Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Balzano on Wikipedia

Dear Tuning List members,

I am wondering if anybody has any idea about how to find musicians dwelling to play music using the 96-equal temperament, and about how to raise funds for a possible concert.

I am trying to organize a microtonal performance of some microtonal 2 works of mine, and of anybody else who might be interested to use the same or similar instrumentation. Here is the instrumentation:

1) Alto flute
2) Bass clarinet
3) Trumpet in C
4) Trombone
5) Viola
6) Cello
7) Piano
8) Bellophone (tuned to the 96ET/ one octave range)

The initial idea is to organize the performance in London next March or April 2007 (I will be present at that time in London, and I just happen to have the bellophone available in London at that time), but I am also open to organize this project in another city or country if I can raise some funds to ship the bellophone and somehow I can figure out a way to pay for the musician's time too.

J.A. Martin Salinas

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@gmail.com>

On 5/20/06, Jose Antonio Martin Salinas <jamsalinas@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear Tuning List members,
>
>
>
> I am wondering if anybody has any idea about how to find musicians dwelling to play music using the 96-equal temperament, and about how to raise funds for a possible concert.

What's so great about 96? Why not 72? It's way better.

[...]
> The initial idea is to organize the performance in London next March or April 2007 (I will be present at that time in London, and I just happen to have the bellophone available in London at that time), but I am also open to organize this project in another city or country if I can raise some funds to ship the bellophone and somehow I can figure out a way to pay for the musician's time too.

Too bad I live in Florida. =/

> J.A. Martin Salinas

No relation to old Francisco, of 1/3-comma fame?

Keenan

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

Why would anyone want to play in such a futile temperament? Is not 72-equal sufficient a resolution for 12-tone common-multiple family?

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Jose Antonio Martin Salinas
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 20 Mayıs 2006 Cumartesi 19:42
Subject: [tuning] Finding musicians and raising funds

Dear Tuning List members,

I am wondering if anybody has any idea about how to find musicians dwelling to play music using the 96-equal temperament, and about how to raise funds for a possible concert.

1) Alto flute

2) Bass clarinet

3) Trumpet in C

4) Trombone

5) Viola

6) Cello

7) Piano

8) Bellophone (tuned to the 96ET/ one octave range)

J.A. Martin Salinas

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com>

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> > >>I can't get at the real Wikipedia, so I'm absolved from responsibility >>on this ;) But the reference.com articles on well formed scales and
> the >>like exist in a bubble where Rothenberg and Wilson don't exist. >>Updating them to give credit where it's due would be better than adding >>an article on somebody who's already over-exposed.
> > Wikipedia doesn't have an article on David Rothenberg, and has a stub
> on Erv Wilson. To improve the situation I'd need a source of
> biographical data. I wonder if Kraig has some bio information on Erv
> somewhere?

Full articles would be nice, but there are other things you could be doing. The article I have on "Generated collection" says they were first described by Carey and Clampitt in 1989. Well, they're really the MOSs Erv Wilson talked about in the 70s and Carey and Clampitt's more recent paper acknowledges this. You can also add Rothernberg as a precursor on the "Diatonic set theory" page, and do other things there, like linking to a specific definition of "set theory".

Is anybody familiar with the following paper?

Rahn, Jay (1977). "Some Recurrent Features of Scales", In Theory Only 2, no. 11-12: 43-52.

Graham

🔗Jose Antonio Martin Salinas <jamsalinas@yahoo.co.uk>

Guau! .... so many ideas from all!....I have to do some reading about the wuerschmidt temperament before I get back to the list about it!

I guess with cents deviations I could consider some of those theoretical ideas. At the moment notating at least the eights of tone is my priority (and if I can manage clearly the sixteenths even better), in order to match the bellophone.

I agree the flats are a bit messy and need some review! I will check again the available resources before making up any more symbols! Thanks Hudson!

In order to match the tuned percussion I will stick to 96 equal temperament for this time, which seems to work well enough for the bellophone! 72 and 88 are great temptations though!

Thanks to all. I will keep you all inform about the progress!

... by the way! ... Is there any microtonal musicians in Florida available to play the second week of April 2007 ???

J.A.Martin Salinas

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.

SPONSORED LINKS Music education Music production education Music education degree
Degree education music online Music business education Music education online

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "tuning" on the web.

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

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

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

Jose Antonio Martin Salinas wrote on Sat May 20, 2006:
>
> Dear Tuning List members,
>
> I am wondering if anybody has any idea about how to find
> musicians dwelling to play music using the 96-equal temperament,
> and about how to raise funds for a possible concert.
>
> I am trying to organize a microtonal performance of some
> microtonal 2 works of mine, and of anybody else who might be
> interested to use the same or similar instrumentation. Here is
> the instrumentation:
>
> 1) Alto flute
> 2) Bass clarinet
> 3) Trumpet in C
> 4) Trombone
> 5) Viola
> 6) Cello
> 7) Piano
> 8) Bellophone (tuned to the 96ET/ one octave range)
>
>
> The initial idea is to organize the performance in London next
> March or April 2007 (I will be present at that time in London,
> and I just happen to have the bellophone available in London at
> that time), but I am also open to organize this project in
> another city or country if I can raise some funds to ship the
> bellophone and somehow I can figure out a way to pay for the
> musician's time too.
>
> J.A. Martin Salinas

Querido Jose Antonio,

I wish you well in your endeavours!

Please tell me -
- what kinds of works you are looking for
- the length of the pieces you want
- the number of players of each instrument
you listed (eg, is it just one violin?)
- your tuning preferences - must it be 96-EDO, or a subset of that?
- the maximum level of technical complexity you want
- any particular moods? themes?
- do you want all works to use your whole orchestra, or
- would you like a viola & piano piece?
- when you need scores by, and in what formats?

I would love to be able to contribute something,
if you find it worthy.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: 16/5/06

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

> Full articles would be nice, but there are other things you could be
> doing. The article I have on "Generated collection" says they were
> first described by Carey and Clampitt in 1989. Well, they're really
the
> MOSs Erv Wilson talked about in the 70s and Carey and Clampitt's more
> recent paper acknowledges this. You can also add Rothernberg as a
> precursor on the "Diatonic set theory" page, and do other things there,
> like linking to a specific definition of "set theory".

I'd like to get Carl's input here, since he's studied thiis stuff.

> Is anybody familiar with the following paper?
>
> Rahn, Jay (1977). "Some Recurrent Features of Scales", In Theory
Only 2,
> no. 11-12: 43-52.

Not I. What's in it?

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > Full articles would be nice, but there are other things you
> > could be doing. The article I have on "Generated collection"
> > says they were first described by Carey and Clampitt in 1989.
> > Well, they're really the MOSs Erv Wilson talked about in the
> > 70s and Carey and Clampitt's more recent paper acknowledges
> > this. You can also add Rothernberg as a precursor on
> > the "Diatonic set theory" page, and do other things there,
> > like linking to a specific definition of "set theory".
>
> I'd like to get Carl's input here, since he's studied thiis stuff.

I haven't read the "Diatonic set theory" page, so I don't know
if Rothenberg should be cited there. You have the same
Rothenberg papers I do. Here is the Clampitt paper Graham's
talking about (I think)...

http://theory.esm.rochester.edu/norman_carey/text/self_sim.pdf

Comparisons to MOS are hard, since we don't have answers
to all our questions about exactly what Erv was up to in
the 60s, nor a rigorous definition of MOS. Paul E. worked
at this, but with a 3-step communication channel, and, I
suspect, Erv's inability to think of concepts in such a
rigid way, progress didn't really occur in the end.

There are several very closely related concepts:

MOS (Wilson)
well-formedness (Carey, Clampitt)
Myhill's property (Myhill)
distributional eveness (?)
maximal eveness (Clough, Douthett)

One of the differences is whether non-octave periods are
allowed. IIRC, the latest is that they're not in MOS, but
they are in DE. So Paul's been using DE for everything.
But it's far from clear as far as I'm concerned, exactly what
Erv intended, whose work came first, or if anyone should
care.

Another hydra-headed concept is Rothenberg propriety, which
I think is identical to Balzano "coherence" (I'd have to
check to be sure). In this case Rothenberg was first.
Though different from these two, Erv's "constant structures"
does overlap them in places, and your 'epimorphism' is
close to CS, is it not?

> > Is anybody familiar with the following paper?
> >
> > Rahn, Jay (1977). "Some Recurrent Features of Scales",
> > In Theory Only 2, no. 11-12: 43-52.
>
> Not I. What's in it?

Me either.

-Carl

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com>

Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>Full articles would be nice, but there are other things you
>>>could be doing. The article I have on "Generated collection"
>>>says they were first described by Carey and Clampitt in 1989.
>>>Well, they're really the MOSs Erv Wilson talked about in the
>>>70s and Carey and Clampitt's more recent paper acknowledges
>>>this. You can also add Rothernberg as a precursor on
>>>the "Diatonic set theory" page, and do other things there, >>>like linking to a specific definition of "set theory".
>>
>>I'd like to get Carl's input here, since he's studied thiis stuff.
> > > I haven't read the "Diatonic set theory" page, so I don't know
> if Rothenberg should be cited there. You have the same
> Rothenberg papers I do. Here is the Clampitt paper Graham's
> talking about (I think)...
> > http://theory.esm.rochester.edu/norman_carey/text/self_sim.pdf
> > Comparisons to MOS are hard, since we don't have answers
> to all our questions about exactly what Erv was up to in
> the 60s, nor a rigorous definition of MOS. Paul E. worked
> at this, but with a 3-step communication channel, and, I
> suspect, Erv's inability to think of concepts in such a
> rigid way, progress didn't really occur in the end.

Yes, but we can still mention the concept without a rigid definition. There's also the letter to John Chalmers and other papers at the Anaphorian site we can use to check what concepts he definitely thought of. Unfortunately, I can't reach it now :(

> There are several very closely related concepts:
> > MOS (Wilson)
> well-formedness (Carey, Clampitt)
> Myhill's property (Myhill)
> distributional eveness (?)
> maximal eveness (Clough, Douthett)

Yes. Currently well-formedness, Myhill's property and maximal evenness are listed but distributional evenness and MOS aren't. There's also the simpler property of a generated collection. The entry on this, that also covers well-formedness, explicitly states that both "were first described by Norman Carey and David Clampitt in `Aspects of Well-Formed Scales' (1989)." That ain't true. Whether Wilson's MOS is the same as Well-Formedness or not, he certainly described generated collections well before 1989 and should get credit for it.

> One of the differences is whether non-octave periods are
> allowed. IIRC, the latest is that they're not in MOS, but
> they are in DE. So Paul's been using DE for everything.
> But it's far from clear as far as I'm concerned, exactly what
> Erv intended, whose work came first, or if anyone should
> care.

I don't think anybody really thought about non-octave periods, and so as such I don't care what the precise definitions were.

> Another hydra-headed concept is Rothenberg propriety, which
> I think is identical to Balzano "coherence" (I'd have to
> check to be sure). In this case Rothenberg was first.
> Though different from these two, Erv's "constant structures"
> does overlap them in places, and your 'epimorphism' is
> close to CS, is it not?

Coherence is mentioned, but doesn't have an entry. Yes, it's the same except that Balzano was talking about equal temperaments and Rothenberg strictly wasn't. But there are other Rothenberg concepts that the diatonic set theory crowd are rediscovering so he should at least be a precursor. He's really more a part of the crowd than Balzano except that nobody knows about him.

>>>Is anybody familiar with the following paper?
>>>
>>>Rahn, Jay (1977). "Some Recurrent Features of Scales",
>>>In Theory Only 2, no. 11-12: 43-52.
>>
>>Not I. What's in it?
> > Me either.

It's listed as the only precursor of diatonic set theory. It'd be interesting to see what it's about. (Jay Rahn has an entry in Wikipedia, but it isn't duplicated at reference.com)

Graham

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

I think Erv paper on MOS could not be clearer.
Any 6th grader can create MOS from its examples

He goes further into constant structures, which if one looks at scales around the world have more examples than MOS

Also unlike the other systems with their often verbose language, one cannot easily step into the scales formed by recurrent sequences.
It is only by understanding constant structures can one deal with such scales which often will not have one repeated interval anywhere.
Most scales throughout the world have scales with unequal sized intervals

There is no rigorous mathematical definition of the Sonata form.
It can't because each one is different and there are more exceptions that one could ever take in.
Yet no one would be foolish enough to say that it doesn't exist or that it is not incomplete.
The mathematical reality is not applicable.
too bad those who can't see the world beyond it,
or more foolish , dismiss it because it won't fit on a calculator program

The goal of theory is not to give mathematicians the tools to write music, it is to be useful to musicians
Even with such a simple thing as a scale,
one will never be able to define them all.
the musical spirit of humankind goes where it will
in mysterious ways
and sometimes a tendency might emerge as in Moment of Symmetry
and constant structures or Viggo Bruns algorithm
a few sign post and nothing more. a good theory will point toward unknown, not build a fence at it borders
dis llowing nothing to enter outside of it.
Underlying the demand for scientific accuracy is a hatred and distrust of the artistic spirit.
to be valid in it own right. a hatred of the poetic spirit,
or just a few illustrations as a valid language in itself.
For science to demand anything of art is absurd
But on the subject of Rigorous Thinking, Wilson works is a match for anyone on this list.
The CPS Structures and the recurrent sequences speak for themselves.
on the other hand what is rigorous about the confused on often overlapping and disconnected properties applied to scales when they are brought up. we ended up with a garbled mess of properties with no real connection to each other.
Once again there is nothing in the MOS concept that is limited to octaves as i have repeatedly pointed out.
Constant structures have nothing to do with epimoric intervals,
one could have a constant structure based on irrational numbers.
Using Viggo Brun algorithm being one way to get into this territory by seeding it with such.
It is true that when working with simple limits, epimoric intervals can result.

It matters in that MOS is a theory of scale as opposed to harmony or consonance/ dissonant relations.
It puts forth a concept of interval integrity that produces recognizable set of pitches that seem to hold together as a whole.

tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> Comparisons to MOS are hard, since we don't have answers
> to all our questions about exactly what Erv was up to in
> the 60s, nor a rigorous definition of MOS. Paul E. worked
> at this, but with a 3-step communication channel, and, I
> suspect, Erv's inability to think of concepts in such a
> rigid way, progress didn't really occur in the end.
>
> There are several very closely related concepts:
>
> MOS (Wilson)
> well-formedness (Carey, Clampitt)
> Myhill's property (Myhill)
> distributional eveness (?)
> maximal eveness (Clough, Douthett)
>
> One of the differences is whether non-octave periods are
> allowed. IIRC, the latest is that they're not in MOS, but
> they are in DE. So Paul's been using DE for everything.
> But it's far from clear as far as I'm concerned, exactly what
> Erv intended, whose work came first, or if anyone should
> care.
> -- 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

🔗Jose Antonio Martin Salinas <jamsalinas@yahoo.co.uk>

At the moment I am trying to organize a concert if I can have enough 96-EDO music.

Initially the concert would be in London, but I can also try to arrange it in USA with a bit of luck (Florida/NY with Johnny?...), and why not , bring some musicians to Osaka to perform at the Osaka Ongaku Daigaku, since raising funds here would be easier than anything.

I wonder if Johnny Reinhard would be available in March 2006 to come to Osaka with some players if I can arrange a concert here in Osaka?
(I will write in private if you are not following the list!)

- the length of the pieces you want

5 to 10 minutes

- the number of players of each instrument
you listed (eg, is it just one violin?)

One per instrument (piano might also be a synklavier)

- your tuning preferences - must it be 96-EDO, or a subset of that?

96-EDO is the theme

- the maximum level of technical complexity you want

Rythmic complexities

- any particular moods? themes?

- would you like a viola & piano piece?

That sounds perfect!

- when you need scores by, and in what formats?

I guess that if we can arrange things by August then we can accept the scores in September

Thanks Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/341 - Release Date: 16/5/06

SPONSORED LINKS
Music education Music production education Music education degree
Degree education music online Music business education Music education online

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "tuning" on the web.

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

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

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> I think Erv paper on MOS could not be clearer.
> Any 6th grader can create MOS from its examples

Since the scale is generated by octaves and this generator, two is the
minimum number of sizes, so a MOS could also be characterized as
having two generators, one an octave, with a minimum number of step
sizes. Or it could be characterized in terms of semiconvergents of the
continued fraction for log2(generator).

> He goes further into constant structures, which if one looks at scales
> around the world have more examples than MOS

Which article is this? It would help if you would give cites.

> Also unlike the other systems with their often verbose language, one
> cannot easily step into the scales formed by recurrent sequences.

Eh?

> There is no rigorous mathematical definition of the Sonata form.
> It can't because each one is different and there are more exceptions
> that one could ever take in.
> Yet no one would be foolish enough to say that it doesn't exist or that
> it is not incomplete.
> The mathematical reality is not applicable.

Bad anaology; it's applicable to these sort of scale ideas. In fact,
Erv's stuff is nearly always heavily mathematical.

> too bad those who can't see the world beyond it,
> or more foolish , dismiss it because it won't fit on a calculator
program

And what is an example of *anything* Erv Wilson did in theory terms
which "won't fit on a calculator program"?

> The goal of theory is not to give mathematicians the tools to write
> music, it is to be useful to musicians

Of course, this assumes mathematicians should not write music, only
"real" musicians.

> Underlying the demand for scientific accuracy is a hatred and distrust
> of the artistic spirit.

I don't think you understand Erv at all, really, because you seem to
have him confused with someone not using mathematical methods. He's
not writing poetry.

> Once again there is nothing in the MOS concept that is limited to
> octaves as i have repeatedly pointed out.

Unless Wilson actually gives a definition, how can one tell? Asking
him has apparently produced the opposite result--that octave periods
were what he *was* thinking of.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> There are several very closely related concepts:
>
> MOS (Wilson)
> well-formedness (Carey, Clampitt)
> Myhill's property (Myhill)
> distributional eveness (?)
> maximal eveness (Clough, Douthett)
>
> One of the differences is whether non-octave periods are
> allowed. IIRC, the latest is that they're not in MOS, but
> they are in DE. So Paul's been using DE for everything.
> But it's far from clear as far as I'm concerned, exactly what
> Erv intended, whose work came first, or if anyone should
> care.

I should care if I'm going to write or edit a Wikipedia article.
"Myhill's property" was a name cooked up by Clough and Myerson and
named after set theorist John Myhill according to the Wikipedia
article on Myhill's property. "Set theorist" here means an actual set
theorist, not a musical set theorist, BTW. If someone else has
priority, that should certainly be mentioned, though I'm not clear on
why Myhill's property needs a whole article to itself anyway.

I could ask Gerry Myerson why they called it "Myhill's property", I
suppose.

My "epimorphic" is indeed close to CS, and sorting it all out would be
an interesting exercise.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > MOS (Wilson)
> > well-formedness (Carey, Clampitt)
> > Myhill's property (Myhill)
> > distributional eveness (?)
> > maximal eveness (Clough, Douthett)
> >
> > One of the differences is whether non-octave periods are
> > allowed. IIRC, the latest is that they're not in MOS, but
> > they are in DE. So Paul's been using DE for everything.
> > But it's far from clear as far as I'm concerned, exactly what
> > Erv intended, whose work came first, or if anyone should
> > care.
>
> I should care if I'm going to write or edit a Wikipedia article.
> "Myhill's property" was a name cooked up by Clough and Myerson

When? Rothenberg mentions it, so... perhaps his cites should
be considered.

> "Set theorist" here means an actual set
> theorist, not a musical set theorist, BTW.

That's good.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > > I should care if I'm going to write or edit a Wikipedia article.
> > > "Myhill's property" was a name cooked up by Clough and Myerson
> >
> > When? Rothenberg mentions it, so... perhaps his cites should
> > be considered.
>
> Well that's ineresting, since the Clough and Myerson article, Gerry's
> contributtion to music, not counting his daughter, dates to 1985.

Clough himself posted this to this list in 1999...

>Rick Sanford and Carl Lumma recently mentioned Myhill's property.
>Gerald Myerson and I defined Myhill's property (MP) for an artbitrary
>set of numbers mod n: iff every generic interval appears in
>exactly two sizes, the set is said to have MP. A generic interval
>is what we think of musically as a 2nd, 3rd, etc. (but excluding the
>prime or modular interval itself). For example,
>the set {0, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11} in mod 12 qualifies as MP.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

Message 13 From: "Gene Ward Smith" genewardsmith@coolgoose.com
Date: Tue May 23, 2006 0:38pm(PDT) Subject: Re: Balzano on Wikipedia

I've never read an article by Erv which was clear, and if you mean the
letter to Chalmers on MOS here, it's a good example of why. He never
actually *defines* what he means; one can surmise that a MOS is a
scale generated by a single interval, reduced by octaves, which has
"Myhill's property"--that is, it has intervals of only two sizes. But
I can't find where he says this explicitly; it's simply implied by his
discussion. that seems to be enough to let anyone who wants to create a moment of symmetry.
If i want to tell some one what a circle is i can define it mathematically , but more often than not a picture will get the point across.
and is just an "valid" > > He goes further into constant structures, which if one looks at scales > > around the world have more examples than MOS
> Which article is this? It would help if you would give cites.
actually more important is page two off his article. and if it can be defined in purely mathematical terms why don't you go ahead and do it

> There is no rigorous mathematical definition of the Sonata form.
> It can't because each one is different and there are more exceptions > that one could ever take in.
> Yet no one would be foolish enough to say that it doesn't exist or that > it is not incomplete.
> The mathematical reality is not applicable.

Bad analogy; it's applicable to these sort of scale ideas. In fact,

actually it a good analogy cause scales vary in design just as much

The goal of theory is not to give mathematicians the tools to write > music, it is to be useful to musicians

Of course, this assumes mathematicians should not write music, only
"real" musicians.
This is twisting my meaning.

There are individuals who are both skilled musicians and mathematicians.
we all know many of these
the point being that Erv wished to communicate with musicians

>
>> And what is an example of *anything* Erv Wilson did in theory terms
>> which "won't fit on a calculator program"?
obviously this concept
>>
>> I don't think you understand Erv at all, really, because you seem to
>> have him confused with someone not using mathematical methods. He's
>> not writing poetry.
>> of course he uses math when it applies and doesn't use it where it doesn't apply to convey what he wants to get across
>> >>> > Once again there is nothing in the MOS concept that is limited to >>> > octaves as i have repeatedly pointed out.
>>> >> Unless Wilson actually gives a definition, how can one tell? Asking >> him has apparently produced the opposite result--that octave periods >> were what he *was* thinking of.
None of Erv works refer to the consonant/ dissonance question and his silence on this question should give you a clue as to how he feels about it.
Why would he be concerned with an octave as set in stone.

True he doesn't go out of his way to find non octave equivalent intervals, because he mentions then when he likes the sound of them.
Most commonly in discussion of Indonesian scales and recurrent sequences

I cannot count the number of times i have had to go on this list and point out , that he is no locked into the octave.
i have referred to scales , i learned from him that i used on recordings, some before these list even existed.
And who would this definition serve?
not me i can make MOS's all day long with a problem and any one who has worked with him has also.
If you think a definition is in order then write one and you can place it along the rest that most musicians will not read or care too.
There is nothing clear about Rothenberg to me and like i said leaves out the secondary layers we find in say Japanese music.
These scales are more common than MOS's around the world and really might be more important.
>> >> -- 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

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com>

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
> > >>>I should care if I'm going to write or edit a Wikipedia article.
>>>"Myhill's property" was a name cooked up by Clough and Myerson
>>
>>When? Rothenberg mentions it, so... perhaps his cites should
>>be considered.
> > > Well that's ineresting, since the Clough and Myerson article, Gerry's
> contributtion to music, not counting his daughter, dates to 1985.

Heh, I'm just reading the footnotes of

http://theory.esm.rochester.edu/norman_carey/text/self_sim.pdf

and they say Prosdocimo described it. Presumably that's Prosdocimo deï¿½Beldomandi of the early 15th Century. I don't think it had a name prior to "Myhill's Property".

Graham

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@yahoo.com.br>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > Another Myhill tidbit...
> >
> > "...Rothenberg. See his series of 5 papers published to
> > Mathematical Systems Theory in the late 1970's (Myhill was
> > on the Editorial board at the time, I see)"
>
> I thought that was three--parts one, two and three? For the
> three-part article, I'm getting scans made and plan to have
> the pdf files made available if it all works out. What are
> the other two papers?

I don't have them, and IIRC they were never published.

BTW, as I wrote off-list to Graham last night, I don't see
a Myhill cite in those three. I was remembering his
editorship, I think. I haven't scanned the text, but in
light of Clogh's comment (see earlier message), perhaps we
should take his word for it. A final check would be
John Chalmers' _Divisions of the Tetrachord_. Oh, and
the microtonal bibliography...

http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/bib.html

Wow, the string "Myhill" doesn't even occur in it.

-Carl