don't we tune to 72, using JI?

All this argumentation brought to mind the supposed method of ear-training
which was posted here a while back, for 72tet.

Didn't it involve playing certain intervals against a drone, and
eleminating the beats?

If that's how you learn 72tet, then isn't the fact of the matter that
72tet is, as played in real life, actually a form of JI ("involved" or
"intertwined" with 12TET), rather than "true" 72?

In other words, given the ear-training methods for 72tet, it's *72's*
purity that's in "jeopardy", *not* JI's.

I haven't been following this thread to0 closely, but here
I add my 1999 cents....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Bailey" <cb202@columbia.edu>

> All this argumentation brought to mind the supposed method of ear-training
> which was posted here a while back, for 72tet.
>
> Didn't it involve playing certain intervals against a drone, and
> eleminating the beats?

Then it wouldn't be 72tet but a 72 tone Just Intonation scale.

> If that's how you learn 72tet, then isn't the fact of the matter that
> 72tet is, as played in real life, actually a form of JI ("involved" or
> "intertwined" with 12TET), rather than "true" 72?

I would suggest tuning a synth to 72tet and playing along with it.

> In other words, given the ear-training methods for 72tet, it's *72's*
> purity that's in "jeopardy", *not* JI's.

72tet is not Just, but it is near Just.

Or, as my High School Algebra teacher used to say, "Close, but no cigar".

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

For the math mavens on the List: if 72-tET is Just then, ipso facto,
all Just is 72-tET. This can't be right. Johnny

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

> For the math mavens on the List: if 72-tET is Just then, ipso facto,
> all Just is 72-tET. This can't be right. Johnny

That's why I like JI to be a theoretical construct, such as a finitely-generated subgroup of the positive rational numbers under multiplication acting freely on what Lewin calles a "musical space".

--- In tuning@y..., Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_38034.html#38034

> All this argumentation brought to mind the supposed method of ear-
training which was posted here a while back, for 72tet.
>
> Didn't it involve playing certain intervals against a drone, and
> eleminating the beats?
>
> If that's how you learn 72tet, then isn't the fact of the matter
that 72tet is, as played in real life, actually a form of JI
("involved" or "intertwined" with 12TET), rather than "true" 72?
>
> In other words, given the ear-training methods for 72tet, it's
*72's* purity that's in "jeopardy", *not* JI's.

***This is a truly excellent point since it is, indeed, the method
that some of us have been urging on performers.

So, essentially, if they are following that method to learn the 72-
tET intervals, they really *are* learning Just.

Of course, Johnny has a point that if they are playing with a
recording that has a relentless 72, and they match that, it will not
be perfectly just.

But, if they use the training method, when playing alone they should
be doing Just intervals *more* than strict 72 ones.

Good and interesting point, Chris!

J. Pehrson

In a message dated 6/20/02 9:05:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jpehrson@rcn.com
writes:

> > In other words, given the ear-training methods for 72tet, it's
> *72's* purity that's in "jeopardy", *not* JI's.
>
>
>

Oh if it were true. But Al Guisto and other 72-trained musicians from Boston
that have come to NYC still need a specific Just orientation to properly play
in Just. In other words, anecdotally, players did not immediately hear just
intervals. (shoulder shrug)

And Gene, Just is not a mere theoretical construct. It is as real as the
music that is performed in it, which is quite a lot by now. best, Johnny

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > For the math mavens on the List: if 72-tET is Just then, ipso
facto,
> > all Just is 72-tET. This can't be right. Johnny
>
> That's why I like JI to be a theoretical construct, such as a
>finitely-generated subgroup of the positive rational numbers under
>multiplication acting freely on what Lewin calles a "musical space".

ugh. johnny, joseph was the one who said 72-equal is just. none of
the "math mavens" said that. 72-equal is different from just because
it elides the 224:225 and 384:385 and 1024:1029 and 2400:2401 (among
other) commas, just as meantone elides the 80:81. a just intonation
piece that uses 80:81 as a nonvanishing structural feature cannot be
rendered in meantone; similarly, a just intonation piece that uses
224:225 and 1024:1029 as nonvanishing structural features cannot be
rendered in 72-equal.

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/20/02 9:05:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jpehrson@r...
> writes:
>
>
> > > In other words, given the ear-training methods for 72tet, it's
> > *72's* purity that's in "jeopardy", *not* JI's.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Oh if it were true. But Al Guisto and other 72-trained musicians
from Boston
> that have come to NYC still need a specific Just orientation to
properly play
> in Just. In other words, anecdotally, players did not immediately
hear just
> intervals. (shoulder shrug)

this is not surprising in the least, given that the ear-training
methods used in boston bear no resemblance, whatsoever, to what was
described above (by chris, i believe?). in fact, if you read julia's
article (she being from that same town), this should become very
clear.

meanwhile, in this discussion, no one seems the least bit concerned
about distinguishing strict ji (which is what most ji people call ji,
that being a tuning completely specified by exact pitch-ratios,
connected to one another by interval-ratios of some simplicity), and
adaptive ji. using joseph's 'just-based' ear-training, in combination
with a score and (for the sake of argument, a single-voice)
accompaniment in 72-equal, is going to result in neither 72-equal nor
strict ji. instead, a form of adaptive ji is likely to result -- the
vertical intervals are just, the horizontal (melodic) intervals are
not. i think that's a very happy thing, and is my answer to what i
believe was the original question (from chris?) in this thread.

similarly, bob is suggesting that his use of a 72 or other
mensuration of the octave would be meant to be read as adaptive ji by
his players.

so whatever qualities exist in an absolutely purely-tuned chord, are
not negated whatsoever in the instructions of either composer.

however, the overall compositional paths that can be taken in a
notated-72-performed-as-adaptive-ji scheme may be quite different
from those in strict ji, due to the commas that vanish in the former.

adaptive ji has been around at least since 1555, but continues to be
forgotten in these discussions to this very day.

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

/tuning/topicId_38034.html#38067

> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >
> > > For the math mavens on the List: if 72-tET is Just then, ipso
> facto,
> > > all Just is 72-tET. This can't be right. Johnny
> >
> > That's why I like JI to be a theoretical construct, such as a
> >finitely-generated subgroup of the positive rational numbers under
> >multiplication acting freely on what Lewin calles a "musical
space".
>
> ugh. johnny, joseph was the one who said 72-equal is just. none of
> the "math mavens" said that. 72-equal is different from just
because
> it elides the 224:225 and 384:385 and 1024:1029 and 2400:2401
(among
> other) commas, just as meantone elides the 80:81. a just intonation
> piece that uses 80:81 as a nonvanishing structural feature cannot
be
> rendered in meantone; similarly, a just intonation piece that uses
> 224:225 and 1024:1029 as nonvanishing structural features cannot be
> rendered in 72-equal.

***Yes, I *definitely* can't be included with the "math mavens..."
Math *moron* might be more like it... although I really *like* math
but had bad teachers... and I've got a whole bunch of other excuses,
too...

But, I love the way that 72, "focuses" and "tidies up" those commas
like that, so it can squeeze the whole thing into a nice, tidy little
pie, so it's easy to transpose and *notate!*

Joseph

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

/tuning/topicId_38034.html#38070

> >
> > Oh if it were true. But Al Guisto and other 72-trained musicians
> from Boston that have come to NYC still need a specific Just
orientation to properly play in Just. In other words, anecdotally,
players did not immediately hear just intervals. (shoulder shrug)
>

> this is not surprising in the least, given that the ear-training
> methods used in boston bear no resemblance, whatsoever, to what was
> described above (by chris, i believe?). in fact, if you read
julia's article (she being from that same town), this should become
very clear.
>

> meanwhile, in this discussion, no one seems the least bit concerned
> about distinguishing strict ji (which is what most ji people call
ji, that being a tuning completely specified by exact pitch-ratios,
> connected to one another by interval-ratios of some simplicity),
and adaptive ji. using joseph's 'just-based' ear-training, in
combination with a score and (for the sake of argument, a single-
voice) accompaniment in 72-equal, is going to result in neither 72-
equal nor strict ji. instead, a form of adaptive ji is likely to
result -- the vertical intervals are just, the horizontal (melodic)
intervals are not. i think that's a very happy thing, and is my
answer to what i believe was the original question (from chris?) in
this thread.
>

***This is really a *very* important contribution to this discussion,
and I'm glad you have your "thinking cap" on today, Paul! :)

So, essentially, in answer to Johnny's question about the live player
playing along with the 72-tET electronic accompaniment, the live
player is *not necessarily* playing in 72 if he is to use the Just
Intonation "ear training" methods we are advocating.

Instead, the entire is a kind of "adaptive just" ...thanks for
pointing this out.

> similarly, bob is suggesting that his use of a 72 or other
> mensuration of the octave would be meant to be read as adaptive ji
by his players.
>
> so whatever qualities exist in an absolutely purely-tuned chord,
are not negated whatsoever in the instructions of either composer.
>

***Yes, if the "ear training" works the way we want it to...

> however, the overall compositional paths that can be taken in a
> notated-72-performed-as-adaptive-ji scheme may be quite different
> from those in strict ji, due to the commas that vanish in the
former.
>

***Absolutely. And it makes it possible, of course, to compose with
common tone harmonies around the Blackjack lattice, which would not
be possible in *strict Just...* It wouldn't all work out like that,
naturally.

> adaptive ji has been around at least since 1555, but continues to
be forgotten in these discussions to this very day.

***And here it is yet *again* in full force! And we didn't even
realize it until you pointed it out!

It's almost a bit like Vicentino, no, where you have a *vertical*
just and a quarter comma meantone horizontal "scale..."

Joseph

In a message dated 6/21/02 1:47:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
paul@stretch-music.com writes:

> in fact, if you read julia's
> article (she being from that same town), this should become very
> clear.
>
>

Paul, I was the first person on the List to have Julia's article. She sent
it to me since I gave authorization for 2 works to be heard on the Web in
excerpt by Wyschnegradsky and Bartok. I'm sorry that I can't dig into it
and criticize it as I am feverishly rewriting a chapter of my own.

Most of my interaction on the list is based on performance practice versus
pure theory. I hope this distinction works for you.

best, Johnny Reinhard

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

> ***And here it is yet *again* in full force! And we didn't even
> realize it until you pointed it out!

i think flexible-pitch systems get even shorter shrift in the
academic literature than they do here!

> It's almost a bit like Vicentino, no, where you have a *vertical*
> just and a quarter comma meantone horizontal "scale..."

you got it!

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/21/02 1:47:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> paul@s... writes:
>
>
> > in fact, if you read julia's
> > article (she being from that same town), this should become very
> > clear.
> >
> >
>
> Paul, I was the first person on the List to have Julia's article.
She sent
> it to me since I gave authorization for 2 works to be heard on the
Web in
> excerpt by Wyschnegradsky and Bartok. I'm sorry that I can't dig
into it
> and criticize it as I am feverishly rewriting a chapter of my own.
>
> Most of my interaction on the list is based on performance practice
versus
> pure theory. I hope this distinction works for you.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

sure . . . but your point is? did you have any
problem/reaction/suggestion to the point i was making above?

In a message dated 6/21/02 1:58:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
paul@stretch-music.com writes:

> > in fact, if you read julia's
> > > article (she being from that same town), this should become very
> > > clear.
>

My point is that I don't have to read about what I can actually hear. I can
hear what is happening in the music, so I don't need to rationalize it.

Best, Johnny

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/21/02 1:58:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> paul@s... writes:
>
>
> > > in fact, if you read julia's
> > > > article (she being from that same town), this should become
very
> > > > clear.
> >
>
> My point is that I don't have to read about what I can actually
hear. I can
> hear what is happening in the music, so I don't need to rationalize
it.
>
> Best, Johnny

you must have taken something in the wrong way. i wrote the above
with an eye toward the (chris's?) original question in the thread. i
didn't want the original questioner to assume that much 72 ear
training, especially that in boston, was anything like joseph's just-
oriented set of ear-training instructions. that's all i meant by the
above.