Re: [tuning] response to Mark

Hello Julia!
As one of the few JI people on this list i have to address what might be assumption on your part which i find distressing. This is the notion that people use JI based on something that they believe. I started working in Microtones in 1975 tuning up quite a few instruments in 31 ET, i found that after a few years there was something about the sound i did not like or was not doing what i wanted it to do. This has been my experience with all Ets including 72. On the other hand, those scales i have tuned in JI i have never tired of and they have remained an inspiration to use. When i started out my belief that ET was the way to go,
experience have lead me else where.
Most people who work in JI do so because of the sound not on any esoteric beliefs.
But on this subject, if this was the case , it should be no ground of dismissal. It says alot that it has taken so many years for composers to acknowledge their homosexuality, yet we still have a climate in which any form of mysticism is considered taboo.
Atonality as a style and approach i had to abandon due to the lack of emotional range of expression possible. Finding it limited by changes in density and volume as the prime elements of expression more than any pitch relationship. Atonality is best done by abandoning pitch all together.
The music of India BTW has been more influential on the NY school of La Monte Young while the west coast seems to be more closely tied to the music of the far east. Terry Riley being the exception

tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> From: "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@attbi.com>
>
> I never expected this essay to be popular with the pure-tuning crowd. Obviously.
> But I *am* interested to know their reactions to the points, especially in Part I. I
> criticized the very foundation of the pure-tuning approach to music, and am curious
> to hear back from people like you about the issues I raised in that part of the
> paper. Even when I disagree, I do like it when people believe very strongly what
> they believe. I thrive on plurality, despite what you, Mark Gould, seem to want to
> make people think.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> As one of the few JI people on this list i have to address what might be assumption on your part which i find distressing. This is the notion that people use JI based on something that they believe. I started working in Microtones in 1975 tuning up quite a few instruments in 31 ET, i found that after a few years there was something about the sound i did not like or was not doing what i wanted it to do.

Flat fifths; quite noticably so.

> This has been my experience with all Ets including 72.

Still a little out of tune. There's always 270 to try. :)

> On the other hand, those scales i have tuned in JI i have never tired of and they have remained an inspiration to use.

You might consider things like this, a scale in 612-et:

0, 43, 104, 179, 222, 297, 358, 401, 476, 537, 612

As I said on tuning-math:

``Step sizes are 75, 61, and 43, and it has 19 intervals and 6 triads in the 7-limit, 23 intervals and 14 triads in the 9-limit. This is a fair amount of harmony for something which is effectively JI.''

It's not a JI scale tuned in 612-et since it uses 2401/2400~1.

Gene,

Explain something to me:

Kraig wrote:
>> On the other hand, those scales i have tuned in JI i have never
tired of and they have remained an inspiration to use.

> You might consider things like this, a scale in 612-et:
>
> 0, 43, 104, 179, 222, 297, 358, 401, 476, 537, 612

Why? Why would Kraig, or anyone else, bother to gnereate a 612 step
temperment, and then pick out some of the steps, when they are
already finding what they want in another construct?? Modulation?

"I'm going to draw a curve."

"Wait: you can do it with a large number of straight lines!"

"No, I'll just draw a curve, it seems like a more direct approach."

"Nonono! Look - I just keep drawing all these straight lines, at very
small angles to each other, and see! See how it approximates that
curve? And if you want it smoother, we just make more lines, in
smaller increments!"

"Thanks. My curve is fine, and I can get on with drawing the rest of
the picture now."

Which can't be any more of an outrageous analogy than an ET and an
element.

Cheers,
Jon

On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Kraig Grady wrote:

> Hello Julia!

> As one of the few JI people on this list i have to address what might
> be assumption on your part which i find distressing. This is the
> notion that people use JI based on something that they believe. I
> started working in Microtones in 1975 tuning up quite a few
> instruments in 31 ET, i found that after a few years there was
> something about the sound i did not like or was not doing what i
> wanted it to do. This has been my experience with all Ets including
> 72. On the other hand, those scales i have tuned in JI i have never
> tired of and they have remained an inspiration to use. When i started
> out my belief that ET was the way to go, experience have lead me else
> where. Most people who work in JI do so because of the sound not on
> any esoteric beliefs.

I came at JI the other way around ... I read Helmholtz about the same
time (1975) and wanted to hear what JI sounded like. So I wrote some
insanely primitive code for the KIM-I and Commodore 64, most of which
I've lost. I had been exposed to Partch earlier -- I saw the premiere of
"Revelation in the Courthouse Park" when Partch was in residence at the
University of Illinois Urbana and I was an undergraduate there. But at
the time the spectacle of the production and the unusual instruments
caught my attention, not the underlying JI music theory. Indeed, I did
not start working in the Partch theory myself until last fall.

In a sense, then, I came to JI out of curiosity, armed with the ability,
using digital synthesis, to "build my own instruments" at much lower
cost than Partch, or Kraig Grady :), and without the practical
difficulties of creating a notation, finding and training performers,
etc. Now that I've heard 11-limit (and recently 13-limit) JI and the
Partch chord structures, I'm definitely going to use them again, though
I certainly don't intend to use them to the exclusion of other tuning
schemes. Computer composition, performance and synthesis is much too
flexible a technology to force myself into the Partch system.

