imminent demise of tuning-math

Paul,

Please don't be hasty to "phase out" the tuning-math list.
I really think that if we keep it alive, the regular tuning
list will have much less math on it and will be the kind of
list that so many people there have been complaining that
they want.

As I've said, I think tuning, tuning-math, and spiritual_tuning
pretty much covers it. I even forsee that *this* list will
gradually disappear as the proliferation of different
tuning lists settles down and everyone sorts it all out
and subscribes to only those lists they like.

So the tuning and tuning-math separation is one that I really
think is a beneficial one. All the other lists can go,
except that one that's "out there...", for me.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

--- In metatuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_167.html#167

> Paul,
>
> Please don't be hasty to "phase out" the tuning-math list.
> I really think that if we keep it alive, the regular tuning
> list will have much less math on it and will be the kind of
> list that so many people there have been complaining that
> they want.
>
> As I've said, I think tuning, tuning-math, and spiritual_tuning
> pretty much covers it. I even forsee that *this* list will
> gradually disappear as the proliferation of different
> tuning lists settles down and everyone sorts it all out
> and subscribes to only those lists they like.
>
> So the tuning and tuning-math separation is one that I really
> think is a beneficial one. All the other lists can go,
> except that one that's "out there...", for me.
>

What if somebody wanted to discuss a piece of literature in the
context of tuning or composition, Monz. The way it is now, that
discussion would be entirely verboten on ALL the lists, except
for "Metatuning." Therefore, I believe there is a real NEED for at
least ONE list where people can discuss tangential matters. Some of
them may be important for certain individuals...

_________ ________ ______
Joseph Pehrson