Re:: JI and the listening composer-reply to Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> Alison,
>
> >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 the statement Gene's referring to.

To clarify: For my current musical project I would rather tune up accurately, say, seven different
pelogs, than an ET (in the 30-50 tones per octave range) that approximated them even to within a
cent or two. The reason is that I believe I can hear a difference and I have auditioned and
compared. But, and this is important, when I return to working with some of the ETs that I know
and find to be of musical value, I will no doubt report on their unique musical properties.

> >Well if you keep telling me that my experiences are not true there's not
> >much I can say or do.
>
> Are you saying you experienced every ET suitable for acoustic instruments?

Well, what do you think Carl? Of course not and I've no intention of trying to. What I'm saying
is that I heard clearly a phenomenon, musically useful, inspiring and quite unexpected, that I've
never heard when working with or listening to ETs. Caveat - one human being, even one who spends
hours with JI and ETs can only be reasonably expected to audition very few of the infinite
possibilities. And I'm saying that I don't believe I'll hear this particular phenomenon with ETs
because I haven't done yet. I might in the future change my mind but I'd rather hear for myself
than see it on paper.

>
> Since the scale in discussion is a subset of an ET, you've experienced
> every ET subset as well?

I don't know what scale you're referring to here. And of course I've not experienced every ET
subset as well.

I hope this clarifies my position. Phew!

Kind Regards

>
>

In-Reply-To: <3D066AF7.EDB6B501@which.net>
Alison Monteith wrote:

> To clarify: For my current musical project I would rather tune up
> accurately, say, seven different
> pelogs, than an ET (in the 30-50 tones per octave range) that
> approximated them even to within a
> cent or two. The reason is that I believe I can hear a difference and I

And to clarify what Gene was suggesting, 612-equal gives 5-limit intervals
to within a 20th of a cent and 9-limit to about a fifth of a cent. So
that's very different to "within a cent or two". And you only need 10
notes.

Graham

Graham!
Are pelogs 5 limit?
who does 5 limit music?

graham@microtonal.co.uk wrote:

> In-Reply-To: <3D066AF7.EDB6B501@which.net>
> Alison Monteith wrote:
>
> > To clarify: For my current musical project I would rather tune up
> > accurately, say, seven different
> > pelogs, than an ET (in the 30-50 tones per octave range) that
> > approximated them even to within a
> > cent or two. The reason is that I believe I can hear a difference and I
>
> And to clarify what Gene was suggesting, 612-equal gives 5-limit intervals
> to within a 20th of a cent and 9-limit to about a fifth of a cent. So
> that's very different to "within a cent or two". And you only need 10
> notes.
>
> 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-Reply-To: <3D074AF9.51D5A622@anaphoria.com>
Kraig Grady wrote:

> Are pelogs 5 limit?
> who does 5 limit music?

We're talking about the following scale, in 612-equal:

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

It contains 11 perfect fifths, which are 5-limit intervals. That explains
the 7 characters in my previous message you seem to object to. Also 23
intervals and 14 triads in the 9-limit.

Here it is in cents, if you're interested:

0.0, 84.3, 203.9, 351.0, 435.3, 582.4, 702.0, 786.3, 933.3, 1052.9, 1200.0

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <3D074AF9.51D5A622@a...>
> Kraig Grady wrote:
>
> > Are pelogs 5 limit?
> > who does 5 limit music?
>
> We're talking about the following scale, in 612-equal:
>
> 0, 43, 104, 179, 222, 297, 358, 401, 476, 537, 612

On this group, the scale I mentioned was

0, 43, 136, 179, 254, 315, 358, 433, 476, 569

which has similar properties.

> It contains 11 perfect fifths, which are 5-limit intervals.

Eh? It has only ten notes to the octave. I count six fifths.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> > It contains 11 perfect fifths, which are 5-limit intervals.
>
> Eh? It has only ten notes to the octave. I count six fifths.

Thank God. I'm enough behind the power curve as it is, but I *almost* asked how someone could find 11 P5s in ten notes - I thought I was missing some very important part of a puzzle. I was worried it would turn into a "Where's Waldo?" scenario...

Cheers,
Jon