blackjack's central 5-limit decad

a nice intro for the fledgling blackjack composer, with some JI
background, who wishes to start with something "traditional" might be
to play with the scale approximating

1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 8/5 15/8.

start simply with 5-limit ideas and then later start to build chords
around the "7:4" interval created by "16/15" and "15/8" . . . then
later move these ideas beyond the decad into the rest of the
blackjack scale.

the 1/1 above would be G in the (new) standard key of blackjack.

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> a nice intro for the fledgling blackjack composer, with some JI
> background, who wishes to start with something "traditional" might
be
> to play with the scale approximating
>
> 1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 8/5 15/8.
>
> start simply with 5-limit ideas and then later start to build
chords
> around the "7:4" interval created by "16/15" and "15/8" . . . then
> later move these ideas beyond the decad into the rest of the
> blackjack scale.
>
> the 1/1 above would be G in the (new) standard key of blackjack.

***Hi Paul...

Well, that's pretty cool. I knew you'd get it down
to "fundamentals..."

What are the pitches in 72-tET notation?? I can probably figure it
out, but you can do it so much faster... :)

Joseph

hi Joe,

> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:06 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: blackjack's central 5-limit decad
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> wrote:
> > a nice intro for the fledgling blackjack composer,
> > with some JI background, who wishes to start with something
> > "traditional" might be to play with the scale approximating
> >
> > 1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 8/5 15/8.
> >
> > start simply with 5-limit ideas and then later start to
> > build chords around the "7:4" interval created by "16/15"
> > and "15/8" . . . then later move these ideas beyond the
> > decad into the rest of the blackjack scale.
> >
> > the 1/1 above would be G in the (new) standard key of blackjack.
>
> ***Hi Paul...
>
> Well, that's pretty cool. I knew you'd get it down
> to "fundamentals..."
>
> What are the pitches in 72-tET notation?? I can probably
> figure it out, but you can do it so much faster... :)

i was interested in paul's suggestion, so i jumped in and
did it for you. and this time, i used the "standard"
72edo notation!

(use "Expand Messages" mode on the Yahoo website
to view correctly)

note 72edo Semitones ~ratio 72edo
degrees degrees between

F#v 65 10.83 15/8
> 16
Eb^ 49 8.17 8/5
> 7
D 42 7.00 3/2
> 7
C#v 35 5.83 45/32
> 5
C 30 5.00 4/3
> 7
Bv 23 3.83 5/4
> 4
Bb^ 19 3.17 6/5
> 7
A 12 2.00 9/8
> 5
G#^ 7 1.17 16/15
> 7
G 0 0.00 1/1

2 points i want to make:

1) the 45/32 ratio can also be approximated almost as
well by 2^(36/72), so i'm not sure if 2^(35/72) is what
paul intended.

2) the "72edo degrees between" ~6/5 and ~5/4 is 4 degrees,
which doesn't seem to fit a blackjack scale with its normal
step-sizes of 2 and 5 degrees of 72edo. i'm lagging behind
on the "standard" version of blackjack, so any help is
appreciated. ...?

-monz
"all roads lead to n^0"

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

/tuning/topicId_40549.html#40567

>
> hi Joe,
>
>
>>
> i was interested in paul's suggestion, so i jumped in and
> did it for you. and this time, i used the "standard"
> 72edo notation!
>

***Thanks so much, Monz, since I'm going to try this out...

Joe

Paul wrote:
... with some JI background, who wishes to start with something "traditional" might be
to play with the scale approximating 1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 8/5 15/8.
I don't want really disturb that musical thread but only express my astonishment. In decatonic,
6/5 and 5/4 are sharing the same degree 3.

Suppose D(5/4) and D(3/2) would be 4 and 7, then D(3) and D(5) would be 17 and 24 and the classes of that
tone list would be, in order, 0 9 4 3 4 3 8 7 6 1 10.

With a minimal change, an epimorphic scale would be
1/1 16/15 9/8 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 8/5 16/9 15/8
The decatonic structures ib1183 and ib1215 show clearly that, relatively to the heptatonic
traditional structure, a degree is added between the fourths and the fifths, and the seconds
are splitted in two distinct degrees (and so with the octave renversement).

I don't know if that information may be useful in the context of blackjack composing.

Pierre

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> wrote:
> > a nice intro for the fledgling blackjack composer, with some JI
> > background, who wishes to start with something "traditional"
might
> be
> > to play with the scale approximating
> >
> > 1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 8/5 15/8.
> >
> > start simply with 5-limit ideas and then later start to build
> chords
> > around the "7:4" interval created by "16/15" and "15/8" . . .
then
> > later move these ideas beyond the decad into the rest of the
> > blackjack scale.
> >
> > the 1/1 above would be G in the (new) standard key of blackjack.
>
> ***Hi Paul...
>
> Well, that's pretty cool. I knew you'd get it down
> to "fundamentals..."
>
> What are the pitches in 72-tET notation?? I can probably figure it
> out, but you can do it so much faster... :)
>
> Joseph

G Ab^ A Bb^ Bv C C#v D Eb^ F#v

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

> 2 points i want to make:
>
> 1) the 45/32 ratio can also be approximated almost as
> well by 2^(36/72), so i'm not sure if 2^(35/72) is what
> paul intended.

c'mon monz, look at the bingo card. that tells you what i *always*
mean by ratios in a tempered context. i don't believe the other way
is valid.

> 2) the "72edo degrees between" ~6/5 and ~5/4 is 4 degrees,
> which doesn't seem to fit a blackjack scale with its normal
> step-sizes of 2 and 5 degrees of 72edo.

it sure does fit. it's the "third" formed by the two adjacent 2/72-
oct. degrees. on your webpage, this 4/72-oct. interval is C<-C> . . .
in the standard key it's Bb^-Bv.

--- In tuning@y..., "Pierre Lamothe" <plamothe@a...> wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> ... with some JI background, who wishes to start with
something "traditional" might be
> to play with the scale approximating 1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3
45/32 3/2 8/5 15/8.
> I don't want really disturb that musical thread but only express my
astonishment. In decatonic,
> 6/5 and 5/4 are sharing the same degree 3.

that's true in most (or all?) constant-structure decatonic scales.
this was not meant to be one -- that's why i said decad (in the
tradition of ellis) and not decatonic.

> With a minimal change, an epimorphic scale would be
> 1/1 16/15 9/8 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 8/5 16/9 15/8

that's not found in blackjack, though, is it?

I'm seeing all these postings about Blackjack lately and am beginning
to wonder why they're showing up on the main list instead of here:

/miracle_tuning/

That other list could use the traffic, and those of us (like me!) who
aren't particularly interested in the Miracle temperament would
appreciate it.

(I'm not really bothered by this, but I just couldn't pass up a
chance to get in a little bit of irony.)

--George

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_40549.html#40595

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > 2 points i want to make:
> >
> > 1) the 45/32 ratio can also be approximated almost as
> > well by 2^(36/72), so i'm not sure if 2^(35/72) is what
> > paul intended.
>
> c'mon monz, look at the bingo card. that tells you what i *always*
> mean by ratios in a tempered context. i don't believe the other way
> is valid.
>
> > 2) the "72edo degrees between" ~6/5 and ~5/4 is 4 degrees,
> > which doesn't seem to fit a blackjack scale with its normal
> > step-sizes of 2 and 5 degrees of 72edo.
>
> it sure does fit. it's the "third" formed by the two adjacent 2/72-
> oct. degrees. on your webpage, this 4/72-oct. interval is C<-
C> . . .
> in the standard key it's Bb^-Bv.

***This two succession of steps is, I believe the so-called "center"
of Blackjack: useful for discovering if it really is tuned up
properly on ones synth... :)

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_40549.html#40614

> I'm seeing all these postings about Blackjack lately and am
beginning
> to wonder why they're showing up on the main list instead of here:
>
> /miracle_tuning/
>
> That other list could use the traffic, and those of us (like me!)
who
> aren't particularly interested in the Miracle temperament would
> appreciate it.
>
> (I'm not really bothered by this, but I just couldn't pass up a
> chance to get in a little bit of irony.)
>
> --George

***Hello George,

One *reasonable* reason is the fact that nobody goes over there. So
nobody would listen to the pieces.

That forum is a bit like "one hand clapping..."

We don't want *that* kind of audience applause! :)

Joseph

Paul wrote:
that's not found in blackjack, though, is it?
Your list wasn't too. I replace your -2 under 21 by 2 over 58.

Blackjack is:
(2)-9-16-23-30-37-44-51-58-65-72
0-7-14-21-28-35-42-49-56-63-(70)
Your decad was:
(2)-9-16-23-30-37-44-51-58-65-72
0-7-12-19-28-35-42-49-56-63-70)
My suggest was:
(2)-9-16-23-30-37-44-51-60-65-72
0-7-12-21-28-35-42-49-56-63-70)

Pierre

--- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> I'm seeing all these postings about Blackjack lately and am
beginning
> to wonder why they're showing up on the main list instead of here:
>
> /miracle_tuning/
>
> That other list could use the traffic, and those of us (like me!)
who
> aren't particularly interested in the Miracle temperament would
> appreciate it.
>
> (I'm not really bothered by this, but I just couldn't pass up a
> chance to get in a little bit of irony.)
>
> --George

yeah, it's ironic, since you invented it!

--- In tuning@y..., "Pierre Lamothe" <plamothe@a...> wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> that's not found in blackjack, though, is it?
> Your list wasn't too.

my decad is most certainly found in blackjack, as i demonstrated by
notating it!

> I replace your -2 under 21 by 2 over 58.
>
> Blackjack is:
> (2)-9-16-23-30-37-44-51-58-65-72
> 0-7-14-21-28-35-42-49-56-63-(70)

correct (though i don't know what the parentheses are supposed to
mean). my decad is indeed a subset of this:

51-58-63-70-2-9-14-21-28-44

> Your decad was:
> (2)-9-16-23-30-37-44-51-58-65-72
> 0-7-12-19-28-35-42-49-56-63-70)

this isn't a decad, it's a 21-note scale!

if you want to follow up to the miracle tuning list, i'll be happy to
continue this there.

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_40549.html#40614
>
>
> > I'm seeing all these postings about Blackjack lately and am
> beginning
> > to wonder why they're showing up on the main list instead of here:
> >
> > /miracle_tuning/
> >
> > That other list could use the traffic, and those of us (like me!)
> who
> > aren't particularly interested in the Miracle temperament would
> > appreciate it.
> >
> > (I'm not really bothered by this, but I just couldn't pass up a
> > chance to get in a little bit of irony.)
> >
> > --George
>
>
> ***Hello George,
>
> One *reasonable* reason is the fact that nobody goes over there.
So
> nobody would listen to the pieces.
>
> That forum is a bit like "one hand clapping..."
>
> We don't want *that* kind of audience applause! :)
>
> Joseph

I wasn't referring to the pieces -- but rather to the sort of
discussion that was in the couple of messages immediately following
mine (which you wouldn't even know were about this from the subject
line).

--George

> I wasn't referring to the pieces -- but rather to the sort of
> discussion that was in the couple of messages immediately following
> mine (which you wouldn't even know were about this from the subject
> line).
>
> --George

Can we please keep it to MMM, Tuning-Math, Harmonic Entropy,
Metatuning, and here?!? The volumes aren't that high, and I
hate having to check multiple groups all the time!

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_40549.html#40641

> > I wasn't referring to the pieces -- but rather to the sort of
> > discussion that was in the couple of messages immediately
following
> > mine (which you wouldn't even know were about this from the
subject
> > line).
> >
> > --George
>
> Can we please keep it to MMM, Tuning-Math, Harmonic Entropy,
> Metatuning, and here?!? The volumes aren't that high, and I
> hate having to check multiple groups all the time!
>
> -Carl

***You know, I, too feel I'm "missing out" on things. I didn't even
know that the Harmonic Entropy group was back in action again...

I'm wondering that, even if people use the other lists, they could
maybe make a post, maybe even a couple of lines, of a summary of
what's going on HERE on the main list. Even for Tuning Math, if
there's some major discovery I might like to poke around about...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_40549.html#40594

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > a nice intro for the fledgling blackjack composer, with some JI
> > > background, who wishes to start with something "traditional"
> might
> > be
> > > to play with the scale approximating
> > >
> > > 1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 8/5 15/8.
> > >
> > > start simply with 5-limit ideas and then later start to build
> > chords
> > > around the "7:4" interval created by "16/15" and "15/8" . . .
> then
> > > later move these ideas beyond the decad into the rest of the
> > > blackjack scale.
> > >
> > > the 1/1 above would be G in the (new) standard key of blackjack.
> >
> > ***Hi Paul...
> >
> > Well, that's pretty cool. I knew you'd get it down
> > to "fundamentals..."
> >
> > What are the pitches in 72-tET notation?? I can probably figure
it
> > out, but you can do it so much faster... :)
> >
> > Joseph
>
> G Ab^ A Bb^ Bv C C#v D Eb^ F#v

***This is really something!!! I tried this "mode" or "scale" and
it's quite exceptional! It has aspects of our traditional
diatonic "major" and also "minor" in it. It's *very* interesting.

I'm most certainly going to work with this in my next Blackjack
piece!!!!

Joseph P.

> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:57 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: blackjack's central 5-limit decad
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
>
> /tuning/topicId_40549.html#40595
>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > 2 points i want to make:
> > >
> > > 1) the 45/32 ratio can also be approximated almost as
> > > well by 2^(36/72), so i'm not sure if 2^(35/72) is what
> > > paul intended.
> >
> > c'mon monz, look at the bingo card. that tells you what i *always*
> > mean by ratios in a tempered context. i don't believe the other way
> > is valid.
> >
> > > 2) the "72edo degrees between" ~6/5 and ~5/4 is 4 degrees,
> > > which doesn't seem to fit a blackjack scale with its normal
> > > step-sizes of 2 and 5 degrees of 72edo.
> >
> > it sure does fit. it's the "third" formed by the two adjacent 2/72-
> > oct. degrees. on your webpage, this 4/72-oct. interval is C<-
> C> . . .
> > in the standard key it's Bb^-Bv.
>
>
> ***This two succession of steps is, I believe the so-called "center"
> of Blackjack: useful for discovering if it really is tuned up
> properly on ones synth... :)

ah ... thanks, Joe! that's exactly what i suspected (guess i
should have mentioned it in the post paul quoted above).

the only place a blackjack chain can have an interval composed
of 2 quommas (i.e., 2^(4/72), one quomma less than a secor)
is between pitches at either end of the chain.

in my "MIRACLE" definition

http://sonic-arts.org/dict/miracle.htm

there's a table showing the chain of secors and how they define
blackjack, canasta, and "miracle-41" (which we now call "studloco"
... i need to update the webpage...).

the bounding notes of the blackjack chain are 11&1/3 and 0&1/3
Semitones, which is an interval of 2 quommas.

mainly, i'm having trouble with this thread because i missed
out on the process of standarizing blackjack last year.

-monz

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

/tuning/topicId_40549.html#40660

> ah ... thanks, Joe! that's exactly what i suspected (guess i
> should have mentioned it in the post paul quoted above).
>
> the only place a blackjack chain can have an interval composed
> of 2 quommas (i.e., 2^(4/72), one quomma less than a secor)
> is between pitches at either end of the chain.
>
> in my "MIRACLE" definition
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/dict/miracle.htm
>
> there's a table showing the chain of secors and how they define
> blackjack, canasta, and "miracle-41" (which we now call "studloco"
> ... i need to update the webpage...).
>
> the bounding notes of the blackjack chain are 11&1/3 and 0&1/3
> Semitones, which is an interval of 2 quommas.
>
>
> mainly, i'm having trouble with this thread because i missed
> out on the process of standarizing blackjack last year.
>

***Hi Monz!

I know you're *very* busy, but the good news is that the *entire*
history of this process, as it happened, is right here on this very
archive, if you ever have time to read the posts!

Blackjack was "invented" as I recall, around May of 2001 and I
believe the standardization took place over the Summer, maybe in June
or July.

All I know is that I had to take all the stickers off my synth and
replace them with other names... :(

But, I was convinced in the value of the "improvements..."

Joe

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > I wasn't referring to the pieces -- but rather to the sort of
> > discussion that was in the couple of messages immediately
following
> > mine (which you wouldn't even know were about this from the
subject
> > line).
> >
> > --George
>
> Can we please keep it to MMM, Tuning-Math, Harmonic Entropy,
> Metatuning, and here?!? The volumes aren't that high, and I
> hate having to check multiple groups all the time!
>
> -Carl

Sure! I don't have any problem with seeing these messages here (even
if there is another list for them). But we should think thrice
before making new lists that might be used infrequently after a
temporary period of high traffic in a specialized subject. (Those
not interested would just have to bear with it -- these things
eventually settle down.)

--George

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> > I'm seeing all these postings about Blackjack lately and am
> beginning
> > to wonder why they're showing up on the main list instead of here:
> >
> > /miracle_tuning/
> >
> > That other list could use the traffic, and those of us (like me!)
> who
> > aren't particularly interested in the Miracle temperament would
> > appreciate it.
> >
> > (I'm not really bothered by this, but I just couldn't pass up a
> > chance to get in a little bit of irony.)
> >
> > --George
>
> yeah, it's ironic, since you invented it!

Or (rather) "discovered it." Get the full details in the upcoming
issue of Xenharmonikon (#18), available soon at leading microtonal
newsstands everywhere! Oops, there aren't any anywhere, so do
subscribe, if you can figure out how to do it -- this website offers
only back issues:

http://www.frogpeak.org/fpcatalog/fpperiodicals.html

--George

--- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> > > I'm seeing all these postings about Blackjack lately and am
> > beginning
> > > to wonder why they're showing up on the main list instead of
here:
> > >
> > > /miracle_tuning/
> > >
> > > That other list could use the traffic, and those of us (like
me!)
> > who
> > > aren't particularly interested in the Miracle temperament would
> > > appreciate it.
> > >
> > > (I'm not really bothered by this, but I just couldn't pass up a
> > > chance to get in a little bit of irony.)
> > >
> > > --George
> >
> > yeah, it's ironic, since you invented it!
>
> Or (rather) "discovered it." Get the full details in the upcoming
> issue of Xenharmonikon (#18), available soon at leading microtonal
> newsstands everywhere! Oops, there aren't any anywhere, so do
> subscribe, if you can figure out how to do it -- this website
offers
> only back issues:
>
> http://www.frogpeak.org/fpcatalog/fpperiodicals.html
>
> --George

i was planning to have quite a bit about blackjack and miracle in my
XH 18 paper, so for the sake of presenting the reader with as
coherent a picture as possible, would you be willing to share your
paper with me? i could even reference it in footnotes -- imagine the
convenience to the reader!

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

> Or (rather) "discovered it." Get the full details in the upcoming
> issue of Xenharmonikon (#18), available soon at leading microtonal
> newsstands everywhere! Oops, there aren't any anywhere, so do
> subscribe, if you can figure out how to do it -- this website
offers
> only back issues:
>
> http://www.frogpeak.org/fpcatalog/fpperiodicals.html
>
> --George

p.s. i was very disconcerted that all the music libraries that i
spent lots of time in, nyu, yale, and harvard (all of which are huge
collections), subscribed to 1/1 but not to xenharmonikon. this is an
injustice of the highest order to my mind! (i think jon wild on this
list promised me he'd pull some strings at harvard)

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_40549.html#40691

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> > > > I'm seeing all these postings about Blackjack lately and am
> > > beginning
> > > > to wonder why they're showing up on the main list instead of
> here:
> > > >
> > > > /miracle_tuning/
> > > >
> > > > That other list could use the traffic, and those of us (like
> me!)
> > > who
> > > > aren't particularly interested in the Miracle temperament
would
> > > > appreciate it.
> > > >
> > > > (I'm not really bothered by this, but I just couldn't pass up
a
> > > > chance to get in a little bit of irony.)
> > > >
> > > > --George
> > >
> > > yeah, it's ironic, since you invented it!
> >
> > Or (rather) "discovered it." Get the full details in the
upcoming
> > issue of Xenharmonikon (#18), available soon at leading
microtonal
> > newsstands everywhere! Oops, there aren't any anywhere, so do
> > subscribe, if you can figure out how to do it -- this website
> offers
> > only back issues:
> >
> > http://www.frogpeak.org/fpcatalog/fpperiodicals.html
> >
> > --George
>
> i was planning to have quite a bit about blackjack and miracle in
my
> XH 18 paper, so for the sake of presenting the reader with as
> coherent a picture as possible, would you be willing to share your
> paper with me? i could even reference it in footnotes -- imagine
the
> convenience to the reader!

***I look forward to this eagerly! I guess the person to contact is
John Chalmers for copies...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_40549.html#40693

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
> > Or (rather) "discovered it." Get the full details in the
upcoming
> > issue of Xenharmonikon (#18), available soon at leading
microtonal
> > newsstands everywhere! Oops, there aren't any anywhere, so do
> > subscribe, if you can figure out how to do it -- this website
> offers
> > only back issues:
> >
> > http://www.frogpeak.org/fpcatalog/fpperiodicals.html
> >
> > --George
>
> p.s. i was very disconcerted that all the music libraries that i
> spent lots of time in, nyu, yale, and harvard (all of which are
huge
> collections), subscribed to 1/1 but not to xenharmonikon. this is
an
> injustice of the highest order to my mind! (i think jon wild on
this
> list promised me he'd pull some strings at harvard)

***It's sad to say, in a way, that 1/1 really has had a *much* more
visible profile than Xenharmonikon and, yet, Xenharmonikon covers so
much territory (I've almost read all of them now... Now, whether I
completely understood everything... don't ask).

I had heard about 1/1 since the early 1980's (and, indeed, kept it on
my coffee table unread for "effect" :), but Xenharmonikon only
after being on this list...

JP

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

> p.s. i was very disconcerted that all the music libraries that i
> spent lots of time in, nyu, yale, and harvard (all of which are huge
> collections), subscribed to 1/1 but not to xenharmonikon. this is an
> injustice of the highest order to my mind! (i think jon wild on this
> list promised me he'd pull some strings at harvard)

Those are obviously second-rate schools. As a first-rate school, San Jose State at least has volumes 1-4.

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> > > > I'm seeing all these postings about Blackjack lately and am
beginning
> > > > to wonder why they're showing up on the main list instead of
here:
> > > >
> > > > /miracle_tuning/
> > > >
> > > > That other list could use the traffic, and those of us (like
me!) who
> > > > aren't particularly interested in the Miracle temperament
would
> > > > appreciate it.
> > > >
> > > > (I'm not really bothered by this, but I just couldn't pass up
a
> > > > chance to get in a little bit of irony.)
> > > >
> > > > --George
> > >
> > > yeah, it's ironic, since you invented it!
> >
> > Or (rather) "discovered it." Get the full details in the
upcoming
> > issue of Xenharmonikon (#18), available soon at leading
microtonal
> > newsstands everywhere! Oops, there aren't any anywhere, so do
> > subscribe, if you can figure out how to do it -- this website
offers
> > only back issues:
> >
> > http://www.frogpeak.org/fpcatalog/fpperiodicals.html
> >
> > --George
>
> i was planning to have quite a bit about blackjack and miracle in
my
> XH 18 paper, so for the sake of presenting the reader with as
> coherent a picture as possible, would you be willing to share your
> paper with me? i could even reference it in footnotes -- imagine
the
> convenience to the reader!

You mean you're still working on it? John Chalmers gave me the
impression that the deadline was pretty close, so I've been working
intensively on my article the past couple of weeks and have finally
finished it. Only about 1/3 of it is about Miracle and my decimal
keyboard layout, while the remainder is about the sagittal notation
(which was an outgrowth of my work on the decimal keyboard last
year). I had the decimal keys labeled with the notation, which
required that I explain something about it, but I just couldn't find
a good place to stop short of a detailed presentation (which is just
as well, considering how infrequently XH comes out).

I've already said too much. I'll contact you off list.

--George

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

> i was planning to have quite a bit about blackjack and miracle in my
> XH 18 paper, so for the sake of presenting the reader with as
> coherent a picture as possible, would you be willing to share your
> paper with me? i could even reference it in footnotes -- imagine the
> convenience to the reader!

Isn't it about time to get with the 21st century and either make this an on-line journal, or start one?

--- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
>
> > i was planning to have quite a bit about blackjack and miracle in
my
> > XH 18 paper, so for the sake of presenting the reader with as
> > coherent a picture as possible, would you be willing to share
your
> > paper with me? i could even reference it in footnotes -- imagine
the
> > convenience to the reader!
>
> Isn't it about time to get with the 21st century and either make
>this an on-line journal, or start one?

john chalmers has mentioned this imminent move in the past. for now,
why don't you worry about putting together a readable article on
multilinear/grassman algebra, wedge products, and tuning? for the non-
mathematician who doesn't mind a little arithmetic . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_40549.html#40705

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > i was planning to have quite a bit about blackjack and miracle
in
> my
> > > XH 18 paper, so for the sake of presenting the reader with as
> > > coherent a picture as possible, would you be willing to share
> your
> > > paper with me? i could even reference it in footnotes --
imagine
> the
> > > convenience to the reader!
> >
> > Isn't it about time to get with the 21st century and either make
> >this an on-line journal, or start one?
>
> john chalmers has mentioned this imminent move in the past. for
now,
> why don't you worry about putting together a readable article on
> multilinear/grassman algebra, wedge products, and tuning? for the
non-
> mathematician who doesn't mind a little arithmetic . . .

***Essentially, the online move of Xenharmonikon is already
happening, since several of the articles in the later issues are
*already* online. I'm thinking of the famous Erlich paper "T&T"(TT)
and also several works of Erv Wilson...

It doesn't hurt to have a duplicate paper copy, though, if John is
still willing to do it (however anacronistic...) It's rather a chore
to print everything out and, I don't know about other people, but I
like to write all kinds of meaningless scrawl on *my* copies...

JP

>>Isn't it about time to get with the 21st century and either make
>>this an on-line journal, or start one?
>
>john chalmers has mentioned this imminent move in the past.

Noooooo!

dpi of best display on consumer market = 100
dpi of cheap b&w copies of xenharmonikon = 600
Carl's eyses still working in 2010 = priceless

The physical charm of XH has always been beyond reproach.

I'm sure someone will ask me to print my own. Bah! Humbug!

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >>Isn't it about time to get with the 21st century and either make
> >>this an on-line journal, or start one?
> >
> >john chalmers has mentioned this imminent move in the past.
>
> Noooooo!
>
> dpi of best display on consumer market = 100
> dpi of cheap b&w copies of xenharmonikon = 600
> Carl's eyses still working in 2010 = priceless
>
> The physical charm of XH has always been beyond reproach.
>
> I'm sure someone will ask me to print my own. Bah! Humbug!
>
> -Carl

i'm agreed with you in that i stubbornly refused to supply john
chalmers with a .gif of the snowflake for the cover, since when i
print the snowflake directly from matlab the resolution is far
better . . . so i'm sending him the printouts the old-fashioned way!