Distraction

Hello,

I have been very disappointed with not only the lack of resources
anywhere on tuning information but also the overwhelming tendency of
this group to be distracted into other things which do not pertain to
the subject at all. Every message that I have posted here in the
past has basically led to nothing, if at all, a couple responses.
Most of what I have learned, I have found by myself instead of
through anyone else, since I have not yet seen anyone who has any
real ideas. I have begun my own yahoo group, but as of now, I am the
only member because I have not seen anyone else who seems interested
in a serious endeavor like my own. For now, I would like to question
many of the terms and vague descriptions which I have seen here. I
believe that most of these things do not even have much relevance to
tuning at all. I also believe that most of it has only been copied
from other books that have been published a long time ago. I have
seen no new innovative ideas here at all. I have only heard a great
deal of talk. It is obvious that everyone here has very few
resources if any. The most that can be done is talk, but talking
about things which lead in no direction is pointless.
There are many inaccurate terms which I see here and which have
been used, such as 7-limit or lattices or anything. These terms have
little meaning and only point fingers instead of explaining anything
at all. I have found that prime numbers do have a great deal to do
with ratios and frequencies, but they have little to do with how we
perceive frequencies. For instance, we cannot tell whether a certain
frequency is composed of a prime 5, 3, 7 or anything. Also, each
prime only approximates to a certain identity that is NEVER
PINPOINTED ACCURATELY BY ANY NUMBER. I believe the relevancy of a
prime ratio is determined more by its context than by its identity.
For instance, I have found that Zarlino's chromatic using Prime 5
ratios intermingled with Prime 3 ratios is a vast mistake. The
reason being is that these ratios contrast with each other and
contribute to make the scale system less unified. On the contrast,
the "Pythagorean" system uses all Prime 3 and is a much smoother and
more consonant system than the latter. I believe the reason behind
this is that PRIME NUMBERS BELONG WITH EACH OTHER INSTEAD OF WITH
OTHER PRIME NUMBERS. If we had to choose between having a system
with primes 1, 2, and 3 or having a system with primes 1, 2, 3, and
5, I believe it would be wiser to choose the first option. The first
option also is a much more capable system since it is able to
modulation in many more keys than the second choice can. Zarlino's
chromatic cannot modulate at all. Pythagorean tuning can modulate to
many keys with a minimum of error except for the 7th mode, which has
the slightly bad fifth. These minor tuning inaccuracies are nothing
compared to 12 ET which is completely out of tune and cannot be
compared to the Pythagorean system. The Pythagorean system is, in my
mind, the best choice with the falsities of our dominant keyboard
design. THE ONLY WAY FOR PERFECT SYSTEMS IS TO HAVE AN ALTERNATE
DESIGN. I have seen other designs, but I think that all of them are
poor, inaccurate, and insufficient. Many of them are too
complicated, have too many keys, and are impractical. I have a
design which is not much different than the traditional one, and it
is supremely more flexible. The problem is that I know of no one who
can build it. I have no resources except the concept and design. It
is obvious that the tuning community has little resources, and
everytime I have come here for assistance, I have received little or
nothing. If you do not realize the importance of this you are
blind. If you think that talk is all you need you are blind. To
make any difference, you need action. We cannot allow for the same
thing to happen to music that has been happening for centuries and
centuries prior. Most people in the past only talked, and then they
died. Their ideas died with them, and little or nothing was done
after that. An instrument must be built with a workable design, not
one which ends up becoming a relic of the past or a novelty in a
museum. If you wish to talk about ideas relating to tuning, designs,
and things which matter that is fine, but it very disappointing to
see nothing beneficial coming out of this at all. It is a disgrace
to the art of tonality.

Wizard

--- In tuning@y..., "PageWizard, Magician of the Caverns"

> There are many inaccurate terms which I see here and which have
> been used, such as 7-limit or lattices or anything.

A lattice is a discrete subgroup of R^n as a topological group.
Sometimes we add the condition that the quotient be a compact
topological group. As for 7-limit, it's the subgroup of the positive
rationals generated by {2,3,5,7}, and is well defined.

These terms have
> little meaning and only point fingers instead of explaining
anything
> at all. I have found that prime numbers do have a great deal to do
> with ratios and frequencies, but they have little to do with how we
> perceive frequencies. For instance, we cannot tell whether a
certain
> frequency is composed of a prime 5, 3, 7 or anything.

Frequencies are measured in cps, and hence cannot be composed of
primes. Do you mean intervals?

I believe the reason behind
> this is that PRIME NUMBERS BELONG WITH EACH OTHER INSTEAD OF WITH
> OTHER PRIME NUMBERS.

In which case, I suggest you compose using a scale consisting only of
octaves; since 2 is prime I'm afraid we can't add anything else!

If we had to choose between having a system
> with primes 1, 2, and 3 or having a system with primes 1, 2, 3, and
> 5, I believe it would be wiser to choose the first option.

I believe it is wiser to not call 1 a prime, since it isn't.

[PageWizard wrote:]
>I have been very disappointed with not only the lack of resources
>anywhere on tuning information but also the overwhelming tendency of
>this group to be distracted into other things which do not pertain to
>the subject at all. Every message that I have posted here in the
>past has basically led to nothing, if at all, a couple responses.
>Most of what I have learned, I have found by myself instead of
>through anyone else, since I have not yet seen anyone who has any
>real ideas.

Sorry you've been disappointed! I appreciate your frustration, but I
do think you've leveled some charges that are undeserved. Each one
of us on this list is passionate about music, I believe, but for each
of us that passion takes a focus different from many others on the list.
I think that we've all experienced the feeling that others don't
appreciate the things _we_ think are important as much as we ourselves
do. I know I've felt that way many times! Most especially, on those
occasions when I've posted some music I think is lovely, and have gotten
no response whatever. That hurts! But it's important to realize that
it's not because other people are apathetic, but because their energies
are focused elsewhere, at least at that moment.

You have some ideas for a new, for general keyboard. That's great!
There are, as you may be aware, several keyboards out there, either in
planning and/or available for purchase. I must admit that I have not
taken an intimate interest in new keyboards, simply because I don't
think they would be of use to me as an individual (my keyboard skills
are poor, and I make music in other ways).

You are broke, and would like to interest people with funds to invest.
I wish you luck, for sure. Most of us on this list seem to be broke,
in that we're getting by but often aren't able to purchase equipment
that we'd like to, stuff that's already available at a reasonable price.

>There are many inaccurate terms which I see here and which have
>been used, such as 7-limit or lattices or anything. These terms have
>little meaning and only point fingers instead of explaining anything
>at all.

If you listen to my 7-limit vs. 5-limit tunings of any piece, I don't
think you'd say there is "little meaning" to the distinction! These are
concepts with very real application, not abstractions.

>I have found that prime numbers do have a great deal to do
>with ratios and frequencies, but they have little to do with how we
>perceive frequencies. For instance, we cannot tell whether a certain
>frequency is composed of a prime 5, 3, 7 or anything.

This statement confuses me, because once we become attuned to them,
particular ratios and particular chords become vividly unmistakable.
There is _nothing_ that sounds like a 4:5:6:7 chord, for example, except
the real thing.

>If you wish to talk about ideas relating to tuning, designs,
>and things which matter that is fine, but it very disappointing to
>see nothing beneficial coming out of this at all. It is a disgrace
>to the art of tonality.

Sorry you feel that way. I do not agree that there is "nothing
beneficial" going on on this list, but that's just _my_ egocentric
perspective.

I would urge you to do what you can, using your own resources as
available, to make your dreams come into reality. Perhaps you will end
up laughing at all of us who did not invest!

JdL

Dear Wizard (?)

Sorry to be distracted by a terrorist attack. Maybe if you come to NY I can
share more than talk with you. I don't make instruments because I play, as
do my ensemble, in different tunings using conventional instruments...any
tunings.

If you like Pythagorean tuning, maybe you will like the new Ives Universe
Symphony recording that is soon to be mixed.

Johnny Reinhard

Hello there

If you want to "action" pls visit my folder (Dimitrov)
and listen my samples...Will be happy to read your
comment's...
12ET have many clones who work not so badly :)

Latchezar

--- "PageWizard, Magician of the Caverns"
<PageWizard17@aol.com> a �crit�: >
> Hello,
>
> I have been very disappointed with not only the
> lack of resources
> anywhere on tuning information but also the
> overwhelming tendency of
> this group to be distracted into other things which
> do not pertain to
> the subject at all. Every message that I have
> posted here in the
> past has basically led to nothing, if at all, a
> couple responses.
> Most of what I have learned, I have found by myself
> instead of
> through anyone else, since I have not yet seen
> anyone who has any
> real ideas. I have begun my own yahoo group, but as
> of now, I am the
> only member because I have not seen anyone else who
> seems interested
> in a serious endeavor like my own. For now, I would
> like to question
> many of the terms and vague descriptions which I
> have seen here. I
> believe that most of these things do not even have
> much relevance to
> tuning at all. I also believe that most of it has
> only been copied
> from other books that have been published a long
> time ago. I have
> seen no new innovative ideas here at all. I have
> only heard a great
> deal of talk. It is obvious that everyone here has
> very few
> resources if any. The most that can be done is
> talk, but talking
> about things which lead in no direction is
> pointless.
> There are many inaccurate terms which I see here
> and which have
> been used, such as 7-limit or lattices or anything.
> These terms have
> little meaning and only point fingers instead of
> explaining anything
> at all. I have found that prime numbers do have a
> great deal to do
> with ratios and frequencies, but they have little to
> do with how we
> perceive frequencies. For instance, we cannot tell
> whether a certain
> frequency is composed of a prime 5, 3, 7 or
> anything. Also, each
> prime only approximates to a certain identity that
> is NEVER
> PINPOINTED ACCURATELY BY ANY NUMBER. I believe the
> relevancy of a
> prime ratio is determined more by its context than
> by its identity.
> For instance, I have found that Zarlino's chromatic
> using Prime 5
> ratios intermingled with Prime 3 ratios is a vast
> mistake. The
> reason being is that these ratios contrast with each
> other and
> contribute to make the scale system less unified.
> On the contrast,
> the "Pythagorean" system uses all Prime 3 and is a
> much smoother and
> more consonant system than the latter. I believe
> the reason behind
> this is that PRIME NUMBERS BELONG WITH EACH OTHER
> INSTEAD OF WITH
> OTHER PRIME NUMBERS. If we had to choose between
> having a system
> with primes 1, 2, and 3 or having a system with
> primes 1, 2, 3, and
> 5, I believe it would be wiser to choose the first
> option. The first
> option also is a much more capable system since it
> is able to
> modulation in many more keys than the second choice
> can. Zarlino's
> chromatic cannot modulate at all. Pythagorean
> tuning can modulate to
> many keys with a minimum of error except for the 7th
> mode, which has
> the slightly bad fifth. These minor tuning
> inaccuracies are nothing
> compared to 12 ET which is completely out of tune
> and cannot be
> compared to the Pythagorean system. The Pythagorean
> system is, in my
> mind, the best choice with the falsities of our
> dominant keyboard
> design. THE ONLY WAY FOR PERFECT SYSTEMS IS TO HAVE
> AN ALTERNATE
> DESIGN. I have seen other designs, but I think that
> all of them are
> poor, inaccurate, and insufficient. Many of them
> are too
> complicated, have too many keys, and are
> impractical. I have a
> design which is not much different than the
> traditional one, and it
> is supremely more flexible. The problem is that I
> know of no one who
> can build it. I have no resources except the
> concept and design. It
> is obvious that the tuning community has little
> resources, and
> everytime I have come here for assistance, I have
> received little or
> nothing. If you do not realize the importance of
> this you are
> blind. If you think that talk is all you need you
> are blind. To
> make any difference, you need action. We cannot
> allow for the same
> thing to happen to music that has been happening for
> centuries and
> centuries prior. Most people in the past only
> talked, and then they
> died. Their ideas died with them, and little or
> nothing was done
> after that. An instrument must be built with a
> workable design, not
> one which ends up becoming a relic of the past or a
> novelty in a
> museum. If you wish to talk about ideas relating to
> tuning, designs,
> and things which matter that is fine, but it very
> disappointing to
> see nothing beneficial coming out of this at all.
> It is a disgrace
> to the art of tonality.
>
> Wizard
>
>

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Un e-mail gratuit @yahoo.fr !
Yahoo! Courrier : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., "PageWizard, Magician of the Caverns"
<PageWizard17@a...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been very disappointed with not only the lack of resources
> anywhere on tuning information but also the overwhelming tendency of
> this group to be distracted into other things which do not pertain
to
> the subject at all. Every message that I have posted here in the
> past has basically led to nothing, if at all, a couple responses.
<snip>

I have given you a couple of leads, and to my knowledge you have not
followed up on them. If you wish to build a new type of instrument you
have to actually do some work. Did you contact Brad Busley? Please
don't expect others to do your work for you. I speak from experience.
I have designed and built new and different instruments and have had
to work years and spend many thousands of dollars. I understand your
enthusiasm, but no one will help you design and build your dream
instrument if there is nothing in it for them.

John Starret

--- In tuning@y..., "PageWizard, Magician of the Caverns"

/tuning/topicId_28253.html#28253

<PageWizard17@a...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been very disappointed with not only the lack of
resources
> anywhere on tuning information but also the overwhelming tendency
of
> this group to be distracted into other things which do not pertain
to
> the subject at all.

Sorry to bother you with as insignificant a detail as a war.

Get your I.Q. checked, jerk...

________ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "PageWizard, Magician of the Caverns"
>
> I have found that prime numbers do have a great deal to do
> with ratios and frequencies, but they have little to do with how we
> perceive frequencies. For instance, we cannot tell whether a
certain
> frequency is composed of a prime 5, 3, 7 or anything.

I agree.

Also, each
> prime only approximates to a certain identity that is NEVER
> PINPOINTED ACCURATELY BY ANY NUMBER. I believe the relevancy of a
> prime ratio is determined more by its context than by its
identity.
> For instance, I have found that Zarlino's chromatic using Prime 5
> ratios intermingled with Prime 3 ratios is a vast mistake. The
> reason being is that these ratios contrast with each other and
> contribute to make the scale system less unified. On the contrast,
> the "Pythagorean" system uses all Prime 3 and is a much smoother
and
> more consonant system than the latter. I believe the reason behind
> this is that PRIME NUMBERS BELONG WITH EACH OTHER INSTEAD OF WITH
> OTHER PRIME NUMBERS. If we had to choose between having a system
> with primes 1, 2, and 3 or having a system with primes 1, 2, 3, and
> 5, I believe it would be wiser to choose the first option. The
first
> option also is a much more capable system since it is able to
> modulation in many more keys than the second choice can. Zarlino's
> chromatic cannot modulate at all.

Zarlino himself adopted 2/7-comma meantone tuning, in which the
triads are more consonant that in Pythagorean, but modulation is just
as easy as in Pythagorean.

> Pythagorean tuning can modulate to
> many keys with a minimum of error except for the 7th mode, which
has
> the slightly bad fifth.

Slightly???

> If you wish to talk about ideas relating to tuning, designs,
> and things which matter that is fine, but it very disappointing to
> see nothing beneficial coming out of this at all. It is a disgrace
> to the art of tonality.
>
> Wizard

Thanks for passing judgment on us. We will continue to debate ideas
and create music based on them, whether you see it as beneficial or
not. I've given a lot of people much enjoyment with my music, so I
consider it beneficial.