Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Erlich paper very readable

Well, Paul Erlich's new _The Forms of Tonality_ is eminently
readable... Even *I* understood almost everything in it and enjoyed
it thoroughly. I'm sure Paul could figure out a few questions to ask
me that I couldn't answer about it... but I don't think he would do
that, would he??

In any case, personally, I found it *MUCH* more digestible than the
paper with all the "T's": _Tuning, Tonality and Twenty-Two-Tone-
Temperament_... Tough! That's Too Troublesome! although, I must say
that the first half of that paper, with it's relationship to ideas
of, if I recall correctly, 7-limit perception of 22-equal and the
relationship of this to Indian music and other musics to be
particularly valuable.

But, I think, most probably, Paul is intending this particular recent
paper for a *MUCH* more general audience than the first. Certainly I
would commend him for this approach, and I will hope that the
larger, "complete" version of the upcoming work by the same title
will have the same legibility, comprehensibility, and all those kinds
of "abilities" about it!!!

Too, too, too, Terrific!!

_______ _____ ______ ____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗paul@stretch-music.com

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> In any case, personally, I found it *MUCH* more digestible than the
> paper with all the "T's": _Tuning, Tonality and Twenty-Two-Tone-
> Temperament_... Tough! That's Too Troublesome! although, I must
say
> that the first half of that paper, with it's relationship to ideas
> of, if I recall correctly, 7-limit perception of 22-equal

Which part is that?

> and the
> relationship of this to Indian music and other musics to be
> particularly valuable.

I bring that up later in the paper, and the only reason it's there is
because some readers might wonder why there are 22 shrutis. It
doesn't really have anything to do with the main subject of the paper.
>
> But, I think, most probably, Paul is intending this particular
recent
> paper for a *MUCH* more general audience than the first.

Well, it's intended to appeal to a JI/Partchian audience. Personally,
I feel the first paper has a lot more important stuff. The only new
discovery mentioned in the new paper is that all the chromatic unison
vectors are larger than all the commatic unison vectors -- and I
wouldn't be too upset if that turned out not to be the case (it
almost isn't).

But the first paper was mostly written in 1993 -- I'm glad my
communication skills have improved since then.

> Certainly I
> would commend him for this approach, and I will hope that the
> larger, "complete" version of the upcoming work by the same title
> will have the same legibility, comprehensibility, and all those
kinds
> of "abilities" about it!!!

Yes . . . so much work to be done . . . I don't think I'm going to
use the Microsoft "Paint" accessory for the lattice graphics in the
future -- doing that was about 96% of the work in the new paper.

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22105.html#22107

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > In any case, personally, I found it *MUCH* more digestible than
the paper with all the "T's": _Tuning, Tonality and Twenty-Two-Tone-
> > Temperament_... Tough! That's Too Troublesome! although, I must
> say that the first half of that paper, with it's relationship to
ideas of, if I recall correctly, 7-limit perception of 22-equal
>
> Which part is that?

Well, there are several references to the satisfactory projection of
the 7-limit in 22-equal I believe. Right near the beginning (again
there are no page numbers) on physical "page 4" it says:

"It will turn out that only 22-equal contains a system analogous to
the diatonic system but which involves harmonies of the 7-limit."

The interest in the 7-limit is shown in other parts of the paper as
well... near the end:

"It turns out that Ben Johnston has employed a 22-tone 7-limit just
tuning in his 4th String Quartet (1973). This tuning has been
displayed on a just lattice constructed much like figure 4. When its
structure is reproduced on the 22-equal lattice, it form a one-to-one
correspondence with 22-equal. Johnson was focusing mainly on
harmonies, but was likely guided by a desire to achieve rough
equality of the smallest melodic steps. Thus he may have been the
first to hint upon the applicability of 22-equal to 7-limit harmony
in an actual composition..."

> >
> > But, I think, most probably, Paul is intending this particular
> recent paper for a *MUCH* more general audience than the first.
>
> Well, it's intended to appeal to a JI/Partchian audience.
Personally, I feel the first paper has a lot more important stuff.

Of course, the charts with the various ETs have become almost
legendary... If this were presented more in the form of the recent
paper, I believe it would be quite a popular hit... (maybe hit the
radio charts!)

I personally have trouble with remembering that "Q" = 3:2, "T" = 5:4
and "S" = 7:4. Where did THOSE come from anyway?? Quintal for
fifths, "terciary" for thirds and "septimal" for sevenths?? Dunno.
In any case, that's never explained in the paper, so there's not much
to hang on to when trying to remember.

It's certainly important to remember them if one is to make sense of
the extensive arithmetic that follows!

