source file: mills2.txt Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 21:25:14 -0700 Subject: Re: Non-octave scales; monkeys banging on ke From: Gary Morrison <71670.2576@compuserve.com> Paul E says: > Although I believe octave equivalence is universally perceived, I think a > lot of interesting music can be made without octaves. From my work with 88CET tuning, I have found that nonoctave tunings are interesting (partly) BECAUSE OF the universal perception of octave-equivalence, rather than IN SPITE OF it. Warren Burt, Paul Fly, and others immediately latched on to this as well, when they played with 88CET. (Let me put in another quick plug for Paul Fly's 88CET "sketches"; they're really neat stuff.) Paul E indirectly mentioned in his post why octave-equivalence makes nonoctave tunings valuable: In an octave-based tuning, each octave's span provides octave-equivalents of the same basic harmonies, whereas in a nonoctave tuning, each octave's span gives you an all new set of harmonies. So the almost universal perception and agreement on the idea of octave equivalence bodes well for nonoctave tunings, because it ensures that they provide more harmonic variety than octave-based tunings (for a given scale-step size). Then again, if you don't buy the idea of octave equivalence, and feel that, for example, a 5:2 M10 sounds fundamentally different from a 5:4 M3, then you'd conclude that octave-based tunings as well nonoctave tunings provide all new harmonies in each octave's span. Received: from eartha.mills.edu [144.91.3.20] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 06:26 +0100 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id VAA12110; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 21:26:12 -0700 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 21:26:12 -0700 Message-Id: <960727042249_71670.2576_HHB66-16@CompuServe.COM> Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu