More to Mike.

In the 1930's Joseph Schillinger taught the likes of Glenn Miller et al
about geometric expansions. The extra thirty 12-note rows which I have
supplied are original to myself and are derived using a method which is
peculiar to myself. So what I have done is expanded upon a simple idea
in an original and creative fashion. If people want to assign credit to
Erv Wilson for this idea then they are misguided. Schillinger should
get precedence.

At 06:11 PM 6/17/2008, you wrote:
>In the 1930's Joseph Schillinger taught the likes of Glenn Miller et al
>about geometric expansions. The extra thirty 12-note rows which I have
>supplied are original to myself and are derived using a method which is
>peculiar to myself. So what I have done is expanded upon a simple idea
>in an original and creative fashion. If people want to assign credit to
>Erv Wilson for this idea then they are misguided. Schillinger should
>get precedence.

Robert, the point isn't Erv did it first, or that you didn't bring
a unique twist to the table. Actually I'm not sure what you're
doing -- retuning using an out of order scale -- is best described
with the general notion of linear temperaments. But Gene and Petr
did independently discover it too. But again, that's not the point.
The point is that microtonality is a very big subject and no
discovery of yours (that you've shared with us yet, anyway) is
making it 'easier and/or better than it ever was before'. That is
what is painfully obvious to everyone in this community and that
is what we are all trying to tell you.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> At 06:11 PM 6/17/2008, you wrote:
> >In the 1930's Joseph Schillinger taught the likes of Glenn Miller
et al
> >about geometric expansions. The extra thirty 12-note rows which I
have
> >supplied are original to myself and are derived using a method
which is
> >peculiar to myself. So what I have done is expanded upon a simple
idea
> >in an original and creative fashion. If people want to assign
credit to
> >Erv Wilson for this idea then they are misguided. Schillinger
should
> >get precedence.
>
> Robert, the point isn't Erv did it first, or that you didn't bring
> a unique twist to the table. Actually I'm not sure what you're
> doing -- retuning using an out of order scale -- is best described
> with the general notion of linear temperaments. But Gene and Petr
> did independently discover it too. But again, that's not the point.
> The point is that microtonality is a very big subject and no
> discovery of yours (that you've shared with us yet, anyway) is
> making it 'easier and/or better than it ever was before'. That is
> what is painfully obvious to everyone in this community and that
> is what we are all trying to tell you.
>
> -Carl
>
From Robert. Once again I don't believe you. There are 400+ members
in this group and only a handful has commented about my postings. You
are not the spokesperson for the other 400+ members.

Robert:

Am I correct in saying that your algorithms are basically that you
create a scale by taking some generator, which is an interval between
0-1200 cents, and repeatedly stack it on top of itself 12 times, then
make that the same for every octave? Is there anything I'm missing
out?

-Mike

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:47 AM, robert thomas martin
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>> At 06:11 PM 6/17/2008, you wrote:
>> >In the 1930's Joseph Schillinger taught the likes of Glenn Miller
> et al
>> >about geometric expansions. The extra thirty 12-note rows which I
> have
>> >supplied are original to myself and are derived using a method
> which is
>> >peculiar to myself. So what I have done is expanded upon a simple
> idea
>> >in an original and creative fashion. If people want to assign
> credit to
>> >Erv Wilson for this idea then they are misguided. Schillinger
> should
>> >get precedence.
>>
>> Robert, the point isn't Erv did it first, or that you didn't bring
>> a unique twist to the table. Actually I'm not sure what you're
>> doing -- retuning using an out of order scale -- is best described
>> with the general notion of linear temperaments. But Gene and Petr
>> did independently discover it too. But again, that's not the point.
>> The point is that microtonality is a very big subject and no
>> discovery of yours (that you've shared with us yet, anyway) is
>> making it 'easier and/or better than it ever was before'. That is
>> what is painfully obvious to everyone in this community and that
>> is what we are all trying to tell you.
>>
>> -Carl
>>
> From Robert. Once again I don't believe you. There are 400+ members
> in this group and only a handful has commented about my postings. You
> are not the spokesperson for the other 400+ members.
>
>

At 12:06 AM 6/18/2008, you wrote:
>Robert:
>
>Am I correct in saying that your algorithms are basically that you
>create a scale by taking some generator, which is an interval between
>0-1200 cents, and repeatedly stack it on top of itself 12 times, then
>make that the same for every octave? Is there anything I'm missing
>out?
>
>-Mike

That's about it, except he keeps the pitches in the same order
they come out, i.e. not necessarily pitch-height order. It can
generate some interesting results. -Carl

> That's about it, except he keeps the pitches in the same order
> they come out, i.e. not necessarily pitch-height order. It can
> generate some interesting results. -Carl

Hm. Is that the same thing as simply making a linear temperament with
the period set to some kind of semitone? Or is this a different
concept entirely?

-Mike

> From Robert. Once again I don't believe you. There are 400+ members
> in this group and only a handful has commented about my postings.
> You are not the spokesperson for the other 400+ members.

All right, I'll chime in. Please don't take this as a personal attack,
it's just some observations from watching the list in the last week or
so...

Robert, nothing you have shown in this group would lead me to think that
you have made anything easier for anyone. All I have seen on the list is
(a) some assertions that you have done something fabulous, and (b)
incomprehensible little lists of note names and cents. I haven't even seen
any theories or any pointers to sounds such as MP3 files. So there is
nothing to evaluate to see whether you have made anything easier for
anyone. I even went out to your micro-made-easy group and looked at the
messages and saw nothing there but more of the same (assertions and lists).

I'm sitting here with lots of tools -- for example the Rhino VST
synthesizer -- which make microtonality about as easy as it can get, so I
don't see any difficulty. You haven't displayed anything at all but a few
lists and some assertions of your superior methods. I think that's what
Carl and others are complaining about. In my estimation, Carl is right.

So, if would be nice to hear some of what you're doing, and to see an
explanation of your methods.

Rick

At 12:19 AM 6/18/2008, you wrote:
>> That's about it, except he keeps the pitches in the same order
>> they come out, i.e. not necessarily pitch-height order. It can
>> generate some interesting results. -Carl
>
>Hm. Is that the same thing as simply making a linear temperament with
>the period set to some kind of semitone? Or is this a different
>concept entirely?
>
>-Mike

It's a linear temperament, the thing is how it's mapped to the
12-ET universe. Robert doesn't seem to be doing it too
systematically, but the way Gene did it is to put the consonances
in the new temperament over where they are in 12. So like if
the big consonance in the new temperament is 7/5, you put that
on "E", even if this makes the rest of the scale come out of
pitch-height order. So the consonance/dissonance contrasts
in the source music are somewhat maintained, even though the
melodies will be scrambled.

-Carl

Has anyone here actually read Schillinger? He had an interesting and
colorful take on things, but the books are kind of shambling hulks,
as his method was taught first-hand. I imagine that without keeping
your eyes super-glued to the prize they'd only serve to take twenty
years of your life with nothing more to show than what three stoned
college kids could program up in a few days.

"My son, if you would devote yourself to combining holy Names, still
greater things would happen to you. And now, my son, admit that you
are unable to bear not combining. Give half to this and half to that,
that is, do combinations half the night, and permutations half the
night."- Abulafia

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@...> wrote:
>
> > From Robert. Once again I don't believe you. There are 400+
members
> > in this group and only a handful has commented about my postings.
> > You are not the spokesperson for the other 400+ members.
>
> All right, I'll chime in. Please don't take this as a personal
attack,
> it's just some observations from watching the list in the last week
or
> so...
>
> Robert, nothing you have shown in this group would lead me to think
that
> you have made anything easier for anyone. All I have seen on the
list is
> (a) some assertions that you have done something fabulous, and (b)
> incomprehensible little lists of note names and cents. I haven't
even seen
> any theories or any pointers to sounds such as MP3 files. So there
is
> nothing to evaluate to see whether you have made anything easier
for
> anyone. I even went out to your micro-made-easy group and looked at
the
> messages and saw nothing there but more of the same (assertions and
lists).
>
> I'm sitting here with lots of tools -- for example the Rhino VST
> synthesizer -- which make microtonality about as easy as it can
get, so I
> don't see any difficulty. You haven't displayed anything at all but
a few
> lists and some assertions of your superior methods. I think that's
what
> Carl and others are complaining about. In my estimation, Carl is
right.
>
> So, if would be nice to hear some of what you're doing, and to see
an
> explanation of your methods.
>
> Rick
>
From Robert. If you don't understand the significance of the data I
have supplied then there is not much I can add. Either you are
willing to try out my ideas for yourself or you are not. I've made it
easy enough. Your opinion (and a few others) doesn't add up to 400+.

OK, as one of the normally silent 400 I'll chime in again Robert. Your
posts are unresponsive. I and most people are unwilling to spend time
on your ideas unless you give us a head start in trying to understand
what you are trying to do. You refuse to do this. I came into this
thread late and missed your "data". All you have posted since I picked
up the thread is vague and unsubstantiated boasts and assertions about
how wonderful you believe your work is. For all I know it is the best
thing since chunk style peanut butter but your conversational style is
not helpful.

To be blunt your rhetoric and logic are deficient and your tone is
unpleasant for innocent bystanders to listen to. I generally don't
like getting personal but you are presenting a great imitation of what
I would term a "blow hard." Your posts appear to have lots of hot air
and no substance. They are aggressive, harsh and accusatory and depend
on classic rhetorical fallacies. Your post I quote below is a typical
example of your recent posts. It is also a wonderful example of
several logical fallacies that I might present to a class in reasoning
and rhetoric. Rather than defend your thesis (whatever it is) you
attack the character, judgement and skill of the people who disagree
with you. You ignore their arguments, which to the rest of us appear
quite valid on the face of it. This method of argument has a name. It
is called an "ad hominum" attack. Don't believe me. Look it up. Google
has gazllions of references. It is one of the classic logical
fallacies.

The fact that you have no supporters should give you a hint. If there
were any merits to your arguments (assuming you ever made any actual
arguments) people would be piping up and defending you. I read that
silence as indicating that the 400 you mention are basically happy
with the conclusions stated by people like Carl and have better things
to do with their life than argue with an ...

The only solution to a blow hard is to ignore them until they give up
and go away. Now that I have violated that strategy twice I think I
will stop adding to the futile discussion and go back to lurking. I'm
adding a filter to my mail client that deletes unread anything from
Robert lest I be tempted again to tilt against windmills.

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM, robert thomas martin
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
> From Robert. If you don't understand the significance of the data I
> have supplied then there is not much I can add. Either you are
> willing to try out my ideas for yourself or you are not. I've made it
> easy enough. Your opinion (and a few others) doesn't add up to 400+.

I linked you to a tonalsoft encyclopedia article about linear
temperament. You claimed it "didn't make sense" and that it was
"bizarre." So I explained it to you. Well, I tell you that your ideas
"don't make sense" and are bizarre. If you'd like to return the
courtesy of explaining them, it would be much appreciated.

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM, robert thomas martin
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@...> wrote:
>>
>> > From Robert. Once again I don't believe you. There are 400+
> members
>> > in this group and only a handful has commented about my postings.
>> > You are not the spokesperson for the other 400+ members.
>>
>> All right, I'll chime in. Please don't take this as a personal
> attack,
>> it's just some observations from watching the list in the last week
> or
>> so...
>>
>> Robert, nothing you have shown in this group would lead me to think
> that
>> you have made anything easier for anyone. All I have seen on the
> list is
>> (a) some assertions that you have done something fabulous, and (b)
>> incomprehensible little lists of note names and cents. I haven't
> even seen
>> any theories or any pointers to sounds such as MP3 files. So there
> is
>> nothing to evaluate to see whether you have made anything easier
> for
>> anyone. I even went out to your micro-made-easy group and looked at
> the
>> messages and saw nothing there but more of the same (assertions and
> lists).
>>
>> I'm sitting here with lots of tools -- for example the Rhino VST
>> synthesizer -- which make microtonality about as easy as it can
> get, so I
>> don't see any difficulty. You haven't displayed anything at all but
> a few
>> lists and some assertions of your superior methods. I think that's
> what
>> Carl and others are complaining about. In my estimation, Carl is
> right.
>>
>> So, if would be nice to hear some of what you're doing, and to see
> an
>> explanation of your methods.
>>
>> Rick
>>
> From Robert. If you don't understand the significance of the data I
> have supplied then there is not much I can add. Either you are
> willing to try out my ideas for yourself or you are not. I've made it
> easy enough. Your opinion (and a few others) doesn't add up to 400+.
>
>

> The only solution to a blow hard is to ignore them until they give up
> and go away.

I second the motion, continually responding to people like this is bad
for the community...

Chris