undefined

--- In crazy_music@y..., xed@e... wrote:
> FROM: mclaren

<snip>

> All of this work will in all probability not convince John
> deLaubenfels or any of the other True Believers in 5-limit JI on
this
> list, for the following reasons:
>
> [1] John deLaubenfels' computer program seems
> to be designed to resist falsification because it
> seems to blow up and fail to give output on highly
> chromatic compositions. In other words, deLaubenfels'
> computer program *only* seems to give valid output
> when the composition fed in is one which does not
> present obvious problems for 5-limit retuning. But
> of course this so greatly restricts the possible
> range of musical samples that the very operation of
> deLaubenfels' adaptive retuning programs prevents
> itself from being seriously tested with a reasonable
> range of musical materials.

I don't think the program is actually *designed* to resist
falsification, but is, rather, limited in the range of music that it
can effectively retune by virtue of its goals: to retune music
conceived as sectionally diatonic to as close to small number ratios
as possible, and to distribute the commas in such a way as to fool the
ear into thinking there were no comma shifts. I actually preferred the
older version where the comma shifts were in your face, and the
intervals rang (in the Barbershop sense) more.

<snip>
> ---------
> --mclaren