Attention to detail

I thought I'd change the thread title to get away from me banging on
about JI for a bit. I think I'm correct in saying that Francois recently
presented some complex scientific data in support of the idea that you
can't really tune strings in particular to a certain resolution.

So why do I and others bother with this search for as fine a resolution
as possible if nobody (apparently) can hear the results? I believe that
the reason is a desire for compositional attention to detail. If Lou
Harrison or Ben Johnson want a 5/4 then who is to tell them that they
can tolerate an error of plus or minus so many cents and still get off
with it? I think they'd probably respond quite forcefully, probably in
words of one syllable.

Let's consider serial composition. I don't know of many serial works in
which I can follow the row and its permutations. I normally go to
learned articles to get the details. You don't really hear what is in
fact the very basis of the composition as it unfolds in these cases. To
a lesser extent the same applies with medieval crab canons and fugues
for the untrained ear.

Would it make any difference to the listener in one of the more complex
serial works if one of the 12 tones in the row was dropped, or if the
retrograde was slightly modified? Or in a total serialist work if the
articulation row was randomised by computer as opposed to being rigidly
adhered to? I doubt it. But it would make a huge difference to the
composer who chose the elements to be just so.

So why did (do) the serialists bother? For the same reason that a
microtonal composer might bother to tune as accurately as she or he can
manage. It's part of the package in an idiom where the choice of pitches
actually becomes a pre-compositional choice.

If the listener can't hear the resolution to 0.1 cents because it's
inaudible or impossible to realise, that doesn't matter. Chances are in
performance that attempts at tuning according to the composer's wishes
will vary wildly, which is what I gather from the experiences of Johnny
Reinhardt. This happens all the time in performance with dynamics and
tempo to name but two other parameters.

So whether I write in JI or an ET or any other form of microtuning, if I
specify a resolution of 0.1 cents in my strings I expect that everything
be done to achieve this, whether the conductor, performer or audience
hears it or not.

Kind Regards

Alison,

Boy, will I be interested to hear/see the reactions to this, because it is essentially what I've been saying for (what seems like) years. If you honor and respect the composer and the composition, then there is no need to question the 'materials' choices, and no need to seek approximations.

Attention to detail, indeed. A very fine way to put it!

Cheers,
Jon

Alison,

Some people, like me for instance, tend to love this kind of an
answer, while others tend to hate them... and not surprisingly, these
people usually tend to endlessly disagree with each other on strange
niche forums in the middle of nowhere while days turn into nights and
nights turn into days and days turn into nights and nights turn into
days!

For anyone who might've missed it, be sure to check out Alison's home
page... extremely inspiring, industrious WORK.

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alison Monteith" <alison.monteith3@which.net>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 1:25 PM
Subject: [tuning] Attention to detail

> I thought I'd change the thread title to get away from me banging on
> about JI for a bit. I think I'm correct in saying that Francois
recently
> presented some complex scientific data in support of the idea that
you
> can't really tune strings in particular to a certain resolution.
>
> So why do I and others bother with this search for as fine a
resolution
> as possible if nobody (apparently) can hear the results? I believe
that
> the reason is a desire for compositional attention to detail. If Lou
> Harrison or Ben Johnson want a 5/4 then who is to tell them that
they
> can tolerate an error of plus or minus so many cents and still get
off
> with it? I think they'd probably respond quite forcefully, probably
in
> words of one syllable.
>
> Let's consider serial composition. I don't know of many serial works
in
> which I can follow the row and its permutations. I normally go to
> learned articles to get the details. You don't really hear what is
in
> fact the very basis of the composition as it unfolds in these cases.
To
> a lesser extent the same applies with medieval crab canons and
fugues
> for the untrained ear.
>
> Would it make any difference to the listener in one of the more
complex
> serial works if one of the 12 tones in the row was dropped, or if
the
> retrograde was slightly modified? Or in a total serialist work if
the
> articulation row was randomised by computer as opposed to being
rigidly
> adhered to? I doubt it. But it would make a huge difference to the
> composer who chose the elements to be just so.
>
> So why did (do) the serialists bother? For the same reason that a
> microtonal composer might bother to tune as accurately as she or he
can
> manage. It's part of the package in an idiom where the choice of
pitches
> actually becomes a pre-compositional choice.
>
> If the listener can't hear the resolution to 0.1 cents because it's
> inaudible or impossible to realise, that doesn't matter. Chances are
in
> performance that attempts at tuning according to the composer's
wishes
> will vary wildly, which is what I gather from the experiences of
Johnny
> Reinhardt. This happens all the time in performance with dynamics
and
> tempo to name but two other parameters.
>
> So whether I write in JI or an ET or any other form of microtuning,
if I
> specify a resolution of 0.1 cents in my strings I expect that
everything
> be done to achieve this, whether the conductor, performer or
audience
> hears it or not.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Will You Find True Love?
> Will You Meet the One?
> Free Love Reading by phone!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Deo18C/zDLEAA/Ey.GAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe
through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning
group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on
hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily
digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

If you can use a purely mechanical system to get a string to hold its
tune within 0.1 cents for more than a rather short time, my hat is
off to you. I read about Partch in the 60s playing a composition of
his in 53-EDO. He built a glass xylophone to do it because no other
acoustic instrument would hold to the kind of tolerances that
temperament requires in order to honestly remain what it claims to
be.

I have nothing against accuracy, however, and have an almost evil
reputation in our community here as a JI pitch accuracy freak. One
solution for strings would be an electronically controlled dynamic
tuning system for the string tension that tracked frequencies to the
tolerance specified.

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> I thought I'd change the thread title to get away from me banging on
> about JI for a bit. I think I'm correct in saying that Francois
recently
> presented some complex scientific data in support of the idea that
you
> can't really tune strings in particular to a certain resolution.
>
> So why do I and others bother with this search for as fine a
resolution
> as possible if nobody (apparently) can hear the results? I believe
that
> the reason is a desire for compositional attention to detail. If Lou
> Harrison or Ben Johnson want a 5/4 then who is to tell them that
they
> can tolerate an error of plus or minus so many cents and still get
off
> with it? I think they'd probably respond quite forcefully, probably
in
> words of one syllable.
>
> Let's consider serial composition. I don't know of many serial
works in
> which I can follow the row and its permutations. I normally go to
> learned articles to get the details. You don't really hear what is
in
> fact the very basis of the composition as it unfolds in these
cases. To
> a lesser extent the same applies with medieval crab canons and
fugues
> for the untrained ear.
>
> Would it make any difference to the listener in one of the more
complex
> serial works if one of the 12 tones in the row was dropped, or if
the
> retrograde was slightly modified? Or in a total serialist work if
the
> articulation row was randomised by computer as opposed to being
rigidly
> adhered to? I doubt it. But it would make a huge difference to the
> composer who chose the elements to be just so.
>
> So why did (do) the serialists bother? For the same reason that a
> microtonal composer might bother to tune as accurately as she or he
can
> manage. It's part of the package in an idiom where the choice of
pitches
> actually becomes a pre-compositional choice.
>
> If the listener can't hear the resolution to 0.1 cents because it's
> inaudible or impossible to realise, that doesn't matter. Chances
are in
> performance that attempts at tuning according to the composer's
wishes
> will vary wildly, which is what I gather from the experiences of
Johnny
> Reinhardt. This happens all the time in performance with dynamics
and
> tempo to name but two other parameters.
>
> So whether I write in JI or an ET or any other form of microtuning,
if I
> specify a resolution of 0.1 cents in my strings I expect that
everything
> be done to achieve this, whether the conductor, performer or
audience
> hears it or not.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> If you can use a purely mechanical system to get a string to hold
its
> tune within 0.1 cents for more than a rather short time, my hat is
> off to you. I read about Partch in the 60s playing a composition of
> his in 53-EDO. He built a glass xylophone to do it because no other
> acoustic instrument would hold to the kind of tolerances that
> temperament requires in order to honestly remain what it claims to
> be.

are you sure about the temperament bit? jon or johnny, can you
confirm this?

In a message dated 6/16/02 5:33:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
paul@stretch-music.com writes:

> are you sure about the temperament bit? jon or johnny, can you
> confirm this?
>

Never heard of it. Johnny

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> are you sure about the temperament bit? jon or johnny, can you
> confirm this?

Like Johnny, I have *never* heard or seen reference to this. If I can find even a sliver of reason to put stock in it, I'll ask Danlee, who was working with him at the time, if there is anything to the story, and I can also run it by Bob Gilmore, who I believe knows more about Partch than anyone else currently breathing.

Might be just an old hobo story... :)

Cheers,
Jon

All I know about this is that when I was an undergraduate music
student around '63-'64 I ran into a book in the university library
that had a whole thing about Harry Partch and a 53t-ET glass
xylophone he built and performed his own compositions on.

Respectfully,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > are you sure about the temperament bit? jon or johnny, can you
> > confirm this?
>
> Like Johnny, I have *never* heard or seen reference to this. If I
can find even a sliver of reason to put stock in it, I'll ask Danlee,
who was working with him at the time, if there is anything to the
story, and I can also run it by Bob Gilmore, who I believe knows more
about Partch than anyone else currently breathing.
>
> Might be just an old hobo story... :)
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Dear Bob,

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> All I know about this is that when I was an undergraduate music
> student around '63-'64 I ran into a book in the university library
> that had a whole thing about Harry Partch and a 53t-ET glass
> xylophone he built and performed his own compositions on.

Well, my theory is simple, and I draw upon not only years of being involved with Partch, but the subsequent years working with and collecting materials, from his archives and the public at large.

Around the time you are talking, HP was starting to be a buzz in the world at large, and culminated in the lates 60's, no small part due to the hippie and experimental ethos of the time. One thing notices, if you read the many reviews, interviews, and writings of the time - if they *aren't* well-researched - is that they grab onto images and words that make for "good copy".

Partch was continually hounded with the spectre of "43 tones to the octave", as if that was all he was about. But "43" became a common thread. Along with this, the visual nature of the collection of instruments he was gradually adding to were compelling as well, and none more so than the Cloud-Chamber Bowls, a collection of glass 'bells' cut from... etc. We've all heard the story.

And, being a percussionist, I've gotten used to virtually everything that I play on that happens to have a low-to-high arrangement of objects in a scale of some sort referred to as a "xylophone". All the time.

So, I'm surmising that some less-than-anal-retentive author did a loose description of "a crazy California Beat composer, banging away on a glass xylophone in fifty-three flower-power tones to the octave, man!" Or something along that nature.

Bob, it seems you have a vivid remembrance of this (notice how I didn't question what condition many of us were in during undergrad studies? :) ), but there are so many reasons that this is some form of either fiction or fuzziness that it really would need to be substantiated.

I'll offer one caveat: there was an Industrial Design class that took on a project at the University of Illinois in 1959, whereby they all designed 'odd' instruments, under (sort of) Partch's watchful eye. A description I have, from the photo show we've put together -

http://www.corporeal.com/art_inst/bumshow/

- is of a photo of some of the student inventors. It goes something like this:

"One of the oddest photo groupings in the collection, this unlikely group are members of the Industrial Design curriculum at the school while Partch was still on campus. The object of their project was straight-forward: to create musical instruments from materials at hand in an imaginative, resourceful way. The instructor felt that too many of the students were unduly influenced by a visit to Partch's studio over the Co-Ed Theater, and imitated rather than innovated. Nonetheless, the most promising instruments were left in Partch's keeping for his use, and it is through this project that Partch gained two very unique instruments, the mono-stringed glissando instrument Cry-Chord, and the bubbling percolations of the Mazda Marimba, the sound-producing elements of which were constructed entirely of gutted light bulbs."

It is tantalizing to wonder what future Partch concerts would have been like had he hung onto the most striking instrument developed: the Flame Organ. This spectacular contraption was a group of metal tubes heated from beneath by burning gas jets; when a screen was removed, the result was a weird, moaning sound like a lost soul on the moors. Duet on the Flame Organ and Blo-Boy, anyone?"

More than enough for one night, yes?

Cheers,
Jon

Well, in '63-'64 as a college sophomore or junior in Tennessee I had
never even so much as smoked a joint. This early in the sixties, the
Beatles were just hitting it big in the U.S. and hadn't gotten into
their acid rock stage yet and Sargeant Pepper was not yet released.

The article had a picture of Partch playing what appeared to be a
well-constructed glass marimba- or xylophone-like instrument. I don't
have a clear memory of what the man in the photo looked like, since
at that time I had not previously heard of Partch and didn't run into
his image again until literally decades later. All I know is the
picture was there, purported to be that of Harry Partch, and the
article was not condescending, "hip", or flip. It was a serious
treatment of the subject.

Not trying to prove anything. Just presenting what I remember to the
best of my ability. Why would Partch not have been interested in 53t-
ET? It approximates 5-limit JI extremely well. Was he known to have
had some kind of religious conviction against ET approximations?

Cheers,

Bob

Bob,

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> Well, in '63-'64 as a college sophomore or junior in Tennessee I
> had never even so much as smoked a joint.

And, for the record, I didn't mean by my tone to imply any nefarious behavior on your part - even if you had been on the leading edge of indulgeance! :)

> The article had a picture of Partch playing what appeared to be a
> well-constructed glass marimba- or xylophone-like instrument. I
> don't have a clear memory of what the man in the photo looked like,
> since at that time I had not previously heard of Partch and didn't
> run into his image again until literally decades later.

I'm certainly going to run this by one other noted Partch scholar, Dr. Philip Blackburn, since he deals a lot with the historical publications (I myself just got an issue of "Pageant" magazine from 1959 that has a pretty hilarious send-up of Partch.

> All I know is the picture was there, purported to be that of
> Harry Partch

Well, maybe they were wrong? Or mis-labeled?

> and the article was not condescending, "hip", or flip. It was a
> serious treatment of the subject.

I'd be happy to show you an article or two of very serious intent that also contained very serious errors. It happens!

> Not trying to prove anything. Just presenting what I remember to
> the best of my ability.

Sure, very well understood. And not meaning to demean your powers of memory, either!

> Why would Partch not have been interested in 53t-
> ET? It approximates 5-limit JI extremely well. Was he known to have
> had some kind of religious conviction against ET approximations?

Well, "religious" is a bit flamey, but his ideas of just intonation and various temperments are all pretty well covered in his book. And while most people around here don't either like it or believe it, his interest in ji made sense to him on a deeper level than merely what would reproduce certain pitches - he also like ji for what he believed was it's elegance and intrinsic 'rightness' (for lack of a better term). None of *us* have to feel that way about it, but that was pretty much his feeling.

The other important point that I think a lot of people forget (or miss) is that Partch The Theoretician was pretty much done with thinking about these matters by the end of the 40's, and was well into putting the stuff into practice. By the time the early 60's came around, he had already built a sizeable portion of his 'orchestra' and would not likely stop at that point to re-orient to a new tuning system; there was already too much invested in where he was.

Again, maybe not the choice you or I would make, but that is what apparantly made sense to Partch.

Cheers,
Jon

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

/tuning/topicId_37755.html#37878

>
> Well, "religious" is a bit flamey, but his ideas of just intonation
and various temperments are all pretty well covered in his book. And
while most people around here don't either like it or believe it, his
interest in ji made sense to him on a deeper level than merely what
would reproduce certain pitches - he also like ji for what he
believed was it's elegance and intrinsic 'rightness' (for lack of a
better term). None of *us* have to feel that way about it, but that
was pretty much his feeling.
>
> The other important point that I think a lot of people forget (or
miss) is that Partch The Theoretician was pretty much done with
thinking about these matters by the end of the 40's, and was well
into putting the stuff into practice. By the time the early 60's came
around, he had already built a sizeable portion of his 'orchestra'
and would not likely stop at that point to re-orient to a new tuning
system; there was already too much invested in where he was.
>
> Again, maybe not the choice you or I would make, but that is what
apparantly made sense to Partch.
>

****One thing that might be said... in fact, I'm going to say it...
is that, if I'm not mistaken Jon, was almost *exclusively* concerned
with *fixed pitch* instruments.

Given *that* fact, why not go *all the way* to ratio-inspired
justness...

That's a different "cloud chamber kettle" than somebody trying to
train reluctant 12-tET musicians to play microtonality on traditional
instruments...

Yes/no??

Joe

Bob's replies interspersed below:

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> > Well, in '63-'64 as a college sophomore or junior in Tennessee I
> > had never even so much as smoked a joint.
>
Jon ealier:
> And, for the record, I didn't mean by my tone to imply any
nefarious behavior on your part - even if you had been on the leading
edge of indulgeance! :)

Bob now:
Didn't take it that way, but I was of a clear head and mind when I
saw the article. That's the only point.
>
> > The article had a picture of Partch playing what appeared to be a
> > well-constructed glass marimba- or xylophone-like instrument. I
> > don't have a clear memory of what the man in the photo looked
like,
> > since at that time I had not previously heard of Partch and
didn't
> > run into his image again until literally decades later.
>
> I'm certainly going to run this by one other noted Partch scholar,
Dr. Philip Blackburn, since he deals a lot with the historical
publications (I myself just got an issue of "Pageant" magazine from
1959 that has a pretty hilarious send-up of Partch.

Bob:
Great! I'm curious now.
>
> > All I know is the picture was there, purported to be that of
> > Harry Partch
>
> Well, maybe they were wrong? Or mis-labeled?
>
> > and the article was not condescending, "hip", or flip. It was a
> > serious treatment of the subject.
>
> I'd be happy to show you an article or two of very serious intent
that also contained very serious errors. It happens!

Bob:
Wasn't intending to imply otherwise.
>
> > Not trying to prove anything. Just presenting what I remember to
> > the best of my ability.
>
> Sure, very well understood. And not meaning to demean your powers
of memory, either!
>Bob earlier:
> > Why would Partch not have been interested in 53t-
> > ET? It approximates 5-limit JI extremely well. Was he known to
have
> > had some kind of religious conviction against ET approximations?

> Jon replied:
> Well, "religious" is a bit flamey, but his ideas of just intonation
and various temperments are all pretty well covered in his book. And
while most people around here don't either like it or believe it, his
interest in ji made sense to him on a deeper level than merely what
would reproduce certain pitches - he also like ji for what he
believed was it's elegance and intrinsic 'rightness' (for lack of a
better term). None of *us* have to feel that way about it, but that
was pretty much his feeling.

Bob now:
I, like Partch and as opposed to Paul Erlich and others, tend to have
something of what these latter might feel is an absolutist attitude
or philosophy. I believe there is something deep and intrinsically
powerful and even healing about pure JI intervals. I don't think it's
simply a matter of taste and relativistic esthetics.

I think something more is going on. Something fundamentally sound (if
you'll pardon the inadvertent punning) about the coherence and
simple, clean relationships that has a celestially pleasing esthetic
effect, especially on those sensitive to it, and likely an even
deeper, more objective effect on the psychophysiology that is
conducive to health and wholeness of being.

On the other hand, I think that getting overly picky about a cent or
two is unwarranted except in a purely exploratory, theoretical
context or where small errors accumulate to cause greater problems
elsewhere and damage overall integrity. However, I believe there is
a "bandwidth", if you will, to justness and that it lies, by the most
conservative estimate, somehere around the sub-2- or 3-cent ballpark
on either side of just. On this basis, in another post today I
explain my motives, with a detailed illustrative sample, for choosing
a quasi-JI tempered scale.
>
Jon earlier:
> The other important point that I think a lot of people forget (or
miss) is that Partch The Theoretician was pretty much done with
thinking about these matters by the end of the 40's, and was well
into putting the stuff into practice. By the time the early 60's came
around, he had already built a sizeable portion of his 'orchestra'
and would not likely stop at that point to re-orient to a new tuning
system; there was already too much invested in where he was.

Bob now:
It might be good to remind ourselves that the date on which I saw
this article has little to do with when it was published. I frankly
have no idea concerning the date of the article. I only know roughly,
+- a year, when I saw it.

Cheers!

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:

> I, like Partch and as opposed to Paul Erlich and others, tend to have
> something of what these latter might feel is an absolutist attitude
> or philosophy. I believe there is something deep and intrinsically
> powerful and even healing about pure JI intervals.

The question here is--does this mean JI intervals as sounds, or *thinking* of the sounds you hear as being JI intervals? If the former, there *must* be an acceptable error margin, (what you call a bandwidth) and if there is such a margin, there *will be* microtemperaments which accomodate it. This is simply a fact, it does not mean such temperaments must be used, but it does mean if you are talking about sound and not something else, they can't be dismissed _a priori_, including for producing deep and powerful and healing music.

I mentioned the 1547 et a while back, as covering the 4375/4374~1 planar temperament. I'm pretty sure its tuning, which is within 1/15 of a cent, is good enough for deep, intrinisically powerful and healing sounds.

Hi Joe,

I would want to respond to what you wrote, but I can't quite figure out what you meant to say (or type!):

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ****One thing that might be said... in fact, I'm going to say it...
> is that, if I'm not mistaken Jon, was almost *exclusively*
> concerned with *fixed pitch* instruments.

*Who* was "concerned with...". I'm not sure if you are referring to Partch or Bob Wendell at this point (certainly it isn't me that you were actually talking about).

