Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning The beauty question...

Hello All,

I just wanted to stir things up here a little, and ask a question.....

It seems we all tend to be a bit right-brained talking about the math of this, that,
and the other tuning or temperament. I want to ask a very left-brained question,
and let's hope it starts a discussion relating to aesthetics:

What is the one tuning whose beauty and utility you can't live without?

Another way of looking at this is - we are all drawn to this subject because it is
fascinating to us, in short, we find it beautiful. Why is it beautiful? Are we proof
that Pythagoras and Plato were right? We know that mathematically, they all are
beautiful. But which one, as a composer, would you find you couldn't live without,
for it's utility, variety, and inexhaustibility, if a gun were placed to your head?

I'd love to see the discussion go this direction. I wish we could all meet at a coffee
shop and talk about it till 3am....

Cheers,
Aaron.

🔗Dante Rosati <dante@interport.net>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Aaron,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <akj@r...> wrote:
> I just wanted to stir things up here a little, and ask a question.....

You know, I used to stir things up around here with these non-structural, non-mathematical questions, and it just plain got ugly. Pretty funny that I find your recent posts pulling me back in!

(I won't even bother to reply to the long 'string-of-consciousness' about your compositional path - very eloquent, and nice to see someone speaking to these inner issues. Heartening, actually.)

> It seems we all tend to be a bit right-brained talking about the
> math of this, that, and the other tuning or temperament.

Ya think? :)

> What is the one tuning whose beauty and utility you can't live
> without?

All of them.

And I mean that. Not facetiously at all.

Because if *I* singled out tunings, there is not only the perjorative place on the 'other' tunings (if nowhere else than in my mind, which would cloud my judgement when listening to other's musics) but the fact that At This Point I don't know what tunings might fit the next piece of music that floats into my head.

All that said, something has been on my mind ever since you posted "The Juggler" (not to mention the great Weather Report tune "Juggler"): the inventiveness, craft, attention to compositional detail, and overall form of your piece got me past my usual non-interest in 19tet. And 19 isn't alone in this.

Does this mean that your piece, or a piece like it could win me over *in spite of a tuning*? In all honesty, quite probably. Because if one is focussing primarily on the tuning, they are placing the music secondarily.

I came at microtonality in both the front door and the back door (sorry for those of you that know this already): before I had ever heard about microtonality (whatever that meant), I walked through a door (literally) into a room full of the instruments built by Harry Partch, and spent the next 15 year performing his music. And never *once* did I really stop to think *about* the tuning - it was simply the raw ingredient that formed part of the aesthetic.

And while a 43-note diamond (yes, Paul, 41) fashioned out of Just Intonation is indeed a bona fide Tuning Entity, it never seemed out of place, it never seemed 'forced onto' the music, it - for crying out loud - never seemed Weird. And this is the very reaction that came from each and every audience. They DID NOT come up to discuss the finer points of vanishing commas, or untonality vs. otonality as it related to the natural world.

It was simply a language as a vehicle that worked for one composer, who utilized the strengths (and the weaknesses) to create a body of work, aided by a family of instruments, some of whom couldn't give a flying fuck about inharmonicity vs. purity. Bastard children, those.

Could someone do this in another tuning? Could someone do this in ANY tuning? I don't really know. But that is for *them* to find out, and I hope that they realize that the tuning isn't THE decision to make when making a piece, it is only ONE of the decisions. This is what I keep in mind during my tuning explorations - and I admit publically that I still feel completely like a babe at this point, and thank the gods, Intel, and talented programmers that I am finally able to work on my own system and explore the world of tunings.

And I'll narrow it down, I'm sure. No doubt. I still don't know why some tunings just make me want to run away (screaming, usually), and some are as intoxicating as a [insert intoxicating, preferably exotic, analogy here].

So much for *my* stream-of-consciousness. Which is more like a creek, really. Or trickle.

It *is* Southern California, you know...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <akj@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_46912.html#46912

> Hello All,
>
> I just wanted to stir things up here a little, and ask a
question.....
>
> It seems we all tend to be a bit right-brained talking about the
math of this, that,
> and the other tuning or temperament. I want to ask a very left-
brained question,
> and let's hope it starts a discussion relating to aesthetics:
>
> What is the one tuning whose beauty and utility you can't live
without?
>
> Another way of looking at this is - we are all drawn to this
subject because it is
> fascinating to us, in short, we find it beautiful. Why is it
beautiful? Are we proof
> that Pythagoras and Plato were right? We know that mathematically,
they all are
> beautiful. But which one, as a composer, would you find you
couldn't live without,
> for it's utility, variety, and inexhaustibility, if a gun were
placed to your head?
>
> I'd love to see the discussion go this direction. I wish we could
all meet at a coffee
> shop and talk about it till 3am....
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron.

***Well, this is an *easy* one. For me it's "Blackjack"... the only
alternate tuning I am presently using.

For one thing, Paul Erlich and Dave Keenan went to the trouble
of "inventing" it for me... (well, not *just* "for me" but I was
asking most of the questions that "inspired" it...)

With 21 notes per octave, it's manageable and it is *near* just
intonation (usually within 3 cents.)

It also is easy to notate, since it uses the 72-tET notation, the
*easiest* kind of microtonal notation I have yet seen...

I won't really have accomplished what I want to do with this scale
until years and years of composing with it, so there's a "lifetime*
of work in Blackjack ahead...

Joseph Pehrson

🔗David Beardsley <db@biink.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

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

> And while a 43-note diamond (yes, Paul, 41)

29.

>fashioned out of Just Intonation is indeed a bona fide Tuning
>Entity,

indeed. partch used the 29-note diamond (which is G plus all the
notes that form an 11-limit consonance with G) plus some 14
additional pitches to fill the gaps, for those keeping count.

you may be thinking 41 because erv wilson found that the scale in
_genesis of a music_ is a 41-note "constant structure" with 2
alternates; similarly i found that it's a 41-note "periodicity block"
with 2 alternates. these terms can be looked up in monz's dictionary

http://sonic-arts.org/dict/

for those who wish to learn more -- follow all the links and come
back with questions. the hyper-simplified idea is that if you were to
approximate the entire scale with a single equal temperament, it
would be 41-equal rather than 43-equal. two pairs of pitches in the
29-note diamond (which was partch's starting point, not to be fiddled
with), 11/10 & 10/9 and their inversions 9/5 & 20/11, map to the same
degree in 41-equal, explaining why there are two extra notes.

> So much for *my* stream-of-consciousness. Which is more like a
>creek, really. Or trickle.

thanks for sharing -- hopefully it'll help keep thinks from getting
too ugly this time we consider "the beauty question".

i agree with what you're saying, but in all fairness partch did put a
huge amount of work into the "precompositional" phase of developing a
tuning system. huge. would he have done quite well with a different
system? no doubt.

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > And while a 43-note diamond (yes, Paul, 41)
>
> 29.

I should have said 43 note scale, not diamond. I won't do that one again - it will save you a lot of typing!

> thanks for sharing -- hopefully it'll help keep thinks from getting
> too ugly this time we consider "the beauty question".

Well, I can only hope.

> i agree with what you're saying, but in all fairness partch did put
> a huge amount of work into the "precompositional" phase of
> developing a tuning system. huge.

We were all young once; he was no different. The only people who constantly point to the large amount of up-front work that HP did are people interested in theory. By the time he began with the music, the theory quickly lost his own favor.

These days there is so much more known than what HP had to work with, and so many ways to know and work with it. While to the research teams and theory department people this aspect of Partch looms large, it is putting a quite small horse before a very large cart.

In complete opposition to the little 'improvisations' and experiments I've been toying with, I'm starting work on a more serious (and a little larger-scale) work that addresses this exact part of the Partch picture. With Harry's help, actually. I'll let people know when something might be ready, but it isn't going to be too soon.

> would he have done quite well with a different system? no doubt.

But probably not *as* well - for instance, he just didn't have an ET soul. And I think that is important.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗czhang23@aol.com

Aaron writes:

>re: The beauty question...
>
[ . . . .]
> What is the one tuning whose beauty and utility you can't live without?

;) Pentatonic ;) hehe...

>Another way of looking at this is - we are all drawn to this subject because
>it is fascinating to us, in short, we find it beautiful. Why is it beautiful?
>Are we proof that Pythagoras and Plato were right? We know that
mathematically, >they all are beautiful. But which one, as a composer, would you find you
couldn't >live without, for it's utility, variety, and inexhaustibility, if a
gun were placed to
>your head?

it's a toss-up 'twixt:

- 8-tone combination of Golden Pentatonic & Chinese
(what I call "the "_I Ching_/_Yijing_ tuning"):

0, 232, 386, 471, 702, 841, 1018, 1200

- 21tET

so shoot me

>I'd love to see the discussion go this direction. I wish we could all meet
>at a coffee shop and talk about it till 3am....

LOL

--- º°`°º ø,¸¸,ø º°`°º ø,¸¸,ø º°`°º ø,¸¸,ø º°`°º º°`°º ø,¸~->

Hanuman Zhang, musical mad scientist
(no, I don't wanna take over the world, just the sound spectrum...)
http://www.boheme-magazine.net

"... Music is so very much more powerful and penetrating than is that of the
other arts, for these others speak only of the shadow, but music of the
essence." - Schopenhauer, _The World as Will and Representation_

"... the distillation of experience into pure sound, a state of music, is
timeless and absolute." -Anais Nin

NATURE LOVES MUSIC:
Scientist Phil Uttley "said the music of a black hole could be called
improv." In "comparison to a specific artist or style, he said the late Greek
composer Iannis Xenakis used flicker noise to randomly generate pieces called
stochastic music. 'You could use the variations in the X-ray output of black holes to
produce just this sort of music.'"
" [ ... ] 'Flicker Noise' - Nature's inaudible rhythms & patterns are "in
everything from heartbeats to climate change. Other astronomers have detected
flicker noise in X-ray outputs and in interplanetary magnetic fields."
"Scientists say music is ubiquitous in Nature (Earth itself) and shows up
in the arrangements of the planets, in seascapes, and even in our
brainwaves." --- SPACE.com

"Any sufficiently advanced music is indistinguishable from noise"
(after Arthur C. Clarke's aphorism that any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguisable from magic.)" - John Chalmers, in email
response
to the quote _The Difference between Music and Noise is all in your Head_

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <akj@r...> wrote:

> What is the one tuning whose beauty and utility you can't live
without?
>
> Another way of looking at this is - we are all drawn to
> this subject because it is fascinating to us, in short,
> we find it beautiful. Why is it beautiful? Are we proof
> that Pythagoras and Plato were right? We know that
> mathematically, they all are beautiful. But which one,
> as a composer, would you find you couldn't live without,
> for it's utility, variety, and inexhaustibility, if a gun
> were placed to your head?

i've played around with a lot of different temperaments, but
none of them do for me what JI does ... altho i'd say that
my use of it veers towards RI at times. (meaning that sometimes
i deliberately use ratios with 2- or 3-digit numbers instead of
others which are very close in pitch but have smaller numbers).

JI/RI has that "periodicity buzz" that i love so much. EDOs
can only approach it when their cardinalities get up above 100
or so.

-monz

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@which.net>

🔗francois_laferriere <francois.laferriere@oxymel.com>

That is like the question:

What is the most beautiful language?

For most people who know only one, the answer is quite obvious.

But that remind me of something a little more interresting. A few
years ago I had a Romanian collegue who, before being a computer
scientist, made linguistics studies in Romania during the darkest
years of Ceocescu. They teached then a sort of "evolutionary
linguistics" that "proved" that languages history goes toward an
evolutive perfection, incarnated by .... the Russian language, of course.

That seems silly, but that put in perspective some "evolutionary
tuning history" that puts 12ET on top of evolutionary ladder.

Isn't playing any music in only one tuning like translating all the
world litterature in russian?

Save the tuning bio-diversity!

yours truly

François Laferrière

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

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

> > i agree with what you're saying, but in all fairness partch did
put
> > a huge amount of work into the "precompositional" phase of
> > developing a tuning system. huge.
>
> We were all young once; he was no different.

yup. well, you know all too well that this was a symptom of my youth,
but yours?

>The only people who constantly point to the large amount of up-front
>work that HP did are people interested in theory.

i hope you don't see me as one of those people (constantly pointing
to . . .) . . .

>These days there is so much more known than what HP had to work
>with, and so many ways to know and work with it. While to the
>research teams and theory department people this aspect of Partch
>looms large, it is putting a quite small horse before a very large
>cart.

partch's book gave many of us the guts to consider investing time,
money, and creative capital into alternate tuning systems. many, many
people come to this list with some familiarity of it. and that's
pretty much the reason, and extent to which, partch's theory "looms
large".

> In complete opposition to the little 'improvisations' and
>experiments I've been toying with, I'm starting work on a more
>serious (and a little larger-scale) work that addresses this exact
>part of the Partch picture. With Harry's help, actually. I'll let
>people know when something might be ready, but it isn't going to be
>too soon.

intriguing -- can you provide a hint as to what you mean here?

> > would he have done quite well with a different system? no doubt.
>
> But probably not *as* well - for instance, he just didn't have an
>ET soul. And I think that is important.

please convince me that there is such a thing as an "ET soul." (and
with regard to partch, do you have in mind our extended debates about
ted mook and others using 72-equal for partch? or 12-equal? or equal
temperament in general? or temperament in general?)

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> yup. well, you know all too well that this was a symptom of my
> youth, but yours?

I had other vices. :)

> i hope you don't see me as one of those people (constantly pointing
> to . . .) . . .

Um, well, not really, but, er, ahem. Never mind.

> partch's book gave many of us the guts to consider investing time,
> money, and creative capital into alternate tuning systems. many, many
> people come to this list with some familiarity of it. and that's
> pretty much the reason, and extent to which, partch's theory "looms
> large".

I understand that. If it were *only* that particular 'largeness' it wouldn't matter, but the focus rarely seems to get past the theory.
The fact of the matter is that it isn't just a *literal* focus, but one of attitude as well. I've watched many people get seduced by theory and stay there. Fortunately there are others who get beyond that as well. And if I celebrate the latter, that is my choice, even if it appears to be a fault or short-coming to others. I'll take my chances.

> intriguing -- can you provide a hint as to what you mean here?

Nope. I don't mean that snidely, just that one day it will come out on its own (I'm also hedging my bets in case my artistic ideas prove to be as worthless as a San Diego Charger season ticket!)

> please convince me that there is such a thing as an "ET soul."

I can't. It just isn't possible. There are reasons people gravitate towards a given solution, a given material, that do not need explanation or justification.

> (and with regard to partch, do you have in mind our extended
> debates about ted mook and others using 72-equal for partch?
> or 12-equal? or equal temperament in general? or temperament in
> general?)

Only in the sense that it has all been said before, and has been fruitless.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

hi paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > i've played around with a lot of different temperaments, but
> > none of them do for me what JI does ... altho i'd say that
> > my use of it veers towards RI at times. (meaning that sometimes
> > i deliberately use ratios with 2- or 3-digit numbers instead of
> > others which are very close in pitch but have smaller numbers).
>
> plenty of indisputably JI systems use ratios with 3-digit
> numbers -- even the indian system has 729/512, and certainly
> 256/243 -- but the point is that these pitches occur as
> simple JI consonances with other pitches in the scale,
> and a chain of simple JI consonances can take you between
> any of them and 1/1. without that condition, you'd be entering
> the territory that the term "RI" (rational intonation) was
> intended to describe.

right ... of course, i knew that. thanks for clarifying
what i was saying. when i said "i deliberately use ratios
with 2- or 3-digit numbers" etc., i didn't mean "ratios"
as in "scale members", but i was referring rather to the
actual harmonic ratios in the particular chord.

-monz

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

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

> I understand that. If it were *only* that particular 'largeness' it
>wouldn't matter, but the focus rarely seems to get past the theory.
> The fact of the matter is that it isn't just a *literal* focus, but
>one of attitude as well. I've watched many people get seduced by
>theory and stay there.

we're still talking about partch now, right? i thought so, since you
said "partch looms large" or something like that . . .

>Fortunately there are others who get beyond that as well.

which would mean . . . listening to partch? performing partch?

> And if I celebrate the latter, that is my choice, even if it
>appears to be a fault or short-coming to others.

i hope no one thinks that celebrating the listening to and the
performing of music is a fault or short-coming. especially, in the
latter case, when we are celebrating those with real talent in the
area (like you).

> > (and with regard to partch, do you have in mind our extended
> > debates about ted mook and others using 72-equal for partch?
> > or 12-equal? or equal temperament in general? or temperament in
> > general?)
>
> Only in the sense that it has all been said before, and has been
>fruitless.

i've read this over and over in the context of the discussion and
can't make sense of it. if you say nothing, i'll take it as an out-of-
context, meta-remark, and then of course drop the discussion.

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi paul,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > i've played around with a lot of different temperaments, but
> > > none of them do for me what JI does ... altho i'd say that
> > > my use of it veers towards RI at times. (meaning that sometimes
> > > i deliberately use ratios with 2- or 3-digit numbers instead of
> > > others which are very close in pitch but have smaller numbers).
> >
> > plenty of indisputably JI systems use ratios with 3-digit
> > numbers -- even the indian system has 729/512, and certainly
> > 256/243 -- but the point is that these pitches occur as
> > simple JI consonances with other pitches in the scale,
> > and a chain of simple JI consonances can take you between
> > any of them and 1/1. without that condition, you'd be entering
> > the territory that the term "RI" (rational intonation) was
> > intended to describe.
>
>
>
> right ... of course, i knew that. thanks for clarifying
> what i was saying. when i said "i deliberately use ratios
> with 2- or 3-digit numbers" etc., i didn't mean "ratios"
> as in "scale members", but i was referring rather to the
> actual harmonic ratios in the particular chord.

well, if all the notes in the chord can be connected to one another
using simple JI consonances, no one disputes that it can be still
called JI. for example, the chord 1/1-4/3-16/9-32/27-128/81-256/243.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

> partch's book gave many of us the guts to consider investing time,
> money, and creative capital into alternate tuning systems.

Redfield's "Music: A Science and an Art" did that for me.

> > But probably not *as* well - for instance, he just didn't have an
> >ET soul. And I think that is important.
>
> please convince me that there is such a thing as an "ET soul." (and
> with regard to partch, do you have in mind our extended debates
about
> ted mook and others using 72-equal for partch? or 12-equal? or
equal
> temperament in general? or temperament in general?)

It would be pretty hard--in fact probably impossible--for Jon or
anyone else to tell the difference between a performance of Partch in
hemiennealimmal or in JI.

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

In a message dated 9/15/2003 6:54:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
>
> >partch's book gave many of us the guts to consider investing time,
> >money, and creative capital into alternate tuning systems.
>
> Redfield's "Music: A Science and an Art" did that for me.
>
> >>But probably not *as* well - for instance, he just didn't have an
> >>ET soul. And I think that is important.
> >
> >please convince me that there is such a thing as an "ET soul." (and
> >with regard to partch, do you have in mind our extended debates
> about
> >ted mook and others using 72-equal for partch? or 12-equal? or
> equal
> >temperament in general? or temperament in general?)
>
> It would be pretty hard--in fact probably impossible--for Jon or
> anyone else to tell the difference between a performance of Partch in
> hemiennealimmal or in JI.
>
>

Gene and Paul, you guys are beating a dead horse. There is a vast divide
between your powers and that of the greater musicians. The top musicians would
be the first to stand up and say they don't understand a twit of what you guys
are talking about 99% of the time. In contradistinction, you guys never admit
to what they can do that you don't, and why.

Surprised as I am, I fully understand where Jon Szanto is coming from (unless
he wants to tell me I don't, of course). I have found the environment on
this list squelching, sucking out my life force. At most every turn, I find my
experience questioned and it is more than frustrating. I can understand why
practicing musicians run from this list. I might have if I didn't feel it was
important to stay and try to keep it honest. Metatuning, schmetatuning. The
tuning list supposed to be a place to learn, and not just to preach. The
respect quotient is near nil.

And yes, Gene, it is clear to hear Mook using a 72-tone basis. It's the best
reason yet for the heavy vibrato his recordings use....attempting to disguise
the intonation, consciously or not.

Johnny

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> we're still talking about partch now, right? i thought so, since
> you said "partch looms large" or something like that . . .

Yes, and I meant an (individual's) overt focus on his theory, ignoring the work that followed.

> >Fortunately there are others who get beyond that as well.
>
> which would mean . . . listening to partch? performing partch?

Taking some of the other ideas on an equally strong level: being resourceful, making works, getting on with the task at hand. His theorizing ended as the work flowed. Hope that is semi-clear.

> i hope no one thinks that celebrating the listening to and the
> performing of music is a fault or short-coming.

Has usually felt a little lonely on this list, at least.

> > Only in the sense that it has all been said before, and has been
> >fruitless.
>
> i've read this over and over in the context of the discussion and
> can't make sense of it. if you say nothing, i'll take it as an out-
> of-context, meta-remark, and then of course drop the discussion.

The issue of philosophical choices for an artist has come up here numerous times, from ultra-explicit to generalized. I don't have anything to add, and I've never felt that my ideas on the subject were given serious consideration, so I'll just have to drop it.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 9/15/2003 6:54:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gwsmith@s... writes:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> >
> > >partch's book gave many of us the guts to consider investing
time,
> > >money, and creative capital into alternate tuning systems.
> >
> > Redfield's "Music: A Science and an Art" did that for me.
> >
> > >>But probably not *as* well - for instance, he just didn't have
an
> > >>ET soul. And I think that is important.
> > >
> > >please convince me that there is such a thing as an "ET soul."
(and
> > >with regard to partch, do you have in mind our extended debates
> > about
> > >ted mook and others using 72-equal for partch? or 12-equal? or
> > equal
> > >temperament in general? or temperament in general?)
> >
> > It would be pretty hard--in fact probably impossible--for Jon or
> > anyone else to tell the difference between a performance of
Partch in
> > hemiennealimmal or in JI.
> >
> >
>
> Gene and Paul, you guys are beating a dead horse. There is a vast
divide
> between your powers and that of the greater musicians.

i wasn't beating a dead horse but merely inquiring what jon meant by
an "et soul".

> The top musicians would
> be the first to stand up and say they don't understand a twit of
>what you guys
> are talking about 99% of the time. In contradistinction, you guys
>never admit
> to what they can do that you don't, and why.

i'll be the first to admit that i could be a "greater" musician, and
will do what it takes to get there. i mean that seriously, as someone
who is very -- and daily -- active in many growing musical endeavors.

> The
> tuning list supposed to be a place to learn, and not just to
>preach. The
> respect quotient is near nil.

i see quite a bit of learning and respect around here lately, i'm
sorry you don't feel that way.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_46912.html#47004

> hi paul,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > i've played around with a lot of different temperaments, but
> > > none of them do for me what JI does ... altho i'd say that
> > > my use of it veers towards RI at times. (meaning that sometimes
> > > i deliberately use ratios with 2- or 3-digit numbers instead of
> > > others which are very close in pitch but have smaller numbers).
> >
> > plenty of indisputably JI systems use ratios with 3-digit
> > numbers -- even the indian system has 729/512, and certainly
> > 256/243 -- but the point is that these pitches occur as
> > simple JI consonances with other pitches in the scale,
> > and a chain of simple JI consonances can take you between
> > any of them and 1/1. without that condition, you'd be entering
> > the territory that the term "RI" (rational intonation) was
> > intended to describe.
>
>
>
> right ... of course, i knew that. thanks for clarifying
> what i was saying. when i said "i deliberately use ratios
> with 2- or 3-digit numbers" etc., i didn't mean "ratios"
> as in "scale members", but i was referring rather to the
> actual harmonic ratios in the particular chord.
>
>
>
>
> -monz

***You know, this is such an important topic for novice "tunesters"
that I just have to chime in here... I remember when I was writing
my _Violahexy_ I used a 12-note set of pitches derived from stellated
hexanies that contained some rather large ratios.

Those ratios, of course, were compared to the *root* and Paul Erlich
pointed out to me that when comparing other intervals created with
the scale, most of the ratios ended up being quite small...

J. Pehrson

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Gene and Paul, you guys are beating a dead horse. There is a vast
divide
> between your powers and that of the greater musicians. The top
musicians would
> be the first to stand up and say they don't understand a twit of
what you guys
> are talking about 99% of the time. In contradistinction, you guys
never admit
> to what they can do that you don't, and why.
>
> Surprised as I am, I fully understand where Jon Szanto is coming
from (unless
> he wants to tell me I don't, of course). I have found the
environment on
> this list squelching, sucking out my life force. At most every
turn, I find my
> experience questioned and it is more than frustrating. I can
understand why
> practicing musicians run from this list. I might have if I didn't
feel it was
> important to stay and try to keep it honest. Metatuning,
schmetatuning. The
> tuning list supposed to be a place to learn, and not just to preach.
The
> respect quotient is near nil.
>
> And yes, Gene, it is clear to hear Mook using a 72-tone basis. It's
the best
> reason yet for the heavy vibrato his recordings use....attempting to
disguise
> the intonation, consciously or not.
>
> Johnny

Dear Johnny,

I don't read a lot of respect in these comments of yours either. Don't
you think Gene and Paul and Ted might find _your_words_ a little
squelching, sucking out _their_ life force?

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

hi paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > hi paul,
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > i've played around with a lot of different temperaments,
> > > > but none of them do for me what JI does ... altho i'd
> > > > say that my use of it veers towards RI at times.
> > > > (meaning that sometimes i deliberately use ratios with
> > > > 2 or 3-digit numbers instead of others which are very
> > > > close in pitch but have smaller numbers).
> > >
> > > plenty of indisputably JI systems use ratios with 3-digit
> > > numbers -- even the indian system has 729/512, and certainly
> > > 256/243 -- but the point is that these pitches occur as
> > > simple JI consonances with other pitches in the scale,
> > > and a chain of simple JI consonances can take you between
> > > any of them and 1/1. without that condition, you'd be entering
> > > the territory that the term "RI" (rational intonation) was
> > > intended to describe.
> >
> >
> >
> > right ... of course, i knew that. thanks for clarifying
> > what i was saying. when i said "i deliberately use ratios
> > with 2- or 3-digit numbers" etc., i didn't mean "ratios"
> > as in "scale members", but i was referring rather to the
> > actual harmonic ratios in the particular chord.
>
> well, if all the notes in the chord can be connected to
> one another using simple JI consonances, no one disputes
> that it can be still called JI. for example, the chord
> 1/1-4/3-16/9-32/27-128/81-256/243.

well, OK ... if you're saying that something with 128/81 and
256/243 is JI (which is something about which i'm not
inclined to argue), then i can simply say that my favorite
is JI. but i think we all knew that already :) ...

the main thing i was thinking about, regarding the possibility
that i should call my favorite tuning "RI" instead of "JI",
is my prediliction for that beautiful "minor" chord which
uses 1/1 : 75/64 : 3/2 , instead of the simpler JI
1/1 : 7/6 : 3/2 .

(... as in my piece _3 plus 4_)
http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/3plus4/3_plus_4_by_monz.mp3

-monz

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

hi Gene,

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
>
> > partch's book gave many of us the guts to consider
> > investing time, money, and creative capital into
> > alternate tuning systems.
>
> Redfield's "Music: A Science and an Art" did that for me.
>
> > > But probably not *as* well - for instance, he just didn't
> > > have an ET soul. And I think that is important.
> >
> > please convince me that there is such a thing as an
> > "ET soul." (and with regard to partch, do you have in
> > mind our extended debates about ted mook and others
> > using 72-equal for partch? or 12-equal? or equal
> > temperament in general? or temperament in general?)
>
> It would be pretty hard--in fact probably impossible--for
> Jon or anyone else to tell the difference between a
> performance of Partch in hemiennealimmal or in JI.

Gene, you know that i know the truth of your statement.

but at the risk of speaking for Jon (which maybe i shouldn't
presume to do), i'd point out that there is an *aesthetic*
"purity" to using JI that worked for Partch, and imbued
his music with a certain "spirit" that i really don't
think it would have if he had used *any* temperament,
even one as indistinguishable from JI as hemienneaslimmal.

.. this probably gets into "extra-musical" stuff, which
properly belongs on metatuning.

-monz

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> > It would be pretty hard--in fact probably impossible--for Jon or
> > anyone else to tell the difference between a performance of Partch in
> > hemiennealimmal or in JI.
> >
> >
>
> Gene and Paul, you guys are beating a dead horse. There is a vast
divide
> between your powers and that of the greater musicians.

The "greater musicians" can hear even better than you claim to, I take
it? Who are these paragons, and how accurately can they hear tuning in
music of the type Partch wrote?

The top musicians would
> be the first to stand up and say they don't understand a twit of
what you guys
> are talking about 99% of the time.

If you include yourself in the number of those who don't have a clue
what I just claimed about ennealimmal temperament, then on what basis
do you comment at all? Isn't that a tad arrogant?

In contradistinction, you guys never admit
> to what they can do that you don't, and why.

What can they do, exactly? Walk on water? If you will quantify your
claim it would at least be an actual claim, rather than a sort of
snarl of injured pride.

> Surprised as I am, I fully understand where Jon Szanto is coming
from (unless
> he wants to tell me I don't, of course). I have found the
environment on
> this list squelching, sucking out my life force.

If tuning theory sucks out your inner gizzard, why subject yourself to
it? However, if you don't know much about it, how can you claim "the
greater musicians" can do this or that in connection with a particular
linear temperament?

At most every turn, I find my
> experience questioned and it is more than frustrating. I can
understand why
> practicing musicians run from this list. I might have if I didn't
feel it was
> important to stay and try to keep it honest.

"Honest" is not making vague and silly-sounding claims about "the
greater musicians". If you want to say, specifically, what you think
can be acomplished, I am interested. If you want to claim some people
have the magic power to hear the difference between any two intervals,
no matter how close--be the difference a cent, 0.001 cents, or
10^(-100) cents, then I'm not willing to follow the conversation into
the realm of fantasy.

What, exactly, are you claiming? Do you know?

Metatuning, schmetatuning. The
> tuning list supposed to be a place to learn, and not just to preach.
The
> respect quotient is near nil.

What in this posting have you offered which is worthy of respect?
Certainly, you have given none.

> And yes, Gene, it is clear to hear Mook using a 72-tone basis. It's
the best
> reason yet for the heavy vibrato his recordings use....attempting to
disguise
> the intonation, consciously or not.

I was NOT talking about 72-tone. Did you even notice what I said,
before deciding it was wrong?

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Thank you for the responses, Gene, Dave, and Paul. These prove my
assertions. I guess the List is determined to become a musician free zone.

Gene: The "greater musicians" can hear even better than you claim to, I take
it? Who are these paragons, and how accurately can they hear tuning in
music of the type Partch wrote?

This hubris is exactly what I was referring to. Since I perform and direct
Partch's music internationally, I do know the answer to this question. Only
problem: there is no proper reception on the other side.

Paul: i'll be the first to admit that i could be a "greater" musician, and
will do what it takes to get there. i mean that seriously, as someone
who is very -- and daily -- active in many growing musical endeavors.

Paul, I admire your tenacity, and wish you all good accomplishments. But it
is one thing to aspire and another to expect. The List has taught me a number
of valuable things in areas for which I am weaker. It has also provided a
valuable forum for which to test new ideas. And it has been a place to lay out
new discoveries, both personal and valuable for others. But will I see you in
Carnegie Hall? Doubtful (but not impossible). Will I be able to design a
bridge? Doubtful (but not impossible).

Dave: Don'tyou think Gene and Paul and Ted might find _your_words_ a little
squelching, sucking out _their_ life force?

To Dave, we've never met, but I have sought to give to this List for many
years. Personal respect is less the issue, though it is encouraged, than
professional respect. My remaining on this list is certainly a case of professional
respect. It is not returned to the practicitioners of music, and only to
composers in training. If this is harsh, then it is the harsh glare of sunshine
after many, many consecutive cloudy days.
BTW-who is Ted? Do you mean Ted Mook? Your comment to me reminds of the
guy accused of stabbing someone replying in defense, "I didn't stab this guy,
he just backed into my knife 15 times."
Nothing against you personally, Dave. Only you just don't "get" what I am
referring to.

Gene: What can they do, exactly? Walk on water? If you will quantify your
claim it would at least be an actual claim, rather than a sort of
snarl of injured pride.

Johnny: It is self-evident, but not to everyone, alas.

Gene: If tuning theory sucks out your inner gizzard, why subject yourself to
it?

Johnny: I love tuning theory.

Gene: However, if you don't know much about it, how can you claim "the
greater musicians" can do this or that in connection with a particular
linear temperament?

Johnny: Performing tunings live has little to do with tuning theory, if
anything.

Gene: "Honest" is not making vague and silly-sounding claims about "the
greater musicians". If you want to say, specifically, what you think
can be acomplished, I am interested. If you want to claim some people
have the magic power to hear the difference between any two intervals,
no matter how close--be the difference a cent, 0.001 cents, or
10^(-100) cents, then I'm not willing to follow the conversation into
the realm of fantasy.

Johnny: If life experience is reduced to fantasy, than I feel all the more
that it was important to state my opinions forthrightly at this time, rather
than watch the List continue on its anorexic path. Would you rather make this an
advanced theory list and be done with the peskhy musicians?

Gene: What, exactly, are you claiming? Do you know?

Johnny: You are obviously quite sure I don't. Too bad.

🔗Michael Goetze <mgoetze5@yahoo.com>

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

hi paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > the main thing i was thinking about, regarding the possibility
> > that i should call my favorite tuning "RI" instead of "JI",
> > is my prediliction for that beautiful "minor" chord which
> > uses 1/1 : 75/64 : 3/2 , instead of the simpler JI
> > 1/1 : 7/6 : 3/2 .
>
> i thought so . . . that's certainly a case of RI, since the
> 75:64 and 32:25 invervals in this chord can't be tuned by
> eliminating beats or by any of the other acoustical phenomena
> that qualify an interval as "just".

exactly. in the cases where i chose to use 75/64 instead of
7/6, 32/27, or 19/16, it was simply because that was exactly
the sound i wanted, and the simpler ratios didn't give me
what my "inner ear" was craving.

> however, if, relative to this 1/1 : 75/64 : 3/2 chord,
> there is a 25/16 lurking nearby in the piece, you might
> be using just intonation in the sense of "extended reference",
> at least according to some usages of this term.

thanks again for clarifying ... this is also a good point
to make specifically in regard to my work, because i am a
believer in the viability of the "extended reference" concept
... and there *are* those who don't buy it.

-monz

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> Gene: The "greater musicians" can hear even better than you claim
to, I take
> it? Who are these paragons, and how accurately can they hear tuning
in
> music of the type Partch wrote?
>
> This hubris is exactly what I was referring to. Since I perform
and direct
> Partch's music internationally, I do know the answer to this
question. Only
> problem: there is no proper reception on the other side.

Either you can give the answer or you cannot. If you can, either you
are willing to or not willing. To say you have the answer but are not
willing to give it to people so inferior to you as the members of
this group is an appallingly arrogant stance.

> Gene: What can they do, exactly? Walk on water? If you will
quantify your
> claim it would at least be an actual claim, rather than a sort of
> snarl of injured pride.
>
> Johnny: It is self-evident, but not to everyone, alas.

This answer is absurd. You are saying it is self-evident that "the
greatest musicians" can hear distinctions of X cents, but without
giving a value to X. This isn't even a claim, it is simply another
way of saying you haven't a clue, and are willing to deal in manifest
absurdity.

> Johnny: Performing tunings live has little to do with tuning
theory, if
> anything.

In that case, how can you possibly claim that in practice the
difference between hemiennealimmal and JI would readily be in
evidence in an actual performance?

> Gene: "Honest" is not making vague and silly-sounding claims
about "the
> greater musicians". If you want to say, specifically, what you think
> can be acomplished, I am interested. If you want to claim some
people
> have the magic power to hear the difference between any two
intervals,
> no matter how close--be the difference a cent, 0.001 cents, or
> 10^(-100) cents, then I'm not willing to follow the conversation
into
> the realm of fantasy.
>
> Johnny: If life experience is reduced to fantasy, than I feel all
the more
> that it was important to state my opinions forthrightly at this
time, rather
> than watch the List continue on its anorexic path. Would you
rather make this an
> advanced theory list and be done with the peskhy musicians?

This kind of bullshit is not an answer. Can you give one? Do you, or
do you not claim to be able to distingish 10^(-100) cents of
difference, using life experience or anything else?

> Gene: What, exactly, are you claiming? Do you know?
>
> Johnny: You are obviously quite sure I don't. Too bad.

You have given exactly no reason to believe you know what you are
claiming. That's too bad for you, it isn't a problem for me.

If you want to say something with actual content, feel free.

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

monz wrote:

> hi paul,
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> > >>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>the main thing i was thinking about, regarding the possibility
>>>that i should call my favorite tuning "RI" instead of "JI",
>>>is my prediliction for that beautiful "minor" chord which
>>>uses 1/1 : 75/64 : 3/2 , instead of the simpler JI
>>>1/1 : 7/6 : 3/2 .
>>
>>i thought so . . . that's certainly a case of RI, since the >>75:64 and 32:25 invervals in this chord can't be tuned by
>>eliminating beats or by any of the other acoustical phenomena >>that qualify an interval as "just". > > > > exactly. in the cases where i chose to use 75/64 instead of
> 7/6, 32/27, or 19/16, it was simply because that was exactly > the sound i wanted, and the simpler ratios didn't give me
> what my "inner ear" was craving.

didn't your inner ear simply hear the major 7?

asked by a guy who's fed up with hearing dorian 7s in minor pieces

klaus

> > > >>however, if, relative to this 1/1 : 75/64 : 3/2 chord, >>there is a 25/16 lurking nearby in the piece, you might >>be using just intonation in the sense of "extended reference",
>>at least according to some usages of this term.
> > > > thanks again for clarifying ... this is also a good point
> to make specifically in regard to my work, because i am a > believer in the viability of the "extended reference" concept
> ... and there *are* those who don't buy it.
> > > > -monz
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > > >

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

In a message dated 9/16/2003 2:29:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> >Gene: The "greater musicians" can hear even better than you claim
> to, I take
> >it? Who are these paragons, and how accurately can they hear tuning
> in
> >music of the type Partch wrote?
> >
> >This hubris is exactly what I was referring to. Since I perform
> and direct
> >Partch's music internationally, I do know the answer to this
> question. Only
> >problem: there is no proper reception on the other side.
>
> Either you can give the answer or you cannot. If you can, either you
> are willing to or not willing. To say you have the answer but are not
> willing to give it to people so inferior to you as the members of
> this group is an appallingly arrogant stance.
>

I have written on this issue many times. Gene, you can check the archives if
you have the patience. I am not tall enough to play center on the Los
Angeles Lakers no matter how hard I try. Maybe others have other limittions.

>
> >Gene: What can they do, exactly? Walk on water? If you will
> quantify your
> >claim it would at least be an actual claim, rather than a sort of
> >snarl of injured pride.
> >
> >Johnny: It is self-evident, but not to everyone, alas.
>
> This answer is absurd. You are saying it is self-evident that "the
> greatest musicians" can hear distinctions of X cents, but without
> giving a value to X. This isn't even a claim, it is simply another
> way of saying you haven't a clue, and are willing to deal in manifest
> absurdity.

This reminds me of an episode of the old Tom Snyder television show, when his
guest was Yitzchak Perlman. Tom, in beautiful honesty, asked "how can you
possiblty find all those notes on the violin...there are no markings at all!"
Now, how could he answer this to poor old Tom? It's really not possible.

>
> >Johnny: Performing tunings live has little to do with tuning
> theory, if
> >anything.
>
> In that case, how can you possibly claim that in practice the
> difference between hemiennealimmal and JI would readily be in
> evidence in an actual performance?
>

I thought you were speaking of Ted Mook's 72-tone ET approximations of
Partch's 43 JI. I honestly have no idea what you mean by hemiennealimmal tuning.
Please explain if your care to.

> >Gene: "Honest" is not making vague and silly-sounding claims
> about "the
> >greater musicians". If you want to say, specifically, what you think
> >can be acomplished, I am interested. If you want to claim some
> people
> >have the magic power to hear the difference between any two
> intervals,
> >no matter how close--be the difference a cent, 0.001 cents, or
> >10^(-100) cents, then I'm not willing to follow the conversation
> into
> >the realm of fantasy.
> >
> >Johnny: If life experience is reduced to fantasy, than I feel all
> the more
> >that it was important to state my opinions forthrightly at this
> time, rather
> >than watch the List continue on its anorexic path. Would you
> rather make this an
> >advanced theory list and be done with the peskhy musicians?
>
> This kind of bullshit is not an answer. Can you give one? Do you, or
> do you not claim to be able to distingish 10^(-100) cents of
> difference, using life experience or anything else?
>

I hear 1 cent discreetly, and I can vocalize it, as well. In JI, where no
beats are the intention, I'm sure there is even greater accuracy. I have left
this discussion after repeatedly stating it is not proveable over this List.
It is only those people that have never met me that have any problem with
this. Hence some frustration.

> >Gene: What, exactly, are you claiming? Do you know?
> >
> >Johnny: You are obviously quite sure I don't. Too bad.
>
> You have given exactly no reason to believe you know what you are
> claiming. That's too bad for you, it isn't a problem for me.
>
> If you want to say something with actual content, feel free.
>

I'm claiming that the distance between the theory of music and the practice
of music is huge. I'm claiming that there needs to be good communication
between both sides for both sides to be better informed. I'm claiming that this is
going the wrong way on this list. And Gene, you should realize this by now.

best, Johnny

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

🔗akjmicro <akj@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "francois_laferriere" <francois.laferriere@o=
...>
wrote:
> That is like the question:
>
> What is the most beautiful language?
>
> For most people who know only one, the answer is quite obvious.
>
> But that remind me of something a little more interresting. A few
> years ago I had a Romanian collegue who, before being a computer
> scientist, made linguistics studies in Romania during the darkest
> years of Ceocescu. They teached then a sort of "evolutionary
> linguistics" that "proved" that languages history goes toward an
> evolutive perfection, incarnated by .... the Russian language, of course.=

>
> That seems silly, but that put in perspective some "evolutionary
> tuning history" that puts 12ET on top of evolutionary ladder.
>
> Isn't playing any music in only one tuning like translating all the
> world litterature in russian?
>
> Save the tuning bio-diversity!
>
> yours truly
>
> François Laferrière

I like this reply's sentiment.

But, I also wanted to hear 'bout what really turned people on.....
It wasn't a question designed to instigate a tuning dictatorship or regime!=
!!!!

Best,
Aaron.

BTW, Italian is the best sounding language.
English is the richest language. ;)

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

hi klaus,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:

> monz wrote:
>
> > hi klaus,
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>monz wrote:
> >>
> >>>exactly. in the cases where i chose to use 75/64 instead of
> >>>7/6, 32/27, or 19/16, it was simply because that was exactly
> >>>the sound i wanted, and the simpler ratios didn't give me
> >>>what my "inner ear" was craving.
> >>
> >>didn't your inner ear simply hear the major 7?
> >>
> >>asked by a guy who's fed up with hearing dorian 7s in minor pieces
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > umm ... the "major-7th" doesn't enter into it at all.
> > the ratios under examination here are all forms of the
> > "minor-3rd".
> >
> ... but the one you prefer is the major third above a
> non-existant M7.

oh, OK, now i understand what you meant. that is indeed
a case of extended reference ... but no, in the particular
case i'm talking about (the climactic D#-minor chord from
my piece _3 Plus 4_), i didn't have the major-7th in mind
at all. i simply wanted a plain old minor triad with a
"dark" (i.e., narrow) minor-3rd of around 275 cents,
and 75/64 fit perfectly.

i had tried all three of the others, and none of them
gave me the sound that i wanted. what i found very
surprising was that my second choice was 19/16 (~297.5 cents)
which is much farther away from 75/64 than 7/6 (~267 cents).
even tho 7/6 was closer, it didn't have the right sound
to me, and 19/16 worked much better. but 75/64 was perfect.

-monz

🔗akjmicro <akj@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi klaus,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
>
> > monz wrote:
> >
> > > hi klaus,
> > >
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>monz wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>exactly. in the cases where i chose to use 75/64 instead of
> > >>>7/6, 32/27, or 19/16, it was simply because that was exactly
> > >>>the sound i wanted, and the simpler ratios didn't give me
> > >>>what my "inner ear" was craving.
> > >>
> > >>didn't your inner ear simply hear the major 7?
> > >>
> > >>asked by a guy who's fed up with hearing dorian 7s in minor pieces
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > umm ... the "major-7th" doesn't enter into it at all.
> > > the ratios under examination here are all forms of the
> > > "minor-3rd".
> > >
> > ... but the one you prefer is the major third above a
> > non-existant M7.
>
>
>
> oh, OK, now i understand what you meant. that is indeed
> a case of extended reference ... but no, in the particular
> case i'm talking about (the climactic D#-minor chord from
> my piece _3 Plus 4_), i didn't have the major-7th in mind
> at all. i simply wanted a plain old minor triad with a
> "dark" (i.e., narrow) minor-3rd of around 275 cents,
> and 75/64 fit perfectly.
>
> i had tried all three of the others, and none of them
> gave me the sound that i wanted. what i found very
> surprising was that my second choice was 19/16 (~297.5 cents)
> which is much farther away from 75/64 than 7/6 (~267 cents).
> even tho 7/6 was closer, it didn't have the right sound
> to me, and 19/16 worked much better. but 75/64 was perfect.

Hey, Monz, do you have an mp3 of this piece we could wrap our ears 'round?

-Aaron.

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

monz wrote:
> hi klaus,
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
> > >>monz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>hi klaus,
>>>
>>>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> > > wrote:
> >>>
>>>>monz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>exactly. in the cases where i chose to use 75/64 instead of
>>>>>7/6, 32/27, or 19/16, it was simply because that was exactly >>>>>the sound i wanted, and the simpler ratios didn't give me
>>>>>what my "inner ear" was craving.
>>>>
>>>>didn't your inner ear simply hear the major 7?
>>>>
>>>>asked by a guy who's fed up with hearing dorian 7s in minor pieces
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>umm ... the "major-7th" doesn't enter into it at all.
>>>the ratios under examination here are all forms of the
>>>"minor-3rd".
>>>
>>
>>... but the one you prefer is the major third above a >>non-existant M7.
> > > > > oh, OK, now i understand what you meant. that is indeed
> a case of extended reference ... but no, in the particular
> case i'm talking about (the climactic D#-minor chord from
> my piece _3 Plus 4_), i didn't have the major-7th in mind
> at all. i simply wanted a plain old minor triad with a > "dark" (i.e., narrow) minor-3rd of around 275 cents, > and 75/64 fit perfectly.

And the major 7 is nowhere in the vicinity either (ok, this would be a c##, but still...)? The point I didn't make was that you don't select one insular interval (:O)), but a good part of the surrounding scale at the same time. Yes, extended reference, because this is what happens in music...

(The other half point was that the melodic minor scale (in jazz at least) seems to be used for altered and half dimished chords, but sadly much too little for tonics. When you get them, it's always within chromatic passing notes. You probably wanted to write an altered chord with a minor 9th suspension :).)

klaus

> > i had tried all three of the others, and none of them
> gave me the sound that i wanted. what i found very
> surprising was that my second choice was 19/16 (~297.5 cents)
> which is much farther away from 75/64 than 7/6 (~267 cents).
> even tho 7/6 was closer, it didn't have the right sound
> to me, and 19/16 worked much better. but 75/64 was perfect.
> > > > -monz

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> oh, OK, now i understand what you meant. that is indeed
> a case of extended reference ... but no, in the particular
> case i'm talking about (the climactic D#-minor chord from
> my piece _3 Plus 4_), i didn't have the major-7th in mind
> at all. i simply wanted a plain old minor triad with a
> "dark" (i.e., narrow) minor-3rd of around 275 cents,
> and 75/64 fit perfectly.
>
> i had tried all three of the others, and none of them
> gave me the sound that i wanted. what i found very
> surprising was that my second choice was 19/16 (~297.5 cents)
> which is much farther away from 75/64 than 7/6 (~267 cents).
> even tho 7/6 was closer, it didn't have the right sound
> to me, and 19/16 worked much better. but 75/64 was perfect.

Here's my guess:

Maybe it has nothing to do with the exact ratios at all, i.e. nothing
to do with just intonation, even by extended reference. Sometimes what
is wanted is maximum dissonance or "complexity". A rule of thumb for
finding the general vicinity of these is given in
http://dkeenan.com/Music/NobleMediant.txt

19/16 is 297.5 c
75/64 is 274.6 c.
The noble mediant of 6/5 and 7/6 is 283.6 c, about halfway between
19/16 and 75/64. Perhaps it would work too.

You could also see where they are on a harmonic entropy curve. I'm
guessing they are all on top of an entropy plateau.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 9/16/2003 2:29:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gwsmith@s... writes:

> I thought you were speaking of Ted Mook's 72-tone ET approximations of
> Partch's 43 JI. I honestly have no idea what you mean by
hemiennealimmal tuning.
> Please explain if your care to.

For future reference, if you are going to rain contempt on someone for
saying something you don't agree with, you should wait until you know
what it is they said. It also helps to give a direct answer to a
direct question, and here is the answer to yours:

"Hemiennealimmal" refers to an 11-limit linear temperament. However,
just as meantone can be considered, more or less, an aspect of
31-equal, hemiennealimmal in practice could be taken to be a
temperament which has generators of 1/18th of an octave (or 34
"shismas", or steps of 612) and of 7 shismas. The maximum error
representing any 11-limit consonance is about 1/3 of a cent, so it is
a temperament of the "zeroth magnitude", meaning with maximum error
between 1/4 and 1/2 cent.

My claim is not that a difference from an 11-limit JI ratio of 1/3
cent can never be heard under any circumstances, but that it is
unlikely anyone could hear it in an actual performance of Partch's
music. This is very differnt than saying the same thing about a 72-et
performance, which would be third magnitude. You might note that the
purely 5-limit harmonies would have an error of at most 1/22 of a
cent, and the purely 9-limt harmonies of 1/5 cent.

>
> I hear 1 cent discreetly, and I can vocalize it, as well.

What about 1/3 cent? Can you hear, in actual performance, that an
interval of 11/8 or 11/9 is flat by 1/3 cent?

In JI, where no
> beats are the intention, I'm sure there is even greater accuracy.

How well are you going to be able to use beats, during a performance
of Partch's music, to determine that something is off from 11/9 by a
third of a cent?

I have left
> this discussion after repeatedly stating it is not proveable over
this List.
> It is only those people that have never met me that have any problem
with
> this. Hence some frustration.

I wasn't asking you to prove anything; I haven't been a party to that
conversation. I will ask that you treat me with more respect that you did.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_46912.html#47042

> oh, OK, now i understand what you meant. that is indeed
> a case of extended reference ... but no, in the particular
> case i'm talking about (the climactic D#-minor chord from
> my piece _3 Plus 4_), i didn't have the major-7th in mind
> at all. i simply wanted a plain old minor triad with a
> "dark" (i.e., narrow) minor-3rd of around 275 cents,
> and 75/64 fit perfectly.
>
> i had tried all three of the others, and none of them
> gave me the sound that i wanted. what i found very
> surprising was that my second choice was 19/16 (~297.5 cents)
> which is much farther away from 75/64 than 7/6 (~267 cents).
> even tho 7/6 was closer, it didn't have the right sound
> to me, and 19/16 worked much better. but 75/64 was perfect.
>
>
>
> -monz

***In your analysis, Monz, did the larger ratio 75/64 possibly *make*
smaller ratios in the surrounding JI texture??

J. Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <akj@r...> wrote:

> But, I also wanted to hear 'bout what really turned people on.....

i have two papers out which deal with 22-tone equal temperament:
http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/22ALL.pdf
http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/erlich-tFoT.pdf
i have a 7-string guitar fretted for this and the two pianos in my
new place are going to be tuned to give 22-equal when used together,
assuming i can get the timbres to decently match (right now they
don't). after that, i'm hoping to create improved versions of the
pieces that used to be on the tuning punks mp3.com page, as well as
new ones.

there's the blackjack scale i helped discover/invent:
http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
and the triple-bp scale:
http://members.aol.com/bpsite/scales.html#anchor417408
http://members.aol.com/bpsite/modes.html#anchor502209

but a lot of things have turned me on . . . these days i'm playing
arabic music on my 31-equal guitar, and i'm also playing quite a few
gigs (that actually pay $$$ to compete with my day job, amazingly
enough) where i manage to coax primarily the following scale out of
an acoustic guitar:
1/1 33/32 9/8 39/32 5/4 21/16 11/8 3/2 13/8 27/16 7/4 15/8

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

> 19/16 is 297.5 c
> 75/64 is 274.6 c.
> The noble mediant of 6/5 and 7/6 is 283.6 c, about halfway between
> 19/16 and 75/64. Perhaps it would work too.
>
> You could also see where they are on a harmonic entropy curve. I'm
> guessing they are all on top of an entropy plateau.

good old

http://sonic-arts.org/td/entropy.htm

has rougly 285 cents as the maximum-entropy interval between 7:6 and
6:5. i'm almost positive monz said that a "minor third" around this
size was too wide for the sound he was looking for. but monz's chord
also has the 32:25 interval, 427.4 cents, which happens to be kinda
close to the harmonic entropy local-maximum near 423 cents.

of course, the position of the maxima will shift around a lot when
you change the hearing-resolution parameter ("s"), which was set to
1% in the graphs on that page.

🔗David Beardsley <db@biink.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗David Beardsley <db@biink.com>

Paul Erlich wrote:

>>or by tuning open strings?
>> >>
>yes,
> >

>Any harmonics?
> >
>
>yes!
>
> >
Thought so.

I tried something similar years ago. 6 or 7 years? I had just started
talking to Jon Catler at that point and I remember describing a
an open tuning I was playing with:

13/8
11/8
5/4
7/4
3/2
1/1

I think that's what I think I was playing with. I remember he
seemed surprised that I would come up with that tuning.
I don't know why, it's just primes from the harmonic series.

I did move on to a unique 7 limit tuning that I use for lap steel.
I'm still working on it. In fact I've been practicing it lately so I can use
it in my next show.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

hi Aaron,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <akj@r...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > oh, OK, now i understand what you meant. that is indeed
> > a case of extended reference ... but no, in the particular
> > case i'm talking about (the climactic D#-minor chord from
> > my piece _3 Plus 4_), i didn't have the major-7th in mind
> > at all. i simply wanted a plain old minor triad with a
> > "dark" (i.e., narrow) minor-3rd of around 275 cents,
> > and 75/64 fit perfectly.
> >
> > i had tried all three of the others, and none of them
> > gave me the sound that i wanted. what i found very
> > surprising was that my second choice was 19/16 (~297.5 cents)
> > which is much farther away from 75/64 than 7/6 (~267 cents).
> > even tho 7/6 was closer, it didn't have the right sound
> > to me, and 19/16 worked much better. but 75/64 was perfect.
>
> Hey, Monz, do you have an mp3 of this piece we could wrap
> our ears 'round?

mp3 of _3 Plus 4_ by Joe Monzo (4.7 megs)
http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/3plus4/3_plus_4_by_monz.mp3

all of my music which is available in any audio format
can be found here:

http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/worklist/worklist.htm

i've written a bit about this particular minor chord
in _3 Plus 4_ before ... check the archives of this list
from around 1999.

-monz

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

hi Joe,

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_46912.html#47042
>
> > oh, OK, now i understand what you meant. that is indeed
> > a case of extended reference ... but no, in the particular
> > case i'm talking about (the climactic D#-minor chord from
> > my piece _3 Plus 4_), i didn't have the major-7th in mind
> > at all. i simply wanted a plain old minor triad with a
> > "dark" (i.e., narrow) minor-3rd of around 275 cents,
> > and 75/64 fit perfectly.
> >
> > i had tried all three of the others, and none of them
> > gave me the sound that i wanted. what i found very
> > surprising was that my second choice was 19/16 (~297.5 cents)
> > which is much farther away from 75/64 than 7/6 (~267 cents).
> > even tho 7/6 was closer, it didn't have the right sound
> > to me, and 19/16 worked much better. but 75/64 was perfect.
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
>
>
> ***In your analysis, Monz, did the larger ratio 75/64
> possibly *make* smaller ratios in the surrounding JI texture??

no ... this is basically what i understood Klaus to be
saying by invoking the term "extended reference". it turns
out that this is *not* exactly what he was saying ... but
anyway, no there are no smaller-number ratios in that chord.

it's simply a minor triad with ratios as follows:

"5th" 3/2
"3rd" 75/64
"root" 1/1

so of course, there's a strong 3:2 between the "root"
and the "5th". but between the "root" and the "minor-3rd"
is a 75:64, and between the "minor-3rd" and the "5th"
is a 32:25.

the main point i've been making with all this is that
even tho 7:6 is only a few cents narrower than 75:64, and
it makes much more concordant ratios with the other two
notes in the chord, it did *not* give me the sound i was
seeking. 19:16 wasn't bad, but 75:64 was exactly what
i wanted.

i found my second-choice preference for 19:16 to be strange
because the difference between it and 75:64 (my first choice)
is so much greater than that between 7:6 and 75:64.

the only conclusion i could reach about that was that
either: 1) prime-factor 19 contributed something to the
sound that resembled my somewhat complex combinations of
3 and 5 (in 75:64) which prime-factor 7 simply didn't do, or
2) extended reference was in effect and making 75:64 "fit in"
in a way that 7:6 just wouldn't, or both.

i wish that i could remember now how well 32:27 worked or
didn't work, because it's very close to 19:16. ... but it
was four years ago, and i've listened to the piece so many
times with the 75:64 by now that i can't remember ...

-monz

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

hi paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
>
> > 19/16 is 297.5 c
> > 75/64 is 274.6 c.
> > The noble mediant of 6/5 and 7/6 is 283.6 c, about halfway between
> > 19/16 and 75/64. Perhaps it would work too.
> >
> > You could also see where they are on a harmonic entropy curve. I'm
> > guessing they are all on top of an entropy plateau.
>
> good old
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/td/entropy.htm
>
> has rougly 285 cents as the maximum-entropy interval between
> 7:6 and 6:5. i'm almost positive monz said that a "minor third"
> around this size was too wide for the sound he was looking for.
> but monz's chord also has the 32:25 interval, 427.4 cents,
> which happens to be kinda close to the harmonic entropy
> local-maximum near 423 cents.

6:5 was totally out of the question.

the original MIDI sequence of _3 Plus 4_ was in 12edo.
so naturally, when i got to work on the JI retuning, i tried
6:5 first for that D#-minor chord. it didn't work for me
at all. i was looking for a much "darker" (i.e., narrower)
"minor-3rd" for that chord.

so naturally my next choice was 7:6. that was a *lot* better,
but then i fiddled around with the pitch-bend amount until i
got exactly what i wanted (by ear), and it happened to be
right around 275 cents. (i wish i had written down exactly
what it was in dodekamus ... oh well...) 75:64 was the ratio
that jumped out and bit me when i saw that, so i set the
tuning to that and have been happy ever since. :)

-monz

🔗czhang23@aol.com

>From: "akjmicro" <akj@rcn.com>
>
>Subject: Re: The beauty question...

In a message dated 2003:09:17 05:53:17 PM, Aaron quotes François Laferrière &
writes:

>> Save the tuning bio-diversity!
[ . . . ]
>I like this reply's sentiment.

LOL. Me, too...

>But, I also wanted to hear 'bout what really turned people on.....
>It wasn't a question designed to instigate a tuning dictatorship or regime!=
>!!!!
<SNiP>
>BTW, Italian is the best sounding language.

No!!!, it is _not_!!! Bahasa Malayu or Bahasa Indonesia has that "title"
as well as the title for easiest to learn :P~~~~ *thPttt!!* ;)

>English is the richest language. ;)

<rant&rave/> Because it _has been_ the utterly shameless, imperialistic
Thievin' Magpie of Languages... but nowadays it's mainly just the whorish
spineless lackey of Time-Warner-AOL/MicroSoft-MacDonalds-Coke Cola
("CokeColanialization"), WTO etc. </rant&wave>

---
Hanuman Zhang, MangaLanger
http://www.boheme-magazine.net

"The sum of human wisdom is not contained in any one language,
and no single language is capable of expressing all forms and degrees of
human comprehension." - Ezra Pound

Language[s] change[s]: vowels shift, phonologies crash-&-burn, grammars
leak, morpho-syntactics implode, lexico-semantics mutate, lexicons explode,
orthographies reform, typographies blip-&-beep, slang flashes, stylistics
warp... linguistic (R)evolutions mark each-&-every quantum leap...

"Some Languages Are Crushed to Powder but Rise Again as New Ones" -
title of a chapter on pidgins and creoles, John McWhorter,
_The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language_

= ! gw3rraa leg0set kaakaa!
! riis3rvaa, saaIlvaa, riikuu, sk0paa-g0mii aen riizijkl0! =

(Fight Linguistic Waste! Save, Salvage, Recover, Scavenge and Recycle!)

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> 6:5 was totally out of the question.

No Monz, you misunderstood. We know that 5:6 and 6:7 were no good. I
suggested that what you wanted (and found) was the plateau of maximum
entropy or maximum complexity _between_ the notch-like valleys of
consonance at 5:6 and 6:7. I said the noble mediant is about 284 cents
and Paul said his (s=1%) entropy curve agreed with that, with the
highest point at about 285 cents. But Paul thought that you found 285
cents would be too wide. However, I don't think so because you found
that 19/16 wasn't too bad (at 297 c).

