source file: m1401.txt Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:05:03 -0400 Subject: Open letter to Ken Wauchope and Dave Hill From: "Paul H. Erlich" Ken, you appear to agree with me that the "limit" is best defined as the largest odd, not prime, factor, in the ratios, when the intention is to characterize the complexity of an interval's sound. Dave, I know you just joined this forum, but I think your name was mentioned before in that you (or someone named Ralph David Hill?) also believed that it is the odd, not prime, limit, that best characterizes an interval's effect (and affect?). The majority of modern thinkers and writers on this subject appear to be against us. There seems to be a pervasive (mis)conception that, for example, an 81/64 pythagorean major third has some of the "strong/steely" characteristics of the perfect fifth and fourth, while the 5/4 just major third has a different, "sweet/emotional" character. Supposedly, this is due to the "character" of the prime numbers 3 and 5, respectively. To me, this sounds preposterous, as there seems to be no mechanism or reason for the auditory system to be performing prime factorizations. But due to association of certain intervals with the tuning systems in which they occur, a sort of brainwashing seems to have arisen around the prime limit concept. Do you guys agree with me? Shall we have a go at preparing an article or Web page to defend our position?