The Myth of Invariance

I checked this out, and it turns out to be a bizarre work of
pseudo-scholarship. It does have at least one idea which might be
interesting, the musical yantra. Given a positive integer n, the
musical yantra for n is all integers of the form 3^p 5^q <= n. These
he graphs in the symmetrical 5-limit lattice; the yantra is to be
regarded as consisting of pitch-classes, and if we transpose and
reduce to an octave, as a scale.

Gene,

Ernest G. McClain published The Myth of Invariance in
the late 1970's. He told me last september that it is
still in print. He was Prof. of Music at Brooklyn
College for many years and had the good fortune of
meeting and becoming friends with two of the 20th
Century's finest Pythagoreans, Ernst Levy and Sigmond
Lavarie, both exiles from Nazi Germany. Prof. McClain
also published The Pythagorean Plato, as well as a
book on Islamic Arithmology and tuning theory whose
name escapes me but was something like Musings Through
the Koran (I have a copy of it at home, but I'm
writing from the local community center).

After Ernest McClain, the deepest thinker I've known
in the field of tuning lore and theory is the Dutch
Canadian, Siemen Terpstra. Siem once told me that he
had to read The Myth of Invariance from cover to cover
three times in order to grasp it all. I am still
referring back to this book twenty-five years after I
first read it.

As a serious, long time student of ancient Hindu Art
of Yantra, I was glad to see that you felt that this
work, "...does have at least one idea which might be
interesting, the musical yantra". Everyone, of
course, has the right to his or her own opinion, but I
find the first sentence of your message, "I checked
this out, and it turns out to be a bizarre work of
pseudo-scholarship", to be ignorant and offensive.
The book is dense and full of unfamiliar concepts, but
pseudo-scholarship it is not. I can only hope that,
as a microtonal brother, you take the time to read it
a couple more times until you "get it". If you can
persist, as Seim and I and John Chalmers and Erv
Wilson did, I'm sure that you will not be
disappointed.

--Mark Rankin

--- Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:
> I checked this out, and it turns out to be a bizarre
> work of
> pseudo-scholarship. It does have at least one idea
> which might be
> interesting, the musical yantra. Given a positive
> integer n, the
> musical yantra for n is all integers of the form 3^p
> 5^q <= n. These
> he graphs in the symmetrical 5-limit lattice; the
> yantra is to be
> regarded as consisting of pitch-classes, and if we
> transpose and
> reduce to an octave, as a scale.
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mark Rankin <markrankin95511@y...>

> After Ernest McClain, the deepest thinker I've known
> in the field of tuning lore and theory is the Dutch
> Canadian, Siemen Terpstra. Siem once told me that he
> had to read The Myth of Invariance from cover to cover
> three times in order to grasp it all. I am still
> referring back to this book twenty-five years after I
> first read it.

This is an argument by transitive authority. I am supposed to take
McClain's preposterous nonsense seriously because Terpstra takes it
seriously, and I am supposed to take Terpstra seriously because you
claim he is a "thinker". However, the chain works in the other direction.

> As a serious, long time student of ancient Hindu Art
> of Yantra, I was glad to see that you felt that this
> work, "...does have at least one idea which might be
> interesting, the musical yantra".

The ancient Hindu art of Yantra has exactly nothing to do with 5-limit
just intonation, which your studies ought to have taught you by now.

Everyone, of
> course, has the right to his or her own opinion, but I
> find the first sentence of your message, "I checked
> this out, and it turns out to be a bizarre work of
> pseudo-scholarship", to be ignorant and offensive.

I find your attempt to bludgeon me into treating an interesting crank
as if he were a serious scholar offensive. Moreover an argument by
authority will not impress me, so you'd better try an argument
argument by fact and reason if you care to make a convert of me.

> The book is dense and full of unfamiliar concepts, but
> pseudo-scholarship it is not.

It is not dense, nor is it difficult; it is simply mostly utter nonsense.

I can only hope that,
> as a microtonal brother, you take the time to read it
> a couple more times until you "get it".

Your belief that I don't believe the world is flat merely because I am
too stupid to quickly grasp the deep and subtle arguments showing it
can't be round is noted, but could your assessment be wrong? Again,
open your mind, think, and you could learn something valuable from this.