> But on this subject, if this was the case , it should be no ground of
> dismissal. It says alot that it has taken so many years for composers
> to acknowledge their homosexuality, yet we still have a climate in
> which any form of mysticism is considered taboo.

I'm not sure I believe "any form of mysticism is considered taboo."
Maybe amongst the more conservative elements of society in general and
music in particular, here in the USA, this is true, but the
proliferation of "new age" philosophies in recent years seems to be an
unstoppable trend.

--
M. Edward Borasky

znmeb@borasky-research.net
http://www.borasky-research.net/HarryIannis.htm

If there's nothing to astrology, how come so many famous men were born
on holidays?

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

> Why? Why would Kraig, or anyone else, bother to gnereate a 612 step
> temperment, and then pick out some of the steps, when they are
> already finding what they want in another construct?? Modulation?

Increased number of consonances.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> Increased number of consonances.

Maybe they don't need more consonances, Gene.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kraig Grady" <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

> The music of India BTW has been more influential on the NY
> school of La Monte Young while the west coast seems to be more
>closely tied to the music of the far east. Terry Riley being the exception

Exactly!

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

----- Original Message -----
From: "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

> Gene,
>
> Explain something to me:
>
> Kraig wrote:
> >> On the other hand, those scales i have tuned in JI i have never
> tired of and they have remained an inspiration to use.
>
> > You might consider things like this, a scale in 612-et:
> >
> > 0, 43, 104, 179, 222, 297, 358, 401, 476, 537, 612
>
> Why? Why would Kraig, or anyone else, bother to gnereate a 612 step
> temperment, and then pick out some of the steps, when they are
> already finding what they want in another construct?? Modulation?
>
> "I'm going to draw a curve."
>
> "Wait: you can do it with a large number of straight lines!"
>
> "No, I'll just draw a curve, it seems like a more direct approach."
>
> "Nonono! Look - I just keep drawing all these straight lines, at very
> small angles to each other, and see! See how it approximates that
> curve? And if you want it smoother, we just make more lines, in
> smaller increments!"
>
> "Thanks. My curve is fine, and I can get on with drawing the rest of
> the picture now."
>
> Which can't be any more of an outrageous analogy than an ET and an
> element.

Very nice! LOL!

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

Dear Kraig,

Thanks for your message. I have to disagree with you that it is not a matter of
belief. When you say: "i found that after a few years there was something about
the sound i did not like or was not doing what i wanted it to do," and "On the other
hand, those scales i have tuned in JI i have never tired of and they have remained
an inspiration to use," how can you then say that this is not a subjective experience
(i.e. personal belief, or personal reaction)?

What I object to so much (as I expressed in my essay) is exactly this notion that
there are immutable facts about musical perception; that imagination, musical
context, and cultural differences (and beliefs) are not important variables. Is this
not a vastly more rigid, intolerant stance than the one I present in Part 1 of my
paper? (If you've seen it...) It seems like you'd be a good spokesperson for the JI
movement on this particular issue, and I'm very curious to know what you'd say to
this question.

>Most people who work in JI do so because of the sound not on any esoteric
beliefs. But on this subject, if this was the case , it should be no ground of dismissal.
It says alot that it has taken so many years for composers to acknowledge their
homosexuality, yet we still have a climate in which any form of mysticism is
considered taboo.

Well, it's not taboo with me, certainly. But I'm not sure what comment of mine in
particular you are referring to here, if any. (Meantime, Gene Smith is describing
my views as "romantic anti-intellectualism." It's getting confusing.)

-Julia

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Hello Julia!
> As one of the few JI people on this list i have to address what might be
assumption on your part which i find distressing. This is the notion that people use
JI based on something that they believe. I started working in Microtones in 1975
tuning up quite a few instruments in 31 ET, i found that after a few years there was
something about the sound i did not like or was not doing what i wanted it to do.
This has been my experience with all Ets including 72. On the other hand, those
scales i have tuned in JI i have never tired of and they have remained an inspiration
to use. When i started out my belief that ET was the way to go,
> experience have lead me else where.
> Most people who work in JI do so because of the sound not on any esoteric
beliefs.
> But on this subject, if this was the case , it should be no ground of dismissal. It
says alot that it has taken so many years for composers to acknowledge their
homosexuality, yet we still have a climate in which any form of mysticism is
considered taboo.
> Atonality as a style and approach i had to abandon due to the lack of
emotional range of expression possible. Finding it limited by changes in density and
volume as the prime elements of expression more than any pitch relationship.
Atonality is best done by abandoning pitch all together.
> The music of India BTW has been more influential on the NY school of La
Monte Young while the west coast seems to be more closely tied to the music of
the far east. Terry Riley being the exception
>
> tuning@y... wrote:
>
> > From: "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...>
> >
> > I never expected this essay to be popular with the pure-tuning crowd.
Obviously.
> > But I *am* interested to know their reactions to the points, especially in Part I.
I
> > criticized the very foundation of the pure-tuning approach to music, and am
curious
> > to hear back from people like you about the issues I raised in that part of the
> > paper. Even when I disagree, I do like it when people believe very strongly
what
> > they believe. I thrive on plurality, despite what you, Mark Gould, seem to want
to
> > make people think.
>
> -- Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37387.html#37387

> Atonality as a style and approach i had to abandon due to the
lack of emotional range of expression possible. Finding it limited by
changes in density and volume as the prime elements of expression
more than any pitch relationship. Atonality is best done by
abandoning pitch all together.
>

***I'm finding Kraig's comments to be of particular interest here...
[CAVEAT: I still haven't read the article...]

J. Pehrson

>What I object to so much (as I expressed in my essay) is exactly this
>notion that there are immutable facts about musical perception; that
>imagination, musical context, and cultural differences (and beliefs) are
>not important variables.

Julia,

I agree that imagination, context, and culture are very important
variables in music -- maybe even vastly more important than the
immutable facts of human physiology. Nonetheless, they are independent,
which means that our decision to discuss the latter here, in
isolation, is justified.

-Carl

In-Reply-To: <ae069u+6ahf@eGroups.com>
jonszanto wrote:

> "I'm going to draw a curve."
>
> "Wait: you can do it with a large number of straight lines!"
>
> "No, I'll just draw a curve, it seems like a more direct approach."

As agreeing with Gene seems to be in fashion, I'll join the party. What
Kraig said isn't "JI would be a more direct approach" but "there was
something about the sound i did not like or was not doing what i wanted it
to do. This has been my experience with all Ets including 72."

A better analogy would be "No, I don't like the straight line approaches
I've seen. There was something about the look that I did like or it was
not doing what I wanted it to do. This has been my experience with all
straight line constructions including a 640x480 pixel array".

In which case the response "But I've got a 1600x1200 monitor here. Do
curves look okay on that?" seems perfectly reasonable. And I'd expect it
to be met with a reasonable reply like "Yes, that looks a lot better than
the resolutions I've seen before" or "No, there's still something about
those curves that doesn't cut it for me" or even "I don't care, it's not
really that big a deal".

> "Nonono! Look - I just keep drawing all these straight lines, at very
> small angles to each other, and see! See how it approximates that
> curve? And if you want it smoother, we just make more lines, in
> smaller increments!"
>
> "Thanks. My curve is fine, and I can get on with drawing the rest of
> the picture now."
>
> Which can't be any more of an outrageous analogy than an ET and an
> element.

No, with the proviso I gave above it is a very good analogy.
Approximating curves with straight lines is very important to numerical
analysis and computer graphics. People work very hard at it. People also
work hard at approximating just intonation using equal temperaments. Both
are important. The difference is that artists who work with paint or ink
don't complain every time a new advance in computer graphics is mentioned.

Graham

Hello Graham!
As someone who works with acoustic instruments, Gene's suggestion is impractical.
I could go on and spend my life exploring ETs for ever and not have a chance to do any music. No, it is best to abandon a road when it appears you have made a mistake. With any ET you have a closed system, with JI, one can always add tones or use a few common tones to go to another different pitch array. The idea of locking myself in any prison consciously is not appealing.
BTW the thing that made 31 unbearable were the wholetones, meantone is unfortunately probably out for me. Although i will be putting the score up of a chord piece in just such an animal.

From: graham@microtonal.co.uk

> Subject: Re: response to Mark
>
>
>
> A better analogy would be "No, I don't like the straight line approaches
> I've seen. There was something about the look that I did like or it was
> not doing what I wanted it to do. This has been my experience with all
> straight line constructions including a 640x480 pixel array".
>
> In which case the response "But I've got a 1600x1200 monitor here. Do
> curves look okay on that?" seems perfectly reasonable. And I'd expect it
> to be met with a reasonable reply like "Yes, that looks a lot better than
> the resolutions I've seen before" or "No, there's still something about
> those curves that doesn't cut it for me" or even "I don't care, it's not
> really that big a deal".
>
> > "Nonono! Look - I just keep drawing all these straight lines, at very
> > small angles to each other, and see! See how it approximates that
> > curve? And if you want it smoother, we just make more lines, in
> > smaller increments!"
> >
> > "Thanks. My curve is fine, and I can get on with drawing the rest of
> > the picture now."
> >
> > Which can't be any more of an outrageous analogy than an ET and an
> > element.
>
> No, with the proviso I gave above it is a very good analogy.
> Approximating curves with straight lines is very important to numerical
> analysis and computer graphics. People work very hard at it. People also
> work hard at approximating just intonation using equal temperaments. Both
> are important. The difference is that artists who work with paint or ink
> don't complain every time a new advance in computer graphics is mentioned.
>
> Graham
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:

> What I object to so much (as I expressed in my essay) is exactly this notion that
> there are immutable facts about musical perception; that imagination, musical
> context, and cultural differences (and beliefs) are not important variables.

This is a false dichotomy; obviously it is true there are immutable facts about *sound* perception, and obviously context and culture matter a great deal in music.

>(Meantime, Gene Smith is describing
> my views as "romantic anti-intellectualism." It's getting confusing.)

I didn't describe "your views" as romantic anti-intellectualism, but the idea that musical scales have no objective properties, and its linkage to "artistic freedom". So far as I know you are not in fact, or are no longer, advocating that, though what your statement about "immutable facts about musical perception" portends I don't know; I'm still trying to digest the concept of musical perception.

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > Increased number of consonances.

> Maybe they don't need more consonances, Gene.

