Re: [tuning] Digest Number 3526

I agree fully. and it is in accord what what i have been saying

Message: 22 Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 23:12:55 -0000
From: "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: Scales: an lengthy attempt at proper definition

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

>> I vote that lattice and metric retain their ordinary mathematical
>> definitions; to start revising mathematical definitions seems to me
>> likely to invite confusion.
> >
I vote that lattice and metric retain their ordinary tuning-theory meanings on this list, which is after all the "tuning" list, not the "math" list, or even the "tuning-math" list. I vote that scale retains its ordinary musical meaning, fuzzy though that may be. In particular, I think a scale is something we can hear, not a list of numbers, and not something written on a staff, although scales may of course be represented by either of these. I think we are unlikely to ever capture what makes a good scale, in a short description (mathematical or otherwise). However we do have useful mathematical descriptions of several properties that seem to be present in many traditional scales. -- Dave Keenan
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles