Introducing my own temperament

I have come up with the following well-temperament for smooth harmony and melody. As far as I can hear, it sounds swell. I hope I do not unknowingly plagiarise. Comments are very much welcome.

Sincerely,
Ozan Yarman

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

Yarman well-temperament.scl | Well Temperament for Piano by Ozan Yarman from Ney Ahengs
Deg Pitch Cents INTERVAL E53 Name
0 1/1 0.0000 18/17 C unison, perfect prime
1 20/19 88.8007 20/19 C#\ Db small undevicesimal semitone
2 9/8 203.9100 171/160 D major whole tone
3 32/27 294.1350 256/243 D#\ Eb Pythagorean minor third
4 5/4 386.3137 135/128 E\ major third
5 4/3 498.0450 16/15 F perfect fourth
6 45/32 590.2237 135/128 F#\ Gb diatonic tritone
7 3/2 701.9550 16/15 G perfect fifth
8 128/81 792.1800 256/243 G#\ Ab Pythagorean minor sixth
9 5/3 884.3587 135/128 A\ major sixth, BP sixth
10 16/9 996.0900 16/15 A#\ Bb Pythagorean minor seventh
11 17/9 1101.0454 17/16 B septendecimal major seventh
12 2/1 1200.0000 18/17 C octave

Hello Ozan,

Can you post the contents of the .scl file (.scl files
are human-readable)?

-Carl

>I have come up with the following well-temperament for smooth harmony
>and melody. As far as I can hear, it sounds swell... I hope I do not
>unknowingly plagiarise. Comments are very much welcome.
>
>Sincerely,
>Ozan Yarman
>
>-------------------------
>
>Yarman well-temperament.scl | Well Temperament for Piano by
>Ozan Yarman from Ney Ahengs
>
>Deg Pitch Cents INTERVAL E53 Name
>0 1/1 0.0000 18/17
> C
>unison, perfect prime
>1 20/19 88.8007 20/19
> C#\ Db
>small undevicesimal semitone
>2 9/8 203.9100 171/160
> D
>major whole tone
>3 32/27 294.1350 256/243
> D#\ Eb
>Pythagorean minor third
>4 5/4 386.3137 135/128
> E\
>major third
>5 4/3 498.0450 16/15
> F
>perfect fourth
>6 45/32 590.2237 135/128
> F#\ Gb
>diatonic tritone
>7 3/2 701.9550 16/15
> G
>perfect fifth
>8 128/81 792.1800 256/243
> G#\ Ab
>Pythagorean minor sixth
>9 5/3 884.3587 135/128
> A\
>major sixth, BP sixth
>10 16/9 996.0900 16/15
> A#\ Bb
>Pythagorean minor seventh
>11 17/9 1101.0454 17/16
> B
>septendecimal major seventh
>12 2/1 1200.0000 18/17
> C
>octave

hi Ozan,

as you can see from what Carl quoted, when you arrange
your tables in HTML format they appear fine in the Yahoo
web interface, but they do not appear the way you intend
them to for those list subscribers who receive messages
as regular emails.

for the purpose of minimizing misunderstanding, i
encourage you to keep tables in the simplest possible
ASCII format.

unfortunately, the Yahoo web interface several years ago
also instituted a "space saving" feature which many of
us have complained about, which removes "extra" spaces
where Yahoo deems that only one need suffice.

the easiest way to circumvent this "feature" and still
keep tables legible in regular email is to put periods
where the spaces would be.

the table you posted would appear thus:

Deg..Pitch...Cents...INTERVAL...E53..........Name
..0...1/1.....0.0000...18/17...C.......unison, perfect prime
..1..20/19...88.8007...20/19...C#\.Db..small undevicesimal semitone
..2...9/8...203.9100..171/160..D.......major whole tone
..3..32/27..294.1350..256/243..D#\.Eb..Pythagorean minor third
etc.

i would prefer to put some spaces between the periods, but
the width of this particular table precludes that, because adding
spaces would make the line length so long that in the Yahoo
interface it creates a line break.

anyway, as Carl said, the Scala file format is very legible,
and it is standard practice here on the tuning list to post
scales in Scala format anyway. i usually post both the
Scala file and the ASCII table.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> Hello Ozan,
>
> Can you post the contents of the .scl file (.scl files
> are human-readable)?
>
> -Carl
>
> >I have come up with the following well-temperament for smooth
harmony
> >and melody. As far as I can hear, it sounds swell... I hope I do
not
> >unknowingly plagiarise. Comments are very much welcome.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >Ozan Yarman
> >
> >-------------------------
> >
> >Yarman well-temperament.scl | Well Temperament for Piano by
> >Ozan Yarman from Ney Ahengs
> >
> >Deg Pitch Cents INTERVAL E53 Name
> >0 1/1 0.0000 18/17
> > C
> >unison, perfect prime
> >1 20/19 88.8007 20/19
> > C#\ Db
> >small undevicesimal semitone
> >2 9/8 203.9100 171/160
> > D
> >major whole tone
> >3 32/27 294.1350 256/243
> > D#\ Eb
> >Pythagorean minor third
> >4 5/4 386.3137 135/128
> > E\
> >major third
> >5 4/3 498.0450 16/15
> > F
> >perfect fourth
> >6 45/32 590.2237 135/128
> > F#\ Gb
> >diatonic tritone
> >7 3/2 701.9550 16/15
> > G
> >perfect fifth
> >8 128/81 792.1800 256/243
> > G#\ Ab
> >Pythagorean minor sixth
> >9 5/3 884.3587 135/128
> > A\
> >major sixth, BP sixth
> >10 16/9 996.0900 16/15
> > A#\ Bb
> >Pythagorean minor seventh
> >11 17/9 1101.0454 17/16
> > B
> >septendecimal major seventh
> >12 2/1 1200.0000 18/17
> > C
> >octave

With pleasure dear Carl, these are the best approximations I could derive from the Ney Ahengs used in Maqam Music in Turkey. If my data is correct, this is the 12-tone temperament that is a consequence of the fundamental Rast pitch of 12 different Ney sizes currently in use. I was astonished by its smoothness when I played it with Tune Smithy, I believe you will like it too.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Aralık 2004 Cumartesi 1:07
Subject: Re: [tuning] Introducing my own temperament

Hello Ozan,

Can you post the contents of the .scl file (.scl files
are human-readable)?

-Carl

>I have come up with the following well-temperament for smooth harmony
>and melody. As far as I can hear, it sounds swell... I hope I do not
>unknowingly plagiarise. Comments are very much welcome.
>
>Sincerely,
>Ozan Yarman
>
>-------------------------
>
>Yarman well-temperament.scl | Well Temperament for Piano by
>Ozan Yarman from Ney Ahengs
>
>Deg Pitch Cents INTERVAL E53 Name
>0 1/1 0.0000 18/17
> C
>unison, perfect prime
>1 20/19 88.8007 20/19
> C#\ Db
>small undevicesimal semitone
>2 9/8 203.9100 171/160
> D
>major whole tone
>3 32/27 294.1350 256/243
> D#\ Eb
>Pythagorean minor third
>4 5/4 386.3137 135/128
> E\
>major third
>5 4/3 498.0450 16/15
> F
>perfect fourth
>6 45/32 590.2237 135/128
> F#\ Gb
>diatonic tritone
>7 3/2 701.9550 16/15
> G
>perfect fifth
>8 128/81 792.1800 256/243
> G#\ Ab
>Pythagorean minor sixth
>9 5/3 884.3587 135/128
> A\
>major sixth, BP sixth
>10 16/9 996.0900 16/15
> A#\ Bb
>Pythagorean minor seventh
>11 17/9 1101.0454 17/16
> B
>septendecimal major seventh
>12 2/1 1200.0000 18/17
> C
>octave

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.803 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 30.11.2004

I have sent the scala file with my previous mail dear Monz, I hope that will be sufficient.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: monz
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Aralık 2004 Cumartesi 1:24
Subject: [tuning] Re: Introducing my own temperament

hi Ozan,

as you can see from what Carl quoted, when you arrange
your tables in HTML format they appear fine in the Yahoo
web interface, but they do not appear the way you intend
them to for those list subscribers who receive messages
as regular emails.

for the purpose of minimizing misunderstanding, i
encourage you to keep tables in the simplest possible
ASCII format.

unfortunately, the Yahoo web interface several years ago
also instituted a "space saving" feature which many of
us have complained about, which removes "extra" spaces
where Yahoo deems that only one need suffice.

the easiest way to circumvent this "feature" and still
keep tables legible in regular email is to put periods
where the spaces would be.

the table you posted would appear thus:

Deg..Pitch...Cents...INTERVAL...E53..........Name
..0...1/1.....0.0000...18/17...C.......unison, perfect prime
..1..20/19...88.8007...20/19...C#\.Db..small undevicesimal semitone
..2...9/8...203.9100..171/160..D.......major whole tone
..3..32/27..294.1350..256/243..D#\.Eb..Pythagorean minor third
etc.

i would prefer to put some spaces between the periods, but
the width of this particular table precludes that, because adding
spaces would make the line length so long that in the Yahoo
interface it creates a line break.

anyway, as Carl said, the Scala file format is very legible,
and it is standard practice here on the tuning list to post
scales in Scala format anyway. i usually post both the
Scala file and the ASCII table.

-monz

>With pleasure dear Carl, these are the best approximations I could
>derive from the Ney Ahengs used in Maqam Music in Turkey. If my data
>is correct, this is the 12-tone temperament that is a consequence of
>the fundamental Rast pitch of 12 different Ney sizes currently in
>use. I was astonished by its smoothness when I played it with Tune
>Smithy, I believe you will like it too.

Here you've attached the .scl file, but that leaves web viewers
out in the cold.

The solution is to paste the contents of the .scl file into
your message. Like this:

!
Well Temperament for Piano by Ozan Yarman from Ney Ahengs
12
!
20/19
9/8
32/27
5/4
4/3
45/32
3/2
128/81
5/3
16/9
17/9
2/1
!

I'll play with this tonight!

-Carl

You got me there Carl, my apologies. I hope you like the temperament, I enjoyed delicious moments improvising on my Yamaha P-200 with this scale.

All the best,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Aralık 2004 Cumartesi 1:47
Subject: Re: [tuning] Introducing my own temperament

>With pleasure dear Carl, these are the best approximations I could
>derive from the Ney Ahengs used in Maqam Music in Turkey. If my data
>is correct, this is the 12-tone temperament that is a consequence of
>the fundamental Rast pitch of 12 different Ney sizes currently in
>use. I was astonished by its smoothness when I played it with Tune
>Smithy, I believe you will like it too.

Here you've attached the .scl file, but that leaves web viewers
out in the cold.

The solution is to paste the contents of the .scl file into
your message. Like this:

!
Well Temperament for Piano by Ozan Yarman from Ney Ahengs
12
!
20/19
9/8
32/27
5/4
4/3
45/32
3/2
128/81
5/3
16/9
17/9
2/1
!

I'll play with this tonight!

-Carl

monz wrote:

>hi Ozan,
>
>
>as you can see from what Carl quoted, when you arrange
>your tables in HTML format they appear fine in the Yahoo
>web interface, but they do not appear the way you intend
>them to for those list subscribers who receive messages
>as regular emails.
> >
I had no problem seeing the table in my email kids.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

>>as you can see from what Carl quoted, when you arrange
>>your tables in HTML format they appear fine in the Yahoo
>>web interface, but they do not appear the way you intend
>>them to for those list subscribers who receive messages
>>as regular emails.
>
>I had no problem seeing the table in my email kids.

Sorry, I don't display html in e-mail. It's Wrong.

Second, it's much more convenient to get a Scala file,
since I can then load the scale into Scala and display
any type of chart I want, or play the scale.

-Carl

On Friday 17 December 2004 06:32 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> You got me there Carl, my apologies. I hope you like the temperament, I
> enjoyed delicious moments improvising on my Yamaha P-200 with this scale.

> !
> Well Temperament for Piano by Ozan Yarman from Ney Ahengs
> 12
> !
> 20/19
> 9/8
> 32/27
> 5/4
> 4/3
> 45/32
> 3/2
> 128/81
> 5/3
> 16/9
> 17/9
> 2/1
> !

Ozan,

To me, this is less of a 'temperament', and more of a JI 'tuning'; by my way
of using temperament, there would have to be some irrational intervals in
there, although there are some examples of tunings (rational based pitch
sets) being designed to approximate the effect of a temperament.

Monz says "A tuning which is not just-intonation; that is, the intervals are
not small-integer ratios." ............

-Aaron.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

>> !
>> Well Temperament for Piano by Ozan Yarman from Ney Ahengs
>> 12
>> !
>> 20/19
>> 9/8
>> 32/27
>> 5/4
>> 4/3
>> 45/32
>> 3/2
>> 128/81
>> 5/3
>> 16/9
>> 17/9
>> 2/1
>> !
>
>Ozan,
>
>To me, this is less of a 'temperament', and more of a JI 'tuning';
>by my way of using temperament, there would have to be some irrational
>intervals in there, although there are some examples of tunings
>(rational based pitch sets) being designed to approximate the effect
>of a temperament.
>
>Monz says "A tuning which is not just-intonation; that is, the
>intervals are not small-integer ratios." ............
>
>-Aaron.

Hi Aaron,

The distinction is deeper than that, as numerous lengthy discussions
on these lists show. It is also fairly unimportant.

[It ultimately comes down to the intent and actions of the composer.
Scale-based judgements have to cope with non-just rational cases
like the Hammond organ scale, as well as harmonic entropy effects
that allow multiple interpretations already in 9-limit JI (ie, 6:7:9
can sound like a badly-mistuned 4:5:6, an acceptable 4:5:6, or a
true 6:7:9, depending on the musical context).]

-Carl

Indeed, every tuning model depends of the intention of the composer.
But Ozon Yarman called this tuning model a "well tempered " tuning.
Well-tempered means in its historical context a more or less
closen tuning model, suitable for all music in western tradition.

This tuning model presents three fifth wolves:
D-A, E-B(H) and B(H)-F#

If one would position the B(H) to about 1088 cents (12 Cents deeper
than its ET value) it would be the "Kirnberger I" tuning model.

The high B(H) brings no advantage for any chord.

Best

Werner
> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Carl Lumma [mailto:ekin@lumma.org]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Dezember 2004 05:53
> An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: Re: [tuning] Introducing my own temperament

>>> !
>>> Well Temperament for Piano by Ozan Yarman from Ney Ahengs
>>> 12
>>> !
>>> 20/19
>>> 9/8
>>> 32/27
>>> 5/4
>>> 4/3
>>> 45/32
>>> 3/2
>>> 128/81
>>> 5/3
>>> 16/9
>>> 17/9
>>> 2/1
>>> !
>>
>> Ozan,
>>
>> To me, this is less of a 'temperament', and more of a JI 'tuning';
>> by my way of using temperament, there would have to be some irrational
>> intervals in there, although there are some examples of tunings
>> (rational based pitch sets) being designed to approximate the effect
>> of a temperament.
>>
>> Monz says "A tuning which is not just-intonation; that is, the
>> intervals are not small-integer ratios." ............
>>
>> -Aaron.

> Hi Aaron,

> The distinction is deeper than that, as numerous lengthy discussions
> on these lists show. It is also fairly unimportant.

> [It ultimately comes down to the intent and actions of the composer.
> Scale-based judgements have to cope with non-just rational cases
> like the Hammond organ scale, as well as harmonic entropy effects
> that allow multiple interpretations already in 9-limit JI (ie, 6:7:9
> can sound like a badly-mistuned 4:5:6, an acceptable 4:5:6, or a
> true 6:7:9, depending on the musical context).]
>
> -Carl

Aaron, the values in this scheme represent just intonation intervals as well as high limit ratios that can be taken in the context of a well-tempered system of tuning. I have come to believe just intonation to comprise single integer ratios without any further ado. The fact that there is a mixture of both Pythagorean 3-limit intervals, 5-limit harmonic intervals and others much higher primes in this scale convinced me that it's function is more like that of a well-temperament than a pure just intonation model. So I agree with Carl in the end.

Cordially,
Ozan

P.S. I tried the scale you sent me, it was very bizzarre yet somewhat pleasing too.
----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron K. Johnson
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Aralık 2004 Cumartesi 5:35
Subject: Re: [tuning] Introducing my own temperament

On Friday 17 December 2004 06:32 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> You got me there Carl, my apologies. I hope you like the temperament, I
> enjoyed delicious moments improvising on my Yamaha P-200 with this scale.

> !
> Well Temperament for Piano by Ozan Yarman from Ney Ahengs
> 12
> !
> 20/19
> 9/8
> 32/27
> 5/4
> 4/3
> 45/32
> 3/2
> 128/81
> 5/3
> 16/9
> 17/9
> 2/1
> !

Ozan,

To me, this is less of a 'temperament', and more of a JI 'tuning'; by my way
of using temperament, there would have to be some irrational intervals in
there, although there are some examples of tunings (rational based pitch
sets) being designed to approximate the effect of a temperament.

Monz says "A tuning which is not just-intonation; that is, the intervals are
not small-integer ratios." ............

-Aaron.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

So, do you think it is for better or for worse dear Werner?

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Werner Mohrlok
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Aralık 2004 Cumartesi 12:23
Subject: AW: [tuning] Introducing my own temperament

Indeed, every tuning model depends of the intention of the composer.
But Ozon Yarman called this tuning model a "well tempered " tuning.
Well-tempered means in its historical context a more or less
closen tuning model, suitable for all music in western tradition.

This tuning model presents three fifth wolves:
D-A, E-B(H) and B(H)-F#

If one would position the B(H) to about 1088 cents (12 Cents deeper
than its ET value) it would be the "Kirnberger I" tuning model.

The high B(H) brings no advantage for any chord.

Best

Werner

Upon closer inspection, I find that Kirnberger I is infinitely superior to my feeble scale. Please forgive my blunder as I discard it in favor of Kirnberger's well-temperament. This should explain the Ney ahengs better. Thank you very much for pointing out my error dear Werner.

Cordially,
Ozan Yarman
----- Original Message -----
From: Werner Mohrlok
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Aralık 2004 Cumartesi 12:23
Subject: AW: [tuning] Introducing my own temperament

Indeed, every tuning model depends of the intention of the composer.
But Ozon Yarman called this tuning model a "well tempered " tuning.
Well-tempered means in its historical context a more or less
closen tuning model, suitable for all music in western tradition.

This tuning model presents three fifth wolves:
D-A, E-B(H) and B(H)-F#

If one would position the B(H) to about 1088 cents (12 Cents deeper
than its ET value) it would be the "Kirnberger I" tuning model.

The high B(H) brings no advantage for any chord.

Best

Werner

Hi Ozan,

You need not be too modesty. If you would have
positioned the B(H) as a perfect fifth to the E,
this means 5/4 * 3/2 = 15/8 = about 1088 Cents,
you would have re-invented Kirnberger I
by own reflections.

It is better to learn something in tuning by
own reflections than by reading tuning tables and
not understanding their background.

Nevertheless Kirnberger I is problematic due to
its poor fifth D-A.

In Kirnberger II therefore the A is tempered
to the middle between D and E
and in Kirnberger III the complete fifth line
from C to E is tempered to meantone steps.

Kirnberger II and III are nice for Cmajor and its
neighborhood. But for more distant keys both are
problematic.

Best

Werner
> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Ozan Yarman [mailto:ozanyarman@superonline.com]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Dezember 2004 14:10
> An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: Re: [tuning] Introducing my own temperament
>

> Upon closer inspection, I find that Kirnberger I is infinitely superior
to my
> feeble scale. Please forgive my >blunder as I discard it in favor of
> Kirnberger's well-temperament. This should explain the Ney ahengs
better.
> Thank you very much for pointing out my error dear Werner.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan Yarman
----- Original Message -----
From: Werner Mohrlok
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Aral�k 2004 Cumartesi 12:23
Subject: AW: [tuning] Introducing my own temperament

Indeed, every tuning model depends of the intention of the composer.
But Ozon Yarman called this tuning model a "well tempered " tuning.
Well-tempered means in its historical context a more or less
closen tuning model, suitable for all music in western tradition.

This tuning model presents three fifth wolves:
D-A, E-B(H) and B(H)-F#

If one would position the B(H) to about 1088 cents (12 Cents deeper
than its ET value) it would be the "Kirnberger I" tuning model.

The high B(H) brings no advantage for any chord.

Best

Werner

Dear Werner, I do not practice undue modesty, it is rather my honesty with the fact that I have blundered terribly once more in my excitement without sufficient knowledge on temperaments. Nevertheless, I consider myself in the presence of wise theorists who will hopefully bear with patience as I try to discover the intricate nature of musical tunings by trial and error.

I am not in search for the perfect well-temperament at this stage though, I am only searching compatibility with Ney Ahengs.

Also, it should not be forgotten that I come from a culture whose long line of successors in music theory have long since isolated themselves from the progress of the West for as long as a century. If you had a chance to face Rauf Yekta, or worse, Suphi Ezgi or Ekrem Karadeniz today, you could not even communicate to them the methods that are taken seriously in the modern world. They would probably be so excessively stubborn and obstinate that you would just drop the argument altogether. (Is it any wonder there is still an impenetrable barrier between East and West?)

Thank you very much for your patience and assistance.

Kind regards,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Werner Mohrlok
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Aralık 2004 Cumartesi 18:49
Subject: AW: [tuning] Introducing my own temperament

Hi Ozan,

You need not be too modesty. If you would have
positioned the B(H) as a perfect fifth to the E,
this means 5/4 * 3/2 = 15/8 = about 1088 Cents,
you would have re-invented Kirnberger I
by own reflections.

It is better to learn something in tuning by
own reflections than by reading tuning tables and
not understanding their background.

Nevertheless Kirnberger I is problematic due to
its poor fifth D-A.

In Kirnberger II therefore the A is tempered
to the middle between D and E
and in Kirnberger III the complete fifth line
from C to E is tempered to meantone steps.

Kirnberger II and III are nice for Cmajor and its
neighborhood. But for more distant keys both are
problematic.

Best

Werner

Dear Paul, I respectfully disagree with you on both accounts:

1. What are the standard single and double accidentals according to you? Do you imply that Ex, Bx, Fbb and Cbb are never used in Western Music?

2. The set of 35 is the natural outcome of including all the double apotomes in the scale where the tonic is F, which is understandable from a diatonical perspective. Do you deem it acceptable to disregard the above stated tones for the sake of keeping the even distribution of step sizes for every modulation?

I have observed by ear that meantone tuning does not reflect classical-romantic practice of semitone intervals. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the table does not agree with the topic. Do you mean the E53 notation system? I must have neglected that and will correct it at the earliest oppurtunity. The purpose of this document is to show that Western tonal music is easily and completely expressed on paper with 35 tones concentrated in 12 regions whereby corresponding enharmonicities are discerned. This has probably been said countless times before, in Turkey particularly by Yalcin Tura. Any less pitches than 35 would mean that some enharmonical tones are skipped. We would not want to do that in notation, would we?

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: wally paulrus
To: Ozan Yarman
Sent: 19 Aralık 2004 Pazar 5:32
Subject: Re: Introducing my own temperament

Dear Ozan,

1. The notation system used in your Scala table does not agree with your stated topic title. Instead, you should use the notation system with only standard single and double accidentals. Otherwise this discussion becomes very difficult.

2. The set of 35 is in no sense more "closed" than any other arbitrary set. Instead, it is a set of 31 (eliminate E##, B##, Fbb, and Cbb from the 35) which was often considered "closed" in the Renaissance and early and middle Baroque periods. In meantone tuning, it has two step sizes, unlike the three step sizes of the set of 35 you propose. The three step sizes make reckoning intervals according to number of steps virtually useless. Not so for two step sizes, distributed evenly around the octave. Meantone-31 and -19 have this property, as do Pythagorean-53, -41, -29, and -17.

More later,
Paul

Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com> wrote:
Dear Paul, I urge you to look at
http://www.ozanyarman.com/files/Complete%20Set%20of%20Enharmonics.pdf

Am I mistaken when I count the steps? I was assuming that a modulation must
always have the same number of steps. Here it does not conform to our
previous conversation:

D-E-F-G-A
-6-3-6-5-

E-F#-G-A-B-
-6-3-5-6-

The last two step sizes are not the same although the modulation is
mathematically correct. The number of tones also are complete. Please
explain.

Cordially,
Ozan

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Dear Paul,

Since we have no disagreement concerning the standard set of accidentals
used in Western tonal music, let me iterate:

1. I realize that I made a slip the previous time when I said `step sizes`.
It should have been `number of steps` instead. What I mean is, you gave this
pattern for A aeolean for 22-TET before:

"...22-tET aeolian is 4-1-4-4-1-4-4..."

And pointed out to me that the pattern must be consistent throughout the
scale. But the pattern is not consistent in the 35 tones arrived at by:

F C G D A E B F#C#G#D#A#E# B# Fx Cx Gx Dx Ax Ex Bx (20 fifths up)
(F) Bb Eb Ab Db Gb Cb Fb Bbb Ebb Abb Dbb Gbb Cbb Fbb (14 fifths down)

for:

D-E-F-G-A
-6-3-6-5-

E-F#-G-A-B-
-6-3-5-6-

(I should not have said that F is the tonic, it is rather the fundamental
tone on which the fifths are concatenated)

I want to understand the relevance of your previous statement that `the
pattern should be the same when modulating from one key to another.` This is
afterall the prime argument you had put forth against my approach where I
approximated the pythagorean values for apotome and limma for scales with
modified fifth generators.

I have made the correction you pointed out to the document in question:
http://www.ozanyarman.com/files/Complete%20Set%20of%20Enharmonics.pdf
I hope you can tell me if I made a mistake this time. The fact that there is
one less intermediate tone between G and A as compared to those between
F-G or A-B is what hampers the pattern of modulation. Is it because I am
needlessly looking for a symmetry where none should exist? Does the
`number of steps` consistency only sought for in equal temperaments?

You say that the `concentric tones` idea which conceives the above-given 35
tones to reside within 12 enharmonical regions is unfounded. But dear Paul,
you should know that Professor Yalcin Tura here claims that even before I.
If we Turkish musicians are so blatantly misinformed about Classical-
Romantic Western theory, then I believe a knowledgable person like
yourself should visit Istanbul soon and lecture us all on this matter lest
we go about spreading our nonsense to deaf ears.

So if I understand you correctly, some of these double-flatted and
double-sharped accidentals (namely Ex, Bx, Fbb, Cbb) can be omitted
altogether without damaging the musical context given on measures 5, 13, 25
and 31 in my paper? And you deem it permissable in Classical-Romantic theory
that Bbbb could be employed when a musician decided in the most unlikely
event that it would be prudent to descend a fifth below Fbb? Would
this not be a breach of the number 35 as encompassing all the double sharps
and double flats? I was entertaining the idea that Western tonal music does
not allow for triple sharps and triple flats.

This is where, I imagined, the Classical-Romantic practice from the time of
Beethoven to Debussy (and beyond) arises. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the
philarmonic orchestras that perform the symphonies of the great masters are
not very much known to execute meantone Baroque-Classical temperaments. I
had the feeling that the diatonic and chromatic usage of the semitone is
much akin to the enharmonical sets I presented in my paper.

