>
> <<Wasn't this the same discussion that went over several weeks about
a
> year ago and which involved Joe Monzo?? He had proposed the acronym
> EDO, for "equal divisions of the octave" as opposed to TET for the
> "tempered" cases where "just" intervals were being approximated...
> Wasn't that pretty much universally accepted, or at least at that
> time, or am I mistaken.... (??)>>
>
> Hmm, ironically EDO was an acronym that I <!> came up with way back
> when I first started posting a couple of years ago... The reason I
> stopped using it and just started writing "equal" was because I
wanted a more generalized term that was not tied to or restricted by
the octave (even though this is almost always assumed to be the case
when someone say's n-tET anyway)... so that's the scoop.
>
> --Dan Stearns

Got it, Dan. Thanks.... Of course, it wouldn't be so great for
Bohlen-Pierce and such like....

_________ ______ ______ ____
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_18895.html#19169

> Joe Pehrson wrote:
>
> >He had proposed the acronym EDO, for "equal divisions of the
octave" as opposed to TET for the "tempered" cases where "just"
intervals were being approximated...
> >
> >Wasn't that pretty much universally accepted, or at least at that
> >time, or am I mistaken.... (??)
>
> Not by me. This is exactly the sort of illusion of consensus that
Kraig was referring to.
>
> Bill
>

Got it, Bill! Thanks. Yes, you're right... these are some of the
assumed "landmines" on the highway that we should try to avoid... Dan
Sterns just reminded me of the "limitations" of that term. Curiously
enough, I don't remember so many objections coming around when it was
originally proposed... but I might have forgotten since I was very new
to the list and to many of the concepts...

________ _____ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

Good for you Graham. Simple, concise, and to the point!

Graham wrote,

>What if a heretical faction of 1/8-schismic tuners also claim to be using
>JI?

It's already happened -- in the case of a fine Scandinavian composer named
Eivind Groven. Are you going to burn him at the stake for claiming to be a
JI composer?

Hello Graham,

>> In the scheme of things the idea of JI is also one of attitude. When
>> composers and musicians choose to work in JI [especially those who
>> choose
>> to work exclusively in JI, I am one myself ] there is often a certain
>> amount of deliberateness, a sort of unwillingness to accept intonational
>> compromise that is indicative of those who accept temperament equal or
>> otherwise. A sort of close enough is good enough attitude.

>Okay, this much seems to make sense, although it's a bit flamey.

>> It must be
>> pointed out that I am not including those who use ET's or temperaments
>> for
>> their own sake and aesthetic properties but more those who use
>> tempering to
>> approximate JI intervals.

>Er, so exactly how are you defining "temperament"?

Good point. Tempering is a bad word. As Dan was pointing out there does not
exist any abbreviation that correctly expresses the taking of arbitrary [or
organised without reference to JI pitches] divisions of pitch.

>> This is aimed at those who would in one breath
>> state that there is no audible difference between some higher prime RI
>> interval and some intereval in it's vicinity and then use the
>> nomenclature
>> of JI and pretend that this stands for this in another sentence.

>All that in one breath?

>> If there is no audible difference between say 11:9 and the area
>> surrounding
>> it, then why use a ratio in your temperament diagrams? Cents values and
>> letter names should surely suffice.

>Indeed they should. Or why not

> If there is no audible difference between say 11:9 and the area
> surrounding
> it, then why use a letter name in your temperament diagrams? Cents
> values and ratios should surely suffice.

It is not me who says there is no audible difference between the ratio and
the surrounding space ! I say these are the points of strongest consonance.
If a ratio is not correctly intoned then I believe the mind makes up the
difference and tries to hear that ratio.

It is only for proponents of temperament that the nomenclature is
interchangeable. But it is also meaningless.

>Or

> If there is no audible difference between say 11:9 and the area
> surrounding
> it, then why use a cents value in your temperament diagrams? Ratios
> and letter names should surely suffice.

See above.

>Why are ratios so sacred that it's a sin for them to be used in a >profane
>context?

Anyone can use any nomenclature device they like, but whether it is
relevant is another matter.

Perhaps I should start using ratios to denote steps in 19tet and then
people reading these posts could look at this music and see just harmonies
with unlimited modulation.

>> I cannot understand why some theorists will create some temperament and
>> then say it has this otonality and that otonality when the intervals are
>> sometimes as much as 20 cents removed from the target intervals.

>What else do you suggest we call a 6:7:9:11 chord?

I would call it a 6:7:9:11 chord if it was indeed a 6:7:9:11 chord. If it
was tempered I would plot it on a gradient going from more messy to more JI
depending on how accurate it was.

>> Why are
>> these target interevals necessary if [as these theorists say] there is
>> no
>> audible difference between this exactly pinpointed [high prime] ratio
>> and
>> the surrounding space.

>Firstly, that seems to use a straw man argument. Secondly, it >answers
>itself. If there's no audible difference, the surrounding space is >the
>same as the interval denoted by the ratio. QED.

I am unaware of the straw man argument. But that a ratio denotes a precise
spot means that these ideal spots have acoustical value over the
surrounding area. Otherwise why are they invoked at all ?

>> Do they want to suck us all into the tempered camp
>> or are they secretly longing to use just intonation themselves ?

>Whoa, hold on there! Somebody, somewhere, said something that
>contradicts
>the tenets of the One True Church. As a result, they're either evil
>proselytisers of the tempered path, or jealous apostates? Give me a
>break!

This looks more serious on paper than the way i would have said it.

If JI is the One True Church it's religion is not encouraged much on this
list.

<If you have an argument, can you try forming it in a more lucid, <less
<confrontational manner?

This sentence and most of your reply was more confrontational than my
orignal post. For something to be confrontational there needs to be someone
or something that decides to put itself it's path.

> Anyway a defination of JI should be formulated by those who actually use
> JI, not provided for us by those who regard JI as impractical or too
> easy
> mathematically.

<So who's going to decide who uses JI without a definition of what JI is?
Are you suggesting an inner circle of initiates be formed, who then choose
to admit novices when they have been enlightened by the True Definition?>

Yes that's exactly what I said in my post. Verbatim ! Hah hah!

>What if a heretical faction of 1/8-schismic tuners also claim to be >using
>JI? Are they to be allowed to formulate the Definition

No definetly not. Me and the JI boys will put a stop to that !

>, or be cast out
>into utter darkness where there shall be weeping and gnashing of >teeth?>

No really... It is up to composers themselves to decide whether they are
using JI or not. Your own definition suits me. There are lots of other
definitions of JI that composers can use.

Most of the people making music in JI are aware of what they are doing and
under which definition they fit.

>Collection of smiley things to hope this doesn't get out of hand

> :-) 8-)> }:-))> =:^)

Don't sweat it. I am not so attached to my ideas that I would let ill
feeling develop. I like everyone on the list too much for that !

Heres on of mine...

!!!!!!!!!
<( ' _* ' )>
\ /
Justin White

Justin White wrote,

>It is only for proponents of temperament that the nomenclature is
>interchangeable. But it is also meaningless.

Not meaningless at all -- it tells you what the interval _sounds_ like
(which primarily consists in how big it is), and what pitch you're going for
even if the result is ultimately in adaptive JI centered around a given
temperament.

>Perhaps I should start using ratios to denote steps in 19tet and then
>people reading these posts could look at this music and see just harmonies
>with unlimited modulation.

You wouldn't be the first! (But I'd only use the following ratios for
19-tET: 1:1, 6:5, 5:4, 4:3, and inversions and extensions). Hence, it's good
to be clear: "tempered 6:5"; "just 6:5".

>I would call it a 6:7:9:11 chord if it was indeed a 6:7:9:11 chord. If it
>was tempered I would plot it on a gradient going from more messy to more JI
>depending on how accurate it was.

Exactly. It's the idea of naming the _peak_ of that gradient that ratio
nomenclature when used for temperaments is going for.

>I am unaware of the straw man argument. But that a ratio denotes a precise
>spot means that these ideal spots have acoustical value over the
>surrounding area. Otherwise why are they invoked at all ?

Exactly. They're guideposts for the goals of temperament.

> If JI is the One True Church it's religion is not encouraged much on this
> list.
well not recently

> > Anyway a defination of JI should be formulated by those who actually use
> > JI, not provided for us by those who regard JI as impractical or too
> > easy
> > mathematically.
i agree wholeheartedly.

> <So who's going to decide who uses JI without a definition of what JI is?
> Are you suggesting an inner circle of initiates be formed, who then choose
> to admit novices when they have been enlightened by the True Definition?>
>
sounds kinda neat ...can we choose cool names

> Yes that's exactly what I said in my post. Verbatim ! Hah hah!
>
> >What if a heretical faction of 1/8-schismic tuners also claim to be
>using
> >JI? Are they to be allowed to formulate the Definition
>
> No definetly not. Me and the JI boys will put a stop to that !
don't disrespect me or you'll end up like tupac or duplepac....

>
> >, or be cast out
> >into utter darkness where there shall be weeping and gnashing of >teeth?>
thats wailing and gnashing,
weeping is for sores.......

>
> No really... It is up to composers themselves to decide whether they are
> using JI or not. Your own definition suits me. There are lots of other
> definitions of JI that composers can use.
>
> Most of the people making music in JI are aware of what they are doing and
> under which definition they fit.
How about : a system of tuning using whole tone relationships denoted by
fractions to represent frequency of sound.

Paul Erlich wrote:

> Graham wrote,
>
> >What if a heretical faction of 1/8-schismic tuners also claim to be
using
> >JI?
>
> It's already happened -- in the case of a fine Scandinavian composer
named
> Eivind Groven. Are you going to burn him at the stake for claiming
to be a
> JI composer?

According to this <http://www.notam.uio.no/nmi/bio/groven.htm> page,
it's too late. But perhaps his English translator could still be
around to fuel the flames.

I'll copy the relevant part here.

"""
As early as 1927, Groven published his thesis The Natural Scale, a
pioneer work in which he examined the use of formulas in vocal and
instrumental folk music that might have been derived from the scales
and playing technique used on the willow flute. The two dissertations
Temperering og renstemming (Tempered and Just Intonation Tuning, 1948)
- available in English and German - and Renstemningsautomaten (The
Automatic Just Intonation Tuning, 1968) deal with the familiar problem
of just intonation tuning of keyboard instruments in theoretical and
practical terms. Groven's contribution in this field has gained
international recognition. He constructed a justly tuned organ in
which he retained the ordinary keyboard, but where each octave is
divided into at least 36 tones, making it possible to play in all
keys. An automatic conversion mechanism "retunes" the instrument as it
is being played so that the chords and harmonies are in tune at all
times. The instrument also makes it possible to construct scales
consisting of steps other than the usual half and whole tones. Such
scales are typical of folk music. Moreover, historical modes of tuning
can also be imitated. Two justly tuned organs, a pipe organ and an
electronic organ are to be found at Eivind Groven's Institute for Just
Intonation in Oslo.
"""

Has anybody mentioned this pioneer of adaptive tuning before, when I
wasn't paying attention? The Institute for Just Intonation looks like
a good candidate for a Tuning List coach trip.

I think Ray Tomes is still on the list. Note that English title: "The
Automatic Just Intonation Tuning".

Graham