Re: Fwd: True nature of the blackjack scale (in 7-limit) . . .

In-Reply-To: <9fjjpo+t5e1@eGroups.com>
Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> Dunno. Maybe it's best to keep things running like they are until
> there are "complaints" even though the vote indicated otherwise.
> After all, there were lots of abstentions...

How about insisting that, as the list already exists, an absolute majority
of the Tuning List is required to vote it away? Then, the overwhelming
number of people who don't bother to vote are sure to carry the day!

Graham

--- In tuning-math@y..., graham@m... wrote:

/tuning-math/message/143

> In-Reply-To: <9fjjpo+t5e1@e...>
> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> > Dunno. Maybe it's best to keep things running like they are
until
> > there are "complaints" even though the vote indicated otherwise.
> > After all, there were lots of abstentions...
>
> How about insisting that, as the list already exists, an absolute
majority
> of the Tuning List is required to vote it away? Then, the
overwhelming
> number of people who don't bother to vote are sure to carry the day!
>
> Graham

That's pretty funny, Graham. I can see you're good at "politics"
too... (!!)

Looks like the "Math List" won!

___________ ________ ________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning-math@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> How about insisting that, as the list already exists, an absolute
majority
> of the Tuning List is required to vote it away? Then, the
overwhelming
> number of people who don't bother to vote are sure to carry the day!

How about recognising that there's nothing democratic about it. If
Paul wants to post to it he will. If Paul refuses to discuss certain
topics with me on the main list, I am forced to post here too. Cest la
vie. But I'd still like it combined with Harmonic Entropy.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

> How about recognising that there's nothing democratic about it.

Right!

> If Paul wants to post to it he will. If Paul refuses to discuss
> certain topics with me on the main list, I am forced to post here
> too. Cest la vie. But I'd still like it combined with Harmonic
> Entropy.

I agree about the fusion (I did suggest it, after all). But also,
Dave, I'd ask you to consider the general issue of seperation again.

I used to be opposed to it -- in fact I was quite opposed to the
creation of the harmonic entropy list. But that was back in the
good old days of merely 1000 posts/month. The volume on the main
list now supports a seperation, in my opinion.

Math is a logical seperation. It frees up the main list for things
like info on synthesizers, instrument building, album reviews, and
concert information. This is something we need, and after all the
complaining about the math it is something we should get.

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@y..., carl@l... wrote:
> I agree about the fusion (I did suggest it, after all). But also,
> Dave, I'd ask you to consider the general issue of seperation again.
>
> I used to be opposed to it -- in fact I was quite opposed to the
> creation of the harmonic entropy list. But that was back in the
> good old days of merely 1000 posts/month. The volume on the main
> list now supports a seperation, in my opinion.
>
> Math is a logical seperation. It frees up the main list for things
> like info on synthesizers, instrument building, album reviews, and
> concert information. This is something we need, and after all the
> complaining about the math it is something we should get.

Ok. But possibly apart from reviews, how do you discuss any of these
things without math? How much math is too much?

The blackjack guitar design on the tuning list is getting pretty
heavily mathematical. Should I move it to the tuning-math list now and
split the thread over two archives?

-- Dave Keenan

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>
> To: <tuning-math@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:16 PM
> Subject: [tuning-math] Re: True nature of tuning-math
>

> The blackjack guitar design on the tuning list is getting pretty
> heavily mathematical. Should I move it to the tuning-math list now and
> split the thread over two archives?

*There's* the drawback of having separate lists.

Here's the policy I've been following: if a thread on the big
tuning list (or actually, on any of the others) suddenly starts
showing signs of math, I post any response to it which contains
more math to this list. In other words, one post with lightweight
math is the limit on any other list. If it requires any
further math, it goes here. That way as soon as the discussion
turns mathematical, it stays on this list and all one needs
to have to follow it is a single quote of the original post
containing the math... and the other tuning lists are spared
all but the most elementary math.

I really think this procedure will keep the largest number
of people the happiest.

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> The blackjack guitar design on the tuning list is getting pretty
> heavily mathematical. Should I move it to the tuning-math list now
> and split the thread over two archives?

Don't split it. I don't think we need to pick hairs here (yuck!),
I just think starting scale-theory and h.e. discussions here and
then reporting back to the main list is a good idea.

>Ok. But possibly apart from reviews, how do you discuss any of
>these things without math? How much math is too much?

I don't think the existence of tuning-math should mean no math on
the main list, by any means. No amount is too much. It's the
topic that I would use as a guiding principle.

There are plenty of things that can be discussed without math.
How do I use Finale to get microtonal accidentals? How can I
retune my old piano and get good results? I made some ear
training tapes I can swap. They came up with a great scale on
tuning-math... what sort of composition techniques is it suited
to? How can I get grant money to make a microtonal guitar? Does
anybody have Joe's phone number? I came up with a nifty chord
progression. Did Bach ever really meet Werkmeister? . . .

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@y..., carl@l... wrote:
> I don't think we need to pick hairs here (yuck!),
> I just think starting scale-theory and h.e. discussions here and
> then reporting back to the main list is a good idea.
>
> I don't think the existence of tuning-math should mean no math on
> the main list, by any means. No amount is too much. It's the
> topic that I would use as a guiding principle.
>
> There are plenty of things that can be discussed without math.
> How do I use Finale to get microtonal accidentals? How can I
> retune my old piano and get good results? I made some ear
> training tapes I can swap. They came up with a great scale on
> tuning-math... what sort of composition techniques is it suited
> to? How can I get grant money to make a microtonal guitar? Does
> anybody have Joe's phone number? I came up with a nifty chord
> progression. Did Bach ever really meet Werkmeister? . . .

Ok. You convinced me. :-)