Housekeeping

Dear fellow tuning enthusiasts,

After a 5 year voluntary leave of absence, I'm moderating
here again. Right now, our moderators only perform minor
housekeeping tasks such as blocking spam, though I would like
to hear discussion on the idea of instituting active
moderation in the future, to help keep the list on-topic and
free of flames and trolls. (For the record, by no means do
I consider myself without sin in these areas.)

For now, I'd like call your attention to some cleanup work
I've just completed.

First, I've unsubscribed about 200 "members" whose e-mail
addresses had been hard bouncing list messages for more than
one year. In all likelihood every one of these members is
long gone, or was a spammer/bot to begin with. If however
you find your membership has suddenly disappeared, please
accept my apologies and simply resubscribe, and please check
your Yahoo Groups e-mail status once in awhile to see if your
address is bouncing messages.

Second, I deleted all the spam from the Files, Photos, and
Links sections of our list. If you haven't tried these
features yet, you may find it worthwhile to do so now.
Simply visit the group homepage
/tuning
and browse the menu on the left. There's a lot of interesting
information therein.

Finally, I reorganized the Files section, moving almost all
files into folders named after their contributors, in the
following manner: FirstnameLastname (with no space, so that
the URL to your folder is easier to handle). Many users
already had a folder like this. Following this convention
will help keep the Files section easy to navigate, while
making spam there much easier to spot.

Thanks for your consideration,

-Carl Lumma
Los Gatos, CA
United States

By the way, it once was the case that the Files section was
full, unable to accommodate new uploads. That's no longer
true. We're only at 42% of capacity, so feel free to upload
new content.

The maximum capacity is limited to 100MB, so please use
discretion, but also feel free to use this resource.

-Carl

I wrote:

> Finally, I reorganized the Files section, moving almost all
> files into folders named after their contributors, in the
> following manner: FirstnameLastname (with no space, so that
> the URL to your folder is easier to handle). Many users
> already had a folder like this. Following this convention
> will help keep the Files section easy to navigate, while
> making spam there much easier to spot.
>
> Thanks for your consideration,

Well done Carl.

Would you like a trip to London to tidy up my samples collection?
We also have some very dusty floors and a backyard to keep you busy;-)

;-)

On 13 Apr 2009, at 08:33, Carl Lumma wrote:

>
> Finally, I reorganized the Files section, moving almost all.
>
>
> 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

Well done Carl!
   Seriously, this is work that needed to be done a good while ago...I was wondering why we had so many members and yet only the same 10 or so actually posting most of the time.  I've seen the spam bot problem runs rampant in most yahoo groups, thank you for not letting it become part of this one.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Housekeeping
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 12:33 AM

Dear fellow tuning enthusiasts,

After a 5 year voluntary leave of absence, I'm moderating

here again. Right now, our moderators only perform minor

housekeeping tasks such as blocking spam, though I would like

to hear discussion on the idea of instituting active

moderation in the future, to help keep the list on-topic and

free of flames and trolls. (For the record, by no means do

I consider myself without sin in these areas.)

For now, I'd like call your attention to some cleanup work

I've just completed.

First, I've unsubscribed about 200 "members" whose e-mail

addresses had been hard bouncing list messages for more than

one year. In all likelihood every one of these members is

long gone, or was a spammer/bot to begin with. If however

you find your membership has suddenly disappeared, please

accept my apologies and simply resubscribe, and please check

your Yahoo Groups e-mail status once in awhile to see if your

address is bouncing messages.

Second, I deleted all the spam from the Files, Photos, and

Links sections of our list. If you haven't tried these

features yet, you may find it worthwhile to do so now.

Simply visit the group homepage

http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/tuning

and browse the menu on the left. There's a lot of interesting

information therein.

Finally, I reorganized the Files section, moving almost all

files into folders named after their contributors, in the

following manner: FirstnameLastname (with no space, so that

the URL to your folder is easier to handle). Many users

already had a folder like this. Following this convention

will help keep the Files section easy to navigate, while

making spam there much easier to spot.

Thanks for your consideration,

-Carl Lumma

Los Gatos, CA

United States

I know Chris Vaisvil has opened up ftp access to members who agree not to engage in spam/porn/copywrited-work-distribution (pretty minimal requirements).  Glad to hear our file space is "ok" so far, however, if we ever do begin to run out of space, that's one way out of the problem.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 12:42 AM

By the way, it once was the case that the Files section was

full, unable to accommodate new uploads. That's no longer

true. We're only at 42% of capacity, so feel free to upload

new content.

The maximum capacity is limited to 100MB, so please use

discretion, but also feel free to use this resource.

-Carl

I wrote:

> Finally, I reorganized the Files section, moving almost all

> files into folders named after their contributors, in the

> following manner: FirstnameLastname (with no space, so that

> the URL to your folder is easier to handle). Many users

> already had a folder like this. Following this convention

> will help keep the Files section easy to navigate, while

> making spam there much easier to spot.

>

> Thanks for your consideration,

With all due respect I am not offering ftp access. http://microforum.soonlabel.com is a PHP discussion board with generous file upload limits for registered users.

I suggest special interest topics and large uploads to the list take advantage of this resource. .
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@yahoo.com>

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 06:05:54
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping

I know Chris Vaisvil has opened up ftp access to members who agree not to engage in spam/porn/copywrited-work-distribution (pretty minimal requirements).  Glad to hear our file space is "ok" so far, however, if we ever do begin to run out of space, that's one way out of the problem.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 12:42 AM

By the way, it once was the case that the Files section was

full, unable to accommodate new uploads. That's no longer

true. We're only at 42% of capacity, so feel free to upload

new content.

The maximum capacity is limited to 100MB, so please use

discretion, but also feel free to use this resource.

-Carl

I wrote:

> Finally, I reorganized the Files section, moving almost all

> files into folders named after their contributors, in the

> following manner: FirstnameLastname (with no space, so that

> the URL to your folder is easier to handle). Many users

> already had a folder like this. Following this convention

> will help keep the Files section easy to navigate, while

> making spam there much easier to spot.

>

> Thanks for your consideration,

Charles - fly my family round trip to London and provide lodging for two weeks and the 3 of us will take care of it for you and do your laundry besides. :-)
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

     Ah, sorry, my mistake, the whole "free space" thing made me think you were offering FTP, now I realize you are offering file uploads via a PHPbb-type discussion board setup.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, chrisvaisvil@... <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: chrisvaisvil@gmail.com <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 6:25 AM

With all due respect I am not offering ftp access. http://microforum. soonlabel. com is a PHP discussion board with generous file upload limits for registered users.

I suggest special interest topics and large uploads to the list take advantage of this resource. . Sent via BlackBerry from T-MobileFrom: Michael Sheiman
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 06:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: <tuning@yahoogroups. com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping
I know Chris Vaisvil has opened up ftp access to members who agree not to engage in spam/porn/copywrite d-work-distribut ion (pretty minimal requirements) .  Glad to hear our file space is "ok" so far, however, if we ever do begin to run out of space, that's one way out of the problem.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping
To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 12:42 AM

By the way, it once was the case that the Files section was
full, unable to accommodate new uploads. That's no longer
true. We're only at 42% of capacity, so feel free to upload
new content.

The maximum capacity is limited to 100MB, so please use
discretion, but also feel free to use this resource.

-Carl

I wrote:

> Finally, I reorganized the Files section, moving almost all
> files into folders named after their contributors, in the
> following manner: FirstnameLastname (with no space, so that
> the URL to your folder is easier to handle). Many users
> already had a folder like this. Following this convention
> will help keep the Files section easy to navigate, while
> making spam there much easier to spot.
>
> Thanks for your consideration,

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> After a 5 year voluntary leave of absence, I'm moderating
> here again. Right now, our moderators only perform minor
> housekeeping tasks such as blocking spam, though I would like
> to hear discussion on the idea of instituting active
> moderation in the future, to help keep the list on-topic and
> free of flames and trolls. (For the record, by no means do
> I consider myself without sin in these areas.)

I vote strongly against the idea of the type of active moderation you
describe. People have a right to be wrong about things and be stubborn
in accepting the truth. They also have a right to dismiss years of
experimentally contested theory and all of these things. That's part
of the point of there being a public forum like this. If the
moderation flowchart around here turns into a troll-labeling fest
followed by a bunch of bans, I'll probably dip right on out of here.
Furthermore, if flaming becomes grounds for a ban around here, then
the only people left would be those who never post.

On the other hand, if someone happens to post 6 emails back to back
that contain nothing useful except expressions of their excitement
about their theory, and all of this despite repeated expressions to
the contrary, that might be grounds for moderation, as it amounts to
no more than spam. There is a fine line between banning someone
ultimately because you find them annoying and banning someone because
they are actually spamming or trolling.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> On the other hand, if someone happens to post 6 emails back to back
> that contain nothing useful except expressions of their excitement
> about their theory, and all of this despite repeated expressions to
> the contrary, that might be grounds for moderation, as it amounts
> to no more than spam. There is a fine line between banning someone
> ultimately because you find them annoying and banning someone
> because they are actually spamming or trolling.
>
> -Mike
>

I had nothing specific in mind by the way -- but would welcome
discussion. For one thing, we have no governance model, so it's
not even clear how we would decide to institute moderation, even
if we could decide what should be moderated. I'm just putting
it out there. I'm sure there are copious materials online
discussing moderation best-practices.

In any case, I would never use moderation to silence reasonable
dissent, or for any reason in a thread I was heavily participating
in (such as the Suggestions thread).

-Carl

--On the other hand, if someone happens to post 6 emails back to back

--that contain nothing useful except expressions of their excitement
---about their theory, and all of this despite repeated expressions to
---the contrary, that might be grounds for moderation, as it amounts to
---no more than spam.
From wikipedia,
   "Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems..CUT...to send unsolicited
bulk messages indiscriminately."
   I'm I'm responding to Carl's questions about my theories, for example, that's not spam because I am not sending the replies indiscriminately nor am I sending them randomly to many people.

   If I, for example, started just sending chains of messages about my theories nor responding to any person or reply (IE acting like a web-bot doing advertising and never responding to individual people)...that WOULD be spamming. 

   Same goes if this were a board limited to only specific kinds of tuning (IE one catering  only types of JI, mean-tone, and ET with that condition in the list joining agreement), which this is not...in that case I'd be like a porn-bot posting porn links in the tuning site IE posting something so off-topic it might as well have been put there by a web bot that spams every single yahoo music group it manages to be able to join.

  Like them or not, my posts are written as direct responses to direct people and questions: there's nothing indiscriminate or random about where they are being sent of why.
******************************************************************
--There is a fine line between banning someone ultimately because you --find them annoying and banning someone because they are actually --spamming or trolling.
   Precisely.  And, like I said in the last e-mail, Carl and others, if you don't like my scales or post, don't respond to them: that is just common sense.
   Give me a 400 word question you will likely get a 400 word answers...give me nothing and you will get nothing in reply.

   And if anyone here intends to make this the sort of forum where only the "top 10" senior tuning heads on this list can start new post topics and decide for everyone else what's useful vs. what is not...time to move on to another group that's more open-minded. 
    For all the incessant harrasment people like Charles Lucy and I have got for not thinking of JI as the Holy Grail (btw I don't think my scales are either, but I do think they are simply suitable alternatives to JI), I am starting to wonder something.  And that is if the end result of all this is that anyone either not interested in JI or not as proficient at it as someone like Carl will get randomly kicked out of the group as a "useless non-contributor".  Talk about elitist and dictatorial.

-Michael

> I had nothing specific in mind by the way -- but would welcome
> discussion. For one thing, we have no governance model, so it's
> not even clear how we would decide to institute moderation, even
> if we could decide what should be moderated. I'm just putting
> it out there. I'm sure there are copious materials online
> discussing moderation best-practices.
>
> In any case, I would never use moderation to silence reasonable
> dissent, or for any reason in a thread I was heavily participating
> in (such as the Suggestions thread).

And when you think the dissent is unreasonable?

There are plenty of gray areas in which it would be ultimately up to
you to decide where to moderate.

As an example:
Everyone seems to be yelling at Michael Sheiman for posting 1000-word
long posts in this last thread. Objectively speaking, anyone can see
that he isn't the only person to break the 1000-word count for the
thread. If popular opinion (which is misinformed) influenced him being
banned for "spamming" by posting replies that are too long, it would
constitute an inherently dysfunctional system.

I say leave the moderation solely in the realm of the bots posting
messages about penis enlargement and the Marcel-style spamming.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>    I'm I'm responding to Carl's questions about my theories,
> for example, that's not spam because I am not sending the
> replies indiscriminately nor am I sending them randomly to many
> people.

Nobody's accusing you of spamming, relax. :)

There are generally two levels of moderation with newsgroups
and mailing lists. One, just to remove spam. That's what we
have now. Two, especially common on large lists or lists
covering technical topics, moderators additionally screen
posts to ensure that:
* Posts are on-topic.
* Threads resolve in a reasonable amount of time -- two people
aren't going back and forth and drowning out other list
traffic (like what we've been doing).
* Posts meet a minimum level of quality, so that they are
worth the time of list members to read.

This list has been especially contentious over its long
history, and that's been both a good thing and a bad thing.
One effect is that we've never quite been able to decide
exactly what's on-topic and what isn't. With established
fields like physics, it's usually very clear what counts as
physics and what does not. Intonation theory is a brand
new field. Numerology has been a problem here in the past,
but exactly what counts as numerology?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> If popular opinion (which is misinformed) influenced him being
> banned

Michael's posts are much longer than mine in this thread, first
because he wasn't trimming his replies, and second because he
was writing more than me on each point. But that's no reason to
moderate him. If somebody was warned about trimming replies
several times and openly refused to do so, THAT could be grounds
to moderate in my opinion. But Michael seems to have indicated
his willingness to start trimming replies.

> I say leave the moderation solely in the realm of the bots posting
> messages about penis enlargement and the Marcel-style spamming.

OK, so this is interesting. You think Marcel was spamming
and Michael was not?

Neither was technically spamming (spam involves advertisement or
software-automated posting), but I find their posting habits to
be about equally objectionable.

-Carl

--...."leave the moderation solely in the realm of the bots posting
--messages about penis enlargement and the Marcel-style spamming."

-Mike B.

Even with things like the Marcel situation....
    I think, if anything, a good rule of thumb would be no more than 3 posts in a row on one topic without a reply. 

   In other words, if anyone responds to someone like Marcel for any reason, that makes it fair for him to reply and not be harassed about "why did you write at all?"...but not if he, say, keeps pushing tons of messages on the list on one topic, virtually all of which get no replies.

   Again, for something to truly be spam it has to be indiscriminate and utterly resemble the behavior of web-bots.  In my opinion, the real cluster ---- starts when someone sends endless posts to which there are no replies, not quoting about or communicating with anyone in particular.
 
    Even in my so called evil repeated 1000 word posts I have actually been replying to someone or someone's idea on here directly, and not just putting them out in chains "to no-one in
particular".
********************************
  And, in such cases...I certainly don't think there should be a ban policy. 
     I believe it would be much more reasonable to simply make a pact to ignore a person who engages in said above actions (IE "not feeding the troll") and only banning in extreme cases such as, say, making extremely irrelevant posts about things like penile enlargement or endless defamation IE "x person on the list is a worthless idiot", "x person must be smoking pot"...and other comments that serve as slander and nothing else.  Don't get me wrong, saying you something someone said is a dumb idea is fine in my book...but insulting the person, making random and harsh assumptions about their intentions...is really pushing the envelope on flaming and has no business on any form IMVHO.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
wrote:

From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 10:30 AM

> I had nothing specific in mind by the way -- but would welcome

> discussion. For one thing, we have no governance model, so it's

> not even clear how we would decide to institute moderation, even

> if we could decide what should be moderated. I'm just putting

> it out there. I'm sure there are copious materials online

> discussing moderation best-practices.

>

> In any case, I would never use moderation to silence reasonable

> dissent, or for any reason in a thread I was heavily participating

> in (such as the Suggestions thread).

And when you think the dissent is unreasonable?

There are plenty of gray areas in which it would be ultimately up to

you to decide where to moderate.

As an example:

Everyone seems to be yelling at Michael Sheiman for posting 1000-word

long posts in this last thread. Objectively speaking, anyone can see

that he isn't the only person to break the 1000-word count for the

thread. If popular opinion (which is misinformed) influenced him being

banned for "spamming" by posting replies that are too long, it would

constitute an inherently dysfunctional system.

I say leave the moderation solely in the realm of the bots posting

messages about penis enlargement and the Marcel-style spamming.

-Mike

--"and second because he
--was writing more than me on each point."
    I don't agree this was a false move on my part.  You were asking detailed questions that required long answers to reply to well...or in any way approaching complete.  It's as if I would have asked something like "how does the harmonic series relate to difference tones, Sethares' dissonance curve for the harmonic series timbre, and greatest common factors?"...questions like that essentially beg for detailed answers.
**************************************************
--..."but Michael seems to have indicated
--his willingness to start trimming replies."
   Agreed 100% there...and what I have done right above counts as trimming, agreed?

--"OK, so this is interesting. You think Marcel was
spamming
--and Michael was not?"
   I don't think either of us were spamming by the technical definition (IE his posts were not advertisement and were aimed at specific people/topics)...but I do think there is something to be said about suggesting people not try and carry on a topic that continuously gets a 1/3 or less ratio of replies per message posted by the person starting the thread.  And, if people do insist on "replying to themselves" on dead threads...then it should perhaps be encouraged among other group members not to respond to such posters (IE "don't feed the trolls").

--"...I find their posting habits to be about equally objectionable."
   And with my message trimming (which I plan to do from here on in)?
   If you simply object to my not trimming in the past, that's fair enough...it's simply an etiquette issue and nothing about my censoring my own opinions. 
  However, if you are carrying any sort of "only posters of X quality (IE Herman Miller and yourself) deserve to write long replies when asked tough questions" attitude, then we might have a problem.  This is because I refuse to support any type of moderation where some sort of elite group always gets/"deserves" a "larger soapbox" than anyone else and am not into shooting myself in the foot "for the sake of the group".

-Michael

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 12:34 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@ ...> wrote:

>

> If popular opinion (which is misinformed) influenced him being

> banned

Michael's posts are much longer than mine in this thread, first

because he wasn't trimming his replies, and second because he

was writing more than me on each point. But that's no reason to

moderate him. If somebody was warned about trimming replies

several times and openly refused to do so, THAT could be grounds

to moderate in my opinion. But Michael seems to have indicated

his willingness to start trimming replies.

> I say leave the moderation solely in the realm of the bots posting

> messages about penis enlargement and the Marcel-style spamming.

OK, so this is interesting. You think Marcel was spamming

and Michael was not?

Neither was technically spamming (spam involves advertisement or

software-automated posting), but I find their posting habits to

be about equally objectionable.

-Carl

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

> This list has been especially contentious over its long
> history, and that's been both a good thing and a bad thing.
> One effect is that we've never quite been able to decide
> exactly what's on-topic and what isn't. With established
> fields like physics, it's usually very clear what counts as
> physics and what does not. Intonation theory is a brand
> new field. Numerology has been a problem here in the past,
> but exactly what counts as numerology?

Indeed, you're incorrect to even specify that this list
is about "intonation theory". There has been a lot of
contention on this list over how much discussion should
be about theory, and how much should be about practice.

So much contention, in fact, that several years ago when
this list spawned several offshoots, a few of the new lists
were created specifically to house a forum for one branch
of tuning or the other. For example:

* MakeMicroMusic is a Yahoo group devoted specifically to
practical microtonal musical composition.

* tuning-math is a Yahoo group devoted specifically to
discussion of the numerology and other mathematical
aspects of tuning theory.

* celestial-tuning is a group i created, devoted
specifically to the ancient idea, and its modern
manifestations, that understanding tuning (i.e., "harmony")
gives one a broad picture of how the universe
can be seen to make order out of chaos.

* metatuning is a Yahoo group devoted specifically to
subjects which are considered off-topic here but which
members of this list want to discuss with _each other_.
This list has become a cyber-community, with several
subscribers who have been members for 15 years now.
Some of us have formed relationships, both online and
off, and we want to talk about things, even when it's
not about tuning.

etc.

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <joemonz@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>
> > This list has been especially contentious over its long
> > history, and that's been both a good thing and a bad thing.
> > One effect is that we've never quite been able to decide
> > exactly what's on-topic and what isn't. With established
> > fields like physics, it's usually very clear what counts as
> > physics and what does not. Intonation theory is a brand
> > new field. Numerology has been a problem here in the past,
> > but exactly what counts as numerology?
>
> Indeed, you're incorrect to even specify that this list
> is about "intonation theory".

I didn't say that.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <joemonz@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > > This list has been especially contentious over its long
> > > history, and that's been both a good thing and a bad thing.
> > > One effect is that we've never quite been able to decide
> > > exactly what's on-topic and what isn't. With established
> > > fields like physics, it's usually very clear what counts as
> > > physics and what does not. Intonation theory is a brand
> > > new field. Numerology has been a problem here in the past,
> > > but exactly what counts as numerology?
> >
> > Indeed, you're incorrect to even specify that this list
> > is about "intonation theory".
>
> I didn't say that.

Ok, well, your sentence that "Intonation theory is a brand
new field." implied it to me. So if we're nitpicking, then
i apologize for getting that wrong.

;-P

But anyway, my point was that the large number of offshoot
lists were created exactly because the general consensus
on this list was that we wanted to leave this one diffuse
and ambiguous in its focus, and that one could post here
on any topic, as long as it had something to do with tuning.

The other smaller lists are for more focused discussion.

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <joemonz@...> wrote:
>
> But anyway, my point was that the large number of offshoot
> lists were created exactly because the general consensus
> on this list was that we wanted to leave this one diffuse
> and ambiguous in its focus, and that one could post here
> on any topic, as long as it had something to do with tuning.
>
> The other smaller lists are for more focused discussion.

Absolutely. Sorry if I implied that concert announcements,
concert reviews, music sharing, instrument building howtos,
etc. shouldn't take place here -- far from it!

-Carl

--"There has been a lot of contention on this list over how much discussion should be about theory, and how much should be about practice." -Joe Monz
   My take is...what's the problem with discussion on this group being about all of the above things?  I, for one, am deeply frustrated by that when I make a non-JI tuning (and identify it as such from the get-go), I get people flaming me about why my tuning fails at Just Intonation.  Well...duh.
 
---"MakeMicroMusic is...devoted specifically to
---practical microtonal musical composition."
---"tuning-math is...devoted specifically to
---discussion of the numerology...
    Exactly...the above groups are more suited for specialists. So, instead of whining and harrasing people like myself on this "general tuning" list about either "you're not mathematical enough to deserve to say anything here" or "you don't talk about composition enough". 
    I figure; shouldn't people so gung-ho about either one of these requirements (math or practice) be on the other lists and not this "general" tuning lists when making such "you're grossly off topic" accusations?

-Michael

Carl, would you have moderated or possibly even banned me in the past if you
allready had this role?I get the feeling you would have probably done so
(atleast moderating).
If I remember correctly you were one of the people wrongly accusing me of
trolling.
Perhaps it's time for me to leave this list.

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Carl, would you have moderated or possibly even banned me in the
> past if you allready had this role?

As already stated, no. I will not be 'actively moderating'
unless a consensus emerges here that this is the direction the
list should take. In such a case I wouldn't be acting alone,
either. It would only work if several people were doing such
a job. As I said, best practices for doing active moderation
were hashed out ages ago, on the usenet. It's really a
question of if we want to do it, and if we have qualified
people with the time who will volunteer to do it.

-Carl

http://microforum.soonlabel.com/

join up and post away - when you have something perfected link to the file
on the forum (free hosting)
and give everyone a heads up. This way those that want to follow the nitty
gritty can. You don't need an ID to read, only to post.

I will not bother you - you are free to follow your theory/art

Chris

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
> Carl, would you have moderated or possibly even banned me in the past if
> you allready had this role?
> I get the feeling you would have probably done so (atleast moderating).
> If I remember correctly you were one of the people wrongly accusing me of
> trolling.
> Perhaps it's time for me to leave this list.
>
> Marcel
>
>

>
> As already stated, no. I will not be 'actively moderating'
> unless a consensus emerges here that this is the direction the
> list should take. In such a case I wouldn't be acting alone,
> either. It would only work if several people were doing such
> a job. As I said, best practices for doing active moderation
> were hashed out ages ago, on the usenet. It's really a
> question of if we want to do it, and if we have qualified
> people with the time who will volunteer to do it.
>

Ah ok. Well then I'm against active moderation for this list.
I've seen nothing on this list that requires it in my opinion and enjoy this
list for a part because it has no active moderation.
Furthermore I persnally have trouble with authority and like to talk as
equals to people.
With active moderation this equality is lost and I wouldn't consider it a
good place to discuss tuning things myself.
It would feel as if this list "belongs" to certain people and I'm posting on
others terrain.
Whereas uptill now this list felt to me like "public domain".
Wrong words I know but hope they explain how I see it.
Also if active moderation would have led to michael beeing moderated or
something like that, I couldn't have stand to see it (even though I find his
theory very uninteresting for myself).
It appears to me that myself and michael are the prime reasons there is the
question now for active moderation. I think it's nonsense, and not needed.
For the people like Claudio who seem to get irritated by inefficient posting
I'd say set up you mail reader properly and simply don't read all the
threads.
And if you can't control yourself and have to read all threads, look for the
source of your irritation in yourself.

Btw I am gratefull that you cleaned up the list and took on non active
moderation! Thanks.

Marcel

Marcel:
> > Carl, would you have moderated or possibly even banned me in the
> > past if you allready had this role?

Me:
> As already stated, no. I will not be 'actively moderating'
> unless a consensus emerges here that this is the direction the
> list should take.

Besides which, you didn't do anything bannable anyway.
All that would have happened is, the moderators might have
reviewed your multiple posts, sent them back to you, and
asked you to consolidate them, and perhaps to tone down
the language a bit (e.g. "OMG IT'S SOOO PERFECT!").

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

> For the people like Claudio who seem to get irritated by
> inefficient posting I'd say set up you mail reader properly and
> simply don't read all the threads.

That's really not a valid argument. Posting a lot of crap to
a list means the archives get filled with crap. It means
readers have to constantly decide which authors/threads to
follow. It means prospective new members are more likely to
encounter crap when they check out the list and be turned away.
If your argument is that the list should be free for all uses,
then consider the following use case: a serious researcher
wants to publish serious work. If you have a 300-message
discussion about numerology, that'll pretty much exclude this
use case. There's no free lunch. The members here will have
to decide if they want to keep reading (or deleting, or whatever)
crap or move on to something a bit more serious. I've been
on this list a while now, and I've also traveled quite a bit
and met dozens of members, past and present. And the single
most common comment I've heard is: "I used to enjoy it, but
there got to be so much traffic / so much disreputable content
that I couldn't manage it anymore."

Taking a survey here is, I suppose, a bit like asking the
choir to condemn the priest. The voices in favor of moderation
have all left long ago.

-Carl

>
> All that would have happened is, the moderators might have
> reviewed your multiple posts, sent them back to you, and
> asked you to consolidate them, and perhaps to tone down
> the language a bit (e.g. "OMG IT'S SOOO PERFECT!").
>

Well that would have gotten me raving mad and I would have left the list.
Same thing if it happened to someone else like michael. I would have left.
Who's the moderator to decide what's relevant or not and that a multiple
post howing excitement is a bad thing.

Carl Lumma wrote:

> This list has been especially contentious over its long
> history, and that's been both a good thing and a bad thing.
> One effect is that we've never quite been able to decide
> exactly what's on-topic and what isn't. With established
> fields like physics, it's usually very clear what counts as
> physics and what does not. Intonation theory is a brand
> new field. Numerology has been a problem here in the past,
> but exactly what counts as numerology?

If numerology was good enough for Bach, it shouldn't be a problem for this list. :-) As long as it has some relevance to music, that is.

>
> hat's really not a valid argument. Posting a lot of crap to
> a list means the archives get filled with crap. It means
> readers have to constantly decide which authors/threads to
> follow. It means prospective new members are more likely to
> encounter crap when they check out the list and be turned away.
>

I do think it's a valid argument.
I'm a perfectionist myself but not in how a free open internet mailing list
should be.
Yes people have to decide which threads to read, so what. If can't handle
dicisions like that, and if so can't accept having to read messages which
don't interest you (which you get a lot anyhow) don't join a mailing list
like this.

> If your argument is that the list should be free for all uses,
>

Related to tuning / microtonality, yes free for all uses.

then consider the following use case: a serious researcher
> wants to publish serious work. If you have a 300-message
> discussion about numerology, that'll pretty much exclude this
> use case.
>

Oh nice, you're both implying in a hidden way that I'm not a serieus
researcher and that I'm into numerology.
Grow a brain.

> There's no free lunch. The members here will have
> to decide if they want to keep reading (or deleting, or whatever)
> crap or move on to something a bit more serious. I've been
> on this list a while now, and I've also traveled quite a bit
> and met dozens of members, past and present. And the single
> most common comment I've heard is: "I used to enjoy it, but
> there got to be so much traffic / so much disreputable content
> that I couldn't manage it anymore."
>

Well time for those people to read the list in a different way.
Lots of traffic is a good thing.
Especially when comming from people who wish to achieve something special,
break new grounds, as this is so essential for microtonality to eventually
be successfull.

Taking a survey here is, I suppose, a bit like asking the
> choir to condemn the priest. The voices in favor of moderation
> have all left long ago.
>

Do you mean this thread or this list in general?
The people who have left (I can remember kraig) I don't really get. Why not
simply stop actively reading the list and let the messages come in a
seperate folder and turn of the sound for incoming mails to that folder.
But his choice, I don't feel it's the fault of any person on this list.

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > This list has been especially contentious over its long
> > history, and that's been both a good thing and a bad thing.
> > One effect is that we've never quite been able to decide
> > exactly what's on-topic and what isn't. With established
> > fields like physics, it's usually very clear what counts as
> > physics and what does not. Intonation theory is a brand
> > new field. Numerology has been a problem here in the past,
> > but exactly what counts as numerology?
>
> If numerology was good enough for Bach, it shouldn't be a problem for
> this list. :-) As long as it has some relevance to music, that is.

Bach may have had a thing for lucky numbers, but I hardly
think he did numerology. Unless you know of a source that
I don't. But I wasn't picking on numerology. I gave it as
an example of an issue that's been contentious in the past
and which is likely to be hard to quantify. I was, you know,
giving an example of a potential downside to moderation.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > All that would have happened is, the moderators might have
> > reviewed your multiple posts, sent them back to you, and
> > asked you to consolidate them, and perhaps to tone down
> > the language a bit (e.g. "OMG IT'S SOOO PERFECT!").
>
> Well that would have gotten me raving mad and I would have left
> the list. Same thing if it happened to someone else like michael.
> I would have left.

Right, and I don't see a problem with this. It's your personal
choice, you know? Seems simple to me. What with modern e-mail
readers, you can selectively leave dozens of lists, automatically.
I don't 'get' people like you. Just unsubscribe. The rest of
us can go ahead posting. I don't think it's an inconvenience
at all.

> Who's the moderator to decide what's relevant or not and that
> a multiple post howing excitement is a bad thing.

That's pretty much the definition of "moderator".

-Carl

>
> Right, and I don't see a problem with this. It's your personal
> choice, you know? Seems simple to me. What with modern e-mail
> readers, you can selectively leave dozens of lists, automatically.
> I don't 'get' people like you. Just unsubscribe. The rest of
> us can go ahead posting. I don't think it's an inconvenience
> at all.
>

Uhh yes that's what I said.
If you start actively moderating I'm out of here.
Not saying it is inconvinient to unsubscribe. Or what were you trying to
say?

Marcel

--"And the single most common comment I've heard is: "I used to enjoy it, but
--there got to be so much traffic / so much disreputable content
--that I couldn't manage it anymore."
     Maybe there's a way we can have our cake and eat it too?

      Carl, how about you, as a moderator,
A) Choose certain people to designate as "super-users" (IE expert researchers)
B) Allow them and only them to post new topics with certain flags (IE putting XPRT in the subject line)...and delete those who repeatedly put XPRT in the subject line from the group (after being warned several times) who are not designated to do so.
C) For those who want to hear "only the experts"...give them several examples of how to set up mail clients to allow ONLY messages with XPRT in the subject line....or simply how to look for the XPRT header without the Re: text.

   I honestly know I'm in the minority here with my scales, for example, and have to "earn my stars" before posting with the "XPRT tag".  In the meantime, I'd actually welcome such an action...because I am dead sick of posting messages tagged as what they are (and NOT in any way claiming to be scholastically perfect info) only to have people looking for articles by, say, PHD tuning researches run across it and get pissed at me b/c it's not PHD-level research.    For sure I have absolutely no intention of, say, making Wilson, Miller, or Lucy's information "caught in the muck", for example

    Surely, we should have some easy way of locating articles by "senior experts" in this group...

-Michael

>
> Maybe there's a way we can have our cake and eat it too?
>
> Carl, how about you, as a moderator,
> A) Choose certain people to designate as "super-users" (IE expert
> researchers)
> B) Allow them and only them to post new topics with certain flags (IE
> putting XPRT in the subject line)...and delete those who repeatedly put XPRT
> in the subject line from the group (after being warned several times) who
> are not designated to do so.
> C) For those who want to hear "only the experts"...give them several
> examples of how to set up mail clients to allow ONLY messages with XPRT in
> the subject line....or simply how to look for the XPRT header without the
> Re: text.
>
> I honestly know I'm in the minority here with my scales, for example,
> and have to "earn my stars" before posting with the "XPRT tag". In the
> meantime, I'd actually welcome such an action...because I am dead sick of
> posting messages tagged as what they are (and NOT in any way claiming to be
> scholastically perfect info) only to have people looking for articles by,
> say, PHD tuning researches run across it and get pissed at me b/c it's not
> PHD-level research. For sure I have absolutely no intention of, say,
> making Wilson, Miller, or Lucy's information "caught in the muck", for
> example
>
> Surely, we should have some easy way of locating articles by "senior
> experts" in this group...

Hi Michael,

It's a nice idea though I see trouble with it and it again divides people
and creates unequality (which I'm strongly against).
And who decides who's an expert? Carl would decide it's people who've
published papers, something which you yourself have spoken against strongly
in the past (and to which I agree with you, you may have an academic degree
but if you can't tune it's worthless).
But ultimately the best way would be for the "experts" to set up a new
mailing list where they restrict who gets to join.
But then it will be a pretty dead list and they know this from experience.

Marcel

--"...the best way would be for the "experts" to set up a new mailing list"
Exactly, but
--"it will be a pretty dead list "
...which, I swear (as it seems you do as well), is why they won't do it. :-D

--"And who decides who's an expert? Carl would decide it's people who've
published papers, --something which you yourself have spoken against
strongly in the past" -Marcel

    Right, but I figure, at least it would keep me from sorting through the whiny random insults I get from people with the mindset that I'm "not academic enough".  My guess, honestly, is that most people will probably ignore the expert tags and most of the group will stay equal, but it will hopefully at least keep people like us from being harassed.
**********************************************************************************
   BTW...I figure...the people who actually take to expert tags seriously...will be the ones who are so far gone they likely would never respond to "low life" like us in the first place (IE they aren't worth trying to convince that we are equals in the first place).  :-D  I figure many many people will be open-minded enough to say "I don't care who has the expert tags"...and those are the people who would talk on level with us anyhow.

   So, I figure, let the highly academic "wizards" keep their academic egos as high in the sky as they please "over us", just please keep them from whining on the posts/topics guys like us create.  And, hey, they probably think the same way about us and our egos...again, fine, but at least let them keep the conflict and whining in their corner of the list.

-Michael

Marcel de Velde wrote:

>For the people like Claudio who seem to get irritated by inefficient
posting I'd say set up you mail reader properly and simply don't read all
the threads.

Shame on you Marcel!
How dare you to lecture me about comments of mine that simply ask for the
usual behaviour expected from this type of list?

>And if you can't control yourself and have to read all threads, look for
the source of your irritation in yourself.

I welcome moderation, among other things, to avoid rudeness like yours.
And if I get "moderated" as a consequence, which may very well happen
because I am a human being and do mistakes like anybody else, I will humbly
accept my part of guilt and try to improve.

Anyway, you are out of my radar from now on.
You can happily proceed calling me names.

Claudio

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Marcel de Velde
Sent: 14 April 2009 03:07
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=70605/grpspId=1705897753/msgId=8
2847/stime=1239674896/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>

--"I'd say (if you are irritated) set up you mail reader properly and
simply don't read all the threads." Marcel

    For one, I don't think there's an established standard for forum groups, minus the very basic Yahoo! groups terms such as no spamming and unsolicited message (neither of which Marcel or anyone else here has been doing).  Actually (wait a second), there are a few clauses

From http://groups.yahoo.com/local/guidelines.html:
1. You may not harass, abuse, threaten, or advocate violence against other members or individuals or groups.
2.  Stay on topic. Although all groups are different, most groups
appreciate it when you stay on topic. If you constantly stray from the
topic you may be moderated or removed from a group altogether by its
owner.

   While some may find posts by people like Marcel and I annoying they ARE on topic and fit #2.  However when people like Marcel or I write a post about tuning and end up getting smacked for it and repeatedly name called, for example Carl's saying I smoke pot or continuously sending me Google auto-search links that say "was it THAT HARD?", that constitutes harassment, not to mention brutally off-topic slander since it's posted publically.

--You can
happily proceed calling me names. -Claudio
    Claudio, Marcel never called you any names, not even once...so your "out of nothing" accusation is at least boarder-line on harassment of Marcel,
*************************
     Perhaps we should reconsider, who is actually following the Yahoo! group rules here.  Because, so far, I have seen more far violations or near violations by the "behavior enforcers/moderator-want-to-be's"...than from the people they are trying to accuse!

...This obviously says something about how nasty the attitudes of certain people have become.  My consensus is...if you really hate things that happen in the group enough to harass people who are for the most part just making on-topic posts you don't agree with...feel free to leave and start your own "proper" tuning
group.

-Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> But ultimately the best way would be for the "experts" to set up a new
> mailing list where they restrict who gets to join.
> But then it will be a pretty dead list and they know this from
> experience.
>

Now listen. This list has been existing for more than 10 years, and many of who you call "experts" have been here for quite a long time. I really do not think it is appropriate that YOU tell them to leave here and set up a new list. If at all, it would be your job to set up such a new list.
But that would definitely be a pretty dead list, too.
--
Hans Straub

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Dear fellow tuning enthusiasts,
>
> After a 5 year voluntary leave of absence, I'm moderating
> here again. ...
>
> Finally, I reorganized the Files section, moving almost all
> files into folders named after their contributors, in the
> following manner: FirstnameLastname (with no space, so that
> the URL to your folder is easier to handle). Many users
> already had a folder like this. Following this convention
> will help keep the Files section easy to navigate, while
> making spam there much easier to spot.
>
> Thanks for your consideration,

Hi Carl,

Thanks for taking some long-overdue measures to improve our group experience. However ...

This last measure has one very serious unintended consequence -- it breaks links to those files given in past messages. For example, the second link:
/tuning/files/secor/examples/
that I provided in this message:
/tuning/topicId_73151.html#73381
is no longer valid.

In my particular case this could be remedied by renaming my folder back to its original name and putting my name in the folder description.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>

> This last measure has one very serious unintended consequence -- it
> breaks links to those files given in past messages.

Yes, I reluctantly broke some eggs...

> In my particular case this could be remedied by renaming my folder
> back to its original name and putting my name in the folder
> description.

OK, I've changed your folder back, since you have for so long
done the following:

* Tried very hard to make each post you make worthy of being
read later. Well, I don't know if you tried hard, but you
succeeded. ;)

* Kept a record (or memory) of your past posts, and are able
to cite them when questions arise again.

We can all aspire to the fine job you've done on these
two counts.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear fellow tuning enthusiasts,
> >
> > After a 5 year voluntary leave of absence, I'm moderating
> > here again. ...
> >
> > Finally, I reorganized the Files section, ...
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> Thanks for taking some long-overdue measures to improve our group experience. However ...
>
> This last measure has one very serious unintended consequence -- it breaks links to those files given in past messages. For example, the second link:
> /tuning/files/secor/examples/
> that I provided in this message:
> /tuning/topicId_73151.html#73381
> is no longer valid.
>
> In my particular case this could be remedied by renaming my folder back to its original name and putting my name in the folder description.
>
> --George

Done -- already! Wow, that was fast! Thanks!

BTW, the recent deluge of messages, taken together with constraints on my time, has made it impossible for me to read each & every one, although fortunately -- or rather, unfortunately -- it seems that lately I don't have much incentive to do that). At times I can only search for occurrences of my name to see if there is anything to which I should reply. I'm now questioning the usefulness of Yahoo's search utility, since I just happened to stumble across this message, which invites me to comment:
/tuning/topicId_82382.html#82445
A search for either "Secor" or "George" failed to locate it, even though both my first & last names are in the message text.

Carl, I think it would be good to contact Yahoo! support to determine why their search utility isn't performing as expected.

In the meantime, I sincerely hope you can work out some solution to the distressingly low ratio of quality to quantity in the recent postings. I would never have joined this list if this was how things were at that time. (Sorry, but I can't offer any concrete suggestions, because I haven't taken the time to learn enough about the details. It's all too easy to complain, and wisdom is too often in short supply.)

But I'm also delighted that your're trying to improve our experience here, and I wish you success in your efforts.

