New thread from Michael

I'll note, as I have in the past, that what people hear as good
and what is considered academically sound often conflict. One
of the most obvious examples is the academics from different
countries or different periods conflicting.

For example "22/15: "In a neomedieval style, subfifths around
16:11 are often substituted for regular fifths close to 3:2"
http://www.bestii.com/~mschulter/IntervalSpectrumRegions.txt

Also, the acute minor seventh around 11/6, which I've found useful
purely by ear, is very near the 729/400 (acute minor seventh, also
Arabic), which I believe functions in the same manner as a seventh
in common practice theory. My ear also guided me toward using the
12/11, which is "blasphemy" in common practice theory, yet quite
common in Arab (and perhaps Persian as well) scales.

Perhaps some of you who've read more about these periods could
jump in and give much more elaborate examples and/or more specific
text as well...I'm just trying to touch the tip of the
iceberg here.

In short, for every so many of the "academic failures" that people
like myself make, there is likely a point in history when such
structures were used.

So it seems many ideas ARE in a way associated with older or
foreign (literally, from other countries) ideas and many "failures
to understand typical theory" may indeed be able to have ties to
such past/foreign theories...and what's wrong with that?
If another country/period can make something "illegal" in the
present sound good, why not use it? At the same time, if something
NOT able to be instantly tied to history sounds good, why not at
least try it (and, perhaps, hand it over to people like those on
this list who can define if such theory does have a not-so-
commonly-known historical basis?) Sophistry, to me, is simply what
happens when people begin saying "this idea is instantly good
because I have X many papers and calculations to back it up
with". This would work if music was primarily a science, thus
involving laws of nature, but it is equally and art and, as such,
can't be quantified the same way. Music theory seems more akin to
proving something is likely to work beyond a reasonable doubt.

So if I have it right Cameron said "Tempering out 81:84 or not is
a very big deal in real life"...and since there is likely no
historical way to prove/disprove this we have to go to surveying
people on the list using un-labelled/"blind" sound examples (IE
where you have to judge dissonance not knowing which sample is
which).

There is nothing wrong with evaluating parts of music
quantitatively (via math, history, or referencing papers)...
but the fact music is art along with science should mean a
good survey of people believe it sounds should be at least
equally weighed in determining a theory as valid/invalid,
correct?