Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Also... Werkmeister III and WTC question...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Eric T Knechtges" <knechtge@m...>
wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Also... is anyone aware of anyone having done a detailed
>analysis of Bach's WTC in order to infer how Werkmeister III
>affected his composition of this work? I'm thinking about
>undertaking this as a topic for an entrance paper for a Master's
>program in Music Theory, but I don't want to duplicate someone
>else's work, if it's already out there.
>
> Eric

some studies, such as that by barnes, have attempted to reconstruct
bach's tuning statistically from the occurence and duration of
various intervals throughout the wtc. the result turns out to be a
well-temperament favoring the thirds in the "white keys" at the
expense of those in the remote keys, not unlike werckmeister iii and
most of the other tunings claimed to have been bach's tuning (such as
kellner's) and most other historical well-temperaments. so bach did
appear to relish sustaining the more justly tuned intervals while
jumping more quickly around the prickly thirds and sixths of the
remote keys, and this has been quantified.

in case you didn't know, here's the tuning and temperament
bibliography:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/bib.html

in there, there's another idea about bach's tuning which is so
blasphemous, it's sure to be met with angry jeering here. do i dare?

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Eric T Knechtges" <knechtge@m...>

> in case you didn't know, here's the tuning and temperament
> bibliography:
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/bib.html
>
> in there, there's another idea about bach's tuning which is so
> blasphemous, it's sure to be met with angry jeering here. do i dare?

I checked it out, and it's not hard to find goofy stuff in there. I
found

http://boethius.music.ucsb.edu/mto/issues/mto.93.0.3/mto.93.0.3.lindle
y.art

This not only abandons groups for "half-groups", which strikes me as
loony, it tells us this:

Among harmonic systems we have those of one, two or three dimensions,
according to the number of generators (apart from the identity
element). Also among harmonic systems, we distinguish between
coherent sytems (in which all the pitch classes make one chain of
5ths) and non-coherent systems - which have proven musically so
awkward that no well-known composer has ever written music for such a
system, even though many theorists since the 16th century have
described non-coherent, two-dimensional systems without any tempered
intervals. (Mostly they were theorists who did not understand the
problem to which tempering is the solution.)

Isn't this self-contradictory in the case of planar temperaments and
above, which the authors seem ready to allow? In any case, it strikes
me as the usual smug bullshit theorists are all to ready to spew
forth.

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/bib.html
> >
> > in there, there's another idea about bach's tuning which is
> > so blasphemous, it's sure to be met with angry jeering here.
> > do i dare?
>
> You most definitely should, if you're going to say that much!
> :)
>
> -C.

the article in question, which i have in my office, is

Hafner, Everett. "The Forty-Eight Revisited in Thirty-One", Well
Tempered Notes, November 1974, Motorola Scalatron Inc.

he makes the fascinating observation that each piece in the wtc
contains only 12 notes in a chain of fifths, be it Eb-G#, A-C##, or
whatever, depending on the key. correlate this fact with what we know
about renaissance and baroque harpsichord and clavichord tuning
practice, and a fascinating, if highly controversial, conclusion
presents itself . . . let me correct and/or expand on this when i get
back to the office (probably a couple hours) . . .

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Eric T Knechtges" <knechtge@m...>
>
> > in case you didn't know, here's the tuning and temperament
> > bibliography:
> > http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/bib.html
> >
> > in there, there's another idea about bach's tuning which is so
> > blasphemous, it's sure to be met with angry jeering here. do i
dare?
>
> I checked it out, and it's not hard to find goofy stuff in there. I
> found
>
>
http://boethius.music.ucsb.edu/mto/issues/mto.93.0.3/mto.93.0.3.lindle
> y.art
>
> This not only abandons groups for "half-groups", which strikes me
as
> loony, it tells us this:
>
> Among harmonic systems we have those of one, two or three
dimensions,
> according to the number of generators (apart from the identity
> element). Also among harmonic systems, we distinguish between
> coherent sytems (in which all the pitch classes make one chain of
> 5ths) and non-coherent systems - which have proven musically so
> awkward that no well-known composer has ever written music for such
a
> system, even though many theorists since the 16th century have
> described non-coherent, two-dimensional systems without any
tempered
> intervals. (Mostly they were theorists who did not understand the
> problem to which tempering is the solution.)
>
> Isn't this self-contradictory in the case of planar temperaments
and
> above, which the authors seem ready to allow?

it depends on whether the 5ths in the chain are permitted to be
wolves or not . . .

> In any case, it strikes
> me as the usual smug bullshit theorists are all to ready to spew
> forth.

hmm . . . as a theorist yourself, why not attempt to contact the
author with a request for clarification before spewing your smug
insults all over this list? seriously, lindley may not be the
mathematician you are, but he might be one of the few people you
might learn something about tuning from.

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Hafner, Everett. "The Forty-Eight Revisited in Thirty-One", Well
> >Tempered Notes, November 1974, Motorola Scalatron Inc.
> >
> >he makes the fascinating observation that each piece in the wtc
> >contains only 12 notes in a chain of fifths, be it Eb-G#, A-C##,
or
> >whatever, depending on the key. correlate this fact with what we
know
> >about renaissance and baroque harpsichord and clavichord tuning
> >practice, and a fascinating, if highly controversial, conclusion
> >presents itself . . . let me correct and/or expand on this when i
get
> >back to the office (probably a couple hours) . . .
>
> There was a huge thread on this back in '99 or so.

message #s?

> But I thought there were a few pieces in the 48 that did exceed
> the 12-tone thing.

yes, but apparently not really more than someone like byrd, writing
for 12-tone meantone keyboards in the 16th century . . .

hafner writes,

" . . . prelude VI can be beautifully performed in a meantone tuning
from Eb to G#. Indeed, the only deviation from the tones in this
chain of fifths is the single enharmonic D# . . . . Sounded as Eb, it
produces no problem at all, since it occurs in a rapid run of
diminished triads.

"The chain of fifths appropriate to Prelude VI begins two steps below
the tonality of the major mode, which in this case is F. Proceeding
to Fuge VI, I observe that the same tuning applies: the chain of
fifths from Eb to G# creates a scale whose every note is used at
least once in the fugue, and from which there is not a single
departure.

"Going back to the beginning of the book, I found that the first
prelude and fugue are contained within the chain from Bb to D#; the
second (in C minor) from Db to F#; the third (in C# major) from B to
D##. The score of the entire book, in fact, conforms to a system of
tuning whose rule is as follows:

_Given a key signature, create a chain of suitably tempered fifths,
twelve in number, beginning two steps below the tonality of the major
mode._

"Taking a further example, let's look at the 18th Prelude and Fugue
in G# minor. The major tonality is B, and the rule implies the chain
of fifths from A to C##. In the thousand notes that Bach wrote down
for these two pieces, every note of that scale is exploited many
times, yet there is not a single exception in which an enharmonic
equivalent is called for!

"I think one can conclude from this, with no doubt whatsoever, that
Bach tuned each of his key signatures to an irregular temperament
following the rule and appropriate to the key. Far from following the
movement toward twelve-tone equal temperament, with is harsh major
thirds, or adopting a fixed irregular tuning, he was clearly
attempting to disprove the prevalent notion that a consonant
temperament could not be extended to "remote" keys without losing its
consonance. In my view of the matter, he was teaching his students
that with a good ear and a fine touch of the tuning wrench, one cap
play consonantly in every key. It seems likely that the 48 pieces
were composed to illustrate this and to give a student an attractive
musical way of testing his skill at this difficult art."

let the bullets fly!

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> http://boethius.music.ucsb.edu/mto/issues/mto.93.0.3/mto.93.0.3.lindle
> y.art
> > This not only abandons groups for "half-groups", which strikes me as > loony, it tells us this:

I read it, and it seems fairly reasonable. I have no idea what a halfgroup is, though. But anybody who gives a technical meaning to the word "flog" is okay by me!

> Among harmonic systems we have those of one, two or three dimensions, > according to the number of generators (apart from the identity > element). Also among harmonic systems, we distinguish between > coherent sytems (in which all the pitch classes make one chain of > 5ths) and non-coherent systems - which have proven musically so > awkward that no well-known composer has ever written music for such a > system, even though many theorists since the 16th century have > described non-coherent, two-dimensional systems without any tempered > intervals. (Mostly they were theorists who did not understand the > problem to which tempering is the solution.) > > Isn't this self-contradictory in the case of planar temperaments and > above, which the authors seem ready to allow? In any case, it strikes > me as the usual smug bullshit theorists are all to ready to spew > forth.

I'm not sure what they mean by "coherent" so they at least aren't making themselves clear. Perhaps the diagrams would help -- I can't get them. Where do they mention planar temperaments?

Graham

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

I buy this argument-- I'm not sure if I *believe* it's true, but I buy it as potentially
valid. It has always struck me that each of the pieces in "the 48", although affectively
suited to its tonality, doesn't really modulate to the extent one would think possible
(or desirable) in a set of pieces purportedly designed to show off the
accomplishments of a fixed temperament. "Wohltemperiertes Klavier" could indeed be
read with the subtext: "this is a set of pieces to play in showing off your skill at
resetting the temperament of a keyboard instrument". -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > >Hafner, Everett. "The Forty-Eight Revisited in Thirty-One", Well
> > >Tempered Notes, November 1974, Motorola Scalatron Inc.
> > >
> > >he makes the fascinating observation that each piece in the wtc
> > >contains only 12 notes in a chain of fifths, be it Eb-G#, A-C##,
> or
> > >whatever, depending on the key. correlate this fact with what we
> know
> > >about renaissance and baroque harpsichord and clavichord tuning
> > >practice, and a fascinating, if highly controversial, conclusion
> > >presents itself . . . let me correct and/or expand on this when i
> get
> > >back to the office (probably a couple hours) . . .
> >
> > There was a huge thread on this back in '99 or so.
>
> message #s?
>
> > But I thought there were a few pieces in the 48 that did exceed
> > the 12-tone thing.
>
> yes, but apparently not really more than someone like byrd, writing
> for 12-tone meantone keyboards in the 16th century . . .
>
> hafner writes,
>
> " . . . prelude VI can be beautifully performed in a meantone tuning
> from Eb to G#. Indeed, the only deviation from the tones in this
> chain of fifths is the single enharmonic D# . . . . Sounded as Eb, it
> produces no problem at all, since it occurs in a rapid run of
> diminished triads.
>
> "The chain of fifths appropriate to Prelude VI begins two steps below
> the tonality of the major mode, which in this case is F. Proceeding
> to Fuge VI, I observe that the same tuning applies: the chain of
> fifths from Eb to G# creates a scale whose every note is used at
> least once in the fugue, and from which there is not a single
> departure.
>
> "Going back to the beginning of the book, I found that the first
> prelude and fugue are contained within the chain from Bb to D#; the
> second (in C minor) from Db to F#; the third (in C# major) from B to
> D##. The score of the entire book, in fact, conforms to a system of
> tuning whose rule is as follows:
>
> _Given a key signature, create a chain of suitably tempered fifths,
> twelve in number, beginning two steps below the tonality of the major
> mode._
>
> "Taking a further example, let's look at the 18th Prelude and Fugue
> in G# minor. The major tonality is B, and the rule implies the chain
> of fifths from A to C##. In the thousand notes that Bach wrote down
> for these two pieces, every note of that scale is exploited many
> times, yet there is not a single exception in which an enharmonic
> equivalent is called for!
>
> "I think one can conclude from this, with no doubt whatsoever, that
> Bach tuned each of his key signatures to an irregular temperament
> following the rule and appropriate to the key. Far from following the
> movement toward twelve-tone equal temperament, with is harsh major
> thirds, or adopting a fixed irregular tuning, he was clearly
> attempting to disprove the prevalent notion that a consonant
> temperament could not be extended to "remote" keys without losing its
> consonance. In my view of the matter, he was teaching his students
> that with a good ear and a fine touch of the tuning wrench, one cap
> play consonantly in every key. It seems likely that the 48 pieces
> were composed to illustrate this and to give a student an attractive
> musical way of testing his skill at this difficult art."
>
> let the bullets fly!

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

> the article in question, which i have in my office, is
>
> Hafner, Everett. "The Forty-Eight Revisited in Thirty-One", Well
> Tempered Notes, November 1974, Motorola Scalatron Inc.
>
> he makes the fascinating observation that each piece in the wtc
> contains only 12 notes in a chain of fifths, be it Eb-G#, A-C##, or
> whatever, depending on the key. correlate this fact with what we
know
> about renaissance and baroque harpsichord and clavichord tuning
> practice, and a fascinating, if highly controversial, conclusion
> presents itself . . . let me correct and/or expand on this when i
get
> back to the office (probably a couple hours) . . .

If you are suggesting that Bach secretly had a 31-equal harpsichord,
let me be the first to say "wow!". However, this tells me that I
should probably work on a meantone version of WTC.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

> hmm . . . as a theorist yourself, why not attempt to contact the
> author with a request for clarification before spewing your smug
> insults all over this list? seriously, lindley may not be the
> mathematician you are, but he might be one of the few people you
> might learn something about tuning from.

Fine. Why don't you make a list of academic theorists working in
music departments who have produced any tuning theory of any value
whatever, and where I can check it out? I'm sorry if it strikes you
as smug to say it, but the intellectual standards in this field seem
to be woefully low--not in the same ballbark as mathematics (or
physics, for that matter.) Instead of getting on my case for the
crime of having and stating opinions, why not grab the opportunity to
educate me?

I doubt I will get anything but groans of pain out of "half-groups",
but what, exactly, has Lindely publised I could read. When the
library reopens Aug 1 I can give it a shot/

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

I don't seem to be able to download your .ogg files on xenharmony.org -- I just get a
page of ASCII garbage. (I am able to play .ogg files with iTunes, however.) -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
>
> > the article in question, which i have in my office, is
> >
> > Hafner, Everett. "The Forty-Eight Revisited in Thirty-One", Well
> > Tempered Notes, November 1974, Motorola Scalatron Inc.
> >
> > he makes the fascinating observation that each piece in the wtc
> > contains only 12 notes in a chain of fifths, be it Eb-G#, A-C##, or
> > whatever, depending on the key. correlate this fact with what we
> know
> > about renaissance and baroque harpsichord and clavichord tuning
> > practice, and a fascinating, if highly controversial, conclusion
> > presents itself . . . let me correct and/or expand on this when i
> get
> > back to the office (probably a couple hours) . . .
>
> If you are suggesting that Bach secretly had a 31-equal harpsichord,
> let me be the first to say "wow!". However, this tells me that I
> should probably work on a meantone version of WTC.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
> >
http://boethius.music.ucsb.edu/mto/issues/mto.93.0.3/mto.93.0.3.lindle
> > y.art
> >
> > This not only abandons groups for "half-groups", which strikes me
as
> > loony, it tells us this:
>
> I read it, and it seems fairly reasonable.

The implication that Joe Pehrson is a musical idiot seems fairly
reasonable to you? I have no idea why you are defending this and Paul
is insulting me, but I thought it was condescending and ignorant.

I have no idea what a
> halfgroup is, though.

Don't bother to find out.

But anybody who gives a technical meaning to the
> word "flog" is okay by me!
>
> > Among harmonic systems we have those of one, two or three
dimensions,
> > according to the number of generators (apart from the identity
> > element). Also among harmonic systems, we distinguish between
> > coherent sytems (in which all the pitch classes make one chain of
> > 5ths) and non-coherent systems - which have proven musically so
> > awkward that no well-known composer has ever written music for
such a
> > system, even though many theorists since the 16th century have
> > described non-coherent, two-dimensional systems without any
tempered
> > intervals. (Mostly they were theorists who did not understand the
> > problem to which tempering is the solution.)
> >
> > Isn't this self-contradictory in the case of planar temperaments
and
> > above, which the authors seem ready to allow? In any case, it
strikes
> > me as the usual smug bullshit theorists are all to ready to spew
> > forth.
>
> I'm not sure what they mean by "coherent" so they at least aren't
making
> themselves clear.

From the above, meantone and schismic are coherent. Miracle and magic
are For Idiots Only. And Paul calls *me* arrogant!

Perhaps the diagrams would help -- I can't get them.
> Where do they mention planar temperaments?

"one, two or three dimensions"

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 7/18/03 4:52 PM, Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net> wrote:

> Right-clicking is not an option on the Mac. -Justin

Yes, I just went through this, or I am in the process of going through this.
I found two applications that claimed to handle ogg on MacOS 9 (you didn't
say OS X, so I'm assuming), those being Audion 3.0.2a9 and
audacity-mac-1.0.0.

However audacity required an import/conversion process which on my 400MHz G4
takes far longer than the time it takes to download the file over cable
modem, and probably about as long as it would take to download it via
regular modem. (So why bother?) Meanwhile Audion requires no conversion
process, but just plays the files immediately.

But you have to go into your browser and set up downloading actions for the
file type, in this case determined by the suffix ".ogg". You may need some
help with the details which may vary from browser to browser. However,
Audion does not require the files to have the correct icon, i.e. you can
drag/drop any ol' file onto Audion and it will look at it and see if it can
handle it as an ogg file. So you just need to convince your browser to
simply handle files with names ending in ".ogg" by simply downloading them
to a folder. Then it is icing on the cake if you can also figure out how to
set the type and creator to match the Audion conventions, but I personally
could not figure out which of the 20 or so offered file (icon) types to use,
so I just skipped that part, and have blank icons which I can drag/drop onto
Audion.

(What I can't remember is whether this is going to expire in 15 or 30 days
at which point I will have to pay.)

Gene gave some links on his site for how to handle ogg files. I think I
started here:

http://www.vorbis.com/download.psp

but it would be helpful to have the info about what is free and what is for
which platform all ironed out. Unfortunately I have already forgotten most
of what I learned! But my first impression was that the vorbis ogg code is
open source, yet most of the available applications that utilize it are not
free, and the general scene is very confusing.

-Kurt

>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't seem to be able to download your .ogg files on
>> xenharmony.org -- I just get a
>>> page of ASCII garbage. (I am able to play .ogg files with iTunes,
>> however.) -Justin
>>
>> Have you tried right-clicking? I'd like to sort this problem out, and
>> be able to give downloading instructions. I'm also trying to get the
>> mime type set to "application/ogg", but my ISP is staying mum so far.
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
> the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 7/18/03 4:36 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
>> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>
>>>
> http://boethius.music.ucsb.edu/mto/issues/mto.93.0.3/mto.93.0.3.lindle
>>> y.art
>>>
>>> This not only abandons groups for "half-groups", which strikes me
> as
>>> loony, it tells us this:
>>
>> I read it, and it seems fairly reasonable.
>
> The implication that Joe Pehrson is a musical idiot seems fairly
> reasonable to you? I have no idea why you are defending this and Paul
> is insulting me, but I thought it was condescending and ignorant.
>
> I have no idea what a
>> halfgroup is, though.
>
> Don't bother to find out.
>
> But anybody who gives a technical meaning to the
>> word "flog" is okay by me!
>>
>>> Among harmonic systems we have those of one, two or three
> dimensions,
>>> according to the number of generators (apart from the identity
>>> element). Also among harmonic systems, we distinguish between
>>> coherent sytems (in which all the pitch classes make one chain of
>>> 5ths) and non-coherent systems - which have proven musically so
>>> awkward that no well-known composer has ever written music for
> such a
>>> system, even though many theorists since the 16th century have
>>> described non-coherent, two-dimensional systems without any
> tempered
>>> intervals. (Mostly they were theorists who did not understand the
>>> problem to which tempering is the solution.)
>>>
>>> Isn't this self-contradictory in the case of planar temperaments
> and
>>> above, which the authors seem ready to allow? In any case, it
> strikes
>>> me as the usual smug bullshit theorists are all to ready to spew
>>> forth.
>>
>> I'm not sure what they mean by "coherent" so they at least aren't
> making
>> themselves clear.
>
> From the above, meantone and schismic are coherent. Miracle and magic
> are For Idiots Only. And Paul calls *me* arrogant!

Really guys (no, not just Gene) from where I sit (which is in much less of a
knowledgeable place than most of you), it appears now and then that there is
a bias toward interpretations that are antagonistic, and this strikes me as
unnecessary, so often. The bias may be ever so slight, but it doesn't take
much to create a lot of apparent communication which really isn't
(communication).

It is my own exprience that knowledge on my part does tend to bias me toward
not being able to see resolutions of different points of view. If this is
as true as it seems to me, then it strikes me that a very good strategy is
that when there appears to be a conflict to assume there is actually not,
and then to just simply point out things that appear to be in conflict. The
ego can remain much quieter in this kind of process, and it avoids training
oneself that conflicts tend to exist everywhere, but rather reinforces
experience that conflicts are just "appearances" that tend to crop up,
particularly in the vicinity of knowledge.

On the other hand I see you all going through these in-my-opinion
unnecessarily bumpy processes fairly graciously in most cases (with only one
exception since I've been on the list). Still it could be smoother yet.
Now don't go asking me for the rooted-in-knowledge explanation of how a
particular conflict does not exist. That would be to miss the point. You
are the guys with the knowledge, and you are responsible for finding out how
to have that knowledge without it so much narrowing your bandwidth for
receiving experiences of others.

It takes a lot of encouragement to get through these things and so I think
we need to encourage each other more, and get less into what appears to be
arguments.

So please take this as encouragement and a reminder that we all need more of
that. If this seems antagonistic, please just erase it from your memory
(and your inbox).

-Kurt

>
> Perhaps the diagrams would help -- I can't get them.
>> Where do they mention planar temperaments?
>
> "one, two or three dimensions"
>
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
> the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

My problem isn't playing back the files, just downloading it. I've been able to
download *.ogg files from other sites, including wikipedia.com -- it's the way the
files are managed on the xenharmony site. The download manager should pop up but
it doesn't. -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> on 7/18/03 4:52 PM, Justin Weaver <improvist@u...> wrote:
>
> > Right-clicking is not an option on the Mac. -Justin
>
> Yes, I just went through this, or I am in the process of going through this.
> I found two applications that claimed to handle ogg on MacOS 9 (you didn't
> say OS X, so I'm assuming), those being Audion 3.0.2a9 and
> audacity-mac-1.0.0.
>
> However audacity required an import/conversion process which on my 400MHz G4
> takes far longer than the time it takes to download the file over cable
> modem, and probably about as long as it would take to download it via
> regular modem. (So why bother?) Meanwhile Audion requires no conversion
> process, but just plays the files immediately.
>
> But you have to go into your browser and set up downloading actions for the
> file type, in this case determined by the suffix ".ogg". You may need some
> help with the details which may vary from browser to browser. However,
> Audion does not require the files to have the correct icon, i.e. you can
> drag/drop any ol' file onto Audion and it will look at it and see if it can
> handle it as an ogg file. So you just need to convince your browser to
> simply handle files with names ending in ".ogg" by simply downloading them
> to a folder. Then it is icing on the cake if you can also figure out how to
> set the type and creator to match the Audion conventions, but I personally
> could not figure out which of the 20 or so offered file (icon) types to use,
> so I just skipped that part, and have blank icons which I can drag/drop onto
> Audion.
>
> (What I can't remember is whether this is going to expire in 15 or 30 days
> at which point I will have to pay.)
>
> Gene gave some links on his site for how to handle ogg files. I think I
> started here:
>
> http://www.vorbis.com/download.psp
>
> but it would be helpful to have the info about what is free and what is for
> which platform all ironed out. Unfortunately I have already forgotten most
> of what I learned! But my first impression was that the vorbis ogg code is
> open source, yet most of the available applications that utilize it are not
> free, and the general scene is very confusing.
>
> -Kurt
>
>
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> >> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't seem to be able to download your .ogg files on
> >> xenharmony.org -- I just get a
> >>> page of ASCII garbage. (I am able to play .ogg files with iTunes,
> >> however.) -Justin
> >>
> >> Have you tried right-clicking? I'd like to sort this problem out, and
> >> be able to give downloading instructions. I'm also trying to get the
> >> mime type set to "application/ogg", but my ISP is staying mum so far.
> >
> >
> >
> > You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> > email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> > tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> > tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> > tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
> > the tuning group.
> > tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> > tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
> > tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> on 7/18/03 4:52 PM, Justin Weaver <improvist@u...> wrote:

> Gene gave some links on his site for how to handle ogg files. I
think I
> started here:
>
> http://www.vorbis.com/download.psp
>
> but it would be helpful to have the info about what is free and
what is for
> which platform all ironed out. Unfortunately I have already
forgotten most
> of what I learned! But my first impression was that the vorbis ogg
code is
> open source, yet most of the available applications that utilize it
are not
> free, and the general scene is very confusing.

It's worse for the Mac than for Windows (I like Ashampoo for that) or
Linux (where the distribution will probably have everything you need
without your needing to download anything.) I'd like to be able to
put up pointers for Mac users if we can get it all sorted out.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 7/18/03 7:29 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>
>> Really guys (no, not just Gene) from where I sit (which is in much
> less of a
>> knowledgeable place than most of you), it appears now and then that
> there is
>> a bias toward interpretations that are antagonistic, and this
> strikes me as
>> unnecessary, so often.
>
> I admit I took the remarks about chains of fifths personally, which
> is fairly absurd, but hardly something to get mugged for.

Yes, of course, no mugging intended. Your message also just happenned to be
the one that pushed me over the threshold for expressing this, which I have
been feeling "growing" over several weeks on the list.

-Kurt

> The half-
> groups did not dispose me favorably. I'll try to do better, and I
> hope Paul follows suit.
>
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
> the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> BTW, did you see how to do more than 16 channels / file?
>
>Getting AC to render two midis onto the same wav?

You didn't follow the link I sent, did you?

>X-eGroups-Return:
>sentto-70605-45650-1058556723-ekin=lumma.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com
>X-Sender: ekin@lumma.org
>X-Apparently-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>X-Sender: lumma@lumma.org (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
>To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>From: Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>
>X-Yahoo-Profile: clumma
>Mailing-List: list tuning@yahoogroups.com; contact tuning-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Delivered-To: mailing list tuning@yahoogroups.com
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
>Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:32:07 -0700
>Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: So many choices!
>Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>>>I have no interest in physical midi buses, since I am using midi as a
>>>score format. Can I get beyond the limitations doing this?
>>
>>Divide your score into two or more sequence or midi files, process
>>them separately and mix the resulting audio files.
>
>http://www.midi.org/about-midi/smf/rp019.shtml
>
>-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 7/18/03 10:31 PM, Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net> wrote:

> Yes, I agree: I think meantone thinking was so thoroughly entrenched in
> harmonic
> writing that Bach instinctively avoided the (absent) wolf even in
> well-temperament. Of
> course, then the devil's advocate question is: Bach was no idiot; why didn't
> he
> intentionally flout the absent wolf to show off the advantages of the well-
> temperament? - Justin

Well maybe my ears are unusual, but it seems to me the far keys in WT still
sound less pleasant, so it is nothing to show off, and I'm quite glad that
Bach didn't push it further.

But this really depends on which ears I am wearing. I can also enjoy the
strongest contrasts and even want more of it, playing Bach in 12-tone
quarter-comma meantone. But this is clearly a different, developed,
aesthetic, and when I drop that aesthetic I am glad Bach's excursions in the
the far keys are as brief as they are.

-Kurt

>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>>> I buy this argument-- I'm not sure if I *believe* it's true,
>>> but I buy it as potentially valid.
>>
>> The last time this came up, I played devil's advocate and
>> argued for it. But I think it's pretty clear Bach was an
>> 'advocate' of well temperament. If his pieces didn't
>> move around that much, it was the style of the time, not
>> any fondness for meantone, says I.
>>
>> -Carl
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
> the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> The implication that Joe Pehrson is a musical idiot seems fairly > reasonable to you? I have no idea why you are defending this and Paul > is insulting me, but I thought it was condescending and ignorant.

There is no such implication. Whatever tuning systems he may have used in 1993, I don't think Joe counted as a "well-known composer".

> From the above, meantone and schismic are coherent. Miracle and magic > are For Idiots Only. And Paul calls *me* arrogant!

It says nothing of the sort. Miracle and magic are not considered anywhere in this paper. I didn't think magic had even been discovered in 1993. Miracle was only one obscure article in Xenharmonikon, and so it was true that no remotely well-known composers had written for it. Besides, the whole class of temperaments they belong to aren't considered. Here are the figures:

http://boethius.music.ucsb.edu/mto/issues/mto.93.0.3/mto.93.0.3.lindley.fig

see

"""
f) Among regular, two- (and sometimes three-) dimensional temperaments:
MT (wherein 4V = III)
QP (wherein -8V = III)
"""

The only regular temperaments *considered* are meantone and schismic. The only non-coherent systems he talks about are "two-dimensional systems without any tempered intervals" which means 5-limit JI. So a few composers are being snubbed there, but only because they aren't considered "well-known" enough. Possibly a failure of peer review, but hardly "goofy" or "smug bullshit".

>> Where do they mention planar temperaments?
> > "one, two or three dimensions"

Now really, Gene, this takes the biscuit. You talk about intellectual standards being "woefully low" and then completely misunderstand the very passage you object so violently to! It's abundantly clear if you actually RTFA, and even clearer from the figures, that the number of dimensions counts odd primes, not what you call a generator. So all it's saying is that systems could be Pythagorean, 5-limit or 7-limit. Nothing about planar temperaments anywhere.

Graham

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:

> It says nothing of the sort. Miracle and magic are not considered
> anywhere in this paper.

Linear temperaments are, and the claim is if you use something other
than a fifth as a generator you are musically ignorant.

> Besides, the whole class of temperaments they belong to aren't
> considered. Here are the figures:

I'm discussing what the abstract says, not what gets analyzed. If
you've dismissed it as crap and in any case know nothing about it,
why and how are you going to analyze?

> The only regular temperaments *considered* are meantone and
schismic.

The fifth is required to be a generator. Unless you are interested in
7-limit, these are the obvious ones to look at.

> >> Where do they mention planar temperaments?
> >
> > "one, two or three dimensions"
>
> Now really, Gene, this takes the biscuit. You talk about
intellectual
> standards being "woefully low" and then completely misunderstand
the
> very passage you object so violently to!

I think it's you who have missed the point. In any case, this is not
a peer-reviewed journal, which is good for both of us.

As for intellectual standards, what did you make of all the
mathematical crapola?

It's abundantly clear if you
> actually RTFA, and even clearer from the figures, that the number
of
> dimensions counts odd primes, not what you call a generator.

I havn't seen the figures, but this is simply not what the abstract
*says*. Generators are "derived from" 2, 3, 5 and 7; but this applies
to the meantone fifth. One, two or three generators (apart from the
identity, whatever in hell that last is supposed to mean) gives us
equal, linear or planar temperaments, and 3 or 5-limit JI.

🔗Leonardo Perretti <dombedos@tiscalinet.it>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

I found a version with hotlinks:

http://smt.ucsb.edu/mto/issues/mto.93.0.3/mto.93.0.3.lindley.art.html

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>>It says nothing of the sort. Miracle and magic are not considered >>anywhere in this paper. > > Linear temperaments are, and the claim is if you use something other > than a fifth as a generator you are musically ignorant.

Two linear temperaments are. There are no claims about temperaments with generators other than a fifth. Show me this claim.

>>Besides, the whole class of temperaments they belong to aren't >>considered. Here are the figures:
> > I'm discussing what the abstract says, not what gets analyzed. If > you've dismissed it as crap and in any case know nothing about it, > why and how are you going to analyze?

What are you talking about? Are you dismissing the article as crap, or are you claiming they dismissed the temperament systems as crap? All they're saying is that they don't figure as historically important tuning systems. They're looking at the history of tuning in Western music theory. That's what it's about.

>>The only regular temperaments *considered* are meantone and > schismic. > > The fifth is required to be a generator. Unless you are interested in > 7-limit, these are the obvious ones to look at.

These are the two linear temperaments with a place in Western music theory.

> I think it's you who have missed the point. In any case, this is not > a peer-reviewed journal, which is good for both of us.

Really, Gene. You may be a brilliant mathematician, but you wouldn't cut it as a historian. Go to the "about" page

http://www.societymusictheory.org/mto/about.html

and look at the words in bold. There are only 23 of them.

> As for intellectual standards, what did you make of all the > mathematical crapola?

I don't know what an halfgroup is, and it's only an outline anyway.

> I havn't seen the figures, but this is simply not what the abstract > *says*. Generators are "derived from" 2, 3, 5 and 7; but this applies > to the meantone fifth. One, two or three generators (apart from the > identity, whatever in hell that last is supposed to mean) gives us > equal, linear or planar temperaments, and 3 or 5-limit JI.

The abstract says nothing about generators. The phrase "derived from" only appears in paragraph 25, but the last mention of "generators" is paragraph 24. You seem to be hallucinating your own private article.

Graham

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 7/20/03 2:14 AM, Leonardo Perretti <dombedos@tiscalinet.it> wrote:

> Justin Weaver wrote:
>
>> Right-clicking is not an option on the Mac. -Justin
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't seem to be able to download your .ogg files on
>>> xenharmony.org -- I just get a
>>>> page of ASCII garbage. (I am able to play .ogg files with iTunes,
>>> however.) -Justin
>>>
>>> Have you tried right-clicking? I'd like to sort this problem out, and
>>> be able to give downloading instructions. I'm also trying to get the
>>> mime type set to "application/ogg", but my ISP is staying mum so far.
>
>
> Generally speaking, Right-clicking is emulated by Alt-clicking on the Mac.

I think you probably mean control-clicking, since there is no Alt on a
normal Mac keyboard. The contextual popup menu which I think right-clicking
brings up on Windows it invoked on the Mac by control-clicking. Also some
Mac mouses with 2 or more buttons are (or can be) programmed so that
right-clicking does a control-click automatically.

-Kurt

>
> -Leonardo
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
> the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> Fine. Why don't you make a list of academic theorists working in
> music departments who have produced any tuning theory of any value
> whatever, and where I can check it out? I'm sorry if it strikes you
> as smug to say it, but the intellectual standards in this field
seem
> to be woefully low--not in the same ballbark as mathematics (or
> physics, for that matter.)

you're comparing the *mathematics* that comes out of music/tuning
academics to the *mathematics* that comes out of mathematicians.
that's not exactly a fair comparison, dude!!

> Instead of getting on my case for the
> crime of having and stating opinions, why not grab the opportunity
to
> educate me?
>
> I doubt I will get anything but groans of pain out of "half-
groups",
> but what, exactly, has Lindely publised I could read. When the
> library reopens Aug 1 I can give it a shot/

margo made frequent reference to lindley's writings on this list --
you could search the archives.

🔗Leonardo Perretti <dombedos@tiscalinet.it>

Kurt Bigler wrote:

>> Generally speaking, Right-clicking is emulated by Alt-clicking on the Mac.
>
>I think you probably mean control-clicking, since there is no Alt on a
>normal Mac keyboard. The contextual popup menu which I think right-clicking
>brings up on Windows it invoked on the Mac by control-clicking. Also some
>Mac mouses with 2 or more buttons are (or can be) programmed so that
>right-clicking does a control-click automatically.

Yes, Kurt, you are right, control-click opens the contextual pop-up menu, as right-click does for Windows.
The key I was referring to is the "option" key, that is placed between the ctrl and the command keys, usually also referred to by a symbol that I cannot render in ASCII. On my Apple extended keyboard there is an "alt" written on that key, hence my affirmation.

I remembered that option-click makes something special, and, indeed, it allows to download and save the file targeted by a link (at least in Netscape), that is the function Justin needed, but it is not like right-clicking.

Sorry for the confusion.

-Leonardo

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 7/20/03 3:34 PM, Leonardo Perretti <dombedos@tiscalinet.it> wrote:

> Kurt Bigler wrote:
>
>>> Generally speaking, Right-clicking is emulated by Alt-clicking on the Mac.
>>
>> I think you probably mean control-clicking, since there is no Alt on a
>> normal Mac keyboard. The contextual popup menu which I think right-clicking
>> brings up on Windows it invoked on the Mac by control-clicking. Also some
>> Mac mouses with 2 or more buttons are (or can be) programmed so that
>> right-clicking does a control-click automatically.
>
>
> Yes, Kurt, you are right, control-click opens the contextual pop-up
> menu, as right-click does for Windows.
> The key I was referring to is the "option" key, that is placed
> between the ctrl and the command keys, usually also referred to by a
> symbol that I cannot render in ASCII. On my Apple extended keyboard
> there is an "alt" written on that key, hence my affirmation.
>
> I remembered that option-click makes something special, and, indeed,
> it allows to download and save the file targeted by a link (at least
> in Netscape), that is the function Justin needed, but it is not like
> right-clicking.

Ah, I see. Well in Internet Explorer (Mac) it turns out that control-click
or click-and-hold is what does all of these things, whereas option seems to
be the same as an ordinary click (requires waiting for the hold time before
the menu pops up). But I will be much happier in Netscape knowing I can use
option-click for this.

And by the way, the very keyboard I was using to type my last message on has
that same "alt" over the option. I had forgotten all about it.

-Kurt

> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> -Leonardo

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

> you're comparing the *mathematics* that comes out of music/tuning
> academics to the *mathematics* that comes out of mathematicians.
> that's not exactly a fair comparison, dude!!

Theoretical physicists don't always do things the way mathematicians
do, and the latter sometimes complain about it, but we all recognize
the very, very difficult nature of the problems and the very, very
sophisticated nature of many of the mathematical attacks on them.
Engineering mathematics, in my experience, tends to be logical, well-
organized, and appropiate to the problem at hand; they differ from
mathematicians in that they often don't care about proofs. The math
of academic music theorists is sometimes simply wrong, and even more
often both something of a mess and a mess in the service of confused
thinking. It's their own damned field, and if they can't get right
what they are being given money and tenure to study, why am I morally
obligated to respect them anyway? TANSTAAFL.

> margo made frequent reference to lindley's writings on this list --
> you could search the archives.

There's a thought. I'm sure he's got to have done something better
than what I saw.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_45560.html#45722

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
>
> > you're comparing the *mathematics* that comes out of music/tuning
> > academics to the *mathematics* that comes out of mathematicians.
> > that's not exactly a fair comparison, dude!!
>
> Theoretical physicists don't always do things the way
mathematicians
> do, and the latter sometimes complain about it, but we all
recognize
> the very, very difficult nature of the problems and the very, very
> sophisticated nature of many of the mathematical attacks on them.
> Engineering mathematics, in my experience, tends to be logical,
well-
> organized, and appropiate to the problem at hand; they differ from
> mathematicians in that they often don't care about proofs. The math
> of academic music theorists is sometimes simply wrong, and even
more
> often both something of a mess and a mess in the service of
confused
> thinking. It's their own damned field, and if they can't get right
> what they are being given money and tenure to study, why am I
morally
> obligated to respect them anyway? TANSTAAFL.
>

***I could be wrong, but my guess would be that many of the music
theorists who are using math would be very interested in, and
gratified by some of the "corrections" and suggestions you could
offer them, Gene. So why not just get those emails and letters
flying??

Joe P.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_45560.html#45728

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > ***I could be wrong, but my guess would be that many of the music
> > theorists who are using math would be very interested in, and
> > gratified by some of the "corrections" and suggestions you could
> > offer them, Gene. So why not just get those emails and letters
> > flying??
>
> I doubt it.

***I wish you'd write to Lindley, Gene. I'm assuming he's still
alive... ?? Anyway, Margo speaks quite highly of him, but I'm sure
his math is limited. It would be interesting to hear if you get a
response and what the response it to the math limitations. I'd love
to see such a thing on this list, if it took place...

🔗Leonardo Perretti <dombedos@tiscalinet.it>

Kurt Bigler wrote:
>>
>> I remembered that option-click makes something special, and, indeed,
>> it allows to download and save the file targeted by a link (at least
>> in Netscape), that is the function Justin needed, but it is not like
>> right-clicking.
>
>Ah, I see. Well in Internet Explorer (Mac) it turns out that control-click
>or click-and-hold is what does all of these things, whereas option seems to
>be the same as an ordinary click (requires waiting for the hold time before
>the menu pops up). But I will be much happier in Netscape knowing I can use
>option-click for this.

I just checked Internet Explorer (v. 4.5 for Mac with OS 9.1), and it works as for Netscape; be sure to have the mouse pointing the link, and don't hold the mouse button.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>Should I tell Mac users to AppleOption-click?

I think you should suggest Option-click (or perhaps alt-click); otherwise people may understand Apple-Option-click, since the command key (the one that is next to the space bar) is often called "the apple key", having the apple icon drawn on it.
As an alternative, as Kurt suggests, the user could open the contextual pop-up menu with control-click or simply click-and-hold, and then choose the item "Save Link Target As..."

-Leonardo

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> > Septimal Meantone and Dominant Seventh are different 7-limit
> > temperaments, but both have a place in Western music. It seems to me
> > that Diminished counts also.
>
> What do you mean by "Septimal Meantone" and "Dominant Seventh" if not
> meantone variants that keep the fifth generator?

They are both extensions of 5-limit meantone, of course, but I think
they both count as having a place in Western music--a German sixth is
not a dominant seventh.

Diminished may count
> to you, but to the rest of the world the octatonic scale is a subset of
> 12-equal, hence an equal-division system.

The question concerned 7-limit temperaments, not scales. Anything in
an octatonic scale is a candidate for octatonic temperament retuning,
conversion into a 28-et version, and the like.

If you look at 7-limit temperaments which 12 covers--Dominant Seventh,
Diminished, Augmented, Pajara, Injera, Tripletone, Schismic,
Diaschismic, Pythagoric, and of course Septimal Meantone, any of them
are reasonable candidates for linear temperaments having some
connecton to Western music. It would be interesting to see how many a
case could be made for.

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> They are both extensions of 5-limit meantone, of course, but I think
> they both count as having a place in Western music--a German sixth is
> not a dominant seventh.

So what's the issue?

> The question concerned 7-limit temperaments, not scales. Anything in
> an octatonic scale is a candidate for octatonic temperament retuning,
> conversion into a 28-et version, and the like.

Even if a piece *could* be retuned, unless it *has* been, the tuning system doesn't belong in Western music theory.

> If you look at 7-limit temperaments which 12 covers--Dominant Seventh,
> Diminished, Augmented, Pajara, Injera, Tripletone, Schismic,
> Diaschismic, Pythagoric, and of course Septimal Meantone, any of them
> are reasonable candidates for linear temperaments having some
> connecton to Western music. It would be interesting to see how many a
> case could be made for.

Unless a case *has* been made for them, they aren't features of Western music theory. Besides, the paper in question says "We are content to consider these two types in our book, but would admit any other valid type that could be adequately defined." So what's the problem?

As for the halfgroup business

"""
This subset, which we call an "embedded halfgroup", is an
unusual, indeed novel, algebraic structure: it is associative (when the
sums are defined) and has an identity element and inverses, but is not
closed with regard to group multiplication (compounds of the operation).
The place of halfgroups vis a vis semigroups, quasigroups etc. in
halfalgebra is indicated in GIF 2.(4)
"""

The GIF

http://smt.ucsb.edu/mto/issues/mto.93.0.3/mto.93.0.3.lindley2.gif

seems to disagree with

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Groupoid.html

as to whether or not Brandt groupoids are associative. But I think what they're considering is a linear temeperament with a finite number of notes to the octave. The sum is usual interval addition -- two thirds add to give a fifth, etc. The identity is the octave, and an interval's inverse is the difference between it and an octave. The subset isn't closed because it's possible to add two intervals and fall off the end of the chain of fifths. What's wrong with that?

Graham

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 7/21/03 8:16 AM, Leonardo Perretti <dombedos@tiscalinet.it> wrote:

>
> Kurt Bigler wrote:
>>>
>>> I remembered that option-click makes something special, and, indeed,
>>> it allows to download and save the file targeted by a link (at least
>>> in Netscape), that is the function Justin needed, but it is not like
>>> right-clicking.
>>
>> Ah, I see. Well in Internet Explorer (Mac) it turns out that control-click
>> or click-and-hold is what does all of these things, whereas option seems to
>> be the same as an ordinary click (requires waiting for the hold time before
>> the menu pops up). But I will be much happier in Netscape knowing I can use
>> option-click for this.
>
> I just checked Internet Explorer (v. 4.5 for Mac with OS 9.1), and it
> works as for Netscape; be sure to have the mouse pointing the link,
> and don't hold the mouse button.

Ok, I just checked Internet Explorer 5.0 for Mac (OS 9.2.2), and I was very
careful, clicking on a _link_, and specifically one of Gene's ogg links.
Either control-click or click or option-click will work, but you get a delay
with click or option-click, thus is is really just a matter of control-click
or click-and-hold, and option has no effect. The hold time is not terribly
long however.

By any of these methods when clicking on a link you get a popup menu
containng these items:

Internet Explorer Help...
-
Open Link in New Window
Download Link to Disk
Copy Link to Clipboard
Add Link to Favorites

I no longer have Explorer 4.5 around to test with.

-Kurt Bigler

>
>
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
>> Should I tell Mac users to AppleOption-click?
>
> I think you should suggest Option-click (or perhaps alt-click);
> otherwise people may understand Apple-Option-click, since the command
> key (the one that is next to the space bar) is often called "the
> apple key", having the apple icon drawn on it.
> As an alternative, as Kurt suggests, the user could open the
> contextual pop-up menu with control-click or simply click-and-hold,
> and then choose the item "Save Link Target As..."
>
>
> -Leonardo

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:

But I think what
> they're considering is a linear temeperament with a finite number
of
> notes to the octave. The sum is usual interval addition -- two
thirds
> add to give a fifth, etc. The identity is the octave, and an
interval's
> inverse is the difference between it and an octave. The subset
isn't
> closed because it's possible to add two intervals and fall off the
end
> of the chain of fifths. What's wrong with that?

Sorry, I misread what you were saying if you get my deleted reply.
Your interpretation seems to be that the wonderful, novel algebraic
structure of a halfgroup is any subset S of a group G satisfying

(1) 1 \in S

(2) x \in S ==> x^(-1) \in S

What's wrong with that is that it is pointless and silly to consider
such a subset unless you have an actual use for it (what, exactly, is
that use?) and pretentious to call it a novel algebraic structure.
I've often seen constructions of an abelian group out of things which
don't quite manage to be groups, but apparently it takes a music
theorist to think of unconstructing an abelian group for no reason
that makes any sense. Once so uncontructed, of course, nothing will
work the way it should.

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> Since these temperaments occur in 12, they *are* part of Western
>> Music Theory.
>
>Oh well, it looks like I'm outvoted then. But if they occur in 12
>they're also covered by the paper in question, which covers 12-equal.
>They don't feature as distinct temperaments in the way meantone and
>schismic do.

I don't follow. But then again, I didn't read the paper in question.

>> Actually, if our theory is anything it's cracked up to be, it is
>> inescapable for almost any music, not just 12-tone, and not just
>> Western.
>
>What theory's this? Who's cracking it up?

The periodicity block / temperament stuff.

The other day Kurt derived the 12-of-octatonic with 300- and 86-cent
generators, without knowing how he did it. That was pretty cool.

>> Gene demonstrated a dominant-7ths retuning not long ago.
>
>So what?

Gene often says stuff like it "works". I'm not sure what that
means, but I thought I'd mention it.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>Works musically.

Is such a thing a matter of opinion?

>This thread ended with a horrible croaking noise when I put up
>some actual examples to consider. They are at
>
>http://66.246.86.148/~xenharmo/wtc.html
>
>and you can decide for yourself if they work or not.

I've heard 1-4. I was going to write something, but was trying
to figure out how to be constructive. The arrangements are,
shall I say, distracting? The outer voices in the arpegiated
sections are not supposed to stand out that much. And the C maj
prelude is not question-and-answer.

May I suggest you render the following fugues...

Book I
1- No. 4 in C# min.
4- No. 12 in F min.
7- No. 21 in Bb maj. (Prelude too, if you like)
10- No. 24 in B min.

Book II
2- No. 8 in D# min.
4- No. 13 in F# maj.
6- No. 16 in G min.
8- No. 20 in A min.
10- No. 22 in Bb min.
11- No. 23 in B maj.

...and don't worry about doing anything fancy with them.

-Carl

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Works musically.
>
> Is such a thing a matter of opinion?
>
> >This thread ended with a horrible croaking noise when I put up
> >some actual examples to consider. They are at
> >
> >http://66.246.86.148/~xenharmo/wtc.html
> >
> >and you can decide for yourself if they work or not.
>
> I've heard 1-4. I was going to write something, but was trying
> to figure out how to be constructive. The arrangements are,
> shall I say, distracting? The outer voices in the arpegiated
> sections are not supposed to stand out that much. And the C maj
> prelude is not question-and-answer.
>
> May I suggest you render the following fugues...
>
> Book I
> 1- No. 4 in C# min.
> 4- No. 12 in F min.
> 7- No. 21 in Bb maj. (Prelude too, if you like)
> 10- No. 24 in B min.
>
> Book II
> 2- No. 8 in D# min.
> 4- No. 13 in F# maj.
> 6- No. 16 in G min.
> 8- No. 20 in A min.
> 10- No. 22 in Bb min.
> 11- No. 23 in B maj.
>
> ...and don't worry about doing anything fancy with them.
>
> -Carl

hafner explicitly excluded book ii from his proposal, as he had not
tried it.

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> I'm not sure if he was proposing all the things being asked
>> in these threads, such as, 'Did Bach intend well temperament?'.
>> If he was, and Book II is a no-go, then his proposal is bunk.
>
>there are too many vagaries and counterfactuals in this
>statement . . . explain, if it matters . . .

...

>> I'm not sure if he was proposing all the things being asked
>> in these threads,

I'm not sure what Hafner's thesis was, since it's been 4 years
since I read his article.

>> 'Did Bach intend well temperament?'

One of the things that was asked in the '99 thread, and in the
recent thread. It's vague to the extent the threads are vague.

>> If he was, and Book II is a no-go, then his proposal is bunk.

If someone proposes that Bach did/didn't intend well (circulating)
temperament for the WTC, and that person can't address book II,
that person is full of shit.

Better?

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> I've heard 1-4. I was going to write something, but was trying
> to figure out how to be constructive. The arrangements are,
> shall I say, distracting? The outer voices in the arpegiated
> sections are not supposed to stand out that much. And the C maj
> prelude is not question-and-answer.

What can I say? I like my version of the C maj prelude, breathy sax
and all. I did put them up too fast--certainly the C minor prelude
and fugue needs to be balanced better. And say what you will about my
jazzy version of the C# major prelude, but don't compare it to a dead
fish.

Do you think I am taking any more liberties than Wendy Carlos, BTW?

None of this goes to the point at issue, of course, which was tuning.

> May I suggest you render the following fugues...
>
> Book I
> 1- No. 4 in C# min.
> 4- No. 12 in F min.
> 7- No. 21 in Bb maj. (Prelude too, if you like)
> 10- No. 24 in B min.
>
> Book II
> 2- No. 8 in D# min.
> 4- No. 13 in F# maj.
> 6- No. 16 in G min.
> 8- No. 20 in A min.
> 10- No. 22 in Bb min.
> 11- No. 23 in B maj.
>
> ...and don't worry about doing anything fancy with them.

Are you sure Hafner was suggesting this applies to Book II? I got the
impression he was only talking about Book I.

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗monz@attglobal.net

this thread is getting really interesting to me.

about a week or so ago, when the discussion about
Bach's WTC and tuning first came up once again,
i had the idea that perhaps the two books were
written to promote *two different* versions of
well-temperament!

... i defer to Johnny and the other experts on this.
just an idea that i had.

-monz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:ekin@lumma.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:24 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Lindley and Turner-Smith
>
>
> >book 1 and book 2 were produced under completely, utterly different
> >circumstances.
>
> Perhaps this would be a good time for someone who knows the history
> of the publication (dates, titling) of the books to speak up. AFAIK
> at least bk. I was never published during Bach's lifetime.
>
> -Carl
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Buy No Snore & Get a Good Night's Sleep. Natural Oral Spray -- $24.95
> (1 bottle, 1 month supply, with sweet almond oil, eucalyptus
> oil & more).
> http://www.challengerone.com/t/l.asp?cid=2881&lp=h515.html
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/2oMABA/nuYGAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the
> tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message
> delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
> daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
> individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

🔗monz@attglobal.net

> From: monz@attglobal.net [mailto:monz@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:41 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Lindley and Turner-Smith
>
>
> this thread is getting really interesting to me.
>
> about a week or so ago, when the discussion about
> Bach's WTC and tuning first came up once again,
> i had the idea that perhaps the two books were
> written to promote *two different* versions of
> well-temperament!

or for that matter, two entirely different kinds
of tunings.

i was reading a webpage i found somewhere that
advocated the use of meantone for all the rest
of Bach's music except WTC.

http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~oneskull/3.6.04.htm

so perhaps Bach intentionally wrote both books of WTC
to demonstrate particular keyboard tunings in which
he was interested, and perhaps that interest was only
somewhat in passing.

-monz

🔗monz@attglobal.net

to all the German speakers/readers out there:

with regard to that page i just referred to in
the Bach WTC thread

http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~oneskull/3.6.04.htm

it says:

>> He [Bach] wrote two sets of pieces called
>> _Das Wohltemperierte Klavier_ ('The Well-tempered
>> Keyboard'), avoiding the German term for equal
>> temperament, which is gleich-schwebende temperatur

we had a bit of discussion of this a few years ago, and
it's reflected in my Dictionary "equal temperament" page:

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

>> The Germans used the phrase "gleichschwebende
>> Temperatur" to denote equal-beating temperament
>> since the beginning of the 18th century. This is
>> not to be confused with equal-temperament, and
>> instead actually denotes certain meantones,
>> well-temperament, and other tunings where the
>> varying temperings of different intervals results
>> in them having equal numbers of beats per second.

but just a few days ago, while working on my latest
conclusions about Aristoxenus, i was researching
Westphal's 1883/1893 study of Aristoxenus (and in
fact have come to essentially the same conclusion
about Aristoxenus's tuning as Westphal).

Westphal (writing in German) repeatedly uses the
term "gleich schwebende temperatur" to refer to
regular old 12-tone equal-temperament, and to its
extension to 24edo, the "quarter-tone" system, which
he then proceeds to use as his intonational basis,
employing logarithmic fractional parts of those
quarter-tones to designate Aristoxenus's "1/3-tones",
"1/6-tones", and "1/12-tones".

so, what exactly is the deal about translating
"gleich schwebende temperatur" into English?

if it *does* mean plain old equal-temperament,
then what *is* the German term for "equal-beating"
temperament?

is it possible that German writers have used the
phrase "gleich schwebende temperatur" to refer to
both logarithmically equal *and* equal-beating
tunings?

does it matter whether or not "gleich schwebende"
is two separate words or one single compound word?
i've seen it both ways, and also hyphenated.

thanks.

-monz

🔗Martin Braun <nombraun@telia.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:

> to all the German speakers/readers out there:

> is it possible that German writers have used the
> phrase "gleich schwebende temperatur" to refer to
> both logarithmically equal *and* equal-beating
> tunings?

That is not only possible. It is definitly so. Even today, the
Germans use the term for both. The reason is that there is no
established term for "logarithmically equal". The proper term for
this would be "gleichabständige Temperatur", and everybody would
understand the correct meaning. But it is not established and nearly
all say "gleichschwebende Temperatur", in most cases not knowing that
it is wrong what they say. My suspicion is that "gleichschwebende
Temperatur" simply sounds much more poetical and less technical. The
main, non-technical meaning of "schweben" is "to hover" or "to
float", which of course is a great thing in music ;-)

>
> does it matter whether or not "gleich schwebende"
> is two separate words or one single compound word?
> i've seen it both ways, and also hyphenated.

The correct version is "gleichschwebende". "gleich schwebende" is
wrong, because it means "soon hovering/floating", but people will
understand it alright. Hyphenating it is nonsense, but even that
will be understood alright.

Good luck!

Martin

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗monz@attglobal.net

thanks, Martin ... but unfortunately, you only
confirm what i suspected: that theorists and other
writers on tuning once again have been very sloppy
with their terminology. ARGH!

... so then the only we to be absolutely sure whether
a German writer is using "gleichschwebende temperatur"
(or one of its spelling variants) to mean a well-temperament
or equal temperament is to examine the context.

... *more* work! AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

-monz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Braun [mailto:nombraun@telia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 12:09 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: what is "gleich-schwebende temperatur"?
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > to all the German speakers/readers out there:
>
> > is it possible that German writers have used the
> > phrase "gleich schwebende temperatur" to refer to
> > both logarithmically equal *and* equal-beating
> > tunings?
>
> That is not only possible. It is definitly so. Even today, the
> Germans use the term for both. The reason is that there is no
> established term for "logarithmically equal". The proper term for
> this would be "gleichabstï¿½ndige Temperatur", and everybody would
> understand the correct meaning. But it is not established and nearly
> all say "gleichschwebende Temperatur", in most cases not knowing that
> it is wrong what they say. My suspicion is that "gleichschwebende
> Temperatur" simply sounds much more poetical and less technical. The
> main, non-technical meaning of "schweben" is "to hover" or "to
> float", which of course is a great thing in music ;-)
>
> >
> > does it matter whether or not "gleich schwebende"
> > is two separate words or one single compound word?
> > i've seen it both ways, and also hyphenated.
>
> The correct version is "gleichschwebende". "gleich schwebende" is
> wrong, because it means "soon hovering/floating", but people will
> understand it alright. Hyphenating it is nonsense, but even that
> will be understood alright.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Martin
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Buy Breakthrough Natural Health Specialties at
> VitaminBoost.com $20 to $40
> Naturally Painless Spray, Coral Calcium, No Snore, EZ
> Appetite Suppressant.
> http://www.challengerone.com/t/l.asp?cid=2882
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/yoMABA/ruYGAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the
> tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message
> delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
> daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
> individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >thanks, Martin ... but unfortunately, you only
> >confirm what i suspected: that theorists and other
> >writers on tuning once again have been very sloppy
> >with their terminology. ARGH!
> >
> >... so then the only we to be absolutely sure whether
> >a German writer is using "gleichschwebende temperatur"
> >(or one of its spelling variants) to mean a well-temperament
> >or equal temperament is to examine the context.
> >
> >... *more* work! AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!
>
> monz, if you were following the thread, I believe it was
> implied that theorists back then though equal-beating led
> to equal temperament. Or do I remember / did I read that
> wrong?
>
> -Carl

you read it right, *some* forms of equal beating tuning may have been
so thought of -- but certainly no one would mistake an equal-beating
*meantone* temperament, such as zarlino's 2/7-comma or smith's 5/18-
comma, for equal temperament, of course.

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

hi,
this is coming late, but for some reason my server refused to acknowledge my computer yesterday.

monz@attglobal.net wrote:

>>>The Germans used the phrase "gleichschwebende
>>>Temperatur" to denote equal-beating temperament
>>>since the beginning of the 18th century. This is
>>>not to be confused with equal-temperament, and

yet the germans traditionally do it all the time.

>>>instead actually denotes certain meantones,
>>>well-temperament, and other tunings where the
>>>varying temperings of different intervals results
>>>in them having equal numbers of beats per second. > if it *does* mean plain old equal-temperament,
> then what *is* the German term for "equal-beating"
> temperament?

gleichschwebende temperatur, of course.

> > is it possible that German writers have used the
> phrase "gleich schwebende temperatur" to refer to
> both logarithmically equal *and* equal-beating
> tunings?

yes. but don't worry, das ist wissenschaft.
i once translated a paper for a sociologist, who at one point made an
explicit distinction between "universal" and "universell" - a
distinction that is not reflected in any dictionary i had access to.
instead of explaining what he meant, he dismissed the problem as "the
natural loss to be expected when translating from such a uniquely
philosophically rigorous language like german." hrumph.

> > does it matter whether or not "gleich schwebende"
> is two separate words or one single compound word?
> i've seen it both ways, and also hyphenated.

before S.R. (spelling reform) it used to depend on word accent (if
it's one word, "schwebende" has no primary accent), and "gleich
schwebend" (an accent a word) used to mean "soon to be floating in
air". now they try to make it dependent on the extensibility of the
adjective, a moot point with a non-gradable word like "equal". if i
get it right, it still should be written as one word. but for 19th
century sources, it was an (admitted, i hope) matter of taste and
taste only.

silver lining: some german sources now speak of "gleichstufig", "having equal steps sizes". wait at least another generation for it to be widely accepted.

klaus

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

Martin Braun wrote:

> That is not only possible. It is definitly so. Even today, the
> Germans use the term for both. The reason is that there is no
> established term for "logarithmically equal". The proper term for
> this would be "gleichabständige Temperatur", and everybody would
> understand the correct meaning. But it is not established and nearly
> all say "gleichschwebende Temperatur", in most cases not knowing that
> it is wrong what they say. My suspicion is that "gleichschwebende
> Temperatur" simply sounds much more poetical and less technical. The
> main, non-technical meaning of "schweben" is "to hover" or "to
> float", which of course is a great thing in music ;-)

but maybe it shouldn't be understood to refer to intervals and the
tuning process, but the results: there's no key that doesn't beat.

klaus

🔗Martin Braun <nombraun@telia.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> thanks, Martin ... but unfortunately, you only
> confirm what i suspected: that theorists and other
> writers on tuning once again have been very sloppy
> with their terminology. ARGH!

Quite right. And they have been sloppy with terms, because most of
them were unaware of the difference. Many musicians love numbers, but
most of them hate physics, let alone biology.

> ... so then the only we to be absolutely sure whether
> a German writer is using "gleichschwebende temperatur"
> (or one of its spelling variants) to mean a well-temperament
> or equal temperament is to examine the context.

Exactly. If you have no indication that the original meaning is
correct, you can be sure that the wrong meaning is correct, that
is "equal temperament".

But what is ARGH ? (it's missing even in the web dics) ;-)

Martin

🔗monz@attglobal.net

> From: Martin Braun [mailto:nombraun@telia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 4:24 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: what is "gleich-schwebende temperatur"?
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > [me, monz]
> > ... so then the only we to be absolutely sure whether
> > a German writer is using "gleichschwebende temperatur"
> > (or one of its spelling variants) to mean a well-temperament
> > or equal temperament is to examine the context.
>
> Exactly. If you have no indication that the original meaning is
> correct, you can be sure that the wrong meaning is correct, that
> is "equal temperament".

OK, thanks. i'll put this into the Dictionary entry
for "equal-temperament".

in fact, as of today "gleich-schwebende temperatur"
will have its own Dictionary entry.

at the inception of my Tuning Dictionary,
John Chalmers generously handed over the entire
glossary of his _Divisions of the Tetrachord_
for inclusion, and there are a lot of Greek terms
in there (unfortunately, most of which i still
haven't included ... i think i got as far as "H".)

it's high time that i start including distinctive
German terms as well.

> But what is ARGH ? (it's missing even in the web dics) ;-)

according to the definition here

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon

i use "ARGH" as a substitute for

which means "somewhat unhappy/discontent".

thanks to Martin and Klaus for helping to
untangle this very important topic.

-monz

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 7/24/03 9:58 AM, monz@attglobal.net <monz@attglobal.net> wrote:

>> But what is ARGH ? (it's missing even in the web dics) ;-)
>
>
> according to the definition here
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon
>
>
> i use "ARGH" as a substitute for
>
> :/
>
> which means "somewhat unhappy/discontent".

Yes "somewhat" perhaps, but very expressively so.

I think ARGH had its origin in the comics where there was a need to have a
textual representation for the sounds that characters made to express their
frustration, etc., long (I think) before the days of emoticons (e.g. :/
).

There are a lot of variants such as ARRRRGHHHHHHH!, the extended length
being an indication of the time it took for the character to make the
indicated sound. Fairly often the ARGH appeared in large letters compared
to the rest of the comic strip, and was to my memory always capitalized and
often accompanied by an exclamation point.

I believe ARGH usually has a strong connotation of frustration, and perhaps
a bit of incredulity at the expression/action of another. This may seem
awfully specific but my sense is that the reader is made acutely aware of
how another chracter's (often somewhat passive) action has elicited this
response, and yet that the response is directed more toward the "universe"
so to speak, rather than directly back at the character whose action
elicited the response. Nonetheless, being nearby, the other character is
nonetheless affected (e.g. made to roll backwards) by the strong expression
of the ARGH.

My sense of the meanings are probably derived mainly from Peanuts, wherein a
character often inspiring the ARGH response is Lucy, if I recall correctly.
And I am no authority on comics in spite of my strong impressions. I'll bet
there is a dictionary of comics out there somewhere.

-Kurt

Also... Werkmeister III and WTC question...

🔗Eric T Knechtges <knechtge@msu.edu>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Leonardo Perretti <dombedos@tiscalinet.it>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Leonardo Perretti <dombedos@tiscalinet.it>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗Leonardo Perretti <dombedos@tiscalinet.it>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>