Journal of Mathematics and Music (fwd)

Hi all - someone might be interested in submitting tuning-math items, suitably worked up, to this new journal:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:52:35 -0600
From: Robert W Peck <rpeck@lsu.edu>
To: smt-announce@societymusictheory.org
Subject: Preliminary call: Journal of Mathematics and Music

JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS AND MUSIC
Preliminary Call for Contributions

We welcome the submission of research papers that involve mathematical or
computational approaches in the study of music. The "Journal of
Mathematics and Music" aims to advance the use of mathematical modelling
and computation in music theory. It focuses on mathematical approaches to
musical structures and processes, including investigations into theoretical
or compositional issues, as well as mathematically motivated analyses of
musical works or performances.

The journal is published by Taylor & Francis in a hybrid form (print
edition and extended electronic edition). Regularly submitted papers will
appear in two issues per year. A third annual issue will include invited
or submitted papers on a special topic. The official call for
contributions, with detailed information about formating and reviewing
procedures, will soon be available at the journal's website:
<http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=1745-9737&subcategory=MM150000>.

Respectfully submitted,
The Editors
Thomas Noll <noll@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Technische Universit�t, Berlin
Escola Superior de Musica de Catalunya, Barcelona
Robert Peck <rpeck@lsu.edu>
Louisiana State University

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, tuning-math@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS AND MUSIC
>
> Posted by: "Mike Battaglia" battaglia01@gmail.com ￜ battaglia01
>
> Thu Marￜ22,ￜ2012 6:33ￜam (PDT)
>
> I remember Jon Wild posted this journal a while ago, which led to us
> reading the now-infamous Zabka paper:
>
> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/tmam20/current
>
> Looks like some great stuff is in here. Like this paper Bill Sethares
> just wrote:
>
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17459737.2011.640469
>
> Does anyone know anything about this journal? (Jon Wild, if you still
> lurk here, can you talk a bit about it?)

This message was just forwarded to me. To all that have been actively contributing to research here, I would totally encourage you to write something up together for this journal. They definitely have an audience that would be receptive, and I know they are always soliciting articles. "Academic music theory" is much less monolithic than you sometimes think, and there's no centralised direction to it--it's whatever its practitioners are currently interested in. There's no reason you couldn't make more of its practitioners in academia interested in what you've been doing, and it would be great to have your theory more accessible, as no one is going to be able to pick their way through the archived noise on the yahoo lists, and less still on Facebook. It's been a while since I looked at Graham's latest iteration of the temperament finding article(s?), but as I recall isn't that totally ready, solid, self-contained and appropriate for JMM? (Or maybe it's been published already.)

Here's something else to think about: the same society that publishes that journal (the Society for Mathematics and Computation in Music) has a bi-annual conference. 2007 was in Berlin; 2009 was at Yale; 2011 was at IRCAM in Paris -- and 2013 will be in Montreal (in June). I am helping to organise it. There is no call for papers yet but we'll soon be putting one out (I'll send a copy to this list). It would be great to have a session on the conference devoted to tuning math. Lots of people you guys know about usually attend this conference: Sethares, Tymoczko, Carey & Clampitt, Zabka, etc.

Regards, Jon Wild

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Jon Wild <wild@...> wrote:
There's no reason you couldn't
> make more of its practitioners in academia interested in what you've been
> doing, and it would be great to have your theory more accessible, as no
> one is going to be able to pick their way through the archived noise on
> the yahoo lists, and less still on Facebook.

They don't have to, they can look at the theory pages on the Xenwiki:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/General+Theory
http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Mathematical+Theory

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, tuning-math@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> 2b.
> > RE: JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS AND MUSIC (FWD)
>
> Posted by: "genewardsmith" genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net ￜ
> genewardsmith
>
> They don't have to, they can look at the theory pages on the
> Xenwiki:

Yes, they could--if they knew there was something called a regular temperament (for example), and they knew there's a thing called the Xenharmonic wiki where they could find out what it was.

But if someone hasn't heard of the Xenwiki, then a paper written with a traditional narrative, appearing in a publication they might actually see, will help spread the word that there are interesting things going on.

The advice only applies if you are interested in wider dissemination! It seems to me that people here used to be disappointed that music theorists in academia don't know, don't understand, don't appreciate or aren't interested in what you're doing.

Jon Wild

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Jon Wild <wild@...> wrote:

> The advice only applies if you are interested in wider dissemination!

In my view, which may be extreme, if you still think dead trees are essential and that everyone should be charged a lot of money or have privileges with some academic institution in order to be allowed to read research which is years out of date at time of publication, you are living in the last millennium. On the other hand there is certainly a place for peer review.

Gene wrote:

>In my view, which may be extreme, if you still think dead trees are
>essential and that everyone should be charged a lot of money or have
>privileges with some academic institution in order to be allowed to
>read research which is years out of date at time of publication, you
>are living in the last millennium. On the other hand there is
>certainly a place for peer review.

Actually I think that peer review is mostly broken beyond repair
is pretty widely understood at this point. Online reputation
systems formally solve the problem of peer review. I'm not sure
why scientists can't get past Hirsch indices and impact factors.

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Actually I think that peer review is mostly broken beyond repair
> is pretty widely understood at this point. Online reputation
> systems formally solve the problem of peer review. I'm not sure
> why scientists can't get past Hirsch indices and impact factors.

Reputation systems, Hirsch indicies and impact factors are all, broadly speaking, peer review.

"genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Reputation systems, Hirsch indicies and impact factors
> are all, broadly speaking, peer review.

It reminds me of this dispute:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3848

Roughly paraphrased: There's a reason we put this through
peer review, and it wasn't so other researchers could go
round saying what they think about it!

Graham