The only new discovery mentioned in the new paper is that all the
chromatic unison vectors are larger than all the commatic unison
vectors -- and
I wouldn't be too upset if that turned out not to be the case (it
> almost isn't).
>

I found this discussion of the comma sizes to be very interesting...
What do you mean when you say that these sizes as portrayed in the
paper "are not the case??"

> But the first paper was mostly written in 1993 -- I'm glad my
> communication skills have improved since then.
>

It seems to be written for a more "general" audience, which is fine
by me!

> > Certainly I
> > would commend him for this approach, and I will hope that the
> > larger, "complete" version of the upcoming work by the same title
> > will have the same legibility, comprehensibility, and all those
> kinds of "abilities" about it!!!
>
> Yes . . . so much work to be done . . . I don't think I'm going to
> use the Microsoft "Paint" accessory for the lattice graphics in the
> future -- doing that was about 96% of the work in the new paper.

It's hard to believe that you could even get that to do the lattices!

Perhaps there is some kind of "lattice tool" out there... a kind of
"Viseo for lattices..." (??)

Thanks, by the way, for sending the earlier paper! Everytime I try
to access the .pdf file on line it crashes my machine!

And it's hard to underline and make notes on screen... well, it's
not particularly appreciated by the next computer user...

__________ _______ __ _____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗paul@stretch-music.com

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_22105.html#22107
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > >
> > > In any case, personally, I found it *MUCH* more digestible than
> the paper with all the "T's": _Tuning, Tonality and
Twenty-Two-Tone-
> > > Temperament_... Tough! That's Too Troublesome! although, I
must
> > say that the first half of that paper, with it's relationship to
> ideas of, if I recall correctly, 7-limit perception of 22-equal
> >
> > Which part is that?
>
> Well, there are several references to the satisfactory projection of
> the 7-limit in 22-equal I believe. Right near the beginning (again
> there are no page numbers) on physical "page 4" it says:
>
> "It will turn out that only 22-equal contains a system analogous to
> the diatonic system but which involves harmonies of the 7-limit."

Well, the "meat" of the paper is concerned with showing that, so if
that's the part that interests you, the body of the paper is what you
want to plunge into.
>
> The interest in the 7-limit is shown in other parts of the paper as
> well... near the end:
>
> "It turns out that Ben Johnston has employed a 22-tone 7-limit just
> tuning in his 4th String Quartet (1973). This tuning has been
> displayed on a just lattice constructed much like figure 4. When
its
> structure is reproduced on the 22-equal lattice, it form a
one-to-one
> correspondence with 22-equal. Johnson was focusing mainly on
> harmonies, but was likely guided by a desire to achieve rough
> equality of the smallest melodic steps. Thus he may have been the
> first to hint upon the applicability of 22-equal to 7-limit harmony
> in an actual composition..."

And the rest of the paper forms an elaboration of that hint into a
full theory.

In fact, the paper could just be called "7-limit tonality".

> I personally have trouble with remembering that "Q" = 3:2, "T" = 5:4
> and "S" = 7:4. Where did THOSE come from anyway?? Quintal for
> fifths, "terciary" for thirds and "septimal" for sevenths??

Yup! It's inspired by Blackwood.

> The only new discovery mentioned in the new paper is that all the
> chromatic unison vectors are larger than all the commatic unison
> vectors -- and
> I wouldn't be too upset if that turned out not to be the case (it
> > almost isn't).
> >
>
> I found this discussion of the comma sizes to be very interesting...

> What do you mean when you say that these sizes as portrayed in the
> paper "are not the case??

I didn't say that . . .

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22105.html#22107

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > In any case, personally, I found it *MUCH* more digestible than
the paper with all the "T's":
>
> > and the
> > relationship of this to Indian music and other musics to be
> > particularly valuable.
>
> I bring that up later in the paper, and the only reason it's there
is because some readers might wonder why there are 22 shrutis. It
> doesn't really have anything to do with the main subject of the
paper.

Hi Paul!

But this is untrue!?? I quote you in the "History of 22-tone
Tunings":

"Thus the harmonic structure of these scales [Indian] is well
represented in 22-equal. But the melodic structures can be somewhat
different..."

So, if the harmonic structures of Indian music are related to 7-limit
and 22-equal, if one were to use them this way, why would this be
unrelated to the OVERALL theme of your paper, which I have to
compliment myself (since noone else will) for fathoming??

Apparently Indian music doesn't use the harmonic possibilites like
that, but to say this "doesn't have anything to do with the main
theme of the paper" is stretching things a bit, wouldn't you say??

_______ _______ ______ ____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗paul@stretch-music.com

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22105.html#22158

> > "Thus the harmonic structure of these scales [Indian] is well
> > represented in 22-equal. But the melodic structures can be
somewhat different..."
> >
> > So, if the harmonic structures of Indian music are related to 7-
limit
>
> No! Not 7-limit! At least not according to anything I cite in my
paper.

But, if the harmonic structures of Indian music could be "well
represented" by 22-tET AND 22-tET represents the 7-limit well...

ergo, "harmonic structures" of Indian scales, if they were to be used
that way (most probably they are not) would at least HYPOTHETICALLY
be good in the 7-limit??

I gather you mean that the Indian scales aren't used that way??

Thanks!

________ _____ ___ ____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗paul@stretch-music.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗paul@stretch-music.com

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_22105.html#22224

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_22105.html#22193
> >
> >
> > I'm still working on it, Joe... the tool you're describing
> > is the JustMusic software. At this point it looks like
> > Robert Walker is going to be the one to make the final push
> > and get it released. (hopefully)
> >
>
> Wow... this I didn't know, but I had heard that you were
> organizing a "developers' group." Congrats... and this
> sounds exciting! Might save people like Paul some time, too!

Yes, it would save Paul time, because even tho the version
that currently works only uses the Monzo lattice formula,
eventually the plan is to have the user specify any lattice
formula he wishes, including all of Erv Wilson's lattice
and Bosanquet-derived keyboard designs. So Paul could
simply pop in the numbers, or better yet, formulae, and
JustMusic does all the latticing.

And of course, the ultimate goal of JustMusic is to produce
audible music. The version I have that will actually create
music for me does it with MIDI, but we've put that on the
back burner and have decided to create CSound output.

But anyway, the project has been stalled for a while as
I haven't had time to devote to its leadership. Hopefully
we can stir some interest now.

If you're a programmer or mathematician who would like to
contribute to getting this sofware developed and released,
please consider joining the Yahoo JustMusic group. It's
a private list, and I just ask that you email me with details
about your interests and abilities as they relate to what
I have on the homepage:

/justmusic

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22105.html#22215

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > But, if the harmonic structures of Indian music could be "well
> > represented" by 22-tET AND 22-tET represents the 7-limit well...
> >
> > ergo, "harmonic structures" of Indian scales, if they were to be
used
> > that way (most probably they are not) would at least
HYPOTHETICALLY
> > be good in the 7-limit??
>
> Not really.
> >
> > I gather you mean that the Indian scales aren't used that way??
>
> Right. For another example, meantone tuning was used for 5-limit
harmony in the Renaissance
> and Baroque eras, and meantone tuning is well represented by 31-
tET. 31-tET also represents
> the 7-limit very well. That doesn't mean that the diatonic scales
used in Renaissance and
> Baroque music are good in the 7-limit . . . in fact they're not.

Got it!

In other words, if something is well represented by something else,
that doesn't necessarily mean that the something else doesn't have
something that the something doesn't have...

Clear to me, that's for sure...

________ _____ ____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

Joseph!
Yes I lost this post so glad it reappeared. I was not quite sure i understand what was being
said here. 22 et does not in any way represent Indian music in any way. If you look at the 22
shuti tuning you realize it is as far from equal as one can get and remain a 22 tone constant
structure. It is analogous to the meta slendro i use, it is a 12 tone scale but not at all
compatible with equal.

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> > > But, if the harmonic structures of Indian music could be "well
> > > represented" by 22-tET AND 22-tET represents the 7-limit well...
> > >
> > > ergo, "harmonic structures" of Indian scales, if they were to be
> used
> > > that way (most probably they are not) would at least
> HYPOTHETICALLY
> > > be good in the 7-limit??
>

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

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

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_22105.html#22307

> Joseph!
> Yes I lost this post so glad it reappeared. I was not quite
sure i understand what was being said here. 22 et does not in any way
represent Indian music in any way. If you look at the 22 shuti tuning
you realize it is as far from equal as one can get and remain a 22
tone constant structure. It is analogous to the meta slendro i use,
it is a 12 tone scale but not at all compatible with equal.
>
> jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > > > But, if the harmonic structures of Indian music could be "well
> > > > represented" by 22-tET

Hi Kraig!

Thanks for your response. Well, Paul in his "multiple T's" paper
states that 22-tET represents "harmonic structures" of Indian music
well, but then goes on to assert that there are no "harmonic
structures" in Indian music...

Perhaps Paul could clarify the point he was making in the "T's" paper
if he gets a chance...

__________ _______ _______ ____
Joseph Pehrson