Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Come on, people, *breathe*

Agreed.

It almost seems funny in a way, because...we're a group of people trying to
create something most people would consider "experimental"...yet we seem
to be fighting about who can makes the most "normal" experimental work (can you say oxymoron?!)...as if everything led to some all-powerful common answer that works for everything.

Is the answer in some type of equal temperament? The golden ratio? Repeated irrational numbers and rotations of PI?! Intervals with similar character regardless of critical band or avoiding the half critical band at all costs?
------------------
I simply enjoy micro-tonal music and applaud any composer who approaches
it as an honest challenge. I've heard great music coming from non-JI tunes such as Lucy Tuning, yet I've also found JI of various limits producing beautiful results...and I've heard great music from 17,19,31,33,41,53...and even 10TET...and a whole lot of other methods that prove equally interesting, such as "sound sculptures".

In the end of the day, who cares who is "right" or the "smartest man in the room"... In the end of the day, the question isn't rather or works fit in some utopian mathematical function...but whether they can contribute to listener enjoyment or/or enlightenment to previously impossible moods. Arguing about who is right here is like arguing if the C Aeolian mode of C Lydian is better, there can be two right answers and it really isn't important which one is more right...each one will inspire different composers and different listeners, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Now let's stop
arguing...and make some great music!

-Michael

__,_._

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

you noticed that!

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Mike Battaglia wrote:
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. Although compared to the tuning forum, this
> place is pretty tame. God have mercy on the poor soul who questions
> the usefulness of harmonic entropy over there.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Jon Szanto <jszanto@... > <mailto:jszanto%40cox.net>> wrote:
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, "Chris Vaisvil"
> >
> > <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't mind debating even if I get proven wrong.
> >
> > Nor I. I've learned a hell of a lot in life from my errors.
> >
> >> But there is no reason to get personal.
> >
> > Of course not, except for the universal caveat that we are all humans,
> > and humans can be unpredictable, lapse in judgment, have bad days,
> > etc. Thankfully, especially around here, it isn't constant.
> >
> >> My thought was we are here to learn...
> >
> > That we are. I'm looking forward to being a little more active this
> > summer on the list.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
> >
> >
>
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

Haha, yeah. That's why I gave up on my music theory thread - I have my ideas
about it (that thread became a mixture of like 4 or 5 originally separate
concepts), and I felt like they were all being shot down because they didn't
fit in with the current models. But being as my thread was about critically
evaluating the current models, it didn't make sense for that reaction to
occur. Actually, the main problem I ran into was that a lot of my ideas were
really just meditations on my experiences, and when those were shot down, it
was almost like the experience was being shot down and being told to fit
into some other box which isn't what I experienced at all. I then read a
whole bunch of papers because I thought I misunderstood the current model,
which I partially did. But the whole thing actually threw me way off track
with those ideas, so I just started doing my own work on them and figured
I'd come back later when I had them more sorted out.

So when I saw the great harmonic entropy war of 2008 taking place on
yahoo-tuning, I found it to be pretty amusing, as from my perspective, it
was pretty much the same thing. I think you guys should start piecing
together how you think it all works - deep down you already must have some
kind of idea, as you use the principle all the time to write and play music.
I for one would find the results interesting.

-Mike

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
wrote:

> you noticed that!
>
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
> Mesotonal Music from:
> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>
> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
>
> Mike Battaglia wrote:
> >
> > I agree wholeheartedly. Although compared to the tuning forum, this
> > place is pretty tame. God have mercy on the poor soul who questions
> > the usefulness of harmonic entropy over there.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...<jszanto%40cox.net>
> > <mailto:jszanto%40cox.net <jszanto%2540cox.net>>> wrote:
> > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com<MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com<MakeMicroMusic%2540yahoogroups.com>>,
> "Chris Vaisvil"
> > >
> > > <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I don't mind debating even if I get proven wrong.
> > >
> > > Nor I. I've learned a hell of a lot in life from my errors.
> > >
> > >> But there is no reason to get personal.
> > >
> > > Of course not, except for the universal caveat that we are all humans,
> > > and humans can be unpredictable, lapse in judgment, have bad days,
> > > etc. Thankfully, especially around here, it isn't constant.
> > >
> > >> My thought was we are here to learn...
> > >
> > > That we are. I'm looking forward to being a little more active this
> > > summer on the list.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Jon
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

