Re: tuninga

Hi there,

I've had an idea which may be practical, what does anyone think?

Idea is to have a new group tuninga, and when posting to tuninga,
c.c all ones posts to tuning as well.

When replying, those following the discussion on the main tuning
list can just c.c. their reply to tuninga.

I think something needs to be done as a fair number of regulars
on the main tuning list are posting less often, and a couple or
so have unsubscribed because of the number of posts on the
miracle scale.

I'm interested to read the few posts on that topic that are for
the general reader, but getting on for 100 per day - nobody is going
to read all those unless they are actively involved in it.

Anyway, take a look at the main page at
/tuninga
and see if you think it is a good idea.

Should work if everyone likes the idea. Just a matter of putting
tuninga@yahoogroups.com in the c.c. field when posting. Then look
at either the tuning or the tuninga list depending on whether one
is following the intricacies of the Miracle thread.

Anyway, thought best to mention here first, and if it seems a
good idea to all, I'll post a notice about it to the main list
and we can give it a go.

Robert

Hey Robert !
Do you know much about your natal astrology chart-wanted to know how
much virgo then capricorn plays in. you have such inspiration toward
organization.
a good thing mind you ; )

Robert Walker wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I've had an idea which may be practical, what does anyone think?
>
>
> 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
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

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

[Robert Walker wrote:]
>I've had an idea which may be practical, what does anyone think?

>Idea is to have a new group tuninga, and when posting to tuninga,
>c.c all ones posts to tuning as well.

>When replying, those following the discussion on the main tuning
>list can just c.c. their reply to tuninga.

>I think something needs to be done as a fair number of regulars
>on the main tuning list are posting less often, and a couple or
>so have unsubscribed because of the number of posts on the
>miracle scale.

>I'm interested to read the few posts on that topic that are for
>the general reader, but getting on for 100 per day - nobody is going
>to read all those unless they are actively involved in it.

Wouldn't it be simplier to ask Miracle to split off the tuning list?
That would avoid a deliberate duplication of posts, which strikes me as
a good thing given the fact that we're already dealing with a blizzard
of them.

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_67.html#69

> Wouldn't it be simplier to ask Miracle to split off the tuning list?
> That would avoid a deliberate duplication of posts, which strikes
me as
> a good thing given the fact that we're already dealing with a
blizzard
> of them.
>
> JdL

This would make sense, John... but the fact of the matter is, just
like Harmonic Entropy... by about the time everybody else gets "fed
up" with one of the "biggie" topics, the topic is about ready
to "wind down" anyway! So it moves to another list, and that's about
the end of it.... That's pretty much what happened with Harmonic
Entropy... except for a few "flare ups" over there sporadically...

________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

[I wrote:]
>>Wouldn't it be simplier to ask Miracle to split off the tuning list?
>>That would avoid a deliberate duplication of posts, which strikes me
>>as a good thing given the fact that we're already dealing with a
>>blizzard of them.

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>This would make sense, John... but the fact of the matter is, just
>like Harmonic Entropy... by about the time everybody else gets "fed
>up" with one of the "biggie" topics, the topic is about ready
>to "wind down" anyway! So it moves to another list, and that's about
>the end of it.... That's pretty much what happened with Harmonic
>Entropy... except for a few "flare ups" over there sporadically...

Yes, and in case it's not clear, I'm not trying to come off as clamoring
for anyone to leave the tuning list. The volume is quite heavy, and
some readers are dropping by the wayside because of it, so it's always
worth discussing the idea that some of the heavy-volume posters might
split off (voluntarily, certainly, if at all). Perhaps the
Blackjack/miracle/72/notation thread(s) will not continue to be so
large as time goes on.

How do you feel, Joseph, about Robert's suggestion?

JdL

Hi Joseph,

> This would make sense, John... but the fact of the matter is, just
> like Harmonic Entropy... by about the time everybody else gets "fed
> up" with one of the "biggie" topics, the topic is about ready
> to "wind down" anyway! So it moves to another list, and that's about
> the end of it.... That's pretty much what happened with Harmonic
> Entropy... except for a few "flare ups" over there sporadically...

Is it about to "wind down"? If so, I expect the rest of us would be interested
in a summary of what has been accomplished.

The miracle scale could have been moved to another list a week or so ago however
and the rest of us would have been spared many hundreds of extra topics.

It is easy to skip topics in a digest rather than read them, but when they reach these
sorts of numbers, the problem is how to find the messages one is interested in
- you receive maybe three digests in one go, and only a few messages in all those
digests are the ones one wants to read. Not so easy as when one receives
a single digest and can quickly scan through it and see what there is
one wants to read in detail.

Obviously doesn't apply to those involved in the debate as they will be
reading all the messages anyway. So, prob. can't quite easily appreciate
the situation for the rest of us, though a few of the e-mails have
dropped pretty broad hints!

There have been topics before that have generated many posts, such as the
tunings with semitone and tone at a golden ratio to each other - in fact
would be interesting to hear more about those again!

But, I think never to quite this extent - look at the numbers of messages
listed in Yahoo for this month, bearing in mind that the month isn't finished
yet, and that some of the usual regulars have actually stopped posting, or
posted less often than they normally do.

Robert

Hi John,

> Wouldn't it be simplier to ask Miracle to split off the tuning list?
> That would avoid a deliberate duplication of posts, which strikes me as
> a good thing given the fact that we're already dealing with a blizzard
> of them.

Yes I agree, and think this would be best.

This is an alternative since the only ones who can start a miracle tuning
list are the ones involved, and they don't seem to be interested in that idea.

Dave was interested at first, but lost interest, and I've no idea why he
did, as I thought it was an excellent idea.

However, maybe the point about deliberate duplication of posts spoils it?

I'd find it useful to just be able to scan tuninga rather than tuning, but
would only work if everyone joined in, otherewise one would need to scan
both lists.

Would be okay for those following the miracle thread - they would just need
to scan tuning, whatever happens, and could subscribe to tuninga in no
e-mail mode if they want to post to it.

Robert

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_67.html#74

> [I wrote:]
> >>Wouldn't it be simplier to ask Miracle to split off the tuning
list?
> >>That would avoid a deliberate duplication of posts, which strikes
me
> >>as a good thing given the fact that we're already dealing with a
> >>blizzard of them.
>
> [Joseph Pehrson:]
> >This would make sense, John... but the fact of the matter is, just
> >like Harmonic Entropy... by about the time everybody else
gets "fed
> >up" with one of the "biggie" topics, the topic is about ready
> >to "wind down" anyway! So it moves to another list, and that's
about
> >the end of it.... That's pretty much what happened with Harmonic
> >Entropy... except for a few "flare ups" over there sporadically...
>
> Yes, and in case it's not clear, I'm not trying to come off as
clamoring
> for anyone to leave the tuning list. The volume is quite heavy, and
> some readers are dropping by the wayside because of it, so it's
always
> worth discussing the idea that some of the heavy-volume posters
might
> split off (voluntarily, certainly, if at all). Perhaps the
> Blackjack/miracle/72/notation thread(s) will not continue to be so
> large as time goes on.
>
> How do you feel, Joseph, about Robert's suggestion?
>
> JdL

Frankly, I think it's rather intriguing. But, I doubt VERY, VERY
seriously that anybody is going to do it!

JP

--- In metatuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_67.html#75

> Hi Joseph,
>
> > This would make sense, John... but the fact of the matter is,
just
> > like Harmonic Entropy... by about the time everybody else
gets "fed
> > up" with one of the "biggie" topics, the topic is about ready
> > to "wind down" anyway! So it moves to another list, and that's
about
> > the end of it.... That's pretty much what happened with Harmonic
> > Entropy... except for a few "flare ups" over there sporadically...
>
> Is it about to "wind down"? If so, I expect the rest of us would be
interested in a summary of what has been accomplished.
>

Well, Paul would probably do a better job of this summary than I
could...

Basically, through community effort we created a series of new scales
that are related to 72-tET. It started as an attempt to find scales
for ME that had 19-tones and were subssets of 72-tET.. since I wanted
to try that notation.

Paul Erlich posted several of these scales, but, Dave Keenan, in
analyzing them, found other subsets of 72-tET that were even MORE
miraculous... one subset in 19 tones (known as "blackjack" since that
game has 19 cards), 21 tones (now called "Canasta")and a 31-tone set,
the "true" Miracle scale ("Multiple Integer Ratios Approximated
Consistently, Linearly and Evenly")

Probably you knew this much about it... and, anyway, I am WAY off
topic, since I am now discussing TUNING.... Not appropriate here...

> There have been topics before that have generated many posts, such
as the
> tunings with semitone and tone at a golden ratio to each other - in
fact
> would be interesting to hear more about those again!
>
> But, I think never to quite this extent

Well... for some of us this is been the most exciting topic to EVER
appear on the Tuning List. (At least in a year and a half for me).

Some of us feel this way, so undoubtedly this contributed to the
volume of posts. I got behind myself, and I thought it was just "my"
problem, but I guess there REALLY were a lot of posts during that
time!

- look at the numbers of messages
> listed in Yahoo for this month, bearing in mind that the month
isn't finished yet, and that some of the usual regulars have actually
stopped posting, or posted less often than they normally do.
>
> Robert

Most probably, they will all be back...

Joseph

--- In metatuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_67.html#78

> Paul Erlich posted several of these scales, but, Dave Keenan,
> in analyzing them, found other subsets of 72-tET that were
> even MORE miraculous... one subset in 19 tones (known
> as "blackjack" since that game has 19 cards), 21 tones (now
> called "Canasta")and a 31-tone set, the "true" Miracle scale
> ("Multiple Integer Ratios Approximated Consistently, Linearly
> and Evenly")

Joe, you got this part a bit muddled. There is no "true"
Miracle scale; MIRACLE is the acronym for the whole family
of tunings. "Blackjack" is the 21-tone scale, and "Canasta"
is the 31-tone. Other recommended scale cardinalities have
been 10, 41, 45, and of course 72, but none of these have
been given specific names. (Well, the 10-based notation
is called "decimal".)

I know of no card games that use 19 cards. In blackjack,
21 is not the number of cards used but rather the sum
total of card values that is the goal to be reached.
Canasta is also a card game, but the reason we settled on
keeping the name is because it is Spanish for "basket", and
the 31-tone scale is a "basket scale" holding Many (or my
preference, Multitudes of) Integer Ratios Approximated
Consistently, Linearly and Evenly.

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

On 5/26/01 4:47 AM, "monz" <joemonz@...> wrote:

> Canasta is also a card game, but the reason we settled on
> keeping the name is because it is Spanish for "basket", and
> the 31-tone scale is a "basket scale" holding Many [...]

That's an interesting reference.
I thought it might have something to do
with the fact that in the game, a "Canasta"
is a meld of 7 cards or more.
(Thought maybe 7 similar tones or more...)

Hi Joseph,

> Most probably, they will all be back...

Yes, I expect so, but meanwhile I'm missing their posts, and
the interesting variety we used to have.

This morning, got three digests, and amongst them, 8 posts
that were on topics other than 72-tet.

Doesn't show any sign of slacking!

Robert

Hi Joseph,

Not that I want it to slacken, I'd like all you 72-tet enthusiasts
to be able to post away to your hearts content, but to do it in a way
that lets the rest of us continue "business as usual" too.

Tuninga was one possible solution to make that a workable thing to do.

The rest of us will surely be interested in a detailed account of what you
have all been doing once it is worked out.

Robert

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

/metatuning/topicId_67.html#79

>
> --- In metatuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> /metatuning/topicId_67.html#78
>
> > Paul Erlich posted several of these scales, but, Dave Keenan,
> > in analyzing them, found other subsets of 72-tET that were
> > even MORE miraculous... one subset in 19 tones (known
> > as "blackjack" since that game has 19 cards), 21 tones (now
> > called "Canasta")and a 31-tone set, the "true" Miracle scale
> > ("Multiple Integer Ratios Approximated Consistently, Linearly
> > and Evenly")
>
>
> Joe, you got this part a bit muddled. There is no "true"
> Miracle scale; MIRACLE is the acronym for the whole family
> of tunings. "Blackjack" is the 21-tone scale, and "Canasta"
> is the 31-tone. Other recommended scale cardinalities have
> been 10, 41, 45, and of course 72, but none of these have
> been given specific names. (Well, the 10-based notation
> is called "decimal".)
>
> I know of no card games that use 19 cards. In blackjack,
> 21 is not the number of cards used but rather the sum
> total of card values that is the goal to be reached.
> Canasta is also a card game, but the reason we settled on
> keeping the name is because it is Spanish for "basket", and
> the 31-tone scale is a "basket scale" holding Many (or my
> preference, Multitudes of) Integer Ratios Approximated
> Consistently, Linearly and Evenly.
>
>
>
> -monz

Sorry, Monz... Of course I know this. I just had 19 in my mind
because that's how we started out.... Thanks for the correction...
Of course, blackjack was 21...

I shouldn't have been the person to do the "grand summary" anyway...
but nobody else volunteered...

Although on a different level, it was a little like when Schoenberg
was asked on the German border if "You are the great composer Arnold
Schoenberg...?"

His reply, as you know was, "Yes, but only because nobody else wanted
to do it..."

Or something of the like...

_______ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

Robert Walker wrote:> This is an alternative since the only ones who can start a miracletuning> list are the ones involved, and they don't seem to be interested inthat idea.I'm working back throught the messages, so sorry if I'm missing someof the context here. I'm not interested in the idea. As has beenpointed out, the volume of posts has died down since the originalsuggestion. Now mclaren's there, I'm getting more posts from PM thanthe TL. In retrospect, it would have been a good idea to fork of atemporary list when the discussion was really hot. But I don't knowwhen that decision should have been made, and at the time we were on ahigh with this radically new territory that had opened up before us.You'll have to forgive us that.>> Dave was interested at first, but lost interest, and I've no ideawhy he> did, as I thought it was an excellent idea.I think it was connected with the slanders against Paul Erlich thatappeared on the main list. If forking causes all that bad feeling,let's have none of it.I'll also point out that, as we're intending publication in a reviewedjournal, it might not be a good idea to have a discussion forumdedicated to that subject. Journals like what they publish to be new,rather than re-hashing of an online discussion. We may be in troublewith this already.Graham

Hi Graham,

That's all right, I can well understand getting excited about a new
discovery.

Also, as you say, discussion has moved on to other things, so
nothing needing to be done about it.

I see the regulars are already back and posting!

With papers, I think it is okay to present them to seminars
and so forth before publishing them, in fact, expected, so that
one can get feedback and improve them, so maybe this can be
thought of as being of that ilk?

I'm a bit behind the times as it is some time since I was
very actively involved in mathematical reasearch and trying
to get papers published, but I imagine nowadays mathematicians
must discuss things over the web in the same way that they discuss
them in seminars. Surely!

I see a post from Joseph about the maths discussions moving to
math-tuning, but haven't seen the original post on that.
Also got a post from math-tuning with miracle post in it,
so that makes sense.

I wonder if it is an idea, that original posts starting up
a mathematical idea, or if it isn't that far developed, go
to the main list so everyone can see what is happening, then
the more involved discussions can move to math-tuning, then
back from there, occasional posts to main list again
so that the rest of us learn what is happening, and feel
involved, and so that you can get the down to earth
comments that help keep it all grounded.

I think it isn't the mathematics as such that puts people off,
just the volume of posts that one can get at times.

I for one would also appreciate an occasional post to TL
about the miracle scales, in full detail too, along the
lines of the one from Margo that explained the Wonder
tuning to the rest of us.

I suppose what is particularly hard to read as someone not
directly involved is a series of posts working out an idea
and presenting suggestions for discussion by other
participants, that may or may not get taken up later.

Reminds me of a comment a referee made when I sent him
a mathematical paper, then a correction, then correction to
the correction, saying, "hard to focus on a moving arrow,
please send it again when you have worked it all out",
or words to that effect.

Robert

Robert Walker wrote:

> With papers, I think it is okay to present them to seminars
> and so forth before publishing them, in fact, expected, so that
> one can get feedback and improve them, so maybe this can be
> thought of as being of that ilk?

Maybe, I'm not in on that crowd.

> I see a post from Joseph about the maths discussions moving to
> math-tuning, but haven't seen the original post on that.
> Also got a post from math-tuning with miracle post in it,
> so that makes sense.
>
> I wonder if it is an idea, that original posts starting up
> a mathematical idea, or if it isn't that far developed, go
> to the main list so everyone can see what is happening, then
> the more involved discussions can move to math-tuning, then
> back from there, occasional posts to main list again
> so that the rest of us learn what is happening, and feel
> involved, and so that you can get the down to earth
> comments that help keep it all grounded.

I don't know how it's going to work out. But if the list gets
accepted (there is a vote on it) it may be like that.

> I think it isn't the mathematics as such that puts people off,
> just the volume of posts that one can get at times.

Yes, now all we need is a way to predict when the volume's going to
be that high before it happens.

> I for one would also appreciate an occasional post to TL
> about the miracle scales, in full detail too, along the
> lines of the one from Margo that explained the Wonder
> tuning to the rest of us.

That's like the e-mail from Paul that *started* the discussion.

> I suppose what is particularly hard to read as someone not
> directly involved is a series of posts working out an idea
> and presenting suggestions for discussion by other
> participants, that may or may not get taken up later.
>
> Reminds me of a comment a referee made when I sent him
> a mathematical paper, then a correction, then correction to
> the correction, saying, "hard to focus on a moving arrow,
> please send it again when you have worked it all out",
> or words to that effect.

But the List is a discussion group, not an outlet for publication.
It's always been like that. And you can't tell in advance who might
be interested in a particular thread, and have something to
contribute. The miracle thread was a good example of that.

Graham

[Robert Walker wrote:]
>>I think it isn't the mathematics as such that puts people off,
>>just the volume of posts that one can get at times.

[Graham wrote:]
>Yes, now all we need is a way to predict when the volume's going to
>be that high before it happens.

I think this exchange - both statements correct - cuts to the heart of
the challenge. It is _never_ possible to predict how a given thread
will go, or how many threads will be active at the same moment. I've
watched in amazement as a thread seems to die, then suddenly springs
back to life with greater force than ever. Or, one will be filled with
exchanges, then suddenly gone, never to be seen again.

It's worse than the stock market. It's worse than dating.

The best we can ever hope to do is muddle along. Lists may split off
for rather "poor" reasons (in the heat of the moment), yet may still
blossom in ways unforeseen. Take this list, for example (in which it's
still acceptable to talk about the futility of talking ;-> ).

I _do_ think it is worthwhile to promote a consciousness among all list
participants: if you see your own posts mushrooming up to several per
day, AND the list is producing several digests per day (i.e. several
multiples of 25 posts per day), then please consider taking the
discussion to a separate list, or at least be open to the suggestion if
it comes.

JdL

Hi:

I'm back on the tuning list after a hiatus, and I'd like to see it
get out of the present slump and get back to the modest, serious work
the list of which the list can rightly be proud. We've got to get the
volume down, the and the quality and variety up. We've got to make
the pace inviting to lurkers.

Self-restraint is definitely in order. We've all learned how easy it
is to make new lists on the fly, so any detailed discussion can go to
an ancillary, ad hoc list, and then report back to the main list with
major findings. Back-channel messages are also a good way to help the
traffic, especially to help bring newcomers up to speed. And for the
main list, I would suggest that all of try to increase the signal to
noise ratio by posting less frequently, but with more thought going
into each post. It's just not necessary (JP and PE: this means you!)
to register a comment on every single post. Personally, I'd like to
limit myself to no more than a post a day, but I know it'll be
hard...

So ---

Daniel Wolf

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> [Robert Walker wrote:]
> >>I think it isn't the mathematics as such that puts people off,
> >>just the volume of posts that one can get at times.
>
> [Graham wrote:]
> >Yes, now all we need is a way to predict when the volume's going
to
> >be that high before it happens.
>
... snip...

> I _do_ think it is worthwhile to promote a consciousness among all
list
> participants: if you see your own posts mushrooming up to several
per
> day, AND the list is producing several digests per day (i.e. several
> multiples of 25 posts per day), then please consider taking the
> discussion to a separate list, or at least be open to the
suggestion if
> it comes.
>
> JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "Daniel James Wolf" <djwolf1@m...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_67.html#105

> Hi:
>
> I'm back on the tuning list after a hiatus, and I'd like to see it
> get out of the present slump and get back to the modest, serious
work
> the list of which the list can rightly be proud. We've got to get
the
> volume down, the and the quality and variety up. We've got to make
> the pace inviting to lurkers.
>
> Self-restraint is definitely in order. We've all learned how easy
it
> is to make new lists on the fly, so any detailed discussion can go
to
> an ancillary, ad hoc list, and then report back to the main list
with
> major findings. Back-channel messages are also a good way to help
the
> traffic, especially to help bring newcomers up to speed. And for
the
> main list, I would suggest that all of try to increase the signal
to
> noise ratio by posting less frequently, but with more thought going
> into each post. It's just not necessary (JP and PE: this means
you!)
> to register a comment on every single post. Personally, I'd like to
> limit myself to no more than a post a day, but I know it'll be
> hard...
>
> So ---
>
> Daniel Wolf
>

Allright.. I tune it down a bit....

_________ __________ ______
Joseph Pehrson