Copy of Whole TUNING Digest 1607

Here's a copy of the whole last TUNING Digest to come out of the Mills
College server, just to get things going again:

>
> TUNING Digest 1607
>
>Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) forum CD review
> by Neil Haverstick <stick@uswest.net>
> 2) Partch and Synthesizers vs. Harmoniums
> by Daniel Wolf <DJWOLF_MATERIAL@compuserve.com>
> 3) Re: Tuning List Down (Digest 1606 Topic 11)
> by Mark Nowitzky <nowitzky@alum.mit.edu>
> 4) tuning bars
> by William Sethares <sethares@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu>
> 5) Re: Johnny Reinhard
> by Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
> 6) Just a reminder...
> by David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>
> 7) Re: "Partch" in digest 1606
> by "Jonathan M. Szanto" <jszanto@adnc.com>
> 8) Character width
> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
> 9) xen keyboards
> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
> 10) Re: Margo's post
> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
> 11) Re: Daniel's post
> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
> 12) Re: Daniel's post
> by Lydia Ayers <layers@cs.ust.hk>
> 13) Assymmetrical 14-tone modes in 26-tET
> by "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
> 14) Re: Partch/Motorola Scalatron
> by Johnny Reinhard <reinhard@IDT.NET>
> 15) Re: steel bar tunings by Rick Sanford
> by "Darren Burgess" <dburgess@acceleration.net>
> 16) Chromel-NO-deon
> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
> 17) Prime vs. Odd Limits
> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
> 18) xen keyboards 2
> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 1
>
>Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:51:07 -0700
>From: Neil Haverstick <stick@uswest.net>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: forum CD review
>Message-ID: <3679FB58.AC1B7D53@dnvr.uswest.net>
>
> The first review that I've seen of the tuning CD appeared in the new
>Westword mag this week...log onto www.westword.com, and look for reviews
>by Michael Roberts. I'd be curious to see what you folks think of what
>he had to say...Hstick (PS...WW is a Denver based paper)
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 2
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 05:13:17 -0500
>From: Daniel Wolf <DJWOLF_MATERIAL@compuserve.com>
>To: "INTERNET:tuning@ella.mil" <tuning@ella.mills.edu>
>Subject: Partch and Synthesizers vs. Harmoniums
>Message-ID: <199812180513_MC2-6415-76DC@compuserve.com>
>
>Johnny Reinhard brings up the interesting topic of Partch's
>attitude towards synthesizers. Given the problems with
>harmoniums, he did indeed receive a Guggenheim with Marshall
>to build an electronic instrument, but this project was
>soon abandoned and the funds used for recordings and upkeep
>or construction of acoustic instruments. =
>
>
>It is unclear how serious the electronic project ever was.
>I have heard more than once that it was a subterfuge by
>Marshall to get the Guggenheim to otherwise support Partch's work.
>
>Partch would later write (in the second edition of _Genesis_,
>pp. 210):
>
>"The musicality, versatility, and potentialities of these
>old-fashioned harmoniums are constantly amazing. I would not
>trade my two Chromelodeons for any electric organs that I
>have ever heard."
>
>Even later, reportedly, when he was told about the Motorola
>Scalatron project, he apparently reacted with resignation =
>
>that it had came 30 years too late for him. Given the musical
>limitations of the scalatron, with its tacky electic organ
>swell, it is hard to imagine Partch ever actually using one.
>
>Making an electronic substitute for a harmonium is an
>interesting problem. The breath-like quality of the bellows,
>the uneven voicing of the individual reeds, and the
>variable response of the knee swells would all have to be
>considered. In the case of the Chromelodeons, the double stops
>and octave coupler introduce additional, considerations in that
>the added reeds do not respond identically.
>
>An alternative to this is manufacturing new reed organs.
>This is still done in India, albeit in poor quality, and
>I wonder if Indian makers might produce more useful instruments
>if commissioned. =
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 3
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 03:24:47 -0800 (PST)
>From: Mark Nowitzky <nowitzky@alum.mit.edu>
>To: madole@dnai.com
>Cc: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Re: Tuning List Down (Digest 1606 Topic 11)
>Message-ID: <2.2.16.19981218032117.329f9d0e@pacificnet.net>
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>Thanks for repairing the list.
>
>At 01:59 AM 12/18/98 -0500, you wrote (Digest 1606 Topic 11):
>>From: "David Madole" <madole@ella.mills.edu>
>>Subject: Tuning List Down
>>
>>My successor at Mills is not interested in continuing with the listserver.
>>
>>It is time to start to arrange to move the list. I will provide all of
>>the support I possibly can to whomever decides to take it over - it would
>>be best to be moved to another list server running listproc 6.0, or listserv,
>>if possible. I will even help get the listserver compiled and running (but
>>not maintain it) if that is necessary.
>>
>>If you have any ideas, please send the mail to my new address,
madole@dnai.com.
>
>I don't know of another server to move to, but I'd be willing to try
>maintaining it at its current location at Mills. Here's some issues:
>
>1) Can the list be maintained remotely (e.g., via telnet from Los Angeles)?
>
>2) Is the TUNING list the only list in jeopardy, or are there a bunch of
>lists, at listproc@eartha.mills.edu, that need to be moved?
>
>3) There'd be some learning curve involved (I've been away from Unix, doing
>mostly IBM Mainframe stuff these days.)
>
>That's all I have for now. Thanks again,
>
>--Mark Nowitzky
>+------------------------------------------------------+
>| Mark Nowitzky |
>| email: nowitzky@alum.mit.edu AIM: Nowitzky |
>| www: http://www.pacificnet.net/~nowitzky |
>| "If you haven't visited Mark Nowitzky's home |
>| page recently, you haven't missed much..." |
>+------------------------------------------------------+
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 4
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:04:00 -0600 (CST)
>From: William Sethares <sethares@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: tuning bars
>Message-ID: <199812181704.LAA04066@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu>
>
>
>About scaling steel bars for tuning...
>
>Heres one way to go about it, though of course even the best laid
>calculations will require fine tuning once youre done, but this should
>get you close. A hint: always cut the bars a tiny bit too long, since its
>much easier to file off the extra than to try and reintroduce it
>afterwards...
>
>Say the pitch (fundamental) of the chime is at frequency f1, its got
>length L1 and radius r1. Then
>
>f1 = P r1/ (L1^2)
>
>(the denominator here is L1 squared)
>and P is a constant that depends on Youngs modulus, the density of
>the material and a bunch of other things that will turn out to be
>irrelevant.
>
>Similarly, the fundamental of the second bar is at
>
>f2= P r2/ (L2^2)
>
>where r2 is the radius and L2 the length.
>
>Now divide these two equations to get
>
>f2/f1 = (r2 L1^2 ) / (r1 L2^2 )
>
>where the constant P has disappeared.
>You can use this formula to approximate the tuning for uniform bars
>of different lengths and radii. For instance, if you use the same
>radius material, then both r1 and r2 drop out. Let the ratio f2/f1 be
>how you want the two tuned in relation to each other, and then solve
>for L2.
>
>Hope this helps
>
>Bill Sethares
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 5
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:33:43 -0800
>From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Re: Johnny Reinhard
>Message-ID: <367A91F5.F883B7E4@anaphoria.com>
>
>It is my understanding that when Partch was offered use of the Motorola
>Scalatron He refused
>--
>Kraig Grady
>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
>http://www.anaphoria.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 6
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:58:52 -0500
>From: David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>
>To: Tuning Digest <tuning@eartha.mills.edu>
>Subject: Just a reminder...
>Message-ID: <367A97DC.54507926@virtulink.com>
>
>BIRDHOUSE CD RELEASE AT THE MERCURY LOUNGE
>217 East Houston Street, NYC (near 2nd Ave stop on 'F' Train)
>Sunday, December 20th at 7:30 pm
>Musicians: Jon Catler, Meredith Borden,
>Jim Mussen (drums), Hansford Rowe (bass)
>DOOR: $7 plus we will be offering a reduced price of $10 a CD for that
>show.
>
>Birdhouse Information: (201) 659-1219
>Contact FreeNote at: freenote@earthlink.net
>
>
>--
>* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
>* xouoxno@virtulink.com
>*
>* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
>* 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
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 7
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 10:27:14 -0800
>From: "Jonathan M. Szanto" <jszanto@adnc.com>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Re: "Partch" in digest 1606
>Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19981218102714.00805ba0@adnc.com>
>
>Tune-entities!
>
>Johnny Reinhard posted in 1606 (the digest, not the year) a tidbit about
>Partch uttering his support for Johnny's use of synthesizers nearly 40
>years before the fact.
>
>Just wanted all of you to know that, in spite of the collegial nature of
>the list, and the pointed comments directed to me, Johnny didn't have the
>courtesy to write me first, off list, to discuss this. So I'll have to
>make a response here, as his point deserves an answer.
>
>Unfortunately I am doing 10-11 performances a week right now and it
>deserves more than a knee-jerk reply (well, besides this one!). I'll try
>and get it together and stay up late to make sure the record is clear.
>
>Oh, BTW: I don't strike things from the record when they are historical
>documents. Revisionist history gives me the creeps.
>
>Stay well, folks...
>
>Cheers,
>Jon
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Jonathan M. Szanto | Corporeal Meadows: Harry Partch, online. . .
> jszanto@adnc.com | http://www.corporeal.com/
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 8
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:09:43 -0500
>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Character width
>Message-ID: <19981218202215031.AAA184@nietzsche>
>
>>As an AOL subscriber posting to the tuning forum I've been
>>frustrated by having my posts appear messed up in the
>>Tuning Digests. I've found that if I enter space then
>>carriage return by the time I've typed 72 characters in a line
>>my entry looks normal and the quotes and other
>>punctuation marks are transmitted as I've typed
>>them. It took me a while to discover this but it's
>>working well now. Let's see - (80 character line) -
>>
>>xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
>>xxxxxxxxx
>
>Dave, check your mail reader options. There should be an area to set your
>wrap width (although you never know, with AOL). I use Eudora, which is
>about the best wysiwyg mailer around as far as customizing goes (Pegasus is
>also very good, and free), and set my width to 79 characters, which is the
>width used by most terminals that the internet grew up on. My posts
>usually look okay, although sometimes I have problems. Your test line
>seems to indicate 69 might be better, but then why do my posts not look worse?
>
>Carl
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 9
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:24:25 -0500
>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: xen keyboards
>Message-ID: <19981218202311921.AAA206@nietzsche>
>
>>Sorry for the late reply, it took some time to dig the photo up and scan=
> it.
>>I have uploaded it together with a photo of the 31-tone
>>Harmoniehammerfl=FCgel.
>
>Thanks for the quality scans, Manuel! Do you know the keyboard layout of
>the Harmoniehammerflugel? Looks like Janko-Fokker. And what kind of
>instrument is it? Looks like a piano! In any case, is this instrument
>playable? Do you know if the force required to move the keys increases
>towards the back rows?
>
>Carl
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 10
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:32:21 -0500
>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Re: Margo's post
>Message-ID: <19981218203108281.AAA132@nietzsche>
>
>>Of course, this isn't to say that 81:64 and 27:16 are the _only_
>>tunings that can "feel right" for this cadence. In a Xeno-Gothic
>>tuning, where the major third and major sixth can be made a
>>Pythagorean comma wider than usual (close to 9:7 and 12:7), this same
>>progression in certain timbres can have a very convincing "ring" for
>>me:
>>
>> c#' -- +67 -- d'
>> (930,498) (1200,498)
>> g# -- +67 -- a
>> (430) (702)
>> e -- -204 -- d
>>
>>Here I'd describe the usual Pythagorean version with 81:64 and 27:16
>>as "classic," and this version as more "jazzy," although my sense of
>>"neo-Gothic jazzy" might not be the same as other people's <grin>.
>
>Forgive my ignorance, but what is "Xeno-Gothic"? Do you mean new music
>that uses the 9/7 and 12/7 intentionally, or do you mean new music that
>uses it intuitively? I'm think you mean old music that uses it
>intuitively. In any case, can you give a time frame, location, composers'
>names, and/or recommended recordings?
>
>Carl
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 11
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:47:06 -0500
>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Re: Daniel's post
>Message-ID: <19981218204553093.AAA402@nietzsche>
>
>>"Say... what's a ch'in?"
>>
>>There are several good web pages about the ch'in (also look for 'chin' and
>>'qin'). There are many excellent recordings, but stick generally to those
>>with silk strings (i.e. don't bother with most recordings from the PRC,
>>excepting perhaps the CD by Wu Wen Guang -- a former colleague -- who plays
>>beautifully despite his steel strings).
>
>Thanks for the info! PRC stands for Prestige Recordings?
>
>
>Carl
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 12
>
>Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 06:16:23 +0800
>From: Lydia Ayers <layers@cs.ust.hk>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Re: Daniel's post
>Message-ID: <199812182216.GAA21299@csnt1.cs.ust.hk>
>
>PRC stands for "People's Republic of China." While it is
>sometimes necessary to be selective in what you buy (some
>folks have commercialized "traditoional " Chinese music in
>various ways) there is still a good amount of music frmom
>China that is the real thing. HMV in Hong Kong carries a
>lot of it, but I would imagine the selection in US record
>stores would be more spotty.
>
>Best,
>
>Lydia Ayers
>50 miles from the PRC
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 13
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:30:43 -0500
>From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>To: "'tuning@eartha.mills.edu'" <tuning@eartha.mills.edu>
>Subject: Assymmetrical 14-tone modes in 26-tET
>Message-ID: <85B74BA01678D211ACDE00805FBE3C050B6587@MARS>
>
>I decided to look at the modes of the assymmetrical scale 0 2 4 6 8 10
>12 14 15 17 19 21 23 25 in 26-tET -- because all octave species of this
>scale is constructed of two identical heptachords, each spanning a ~4/3,
>separated by either a ~4/3 or a ~3/2; and because the scale contains 10
>consonant 7-limit tetrads constructed by the generic scale pattern 1, 5,
>9, 12 (5 are otonal and 5 are utonal) with a maximum tuning error of 17
>cents.
>
>In my paper, I introduce the notion of a charateristic dissonance. This
>is a dissonant interval which is the same generic size (same number of
>scale steps) as a consonant interval. Allowing the 7-limit to define
>consonance and allowing errors up to 17 cents, the 14-out-of-26 scale
>has three characteristic dissonances (plus their octave inversions and
>extensions). Two are "sevenths" of 554 cents instead of the usual 508
>cents, and one is an "eighth" of 554 cents instead of the usual 600
>cents.
>
>None of the modes of this scale satisfy all the properties for a
>strongly tonal mode according to my paper. But a few come close. The
>mode
>
>0 2 4 6 8 10 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
>
>or in cents,
>
>0 92 185 277 369 462 508 600 692 785 877 969 1062 1154
>
>has all characteristic dissonances disjoint from the tonic tetrad (0 8
>15 21), which is major. The only other mode with this property is the
>minor equivalent:
>
>0 2 4 5 7 9 11 13 15 16 18 20 22 24
>
>or in cents
>
>0 92 185 231 323 415 508 600 692 738 831 923 1015 1108.
>
>The following modes have one characteristic dissonance which shares a
>note with the tonic tetrad, but it approximates the 1 identity and the
>11 identity when played along with the tetrad. Therefore the interval
>does not disturb the stability of the tonic too much, and the mode can
>be considered tonal:
>
>major: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 13 15 17 19 21 23 24
>
>or in cents
>
>0 92 185 277 369 462 554 600 692 785 877 969 1062 1108
>
>and
>
>minor: 0 2 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 18 20 22 24
>
>or in cents
>
>0 92 138 231 323 415 508 600 692 785 831 923 1015 1108.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 14
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:38:28 -0500 (EST)
>From: Johnny Reinhard <reinhard@IDT.NET>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Re: Partch/Motorola Scalatron
>Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.981218171744.28976A-100000@u3.farm.idt.net>
>
>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Kraig Grady wrote:
>
>> It is my understanding that when Partch was offered use of the Motorola
>> Scalatron He refused
>> --
>> Kraig Grady
>> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
>> http://www.anaphoria.com
>>
>
>>From what I remember learning, the Motorola Scalatron tone was designed
>specifically to have a tone that is distinctive to all others.
>Partch was not the only one to refuse using it. And I
>have had it played on the AFMM concerts several times (music of Joel
>Mandelbaum, Linda Arditto, Henk Badings). It sure holds its pitch, but
>the sound is not especially pleasing.
>
>In 1950, the idea of radically changing the timbre of a keyboard (Partch's
>first, main instrument was the piano, according to the Gilmore bio) would
>be radical in itself. So, a synthesizer was not yet imagineable. A
>generalized keyboard for an organ with a chosen electronic tone quality
>was a specific dream of Partch's since his earliest microtonal thinkings.
>Ten years after his death (1984) a time capsule left with Bertha Kneisley
>turned up the original multi-colored keyboard plan devised by
>far-thinking Harry Partch.
>
>Considering that Partch was fascinated with micing the Kithara, as well
>as electrifying his guitars, an electric keyboard both accurate and
>beautiful was right on the money.
>
>The chromelodeon: could hold pitch, unacceptale musicality, unable to
>sound clean in fast passage, difficult to move, temperamental at best...
>
>
>Johnny Reinhard
>Director
>American Festival of Microtonal Music
>reinhard@idt.net
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 15
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:52:07 -0500
>From: "Darren Burgess" <dburgess@acceleration.net>
>To: <tuning@eartha.mills.edu>
>Subject: Re: steel bar tunings by Rick Sanford
>Message-ID: <049b839482212c8KHAFRE@acceleration.net>
>
>Rick Sanford writes:
>
>>>>
>Question number one is - How are the bars suspended
>thus where are the nodes?
>
>( are they held only at one end
> or are they drilled at two (or more) points
> and suspended there)
>>>>
> Darren Replies:
>
>Rather than approach this one question at a time, I have included below all
>of the characteristics of the bars. The main problem I have encountered
>with tuning them is that grinding between the nodes causes a phase or
>beating effect. I want to tune the bars, but preserve their timbre. I
>have tried a few things which are detailed below. Any ideas you have,
>Rick, or any one else on the list, would be greatly appreciated.
>
>These bars comprise 1961 bell instrument that attempts to mimic cast bell
>carillons. Characteristics of the bars:
>
>1. Each has two solenoid strikers. One primarily emphasizes the
>fundamental (placed at the end of the bar), the other the second harmonic
>(place just inside the vibrational node). This creates an overlap
>ofoctaves between the adjacent octave racks of bars. (5 racks of bars)
>
>2. The bars are varying lengths from about 20 cm to about 56 cm. 4 mm
>square at the end (3/16th")
>
>3. the bars each have 3 brass (or bronze?) collars firmly attached along
>predictable but somewhat
>inconsistent places between the vibrational nodes. They follow a general
>pattern but are not in exactly the same relative postion from bar to bar.
>It is my theory that these collars are used to tune and/or supress the
>inharmonic partials. The Collars are larger on the longest bars 5/16th"
>wide, 3/32" wide on the shorter bars
>I have experimented a little with moving them and
>have found doing so creates significant changes in the timbre of the bar.
>I have also noted that moving one collar further from its original position
>causes a "beating" effect -- the further from original, the faster the
>beating. This is not a very predicable, consistent effect.
>
>4. Tuning of the bar by grinding metal from between the
>vibrational nodes lowers the fundamental frequency as expected. It has the
>unfortunate effect of causing a slight phasing of about 2 cycles/second,
>and significant loss of the original timbre of the bar.
>****What is the cause of this effect?**** This effect is somewhat
>corrected by moveing the brass collars, but not perfectly.
>Placing weight on the end of bar also lowers the frequency, but that also
>causes a phase effect.
>I am experimenting with various tuning methods to determine how tune
>without causing a phase effect.
>
>5. There are five octaves of bars.
>
>6. There is a notch cut away on either side of each bar at the vibrational
>nodes (20% of the length of the bar) effectively making the bars thinner at
>the nodes. About 1/16th" thick at the nodes.
>
>7. The bars are suspended with string. On one end the suspension point is
>close to the vibrational node. On the other end, it is at bit further from
>the node, and closer to the end of the bar. The suspension points are
>consistent, relative to the total length of each bar. The longest bar is
>56.6 cm. Each of the nodes are at 11.6 cm (20%). The suspension point on
>the "magnet" end is at 7.5 cm (13% of the total length). The suspension
>point on the "solenoid" end is at 10.6 cm (18%)
>
>8. Each bar has a small but strong magnet one end that pokes up thru a
>coil of magnet wire.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 16
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:20:39 -0500
>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Chromel-NO-deon
>Message-ID: <4.0.1.19981218170117.00e49100@lumma.org>
>
>>On April 6 Partch and Marshall won a Guggenheim Award for "studies toward
>>the development of an electronic instrument with electronic tone and
>>manual keyboard." (Gilmore p. 191)
>>
>>What do y'all think? Should I be impeached?
>
>No sir. Partch would have been greatful for the DX7. He who says
>otherwise is a gentleman and... an academic. According to the Gilmore bio,
>Partch resented academia's treatment of his work, grouping him with Cage,
>etc. I resent it to. For me Partch's message about primitive man is
>important, and not so nearly as important as his contribution to tuning in
>music. Regular academics cannot handle either one of these things, and by
>saying stuff like this, the Partch academics show they cannot handle them
>either.
>
>Perhaps Harry erred on the side of being too rash. Perhaps I err in the
>same way. But at least this has the benefit of making people check things
>out for themselves, whereas academia would have us all stuffy with trusting.
>
>Carl
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 17
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:19:51 -0500
>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Prime vs. Odd Limits
>Message-ID: <4.0.1.19981218181826.00eaa230@lumma.org>
>
>This is a question for everybody, with attention to Paul Erlich...
>
>If we accept an odd-limit measure of dyadic consonance (and I do, more or
>less), doesn't this lead to a prime-limit measure for chords?
>
>Carl
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 18
>
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 23:06:48 -0500
>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: xen keyboards 2
>Message-ID: <19981219040534671.AAA435@nietzsche>
>
>I wrote: "Do you know if the force required to move the keys increases
>towards the back rows?"
>
>For those of you not familiar with this, the Janko keyboard, being
>originally designed for acoustic instruments in 12tET, has keys sharing the
>same internal lever and strings (as Manuel explained). This causes the key
>travel to be longer and easier in the rows nearer to the performer, and
>shorter and harder in the rows farther from him. I think it can be agreed
>that this is undesirable. The makers of Janko pianos never solved the
>problem.
>
>Norman Henry has suggested simply making all the levers very long compared
>to the difference in key contact points, so that the difference between
>rows will be minimal. That this can work without requiring unreasonably
>deep key travel for all the rows remains to be seen.
>
>I have suggested the following arrangement...
>
> ............string
> key key ( )
>----- ----- ( | )
> | | (|)
> ---------------- | <--hammer
> | |
>--------------------------------------------------------- key lever
> ^ ^
> branch point fulcrum
>
>
>But the question is, even assuming that we can make this branching bit
>absolutely rigid (which would be difficult in the least), will the force on
>each key be...
>
>(a) the same, as if each were attached at the branch point (it works).
>(b) different, as if each were attached at the point directly beneath it.
>(c) half and half -- the force is triangulated, or something.
>
>Norman Henry and Brian McLaren both think (a), and this seems to me the
>intuitive choice. But I have been skeptical of intuition in such matters
>ever since I learnt that the torque on a screw can be changed by changing
>the length of the screwdriver (anyone who would care to explain that,
>please mail me at clumma@nni.com).
>
>Either way, can anyone come up with a different solution? It would be
>worth a great deal, I think. Might even get one in the history books (I
>think we're all already there anyway, but... :~)
>
>
>Carl
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of TUNING Digest 1607
>*************************
>
+------------------------------------------------------+
| Mark Nowitzky |
| email: nowitzky@alum.mit.edu AIM: Nowitzky |
| www: http://www.pacificnet.net/~nowitzky |
| "If you haven't visited Mark Nowitzky's home |
| page recently, you haven't missed much..." |
+------------------------------------------------------+

In the TUNING digest 1607 (topic No. 16), Carl Lumma wrote:

"�Partch would have been greatful for the DX7. He who says otherwise
is a gentleman and... an academic."

While I'm certainly not an academic (or can I claim to be the �gentleman� so
depicted in this context), I am reasonably certain that I don�t really know
much about this or that "would have been" of someone I never knew� Partch
may very well have been grateful for the DX7�I don�t know (and wouldn�t much
care to hazard a guess). But I will offer a personal point of view or two,
to which (I am fairly certain) someone else is bound to have some heartfelt
objections�

It is my humble opinion that the more unforgettable characteristics of
Partch�s music (assuming that the actual music created carries with it
something distinct from the ideologies that buttress it) are tied a lot
tighter to the creation and implementation of new instruments, than they are
the advancement of a tuning that happened to resolutely embrace aural
causation� And though the tuning the instruments the ideologies (and the man
and the music) all seem inseparable to me now...

I for one am pretty darn thankful someone was seduced by carpentry!

Would the �inimical leer� that permeates much of his writing on the subject
tuning have lost a bit of its punch (or charm) had his radical and spirited
MUSIC not shined so brilliantly? I (for whatever that�s worth) certainly
would have found the shrillness of the intonation reform minded rhetoric
nearly unendurable had the music been some underwhelming, imaginatively
anemic quotidian�"Natural, reasonable, and inherently pleasing" or not.

Would one with alternative tuning inclinations truly find an unanticipated
audio encounter with an instrument such as Ivor Darreg�s Megalyra any less
�impressive� or �interesting� were it tuned to (and played in) 12
equidistant divisions of the octave? Would the same go for a DX7... Does a
compilation like EMI�s 1st �GRAVICHORDS, WHIRLIES AND PYROPHONES� make a
better �argument� for the design and implementation of interesting new
instruments than a compilation like the tuning forums �A MICROTONAL MUSIC
EXPERIENCE� does for the design and implementation of interesting new
tunings?