And Paul pointed out that we would also need to consider the "major
third" in that chord, and see if maybe you were simultaneously
maximising _its_ entropy too. The theory I'm playing with here is that
maybe this is a kind of "anti-JI" third, not meaningfully represented
by any particular ratio.

Whether we attempt to simultaneously maximise the entropy of the two
thirds, or put it equidistant from the two noble mediants, we get
pretty much the same answer. 282 c + 420 c. This puts us a little
closer to your 275 c, and we don't expect it to sound very different a
few cents either way. It isn't like a JI interval where you can hear
the beats stop, because what we have here is maximum beat rates (too
fast to be perceived as beats, but rather as "roughness", or perhaps
what you described as "darkness".)

But in case Johnny's reading this I'd better make it clear that I have
no doubt that your ear found just the right third at around 275 c, and
it's the theory that is not yet sufficiently refined here. :-)

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

> It isn't like a JI interval where you can hear
> the beats stop, because what we have here is maximum beat rates

well, of course there's no way to really make that precise, but for
the two beat rates that are zero at the two nearby just ratios,
wouldn't the "maximin" be at the usual mediant, 11:13 = 289 cents?

anyway, i took a look at where the local maximum in the vicinity was
for my more recent harmonic entropy calculations (based on
a 'tenney', rather than farey, series "seeding"):

s=1.5% -- none; no local minimum at 6:7
s=1.2% -- 282 cents
s=1% -- 288 cents
s=0.6% -- 292 cents
s=0.3% -- 280 cents and 304 cents; new local minimum at 11:13

so first of all, since the farey series based harmonic entropy curves
have an overall downward slope, it appears that rectifying this slope
is enough to shift the local maximum by a few cents (since it's a
rounded, not pointy, maximum), from ~285 to 288. secondly, depending
on the hearing resolution you assume (in real life this is affected
by timbre, register, loudness, duration, and the specific listener
involved), the local maximum can vary at least from 282 to 292 cents,
even if you're sure that you hear local minima at 6:7 and 5:6 and
nowhere in-between.

just wanted to dispel any notions that there's a "point of maximum
dissonance" between 6:7 and 5:6 that can be pinned down to within a
couple of cents, either theoretically or by ear.

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
>
> > It isn't like a JI interval where you can hear
> > the beats stop, because what we have here is maximum beat rates
>
> well, of course there's no way to really make that precise, but for
> the two beat rates that are zero at the two nearby just ratios,
> wouldn't the "maximin" be at the usual mediant, 11:13 = 289 cents?

Probably, but those are not the only beat rates involved. The noble
numbers are those most difficult to approximate by _any_ ratio.

> anyway, i took a look at where the local maximum in the vicinity was
> for my more recent harmonic entropy calculations (based on
> a 'tenney', rather than farey, series "seeding"):
>
> s=1.5% -- none; no local minimum at 6:7
> s=1.2% -- 282 cents
> s=1% -- 288 cents
> s=0.6% -- 292 cents
> s=0.3% -- 280 cents and 304 cents; new local minimum at 11:13

And that should help to indicate why the overall maximum beat
"complexity" isn't at 11:13. And if you kept going, I think you'd find
that the 280 hump is a slightly higher one. Joe, do you remember if
you considered 11:13. I'd expect you to have rejected it, if the
timbre has harmonics that high. And of course we'd have to look at
what's happening to the major third too.

> just wanted to dispel any notions that there's a "point of maximum
> dissonance" between 6:7 and 5:6 that can be pinned down to within a
> couple of cents, either theoretically or by ear.

I totally agree. That's why I used the term "plateau". But I would
expect it could be done within about +- 10 cents.

And there certainly is a theoretical maximum of ratio-complexity at
the noble mediant. Note that the noble mediant of 5:6 and 6:7 is
exactly the same as the noble mediant of 6:7 and 11:13, and is also
the noble mediant of 1:1 and 5:6, since these noble mediants are the
limit of the Fibonacci-like sequence:
1:1
5:6
6:7
11:13
17:20
28:33
45:53
.
.

🔗akjmicro <akj@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, czhang23@a... wrote:
> >From: "akjmicro" <akj@r...>
> >
> >Subject: Re: The beauty question...
>
> In a message dated 2003:09:17 05:53:17 PM, Aaron quotes François Laferriè=
re
&
> writes:
>
> >> Save the tuning bio-diversity!
> [ . . . ]
> >I like this reply's sentiment.
>
> LOL. Me, too...
>
> >But, I also wanted to hear 'bout what really turned people on.....
> >It wasn't a question designed to instigate a tuning dictatorship or regi=
me!=
> >!!!!
> <SNiP>
> >BTW, Italian is the best sounding language.
>
> No!!!, it is _not_!!! Bahasa Malayu or Bahasa Indonesia has that "tit=
le"
> as well as the title for easiest to learn :P~~~~ *thPttt!!* ;)

Nope. Italian.

> >English is the richest language. ;)
>
> <rant&rave/> Because it _has been_ the utterly shameless, imperialist=
ic
> Thievin' Magpie of Languages...

Exactly!!!! A language that steals becomes rich ;)

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
wrote:
> >
> > > It isn't like a JI interval where you can hear
> > > the beats stop, because what we have here is maximum beat rates
> >
> > well, of course there's no way to really make that precise, but
for
> > the two beat rates that are zero at the two nearby just ratios,
> > wouldn't the "maximin" be at the usual mediant, 11:13 = 289 cents?
>
> Probably, but those are not the only beat rates involved. The noble
> numbers are those most difficult to approximate by _any_ ratio.

in a certain abstract sense, yes. but how can you express "maximum
beat rates" in such a way that the answer would involve noble numbers?
this discussion is getting way too technical and speculative for most
readers here, can you please direct your response to either the
tuning-math list or the harmonic_entropy list?

> > anyway, i took a look at where the local maximum in the vicinity
was
> > for my more recent harmonic entropy calculations (based on
> > a 'tenney', rather than farey, series "seeding"):
> >
> > s=1.5% -- none; no local minimum at 6:7
> > s=1.2% -- 282 cents
> > s=1% -- 288 cents
> > s=0.6% -- 292 cents
> > s=0.3% -- 280 cents and 304 cents; new local minimum at 11:13
>
> And that should help to indicate why the overall maximum beat
> "complexity" isn't at 11:13. And if you kept going,

> I think you'd find
> that the 280 hump is a slightly higher one.

the 304 hump is slightly higher than the 280 hump.

> Joe, do you remember if
> you considered 11:13. I'd expect you to have rejected it, if the
> timbre has harmonics that high.

it seems that one could only come to such a ratio if the timbre *did*
have harmonics that high . . . of course most timbres do, they're
just rather quiet.

> And of course we'd have to look at
> what's happening to the major third too.

yes . . . i'll post those numbers to the follow-up.

> > just wanted to dispel any notions that there's a "point of
maximum
> > dissonance" between 6:7 and 5:6 that can be pinned down to within
a
> > couple of cents, either theoretically or by ear.
>
> I totally agree. That's why I used the term "plateau". But I would
> expect it could be done within about +- 10 cents.

ok, fair enough, and hopefully this can conclude the subject in the
minds of the less theoretically-inclined musicians reading this.

> And there certainly is a theoretical maximum of ratio-complexity at
> the noble mediant. Note that the noble mediant of 5:6 and 6:7 is
> exactly the same as the noble mediant of 6:7 and 11:13, and is also
> the noble mediant of 1:1 and 5:6, since these noble mediants are the
> limit of the Fibonacci-like sequence:
> 1:1
> 5:6
> 6:7
> 11:13
> 17:20
> 28:33
> 45:53
> .
> .

the ear doesn't care about such limits, it operates within a certain
region of ratio complexity (due to its finite resolution, even if the
brain's 'conceptual' ratio complexity is permitted to go to
infinity). regardless, i challenge you to define a "ratio-complexity"
function in such a way that you do find a maximum at the noble
mediant. again, please post your response to the tuning-math or
harmonic_entropy lists, i'd hate to scare away any more musicians and
instrument makers.

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

I'll try to keep it non-technical, rather than move it to tuning-math.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> > Probably, but those are not the only beat rates involved. The noble
> > numbers are those most difficult to approximate by _any_ ratio.
>
> in a certain abstract sense, yes. but how can you express "maximum
> beat rates" in such a way that the answer would involve noble numbers?

I'm afraid I can't be bothered. I'm not sure what you're afraid of,
but If you reread Margo's and my article you will see that we were
careful to say that nothing audibly special happens _at_ the noble
mediants but that they are merely a useful rule of thumb (having a
closed form expression) for finding regions of maximum dissonance or
audible "complexity", in many cases. Their (admittedly limited)
usefulness in this regard can be verified empirically.

> > And that should help to indicate why the overall maximum beat
> > "complexity" isn't at 11:13. And if you kept going,
>
> ?

If you have an actual question here, you might attempt to formulate it
in English.