1. Why I link to urls 2. consistency in coding and 3. clarity for musos.

Thank you for your comment Carl;

1. I often use links to url's in my postings, as different email programs display in inconsistent formats, and I have often previously put the ideas that I wish to
express into html format somewhere.
I usually also develop or extend new concepts immediately into some html compatible format.

Most people have browsers and broadband nowadays.
Since I run about a dozen different sites it is easier for me to put the link to one of those sites,
than to have to search though dozens of passwords and forms to open a yahoo account files url or convert the info. into fixed width text.

The people who should be criticised for linking to urls, are those who put their files at Yahoo.
Every time I attempt to view them, I am confronted with requests for username/password and Yahoo's "save on this computer" box.
Yahoo's system never seems to work correctly with the keychain on my FireFox/Tiger setup,
although the keychain and cookies work perfectly with almost every other site that I regularly use.

2. The url that I linked to is entirely relevant to the present discussion of scale patterns.
You seem failed to appreciate from my instructions at:

http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_05.html

the significance of how scalecoding works.

I thought it was very obvious and simple if you read to the bottom of the page.

Maybe this url of some scales (complete with matching colours will make more sense)

There is a simple example of the scalecoding at the bottom of the page, and the scalecoding is listed for each scale.

http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/lucytuning_scales.html

This page lists some of the chords that can be formed from various scales.

http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/chords.html

One fine day, I'll add some more examples, as just for Western harmony the possible examples are vast ;-)

However many L's and s's you split your octave or repeating patterns into, you ultimately need to consider how this
or any scale classification system is to be used by "live" musicians.

3. I suggest that one of the reasons why most musicians "run a mile" to avoid microtuning is because they find the maths and numbers very threatening.

We need to express our tuning ideas in a form which is easily approached my your average musician, who thinks in terms of what notes are in any scale.

Musicians need to be able to relate what they are learning about microtuning to what they are familiar with.

All Western musicians (who have earned the name musician) understand notenames, keys, traditional 12edo scales, and chains of fourths and fifths etc.

Regardless of how sophisticated you make your mathematical manipulations ultimately microtuning is about music.
Music is sound. It is played by musicians and heard by listeners.

We need to make microtuning accessible and present it in a way that they can appreciate the music and the theory, to extend their "ears".

There seems to be a tendency on the tuning lists to try to make microtuning become very esoteric and exotic;
In reality we are using lotsa fancy (sometimes new) names for concepts which are in essence very simple and obvious.
e.g. LucyTuned, edo, brats, commas, diesis, etc.

Is this to develop some professional mystique, or do we really want to "change the (musical) world"?

Charles Lucy - lucy@harmonics.com
------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -------
for information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com
for LucyTuned Lullabies go to http://www.lullabies.co.uk
Buy/download/CD from: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/lucytuned2

>Thank you for your comment Carl;
>
>1. I often use links to url's in my postings, as different email
>programs display in inconsistent formats, and I have often
>previously put the ideas that I wish to express into html format
>somewhere. I usually also develop or extend new concepts
>immediately into some html compatible format.
>
>Most people have browsers and broadband nowadays.
>Since I run about a dozen different sites it is easier for me to
>put the link to one of those sites, than to have to search though
>dozens of passwords and forms to open a yahoo account files url
>or convert the info. into fixed width text.

That's all fine and well, but on a mailing list, it's considered
rude if you just post links all the time. Especially if they're
always to one of your sites. It's self-promotional (not that
anyone'd accuse you of that) and doesn't contribute intellectual
material to the list (which is in some sense an effort to aggregate
shared intellectual material).

>The people who should be criticised for linking to urls, are those
>who put their files at Yahoo.

Then criticize them. I don't like Yahoo's site either, but it
is at least a way to keep intellectual material with the list.

>2. The url that I linked to is entirely relevant to the present
>discussion of scale patterns.
> You seem failed to appreciate from my instructions at:
>
>http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_05.html
>
> the significance of how scalecoding works.

I sure did, and I promise you I'm not the only one. Why not
explain it on the list?

>I thought it was very obvious and simple if you read to the
>bottom of the page.

It isn't. The first problem I ran into is that you seem to assume
there are recognizable 5ths and 4ths.

>Maybe this url of some scales (complete with matching colours will
>make more sense)
>
>There is a simple example of the scalecoding at the bottom of the
>page, and the scalecoding is listed for each scale.
>
>http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/lucytuning_scales.html
>
>This page lists some of the chords that can be formed from various
>scales.
>
>http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/chords.html

Great, now this is a step in the right direction. Links, but
with some text. Why not post it to the list?

>However many L's and s's you split your octave or repeating
>patterns into, you ultimately need to consider how this
>or any scale classification system is to be used by "live"
>musicians.

Igs is a live musician -- have you heard his stuff?

>3. I suggest that one of the reasons why most musicians "run a
>mile" to avoid microtuning is because they find the maths and
>numbers very threatening.

Igs is very well-versed in microtonal theory.

>We need to express our tuning ideas in a form which is easily
>approached my your average musician, who thinks in terms of what
>notes are in any scale.

What "we need" and how to answer a specific question from a
list member (Igs, in this case) are two different things, Charles.

>Is this to develop some professional mystique, or do we really want
>to "change the (musical) world"?

I don't want either -- I just want to come up with cool tunings.

-Carl

> However many L's and s's you split your octave or repeating patterns
> into, you ultimately need to consider how this
> or any scale classification system is to be used by "live"
> musicians.

That is precisely my purpose, to make it easier for "live" musicians
(such as myself).

>
> 3. I suggest that one of the reasons why most musicians "run a mile"
> to avoid microtuning is because they find the maths and numbers very
> threatening.
> We need to express our tuning ideas in a form which is easily
> approached my your average musician, who thinks in terms of what
> notes are in any scale.

Yet again, this is my purpose: to avoid the maths and numbers by
coming up with a simple and logical system of NAMES that could
describe the interrelations between all scales in what I like to call
the "practical" range of EDOs (5 thru 36). That way anyone interested
in entering the field would be able to see which tunings might be of
interest to him/her at a glance, based on the scales they support.
Rather than having to wade through new sets of accidentals,
temperament approximations to JI intervals, and whatever else might
seem like ancient greek to them, they could ask "which tunings support
a recognizable 7-not diatonic scale?" or "which tunings support (some
wacky scale idea impossible in 12)?" and be answered with just a quick
glance at a table. Ideally the terminology would be logical and
straightforward, and that after just a quick browse through the terms
they could become instantly familiar.
>
>
> Musicians need to be able to relate what they are learning about
> microtuning to what they are familiar with.
>
> All Western musicians (who have earned the name musician) understand
> notenames, keys, traditional 12edo scales, and chains of fourths and
> fifths etc.

But not all microtonal scales (indeed, not even the majority) are
compatible with traditional notenames, key signatures, chains of
fourths and fifths, or 12edo scale shapes! Not everyone enters the
field looking for just a "more in-tune" alternative to 12-edo! Some
of us (i.e. myself) enter the field to try to get AS FAR AWAY from 12
as possible! For people like me, extensions of traditional approaches
are not only undesirable but almost completely pointless and obfuscating.

> Regardless of how sophisticated you make your mathematical
> manipulations ultimately microtuning is about music.
> Music is sound. It is played by musicians and heard by listeners.

I fully agree! In case you haven't noticed, I am NOT a mathematician,
a physicist, or even a very good musicial theoretician. Most of this
list is greek to me, and that is what I am trying to escape.

> There seems to be a tendency on the tuning lists to try to make
> microtuning become very esoteric and exotic;

No one on this list is "making" microtuning into anything. Everyone
has their own take on it, and their own approach, and no one here is
setting a universal standard. The people whom you are referring to
are mathematicians and scientists interested in certain aspects of
microtuning, and they have cobbled together their own language to
discuss these aspects. What would you propose they do? Force their
discussions into the commonest of terms, and thus render it impossible
to discuss the aspects that interest them?

> In reality we are using lotsa fancy (sometimes new) names for
> concepts which are in essence very simple and obvious.
> e.g. LucyTuned, edo, brats, commas, diesis, etc.

All words have definitions which are longer than the word itself. To
keep everything in plain language, as you seem to desire, would
require everyone to reiterate the definitions instead of the simple
words picked to signify them, thus making the already-prolix posts on
this forum all the more so. We say "comma" so we don't have to say
"the really small interval that results when a chain of certain
intervals fails to close at the octave". This is why Monzo at
tonalsoft compiled his Encyclopedia of Microtonal Music Theory (to
which a link should be posted on every site that discuss microtuning,
IMHO).

Rather than getting rid of these terms and over-simplifying this forum
(which IS primarily esoteric, as well it should be), it would make
more sense for someone to write a gentle beginner's guide to the
microtonal world, one which contains only the minimal amount of math
and emphasizes fairly universal logical terminology, with references
to outside sources that go into greater mathematical detail on given
topics. Sort of a "Microtuning for Dummies", which rather than
focusing on a single system (like LucyTuning, 19-edo, Partch's 43-tone
JI, or Catler's harmonic series-based scales) would open the door to
all of them, though obviously not in great detail.

> Is this to develop some professional mystique, or do we really want
> to "change the (musical) world"?

I'm afraid what you have just stated is what we philosopher/logicians
call the "fallacy of false dichotomy". Does the jargon of physicists,
biologists, chemists, astronomers etc. prevent their breakthroughs
from reaching public consciousness and changing the way the "common
people" lead their lives? Certainly not. Music was once considered
among the sciences, and the only reason this changed is because the
powerful minority came to a conclusion about what music was supposed
to be and agreed not to change it anymore, and then foisted this on
the masses. Thus all the science and skill that was required to
understand music in its earlier years was no longer necessary for
musicians. Our societies came to believe that music is simple and
shouldn't require much (or any) thinking. It is impossible that any
profound changes in the musical landscape should occur while this
paradigm still dominates.

Regards,

-Igs

>
> Charles Lucy - lucy@h...
> ------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -------
> for information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com
> for LucyTuned Lullabies go to http://www.lullabies.co.uk
> Buy/download/CD from: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/lucytuned2

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones" <igliashon@s...> wrote:
> That is precisely my purpose, to make it easier for "live" musicians
> (such as myself).

... and a bunch of other stuff. Igs, just wanted to say that was a
nice summation of the many ways one can look at the big picture of
microtuning. Besides, it was interesting to see someone like yourself
(not math-centric) giving that take on it all - adds a bit of weight
to the viewpoint.

Haven't heard any music posts of yours recently - you still cranking
it out?

Cheers,
Jon (yes, he whose eyes glaze over during equations...)