Re: JI and the listening composer - reply to Gene

genewardsmith wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> > Obviously, as you rightly point out, there are ETs with tones that lie 0.1 or 0.2 of a cent off JI, thus indistinguishable to most ears. But their validity in this test
> > lies in their closeness to the just intervals. Why not just go the whole hog and catch the pure tone?
>
> More possibilites present themselves if you don't. Why ignore them, unless for some extramusical and ideological reason?

That makes no sense to me. "If I don't work in JI more possibilities present themselves." Hmmm - perhaps more possibilities for modulation and ambiguity due to tempering
out commas, both useful musical resources. Now, if that's what I want in my music, I'll use an appropriate ET.

Certainly the possibility of working with the unique musical properties of well tuned low number ratios don't present themselves in ETs that I can practically use with
acoustic instruments (we must have a context at some point in the debate)

I don't ignore other possibilities and I don't follow musical ideologies but ignoring an ET or a JI system for extramusical reasons is quite valid in my book.

At some point in the 'roll up yer sleeves and get stuck in' craftwork bit of microtonal ( ie non-12) musical composition you make a positive decision to work with a
collection of pitches. This isn't ideology, it's a working practice. With different elements such as rhythm and orchestration composers like Stravinsky did the same,
selecting and working out procedures to the highest degree of refinement. It sometimes comes as a surprise to many that artists and composers can and indeed at times have to
be thrawn narrow minded bigots in matters of what goes in and what stays out. But this is hardly ideology or if it is it often swings from left to right between works.

Kind Regards

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

> Certainly the possibility of working with the unique musical properties of well tuned low number ratios don't present themselves in ETs that I can practically use with
> acoustic instruments (we must have a context at some point in the debate)

This is not true, but if you don't care to consider the possibility then by all means feel free not to. I'm hoping you won't get mad at me for not agreeing with everything you say, however. :)

> I don't ignore other possibilities and I don't follow musical ideologies but ignoring an ET or a JI system for extramusical reasons is quite valid in my book.

You've just finished ignoring a possibility in this very posting.

> At some point in the 'roll up yer sleeves and get stuck in' craftwork bit of microtonal ( ie non-12) musical composition you make a positive decision to work with a
> collection of pitches.

I can certainly relate to that. There are so many possibilities one can hardly try all of them, but you don't need to pretend they aren't there.

genewardsmith wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> > Certainly the possibility of working with the unique musical properties of well tuned low number ratios don't present themselves in ETs that I can practically use with
> > acoustic instruments (we must have a context at some point in the debate)
>
> This is not true, but if you don't care to consider the possibility then by all means feel free not to. I'm hoping you won't get mad at me for not agreeing with everything you say, however. :)

Well if you keep telling me that my experiences are not true there's not much I can say or do. I'm not old enough to be losing the place yet and I'm pretty sure I mean what I say and that it is
in fact true. Oh well....

>
> > I don't ignore other possibilities and I don't follow musical ideologies but ignoring an ET or a JI system for extramusical reasons is quite valid in my book.
>
> You've just finished ignoring a possibility in this very posting.

You'll need to explain this to me. I need to take a course in English language because I can't find anywhere where I say I'm ignoring something in the sense of refusing to accept its existence.
Unless of course I ignore something because I choose to work with something else. You'd surely agree that any artist has to make choices. If not, you've lost me.

>
> > At some point in the 'roll up yer sleeves and get stuck in' craftwork bit of microtonal ( ie non-12) musical composition you make a positive decision to work with a
> > collection of pitches.
>
> I can certainly relate to that. There are so many possibilities one can hardly try all of them, but you don't need to pretend they aren't there.

I'm not pretending anything. Never have, never will. Honesty is the best policy.

Is this what carping is all about? Quite fun actually as an intellectual exercise. I'm going to invite the Spanish Inquisition in for a relaxing evening : - )

Kind Regards

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

> Well if you keep telling me that my experiences are not true there's not much I can say or do.

I'm not saying your experiences are not true, I am saying your notion you can't use 612 or 1547 or whatever in a practical context is not true. If you can tune very precise JI, you can tune these also, and if you can't tune them, you don't need to tune that exactly; but that just means there are other possibilities at coarser tunings you might consider.

genewardsmith wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> > Well if you keep telling me that my experiences are not true there's not much I can say or do.
>
> I'm not saying your experiences are not true, I am saying your notion you can't use 612 or 1547 or whatever in a practical context is not true.

> I don't recall mentioning 612 or 1547. Anyway, when I think of 612 or 1547 I think of exactly those amounts of tones which are impractical for acoustic instruments, which is what I mean by practical context. I have the impression that there are others on this list who think the same.

> That's perhaps where the misunderstanding arises . You're obviously referring to subsets and I'm not up to speed on the tuning mathematics discussions, mainly because I don't understand them. In fact these last few heated posts from your good self have been the first of yours that I've ever understood, but that's for me to sort out.

Kind Regards