source file: mills2.txt Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 02:08:05 -0800 Subject: Tonality? From: Daniel Wolf <106232.3266@compuserve.com> Where do tuning forum member stand with regard to the issue/idea/concept of _tonality_? When I spoke to a group of JIN members in San Francisco some years back, it was clear that the attraction of many members to JI was specifically because of an interest in finding the best environment in which to project _tonal_ musics. Likewise, many working with non-JI´s analyse, describe, and use those tunings in largely _tonal_ terms. My own music is often tonally ambiguous - or locally tonal, but more complex globally - and I find for analysis that the structures of JI are the most useful maps of pitch relationships in _tonal_ music, even when the intervals have been mapped onto a temperament (in which case, the JI analysis may help to define the characteristics of the temperament required). In any case, the reification of functional _tonality_ has never been my central concern. I presume that I am in the minority, but would like to be corrected if wrong. Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:15 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA21181; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:20:42 +0100 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA30402 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id AAA24715; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 00:20:39 -0800 Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 00:20:39 -0800 Message-Id: <199612030813.AAA12132@netcom16.netcom.com> Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu