Statement of Purpose.

If someone designs a sophisticated and dedicated program for either
22 or 100tet then I will save up enough money to buy it. Otherwise,
everything else is just an academic exercise. I think it's about time
other people decided what they want rather than floundering about with
"horses for courses" which works in the interests of the 12tet status
quo which would have things remain the same. If you prefer other
numbered tets then that is fine. Some of the so-called experts need
to make a decision so that young people don't remain confused with all
the ideas proposed by experts. I say 22 or 100tet. What do you say?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
> I say 22 or 100tet. What do you say?

I say replacing one monolith with one or two new monoliths is a
limiting and absurd ambition. Neither of those choices suit the kind
of music I like to make, and reflect a very shallow investigation of
the myriad of opportunities that present themselves when one truly
thinks openly.

The kids are smart. They'll figure it out.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> > I say 22 or 100tet. What do you say?
>
> I say replacing one monolith with one or two new monoliths is a
> limiting and absurd ambition. Neither of those choices suit the kind
> of music I like to make, and reflect a very shallow investigation of
> the myriad of opportunities that present themselves when one truly
> thinks openly.
>
> The kids are smart. They'll figure it out.
>
From Robert. Perhaps so but you are living in a dreamworld of
mathematical possibilities. When practicality is taken into
consideration then only those tets close to 24 are viable from
a psychological point of view ( 93,96,100 and 106tets are too close
to call so one is as good as another in an initial scientific
investigation). So please carry on doing what you are doing but
don't expect teenagers to be impressed by your indecisive attitude.
You are still sitting on the fence. You haven't said what you
prefer. Do you expect teenagers to carry out experiments with all
the equal temperaments between 12 and 144 (and beyond) or are
you willing to offer guidance to the young and impressionable
minds of this planet? You are not making things easier by your
attitide. You are just making yourself out to be some sort of guru
for musical complexity.

Robert,

I've always been charitable in my responses to you, as you seemed new
to all this microtonality and tuning stuff. My charitable nature does
have it's limits, especially when it bumps up against obstinacy. I'll
be brief.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
> Perhaps so but you are living in a dreamworld of
> mathematical possibilities.

I certainly hope so. If art is not the realm of dreamers, what is?

> When practicality is taken into
> consideration then only those tets close to 24 are viable from
> a psychological point of view ( 93,96,100 and 106tets are too close
> to call so one is as good as another in an initial scientific
> investigation).

Rubbish. Leaving aside the specious "psychological point of view",
this blindered obsession with TETs and only TETs is nearly laughable.
You have show, through your posts on various fora, that you have large
gaps in exposure to the many varieties of non-12tet musics and
tunings, and there are many, many examples of compelling music and
musical culture that don't fit in to your "careful now, measure
everything equally" mindset. Yes, ETs work for a lot of things, but
they aren't the final answer.

Because there IS no final answer.

> So please carry on doing what you are doing but
> don't expect teenagers to be impressed by your indecisive attitude.

I'm not trying to impress anyone, there is nothing indecisive about
what I do with my music making, and I seem to have far greater faith
in the abilities of teenagers (good lord, whatever *age* has to do
with it!) than you do.

> You are still sitting on the fence. You haven't said what you
> prefer.

Yes I did: no restrictions. I believe everyone should be able to tune
their music however they want to, using a variety of ways to do just
that. You can't seem to grasp this, in spite of the fact that you've,
in the last few months, entered into an internet community that
contains people who have been doing this exact thing for many years.

> Do you expect teenagers to carry out experiments with all
> the equal temperaments between 12 and 144 (and beyond) or are
> you willing to offer guidance to the young and impressionable
> minds of this planet?

Since when is this *my* mission? We presented to you, in numerous
examples over at MMM, just how easy it is today to create microtonal
music. Your inability to look beyond your own methodology ("hey, I
connect up my midi cable to a hardware synth and limit myself to 12
tones, works for me, everyone should do it this way!") tells me all I
need to know about any further attempts to clue you in to the wider
world available. Your loss.

> You are just making yourself out to be some sort of guru
> for musical complexity.

If you only knew how laughable that is. Of course, you really don't
know anything about me or my music, so I can just smile and walk on.

You asked for opinions, Robert. You asked what we though. I told you
my viewpoint, and I'm just one guy. If you wanted to only hear stuff
you agree with, you've posted in the wrong place.

I wish you well, and have said all I need.

Regards,
Jon

Hi Jon and Robert,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You are just making yourself out to be some sort of guru
> > for musical complexity.
>
> If you only knew how laughable that is. Of course, you
> really don' know anything about me or my music, so I can
> just smile and walk on.

Jon, i'm glad you got to answer that first, because i was
going to respond about it to Robert as soon as i read it.

Robert, i know Jon and his music fairly well, and you
are way off base with that statement. He's not any kind
of guru, least of all one condoning musical complexity.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com/tonescape.aspx
Tonescape microtonal music software

I favor applying a metric system like coherence to the situation. That
is, dividing a single fundamental unit by a single radix.

The octave could be that fundamental unit. Then, if you use decimal
numeration, .1 octave (decioctave) gives 10-edo, .01 octave
(centioctave) gives the 100-edo you mentioned, and .001 octave gives
1000-edo (which can be used like cents are now, only they would be
called mils, or millioctaves). Then it's just a matter of selecting
whatever precision fits your needs.

I use duodecimal; '1 octave (dezioctave), '01 octave (zentioctave)
and '001 (milloctave)

'1 = conventional 12.(10')-edo
'01 = 144.(100')-edo; lends itself nicely to 72.(60')-edo
'001 = 1728.(1000')-edo; used as cents are now

I'd also suggest renaming that fundamental unit to remove the reference
to eight (I use the term 'duplus', as in deziduplus, zentiduplus, etc.).

To the left of the radix marks (be they decimal, duodecimal or what
have you), the integer portion of pitch numbers would indicate whole
octaves/dupluses. That is, 9'0 would be an octave/duplus higher than
8'0 (8'0 is what I believe should correspond to middle-C). Eliminating
inclusive counting would simply interval numbers as well as absolute
pitch numbers; instead of P8, P15 and P22, you'd have 1'0, 2'0 or 3'0
octave/duplus. You can also forget about accidentals and transposing
instruments.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" <leopold_plumtree@...> wrote:
>
> I favor applying a metric system like coherence to the situation.
That
> is, dividing a single fundamental unit by a single radix.
>
> The octave could be that fundamental unit. Then, if you use
decimal
> numeration, .1 octave (decioctave) gives 10-edo, .01 octave
> (centioctave) gives the 100-edo you mentioned, and .001 octave
gives
> 1000-edo (which can be used like cents are now, only they would be
> called mils, or millioctaves). Then it's just a matter of
selecting
> whatever precision fits your needs.
>
> I use duodecimal; '1 octave (dezioctave), '01 octave (zentioctave)
> and '001 (milloctave)
>
> '1 = conventional 12.(10')-edo
> '01 = 144.(100')-edo; lends itself nicely to 72.(60')-edo
> '001 = 1728.(1000')-edo; used as cents are now
>
> I'd also suggest renaming that fundamental unit to remove the
reference
> to eight (I use the term 'duplus', as in deziduplus, zentiduplus,
etc.).
>
>
> To the left of the radix marks (be they decimal, duodecimal or what
> have you), the integer portion of pitch numbers would indicate
whole
> octaves/dupluses. That is, 9'0 would be an octave/duplus higher
than
> 8'0 (8'0 is what I believe should correspond to middle-C).
Eliminating
> inclusive counting would simply interval numbers as well as
absolute
> pitch numbers; instead of P8, P15 and P22, you'd have 1'0, 2'0 or
3'0
> octave/duplus. You can also forget about accidentals and
transposing
> instruments.
>

From Robert. I am in favor of any studies which promote 100tet and
the kinds of music it is capable of producing. But I'm not so sure
that introducing new jargon for old nomenclature will help the
situation. It will more than likely only confuse people. Better to
produce the music first and the formulation of theory and
nomenclature will naturally follow (hopefully along lines of least
resistence).

Hi Robert,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:

> From Robert. I am in favor of any studies which promote
> 100tet and the kinds of music it is capable of producing.

I've been on somewhat of a hiatus from the tuning lists
until just a few days ago, so forgive me if i missed this
... but i'm very curious: why are you so interested in 100tet?
(as opposed to other useful EDOs like 31, 46, 53, or 72?)

Also, i'd rather call it 100-edo, unless there's some
specific JI periodicity-block of which it is supposed
to be a temperament. Is there one that you have in mind?

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com/tonescape.aspx
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" <leopold_plumtree@> wrote:
> >
> > I favor applying a metric system like coherence to the
situation.
> That
> > is, dividing a single fundamental unit by a single radix.
> >
> > The octave could be that fundamental unit. Then, if you use
> decimal
> > numeration, .1 octave (decioctave) gives 10-edo, .01 octave
> > (centioctave) gives the 100-edo you mentioned, and .001 octave
> gives
> > 1000-edo (which can be used like cents are now, only they would
be
> > called mils, or millioctaves). Then it's just a matter of
> selecting
> > whatever precision fits your needs.
> >
> > I use duodecimal; '1 octave (dezioctave), '01 octave
(zentioctave)
> > and '001 (milloctave)
> >
> > '1 = conventional 12.(10')-edo
> > '01 = 144.(100')-edo; lends itself nicely to 72.(60')-edo
> > '001 = 1728.(1000')-edo; used as cents are now
> >
> > I'd also suggest renaming that fundamental unit to remove the
> reference
> > to eight (I use the term 'duplus', as in deziduplus, zentiduplus,
> etc.).
> >
> >
> > To the left of the radix marks (be they decimal, duodecimal or
what
> > have you), the integer portion of pitch numbers would indicate
> whole
> > octaves/dupluses. That is, 9'0 would be an octave/duplus higher
> than
> > 8'0 (8'0 is what I believe should correspond to middle-C).
> Eliminating
> > inclusive counting would simply interval numbers as well as
> absolute
> > pitch numbers; instead of P8, P15 and P22, you'd have 1'0, 2'0 or
> 3'0
> > octave/duplus. You can also forget about accidentals and
> transposing
> > instruments.
> >
>
> From Robert. I am in favor of any studies which promote 100tet and
> the kinds of music it is capable of producing. But I'm not so sure
> that introducing new jargon for old nomenclature will help the
> situation. It will more than likely only confuse people. Better to
> produce the music first and the formulation of theory and
> nomenclature will naturally follow (hopefully along lines of least
> resistence).
>

The jargon accompanying the system of pitch numbers isn't terribly
important. It's just what I think would make sense. Conventional
terms could still be used.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <joemonz@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
>
> > From Robert. I am in favor of any studies which promote
> > 100tet and the kinds of music it is capable of producing.
>
>
> I've been on somewhat of a hiatus from the tuning lists
> until just a few days ago, so forgive me if i missed this
> ... but i'm very curious: why are you so interested in 100tet?
> (as opposed to other useful EDOs like 31, 46, 53, or 72?)
>
> Also, i'd rather call it 100-edo, unless there's some
> specific JI periodicity-block of which it is supposed
> to be a temperament. Is there one that you have in mind?
>
>
> -monz
> http://tonalsoft.com/tonescape.aspx
> Tonescape microtonal music software
>

From Robert. Greetings Monz. I've only been connected to the
internet for about a year and I am relatively new to yahoo groups.
I have started another microtonal group at

/MicroMadeEasy/

which anyone is free to join.

I prefer 22tet rather than 31; 48 and 41 rather than 46.
I like 53tet and consider it rather elegant;
And I prefer 84tet to 72.

I prefer to use tet. I only saw the edo term in the last
year and thought it was a place in Japan.

I don't really care very much for JI periodicity blocks.
I prefer using the partials of the 8th octave of the
harmonic series. 128/128 to 256/128.

I like 100tet because it is easy to use and it produces
good meantone versions of just and septimal major as
well as many other interesting possibilities. There are
no decimal points to fiddle about with, all the notes are
12cents apart and any note can only be 6cents wrong (if
notes can ever be wrong). It is a decimal system which
can more easily be adapted to mathematical manipulation.
All in all I find it very good to work with and would
recommended it to beginners who don't know where to start,
those with a scientific bent and those who want to avoid
all the ratios, fractions and speculations coming thick
and fast from every Tom, Dick and Mary around the globe
(including myself).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" <leopold_plumtree@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" <leopold_plumtree@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I favor applying a metric system like coherence to the
> situation.
> > That
> > > is, dividing a single fundamental unit by a single radix.
> > >
> > > The octave could be that fundamental unit. Then, if you use
> > decimal
> > > numeration, .1 octave (decioctave) gives 10-edo, .01 octave
> > > (centioctave) gives the 100-edo you mentioned, and .001 octave
> > gives
> > > 1000-edo (which can be used like cents are now, only they would
> be
> > > called mils, or millioctaves). Then it's just a matter of
> > selecting
> > > whatever precision fits your needs.
> > >
> > > I use duodecimal; '1 octave (dezioctave), '01 octave
> (zentioctave)
> > > and '001 (milloctave)
> > >
> > > '1 = conventional 12.(10')-edo
> > > '01 = 144.(100')-edo; lends itself nicely to 72.(60')-edo
> > > '001 = 1728.(1000')-edo; used as cents are now
> > >
> > > I'd also suggest renaming that fundamental unit to remove the
> > reference
> > > to eight (I use the term 'duplus', as in deziduplus,
zentiduplus,
> > etc.).
> > >
> > >
> > > To the left of the radix marks (be they decimal, duodecimal or
> what
> > > have you), the integer portion of pitch numbers would indicate
> > whole
> > > octaves/dupluses. That is, 9'0 would be an octave/duplus
higher
> > than
> > > 8'0 (8'0 is what I believe should correspond to middle-C).
> > Eliminating
> > > inclusive counting would simply interval numbers as well as
> > absolute
> > > pitch numbers; instead of P8, P15 and P22, you'd have 1'0, 2'0
or
> > 3'0
> > > octave/duplus. You can also forget about accidentals and
> > transposing
> > > instruments.
> > >
> >
> > From Robert. I am in favor of any studies which promote 100tet
and
> > the kinds of music it is capable of producing. But I'm not so
sure
> > that introducing new jargon for old nomenclature will help the
> > situation. It will more than likely only confuse people. Better
to
> > produce the music first and the formulation of theory and
> > nomenclature will naturally follow (hopefully along lines of
least
> > resistence).
> >
>
> The jargon accompanying the system of pitch numbers isn't terribly
> important. It's just what I think would make sense. Conventional
> terms could still be used.
>
From Robert to Tony. I use 100tet as a convenience because there
are no decimal points to fiddle about with and good versions of
meantone just and septimal major can be obtained. I haven't given
it the thought that you have. No doubt it has potential. I just
use it because it is easy to work with.

Hi Robert,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
>
> I prefer 22tet rather than 31; 48 and 41 rather than 46.
> I like 53tet and consider it rather elegant;
> And I prefer 84tet to 72.

Have you really investigated 31-, 46- or 72-edo?
They all have remarkable properties.

> I prefer to use tet. I only saw the edo term in the last
> year and thought it was a place in Japan.

But "tet" refers to the fact that the tuning is a
temperament ...

(The place in Japan always starts with a capital "E".
The acronym for a type of tuning is properly "EDO",
but often written "edo".)

> I don't really care very much for JI periodicity blocks.
> I prefer using the partials of the 8th octave of the
> harmonic series. 128/128 to 256/128.

I doubt if 100-edo really provides a good basis for
temperament of the harmonic series 128..256. You have
to go far beyond 100 equal divisions of the octave
to get the accuracy required to represent well all of
the various ratios in that range.

In particular, the higher harmonics of that series will
suffer if forced to be represented in 100-edo: i.e.,
256:255 and 255:254 are both less than 7 cents in size,
and 100-edo only gives you intervals of 12 cents and
its multiples.

> I like 100tet because it is easy to use and it produces
> good meantone versions of just and septimal major as
> well as many other interesting possibilities. There are
> no decimal points to fiddle about with, all the notes are
> 12cents apart and any note can only be 6cents wrong (if
> notes can ever be wrong). It is a decimal system which
> can more easily be adapted to mathematical manipulation.
> All in all I find it very good to work with and would
> recommended it to beginners who don't know where to start,
> those with a scientific bent and those who want to avoid
> all the ratios, fractions and speculations coming thick
> and fast from every Tom, Dick and Mary around the globe
> (including myself).

To me, its biggest advantage seems to be that it fits
nicely into our decimal habits of counting.

But after all, the measurement of cents is also totally
arbitrary, and was only invented because 12-edo was
already regarded as a basis for tuning.

There have been many other propositions for units of
interval measurement, both larger and smaller than cents.
Here are most of the ones i'm aware of:

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/u/unit-of-interval-measurement.aspx

In particular, i highly recommend the replacement of cents
with "tinas" (8539-edo).

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com/tonescape.aspx
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <joemonz@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> >
> > I prefer 22tet rather than 31; 48 and 41 rather than 46.
> > I like 53tet and consider it rather elegant;
> > And I prefer 84tet to 72.
>
>
>
> Have you really investigated 31-, 46- or 72-edo?
> They all have remarkable properties.
>
>
> > I prefer to use tet. I only saw the edo term in the last
> > year and thought it was a place in Japan.
>
> But "tet" refers to the fact that the tuning is a
> temperament ...
>
> (The place in Japan always starts with a capital "E".
> The acronym for a type of tuning is properly "EDO",
> but often written "edo".)
>
>
> > I don't really care very much for JI periodicity blocks.
> > I prefer using the partials of the 8th octave of the
> > harmonic series. 128/128 to 256/128.
>
>
> I doubt if 100-edo really provides a good basis for
> temperament of the harmonic series 128..256. You have
> to go far beyond 100 equal divisions of the octave
> to get the accuracy required to represent well all of
> the various ratios in that range.
>
> In particular, the higher harmonics of that series will
> suffer if forced to be represented in 100-edo: i.e.,
> 256:255 and 255:254 are both less than 7 cents in size,
> and 100-edo only gives you intervals of 12 cents and
> its multiples.
>
>
> > I like 100tet because it is easy to use and it produces
> > good meantone versions of just and septimal major as
> > well as many other interesting possibilities. There are
> > no decimal points to fiddle about with, all the notes are
> > 12cents apart and any note can only be 6cents wrong (if
> > notes can ever be wrong). It is a decimal system which
> > can more easily be adapted to mathematical manipulation.
> > All in all I find it very good to work with and would
> > recommended it to beginners who don't know where to start,
> > those with a scientific bent and those who want to avoid
> > all the ratios, fractions and speculations coming thick
> > and fast from every Tom, Dick and Mary around the globe
> > (including myself).
>
>
> To me, its biggest advantage seems to be that it fits
> nicely into our decimal habits of counting.
>
> But after all, the measurement of cents is also totally
> arbitrary, and was only invented because 12-edo was
> already regarded as a basis for tuning.
>
> There have been many other propositions for units of
> interval measurement, both larger and smaller than cents.
> Here are most of the ones i'm aware of:
>
> http://tonalsoft.com/enc/u/unit-of-interval-measurement.aspx
>
> In particular, i highly recommend the replacement of cents
> with "tinas" (8539-edo).
>
>
> -monz
> http://tonalsoft.com/tonescape.aspx
> Tonescape microtonal music software
>
From Robert. I have investigated all of the equal temperaments
between 5 and 144 and prefer 100tet above all of them. The fact
that you haven't got it listed in the tonalsoft reference above
doesn't worry me in the slightest. I use 100tet and the 8th octave
partials as different and discrete systems and don't mix them. I
also use simple musical algorithms which are also not mentioned in
your encyclopedia. I am totally self-taught in music so that I am
not surprised that I am doing things different from other people.

Robert Thomas Martin wrote:

> I have investigated all of the equal temperaments
> between 5 and 144 and prefer 100tet above all of them.

You still haven't answered my question: Why should be 100 better than 50?

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> Robert Thomas Martin wrote:
>
> > I have investigated all of the equal temperaments
> > between 5 and 144 and prefer 100tet above all of them.
>
> You still haven't answered my question: Why should be 100 better
than 50?
>
> Petr
>
From Robert. Please excuse the delay. I can understand someone
being satisfied with 50tet which produces a meantone just major of

0-192-384-504-696-888-1080-1200

But I also like to achieve a meantone septimal major in 100tet of

0-216-432-492-708-924-1140-1200

Other people might like to get a pythagorean major in 200tet of

0-204-408-498-702-906-1110-1200

But since I don't particularly like the chords of pythagorean major
then I stick to 100tet (except when I want to split hairs and then
I use 200tet).

Does this answer your question?

Robert Thomas Martin wrote:

> Does this answer your question?

Probably it does. It seems to be a matter of personal preference because if
you wanted to try all of the "basic" tunings based on fifths, then the best
EDO would be 200, which lets you use a fifth of 116 steps to get the
meantone temperament, 117 steps to imitate Pythagorean tuning, and 118 for
the temperament you described, which most often is called "superpyth". If I
should speak for myself, I usually don't like using one EDO for all of
these, so I would probably choose 31 or 50 for meantone, 53 to get an
excellent imitation of Pythagorean, and 22 for superpyth --- and should the
fifths get very narrow, I prefer 16-edo for mavila (which makes the fifth
only 675 cents wide).
I have made music in both superpyth and mavila, so if you are interested, I
can say more -- but most people here have already heard the pieces earlier.

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> Robert Thomas Martin wrote:
>
> > Does this answer your question?
>
> Probably it does. It seems to be a matter of personal preference
because if
> you wanted to try all of the "basic" tunings based on fifths, then
the best
> EDO would be 200, which lets you use a fifth of 116 steps to get the
> meantone temperament, 117 steps to imitate Pythagorean tuning, and
118 for
> the temperament you described, which most often is
called "superpyth". If I
> should speak for myself, I usually don't like using one EDO for all
of
> these, so I would probably choose 31 or 50 for meantone, 53 to get
an
> excellent imitation of Pythagorean, and 22 for superpyth --- and
should the
> fifths get very narrow, I prefer 16-edo for mavila (which makes the
fifth
> only 675 cents wide).
> I have made music in both superpyth and mavila, so if you are
interested, I
> can say more -- but most people here have already heard the pieces
earlier.
>
> Petr
>
From Robert. I am interested if you supply a link(s) to some of
your music. I doubt whether anyone would object.

Robert Thomas Martin wrote:

> From Robert. I am interested if you supply a link(s) to some of
> your music. I doubt whether anyone would object.

Okay. This piece is from May this year. It's in mavila with a fifth of about
675.6 cents: www.sendspace.com/file/31szmh
And this one is in superpyth with a fifth of about 710 cents:
www.sendspace.com/file/vtd85b

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> Robert Thomas Martin wrote:
>
> > From Robert. I am interested if you supply a link(s) to some of
> > your music. I doubt whether anyone would object.
>
> Okay. This piece is from May this year. It's in mavila with a fifth
of about
> 675.6 cents: www.sendspace.com/file/31szmh
> And this one is in superpyth with a fifth of about 710 cents:
> www.sendspace.com/file/vtd85b
>
> Petr
>
From Robert. I appreciate your reply but I am unable to gain access
from the links you have posted.

Robert wrote:

> From Robert. I appreciate your reply but I am unable to gain access
> from the links you have posted.

I have no idea why they don't work for you, but I've made a copy elsewhere:

https://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01ITmZVdGp6RS92Wmc9PQ

https://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01ITmZVdGo0b0JFQlE9PQ

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> Robert wrote:
>
> > From Robert. I appreciate your reply but I am unable to gain access
> > from the links you have posted.
>
> I have no idea why they don't work for you, but I've made a copy
elsewhere:
>
> https://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01ITmZVdGp6RS92Wmc9PQ
>
> https://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01ITmZVdGo0b0JFQlE9PQ
>
> Petr
>
From Robert. These don't work either. Are you sure about (https:)?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" <leopold_plumtree@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> > <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" <leopold_plumtree@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I favor applying a metric system like coherence to the
> > situation.
> > > That
> > > > is, dividing a single fundamental unit by a single radix.
> > > >
> > > > The octave could be that fundamental unit. Then, if you use
> > > decimal
> > > > numeration, .1 octave (decioctave) gives 10-edo, .01 octave
> > > > (centioctave) gives the 100-edo you mentioned, and .001 octave
> > > gives
> > > > 1000-edo (which can be used like cents are now, only they would
> > be
> > > > called mils, or millioctaves). Then it's just a matter of
> > > selecting
> > > > whatever precision fits your needs.
> > > >
> > > > I use duodecimal; '1 octave (dezioctave), '01 octave
> > (zentioctave)
> > > > and '001 (milloctave)
> > > >
> > > > '1 = conventional 12.(10')-edo
> > > > '01 = 144.(100')-edo; lends itself nicely to 72.(60')-edo
> > > > '001 = 1728.(1000')-edo; used as cents are now
> > > >
> > > > I'd also suggest renaming that fundamental unit to remove the
> > > reference
> > > > to eight (I use the term 'duplus', as in deziduplus,
> zentiduplus,
> > > etc.).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To the left of the radix marks (be they decimal, duodecimal or
> > what
> > > > have you), the integer portion of pitch numbers would indicate
> > > whole
> > > > octaves/dupluses. That is, 9'0 would be an octave/duplus
> higher
> > > than
> > > > 8'0 (8'0 is what I believe should correspond to middle-C).
> > > Eliminating
> > > > inclusive counting would simply interval numbers as well as
> > > absolute
> > > > pitch numbers; instead of P8, P15 and P22, you'd have 1'0, 2'0
> or
> > > 3'0
> > > > octave/duplus. You can also forget about accidentals and
> > > transposing
> > > > instruments.
> > > >
> > >
> > > From Robert. I am in favor of any studies which promote 100tet
> and
> > > the kinds of music it is capable of producing. But I'm not so
> sure
> > > that introducing new jargon for old nomenclature will help the
> > > situation. It will more than likely only confuse people. Better
> to
> > > produce the music first and the formulation of theory and
> > > nomenclature will naturally follow (hopefully along lines of
> least
> > > resistence).
> > >
> >
> > The jargon accompanying the system of pitch numbers isn't terribly
> > important. It's just what I think would make sense. Conventional
> > terms could still be used.
> >
> From Robert to Tony. I use 100tet as a convenience because there
> are no decimal points to fiddle about with and good versions of
> meantone just and septimal major can be obtained. I haven't given
> it the thought that you have. No doubt it has potential. I just
> use it because it is easy to work with.
>

I haven't experimented much with 100-edo, but I might want to give it
a try.

As I was saying, using logarithmic pitch notation, .01 precision gives
you 100-edo. Decimal points can always be eliminated by multiplying
by 100 (.01 octave = 1 centioctave).

8.00 for middle C can be 800. I always leave out the radix points
when I write this stuff out. It saves space and looks cleaner.

If you use base-twelve numeration, every '02 octave (2 zentioctave) is
a 72.(six-dozen)-edo scale step. I'm not saying this is any better or
worse than 100.-edo, just throwing it out there.

> > Petr
> >
> From Robert. I am interested if you supply a link(s) to some of
> your music. I doubt whether anyone would object.
>

Robert, Petr posts his music here quite regularly.

-Carl

Those links work fine for me, as did the previous ones.

- Dave

robert thomas martin wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Par�zek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>> I have no idea why they don't work for you, but I've made a copy > elsewhere:
>> https://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01ITmZVdGp6RS92Wmc9PQ
>>
>> https://www.yousendit.com/download/Q01ITmZVdGo0b0JFQlE9PQ
>>
>> Petr
>>
> From Robert. These don't work either. Are you sure about (https:)?

Petr Par�zek wrote:

> And this one is in superpyth with a fifth of about 710 cents:
> www.sendspace.com/file/vtd85b

I like the new introduction! I almost thought this was one I hadn't heard before until it got to the familiar part.