Re: Limits of Just Intonation

--- In tuning@y..., "jacky_ligon" <jacky_ligon@y...> wrote:
> Master Monz,
>
> I'm very sorry to inform you that you may need to update the
> dictionary again.
>
> I'll let these two triads speak in the infallible language of
number:
>
> 1/1, 4591/3673, 2539/1693
>
> 1/1, 5581/4651, 2549/1699
>
>
> Tune these up on a harmonic timbre and let me know if indeed
the
> definition of Just Intonation stops at the 5 Limit.

One could use the same argument to claim that 53-tET is in fact
Just Intonation, even though its intervals are not rational
numbers at all! In fact, Eivind Groven and other composers
referred to their microtemperaments (such as schismic) as Just
Intonation -- you better not limit the definition of JI to refer to
rationals for fear of marginalizing such individuals :)

Hi Jacky,

Now, now ... you're my friend, so I don't want to get *too*
critical of you ... but ...

> From: jacky_ligon <jacky_ligon@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 9:52 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Limits of Just Intonation
>
>
> Master Monz,
>
> I'm very sorry to inform you that you may need to update the
> dictionary again.
>
> I'll let these two triads speak in the infallible language of number:
>
> 1/1, 4591/3673, 2539/1693
>
> 1/1, 5581/4651, 2549/1699

Ah, aren't *you* clever! ;-)

Of course, they sound terrific, because they're audibly
indistinguishable from 4:5:6 and 1/(6:5:4), respectively!

> Tune these up on a harmonic timbre and let me know if indeed the
> definition of Just Intonation stops at the 5 Limit.

(I'm addressing the plurality now ... and yes, I'm shouting ...)

ARE ANY OF YOU GUYS * R E A D I N G *

MY * D E F I N I T I O N * ??!!!

I don't claim *anywhere* on *any* of my webpages or in anything
else I've *ever* written that "Just Intonation stops at the 5 Limit".

In fact, I think I made it quite clear in my "just-intonation"
definition that there is a wide variety of opinion on this.

And like I already said to both Kraig and Gene, we've already
been thru this whole debate before, and my position now is the same
as it was then, and I'm not going to argue or defend it again.

I suppose the only way to make all the microtonalists happy
with my Dictionary entry is to include all of their versions of
it, so ... fire away! If you guys don't like what I wrote, then
write your own defintion and send it to me, and I'll put it in.

Eventually I *do* plan to go back to that archived tuning-list
debate over what is and isn't "just intonation" from Nov-Dec 2000,
and include tons of good info that was posted then: references,
opinions, etc. But for now, my definition stands as is, except
for any of the aforesaid potential additions.

I really don't get. I thought most of us had come to the
agreement that RI (rational intonation) is good for describing
*any* rational tuning, and that JI is a subset of that which
exhibits the quality of sonorous "purity" typical of small-integer
ratios.

Yes, Jacky, your two example chords above are JI.
Yes, they're RI. So? That *STILL* doesn't change the fact
that the *majority* of writings about JI concern 5-limit and
5-limit *only*. Modern opinions cannot change what has
already happened -- they can only shed a new perspective on it.

love / peace / harmony ...

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

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