larry hanson -- when?

when did larry hanson first advocate/use 34-equal?

the "?" in joe monzo's list is rather unsatisfying . . .

Paul!
Erv would now for sure- i will ask him? but i know the xenharmonikon article where he mentions
it is pretty close to the time. The scale works much better than the math implies! Neil Haverstick
has used it to good use!

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

> when did larry hanson first advocate/use 34-equal?
>
> the "?" in joe monzo's list is rather unsatisfying . . .
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> Paul!
> Erv would now for sure- i will ask him? but i know the
>xenharmonikon article where he mentions
> it is pretty close to the time.

and the date of that is?

> The scale works much better than >the math implies!

the "math" implies that it's a *very* remarkable 5-limit scale, as
you can see from this construction through smaller and smaller (and
more distant) commas:

http://www.kees.cc/tuning/s235.html

perhaps gene can support this with some log-flat badness numbers.

> Neil Haverstick
> has used it to good use!

the track "34-steps" is by far my favorite track on "Acoustic
Stick" . . .

thanks kraig!

Hello Paul!
He said see appendix 1 in xen. 12
which is page 11 of http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

>
>
> and the date of that is?
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

> the "math" implies that it's a *very* remarkable 5-limit scale, as
> you can see from this construction through smaller and smaller (and
> more distant) commas:
>
> http://www.kees.cc/tuning/s235.html
>
> perhaps gene can support this with some log-flat badness numbers.

If you look at systems with a log-flat badness less than 2/3 (12, 19, 34, 53, 118, 171, 441, 612, 730) you can see 34 is in some pretty select company. The nearby systems of 22, 31, 41, and 46 do not make the cut.

Hello Gene!
What does log flat badness mean and how are you measuring it.

genewardsmith wrote:

>
> >
> > perhaps gene can support this with some log-flat badness numbers.
>
> If you look at systems with a log-flat badness less than 2/3 (12, 19, 34, 53, 118, 171, 441, 612, 730) you can see 34 is in some pretty select company. The nearby systems of 22, 31, 41, and 46 do not make the cut.
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

> If you look at systems with a log-flat badness less than 2/3 (12,
>19, 34, 53, 118, 171, 441, 612, 730) you can see 34 is in some
>pretty select company. The nearby systems of 22, 31, 41, and 46 do
>not make the cut.

in the 5-limit, that is . . .

p.s. i was just able to view robert walker's tuning list archives for
the first time, for some reason. it turns out that i've been on the
tuning list for 75 months. what a headache! ;)

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_38198.html#38201

> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> > Paul!
> > Erv would now for sure- i will ask him? but i know the
> >xenharmonikon article where he mentions
> > it is pretty close to the time.
>
> and the date of that is?
>

***As a proud owner of the complete set of Xenharmonicae, I can see
it was Number 17, Spring 1998...

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_38198.html#38204

> Hello Gene!
> What does log flat badness mean and how are you measuring it.
>

***I was going to ask that, too. I like the sound of "log flat
badness..." Sounds like some sinister Colorado wildfire...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> > What does log flat badness mean and how are you measuring it.
> >
>
> ***I was going to ask that, too. I like the sound of "log flat
> badness..." Sounds like some sinister Colorado wildfire...

It's a way of measuring how relatively good ets are at approximating various n-limits, which makes the number passing a certain measure about the same from 10 to 100 as 100 to 1000 or 1000 to 10000, and so forth. In this case, we have 12,19,34,and 53 from 10 to 100, and 118,171,441,612 and 730 from 100 to 1000. If you don't like badness, you can always take the reciprocal, and then you have goodness.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_38198.html#38212

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> > > What does log flat badness mean and how are you measuring
it.
> > >
> >
> > ***I was going to ask that, too. I like the sound of "log flat
> > badness..." Sounds like some sinister Colorado wildfire...
>
> It's a way of measuring how relatively good ets are at
approximating various n-limits, which makes the number passing a
certain measure about the same from 10 to 100 as 100 to 1000 or 1000
to 10000, and so forth. In this case, we have 12,19,34,and 53 from 10
to 100, and 118,171,441,612 and 730 from 100 to 1000. If you don't
like badness, you can always take the reciprocal, and then you have
goodness.

****Hmmm. Hi Gene!

I guess what you're saying is that you make a certain logarithmic
*compensation* for the higher ETs to put them somewhat *in line* with
the lower ones in judging "badness??"

That must be, yes, since otherwise the scales with the greater number
of notes would certainly have a greater "precision" to whatever n-
limit, yes??

Thanks!

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_38198.html#38201
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > Paul!
> > > Erv would now for sure- i will ask him? but i know the
> > >xenharmonikon article where he mentions
> > > it is pretty close to the time.
> >
> > and the date of that is?
> >
>
> ***As a proud owner of the complete set of Xenharmonicae, I can see
> it was Number 17, Spring 1998...
>
> Joseph

kraig said #12 . . . we're looking for hansons' _earliest_ advocacy
of 34-equal . . .

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> Hello Paul!
> He said see appendix 1 in xen. 12
> which is page 11 of http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF

i finally got my computer to show this without crashing.

so it appears, as i've claimed before, that hanson was most
interested in examples of kleismic temperament: if you look at the
first graph at

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm

you'll see the diagonal line labeled "kleismic" passes through all
the equal temperaments hanson mentions: 19, 34, 53, 72, and 87; as
well as some he doesn't: 15, 23, 49, 83, and 91.

(the kleisma is the difference between six minor thirds and a perfect
twelfth, or 15625:15552; these form a straight line on the graph
because the kleisma vanishing implies a particular linear
relationship between the sizes of the consonant intervals.)

the majority of the points on the kleismic line correspond not to
equal temperaments, but to linear temperaments. the rms-optimal
generator for such a linear temperament is 317.0797 cents . . . its
MOSs (improper ones in parentheses) have 3, 4, (7), (11), 15, 19, 34,
53, (87), (140), 194, 246 . . . notes.

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_38198.html#38222

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_38198.html#38201
> >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul!
> > > > Erv would now for sure- i will ask him? but i know the
> > > >xenharmonikon article where he mentions
> > > > it is pretty close to the time.
> > >
> > > and the date of that is?
> > >
> >
> > ***As a proud owner of the complete set of Xenharmonicae, I can
see
> > it was Number 17, Spring 1998...
> >
> > Joseph
>
> kraig said #12 . . . we're looking for hansons' _earliest_ advocacy
> of 34-equal . . .

***Yes, but that earlier article of 1989 is almost *entirely* about a
53-tone keyboard layout. He only mentions 34-tET in the context of
*several* other scales in the *very* last paragraph: 19, 34, 53, 72
and 87.

So, I don't know if you'd really want to consider that 34-
tET "advocacy" or not...

The 1996 article (which was printed in Xenharmonicon 1998, #17.. in
which *you* also have an article) is *entirely* on 34-tET, so someone
might want to make the claim that is a stronger "advocacy..."

Dunno...

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> The 1996 article (which was printed in Xenharmonicon 1998, #17.. in
> which *you* also have an article) is *entirely* on 34-tET, so
someone
> might want to make the claim that is a stronger "advocacy..."

well, hanson had already had his 34-tone guitar, which he gave to
neil haverstick, for some time . . . so i'd be interested to know,
for example, when hanson had that guitar made, originally . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_38198.html#38230

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > The 1996 article (which was printed in Xenharmonicon 1998, #17..
in
> > which *you* also have an article) is *entirely* on 34-tET, so
> someone
> > might want to make the claim that is a stronger "advocacy..."
>
> well, hanson had already had his 34-tone guitar, which he gave to
> neil haverstick, for some time . . . so i'd be interested to know,
> for example, when hanson had that guitar made, originally . . .

***Well, I guess the only way is to contact the "dude..." Wonder if
anybody has his current info...

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> So, I don't know if you'd really want to consider that 34-
> tET "advocacy" or not...

This rasies the question of who was the first to consider 34-et; I know Barbour did. Does anyone predate that?

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > So, I don't know if you'd really want to consider that 34-
> > tET "advocacy" or not...
>
> This rasies the question of who was the first to consider 34-et; I
know Barbour did. Does anyone predate that?

In discussing 34-ET, Barbour says that "there is a surprising mention
of the 34-division by Cyriac Schneegass in 1591, but his own
monochord came closer to the 2/9 comma division." After reading the
rest of what Barbour had to say about Schneegass, I think that this
sounds fishy. Barbour also mentions that Bosanquet noted a
relationship between 22-ET and 34-ET.

In considering advocacy, did any of you mention Ivor Darreg? Under
Monz's "Equal Temperament" tuning dictionary entry, just preceding
the table of advocates, appears the following note:

<< The following composers have written in so many different equal-
temperaments that they will (eventually) each have their own page:
Ivor Darreg, Easley Blackwood, Brian McLaren, Marc Jones, Dan Stearns
>>

I thought that this might explain why Ivor Darreg is not mentioned in
the table entry for 34-ET; however, I see that his name appears under
other divisions, so this is an omission that ought to be corrected.

Ivor Darreg not only advocated 34-ET (Xenharmonic Bulletin #9,
October 1978, pp. 34-36, 40-41), but also gave a notation for it,
along with guitar fretting tables and frequency tables. (The tables
were supplied by Erv Wilson and John Chalmers.)

And it gets even more interesting than that. Darreg revealed that he
learned about 34-ET from the passing mention that Joel Mandelbaum
made to it in his doctoral thesis on 19-ET (of 1961).

*46-ET*

Something I would like to know is who first advocated 46-ET? Barbour
skipped right over it in his chapter on multiple division, so it
probably didn't occur until after 1950.

I first took notice of 46 in the mid 1970's when I was looking for
the lowest number ET that permits decent 17-limit harmony. When I
discussed this briefly with Erv Wilson, I learned that he was already
familiar with its possibilities.

In recently reviewing Erv's correspondence with me, I found that his
earliest mention of 46-ET (other than its inclusion in a diagram of
many ET's) is in a proposal for a notation that could be used for
about a dozen different ET's in a letter dated "Jan 10, 1974" (it was
actually 1975 -- he typed the old year by mistake), in which he made
special mention of 46.

Perhaps Kraig Grady could ask Erv about when he first discovered 46-
ET and when he first wrote about it. (And, as Gene suggested, it
would be nice to see him make an appearance on this list -- if you
would be kind enough to forward the invitation!)

--George

In-Reply-To: <afv2vn+ch51@eGroups.com>
gdsecor wrote:

> sounds fishy. Barbour also mentions that Bosanquet noted a
> relationship between 22-ET and 34-ET.

Bosanquet classed all equal temperaments according to the pattern m+12n
where m defines the class and n the specific temperament. So 22 and 34
both have n=10 and Bosanquet would have noted this. Did he go any further
in advocacy?

> Something I would like to know is who first advocated 46-ET? Barbour
> skipped right over it in his chapter on multiple division, so it
> probably didn't occur until after 1950.

And, as we've embarked on this road, what about 58? It's the smallest
17-limit consistent equal temperament, and also the simplest constant
structure that uniquely maps each of the 43 notes of Partch's scale. But
Monz shows nothing between 1770 and 2002.

> Perhaps Kraig Grady could ask Erv about when he first discovered 46-
> ET and when he first wrote about it. (And, as Gene suggested, it
> would be nice to see him make an appearance on this list -- if you
> would be kind enough to forward the invitation!)

It would, but he will need a computer first.

Graham

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

> I first took notice of 46 in the mid 1970's when I was looking for
> the lowest number ET that permits decent 17-limit harmony. When I
> discussed this briefly with Erv Wilson, I learned that he was already
> familiar with its possibilities.

I first noticed it in 1968 along with a number of other scale divisions I hadn't then heard of, but at that time I was more interested in 22 and 31. I did finally write something in it this year.