JIN Spring 2005 Performance Series

I was debating whether to post this, given that this is a JI-only series, and the tuning list seems to be mostly a temperament list these days, but since Carl mentioned it here the other day, I decided to do so:

Bay Area Performance Series to Mark Network's Twentieth Anniversary

2005 marks the twentieth anniversary of the founding of the Just Intonation Network-to be more precise, the network was conceived at a meeting on October 8, 1984 (see 1/1 1:1, p. 16) and made its public debut with the publication of the first issue of 1/1 in February 1985. We have decided to celebrate this event with a series of concerts in the San Francisco Bay Area between mid-April and mid-June of 2005. The proposed performance series (we don't have a clever name for it yet-your suggestions are welcome) has several goals:

* to present good music in Just Intonation for its own sake
* to get recognition for the network in conjunction with its twentieth anniversary
* to increase public awareness of Just Intonation
* to start building a pool of performers and ensembles that we can call on for future events
* to begin an on-going (maybe biannual?) series

No events have been scheduled as yet, but among the composers and performers who have expressed an interest in participating are Alexis Alrich, David Canright, Ellen Fullman, Kraig Grady, Janis Mattox and Loren Rush (the Good Sound Foundation), Other Music (thirty-year reunion), John Schneider/Just Strings, Robert Rich, Terry Riley, Erling Wold, and your editor. Other network members who are interested in performing in the series are encouraged to submit proposals, with the following caveats: 1. We are working with a limited budget, so we will not be able to pay for your transportation from outside Northern California or your housing while you are here (though local network members may be willing to host some visiting artists). 2. We do not expect to have a house ensemble for this event (though this is a resource that we hope to develop in the future), so submission of scores will not be useful-you must be able to perform your work or make your own arrangements for its performance. Note also that this series is exclusively for music in Just Intonation, rather than for microtonality/alternate tunings in general. However, if you are already in Northern California, expect to be here in April, May, or June of 2005, or are willing to come here at your own expense, and you have justly tuned music to be performed, we would be interested in receiving your proposal. And, of course, we encourage all network members, wherever you may be, to come and attend one or more of the performances.

Please send your proposals before August 31, 2004 (sooner is better), to the Just Intonation Network, attention: Carola Anderson, 535 Stevenson Street, San Francisco CA 94103. Please include the following information: name, address, phone number, and email address; a brief biography; a description of the piece(s) you would perform, including length, instrumentation, number of performers and any other details you consider relevant; preferred performance dates, technical requirements (e.g., any special equipment required, any special features needed in the performance venue, etc.), and financial requirements. Please include a CD or tape of the piece in question, or, if that is not possible, of a similar recent work in Just Intonation.

Check the jin website (www.justintonation.net) and subsequent issues of 1/1 for more information about the series as it develops. We look forward to seeing many of you next spring.

--
==========================================================================

David B. Doty dbd@justintonation.net
Just Intonation Network http://www.justintonation.net
Editorial:(650) 694-4727 JI Store: (415) 864-8123 535 Stevenson Street
FAX: (415) 864-8726 San Francisco, CA 94103

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...> wrote:

> I was debating whether to post this, given that this is a JI-only
> series, and the tuning list seems to be mostly a temperament list
> these days, but since Carl mentioned it here the other day, I decided
> to do so:

I don't think this is a mostly temperament list. If you look back over
the postings, you in fact seem to find a lot of stuff on the
boundry--recently, we've had threads on Sagittal notation (both),
shrutis (mostly JI), JI using only 2, 23 and 29, the tuning-math
archive (both), the Hammond organ tuning (both), bingo cards
(temperament), etc etc. Discussion of both JI and temperament is alive
and well.

Of course, one thing such discussions can do is raise questions about
the line between them. If a group shows up and claims to be playing in
just intonation, how do you tell if they really are? Does it boil down
to a question of intent?

hi David,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...>
wrote:

> I was debating whether to post this, given that this is a
> JI-only series, and the tuning list seems to be mostly a
> temperament list these days,

it's silly to debate whether or not to post an announcement
of a microtonal event to the Alternate Tunings list.

we've created lots of specialized lists for JI, temperaments,
tuning-math, tuning theory, etc. ... but this is still the
big daddy of them all.

anyway, i'm glad you did post it. i and many others
might have missed it otherwise.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> we've created lots of specialized lists for JI, temperaments,
> tuning-math, tuning theory, etc. ... but this is still the
> big daddy of them all.

Guess what? More and more people don't like their daddy anymore...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I don't think this is a mostly temperament list.

I'm sure Bill O'Reilly actually thinks "fair and balanced" is an
accurate description of FOX News, as well.

> If a group shows up and claims to be playing in
> just intonation, how do you tell if they really are? Does it boil down
> to a question of intent?

People interested in the *music* wouldn't even harbor a question like
that. Only when someone pulls a slide rule out of their pants and
insists on measuring everything does it - once again - become
contentious. In your own way, in your own style, this is the very
negative vibe that oozes these days from this list.

David is right. I'm sure all one need do to return to the topic of a
temperment is to try to discuss JI. Then people will find a way to
suggest they approximate it with some temp or high-number ET.

Then there is Monz, bless him, who drives the wrong way on a one-way
street, showing rational intonations that approximate an ET. The world
is such a diverse place.

Oh well: the price of progress, right?

Cheers,
Jon

>> I don't think this is a mostly temperament list.
>
>I'm sure Bill O'Reilly actually thinks "fair and balanced" is an
>accurate description of FOX News, as well.
>
>> If a group shows up and claims to be playing in
>> just intonation, how do you tell if they really are? Does it boil
>> down to a question of intent?
>
>People interested in the *music* wouldn't even harbor a question
>like that.

Gene has offered a lot more music on these lists than you, Jon.

>Only when someone pulls a slide rule out of their pants and insists
>on measuring everything does it - once again - become contentious.
>In your own way, in your own style, this is the very negative vibe
>that oozes these days from this list.

Jon, it's *you* who are being negative here.

>David is right. I'm sure all one need do to return to the topic of a
>temperment is to try to discuss JI. Then people will find a way to
>suggest they approximate it with some temp or high-number ET.

Jon, have you ever considered the possibility that your idea of what
constitutes JI might, maybe, be the slightest bit naive, that you
could actually learn something from someone like Gene?

If you're not interested in measuring things and just want to make
music, then go! No one is stopping you! But your actions clearly
indicate you're interested in theory, or at least in arguing with
people. Why not take the time to make a cogent argument?

-Carl

C,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> Gene has offered a lot more music on these lists than you, Jon.

Well, quantity does not equate... never mind.

> Jon, it's *you* who are being negative here.

I'm just agreeing with Mr. Doty on the lop-side nature of things. And
with people that aren't here any more for this very reason.

> Jon, have you ever considered the possibility that your idea of what
> constitutes JI might, maybe, be the slightest bit naive, that you
> could actually learn something from someone like Gene?

I have learned things from Gene. Believe me.

> If you're not interested in measuring things and just want to make
> music, then go! No one is stopping you!

You, and Gene, are missing the point.

> But your actions clearly indicate you're interested in theory...

No kidding - I'm not a tuning Luddite, nor am I even able to, on
tippy-toe, see the same theoretical level as Gene and some of the
others. But, yes, there is a lot to interest me.

> Why not take the time to make a cogent argument?

Sorry it wasn't clear enough for you.

Cheers,
Jon

hi Jon,

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

> Then there is Monz, bless him, who drives the wrong way on
> a one-way street, showing rational intonations that approximate
> an ET. The world is such a diverse place.
>
> Oh well: the price of progress, right?
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

in my view, the universe of tuning is big enough and
fascinating enough that i want to see it from as
many different perspectives as i can.

i'm a firm believer in relativity, and the only way
to approach getting a broad view is to travel around
and take a peek from many different angles.

the other baby tuning lists are the one-way streets --
this one is the 7-lane freeway, with lots of traffic
in both directions ... and even with the occasional
crash, which inevitably causes a huge traffic jam,
complete with lurking onlookers.

:)

-monz

Monz,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> ...and even with the occasional
> crash, which inevitably causes a huge traffic jam,
> complete with lurking onlookers.

You're right, Joe, and so is Carl. Gene too, I guess. Must be just me,
and a few others. Oh well, my time is just about up, and the officer
is waving me along with the usual "keep moving, nothing to see here..."

Cheers,
Jon

>> Gene has offered a lot more music on these lists than
>> you, Jon.
>
>Well, quantity does not equate... never mind.

A point Gene himself made on metatuning once. But Gene is
certainly interested in music, despite your claim.

>> Jon, it's *you* who are being negative here.
>
>I'm just agreeing with Mr. Doty on the lop-side nature of
>things. And with people that aren't here any more for this
>very reason.

It's always been the case that mailing lists are well suited
to theory, and there have always been people who like to
discuss theory on these lists. That means there's a high
volume of theory and if that puts you off it's perfectly
understandable. I know people in that category too. That's
why I fully endorse other lists for those who want less
theory in their inboxes.

>> If you're not interested in measuring things and just
>> want to make music, then go! No one is stopping you!
>
>You, and Gene, are missing the point.

The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
missing the point. A fairly novel and exciting type of
music theory has seen its genesis on this list and if
"JI vs. ET" bothers you, you have failed to understand it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
> let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
> missing the point. A fairly novel and exciting type of
> music theory has seen its genesis on this list and if
> "JI vs. ET" bothers you, you have failed to understand it.

Paul wants to call it a middle path or something of that sort, which
makes sense from several points of view. One is that the discussion of
tempering is being carried out in reference to just intonation; while
the theory could also be applied to drum partial tones if someone
wanted to, so far no one has wanted to.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> But Gene is
> certainly interested in music, despite your claim.

I didn't make a claim to the contrary about "interest". But while I'm
interested in mathematics, I wouldn't ever claim to be a mathematician.

> That's
> why I fully endorse other lists for those who want less
> theory in their inboxes.

Good point. I think that is why I pointed up to Monz that the 'daddy'
list is starting to be the disfunctional patriarch, sending children
away as they realize what home life is like.

> The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
> let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
> missing the point.

It is deeper than that one issue, but I don't think you or Gene will
ever admit (or realize) that. We have lost diversity on this list, and
I think that diminishes the claims of Great Progress.

> A fairly novel and exciting type of
> music theory has seen its genesis on this list and if
> "JI vs. ET" bothers you, you have failed to understand it.

I have not only not failed to understand it, my most recent tuning is
a combination of JI-derived intervals mixed with other intervals. Not
*the* middle path, but another path (please, _no_ big claim here, just
an alternate hiking trail). I do pay attention, and I grab a few
scattered pages out of the maelstrom. It isn't what gives me a stiffy,
however.

I realize that my voice in this is pretty futile, and I might as well
shut up and go away also. As long as you guys think everything is just
fine, it will be.

For you.

Jon

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

> I realize that my voice in this is pretty futile, and I might as well
> shut up and go away also. As long as you guys think everything is just
> fine, it will be.

If you could frame and express your goals in positive terms, it would
help.

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

> > But Gene is
> > certainly interested in music, despite your claim.
>
> I didn't make a claim to the contrary about "interest". But while I'm
> interested in mathematics, I wouldn't ever claim to be a mathematician.

Nor do I claim to be a musician. I am a composer, because all you need
do to be a composer is to compose. For that matter if you can prove
theorems, and wish to, you don't need the union card. Prove away.

Do you think, as a non-musician, it is hubristic of me to compose and
that I should stop?

>> But Gene is
>> certainly interested in music, despite your claim.
>
>I didn't make a claim to the contrary about "interest".

I quote:

""
> If a group shows up and claims to be playing in
> just intonation, how do you tell if they really are?
> Does it boil down to a question of intent?

People interested in the *music* wouldn't even harbor a
question like that.
""

>> That's
>> why I fully endorse other lists for those who want less
>> theory in their inboxes.
>
>Good point. I think that is why I pointed up to Monz that the 'daddy'
>list is starting to be the disfunctional patriarch, sending children
>away as they realize what home life is like.

What good does it do to point that out?

>> The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
>> let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
>> missing the point.
>
>It is deeper than that one issue, but I don't think you or Gene will
>ever admit (or realize) that. We have lost diversity on this list,
>and I think that diminishes the claims of Great Progress.

When have we ever had diversity on this list?

>I realize that my voice in this is pretty futile, and I might as well
>shut up and go away also. As long as you guys think everything is just
>fine, it will be.
>
>For you.

Yes, for us. Why should we stop enjoying ourselves? You want
us to stop having fun because of some vague apprehension vaguely
expressed by some mysterious group of people? What exactly do
they want us to post about? We can't very well go around pleasing
everybody all the time. This list has an *outstanding* record of
answering questions. What more do you want? Less volume? What?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
> let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
> missing the point.

This kind of remark is not helpful. How do you know the assumptions
others have about a tuning well enough to call them naive?

If a composer uses JI and don't use n-equal or non-octave tunings it
doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't understand them or won't like
music made in those tunings or be interested in music made in those
tunings. It means only that he has made a choice for his own music.
When every poster about a piece in JI gets lectured right away about
the advantages of changing to some equal temperament that makes us
feel like children being told that they don't know what they are doing.

I composed a piece in JI. I think I know what I was doing. I like
harmonic spectra and 7-limit just intonation. I like hearing melody
commas and smooth harmonies. I don't need to modulate to every tone of
a scale. May can be that the music has some naive qualities, but that
does not mean my assumptions are naive.

When I read posts by someone using non-just tunings, I do not make the
assumption that the writer is naive. The members of this list who do
use JI hope for the same respect.

Bernath Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...>
wrote:

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54833

> I was debating whether to post this, given that this is a JI-only
> series, and the tuning list seems to be mostly a temperament list
> these days, but since Carl mentioned it here the other day, I
decided
> to do so:
>

***Give us a break, and please don't try to define something that you
don't even bother to read or contribute to frequently...

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54864

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...>
> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_54833.html#54833
>
>
> > I was debating whether to post this, given that this is a JI-only
> > series, and the tuning list seems to be mostly a temperament list
> > these days, but since Carl mentioned it here the other day, I
> decided
> > to do so:
> >
>
> ***Give us a break, and please don't try to define something that
you
> don't even bother to read or contribute to frequently...
>
> JP

###I second the comments by the gentleman above...

However, I should hasten to add: as a paying member in (so far... :)
good standing with the JI Intonation Network, I wish all the best
with the performance series, which sounds like a great addition to
music making...

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54837

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > we've created lots of specialized lists for JI, temperaments,
> > tuning-math, tuning theory, etc. ... but this is still the
> > big daddy of them all.
>
> Guess what? More and more people don't like their daddy anymore...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Nowadays, people like their daddies more than they did in the
60's... more on metatuning... :)

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54839

>
> David is right. I'm sure all one need do to return to the topic of a
> temperment is to try to discuss JI. Then people will find a way to
> suggest they approximate it with some temp or high-number ET.
>
> Then there is Monz, bless him, who drives the wrong way on a one-way
> street, showing rational intonations that approximate an ET. The
world
> is such a diverse place.
>

***And then there's *me* who insists that the Blackjack temperament
*IS* Just Intonation. My *INTENT* is a *PERFORMABLE* version of Just
Intonation, and it's only off by two or three cents. (Claimed by many
to be inaudible...)

Just Intonation is the *intention...*

And I will stubbornly cling to my contention...

[contentiously]

:)

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54844

> hi Jon,
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > Then there is Monz, bless him, who drives the wrong way on
> > a one-way street, showing rational intonations that approximate
> > an ET. The world is such a diverse place.
> >
> > Oh well: the price of progress, right?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
>
>
> in my view, the universe of tuning is big enough and
> fascinating enough that i want to see it from as
> many different perspectives as i can.
>
> i'm a firm believer in relativity, and the only way
> to approach getting a broad view is to travel around
> and take a peek from many different angles.
>
>
> the other baby tuning lists are the one-way streets --
> this one is the 7-lane freeway, with lots of traffic
> in both directions ... and even with the occasional
> crash, which inevitably causes a huge traffic jam,
> complete with lurking onlookers.
>
> :)
>
>
>
> -monz

***I share the view of the Monz. And as, most people probably
know... for whatever it's worth, and probably not much, I advocated
for keeping all the lists together as in the the beginning: the
music, the math, the discussions and, especially, the comraderie... :)

[a bit of human nature cynicism here... :) ]

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54845

> Monz,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > ...and even with the occasional
> > crash, which inevitably causes a huge traffic jam,
> > complete with lurking onlookers.
>
> You're right, Joe, and so is Carl. Gene too, I guess. Must be just
me,
> and a few others. Oh well, my time is just about up, and the officer
> is waving me along with the usual "keep moving, nothing to see
here..."
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***OH! I never thought about Tuning "rubberneckers..." :)

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54848

> The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
> let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
> missing the point. A fairly novel and exciting type of
> music theory has seen its genesis on this list and if
> "JI vs. ET" bothers you, you have failed to understand it.
>
> -Carl

***Yes, the "Third Way" or the "Middle Path"... almost like
the "third sex..." But, that's definitely a metatuning topic...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ideaofgod" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54850

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> > The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
> > let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
> > missing the point. A fairly novel and exciting type of
> > music theory has seen its genesis on this list and if
> > "JI vs. ET" bothers you, you have failed to understand it.
>
> Paul wants to call it a middle path or something of that sort, which
> makes sense from several points of view. One is that the discussion
of
> tempering is being carried out in reference to just intonation;
while
> the theory could also be applied to drum partial tones if someone
> wanted to, so far no one has wanted to.

***Heh, heh... Well, I'm *PARTIAL* to Just Intonation drumming...

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54853

> > The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
> > let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
> > missing the point.
>
> It is deeper than that one issue, but I don't think you or Gene will
> ever admit (or realize) that. We have lost diversity on this list,
and
> I think that diminishes the claims of Great Progress.
>

***The "problem" as I see it is that people "walk away in a huff..."
It's the most ridiculous thing in the world, in my opinion.

If we were all at a tuning cocktail party we would be assembled in a
room. Some of the people in the room we like, some we don't. We're
*never* going to like some of them, for all kinds of reasons.

The *normal* thing to do is to just ignore the people you don't like.

Instead, people quit the list... just like leaving the party in a
huff because there is one (or maybe even a few) person/people that
one doesn't like....

I think it's absurd. (Although people are entitled to their
decisions, of course...)

>
> I realize that my voice in this is pretty futile, and I might as
well
> shut up and go away also.

***That's exactly what you *SHOULDN'T* do, in my humble opinion.

But it's only my personal opinion...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ideaofgod" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54857

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> > > But Gene is
> > > certainly interested in music, despite your claim.
> >
> > I didn't make a claim to the contrary about "interest". But while
I'm
> > interested in mathematics, I wouldn't ever claim to be a
mathematician.
>
> Nor do I claim to be a musician. I am a composer, because all you
need
> do to be a composer is to compose.

***Actually, recognized American composer Ross Lee Finney (with whom
I studied) used to say that...

For that matter if you can prove
> theorems, and wish to, you don't need the union card. Prove away.
>
> Do you think, as a non-musician, it is hubristic of me to compose
and
> that I should stop?

***That's nuts. Besides your work keeps getting better, as is the
case with most composers....

Don't be dissuaded by this labeling and name-calling...

JP

>> The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
>> let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
>> missing the point.
>
>This kind of remark is not helpful. How do you know the assumptions
>others have about a tuning well enough to call them naive?

By careful observation of these lists since 1997.

>If a composer uses JI and don't use n-equal or non-octave tunings it
>doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't understand them or won't like
>music made in those tunings or be interested in music made in those
>tunings.

I didn't say "uses JI", I said "walk away in a huff".

>I composed a piece in JI. I think I know what I was doing. I like
>harmonic spectra and 7-limit just intonation. I like hearing melody
>commas and smooth harmonies. I don't need to modulate to every tone of
>a scale. May can be that the music has some naive qualities, but that
>does not mean my assumptions are naive.

How do you define JI?

>When I read posts by someone using non-just tunings, I do not make the
>assumption that the writer is naive. The members of this list who do
>use JI hope for the same respect.

You apparently took my remarks as coming down on one side of the
argument or the other. In fact I'm calling the whole argument
naive.

-Carl

>***And then there's *me* who insists that the Blackjack temperament
>*IS* Just Intonation. My *INTENT* is a *PERFORMABLE* version of Just
>Intonation, and it's only off by two or three cents. (Claimed by many
>to be inaudible...)
>
>Just Intonation is the *intention...*
>
>And I will stubbornly cling to my contention...
>
>[contentiously]

Bravo, JP! (It's inaudible in some cases and audible in others.
If it isn't in your setting, you're composing in JI.)

-Carl

on 25/7/04 16:20, Joseph Pehrson at jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> ***And then there's *me* who insists that the Blackjack temperament
> *IS* Just Intonation.

So what *IS* Just Intonation?

>> ***And then there's *me* who insists that the Blackjack temperament
>> *IS* Just Intonation.
>
>So what *IS* Just Intonation?

We've argued about this here so much that I consider it flame bait
at this point.

Usually questions which are so hotly contested have no good answer.

This means that "Just Intonation" is poorly defined, and your best
bet is to read Paul's forthcoming paper in Xenharmonikon 18, read
Harry Partch's _Genesis of a Music_ from cover to cover if you
haven't yet, and practice making music.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54886

> >> ***And then there's *me* who insists that the Blackjack
temperament
> >> *IS* Just Intonation.
> >
> >So what *IS* Just Intonation?
>
> We've argued about this here so much that I consider it flame bait
> at this point.
>
> Usually questions which are so hotly contested have no good answer.
>
> This means that "Just Intonation" is poorly defined, and your best
> bet is to read Paul's forthcoming paper in Xenharmonikon 18, read
> Harry Partch's _Genesis of a Music_ from cover to cover if you
> haven't yet, and practice making music.
>
> -Carl

***Or maybe review the archives of this list. It's one of the main
things we've talked about. Discussions of Just Intonation have
always been one of the main themes of this list, at least in the 4
years I've been on it...

JP

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

> ***That's nuts. Besides your work keeps getting better, as is the
> case with most composers....

Thanks, Joe.

Carl Lumma wrote:

>>>***And then there's *me* who insists that the Blackjack temperament
>>>*IS* Just Intonation.
>>> >>>
>>So what *IS* Just Intonation?
>> >>
>
>We've argued about this here so much that I consider it flame bait
>at this point.
>
>Usually questions which are so hotly contested have no good answer.
>
>This means that "Just Intonation" is poorly defined, and your best
>bet is to read Paul's forthcoming paper in Xenharmonikon 18, read
>Harry Partch's _Genesis of a Music_ from cover to cover if you
>haven't yet, and practice making music.
>

Tuning by whole number ratios from the harmonic series always worked for me.

Small numbers? Large numbers? Doesn't matter to me.

Ratios so close to 12tet it doesn't make a difference?

Don't be a smart ass.

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Bravo, JP! (It's inaudible in some cases and audible in others.
> If it isn't in your setting, you're composing in JI.)

It's barely audible, which I suppose means calling it "third
magnitude" is a little dismissive. Maybe just the log base two of the
maximum error in cents would be better. Here's the 5, 7, and 11 limits
for some ets:

12: 5.97 7.05 7.72

31: 4.58 4.58 5.48

72: 3.58 3.58 3.97

99: 2.65 2.65 5.00

612: -2.47 -0.29 0.48

If we subtracted 2 off everything, 99 would be 0th magnitude in the 7
limit, and 72 1st magnitude, which maybe is better. I made 0.25 to 0.5
be 0th magnitude simply because it seemed this is about as micro as
tempering ever really needs to get.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <mopani@t...> wrote:
> on 25/7/04 16:20, Joseph Pehrson at jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > ***And then there's *me* who insists that the Blackjack temperament
> > *IS* Just Intonation.
>
> So what *IS* Just Intonation?

It's whatever they will allow you to play at the JIN concert, which
does not allow microtempering. I think in practice that will mean
errors of a cent are allowable, so long as you are *trying* to play
rational intervals with small numerators, and rational number scales
are expected to be employed in such a way that the use of
approximations is not all-pervasive. If I'm right, you couldn't bring
an ensemble which tries to play in a 45 note scale formed from nothing
but 36/35 and 27/25 intervals, used to play the full seven limit, but
certain kinds of retunings of it would be allowed, so long as certain
chords are not made too much use of.

But I'm not the one running it, and I think what really will happen is
that JI will be whatever people say it is.

hi Gene and Joseph,

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "ideaofgod" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Nor do I claim to be a musician. I am a composer,
> > because all you need do to be a composer is to compose.
>
>
> ***Actually, recognized American composer Ross Lee Finney
> (with whom I studied) used to say that...
>
>
> > For that matter if you can prove theorems, and wish to,
> > you don't need the union card. Prove away.
> >
> > Do you think, as a non-musician, it is hubristic of me
> > to compose and that I should stop?
>
>
> ***That's nuts. Besides your work keeps getting better,
> as is the case with most composers....
>
> Don't be dissuaded by this labeling and name-calling...
>
> JP

now it's my turn to quote "JP" and say "hear hear".

Gene, i've enjoyed a great deal of the large amount
of compositions of yours that you've shared with me/us.
(and thanks for being willing to actually mail CDs to
me free of charge without my asking!)

even many of your pieces that i don't like as music,
i still find very interesting as examples of what
could be done with certain tunings.

and my MIDI of Mahler's 7th sounds *MUCH* better in
bifrost than in 12edo! just listened to it for the
first time in awhile, just a few hours ago.

keep up the good work, in composition *and* in theory!

-monz

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

> keep up the good work, in composition *and* in theory!

Thanks Monz. It would be nice if, even if one thinks someone's
compositions are crap, that we felt constrained not to come right out
and say so. I think on the evidence of metatuning that some people are
tasting blood; it is not a good taste to encourage.

Jon,

on 7/25/04 1:37 AM, Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>> But Gene is
>> certainly interested in music, despite your claim.
>
> I didn't make a claim to the contrary about "interest". But while I'm
> interested in mathematics, I wouldn't ever claim to be a mathematician.
>
>> That's
>> why I fully endorse other lists for those who want less
>> theory in their inboxes.
>
> Good point. I think that is why I pointed up to Monz that the 'daddy'
> list is starting to be the disfunctional patriarch, sending children
> away as they realize what home life is like.

When people are inspired by whatever is inspiring them, and have found
places where they hang out, certain kinds of conversations will tend to
occur, say, "in a given year" or perhaps an even longer period of time.

>> The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
>> let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
>> missing the point.
>
> It is deeper than that one issue, but I don't think you or Gene will
> ever admit (or realize) that. We have lost diversity on this list, and
> I think that diminishes the claims of Great Progress.

Changes of diversity do happen. Sometimes perhaps for not good reasons. I
am perhaps so neutral on all of this that I see no problem at all most of
the time. And in fact I think people should go where they are happy, and do
what they are inspired to do. My take is that the change that has happenned
here is not because people are bad, but because of how the people here are
currently inspired.

So if the mix is wrong for some people, they have the choice of not hanging
around, or of offering something else into the mix, to shift the balance.
This is what I think should be done. If something is offered, and they are
told to stop talking about that, and it is within the charter of the list,
then that is something like oppression. I really haven't seen much
oppression here, almost none, in the vast majority of messages. A barrage
of other topics coming up is a symptom of the shape of inspiration, not a
symptom of oppression.

I think you see it differently, and I think you have felt criticised, but if
that comes down to particular interpersonal dynamics that is a different
thing from a loss of topical diversity, something much more particular. I'd
have to look back really carefully over a lot of messages to understand this
better, and I don't have the time to do that, although it would probably be
interesting to see where things really went awry. Lacking that
investigation my overriding bias confirmed by pretty much *every* experience
of conflict I haver ever been personally involved in, is that no single
"side" is every the sold cause, and I would think you are in error to leave
thinking that there is a fault that lies primarily outside of yourself. I
know you acknowledge that you have weaknesses yet I don't think you realize
what you may do to help (as part of a team, so to speak) to create the
appearances out there that end up becoming objects of your criticism.

I think there is no intention to subvert diversity here, I see absolutely no
sign of it, but there are as usual patterns operating, and most of those
patterns don't get recognized, and meanwhile everyone is more interested in
their inspirations, and so perhaps some mistakes happen that are later
causes for regret.

For myself I want to hear about it all, I only understand a fraction of it
but I get glimmers of inspiration from a larger fraction that I don't yet
understand. I want to learn more. I think the math is an important part of
the offering. I think experiential and intuitive ways of integrating the
abilities to deal with alternate tunings into the musical culture are
missing. I want to deal with what is missing by offering what I have to
offer, at my own pace as it comes to me to do that.

If the truth be told I feel gifted in a lot of ways that I don't see other
people gifted, yet fortunately it doesn't bother me much that other people's
gifts are different. If it did it would drive me absolutely nuts. I *am*
inspired therefore to want to offer things, and the pace of that is terribly
slow. What makes it work is the conscious engagement, the way understanding
deepens within me evern when the time to express has not yet come.
Meanwhile the aspects of relationship with others that *are* more active at
any given time are what make the whole thing clearly worthwhile.

Advice: You need to have plenty of active relationship with people who are
*not* quite of like mind with you so that you can see process happening and
can experience the rewards of it. If you do not have this you will be happy
with some people and unhappy with others, and you will divide the world in
two. Yet we all have our limits. I am not so inspired that I hang around
with political assasins, for example, in order to deepen my understanding of
the potential for communication to change the world.

>> A fairly novel and exciting type of
>> music theory has seen its genesis on this list and if
>> "JI vs. ET" bothers you, you have failed to understand it.
>
> I have not only not failed to understand it, my most recent tuning is
> a combination of JI-derived intervals mixed with other intervals. Not
> *the* middle path, but another path (please, _no_ big claim here, just
> an alternate hiking trail). I do pay attention, and I grab a few
> scattered pages out of the maelstrom. It isn't what gives me a stiffy,
> however.
>
> I realize that my voice in this is pretty futile, and I might as well
> shut up and go away also. As long as you guys think everything is just
> fine, it will be.

I think you could be clearer than you have about what you would like to see
*added* here. You want something opened up. You want to be free of
something you feel as a restriction. I assert that you are not restricted,
that I see no sign you have been restricted here. That someone else on this
list responds a certain way to you does not restrict you. When the
restrictions come up for you I see you focus on them rather than going back
to bring your inspiration to the rest of us who want to receive it.

What happens if you keep responding only by adding something. What exactly
would you want to add. Could I tease you out with that one?

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

> If the truth be told I feel gifted in a lot of ways that I don't see
other
> people gifted, yet fortunately it doesn't bother me much that other
people's
> gifts are different.

Excellent attitude.

Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn
Desiring this man's gift and that man's scope
I no longer strive to strive towards such things
(Why should the aged eagle stretch its wings?)

> I think you could be clearer than you have about what you would like
to see
> *added* here.

The best thing of all, of course is to supply what is lacking.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54935

Kurt... I think we could revise this subject line to read:

A mostly *tempermental* list! :)

JP

>> keep up the good work, in composition *and* in theory!
>
>Thanks Monz. It would be nice if, even if one thinks someone's
>compositions are crap, that we felt constrained not to come right out
>and say so. I think on the evidence of metatuning that some people are
>tasting blood; it is not a good taste to encourage.

It used to be that if you didn't hear from me, it meant I thought
your composition was crap. But the past few years there's been
so much microtonal music released that I hardly have time to listen
to it all, much less comment on it all. This is a good thing!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...>
> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_54833.html#54833
>
> > I was debating whether to post this, given that this is a JI-only
> > series, and the tuning list seems to be mostly a temperament list
> > these days, but since Carl mentioned it here the other day, I
decided
> > to do so:
>
> ***Give us a break, and please don't try to define something that
you
> don't even bother to read or contribute to frequently...

Hey, let's take that advice ourselves and give the guy a break! As I
see it, he was simply announcing a JI concert series and happened to
express some doubt about whether he should be posting it.

I have good reason to believe that his doubt was based in part on the
perception that JI enthusiasts tend not to feel very comfortable on
this list, and after reading the responses to the announcement I find
no reason to think otherwise.

Perhaps we should stop a minute and think about *why* he would even
want to bother contributing to this list at all (much less read it),
given the above reception. Yes, I know that this hasn't been the
first time this sort of thing has happened, but maybe it's time to
think about making it the last -- that building friendship should be
more important than winning arguments.

Perhaps I'm a little naïve to hope for the best, but I imagine that a
little kindness could go a long way. There will always be things
that we won't agree on, but at least can we agree to disagree?

--George

Love / joy / peace / patience / kindness ...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_54833.html#54848
>
> > The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
> > let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
> > missing the point. A fairly novel and exciting type of
> > music theory has seen its genesis on this list and if
> > "JI vs. ET" bothers you, you have failed to understand it.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> ***Yes, the "Third Way" or the "Middle Path"... almost like
> the "third sex..." But, that's definitely a metatuning topic...
>
> JP

Joseph, if you have the impression that these three categories
include *everything* in the realm of alternate tunings (or at least
everything that anyone might care about), then you're mistaken.

The "middle path" is only a small part of the "middle ground" that
remains when seeking alternatives to JI and ET's. See Paul Erlich's
message (on mmm):
/makemicromusic/topicId_6820.html#6852
and my reply (on this list):
/tuning/topicId_53587.html#53587
and the ensuing discussion, in which it becomes clear that *most* of
my favorite tunings are excluded from the 3 categories you mentioned.

Put another way, I have a tendency to wander off the middle path. ;-)

--George

>> > The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
>> > let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
>> > missing the point. A fairly novel and exciting type of
>> > music theory has seen its genesis on this list and if
>> > "JI vs. ET" bothers you, you have failed to understand it.
>> >
>> > -Carl
>>
>> ***Yes, the "Third Way" or the "Middle Path"... almost like
>> the "third sex..." But, that's definitely a metatuning topic...
>>
>> JP
>
>Joseph, if you have the impression that these three categories
>include *everything* in the realm of alternate tunings (or at least
>everything that anyone might care about), then you're mistaken.

JP didn't say that.

>The "middle path" is only a small part of the "middle ground" that
>remains when seeking alternatives to JI and ET's. See Paul Erlich's
>message (on mmm):
>/makemicromusic/topicId_6820.html#6852
>and my reply (on this list):
>/tuning/topicId_53587.html#53587
>and the ensuing discussion, in which it becomes clear that *most* of
>my favorite tunings are excluded from the 3 categories you mentioned.
>
>Put another way, I have a tendency to wander off the middle path. ;-)

Well temperaments are hardly outside the scope of the "middle
path".

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> > The people who walk away in a huff because they can't
> >> > let go of their naive assumptions about "JI vs. ET" are
> >> > missing the point. A fairly novel and exciting type of
> >> > music theory has seen its genesis on this list and if
> >> > "JI vs. ET" bothers you, you have failed to understand it.
> >> >
> >> > -Carl
> >>
> >> ***Yes, the "Third Way" or the "Middle Path"... almost like
> >> the "third sex..." But, that's definitely a metatuning topic...
> >>
> >> JP
> >
> >Joseph, if you have the impression that these three categories
> >include *everything* in the realm of alternate tunings (or at
least
> >everything that anyone might care about), then you're mistaken.
>
> JP didn't say that.

True, but it's something that could easily be inferred. I made that
mistake myself, which is what led Paul to correct me.

> >The "middle path" is only a small part of the "middle ground" that
> >remains when seeking alternatives to JI and ET's. See Paul
Erlich's
> >message (on mmm):
> >/makemicromusic/topicId_6820.html#6852
> >and my reply (on this list):
> >/tuning/topicId_53587.html#53587
> >and the ensuing discussion, in which it becomes clear that *most*
of
> >my favorite tunings are excluded from the 3 categories you
mentioned.
> >
> >Put another way, I have a tendency to wander off the middle
path. ;-)
>
> Well temperaments are hardly outside the scope of the "middle
> path".

Not according to Paul's definition. Quoting from the first link
above:

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
> ...
> Like JI and ETs, middle path tunings are "regular" -- a given
> consonance is represented the same way no matter where it appears
in
> the tuning system. It seems to me that if a property such
> as "regularity" is possessed by both JI and the ETs, then it ought
to
> be possessed by any "middle path" between them.
>
> My XH18 paper is a complete survey of 5- and 7-limit, two-
dimensional
> (like those mentioned above) "middle path" systems within a certain
> boundary on error and complexity. In fact, the title of the paper
is
> _The Middle Path. Part 1: Fifty Floragrams_.
>
> It seems that you are now putting forth a different definition
> of "middle path", similar to the "well-temperament" concept, which
> refers to closed systems (while mine refers to open systems) and
> irregular systems (while mine refers to [regular] systems).

Since well-temperaments contain fifths of various sizes, they are
*irregular* (and therefore not middle-path) tunings. Such tunings
fall into the broader category of "middle-ground" tunings (anything
not JI or ET), of which middle-path tunings are a subset.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...>

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54961

wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network
<dbd@j...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_54833.html#54833
> >
> > > I was debating whether to post this, given that this is a JI-
only
> > > series, and the tuning list seems to be mostly a temperament
list
> > > these days, but since Carl mentioned it here the other day, I
> decided
> > > to do so:
> >
> > ***Give us a break, and please don't try to define something
that
> you
> > don't even bother to read or contribute to frequently...
>
> Hey, let's take that advice ourselves and give the guy a break!
As I
> see it, he was simply announcing a JI concert series and happened
to
> express some doubt about whether he should be posting it.
>

###Hello George,

It's a little more complicated than that. David Doty well knows
what this list is about and has posted derogatory comments about it
at about an interval of every 6 months, without either bothering to
read the list consistently or trying to participate.

JP

>> >Put another way, I have a tendency to wander off the middle
>> >path. ;-)
>>
>> Well temperaments are hardly outside the scope of the "middle
>> path".
>
>Not according to Paul's definition. Quoting from the first link
>above:

Oh please, let's not get into rigorously defining "middle path"!

>> My XH18 paper is a complete survey of 5- and 7-limit, two-
>> dimensional (like those mentioned above) "middle path"
>> systems within a certain boundary on error and complexity.
>> In fact, the title of the paper is
>> _The Middle Path. Part 1: Fifty Floragrams_.
>>
>> It seems that you are now putting forth a different definition
>> of "middle path", similar to the "well-temperament" concept,
>> which refers to closed systems (while mine refers to open
>> systems) and irregular systems (while mine refers to [regular]
>> systems).
>
>Since well-temperaments contain fifths of various sizes, they
>are *irregular* (and therefore not middle-path) tunings. Such
>tunings fall into the broader category of "middle-ground"
>tunings (anything not JI or ET), of which middle-path tunings
>are a subset.
>
>--George

Now you want to distinguish between middle-path and middle-ground!
Talk about jargon.

Well temperaments are (usually) trivial perturbations of regular
temperaments. Further, while regular temperaments are indeed open
systems as Paul states, it is assumed they will be used to
generate scales (closed systems).

Whatever, well temperaments certainly fit into the "fairly novel"
stuff that's been developed on these lists that I was talking
about. Call it what you want.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

> Put another way, I have a tendency to wander off the middle path. ;-)

Rereading this I was most struck by the proposal to take a periodicity
block and convert it into a well-temperament. Maybe a trip to Middle
Earth will find that elves or dwarves use these, so I may present some
elven or dwarven (they could be using retempered blocks starting from
blocks in higher dimensional regular temperaments, I suspect) if I
find any worthy of mention.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...>
>
> /tuning/topicId_54833.html#54961 wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network
<dbd@j...> wrote:
> > >
> > > /tuning/topicId_54833.html#54833
> > >
> > > > I was debating whether to post this, given that this is a JI-
only
> > > > series, and the tuning list seems to be mostly a temperament
list
> > > > these days, but since Carl mentioned it here the other day, I
decided
> > > > to do so:
> > >
> > > ***Give us a break, and please don't try to define something
that you
> > > don't even bother to read or contribute to frequently...
> >
> > Hey, let's take that advice ourselves and give the guy a break!
As I
> > see it, he was simply announcing a JI concert series and happened
to
> > express some doubt about whether he should be posting it.
>
> ###Hello George,
>
> It's a little more complicated than that. David Doty well knows
> what this list is about and has posted derogatory comments about it
> at about an interval of every 6 months, without either bothering to
> read the list consistently or trying to participate.
>
> JP

Joseph,

I didn't see any derogatory comments in DBD's latest posting _per
se_, so whatever was provocative about it must have been in the mind
of the beholder. (The way it came across to me, he was almost
apologizing for intruding in his opening paragraph.)

