Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: [tuning] Digest Number 2986

> Hello all,
I have been lurking on and off for many months and wish to thank everyone for some really stimulating and informative
posts. I am a composer cellist interested in exploring different tunings. Due to the flexibility of the ello's intonation, I think it
will be a perfect vehicle for these studies.
Greenhorn question:
Does anyone use the ScalaX program from the Huygens site on Mac OsX? I've downloaded it but cannot find the
application part of the program in the folder. hmmm. Also says something about dragging the app to the "terminal window"
and as far as I know there isn't such a thing. Or???
Any help would be greatly appreciated! I am quite excited to get it up and running!

best to all,
F M Uitti
> van: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> datum: 2004/01/31 za PM 04:55:24 CET
> aan: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> onderwerp: [tuning] Digest Number 2986
>
>
> There are 10 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Re: Test, and question about follow-up texts to "Genesis"
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> 2. Re: Re: Counterpoint?
> From: Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>
> 3. Re: Regular temperament
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> 4. Re: Googling regular temperament
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> 5. Re: Counterpoint?
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> 6. Re: Googling regular temperament
> From: "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>
> 7. Re: Googling regular temperament
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
> 8. Re: Googling regular temperament
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
> 9. Re: Googling regular temperament
> From: "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>
> 10. Re: Googling regular temperament
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:21:52 -0000
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Test, and question about follow-up texts to "Genesis"
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Eric T Knechtges" <knechtge@m...>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
> Hi Eric!
>
> > First of all, this is a test to see if my e-mail address is
> still
> > posting to this list correctly.
> > Second...I'm sure this has been asked on this list before, but
> I'll ask
> > it again, and you can respond to me privately... are there any good
> > texts/online resources/etc. which can serve as a follow-up to
> Partch's
> > "Genesis"?
>
> (1) The most prominent author in the "Partchian JI" field is Erv
> Wilson, a friend of Partch's who's one of the most thoughtful and
> prolific microtonal theorists ever. His writings can be dense and
> forbidding, with most of the information embedded in beautiful
> diagrams. Luckily for you, some of us here have spent large amounts
> of time thinking about and discussing his work and have even having
> done some of the same work independently. Many of Wilson's works are
> collected here:
>
> http://www.anaphoria.com/wilson.html
>
> Some of these papers include generalized (hexagonal-array) keyboard
> diagrams for Partch's 'Monophonic Fabric'. One paper which discusses
> Partch's Diamonds, as well as some of Wilson's analogous
> constructions (which have been used by many JI composers), is
>
> http://www.anaphoria.com/dal.PDF
>
> I put together the following article which focuses on just one
> diagram in the paper above and attempts a gentle explanation:
>
> http://tonalsoft.com/td/erlich/paul-cps.htm
>
> (2) The 'anaphoria' website is the creation of Kraig Grady, an
> instrument-maker, composer, and theorist in Partch's tradition.
> Browse around the directories there and you will be treated to a
> wealth of Partch-inspired items.
>
> (3) If you're interested in a tuning system which approximates (to
> within a couple of cents) Partchian harmonies -- and even, if
> desired, the entire 'Monophonic Fabric' -- but is
> generated 'linearly', as conventional Western tonal materials are, a
> number of composers and theorists here have been working on a system
> first proposed in 1975:
>
> http://www.anaphoria.com/secor.PDF
>
> The system was rediscovered on this list and has spawned an enormous
> wealth of posts, beautiful diagrams, and even some music ;) Here's
> just one page on this:
>
> http://tonalsoft.com/enc/miracle.htm
>
> The discussions on this were one reason a separate list, tuning-math,
> was started for the more math-heavy discussions . . .
>
> #5 would surely have to be Prent Rodgers:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~prodgers13/
>
> (9) Skipping now to the bottom of the list ;) Much of my own work
> deals with Just Intonation. Take a look at
>
> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/erlich-tFoT.pdf
>
> and
>
> http://tonalsoft.com/td/erlich/intropblock1.htm and sequel
> which link, at the end, to a consideration of Partch's 43-tone scale
> (the 'Monophonic Fabric').
>
> Here's another idea that spun
> off from Partch's theories, and is half-seriously referred to as "the
> chords Partch forgot":
>
> http://x31eq.com/ass.htm
> http://x31eq.com/erlichs.htm
>
> Also inspired by Partch (and Yasser) is
> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/erlich-decatonic.pdf . . .
>
> Hope to hear more from you, and love to answer any questions you
> might have,
> Paul
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:40:28 -0800
> From: Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>
> Subject: Re: Re: Counterpoint?
>
> >> > /tuning/topicId_51743.html#52166
> >> >
> >> >> But within a contrapuntal atom, I can't think of an
> >> >> example that's more tonal than your average Bach.
> >> >
> >> >***Mozart??
> >>
> >> Any particular piece? There are Praeludium and Fugue in C, K394
> >> and Fugue 'Eruditissima' in Gmin, K401 -- both outstanding but
> >> neither any more tonal than Bach to my ear. The fugue from the
> >> last movement of the Jupiter might fare better...
> >>
> >> I'm thinking... what if 'tonal composition' is in some sense
> >> mutually exclusive with counterpoint? It almost seems that
> >> by definition if we have tonality we are loosing some independence
> >> of parts... or does it?
> >
> >How would you explain extremely independent voice-part writing in
> >the renaissance masters like Josquin?
>
> Not tonal.
>
> >Bach's counterpoint also lies on a varying harmonic-complexity
> >spectrum. Take WTC book 2 D major fugue vs. WTC book 1 b-minor fugue,
> >which is as wild and gnarly as the Baroque can get!!!
>
> This discussion was about tonal music, which Bach sat on the advent
> of, but is not usually considered to be a part of. I happen to think
> his fugues are among the most tonal counterpoint I've heard, and this
> was the item of debate -- is there any counterpoint more tonal than
> Bach?
>
> >I think you are sort of conflating harmonic simplicity with rhythmic
> >simplicity....we could have awesome rhytmic counterpoint on one chord!!!
> >(e.g. James Brown)
>
> Yes of course, but that's precisely what we're trying to avoid in
> this thread. We're looking for awesome rhythmic counterpoint *and*
> tonal chord motion.
>
> >At least if we allow a definition of counterpoint
> >that extends beyond the narrow confines of Fuxian species, but even
> >then, what I say applies, no?
>
> Defining counterpoint would be a good idea before proceeding further,
> I agree. And looking for it in jazz and pop seems like a good idea.
> There's some amazing counterpoint in Yes' later works, but I'm not
> sure it's tonal in the classical sense. Bebop can actually be quite
> contrapuntal, and bebop *is* tonal....
>
> >I'm mixing a demo CD with my percussionist friend, Andy Hasenpflug.
>
> Well let us know when it's available, Please!
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:06:35 -0000
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Regular temperament
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The generator definitely has to be a fifth, yes.
> >
> > Why? Why must present usage be tossed and everything reverted to
> > usage 50 years in the past,
>
> I already gave up fighting you.
>
> > if Barbour ever really intended it to be
> > so rigid, which I doubt?
>
> I don't share your doubt, not even one micro-iota of it.
>
> > > Consistency with the existing literature seems more in line with
> > the
> > > Wiki guidelines than the alternative.
> >
> > My definition *is* consistent with existing literature.
>
> What counts as existing literature and what counts as "original" and
> therefore inappropriate material?
>
> > Rather than
> > complain about my codification of contemporary usage, why not add
> > something about Barbour or Bosanquet?
>
> Sure. Do you have Barbour's book?
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:35:38 -0000
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Googling regular temperament
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I just think you may be solipsistically inflating the importance
> of
> > > our little cadre within the english-speaking tuning world.
> >
> > "Our litte cadre" is *by far* the most sophisticated discussion of
> > tuning theory going on in the world today.
>
> How can you be so sure? You're fully aware of what 6 billion people
> are thinking about and discussing in hundreds of different languages?
> How about merely what's published -- what percentage of the big
> bibliography are you familiar with?
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/bib.html
>
> > You are a significant
> > researcher in this very specialzied field and don't even know it.
>
> I'm clearly obsessed with it, and humans have given me the impression
> I have some relatively strong talents, but I will *always* operate
> under the assumption that there is someone I don't know of with more
> talent and knowledge out there. If disparate people from all over the
> world are going to get together to put together a web resource on
> something, this seems to me like the only assumption that will lead
> to positive results. If you don't enter the enterprise with a
> generous, cooperative spirit, you'll quickly be suppressed by a swarm
> of even more solipsistic pundits in this field, a few of whom have
> been named by name around here; more of whom haven't.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:40:24 -0000
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Counterpoint?
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
> wrote:
>
> > But at our more tonal moments, I've used Paul Hahn's
> > 32-consonance scale,
>
> Out of curiosity, which one? You're aware, of course, that his 32-
> consonance proposal was not a single scale, but 48 different scales?
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:26:19 -0000
> From: "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: Googling regular temperament
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > [from Dave Keenan, Yahoo tuning-math message
> >
> > > This usage of "regular temperament" can be considered "original,
> > > unpublished work" on the part of this small community over the past
> > > few years.
> >
> > Usage is usage. The people who talk seriously about tuning--and this
> > list is a very important portion of that group--define it.
> >
> > >I should have insisted on "uniform" way back when.
> >
> > The idea that a neologism needed to be coined when a perfectly
> > acceptable word was already in use strikes me as absurd. In any case,
> > as you yourself said, meanings evolve and are defined by usage. You
> > are refuted by your own argument, which you don't seem to accept,
> > preferring to believe that meanings are fixed in concrete, have
> > nothing to do with how a word is being used *now*, and should by no
> > means respect logic.
> >
> > To what would *your* definition apply? Only to linear temperaments?
> > Only to linear temperaments whose generator was a fifth? Only to
> > meantone? Only to a DES (distributionally equal scale, ie MOS) of
> > meantone? Only for the 12 note DES of meantone? Only for a 12 note
> > DES of meatone already listed in Barbours book? Who appointed you
> > judge and jury of how people are allowed to use the word?
>
> Gene,
>
> This looks like you are once again imputing offensive beliefs and
> motives to someone when this is not warranted by what they actually
> wrote. But hey, we're all guilty of this from time to time. Perhaps we
> should all try harder to assume the best possible reading of other
> people's posts.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:31:14 -0000
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
> Subject: Re: Googling regular temperament
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > How can you be so sure? You're fully aware of what 6 billion people
> > are thinking about and discussing in hundreds of different
> languages?
>
> Six billion people are not talking about tuning theory--trust me. If
> you knew of something significant going on, you would have mentioned
> it here, and ditto for many others on this list. You don't, so you
> didn't.
>
> > How about merely what's published -- what percentage of the big
> > bibliography are you familiar with?
> >
> > http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/bib.html
>
> The vast majority of stuff on that list is by people long dead. I see
> things of interest by people now alive, many of whom post here or are
> associated to people who do. Why don't you supply some specific
> examples of whatever it is you are trying to produce examples for,
> and explain the relevance?
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:33:59 -0000
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
> Subject: Re: Googling regular temperament
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
>
> > This looks like you are once again imputing offensive beliefs and
> > motives to someone when this is not warranted by what they actually
> > wrote.
>
> I don't know why you think that--Paul has in fact said that his
> position is that "regular temperament" entails octave and fifths. I
> don't think saying that some people (including you) use the word
> differently and that meaning can and does evolve counts as offensive.
> .
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:42:12 -0000
> From: "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: Googling regular temperament
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
> >
> > > This looks like you are once again imputing offensive beliefs and
> > > motives to someone when this is not warranted by what they actually
> > > wrote.
> >
> > I don't know why you think that--Paul has in fact said that his
> > position is that "regular temperament" entails octave and fifths. I
> > don't think saying that some people (including you) use the word
> > differently and that meaning can and does evolve counts as offensive.
> > .
>
> No it certainly does not. I totally agree with you.
>
> Oops. Now I see that there are at least two possible readings of what
> I wrote above, and you have taken the worst one. :-)
>
> I don't mean that you might be offensively imputing beliefs, I mean
> you might be imputing beliefs which you find offensive, but which
> don't exist, such as that Paul sees himself as judge and jury.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 04:52:16 -0000
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
> Subject: Re: Googling regular temperament
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
>
> > I don't mean that you might be offensively imputing beliefs, I mean
> > you might be imputing beliefs which you find offensive, but which
> > don't exist, such as that Paul sees himself as judge and jury.
>
> Ah. Well, I'm not sure he does. Sometimes he seems to be objecting
> strongly to current (on these groups, at least) usages of "regular
> temperament" or "linear temperament", and sometimes it seems he backs
> away from a strenuous objection.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> /tuning/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

http://www.uitti.org

click the hunger site to donate free food every day
http://www.thehungersite.com/

Re: [tuning] Digest Number 2986

🔗fm@chello.nl

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>