My mp3.com page

It appears this is up, though mp3.com has not notified me of that. So
far it has only one "song"; the first piece of music I've written in
two decades. It's nice to have more than square waves and my bad
violin playing available!

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/322/gene_ward_smith.html

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_29928.html#29928

> It appears this is up, though mp3.com has not notified me of that.
So far it has only one "song"; the first piece of music I've written
in two decades.

Gee, Gene... I hope some of the musicians on this list "inspired"
you... Two decades is quite a vacation.... I think I might have
forgotten what a staff is in that time...

Anyway, congrats on your piece. There seems to be some promise here,
in *my* opinion. The motives are clearly defined, and yet there is a
certain abstraction, and transformational complexity that I,
personally, find appealing.

You're off to a good start, so I would suggest not waiting another 20
years for your next effort!

_______ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> It appears this is up, though mp3.com has not notified me of that.
So
> far it has only one "song"; the first piece of music I've written
in
> two decades. It's nice to have more than square waves and my bad
> violin playing available!
>
> http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/322/gene_ward_smith.html

Awesome! Some of this sounds a bit like Ben Johnston's 6th string
quartet, which also uses 11-limit JI and no particular "scale" . . .
I'm going to try to arrange a Ben Johnston listening session at NEC --
are you in the Boston area, by any chance (saw your Cape Cod T-
shirt)?

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

> Awesome! Some of this sounds a bit like Ben Johnston's 6th string
> quartet, which also uses 11-limit JI and no
particular "scale" . . .
> I'm going to try to arrange a Ben Johnston listening session at
NEC --
> are you in the Boston area, by any chance (saw your Cape Cod T-
> shirt)?

Thanks. I'd love to hear the quartet, but actually I'm now in Silicon
Valley. There's a characteristic change when you go from 7 to 11
limit which is pretty distinctive, though I haven't gotten much bang
beyond that.

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

> Gee, Gene... I hope some of the musicians on this list "inspired"
> you...

I've been inspired twice over--first by the realization that not
everyone involved in music is math-phobic and resistent to new ideas,
and again by the realization that if I composed music, someone might
actually listen to it.

On Tuesday, November 6, 2001, at 12:06 AM, genewardsmith@juno.com wrote:
> Thanks. I'd love to hear the quartet, but actually I'm now in Silicon
> Valley. There's a characteristic change when you go from 7 to 11
> limit which is pretty distinctive, though I haven't gotten much bang
> beyond that.
>
>

I'm in the Silicon Valley too at the moment... until Nov. 30. Can we arrange a Silicon Valley get-together of all people from this area?

I recently quit my classical guitar study to pursue Just Intonation but don't know where to start. I ran across a book "Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale" by William Sethares which seems to be a fairly comprehensive introduction to this field:

http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/ttss.html

And also, I have Csound up and ready to play.

I like violin, but think I need to work with a fretted instrument at first.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Gene, this is lovely! I like your use of 11-limit harmonies.

If anything, I wished it had ended sooner, before finishing with that
familiar melody. I was so immersed in the dream of your own making
that it seemed a shock to return to a patriotic song.

Overall impression: very nice! Please grace us with your next piece
soon.

JdL

Hi Gene,

I like this piece. Usually synthesized voice patches--those ghastly,
silly "ohhs" and "ahhs"--have me cringing in pain and disgust, but
they were tolerable here (actually, I think lo-fi playback helped in
this regard as it gave them some grit). Anyway, nice job, I'm really
looking forward to hearing some more.

BTW, should you be interested, I too have a microtonal piece that uses
America the Beautiful (the tuning is combines overtone series 10-20
and 14-28):

http://listeningroom.lycos.com/fan/bands/danstearns/Song_44270.html

Patriotic tunes, hymns, these things are almost like archetypal
tattoos... and as such they're so ridiculously sturdy that you really
can do quite a bit with them without loosing some of those deep-rooted
associations.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: <genewardsmith@juno.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:39 PM
Subject: [tuning] My mp3.com page

> It appears this is up, though mp3.com has not notified me of that.
So
> far it has only one "song"; the first piece of music I've written in
> two decades. It's nice to have more than square waves and my bad
> violin playing available!
>
> http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/322/gene_ward_smith.html
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe
through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning
group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on
hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily
digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

> There's a characteristic change when you go from 7 to 11
> limit which is pretty distinctive, though I haven't gotten much
bang
> beyond that.

Same here. So if you were to write music for live instrumentalists to
play, wouldn't you agree that a 72-tET notational system would be
ideal, given your compositional style?

--- In tuning@y..., Terrence Brannon <princepawn@y...> wrote:

> I recently quit my classical guitar study to pursue Just Intonation
but
> don't know where to start.

Maybe you should order an Interchangeable Fingerboard Kit for your
classical guitar from Mark Rankin.

> I ran across a book "Tuning, Timbre,
> Spectrum, Scale" by William Sethares which seems to be a fairly
> comprehensive introduction to this field:
>
> http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/ttss.html

Hmm . . . does it go into how meantone tuning was "Europe's most
successful tuning, if endurance can be equated with success":

http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/histune.html

and how the same sorts of general principles can be applied to
approximate higher-limit JI easily on an instrument such as a guitar?

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

> Same here. So if you were to write music for live instrumentalists
to
> play, wouldn't you agree that a 72-tET notational system would be
> ideal, given your compositional style?

My style is to keep experimenting with different things. However the
72 et is pretty nifty. I came to that conclusion when I had my
brother (who had recently entered a program in a strange new subject
called "computer science") run off the relative errors for the 31
limit up to the 1000-et. I had read Murray Barbour's "Tuning and
Temperament", and was not satisfied with his treatment, which only
considered the 5-limit. It was interesting to see what changed--
Barbour talked about the 84-et, which is not regarded here as a very
important system, and never even mentioned the 72-et.

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

> I had read Murray Barbour's "Tuning and
> Temperament", and was not satisfied with his treatment, which only
> considered the 5-limit. It was interesting to see what changed--
> Barbour talked about the 84-et, which is not regarded here as a
very
> important system, and never even mentioned the 72-et.

Well Barbour was right in that 84-tET is a bit better than 72-tET in
the 5-limit. Thus you see Harald Waage advocating 84-tET in the pages
of 1/1. But as you like the 7-limit and 11-limit, which Barbour
didn't touch, 72-tET should of course be much more important to you.

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

> Well Barbour was right in that 84-tET is a bit better than 72-tET
in
> the 5-limit. Thus you see Harald Waage advocating 84-tET in the
pages
> of 1/1. But as you like the 7-limit and 11-limit, which Barbour
> didn't touch, 72-tET should of course be much more important to you.

At that time it was pretty much theory to me, as all I had to work
with was my trusty violin, and I found the 7-limit enough of a
challenge. However, Barbour ignored even 7, which seemed wrong to me;
moreover, he paid no attention to whether the errors were in the same
or opposing directions--so in effect he paid no attention to 5/3. It
was fascinating to discover that the 22 and 31 ets, which he
discussed, had resources beyond what he had mentioned, and that
things like the 46 or 72 (not to mention 311!) ets were out there,
which he had *not* discussed, but which seemed perhaps more
significant than the 84 and 87 he did mention.

In spite of all that I learned a lot from him--such as that there was
such a thing as meantone temperament, for instance!

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

> moreover, he paid no attention to whether the errors were in the
same
> or opposing directions--so in effect he paid no attention to 5/3.

That irked me a great deal too when I read it. Of course, he's not
the only one who does that ;)

> In spite of all that I learned a lot from him--such as that there
was
> such a thing as meantone temperament, for instance!

Meantone is sadly ignored by virtually all the anti-12-tET, pro-
strict-JI literature of the recent era -- but meantone is about 1000
times more important than strict JI in the history of Western music
(where JI means at least 5-limit)!

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

> Meantone is sadly ignored by virtually all the anti-12-tET, pro-
> strict-JI literature of the recent era -- but meantone is about
1000
> times more important than strict JI in the history of Western music
> (where JI means at least 5-limit)!

I wouldn't say that if you want to go back to Greco-Roman music; few
examples survived, but some of the theory remained, at any rate.

It was something of a shock to me when I started tuning examples and
found out how important the 81/80~1 could be--sometimes the 22-et
sounded pretty way out when 31 would sound wonderful.

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > Meantone is sadly ignored by virtually all the anti-12-tET, pro-
> > strict-JI literature of the recent era -- but meantone is about
> 1000
> > times more important than strict JI in the history of Western
music
> > (where JI means at least 5-limit)!
>
> I wouldn't say that if you want to go back to Greco-Roman music;
few
> examples survived, but some of the theory remained, at any rate.

That music did not use simultaneous harmony. If 5- and higher-limit
JI was used to describe these scales, I'd say it's because they liked
the look of rational numbers for their own sake. They certainly had
no way of tuning or assessing scales with any accuracy. I think that
all we can conclude is that scales with a variety of melodic
proportions were used. JI? Not proven.

Their theory: all steps had to be superparticular ratios. Audible
importance: ???

> It was something of a shock to me when I started tuning examples
and
> found out how important the 81/80~1 could be--sometimes the 22-et
> sounded pretty way out when 31 would sound wonderful.

Even 19 will sound just wonderful for triadic diatonic music,
compared with 22.

BTW, when did you receive this shock? About 20 years ago?

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

> BTW, when did you receive this shock? About 20 years ago?

Late in 1978 my brother finished our music box and he brought home a
HP 9845 from work--something management encouraged, suffering under
the delusion people might use it to work with. This thing was hot
stuff for the time, and it had a nifty built-in Basic interpreter
which was optimized very well and was quite fast, which meant it was
easy to write control programs.

The computer run I mentioned was ten years before this, and I had
done calculations on a TI programmable calculator as well. I was
under the impression I pretty well understood the 22-et, the 31-et,
and what the differences were. I was wrong! My experience in actually
using them quickly showed how important the kernel was in determining
the structure of an et--I had thought, following Barbour's lead, that
the only really significant factor was how closely things were
approximated.

That Christmas was the Christmas of the warped Christmas carols at
the family home, where I was home for the holidays and making full
use of the fact that I had the 9845 to play with over the holiday
break.

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

> My experience in actually
> using them quickly showed how important the kernel was in
determining
> the structure of an et--I had thought, following Barbour's lead,
that
> the only really significant factor was how closely things were
> approximated.

Actually, Barbour does mention how difficult it is to work
diatonically when 81/80 is not in the kernel (using different terms,
of course -- such as the major third being notated Fb), and mentions
how some theorists thought it absolutely necessary to have 81/80 in
the kernel, while others didn't.

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_29928.html#29975

> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > BTW, when did you receive this shock? About 20 years ago?
>
> Late in 1978 my brother finished our music box and he brought home
a
> HP 9845 from work--something management encouraged, suffering under
> the delusion people might use it to work with. This thing was hot
> stuff for the time, and it had a nifty built-in Basic interpreter
> which was optimized very well and was quite fast, which meant it
was
> easy to write control programs.
>
> The computer run I mentioned was ten years before this, and I had
> done calculations on a TI programmable calculator as well. I was
> under the impression I pretty well understood the 22-et, the 31-et,
> and what the differences were. I was wrong! My experience in
actually using them quickly showed how important the kernel was in
determining the structure of an et--I had thought, following
Barbour's lead, that the only really significant factor was how
closely things were approximated.
>
> That Christmas was the Christmas of the warped Christmas carols at
> the family home, where I was home for the holidays and making full
> use of the fact that I had the 9845 to play with over the holiday
> break.

This is terribly interesting... but I'm not fully understanding it.
Paul or Gene, could you please elaborate??

Why is the "kernel" more important than best approximations??

Thanks!

JP

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

> This is terribly interesting... but I'm not fully understanding
it.
> Paul or Gene, could you please elaborate??
>
> Why is the "kernel" more important than best approximations??
>
> Thanks!
>
> JP

We just mean the importance of the 81/80 vanishing for common-
practice music.

This has been gone over so many times on this list that I simply have
to believe you're fully cognizant of it by now.

Yes?

So what we're saying is that, even though 19-tET and 22-tET have
about the same quality of approximations in the 5-limit, most common-
practice (diatonic triadic) music sounds _far_ better in 19-tET than
in 22-tET, because of the big fat comma shifts and/or drifts, and
awkwardly unequal whole steps, you'd have in the latter.

So, in order to support traditional Western music, a tuning should
not only have decent 5-limit approximations, but it should also be a
form of _meantone_ tuning.

Is this ringing a bell?

I wrote,

> So, in order to support traditional Western music,

I should have added, "of approximately the era 1480-1800".

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

/tuning/topicId_29928.html#29992

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > This is terribly interesting... but I'm not fully understanding
> it.
> > Paul or Gene, could you please elaborate??
> >
> > Why is the "kernel" more important than best approximations??
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > JP
>
> We just mean the importance of the 81/80 vanishing for common-
> practice music.
>
> This has been gone over so many times on this list that I simply
have to believe you're fully cognizant of it by now.
>
> Yes?
>

Sure... I remember that... but not exactly in *this* context... I
don't remember the concept of comparing the vanishing comma with
other scales that have close "approximations" without getting rid of
it... (Maybe that was implied someplace in the discussion... quite
possibly)

> So what we're saying is that, even though 19-tET and 22-tET have
> about the same quality of approximations in the 5-limit, most
common-practice (diatonic triadic) music sounds _far_ better in 19-
tET than in 22-tET, because of the big fat comma shifts and/or
drifts, and awkwardly unequal whole steps, you'd have in the latter.
>

So, it sounds then that this becomes principally a "melodic"
distinction (??)

JP

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> Sure... I remember that... but not exactly in *this* context... I
> don't remember the concept of comparing the vanishing comma with
> other scales that have close "approximations" without getting rid
of
> it... (Maybe that was implied someplace in the discussion... quite
> possibly)

There have been plenty of examples of this . . . for example, John
deLaubenfels keeps bringing up how the comma doesn't vanish in 72-
tET, so typical diatonic progressions will tend to "drift" or "shift"
in 72 . . . and yet we know 72-tET has great approximations to just
intervals. And of course the best example of all, JI itself -- we've
certainly gone over the problems strict JI has for playing typical
progressions . . . we had the I-vi-ii-V-I and I-IV-ii-V-I examples,
and the Benedetti examples in Dorian and Mixolydian . . . also, the
subject of why 50-tET might be preferable to 53-tET for certain
repertoire has come up a couple of times -- same thing.
>
> > So what we're saying is that, even though 19-tET and 22-tET have
> > about the same quality of approximations in the 5-limit, most
> common-practice (diatonic triadic) music sounds _far_ better in 19-
> tET than in 22-tET, because of the big fat comma shifts and/or
> drifts, and awkwardly unequal whole steps, you'd have in the latter.
> >
>
> So, it sounds then that this becomes principally a "melodic"
> distinction (??)

Not really -- see above. It's more a "harmonic topology" distinction.

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

/tuning/topicId_29928.html#29996

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > Sure... I remember that... but not exactly in *this* context...
I
> > don't remember the concept of comparing the vanishing comma with
> > other scales that have close "approximations" without getting rid
> of
> > it... (Maybe that was implied someplace in the discussion...
quite
> > possibly)
>
> There have been plenty of examples of this . . . for example, John
> deLaubenfels keeps bringing up how the comma doesn't vanish in 72-
> tET, so typical diatonic progressions will tend to "drift"
or "shift"
> in 72 . . . and yet we know 72-tET has great approximations to just
> intervals. And of course the best example of all, JI itself --
we've
> certainly gone over the problems strict JI has for playing typical
> progressions . . . we had the I-vi-ii-V-I and I-IV-ii-V-I examples,
> and the Benedetti examples in Dorian and Mixolydian . . . also, the
> subject of why 50-tET might be preferable to 53-tET for certain
> repertoire has come up a couple of times -- same thing.
> >
> > > So what we're saying is that, even though 19-tET and 22-tET
have
> > > about the same quality of approximations in the 5-limit, most
> > common-practice (diatonic triadic) music sounds _far_ better in
19-
> > tET than in 22-tET, because of the big fat comma shifts and/or
> > drifts, and awkwardly unequal whole steps, you'd have in the
latter.
> > >
> >
> > So, it sounds then that this becomes principally a "melodic"
> > distinction (??)
>
> Not really -- see above. It's more a "harmonic topology"
distinction.

Oh, sure... this is making sense now. A Just Intonation system
would, obviously, have the best approximations to just intervals (!!)
and yet all the comma problems.

I guess I hadn't thought of the distinctions between interval
approximations and the comma problems in light of the various ETs...

So I see it's possible to have an ET which might have very good JI
approximations and has comma problems.

But, would the *inverse* ever be the case?? Where an ET has
relatively *poor* approximations and yet minimizes the comma in
transitions? Or doesn't that make sense...?

JP

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

> Oh, sure... this is making sense now. A Just Intonation system
> would, obviously, have the best approximations to just intervals
(!!)
> and yet all the comma problems.
>
> I guess I hadn't thought of the distinctions between interval
> approximations and the comma problems in light of the various ETs...
>
> So I see it's possible to have an ET which might have very good JI
> approximations and has comma problems.

Here's a list of ETs with good 5-limit approximations, split into two
categories according to whether it has comma problems or is a meantone

meantone comma problems
-------- --------------
12 15
19 22
26 27
31 34
43 41
50 46
55 53
74 72

All the meantone ones lie on a _straight line_ with the plot of ETs
vs. 5-limit intervals I did last week that you liked.

> But, would the *inverse* ever be the case?? Where an ET has
> relatively *poor* approximations and yet minimizes the comma in
> transitions? Or doesn't that make sense...?

Well, it could certainly make sense. 12-tET is not too hot but at
least it eliminates the comma. 26-tET has approximations that are
slightly worse than those of 12-tET, yet it's still a meantone so
eliminates the comma. Even 7-tET might be said to be a meantone, in
that it eliminates the syntonic comma, but it's unusual in that the
minor third and major third are equal to one another!

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

> Why is the "kernel" more important than best approximations??

The approximations tell you how well in tune something is, the kernel
tells you how an et is structured. That 81/80 is in the kernel is an
important aspect of the 19 and 31 ets, and relates them to the 12 et.
That aspect is brought to the fore when the fifth is the generator,
and so becomes especially important.

In the same way, the fact that 225/224 is in the kernel is an
important aspect of the 72 et, and relates it to 12,19,22,31,41,43,
50,53,84 and 94. It becomes of particular importance when using the
secor generator, which brings it to the fore--the secor splits the
difference between 15/14 and 16/15, and 225/224 is their ratio, just
as the meantone splits the difference between 9/8 and 10/9, and 81/80
is their ratio.

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

/tuning/topicId_29928.html#29998

> Here's a list of ETs with good 5-limit approximations, split into
two categories according to whether it has comma problems or is a
meantone
>
> meantone comma problems
> -------- --------------
> 12 15
> 19 22
> 26 27
> 31 34
> 43 41
> 50 46
> 55 53
> 74 72
>

This is a great post, Paul.... I'm printing this one out...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_29928.html#29999

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Why is the "kernel" more important than best approximations??
>
> The approximations tell you how well in tune something is, the
kernel tells you how an et is structured.

Got it... Thanks, Gene. I'm printing this one out, too...

JP

>
> This is a great post, Paul.... I'm printing this one out...
>
> JP

Congrats on being ht author of post #30000! Anyway, rather than just
printing it out, I suggest you locate all the meantone ETs on that
plot that you liked, and see how they all lie on a straight line.
Then, for any ET _not_ on that line, the comma problem will be more
severe, the farther from that line you are.

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

/tuning/topicId_29928.html#30002

> >
> > This is a great post, Paul.... I'm printing this one out...
> >
> > JP
>
> Congrats on being ht author of post #30000!

Thanks! We do what we can! !!

Anyway, rather than just
> printing it out, I suggest you locate all the meantone ETs on that
> plot that you liked, and see how they all lie on a straight line.
> Then, for any ET _not_ on that line, the comma problem will be more
> severe, the farther from that line you are.

You mentioned this plot before, and I'm a little embarassed to
confess I don't remember which one it was among all the others. Do
you have a message reference#??

Thanks!!

JP

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

> > This is a great post, Paul.... I'm printing this one out...
> >
> > JP
>
> Congrats on being ht author of post #30000!

He was also the author of post #20000. Time for a chorus
of "Tradition"?

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > I suggest you locate all the meantone ETs on that
> > plot that you liked, and see how they all lie on a straight line.
> > Then, for any ET _not_ on that line, the comma problem will be
more
> > severe, the farther from that line you are.
>
>
> You mentioned this plot before, and I'm a little embarassed to
> confess I don't remember which one it was among all the others.

/tuning/files/perlich/equaltemp.jpg

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

/tuning/topicId_29928.html#30006

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > I suggest you locate all the meantone ETs on that
> > > plot that you liked, and see how they all lie on a straight
line.
> > > Then, for any ET _not_ on that line, the comma problem will be
> more
> > > severe, the farther from that line you are.
> >
> >
> > You mentioned this plot before, and I'm a little embarassed to
> > confess I don't remember which one it was among all the others.
>
> /tuning/files/perlich/equaltemp.jpg

Oh... sure. This was a great chart. Actually, I remember
this "linear" part of it too...

I guess they would be in a straight line because the relationship
between the just intervals is in the same proportion in the meantones
(that's a guess...)

Was *this* a valid post?? I sure hope so...

Gene should know I was also the author of post 8000... but none of
the other "round ones" between that and 20000...

JP

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

> Oh... sure. This was a great chart. Actually, I remember
> this "linear" part of it too...

So now you can immediately see, for just about any ET, how good its
approximations are, _and_ how bad its syntonic comma problems will
be. Much better than a simple list as in my post today.

> I guess they would be in a straight line because the relationship
> between the just intervals is in the same proportion in the
meantones
> (that's a guess...)

Pretty much . . . since four perfect fourths must equal a major
third, the errors in these intervals must obey a _linear_
relationship:

4*(flatness of fifth) + (sharpness of major third) = syntonic comma

This is true for _any_ meantone tuning, not just meantone ETs.

> Was *this* a valid post?? I sure hope so...

A valid post?

I wrote (referring to meantone tunings),

> 4*(flatness of fifth) + (sharpness of major third) = syntonic comma

Here the "syntonic comma" referred to is the JI syntonic comma or
21.5 cents -- not the "syntonic comma" of the system in question,
which is zero of course!

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

/tuning/topicId_29928.html#30009

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Oh... sure. This was a great chart. Actually, I remember
> > this "linear" part of it too...
>
> So now you can immediately see, for just about any ET, how good its
> approximations are, _and_ how bad its syntonic comma problems will
> be. Much better than a simple list as in my post today.
>
> > I guess they would be in a straight line because the relationship
> > between the just intervals is in the same proportion in the
> meantones
> > (that's a guess...)
>
> Pretty much . . . since four perfect fourths must equal a major
> third, the errors in these intervals must obey a _linear_
> relationship:
>
> 4*(flatness of fifth) + (sharpness of major third) = syntonic comma
>
> This is true for _any_ meantone tuning, not just meantone ETs.
>
> > Was *this* a valid post?? I sure hope so...
>
> A valid post?

Oh... I thought you were "complaining" a bit when I posted #30000 and
it had very little content in it...

But I guess you were just making a comment on #30000

(You don't have to respond to *this* one, or we'll soon have post
#40000) !!

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_29928.html#30010

> I wrote (referring to meantone tunings),
>
> > 4*(flatness of fifth) + (sharpness of major third) = syntonic
comma
>
> Here the "syntonic comma" referred to is the JI syntonic comma or
> 21.5 cents -- not the "syntonic comma" of the system in question,
> which is zero of course!

Oh sure... I realized that these "cancelled out..."

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> I like this piece. Usually synthesized voice patches--those ghastly,
> silly "ohhs" and "ahhs"--have me cringing in pain and disgust, but
> they were tolerable here (actually, I think lo-fi playback helped in
> this regard as it gave them some grit).

Thanks--I think actually it sounds best in hi-fi, myself. In fact I
think the 128K CBR of mp3.com restriction is not high enough fi.

> http://listeningroom.lycos.com/fan/bands/danstearns/Song_44270.html

I was waiting to respond to this post until I had succeeded in
downloading this, but it seems I never may. Is there a secret to
using the Lycos site?

> Patriotic tunes, hymns, these things are almost like archetypal
> tattoos... and as such they're so ridiculously sturdy that you
really
> can do quite a bit with them without loosing some of those deep-
rooted
> associations.

Ives showed how to do that, and I think that was on my mind a bit.

--- In tuning@y..., Terrence Brannon <princepawn@y...> wrote:

> I'm in the Silicon Valley too at the moment... until Nov. 30. Can
we
> arrange a Silicon Valley get-together of all people from this area?

So who else is in Silicon Valley?

> I recently quit my classical guitar study to pursue Just Intonation
but
> don't know where to start.

Scala and Fractal Tune Smithy, perhaps?

> And also, I have Csound up and ready to play.

Csound strikes me as a lot harder to use than some alternatives. I've
found it is pretty easy to sequence in Scala, convert that to a midi
file, and then render the midi.

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

> Overall impression: very nice! Please grace us with your next
piece
> soon.

Thanks--I'm still working away on a trio for clarinet, english horn,
and banjo in 53-et.