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

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I hope i did not contribute to much to those feeling, if so i apologize.
As far as the con/dissonant question, i think it is beyond analysis and then there is the next question, if it can be done, what do you do with it except have it as another thing to be distracting from more important aspects of the music. So i for one, am not interested in figuring it out. It isn't that hard to make something more or less dissonant right there at the moment. Another chart is the last thing i need, i have enough. I have my instruments which is enough for me. i would rather do different things with my one or two tunings than the same thing with many different ones.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Mike Battaglia wrote:
>
> Haha, yeah. That's why I gave up on my music theory thread - I have my > ideas
> about it (that thread became a mixture of like 4 or 5 originally separate
> concepts), and I felt like they were all being shot down because they > didn't
> fit in with the current models. But being as my thread was about > critically
> evaluating the current models, it didn't make sense for that reaction to
> occur. Actually, the main problem I ran into was that a lot of my > ideas were
> really just meditations on my experiences, and when those were shot > down, it
> was almost like the experience was being shot down and being told to fit
> into some other box which isn't what I experienced at all. I then read a
> whole bunch of papers because I thought I misunderstood the current model,
> which I partially did. But the whole thing actually threw me way off track
> with those ideas, so I just started doing my own work on them and figured
> I'd come back later when I had them more sorted out.
>
> So when I saw the great harmonic entropy war of 2008 taking place on
> yahoo-tuning, I found it to be pretty amusing, as from my perspective, it
> was pretty much the same thing. I think you guys should start piecing
> together how you think it all works - deep down you already must have some
> kind of idea, as you use the principle all the time to write and play > music.
> I for one would find the results interesting.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@... > <mailto:kraiggrady%40anaphoria.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > you noticed that!
> >
> > /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
> > Mesotonal Music from:
> > _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/ > <http://anaphoria.com/>>
> >
> > _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> > Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria > <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/ > <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>>
> >
> > ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
> >
> >
> > Mike Battaglia wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree wholeheartedly. Although compared to the tuning forum, this
> > > place is pretty tame. God have mercy on the poor soul who questions
> > > the usefulness of harmonic entropy over there.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Jon Szanto <jszanto@... > <mailto:jszanto%40cox.net><jszanto%40cox.net>
> > > <mailto:jszanto%40cox.net <jszanto%2540cox.net>>> wrote:
> > > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com><MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com<MakeMicroMusic%2540yahoogroups.com>>,
> > "Chris Vaisvil"
> > > >
> > > > <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't mind debating even if I get proven wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Nor I. I've learned a hell of a lot in life from my errors.
> > > >
> > > >> But there is no reason to get personal.
> > > >
> > > > Of course not, except for the universal caveat that we are all > humans,
> > > > and humans can be unpredictable, lapse in judgment, have bad days,
> > > > etc. Thankfully, especially around here, it isn't constant.
> > > >
> > > >> My thought was we are here to learn...
> > > >
> > > > That we are. I'm looking forward to being a little more active this
> > > > summer on the list.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

You know, in other fields, learning the "theory" behind something
usually provides someone with huge insights that spark their
creativity and inspire them. In music, learning the "theory" behind it
usually provides you with rules that cause you to doubt your own ear
and hinder your creativity. So everyone just intuitively hates theory.

I would love to see the day when musicality and theory become really
just the same thing.

-Mike

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> I hope i did not contribute to much to those feeling, if so i apologize.
> As far as the con/dissonant question, i think it is beyond analysis and
> then there is the next question, if it can be done, what do you do with
> it except have it as another thing to be distracting from more important
> aspects of the music. So i for one, am not interested in figuring it
> out. It isn't that hard to make something more or less dissonant right
> there at the moment. Another chart is the last thing i need, i have
> enough. I have my instruments which is enough for me. i would rather do
> different things with my one or two tunings than the same thing with
> many different ones.
>
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
> Mesotonal Music from:
> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>
> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
> Mike Battaglia wrote:
>>
>> Haha, yeah. That's why I gave up on my music theory thread - I have my
>> ideas
>> about it (that thread became a mixture of like 4 or 5 originally separate
>> concepts), and I felt like they were all being shot down because they
>> didn't
>> fit in with the current models. But being as my thread was about
>> critically
>> evaluating the current models, it didn't make sense for that reaction to
>> occur. Actually, the main problem I ran into was that a lot of my
>> ideas were
>> really just meditations on my experiences, and when those were shot
>> down, it
>> was almost like the experience was being shot down and being told to fit
>> into some other box which isn't what I experienced at all. I then read a
>> whole bunch of papers because I thought I misunderstood the current model,
>> which I partially did. But the whole thing actually threw me way off track
>> with those ideas, so I just started doing my own work on them and figured
>> I'd come back later when I had them more sorted out.
>>
>> So when I saw the great harmonic entropy war of 2008 taking place on
>> yahoo-tuning, I found it to be pretty amusing, as from my perspective, it
>> was pretty much the same thing. I think you guys should start piecing
>> together how you think it all works - deep down you already must have some
>> kind of idea, as you use the principle all the time to write and play
>> music.
>> I for one would find the results interesting.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...
>> <mailto:kraiggrady%40anaphoria.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > you noticed that!
>> >
>> > /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
>> > Mesotonal Music from:
>> > _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
>> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/
>> <http://anaphoria.com/>>
>> >
>> > _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
>> > Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria
>> <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/
>> <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>>
>> >
>> > ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>> >
>> >
>> > Mike Battaglia wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I agree wholeheartedly. Although compared to the tuning forum, this
>> > > place is pretty tame. God have mercy on the poor soul who questions
>> > > the usefulness of harmonic entropy over there.
>> > >
>> > > -Mike
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...
>> <mailto:jszanto%40cox.net><jszanto%40cox.net>
>> > > <mailto:jszanto%40cox.net <jszanto%2540cox.net>>> wrote:
>> > > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
>>
>> <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com><MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > >
>>
>> <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com<MakeMicroMusic%2540yahoogroups.com>>,
>> > "Chris Vaisvil"
>> > > >
>> > > > <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I don't mind debating even if I get proven wrong.
>> > > >
>> > > > Nor I. I've learned a hell of a lot in life from my errors.
>> > > >
>> > > >> But there is no reason to get personal.
>> > > >
>> > > > Of course not, except for the universal caveat that we are all
>> humans,
>> > > > and humans can be unpredictable, lapse in judgment, have bad days,
>> > > > etc. Thankfully, especially around here, it isn't constant.
>> > > >
>> > > >> My thought was we are here to learn...
>> > > >
>> > > > That we are. I'm looking forward to being a little more active this
>> > > > summer on the list.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > > Jon
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

At 03:34 AM 6/18/2008, you wrote:
>Haha, yeah. That's why I gave up on my music theory thread - I have my ideas
>about it (that thread became a mixture of like 4 or 5 originally separate
>concepts), and I felt like they were all being shot down because they didn't
>fit in with the current models. But being as my thread was about critically
>evaluating the current models, it didn't make sense for that reaction to
>occur. Actually, the main problem I ran into was that a lot of my ideas were
>really just meditations on my experiences, and when those were shot down, it
>was almost like the experience was being shot down and being told to fit
>into some other box which isn't what I experienced at all. I then read a
>whole bunch of papers because I thought I misunderstood the current model,
>which I partially did. But the whole thing actually threw me way off track
>with those ideas, so I just started doing my own work on them and figured
>I'd come back later when I had them more sorted out.

Well first, sorry you had that experience. A lot of it was my fault.
You were putting out a lot of text and I felt obliged to reply when
I didn't really have the time. I shouldn't have. That said you
should probably try to keep your reply ratio below 10:1 when someone
engages you on a mailing list you're new to.

I would also like to suggest that you shouldn't take offense if your
experiences are shot down. People seem to trust their experiences
far too much. Human experiences are highly untrustworthy (that being
said we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and
mainstream "science" often does that too, with absurd notions like
'babies don't feel pain' and such going on for years). Take for
example the recent thing with metastable intervals. Dave posted
something about it, Cameron hastily responded that it explained his
Ginkgo scale, and then somebody else chimed in that a revolution was
afoot! But in reality, it's all too easy to hear things. As Dave
pointed out, metastable intervals don't "explain" Cameron's scale.
Not only do people trust their experiences too much, they seem to
ego-identify with them. That's not my problem, but I should try to
be more sensitive to it.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Steve Morris <barbershopsteve@...>

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> Not only do people trust their experiences too much, they seem to
> ego-identify with them. *That's not my problem*, but I should try to
> be more sensitive to it.

Carl,

I was right with you until your last sentence. Ones own experience is often
referred to by scientists as anecdotal evidence which is to say unreliable.
I don't think it is possible to know for sure whether one is being
completely objective in interpreting ones own experience. I try to peel away
my numerous biases one layer at a time and every time I think I have reached
the bottom I get surprised by another layer.

As a result of my difficulty in stripping my own ego - identifications I am
very suspicious when someone says they don't have that problem. In my
experience the people who come closest to overcoming subjectivity are the
ones that are continuously suspicious of their own interpretations.

This is of course a tricky problem for us. It is the the very purpose of
music theory to try to explain human experience. If you reject your
experience you reject a major tool for understanding. You are right to say
one shouldn't treat ones experience as fact but as long as you maintain a
healthy skepticism your experience can be a wonderful guide.

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

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

At 10:50 AM 6/18/2008, you wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>> Not only do people trust their experiences too much, they seem to
>> ego-identify with them. *That's not my problem*, but I should try
>> to be more sensitive to it.
>
>Carl,
>
>I was right with you until your last sentence. Ones own experience is often
>referred to by scientists as anecdotal evidence which is to say unreliable.
>I don't think it is possible to know for sure whether one is being
>completely objective in interpreting ones own experience. I try to peel away
>my numerous biases one layer at a time and every time I think I have reached
>the bottom I get surprised by another layer.
>
>As a result of my difficulty in stripping my own ego - identifications I am
>very suspicious when someone says they don't have that problem.

Hi Steve,

No no, I have that problem! I just meant, 'it's not my problem
when you're having that problem' -- people often blame the messenger.

>In my
>experience the people who come closest to overcoming subjectivity are the
>ones that are continuously suspicious of their own interpretations.

Absolutely.

>This is of course a tricky problem for us. It is the the very purpose of
>music theory to try to explain human experience. If you reject your
>experience you reject a major tool for understanding.

It's a difficult balance.

-Carl

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> At 03:34 AM 6/18/2008, you wrote:
> >Haha, yeah. That's why I gave up on my music theory thread - I
have my ideas
> >about it (that thread became a mixture of like 4 or 5 originally
separate
> >concepts), and I felt like they were all being shot down because
they didn't
> >fit in with the current models. But being as my thread was about
critically
> >evaluating the current models, it didn't make sense for that
reaction to
> >occur. Actually, the main problem I ran into was that a lot of my
ideas were
> >really just meditations on my experiences, and when those were
shot down, it
> >was almost like the experience was being shot down and being told
to fit
> >into some other box which isn't what I experienced at all. I then
read a
> >whole bunch of papers because I thought I misunderstood the
current model,
> >which I partially did. But the whole thing actually threw me way
off track
> >with those ideas, so I just started doing my own work on them and
figured
> >I'd come back later when I had them more sorted out.
>
> Well first, sorry you had that experience. A lot of it was my
fault.
> You were putting out a lot of text and I felt obliged to reply when
> I didn't really have the time. I shouldn't have. That said you
> should probably try to keep your reply ratio below 10:1 when someone
> engages you on a mailing list you're new to.
>
> I would also like to suggest that you shouldn't take offense if your
> experiences are shot down.

On the other hand you might want to trust your experiences more than
what someone tells you.

>People seem to trust their experiences
> far too much. Human experiences are highly untrustworthy (that
>being
> said we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and
> mainstream "science" often does that too, with absurd notions like
> 'babies don't feel pain' and such going on for years).

It's not the human experience that shouldn't be trusted in that
example, it's "science" Anyone without serious problems knows very
well that babies feel pain, and a lot of it.

>Take for
> example the recent thing with metastable intervals. Dave posted
> something about it, Cameron hastily responded that it explained his
> Ginkgo scale, and then somebody else chimed in that a revolution was
> afoot!

This is not to your usual standards, LOL. A simple read through
(which isn't going to happen in the tangled Yahoo underbrush of
course) will reveal that I posted the coincidences of the tuning with
Erv Wilson's Scale Tree. I disagree with several of Dave's points,
and the metastable and noble intervals he has presented could never
produce the tuning I posted, which also something easily verified.
The intervals are there on the Scale Tree, they are not there in the
noble intervals. Quite simple.

Nobody claimed that a revolution was afoot, unless I missed something
(not impossible). I didn't see anything but extremely old, even
ancient, ideas being discussed. Finding euphonious intervals of
different characters between the simple Just consonances is an
activity thousands of years old.

>But in reality, it's all too easy to hear things.

You said it. :-D

>As Dave
> pointed out, metastable intervals don't "explain" Cameron's scale.

Yes, I consider the "metastable" intervals just a small subset of
possible "shadow" intervals, as I have said more than once. They are
easily to describe mathematically which makes them more attractive,
maybe, but they're just "a" thing, not "the" thing. I strongly
disagree that phi-weighted mediants need to be noble, for one thing.

> Not only do people trust their experiences too much, they seem to
> ego-identify with them.

I don't believe in "ego" and "id" and all that, but if those concepts
are part of your religious beliefs, I'll respect them as such. At any
rate- so what? Let the ideas battle it out, who cares about who
identifies with what.

>That's not my problem, but I should try to
> be more sensitive to it.

I wouldn't have a clue about whether or not you "ego-identify" with
anything you say, even if I believed in such things. What you should,
in my opinion, do is not woefully underestimate other people's
intelligence. Some of those here who do give a hoot about any of this
are going to spot, or should I say already have spotted, the conflict
between the idea of which the metastable intervals are only an
example and some ideas or practices basic to the regular temperament
paradigm.

Put simply, the audible presence of "metastable" (or whatever)
intervals means for one thing that the fields of attraction of Just
intervals are probably not smooth. We talked about this quite some
time ago. Realize that at that time you didn't "shoot down" the idea
that the regions around the simple Just intervals are "lumpy" to the
ear, you simply disagreed with it.

If the "fields of attraction" are smooth, the audible presence of
"metastable" intervals would most likely require such fields, in
practice, to be small- and asymmetrical.

And so either way adios to assuming that an interval makes a "better
approximation" in an audible rather than merely a numerical sense
simply because it is closer to the "goal" in sheer size than another
interval is.

