re: everyone concerned (regular print version)

Sorry about the screaming large print in the previous e-mail, it wasn't intentional. Here's a quieter replay:

> > 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.

Pardon me for intruding at this late date to correct misapprehensions that have been drawn, not only from individual phrases taken out of context of my writings, but individual words. A misconclusion has arisen, in the context of the controversy raised by Julia Werntz, that because I describe the "wolf" fifth 40/27 as "scary," I therefore dogmatically forbid its use in music. This is a groundless and arbitrary inference. I use 40/27 in my music myself; the third movement of my opera Custer and Sitting Bull is soaked in it. I am fascinated by JI dissonances, as my recent article on my music in 1/1 attests. I do hear a very different quality in 40/27 than I do in 3/2, and I capitalize on such differences when I compose, choosing intervals precisely for their inherent qualities. In my web site's "Just Intonation Explained" page, written as an introduction for beginners, I describe the 40/27 interval, isolated from context and compared to 3/2, as "scary," just as someone writing an introduction to harmony for nonmusicians might describe the diminished seventh chord as "anxious." I stand by the statement as it appears in its original context, but not as removed from context and transformed into sweeping philosophical dogma by the ever-creative members of the tuning list.

Yours,

Kyle Gann

Kyle,

--- In tuning@y..., Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
> Sorry about the screaming large print in the previous e-mail

No excuses. :)

> I do hear a very different quality in 40/27 than I do in
> 3/2, and I capitalize on such differences when I compose, choosing
> intervals precisely for their inherent qualities.

Indeed.

> I stand by the statement as it appears in its
> original context, but not as removed from context and transformed
> into sweeping philosophical dogma by the ever-creative members of
> the tuning list.

At least they're creative! I believe that "Sweeping Philosophical Dogma" could be a nice title for a piece (sounds like a Didkovsky piece), with 'sweeping' in a verb sense.

Good opportunity to say how much I enjoyed the 1/1 article, too!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., Kyle Gann <kgann@e...> wrote:
> Sorry about the screaming large print in the previous e-mail, it
> wasn't intentional. Here's a quieter replay:

I'm glad you got it posted; my email to you kept bouncing.