MD Coherence and Just Intonation.

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Fri Jun 18 2004 - 00:45:31 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD distinguishing 3rd and 4th level"
  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD (ayurvedic) diet and lifestyle poll"

    Dear forum,
    Here is an extract from http://www.justintonation.net/whatisji.html in
    response to some thoughts presented by Joe.

    In light of its numerous virtues, why isn't Just Intonation currently in
    general use? Like so many of our peculiar customs, it is largely an accident of
    history. During the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, when Western harmonic music
    and keyboard instruments were co-evolving, instrument technologies were
    inadequate to the task of developing affordable, playable instruments that could
    accommodate the intricacies of Just Intonation. As a result, various compromises
    or temperaments were attempted. Twelve-tone equal temperament was ultimately
    adopted because it provided the greatest facility for transposition and
    modulation with the smallest number of tones, and because it made all of the
    intervals of a given type equally out of tune, thus avoiding the contrast between
    in-tune and out-of-tune intervals that characterized some earlier temperaments.

    Equal temperament was not adopted because it sounded better (it didn't then,
    and it still doesn't, despite 150 years of cultural conditioning) or because
    composers and theorists were unaware of Just Intonation. The adoption of
    twelve-tone equal temperament was strictly a matter of expediency. Equal temperament
    allowed eighteenth- and nineteenth-century composers to explore increasingly
    complex harmonies and abstruse modulations, but this benefit was short-lived.
    By the beginning of this century, all of the meaningful harmonic combinations
    in the equally-tempered scale had been thoroughly explored and exploited, and
    many composers believed that consonance, tonality, and even pitch had been
    exhausted as organizing principles. What was really exhausted was merely the
    limited resources of the tempered scale. By substituting 12 equally-spaced tones
    for a universe of subtle intervallic relationships, the composers and theorists
    of the 18th and 19th centuries effectively painted western music into a
    corner from which it has not yet succeeded in extricating itself.

    If Coherence can be induced by the provision of a critically significant
    repertoire of patterns, then we may be in for a new renaissance in music. Just
    intonation may provide that repertoire.
    Already there are synths which can be tuned for just intonation at the flick
    of a switch, and there are composers using them.

    MOQers may like to consider the link between the word 'just' and 'Quality'?
    The old meaning of Just is more concerned with aesthetic appreciation than
    Pythagorean Kosmos.

    While the basic principles of Just Intonation are simple, they are static
    patterns from which tension emerges. At a critical point which cannot be
    predicted, DQ tips the scales in favour of greater freedom for aesthetic appreciation.
    I had occasion to contemplate the scales of justice the other day. These
    scales are always shown to be in balance. Proportion is implied. Order. But this
    notion of order has gained a static orientation which was not originally
    implied: The point where things not only have the greatest freedom, but where
    freedom is aesthetically pleasing - coherence.
    Freedom from patterns and yet freedom in patterns - this is the best state,
    this is the sweet spot.

    Any society or Human relationship which allows freedom within static patterns
    is Just and well ordered - not in a static sense we assume for it today, but
    in the best way for any patterned state to float at ease.

    My reading of Noam Chomsky has me thinking that we need to tune society to a
    new order - not the old way order is recognised, as a hierarchy of privilege,
    but as a place where hierarchy doesn't really exist, because coherence does
    not have a hierarchy, just an aesthetic sense which is very pleasing in all
    respects.

    I hope some find this to be of value, even if i have been a little rambling.

    All the best,
    Mark

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 18 2004 - 01:05:09 BST