Cordially,
Ozan

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

Dear Ozan,

Another thing:

> I have observed by ear that meantone tuning does not
> reflect classical-romantic practice of semitone
> intervals.

The Classical practice certainly was meantone to a
great extent. Consider the violin teachings of Mozart
himself, the flute teachings of Quantz, etc., and
you'll see that the 18th was still a very meantone
century.

But you quite misunderstood me in placing so much
importance on meantone/31 -- I also gave you some
Pythagorean examples of relevance to this argument.

Cheers,
Paul

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

Correction below:

--- wally paulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Ozan,
>
> > I'm at the moment awaiting your reaction to the
> > 35-tone thing-a-majig I put
> > on my website lately.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand it. There are 35
> double-flats, flats, naturals, sharps, and
> double-sharps. What of it?
>
> > Howcome I hear the right
> > sounds for the double sharps
> > and double flats while the modulations do not
> > conform to fixed step sizes?
>
> Again, I don't understand. D-E-F-G-A and E-F#-G-A-B
> have the same step sizes according to the more
> refined
> speciation of the Western intervallic nomenclature:
> Whole step, helf step, whole step, whole step.

Somehow, I said this wrong. What I meant was:
Major second, minor second, major second, major
second.

In Pythagorean tuning, all major seconds have a 8:9
ratio, as you can verify from the table you put
together yourself.

Hence there's no step size difference between F-G and
G-A.

Regards,
Paul

>
> --- Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Paul, I respectfully disagree with you on both
> > accounts:
> >
> > 1. What are the standard single and double
> > accidentals according to you? Do you imply that Ex,
> > Bx, Fbb and Cbb are never used in Western Music?
>
> I don't know whether or not you can find any examples
> in the literature, but it does not matter. What I
> imply by "naturals and standard single and double
> accidentals" is the 35-tone set that you brought up.
>
> > 2. The set of 35 is the natural outcome of including
> > all the double apotomes in the scale where the tonic
> > is F,
>
> The scale of the tonic is F? What do you mean?
>
> > which is understandable from a diatonical
> > perspective. Do you deem it acceptable to disregard
> > the above stated tones for the sake of keeping the
> > even distribution of step sizes for every
> > modulation?
>
> I can't understand this question. Nothing has to be
> disregarded. If you look at your own numbers, the
> ratios/cents that is, you'll see that the distance
> from F to G is the same as the distance between G and
> A, despite the fact that you have happened to find
> more intermediate tones, in your set of 35, between F
> and G than between G and A.
>
> > I have observed by ear that meantone tuning does not
> > reflect classical-romantic practice of semitone
> > intervals. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that
> > the table does not agree with the topic. Do you mean
> > the E53 notation system?
>
> Right, the notation in the table should be showing the
> same set of notes as you enumerate above it, in your
> musical examples.
>
> > The
> > purpose of this document is to show that Western
> > tonal music is easily and completely expressed on
> > paper with 35 tones concentrated in 12 regions
> > whereby corresponding enharmonicities are discerned.
>
> This is absolutely unfounded, in my view. It would be
> as if one assumed, based on its 26 letters, that
> English had 26 sounds. But worse.
>
> > This has probably been said countless times before,
> > in Turkey particularly by Yalcin Tura. Any less
> > pitches than 35 would mean that some enharmonical
> > tones are skipped. We would not want to do that in
> > notation, would we?
>
> Ozan, there is nothing special about the stopping
> point of 35 tones. If a composer wishes to use the
> note Fbb in music, then certainly that same composer
> could wish to harmonize that note a fifth below, and
> would then be forced to write Bbbb. But I would not be
> surprised if Fbb has never been used, since it would
> almost always have been elided through an enharmonic
> shift to G, and in the era before enharmonic
> equivalencies were assumed, using even as many as 31
> notes in notation was at the far extreme end of
> enharmonic experimentation.
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>

Paul, your explanations are very succinct and clear.

1. As for the visitation, when would it be prudent to arrange a conference for you in Istanbul?

2. Which part of the Appasionata do I have to view in order to witness the extreme key modulations you pointed out?

3. May I infer that the enharmonic shifts are done to avoid tonal drift and encapsulate tonal music within the sphere of 12-notes?

4. Is there an article or research you can recommend on the tunings used by orchestras and historically conscientous ensembles?

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: wally paulrus
To: Ozan Yarman
Sent: 20 Aralık 2004 Pazartesi 5:15
Subject: Re: Introducing my own temperament

Hey, Ozan, good to hear from you!

>Since we have no disagreement concerning the standard set of
>accidentals
>used in Western tonal music, let me iterate:

>1. I realize that I made a slip the previous time when I said `step
>sizes`.
>It should have been `number of steps` instead. What I mean is, you gave
>this
>pattern for A aeolean for 22-TET before:

>"...22-tET [superpythagorean] aeolian is 4-1-4-4-1-4-4..."

22-equal step sizes are proportional to cents. So I might as well have written

"...22-tET aeolian is ...218.18 - 54.55 - 218.18 - 218.18 - 54.55 - 218.18 - 218.18".

Or I might have used frequency ratios instead and written,

"...22-tET aeolian is 1.1343 - 1.032 - 1.1343 - 1.1343 - 1.032 - 1.1343 - 1.1343"

Either way, what I meant to refer to were the actual, physical interval sizes, and particularly the fifths (and fourths), all six of which, in this superpythagorean scale, should equal the best 'fifth' of 22-equal, and not any other 22-equal interval -- for no others will be able to substitute for the best 'fifth'.

>And pointed out to me that the pattern must be consistent throughout
>the
>scale.

