Re: the return of "what is JI"

Personally, I think the Just Intonation Network definition

www.dnai.com/~jinetwk

is a good definition describing what modern practitioners
mean when they say that they are working in just intonation.

THEN, you can add that "historically, it has generally been
used in Western music to refer to... ...however, Western
Classical music, despite the claims of some theorists, is
unplayable in a fixed Just Intonation and therefor is either
adapted or tempered".

You could go on and say, "some have adopted a standard
whereby ratios of larger integers and/or primes (higher
odd limits) are described as rational intonation and those
of smaller odd limit are Just Intonation, with the line
being drawn at some point whereby a practioner cannot tune
the interval by ear."

"CLearly there are points where all these distinctions
break down due to the inability of humans pitch and harmonic
discrimination. The Hammond organ for instance, is an RI
system with an odd limit less than 100, however to most
listeners and players, it represents the irrational 12tet
system. Similarly (EDO of choice) is an irrational system
which can approximate a (limit of choice) JI system with
sufficient accuracy as to be virtually indistinguishable."

I've thrown some of my editorial biases into this old
chestnut of a topic. whatever...

Bob Valentine

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> Personally, I think the Just Intonation Network definition
>
> www.dnai.com/~jinetwk
>
> is a good definition describing what modern practitioners
> mean when they say that they are working in just intonation.

"JUST INTONATION is any system of tuning in which all of the intervals can be represented by ratios of whole numbers, with a strongly-implied preference for the smallest numbers compatible with a given musical purpose."

I think this a good place to start, and I like your additions below. It seems to me the definition of the term should reflect how it is actually now being used.