Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning wrong use of "Tuning Math??"

I would like to suggest that, possibly, the Tuning Math forum has not
been integrated successfully into our tuning community, and is not
being used for optimal purposes.

Why should *I* say something about this, and what "authority" do I
have, since I'm rarely a participant over there??

Well hear me out: things like Sagittal have been developed over
there without any input at all from the general tuning community at
all!

My assumption, and, indeed, I believe the assumption of these forums,
was that math SHOULD be on THIS forum! It is only when a *particular
problem* or an inordinate number of ordinate numbers are used that
the topic should go over there: a particular technical tuning issue
that needs to be worked out...

The idea, initially I believe, was to *relieve* THIS forum from
particular intricacies of mathematics that some people here can't
understand. That's doesn't mean that we're all morons over here or
totally unnumerate!

The Tuning Math forum should be used, in *my* opinion, in the same
was that the *Metatuning* forum is used. Metatuning was set up for
any conversions that went *off topic...*

TUNING MATH was set up for any math topics that got *too technical!!*

Whose idea was it to put *any* math, or any math-related topics over
there??

I think that's dead wrong...

J. Pehrson

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>I would like to suggest that, possibly, the Tuning Math forum has not
>been integrated successfully into our tuning community, and is not
>being used for optimal purposes.
>
>Why should *I* say something about this, and what "authority" do I
>have, since I'm rarely a participant over there??
>
>Well hear me out: things like Sagittal have been developed over
>there without any input at all from the general tuning community at
>all!

Sagittal wasn't developed "over there". It was developed privately
between George and Dave.

Anyone is warmly welcome to watch or participate in tuning-math
discussions. Sagittal actually started there, but it garnered so
little interest that Dave and George took it off-list.

>The Tuning Math forum should be used, in *my* opinion, in the same
>was that the *Metatuning* forum is used. Metatuning was set up for
>any conversions that went *off topic...*

Dude, tuning-math has been around a few years now, and is working
better than this list IMO. How dare you make such statements?

And what's off-topic? Everything ever posted on tuning-math is
on-topic here, the way I see it.

>Whose idea was it to put *any* math, or any math-related topics over
>there??

As you may recall, I was opposed to the split. It isn't just math
that garnered complaints here -- a fuss was often caused by merely
being too "technical or "theoretical". These labels are meaningless,
of course. It's just whatever people happen to want to complain
about.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
Joseph Pehrson:
> >Well hear me out: things like Sagittal have been developed over
> >there without any input at all from the general tuning community at
> >all!

Not true, as anyone can verify from the archives.

Sagittal was first presented on the main tuning list and discussion
proceeded there from January 22 to March 12, 2002. The main list was
asked for its opinions on whether the discussion should move to
tuning-math, not once but twice. Not a single person expressed an
objection.

The 72-ET notation was very close to its present form before the
discussion moved to tuning-math.

Carl Lumma:
> Sagittal wasn't developed "over there". It was developed privately
> between George and Dave.

Not true, as anyone can verify from the archives.

Sagittal was developed in full public view, where anyone could
contribute, for over a year, (from Jan 2002 to Feb 2003). By the time
George and I decided to continue off list, all the essential details
were settled regarding the notation of 19-limit JI and ETs up to at
least two hundred and something!

Carl Lumma:
> Anyone is warmly welcome to watch or participate in tuning-math
> discussions.

Absolutely true. It's just as public as the main tuning list, and
sometimes I think, more friendly. Comments about a lack of soil and
water are a bit silly.

Carl Lumma:
> Sagittal actually started there,

Not quite true, as already mentioned.

> but it garnered so
> little interest that Dave and George took it off-list.

In fact it was discussed on the tuning list for nearly a year, from
March 13, 2002 to Feb 16, this year. By the time we decided to take it
off list, it was down to such fine details that we doubted anyone was
still following. But you can never tell by a lack of response on these
lists, whether (a) no one is interested in what you are doing, or (b)
everyone thinks you're doing a good enough job and sees no reason to
comment, or some combination of the two.

We are grateful to the following people who made suggestions and/or
offered encouragement during the year of public development of the
Sagittal notation system, (in alphabetical order): Graham Breed, Paul
Erlich, Mark Gould, Marc Jones, Carl Lumma, Herman Miller, Alison
Monteith, Joe Monzo, Ted Mook, Manuel Op de Coul, Joseph Pehrson,
Johnny Reinhard, Joel Rodrigues, Klaus Schmirler, Margo Schulter, Gene
Ward Smith, Dan Stearns, Jon Szanto and Robert Wendell.

But of course, any shortcomings remain the responsibility of George and I.

-- Dave Keenan

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47611.html#47621

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> Joseph Pehrson:
> > >Well hear me out: things like Sagittal have been developed over
> > >there without any input at all from the general tuning community
at
> > >all!
>
> Not true, as anyone can verify from the archives.
>
> Sagittal was first presented on the main tuning list and discussion
> proceeded there from January 22 to March 12, 2002. The main list was
> asked for its opinions on whether the discussion should move to
> tuning-math, not once but twice. Not a single person expressed an
> objection.
>
> The 72-ET notation was very close to its present form before the
> discussion moved to tuning-math.
>
> Carl Lumma:
> > Sagittal wasn't developed "over there". It was developed
privately
> > between George and Dave.
>
> Not true, as anyone can verify from the archives.
>
> Sagittal was developed in full public view, where anyone could
> contribute, for over a year, (from Jan 2002 to Feb 2003). By the
time
> George and I decided to continue off list, all the essential details
> were settled regarding the notation of 19-limit JI and ETs up to at
> least two hundred and something!
>
> Carl Lumma:
> > Anyone is warmly welcome to watch or participate in tuning-math
> > discussions.
>
> Absolutely true. It's just as public as the main tuning list, and
> sometimes I think, more friendly. Comments about a lack of soil and
> water are a bit silly.
>

***Yes, I've just recently realized I've missed something by not
trying to follow Tuning Math. I guess it got pretty arcane for a
period and I gave up trying, but I see it's reverted back sometimes
to things that I could (maybe read *should*) be participating in...
Now to find the time...

Joseph

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47611.html#47623

> Erratum:
>
> I wrote
> "In fact it was discussed on the tuning list for nearly a year, ..."
>
> That should have been:
> "In fact it was discussed on the tuning-math list for nearly a
year, ..."

***Yes, that confused me a bit, but I thought I understood what you
meant.

Well, my point is this: when the Tuning Math list and the Harmonic
Entropy list, both lists that *started* with topics on the main
Tuning List began, the idea was that these topics would be
*developed* on these specialized lists and then the *results* would
be posted back to the *main* list.

You can find that discussion in the archives of a few years ago, I
think May 2001, when the lists split off (over inordinate Blackjack
discussion)...

However, things haven't worked out that way, and there was hardly a
post suggesting all this stuff was going on on Tuning Math.
Admittedly, I should have poked my head in occasionally, but I had no
idea...

Joseph

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>Carl Lumma:
>> Sagittal actually started there,

Sorry 'bout that, Dave.

>> but it garnered so
>> little interest that Dave and George took it off-list.
>
>In fact it was discussed on the tuning list for nearly a year, from
>March 13, 2002 to Feb 16, this year. By the time we decided to take it
>off list, it was down to such fine details that we doubted anyone was
>still following. But you can never tell by a lack of response on these
>lists, whether (a) no one is interested in what you are doing, or (b)
>everyone thinks you're doing a good enough job and sees no reason to
>comment, or some combination of the two.

Indeed. One way to solve this is a post-rating system. Many boards
have it. The potential downside, I think, is it can make things too
competitive. Not that we'd have that problem around here! :)

>But of course, any shortcomings remain the responsibility of George
>and I.

I hardly think this is true! Were you being sarcastic?

-Carl

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

I wrote:
> No. This is intended as the usual disclaimer. Authors don't blame
> those who gave suggestions or encouragement, for any shortcomings that
> exist in the finished work. But I hasten to add that this is only the
> first edition of the work.

I should also add that the first edition hasn't even been _published_
yet, because it hasn't been _finished_ yet, because we were thrown
into damage-control mode by someone who though he was already
"reviewing" it, based on a draft version of the TrueType font with no
accompanying explanation.

There will be plenty of time for reviewing, _after_ publication, when
_all_ the information is "on the table". I don't think that either
George or I should succumb to kneejerk reactions to appease just one
pehrson :-), when all the information is not on the table. So I ask
that you all give us a little breathing space to do that.

And I strongly encourage Joseph to use Monz's version of the HEWM
notation with his performers in the meantime. That's the one with <
and > for sixthtones and - and + for twelfth tones.

I note that the current sagital notation for 72-ET is just a different
symbolisation of the HEWM notation with its distinguished lineage (see
http://sonic-arts.org/dict/hewm.htm) but what George proposed most
recently (apparently suspecting he might be doing the wrong thing even
as he proposed it) is not a HEWM notation in the sense that it uses a
double-syntonic-comma symbol for the sixthtone instead of a
septimal-comma symbol.

And we should try everything else possible before adopting a notation
for 72-ET which is not part of a sub-system that covers _all_
multiples of 12-ET. We refer to this as the "trojan" sub-system of
Sagittal. The need for such a system was a point that Prof. Gardner
Read made _very_strongly_ in his book "20th Century Microtonal Notation".

This is a very expensive book, but it is well worthwhile if you can
get to a music library and have a look at it. You will find two
earlier notations by George Secor surveyed (favourably) in it.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47611.html#47635

> I wrote:
> > No. This is intended as the usual disclaimer. Authors don't blame
> > those who gave suggestions or encouragement, for any shortcomings
that
> > exist in the finished work. But I hasten to add that this is only
the
> > first edition of the work.
>
> I should also add that the first edition hasn't even been
_published_
> yet, because it hasn't been _finished_ yet, because we were thrown
> into damage-control mode by someone who though he was already
> "reviewing" it, based on a draft version of the TrueType font with
no
> accompanying explanation.
>

***Hi Dave!

I understand that you're a little "irritated" with me, and probably
for good reason, but in my defense, I must say that I wasn't given
many specific "instructions..."

I was told not to *show* the notation or *give* it to anybody yet,
but you never said anything about how I shouldn't *talk* about it!
(That's a mistake with me, since I obviously love to type...)

I wish you had, if that's what you wanted.

I realize that many of my impressions were *first impressions* and
I've consistently labeled them as such.

It's made for lively and, at least from *this* end, fascinating
discussion, even if you haven't viewed it as such... :)

You know, sometimes *first impressions* have a greater significance
than people sometimes give them credit.

> There will be plenty of time for reviewing, _after_ publication,
when
> _all_ the information is "on the table". I don't think that either
> George or I should succumb to kneejerk reactions to appease just one
> pehrson :-), when all the information is not on the table. So I ask
> that you all give us a little breathing space to do that.
>

***Why, of course! I've also mentioned, repeatedly, that I have no
real *authority* to review this product. I believe I've said that
more than once.

What if my commentary had been ravingly positive? I'll bet not only
would you have encouraged this verbiage, but you might already have
reprinted it someplace... :)

> And I strongly encourage Joseph to use Monz's version of the HEWM
> notation with his performers in the meantime. That's the one with <
> and > for sixthtones and - and + for twelfth tones.
>

***Well, maybe I will. It is superior to the Sims. The quartertones
in the Sims are driving me batty and I can *confirm* that performers
don't like them either...

> I note that the current sagital notation for 72-ET is just a
different
> symbolisation of the HEWM notation with its distinguished lineage
(see
> http://sonic-arts.org/dict/hewm.htm) but what George proposed most
> recently (apparently suspecting he might be doing the wrong thing
even
> as he proposed it) is not a HEWM notation in the sense that it uses
a
> double-syntonic-comma symbol for the sixthtone instead of a
> septimal-comma symbol.
>

***Well, there has to be some way around this. Could you use
the "correct" right-leaning scythe line with an *optional* straight
line under it??

(like a cross)

You could call these lines "composer lines" and composers could add
things like this to any of the "correct" symbols if they want to make
them distinct from something else...

Then the *theory* people could take them all out, since they would
be, essentially, superfluous, but composers could put them in for
*legibility* if they so desired??

Just an idea... Is it a possible one?? In other words, a non-
functional *visual* part of the notation that the theoretical people
know to disregard, but that composers or performers could *add* if
they needed more differentiation??

> And we should try everything else possible before adopting a
notation
> for 72-ET which is not part of a sub-system that covers _all_
> multiples of 12-ET. We refer to this as the "trojan" sub-system of
> Sagittal. The need for such a system was a point that Prof. Gardner
> Read made _very_strongly_ in his book "20th Century Microtonal
Notation".
>
> This is a very expensive book, but it is well worthwhile if you can
> get to a music library and have a look at it. You will find two
> earlier notations by George Secor surveyed (favourably) in it.
>

***I have this book, and I'm trying to find the correct page, but I'm
not seeing it as yet. There seem to be more references to Johnny
Reinhard than to George Secor!

(Could you please save me some time and point out the page...)

Continuing in my defense, I think I'm indicating a *very* favorable
reaction to the Sagittal project when I have said that I am very
excited about it, and want to use it in my music. And, I mean this
seriously.

I just need a distingishable subset, and so far, I've been very
discouraged that it doesn't appear there is one for me...

Thanks!

Joseph

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> You know, sometimes *first impressions* have a greater significance
> than people sometimes give them credit.

And sometimes not.

> What if my commentary had been ravingly positive? I'll bet not only
> would you have encouraged this verbiage, but you might already have
> reprinted it someplace... :)

I have no idea what you mean about reprinting it someplace, but I
should think it is obvious that negative comments suggest that
something needs to be changed, while positive ones don't. And if
something needs to be changed then everyone needs to know what
tradeoffs are available, and how various proposed solutions will
affect things other than the immediate concern, so informed
suggestions can be made. That information is not yet on the table. But
we're trying to get time to work on it.

> ***Well, there has to be some way around this. Could you use
> the "correct" right-leaning scythe line with an *optional* straight
> line under it??
...
> Just an idea... Is it a possible one??
...

Something like this is not inconceivable. But as I say, I'd like to
have all the information on the table, so everyone can have a chance
to evaluate such solutions with regard to the overall scheme.

> (Could you please save me some time and point out the page...)

No. I didn't buy the book. Isn't "Secor, George" in the index. But
anyway, these have no bearing on the sagittal notation. Just evidence
that George has been thinking about this stuff for a long time.

> I just need a distingishable subset, and so far, I've been very
> discouraged that it doesn't appear there is one for me...

I think we've got that message by now.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47611.html#47645

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
wrote:
> > You know, sometimes *first impressions* have a greater
significance
> > than people sometimes give them credit.
>
> And sometimes not.
>
> > What if my commentary had been ravingly positive? I'll bet not
only
> > would you have encouraged this verbiage, but you might already
have
> > reprinted it someplace... :)
>
> I have no idea what you mean about reprinting it someplace, but I
> should think it is obvious that negative comments suggest that
> something needs to be changed, while positive ones don't. And if
> something needs to be changed then everyone needs to know what
> tradeoffs are available, and how various proposed solutions will
> affect things other than the immediate concern, so informed
> suggestions can be made. That information is not yet on the table.
But
> we're trying to get time to work on it.
>
> > ***Well, there has to be some way around this. Could you use
> > the "correct" right-leaning scythe line with an *optional*
straight
> > line under it??
> ...
> > Just an idea... Is it a possible one??
> ...
>
> Something like this is not inconceivable. But as I say, I'd like to
> have all the information on the table, so everyone can have a chance
> to evaluate such solutions with regard to the overall scheme.
>
> > (Could you please save me some time and point out the page...)
>
> No. I didn't buy the book. Isn't "Secor, George" in the index. But
> anyway, these have no bearing on the sagittal notation. Just
evidence
> that George has been thinking about this stuff for a long time.
>
> > I just need a distingishable subset, and so far, I've been very
> > discouraged that it doesn't appear there is one for me...
>
> I think we've got that message by now.

***The biggest "problem" right now is that I could have contributed
more if I had been following the Tuning Math forum and been part of
the discussions all along.

That's nobody's fault but my own, although in my defense I will say
that it really wasn't clear that this was going on over there.

So now I have more than 2000 Tuning Math messages to read.

As you will see, I've already started reading and responding to
them...

Joseph

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***The biggest "problem" right now is that I could have contributed
> more if I had been following the Tuning Math forum and been part of
> the discussions all along.
>
> That's nobody's fault but my own, although in my defense I will say
> that it really wasn't clear that this was going on over there.

That's fine Joseph. There's no need for self-flagellation on anyone's
part. It isn't all set in stone yet.

> So now I have more than 2000 Tuning Math messages to read.
>
> As you will see, I've already started reading and responding to
> them...

From your responses so far I don't really see any point to this.
You're just saying what you've already said many times in the past few
days. We've got the message Joseph. Really we have. :-)

You could just wait for the report that summarises it all.

Of course, if you have the patience to really follow it, you will
certainly gain more insight by reading all those messages, but it
would be too tedious to have you respond message by message, often to
stuff that has long since been superceded.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47611.html#47652

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > ***The biggest "problem" right now is that I could have
contributed
> > more if I had been following the Tuning Math forum and been part
of
> > the discussions all along.
> >
> > That's nobody's fault but my own, although in my defense I will
say
> > that it really wasn't clear that this was going on over there.
>
> That's fine Joseph. There's no need for self-flagellation on
anyone's
> part. It isn't all set in stone yet.
>
> > So now I have more than 2000 Tuning Math messages to read.
> >
> > As you will see, I've already started reading and responding to
> > them...
>
> From your responses so far I don't really see any point to this.
> You're just saying what you've already said many times in the past
few
> days. We've got the message Joseph. Really we have. :-)

***Hi Dave!

I'm sure of it. I'm sure you caught it the first time, if not
earlier! :)

>
> You could just wait for the report that summarises it all.
>
> Of course, if you have the patience to really follow it, you will
> certainly gain more insight by reading all those messages, but it
> would be too tedious to have you respond message by message, often
to
> stuff that has long since been superceded.

***I want to read it, if I can possibly find time, to see how it
evolved. My responses, if I make them, are things I would have said
at that time...

So no one really needs to respond much to them. It's more for my
*own* learning experience... and to get a better idea how this came
about...

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47611.html#47652

***Well, this makes a lot of sense and I suppose I really shouldn't
have time to read through all this stuff anyway!

I promise I'll only post *new* ideas, and not reiterate what I've
been saying over and over again.

In my defense, though, I believe my statement that I thought it more
important to have precision for Just Intonation than worry
excessively about higher-number ETs is something I never expressed
before...

Joseph