Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Over-explanation in mathematical terms: why the fuss?

I just had to bring this up. We just took a bit of a hit with the
"is Lucy-Tuning really original and good?!" issue and I would like to
at least take a shot at trying to cool this all off.

This is paraphrased from another thread message:
"I am simply asking for him to demonstrate how his PHI scale does all
the wonderful things he says it does."
And, this is coming from the same person who asked me for a copy of
it and said he'd love to have the .scl file for it so he could try it.
********************

Now in my case interactions have been fairly positive in a number
of cases (including the above). But in other cases (IE Charles Lucy's
and my case trying to say 24TET can be used as an every-man's
extension to 12TET)...it hasn't been very positive at all for the most
part and borderline on very harsh stereotyping and saying what
is/isn't wrong with my personality rather than focusing on the scales.
In the latter case especially, it feels like I have to be either
labeled "the pompous renegade who thinks he has all the answers" or
"the guy following our rules politely but therefore doing nothing
truly original".

I think Charles and I, for example, are in danger of being thrown
into the "pompous renegade" bin not because we think our work is
perfect, but because we can't explain our non-standard tunings in
standard terms. So (for example) some of his chords (or mine) may not
convert to 12TET equivalents? That wasn't the point we (or at least
I) intended anyhow...
******************************

Here it goes. Some of us know Doctorate-level math. I for one
certainly don't.
Most of my scales are generated from fractions and algebraic
patterns and occasionally a tad of calculus...not scale matrices,
tonality diamonds, or anything like that. Nothing more than
high-school math for the most part.
---------------------------
And yet, sometimes people 100% demand I (and virtually anyone who
presents their own non-pure-JI scale on here) use scale math to
explain how my scale works BEFORE they admit it sounds decent (if not
good). Often I will even send sound samples of a scale and people
will react "sounds good to my ears, but if you can't explain how it
works, you are a liar for saying it does".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It all seems to go back to a philosophy of "something new MUST be
tied to something old (and somewhat famous) in order to be GOOD".
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Don't get me wrong, I find it very useful when someone with a
better hand at math and/or scale history than myself can explain to me
why something I've made works and find errors.

Heck, the ideas for establishing a tonal center in my tunings,
enabling transposition, using a circle of notes/intervals to form a
scale, creating periodicity buzz instead of beating...ALL came from
people on this list. No I don't think I know everything...in fact;
there's no way I could make the scales I have and do make without your
help. And I'm still listening and learning. I don't think Charles is
that much (or perhaps any) different in why he's here; and certainly
such a small avant-garde group is not a place to spend time market the
heck out of a scale.

But it becomes a real bear is when people try to actually change the
theories or workings of my scales in order to make it fit some ancient
model they had in mind.
-----------------------------
Back to the actual scales:
Lucy-Tuning, to me, is "just" a chromatic tuning with purer
intervals that (unlike diatonic JI), allows transposition and
modulation. No, it's not perfect (nothing really is), but yes, it's a
definite improvement. I'd give 12TET an 82%, and Lucy Tuning more
like an 87%; it's a B+ tuning in my book and seems to create many
12TET chords well making it a good "transition to micro-tonal" type of
tuning that can still fool many people into thinking it is 12TET yet
sound notice-ably clearer in the case of certain chords (no more
deadly 13+ cent out of tune intervals like in 12TET).

*****************************
As for my scale (and even listening to the examples I'm convinced
you can tell)...you can fit about 8-9 notes per 2/1 octave and still
have a melodic and harmonic feel about as stable (if not more so) than
in 12TET.

Yes, it does use PHI as the "octave" instead of 2/1...yes, most
(though not all) combinations of notes will produce clear chords, yes,
it's transpose-able and allows modulations. No, it doesn't contain
100% perfect intervals, no, there's not an easy way to map 12TET songs
into it and still have them sound "normal"...it's a completely
different beast. And, no, I can't explain everything it does
mathematically...I can try but, largely, the scale is a result of my
cherry-picking (by ear) the best parts of the PHI tuning I could find.
***************************************

And if someone can explain it in a mathematical matrix/symmetry
model or break down the beating patterns into a whole-number-ratio
explanation without changing how the scale works to make it fit...great.

But, to make it clear again...I'm hoping people realize that making
scales and tunings which sound good and are accessible to and flexible
for musicians...is ultimately much more important than being forced to
explain it in Doctorate-level scale math. Rather, Doctorate-level
explanations would be a sweet cherry on the top...but certainly don't
have to be the foundation for a good sounding scale.
***********************

So if a scale sounds good...it need not be crushed just because it
does not meet or can not be explained in someone's favorite
mathematical terms.

-Michael

Carl,

I will listen to your music - I'm interested

I certainly do not want to go into a detailed blow by blow which I'm sure
you would take issue with anyway.
it would be a total waste of time for everyone.

suffice to say I respect your knowledge and only wish for less confrontation

and more good discussion. We don't need to get personal on this list over
these discussions.

And that goes for Charles too - whatever the history is between you two..

and if some think that is unrealistic - well that's my opinion and I'm
sticking to it.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > My posts - at yahoo - are not posting?
>
> This one did, but two of mine are still in limbo. We'll
> see if this goes through.
>
> Yahoo groups has a really bad-acting spam filter. It requires
> the moderator to go in and approve messages. David? Gene? Mark?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

Over-explanation in mathematical terms: why the fuss?

🔗djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>