If his particular definition of JI has led him to the conclusion that
those on this list are mostly interested in temperament, then why not
just cut him a little slack and accept that as his perception or
opinion. And if we believe that we're really more JI-friendly than
he seems to think, we certainly have a strange way of showing it. :-(

If indeed he "well knows what this list is about", then why do you
fault him for not "bothering to read" it? And if he is being faulted
for participating only rarely (lurkers, beware! ;-), then why respond
in ways that will only discourage his further participation.

I imagine there's more to it, but I don't think there would be any
use in ruminating the details. The alternate tunings movement is so
small that I think we can ill afford to be carrying on a feud with
someone who represents a dedicated group of individuals who have
demonstrated that they are in it for the long haul.

Can we try to do better next time?

--George

Love / joy / peace / patience / kindness / goodness / faithfulness /
gentleness / self-control

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...>

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54979
> Joseph,
>
> I didn't see any derogatory comments in DBD's latest posting _per
> se_, so whatever was provocative about it must have been in the
mind
> of the beholder. (The way it came across to me, he was almost
> apologizing for intruding in his opening paragraph.)
>

***Just two or three weeks ago he posted a complaint that he didn't
like the way we are not truncating our messages on our forum, a
forum that he doesn't even read or participate in consistently.
It's been one complaining post like that after another over the past
3 or 4 years or so, maybe longer. Eventually, one just gets tired
of it... I have no more to say on the matter...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> >Put another way, I have a tendency to wander off the middle
> >> >path. ;-)
> >>
> >> Well temperaments are hardly outside the scope of the "middle
> >> path".
> >
> >Not according to Paul's definition. Quoting from the first link
> >above:
>
> Oh please, let's not get into rigorously defining "middle path"!

Then your beef is with Paul, not me. He coined the term "middle
path", and I'm simply abiding by his definition.

> >> My XH18 paper is a complete survey of 5- and 7-limit, two-
> >> dimensional (like those mentioned above) "middle path"
> >> systems within a certain boundary on error and complexity.
> >> In fact, the title of the paper is
> >> _The Middle Path. Part 1: Fifty Floragrams_.
> >>
> >> It seems that you are now putting forth a different definition
> >> of "middle path", similar to the "well-temperament" concept,
> >> which refers to closed systems (while mine refers to open
> >> systems) and irregular systems (while mine refers to [regular]
> >> systems).
> >
> >Since well-temperaments contain fifths of various sizes, they
> >are *irregular* (and therefore not middle-path) tunings. Such
> >tunings fall into the broader category of "middle-ground"
> >tunings (anything not JI or ET), of which middle-path tunings
> >are a subset.
> >
> >--George
>
> Now you want to distinguish between middle-path and middle-ground!
> Talk about jargon.

If you've wandered off the path, you're still on the ground -- seems
clear enough to me. Anyway, Paul's narrower definition left me no
option but to find another term.

> Well temperaments are (usually) trivial perturbations of regular
> temperaments.

In my case the differences between a WT (12, 17, 19) and its
corresponding ET are quite dramatic. (When I tried a 12-WT such as
Young's #2, I thought that it wasn't worth the effort. However, I
find there are others who would differ with my opinion.)

> Further, while regular temperaments are indeed open
> systems as Paul states, it is assumed they will be used to
> generate scales (closed systems).

But those closed scales are still regular systems. The wolf fifth in
a 12-tone meantone temperament doesn't make it an irregular tuning.

> Whatever, well temperaments certainly fit into the "fairly novel"
> stuff that's been developed on these lists that I was talking
> about. Call it what you want.

Okay, as long as the name makes sense. One of these days I will be
writing my "middle-ground" paper so everyone can see what this is all
about. Better yet, I need to finish up the compositions I've already
started in middle-ground tunings so everyone can *hear* what this is
all about.

--George

George D. Secor wrote:

>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
>>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Just Intonation Network <dbd@j...> >>wrote:
>>
>>/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54833
>>
>> >>
>>>I was debating whether to post this, given that this is a JI-only >>>series, and the tuning list seems to be mostly a temperament list >>>these days, but since Carl mentioned it here the other day, I >>> >>>
>decided > >
>>>to do so:
>>> >>>
>>***Give us a break, and please don't try to define something that >> >>
>you > >
>>don't even bother to read or contribute to frequently...
>> >>
>
>Hey, let's take that advice ourselves and give the guy a break! As I >see it, he was simply announcing a JI concert series and happened to >express some doubt about whether he should be posting it.
>
>I have good reason to believe that his doubt was based in part on the >perception that JI enthusiasts tend not to feel very comfortable on >this list, and after reading the responses to the announcement I find >no reason to think otherwise.
>
>Perhaps we should stop a minute and think about *why* he would even >want to bother contributing to this list at all (much less read it), >given the above reception. Yes, I know that this hasn't been the >first time this sort of thing has happened, but maybe it's time to >think about making it the last -- that building friendship should be >more important than winning arguments.
>
>Perhaps I'm a little na�ve to hope for the best, but I imagine that a >little kindness could go a long way. There will always be things >that we won't agree on, but at least can we agree to disagree?
>
>--George
>
>Love / joy / peace / patience / kindness ...
>
> >
I agree, but you don't know Doty like some of us know Doty.

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54970

> Since well-temperaments contain fifths of various sizes, they are
> *irregular* (and therefore not middle-path) tunings. Such tunings
> fall into the broader category of "middle-ground" tunings (anything
> not JI or ET), of which middle-path tunings are a subset.
>
> --George

***Got it. Thanks, George, for clarifying this. Didn't Brian
McLaren call these tunings (his favorites) NJNET (non just, non equal
temperament) tunings? That always sounded like some kind of New
Jersey sports team to me...

JP