Fundamental Principles of Just Intonation and

Microtonal Composition
Thomas Nicholson and Marc Sabat

Universität der Künste Berlin

Studio für Intonationsforschung und mikrotonale Komposition

Contents

1 Tuning as a perceptual practice 2

2 The language of ratios 3

3 Melodic distance 6

4 Microtonal notations 9

5 Commas and enharmonics 16

6 Prime limits 19

7 Consonance and dissonance 23

8 Harmonic distance and intersection 25

9 Equal division tone systems 27

10 Toward a possible music 30

11 Score excerpts 31

Index 43

1
Nicholson/Sabat

1. Tuning as a perceptual practice

Just intonation describes a particular practice of playing “in tune” – namely,
of tuning musical intervals as small number frequency ratios1 to evoke a
distinctive periodic resonance. This harmonic fusion is perceived most clearly
when hearing an aggregate of frequencies tuned according to an harmonic
series. Such a sound more nearly represents the spectrum of a single tone.2
Harmonic fusion is often perceived in naturally occurring acoustic structures
composed of harmonic partials,3 i.e. frequencies, which are whole number
multiples of a single fundamental frequency.4 Such sounds have a salient
pitch and a periodic waveform. The characteristic untempered intervals and
aggregates of harmonic series suggest ways of perceiving and exploring this
fusion sound within musical contexts. These intervals include infinitely many
that are microtonal.5
When two pitches play simultaneously, a listener perceives an interval
– i.e. a specific quality of sound. Each pitch’s timbre is an harmonic series
and its perceived pitch-height is the series’ fundamental. The pitches interact
to produce combination tones.6 As the interval between two fundamental
frequencies approaches a simple ratio, some of their respective partials come
into alignment. This highlights unisons between partials by slowing down
or eliminating the sensation of beating7 and, thereby, focusses the interval’s
characteristic sonority. At the same time, the composite waveform of the
two pitches becomes periodic, and produces a virtual fundamental called the
periodicity pitch. Such special relationships seem, therefore, to be “tuned”
and possess a recognisable periodic signature. This perceived quality may be
correlated to the unique pattern of frequency differences between the combined
partials of both pitches, which repeats at multiples of the interval’s least
common partial.8
1. Frequencies are perceived proportionally, i.e. a constant ratio of two frequencies is heard
as a constant musical interval.
2. See Section 7 for further discussion.
3. Partials are individual frequency components of a single sound. Inharmonic partials do
not necessarily follow the harmonic series (e.g. the vibration of a drumhead or cymbal).
4. The harmonic partials of a fundamental frequency f are equal to f, 2f, 3f, 4f, etc.
5. This term is generally applied to any interval smaller than a wholetone, which is not one
of the familiar semitones.
6. Combination tones (summation tones and difference or Tartini tones) are frequencies
caused by nonlinear interference between simultaneous vibrations in a medium. The combination
tones of two frequencies f1 and f2 take the form |(a × f1 ) + (b × f2 )|, where a and b are positive
or negative integers.
7. As the frequency difference between two pitches approaches zero, pulsating changes of
loudness called acoustic beats are perceived.
8. The least common partial is the lowest frequency that is an harmonic partial of both

2
Nicholson/Sabat

Harmonic fusion and periodic signatures are produced by intervals that

are part of an harmonic series and may, therefore, be represented by a ratio
of whole numbers. For example, the interval of the octave-reduced natural
seventh, e.g. 220 Hz to 385 Hz, is clearly discernible. The upper frequency
relates to the lower in the same way that the seventh harmonic relates to the
fourth harmonic – i.e. by the fraction 74 .

7
220 Hz × = 385 Hz
4
Similarly, to determine the harmonic relationship between two known
frequencies (in this case 220 Hz and 385 Hz), they may be divided by their
greatest common divisor or GCD (here 55), thereby reducing the ratio to
lowest terms. This simplified ratio serves as the interval’s most accurate
identification and, at the same time, defines one pitch in terms of another.

385 Hz ÷ 55 7
=
220 Hz ÷ 55 4

2. The language of ratios

Composer Harry Partch (1901–1974) developed a method of working with
pitches expressed as ratios,9 measuring intervals from a single reference,
written in the form 11 . The reference Partch chose for his scale was G3 392
Hz, although any frequency may be used as a reference. Since the pitch A4
is commonly used as a tuning reference for orchestral and chamber playing,
it is perhaps the most convenient standard 11 for instrumental just intonation
composition. In the following examples, the fractions may be thought of as
pitches in this sense.
To combine two pitches, their ratios are multiplied.

b d
×
a c
To reduce the product to lowest terms, the numerator and denominator are
each divided by the their greatest common divisor (GCD).
To find the interval between two pitches, the larger ratio is divided by the
smaller and the result reduced.

b d
÷
a c
pitches.
9. In his book Genesis of a Music, Partch calls this system Monophony or the language of
ratios.

3
Nicholson/Sabat

To divide two fractions, the first is multiplied by the reciprocal of the second.

b d b c
÷ ≡ ×
a c a d
To transpose a pitch up (or down) by one octave, its frequency is doubled
(or halved). To transpose a pitch upward by any number of octaves y, its
frequency is multiplied by 2y . To transpose downward, its frequency is divided
by 2y . As above, this is equivalent to multiplying by the reciprocal 21y or 2−y .
As an example, to transpose the lowest A of the piano to the highest,10 its
frequency is multiplied by seven octaves (27 ).

27.5 Hz × 27 ≡ 27.5 Hz × 128 = 3520 Hz

Intervals may be conceived of in two ways depending on which of the two
pitches is taken as reference. If the lower pitch is the reference, the interval
is written as a fraction greater than 1, e.g. 32 (A4 in relation to D4). If the
higher pitch is the reference, the interval is written as a fraction between 0
and 1, e.g. 23 (D4 in relation to A4). Note that frequency ratios are always
ratios of positive numbers.
Pitches as well as intervals may be expressed in the form of fractions ab .
When pitches are sounded successively, their interval may be called melodic.
Melodic intervals and aggregates of three or more pitches (chords, melodies)
are sometimes more conveniently expressed as a proportion.

a : b : c : ...
If an harmonic series is a fundamental frequency multiplied by whole
numbers {1,2,3,...,n}, a subharmonic series is a common partial frequency
divided by {1,2,3,...,n}. This is equivalent to multiplying by the reciprocals of
the whole numbers { 11 , 12 , 13 ,..., n1 }. The result is an inverted harmonic series,
which has the same sequence of intervals projected successively downward.
The subharmonic series’ application to music is often criticised because it is
not a “naturally occurring” psychoacoustic structure – i.e., it is not a perceived
phenomenon of harmonic auditory cognition like fusion, periodic signature,
or timbre. It is, nevertheless, a useful musical model, as compositions of Ben
Johnston (b. 1926) exemplify.11
10. This calculation ignores the common practice of tuning octaves on pianos slightly wider
than the ratio 1:2 (stretch tuning). This accomodates the slight inharmonicity of the instrument’s
metal strings, which are actually too short and thick for the frequencies needed.
11. In particular, Johnston’s string quartets, e.g. Nos. 5, 6, and 7, work with serial trans-
formations (prime, retrograde, inversion, retrograde inversion). These are applied to melodic
material tuned in just intonation, harmonised by harmonic or subharmonic series pitch-class

4
Nicholson/Sabat

The various nodes of a single natural harmonic played upon an open string
follow the subharmonic series downward. For example, the 7th partial may
be played at nodes located at 17 , 27 , 37 , 47 , 57 , and 67 of the string length; these
pitches, when stopped, produce a subharmonic series below the 7th partial. As
well, the valves of brass instruments, when tuned proportionally to the main
tube length and to each other, generate a subharmonic series of fundamentals
above which the players can produce harmonic series.
Partch generally wrote pitches in “normalised” form – i.e. reduced to
the octave between 11 and 21 . Intervals greater than the octave are divided by
the appropriate power of 2 and reduced to lowest terms. For example, the
perfect eleventh 83 exceeds the octave 21 by a perfect fourth 43 . The following
demonstrates this normalisation procedure.

8 8 1
÷2≡ ×
3 3 2

8 1 8
× =
3 2 6

GCD(8, 6) = 2

8÷2 4
=
6÷2 3

4
1≤ ≤2
3

Partch defined harmonic series pitch aggregates ( 11 , 21 , 31 ,...) as otonal struc-

tures. Following the idea of harmonic dualism,12 he defined parallel subhar-
monic series pitch aggregates ( 11 , 12 , 13 ,...) as utonal structures. Distinct13
normalised otonal and utonal ratios up to the 11th partial form six-note con-
stellations that he called hexads –
subsets. These transformations translate between harmonic and subharmonic structures.
12. Harmonic dualism is an attempt to symmetrically explain major/minor tonality, as ex-
pressed in theoretical works by Rameau, Tartini, Oettingen, Riemann, et al.
13. Since even number partials are octave transpositions of lower partials, only the odd partials
produce new pitch classes.

5
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 1: Harry Partch’s tonality diamond, which also served as the layout of his Diamond
Marimba.

1 3 5 7 9 11
: : : : : ≡ otonal
1 2 4 4 8 8
and

1 4 8 8 16 16
: : : : : ≡ utonal
1 3 5 7 9 11
– interlocked to form a “tonality diamond”. With this construction, based
on a model devised by Max F. Meyer (1873–1967), Partch invented a just
intonation tone system and conceived of a musical instrument using this layout,
which he called the Diamond Marimba.

3. Melodic distance
It is useful to have a method of comparing the “absolute sizes” of various
intervals, or their melodic distances from 11 . Given two intervals written as
fractions, it is not immediately clear which one is lesser or greater, nor to what
extent, since their difference is only determined by dividing their ratios.
The proportional comparison of intervals or any perceived phenomenon is
described in the science of psychophysics by two principles called Weber’s Law
and Fechner’s Law, defined by Gustav Theodor Fechner (1801–1887). They
were first published in his book Elemente der Psychophysik, which established
the interdisciplinary study of how humans perceive the relative degree of

6
Nicholson/Sabat

physical magnitudes according to a quasi-logarithmic scale. He formulated

the concept of Just Noticeable Difference or JND, which refers to the smallest
change in a stimulus that may be perceived.
A logarithmic scale of finely-grained equal divisions may provide a “ruler”
against which all intervals may be measured. Octave transpositions of a
frequency have the unique quality of often being perceived as the same “note”,14
so the simplest approach is to base this scale of measurement on equal divisions
of the octave 21 , though this is to some extent an arbitrary choice.15
Since intervals are compounded by multiplication of their ratios, an equal
division of the octave into n parts, expressed as a ratio, is the nth root of 2,
where n is the number of divisions.
√ 2
( 2)n =
n

1
Most equal-division intervals are irrational because they are expressed by
means of radicals and may not be reduced to simple whole number fractions.16
Pitches that are irrationally related are not tuned in just intonation. There-
fore, their composite waveform is not periodic and there is no common funda-
mental. A geometric progression is, however, useful for comparing intervals
as its spacing is perceived as smooth and even.
12-tone equal temperament17 is an example of a scale of equal divisions.
Each step, called an equal-tempered semitone, is equivalent to the 12th-root
1
of 2, which may also be expressed as 2 raised to the power of 12 .
√
12 1
2 or 2 12
The ratio Rn of an equal-tempered interval comprised of n semitones is thus
the ratio of one semitone, raised to the power n.

1 n
Rn = (2 12 )n = 2 12
For instance, the wholetone is comprised of two semitones.

n 1
(2 12 )2 = 2 6
14. A property called octave equivalence.
15. Other tunings divide different intervals. The Bohlen-Pierce scale, for example, comprises
13 equal divisions of the perfect twelfth ( 31 ).
16. An exception would be an interval that is an integer power of a fraction, e.g. the interval
64

3
27
, which is 43 , may be divided into 3 parts, each being 43 .
17. An equal temperament may be referred to as an ED2 (or EDO) – equal division of the
octave. In this paper, “equal-tempered” refers to 12-ED2 unless otherwise specified. See
Section 9 for further discussion.

7
Nicholson/Sabat

Equivalently, for any ratio R, the number of comprised semitones nsemitones

may be calculated. For any interval outside the 12-ED2 gamut, this value will
not be a whole number.

12 × log2 (R) = nsemitones (1)

Mathematician Alexander J. Ellis (1814–1890) proposed the division of
each semitone into very small, equal units of measure, i.e. to the extent that
the human ear would be, for the most part, insensible to slight deviations
from exact ratios.18 By dividing each semitone into 100 units called cents, the
octave is pixelated into an equal division scale of 1200 parts, each equivalent
to the 1200th-root of 2. The general formula for a ratio’s size in cents ncents
results if 1200 is substituted for 12 in the previous expression.

1200 × log2 (R) = ncents (2)

For most listeners, the JND is less than 10 cents,19 though this depends
on frequency, amplitude, and timbre, as well as previous experience. JND
also becomes smaller when heard in a harmonic context, as many intervals –
especially small number ratios such as the octave and the fifth – are particularly
sensitive to tuning deviations, which are manifested by acoustical beats caused
by slightly mistuned partials and/or combination tones.
Various other systems of logarithmic measure for musical intervals have
been proposed. These include Joseph Sauveur’s mérides (43-ED2), closely re-
lated to the 15 -comma meantone temperament used in France at the time, which
he further subdivided into eptamérides (301-ED2) and decamérides (3010-
ED2).20 Arthur von Oettingen (1836–1920), following a proposal by English
scientist Sir John Herschel (1792–1871), used millioctaves (1000-ED2).
The MIDI standard defined various microtonal pitch deviations applicable to
digitally controlled musical instruments – e.g., the 14-bit pitch bend value can
be applied to an arbitrary interval measured in 12-ED2, dividing it into 16384
equal parts.21
18. Hermann von Helmholtz, On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the
Theory of Music, Second English Edition, trans. Alexander J. Ellis (New York: Dover, 1954),
p. 431.
19. The authors can attest to melodic discrimination as fine as 2 cents in the register around
260 Hz (middle C4) and harmonic discrimination < 0.1 cent with computer generated harmonic
spectra or three-tone sinewave chords presented in the ratio f1 : (f1 + f2 )/2 : f2 by matching
difference tones.
20. Joseph Sauveur (1653–1716) was a French mathematician, physicist and a founder of
the science of musical acoustics.
21. midi.org, The MIDI 1.0 Specification, https://www.midi.org/specifications-old/item/the-
midi-1-0-specification, 1982.

8
Nicholson/Sabat

If the octave is divided into a whole number of equal units, then they
cannot be whole number ratios. Conversely, if an octave is divided into just
intonation intervals, they must be unequal and incommensurate. In this sense,
the particular complexities of just intonation and equal temperaments are
inversely related to each other.22

4. Microtonal notations
The Western five-line staff notation is fundamentally Pythagorean23 and
diatonic. The diatonic notes A through G divide each octave into five wholetones
and two diatonic semitones.
The ancient Greek Greater Perfect System begins, from lowest to highest
note, with a wholetone followed by two conjunct tetrachords. Each rising
tetrachord, when tuned diatonically,24 consists of a diatonic semitone followed
by two wholetones. This system was represented in De institutione musica
by Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (477–524) in the form of a diagram
using the successive letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc. (Figure 2), which came
to be used as diatonic note names. The distinction between the conjoined

octave was notated using two forms of B – molle, written as � and durum,
and disjoined third tetrachords synemmenon and diezeugmenon in the second

written as � (eventually becoming B e and B n). These eight notes comprise

the musica vera gamut.

Figure 2: Boethius’ labelling in De institutione musica of the diatonic notes as a progression

of letters.

Transpositions of the diatonic semitones B–C and E–F are written by

means of the additional “accidentals” e and v, the second of which was intro-
duced by Marchetto da Padova in the 1300s: e.g. A–B e and F v–G.25 The
naming of intervals – unison, second, third, etc., and their “enharmonic alter-
22. An in-depth discussion of this topic may be found in Easley Blackwood’s book The Structure
of Recognizable Diatonic Tunings. For further analysis of equal-division tone systems see
Section 9.
23. “Pythagorean” refers to intervals combining only the primes 2 and 3.
24. In Greek theory, the tetrachords are divided into diatonic, chromatic, and enharmonic
divisions of the perfect fourth and are generally given in descending order of pitch.
25. Karol Berger, Musica ficta: Theories of accidental inflections in vocal polyphony from
Marchetto da Padova to Gioseffo Zarlino (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p.
22.

9
Nicholson/Sabat

ations”, i.e. diminished and augmented intervals – are based on this notation.
The structure is Pythagorean since Be and Fv correct the intervals at both
ends of the diatonic chain to continue the series of perfect fifths indefinitely in
both directions.

(B e) – F – C – G – D – A – E – B – (F v)

Over the course of several hundred years, the Pythagorean consonances

(octave, fourth, fifth) came to be complemented in the practice of vocal music
by various imperfect consonances (major/minor thirds and sixths sung as small
number ratios).
In Harmonics, Claudius Ptolemy (ca. 100–170) provided string lengths
for an entire octave tuned in his tense diatonic “genus” – 60, 66 23 , 75, 80,
90, 100, 112 12 , 120.26 These correspond to a descending scale with the
following melodic frequency ratios – 10:9, 9:8, 16:15, 9:8, 10:9, 9:8, 16:15.
Whenever two wholetones occur in succession, they are of two different sizes
and together comprise the ratio 54 , called the Ptolemaic major third.27 Tuned as
Ptolemaic intervals, thirds and sixths differ from their dissonant Pythagorean
counterparts by the interval 8180 , known as the syntonic comma (κ5 = 21.51
cents).28

As Ptolemaic intervals entered into common practice among musicians, they

gradually became accepted by theorists in descriptions of monochord tunings.29
Gioseffo Zarlino (1517–1590) is credited with introducing the Ptolemaic tense
diatonic as a basis for music theory. He expanded the Pythagorean definition
of consonances to the senario, which comprised proportions drawn from the
numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. In particular, he described the two different
melodic divisions of the Ptolemaic major third, although he did not take the
further step of introducing an explicit notation of this difference.
Experimental keyboards tuned in just intonation were explored by Zarlino
and, among others, Francisco de Salinas (1513–1590),30 but the necessity for
26. Andrew Barker, Greek Musical Writings, Volume II: Harmonic and Acoustic Theory
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 350.
27. “Ptolemaic” refers to intervals combining only the primes 2, 3, and 5.
28. In this article, the Greek letter κ stands for comma (cf. Section 5) and the numerical
subscript refers to its relevant prime dimension. The “main” commas of each dimension (e.g.
the Pythagorean comma, the syntonic comma, the septimal comma, etc.) have been given this
numerical notation (i.e. κ3 , κ5 , κ7 , etc.) while other commas are assigned subscripts that relate
to their traditional naming (e.g. skhisma = κsk ).
29. Bartolomé Ramos de Pareja, Musica practica (?Bologna: Baltasar de Hiriberia, 1482), p.
5.
30. Patrizio Barbieri, Enharmonic Instruments and Music 1470–1900 (Rome: Il Levante
Libreria Editrice, 2008), pp. 30–33.

10
Nicholson/Sabat

additional keys and complex multi-rank layouts inhibited the general adoption
of such instruments. Instead, various keyboard temperaments arose to better
approximate these new sounds.31 The so-called sistema partecipato (meantone
system), which divides the syntonic comma geometrically in four equal parts,
became standard practice. Each perfect fifth is deliberately narrowed by 14 κ5
so that four successive fifths produce a Ptolemaic, rather than Pythagorean,
major third. These new pitches may still be represented using conventional
notation since the standard meantone tuning encompasses only twelve notes
(the series of fifths from E e through G v). On the other hand, extended meantone
instruments with split black keys distinguishing the difference of a lesser diesis
128 32 e.g. the cembalo cromatico,
125 (κld = 41.06 cents) between sharps and flats,
did also achieve a certain measure of success in Italy and, though rare, continue
to be built today.
The Pythagorean wholetone is the difference between the perfect fifth and
the perfect fourth.

3 4 9
÷ =
2 3 8
Two successive Pythagorean wholetones produce the Pythagorean ditone (or
major third).

9 9 81
× =
8 8 64
 
81
1200 × log2 = 407.82 cents
64

If A is tuned to 0 cents, this Pythagorean F a ditone below will be tuned -8

cents in relation to equal-tempered F.33
√ 
3
1200 × log2 2 = 400 cents
The Pythagorean ditone is larger than the Ptolemaic major third by a syntonic
comma.

81 5 81
÷ =
64 4 80
31. A complete discussion of the historical development of organ and other keyboard tempera-
ments falls outside the scope of this article. Excellent discussions of the topic may be found in
J. Murray Barbour’s Tuning and temperament and Klaus Lang’s Auf Wohlklangswellen durch
der Töne Meer.
32. See Section 5.
33. Cents are usually indicated on an electronic tuner in relation to 12-ED2.

11
Nicholson/Sabat

The Ptolemaic F below A will, therefore, be tuned 22 cents higher than the
Pythagorean F and 14 cents higher than equal-tempered F.
 
5
1200 × log2 = 386.31 cents
4
Another way of considering the implications of this comma is to observe
that the Ptolemaic major third is comprised of of two different intervals, a
major wholetone and a minor wholetone.

9 10 5
× =
8 9 4
Meantone systems compromise the difference between q
these two wholetones
by establishing a single irrational meantone with ratio 54 .
In order to clarify the relationship between interval and notation, many
special accidental systems have been devised. Nicola Vicentino (1511–1575)
notated the lesser diesis with a dot above the note and a 14 κ5 alteration with a
comma (Figure 3) to differentiate two different tuning systems he proposed
for his archicembalo.34 Zarlino suggested × as a symbol for the lesser diesis
(Figure 4) in Le istitutioni harmoniche (1558). Vicente Lusitano (d. after
1561) divided the wholetone in 9 “commas” and notated them with vari-
ous numbers of strokes to show different amounts of sharpening35 (Figure
5). Giuseppe Tartini (1692–1770) introduced a new symbol for the natural
seventh 74 (Figure 6 and Figure 7) in his Trattato di musica (1754).
A century later, Oettingen, Moritz Hauptmann (1792–1868), as well as
Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894) advocated for the explicit notation of
the syntonic comma to pursue an adoption of Ptolemaic just intonation rather
than the 12-ED2 system, which was gaining popularity through the industrial
production and distribution of pianos.
In the beginning of the twentieth century, Partch devised several systems
of accidentals before finally adopting a ratio-based tablature notation for his
instruments. The early twentieth century also saw the emergence of various
ways of notating equal divisions of a tone. These include the well-known quar-
tertone symbols that were introduced by Richard Heinrich Stein (1882–1942)
as well as the accidental systems of Ivan Wyschnegradsky (1893–1979)
(Figure 8), Alois Hába (1893–1973), and numerous other twentieth century
composers. Especially unique is the compact one-line notation of Julián Car-
34. Nicola Vicentino, L’antica musica ridotta alla moderna prattica (Venice: Antonio Barre,
1555).
35. Vicente Lusitano, Introduttione facilissima, et novissima, di canto fermo, figurato, con-
traponto semplice, et in concerto (Rome: Antonio Blado, 1553).

12
Nicholson/Sabat

rillo (1875–1965) for any equal-division system, representing pitch classes

by ordinal numbers (Figure 9).
It has become common among microtonal composers and theorists who do
not wish to use a microtonal notation to notate the closest 12-ED2 analogue
of a pitch and include an indication in cents of its deviation. In some cases,
however, this approach suggests enharmonic36 substitutions based on the
logic of 12-ED2 (and derivates thereof, like 24-ED2 and 72-ED2) that falsify
intervallic relations implied by traditional notation.
More recently, composers are developing and using notations that encode
an interval’s information symbolically, which may optionally be combined
with cent deviation indications. Examples include Ben Johnston’s notation,
the Extended Helmholtz-Ellis JI Pitch Notation (HEJI) by Marc Sabat (b.
1965) and Wolfgang von Schweinitz (b. 1953), as well as Sagittal Notation
by George Secor (b. 1943) and David Keenan (b. 1959).37
In the remainder of this article, musical examples of just intonation are
notated using HEJI (see Table 1 in the next section for a legend of the symbols).

Figure 3: Vicentino’s dot and comma notation demonstrating the almost just 87 septimal
wholetone and the just 65 minor third that results from raising the meantone minor third by
1
κ .
4 5

36. See Section 5.

37. Information on HEJI Notation can be found at www.marcsabat.com and information
on Sagittal Notation can be found at www.sagittal.org. Information about Ben Johnston’s
notation can also be found on Marc Sabat’s website in an article titled “On Ben Johnston’s
Notation and the Performance Practice of Extended Just Intonation” (2009).

13
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 4: Zarlino’s notation of the chromatic and enharmonic tetrachords using crosses.

Figure 5: Lusitano’s cross and stroke notation. Each stroke represents one “comma”. The
engraved example is a Ptolemaic interpretation of Lusitano’s harmonisation of the melodic
diesis.

Soprano  o u  S  n m

n n  t f m
Alto  n

Tenore  n t o u  S  n 

Basso

n n n n n

14
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 6: Tartini notated the natural seventh with an symbol that looks like an inverted “7”.

Figure 7: Tartini composed figured bass examples demonstrating the septimal enharmonic
mode and the natural seventh treated as a consonance, melodically rising.

Figure 8: Excerpt from Wyschnegradsky’s Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra (1930).

15
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 9: Carrillo used a tablature notation for microtonal intervals, as in Preludio a Cristobal
Colón (1922) shown here.

Figure 10: Notation of (a) the Pythagorean major third [or ditone] and (b) the Ptolemaic major
third between the notes A and F in various just intonation accidental systems.

Ben Johnston HEJI Sagittal

 -  - -  - - n nn  n n  n nn o      

(a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b)

 

5. Commas and enharmonics

In a strict Pythagorean interpretation of the conventional staff notation, the
enharmonic interval of a diminished second between A e–G v or any transposi-
tion thereof is called the Pythagorean comma 531441 e
524288 (κ3 = 23.46 cents). A is
one comma lower than G v. In 4 κ5 meantone temperament the ratio 4 is just
1 5

and, consequently, the same difference of spelling is called the lesser diesis.
Note that, in this case, A e is one diesis higher than G v.

Figure 11: The fact that the same notation has been used historically in the two ways shown
below has led to commonly held uncertainties about the contextual intonation of flats and sharps.

Pythagorean just intonation

   n n v v v e n n
v e
meantone
e
 e  e e n n n n n

Staff notation does not normally differentiate between these two visually
identical representations of two different enharmonic intervals because it is
fundamentally one-dimensional. It may be understood to represent intervals
based on multiples of the prime number 3 or intervals based on multiples of

16
Nicholson/Sabat

the prime number 5, but not combinations of both. To accurately depict multi-
dimensional harmonic space, individual notes of the Pythagorean series of
fifths, based on prime number 3, must be altered by various explicitly notated
commas to represent interval ratios based on primes 5, 7, etc. and their
combinations – i.e. additional symbols must be introduced.
Enharmonics are defined as differences of spelling, which may or may not
involve (small) differences of intonation, depending on the tone system used.
Commas are defined as (small) differences of intonation, occurring between
enharmonics or between different microtonal variants of a single note.
Enharmonic differences do not necessarily constitute differences of into-
nation (e.g. E and F e in 12-ED2). In just intonation, however, enharmonic
differences of spelling are always separated by the interval of some comma.

Figure 12: Lesser diesis between G t and A f around Pythagorean C n notated in just intonation.
Each arrow represents a raising or lowering of the Pythagorean notes by one syntonic comma.
Note that the Ptolemaic diatonic semitone 1615
(c) comprises the minor chroma 25 24
(a) and the
128
lesser diesis 125 (b). See the Lusitano example in Section 4 for a contrapuntal setting of these
microtonal intervals.

m n t f 
 f n
(a) (b)

(c)

Table 1 presents comma notations introduced by HEJI for primes up to 31.

Most alterations affect the basic Pythagorean pitch classes. Note, however,
that both κ17 and κ29 affect the 5-dimension to notate the 17th and 29th
partials respectively, modifying the commonly occurring Ptolemaic ratios 16 15
and 95 . In addition, κ31 is applied to the 11-dimension to notate the 31st partial,
modifying the undecimal quartertone 33 32 . Refer to Figure 16 in the next section
to see how these accidentals are used to notate the first 32 partials of the
harmonic series.
Since each prime requires its own comma, combining primes compounds
their respective comma notations. For instance, the 35th partial (5 × 7) is
lowered by two commas – syntonic (κ5 ) and septimal 64 63 (κ7 = 27.26 cents).

81 64 36
× =
80 63 35

17
Nicholson/Sabat

Table 1: HEJI Notation.

Prime Otonal Notation Utonal Notation Comma Deviation (cents)

lowers / raises by
3 EenvV Pythagorean apotome 113.69
( 2187
2048
)
DdmuU FfowW
lowers / raises by
5 CcltT GgpxX syntonic comma 21.51
81
(κ5 = )
BbksS HhqyY 80

< > lowers / raises by

7 septimal comma 27.26
, . (κ7 = 64
)
63

raises / lowers by
11 4 5 undecimal 14 -tone 53.27
33
(κ11 = 32
)
lowers / raises by
13 0 9 tridecimal 13 -tone 65.34
27
(κ13 = 26
)
lowers / raises by
17 : ; 17-limit skhisma 6.78
256
(κ17 = 255
)
raises / lowers by
19 / * 19-limit skhisma 3.38
513
(κ19 = 512
)
raises / lowers by
23 3 6 23-limit comma 16.54
736
(κ23 = 729
)
raises / lowers by
29 ` @ 29-limit comma 11.98
145
(κ29 = 144
)
lowers / raises by
31 - + 31-limit skhisma 1.69
1024
(κ31 = 1023
)

18
Nicholson/Sabat


Figure 13: Notation of the 35th partial – the 7th partial of the 5th partial, or, equivalently,


the 5th partial of the 7th partial – of the lowest note on the piano (A0).


<m35°

 u
1° 5°

n


Xenharmonic Wiki38 lists nearly 100 named commas ranging from 3.5 to
100 cents. There are as many commas as there are ways to tune any given
interval. Because of this, JI notation can sometimes become unwieldy to read,
e.g. when using more than three symbols in HEJI. One approach is simply to
avoid such situations by limiting the harmonic space. Another possibility is to
make an enharmonic leap, joining two points that nearly coincide. This may
simplify the spelling by means of a small pitch jump and thereby facilitate a
recentering of the harmonic space.

Figure 14: Excerpt from BRANCH: Plainsound Trio by Thomas Nicholson.

A movement through eight descending Pythagorean perfect fifths from the

note A reaching D e differs by one skhisma (κsk = 531441
524288 = 1.95 cents) from
the C u tuned as the fifth partial of the original note A (see Figure 15). This
very small interval may serve as a useful “connection” between Pythagorean
and Ptolemaic as will be discussed in the following section.
38. http://en.xen.wiki

19
Nicholson/Sabat


Figure 15: Construction of the skhisma (a) between the notes D e and C u.

n  n
 n n 

 n e e u
(a) 5°/A0

n e e n
 e 

6. Prime limits
Pieces of music are traditionally said to share a common form when they
have similar large-scale temporal characteristics (e.g., minuet, rondo, sonata,
moment-form, etc.). Analogous categorisations have been made with regard
to the local temporal characteristics denoted by proportional rhythm39 (e.g.,
mensuration, hemiola, polyrhythm, metric modulation etc.) and may also be
applied to the “micro-temporal” properties of tuning structures.40 Partch
introduced the concept of prime limit – the largest prime number used to
generate intervals comprising a given tone system.
Prime limit categorisation allows a listener to know something about the
type and degree of tuning complexity of a piece of music and how the tuning
compares to that of other pieces. The specific prime numbers in a ratio deter-
mine its sonority because each prime generates a distinctive new interval. It
is, therefore, useful to return to the harmonic series to consider each prime’s
intervals in relation to the other partials.
39. Henry Cowell, New Musical Resources (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930), Part II:
Rhythm.
40. Ben Johnston, Maximum Clarity and Other Writings on Music, ed. Bob Gilmore (Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 2006), “Scalar Order as a Compositional Resouce” (1965).

20

Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 16: The first 32 partials of the harmonic series of A0 notated in HEJI.

 n 0v < u n

   n n u  4 
1° 2° 3° 4° 5° 6° 7° 8° 9° 10° 11° 12° 13° 14° 15° 16°

 n u n <
n n n


n t 0v v < `o u -5  n 

 :f n / u < 4 3v
17° 18° 19° 20° 21° 22° 23° 24° 25° 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° 31° 32°

The sound of intervals related as multiples or powers of the same prime

factor(s) share common characteristics and intonation. For example, the 15th
partial combines with the 5th partial and the 3rd partial to create a minor
triad 10:12:15 that complements the major triad 4:5:6 by inverting the order
of the two Ptolemaic thirds 54 and 65 . Prime limit informs a listener about the
constrained collection of ways intervals may be tuned in a given context.
2-limit just intonation only allows for octave transpositions of a single tone.
3-limit (Pythagorean) just intonation additionally allows for the perfect fifth
and its inversion41 (i.e. the perfect fourth) as well as their powers (stacks of
fifths and fourths), filling in the frequency range with different notes. 5-limit
(Ptolemaic) just intonation supplements the Pythagorean pitch space with pure
major and minor thirds and their inversions (i.e. pure major and minor sixths).
Each step in the Ptolemaic dimension generates a new set of Pythagorean
pitches offset by a syntonic comma.42
To better visualise this concept, it is possible to draw a Tonnetz or lattice
diagram in the manner devised by Leonhard Euler (1707–1783).
41. The inversion of an interval ab is the octave complement 2 ÷ ab ≡ 2a
b
.
42. Every new prime number generates its own dimension by combining with each of the
previous primes to replicate the lower prime limit harmonic space offset by a new comma.

21
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 17: 5-limit lattice diagram from the string quartet Euler Lattice Spirals Scenery (2011)
by Marc Sabat.

As defined previously in Figure 15, an enharmonic connection exists be-

tween the 3- and 5-limit that allows for a good approximation of consonant
5-limit triads by means of exclusively 3-limit ratios with a small error equal
to κsk . In Ellis’ description of this construction, which he calls skhismatic
temperament,43 he extends the Pythagorean series, stating that

[t]he condition is that the Fifths should be perfect and the Skhisma should
be disregarded.
... Having an English Concertina (which has 14 notes) tuned in perfect
Fifths from G e to C v ..., I have been able to verify ... that, although
A–C v–E [and] E–G v–B are horrible chords, A–D e–E [and] E–A e–B
are quite smooth and pleasant.

Ellis’ “temperament”, which is actually an enharmonic extension of Pythagorean

intonation, may be constructed by tuning the perfect fifth C–G as 2:3 and
projecting a series of six perfect fifths upward from G as well as six perfect
fifths downward from C. By extending this system to ten fifths upward from G
and ten downward from C, one arrives at the tuning of the 22 Indian śrutis
proposed by Pichu Sambamoorthi (1901–1973).44
The term just intonation commonly refers to the 5-limit. Johnston uses the
term extended just intonation45 to refer to the inclusion of primes greater than
5. From these prime limits onward (7, 11, 13, etc.), timbral nuances and the
43. Helmholtz, On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music, p.
435.
44. cf. Wolfgang von Schweinitz’s transcription of Sambamoorthi’s text and diagrams at
http://www.plainsound.org/pdfs/srutis.pdf.
45. Johnston, Maximum Clarity and Other Writings on Music, p. 203.

22
Nicholson/Sabat

possibilities for new intervals and chords become compositionally boundless.

The 7-limit has a strong fusion sonority and remains, to a certain degree,
intuitive, as the natural seventh 74 is often used by Barbershop quartets and,
occasionally, by brass instruments to tune dominant seventh chords. As well,
the 7-limit may be heard in jazz music as an intonation of melodic “blue notes”.
In his innovative and ongoing work The Well-Tuned Piano, La Monte Young
(b. 1935) uses primes 2, 3, and 7, but excludes 5 because of its historical
connotations.46 11- and 13-limit tunings47 open up the worlds of precisely
tuned quarter- and thirdtones, which, to date, have primarily been explored in
melodic contexts, e.g. in Arabic and Persian modal traditions.
Many composers have been interested in exploring the degree to which
prime limit may be extended before harmonic nuances become effectively
indistinguishable. Naturally, as with most things dealing with perception,
there is no absolute answer because hearing is increasingly subjective as
sounds become more complex. The upper bound for prime limit is probably
between 23 and 31 for discerning (and trained) listeners.48 Nevertheless, it is
possible for higher primes to be tuned in aggregates when they are summation
tones of lower sounds.49

Figure 18: 37 as summation tone of 12 and 25 from Les Duresses (2004) by Marc Sabat.

7. Consonance and dissonance

The terms consonance and dissonance are often employed to describe the
interaction of tones. The words themselves very easily elude clear definition
46. To specify a particular subset within a prime limit, Tenney’s concept of projection space,
which collapses the 2-dimension to produce pitch-classes, may be used to differentiate between
the general 7-limit (3,5,7-space) and Young’s 7-limit (3,7-space); James Tenney, From Scratch,
Writings in Music Theory, ed. Larry Polansky et al. (Illinois: University of Illinois Press,
2015), Chapter 18.
47. Partch’s 43-tone scale is an 11-limit system.
48. See Section 7 for a discussion of tuneable intervals.
49. As in the Fourth String Quartet – infinite to be cannot be infinite, infinite anti-be could
be infinite (1976–87) for 9 string quartets by Horațiu Rădulescu.

23
Nicholson/Sabat

and have historically inspired many contradictory descriptions proposed by

musicians, theorists, and scientists. There are two broad categories that may
be distinguished. Musical consonance and dissonance refers to various, and
shifting, systems of categories referring to sound-combinations as defined by
different musical practices (dissonances requiring special context, preparation,
resolution etc.). Psychoacoustic consonance and dissonance refers to perceived
qualities of the composite sound like smoothness or roughness, harmonicity or
inharmonicity, fusion, spectral balance, periodicity, and beating.
In his 1987 book A History of Consonance and Dissonance, composer
James Tenney (1934–2006) identified five distinct consonance-dissonance
concepts (CDCs) arising in Western music culture.

... the words consonance and dissonance ... have been used, historically,
in at least five different ways – expressing five distinctly different forms
of the CDC. Before the rise of polyphonic practice they were used in an
essentially melodic sense, to distinguish degrees of affinity, agreement,
similarity, or relatedness between pitches sounding successively. During
the first four centuries of the development of polyphony they were used
to describe an aspect of the sonorous character of simultaneous dyads,
relatively independent of any musical context in which they might occur.
In the 14th century the CDC began to change (again) in conjunction with
the newly developing rules of counterpoint, and a new system of interval-
classification emerged which involved the perceptual clarity of the lower
voice in a polyphonic texture (and of the text which it carried). In the
early 18th century, ‘consonance’ and ‘dissonance’ came to be applied to
individual tones in a chord, giving rise to a new interpretation of these
terms which would eventually yield results in diametric opposition to
all of the earlier forms of the CDC. Finally – in the mid-19th century –
a conception of consonance and dissonance arose in which ‘dissonance’
was equated with “roughness,” and this had implications quite different
from those of earlier forms of the CDC.

... I ... suggest the following [terminology]: for CDC-1, monophonic or

melodic consonance and dissonance; for CDC-2, diaphonic consonance
and dissonance; for CDC-3, polyphonic or contrapuntal consonance and
dissonance; for CDC-4, triadic consonance and dissonance (this form
is often called “functional,”, but this is not altogether accurate either,
and might be better reserved for the more purely functional conception
articulated by Riemann ... and finally – for CDC-5 – timbral consonance
and dissonance.50
50. James Tenney, A History of Consonance and Dissonance, First Edition (UK: Routledge,
1988), p. 4 and p. 100.

24
Nicholson/Sabat

The first four CDCs, numbered in order of their historical emergence,

are essentially musical, derived from theory and practice; the most recent is
psychoacoustic, proposed by Helmholtz.
The German philosopher and phenomenologist Carl Stumpf (1848–1946)
offered an alternative perceptual theory to Helmholtz’s categories of smooth-
ness and roughness. His thesis was that consonance is determined by the
extent to which an aggregate resembles a single tone: namely, by how well the
partials match a single harmonic series.51 This psychoacoustic reformulation
of CDC-2 appears to be borne out by contemporary studies.
Composers Marc Sabat and Wolfgang von Schweinitz proposed a scale
of relative consonance based on “tuneable intervals”. Originally, these were
established by empirical means. All of the ratios up to three octaves wide,
generated from the first 28 harmonics, were tested, and any intervals that
could not be directly tuned as dyads when played simultaneously in the middle
register on string instruments were eliminated. The remaining intervals were
placed in three broad groupings based on the difficulty with which they could
be tuned. Notably, narrower intervals, which fall within a critical band – all
intervals melodically smaller than 98 – were determined to not be tuneable. The
largest denominator which was found to produce a tuneable interval was 12.
Sabat suggested an expanded definition of consonance, also based on CDC-2,
to be any tuneable sonority.
The concept of tuneable intervals proposes a new musical definition of the
terms consonance and dissonance, one that does not contextually prescribe
or proscribe any sonority but simply distinguishes those sounds that may be
tuned exactly. The definition may be made more precise (and quantifiable)
according to the following model. Given any integers a and b in lowest terms,
their ratio is said to make a potentially tuneable interval tuneable between two
tones of appropriate timbral richness with fundamental frequencies f and ab f
if the periodicity pitch fa ≥ 20 Hz and the least common partial bf ≤ 6000
Hz. These (approximate) limits are based on empirical testing, and appear to
closely match the frequency range (ca. 30–5000 Hz), within which the human
auditory system demonstrates a capacity for neural encoding of temporal
information. Additional size restraints may be placed based on desired prime
limit, critical bandwidth (depending on f ), and on maximum interval size, for
example in the middle register 98 ≤ ab ≤ 81 . Tuneable intervals may be ordered
in terms of relative consonance, based on various measures discussed in the
next section.
51. Tenney, p. 30.

25
Nicholson/Sabat

8. Harmonic distance and intersection

Harmonic fusion is perceived as the melding of an aggregate of individual
pitches accompanied by a distinctive vibrating sonority called periodic signa-
ture, discussed in Section 1. If the periodicity pitch falls in the sub-audio range
(ca. beyond the lowest A of the piano), the phenomenon of acoustic beating
between partials assumes a dominant role. As the frequency of the periodicity
pitch rises into the lower part of the audio range and eventually passes through
the register of the human speaking voice, fusion becomes increasingly tangible
and different frequency ratios create very clear, distinct qualities of sound. In
higher ranges, the contrast between consonance and dissonance becomes again
less discernible as the rate of interference between frequencies increases.
Generally, smaller ratios result in smoother perceived fusion within a
given register. The simplest ratios take the form n1 and are called absolute
consonances. They produce the smoothest manifestations of harmonic fusion
because all partials of the upper pitch are potentially harmonics of the lower
pitch. As intervals increase in numerical complexity, i.e. as the denominator
increases, the periodicity pitch descends. Fusion takes on a periodic purring
or roughness that is the most characteristic sonority associated with just
intonation. Eventually, ratios become so complex that the fusion sound is
blurred and no longer readily distinguishable from irrational tempered or
mistuned intervals.
Tenney defined a measure called harmonic distance. Smaller harmonic
distance values correspond to a smaller “city block” distance between pitches,
as measured in harmonic space, which is defined as a multi-dimensional lattice
with prime-number absolute consonances of the form p1 as fundamental steps
of each dimension.52 For a ratio ab in lowest terms, its harmonic distance is
calculated by the following expression.

HD = log2 (b × a) (3)
The product of b and a is equivalent to the least common partial shared by
harmonic series above b and a. In Equation (3), harmonic distance is, there-
fore, a measure of the number of octaves, evaluated exponentially, from the
periodicity pitch (1) to the least common partial (b × a). Since every rational
number can be uniquely expressed as a product of powers (α) of prime numbers
52. Tenney, From Scratch, Writings in Music Theory, Chapter 12. Tenney thought of
harmonic distance as a measure applicable to both successively and simultaneously sounded
intervals. He believed that it could be usefully applied to pure tones (sinewaves) as well as
spectrally rich timbres.

26
Nicholson/Sabat

(p), the following expressions may be formulated.

b Y αi Y |αi |
= pi −→ b×a= pi
a
i i

HD may, therefore, be expressed more specifically as a summation of powers

of each prime factor, since log(m × n) = log m + log n and log xk = k log x.
X
HD = |αi | log2 pi (4)
i

Equation (4) demonstrates the “city block” interpretation of harmonic distance.

The interval with the smallest harmonic distance is the unison, as log2 (1×1)
returns an HD value of 0. While it may sometimes seem counterintuitive to
conceive of the unison as an “interval”, the concept of harmonic distance
affords an insight into this question. It is logical that two identical frequencies
would have the smallest possible harmonic distance – that is, have no harmonic
distance. This is because the partials of either note may be absorbed into
the harmonic series of the other, colouring its timbre; the unison is the only
interval with this symmetrical property.
It is often proposed that harmony and timbre are, in fact, equivalent. But
in this case, it is clear that harmony is the more general principle: two different
timbres, tuned in unison, have an harmonic distance of 0. In musical terms,
this simply states that an harmonic construct may often retain its identity even
when the timbres are altered. At the same time, harmony, particularly when
tuned in just intonation, is actually dynamically altering timbres as well as
creating new ones.
A closely related measure, also from Tenney, called intersection53 (I) may
be used to express the ratio between aggregate partials of two complex tones
and the entire harmonic series of their periodicity pitch. Both measures offer
similar, but interestingly differentiated rankings of relative consonance.
Given a ratio in lowest terms ab , the intersection of the interval with respect
to its periodicity pitch may be expressed as the following.

a+b−1
I= (5)
ab
This equation counts the number of partials of each pitch a and b up to their
least common partial ab subtracting 1 so that the least common partial itself
is only counted once. These partials are, respectively, {a, 2a, 3a, ..., ba} and
{b, 2b, 3b, ..., ab}. Since the pattern of partials repeats between each multiple
of ab, the least common partial also represents the interval’s harmonic period.
53. Tenney, Chapter 11.

27
Nicholson/Sabat

Unlike harmonic distance, which does not differentiate otonal and utonal
structures, harmonic intersection does and, therefore, may be extended to
aggregates of any number of pitches tuned in just intonation to provide an
accurate quantitative measure of harmonicity.

9. Equal division tone systems

Equal-division systems, discussed earlier as a way of comparing the melodic
size of intervals, are also used to compose music in their own right. Advantages
of such tone systems include their various symmetric properties, including the
ability to transpose by any interval, i.e. to duplicate identical relationships
at any pitch-height without the need to introduce new pitches. They also
offer the possibility of approximating rational intervals using a set of fixed
pitches that serve as a temperament, or deliberate mistuning of the rational
intervals. For instruments whose pitches are fixed, equal temperaments offer
a practical tuning “compromise”, possibly applicable to various compositions
without requiring a complete retuning.
There are an infinite number of possible rational intervals, just as there
are infinitely many pitch-classes in any harmonic series. A temperament
represents these as best as possible with a finite set of options. A consistent
temperament, as defined by Paul Ehrlich (b. 1972), is one in which the best
representation of constituent intervals – up to some fixed limit – sum to the best
representation of the combined interval.54 Inconsistency – or “roundoff error”,
which any temperament eventually exhibits – results in inherent ambiguities,
or paradoxes, arising between symmetrical properties of the tone system and
the harmonic intervals it seems to represent. This ambiguity may or may not
be considered a musically interesting quality. It is, however, important to note
that it is based on fooling the ear.
In 12-ED2, certain formulaic “tonal progressions” – in particular cyclic
sequences (by thirds, fifths, etc.) – are made possible without microtonal disso-
nances or transpositions, taking advantage of this system’s “rough pixelation”
or “soft focus”. Strict JI composers like Johnston reject this approach as
being a form of trickery or deception and, therefore, intellectually dishonest.
Advocates of temperament, like Jean-Philippe Rameau (1683–1764), on the
other hand, praise the magical quality of being transported to a new region
54. In this sense, 12-ED2 is consistent, for example, in a way that 24-ED2 is not. Consider
the chord 4:5:7, which is comprised of a major third and a diminished fifth, outlining a natural
seventh. In 12-ED2 the nearest representations of each interval, 54 ≈ 4 steps and 75 ≈ 6
steps, add up to the nearest representation of the outer interval, 74 ≈ 10 steps. In 24-ED2 the
respective values are 8 steps, 12 steps and 19 steps, which do not sum.

28
Nicholson/Sabat

of the harmonic space (by an enharmonic reinterpretation of the diminished

chord, for example), sensing “all the harshness”55 of the quartertone without
having it explicitly articulated as part of a dissonant interval.
Elaborated examples of composition using fine-grained equal-divisions
may be found in the works of Carrillo and Wyschnegradsky. Drawing on his
experience as a violinist, Carrillo developed a microtonal point of view about
musical exploration, which he called “sonido 13” – the thirteenth sound. A
talented musician, he was one of the first composers to write in a microtonal
idiom for the symphony orchestra. Wyschnegradsky, on the other hand,
composed a large body of microtonal music that was almost exclusively written
for ensembles featuring variously retuned pianos, occasionally in combination
with other instruments. An influential teacher and mentor, his theoretical
writings, in particular La Loi de la Pansonorité from 1953, describe an
ultrachromatic pitch-space that pixelates the perceived frequency range into
a palette of compositionally accessible tonal material. His work inspired an
entire generation of microtonal composers, including Bruce Mather (b. 1939)
and Pascale Criton (b. 1954).
In such contexts, the interpretation of intervals no longer depends entirely
on their sound alone, but must also be deduced from their context. This
alteration of listening focus is perhaps the fundamental difference between
conceiving of music in a temperament or in just intonation. The increased
interest today in exploring perceptions of sound and time as fundamental
materials of music invites a kind of listening, which the appreciation of just
intonation also depends upon.
The most commonly explored ED2s may be loosely divided into three
groups. First, there are numerous systems based on the antiprime 12, which
may readily be divided in 2, 3, 4 and 6 equal units, and which generates various
multiples (24, 36, 48, 72, 144, etc.). These systems share the well-known
“closed circle” of 12 well approximated fifths,56 replicating it at various micro-
tonal offsets. 72- and 144-ED2 closely approximate some of the most common
tuneable rational intervals up to the 23-limit, which has led to their adoption
for quasi-JI works by some composers, including Ezra Sims (1928–2015),
James Tenney, Hans Zender (b. 1936), and Georg Friedrich Haas (b. 1953),
and Marc Sabat, among others.
Composers associated with the European “spectral” technique, pioneered
55. Deborah Hayes, “Rameau’s theory of harmonic generation: an annotated translation
and commentary of Génération Harmonique by Jean-Philippe Rameau” (PhD diss., Stanford
University, 1968), p. 178.
56. The 12-ED2 fifth is almost 2 cents smaller than the JI ratio 32 , a difference that beats
slowly in the middle register but is only minimally perceptible on the modern piano.

29
Nicholson/Sabat

by Karlheinz Stockhausen (1928–2007), Horațiu Rădulescu (1942–2008),

Gérard Grisey (1946–1998), Tristan Murail (b. 1947), and Claude Vivier
(1948–1983), have often used various approximations to simulate the har-
monic series, combination tones and distorted spectra. Rădulescu’s music is
especially noteworthy for its extensive exploration of scordature and use of
extremely high natural harmonics.
Two additional groups of equal-division systems approximate meantone
or Pythagorean tunings respectively. The “extended meantone” systems (see
Table 2) divide the 5 wholetones within an octave into unequal parts, a smaller
“chromatic” and a larger “diatonic” semitone. The “Pythagorean” systems
(see Table 3) take the same number of units per wholetone but reverse the
numbers assigned to the chromatic and diatonic semitones.
53-ED2, in particular, has received considerable attention. Its step size,
22.64 cents, is known as Mercator’s comma (κM ) and lies between the syntonic
comma (κ5 ) and the Pythagorean comma (κ3 ). It was used to describe the
Turkish tone system in a theory developed by Suphi Ezgi (1869–1962),57 and
was advocated as an ideal tuning by 19th century European theorists, consid-
ered harmonically superior to 12-ED2 because of its very close approximation
of many consonant Ptolemaic ratios. In particular, it is the smallest ED2 to
clearly approximate both the major and the minor wholetones.
Perhaps the most obvious point of objection to any equal-division system
is the problem of melodic granularity, i.e. the degree to which very subtle
differences between various JI intervals are tempered out. One of the objections
to Suphi Ezgi’s comma-based approximation of Turkish intervals is that the
very subtle contextual variations of intonation in melody are not accurately
represented. Similarly, in a harmonic context, voices and instruments of flexible
pitch make very subtle adjustments to distinguish particular progressions. The
only way to achieve this kind of accuracy, in fact, is to define each interval
exactly, within the bounds of auditory perception. Only a just intonation tuning
system or an equal-division system finer than the JND offer possibilities of
realising such an approach.
57. Ioannis Zannos, Ichos und Makam: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zum Tonsystem der
griechisch-orthodoxen Kirchenmusik und der türkischen Kunstmusik (Bonn: Orpheus Verlag,
1994), p. 18.

30
Nicholson/Sabat

Table 2: Comparison of some quasi-meantone equal-division systems.

Number of Size of fifths Units per Size in Units per diatonic Size in
divisions in cents wholetone cents semitone cents

19-ED2 694.74 3 189.47 2 126.32

1


κ
3 5

31-ED2 696.77 5 193.55 3 116.13

1


κ
4 5

43-ED2 697.67 7 195.35 4 111.63

1


κ
5 5

55-ED2 698.18 9 196.36 5 109.09

1


κ
6 3

Table 3: Comparison of some quasi-Pythagorean equal-division systems.

Number of Size of fifths Units per Size in Units per diatonic Size in
divisions in cents wholetone cents semitone cents

17-ED2 705.88 3 211.76 1 70.59

29-ED2 703.45 5 206.90 2 82.76

41-ED2 702.44 7 204.88 3 87.80

53-ED2 701.89 9 203.77 4 90.57

10. Toward a possible music

It is true that the theory and mechanisms of just intonation are fascinating
in their own right and, as many tuning enthusiasts would agree, necessary
to confront. To truly appreciate the enormous musical potential of rational
tuning as composers, interpreters, and, most importantly, as listeners, it is
crucial to be immersed in it practically in order to connect theory with sound.
After all, just intonation does not require theoretical minutiae – as elegant as
they may be – to justify its beauty and musical value; it is already intuitively
ingrained in the way humans hear. An understanding of ratios, cents, commas,
etc. merely provides tools to better comprehend and compare what is heard
(śruti) as well as to imagine, invent, and develop what could be heard.

31
Nicholson/Sabat

11. Score excerpts

Figure 1: 5-limit enharmonic intervals as in bar 4 of Tenebrae factae sunt (1611) by Carlo
Gesualdo di Venosa.

edition by Chris Mueller

http://www.benesonarium.com

Tenebrae factae sunt From Responsoria (1611)

SSATTB a cappella
Responsory at Matins Jacob Carlo Gesualdo, di Venosa
for Good Friday (c.1561-1613)
Ténebrae fáctae sunt, Darkness was made [darkness covered the earth]
dum crucifixíssent Jésum Judaéi: when the Jews had crucified Jesus:
et círca hóram nónam exclamávit Jésus vóce mágna: and around the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice:
Déus méus, ut quid me dereliquísti? My God, why have you abandoned me?
Et inclináto cápite emísit spíritum. And, with his head bowed, he yielded up his spirit.
Exclámans Jésus vóce mágna, áit: Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said:
Páter, in mánus túas comméndo spíritum méum. Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.
Et inclináto cápite emísit spíritum. And, with his head bowed, he yielded up his spirit.
Matthew 27:45-46, 50—Mark 15:33-34, 37—Luke 23:44, 46
cf. Isaiah 60:2, Amos 8:9-10, Psalm 22:1, Psalm 31:6

# 2 w
œ #œ œ
œ
& 2 ∑ ∑ ∑ ˙
Soprano I œ
dum cru - ci - fi - xís -
# nœ 2
& 2 ∑ ∑ Œ ˙ #œ œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙
Soprano II
œ œ
dum cru - ci - fi-xís - sent Jé - sum,
# 2
& œ 2 w ˙ #œ œ œ n˙
˙. œ œ ˙. œ ˙
Alto
œ
Té - ne - brae fá - ctae sunt, dum cru - ci - fi - xís - sent
# œ
2 w
Tenor I V œ
2 ˙. œ œ ˙. œ ∑ ∑
Té - ne - brae fá - ctae sunt,
# œ
2 ∑
Tenor II V œ
2 #˙ . nœ œ ˙ . œ w nœ œ #œ œ œ
Té - ne - brae fá - ctae sunt, dum cru - ci - fi - xís -
œ
?# 2 . œ w ∑ ∑
Bass nœ
2 ˙ œ œ ˙.
Té - ne - brae fá - ctae sunt,

# ˙
6

˙ ∑ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ #œ Ó Ó Œ œ
&
- sent Jé - sum Ju - daé - i, Ju -
#
& œ œ œ œ œ w ˙ ˙ Œ œ ˙. œ
˙ ˙ ˙
__ dum cru - ci - fi - xís - sent Jé - sum, Jé - sum Ju - daé - i,
#
& ˙ ˙ œ œ œ #œ Œ
˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ #œ œ ˙ ˙
Jé - sum Ju - daé - i, Jé - sum Ju - daé - i, Ju - daé - i,
# œ ˙ œ œ
V ˙. œ #œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ Œ
dum cru - ci - fi - xís - sent Jé - sum Ju - daé - i, Ju - daé - i, Ju -
#
V œ œ ˙ œ Ó Ó Œ œ ˙
œ ˙ w ˙ ˙
- sent Jé - sum Ju - daé - i, Ju - daé - i:
?# ∑ #œ œ œ œ nœ Ó ∑
w ˙ ˙ ˙
dum cru - ci - fi - xís - sent Jé - sum

32
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 2: Excerpt from an 11-limit trio published by Giovanni Battista Doni, composer unknown.
Compositione per il Diatonico Equabile (ca. 1637) transcribed into HEJI.

  m m m n m m n  n m  m  n m  n m 


  m  
n m n  m m 0u  n m  n m m n m

    m m n m  m  n n m  n  0u  n
m m

m  n 5u  m   m  n n 5m  5m  m  n m  m  n n 5u  m 
  
m

 
    m  n  5u  m  n n  5u  n   m  n

 m   n 5u  m  m m n m   m  n n 5u  m  m  5u 


  m  n n m   m  m  n m  m  n n m m m n m  5u  n m   m  n

  5u  m   5u  5u  m  m   n m   
n n 5u  m

 n m   m m m m m m m  m  n m n


33
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 3: 7-limit “enharmonic meantone” excerpt from Toccata Settima (ca. 1640) by Michelan-
gelo Rossi.

34
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 4: 7-limit excerpt from By the Rivers of Babylon (1931) by Harry Partch.

BY THE RIVERS OF BABYLON

137th Psalm
Harry Partch
Santa Rosa, August 1931
Chicago, Jan. 1, 1942
Ithaca, June 27-28, 1943
transcription to Helmholtz-Ellis Accidentals with annotations by Marc Sabat
Edenkoben, May 2006 / Berlin, June 2009

Voice  n  f m  
By the ri - vers of

       
o     o  n  
g
 n    n
n 

n    n
Adapted
n 
Viola
 
small noteheads =
pencilled ratios in MS

, , ,
  o n
n n    n  n  g o o  g
Ba - by - lon There we sat down Yea, we wept When we re -
suggested revision (R) using
simpler vertical intervals

n  m  
f o
     n 
g


>v u n g

ossia from 1942/43 revision

Chromelodeon part (O)

n  m  
f o
      n 
f


f <f n g

o n n g o  n   m  f o n f
 n  n   >u t  g  n  >u

n
n 

,
 n g   m n  m     

o n n

mem - bered Zi - on. U - pon the wil - lows in the midst there - of
n 
(R)
 >v 
n


n

m f  >u n  u  n  u <m  n <m u

n g
n n
n  m  n m 


n

, ,
 n m  u n   n  m  n 
f m    n u
We hung our harps For there they that led us cap - tive asked of us a song
u  m m , 
 n
u 
 n  n  
m n m   n <e

m m  m  m m m  n

35
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 5: Three examples from Kyle Gann’s analysis and transcription of La Monte Young’s
The Well Tuned Piano (1964–73–81–present).

36
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 6: Horațiu Rădulescu’s Fourth String Quartet “infinite to be cannot be infinite, infinite
anti-be could be infinite” (1976–1987) for nine string quartets with spectral scordatura.

37
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 7: 13-limit excerpt from Ben Johnston’s String Quartet No. 5 (1979) with otonal and
utonal chords in extended just intonation.

Figure 8: 7-limit excerpt from James Tenney’s Harmonium No. 7 (2000) with approximate
arrow and exact ratio notation.

38
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 9: 13-limit excerpt from DIE KANTATE oder, Gottes Augenstern bist du (2002–3)
for speaking voice, soprano, violin, viola, horn, tuba and live sound projection by Wolfgang von
Schweinitz.

f
6:7

+ œ <l œ <l œ + œ D+œ 1 œ +œ +œ œ +œ + œ. >

œ l œ@ .. l ˙
28 : 27 : 26 : 25 : 24

& .. Œ l œ l œ.
726

l˙ Œ +œ
J
l la/lø ɔ/e o/i υ/v u/vε tε/hε /n hn υ
1.–lau–ter/2.–Lö–wen und

> > > >

& .. Ó *˙ + œ œœ *+ œœ * + œœ * + œœ * + ˙˙ * + ˙˙
Ó
* + ˙˙ * + ˙˙
.. Ó
* + ˙˙
Œ
* l ˙>˙ œœ * l œœ * l œœ * l œœ * l ˙>˙ * l ˙˙ * l ˙>˙ * l ˙˙ * l ˙>˙
B .. Ó Ó .. Ó

1 gliss.
*0 gliss. *0 *0
& .. <l ˙ œ +œ Œ 1œ œ + œ@ ‰ j Œ .. <l ˙
0 2 0

+˙ + œ.
* œ. l œ . lœ l ˙ * œ@ * œ. l œ
D + œ. *˙ Cl ˙ .
? .. Œ +˙ œ < l œ gliss. Œ Ó Ó Œ <lœ .. Œ +˙
lœ p lœ

6:7

‹. >‹
+ œ <l œ œ +œ D+ œ 1 œ + >˙ < l >œ + >œ + œ + >œ >
28 : 27 : 26 : 25 : 24

+œ J ‰ Œ
737

lœ l˙ œ lœ
6:7

& +œ @
n t ba , ε e i ji də  a χ χε n
bei Dra– –chen

> > > >

& * + ˙˙ Ó Ó Œ Œ
*˙ + œ œœ *+ œœ * + œœ * + œœ * + ˙˙ * + ˙˙ * + œœ * + ˙˙ * + œœ
Œ
* l ˙˙ * l ˙>˙ œœ * l œœ * l œœ * l œœ * l ˙>˙ * l ˙˙ * l œ>œ * l ˙˙ * l œ>œ
B Ó Ó Œ Œ

1
*0
œ +œ Œ.
gliss.
<l ˙ œ +œ Œ 1œ < l œ * œ@ Œ
0 2

& +˙ + œ.
lœ . l œ@ * œ. @
+œ l œ. +˙
. D + œ. + œ.
D+œ C l œ.
œ <lœ œ <lœ <l œ < l >œ
gliss.
? Œ +˙ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ
+œ
lœ > l œ.

U, * >œ * œ
*œ
* >œ J ‰ œ ‹ + >˙ ˙ ˙
j
œ *œ *˙ *˙
cresc.
lœ + œ
748
+œ
& l˙ Œ +œ
hn di %a n ts sə v vε
: die gan– –ze Welt

U, > * œo o o o œœo ȯ ȯ
Ó * œœ * * œœ * * œœ ** ˙ ** ˙ Ó
> >
& * + ˙˙ * œ * + œœ * ˙
+ œ *˙ + œ œœ * + œœ * + ˙˙
Œ Œ
U,
cresc.

* l ˙˙ * l ˙>˙ œœ * l œœ * l œœ * l œœ * l ˙>˙ * l ˙˙ * l ˙>˙ œœ * l œœ * l ˙>˙

B Ó Ó Ó
cresc.
U, colla parte gliss.
Œ
< l œ. Œ
<lœ Œ +œ+œ
& < l ˙@
0

lœ * œ. <l ˙ ˙ <lœœ R . *œ +œ
<l ˙ ˙
˙ + œ +œ
R .
+œ +˙ cresc.
U, + œ. *œ Cl ˙ ˙ Cl œœ C l œ. Cl ˙ + œ + œ. Cl ˙ ˙
? Ó Ó Œ Œ @ Œ R <lœ
l œ. + œ.
gliss. cresc.

23

39
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 10: 13-limit excerpt from Gradients of Detail (2006) by Chiyoko Szlavnics.

40
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 11: 11-limit excerpt from Asking ocean (2016) for solo string quartet and 16 instru-
ments by Marc Sabat.

3 4 69
12 : 11 33 : 32 32 : 33
195 +14 = -151c E-37 = -53c +10 +10 = +53c E-37

Bass Fl ù Ó j Œ
oœ ™ 4f œ ˙ port. f˙ ˙ f˙ port. 4f ˙™ Œ ∑ ∑
(1) & nœ ™ œ œ J
‹ -4 o o o o
+47 +16 D#-49 E-37
32 : 33
+49 +49 n˙
Bass Fl
(2) { &
‹
Ó

coordinate
n˙
-4 o

+12
= +53c
port.

32 : 35
4˙

+16
o
Œ

54 : 55
4œ 4 ˙ port. o ˙
55 : 54
= -32c
3
port. 4˙ 4œ 4˙

+51 +49
5
15 : 16
= +112c
4f ˙ œ
11 : 10
= -165c
nœ
-2 -4
∑ ∑

with Bass Cl 2 = +155c = +32c +47

Bass Cl
& Ó nœ o ˙ < œ port. o œ ™ ˙ 4œ w 4œ 4 ˙™ ˙™ Œ ∑ ∑
(1) -33
J
-4
o3 35 : 36 3 o
= +49c
coordinate +47 +16
with Bass Cl 1 +12 +16

Bass Cl
(2) {
û
& Ó
-4
nœ o ˙
o3
œ nœ ™
-2 10 : 9
= -182c
oœ oœ
J
54 : 55
= +32c
4œ oœ 4œ oœ 4œ

3
5
w ˙™

3
o
Œ ∑ ∑

& Ó æ ‰ ∑ Ó Ó ∑ Œ ∑ ∑
Tuned
n œæ™ 4˙ n˙ n˙
Objects … 3 3
æ
{ & Œ ‰ n œj Œ
-. f˙
∑ Ó
o˙
Ó
4œ 4 ˙™
Œ
nœ n ˙æ

4 œ o œ 4f œ n œ
∑ ∑

∏∏∏∏∏
4 ˙ 4f4 œœ ™™ nœ

∏∏∏∏∏
4œ fœ
n f4f˙˙˙ ™™™

∏∏∏
3 3 5 3 4˙ 4 œ™ J
& 4f œj 4 œ ‰ o œ <m œ o œ 4f œ œ f œ <m œ o œ <m œ o œ 4f œ 4˙ o˙ 4œ
oœ œ 4 œ o œ 4 œ 4 œ 4f œ œ
Hp nœ f˙ 3

(snd) n ˙o ™ 4f wo nœ ™ 4 œ 4f ˙
nœ ™ nœ 4 œ f œ
{ ? ∑ Œ ‰ J &
3

eœ vœ eœ eœ
4f w <m ˙
<m ˙
o œ <m œ 4f œ <m œ o œ
5

∏∏∏∏∏
v˙ nv œœ ™™ eœ

∏∏∏∏∏
eœ eœ
eee ˙˙˙ ™™™

∏∏∏
j
3 3 5 3
vœ œ eœ vœ eœ vœ eœ v˙ vœ™ J
& œ vœ ‰ v œ nœ v œ nœ œ e œ nœ v œ nœ v œ nœ œ
eœ e˙ e˙ v˙ eœ
3
Hp
o eœ™ eœ n˙
o eœ ™ e œ vœ eœ
{ ?

Ab
∑ Œ
G§
ee ˙O ™™ nw
Db C# G#
Bb
‰ J
Fb
&
3
nw n˙
n˙
D§
v œ nœ nœ nœ v œ
5

3
4f4n4 ˙˙˙˙
∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏
5
nœ œ <m œ <m œ n œ 4f nf˙˙˙

∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏
∑ Ó ∑ umm œœœ

∏∏∏
& œ 4 œ n œ n œœ œœ n œœœ œ 4œ œ™
n ˙™ 4f œ ™ o œ™ 4˙ 4˙ 4œ o ˙
Hpsd
(snd)
n œœ n ˙ ™
3
o˙™ oœ œ o˙ o˙ mnn˙< ˙˙˙˙ m<mmœœœœ ™
oo ˙˙ ™
{
ù
?
5
∑ Œ Œ uœ
3
Ó Œ Œ uœ
3

∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏
& ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ nnev œœœœ eœ vœ Ó
3
vnnn ˙˙˙˙
∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏

{ nœ œ ∑ Ó ∑ Œ Œ neee ˙˙˙˙

∏∏∏
& œ v œ n œ e œœ œœ n œœœ œ nœ œ™
n ˙™ nœ ™ nœ ™ v˙ v˙ vœ
Hpsd 3 n˙
˙ ™
? vœ n
∑ ∑ ∑ Œ Œ vœ vnn˙˙˙˙ Ó Œ Œ vœ
eœ
nn œœœ Œ Ó
3 3
? nœ n˙™ nœ œ n˙ n˙ ™
nn ˙˙ ™
{
û
Œ Ó
5
∑ ∑ ∑ Œ

=
202
2 5 E-37
tune consonant
with Bass Clar, Bass Fl
Bass Fl ù ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 4f ˙ ˙ Œ
(1) &
‹ o 5

tune consonant with A-39

Bass Cl, Bass Fl 1 4f ˙ ˙
Bass Fl
(2) { &
‹
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

3
+49
∑
tune 2/3
below Bass Cl 2
Ó
o 3

3
Bass Cl ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ó 4w ˙ Ó Ó
(1) &
o
tune with
+47 Bass Cl 1
Bass Cl
(2) {
û
& ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ 4w
o
w

æ
3

& ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Ó 4f ˙æ Ó
Tuned
Objects
{ & ∑ ∑
<m œ
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

fœ 4f ˙ 4 œ :f œ 4 œ :f œ port.
<m ˙ <e œ f œ 4f œ <m œ™ 4œ 3 3 3
& Ó Œ æ æ æ æ æ æ
on4 ˙˙˙ 4 œ on4 ˙˙˙ <m ˙˙˙ :f ˙˙˙ w 4f w
44f4 w
∏∏∏

Hp 3 4 ˙w
w 4w
w n ˙˙ w
3 æ æ Ó æ
(snd) 3
<m œ ™ 4 œo 3

{ & 4f4œœ fn ˙˙ Ó 44f ˙˙ <e ˙ :f ˙

nœ
Ó

v œ nœ v œ
J 4œ
4 œ 4f œ
n œ port.
port.
4˙ ∑ ∑ ∑

eœ n˙ n˙ nœ e œ nœ nœ ™ vœ 3 3 3
& Ó Œ æ æ æ æ æ æ
vvv ˙˙˙ v œ vvv ˙˙˙ n ˙˙˙ n ˙˙˙ e ˙w w ww e w
evn w
∏∏∏

3 w vw e ˙˙ Ó æ
Hp
3
3
oj æ æ
3 3 3
nœ ™
{ & nv œœ ee ˙˙ Ó ve ˙˙ n˙

B§
n˙
A§
Ó vœ vœ
vœ
D#
nœ port.
vœ vœ

A#
Ó
D§
Ó Ó
A§
Ó
Db
Ó Ó
Ab
∑

3 n œ <m œ ™ n œ 4 ˙˙ ™™
<m<m<m<<˙˙˙˙˙ 4 œ 4 œœ 5
∏∏∏∏

∏∏∏

˙™
∏∏∏∏

& 4f44f4fœœœœ o œ n œ 4œ 4f œ 4f œ Œ Œ ‰ <m œ™ ‰ ∑

44f4 ˙˙˙ ™™™
∏∏∏∏

‰ 4˙ 4œ n ˙ 4œ f œ 4f œ
Hpsd 5 Œ
(snd) 4 œj
∏∏∏∏

w
f 444 ww 3
3 3
‰ n œ‰ n œ œ ‰ n œ n œœ n œœœ ˙˙˙
{
ù
? ∑

n˙
∑ Ó

v œ e œ ™ nœ
w
J
5
Œ 4˙
4 œ 4 œœ ˙˙
Ó 4f ˙
4f œ 4f œœ ˙˙
∏∏∏∏

∏∏∏

& ∑ Œ nnee ˙˙˙˙ Œ Œ ‰ n œ™ ‰ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

‰
v˙™
v œ n œœ ˙˙ ™™
3 5

{
∏∏∏∏

& nnen œœœœ n œ n œ n œ eœ nœ Œ Ó ∑ ∑ n˙™

∏∏∏∏

5
v˙ vœ e ˙ v œ
Œ nv ˙˙ ™™ e œ nœ
Hpsd
3
? ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
v œj
∏∏∏∏

? ‰ n œ‰ e œ œ nevv ww
w
w ‰ n œ n œœ e œœœ ˙˙˙
3 3

{
û
∑ ∑ Ó
J
5
Œ v˙
v œ n œœ ˙˙
Ó n˙
e œ n œœ ˙˙

41
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 12: 7-limit excerpt from Prisma Interius V (2017) by Catherine Lamb.

35
22 7:36
bœo2 nœo2 nœo3 bœo3 o3 bœo2 nœo3 7:57
b<œo3 nœo3 <bœo3 nœo3 œo3 o3 bœo3 bœo3 o3 o3 ? b<œo2 bœo2 nœo2 œo2 o2 b<œo3 24
& nœ m nœ < m bœ 4
mœ n œ
Hp. o o ? Oœ Oœ O œo Oœ Oœ Oœ Oœ O O
œ œ Oœ Oœ Oœ O O o o o o o 24
{&
°?
+51
œ œ
b˙ b˙ n˙
œ
+49 +53
+20
b<˙ n ˙
+55
œ œ
+37 +53
œ œ œ œ O
œ œ
4
24
& ˙ n˙
m 4
B. Cl. +51 +49 +53 +20 +55 +37
+53
˙
˙ b˙ ˙ ˙ 24
¢& ˙ ˙ 4
+49 14 7 1 3 5 10
+51 +49 +53 +20 +55
b˙ b˙ b<˙ n˙ 24
Glass. & b˙ n˙ 4
n ˙˙˙ ˙™ b˙ n˙ n ˙˙ ˙˙
b˙˙ n˙˙˙ b˙˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙˙˙ ™™™™ < b< ˙˙ n˙˙˙ ˙˙
m˙˙
˙˙˙ ˙˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ 24
& n˙˙ ˙˙ b˙˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ ™™ b˙˙ n˙˙
˙
b˙˙˙
˙
˙˙˙ ˙ 4
b˙ b<˙˙˙

? b˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙™ 24
4
Synth.
n ˙ b ˙˙ n ˙˙˙
b ˙ n ˙ b ˙˙
n˙˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙˙ ˙˙˙ ˙˙ n ˙
b˙˙ b˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ n˙˙ b˙˙ ˙ ˙ 24
& b˙ n˙˙ ˙˙ ˙ n˙˙ b˙˙˙ b˙ 4
m m

Vln.
{
°
&
?

