Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning consonance to dissonance intervals needed asap

On 7/18/07, John Gilbert <preciousatonement@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi tuning-groups!
>
> If you have a list of consonant to dissonant intervals in fraction format please send asap. Just the basic kind of thing--- where it is based on the harmonic series. Or even better--- 31 tone equal temperament list of consonant to most dissonant based solely on the harmonic series---- I didn't see this online actually, but maybe I missed it somewhere. For 31 et there is a lot of information but something more basic would be best for me where it simply goes from cons. to diss. in the scale starting from say, a C note.

You mean like:

0 C 1/1
18 G 3/2
13 F 4/3
23 A 5/3
10 E 5/4
25 A# 7/4
8 Eb 6/5
15 F# 7/5
21 Ab 8/5
26 Bb 9/5~16/9
7 D# 7/6
27 Ax 11/6~20/11
6 Ebb 8/7
11 Fb 9/7~14/11
16 Gb 10/7
20 G# 11/7~25/16
24 Bbb 12/7
5 D 9/8~10/9
14 Gbb 11/8~15/11
28 B 15/8~28/15
9 Dx 11/9
19 Abb 14/9
4 Cx 11/10~12/11
17 Fx 16/11~22/15
22 Gx 18/11
3 Db 15/14~16/15
29 Cb 21/11~27/14
12 E# 21/16
2 C# 21/20~22/21
30 B# various
1 Ddd various

Keenan

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗johngilbert3x <preciousatonement@gmail.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...>
wrote:
>
> On 7/18/07, John Gilbert <preciousatonement@...> wrote:
> > Hi tuning-groups!
> >
> > If you have a list of consonant to dissonant intervals in
fraction format please send asap. Just the basic kind of thing---
where it is based on the harmonic series. Or even better--- 31 tone
equal temperament list of consonant to most dissonant based solely on
the harmonic series---- I didn't see this online actually, but maybe
I missed it somewhere. For 31 et there is a lot of information but
something more basic would be best for me where it simply goes from
cons. to diss. in the scale starting from say, a C note.
>
> You mean like:
>
> 0 C 1/1
> 18 G 3/2
> 13 F 4/3
> 23 A 5/3
> 10 E 5/4
> 25 A# 7/4
> 8 Eb 6/5
> 15 F# 7/5
> 21 Ab 8/5
> 26 Bb 9/5~16/9
> 7 D# 7/6
> 27 Ax 11/6~20/11
> 6 Ebb 8/7
> 11 Fb 9/7~14/11
> 16 Gb 10/7
> 20 G# 11/7~25/16
> 24 Bbb 12/7
> 5 D 9/8~10/9
> 14 Gbb 11/8~15/11
> 28 B 15/8~28/15
> 9 Dx 11/9
> 19 Abb 14/9
> 4 Cx 11/10~12/11
> 17 Fx 16/11~22/15
> 22 Gx 18/11
> 3 Db 15/14~16/15
> 29 Cb 21/11~27/14
> 12 E# 21/16
> 2 C# 21/20~22/21
> 30 B# various
> 1 Ddd various
>
> ?
>
> Keenan
>

Keenan,
I'm very happy. That is exactly what I need. A Fokker would be
thrilled. Tuning groups is freaken great!

John

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@gmail.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

That's really easy.
If your using most meantone type tunings (e.g. 19,31,53,88 EDO etc), and certainly Lucytuning.

Disregard the octaves (which are 0 steps) then just count along the spiral of fourths and fifths; and find the number of steps of fourths or fifths between the noted names.

e.g.

C to G (or F) is 1 step
C to D (or Bb) is 2 steps
etc etc.

The greater the number of steps the less consonant the interval sounds.

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 18 Jul 2007, at 09:23, John Gilbert wrote:

>
> Hi tuning-groups!
>
> If you have a list of consonant to dissonant intervals in fraction > format please send asap. Just the basic kind of thing--- where it > is based on the harmonic series. Or even better--- 31 tone equal > temperament list of consonant to most dissonant based solely on the > harmonic series---- I didn't see this online actually, but maybe I > missed it somewhere. For 31 et there is a lot of information but > something more basic would be best for me where it simply goes from > cons. to diss. in the scale starting from say, a C note.
>
> Yours truly,
> John
>
>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

To my ears, all this integer ratio con/dissonance "magic Lumma numbers stuff" is utter "hogwash"

Yes you can quote me.

Then use your ears;-)

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 19 Jul 2007, at 01:31, Keenan Pepper wrote:

> On 7/18/07, Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > You can get a dissonance score of a ratio by multiplying
> > its numerator by its denominator, as long as that product
> > is not much more than 100 or something, and as long as
> > the ratio was in lowest terms when you started. Here's
> > a short list
> >
> > 2/1 = 2
> > 3/2 = 6
> > 4/3 = 12
> > 5/3 = 15
> > 7/4 = 28
> >
> > etc.
>
> That results in a slight rearrangement:
>
> 0 C 1/1 1
> 18 G 3/2 6
> 13 F 4/3 12
> 23 A 5/3 15
> 10 E 5/4 20
> 25 A# 7/4 28
> 8 Eb 6/5 30
> 15 F# 7/5 35
> 21 Ab 8/5 40
> 7 D# 7/6 42
> 26 Bb 9/5 45
> 6 Ebb 8/7 56
> 11 Fb 9/7 63
> 27 Ax 11/6 66
> 16 Gb 10/7 70
> 5 D 9/8 72
> 20 G# 11/7 77
> 24 Bbb 12/7 84
> 14 Gbb 11/8 88
> 9 Dx 11/9 99
> 4 Cx 11/10 110
> 28 B 15/8 120
> 19 Abb 14/9 126
> 17 Fx 16/11 176
> 22 Gx 18/11 198
> 3 Db 15/14 210
> 29 Cb 21/11 231
> 12 E# 21/16 336
> 2 C# 21/20 420
> 30 B# various
> 1 Ddd various
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗Mohajeri Shahin <shahinm@kayson-ir.com>

so , what about 599/400 ?

Shaahin Mohajeri

Tombak Player & Researcher , Microtonal Composer

My web site?? ???? ????? ?????? <http://240edo.googlepages.com/>

My farsi page in Harmonytalk ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? <http://www.harmonytalk.com/mohajeri>

Shaahin Mohajeri in Wikipedia ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaahin_mohajeri>

________________________________

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl Lumma
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:20 AM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: consonance to dissonance intervals needed asap

Gene's got a method of Tenney reduction for this... Gene?

-Carl

> On 7/18/07, Carl Lumma <clumma@...> wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > You can get a dissonance score of a ratio by multiplying
> > its numerator by its denominator, as long as that product
> > is not much more than 100 or something, and as long as
> > the ratio was in lowest terms when you started. Here's
> > a short list
> >
> > 2/1 = 2
> > 3/2 = 6
> > 4/3 = 12
> > 5/3 = 15
> > 7/4 = 28
> >
> > etc.
>
> That results in a slight rearrangement:
>
> 0 C 1/1 1
> 18 G 3/2 6
> 13 F 4/3 12
> 23 A 5/3 15
> 10 E 5/4 20
> 25 A# 7/4 28
> 8 Eb 6/5 30
> 15 F# 7/5 35
> 21 Ab 8/5 40
> 7 D# 7/6 42
> 26 Bb 9/5 45
> 6 Ebb 8/7 56
> 11 Fb 9/7 63
> 27 Ax 11/6 66
> 16 Gb 10/7 70
> 5 D 9/8 72
> 20 G# 11/7 77
> 24 Bbb 12/7 84
> 14 Gbb 11/8 88
> 9 Dx 11/9 99
> 4 Cx 11/10 110
> 28 B 15/8 120
> 19 Abb 14/9 126
> 17 Fx 16/11 176
> 22 Gx 18/11 198
> 3 Db 15/14 210
> 29 Cb 21/11 231
> 12 E# 21/16 336
> 2 C# 21/20 420
> 30 B# various
> 1 Ddd various
>

🔗johngilbert3x <preciousatonement@gmail.com>

Tuning,

It is very different but I have just learned about the circle of
fifths or fourths in 31 equal temp. This is where to begin for me.
It is amazing because to my ears it sounds like an illusion. I
researched on the Tonalsoft site, that's extremely interesting and
helpful. Thanks

p.s. does anyone here listen to Franz Liszt, I'm saying that because
to me he had some real great chords. good music is not bad music.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mohajeri Shahin" <shahinm@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> so , what about 599/400 ?
>
> Shaahin Mohajeri
>
> Tombak Player & Researcher , Microtonal Composer
>
> My web site?? ???? ????? ?????? <http://240edo.googlepages.com/>
>
> My farsi page in Harmonytalk ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ???
<http://www.harmonytalk.com/mohajeri>
>
> Shaahin Mohajeri in
Wikipedia ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaahin_mohajeri>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Carl Lumma
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:20 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: consonance to dissonance intervals needed asap
>
>
>
> Gene's got a method of Tenney reduction for this... Gene?
>
> -Carl
>
> > On 7/18/07, Carl Lumma <clumma@> wrote:
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > You can get a dissonance score of a ratio by multiplying
> > > its numerator by its denominator, as long as that product
> > > is not much more than 100 or something, and as long as
> > > the ratio was in lowest terms when you started. Here's
> > > a short list
> > >
> > > 2/1 = 2
> > > 3/2 = 6
> > > 4/3 = 12
> > > 5/3 = 15
> > > 7/4 = 28
> > >
> > > etc.
> >
> > That results in a slight rearrangement:
> >
> > 0 C 1/1 1
> > 18 G 3/2 6
> > 13 F 4/3 12
> > 23 A 5/3 15
> > 10 E 5/4 20
> > 25 A# 7/4 28
> > 8 Eb 6/5 30
> > 15 F# 7/5 35
> > 21 Ab 8/5 40
> > 7 D# 7/6 42
> > 26 Bb 9/5 45
> > 6 Ebb 8/7 56
> > 11 Fb 9/7 63
> > 27 Ax 11/6 66
> > 16 Gb 10/7 70
> > 5 D 9/8 72
> > 20 G# 11/7 77
> > 24 Bbb 12/7 84
> > 14 Gbb 11/8 88
> > 9 Dx 11/9 99
> > 4 Cx 11/10 110
> > 28 B 15/8 120
> > 19 Abb 14/9 126
> > 17 Fx 16/11 176
> > 22 Gx 18/11 198
> > 3 Db 15/14 210
> > 29 Cb 21/11 231
> > 12 E# 21/16 336
> > 2 C# 21/20 420
> > 30 B# various
> > 1 Ddd various
> >
>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

Yes, it's all pretty obvious musically; and it works!

In 31 EDO the fourths and fifths are at 13 and 18 steps respectively.

Heretical as it may be, counting the steps of fourths and fifths is also much simpler to apply than all the numerological dogma and mumbo-jumbo that the JI and integer zealots (e.g. Lumma),

and the majority of the tunatiks on this list will spout.

You can find the values for other EDO's and tuning systems from this page and its links.

http://www.lucytune.com/tuning/equal_temp.html

Or if you are an OSX Safari or Opera user - just type:

Alt Shift P

into the URL window in your browser.

Yes, I enjoy Liszt; although Ken Russell's Lisztomania was hilarious and a little O.T.T.

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 20 Jul 2007, at 01:37, johngilbert3x wrote:

> Tuning,
>
> It is very different but I have just learned about the circle of
> fifths or fourths in 31 equal temp. This is where to begin for me.
> It is amazing because to my ears it sounds like an illusion. I
> researched on the Tonalsoft site, that's extremely interesting and
> helpful. Thanks
>
> p.s. does anyone here listen to Franz Liszt, I'm saying that because
> to me he had some real great chords. good music is not bad music.
>

>
>
> ____________________________
> >
> > From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Carl Lumma
> > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:20 AM
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: consonance to dissonance intervals needed asap
> >
> >
> >
> > Gene's got a method of Tenney reduction for this... Gene?
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> > > On 7/18/07, Carl Lumma <clumma@> wrote:
> > > > Hi John,
> > > >
> > > > You can get a dissonance score of a ratio by multiplying
> > > > its numerator by its denominator, as long as that product
> > > > is not much more than 100 or something, and as long as
> > > > the ratio was in lowest terms when you started. Here's
> > > > a short list
> > > >
> > > > 2/1 = 2
> > > > 3/2 = 6
> > > > 4/3 = 12
> > > > 5/3 = 15
> > > > 7/4 = 28
> > > >
> > > > etc.
> > >
> > > That results in a slight rearrangement:
> > >
> > > 0 C 1/1 1
> > > 18 G 3/2 6
> > > 13 F 4/3 12
> > > 23 A 5/3 15
> > > 10 E 5/4 20
> > > 25 A# 7/4 28
> > > 8 Eb 6/5 30
> > > 15 F# 7/5 35
> > > 21 Ab 8/5 40
> > > 7 D# 7/6 42
> > > 26 Bb 9/5 45
> > > 6 Ebb 8/7 56
> > > 11 Fb 9/7 63
> > > 27 Ax 11/6 66
> > > 16 Gb 10/7 70
> > > 5 D 9/8 72
> > > 20 G# 11/7 77
> > > 24 Bbb 12/7 84
> > > 14 Gbb 11/8 88
> > > 9 Dx 11/9 99
> > > 4 Cx 11/10 110
> > > 28 B 15/8 120
> > > 19 Abb 14/9 126
> > > 17 Fx 16/11 176
> > > 22 Gx 18/11 198
> > > 3 Db 15/14 210
> > > 29 Cb 21/11 231
> > > 12 E# 21/16 336
> > > 2 C# 21/20 420
> > > 30 B# various
> > > 1 Ddd various
> > >
>
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@yahoo.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...>
wrote/asked:
>
>
> Are there any "integer zealots" on this list at all?
Dear Cameron,
>
> Raise your hand anyone who works only with integer ratio tunings,
> or believes that consonance and otherwise musically useful
> intervals only occur at integer ratios.
In that case i do join up fully with yours position,
but instaed in labeling that consequente attitude as an kind of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot_%28Judaism%29
i would rather prefer to call the exclusive use of ratios
more aptly as

"constructive-tunings" or merely as "rational-tunings"

according to:
http://www.sgipt.org/wisms/geswis/mathe/kroneck0.htm
's original quote:
"... Dabei ist aber das Wort "Arithmetik" nicht in dem üblichen
beschränkten Sinne zu verstehen, sondern es sind alle mathematischen
Disciplinen mit Ausnahme der Geometrie und Mechanik, also namentlich
die Algebra und Analysis, mit darunter zu begreifen. Und ich glaube
auch, dass es dereinst gelingen wird, den gesammten Inhalt aller
dieser mathematischen Disciplinen zu "arithmetisieren", d.h. einzig
und allein auf den im engsten Sinne genommenen Zahlbegriff zu gründen,
also die Modificationen und Erweiterungen dieses Begriffs - ich meine
hiermit namentlich die Herausnahme der irrationalen sowie der
continuirlichen Größen - wieder abzustreifen, welche zumeist durch die
Anwendungen auf die Geometrie und Mechanik veranlasst worden sind. ..."
my personal tr:
'...by that, the word "arithmetics" isn't understood in its
usual limited meaning, but it includes all other math. disciplines
alike algebra and calulus, with the exception of geometry and
mechanics. Also I do believe, one day we'll succeed,
to "arithmetzise" the complete contend of all that disciplines,
i.e. to base them alone on the concept of barely numbers,
taken in theirs closest sense, thus the modifications and extensions
of that concept - I mean by that namely the elimination of
irrational as well as continuous quantities - again abandoned,
which had once been introduced by applications in geometry and
mechanics....'

for example:
Even the late Einstein needed some decades meditation of his life
before he overtook that Gaussian idea,
in striving for his own goals in physics.

Imho:
Kronecker simply forgot in his incomplete list for his
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28mathematics%29
program to mention ours topic consisting in:

Musical interval fractions
that arise when describing
tunings by theirs inherent frequency proportions:
The ordinary representation:
Numerator over denominator do suffice adaequate enough.

For many purposes even
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyadic_fraction
s turn out to meet already most of requirements.

Anybody here that prefers to agree with that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
view too?

A.S.

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

I am pleasantly surprised to find that the integer dogma, that I had
encountered so vehemently expressed during the late 20th century is
now fading away.

Looks like progress to me;-)

I was using the term "zealot" in the general sense (rather than any
religious) sense:

Dictionary

zealot |ˈzelət|
noun
a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their
religious, political, or other ideals.
• ( Zealot) historical a member of an ancient Jewish sect aiming at
a world Jewish theocracy and resisting the Romans until ad 70.

I agree that the history of the word "zealot" is interesting.

The reason that I mentioned Carl's name was because his name was
attached to a posting which contained exclusively integer ratios in
connection with questions of con/dissonance.

(The tuning list is fun to wind-up; for there's still always someone
on the list who will take offence.)

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 20 Jul 2007, at 13:53, Andreas Sparschuh wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...>
> wrote/asked:
> >
> >
> > Are there any "integer zealots" on this list at all?
> Dear Cameron,
> >
> > Raise your hand anyone who works only with integer ratio tunings,
> > or believes that consonance and otherwise musically useful
> > intervals only occur at integer ratios.
> In that case i do join up fully with yours position,
> but instaed in labeling that consequente attitude as an kind of:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot_%28Judaism%29
> i would rather prefer to call the exclusive use of ratios
> more aptly as
>
> "constructive-tunings" or merely as "rational-tunings"
>
>
> RECENT ACTIVITY
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>

> I am pleasantly surprised to find that the integer dogma,
Dear Charles,
i never intended present my own retrun to rational proportions as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
but rather due to the intuition:
It's utterly impossible to write down all decimals of the irrational
sqrt(2) or draw that triangel exactly on the paper,
not to mention:
It's completely unfeasible to tune the according
half-octave of 600 Cents exactly into 2-EDO.

Why using barely rational approximations instead authentic rationals?

> that I had
> encountered so vehemently expressed during the late 20th century is
> now fading away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
"Without a fixed ideology, or the introduction of religious
tendencies, the only approach which does not inhibit progress (using
whichever definition one sees fit) is "anything goes": "'anything
goes' is not a 'principle' I hold... but the terrified exclamation of
a rationalist who takes a closer look at history." (Feyerabend, 1975)."
http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=149381&idForum=1&lp=ende&lang=de
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_II._(Preu%C3%9Fen)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II_of_Prussia
>
> Looks like progress to me;-)
Please consider:
Some times 'progress' consists in departing meanders.
>
>
> I was using the term "zealot" in the general sense (rather than any
> religious) sense:
> The reason that I mentioned Carl's name was because his name was
> attached to a posting which contained exclusively integer ratios in
> connection with questions of con/dissonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonance_and_dissonance
"Consonance has been defined variously through:

1. * Frequency ratios: with ratios of lower simple numbers being more
consonant than those which are higher (Pythagoras)....

2. o Coincidence of harmonics: with consonance being a greater
coincidence of harmonics or partials (collectively overtones)....

3. o Fusion or pattern matching: fundamentals may be perceived through
pattern-matching of the separately analyzed partials to a best-fit
exact-harmonic template.....

4. o Period length or neural-firing coincidence: with the length of
periodic neural-firing created by two or more wave-forms, lower simple
numbers creating shorter or common periods or higher coincidence of
neural-firing and thus consonance.... "

Hence results in judgeing about that
will depend on personal choice somewhere inbetween 1.-4.:
Which particulary version do you prefer among all that
different views of
http://genn.org/stuff/tastes/
?
>
> (The tuning list is fun to wind-up; for there's still always someone
> on the list who will take offence.)
Howsoever, in such kidding cases, all i can recommend is:
Always keep yourself in a good sense of humor and tolerance!
>
Slogan:
Take it easy, but take it!
A.S.

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

(I not understand)

Apologies for phonetic Hebrew;-)

C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#

Eight steps of fifths from C results in G# (#Vth)

which I would hear as much less consonant

than the fourth steps of fifths to E (IIIrd)

How do you get your EIGHT? steps to produce "something like a major third - (debunks) " ?

BTW LucyTuning is a very specific meantone (-type) tuning.

It's just that the "size/mean" is derived from pi instead of a "mean" of various integer ratios.

It also approximates 88 EDO, as Monz, Wiz. Smith, and others have pointed out.

Thanks for the compliments on our marketing - but I must admit that our millions and funding come still mostly from 12 EDO music.

Yet we are still hoping the next millions will be from LucyTuned music;-)

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 20 Jul 2007, at 20:05, Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

> Carl Lumma wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
> >
> >> I am pleasantly surprised to find that the integer dogma, that I > had
> >> encountered so vehemently expressed during the late 20th century is
> >> now fading away.
> >>
> Huh? Have you taken a survey?
>
> >> Looks like progress to me;-)
> >>
> >
> > Unfortunately I'm not surprised to find Charles still
> > hasn't provided anything sturdier than crystal-waving
> > new age bulls*** in support of his 'alpha-wave-inducing
> > beats' claims of his modestly-named LucyTuning (read:
> > meantone), nor any model of consonance that makes
> > predictions of any kind beyond his easily-debunked
> > 'chain-of-fifths distance'.
> >
>
> All due respect, Charles, but I have to agree with Carl. I can't see
> what LucyTuning has that meantone doesn't, except marketing---it is
> quite close in effect and affect, and I think the very fact that > you can
> go 8 fifths and have something like a major third debunks the
> 'chain-o-fifths' theory.
>
> -A.
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

Charles Lucy wrote:
> (I not understand)
>
> Apologies for phonetic Hebrew;-)
>
> C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#
>
> Eight steps of fifths from C results in G# (#Vth)
>
> which I would hear as much less consonant
>
> than the fourth steps of fifths to E (IIIrd)

try playing that G#-C after tuning the fifths just---you'll find it very consonant, only 2 cents from a just 5/4.
Ever hear of a schisma?

Same thing the other way C-Fb with pure fifths.

WAY more consonant than a Pythagorean third (81/64)
>
> How do you get your EIGHT? steps to produce "something like a major > third - (debunks) " ?

I think I explained it....check out Monz's dictionary if you don't know what a schisma is.
>
> BTW LucyTuning is a very specific meantone (-type) tuning.
>
> It's just that the "size/mean" is derived from pi instead of a "mean" > of various integer ratios.
>
> It also approximates 88 EDO, as Monz, Wiz. Smith, and others have > pointed out.

Yup.....so why the branding?
>
> Thanks for the compliments on our marketing - but I must admit that > our millions and funding come still mostly from 12 EDO music.
>
> Yet we are still hoping the next millions will be from LucyTuned music;-)

I still think you probably would fail to hear the difference between lucytuning and some close variety of meantone in a real-world musical situation.

Cheers,
Aaron.
> Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com
>
> ----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----
>
> For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com
>
> LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
> Skype user = lucytune
>
> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>
>
> On 20 Jul 2007, at 20:05, Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
>
>> Carl Lumma wrote:
>> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am pleasantly surprised to find that the integer dogma, that I had
>> >> encountered so vehemently expressed during the late 20th century is
>> >> now fading away.
>> >>
>> Huh? Have you taken a survey?
>>
>> >> Looks like progress to me;-)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Unfortunately I'm not surprised to find Charles still
>> > hasn't provided anything sturdier than crystal-waving
>> > new age bulls*** in support of his 'alpha-wave-inducing
>> > beats' claims of his modestly-named LucyTuning (read:
>> > meantone), nor any model of consonance that makes
>> > predictions of any kind beyond his easily-debunked
>> > 'chain-of-fifths distance'.
>> >
>>
>> All due respect, Charles, but I have to agree with Carl. I can't see
>> what LucyTuning has that meantone doesn't, except marketing---it is
>> quite close in effect and affect, and I think the very fact that you can
>> go 8 fifths and have something like a major third debunks the
>> 'chain-o-fifths' theory.
>>
>> -A.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

Hi Aaron;

1. The original request was directed about 31 EDO and other meantone-type tunings.
2. You are confusing concepts here. Pythagorean is an integer ratio derived tuning system, I am not tuning any fifths Just.
3. You seem to be falling into the integer-centric thinking that my earlier swipes were aimed at;-)
4. G# to C is still eight steps, regardless of the direction that you navigate around the spiral/circle.
5. I still do not understand your points.

more responses below after quotes.

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 20 Jul 2007, at 22:30, Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

> Charles Lucy wrote:
> > (I not understand)
> >
> > Apologies for phonetic Hebrew;-)
> >
> > C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#
> >
> > Eight steps of fifths from C results in G# (#Vth)
> >
> > which I would hear as much less consonant
> >
> > than the fourth steps of fifths to E (IIIrd)
>
> >try playing that G#-C after tuning the fifths just---you'll find > it very
> >consonant, only 2 cents from a just 5/4.
>

>
> >Ever hear of a schisma?
>

>
> Yes, yet irrelevant.
>

>
> >Same thing the other way C-Fb with pure fifths.
>
>

> Fb-Cb-Gb-Db-Ab-Eb-Bb-C
>

> SEVEN steps = more consonant than EIGHT STEPS (by my theory)
>
> >WAY more consonant than a Pythagorean third (81/64)
>
>

> So???
>

> More muddled thinking Aaron?
>
>

>
> >
> > How do you get your EIGHT? steps to produce "something like a major
> > third - (debunks) " ?
>
> I think I explained it....check out Monz's dictionary if you don't > know
> what a schisma is.
> >
> > BTW LucyTuning is a very specific meantone (-type) tuning.
> >
> > It's just that the "size/mean" is derived from pi instead of a > "mean"
> > of various integer ratios.
> >
> > It also approximates 88 EDO, as Monz, Wiz. Smith, and others have
> > pointed out.
>
> Yup.....so why the branding?
> >
> > Thanks for the compliments on our marketing - but I must admit that
> > our millions and funding come still mostly from 12 EDO music.
> >
> > Yet we are still hoping the next millions will be from LucyTuned > music;-)
>
> >I still think you probably would fail to hear the difference between
> >lucytuning and some close variety of meantone in a real-world musical
> >situation.
>
> maybe, depends upon the "noise" level.
>
>

>
> >

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf@snafu.de>

There is a surprising, persistent, and false notion out there that all musicians using a form of just intonation are zealots or fanatics of one sort or another, demanding that others organize their pitch relationships on the same basis and/or shutting themselves off from, when they are not simply unaware of, a broader spectrum of pitch relationships. For many of us using just intonation, it is simply a reasonable point of departure and reference when faced with the huge vector space of possible tunings and the complexities of their use and perception.

With an integer-based tuning and integer-based spectra, in the middle registers of human hearing there is both an immediate affinity between tuning and timbre (namely, minimization of interference beating) and a range of consonant-dissonant sensations about which one might navigate efficiently as a listener, performer, or composer. From this point of departure, deviations from just intervals and from more complex spectra can be approached, assimilated, and, eventually, be treated independently of any relationship to a just intonation. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet proposed a more useful alternative point of reference, but I would be delighted to learn of one, should one be proposed.

A a composer, while my initial orientation is rational, I always reserve the right to alter my intervals subtly or overtly, introducing beating, or to use timbres that have little in common with simple harmonic spectra. I like idiophones of wood or metal, I like interference beating, I like glissandi and portamenti, and I even like temperaments that allow me to play puns on just expectations. None of these possibilities are excluded by a just orientation. In fact, in my experience, the just orientation facilitates these possibilities.

I realize that there is a fear out there that using the intervals of just intonation and the harmonic series as a point of orientation is a kind of poison pill, and the same prejudice is held against learning to tune intervals using 12tet as a point of departure, that somehow, by application of these, that they will reify themselves, infecting ones music-making with the evils of ET or JI ideologies. I do not insist that anyone else share my approach, but I can recommend it, as a way of operating from a position of strength, even /detournement/ (as the Situationists would have had it), to be able to treat just intervals or the 12tet scale as a neutral instance, through which the greatest possible spectrum of possibilities can be efficiently realized, and even, perhaps, get beyond the basic issues of realization in order to deal with the more complex issues of turning a bunch of sounds into something musical.

Daniel Wolf

🔗djwolf_frankfurt <djwolf@snafu.de>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

Well put...

From a personal perspective, I think the flame wars are kind of stupid. JI is a wonderfully, directly emotional experience---primal in its power (I speak for myslef, not for Wilson who, inspite of coming up with so many scale in JI, was quoted as saying it sounded like shit.)

And temperments of any sort, whether using JI as a starting assumption (e.g. the meantones, 19, 31, etc.) or the out there ones (e.g. 13,11 or for some 17) are also nice and interesting and different. For those who love the exotic, anything exotic, why would we choose one and not the other? It seems to me that temperament serves a pragmatic purpose, and JI and idealistic purpose, and maybe the conflict lies there---in a-priori concerns.

Daniel Wolf wrote:
> There is a surprising, persistent, and false notion out there that all > musicians using a form of just intonation are zealots or fanatics of one > sort or another, demanding that others organize their pitch > relationships on the same basis and/or shutting themselves off from, > when they are not simply unaware of, a broader spectrum of pitch > relationships. >
> For many of us using just intonation, it is simply a reasonable point of > departure and reference when faced with the huge vector space of > possible tunings and the complexities of their use and perception.
>
> With an integer-based tuning and integer-based spectra, in the middle > registers of human hearing there is both an immediate affinity between > tuning and timbre (namely, minimization of interference beating) and a > range of consonant-dissonant sensations about which one might navigate > efficiently as a listener, performer, or composer. >
> From this point of departure, deviations from just intervals and from > more complex spectra can be approached, assimilated, and, eventually, be > treated independently of any relationship to a just intonation. To the > best of my knowledge, no one has yet proposed a more useful alternative > point of reference, but I would be delighted to learn of one, should one > be proposed.
>
> A a composer, while my initial orientation is rational, I always reserve > the right to alter my intervals subtly or overtly, introducing beating, > or to use timbres that have little in common with simple harmonic > spectra. I like idiophones of wood or metal, I like interference > beating, I like glissandi and portamenti, and I even like temperaments > that allow me to play puns on just expectations. None of these > possibilities are excluded by a just orientation. In fact, in my > experience, the just orientation facilitates these possibilities.
>
> I realize that there is a fear out there that using the intervals of > just intonation and the harmonic series as a point of orientation is a > kind of poison pill, and the same prejudice is held against learning to > tune intervals using 12tet as a point of departure, that somehow, by > application of these, that they will reify themselves, infecting ones > music-making with the evils of ET or JI ideologies. I do not insist > that anyone else share my approach, but I can recommend it, as a way of > operating from a position of strength, even /detournement/ (as the > Situationists would have had it), to be able to treat just intervals or > the 12tet scale as a neutral instance, through which the greatest > possible spectrum of possibilities can be efficiently realized, and > even, perhaps, get beyond the basic issues of realization in order to > deal with the more complex issues of turning a bunch of sounds into > something musical.
>
> Daniel Wolf
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

🔗p_heddles <p_heddles@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@> wrote:
>
> > Can I ask you not to call me an "integer zealot", Charles?
>
>
> Are there any "integer zealots" on this list at all?
>
> Raise your hand anyone who works only with integer ratio tunings,
> or believes that consonance and otherwise musically useful
> intervals only occur at integer ratios.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

*raises hand hesitantly*

Apart from working with 12EDO (which we all have to do sometimes), I
do only work with integer-ratio tunings. I'm not arrogant enough to
claim that integer-ratio tunings are the only 'musically useful'
tunings, though - that'd be kinda silly, in light of both 12EDO itself
and the various alternate tunings I've heard put to beautiful use
since I subscribed to this list.

Incidentally, a few days ago I explained to a schoolgirl friend of
mine the integer-ratio basis of the Western diatonic scales (4:5:6
triads on tonic, 2:3 dominant and 3:4 subdominant). The almost-audible
click as a fair chunk of music theory suddenly made a *lot* more sense
to her was most gratifying :-)

Peace and joy,
Patty

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

Charles Lucy wrote:
> Hi Aaron;
>
> 1. The original request was directed about 31 EDO and other > meantone-type tunings.
> 2. You are confusing concepts here. Pythagorean is an integer ratio > derived tuning system, I am not tuning any fifths Just.
> 3. You seem to be falling into the integer-centric thinking that my > earlier swipes were aimed at;-)
> 4. G# to C is still eight steps, regardless of the direction that you > navigate around the spiral/circle.
> 5. I still do not understand your points.
Maybe I'm not understanding your points...you attacked Carl (and others) who state that in general, with harmonic spectra, smaller numbered ratios are more consonant. I fail to see how you have a better theory. Are you stating that the further one goes in the cycle of fifths (even tempered fifths, as you use), the intervals are more dissonant? Are you talking about the circle of fifths, or something else?

I was just showing how that is nonsense when you consider that the spiral of fifths will give you point of consonance with the starting pitch. C-F# is 6 steps, and is a tritone, whereas C-G#/Ab is 8 steps, and is close to 5/3 or major sixth. You tell me now whhich is more consonant, a tritone or a major sixth?

If you say a tritone, you lost me. But maybe you are talking about something else, cause surely you know these things.

Whatever you are saying, you still haven't shown a better theory of consonance that I've seen, so I'm sticking by the JI integer centric "zealotry" until you or anyone else does...

-A.

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗p_heddles <p_heddles@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Sparschuh" <a_sparschuh@...>
wrote:

*snip*

> 1. * Frequency ratios: with ratios of lower simple numbers being more
> consonant than those which are higher (Pythagoras)....
>
> 2. o Coincidence of harmonics: with consonance being a greater
> coincidence of harmonics or partials (collectively overtones)....
>
> 3. o Fusion or pattern matching: fundamentals may be perceived through
> pattern-matching of the separately analyzed partials to a best-fit
> exact-harmonic template.....
>
> 4. o Period length or neural-firing coincidence: with the length of
> periodic neural-firing created by two or more wave-forms, lower simple
> numbers creating shorter or common periods or higher coincidence of
> neural-firing and thus consonance.... "

*snip*

I like options 1-3 together, but I'd like to rule out option 4.
Basically, the brain never receives a waveform. As I understand it,
the ear performs something akin to a Fourier transform (and some eq
work), and what is sent to the brain through the auditory nerve is
merely frequency information. Much like MP3 data, which is based on
the Fast Fourier Transform and a little equaliser work. Actually,
advances in MP3 compression are almost all concerned with exploiting
psycho-acoustics by leaving out frequencies which the ear ignores anyway.

Peace,
Patty

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

Aaron;

I am advocating an entirely different model to the consideration of
integer frequency ratios.

I am not necessarily using "even tempered-fifths", because I am also
questioning the whole concept of "tempering".

[My point is that integer ratios are significant in causing/effecting
beating rates, yet other factors should be considered when
determining the location of musical "harmonics", scales, tunings etc.]

What I am proposing is really very simple. More steps = more
dissonant. Less steps = more consonant.

I find that counting the number of steps of fourths and fifths is a
more practical, consistent, and unambiguous "measurement" of
consonance and dissonance

than any other methods that I have seen/heard and considered, and
which are usually derived from integer frequency ratios.

This system of steps of fourths and fifths certainly works very well
for the "everyday" tuning system which I use, and may also be applied
to closely similar systems.

(Life is too short for me to have tested every system of meantone far
from Vth = 695¢.)

Yet from what I find it works and it also conforms to the underlying
theory and practice of Western musical harmony.

If you seriously wish to understand the underlying principles behind
my assertions, I suggest you look at:

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

and follow the links to the other associated pages.

Warning - if you wish to "get it" you will need to suspend the
"erroneous" integer ratio dogma that has been drilled into every
music and acoustics student during recent centuries.

Approach it with a open mind, and you will eventually understand how
it connects with the integer ratios which cause us to hear "beating".

I am sorry to sound patronising, but for the past fifty years I have
heard/read how "harmonics" are supposedly only found at exact integer
frequency ratios.

I was skeptical when I first "learned" about them, and nowadays I am
totally convinced that the concept of integer ratios is a confusing,
paradoxical and misleading flawed mapping system.

Witness the thousands of integer ratios which have been argued about
on the tuning lists over the past 15-odd years.

If you experiment with another paradigm, as Harrison (transcriptions
of his original writings are also on that site) suggests, you will
understand why I view the JI zealots with such contempt.

See response below to your Major sixth confusion.

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 21 Jul 2007, at 03:10, Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

> Charles Lucy wrote:
> > Hi Aaron;
> >
> > 1. The original request was directed about 31 EDO and other
> > meantone-type tunings.
> > 2. You are confusing concepts here. Pythagorean is an integer ratio
> > derived tuning system, I am not tuning any fifths Just.
> > 3. You seem to be falling into the integer-centric thinking that my
> > earlier swipes were aimed at;-)
> > 4. G# to C is still eight steps, regardless of the direction that
> you
> > navigate around the spiral/circle.
> > 5. I still do not understand your points.
> Maybe I'm not understanding your points...you attacked Carl (and
> others)
> who state that in general, with harmonic spectra, smaller numbered
> ratios are more consonant. I fail to see how you have a better theory.
> Are you stating that the further one goes in the cycle of fifths (even
> tempered fifths, as you use), the intervals are more dissonant? Are
> you
> talking about the circle of fifths, or something else?
>
> I was just showing how that is nonsense when you consider that the
> spiral of fifths will give you point of consonance with the starting
> pitch. C-F# is 6 steps, and is a tritone, whereas C-G#/Ab is 8 steps,
> and is close to 5/3 or major sixth. You tell me now whhich is more
> consonant, a tritone or a major sixth?
>

> C-G-D-A-E-B-F# = 6 steps agreed.
>

> C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G# = 8 steps agreed.
>

> C-G-D-A = 4 steps A IS THE MAJOR SIXTH from C regardless of what
> your integer dogma may suggest.
>

> If you say a tritone, you lost me. But maybe you are talking about
> something else, cause surely you know these things.
>
> Whatever you are saying, you still haven't shown a better theory of
> consonance that I've seen, so I'm sticking by the JI integer centric
> "zealotry" until you or anyone else does...
>
> -A.
>
> _
> .
>
>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

Please give me clear references (from the tuning list archives)

of exactly what I was supposed to come back with Carl,

and I shall attempt to comply with your whim.

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 21 Jul 2007, at 05:14, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Aaron;
> >
> > 1. The original request was directed about 31 EDO and other
> > meantone-type tunings.
> > 2. You are confusing concepts here.
>
> You're the one confusing things. Any LucyTuned interval
> can be approximated arbitrarily closely by another LucyTuned
> interval with a huge number of fifths. IIRC, last time
> this came up, you said you'd have to work on it and get
> back to us. But you've just come back with the same old
> spiel.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

Charles wrote...
> I find that counting the number of steps of fourths and
> fifths is a more practical, consistent, and
> unambiguous "measurement" of consonance and dissonance

You should say "counting the number of LucyTuned 4ths
OR fifths to arrive at an interval".

So let's see... this excludes the octave, yes? So you
can't compare its consonance to other intervals, nor can
you compare the consonance of things like 10ths and 3rds.
That's one drawback.

Another is, you can measure any LucyTuned interval this
way, but given an arbitrary interval (say 453.934893 cents),
how do you measure it? Either your method only works for
intervals in LucyTuning, or you have to cough up additional
details that would let us place arbitrary intervals on the
chain of 5ths. A decimal place of precision could add
10,000 5ths to the measurement.

Finally, you'll discover this only works insomuch as an
approximate 3 is a generator for meantone. And since you're
excluding the only consonance stronger than 3 (see above),
it kindof works. Except it doesn't. Do you map 7:4 to
-2 in LucyTuning? If so, do you think that 7:4 is twice
as consonant as 5:4?

> If you seriously wish to understand the underlying principles
> behind my assertions, I suggest you look at:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_05.html

I have a better idea: You address, on this list, some of the
direct questions that have been posed to you here (in direct
response to the rather flagrant assertions you've made here
many times), demonstrating that there's any reason at all we
should spend our time following links to your site. Then
we'll follow them.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗p_heddles <p_heddles@yahoo.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 21 Jul 2007, at 06:10, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Charles wrote...
> > I find that counting the number of steps of fourths and
> > fifths is a more practical, consistent, and
> > unambiguous "measurement" of consonance and dissonance
>
> >You should say "counting the number of LucyTuned 4ths
> >OR fifths to arrive at an interval".
>

>
> Yes, you or I could say that. Yet that is not exactly what I did say.
>

>
> >So let's see... this excludes the octave, yes?
>

> >So you
> >can't compare its consonance to other intervals, nor can
> >you compare the consonance of things like 10ths and 3rds.
> >That's one drawback.
>

> I did suggest that you count the octaves as zero, and for tenths > and thirds you would have the same as the octave so tenths and > thirds would be the same as seconds e.g. D and E = 2 steps.
>
> >Another is, you can measure any LucyTuned interval this
> >way, but given an arbitrary interval (say 453.934893 cents),
> >how do you measure it?
>

> >Either your method only works for
> >intervals in LucyTuning, or you have to cough up additional
> >details that would let us place arbitrary intervals on the
> >chain of 5ths. A decimal place of precision could add
> >10,000 5ths to the measurement.
>

> That's an interesting idea, maybe someone will pick up on it and run
>

>
>
> >Finally, you'll discover this only works insomuch as an
> >approximate 3 is a generator for meantone. And since you're
> >excluding the only consonance stronger than 3 (see above),
> >it kindof works. Except it doesn't. Do you map 7:4 to
> >-2 in LucyTuning? If so, do you think that 7:4 is twice
> >as consonant as 5:4?
>

> Assuming you are beginning to accept that I might be onto something > interesting, you could turn your whole reasoning the the other way > up, and look at it from the other direction. i.e. consider the 7:4 > and 5:4 as errors from LucyTuning, and arrive at the number of > steps, by choosing a level of precision that you require, and > counting the number of LucyTuned steps.
>

>
>
> > If you seriously wish to understand the underlying principles
> > behind my assertions, I suggest you look at:
> >
> > http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_05.html
>
> >I have a better idea: You address, on this list, some of the
> >direct questions that have been posed to you here (in direct
> >response to the rather flagrant assertions you've made here
> >many times), demonstrating that there's any reason at all we
> >should spend our time following links to your site. Then
> >we'll follow them.
>

> Thanks for the command (or should it be demand) performance > instructions. I prefer to continue in my "own sweet way", provided > you don't ban me from the list.
>

> My reasons are many, including:
>

> Less repetitive typing and editing for me.
>

> Yahoo lists are very limited. No html, images, animations, audio, > videos.
> My sites have all of the above "features", less distracting integer > zealot noise, and many more unique visitors than this tuning list, > who are interested in learning about LucyTuning and other "crazy" > ideas that I might have.
>

> -Carl
>
>

>
>
>>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

My original recent posting on the subject of con(dis)sonnance was in response to a question about ranking intervals by consonance and dissonance.

Carl seems to suggest that the concept of counting steps of fourths and fifths could be developed into some measurement of (con)dissonance,

Sounds/looks a good idea to me.

Since there doesn't seem to be a really satisfactory system already in place which everyone uses,
maybe some of the more mathematically literate tunaniks would we prepared to co-operate and explore the possibilities of developing this ranking concept into
some kind of con(dis)sonance index, which could be made available for future students and explorers to use.

A possible direction might be to apply some form of weighing or precision control to refine the concept using results which can be expressed with greater precision than an integer number of steps.

The same basic concept might also be applied to chords, scales, and even complete tuning systems.

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

🔗Klaus Schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

Charles Lucy schrieb:
> My original recent posting on the subject of con(dis)sonnance was in > response to a question about ranking intervals by consonance and dissonance.

_The_ original ancient post asked for the intervals or 31-et in addition to a ranking. As it happened, these intervals were expressed as ratios, sometimes with alternatives.

> > Carl seems to suggest that the concept of counting steps of fourths and > fifths could be developed into some measurement of (con)dissonance, Sure. 3/2, 9/8, 27/16 (really?), 81/64, ...

With a necessary grain of salt, it works and saves wasting thought on differentiating between 3/2 and 4/3. It works even better if you use it to measure the distance of modulations. Without that grain of salt, even there three fifths (from minor to major) are regarded as closer than two fifths in common practice.

> > Sounds/looks a good idea to me.

Remember why people tempered their fifths? Could it be that they wanted four or eight fifths to be more consonant, like say 5/4 or 8/5? (This doesn't reaaly keep you from tempering the 5 limit intervals too.)

klaus

> > Since there doesn't seem to be a really satisfactory system already in > place which everyone uses,
> maybe some of the more mathematically literate tunaniks would we > prepared to co-operate and explore the possibilities of developing this > ranking concept into
> some kind of con(dis)sonance index, which could be made available for > future students and explorers to use.
> > A possible direction might be to apply some form of weighing or > precision control to refine the concept using results which can be > expressed with greater precision than an integer number of steps.
> > The same basic concept might also be applied to chords, scales, and even > complete tuning systems.
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

Charles wrote...

> > >So you
> > >can't compare its consonance to other intervals, nor can
> > >you compare the consonance of things like 10ths and 3rds.
> > >That's one drawback.
> >
> > I did suggest that you count the octaves as zero, and for tenths
> > and thirds you would have the same as the octave so tenths and
> > thirds would be the same as seconds e.g. D and E = 2 steps.

Wouldn't 10ths and 3rds be 4 steps??

> > >Another is, you can measure any LucyTuned interval this
> > >way, but given an arbitrary interval (say 453.934893 cents),
> > >how do you measure it?
> > >Either your method only works for
> > >intervals in LucyTuning, or you have to cough up additional
> > >details that would let us place arbitrary intervals on the
> > >chain of 5ths. A decimal place of precision could add
> > >10,000 5ths to the measurement.
> >
> > That's an interesting idea, maybe someone will pick up on
> > it and run

It's not an interesting idea, it's a big, gaping hole in your
idea we're hoping you'll clear up.

> > >Finally, you'll discover this only works insomuch as an
> > >approximate 3 is a generator for meantone. And since you're
> > >excluding the only consonance stronger than 3 (see above),
> > >it kindof works. Except it doesn't. Do you map 7:4 to
> > >-2 in LucyTuning? If so, do you think that 7:4 is twice
> > >as consonant as 5:4?
> >
> > Assuming you are beginning to accept that I might be onto
> > something interesting,

You're not the first person to suggest 'chain of fifths'
dissonance in music, by the way. But you might be in
psychoacoustics, since everyone else has concluded it
doesn't work.

> > you could turn your whole reasoning the the other way
> > up, and look at it from the other direction. i.e. consider the
> > 7:4 and 5:4 as errors from LucyTuning,

That's what I was doing in this case. I was comparing
LucyTuned min 7ths with LucyTuned major 3rds. Are the latter
twice as dissonant as the former?

> > >I have a better idea: You address, on this list, some of the
> > >direct questions that have been posed to you here (in direct
> > >response to the rather flagrant assertions you've made here
> > >many times), demonstrating that there's any reason at all we
> > >should spend our time following links to your site. Then
> > >we'll follow them.
> >
> > Thanks for the command (or should it be demand) performance
> > instructions. I prefer to continue in my "own sweet way",
> > provided you don't ban me from the list.

Your way isn't sweet; you come on here accusing people by
name of zealotry and dogma, and usually your posts are nothing
more than an advert for your site. On many lists you would
have been banned long ago. When I had that power I didn't
use it against you, since you're at least a great tuning
character and at best I generally like you. These days I
don't have such power.

> > images, animations, audio, videos.
> > My sites have all of the above "features",

You can link directly to audio, video, animation, or
image files, which is the custom here.

> > less distracting integer
> > zealot noise,

There you go again.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
> My original recent posting on the subject of con(dis)sonnance
> was in response to a question about ranking intervals by
> consonance and dissonance.
>
> Carl seems to suggest that the concept of counting steps of
> fourths and fifths could be developed into some measurement
> of (con)dissonance,

Ranking implies measurement.

> Since there doesn't seem to be a really satisfactory system
> already in place which everyone uses,

For dyads there is.

> maybe some of the more mathematically literate tunaniks would we
> prepared to co-operate and explore the possibilities of developing
> this ranking concept into some kind of con(dis)sonance index,
> which could be made available for future students and explorers
> to use.

I'm trying, but first we have to clear up the problems I've
already pointed out. You'll have to get past blurting out
insults if you expect people to help you.

> A possible direction might be to apply some form of weighing or
> precision control to refine the concept using results which can be
> expressed with greater precision than an integer number of steps.

Sure, that's a possibility.

-Carl

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

Responses below:
Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 21 Jul 2007, at 17:56, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
> > My original recent posting on the subject of con(dis)sonnance
> > was in response to a question about ranking intervals by
> > consonance and dissonance.
> >
> > Carl seems to suggest that the concept of counting steps of
> > fourths and fifths could be developed into some measurement
> > of (con)dissonance,
>
> Ranking implies measurement.
>

> Yes but only of sufficient precision to position the interval in a > rank of say 19 or 31 intervals for the original purpose.
>
> > Since there doesn't seem to be a really satisfactory system
> > already in place which everyone uses,
>
> For dyads there is.
>

> I am skeptical
>

>
> > maybe some of the more mathematically literate tunaniks would we
> > prepared to co-operate and explore the possibilities of developing
> > this ranking concept into some kind of con(dis)sonance index,
> > which could be made available for future students and explorers
> > to use.
>
> I'm trying, but first we have to clear up the problems I've
> already pointed out. You'll have to get past blurting out
> insults if you expect people to help you.
>

> I don't think I have a case of typographical Tourette's;-)
>

>
> > A possible direction might be to apply some form of weighing or
> > precision control to refine the concept using results which can be
> > expressed with greater precision than an integer number of steps.
>
> Sure, that's a possibility.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

Thanks Aaaron;

You got it!

Dictionary

troll 1 |trōl|
noun
a mythical, cave-dwelling being depicted in folklore as either a
giant or a dwarf, typically having a very ugly appearance.
ORIGIN from Old Norse and Swedish troll, Danish trold; adopted into
English from Scandinavian in the mid 19th cent.

I have neither the extreme proportions nor (to my mind) particularly
ugly appearance.

We do have a couple of lava caves in our garden in Hawaii, but
they're not really high enough to dwell in.

Do London transport tube tunnels count as caves?

Isn't there something about hidden treasures being found in caves?

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 21 Jul 2007, at 18:37, Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

> Carl Lumma wrote:
> > Charles wrote...
> >
> >
> >>> less distracting integer
> >>> zealot noise,
> >>>
> >
> > There you go again.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> I think Charles Lucy must be a troll, and he's flame-baiting you.
>
> It does appear to be getting quite obnoxious, but I would suggest just
> ignoring it and not wasting your time, else you give it the tremendous
> powere it doesn't deserve.
>
> -A.
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

Thank you Carl.

That was new to me, but admittedly I was intending to wind you up.

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 21 Jul 2007, at 22:35, Carl Lumma wrote:

> > Thanks Aaaron;
> >
> > You got it!
>
> Unfortunately Charles isn't a troll. He's a long-time member
> of this community (since the '70s I believe). Somebody once
> told me community isn't the people you like, it's the people
> you're stuck with.
>
> Charles, the meaning of "troll" Aaron was referring to is
> here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

Thanks Gene Wizard.

I had read the original request and was (in all good faith) offering an alternative method for the inquirer to explore.

I have pondered the (dis)consonance question for many years, without really coming up with a satisfactory universal solution for any system other than LucyTuning.

My method of counting steps of fourths and fifths seems to work very well for my own purposes, and it is possible that it may also be appropriate for other meantone-type tunings.

For the way that I visualise and map harmonies, scales, and tunings, to use any type of integer frequency ratios would be inappropriate, and irrelevant.

Although you usually give me a rough time, which I appreciate;

you are one of the few people on the tuning list who I feel has a reasonable understanding of the alternative tuning paradigm which I am working with and advocating.

You certainly understand the maths/arithmetic that I am using;

and maybe you even appreciate my difficulties in persuading some tunaniks to even temporarily suspend the JI dogma, so that they can visualise a different paradigm.

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 22 Jul 2007, at 03:18, Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Aaaron;
> > >
> > > You got it!
> >
> > Unfortunately Charles isn't a troll. He's a long-time member
> > of this community (since the '70s I believe). Somebody once
> > told me community isn't the people you like, it's the people
> > you're stuck with.
>
> Is it really unfortunate he's not a troll? And he did admit to wanting
> to "wind you up".
>
> What's the down side here? Say he convinces some people there is a > neat
> tuning system called "LucyTuning", and they experiment with it. Well,
> and so what? Is that worse than being convinced Bohlen-Pierce is neat,
> and experimenting with that? Anyone he manages to confuse about this
> stuff isn't reading about tuning theory anyway, and I wonder how much
> their confusion matters.
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Gene Wizard.
>
> I had read the original request and was (in all good faith)
> offering an alternative method for the inquirer to explore.

Howabout you actually post a small ranking of intervals.
Even LucyTuned intervals? Then people could actually
have a hope of understanding you're ranking system.

Or you could try answering direct questions about it,
such as does it score the major third as 4 and the
minor seventh as 2, and if so do you find this matches
your aural experience.

> You certainly understand the maths/arithmetic that I am using;
> and maybe you even appreciate my difficulties in persuading some
> tunaniks to even temporarily suspend the JI dogma, so that they
> can visualise a different paradigm.

If Gene's the biggest advocate of LT around here, you're
in trouble. Or did you miss the part where he called it
a 'generic meantone lacking the desirable properties of
every other meantone he could think of'?

-Carl

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

Yes and yes.
Ranking of intervals follows the circle/spiral of fifths/fourths.
Do I need to spell these out for you Carl?

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 22 Jul 2007, at 21:40, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Gene Wizard.
> >
> > I had read the original request and was (in all good faith)
> > offering an alternative method for the inquirer to explore.
>
> Howabout you actually post a small ranking of intervals.
> Even LucyTuned intervals? Then people could actually
> have a hope of understanding you're ranking system.
>
> Or you could try answering direct questions about it,
> such as does it score the major third as 4 and the
> minor seventh as 2, and if so do you find this matches
> your aural experience.
>
> > You certainly understand the maths/arithmetic that I am using;
> > and maybe you even appreciate my difficulties in persuading some
> > tunaniks to even temporarily suspend the JI dogma, so that they
> > can visualise a different paradigm.
>
> If Gene's the biggest advocate of LT around here, you're
> in trouble. Or did you miss the part where he called it
> a 'generic meantone lacking the desirable properties of
> every other meantone he could think of'?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

I welcome Gene's comments, critical as they may be.

He took the trouble to calculate the concepts that I am advocating, and hence to understand my point of view.

The fact that he does not agree with me, is as I would expect.

He was gracious enough to endeavour to understand and seriously consider "new" ideas,

without asking banal elementary questions with obvious answers.

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 22 Jul 2007, at 21:40, Carl Lumma wrote:

consonance to dissonance intervals needed asap

🔗John Gilbert <preciousatonement@gmail.com>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@gmail.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗johngilbert3x <preciousatonement@gmail.com>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@gmail.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗Mohajeri Shahin <shahinm@kayson-ir.com>

🔗johngilbert3x <preciousatonement@gmail.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@yahoo.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@yahoo.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf@snafu.de>

🔗djwolf_frankfurt <djwolf@snafu.de>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

🔗p_heddles <p_heddles@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗p_heddles <p_heddles@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗p_heddles <p_heddles@yahoo.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Klaus Schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>