Re: [tuning-math] Re: Key book on tunning by Barbour

hi paul,

[in keeping with paul's last comment below,
i've shifted this thread to the main tuning list.]

> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning-math@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 2:41 PM
> Subject: [tuning-math] Re: Key book on tunning by Barbour
>
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > it's marred by his viewpoint that 12edo is the "best"
> > tuning,
>
> a popular misconception, i don't think that's really his viewpoint.
> he says meantone was best for what it was designed for. he does
> compare each tuning to 12-equal (and may use certain adjectives
> rather loosely in comparing these comparisons) but it's unfair to
> conclude that therefore he felt 12-equal to be best.
>
> > and his historical stance is skewed by the
> > process he uses of viewing all other tunings as
> > approaching 12edo more-or-less well, as tho it were
> > the goal of musical history to arrive at 12edo hegemony
> > after a long process of trial and error.
>
> bull$#!^. i think you need to go back and read your photocopies again.

well, OK ... it's true that for several years now i've
only been using Barbour's book as a reference to get
data on particular tunings. and altho i always end up
getting so interested in what he has to say that i generally
read the whole chapter instead of just the bit i need,
it's been a long time since i read the whole book from
cover to cover, so perhaps i am being a bit unfair to him.

thanks especially for pointing out he feelings about
meantone ... i'll go back and take another look at that.

and anyway, of course i see the universe of tuning in
my own skewed way, which is far different from Barbour's.

> anyway, why is this on the tuning-math list and not the tuning list?
> carlos, are you aware that there is a broader tuning list?

OK, here it is on the main list.

-monz