Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning 72-equal origin

You know, Kraig, I've heard a good number of 72-tone equal compositions by
now and to tell you the truth, I have never heard real just intonation
aesthetic in its usage. Whether Maneri, Werntz, Pehrson, or Sims, they are
not out for JI.

Even though Joseph used the Miracle scale for his recent piece, it is quite
scalar. The JI factor was less in evidence to me than was the Carrillo
dieses movement in a single direction. Maybe it is because I hear things
just as they are and this was really well trimmed in 72 by Chris Washburne,
trombonist.

Theories are really interesting, aren't they? But the practice belies the
arguments, both pro and con. Neither one can justify the other.

best, Johnny Reinhard

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

Hello Johnny!
I don't think i was the one arguing that it was JI based and
although I would agree it is one
of the best for approximating JI, it was others taking this line of
reasoning against its use for
atonal/pantonal music. I expressed no opinion at all. Your point is
interesting and makes sense
since it seems if someone wants JI they just do it. If i used 72, i
would like Julia, want to use
them all. at least to start with
BTW do you know of anyone suggesting 72 before Novaro? a stance he
was forced to give up due
to pressure from the Carillo camp who claimed all divisions of !@ ET his
intellectual property.
Novaro was never was able to mention it again

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> You know, Kraig, I've heard a good number of 72-tone equal compositions by
> now and to tell you the truth, I have never heard real just intonation
> aesthetic in its usage. Whether Maneri, Werntz, Pehrson, or Sims, they are
> not out for JI.
>
> Even though Joseph used the Miracle scale for his recent piece, it is quite
> scalar. The JI factor was less in evidence to me than was the Carrillo
> dieses movement in a single direction. Maybe it is because I hear things
> just as they are and this was really well trimmed in 72 by Chris Washburne,
> trombonist.
>
> Theories are really interesting, aren't they? But the practice belies the
> arguments, both pro and con. Neither one can justify the other.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard
>
>

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

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

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@orphonsoul.com>

On 6/11/02 11:48 PM, "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> [to Johnny]

> Hmmm. That's quite curious, since Jon Catler said he heard Just Intonation
> quite clearly in my piece...

Actually so did I, pretty clearly, in the trombone part at some point. I
don't remember exactly *what*, what harmonies or whatever. But regardless,
at that point, it definitely impressed me as a passage that was trying to
submerge just intonation into equal temperament. I do this in my music a
LOT of the time so it's one of the microtonal effects I'm more attuned to
than other things.

As many times as Johnny and I have compared and contrasted the way we listen
to music, as far as what we "hear", I can imagine how he might have heard
"Blackjack". Johnny might not have caught the Just effect in conjuction
with the amount of scurrying the keyboard was doing; I would think for his
hearing, the overall context might have been a little obscured.

I've sort of desensitized to faster notes, though. I let a lot of that
keyboard fade back, the faster parts. It could have been completely random
atonal free pitch, and it wouldn't have changed the fact that as soon as the
trombone started playing very lengthy note durations, I sensed an
application of JI. I mean, I haven't messed with 72 much but I *have* at
some point heard what a the just harmonies sound like and I seemed to notice
that's where the horn was headed.

I never would have thought of it otherwise, but there's a bit of similarity
here between this piece and the 1st movement of the piece I played that
night, at least in terms of the effects I was describing: a lot of my main
theme was slow, strict just intonation mapped to 49, then the departure
section involved the instruments becoming more disjunct, faster, and more
hysterical melodically, until they terrorized each other into harmonizing
near-4-equal diminished chords. (If I was listening to this from the
audience, I would have paid about as much less attention to the faster
passage.)

Trilling slippery diminished chords in 49. I HOPE that no one took THAT too
seriously. Ultimately that was a goof on bad horror movies, or maybe soap
operas... "I'm not only your father, I'm also... (suspense)... YOUR
MOTHER!!!" And what do you always hear on the Hammond B3 organ? Diminished
chord.

marcJones

🔗manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37602.html#37604

> You know, Kraig, I've heard a good number of 72-tone equal
compositions by now and to tell you the truth, I have never heard
real just intonation aesthetic in its usage. Whether Maneri, Werntz,
Pehrson, or Sims, they are not out for JI.
>

***Hi Johnny!

Just as a further elaboration of this, I will have to say that the
above statement, regarding my *own* personal intention is not
correct. I was *definitely* "out" for Just Intonation in my
_Blackjack_ piece, so if it doesn't come through, then we have to
conclude that 72-tET and the Blackjack scale essentially *fails* as
an emulation of Just harmonies!

I don't know if I'm fully prepared to accept that conclusion, but I'm
listening to you.

> Even though Joseph used the Miracle scale for his recent piece, it
is quite scalar. The JI factor was less in evidence to me than was
the Carrillo dieses movement in a single direction. Maybe it is
because I hear things just as they are and this was really well
trimmed in 72 by Chris Washburne, trombonist.
>

***Well, the trombone part, in the solo sections was certainly
*scalar* and it would be hard for *that* to be just, since it was
just one note at a time! However, in the *harmonies* I was
*definitely* following the Blackjack lattice in construction of chord
progressions.

So, like I said above, if the piece doesn't sound Just, then it means
that Blackjack *fails* as a scale...

> Theories are really interesting, aren't they? But the practice
belies the arguments, both pro and con. Neither one can justify the
other.
>

***I guess the implication here is that the Just Intonation emulation
of 72-tET and Blackjack are *theories* that are not heard in practice.

I guess Ezra Sims disagrees with this, since he claims, or so I have
heard, that *he* can hear no clear difference between Just Intonation
and 72-equal...

I guess it depends on the *perception* (and hopefully not the
*prejudice* :) of the listener)

People can judge for themselves, since the piece with the *ersatz*
trombone part is online:

http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/1831/1831747.html

Joseph

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., manuel.op.de.coul@e... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37602.html#37610

> Kraig asked
> >Does anyone know of any proponents of 72 before Augusto Novaro in
1927?
>
> Yes, Ivan Wyschnegradsky in 1919.
>
> Joe Monzo: the year 1953 in eqtemp.htm should be 1919.
>
> Manuel

***Also, a minor point, but the [brackets] at the beginning of the
Monzo "standard" 72-tET ASCII chart at the beginning of his 72-EDO
page are wrong:

] = quartertone HIGHER

[ = quartertone LOWER

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

In a message dated 6/12/02 2:22:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tuning@orphonsoul.com writes:

> but I *have* at
> some point heard what a the just harmonies sound like and I seemed to
> notice
> that's where the horn was headed.
>
>

Hi Marc,

Just is a place you know when you hear it, if you have life experience
working in it. As Joe says, the trombone played single notes, and he matched
the notes of the prerecorded CD (in 72). You know what? It was 72!

Joseph, your piece succeeds regardless of whether or not your impulse was to
crowd just intervals. As for Ezra, please listen to his music and tell me
that this is just. If necessary, I will bring some truly just pieces for you
guys to hear so you know what the difference is.

As for just pieces on the AFMM this year, try Meredith Borden singing
"Sappho" by Douglas Leedy. Beautiful, best singing I've ever heard from
Meredith (with her playing a just autoharp).

best, Johnny Reinhard

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37602.html#37616

>
> Hi Marc,
>
> Just is a place you know when you hear it, if you have life
experience
> working in it. As Joe says, the trombone played single notes, and
he matched
> the notes of the prerecorded CD (in 72). You know what? It was 72!
>
> Joseph, your piece succeeds regardless of whether or not your
impulse was to crowd just intervals.

***Hi Johnny!

Thanks for the supportiveness... I guess the question still remains,
though, as to whether 72-tET and the Blackjack scale sufficiently
emulates Just Intonation to warrant its deliberate usage in that way.

It seems the jury is still out... and my impression is that they are
not coming back after lunch...

Joseph

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>I guess the question still remains,
> though, as to whether 72-tET and the Blackjack scale sufficiently
> emulates Just Intonation to warrant its deliberate usage in that way.

Joe - don't you also need to consider how you *use* the ET? IIRC, your piece had an awfully busy accompaniement, and there was a lot of 'chromatic' elaboration going on.

Before throwing the baby out with the bath tub, why not compose a couple of simpler, more chorale-like pieces, or something that could only come from exploiting JI, and see if it matches up that way. The only way you'll know for sure is if you have music that has as it's only intent to emulate JI, and then listen to it (with others, like Johnny) and see how it affects your ears.

I'm not up on this stuff, but if Johnny would like to help you maybe he could suggest a composed piece in JI that you could 'transcribe' and see how successful/unsuccessful it comes out...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_37602.html#37618

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >I guess the question still remains,
> > though, as to whether 72-tET and the Blackjack scale sufficiently
> > emulates Just Intonation to warrant its deliberate usage in that
way.
>
> Joe - don't you also need to consider how you *use* the ET? IIRC,
your piece had an awfully busy accompaniement, and there was a lot
of 'chromatic' elaboration going on.
>

***Hi Jon!

Well, that's a good point and Marc Jones, seemingly, finds the
accompaniment "busy" but actually there is a lot of really simple
chordal motion going on in the piece...

> Before throwing the baby out with the bath tub, why not compose a
couple of simpler, more chorale-like pieces, or something that could
only come from exploiting JI, and see if it matches up that way. The
only way you'll know for sure is if you have music that has as it's
only intent to emulate JI, and then listen to it (with others, like
Johnny) and see how it affects your ears.
>

***Well, truly, I haven't abandoned this direction as of yet and, in
fact, my new piece _Blacklight_ for *cello* and electronics will soon
be up on the Web. (Unfortunately the Sibelius file would *not*
convert to PDF since the Sims accidentals were not a convertible
font...)

But I *am* of course interested in people's perceptions of this
stuff. Also, as Johnny infers, even if it *doesn't* sound *just* to
many people, it still doesn't mean that the use of 72-tET in and of
itself is invalidated...

best,

Joe

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@orphonsoul.com>

On 6/12/02 12:15 PM, "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> Well, that's a good point and Marc Jones, seemingly, finds the
> accompaniment "busy" but actually there is a lot of really simple
> chordal motion going on in the piece...

I bet you can actually do those NY Times crossword puzzles. I can barely do
the Daily News'. BUSY!! Yes that's the word I was looking for! I perked
up when you said this, it's very curious - that I noticed the busyness but I
did NOT notice the patterns. I'm remembering more of the sound now, yeah
it was pretty simple. I'm going to have to listen to it again.

(continuing thread on [tuning-perception]...)

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@orphonsoul.com>

On 6/12/02 11:40 AM, "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> I guess the question still remains,
> though, as to whether 72-tET and the Blackjack scale sufficiently
> emulates Just Intonation to warrant its deliberate usage in that way.

Well that's what I was saying, it's sort of caricature, ANY equal
temperament has a certain quotient of emulation of Just, and the remainder
warps Just in that temperament's own way. I've found if you try to force
some Just relations, you wind up finding out a little quicker what makes
that temperament so different, and you can see where it's going to wind up
on its own.

I never really had a solid thing to say about it, but something like this:
I think more that if you want Just, play Just, it's perfect. If you don't,
since Just is perfect, whatever you're playing, try to play Just a little,
see how it works, then see where it wanders to.

As many times as I've heard JI compared to nature, I would think a little,
equal temperaments are how nature is challenged by manmade elements. Some
preserve it, some destroy it. I have nothing against the people who present
the pure nature. I just have a lot of interest in the challenge, how
temperaments warp Just, as far as Just is concerned.

marC

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@orphonsoul.com>

On 6/12/02 11:20 AM, "Afmmjr@aol.com" <Afmmjr@aol.com> wrote:

> Just is a place you know when you hear it, if you have life experience working
> in it.

That's acknowledgeable. I was hearing it from the middle ground, kind of
knowing what Just kind of sounds like and kind of hearing it.

This reminds me of how I thought SO MANY string sections in some popular
music were real strings. Only to find out, when I started playing strings a
little, that I had no idea what strings really sounded like. When I had
started listening to CDs of string quartets, they sounded bizarre to me.

But there's still that middle ground I like to notice once in awhile, what
of an element actually does sound good to someone who's only heard a little
of it. It's this "intermediate" mentality, convinced that the novice is too
unknowing, the expert too picky. Without a median, well. I'll elliptically
non-finish the thought...

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

In a message dated 6/11/02 11:50:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> Hmmm. That's quite curious, since Jon Catler said he heard Just
> Intonation quite clearly in my piece...
>
> JP

Jon Catler gave up 31-tone equal temperament permanently when he discovered
just. It makes more of a difference to him than his comment should belie.

Back to just: you know how jazz is sometimes described as having a chord that
is home, a chord that is heading back to home, and chords that meander? The
72-tone pieces I've heard (and lets add those by Herf) do not simulate Just
Intonation, all theories aside. Perhaps this is why Ted Mook can use vibrato
to disguise just intervals by using a 72-tone over drop. Especially, the Li
Po singer is user of quite a healthy vibrato. Just Intonation electronically
needs MUCH more perfection in its abilities. One wonders what could be done
with 14 bit pitch bend MIDI with a division of the octave of 16,384 ( or so
).

Carl, I do not know if you have altered any of your previously held views
about what one can hear as a performer, but I think we can agree that we
would rather err on the side of the most accurate. At least this way nobody
loses.

best, Johnny Reinhard

p.s. Kraig and Manuel, I don't think Wyschnegradsky ever used 72-tone equal
temperament. In fact, his philosophy on music and microtonality is the same
as mine..."All music is microtonal."

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37602.html#37626

> On 6/12/02 11:40 AM, "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > I guess the question still remains,
> > though, as to whether 72-tET and the Blackjack scale sufficiently
> > emulates Just Intonation to warrant its deliberate usage in that
way.
>
> Well that's what I was saying, it's sort of caricature, ANY equal
> temperament has a certain quotient of emulation of Just, and the
remainder
> warps Just in that temperament's own way. I've found if you try to
force
> some Just relations, you wind up finding out a little quicker what
makes
> that temperament so different, and you can see where it's going to
wind up
> on its own.
>
> I never really had a solid thing to say about it, but something
like this:
> I think more that if you want Just, play Just, it's perfect. If
you don't,
> since Just is perfect, whatever you're playing, try to play Just a
little,
> see how it works, then see where it wanders to.
>
> As many times as I've heard JI compared to nature, I would think a
little,
> equal temperaments are how nature is challenged by manmade
elements. Some
> preserve it, some destroy it. I have nothing against the people
who present
> the pure nature. I just have a lot of interest in the challenge,
how
> temperaments warp Just, as far as Just is concerned.
>
>
> marC

****Hi Marc!

Thanks for your contributions to this thread. Well... certainly my
*objective* is to get as close to Just as possible, at least that's
why *I* am using 72-tET.

However, I've decided that in order to *train* 12-tET musicians to
play it, the easiest way is through 72-tET. Now, I may be wrong
there, but it's my present attitude. I figure if people only have to
learn *three* new intervals (1/6 whole tone, 1/12 whole tone and
quartertones) it will be easier than having them digest some kind of
*ratio* nomenclature. In fact, I don't think some of the players I
want to work with would do it. Some people find even 72-
tET "hard..." if they haven't been exposed to it before.

Now, for people like Kraig Grady who, to my knowledge, is more
interested in *building* and playing perfectly just instruments, it
makes perfectly good sense to go for the *true just.* I don't think,
though, that Kraig is so interested in getting "traditional" players
to play his stuff, although I could be wrong. Similarly for people,
maybe even like *yourself* who seem to be interested in alternate
electronics and modified instruments (guitars) a compromise would
also be counterproductive.

So, I guess it has mostly to do with the composer's *objectives.* In
a sense I'm "settling" for 72-tET since I feel I can't really *get*
pure Justice so easily with certain players.

Maybe I'm wrong there, but that's what I'm thinking, anyway. So,
it's essentially a *COMPROMISE* and those who dislike compromise
aren't going to like this approach.

By the way, what do people think of Ted Mook's realization of Harry
Partch's _Li Po_ songs using 72-tET??

I bet some people don't like that. Surely *Partch* wouldn't have
liked it, but Ted feels it's an acceptable way to play Just... I
think...

Joe P.

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/12/02 7:10:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> paul@s... writes:
>
>
> > 31-equal make him cringe,

> Ezra demands, yes. But 31 does not make anyone cringe.

i saw his face, johnny! and he told me as much immediately afterwards.

>You guys are taking Ezra Sims' hyperbole and blowing it to places it
>does not apply to.

which guys?

> Listen
> to the music and tell me you hear an approximating of just as an
>intent in a
> particular piece of Sims.

not just in the way i would have conceived "just" myself, but after
reading his writings, yes i can hear it. when producing two notes in
a clear ratio, he often introduces the summation tone, which is often
not typically something i would have thought of as "consonant". but
as the difference tones reinforce the original tones, and as this
whole phenomenon is inextricably tied in with the ratios involved,
i'd say that yes, the particular just phenomenon that he is
interested in working with probably comes through in some of the
recordings and performances i've heard -- though we'd have to be
inside his head to know for sure.

> I find he uses 72 very well for many of its
> properties.

absolutely. a big modulating 37-limit scale is his stated intent.
this is even a stricter invocation of ji than what joseph is doing in
72 (things that no ji scale could do), and yet joseph himself is
telling us that ji is his intent. so that leads us into some of the
far corners of the great "what is ji" debate that i don't feel
inclined to revisit now. let alone the philosophical vagaries
of "hearing intent".

🔗manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com

🔗Jay Williams <jaywill@tscnet.com>

Jay here,
Well, as I would expect from a true composer working in a temperament with
so much potential, there were many sections that could have been redone in
other temperaments and sounded similar. And among those, there were clearly
some harmonies and progressions that sounded Just to me. I don't see
throwing out the theorized Just potential just cuz the whole piece doesn't
sound that way. Fun piece, but I'd really like to hear it with the real
'bone, being a 'bonist meself.
At 04:15 PM 6/12/02 -0000, you wrote:
>--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
>/tuning/topicId_37602.html#37618
>
>> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>> >I guess the question still remains,
>> > though, as to whether 72-tET and the Blackjack scale sufficiently
>> > emulates Just Intonation to warrant its deliberate usage in that
>way.
>>
>> Joe - don't you also need to consider how you *use* the ET? IIRC,
>your piece had an awfully busy accompaniement, and there was a lot
>of 'chromatic' elaboration going on.
>>
>
>***Hi Jon!
>
>Well, that's a good point and Marc Jones, seemingly, finds the
>accompaniment "busy" but actually there is a lot of really simple
>chordal motion going on in the piece...
>
>
>> Before throwing the baby out with the bath tub, why not compose a
>couple of simpler, more chorale-like pieces, or something that could
>only come from exploiting JI, and see if it matches up that way. The
>only way you'll know for sure is if you have music that has as it's
>only intent to emulate JI, and then listen to it (with others, like
>Johnny) and see how it affects your ears.
>>
>
>***Well, truly, I haven't abandoned this direction as of yet and, in
>fact, my new piece _Blacklight_ for *cello* and electronics will soon
>be up on the Web. (Unfortunately the Sibelius file would *not*
>convert to PDF since the Sims accidentals were not a convertible
>font...)
>
>But I *am* of course interested in people's perceptions of this
>stuff. Also, as Johnny infers, even if it *doesn't* sound *just* to
>many people, it still doesn't mean that the use of 72-tET in and of
>itself is invalidated...
>
>best,
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>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/
>
>
>
>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Jay Williams <jaywill@t...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37602.html#37696

> Jay here,
> Well, as I would expect from a true composer working in a
temperament with
> so much potential, there were many sections that could have been
redone in
> other temperaments and sounded similar. And among those, there were
clearly
> some harmonies and progressions that sounded Just to me. I don't see
> throwing out the theorized Just potential just cuz the whole piece
doesn't
> sound that way. Fun piece, but I'd really like to hear it with the
real
> 'bone, being a 'bonist meself.

***Thanks, Jay! Well, that makes sense. I guess, in general, my
style is somewhat of a "hybrid" anyway...

I'm quite happy with the trombone piece, and enjoy the sound of the
electronics with it. Johnny Reinhard had a good recording made, so I
will post that as soon as I get it.

best,

Joe

🔗Rick Tagawa <ricktagawa@earthlink.net>

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Jay Williams <jaywill@t...> wrote:

likewise! and joseph designed them that way, so he's getting his
point across, at least to some of us listeners.

> I don't see
> throwing out the theorized Just potential just cuz the whole piece
doesn't
> sound that way. Fun piece, but I'd really like to hear it with the
real
> 'bone, being a 'bonist meself.

*** this is in the works, isn't it, joseph?

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Rick Tagawa <ricktagawa@earthlink.net>

The Harmonics of Aristoxenus, translated by Macran, Henry, S., Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1902, pp248-249

The exact proportions of these typical divisions are exhibited in the following table in which the tetrachord is in each case represented by a line divided into thirty equal parts, each part consequently being the twelfth of a tone. The places of the Parhypate are definitely marked as they are given in pp. 141-142; in this present passage their positions are less accurately stated.

TABLE OF THE GENERA AND SHADES

1 unit = one-twelfth of a tone
3 units = a quarter-tone, or the least Enharmonic diesis
4 units = a third of a tone, or the least Chromatc diesis
6 units = a semitone
12 units = a tone

Macran then shows a series of straight lines marked off in 30 equal divisions with various divisions darkened to show the various Genera and Shades.

Enharmonic = 3 units Parhypate + 3 units Lichanus + 24 units
Chromatic (soft) = 4 units Parhypate + 4 units Lichanus + 22 units
Chromatic (Hemiolic) = 5 units Parhypate + 5 units Lichanus + 20 units
Chromatic (Tonic) = 6 units Parhypate + 6 units Lichanus + 18 units
Diatonic (flat) = 6 units Parypate + 9 units Lichanus + 15 units
Diatonic (sharp) = 6 units Parhypate + 12 units Lichanus + 12 units

Kraig Grady wrote:

>I thought his was what comes out to be 60
>
>Rick Tagawa wrote:
>
>>Aristoxenus around 330B.C.
>>
>>Kraig Grady wrote:
>>
>>>Does anyone know of any proponents of 72 before Augusto Novaro in
>>>1927?
>>>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_37602.html#37763

us listeners.
>
> > I don't see
> > throwing out the theorized Just potential just cuz the whole
piece
> doesn't
> > sound that way. Fun piece, but I'd really like to hear it with
the
> real
> > 'bone, being a 'bonist meself.
>
> *** this is in the works, isn't it, joseph?

***Hi Paul.

Yes, Johnny made a fine recording of the piece with Chris Washburne,
trombone, and it will be put up on the Web as soon as I get my hands
on it... :)

Joseph

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

Hello Rick!
Yes a quick glance at by barker translation/oxford also he uses
small subdivisions by finds a certain size too small to be ,melodic. But
will look at this more unless Chalmers sees this and pulls out the
answer. But I do remember his name now being mentioned in connection
with 72

Rick Tagawa wrote:

> The Harmonics of Aristoxenus, translated by Macran, Henry, S., Oxford
> At The Clarendon Press, 1902, pp248-249
>
> The exact proportions of these typical divisions are exhibited in the
> following table in which the tetrachord is in each case represented by
> a line divided into thirty equal parts, each part consequently being
> the twelfth of a tone. The places of the Parhypate are definitely
> marked as they are given in pp. 141-142; in this present passage their
> positions are less accurately stated.
>
> TABLE OF THE GENERA AND SHADES
>
> 1 unit = one-twelfth of a tone
> 3 units = a quarter-tone, or the least Enharmonic diesis
> 4 units = a third of a tone, or the least Chromatc diesis
> 6 units = a semitone
> 12 units = a tone
>
> Macran then shows a series of straight lines marked off in 30 equal
> divisions with various divisions darkened to show the various Genera
> and Shades.
>
> Enharmonic = 3 units Parhypate + 3 units Lichanus + 24 units
> Chromatic (soft) = 4 units Parhypate + 4 units Lichanus + 22 units
> Chromatic (Hemiolic) = 5 units Parhypate + 5 units Lichanus + 20 units
>
> Chromatic (Tonic) = 6 units Parhypate + 6 units Lichanus + 18 units
> Diatonic (flat) = 6 units Parypate + 9 units Lichanus + 15 units
> Diatonic (sharp) = 6 units Parhypate + 12 units Lichanus + 12 units
>
>
>
> Kraig Grady wrote:
>
>> I thought his was what comes out to be 60
>>
>> Rick Tagawa wrote:
>>
>>

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

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

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

Hello Paul!
Thanks for clearing that up. He did as i mentioned found a minimum size interval as the
smallest melodic size interval. So his use of 72 would be as a measuring tool. Ptolemy thought the
45/44 being the smallest. I was wondering if you had any thoughts or observations on this.

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

> aristoxenus is 30 parts within the tetrachord; if equally-tempered
> that's 72 within the octave.
>

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

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

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

Hello Paul!
The smallest melodic step. or the smallest useable step for melodic purposes

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > Hello Paul!
> > Thanks for clearing that up. He did as i mentioned found a
> minimum size interval as the
> > smallest melodic size interval. So his use of 72 would be as a
> measuring tool. Ptolemy thought the
> > 45/44 being the smallest. I was wondering if you had any thoughts
> or observations on this.
>
> on what aspect in particular?
>
>
> 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/

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

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

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> Hello Paul!
> The smallest melodic step. or the smallest useable step for
>melodic purposes

never swallowed universalist claims to that effect . . . but i can't
even *hear* the smallest steps, when played melodically, of
vicentino's second tuning of 1555 (an adaptive ji system approximated
by 217-equal, where these steps would be single degrees). so i guess
such small steps would *have* to be useless for melodic purposes,
serving only for harmonic ji-ability . . . ?

this happens to coincide nicely with equal temperament maestro marc
jones' observation that somewhere between 212 and 240, iirc, the ear
ceases to hear distinct melodic notes. he's actually carved guitar
fretboards for 152, 217, 323, and even 559!