some notes about my Dictionary (was: FAQ again (hear, hear!))

> From: J Gill <JGill99@imajis.com>
> To: <tuning-math@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 2:17 PM
> Subject: [tuning-math] Fwd: Re: FAQ again (hear, hear!)
>
> ...
> Monz does a commendable and excellent job of attempting to compile
> the ongoing process of the definition and explanation of the many and
> varied terms and phrases in the "vernacular" of tuning, as it
> evolves. However, the more the merrier, and these things (like many
> subjects) are enhanced by a variety of (hopefully not too divergent)
> viewpoints from which the newcomer is able to consider these matters
> from various veiwpoints in formulating a personal working
> understanding of these esoteric, yet truly fascinating, subjects!

Thanks for all the compliments, Jay.

Please note that my Dictionary is a cooperative effort, and
many other list subscribers have contributed. Chief among them
is John Chalmers, who handed over to me the entire glossary of
his book _Divisions of the Tetrachord_ for use in the online
Dictionary. I have yet to finish entering all of those terms.

And now, of course, there's a whole new group of terms that needs
to be defined: Unidala, Harmonidala, etc. :)

Daniel Wolf commented a while back that he liked the way I
present each individual's perspective as such, as opposed to
the usual way a collaborative project goes, where a "collective"
opinion is presented as fact.

love / peace / harmony ...

-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

--- In tuning-math@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

> > From: J Gill <JGill99@i...>
> > Monz does a commendable and excellent job of attempting to
compile
> > the ongoing process of the definition and explanation of the many
and
> > varied terms and phrases in the "vernacular" of tuning, as it
> > evolves. However, the more the merrier, and these things (like
many
> > subjects) are enhanced by a variety of (hopefully not too
divergent)
> > viewpoints from which the newcomer is able to consider these
matters
> > from various veiwpoints in formulating a personal working
> > understanding of these esoteric, yet truly fascinating, subjects!
>
>
> Thanks for all the compliments, Jay.
>
> Please note that my Dictionary is a cooperative effort, and
> many other list subscribers have contributed. Chief among them
> is John Chalmers, who handed over to me the entire glossary of
> his book _Divisions of the Tetrachord_ for use in the online
> Dictionary. I have yet to finish entering all of those terms.

Your point is well taken, Monz. I did not intend ignore the wealth of
very talented folks to whom yourself, others, and myself should
rightfully be grateful to for sharing with us their time, efforts,
and unique and original viewpoints. Nor did I intend to minimize the
quality with which you manage to juxtapose these ideas by their
inclusion in your site pages, and your recognition of the importance
of the unique contributions of these individuals to an ongoing
repository of knowledge which, thanks to you as well as them, is the
best thing out there which I have found which does just that - unify
these many interesting and valuable ideas in one accessible location.

My thoughts while writing my post were more from a perspective of the
position that I as a "newcomer" to these subjects of tuning analysis
have (perhaps due to my own limited exposure to what may be out
there, and perhaps, unreasonably) looked to the internet-available
materials as hopefully addressing more of the "nuts-and-bolts" of the
related algorithms for which the results are discussed. For instance,
as I "stumble and bumble" with the business of deriving and
analyzing "tonal generators" and "unison vectors" for sets of scale
intervals, I have been reticent to ask about such fundamental
questions. That reticence arises not from a personal self-
assuredness, but from the concern that the answer may have allready
been stated...somewhere in some post...somewhere on someone's
website...somewhere in an out of print book in music library, and I
(should), rather than trouble the author or authority once again to
repeat him/her self, somehow dig up the relevant answers on my own...

(Collaborative) efforts such as the resources you help to make
accessible help to develop coherent (though possibly uniquely
individual) "baselines" wherein a common terminology and
understanding of the analysis techniques involved have the best
chance of evolving, thus forming a basis for their objective
comparison as a person familiarizes themselves with the metaphors in
use by the contributors. So, my compliments to all involved in such!

> And now, of course, there's a whole new group of terms that needs
> to be defined: Unidala, Harmonidala, etc. :)

If there are, in fact, substantive original contributions which I
could make, and those ideas are found by you and others possessing a
great deal more familiarity with these subjects than I to hold up
under objective scrutiny, I would be thrilled to be able to make such
contribution(s)to such a collection of concepts regarding these most
interesting subjects. Until such feedback occurs, however, they
remain my (sometimes whimsical) thoughts, unpolished by experience,
and with some of the "corniest" names since the "Beverly Hillbillys"!

>
>
> Daniel Wolf commented a while back that he liked the way I
> present each individual's perspective as such, as opposed to
> the usual way a collaborative project goes, where a "collective"
> opinion is presented as fact.

Point well taken, and so true for many of the less (objectively)
tangible, and often most inspiring, elements such as "sonance",
"cordance", "finity", and such. However, the mathematical nuts-and-
bolts of the algorithms (employed in the utilization of analysis in
the interest of hopefully realizing meaningful metaphors for
describing the reductive mechanisms which may be involved in our
personal experiencing of such elusive qualities of our perceptions)do
need a common, and widely understood, "ground" upon which folks can
converse (a point which I doubt that you would dispute).

Perhaps (when I get my own knowledge in order, with the possible kind
help of some of those who have travelled these pathways for much
longer, and to a much more profound degree, you would be interested
in adding a text created by me (or others) which more thoroughly, and
in one single document, sets forth these fundamental processes of
determining tonal generators and unison vectors in systematic
tutorial of these operations which may resonably be considered common.

To all, sorry if my verbosity here threatens to broach the label
of "tuning-philosophy", as opposed to "tuning-math". I shall
appropriately include more numbers, and less chatter, in future posts
to this most interesting group!

Sincerely, J Gill