Addendum 4 Paul

P,

Two other annotations that made me think the way I did/do:

Her artistic decision for 72 as opposed to JI being justified other than "...ideological dogmas."

In the footnotes, regarding claims for use of JI:

"...these really just fall into the realm of numerology, and should simply identify themselves as such..."

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> P,
>
> Two other annotations that made me think the way I did/do:
>
> Her artistic decision for 72 as opposed to JI being justified other
than "...ideological dogmas."
>
> In the footnotes, regarding claims for use of JI:
>
> "...these really just fall into the realm of numerology, and should
simply identify themselves as such..."
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

so far, then, it sounds like my response to this article might not be
any different from my response to the dissertation excerpt . . . but
i won't know for sure until i receive it . . .

but from all this, and after having met her, i feel almost certain
that julia would find dave's view of 72, and my view of 72, and
gene's view of 72, and george's view of 72, just as repulsive as she
finds ji!

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

> Her artistic decision for 72 as opposed to JI being justified other than "...ideological dogmas."
>
> In the footnotes, regarding claims for use of JI:
>
> "...these really just fall into the realm of numerology, and should simply identify themselves as such..."

If you want to show her to be wrong, answering my OM querry would be a good place to start.

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

> but from all this, and after having met her, i feel almost certain
> that julia would find dave's view of 72, and my view of 72, and
> gene's view of 72, and george's view of 72, just as repulsive as she
> finds ji!

If you reject JI for being mystical, and our approach to temperament for being scientific, there's not much room left to stand on.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > but from all this, and after having met her, i feel almost
certain
> > that julia would find dave's view of 72, and my view of 72, and
> > gene's view of 72, and george's view of 72, just as repulsive as
she
> > finds ji!
>
> If you reject JI for being mystical, and our approach to
>temperament for being scientific, there's not much room left to
>stand on.

sure there is . . . but what i meant was that most of us "scientific"
folks start with the presumption that:
{
a view of intervals and chords gravitating toward the "pull" of the
simple ratios *is* relevant for analyzing important musical qualities
of pitch systems, and as appropriate a starting point as any for the
enrichment of a musician's resources
}
and jump off from there . . . julia questions that very assumption,
so her stance is a non-starter for the work that we "microtemperers"
have done (i should have mentioned graham too).

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> If you want to show her to be wrong, answering my OM querry would be a good place to start.

You must be misreading something: I am not intending to show her as right or wrong, merely that I thought the sentiment Dave expressed had a similar resonance in her writing, at least as she expressed it in the PNM article.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> sure there is . . . but what i meant was that most of us "scientific"
> folks start with the presumption that:
> {
> a view of intervals and chords gravitating toward the "pull" of the
> simple ratios *is* relevant for analyzing important musical qualities
> of pitch systems, and as appropriate a starting point as any for the
> enrichment of a musician's resources

Is ignoring the way hearing works scientific? I have no objection to the idea that "consonance" is largely culturally determined, but that does not lead to the conclusion, which Julia apparently drew, that it makes sense to ignore hearing. Even if your only concern for rational approximations is not to let them become a factor in your work, you need to know they are there. You don't cross a mine field by denying the existence of the mines.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > sure there is . . . but what i meant was that most of
us "scientific"
> > folks start with the presumption that:
> > {
> > a view of intervals and chords gravitating toward the "pull" of
the
> > simple ratios *is* relevant for analyzing important musical
qualities
> > of pitch systems, and as appropriate a starting point as any for
the
> > enrichment of a musician's resources
>
> Is ignoring the way hearing works scientific?

hmm . . . no, i don't think it is . . . but what's your point in the
context above?

>I have no objection to the idea that "consonance" is largely
>culturally determined, but that does not lead to the conclusion,
>which Julia apparently drew, that it makes sense to ignore hearing.
>Even if your only concern for rational approximations is not to let
>them become a factor in your work, you need to know they are there.
>You don't cross a mine field by denying the existence of the mines.

i think you've expressed that point of view already, but what i'm
trying to show jon here is something different, to which this doesn't
speak (as far as i can tell). well, it perhaps does show that even
you have a lot more in common with the strict ji folks than either
have in common with julia.

GS!
Pascal is a great model of someone who could keep his feet in both camps!

genewardsmith wrote:

>
> If you reject JI for being mystical, and our approach to temperament for being scientific, there's not much room left to stand on.
>
>

-- 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:
> GS!
> Pascal is a great model of someone who could keep his feet in both camps!

So am I, but it still doesn't answer my questions--what is just? What is compromise?

In a message dated 6/19/02 5:23:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

> If you want to show her to be wrong, answering my OM querry would be a good
> place to start.
>
>
>

Exactly what is your OM querry, Gene? I'm confused by your place to start.
Johnny

In a message dated 6/19/02 5:27:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

> If you reject JI for being mystical, and our approach to temperament for
> being scientific, there's not much room left to stand on.

In no sense is JI less scientific than temperament. Unless, your particular
approach is even more scientific than most scientific treatments of
temperament. Johnny

In a message dated 6/19/02 8:18:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

> So am I, but it still doesn't answer my questions--what is just? What is
> compromise?

Historically, it was about modulations for the burgeoning keyboardist
population and limited keys on the manual. Johnny

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

> Exactly what is your OM querry, Gene? I'm confused by your place to start.

How close to ratios of small integers do we need to be before the particular special quality of true, pure Just Intonation asserts itself?

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/19/02 8:18:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> genewardsmith@j... writes:

> > So am I, but it still doesn't answer my questions--what is just? What is
> > compromise?

> Historically, it was about modulations for the burgeoning keyboardist
> population and limited keys on the manual. Johnny

Does that mean that meantone is just?

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

/tuning/topicId_37942.html#37991

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/19/02 8:18:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > genewardsmith@j... writes:
>
> > > So am I, but it still doesn't answer my questions--what is
just? What is
> > > compromise?
>
> > Historically, it was about modulations for the burgeoning
keyboardist
> > population and limited keys on the manual. Johnny
>
> Does that mean that meantone is just?

***Isn't that funny... In all the discussion of the "Just
definitions" in the past I can't remember anybody *specifically*
asking that question, or did they...

JP

In a message dated 6/20/02 1:31:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

> How close to ratios of small integers do we need to be before the particular
> special quality of true, pure Just Intonation asserts itself?
>
>
>

If it is acoustic, pure ratios are best. If it is electronic it is even more
serious. Johnny

In a message dated 6/20/02 1:36:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

> Does that mean that meantone is just?
>
>
>

Meantone is the first temperament and in its quarter comma form it is as just
as the Renaissance-Baroque could get with keyboards. Nothing is just except
just. Johnny

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/20/02 1:31:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> genewardsmith@j... writes:
>
>
> > How close to ratios of small integers do we need to be before the particular
> > special quality of true, pure Just Intonation asserts itself?

> If it is acoustic, pure ratios are best. If it is electronic it is even more
> serious. Johnny

What's a pure ratio? Again, we seem to be confronted with the idea that it is possible to play a rational number as opposed to an irrational one. Mathematically, the rational numbers are "dense" inside the real numbers, which means this is not possible. It isn't even possible to play a particular rational interval and not have an infinite number of other rational intervals as close as you like to the interval you are attempting to play. For instance, suppose we play a 1.5000000, that still could mean 1.50000001 or 1.49999999.

Hello Gene!
Likewise one cannot play an ET interval?
Just what is ET if it can't be played?

genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> What's a pure ratio? Again, we seem to be confronted with the idea that it is possible to play a rational number as opposed to an irrational one. Mathematically, the rational numbers are "dense" inside the real numbers, which means this is not possible. It isn't even possible to play a particular rational interval and not have an infinite number of other rational intervals as close as you like to the interval you are attempting to play. For instance, suppose we play a 1.5000000, that still could mean 1.50000001 or 1.49999999.
>
>

-- 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:
> Hello Gene!
> Likewise one cannot play an ET interval?
> Just what is ET if it can't be played?

It's whatever you end up playing, I suppose. No one really cares if 72-et is off by 0.1 cent from some power of 2^(1/72); the question is, do you care if something is off by 0.1 cent from 3/2 or 7/4? If the answer is yes, when would you stop caring?

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

/tuning/topicId_37942.html#38036

> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/20/02 1:31:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > genewardsmith@j... writes:
> >
> >
> > > How close to ratios of small integers do we need to be before
the particular
> > > special quality of true, pure Just Intonation asserts itself?
>
> > If it is acoustic, pure ratios are best. If it is electronic it
is even more
> > serious. Johnny
>
> What's a pure ratio? Again, we seem to be confronted with the idea
that it is possible to play a rational number as opposed to an
irrational one. Mathematically, the rational numbers are "dense"
inside the real numbers, which means this is not possible. It isn't
even possible to play a particular rational interval and not have an
infinite number of other rational intervals as close as you like to
the interval you are attempting to play. For instance, suppose we
play a 1.5000000, that still could mean 1.50000001 or 1.49999999.

***Again, this gets back to some of the ideas of "audible" Just
Intonation that Dave Keenan advanced in some of his posts. Too bad
we don't have the exact archives citation numbers for those. This
was gone over in quite an interesting way, Gene, before you came on
the list, with Dave Keenan and Paul Erlich as the "ringleaders" if I
remember correctly...

Joseph

Hello Gene!
I would always care yet i realize that i will not always get it. It is what the player should aim for though, same with an ET . This is why i say we need not compromise in intent. It is only by aiming at the bulleye do we get close.
The best analogy is with rhythm. They now have machine that shows how far off the best we all tend to be but if we play quarter notes we play quarter notes the best we can. One could argue that any metronome mark is a theoretical construct,
completely unachievable.

genewardsmith wrote:

> It's whatever you end up playing, I suppose. No one really cares if 72-et is off by 0.1 cent from some power of 2^(1/72); the question is, do you care if something is off by 0.1 cent from 3/2 or 7/4? If the answer is yes, when would you stop caring?

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

> ***Again, this gets back to some of the ideas of "audible" Just
> Intonation that Dave Keenan advanced in some of his posts. Too bad
> we don't have the exact archives citation numbers for those. This
> was gone over in quite an interesting way, Gene, before you came on
> the list, with Dave Keenan and Paul Erlich as the "ringleaders" if I
> remember correctly...

I'm trying to pin down what the "pure tuning crowd" means by just, not what Dave and Paul do; however the attempt is probably impossible.

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

> Hello Gene!
> I would always care yet i realize that i will not always get it. It
> is what the player should aim for though, same with an ET.

both joseph (in his ear-training instructions that come with his
music) and bob (more generally) have expressed a different view. they
expect the consonant intervals of the ET to be adaptively tuned to
just intonation by the players/singers. therefore nailing the ET to
within a fraction of a cent is never an issue.

kraig, why not allow for intonational flexibility, subject to the ear
of the musician and the harmonic and/or expressive needs of the
musician, in the notated note?

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

/tuning/topicId_37942.html#38071

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***Again, this gets back to some of the ideas of "audible" Just
> > Intonation that Dave Keenan advanced in some of his posts. Too
bad we don't have the exact archives citation numbers for those.
This was gone over in quite an interesting way, Gene, before you came
on the list, with Dave Keenan and Paul Erlich as the "ringleaders" if
I remember correctly...
>
> I'm trying to pin down what the "pure tuning crowd" means by just,
not what Dave and Paul do; however the attempt is probably impossible.

***Hi Gene!

Yes, but there's a whole *slew* of messages about a year or so ago
between several members of the "pure tuning crowd" including Jacky
Ligon (who unfortunately deleted *his* contributions, alas) and Paul
and Dave, and Margo too.

Basically, the "gist" of it was to establish the idea of "rational
intonation" as a kind of "extended Just." And Dave Keenan was
determining a *perceptual* basis for the limits of the definition of
Just Intonation.

My understanding is that the people *truly* in the *Pure Just* camp
decided that *any* ratio, no matter *how* large was considered Just
Intonation. So it's a *semantic* definition, in a way.

Of course, that argument is belied by the famous *Hammond Organ*
example of two-digit "rational" just that is indistinguisable from 12-
tET as well as the fact that one can go along the number line,
apparently, and get ratios large enough so that one can do *any*
temperament...

So, Dave disagreed with the *rationalists...* (Those in support of
*ratios* not necessarily the *most rational* among us... :) )

It was a great discussion, and before you came aboard, Gene. In
fact, it was one of the best ever to be on this list!

best,

Joseph

In a message dated 6/21/02 10:27:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> So, Dave disagreed with the *rationalists...* (Those in support of
> *ratios* not necessarily the *most rational* among us... :) )
>
>

Joseph, this is not necessary. Johnny

Hello Paul!
I have no objection to this as a basis to further honing in on what we want in specific
contexts. Of course in certain contexts this would not make sense as if lets say i want a 40/27.
But if you are plowing through JI chord progressions flexibility would not be a choice, but a
result. As Boomliter and Creel work implies.

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

>
>
> kraig, why not allow for intonational flexibility, subject to the ear
> of the musician and the harmonic and/or expressive needs of the
> musician, in the notated note?
>

-- 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_37942.html#38095

> In a message dated 6/21/02 10:27:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jpehrson@r... writes:
>
>
> > So, Dave disagreed with the *rationalists...* (Those in support
of
> > *ratios* not necessarily the *most rational* among us... :) )
> >
> >
>
> Joseph, this is not necessary. Johnny

***Sorry, Johnny. This was not *aimed* at you in any way. You
weren't even part of those discussions, as I recall. It was only a
joke based on the word "rationalists..."

Joseph

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

> Hello Paul!
> I have no objection to this as a basis to further honing in on
>what we want in specific
> contexts. Of course in certain contexts this would not make sense
>as if lets say i want a 40/27.

a harmonic one? ok, sure, but that's very different from
the "beatless harmony" quality of ji that many are attracted to and
that many use to *define* ji. (e.g., ask judith conrad if she thinks
40/27 is a just interval.) anyway, in a piece notated in 72, you'd be
in pretty good shape -- this interval is approximated by 683 cents,
and would not be one of the intervals that the performer would have
been trained to pull in toward a beatless intonation.

> But if you are plowing through JI chord progressions flexibility
>would not be a choice, but a
> result. As Boomliter and Creel work implies.

flexibility of the sort being discussed above? even, say, in a partch
or harrison score, notated with ratios? you'd be flexible about the
intonation of those ratios?

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> It was a great discussion, and before you came aboard, Gene. In
> fact, it was one of the best ever to be on this list!

OK Joseph, It might be said to start around about here:
/tuning/topicId_15523.html#15598
Starting as "Graylessness and limit" and then continuing as "Defining
Just intonation".

Paul!
I was thinking about common practice harmony which these two are outside of., With common
practice we have a historical "shifting due to context that effects the intonation. It would be
unwise to destroy this before we are able to really observe what is going on.
But i am going to revise what is just which might please you. Just is what the best performers
realize as the ratios given.

A note also to George Secor. Erv has chosen to use the term
"Absolute" tuning
when describing completely beatless ratios.

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

>
> flexibility of the sort being discussed above? even, say, in a partch
> or harrison score, notated with ratios? you'd be flexible about the
> intonation of those ratios?
>
>

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

/tuning/topicId_37942.html#38112

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > It was a great discussion, and before you came aboard, Gene. In
> > fact, it was one of the best ever to be on this list!
>
> OK Joseph, It might be said to start around about here:
> /tuning/topicId_15523.html#15598
> Starting as "Graylessness and limit" and then continuing
as "Defining
> Just intonation".

***Hi Dave!

Yes, I was thinking particularly of the "Defining Just Intonation"
thread that starts about 16287....:

/tuning/topicId_16287.html#16287

Joseph