In the end I would suppose that the �divinity' is either there, or it ain�t�
regardless of whether it is in the gross tactical bone and marrow of the
procedure (or it ain�t)� and ultimately that it�s more or less for each to
say�

As if its not clear by now�I profoundly disagree with many of the
ideological declarations of the [arch] remedial minded �intonationalist��

"For me Partch's message about primitive man is important, and not so nearly
as important as his contribution to tuning in music." [C. Lumma TUNING
digest 1607]

I tend to see the systemic components of music* as a varied lot of
inspiriting, and metaphorically speaking�enclitic understandings�put into
their determinant position by the successful (and influential) realization
of their MUSIC�

But that is not exactly why I wrote, so I guess I�ve run out my "personal
point of view or two� " Intonation and music are not the same� Having said
as much I would hope not to hie to my grave having said, "therefore;
mutually exclusive�"

Respectfully,
D�Stearns

*Be those components the beneficial advancements of causal understanding� of
de-occulting literatim, of pendular oscillations and galvanic skin responses
et-al��where natural phenomena obeys blind necessity�� Or be they some
remarkable detachments from the physically exact�"at what cross-purpose the
world is dreamt"�

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nowitzky <nowitzky@alum.mit.edu>
To: tuning@onelist.com <tuning@onelist.com>
Date: Monday, December 28, 1998 10:19 AM
Subject: [tuning] Copy of Whole TUNING Digest 1607

>From: Mark Nowitzky <nowitzky@alum.mit.edu>
>
>Here's a copy of the whole last TUNING Digest to come out of the Mills
>College server, just to get things going again:
>
>>
>> TUNING Digest 1607
>>
>>Topics covered in this issue include:
>>
>> 1) forum CD review
>> by Neil Haverstick <stick@uswest.net>
>> 2) Partch and Synthesizers vs. Harmoniums
>> by Daniel Wolf <DJWOLF_MATERIAL@compuserve.com>
>> 3) Re: Tuning List Down (Digest 1606 Topic 11)
>> by Mark Nowitzky <nowitzky@alum.mit.edu>
>> 4) tuning bars
>> by William Sethares <sethares@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu>
>> 5) Re: Johnny Reinhard
>> by Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
>> 6) Just a reminder...
>> by David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>
>> 7) Re: "Partch" in digest 1606
>> by "Jonathan M. Szanto" <jszanto@adnc.com>
>> 8) Character width
>> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>> 9) xen keyboards
>> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>> 10) Re: Margo's post
>> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>> 11) Re: Daniel's post
>> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>> 12) Re: Daniel's post
>> by Lydia Ayers <layers@cs.ust.hk>
>> 13) Assymmetrical 14-tone modes in 26-tET
>> by "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>> 14) Re: Partch/Motorola Scalatron
>> by Johnny Reinhard <reinhard@IDT.NET>
>> 15) Re: steel bar tunings by Rick Sanford
>> by "Darren Burgess" <dburgess@acceleration.net>
>> 16) Chromel-NO-deon
>> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>> 17) Prime vs. Odd Limits
>> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>> 18) xen keyboards 2
>> by Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 1
>>
>>Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:51:07 -0700
>>From: Neil Haverstick <stick@uswest.net>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: forum CD review
>>Message-ID: <3679FB58.AC1B7D53@dnvr.uswest.net>
>>
>> The first review that I've seen of the tuning CD appeared in the new
>>Westword mag this week...log onto www.westword.com, and look for reviews
>>by Michael Roberts. I'd be curious to see what you folks think of what
>>he had to say...Hstick (PS...WW is a Denver based paper)
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 2
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 05:13:17 -0500
>>From: Daniel Wolf <DJWOLF_MATERIAL@compuserve.com>
>>To: "INTERNET:tuning@ella.mil" <tuning@ella.mills.edu>
>>Subject: Partch and Synthesizers vs. Harmoniums
>>Message-ID: <199812180513_MC2-6415-76DC@compuserve.com>
>>
>>Johnny Reinhard brings up the interesting topic of Partch's
>>attitude towards synthesizers. Given the problems with
>>harmoniums, he did indeed receive a Guggenheim with Marshall
>>to build an electronic instrument, but this project was
>>soon abandoned and the funds used for recordings and upkeep
>>or construction of acoustic instruments. =
>>
>>
>>It is unclear how serious the electronic project ever was.
>>I have heard more than once that it was a subterfuge by
>>Marshall to get the Guggenheim to otherwise support Partch's work.
>>
>>Partch would later write (in the second edition of _Genesis_,
>>pp. 210):
>>
>>"The musicality, versatility, and potentialities of these
>>old-fashioned harmoniums are constantly amazing. I would not
>>trade my two Chromelodeons for any electric organs that I
>>have ever heard."
>>
>>Even later, reportedly, when he was told about the Motorola
>>Scalatron project, he apparently reacted with resignation =
>>
>>that it had came 30 years too late for him. Given the musical
>>limitations of the scalatron, with its tacky electic organ
>>swell, it is hard to imagine Partch ever actually using one.
>>
>>Making an electronic substitute for a harmonium is an
>>interesting problem. The breath-like quality of the bellows,
>>the uneven voicing of the individual reeds, and the
>>variable response of the knee swells would all have to be
>>considered. In the case of the Chromelodeons, the double stops
>>and octave coupler introduce additional, considerations in that
>>the added reeds do not respond identically.
>>
>>An alternative to this is manufacturing new reed organs.
>>This is still done in India, albeit in poor quality, and
>>I wonder if Indian makers might produce more useful instruments
>>if commissioned. =
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 3
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 03:24:47 -0800 (PST)
>>From: Mark Nowitzky <nowitzky@alum.mit.edu>
>>To: madole@dnai.com
>>Cc: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: Re: Tuning List Down (Digest 1606 Topic 11)
>>Message-ID: <2.2.16.19981218032117.329f9d0e@pacificnet.net>
>>
>>Hi Dave,
>>
>>Thanks for repairing the list.
>>
>>At 01:59 AM 12/18/98 -0500, you wrote (Digest 1606 Topic 11):
>>>From: "David Madole" <madole@ella.mills.edu>
>>>Subject: Tuning List Down
>>>
>>>My successor at Mills is not interested in continuing with the
listserver.
>>>
>>>It is time to start to arrange to move the list. I will provide all of
>>>the support I possibly can to whomever decides to take it over - it would
>>>be best to be moved to another list server running listproc 6.0, or
listserv,
>>>if possible. I will even help get the listserver compiled and running
(but
>>>not maintain it) if that is necessary.
>>>
>>>If you have any ideas, please send the mail to my new address,
>madole@dnai.com.
>>
>>I don't know of another server to move to, but I'd be willing to try
>>maintaining it at its current location at Mills. Here's some issues:
>>
>>1) Can the list be maintained remotely (e.g., via telnet from Los
Angeles)?
>>
>>2) Is the TUNING list the only list in jeopardy, or are there a bunch of
>>lists, at listproc@eartha.mills.edu, that need to be moved?
>>
>>3) There'd be some learning curve involved (I've been away from Unix,
doing
>>mostly IBM Mainframe stuff these days.)
>>
>>That's all I have for now. Thanks again,
>>
>>--Mark Nowitzky
>>+------------------------------------------------------+
>>| Mark Nowitzky |
>>| email: nowitzky@alum.mit.edu AIM: Nowitzky |
>>| www: http://www.pacificnet.net/~nowitzky |
>>| "If you haven't visited Mark Nowitzky's home |
>>| page recently, you haven't missed much..." |
>>+------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 4
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 11:04:00 -0600 (CST)
>>From: William Sethares <sethares@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: tuning bars
>>Message-ID: <199812181704.LAA04066@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu>
>>
>>
>>About scaling steel bars for tuning...
>>
>>Heres one way to go about it, though of course even the best laid
>>calculations will require fine tuning once youre done, but this should
>>get you close. A hint: always cut the bars a tiny bit too long, since its
>>much easier to file off the extra than to try and reintroduce it
>>afterwards...
>>
>>Say the pitch (fundamental) of the chime is at frequency f1, its got
>>length L1 and radius r1. Then
>>
>>f1 = P r1/ (L1^2)
>>
>>(the denominator here is L1 squared)
>>and P is a constant that depends on Youngs modulus, the density of
>>the material and a bunch of other things that will turn out to be
>>irrelevant.
>>
>>Similarly, the fundamental of the second bar is at
>>
>>f2= P r2/ (L2^2)
>>
>>where r2 is the radius and L2 the length.
>>
>>Now divide these two equations to get
>>
>>f2/f1 = (r2 L1^2 ) / (r1 L2^2 )
>>
>>where the constant P has disappeared.
>>You can use this formula to approximate the tuning for uniform bars
>>of different lengths and radii. For instance, if you use the same
>>radius material, then both r1 and r2 drop out. Let the ratio f2/f1 be
>>how you want the two tuned in relation to each other, and then solve
>>for L2.
>>
>>Hope this helps
>>
>>Bill Sethares
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 5
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:33:43 -0800
>>From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: Re: Johnny Reinhard
>>Message-ID: <367A91F5.F883B7E4@anaphoria.com>
>>
>>It is my understanding that when Partch was offered use of the Motorola
>>Scalatron He refused
>>--
>>Kraig Grady
>>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
>>http://www.anaphoria.com
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 6
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:58:52 -0500
>>From: David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>
>>To: Tuning Digest <tuning@eartha.mills.edu>
>>Subject: Just a reminder...
>>Message-ID: <367A97DC.54507926@virtulink.com>
>>
>>BIRDHOUSE CD RELEASE AT THE MERCURY LOUNGE
>>217 East Houston Street, NYC (near 2nd Ave stop on 'F' Train)
>>Sunday, December 20th at 7:30 pm
>>Musicians: Jon Catler, Meredith Borden,
>>Jim Mussen (drums), Hansford Rowe (bass)
>>DOOR: $7 plus we will be offering a reduced price of $10 a CD for that
>>show.
>>
>>Birdhouse Information: (201) 659-1219
>>Contact FreeNote at: freenote@earthlink.net
>>
>>
>>--
>>* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
>>* xouoxno@virtulink.com
>>*
>>* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
>>* 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
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 7
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 10:27:14 -0800
>>From: "Jonathan M. Szanto" <jszanto@adnc.com>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: Re: "Partch" in digest 1606
>>Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19981218102714.00805ba0@adnc.com>
>>
>>Tune-entities!
>>
>>Johnny Reinhard posted in 1606 (the digest, not the year) a tidbit about
>>Partch uttering his support for Johnny's use of synthesizers nearly 40
>>years before the fact.
>>
>>Just wanted all of you to know that, in spite of the collegial nature of
>>the list, and the pointed comments directed to me, Johnny didn't have the
>>courtesy to write me first, off list, to discuss this. So I'll have to
>>make a response here, as his point deserves an answer.
>>
>>Unfortunately I am doing 10-11 performances a week right now and it
>>deserves more than a knee-jerk reply (well, besides this one!). I'll try
>>and get it together and stay up late to make sure the record is clear.
>>
>>Oh, BTW: I don't strike things from the record when they are historical
>>documents. Revisionist history gives me the creeps.
>>
>>Stay well, folks...
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Jon
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>Jonathan M. Szanto | Corporeal Meadows: Harry Partch, online. . .
>> jszanto@adnc.com | http://www.corporeal.com/
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 8
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:09:43 -0500
>>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: Character width
>>Message-ID: <19981218202215031.AAA184@nietzsche>
>>
>>>As an AOL subscriber posting to the tuning forum I've been
>>>frustrated by having my posts appear messed up in the
>>>Tuning Digests. I've found that if I enter space then
>>>carriage return by the time I've typed 72 characters in a line
>>>my entry looks normal and the quotes and other
>>>punctuation marks are transmitted as I've typed
>>>them. It took me a while to discover this but it's
>>>working well now. Let's see - (80 character line) -
>>>
>>>xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
>>>xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>Dave, check your mail reader options. There should be an area to set your
>>wrap width (although you never know, with AOL). I use Eudora, which is
>>about the best wysiwyg mailer around as far as customizing goes (Pegasus
is
>>also very good, and free), and set my width to 79 characters, which is the
>>width used by most terminals that the internet grew up on. My posts
>>usually look okay, although sometimes I have problems. Your test line
>>seems to indicate 69 might be better, but then why do my posts not look
worse?
>>
>>Carl
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 9
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:24:25 -0500
>>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: xen keyboards
>>Message-ID: <19981218202311921.AAA206@nietzsche>
>>
>>>Sorry for the late reply, it took some time to dig the photo up and scan=
>> it.
>>>I have uploaded it together with a photo of the 31-tone
>>>Harmoniehammerfl=FCgel.
>>
>>Thanks for the quality scans, Manuel! Do you know the keyboard layout of
>>the Harmoniehammerflugel? Looks like Janko-Fokker. And what kind of
>>instrument is it? Looks like a piano! In any case, is this instrument
>>playable? Do you know if the force required to move the keys increases
>>towards the back rows?
>>
>>Carl
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 10
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:32:21 -0500
>>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: Re: Margo's post
>>Message-ID: <19981218203108281.AAA132@nietzsche>
>>
>>>Of course, this isn't to say that 81:64 and 27:16 are the _only_
>>>tunings that can "feel right" for this cadence. In a Xeno-Gothic
>>>tuning, where the major third and major sixth can be made a
>>>Pythagorean comma wider than usual (close to 9:7 and 12:7), this same
>>>progression in certain timbres can have a very convincing "ring" for
>>>me:
>>>
>>> c#' -- +67 -- d'
>>> (930,498) (1200,498)
>>> g# -- +67 -- a
>>> (430) (702)
>>> e -- -204 -- d
>>>
>>>Here I'd describe the usual Pythagorean version with 81:64 and 27:16
>>>as "classic," and this version as more "jazzy," although my sense of
>>>"neo-Gothic jazzy" might not be the same as other people's <grin>.
>>
>>Forgive my ignorance, but what is "Xeno-Gothic"? Do you mean new music
>>that uses the 9/7 and 12/7 intentionally, or do you mean new music that
>>uses it intuitively? I'm think you mean old music that uses it
>>intuitively. In any case, can you give a time frame, location, composers'
>>names, and/or recommended recordings?
>>
>>Carl
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 11
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:47:06 -0500
>>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: Re: Daniel's post
>>Message-ID: <19981218204553093.AAA402@nietzsche>
>>
>>>"Say... what's a ch'in?"
>>>
>>>There are several good web pages about the ch'in (also look for 'chin' an
d
>>>'qin'). There are many excellent recordings, but stick generally to those
>>>with silk strings (i.e. don't bother with most recordings from the PRC,
>>>excepting perhaps the CD by Wu Wen Guang -- a former colleague -- who
plays
>>>beautifully despite his steel strings).
>>
>>Thanks for the info! PRC stands for Prestige Recordings?
>>
>>
>>Carl
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 12
>>
>>Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 06:16:23 +0800
>>From: Lydia Ayers <layers@cs.ust.hk>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: Re: Daniel's post
>>Message-ID: <199812182216.GAA21299@csnt1.cs.ust.hk>
>>
>>PRC stands for "People's Republic of China." While it is
>>sometimes necessary to be selective in what you buy (some
>>folks have commercialized "traditoional " Chinese music in
>>various ways) there is still a good amount of music frmom
>>China that is the real thing. HMV in Hong Kong carries a
>>lot of it, but I would imagine the selection in US record
>>stores would be more spotty.
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Lydia Ayers
>>50 miles from the PRC
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 13
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:30:43 -0500
>>From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>>To: "'tuning@eartha.mills.edu'" <tuning@eartha.mills.edu>
>>Subject: Assymmetrical 14-tone modes in 26-tET
>>Message-ID: <85B74BA01678D211ACDE00805FBE3C050B6587@MARS>
>>
>>I decided to look at the modes of the assymmetrical scale 0 2 4 6 8 10
>>12 14 15 17 19 21 23 25 in 26-tET -- because all octave species of this
>>scale is constructed of two identical heptachords, each spanning a ~4/3,
>>separated by either a ~4/3 or a ~3/2; and because the scale contains 10
>>consonant 7-limit tetrads constructed by the generic scale pattern 1, 5,
>>9, 12 (5 are otonal and 5 are utonal) with a maximum tuning error of 17
>>cents.
>>
>>In my paper, I introduce the notion of a charateristic dissonance. This
>>is a dissonant interval which is the same generic size (same number of
>>scale steps) as a consonant interval. Allowing the 7-limit to define
>>consonance and allowing errors up to 17 cents, the 14-out-of-26 scale
>>has three characteristic dissonances (plus their octave inversions and
>>extensions). Two are "sevenths" of 554 cents instead of the usual 508
>>cents, and one is an "eighth" of 554 cents instead of the usual 600
>>cents.
>>
>>None of the modes of this scale satisfy all the properties for a
>>strongly tonal mode according to my paper. But a few come close. The
>>mode
>>
>>0 2 4 6 8 10 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
>>
>>or in cents,
>>
>>0 92 185 277 369 462 508 600 692 785 877 969 1062 1154
>>
>>has all characteristic dissonances disjoint from the tonic tetrad (0 8
>>15 21), which is major. The only other mode with this property is the
>>minor equivalent:
>>
>>0 2 4 5 7 9 11 13 15 16 18 20 22 24
>>
>>or in cents
>>
>>0 92 185 231 323 415 508 600 692 738 831 923 1015 1108.
>>
>>The following modes have one characteristic dissonance which shares a
>>note with the tonic tetrad, but it approximates the 1 identity and the
>>11 identity when played along with the tetrad. Therefore the interval
>>does not disturb the stability of the tonic too much, and the mode can
>>be considered tonal:
>>
>>major: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 13 15 17 19 21 23 24
>>
>>or in cents
>>
>>0 92 185 277 369 462 554 600 692 785 877 969 1062 1108
>>
>>and
>>
>>minor: 0 2 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 18 20 22 24
>>
>>or in cents
>>
>>0 92 138 231 323 415 508 600 692 785 831 923 1015 1108.
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 14
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:38:28 -0500 (EST)
>>From: Johnny Reinhard <reinhard@IDT.NET>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: Re: Partch/Motorola Scalatron
>>Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.981218171744.28976A-100000@u3.farm.idt.net>
>>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Kraig Grady wrote:
>>
>>> It is my understanding that when Partch was offered use of the Motorola
>>> Scalatron He refused
>>> --
>>> Kraig Grady
>>> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
>>> http://www.anaphoria.com
>>>
>>
>>>From what I remember learning, the Motorola Scalatron tone was designed
>>specifically to have a tone that is distinctive to all others.
>>Partch was not the only one to refuse using it. And I
>>have had it played on the AFMM concerts several times (music of Joel
>>Mandelbaum, Linda Arditto, Henk Badings). It sure holds its pitch, but
>>the sound is not especially pleasing.
>>
>>In 1950, the idea of radically changing the timbre of a keyboard (Partch's
>>first, main instrument was the piano, according to the Gilmore bio) would
>>be radical in itself. So, a synthesizer was not yet imagineable. A
>>generalized keyboard for an organ with a chosen electronic tone quality
>>was a specific dream of Partch's since his earliest microtonal thinkings.
>>Ten years after his death (1984) a time capsule left with Bertha Kneisley
>>turned up the original multi-colored keyboard plan devised by
>>far-thinking Harry Partch.
>>
>>Considering that Partch was fascinated with micing the Kithara, as well
>>as electrifying his guitars, an electric keyboard both accurate and
>>beautiful was right on the money.
>>
>>The chromelodeon: could hold pitch, unacceptale musicality, unable to
>>sound clean in fast passage, difficult to move, temperamental at best...
>>
>>
>>Johnny Reinhard
>>Director
>>American Festival of Microtonal Music
>>reinhard@idt.net
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 15
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:52:07 -0500
>>From: "Darren Burgess" <dburgess@acceleration.net>
>>To: <tuning@eartha.mills.edu>
>>Subject: Re: steel bar tunings by Rick Sanford
>>Message-ID: <049b839482212c8KHAFRE@acceleration.net>
>>
>>Rick Sanford writes:
>>
>>>>>
>>Question number one is - How are the bars suspended
>>thus where are the nodes?
>>
>>( are they held only at one end
>> or are they drilled at two (or more) points
>> and suspended there)
>>>>>
>> Darren Replies:
>>
>>Rather than approach this one question at a time, I have included below
all
>>of the characteristics of the bars. The main problem I have encountered
>>with tuning them is that grinding between the nodes causes a phase or
>>beating effect. I want to tune the bars, but preserve their timbre. I
>>have tried a few things which are detailed below. Any ideas you have,
>>Rick, or any one else on the list, would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>>These bars comprise 1961 bell instrument that attempts to mimic cast bell
>>carillons. Characteristics of the bars:
>>
>>1. Each has two solenoid strikers. One primarily emphasizes the
>>fundamental (placed at the end of the bar), the other the second harmonic
>>(place just inside the vibrational node). This creates an overlap
>>ofoctaves between the adjacent octave racks of bars. (5 racks of bars)
>>
>>2. The bars are varying lengths from about 20 cm to about 56 cm. 4 mm
>>square at the end (3/16th")
>>
>>3. the bars each have 3 brass (or bronze?) collars firmly attached along
>>predictable but somewhat
>>inconsistent places between the vibrational nodes. They follow a general
>>pattern but are not in exactly the same relative postion from bar to bar.
>>It is my theory that these collars are used to tune and/or supress the
>>inharmonic partials. The Collars are larger on the longest bars 5/16th"
>>wide, 3/32" wide on the shorter bars
>>I have experimented a little with moving them and
>>have found doing so creates significant changes in the timbre of the bar.
>>I have also noted that moving one collar further from its original
position
>>causes a "beating" effect -- the further from original, the faster the
>>beating. This is not a very predicable, consistent effect.
>>
>>4. Tuning of the bar by grinding metal from between the
>>vibrational nodes lowers the fundamental frequency as expected. It has
the
>>unfortunate effect of causing a slight phasing of about 2 cycles/second,
>>and significant loss of the original timbre of the bar.
>>****What is the cause of this effect?**** This effect is somewhat
>>corrected by moveing the brass collars, but not perfectly.
>>Placing weight on the end of bar also lowers the frequency, but that also
>>causes a phase effect.
>>I am experimenting with various tuning methods to determine how tune
>>without causing a phase effect.
>>
>>5. There are five octaves of bars.
>>
>>6. There is a notch cut away on either side of each bar at the
vibrational
>>nodes (20% of the length of the bar) effectively making the bars thinner
at
>>the nodes. About 1/16th" thick at the nodes.
>>
>>7. The bars are suspended with string. On one end the suspension point
is
>>close to the vibrational node. On the other end, it is at bit further
from
>>the node, and closer to the end of the bar. The suspension points are
>>consistent, relative to the total length of each bar. The longest bar is
>>56.6 cm. Each of the nodes are at 11.6 cm (20%). The suspension point on
>>the "magnet" end is at 7.5 cm (13% of the total length). The suspension
>>point on the "solenoid" end is at 10.6 cm (18%)
>>
>>8. Each bar has a small but strong magnet one end that pokes up thru a
>>coil of magnet wire.
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 16
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:20:39 -0500
>>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: Chromel-NO-deon
>>Message-ID: <4.0.1.19981218170117.00e49100@lumma.org>
>>
>>>On April 6 Partch and Marshall won a Guggenheim Award for "studies toward
>>>the development of an electronic instrument with electronic tone and
>>>manual keyboard." (Gilmore p. 191)
>>>
>>>What do y'all think? Should I be impeached?
>>
>>No sir. Partch would have been greatful for the DX7. He who says
>>otherwise is a gentleman and... an academic. According to the Gilmore
bio,
>>Partch resented academia's treatment of his work, grouping him with Cage,
>>etc. I resent it to. For me Partch's message about primitive man is
>>important, and not so nearly as important as his contribution to tuning in
>>music. Regular academics cannot handle either one of these things, and by
>>saying stuff like this, the Partch academics show they cannot handle them
>>either.
>>
>>Perhaps Harry erred on the side of being too rash. Perhaps I err in the
>>same way. But at least this has the benefit of making people check things
>>out for themselves, whereas academia would have us all stuffy with
trusting.
>>
>>Carl
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 17
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:19:51 -0500
>>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: Prime vs. Odd Limits
>>Message-ID: <4.0.1.19981218181826.00eaa230@lumma.org>
>>
>>This is a question for everybody, with attention to Paul Erlich...
>>
>>If we accept an odd-limit measure of dyadic consonance (and I do, more or
>>less), doesn't this lead to a prime-limit measure for chords?
>>
>>Carl
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Topic No. 18
>>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 23:06:48 -0500
>>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>>Subject: xen keyboards 2
>>Message-ID: <19981219040534671.AAA435@nietzsche>
>>
>>I wrote: "Do you know if the force required to move the keys increases
>>towards the back rows?"
>>
>>For those of you not familiar with this, the Janko keyboard, being
>>originally designed for acoustic instruments in 12tET, has keys sharing
the
>>same internal lever and strings (as Manuel explained). This causes the
key
>>travel to be longer and easier in the rows nearer to the performer, and
>>shorter and harder in the rows farther from him. I think it can be agreed
>>that this is undesirable. The makers of Janko pianos never solved the
>>problem.
>>
>>Norman Henry has suggested simply making all the levers very long compared
>>to the difference in key contact points, so that the difference between
>>rows will be minimal. That this can work without requiring unreasonably
>>deep key travel for all the rows remains to be seen.
>>
>>I have suggested the following arrangement...
>>
>> ............string
>> key key ( )
>>----- ----- ( | )
>> | | (|)
>> ---------------- | <--hammer
>> | |
>>--------------------------------------------------------- key lever
>> ^ ^
>> branch point fulcrum
>>
>>
>>But the question is, even assuming that we can make this branching bit
>>absolutely rigid (which would be difficult in the least), will the force
on
>>each key be...
>>
>>(a) the same, as if each were attached at the branch point (it works).
>>(b) different, as if each were attached at the point directly beneath it.
>>(c) half and half -- the force is triangulated, or something.
>>
>>Norman Henry and Brian McLaren both think (a), and this seems to me the
>>intuitive choice. But I have been skeptical of intuition in such matters
>>ever since I learnt that the torque on a screw can be changed by changing
>>the length of the screwdriver (anyone who would care to explain that,
>>please mail me at clumma@nni.com).
>>
>>Either way, can anyone come up with a different solution? It would be
>>worth a great deal, I think. Might even get one in the history books (I
>>think we're all already there anyway, but... :~)
>>
>>
>>Carl
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>End of TUNING Digest 1607
>>*************************
>>
>+------------------------------------------------------+
>| Mark Nowitzky |
>| email: nowitzky@alum.mit.edu AIM: Nowitzky |
>| www: http://www.pacificnet.net/~nowitzky |
>| "If you haven't visited Mark Nowitzky's home |
>| page recently, you haven't missed much..." |
>+------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
>email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.
>