72 tone tantrum

Gosh darn. Am I the only one who wants to SCREAM every time a new
72-tET/Miracle/Blackjack/notation post comes onto the tuning list?
I like all the people who are excited by 72-tET, and I wish them all
the best in 72-tET compositional success. And I've been a big advocate
of the "don't complain: just hit the delete or PageDown key" school of
thinking. But. I'm ready to scream.

How about ']'? How about '>'? How many thousand posts can there be
on these and other exciting symbols?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Thanks. Feel better now. Tantrum over. Think I'll check the list
again...

JdL

Hi John,

> How about ']'? How about '>'? How many thousand posts can there be
> on these and other exciting symbols?

You aren't the only one!

I feel exactly the same.

Also, I feel the kind of ethos one gets that there can be one n-tet
tuning system to solve all microtonal problems is deeply flawed.

1/72 is 16.6667 cents! A huge interval for those used to microtonal
work.

If FTS was out by that much I'd get hundreds of complaints from its
users! Most musicians can probably hear two notes between each
72-tet note; some might hear more. To my ear, an ascending scale
in 216-tet sounds like a sequence of very distinct pitches rather
than a slide (I'm playing one right now).

Also in microtonal theory one wants to go beyond the limitations of a
notational system.

Even if someone devised a notation system in 1/2000 n-tet or something
(resolution of 0.6 cents, prob. okay except for long sustained chords
in special circumstances) it would be a pretty poor framework in which
to discuss ratios, or e, or phi based tuning systems.

To echo you:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Anyway that's my say over too.

Robert

On 5/30/01 6:49 PM, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@...> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>> How about ']'? How about '>'? How many thousand posts can there be
>> on these and other exciting symbols?
>
> You aren't the only one!
>
> I feel exactly the same.
>
> Also, I feel the kind of ethos one gets that there can be one n-tet
> tuning system to solve all microtonal problems is deeply flawed.

Why? Doesn't *12* already solve everything!? ::runs and hides::

> If FTS was out by that much I'd get hundreds of complaints from its
> users! Most musicians can probably hear two notes between each
> 72-tet note; some might hear more. To my ear, an ascending scale
> in 216-tet sounds like a sequence of very distinct pitches rather
> than a slide (I'm playing one right now).

HEY!!! This never gets to be a thread! It just shows up!
Like I said, the long lost 217-tit fretboard
sounded like individual notes, the 323 didn't.
After grueling hours and days long ago,
the threshhold seems to be around 240.

> Also in microtonal theory one wants to go beyond the limitations of a
> notational system.

Funny. With all the ASCII flying back and forth,
did anyone ever think of using a comma for a comma?
I always used a comma for a comma... seriously.
That is to say 1:1 would be "D"
81:80 would be "D," or D-comma
160:81 would be ",D" or comma-D, com-ma-dee,
that is seriously that it would be "com-e-dy"...

Yes, Robert... notation, limits, yadda...
I refer again to Johnny Reinhard's notation Legend for "Dune":
"­" (short minus): just a smidgen under regular pitch.

Or to parapurport Charles Lucy, you can't spell "pitch" without "pi".

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Or rather tch, tch, tch.

::duck and cover::

I have to admit,
the sheer Amway-ish relentlessness
is making me want to cut a 72 fretboard.

All together now...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

"Orphon Soul, Inc." wrote:

> Funny. With all the ASCII flying back and forth,
> did anyone ever think of using a comma for a comma?
> I always used a comma for a comma... seriously.
> That is to say 1:1 would be "D"
> 81:80 would be "D," or D-comma
> 160:81 would be ",D" or comma-D, com-ma-dee,
> that is seriously that it would be "com-e-dy"...

Vicentino did this. A comma above the note means raise the either by
half a step of 31-equal, or enough to get to a Pythagorean interval.
I'd suggest ' for raising by a comma, , for lowering. You see the
problems when the symbols get mixed with text ...

Graham