New Poll

Hi there,

I know this has been said a number of times before.

Can we suggest having a new group devoted entirely to
72-tet.

About 90 percent of the posts at a guess are still
on the subject of 72-tet.

If that is done, I don't think a separate tuning-math
list will really be needed yet; possibly later if the
maths gets really esoteric, e.g. if a substantial
group of mathematicians want to study group theory
of tunings and prove theorems about it, or something of that
sort.

I can see 72-tet can have it's place, especially for
12-tet trained musicians who want a system that keys
in with 12-tet well and that has finer intonational
disctinctions.

However, I think that considering its popularity
it needs a new forum to itself.

Hardly think such a group would fade from lack of interest
in the subject judging by number of posts on it!

Nobody can post on anything else at present hardly. If they
do, the post gets ignored as those not following the intricacies
of the 72-tet debate miss what few posts are on other topics.

In attempt to get attention of the 72-tet enthusiasts that this
is a real issue, I've done a new poll:

Would you be happier if the posts on 72-tet were on another
list?

Yes, No.

Please vote either way. I'll leave it running, no close date.

Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe only a few vocal posters feel that this
is a real issue. If so, we'll find out.

Robert

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I know this has been said a number of times before.
>
> Can we suggest having a new group devoted entirely to
> 72-tet.

No more (gerund deleted) new groups!!

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> Nobody can post on anything else at present hardly. If they
> do, the post gets ignored as those not following the intricacies
> of the 72-tet debate miss what few posts are on other topics.

Hey Robert,

Let's follow this to its logical conclusion. Next month the most
popular topic will be something other than MIRACLE (last month) or
72-EDO (this month). Will you want a new list for that too? It seems
like what we really need is a new list that is only for discussing
_unpopular_ tuning topics.

unpopular_tuning@yahoogroups.com

Hee hee hee.

Actually, how could anyone _miss_ the posts that _aren't_ on 72-EDO.
They are the easiest ones to find. They don't have "72" in their
subject. The hard ones to find are the 72-EDO ones that I'm
_interested_ in.

So what _I_ really want is

tuning_of_interest_to_dave_keenan@yahoogroups.com

Ho ho ho.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 3:00 PM
> Subject: [tuning] New Poll
>

> Hi there,
>
> I know this has been said a number of times before.
>
> Can we suggest having a new group devoted entirely to
> 72-tet.

I just wrote to the harmonic_entropy list that IMO we
really only need three lists: this one, the tuning-math
one (for the heavy math work), and the spiritual_tuning
one (for the weird stuff that should be separate from
this list).

But Robert's right... there is a really high volume of
material on 72-EDO, and I'm one of the primary culprits...
I think it would be a good idea to have a separate 72-EDO
list which would also cover all the MIRACLE material too,
and all of the notational squabbles.

If it's created, those are the only four lists I'll
read regularly. I'm signing off from all the others.

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24135.html#24152

> --- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> > Nobody can post on anything else at present hardly. If they
> > do, the post gets ignored as those not following the intricacies
> > of the 72-tet debate miss what few posts are on other topics.
>
> Hey Robert,
>
> Let's follow this to its logical conclusion. Next month the most
> popular topic will be something other than MIRACLE (last month) or
> 72-EDO (this month). Will you want a new list for that too? It
seems
> like what we really need is a new list that is only for discussing
> _unpopular_ tuning topics.
>
> unpopular_tuning@y...
>
> Hee hee hee.
>
> Actually, how could anyone _miss_ the posts that _aren't_ on 72-
EDO.
> They are the easiest ones to find. They don't have "72" in their
> subject. The hard ones to find are the 72-EDO ones that I'm
> _interested_ in.
>
> So what _I_ really want is
>
> tuning_of_interest_to_dave_keenan@y...
>
> Ho ho ho.
>
> Regards,
> -- Dave Keenan

This is, basically, the irony and STUPIDITY of the new groups, in MY
opinion. A topic gets going, it gets heavy, people get excited and
post a lot... some people are not interested and complain and try to
form new groups (most of which are unsuccessful)

And then the "big discussion" is over anyway. It ran it's course.

The whole thing is stupidity...

________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> I just wrote to the harmonic_entropy list that IMO we
> really only need three lists: this one, the tuning-math
> one (for the heavy math work), and the spiritual_tuning
> one (for the weird stuff that should be separate from
> this list).

harmonic_entropy should have been renamed to tuning_math in the first
place, instead of creating a new tuning_math list. Paul can still do
that, if he dumps the existing tuning_math list (which i assume has
smaller archives than harmonic_entropy.

> But Robert's right... there is a really high volume of
> material on 72-EDO, and I'm one of the primary culprits...
> I think it would be a good idea to have a separate 72-EDO
> list which would also cover all the MIRACLE material too,
> and all of the notational squabbles.

I don't. MIRACLE is down to a background level now. 72-EDO will be
down to background level in a month or less. The notation
standardisation effort is over. Paul, Joseph and I are using [<v^>].

> If it's created, those are the only four lists I'll
> read regularly. I'm signing off from all the others.

We only need three (at the most).

The sort of posts that piss me off are the kind where you wait for the
page to come up in the browser and it says something like "cool!"
followed by a quote of the entire previous two page post.

Since Joseph has ill-advisedly introduced the word "stupidity" into
this thread I rush to confirm that I meant no offence to Robert or
anyone in attempting to perform a satirical reductio-ad-absurdum on
all proposals for new groups just because a lot is being posted on
some particular topic at some point in time.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24135.html#24157

>
> I don't. MIRACLE is down to a background level now. 72-EDO will be
> down to background level in a month or less. The notation
> standardisation effort is over. Paul, Joseph and I are using

[<v^>].

>

That's cute, Dave! What a "math head!"...

Uh oh... I promised Daniel Wolf at least 100 words...

_______ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24135.html#24157

>
> Since Joseph has ill-advisedly introduced the word "stupidity" into
> this thread I rush to confirm that I meant no offence to Robert or
> anyone in attempting to perform a satirical reductio-ad-absurdum on
> all proposals for new groups just because a lot is being posted on
> some particular topic at some point in time.
>
> Regards,
> -- Dave Keenan

Sorry, Dave. You're right. I "recant..."

________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

Hi Joseph,

Now that the floodgates have opened it's going to be awfully tough to
bring everybody back together. But there's obviously more to all this
than just stupidity or stubbornness. And this comes from a lot of
different people too, people who aren't always in a huff when they say
these things either -- just almost always!

Personally I think the Practical Microtonality list was very much a
valid splinter group that had amassed an impressive membership in a
very short period of time and an overall direction that was shaping up
to be noticeably different from this list.

It was a step in a much needed different direction I thought -- which
to my mind means a nice compliment or counterpart to this list, and
not a better take on this list.

Though I still do question whether or not an open-ended emphasis on
experimentation and actual music can sustain itself in this medium, I
guess my ideal model for an additional list would probably be
something on the order of the home-taper scene that grew out of OP
magazine in the early to mid '80s.

At the end of a long day, dizzied with optimism and exhaustion, I
think we could get it all done on two lists... ?

--Dan Stearns