Let's look at two scales:

This is a periodicity block for the commas <28/27, 49/48, 2401/2400>:

1--360/343--7/6--60/49--4/3--10/7--3/2--80/49--12/7--40/21

Maybe they don't need more consonaces, but four seven-limit intervals,
no triads ain't much; nine nine-limit intervals and 2 triads is an improvment, but still...

Here's one for <28/27, 50/49, 2401/2400>:

1--21/20--7/6--60/49--4/3--10/7--3/2--49/30--12/7--40/21

The numbers here are 6 and 0 for the 7-limit, and 12 and 4 for the 9-limit, which is better but not that great.

Now let us take note of the fact that in the 2401/2400~1 temperament, these two scales are actually identical. In that temperament, we have
18 and 6 in the 7-limitm and 25 and 19 in the 9-limit; a large improvement. You can tune these by distributing the error, as in the 612-et tuning, or if your religion prevents that, you can make use of the fact that 2401/2400 is less than a cent, and use the slightly off-tuned intervals as well.

I now return the program to our regularly scheduled carping.

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

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

> > Increased number of consonances.

> Maybe they don't need more consonances, Gene.

gene didn't suggest that "they" (kraig) did *need* more consonances.
he merely *offered* the scale as something that might be interesting
for kraig to try out, *given the history of personal experiences and
development that kraig sketched out in his post*. read it again. i
thought it was a perfectly appropriate response, and a great example
of how people on this list can pool ideas and experiences and come
out richer in the process. or at least no poorer.

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> Dear Kraig,
>
> Thanks for your message. I have to disagree with you that it is not
a matter of
> belief. When you say: "i found that after a few years there was
something about
> the sound i did not like or was not doing what i wanted it to do,"
and "On the other
> hand, those scales i have tuned in JI i have never tired of and
they have remained
> an inspiration to use," how can you then say that this is not a
subjective experience
> (i.e. personal belief, or personal reaction)?

perhaps by 'belief' kraig was referring to 'extramusical belief', for
example, 'numerological belief', 'scientific belief', and other
rationales that you and others have discussed in connection with the
use of JI? that's how i read it, and would seem to be the meaning
he's reacting to in this context. (on this list, i find it helpful to
assume that others' remarks are on-topic and relevant, and to make
allowances for language accordingly, wherever possible -- of course
there are advantages to the academic approach of defining terms more
precisely, but honestly, i don't think this can realistically be that
kind of a forum . . .)

by the way, julia, i made a couple of posts last week (including a
very long one) that mentioned you and that i thought might interest
you. did you have no reactions to share?

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_37387.html#37387
>
> > Atonality as a style and approach i had to abandon due to the
> lack of emotional range of expression possible. Finding it limited
by
> changes in density and volume as the prime elements of expression
> more than any pitch relationship. Atonality is best done by
> abandoning pitch all together.
> >
>
> ***I'm finding Kraig's comments to be of particular interest here...
> [CAVEAT: I still haven't read the article...]
>
> J. Pehrson

at this point, there should be no excuse for anyone participating on
this thread *not* to have at least read the 24-page excerpt from the
dissertation that is posted on the net . . . though perhaps julia
would prefer if we not base our discussions on that alone?

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

> No, with the proviso I gave above it is a very good analogy.

i disagree, graham:

> Approximating curves with straight lines

is *not* a good analogy here, since it suggests approximating JI with
an ET. but that is *not* what gene was getting at. your post
suggested that it was, but you of all people should know better :)

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> Hello Graham!
> As someone who works with acoustic instruments, Gene's
suggestion is impractical.

in friendship, let me ask you:

why is that? how do you go about tuning your instruments?

> I could go on and spend my life exploring ETs for ever and not have
>a chance to do any music. No, it is best to abandon a road when it
>appears you have made a mistake.

fair enough a decision for you to make -- but continuing in the
spirit of fairness:

>With any ET you have a closed system, with JI, one can always add
>tones or use a few common tones to go to another different pitch
>array. The idea of locking myself in any prison consciously is not
>appealing.

you've failed to grasp the meat of gene's all too brief description,
as anyone who hasn't been following along on tuning-math probably
would have. the importance was not in the equal temperament. a good
variety of regular but open systems (linear, planar) would accomplish
the same thing. even some irregular systems could, one might argue.

but either way, given that you're using instruments with far fewer
than 612 pitches per octave anyway, the whole point would seem to be
moot. the prison analogy would, even in a 612-equal tuning of the
scale in question, seem to rely on an extramusical association.

> BTW the thing that made 31 unbearable were the wholetones,

yes i understand that. personally, i feel i can safely generalize
that many of us are spoiled by the really nice 9:4 that 12-equal
provides, are used to composing with it in certain ways, and will not
accept that interval being pushed so much further from its pure
tuning. culture indeed has powerful effects on us!

>meantone is unfortunately probably out for me. Although i will be
>putting the score up of a chord piece in just such an animal.

cool -- looking forward to it!

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > > Increased number of consonances.
>
> > Maybe they don't need more consonances, Gene.
>
> Let's look at two scales:
>
> This is a periodicity block for the commas <28/27, 49/48,
2401/2400>:
>
> 1--360/343--7/6--60/49--4/3--10/7--3/2--80/49--12/7--40/21
>
> Maybe they don't need more consonaces, but four seven-limit
intervals,
> no triads ain't much; nine nine-limit intervals and 2 triads is an
improvment, but still...
>
> Here's one for <28/27, 50/49, 2401/2400>:
>
> 1--21/20--7/6--60/49--4/3--10/7--3/2--49/30--12/7--40/21
>
> The numbers here are 6 and 0 for the 7-limit, and 12 and 4 for the
9-limit, which is better but not that great.
>
> Now let us take note of the fact that in the 2401/2400~1
temperament, these two scales are actually identical. In that
temperament, we have
> 18 and 6 in the 7-limitm and 25 and 19 in the 9-limit; a large
improvement. You can tune these by distributing the error, as in the
612-et tuning, or if your religion prevents that, you can make use of
the fact that 2401/2400 is less than a cent, and use the slightly off-
tuned intervals as well.

for those struggling to follow along, this means continue to use ji
tuning, but not necessarily a strict application of "pure tuning
theory" -- since you'll be exploiting an interval whose concordance
results not from it having a small-integer ratio, but rather from the
fact that it is less than 1 cent away from such a ratio. what did
margo call this? "tempering by ratios"?

> I now return the program to our regularly scheduled carping.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> ...or if your religion prevents that...

and then:

> I now return the program to our regularly scheduled carping.

I'll consider these when and if you drop the sarcasm. Besides, carp are revered in some cultures and cuisines.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> gene didn't suggest that "they" (kraig) did *need* more consonances.
> he merely *offered* the scale as something that might be interesting
> for kraig to try out, *given the history of personal experiences and
> development that kraig sketched out in his post*. read it again.

To be fair, as I always try to be, I did reread it. As well as KG's subsequent message. It is pretty clear to me that he is not interested in looking to a large-number ET for his source materials, and this has been my impression in the past. In both this light and Gene's interests in temperments and large-number ETs, his commentary comes off as another "See! You can do it my way, and not have to do it your way."

> i thought it was a perfectly appropriate response

Not a surprise.

> and a great example
> of how people on this list can pool ideas and experiences and come
> out richer in the process. or at least no poorer.

Well, I'll certainly agree with you on the latter - all advice can be taken or ignored, as the intendee warrants.

Cheers,
Jon

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> at this point, there should be no excuse for anyone participating on
> this thread *not* to have at least read the 24-page excerpt from the
> dissertation that is posted on the net . . . though perhaps julia
> would prefer if we not base our discussions on that alone?

I thought Julia was fairly explicit that the excerpt was NOT complete nor illustrative enough of her viewpoints (though there are segments that are completely resonant with the PNM article). I believe that it is important to acknowledge this, and direct people to find the PNM article.

Write me off-list with your address (I still have your phone # but not the address) and I'll send a copy of the article...

Cheers,
Jon

> > What I object to so much (as I expressed in my essay) is exactly this notion
that
> > there are immutable facts about musical perception; that imagination, musical
> > context, and cultural differences (and beliefs) are not important variables.
>
> This is a false dichotomy; obviously it is true there are immutable facts about
*sound* perception, and obviously context and culture matter a great deal in
music.

Matter in music? Would you say even more specifically that they matter in our
perception of the intervals contained in that music? I really meant this, even though
in this isolated excerpt from my message to Kraig it's not quite clear.

> what your statement about "immutable facts about musical perception" portends
I don't know; I'm still trying to digest the concept of musical perception.

I intentionally used this term in that instance, rather than "perception of intervals,"
to reflect my belief that our perception of intervals is influenced immeasurably by
the musical context, and that I (unlike you and others) cannot see the purpose of
prolonged discussion of perception of intervals independent of the music itself.

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

> In both this light and Gene's interests in temperments and large-
>number ETs, his commentary comes off as another "See! You can do it
>my way, and not have to do it your way."

"not have to do it your way"? just because we learn something new,
does that mean we cease to be able to draw on all the experience,
knowledge, and creation we've already gone through? would gene
suggest something like that?

please reply to metatuning.

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

> Write me off-list with your address

done, and thanks!

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37387.html#37439
> >
> > ***I'm finding Kraig's comments to be of particular interest
here...
> > [CAVEAT: I still haven't read the article...]
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
> at this point, there should be no excuse for anyone participating
on this thread *not* to have at least read the 24-page excerpt from
the dissertation that is posted on the net . . . though perhaps julia
> would prefer if we not base our discussions on that alone?

***Hi Paul!

Why, of *course* I read that! That's what I reacted to, initially,
and Julia was so upset that I hadn't read the entire dissertation or
the PNM article. I have made plans to get the PNM article, but it
may still be a couple of weeks before I see the "mystery person" who
is going to get a copy to me...

Joseph

Hello Paul!
If i have no need to tell Gene what to try, i see it as nothing more than obsession that he suggest his paper formulas ad nausem. as someone who has no understanding of what my work is about, perhaps he should just stand out of my light!

