It's all too much

Hi there,

I'ver been lurking for a week or two, scouring the many messages for
things I understand and occasionally they come up. Sadly I simply don't
have the knowledge and background to really gain from this list yet. But
before I unsubscribe I wondered if anyone could point me to some good
basic material on tuning and harmonics, either on or off list. And in
terms of standard, I find the intonation bits of "Genesis of a Music"
comprehensible but still a bit hard. Sorry to be such a duffer, and
thanks in advance.

Yours - Adam Bushell

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Adam Bushell <abushell@f...> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'ver been lurking for a week or two, scouring the many messages for
> things I understand and occasionally they come up. Sadly I simply
don't
> have the knowledge and background to really gain from this list
yet. But
> before I unsubscribe I wondered if anyone could point me to some
good
> basic material on tuning and harmonics, either on or off list. And
in
> terms of standard, I find the intonation bits of "Genesis of a
Music"
> comprehensible but still a bit hard. Sorry to be such a duffer, and
> thanks in advance.
>
> Yours - Adam Bushell

Hi Adam!

Please don't give up! Many of us have been on this list for 5 years
and naturally are speaking our own language. Some, like Joseph
Pehrson recently, came in understanding very little of what we were
talking about, and through a bit of dedication and independent study,
can now follow most of it. I would encourage you to start with an
easy book like Wilkinson's _Tuning In_ or the relevant chapters of
Hall's _Musical Acoustics_ until you have understood the basic ideas
of harmonics, interval-ratios, just intonation, and temperament. Or
you could plunge into Helmholtz's _On the Sensations of Tone_, from
which you will learn all that and much more, but it might take you
more time. From there, I can recommend many books and articles, many
of which start from a slightly more advanced level, which would help
you get "up to speed" on whatever aspects of tuning interest you
most. I also try to be here to answer all beginner-level questions,
so feel free to ask!

-Paul

Adam,

I wouldn't be too put off by the recent flurry of arcane math. If you're
patient, you'll see that this list includes much of value to those with
more limited backgrounds as well. For a very comprehensible introduction to
just intonation, I always recommend David Doty's Just Intonation Primer.
You get a free copy by joining the Just Intonation Network
(http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/), or you can order it from their store.

>I'ver been lurking for a week or two, scouring the many messages for
>things I understand and occasionally they come up. Sadly I simply don't
>have the knowledge and background to really gain from this list yet. But
>before I unsubscribe I wondered if anyone could point me to some good
>basic material on tuning and harmonics, either on or off list. And in
>terms of standard, I find the intonation bits of "Genesis of a Music"
>comprehensible but still a bit hard. Sorry to be such a duffer, and
>thanks in advance.
>
>Yours - Adam Bushell
>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Adam,

Many people find David Doty's "Just Intonation Primer" to have value for those new to the area. The first chapter is online at:

http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/primer2.html

...and you can access the main site at:

http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/

In going there today I notice that the site has been spiffed up. One caveat: some people have encountered long delays when ordering from them -- YMMV.

Also, in primer mode, you might look at Kyle Gann's article "Just Intonation Explained":

http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/tuning.html

Sooo, the above deal with just intonation. I'm sure others on the tuning list can point out similar references for non-just theory and tunings. Be sure to utilize Joe Monzo's online dictionary to help out as well:

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/index.htm

...he recently posted to the list (which I happened to delete) something about one of his links being more current than another. Anyway, the above is a start, even if it isn't the most current version (someone will correct me if I'm wrong, yes?)

HTH,
Jon
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Real Life: Orchestral Percussionist
Web Life: "Corporeal Meadows" - about Harry Partch
http://www.corporeal.com/

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Bill Alves wrote:

> I wouldn't be too put off by the recent flurry of arcane math. If you're
> patient, you'll see that this list includes much of value to those with
> more limited backgrounds as well.

There are in fact a number of people on this list who do not participate
in arcane math. And the truth is, some of us tend among ourselves to think
of those of you who continually discuss music in mathematical terms as the
ones with the limits to their understanding. I tune my own instruments, by
ear, I read and write notated music fluently, I listen to what's around
me. I don't seem to require electronic instrumentation to make music. I
don't say this to insult people who do -- I simply would have preferred
this to have been worded differently.

The example of the Jorgenson Tuning book comes to mind. Its tables of
historical tunings are given in cents to the nearest 1/10,000th of a
cent. I can't hear this difference.(!) Does this mean I am limited in
relation to those of you who deal in tables like that? No, I don't think
it does. I think it means I'm realistic. People who take the Jorgenson
Tuning tables seriously are doing math, more than they are doing music.

Nothing wrong with math -- but there are other interests represented on
this list.

Judy

>On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Bill Alves wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't be too put off by the recent flurry of arcane math. If you're
>> patient, you'll see that this list includes much of value to those with
>> more limited backgrounds as well.
>
Judith Conrad wrote:
>There are in fact a number of people on this list who do not participate
>in arcane math. And the truth is, some of us tend among ourselves to think
>of those of you who continually discuss music in mathematical terms as the
>ones with the limits to their understanding. I tune my own instruments, by
>ear, I read and write notated music fluently, I listen to what's around
>me. I don't seem to require electronic instrumentation to make music. I
>don't say this to insult people who do -- I simply would have preferred
>this to have been worded differently.

I apologize for the wording. Of course I don't think of people whose
interests do not lie in stellated hexanies as "limited." I just meant that
advanced topics such as these are not the only items of interest on the
list. At the same time, I don't think I think of music "in mathematical
terms" (whatever that really means), and the participants that I know in
the discussion in question are practicing musicians for whom these topics
are hardly abstractions. I know, for example, that these discussions lie
behind some beautiful compositions of Kraig Grady's, and are no less
important than discussions of chromatic harmony would have been to
19th-century composers. As for myself, I, too, originally got into this
business tuning harpsichords by ear. Though I often use computers now, I
don't see what they have to do with arcane tuning discussions.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Judith Conrad <jconrad@s...> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Bill Alves wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't be too put off by the recent flurry of arcane math. If
you're
> > patient, you'll see that this list includes much of value to
those with
> > more limited backgrounds as well.
>
> There are in fact a number of people on this list who do not
participate
> in arcane math. And the truth is, some of us tend among ourselves
to think
> of those of you who continually discuss music in mathematical terms
as the
> ones with the limits to their understanding. I tune my own
instruments, by
> ear, I read and write notated music fluently, I listen to what's
around
> me. I don't seem to require electronic instrumentation to make
music. I
> don't say this to insult people who do -- I simply would have
preferred
> this to have been worded differently.
>
> The example of the Jorgenson Tuning book comes to mind. Its tables
of
> historical tunings are given in cents to the nearest 1/10,000th of a
> cent. I can't hear this difference.(!) Does this mean I am limited
in
> relation to those of you who deal in tables like that? No, I don't
think
> it does. I think it means I'm realistic. People who take the
Jorgenson
> Tuning tables seriously are doing math, more than they are doing
music.
>
> Nothing wrong with math -- but there are other interests
represented on
> this list.
>
> Judy

Judith, I'm glad you spoke up, I too am a musician and I believe
music should be the true focus of this list, and have offered more
than once to take the math-oriented discussions onto a separate list
to avoid scaring away musicians who are less math oriented.

However, there's a vast difference between math you can't hear (such
as useless decimal places in tuning tables) and math you can hear
(like the CPS scales we've been discussing). Occasionally I will make
a post with useless decimal places, if Monz or Sarn or someone else
specifically asks for such a thing. But by and large the math-
oriented posts here do not concern math or numbers for their own
sake, but an attempt to either forge musically useful structures or
to gain a better understanding of how we hear music.

So even if the math-oriented material were on a separate list, we'd
probably come back to this list often to report our findings, involve
others in listening experiments, etc. And even if our attempts at
mathematical understanding are way off, and we've deceived ourselves
in our attempts to model our musical experiences with math, we'll
still end up producing and inspiring some interesting music as a
result (witness Dan Stearns :) :) :)).

> I tune my own instruments, by
> ear, I read and write notated music fluently, I listen to what's around
> me. I don't seem to require electronic instrumentation to make music. I
> don't say this to insult people who do --

Please don't think of users of electronic instrumentation limited
individuals who utilize such instruments to split hairs and dot the "i"'s. I
think the electronic instrument is a valid instrument, with its own distinct
advantages and limitations like any other instrument. The concept of an
instrument having flexible timbre and tuning is something which I consider
too useful to ignore.

I think it might be safe to say that regardless of whether or not music is
generated electronically or acoustically is equally dull when you leave the
critical ear out of picture. Hence, why I think the snobbery many have
regarding electronic instruments is a lot less valid than I think is often
apparent.

I think because electronic instruments require a critical ear like any other
instrument, I think it essential to utilize it. This is something I have
seen an extraordinary lack of, particularly in the field of electronic
instruments, with a few misgivings. The instrument doesn't actually make it
easier for you, and isn't any more forgiving than a "real" instrument (if
there really is such a thing). So, I completely agree with you that
sometimes the ear should be shed more importance. But the electronic
instrument, like any instrument, is a tool to realize many frontiers of
discovery. I just think that while it may have a limitations in emulation of
traditional instruments, I think the electronic instrument is too
multi-faceted at this point, and I think makes up for its inherent problems
at this time.

Just a thought, even if a bit off-topic from your original post. I hope you
don't mind. :P

-- Art

> more limited backgrounds as well. For a very comprehensible introduction to
> just intonation, I always recommend David Doty's Just Intonation Primer.
> You get a free copy by joining the Just Intonation Network
> (http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/), or you can order it from their store.

If you do decide to order this book, expect a significant wait time. You may
even have to remind them of your order like I did for mine.

To be fair, after I contacted them they did send followup emails to verify
that I received my order.

Paolo

Bill Alves wrote:
>
> Adam,
>
> I wouldn't be too put off by the recent flurry of arcane math. If you're
> patient, you'll see that this list includes much of value to those with
> more limited backgrounds as well. For a very comprehensible introduction to
> just intonation, I always recommend David Doty's Just Intonation Primer.
> You get a free copy by joining the Just Intonation Network
> (http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/), or you can order it from their store.

I'd second that opinion.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm