Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 hours) Encouragement for explorers.

> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
> >mucking about. -Carl

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I Pass?
> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com

>Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>example?

>First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.

>-Carl

Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of thinking.

For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his criticisms.

If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.

(Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)

If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to conform to Carl's limited view of the world.

So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work well, please let us know about it.

Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.

Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and most importantly, their ears;-)

For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future;

it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something better.

If so, I and many other want to know about it.

Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

A quick response from Caleb.

I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.

If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll want to know how it's done.

This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. It's quest.

So yes, you have my attention and my ear.

Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something specific (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.

I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart excerpt, and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.

How about you post a link to something else, something that demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future".

Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree with you what those difficulties are.

So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that really grabbed me, and they were all different!

Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of orchestration.

You need only do the same.

Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.

Caleb

On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

>>
>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>> >mucking about. -Carl
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I Pass?
>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
> >example?
>
>
>
> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>
> >-Carl
>
>
> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of thinking.
>
> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways to > construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his > criticisms.
>
> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, Mr. > Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>
> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>
> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be > happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be labelled > as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to conform to > Carl's limited view of the world.
>
> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work well, > please let us know about it.
>
> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there are > other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>
> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your > arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and > most importantly, their ears;-)
>
> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and > scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, > beating and scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future;
>
> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something > better.
>
> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Charles,

I think this is taking it a bit too far.
To dedicate a thread to a fight.

I find myself involved enough yet unpartial enough to comment on this.
Carl hasn't been very nice to me today either (so i'm not on his side, not
on anybodies side) but he's entitled to in my view.
I don't like what you're doing with lucytuning, I don't like what carl is
doing with all his high harmonics.
I like what I'm doing.
Same goes for many other people.
But I think this list is a better list if everybody can speak their mind on
what they think of another persons tuning system, bad and good.
Negative comments about ones tuning system or logic are constructive aswell.
And in the case of carl he seems to me also to have good analytics and
knowledge.
But please keep it about tuning related things.
Isn't there a meta tuning list or something for things this far offtopic?

Marcel

Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of thinking.
>
> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways to
> construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his criticisms.
>
> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, Mr. Lumma
> seems to fail to understand it.
>
> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>
> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be happening,
> your examples and explanations are likely to be labelled as "highly dubious"
> and "nonsensical" if they fail to conform to Carl's limited view of the
> world.
>
> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work well, please
> let us know about it.
>
> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there are other
> tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>
> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your arithmetic
> and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and most importantly,
> their ears;-)
>
> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and scale
> system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and
> scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future;
>
> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something better.
>
> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:

at:

http://www.lucytune.com

and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music

If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list of url's

e.g.

http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:

>
> A quick response from Caleb.
>
> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.
>
> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll want to > know how it's done.
>
> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. It's quest.
>
> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>
> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something specific > (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>
> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart excerpt, > and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>
> How about you post a link to something else, something that > demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system which solves > the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and scales analysis > difficulties for the foreseeable future".
>
> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree with you > what those difficulties are.
>
> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that really > grabbed me, and they were all different!
>
> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of > orchestration.
>
> You need only do the same.
>
> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.
>
> Caleb
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I Pass?
>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>> >example?
>>
>>
>>
>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>
>> >-Carl
>>
>>
>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of >> thinking.
>>
>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways to >> construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his >> criticisms.
>>
>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, Mr. >> Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>
>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>
>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be >> happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be labelled >> as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to conform to >> Carl's limited view of the world.
>>
>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work well, >> please let us know about it.
>>
>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there are >> other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>
>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your >> arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and >> most importantly, their ears;-)
>>
>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and >> scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, >> beating and scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future;
>>
>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something >> better.
>>
>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

Hi,

I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.

But, I've noticed you have a tendency to just post a link, without being more specific.

Specifically, can you point me to the following:

-a link to 1, 2, or 3 pieces. Give me the title.

-Along with the title, give me some clue about the tuning--not a treatise, but simply something like:

This piece by James Sanger, called Wood cut 812008, uses [tuning system blah blah] which has the advantage that [woofs] are tuned to within [yadda yadda]

That was just an example.

Obviously, many tunings will "work" and produce different effects.

I listened to a bit of Marching up the Pyramid, heard a low B drone, and basically-consonant stable melody notes, except the major third sounded pleasantly sharp, and the b2 degree sounded altered, also, from ET.

But that was just a quick impression, and I have no idea which pieces I'm supposed to be listening to.

Narrow it down to 1, 2, or 3, for starters!

Thanks,

Caleb

On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:
>
>
> at:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music
>
> If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list of url's
>
> e.g.
>
> http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger
>
> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>
> On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:
>
>>
>> A quick response from Caleb.
>>
>> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.
>>
>> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll want to >> know how it's done.
>>
>> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. It's quest.
>>
>> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>>
>> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something specific >> (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>>
>> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart excerpt, >> and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>>
>> How about you post a link to something else, something that >> demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system which solves >> the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and scales analysis >> difficulties for the foreseeable future".
>>
>> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree with >> you what those difficulties are.
>>
>> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that really >> grabbed me, and they were all different!
>>
>> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of >> orchestration.
>>
>> You need only do the same.
>>
>> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.
>>
>> Caleb
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I Pass?
>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>> >example?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>
>>> >-Carl
>>>
>>>
>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of >>> thinking.
>>>
>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways to >>> construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his >>> criticisms.
>>>
>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, Mr. >>> Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>
>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>
>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be >>> happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be >>> labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to >>> conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
>>>
>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work >>> well, please let us know about it.
>>>
>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there >>> are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>>
>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your >>> arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and >>> most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>
>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and >>> scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, >>> beating and scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future;
>>>
>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something >>> better.
>>>
>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@...
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

--Some
tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your arithmetic
and be --able to apply their knowledge, experience, and most importantly,
their ears;-)
Amen!
For one, I have realized it's very hard to use anything not JI or TET based on this thread without being charged of "ruining the empire" by at least one person.

And, certainly for tunings using irrational tunings (IE my interpretations of the PHI-based tuning)...I have realized a lot of people are going to bug me about my scales' not making sense "because the logic is wrong vs. historical/rational tunings" without actually hearing the result.

And, there you go. When I get people talking about how my scale sounds, or a combination of math and that, I take it seriously. But when people just bug me about how the math is wrong with the only real suggestion boiling down to "just use rational numbers, duh"...I largely ignore them.

So far I have not had one person say my scales under the Golden Ratio tuning sound bad (and about 5-6 people so far say it sounds great). And, I assume, the same can be said of Lucy Tuning and many other "irrational" tunings
. I, for one, think of Lucy Tuning as a much smarter way to get, in general, chromatic-sounding scales with significantly purer intervals without resorting to something like adaptive JI.
Innovation often takes a lot of stubborn-ness and listening in ways that improve/update an idea rather than destroy it.
********************************************************************
Although I don't believe in patenting of scale (which seems to a rumor that Charles Lucy did that I can't confirm), I'm a huge supporter of any attempts to find "holes" in the JI/ET systems and try different ways to patch them...and I believe looking to patch such holes just what Charles Lucy has done (and pretty well).

Truth is, neither of us are "doctors"...and I am coming to think less than half of the people regularly active on this list have doctoral degrees in music.

Do you really need a doctoral degree to use your hearing well (and have the patience to try manipulating math in many ways to match it), however? I seriously doubt it... Much of scale generation involves squares (circle of fifths, 2^n for the octave...), basic algebra, and fractions...nothing more, really, than high-school math. Don't get me wrong I greatly admire those who can document scales in matrices and explain the history of why famous composers used certain mathematical patterns...but I don't think that kind of ability a 100% necessity for making good scales/tunings.

-Michael

--- On Thu, 2/12/09, Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com> wrote:

From: Charles Lucy <lucy@...>
Subject: [tuning] Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 hours) Encouragement for explorers.
To: "tuninggroup" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 6:34 AM

>Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>mucking about. -Carl
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMTTo: tuning@yahoogroups. comSubject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I Pass?Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups. com

>Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>example?

>-Carl

Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of thinking.
For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his criticisms.
If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
(Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work well, please let us know about it.
Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and most importantly, their ears;-)
For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future;
it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something better.
If so, I and many other want to know about it.

Charles Lucylucy@lucytune. com
- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
for information on LucyTuning go to:http://www.lucytune .com
For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:http://www.lullabie s.co.uk

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

OK Caleb;

I don't know what James did with Marching up the Pyramid, so I cannot comment.

Here are some examples:

Pure Timing was played by Aid Burrows on a nineteen frets per octave 12 string LucyTuned guitar, and recorded and mixed by James Sanger.

You can hear the track here:

http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning

The exact fretting details for the LucyTuned 19 per octave guitar etc. are listed on this page:

http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html

There is an example of him playing the same guitar in the lower video found from this page:

http://www.lullabies.co.uk/videos.html

The score for this piece can be found here:

http://www.lullabies.co.uk/5MontenegroScore.pdf

On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:05, caleb morgan wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.
>
> But, I've noticed you have a tendency to just post a link, without > being more specific.
>
> Specifically, can you point me to the following:
>
> -a link to 1, 2, or 3 pieces. Give me the title.
>
> -Along with the title, give me some clue about the tuning--not a > treatise, but simply something like:
>
> This piece by James Sanger, called Wood cut 812008, uses [tuning > system blah blah] which has the advantage that [woofs] are tuned to > within [yadda yadda]
>
> That was just an example.
>
> Obviously, many tunings will "work" and produce different effects.
>
> I listened to a bit of Marching up the Pyramid, heard a low B drone, > and basically-consonant stable melody notes, except the major third > sounded pleasantly sharp, and the b2 degree sounded altered, also, > from ET.
>
> But that was just a quick impression, and I have no idea which > pieces I'm supposed to be listening to.
>
> Narrow it down to 1, 2, or 3, for starters!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Caleb
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>> Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:
>>
>>
>> at:
>>
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music
>>
>> If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list of url's
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>> http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger
>>
>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>
>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A quick response from Caleb.
>>>
>>> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.
>>>
>>> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll want to >>> know how it's done.
>>>
>>> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. It's >>> quest.
>>>
>>> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>>>
>>> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something specific >>> (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>>>
>>> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart excerpt, >>> and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>>>
>>> How about you post a link to something else, something that >>> demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system which >>> solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and scales >>> analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future".
>>>
>>> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree with >>> you what those difficulties are.
>>>
>>> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that really >>> grabbed me, and they were all different!
>>>
>>> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of >>> orchestration.
>>>
>>> You need only do the same.
>>>
>>> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.
>>>
>>> Caleb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I Pass?
>>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>>> >example?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>>
>>>> >-Carl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of >>>> thinking.
>>>>
>>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways >>>> to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his >>>> criticisms.
>>>>
>>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, >>>> Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>>
>>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>>
>>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be >>>> happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be >>>> labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to >>>> conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
>>>>
>>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work >>>> well, please let us know about it.
>>>>
>>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there >>>> are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>>>
>>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your >>>> arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and >>>> most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>>
>>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and >>>> scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, >>>> beating and scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable >>>> future;
>>>>
>>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something >>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@...
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

for what it is worth I found Charles' myspace site worth listening to.
Simply put the tuning scheme sounds significantly different and better than
12 tet IMHO for the uses showcased here.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

> OK Caleb;
>
> I don't know what James did with Marching up the Pyramid, so I cannot
> comment.
>
> Here are some examples:
>
> Pure Timing was played by Aid Burrows on a nineteen frets per octave 12
> string LucyTuned guitar, and recorded and mixed by James Sanger.
>
> You can hear the track here:
>
> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>
> The exact fretting details for the LucyTuned 19 per octave guitar etc. are
> listed on this page:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>
> There is an example of him playing the same guitar in the lower video found
> from this page:
>
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/videos.html
>
> The score for this piece can be found here:
>
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/5MontenegroScore.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:05, caleb morgan wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.
>
> But, I've noticed you have a tendency to just post a link, without being
> more specific.
>
> Specifically, can you point me to the following:
>
> -*a link to 1, 2, or 3 pieces. Give me the title.*
>
> *-Along with the title, give me some clue about the tuning*--not a
> treatise, but simply something like:
>
> This piece by James Sanger, called Wood cut 812008, uses [tuning system
> blah blah] which has the advantage that [woofs] are tuned to within [yadda
> yadda]
>
> That was just an example.
>
> Obviously, many tunings will "work" and produce different effects.
>
> I listened to a bit of Marching up the Pyramid, heard a low B drone, and
> basically-consonant stable melody notes, except the major third sounded
> pleasantly sharp, and the b2 degree sounded altered, also, from ET.
>
> But that was just a quick impression, and I have no idea which pieces I'm
> supposed to be listening to.
>
> Narrow it down to 1, 2, or 3, for starters!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Caleb
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
> Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:
>
> at:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music
>
> If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list of url's
>
> e.g.
>
> http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger
>
> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>
> On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:
>
>
> A quick response from Caleb.
>
> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.
>
> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll want to know how
> it's done.
>
> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. It's quest.
>
> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>
> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something specific (a
> piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>
> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart excerpt, and a
> chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>
> How about you post a link to something else, something that demonstrates
> you have "found a tuning and scale system which solves the harmony,
> modulation, transposition, beating and scales analysis difficulties for the
> foreseeable future".
>
> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree with you what
> those difficulties are.
>
> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that really grabbed
> me, and they were all different!
>
> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of orchestration.
>
> You need only do the same.
>
> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.
>
> Caleb
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>
> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
> >mucking about. -Carl
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
> *Date: *12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
> *To: *tuning@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject: **[tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I Pass?*
> *Reply-To: *tuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
> >example?
>
>
>
> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>
> >-Carl
>
>
> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of thinking.
>
> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways to
> construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his criticisms.
>
> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, Mr. Lumma
> seems to fail to understand it.
>
> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>
> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be happening,
> your examples and explanations are likely to be labelled as "highly dubious"
> and "nonsensical" if they fail to conform to Carl's limited view of the
> world.
>
> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work well, please
> let us know about it.
>
> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there are other
> tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>
> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your arithmetic
> and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and most importantly,
> their ears;-)
>
> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and scale
> system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and
> scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future;
>
> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something better.
>
> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

So, Pure Timing is quite similar to I to IV (major), in A, with an odd-sounding approach note, F-ish, leading to the F# of the IV (D) chord.

Then, if it were pure 19-tone, the "IV" or D would be 505.3 cents.

What is the Lucy tuned version of 19-tone, in cents? How does it differ, in cents, from 19-tone?

caleb

On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> OK Caleb;
>
>
> I don't know what James did with Marching up the Pyramid, so I > cannot comment.
>
> Here are some examples:
>
> Pure Timing was played by Aid Burrows on a nineteen frets per octave > 12 string LucyTuned guitar, and recorded and mixed by James Sanger.
>
> You can hear the track here:
>
> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>
> The exact fretting details for the LucyTuned 19 per octave guitar > etc. are listed on this page:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>
> There is an example of him playing the same guitar in the lower > video found from this page:
>
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/videos.html
>
> The score for this piece can be found here:
>
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/5MontenegroScore.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:05, caleb morgan wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.
>>
>> But, I've noticed you have a tendency to just post a link, without >> being more specific.
>>
>> Specifically, can you point me to the following:
>>
>> -a link to 1, 2, or 3 pieces. Give me the title.
>>
>> -Along with the title, give me some clue about the tuning--not a >> treatise, but simply something like:
>>
>> This piece by James Sanger, called Wood cut 812008, uses [tuning >> system blah blah] which has the advantage that [woofs] are tuned to >> within [yadda yadda]
>>
>> That was just an example.
>>
>> Obviously, many tunings will "work" and produce different effects.
>>
>> I listened to a bit of Marching up the Pyramid, heard a low B >> drone, and basically-consonant stable melody notes, except the >> major third sounded pleasantly sharp, and the b2 degree sounded >> altered, also, from ET.
>>
>> But that was just a quick impression, and I have no idea which >> pieces I'm supposed to be listening to.
>>
>> Narrow it down to 1, 2, or 3, for starters!
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Caleb
>>
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>
>>> Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:
>>>
>>>
>>> at:
>>>
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music
>>>
>>> If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list of url's
>>>
>>> e.g.
>>>
>>> http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger
>>>
>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>
>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A quick response from Caleb.
>>>>
>>>> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.
>>>>
>>>> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll want to >>>> know how it's done.
>>>>
>>>> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. It's >>>> quest.
>>>>
>>>> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something >>>> specific (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>>>>
>>>> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart >>>> excerpt, and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>>>>
>>>> How about you post a link to something else, something that >>>> demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system which >>>> solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and scales >>>> analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future".
>>>>
>>>> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree with >>>> you what those difficulties are.
>>>>
>>>> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that really >>>> grabbed me, and they were all different!
>>>>
>>>> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of >>>> orchestration.
>>>>
>>>> You need only do the same.
>>>>
>>>> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Caleb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I Pass?
>>>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>>>> >example?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>>>
>>>>> >-Carl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of >>>>> thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways >>>>> to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his >>>>> criticisms.
>>>>>
>>>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, >>>>> Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be >>>>> happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be >>>>> labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to >>>>> conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work >>>>> well, please let us know about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there >>>>> are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your >>>>> arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and >>>>> most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and >>>>> scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, >>>>> transposition, beating and scales analysis difficulties for the >>>>> foreseeable future;
>>>>>
>>>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something >>>>> better.
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>
>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>
>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>
>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@...
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

My formal training and education was as an industrial engineer, so I examined the "problems" of musical tuning with a systems analysis approach.

My musical education was from my mother, who studied at the Royal College of Music in London, and taught violin at Cheltenham Ladies College, plus what I picked up playing and listening over many years.

My masters degree studies at Kingston University in composition for film and TV were not completed, as (again arrogantly) I found that they did not appreciate my insistence in producing everything in LucyTuning,

I found that they did not understand anything other than 12edo, and in consequence although I passed every other part of the course, they felt that the music that I produced for my project "did not conform to their view of how to write music to moving image".

So I remain a maverick;-)

Yes the musical establishment is very conservative.

I put it down to their feeling threatened by anything which questions the gospel that they have "bought".

e.g. That "harmonics" are always to be found at "beatless" intervals.
Any tuning system other than 12edo is heresy.

I put my faith in the future generations, as most of our contemporary musicians are very closed minded.

On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:10, Michael Sheiman wrote:

>
> --Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your > arithmetic and be --able to apply their knowledge, experience, and > most importantly, their ears;-)
> Amen!
> For one, I have realized it's very hard to use anything not JI or > TET based on this thread without being charged of "ruining the > empire" by at least one person.
>
> And, certainly for tunings using irrational tunings (IE my > interpretations of the PHI-based tuning)...I have realized a lot of > people are going to bug me about my scales' not making sense > "because the logic is wrong vs. historical/rational tunings" without > actually hearing the result.
>
> And, there you go. When I get people talking about how my scale > sounds, or a combination of math and that, I take it seriously. But > when people just bug me about how the math is wrong with the only > real suggestion boiling down to "just use rational numbers, duh"...I > largely ignore them.
>
> So far I have not had one person say my scales under the Golden > Ratio tuning sound bad (and about 5-6 people so far say it sounds > great). And, I assume, the same can be said of Lucy Tuning and many > other "irrational" tunings
> . I, for one, think of Lucy Tuning as a much smarter way to get, in > general, chromatic-sounding scales with significantly purer > intervals without resorting to something like adaptive JI.
> Innovation often takes a lot of stubborn-ness and listening in ways > that improve/update an idea rather than destroy it.
> ********************************************************************
> Although I don't believe in patenting of scale (which seems to a > rumor that Charles Lucy did that I can't confirm), I'm a huge > supporter of any attempts to find "holes" in the JI/ET systems and > try different ways to patch them...and I believe looking to patch > such holes just what Charles Lucy has done (and pretty well).
>
> Truth is, neither of us are "doctors"...and I am coming to think > less than half of the people regularly active on this list have > doctoral degrees in music.
>
> Do you really need a doctoral degree to use your hearing well (and > have the patience to try manipulating math in many ways to match > it), however? I seriously doubt it... Much of scale generation > involves squares (circle of fifths, 2^n for the octave...), basic > algebra, and fractions...nothing more, really, than high-school > math. Don't get me wrong I greatly admire those who can document > scales in matrices and explain the history of why famous composers > used certain mathematical patterns...but I don't think that kind of > ability a 100% necessity for making good scales/tunings.
>
> -Michael
>
>
> --- On Thu, 2/12/09, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> From: Charles Lucy <lucy@...>
> Subject: [tuning] Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 > hours) Encouragement for explorers.
> To: "tuninggroup" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 6:34 AM
>
>
>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>> >mucking about. -Carl
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>> To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I Pass?
>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
>
>
> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
> >example?
>
>
>
> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>
> >-Carl
>
>
> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of thinking.
>
> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways to > construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his > criticisms.
>
> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, Mr. > Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>
> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>
> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be > happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be labelled > as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to conform to > Carl's limited view of the world.
>
> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work well, > please let us know about it.
>
> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there are > other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>
> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your > arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and > most importantly, their ears;-)
>
> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and > scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, > beating and scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future;
>
> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something > better.
>
> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@lucytune. com
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune .com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabie s.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

Jest wanna say: Yeah, when I tried to use any kind of microtunings in my film-scores, no matter how innocuous, that was the beginning of the end of my film-scoring career!

That's life! You've simply got to choose.

rock? hard place?

caleb

On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> My formal training and education was as an industrial engineer, so I > examined the "problems" of musical tuning with a systems analysis > approach.
>
>
> My musical education was from my mother, who studied at the Royal > College of Music in London, and taught violin at Cheltenham Ladies > College, plus what I picked up playing and listening over many years.
>
> My masters degree studies at Kingston University in composition for > film and TV were not completed, as (again arrogantly) I found that > they did not appreciate my insistence in producing everything in > LucyTuning,
>
> I found that they did not understand anything other than 12edo, and > in consequence although I passed every other part of the course, > they felt that the music that I produced for my project "did not > conform to their view of how to write music to moving image".
>
> So I remain a maverick;-)
>
> Yes the musical establishment is very conservative.
>
> I put it down to their feeling threatened by anything which > questions the gospel that they have "bought".
>
> e.g. That "harmonics" are always to be found at "beatless" intervals.
> Any tuning system other than 12edo is heresy.
>
> I put my faith in the future generations, as most of our > contemporary musicians are very closed minded.
>
>
>
>
> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:10, Michael Sheiman wrote:
>
>>
>> --Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your >> arithmetic and be --able to apply their knowledge, experience, and >> most importantly, their ears;-)
>> Amen!
>> For one, I have realized it's very hard to use anything not JI >> or TET based on this thread without being charged of "ruining the >> empire" by at least one person.
>>
>> And, certainly for tunings using irrational tunings (IE my >> interpretations of the PHI-based tuning)...I have realized a lot of >> people are going to bug me about my scales' not making sense >> "because the logic is wrong vs. historical/rational tunings" >> without actually hearing the result.
>>
>> And, there you go. When I get people talking about how my scale >> sounds, or a combination of math and that, I take it seriously. >> But when people just bug me about how the math is wrong with the >> only real suggestion boiling down to "just use rational numbers, >> duh"...I largely ignore them.
>>
>> So far I have not had one person say my scales under the Golden >> Ratio tuning sound bad (and about 5-6 people so far say it sounds >> great). And, I assume, the same can be said of Lucy Tuning and many >> other "irrational" tunings
>> . I, for one, think of Lucy Tuning as a much smarter way to get, >> in general, chromatic-sounding scales with significantly purer >> intervals without resorting to something like adaptive JI.
>> Innovation often takes a lot of stubborn-ness and listening in ways >> that improve/update an idea rather than destroy it.
>> ********************************************************************
>> Although I don't believe in patenting of scale (which seems to a >> rumor that Charles Lucy did that I can't confirm), I'm a huge >> supporter of any attempts to find "holes" in the JI/ET systems and >> try different ways to patch them...and I believe looking to patch >> such holes just what Charles Lucy has done (and pretty well).
>>
>> Truth is, neither of us are "doctors"...and I am coming to >> think less than half of the people regularly active on this list >> have doctoral degrees in music.
>>
>> Do you really need a doctoral degree to use your hearing well >> (and have the patience to try manipulating math in many ways to >> match it), however? I seriously doubt it... Much of scale >> generation involves squares (circle of fifths, 2^n for the >> octave...), basic algebra, and fractions...nothing more, really, >> than high-school math. Don't get me wrong I greatly admire those >> who can document scales in matrices and explain the history of why >> famous composers used certain mathematical patterns...but I don't >> think that kind of ability a 100% necessity for making good scales/>> tunings.
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>
>> --- On Thu, 2/12/09, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Charles Lucy <lucy@...>
>> Subject: [tuning] Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 >> hours) Encouragement for explorers.
>> To: "tuninggroup" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 6:34 AM
>>
>>
>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I Pass?
>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
>>
>>
>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>> >example?
>>
>>
>>
>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>
>> >-Carl
>>
>>
>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of >> thinking.
>>
>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways to >> construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his >> criticisms.
>>
>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, Mr. >> Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>
>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>
>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be >> happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be labelled >> as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to conform to >> Carl's limited view of the world.
>>
>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work well, >> please let us know about it.
>>
>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there are >> other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>
>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your >> arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and >> most importantly, their ears;-)
>>
>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and >> scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, >> beating and scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future;
>>
>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something >> better.
>>
>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@lucytune. com
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune .com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabie s.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

two more responses:

again with the links. meh.

-please never again link me to something with mooing, silly animation and crying babies.

-the score you linked to wasn't the right piece

I'd still like to know the difference, in cents, between 19ET and Lucy-tuned 19ET, and the advantage of the latter.

On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

The frettings are shown on this page.

http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html

He is moving between E and E#
i.e. the open string and the first fret (the difference between the Large and small interval (approx 68 cents)

Large (L) 1.116633 190.9858
small (s) 1.073344 122.5354

Therefore the difference is 68.45 cents

19edo uses 63.16 cents per step.

Comparison page is here:

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

On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:35, caleb morgan wrote:

>
>
> So, Pure Timing is quite similar to I to IV (major), in A, with an > odd-sounding approach note, F-ish, leading to the F# of the IV (D) > chord.
>
> Then, if it were pure 19-tone, the "IV" or D would be 505.3 cents.
>
> What is the Lucy tuned version of 19-tone, in cents? How does it > differ, in cents, from 19-tone?
>
> caleb
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>> OK Caleb;
>>
>>
>> I don't know what James did with Marching up the Pyramid, so I >> cannot comment.
>>
>> Here are some examples:
>>
>> Pure Timing was played by Aid Burrows on a nineteen frets per >> octave 12 string LucyTuned guitar, and recorded and mixed by James >> Sanger.
>>
>> You can hear the track here:
>>
>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>
>> The exact fretting details for the LucyTuned 19 per octave guitar >> etc. are listed on this page:
>>
>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>
>> There is an example of him playing the same guitar in the lower >> video found from this page:
>>
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/videos.html
>>
>> The score for this piece can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/5MontenegroScore.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:05, caleb morgan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.
>>>
>>> But, I've noticed you have a tendency to just post a link, without >>> being more specific.
>>>
>>> Specifically, can you point me to the following:
>>>
>>> -a link to 1, 2, or 3 pieces. Give me the title.
>>>
>>> -Along with the title, give me some clue about the tuning--not a >>> treatise, but simply something like:
>>>
>>> This piece by James Sanger, called Wood cut 812008, uses [tuning >>> system blah blah] which has the advantage that [woofs] are tuned >>> to within [yadda yadda]
>>>
>>> That was just an example.
>>>
>>> Obviously, many tunings will "work" and produce different effects.
>>>
>>> I listened to a bit of Marching up the Pyramid, heard a low B >>> drone, and basically-consonant stable melody notes, except the >>> major third sounded pleasantly sharp, and the b2 degree sounded >>> altered, also, from ET.
>>>
>>> But that was just a quick impression, and I have no idea which >>> pieces I'm supposed to be listening to.
>>>
>>> Narrow it down to 1, 2, or 3, for starters!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Caleb
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music
>>>>
>>>> If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list of >>>> url's
>>>>
>>>> e.g.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger
>>>>
>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>
>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A quick response from Caleb.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll want >>>>> to know how it's done.
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. It's >>>>> quest.
>>>>>
>>>>> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something >>>>> specific (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart >>>>> excerpt, and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about you post a link to something else, something that >>>>> demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system which >>>>> solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and >>>>> scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree with >>>>> you what those difficulties are.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that really >>>>> grabbed me, and they were all different!
>>>>>
>>>>> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of >>>>> orchestration.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need only do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>>>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I >>>>>>> Pass?
>>>>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>>>>> >example?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>>>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>>>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>>>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >-Carl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of >>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways >>>>>> to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore >>>>>> his criticisms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, >>>>>> Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be >>>>>> happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be >>>>>> labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to >>>>>> conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work >>>>>> well, please let us know about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there >>>>>> are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your >>>>>> arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, >>>>>> and most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning >>>>>> and scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, >>>>>> transposition, beating and scales analysis difficulties for the >>>>>> foreseeable future;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with >>>>>> something better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@...
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

Don't be discouraged.

We have managed to slip quite a few pieces of LucyTuned music into the mainstream media in films, TV, records, theatre, etc.