>
> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: response to Mark
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> > > Increased number of consonances.
>
> > Maybe they don't need more consonances, Gene.
>
> gene didn't suggest that "they" (kraig) did *need* more consonances.
> he merely *offered* the scale as something that might be interesting
> for kraig to try out, *given the history of personal experiences and
> development that kraig sketched out in his post*. read it again. i
> thought it was a perfectly appropriate response, and a great example
> of how people on this list can pool ideas and experiences and come
> out richer in the process. or at least no poorer.
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

>

Hello Paul!
It seems like that was what he was doing to me. No matter what you say , the answer is always you can approximate it with this or that ET. The point in fact, in the real world this is not what is done. Who uses 270, 665 Et anyway, no one on this list. I have all these charts from Erv which he did maybe 30 years ago so he really isn't telling me something i don't know. What if i mentioned a chain of 32/31 every
time you said 22 ET, such an act would be absurd and complete divorced from how such things are used

>
> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: response to Mark
>
> --- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
>
> > No, with the proviso I gave above it is a very good analogy.
>
> i disagree, graham:
>
> > Approximating curves with straight lines
>
> is *not* a good analogy here, since it suggests approximating JI with
> an ET. but that is *not* what gene was getting at. your post
> suggested that it was, but you of all people should know better :)
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> If i have no need to tell Gene what to try, i see it as nothing
more than obsession that he suggest his paper formulas ad nausem.

This from the Kraig Grady of the Wilson Archives? Would you care to
explain by what bizarre twist of illogic you've managed to convince
yourself that lionizing Wilson and spitting on me makes sense? Either
like the pair of us or sneer at us both if you please, Buster.

as someone who has no understanding of what my work is about,
perhaps he should just stand out of my light!

If you inflate your ego too much, it's in danger of exploding. As to
your work, put it out there in mp3 and I'll be happy to listen.

Remind me not to ever try to do you any favors in the future.

genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> This from the Kraig Grady of the Wilson Archives? Would you care to
> explain by what bizarre twist of illogic you've managed to convince
> yourself that lionizing Wilson and spitting on me makes sense? Either
> like the pair of us or sneer at us both if you please, Buster.

I am sorry in that i don't see the relation and frankly i thought you were ther one spitting

>
>
> as someone who has no understanding of what my work is about,
> perhaps he should just stand out of my light!
>
> If you inflate your ego too much, it's in danger of exploding. As to
> your work, put it out there in mp3 and I'll be happy to listen.

i don't need a big ego to be misunderstood by your assumptions

>
>
> Remind me not to ever try to do you any favors in the future.
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> > This from the Kraig Grady of the Wilson Archives? Would you care to
> > explain by what bizarre twist of illogic you've managed to convince
> > yourself that lionizing Wilson and spitting on me makes sense? Either
> > like the pair of us or sneer at us both if you please, Buster.

> I am sorry in that i don't see the relation

We are both tuning theorists.

and frankly i thought you were ther one spitting

I offer a friendly post with a tuning idea for you to consider and I'm spitting? How do you figure that?

Gene!
You fail to respect the direction i have taken and you assume i have not thought of these things. Do i
suggest JI tunings every time you come up with a temperment . I do not because it is out of place and try
to limit my comments to when i feel i am being backed into a corner. It seems if someone says they like the
sound of something and appreciate it they shouldn't have to defend it. If you like high number temperments
great. I don't like them and i don't like electronics for the most part so you suggest i over come that and
throw 25 years of instruments and music in the trash. That is not helpful.

genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> I offer a friendly post with a tuning idea for you to consider and I'm spitting? How do you figure that?
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> You fail to respect the direction i have taken and you assume i have not thought of these things.

Are you claiming to know all about microtempered scales and what they might and might not be able to do? Pray enlighten us. As for my lack of respect, it began only when you fired your volley of arrogant ignorance in my direction, chum.

Do i
> suggest JI tunings every time you come up with a temperment .

No, but please don't let that stop you. I notice that the tuning theory critics on this list never seem have any work of their own to offer, so suprise me.

It seems if someone says they like the
> sound of something and appreciate it they shouldn't have to defend it.

It's only your goofy idea that I suggested anything of the sort; please don't confuse your projections with reality.

If you like high number temperments
> great. I don't like them and i don't like electronics for the most part so you suggest i over come that and
> throw 25 years of instruments and music in the trash. That is not helpful.

You wouldn't need to use electronics nor tune up an entire high number temperament to try these suggestions, but as a self-professed expert I assume you already knew that. So what's your beef?

>The idea of 612 is an extramusical Idea- no one uses it

You could do it with a computer. But Gene's suggestion
involved only a 10-note subset of 612. Incidentally, all
of the linear temperaments we talk about on tuning-math are
open systems -- they "close" no more or less than their
untempered counterparts.

>BTW the thing that made 31 unbearable were the wholetones,
>meantone is unfortunately probably out for me.

Yep, the 9's are a bit harsh.

>If i have no need to tell Gene what to try, i see it as
>nothing more than obsession that he suggest his paper formulas
>ad nausem. as someone who has no understanding of what my
>work is about, perhaps he should just stand out of my light!

Jesus, Kraig, this is totally wacked. The guy was just trying
to make a friendly suggestion. "No thanks" would have been
fine.

-Carl

>> I now return the program to our regularly scheduled carping.
>
>I'll consider these when and if you drop the sarcasm. Besides, carp are
>revered in some cultures and cuisines.

C'mon, Jon, you've used plenty of sarcasm around here. As one who has
caught, cleaned, and eaten carp, I can assure you that they are disgusting
animals.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:
> C'mon, Jon, you've used plenty of sarcasm around here.

Which is why I included "Even me" in that post ("Meltdown...") - I can recognize in myself when things are getting out of hand. And I *certainly* can recognize when to stop and use plain and gentle language.

At least I think so, or hope so.

> As one who has caught, cleaned, and eaten carp, I can assure you
> that they are disgusting animals.

Oh, I don't doubt it. My point being that while one person's carp is another person's crepe suzette, a third person's carp may be a fourth person's crap.

Or something.

Cheers,
Jon

genewardsmith wrote:

> No, but please don't let that stop you. I notice that the tuning theory critics on this list never seem have any work of their own to offer, so suprise me.

I do not consider myself a theorist but a composer. don't really post that often here and usually only for brief periods.
I have nothing to prove to you. I probably perform more microtonal music in public than anyone on this list. At least a couple of time a months. 6 shows in the last 3 weeks. Omitting the Hundred of clubs show i have done, your welcome to
bore yourself with

> You wouldn't need to use electronics nor tune up an entire high number temperament to try these suggestions, but as a self-professed expert I assume you already knew that. So what's your beef?

you lack of accepting what someone says as valid

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Carl Lumma wrote:

> >The idea of 612 is an extramusical Idea- no one uses it
>
> You could do it with a computer.

you see the word you used "could".

>
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
>
> Hello Paul!
> It seems like that was what he was doing to me. No matter what
>you say , the answer is always you can approximate it with this or
>that ET. The point in fact, in the real world this is not what is
>done. Who uses 270, 665 Et anyway, no one on this list.

ok -- but the et was not the real meat of gene's point. what he was
getting at (to me, anyway, since i've had far more contact with him
than you have) was the possibilities opened up if you can absorb the
2401:2400 (and perhaps 4375:4374 too). doing so in an absolutely
optimal way would result in a linear or planar temperament -- which
like ji is open and infinite in general -- not an et. now it is true
that for certain contrived values of the generators, you do get an
et -- in this case, 612-equal -- and the infinite array of pitches
collapses to a finite one. by expressing his result in terms of 612-
equal, gene was able to get across, in as concise a manner as
possible, what the pitches actually were. but any actual set of 612
pitches is completely foreign to the problem at hand, which involved
a scale with a very small number of pitches, so focusing on that
aspect of it completely misses the point.

if you're willing to accept errors of a full 2401:2400 (and/or
4375:4374), as gene pointed out in a later post, then you can exploit
this idea in just intonation -- and it's one that you're likely to
miss if you're focused only on the ratios themselves without an eye
to the simpler ratios they approximate. however, if 2401:2400 is too
large an error for John Doe's ears to accept, but a fraction of that
error is OK, then a microtemperament may be of value to Mr. Doe. and
612-equal is only the easiest such microtemperament to name, not
necessarily the best or most desirable such microtemperament.

As an attempt to begin a new thread along the lines of the old one, let's
ask the question:

what scale or tuning do you consider (as a composer or theorist), offers you
the most interesting potential, and, perhaps, what techniques you use as a
composer?

As for myself, in anyone is interested, I am developing techniques to
compose using scales and chords derived from ideas presented in my own PNM
article. But previously, I used a microtonal version of Perle's 12Tone
Tonality (and still do).

It'd be interesting for people to know where we all are in this tuning
group: not so we can fight over who is right or wrong, but as a piece of
tuning demography. Not all of us know the music of the others, or perhaps,
their ideas.

Let's pool our thoughts...

M

--- In tuning@y..., Mark Gould <mark.gould@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37387.html#37560

> As an attempt to begin a new thread along the lines of the old one,
let's
> ask the question:
>
> what scale or tuning do you consider (as a composer or theorist),
offers you the most interesting potential, and, perhaps, what
techniques you use as a composer?
>

***A lot of this material, Mark, you will find here in the archives,
since many of the current participants have been here for some time.

Currently I'm most interested in 72-tET, mostly for it's just
intonation possibilities and its facility of notation and
relationship to the "older" 12-tET. (Value judgement)

And, most of my knowledge of how to notate and work with it came from
*this* list...

Joseph Pehrson

Hello Paul!
I quite understand what you are saying here but there are assumptions here that might work for
what you do but not for me. For instance the 40/27 is an interval i would never use as a
consonance yet i find it exceptionally expressive. In fact the 80/27 I really like cause you end
up with beating against the 3 partial of your lower note.
If I worked in a tuning that has a interval 2401/2400 off from a low integer ratio, I would
rather exploits this uniqueness. When one interval beats in a tuning ,it helps define where you
are hence less ambiguity in where you are. This is an aesthetic choice and not a theoretical
universal answer for all. Interestingly you find use of beats possibly in this spirit in
Stockhausen's Mixtur and especially with the Russian national anthem (beginning of the 3rd region)
in Hymnen. I tend to think they sound better acoustically produced though. The same would hold
true of someone like Phil Niblock where the precise control of beats becomes apart of the music.
To temper out these would destroy what it is he is going after. So if maximizing consonaces over
all else was what i was interested in, it might apply. As i have stated in myriad of posts, my
interest is as much in structural integrity and unambiguity, the use of beats and compound beat
patterns.

