To Chris.

You obviously haven't tried out my algorithms in real life yet. If and
when you do I have no doubt that you will be convinced of their musical
and educational value. In the meantime your criticisms are unfounded
and exist only in your mind.

Of course my criticisms are in my mind, where else would they be? ;)

Actually, I've worked quite a bit with MOS scales, which is a more
developed version of what you call "your algorithm" (nice
plagiarism!), with great results. I have no doubt your making nice
music as well. What I'm criticizing is your attitude that you've
discovered something groundbreaking, unique, and "better" (as if that
word has any meaning in the context of musical tuning!)

Enough bickering, I'll start listening to my backlogged list from
people who are actually posting *music* here.

Chris

2008/6/17 robert thomas martin <robertthomasmartin@...>:
> You obviously haven't tried out my algorithms in real life yet. If and
> when you do I have no doubt that you will be convinced of their musical
> and educational value. In the meantime your criticisms are unfounded
> and exist only in your mind.
>
>

--
"Doing the same thing over and over again and hoping you'll get a
different result is the definition of insanity."

"visible light is perceived just short of of an octave....where is
violet heading if not red?" I like this idea because it enables me to
continue wondering.

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:31 AM, robert thomas martin
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
> "visible light is perceived just short of of an octave....where is
> violet heading if not red?" I like this idea because it enables me to
> continue wondering.

Well, that's fine, you can wonder all you want, but the idea is just
wrong. It's pure coincidence that the range of visible light is almost
a factor of two. There is no "octave equivalence" for the reasons I
explained.

If you actually want to understand how normal human (trichromatic)
color perception works, it's all here in this plot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CIExy1931.svg . Please note that it
is not a circle. Also note that most colorblind people (and
dichromatic animals, like dogs) do not perceive red as being close to
blue. There is no such thing as purple for them; if you mix red and
blue light you get white.

BTW, I thought this was the "Make Micro Music" list...

Keenan

the point here was that the math is equivalent

not if everyone perceives it the same

what about tone deaf people?

and math is applicable to music

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>
wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:31 AM, robert thomas martin
> <robertthomasmartin@... <robertthomasmartin%40bigpond.com.au>>
> wrote:
> > "visible light is perceived just short of of an octave....where is
> > violet heading if not red?" I like this idea because it enables me to
> > continue wondering.
>
> Well, that's fine, you can wonder all you want, but the idea is just
> wrong. It's pure coincidence that the range of visible light is almost
> a factor of two. There is no "octave equivalence" for the reasons I
> explained.
>
> If you actually want to understand how normal human (trichromatic)
> color perception works, it's all here in this plot:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CIExy1931.svg . Please note that it
> is not a circle. Also note that most colorblind people (and
> dichromatic animals, like dogs) do not perceive red as being close to
> blue. There is no such thing as purple for them; if you mix red and
> blue light you get white.
>
> BTW, I thought this was the "Make Micro Music" list...
>
> Keenan
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> the point here was that the math is equivalent

Could you please explain exactly what you mean by this? Of course you
can take the Fourier transform of any signal you want, but that's not
the point.

> not if everyone perceives it the same
>
> what about tone deaf people?

What about them?

> and math is applicable to music

We all know that already.

Keenan

isn't the answer Yes?

"Can Maxwell's equations be used to produce microtonal music (like say,
>> fractals and cellular automata music software"

and was that not the point?

whether if the result is meaningful in the end... well.

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>
wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...<chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > the point here was that the math is equivalent
>
> Could you please explain exactly what you mean by this? Of course you
> can take the Fourier transform of any signal you want, but that's not
> the point.
>
> > not if everyone perceives it the same
> >
> > what about tone deaf people?
>
> What about them?
>
> > and math is applicable to music
>
> We all know that already.
>
> Keenan
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper"
<keenanpepper@...> wrote:
> BTW, I thought this was the "Make Micro Music" list...

So did I. What the f*** happened?

Rick?

Prent??

Cheers,
Jon

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper"
> <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>> BTW, I thought this was the "Make Micro Music" list...
>
> So did I. What the f*** happened?

Sorry for contributing to the off-topicness, I guess...

Keenan

Keenan,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper"
<keenanpepper@...> wrote:
> Sorry for contributing to the off-topicness, I guess...

Don't take it too much to heart. One of the things I've gotten used to
is that when people become engrossed in a conversation, they start
following their muses pretty strongly. It isn't hard, at all, to have
a thread drift, and especially when people reply with relevant
information that tends to branch, things happen.

What I *do* notice is an influx of new posters. This is a *good*
thing. What is not a *good* thing is the concept that MMM is just
another tuning list, and if you don't like the original tuning list
you just simply post here.

It has always been pretty clear that theoretical topics need to be
closely tied to the creation of new (or the performance of existing)
microtonal music(s). To the extent that it varies from this concept is
the degree to which it is at fault. MMM has always been an
unmoderated-to-lightly-moderated list, and I'd like to see that
continue. That said, it is up to the individual members to
self-regulate their urges to wax poetically on the meaning of the
universe, etc. Maybe an occasional reminder about this, from the
powers that be (such as they are), wouldn't be remiss.

I was pleased to see the Blue author chiming in. Totally what should
happen here.

Best,
Jon

Can we get back to making microtonal music now? I don't want to delete
posts, or ban people, but can we keep it on topic? There are a million
fora for a million topics, but just this one for making microtonal
music. Please respect that.

Prent Rodgers

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Keenan,
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper"
> <keenanpepper@> wrote:
> > Sorry for contributing to the off-topicness, I guess...

> MMM has always been an
> unmoderated-to-lightly-moderated list, and I'd like to see that
> continue.

Jon wrote,
> > <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
> > BTW, I thought this was the "Make Micro Music" list...
> So did I. What the f*** happened?
> Rick?
> Prent??
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hmm, yeah... Gosh, I go away to see an opera for the afternoon and come
back to dozens of even-further-off-topic mesages! Jon, I try to moderate in
moderation, if at all. But it's getting pretty far off topic even for me..
I see Prent has stepped in already. ;-)

I was moderately interested in the "Composition software" thread... at
least as it pertains to microtonal music.

Rick