Monopoly or Micropoly?

Thank you for your earnest feelings Paul. But still, I am not convinced that certain of the unanimously endorsed conventional approaches procured by the tuning list pros is God sent. I have my own reasons for not choosing your 19-EQ framework out of 152-tET, although you may keep on protesting vehemently based on a unique conception which is no doubt theoretically valid in its own right.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 17 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 22:23
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

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

> Paul, the following should be the default diatonic major scale out
>of 152-equal:

[...]

Dear Ozan,

I don't agree with this proposal, particularly (where I feel somewhat
qualified to speak) as regards any Western application. Again, 19-
equal would form a conventionally-notated subset of 152-equal in my
proposal. I typed a long explanation of my disagreement and it
disappeared into the great void of the Web. But it was pretty much a
rehash of what George Secor, myself, and others have said in the past
about notating microtonal systems using conventional notation as a
starting point.

The last few posts of yours that I replied to seem to show a
troubling amount of miscommunication between us, and I don't want
that to escalate into any kind of negative feelings or flame wars. I
don't wish to create any further misunderstanding between us,
particularly in public, so perhaps anything further on this should go
off-line for a while before we move it back into the public sphere.
Alternatively, you can just ignore my banterings; just know that I
hold the music you're interested in in the very highest regard and
wish you all the luck in the world in your valuable endeavors.

Love,
Paul

Ozan,

I encourage you most highly to maintain your independence in thought
and your spirit of doubt! It is on these qualities that the
possibility of intelligent debate and mutual enlightenment rest.

-Paul

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for your earnest feelings Paul. But still, I am not
convinced that certain of the unanimously endorsed conventional
approaches procured by the tuning list pros is God sent. I have my
own reasons for not choosing your 19-EQ framework out of 152-tET,
although you may keep on protesting vehemently based on a unique
conception which is no doubt theoretically valid in its own right.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 17 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 22:23
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-
equal?)
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...>
wrote:
>
> > Paul, the following should be the default diatonic major scale
out
> >of 152-equal:
>
> [...]
>
> Dear Ozan,
>
> I don't agree with this proposal, particularly (where I feel
somewhat
> qualified to speak) as regards any Western application. Again, 19-
> equal would form a conventionally-notated subset of 152-equal in
my
> proposal. I typed a long explanation of my disagreement and it
> disappeared into the great void of the Web. But it was pretty
much a
> rehash of what George Secor, myself, and others have said in the
past
> about notating microtonal systems using conventional notation as
a
> starting point.
>
> The last few posts of yours that I replied to seem to show a
> troubling amount of miscommunication between us, and I don't want
> that to escalate into any kind of negative feelings or flame
wars. I
> don't wish to create any further misunderstanding between us,
> particularly in public, so perhaps anything further on this
should go
> off-line for a while before we move it back into the public
sphere.
> Alternatively, you can just ignore my banterings; just know that
I
> hold the music you're interested in in the very highest regard
and
> wish you all the luck in the world in your valuable endeavors.
>
> Love,
> Paul
>

Thank you!
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Ekim 2005 Salı 0:17
Subject: [tuning] Re: Monopoly or Micropoly?

Ozan,

I encourage you most highly to maintain your independence in thought
and your spirit of doubt! It is on these qualities that the
possibility of intelligent debate and mutual enlightenment rest.

-Paul

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for your earnest feelings Paul. But still, I am not
convinced that certain of the unanimously endorsed conventional
approaches procured by the tuning list pros is God sent. I have my
own reasons for not choosing your 19-EQ framework out of 152-tET,
although you may keep on protesting vehemently based on a unique
conception which is no doubt theoretically valid in its own right.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
>