Equi-Distant Tunings Are a Completely Different "Animal":

What comprises the usual tuning system? (let's take just
intonation as an example)

What is specific about the just tuning system is which
intervals are capable of being played in which directions
from which pitch classes. I don't know if this has been
tabulated or graphically illustrated by anybody, but I think
it would be a good project for somebody.

And what is specific about equi-distant tuning systems? (to use
12TET as an example)

ANY INTERVAL CLASS CAN BE PLAYED IN EITHER DIRECTION (ASCENDING
OR DESCENDING) FROM ANY PITCH CLASS.

In other words, THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS!

No ticket/no laundry, no restrictions/no tuning system!

That's why I say that no equi-distant "tunig system" is
REALLY a tuning system at all, but an equi-distant matrix
within which asymmetrical and symmetrical subscales/tunings
can be inscribed.

Bill Flavell

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Flavell" <bill_flavell@e...>
wrote:
>
>
> What comprises the usual tuning system? (let's take just
> intonation as an example)
>
> What is specific about the just tuning system is which
> intervals are capable of being played in which directions
> from which pitch classes. I don't know if this has been
> tabulated or graphically illustrated by anybody, but I think
> it would be a good project for somebody.
>
> And what is specific about equi-distant tuning systems? (to use
> 12TET as an example)
>
> ANY INTERVAL CLASS CAN BE PLAYED IN EITHER DIRECTION (ASCENDING
> OR DESCENDING) FROM ANY PITCH CLASS.
>
> In other words, THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS!
>
> No ticket/no laundry, no restrictions/no tuning system!
>
> That's why I say that no equi-distant "tunig system" is
> REALLY a tuning system at all, but an equi-distant matrix
> within which asymmetrical and symmetrical subscales/tunings
> can be inscribed.
>
>
> Bill Flavell

What you say about equal tunings is true of just, meantone, and many
other types of tuning systems as well. They all allow any indigenous
interval to be played in either direction from any indigenous pitch.
The difference is that among these tuning systems, only equal tunings
HAVE A FINITE NUMBER OF PITCHES PER OCTAVE.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Flavell" <bill_flavell@e...> wrote:
> ANY INTERVAL CLASS CAN BE PLAYED IN EITHER DIRECTION (ASCENDING
> OR DESCENDING) FROM ANY PITCH CLASS.
>
> In other words, THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS!

But it sounds like there is a lot of boredom. If all the pitches are
equi-distant, it hardly matters how many times you turn them upside
down and inside out - they'll all pretty much sound the same.

Of course, you could completely convice us to the contrary by posting
music made with these methods that shows just how stimulating they
are. If not, maybe spend a bit more time listening to the music made
by people who decided they needed to get outside of the restrictions
of 12 notes equally spaced apart. Alternate tunings don't exist simply
in theory, there is a fair amount of really compelling music that has
been created. Take a listen, Bill.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Flavell" <bill_flavell@e...> wrote:
> > ANY INTERVAL CLASS CAN BE PLAYED IN EITHER DIRECTION (ASCENDING
> > OR DESCENDING) FROM ANY PITCH CLASS.
> >
> > In other words, THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS!
>
> But it sounds like there is a lot of boredom. If all the pitches are
> equi-distant, it hardly matters how many times you turn them upside
> down and inside out - they'll all pretty much sound the same.
>
> Of course, you could completely convice us to the contrary by
> posting music made with these methods that shows just how
> stimulating they are.

That sounds like you are saying that music in equal temperament is
basically boring and non-stimulating - but that cannot be, can it?

It is all a question of someone's personal preferences. And a big
freedom in the modulation possibilities with a limited number of
pitches per octave is definitely a strong point of equal temperament
systems.
--
Hans Straub

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <hstraub64@t...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> > But it sounds like there is a lot of boredom.
>
> That sounds like you are saying that music in equal temperament is
> basically boring and non-stimulating - but that cannot be, can it?

No, probably a poor choice of wording on my part. But if what we are
talking about is basically the structure for tuning of Western music
for the last large number of years, and therefore a system that (in a
perfect world) has 12 notes spaced exactly the same distance apart,
just how important is it to have a very large number of permutations
that one can jumble those notes? The beauty of non-equal tunings is
that when one modulates, a new tonal area can have a very different
sound/feel/effect, because the spacing of the notes in both melody and
harmony differ from those before the modulation.