+49
bw ™
b˙

w™
˙
*
*

w™ Ó™ ∑™ ∑™ ∑™
* *

Ó™
24
4

24
4
III4 III4
+53
nwo ™ w™ w™ Ó™
+53
nwo ™ w™ w™ ˙™ 24
& 4
Vla. 1 ~™ ~™ ~™ ~™ ~™ ~™ O™
B ~™ ~™ ~™ Ó™ ~™ ~™ ~™ O™ 24
w™ w™ w™ w™ w™ w™ ˙™ 4
III3 III3
+55 IV4 +55 IV4
o
+51 +51 o 24
& b nww ™™ ww ™™ ww ™™ Ó™ b nww ™™ ww ™™ ww ™™ ˙˙ ™™ B 4
Vla. 2 ~™ ~ ™ ~~ ™™ ~~ ™™ ~~ ™™ ~~ ™™ ~~ ™™ OO ™™
B ~ ™™ ~ ™™ ~ ™™ Ó™ ~ ™™ ~ ™™ ~ ™™ O™ 24
~w ~w ~w ~w ~w ~w O˙˙™™™ 4
w™™ w™™ w™™ w™™ w™™ w™™
III2
III2 +53
IV2
? +53
nwo ™ w™ w™ Ó™
+51

b nw
o™
w™ w
w™
™ w
w™
™ ˙˙ ™™ 24
4
Vc. 1
? ~™ ~™ ~™ Ó™ ~™ ~™ ~™ O™ 24
w™ w™ w™ w~ ™™™ w~ ™™™ w~ ™™™ ˙O ™™™ 4
w w w ˙
III3
IV2 +37 IV4
? +51 o +51 o 24
bw ™ w™ w™ Ó™ & 4
w ™™
b mw w ™™
w w ™™
w ˙˙ ™™
Vc. 2
? ~~ ™™ ~~ ™™ ~~ ™™ OO ™™ 24
~™ ~™ ~™ Ó™ ~w ™™ ~w ™™ ~w ™™ O˙ ™™ 4
w™ w™ w™ w~ ™™ w~ ™™ w~ ™™ ˙O ™™
I3
IV4 +22 II3
+51 o +20 o
& Ó™ w ™™
b<b<w w™™
w w™™
w ˙˙™™ 24
4
Vc. 3
bw™ w™ w™ ~™ ~~ ™™ ~~ ™™ OO ™™
~™ ~™ ~™ ~ ™™ ™ ™ ™
? Ó™ B w~~w ™™™ w~~w ™™™ w~~w ™™™ ˙OO˙ ™™™ 24
4
w~ ™™ w~ ™™ w~ ™™
+39 I5
+49 IV8
bwo ™ w™ w™ mwo ™ w™ w™ ˙™ 24
& Ó™ 4
~™ ~™ ~™
Cb. 1 ~™ ~™ ~™ O™
? ~™ ~™ ~™ Ó™ ~~ ™™ ~~ ™™ ~~ ™™ OO ™™ 24
#w~~ ™™™ ~™
w~ ™™
~™
w~ ™™ &
w~ ™™ w~ ™™ w~ ™™ ˙O ™™
4

+49
IV4
o III3
o
+37

& Ó™ 24
bw ™ w™ w™ mw™ w™ w™ ˙™ 4
Cb. 2 ~™ ~™ ~™ ~™ ~™ ~™ O™
? Ó™ ~w™™ ~w™™ ~w™™ O˙™™ 24
w~ ™™ w~ ™™ w~ ™™ 4
I4 I4
+53
nwo ™ w™ w™ Ó™
+53
nwo ™ w™ w™ ˙™ 24
& 4
Cb. 3 ~™ ~™ ~™ ~™ ~™ ~™ O™
& Ó™ ? 24
& 4
w~ ™™ w~ ™™ w~ ™™ w~ ™™ w~ ™™ w~ ™™ ˙O ™™
I3
+55 oI3 +55 II3
+20 o 24
& nw ™ w™ w™ Ó™ w ™™
b<nw w™™
w w™™
w ˙˙™™ 4
Cb. 4
~™ ~™ ~™ ~™ ~ ™™ ~~ ™™ ~~ ™™ OO ™™
~w™™ ~w™™ ~w™™ w~w
~ ™™™ w~w~ ™™™™ w~w~ ™™™™ ˙O˙O ™™™™
? Ó™ 24
¢ 4

42
Nicholson/Sabat

Figure 13: 17-limit excerpt from BRANCH: Plainsound Trio (2018) for three sustaining
instruments or voices by Thomas Nicholson.

3
31 3 Occasionally dwelling
 n  ’ F+28
1  ,e <e
-2 <e   <e  port.
sotto voce -41 -37

’ C+30
2  n  :f <e  <e  ,e
-39 port.

-2 sotto voce -1
(80/81 lower than
previous D in part 1)
n  ’ ’
3
 n   <e 
 -2 -6 -39
sotto voce

36 3°/I
 +4 ’
n  ’ +53 +6 ’
1  n  { } 4 v

392 : 405 20 : 21 36 : 35
= +56c = +85c = +49c
’ ’ +20
2  (,e) u <   o u
 port.
-29
-14 -14
728 : 729
= +2c
 D9-37
v
’
+4
n   n  ’ +2n
3  



224 : 225
41 = -8c
 F+41 ’ F-27
1  0v u  n  port.
< 
t
-12 -35

’
2  (u) 
  n   -2n 

+2
n n
3
 (n) n ’ u n  
 -16 -4


43
Nicholson/Sabat INDEX

Index
1
4 -comma meantone, 16 Herschel, John, 8
Hába, Alois, 12
Boethius, 9
Bohlen-Pierce scale, 7 imperfect consonances, 10
interval, 3, 25
Carrillo, Julián, 13, 29 interval (tuneable), 25
CDC (Tenney), 24
combination tones, 8 Johnston notation, 13
consistency (Ehrlich), 28 Johnston, Ben, 4, 13, 28
consonance and dissonance, 23 just noticeable difference, 7, 30
Criton, Pascale, 29
Keenan, David, 13
De institutione musica, 9
diamond marimba, 6 least common partial, 2, 25, 26
logarithmic scale, 7
ED2 (discussion), 29 Lusitano, Vicente, 12
EDO systems, 7
Ehrlich, Paul, 28 Mather, Bruce, 29
Ellis, Alexander J., 8, 22 meantone temperaments, 30
equal divisions, 7 melodic distance, 6
Euler, Leonhard, 21 Meyer, Max F., 6
Extended just intonation, 22 Murail, Tristan, 30
Ezgi, Suphi, 30 musica vera, 9

normalised ratio, 5
Fechner, Gustav Theodor, 6
fusion, 2–4, 24, 26 octave equivalence, 7
Oettingen, Arthur von, 8, 12
GCD, 3
otonal, 5
Grisey, Gérard, 30
Partch, Harry, 3, 5, 6, 12, 20
Haas, Georg Friedrich, 29
periodic signature, 2
harmonic distance, 26
periodicity pitch, 2, 25–27
harmonic intersection, 27
prime limit, 20
harmonic partials, 2
Pythagorean temperaments, 30
harmonic period, 27
harmonic series, 2–4, 25–28 quartertone notation, 12
harmonic space, 26
Hauptmann, Moritz, 12 Rameau, Jean-Philippe, 28
HEJI notation, 13 ratio, 3
Helmholtz, Hermann von, 12, 25 relative consonance, 27

44
Nicholson/Sabat INDEX

Rădulescu, Horatiu, 30 Tartini, Giuseppe, 2, 12

temperament, 28
Sabat, Marc, 13, 25, 29 Tenney, James, 24, 26, 29
Sagittal notation, 13 The Well-Tuned Piano, 23
Salinas, Francisco de, 10 tonality diamond, 6
Sambamoorthi, Pichu, 22 Turkish music, 30
Sauveur, Joseph, 8
Schweinitz, Wolfgang von, 13, 25 utonal, 5
Secor, George, 13
Vicentino, Nicola, 12
Sims, Ezra, 29
Vivier, Claude, 30
skhismatic temperament, 22
sonido 13 (Carrillo), 29 Wyschnegradsky, Ivan, 12, 29
staff notation, 9
Stein, Richard Heinrich, 12 Young, La Monte, 23
Stockhausen, Karlheinz, 30 Zarlino, Gioseffo, 10, 12
Stumpf, Carl, 25 Zender, Hans, 29
subharmonic series, 4
syntonic comma, 10 śruti, 22, 31

45
Nicholson/Sabat REFERENCES

References
Barbieri, Patrizio. Enharmonic Instruments and Music 1470–1900. Rome: Il Levante
Libreria Editrice, 2008.

Barbour, James Murray. Tuning and temperament: a historical survey. Chicago:

Michigan State University Press, 1951.

Barker, Andrew. Greek Musical Writings, Volume II: Harmonic and Acoustic Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Berger, Karol. Musica ficta: Theories of accidental inflections in vocal polyphony from
Marchetto da Padova to Gioseffo Zarlino. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004.

Blackwood, Easley. The Structure of Recognizable Diatonic Tunings. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1986.

Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus. De institutione musica. Edited by Claude V.

Palisca. Translated by Calvin M. Bower. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989.

Cowell, Henry. New Musical Resources. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930.

Deutsch, Diana. The Psychology of Music. Third Edition. San Diego: Elsevier, 2013.

Fechner, Gustav Theodor. Elements of psychophysics [Elemente der Psychophysik].

Edited by D. H. Howes and E. G. Boring. Translated by H. E. Adler. Vol. 1.
New York: Holt, Rinehart / Winston, 1966.

Gann, Kyle. “La Monte Young’s The Well-Tuned Piano.” Perspectives of New Music
Volume 31, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 134–162.

Hayes, Deborah. “Rameau’s theory of harmonic generation: an annotated translation

and commentary of Génération Harmonique by Jean-Philippe Rameau.” PhD
diss., Stanford University, 1968.

Helmholtz, Hermann von. On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the
Theory of Music. Second English Edition. Translated by Alexander J. Ellis. New
York: Dover, 1954.

Johnston, Ben. Maximum Clarity and Other Writings on Music. Edited by Bob
Gilmore. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2006.

Lang, Klaus. Auf Wohlklangswellen durch der Töne Meer: Temperaturen und Stim-
mungen zwischen dem 11. und 19. Jahrhundert. Graz: Institut für Elektronische
Musik (IEM) an der Universität für Musik und darstellende Kunst in Graz, 1999.

46
Nicholson/Sabat REFERENCES

Lusitano, Vicente. Introduttione facilissima, et novissima, di canto fermo, figurato,

contraponto semplice, et in concerto. Rome: Antonio Blado, 1553.

midi.org. The MIDI 1.0 Specification. https://www.midi.org/specifications-old/item/

the-midi-1-0-specification, 1982.

Partch, Harry. Genesis of a Music. Second Edition. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 1979.

Ramos de Pareja, Bartolomé. Musica practica. ?Bologna: Baltasar de Hiriberia, 1482.

Sabat, Marc. The Extended Helmholtz-Ellis JI Pitch Notation. http://www.marcsabat.

com/pdfs/notation.pdf, 2005.

Schweinitz, Wolfgang von. The Classical Indian Just Intonation Tuning System
notated in the Extended Helmholtz-Ellis JI Pitch Notation (2007) — with a com-
mentary by musicologist Prof. P. Sambamurthy copied from his great anthology
SOUTH INDIAN MUSIC. http://www.plainsound.org/pdfs/srutis.pdf, 2006.

Secor, George, and David Keenan. Sagittal: A Microtonal Notation System. http:
//sagittal.org/sagittal.pdf, 2012.

Smith, Charles Samuel. “Leonhard Euler’s Tentamen novae theoriae musicae : a

translation and commentary.” PhD diss., Indiana University, 1960.

Tartini, Giuseppe. Trattato di musica: secondo la vera scienza dell’armonia. Padua:

Giovanni Manfrè, 1754.

Tenney, James. A History of Consonance and Dissonance. First Edition. UK: Rout-
ledge, 1988.

. From Scratch, Writings in Music Theory. Edited by Larry Polansky, Lauren

Pratt, Robert Wannamaker, and Michael Winter. Illinois: University of Illinois
Press, 2015.

Vicentino, Nicola. L’antica musica ridotta alla moderna prattica. Venice: Antonio
Barre, 1555.

Wyschnegradsky, Ivan. La Loi de la Pansonorité. Edited by Franck Jedrzejewski

and Pascal Criton. Paris: Contrechamps, 1996.

Zannos, Ioannis. Ichos und Makam: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zum Tonsystem

der griechisch-orthodoxen Kirchenmusik und der türkischen Kunstmusik. Bonn:
Orpheus Verlag, 1994.

Zarlino, Gioseffo. Le istitutioni harmoniche. Venice, 1558.

47