RE: RE: Re: Response to Dave Hill on JI and European com po...

>Yes. Here are only _some_ possible versions with f (the top note) as chord
>fundamental and eb as (key) tonic:

>8/7 or 10/9 or 9/8
>1/1 1/1 1/1
>8/5 14/9 63/40
>48/35 4/3 27/20

So they're the third inversion of

�20:24:28:35 -- a 7/4 on f with added notes?
�5:6:7:9 -- an incomplete db dominant ninth -- why is f the fundamental?
�?The last one seems really hard to hear -- what makes f the fundamental?

>(a) a 7th subharmonic on an eb guiding tone or
>(b) the chordal root of a half diminished 7th chord on the V of V or (c) on
a
>ii chord in a subdominant function.

What's the difference between (b) and (c)?

>Brahms does indeed disambiguate this pun
>in the course of the composition, but wouldn't resolving the ambiguity
>intonationally at this point remove one of the important driving forces in
>the piece?

Nah, he'd leave that to John deLaubenfels ;)

I wrote,

>So they're the third inversion of [. . .]

I meant first inversion.

Daniel Wolf wrote,

>The V of V will make F a 9/8 relative to the tonic, a ii functioning as a
>subdominant will be a 10/9...

Ah yes, the prototypical diatonic double-meaning rears its head once again .
. . it's really hard to get away from this one . . . so once again, a
meantone tuning is required to render this music properly.