source file: mills3.txt Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 22:06:00 +0100 Subject: Re: more on indian tuning From: Kraig Grady I understand that the 7 cap intervals are used in erotic ragas almost exclusively. As the flute scales differ from the 5 limit tunings, it has been a common practice of string instruments to interpet these subharmonic scales in terms of their owm tuning. It all gets quite complex when it is quite possible in India (the music knows no borders) that more ancient forms of ragas could coexist with more modern ones, thus explaining further deviation in measured tuning (as in Levy). I can't help thinking of Gagaku where you have Pythagorian tuning along side the winds instruments and mouth organs who do not conform to the kotos. That different tunings might be coexisting side by side. I hope my comments about Europe was taken in humor. Still so much concern is taken with tunings being able to produce the music of the past. The meager solutions to this problem fails to take in the past of all the other cultures as if they are inferior or something. The common practice period cf Western music is barely 300 years old. The music of India dates maybe back 2000. Who deserves the right to be called "classical' !? There is a European conciet that its own music technology is the correct evolutionary direction for everyone. Harmony and counterpoint is what lead to the development to 12 et. There is quite alot of harmony and counterpoint developed upon other lines around the world, just as impressive. The condition that required everyone to play the same tuning is gone for the most part.Recordings replace scores as the main method in which music is shared from region to region. With eletronic a single person can create their own "orchestra". The future holds the decision of a tuning as being an element of the composers craft. Just as no one would expect every artist to paint with the same colors, nor should music makers be so limited. The end of tuning Monotheism is at hand!!! Kraig Grady SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: Johnny Reinhard Subject: Re: No Disrespect PostedDate: 26-12-97 01:21:46 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: 26-12-97 01:19:36-26-12-97 01:19:36,26-12-97 01:19:05-26-12-97 01:19:05 DeliveredDate: 26-12-97 01:19:05 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 C1256579.0001F555; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 01:21:22 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA25721; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 01:21:46 +0100 Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 01:21:46 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA25746 Received: (qmail 29092 invoked from network); 25 Dec 1997 16:21:42 -0800 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Dec 1997 16:21:42 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu