Re: [tuning] Re: 12 Equal vs. Just Tuning [Phillips scale]

In a message dated 10/24/02 5:42:28 PM Central Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> what about (again) the progressions I-vi-ii-V-I and I-IV-ii-V-I?
> didn't you say you would use 900-0-400 for the a minor chord?
>
As triads = 0-384-700 > 900-1200-400 > 200-468-900 > 700-1084-200 >
0-384-700.
or 900-1168-400

With 19 notes per octave this progression is no problem. Although I doubt it
would all be triads. Note: The ii chord is normally septimal, and the vi may
be, depending on how it progresses. Since F 500 is available in the C scale,
the ii chord could also be 200-500-900. But I don't recall using it.

Pauline

----- Original Message -----
From: <prophecyspirit@aol.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: 12 Equal vs. Just Tuning [Phillips scale]

> In a message dated 10/24/02 5:42:28 PM Central Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > what about (again) the progressions I-vi-ii-V-I and I-IV-ii-V-I?
> > didn't you say you would use 900-0-400 for the a minor chord?
> >
> As triads = 0-384-700 > 900-1200-400 > 200-468-900 > 700-1084-200 >
> 0-384-700.
> or 900-1168-400

i made a graph of this:

/tuning/files/monz/I-vi-ii-V-I-phillips.gif

-monz

In a message dated 10/25/02 12:45:22 AM Central Daylight Time,
monz@attglobal.net writes:

> As triads = 0-384-700 > 900-1200-400 > 200-468-900 > 700-1084-200 >
> > 0-384-700.
> > or 900-1168-400
>
> i made a graph of this:
>
Monz,

A nice thing about JI or JT is, chords can vary in their intervals according
to how they progress from one to another. They're not static like in ET. In
your chart I'm glad you put vi 900-1168-400 after vi 900-0-400. As 1168 is
tempered 1173, which is 62/32, a higher ration than 32/16. The lowest ratio
is the normal usage when possible.

In this case the vi normal chord in JT is the same as in ET. The difference
is, in JT the chord has its natural harmonic-partial value. Whereas in ET its
value is arbitarary.

Pauline

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

> In this case the vi normal chord in JT is the same as in ET. The difference
> is, in JT the chord has its natural harmonic-partial value. Whereas in ET its
> value is arbitarary.

An approximation is an approximation, isn't it?

In a message dated 10/25/02 8:55:05 AM Central Daylight Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

> An approximation is an approximation, isn't it?
>
Not between JT and ET, becasue in ET A 900 cents is also used as the major
3rd for F, whereas in my Phillips scale A for F is 884 cents. Thus there's a
difference between an approximation and a compromise.

Pauline

--- In tuning@y..., prophecyspirit@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/25/02 8:55:05 AM Central Daylight Time,
> genewardsmith@j... writes:
>
>
> > An approximation is an approximation, isn't it?
> >
> Not between JT and ET, becasue in ET A 900 cents is also used as the major
> 3rd for F, whereas in my Phillips scale A for F is 884 cents. Thus there's a
> difference between an approximation and a compromise.

Around here you need to say 12-et, not just et. There's also, for instance, 171-et, which is less of a compromise than what you do.

In a message dated 10/25/02 11:48:19 AM Central Daylight Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

> There's also, for instance, 171-et, which is less of a compromise than what
> you do.
>
I didn't say I compromsie in my JT scale, as I don't. 12-ET is the
compromise. And 17-Et would have to e a compromsie as well, as it takes 19
notes to the octave to do the tuning right. There can be no exception to that
no matter what tuing is used!

Pauline

--- In tuning@y..., prophecyspirit@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/24/02 5:42:28 PM Central Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > what about (again) the progressions I-vi-ii-V-I and I-IV-ii-V-I?
> > didn't you say you would use 900-0-400 for the a minor chord?
> >
> As triads = 0-384-700 > 900-1200-400 > 200-468-900 > 700-1084-200 >
> 0-384-700.
> or 900-1168-400

so there it is -- the e (third scale degree) shifts up a comma, and
in your alternate version the c (tonic) shifts down an even bigger
comma at the same time. so why the denials?

In a message dated 10/25/02 3:45:34 PM Central Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> the e (third scale degree) shifts up a comma, and
> in your alternate version the c (tonic) shifts down an even bigger
> comma at the same time. so why the denials?
>
The two E pitches are used for different chords. So I don't call that any
shift. It simply follows the harmonic partials as they are. And doesn't
interfere with the sound quality in the least. The lowered C is the septimal
harmonic minor 7th for D, which the A chord may or may not use. There's not a
thing unmusical about it all.

Pauline

--- In tuning@y..., prophecyspirit@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/25/02 3:45:34 PM Central Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > the e (third scale degree) shifts up a comma, and
> > in your alternate version the c (tonic) shifts down an even
bigger
> > comma at the same time. so why the denials?
> >
> The two E pitches are used for different chords. So I don't call
that any
> shift. It simply follows the harmonic partials as they are. And
doesn't
> interfere with the sound quality in the least.

that's your opinion. in mine, and that of many other musicians
experimenting with tuning, such 16 cent shifts disturb the voice-
leading in a rendition of western common practice music, and would
not be an accurate rendering of what the composer intended. there are
other solutions much more acceptable from this standpoint.

In a message dated 10/25/02 6:46:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> in mine, and that of many other musicians
> experimenting with tuning, such 16 cent shifts disturb the voice-
> leading in a rendition of western common practice music, and would
> not be an accurate rendering of what the composer intended.

Then I have to say they are mistaken. The proof of the music is in the
playing and singing. I've sung along as I played, and never encountered such
problems as you suggest.

Pauline

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

/tuning/topicId_40077.html#40154

> In a message dated 10/25/02 6:46:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > in mine, and that of many other musicians
> > experimenting with tuning, such 16 cent shifts disturb the voice-
> > leading in a rendition of western common practice music, and
would
> > not be an accurate rendering of what the composer intended.
>
> Then I have to say they are mistaken. The proof of the music is in
the
> playing and singing. I've sung along as I played, and never
encountered such
> problems as you suggest.
>
> Pauline

***Isn't this 16 cent comma "shift" exactly the problem that people
tried to work around in the famous Joe Monzo webpage of I-IV-V7-I??

I don't believe that page is up yet anyplace, is it?? I hope it gets
back up again, since it's a *wonderful* study!

Joe Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., prophecyspirit@a... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_40077.html#40154
>
> > In a message dated 10/25/02 6:46:24 PM Central Daylight
Time,
> > wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > in mine, and that of many other musicians
> > > experimenting with tuning, such 16 cent shifts disturb the
voice-
> > > leading in a rendition of western common practice music,
and
> would
> > > not be an accurate rendering of what the composer
intended.
> >
> > Then I have to say they are mistaken. The proof of the music
is in
> the
> > playing and singing. I've sung along as I played, and never
> encountered such
> > problems as you suggest.
> >
> > Pauline
>
>
> ***Isn't this 16 cent comma "shift" exactly the problem that
people
> tried to work around in the famous Joe Monzo webpage of
I-IV-V7-I??

no, that was a different comma, about twice as big, 31-33 cents .
. . . the _septimal_ comma. pauline, indeed, has it from *heaven*
that even these shifts are acceptable, musicians who feel
otherwise be "damned" . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_40077.html#40168

> >
> > ***Isn't this 16 cent comma "shift" exactly the problem that
> people
> > tried to work around in the famous Joe Monzo webpage of
> I-IV-V7-I??
>
> no, that was a different comma, about twice as big, 31-33 cents .
> . . . the _septimal_ comma. pauline, indeed, has it from *heaven*
> that even these shifts are acceptable, musicians who feel
> otherwise be "damned" . . .

***Got it! Well, that one's worse, indeed... We're obviously
talking about a *syntonic* comma shift here, apparently...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
>
> /tuning/topicId_40077.html#40168
>
> > >
> > > ***Isn't this 16 cent comma "shift" exactly the problem that
> > people
> > > tried to work around in the famous Joe Monzo webpage of
> > I-IV-V7-I??
> >
> > no, that was a different comma, about twice as big, 31-33
cents .
> > . . . the _septimal_ comma. pauline, indeed, has it from
*heaven*
> > that even these shifts are acceptable, musicians who feel
> > otherwise be "damned" . . .
>
>
> ***Got it! Well, that one's worse, indeed... We're obviously
> talking about a *syntonic* comma shift here, apparently...

yes, but we could just as easily talk about the septimal comma
instead, as monz has the progression up (usually), and pauline
has implied that even such shifts don't disturb her in
performances of classical music.

In a message dated 10/25/02 10:28:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> Isn't this 16 cent comma "shift" exactly the problem that people
> tried to work around in the famous Joe Monzo webpage of I-IV-V7-I??
>
> Joe

The reason the difference between E 384 and E 400 isn't a problem is becaue,
when the A 884 triad goes to or from C, it uses the F scale. Whereas, when A
900 triaad gos to or from C, it's in the C scale. The ear can't remember
such small differences suder such circumstances.

Pauline

In a message dated 10/25/02 10:53:40 PM Central Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> the _septimal_ comma. pauline, indeed, has it from *heaven*
> that even these shifts are acceptable, musicians who feel
> otherwise be "damned" . . .

Something might look unacceptable in print as numbers, but in actual practice
they may not be such at all. Key-signautre music is composed in key signature
phrases, not complete comopositions. As very much modualtion occurs, even in
simple four-part harmony, such as in hymns.

Some music theorists have said JI couldn't be practical, because they thought
a compositon wouldn't end on the same pitch it began with. My scales show
that idea is dead wrong. No pitch change need happen at all. And even if it
did, the ear wouldn't remember it that long.

Pauline

In a message dated 10/25/02 11:44:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> no, that was a different comma, about twice as big, 31-33 cents .
> > . . . the _septimal_ comma. pauline, indeed, has it from *heaven*
> > that even these shifts are acceptable, musicians who feel
> > otherwise be "damned" . . .
>
> ***Got it! Well, that one's worse, indeed... We're obviously
> talking about a *syntonic* comma shift here, apparently...
>
> J. Pehrson
>
The difference berween theoretical septimal C and regular C is 27 cents. And
works fine when used properly.

Pauline

In a message dated 10/25/02 11:49:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> we could just as easily talk about the septimal comma
> instead, as monz has the progression up (usually), and pauline
> has implied that even such shifts don't disturb her in
> performances of classical music.

What is important in JI isn't small differences in cents, such as betwween E
386 and E 408, or C 1173 and C1200, but how chords and intervals progrss from
one to another. When proper scales are created, and up to three are used
together, there aren't any real problems.

Pauline

--- In tuning@y..., prophecyspirit@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/25/02 11:44:31 PM Central Daylight
Time,
> jpehrson@r... writes:
>
>
> > no, that was a different comma, about twice as big, 31-33
cents .
> > > . . . the _septimal_ comma. pauline, indeed, has it from
*heaven*
> > > that even these shifts are acceptable, musicians who feel
> > > otherwise be "damned" . . .
> >
> > ***Got it! Well, that one's worse, indeed... We're obviously
> > talking about a *syntonic* comma shift here, apparently...
> >
> > J. Pehrson
> >
> The difference berween theoretical septimal C and regular C is
27 cents. And
> works fine when used properly.
>
> Pauline

pauline -

yes, that's the opinion of some musicians. however, after monz
created his I-IV-V7-I web page, we all got to listen to several
tuning variations, and it was clear that quite a few musicians did
*not* find the 27 cent septimal comma shift acceptable in this
progression. please do not presume to speak for all musicians,
or even all interpreters of western music.

-paul

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

> Some music theorists have said JI couldn't be practical,

as far as *vertical* JI is concerned, that isn't my view at all (except
when it comes to chords like C-E-G-A-D). and once again, you
can have vertical JI chords, and no *perceptible* melodic shifts, if
you use *adaptive* JI, an idea that's been around at least since
vicentino's second tuning of 1555.

those who have been around for some years may remember
when john delaubenfels was working on the adaptive tuning
project, and his rendition of a bach-busoni piece contained an
11-cent shift that made me sick to my stomach. needless to say,
we improved his program, and the results are audible on his
website (see the "links" folder).

In a message dated 10/26/02 9:00:17 PM Central Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> after monz
> created his I-IV-V7-I web page, we all got to listen to several
> tuning variations, and it was clear that quite a few musicians did
> *not* find the 27 cent septimal comma shift acceptable in this
> progression.
> -paul

Paul,

In JI ot JT, when a chord progression porduces an undesirable pitch shift
in a repeated melody note, it's necessary to use another chord which
sounds similar, but doessn't create the pitch shift.

In your example of 1-IV-V7-I in the C key that would be I-IV-F13-I.
F13 here is the harmonious version, rather than the harmonic one--
F-A-C-Eb-G-B-D. And would be used as a partial chord in the 4th
inversion. In my JT scale using 4-part harmony that would be
G 700-B 1084-D 200-F 500.

In a proper JI/JT scale there's always solutions to harmony or melody
problems. But one needs to think beyond triads or 7th chords to sometimes
find them.

Sincerely,
Pauline W. Phillips, Moderator, <A HREF="/JohannusOrgansSchool ">Johannus Organs eSchool</A>
Johannus Orgelbouw, Holland, builds pipe, pipe-digital, digital-sampled
organs.
Moderator, <A HREF="/JustIntonationOrganSchool/">Just Intonation Organ eSchool</A>

--- In tuning@y..., prophecyspirit@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/26/02 9:00:17 PM Central Daylight
Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > after monz
> > created his I-IV-V7-I web page, we all got to listen to several
> > tuning variations, and it was clear that quite a few musicians
did
> > *not* find the 27 cent septimal comma shift acceptable in
this
> > progression.
> > -paul
>
>
> Paul,
>
> In JI ot JT, when a chord progression porduces an undesirable
pitch shift
> in a repeated melody note, it's necessary to use another chord
which
> sounds similar, but doessn't create the pitch shift.
>
> In your example of 1-IV-V7-I in the C key that would be
I-IV-F13-I.
> F13 here is the harmonious version, rather than the harmonic
one--

can you elaborate what you mean by this distinction?

> F-A-C-Eb-G-B-D. And would be used as a partial chord in the
4th
> inversion. In my JT scale using 4-part harmony that would be
> G 700-B 1084-D 200-F 500.

i have no problem with this solution! so you're "deriving" this
chord as 35:45:54:65?

> In a proper JI/JT scale there's always solutions to harmony or
melody
> problems.

your solutions to the I-vi-ii-V-I problem did not satisfy my ears,
though . . .

hi Pauline,

> From: <prophecyspirit@aol.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: 12 Equal vs. Just Tuning [Phillips scale]
>
>
> In a message dated 10/25/02 10:28:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
> jpehrson@rcn.com writes:
>
>
> > Isn't this 16 cent comma "shift" exactly the problem that people
> > tried to work around in the famous Joe Monzo webpage of I-IV-V7-I??
> >
> > Joe
>
> The reason the difference between E 384 and E 400 isn't a problem
> is becaue, when the A 884 triad goes to or from C, it uses the
> F scale. Whereas, when A 900 [triad goes] to or from C, it's in
> the C scale. The ear can't remember such small differences [under]
> such circumstances.

you say *the* ear when you really mean *your* ear!

the reason why people here are disagreeing and arguing with you
is because you present certain information as objective, absolute
facts, when in reality, they are subjective, relative experiences
and opinions.

OK, so you've done experiments and you've found that *your* ear
"can't remember such small differences under such circumstances".

but guess what? -- some other people's ears *can* remember such
small differences! and of *those* people, some (such as Carl Lumma
and myself) will agree with you that these small differences are OK,
while others (such as Paul Erlich) will totally disagree and find
them bothersome.

Paul apparently listens in such a way that the individual
voice-leading is very transparent to his consciousness, and
when the intonation of certain notes shifts by small amounts
like a comma, even when disguised within very consonant
chord progressions, he hears the change of intonation and
finds it obtrusive.

i, on the other hand, generally find the consonance of the
vertical sonorities more than enough to compensate for any
"bother" that commatic changes in pitch might bring to my
perception, and in fact, in some cases, i even *like* those
commatic shifts because i find them colorful. i suppose
Carl listens in this way too, because the two of us have
found ourselves very much in agreement on this point in
the past.

hope that helps clear up some of the conflict in the
dialog you've been having here with others, especially Paul.
again, i would ask that you try to present your statements
in a more subjective manner, emphasizing that this is
how *you* experience your tuning. saying things that
others know from their own experience that they disagree
with, is not going to get them more interested in your work.

-monz
"all roads lead to n^0"

In a message dated 10/26/02 10:21:13 PM Central Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> In your example of 1-IV-V7-I in the C key that would be
> I-IV-F13-I.
> > F13 here is the harmonious version, rather than the harmonic
> one--
>
> can you elaborate what you mean by this distinction?

In C the 9th harmonic is D 204, 11th harmonic F# 551 and 13th -A 841 cents.
The harmonious version is a repeat from D the C triad--D 204, F# 590, A 906.
amd then C 0 as the 4th inversion note for C13 What I gave you was the same
thing for the F chord.

> In my JT scale using 4-part harmony that would be
> > G 700-B 1084-D 200-F 500.
>
> i have no problem with this solution! so you're "deriving" this
> chord as 35:45:54:65?

In my scale F is derived from a 5th cycle from E 386. So its ratio is very
high-
10935/8192. Wich would make the corresponding ratios for G-B-D very hiigh as
well. It's simpler to use cents values.

> your solutions to the I-vi-ii-V-I problem did not satisfy my ears,
> though . . .

G 700-B 1084-D 200-F 500 is 1000 cents, the same as 12--ET has. If the chord
sound isn't satisfactory, the solution is to revise the harmonic progression.

Normally the dominant 7th is preceded by the ii chord. In my C scale its
septimal as
D 200-F 468-A 900. It's often used in the 1st inversion with the septimal
note in the bass. A nice thing about using the harmonic septimal ii chard
before the dominent harmonic 7th is that it forecasts the V7 note before its
used thus. Such subtle anticipation, especially in a different voice, can
have a dramatic effect on the ear!

Pauline

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

>
> Paul apparently listens in such a way that the individual
> voice-leading is very transparent to his consciousness, and
> when the intonation of certain notes shifts by small amounts
> like a comma, even when disguised within very consonant
> chord progressions, he hears the change of intonation and
> finds it obtrusive.
>
> i, on the other hand, generally find the consonance of the
> vertical sonorities more than enough to compensate for any
> "bother" that commatic changes in pitch might bring to my
> perception, and in fact, in some cases, i even *like* those
> commatic shifts because i find them colorful. i suppose
> Carl listens in this way too, because the two of us have
> found ourselves very much in agreement on this point in
> the past.

while it may be "colorful", i don't believe it accurately reflects the
composer's intentions when we're talking about western music
1500-1900. besides, i don't see it as a question of
"compensation", because with adaptive JI you can maintain the
vertical consonance while eliminating the inappropriate (i feel)
commatic shifts.

i don't think the classical music world as a whole, at any point in
its frequently-taste-changing history, would accept a
performance of a major classical composer in which these
stark, large comma shifts were inserted into melodic lines. to my
ear, such effects are detrimental to the demands of expressive
melodic performance. note that this point of view of mine does
not in any way preclude *vertical* just intonation, let alone
near-justness of the pauline variety -- ample evidence of this
having been given by john delaubenfels in his adaptively tuned
renditions of classical music.

--- In tuning@y..., prophecyspirit@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/26/02 10:21:13 PM Central Standard
Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > In your example of 1-IV-V7-I in the C key that would be
> > I-IV-F13-I.
> > > F13 here is the harmonious version, rather than the
harmonic
> > one--
> >
> > can you elaborate what you mean by this distinction?
>
> In C the 9th harmonic is D 204, 11th harmonic F# 551 and 13th
-A 841 cents.
> The harmonious version is a repeat from D the C triad--D 204,
F# 590, A 906.
> amd then C 0 as the 4th inversion note for C13 What I gave
you was the same
> thing for the F chord.

so why *isn't* this 36:45:54:64? it seems like it must be.

> > In my JT scale using 4-part harmony that would be
> > > G 700-B 1084-D 200-F 500.
> >
> > i have no problem with this solution! so you're "deriving" this
> > chord as 35:45:54:65?
>
> In my scale F is derived from a 5th cycle from E 386. So its ratio
is very
> high-
> 10935/8192. Wich would make the corresponding ratios for
G-B-D very hiigh as
> well.

so it's not really just intonation in any audible sense that you're
deriving this chord from, is it?

> It's simpler to use cents values.
>
> > your solutions to the I-vi-ii-V-I problem did not satisfy my ears,
> > though . . .
>
> G 700-B 1084-D 200-F 500 is 1000 cents, the same as 12--ET
>has.

that was the last issue, and not what i'm asking you about here!

> If the chord
> sound isn't satisfactory, the solution is to revise the harmonic
>progression.

i thought we were talking about performing preexisting western
masterworks -- surely you don't want to revise them??

> Normally the dominant 7th is preceded by the ii chord. In my C
scale its
> septimal as
> D 200-F 468-A 900. It's often used in the 1st inversion with the
septimal
> note in the bass. A nice thing about using the harmonic
septimal ii chard
> before the dominent harmonic 7th is that it forecasts the V7
note before its
> used thus. Such subtle anticipation, especially in a different
voice, can
> have a dramatic effect on the ear!

i agree, and this is a wonderful effect in original, newly
composed xenharmonic music . . .

In a message dated 10/27/02 12:12:00 AM Central Standard Time,
monz@attglobal.net writes:

> some other people's ears *can* remember such
> small differences! and of *those* people, some (such as Carl Lumma
> and myself) will agree with you that these small differences are OK,
> while others (such as Paul Erlich) will totally disagree and find
> them bothersome.
>
monz,

By saying the ear doesn't remembr such small differences, I meant hearing
them as objectionable. Naturally, there are exceptions to such things, as you
said. Just as for some strange reason some prefer 12-ET over JI or JT. I
don't underatnd that, but that's the way it is. So I say in such things, to
each his or her own.

At the same time, for someone to find fault with my scale jsu becaue a
certain chord progression they use doens't sound right to them, when it might
sound OK to someone else, isn't helpful either.

For the normal chord progession taught in harmony class is ii-V7-I rather
than IV-V7-I. In such cases the ii chord acts as the subdominant. Some
theorists say the ii, iii, vi or vii chords are merely varioations of I, IV
and V. But even they don't all agree on such things, any more than we here
don't all agree on tunings.

I've presented my scale as one that works through trial and error and
multiple revision over many years, which still allows for slight variations,
depending on the type of tone generators used, and how many. As I said, I
used 100s of four-poart harmony compositons as the final test. As their
barebones harmony structure doesn't provide many extra notes that might cover
up some problems. And msot of these compositions generally follow the chord
progressions taught in Harmony. Or their composers were skilled enough to
figure a musical way around them.

Pauline

Pauline

In a message dated 10/27/02 1:00:38 PM Central Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> so why *isn't* this 36:45:54:64? it seems like it must be.

It may be, but i'm not used to thinking about tuning that way. I prefer
individual harmonic-partial ratios and cents.

> so it's not really just intonation in any audible sense that you're
> deriving this chord from, is it?

Yes, its JI or JT, which depending on how technical one wants to be. The
chord I gave is a just chord. Some such chords are in fact virtually the same
as is found in 12-ET. For example, the interval E- 386-A 906 worth 520 cents,
while not good as part of a regular chord, is perfectly all tright as a
passing interval, when say A resolves to G..

> i thought we were talking about performing preexisting western
> masterworks -- surely you don't want to revise them??
>
If a composition doesn't follow what is considered the best harmonic
progessions, the using the tuning I gave is a solution. Not all solutions are
satisfactory in every sense. It took centures for composers to finally get al
the chord progessions in the best order, as much tradition had to be bucked
to do it. Then, once that was achieved, composers began throwing them out as
old hat.

But when music is played on a keyboard instrument with fixed pitches, some
comprimises of some kind have to be made. There simply is no other way. So
some composers prefer to write for non-fixed pitch instruments.

At the same time some people like me prefer to play music better than
listening to it. So we put up with what we have to to do that.

Pauline

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> i don't think the classical music world as a whole, at any point in
> its frequently-taste-changing history, would accept a
> performance of a major classical composer in which these
> stark, large comma shifts were inserted into melodic lines.

Then how would you account for the fact that it not only succeeds in pleasing Pauline (whom I must give *some* weight to, given the amount of time, effort, and all the related work she has put into her organ projects/pedagogy), but must also be at least as successful with her listeners? Would she have gotten as far, to be creating these organs and teaching, etc., if what she were doing was 'unacceptable' to the "classical music world"?

I'd wager this at this juncture: I would certainly love to hear examples of Pauline's instrument(s)/performances to actually *hear* some of what we are talking about! Running the numbers and saying this comma shift or that comma shift is or is not acceptable doesn't matter to me nearly as much as listening to it and letting my ears and musical sensibilities make their own judgements.

> to my ear, such effects are detrimental to the demands of
> expressive melodic performance.

Ah, but 'ears' differ, don't they?

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 10/27/02 1:07:09 PM Central Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> i don't think the classical music world as a whole, at any point in
> its frequently-taste-changing history, would accept a
> performance of a major classical composer in which these
> stark, large comma shifts were inserted into melodic lines. to my
> ear, such effects are detrimental to the demands of expressive
> melodic performance.

When we talk about scales, I think we need to be clear as to what kind of
musici being performed, keyboard or instumental group with non-fixed pitches.
My scale is a keyboard scale, particularly an organ-manual scale. It works
there. In some cases one has to decide between two possibilities which is the
best at a certain point.

That's why I say one can't sight-read and play music in just intonation not
scored for that. As at some point more than one possibility presents itself.
And one has to choose the best one. Sometimes both posibilities are JI ones.
Thus I worked out my scale so as to have the minimum JI scoring needed--only
on the split digitals.

But enven then, oen has to first determine which scale to use on which
manual. So the music still needs to be scored for that. In other words,
playing in JI isn't any kid stuff! It's serious activity needed to be done
accurately.

Pauline

--- In tuning@y..., prophecyspirit@a... wrote:
>
> At the same time some people like me prefer to play music
better than
> listening to it. So we put up with what we have to to do that.
>
> Pauline

pauline -- i've been trying to point out that helmholtz, groven, and
especially vicentino and delaubenfels have proposed different
solutions to these same kinds of problems. as long as you're
willing to acknowledge that yours isn't the "one true path", i think
we'll be OK!

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

> Then how would you account for the fact that it not only
>succeeds in pleasing Pauline (whom I must give *some*
w>eight to, given the amount of time, effort, and all the related
w>ork she has put into her organ projects/pedagogy), but must
a>lso be at least as successful with her listeners?

like who? on what testimony are you basing this "must"?

> Would she have gotten as far, to be creating these organs and
>teaching, etc., if what she were doing was 'unacceptable' to the
>"classical music world"?

let me see a review of one of her performances in a major
classical music magazine. that's the kind of thing i'm talking
about. (p.s. both these kinds of "solutions," and the
dissatisfaction that some listeners have with them, have a
loooong documented history. i'm basing my opinions *partly* on
that, but mainly on the reactions of my own ear.)

> I'd wager this at this juncture: I would certainly love to hear
>examples of Pauline's instrument(s)/performances to actually
>*hear* some of what we are talking about!

agreed! how about a simple bach chorale or something?

>Running the numbers and saying this comma shift or that
c>omma shift is or is not acceptable doesn't matter to me nearly
a>s much as listening to it and letting my ears and musical
s>ensibilities make their own judgements.

agreed 100%!

> > to my ear, such effects are detrimental to the demands of
> > expressive melodic performance.
>
> Ah, but 'ears' differ, don't they?

you betcha! that's why i've been emphasizing the subjectivity of
these judgments, _contra_ pauline's absolutist claims. it
appears she may be willing to drop that attitude, in which case
the continuation of this discussion should be a friendly endeavor
of experimentation, discovery, and sharing (even when the
sharing includes differences of opinion).

hi paul and Pauline,

> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 12:14 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: 12 Equal vs. Just Tuning [Phillips scale]
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Ah, but 'ears' differ, don't they?
>
> you betcha! that's why i've been emphasizing the subjectivity of
> these judgments, _contra_ pauline's absolutist claims. it
> appears she may be willing to drop that attitude, in which case
> the continuation of this discussion should be a friendly endeavor
> of experimentation, discovery, and sharing (even when the
> sharing includes differences of opinion).

good for you, paul. i don't know if you've caught my
many posts to Pauline emphazing the same point. let's
have more data about the tuning and less claims about
its perfection!

... as any real tuning-theorist knows well, there is no
such thing as a "perfect tuning".

(oh boy, i can feel the flames fanning already! ...)

-monz
"all roads lead to n^0"

In a message dated 10/27/02 1:58:51 PM Central Standard Time,
JSZANTO@ADNC.COM writes:

> Then how would you account for the fact that it not only succeeds in
> pleasing Pauline , but must also be at least as successful with her
> listeners? Would she have gotten as far, to be creating these organs and
> teaching, etc., if what she were doing was 'unacceptable' to the "classical
> music world"?

Jon,

My organ is still the prototype model. But I am able to compare my scale with
the Johannus digital-sampled organ my chruch has---which has MT, WM and ET
tuning at the press of a button (piston). I know how the major 3rds sound on
MT, WM, ET, JI and JT. The same goes for the minor 7ths and minor 3rds. Of
those who've heard my organ none have spoken against it. One organist at
church suggested I call it to the attention of the othr churches' organists
in town. Another suggested I take it to church and demonstrated it there.

> 'd wager this at this juncture: I would certainly love to hear examples of
> Pauline's instrument(s)/performances to actually *hear* some of what we are
> talking about!

Some time back I bought a recorder to record my organ. But things haven't
progressed to the point I want to do that. I wan a pedalboard for it first. I
have so many thngs going on, I don't have time nor money to spend on my organ
that I'd like.

But at the beginnig of the year I decided to create a Yahoo! forum for my JI
info, and posted it there. I also created a Johannus organ forum. (See
sigfile below.) Then, when 1/1 magazine calld my attention to this forum I
joined it to learn what I could and share what I have.

So, besides posting, I uploaded a file. And will upload others as I get to
them. I've been a biblical-research writer, among everythig else, since 1970.
So the terminology I use in my files, particularly the one I posted Friday,
reflects that.

While I believe in the modern idea of trying to perform music the way the
composer intended ahead of what the player might want, I don't take that idea
as far as the tuning. As the tuning used was serious comrpomises. I agree
with the view many music theorists have that the great composers thought in
JI. So my tuning is supposed to play their music the way they would've
compsed it in JI, if they'd had the scale and the instruments to play it.

So I don't try to imitate MT, WM nor ET. I've heard JI and JT on my organ
enough that the piano and prior analog organ at chruch sounded out of tune to
me! So, when I play the Johannus organ now there, to the extent key
signatures allow, I play music in MT first, WM 2nd, and ET as a last resort.
Most hymns are composed or transcribed into 0-2 #/b. So MT works for most in
those keys (except where the B major triad is used). Fewer require WM. And
even fewer ET.

Sincerely,
Pauline W. Phillips, Moderator, <A HREF="/JohannusOrgansSchool ">Johannus Organs eSchool</A>
Johannus Orgelbouw, Holland, builds pipe, pipe-digital, digital-sampled
organs.
Moderator, <A HREF="/JustIntonationOrganSchool/">Just Intonation Organ eSchool</A>

In a message dated 10/27/02 2:03:59 PM Central Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> helmholtz, groven, and
> especially vicentino and delaubenfels have proposed different
> solutions to these same kinds of problems. as long as you're
> willing to acknowledge that yours isn't the "one true path", i think
> we'll be OK!
>
Right. The solutions I gave are the ones that came to mind. I usually have to
have the music before me to think of others.

p

In a message dated 10/27/02 2:25:55 PM Central Standard Time,
monz@attglobal.net writes:

> ... as any real tuning-theorist knows well, there is no
> such thing as a "perfect tuning".
>
But perfect for a given purpose or type of composition.

p

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

> good for you, paul. i don't know if you've caught my
> many posts to Pauline emphazing the same point.

i certainly caught your last one, thanks monz.

>
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

Paul!
I think the problem is even more complex than deciding Comma Shifts as often i intuit composers hearing beyond 5 limit language
if not reacting to combination tones as well. Likewise certain intonation practives probably remain outside of our conciousnes ears and are givens. I seems best to leave the past alone except to return it to what it orginally used.

>
>
>
> i don't think the classical music world as a whole, at any point in
> its frequently-taste-changing history, would accept a
> performance of a major classical composer in which these
> stark, large comma shifts were inserted into melodic lines. to my
> ear, such effects are detrimental to the demands of expressive
> melodic performance. note that this point of view of mine does
> not in any way preclude *vertical* just intonation, let alone
> near-justness of the pauline variety -- ample evidence of this
> having been given by john delaubenfels in his adaptively tuned
> renditions of classical music.
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST

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

> While I believe in the modern idea of trying to perform music the
>way the
> composer intended ahead of what the player might want, I don't take
> that idea
> as far as the tuning. As the tuning used was serious comrpomises.
> I agree
> with the view many music theorists have that the great composers
thought in
> JI.

pauline, if the composer wrote for *strings*, and was in a position
of influence, he or she could certainly have had the music performed
in the very tuning the piece was "thought" in. if this were strict
just intonation, with its comma shifts et. al., such a tuning would
have divisions resembing those of 53-equal or 72-equal (since those
emulate the proportions of just intonation). the syntonic comma
shift, for example, would be understood as one degree of this fine
division of the octave.

among the great composers and musicians in the common-practice period
who taught about fine division of the octave, and indeed such as
appropriate to performing their own music, a far greater number (such
as Telemann, Mozart, Tosi, Quantz) use divisions appropriate to a
meantone tuning, such as 55-equal, instead. while a single step of
this tuning, 21.8 cents, nearly equal to a syntonic comma, was
*distinguished* in the notation of Telemann, Mozart, etc., these
composers did *not* distinguish moves of four perfect fifths up and a
major third down, which would move one a syntonic comma in just
intonation.

this shows to me that, with the exactitude that certain prominent
members of the western musical tradition measured and taught
intervals, any "thought" comma shifts could have easily been written
into the music and implemented with a reasonable amount of effort.
but this was rarely, if ever, done.

instead, if the meantone model is followed, the players could have
played certain pitches 3 cents higher, other pitches 3 cents lower,
and acheived absolute vertical justness in every triad! these would
be subtle, unconscious shifts, "felt" rather than heard through a
minimization of beating.

such a solution can be translated to a playable keyboard, as was
shown by vicentino in his second archicembalo tuning of 1555.

> So my tuning is supposed to play their music the way they would've
> compsed it in JI, if they'd had the scale and the instruments to
>play it.

i would argue instead that the weight of the historical evidence
would evince that this would be achieved much better by a vicentino-
style solution.

n.b. in the medieval period, and often the period since 1800,
musicians were taught that G# is *higher* than Ab, D# *higher* than
Eb, and in general that sharps are higher than their enharmonically
equivalent flats. this contradicts *both* the meantone/vicentino and
the strict just intonation models -- so it's really only in the
renaissance through classical periods that we could claim that most
composers "thought" music in either of the ways we're arguing for.

> So I don't try to imitate MT, WM nor ET. I've heard JI and JT on my
organ
> enough that the piano and prior analog organ at chruch sounded out
of tune to
> me!

i've had the same experience!

> So, when I play the Johannus organ now there, to the extent key
> signatures allow, I play music in MT first, WM 2nd, and ET as a
last resort.
> Most hymns are composed or transcribed into 0-2 #/b. So MT works
for most in
> those keys (except where the B major triad is used). Fewer require
WM. And
> even fewer ET.

yup!

in kindness,
paul

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
> > From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
>
> Paul!
> I think the problem is even more complex than deciding Comma
>Shifts as often i intuit composers hearing beyond 5 limit language
> if not reacting to combination tones as well.

agreed -- for music written at the keyboard since the advent of well-
and equal-temperaments, there is an argument to be made for the
relevance (i.e. desirability) of 16:19:24 in the tuning of the minor
triad, as xavier has argued. you are right that the problem is more
complex than i made it out to be, and you're right about the reasons!

>Likewise certain intonation practives probably remain outside of our
>conciousnes ears and are givens. I seems best to leave the past
>alone except to return it to what it orginally used.

unfortunately, for music more than a century old, we will never know
what was originally used in flexible-pitch ensembles, such as vocal
or string ensembles, let alone those under the direct direction of
the composer. that shouldn't stop us from speculating, proposing
alternatives, and arguing about how they sound. we may learn
something!

In a message dated 10/27/02 10:04:25 PM Central Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> .b. in the medieval period, and often the period since 1800,
> musicians were taught that G# is *higher* than Ab, D# *higher* than
> Eb, and in general that sharps are higher than their enharmonically
> equivalent flats.

Paul,

They must've been thinking in terms of F # 612 cents as a 5ths cycle from C,
making G # 8l6 cents. Then arbitrarily back tracking from C to get A b at 814
cents. But in harmonic-partial JI both #s and bs are much lower with the #s
lower for non-septimal bs.. It seems to me common musical sense would tell
one that's the way #s should be, making Db higher than C #.

Where both digitals were provided for #s/bs, the latter system would be much
easier to play. No wonder organists then didn't like the split-digital system
sometimes in use!

Pauline

In a message dated 10/27/02 10:11:13 PM Central Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> unfortunately, for music more than a century old, we will never know
> what was originally used in flexible-pitch ensembles, such as vocal
> or string ensembles, let alone those under the direct direction of
> the composer.

In the early days instruments were tuned to a definite range and/or scale. So
a player had to have several small instruments, each tuned differently. Or
have tubes of varying lengths to insert into their wind instruments. Or use a
slide as in the trombone and slide trumpet. And use sliding gut frets in
stringed instruments. Or use a double-pipe instrument with a single
mouthpiece.

So I think they may have known more about different tunings than they are
given credit for. And, of course, they dealt with modes rather than key
signatures. The term "mode" being with us to this day.

Pauline

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

> It seems to me common musical sense would tell
> one that's the way #s should be, making Db higher than C #.

yes, but this was only the consensus from 1500-1800, believe it or
not. outside those years, you find the opposite tendency being taught
to musicians!

> Where both digitals were provided for #s/bs, the latter system
would be much
> easier to play. No wonder organists then didn't like the split-
digital system
> sometimes in use!

i'm not following you. can you clarify?

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> like who? on what testimony are you basing this "must"?

That is one of the more porous 'must's, Paul, not a steel-plate impregnable fortress 'must'. I figure that I give the benefit of the doubt around here *a lot*, and when people post I've gotten fairly successful at figuring out who is a singular person, whistling in the wind with literally nothing to back them up, and those who seem to have at least some personal (i.e. their own and that of their circle of colleagues/friends/associates) technical/musical credence or credibility.

