JI vs. ET !!!

>>As pointed out before those cultures which use JI (India and Persian) are
>>not harmonically based cultures.
>
>So are the vast majority of cultures which do not use JI.

Ouch! It's true, when reactionary to statements made by some (perhaps
typical) JI enthusiasts. But it could easily be taken out of context. Why
not qualify your statement by saying what exactly is meant by "JI" here?

For example, in the case of Gharib's site, after some correspondence with
him, I concluded that if the scale can be viewed in any systematic way at
all, it is (very) roughly adherent to a linear series of 3/2's. So that's
"using JI".

Sorry to nitpick. But if the aim is to clear up confusion... why not take
steps to avoid the very error made by the JI fanatics?

>>Wilson favorite pastime is pointing out commatic shifts in all types of
>>western singers on tape. Once again Boomsliter and Creel showed this in
>>actually measurements.
>
>I would like to see more evidence of this.

I'm not aware of any Boomsliter and Creel material that measured the
intonation of recordings. They did, however, conduct a study where
musicians and non-musicians alike were allowed to tune familiar melodies in
any way they wanted, within the confines of a modified Reed organ. While
the study was hardly scientific, it is fairly convincing, and I do buy
their extended reference theory, which is not really much of a theory,
unfortunately. It basically states that many common melodies make use of a
parenthesis-closing type hierarchy, with melodic intervals all being just
when related to the appropriate point in the hierarchy. The reason it
doesn't amount to a theory is that a method for identifying the hierarchy
in a given melody was never put forth. Hierarchies were identified in a
number of melodies, and shown to match "preferred tunings" from experiment,
but it was never shown that a given melody has only one such interpretation.

Extended reference falls under what I've recently been calling "local"
melodic JI. While I do buy into it, and think in principle the problems
mentioned above could be solved, I believe it is only one effect which a
melody may use; plenty of melodies exist which do not use the
parenthesis-closing effect.

It should also be noted that the parenthesis-closing effect does not
require JI. Its potential simply depends on the number of notes at its
disposal. I have referred to this as the "weak argument" for microtonality
(TD 173.2 and elsewhere). But when combined with my "first sentence" (TD
441.15), you get Extended Reference.

>It would certainly run counter to what I've been saying, but as far as I'm
>concerned any reason to overthrow the hegemony of 12-tET is a good thing.
>Hopefully it would not be to replace it with a hegemony of strict JI.
>Without the puns of temperament most Western keyboard compositions and my
>decatonic stuff would be out the window.

I don't think you have any reason to worry, Paul -- puns are definitely tha
bomb. Thing is, puns have nothing to do with melody. At least I've always
considered them a harmonic effect.

I don't believe, in general, that commatic shifts change the melodic
identity of notes. By increasing the size of the melodic pitch set (or
perhaps by decreasing the certainty with which it is defined), commatic
shifts may rob a melody of clarity. OTOH, if the shifts are due to
extended reference, they add a level of information to the melody. But I
don't think they effect puns (directly).

A pun to me is a forced re-fitting of a dyad or larger-ad in the harmonic
series. For example, in 12, when modulating from D7 to FM, the dyad A:C
has changed from a 7/6 to a 6/5. So for me, the ability to pun is measured
by the uniqueness of a temperament.

I've always believed that puns add something to music -- and that they take
something away. They necessarily take away consonance, and also any effect
depending on the "weak argument", since they are only possible in the
smaller temperaments. It would be very interesting to search for ETs with
low uniqueness yet high consonance. 12 is certainly the king. After that
must be 15 and 22.

Since I've joined this list, I've been an advocate of JI. It hasn't been
because I don't believe in puns. Rather, I'm interested in what may be
gained from greater consonance, and larger pitch sets.

-Carl

Kraig Grady wrote,

>>>As pointed out before those cultures which use JI (India and Persian) are
>>>not harmonically based cultures.

I wrote,

>>So are the vast majority of cultures which do not use JI.

Carl Lumma wrote,

>Ouch! It's true, when reactionary to statements made by some (perhaps
>typical) JI enthusiasts. But it could easily be taken out of context. Why
>not qualify your statement by saying what exactly is meant by "JI" here?

>For example, in the case of Gharib's site, after some correspondence with
>him, I concluded that if the scale can be viewed in any systematic way at
>all, it is (very) roughly adherent to a linear series of 3/2's. So that's
>"using JI".

>Sorry to nitpick. But if the aim is to clear up confusion... why not take
>steps to avoid the very error made by the JI fanatics?

My statement, again, is: of those cultures which do not use JI, the vast
majority are not harmonically based. If I say "the vast majority of ravens
are black", and you find an animal which you can't describe but if you had
to describe it, you'd call it a blue cow, have you found evidence against my
statement?

Kraig Grady wrote,

>>>Wilson favorite pastime is pointing out commatic shifts in all types of
>>>western singers on tape. Once again Boomsliter and Creel showed this in
>>>actually measurements.

I wrote,

>>I would like to see more evidence of this.

Carl Lumma wrote,

>I'm not aware of any Boomsliter and Creel material that measured the
>intonation of recordings.

I didn't think so!!!

>I don't think you have any reason to worry, Paul -- puns are definitely tha
>bomb. Thing is, puns have nothing to do with melody. At least I've always
>considered them a harmonic effect.

Holding the common tone in the melody while changing the harmony is the most
effective way of making a pun really happen.

>A pun to me is a forced re-fitting of a dyad or larger-ad in the harmonic
>series. For example, in 12, when modulating from D7 to FM, the dyad A:C
>has changed from a 7/6 to a 6/5.

Oh come on Carl, you know very well that there are much subtler puns than
that. Isn't Mathieu's "Harmonic Experience" largely about how to make use of
the 5-prime-limit puns available in 12-equal?

Carl Lumma wrote:

> From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>
> >>As pointed out before those cultures which use JI (India and Persian) are
> >>not harmonically based cultures.
> >
> >So are the vast majority of cultures which do not use JI.

> Ouch! It's true, when reactionary to statements made by some (perhaps
> typical) JI enthusiasts. But it could easily be taken out of context. Why
> not qualify your statement by saying what exactly is meant by "JI" here?
>
> For example, in the case of Gharib's site, after some correspondence with
> him, I concluded that if the scale can be viewed in any systematic way at
> all, it is (very) roughly adherent to a linear series of 3/2's. So that's
> "using JI".

To limit JI to a single set of pitches like the just major scale would be as
ridiculous as it
would to limit ET to 19,22,31,and/or 53. It is also historically inaccurate in
that the simple JI diatonic holds no preponderance of use By JI users! Any
configuration of whole number fractions is JI.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com

I didn't mean to imply that they were measuring recordings. This was unclear.
Im sorry If real live people making measurements doesn't qualify. My statement
was in the context that JI was the result of Harmony. It is the cultures that
are not interested in harmony that use JI. The truth of the matter is on a
global level most cultures use neither. Africa and South East Asia which shows
how much is omitted from the start!

"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:

> I wrote,
>
> >>I would like to see more evidence of this.
>
> Carl Lumma wrote,
>
> >I'm not aware of any Boomsliter and Creel material that measured the
> >intonation of recordings.
>
> I didn't think so!!!

>
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com

In a message dated 12/18/1999 01:55:14 AM, PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com wrote:

>Isn't Mathieu's "Harmonic Experience" largely about how to make use of
>the 5-prime-limit puns available in 12-equal?

Yep... I think so.

zHANg

>My statement, again, is: of those cultures which do not use JI, the vast
>majority are not harmonically based.

Sorry! I completely misunderstood the text I was quoting there.

>Holding the common tone in the melody while changing the harmony is the most
>effective way of making a pun really happen.

True, and you could still get this in many cases by harmonizing a just
melody with tempered chords.

>Oh come on Carl, you know very well that there are much subtler puns than
>that. Isn't Mathieu's "Harmonic Experience" largely about how to make use of
>the 5-prime-limit puns available in 12-equal?

I haven't read any Mathieu. Which puns are too subtle to fit my definition?

-Carl

>I haven't read any Mathieu. Which puns are too subtle to fit my
definition?

I don't think the interval whose ratio-interpretation changes has to have
both members sounding simultaneously as a dyad. In fact, I think it helps if
it doesn't, since even irrational dyads often acquire a definite
ratio-interpretation through virtual fundamentals and slowly beating
overtones, and rational ones do through combination tones. The usual
diatonic pun is to use the second degree of the major scale as either 10/9
or 9/8, though there doesn't need to be (and usually isn't) an actual major
second sounding as a simultaneity whose interpretations changes from 10:9 to
9:8.

>I don't think the interval whose ratio-interpretation changes has to have
>both members sounding simultaneously as a dyad. In fact, I think it helps if
>it doesn't, since even irrational dyads often acquire a definite
>ratio-interpretation through virtual fundamentals and slowly beating
>overtones, and rational ones do through combination tones. The usual
>diatonic pun is to use the second degree of the major scale as either 10/9
>or 9/8, though there doesn't need to be (and usually isn't) an actual major
>second sounding as a simultaneity whose interpretations changes from 10:9 to
>9:8.

Interesting. I guess I've just never heard (or maybe just never noticed) this
melodic type of pun.

-Carl

>>The usual
>>diatonic pun is to use the second degree of the major scale as either 10/9
>>or 9/8, though there doesn't need to be (and usually isn't) an actual
major
>>second sounding as a simultaneity whose interpretations changes from 10:9
to
>>9:8.

>Interesting. I guess I've just never heard (or maybe just never noticed)
this
>melodic type of pun.

This is the fundamental diatonic pun which led to the creation of meantone
temperament in the 15th century and its persistence (at least on English
organs) through the middle of the 19th century -- because of this pun JI was
never really adopted during this entire period.