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Hello Paul!
> > It seems like that was what he was doing to me. No matter what
> >you say , the answer is always you can approximate it with this or
> >that ET. The point in fact, in the real world this is not what is
> >done. Who uses 270, 665 Et anyway, no one on this list.
>
> ok -- but the et was not the real meat of gene's point. what he was
> getting at (to me, anyway, since i've had far more contact with him
> than you have) was the possibilities opened up if you can absorb the
> 2401:2400 (and perhaps 4375:4374 too). doing so in an absolutely
> optimal way would result in a linear or planar temperament -- which
> like ji is open and infinite in general -- not an et. now it is true
> that for certain contrived values of the generators, you do get an
> et -- in this case, 612-equal -- and the infinite array of pitches
> collapses to a finite one. by expressing his result in terms of 612-
> equal, gene was able to get across, in as concise a manner as
> possible, what the pitches actually were. but any actual set of 612
> pitches is completely foreign to the problem at hand, which involved
> a scale with a very small number of pitches, so focusing on that
> aspect of it completely misses the point.
>
> if you're willing to accept errors of a full 2401:2400 (and/or
> 4375:4374), as gene pointed out in a later post, then you can exploit
> this idea in just intonation -- and it's one that you're likely to
> miss if you're focused only on the ratios themselves without an eye
> to the simpler ratios they approximate. however, if 2401:2400 is too
> large an error for John Doe's ears to accept, but a fraction of that
> error is OK, then a microtemperament may be of value to Mr. Doe. and
> 612-equal is only the easiest such microtemperament to name, not
> necessarily the best or most desirable such microtemperament.
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Hello Paul!
> I quite understand what you are saying here but there are
assumptions here that might work for
> what you do but not for me. For instance the 40/27 is an interval i
would never use as a
> consonance yet i find it exceptionally expressive. In fact the
80/27 I really like cause you end
> up with beating against the 3 partial of your lower note.
> If I worked in a tuning that has a interval 2401/2400 off from a
low integer ratio, I would
> rather exploits this uniqueness. When one interval beats in a
tuning ,it helps define where you
> are hence less ambiguity in where you are. This is an aesthetic
choice and not a theoretical
> universal answer for all.

thanks for your reply kraig. i appreciate your tone here (not to
mention your content), and hope that we on this list will be
enlightened enough to keep things at such a mature level of discourse.

--- In tuning@y..., Mark Gould <mark.gould@a...> wrote:

> As an attempt to begin a new thread along the lines of the old one,
let's
> ask the question:
>
> what scale or tuning do you consider (as a composer or theorist),
offers you
> the most interesting potential,

right now, if i had to pick just one system that all my future
compositions would have to be in, it would be 152-tone equal
temperament. it's capable of approximating, well enough for my ears
and for the rate at which my music moves, the majority of the
tempered and just scales and adaptive tuning systems that i feel i
can speak through. i doubt that this will prove much more than a
theoretical curiosity, though, as neither a set of instruments nor a
notation system designed for 152-equal seem practically
feasible . . . though that would allow me to combine all my ideas in
a single piece of music, should i wish to go that far . . .

> and, perhaps, what techniques you use as a
> composer?

i composed a lot when i was in school but none of the compositions
expressed "me" as well as my improvisations do. i decided to focus on
the latter for a while. so these days, i'm typically more of a "jazz"
composer, in that i'll come up with the chord progression and often
a "head" melody, and leave the rest up to the improvisors. often i'll
improvise an entire piece on the spot, and have the other players
simply listen and follow me -- this is related to composition because
i do hear the music in my head first, a moment before i play it, and
i shape the overall contour of the music to be as satisfying as i can
for the alloted time period. perhaps when i turn 30 i'll try
composing per se once again, and hopefully my experience will allow
this to come out less "rigid" sounding than my schoolwork did.

i'm presently wowing audiences with a new technique, which i'll keep
a secret for now. the resulting music has a life of its own . . . i
*don't* hear the notes in my head before i play them, and they come
out in a dazzling dance, so it's a whole new learning experience.
it's a sort of acoustic techno that uses, for the most part, this ji
scale:

1/1 33/32 9/8 5/4 21/16 11/8 3/2 27/16 7/4 15/8 (2/1)

--- In tuning@y..., Mark Gould <mark.gould@a...> wrote:

> what scale or tuning do you consider (as a composer or theorist), offers you
> the most interesting potential, and, perhaps, what techniques you use as a
> composer?

Carl's got an interesting collection going. I like scales of 8-10 notes, with a lot of harmony, and which are regular but not so regular as to be bland.

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> right now, if i had to pick just one system that all my future
> compositions would have to be in, it would be 152-tone equal
> temperament. it's capable of approximating, well enough for my ears
> and for the rate at which my music moves, the majority of the
> tempered and just scales and adaptive tuning systems that i feel i
> can speak through. i doubt that this will prove much more than a
> theoretical curiosity, though, as neither a set of instruments nor
a
> notation system designed for 152-equal seem practically
> feasible . . . though that would allow me to combine all my ideas
in
> a single piece of music, should i wish to go that far . . .

Paul,

Dave Keenan and I are now in the process of determining the
recommended sets of sagittal notation symbols to be used for many
different ET's on tuning-math, and this definitely includes 152.

As to how practical others will judge the notation remains to be
seen, but at least we will soon have something to offer -- something
that works.

--George