Re: Comments for Julia Werntz (and all))

On Tuesday, June 11, 2002, at 06:26 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Hello Joel!
Hello Kraig !

> Likewise is the term EQUAL filled with false ideology, (as > if such a thing exist anywhere in nature!).

The OED defines equal as "the same in quantity, quality, size, degree, rank, level, etc.". It's etymology is Medieval, from the Latin "aequus", meaning even. It is a word used without prejudice in mathematics & the sciences. There is no ideology involved or implied. As fodder for philosophical debate, you have something. But not here.

In "Pianos and Continued Fractions", Edward G. Dunne says, "...equal temperament (also known as even temperament) whereby the ratio of the frequencies of any two adjacent `notes' (i.e. semitones) is constant...". Let me also add that he uses the term "temperament" correctly within the context of his article. See <http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/DUNNE/TEMPERAMENT.HTML>. The paper also illustrates the context in which a scale may be referred to as an nth root of x scale.

Stearns' EDO (Equal Divisions of the Octave) idea has been adopted by at least a few microtonalists. I've used it myself soon after I first noticed Dan using it. But, though I have lingering issues with "octave", I like it's elegance & it sparked much thought for me.

> It should be called the grid (G) or fencepost system (12 FP)!

Examining the provenance & meanings of "grid" and "fence" (or fencepost ?!), leaves me nonplussed as to how they serve the purpose as you propose. I can only speculate on the motives or reasoning behind your response. Is this "Newspeak" ?

"Just" is defined by the OED as "1. acting or done in accordance with what is morally right or fair", "2. deserved", and tellingly "3 (of feelings, opinions, etc.) well-grounded (_just resentment_)". These were the sort of things I imagined when I first heard the term "Just Intonation". But, by definition it seems, any scale system one choses to adhere to, is one's own "just" intonation. For much of the world that is the temperament, 12EDO.

> I don't think we need newspeak thank you!

This is why I mentioned looking at the 14th, 15th, & 16th century English texts at the Texts on Music in English site at <http://www.music.indiana.edu/tme/>.

I don't understand what Orwellian threat you feel and question who the "we" is you speak on behalf of. You've also recently spoken of a "they" who you seem to perceive as being anti-"Just" Intonation. It's like an atheist v/s religionist debate. It goes nowhere fast. Kraig, I have the greatest respect for everyone here and have nothing against you or "Just" intonation.

There's something that I've read somewhere about wisdom being knowing we don't know much, and what we do know may be wrong.

I know the lines of enquiry I suggest may appear pedantic, but my intention is quite the opposite. We use language for dialogue, exchange of ideas, and the representation and dissemination of knowledge. It is all about words, and the difference between the right and wrong ones is critical.

>
>>
>> The very term *Just* Intonation is fraught with ideology. I
>> would submit that the pitches it is used to refer to would be
>> better called by what they are, notes within the harmonic
>> series. So, instead of saying "11-limit JI", I would use "the
>> harmonic series to the 11-limit". Perhaps something like
>> "11HSL", where HSL = Harmonic Series Limit, would be useful.
>>

Sincerely,
- Joel

Joel Rodrigues wrote:

> There is no ideology
> involved or implied. As fodder for philosophical debate, you
> have something. But not here.

That all tones in a scale are created equal is filled with ideology.
Equality is not possible and is a philosophical construct.

>
>
> > It should be called the grid (G) or fencepost system (12 FP)!
>
> Examining the provenance & meanings of "grid" and "fence" (or
> fencepost ?!), leaves me nonplussed as to how they serve the
> purpose as you propose. I can only speculate on the motives or
> reasoning behind your response. Is this "Newspeak" ?

I did this to illustrate how newspeak your own terms appeared to me.

>
>
> "Just" is defined by the OED as "1. acting or done in accordance
> with what is morally right or fair", "2. deserved", and
> tellingly "3 (of feelings, opinions, etc.) well-grounded (_just
> resentment_)". These were the sort of things I imagined when I
> first heard the term "Just Intonation". But, by definition it
> seems, any scale system one choses to adhere to, is one's own
> "just" intonation. For much of the world that is the
> temperament, 12EDO.
>
> > I don't think we need newspeak thank you!
>
> This is why I mentioned looking at the 14th, 15th, & 16th
> century English texts at the Texts on Music in English site at
> <http://www.music.indiana.edu/tme/>.
>
> I don't understand what Orwellian threat you feel and question
> who the "we" is you speak on behalf of. You've also recently
> spoken of a "they" who you seem to perceive as being anti-"Just"
> Intonation. It's like an atheist v/s religionist debate. It goes
> nowhere fast. Kraig, I have the greatest respect for everyone
> here and have nothing against you or "Just" intonation.

I work with something for over 25 years, you come along and tell me i should call it something
else to suit your own bias for ET and imply that my reaction is religious.
If you don't work with something maybe you might not tell those who do what they should call it.
Science is a religion. It is the religion based on the myth of analysis. Mathematics is one of
its prime tools t so you have a belief that reality can be reflected by numerical reality. Hence
if you break something down into its pieces you can discover what it is, This whole discussion
shows how misplace such religious practices are. First we take a single Dyad (which occurs
isolated rarely in Just intonation ) and compare it with an ET interval that is repeated,
something that is hardly ever repeated ( maybe never except with pythagorean and then it tends to
be known by that name not the former) and attempt to show that the term means nothing or is
imaginary as if numbers are not. Now if we look at the reality of Just intonation we will notice
that it occurs in scales. so possibly we might want to examine scales. The first thing you will
notice is that these scales are almost universally unequal in step sizes. Now those scales
constructed in nature by man divorced from mathematics are also unequal. so it would be possible
to describe any found tuning as JI using the set of infinite integer ratios. we might notice that
those people who use the word equal do not mean what we mean by equal by merely observing what an
"equal" scale means to them. so my conclusion is that ET is nothing but a mathematical hence
religious artifact that has no spontaneous models in reality. What justification in nature do you
have for even proposing ET as a possibility out side of the habitual belief in a mathematical that
can be imposed with
any regard to what is observable.
My real point (which I hate to say McLaren has reached) is that any use of mathematics is
religious and you better.
Now there are an infinite amounts infinite series that can be used. Et being one of the most
unimaginative and frankly i see no reason why those of you who are the true believer in applying
mathematics don't understand why you don't apply all mathematical formulas to music.

> It is all about words, and the
> difference between the right and wrong ones is critical.

Who is to decide this.

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

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