ET and JI- the never ending discussion

There was a reference where it was pointed out that there is a tolerance of error, in JI that occurs more often than not. . This is often brought up to "discredit' it as a practice.
These same individuals seem to avoid applying the same standard to Ets which have exactly the same problems with accuracy.
So if one says that a certain Et has an accuracy of x error, one could argue in practice it could or could not be even more
Either we accept that what a tuning attempts is the best measure of it or we throw out all measurements as arbitrary.
It is contradictory to say an ET is such and such accuracy and that JI is not. They both have to be tuned and errors effect both.In the Case of ETs actually the problem is worse because how does one know if they are off or not since we do not have an good measuring tool involving some irrational numbers and the ear can not tell us.
Regardless i am will to accept that there is such a thing as ET, but only in the context that there is such a thing as JI.
-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Hi Kraig,

What reference are you referring to?

I am fond of pointing out that there is always some tolerance of error
in JI, but never to discredit it. How could anyone discredit it? Even
if numbers had never been invented, we would still be able to _hear_
the specialness of the intervals that we call "just". You can choose
to use them or not use them, but you can't deny their existence.

One reason I sometimes point out this tolerance is to show the
inadequacy of _definitions_ of JI that describe it simply as "tuning
by ratios" without mentioning that justness is primarily something you
can _hear_, and that many complex ratios do not sound just at all, or
sound just only because of their proximity to simpler ratios.

It's funny you should mention errors in tuning of ETs, as I was
pointing some out just yesterday in the MakeMicroMusic group.
/makemicromusic/topicId_9723.html#9827

It's a pity ET and JI are often seen as a dichotomy since (a) some ETs
are JI, e.g. 171-ET, and (b) there are many "middle paths" between ET
and JI such as Erv Wilson's linear tunings (LT) and their MOS.

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> There was a reference where it was pointed out that there is a
> tolerance of error, in JI that occurs more often than not. . This is
> often brought up to "discredit' it as a practice.
> These same individuals seem to avoid applying the same standard to Ets
> which have exactly the same problems with accuracy.
> So if one says that a certain Et has an accuracy of x error, one could
> argue in practice it could or could not be even more
> Either we accept that what a tuning attempts is the best measure of it
> or we throw out all measurements as arbitrary.
> It is contradictory to say an ET is such and such accuracy and that JI
> is not. They both have to be tuned and errors effect both.In the
Case of
> ETs actually the problem is worse because how does one know if they are
> off or not since we do not have an good measuring tool involving some
> irrational numbers and the ear can not tell us.
> Regardless i am will to accept that there is such a thing as ET,
but
> only in the context that there is such a thing as JI.
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Kraig,

Seems to me that ET and JI are equally real abstractions :-)

Of the two, JI is easier - in small limits! - to tune in practice.

Regards,
Yahya

-----Original Message-----
From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

There was a reference where it was pointed out that there is a
tolerance of error, in JI that occurs more often than not. . This is
often brought up to "discredit' it as a practice.
These same individuals seem to avoid applying the same standard to Ets
which have exactly the same problems with accuracy.
So if one says that a certain Et has an accuracy of x error, one could
argue in practice it could or could not be even more
Either we accept that what a tuning attempts is the best measure of it
or we throw out all measurements as arbitrary.
It is contradictory to say an ET is such and such accuracy and that JI
is not. They both have to be tuned and errors effect both.In the Case of
ETs actually the problem is worse because how does one know if they are
off or not since we do not have an good measuring tool involving some
irrational numbers and the ear can not tell us.
Regardless i am will to accept that there is such a thing as ET, but
only in the context that there is such a thing as JI.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.4.0 - Release Date: 1/6/05