I meant the pattern in cents, and specifically the 709-cent 'fifths' that occur at six positions in this scale. There is no other acceptable 'fifth' that exists in 22-equal.

> But the pattern is not consistent in the 35 tones arrived at by:

>F C G D A E B F#C#G#D#A#E# B# Fx Cx Gx Dx Ax Ex Bx (20 fifths up)
>(F) Bb Eb Ab Db Gb Cb Fb Bbb Ebb Abb Dbb Gbb Cbb Fbb (14 fifths down)

>for:

>D-E-F-G-A
>-6-3-6-5-

Whatever you're counting here, it clearly isn't cents or anything proportional to it.

>E-F#-G-A-B-
>-6-3-5-6-

Likewise.

>I want to understand the relevance of your previous statement that `the
>pattern should be the same when modulating from one key to another.`
>This is
>afterall the prime argument you had put forth against my approach where
>I
>approximated the pythagorean values for apotome and limma for scales
>with
>modified fifth generators.

Yes, the pattern in cents; and especially its effect on the tuning of the intervening fifths, in cents.

>I have made the correction you pointed out to the document in question:
http://www.ozanyarman.com/files/Complete%20Set%20of%20Enharmonics.pdf
>I hope you can tell me if I made a mistake this time. The fact that
>there is
>one less intermediate tone between G and A as compared to those between
>F-G or A-B is what hampers the pattern of modulation.

There is no hamperament to the pattern of modulation in the system you illustrate here. The intermediate tones are no more hamperament than the Eiffel Tower would be for my getting on a plane in New York and visiting you in Istanbul. The interval sizes, in cents, of the two pentachords in question are identical. Most importantly, the fifths (and fourths) are identical.

>Is it because I
>am
>needlessly looking for a symmetry where none should exist? Does the
>`number of steps` consistency only sought for in equal temperaments?

Partially, yes, because only there does the number of steps uniquely determine the size of the interval in cents. It's also useful for some purposes in 'distributionally even' scales, especially the 7-note diatonic scale, but also the Pythagorean-12, -29, -41, and -53 note scales, and the Meantone-19, -31, . . . note scales.

>You say that the `concentric tones` idea which conceives the
>above-given 35
>tones to reside within 12 enharmonical regions is unfounded. But dear
>Paul,
>you should know that Professor Yalcin Tura here claims that even before
>I.
>If we Turkish musicians are so blatantly misinformed about Classical-
>Romantic Western theory, then I believe a knowledgable person like
>yourself should visit Istanbul soon and lecture us all on this matter
>lest
>we go about spreading our nonsense to deaf ears.

What can I say? If you wish to subject my messages to you to the critique of any qualified lecturer in Western Music, preferably one fully engaged in the performance and scholarship of said music, I'd be delighted, and I'm confident that you'll find basic agreement.

>So if I understand you correctly, some of these double-flatted and
>double-sharped accidentals (namely Ex, Bx, Fbb, Cbb) can be omitted
>altogether without damaging the musical context given on measures 5,
>13, 25
>and 31 in my paper?

I think you're continuing to misunderstand my remark about the set of 31 notes. If it is too elusive to think about now, please put it out of your mind for the time being. It's not relevant to the Pythagorean example anyway, and we can safely return to it later.

>And you deem it permissable in Classical-Romantic
>theory
>that Bbbb could be employed when a musician decided in the most
>unlikely
>event that it would be prudent to descend a fifth below Fbb?

Yes, but in the repertoire, in Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata and all that followed, any descent into the double-flat key area would be abruptly halted (in the written music -- not halted audibly or on the part of the musician) with an enharmonic shift, so any key containing a double-flat (and that includes D-flat minor), as it's established in the music, is immediately re-interpreted in the notation as a key containing no flats at all (in this case, C-sharp minor). But to the composer, there is no shift at all; for example, if the modulations are followed faithfully, the Appassionata Sonata would have to end in an extremely remote key, 24 fifths from the starting key, but in Beethoven's time sonatas ended in the same key they began in. In fact, the Sonata is typically referred to as Piano Sonata No. 23 in F Minor, op. 57, which implies that the piece begins and ends in the key signature of four flats. Perhaps you can obtain a score of this piece?

Beethoven not only found it prudent but indeed his heart longed to descend a fifth below Fbb. Then, in the Appassionata, he descends another 14 fifths below that! How thankful he must have been that his piano was tuned in a true well-temperament, all 12 fifths suitable for harmony and every pitch suitable to substitute for the pitch 12 (or 24, 36, etc.) fifths away.

>Would
>this not be a breach of the number 35 as encompassing all the double
>sharps
>and double flats?

There is no barrier at all.

Double-sharps and double-flats are already a little bit redundant in the key system since Bach. They serve only to preserve the diatonic intervals' staff positions when one is writing in a remote key (one with many sharps or flats in the key signature). When the 'wandering' becomes too remote, the enharmonics are quickly 'canceled' by establishing (in the notation, no one hears this) a new key signature, enharmonically equivalent to the "intended" one. This is also convenient for the reader; translating double-sharps and double-flats to their more familiar equivalents on one's instrument is a time-consuming process.

Therefore, explicit writing of triple-flats has never been necessary, and has been avoided. Beethoven probably would have written them if he thought in a tuning system where they sounded different from ordinary notes.

>I was entertaining the idea that Western tonal music
>does
>not allow for triple sharps and triple flats.

It allows for them but, simply, avoids them by making use of enharmonic shifts.

>This is where, I imagined, the Classical-Romantic practice from the
>time of
>Beethoven to Debussy (and beyond) arises.