Sometimes we tell them it's LucyTuned; often we don't;-)

On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:52, caleb morgan wrote:

>
> Jest wanna say: Yeah, when I tried to use any kind of microtunings > in my film-scores, no matter how innocuous, that was the beginning > of the end of my film-scoring career!
>
> That's life! You've simply got to choose.
>
> rock? hard place?
>
> caleb
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>> My formal training and education was as an industrial engineer, so >> I examined the "problems" of musical tuning with a systems analysis >> approach.
>>
>>
>> My musical education was from my mother, who studied at the Royal >> College of Music in London, and taught violin at Cheltenham Ladies >> College, plus what I picked up playing and listening over many years.
>>
>> My masters degree studies at Kingston University in composition for >> film and TV were not completed, as (again arrogantly) I found that >> they did not appreciate my insistence in producing everything in >> LucyTuning,
>>
>> I found that they did not understand anything other than 12edo, and >> in consequence although I passed every other part of the course, >> they felt that the music that I produced for my project "did not >> conform to their view of how to write music to moving image".
>>
>> So I remain a maverick;-)
>>
>> Yes the musical establishment is very conservative.
>>
>> I put it down to their feeling threatened by anything which >> questions the gospel that they have "bought".
>>
>> e.g. That "harmonics" are always to be found at "beatless" intervals.
>> Any tuning system other than 12edo is heresy.
>>
>> I put my faith in the future generations, as most of our >> contemporary musicians are very closed minded.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:10, Michael Sheiman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> --Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your >>> arithmetic and be --able to apply their knowledge, experience, and >>> most importantly, their ears;-)
>>> Amen!
>>> For one, I have realized it's very hard to use anything not JI >>> or TET based on this thread without being charged of "ruining the >>> empire" by at least one person.
>>>
>>> And, certainly for tunings using irrational tunings (IE my >>> interpretations of the PHI-based tuning)...I have realized a lot >>> of people are going to bug me about my scales' not making sense >>> "because the logic is wrong vs. historical/rational tunings" >>> without actually hearing the result.
>>>
>>> And, there you go. When I get people talking about how my >>> scale sounds, or a combination of math and that, I take it >>> seriously. But when people just bug me about how the math is >>> wrong with the only real suggestion boiling down to "just use >>> rational numbers, duh"...I largely ignore them.
>>>
>>> So far I have not had one person say my scales under the Golden >>> Ratio tuning sound bad (and about 5-6 people so far say it sounds >>> great). And, I assume, the same can be said of Lucy Tuning and >>> many other "irrational" tunings
>>> . I, for one, think of Lucy Tuning as a much smarter way to get, >>> in general, chromatic-sounding scales with significantly purer >>> intervals without resorting to something like adaptive JI.
>>> Innovation often takes a lot of stubborn-ness and listening in >>> ways that improve/update an idea rather than destroy it.
>>> ********************************************************************
>>> Although I don't believe in patenting of scale (which seems to >>> a rumor that Charles Lucy did that I can't confirm), I'm a huge >>> supporter of any attempts to find "holes" in the JI/ET systems and >>> try different ways to patch them...and I believe looking to patch >>> such holes just what Charles Lucy has done (and pretty well).
>>>
>>> Truth is, neither of us are "doctors"...and I am coming to >>> think less than half of the people regularly active on this list >>> have doctoral degrees in music.
>>>
>>> Do you really need a doctoral degree to use your hearing well >>> (and have the patience to try manipulating math in many ways to >>> match it), however? I seriously doubt it... Much of scale >>> generation involves squares (circle of fifths, 2^n for the >>> octave...), basic algebra, and fractions...nothing more, really, >>> than high-school math. Don't get me wrong I greatly admire those >>> who can document scales in matrices and explain the history of why >>> famous composers used certain mathematical patterns...but I don't >>> think that kind of ability a 100% necessity for making good scales/>>> tunings.
>>>
>>> -Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Thu, 2/12/09, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Charles Lucy <lucy@...>
>>> Subject: [tuning] Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 >>> hours) Encouragement for explorers.
>>> To: "tuninggroup" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 6:34 AM
>>>
>>>
>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I Pass?
>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
>>>
>>>
>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>> >example?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>
>>> >-Carl
>>>
>>>
>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of >>> thinking.
>>>
>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways to >>> construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his >>> criticisms.
>>>
>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, Mr. >>> Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>
>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>
>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be >>> happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be >>> labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to >>> conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
>>>
>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work >>> well, please let us know about it.
>>>
>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there >>> are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>>
>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your >>> arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and >>> most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>
>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and >>> scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, >>> beating and scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future;
>>>
>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something >>> better.
>>>
>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@lucytune. com
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune .com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabie s.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

Nah, scoring is background music, primarily.

Anything that uses too much of the attention-resources of the viewer (notice I say viewer, not listener) will stick out.

If it sticks out in an exotic way, that exoticism better support the picture, or you're doing the picture a disservice.

It's got nothing to do with the musical establishment. It's got everything to do with how the ordinary person hears.

I personally don't care how the ordinary person hears, except when she happens to be my client.

If, on the other hand, you're using something with tiny differences from the usual 12-tone et, then it will go unnoticed, because the difference isn't that telling, i.e., doesn't challenge the usual 5-limit sound that most people are accustomed to.

caleb

On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> Don't be discouraged.
>
>
> We have managed to slip quite a few pieces of LucyTuned music into > the mainstream media in films, TV, records, theatre, etc.
>
> Sometimes we tell them it's LucyTuned; often we don't;-)
>
>
>
> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:52, caleb morgan wrote:
>
>>
>> Jest wanna say: Yeah, when I tried to use any kind of microtunings >> in my film-scores, no matter how innocuous, that was the beginning >> of the end of my film-scoring career!
>>
>> That's life! You've simply got to choose.
>>
>> rock? hard place?
>>
>> caleb
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>
>>> My formal training and education was as an industrial engineer, so >>> I examined the "problems" of musical tuning with a systems >>> analysis approach.
>>>
>>>
>>> My musical education was from my mother, who studied at the Royal >>> College of Music in London, and taught violin at Cheltenham Ladies >>> College, plus what I picked up playing and listening over many >>> years.
>>>
>>> My masters degree studies at Kingston University in composition >>> for film and TV were not completed, as (again arrogantly) I found >>> that they did not appreciate my insistence in producing everything >>> in LucyTuning,
>>>
>>> I found that they did not understand anything other than 12edo, >>> and in consequence although I passed every other part of the >>> course, they felt that the music that I produced for my project >>> "did not conform to their view of how to write music to moving >>> image".
>>>
>>> So I remain a maverick;-)
>>>
>>> Yes the musical establishment is very conservative.
>>>
>>> I put it down to their feeling threatened by anything which >>> questions the gospel that they have "bought".
>>>
>>> e.g. That "harmonics" are always to be found at "beatless" >>> intervals.
>>> Any tuning system other than 12edo is heresy.
>>>
>>> I put my faith in the future generations, as most of our >>> contemporary musicians are very closed minded.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:10, Michael Sheiman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your >>>> arithmetic and be --able to apply their knowledge, experience, >>>> and most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>> Amen!
>>>> For one, I have realized it's very hard to use anything not JI >>>> or TET based on this thread without being charged of "ruining the >>>> empire" by at least one person.
>>>>
>>>> And, certainly for tunings using irrational tunings (IE my >>>> interpretations of the PHI-based tuning)...I have realized a lot >>>> of people are going to bug me about my scales' not making sense >>>> "because the logic is wrong vs. historical/rational tunings" >>>> without actually hearing the result.
>>>>
>>>> And, there you go. When I get people talking about how my >>>> scale sounds, or a combination of math and that, I take it >>>> seriously. But when people just bug me about how the math is >>>> wrong with the only real suggestion boiling down to "just use >>>> rational numbers, duh"...I largely ignore them.
>>>>
>>>> So far I have not had one person say my scales under the >>>> Golden Ratio tuning sound bad (and about 5-6 people so far say it >>>> sounds great). And, I assume, the same can be said of Lucy Tuning >>>> and many other "irrational" tunings
>>>> . I, for one, think of Lucy Tuning as a much smarter way to get, >>>> in general, chromatic-sounding scales with significantly purer >>>> intervals without resorting to something like adaptive JI.
>>>> Innovation often takes a lot of stubborn-ness and listening in >>>> ways that improve/update an idea rather than destroy it.
>>>> ********************************************************************
>>>> Although I don't believe in patenting of scale (which seems to >>>> a rumor that Charles Lucy did that I can't confirm), I'm a huge >>>> supporter of any attempts to find "holes" in the JI/ET systems >>>> and try different ways to patch them...and I believe looking to >>>> patch such holes just what Charles Lucy has done (and pretty well).
>>>>
>>>> Truth is, neither of us are "doctors"...and I am coming to >>>> think less than half of the people regularly active on this list >>>> have doctoral degrees in music.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really need a doctoral degree to use your hearing well >>>> (and have the patience to try manipulating math in many ways to >>>> match it), however? I seriously doubt it... Much of scale >>>> generation involves squares (circle of fifths, 2^n for the >>>> octave...), basic algebra, and fractions...nothing more, really, >>>> than high-school math. Don't get me wrong I greatly admire >>>> those who can document scales in matrices and explain the history >>>> of why famous composers used certain mathematical patterns...but >>>> I don't think that kind of ability a 100% necessity for making >>>> good scales/tunings.
>>>>
>>>> -Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On Thu, 2/12/09, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Charles Lucy <lucy@...>
>>>> Subject: [tuning] Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 >>>> hours) Encouragement for explorers.
>>>> To: "tuninggroup" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 6:34 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
>>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I Pass?
>>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>>> >example?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>>
>>>> >-Carl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of >>>> thinking.
>>>>
>>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways >>>> to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore his >>>> criticisms.
>>>>
>>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, >>>> Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>>
>>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>>
>>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be >>>> happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be >>>> labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to >>>> conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
>>>>
>>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work >>>> well, please let us know about it.
>>>>
>>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there >>>> are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>>>
>>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your >>>> arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, and >>>> most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>>
>>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning and >>>> scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, >>>> beating and scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable >>>> future;
>>>>
>>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with something >>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@lucytune. com
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune .com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabie s.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@...
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

All the music on that page was LucyTuned, and the link for the score is correct.

You need to pull the page down and go for the lower video.

Maybe your system can't display .pdf's?

If you really want a great video of cows, I am about to put music to something I shot recently in France.

It shows a cow gambling with the risk of getting shocked by an electric fence to get the freshest grass, quite fun and no animal cruelty involved;-)

On 12 Feb 2009, at 17:02, caleb morgan wrote:

>
>
> two more responses:
>
> again with the links. meh.
>
> -please never again link me to something with mooing, silly > animation and crying babies.

>
> -the score you linked to wasn't the right piece
>
> I'd still like to know the difference, in cents, between 19ET and > Lucy-tuned 19ET, and the advantage of the latter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>> OK Caleb;
>>
>>
>> I don't know what James did with Marching up the Pyramid, so I >> cannot comment.
>>
>> Here are some examples:
>>
>> Pure Timing was played by Aid Burrows on a nineteen frets per >> octave 12 string LucyTuned guitar, and recorded and mixed by James >> Sanger.
>>
>> You can hear the track here:
>>
>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>
>> The exact fretting details for the LucyTuned 19 per octave guitar >> etc. are listed on this page:
>>
>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>
>> There is an example of him playing the same guitar in the lower >> video found from this page:
>>
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/videos.html
>>
>> The score for this piece can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/5MontenegroScore.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:05, caleb morgan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.
>>>
>>> But, I've noticed you have a tendency to just post a link, without >>> being more specific.
>>>
>>> Specifically, can you point me to the following:
>>>
>>> -a link to 1, 2, or 3 pieces. Give me the title.
>>>
>>> -Along with the title, give me some clue about the tuning--not a >>> treatise, but simply something like:
>>>
>>> This piece by James Sanger, called Wood cut 812008, uses [tuning >>> system blah blah] which has the advantage that [woofs] are tuned >>> to within [yadda yadda]
>>>
>>> That was just an example.
>>>
>>> Obviously, many tunings will "work" and produce different effects.
>>>
>>> I listened to a bit of Marching up the Pyramid, heard a low B >>> drone, and basically-consonant stable melody notes, except the >>> major third sounded pleasantly sharp, and the b2 degree sounded >>> altered, also, from ET.
>>>
>>> But that was just a quick impression, and I have no idea which >>> pieces I'm supposed to be listening to.
>>>
>>> Narrow it down to 1, 2, or 3, for starters!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Caleb
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music
>>>>
>>>> If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list of >>>> url's
>>>>
>>>> e.g.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger
>>>>
>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>
>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A quick response from Caleb.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll want >>>>> to know how it's done.
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. It's >>>>> quest.
>>>>>
>>>>> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something >>>>> specific (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart >>>>> excerpt, and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about you post a link to something else, something that >>>>> demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system which >>>>> solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and >>>>> scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree with >>>>> you what those difficulties are.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that really >>>>> grabbed me, and they were all different!
>>>>>
>>>>> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of >>>>> orchestration.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need only do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>>>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I >>>>>>> Pass?
>>>>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>>>>> >example?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>>>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>>>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>>>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >-Carl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of >>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other ways >>>>>> to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to ignore >>>>>> his criticisms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, >>>>>> Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be >>>>>> happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be >>>>>> labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to >>>>>> conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work >>>>>> well, please let us know about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that there >>>>>> are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of your >>>>>> arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, experience, >>>>>> and most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning >>>>>> and scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, >>>>>> transposition, beating and scales analysis difficulties for the >>>>>> foreseeable future;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with >>>>>> something better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@...
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

I take it that 19-tone is 63.16

Lucy version is consistent 68.45 cents?

So it doesn't repeat at the octave, or 2/1, or are the step-sizes actually different.

I feel we may be getting somewhere.

caleb

On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> The frettings are shown on this page.
>
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>
>
> He is moving between E and E#
> i.e. the open string and the first fret (the difference between the > Large and small interval (approx 68 cents)
>
> Large (L) 1.116633 190.9858
> small (s) 1.073344 122.5354
>
>
>
>
> Therefore the difference is 68.45 cents
>
> 19edo uses 63.16 cents per step.
>
> Comparison page is here:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/tuning/equal_temp.html
>
>
> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:35, caleb morgan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So, Pure Timing is quite similar to I to IV (major), in A, with an >> odd-sounding approach note, F-ish, leading to the F# of the IV (D) >> chord.
>>
>> Then, if it were pure 19-tone, the "IV" or D would be 505.3 cents.
>>
>> What is the Lucy tuned version of 19-tone, in cents? How does it >> differ, in cents, from 19-tone?
>>
>> caleb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>
>>> OK Caleb;
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know what James did with Marching up the Pyramid, so I >>> cannot comment.
>>>
>>> Here are some examples:
>>>
>>> Pure Timing was played by Aid Burrows on a nineteen frets per >>> octave 12 string LucyTuned guitar, and recorded and mixed by James >>> Sanger.
>>>
>>> You can hear the track here:
>>>
>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>
>>> The exact fretting details for the LucyTuned 19 per octave guitar >>> etc. are listed on this page:
>>>
>>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>>
>>> There is an example of him playing the same guitar in the lower >>> video found from this page:
>>>
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/videos.html
>>>
>>> The score for this piece can be found here:
>>>
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/5MontenegroScore.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:05, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.
>>>>
>>>> But, I've noticed you have a tendency to just post a link, >>>> without being more specific.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, can you point me to the following:
>>>>
>>>> -a link to 1, 2, or 3 pieces. Give me the title.
>>>>
>>>> -Along with the title, give me some clue about the tuning--not a >>>> treatise, but simply something like:
>>>>
>>>> This piece by James Sanger, called Wood cut 812008, uses [tuning >>>> system blah blah] which has the advantage that [woofs] are tuned >>>> to within [yadda yadda]
>>>>
>>>> That was just an example.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, many tunings will "work" and produce different effects.
>>>>
>>>> I listened to a bit of Marching up the Pyramid, heard a low B >>>> drone, and basically-consonant stable melody notes, except the >>>> major third sounded pleasantly sharp, and the b2 degree sounded >>>> altered, also, from ET.
>>>>
>>>> But that was just a quick impression, and I have no idea which >>>> pieces I'm supposed to be listening to.
>>>>
>>>> Narrow it down to 1, 2, or 3, for starters!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Caleb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> at:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>
>>>>> and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music
>>>>>
>>>>> If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list of >>>>> url's
>>>>>
>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A quick response from Caleb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll want >>>>>> to know how it's done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. It's >>>>>> quest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something >>>>>> specific (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart >>>>>> excerpt, and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about you post a link to something else, something that >>>>>> demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system which >>>>>> solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and >>>>>> scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree >>>>>> with you what those difficulties are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that >>>>>> really grabbed me, and they were all different!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of >>>>>> orchestration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need only do the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>>>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>>>>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>>>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>>>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I >>>>>>>> Pass?
>>>>>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>>>>>> >example?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>>>>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>>>>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>>>>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >-Carl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of >>>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other >>>>>>> ways to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to >>>>>>> ignore his criticisms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and unconventional, >>>>>>> Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may be >>>>>>> happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be >>>>>>> labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail to >>>>>>> conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work >>>>>>> well, please let us know about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that >>>>>>> there are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of >>>>>>> your arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, >>>>>>> experience, and most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning >>>>>>> and scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, >>>>>>> transposition, beating and scales analysis difficulties for >>>>>>> the foreseeable future;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with >>>>>>> something better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>
>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>
>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>
>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@...
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

There are two different step sizes.

5 Large + 2 small = one octave

All other intervals are derived by addition and subtraction of these two step sizes.

Sorry about the link, but it's easier than retyping everything

see:

http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_01.html

On 12 Feb 2009, at 17:09, caleb morgan wrote:

>
> I take it that 19-tone is 63.16
>
> Lucy version is consistent 68.45 cents?
>
> So it doesn't repeat at the octave, or 2/1, or are the step-sizes > actually different.
>
> I feel we may be getting somewhere.
>
> caleb
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>> The frettings are shown on this page.
>>
>>
>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>
>>
>> He is moving between E and E#
>> i.e. the open string and the first fret (the difference between the >> Large and small interval (approx 68 cents)
>>
>> Large (L) 1.116633 190.9858
>> small (s) 1.073344 122.5354
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Therefore the difference is 68.45 cents
>>
>> 19edo uses 63.16 cents per step.
>>
>> Comparison page is here:
>>
>> http://www.lucytune.com/tuning/equal_temp.html
>>
>>
>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:35, caleb morgan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, Pure Timing is quite similar to I to IV (major), in A, with an >>> odd-sounding approach note, F-ish, leading to the F# of the IV (D) >>> chord.
>>>
>>> Then, if it were pure 19-tone, the "IV" or D would be 505.3 cents.
>>>
>>> What is the Lucy tuned version of 19-tone, in cents? How does it >>> differ, in cents, from 19-tone?
>>>
>>> caleb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK Caleb;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what James did with Marching up the Pyramid, so I >>>> cannot comment.
>>>>
>>>> Here are some examples:
>>>>
>>>> Pure Timing was played by Aid Burrows on a nineteen frets per >>>> octave 12 string LucyTuned guitar, and recorded and mixed by >>>> James Sanger.
>>>>
>>>> You can hear the track here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>
>>>> The exact fretting details for the LucyTuned 19 per octave guitar >>>> etc. are listed on this page:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>>>
>>>> There is an example of him playing the same guitar in the lower >>>> video found from this page:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/videos.html
>>>>
>>>> The score for this piece can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/5MontenegroScore.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:05, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I've noticed you have a tendency to just post a link, >>>>> without being more specific.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically, can you point me to the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> -a link to 1, 2, or 3 pieces. Give me the title.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Along with the title, give me some clue about the tuning--not a >>>>> treatise, but simply something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> This piece by James Sanger, called Wood cut 812008, uses [tuning >>>>> system blah blah] which has the advantage that [woofs] are tuned >>>>> to within [yadda yadda]
>>>>>
>>>>> That was just an example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, many tunings will "work" and produce different effects.
>>>>>
>>>>> I listened to a bit of Marching up the Pyramid, heard a low B >>>>> drone, and basically-consonant stable melody notes, except the >>>>> major third sounded pleasantly sharp, and the b2 degree sounded >>>>> altered, also, from ET.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that was just a quick impression, and I have no idea which >>>>> pieces I'm supposed to be listening to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Narrow it down to 1, 2, or 3, for starters!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list of >>>>>> url's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A quick response from Caleb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll want >>>>>>> to know how it's done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. It's >>>>>>> quest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something >>>>>>> specific (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart >>>>>>> excerpt, and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about you post a link to something else, something that >>>>>>> demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system which >>>>>>> solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and >>>>>>> scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree >>>>>>> with you what those difficulties are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that >>>>>>> really grabbed me, and they were all different!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of >>>>>>> orchestration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need only do the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>>>>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>>>>>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>>>>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>>>>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I >>>>>>>>> Pass?
>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>>>>>>> >example?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>>>>>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>>>>>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>>>>>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >-Carl
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of >>>>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other >>>>>>>> ways to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to >>>>>>>> ignore his criticisms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and >>>>>>>> unconventional, Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may >>>>>>>> be happening, your examples and explanations are likely to be >>>>>>>> labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they fail >>>>>>>> to conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually work >>>>>>>> well, please let us know about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that >>>>>>>> there are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of >>>>>>>> your arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, >>>>>>>> experience, and most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning >>>>>>>> and scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, >>>>>>>> transposition, beating and scales analysis difficulties for >>>>>>>> the foreseeable future;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with >>>>>>>> something better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@...
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

again, I'm interesting in this scale. You don't have to make a case for "Lucy Tuning."

All you have to tell me is the cents of your 19-tone scale.

That page appeared to have nothing to do with it. Another link where I had no idea if it was relevant.

Can we focus on this scale?

caleb

On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> There are two different step sizes.
>
>
> 5 Large + 2 small = one octave
>
> All other intervals are derived by addition and subtraction of these > two step sizes.
>
> Sorry about the link, but it's easier than retyping everything
>
> see:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_01.html
>
>
>
> On 12 Feb 2009, at 17:09, caleb morgan wrote:
>
>>
>> I take it that 19-tone is 63.16
>>
>> Lucy version is consistent 68.45 cents?
>>
>> So it doesn't repeat at the octave, or 2/1, or are the step-sizes >> actually different.
>>
>> I feel we may be getting somewhere.
>>
>> caleb
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>
>>> The frettings are shown on this page.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>>
>>>
>>> He is moving between E and E#
>>> i.e. the open string and the first fret (the difference between >>> the Large and small interval (approx 68 cents)
>>>
>>> Large (L) 1.116633 190.9858
>>> small (s) 1.073344 122.5354
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Therefore the difference is 68.45 cents
>>>
>>> 19edo uses 63.16 cents per step.
>>>
>>> Comparison page is here:
>>>
>>> http://www.lucytune.com/tuning/equal_temp.html
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:35, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, Pure Timing is quite similar to I to IV (major), in A, with >>>> an odd-sounding approach note, F-ish, leading to the F# of the IV >>>> (D) chord.
>>>>
>>>> Then, if it were pure 19-tone, the "IV" or D would be 505.3 cents.
>>>>
>>>> What is the Lucy tuned version of 19-tone, in cents? How does it >>>> differ, in cents, from 19-tone?
>>>>
>>>> caleb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK Caleb;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know what James did with Marching up the Pyramid, so I >>>>> cannot comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are some examples:
>>>>>
>>>>> Pure Timing was played by Aid Burrows on a nineteen frets per >>>>> octave 12 string LucyTuned guitar, and recorded and mixed by >>>>> James Sanger.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can hear the track here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>>
>>>>> The exact fretting details for the LucyTuned 19 per octave >>>>> guitar etc. are listed on this page:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>>>>
>>>>> There is an example of him playing the same guitar in the lower >>>>> video found from this page:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/videos.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The score for this piece can be found here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/5MontenegroScore.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:05, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, I've noticed you have a tendency to just post a link, >>>>>> without being more specific.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically, can you point me to the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -a link to 1, 2, or 3 pieces. Give me the title.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Along with the title, give me some clue about the tuning--not >>>>>> a treatise, but simply something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This piece by James Sanger, called Wood cut 812008, uses >>>>>> [tuning system blah blah] which has the advantage that [woofs] >>>>>> are tuned to within [yadda yadda]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was just an example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, many tunings will "work" and produce different >>>>>> effects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I listened to a bit of Marching up the Pyramid, heard a low B >>>>>> drone, and basically-consonant stable melody notes, except the >>>>>> major third sounded pleasantly sharp, and the b2 degree sounded >>>>>> altered, also, from ET.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that was just a quick impression, and I have no idea which >>>>>> pieces I'm supposed to be listening to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Narrow it down to 1, 2, or 3, for starters!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list of >>>>>>> url's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A quick response from Caleb.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll >>>>>>>> want to know how it's done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. >>>>>>>> It's quest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something >>>>>>>> specific (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart >>>>>>>> excerpt, and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about you post a link to something else, something that >>>>>>>> demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system which >>>>>>>> solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and >>>>>>>> scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree >>>>>>>> with you what those difficulties are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that >>>>>>>> really grabbed me, and they were all different!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of >>>>>>>> orchestration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need only do the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>>>>>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>>>>>>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>>>>>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>>>>>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before I >>>>>>>>>> Pass?
>>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>>>>>>>> >example?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>>>>>>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>>>>>>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>>>>>>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >-Carl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern of >>>>>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other >>>>>>>>> ways to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to >>>>>>>>> ignore his criticisms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and >>>>>>>>> unconventional, Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may >>>>>>>>> be happening, your examples and explanations are likely to >>>>>>>>> be labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they >>>>>>>>> fail to conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually >>>>>>>>> work well, please let us know about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that >>>>>>>>> there are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of >>>>>>>>> your arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, >>>>>>>>> experience, and most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a tuning >>>>>>>>> and scale system which solves the harmony, modulation, >>>>>>>>> transposition, beating and scales analysis difficulties for >>>>>>>>> the foreseeable future;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with >>>>>>>>> something better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>
>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>
>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>
>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@...
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

caleb writes: caleb, there's this wiki page. cuts to the chase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Tuning

ah, thank you.

now, how hard was that?

caleb

On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:35 PM, caleb morgan wrote:

>
> again, I'm interesting in this scale. You don't have to make a case > for "Lucy Tuning."
>
> All you have to tell me is the cents of your 19-tone scale.
>
> That page appeared to have nothing to do with it. Another link > where I had no idea if it was relevant.
>
>
>
> Can we focus on this scale?
>
> caleb
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>> There are two different step sizes.
>>
>>
>> 5 Large + 2 small = one octave
>>
>> All other intervals are derived by addition and subtraction of >> these two step sizes.
>>
>> Sorry about the link, but it's easier than retyping everything
>>
>> see:
>>
>> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_01.html
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 17:09, caleb morgan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I take it that 19-tone is 63.16
>>>
>>> Lucy version is consistent 68.45 cents?
>>>
>>> So it doesn't repeat at the octave, or 2/1, or are the step-sizes >>> actually different.
>>>
>>> I feel we may be getting somewhere.
>>>
>>> caleb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>
>>>> The frettings are shown on this page.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He is moving between E and E#
>>>> i.e. the open string and the first fret (the difference between >>>> the Large and small interval (approx 68 cents)
>>>>
>>>> Large (L) 1.116633 190.9858
>>>> small (s) 1.073344 122.5354
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Therefore the difference is 68.45 cents
>>>>
>>>> 19edo uses 63.16 cents per step.
>>>>
>>>> Comparison page is here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com/tuning/equal_temp.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:35, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Pure Timing is quite similar to I to IV (major), in A, with >>>>> an odd-sounding approach note, F-ish, leading to the F# of the >>>>> IV (D) chord.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, if it were pure 19-tone, the "IV" or D would be 505.3 cents.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the Lucy tuned version of 19-tone, in cents? How does >>>>> it differ, in cents, from 19-tone?
>>>>>
>>>>> caleb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK Caleb;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know what James did with Marching up the Pyramid, so I >>>>>> cannot comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are some examples:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pure Timing was played by Aid Burrows on a nineteen frets per >>>>>> octave 12 string LucyTuned guitar, and recorded and mixed by >>>>>> James Sanger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can hear the track here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The exact fretting details for the LucyTuned 19 per octave >>>>>> guitar etc. are listed on this page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is an example of him playing the same guitar in the lower >>>>>> video found from this page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/videos.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The score for this piece can be found here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/5MontenegroScore.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:05, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, I've noticed you have a tendency to just post a link, >>>>>>> without being more specific.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specifically, can you point me to the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -a link to 1, 2, or 3 pieces. Give me the title.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Along with the title, give me some clue about the tuning--not >>>>>>> a treatise, but simply something like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This piece by James Sanger, called Wood cut 812008, uses >>>>>>> [tuning system blah blah] which has the advantage that [woofs] >>>>>>> are tuned to within [yadda yadda]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was just an example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously, many tunings will "work" and produce different >>>>>>> effects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I listened to a bit of Marching up the Pyramid, heard a low B >>>>>>> drone, and basically-consonant stable melody notes, except the >>>>>>> major third sounded pleasantly sharp, and the b2 degree >>>>>>> sounded altered, also, from ET.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that was just a quick impression, and I have no idea which >>>>>>> pieces I'm supposed to be listening to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Narrow it down to 1, 2, or 3, for starters!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list >>>>>>>> of url's
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A quick response from Caleb.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll >>>>>>>>> want to know how it's done.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. >>>>>>>>> It's quest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something >>>>>>>>> specific (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart >>>>>>>>> excerpt, and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about you post a link to something else, something that >>>>>>>>> demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system which >>>>>>>>> solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and >>>>>>>>> scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree >>>>>>>>> with you what those difficulties are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that >>>>>>>>> really grabbed me, and they were all different!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of >>>>>>>>> orchestration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need only do the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>>>>>>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>>>>>>>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before >>>>>>>>>>> I Pass?
>>>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>>>>>>>>> >example?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>>>>>>>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>>>>>>>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>>>>>>>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >-Carl
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern >>>>>>>>>> of thinking.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other >>>>>>>>>> ways to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to >>>>>>>>>> ignore his criticisms.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and >>>>>>>>>> unconventional, Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may >>>>>>>>>> be happening, your examples and explanations are likely to >>>>>>>>>> be labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they >>>>>>>>>> fail to conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually >>>>>>>>>> work well, please let us know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that >>>>>>>>>> there are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of >>>>>>>>>> your arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, >>>>>>>>>> experience, and most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a >>>>>>>>>> tuning and scale system which solves the harmony, >>>>>>>>>> modulation, transposition, beating and scales analysis >>>>>>>>>> difficulties for the foreseeable future;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with >>>>>>>>>> something better.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@...
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

Hi Caleb;

Follow the links from that page to the next chapter and you will have all the cent values you could possibly need, and also you'll discover how to calculate more intervals and scales:

http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_02.html

Which scale do you want the specs for?

For the guitar fretting or for the piece "Pure Timing"?

I don't know, off hand, exactly which other notes Aid used in that composition.

I suppose that I could listen very carefully and figure out which notes he had used, but it would probably take me half an hour or more, and I am currently about to go eat dinner which is more urgent from my stomach's point of view;-)

On 12 Feb 2009, at 17:35, caleb morgan wrote:

>
> > again, I'm interesting in this scale.

> You don't have to make a case for "Lucy Tuning."
>
> All you have to tell me is the cents of your 19-tone scale.
>
> That page appeared to have nothing to do with it. Another link > where I had no idea if it was relevant.
>
>
>
> Can we focus on this scale?
>
> caleb
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>> There are two different step sizes.
>>
>>
>> 5 Large + 2 small = one octave
>>
>> All other intervals are derived by addition and subtraction of >> these two step sizes.
>>
>> Sorry about the link, but it's easier than retyping everything
>>
>> see:
>>
>> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_01.html
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 17:09, caleb morgan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I take it that 19-tone is 63.16
>>>
>>> Lucy version is consistent 68.45 cents?
>>>
>>> So it doesn't repeat at the octave, or 2/1, or are the step-sizes >>> actually different.
>>>
>>> I feel we may be getting somewhere.
>>>
>>> caleb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>
>>>> The frettings are shown on this page.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He is moving between E and E#
>>>> i.e. the open string and the first fret (the difference between >>>> the Large and small interval (approx 68 cents)
>>>>
>>>> Large (L) 1.116633 190.9858
>>>> small (s) 1.073344 122.5354
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Therefore the difference is 68.45 cents
>>>>
>>>> 19edo uses 63.16 cents per step.
>>>>
>>>> Comparison page is here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com/tuning/equal_temp.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:35, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Pure Timing is quite similar to I to IV (major), in A, with >>>>> an odd-sounding approach note, F-ish, leading to the F# of the >>>>> IV (D) chord.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, if it were pure 19-tone, the "IV" or D would be 505.3 cents.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the Lucy tuned version of 19-tone, in cents? How does >>>>> it differ, in cents, from 19-tone?
>>>>>
>>>>> caleb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK Caleb;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know what James did with Marching up the Pyramid, so I >>>>>> cannot comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are some examples:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pure Timing was played by Aid Burrows on a nineteen frets per >>>>>> octave 12 string LucyTuned guitar, and recorded and mixed by >>>>>> James Sanger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can hear the track here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The exact fretting details for the LucyTuned 19 per octave >>>>>> guitar etc. are listed on this page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is an example of him playing the same guitar in the lower >>>>>> video found from this page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/videos.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The score for this piece can be found here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/5MontenegroScore.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:05, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, I've noticed you have a tendency to just post a link, >>>>>>> without being more specific.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specifically, can you point me to the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -a link to 1, 2, or 3 pieces. Give me the title.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Along with the title, give me some clue about the tuning--not >>>>>>> a treatise, but simply something like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This piece by James Sanger, called Wood cut 812008, uses >>>>>>> [tuning system blah blah] which has the advantage that [woofs] >>>>>>> are tuned to within [yadda yadda]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was just an example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously, many tunings will "work" and produce different >>>>>>> effects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I listened to a bit of Marching up the Pyramid, heard a low B >>>>>>> drone, and basically-consonant stable melody notes, except the >>>>>>> major third sounded pleasantly sharp, and the b2 degree >>>>>>> sounded altered, also, from ET.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that was just a quick impression, and I have no idea which >>>>>>> pieces I'm supposed to be listening to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Narrow it down to 1, 2, or 3, for starters!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list >>>>>>>> of url's
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A quick response from Caleb.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super-nice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll >>>>>>>>> want to know how it's done.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. >>>>>>>>> It's quest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something >>>>>>>>> specific (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart >>>>>>>>> excerpt, and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about you post a link to something else, something that >>>>>>>>> demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system which >>>>>>>>> solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, beating and >>>>>>>>> scales analysis difficulties for the foreseeable future".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree >>>>>>>>> with you what those difficulties are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that >>>>>>>>> really grabbed me, and they were all different!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of >>>>>>>>> orchestration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need only do the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>>>>>>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes some
>>>>>>>>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before >>>>>>>>>>> I Pass?
>>>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>>>>>>>>> >example?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>>>>>>>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>>>>>>>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>>>>>>>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >-Carl
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern >>>>>>>>>> of thinking.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other >>>>>>>>>> ways to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to >>>>>>>>>> ignore his criticisms.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and >>>>>>>>>> unconventional, Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what may >>>>>>>>>> be happening, your examples and explanations are likely to >>>>>>>>>> be labelled as "highly dubious" and "nonsensical" if they >>>>>>>>>> fail to conform to Carl's limited view of the world.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually >>>>>>>>>> work well, please let us know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that >>>>>>>>>> there are other tunaniks who will test your ideas critically.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of >>>>>>>>>> your arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, >>>>>>>>>> experience, and most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a >>>>>>>>>> tuning and scale system which solves the harmony, >>>>>>>>>> modulation, transposition, beating and scales analysis >>>>>>>>>> difficulties for the foreseeable future;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with >>>>>>>>>> something better.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@...
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

thank you once again.

my curiosity is now satisfied.

thanks, wiki-writer (whoever you are) for providing me with a non-patented, cow-free page of real information.

caleb

On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:44 PM, caleb morgan wrote:

>
> caleb writes: caleb, there's this wiki page. cuts to the chase.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Tuning
>
> ah, thank you.
>
> now, how hard was that?
>
> caleb
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:35 PM, caleb morgan wrote:
>
>>
>> again, I'm interesting in this scale. You don't have to make a >> case for "Lucy Tuning."
>>
>> All you have to tell me is the cents of your 19-tone scale.
>>
>> That page appeared to have nothing to do with it. Another link >> where I had no idea if it was relevant.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we focus on this scale?
>>
>> caleb
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>
>>> There are two different step sizes.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5 Large + 2 small = one octave
>>>
>>> All other intervals are derived by addition and subtraction of >>> these two step sizes.
>>>
>>> Sorry about the link, but it's easier than retyping everything
>>>
>>> see:
>>>
>>> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_01.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 17:09, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I take it that 19-tone is 63.16
>>>>
>>>> Lucy version is consistent 68.45 cents?
>>>>
>>>> So it doesn't repeat at the octave, or 2/1, or are the step-sizes >>>> actually different.
>>>>
>>>> I feel we may be getting somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> caleb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The frettings are shown on this page.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He is moving between E and E#
>>>>> i.e. the open string and the first fret (the difference between >>>>> the Large and small interval (approx 68 cents)
>>>>>
>>>>> Large (L) 1.116633 190.9858
>>>>> small (s) 1.073344 122.5354
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore the difference is 68.45 cents
>>>>>
>>>>> 19edo uses 63.16 cents per step.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comparison page is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com/tuning/equal_temp.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:35, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, Pure Timing is quite similar to I to IV (major), in A, with >>>>>> an odd-sounding approach note, F-ish, leading to the F# of the >>>>>> IV (D) chord.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, if it were pure 19-tone, the "IV" or D would be 505.3 >>>>>> cents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the Lucy tuned version of 19-tone, in cents? How does >>>>>> it differ, in cents, from 19-tone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> caleb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK Caleb;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know what James did with Marching up the Pyramid, so I >>>>>>> cannot comment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are some examples:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pure Timing was played by Aid Burrows on a nineteen frets per >>>>>>> octave 12 string LucyTuned guitar, and recorded and mixed by >>>>>>> James Sanger.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can hear the track here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The exact fretting details for the LucyTuned 19 per octave >>>>>>> guitar etc. are listed on this page:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com/guitars_and_frets/frets.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is an example of him playing the same guitar in the >>>>>>> lower video found from this page:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/videos.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The score for this piece can be found here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk/5MontenegroScore.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 16:05, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, I've noticed you have a tendency to just post a link, >>>>>>>> without being more specific.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Specifically, can you point me to the following:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -a link to 1, 2, or 3 pieces. Give me the title.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Along with the title, give me some clue about the tuning-->>>>>>>> not a treatise, but simply something like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This piece by James Sanger, called Wood cut 812008, uses >>>>>>>> [tuning system blah blah] which has the advantage that >>>>>>>> [woofs] are tuned to within [yadda yadda]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That was just an example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously, many tunings will "work" and produce different >>>>>>>> effects.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I listened to a bit of Marching up the Pyramid, heard a low B >>>>>>>> drone, and basically-consonant stable melody notes, except >>>>>>>> the major third sounded pleasantly sharp, and the b2 degree >>>>>>>> sounded altered, also, from ET.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that was just a quick impression, and I have no idea >>>>>>>> which pieces I'm supposed to be listening to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Narrow it down to 1, 2, or 3, for starters!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just follow the links from the lucytune.com homepage:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and you'll find many pieces of LucyTuned music
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you need more, send me an email, and I'll compile a list >>>>>>>>> of url's
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/jamessanger
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.myspace.com/lucytuning
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12 Feb 2009, at 14:56, caleb morgan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A quick response from Caleb.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I personally don't care whether you're arrogant or super->>>>>>>>>> nice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you post a piece of music that sounds good to me, I'll >>>>>>>>>> want to know how it's done.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This isn't diplomacy or human resources, it's obsession. >>>>>>>>>> It's quest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So yes, you have my attention and my ear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes, all it takes is to provide a link to something >>>>>>>>>> specific (a piece, or an exercise) that people can hear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've heard only two things so far: a weird little Mozart >>>>>>>>>> excerpt, and a chart with more-or-less standard chords.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about you post a link to something else, something that >>>>>>>>>> demonstrates you have "found a tuning and scale system >>>>>>>>>> which solves the harmony, modulation, transposition, >>>>>>>>>> beating and scales analysis difficulties for the >>>>>>>>>> foreseeable future".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, that assumes that people here or elsewhere agree >>>>>>>>>> with you what those difficulties are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So far, at least 6 composers here have posted things that >>>>>>>>>> really grabbed me, and they were all different!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Different kinds of tunings, styles, aesthetics, kinds of >>>>>>>>>> orchestration.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You need only do the same.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gotta run, I've got some scales to study, floor to sweep, >>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >Again, I think your expectations are too high -- you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>> >pass judgment on a scale in 5 minutes, or 10. It takes >>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> >mucking about. -Carl
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: 12 February 2009 08:28:51 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Musts: Tunings to Compose in Before >>>>>>>>>>>> I Pass?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
>>>>>>>>>>> >example?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
>>>>>>>>>>> >all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
>>>>>>>>>>> >for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
>>>>>>>>>>> >dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >-Carl
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Putting these together seems to illustrate Carl's pattern >>>>>>>>>>> of thinking.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For those who are experimenting with irrationals and other >>>>>>>>>>> ways to construct tunings and scales, you might be best to >>>>>>>>>>> ignore his criticisms.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If what you are proposing really is novel, and >>>>>>>>>>> unconventional, Mr. Lumma seems to fail to understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (Possibly a case of NIH (not invented here) ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you then attempt to elaborate or speculate upon what >>>>>>>>>>> may be happening, your examples and explanations are >>>>>>>>>>> likely to be labelled as "highly dubious" and >>>>>>>>>>> "nonsensical" if they fail to conform to Carl's limited >>>>>>>>>>> view of the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So if you find a tuning/scale system which does actually >>>>>>>>>>> work well, please let us know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Despite Carl's disparaging remarks, I can assure you that >>>>>>>>>>> there are other tunaniks who will test your ideas >>>>>>>>>>> critically.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Some tunaniks will actually understand the significance of >>>>>>>>>>> your arithmetic and be able to apply their knowledge, >>>>>>>>>>> experience, and most importantly, their ears;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For although I arrogantly believe that I have found a >>>>>>>>>>> tuning and scale system which solves the harmony, >>>>>>>>>>> modulation, transposition, beating and scales analysis >>>>>>>>>>> difficulties for the foreseeable future;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it is entirely possible that someone will come up with >>>>>>>>>>> something better.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If so, I and many other want to know about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>
>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>
>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>
>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@...
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

--There is nothing 'special' about it, other than
--the fact that meantone happens to be a very good tuning system.

But how standard IS the mean-tone restriction? I suspect it is quite broad...

I generated my scale from a "circle of PHI" rather than a circle of 5ths making it formed completely of irrational numbers. Plus it uses PHI and not 2 as the octave. And it's MOS because it contains two sizes of intervals, but the irrational ratios involved make it nothing like any other MOS I've seen or heard.

And LucyTuning apparently uses perfect 5ths in one direction and perfect 4ths in the other while other mean-tone only uses a generator in one direction.
***************************
It seems like a double-standard of saying "follow all historical tuning rules, but make something that's 100% not a historical tuning".

Of course there are things about my and Charles' tuning which parallels existing tunings, but also several differences. I can't speak for Charles here, but, from what I have seen, the advantage of Lucy Tuning is that it resolves several of the un-pure intervals in 12TET while still allowing modulation and transposition. Virtually every scale under a mean-tone tuning I've heard has at least one WOLF/dissonant interval, and far as I know Charles' tuning does not.

-Michael

--- On Thu, 2/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 hours) Encouragement for explorers.
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 9:22 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@. ..> wrote:

> Hi,

> I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.

As well you should. Charles has made a lot of nice music, and

lucytuning is a perfectly viable tuning system. BUT IT IS

JUST MEANTONE. There is nothing 'special' about it, other than

the fact that meantone happens to be a very good tuning system.

So Charles, howabout it: Does LucyTuning offer a single

advantage that another meantone, like 31-ET, does not? If

so, what is it?

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

I speak for myself here.

What has troubled me is NOT that someone is coming up with a scale that is different from familiar scales.

And, in reference to another remark I can't find at the moment, I'm not "mad" at anyone for coming up with their own system, and their being excited about that.

I welcome this, and I'm quite interested to hear the results.

No one needs to play the "Galileo" card here.

Just show me, be responsive, don't try to sell me something.

The world is filled with people making inflated claims, indulging in magic thinking, and making a buck off it.

Now, how to separate the good stuff from the puffery?

One basic principle.

-Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In the case of Mr. Lucy, I think he's got another tuning. Nothing more, nothing less. Oh yes, and a patent, which makes me laugh.

Different tunings sound different, taste different. Some have different structural possibilities.

It's unrealistic, and probably wrong before the fact, to claim that perfect consonance (other than the harmonic series) can be achieved, or that a tuning can improve the world.

Now, another issue: respecting experts. Whether it be physics, the search for the historical Jesus, or tuning, one can respect the opinions of the relevant experts within their field of expertise.

So, if Carl Lumma says that meantone can also map an infinite number of intervals, I respect his opinion.

That's what we should be doing here. Evaluating specific claims.

For my own part, I know I like extended JI, and I can rely on my own ear for that. Further, since these are all computer/synthesizer tunings we are discussing, all the problems of extended JI can be solved by changing the tuning-base of the extended JI scale. It's a little hard to "think", but it works.

Other non-JI scales are interesting too.

On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Michael Sheiman wrote:

>
> --There is nothing 'special' about it, other than
> --the fact that meantone happens to be a very good tuning system.
>
> But how standard IS the mean-tone restriction? I suspect it is > quite broad...
>
> I generated my scale from a "circle of PHI" rather than a circle > of 5ths making it formed completely of irrational numbers. Plus it > uses PHI and not 2 as the octave. And it's MOS because it contains > two sizes of intervals, but the irrational ratios involved make it > nothing like any other MOS I've seen or heard.
>
> And LucyTuning apparently uses perfect 5ths in one direction > and perfect 4ths in the other while other mean-tone only uses a > generator in one direction.
> ***************************
> It seems like a double-standard of saying "follow all historical > tuning rules, but make something that's 100% not a historical tuning".
>
> Of course there are things about my and Charles' tuning which > parallels existing tunings, but also several differences. I can't > speak for Charles here, but, from what I have seen, the advantage of > Lucy Tuning is that it resolves several of the un-pure intervals in > 12TET while still allowing modulation and transposition. Virtually > every scale under a mean-tone tuning I've heard has at least one > WOLF/dissonant interval, and far as I know Charles' tuning does not.
>
> -Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 2/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 > hours) Encouragement for explorers.
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 9:22 AM
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@. ..> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm quite sincere about giving stuff a listen.
>
> As well you should. Charles has made a lot of nice music, and
> lucytuning is a perfectly viable tuning system. BUT IT IS
> JUST MEANTONE. There is nothing 'special' about it, other than
> the fact that meantone happens to be a very good tuning system.
>
> So Charles, howabout it: Does LucyTuning offer a single
> advantage that another meantone, like 31-ET, does not? If
> so, what is it?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

---Please bury the hatchet. I for one do not wish to hear it. If you hate
----lucy send him private messages about it. It does not belong here in a
---public forum that requires civil behavior from all for the benefit of
all

Amen (to virtually everyone on this thread)!
Charles didn't start this fight or start sending random promo messages about LucyTuning and then run away (or anything against yahoo group rules having to do with "spam marketing").

If you don't like his tuning, or what not, simply don't use it. Certainly personal accusations like saying he compliments and edits his wiki entry under fake accounts, patented the scale, made it "just another mean-tone scale"...have no potential positive purpose here or anywhere.

So some of you don't want to use his scale. Or mine. Meanwhile, people seem to be burning bridges to the idea that Charles and I just MIGHT actually want people to point out possible improvements for our scales and/or scale notation.

Not too long ago Charles admitted to a mistake in the notation of one of the chords in Lucy Tuning someone on this list found and corrected it. That, in comparison, shows just how bizarre some of the insulting comments on this list are.

Some of us are just trying to make and/or explain new scales and looking for advice. Unfortunately so many people on this list are busy fighting, often with the attitude "there's only to do things"...that advice is getting harder and harder to find amongst all the bickering and flaming going on.

--- On Thu, 2/12/09, chrisvaisvil@... <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: chrisvaisvil@... <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 hours) Encouragement for explorers.
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 12:38 PM

I tell you what. You have a great of nerve to threaten moderating me for using a blackberry when you post messages with swearing and obvious venom like the past week or so.

You are smart - however you do not have a corner on truth and certainly stand on moral quicksand.

Please bury the hatchet. I for one do not wish to hear it. If you hate lucy send him private messages about it. It does not belong here in a public forum that requires civil behavior from all for the benefit of all Sent via BlackBerry from T-MobileFrom: "Carl Lumma"
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:27:57 -0000
To: <tuning@yahoogroups. com>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 hours) Encouragement for explorers.
--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@. ..> wrote:
>
> caleb writes: caleb, there's this wiki page. cuts to the chase.

You mean the wiki page that Charles surreptitiously edits
under anonymous accounts?

> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Lucy_Tuning

Yup, that's the one.

-Carl

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

--Tunings consisting of a chain of fifths, where the fifths
--are between about 695 cents and 700 cents can be called
--meantones.
Right, but Lucy Tuning also is composed from a chain of 4ths, right?

--Going up a fifth is the same as going down a fourth.
Exactly or just, closely? When you think about a 3rd (minor nor major, I think) in 12TET is 13 cents off. If the 4th down is only slightly different than the 5th going up...the annoying 13 cent error could become a far more tolerable 5-6 cent error. Or...at least I am under the impression that has something to do with how Lucy Tuning works and why it uses different notes "going up and downward": Charles, could you elaborate?

--It creates beat rates that entrain your brain to alpha
--rhythms. Maybe, but not because it's Pi-based and why
--doesn't any slowly-beating chord do this?
If it does and/or the way it beats it sounds significantly better than the way most mean-tone beats, who cares what % of this phenomena can be attributed to PI? At least that's my point of view here.

---Pi captures the spherical wave-fronts of sound waves.
I have a similar view on this issue. Maybe it's slightly overstated mathematically, maybe not. But in the end, if it sounds better than most mean-tone, it works for me.

---Standard theories of consonance and dissonance are wrong.
---Consonance is based on Pi/LucyTuning/ etc.

I haven't heard or read him saying anything about that. On the side, Sethares' experiments seem to have half-successfully proved the usual rational fraction-based tuning methods as an incomplete view of why tuning/timbre work together. Meanwhile, Llevelt and Plompt (sp.?) certainly didn't, for example, have the critical band set at the 12TET semitone or a JI ratio. There's not some dead-on ratio formula that links all of those, apparently.

In addition, it seems different people put different amounts of stress on mathematical-consonance vs. periodicity. I blind tested my 8/8* 9/8 * 10/9 * 11/10 * 12/11 * 10/9 * 11/10 * 12/11 scale vs. the harmonic series (7 to14)/7 on 8 people and 7 of them said my scale (which stresses consonance over periodicity) sounded better.

I think it's a little bit ignorant...to say consonance can be summarized in just one theory. Sethares' method has its merits, rational fractions and JI have other merits, equally spaced tones (IE EDO scales) have yet others (even with raw sign waves)...and ultimately some of the view of what's more important in consonance depends on the listener and is never "constant". You even said yourself evenly spaced exponential ratios (which are not a part of JI at all) can help with consonance.

Anyhow, isn't it best to try and take hints from a lot of theories...rather than believe just one (usually JI) is the sole golden ticket to consonance?

--- On Thu, 2/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:

> --There is nothing 'special' about it, other than

> --the fact that meantone happens to be a very good tuning system.

> But how standard IS the mean-tone restriction? I suspect it

> is quite broad...

Tunings consisting of a chain of fifths, where the fifths

are between about 695 cents and 700 cents can be called

meantones. Thus, there are an infinite number of such

tunings. If one is interested in approximating triads,

or tetrads, or any other chord, one can find the fifth

size that provides the best approximation. One may also

choose a fifth that closes to an octave after some number

of chain links. For example 700 cents closes after 12

chain links. But it is not a very accurate 5-limit

meantone. The LucyTuning fifth is 695.5 cents. A bit

flatter than optimal for the 5-limit, but better than 12

and anyway, maybe you don't care about the 5-limit (though

the type of music Charles writes in LucyTuning is very

strongly 5-limit).

The fact that this fifth is based on Pi is completely,

utterly, and absolutely irrelevant in any sense Charles

has been able to explain in the past several decades. As

everyone can see, I'm presently asking him to do so again.

We might expect to hear such gems as:

* It creates beat rates that entrain your brain to alpha

rhythms. Maybe, but not because it's Pi-based and why

doesn't any slowly-beating chord do this?

* Pi captures the spherical wavefronts of sound waves.

Uh-huh.

* Standard theories of consonance and dissonance are wrong.

Consonance is based on Pi/LucyTuning/ etc.

> And LucyTuning apparently uses perfect 5ths in one

> direction and perfect 4ths in the other while other mean-tone

> only uses a generator in one direction.

Going up a fifth is the same as going down a fourth.

-Carl

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

caleb writes: I understand the "can't we all get along sentiment" but I understand none of your supporting arguments, as I try to show below. I find your writing extremely unclear here. I don't understand why you think your case and Charles Lucy's case are linked.

---Please bury the hatchet. I for one do not wish to hear it. If you hate ----lucy send him private messages about it. It does not belong here in a ---public forum that requires civil behavior from all for the benefit of all

caleb writes: What messages are you talking about?

Caleb writes: No, Charles Lucy has claimed something to the effect that his tuning solves all the problems of tuning.

btw, what fight are you referring to?

Caleb writes: This is simply untrue. These are quite relevant here. These are not "personal accusations". They are directly relevant to his credibility and motivation. Also, you're wrong about the relevance of the "just another meantone scale" issue as well. It is, or it isn't. That's relevant. If he hasn't got a patent, he's free to say so.

Entrepreneurism and scholarship are different. This is true in medical research and it's true here.

Caleb writes: You are separate cases. Why are you linking them? Burning bridges? Huh? If Mr. Lucy wants advice, let him speak for himself.

Caleb writes: Complete non-sequitor. He admitted to a careless mistake. Good. That has no relevance to your next sentence.

Caleb writes: I see no evidence that Charles Lucy is looking for advice.

You're busy complaining. Just change the subject back to what YOU want to talk about.
On Feb 12, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Michael Sheiman wrote:

>
> ---Please bury the hatchet. I for one do not wish to hear it. If you > hate ----lucy send him private messages about it. It does not belong > here in a ---public forum that requires civil behavior from all for > the benefit of all
>
> Amen (to virtually everyone on this thread)!
> Charles didn't start this fight or start sending random promo > messages about LucyTuning and then run away (or anything against > yahoo group rules having to do with "spam marketing").
>
> If you don't like his tuning, or what not, simply don't use it. > Certainly personal accusations like saying he compliments and edits > his wiki entry under fake accounts, patented the scale, made it > "just another mean-tone scale"...have no potential positive purpose > here or anywhere.
>
> So some of you don't want to use his scale. Or mine. Meanwhile, > people seem to be burning bridges to the idea that Charles and I > just MIGHT actually want people to point out possible improvements > for our scales and/or scale notation.
>
> Not too long ago Charles admitted to a mistake in the notation of > one of the chords in Lucy Tuning someone on this list found and > corrected it. That, in comparison, shows just how bizarre some of > the insulting comments on this list are.
>
> Some of us are just trying to make and/or explain new scales and > looking for advice. Unfortunately so many people on this list are > busy fighting, often with the attitude "there's only to do > things"...that advice is getting harder and harder to find amongst > all the bickering and flaming going on.
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 2/12/09, chrisvaisvil@... <chrisvaisvil@...> > wrote:
>
> From: chrisvaisvil@... <chrisvaisvil@...>
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past > 24 hours) Encouragement for explorers.
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 12:38 PM
>
> I tell you what. You have a great of nerve to threaten moderating me > for using a blackberry when you post messages with swearing and > obvious venom like the past week or so.
>
> You are smart - however you do not have a corner on truth and > certainly stand on moral quicksand.
>
> Please bury the hatchet. I for one do not wish to hear it. If you > hate lucy send him private messages about it. It does not belong > here in a public forum that requires civil behavior from all for the > benefit of all
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
>
> From: "Carl Lumma"
> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:27:57 -0000
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups. com>
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 > hours) Encouragement for explorers.
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@. ..> wrote:
> >
> > caleb writes: caleb, there's this wiki page. cuts to the chase.
>
> You mean the wiki page that Charles surreptitiously edits
> under anonymous accounts?
>
> > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Lucy_Tuning
>
> Yup, that's the one.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> I tell you what. You have a great of nerve to threaten moderating
> me for using a blackberry when you post messages with swearing
> and obvious venom like the past week or so.
>
> You are smart - however you do not have a corner on truth and
> certainly stand on moral quicksand.
>
> Please bury the hatchet. I for one do not wish to hear it. If you
> hate lucy send him private messages about it. It does not belong
> here in a public forum that requires civil behavior from all for
> the benefit of all

Chris, I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming
from on this. I certainly don't claim to have a corner on
truth or morality... I'm sure there have been numerous errors
in my posts lately, and I would very much appreciate it if
people would review them and point them out. For instance,
yesterday I speculated that the maximum dyadic error that we
would ever have reason to endure, in any chord in an equal
temperament, is 2/3 of a step. I asked for help verifying that
speculation.

I have no hatred at all for Charles, but I have no intention
of letting misleading claims propagate if I can help it, either
on this list or on wikipedia or anywhere else. Charles and I
go way back, and I'll tell the story now if anyone cares to
read it:

When I joined this community in '97, Charles contacted me both
on- and offlist, extolling the virtues of LucyTuning. Since
then, he's admitted that he does this intentionally with new
members, to try to get as many people as he can using
LucyTuning. At that time, I was also contacted offlist by a
prominent music theorist, who isn't active much these days,
directly warning me that LucyTuning was a fine meantone, but
that there was nothing special about it and that Charles'
theories were a "smokescreen". I took this as merely another
piece of evidence, and carefully studied Charles' website,
and had a pleasant correspondence with him. The idea that
pi somehow captures the spherical nature of soundwaves in a
way that traditional theories of consonance can't was certainly
something to investigate. Over the next several years, I
purchased ALL of Charles' CDs and archived many of the videos
he posted, complimenting him on almost every one, since I did
and do genuinely like his music. I also read and watched all
the BBC articles and documentaries on John Harrison for which
Charles was interviewed. But things turned South when I
started to insist on one basic fact: LucyTuning is nothing
special. Charles responded to this with direct personal
attacks. I'm not thrilled about it, but it's hardly going
to convince me of LucyTuning's merits.

So when Charles says I have a closed mind and that I represent
the status quo of the music establishment... actually both
these things seem to better describe him. He's apparently
not willing to consider the hypothesis that LucyTuning is
nothing special (whatya say, Charles, are you ready to
consider it?), and his pretty 5-limit music and meantone-based
approach is certainly closer to Western music as we know it
than the exotic linear temperaments and extended JI I've been
recommending.

Actually, come to think of it- I've got a baby due in April,
and I think I'll pull out those lullabies and give them a try.
I remember them being very relaxing.

-Carl

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

--Caleb writes: You are separate cases. Why are you linking them?
--Burning bridges? Huh? If Mr. Lucy wants advice, let him speak for
--himself.
I just see this around a lot around here, unfortunately. If someone comes up with a scale and claims any degree of originality (regardless of if they are making any money/publicity on it), they are likely to get bombarded here. I'm referring to making this a less hostile environment for those creating scales: it's not like those of us who post scales are charging a fine for it. :-D

---These are not "personal accusations" . They are directly relevant to
---his credibility and motivation. Also, you're wrong about the relevance
---of the "just another meantone scale" issue as well. It is, or it
isn't. ---That's relevant. If he hasn't got a patent, he's free to say
so.
    I'm trying to understand your point here.
    I agree if someone is doing a professional research paper on Lucy Tuning that "is it just meantone?" is a very valid question.
   But so far as a common practicing musician wondering "should I bother learning the tuning?" I don't see a point. The question then would seem to fall to...are we more interested in making/revising good sounding scales or academic correctness?

---Unfortunately so many people on this list are busy fighting,
often with ---the attitude "there's only to do things"...that advice is
getting harder ---and harder to find amongst all the bickering and flaming
going on.
>Caleb writes: I see no evidence that Charles Lucy is looking for >advice.You're busy complaining. Just change the subject back to what >YOU want to talk about.
I want to talk about the possibility of establishing some sort of protocol here to prevent all this flaming. Among all the "is Charles Lucy's statements of his tuning academically correct" arguments, I need a clearer way find out which statements/examples actually tell me something about Lucy Tuning and how it sounds and works.

I am in the "musicians trying to make music" group and not interested in correctness of academic facts about Lucy Tuning and/or things like writing research papers.
So...can we all at least agree to separate academic research related vs. non academic form posts? I honestly don't care how academically correct something is so long as it sounds good to me...but I can understand the plight of those who do.

-Michael

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

-- But things turned South when I started to --insist on one basic fact: LucyTuning is --nothing special.
Right...meaning it's very close to meantone if not "the same". I can agree with that.

--I purchased ALL of Charles' CDs and archived --many of the videos he posted, complimenting --him on almost every one, since I did and do --genuinely like his music.
--...and his pretty 5-limit music and --meantone-based approach is certainly closer to --Western music as we know it than the exotic --linear temperaments and extended JI I've been
--recommending.

Is it fair to say that perhaps he is making false claims but, for whatever reason, his "false theories" seem to make something enjoyable.

Is it fair to say that, just listening-wise, you are happy with what Lucy Tuning does far as helping make enjoyable music...but, academically, you simply think it is over-rated?

My personal opinion is those who like Lucy Tuning should just care how it sounds to them...and those who don't (or academically see it as over-rated enough to make them annoyed) can say something more like "it's a decent/good tuning, but it's also very like mean-tone from a theoretical perspective and should not be confused for being so drastically new...it's still rooted in a '5-limit' feel".

I just feel...there way too much drama and the underlying fact seems to be some of us care the world about academic legitimacy while others just want more good-sounding scales to play with (and I wish people would just say that straight out rather than trying to convert others to their side (academic or non-academic) of that issue. :-)

-Michael

--- On Thu, 2/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, chrisvaisvil@ ... wrote:

> I tell you what. You have a great of nerve to threaten moderating

> me for using a blackberry when you post messages with swearing

> and obvious venom like the past week or so.

> You are smart - however you do not have a corner on truth and

> certainly stand on moral quicksand.

> Please bury the hatchet. I for one do not wish to hear it. If you

> hate lucy send him private messages about it. It does not belong

> here in a public forum that requires civil behavior from all for

> the benefit of all

Chris, I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming

from on this. I certainly don't claim to have a corner on

truth or morality... I'm sure there have been numerous errors

in my posts lately, and I would very much appreciate it if

people would review them and point them out. For instance,

yesterday I speculated that the maximum dyadic error that we

would ever have reason to endure, in any chord in an equal

temperament, is 2/3 of a step. I asked for help verifying that

speculation.

I have no hatred at all for Charles, but I have no intention

of letting misleading claims propagate if I can help it, either

on this list or on wikipedia or anywhere else. Charles and I

go way back, and I'll tell the story now if anyone cares to

read it:

When I joined this community in '97, Charles contacted me both

on- and offlist, extolling the virtues of LucyTuning. Since

then, he's admitted that he does this intentionally with new

members, to try to get as many people as he can using

LucyTuning. At that time, I was also contacted offlist by a

prominent music theorist, who isn't active much these days,

directly warning me that LucyTuning was a fine meantone, but

that there was nothing special about it and that Charles'

theories were a "smokescreen" . I took this as merely another

piece of evidence, and carefully studied Charles' website,

and had a pleasant correspondence with him. The idea that

pi somehow captures the spherical nature of soundwaves in a

way that traditional theories of consonance can't was certainly

something to investigate. Over the next several years, I

purchased ALL of Charles' CDs and archived many of the videos

he posted, complimenting him on almost every one, since I did

and do genuinely like his music. I also read and watched all

the BBC articles and documentaries on John Harrison for which

Charles was interviewed. But things turned South when I

started to insist on one basic fact: LucyTuning is nothing

special. Charles responded to this with direct personal

attacks. I'm not thrilled about it, but it's hardly going

to convince me of LucyTuning's merits.

So when Charles says I have a closed mind and that I represent

the status quo of the music establishment. .. actually both

these things seem to better describe him. He's apparently

not willing to consider the hypothesis that LucyTuning is

nothing special (whatya say, Charles, are you ready to

consider it?), and his pretty 5-limit music and meantone-based

approach is certainly closer to Western music as we know it

than the exotic linear temperaments and extended JI I've been

recommending.

Actually, come to think of it- I've got a baby due in April,

and I think I'll pull out those lullabies and give them a try.

I remember them being very relaxing.

-Carl

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

> I think it's a little bit ignorant...to say consonance can

> be summarized in just one theory.

---Who says that (other than Charles)?
You said something like "he seems to say the theory of consonance is wrong" where theory (singular) imply directly there is only one that really works. Maybe I just got the wrong impression from your statement...

> --Going up a fifth is the same as going down a fourth.

> Exactly or just, closely?

----Exactly.
In that case...you'd think there would be a million scales around 100% equivalent to Lucy Tuning. Can you show me an example of one and then the Lucy Tuning equivalent?
*******************************************
Again, regardless of how right you may be, I think the crux of the issue seems to be this:

Say Charles was/is just a "con-artist" who had a good ear to pick out the best of a set of old/"forgotten" mean-tone scales and market them as something new.
1) Far as academic research, yes, that falsity presents a huge problem.
BUT
2) For someone just getting into tuning, is it really that bad? Why discourage someone from learning a great mean-tone tuning/scale just because it was presented as something else?

The issue I still believe...would be to keep Lucy Tuning from being misinterpreted as "more than it really" is in academic circles (we certainly wouldn't want people to, say, give up making new scales b/c they thought Lucy Tuning was the "only good answer").

But at the same time let the rest of the public appreciate it. In my mind giving someone huge ego credit or denying them it for "making" scales makes little difference so long as the musical community gets a fair chance to be exposed to those scales.

-Michael

--- On Thu, 2/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:

> --Tunings consisting of a chain of fifths, where the fifths

> --are between about 695 cents and 700 cents can be called

> --meantones.

> Right, but Lucy Tuning also is composed from a chain of 4ths,

> right?

Yes.

> --Going up a fifth is the same as going down a fourth.

> Exactly or just, closely?

Exactly.

> --It creates beat rates that entrain your brain to alpha

> --rhythms. Maybe, but not because it's Pi-based and why

> --doesn't any slowly-beating chord do this?

> If ... the way it beats it sounds significantly

> better than the way most mean-tone beats,

It doesn't.

> who cares what % of this phenomena can be attributed to PI?

If it's not attributable to Pi we shouldn't think it is.

> ---Pi captures the spherical wave-fronts of sound waves.

> I have a similar view on this issue.

Really?

> ---Standard theories of consonance and dissonance are wrong.

> ---Consonance is based on Pi/LucyTuning/ etc.

>There's not some dead-on ratio formula that links all of those,

>apparently.

Nobody's claiming they understand it completely. But we

understand some things, and what we understand isn't compatible

with what Charles says.

> I think it's a little bit ignorant...to say consonance can

> be summarized in just one theory.

Who says that (other than Charles)?

-Carl

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

I agree that the proof is in the pudding. I also remain curious about his (Lucy's) music.

He's been engaging enough, and civil.

I don't care about academic legitimacy. The merits of his scale are of course separate from the merits of his or anyone else's composition.

As for the scale, it would go a long way to convincing people if he would post side-by-side comparisons of the same music, realized the same way, first with Lucy tuning, then with the most nearly equivalent scale.

Let people decide if they can hear this difference, and which they prefer.

We're all quixotic courtiers questing for quality...que?

On Feb 12, 2009, at 4:59 PM, Michael Sheiman wrote:

>
> -- But things turned South when I started to --insist on one basic > fact: LucyTuning is --nothing special.
> Right...meaning it's very close to meantone if not "the same". I > can agree with that.
>
>
>
> --I purchased ALL of Charles' CDs and archived --many of the videos > he posted, complimenting --him on almost every one, since I did and > do --genuinely like his music.
> --...and his pretty 5-limit music and --meantone-based approach is > certainly closer to --Western music as we know it than the exotic --> linear temperaments and extended JI I've been
> --recommending.
>
> Is it fair to say that perhaps he is making false claims but, for > whatever reason, his "false theories" seem to make something > enjoyable.
>
> Is it fair to say that, just listening-wise, you are happy with > what Lucy Tuning does far as helping make enjoyable music...but, > academically, you simply think it is over-rated?
>
> My personal opinion is those who like Lucy Tuning should just care > how it sounds to them...and those who don't (or academically see it > as over-rated enough to make them annoyed) can say something more > like "it's a decent/good tuning, but it's also very like mean-tone > from a theoretical perspective and should not be confused for being > so drastically new...it's still rooted in a '5-limit' feel".
>
> I just feel...there way too much drama and the underlying fact > seems to be some of us care the world about academic legitimacy > while others just want more good-sounding scales to play with (and I > wish people would just say that straight out rather than trying to > convert others to their side (academic or non-academic) of that > issue. :-)
>
> -Michael
>
>
> --- On Thu, 2/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 > hours) Encouragement for explorers.
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 1:41 PM
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, chrisvaisvil@ ... wrote:
> >
> > I tell you what. You have a great of nerve to threaten moderating
> > me for using a blackberry when you post messages with swearing
> > and obvious venom like the past week or so.
> >
> > You are smart - however you do not have a corner on truth and
> > certainly stand on moral quicksand.
> >
> > Please bury the hatchet. I for one do not wish to hear it. If you
> > hate lucy send him private messages about it. It does not belong
> > here in a public forum that requires civil behavior from all for
> > the benefit of all
>
> Chris, I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming
> from on this. I certainly don't claim to have a corner on
> truth or morality... I'm sure there have been numerous errors
> in my posts lately, and I would very much appreciate it if
> people would review them and point them out. For instance,
> yesterday I speculated that the maximum dyadic error that we
> would ever have reason to endure, in any chord in an equal
> temperament, is 2/3 of a step. I asked for help verifying that
> speculation.
>
> I have no hatred at all for Charles, but I have no intention
> of letting misleading claims propagate if I can help it, either
> on this list or on wikipedia or anywhere else. Charles and I
> go way back, and I'll tell the story now if anyone cares to
> read it:
>
> When I joined this community in '97, Charles contacted me both
> on- and offlist, extolling the virtues of LucyTuning. Since
> then, he's admitted that he does this intentionally with new
> members, to try to get as many people as he can using
> LucyTuning. At that time, I was also contacted offlist by a
> prominent music theorist, who isn't active much these days,
> directly warning me that LucyTuning was a fine meantone, but
> that there was nothing special about it and that Charles'
> theories were a "smokescreen" . I took this as merely another
> piece of evidence, and carefully studied Charles' website,
> and had a pleasant correspondence with him. The idea that
> pi somehow captures the spherical nature of soundwaves in a
> way that traditional theories of consonance can't was certainly
> something to investigate. Over the next several years, I
> purchased ALL of Charles' CDs and archived many of the videos
> he posted, complimenting him on almost every one, since I did
> and do genuinely like his music. I also read and watched all
> the BBC articles and documentaries on John Harrison for which
> Charles was interviewed. But things turned South when I
> started to insist on one basic fact: LucyTuning is nothing
> special. Charles responded to this with direct personal
> attacks. I'm not thrilled about it, but it's hardly going
> to convince me of LucyTuning's merits.
>
> So when Charles says I have a closed mind and that I represent
> the status quo of the music establishment. .. actually both
> these things seem to better describe him. He's apparently
> not willing to consider the hypothesis that LucyTuning is
> nothing special (whatya say, Charles, are you ready to
> consider it?), and his pretty 5-limit music and meantone-based
> approach is certainly closer to Western music as we know it
> than the exotic linear temperaments and extended JI I've been
> recommending.
>
> Actually, come to think of it- I've got a baby due in April,
> and I think I'll pull out those lullabies and give them a try.
> I remember them being very relaxing.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

--How do you know his theories are responsible? Maybe he's
--just a good musician.
Indeed that could happen IE the compositional skill made that difference much more than the theory did.
But, to say the least, it shows his theories aren't, for example, so bad that they destroy the ability to make good music in his tunings and/or keep other people from composing with them.

--I think it's socially unacceptable to make extraordinary
--claims when from the get-go,
It look shabby, agreed...but I certainly wouldn't put it on the same rank as saying everything else is crap and nothing else can be good, if you get my drift.
-- when from the get-go, you've already decided they're
--true and won't accept evidence to the contrary.

   Agreed to an extent. It's shady territory in my book b/c music is so subjective. For example, my small blind study where 7 of 8 people preferred my 7 note (split harmonic series) scale over harmonics 7-14 of the harmonic series.
I wouldn't say it's "guaranteed better", but I would say there's a decent chance some people will agree it is. But, at the same time, I realize how easy it would be for someone (not intending to boast) would make the mistake of "guaranteeing it is better"...or jumping the gun based on a few small trials (likely with participants who are more open to new sounding scales than "normal" people).
    I don't consider that that much of a problem.   It's when it gets to the point of people saying "my theory is right therefore yours must be completely wrong" where it really becomes social chaos, at least in my book.
For example, to my ears JI, Lucy Tuning, 12TET, and MOS all sound good and I could easily see why people would gravitate toward any one of those three over any of the other.
   I think it's fair to say there's no one "golden bullet" scale in tuning and each one is good at different things both mathematically and mood-wise.

If I'm lucky enough, people will just use at least one of my scales as often as MOS or JI...or maybe even 12TET if someone richer and smarter than myself decides to promote it well as their own. :-D Again, I don't care about credit, so long as said promoter doesn't reverse creative control and turn it into something completely different (IE a hybrid between itself and 12TET; yuck).

-Michael

🔗Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

Michael Sheiman wrote:

> In that case...you'd think there would be a million scales around 100% > equivalent to Lucy Tuning. Can you show me an example of one and then the Lucy > Tuning equivalent?

There's an infinite number of meantones, practically limited by your pitch discrimination. They shouldn't be hard to find. But, still, here's a side by side comparison of LucyTuning and quarter comma meantone in cents:

68.5 76.0
122.5 117.1
191.0 193.2
245.1 234.2
313.5 310.3
382.0 386.3
436.1 427.4
504.5 503.4
573.0 579.5
627.0 620.5
695.5 696.6
749.6 737.6
818.0 813.7
886.5 889.7
940.6 930.8
1009.0 1006.8
1077.5 1082.9
1200.0 1200.0

> *******************************************
> Again, regardless of how right you may be, I think the crux of the issue > seems to be this:
> > Say Charles was/is just a "**********" who had a good ear to pick out the > best of a set of old/"forgotten" mean-tone scales and market them as something new.
> 1) Far as academic research, yes, that falsity presents a huge problem.
> BUT
> 2) For someone just getting into tuning, is it really that bad? Why discourage > someone from learning a great mean-tone tuning/scale just because it was > presented as something else? Why indeed?

(I've redacted one of the few insults that's actually been used in this thread, even if it was in jest or irony.)

> The issue I still believe...would be to keep Lucy Tuning from being > misinterpreted as "more than it really" is in academic circles (we certainly > wouldn't want people to, say, give up making new scales b/c they thought Lucy > Tuning was the "only good answer").

The issue is: somebody makes exaggerated claims, somebody else says they're exaggerated. That's it.

> But at the same time let the rest of the public appreciate it. In my mind > giving someone huge ego credit or denying them it for "making" scales makes > little difference so long as the musical community gets a fair chance to be > exposed to those scales.

Right, so who do you think is censoring the scales?

Graham

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

Michael Sheiman wrote:
> --Caleb writes: You are separate cases. Why are you linking them? --Burning > bridges? Huh? If Mr. Lucy wants advice, let him speak for --himself.
> I just see this around a lot around here, unfortunately. If someone comes up > with a scale and claims any degree of originality (regardless of if they are > making any money/publicity on it), they are likely to get bombarded here. I'm > referring to making this a less hostile environment for those creating scales: > it's not like those of us who post scales are charging a fine for it. :-D

Frankly, I've been on the list (in whatever form) for over 10 years now and I've seen a lot more whining about hostility than actual hostility. Pointing out that your scale is not original is not a personal attack. Pointing out that your scale is not ET or JI is not a personal attack. Get over it.

> >Caleb writes: I see no evidence that Charles Lucy is looking for > >advice.You're busy complaining. Just change the subject back to what >YOU > want to talk about.
> I want to talk about the possibility of establishing some sort of protocol > here to prevent all this flaming. Among all the "is Charles Lucy's statements > of his tuning academically correct" arguments, I need a clearer way find out > which statements/examples actually tell me something about Lucy Tuning and how > it sounds and works. This isn't flaming. This is a discussion. On a discussion list. There's no protocol because that would need heavy handed moderation to enforce, and anyway, we don't like rules. This is still largely an "anything goes" list. Which means anybody can post any rubbish they want, and anybody else can say that it's rubbish.

> I am in the "musicians trying to make music" group and not interested in > correctness of academic facts about Lucy Tuning and/or things like writing > research papers. Then why do you keep writing about it?

> So...can we all at least agree to separate academic research related vs. non > academic form posts? I honestly don't care how academically correct something > is so long as it sounds good to me...but I can understand the plight of those > who do.

No.

Graham

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> > Chris, I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming
> > from on this. I certainly don't claim to have a corner on
> > truth or morality... I'm sure there have been numerous errors
> > in my posts lately, and I would very much appreciate it if
> > people would review them and point them out. For instance,
> > yesterday I speculated that the maximum dyadic error that we
> > would ever have reason to endure, in any chord in an equal
> > temperament, is 2/3 of a step. I asked for help verifying
> > that speculation.
>
> The rule they taught us in physics is that adding two errors
> gives a total error equal to the error of each times the
> square root of two. So with errors of a half step in each
> pitch you'd expect the worst error in an interval to be
> sqrt(2)/2 = 0.707... steps. Which is close to your 2/3.

Sounds like errors that are supposed to add in quadrature?
Here we're just summing, and we're constrained by steps. I
did it empirically, so maybe it would help to show that...

.25 + .25 + .50 = 1.00, max .50 *
.75 + .25 + .50 = 1.50, max .75

.30 + .30 + .60 = 1.20, max .60 *
.70 + .30 + .40 = 1.40, max .70

.31 + .31 + .62 = 1.24, max .62 *
.69 + .31 + .38 = 1.38, max .69

.32 + .32 + .64 = 1.28, max .64 *
.68 + .32 + .36 = 1.36, max .68

.33 + .33 + .66 = 1.32, max .66 *
.67 + .33 + .34 = 1.34, max .67

.34 + .34 + .68 = 1.36, max .68
.66 + .34 + .32 = 1.32, max .66 *

.35 + .35 + .70 = 1.40, max .70
.65 + .35 + .30 = 1.30, max .65 *

.36 + .36 + .72 = 1.44, max .72
.64 + .36 + .28 = 1.28, max .64 *

.40 + .40 + .80 = 1.60, max .80
.60 + .40 + .20 = 1.20, max .60 *

.49 + .49 + .98 = 1.96, max .98
.51 + .49 + .02 = 1.02, max .51 *

Each line shows the sum of errors for a triad, 3rd 3rd 5th.
Each pair shows the effect of going to the next-best
approximation for one of the 3rds. The idea behind "ever
have reason to endure" is that we'll use the approximation
with the lower total error.

As George Secor first pointed out (I think), total error
for a triad is twice its max error. But what really
matters here is the constraint of having to change one
dyad or the other by a step. I reasoned I could consider
only those cases where the two 3rds start with equal
errors, since if one was smaller it would never be picked
as the 3rd to flip to the next-best approximation (in
which case it wouldn't influence the result), and since
there's no reason to start with an error > half a step
and the flip is always 1-originalerror, the bigger flipped
3rd would still be bigger than the smaller original 3rd
(and the smaller 3rd still wouldn't influence the result).
Then again I did this in 7 minutes, while waiting for a
bus to take me to a meeting I was late for.

-Carl

🔗Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

You are right, Graham.
-it wasn't an opinion
-we should be having a discussion not limited to specific claims
-we aren't only talking about synthesizers and computers, but they are different from traditional instruments.

I meant that when I don't (yet) understand something myself, I look to the relevant expert.

That should have been: So, if Carl Lumma says that meantone can also map an infinite number of
> > intervals, I respect his expertise.

It's not that I don't understand cycles of tempered 3/2's, it's that I still don't know the terminology. I was unclear on "meantone."

Also, "evaluating specific claims" wasn't intended to be exclusive, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I agree with your list of what we should be doing. I

And, tuning with computers and synthesizers has different practical problems than tuning for singers and acoustic instruments.

With computers and synthesizers, you can change tunings instantly and have perfect accuracy, if it's built into the system.

If you can change the tuning-base of an extended JI scale instantly without glitching, and if you can have an infinite or large number of instruments tuned to different tuning bases, many of the problems that bother people about extended JI go away.

Now, it's obvious that I have a lot to learn, in at least 6 areas, possibly more:

-terminology
-generation and mathematical theory
-ear-training
-scales other than ETs or extended JI

-time management
-pith

On Feb 12, 2009, at 8:26 PM, Graham Breed wrote:

> caleb morgan wrote:
>
> > So, if Carl Lumma says that meantone can also map an infinite > number of
> > intervals, I respect his opinion.
>
> That's not an opinion, it's a fact. And it's an easily
> verifiable one.
>
> > That's what we should be doing here. Evaluating specific claims.
>
> What we should be doing is discussing issues related to
> tunings, which may be evaluating claims about them, may be
> talking about how they sound, may be talking about music
> written using alternative tunings, maybe higher level
> theory, as the mood takes us.
>
> > For my own part, I /know/ I like extended JI, and I can rely on my > own ear for
> > that. Further, since these are all computer/synthesizer tunings we > are
> > discussing, all the problems of extended JI can be solved by > changing the
> > tuning-base of the extended JI scale. It's a little hard to > "think", but it works.
>
> No, we're not only discussing computer/synthesizer tunings.
> Charles has guitars in LucyTuning. I have a guitar with a
> similar pattern for a different meantone. (I received
> advice from Charles when I converted it, and no complaints
> about patent violation ;-)
>
> Graham
>
>
>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

Ok before I say something foolish could you explain what the numbers mean? Especially that .75 in the first column second row?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@lumma.org>

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:38:52
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Adding errors

Sounds like errors that are supposed to add in quadrature?
Here we're just summing, and we're constrained by steps. I
did it empirically, so maybe it would help to show that...

..25 + .25 + .50 = 1.00, max .50 *
.75 + .25 + .50 = 1.50, max .75

..30 + .30 + .60 = 1.20, max .60 *
.70 + .30 + .40 = 1.40, max .70

..31 + .31 + .62 = 1.24, max .62 *
.69 + .31 + .38 = 1.38, max .69

..32 + .32 + .64 = 1.28, max .64 *
.68 + .32 + .36 = 1.36, max .68

..33 + .33 + .66 = 1.32, max .66 *
.67 + .33 + .34 = 1.34, max .67

..34 + .34 + .68 = 1.36, max .68
.66 + .34 + .32 = 1.32, max .66 *

..35 + .35 + .70 = 1.40, max .70
.65 + .35 + .30 = 1.30, max .65 *

..36 + .36 + .72 = 1.44, max .72
.64 + .36 + .28 = 1.28, max .64 *

..40 + .40 + .80 = 1.60, max .80
.60 + .40 + .20 = 1.20, max .60 *

..49 + .49 + .98 = 1.96, max .98
.51 + .49 + .02 = 1.02, max .51 *

-Carl

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> Ok before I say something foolish could you explain what the
> numbers mean? Especially that .75 in the first column second
> row?

Each number is absolute value of the error of a dyad, in units
of steps. The first row says that a triad with a major 3rd
having - 25% step error and a minor 3rd having + 25% step
error will have a perfect 5th with a 50% step error.

Now I want to know if I can improve the total error of the
triad by choosing a different approximation for one of
the 3rds. If I do this for the major 3rd on the first row,
its error will go from - 25% of a step to + 75% of a step.
I just went up (or down, depending on how you interpret the
signs) to the next interval in the ET. With me?

Ok, so in the second row, + 75% step and -25% step also
add to a 50% step error, so all I did was make the triad
worse. I note this by putting an asterisk after the
triad with the lower total error. You can see that by
the time the initial error of the 3rds is 34% step, that
switching to the next-best approximation for one of the
3rds does improve the total error of the triad. So we
don't have to endure that 136% total error -- we'll take
the 132% total error instead. So the max error of a
dyad in a triad seems to be 67% step.

I just took a chance and said this result doesn't change
for tetrads, pentads, etc. Just a guess.

-Carl

> .25 + .25 + .50 = 1.00, max .50 *
> .75 + .25 + .50 = 1.50, max .75
>
> .30 + .30 + .60 = 1.20, max .60 *
> .70 + .30 + .40 = 1.40, max .70
>
> .31 + .31 + .62 = 1.24, max .62 *
> .69 + .31 + .38 = 1.38, max .69
>
> .32 + .32 + .64 = 1.28, max .64 *
> .68 + .32 + .36 = 1.36, max .68
>
> .33 + .33 + .66 = 1.32, max .66 *
> .67 + .33 + .34 = 1.34, max .67
>
> .34 + .34 + .68 = 1.36, max .68
> .66 + .34 + .32 = 1.32, max .66 *
>
> .35 + .35 + .70 = 1.40, max .70
> .65 + .35 + .30 = 1.30, max .65 *
>
> .36 + .36 + .72 = 1.44, max .72
> .64 + .36 + .28 = 1.28, max .64 *
>
> .40 + .40 + .80 = 1.60, max .80
> .60 + .40 + .20 = 1.20, max .60 *
>
> .49 + .49 + .98 = 1.96, max .98
> .51 + .49 + .02 = 1.02, max .51 *
>
> Each line shows the sum of errors for a triad, 3rd 3rd 5th.
> Each pair shows the effect of going to the next-best
> approximation for one of the 3rds. The idea behind "ever
> have reason to endure" is that we'll use the approximation
> with the lower total error.
>
> As George Secor first pointed out (I think), total error
> for a triad is twice its max error. But what really
> matters here is the constraint of having to change one
> dyad or the other by a step. I reasoned I could consider
> only those cases where the two 3rds start with equal
> errors, since if one was smaller it would never be picked
> as the 3rd to flip to the next-best approximation (in
> which case it wouldn't influence the result), and since
> there's no reason to start with an error > half a step
> and the flip is always 1-originalerror, the bigger flipped
> 3rd would still be bigger than the smaller original 3rd
> (and the smaller 3rd still wouldn't influence the result).
> Then again I did this in 7 minutes, while waiting for a
> bus to take me to a meeting I was late for.
>
> -Carl
>

Recent quotes from Carl. (within the past 24 hours) Encouragement for explorers.

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...>

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>