FOT question for Paul

Paul,

Who, or what, is the intended audience for "The Forms of Tonality", as presented in the paper/online file?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Who, or what, is the intended audience for "The Forms of Tonality",
as presented in the paper/online file?
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

hi jon,

as you may or may not recall, i sent you and many other list members
a physical copy back in '01. all but one of the recipients said they
found the paper clear and enlightening. i was very disappointed not
to have succeeded in pleasing, and communicating something meaningful
to, *all* the recipients. the intended audience (as you may recall,
these papers were mailed to the big microtonal conference in
california in '01, only to be unopened and mailed right back to me)
is actually something like the Just Intonation Network community,
since i spun the concepts far more in "1/1-style" than i normally do,
and with much more of a slant toward those who use, and "believe in",
just intonation.

-paul

wheres the link to this, i lost it already

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > Paul,
> >
> > Who, or what, is the intended audience for "The Forms of Tonality",
> as presented in the paper/online file?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
>
> hi jon,
>
> as you may or may not recall, i sent you and many other list members
> a physical copy back in '01. all but one of the recipients said they
> found the paper clear and enlightening. i was very disappointed not
> to have succeeded in pleasing, and communicating something meaningful
> to, *all* the recipients. the intended audience (as you may recall,
> these papers were mailed to the big microtonal conference in
> california in '01, only to be unopened and mailed right back to me)
> is actually something like the Just Intonation Network community,
> since i spun the concepts far more in "1/1-style" than i normally do,
> and with much more of a slant toward those who use, and "believe in",
> just intonation.
>
> -paul
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> as you may or may not recall, i sent you and many other list members
> a physical copy back in '01.

Hey, I not only recall it but I've got it right here in front of me! (I wanted to make sure the graphics in the pdf weren't being cut off on the edges of the display; I confirmed that that is how they look in a number of the graphs).

> all but one of the recipients said they found the paper clear and
> enlightening. i was very disappointed not to have succeeded in
> pleasing, and communicating something meaningful
> to, *all* the recipients.

I don't know who you sent it to in total; however, if the people you sent it to were already well-versed in the topics contained within even the first writings, they wouldn't have any trouble. *I*, however, can still not find a way into this Fangorn Forrest of stuff.

For instance: the first sentence begins "Using the harmonic entropy model[1]", and than gives as the footnote reference a pointer to a newsgroup. Therefore, if one were *not* well-versed (or even aware) of this concept of "harmonic entropy" (which may or may not be one of those terms that has it's only life within the tuning list community; I find it funny when people say something about "brats" and most people would think about unruly kids on the Dr. Phil show...).

So, since I don't know about harmonic entropy, and the author has only given a reference to a group, not even a definition, short essay, treatise or anything else to give insight into HE, one stops right there, dead in the tracks. Does this mean that I will never understand a "form of tonality" unless I go and slay the dragon of harmonic entropy? And hopefully learn about "general-purpose dyadic dissonance curves"?

This is not a Ludditic or anti-intellectual stance, it is merely the reflections of a musician who has passing knowledge of some of the areas of tuning. I hope *you* can see that this paper will most likely find a very small audience, composed primarily of mathematicians and tuning theorists. If that is your intended audience, I'm sure you will have a large degree of success. Unfortunately, I had to give up.

> the intended audience (as you may recall,
> these papers were mailed to the big microtonal conference in
> california in '01, only to be unopened and mailed right back to me)

Well, that sucked totally. They could have at least opened it! :)

> is actually something like the Just Intonation Network community,
> since i spun the concepts far more in "1/1-style" than i normally
> do

Paul, you need to spin harder. This stuff is far more opaque than the JI - 1/1 style stuff. Far more.

> and with much more of a slant toward those who use, and "believe
> in", just intonation.

I really wonder how many of the "users" as opposed to the "theorists" will find stuff in here. And I realize it is a *paper*, and these kind of things submitted where papers get submitted are not usually a walk in the park. Someday I'll give it another go, maybe just skip things that are way beyond my experience and see what I can soak up without worrying about those rough edges.

Thanks for the thoughts on FOT...

Cheers,
Jon

http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/

download erlich-tFoT.pdf -- the first link on the page. *don't* open
directly from Internet Explorer, at least for me this yielded
terrible results.

and, of course, you need adobe reader 6.0 . . .

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> wheres the link to this, i lost it already
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
> >
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > Who, or what, is the intended audience for "The Forms of
Tonality",
> > as presented in the paper/online file?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Jon
> >
> > hi jon,
> >
> > as you may or may not recall, i sent you and many other list
members
> > a physical copy back in '01. all but one of the recipients said
they
> > found the paper clear and enlightening. i was very disappointed
not
> > to have succeeded in pleasing, and communicating something
meaningful
> > to, *all* the recipients. the intended audience (as you may
recall,
> > these papers were mailed to the big microtonal conference in
> > california in '01, only to be unopened and mailed right back to
me)
> > is actually something like the Just Intonation Network community,
> > since i spun the concepts far more in "1/1-style" than i normally
do,
> > and with much more of a slant toward those who use, and "believe
in",
> > just intonation.
> >
> > -paul
> >
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> For instance: the first sentence begins "Using the harmonic entropy
>model[1]", and than gives as the footnote reference a pointer to a
>newsgroup. Therefore, if one were *not* well-versed (or even aware)
>of this concept of "harmonic entropy" (which may or may not be one
>of those terms that has it's only life within the tuning list
>community; I find it funny when people say something about "brats"
>and most people would think about unruly kids on the Dr. Phil
>show...).

i don't think you finished your last sentence, but i get the
idea . . .

> So, since I don't know about harmonic entropy, and the author has
>only given a reference to a group, not even a definition, short
>essay, treatise or anything else to give insight into HE, one stops
>right there, dead in the tracks.

i don't see it that way. continue reading the first sentence of the
paper. "one obtains general-purpose dyadic dissonance curves . . ."
that's all you need to know about harmonic entropy right there. keep
reading when you don't understand; things become clearer as you go
along -- partch's one-footed bride is mentioned, which should help if
you still had any confusion as to what a dyadic dissonance curve was -
- and even clearer with repeated readings.

>Does this mean that I will never understand a "form of tonality"
>unless I go and slay the dragon of harmonic entropy?

you don't have to go slay anything if you don't wish. and in case you
didn't notice, that whole opening "consonance and dissonance" section
is marked "optional", so if it's just too opaque after reading it a
few times, just skip over it.

> And hopefully learn about "general-purpose dyadic dissonance
>curves"?

a dissonance curve shows dissonance as a function of interval size.
general-purpose means that it's not intended to reflect a specific
choice of timbre, register, or duration, but gives a generic guide,
exactly as partch intended with his one-footed bride.

> This is not a Ludditic or anti-intellectual stance, it is merely
>the reflections of a musician who has passing knowledge of some of
>the areas of tuning. I hope *you* can see that this paper will most
>likely find a very small audience, composed primarily of
>mathematicians and tuning theorists. If that is your intended
>audience, I'm sure you will have a large degree of success.
>Unfortunately, I had to give up.

halfway through the first sentence? that's unfortunate.

> > is actually something like the Just Intonation Network community,
> > since i spun the concepts far more in "1/1-style" than i normally
> > do
>
> Paul, you need to spin harder. This stuff is far more opaque than
>the JI - 1/1 style stuff. Far more.

yes, that seemed to be your impression the first time.

> > and with much more of a slant toward those who use, and "believe
> > in", just intonation.
>
> I really wonder how many of the "users" as opposed to
>the "theorists" will find stuff in here.

well, the amount of "usable" material, as well as the amount of hand-
holding through the theoretical development, will be far greater in
the actual completed work. this, as stated on the front cover and
again on the first page, is a *preview*, and as it suggests just
below the copyright, the future work will be far less concise.

but yes, this is a *theory* paper, showing for one thing how i
conceive of the diatonic scale, and doing so from a decidedly _1/1_-
like standpoint. the next few sections beyond this "preview" would
show further examples (beyond the decatonic one) of how the diatonic
concept can be generalized, leading to other systems with "naturals"
and "accidentals" such as negri's (which he used for 19-equal),
herman miller's "porcupine" system, the "pelogic" one which reflects
how wilson and others conceive of that balinese system, schismic
systems such as wilson-17 (the medieval arabic system), helmholtz-24,
white-29, and groven-36, of course blackjack, etc., also my "double-
diatonic" or "injera" system, even systems familiar from 12-equal
like the diminished scale . . . so a big book of microtonal pitch
systems, each presented in various ji and tempered forms, all derived
from a single theoretical concept, which, if understood (even
partially), can only help a musician put these systems into practice.

of course, i rate intuition far higher than any theoretical knowledge
when it comes to making music. but the latter has a way of seeping
into the former, and that's what i'm hoping to help feed. if nothing
else, it will be of interest from a purely theoretical standpoint,
and given the amount of literature that already exists in this area,
i feel a strong need to present *my* way of tying together the
various theoretical threads out there into a single "story" of
how "tonal" pitch systems arise. which, though it may be presented
too concisely here, i feel is more simple, reasonable, and true than
any other such "story" i've come across.

I have a PDF plugin for my netscape 4.6 ( which is what is use) and no trouble loading up at all?!

Paul Erlich wrote:

> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/
>
> download erlich-tFoT.pdf -- the first link on the page. *don't* open
> directly from Internet Explorer, at least for me this yielded
> terrible results.
>
> and, of course, you need adobe reader 6.0 . . .
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
> > wheres the link to this, i lost it already
> >
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
> >
> > > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul,
> > > >
> > > > Who, or what, is the intended audience for "The Forms of
> Tonality",
> > > as presented in the paper/online file?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Jon
> > >
> > > hi jon,
> > >
> > > as you may or may not recall, i sent you and many other list
> members
> > > a physical copy back in '01. all but one of the recipients said
> they
> > > found the paper clear and enlightening. i was very disappointed
> not
> > > to have succeeded in pleasing, and communicating something
> meaningful
> > > to, *all* the recipients. the intended audience (as you may
> recall,
> > > these papers were mailed to the big microtonal conference in
> > > california in '01, only to be unopened and mailed right back to
> me)
> > > is actually something like the Just Intonation Network community,
> > > since i spun the concepts far more in "1/1-style" than i normally
> do,
> > > and with much more of a slant toward those who use, and "believe
> in",
> > > just intonation.
> > >
> > > -paul
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -- -Kraig Grady
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> > http://www.anaphoria.com
> > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
>
> i don't see it that way. continue reading the first sentence of the
> paper. "one obtains general-purpose dyadic dissonance curves . . ."
> that's all you need to know about harmonic entropy right there.

Of course you don't see it that way - you're the author! What I'm trying to give you is the impression of one of your potential readers. If you don't find it of value, fine, but you can't just wash it away by "I don't see it that way".

I'm not a total moron - if it is not clear to me, it may be less than clear to at least one or two others.

> keep reading when you don't understand

Uh, yes, I'll try to keep at it.

> you don't have to go slay anything if you don't wish.

Are you saying that the paper is not of value? I always want to learn, even if there is difficulty. I'm just trying to illuminate where things might go better with a differing approach?

> and in case you didn't notice, that whole opening "consonance and
> dissonance" section is marked "optional"

Does it really make sense to start a paper with an optional section?

> a dissonance curve shows dissonance as a function of interval size.
> general-purpose means that it's not intended to reflect a specific
> choice of timbre, register, or duration, but gives a generic guide,
> exactly as partch intended with his one-footed bride.

aha.

> >Unfortunately, I had to give up.
>
> halfway through the first sentence? that's unfortunate.

Give me a bit of credit, Paul. That was just for illustrative purposes, i.e. you don't even have an introduction, you have some clunkers up front. I went through the entire paper, most of it being non-intuitive to me.

> > Paul, you need to spin harder. This stuff is far more opaque than
> >the JI - 1/1 style stuff. Far more.
>
> yes, that seemed to be your impression the first time.

I'm guessing you have no second thoughts on the presentation of your ideas. Totally your call, of course.

> well, the amount of "usable" material, as well as the amount of hand-
> holding through the theoretical development, will be far greater in
> the actual completed work.

That is a relief. I'm willing to bet there are few people, save a few academics and theorists, that are on the level of most of this. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm dense.

> . . . so a big book of microtonal pitch
> systems, each presented in various ji and tempered forms, all
> derived from a single theoretical concept, which, if understood
> (even partially), can only help a musician put these systems into
> practice.

If it can effectively impart this information to an audience, it seems like a worthy and worthwhile endeavor.

> of course, i rate intuition far higher than any theoretical
> knowledge when it comes to making music

You do?

> i feel a strong need to present *my* way of tying together the
> various theoretical threads out there into a single "story" of
> how "tonal" pitch systems arise. which, though it may be presented
> too concisely here, i feel is more simple, reasonable, and true than
> any other such "story" i've come across.

All I can say, with all the respect I have for your various researches and quests, is that I hope you allow a fairly broad array of people to help you hone the final text. If you only follow your current writing instincts and only have input from the peers who are equally well-versed in all these areas, you won't reach as broad a collective of readers as you seem desire. So maybe there is value in considering some of the difficulties of even a just-partially-knowledgeable reader.

Or at least have a glossary! :)

Cheers,
Jon

> wheres the link to this, i lost it already

Go to

http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich

and bookmark it!

-Carl

> and, of course, you need adobe reader 6.0 . . .

Actually, you shouldn't. But that is the first thing
to do if you have problems of any kind. And I def.
recommend uninstalling your prev. version first, though
on the Mac this may not be an issue.

-Carl

Jon wrote...

> For instance: the first sentence begins "Using the harmonic
>entropy model[1]", and than gives as the footnote reference a
>pointer to a newsgroup. Therefore, if one were *not*
>well-versed (or even aware) of this concept of "harmonic
>entropy" (which may or may not be one of //

That's why that section is "optional". I think Paul did the
right thing by putting it first but making it optional.
It belongs first for conceptual reasons.

> Paul, you need to spin harder. This stuff is far more opaque
> than the JI - 1/1 style stuff. Far more.

I dunno. I found the JI Primer plenty hard when I first
picked it up! Not all of us have Partch experience with that
stuff, though. :)

>I really wonder how many of the "users" as opposed to
>the "theorists" will find stuff in here.

I think Paul's paper is ultra-practical. It includes notation
and keyboard proposals, plenty of analogy with the diatonic
scale, etc. Joseph Pehrson uses it!

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

>That's why that section is "optional". I think Paul did the
>right thing by putting it first but making it optional.
>It belongs first for conceptual reasons.
> >
I agree with Jon. If an introductory paper starts with a section even the author considers optional, that's a very good indication that it should be removed.

>>Paul, you need to spin harder. This stuff is far more opaque
>>than the JI - 1/1 style stuff. Far more.
>> >>
>
>I dunno. I found the JI Primer plenty hard when I first
>picked it up! Not all of us have Partch experience with that
>stuff, though. :)
> >
I don't know about 1/1, but the criticisms of this paper are valid. The sentence in question doesn't make it clear that "harmonic entropy" is something Paul's introducing. How about "I obtained FIGURE 1 using my harmonic entropy model. It shows a dyadic dissonance curve where the interval's size is shown on the horizontal axis, and dissonance increases as you go up the vertical axis."?

I'll also single out this sentence from later on:

"Notationally, it is evident that 80:81 serves as a /commatic/ unison vector while 25:24 or 128:135 serves as a /chromatic/ unison vector."

It's only evident if you already know what the terms mean, but this is where they're introduced! And it can't ease understanding for one of the ratios to be written using a different convention to the others (which isn't quite consistent -- there's one mention of a 24:25).

I don't know if this is the right place to be discussing papers about tuning, but my contribution to the great documentation project is here:

http://x31eq.com/temper/method.html <http://local.microtonal.co.uk/temper/method.html>

Comments are welcome.

Graham

> "Notationally, it is evident that 80:81 serves as a /commatic/
> unison vector while 25:24 or 128:135 serves as a /chromatic/
> unison vector."
>
> It's only evident if you already know what the terms mean, but
> this is where they're introduced!

This serves as a definition for the terms. Perhaps the wording
could be better, but I like this way too. It's a 'work through
it' spirit which one needs for a paper like this. If everything
were given rigorous definitions in the text, you'd wind up with
an academic paper, or worse, something like Gene's site. :)

> http://x31eq.com/temper/method.html

I attempted this in the past and found it impenetrable. But
I'll try again soon.

> <http://local.microtonal.co.uk/temper/method.html>

Cannot find server.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> This serves as a definition for the terms. Perhaps the wording
> could be better, but I like this way too.

Then again, this is language and a set of concepts that you are quite comfortable with. What Paul needs is the perspective of people who might come to the paper *without* the kind of background that you and the other tuning-math people already have.

I'm happy to 'work through' stuff, but that doesn't mean that the presentation of the material is immaterial - the author has to make the work somewhat possible.

Cheers,
Jon

> I'm happy to 'work through' stuff, but that doesn't mean that
> the presentation of the material is immaterial - the author
> has to make the work somewhat possible.

Well, that's where I think Paul's paper shines. It's the best
I've seen on the topic, anyway. Have you tried...

http://x31eq.com/temper/method.html

or

http://lumma.org/tuning/tctmo

or

http://www.xenharmony.org/

?

And Graham, where would you have Paul put the harmonic
entropy stuff? At the end? No, it belongs at the beginning.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

>And Graham, where would you have Paul put the harmonic
>entropy stuff? At the end? No, it belongs at the beginning.
> >
I'd have him take it out. It belongs, if anywhere, in a different paper.

Graham

Carl Lumma wrote:

>This serves as a definition for the terms. Perhaps the wording
>could be better, but I like this way too. It's a 'work through
>it' spirit which one needs for a paper like this. If everything
>were given rigorous definitions in the text, you'd wind up with
>an academic paper, or worse, something like Gene's site. :)
> >
It serves as an unclear and indirect definition. It could easily put off a reader who thought they were expected to understand something they didn't. I thought the aim was to be as clear as possible. There's plenty to work through in this field without throwing up artificial barriers.

>>http://x31eq.com/temper/method.html
>> >>
>
>I attempted this in the past and found it impenetrable. But
>I'll try again soon.
> >
Then why the blue blazes didn't you say so!? What problems are you having?

>><http://local.microtonal.co.uk/temper/method.html>
>> >>
>
>Cannot find server.
> >
I should think not -- I don't know how that got through.

Graham

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
> It could easily put
> off a reader who thought they were expected to understand something
> they didn't. I thought the aim was to be as clear as possible.
> There's plenty to work through in this field without throwing up
> artificial barriers.

Graham, thanks for crystallizing most all of my feelings into a couple of sentences. For someone non-conversant in these issues, one very quickly reaches a point of sheer frustration and a sense that one doesn't know enough background to even be reading such a paper, and gives up. It isn't spineless, it is merely recognizing a topic that is either foreign to your knowledge-base - in it's assumptions - or that you are not part of the intended audience.

Cheers,
Jon

>>And Graham, where would you have Paul put the harmonic
>>entropy stuff? At the end? No, it belongs at the beginning.
>
>I'd have him take it out. It belongs, if anywhere, in a
>different paper.

Just like tctmo, it starts with an acoustic justification,
as it should. I could see re-writing it so it's so clear
that it wouldn't have to be optional, but not moving or
removing it.

-Carl

>>I attempted this in the past and found it impenetrable.
>>But I'll try again soon.
>>
>>
>Then why the blue blazes didn't you say so!? What problems
>are you having?

I didn't know you expected it to be more accessible than the
rest of your stuff, much of which I also find impenetrable.

Lessee...

Suggested cut:

"The numbers are smaller if you reduce all the primes within the
octave, but this makes it harder to work out other intervals
because you aren't dealing with straight prime factorization. The
nearest approximation to the primes needn't be the one that gives
the mapping you want. So far, it is the only one my program
generates. Because there's nothing special about them being prime
numbers, I call them "prime intervals" for full generality."

>"A pair of equal temperaments is a precise, but not a unique
>way of specifying a linear temperament."

But a pair of vals is. What exactly do you mean by "a pair
of equal temperaments"? And you're calling vals "maps", which
are supposed to be in terms of generators.

It seems that a pair of ets on Paul's treezoom graph do uniquely
define a line (temperament), except for pairs that lie on the
same point, such as 12 and 24...

>"Say we have the temperament m&n."

Eh? You mean the temperament denoted by ets m and n?

In general, the ets route seems like a bizzare way to understand
this stuff, but that might just be me. You seem to be fond of
the recurrence relation stuff like 7+12=19, but you don't explain
why it works, or at least I can't see an explanation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's nice to know how your
script works, but the best way to calculate something isn't
necc. the best way to explain it.

-Carl

>"This means if you have an MOS with n notes to the octave
>there will be complexity-n complete chords using the specified
>consonances."

That's cool. But does it have to be a MOS for it to be true?

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

>I didn't know you expected it to be more accessible than the
>rest of your stuff, much of which I also find impenetrable.
> >
You do???

>Lessee...
>
>Suggested cut:
>
>"The numbers are smaller if you reduce all the primes within the
>octave, but this makes it harder to work out other intervals
>because you aren't dealing with straight prime factorization. The
>nearest approximation to the primes needn't be the one that gives
>the mapping you want. So far, it is the only one my program
>generates. Because there's nothing special about them being prime
>numbers, I call them "prime intervals" for full generality."
> >

Yes, I'll look into that. It's out of date anyway because I'm using a better way of finding the equal temperament mappings.

>>"A pair of equal temperaments is a precise, but not a unique
>>way of specifying a linear temperament."
>> >>
>
>But a pair of vals is. What exactly do you mean by "a pair
>of equal temperaments"? And you're calling vals "maps", which
>are supposed to be in terms of generators.
> >
Equal temperaments are the same as vals here. Gene hadn't given his general definition of vals when I wrote the original, and I'm not sure I have to use it anyway, because I'm only supposed to use published ideas. A map is anything that translates one set into another. Now I've read group theory I can call them homomorphisms, and Gene's invented the special name "icon". A mapping by generators is called a mapping by generators. Besides which, the steps of equal temperaments are the group theoretic generators.

>It seems that a pair of ets on Paul's treezoom graph do uniquely
>define a line (temperament), except for pairs that lie on the
>same point, such as 12 and 24...
> >
Yes, but there's more than one pair of ets that define the same line, so the pair isn't unique.

You also have to deal with contorsion, but I explain that later on.

>>"Say we have the temperament m&n."
>> >>
>
>Eh? You mean the temperament denoted by ets m and n?
> >
Yes, and I define it two paragraphs up.

>In general, the ets route seems like a bizzare way to understand
>this stuff, but that might just be me. You seem to be fond of
>the recurrence relation stuff like 7+12=19, but you don't explain
>why it works, or at least I can't see an explanation.
> >
I give examples. It should be obvious from the examples. I don't know how else to explain it otherwise, but I'll have a think.

>I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's nice to know how your
>script works, but the best way to calculate something isn't
>necc. the best way to explain it.
> >
The page is there (and something like it may be published) to explain the method so it can be duplicated. I think it's the easiest such method to explain. Certainly more so than using unison vectors, because that depends on either matrix or exterior algebra. The alternative would be what I think Gene did where you choose an equal temperament, and then make each interval in turn the generator. But I haven't implemented that, so it's really Gene's baby.

Graham

> >I didn't know you expected it to be more accessible than the
> >rest of your stuff, much of which I also find impenetrable.
> >
> >
> You do???

By and large.

> Equal temperaments are the same as vals here.

Then why don't you call them vals?

> I'm only supposed to use published ideas.

Well, Gene's now published the definition for vals.
Actually, I think he had when you wrote that. IIRC
the term appeared in some of his earliest posts.

> >>"Say we have the temperament m&n."
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Eh? You mean the temperament denoted by ets m and n?
>
> Yes, and I define it two paragraphs up.

D'oh, sorry. I was doing this at work.

> >In general, the ets route seems like a bizzare way to understand
> >this stuff, but that might just be me. You seem to be fond of
> >the recurrence relation stuff like 7+12=19, but you don't explain
> >why it works, or at least I can't see an explanation.
> >
>
> I give examples. It should be obvious from the examples. I don't
> know how else to explain it otherwise, but I'll have a think.

Yeah, the examples make no sense to me whatever.

> >I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's nice to know how your
> >script works, but the best way to calculate something isn't
> >necc. the best way to explain it.
>
>
> The page is there (and something like it may be published) to
> explain the method so it can be duplicated.

For that there should be the code, with copius annotation.

>The alternative would be what I think Gene did where you choose
>an equal temperament, and then make each interval in turn the
>generator. But I haven't implemented that, so it's really
>Gene's baby.

Does he have a name for that so I can search for it? I don't
remember hearing about this, but it sounds interesting.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

>>Equal temperaments are the same as vals here.
>> >>
>
>Then why don't you call them vals?
> >
How would it simplify anything?

>>I'm only supposed to use published ideas.
>> >>
>
>Well, Gene's now published the definition for vals.
>Actually, I think he had when you wrote that. IIRC
>the term appeared in some of his earliest posts.
> >
He'd used the term in posts, but only as part of exterior algebra, or that's what I thought. He hadn't published it in anything equivalent to a web page. If we're going for paper publication (which was the original idea) it should use paper references where possible. In which case it could be a joint publication with Gene, but we never sorted that out.

The definition on his website also assumes way more mathematical background than I do, so I'd still have to explain what "val" means.

>Yeah, the examples make no sense to me whatever.
> >
It's meantone. You know meantone, don't you?

>For that there should be the code, with copius annotation.
> >
The code's three clicks away, in two different languages. Something would be included as an appendix if it were published in dead tree form. This is the annotation!

>>The alternative would be what I think Gene did where you choose
>>an equal temperament, and then make each interval in turn the
>>generator. But I haven't implemented that, so it's really
>>Gene's baby.
>> >>
>
>Does he have a name for that so I can search for it? I don't
>remember hearing about this, but it sounds interesting.
> >
He's given results of a Maple routine that I don't have. He never explained much about how it works, but I think it's as I say.

Graham

Carl/Graham:

Since you two have veered this thread from my original post (which actually *was* a question for Paul), would you mind changing subject headers? Something like "Graham's Impenetrability" or "Gene's vals" or ???

TIA,
Jon

> From: Jon Szanto [mailto:JSZANTO@...]
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 11:17 AM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: FOT question for Paul
>
>
> Carl/Graham:
>
> Since you two have veered this thread from my original post
> (which actually *was* a question for Paul), would you mind
> changing subject headers? Something like "Graham's
> Impenetrability" or "Gene's vals" or ???
>
> TIA,
> Jon

and since the whole thread now *is* about tuning,
how about moving it off this list as well?

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> > of course, i rate intuition far higher than any theoretical
> > knowledge when it comes to making music
>
> You do?

far, far higher.

> and only have input from the peers who are equally well-versed in
>all these areas,

i don't think that's been the case, but i do value your impressions.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >"This means if you have an MOS with n notes to the octave
> >there will be complexity-n complete chords using the specified
> >consonances."
>
> That's cool. But does it have to be a MOS for it to be true?
>
> -Carl

hmm . . . can you think of a non-MOS* example?

*(of course we aren't really talking about MOS here, but rather the
generalization where there are a whole number of periods in the
octave -- not necessarily just 1).

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:

> I'll also single out this sentence from later on:
>
> "Notationally, it is evident that 80:81 serves as a /commatic/
unison
> vector while 25:24 or 128:135 serves as a /chromatic/ unison
vector."
>
> It's only evident if you already know what the terms mean, but this
is
> where they're introduced!

hopefully you and jon know that i did not intend for this to be an
impediment to understanding. this is supposed to be a definition by
example, and i thought the text and figures preceding it led up to it
with the necessary preparation. the idea of some small interval
being "chromatic" when it means moving a note by adding a sharp or a
flat (or a natural) was one i figured would make sense to most
musicians as soon as they saw it, because musicians' terms
like "chromatic alteration" already use it that way. and the meaning
of "commatic", not changing the notation, i thought would be clear by
its juxtaposition against "chromatic" in this sentence, as well as
everything else in the paper that's related to it, including the
discussion of commas. ah well, i'll try to be gentler next time!

> And it can't ease understanding for one of
> the ratios to be written using a different convention to the others

different convention? nah, i was following the graphs, which try to
make the direction of each ratio meaningful in conjunction with the
arrows.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> > > of course, i rate intuition far higher than any theoretical
> > > knowledge when it comes to making music
> >
> > You do?
>
> far, far higher.

Then all I can say is it doesn't come across 'in print' (on the various fora), but maybe is noticeable in person (at jams and gigs, etc.) I've always known you as a person that needs a reason for everything, and a lot of the music making I like I can't really explain - and that is perfectly fine with me.

But making music, thankfully, comes in many flavors...

> > and only have input from the peers who are equally well-versed in
> >all these areas,
>
> i don't think that's been the case, but i do value your impressions.

And I don't intend to be so negative, but I haven't been able to get much out of it intellectually (though I wish), and so it probably comes across as negative. But as for the above, how many people have you shown this to that don't have background in the tuning community? And how did it go down?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> hopefully you and jon know that i did not intend for this to be an
> impediment to understanding.

Well, duh!, I gave you *that* much credit! I don't think you'd purposely put things in a paper that would negate it's effectiveness. I hope that when people from two very different knowledge sets (like Graham and myself) have bruised foreheads from the same brick wall, I really hope you step back and think about the presentation.

I, myself, wouldn't even waste the time to write you if I didn't feel it a potential benefit to the project.

> ah well, i'll try to be gentler next time!

I didn't think this paper was carved in cement. Start rewriting.

Cheers,
Jon

>>>"This means if you have an MOS with n notes to the octave
>>>there will be complexity-n complete chords using the specified
>>>consonances."
>>
>>That's cool. But does it have to be a MOS for it to be true?
>>
>>-Carl
>
>hmm . . . can you think of a non-MOS* example?
>
>*(of course we aren't really talking about MOS here, but rather
>the generalization where there are a whole number of periods in
>the octave -- not necessarily just 1).

Assuming Graham's talking about 'number of notes of linear
temperament needed to provide a single complete Partchian
n-ad' complexity, then isn't it obvious that MOS has nothing
to do with it? Every note you add above this minimum, as
long as its part of a continuous chain, adds 1 complete otonal
and 1 complete utonal chord (I think Graham was referring
only to otonal chords there). And I think he needs abs()
around his formula.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
> > > > of course, i rate intuition far higher than any theoretical
> > > > knowledge when it comes to making music
> > >
> > > You do?
> >
> > far, far higher.
>
> Then all I can say is it doesn't come across 'in print' (on the
>various fora),

well that's because the kind of intuition i'm talking about is
directly tied up with musical experience, and can't (or can hardly
be) translated into language. i think language is very limited and
strongly dispute the assertion that it's a prerequisite for thought,
both for the kinds of thought we use language to describe and for the
more ineffable kinds like musical thought. however, language is all
we have to put our thoughts 'in print' on the various fora, so the
intuition part gets precious little representation there.

>but maybe is noticeable in person (at jams and gigs, etc.) I've
>always known you as a person that needs a reason for everything,

no, just a thirst to know the reasons that are knowable, and to have
my opinions challenged.

> And I don't intend to be so negative, but I haven't been able to
>get much out of it intellectually (though I wish), and so it
>probably comes across as negative. But as for the above, how many
>people have you shown this to that don't have background in the
>tuning community?

just a few -- one of whom is working on software inspired by it.

> And how did it go down?

quite well, as far as i can tell. but i'd rather help *you* get past
the parts you don't understand (and thus get an idea of how to
present it better) than continue to attempt to gauge its
accessibility in its current form. i already responded to that, so
let's move forward!

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:

> I've always known you as a person that needs a reason for
>everything,

that's why i'm such a lousy composer. it gives me too much time to
second-guess my intuition, indeed forget it entirely as my creativity
falls under an avalanche of competing technical considerations.
composing with others is a great help because i can use, as a valid
reason, "their intuition said so"! improvising is the best musical
scenario for me, because by the time i can question my intuition, the
notes have already been played, their meaning absorbed by the
audience, and it's too late to go back and change anything!

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >>>"This means if you have an MOS with n notes to the octave
> >>>there will be complexity-n complete chords using the specified
> >>>consonances."
> >>
> >>That's cool. But does it have to be a MOS for it to be true?
> >>
> >>-Carl
> >
> >hmm . . . can you think of a non-MOS* example?
> >
> >*(of course we aren't really talking about MOS here, but rather
> >the generalization where there are a whole number of periods in
> >the octave -- not necessarily just 1).
>
> Assuming Graham's talking about 'number of notes of linear
> temperament needed to provide a single complete Partchian
> n-ad' complexity, then isn't it obvious that MOS has nothing
> to do with it?

ah yes, of course!

Didn't know you were so anti-Wittenstein.

Paul Erlich wrote:

>
>
> well that's because the kind of intuition i'm talking about is
> directly tied up with musical experience, and can't (or can hardly
> be) translated into language. i think language is very limited and
> strongly dispute the assertion that it's a prerequisite for thought,
> both for the kinds of thought we use language to describe and for the
> more ineffable kinds like musical thought. however, language is all
> we have to put our thoughts 'in print' on the various fora, so the
> intuition part gets precious little representation there.
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

you mean wittgenstein or someone else?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> Didn't know you were so anti-Wittenstein.
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > well that's because the kind of intuition i'm talking about is
> > directly tied up with musical experience, and can't (or can hardly
> > be) translated into language. i think language is very limited and
> > strongly dispute the assertion that it's a prerequisite for
thought,
> > both for the kinds of thought we use language to describe and for
the
> > more ineffable kinds like musical thought. however, language is
all
> > we have to put our thoughts 'in print' on the various fora, so the
> > intuition part gets precious little representation there.
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

when i was young, i knew some polish and some english, but my
thinking was far more advanced than my abilities with either
language. i just visualize everything in my head, like a silent
movie. that's why physics was such an extremely easy subject for me
in school. ironically, spanish was my other best subject . . .

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> Didn't know you were so anti-Wittenstein.
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > well that's because the kind of intuition i'm talking about is
> > directly tied up with musical experience, and can't (or can hardly
> > be) translated into language. i think language is very limited and
> > strongly dispute the assertion that it's a prerequisite for
thought,
> > both for the kinds of thought we use language to describe and for
the
> > more ineffable kinds like musical thought. however, language is
all
> > we have to put our thoughts 'in print' on the various fora, so the
> > intuition part gets precious little representation there.
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

They say the best 20th century poets were the spainish speaking ones.
I have never been confortable with words, and likewise can see way beyond my translation into their use

Paul Erlich wrote:

> when i was young, i knew some polish and some english, but my
> thinking was far more advanced than my abilities with either
> language. i just visualize everything in my head, like a silent
> movie. that's why physics was such an extremely easy subject for me
> in school. ironically, spanish was my other best subject . . .
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

correct guessed spelling wrong. are you surprised?:)

Paul Erlich wrote:

> you mean wittgenstein or someone else?
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
> > Didn't know you were so anti-Wittenstein.
> >
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > I've always known you as a person that needs a reason for
> >everything,
>
> [Paul] that's why i'm such a lousy composer.

I just wanted to say, without looking back at the context of my original note, that I don't like the way my statement looks in print! 1. I've only known you a few years, by correspondence, etc. 2. I'm not sure that you *need* it, though you do seem to crave all the explanations the world can give you (I loved how you explained to JP on MMM all about the aural phenomena of the pure tones in a room, which kind of took all the magic out of it for me!).

Anyhow, we're all different, and just didn't want that sentence to carry a real whiff of badness to it.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> well that's because the kind of intuition i'm talking about is
> directly tied up with musical experience, and can't (or can hardly
> be) translated into language.

I understand that, but I don't think your basic thrust comes across in any case. No matter.

> no, just a thirst to know the reasons that are knowable, and to
> have my opinions challenged.

Well, you may like to have your opinions challenged, but you don't ever (or very rarely) choose to change those opinions.

> quite well, as far as i can tell. but i'd rather help *you* get past
> the parts you don't understand (and thus get an idea of how to
> present it better) than continue to attempt to gauge its
> accessibility in its current form. i already responded to that, so
> let's move forward!

Does this mean that "its current form" is subject to revision, or do you just want lower life forms like me to adapt to the presentation? :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
> > > I've always known you as a person that needs a reason for
> > >everything,
> >
> > [Paul] that's why i'm such a lousy composer.
>
> I just wanted to say, without looking back at the context of my
>original note, that I don't like the way my statement looks in
>print! 1. I've only known you a few years, by correspondence, etc.
>2. I'm not sure that you *need* it, though you do seem to crave all
>the explanations the world can give you (I loved how you explained
>to JP on MMM all about the aural phenomena of the pure tones in a
>room, which kind of took all the magic out of it for me!).

oh sorry! i should try to stop doing that, but i really wanted to tip
a hat to how really just just intonation can do some special things
with multiple sound sources, instead of toeing a "3 cents doesn't
matter" line. anyway, magic resumed.

> Anyhow, we're all different, and just didn't want that sentence to
>carry a real whiff of badness to it.

it didn't!

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Does this mean that "its current form" is subject to revision, or
>do you just want lower life forms like me to adapt to the
>presentation? :)

revision, with kind acknowledgment of your input!

>Does this mean that "its current form" is subject to revision,
>or do you just want lower life forms like me to adapt to the
>presentation? :)

Jon, I think it'd be fantastic if you worked through tFoT,
tctmo, and Graham's thing, asking questions on the appropriate
list, rather than just offerring general critiques of the
presentation(s). All questions on this stuff are always
promptly and happily answered. And then maybe you could
write a really excellent intro, since we're all blinded
by being too close to this stuff!

As for revising tFoT, I have no doubt it could be done.
But in my experience you can't make gold out of alluminum
with revisions, especially with a short document like this.
That's because it's very hard to fix anything without
breaking something else. It's why truly good engineering
is so difficult.* Even if the document could be improved
substantially, it almost always takes more time than
starting afresh.

-Carl

* For an example of absolutely fantastic engineering, look
no farther than the common, cheap version of the carrot
peeler. Self-sharpening, ultra-reliable, very effective
and easy to use, made from about $0.002 of material. You
also can't improve it easily. Change anything, and you
break it. For example, compare the $0.75 retail peelers
to any other peeler, with rubberized grips, etc, costing
$5.00 or more. The ones with extra features are vastly
inferior!

By the way, if you view engineering as compression in the
computer-science sense, you can sketch a line of reasoning
about this... There are fewer shorter strings than longer
ones. Therefore, if you expect to be able to explain the
same variety of things (in the case of Science, everything)
with theories of about the same size, you can expect that
shorter theories will break more easily -- a single bit
shift, for example, will be more damaging. It's one way of
explaining how Einstein, for example, could be so sure
General Relativity had to be correct -- any change breaks it.

Well, this is metatuning. :)

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5708

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
> wrote:
>
> > I've always known you as a person that needs a reason for
> >everything,
>
> that's why i'm such a lousy composer. it gives me too much time to
> second-guess my intuition, indeed forget it entirely as my
creativity
> falls under an avalanche of competing technical considerations.
> composing with others is a great help because i can use, as a valid
> reason, "their intuition said so"! improvising is the best musical
> scenario for me, because by the time i can question my intuition,
the
> notes have already been played, their meaning absorbed by the
> audience, and it's too late to go back and change anything!

***Basically, you're too smart to be a composer... :)

JP

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5712

> when i was young, i knew some polish and some english, but my
> thinking was far more advanced than my abilities with either
> language. i just visualize everything in my head, like a silent
> movie. that's why physics was such an extremely easy subject for me
> in school. ironically, spanish was my other best subject . . .
>

***Isn't that what is traditionally termed a "photographic memory??"
That's why you're so useful... and I've never had to really pay you
much either... :) (well, a few free dinners here and there... ) :)

JP

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>

/metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5713

wrote:
> They say the best 20th century poets were the spainish speaking
ones.
> I have never been confortable with words, and likewise can see way
beyond my translation into their use
>

***Well, George Crumb and Lorca are a pretty good pair. Crumb is a
really nice guy... Just to name drop a bit further: he drove my wife
and I home from a concert fairly recently...

J. Pehrson

lucky you! I said hello to him in Theodore Pressers in Byrn Mawr maybe 20 years ago. My first wife worked there
handling all the overseas avante garde. universal editions and such.

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
>
> /metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5713
>
> wrote:
> > They say the best 20th century poets were the spainish speaking
> ones.
> > I have never been confortable with words, and likewise can see way
> beyond my translation into their use
> >
>
> ***Well, George Crumb and Lorca are a pretty good pair. Crumb is a
> really nice guy... Just to name drop a bit further: he drove my wife
> and I home from a concert fairly recently...
>
> J. Pehrson
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5654

>
> Paul, you need to spin harder. This stuff is far more opaque than
the JI - 1/1 style stuff. Far more.
>

***Well, finally I read the *beginning* of this discussion (missed it
the first time around).

Gee, Jon, I think I have to disagree with you here. FOT is one of
Paul's more readable papers. I think it's quite a bit easier to read
than most of the 1/1 material...

Not that he "dumbed" his ideas down for this paper (although I
usually like it when he does that... :) but it really seems quite
clear in many places.

OF COURSE, and this is the caveat, I've been following Paul's
thinking an the lists for several years now.

My impression is that Paul is going to expand his ideas into a book
someday with lots of background material, which is probably what
you're missing in it...

best,

Joe

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5656

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
>
> > For instance: the first sentence begins "Using the harmonic
entropy
> >model[1]", and than gives as the footnote reference a pointer to a
> >newsgroup. Therefore, if one were *not* well-versed (or even
aware)
> >of this concept of "harmonic entropy" (which may or may not be one
> >of those terms that has it's only life within the tuning list
> >community; I find it funny when people say something about "brats"
> >and most people would think about unruly kids on the Dr. Phil
> >show...).
>
> i don't think you finished your last sentence, but i get the
> idea . . .
>
> > So, since I don't know about harmonic entropy, and the author has
> >only given a reference to a group, not even a definition, short
> >essay, treatise or anything else to give insight into HE, one
stops
> >right there, dead in the tracks.
>
> i don't see it that way. continue reading the first sentence of the
> paper. "one obtains general-purpose dyadic dissonance curves . . ."
> that's all you need to know about harmonic entropy right there.
keep
> reading when you don't understand; things become clearer as you go
> along -- partch's one-footed bride is mentioned, which should help
if
> you still had any confusion as to what a dyadic dissonance curve
was -
> - and even clearer with repeated readings.
>
> >Does this mean that I will never understand a "form of tonality"
> >unless I go and slay the dragon of harmonic entropy?
>
> you don't have to go slay anything if you don't wish. and in case
you
> didn't notice, that whole opening "consonance and dissonance"
section
> is marked "optional", so if it's just too opaque after reading it a
> few times, just skip over it.
>
> > And hopefully learn about "general-purpose dyadic dissonance
> >curves"?
>
> a dissonance curve shows dissonance as a function of interval size.
> general-purpose means that it's not intended to reflect a specific
> choice of timbre, register, or duration, but gives a generic guide,
> exactly as partch intended with his one-footed bride.
>
> > This is not a Ludditic or anti-intellectual stance, it is merely
> >the reflections of a musician who has passing knowledge of some of
> >the areas of tuning. I hope *you* can see that this paper will
most
> >likely find a very small audience, composed primarily of
> >mathematicians and tuning theorists. If that is your intended
> >audience, I'm sure you will have a large degree of success.
> >Unfortunately, I had to give up.
>
> halfway through the first sentence? that's unfortunate.
>
> > > is actually something like the Just Intonation Network
community,
> > > since i spun the concepts far more in "1/1-style" than i
normally
> > > do
> >
> > Paul, you need to spin harder. This stuff is far more opaque than
> >the JI - 1/1 style stuff. Far more.
>
> yes, that seemed to be your impression the first time.
>
> > > and with much more of a slant toward those who use,
and "believe
> > > in", just intonation.
> >
> > I really wonder how many of the "users" as opposed to
> >the "theorists" will find stuff in here.
>
> well, the amount of "usable" material, as well as the amount of
hand-
> holding through the theoretical development, will be far greater in
> the actual completed work. this, as stated on the front cover and
> again on the first page, is a *preview*, and as it suggests just
> below the copyright, the future work will be far less concise.
>
> but yes, this is a *theory* paper, showing for one thing how i
> conceive of the diatonic scale, and doing so from a decidedly _1/1_-
> like standpoint. the next few sections beyond this "preview" would
> show further examples (beyond the decatonic one) of how the
diatonic
> concept can be generalized, leading to other systems
with "naturals"
> and "accidentals" such as negri's (which he used for 19-equal),
> herman miller's "porcupine" system, the "pelogic" one which
reflects
> how wilson and others conceive of that balinese system, schismic
> systems such as wilson-17 (the medieval arabic system), helmholtz-
24,
> white-29, and groven-36, of course blackjack, etc., also my "double-
> diatonic" or "injera" system, even systems familiar from 12-equal
> like the diminished scale . . . so a big book of microtonal pitch
> systems, each presented in various ji and tempered forms, all
derived
> from a single theoretical concept, which, if understood (even
> partially), can only help a musician put these systems into
practice.
>
> of course, i rate intuition far higher than any theoretical
knowledge
> when it comes to making music. but the latter has a way of seeping
> into the former, and that's what i'm hoping to help feed. if
nothing
> else, it will be of interest from a purely theoretical standpoint,
> and given the amount of literature that already exists in this
area,
> i feel a strong need to present *my* way of tying together the
> various theoretical threads out there into a single "story" of
> how "tonal" pitch systems arise. which, though it may be presented
> too concisely here, i feel is more simple, reasonable, and true
than
> any other such "story" i've come across.
\

***Paul... if you get a chance, I would copy some of this material
over to the *main* Tuning List, since it *is* about tuning. And, it
might be valuable for people searching for material related to the
_Forms of Tonality_.

J. Pehrson

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>

/metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5657

wrote:
> I have a PDF plugin for my netscape 4.6 ( which is what is use) and
no trouble loading up at all?!
>

***For some reason, I have the feeling Kraig is going to dig this
paper... but, I await his responses...

J. Pehrson

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5707

i think language is very limited and
> strongly dispute the assertion that it's a prerequisite for
thought,

***I agree, that really is a dumb thought. Had to be a *writer* who
thunk that one. How would one explain *painting??*

JP

I look forward to when i can trully concentrate on i/. As another Shadow plays approaches , i can only skim the
lists.
but i did download it and have it on my desktop staring at me.

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
>
> /metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5657
>
> wrote:
> > I have a PDF plugin for my netscape 4.6 ( which is what is use) and
> no trouble loading up at all?!
> >
>
> ***For some reason, I have the feeling Kraig is going to dig this
> paper... but, I await his responses...
>
> J. Pehrson
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> FOT is one of Paul's more readable papers.

You know how much *that* means!

> OF COURSE, and this is the caveat, I've been following Paul's
> thinking an the lists for several years now.

Joe, that is a huge caveat. You've asked, conservatively, millions of questions about all these related subjects. And that is kind of the point: if it is a worthy paper, if the subject material is not only ground-breaking but should be read widely, what will happen when a musician (or non-musical mathematician) comes across it without the benefit of all that background?

My entire thrust is that while the people directly in the tuning community are the perfect foils for the concepts and details of such a paper, they are the wrong audience if one expects it to have any degree of impact *beyond* this tiny, cloistered community. And I think, with proper writing, that it is an achievable goal.

> My impression is that Paul is going to expand his ideas into a book
> someday with lots of background material, which is probably what
> you're missing in it...

I understand that. But the presentation of material will be just as important, maybe moreso.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5734

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > FOT is one of Paul's more readable papers.
>
> You know how much *that* means!
>
> > OF COURSE, and this is the caveat, I've been following Paul's
> > thinking an the lists for several years now.
>
> Joe, that is a huge caveat. You've asked, conservatively, millions
of questions about all these related subjects. And that is kind of
the point: if it is a worthy paper, if the subject material is not
only ground-breaking but should be read widely, what will happen
when a musician (or non-musical mathematician) comes across it
without the benefit of all that background?
>
> My entire thrust is that while the people directly in the tuning
community are the perfect foils for the concepts and details of such
a paper, they are the wrong audience if one expects it to have any
degree of impact *beyond* this tiny, cloistered community. And I
think, with proper writing, that it is an achievable goal.
>
> > My impression is that Paul is going to expand his ideas into a
book
> > someday with lots of background material, which is probably what
> > you're missing in it...
>
> I understand that. But the presentation of material will be just
as important, maybe moreso.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Hi Jon!

I think you're right about this and some of Paul's ideas are
truly "groundbreaking" (or "earbreaking").

I suggest that you are the perfect foil for his finished product,
since you haven't been paying much attention to all the things going
on the lists...

[Just had to get this little joke in...]

Joe

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
>
> /metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5712
>
> > when i was young, i knew some polish and some english, but my
> > thinking was far more advanced than my abilities with either
> > language. i just visualize everything in my head, like a silent
> > movie. that's why physics was such an extremely easy subject for
me
> > in school. ironically, spanish was my other best subject . . .
> >
>
> ***Isn't that what is traditionally termed a "photographic
memory??"

well, photographic memory aids memorization, but for physics i never
really had to do any memorization, just know a *very* small number of
laws (for any semester course) and visualize in my head how they
apply to a particular physical situation. unfortunately, this is no
longer useful when you get to quantum mechanics . . .

> That's why you're so useful... and I've never had to really pay you
> much either... :) (well, a few free dinners here and there... ) :)

yum, and thanks for those!

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
>
> /metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5657
>
> wrote:
> > I have a PDF plugin for my netscape 4.6 ( which is what is use)
and
> no trouble loading up at all?!
> >
>
>
> ***For some reason, I have the feeling Kraig is going to dig this
> paper...

hopefully without the typos! (totally my fault)

hi kraig -- hopefully you can scratch out those two typos before you
read it.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> I look forward to when i can trully concentrate on i/. As another
Shadow plays approaches , i can only skim the
> lists.
> but i did download it and have it on my desktop staring at me.
>
>
> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> >
> > /metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5657
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I have a PDF plugin for my netscape 4.6 ( which is what is use)
and
> > no trouble loading up at all?!
> > >
> >
> > ***For some reason, I have the feeling Kraig is going to dig this
> > paper... but, I await his responses...
> >
> > J. Pehrson
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

yea- the nerve :)

Paul Erlich wrote:

> hi kraig -- hopefully you can scratch out those two typos before you
> read it.
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:

> I think it's quite a bit easier to read
> than most of the 1/1 material...

thanks joseph for chiming in, i've definitely seen material in 1/1
and even the JI Primer that is, in my judgment . . . well i'll just
say at least at this level of difficulty, especially if i smooth over
a couple of my "hurdles" with jon's editorial suggestions . . .
someone who reads the former publications should have no trouble
grasping my ideas, most of which will seem utterly familiar anyway.

since you said "most of the 1/1 material", did you have any examples
that you'd like to go over? i have a few issues spread around here
and there . . .

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5741

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
> wrote:
>
> > I think it's quite a bit easier to read
> > than most of the 1/1 material...
>
> thanks joseph for chiming in, i've definitely seen material in 1/1
> and even the JI Primer that is, in my judgment . . . well i'll just
> say at least at this level of difficulty, especially if i smooth
over
> a couple of my "hurdles" with jon's editorial suggestions . . .
> someone who reads the former publications should have no trouble
> grasping my ideas, most of which will seem utterly familiar anyway.
>
> since you said "most of the 1/1 material", did you have any
examples
> that you'd like to go over? i have a few issues spread around here
> and there . . .

***I guess "most" is a pretty strong statement: but I guess I
remember several articles by Warren Burt and some others which
required quite a bit of puzzling over...

JP

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5737

>> well, photographic memory aids memorization, but for physics i
never really had to do any memorization, just know a *very* small
number of laws (for any semester course) and visualize in my head how
they apply to a particular physical situation.

***Well, that seems pretty amazing to me, and my guess is that the
Yale physics courses aren't for the "faint of heart..."

JP

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
>
> /metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5737
>
>
> >> well, photographic memory aids memorization, but for physics i
> never really had to do any memorization, just know a *very* small
> number of laws (for any semester course) and visualize in my head
how
> they apply to a particular physical situation.
>
>
> ***Well, that seems pretty amazing to me, and my guess is that the
> Yale physics courses aren't for the "faint of heart..."
>
> JP

actually there are 5 levels of intro physics, from "faint"
to "braveheart" . . . anyway i had just taken two years of excellent
physics at hunter (the second year, ap physics, was taught by a yale
grad), so i was fairly ready for the toughest one, though not nearly
as ready as some of my eastern european classmates who had had about
*seven* years of physics and wiped their butts with the exam papers
of us "stupid americans" . . .

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>

/metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5754

wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
<jpehrson@r...>
> wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
> wrote:
> >
> > /metatuning/topicId_5640.html#5737
> >
> >
> > >> well, photographic memory aids memorization, but for physics
i
> > never really had to do any memorization, just know a *very*
small
> > number of laws (for any semester course) and visualize in my
head
> how
> > they apply to a particular physical situation.
> >
> >
> > ***Well, that seems pretty amazing to me, and my guess is that
the
> > Yale physics courses aren't for the "faint of heart..."
> >
> > JP
>
> actually there are 5 levels of intro physics, from "faint"
> to "braveheart" . . . anyway i had just taken two years of
excellent
> physics at hunter (the second year, ap physics, was taught by a
yale
> grad), so i was fairly ready for the toughest one, though not
nearly
> as ready as some of my eastern european classmates who had had
about
> *seven* years of physics and wiped their butts with the exam
papers
> of us "stupid americans" . . .

***Hmmm. Well, I guess they take science seriously over there...

JP[

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:

> ***Hmmm. Well, I guess they take science seriously over there...

or at least they *track* students far earlier, deciding what field
the child will devote his or her education to, and thenceforth
concentrating on this field at the expense of all others. that was
the soviet model, anyway . . .