Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Why reinvent the wheel??? (was Re: Re: Interval names)

"Canright, David" wrote:
>
> Call me naive,

Nah...experienced.

> but to me it seems that referring to JI intervals by names
> that confuse many seems counterproductive and at least potentially
> ambiguous. Call a 6:7 a 6:7, I say...

I agree. If you look closely at the Partch instruments,
you'll see ratios painted on the instruments. When I got
my guitar with Catler JI Tuning II, he gave me a
chart with the ratios on the neck not a list of descriptive names.

I notated a riff this morning and I wrote down a string
of ratios with rhythm notation attached:

_____ ______
| | | |
1/1 9/8 7/6 4/3 (hopefully this looks like I want it to!)

It's a quick notational shorthand that works until I get
home and write it down in notation. Names like supraminor
third are useless to communicate a ratio to a musican.
It's a nice description but why make it more complicated?

Those points aside...if you really do have to always refer to
an orange as "a round fruit with a pulpy inside and seeds with a
a peelable skin" instead of just calling it an orange:

Using terms like "supermajor third", "subminor third" and
"supermajor second" help to thoroughly confuse the issue.
Why not use a common term like septimal to describe these
7 limit ratios?

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

🔗Joe Monzo <monz@juno.com>

> [David Beardsley, TD 525.10]
> Using terms like "supermajor third", "subminor third" and
> "supermajor second" help to thoroughly confuse the issue.
> Why not use a common term like septimal to describe these
> 7 limit ratios?

I totally agree. This idea is along the same lines as the
names I proposed for the small 5-limit intervals that pop up
when the lattice is extended out quite far in both directions:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/td/monzo/o483-26new5limitnames.htm
which I originally posted here a month ago (TD 483.26).

The bottom line is: numbers will always give absolute precision,
and words, while often intended to be precise, will always
leave room for ambiguity.

Even here recently, many of us have taken words which originally
specified precisely-defined intervals (schisma and kleisma, for
example) and added qualifiers like 'septimal' to make them
stand for other intervals which are slightly larger or smaller
(my webpage above is just one instance).

I also agree with Graham Breed that ambiguity is sometimes
desireable. But where words *are* going to be used, I think
that there should at least be a *logical* system that is
agreed upon. Dave Keenan, Graham, and myself are all offering
attempts at this; the standard terminology is simply illogical
and, being based on tuning schemes with a small number of pitches,
not complete enough for contemporary discussion.

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo Philadelphia monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

🔗Joe Monzo <monz@juno.com>

The bottom line is: numbers will always give absolute precision,
and words, while often intended to be precise, will always
leave room for ambiguity.

-monz

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

In a message dated 2/11/00 6:07:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, monz@juno.com
writes:

> the standard terminology is simply illogical
> and, being based on tuning schemes with a small number of pitches,
> not complete enough for contemporary discussion.

I agree. Numbers are necessary for me when I perform microtonal works.
Sometimes people notice that I will put a -1 cent above a note, even when
this is clearly not critical on a bassoon, or most any other acoustic
instrument. Even vibrato is greater than 1 cent!

The reasons I insists on putting the -1 cent (or +1 cent) is critical to an
accurate performance. Firstly, the bassoon does not tune up. It is put in
tune before musical usage. Like a violinist, it is the mind that has to be
"in tune" with the tuning expectations. This means, like a trumpet, I have
up to a minor third of play with the pitch for most any fingering. By
indicating a whole number of cents distinction, including the single cent, my
mind is properly prepared to play the desired frequency. A professional
bassoonist has a physical memory for where the sounds are and though I might
not adjust for the single cent, I would be careful not to distort the note in
any other way.

It has been many years now in doing this. At first I would place a large N
for normal note. Mixing the letter with the numbers trips up my reading
expectations in musical real time.

Cents and ratios are different ways of using numbers, one additive and the
other relational. Both have been found useful for understanding the
sensibility of microtonal intervals, however once the understanding is
achieved, cents is preferable for my real time music making.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

Why reinvent the wheel??? (was Re: Re: Interval names)

🔗David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>

🔗Joe Monzo <monz@juno.com>

🔗Joe Monzo <monz@juno.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com