Question about Partch

Well... more questions about Partch...

Ed Borasky came up with something interesting on the "Tuning Math"
list, but I don't believe Jon Szanto is reading over there...

Perhaps some others will have an answer to this question, too...

Hasn't the "otonal" series, on the overall, been considered
*significantly* more important than the *utonal*
over the years??
>

[Ed Borasky:}
> Outside of Partch, yes -- Otonal/Major is *musically* more
important than Utonal/Minor *in common practice Western music*. One
of the things Partch was trying to do, after having defined Otonal
and Utonal to begin with, was to treat them equally in his music and
right what he considered to be a wrong in this respect. I haven't
heard enough of his music to know whether Otonal and Utonal are in
fact equally respected in his works.

Gee... this is an interesting question, but Jon Szanto isn't on this
list... Maybe I'll post something to the "biggie..."

??

__________ ________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r...
wrote:
> Well... more questions about Partch...
>
> Ed Borasky came up with something interesting on the "Tuning Math"
> list, but I don't believe Jon Szanto is reading over there...
>
> Perhaps some others will have an answer to this question, too...
>
>
> Hasn't the "otonal" series, on the overall, been considered
> *significantly* more important than the *utonal*
> over the years??
> >
>
> [Ed Borasky:}
> > Outside of Partch, yes -- Otonal/Major is *musically* more
> important than Utonal/Minor *in common practice Western music*.

I don't see much evidence for this
-- Riemann and Partch certainly
didn't -- though I'd have to say
that one one goes beyond the 5-
limit, to higher and higher limits,
the inequality between utonal
and otonal chords becomes
_painfully_ clear.