source file: mills2.txt
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 12:46:40 -0800

Subject: "Just" vs. "Pure" Again

From: Gary Morrison <71670.2576@compuserve.com>

> Perhaps I am missing a more subtle point Gary is trying to make.

   Definitely not.  I read John's post as using "just" and "pure" as exact
synonyms.  I then responded with my opinion that I can see no point in
adding "pure" into the vocabulary soup if the word "just" already has that
meaning.  

   Clearly though John did not in fact intend them as exact synonyms.  I'm
not sure if I follow the distinction he's suggesting between the two. 
Something about diatonic frameworks in particular?  Can you give an example
of a kind of music, tuning, or instrument that you would describe as "just"
but not "pure", or the reverse?  How would you characterize a tuning based
on fragments of the harmonic series in those two terms (i.e., simple WNRs,
but not diatonic)?  

   Or perhaps it's not terribly important in the first place.  

   I'm starting to think it may be best to try to use "untempered", since:
1.  That word, or at least its opposite "tempered", has a specific
historical
    meaning.
2.  As we discovered several months ago, at least one authoritative
dictionary
    (New Harvard) has a strange notion of the meaning of the term "Just 
    Intonation".  (It also uses the word "pure" without defining it, by the

    way.)

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
           with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 00:11 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA06495; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 00:13:54 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA06500
Received: from  by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
	for <manuel.op.de.coul@ezh.nl> id PAA28574; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 15:13:23 -0800
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 15:13:23 -0800
Message-Id: <32CA4259.59FB@ix.netcom.com>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu