Re:Sturm und Drang

All-
Sometimes a list is like a marriage... Looks like we're patching
things up. Although I don't think there is a need for a separate math
oriented tuning list, I admit that for the last few months I have been
scanning the list and not reading the mathematically oriented posts
carefully. The mathematical requisites for doing music theory at most
levels are not that great. I would guess that a good high school
background would be sufficient if there were a FAQ for this list that
carefully explained the basics of the different approaches being
discussed. For instance, lattices were coming hot and heavy for awhile,
and although I am capable mathematically, I did not follow the discussion
because I had not taken the time to learn the basics. I know Joe Monzo has
an extensive dictionary, and I post many articles on mathematical theory,
but a newcomer here might not know where to find this material, and I
wouldn't necessarily recommend that a newcomer try to learn from what I
post, since I read very few of these. Is there a FAQ?

John Starrett
http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret

Yeah,
I second John on this. It would be nice to have a tutorial or FAQ on ratios.
I'm not a degree
musician but like learn new things. Most of the theoretical stuff is beyond
me since I don't have a basic understandarding of the physics on which it's
based.

All!
I sympathize with John Starrett here is sugesting that mathematical ideas
should be placed in a language for musicians. Sometimes it gets so thick in
math terminology that I can't help to feel that it purpose is to set up an
elite as opposed to explaining something!

John Starrett wrote:

> From: John Starrett <jstarret@math.cudenver.edu>
>
> All-
> Sometimes a list is like a marriage... Looks like we're patching
> things up. Although I don't think there is a need for a separate math
> oriented tuning list, I admit that for the last few months I have been
> scanning the list and not reading the mathematically oriented posts
> carefully. The mathematical requisites for doing music theory at most
> levels are not that great. I would guess that a good high school
> background would be sufficient if there were a FAQ for this list that
> carefully explained the basics of the different approaches being
> discussed. For instance, lattices were coming hot and heavy for awhile,
> and although I am capable mathematically, I did not follow the discussion
> because I had not taken the time to learn the basics. I know Joe Monzo has
> an extensive dictionary, and I post many articles on mathematical theory,
> but a newcomer here might not know where to find this material, and I
> wouldn't necessarily recommend that a newcomer try to learn from what I
> post, since I read very few of these. Is there a FAQ?
>
> John Starrett
> http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> How do you enter ONElist�s WEEKLY DRAWING for $100?
> By joining the FRIENDS & FAMILY program. For details, go to
> http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.

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

[John Starrett, TD 269.8]

> Sometimes a list is like a marriage... Looks like we're
> patching things up.

Unfortunately, however, not without casualties...

> Although I don't think there is a need for a separate math
> oriented tuning list, I admit that for the last few months
> I have been scanning the list and not reading the mathematically
> oriented posts carefully.

Same here.

> I would guess that a good high school background would be
> sufficient if there were a FAQ for this list that carefully
> explained the basics of the different approaches being
> discussed.

I don't think there is one, but it's a great idea.
How about Pauls Erlich & Hahn, or some other mathematically
superior Lister, writing a Tuning Math FAQ? I'll put it on
my site, or perhaps it could go right on the Onlist Tuning
Digest Archive page.

-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.

Joe!
My point which I will not let up on, is to speak the language of your
peers and or your audience. If Wilson can manage to convey his ideas with
such simple language I can't understand why the rest of you can't!

Joe Monzo wrote:

> From: Joe Monzo <monz@juno.com>
>
> [John Starrett, TD 269.8]
>
> > Sometimes a list is like a marriage... Looks like we're
> > patching things up.
>
> Unfortunately, however, not without casualties...
>
> > Although I don't think there is a need for a separate math
> > oriented tuning list, I admit that for the last few months
> > I have been scanning the list and not reading the mathematically
> > oriented posts carefully.
>
> Same here.
>
> > I would guess that a good high school background would be
> > sufficient if there were a FAQ for this list that carefully
> > explained the basics of the different approaches being
> > discussed.
>
> I don't think there is one, but it's a great idea.
> How about Pauls Erlich & Hahn, or some other mathematically
> superior Lister, writing a Tuning Math FAQ? I'll put it on
> my site, or perhaps it could go right on the Onlist Tuning
> Digest Archive page.
>
> -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.
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Congratulations to Richard van den Brink
> This week's FRIENDS & FAMILY WINNER!
> To enter go to http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.

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

[Kraig Grady:]
>My point which I will not let up on, is to speak the language of your
peers and or your audience. If Wilson can manage to convey his ideas
with such simple language I can't understand why the rest of you
can't!

Not to be difficult (well maybe a little...), and not that your
argument isn't without obvious merit, but isn't this a bit of an
unreal expectation? Couldn't what's simple and clear to someone be (a
lot) less so to someone else...(?)

I do think that you're absolutely right about being persistent in
asking for specific clarifications, as I believe that in the context
of this forum - that kind of persistence will eventually
help/payoff... For even if someone can't do a better job of
explaining/clarifying their own postings (or better "speak the
language of your peers and or your audience" as you put it), I'd bet
that the combined efforts of the forum would/can.

In this sense, I (personally) think that the TD benefits GREATLY from
someone like Paul Erlich, whom has both the desire and the technical
skill, knowledge and know-how to (unofficially, and perhaps
unconsciously) police (so to speak) the TD for any
slack-in-the-facts... That this may sometime come of (or be) a bit
brash seems to me inevitable, but as long as it doesn't routinely run
off genuinely interested people, or overly bully/consolidate the TD
into some sort of singular/narrow point of view -- or especially
degenerate into _personal_ insult and or disrespect, I certainly see
it as a real big plus...

Dan

Joe Monzo wrote:

> > I would guess that a good high school background would be
> > sufficient if there were a FAQ for this list that carefully
> > explained the basics of the different approaches being
> > discussed.
>
> I don't think there is one, but it's a great idea.
> How about Pauls Erlich & Hahn, or some other mathematically
> superior Lister, writing a Tuning Math FAQ? I'll put it on
> my site, or perhaps it could go right on the Onlist Tuning
> Digest Archive page.

Great idea, the FAQ belongs on the Tuning Digest Archive page.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n N e t R a d i o
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

Kraig Grady wrote:

> From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
>
> Joe!
> My point which I will not let up on, is to speak the language of your
> peers and or your audience. If Wilson can manage to convey his ideas with
> such simple language I can't understand why the rest of you can't!

Right on Kraig - good call! It's enough that talk of ratios
scares people away, don't make it worse. :)

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n N e t R a d i o
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

Hmmm... If "tuning" is about "music"... Microtonality was to me like that
scene in the Wizard of Oz, you know, where Dorothy steps out of the dismal
black & white into glorious color? Oooooooh!

I got into microtonality after reading Wendy Carlos article in Computer
Music Journal, 1987... and listening to "Beauty in the Beast" and going to
Bali... In those days I was in musical despair (well, sort of) -- some of you
know the feeling that you get after grinding through Music School; wanting
to be a "composer" but not really liking what happened after Schoenberg and
wishing that "beautiful music" hadn't died horribly a few years before you
were born (or metamorphosed into a branch of abstract math...); and no
composer can be taken "seriously" any more for writing something that's just
an abstract piece of music, like a "sonata" with a number instead of a clever
mystical title and a whole theory to go along with it...

Music and math are obviously related; and there's a lot of music that can be
explained with math, and some mathematical understanding of music enhances
some parts of some experiences -- for me anyway... but it's not the end-all.
It's not strictly necessary to be a theorist or be steeped in the
mathematics of tuning lattices to make or enjoy microtonal music. It's the
sound that's important for most listeners, and the tuning is another tool in
the composer's palette -- just like an oboe or a piano (or a double-reed
slide music stand)...

I have some "microtonal" music I could cough up if anyone wants to listen.
(It seems like this crowd might be more receptive than most crowds. Anyone
like ballet?) What's the best/easiest format for putting stuff on the net
for people to access? 44k stereo WAV files are pretty big & klunky. MP3?
Low-res 8-bit WAV?

Rick

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:10:41 -0700, Rick McGowan <rmcgowan@apple.com> wrote:

>From: Rick McGowan <rmcgowan@apple.com>
>
>Hmmm... If "tuning" is about "music"... Microtonality was to me like that
>scene in the Wizard of Oz, you know, where Dorothy steps out of the dismal
>black & white into glorious color? Oooooooh!
>
>I got into microtonality after reading Wendy Carlos article in Computer
>Music Journal, 1987... and listening to "Beauty in the Beast" and going to
>Bali... In those days I was in musical despair (well, sort of) -- some of you
>know the feeling that you get after grinding through Music School; wanting
>to be a "composer" but not really liking what happened after Schoenberg and
>wishing that "beautiful music" hadn't died horribly a few years before you
>were born (or metamorphosed into a branch of abstract math...); and no
>composer can be taken "seriously" any more for writing something that's just
>an abstract piece of music, like a "sonata" with a number instead of a clever
>mystical title and a whole theory to go along with it...
>
>Music and math are obviously related; and there's a lot of music that can be
>explained with math, and some mathematical understanding of music enhances
>some parts of some experiences -- for me anyway... but it's not the end-all.
>It's not strictly necessary to be a theorist or be steeped in the
>mathematics of tuning lattices to make or enjoy microtonal music. It's the
>sound that's important for most listeners, and the tuning is another tool in
>the composer's palette -- just like an oboe or a piano (or a double-reed
>slide music stand)...
>
>I have some "microtonal" music I could cough up if anyone wants to listen.
>(It seems like this crowd might be more receptive than most crowds. Anyone
>like ballet?) What's the best/easiest format for putting stuff on the net
>for people to access? 44k stereo WAV files are pretty big & klunky. MP3?
>Low-res 8-bit WAV?

MP3 is better than WAV files, Real Audio has a slight advantage over MP3 in
terms of size but may not be available on as many systems. Both Real Audio
and MP3 allow various levels of compression from near-CD stereo quality to
levels of compression that are more suitable for voice than music. I prefer
Real Audio at a bit rate of 40 Kbps as a good compromise between quality
and size for most of my music samples.

http://sites.netscape.net/thryomanes/music.html

--
see my music page ---> +--<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/music.html>--
Thryomanes /"If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
(Herman Miller) / thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
moc.oi @ rellimh <-/ there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

> [Paul Erlich, TD 271.14]
>
> Kraig Grady wrote [TD 270.7],
>
>> Joe!
>> My point which I will not let up on, is to speak the
>> language of your peers and or your audience. If Wilson can
>> manage to convey his ideas with such simple language I can't
>> understand why the rest of you can't!
>
>
> I think Joe Monzo and others who have told me so will agree
> that Erv Wilson is one of the most unforgiving theorists ever
> to delve into microtonality.
>
> His writing is so dense, and his thought process so concealed,
> that one could easily write a book trying to explain a single
> Wilson article to a beginner. While academic journal articles
> tend to proceed logically, point by point, Wilson's style is
> unbelievably abstruse. What I love about him is that he often
> has more to say in a single diagram than ten articles can say
> in a hundred pages of text!

I think Paul's description of Wilson's work is most apt.
Probably the main reason for the abstruseness of his text
is his ability to cram so much information into his diagrams.

I've been a 'map geek' for quite a long time, and can pass
hours reading a single map in the same way 'regular' people
read a book. I find that good maps are simply *packed* with
information. The diagrams drawn by Wilson, myself, and others,
are similar to maps in this respect.

The secret that mathematicians know, and which remains generally
obscure to the rest of us, is that *anything* can be described
by mathematics.

The power of visualizing things on a computer screen (and even
more so, in virtual reality) is what finally brought this idea
home to me. Musical tuning is merely one 'thing' that can be
accurately described and manipulated thru the employment of
mathematics.

I recognize Wilson's work as being more similar to my own than
anything else I've encountered in my years of tuning research
(which is why I pay homage to him in my signature), and yet
it still takes me many readings of his articles to understand
what he's saying in his text, whereas the diagrams 'speak' to
me immediately.

My only regret in connection with Wilson's work is that my
first encounter with it came so late in my own development.
Had I been aware of his articles when I first got interested
in tuning, they would have saved me *years* of hard thinking,
frustration, and mental anguish. I think it's remarkable that
the lattice diagrams I've developed independently bear such
a strong resemblance to some of the diagrams Wilson and Chalmers
created back in the 1960s.

As for the mathematical excursuses and excursions in this forum,
please keep them coming. My mathematical education only goes
up to algebra (stopping short of trig and calculus), and I don't
remember much of that, but in tandem with the lattice diagrams
which I love so much, there's no better tool for grappling with
tuning issues and theories.

As Dave Keenan and I mentioned several months back, and Johnny
Reinhard brought up again recently, theoretical manifestos have
their own kind of beauty, not unrelated to a musical score itself.
The enjoyment of reading both theoretical treatises and scores
is different from the purely aural sensation of listening to
the music.

-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.