source file: mills3.txt Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 20:31:49 +0100 Subject: Reply to Gregg Gibson From: gbreed@cix.compulink.co.uk (Graham Breed) > A 19-tone unequal tuning would result in > appreciably more intervallic confusion, given the fact that the 19-tone > equal tuning degree is close to the limen. The semitones in LucyTuning are different enough to both be useful. The chromatic semitone had a mysterious sound that is quite audible. Whether it can be sung accurately is another matter. It is right on the borderline as regards the melodic limen, but I reckon a _good_ singer, with the right training, could manage it. I don't place much importance on this, however, because temperament is only an issue for fixed pitch intruments. The vocals can take care of themselves -- witness rock with 12 equal guitars. > Modulation would also be made > more difficult, and certain consonances would be too deteriorated for > use. No consonant chords are deteriorated in LucyTuning relative to 19 equal. 19 notes will get you a long way, modulation wise. >> Gregg's dislike of non-meantone temperaments is well established. As >> an existentialist, I cannot agree, because I use and will continue to >> use such temperaments. > > What do you mean by existentialist? Do you have a favorite tuning? If > so, why do you value it especially? If you tell me, I will refrain from > sending my Gestapo to stop you from using the temperament or system you > prefer. An existentialist is someone who believes existence precedes essence. Is that clear? Oh, um, well ... In this case, I simply mean that the fact I use such temperaments means that I must approve of them. The justifications I give may not be my real reasons, but it is beyond doubt that such reasons exist. The two temperaments I use most often -- and therefore the ones I must value most highly -- are 31 equal and a schismic fourth mapping. 31 equal needs no introduction, of course. I use a 12 note mapping -to a conventional keyboard, usually with Ab rather than G#. I sometimes use other meantone temperaments with the same mapping. I am fully aware of the simplifications that result with meantone. I prefer 31 equal because of its good septimal approximations. Actually, the second scale (after 12 equal) I ever tuned up is a subset of 19 equal. It is a good way of cutting your meantone teeth, because of the high contrast between different semitones. Now, to the schismic fourth. I outlined this on the list before. To summarise, it uses schismic temperament (a major third is associated with -8 rather than +4 fifths) with 12 steps to a fourth. This is consistent with 29 equal. The actual tuning I use is near enough Pythagorean. This mapping is harder to use than the meantone one, but the advantage is in purer intervals and more melodic sublety. The more I use it, the more I get to like it. Although the harmonies are good, I haven't worked out any chord sequences yet, other than approximations of standard diatonic ones, which require comma shifts. Being able to use such small intervals means you can add an emotional edge not usually possible on a fixed pitch instrument. And, when you want a pure interval, it's really ease to find. If I want, I can get a mistuned affect by hitting the "wrong" keys. Originally, I was tuned to 53 equal. As well as the relatively poor septimal approximations, I didn't like the commas being so small. They have a sort of distressing sound as a result of being barely audible, and can't function melodically. Switching to 41 equal solved both problems. After some theoretical work, though, I found the better approximation. The commas are smaller -- slightly larger than Pythagorean -- but just large enough to be audible. I'm also starting to play with 22 equal, now that I've got a symmetrical keyboard. I have previously used Paul Erlich's 22 note mapping with 46 equal. I gave up on this because I decided the schismic mapping works better, although it has even more notes. I have made some use of 7 and 5 equal, extended just intonations, and various "ethnic" tunings. If acoustic instruments are to be liberated from 12 equal, I suggest they be designed to play in the widest possible variety of tunings, rather than simply adopting a new temperament. The choice of tuning is as personal as orchestration and would, in an ideal world, be available to all composers. I can't see it's at all reasonable to expect the world in general to switch to 19 equal. It may work for wind instruments, as a template from which to bend to 7-limit harmony, but it is too extreme for people to accept it otherwise. By "extreme" I mean relative to 12 equal which has a special place as all other temperaments are, in a sense derived from it. 12 equal is a meantone, schismic and diaschismic scale. As Gregg observed, other scales tend to be melodically confounded with 12 pitch classes. Orchestral instruments incompatible with the repertoire of -- like it or not -- 12 biased music aren't going to catch on. SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: Steven Rezsutek Subject: Re: 19tet vs. meantone? PostedDate: 17-12-97 20:57:18 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: 17-12-97 20:55:13-17-12-97 20:55:13,17-12-97 20:54:51-17-12-97 20:54:52 DeliveredDate: 17-12-97 20:54:52 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 C1256570.006D6B06; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 20:57:04 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA18337; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 20:57:18 +0100 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 20:57:18 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA18340 Received: (qmail 11078 invoked from network); 17 Dec 1997 11:57:17 -0800 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Dec 1997 11:57:17 -0800 Message-Id: <199712171956.OAA10629@doghouse.hq.nasa.gov> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu