Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning squeeze the juice out of BM's socks and make you drink it. . . .

>
> BM used to spout
>reams and reams of theory, some very convoluted, with pages and pages
>of reference to new and advanced mathematics. i would try to
>criticise this stuff for how it didn't pertain to what was audible,
>or how it was arbitrary, or how it was obscure for the sake of being
>obscure, etc. then BM turns the tables and proclaims that mathematics
>has nothing to do with music. instead of bashing his own previous
>work, he *invents stories* about the work of others, and bashes
>*that*.
>

Gee, it sure would have been nice if someone had aired this dirty laundry
last summer. . . . . . .

I remember there was one point when BM asked for 6 examples and PE *found
6 examples*. That was cool.

But then it all died. Oh well, we all have better things to do. . .

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
> >
> > BM used to spout
> >reams and reams of theory, some very convoluted, with pages and
pages
> >of reference to new and advanced mathematics. i would try to
> >criticise this stuff for how it didn't pertain to what was audible,
> >or how it was arbitrary, or how it was obscure for the sake of
being
> >obscure, etc. then BM turns the tables and proclaims that
mathematics
> >has nothing to do with music. instead of bashing his own previous
> >work, he *invents stories* about the work of others, and bashes
> >*that*.
> >
>
> Gee, it sure would have been nice if someone had aired this dirty
laundry
> last summer. . . . . . .
>
>
> I remember there was one point when BM asked for 6 examples and PE
*found
> 6 examples*. That was cool.
>
> But then it all died. Oh well, we all have better things to do. . .

fortunately, we have some examples of the "kinder, gentler, more
mathematical, but still occasionally insane" brian mclaren recorded
on the internet -- these are some of his posts from the old (mills)
tuning list:

i would welcome a discussion of old tuning list discussions here on
metatuning -- that's what "metatuning" means most strongly to me.

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> fortunately, we have some examples of the "kinder, gentler, more
> mathematical, but still occasionally insane" brian mclaren recorded
> on the internet -- these are some of his posts from the old (mills)
> tuning list:
>

***I, fortunately, was able to have time to read these today and
thanks, Paul for finding them among all the McLaren posts on the
Starrett website.

I presume you selected *these* particular ones from the total because
of their interest?? (I haven't read all the others yet on the
Starrett site).

I was a bit surprised that McLaren seems so "tame" and cogent in
these particular posts. He also seemed quite complimentary to *you*
Paul. Perhaps it was prior to some later altercation, whatever...

The posts that particularly stick in my mind of these were two: one
on the idea of projecting the Wilson CPS combination product sets
from "ratio space" into a scale structure (adding a 1/1) and somehow
the parallel between this and converting a three-dimensional object
to a two-dimensional piece of paper using "projective geometry..."

I know nothing about that subject, but that was something to think
about. Also the very *final* post of the group, the one that focused
on the 1920s was fascinating. Although the text toward the end of
that one becomes corrupted, I was particularly fascinated with his
demarcation of 1986 with the TX81Z synth as being a significant
microtonal change. I never realized anybody thought it *that*
significant.

Also his comments about Johnny Reinhard's AFMM and the different
styles that came about, supposedly, because of the synthesizer. I
don't know if Johnny would agree with that... my guess is that he
wouldn't, but it was interesting to read McLaren's take on it.

Actually, much of this material, I believe, could just as soon be on
the *main* tuning list as over here, since it seems to be on
*tuning...*

Thanks, Paul, for being the "editor" of this material. I'm assuming
you picked out the "best stuff??"

Joseph

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > fortunately, we have some examples of the "kinder, gentler, more
> > mathematical, but still occasionally insane" brian mclaren
recorded
> > on the internet -- these are some of his posts from the old
(mills)
> > tuning list:
> >
>
> ***I, fortunately, was able to have time to read these today and
> thanks, Paul for finding them among all the McLaren posts on the
> Starrett website.
>
> I presume you selected *these* particular ones from the total
because
> of their interest?? (I haven't read all the others yet on the
> Starrett site).

no -- i selected these because they were the ones that mentioned
*me*. fairly egotistical, huh? well, at least you know where the
other posts are . . .

> I was a bit surprised that McLaren seems so "tame" and cogent in
> these particular posts. He also seemed quite complimentary to
*you*
> Paul. Perhaps it was prior to some later altercation, whatever...

actually, no, there wasn't a "later altercation" . . . last summer we
saw a different BM, coming seemingly from nowhere (not to mention a
*completely different* BM altogether as well . . .)

> The posts that particularly stick in my mind of these were two:
one
> on the idea of projecting the Wilson CPS combination product sets
> from "ratio space" into a scale structure (adding a 1/1) and
somehow
> the parallel between this and converting a three-dimensional object
> to a two-dimensional piece of paper using "projective geometry..."

of course now BM is saying that ratio space is useless . . .

> I know nothing about that subject, but that was something to think
> about.

well, you might know a little about it, or at least did know at the
time of our CPS discussions a while back, but frankly BM's discussion
of adding a 1/1 signals to me that he's failing to understand ratio
space symmetries . . .

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_2727.html#2817

> --- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > fortunately, we have some examples of the "kinder, gentler,
more
> > > mathematical, but still occasionally insane" brian mclaren
> recorded
> > > on the internet -- these are some of his posts from the old
> (mills)
> > > tuning list:
> > >
> >
> > ***I, fortunately, was able to have time to read these today and
> > thanks, Paul for finding them among all the McLaren posts on the
> > Starrett website.
> >
> > I presume you selected *these* particular ones from the total
> because
> > of their interest?? (I haven't read all the others yet on the
> > Starrett site).
>
> no -- i selected these because they were the ones that mentioned
> *me*. fairly egotistical, huh? well, at least you know where the
> other posts are . . .
>

***Hi Paul.

That's a little funny. Well, that means, since they weren't an
*edited* selection, I'd better go through and read the rest
sometime...

> > I was a bit surprised that McLaren seems so "tame" and cogent in
> > these particular posts. He also seemed quite complimentary to
> *you*
> > Paul. Perhaps it was prior to some later altercation, whatever...
>
> actually, no, there wasn't a "later altercation" . . . last summer
we saw a different BM, coming seemingly from nowhere (not to mention
a *completely different* BM altogether as well . . .)

***Wow. Well, maybe we should allow a certain "indulgence" since
there was obviously something *seriously wrong* there... :(

> > I know nothing about that subject, but that was something to
think
> > about.
>
> well, you might know a little about it, or at least did know at the
> time of our CPS discussions a while back, but frankly BM's
discussion
> of adding a 1/1 signals to me that he's failing to understand ratio
> space symmetries . . .

***I just meant, Paul, the part about the "projective geometry..."
which I hadn't encountered before...

best,

Joseph

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> Well, that means, since they weren't an
> *edited* selection, I'd better go through and read the rest
> sometime...

well, it's too bad that my responses to those posts aren't included
as well . . . though i suppose you could find all of them in robert
walker's archive of my mills tuning list posts . . .

> ***I just meant, Paul, the part about the "projective geometry..."
> which I hadn't encountered before...

well, all of those pretty little diagrams represent *projections*
onto two-dimensional space of these higher-dimensional figures . . .
for example, dave keenan's piece shows the 2)5 dekany rotating in
four-dimensional space, but of course projected down onto the two-
dimensional space of your screen . . . every once in a while you'll
see the figure take the form of the pentagram you may recognize from
wilson's diagram of the dekany, but then it keeps on rotating . . .

🔗Afmmjr@...

In a message dated 7/16/02 1:36:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jpehrson@...
writes:

> Also his comments about Johnny Reinhard's AFMM and the different
> styles that came about, supposedly, because of the synthesizer. I
> don't know if Johnny would agree with that... my guess is that he
> wouldn't, but it was interesting to read McLaren's take on it.
>
>

You are correct, Joseph. Johnny

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

squeeze the juice out of BM's socks and make you drink it. . . .

🔗Christopher Bailey <cb202@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...