I just happen to be one of the people that think 12edo is pretty-well
played out. Humankind is a very inventive lot, and there is still
material to play with, but I believe that it is a great time to
explore new melodic and harmonic - tuning - areas, and find all the
great music that lies outside of 12edo.

It is times like these that I wish Yahoo had an edit function, as my
brief reply comes off, in retrospect, a bit curt and churlish (even if
I still stand by my intention).

Cheers,
Jon

No, Jon, I've written out,played, and listened to 300-400
13-note all-interval/all-contour 12EDO melodies, and a lot of them
are more beautiful than anything I've heard in conventional clasical
music.

Bill Flavell

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
>
> But it sounds like there is a lot of boredom. If all the pitches are
> equi-distant, it hardly matters how many times you turn them upside
> down and inside out - they'll all pretty much sound the same.
>
> Of course, you could completely convice us to the contrary by
posting
> music made with these methods that shows just how stimulating they
> are. If not, maybe spend a bit more time listening to the music made
> by people who decided they needed to get outside of the restrictions
> of 12 notes equally spaced apart. Alternate tunings don't exist
simply
> in theory, there is a fair amount of really compelling music that
has
> been created. Take a listen, Bill.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <hstraub64@t...> wrote:
>
> That sounds like you are saying that music in equal temperament is
> basically boring and non-stimulating - but that cannot be, can it?

No, Hans, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I've spent the last 19
years studying 12EDO pitch class set theory, so I definitely tink
that is where the musical "action" is for me.

> It is all a question of someone's personal preferences. And a big
> freedom in the modulation possibilities with a limited number of
> pitches per octave is definitely a strong point of equal temperament
> systems.

Well, there's a lot more interesting 12EDO potentialities than the
conventional conception of "modulation", which I think is
structurally weaker than hell. Pitch and harmonic series fetishism
have blinded conventional music theorists of the 12EDO potentialities
that I think 12EDO pitch class set theory is only capable of giving a
glimmer of.

Bill Flavell

Basicly what I'm saying is that the pitch-centric mentality of
conventional music theory has blinded conventional music theorits to
the true dual bi-directional nature of the 12EDO system.

And the harmonic series is also UNIDIRECTIONAL AND STATIC, so it
IS NOT MUSIC-SPECIFIC, since music is bi-directional and dynamic.

Muic theorists have ben too anxious to grab at a pseudo-scientific
concept to try and give music some sort od scientific validation that
it doesn't need, in it's quest for self-realization.

Bill Flavell

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
>
> No, probably a poor choice of wording on my part. But if what we are
> talking about is basically the structure for tuning of Western music
> for the last large number of years, and therefore a system that (in
a
> perfect world) has 12 notes spaced exactly the same distance apart,
> just how important is it to have a very large number of permutations
> that one can jumble those notes? The beauty of non-equal tunings is
> that when one modulates, a new tonal area can have a very different
> sound/feel/effect, because the spacing of the notes in both melody
and
> harmony differ from those before the modulation.
>
> I just happen to be one of the people that think 12edo is pretty-
well
> played out. Humankind is a very inventive lot, and there is still
> material to play with, but I believe that it is a great time to
> explore new melodic and harmonic - tuning - areas, and find all the
> great music that lies outside of 12edo.
>
> It is times like these that I wish Yahoo had an edit function, as my
> brief reply comes off, in retrospect, a bit curt and churlish (even
if
> I still stand by my intention).
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

Bill,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Flavell" <bill_flavell@e...> wrote:
> No, Jon, I've written out,played, and listened to 300-400
> 13-note all-interval/all-contour 12EDO melodies, and a lot of them
> are more beautiful than anything I've heard in conventional clasical
> music.

That is good to know, Bill. I'd look forward to hearing some of these
melodies some day in the future...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> What you say about equal tunings is true of just, meantone, and many
> other types of tuning systems as well. They all allow any indigenous
> interval to be played in either direction from any indigenous pitch.

Thanks for that info, but are they capable of scalar inversions. To me,
that is the most structurally important specificity of a EDO tuning
system, which I'll explain my rationale for later.

> The difference is that among these tuning systems, only equal tunings
> HAVE A FINITE NUMBER OF PITCHES PER OCTAVE.

Oh, I guess I see, but I don't think I completely understand what you
mean here.

Bill Flavell

Thanks for the positive response, Jon! :)

I posted the URLs of 2 of my Yahoo Groups/MIDI
file archives.

Bill Favell

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
>
> That is good to know, Bill. I'd look forward to hearing some of
these
> melodies some day in the future...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Flavell" <bill_flavell@e...> wrote:

> Well, there's a lot more interesting 12EDO potentialities than the
> conventional conception of "modulation", which I think is
> structurally weaker than hell. Pitch and harmonic series fetishism
> have blinded conventional music theorists of the 12EDO potentialities
> that I think 12EDO pitch class set theory is only capable of giving a
> glimmer of.

Music theory has not been immersed in "harmonic series fetishism" for
a long time now. I don't think the results have been uniformly good.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> Music theory has not been immersed in "harmonic series fetishism" for
> a long time now. I don't think the results have been uniformly good.

Really? Then why isn't melody condidered a subject worthy
of being taught as a separate subject?

And why doesn't the New Grove contain an entry for "contour"?

Bill Flavell

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Flavell" <bill_flavell@e...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Music theory has not been immersed in "harmonic series fetishism" for
> > a long time now. I don't think the results have been uniformly good.
>
> Really? Then why isn't melody condidered a subject worthy
> of being taught as a separate subject?

The discussion was about harmony.

yes why pay attention to acoustical phenomenon when we can create conceptional construction on paper and not have to pay attention to sound at all.
most of the most of this nature has a far worse track record
>Subject: Re: Harmonic Series Fetishism In Music Theory?
>
>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> >
>>Music theory has not been immersed in "harmonic series fetishism" for
>>a long time now. I don't think the results have been uniformly good.
>> >>

--
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

Including those Pythagoreanists who had no inkling as to why the hemiolic
system miserably fails to produce a harmonic major scale via a cycle of
acceptable fifths.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kraig Grady" <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 11 Aral�k 2005 Pazar 17:58
Subject: [tuning] Re: Harmonic Series Fetishism In Music Theory?

> yes why pay attention to acoustical phenomenon when we can create
> conceptional construction on paper and not have to pay attention to
> sound at all.
> most of the most of this nature has a far worse track record
>
>
> >Subject: Re: Harmonic Series Fetishism In Music Theory?
> >
> >--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Music theory has not been immersed in "harmonic series fetishism" for
> >>a long time now. I don't think the results have been uniformly good.
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Flavell" <bill_flavell@e...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> >
> > What you say about equal tunings is true of just, meantone, and
many
> > other types of tuning systems as well. They all allow any
indigenous
> > interval to be played in either direction from any indigenous
pitch.
>
> Thanks for that info, but are they capable of scalar inversions.

Of course they are.

> To me,
> that is the most structurally important specificity of a EDO tuning
> system, which I'll explain my rationale for later.

There's nothing special about ETs on the inversional angle as far as
I can see.

> > The difference is that among these tuning systems, only equal
tunings
> > HAVE A FINITE NUMBER OF PITCHES PER OCTAVE.
>
> Oh, I guess I see, but I don't think I completely understand what
you
> mean here.

If you're going to be engaged in the process of transposing intervals
to different pitches, meantone, JI, and such tunings have no limits
upon the number of different pitches (per octave) that may need to be
added as a result of this process. This is not the case for equal
temperaments, where the limit is just the number of pitches (per
octave) in the tuning itself.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> yes why pay attention to acoustical phenomenon when we can create
> conceptional construction on paper and not have to pay attention to
> sound at all.

Well, I wouldn't go that far, Kraig, but I certainly
don't think that the current "scientific" understanding
of sound/acoustics is any where near correct. Iannis Xenakis
did a blistering cririque of the Fourier theory of sound
way back in the 1950s.

Bill Flavell

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Flavell" <bill_flavell@e...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
> > yes why pay attention to acoustical phenomenon when we can create
> > conceptional construction on paper and not have to pay attention to
> > sound at all.
>
> Well, I wouldn't go that far, Kraig, but I certainly
> don't think that the current "scientific" understanding
> of sound/acoustics is any where near correct. Iannis Xenakis
> did a blistering cririque of the Fourier theory of sound
> way back in the 1950s.
>
>
> Bill Flavell

Xenakis had an above-average comprehension of science for a musician.
But the field of psychoacoustics has matured to a very great extent in
the decades since. Are you familiar with Terhardt? Cariani? As for
acoustics itself, that's part of the field in which I was trained, so
I'd love to discuss that in detail, if there's anything specific you
want to bring up . . .