Let me know and I'll weigh in on it, esp. if what you are meaning is Partch...

> Yes/no??

Maybe? :)

Cheers,
Jon

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

/tuning/topicId_37755.html#37888

> Hi Joe,
>
> I would want to respond to what you wrote, but I can't quite figure
out what you meant to say (or type!):
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > ****One thing that might be said... in fact, I'm going to say
it...
> > is that, if I'm not mistaken Jon, was almost *exclusively*
> > concerned with *fixed pitch* instruments.
>
> *Who* was "concerned with...". I'm not sure if you are referring to
Partch or Bob Wendell at this point (certainly it isn't me that you
were actually talking about).
>
> Let me know and I'll weigh in on it, esp. if what you are meaning
is Partch...
>
> > Yes/no??
>
> Maybe? :)
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Sorry, Jon. That was a typo. I had *Partch* so much on my brain
that I couldn't say his name. Aren't there some sects/religions
where one is not supposed to utter the name of the principal deity??

:)

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***Sorry, Jon. That was a typo. I had *Partch* so much on my brain
> that I couldn't say his name.

That's kind of what I thought. In that case, Joe, you are pretty far off the mark! :) (Gee, don't you wish you had referenced someone else?) But in any case, you need to remember what he started with: a viola and the human voice; need I mention they aren't "fixed pitch"?

Even when he adapted guitars, they eventually became slide guitars. And while a good many of the instruments are fixed pitch (all the percussion and marimbas), even the strings are less so. Beyond creating custom bridge settings for the canons for different works, some of the Harmonic Canons have glass rod slides under the hexads so you can not only play glides, you can set (or mis-set!) the pitch accurately.

And even when he wrote for traditional woodwind, string or brass, he used a color notation, along with occasional ratios, and asked that players tune to the rest of the ensemble with either embouchure changes and/or alternate fingerings.

Some fixed pitch instruments, but not all, and not by a fairly long shot.

> Aren't there some sects/religions where one is not supposed to
> utter the name of the principal deity??

Hey, what about "the Scottish play"? :)

Cheers,
Jon

Erroneous thinking/typing in one section:

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Beyond creating custom bridge settings for the canons for different works, some of the Harmonic Canons have glass rod slides under the hexads so you can not only play glides, you can set (or mis-set!) the pitch accurately.

What I *meant* to write was that some of the Canons have the glass slides under certain courses of strings, that allow harmonies to change in small, non-discrete steps (I can post an mp3 of one of my favorite examples of this somewhere), and that on the *Kitharas* there are at least 4 of the hexads that have glass rod slides, in addition to the Surrogate Kithara.

There, I feel all better and so anal retentive! :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
>
> > I, like Partch and as opposed to Paul Erlich and others, tend to
have
> > something of what these latter might feel is an absolutist
attitude
> > or philosophy. I believe there is something deep and
intrinsically
> > powerful and even healing about pure JI intervals.
>
> The question here is--does this mean JI intervals as sounds, or
*thinking* of the sounds you hear as being JI intervals? If the
former, there *must* be an acceptable error margin, (what you call a
bandwidth) and if there is such a margin, there *will be*
microtemperaments which accomodate it. This is simply a fact, it does
not mean such temperaments must be used, but it does mean if you are
talking about sound and not something else, they can't be dismissed
_a priori_, including for producing deep and powerful and healing
music.
>
> I mentioned the 1547 et a while back, as covering the 4375/4374~1
planar temperament. I'm pretty sure its tuning, which is within 1/15
of a cent, is good enough for deep, intrinisically powerful and
healing sounds.

Bob:
We're in the same camp, Gene. Preaching to the choir?...or choir
director in this case. If you've been following my posts, you must
know that. When I talk about JI, I mean within some tolerance that is
below what even well-trained ears can detect. What that tolerance is
seems to be much in debate here, but anyone who claims that there can
be no such tolerance at all is not mentally tied into the real world,
in my sometimes humble opinion.

I personally posit that with extremely rare exceptions if any, for
well-trained musicians (intonationally) this tolerance is somewhere
in the sub-2 to sub-3 cent range. I heard a professional orchestral
musician/professor give a lecture once on intonation in which he
declared professional musicians generally cannot detect errors of
less than 10 cents in a performance context(as opposed to a tuning
one). I thought that was way high then and still do, but that should
provide some sense of the range of opinions on this issue even
among "qualified" professionals.