9 toner inside 22EDO and other bits

HI Paul,

to answer some questions:

1. I did mean 5/22 as a generator.

2. I meant a single comma, not two, just as you say about octave reduced
22nd power of some ratio. Perhaps someone can enlighten me off list as to
why 22EDO cannot be considered in this way. (It also suggests that if the
generator is inherently 2D then tonalities in 22EDO are more naturally 3D -
hence a possible 3d version of a balzano tonality is maybe hiding there)

This is all really tuning math...

Still, orwell sounds interestingly interesting.

Does anyone have anything to say about the Korg Z1 - off list???

Mark

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_42419.html#42419

> HI Paul,
>
> to answer some questions:
>
> 1. I did mean 5/22 as a generator.
>
> 2. I meant a single comma, not two, just as you say about octave
reduced
> 22nd power of some ratio. Perhaps someone can enlighten me off list
as to
> why 22EDO cannot be considered in this way. (It also suggests that
if the
> generator is inherently 2D then tonalities in 22EDO are more
naturally 3D -
> hence a possible 3d version of a balzano tonality is maybe hiding
there)
>
> This is all really tuning math...
>
> Still, orwell sounds interestingly interesting.
>
> Does anyone have anything to say about the Korg Z1 - off list???
>
> Mark

***It seems topics like how certain commas deflate in certain scales
*is* a topic for this list, as it always has been, not only for
Tuning Math...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_42419.html#42419
>
> > HI Paul,
> >
> > to answer some questions:
> >
> > 1. I did mean 5/22 as a generator.
> >
> > 2. I meant a single comma, not two, just as you say about octave
> reduced
> > 22nd power of some ratio. Perhaps someone can enlighten me off
list
> as to
> > why 22EDO cannot be considered in this way. (It also suggests
that
> if the
> > generator is inherently 2D then tonalities in 22EDO are more
> naturally 3D -
> > hence a possible 3d version of a balzano tonality is maybe hiding
> there)
> >
> > This is all really tuning math...
> >
> > Still, orwell sounds interestingly interesting.
> >
> > Does anyone have anything to say about the Korg Z1 - off list???
> >
> > Mark
>
>
> ***It seems topics like how certain commas deflate in certain
scales
> *is* a topic for this list, as it always has been, not only for
> Tuning Math...
>
> J. Pehrson

all right then . . .

well, in the gentle introduction to periodicity blocks,
the 12-tone scale is derived in two ways. first

http://sonic-arts.org/td/erlich/intropblock1.htm

as a 1-dimensional periodicity block delimited by the pythagorean
comma (=531441:524288), and then

http://sonic-arts.org/td/erlich/intropblock2.htm

as a 2-dimensional periodicity block delimited by the syntonic comma
(=81:80) and the diesis (=128:125). another possible pair is

http://sonic-arts.org/td/erlich/ramospblock.htm

the syntonic comma (=81:80) and the schisma (=32805:32768),

and there are of course others.

starting with 12-equal, we can search for likely candidates for 1-
dimensional periodicity blocks by locating the consonant intervals
(=very simple ratios) that have a small error. since whatever the
error is, stacking 12 just versions of the interval will result in
a 'comma' 12 times as large as this error. and indeed the only
possibility is the perfect fourth/perfect fifth, with an error of 2
cents, resulting from spreading the 24-cent pythagorean comma equally
among 12 of them.

in 22-equal, a likely candidate is 8/22-oct., which is 1 cent off a
9:7. unfortunately, 8 and 22 are not mutually prime, so you only get
11-equal out of this process. the next-best-approximated simple
ratio, as you can see from table 1 of my paper on 22, is 7/22 oct., 4
cents off from 5:4 -- or, if you consider it consonant, 3/22 oct.,
1.4 cents off from 11:10. either of these can generate a 22-tone
scale, and the comma at the end of the chain will be

twenty-two 5:4s -> 98.9 cents
twenty-two 11:10s -> 30.1 cents

so the process of tuning twenty-two consecutive 5:4s, and octave
reducing, certainly does not suggest "ok, this is a good place to
stop, let's now distribute the comma over the intervals we've tuned
up so far" -- instead, twenty-eight of them come really close to
closing. meanwhile, the process of tuning twenty-two consecutive
11:10s, WITHOUT ANY OTHER "HELPER" TONES TO AID IN SETTING THE JUST
RATIO THAT MIGHT THEN SUGGEST THEMSELVES AS INCLUSIONS FOR THE
TUNING, is *exceedingly difficult*, and far-fetched (why only 11:10s,
and twenty-two of them, but no other intervals??) . . . but take it
if you like.

by comparison, 22-tone is fairly well-motivated by tuning out a full
5-limit lattice (that is, two-dimensionally), but not as well-
motivated as 12-tone, which latter motivation i hope the periodicity
block documents make visually clear. you only have to tune two or
three 5-limit consonant intervals in each direction, and if you're
not "artificially" avoiding any *more consonant* intervals (say
perfect fifths), you have a pretty strong suggestion of closure after
12 tones . . .

however, what hasn't been mentioned yet, is that tuning out a full 7-
limit lattice (that is, THREE-dimensionally), motivates 22-tone quite
strongly indeed. i've done several studies of the fact on this list.
quite a few years ago, i generated a huge number of periodicity
blocks from fokker's list of commas (three-dimensional vectors, 7-
limit), and even using the smallest (hence rather complicated to
generate; "long" in the lattice) 12 commas or so, the most popular
cardinalities were 22 and 171! later, i latticed out eight 22-tone
fokker periodicity blocks based on "shorter" commas, as you can see
here:

/tuning/topicId_21834.html#21834?expand=1

here's a translation of the unison vector triplets to ratio notation
(first column is power of 3, second column is power of 5, third
column is power of 7):

-5 1 2 = 245/243
-4 -2 0 = 2048/2025
-2 0 -1 = 64/63

3 -1 -3 = 1728/1715
-2 0 -1 = 64/63
0 2 -2 = 50/49

3 -1 -3 = 1728/1715
-3 3 1 = 875/864
-2 0 -1 = 64/63

3 -1 -3 = 1728/1715
-5 1 2 = 245/243
0 2 -2 = 50/49

3 -1 -3 = 1728/1715
-5 1 2 = 245/243
-3 3 1 = 875/864

2 2 -1 = 225/224
3 -1 -3 = 1728/1715
-2 0 -1 = 64/63

2 2 -1 = 225/224
3 -1 -3 = 1728/1715
-3 3 1 = 875/864

2 2 -1 = 225/224
3 -1 -3 = 1728/1715
-5 1 2 = 245/243

let's look at the sizes of these 'commas':

50:49 = 35.0 cents
64:63 = 27.3 cents
225:224 = 7.7 cents
245:243 = 14.2 cents
875:864 = 21.9 cents
1728:1715 = 13.1 cents
2048:2025 = 19.6 cents

what this means is that if you start from a single note, and start
tuning consonant just intervals (ratios of 7 or below) with it, and
continue tuning consonant just intervals with all the notes you've
generated so far, stopping only when an additional iteration would
produce a new note separated by one of the 'commas' above from a note
you already have, you'll end up with a 22-tone tuning. as shown
above, you need only three of these 'delimiting commas' to keep you
from generating notes infinitely . . . but you certainly may make use
of more than three, just as in the two-dimensional case (5-limit),
you may make use of more than two commas to end up with a 12-tone or
7-tone scale:

http://sonic-arts.org/td/erlich/intropblockex.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

hopefully this made sense and was not too abstract -- the idea is
that these "delimitations", or instances of what joe monzo
calls "finity", result from the kinds of hands-on pitch-generating
processes that musicians actually go about. just as in the days of
pythagorean tuning, tuning by the most consonant intervals possible,
the ratios of 3 (as well as ratios of 2 which simply result in octave
transposition) could only result in a one-dimensional tuning, where a
single 'comma' or anomaly would serve to delimit the tuning and make
a finite choice, so more modern enlargements of the set of just
consonances lead to tunings with more dimensions, and concomitantly
more commas required to delimit them.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_42419.html#42423

>
> hopefully this made sense and was not too abstract -- the idea is
> that these "delimitations", or instances of what joe monzo
> calls "finity", result from the kinds of hands-on pitch-generating
> processes that musicians actually go about. just as in the days of
> pythagorean tuning, tuning by the most consonant intervals
possible,
> the ratios of 3 (as well as ratios of 2 which simply result in
octave
> transposition) could only result in a one-dimensional tuning, where
a
> single 'comma' or anomaly would serve to delimit the tuning and
make
> a finite choice, so more modern enlargements of the set of just
> consonances lead to tunings with more dimensions, and concomitantly
> more commas required to delimit them.

***Hi Paul,

Every year I read over this stuff I get more and more out of it.
It's *really* interesting that if you consider pitch generation and
commas as a *three dimensional* entity at the 7-limit, you arrive at
a fine candidate in 22-equal...

I imagine, then, that 22-equal is even better than Blackjack at the 7-
limit??

Tx!

Joseph

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

> I imagine, then, that 22-equal is even better than Blackjack at the
7-
> limit??

Why would you imagine that? It does raise interesting questions, such
as whether it makes sense to look at an equal temperament as a
special kind of MOS and compare it to one, or what would be a good
numerical measure of the goodness of a MOS in the first place.

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

> 50:49 = 35.0 cents
> 64:63 = 27.3 cents
> 225:224 = 7.7 cents
> 245:243 = 14.2 cents
> 875:864 = 21.9 cents
> 1728:1715 = 13.1 cents
> 2048:2025 = 19.6 cents
>
> what this means is that if you start from a single note, and start
> tuning consonant just intervals (ratios of 7 or below) with it, and
> continue tuning consonant just intervals with all the notes you've
> generated so far, stopping only when an additional iteration would
> produce a new note separated by one of the 'commas' above from a
note
> you already have, you'll end up with a 22-tone tuning. as shown
> above, you need only three of these 'delimiting commas' to keep you
> from generating notes infinitely . . .

That and octave equivalence. Also, you need only two to get a linear
temperament, and these come with MOS scales in a fairly natural way;
one in fact (from 225/224 and 1728/1715) being the Orwell 9 toner
we've been discussing.

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

> however, what hasn't been mentioned yet, is that tuning out a full
7-
> limit lattice (that is, THREE-dimensionally), motivates 22-tone
quite
> strongly indeed. i've done several studies of the fact on this
list.
> quite a few years ago, i generated a huge number of periodicity
> blocks from fokker's list of commas (three-dimensional vectors, 7-
> limit), and even using the smallest (hence rather complicated to
> generate; "long" in the lattice) 12 commas or so, the most popular
> cardinalities were 22 and 171!

Why is this motivation in particular for 22 as an *equal*
temperament? You are counting things that aren't equal, after all. It
suggests 22-tone, 7-limit JI makes a lot of sense, though since your
comma list is not canonical, not in a very strong way, and to the
extent it does it should carry over to linear and especially planar
temperaments more than to 22-et.

It seems to me what you get from this process are the usual 7-limit
suspects, so 27, 31, 68, 72, 99 and etc. all show up.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@s...>"

/tuning/topicId_42419.html#42428

<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > I imagine, then, that 22-equal is even better than Blackjack at
the
> 7-
> > limit??
>
> Why would you imagine that? It does raise interesting questions,
such
> as whether it makes sense to look at an equal temperament as a
> special kind of MOS and compare it to one, or what would be a good
> numerical measure of the goodness of a MOS in the first place.

***Hmmm. Thanks, Gene. Actually, if I'd thought about it for more
than a milisecond I would have considered that an "irregular" scale
like Blackjack would probably be better. Still, Paul's description
of 22-tET is impressive and it obviously has outstanding qualities (I
find Paul's mapping of it, with a "dead" key on the keyboard to be a
bit "funky...")

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@s...>"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> > however, what hasn't been mentioned yet, is that tuning out a
full
> 7-
> > limit lattice (that is, THREE-dimensionally), motivates 22-tone
> quite
> > strongly indeed. i've done several studies of the fact on this
> list.
> > quite a few years ago, i generated a huge number of periodicity
> > blocks from fokker's list of commas (three-dimensional vectors, 7-
> > limit), and even using the smallest (hence rather complicated to
> > generate; "long" in the lattice) 12 commas or so, the most
popular
> > cardinalities were 22 and 171!
>
> Why is this motivation in particular for 22 as an *equal*
> temperament?

because once you hit those small commas, the temptation is to temper
them out, so as to produce nice consonances linking one end of the
block with the other -- or, if you prefer, straddling one instance of
the periodicity block with the next (as *periodicity* indicates a
regular tiling of space).

> You are counting things that aren't equal, after all. It
> suggests 22-tone, 7-limit JI makes a lot of sense,

that too . . . and given mark's "scale theory, not tuning" stance, i
thought that just saying "22" would be more appropriate than
specifying either equal or just (or linear or planar).

> though since your
> comma list is not canonical,

?

> not in a very strong way, and to the
> extent it does it should carry over to linear and especially planar
> temperaments more than to 22-et.

more?

> It seems to me what you get from this process are the usual 7-limit
> suspects, so 27, 31, 68, 72, 99 and etc. all show up.

absolutely!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@s...>"
>
> /tuning/topicId_42419.html#42428
>
> <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> > <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > I imagine, then, that 22-equal is even better than Blackjack at
> the
> > 7-
> > > limit??
> >
> > Why would you imagine that? It does raise interesting questions,
> such
> > as whether it makes sense to look at an equal temperament as a
> > special kind of MOS and compare it to one, or what would be a
good
> > numerical measure of the goodness of a MOS in the first place.
>
> ***Hmmm. Thanks, Gene. Actually, if I'd thought about it for more
> than a milisecond I would have considered that an "irregular" scale
> like Blackjack would probably be better. Still, Paul's description
> of 22-tET is impressive and it obviously has outstanding qualities
(I
> find Paul's mapping of it, with a "dead" key on the keyboard to be
a
> bit "funky...")
>
> J. Pehrson

hi joseph,

why would an irregular scale necessarily be better?

anyway, to answer your question, the 7-limit sonorities in blackjack
(72-equal) are far more accurate than those in 22-equal, the maximum
errors being 3 and 17 cents, respectively. but in 22-equal, you have
22 occurences of almost every kind of chord, while blackjack, due to
its irregularity, has far fewer -- only 8 otonal tetrads, for example.

personally, i'm more interested in simpler scales that do things 12-
equal can't do, rather than acheiving near-just intonation . . . yes,
12-equal is "out of tune", but i find it at least as interesting to
listen to things that are "out of tune" about as much as 12-equal,
but in audibly different ways, or relative to a different or expanded
set of consonances, as to listen to totally static, beatless
harmonies.

>

I can assure you that Erv Wilson sees ET in just such a light . Part of a continuum of MOSs pertaining to a particular scale.
see http://www.anaphoria.com/key.PDF as one example

>
> From: "Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
>
> Why would you imagine that? It does raise interesting questions, such
> as whether it makes sense to look at an equal temperament as a
> special kind of MOS and compare it to one, or what would be a good
> numerical measure of the goodness of a MOS in the first place.
>
>

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

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

> personally, i'm more interested in simpler scales that do things 12-
> equal can't do, rather than acheiving near-just intonation . . .
yes,
> 12-equal is "out of tune", but i find it at least as interesting to
> listen to things that are "out of tune" about as much as 12-equal,
> but in audibly different ways, or relative to a different or
expanded
> set of consonances, as to listen to totally static, beatless
> harmonies.

I like things with an error less than five cents or so, but maybe a
cent or two off to keep things a little lively. Meantone is a little
too inaccurate to make me really happy, but Miracle is just about
perfect. The 171-et starts to sound like JI.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_42419.html#42441

> why would an irregular scale necessarily be better?
>

***Hi Paul,

Well, quite possibly there is something wrong with the "logic" of my
thinking here, but I would think that a scale that could move pitches
around independent of concern for *regularity* would have a greater
number of possibilities to "tune things up..."

??

> anyway, to answer your question, the 7-limit sonorities in
blackjack (72-equal) are far more accurate than those in 22-equal,
the maximum errors being 3 and 17 cents, respectively. but in 22-
equal, you have 22 occurences of almost every kind of chord, while
blackjack, due to its irregularity, has far fewer -- only 8 otonal
tetrads, for example.
>

***Right... and the rest. Well, that makes sense to me, since that's
the way you like to think about things... seeing patterns and making
connections. So, I can certainly understand why you like
the "multiplicity" of an ET... Certainly, many other people have
obviously thought that too, historically.

Personally, I've become enamored of the *different sized* steps in
Blackjack that one wouldn't have in an ET. Blackjack can seem
very "regular" or "consonant" and then the "little steps" (or as one
of our friends states "added pitches") lets one know that this really
is a "different world." So, I guess that's part of the "excitement"
for me as I work with it....

(Admittedly, the small step size of the smaller interval, 33 cents,
is something one needs to be especially careful of in the scale, lest
the "wrong" pitch is used sometimes. And there, obviously *would* be
a "wrong" pitch in some cases...)

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_42419.html#42443

> >
>
> I can assure you that Erv Wilson sees ET in just such a light .
Part of a continuum of MOSs pertaining to a particular scale.
> see http://www.anaphoria.com/key.PDF as one example
>

***Gheez, these are amazing. I hadn't seen these before. Thanks for
posting them, Kraig!

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
>
> /tuning/topicId_42419.html#42441
>
>
> > why would an irregular scale necessarily be better?
> >
>
> ***Hi Paul,
>
> Well, quite possibly there is something wrong with the "logic" of
my
> thinking here, but I would think that a scale that could move
pitches
> around independent of concern for *regularity* would have a greater
> number of possibilities to "tune things up..."
>
> ??

obviously, if you only want a small number of chords, than just
intonation is the way to go -- and just intonation scales are
obviously not equally tempered. however, as you want to move to more
and more good harmonies without increasing the number of pitches in
your scale, the impetus for equal temperament gets stronger and
stronger . . . it's the same old story, well-known in the history of
western music, and also in your own analysis, a couple of years ago,
of several different 19-tone scales . . .

> Personally, I've become enamored of the *different sized* steps in
> Blackjack that one wouldn't have in an ET.

well, you *are* using 72-equal for blackjack . . . and you *could*
use 41- or even 31-equal . . . but i suppose you mean an ET with
around the same number of pitches, say 19-22.

> (Admittedly, the small step size of the smaller interval, 33 cents,
> is something one needs to be especially careful of in the scale,
lest
> the "wrong" pitch is used sometimes. And there, obviously *would*
be
> a "wrong" pitch in some cases...)
>
> J. Pehrson

i thought i *heard* one such wrong pitch when your first blackjack
piece came out, but jon szanto quickly discouraged me from pursuing
that notion . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_42419.html#42443
>
> > >
> >
> > I can assure you that Erv Wilson sees ET in just such a light .
> Part of a continuum of MOSs pertaining to a particular scale.
> > see http://www.anaphoria.com/key.PDF as one example
> >
>
> ***Gheez, these are amazing. I hadn't seen these before. Thanks
for
> posting them, Kraig!
>
> JP

all of these mappings could be understood in terms of periodicity
blocks with all but one of the commas tempered out . . . as could
several others where the period is 1/2 octave, 1/3 octave, etc . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_42419.html#42456

<> obviously, if you only want a small number of chords, than just
> intonation is the way to go -- and just intonation scales are
> obviously not equally tempered. however, as you want to move to
more
> and more good harmonies without increasing the number of pitches in
> your scale, the impetus for equal temperament gets stronger and
> stronger . . . it's the same old story, well-known in the history
of western music, and also in your own analysis, a couple of years
ago, of several different 19-tone scales . . .
>

***Hi Paul,

Could you please elaborate a bit on this?? And, I'm embarassed to
admit that I've *forgotten* the results of my own analysis... :)
Could you please refresh me on that one. It must have been quite
good, if you've remembered it all this time... :)

> > Personally, I've become enamored of the *different sized* steps
in Blackjack that one wouldn't have in an ET.
>
> well, you *are* using 72-equal for blackjack . . . and you *could*
> use 41- or even 31-equal . . . but i suppose you mean an ET with
> around the same number of pitches, say 19-22.
>

***Yes, absolutely...

> > (Admittedly, the small step size of the smaller interval, 33
cents, is something one needs to be especially careful of in the
scale, lest the "wrong" pitch is used sometimes. And there,
obviously *would* be a "wrong" pitch in some cases...)
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
> i thought i *heard* one such wrong pitch when your first blackjack
> piece came out, but jon szanto quickly discouraged me from pursuing
> that notion . . .

***He, he... that's funny. I'll bet you're right that it was
wrong... :) I'm trying to be more careful these days...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_42419.html#42457

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_42419.html#42443
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I can assure you that Erv Wilson sees ET in just such a light .
> > Part of a continuum of MOSs pertaining to a particular scale.
> > > see http://www.anaphoria.com/key.PDF as one example
> > >
> >
> > ***Gheez, these are amazing. I hadn't seen these before. Thanks
> for
> > posting them, Kraig!
> >
> > JP
>
> all of these mappings could be understood in terms of periodicity
> blocks with all but one of the commas tempered out . . . as could
> several others where the period is 1/2 octave, 1/3 octave, etc . . .

***These are fun to look at, but I'm not sure I understand them...
What are the lines sticking out all over the place... ??

JP

>
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: 22-edo and Blackjack
>
>
> obviously, if you only want a small number of chords, than just
> intonation is the way to go -- and just intonation scales are
> obviously not equally tempered. however, as you want to move to more
> and more good harmonies without increasing the number of pitches in
> your scale, the impetus for equal temperament gets stronger and
> stronger . . . it's the same old story, well-known in the history of
> western music, and also in your own analysis, a couple of years ago,
> of several different 19-tone scales . . .
>

The fact is that just intonation gives you more different chords than ET. On one hand to say you
can mistune consonants to get more chords and then say you can use these same type fluctuations in
Just intonation chords doesn't make sense. Does someone really want the exact chord somewhere else
or do we want variations and in turn unique places where ever we are in our scale. To move to
another ET you just postpone the problem for others cause sooner or latter the same problems and
tedium ot 12 et pokes out its ugly head.

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

As long as my name has been taken in vain,

I'll respond backwards from the order in your post -

[Paul E. wrote:]
> i thought i *heard* one such wrong pitch when your first blackjack
> piece came out, but jon szanto quickly discouraged me from pursuing
> that notion . . .

Really? Was it because Jon Szanto couldn't agree with the concept of a "wrong" pitch? I only have the vaguest remembrance of this, so I'm not sure what (or why) you are remembering of this, Paul.

More importantly, however -

[Paul again]
> obviously, if you only want a small number of chords, than just
> intonation is the way to go -- and just intonation scales are
> obviously not equally tempered.

Just intonation has as many chords as one would like to make. Whether they make 'sense' on a graph or plot or some other contraption is in the eye/ear of the beholder. Kyle Gann had an excellent article in 1/1 on JI dissonances that I thought put a fine focus on this general area.

> however, as you want to move to more
> and more good harmonies without increasing the number of pitches in
> your scale, the impetus for equal temperament gets stronger and
> stronger . . .

"Good" harmonies. Could there possibly be a more subjective use of the language? What, pray tell, are "good" harmonies.

> it's the same old story, well-known in the history of
> western music, and also in your own analysis, a couple of years
> ago, of several different 19-tone scales . . .

Sounds like a perfectly "good" reason to throw out the story and start writing a new one. Also sounds like a good time for someone to chime in with a lame rebuttal (like this one), just in case some new person might wander onto the list and think that it's an ET world.

Cheers,
Jon

hi Kraig and paul,

> From: "Kraig Grady" <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 5:17 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: 22-edo and Blackjack
>
>
> >
> > From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>"
<wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: 22-edo and Blackjack
> >
> >
> > obviously, if you only want a small number of chords, than just
> > intonation is the way to go -- and just intonation scales are
> > obviously not equally tempered. however, as you want to move to more
> > and more good harmonies without increasing the number of pitches in
> > your scale, the impetus for equal temperament gets stronger and
> > stronger . . . it's the same old story, well-known in the history of
> > western music, and also in your own analysis, a couple of years ago,
> > of several different 19-tone scales . . .
> >
>
> The fact is that just intonation gives you more different
> chords than ET. On one hand to say you can mistune consonants
> to get more chords and then say you can use these same type
> fluctuations in Just intonation chords doesn't make sense.
> Does someone really want the exact chord somewhere else
> or do we want variations and in turn unique places where
> ever we are in our scale. To move to another ET you just
> postpone the problem for others cause sooner or latter the
> same problems and tedium ot 12 et pokes out its ugly head.

Kraig makes a good point. one of the things that attracted
me so much to JI in the beginning of my "microtonal path"
was the vast variety of sonorities available, because of
the uneven intervals between degrees of any JI scale.

i haven't really been following this thread closely, but
if i'm not mistaken this same idea lies behind Joe's
enjoyment of working with blackjack instead of a "plain" ET.

but it also makes me sad to feel the hostile undertones
(pun intended) i perceive around the issue of JI-vs.-ET.
(and if i'm mistaken, my bad)

to me, they are fundamentally different ways of dealing
with pitch resources, and i guess "never the twain shall meet"
... except in adventurous polymicrotonal pieces like those
of Dan Stearns and Johnny Reinhard! ... :)

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
>
> /tuning/topicId_42419.html#42456
>
> <> obviously, if you only want a small number of chords, than just
> > intonation is the way to go -- and just intonation scales are
> > obviously not equally tempered. however, as you want to move to
> more
> > and more good harmonies without increasing the number of pitches
in
> > your scale, the impetus for equal temperament gets stronger and
> > stronger . . . it's the same old story, well-known in the history
> of western music, and also in your own analysis, a couple of years
> ago, of several different 19-tone scales . . .
> >
>
> ***Hi Paul,
>
> Could you please elaborate a bit on this?? And, I'm embarassed to
> admit that I've *forgotten* the results of my own analysis... :)
> Could you please refresh me on that one. It must have been quite
> good, if you've remembered it all this time... :)

well, you didn't look at things like 19-of-meantone, but you compared
a few just scales and 19-equal . . . ring any bells? should all be in
the archives . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
> > From: "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > Subject: Re: 22-edo and Blackjack
> >
> >
> > obviously, if you only want a small number of chords, than just
> > intonation is the way to go -- and just intonation scales are
> > obviously not equally tempered. however, as you want to move to
more
> > and more good harmonies without increasing the number of pitches
in
> > your scale, the impetus for equal temperament gets stronger and
> > stronger . . . it's the same old story, well-known in the history
of
> > western music, and also in your own analysis, a couple of years
ago,
> > of several different 19-tone scales . . .
> >
>
> The fact is that just intonation gives you more different chords
than ET.

true (meaning different *kinds* of chords, intervalwise) -- and
certain well-temperaments, and randomly generated scales, give you
more different chords than just intonation (given a certain number of
notes).

> On one hand to say you
> can mistune consonants to get more chords and then say you can use
>these same type fluctuations in
> Just intonation chords doesn't make sense.

they're not the "same type fluctations" -- in the just case, the
errors will be full "commas" (whatever the unison vectors delimiting
the CS are), while in the tempered case, the errors are a (usually
small) fraction of these same "commas". if your tolerance for error
is lower than the size of the operative "commas", then temperament
may be just the thing for you. note that you may choose to temper
certain delimiting commas but not others, ending up with a linear
temperament or planar temperament, etc. and you can always temper
unequally for variety.

> Does someone really want the exact chord somewhere else
> or do we want variations and in turn unique places where ever we
>are in our scale.

hey, there are a bunch of piano tuners out there now promoting this
very idea -- and thus tuning well, rather than equal, temperament --
and i give these guys major kudos.

> To move to
> another ET you just postpone the problem for others cause sooner or
>latter the same problems and
> tedium ot 12 et pokes out its ugly head.

there are plenty of ways of varying a scale. just intonation gives
some people an extreme sense of tedium because of the lack of rough
combinational tones and of odd beating patterns. thankfully, there
are always plenty of ways of moving people with different elements of
your music, so that no matter what tuning system you're using, its
regularities or irregularities can become an effective part of a
larger inspiration involving rhythm, dynamics, expression, form, and
a doubtlessly greater number of musical intangibles that language can
never touch.

any new equal temperament, or any other new tuning system, will have
to dominate a civilization for many generations before anyone could
seriously consider it tedious. no such situation is in our forseeable
future.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@A...>"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> As long as my name has been taken in vain,
>
> I'll respond backwards from the order in your post -
>
> [Paul E. wrote:]
> > i thought i *heard* one such wrong pitch when your first
blackjack
> > piece came out, but jon szanto quickly discouraged me from
pursuing
> > that notion . . .
>
> Really? Was it because Jon Szanto couldn't agree with the concept
>of a "wrong" pitch?

yes, and it was a point well taken -- but i happened to know that
joseph was composing certain sections of his piece directly from the
lattice, having stopped by his place for a 'lesson', so i had a
suspicion that the pitch wasn't exactly what joe intended.
>
> More importantly, however -
>
> [Paul again]
> > obviously, if you only want a small number of chords, than just
> > intonation is the way to go -- and just intonation scales are
> > obviously not equally tempered.
>
> Just intonation has as many chords as one would like to make.
>Whether they make 'sense' on a graph or plot or some other
>contraption is in the eye/ear of the beholder. Kyle Gann had an
>excellent article in 1/1 on JI dissonances that I thought put a fine
>focus on this general area.

see my reply to kraig. there are no contraptions, only ears. one can
use irregular tuning systems to get a greater variety of chords than
even just intonation. the only thing special about just intonation is
the preponderance of chords and intervals that are
unusually 'consonant' to the ear in various ways. and very often, if
your tuning system is set up for exploiting these 'consonances', it
will be possible to temper it in one way or another to get more of
them -- depending on what your ear's tolerance for mistuning is.
that's all i was saying. if one is relying on anything other than
human ears to arrive at one's conclusions, than all the contraptions
in the world won't add up to an iota of musical meaning.
>
> > however, as you want to move to more
> > and more good harmonies without increasing the number of pitches
in
> > your scale, the impetus for equal temperament gets stronger and
> > stronger . . .
>
> "Good" harmonies. Could there possibly be a more subjective use of
>the language? What, pray tell, are "good" harmonies.

what i meant was specifically the kinds of harmonies that just
intonation is the best tuning for, thus leading people to say "just
intonation is the best intonation" (the highest respect for lou
intended here). if one tempers them a little tiny bit (an amount your
ears will have to define), these harmonies that represent what
is "best" about "the best intonation" will still be "good" -- and if
one tempers them more than that, they'll become "not so good". that's
the sense in which i meant "good" -- "good" in the sense that is
behind the premise of just intonation being "best".

> > it's the same old story, well-known in the history of
> > western music, and also in your own analysis, a couple of years
> > ago, of several different 19-tone scales . . .
>
> Sounds like a perfectly "good" reason to throw out the story and
>start writing a new one. Also sounds like a good time for someone to
>chime in with a lame rebuttal (like this one), just in case some new
>person might wander onto the list and think that it's an ET world.

i wasn't trying to argue for ET vs. JI, or anything like that -- just
trying to show how the two can serve different musical purposes. to
some people, the idea of lots and lots of "good" chords, but
no "perfect" ones, is diametrically opposed to their musical
preferences -- and thankfully, it's getting easier and easier for all
of us to have our own tuning systems to use (thanks in no small part
to you and the makemicromusic list)!

Hi Paul,

"freeosk", eh? I almost slapped you when you were posting to the list on your Euro-holiday!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> see my reply to kraig. there are no contraptions, only ears.

This would be difficult to discern from activity on this list, however. The newcomer would see little about music, lots about lists of numbers. I've already been semi-converted on these matters, so I just live and let live, but just browsing the list would show a dearth of musical examples to support some of the other aspects of tuning.

> and very often, if
> your tuning system is set up for exploiting these 'consonances', it
> will be possible to temper it in one way or another to get more of
> them -- depending on what your ear's tolerance for mistuning is.
> that's all i was saying.

ahhhh. OK, that is more understandable.

> if one is relying on anything other than
> human ears to arrive at one's conclusions, than all the
> contraptions in the world won't add up to an iota of musical
> meaning.

Super agreed.

> > What, pray tell, are "good" harmonies.
>
> what i meant was specifically the kinds of harmonies that just
> intonation is the best tuning for, thus leading people to say "just
> intonation is the best intonation" (the highest respect for lou
> intended here). if one tempers them a little tiny bit (an amount your
> ears will have to define), these harmonies that represent what
> is "best" about "the best intonation" will still be "good" -- and if
> one tempers them more than that, they'll become "not so good". that's
> the sense in which i meant "good" -- "good" in the sense that is
> behind the premise of just intonation being "best".

OK. I hope you can understand, again stepping back for clarity's sake, the importance of terminology. We're living in times where the usual twin to "good" is "evil", unfortunately. I didn't not think that you were going from perfect to good to acceptable, etc.

> i wasn't trying to argue for ET vs. JI, or anything like that --

Yes, I see that now. A couple of more words in the original and I probably wouldn't have even posted. And be careful with that screwdriver! :)

Cheers,
Jon

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

> to me, they are fundamentally different ways of dealing
> with pitch resources, and i guess "never the twain shall meet"
> ... except in adventurous polymicrotonal pieces like those
> of Dan Stearns and Johnny Reinhard! ... :)

I've pointed out how they meet in microtemperaments which are exact
enough to use just generators, and in scales designed to use very
small commas such as 2401/2400, where we can simply not temper the
scale and still use the chords, and they will sound pretty nearly
just anyway. In fact, if small enough they will become rational
intervals which are audibly indistinguishable from simpler rational
intervals, which in some sense subverts the whole justness paradigm.
Which interval is it--the one you tuned, or the one you hear?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_42419.html#42474

> well, you didn't look at things like 19-of-meantone, but you
compared a few just scales and 19-equal . . . ring any bells? should
all be in the archives . . .

****Ding, ding, ding.... Yes it does! :) And, as I recall, there
were some strange peculiarities, like scales that were only off by
7.77 cents or some such every time. I'll have to dig back...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_42419.html#42478

> > Really? Was it because Jon Szanto couldn't agree with the concept
> >of a "wrong" pitch?
>
> yes, and it was a point well taken -- but i happened to know that
> joseph was composing certain sections of his piece directly from
the lattice, having stopped by his place for a 'lesson', so i had a
> suspicion that the pitch wasn't exactly what joe intended.
> >

***It is a "boo boo..." Fortunately, since Paul is the only one to
notice it so far, I suggest we all "keep quiet" about it... :)

>
> see my reply to kraig. there are no contraptions, only ears. one
can use irregular tuning systems to get a greater variety of chords
than even just intonation. the only thing special about just
intonation is the preponderance of chords and intervals that are
> unusually 'consonant' to the ear in various ways. and very often,
if your tuning system is set up for exploiting these 'consonances',
it will be possible to temper it in one way or another to get more of
> them -- depending on what your ear's tolerance for mistuning is.
> that's all i was saying. if one is relying on anything other than
> human ears to arrive at one's conclusions, than all the
contraptions in the world won't add up to an iota of musical meaning.
> >

***I find this particularly well put. Paul, you should really write
a book about this kind of thing, using just this kind of language
(well, maybe with a bit of "populist" math thrown in...)

JP

Paul!
Since I question you so much i thought i would point out that such
reactions , although
different than myself, make sense to me.I guess where we different is
possibly in the question of
"practability" which is always capable of falling into some "Illusion of
Objectivity". Here there
is a real "acoustical phenomenon" that is being pointed to. I am sure
you saw the article on how
infrasound enhances emotions, which was quite unscientific, regardless
might have some validity in
the long term. Do you think that these slow beats contribute to some
form of psychological
"enhancement".

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

hello folks __ paul (wallyesterpaulrus) here. yahoo won't let me sign
in -- it rejects my password. so my days here may be numbered . . .
i'm using ara's login right now, please don't send him any e-mail as
a response to this message.

kraig, i think that the presence or absence of beats will shape
exactly how the attuned master musician makes his or her music. such
a musician is "plugged in" to all the psychological considerations
relevant to his/her creation and the likely audience it will have.
there are master musicians in every culture but very few use any form
of just intonation, let alone higher-limit just intonation -- and
even those using just intonation revel in dissonant intervals where
beating is unavoidable. so yes, i think that beating has
psychological effects, just one of many that are woven into the
profound tapestry of personal expression that makes up a masterful
musical creation. you can't really separate one component (beating)
from the others without unraveling the tapestry.

the most important moral of this for our own culture is that tuning
is one of the most important elements to be observed in the
performance of early music, should we have any hope of entering the
emotional world of our forebears. it's too bad we have our most
respected academic music theorists running around claiming that
nothing substantially different from 12-equal would have been used
even 400 years ago, that the story of 12-equal arising as a
compromise tuning, for the convenience of players, is a "myth". by
stretching the applicability of our present tuning backward in times,
these "conservators" are impoverishing our musical future, by
shrinking the already tiny proportion of students who might come into
contact with other tuning systems.

-paul

In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Paul!
> Since I question you so much i thought i would point out that
such
> reactions , although
> different than myself, make sense to me.I guess where we different
is
> possibly in the question of
> "practability" which is always capable of falling into
some "Illusion of
> Objectivity". Here there
> is a real "acoustical phenomenon" that is being pointed to. I am
sure
> you saw the article on how
> infrasound enhances emotions, which was quite unscientific,
regardless
> might have some validity in
> the long term. Do you think that these slow beats contribute to some
> form of psychological
> "enhancement".
>
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "asarkiss <asarkiss@y...>"

/tuning/topicId_42419.html#42500

<asarkiss@y...> wrote:
> hello folks __ paul (wallyesterpaulrus) here. yahoo won't let me
sign in -- it rejects my password. so my days here may be
numbered . . .
>

***Paul, maybe you just need to establish a new Yahoo e-mail
address. You can't get away *that* easily.... :)

J. Pehrson

Paul Erlich wrote:

"it's too bad we have our most
respected academic music theorists running around claiming that
nothing substantially different from 12-equal would have been used
even 400 years ago, that the story of 12-equal arising as a
compromise tuning, for the convenience of players, is a "myth". by
stretching the applicability of our present tuning backward in times,
these "conservators" are impoverishing our musical future, by
shrinking the already tiny proportion of students who might come into
contact with other tuning systems."

Is this really true, Paul?! I can hardly accept that some of
our "most respected academic theorists" are running around claiming
this. What are they "respected" for?...blatant disinformation?! This
is so easily refuted by any serious historical research and by the
nitty-gritty practical experience of anyone who has ever gotten
his/her hands dirty doing actual tuning of almost any kind.

After all, equal temperament is one of the most difficult to tune
accurately. Quarter-comma meantone and Werckmeister III, on the other
hand, are some of the easiest to tune and are quite intonationally
remote from modern equal temperament. Such abysmal ignorance is truly
astonishing!

Cheers,

Bob

Bob,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Wendell <rwendell@c...>" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> Is this really true, Paul?!

Barring *some* exageration, I think it is quite close.

> I can hardly accept that some of
> our "most respected academic theorists" are running around claiming
> this.

Resistance is futile.

> This
> is so easily refuted by any serious historical research and by the
> nitty-gritty practical experience of anyone who has ever gotten
> his/her hands dirty doing actual tuning of almost any kind.

Look, Harry Partch has been dead slightly over 25 years, and already history is being rewritten and his aesthetic for performance and instrumental resources is being actively ignored by people who find it either inconvenient, unimportant, or undignified for their lofty aspirations. This, all while there is ample documentation from the composer himself, and people who have actual street cred in having worked with him on his works. All of this is just one more spectrum surrounding tuning, another branch of a work of 'art'.

Just one composer. Only recently passed. Already one would need to convince people to return to 'original performance practice'.

Believe it, Bob. People will do whatever the hell they want if it suits their needs, and no amount of gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, or posting of screeds will change it.

Only a groundswell in the opposite direction could correct the course. Holding of breath not recommended.

Cheers,
Jon

I haven't found a dearth of music, or even "good" music around these lists. Often, I like the theorists as much or more than the composers, because the theorists are still dreaming, and the musicians are worrying about paying the bills.
The lists of numbers ARE the music as much as srutis or liu or tetrads or tonality diamonds or any other 'system' of description have meaning. The practitioners use them as they will and can.
I had an encounter with a violist recently who KNEW that 5/4 was 'out of tune', and long before that with a man who could hardly believe that 81/80 is audible. He had to imagine it in terms of 'being sharp as you go up, and flat as you go down'. The problem is convincing folks that the pitch continuity, much as 'political' continuity, IS discernible, by incremental 'degrees' that we can all percieve, with PATIENCE.
"Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> wrote:
This would be difficult to discern from activity on this list, however. The newcomer would see little about music, lots about lists of numbers. I've already been semi-converted on these matters, so I just live and let live, but just browsing the list would show a dearth of musical examples to support some of the other aspects of tuning.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Wendell <rwendell@c...>"
<rwendell@c...> wrote:
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> "it's too bad we have our most
> respected academic music theorists running around claiming that
> nothing substantially different from 12-equal would have been used
> even 400 years ago, that the story of 12-equal arising as a
> compromise tuning, for the convenience of players, is a "myth". by
> stretching the applicability of our present tuning backward in
times,
> these "conservators" are impoverishing our musical future, by
> shrinking the already tiny proportion of students who might come
into
> contact with other tuning systems."
>
>
> Is this really true, Paul?! I can hardly accept that some of
> our "most respected academic theorists" are running around claiming
> this. What are they "respected" for?...blatant disinformation?!

music theory, or what passes for it these days.

> This
> is so easily refuted by any serious historical research and by the
> nitty-gritty practical experience of anyone who has ever gotten
> his/her hands dirty doing actual tuning of almost any kind.

one of these folks i spoke to was referring mainly to the tuning of
non-fixed-pitch instruments -- to him equal temperament is
a "cognitive necessity", but apparently the tuning of fixed pitch
instruments brings in some other issues, perhaps those of setting the
temperament in the first place or something. i'm currently
distributing photocopies of a paper by this professor to anyone
interested, in preparation for future group e-mail discussions -- e-
mail me your snail-mail address!

> After all, equal temperament is one of the most difficult to tune
> accurately. Quarter-comma meantone and Werckmeister III, on the
other
> hand, are some of the easiest to tune and are quite intonationally
> remote from modern equal temperament. Such abysmal ignorance is
truly
> astonishing!

ok, here you're obviously talking about tuning fixed-pitch
instruments, so the "easier to tune" part could be taken as an
explanation for early tuning systems within the theory that 12-equal
was the real goal all along or something like that . . . from now on
i think i'll just speak for myself, and hopefully you can take this
on with the relevant parties later . . .

Hi Pete,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Pete McRae <ambassadorbob@y...> wrote:
> I haven't found a dearth of music, or even "good" music around these lists.

I tried to stay away from "good", because it is so subjective! But there is no getting away from the fact that the vast, vast quantity of writing on this list is about theory (either pure and abstract, or to support a musical endeavor not yet done), and very little about the music that may have resulted from this or earlier tuning theory.

Pretend you are a newbie, and look at the list. If it hadn't been for Lou Harrison's passing, and you look back a while, it would be a long walk between announcements of music. Maybe that is the way this list should be. Dunno.

> Often, I like the theorists as much or more than the composers, because the theorists are still dreaming, and the musicians are worrying about paying the bills.

Musicians don't dream? Theorists don't have bills to pay? I don't think so...

> The lists of numbers ARE the music as much as srutis or liu or tetrads or tonality diamonds or any other 'system' of description have meaning.

No, they are merely *components* of music. The music lies beyond them, with the musicians and theorist who dream it.

(I better get out my bell-bottom pants...)

> The problem is convincing folks that the pitch continuity, much as 'political' continuity, IS discernible, by incremental 'degrees' that we can all percieve, with PATIENCE.

Ah, yes. *Patience*. Sometimes I'm so bad at remembering that!

Cheers,
Jon

Hi, Jon!

<<Pretend you are a newbie, and look at the list. If it hadn't been for
Lou Harrison's passing, and you look back a while, it would be a long
walk between announcements of music. Maybe that is the way this list
should be. Dunno.>>

I feel like I still _am_ a newbie, and I'm constantly going through what a piano teacher called "Aaagh! Another excuse not to practice!" because I'm not at all computer/MIDI savvy, and my hardware and software seem to be from very different generations (in more ways than one?! :-). Dante put it very well when he said something about not posting your latest 'noodle', too. I did, anyway...

http://www.mp3.com.au/track.asp?id=34777

I've had glitches--probably fortunate--that forestalled the announcement, it's been up there since December.

It's a simple harmonic 'pelog' from an American Gamelan built by Dan Schmidt with funding from my school, Sonoma State University. I'm the only student currently attempting to keep the thing dusted off right now, and I'm expected to have a piece performed on it this term.

1/1 9/8 5/4 11/8 3/2 7/4 15/8 2/1 is the scale, and I just noodled some pentatonic subsets, which ones I forget now, but they'll be accounted for soon. It's my DX7 IIE! played by SONAR 2. The patches are layered edits I did a long time ago.

<<Musicians don't dream? Theorists don't have bills to pay? I don't think
so...>>

Of course you're right, but I couldn't resist... :-) because I love to hear compositions by 'non-musicians', with their lack of conceit about making music, their total reliance on intuition. Cleverness can be a tragic disease...

(And some of my best playlists/compilation tapes have come from people who would hardly go near an instrument!)

I fanatasize[sic]/wonder what kind of therapeutic work could happen if folks were given whistles in Schlesinger Harmoniae, for example, instead of wanna-be 12et recorders. Oops, I guess I've just commited myself to another project! [The most hopeful experience I've had was when I had one of Harry's Canons at home, and my (then) small children had to be enticed away from it!]

<<(I better get out my bell-bottom pants...)>>

And fringed suede vest??? Kule!!! :-)

Pete

You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more