Joseph's ideas about justise

Hi Joe!

> I was interested in further commentary, because these are
> important concepts and I would like to hear various viewpoints
> on them.

(Ah I have permission to speak!)

> Seriously, though, it is true I had strong reactions to the just
> chords, but McLaren has me thinking that possibly my reactions
> are tied in with "acculturation" rather than something
> "intrinsic."

Just chords *are* noticably different from nonjustchords.
I hear them as more static. Some may hear them as more in
tune...

> I guess my _initial_ reaction to just intervals, particularly
> the major third, after a 1/2 lifetime of 12-tET was that it was
> "out of tune..." but, I admit, I quickly started to enjoy just
> intervals intensely!

And bless Joseph for admitting this key point.
It seems that all different tunings sound odd at first,
especially if you have only heard ONE tuning your whole
life and super double especially if you have ever been the
victim er student of brainwashing I mean eartraining.

Yes! Just intervals are easy to tune by ear!! They REALLY
are. They are like street signs, they let you know where
you are.

But that does not necessarily mean they sound better than
near just or nonjust intervals. Where I have a problem is
when people start to talk like just intervals are the best
and only true intervals and that people who don't hear and
repeat that one true way of thinking are not properly
educated in music or are just being contrary. I don't
think it is that way. In fact I would say that some
proponents of justism are the ones who are being contrary
and not really listening. But only they know for sure.

> Joseph, the fireman... extinguisher ready...

Ah! This is why I really wanted to reply, Mr. Fireman. :)
I just read Farenheit 451 for the first time, Joseph. Have
you read it? It's great! He predicted the future way more
accurately than any other 1950s scifi writer I can think
of.

- Jeff

--- In tuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24649.html#24649

> > Joseph, the fireman... extinguisher ready...
>
> Ah! This is why I really wanted to reply, Mr. Fireman. :)
> I just read Farenheit 451 for the first time, Joseph. Have
> you read it? It's great! He predicted the future way more
> accurately than any other 1950s scifi writer I can think
> of.
>
> - Jeff

Yes, I have, Jeff... but things won't happen that way nowadays.
Today, somebody will just "pull the plug!"....

_________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:

>
> (Ah I have permission to speak!)
>

>
> Just chords *are* noticably different from nonjustchords.
> I hear them as more static. Some may hear them as more in
> tune...
>

>
> And bless Joseph for admitting this key point.
> It seems that all different tunings sound odd at first,
> especially if you have only heard ONE tuning your whole
> life and super double especially if you have ever been the
> victim er student of brainwashing I mean eartraining.
>
> Yes! Just intervals are easy to tune by ear!! They REALLY
> are. They are like street signs, they let you know where
> you are.
>
> But that does not necessarily mean they sound better than
> near just or nonjust intervals. Where I have a problem is
> when people start to talk like just intervals are the best
> and only true intervals and that people who don't hear and
> repeat that one true way of thinking are not properly
> educated in music or are just being contrary. I don't
> think it is that way. In fact I would say that some
> proponents of justism are the ones who are being contrary
> and not really listening. But only they know for sure.
>
Thanks X. J. Scott. I agree with this 100%.

X.J.scott/Paul!
Look at this list and who comments. I see more pushing of ET than of Just. Who are these "just
people" that you all like to generalize about. I for one you will never convince to use ET. well i
do use 6,144 but that because i have no choice. We just people use what we do for our own good
reasons, but the post attacking our position grossly outnumbers any of our statements. Frankly i
cannot think of anything less imaginative that dividing thing up in equal parts. :) (joking)

Paul Erlich wrote:

> > But that does not necessarily mean they sound better than
> > near just or nonjust intervals. Where I have a problem is
> > when people start to talk like just intervals are the best
> > and only true intervals and that people who don't hear and
> > repeat that one true way of thinking are not properly
> > educated in music or are just being contrary. I don't
> > think it is that way. In fact I would say that some
> > proponents of justism are the ones who are being contrary
> > and not really listening. But only they know for sure.
> >
> Thanks X. J. Scott. I agree with this 100%.

-- 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..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24649.html#24667

>
> >
> > And bless Joseph for admitting this key point.
> > It seems that all different tunings sound odd at first,
> > especially if you have only heard ONE tuning your whole
> > life and super double especially if you have ever been the
> > victim er student of brainwashing I mean eartraining.
> >
> > Yes! Just intervals are easy to tune by ear!! They REALLY
> > are. They are like street signs, they let you know where
> > you are.
> >
> > But that does not necessarily mean they sound better than
> > near just or nonjust intervals. Where I have a problem is
> > when people start to talk like just intervals are the best
> > and only true intervals and that people who don't hear and
> > repeat that one true way of thinking are not properly
> > educated in music or are just being contrary. I don't
> > think it is that way. In fact I would say that some
> > proponents of justism are the ones who are being contrary
> > and not really listening. But only they know for sure.
> >
> Thanks X. J. Scott. I agree with this 100%.

Paul, you must excuse me for a moment if I appear a slight
bit "critical..." (You won't mind, will you?? :) ), but I think
that what Jeff is stating is *exactly* what McLaren was saying...

And now you here are agreeing with it??

Maybe I'm just not fully understanding the basis of the debate
between you and McLaren... and probably I'm not going to, since there
always is a "flame war" rather than a debate... Oh well...

________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

Jeff,

You brought up a topic that has come up on the tuning list, every so
often, for years. I wonder if you could amplify something for me?

--- In tuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> But that does not necessarily mean they sound better than
> near just or nonjust intervals. Where I have a problem is
> when people start to talk like just intervals are the best
> and only true intervals and that people who don't hear and
> repeat that one true way of thinking are not properly
> educated in music or are just being contrary. I don't
> think it is that way. In fact I would say that some
> proponents of justism are the ones who are being contrary
> and not really listening. But only they know for sure.

Out of curiousity, which people are you speaking of? Are the books
that put JI in this light, where the author speaks of it being the
only way to go? Are you referring to particular corrspondents, on
this list, for example?

I ask because, as I said, it comes up every so often. And usually
Paul Erlich will offer a "Right On!" afterwards, and bring up the
same thing: that there is a phalanx of JI enthusiasts, promoting
their system and dissing others. Frankly, I haven't ever witnessed
that.

The closest I've ever come to seeing such a thing would be a one-
liner in Lou Harrison's "Music Primer", that (I think) says "Just
Intonation is the best intonation!" But Lou is so accepting of the
many ways that music can be made, in our Western society as well as
all over the globe, that no one could resonably take him seriously as
offering an edict.

If one were to sift through 6 years or so of this tuning list, going
all the way back to Mills College, I wouldn't be in the tiniest bit
surprised to see the VAST majority of posts on this topic being from
people who find superior qualities in ET systems, or some other
system, and backing up their claims with reams of data (not
necessarily music). Why is this? I confess, I've never understood.

I have no bias, because I have no extensive experience in composing
microtonally, in any one system; only dabbled in a couple of them.
That I've performed a lot of Partch, on his instruments, could hardly
sway me to say that JI is superior in any way. In fact, my recent
questions to Paul Erlich regarding some of the details of 72tET are
for this very reason: I'm interested in the musical results, not the
modus operandi. If what my head and heart hear can be realized in 145
EDO, excellent; if it turns out 11-limit JI is what works best, swell.

The point? I'd like to see, once and for all, just a few of the
example of the oft-referred-to rabid proponants of JI. I say that
because I wonder if they are men made of straw...

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Jon,

> Out of curiousity, which people are you speaking of? Are the
> books that put JI in this light, where the author speaks of it
> being the only way to go? Are you referring to particular
> corrspondents, on this list, for example?

I am not trying to make enemies or put anyone on the
offensive here which is why I did not name names, which
I think would give a much different impression than
what I want to convey. I value the contributions of all
the contributers to the field and respect their personal
judgments as to what works for them personally.

In order to avoid giving offense, I will email you
privately with the examples I am thinking of here. Thanks.

- Jeff

Jeff,

--- In tuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> In order to avoid giving offense, I will email you
> privately with the examples I am thinking of here. Thanks.

Excellent way to go!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> X.J.scott/Paul!
> Look at this list and who comments. I see more pushing of ET than of Just.

Kraig, I think you misinterpreted once again, or at least your interpretation of what XJS
wrote was different from mine. I'm having deja vu. ET wasn't even mentioned by any of us
in this thread! Where did you pull that from? JI is great but I simply don't want Joseph
Pehrson or anyone else to use it based on faith or based on the authority of Helmholtz or
Partch or anyone else. If you honestly listen to the sounds of JI or near-JI as compared
with other sounds and decide to use them, then that's great, and that's in fact where I
thought Joseph was! So please, don't misunderstand.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24649.html#24785

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > X.J.scott/Paul!
> > Look at this list and who comments. I see more pushing of ET
than of Just.
>
> Kraig, I think you misinterpreted once again, or at least your
interpretation of what XJS
> wrote was different from mine. I'm having deja vu. ET wasn't even
mentioned by any of us
> in this thread! Where did you pull that from? JI is great but I
simply don't want Joseph
> Pehrson or anyone else to use it based on faith or based on the
authority of Helmholtz or
> Partch or anyone else. If you honestly listen to the sounds of JI
or near-JI as compared
> with other sounds and decide to use them, then that's great, and
that's in fact where I
> thought Joseph was!

Hi Paul...