I'm not saying our good correspondent Pauline is infallible, and I bristle at the classical/Euro-centric nature, but if it is just of interest to her that is fine (i.e. so long as the ideas proposed aren't set up as universal panaceas).

> > Would she have gotten as far, to be creating these organs and
> >teaching, etc., if what she were doing was 'unacceptable' to the
> >"classical music world"?
>
> let me see a review of one of her performances in a major
> classical music magazine. that's the kind of thing i'm talking
> about.

Yeah, well... dog poop. Speaking from the perspective of a 25+ year "career" in classical music, including reviews like those you cite, I would *never* base anything on what I read by a reviewer or critic. There are those I trust, and then there are the vast legions of charlatans.

I can think of a few ways to judge the nature of a person's musical accomplishments and performances, but I've seen too many great artists trashed (or, worse, *ignored*) and wanna-be's canonized.

> i'm basing my opinions *partly* on
> that, but mainly on the reactions of my own ear.)

Well, that is why I hope for listening, myself. But I've seen from a recent post from Pauline that might not be possible.

> you betcha! that's why i've been emphasizing the subjectivity of
> these judgments, _contra_ pauline's absolutist claims.

My thoughts as well.

> in which case
> the continuation of this discussion should be a friendly endeavor
> of experimentation, discovery, and sharing (even when the
> sharing includes differences of opinion).

Sounds good to me. If any of my (or our) questioning becomes too adversarial, I'll just bow out - it isn't that important to me in the long run, and I have no need to be involved in chasing away another participant in the tuning list!

Cheers,
Jon

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

> > > Would she have gotten as far, to be creating these organs and
> > >teaching, etc., if what she were doing was 'unacceptable' to the
> > >"classical music world"?
> >
> > let me see a review of one of her performances in a major
> > classical music magazine. that's the kind of thing i'm talking
> > about.
>
> Yeah, well... dog poop. Speaking from the perspective of a 25+
>year "career" in classical music, including reviews like those you
>cite, I would *never* base anything on what I read by a reviewer or
>critic. There are those I trust, and then there are the vast legions
>of charlatans.

ok, dog poop it is. i guess i should drop the whole "classical music
world" (WHATEVER THAT IS) bit, and i'll be arguing based on my own
ear *and* based on historical authenticity . . . see my last few
posts.

> > i'm basing my opinions *partly* on
> > that, but mainly on the reactions of my own ear.)
>
> Well, that is why I hope for listening, myself. But I've seen from
>a recent post from Pauline that might not be possible.

unless a hero like monz comes along and prepared several retuned
renditions of, say, a bach chorale . . .

>and I have no need to be involved in chasing away another
>participant in the tuning list!

nor do i, so thanks for catching me when i went too far!

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

/tuning/topicId_40077.html#40273

>
> > > Would she have gotten as far, to be creating these organs and
> > >teaching, etc., if what she were doing was 'unacceptable' to the
> > >"classical music world"?
> >
> > let me see a review of one of her performances in a major
> > classical music magazine. that's the kind of thing i'm talking
> > about.
>
> Yeah, well... dog poop. Speaking from the perspective of a 25+
year "career" in classical music, including reviews like those you
cite, I would *never* base anything on what I read by a reviewer or
critic. There are those I trust, and then there are the vast legions
of charlatans.
>

***I have to agree that this possibly won't get us anyplace. I'd
*like* to think that typical classical music reviewers are quite
sensitive to intonation.... but...

I'd make a bet some of them wouldn't even hear this shift, if you get
my drift...

J. Pehrson

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

> I'd
> *like* to think that typical classical music reviewers are quite
> sensitive to intonation....

i wasn't really thinking *reviewers* at all when i said "classical
music world" -- but i guess it was a slippery slope!

i do wish somebody like johnny reinhard would weigh in on the
question of abrupt full-comma pitch shifts in the midst of performing
bach at the organ . . .

P,
--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> ok, dog poop it is.

Did *I* say that? :)

> i guess i should drop the whole "classical music
> world" (WHATEVER THAT IS) bit, and i'll be arguing based on my own
> ear *and* based on historical authenticity . . . see my last few
> posts.

Yes, I have. Frankly, I trust your scholarship and ears more than about a 1,000,000 music critics any day! Not to say we'll always agree, but you and others on this list are light years beyond the average 'classical music' writers. On tuning, that is... :)

> unless a hero like monz comes along and prepared several retuned
> renditions of, say, a bach chorale . . .

Yes, there we go. Of these retunings, about the only ones I've found enlightening (and even moderately enjoyable) were John DeL's. Most everything else has come off at "tuning experiments" rather than *music*. I'm about music, not tuning. If comma drift is a problem, I'd like to hear a piece of Music that exhibits big drift, small drift, no drift, etc. Not some isolated chord progression.

> >and I have no need to be involved in chasing away another
> >participant in the tuning list!
>
> nor do i, so thanks for catching me when i went too far!

Oh, I didn't think you did, I thought maybe *I* did! In any event, we all must be careful that what to us looks like enthusiastically jumping in, en masse, to debate a topic might look like a pack of wild dogs after roadkill to the poster of the message! (...paging Ms. Werntz...). No reason we can't be metered in our prodding.

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 10/27/02 10:48:23 PM Central Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> > Where both digitals were provided for #s/bs, the latter system
> would be much
> > easier to play. No wonder organists then didn't like the split-
> digital system
> > sometimes in use!
>
> i'm not following you. can you clarify?
>
In a few cases organ manuals had a # and b at one or two black digitals. If
the # were higher pitch than the b, it logically would be in the higher-scale
position, and the b in the lower-scale position. But such would be harder to
play thi fi the # were lower in pitch and in the lower position, and the b
higher in pitch and in the higher postion.

On the other hand pitches weren't always in their normal place, which made
even more confusion.

Pauline

In a message dated 10/28/02 12:32:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> i do wish somebody like johnny reinhard would weigh in on the
> question of abrupt full-comma pitch shifts in the midst of performing
> bach at the organ

My views on this subject are well known by now: now that Bach's music is
historically placed within the context of Werckmeister III, any other tuning
used is a distortion. 12-tET is a distortion, as would be any comma-shift,
etc. Some have thought to perform Bach in Just (Drummond, Sims), but Bach as
the master of temperament is severely short-changed.

best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 10/27/02 11:10:11 PM Central Standard Time,
JSZANTO@ADNC.COM writes:

> Speaking from the perspective of a 25+ year "career" in classical music,
> including reviews like those you cite, I would *never* base anything on
> what I read by a reviewer or critic. There are those I trust, and then
> there are the vast legions of charlatans.
>
Many musicians say they don't even read what the music critics say. So why
should anyone else? Listeners should make up their own minds without
unnecessary bias put under their noses. The gerat composers all had their
severe critics. But they all survived their critics to this day by their
music still being played and heard!

Pauline

In a message dated 10/27/02 11:32:57 PM Central Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> i do wish somebody like johnny reinhard would weigh in on the
> question of abrupt full-comma pitch shifts in the midst of performing
> bach at the organ . . .
>
I emphasized on Bach organ music when I studied organ under a teacher and
later on my own. Most of it is contrapuntal with few vertical chords used. So
I doubt very much anyone playinng or listening would notice any pitch shifts.
For one thing, pipe organ stops don't stay in tune with each other. There's
always a certain amount of celeste among them, what is called chorus.

The reed stops (brass, woodwind imitaitons) especially don't stay in tune
with the flue stops. And Bach loved reed stops! Thankfully, digital-sampled
organ stops do stay in tune with each other.

Pauline

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

/tuning/topicId_40077.html#40240

> In a message dated 10/27/02 12:12:00 AM Central Standard Time,
> monz@a... writes:
>
>
> > some other people's ears *can* remember such
> > small differences! and of *those* people, some (such as Carl
Lumma
> > and myself) will agree with you that these small differences are
OK,
> > while others (such as Paul Erlich) will totally disagree and find
> > them bothersome.
> >
> monz,
>
> By saying the ear doesn't remembr such small differences, I meant
hearing
> them as objectionable. Naturally, there are exceptions to such
things, as you
> said. Just as for some strange reason some prefer 12-ET over JI or
JT. I
> don't underatnd that, but that's the way it is. So I say in such
things, to
> each his or her own.
>
> At the same time, for someone to find fault with my scale jsu
becaue a
> certain chord progression they use doens't sound right to them,
when it might
> sound OK to someone else, isn't helpful either.
>
> For the normal chord progession taught in harmony class is ii-V7-I
rather
> than IV-V7-I. In such cases the ii chord acts as the subdominant.
Some
> theorists say the ii, iii, vi or vii chords are merely varioations
of I, IV
> and V. But even they don't all agree on such things, any more than
we here
> don't all agree on tunings.
>
> I've presented my scale as one that works through trial and error
and
> multiple revision over many years, which still allows for slight
variations,
> depending on the type of tone generators used, and how many. As I
said, I
> used 100s of four-poart harmony compositons as the final test. As
their
> barebones harmony structure doesn't provide many extra notes that
might cover
> up some problems. And msot of these compositions generally follow
the chord
> progressions taught in Harmony. Or their composers were skilled
enough to
> figure a musical way around them.
>
> Pauline
>
> Pauline

***Well, I really wonder if I'm getting the "gist" of this... It
seems from the commentary that Pauline is suggesting that one could
take a certain progression, say I-IV-V7-I and, instead, to eliminate
commatic shift go I-ii-V7-I instead??

Is this kind of "rewriting" being suggested for standard "common
period" Western works...

I must be misreading this entirely??

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., prophecyspirit@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/27/02 10:48:23 PM Central Standard Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > > Where both digitals were provided for #s/bs, the latter system
> > would be much
> > > easier to play. No wonder organists then didn't like the split-
> > digital system
> > > sometimes in use!
> >
> > i'm not following you. can you clarify?
> >
> In a few cases organ manuals had a # and b at one or two black
digitals. If
> the # were higher pitch than the b, it logically would be in the
higher-scale
> position, and the b in the lower-scale position. But such would be
harder to
> play thi fi the # were lower in pitch and in the lower position,
and the b
> higher in pitch and in the higher postion.
>
> On the other hand pitches weren't always in their normal place,
which made
> even more confusion.
>
> Pauline

in any case, split digitals were most common in the 1500-1800 period,
when they would have followed the meantone rule -- G# *lower* (in
pitch) than Ab, etc . . . after some point in the 1700s, split
digitals pretty much died out.

In a message dated 10/28/02 1:33:45 PM Central Standard Time,
jpehrson@rcn.com writes:

> Is this kind of "rewriting" being suggested for standard "common
> period" Western works...
>
> J. Pehrson
>
The questioner didn't indicate any reference to a specific composition. If
the problem was for improvization or "chordng," or a contemplated
compositiontobe written, etc. my suggestions would work. He didn't indicate
the kind of performancebeither. On e keyboard one can't do everything one
might otherwise.

Pauline

--- In tuning@y..., prophecyspirit@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/28/02 1:33:45 PM Central Standard Time,
> jpehrson@r... writes:
>
>
> > Is this kind of "rewriting" being suggested for standard "common
> > period" Western works...
> >
> > J. Pehrson
> >
> The questioner didn't indicate any reference to a specific
composition. If
> the problem was for improvization or "chordng," or a contemplated
> compositiontobe written, etc. my suggestions would work. He didn't
indicate
> the kind of performancebeither. On e keyboard one can't do
everything one
> might otherwise.
>
> Pauline

in all fairness to pauline, she *did* post a suggestion for tuning
the I-IV-V7-I progression herself -- nearly identical to one of
the "just, no shifts" versions on monz's famous page, if i recall
correctly. she suggested a tuning of 700-1086-200-500 for the V7
chord. as i said, i really have no problem with this solution!

In a message dated 10/28/02 3:27:43 PM Central Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> , if i recall
> correctly. she suggested a tuning of 700-1086-200-500 for the V7
> chord. as i said, i really have no problem with this solution!
>
Fortunately, composers familiar with JI with hands-on exerience can revise or
rework their composition when any undesireable problems arise. If they insist
regardless on a certain chord progression, they have to take what results.

Pauline

> From: <prophecyspirit@aol.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 8:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: 12 Equal vs. Just Tuning [Phillips scale]
>
>
> In a message dated 10/27/02 10:04:25 PM Central Standard Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > in the medieval period, and often the period since 1800,
> > musicians were taught that G# is *higher* than Ab, D# *higher* than
> > Eb, and in general that sharps are higher than their enharmonically
> > equivalent flats.
>
> Paul,
>
> They must've been thinking in terms of F# 612 cents as
> a 5ths cycle from C, making G #8l6 cents. Then arbitrarily
> back tracking from C to get Ab at 814 cents. But in
> harmonic-partial JI both #s and bs are much lower with
> the #s lower for non-septimal bs.. It seems to me common
> musical sense would tell one that's the way #s should be,
> making Db higher than C#.

you are both making the business about sharps and flats
simpler than it really was. there's a long history to
the evolution of our common accidental symbols, and it
begins with the ancient Greek "Perfect Immutable System"
http://sonic-arts.org/dict/pis.htm

... and of course, my suspicion is that the Greek system
came from the Sumerians! ;-)

-monz
"all roads lead to n^0"