Everyone Concerned

Dear List Members,

In this post I am attempting to focus the various discussions surrounding the just
intonation-related section of my PNM essay on its central point. I am willing to
continue to discuss other aspects of the paper, but in the confusion over certain
details I also feel that the central idea in this section has been lost.

For this reason I will restate, in one sentence, the central point of that section
(pages 161-171). And further, for Paul and others, I will add that I believe that the
simple, fundamental premise I challenge in this central point represents the most
prominent and influential view, i.e. that it is the one expressed by some of the most
well-known and influential practitioners and proponents of just intonation and
other pure tuning methods. I ask that you read my words carefully, simply to avoid
further uneccesary misunderstandings, and I will again do my best to ensure that
my words are clear in their meaning!

First, a disclaimer: my paper and this discussion regard the contemporary JI
movement, as it concerns the music of our time, and *not* theories of consonance
and dissonance from 16th century Europe or ancient Greece, which apply to the
music of another, specific time and context. (I have no problem with historical
tunings, though they are not my area of interest.)

And now for the central point:
The central point in pages 161-171 of my paper is that, according to the
fundamental premise of contemporary just intonation, justly tuned intervals are
more correct than non-just intervals, are what humans are meant to be hearing in
their music, and that I believe this premise is false.

Please indulge me and reread that sentence.

If any of you feel motivated to respond to this simple, central point, please also
consider a few other things before replying, as I have seen that it is necessary to
make known the spirit in which I wrote the essay:

In the section of my essay in question I made criticisms of: first, the
beating/overtones issue; second, the practical limitations composers would face *if
they adhered strictly to the beating/overtones argument*; third, the very intense,
polemical tone used by many prominent proponents, in which they attack Western
music and pantonal music.

With regard to this first criticism of mine: I realize that I have cited only the most
commonly and prominently stated arguments in support of pure tuning, regarding
beating and the overtone series, and not other arguments which perhaps would
make my presentation of just intonation logic more well-rounded, and which Paul
would like very much for me to consider. (I intend to, at the soonest opportunity.)
It is presumably for this reason that I have been called naive, profoundly lacking
understanding, and so on, and for those of you who do cite other scientific
arguments in support of this fundamental premise of interval correctness, pages
165 and most of page 166, in which I discuss only the overtones and beating issues,
may seem frustrating. However I remain confident that I have thoroughly
understood the basic premise (as I've just stated it), and I believe that the
paragraphs which follow (bottom page 166 and most of page 167), concerning
musical context, cultural background and imagination not only are still pertinent,
but in fact are the more important arguments. (I even wrote in the essay "More
importantly...")

If you do not adhere to the basic premise of just intonation I described above, that
just intervals are "what humans are meant to be hearing in their music," etc., but
use JI for other reasons, then this part of my essay wasn't about you. I personally
may not undestand why one would use JI if one doesn't believe in its basic premise,
but that's none of my business. Composers, including myself, use all sorts of
stimuli which may seem quirky to others, and it's a very personal issue - it's the
final product of the music that most of us are waiting for.

And if you *do* adhere to that basic premise as far as it concerns your own music,
but are not in the business of pushing these beliefs (which must apply to many of
you), then it can get hairy (as it has), since you will probably wonder why I had to
come out with these statement. Most likely if arguments hadn't been so frequently
and forcefully made from JI proponents so prominent and influential that they
could be considered spokespeople of the movement (I don't wish to name names
here, but I have cited some of them in the essay, and there are others), I probably
wouldn't have felt the need to expend so much effort criticizing even the theoretical
premise, let alone the political arguments, and would have written more of a
simple, opinionless introduction to Part 2, as Joe Pehrson and others wish I had. In
other words, I generally don't care if people privately believe this or anything else
I consider false, as long as they aren't making damaging and influential claims.

Why do I consider such claims damaging? As I indicated in the essay, I feel that
attempting to devalue the music of several generations of composers and
improvisors based on ostensible (or, for that matter, real) scientific evidence is a
hateful act, one with a sizeable and willing audience today. Further, I believe that
musicians ought to be left to find the appropriate materials for their art on their
own, based on their cultural background, their chosen musical influences, and their
imagination. (The last two especially could include the use of just intonation, of
course.) And further, I believe that the basic premise of JI, stated above, when
applied inappropriately beyond one's own private compositional method, is at odds
with and implicity devalues most jazz, popular, non-Western and folk music which
is *not* purely tuned, while at the same time many of its proponents claim to ally
themselves with these types of music.

-Julia

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

> The central point in pages 161-171 of my paper is that, according to the
> fundamental premise of contemporary just intonation, justly tuned intervals are
> more correct than non-just intervals, are what humans are meant to be hearing in
> their music, and that I believe this premise is false.

This says that the "fundamental principle" of contemporary just intonation is a judgment of value. That seems to negate the scientific approach at the outset, and fails to describe how many on this list, at least, approach such questions. I don't think therefore it can be taken as a fundamental principle.

> I personally
> may not undestand why one would use JI if one doesn't believe in its basic premise,
> but that's none of my business.

It's *your* basic premise; that does not make it everyone's. If you are interested I could give some reasons.

> Why do I consider such claims damaging? As I indicated in the essay, I feel that
> attempting to devalue the music of several generations of composers and
> improvisors based on ostensible (or, for that matter, real) scientific evidence is a
> hateful act, one with a sizeable and willing audience today.

People find inspiration in the strangest things, but an ideological opposition to science is a pretty narrow basis for anything. It also would serve to put you right next to the most extreme of your JI opposition.

Further, I believe that
> musicians ought to be left to find the appropriate materials for their art on their
> own, based on their cultural background, their chosen musical influences, and their
> imagination.

Then why tell them what they ought to be doing?

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

/tuning/topicId_38587.html#38587

>>
> Why do I consider such claims damaging?

***Hi Julia!

You know, I really wonder if the Just Intonation people are really as
influencial as you seem to think they are. Sure, there's Doty and
Gann, two *main* proponents, and Harrison and Johnston talk about it
*some* but spend more time writing music.

Isn't the "movement" though rather a micro movement in a micro
movement??

Maybe there's more on the *Web* concerning Just Intonation, but maybe
that's just because it has a certain "cache" and gets into the
computer cache...

I'm not sure it's all that significant.

I think a strong paper supporting your *own* point of view, without
comparing the others would make just as strong a statement as the JI
people are doing... And it would win *converts* to a new way of
using 72 without the "attacks..."

(Not that *I'm* going to change... but I'm more likely to think about
it... :)

best,

Joe

I couldn't help noticing that, taken together, these two excerpts
have something to say about each other:

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote [#38583]:
> In-Reply-To: <agigpv+hbfs@e...>
> dkeenanuqnetau wrote:
>
> > I don't think Julia is an entirely lost cause yet. She seems like
she
> > might be willing to allow us to educate her a little. I know I
would
> > like to be educated about generalise voice-leading theory. I may
be
> > imagining it, but she seemed interested in the idea of _atonal_
JI a
> > la Wilson's CPS's, and if we can leave the numbers out of it for
her
> > and just talk in terms of just subminor sevenths etc there may be
some
> > hope.
>
> Oh, come come. Julia isn't a "lost cause" in any way. Hopefully
she
> won't be lost to this list. She's writing microtonal music, and
promoting
> it in a prominent journal. Nobody's had any problems about the
part of
> her paper where she explains her own approach. So she said some
silly
> things about systems she isn't (explicitly) using. She also said
she'll
> avoid that in future.
>
> Whether she'll use some particular piece of theory isn't really
that
> important. The emphasis of the bit of the dissertation I could get
at is
> on freedom and subjectivity, which is great. I don't see why she'd
object
> to numbers if they have subjective qualities. But if she does, who
cares?

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote [#38586]:
>
> ... It may be that certain corners of the American academe refuse
to accept just
> intonation. But you may be interested to know that it could hardly
have been
> worse for Joe Maneri at the New England Conservatory (microtonal
course
> notwithstanding) in terms of acceptance and recognition, and that
for most of my
> time at Brandeis, up until hip David Rakowski arrived on the
faculty and agreed to
> advise me on my thesis, it is no exaggeration to say that I was
laughed at and
> publicly humiliated for composing with microtones and presenting
microtonal
> works in analysis class, and was even told not to compose with
microtones as long
> as I was there! (By the time I left, I think I may have softened
some of them, but
> not without much bitter heartache.) In addition, I have been
rejected repeatedly
> from certain "establishment" conferences and competitions,
specifically for
> submitting microtonal works. In fact, I have sometimes felt that
Joe Maneri and I
> and his other students who study microtones don't fit in anywhere
as
> microtonalists, other than in our own "scene" here in Boston. ...

From this I can safely conclude that Julia's experience on the Tuning
List is not the worst thing that she has had to endure in her pursuit
of microtonality. So maybe there's hope for us, as well, that she
won't consider us a lost cause.

I believe that there's enough microtonal diversity around here that
there is no question that Julia could not only "fit in," but also be
able to receive encouragement and support from the new friends that
she has made in the past several weeks.

I use the term "friends" because I believe that we all need to
remember that we share a common bond in our desire that microtonality
may one day be appreciated by a larger audience and that we all need
to help one another in our efforts to make that a reality.

--George

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

> First, a disclaimer: my paper and this discussion regard the
contemporary JI
> movement, as it concerns the music of our time, and *not* theories
of consonance
> and dissonance from 16th century Europe or ancient Greece, which
apply to the
> music of another, specific time and context. (I have no problem
with historical
> tunings, though they are not my area of interest.)

i mentioned benedetti, but i could have mentioned tenney (in his most
contemporary theories) instead. it doesn't matter.

> And now for the central point:
> The central point in pages 161-171 of my paper is that, according
to the
> fundamental premise of contemporary just intonation, justly tuned
intervals are
> more correct than non-just intervals, are what humans are meant to
be hearing in
> their music, and that I believe this premise is false.

ok, i'm willing to accept this point (depending, however, on how you
define "just intervals") and even agree with you about it. but the
arguments you make . . .

> Please indulge me and reread that sentence.

done. then the *only* issue should be the *absurdity* of such an
objective measure of "correctness" in art. this could be demonstrated
with one or a few examples from established musical styles from
around the world where musical "correctness" is well-defined and
agreed upon by a body of musicians and listeners. that's it, that's
all you need to discuss. the rest is superfluous.

> With regard to this first criticism of mine: I realize that I have
cited only the most
> commonly and prominently stated arguments in support of pure
tuning, regarding
> beating

but you've misunderstood, and drawn false conclusions, even from
those. i made this point with a citation of helmholtz; your response
seems to be simply to ignore what i'm saying.

> and the overtone series,

the basic fact that we hear overtone series as single pitches, while
other spectral arrangements are not heard that way, and the fact that
this fact has implications for harmony, may not be "commonly and
prominently stated" enough for you, but it shows up in an unbroken
line since rameau. should you block out anything prior to
the "contemporary" period, however you define that, you'll still see
this argument running forward from whatever point you place your
blotter at, right through to johnny reinhard today.

since you've made statements about "just intonation" rather than
about particular authors, one would assume you'd gone through at
least the majority of the relevant works in a major university
library -- if not, wouldn't it be better to simply name and cite the
items you're objecting to, to avoid inadvertantly offending everyone
else who's used the term?

> and not other arguments which perhaps would
> make my presentation of just intonation logic more well-rounded,
and which Paul
> would like very much for me to consider.

combinational tones might be another factor to consider.

>(I intend to, at the soonest opportunity.)
> It is presumably for this reason that I have been called naive,
profoundly lacking
> understanding, and so on, and for those of you who do cite other
scientific
> arguments in support of this fundamental premise of interval
correctness, pages
> 165 and most of page 166, in which I discuss only the overtones and
beating issues,
> may seem frustrating.

but even sticking to beating, we're in helmholtz's world, so see
above -- even if beating were the only important factor known, i'd
still be quite frustrated by your argument.

> However I remain confident that I have thoroughly
> understood the basic premise (as I've just stated it), and I
believe that the
> paragraphs which follow (bottom page 166 and most of page 167),
concerning
> musical context, cultural background and imagination not only are
still pertinent,
> but in fact are the more important arguments. (I even wrote in the
essay "More
> importantly...")

well, i myself have been critical of some just intonation theory on
some similar grounds (i've brought up the Ab to B example more than
my share of times). but i do believe that psychoacoustics and human
neurology will always play a *partial* role in how music is heard,
particularly in establishing the "patterns" (if not always
the "exceptions") of which sonorities (even if concentrating solely
on extremely unfamiliar ones) possess more latent discordance and
which possess less -- and thus, when these are taken in combination
with *other* human perceptual/psychological considerations such as
categorical perception, what types of consonance/dissonance grammars
may be feasibly communicated to listeners. whether or not this is
actually true, the issue of "correctness" is quite another one
entirely . . .

the "imagination" argument doesn't fly as far as i'm concerned.
unless one is living in a solipsistic musical world, one has to get
one's musical ideas across to a listener. in order to do so, one can
either rely on extra-musical communication, or else one *has* to
appeal to either culturally or biologically common features in the
listening minds of the composer and the listener. if not,
then "imagined" meanings such as those of "solidity" will have no
meaning outside the imagination of the composer.

the middle paragraph on page 167 again invokes the "straw man":

". . . it would obviously be futile, even absurd, to try to avoid the
feared 'incorrectness' of this majority of relationships by
restricting oneself to simple pure triads or seventh chords in one's
music"

which is not an argument against any contemporary just intonationist
i can think of; and moreover, even restricting oneself in such a
manner does not imply any restrictions whatsoever on the melodic
intervals that may occur (q.v. the blackjack example again). since
melodic intervals are the primary focus of the second part of your
paper, there really seems to be a huge gap between the first part and
the second part, such that one wonders what they're doing in the same
paper.

> If you do not adhere to the basic premise of just intonation I
described above, that
> just intervals are "what humans are meant to be hearing in their
music," etc., but
> use JI for other reasons, then this part of my essay wasn't about
you.

well, ok, but i might say some similar things -- for example, any
vertical interval (except perhaps the perfect consonances) will be,
in some respects, processed by the human perceptual apparatus with a
degree of uncertainty, with simultaneous conflicting interpretations
in terms of several *just intervals*. my own model of a component of
latent discordance (which is not a yes/no proposition but rather a
continuous quantity), that i call harmonic entropy, is simply a
measure of this uncertainty. whether this model is well-founded or
not (i of course believe it is), it certainly agrees with perceptual
qualities i am aware of when listening to various intervals out of
musical context. now of course musical context has a huge effect on
how they're perceived, but it can never, say, turn these qualities
upside-down, such that all of the concordances sound dissonant and
all of the discordances sound consonant. sure, one can make
concordances sound "jarring" and out-of-place in a context where
dissonance is expected, but this only serves to demonstrate that
there's a universally perceived difference in quality between the
extremes of these categories. open fifths and octaves can
sound "incorrect" when approched in parallel motion in some styles;
this in no way negates the fact that the perception of these
intervals involves less neurological uncertainty than the perception
of the "richer" intervals of tonal music -- it's just that the sudden
reduction of uncertainty is damaging to the musical texture. so here,
i find myself in agreement with you that it's absurd to
associate "correctness" with a maximization of the prevalence of the
simplest possible ratios in music. but who does? name one person
whose statements solidly match such a point of view.

if taken to its extreme, this "just intonation" view would allow only
the very simplest and least ambiguous interval, the 1/1, to ever
occur as a verticality in music (while of course saying nothing about
disallowing any conceivable melodic/horizontal intervals). and where
can one find examples of such an aesthetic? ironically enough, in the
second part of your paper!

> I personally
> may not undestand why one would use JI if one doesn't believe in
its basic premise,
> but that's none of my business.

then why claim that some just intonation composers, any in fact that
use "interesting" (for you) sonorities or intervals, are violating
the basic premise of just intonation? without providing a single
example of a composer who writes music consistent with the basic
premise of just intonation as you see it? if you truly felt that it's
none of your business, you wouldn't have made this claim. since
you've made it your business, you'd be well served to better
understand what premises these (in fact virtually all contemporary
just intonation) composers in fact rely on. did you run your "taken
fundamental liberties with the just intonation model" claim by any of
the composers you accuse of doing so, to see how they would respond,
before putting such a statement in print? i doubt it -- either way,
it's now irrevocably "your business"!

> Most likely if arguments hadn't been so frequently
> and forcefully made from JI proponents so prominent and influential
that they
> could be considered spokespeople of the movement (I don't wish to
name names
> here, but I have cited some of them in the essay, and there are
others),

i've already dealt with the cases of david doty and kyle gann (in my
post entitled "straw man", and david spoke for himself as well (in
his post he pleasantly suprised me by not even advocating just
intonation for the tuning of dissonances, and of course was as
accepting of the *presence* of dissonances as i had said he was in
the _primer_). i await your reply. so far, i fail to see any evidence
that your "straw man" exists.

gdsecor wrote:

I use the term "friends" because I believe that we all need to
remember that we share a common bond in our desire that microtonality
may one day be appreciated by a larger audience and that we all need
to help one another in our efforts to make that a reality.

>
> --George

I'll second that.

Best wishes

the *only* issue should be the *absurdity* of such an
> objective measure of "correctness" in art. this could be demonstrated
> with one or a few examples from established musical styles from
> around the world where musical "correctness" is well-defined and
> agreed upon by a body of musicians and listeners. that's it, that's
> all you need to discuss. the rest is superfluous.

It's all Paul Erlich would need to discuss. Yours also would be a fine way to make
the same point about culture and background, but I don't agree that the rest is
superfluous (obviously).

> > With regard to this first criticism of mine: I realize that I have
> cited only the most
> > commonly and prominently stated arguments in support of pure
> tuning, regarding
> > beating
>
> but you've misunderstood, and drawn false conclusions, even from
> those. i made this point with a citation of helmholtz; your response
> seems to be simply to ignore what i'm saying.

No, you just need to tell me *what* false conclusions from Helmholtz I am
drawing in my essay. All you've said so far was that he demonstrated that a minor
sixth was a harmonious interval.

>
> since you've made statements about "just intonation" rather than
> about particular authors,

How can you say this? Go back and look - I made statements about the claims of
several specific people.

one would assume you'd gone through at
> least the majority of the relevant works in a major university
> library --

Tell me, do you think I spent three years writing my doctoral thesis *without*
going to major university libraries and finding all the relevent works I could, and
when I couldn't find them ordering them through the mail? I'll do us both a favor
and forget you even wrote that.

if not, wouldn't it be better to simply name and cite the
> items you're objecting to, to avoid inadvertantly offending everyone
> else who's used the term?
>

Did I not name and cite the items I was objecting to, thoroughly and methodically?

>
> the "imagination" argument doesn't fly as far as i'm concerned.
> unless one is living in a solipsistic musical world, one has to get
> one's musical ideas across to a listener. in order to do so, one can
> either rely on extra-musical communication, or else one *has* to
> appeal to either culturally or biologically common features in the
> listening minds of the composer and the listener. if not,
> then "imagined" meanings such as those of "solidity" will have no
> meaning outside the imagination of the composer.

I cited the imagination as one contributing factor, along with acoustics, musical
context, and cultural background. Of course, if it was the only factor there could
hardly be any musical communication, ever. But I never implied this.

> the middle paragraph on page 167 again invokes the "straw man":
>
> ". . . it would obviously be futile, even absurd, to try to avoid the
> feared 'incorrectness' of this majority of relationships by
> restricting oneself to simple pure triads or seventh chords in one's
> music"
>
> which is not an argument against any contemporary just intonationist
> i can think of; and moreover, even restricting oneself in such a
> manner does not imply any restrictions whatsoever on the melodic
> intervals that may occur (q.v. the blackjack example again). since
> melodic intervals are the primary focus of the second part of your
> paper, there really seems to be a huge gap between the first part and
> the second part, such that one wonders what they're doing in the same
> paper.

I see no connection (nor lack of connectedness) between these two things. It seems
like a big leap you are making. The second part of my paper is about composing
with microtones entirely independently of just intonation concerns, so why would JI
restrictions or lack-of-them-in-melodic-intervals be relevent there?

sure, one can make
> concordances sound "jarring" and out-of-place in a context where
> dissonance is expected, but this only serves to demonstrate that
> there's a universally perceived difference in quality between the
> extremes of these categories.

I don't believe any dissonance is expected in the Bartok example I gave. (But try
Mikrokosmos no. 65 from the same book, Vol. II, for another, maybe even better
example of this, with harsh, rough, jarring open fifths and no harmonic
expectations of any kind.) And fifths or octaves can sound "jarring" if you just sit
and pound a bunch of them out violently on the piano, for that matter. So musical
context can include, aside from voice-leading and harmonic "expectations,"
something as simple as dynamics and articulation. If there is something that is pure
and perfect about the octave, well this is easily achievable, but it does depend on
how this octave is treated by the composer. If someone hammers it away
ruthlessly at a fortississimo dynamic, then that all of that purity or stability is going
to go out the window.

Maybe it seems like I am confusing issues now, confusing functional harmonic
stability with the effects of dynamics and articulation. But this is exactly my point,
that psychoacoustic arguments about harmony that are *qualitative* (simple
ratios=correct, irrational intervals=mistake) cannot lead us into the music itself
when they ignore the immeasurable influence of so many other factors. And
because of this I remain highly sceptical of the value - beyond its idiosyncratic
application to the work of any one individual and his/her art - of any tuning dogma,
*in our day and age*.

Gann writes that a 680-cent fifth sounds "scary." *Any* fifth can sound scary, or it
can sound ethereal, depending on what you do with it. Give me any interval and I'll
make it pretty, or I'll make it scary (of course, these characterizations are matters
of opinion...). This is not the same thing as saying that all intervals are the same,
it's just pointing out that all intervals are potential materials with which to create a
huge variety of kinds of great music. This seems so painfully obvious, in fact.

open fifths and octaves can
> sound "incorrect" when approched in parallel motion in some styles;
> this in no way negates the fact that the perception of these
> intervals involves less neurological uncertainty than the perception
> of the "richer" intervals of tonal music -- it's just that the sudden
> reduction of uncertainty is damaging to the musical texture.

I'd be curious to get a reading of someone's "neurological uncertainty" with my
pounding octaves out on the piano at triple forte example. But I'm sure I sound
very crude.

so here,
> i find myself in agreement with you that it's absurd to
> associate "correctness" with a maximization of the prevalence of the
> simplest possible ratios in music. but who does? name one person
> whose statements solidly match such a point of view.

We're just talking about octaves (I used octaves and fifths in the paper as an
example) because the octave would represent the most perfect harmonic structure
according to the premise and the underlying logic of just intonation. (Actually,
according to Partch, maybe it would be the unison?) Anyway, I never claimed that
the JI composers I cited in the essay maximize the octave in their music. Though I
have heard plenty of JI music that seems to be "maximizing" partials 1-7 or 1-9. I
don't want to get into that, though.

(BTW, Here's your one person: David Doty, again, since I have his website handy.
"Just Intonation is any system of tuning in which all of the intervals can be
represented by ratios of whole numbers, with a strongly-implied preference for the
smallest numbers compatible with a given musical purpose." This is the first
statement in his definition of JI from his primer. And, further down: "The
simple-ratio intervals upon which Just Intonation is based ...are what the human
auditory system recognizes as consonance, if it ever has the opportunity to hear
them in a musical context." I'm just sitting at my computer right at this moment; it
probably wouldn't be too hard to find more.)

>
> if taken to its extreme, this "just intonation" view would allow only
> the very simplest and least ambiguous interval, the 1/1, to ever
> occur as a verticality in music (while of course saying nothing about
> disallowing any conceivable melodic/horizontal intervals). and where
> can one find examples of such an aesthetic? ironically enough, in the
> second part of your paper!
>

You're definitely going to need to explain that one.

> > I personally
> > may not undestand why one would use JI if one doesn't believe in
> its basic premise,
> > but that's none of my business.
>
> then why claim that some just intonation composers, any in fact that
> use "interesting" (for you) sonorities or intervals, are violating
> the basic premise of just intonation? without providing a single
> example of a composer who writes music consistent with the basic
> premise of just intonation as you see it? if you truly felt that it's
> none of your business, you wouldn't have made this claim.

You're mixing up issues. I didn't claim in my paper that Sims, Stahnke, Johnston
and Harrison don't *believe* in the basic premise of JI. I *did* claim that these
four composers seem, in certain pieces, to be "taking fundamental liberties with
the just intonation model, admittedly or not," and that is a different thing. I
suppose one could say that if a composer *intentionally* takes liberties with the JI
model, as Stahnke has done in pieces like "Partch Harp," in which he juxtaposes
two conflicting just tunings, that this seems to imply he/she must not believe in its
basic premise. But that would be jumping to conclusions.

Notice, too, the difference between my "taking liberties" language and your
"violating" memory of what I wrote. Taking liberties is what real artists often need
to do, in my opinion.

did you run your "taken
> fundamental liberties with the just intonation model" claim by any of
> the composers you accuse of doing so, to see how they would respond,
> before putting such a statement in print? i doubt it -- either way,
> it's now irrevocably "your business"!
>
I accused no one. I would never "accuse" a composer of something he/she had
composed. I do make the claim you've quoted, but there was no accusatory tone.
In fact, the main purpose of the section you are referring to (p170-171) was to
praise the some of the music of these four people and to admit that some good
music has come out if it, despite the theory (as well as to conclude by stating once
again my belief that one could just as well get the funky intervals directly, without
all the theory). I don't believe I needed their permission to write this, as it is
understood clearly to be *my* view of things.

But for that matter, since you ask, I *have* consulted with Stahnke personally
about this very issue. And I knew that Ezra (a friend) would hate what I wrote
there. On the other hand, he already knows my views; he knows that I don't share
his theory but do admire his music.

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

> No, you just need to tell me *what* false conclusions from
Helmholtz I am
> drawing in my essay. All you've said so far was that he
demonstrated that a minor
> sixth was a harmonious interval.

was this addressed in the last e-mail.

then the rest of this -- whoa boy. my heart sinks at each one of the
exchanges below. i clearly phrased each point very poorly and rudely
and i'm sorry. sadly, i was unable to get my thoughts across to you,
as each statement had something potentially offensive in it and you,
in all rightness, did not make the connections between them, to see
what i was actually trying to say. it doesn't seem worth it at this
point if i can't communicate better.
>
> >
> > since you've made statements about "just intonation" rather than
> > about particular authors,
>
> How can you say this? Go back and look - I made statements about
the claims of
> several specific people.

yes, but much of the time, you simply say "just intonation",
referring to the "entity" (sorry if that's not a good word, hopefully
you can understand what i mean by that).

> > one would assume you'd gone through at
> > least the majority of the relevant works in a major university
> > library --
>
> Tell me, do you think I spent three years writing my doctoral
thesis *without*
> going to major university libraries and finding all the relevent
works I could, and
> when I couldn't find them ordering them through the mail? I'll do
us both a favor
> and forget you even wrote that.

i appreciate it!

>
> > if not, wouldn't it be better to simply name and cite the
> > items you're objecting to, to avoid inadvertantly offending
everyone
> > else who's used the term?
> >
>
> Did I not name and cite the items I was objecting to, thoroughly
and methodically?

julia, it seems that i lapsed into "defender" mode for "just
intonation" -- whatever that entity is and whoever chooses to
identify with it. maybe i thought the cause was honorable at that
point in time. at this point it time, i will simply have to leave it
it to the "just intonationists".

> > the middle paragraph on page 167 again invokes the "straw man":
> >
> > ". . . it would obviously be futile, even absurd, to try to avoid
the
> > feared 'incorrectness' of this majority of relationships by
> > restricting oneself to simple pure triads or seventh chords in
one's
> > music"
> >
> > which is not an argument against any contemporary just
intonationist
> > i can think of; and moreover, even restricting oneself in such a
> > manner does not imply any restrictions whatsoever on the melodic
> > intervals that may occur (q.v. the blackjack example again).
since
> > melodic intervals are the primary focus of the second part of
your
> > paper, there really seems to be a huge gap between the first part
and
> > the second part, such that one wonders what they're doing in the
same
> > paper.
>
> I see no connection (nor lack of connectedness) between these two
things. It seems
> like a big leap you are making. The second part of my paper is
about composing
> with microtones entirely independently of just intonation concerns,
so why would JI
> restrictions or lack-of-them-in-melodic-intervals be relevent
there?

i can't recall my train of thought. this was an intense argument and
much of it has faded from my mind. i think (?) the point i was making
is that i really liked the second part of your paper, and it seemed
to me in no way to rest upon anything you'd established, or had
claimed to establish, in the first part of your paper . . .

>
> > sure, one can make
> > concordances sound "jarring" and out-of-place in a context where
> > dissonance is expected, but this only serves to demonstrate that
> > there's a universally perceived difference in quality between the
> > extremes of these categories.
>
> I don't believe any dissonance is expected in the Bartok example I
gave. (But try
> Mikrokosmos no. 65 from the same book, Vol. II, for another, maybe
even better
> example of this, with harsh, rough, jarring open fifths and no
harmonic
> expectations of any kind.) And fifths or octaves can
sound "jarring" if you just sit
> and pound a bunch of them out violently on the piano, for that
matter. So musical
> context can include, aside from voice-leading and
harmonic "expectations,"
> something as simple as dynamics and articulation. If there is
something that is pure
> and perfect about the octave, well this is easily achievable, but
it does depend on
> how this octave is treated by the composer. If someone hammers it
away
> ruthlessly at a fortississimo dynamic, then that all of that purity
or stability is going
> to go out the window.

the same even true about a single note! my point, perhaps, was that
the fifth or the octave is going to sound more like a single note
than most other intervals, even if a pounded fifth or octave sounds
more like a pounded single note . . . this "singleness" is perhaps
one of the five, or perhaps an additional, dimension of
consonance/dissonance that david doty was talking about . . .

> Maybe it seems like I am confusing issues now, confusing functional
harmonic
> stability with the effects of dynamics and articulation. But this
is exactly my point,
> that psychoacoustic arguments about harmony that are *qualitative*
(simple
> ratios=correct, irrational intervals=mistake) cannot lead us into
the music itself
> when they ignore the immeasurable influence of so many other
factors. And
> because of this I remain highly sceptical of the value - beyond its
idiosyncratic
> application to the work of any one individual and his/her art - of
any tuning dogma,
> *in our day and age*.

i can't argue with you there. i think tuning theory should be useful,
or at least interesting, but certainly not dogma. here, for example,
the dogma can get quite involved, with pauline for example having
asserted that a 1 or 2 cent, more or less, deviation from just
intervals is most desirable, but that a total lack of beating sounds
artificial and harsh. actually, she sounds a lot less dogmatic now
than she did before . . .

> Gann writes that a 680-cent fifth sounds "scary."

if this is indeed an overarching assessment, made without context,
then this is certainly a piece of dogma i can't agree with. nor, i'm
sure, would many just intonation practitioners -- kraig grady in
particular loves to use this interval.

> This is not the same thing as saying that all intervals are the
same,
> it's just pointing out that all intervals are potential materials
with which to create a
> huge variety of kinds of great music. This seems so painfully
obvious, in fact.

i agree with you insofar as i can't symathize with any dogma that
would ban any given interval a priori.

> > open fifths and octaves can
> > sound "incorrect" when approched in parallel motion in some
styles;
> > this in no way negates the fact that the perception of these
> > intervals involves less neurological uncertainty than the
perception
> > of the "richer" intervals of tonal music -- it's just that the
sudden
> > reduction of uncertainty is damaging to the musical texture.
>
> I'd be curious to get a reading of someone's "neurological
uncertainty" with my
> pounding octaves out on the piano at triple forte example.

the piano has some inharmonicity, but even so the "neurological
uncertainty" (about the pitch of the sensation) would be lower than
if you were to be pounding a twelve-tone chord, for example.

> But I'm sure I sound
> very crude.

pounding on a piano? i do it all the time!

:)

> (BTW, Here's your one person: David Doty, again, since I have his
website handy.
> "Just Intonation is any system of tuning in which all of the
intervals can be
> represented by ratios of whole numbers, with a strongly-implied
preference for the
> smallest numbers compatible with a given musical purpose." This is
the first
> statement in his definition of JI from his primer.

yup, it's the *definition* for this particular system of *tuning*.
you can approximate any conceivable interval, i.e. fulfill any "given
musical purpose", from the most consonant to the most dissonant, with
an infinitude of different ratios. if you're a "just intonationist"
in doty's sense, you'll choose with a strong preference for the
simpler of those ratios. so for a sharp dissonance of 63 cents, you'd
often choose to use 27:28 in this circumstance. it might fit better
with some other beatless intervals hanging about in the music, or it
might just be a matter of occult tradition -- either way, it would
accord with "just intonation" tuning principles.

ok, so this statement of doty's, is it problematical in some way?
sorry, i've again lost the train . . .

> > if taken to its extreme, this "just intonation" view would allow
only
> > the very simplest and least ambiguous interval, the 1/1, to ever
> > occur as a verticality in music (while of course saying nothing
about
> > disallowing any conceivable melodic/horizontal intervals). and
where
> > can one find examples of such an aesthetic? ironically enough, in
the
> > second part of your paper!
> >
>
> You're definitely going to need to explain that one.

you have some single-voice pieces in the second part of your paper,
don't you?

> > > I personally
> > > may not undestand why one would use JI if one doesn't believe
in
> > its basic premise,
> > > but that's none of my business.
> >
> > then why claim that some just intonation composers, any in fact
that
> > use "interesting" (for you) sonorities or intervals, are
violating
> > the basic premise of just intonation? without providing a single
> > example of a composer who writes music consistent with the basic
> > premise of just intonation as you see it? if you truly felt that
it's
> > none of your business, you wouldn't have made this claim.
>
> You're mixing up issues. I didn't claim in my paper that Sims,
Stahnke, Johnston
> and Harrison don't *believe* in the basic premise of JI. I *did*
claim that these
> four composers seem, in certain pieces, to be "taking fundamental
liberties with
> the just intonation model, admittedly or not," and that is a
different thing.

"taking fundamental liberties with" sure sounds like "violating the
basic premise of". so what's wrong with what i wrote above? what did
i mix up?

> I
> suppose one could say that if a composer *intentionally* takes
liberties with the JI
> model, as Stahnke has done in pieces like "Partch Harp," in which
he juxtaposes
> two conflicting just tunings, that this seems to imply he/she must
not believe in its
> basic premise. But that would be jumping to conclusions.

agreed!
>
> Notice, too, the difference between my "taking liberties" language
and your
> "violating" memory of what I wrote. Taking liberties is what real
artists often need
> to do, in my opinion.

i guess i speak a different language then you. to me these terms mean
pretty much the same thing. in your last sentence above, you've spun
them with a different connotation than the one i was originally
thinking of, but that must reflect how my words sounded to you. ah,
the joys of communicating with paul. it ain't always easy, but it can
be done. again, my sincerest apologies.

>
> > did you run your "taken
> > fundamental liberties with the just intonation model" claim by
any of
> > the composers you accuse of doing so, to see how they would
respond,
> > before putting such a statement in print? i doubt it -- either
way,
> > it's now irrevocably "your business"!
> >
> I accused no one. I would never "accuse" a composer of something
he/she had
> composed. I do make the claim you've quoted, but there was no
accusatory tone.

ok, can we substitute a better word for "accuse", then? clearly we
have some word issues -- i hope this can be amusing at the same time
that it's difficult :)

> In fact, the main purpose of the section you are referring to (p170-
171) was to
> praise the some of the music of these four people and to admit that
some good
> music has come out if it, despite the theory (as well as to
conclude by stating once
> again my belief that one could just as well get the funky intervals
directly, without
> all the theory). I don't believe I needed their permission to write
this, as it is
> understood clearly to be *my* view of things.

ok -- and i'm going to retire from my attempts to preemptively get
offended on behalf of this or that just intonationist out there. i
hope that's ok with you :)

> And I knew that Ezra (a friend) would hate what I wrote
> there. On the other hand, he already knows my views; he knows that
I don't share
> his theory but do admire his music.

ok, you and i also don't share identical views (though they have many
similarities), and we certainly don't use words in the same way . . .
so i'm ready to call it done on this, and leave it to the just
intonation folks to pick it up if they wish . . . the most difficult
think in the world already is talking about music, but this is
ridiculous!

:) :) :)

cheers to a bright musical future,
paul

--- jwerntz2002 <juliawerntz@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
> We're just talking about octaves (I used octaves and fifths in the paper as an
> example) because the octave would represent the most perfect harmonic structure
> according to the premise and the underlying logic of just intonation. (Actually,
> according to Partch, maybe it would be the unison?) Anyway, I never claimed that
> the JI composers I cited in the essay maximize the octave in their music. Though I
> have heard plenty of JI music that seems to be "maximizing" partials 1-7 or 1-9. I
> don't want to get into that, though.
>
> (BTW, Here's your one person: David Doty, again, since I have his website handy.
> "Just Intonation is any system of tuning in which all of the intervals can be
> represented by ratios of whole numbers, with a strongly-implied preference for the
> smallest numbers compatible with a given musical purpose." This is the first
> statement in his definition of JI from his primer. And, further down: "The
> simple-ratio intervals upon which Just Intonation is based ...are what the human
> auditory system recognizes as consonance, if it ever has the opportunity to hear
> them in a musical context." I'm just sitting at my computer right at this moment; it
> probably wouldn't be too hard to find more.)
>
>>

Thank you for your lucid remarks.

What is the URL for David Doty's website?

Also, if you play a C octave as "the most perfect harmonic structure" as you say
"of just intonation," at least in that scale, would adding an F note in that octave,
as you play it, form for you, a consonant or dissonant chord? And what do you call the F
note relative to the C octave, as described? Would you call it a harmonic chord?

Thank you for your lucid remarks.

And thanks, in advance,

Bill Arnold
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm
Independent Scholar
Independent Scholar, Modern Language Association
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is magic in the web" Shakespeare (Othello, Act 3, Scene 4)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com>

> What is the URL for David Doty's website?

http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/

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

> > (BTW, Here's your one person: David Doty, again, since I have his
> website handy.
> > "Just Intonation is any system of tuning in which all of the
> intervals can be
> > represented by ratios of whole numbers, with a strongly-implied
> preference for the
> > smallest numbers compatible with a given musical purpose." This is
> the first
> > statement in his definition of JI from his primer.
>
> yup, it's the *definition* for this particular system of *tuning*.
> you can approximate any conceivable interval, i.e. fulfill any "given
> musical purpose", from the most consonant to the most dissonant, with
> an infinitude of different ratios. if you're a "just intonationist"
> in doty's sense, you'll choose with a strong preference for the
> simpler of those ratios. so for a sharp dissonance of 63 cents, you'd
> often choose to use 27:28 in this circumstance. it might fit better
> with some other beatless intervals hanging about in the music, or it
> might just be a matter of occult tradition -- either way, it would
> accord with "just intonation" tuning principles.

>
> ok, so this statement of doty's, is it problematical in some way?
> sorry, i've again lost the train . . .

It's just that you had asked me to "name one person whose statements solidly
match such a point of view" (a view in which "correctness" was associated with
maximazation of the simplest ratios in music). So I did.

There's more that you said, but you can go back and look yourself if you're
inteested.

>
> > > if taken to its extreme, this "just intonation" view would allow
> only
> > > the very simplest and least ambiguous interval, the 1/1, to ever
> > > occur as a verticality in music (while of course saying nothing
> about
> > > disallowing any conceivable melodic/horizontal intervals). and
> where
> > > can one find examples of such an aesthetic? ironically enough, in
> the
> > > second part of your paper!
> > >
> >
> > You're definitely going to need to explain that one.
>
> you have some single-voice pieces in the second part of your paper,
> don't you?

Any solo piece is an example of a "just intonation aesthetic" which allows "only the
1/1 to ever occur as a verticality"? That seems to be stretching it a bit, don't you
think? I don't think Joe Maneri would describe his "aesthetic" in that violin piece to
you in those terms. (Like saying a dinner of spaghetti with cheese represents a
style of cuisine which disallows any use of tomato sauce, meat sauce, pesto. etc. Or
something like that.)

> > >
> > > then why claim that some just intonation composers, any in fact
> that
> > > use "interesting" (for you) sonorities or intervals, are
> violating
> > > the basic premise of just intonation? without providing a single
> > > example of a composer who writes music consistent with the basic
> > > premise of just intonation as you see it? if you truly felt that
> it's
> > > none of your business, you wouldn't have made this claim.
> >
> > You're mixing up issues. I didn't claim in my paper that Sims,
> Stahnke, Johnston
> > and Harrison don't *believe* in the basic premise of JI. I *did*
> claim that these
> > four composers seem, in certain pieces, to be "taking fundamental
> liberties with
> > the just intonation model, admittedly or not," and that is a
> different thing.
>
> "taking fundamental liberties with" sure sounds like "violating the
> basic premise of". so what's wrong with what i wrote above? what did
> i mix up?

What they *believe* and what they *did*. If you really want to know, just go back
to the original post and read it again.

> >
> > Notice, too, the difference between my "taking liberties" language
> and your
> > "violating" memory of what I wrote. Taking liberties is what real
> artists often need
> > to do, in my opinion.
>
> i guess i speak a different language then you. to me these terms mean
> pretty much the same thing. in your last sentence above, you've spun
> them with a different connotation than the one i was originally
> thinking of, but that must reflect how my words sounded to you.

Yes, for me the difference is profound. "Taking liberties" reflects the point of view
of the "artist" and his/her artistic needs, where as "violating" (a rule) reflects the
point of view only of the theory. (The way you used it, too, it seemed you thought I
was saying those composers were being naughty, unethical.)

Cheers.

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> > > (BTW, Here's your one person: David Doty, again, since I have
his
> > website handy.
> > > "Just Intonation is any system of tuning in which all of the
> > intervals can be
> > > represented by ratios of whole numbers, with a strongly-implied
> > preference for the
> > > smallest numbers compatible with a given musical purpose." This
is
> > the first
> > > statement in his definition of JI from his primer.
> >
> > yup, it's the *definition* for this particular system of
*tuning*.
> > you can approximate any conceivable interval, i.e. fulfill
any "given
> > musical purpose", from the most consonant to the most dissonant,
with
> > an infinitude of different ratios. if you're a "just
intonationist"
> > in doty's sense, you'll choose with a strong preference for the
> > simpler of those ratios. so for a sharp dissonance of 63 cents,
you'd
> > often choose to use 27:28 in this circumstance. it might fit
better
> > with some other beatless intervals hanging about in the music, or
it
> > might just be a matter of occult tradition -- either way, it
would
> > accord with "just intonation" tuning principles.
>
> >
> > ok, so this statement of doty's, is it problematical in some way?
> > sorry, i've again lost the train . . .
>
> It's just that you had asked me to "name one person whose
statements solidly
> match such a point of view" (a view in which "correctness" was
associated with
> maximazation of the simplest ratios in music). So I did.

there seems to me to be an important difference between
mere "maximazation of the simplest ratios in music" (as an
overarching musical directive) and attempting to give a flavor of
what "just intonation" means by stating that its use is characterized
by "a strongly-implied preference for the smallest numbers compatible
with a given musical purpose." a *given* musical purpose, which could
easily entail all kinds of *dissonance* (by various definitions), or
more to the point, *new intervals* occuring in every nook and cranny
of the intervallic continuum. just a fair reading of doty's sole post
here in reply to you, or looking deeper into his primer, should show
that he is not after a mere "maximazation of the simplest ratios in
music" as a compositional aesthetic. maybe relative to 20th century
classical music, he is, but even so, there would be lots of *new
intervals* introduced, harmonically let alone melodically.

> > > > if taken to its extreme, this "just intonation" view would
allow
> > only
> > > > the very simplest and least ambiguous interval, the 1/1, to
ever
> > > > occur as a verticality in music (while of course saying
nothing
> > about
> > > > disallowing any conceivable melodic/horizontal intervals).
and
> > where
> > > > can one find examples of such an aesthetic? ironically
enough, in
> > the
> > > > second part of your paper!
> > > >
> > >
> > > You're definitely going to need to explain that one.
> >
> > you have some single-voice pieces in the second part of your
paper,
> > don't you?
>
> Any solo piece is an example of a "just intonation aesthetic" which
allows "only the
> 1/1 to ever occur as a verticality"? That seems to be stretching it
a bit, don't you
> think? I don't think Joe Maneri would describe his "aesthetic" in
that violin piece to
> you in those terms.

exactly! but the very terms *you* use to paint the "just intonation
aesthetic", when you focus on beating and the like, taken to their
logical extreme, would indeed permit such a description. i feel this
is an essential point.

>(Like saying a dinner of spaghetti with cheese represents a
> style of cuisine which disallows any use of tomato sauce, meat
sauce, pesto. etc. Or
> something like that.)

ok, maybe it was a bit pedantic, but it was intended to show that
there is absolutely no restriction on allowed melodic intervals, even
when this "just intonation" view is taken to its extreme.

> > > > then why claim that some just intonation composers, any in
fact
> > that
> > > > use "interesting" (for you) sonorities or intervals, are
> > violating
> > > > the basic premise of just intonation? without providing a
single
> > > > example of a composer who writes music consistent with the
basic
> > > > premise of just intonation as you see it? if you truly felt
that
> > it's
> > > > none of your business, you wouldn't have made this claim.
> > >
> > > You're mixing up issues. I didn't claim in my paper that Sims,
> > Stahnke, Johnston
> > > and Harrison don't *believe* in the basic premise of JI. I
*did*
> > claim that these
> > > four composers seem, in certain pieces, to be "taking
fundamental
> > liberties with
> > > the just intonation model, admittedly or not," and that is a
> > different thing.
> >
> > "taking fundamental liberties with" sure sounds like "violating
the
> > basic premise of". so what's wrong with what i wrote above? what
did
> > i mix up?
>
> What they *believe* and what they *did*. If you really want to
know, just go back
> to the original post and read it again.

i don't think i mixed up what they *believe* and what they *did*. not
in the original post or more recently. you're claiming that the two
contradict one another, while i'm claiming that they don't. you
say "admittedly or not". if "not", then this implies that whay they
*did* contradicts what they *believe*, right? my response is that i
don't think you have necessarily looked deeply enough into what it is
that they do *believe*, and that therefore you may have, in many
cases, seen a contradiction where none, in fact, exists.

> > > Notice, too, the difference between my "taking liberties"
language
> > and your
> > > "violating" memory of what I wrote. Taking liberties is what
real
> > artists often need
> > > to do, in my opinion.
> >
> > i guess i speak a different language then you. to me these terms
mean
> > pretty much the same thing. in your last sentence above, you've
spun
> > them with a different connotation than the one i was originally
> > thinking of, but that must reflect how my words sounded to you.
>
> Yes, for me the difference is profound. "Taking liberties" reflects
the point of view
> of the "artist" and his/her artistic needs, where as "violating" (a
rule) reflects the
> point of view only of the theory. (The way you used it, too, it
seemed you thought I
> was saying those composers were being naughty, unethical.)

no, not that -- what i think you're saying is that these composers
are _deceived_ in certain respects, if they believe their own works
flow from or conform to the tenets of just intonation theory that
they hold as true.

that struck me as potentially a bit insulting as well, because it
implies that you know *more* about both what they believe, and what
they did, than they do . . . and thus you're able to "uncover" the
decpetion . . . and at least on the former (believing) point, my
initial, gut reaction was that your paper demonstrated that you
probably knew *less*, not *more*. forgive me for being so blunt. at
this point, assuming that you've finally understood my point, i'd
like to *withdraw* myself from it, since i feel any of these
composers would, given enough time and face-to-face interaction with
musical instruments and the like, be able to give a better defense of
the consistency between what they *believe* and what they *did* than
i ever could, or would want to . . .

>
> Cheers.

same to you and yours!

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_38587.html#39843

>i feel any of these
> composers would, given enough time and face-to-face interaction
with musical instruments and the like, be able to give a better
defense of the consistency between what they *believe* and what they
*did* than i ever could, or would want to . . .
>

***Pardon my irreverence, but I find the defense of Just Intonation
by Paul Erlich, who is known around here as the "ET man of all time"
to be absolutely hilarious...

Well, if not *hilarious* then, *ironic* anyway... [Apologies to Paul
and Julia... no aspersions on the conversation... but doesn't anybody
else find this a bit amusing???]

J. Pehrson

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

> there seems to me to be an important difference between
> mere "maximazation of the simplest ratios in music" (as an
> overarching musical directive) and attempting to give a flavor of
> what "just intonation" means by stating that its use is characterized
> by "a strongly-implied preference for the smallest numbers compatible
> with a given musical purpose." a *given* musical purpose, which could
> easily entail all kinds of *dissonance* (by various definitions), or
> more to the point, *new intervals* occuring in every nook and cranny
> of the intervallic continuum. just a fair reading of doty's sole post
> here in reply to you, or looking deeper into his primer, should show
> that he is not after a mere "maximazation of the simplest ratios in
> music" as a compositional aesthetic.

Well yes there seem to be some inconsistencies in both of those essays. I haven't
even got into responding to that yet. (Am I even expected to? It wasn't addressed
to me directly. I noticed when I was looking the other day that he also posted his
response to my essay up on his own website.)

> > > > > if taken to its extreme, this "just intonation" view would
> allow
> > > only
> > > > > the very simplest and least ambiguous interval, the 1/1, to
> ever
> > > > > occur as a verticality in music (while of course saying
> nothing
> > > about
> > > > > disallowing any conceivable melodic/horizontal intervals).
> and
> > > where
> > > > > can one find examples of such an aesthetic? ironically
> enough, in
> > > the
> > > > > second part of your paper!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're definitely going to need to explain that one.
> > >
> > > you have some single-voice pieces in the second part of your
> paper,
> > > don't you?
> >
> > Any solo piece is an example of a "just intonation aesthetic" which
> allows "only the
> > 1/1 to ever occur as a verticality"? That seems to be stretching it
> a bit, don't you
> > think? I don't think Joe Maneri would describe his "aesthetic" in
> that violin piece to
> > you in those terms.
>
> exactly! but the very terms *you* use to paint the "just intonation
> aesthetic", when you focus on beating and the like, taken to their
> logical extreme, would indeed permit such a description. i feel this
> is an essential point.

Why do you feel this is an essential point?

> > > > > then why claim that some just intonation composers, any in
> fact
> > > that
> > > > > use "interesting" (for you) sonorities or intervals, are
> > > violating
> > > > > the basic premise of just intonation? without providing a
> single
> > > > > example of a composer who writes music consistent with the
> basic
> > > > > premise of just intonation as you see it? if you truly felt
> that
> > > it's
> > > > > none of your business, you wouldn't have made this claim.
> > > >
> > > > You're mixing up issues. I didn't claim in my paper that Sims,
> > > Stahnke, Johnston
> > > > and Harrison don't *believe* in the basic premise of JI. I
> *did*
> > > claim that these
> > > > four composers seem, in certain pieces, to be "taking
> fundamental
> > > liberties with
> > > > the just intonation model, admittedly or not," and that is a
> > > different thing.
> > >
> > > "taking fundamental liberties with" sure sounds like "violating
> the
> > > basic premise of". so what's wrong with what i wrote above? what
> did
> > > i mix up?
> >
> > What they *believe* and what they *did*. If you really want to
> know, just go back
> > to the original post and read it again.
>
> i don't think i mixed up what they *believe* and what they *did*. not
> in the original post or more recently. you're claiming that the two
> contradict one another, while i'm claiming that they don't. you
> say "admittedly or not". if "not", then this implies that whay they
> *did* contradicts what they *believe*, right? my response is that i
> don't think you have necessarily looked deeply enough into what it is
> that they do *believe*, and that therefore you may have, in many
> cases, seen a contradiction where none, in fact, exists.

Well, since you don't want to go back and look, the very last sentence (now clipped
off) at the top of this whole exchange, what started it all, was a statement by me in
a post addressed to the Tuning List at large, in a different context, that I don't
know why composers (e.g. potentially any *List members*, in the context of that
post) would use JI if they don't believe in its basis premise but that it's none of my
business. Then you reacted (scroll up) as if I was saying that *Johnston, Sims*, etc.
don't believe in the basic premise, which I never said or thought. I wrote that they
took liberties with the model, etc. Please just go look, and we can be done with this.
/tuning/topicId_38587.html#38587--

>
> that struck me as potentially a bit insulting as well, because it
> implies that you know *more* about both what they believe, and what
> they did, than they do . . . and thus you're able to "uncover" the
> decpetion . . . and at least on the former (believing) point, my
> initial, gut reaction was that your paper demonstrated that you
> probably knew *less*, not *more*.

I most certainly know less than them about their own music (what they did) and
about the fine details of their beliefs. But I do know the *basic* things about what
they believe - these are no secret - and I stated my disagreement with those
beliefs, and my opinion that *in certain pieces* the theoretical premise which
forms the groundwork for their choices does not seem to be realized through the
music. (I also pointed out that in some cases this was intentional.)

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

> Well, since you don't want to go back and look, the very last sentence (now clipped
> off) at the top of this whole exchange, what started it all, was a statement by me in
> a post addressed to the Tuning List at large, in a different context, that I don't
> know why composers (e.g. potentially any *List members*, in the context of that
> post) would use JI if they don't believe in its basis premise but that it's none of my
> business.

I don't think JI has a basic premise. I've composed in it for reasons utterly unrelated to your musings, namely its structure and in particular the kinds of transformations that allows.

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

> > exactly! but the very terms *you* use to paint the "just
intonation
> > aesthetic", when you focus on beating and the like, taken to
their
> > logical extreme, would indeed permit such a description. i feel
this
> > is an essential point.
>
> Why do you feel this is an essential point?

because even your own intepretation of the "just intonation
aesthetic" does not in any way paint its practitioners into an
anachronistic, aesthetically fruitless corner, the way your paper
seems to imply it does.

i have to go -- i'll return to address the rest of this message when
i get a chance . . .

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

> Well, since you don't want to go back and look, the very last
sentence (now clipped
> off) at the top of this whole exchange, what started it all, was a
statement by me in
> a post addressed to the Tuning List at large, in a different
context, that I don't
> know why composers (e.g. potentially any *List members*, in the
context of that
> post) would use JI if they don't believe in its basis premise but
that it's none of my
> business. Then you reacted (scroll up) as if I was saying that
*Johnston, Sims*, etc.
> don't believe in the basic premise, which I never said or thought.
I wrote that they
> took liberties with the model, etc. Please just go look, and we can
be done with this.
> /tuning/topicId_38587.html#38587--

i searched this message and my reply to it for johnston and sims, and
couldn't find anything. since i don't want to spend much time on it,
would it be ok if i just conceded that i probably (unknowingly) took
liberties with what you said, in a fit of passion? i am sorry . . .

i'll leave it up to members of the just intonation movement, such as
kraig grady, lamonte young, etc. etc., their fans, supporters, and
members of peripherally related schools of composition, to tell you
why what they do is "culture". i was up to a little "culture" myself,
last night with steve lantner & co., but of course that has nothing
to do with this discussion!

peace out,
paul

--- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
>
> > Well, since you don't want to go back and look, the very last
sentence (now clipped
> > off) at the top of this whole exchange, what started it all, was
a statement by me in
> > a post addressed to the Tuning List at large, in a different
context, that I don't
> > know why composers (e.g. potentially any *List members*, in the
context of that
> > post) would use JI if they don't believe in its basis premise but
that it's none of my
> > business.
>
> I don't think JI has a basic premise. I've composed in it for
>reasons utterly unrelated to your musings, namely its structure and
>in particular the kinds of transformations that allows.

wouldn't any arbitrary set of generating intervals be equally
interesting from that standpoint?

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

> I don't think JI has a basic premise. I've composed in it for reasons utterly
unrelated to your musings, namely its structure and in particular the kinds of
transformations that allows

Then it seems like you are one person to whom my statement in that original post
(the post we are discussing) applies:

"If you do not adhere to the basic premise of just intonation I described above,
that
just intervals are "what humans are meant to be hearing in their music," etc.,
but
use JI for other reasons, then this part of my essay wasn't about you. "

Fair enough?

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
>
> > > exactly! but the very terms *you* use to paint the "just
> intonation
> > > aesthetic", when you focus on beating and the like, taken to
> their
> > > logical extreme, would indeed permit such a description. i feel
> this
> > > is an essential point.
> >
> > Why do you feel this is an essential point?
>
> because even your own intepretation of the "just intonation
> aesthetic" does not in any way paint its practitioners into an
> anachronistic, aesthetically fruitless corner, the way your paper
> seems to imply it does.

Does this mean that any monophonic music can call itself Just Intonation?

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, since you don't want to go back and look, the very last
> sentence (now clipped
> > > off) at the top of this whole exchange, what started it all, was
> a statement by me in
> > > a post addressed to the Tuning List at large, in a different
> context, that I don't
> > > know why composers (e.g. potentially any *List members*, in the
> context of that
> > > post) would use JI if they don't believe in its basis premise but
> that it's none of my
> > > business.
> >
> > I don't think JI has a basic premise. I've composed in it for
> >reasons utterly unrelated to your musings, namely its structure and
> >in particular the kinds of transformations that allows.
>
> wouldn't any arbitrary set of generating intervals be equally
> interesting from that standpoint?

Yeah, wouldn't it?

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

> wouldn't any arbitrary set of generating intervals be equally
> interesting from that standpoint?

You are neglecting how things sound.

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

> Yeah, wouldn't it?

Clearly, no. However, there isn't any reason the generating set must consist of rational numbers (eg, primes.) In fact I've based music in part on what can be done in this department when they are not.

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > > exactly! but the very terms *you* use to paint the "just
> > intonation
> > > > aesthetic", when you focus on beating and the like, taken to
> > their
> > > > logical extreme, would indeed permit such a description. i
feel
> > this
> > > > is an essential point.
> > >
> > > Why do you feel this is an essential point?
> >
> > because even your own intepretation of the "just intonation
> > aesthetic" does not in any way paint its practitioners into an
> > anachronistic, aesthetically fruitless corner, the way your paper
> > seems to imply it does.
>
> Does this mean that any monophonic music can call itself Just
>Intonation?

according to the terms *you* use to paint the "just intonation
aesthetic" (such as lack of beats), yes. now, there's clearly a
division of opinion among tuning theorists / list participants on
whether the *horizontal* intervals have to be simple (or alternately,
perhaps merely exact) ratios for the music to count as being in just
intonation or not. some think adaptive just intonation (where only
the verticalities are made to obey simple-ratio proportions) *is*
just intonation, while others think the melodic intervals have to be
ratios. lou harrison is particularly famous for constructing melodies
out of ratio-intervals. but from the former point of view, yes, if
one uses an instrument that contains a perfect harmonic-partial
spectrum such as the human voice, a bowed string instrument, or a
brass or reed instrument, then any monophonic music can be said to
be "in" just intonation. from the latter view, associated with
harrison et al, probably not -- but i found it interesting that you
did not emphasize this insistance on using ratios for *melodic*
intervals in your paper -- personally, i've often argued heatedly
against this very premise, one which underlies many just
intonationists' work.

--- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
>
> > wouldn't any arbitrary set of generating intervals be equally
> > interesting from that standpoint?
>
> You are neglecting how things sound.

then this:

"I've composed in it for reasons utterly unrelated to your musings,
namely its structure and in particular the kinds of transformations
that allows."

isn't actually a full account of the reasons you're using just
intonation!

--- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, wouldn't it?
>
> Clearly, no.

explain.

>However, there isn't any reason the generating set must consist of
>rational numbers (eg, primes.)

that's exactly what i was saying!

Dear Julia and Paul,

Please let me share my perspective that "just intonation" or its close
tempered approximation can involve the use of ratios often radically
different than those of most historical Western European music, and
therefore open new as well as traditional stylistic possibilities.

For example, consider sonorities like 6:9:11 (~0-702-1049 cents) or
8:11:14 (~0-551-969 cents). Here some of the intervals differ by about
a quartertone from those of a conventional Western European tuning
during the medieval-Romantic eras.

Here I've picked relatively small ratios, since there's a standing
debate on the question of whether more complex ratios, in many
settings, have a distinctively "just" quality -- although I use them
with great relish.

Recently I posted an article about the "ratio space" of the Peppermint
24 tuning system for two 12-note keyboards -- not JI, but with lots of
intervals within about 2-3 cents of just -- to suggest the novelty and
variety available.

The system is based on ratios of 2-3-7-9-11-13, with 14:17:21 also
closely approximated -- in contrast to the conventional 5-limit or
7-limit harmony that often tends to get assumed in "JI" discussions.

Julia, I agree with you that lots of the creative possibilities of
this kind of just or "close to just" intonation are also present in
other kinds of systems.

Thus I would see just or close to just intonation as one strategy for
getting "novelty and diversity" -- with the choice of general
categories of intervals often as important as the exact tuning.

From one perspective, I might consider integer ratios as "found
numbers" than can be used in a musical composition -- not _the_
approach to beautiful music, but simply one alternative, itself with
many branches.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

> Hello Paul/Julia

> I am not sure where the idea of "culture " got into this but i can't at the moment figure out what it is in relation to the activity of making music. Surely the old structures have all but crumbled and we all and we are each left whistling our tunes which comes out of us from who knows where. I think this discussion also touches upon the person who states that 12 ET
> is the best tuning.

Any argument as to what is the more correct scale or method must first prove that such a thing or idea can be possible, FIRST
before the music exist.

Much too much time is wasted on the assumption that this argument is valid. If valid it needs to be proved.
Our species progresses by tool malking for a large part and yet no one would argue that one paticular tool is the best.
Or imagine someone picking 12 or 72 colors and saying everything can be done with this.
Whty shall we assume it is possible with music making music alone as being different from all other arts.

Since we are each dealing with "ideals" according to our own muse. Reason is useful in solving our special callings but not equipped to solve universalites among the myriad of these subjective experiences.

The highly developed different music ( very little of it primitive being the result of sometimes thousand of years) that occurs on our planet is quite different and shows little that is universal. Possibly melody and rhythm are the most common (I CAN think of possible exceptions to both) . please correct me if you can think of more.
Being the case, if we except these different musics as not "mistakes" we must conclude that there is no musical scale universally correct a priori to the the act of music making.

Actually the one category i can add to the above but of a different case is that music is based on acoustical phenomenon. Just intonation being just one type, highly perceptable in its learning curve, yet not the only one. More investigation is necessary into looking at just what is is that people are hearing and listening to when they make their music. These foci
of attention, as far as i can tell is responsible for the resultant structures we call scales. Each perfect for the phenomenon they address.

We need to move from right or wrong to possibly a state of a mutual helping solve each others musical visions. The first is not possible while the second is fruitful to us all.

>
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: paul/julia 2

> i searched this message and my reply to it for johnston and sims, and
> couldn't find anything. since i don't want to spend much time on it,
> would it be ok if i just conceded that i probably (unknowingly) took
> liberties with what you said, in a fit of passion? i am sorry . . .
>
> i'll leave it up to members of the just intonation movement, such as
> kraig grady, lamonte young, etc. etc., their fans, supporters, and
> members of peripherally related schools of composition, to tell you
> why what they do is "culture". i was up to a little "culture" myself,
> last night with steve lantner & co., but of course that has nothing
> to do with this discussion!
>
> peace out,
> paul
>
>

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

The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 fm Wed. 8-9pm PST.
live stream kxlu.com

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

/tuning/topicId_38587.html#40132

> --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> > I don't think JI has a basic premise. I've composed in it for
reasons utterly
> unrelated to your musings, namely its structure and in particular
the kinds of
> transformations that allows
>
>
> Then it seems like you are one person to whom my statement in that
original post
> (the post we are discussing) applies:
>
> "If you do not adhere to the basic premise of just intonation I
described above,
> that
> just intervals are "what humans are meant to be hearing in their
music," etc.,
> but
> use JI for other reasons, then this part of my essay wasn't about
you. "
>
> Fair enough?

***But, really, I don't think most of the people composing in "Just
Intonation" think that way, anyway. La Monte Young, Ben Johnston??
Like they say..."I don't *think* so...."

J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_38587.html#40134

> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > > exactly! but the very terms *you* use to paint the "just
> > intonation
> > > > aesthetic", when you focus on beating and the like, taken to
> > their
> > > > logical extreme, would indeed permit such a description. i
feel
> > this
> > > > is an essential point.
> > >
> > > Why do you feel this is an essential point?
> >
> > because even your own intepretation of the "just intonation
> > aesthetic" does not in any way paint its practitioners into an
> > anachronistic, aesthetically fruitless corner, the way your paper
> > seems to imply it does.
>
> Does this mean that any monophonic music can call itself Just
Intonation?

***Don't some people create "Just Intonation" even using a *single*
tone with overtones?? I can think of three such practicioners right
off the top right now...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_38587.html#40142

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > exactly! but the very terms *you* use to paint the "just
> > > intonation
> > > > > aesthetic", when you focus on beating and the like, taken
to
> > > their
> > > > > logical extreme, would indeed permit such a description. i
> feel
> > > this
> > > > > is an essential point.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you feel this is an essential point?
> > >
> > > because even your own intepretation of the "just intonation
> > > aesthetic" does not in any way paint its practitioners into an
> > > anachronistic, aesthetically fruitless corner, the way your
paper
> > > seems to imply it does.
> >
> > Does this mean that any monophonic music can call itself Just
> >Intonation?
>
> according to the terms *you* use to paint the "just intonation
> aesthetic" (such as lack of beats), yes. now, there's clearly a
> division of opinion among tuning theorists / list participants on
> whether the *horizontal* intervals have to be simple (or
alternately,
> perhaps merely exact) ratios for the music to count as being in
just
> intonation or not. some think adaptive just intonation (where only
> the verticalities are made to obey simple-ratio proportions) *is*
> just intonation, while others think the melodic intervals have to
be
> ratios. lou harrison is particularly famous for constructing
melodies
> out of ratio-intervals. but from the former point of view, yes, if
> one uses an instrument that contains a perfect harmonic-partial
> spectrum such as the human voice, a bowed string instrument, or a
> brass or reed instrument, then any monophonic music can be said to
> be "in" just intonation. from the latter view, associated with
> harrison et al, probably not -- but i found it interesting that you
> did not emphasize this insistance on using ratios for *melodic*
> intervals in your paper -- personally, i've often argued heatedly
> against this very premise, one which underlies many just
> intonationists' work.

***I personally like to think that the work I have done in 72-tET
notated Blackjack in "adaptive" Just, *is* Just, but some people have
made such a fuss about it that I don't talk about it anymore... :)

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > wouldn't any arbitrary set of generating intervals be equally
> > > interesting from that standpoint?
> >
> > You are neglecting how things sound.
>
> then this:
>
> "I've composed in it for reasons utterly unrelated to your musings,
> namely its structure and in particular the kinds of transformations
> that allows."
>
> isn't actually a full account of the reasons you're using just
> intonation!

If you are going to assume that a twelveth could just as easily be a semitone, or that it makes no difference if octaves are a part of your system or not, then it seems we've moved well away from anything having to do with JI. I don't operate on the principle that everything sounds the same as everything else.

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, wouldn't it?
> >
> > Clearly, no.
>
> explain.
>
> >However, there isn't any reason the generating set must consist of
> >rational numbers (eg, primes.)
>
> that's exactly what i was saying!

I thought you said tuning needed to be completly arbitrary, or you were somehow invoking the mythical principle of JI.

Hi Margo.

--- In tuning@y..., "M. Schulter" <MSCHULTER@V...> wrote:
> Dear Julia and Paul,
>
> Please let me share my perspective that "just intonation" or its close
> tempered approximation can involve the use of ratios often radically
> different than those of most historical Western European music, and
> therefore open new as well as traditional stylistic possibilities.
>
> For example, consider sonorities like 6:9:11 (~0-702-1049 cents) or
> 8:11:14 (~0-551-969 cents). Here some of the intervals differ by about
> a quartertone from those of a conventional Western European tuning
> during the medieval-Romantic eras.
>
> Here I've picked relatively small ratios, since there's a standing
> debate on the question of whether more complex ratios, in many
> settings, have a distinctively "just" quality -- although I use them
> with great relish.
>
> Recently I posted an article about the "ratio space" of the Peppermint
> 24 tuning system for two 12-note keyboards -- not JI, but with lots of
> intervals within about 2-3 cents of just -- to suggest the novelty and
> variety available.
>
> The system is based on ratios of 2-3-7-9-11-13, with 14:17:21 also
> closely approximated -- in contrast to the conventional 5-limit or
> 7-limit harmony that often tends to get assumed in "JI" discussions.
>
> Julia, I agree with you that lots of the creative possibilities of
> this kind of just or "close to just" intonation are also present in
> other kinds of systems.
>
> Thus I would see just or close to just intonation as one strategy for
> getting "novelty and diversity" -- with the choice of general
> categories of intervals often as important as the exact tuning.
>

On that point I thought I'd share this excerpt from a statement by Easley
Blackwood (who has experimented with various equal temperaments, and to my
knowledge not with just tunings) from the 1991 Perspectives of New Music (Vol.
29, No. 1, p.177):

"Mostly I've explored equal tunings from twelve to twenty-four notes per ocatve.
The choice of which tuning to use depends largely on the desired style. Certain
tunings are more versatile or prettier than others. Twelve, seventeen, nineteen,
twenty-two, and twenty-four contain recognizable diatonic scales. If random
dissonance is what you want, then the worst of all tunings is twelve-note equal,
because it contains a greater concentration of relatively consonant intervals and
harmonies in a smaller number of notes. The most effective one for random
dissonance is eleven notes. There aren't two notes in that tuning that make any
kind of a consonance. Certain others tend toward modal arrangements that coexist
in twelve-note equal. For example, if the number of notes is divisible by four, you
always have families of octatonic scales..."

As for myself, since my area of interest really is what one does with the notes,
rather than how one gets them, the latter issue doesn't matter too much too me. If
indeed one is seeking nothing more than "novelty and diversity," as I guess I am, in
a manner of speaking (or if one is seeking "random dissonance," as in Blackwood's
example), I guess one could just as well think and work in ratios or follow the
more crude kind of equal temperament model, and it doesn't much matter which,
as far as this particular general principle is concerned.

-Julia

Hi Kraig.

It's hard for me to follow much of what you're saying here, but it seems you think I
(or Paul?) was saying that there is one kind of correct or best tuning? Speaking for
myself, I can just say this never happened.

If you want to know more about the "culture" discussion we were having, just
follow the thread backwards, I guess.

-Julia

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > Hello Paul/Julia
>
> > I am not sure where the idea of "culture " got into this but i can't at the
moment figure out what it is in relation to the activity of making music. Surely the
old structures have all but crumbled and we all and we are each left whistling our
tunes which comes out of us from who knows where. I think this discussion also
touches upon the person who states that 12 ET
> > is the best tuning.
>
> Any argument as to what is the more correct scale or method must first prove
that such a thing or idea can be possible, FIRST
> before the music exist.
>
> Much too much time is wasted on the assumption that this argument is valid. If
valid it needs to be proved.
> Our species progresses by tool malking for a large part and yet no one would
argue that one paticular tool is the best.
> Or imagine someone picking 12 or 72 colors and saying everything can be done
with this.
> Whty shall we assume it is possible with music making music alone as being
different from all other arts.
>
> Since we are each dealing with "ideals" according to our own muse. Reason is
useful in solving our special callings but not equipped to solve universalites among
the myriad of these subjective experiences.
>
> The highly developed different music ( very little of it primitive being the result
of sometimes thousand of years) that occurs on our planet is quite different and
shows little that is universal. Possibly melody and rhythm are the most common (I
CAN think of possible exceptions to both) . please correct me if you can think of
more.
> Being the case, if we except these different musics as not "mistakes" we must
conclude that there is no musical scale universally correct a priori to the the act of
music making.
>
> Actually the one category i can add to the above but of a different case is that
music is based on acoustical phenomenon. Just intonation being just one type,
highly perceptable in its learning curve, yet not the only one. More investigation is
necessary into looking at just what is is that people are hearing and listening to
when they make their music. These foci
> of attention, as far as i can tell is responsible for the resultant structures we call
scales. Each perfect for the phenomenon they address.
>
> We need to move from right or wrong to possibly a state of a mutual helping
solve each others musical visions. The first is not possible while the second is
fruitful to us all.
>
> >
> > From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > Subject: Re: paul/julia 2
>
> > i searched this message and my reply to it for johnston and sims, and
> > couldn't find anything. since i don't want to spend much time on it,
> > would it be ok if i just conceded that i probably (unknowingly) took
> > liberties with what you said, in a fit of passion? i am sorry . . .
> >
> > i'll leave it up to members of the just intonation movement, such as
> > kraig grady, lamonte young, etc. etc., their fans, supporters, and
> > members of peripherally related schools of composition, to tell you
> > why what they do is "culture". i was up to a little "culture" myself,
> > last night with steve lantner & co., but of course that has nothing
> > to do with this discussion!
> >
> > peace out,
> > paul
> >
> >
>
> -- Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 fm Wed. 8-9pm PST.
> live stream kxlu.com

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

> On that point I thought I'd share this excerpt from a statement
by Easley
> Blackwood (who has experimented with various equal
temperaments, and to my
> knowledge not with just tunings) from the 1991 Perspectives of
New Music (Vol.
> 29, No. 1, p.177):
>
> "Mostly I've explored equal tunings from twelve to twenty-four
notes per ocatve.
> The choice of which tuning to use depends largely on the
desired style. Certain
> tunings are more versatile or prettier than others. Twelve,
seventeen, nineteen,
> twenty-two, and twenty-four contain recognizable diatonic
scales. If random
> dissonance is what you want, then the worst of all tunings is
twelve-note equal,
> because it contains a greater concentration of relatively
consonant intervals and
> harmonies in a smaller number of notes. The most effective
one for random
> dissonance is eleven notes. There aren't two notes in that
tuning that make any
> kind of a consonance. Certain others tend toward modal
arrangements that coexist
> in twelve-note equal. For example, if the number of notes is
divisible by four, you
> always have families of octatonic scales..."

yes, i've quoted some of this stuff myself, as in my paper. a few
days ago (in discussions here on this list), we looked at an
interview from 2001 with easley blackwood. i'd think you may
have a particularly strong reaction to some of the things he was
saying.

> As for myself, since my area of interest really is what one does
with the notes,
> rather than how one gets them, the latter issue doesn't matter
too much too me.

what's the "latter issue?"

> If
> indeed one is seeking nothing more than "novelty and
diversity," as I guess I am, in
> a manner of speaking (or if one is seeking "random
dissonance," as in Blackwood's
> example), I guess one could just as well think and work in
ratios or follow the
> more crude kind of equal temperament model,

i wouldn't call it "more crude" -- not in any sense i can think of! if
anything, just intonation reflects better the crude materials nature
suggests to us.

> and it doesn't much matter which,
> as far as this particular general principle is concerned.

the principle of "novelty and diversity"? no, i suppose it doesn't
much matter, and of course you have all sorts of tuning systems
"in between" as well as "way out in left field" . . . but in general,
dissonance and tension are a lot easier to find in any arbitrary
tuning system than are the smooth, stable sonorities margo was
referring to . . . so from the point of view of some of us, there is
more "diversity", a larger range of vertical effects, to be had in
tuning systems that *can* approximate just intervals -- 72-equal
happens to be a great example of this -- which is why some
people around here are so obsessed with these sorts of facts . .
.

So it sounds like JI for you has an occasional application, depending on certain
specific, localized musical demands, and that for you it is not a "political" issue, as
it is for some others (as Paul was describing). Of course there are others like you.

--- In tuning@y..., "alternativetuning" <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> Why does believing have to do with it? If you want to use singers
> and stringed or blown instruments then the intervals of just
> intonation are the intervals with the local minimums of beating,
> roughness and so on, varying with register and the complexity of the
> interval. That doesn't mean that the composer has to use only the
> just intonation intervals, but that the just intonation intervals are
> basic points of reference that you can hear while tempered intervals
> are abstractions.
>
> I am writing a piece for two violins (very hungarian thing to do) and
> I want to control the amount of beating very exactly. To do this with
> cents or twelfth tones is very complicated for composing and for
> playing but to specify a just intonation interval and then to specify
> a variation from the just intonation interval makes the process very
> clear. Is this still just intonation music? Maybe yes maybe not. But
> the music comes from a just intonation way of hearing.
>
> Gabor
>
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> I don't
> > > know why composers (e.g. potentially any *List members*, in the
> > context of that
> > > post) would use JI if they don't believe in its basis premise but
> > that it's none of my
> > > business. Then you reacted (scroll up) as if I was saying that
> > *Johnston, Sims*, etc.
> > > don't believe in the basic premise, which I never said or
> thought.
> > I wrote that they
> > > took liberties with the model, etc. Please just go look, and we
> can
> > be done with this.

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
>
> yes, i've quoted some of this stuff myself, as in my paper. a few
> days ago (in discussions here on this list), we looked at an
> interview from 2001 with easley blackwood. i'd think you may
> have a particularly strong reaction to some of the things he was
> saying.

I'd like to check it out. Where is that?

>
> > As for myself, since my area of interest really is what one does
> with the notes,
> > rather than how one gets them, the latter issue doesn't matter
> too much too me.
>
> what's the "latter issue?"

How one gets them.
>
> > If
> > indeed one is seeking nothing more than "novelty and
> diversity," as I guess I am, in
> > a manner of speaking (or if one is seeking "random
> dissonance," as in Blackwood's
> > example), I guess one could just as well think and work in
> ratios or follow the
> > more crude kind of equal temperament model,
>
> i wouldn't call it "more crude" -- not in any sense i can think of! if
> anything, just intonation reflects better the crude materials nature
> suggests to us.

I just used that word because, to some purists, hacking up the octave into equal
temperaments must certainly seem a crude type of behavior. "Crude" in the
"clumsy" sense of the word, not the "natural, unprocessed" sense. I don't actually
think it's a crude thing to do, either.

--- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > yes, i've quoted some of this stuff myself, as in my paper. a
few
> > days ago (in discussions here on this list), we looked at an
> > interview from 2001 with easley blackwood. i'd think you may
> > have a particularly strong reaction to some of the things he
was
> > saying.
>
> I'd like to check it out. Where is that?

http://www.bruceduffie.com/blackwood.html

> > > As for myself, since my area of interest really is what one
does
> > with the notes,
> > > rather than how one gets them, the latter issue doesn't
matter
> > too much too me.
> >
> > what's the "latter issue?"
>
> How one gets them.

duh! (slapping self in face)
>
> I just used that word because, to some purists, hacking up the
octave into equal
> temperaments must certainly seem a crude type of behavior.

this raises an interesting issue. dan stearns and a few others
have indeed derived tuning systems by "hacking up the octave
into equal pieces", for example 11, 13, or 20 of them, and thus
prefer to describe their tuning systems *not* as
_temperaments_ but as "equal divisions of the octave". see the
entry for "EDO" in monz' tuning dictionary.

for the most part, however, such equal tuning systems are
indeed derived as _temperaments_, which means you're not
approaching the problem as "hacking up the octave" at all.
rather, you're starting with a just intonation basis, a lattice of
notes connected through pure consonances. at some point, you
find, at opposite edges of the lattice, certain "wolves" or
"anomalies" or "commas" which you may wish to eliminate. the
process of making these "anomalies" vanish, by distributing
them among the intervening consonant intervals so that none
remain unacceptable, what is meant by _temperament_ -- you
may wish to eliminate only one of them (as in meantone) or
perhaps as many as simultaneously possible (leading to an
equal temperament). i'm sure you know all this, but my point in
reviewing it is to express that, as i see it, equal temperaments
are quite sophisticated, quite the opposite of "crude" . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_38587.html#40221

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > yes, i've quoted some of this stuff myself, as in my paper. a
> few
> > > days ago (in discussions here on this list), we looked at an
> > > interview from 2001 with easley blackwood. i'd think you may
> > > have a particularly strong reaction to some of the things he
> was
> > > saying.
> >
> > I'd like to check it out. Where is that?
>
> http://www.bruceduffie.com/blackwood.html
>
> > > > As for myself, since my area of interest really is what one
> does
> > > with the notes,
> > > > rather than how one gets them, the latter issue doesn't
> matter
> > > too much too me.
> > >
> > > what's the "latter issue?"
> >
> > How one gets them.
>
> duh! (slapping self in face)
> >
> > I just used that word because, to some purists, hacking up the
> octave into equal
> > temperaments must certainly seem a crude type of behavior.
>
> this raises an interesting issue. dan stearns and a few others
> have indeed derived tuning systems by "hacking up the octave
> into equal pieces", for example 11, 13, or 20 of them, and thus
> prefer to describe their tuning systems *not* as
> _temperaments_ but as "equal divisions of the octave". see the
> entry for "EDO" in monz' tuning dictionary.
>
> for the most part, however, such equal tuning systems are
> indeed derived as _temperaments_, which means you're not
> approaching the problem as "hacking up the octave" at all.
> rather, you're starting with a just intonation basis, a lattice of
> notes connected through pure consonances. at some point, you
> find, at opposite edges of the lattice, certain "wolves" or
> "anomalies" or "commas" which you may wish to eliminate. the
> process of making these "anomalies" vanish, by distributing
> them among the intervening consonant intervals so that none
> remain unacceptable, what is meant by _temperament_ -- you
> may wish to eliminate only one of them (as in meantone) or
> perhaps as many as simultaneously possible (leading to an
> equal temperament). i'm sure you know all this, but my point in
> reviewing it is to express that, as i see it, equal temperaments
> are quite sophisticated, quite the opposite of "crude" . . .

***Isn't it true that even with our "overworn" 12-tET, that musicians
and mathematicians didn't even have the tools to mathematically
create this ET until comparatively *late* in the overall historical
development of tuning???

(Well, I guess the Chinese did it early, but they came upon it in a
different way, yes??)

Tx!

JP

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

>
> ***Isn't it true that even with our "overworn" 12-tET, that
musicians
> and mathematicians didn't even have the tools to
mathematically
> create this ET until comparatively *late* in the overall historical
> development of tuning???

considering that "the development of tuning" has certainly been
going on for many thousands of years, you're exactly right!

> (Well, I guess the Chinese did it early,

only 1 year earlier!! (you've *got* to get into the habit of checking
monz's equal temperament page on these things -- another
example would be the 43-equal thing that came up a few days
ago.)

> but they came upon it in a
> different way, yes??)

i guess that's debatable! can you elaborate on what exactly you
might mean by "came upon it"?

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

If
> indeed one is seeking nothing more than "novelty and diversity," as I guess I am, in
> a manner of speaking (or if one is seeking "random dissonance," as in Blackwood's
> example), I guess one could just as well think and work in ratios or follow the
> more crude kind of equal temperament model, and it doesn't much matter which,
> as far as this particular general principle is concerned.

The trouble with Blackwoods example is that his comment about 11-et is flawed. It contains a rich subset of 22-et harmonies in that it has the 22-et minor third, 12 cents sharp, its 7/4, 13 cents sharp,
and its 11/8, 6 cents flat, and everything they generate which in math lingo is a subgroup of index 2. Of course as you go to ever larger ets it becomes increasingly less possible to rely on them to *unfailingly* sound like a random dissonance for you, and including the octave always forces one perfect consonace into you system.

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_38587.html#40225

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> >
> > ***Isn't it true that even with our "overworn" 12-tET, that
> musicians
> > and mathematicians didn't even have the tools to
> mathematically
> > create this ET until comparatively *late* in the overall
historical
> > development of tuning???
>
> considering that "the development of tuning" has certainly been
> going on for many thousands of years, you're exactly right!
>
> > (Well, I guess the Chinese did it early,
>
> only 1 year earlier!! (you've *got* to get into the habit of
checking
> monz's equal temperament page on these things -- another
> example would be the 43-equal thing that came up a few days
> ago.)
>
> > but they came upon it in a
> > different way, yes??)
>
> i guess that's debatable! can you elaborate on what exactly you
> might mean by "came upon it"?

***Hi Paul!

I note that Monz just answered my questions on this here in great
detail. Yes, I should check *all* his sites now that they are back
up online (Hopefully permanently!)

JP

> Hello Julia!

Actually i was saying that as a JI user, i do NOT think there is 1 correct tuning possibility. The reason for this is
that different music often requires a different Foci of attention as to what the listener is to listen to. There is not a
tuning method to come up with the solutions to ALL problems. 72 ET would be absurd to the Tibetan Monks just as there low
cluster would be useless for your own musical course. I wdo believe that music is based on varied acoustical phenomenon and
to venture outside of them runs the risk of unperceptability.

>
> From: "jwerntz2002" <juliawerntz@attbi.com>
>
>
> Hi Kraig.
>
> It's hard for me to follow much of what you're saying here, but it seems you think I
> (or Paul?) was saying that there is one kind of correct or best tuning? Speaking for
> myself, I can just say this never happened.
>
> If you want to know more about the "culture" discussion we were having, just
> follow the thread backwards, I guess.
>
> -Julia
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > > Hello Paul/Julia
> >
> > > I am not sure where the idea of "culture " got into this but i can't at the
> moment figure out what it is in relation to the activity of making music. Surely the
> old structures have all but crumbled and we all and we are each left whistling our
> tunes which comes out of us from who knows where. I think this discussion also
> touches upon the person who states that 12 ET
> > > is the best tuning.
> >
> > Any argument as to what is the more correct scale or method must first prove
> that such a thing or idea can be possible, FIRST
> > before the music exist.
> >
> > Much too much time is wasted on the assumption that this argument is valid. If
> valid it needs to be proved.
> > Our species progresses by tool malking for a large part and yet no one would
> argue that one paticular tool is the best.
> > Or imagine someone picking 12 or 72 colors and saying everything can be done
> with this.
> > Whty shall we assume it is possible with music making music alone as being
> different from all other arts.
> >
> > Since we are each dealing with "ideals" according to our own muse. Reason is
> useful in solving our special callings but not equipped to solve universalites among
> the myriad of these subjective experiences.
> >
> > The highly developed different music ( very little of it primitive being the result
> of sometimes thousand of years) that occurs on our planet is quite different and
> shows little that is universal. Possibly melody and rhythm are the most common (I
> CAN think of possible exceptions to both) . please correct me if you can think of
> more.
> > Being the case, if we except these different musics as not "mistakes" we must
> conclude that there is no musical scale universally correct a priori to the the act of
> music making.
> >
> > Actually the one category i can add to the above but of a different case is that
> music is based on acoustical phenomenon. Just intonation being just one type,
> highly perceptable in its learning curve, yet not the only one. More investigation is
> necessary into looking at just what is is that people are hearing and listening to
> when they make their music. These foci
> > of attention, as far as i can tell is responsible for the resultant structures we call
> scales. Each perfect for the phenomenon they address.
> >
> > We need to move from right or wrong to possibly a state of a mutual helping
> solve each others musical visions. The first is not possible while the second is
> fruitful to us all.
>

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

The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 fm Wed. 8-9pm PST.
live stream kxlu.com