Article in PNM

Hi all,

first post to the group.

<shameless plug>
Has anyone et read my article in Perspectives of New Music:
vol 38/2 pp 88-105
Another Look at Generalised Diatonic Scales
</shameless plug>

Mark

>Has anyone et read my article in Perspectives of New Music:
>vol 38/2 pp 88-105
>Another Look at Generalised Diatonic Scales

Welcome, Mark!

I don't know where I'd see PoNM, but I am very interested
in generalised diatonic scales.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Mark Gould <mark.gould@a...> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> first post to the group.
>
> <shameless plug>
> Has anyone et read my article in Perspectives of New Music:
> vol 38/2 pp 88-105
> Another Look at Generalised Diatonic Scales
> </shameless plug>
>
> Mark

Hi Mark,

Welcome to this list! It's great to have you here, especially as
generalizing diatonicity is one of my main interests.

I haven't read your paper, but if you'd like to discuss it, please do
so!

There is a huge amount of generalised-diatonic work going on here and
on the tuning-math list . . . the main difference between our work
here and the current published literature is that most of us here
seem to believe in the importance of simple-integer-ratio intervals.
For example, the entire concept of well-formed scale (and similar
concepts) in the published literature, has only recently been placed
on a bedrock of simple-integer-ratio intervals (via my Hypothesis),
and until then was of little interest to some of us . . .

If you're interested in glimpsing "our" concept of generalized
diatonicity, you should look at my papers

http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/22ALL.pdf

and

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/td/erlich/intropblock1.htm

and then get back to us with your comments and questions!

Cheers,
Paul

Hi Carl,

> From: clumma <carl@lumma.org>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:02 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Article in PNM
>
>
> > Has anyone et read my article in Perspectives of New Music:
> > vol 38/2 pp 88-105
> > Another Look at Generalised Diatonic Scales
>
> Welcome, Mark!
>
> I don't know where I'd see PoNM, but I am very interested
> in generalised diatonic scales.

You should expect *EVERY* decent university library
to subscribe to _Perspectives of New Music_;
I haven't found one yet that doesn't.

A good public library should have it too
(try Berkeley, Oakland, or SF).

-monz

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

>>I don't know where I'd see PoNM, but I am very interested
>>in generalised diatonic scales.
>
>You should expect *EVERY* decent university library
>to subscribe to _Perspectives of New Music_;
>I haven't found one yet that doesn't.

I know that, it's just a pain to go to Libraries. I actually,
love spending time in a good library, but I haven't found a
good one in the Bay Area yet. Berkeley public main was okay,
but is all a mess for seizmic retrofit. I haven't been to the
one on campus yet (only the music library there)...

My remark, monz, should be interpreted as a request for a URL,
post to this list, or reprint in the mail.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> I'd prefer if you didn't use "our" and "us" so cavalierly... it's a
> big group and there are quite a few different approaches and
opinions
> and points of view.

Sorry -- I certainly wasn't thinking of more than a small groups when
I said "some of us", and perhaps should have used a less "royal"
pronoun.

> I think consensus of the kind you speak of is achieved more through
> volume posting between a very small group of (essentially
likeminded)
> contributors than it is anything else.

As a member of this very small group, I must object that "we" could
hardly be considered likeminded -- look, for example, at the tuning-
math list.

> Nothing wrong with that sort of
> a consensus of course, and I should point out that I think much good
> work has gone on, but please speak for yourself (so to speak), and
not
> for any "us" that I'm a part of.

Never meant to -- note that I said "some of us" -- though it does
seem that you are one of few the people who has understood, and
contributed to, the exact concepts I was referring to -- so I'm not
sure why you're so eager to exclude yourself from this "very small
group".

>Sorry -- I certainly wasn't thinking of more than a small groups
>when I said "some of us", and perhaps should have used a less
>"royal" pronoun.

It's the only one English provides.

>As a member of this very small group, I must object that "we" could
>hardly be considered likeminded -- look, for example, at the tuning-
>math list.

Indeed. :)

>Never meant to -- note that I said "some of us" -- though it does
>seem that you are one of few the people who has understood, and
>contributed to, the exact concepts I was referring to -- so I'm not
>sure why you're so eager to exclude yourself from this "very small
>group".

I was just thinking what a great job you did, Paul, of summarizing
things for Mark when I read Dan's post. Dan, how can this silent
majority's opinions be known or counted if they're silent!? Paul's
description very accurately and compactly describes the activity on
this list in the past few years.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

> Paul's
> description very accurately and compactly describes the activity on
> this list in the past few years.

. . . that is, some of the activity relevant to the question of
generalizing diatonicity . . . and I wouldn't be surprised if Dan
Stearns himself was the one who first put his finger on what I called
the "Hypothesis" and gave examples . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> "For example, the entire concept of well-formed scale (and similar
> concepts) in the published literature, has only recently been placed
> on a bedrock of simple-integer-ratio intervals (via my Hypothesis),
> and until then was of little interest to some of us . . ."
>
> At first blush I'd see it as annoyingly dismissive and arrogant.

If you'd like to explain why to me on metatuning, I'd be glad to hear
it. I don't see what the problem is. An example of the "some of us"
who had, in the past, expressed a disinterest in the types of
properties well-formedness implies, and has tradtionally been founded
upon, would be Bill Alves. You don't think he's one of
our "likeminded" "very small group", do you?

Certainly "others of us" were always interested in the "well-formed"
and similar "MOS" concept. Why is it dismissive or arrogant for me to
speak for the "some of us" that I belong to, but not for the "others
of us" that don't? I'm just one person among 531 (?) here, and each
of those individuals should speak for themselves. If you have your
own ideas of "generalized diatonicity" that you'd like to share, then
this is the time to do so! This list should be about sharing
ideas . . .

OK, as far as this list is concerned, there have been personality
clashes, or perhaps ego clashes, that we should all do our best to
avoid in the future. Anything further on this topic belongs at

metatuning@yahoogroups.com

> What the well-formed scales school has all over the Erlichian tuning
> list school is influential presentation. If you want your concepts
to
> reach the people you'd hope they would, and I'm primarily thinking
of
> Paul and Gene here, I think you've got to get them in a publishable
> form... and if an influential publication like PNM is not interested
> or otherwise out of reach, a striking web page on the order of
Pierre
> Lamothe's certainly could help.

You can bet your tamales that this has been one of the main thoughts
in my mind, if not in all of my posts here, for the past 9 months.
Despite our "like-mindedness" (do you see nothing arrogant or
dismissive about that term, Dan?), those of us engaged in creating
this paper (on tuning-math) seem to have so many disagreements that
it's been very slow going. But you can bet that the successor to _The
Forms Of Tonality_ (which already presents a few of the relevant
ideas in striking form to a David-Doty/JIN type audience) is in
preparation, and will be appearing at some point . . .

In-Reply-To: <001701c1a450$085f8060$af48620c@dsl.att.net>
monz wrote:

> You should expect *EVERY* decent university library
> to subscribe to _Perspectives of New Music_;
> I haven't found one yet that doesn't.

Can you find one and have a look at it, then? See how it relates to
Paul's generalized diatonics and what we're discussing on tuning-math? I
did mention this before.

> A good public library should have it too
> (try Berkeley, Oakland, or SF).

Not round here they don't. I can order a photocopy if it's deemed
interesting.

Graham

> From: <graham@microtonal.co.uk>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 5:57 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Article in PNM
>
>
> In-Reply-To: <001701c1a450$085f8060$af48620c@dsl.att.net>
> monz wrote:
>
> > You should expect *EVERY* decent university library
> > to subscribe to _Perspectives of New Music_;
> > I haven't found one yet that doesn't.
>
> Can you find one and have a look at it, then? See how it relates to
> Paul's generalized diatonics and what we're discussing on tuning-math? I
> did mention this before.

OK ... it's been several months since I've had a chance to
visit UCSD, so I guess I'm overdue for a stop at their library.

(Also to pick up a copy of the Conway/Sloane linear algebra book
Gene mentioned.)

> > A good public library should have it too
> > (try Berkeley, Oakland, or SF).
>
> Not round here they don't. I can order a photocopy if it's deemed
> interesting.

Oops ... guess I should have said "a good *American* public library!
I've seen PNM in most big-city public libraries that I've been to in
this country.

-monz

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