Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning what's the point in using 72?

Hi Joe,

I disagree (and as you well know, 72 has special properties above and
beyond its near just ones--namely its ability to be easily learned and
its powerful notation), but the ultimate proof is in the music.

Not all 72 music sounds alike (like that should be a surprise), and
different folks are addressing it from their own points of view...
nothing new there either.

Microtonalist will always squabble, ditto musicians, and there's
nothing new there either!

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 11:36 AM
Subject: [tuning] what's the point in using 72?

> Just as a "rhetorical" question: what's the point in using 72-tET
if
> one is not going to take advantage of the "near just intonation"
> properties? Sure, it can be used as an "expressive extension" but
so
> can practically *any other* microtonal scale.
>
> 72-tET is special, but only if it's *very special* properties are
> taken into consideration.
>
> The above is my *personal* opinion, and I believe I have a right to
> it...
>
> :)
>
> J. Pehrson
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Buy Stock for $4
> and no minimums.
> FREE Money 2002.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> 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/
>
>

🔗dkeenanuqnetau <d.keenan@uq.net.au>

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I disagree (and as you well know, 72 has special properties above
and
> beyond its near just ones--namely its ability to be easily learned
and
> its powerful notation),

But surely 48-EDO has even simpler (and therefore more powerful?)
notation, needing only two new accidentals instead of three. And
surely 48-EDO would be even easier to learn since it divides the
semitone into only 4 equal parts instead of 6. Unless of course the
greater ease of learning of 72-EDO has something to do with its
near-just properties.

> but the ultimate proof is in the music.

The proof of what exactly? And how would we know if it had been proven
or not? We might simply not yet have had anyone of sufficient musical
genius apply themselves to one or the other EDO.

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_37065.html#37068

> Hi Joe,
>
> I disagree (and as you well know, 72 has special properties above
and
> beyond its near just ones--namely its ability to be easily learned
and
> its powerful notation), but the ultimate proof is in the music.
>
> Not all 72 music sounds alike (like that should be a surprise), and
> different folks are addressing it from their own points of view...
> nothing new there either.
>

***Basically, Dan, I agree with you, which is why I feel it is so
pernicious when people set up certain styles or categories of music
as "inherently" superior to others. That's a bunch of bullshit in my
view.

Joseph Pehrson

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Hi Dave,

Least anyone be confused, the parameters of the rhetorical question
are the Maneri camp vs the JI camp (as best personified by David
Doty's JIN).

Maneri sees 72 as a reasonable--i.e., doable--springboard to the pitch
continuum, and it's in this sense that its notation is powerful and
its learnability via 12-tet is special.

What Joe asked was, "what's the point in using 72-tET
if one is not going to take advantage of the near just intonation
properties"? And this is what I was referring to when I said the proof
is in the music.

The Maneri's are well recorded with over a dozen CDs, and the don't
take advantage of the near just intonation properties, yet their music
is uniformly outstanding. Yes, that's an opinion, and no, you're
right, it doesn't necessarily really prove much of anything to anyone
besides me, but those are the rules you've got to work with if you
believe music matters--which, as you know, I do.

So to recap: I see Maneri's music as an obvious answer to Joe's
rhetorical "what's the point in using 72-tET if one is not going to
take advantage of the near just intonation properties", and that's the
context in which my comments should be taken in.

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@uq.net.au>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 5:00 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: what's the point in using 72?

> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > I disagree (and as you well know, 72 has special properties above
> and
> > beyond its near just ones--namely its ability to be easily learned
> and
> > its powerful notation),
>
> But surely 48-EDO has even simpler (and therefore more powerful?)
> notation, needing only two new accidentals instead of three. And
> surely 48-EDO would be even easier to learn since it divides the
> semitone into only 4 equal parts instead of 6. Unless of course the
> greater ease of learning of 72-EDO has something to do with its
> near-just properties.
>
> > but the ultimate proof is in the music.
>
> The proof of what exactly? And how would we know if it had been
proven
> or not? We might simply not yet have had anyone of sufficient
musical
> genius apply themselves to one or the other EDO.
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Buy Stock for $4
> and no minimums.
> FREE Money 2002.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> 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/
>
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> Does anyone know why people have picked on 72-et
> and ignored its >excellent ability to represent 11-limit harmony?
>It is a decidedly >curious thing to do.

if you really mean "picked on", you may be referring to harry partch,
who in effect "picked on" any equal temperament with fewer than 113
notes -- yet didn't include 31 or 41, let alone 72, in his chart
comparing various equal temperaments to 11-limit JI. but you probably
meant "picked" rather than "picked on" . . . so off the top of my
head:

in the case of Wychnegradsky and Haba, it was a simple result of
dividing 12-equal more and more finely. they may have been influenced
by Busoni's advocacy of 36-equal (for melodic reasons - "thirdtones")
and, given their own initial interest and proficiency in
quartertones, settled on the lowest common denominator -- 72-equal.
other 72-equal composers from the first half of the 20th century,
such as those using the ANS synthesizer
(http://www.martin.homepage.ru/ans.htm), may have thought among
similar lines.

in ancient times, Aristoxenus quantified most of the known
tetrachords in his world using a 30-part division of the perfect
fourth. since Aristoxenus shunned an appeal to ratios of the
Pythagorean and Didymic sort, and emphasized measurement of interval
sizes by "ear", many have interpreted his system as 72-equal. modern
composers with Greek heritage such as Xenakis have adopted a 72-equal
grid, partially as a result of this.

from speaking with Julia, it appears that in Boston, what happened
was this:

Joe Maneri had been playing microtonally as a result of free jazz,
ethnic Eastern European and Middle Eastern, and other influences (his
own "urges" doubtless figuring most strongly of all), but had not
settled on a final notation system to represent his ideas/techniques.

Ezra Sims had investigated the harmonic series, partly due to an
interest in combinational tone effects, and found 72-equal to
be 'close enough' for the pitches he wanted to use in his JI scale
(which went beyond 11-limit), and thus developed the 72-equal
notation system.

the two met and Maneri decided to go with Sims' notation system, as
an easily learned, standardized system covering a large number of
microtonal effects. in the early 70s (?) Maneri obtained a primitive,
monophonic 72-equal synthesizer, which he has used to ear-train
students to this day.

. . . meanwhile, some of Maneri's younger students from the Boston
Microtonal Collective seem extremely curious about just intonation. i
brought my 31-equal guitar to a party that a few BMC members happened
to be at, and i was mobbed with questions. the first was "how close
does it come to the just intonation major third" and i said "only 1
cent off" . . . this seemed to excite quite a few of the young
musicians there . . .

🔗gdsecor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know why people have picked on 72-et
> > and ignored its >excellent ability to represent 11-limit harmony?
> >It is a decidedly >curious thing to do.
>
> if you really mean "picked on", you may be referring to harry
partch,
> who in effect "picked on" any equal temperament with fewer than 113
> notes -- yet didn't include 31 or 41, let alone 72, in his chart
> comparing various equal temperaments to 11-limit JI. ...

As a matter of fact, Partch *did* include 31-ET in that table in both
editions of _Genesis_ (see p. 430, 2nd Edition). This surprised me
when I first saw it many years ago in the first edition, because he
made no mention of it anywhere else.

All of the other ET's in the table are systems that were being
advocated at the time by other microtonalists, whereas 31-ET had been
largely overlooked or forgotten since the end of the 19th century
(until Fokker's advocacy of it, which occurred subsequent to the
publication of Partch's book).

So I find it remarkable that Partch did give the observant reader a
clue that there was a better alternative to the other systems in the
table and that he was well aware of its possibilities.

--George