Why make it simple when it can be intricate?

Hey you!

Yes, you, all.

Where are you finding all your data from?

I really do hope it's based on science, not on speculative, non-measurable facts.
Better not be Wikipedia copy-paste.

I have been silently reading each digest for a month. It's mostly subjective, questionable, compromising and boring ramblings.

Do you know we are 966 members?

It means that some want to hear about them, not only about you, The Moguls, and trending topics.

Believe it or not, this is written with utter respect towards knowledgeable people...Just eff don't boast so much.

Thanks.

Have fun with 9-limit stuff.

I think there is more to this group than that.

/Rowdy

JB, would you mind clarifying what your particular complaint is? Is it
that you don't like the subject matter of the discussions that go on
on this list?

-Mike

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 4:25 AM, collinet <jbcollinet@...> wrote:
>
> Hey you!
>
> Yes, you, all.
>
> Where are you finding all your data from?
>
> I really do hope it's based on science, not on speculative, non-measurable facts.
> Better not be Wikipedia copy-paste.
>
> I have been silently reading each digest for a month. It's mostly subjective, questionable, compromising and boring ramblings.
>
> Do you know we are 966 members?
>
> It means that some want to hear about them, not only about you, The Moguls, and trending topics.
>
> Believe it or not, this is written with utter respect towards knowledgeable people...Just eff don't boast so much.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Have fun with 9-limit stuff.
>
> I think there is more to this group than that.
>
> /Rowdy

> Where are you finding all your data from?

> I really do hope it's based on science, not on speculative, non-measurable facts.

> Better not be Wikipedia copy-paste.

> I have been silently reading each digest for a month. It's mostly
subjective, questionable, compromising and boring ramblings.

Hate to say it, but this makes me very very frustrated.  It sounds like pointing fingers at anyone who dares to think of music as even slightly an art and not 100% "non subjective" science.
------
    IMVHO, there is a list for those whose want to expressing tuning purely in scientific measurements, and anything that's called "good" has to be expressed as good as the result of a widely used and proven numeric formula...it's called tuning math.
  And there's a list called Make Micro Music for those who generally want to express tuning purely as an art, with virtually no math or theoretical explanation or math unless that explanation is in the form of sound tests (IE still artistic).

  So what about those of us who are middle-of-the-road and have some speculative ideas but also want to admittedly, at times, express those as math and theories without having to write the equivalent of a doctoral thesis to prove they are
science...and sometimes admit they are at least partly "just artistic"?  I thought that place was the tuning list.  Actually this topic particularly irks me because I think progress on here has been HIGHER than it used to be and I see people making a deliberate effort NOT to fight or push subjective egos and to stay on topic and solve problems to the best of their abilities.

  Furthermore, on the personal note (though I can realize how someone could intelligently disagree with me), the ultimate test of music is performed by the listener...not the mathematician, DSP wizard, or audiologist.

  But if someone wants to go on a limb to explain music through rigorously tested double-blind scientific research (in peace)...more power to them.  But it really seems not only counter-productive but downright destructive when people who do and/or support that cross over into the more speculative and artistic side of
musicians and "tuning-heads" and start pointing fingers...as if we are less deserving or dumb.  I'm not sorry for this and I don't think anyone else on the list should be either.  

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> JB, would you mind clarifying what your particular complaint is? Is it
> that you don't like the subject matter of the discussions that go on
> on this list?
>
> -Mike

I ONLY wanted to be sure I'm subscribed to a list that meets my needs. That's all, really. No shit stirring. Never!

--------

About you, the irked one I forgot the name of, just know that I'm a muso playing, performing and tuning on ACOUSTIC stuff for over 25 years and that I am not pointing a finger at you. Lack of feeling(s), lack of fun in music, due to madly theoretic app developers left me totally disgusted.

Also, know that I question VERY LOUDLY! Facts? Those are things you feel right, but it doesn't mean it is right in regard of the famous "world wide database" ;)
It was meant to be ironic. Sorry you didn't get it that way. Read beyond and between words, please!

At least I know that you are discussing with your heart, not only your brain or a computerized mind. That's great.

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 4:25 AM, collinet <jbcollinet@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hey you!
> >
> > Yes, you, all.
> >
> > Where are you finding all your data from?
> >
> > I really do hope it's based on science, not on speculative, non-measurable facts.
> > Better not be Wikipedia copy-paste.
> >
> > I have been silently reading each digest for a month. It's mostly subjective, questionable, compromising and boring ramblings.
> >
> > Do you know we are 966 members?
> >
> > It means that some want to hear about them, not only about you, The Moguls, and trending topics.
> >
> > Believe it or not, this is written with utter respect towards knowledgeable people...Just eff don't boast so much.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Have fun with 9-limit stuff.
> >
> > I think there is more to this group than that.
> >
> > /Rowdy
>

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 11:29 PM, collinet <jbcollinet@...> wrote:
>
> I ONLY wanted to be sure I'm subscribed to a list that meets my needs. That's all, really. No shit stirring. Never!

Dude, I am so confused. Would it help if I linked you to a video of
something in 22-equal temperament? Here's two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO5xSjIHyMg
http://www.youtube.com/user/battaglia01#p/u/0/WMtp9Wk0tO0

Eyyyy?

-Mike

>"Lack of feeling(s), lack of fun in music, due to madly theoretic app developers left me totally disgusted. "

   Man, now you have me really confused.  It seems like, on one hand, you're saying people here are "too theoretical and interested in overly intricate scientific ramblings" and, on the other, that they "don't do things according to scientific theory enough".  I'm assuming you aren't contradicting yourself, but (perhaps) expressing sarcasm.

>"It was meant to be ironic. Sorry you didn't get it that way. Read beyond and between words, please!"
  Hehehe...ok, ok....so it certainly WAS meant in sarcasm. :-D

   Ok, so put it this way, instead of meandering around about what you don't want to see on this list...what do you want to see on it? :-)

   If anything it sounds like we might be making the same point.  Again, personally I don't mind if people "go scientific", so long as they don't try to force everyone else down that path or demand that they "humble-ize" themselves or their efforts because they don't have X hundred pages of mathematical proof and cross referencing past theoreticians to prove their efforts as "facts".  If music was just absolute scientific "fact"...virtually no one would ever disagree about which artists, genres...count as "real/good music" (hint: that's never going to happen). :-D
------------------------
  Another side note: I have long promoted the liberal use of alternative types of intervals near fifths (including "minor sixths" and "diminished fifths") such as 14/9, 11/7, and 22/15.  I had found those as "good" not by math, but by ear (IE math alone would hint that a 16/11 should sound better than a 22/15 and only an "idiot" would
use a fifth other than 3/2). 

   Now Mike B's last recent tuning has very few good 3/2 fifths and mostly fifths between 14/9 and 11/7.  Low and behold...when I used it, it seemed VERY easy to compose with, despite its "criminal" lack of near-perfect fifths.  I even posted a sound example using a subset of MikeB's scale to this list...which virtually everyone ignored.  The link is /tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/9and7.mp3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO5xSjIHyMg

http://www.youtube.com/user/battaglia01#p/u/0/WMtp9Wk0tO0

Side note: niiiiiice, artistic examples!   It's a rare gem to actually hear sound examples on this list...even if 22EDO really needs no introduction (being so well respected as is).  The first link has an insane guitar/precussive part...and the second is very playful (it's only a step back from a band's doing backup by ripping out microtonal banjo and doing some serious hoedown bluegrass-style jamming). :-D

Now, (Mike B especially), how about some of you all jamming in Mike B's "new" 2: 9/7: 11/7 subgroup temperament?  Let's make the jump (back) from mathematical "speculation" to "live" music and examples more often... :-)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO5xSjIHyMg
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/battaglia01#p/u/0/WMtp9Wk0tO0
>
>
> Side note: niiiiiice, artistic examples!   It's a rare gem to actually hear sound examples on this list...even if 22EDO really needs no introduction (being so well respected as is).  The first link has an insane guitar/precussive part...and the second is very playful (it's only a step back from a band's doing backup by ripping out microtonal banjo and doing some serious hoedown bluegrass-style jamming). :-D
>
> Now, (Mike B especially), how about some of you all jamming in Mike B's "new" 2: 9/7: 11/7 subgroup temperament?  Let's make the jump (back) from mathematical "speculation" to "live" music and examples more often... :-)
>

That would be effin cool to see and hear more people on the list play and record ( on video too) for all others to taste.

Let's do it!

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO5xSjIHyMg
> http://www.youtube.com/user/battaglia01#p/u/0/WMtp9Wk0tO0
>
> Side note: niiiiiice, artistic examples!   It's a rare gem to actually hear sound examples on this list...even if 22EDO really needs no introduction (being so well respected as is).  The first link has an insane guitar/precussive part...and the second is very playful (it's only a step back from a band's doing backup by ripping out microtonal banjo and doing some serious hoedown bluegrass-style jamming). :-D
>
> Now, (Mike B especially), how about some of you all jamming in Mike B's "new" 2: 9/7: 11/7 subgroup temperament?  Let's make the jump (back) from mathematical "speculation" to "live" music and examples more often... :-)

Here's a short improv in machine temperament, which is what you get if
you add 64/63 and expand the subgroup to 2.7.9.11 - the tuning is
11-equal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhPjsCoMy-Q

This one was simpler and more proof of concept, just for fun. Doesn't
really have much structure, I just wanted to prove it was possible.

You guys should check out the Xenharmonic Alliance group on Facebook,
everyone's been over there lately. You're missing all the action!

-Mike

subscribe to make micro music if you want a source of microtonal music.

Chris

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 4:25 AM, collinet <jbcollinet@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hey you!
>
> Yes, you, all.
>
> Where are you finding all your data from?
>
> I really do hope it's based on science, not on speculative, non-measurable
> facts.
> Better not be Wikipedia copy-paste.
>
> I have been silently reading each digest for a month. It's mostly
> subjective, questionable, compromising and boring ramblings.
>
> Do you know we are 966 members?
>
> It means that some want to hear about them, not only about you, The Moguls,
> and trending topics.
>
> Believe it or not, this is written with utter respect towards knowledgeable
> people...Just eff don't boast so much.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Have fun with 9-limit stuff.
>
> I think there is more to this group than that.
>
> /Rowdy
>
>
>

Hi Mike,

Am 28.08.2011 10:31, schrieb Mike Battaglia:
>
> Here's a short improv in machine temperament, which is what you get if
> you add 64/63 and expand the subgroup to 2.7.9.11 - the tuning is
> 11-equal.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhPjsCoMy-Q

Is it in Machine11, or 11edo, or both?

I want to add link(s) to the (right) xenwiki page(s).

Best,
Wolf

It's mostly in 11-EDO. I wouldn't say it's strictly in machine. I
played one melody in it that was, kind of, sort of machine-based, but,
not really.

-Mike

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Am 28.08.2011 10:31, schrieb Mike Battaglia:
>
> >
> > Here's a short improv in machine temperament, which is what you get if
> > you add 64/63 and expand the subgroup to 2.7.9.11 - the tuning is
> > 11-equal.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhPjsCoMy-Q
>
> Is it in Machine11, or 11edo, or both?
>
> I want to add link(s) to the (right) xenwiki page(s).
>
> Best,
> Wolf

Am 29.08.2011 11:02, schrieb Mike Battaglia:
> It's mostly in 11-EDO. I wouldn't say it's strictly in machine. I
> played one melody in it that was, kind of, sort of machine-based, but,
> not really.

so, the link here (in the last line) is correct?
http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/11edo

--Wolf

Looks like it works, yep. Gotta write some actual compositions next...

-Mike

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...> wrote:
>
> Am 29.08.2011 11:02, schrieb Mike Battaglia:
>
> > It's mostly in 11-EDO. I wouldn't say it's strictly in machine. I
> > played one melody in it that was, kind of, sort of machine-based, but,
> > not really.
>
> so, the link here (in the last line) is correct?
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/11edo
>
> --Wolf