Re: Carried out on a stretcher

[Kraig Grady:]
>Then do it, measure the results and let me know! The proof is in the
pudding.

I've never had to tune an equal temperament by ear... And the point from my
perspective is that this is (as both a musician and a composer) a non-issue
(for me). [A bad analogy might be something on the order of saying: "Lets
see you fly without an airplane..."] In short, whether I can or I can't
tune an equal temperament by ear is really besides the point in the context
of my actual musical doings... But keeping the discussion strictly in the
'tuning by ear' context of which you wrote; you seem to be saying that
every fraction of an octave has a suitable JI representation that is
(easily?) tunable by the ear alone...? ("No ET can be tuned by ear which
shows its own absurdity. This becomes really apparent once one has worked
with the just intervals it approximates.") But to what degree is this
really the case? Are 3/5ths & 4/7ths of an octave really nothing more than
illegitimate 3/2's? Regardless of whether or not you happen to believe (as
I do) that the equal division of the octave is a legitimate tuning entity
outside of the _one-dimensional_, 'historical expenditure' role in which it
is often cast - I really don't think you would have to look very hard or
far to find many examples along these lines.

Are JI intervals easier to tune by ear than fractions of an octave? Of
course! Is this desirable and useful? Absolutely. Are these the chief/only
concerns of tuning and intonation......

Dan

"D. Stearns" wrote:

> From: "D. Stearns" <stearns@capecod.net>
>
> [Kraig Grady:]
> >Then do it, measure the results and let me know! The proof is in the
> pudding.
>
> I've never had to tune an equal temperament by ear... And the point from my
> perspective is that this is (as both a musician and a composer) a non-issue
> (for me).

I can understand that sometime structural possibilities are the propelling
compositional force but how can you take the first step unless you understand
or attempt to under what it is you are hearing.

> [A bad analogy might be something on the order of saying: "Lets
> see you fly without an airplane..."] In short, whether I can or I can't
> tune an equal temperament by ear is really besides the point in the context
> of my actual musical doings... But keeping the discussion strictly in the
> 'tuning by ear' context of which you wrote; you seem to be saying that
> every fraction of an octave has a suitable JI representation that is
> (easily?) tunable by the ear alone...?

Not JI in the usual sense of simple ratios because what goes on in hearing is
not simple. The music of the southern hemisphere proves that simple JI is not
what people hear. In fact the tunings go out of there way to avoid JI and
even more so ET. Sum and difference tones hold the keys to many of these
tunings. Take Lucy tuning which many reject because of what their pet theories
say. Yet the actual sound is quite good. When I heard Neil Haverstick play on
the 34 there was certain phenomenon that was quite intriguing. I sense that
these ET approximates certain acoustical properties that are fruitful and can
and are tuned by ear. But the ear must remain our guide and not a bunch of
arbitrary numbers(ET). It is technology that has forced ET upon us in the
sense that it is easier done than JI on computer. The simplest scales are not
possible without beats created by their inaccuracy of the tuning. I 'm not a
great as stickler as La Monte about these things either. A few steps and I no
longer can tell what I'm listen to.

>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
www.anaphoria.com