53 is no good?

Is Alice Honingh still around? I just ran across a rather strange
article where she argues that to be any good, an equal division should
be meantone with only one circle of fifths, and 5-limit consistent.
Hence, 53 is no good, alas, and we are stuck with 12, 19, 26, 31, 43,
45, 50, 55, 69, 74, 81 and 88. She then says they have to be
relatively 5-limit good, ie have a low 5-limit badness figure, and
from that she eliminates everything but 12, 19 and 31. 53 might work,
though, if we are allowed to add notations for commatic adjustments.

The conclusions follow from the premises, but the premises seem fishy
to me.

http://staff.science.uva.nl/~ahoningh/publicaties/ET.pdf

or

http://staff.science.uva.nl/~ahoningh/publicaties/ET.ps

abstract http://www.unina2.it/carirelmusica.sun/Honingh14.pdf

The conditions of consistency and of being a meantone system are not
explicitly stated as such, which makes me think music theorists need a
vocabularly upgrade.

A major effort to downsize xenharmony if I ever saw one.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 30 Aral�k 2005 Cuma 23:36
Subject: [tuning] 53 is no good?

> Is Alice Honingh still around? I just ran across a rather strange
> article where she argues that to be any good, an equal division should
> be meantone with only one circle of fifths, and 5-limit consistent.
> Hence, 53 is no good, alas, and we are stuck with 12, 19, 26, 31, 43,
> 45, 50, 55, 69, 74, 81 and 88. She then says they have to be
> relatively 5-limit good, ie have a low 5-limit badness figure, and
> from that she eliminates everything but 12, 19 and 31. 53 might work,
> though, if we are allowed to add notations for commatic adjustments.
>
> The conclusions follow from the premises, but the premises seem fishy
> to me.
>
> http://staff.science.uva.nl/~ahoningh/publicaties/ET.pdf
>
> or
>
> http://staff.science.uva.nl/~ahoningh/publicaties/ET.ps
>
>
> abstract http://www.unina2.it/carirelmusica.sun/Honingh14.pdf
>
> The conditions of consistency and of being a meantone system are not
> explicitly stated as such, which makes me think music theorists need a
> vocabularly upgrade.
>
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> http://staff.science.uva.nl/~ahoningh/publicaties/ET.pdf
>
> or
>
> http://staff.science.uva.nl/~ahoningh/publicaties/ET.ps
>
>
> abstract http://www.unina2.it/carirelmusica.sun/Honingh14.pdf
>
> The conditions of consistency and of being a meantone system
> are not explicitly stated as such, which makes me think
> music theorists need a vocabularly upgrade.

They do -- that's exactly why i created the
Tonalsoft Encyclopedia for them. :)

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software