OUR PAPER

Hello?

Let's push forward, shall we?

Graham, do you agree with the way Gene's doing things?

If so, you guys have a plurality, against Dave and myself, who both
seem to be resisting in different areas.

It's really time to get this stuff published in some form -- who
knows how many university course notes it's appearing in already :)

The latest list of 5-limit temperaments is fine by me, though if
Graham and Dave are into the idea of a stronger penalty for
complexity, sacrificing flatness, I'll side with them against Gene.

Then we'll need similar lists for {2,3,5,7}, {2,3,7}, {2,5,7}, and
{3,5,7} -- always keeping the first prime as the interval of
equivalence, for brevity's sake. Additional useful info would include
a list of proper and improper MOSs (actually, a horagram might be
best) and lattices wherever feasible.

And all this is only part IV of our paper . . .

--- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning-math/message/2958

> Hello?
>
> Let's push forward, shall we?
>
> Graham, do you agree with the way Gene's doing things?
>
> If so, you guys have a plurality, against Dave and myself, who both
> seem to be resisting in different areas.
>
> It's really time to get this stuff published in some form -- who
> knows how many university course notes it's appearing in already :)
>
> The latest list of 5-limit temperaments is fine by me, though if
> Graham and Dave are into the idea of a stronger penalty for
> complexity, sacrificing flatness, I'll side with them against Gene.
>
> Then we'll need similar lists for {2,3,5,7}, {2,3,7}, {2,5,7}, and
> {3,5,7} -- always keeping the first prime as the interval of
> equivalence, for brevity's sake. Additional useful info would
include
> a list of proper and improper MOSs (actually, a horagram might be
> best) and lattices wherever feasible.
>
> And all this is only part IV of our paper . . .

Well, this is all very exciting, and I saw it posted on the Tuning
List.

However, it magically disappeared, so I figured Paul meant to post it
to Tuning Math instead.

I would propose (if I may humbly do that for a micromini second, or a
mathmicromini second) that there are actually *two* papers...

One the "intense" "real" one, and the other a kind of "synopsis"
along the lines of Paul Erlich's *very* fine... in fact *very, very*
fine "The Forms of Tonality" which was a very readable and *broadly-
based* effort, directed to the larger microtonal community. And it
had nice *pictures* too.

Whaddya say??

Rather than "diluting" the effort, I think it will just *focus*
things on the new developments. Or, similarly, such a "preamble"
or "synopsis" could be on the Web similar to Paul's "Gentle
Introduction" efforts...

Anyway, that's what I'm hoping for... Not to "spoil" the progress
over here... but just to share in the excitement!

Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning-math@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> One the "intense" "real" one, and the other a kind of "synopsis"
> along the lines of Paul Erlich's *very* fine... in fact *very,
very*
> fine "The Forms of Tonality" which was a very readable and *broadly-
> based* effort, directed to the larger microtonal community. And it
> had nice *pictures* too.
>
> Whaddya say??

I'll see to that -- but of course that'll be a paper (or book,
encompassing "The Forms of Tonality" too) I produce *alone*. As you
can imagine, the lattices I created for Blackjack and that you are
already using will appear in it . . .
>
> Rather than "diluting" the effort, I think it will just *focus*
> things on the new developments. Or, similarly, such a "preamble"
> or "synopsis" could be on the Web similar to Paul's "Gentle
> Introduction" efforts...

Yup!

--- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning-math/message/2960

> --- In tuning-math@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > One the "intense" "real" one, and the other a kind of "synopsis"
> > along the lines of Paul Erlich's *very* fine... in fact *very,
> very*
> > fine "The Forms of Tonality" which was a very readable and
*broadly-
> > based* effort, directed to the larger microtonal community. And
it
> > had nice *pictures* too.
> >
> > Whaddya say??
>
> I'll see to that -- but of course that'll be a paper (or book,
> encompassing "The Forms of Tonality" too) I produce *alone*. As you
> can imagine, the lattices I created for Blackjack and that you are
> already using will appear in it . . .
> >
> > Rather than "diluting" the effort, I think it will just *focus*
> > things on the new developments. Or, similarly, such a "preamble"
> > or "synopsis" could be on the Web similar to Paul's "Gentle
> > Introduction" efforts...
>
> Yup!

Great, Paul!

I'll be anxious to see all this! Go team!

JP

--- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning-math/message/2960

> --- In tuning-math@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > One the "intense" "real" one, and the other a kind of "synopsis"
> > along the lines of Paul Erlich's *very* fine... in fact *very,
> very*
> > fine "The Forms of Tonality" which was a very readable and
*broadly-
> > based* effort, directed to the larger microtonal community. And
it
> > had nice *pictures* too.
> >
> > Whaddya say??
>
> I'll see to that -- but of course that'll be a paper (or book,
> encompassing "The Forms of Tonality" too) I produce *alone*. As you
> can imagine, the lattices I created for Blackjack and that you are
> already using will appear in it . . .
> >

Hi Paul!

I'm assuming you mean the lattices in the "standard" key C-G-D-A that
Dave Keenan kindly refined for us, yes?

*That's* the lattice I'm currently using now...

Joseph

Just wanted to mention that I'll offer space on my website
for anything anyone wants to publish there regarding this stuff.

I plan to explain as much as I can understand of the tuning-math
proceedings, with *LOTS AND LOTS* of lattice diagrams!

-monz

----- Original Message -----
From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
To: <tuning-math@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 6:06 PM
Subject: [tuning-math] Re: OUR PAPER

> --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning-math/message/2958
>
> > Hello?
> >
> > Let's push forward, shall we?
> >
> > ...
>
> I would propose (if I may humbly do that for a micromini second, or a
> mathmicromini second) that there are actually *two* papers...
>
> One the "intense" "real" one, and the other a kind of "synopsis"
> along the lines of Paul Erlich's *very* fine... in fact *very, very*
> fine "The Forms of Tonality" which was a very readable and *broadly-
> based* effort, directed to the larger microtonal community. And it
> had nice *pictures* too.

-monz

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

--- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Hello?
>
> Let's push forward, shall we?
>
> Graham, do you agree with the way Gene's doing things?
>
> If so, you guys have a plurality, against Dave and myself, who both
> seem to be resisting in different areas.

One possibility would be for me to write up my own approach to the theory part, and have that as a separate paper. Would they publish it?

--- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > Hello?
> >
> > Let's push forward, shall we?
> >
> > Graham, do you agree with the way Gene's doing things?
> >
> > If so, you guys have a plurality, against Dave and myself, who
both
> > seem to be resisting in different areas.
>
> One possibility would be for me to write up my own approach to the
>theory part, and have that as a separate paper. Would they publish
>it?

I have a feeling John Chalmers would probably publish it in
Xenharmonikon -- he's a chemist, so he might be a little more
favorably disposed to something so heavily mathematical.

--- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> The latest list of 5-limit temperaments is fine by me,

Which list is that exactly?

> though if
> Graham and Dave are into the idea of a stronger penalty for
> complexity, sacrificing flatness, I'll side with them against Gene.

I'd describe it as giving a weaker reward for tiny errors (sub-cent),
but it would have pretty much the same effect.

--- In tuning-math@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> Hi Paul!
>
> I'm assuming you mean the lattices in the "standard" key C-G-D-A
that
> Dave Keenan kindly refined for us, yes?
>
> *That's* the lattice I'm currently using now...
>
> Joseph

Hi Joseph . . .

Well, I think I'll tend to use a different, non-diatonic notation
altogether, as the modified Sims notation is a bit too "hairy" for
the "pretty" book I'd like to produce. Of course, a separate, more
practically oriented Blackjack paper would be great too . . .
someday, someday . . .