Planar temperaments -- 4375/4374

In Spaceballs, when Dark Helmet decides light speed is not fast
enough he commands the ship to go to Ludicrous Speed. This
temperament goes to Ludicrous Speed in terms of accuracy, which is
why I hadn't checked it until now. The amazing thing is, it's quite
practical! I thought it might be after considering what we get for a
septimal version of the kleismic temperament of minor thirds.

The generators are closely approximated by 6/5 and 10/9, and in fact
we can take these to be the genrators. In terms of the 612 (shismic)
division, we have one generator of "a" size 161.0087757 shismas and
another "b" of 92.96822599 shismas. We then have

3 ~ 2^2 * a^(-1) * b^(-1), 0.0000424 cents sharp
5 ~ 2^3 * a^(-2) * b^(-1), -9.42 x 10^(-6) cents flat
7 ~ 2^3 * a * b^(-3), 4.711 x 10^(-5) cents sharp

If we use instead 6/5 for a and 10/9 for b, we have the 5-limit in
perfect tune, with a pentatonic generator system. The 7 is flat by
exactly 4374/4375. All of this should pass inspection even by Harry
Partch.

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

...etc...

> All of this should pass inspection even by Harry Partch.

Engineer Gene, would you please stop referencing Mr. Partch to cloth
yourself in semi-grandeur, or as some humorous tag line? He would not
only mind (as best I can recall) someone aggrandizing himself with
his reference (abhoring, as he did, the "master-disciple
relationship"), but would probably refer to all of this rummaging as
just "so many pieces of paper in the wind".

Fine by me, and most others (I imagine), if these computations suit
you or other composers(?), but no need to bring up someone dead for a
quarter of a century. Especially someone with whom you had no
personal encounter.

Tell you what: write some music in this planar temerament -
4375/4374 - that moves people to tears, or to anger, or to a peaceful
place, or something. Failing that, commission someone who *can*
compose music in that particular temperament. Failing that, cease to
use Harry Partch as your particular back scratcher or ointment to
feel that you've found something really, truly special.

Speaking through Scotch,
Jon
(who can channel the spirit of "Slim" on only two wee drams of
Littlemill Single Malt...)

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Engineer Gene, would you please stop referencing Mr. Partch to
cloth
> yourself in semi-grandeur, or as some humorous tag line? He would
not
> only mind (as best I can recall) someone aggrandizing himself with
> his reference (abhoring, as he did, the "master-disciple
> relationship"), but would probably refer to all of this rummaging
as
> just "so many pieces of paper in the wind".

You don't own Harry Partch, and you have no basis for making this
extraordinarily rude and silly request. I don't know if he wanted
worshipful disciples or not, Worshipful Discple Szanto, but if he
didn't, then I suggest you might stop being one.

My reference was to his book, and to his remark that the fifths in 53-
et in particular were in good enough tune, even for him.

> Fine by me, and most others (I imagine), if these computations suit
> you or other composers(?), but no need to bring up someone dead for
a
> quarter of a century. Especially someone with whom you had no
> personal encounter.

It doesn't matter, Worshipful Disciple Szanto, if I did or not.
Partch is a public figure, and anyone may mention him if they so
choose. I'm sick of you accusing me of Thought Crimes, and now its
come to the point that you want to Talibanize what I can and cannot
talk about. Sorry, but I don't like censorship and I don't like the
whole Thought Crime attitude you seem to embody, and I will not
cooperate.

If you want music composed, don't ask me. I'll compose my own. You
toddle off and compose whatever you want. As you once asked me, when
you were trying to discover if I was good enough to be allowed to
post on your list--you *do* compose, do you? I hadn't noticed.

Gene,

OK, pal, lighten up. Humor and late hours (as posted in the "Sacred
Cows" posting, are at work here. And, as you applied to yourself,
they're just opinions.

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> You don't own Harry Partch, and you have no basis for making this
> extraordinarily rude and silly request.

Ah, a glass house inhabitant.

> I don't know if he wanted worshipful disciples or not

He *specifically* did not.

> My reference was to his book, and to his remark that the fifths in
> 53-et in particular were in good enough tune, even for him.

Thanks, that wasn't clear.

> Sorry, but I don't like censorship and I don't like the
> whole Thought Crime attitude you seem to embody, and I will not
> cooperate.

Nope, I just have to laugh at opinions, which end up just being
opinions of my own anyway. And if you don't want your public postings
countered, who is the censor?

> If you want music composed, don't ask me. I'll compose my own.

Yes, I'm aware you are.

> As you once asked me, when
> you were trying to discover if I was good enough to be allowed to
> post on your list

That is a complete mis-statement. No one needs to be "good enough".
It's is simply that the Creating Microtonal Music list is exactly
that: active creation. And I often query newcomers, because to know
your membership is a key factor in serving them well.

> you *do* compose, do you? I hadn't noticed.

You haven't hung around long enough - I've posted a number of
excerpts, pieces, and examples.

Enough,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Nope, I just have to laugh at opinions, which end up just being
> opinions of my own anyway. And if you don't want your public
postings
> countered, who is the censor?

You don't counter my opinions, which I might relish. Your reaction,
I'm afraid, reminded me a bit of what one used to get if you
suggested a heresy along the lines of saying that while serialism is
an interesting idea to play with, it hardly makes sense as the basis
for an entire school of music since it lacks a rational foundation.
That sort of thing never seemed to lead to anything beyond the "who
are *you*, Buster, you ignorant boob!" sort of _ad hominem_.
Countering with an argument would be a different affair, and could be
interesting, particularly if it related to tuning somehow.