Re: [tuning] Re: Partch et al. for Paul

In a message dated 12/3/01 1:45:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
paul@stretch-music.com writes:

> > Paul, my point relates to the use of 43 tones for Partch (being >
> arbitrary).
>
> How did Partch of all things get into this??? That's a completely
> different kind of issue. Let's stick to Turk-53 and Telemann-55 for
> this discussion, OK?
>
>

Gee, calm down, Paul. The issue may not be as important for you as it is for
me, but hey, all these things are related, at least to me.

Partch's number 43, which went through different stages, was set more for
finite minds than for tuning accuracy. Partch certainly wasn't painting
himself into a corner by limiting himself to ONLY a particular 43. It was
settled upon so that finite beings would have a finite number, contrary to
the Turk-53, Telemann-55, discussion. That is why I am questioning its
raison d'etre. Maybe it should be Turk-17 out o 53 and Telemann-15 out of
55, etc.

The reason I brought up the story about fifths is that people (myself
included) forget where people are regarding the numbers and math, let alone
the musical terms for specific intervals which are inherited but no longer
represent accurately what they once described (like a fifth being the "fifth
tone of a diatonic scale with a minimum of beating).

Best, Johnny

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Maybe it should be Turk-17 out o 53

Maybe.

> and Telemann-15 out of
> 55, etc.

15 wouldn't make sense as a place to stop. 19 or 31 would.

> The reason I brought up the story about fifths is that people
(myself
> included) forget where people are regarding the numbers and math,

Any number can mean so many things, it's damn confusing unless you're
trained in a particular system (ex.: the Telemann/Tosi/Quantz/Mozart
system; the Turkish system).

> let alone
> the musical terms for specific intervals which are inherited but no
longer
> represent accurately what they once described (like a fifth being
the "fifth
> tone of a diatonic scale with a minimum of beating).

. . . against the tonic.

Where does the term "fifth" no longer describe this?