At any rate, carry on, hahaha! Take care.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Cameron wrote:
>This is not to your usual standards, LOL. A simple read through
>(which isn't going to happen in the tangled Yahoo underbrush of
>course) will reveal that I posted the coincidences of the tuning with
>Erv Wilson's Scale Tree. I disagree with several of Dave's points,
>and the metastable and noble intervals he has presented could never
>produce the tuning I posted, which also something easily verified.
>The intervals are there on the Scale Tree, they are not there in the
>noble intervals. Quite simple.

I said "metastable", not noble.

>Nobody claimed that a revolution was afoot, unless I missed
>something (not impossible).

"This is mind-bogglingly useful. ... I think we may truly be on
to something...one thing that seems obvious is making notes
consonant relative to each other is not enough in and of itself."

>> As Dave pointed out, metastable intervals don't "explain"
>> Cameron's scale.
>
>Yes, I consider the "metastable" intervals just a small subset of
>possible "shadow" intervals, as I have said more than once.

Regardless of what words you want to use, Dave debunked
/tuning/topicId_76975.html#77257
the post of yours to which the above quote pertained.

>> Not only do people trust their experiences too much, they seem to
>> ego-identify with them.
>
>I don't believe in "ego" and "id" and all that, but if those concepts
>are part of your religious beliefs, I'll respect them as such. At any
>rate- so what? Let the ideas battle it out, who cares about who
>identifies with what.

You seem to be very good about it, and generally laid
back (something I wish would rub off on me). It was Mike
who was complaining just now, and lots of people had
problems with Paul E. about it in the past.

>>That's not my problem, but I should try to
>> be more sensitive to it.
>
>I wouldn't have a clue about whether or not you "ego-identify"
>with anything you say,

See my reply to Steve.

>Put simply, the audible presence of "metastable" (or whatever)
>intervals means for one thing that the fields of attraction of Just
>intervals are probably not smooth. We talked about this quite some
>time ago. Realize that at that time you didn't "shoot down" the idea
>that the regions around the simple Just intervals are "lumpy" to the
>ear, you simply disagreed with it.

I did? I think I said that the assumption of symmetrical mistuning
"pain" on either side of a just interval is justified in most cases,
but is not always strictly true (5/4 is perhaps the worst violation).

-Carl

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

>Nobody claimed that a revolution was afoot, unless I missed

>something (not impossible). --Cameron

"This is mind-bogglingly useful. ... I think we may truly be on

to something... one thing that seems obvious is making notes

consonant relative to each other is not enough in and of itself."
--Carl

I will admit I know nothing about "noble" numbers or any of these "are
the ratios in a given function set" type comments.
But I will say this: just as you can make a melody that's in-tune but not
"in mood", just making notes consonant relative to each other does not in and of itself guarantee they will sound good.

True story :-D...I came up with a melody for a song in my head yesterday but,
when I tried to pull it off, it fit well in Cameron's "common character" scale but not in strict
Just Intonation. I tried it in 12TET and it sounded completely wrong and forced, almost out of key far as mood.

Whether character has to be in a scale or not to make it sound good isn't the point...but, rather, I think one obvious answer is that Cameron's method IS one
very good way (out of many) to make a scale capable very solid degrees of expression that don't fit into 12-TET.
Anyone agree/disagree here?

-Mike

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

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Music is primarily a subjective experience. It seems if you get rid of subjective responses, you might be getting rid of music:)

As far as ego is concerned, it is not so much individual egos who have cause problems in the world but group egos where individuals have given up theirs for the 'whole'. The middle of the last century illustrates that.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Steve Morris wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@... > <mailto:carl%40lumma.org>> wrote:
> > Not only do people trust their experiences too much, they seem to
> > ego-identify with them. *That's not my problem*, but I should try to
> > be more sensitive to it.
>
> Carl,
>
> I was right with you until your last sentence. Ones own experience is > often
> referred to by scientists as anecdotal evidence which is to say > unreliable.
> I don't think it is possible to know for sure whether one is being
> completely objective in interpreting ones own experience. I try to > peel away
> my numerous biases one layer at a time and every time I think I have > reached
> the bottom I get surprised by another layer.
>
> As a result of my difficulty in stripping my own ego - identifications > I am
> very suspicious when someone says they don't have that problem. In my
> experience the people who come closest to overcoming subjectivity are the
> ones that are continuously suspicious of their own interpretations.
>
> This is of course a tricky problem for us. It is the the very purpose of
> music theory to try to explain human experience. If you reject your
> experience you reject a major tool for understanding. You are right to say
> one shouldn't treat ones experience as fact but as long as you maintain a
> healthy skepticism your experience can be a wonderful guide.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I agree fully. melodic 'character' can be found in places that can not be fully explained, but nevertheless pursued.
As Cameron is doing.

I would say that the overall structure of a tuning likewise have it character(S)

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Michael Sheiman wrote:
>
> >Nobody claimed that a revolution was afoot, unless I missed
>
> >something (not impossible). --Cameron
>
> "This is mind-bogglingly useful. ... I think we may truly be on
>
> to something... one thing that seems obvious is making notes
>
> consonant relative to each other is not enough in and of itself."
> --Carl
>
> I will admit I know nothing about "noble" numbers or any of these > "are
> the ratios in a given function set" type comments.
> But I will say this: just as you can make a melody that's in-tune > but not
> "in mood", just making notes consonant relative to each other does not > in and of itself guarantee they will sound good. >
> True story :-D...I came up with a melody for a song in my head > yesterday but,
> when I tried to pull it off, it fit well in Cameron's "common > character" scale but not in strict
> Just Intonation. I tried it in 12TET and it sounded completely wrong > and forced, almost out of key far as mood.
>
> Whether character has to be in a scale or not to make it sound good > isn't the point...but, rather, I think one obvious answer is that > Cameron's method IS one
> very good way (out of many) to make a scale capable very solid degrees > of expression that don't fit into 12-TET.
> Anyone agree/disagree here?
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

🔗Steve Morris <barbershopsteve@...>

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
wrote:
> Music is primarily a subjective experience. It seems if you get rid of
subjective
> responses, you might be getting rid of music:)

There is clearly a subjective aspect to music but there is also a hard
science measurable aspect to how the ear passes sound information to the
brain; and a somewhat less measurable but still pretty hard psychological
response in the brain. It is quite possible to measure subjective
phenomenon. Psychologists do it all the time and learn useful things. You
don't need to get rid of it to understand it and study it.

However to make it work the scientist needs to be a different person from
the subject under test. Science requires a separation of the observer from
the observed if it is to be trusted. That is part of the rules of the
scientific method. That's because bias is incredibly persistent and subtle.
It is not just a matter of integrity; bias is wired into the way we think.
In order to be efficient our brain is continuously jumping to conclusions;
taking mental shortcuts. We do it without thinking and it happens many
thousands of times a day. Each time we do it we short circuit any kind of
critical thinking and introspective self analysis. That's why double blind
testing was invented and why research funded by drug companies is suspect. A
large percentage of technical journal article words are devoted to proving
that bias has been eliminated or at least properly estimated and discounted.

As much as we are trying to accurately understand and explain human reaction
to music, to that exact extent we need be the scientist. If you are
listening to music and judging your own reactions you are simply gathering
anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is valuable in its own way in the
process of establishing verifiable facts but can't be used to "prove"
anything. At best it can guide the development of useful experiments.

They say that a doctor who diagnoses and treats himself has a fool for a
patient. Similarly an investigator studying his or her own behavior or
reactions is probably not be a fool but he is certainly not a scientist.

--
Steve Morris
barbershopsteve@...
Bass: Boston Wailers
Bass: Sounds Of Concord
Motto: Old age and treachery will always prevail over youth and skill

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

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

first it must be remembered it is a recurrent sequence so one can seed it in many different ways
here is the segment i use most
note name /ratio /freq. /Cents from et /Cents from F
F 16 352 F +13.686 0
F# 65 357.5 F# -59.472 26.841
G 9 396 G +17.596 203.910
G# 37 407 G# -34.970 251.344
A 151 415.25 A -100.228 286.085
A# 21 462 A# -15.532 470.781
B 86 473 B - 74.796 511.518
C 12 528 C +15.641 701.955
C# 49 539 C# -48.661 737.651
D 200 550 D -113.686 772.628
D# 7 616 D# - 17.488 968.826
E 114 627 E -86.845 999.470

But if we where to go for the most extreme example where it converges so we have left ratios behind.
take 486.82212777 cents out 12 times

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> At 02:29 PM 6/18/2008, you wrote:
> >And one can follow the post afterwards where i debunk the debunking
>
> Sorry, must have missed that. I am still waiting to find out
> what a metaslendro scale is (in cents, if possible).
>
> -Carl
>
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Cents (from F a 5/4 below a=440)
0
26.841
203.910
286.085
470.781
511.518
701.955
737.651
772.628
968.826
999.470

But if we where to go for the most extreme example where it converges so
we have left ratios behind.
take 486.82212777 cents out 12 times

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Kraig Grady wrote:
>
> first it must be remembered it is a recurrent sequence so one can seed
> it in many different ways
> here is the segment i use most
> note name /ratio /freq. /Cents from et /Cents from F
> F 16 352 F +13.686 0
> F# 65 357.5 F# -59.472 26.841
> G 9 396 G +17.596 203.910
> G# 37 407 G# -34.970 251.344
> A 151 415.25 A -100.228 286.085
> A# 21 462 A# -15.532 470.781
> B 86 473 B - 74.796 511.518
> C 12 528 C +15.641 701.955
> C# 49 539 C# -48.661 737.651
> D 200 550 D -113.686 772.628
> D# 7 616 D# - 17.488 968.826
> E 114 627 E -86.845 999.470
>
> But if we where to go for the most extreme example where it converges so
> we have left ratios behind.
> take 486.82212777 cents out 12 times
>
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
> Mesotonal Music from:
> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/ > <http://anaphoria.com/>>
>
> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/ > <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
> >
> > At 02:29 PM 6/18/2008, you wrote:
> > >And one can follow the post afterwards where i debunk the debunking
> >
> > Sorry, must have missed that. I am still waiting to find out
> > what a metaslendro scale is (in cents, if possible).
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
>
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> At 03:34 AM 6/18/2008, you wrote:
>>Haha, yeah. That's why I gave up on my music theory thread - I have my
>> ideas
>>about it (that thread became a mixture of like 4 or 5 originally separate
>>concepts), and I felt like they were all being shot down because they
>> didn't
>>fit in with the current models. But being as my thread was about critically
>>evaluating the current models, it didn't make sense for that reaction to
>>occur. Actually, the main problem I ran into was that a lot of my ideas
>> were
>>really just meditations on my experiences, and when those were shot down,
>> it
>>was almost like the experience was being shot down and being told to fit
>>into some other box which isn't what I experienced at all. I then read a
>>whole bunch of papers because I thought I misunderstood the current model,
>>which I partially did. But the whole thing actually threw me way off track
>>with those ideas, so I just started doing my own work on them and figured
>>I'd come back later when I had them more sorted out.
>
> Well first, sorry you had that experience. A lot of it was my fault.
> You were putting out a lot of text and I felt obliged to reply when
> I didn't really have the time. I shouldn't have. That said you
> should probably try to keep your reply ratio below 10:1 when someone
> engages you on a mailing list you're new to.

rofl. sage advice.

> I would also like to suggest that you shouldn't take offense if your
> experiences are shot down. People seem to trust their experiences
> far too much. Human experiences are highly untrustworthy (that being
> said we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and
> mainstream "science" often does that too, with absurd notions like
> 'babies don't feel pain' and such going on for years).

I know where you're coming from here, and I've flip-flopped for a long
time between the two approaches. Here's my rationale for trusting my
experiences:

Whenever I come across a theory that seems to not only explain my
experience, but points at the cause in a way that makes intuitive
sense and that I can also experience, I usually go "holy shit! aha!" A
lot of psychological theories had moments like that for me. But when
we come to theories that explain PERCEPTION, we have to be wary of
those that start off like this:

1) what you're experiencing isn't really what's happening
2) what is really happening is this other thing.

Because imo, over time, the theories that are axed first are those
ones. The theories that tend to stick around are more like this:

1) what you're experiencing IS what's really happening
2) here's another facet of what's really happening that you might not
have noticed. here's the way that you piece together your perception.
And it's usually something you can look at and go "oh wow, how the
hell did they ever notice that?" I imagine that's the reaction a lot
of people gave when Rameau first introduced them to the phantom
fundamental from back in the day.

As you yourself said, it's all too easy to come up with theories that
don't hold. So when the incoming information I'm receiving is that my
experience is different from what a theory would predict, I have two
options:

1) dig deep and search for why the theory isn't working here and come
up with ways to amend it
or
2) doubt my experience and say that the theory is actually right but I
can't perceive how.

I have made it a point to opt for the former. In a lot of fields,
however, the latter approach seems to be far too common.

One place where people run into this is when they're confronted with a
perceptual experience that contradicts some neuroscientific (or even
pseudo-neuroscientific) theory of the brain's behavior. In fact, most
people treat the brain within the paradigm that it "controls them" and
that its effects are unperceivable. I view these as artifacts from
that neuroscience is still a nascent field.

Within a broad context, these issues are where scientific fields run
into problems that are usually viewed by most people as trivially
philosophical. For example, the concept of dualism vs. monism is what
is really at stake here - is the world made up of two separate
entities, the mental/perceptual and the physical? The mind and the
brain? The software and the hardware? Or, is it really one huge
entity, the perceptual and the physical? So in this way these issues,
which are usually relegated to zen meditation and such, suddenly
become pertinent to scientific study, and hence science will
eventually work its way through some very philosophical issues over
time.

That being said, I still need to get a better grasp at the
fundamentals of harmonic entropy and these fields of attraction. I
didn't really get a clear grasp on it from our discussion on the
thread, and it might very well answer my questions to the point where
I'm happy/

> Take for example the recent thing with metastable intervals. Dave posted
> something about it, Cameron hastily responded that it explained his
> Ginkgo scale, and then somebody else chimed in that a revolution was
> afoot! But in reality, it's all too easy to hear things. As Dave
> pointed out, metastable intervals don't "explain" Cameron's scale.

Maybe what his scale needs isn't an "explanation" of _why_ we hear
what we hear as much as it needs an elucidating of _what_ we're
actually hearing. Something that is actually just a verbal expression
of what we feel about it and perhaps even makes sense to him as to why
he came up with the image of "Ginkgo" for it.

> Not only do people trust their experiences too much, they seem to
> ego-identify with them. That's not my problem, but I should try to
> be more sensitive to it.

Well, given the kind of posts I've seen around here about "the piagui
perfect scale" and various "ingenious algorithms," I could see how I'd
get put in that box. But honestly I'm not looking for fame as much as
I'm looking for understanding, and not just an understanding of the
current theories but an understanding of my own experiences, similar
to how Cameron is trying to explain his experience of character
families.

I sometimes have synesthetic responses to music myself, and there are
ideas that are incompatible with my responses (and so if I believe
them, the responses go away), and then there are ideas that elucidate
my responses and often give an insight into why they are what they
are. I think that everyone is synesthetic to some extent (hence that
music creates feelings), and I think the "feeling" gets sucked out of
music in this way.

-Mike

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Hi Kraig,

Thanks for sending this. Sorry it's taken so long for me
to get to it.

>first it must be remembered it is a recurrent sequence so one can seed
>it in many different ways
>here is the segment i use most
>note name /ratio /freq. /Cents from et /Cents from F
>F 16 352 F +13.686 0
>F# 65 357.5 F# -59.472 26.841
>G 9 396 G +17.596 203.910
>G# 37 407 G# -34.970 251.344
>A 151 415.25 A -100.228 286.085
>A# 21 462 A# -15.532 470.781
>B 86 473 B -74.796 511.518
>C 12 528 C +15.641 701.955
>C# 49 539 C# -48.661 737.651
>D 200 550 D -113.686 772.628
>D# 7 616 D# - 17.488 968.826
>E 114 627 E -86.845 999.470
>
>But if we where to go for the most extreme example where it converges so
>we have left ratios behind.
>take 486.82212777 cents out 12 times

The last column is what I'm looking at. What do you mean by
take 486. cents out 12 times... I don't get the column on the
right if I make a standard linear chain out of 486-cent 4ths.
I get something more like

0: 1/1 0.000 unison, perfect prime
1: 34.111 cents 34.111
2: 226.356 cents 226.356
3: 260.466 cents 260.466
4: 294.577 cents 294.577
5: 486.822 cents 486.822
6: 520.933 cents 520.933
7: 713.178 cents 713.178
8: 747.289 cents 747.289
9: 781.399 cents 781.399
10: 973.644 cents 973.644
11: 1007.755 cents 1007.755
12: 1200.000 cents 1200.000

Can you give a little more details? thanks. -Carl

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

The difference is first metaslendro treated as a numerical series as i use it. much like the fibonacci numbers. the idea of the second is taking the converged interval and using that. In the first case the numbers will bounce around this interval, in the second case they will not. I prefer the former cause you get more variation with say each pentatonic. The latter while being the same has the advantage of being the same as it inversion. so your generating triad which in like 6;7;8 will occur in the 'subharmonic version too.

It is like first doing the fibonacci series, then doing the golden mean. different interpretations of the two things

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> Hi Kraig,
>
> Thanks for sending this. Sorry it's taken so long for me
> to get to it.
>
> >first it must be remembered it is a recurrent sequence so one can seed
> >it in many different ways
> >here is the segment i use most
> >note name /ratio /freq. /Cents from et /Cents from F
> >F 16 352 F +13.686 0
> >F# 65 357.5 F# -59.472 26.841
> >G 9 396 G +17.596 203.910
> >G# 37 407 G# -34.970 251.344
> >A 151 415.25 A -100.228 286.085
> >A# 21 462 A# -15.532 470.781
> >B 86 473 B -74.796 511.518
> >C 12 528 C +15.641 701.955
> >C# 49 539 C# -48.661 737.651
> >D 200 550 D -113.686 772.628
> >D# 7 616 D# - 17.488 968.826
> >E 114 627 E -86.845 999.470
> >
> >But if we where to go for the most extreme example where it converges so
> >we have left ratios behind.
> >take 486.82212777 cents out 12 times
>
> The last column is what I'm looking at. What do you mean by
> take 486. cents out 12 times... I don't get the column on the
> right if I make a standard linear chain out of 486-cent 4ths.
> I get something more like
>
> 0: 1/1 0.000 unison, perfect prime
> 1: 34.111 cents 34.111
> 2: 226.356 cents 226.356
> 3: 260.466 cents 260.466
> 4: 294.577 cents 294.577
> 5: 486.822 cents 486.822
> 6: 520.933 cents 520.933
> 7: 713.178 cents 713.178
> 8: 747.289 cents 747.289
> 9: 781.399 cents 781.399
> 10: 973.644 cents 973.644
> 11: 1007.755 cents 1007.755
> 12: 1200.000 cents 1200.000
>
> Can you give a little more details? thanks. -Carl
>
>