Re: the list

Okay, I've gotten over my initial discomfort with seeing
my little club falling apart and internalized that it
is just getting bigger and stronger or something.

I was listening to Norman Henry's Etude #1 on the
Numbers Racket cassette (Just Intonation Network
compilation #2). This piece uses a 29 tone JI scale
up to the 11-limit and he seems to have a very clear
idea in his writing of how he is using the different
triads at the different limits (while allowing the
melodic thought to wander all over the scale space).

This is sort of similar to how many of us guitarists
start song writing, every time we learn a new chord
we use it in a song, and let the melody take care of
itself, which sometimes results in some 'non-analyzable'
chordal useage.

Now, if anyone has more knowledge (or can summarize
salient points from the 1/1 article about it) I think
it could provide some fodder for discussions related
to 11 limit theory, new just intonation, and
practical microtonality!

Bob Valentine

In my email program I have a folder called "tuning". When there was one
[tuning] list, the posts were sent to this folder. Now, the posts from
[tuning], [newjustintonation], and [harmonic entropy] all get sent to this
folder, so unless I look at the bracketed word in the Re: line, I don't even
know which list the post came from: basically the same people, talking about
basically the same things they have always talked about. Now there may be
[practical tuning], or [east coast just intonation guitarists with genital
piercings] or whatever, and all these offshoots will be sent to the same
"tuning" folder, and unless I look carefully, I still wont notice which list
they come from, since it will be basically the same people talking about
basically the same things we've always talked about.

Does this story have a moral? please join the new group [morality of tuning]
to find out

Dante

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:

> I was listening to Norman Henry's Etude #1 on the
> Numbers Racket cassette (Just Intonation Network
> compilation #2).

How'd you get that? I've had no luck ordering anything from the Just
Intonation Store, but I haven't tried for a while.

> This piece uses a 29 tone JI scale
> up to the 11-limit

That sounds like the 11-limit Tonality Diamond. That's also the scale
Prent uses for his music. That's a scale (invented by Partch) where
you start with a central 1/1 and you put a pitch at every possible 11-
limit ratio from it. I'll describe it in 72-tET notation, starting
from C. As a review, 72-tET notation is 12-tET notation (very
practical!) with the following "micro-accidentals":

up 1/4 tone: ^
up 1/6 tone: >
up 1/12 tone: +

down 1/12 tone: -
down 1/6 tone: <
down 1/4 tone: v

Now let's construct the 11-limit Tonality Diamond from C:
Ratio of 1: 1/1 (C)
Ratios of 3: 4/3 (F), 3/2 (G)
Ratios of 5: 6/5 (Eb+), 5/4 (E-), 8/5 (Ab+), 5/3 (A-)
Ratios of 7: 8/7 (D>), 7/6 (Eb<), 7/5 (F#-), 10/7 (Gb+), 12/7 (A>),
7/4 (Bb<)
Ratios of 9: 10/9 (D-), 9/8 (D), 9/7 (E>), 14/9 (Ab<), 16/9 (Bb), 9/5
(Bb+)
Ratios of 11: 12/11 (C#^), 11/10 (D<), 11/9 (Ev), 14/11 (E+), 11/8
(F#v), 16/11 (Gb^), 11/7 (Ab-), 18/11 (Ab^), 20/11 (Bb>), 11/6 (Bv).

I wish I knew something more specific about Norman Henry's music, but
I don't.

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22829.html#22833

> Now let's construct the 11-limit Tonality Diamond from C:
> Ratio of 1: 1/1 (C)
> Ratios of 3: 4/3 (F), 3/2 (G)
> Ratios of 5: 6/5 (Eb+), 5/4 (E-), 8/5 (Ab+), 5/3 (A-)
> Ratios of 7: 8/7 (D>), 7/6 (Eb<), 7/5 (F#-), 10/7 (Gb+), 12/7 (A>),
> 7/4 (Bb<)
> Ratios of 9: 10/9 (D-), 9/8 (D), 9/7 (E>), 14/9 (Ab<), 16/9 (Bb),
9/5
> (Bb+)
> Ratios of 11: 12/11 (C#^), 11/10 (D<), 11/9 (Ev), 14/11 (E+), 11/8
> (F#v), 16/11 (Gb^), 11/7 (Ab-), 18/11 (Ab^), 20/11 (Bb>), 11/6 (Bv).
>
> I wish I knew something more specific about Norman Henry's
> music, but I don't.

Yeah, where's Carl Lumma? He's the guy who could tell us more
about Henry.

Here's my lattice of the 29-tone ll-limit Tonality Diamond,
with 72-EDO notation.

G#- ------------ F^
\ / \'-._
\ / \ A<
\ / E>\----\--------- D
\ Bb^ / \ \ / \'-._
\ / \ / \ \ / \ Bb+
\ / \/ \ \ / \ /
\ / A>\-------\----\- G /
\Eb^ / \ \ \/ \'-._ /\
F#+ --\\-------\- E- \ /\ \ Eb+ \
'-._\\/ \/ \'-._\ / \ \ / \
D> -----/\--\--- C ---\-----------Bb<
\ / \ \ 1/1'-._\ /\ /\\'-._
\ A- \ \/ \ Ab+ -----/--\\--- Gb-
\/ '-._ \ /\ \ \ / Av\
/\ ' F ---------------Eb< / \
/ \ / \ \ /\ / \
D- \ / \ \ / \ / \
'-._ \ / \ \ / Dv \
' Bb --------------Ab< / \
Bb> \ / \
'-._\ / \
Gv ------------- E+

I've tried to follow my own lattice formula, which is different
from the usual 'triangular' lattices posted here - for an
explanation see my lattice webpage; in fact, this diagram
is exactly the same as the one here:

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/lattices/lattices.htm#11-limit

This looks a bit different from the lattices on my website
because of the limitations of ASCII. (Note that many of
my newer lattices are inverted with respect to this one and
the ones on that webpage).

Here are the basic metrics:

11^1
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ 3^1
\ /
5^1 _ \ /
'-._\ /
7^-1------------- G ---------------7^1
1/1'-._
/ \ ' 5^-1
/ \
3^-1 \
\
\
\
\
\
\
11^-
1

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

>
> Here's my lattice of the 29-tone ll-limit Tonality Diamond,
> with 72-EDO notation.
>
As you know, I find Erv Wilson's lattices much more enlightening (and
symmetrical!) Go to http://www.anaphoria.com/dal.PDF. Figure 6d shows
the 7-limit structures. The 11-limit diamond is portrayed in Figures
14, 20d, and 29.

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22829.html#22874

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Here's my lattice of the 29-tone ll-limit Tonality Diamond,
> > with 72-EDO notation.
> >
> As you know, I find Erv Wilson's lattices much more
> enlightening (and symmetrical!) Go to
> <http://www.anaphoria.com/dal.PDF>. Figure 6d shows
> the 7-limit structures. The 11-limit diamond is portrayed
> in Figures 14, 20d, and 29.

Yeah, isn't Erv's work THA BOMB!?

Incidentally, Paul, the link didn't work the way you typed it
because of the period at the end. I just learned this little
trick of putting < and > around the link (thanks, Graham!).

Using < and > is particularly good for really short URLs
(for example, <www.monz.org>) which then don't need a
separate line.

(Herbert just pointed out that I made a neat association
between the semantics and visual appearance of that last line.)

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22829.html#22896

> Using < and > is particularly good for really short URLs
> (for example, <www.monz.org>) which then don't need a
> separate line.

Duh!... my total bad.

How could I be so absentminded? Oh well, one of my traits...
It should be <http://www.monz.org>. It wasn't
even a link the way I wrote it.

(I purposely added junk text to that paragraph
just to embed the link as deeply as possible and
demonstrate how it works).

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

On 5/15/01 2:29 AM, "Rosati" <dante.interport@rcn.com> wrote:

> In my email program I have a folder called "tuning". When there was one
> [tuning] list, the posts were sent to this folder. Now, the posts from
> [tuning], [newjustintonation], and [harmonic entropy] all get sent to this
> folder, so unless I look at the bracketed word in the Re: line, I don't even
> know which list the post came from:

I'm having this problem just with tuning and practicalmicrowhatever...

Can you sort by subject?

If you sort by subject, the "Re"s should be ignored,
I do that, and it makes it easy to grab all the [tuning]s
and stick them in a tuning subfolder

etc
i