Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning FAQ again

Well, I thought I'd have look what they have over at Tuning2. And
lo and behold, there was that FAQ that was talked about so much when
I started reading along in Tuning1. I skipped it again (all the
entries were discussed on the Tuning list), downloaded it, and I'd
like to make two comments about it.

First and foremost, there should be a link to the revered polyhistor
Monzo's tuning dictionary too. (For all them little words one might
catch somewhere - if you know about the context, you can always
guess. The less you know, the more gibberishy. And a newcomer just
possibly might not know that much.)

The other thing concerns mainly the early offshoots from the big
one. It would be nice if there was a place where all the math terms
and notations were explained. In more detail: the different methods
of scale construction, there mathematical derivation in all the
gruesome details, and a convenient shorthand (resp.: the form in
which it turns up in posts). Maybe (is it Christmas yet?) an
explanation of all the different complexities _along with an
explanation of what they really measure_.

Since not everyone wants an overview over all the lists (Tuning2 now
has 8 members), it might be a good idea to refer the FAQ from a more
frequented place (like The Big List).

Thank you,
k

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗J Gill <JGill99@imajis.com>

--- In tuning@y..., klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
> Well, I thought I'd have look what they have over at Tuning2. And
> lo and behold, there was that FAQ that was talked about so much when
> I started reading along in Tuning1.

> <snip>

> First and foremost, there should be a link to the revered polyhistor
> Monzo's tuning dictionary too.

Indeed! The Amazing Monz deserves a lot of credit for his tireless
and very helpful efforts at the compilation of such knowledge!

>
> It would be nice if there was a place where all the math terms
> and notations were explained. In more detail: the different methods
> of scale construction, there mathematical derivation in all the
> gruesome details, and a convenient shorthand (resp.: the form in
> which it turns up in posts). Maybe (is it Christmas yet?) an
> explanation of all the different complexities _along with an
> explanation of what they really measure_.

Hear, hear Klaus!!! As a newcomer who has fairly good (though not
astounding!) math abilities, and has been struggling to understand
what specific operations, algorithms, and quality factors are being
talked about and utilized by the folks on many of the tuning lists,
in order that a guy like me could also apply them successfully, I
have (and continue to) often stare without certainty at the lists and
tables which are posted, unsure of their specific meaning, and unsure
of the specific mathematical operations from which they are derived.

It is understandable that folks well versed in such knowledge, when
conversing together, cannot practically include tutorials with each
post, as they are busy "getting to" the solutions.

My head has been swimming with terms and phrases like tonal
generators, unison vectors, commatic and chromatic, moment of
symmetry, constant structure, etc., and I have found the approach of
trying to dig through many early posts to be less productive in
elucidating the issues than one might hope, due to their fragmented
and brief nature (which is understandable considering the nature of
the process of folks of similar understanding levels conversing).

Somewhat ironically, I have found that what appears to the newcomer
as some of the most "heavy-duty" stuff (the posts of Pierre Lamothe
on tuning and tuning-math groups), has turned out to be some of the
most thorough, and step-by-step, presentations of certain
derivations. I think this is because, Pierre Lamothe (a newcomer
himself around one year ago) could not afford to (and has not) taken
for granted that others would understand his communications without
explanation, and, therefore did not ASSUME that the reader would (or
should) allready know exactly what he was referring to when he began
to speak, and, as a result, made an effort to carefully EXPLAIN his
meanings and processes in his early posts. For that I thank him!
Even with some uncertainties existing as to the intended meaning of
his written statements, Lamothe's mathematical derivations are
presented in a systematic, and thus potentially absorbable form.

In addition to Pierre Lamothe, I have found some of Dave Keenan's
posts to be helpful to a person trying to get a feel for the "forest"
of ideas which are typically disussed only on a "tree by tree" basis
in many posts (understandably, as stated above). Also Margo Schulter
does an excellent job of constructing her posts in a systematic and
accessible form. And, my thanks to Paul Erlich for, at times,
providing some "conversational" background which helps to understand
the nature of many of the fascinating, but (understandably) brief
(and very technical conversations in which he participates. Graham
Breed's website (which I am still digesting)is also a noteworthy
effort to introduce folks like me to the linear algebra of tuning!

> Since not everyone wants an overview over all the lists (Tuning2 now
> has 8 members), it might be a good idea to refer the FAQ from a more
> frequented place (like The Big List).

Monz does a commendable and excellent job of attempting to compile
the ongoing process of the definition and explanation of the many and
varied terms and phrases in the "vernacular" of tuning, as it
evolves. However, the more the merrier, and these things (like many
subjects) are enhanced by a variety of (hopefully not too divergent)
viewpoints from which the newcomer is able to consider these matters
from various veiwpoints in formulating a personal working
understanding of these esoteric, yet truly fascinating, subjects!

Best Regards and Thanks to All, J Gill

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗J Gill <JGill99@imajis.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Hello J Gill!
>
> You will find that my patience is limitless and I'll be happy to
try
> to explain to you anything you don't understand. I do tend to be
> succinct when I know the person I'm responding to will understand
> what I mean . . . but I think I can communicate fairly well with
> someone who's new to all this . . . for example, you might enjoy
>
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/td/erlich/intropblock1.htm
>
> and I have a nice colorful paper, _The Forms of Tonality_, that I
can
> mail you for $5 which includes postage.

Sign me up for a copy of your "Forms of Tonality" paper!
How can I send you the "dough"? I'm *very* interested...

>
> So please, ask away!

Thank you very much for your offer, Paul.
I will try my best to discover what I can from previous posts,
but would really appreciate your kind assistance in clarification!

>
> And that goes for anyone else out there who feels mystified!
>
> -Paul

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

Paul Erlich schrieb:

> You will find that my patience is limitless and I'll be happy to try
> to explain to you anything you don't understand. I

Well, the most important thing before being ready to ask a question
and getting something out of the answer is to know the why and
wherefore of what's being talked about.

Example: the recent Johnston/lattice discussion. It would be nice
for a novice to be able to read up somewhere that it is a graphic
representation of the intervals in a scale, and that a JI lattice
can be extended and that translations of a polygon on the lattice
there represent exact transpositions of a chord (or whatever
structure); that a tempered lattice is called a periodicity block
here and can be rolled into a torus (which could even be called
doughnut, but that's not what I'm asking for) without being
extended;; that JI space has more dimensions that can be
conveniently graphed on a flat sheet; that Monzo lattices are a neat
way of reducing the dimensions to a virtual three...

I want to know what "propriety" or "moment of symmetry" say about a
scale, or what the different "complexities" of intervals and scales
really measure. Who came up with these notions, and how they are
computed, all this can go into Monzo's dictionary (is there,
actually). But why people talk about it, that might well go into the
FAQ. And if I want to do that matrix stuff myself, well, I can still
ask Paul Erlich :o).

And then, when everybody knows what everybody else is talking about,
let's get all these lists together again.

humpty dumpty

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:

>
> Example: the recent Johnston/lattice discussion. It would be nice
> for a novice to be able to read up somewhere that it is a graphic
> representation of the intervals in a scale, and that a JI lattice
> can be extended and that translations of a polygon on the lattice
> there represent exact transpositions of a chord (or whatever
> structure);

Good of you to explain that!

> that a tempered lattice is called a periodicity block
> here

Not quite -- periodicity blocks are JI scales in general, unless
otherwise specified.

> I want to know what "propriety" or "moment of symmetry" say about a
> scale, or what the different "complexities" of intervals and scales
> really measure. Who came up with these notions, and how they are
> computed, all this can go into Monzo's dictionary (is there,
> actually).

Yes, I think it's all there. If the definitions need clarification,
please do ask.