AW.: Re: What is JI? -- A definition in musical context

In einer Nachricht vom 11/16/99 10:52:25 AM (MEZ) Mitteleurop�ische
Zeitschreibt mschulter@value.net:

<< (1) All intervals in the system are defined as
integer ratios; >>

So far so good...

<< (2) The system provides a complete set of
low-integer ratios up to an odd factor or
"odd-limit" of at least 3; and >>

Does it need to be complete? Although not attached to any historical
repertoire, I can imagine JIs without ratios of 3; La Monte Young gets along
well enough skipping ratios of 5.

<< (3) This odd-limit is high enough to provide
pure or low-integer ratios for all stable
concords in the given musical context. >>

Although my main interest has always been the way in which tunings are
articulated in real musical contexts -- as opposed to the invention of scales
in the abstract -- a certain alarm goes up in my head when I read that
compositional criteria are used to decide whether a tuning is X or not-X. In
this case, the presence of "stable concords" being used to determine whether
a tuning is "classical JI" or nor. For one, the implication here is that JI
is suitable only for tonal music based upon an opposition of consonance and
dissonance. While not "classical" JI, I still like to hear Partch's music as
being in _a_ JI despite the absence of "stable concords" as a structuring
element in much of his better music.

This is similar to my postings regarding Ferneyhough's _String Trio_: there I
had no doubt that the tuning specified was 24tet, my doubt was rather whether
the composer has used the tuning for its unique qualities or arbitrarily as a
collection giving a variegated surface and unparseable vertical sonorites.

Isn't it more useful to define the tuning independently of the compositional
technique and then to analyse the way in which individual repertoires,
composers or compositions project (or fail to project) aspects of that tuning?