Dan and Joe

I'm not able to participate in discussions to any great extent this
week, but I do want to comment on the thread between Dan Stearns and
Joseph Pehrson. Joe, I'm completely with Dan on this one. You, of
course, are a prolific and accomplished composer. And, I go for JI 99%
of the time, in seeming alignment with your side of the discussion.
But, I think it vitally important to be very careful to let our ears be
our primary guide.

The fact that a scale looks bad "on paper" is suggestive, but nothing
more. If given too much importance, music theory (any music theory)
acts mainly to restrict possibilities, and can very easily do so until
music is squeezed to death.

I do believe that intellect is an important part of the quest for
beauty; I do not spurn, as some list members do, the attempt to
quantify, wherever possible, the elements behind lovely music.

But I think that the head must serve the heart; it must never be allowed
to take the upper hand.

I wish that you had rejected "Sparky", not because of an ugly lattice,
but because he (she/it) didn't engage you under your hands. Are you
really certain that Sparky does not have some pleasant surprises to
offer?

JdL

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

/tuning/topicId_19972.html#19972

> I'm not able to participate in discussions to any great extent this
> week, but I do want to comment on the thread between Dan Stearns
and Joseph Pehrson. Joe, I'm completely with Dan on this one.

Oh come on, John... Not even a "little bitty bit" on my side??

>You, of course, are a prolific and accomplished composer. And, I
go for JI 99% of the time, in seeming alignment with your side of the
discussion.

>But, I think it vitally important to be very careful to let our ears
be our primary guide.
>

I hear you...

> The fact that a scale looks bad "on paper" is suggestive, but
nothing more. If given too much importance, music theory (any music
theory) acts mainly to restrict possibilities, and can very easily do
so until music is squeezed to death.
>
> I do believe that intellect is an important part of the quest for
> beauty; I do not spurn, as some list members do, the attempt to
> quantify, wherever possible, the elements behind lovely music.
>
> But I think that the head must serve the heart; it must never be
allowed to take the upper hand.

Wait... I'm confused... am I using the hand, the heart, *or* the
head?? Do I have to "chew gum" at the same time??

>
> I wish that you had rejected "Sparky", not because of an ugly
lattice, but because he (she/it) didn't engage you under your hands.
Are you really certain that Sparky does not have some pleasant
surprises to offer?
>

Well, seriously, it IS an interesting question. My definitive answer
is, "maybe..."

That's what this webpage was all about:

http://users.rcn.com/jpehrson/tuning.html

For me, little "Sparky," which is the 7-limit 19-tone scale shown on
this page, is virtually IDENTICAL to the 19 out of 31-tET scale the
Manuel op de Coul helped me develop...

I frankly don't hear any difference at all! And Manuel's scale is
much nicer "theoretically."

However, the 19-tET scale sounds like there is substantially more
beating...

In discussions with Manuel and others, though, I came to the
conclusion that the study, like rather bad science, was flawed...

The TX81Z synthesizer only has a resolution of 1.56 cents, and in
approximating the next "available" frequency it could cause things to
change...

So the "beating" could be an inaccurate determination in this case...

Regardless, with the kind of music I was writing, and with the
"density" of it (I mean the "sound" density, not necessarily my OWN
gray matter) some of these subtleties could be somewhat illusory...

So, it actually didn't make too much difference in this case!
Sparky became a rather attractive little creature...

_______ ______ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson