Re: [tuning] Re: More Understanding-to Julia

Hi Julia,

I have not had the opportunity to do a sentence by sentence study of your
study. However, I could not (and should not) be quoted third hand to the
Internet. If I spoke to them about you it was about composition, not the
paper.

I believe I do have the gist of the paper now from reading everything on the
list and having skimmed through the paper. I thought it was naive as a
thesis. And I think the usage by PNM is paramount to what is gained by you.
Truly, I have avoided theory all my life as a career. After 4 postgraduate
years at Columbia in ethnomusicology and theory, I was supposed to move
exclusively to theory. Ethno kicked me out, but theory was unsatisfying.
Composition and Performance are my favorites. Theory took the gut joy out of
playing. Composing is independent of theory. Besides, theories that are
based on style are ipso-facto biased.

I do understand, Julia, that you have concern about the interference that low
number superparticular can cause to a compositional vision. Of course, this
would not be true for Minimalism as a musical style, for example. And you
are not speaking for rock, or for jazz for that matter. But these are all
inter-related, as both the Maneris have demonstrated in a lifetime of music
making.

As close as I can gather, now that I have given your article away to Joseph
Pehrson for study, I have also had to deal with these issues. Joseph seemed
to agree on the telephone last night. It is sort of a natural consequence of
the set theorists wanting to avoid the equal tempered perfect fifth (at 700
cents) because of its "tonal" implications. It went with the textbook of
John Rahn in a grad class by Marc Zuckerman. It seemed silly to me at the
time because atonal music seemed a willful music in which one agrees to
simply turn off all implications in the mind.

What you have supported is a raison d'être for 72 to be used without being
sucked in to the tonal impediment of "almost" just intervals that are close
to JI small superparticular intervals. To me this is like all the
synaesthesia books that came out in the earlier part of the century, each
claiming different colors for different pitches. Obviously, they hadn't
consulted, or noticed the idiosyncrasy involved.

As a composer, I dealt with the issues of an overpowering theoretical usage
of consonance. Polymicrotonal music allows me to use anything I want, while
excluding what I want, sort of like a pitch canvas. Semi-religious arguments
on any side that promotes a single way is obviously not of interest. The
difficult thing is to present something that is true intuitively to a larger
body of population.

My preference for using JI is to make scales that use ratios that contain a
single number. For example, my piece Trespass uses a scale in which each
ratio is a multiple of the 17th harmonic. Audiences easy settle into the
tuning and there is no risk for leaky minds. Works in 13, etc. Then there
is more melodic angularity with obvious consonance, but not on the old
standard model. You might consider it.

best, Johnny Reinhard

Hi again.

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

However, I could not (and should not) be quoted third hand to the
> Internet. If I spoke to them about you it was about composition, not the
> paper.
>

Well, actually I was responding more to something you yourself posted on
Metatuning, in which you describe informing Mat, it seems, of some sort of
intolerance on my part. /metatuning/topicId_2475.html#2475
(Joe Pehrson and Paul Erlich had been saying repeatedly that Metatuning was the
place to go with this dialogue, so I checked it out, though I didn't find much.) Joe
Maneri knows my article inside-out, and Mat has had his own copy if it for a long
time, though who knows if he's read it. He has known me and my approach for
years, so it's just the same. We can let this issue go, though, if you wish.

>And I think the usage by PNM is paramount to what is gained by you.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. The sum value of the PNM essay is
nothing more than how it has served *me*?

> Truly, I have avoided theory all my life as a career. After 4 postgraduate
> years at Columbia in ethnomusicology and theory, I was supposed to move
> exclusively to theory. Ethno kicked me out, but theory was unsatisfying.
> Composition and Performance are my favorites. Theory took the gut joy out of
> playing. Composing is independent of theory. Besides, theories that are
> based on style are ipso-facto biased.

I share these sentiments, more or less. My Ph.D. is actually in Composition and
Theory, but I've never had the heart of a theorist (which may be one reason I was
never drawn to JI or other tuning fields). Theory for me is useless unless it can
help us figure out how to compose our own music, or help us understand the music
of others. In other words, I'd say that theory *is* about how music is composed,
put together, and nothing more, for me.

>
> I have not had the opportunity to do a sentence by sentence study of your
> study.

and
>
> I do understand, Julia, that you have concern about the interference that low
> number superparticular can cause to a compositional vision. Of course, this
> would not be true for Minimalism as a musical style, for example. And you
> are not speaking for rock, or for jazz for that matter. But these are all
> inter-related, as both the Maneris have demonstrated in a lifetime of music
> making.

and
>

> What you have supported is a raison d'?tre for 72 to be used without being
> sucked in to the tonal impediment of "almost" just intervals that are close
> to JI small superparticular intervals. To me this is like all the
> synaesthesia books that came out in the earlier part of the century, each
> claiming different colors for different pitches. Obviously, they hadn't
> consulted, or noticed the idiosyncrasy involved.
>

There seems to be an impression that I am advising avoiding fifths, thirds, etc.
(12-note ET or "almost-just"). What I actually wrote in PNM (see page 189) about
this was advice to try to de-emphasize *all* of the familiar, traditional intervals of
12-note ET. All of them. (Some of you guys ought to like that!) My exact words:
"A concerted effort to *avoid* emphasis of the traditional intervals is based, of
course, not on some presumed criteria regarding the quality of certain
relationships [no "synaesthesia" here], but rather upon the need simply to
experience the new relationships, to become familiar with them and give them
musical relevance." Isn't that pretty benign?

I never would have stated that I, or Joe, or Mat - I didn't even discuss Mat in the
essay - compose or play without "low number superparticular," as you put it.
(Octaves, fifths, thirds.) We just use different shades of them. A major third
augmented by 33 cents, for example, has a delicious flavor, and so on. At the same
time, the inter-relatedness of different, even parallel, musical traditions isn't the
same thing as their having the same demands. (Joe has never been much of a
rocker, or a minimalist, by the way.) And under whose guidance do you think I
came to these ideas (like the ones I mention above on p189 of PNM)? Joe's, of
course. He was my teacher for ten years!

-Julia

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_38520.html#38521

>
>
> I never would have stated that I, or Joe, or Mat - I didn't even
discuss Mat in the essay - compose or play without "low number
superparticular," as you put it. (Octaves, fifths, thirds.) We just
use different shades of them. A major third augmented by 33 cents,
for example, has a delicious flavor, and so on.

***Hello Julia!

Paul Erlich points out to me offlist that the interval you discuss
here is very, very close to a simple 7:9. That would, of course,
make sense, since you're lowering the 7 (let's say Bb) by a septimal
comma...So, obviously, you're not avoiding *all* just intervals!

Quite frankly, it seems you are *more* concerned about avoiding
traditional 12-equal than anything else and, possibly, more emphasis
on that fact and less on the "just stuff" would have enhanced the
article. Just (literally) a thought...

best,

Joe

In-Reply-To: <agdi48+u0b7@eGroups.com>
jpehrson2 wrote:

> Paul Erlich points out to me offlist that the interval you discuss
> here is very, very close to a simple 7:9. That would, of course,
> make sense, since you're lowering the 7 (let's say Bb) by a septimal
> comma...So, obviously, you're not avoiding *all* just intervals!

What do you think she's doing in the examples? It sounds vaguely like
9-limit to me. But perhaps all dyads in 72-equal will sound like that.
Everybody else who said anything said it sounded like avoidance of small
ratio approximations. If she's using such intervals but not theorising
about them, that'd be a different kettle of ball games.

> Quite frankly, it seems you are *more* concerned about avoiding
> traditional 12-equal than anything else and, possibly, more emphasis
> on that fact and less on the "just stuff" would have enhanced the
> article. Just (literally) a thought...

But 72-equal is still a strange scale to use if you want to avoid
12-equal.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_38520.html#38532

> In-Reply-To: <agdi48+u0b7@e...>
> jpehrson2 wrote:
>
> > Paul Erlich points out to me offlist that the interval you
discuss
> > here is very, very close to a simple 7:9. That would, of course,
> > make sense, since you're lowering the 7 (let's say Bb) by a
septimal
> > comma...So, obviously, you're not avoiding *all* just intervals!
>
> What do you think she's doing in the examples? It sounds vaguely
like
> 9-limit to me. But perhaps all dyads in 72-equal will sound like
that.
> Everybody else who said anything said it sounded like avoidance of
small
> ratio approximations. If she's using such intervals but not
theorising
> about them, that'd be a different kettle of ball games.
>
> > Quite frankly, it seems you are *more* concerned about avoiding
> > traditional 12-equal than anything else and, possibly, more
emphasis
> > on that fact and less on the "just stuff" would have enhanced the
> > article. Just (literally) a thought...
>
> But 72-equal is still a strange scale to use if you want to avoid
> 12-equal.
>
>
> Graham

***Hi Graham,

Well, *I* thought she was mostly intentionally avoiding "small ratio
approximations" too. It was *Paul* who said I was "wrong" in
asserting this... so perhaps you should discuss this on the list with
Paul...

Paul??

Thanks!

Joseph

In-Reply-To: <ager1q+mvqs@eGroups.com>
jpehrson2 wrote:

> Well, *I* thought she was mostly intentionally avoiding "small ratio
> approximations" too. It was *Paul* who said I was "wrong" in
> asserting this... so perhaps you should discuss this on the list with
> Paul...

I don't know what Paul said to you off list. 433.3 cents us close to 9:7
(435.1 cents). The context Julia mentioned it is strange, in that she
might have been giving it as an example of a "low number superparticular".
It is a fairly low number ratio, but it isn't superparticular.

The online dissertation stops before she gets to the interesting bit,
about her 72-equal counterpoint. So I can't really say if she's doing
what she says she's doing. But from the short examples, she seems to be
using atonal melodies with digestible harmony, when there are sustained
dyads. She may have found an alternative, but the easiest way of doing
that is to take the approximations to simple ratios (while avoiding very
simple ones like 3:2 or 5:4).

And as she's said she does use 9:7, perhaps that's typical. Or perhaps
the harmony sounds consonant because there are no strong consonances to
compare it with. Which is why I asked what other people thought of the
examples, as plenty of you have better ears than I do.

Graham

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

> ***Hi Graham,
>
> Well, *I* thought she was mostly intentionally avoiding "small
ratio
> approximations" too. It was *Paul* who said I was "wrong" in
> asserting this...

julia said so too:

/tuning/topicId_38520.html#38521

she's interested in de-emphasizing the intervals of 12-equal. she's
*not* interested in whether the intervals she ends up emphasizing are
the "near-just" ones, or the non-"near-just" ones. all of them are
potentially aesthetically useful, especially (given her examples and
discussion) *melodically*; the idea is based "not on some presumed
criteria regarding the quality of certain relationships, but rather
upon the need simply to experience the new relationships, to become
familiar with them and give them musical relevance." (quoting julia
quoting her own paper).

why is this so hard for people to understand?

somehow, joseph got the idea last week (or earlier) that julia was
promoting the avoidance of the near-just intervals. last week, i
argued vehemently with joseph that this was not the case. he stuck to
his guns, and his misconceptions about julia's ideas seemed to rub
off on johnny as well.

> so perhaps you should discuss this on the list with
> Paul...

it's clear from both julia's paper and now, especially, from her
remarks on this list. it really shouldn't be necessary for me to step
in and clarify . . .

> Paul??

julia said to bear with her, so i'm bearing with her. i could launch
into an extremely lengthy reply to her last reply to me, but i think
it's preferable to step out and let some air into the room. i'd like
to see julia reply to kraig, for example (with the hope of course
that they could come to an understanding of some kind).

currently, i'm not enthusiatic about this discussion. few of the
participants have read and cited much of the actual paper in question
or even the publically available dissertation excerpt, and those who
have, seem to be flagrantly misunderstanding it. some of the issues
are incredibly subjective ones concerning the perception of
the "scene", its "dominant ideologies", and the types of "defensive
stances" one might wish to take for political rather than
intellectual reasons. these arguments could easily be turned on their
head by someone from a different background and present us with the
prospect of a downward spiral, each party always stooping to the
lowest depths exhibited by the other. meanwhile, the kind of just
intonation theory (or related approaches like the 72-equal richter-
herf/maedel/hesse school) that julia portrays in the first part of
her paper shows, at best, a profound lack of depth in understanding
even the precious few references on these subjects she cites, let
alone the myriad she does not. in 75 months on this list i have seen
dozens, if not hundreds, of more enlightened discussions about the
strengths, weaknesses, potentialities, and limitations of just
intontation and related approaches; currently such discussions are
blossoming on other lists such as the SpecMus yahoogroup.

since julia is newly coming to this list with very specific and
focused goals, i think it would be helpful for her to do one of two
things -- to either take some time to familiarize herself with the
ideas and discussions from the archives of this list (rather than
basing much of her view on some questionable websites and a
mysterious "web search"); or to send copies of her paper to those who
have entered into the discussion here without access to it. either
(or ideally both) of these moves would improve the chances for some
meaningful discussion. perhaps neither is feasible for the immediate
future; if not, the discussion might be profitably delayed for a time.

as for me, i look forward to meeting with julia in person again when
she returns to the boston/cambridge area, should she desire it. i
anticipate better and less noisy communication between us in face-to-
face conversation than on this list, and i think she feels the same
way . . .

goodbye!
-Paul Erlich

Hi Joe.
>
> Paul Erlich points out to me offlist that the interval you discuss
> here is very, very close to a simple 7:9. That would, of course,
> make sense, since you're lowering the 7 (let's say Bb) by a septimal
> comma...So, obviously, you're not avoiding *all* just intervals!
>
> Quite frankly, it seems you are *more* concerned about avoiding
> traditional 12-equal than anything else and, possibly, more emphasis
> on that fact and less on the "just stuff" would have enhanced the
> article. Just (literally) a thought...
>

This is true. I never claimed to be avoiding any and all just intervals *in
composition*. [I can hear you gasping.] That would truly be silly. My point was
about moving away from the familiar. Some of the intervals derived from JI are
unfamiliar sounding, those that are farther in frequency from the traditional ET
intervals. Why *not* use them, if they have a lovely sound? It's the dogma I was
critical of, and the theoretical premise which seems flawed. Not the poor intervals!

I also think 12-note ET intervals are great, in the appropriate context. But to
non-just composers seeking to distill new meanings from a new chromatic I
recommend avoiding those "old intervals," which can be overwhelming,
overbearing influences from the old language, and are loaded with preestablished
(through tradition) meanings. For me, a major third will have this effect whether it
is 400 cents or 383 cents. Maybe even 367 cents or 417 cents, depending on the
context.

As I've been meaning to tell Christopher Bailey in response to his very eloquent
post of a few days ago, there are even "special occasions" when for specific artistic
reasons I (and certainly Joe) would use, and have used, familiar intervals. [More
gasping.] Christopher gave a nice account of this. There is a difference between this
type of situation, and the process of getting into the new vocabulary, extracting the
artistic "purpose" of the new intervals, developing a dialect.

-Julia

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

/tuning/topicId_38520.html#38537

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***Hi Graham,
> >
> > Well, *I* thought she was mostly intentionally avoiding "small
> ratio approximations" too. It was *Paul* who said I was "wrong" in
> > asserting this...
>
> julia said so too:
>
> /tuning/topicId_38520.html#38521
>
> she's interested in de-emphasizing the intervals of 12-equal. she's
> *not* interested in whether the intervals she ends up emphasizing
are the "near-just" ones, or the non-"near-just" ones. all of them
are potentially aesthetically useful, especially (given her examples
and discussion) *melodically*; the idea is based "not on some
presumed criteria regarding the quality of certain relationships, but
rather upon the need simply to experience the new relationships, to
become familiar with them and give them musical relevance." (quoting
julia quoting her own paper).
>
> why is this so hard for people to understand?
>

***I believe it's the way the article is written.

The quotation that you cite and that Julia cites is way on page 189
of the article in the SECOND section!

The whole first maybe 12 pages or so of the article describes why
Just Intonation and the use of small integer ratios is not a valid
approach to microtonality.

Ergo, why wouldn't somebody think that Julia, particular also after
hearing her music, which uses *few* traditional lower integer
ratios...[at least I'm not hearing them..]not only wanted to avoid 12-
tET but *even moreso* the intervals that emulate lower-integer ratios?

I guess I have to stand by my impression that the *implication* of
the article led me and I believe will lead many others to the same
conclusion.

If that conclusion is *erroneous* than it might be better to just
*skip* the Just Intonation stuff, as I've mentioned several times
before.

> somehow, joseph got the idea last week (or earlier) that julia was
> promoting the avoidance of the near-just intervals. last week, i
> argued vehemently with joseph that this was not the case. he stuck
to
> his guns, and his misconceptions about julia's ideas seemed to rub
> off on johnny as well.
>

***I mean I really don't care. I would rather that she *didn't* want
to avoid near-just intervals! That's just the impression I got from
reading the article. I think we need more people to read it, since I
believe that more, substantially more, than 50% of those reading the
article would come to the same conclusion that *I* did. I'd even
place *bets* on it! :)

> currently, i'm not enthusiatic about this discussion.

***It's really not on your preferred level, but some of the rest of
us are enjoying waddling around in it.

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_38520.html#38540

> Hi Joe.
> >
> > Paul Erlich points out to me offlist that the interval you
discuss
> > here is very, very close to a simple 7:9. That would, of course,
> > make sense, since you're lowering the 7 (let's say Bb) by a
septimal
> > comma...So, obviously, you're not avoiding *all* just intervals!
> >
> > Quite frankly, it seems you are *more* concerned about avoiding
> > traditional 12-equal than anything else and, possibly, more
emphasis
> > on that fact and less on the "just stuff" would have enhanced the
> > article. Just (literally) a thought...
> >
>
> This is true. I never claimed to be avoiding any and all just
intervals *in
> composition*. [I can hear you gasping.] That would truly be silly.
My point was
> about moving away from the familiar. Some of the intervals derived
from JI are
> unfamiliar sounding, those that are farther in frequency from the
traditional ET
> intervals. Why *not* use them, if they have a lovely sound? It's
the dogma I was
> critical of, and the theoretical premise which seems flawed. Not
the poor intervals!
>

***Well, in that case it's really unclear to me what the first
section of the article has to do with the practical-oriented second!
Maybe nothing, if you'll beg my pardon for the criticism...

> I also think 12-note ET intervals are great, in the appropriate
context. But to
> non-just composers seeking to distill new meanings from a new
chromatic I
> recommend avoiding those "old intervals," which can be
overwhelming,
> overbearing influences from the old language, and are loaded with
preestablished
> (through tradition) meanings. For me, a major third will have this
effect whether it
> is 400 cents or 383 cents. Maybe even 367 cents or 417 cents,
depending on the
> context.
>

***Dunno. I guess I'm interested in writing a *far* different kind
of music than interests you. You will probably find my
music "naive..." but that's OK. It's rather *tonal* these years...
not quite an out of tune (or *in tune*) Arvo Part, but headed in that
direction!

I have *no problem* with nicely tuned "major thirds" and such like
and feel that *still* my music is original with the approach that I
use.

You may think differently. It interests me that even Schoenberg,
with all his prohibitions on the *most familiar* intervals, returned
to use them later in his life with his Second Chamber Symphony and
such like...[oh... I see in my Stuckenschmidt (everybody needs one of
those!) that the date is 1939... opus 38. Great piece.]

Most of this, I feel, is a matter of taste. However, I *do* say that
I was enjoying the short excerpts of your music that I heard so far,
even though the style is *far* removed from my own!

It's always nice to hear 72, NO MATTER how it's used! :)

Joe Pehrson

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

> > why is this so hard for people to understand?
> >
>
> ***I believe it's the way the article is written.

ok, maybe . . .

> The quotation that you cite and that Julia cites is way on page 189
> of the article in the SECOND section!

well, there is plenty to support it even in the first section. read
for example "some attractive by-products of the flawed theory", pp.
170-171. while there is much that julia writes here that enraged me,
and continues to do so on repeated reading, her meaning on this one
point seems very clear: she finds beauty in all intervals, just or
otherwise, that are "new and exciting", that "sound most unusual to
our twelve-note, equal-tempered ears".

> The whole first maybe 12 pages or so of the article describes why
> Just Intonation and the use of small integer ratios is not a valid
> approach to microtonality.

there is much that is infuriating about the first section. on that we
agree. i could make a list. but . . .

> That's just the impression I got from
> reading the article. I think we need more people to read it, since
I
> believe that more, substantially more, than 50% of those reading
the
> article would come to the same conclusion that *I* did. I'd even
> place *bets* on it! :)

sure, you may be right. but all it takes is a careful reading of her
article. one must understand her definition of the "just intonation
model". referring to the terminology in margo's recent posts here,
julia's "just intonation model" is far narrower than RI. it's
considerably narrower than CI. it's even narrower than HI. she then
claims that any composer who does anything that she finds musically
interesting is disobeying the laws of just intonation, even if they
claim to be a just intonation composer. having demonstrated so poor
an understanding of the subject, this claim is the ultimate in hubris
on julia's part. i don't know where she gets off. but she's pretty
clear and consistent on this one point -- intervals that are new and
unfamiliar are what she finds beautiful, exciting, and inspiring,
whether they are derived from ratios or not.

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

> What do you think she's doing in the examples? It sounds vaguely like
> 9-limit to me.

The way to find out would be to check the score, but it did sometimes sound that way.

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

> currently, i'm not enthusiatic about this discussion. few of the
> participants have read and cited much of the actual paper in question

Most of us have not had the opportunity to read the actual paper.
I presume it will show up in the SJSU library eventually.

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

> she finds beauty in all intervals, just or
> otherwise, that are "new and exciting", that "sound most unusual to
> our twelve-note, equal-tempered ears".

Sounds like a perfect candidate for 11-limit 72-et music. :)

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

/tuning/topicId_38520.html#38552

> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > she finds beauty in all intervals, just or
> > otherwise, that are "new and exciting", that "sound most unusual
to
> > our twelve-note, equal-tempered ears".
>
> Sounds like a perfect candidate for 11-limit 72-et music. :)

***Actually, some of these 11-limit sonorities from Blackjack, which
Paul and Dave Keenan helped show me, are absolutely fantastic! Of
course, I like them when they are *also* blended with the "lower,
lowers..."

JP

On Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 08:14 , tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>>

>> she's interested in de-emphasizing the intervals of 12-equal. she's
>> *not* interested in whether the intervals she ends up emphasizing
> are the "near-just" ones, or the non-"near-just" ones. all of them
> are potentially aesthetically useful, especially (given her examples
> and discussion) *melodically*; the idea is based "not on some
> presumed criteria regarding the quality of certain relationships, but
> rather upon the need simply to experience the new relationships, to
> become familiar with them and give them musical relevance." (quoting
> julia quoting her own paper).
>>
>> why is this so hard for people to understand?
>>
>
> ***I believe it's the way the article is written.
>
> The quotation that you cite and that Julia cites is way on page 189
> of the article in the SECOND section!
>

> The whole first maybe 12 pages or so of the article describes why
> Just Intonation and the use of small integer ratios is not a valid
> approach to microtonality.

From the dissertation extract and Julia's many explanations (in vain) here, I think I can safely say that is *not* what she says.

The understanding of this stands on grasping what she means by 'microtonality' in that context. I've tried to explain (Xenharmonics, remember ?). Microtonality and xenharmonics are *not* really the same thing, but given that xenharmonics is not a widely used or known term, Julia can be excused for saying 'microtonal'.

Or, I can rephrase like so,'...Just Intonation and the use of small integer ratios is not an efficient approach to achieving significant (or even marginally striking) new tonalities for someone conditioned to music in 12-ED2:1 '.

To offer another view, I could point out Monzo's notion (which I think is pretty good) that the term JI by itself implies '5-limit' JI. This tonal space covers pretty much the same ground as 12-ED2:1. There is much evidence to support both statements. See this article by Kyle Gann, <http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=17tp05>.

I find there is a lot of interesting and important ground to cover here. For me, for example, searching for new tonalities (Xenharmonics) involves avoiding not only tonalities too similar to 12-ED2:1. I listen to a lot of non-12-ED2:1 music, perhaps some only marginally so, including Thai, Chinese, Middle Eastern, Fado (listen to the vocal lines), none of which are microtonal or xenharmonic to *me*. So, I need to work around that as well without discarding or dismissing any of it. If I'm going to write any significant music in new (or at least rarer) tonalities, it should come across as such more or less universally.

Sincerely,
Joel

--- In tuning@y..., Joel Rodrigues <joelrodrigues@m...> wrote:

> Or, I can rephrase like so,'...Just Intonation and the use of
> small integer ratios is not an efficient approach to achieving
> significant (or even marginally striking) new tonalities for
> someone conditioned to music in 12-ED2:1 '.

This requires a definition of "Just Intonation" and "small integer ratios". Is 11/3 a small integer ratio, or not? I haven't a clue.

> To offer another view, I could point out Monzo's notion (which I
> think is pretty good) that the term JI by itself implies
> '5-limit' JI. This tonal space covers pretty much the same
> ground as 12-ED2:1.

This is absurd.

Joe P:
> > The whole first maybe 12 pages or so of the article describes why
> > Just Intonation and the use of small integer ratios is not a valid
> > approach to microtonality.

Joel:
> From the dissertation extract and Julia's many explanations (in
> vain) here, I think I can safely say that is *not* what she says.

I disagree. The abstract says something very similar to that, but she
said it was written in a hurry and not to take it too seriously. Not that
I remember her saying that there was anything wrong with it, mind. In
fact, it seems she dashed off the whole Ph.D. dissertation without taking
it very seriously, and we have to get this elite journal to see what she
really meant.

Anyway, the bit where she says JI is invalid in the dissertation is on
page 16 that you click on, or page 8 by her own numbering. The bit that
starts "Just Intonation is specifically a vertical view of music" ends up
with "This approach will not be useful to any composer who ..." Check it.
It clearly says that what she calls Just Intonation is not a valid
approach for most of us.

> The understanding of this stands on grasping what she means by
> 'microtonality' in that context. I've tried to explain
> (Xenharmonics, remember ?). Microtonality and xenharmonics are
> *not* really the same thing, but given that xenharmonics is not
> a widely used or known term, Julia can be excused for saying
> 'microtonal'.

That isn't important at all for the paragraph I mention above. Only that
you wish to have overall melodic freedom and assume full responsibility
for pitch choice, and regard consonance and dissonance as relative
(relative to what? she doesn't say).

> Or, I can rephrase like so,'...Just Intonation and the use of
> small integer ratios is not an efficient approach to achieving
> significant (or even marginally striking) new tonalities for
> someone conditioned to music in 12-ED2:1 '.

That's a fair rephrasing. It's still wrong.

> To offer another view, I could point out Monzo's notion (which I
> think is pretty good) that the term JI by itself implies
> '5-limit' JI. This tonal space covers pretty much the same
> ground as 12-ED2:1. There is much evidence to support both
> statements. See this article by Kyle Gann,
> <http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=17tp05>.

But this is exactly one of the areas where Julia's unclear. She starts
off specifying the 5-limit, and then wheels in Partch.

Graham