JiCalc4.4, SAG talk

I downloaded Carter's latest version of the JiCalc 4.4 beta HyperCard
stack from the Mills ftp siteand have been greatly enjoying plotting
scales with the new LATTICE function. This version runs on both older
and new Macs withor without QuickTime and QuickTime Musical Instruments.
HC 2.0 or above is essential, though, but System 6.07 is adequate.

The LATTICE routine factors ratios and plots those at the 31 prime
limit or lower on a N-dimensional Cartesian "perspective" plot
similar to that used by Erv Wilson. Ratios involving higher primes are
simply skipped, and notes differing by a single step in any dimension
are connected by lines. Clicking on either the node or a ratio in the
list of notes highlights both items.

I've customized my copy by patching in Steve Curtin's Fret Position
routine, whose button is easily added to the scale card background by
slightly rearranging the right hand side of the card without losing
any of the pre-existing functions. I placed the string length field to
the right of the Name field at the top of the card. In addition to
the Fret Position, I created another function by replacing the
indicated line in Steve's script with the statement below. This script
calculates the vibrating String Length instead of the fret or moveable
bridge position.

Replace the line "put ((line 1 of field i)-(line 2 of field i))/(line
1 of field i) into ratio" by the statement "put (line 2 of field i)/
(line 1 of field i) into ratio" (omitting the quotes).

Two small buttons for FP and SL fit in a single line just below
the new LATTICE button. Linking these buttons to the HELP stack and
creating new cards for them is quite easy in HyperTalk by analogy
from existing cards and buttons.

I heartily recommend that any user of JiCalc get this version. It's
great fun and seeing the lattice makes it easy to spot errors, find
chords, etc.

I presented a revised version of my ICMC 97 tutorial with a new example
DAT compiled by Brian McLaren last night at the Sonic Arts Gallery in
San Diego. Though the audience was small, there were numerous questions
and due to the number and length of the musical examples, I decided to
present only the introduction and the JI parts. I'll probably do the
temperament sections later if there is sufficient interest.

--John


Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:14 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA00698; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:16:27 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA00696
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id NAA21951; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:16:18 -0800
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:16:18 -0800
Message-Id: <199612172111.NAA21440@eartha.mills.edu>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

Pat Missin's example of harmonica tunings shows exactly where the
distinction between what is patentable and what is not might reasonably be.

An arrangement of _notes_ on the instrument is patentable for keyboard
instruments and for instruments where individual _notes_ are produced by
individual keys, switches, or blowholes (as in the harmonica). These
layouts or arrangements are clearly invented, much like a mapmaking
technique is invented and protectable as an invention.

On the other hand, the tuning itself (i.e. what frequencies are assigned to
particular notes) is ''common cultural property'' and not patentable. (To
repeat my mapmaking analogy, the tuning is analogous to the territory being
mapped, and a territory is not patentable, the recent - and deeply mistaken
- awards of patents on genes to the contrary).

An example: if I decide that the best possible arrangement of harmonica
reeds in a diatonic harmonica is .... and no one has thought it up and
sought protection before me, then I may patent the _arrangement_ of reeds.
If however, I wish also to define the tuning of the reeds as, for example,
seven pitches out of 31TET, this _tuning_ will not be patentable.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 12:26 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA01358; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 12:28:58 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA01356
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id DAA05974; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 03:28:55 -0800
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 03:28:55 -0800
Message-Id: <199612180625_MC1-D44-8970@compuserve.com>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

> despite the fact that a friend of mine tried to patent a retuned
harmonica
> and was told by the German patent office that a tuning would be
considered
> "common cultural property", therefore unpatentable (even though they had
> granteed a patent for a retuned harmonica, a few years before).

This is, I realize, getting a bit off the subject of unusual tunings,
but...

Almost no patent goes to pending status (awaiting publication, in
essence) without going through a protest phase. By that I mean that
virtually every patent office in the world will reject virtually every
patent application they receive (usually citing the "unobvious" criterion,
but also sometimes citing "prior art") and then wait for the filer to file
a protest. Perhaps something on the order of half survive the protest
phase.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 16:03 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA01691; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 16:06:05 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA01689
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id HAA10808; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 07:06:01 -0800
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 07:06:01 -0800
Message-Id: <199612180959_MC1-D68-E6F8@compuserve.com>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu