Re: [tuning] Re: resolution of 72-tET/JI

In a message dated 6/18/02 4:45:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
paul@stretch-music.com writes:

> erv wilson

Isn't Irv Just?

> james tenney

You mean his exclusive guitar ensemble work in 72?

> wendy carlos

Please tell me how? It has never come up to my knowledge.

> herman, gene, etc.

Is this correct?

>
> > There are none.
>
> right . . .

Just is a locking in. It is a holistic gestalt of the whole greater than the
sum of its parts. It is the major chord in its complete state of tonic.
Different limits give different dimensions to this chord. The issues of JI
are both quantitative and qualitative.

The quantitative are regularly discussed on the list. Sometimes one
philosophizes about JI as well....the resonance of straight rational numbers.
The numbers are minimally complex. They are not that hard I couldn't have
learned as much as I did. Most of the numbers come easy to me because I hear
the interval first and then I use the numbers for verbal or written
description. The more variations of third one gets, and sometimes the
differences between one temperament and another, or even between like
intervals in the same well temperament, are only cents apart. That's the big
difference between 700 cents and 702 cents. Who says they can't hear this
difference?

But it is the qualitative that seems missing from discussion. All the JI
people likely could do it justice, but prefer not to. Perhaps because I do
use JI along with a treasure trove of other tunings in my compositions I an
at least shine light on the issue. The quality of Just Intonation includes a
belief in the quality of the hierarchical relationships, which temperament
weakens. The JI locking is like musical truth and bares poorly temperament
under conditions of loudness, sustain, and resonance. The brilliant
networking of summation tones and difference tones, which can network further
in the music of La Monte Young, can't happen with REAL just intonation.

Bob spoke of a 13 limit mode and of wanting an easy way to capture its just
essence with a temperament because he doesn't think a few cents matter.
Besides the fact that the Blues is great for slide and vagary of pitch, use
of neutrals, use of foggy vocal tone quality, mutes, etc., why not just work
out the perfect mode and sing/direct it? Wasting time on a subject on this
list will be nothing compared to wasting time on 72 dieses most of which you
will never use.

Unless one uses 72 for its particular virtues. It approximates Just well
enough that one can use traditional harmonies with a good sense of
inevitability. It's not as strong as in real JI but there is
believability...as there is for most people with 12 equal. For true
composition, I implore people on this list, please, don't compromise. If you
really want to use Just for its qualitative properties...timelessness,
ringing, partials and harmonics, basis of brass sound, basis the timbre of
the human voice, of strings. The true home: Om.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/18/02 4:45:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> paul@s... writes:
>
>
> > erv wilson
>
> Isn't Irv Just?

erv has used both temperaments and just intonation. consider, for
example, the 41-tone equal temperament guitar he used -- i'm almost
certain that 11-limit harmony was the desideratum.

> > james tenney
>
> You mean his exclusive guitar ensemble work in 72?

and the piece for six harps, which is discussed in the pnm article.

> > wendy carlos
>
> Please tell me how? It has never come up to my knowledge.

have you read many of her articles? the criterion she used to come up
with the alpha, beta, and gamma scales, was minimizing the deviation
from 11:8, 7:4, and the 'classic' 5-limit close-position triad.

> > herman, gene, etc.
>
> Is this correct?

are you asking me? i've been close paying attention to their posts
and music -- can you say the same?

> The brilliant
> networking of summation tones and difference tones, which can
network further
> in the music of La Monte Young, can't happen with REAL just
intonation.

it can't? so when can it happen? i'm missing something . . .

>
> Bob spoke of a 13 limit mode and of wanting an easy way to capture
its just
> essence with a temperament because he doesn't think a few cents
matter.
> Besides the fact that the Blues is great for slide and vagary of
pitch, use
> of neutrals, use of foggy vocal tone quality, mutes, etc., why not
just work
> out the perfect mode and sing/direct it? Wasting time on a subject
on this
> list will be nothing compared to wasting time on 72 dieses most of
which you
> will never use.

i'll let bob answer this, but this seems like another one of
those "who needs all those notes" responses. of course you don't. but
you have easy reference to the ingrained 12 of the piano, regardless
of how many elaborate pivot-tone modulations you employ and how far
off you go in the infinite lattice of consonant relationships. these
seem to be the important considerations for bob.

> Unless one uses 72 for its particular virtues. It approximates
Just well
> enough that one can use traditional harmonies with a good sense of
> inevitability.

i'd say "non-traditional", but whatever.

> It's not as strong as in real JI but there is
> believability...as there is for most people with 12 equal. For
true
> composition, I implore people on this list, please, don't
compromise. If you
> really want to use Just for its qualitative
properties...timelessness,
> ringing, partials and harmonics, basis of brass sound, basis the
timbre of
> the human voice, of strings. The true home: Om.

bob would agree with all this, i'm sure, and as a musician and
composer he should be trusted to judge what means are most
appropriate for acheiving it in his own music. i'm sure there will be
cases where his singers will be singing a long chord and they will
naturally acheive a very, very just tuning, or he will direct them to
do so. will this contradict his use of some temperament for notation?
not in the slightest -- remember, bob is an advocate of *adaptive*
ji. the notation guides the melodic pitch sense, while the singers'
sensitivity to difference (and other nonlinear combinational) tones
align the precise tuning to *vertical* just intonation at each point
in time. isn't this a fair assessment of your intent, bob?

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

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#37885

>
> Unless one uses 72 for its particular virtues. It approximates
Just well
> enough that one can use traditional harmonies with a good sense of
> inevitability. It's not as strong as in real JI but there is
> believability...as there is for most people with 12 equal. For
true
> composition, I implore people on this list, please, don't
compromise. If you
> really want to use Just for its qualitative
properties...timelessness,
> ringing, partials and harmonics, basis of brass sound, basis the
timbre of
> the human voice, of strings. The true home: Om.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

***Hi Johnny!

I appreciate your continuing this discussion since it "weighs in"
importantly in the 72-tET assessment.

Certainly I'm "hearing" what you're saying (the *words* anyway! :)

I guess, then, if people want to say that I'm writing in 72 rather
than Just, that's fine with me.

*I* seem to think I'm writing in Just, but if other people don't
think so, and think I'm writing in 72, that's just fine...

In *my* style, the compositions would come out the same in either
case, so it doesn't so much matter.... :)

JP

Hello Paul!
Erv being originally a Post Yasserian developed many of his ET ideas out of his background. It
was this work that led to his friendship with Partch. His interest in 41 was caused by how close
Partch was in using a 41 tone systems with two variables. By the early eighties i would say he
seem to lose interest in ET and his most recent comment was that there is an infinite amount of
generators with some of them being ET. The one unifying thing in all his work is Pascal's
triangle and the scale tree/

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/18/02 4:45:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > paul@s... writes:
> >
> >
> > > erv wilson
> >
> > Isn't Irv Just?
>
> erv has used both temperaments and just intonation. consider, for
> example, the 41-tone equal temperament guitar he used -- i'm almost
> certain that 11-limit harmony was the desideratum.
>
>

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

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

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

For true composition, I implore people on this list, please, don't
compromise. If you really want to use Just for its qualitative
properties...timelessness, ringing, partials and harmonics, basis of
brass sound, basis the timbre of the human voice, of strings. The true
home: Om.

Go Johnny Go!

> Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> For true composition, I implore people on this list, please, don't
> compromise. If you really want to use Just for its qualitative
> properties...timelessness, ringing, partials and harmonics, basis of
> brass sound, basis the timbre of the human voice, of strings. The
true
> home: Om.

This sort of numero-religious fundamentalism is of no help to anyone.

Johnny, Did you or did you not say that you can't detect a 0.5 c
mistuning in a fifth under some cirmumstance or other?

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

> For true composition, I implore people on this list, please, don't
> compromise. If you really want to use Just for its qualitative
> properties...timelessness, ringing, partials and harmonics, basis of
> brass sound, basis the timbre of the human voice, of strings. The true
> home: Om.

How does one define "compromise"? What do you mean by "Just"?

In a message dated 6/19/02 5:29:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

> How does one define "compromise"? What do you mean by "Just"?
>
>
>

Actually, Alison was quoting me, Gene. Compromise is 12 ET. Just is without
compromise. Choosing to dumb down a composition because of worries about
whether another musician could properly follow the necessary music
instructions is compromise. Composing fully to one's vision, even before the
ability to play the piece is in evidence is non-compromising. It is also the
only way to achieve greatness. Sometimes it is necessary to take a risk for
the music. In this sense just is honest and justice is paying attention to
the details.

best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 6/19/02 4:09:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
d.keenan@uq.net.au writes:

> This sort of numero-religious fundamentalism is of no help to anyone.
>
Dave, more accurately is what I said hasn't helped you. Maybe my posts to
Gene will help. To me it is like trying to describe the difference in taste
and feeling between vanilla and chocolate ice cream. You keep telling us the
difference in the ingredients and how similar they are, and I keep saying
they taste differently.

There was no numero-religous fundamentalism at all in my post. I don't
practice in a cult.

> Johnny, Did you or did you not say that you can't detect a 0.5 c
> mistuning in a fifth under some cirmumstance or other?

I said I can produce intervals less than 1 cent on a recorder and by my
voice. I have not tried to test what I hear but suspect the greater the
signals the greater the reception.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > The true home: Om.
>
> This sort of numero-religious fundamentalism is of no help to
> anyone.

Well, looks like both of you have expressed your opinions. Johnny's will be pleasing to someone like Pat Pagano, Dave's with someone like Julia Werntz. The world continues to spin. Nothing changes.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> I said I can produce intervals less than 1 cent on a recorder and
by my
> voice. I have not tried to test what I hear but suspect the
greater the
> signals the greater the reception.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

Bob W.:
The only way to know we can do that is to measure it some way or have
such a solid ear that we can unerringly detect such an error
subjectively. Ultimately, to be sure the latter is actually working
the way we think it is, we must measure the ability to hear.

Can we assume that the statement about producing intervals this
accurately implies that these results have been objectively measured?
If so, since the subtlest change in embouchure, irrespective of tape,
alternate fingerings, etc., can easily change the pitch by multiples
of a cent, then that means you must have the ear and that it has been
tested, at least indirectly. Otherwise, such statements become
meaningless.

On violin or other strings, or in singing, the only way to perform to
such accurate "specifications" as you describe is to have an ear
capable of providing feedback at that level of precision. I don't
know of anyone who performs sitting in front of frequency-measuring
equipment monitoring accuracy of intonation, and Francois indicates
that equipment with that level of accuracy does not exist.

Others posit that the "classical uncertaintly priniciple" eliminates
it out of hand as a possibility even for the ear. If this latter is
true, then all of these statements are completely without any
potential foundation ever. (However, I personally feel that
the "classical uncertainty principle" as often applied here is full
of philosophical and practical holes.)

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

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#37920

> In a message dated 6/19/02 5:29:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> genewardsmith@j... writes:
>
>
> > How does one define "compromise"? What do you mean by "Just"?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Actually, Alison was quoting me, Gene. Compromise is 12 ET. Just
is without
> compromise. Choosing to dumb down a composition because of worries
about
> whether another musician could properly follow the necessary music
> instructions is compromise. Composing fully to one's vision, even
before the
> ability to play the piece is in evidence is non-compromising. It
is also the
> only way to achieve greatness. Sometimes it is necessary to take a
risk for
> the music. In this sense just is honest and justice is paying
attention to
> the details.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

***Personally, I have to disagree with this.

I feel there needs to be a *practical* implementation of
microtonality if it is to ever get into the *mainstream*
and "compromising" by a practically inaudible 2 or 3 cents
discrepancy for that purpose is judicious.

Otherwise, microtonality will always be *sequestered* on specialized
concert series!

Greatness?? 12-equal, the "comprimise" has already shown its
greatness time and again. Maybe 72-tET will too someday!

Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***Personally, I have to disagree with this.

And now, from the other side of the aisle (continent?):

> I feel there needs to be a *practical* implementation of
> microtonality if it is to ever get into the *mainstream*

Some people - nay, *many* people - couldn't give a rat's butt about being "mainstream". This does not devalue anyone else's interest in attaining mainstream status, but note that it is not a grail that all seek.

> and "compromising" by a practically inaudible 2 or 3 cents
> discrepancy for that purpose is judicious.

For any number of musics, absolutely. But for some musics, *no* compromise is best, even if is is on some theoretical, inaudible, or belief-oriented level.

> Otherwise, microtonality will always be *sequestered* on
> specialized concert series!

I don't necessarily see this as a negative.

> Greatness?? 12-equal, the "comprimise" has already shown its
> greatness time and again. Maybe 72-tET will too someday!

Well, it isn't the tuning that makes something great, it's the composer, right? And the greatness of a music is separate from its popularity and/or pervasiveness. The Next Big Thing is only that, and depth and meaning seem to (to me) reside elsewhere.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > > Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > > The true home: Om.
> >
> > This sort of numero-religious fundamentalism is of no help to
> > anyone.
>
> Well, looks like both of you have expressed your opinions. Johnny's
> will be pleasing to someone like Pat Pagano, Dave's with someone
>like Julia Werntz.

really? i've seen nothing from julia that would suggest as much . . .
perhaps the PNM article? it hasn't arrived yet . . . did you get my
CD?

Paul!

(Again, exclamation point on loan from Kraig Grady...)

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > > This sort of numero-religious fundamentalism is of no help to
> > > anyone.
> >
> > ... Dave's with someone like Julia Werntz.
>
> really? i've seen nothing from julia that would suggest as much ...

How's that for nested quotes? Anyway, in advance of the USPS, here are two bits from the PNM article, under the section "Artistic Premise":

"Finally, I also find just intonation problematical on a more personal, artistic level simply because its origin lies in extra-musical idealogies rather than in musical experience. [...] "...by rejecting the predominant equal-tempered system - and the music written in it - it challenges the need for a sort of cultural rebellion."

She then has a quote from Lou Harrison centered around Europeans and religion.

So, I don't know if she'd agree lock, stock, and smoking tuna with Dave's statement, but there is a resonance in her article that seems similar. And I could be wrong, but her writing seems the opposite of "someone like Pat Pagano". Notice I said "like" for both of them, because they are emblems at this point, and these are only my opinions, _not_ theirs.

> perhaps the PNM article? it hasn't arrived yet . . .

Oh, the guilt, The Guilt!!! Hey, the damn article is here, copied and ready to send - I've just been agonizing about which media player app to put on the CD so you could watch the mpg performance I'm sending you! Hell, I've just decided to put both Windows Media Player AND Quicktime on there and you can decide. Foolish: I'm dawdling over the 'extra' I'm sending you and have delayed the original intention! I'll have it mailed tomorrow morn, first thing, with apologies, and another tchotchke (sp?).

> did you get my CD?

Yeppers! Hey, everyone, shouting out to you that Paul and his band sound really good! Paul, this is really an improvement over the last go-arounds with these tunes, which were from live gigs (IIRC). I almost hate to ask, as it calls into question my ears, but were you using any of your refretted guitars? If not, you are doing some nice real-time adaptive tuning with your fingers!

Enjoyable, and I hope you guys can put together 4 or 5 more tunes and put out a CD. I've recently been pointed to a CD production company that looks VERY promising for small groups/organizations (like yourself, and even the AFMM) that includes not only production but distribution as well. I'll post info to MMM...

Sheepishly,
Jon

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

> How's that for nested quotes? Anyway, in advance of the USPS, here
>are two bits from the PNM article, under the section "Artistic
>Premise":
>
> "Finally, I also find just intonation problematical on a more
>personal, artistic level simply because its origin lies in extra-
>musical idealogies rather than in musical experience. [...]

ouch. well you already know how i feel about that, and i don't think
dave would feel much better about it. considering the amount of time
dave and i have put into *both* just intonation *and* related tuning
systems, and our profound lack of interest in extra-musical
idealogies (aside from the fun of making up stories), this would seem
to be a point on which dave and julia are diametrically opposed. but
i wouldn't want to speak for them -- the two of them would of course
have to discuss it themselves -- i could always be missing something.

>"...by >rejecting the predominant equal-tempered system - and the
music >written in it - it challenges the need for a sort of cultural
>rebellion."

hmm . . . i'll have to see it in context . . .

> She then has a quote from Lou Harrison centered around Europeans
and religion.
>
> So, I don't know if she'd agree lock, stock, and smoking tuna with
>Dave's statement, but there is a resonance in her article that seems
>similar. And I could be wrong, but her writing seems the opposite
>of "someone like Pat Pagano". Notice I said "like" for both of them,
>because they are emblems at this point, and these are only my
>opinions, _not_ theirs.

yup!

> > did you get my CD?
>
> Yeppers! Hey, everyone, shouting out to you that Paul and his band
>sound really good! Paul, this is really an improvement over the last
>go-arounds with these tunes, which were from live gigs (IIRC).

thanks -- the sound quality is far better for obvious reasons, but my
chops had gone *way* downhill in my opinion (due to lack of
practice). i was very sorry to put down solos on the demo cd at the
nadir of my guitar abilities, and i'm kicking myself never to do that
again -- but i presume you must like the *emotion* of some of the
solos?

p.s. i hope you listen to the cd *loud* as that's how we play!

> I almost hate to ask, as it calls into question my ears, but were
>you using any of your refretted guitars? If not, you are doing some
>nice real-time adaptive tuning with your fingers!

i've been known to do that, but i can't think of where that would be
on this cd. can you point out where you hear it? i'm really curious.

what you're mostly hearing, i think, is my out-of-tune 12-equal
guitar, and mike's out-of-tune 12-equal guitar (he uses a slide too).
at least that's what stands out to my ears as far as tuning. (i'm
mostly on the right channel, mike on the left, i believe.)

> Enjoyable, and I hope you guys can put together 4 or 5 more tunes
>and put out a CD.

that is the plan, though the drummer (awesome, huh?) may be moving to
france . . .

>I've recently been pointed to a CD production company that looks
>VERY promising for small groups/organizations (like yourself, and
>even the AFMM) that includes not only production but distribution as
>well. I'll post info to MMM...

thanks, much appreciated. any responses regarding my band should
probably go on metatuning, though the fact that you like out-of-tune
guitars might be of interest here . . .

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

> Yeppers! Hey, everyone, shouting out to you that Paul and his band sound really good!

Bagdad Express is really fine.

ditto!johnny! ditto!

Alison Monteith wrote:

> Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
>
> For true composition, I implore people on this list, please, don't
> compromise. If you really want to use Just for its qualitative
> properties...timelessness, ringing, partials and harmonics, basis of
> brass sound, basis the timbre of the human voice, of strings. The true
> home: Om.
>
> Go Johnny Go!
>
>

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

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

Must you insist on doing nothing but secularizing every sacred object there is.
but the humorous furor really seems to becoming more, from the opposite side

dkeenanuqnetau wrote:

> > Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >
> > For true composition, I implore people on this list, please, don't
> > compromise. If you really want to use Just for its qualitative
> > properties...timelessness, ringing, partials and harmonics, basis of
> > brass sound, basis the timbre of the human voice, of strings. The
> true
> > home: Om.
>
> This sort of numero-religious fundamentalism is of no help to anyone.
>
> Johnny, Did you or did you not say that you can't detect a 0.5 c
> mistuning in a fifth under some cirmumstance or other?
>

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

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

I wholly agree with Johnny here . regardless of your vision it takes
going at it without holding back that even gives us a chance of
achieving it. What if beethoven on almost finishing the 3rd said .gee
this is twice the length of every one else maybe i should trim it down.
No these voices lead to half way commitments , and guess what people can
hear it! right before they turn to someone who has the guts to say what
they have to say!

NP Divertimento for strings- Bela Bartok

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/19/02 5:29:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> genewardsmith@juno.com writes:
>
>
>
>> How does one define "compromise"? What do you mean by "Just"?
>>
>
> Actually, Alison was quoting me, Gene. Compromise is 12 ET. Just is
> without compromise. Choosing to dumb down a composition because of
> worries about whether another musician could properly follow the
> necessary music instructions is compromise. Composing fully to one's
> vision, even before the ability to play the piece is in evidence is
> non-compromising. It is also the only way to achieve greatness.
> Sometimes it is necessary to take a risk for the music. In this sense
> just is honest and justice is paying attention to the details.
>

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

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

JP!
Partch, Riley, Harrison, Young, Niblock even, these are all main stream and Just. You should
go ahead and do 72 if you will but it really isn't any easier to get players to do than Just.
Personally I play a note for a player and he figures out how to do it.

jpehrson2 wrote:

>
>
> ***Personally, I have to disagree with this.
>
> I feel there needs to be a *practical* implementation of
> microtonality if it is to ever get into the *mainstream*
> and "compromising" by a practically inaudible 2 or 3 cents
> discrepancy for that purpose is judicious.
>
> Otherwise, microtonality will always be *sequestered* on specialized
> concert series!
>
> Greatness?? 12-equal, the "comprimise" has already shown its
> greatness time and again. Maybe 72-tET will too someday!
>
> Joseph Pehrson
> s/

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

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

Amazing. While watching Jeopardy through my third eye (since I am actually
reading all the mail today), it turns out that one of the categories is
Tchotchkeys (at least that's how everyone on the show pronounced it). I
found it hilarious...but I couldn't quite see how they spelled it...probably
just like Jon. Johnny

p.s. sorry Paul if you think this should be on Metatuning

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > I said I can produce intervals less than 1 cent on a recorder and
> by my
> > voice. I have not tried to test what I hear but suspect the
> greater the
> > signals the greater the reception.
> >
> > best, Johnny Reinhard
>
> Bob W.:
> The only way to know we can do that is to measure it some way or
have
> such a solid ear that we can unerringly detect such an error
> subjectively. Ultimately, to be sure the latter is actually working
> the way we think it is, we must measure the ability to hear.
>
> Can we assume that the statement about producing intervals this
> accurately implies that these results have been objectively
measured?
> If so, since the subtlest change in embouchure, irrespective of
tape,
> alternate fingerings, etc., can easily change the pitch by multiples
> of a cent, then that means you must have the ear and that it has
been
> tested, at least indirectly. Otherwise, such statements become
> meaningless.
>
> On violin or other strings, or in singing, the only way to perform
to
> such accurate "specifications" as you describe is to have an ear
> capable of providing feedback at that level of precision. I don't
> know of anyone who performs sitting in front of frequency-measuring
> equipment monitoring accuracy of intonation, and Francois indicates
> that equipment with that level of accuracy does not exist.

Bob, I totally agree. We don't need to bring the uncertainty principle
into it. Johnny should put up or shut up (i.e. submit to measurement
or stop making unsupported claims).

Johnny, I can't find the pots but I understood that you said you could
play a just fifth, a 12-tET fifth and could split the difference
between them, but could not split it again. Is that correct?

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > > Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > > The true home: Om.
> >
> > This sort of numero-religious fundamentalism is of no help to
> > anyone.
>
> Well, looks like both of you have expressed your opinions. Johnny's
will be pleasing to someone like Pat Pagano, Dave's with someone like
Julia Werntz. The world continues to spin. Nothing changes.
>

Err no. Julia has very little interest in just intervals. I on the
other hand have a great deal of interest. I simply object to the
notion that a 0.5 cent error makes all the difference in the world
between the one true faith of JI and all those dreadful compromises.

Indeed I suspect that part of the reason Julia rejects JI is because
of this fundamentalism aspect. I think she unfortunately throws the
baby out with the bathwater.

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> Indeed I suspect that part of the reason Julia rejects JI is because
> of this fundamentalism aspect.

Um, that was the point of my comment: I believe that it is the fervor and underlying issues that cause her more trouble than the music made with it, though she doesn't seem to care much for that, either.

> I think she unfortunately throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, that we could save more babies...

> I simply object to the notion that a 0.5 cent error makes all the
> difference in the world

Fine.

> between the one true faith of JI and all those dreadful
> compromises.

As I said, nothing changes, and the tone of that statement won't lead to any enlightenment either. Does anyone in the room sincerely think that either viewpoint will see the daylight of the other? That a 'debate' (and I use the term guardedly) will cause a change of heart/mind? I wonder...

Cheers,
Jon

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

>Does anyone in the room sincerely think that either viewpoint will see the daylight of the other?

If I understood what your viewpoint was it would help. You can't possibly imagine you can play a rational number rather than an irrational one, so it seems it comes down to *thinking* about a rational number when you listen or play. Is that more or less right?

To Gene and Bob in their amazing adventure:

Truly you guys amaze me. I wrote of OM in an attempt to get you to
understand overtone singing. I thought, maybe, that through meditating you
might have had an experience with basic overtone singing? I guess not.

In case you somehow missed it, I have played, directed, and produced the most
diverse programs, both stylistically and intonationally as anyone else on the
planet. When I direct the best musicians in the world, which I do year after
year, it is not because of the money. It is because we musicians go further
into the music with microtonality. My continuously demonstrating my pitch
acuity on the radio and to the top people in the tuning field would surely
have backfired on me by now if it was shoddier than I thought it was, don't
you think? Bob, have you tried the Li Po Songs to know what is involved
intonationally? Could your world theories of music include people who hear
with more acuity than you do? And if, If, I could hear better than a cent,
wouldn't that be a good skill for someone who spends a lifetime producing
microtonal concerts, exclusively? Sorry, sports, I can't prove it to you
over the Internet. If you guys want to attack me because you don't like my
point of views, it will be severely disappointing. Gene, have you tried yet
to split the schisma vocally? Can you hold a straight pitch, Bob?

Another point: Every tuning is performed on my concerts. All tunings,
because I am not prejudiced against tunings, even 12 ET. Joseph, listening?
Every tuning, even 72. What has concerned me is that some on the List have
not experienced a particular tuning used on a high level artistically, and
you uninitiated don't recognize what it is that is in front of you. Just
pressing near-just buttons for notes doesn't capture what is in fact just. I
say this as a polymicrotonal composer, one who uses just only in combination
with other tunings. What I am trying to portray is what it is to compose in
just intonation. It appears some hear all too differently.

best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 6/19/02 11:59:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> Otherwise, microtonality will always be *sequestered* on specialized
> concert series!
>
>

That's funny to me. Since I started you, Joseph, in microtonality, and since
there was no concert series for "sequestered" microtonal concerts until I got
it under way. :)

Johnny

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

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#37965

>> Another point: Every tuning is performed on my concerts. All
tunings, because I am not prejudiced against tunings, even 12 ET.
Joseph, listening?
> Every tuning, even 72.

***Hi Johnny,

Well, yes, but your previous statement said very clearly that 72-tET
was a *compromise* and could never aspire to *greatness* as somehow
Just could!

Can you imagine how that would make me feel as a composer writing now
almost exclusively in 72??

Not too good... but I'm over it now, and busy composing in 72 as even
Kraig says is OK...

best,

Joseph

In a message dated 6/19/02 7:06:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kraiggrady@anaphoria.com writes:

> JP!
> Partch, Riley, Harrison, Young, Niblock even, these are all main stream
> and Just. You should
> go ahead and do 72 if you will but it really isn't any easier to get
> players to do than Just.
> Personally I play a note for a player and he figures out how to do it.
>
>

Thanks, Kraig. Somehow, even though we do this in front of Joseph's eyes
_and_ hears, time and again, he freezes. I don't truly understand it. First
I played his eighthtone solo to great reviews. Then I hired Chris Washburne
to play his 72 tone piece flawlessly in 72. He did not play in just, nor did
the composition envelope what it is that just music best presents, but it was
certainly beautiful to hear. He should have realized by now that he can have
anything played by any instruments in any tuning. Gee, seems like a good
deal to me.

As you see, I have been trying to get some new concepts across. This is all
about education.

best, Johnny

In a message dated 6/19/02 8:02:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
d.keenan@uq.net.au writes:

> Johnny should put up or shut up (i.e. submit to measurement
> or stop making unsupported claims).
>
>

Gene, I know you can't mean this. If you are please email me off list.

Johnny

In a message dated 6/19/02 8:12:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
d.keenan@uq.net.au writes:

> fundamentalism

aren't you reading too much into this word? Johnny

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

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#37966

> In a message dated 6/19/02 11:59:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jpehrson@r... writes:
>
>
> > Otherwise, microtonality will always be *sequestered* on
specialized
> > concert series!
> >
> >
>
> That's funny to me. Since I started you, Joseph, in microtonality,
and since
> there was no concert series for "sequestered" microtonal concerts
until I got
> it under way. :)
>
> Johnny

***Well, Johnny, we all greatly appreciate what you do! There's no
doubt about that, spoken from an enthusiastic board member.

However, I feel we would Just as much (no pun intended) appreciate it
even if somehow the ensemble had a tolerance of +/- 5 cents rather
than +/- 1 cent!

It doesn't make that much difference. And, we'll never really know
if the claim is true, since you objected the last time around to a
verifiable tuning test.

But who cares?? Not me. I'll be the first to state I can't really
hear the difference anyway... not 3 or 4 cents for the most part, so
I'll happily go along composing in 72 and thinking it's Just.... :)

I wouldn't want to take a "breathalizer" test, either, or a cat scan,
which is just as well since my breath and brain are, more or less,
perfectly fine... at least sometimes...

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#37971

> In a message dated 6/19/02 7:06:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kraiggrady@a... writes:
>
>
> > JP!
> > Partch, Riley, Harrison, Young, Niblock even, these are all
main stream
> > and Just. You should
> > go ahead and do 72 if you will but it really isn't any easier to
get
> > players to do than Just.
> > Personally I play a note for a player and he figures out how to
do it.
> >
> >
>
> Thanks, Kraig. Somehow, even though we do this in front of
Joseph's eyes
> _and_ hears, time and again, he freezes. I don't truly understand
it. First
> I played his eighthtone solo to great reviews. Then I hired Chris
Washburne
> to play his 72 tone piece flawlessly in 72. He did not play in
just, nor did
> the composition envelope what it is that just music best presents,
but it was
> certainly beautiful to hear. He should have realized by now that
he can have
> anything played by any instruments in any tuning. Gee, seems like
a good
> deal to me.
>
> As you see, I have been trying to get some new concepts across.
This is all
> about education.
>
> best, Johnny

***Hi Johnny...

Well, yes, and your playing and Washburne's was superb, and greatly
appreciated. And, quite frankly, I really don't care if people think
my music is in 72 or in Just. I'm really not going for the long
sustained effects of a La Monte Young or such like that would
*require* cessation of beats. (Although La Monte *does* seem to get
some in "combination tones" doesn't he?? :)

But, it's probably a misunderstanding, since I thought you said that
72 is always a *compromise* and could never aspire to "greatness" in
the way that Just could.

Well, I really don't know if my pieces aspire to "greatness" in any
way... probably not, but I'm happy to know that you liked the piece
anyway, even though it was in 72!

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Must you insist on doing nothing but secularizing every sacred
object there is.
> but the humorous furor really seems to becoming more, from the
opposite side
>

I'm sorry Kraig. I don't mean to cause you pain. But I think you've
really put your finger on something here. Perhaps you, and many
others, are unwilling to admit to _any_ acceptable tuning tolerance
(despite being forced to accept them in real life) because it
threatens something sacred.

I personally have found that truly sacred things do not vanish if I
examine them closely.

To express my view on this, I can do no better than to quote the
philosopher Daniel Dennett.

"There is no future in a sacred myth. Why not? Because of our
curiosity. Because ... _we_want_to_know_why_. ... Whatever we hold
precious, we cannot protect it from our curiosity, because being who
we are, one of the things we deem precious is the truth. Our love of
truth is surely a central element in the meaning we find in our lives.
In any case, the idea that we might preserve meaning by kidding
ourselves is a more pessimistic, more nihilistic idea than I for one
can stomach. If that were the best that could be done, I would
conclude that nothing mattered after all."

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#37980

>>
> I personally have found that truly sacred things do not vanish if I
> examine them closely.
>

***Yes, yes, yes! They become *more* sacred! I *love* that kind of
thinking...

Joseph

Hi Dave,

I'd have to respectfully disagree with your view here. It has been my
experience that there are ineffable parameters to certain things we
experience that only get the short end of the stick when they're
examined too closely.

I too am curious, but I have also witnessed firsthand my own curiosity
diminish my capacity to experience certain things to their fullest...
to best interact with certain things in their natural setting so to
speak.

I think a big part of being wise, quite apart from being
knowledgeable, is intuitively knowing when to dig in and when to back
off... and as someone who's foolish enough to know, it is my view that
overzealous intellectual scrutiny is not without a price.

take care,

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@uq.net.au>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 6:17 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: resolution of 72-tET/JI

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > Must you insist on doing nothing but secularizing every sacred
> object there is.
> > but the humorous furor really seems to becoming more, from the
> opposite side
> >
>
> I'm sorry Kraig. I don't mean to cause you pain. But I think you've
> really put your finger on something here. Perhaps you, and many
> others, are unwilling to admit to _any_ acceptable tuning tolerance
> (despite being forced to accept them in real life) because it
> threatens something sacred.
>
> I personally have found that truly sacred things do not vanish if I
> examine them closely.
>
> To express my view on this, I can do no better than to quote the
> philosopher Daniel Dennett.
>
> "There is no future in a sacred myth. Why not? Because of our
> curiosity. Because ... _we_want_to_know_why_. ... Whatever we hold
> precious, we cannot protect it from our curiosity, because being who
> we are, one of the things we deem precious is the truth. Our love of
> truth is surely a central element in the meaning we find in our
lives.
> In any case, the idea that we might preserve meaning by kidding
> ourselves is a more pessimistic, more nihilistic idea than I for one
> can stomach. If that were the best that could be done, I would
> conclude that nothing mattered after all."
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Free $5 Love Reading
> Risk Free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/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/
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone in the room sincerely think that either viewpoint will see the daylight of the other?
>
> If I understood what your viewpoint was it would help.

It isn't *my* viewpoint that is in question here, but a number of people who believe that just intonation should be performed or conceived of in a certain way, and a number of other people who suggest not only alternatives but the premise that holding onto that particular way of performing/conceiving a just music is... not right. Or something. I can't really speak for either side, although I have my opinions on some of the more general matters.

> You can't possibly imagine you can play a rational number rather than an irrational one, so it seems it comes down to *thinking* about a rational number when you listen or play. Is that more or less right?

I don't know, because I'm not really framing the question.

Cheers,
Jon

Dave,

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> I'd have to respectfully disagree with your view here. It has been
> my experience that there are ineffable parameters to certain things
> we experience that only get the short end of the stick when they're
> examined too closely.

...and the rest.

Thank goodness (or badness, or null-ness) that Dan said that, and in a much more eloquent way than myself. Constant searching, constant education, constant questions are all part of my life, but I too value moments of mystery that not only retain power but grow by being left on their own.

You and I have discussed some of these issues and philosophies privately, for which I thank you. I don't doubt that you will find my/our viewpoint as somewhat ignorant and backward, that is for you to know. But whether or not the mysteries of life and the beyond are increased or diminished by dedicated investigation (of the manner you propose) must certainly be one of the very personal elements of an individual life.

Very respectfully,
Jon

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

>If you guys want to attack me because you don't like my
> point of views, it will be severely disappointing.

I'm not trying to attack you, I'm trying to understand your point of view. To start with, I'd like to know what you mean by "JI"; it seems the only ones who answer that specifically are the ones who don't identify themselves as JI proponents. I'd like to know what Julie called the "pure tuning crowd" thinks of as being JI. The definition of JI I carried in my head before coming to this group was of a theoretical construct, but the JI Wars hardly make sense if that is so--or at least, not to me.

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/19/02 8:02:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> d.keenan@u... writes:

> Gene, I know you can't mean this. If you are please email me off list.

Actually, it was Dave who said it. Maybe you and Dave could work it out?

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

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#37988

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> >If you guys want to attack me because you don't like my
> > point of views, it will be severely disappointing.
>
> I'm not trying to attack you, I'm trying to understand your point
of view. To start with, I'd like to know what you mean by "JI"; it
seems the only ones who answer that specifically are the ones who
don't identify themselves as JI proponents. I'd like to know what
Julie called the "pure tuning crowd" thinks of as being JI. The
definition of JI I carried in my head before coming to this group was
of a theoretical construct, but the JI Wars hardly make sense if that
is so--or at least, not to me.

***I think Dave Keenan was the "bro" who nailed these definitions
down more eloquently than just (just?) about anybody. Dave, do you
have the message number citations for those comments??

best,

Joseph

In a message dated 6/20/02 1:27:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

> The definition of JI I carried in my head before coming to this group was of
> a theoretical construct, but the JI Wars hardly make sense if that is
> so--or at least, not to me.

This is a good point. It is hardly only theory, it is an experiential
gestalt that has a power onto itself. best, Johnny

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/18/02 4:45:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > paul@s... writes:

Johnny R.:

> > ...why not just work
> > out the perfect mode and sing/direct it? Wasting time on a
subject
> on this
> > list will be nothing compared to wasting time on 72 dieses most
of
> which you
> > will never use.

> Paul E.:
> i'll let bob answer this [see below for Bob's answer], but this
seems like another one of
> those "who needs all those notes" responses. of course you don't.
but
> you have easy reference to the ingrained 12 of the piano,
regardless
> of how many elaborate pivot-tone modulations you employ and how far
> off you go in the infinite lattice of consonant relationships.
these
> seem to be the important considerations for bob.
>
Johnny R.:
> > Unless one uses 72 for its particular virtues. It approximates
> Just well
> > enough that one can use traditional harmonies with a good sense
of
> > inevitability.
>
> i'd say "non-traditional", but whatever.
>
> > It's not as strong as in real JI but there is
> > believability...as there is for most people with 12 equal. For
> true
> > composition, I implore people on this list, please, don't
> compromise. If you
> > really want to use Just for its qualitative
> properties...timelessness,
> > ringing, partials and harmonics, basis of brass sound, basis the
> timbre of
> > the human voice, of strings. The true home: Om.

Paul E.:
> bob would agree with all this, i'm sure, and as a musician and
> composer he should be trusted to judge what means are most
> appropriate for acheiving it in his own music. i'm sure there will
be
> cases where his singers will be singing a long chord and they will
> naturally acheive a very, very just tuning, or he will direct them
to
> do so. will this contradict his use of some temperament for
notation?
> not in the slightest -- remember, bob is an advocate of *adaptive*
> ji. the notation guides the melodic pitch sense, while the singers'
> sensitivity to difference (and other nonlinear combinational) tones
> align the precise tuning to *vertical* just intonation at each
point
> in time. isn't this a fair assessment of your intent, bob?

Bob:
This is, not surprisingly coming from you, Paul, a very accurate
representation of my leanings, preferences, and philosophy. I am in
some ways a purist, and have been heavily dumped on more than a few
times for it. However, as Gene Smith so cogently pointed out, there
is always a limit to precision.

GET THIS, ALL YOU NON-TECHNICAL PEOPLE OUT THERE!!!!! THERE IS A
LIMIT TO PRECISION!!!!! IN PRINCIPLE (meaning not just practically,
but fundamentally), you cannot make screw threads, cylinders and
pistons, radio frequencies, musical pitches, or any other humanly
manufactured physical component or system, or their musical or non-
musical products, infinitely precise.

THERE IS ALWAYS SOME LEVEL OF TOLERANCE, HOWEVER SMALL. The tolerance
can never be zero.

THE TOLERANCE CAN NEVER BE ZERO!!!!!!!! Even the earth's orbit and
rate of rotation change enough so we have to track it in order to
keep our atomic clocks synchronized with the actual solar time of
day.

The point of these simple, really simple and, by all rights, self-
evident truths is:

ALL THIS TALK OF NO COMPROMISE IS PURE, UNMITIGATED NONSENSE!!!

THERE IS ALWAYS COMPROMISE!!! NO ONE CAN CHANGE OR HELP THAT!!!

The only question is how much is the tolerance for error? Two cents,
one cent, 0.1 cents, 0.001 cents? There is a limit even in terms of
what we can physically implement with electronic equipment, although
the tolerance is vanishingly small. But the human ear's tolerance is
quite a bit bigger than what is vanishingly small in today's
electronic technology, which is capable of using atomic oscillators
and frequency counters/dividers to achieve the most amazing
precision.

So I just don't think it matters much after a certain point. Pardon
me, I KNOW it doesn't matter AT ALL after a certain point, and the
point is not on the order of 0.01 cents. The human ear will call
just, ANY HUMAN EAR WILL CALL JUST, a pitch that is 0.1 cents off.
How much bigger is a matter of debate, but the tolerance IS IN FACT
BIGGER THAN THAT!!!!

Acoustic instruments such as a harp or piano using physical systems
to calibrate and maintain pitch cannot reliably hold within 0.1 cents
through an entire hour of playing. Many can't even hold within one
whole cent through an hour of playing.

So let's get real, folks, and STOP PRETENDING THERE IS SUCH A THING
AS ZERO-TOLERANCE JI!!! And don't feel sad about that! It really
doesn't matter one little bit!!! The celestial purity that I am so
intensely fond of in JI is not compromised one gnat's hair by an
error of 0.1 cents. Anyone who thinks it is not well connected with
either physical or musical reality. The only question is how much
bigger can we make this number and still be right about that
statement.

Respectfully,

Bob

Bob,

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> GET THIS, ALL YOU NON-TECHNICAL PEOPLE OUT THERE!!!!!

...and the rest. I don't know about anyone else, but if you can't get worked up a little bit more about the subject you aren't going to convince anyone! <grin>

Seriously, good post, Bob. Hope it gets through...

Cheers,
Jon

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

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#38021

> ALL THIS TALK OF NO COMPROMISE IS PURE, UNMITIGATED NONSENSE!!!
>
> THERE IS ALWAYS COMPROMISE!!! NO ONE CAN CHANGE OR HELP THAT!!!
>

***Wow... Thanks, Bob. I feel really relieved! :)

JP

> As I said, nothing changes, and the tone of that statement won't
lead to any enlightenment either. Does anyone in the room sincerely
think that either viewpoint will see the daylight of the other? That
a 'debate' (and I use the term guardedly) will cause a change of
heart/mind? I wonder...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Bob -
An old saying:

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Let us hope, nonetheless, that some of us men and women are willing
to be convinced by the force of solid evidence and valid reasoning,
and not simply remain forever bound to opinions simply because they
are ours.

Cheers,

Bob

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

The best words of all.

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 6/20/02 5:11:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rwendell@cangelic.org writes:

> and not simply remain forever bound to opinions simply because they
> are ours.
>
>

Exactly. I am hoping that synthesizers will soon be able to take advantage
of a 14 bit MIDI which will be able to divide the octave into 16,384 which is
a digital theremin in effect. I don't know why you feel that JI must require
compromise because it seems that the next generation of microtonal
synthesizer will be able to utilize this (as a Theremin Synthesizer recently
did).

Bob, glad you're really into what you do. Surely, whatever you decide will
be best for you if for no other reason than it was your decision. Clearly we
do not see JI the same way. How we hear it is still another matter.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/20/02 5:11:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> rwendell@c... writes:
>
>
> > and not simply remain forever bound to opinions simply because
they
> > are ours.
> >
> >
>
> Exactly. I am hoping that synthesizers will soon be able to take
advantage
> of a 14 bit MIDI which will be able to divide the octave into
16,384 which is
> a digital theremin in effect. I don't know why you feel that JI
must require
> compromise because it seems that the next generation of microtonal
> synthesizer will be able to utilize this (as a Theremin Synthesizer
recently
> did).
>
> Bob, glad you're really into what you do. Surely, whatever you
decide will
> be best for you if for no other reason than it was your decision.
Clearly we
> do not see JI the same way. How we hear it is still another matter.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

Bob:
I read George Secor's recent post about his experience with Irv
Wilson's keyboard playing on the perfectly stacked scale all geared
integrally to the system clock. I was inspired by it! That is indeed
the only way I know of to achieve what we should consider to be
EFFECTIVELY zero-tolerance JI. This just confirms what Julie Werntz
would probably consider my fundamentalism.

Notwithstanding hers and others' disdain, it makes sense to me that
something so perfectly and powerfully coherent would have that
effect. Look at laser beams, after all. That's why they are so
powerfully important. They are powerfully coherent sources of a
particular kind of very useful energy. I think of JI as musically
analagous, and when perceived by the human ear and processed by human
consciousness, it has the power to move the innermost soul of
whatever constitutes our humanity and quite likely to increase the
coherence with which our minds function.

My talk of compromise, however, has to do with our focus, yours and
mine, on humanly driven acoustic tuning systems. I agree, especially
in light of this experience of George Secor's, that we should do the
best we can to increase the precision of our JI, if we wish use it. I
just think that we shouldn't croak at sub-3-cent errors in
temperaments that work as practical finite models of JI. Once we have
our puzzle worked out and in place, there is nothing wrong with
tweaking it to perfection if we can, in terms of JI. We singers and
string players and others do that all the time anyway, in the context
of music that is conceptually based on 12 notes per octave.

Cheers,

Bob

But I have been talking

THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE COMPROMISE IN INTENT ;-)
jpehrson2 wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_37885.html#38021
>
> > ALL THIS TALK OF NO COMPROMISE IS PURE, UNMITIGATED NONSENSE!!!
> >
> > THERE IS ALWAYS COMPROMISE!!! NO ONE CAN CHANGE OR HELP THAT!!!
> >
>
> ***Wow... Thanks, Bob. I feel really relieved! :)
>
> JP
>
>
> 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

Johnny!
Since they bring up the point that JI is not possible , I think they
are leaving out the point that ET is not possible either so they we have
a compounded problem of intervals compromised on top mistuned intervals.
I really seems just we just get further away from what we want. I can
only ask JUST WHAT IS ET?

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/20/02 5:11:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> rwendell@cangelic.org writes:
>
>
>
>> and not simply remain forever bound to opinions simply because they
>> are ours.
>
> Exactly. I am hoping that synthesizers will soon be able to take
> advantage of a 14 bit MIDI which will be able to divide the octave
> into 16,384 which is a digital theremin in effect. I don't know why
> you feel that JI must require compromise because it seems that the
> next generation of microtonal synthesizer will be able to utilize this
> (as a Theremin Synthesizer recently did).
>
> Bob, glad you're really into what you do. Surely, whatever you decide
> will be best for you if for no other reason than it was your
> decision. Clearly we do not see JI the same way. How we hear it is
> still another matter.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

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

Hello Robert!

robert_wendell wrote:

> I read George Secor's recent post about his experience with Irv
> Wilson's keyboard playing on the perfectly stacked scale all geared
> integrally to the system clock.

I have had the privilege of doing two extended pieces using this feature of thins keyboard

> . I
> just think that we shouldn't croak at sub-3-cent errors in
> temperaments that work as practical finite models of JI.

The problem is compounded by not being any better in getting ET than JI so you will have 3 cent
error on top of what ever error the temperment also has. Once we get up to 4.5-5 cents we are
really talking some noticeable sounds. ET is no easier to play than JI, if not outright harder!

>

-- 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..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#38027

> In a message dated 6/20/02 5:11:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> rwendell@c... writes:
>
>
> > and not simply remain forever bound to opinions simply because
they
> > are ours.
> >
> >
>
> Exactly. I am hoping that synthesizers will soon be able to take
advantage
> of a 14 bit MIDI which will be able to divide the octave into
16,384 which is
> a digital theremin in effect. I don't know why you feel that JI
must require
> compromise because it seems that the next generation of microtonal
> synthesizer will be able to utilize this (as a Theremin Synthesizer
recently
> did).
>
> Bob, glad you're really into what you do. Surely, whatever you
decide will
> be best for you if for no other reason than it was your decision.
Clearly we
> do not see JI the same way. How we hear it is still another matter.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

***Hi Johnny!

I'm happy to see you here speaking so positively of *electronic*
music... Frankly, I like the sound of it, myself, particularly when
combined with acoustic instruments...

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#38032

> THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE COMPROMISE IN INTENT ;-)

***Hi Kraig!

Yes! I've decided to agree with you and Johnny.

I *intend* to write in 72-tET and that's *exactly* what I'm doing,
with no compromise whatsoever... :)

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#38033

> Johnny!
> Since they bring up the point that JI is not possible , I think
they are leaving out the point that ET is not possible either

***This is actually a rather clever post, or *ri-poste...*

ETs aren't perfectly accurate, either. Well, that settles it. I'm
just going to write the music one way or another and forget about the
rest of it... :)

JP

go JP go!

jpehrson2 wrote:

>
>
> I *intend* to write in 72-tET and that's *exactly* what I'm doing,
> with no compromise whatsoever... :)
>
> JP
>

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

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

go JP go!

jpehrson2 wrote:

>
>
> ETs aren't perfectly accurate, either. Well, that settles it. I'm
> just going to write the music one way or another and forget about the
> rest of it... :)
>
> JP
>

-- 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_37885.html#38055

>
> go JP go!
>
>

***I must be on a roll. Good Karma... Hopefully going to get
something *good* done tonight....

JP

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

> Amazing. While watching Jeopardy through my third eye (since I am
actually
> reading all the mail today), it turns out that one of the
categories is
> Tchotchkeys (at least that's how everyone on the show pronounced
it). I
> found it hilarious...but I couldn't quite see how they spelled
it...probably
> just like Jon. Johnny
>
> p.s. sorry Paul if you think this should be on Metatuning

excuse me? i don't get it . . . what are Tchotchkeys, and what do
they have to do with me?

(someone is probably getting a good laugh at my expense, that's ok)

Paul: Jon here,

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> excuse me? i don't get it . . . what are Tchotchkeys, and what do
> they have to do with me?

You wrote that to Johnny, who must have been referring to something I wrote to you:

> I'll have it mailed tomorrow morn, first thing, with
> apologies, and another tchotchke (sp?).

I wasn't sure of the spelling, and I *know* Johnny purposely (and humorously) mis-spelled it. In any event, it refers to a little gift or present or knick-knack. Or something similar.

> (someone is probably getting a good laugh at my expense, that's ok)

Never! Who would do that?! :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> I'm really not going for the long
> sustained effects of a La Monte Young or such like that would
> *require* cessation of beats. (Although La Monte *does* seem to
get
> some in "combination tones" doesn't he?? :)

in his piano music, you bet. this is because piano strings have
slightly inharmonic partials, so the combinational tones will be
slightly out-of-tune with each other, and beat (at many different
rates).

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_37885.html#38032
>
> > THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE COMPROMISE IN INTENT ;-)
>
> ***Hi Kraig!
>
> Yes! I've decided to agree with you and Johnny.
>
> I *intend* to write in 72-tET and that's *exactly* what I'm doing,
> with no compromise whatsoever... :)
>
> JP

i think that's really cool, joseph. don't go halfway -- wrap those
chord progressions all around the blackjack lattice, that way you'll
be sure to be taking advantage of what is special about 72 (or
miracle at least), and no one will be able to claim that you might as
well use just intonation ;)

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_37885.html#37988
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >
> > >If you guys want to attack me because you don't like my
> > > point of views, it will be severely disappointing.
> >
> > I'm not trying to attack you, I'm trying to understand your point
> of view. To start with, I'd like to know what you mean by "JI"; it
> seems the only ones who answer that specifically are the ones who
> don't identify themselves as JI proponents. I'd like to know what
> Julie called the "pure tuning crowd" thinks of as being JI. The
> definition of JI I carried in my head before coming to this group
was
> of a theoretical construct, but the JI Wars hardly make sense if
that
> is so--or at least, not to me.
>
>
> ***I think Dave Keenan was the "bro" who nailed these definitions
> down more eloquently than just (just?) about anybody. Dave, do you
> have the message number citations for those comments??

Joseph, I think Gene has a fair idea what _I_ mean by JI. I think he
wants to know what Johnny means by it.

Thank Robert to stating quite boldly the point I tried to make in a
now dying thread.

> Robert Wendell:
> THERE IS ALWAYS SOME LEVEL OF TOLERANCE, HOWEVER SMALL. The
tolerance
> can never be zero.

I would like to ask a simple question. When tuning instrument with
such and such precision in such and such tuning system (whatever it is
JI or ET). How do you cope with octave stretching in low and high
pitch range.

I know that the piano tuner who comes home use electronic tuner to set
pitch in the mid-range and use ear alone for the rest of the keyboard.

I discussed a bit with him and he said that HE was called specifically
by some professionnal jazz pianists because he his famous in his
tuners team to be the one that "stretch the most" in the high pitch.
It is a matter of psychoacoustic AND of taste.

How, in general microtonalists cope with this issue of octave
stretching?
What are your personal experiences about this problem of tuning and
octave stretching?
Was this problem known in "historical tuning" ?

yours truly

François Laferrière

Hello there Francois,
For myself I stretch octaves by around two cents (+2c per octave above
middle C, -2c per octave below middle C) whether JI or tempered in some
form, as long as the difference isn't audable when playing octaves, it works
for me.

However I'm tuning harmonicas which are very difficult to play chords over
more than an octave range so I'm not sure if this is an issue that would
concern other instruments where harmonies can reach over several octaves or
not.

Cheers
G.

From: "francois_laferriere" <francois.laferriere@o...>
Date: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:08 pm
Subject: Tuning precision and octave stretching

I would like to ask a simple question. When tuning instrument with
such and such precision in such and such tuning system (whatever it is
JI or ET). How do you cope with octave stretching in low and high
pitch range.

I know that the piano tuner who comes home use electronic tuner to set
pitch in the mid-range and use ear alone for the rest of the keyboard.

I discussed a bit with him and he said that HE was called specifically
by some professionnal jazz pianists because he his famous in his
tuners team to be the one that "stretch the most" in the high pitch.
It is a matter of psychoacoustic AND of taste.

How, in general microtonalists cope with this issue of octave
stretching?
What are your personal experiences about this problem of tuning and
octave stretching?
Was this problem known in "historical tuning" ?

yours truly

Fran�ois Laferri�re

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

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#38063

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > I'm really not going for the long
> > sustained effects of a La Monte Young or such like that would
> > *require* cessation of beats. (Although La Monte *does* seem to
> get
> > some in "combination tones" doesn't he?? :)
>
> in his piano music, you bet. this is because piano strings have
> slightly inharmonic partials, so the combinational tones will be
> slightly out-of-tune with each other, and beat (at many different
> rates).

***Thanks, Paul. Does anybody know if _The Well Tuned Piano_ is back
out on CD. Somebody said DVD... It's rather expensive though, no?
La Monte, a while ago, told me he was going to do a shorter and less
expensive "greatest hits" version of it, but he was only joking...

Joseph

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

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#38068

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_37885.html#38032
> >
> > > THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE COMPROMISE IN INTENT ;-)
> >
> > ***Hi Kraig!
> >
> > Yes! I've decided to agree with you and Johnny.
> >
> > I *intend* to write in 72-tET and that's *exactly* what I'm
doing,
> > with no compromise whatsoever... :)
> >
> > JP
>
> i think that's really cool, joseph. don't go halfway -- wrap those
> chord progressions all around the blackjack lattice, that way
you'll
> be sure to be taking advantage of what is special about 72 (or
> miracle at least), and no one will be able to claim that you might
as
> well use just intonation ;)

***Absolutely! In a phone conversation to Johnny Reinhard, I stated
that I will no longer claim that I'm composing in "Just." I'm
composing in 72-tET with no compromise whatsoever!

The Blackjack lattice is nice, too, since it give me *UNTRADITIONAL*
harmonies and chord progressions, as you importantly point out, that
intersect and *still* have a close relationship to the concordances
to which we are accustomed...

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "G." <g_b_dyer@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37885.html#38081

> Hello there Francois,
> For myself I stretch octaves by around two cents (+2c per octave
above
> middle C, -2c per octave below middle C) whether JI or tempered in
some
> form, as long as the difference isn't audable when playing octaves,
it works
> for me.
>
> However I'm tuning harmonicas which are very difficult to play
chords over
> more than an octave range so I'm not sure if this is an issue that
would
> concern other instruments where harmonies can reach over several
octaves or
> not.
>
> Cheers
> G.
>
>
> From: "francois_laferriere" <francois.laferriere@o...>
> Date: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:08 pm
> Subject: Tuning precision and octave stretching
>
> I would like to ask a simple question. When tuning instrument with
> such and such precision in such and such tuning system (whatever it
is
> JI or ET). How do you cope with octave stretching in low and high
> pitch range.
>
> I know that the piano tuner who comes home use electronic tuner to
set
> pitch in the mid-range and use ear alone for the rest of the
keyboard.
>
> I discussed a bit with him and he said that HE was called
specifically
> by some professionnal jazz pianists because he his famous in his
> tuners team to be the one that "stretch the most" in the high pitch.
> It is a matter of psychoacoustic AND of taste.
>
> How, in general microtonalists cope with this issue of octave
> stretching?
> What are your personal experiences about this problem of tuning and
> octave stretching?
> Was this problem known in "historical tuning" ?
>
> yours truly
>
> François Laferrière

***I believe this would have to be a rather lengthy harmonica, to
accomodate the entire piano range...

J. Pehrson

Hello Paul and Joseph!
I believe the beats are caused by his exploitation of higher number ratios found in his
tuning. In his descriptions he often will refer to these. i imagine D.Beardleys might have
something to add to this!

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > I'm really not going for the long
> > sustained effects of a La Monte Young or such like that would
> > *require* cessation of beats. (Although La Monte *does* seem to
> get
> > some in "combination tones" doesn't he?? :)
>
> in his piano music, you bet. this is because piano strings have
> slightly inharmonic partials, so the combinational tones will be
> slightly out-of-tune with each other, and beat (at many different
> rates).
>
>

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

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

Paul wrote:

> , you bet. this is because piano strings have
> > slightly inharmonic partials, so the combinational tones will be
> > slightly out-of-tune with each other, and beat (at many different
> > rates).
> >
>

It's not about beats, it's about harmonic clouds. These are more likely part
and parcel due to the pure just tunings, perhaps only slightly offset by
inharmonicity. The harmonic clouds are harmonies that are LOUDER than the
actual keys of the piano. This becomes clear when witnessing a performance
in person, several times.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>
> > , you bet. this is because piano strings have
> > > slightly inharmonic partials, so the combinational tones will be
> > > slightly out-of-tune with each other, and beat (at many
different
> > > rates).
> > >
> >
>
> It's not about beats, it's about harmonic clouds. These are more
likely part
> and parcel due to the pure just tunings, perhaps only slightly
offset by
> inharmonicity. The harmonic clouds are harmonies that are LOUDER
than the
> actual keys of the piano. This becomes clear when witnessing a
performance
> in person, several times.

as i have done. but the inharmonicity makes the alleged absolute
purity of the tuning a moot point. if partial A of note 1 is aligned
with partial B of note 2, then most other partials won't quite align.
tuning piano strings justly itself involves an unavoidable compromise!

In a message dated 6/21/02 1:57:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
paul@stretch-music.com writes:

> . but the inharmonicity makes the alleged absolute
> purity of the tuning a moot point.

Paul, I admit that this medium of posting to a List is less than clear (as
compared to fact-to-face, or even a telephone call). But if the
inharmonicity makes the intended just tuning a moot point, why don't all
pianos have the same quality of harmonic clouds as La Monte's piano
generates?

My experience has lead me to witness greater combination tones from just
intervals than those that are not just. A case in point is Hugh Davies'
piece "Differentials." Here I conducted an English Horn, Alto Flute, and Eb
Clarinet. The indications are to distort 12-tET fingerings so that the
maximum examples of combination tones occur. And yes, they are there. But
compared to circular breathing just multiphonics, it has none of the wonder,
the richness, and the amplitude of just.

Johnny

Paul!
I think the strings are tuned an octave lower, possibly to make the inharmonicity
unperceptable?

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> >
> > > , you bet. this is because piano strings have
> > > > slightly inharmonic partials, so the combinational tones will be
> > > > slightly out-of-tune with each other, and beat (at many
> different
> > > > rates).
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > It's not about beats, it's about harmonic clouds. These are more
> likely part
> > and parcel due to the pure just tunings, perhaps only slightly
> offset by
> > inharmonicity. The harmonic clouds are harmonies that are LOUDER
> than the
> > actual keys of the piano. This becomes clear when witnessing a
> performance
> > in person, several times.
>
> as i have done. but the inharmonicity makes the alleged absolute
> purity of the tuning a moot point. if partial A of note 1 is aligned
> with partial B of note 2, then most other partials won't quite align.
> tuning piano strings justly itself involves an unavoidable compromise!
>
>
> 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

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/21/02 1:57:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> paul@s... writes:
>
>
> > . but the inharmonicity makes the alleged absolute
> > purity of the tuning a moot point.
>
> Paul, I admit that this medium of posting to a List is less than
clear (as
> compared to fact-to-face, or even a telephone call). But if the
> inharmonicity makes the intended just tuning a moot point, why
don't all
> pianos have the same quality of harmonic clouds as La Monte's piano
> generates?

you misunderstand. i'm in agreement that the tuning is *very*
important, and it's very important that the tuning be within a very
narrow range around what is considered "just", to get the effect la
monte uses. however, the issue of *absolutely* precise, beatless
tuning is not pertinent to this discussion, because the overtones
(which participate very strongly in the combinational tone generator)
are slightly inharmonic.

> My experience has lead me to witness greater combination tones from
just
> intervals than those that are not just.

that's because the combinational tones in a harmonic series tuning
reinforce each other. this effect is perhaps best acheived when there
is very slight mistuning or slight inharmonicity, or at least some
spatial separation, because otherwise you might be unlucky with your
phases and end up in a state of destructive cancellation for some of
the frequencies.

A case in point is Hugh Davies'
> piece "Differentials." Here I conducted an English Horn, Alto
Flute, and Eb
> Clarinet. The indications are to distort 12-tET fingerings so that
the
> maximum examples of combination tones occur. And yes, they are
there. But
> compared to circular breathing just multiphonics, it has none of
the wonder,
> the richness, and the amplitude of just.
>
> Johnny

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

> Paul!
> I think the strings are tuned an octave lower, possibly to make
the inharmonicity
> unperceptable?

la monte does have a custom-made bosendorfer, of the longest scale
possible, so this does decrease the inharmonicity quite a bit. but
it's certainly not less than, say, half that of a typical grand.

as for tuning the strings an octave lower, i don't know how much
experience you have tuning pianos, but that would leave you with a
musically useless tone. the strings are just way too floppy at that
tension. mind you, it is stiffness (which has to do with the
composition of the string, its mounting, etc.) that causes
inharmonicity, not tension. perhaps francois can remind us of the
formula relating these quantities?

Paul!
I am quite sure that La Monte Piano is an octave lower Possibly he uses different gauge
strings. David?

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> > Paul!
> > I think the strings are tuned an octave lower, possibly to make
> the inharmonicity
> > unperceptable?
>
> la monte does have a custom-made bosendorfer, of the longest scale
> possible, so this does decrease the inharmonicity quite a bit. but
> it's certainly not less than, say, half that of a typical grand.
>
> as for tuning the strings an octave lower, i don't know how much
> experience you have tuning pianos, but that would leave you with a
> musically useless tone. the strings are just way too floppy at that
> tension. mind you, it is stiffness (which has to do with the
> composition of the string, its mounting, etc.) that causes
> inharmonicity, not tension. perhaps francois can remind us of the
> formula relating these quantities?
>

-- 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:
> Paul!
> I am quite sure that La Monte Piano is an octave lower

that's true in that the piano has an extra octave at the bottom of
the keyboard!

> Possibly he uses different gauge
> strings.

certainly, to compensate for the longer scale, and thus lower (but
not completely eliminate) the inharmonicity.

Paul!
I have yet to hear inharmonicity create beats though!

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

>
>
> certainly, to compensate for the longer scale, and thus lower (but
> not completely eliminate) the inharmonicity.
>
>

-- 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:

> Paul!
> I have yet to hear inharmonicity create beats though!

in a situation where sum and difference tones are created, it is
inevitable. another example is playing high up on the low e string on
a stratocaster (notoriously inharmonic) played with overdrive (which
creates sum and difference tones). beats galore!

Hello Paul!
As someone who works alot with difference tone I have only heard beats caused by the
fundamental difference tones, I take you word on the second

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> > Paul!
> > I have yet to hear inharmonicity create beats though!
>
> in a situation where sum and difference tones are created, it is
> inevitable. another example is playing high up on the low e string on
> a stratocaster (notoriously inharmonic) played with overdrive (which
> creates sum and difference tones). beats galore!
>
> --

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

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

Hello David!
It is not that i consider JI as something sacred but appreciate you wishing not to step on my
toes. I just hope that Art could do something beside secularizing sacred objects.
There is always the implication that the sacred is something to be attacked or at least
shunned. If someone found such things sacred it basically is no ones elses business to ridicule
such things. Will those who are inclined to such things have to once again hide from those
"possessed" by the spirits of the witch hunters of Mass. The archetypes have ways of appearing in
the best disguises and logic and reason have.
I will say i consider music in general Sacred being an expression of the spirit and soul with
in us. An exhalation that cannot be contained.
I understand that now we can point to where god is with the brain. Let me caution
my fellow beings on this globe that repressing such an area will only cause it to manifest in more
and more infantile if not violent manifestations on large scales.
I have just reread James Hillman's Article on "terrorism" written in 1983. It contains
interesting quote by Henri Corbin
" What is wrong with the Islamic World is that it has destroyed its images, and without these
images that are so rich and full of tradition, they are going crazy because they have no
containers for their Extraordinary imaginative power."
On another scale we are probably not far behind.

dkeenanuqnetau wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > Must you insist on doing nothing but secularizing every sacred
> object there is.
> > but the humorous furor really seems to becoming more, from the
> opposite side
> >
>
> I'm sorry Kraig. I don't mean to cause you pain. But I think you've
> really put your finger on something here. Perhaps you, and many
> others, are unwilling to admit to _any_ acceptable tuning tolerance
> (despite being forced to accept them in real life) because it
> threatens something sacred.
>
> I personally have found that truly sacred things do not vanish if I
> examine them closely.
>
> To express my view on this, I can do no better than to quote the
> philosopher Daniel Dennett.
>
> "There is no future in a sacred myth. Why not? Because of our
> curiosity. Because ... _we_want_to_know_why_. ... Whatever we hold
> precious, we cannot protect it from our curiosity, because being who
> we are, one of the things we deem precious is the truth. Our love of
> truth is surely a central element in the meaning we find in our lives.
> In any case, the idea that we might preserve meaning by kidding
> ourselves is a more pessimistic, more nihilistic idea than I for one
> can stomach. If that were the best that could be done, I would
> conclude that nothing mattered after all."
>

-- 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..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> as for tuning the strings an octave lower, i don't know how much
> experience you have tuning pianos, but that would leave you with a
> musically useless tone. the strings are just way too floppy at that
> tension. mind you, it is stiffness (which has to do with the
> composition of the string, its mounting, etc.) that causes
> inharmonicity, not tension. perhaps francois can remind us of the
> formula relating these quantities?

The partial ar raised according to

f(n) = n * f(0) * sqrt ( 1 + B * n^2 ) ;

where B is the inharmonicity factor

B = ( pi^3 * Q * d^4 )/ ( 64 * l^2 * T )

where

Q = Young elasticity module of the string
d = diameter of the string
l = length of the string
T = tension

So everything being equal, inharmonicity goes down as length of string
increase (in fact even more, because to keep the same pitch, T must
increase as well as f goes up as sqrt(T) / l ). That explain why grand
piano are les inharmonic.

This formula explain also why Steinway is reluctant to have its piano
tuned below 440 Hz: as T goes down, inharmonicity increase and the
overall tone is changed.

yours truly

François Laferrière