Re: [tuning] Re:scoring in othe ETs - (was Lattice music - request for advice.)

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> >
> > I will use tab for guitar pieces but I need to get a firm handle on
> > other notations because some
> > of my music will be re written for other instruments. Thanks again.
>
> What instruments do you have in mind??? You're not likely to be able to easily get an accurate
> performance in any ET other than 12 on most instruments . . . well maybe 24 . . .

Well, for example I know two harpists who have expressed an interest in trying out some of my
music. The harp being retunable I have in mind to try to score some guitar 22 tet pieces, some of
which I think you'll have heard, for two harps (clarsachs), and to distribute the music between
the two instruments in interesting ways. For this I'll need to use some variation of conventional
scoring to accommodate the musicians. And I'm in the process of making instruments to be tuned in
other ETs and JI that will need new notations.

A slightly different scenario is where I have pieces in Just Intonation that I would like to try
for cello in the first instance using the cents deviation system that has been debated on the
list. And I wouldn't mind challenging small wind and brass ensembles with some higher ET music.

I was under the impression that Johnny Reinhardt had managed to successfully coax multiple ET
music out of largely traditional instruments. Is this the case? I'm also a bit confused as to why
you are proposing 72 tet as a standard if you think that it won't be easy to get accurate
performances in other than 12 ETs. Or is it because 72 and 12 can be easily related that this
makes 72 more accessible?

Best Wishes

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> I was under the impression that Johnny Reinhardt had managed to
successfully coax multiple ET
> music out of largely traditional instruments. Is this the case?

Yes -- performed by himself and other _unusually_ talented and
devoted professionals.

> I'm also a bit confused as to why
> you are proposing 72 tet as a standard if you think that it won't
be easy to get accurate
> performances in other than 12 ETs. Or is it because 72 and 12 can
be easily related that this
> makes 72 more accessible?

Yes.