Yes, this is correct. I'm not "backtracking." I have enjoyed
working with the Just sounds, and I find them *special.*

McLaren just has me wondering if that's because of something
*endemic,* something in my nervous system (a la Helmholtz's thinking)
or something *cultural,* which is McLaren's thinking.

I was just wondering what people's opinions were.

Frankly, it really doesn't make any difference. If I enjoy
the "pure" sounds and want to work with them (at least for now...) it
really doesn't make any difference where they are "coming from..."

I was just curious what people thought. I'm pretty clear on your
*own* opinion, however...

________ ______ _________
Joseph Pehrson

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

> Paul, you must excuse me for a moment if I appear a slight
> bit "critical..." (You won't mind, will you?? :) ), but I think
> that what Jeff is stating is *exactly* what McLaren was saying...
>
> And now you here are agreeing with it??

So it seems. Not in contradiction with anything I've been saying all along.

> Maybe I'm just not fully understanding the basis of the debate
> between you and McLaren... and probably I'm not going to, since there
> always is a "flame war" rather than a debate... Oh well...

Well, from the very small amount that I've seen, it seems McLaren manages to take less
than 1% of my ideas, completely distort them beyond recognition, and then paint a
sweeping picture of me based solely on that. So yes, a one-sided flame war. Back in the
Mills days, I would try to debate his arguments, but rarely would that be a two-way
exchange.

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

> I ask because, as I said, it comes up every so often. And usually
> Paul Erlich will offer a "Right On!" afterwards, and bring up the
> same thing: that there is a phalanx of JI enthusiasts, promoting
> their system and dissing others. Frankly, I haven't ever witnessed
> that.
>
> The closest I've ever come to seeing such a thing would be a one-
> liner in Lou Harrison's "Music Primer", that (I think) says "Just
> Intonation is the best intonation!"

I'm going to forward some messages from Julie Werntz that address this directly:

> The point? I'd like to see, once and for all, just a few of the
> example of the oft-referred-to rabid proponants of JI. I say that
> because I wonder if they are men made of straw...

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

> I was just curious what people thought. I'm pretty clear on your
> *own* opinion, however...
>
Really? You might be surprised . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24649.html#24812

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > I was just curious what people thought. I'm pretty clear on your
> > *own* opinion, however...
> >
> Really? You might be surprised . . .

OK... admittedly that comment was a bit simplistic...

_________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

PAUL!
If i misunderstand ,why did Jon Szanto make exactly the same comment as me?
at the same time. It's sychronicity!
No. generalizations were made about JI practitioners being fascistic in their attitudes to ET.

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > X.J.scott/Paul!
> > Look at this list and who comments. I see more pushing of ET than of Just.
>
> Kraig, I think you misinterpreted once again, or at least your interpretation of what XJS
> wrote was different from mine. I'm having deja vu. ET wasn't even mentioned by any of us
> in this thread! Where did you pull that from? JI is great but I simply don't want Joseph
> Pehrson or anyone else to use it based on faith or based on the authority of Helmholtz or
> Partch or anyone else. If you honestly listen to the sounds of JI or near-JI as compared
> with other sounds and decide to use them, then that's great, and that's in fact where I
> thought Joseph was! So please, don't misunderstand.

-- 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:
> PAUL!
> If i misunderstand ,why did Jon Szanto make exactly the same comment as me?
> at the same time. It's sychronicity!
> No. generalizations were made about JI practitioners being fascistic in their attitudes to ET.

Kraig . . . I don't know what you're referring to. All I know is that you and Jon were both
interpreting comments I forwarded from Julie as if I believed them. I do not. I was simply doing
Julie the favor of channeling her comments to this list and the list's replies back to her.
Apparently, this list is far too volatile to accomodate the subtlety of "don't shoot the messenger".
So I'll tell Julie that sadly, I will be unable to continue in this role, and she will have to join the list
herself.

Paul...

Wait! Wait! Don't be hasty!

And Kraig, read carefully! What you were reacting to *were* from JW,
not Paul.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Kraig . . . I don't know what you're referring to. All I know is
> that you and Jon were both interpreting comments I forwarded from
> Julie as if I believed them. I do not.

Paul, not me, or not intentionally. I tried to couch the writing as
if I were writing to JW, except that I also included the bit about
being interested in your cents-error and JI connection.

> I was simply doing Julie the favor of channeling her comments to
> this list and the list's replies back to her. Apparently, this list
> is far too volatile to accomodate the subtlety of "don't shoot the
> messenger".

No, but I asked for any other people that might feel disgruntled at
the unamed and nebulous JI proponants; I know you've at least
expressed feelings that were somewhat similar. I wouldn't shoot you
(being a Quaker, that wouldn't be kosher...). And I thank you for
Julie's comments, if nothing else for me to publically ask that
people stand up for their beliefs and continue working on those
musical goals. As you do, as many do, as I would hope all would do
and work towards.

