Re: Digest number 23

Hi Graham,

>Hang on, I'm referring to your previous post on 18th Jan (digest 22) which
appears to be about "5w + 2h" scales. Try and get me to understand that
first. Am I right in thinking that these scales are built up of 5 large and
2 small steps? That would be my definition of a "5+2" scale.

Yes.

>In that older post of your, you give a list of numbers under the heading
"w - h =2". Those numbers are the series 3+7n where n is an integer >=0. The
equally tempered 3t+4s scales I'm considering at the moment happen to be
those where t-s is one step. Those scales have 3+7n steps to the octave. So,
they're the same scales you previously defined as "w - h =2" in a different
context.

I would say the same n-tET's, as opposed to "the same scales..."

"�Is this like what I'd call septimally double-positive? That is, you start
with a 5+2 scale, and these scales are the ones where the larger interval is
2 steps bigger than the smaller one�"

>No. (Unless it also happens to be.)

What's that supposed to mean? I'm talking there about the scales originally
defined as "w - h =2".

Then yes� certainly in the (5+2) context of the original post.

>What do "exterior", "interior" and "perimeter" mean? I think I remember
seeing them somewhere, but do you have a reference?

No�* While all the confusion is no doubt the direct result of my inability
to communicate without perpetrating endless ungainly scenarios� I personally
can�t illustrate any of this any better than I did in the Jan 11th
post**�sorry.

I�ve been here on the tuning digest for about a month (since Christmas), so
I suppose that there is at least a possibility that I may get into a better
�language groove� with those of you who seem to have little problem
understanding each other� But presently all I can do is contribute in the
�language� I understand (or at least think I do), and see what comes of it.

Dan

*And as most all of what I post is based on personal trial and error (rather
than a scholarly or cultivated understanding and maneuvering of the
historical ins and outs) it certainly should be highly suspect - and I
appreciate being alerted to any slack in the facts, so to speak�

**THREE SETS OF "O"

Dan Stearns wrote:

>
> Dan
>
> *And as most all of what I post is based on personal trial and error (rather
> than a scholarly or cultivated understanding and maneuvering of the
> historical ins and outs) it certainly should be highly suspect - and I
> appreciate being alerted to any slack in the facts, so to speak�

Personal trial and error is the only way to go. The universities are filled
with the still born ideas of scholarly research. They can never present any
idea that stands in the face of "accepted" practice without jeopardizing their
"position" . Meanwhile even the techno kids seem to be more innovated
-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
www.anaphoria.com