source file: m1604.txt Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 20:51:26 -0800 Subject: Misc From: Carl Lumma >Like Partch, he realized such Harmonic Constructs were not scales and added >first the 6 pitches of the 9 limit plus the 21/20 and the 16/15 and their >inversions which he No, but like Partch, I recognize that the harmonic and subharmonic series segments contained within the diamond are scales (as you use the term). >Is it too silly to expect that such a work will be realised in 7-limit JI by >operatically trained singers given their irresistible inclination for >vibrato? It is silly to expect opera singers to perform any music with harmonic accuracy. They are trained to deliver melodies, and these before the invention of the amplifier. Try a choir. >I have to disagree here. The word microtonal definitely needs to be on the >front jacket. The tuning email address will mean nothing to 99.9% of our >customers. Only after they buy the cd will they realize its significance. I don't have my copy yet (which I paid for in March), and I wasn't a contributor, but I don't think that either the email address or the word microtonal should be on the cover. Music should stand on its own. >This is a point that should be repeated more often. The early music >community has been intensely engaged with questions of intonation, at least >since Wesley Kuhnle's pioneering efforts in the 1950's. Actually since forever, since no clavichord tuning speciallty has ever existed. The comment was clearly about modern pianos only, since they are the only acoustic keyboard instruments that will hold a tune long enough to make specialist tuners affordable. >no matter how convenient a particular notation may be, no single notation is >neccessary. For example, attempts to standardize Just intonation with >Johnston's or my own or some other notation should be discouraged in favor >of getting players to think flexibly about pitch in general. Brother, I'll agree with this! Carl