Re: Tuning by Charles Lucy and Wallyesterpaulrus and Joe Monz

Joe Monz writes,

/tuning/topicId_51631.html#51683

OK: I want to thank Joe Monz, member of tuning
and owner of celestial-tuning for his response
on tuning re: Charles Blatchley's comments [see below] .

Thanks,

Bill
Author of Arnold's law
PS
Joe, I know that Charles Lucy's data is impeccable,
although in reverse order: we had long discussion
on tuning about wavelength vs. frequency, so would
we be agreed on Charles Lucy's *musical* notes as
being correct? And if they are in error, which I
never heard anyone of tuning challenge, would you
correct them now: for the *record*? I recall there
was no debate about the main *octaval* sequence being
C, but there was debate about whether or not the two
other notes were F or G, agreed? Can you tell us
if you agree, and place the order correctly?

> Charles Lucy had written,
> /tuning/topicId_40207.html#40207
>
> From: Charles Lucy <lucy@h...>
> Date: Sat Oct 26, 2002 6:45 pm
> Subject: Music of The Spheres and Bill Arnold's numbers
>
> I have read the papers that Bill Arnold sent me.
> My initial reaction is that the 0,3,6,9,12,24,48.96,192, 288, 384
> sequence is similar to the traditional harmonics series.
> In the following respective musical pattern related to frequency
(e.g.
> in Hz.):
> (using integer ratio "old" traditional logic that harmonics don't
beat
> i.e. Pythagorean)
>
> 3 = first Octave (3*1) e.g. C1
> 6 = second octave (3*2) e.g. C2
> 9 = second octave + fifth (3*3) or (6*(3/2)) e.g. G2
> 12 = third octave (3*(2^2)) e.g. C3
> 24 = fourth octave (3*8) e.g.C4
> 48 = fifth octave (3*16) e.g. C5
> 96 = sixth octave (3*32) e.g. C6
> 192 = seventh octave (3*64) e.g. C7
> 288 = seventh octave + fifth (3*76) or 192*(3/2)) e.g. G7
> 384 = eighth octave (3*132) e.g. C8
>
> This is simplistic, yet could suggest an octaving sequence.

Bill
Author of Arnold's law

------------------------

From: "monz" <monz@a...>
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: Tuning by Charles Lucy and Wallyesterpaulrus

hi Bill,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@y...> wrote:
> Wallyesterpaulrus writes,
>
> /tuning/topicId_51631.html#51658
>
> If there's a particular music or tuning element to this you'd like
me
> to comment on, please focus me in on that.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> OK: Wall yesterpaulrus, it is about music! Can you look at
> Charles Lucy's *octaval* notes below, and see if what Charles
> Blatchley says [see below] is correct as tuning experts see it?
> As I recall you thought I had confused wavelength with frequency,
> and it appears Charles Blatchley has also confused wavelength with
> frequency as tuning experts understand it.

i've mentioned my _Solar System_ piece to you a lot before:

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/solarsystem/solar-system.htm

if you click the links to the Yahoo posts, you will
see all the relevant data.

Charles B. is correct in stating that the lowest note
would be represented by Pluto's orbit, and the highest
by Mercury.

wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional:
the longer the wavelength, the lower the frequency, and
the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency.

(and i must apologize to you ... i never got around
to reading your papers in any depth, only took a quick
glance. sorry about that, but i've been very busy
with other stuff. someday...)

-monz

-----------------------------------------

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus