Re: Just Intonation Network: its contributions

Hello, everyone, and I'd like briefly to consider the many
contributions made in the area of alternative tunings by David
B. Doty, the Just Intonation Network, and _1/1_.

In a world where people seek new musical experiences and ideas,
including the renewing experience of _old_ music performed with new
(or once-forgetten) insights, JIN performs an invaluable service not
only by presenting a powerful artistic philosophy, but by its example
inviting others to explore a range of approaches to tuning,
composition, and interpretation.

One unfortunate temptation in the alternate tuning world is to take
each possibility as negating all the others: thus Pythagorean
vs. meantone, or JI vs. n-tet, etc. Actually, however, it seems to me
that the possibilities are not subtractive but additive, even
multiplicative, although one publication can only cover so much of the
ground.

For me, the quality of _1/1_ was demonstrated when I discovered on the
Internet a text reprint of a distinguished article by Bill Alves on
"The Just Intonation System of Nicola Vicentino," _1/1, Journal of the
Just Intonation Network_, 5, No. 2 (Spring 1989), 8-13.

Does the value of _1/1_ mean that other approaches such as meantone or
n-tet are any less valid? Of course not. In fact, Vicentino's own
system and instrument design of 1555 might illustrate this point: his
36-note archicembalo is evidently tuned mainly around 1/4-comma
meantone or 31-tone equal temperament, but with much allusion to just
intonation theory and also some extra keys to provide just 3:2 fifths
above certain notes.

To look at things another way: does or should the validity, as I see
it, of many approaches to tuning, in any way discourage _1/1_ from
expressing its own unique viewpoint and artistic vision? Again, I
would say, of course not!

As I've often discussed here from a Pythagorean perspective, "just
intonation" alone (not to mention other approaches) can imply a wide
diversity of viewpoints. It is within the editorial discretion of
_1/1_ to decide which portions of this vast territory seem to fit its
specific scope of interest.

As we approach a new millennium, it seems to me that committed and
distinctive voices in the tuning world are a precious gift to all of
us, whether we agree, disagree, or simply happen to follow some other
approach.

Both as an editor and advocate who provides (along with the
contributors to _1/1_) such a voice, and as a member of the alternate
tuning community who has shown me his knowledge and generosity, David
B. Doty well merits the appreciation of our community.

As I see it, incidentally, one way to express such appreciation is for
those of us following other approaches to strive to be equally
creative and helpful in sharing and advancing these alternatives also.

Most respectfully,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net