source file: mills2.txt Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:12:16 -0800 Subject: Who's Afraid of the Big Bad 9:7?, Part 1 From: Gary Morrison <71670.2576@compuserve.com> This is the first in a series of posts. I'm not sure how many I'll break it down into, but I'll try to keep each short, and easy to digest. Many of you have lived through my endless dronings about 88CET tuning, which has a reasonably close approximation to a 9:7 supramajor third. In connection with that, several people have mentioned over the list, or to me directly, that they find 9:7 irritating, or some similar adjective. At least one list subscriber has also suggested that it sounds more like an off 5:4 than a harmony in its own right. From my 88CET work, I have developed a somewhat different concept of 9:7. But even before I started really experimenting with it, it definitely struck me as an interval with meaning in its own right much more than as an off 5:4. Hopefully these postings will give you some perspectives and tips about how to approach 9:7, so that you and your audiences can appreciate it better for its own special sensation. But before I go on, I suppose I ought to make clear that 9:7 is certainly not relevant only to 88CET tuning. Pierce-Bohlen tuning also has a 9:7 interval approximation, and its approximation is very similar with 88CET's (about 4 cents sharp). There are many other tunings - octave-based or not - that also approximate this interval, such as 11TET, 22TET, 25TET, 33TET, 36TET, 41TET, and 72TET. Next time around I'll give you my first two tips about 9:7s. Received: from eartha.mills.edu [144.91.3.20] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 23:13 +0100 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id OAA21156; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:13:36 -0800 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:13:36 -0800 Message-Id: <0099BDB8EBC9FA63.60BE@ezh.nl> Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu