stay calm & no one gets hurt / terms of endearment - part deux

Hey my first post of the last year of the 20th century !
Depending on what calender you follow, if you actually follow one at all.
Also depending on how you count. But like the guy in a sitcom I saw
the other day - half the time I don't know what time it is, and the the rest
of the time I don't really care. But what the heck,
A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OF YOU!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From Carl Lumma :
> Actually, I believe the issue was that a term besides tET is needed to
> refer to tunings that are equal divisions of the octave, but are not being
> used as a temperament -- that is, not being used to approximate JI (or some
> other set of special intervals).
>
Not quite. The issue is that tET does not specifically refer *only* to
tunings that are EDOs (equal divisions of the octave). To say 12tET could
mean 12 equal divisions of *any* larger interval, for example 3/1.

A few days ago Carl also said :
> EDO? So 14
> EDO is the 14th equal division of the octave? Putting the troubles of
> "octave" aside, what is the 14th division?
EDO : Dan originally defined it as : "equidistant divisions of an octave"
Put more simply, 14EDO would be 14 equal divisions of an octave.
The simple "Equal Divisions of the Octave" is also the way Monzo defines it
in his dictionary.

> EDO is one popular solution. I suggested "x-cent equal" (as in 100-cent
> equal), or "xth root of n tuning" (as in 12th root of 2).
x-cent equal, or simply CE can be viewed as CET minus the "T". And would be
specific to tunings that are designed/callibrated in cents. It's not an
alternative to EDO.

> Another idea is to simply substitute "tuning" for "temperament" in tET
> (12-tone equal tuning), or omit the last "T" completely (12-tone equal).
There's no need to change what already works for it's specific purpose.
Everyone knows what tET means. But "tE" is a good one.

>>I'm assuming all our "common" ones like 19-tET and 31-tET are tempered since
>>they are vainly trying to approximate just intonation. Are there others that
>>are clearly NOT to be considered attempting that aim?
My own (very humble) view is that certain EDO's and the like are unique
cases of temperaments, since they are not purposely designed to serve as
such. They are but simplistic whole number divisions that we search through
to find good approximations to JI. So, an ET, unlike meantone, well
temperament, etc. is not in itself attempting to approximate JI. Manuel's
Dinarra is a temperament *by design*, 53EDO is not.

Joseph probably said "vainly" in jest, but there is much to be said for the
benefits of ETs - modulation, relative ease of performance, relative ease in
instrument construction.

From Bill Alves :
> For this reason I see nothing wrong with
> continuing with the traditional (certainly not "bizarre" as one
> correspondent characterized it) definition of a tempered interval as one
> defined by an irrational ratio.
That would be moi. Leaving aside my not buying this as the definition
specifically for the reason you mention, the common definition, and logical
deduction of what "temperament" appears to be something along the lines of
what the OED says :
"an adjustment of intervals in tuning a piano, etc. so as to fit the scale
for use in all keys."

And yes, such an interval would be characterized by an irrational ratio.
But simply saying an irrational ratio is what a tempered interval is, is
misleading. A tempered interval is an irrational ratio, but not all
irrational rations are tempered intervals. You actually say the same thing
in your explanation re. ET and EDO, as does Dan's post re. that.
Why perpetuate a myth ?

Bill, that's very interesting info about your experience with "microtonal".
Your students are pretty smart cookies. Sometimes I get very nervous about
posting to the list, being such a novice. It's at times like these when I
can say, "Hey Drew, you're not a complete idiot !:-)"

> I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ken Wauchope's "allotonal,"
That includes me, who completely forgot about it. However, I like Daniel's
suggestion of labelling it simply the study of "harmonics". Very scientific.

I still regard the terminology problem as an open one. EDO has been tossed
about for about a year now, and is very neat. And quite by accident Starret
suggested a few other terms that are actually simple logical extensions of
EDO. It's pretty simple. We know "E" usually means "equal" and "O" is
"octave". "D" is for "division". It's easy to build on this :

EDO - equal divisions of the octave
UDO - unequal divisions of the octave

EDNO - equally divided non octave
UDNO - unequally divided non octave

EDI - equally divided interval
UDI - unequally divided interval

I also threw in "EDS" for "equal divisions in the spectrum".

Obviously all this needs much discussion & will probably be agreed upon by
not agreeing. Atleast for now.

From Johnny :
> As the professor, you produce the new concepts for your students.
But not wrong ones.

> If you
> persist in thinking of microtonal intervals as -_only_ tiny intervals,
For crying out loud ! Everybody & his younger sister that is not on this
list knows exactly what a microtonal interval is. Which is why it is
commonly described & used the way Alves describes in his post. At the very
least we all know the implications of "micro".

> you
> miss a bigger picture, and you deprive your students. If the students do not
> know how to label a neutral third, it is because you have not taught them.
Seems to me Bill's students are remarkably intelligent & sensible.

> The words microtone and microtonal and microtonality are fairly recent terms
> with limited communicability.
I keep repeating what is common knowledge. The origins of this word & the
meaning. It may be recent, but it's old enough to have permeated the entire
globe. The usual, universal rule of thumb is "if in doubt, look it up". So,
look it up every chance you get and you'll see refering to all non-12EDO
music as "microtonal" is silly.

> Each word is a concept and we certainly do not share these concepts.
To a degree we have to, or I would not understand a word of what you wrote.
Carl's anarchist babble about standards & dictionaries is also quaint.

> That is
> why you have lost interest in the discussion on precise nomenclature. And in
> that, I agree with you.
Whatever. But I got to say, this was never just about "precise
nomenclature". It's about conjuring up nomenclature that does not exist to
help us better study & understand harmonics. Anyhow there's a long way to go
and a lot more folks will eventually join the party.

From Bill Alves :
> and the whole EDO, UDI, NDO, FBI, CIA, MOUSE has left me in confusion.

From Pat :
> I agree with Mr Alves
> You folks are barking up a stump
> how about LBJ or IRC??
Perhaps if more of us got in on these discussions, with well thought out,
constructive critiques & contributions, we'd get more done.
In this particular case, about 1% of members of the Tuning List got
involved, which seems to be the norm here. There's no denying this is a
valid & important subject. Everything is relative, but labelling &
classifying to the degree possible is an important part of any scientific
study, or just keeping a handle on what you're doing.

Monzo's post of 31 Dec, TD469, including the quote from Starret says it much
better than I could.

Cheers all & keep it funky !
Drew

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Perhaps it's time to accept that we live in different worlds. I thought I
would list some of The New York Times definitions of "microtonal" and it is
the one that I share. (Please refrain from all knee-jerk NYC bashing, thank
you.)

John Rockwell 2/8/82: "'Microtonal music' means any kind of music that
ventures beyond the fixed 12 notes of the conventional chromatic scale."

Bernard Holland 11/4/86: "Actually our current "microtonalists," a curiously
fuzzy term, seek much more--not simply a cleansing of today's muddy though
practical tuning system but a proliferation of new and different scales
beyond the traditional 12-note divisions classified by the ancient Greeks and
still a powerful part of music."

Robert Palmer 7/5/87: "Tuning is perhaps the subtlest of musical
fundamentals, and the least understood, and our vocabulary for describing
tuning differences is a limited one. Most of the time, one has to choose
between technical jargon ("equal temperament," "just-intonation") and mere
descriptive adjectives ("this tuning sounds different; it sounds weird"). It
seems we are going to have to expand our musical vocabularies, for broad,
sweeping changes, rooted in tuning, are profoundly affecting contemporary
classical and New Age music, jazz and rock."

Allan Kozinn 3/21/92: "As stylistic banners go, microtonality is broad enough
to fly over many distinct, incompatible systems unified only by the fact that
each divides the octave into more than the 12 tones of the traditional
Western scale."

Anthony Tommasini 5/21/97: "The term microtone simply refers to the notes
that exist between the 12 pitches that somewhat arbitrarily divide the
standard octave."

What do y'all think? It seems that a microtone is by these definitions to
include notes other than 12TET, allowing for 1188 new microtones to come into
play.

The Los Angeles Times writer Josef Woodard was funny in his 4/21/98 review:
"Microtonalists tend to be regarded as quaint fringe dwellers who don't and
won't quite fit into the status quo. They refuse to accept the norm of
equal-tempered tuning--with 12 notes to the octave--which has long gripped
Western music, insisting that there are more expansive ways of thinking. In
some senses, it's true: Microtonalists could be the sane ones in a world of
mad, brainwashed listeners."

Johnny Reinhard
American Festival of Microtonal Music
(since 1981)