source file: mills3.txt Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:02:38 +0200 Subject: Re:deployment From: Carl Lumma I wrote... >The point of [7+ limit] JI is that it offers an expanded compositional model. Mr. Paul H. Erlich replied... >I agree! That's why I'm more interested in 22-tet than 19, 31, or 50-tet. Even tho my comment was about Just Intonation, he continues... >>19, 31, and 50-tet are meantone tunings and thus conform to the compositional >>and notational conventions of the Common Practice era. 22-tet does not, but >>it provides an interesting arena for 7-limit activity. Being more interested >>in exploring new territory than finding better ways of rehashing the same old >>melodies and harmonies, I'm giving 22-tet a try. I believe equal-step tunings are best used not as immitations of just tunings, but as what they are: equal-step tunings. Why? Well, for 22 pitches per duple you can afford an amazingly powerful 7-limit just tuning. But if you choose to use 7-limit JI as the compositional model and tune your instrument to 22 equal, then your reply was appropriate. I also wrote... >then maybe we can be free to appreciate the excellent musicianship that thrives >in every idiom the world over. And Mr. Erlich had replied... >Whoops! I lost your train of thought. Crucial to understading my train of thought was reading the "pop in microtones" message to which I was responding. The jyst of this message was that "pop" musicians sometimes play music written in 12:2 equal with pitches outside of that tuning. My response was on behalf of the fact that this is almost always the case in any style of music, and that the main point of JI is the expanded resources it offers for composition. I said that performers of the future will play music composed in JI with notes outside of the tuning it was written for, without changing that this music will be more powerful than music composed for 12 equal. I was trying to make clear the difference between a compositional model and the nature of performance. After depriving performance of the role that Johnny Reinhard (author of the original "pop in microtones" message) tried to give it, my last statement was to point out that it can be appreciated for what it really is. I hope this was worth it, Carl SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: "Paul H. Erlich" Subject: RE: "Blackwood's proof" PostedDate: 30-09-97 22:34:07 SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu $MessageStorage: 0 $UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH RouteTimes: 30-09-97 22:33:44-30-09-97 22:33:45,30-09-97 22:32:41-30-09-97 22:32:42 DeliveredDate: 30-09-97 22:32:42 Categories: $Revisions: Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256522.0070F0BE; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:33:36 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA02754; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:34:07 +0200 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:34:07 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA02755 Received: (qmail 8870 invoked from network); 30 Sep 1997 13:33:56 -0700 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Sep 1997 13:33:56 -0700 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu