Re: Digest Number 37

I don't know what happened but I've received this messagge many time ago
and after....nothing. Tunning list was missing?

claudio

-----Original Message-----
De: tuning@onelist.com <tuning@onelist.com>
Para: tuning@onelist.com <tuning@onelist.com>
Fecha: Lunes 1 de Febrero de 1999 9:31 AM
Asunto: [tuning] Digest Number 37

>There are 5 messages in this issue.
>
>Topics in today's digest:
>
> 1. microtonal guitar again
> From: Drew Skyfyre <skyfyre@usa.net>
> 2. Re: Historical music and JI: SIJI or SISJI?
> From: Dave Keenan <d.keenan@uq.net.au>
> 3. Request for digests
> From: Leigh Smith <leigh@cs.uwa.edu.au>
> 4. Super Bowl and microtones
> From: Neil Haverstick <stick@uswest.net>
> 5. The alternative alternative tunings digest
> From: Graham Breed <g.breed@tpg.co.uk>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>
>Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 99 00:27:13 +0530
> From: Drew Skyfyre <skyfyre@usa.net>
>Subject: microtonal guitar again
>
>1)
>This was posted some time ago, I think by Reinhard.
>>Wim Hoogewerf's playing of the Dowland pieces at the 1997 AFMM was
>> outstanding. He performed them on a guitar whose fretboard had
six
>> grooves running the length of it, one under each string, with 24
>>(at least,
>> possibly more) slideable frets in each groove, each fret long
>>enough for
>> just one string. This guitar is capable of retuning to any
>>possible scale
>> within the space limitations of the frets and fingers.
>
>Anyone have pointers to more info about Hoogewerf ?
>
>2)
>Johnny also posted this way back when :
>>Then Virgil Moorefield scared everyone by playing ELECTRIC right up in the
>>first row. During dress rehearsal, I did feel there was one spot that
>>might be a bit TOO loud to and mentioned it to
>>electric guitarist Evans Wohlforth
>Any pointers/info for Wohlforth ?
>
>3)
>Has anyone here tried the Lyrrus GVOX Guitar system ? It's pretty cheap,
>so it would be nice if it worked well enough to use in a studio/home
>for experimentation.
>
>4)
>"McDougall, Darren Scott - MCDDS001" posted this :
>
>>Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 17:47:36 +0930
>>My reasoning for choosing the MIDI note numbers I did, stemmed from having
>>had
>>built a 19-tone electric guitar
>
>Darren, I'd e-mail you privately if I knew what the 'eck MCDDS001 was.
>Could you get back to me with info about the guitar(s) you use,
>your work with it, URL for a home page (if you have it ), etc.
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>
>Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 09:33:22 +1000
> From: Dave Keenan <d.keenan@uq.net.au>
>Subject: Re: Historical music and JI: SIJI or SISJI?
>
>Excellent Margo! Thanks.
>
>-- Dave Keenan
>http://dkeenan.com
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>
>Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:56:03 +0800
> From: Leigh Smith <leigh@cs.uwa.edu.au>
>Subject: Request for digests
>
>According to Toyoji Tomita, it seems we are truely missing digests 1089,
>1090, 1091 (29 May - 2 June 1997) from the eartha digest. Therefore,
>this is an impassioned plea (on behalf of tuning-digest readers) to send
>me copies of the digests, so I can complete the archives for all to
>access. Even if the full digests are not available, any messages you
>still have during those dates are very welcome.
>---
>Leigh Smith leigh@cs.uwa.edu.au (NeXTMail/MIME)
> +61-8-9380-2279 Fax: 9380-1089 Home: 9386-2994
>Computer Music Lab, Computer Science Dept,
>University of Western Australia
>Y2K Problem - The COBOL Programmers Superannuation Fund
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>
>Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:22:14 -0700
> From: Neil Haverstick <stick@uswest.net>
>Subject: Super Bowl and microtones
>
> Who could fail to notice that the score of the SB, 34 to 19, just
>happens to be the favorite tunings of us Denver microtonal fellers...I
>think there's an omen there...Hstick
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>
>Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:16:18 -0000
> From: Graham Breed <g.breed@tpg.co.uk>
>Subject: The alternative alternative tunings digest
>
>I haven't been keeping up with the list lately, so I'm condensing all my
>replies into one big chunk.
>
>First of all, thank you to Dan Stearns for giving me an excuse to listen to
>Harmony Corruption again. As to a just intonation version, I'm quite
>invited by the prospect. More demanding and gripping, certainly. Not the
>sort of thing I'd want to wake up to, though.
>
>The Mentally Murdered EP, on the other hand, is a gem so exquisite that I
>fear the polish of just intonation would only serve to spoil its beauty.
>However, I see the question was about "music one is not personally fond
of",
>so maybe my comments here aren't so relevant after all. I don't really
care
>how music I don't like gets played.
>
>Incidentally, as I'm using EMACS today, I couldn't help putting the
question
>"Should Napalm Death play in just intonation" to ELIZA. His reply was
"This
>is not a healthy way of thinking." I think we should leave the matter
there.
>
>Which brings us neatly to the subject of AI. My response on reading the
>initial New Scientist article on SARA was that they shouldn't really have
>compressed everything into 12-equal. As Mozart used staff notation, and
>seemed to have some idea of meantone temperament, the whole thing could
have
>been potentially microtonal from the start. That would mean using two
>numbers for each note. The way it seemed to be done assumed the same motif
>would be "similar" when transposed to different scale degrees. This won't
>hold outside of equal temperament.
>
>
>To Dan Stearns, and my quest to understand his terminology. So, we have a
>scale defined as mw+nh where all numbers are integers. The interior set is
>where h is an interval larger than a unison, the perimeter set is where h
is
>a unison, and the exterior set is where h is smaller than a unison. These
>exterior sets, if such they be, look to be of some theoretical, but little
>musical, value. I can't see musicians counting both up and down to
>construct their scales.
>
>It was pointed out a while ago that, if we're going to put lots of highly
>theoretical stuff on the list, we should try and give it some connection to
>what musicians might find useful. The advantage I see of classifying
scales
>in this way is that a similar notation can be used for scales from the same
>class. Also, there may be a similar feel to the scales, but you need to
try
>them out to be sure of that.
>
>
>I'm still working with 3+4 scales, to which I will now attach the cute name
>"neutronic" after their neutral thirds. I'll also call "my" scale the
>"symmetrical" version and "Paul's" scale (which he says is also Arabic) I
>will term "tetrachordal".
>
>I have Manuel's scale list, but these are all dry numbers with nothing of
>how the scales are used in real music. The relevant scales are presumably
>those in 12-equal with two quarter-tone additions. There aren't any
>symmetrical neutronic scales here as you need three notes from the
>alternative spiral of fifths.
>
>A meantone-derived keyboard mapping for neutronic scales would have the
>white notes in yuor favourite meantone, with C/, E\, F/ and B\ where the /
>and \ symbols are for half-sharps and half-flats respectively. These are
>literally what you get by halving the interval a sharp would normally
>represent. I prefer having the white notes as a symmetrical neutronic
scale
>in the way I mentioned before, and each black note a quartertone flat of
the
>white note on the right.
>
>Paul Erlich:
>
>>Well, I'm not a big fan of maximal evenness, as my paper makes clear. If
>>I could rewrite the contest, I'd eliminate that, but maybe allow for a
>>structure that spans a 5:4 and occurs 3 times in every octave span (as
>>in the ME 22-out-of-41).
>
>Ah yes, if in doubt, change the rules! The version of your paper I've got
>(the original HTML one) doesn't make clear any dislike of maximal evenness
>that I can see. And I did read it through, so I don't think there are any
>assertions hiding anywhere. I do agree with what you say in it that
>maximally even scales are good choices for the "natural" scales. Maximally
>even scales will tend towards an equal temperament, which may or may not be
>a good thing depending on what you're trying to do.
>
>I don't think a melodic rule should presuppose both a 3/2 _and_ a 5/4. I
>don't have an alternative, though. I prefer my ears to be the criterion
for
>melodic valye.
>
>At the moment, I prefer the symmetrical scales as they are more in tune
with
>what I'm trying to say. Even though they are weaker melodically.
>Tetrachordal scales aren't strange enough for me. I'm trying to break away
>from the diatonic scale and that "normal" pentatonic is too familiar.
>Mostly, though, the tetrachordal scales sound too cheerful.
>
>I'm also looking at 5-note subsets built t s t+s s t+s or s t t+s s t+s
>where t is the larger and s the smaller second as before. I'm finding a
lot
>in them which I can't really describe. They aren't self-sufficient
>harmonically, so I'm using a full symmetrical scale for the chords.
>
>I have worked out a symmetrical scale on my guitar. It's a pain, though,
as
>it doesn't include any open strings. Does anyone, perchance, have a way of
>tuning the strings so that neutronic scales come out more easily with a
>meantone fretting?
>
> Right, I'll leave it there.
>
> Graham
>
>http://www.cix.co.uk/~gbreed/
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>___________________________________________________________________________
____
>
>