In fact, it is this very enharmonic shifting I describe -- moving so far in either the sharp or flat direction that a notational adjustment must be written (though there's no adjustment in sound) -- that distinguishes this Beethoven-to-Debussy practice from the Corelli-through-Mozart practice. For the first time, the assumption of an open chain of fifths was abandoned, and music was understood in terms of a closed circle of 12 fifths. The circle of 12 fifths, not any set of 35 notational symbols, is truly what characterizes the Western key system (and pitch notation) since Beethoven.

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but
>the
>philarmonic orchestras that perform the symphonies of the great masters
>are
>not very much known to execute meantone Baroque-Classical temperaments.
>I
>had the feeling that the diatonic and chromatic usage of the semitone
>is
>much akin to the enharmonical sets I presented in my paper.

In some major orchestras (but as Werner Mohrlok will attest, not in others) there is a tendency to push minor seconds and other leading tone intervals, and even (shockingly for harmony) major thirds, toward their Pythagorean dispositions, in reference to a particular key. But this is a very different thing from adopting Pythagorean tuning wholesale. If that were done, enharmonic shifts would sound very abrupt and disorienting. And enharmonic differences among transposing instruments in an orchestra would create a giant accordion-like sound. I think examination of such passages in your favorite Beethoven-to-Debussy recordings, with the score (preferably the same edition actually used by the conductor/director) in hand, will show that such effects do not arise.

Other ensembles, including historically conscentious performers of Mozart, Telemann, and Renaissance music, do show meantone tendencies.

Many ensembles, even when performing Beethoven-to-Debussy repertoire, will narrow the major thirds in long, sustained major triads and major seventh chords -- and this is opposite to the Pythagorean tendency. Werner has apparently witnessed this tendency even more than I have -- I've definitely noticed it in brass and wind ensembles -- so I'll let him (I think he's currently active on the tuning list) fill you in on which particular ensembles he's listening to.

-Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> Upon closer inspection, I find that Kirnberger I is infinitely
superior to my feeble scale. Please forgive my blunder as I discard it
in favor of Kirnberger's well-temperament. This should explain the Ney
ahengs better. Thank you very much for pointing out my error dear Werner.

Apparently recent messages of mine have not been getting through. I
had posted that I didn't think your scale was so feeble, and was
thinking of trying it. It isn't a well-temperament, since it has a
grave fifth, which is a full comma flat, and that comes with one of
the pure major thirds, which seems a bit of a waste.

Dear Gene,

Thank you for your encouragement, but as I said, Kirnberger already found better temperaments worthy of attention. But what is wasteful, I do not understand?

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ward Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 24 Aralık 2004 Cuma 0:01
Subject: [tuning] Re: Introducing my own temperament

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> Upon closer inspection, I find that Kirnberger I is infinitely
superior to my feeble scale. Please forgive my blunder as I discard it
in favor of Kirnberger's well-temperament. This should explain the Ney
ahengs better. Thank you very much for pointing out my error dear Werner.

Apparently recent messages of mine have not been getting through. I
had posted that I didn't think your scale was so feeble, and was
thinking of trying it. It isn't a well-temperament, since it has a
grave fifth, which is a full comma flat, and that comes with one of
the pure major thirds, which seems a bit of a waste.

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 Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
/tuning/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Ozan,

I think Gene means it's a waste to have a pure third in a triad with a fifth
that flat---i.e., a waste of a pure third?

Best,
Aaron.

On Saturday 01 January 2005 05:21 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> Dear Gene,
>
> Thank you for your encouragement, but as I said, Kirnberger already found
> better temperaments worthy of attention. But what is wasteful, I do not
> understand?
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gene Ward Smith
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 24 Aral�k 2004 Cuma 0:01
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Introducing my own temperament
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> > Upon closer inspection, I find that Kirnberger I is infinitely
>
> superior to my feeble scale. Please forgive my blunder as I discard it
> in favor of Kirnberger's well-temperament. This should explain the Ney
> ahengs better. Thank you very much for pointing out my error dear Werner.
>
> Apparently recent messages of mine have not been getting through. I
> had posted that I didn't think your scale was so feeble, and was
> thinking of trying it. It isn't a well-temperament, since it has a
> grave fifth, which is a full comma flat, and that comes with one of
> the pure major thirds, which seems a bit of a waste.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--- Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> /tuning/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

Thank you Aaron, for the explanations. Mayhap there is some chance that the temperament could be modified to become `well`?

Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron K. Johnson
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 02 Ocak 2005 Pazar 3:21
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Introducing my own temperament

Ozan,

I think Gene means it's a waste to have a pure third in a triad with a fifth
that flat---i.e., a waste of a pure third?

Best,
Aaron.

On Saturday 01 January 2005 05:21 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> Dear Gene,
>
> Thank you for your encouragement, but as I said, Kirnberger already found
> better temperaments worthy of attention. But what is wasteful, I do not
> understand?
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gene Ward Smith
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 24 Aralık 2004 Cuma 0:01
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Introducing my own temperament
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> > Upon closer inspection, I find that Kirnberger I is infinitely
>
> superior to my feeble scale. Please forgive my blunder as I discard it
> in favor of Kirnberger's well-temperament. This should explain the Ney
> ahengs better. Thank you very much for pointing out my error dear Werner.
>
> Apparently recent messages of mine have not been getting through. I
> had posted that I didn't think your scale was so feeble, and was
> thinking of trying it. It isn't a well-temperament, since it has a
> grave fifth, which is a full comma flat, and that comes with one of
> the pure major thirds, which seems a bit of a waste.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--- Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> /tuning/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

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

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
/tuning/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.