Kraig, be easy on the gang. Paul, continue to be involved.

And I hope we can shed some light on what should be a non-existant
rivalry...

Cheers,
Jon

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

> No, but I asked for any other people that might feel disgruntled at
> the unamed and nebulous JI proponants; I know you've at least
> expressed feelings that were somewhat similar.

I beg to differ. In fact, the comments I forwarded were from a private conversation between Julie
and myself, in which I am (in relation to her) the pro-JI protagonist! Yes, I've discussed the
distortion of historical and musical facts which comes up over and over again in various
pro-strict-JI websites, etc. . . no need to rehash that now . . . but I would never, ever, ever,
compare that with anything like genocide, fascism, etc.

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> I beg to differ. In fact, the comments I forwarded were from a
private conversation between Julie
> and myself, in which I am (in relation to her) the pro-JI
protagonist!

[insert sound of my eyebrows hitting the ceiling] <g>

> Yes, I've discussed the
> distortion of historical and musical facts which comes up over and
> over again in various
> pro-strict-JI websites, etc. . . no need to rehash that now . . .
> but I would never, ever, ever,
> compare that with anything like genocide, fascism, etc.

Of course not, and I don't think my reply was to you, but couched in
language as if I spoke to the writer themself. If you got any other
inference -- if you thought I meant that *you* might share those
thoughts -- you have an honest and sincere (and public) apology, both
for the implication and unclarity in my writing.

Best,
Jon

Frankly the title of posts are not clear where they start. How is one to tell. when I look back
this still is not clear. I thought we were not going to forward one sided arguments to the list?

JSZANTO@ADNC.COM wrote:

> Paul...
>
> Wait! Wait! Don't be hasty!
>
> And Kraig, read carefully! What you were reacting to *were* from JW,
> not Paul.

-- 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:

> I thought we were not going to forward one sided arguments to the list?

Touche! But this was different from the McLaren situation of old . . . Julie was replying to, rather
than ignoring, the points from myself, Daniel, Alison, and others. But if you do want to
correspond with her, I'd encourage you to do so . . . I'll give you her e-mail off-list if you like.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote::
> >
> > > I was just curious what people thought. I'm pretty clear on your
> > > *own* opinion, however...
> > >
> > Really? You might be surprised . . .
>
> OK... admittedly that comment was a bit simplistic...
>
My own opinion is that, for my own artistic tastes, most of the interest is going to be found in
NQJ (not-quite just) scales. The reason? Well, we know that all interesting scales are periodicity
blocks. A periodicity block is defined by a set of (usually two or three, but sometimes one or
four) unison vectors. If one of those 1-4 unison vectors is smaller than about 35 cents, it leads to
"wolves" rather than musically useful inflections and should be tempered out. Larger unison
vectors can either be tempered out as well (as in 15-tET and 26-tET), or can be left
untempered (leading to MOS scales like the diatonic, symmetrical decatonic, 7- or 11-tone
chain-of-minor thirds, blackjack, the various MOS scales Robert Valentine is working on, etc.).
The only scales where strict JI would interest me are scales where all the unison vectors are
larger than about 35 cents . . . can't think of any right now . . . let me get back to ya.

Whew . . . I was up all night playing the 31-tone guitar . . . there's a lot of music in there!

I wrote,

> The only scales where strict JI would interest me are scales where all the unison vectors are
> larger than about 35 cents . . . can't think of any right now . . . let me get back to ya.

Looking at Kees' webpage, it seems that the only ones might be the Pythagorean pentatonic,
and whole bunch of 7-tone 7-limit scales (oh, no, that "spooky seven" again!). The unison
vectors of those would be triplets out of (20:21, 24:25, 27:28, maybe 35:36, maybe even
48:49). I'll investigate these when I get to the office (lots of sleep first). Should I post the results
to newjustintonation (haven't looked over there yet)?

On 6/11/01 8:08 AM, "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com> wrote:

> Whew . . . I was up all night playing the 31-tone guitar . . . there's a lot
> of music in there!

Oh that was YOU? I think I felt that.
It felt like somewhere in the world someone was playing a 31.

weird.

Hi Paul,

> Looking at Kees' webpage, it seems that the only ones might be the Pythagorean pentatonic,
> and whole bunch of 7-tone 7-limit scales (oh, no, that "spooky seven" again!). The unison
> vectors of those would be triplets out of (20:21, 24:25, 27:28, maybe 35:36, maybe even
> 48:49). I'll investigate these when I get to the office (lots of sleep first). Should I post the
results
> to newjustintonation (haven't looked over there yet)?

These scales sound interesting, and I'd like to see them. Don't necessarily follow the philosophy
of the post before about the only interesting scales being quasi-just or just with periodicity
blocks,
and large unison vectors (so many other categories of scale), but interesting to see what these
scales are anyway.

Robert