In a message dated 8/10/1999 10:12:33 PM, A440A@aol.com writes: << t would be closer to my thinking if we change "theory" to "philosophy". My tuning is being done within a philosophy, and with that change, the "limitations" become just another characteristic of the instrument. A feature, if you will, not a bug. >> Ok Ed, I will accept and even applaud this verbiage change, however I did not mean "limitations" in a negative way, only as a statement in fact that some instruments are capable of things that others aren't and vicyversey :-) Perhaps what we have here is an optimist's view of the glass being half full, the pessimist's half empty, and the engineer's view that the vessel is not being properly utilized :-) To harken back to the begining of this thread you said; <<"DeMorgan was a mathematical genius, yet in the 1800's we find him stating that he was *"not against variety in the keys, but there must be some order"*. This doesn't seem to indicate that ET was a goal for him, and this is a person that was very familiar with math, the ratios would not threaten him, *yet he proposes an unequal tuning.*">> Do you base his "proposes an unequal tuning" from this passage or from some other quote? I don't see him "proposing" anything in this passage. Yes you answered the "power' question sorta, kinda .........but I am not sure that the transfer of "buzzes" from evenly spaced in ET to being spaced selectively in a HT equates to more "power" in tonality (ies) rather just in a different presentation. I don't equate a disonant chord juxtaposed with a much less disonant chord as being "power", rather a contrast, perhaps this is what you are also saying and it is from this contrast that the perceived "power" comes?? Jim Bryant (FL)
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC