source file: mills2.txt Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:29:32 +0200 Subject: Re: Reply to Paul Hahn From: Paul Hahn On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Paul H. Erlich wrote: >How are they effectively the same? One is the inverse of the other, but are >major and minor triads effectively the same? Well . . . yeah, in many ways. They both have the same number of pitches and the identical interval content. If you were doing a Forte-style set analysis, you damn betcha they'd be considered the same. Of course major and minor triads aren't _identical_, but when we're talking about scale resources, I'd say that the difference between 2)5 and 3)5 dekanies (on the same set of factors) aren't even in the same ballpark as the differences between either one and a 2)6 pentadekany (is that the right term?) or a 3)6 eikosany. I wasn't trying to imply anything more than that. --pH http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote <*> O /\ "Foul? What the hell for?" -\-\-- o "Because you are chalking your cue with the 3-ball." Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:50 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA26558; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:51:23 +0200 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:51:23 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA18916 Received: (qmail 17955 invoked from network); 10 Jul 1997 16:59:14 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Jul 1997 16:59:14 -0000 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu