Monz "blackjack" page

Well, Monz is going to kill me now, but I should have mentioned that
his *entire* "blackjack" page is in the "old" F-C-G blackjack key,
not the new "standard" of C-G-D-A.

I kinda thought that as a community we had decided upon a "standard"
key, if I'm remembering correctly, so perhaps adjusting this page, or
providing an version of this page in the "standard" key would be
important for people using the Blackjack scale.

I know this is a pain, and Monz is very busy, so perhaps it doesn't
need to be done for a while, but I really do hope that more people
experience the "Miracles" in Blackjack!

JP

Hi Joe,

> From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:13 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Monz "blackjack" page
>
>
> Well, Monz is going to kill me now, but I should have mentioned that
> his *entire* "blackjack" page is in the "old" F-C-G blackjack key,
> not the new "standard" of C-G-D-A.
>
> I kinda thought that as a community we had decided upon a "standard"
> key, if I'm remembering correctly, so perhaps adjusting this page, or
> providing an version of this page in the "standard" key would be
> important for people using the Blackjack scale.
>
> I know this is a pain, and Monz is very busy, so perhaps it doesn't
> need to be done for a while, but I really do hope that more people
> experience the "Miracles" in Blackjack!

I put together the MIRACLE webpages pretty much as the theory
was being churned out, back around April / May / June of last year.

I think you guys worked out the "standard" Blackjack key while
I was preparing for my trip to, and traveling in, Europe.

Gene Ward Smith became a subscriber to the these lists right
around that time as well, and since coming back to the tuning
lists after my trip, I've been overwhelmed with trying to
understand what's been going on at tuning-math -- with only the
occasional lark such as my new golden meantone definition
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/golden.htm

(... which itself involved a lot of brain-scratching math for me,
but what I mean by calling it a "lark" is that it doesn't have
anything to do with anything discussed on tuning-math recently.
I simply realized that it was an important gap in my Dictionary
that needed to be filled.)

So I'm doing a lot of studying (of the tuning-math archives)
right now.

I'm afraid that if you want me to update my Blackjack page to
the new key standard, you'll have to give me more info. Specific
data in a new post would be best, but if you have the URLs to
archived posts which explain it that will work. And I can only
promise to get around to it when I have a chance.

I'm really much more itchy to get up a really comprehensive page
about Canasta, as that's the MIRACLE tuning I want to explore myself.

-monz

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

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

/tuning/topicId_33507.html#33512

> I'm afraid that if you want me to update my Blackjack page to
> the new key standard, you'll have to give me more info. Specific
> data in a new post would be best, but if you have the URLs to
> archived posts which explain it that will work. And I can only
> promise to get around to it when I have a chance.

Hi Monz!

Dave Keenan be your bro in this dept. It was a "royal pain" for me
to change my entire composing setup, charts, graphs, synth setup,
lattices, thinking...

I did lots of *complaining* at the time, too, but Dave finally
convinced me it was the way to go.

By the way, just continuing the discussion that George Secor brought
up recently, I believe that the advances in communication (mostly
through the Internet, obviously) has made it possible for many
*specialists* in *many* fields to communicate easily, not just in the
Science fields as, I guess, was the original intention of Arpanet, or
whatever it was... (??)

So, what that means is that we have an "instantaneous" community that
*does* tend to "shoot from the hip" but which, also develops,
sometimes, a *consensus* which, I feel, is a *very* significan
development!

For this reason, it is *not* so necessary for specialists to work in
isolation. The collaborative process, in fact, makes a *lot* of
things happen that would not happen otherwise, since each of us has
different strengths, weaknesses, interests, demands, etc., etc.

Some, like Margo Schulter, may prefer to present a more "formal"
presentation, so George shouldn't feel it's necessary to jump into
the "fast fire" fray if he's not so inclined.

On the other hand, there is no reason to "reinvent the wheel" and
*lots* of people on this list have incredible experience and
knowledge of tunings and possibilities. So that shortens
the "development time" for new ideas and also tends to
eliminate "bugs..."

Anyway, the point of this digression is the fact that I felt the
sense of *community* developed by these lists is significant enough
that it was important for *me* to adapt, and use a standard that we
all could communicate easily.

Now whether that "standardization" has to apply to my actual
*keyboard* where note assignment really makes very little difference
except to *me* and somebody standing over my shoulder watching me
work, is a different matter! :)

>
> I'm really much more itchy to get up a really comprehensive page
> about Canasta, as that's the MIRACLE tuning I want to explore
myself.
>

****Well, goforit, Monz! For *me* it's not as optimal as
Blackjack... too many notes. But, maybe, it will depend on the kind
of special generalized *keyboard* you can get developed for it!

JP

> From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 1:36 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Monz "blackjack" page
>
>
> Dave Keenan be your bro in this dept. It was a "royal pain" for me
> to change my entire composing setup, charts, graphs, synth setup,
> lattices, thinking...
>
> I did lots of *complaining* at the time, too, but Dave finally
> convinced me it was the way to go.

OK, then ... Dave? Can you point me to the Blackjack "standard"
info that Joe wants me to put on my page?

> By the way, just continuing the discussion that George Secor brought
> up recently, I believe that the advances in communication (mostly
> through the Internet, obviously) has made it possible for many
> *specialists* in *many* fields to communicate easily, not just in the
> Science fields as, I guess, was the original intention of Arpanet, or
> whatever it was... (??)
>
> So, what that means is that we have an "instantaneous" community that
> *does* tend to "shoot from the hip" but which, also develops,
> sometimes, a *consensus* which, I feel, is a *very* significan
> development!

You don't realize *how* "instantaneous" it is sometimes, Joe!
Paul and I Instant Message each other just about every day, and
discuss stuff that finds its way into posts here (well, mostly
tuning-math).

> For this reason, it is *not* so necessary for specialists to work in
> isolation. The collaborative process, in fact, makes a *lot* of
> things happen that would not happen otherwise, since each of us has
> different strengths, weaknesses, interests, demands, etc., etc.

Finding people and getting to know them over the internet also makes
it a lot easier to meet them face-to-face! Last year, Paul managed to
get George Olshevsky, master of multi-dimensional polyhedra,
http://hometown.aol.com/Polycell/index.html
to come visit us here on the list for a few days. Well, searching
the internet enabled me to find out that he lived here in San Diego,
so I emailed him, told him I was a friend of Paul's, and we got
together that day for coffee! (You should see him take a pen
from his pocket and draw 5-dimensional objects at the coffee table!)

And my trip to Europe last year only happened as a result of a
tuning-list post, and I also got to meet Graham, Manuel, and
Robert Walker, because I knew them thru this list.

> > I'm really much more itchy to get up a really comprehensive page
> > about Canasta, as that's the MIRACLE tuning I want to explore
> > myself.
> >
>
> ****Well, goforit, Monz! For *me* it's not as optimal as
> Blackjack... too many notes. But, maybe, it will depend on the kind

Yes, well ... I had planned on having my very own Ztar by now,
but my financial situation is worse now than it was last year.

-monz

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