Re: L and s confusion...

>anyone who would like to dig into the archives and find the first use of
this system, I claim first publication as

Why [in this case] is this important? I can see arguing (even fiercely) for
the merits of ones [or a] "system" (or against the comparative
'inadequacies' of
another [or someone else's...]), but the whole tenor of this post seems (to
me) so slanted in a self aggrandizing direction that I can only imagine what
the "many 12Tet musicians" who " find microtuning confusing" are left to
wonder when they encounter this kind of discouraging (anecdotal)
"microtuning" rhetoric.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Lucy <lucy@ilhawaii.net>
To: tuning@onelist.com <tuning@onelist.com>
Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 9:25 AM
Subject: [tuning] L and s Erlich notes confusion

>From: Charles Lucy <lucy@ilhawaii.net>
>
>>From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>>Subject: Lumma-Keenan tuning
>
>>Here's a note I wrote to myself on Lumma's tuning before Keenan's post
>>appeared:
>
>>**************************************************
>>The melodic structure of that scale in 31-equal is:
>
>>LssLLsLLssLL {*- WRONG!!!!! }
>
>>or
>
>>C Db D D# E F F# G Ab A A# B C
>
>Whilst I appreciate your attempt to use LucyTuning scalecoding notation to
>describe the sequence of intervals in this scale or collection of pitches;
>Please GET IT RIGHT!!
>
>Using L and s, one octave will always equal 5L+2s.
>
>Your description = 7L+5s, and only adds to the usual JI and associated
muddled thinking.
>In your confusion, you have used the symbol s to equal, (the bIInd) [it
should
>be (s)],
>and the symbol L to equal s, (the IInd) [It should be (L-s)].
>
>For an explanation of 31 Tet see
http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/lsd/meanet.html
>
>Your note to yourself should have read or been interpreted as:
>
>C (s) Db (L-s) D (L-s) D# (s) E (s) F (L-s) F# (s) G (s) Ab (L-s) A (L-s)
A#
>(s) B (s).
>
>
>It is no wonder that many 12Tet musicians find microtuning confusing, when
we
>are unable to remain consistent amongst ourselves.
>For anyone who would like to dig into the archives and find the first use
of
>this
>system, I claim first publication as 1986, although John 'Longitude'
Harrison
>used the terms Larger = L = II and lesser = s = bII, before 1776.
>
>For clarification please see our site at http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/
where
>you will find that L=II and s=bII.
>
>Thank you!
>Lucy (currently in London, UK)