Riley, etc.

>> I was recently preparing to play my intro-to-microtonality-class
>> some Just
>> Intonation stuff.

>Speaking of your class, did you get my CD?

No. . . Gee wiz. that's annoying. Sometimes things arrive way late.
Especially these days. I sent seomthing to Joseph Pehrson (in the USA)
that arrived, like 2 weeks late.

Then I Sent seomthing to Germany, months ago, and that guy never got it.
Arg.

>> I never really considered this possibility, I mean, the common line of
>> thought is, if you're using JI, then you HAVE to tune EVERYTHING
>> PERFECTLY.

>Yow. Where have you been? We've certainly discussed microtemperaments
>in relation to JI here before.

I guess I've been skimming. Every once in a while, I try to read an
intense post really throughly. but a lot of times I'm just too busy. None
the less I have learned a lot from you and everyone.

Still, in this case, (with the Riley and the 225/224) I'm glad I had that
experience. It's much more vivid to learn about something like this
through one's ears.

Also, the idea just hadn't occured to me, because I do computer-music
mostly. If I want a 7/6, I can just write it. No problem.

If you're dealing with a fixed tuning on an instrument. . .well, that's in
some ways more problematic, but in other ways much more interesting. It
had never really occured to me that one would become "obssessed with the
far reaches of one's tuning" (as Kraig put it), but now, of course it
seems like an obvious thing that would happen.

In fact, as a composer, I very much enjoy the idea of setting up a
pre-compositional construct, and then FORGETTING about how I made it, what
properties it is supposed to have, etc. and just exploring it
intuitively. Then, of course, emergent properties that may or may not
have been predicted arise.

>> But of course that's silly, if you've got, say 43 tones per
>> octave, you're bound to be able to approximate a lot of things very
>>well.

>Try 45 tones of ennealimmal and you can change that to very, very well.

What is that, briefly? (Or point me to a post. . . )

I was thinking of Partch's scale, and somewhere he says something like,
"in the worst case scenario, with 43 tones per octave, you've got any
intervals approximated to at least ___ cents."

Anyway.

***From: Christopher Bailey******************

http://music.columbia.edu/~chris

**********************************************

>I guess I've been skimming. Every once in a while, I try to read an
>intense post really throughly. but a lot of times I'm just too busy.
>None the less I have learned a lot from you and everyone.
>
>Still, in this case, (with the Riley and the 225/224) I'm glad I had
>that experience. It's much more vivid to learn about something like
>this through one's ears.

I totally agree. I came across it when retuning my piano. I actually
didn't plan on it. I was playing and thought, "that's not supposed to
be there".

BTW, you once told me the Who episodes you worked on. What were they
again (IIRC Kinda, and...)? I want to put that info in a safe place,
so when they're all out on DVD I can listen for your stuff.

I'll let Gene explain ennealimmal. There have been benefits to
taking the theory stuff to the tuning-math list, but one of the cons
is that the stuff has grown even less accessible than before...

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
>
> >> I was recently preparing to play my intro-to-microtonality-class
> >> some Just
> >> Intonation stuff.
>
> >Speaking of your class, did you get my CD?
>
>
> No. . . Gee wiz. that's annoying.

I've had two computer disasters lately; I owe two people a CD but I
couldn't recall who they were and didn't have an address. Try sending
it again to gwsmith@svapl.org.

> >Try 45 tones of ennealimmal and you can change that to very, very well.
>
>
> What is that, briefly? (Or point me to a post. . . )

One way to do it is to divide the octave into equal 612 parts, and
then repeat the step pattern 7, 18, 7, 18, 18 nine times, giving 45
notes to the octave. Here the 18 splits the difference between 49/48
and 50/49, while the 7 serves as a 126/125, 245/243, 1728/1715 and
4000/3969, all of which you may recognize as 7-limit commas, and which
are all about the same size of 13-14 cents. The result is a scale
which approximates 7-limit just intonation to extreme accuracy, while
making use of the microcommas 2401/2400 and 4375/4374 to greatly
expand the harmonic possibilities.

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

> I've had two computer disasters lately; I owe two people a CD but I
> couldn't recall who they were and didn't have an address. Try sending
> it again to gwsmith@s...

Try sending it to gwsmith%svpal.org, but with the "%" replaced with an
"@".