source file: mills2.txt Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 21:07:38 +0200 Subject: RE: Why x-ET? From: DFinnamore@aol.com >David, Let's discuss more if you like this topic as much as I. Thanks for the invitation, Paul! This is one of those subjects that never seems to end. Maybe it's too large for any one person to comprehend fully. >...the greater the >number of consonant harmonies you can make out of a small set of pitches and >melodic intervals, the better. >... >a continuous-pitch paradigm is most >desirable. However, individual musical ideas within such a paradigm are >likely to employ simple sets of fixed pitches, .... Brilliant analysis. That's an issue I hadn't thought of at all, even though I have experienced the repercussions of it. It's by far the best reason I have heard for pursuing ETs other than our beloved 12-tone. But I've even found a great deal of pleasure in simple JI scales, usually diatonic. I never try to play music composed for 12t-ET in a JI scale - I can't quite see the point of that. I usually just fiddle till I get the feel of it and know a little about how each member functions, and then improvise. Even with 7-note diatonic JI scales the results tend to be very much more satisfying than with 12t-ET. I'm convinced I'll be able to record some commercially-viable material that way in the near future. "JI - it's not just for theorists anymore!" >Just Intonation has no "puns", or notes >taken in two different senses, and typical JI theory does not admit punning. >... >any single microtonal tuning will, by increasing pitch resources, >lead to an unimaginable new universe of moods and sensations. I think you may have rebutted yourself, there. With all the unexplored possibilities of various tuning systems, who needs puns? Sure, they're helpful for doing certain things. So, do other things - whatever the functions of the tuning at hand provide. Easier said ... ;-) >as long as the ET is _consistent_ within the particular >harmonic limit you are trying to represent, _accurate_ enough to represent >it, and does not have notes too close to each other (34 is just barely OK in >this last respect), the dichotomy between consonance and dissonance is >unambiguous and you have all the benefits of extended harmony enjoyed by JI >of that harmonic limit (I speak of odd-, not prime-number, limits here). A quick set of questions from my ignorance of standard terms: By "34 is just barely OK", do you mean 34 cents? If so are those 100ths of the x th-root, where xof ET divisions of whatever interval; or are "cents" always the 1200th root of the octave? Or perhaps you mean 34t-ET? In any event, a very intriguing point and perspective. However, while you do enjoy the benefits of extended harmony, you still don't enjoy the benefits of heart-stopping in-tune-ness. The first time I played with a Phrygian JI scale I had distilled from a series of prime-number-series-numerator-over-power-of-two-denominator ratios (there's probably a more concise and standard way to indicate that - hopefully you get the drift) I had chills for a week. I had the feeling that it was prompting some sort of "life-force" to well up within me. (Boy, that sound's weird, but I can't think of a better way to describe it.) It's still one of my favorites. I'm not very experienced with ETs other than 12t but, from what I have heard and experimented with, you just can't get that same sort of primal response to the music from an ET-derived scale. The scale I referred to runs thusly: 1:1 (no kidding!), 17:16, 19:16, 4:3, 3:2, 51:32, 57:32. I put the 57:32 on note #11 and add 7:4 on note #10 so I can throw that shocker in where appropriate. The note numbers refer to a 12t keyboard. I found that harp or other ringing plucked-string sounds tend to draw a good vibe out of this scale. >...some non-just tuning, >perhaps even an ET, might be the best way to work out harmonizations and >developments of a given idea. True enough. Depends on the idea. If you start with some seed of a musical scheme that guides you by its nature in the direction of an ET for its best realization, great. That seems a bit self-evident, though. Am I missing your point? I don't suppose you're gonna help Marion make his previous point by saying that most ideas are easier to work out in an ET? In a #1063 posting, I explain in more detail there why I think JI scales are more promising in the long run. >Does the existing [12t-ET] repertoire have enough diversity to provide a >lifetime of listening enjoyment of the most transcendent and sublime sort? I'll never forget the state of mystical transport that I was in after hearing a live performance of Brahm's Requiem when I was in school. I was affected similarly by performing, as part of a choir, Bach's Christmas Oratorio and several pieces by Mendelssohn. But I'm beginning to find that there is even more power in music with "pure," resonant chords and scales. It seems that there is more potential there, and I believe that is because it reflects more closely the way that we are made. As to diversity - I'm torn there. So many musicians seem to have given up on the idea of harmonic originality, choosing the easier route of sonic shock value (e.g., Nirvana). But just when you think you've heard it all, some genius comes up with a gem that was lying right in front of our eyes (or ears) all the time. (Jerry Rafferty's changes, simple as they were - mostly triadic, still blow my mind.) How much longer can that go on? Hard to say. But clearly, we can improve our chances with any system that expands our choices. Just tune it! David J. Finnamore Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sat, 10 May 1997 01:29 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA08687; Sat, 10 May 1997 01:29:24 +0200 Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 01:29:24 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA08713 Received: (qmail 18426 invoked from network); 9 May 1997 23:29:17 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 May 1997 23:29:17 -0000 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu