relevancy to the Tuning List

> [David Beardsley, TD 244.8]
> Something else I don't understand is why some folks post
> scales to this list that don't have ratios OR cents - are
> they even relevant to this list???

Of course, not every scale can be expressed in rational terms.
Irrational scales must employ more complex, or at least different,
mathematical expressions to describe the intervals.

Remember, despite the bias of both you and I towards JI, that
this is the Tuning (in all of its forms) List and not the JI List.

But I agree with David that cents should always accompany
lists of scales; it does help explain their relevancy to tuning.

> or Monzo's post about Webern: non-tuning? Whats it got to do
> with the list? Consult the Monzo shrine?

C'mon, it was one tiny post and I gave both off-topic and
plug alert warnings at the beginning for those who wanted
to skip it.

Its relevancy to the Tuning List is simply that lots of subscribers
here like to follow my work, even the stuff that does not relate
specifically to tuning, so it was a good place to announce an
update. And anyone who does follow the development of my Webern
page will see that it'll eventually have a tuning analysis.

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo Philadelphia monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.