New Scale Program

I have written a program that generates scales from aliquot parts. It also
does lattices if my definition of lattices is the same as yours. To find
out, you can download the file from my web site at
http://members/aol.com/mckyyy. The program requires Windows 95, 98, or NT
and at least 600 by 800 screen resolution. I would be quite interested in
hearing bug reports, comments, and suggestions.

I added the lattices as an afterthought. Back in the 60's when I first got
into Just Intonation Scales, I used to do lattices a lot. Then I drifted
over into LCM's and Aliquot parts. As far as I am concerned, LCM's have a
lot of advantages over Lattices, especially from the exact JI point of view.

I was tempted to post one of the 1,000+ tone scales that you can generate
with this software, but I have gotten criticism in the past for posting too
many numbers. You can easily download 31 KB file and calculate these scales
yourself.

I have noticed that there is a discussion here about prime vs. odd limits,
not that I have been following it all that closely. It is also possible to
make scales that are not based on limits, but sets of primes, as in a scale
based on the primes, 2 and 5:

LCM: 5,120,000,000

8 78,125 125/64
7 65,536 1,024/625
6 64,000 8/5
5 62,500 25/16
4 51,200 32/25
3 50,000 5/4
2 40,960 128/125
1 40,000 1/1

Or a scale based on the primes, 3, 5, and 7:

LCM: 2,421,931,640,625

13 2,109,375 125/63
12 2,066,715 243/125
11 1,953,125 3,125/1,701
10 1,913,625 9/5
9 1,771,875 5/3
8 1,640,625 125/81
7 1,476,225 243/175
6 1,366,875 9/7
5 1,265,625 25/21
4 1,240,029 729/625
3 1,171,875 625/567
2 1,148,175 27/25
1 1,063,125 1/1

Not that such scales are of much practical use, any more than the Pythagorean
scales based on only 2 and 3 have ever been really used.

Marion

This is a _very_ strange URL you know..
try it yourself :]
in other words: it does not work

At 15:43 8-04-99 EDT, you wrote:
>From: Mckyyy@aol.com
>
>I have written a program that generates scales from aliquot parts. It also
>does lattices if my definition of lattices is the same as yours. To find
>out, you can download the file from my web site at
http://members/aol.com/mckyyy. The program requires Windows 95, 98, or NT
>and at least 600 by 800 screen resolution. I would be quite interested in
>hearing bug reports, comments, and suggestions.
>
>I added the lattices as an afterthought. Back in the 60's when I first got
>into Just Intonation Scales, I used to do lattices a lot. Then I drifted
>over into LCM's and Aliquot parts. As far as I am concerned, LCM's have a
>lot of advantages over Lattices, especially from the exact JI point of view.
>
>I was tempted to post one of the 1,000+ tone scales that you can generate
>with this software, but I have gotten criticism in the past for posting too
>many numbers. You can easily download 31 KB file and calculate these scales
>yourself.
>
>I have noticed that there is a discussion here about prime vs. odd limits,
>not that I have been following it all that closely. It is also possible to
>make scales that are not based on limits, but sets of primes, as in a scale
>based on the primes, 2 and 5:
>
>LCM: 5,120,000,000
>
>8 78,125 125/64
>7 65,536 1,024/625
>6 64,000 8/5
>5 62,500 25/16
>4 51,200 32/25
>3 50,000 5/4
>2 40,960 128/125
>1 40,000 1/1
>
>Or a scale based on the primes, 3, 5, and 7:
>
>LCM: 2,421,931,640,625
>
>13 2,109,375 125/63
>12 2,066,715 243/125
>11 1,953,125 3,125/1,701
>10 1,913,625 9/5
>9 1,771,875 5/3
>8 1,640,625 125/81
>7 1,476,225 243/175
>6 1,366,875 9/7
>5 1,265,625 25/21
>4 1,240,029 729/625
>3 1,171,875 625/567
>2 1,148,175 27/25
>1 1,063,125 1/1
>
>Not that such scales are of much practical use, any more than the
Pythagorean
>scales based on only 2 and 3 have ever been really used.
>
>Marion
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You can now easily share photos and documents with your fellow list members
>http://www.ONElist.com
>Check out our homepage for details on how to use our new shared files
feature!
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.
>
>
>

Mckyyy@aol.com wrote:

> Not that such scales are of much practical use, any more than the Pythagorean
> scales based on only 2 and 3 have ever been really used.

Pythagorean tuning has been used for Chinese music for millenia. Its importance in
the Hellenic, ancient Hindu, and medieval Arabic worlds seems to have been great.
Wasn't Pythagorean tuning the standard tuning for Western music from before 900
through about 1450 A.D., giving it a longer reign here than any other tuning
system?

Brett Barbaro wrote:

>
> Pythagorean tuning has been used for Chinese music for millenia. Its importance in
> the Hellenic, ancient Hindu, and medieval Arabic worlds seems to have been great.
> Wasn't Pythagorean tuning the standard tuning for Western music from before 900
> through about 1450 A.D., giving it a longer reign here than any other tuning
> system?

Lets not forget the great Indian, Persian and arabic traditions. Its the most common
tuning of the northern hemisphere!
-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
www.anaphoria.com

> > Pythagorean tuning has been used for Chinese music for millenia. Its importance in
> > the Hellenic, ancient Hindu, and medieval Arabic worlds seems to have been great.
> > Wasn't Pythagorean tuning the standard tuning for Western music from before 900
> > through about 1450 A.D., giving it a longer reign here than any other tuning
> > system?
>
> Lets not forget the great Indian, Persian and arabic traditions. Its the most common
> tuning of the northern hemisphere!
> -- Kraig Grady

I may be mistaken, but doesn't Indian=Hindu, and arabic=Arabic?