--George

>
> Shame on you Marcel!
> How dare you to lecture me about comments of mine that simply ask for
> the usual behaviour expected from this type of list?
>

> I welcome moderation, among other things, to avoid rudeness like yours.
> And if I get "moderated" as a consequence, which may very well happen
> because I am a human being and do mistakes like anybody else, I will humbly
> accept my part of guilt and try to improve.
>
> Anyway, you are out of my radar from now on.
> You can happily proceed calling me names.
>

Hello Claudio,

Sorry for specifically mentioning your name in that message.
I guess I was surprised to see the way you acted to Michael as you have
allways been respectfull to me.
Couldn't really stand everybody picking on Michael.

But anyhow if I should have said anything it should not have been more
negative writing.
I've now decided to refrain from negative posts on this list in the future.

Sorry to all who I've offended in the past.
Hope we can start with a clean sheet.

Piece,
Marcel

Apologies accepted Marcel.
I also apologise if my answers have caused issues.
Let us all remember the saying
"Our freedom has one limit: where it encroaches upon the freedoms of
others".

Kind regards,

Claudio

_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Marcel de Velde
Sent: 14 April 2009 20:56
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping and offending behaviour

Shame on you Marcel!
How dare you to lecture me about comments of mine that simply ask for the
usual behaviour expected from this type of list?

I welcome moderation, among other things, to avoid rudeness like yours.
And if I get "moderated" as a consequence, which may very well happen
because I am a human being and do mistakes like anybody else, I will humbly
accept my part of guilt and try to improve.

Anyway, you are out of my radar from now on.
You can happily proceed calling me names.

Hello Claudio,

Sorry for specifically mentioning your name in that message.
I guess I was surprised to see the way you acted to Michael as you have
allways been respectfull to me.
Couldn't really stand everybody picking on Michael.

But anyhow if I should have said anything it should not have been more
negative writing.
I've now decided to refrain from negative posts on this list in the future.

Sorry to all who I've offended in the past.
Hope we can start with a clean sheet.

Piece,
Marcel

George D. Secor wrote:

> BTW, the recent deluge of messages, taken together with
> constraints on my time, has made it impossible for me to
> read each & every one, although fortunately -- or rather,
> unfortunately -- it seems that lately I don't have much
> incentive to do that). At times I can only search for
> occurrences of my name to see if there is anything to
> which I should reply. I'm now questioning the usefulness
> of Yahoo's search utility, since I just happened to
> stumble across this message, which invites me to comment:

Message volumes are not at a record high. The figures are on the group's home page:

/tuning/

The busiest month was May 2001 with 2,226 messages. Last February had only 1,514 messages. If you found that too much, the solution was to filter out Marcel de Velde.

> Carl, I think it would be good to contact Yahoo! support
> to determine why their search utility isn't performing as
> expected.

How well did you expect it to perform? The best option has always been to search on Google with site:launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/ or somesuch. I don't know how to set that for recent posts only, though. If you want to select messages with your name in them it's best to set a filter in your email client.

> In the meantime, I sincerely hope you can work out some
> solution to the distressingly low ratio of quality to
> quantity in the recent postings. I would never have
> joined this list if this was how things were at that
> time. (Sorry, but I can't offer any concrete
> suggestions, because I haven't taken the time to learn
> enough about the details. It's all too easy to complain,
> and wisdom is too often in short supply.)

I think we currently have a problem with two individuals who post too much and don't listen. The solution is to filter them out. If it's a question of making the list presentable to outsiders, there's a mechanism to set moderation by poster, to give a middle-ground between full moderation and banning the abusive posters. If people are happy with how that works in other contexts, it's time to give it a try. It's silly to tell everybody to set the same filters.

The result will be the same old list with middling-quality discussion. As there seem to be people out there who want a high quality archive, the solution is probably for you to get together and set up an electronic journal -- maybe a resurrected Xenharmonikon.

I don't like the idea of a fully moderated list where posts are expected to meet a quality threshold before they're published. That would discourage newbies from asking simple questions. In that past this list has done a good job of attracting new people and the changing names over the years show that it's still doing that.

Graham

--"I think we currently have a problem with two individuals who
--post too much and don't listen."
   Excuse me?!  Just because I don't agree with about half the things the veterans (or, for example, don't agree by ear that 3/2 sounds better than 303/200) does NOT mean I am not listening.  I do give detailed explanations and answers to any questions, which is a huge reason why my posts are so long and there are so many (MOST OF THEM ARE REPLIES!).  However, I will not cut off my personal integrity at the throat by saying I agree with things I don't simply to please others! 

    If I DID force myself to agree with them just to suck up to be considered a "listener", I would likely be stuck doing either 5 or 7-limit JI or historic scales (ALA mean-tone variations like
"minimax" 1/4 comma) and spending more time researching terms like TETRAD and META-STABLE RATIO and REAL vs. SURREAL NUMBERS than actually working on creating scales and listening to my ears as much as numerology when creating them!!
    In other words, I would be limiting much progress for the sake of making "socially acceptable scale progress".

   Case in point, Jaques (sp.?) Dudon is just about the only other person on here beside me working open-mindedly on creating noble-numbered scales and he is undoubtedbly an expert (as much as Carl or anyone else).  Also, he made VERY few posts.
   However, guess what, responses to him have been fairly cold as well and questions for him (beside from myself and Kalle) have been very few.  DId I mention that HUGE string of nasty posts about "is Charles Lucy's scale original or just another mean-tone scale" (and yes, he posted a lot back then...mostly, it seems, to
give himself a fair chance at self-defense)? 
     It's not just me...there's a nasty stream of close-mindedness on this scale and whining about be without really giving any details about what the posts were about or if/if not they were honest replies vs. spamming but just blurting out "uh huhuhuh (Beavis?)...well he doesn't listen and posts to much".
-----------------------
   IF you guys insist THAT much on defaming guys like me almost exclusively because we choose to work on scale systems you don't like or not spend loads of time researching tuning terms relative to systems we DON'T work in...that says something pretty nasty and blatantly fundamentalists about this group.
*************************************************************************
   As a side note...half the reason I end up posting so much is because people like YOU make random accusations and/or disrespect my posts by changing my topics on a tangent....indirectly making choose to have to get up defend myself.  And, guess what, in that case, I'm NOT letting
down!
 ********************************************************************
--"If it's a question of making the list presentable
--to outsiders, there's a mechanism to set moderation by
--poster, to give a middle-ground between full moderation and
--banning the abusive posters."
   You can go ahead and put a big old sign on the front page of this group that says "posters who do not research and support the same views as the experts in this group WILL be regulated in what they can say because most of the leaders just aren't interested".  Sounds pretty nasty, doesn't it!

-Michael

As there aren't many messages this morning, I read this one
anyway.

djtrancendance@... wrote:
> --"I think we currently have a problem with two
> individuals who --post too much and don't listen." Excuse
> me?! Just because I don't agree with about half the
> things the veterans (or, for example, don't agree by ear
> that 3/2 sounds better than 303/200) does NOT mean I am
> not listening. I do give detailed explanations and
> answers to any questions, which is a huge reason why my
> posts are so long and there are so many (MOST OF THEM ARE
> REPLIES!). However, I will not cut off my personal
> integrity at the throat by saying I agree with things I
> don't simply to please others!

Yes, of course. When I said you don't listen I might have been sending a coded message about you not agreeing with some statements or other. Then again, I might have meant what I said: that you don't listen to us. Let's have a look at the rest of your message to see what kind of understanding you're showing, shall we?

As for your replies, we know you keep writing them. I disagree that they contained detailed explanations or answers to questions. They tend to contain rants and sometimes personal attacks. Have you specified your "phi scale" yet?

> If I DID force myself to agree with them just to suck up
> to be considered a "listener", I would likely be stuck
> doing either 5 or 7-limit JI or historic scales (ALA
> mean-tone variations like "minimax" 1/4 comma) and
> spending more time researching terms like TETRAD and
> META-STABLE RATIO and REAL vs. SURREAL NUMBERS than
> actually working on creating scales and listening to my
> ears as much as numerology when creating them!! In other
> words, I would be limiting much progress for the sake of
> making "socially acceptable scale progress".

There's no need to put "minimax" in square quotes. Quarter comma meantone really is the minimax tuning (for either 5- or 7-limit intervals equally weighted). And it is the historical meantone. Not a "variation" but the real deal.

Now, why do you think you have to "do" meantone? Why don't you "do" some of the other scales we've been suggesting, that don't fall into the categories above?

Those terms you've thrown up ... yes, if you don't know what a tetrad is you'll have difficulty discussing harmony.

The exact term "meta-stable ratio" never seems to be used here, which is a tribute to your reading skills. As to metastable intervals, they're the kinds of thing you claim to be interested in. You might find it useful to read the archives to find out what people have been saying about them. It might be helpful to you. If you can't be bothered to do that, don't be surprised if we don't want to read all the messages where you claim to have found something radically new about them. And, most of all, if you won't read what other people say about metastable intervals, please don't fill our inboxes with accusations that nobody but you is interested in them.

Surreal numbers -- ha ha, yes. Carl used the term in a context that seems to be a joke, but it obviously went above your head. If you're going to *use* the term "real number" then, yes, it's a good idea to learn what it means.

> Case in point, Jaques (sp.?) Dudon is just about the only
> other person on here beside me working open-mindedly on
> creating noble-numbered scales and he is undoubtedbly an
> expert (as much as Carl or anyone else). Also, he made
> VERY few posts. However, guess what, responses to him
> have been fairly cold as well and questions for him
> (beside from myself and Kalle) have been very few.

I try not to break paragraphs, but by all laws of style there should be a paragraph break here.

So, case of what?

How are you deciding that the rest of us aren't open minded?

Yes, he doesn't post very often. I don't know how you're assessing coldness of a response. And what's this "as well"? You haven't said that responses to anybody else were of the wrong temperature.

How many responses is a message supposed to get?

> DId I
> mention that HUGE string of nasty posts about "is Charles
> Lucy's scale original or just another mean-tone scale"
> (and yes, he posted a lot back then...mostly, it seems,
> to give himself a fair chance at self-defense)?

If you see a nasty post, let's have a reference.

Why would anybody with two brain cells to rub together send any posts about whether LucyTuning is original or not? Of course it isn't original. It was discovered by John Harrison in the 18th Century. Charles says so. Wikipedia says so. Back then it may have been original. It isn't any more.

I'll suggest that we were actually saying something else about LucyTuning, but you weren't listening.

> It's not
> just me...there's a nasty stream of close-mindedness on
> this scale and whining about be without really giving any
> details about what the posts were about or if/if not they
> were honest replies vs. spamming but just blurting out
> "uh huhuhuh (Beavis?)...well he doesn't listen and posts
> to much".

Close[d]-mindedness about LucyTuning? But before, weren't we all advocating variations of meantone? You should get your story straight.

> IF you guys insist THAT
> much on defaming guys like me almost exclusively because
> we choose to work on scale systems you don't like or not
> spend loads of time researching tuning terms relative to
> systems we DON'T work in...that says something pretty
> nasty and blatantly fundamentalists about this group. Oh, it's defamation now, is it?

> As a side note...half the reason I end up posting so
> much is because people like YOU make random accusations
> and/or disrespect my posts by changing my topics on a
> tangent....indirectly making choose to have to get up
> defend myself. And, guess what, in that case, I'm NOT
> letting down! So far, this is a very lightly moderated forum. Everybody else has us much right to be an idiot as you. You don't own threads and you aren't obliged to defend yourself.

> --"If it's a question of making the list presentable > --to outsiders, there's a mechanism to set moderation by
> --poster, to give a middle-ground between full
> moderation and --banning the abusive posters." You can go
> ahead and put a big old sign on the front page of this
> group that says "posters who do not research and support
> the same views as the experts in this group WILL be
> regulated in what they can say because most of the
> leaders just aren't interested". Sounds pretty nasty,
> doesn't it!

Yes, let's not do that.

Informally, if somebody consistently acts like an idiot, we're going to filter out your posts. There is an argument
for doing that filtering formally, via moderation. It's more efficient use of labor.

Graham

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

> Surreal numbers -- ha ha, yes. Carl used the term in a
> context that seems to be a joke, but it obviously went above
> your head. If you're going to *use* the term "real number"
> then, yes, it's a good idea to learn what it means.

I wasn't joking. IIRC, I was saying that Michael is welcome
to settle on any number system he likes, but first he'd better
understand how to use the real numbers.

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

-Carl

My mind is blown... I have this picture of Salvador Dali using a slide rule
as he paints melting clocks and Catholic Rhinoceroses :-)

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Graham Breed
> <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> > Surreal numbers -- ha ha, yes. Carl used the term in a
> > context that seems to be a joke, but it obviously went above
> > your head. If you're going to *use* the term "real number"
> > then, yes, it's a good idea to learn what it means.
>
> I wasn't joking. IIRC, I was saying that Michael is welcome
> to settle on any number system he likes, but first he'd better
> understand how to use the real numbers.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_numbers
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

Not to pick on Graham, but here's something to point out.

This email is 1220 words long. There are other replies in the previous
thread by both Mike Sheiman and Carl that are in the same word range.

Not liking Mike's attitude is one thing. But being as we're talking
about active moderation, insanity would really prevail if he's
moderated for writing posts that are too long.

-Mike

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
>
> As there aren't many messages this morning, I read this one
> anyway.
>
> djtrancendance@... wrote:
>> --"I think we currently have a problem with two
>> individuals who --post too much and don't listen." Excuse
>> me?! Just because I don't agree with about half the
>> things the veterans (or, for example, don't agree by ear
>> that 3/2 sounds better than 303/200) does NOT mean I am
>> not listening. I do give detailed explanations and
>> answers to any questions, which is a huge reason why my
>> posts are so long and there are so many (MOST OF THEM ARE
>> REPLIES!). However, I will not cut off my personal
>> integrity at the throat by saying I agree with things I
>> don't simply to please others!
>
> Yes, of course. When I said you don't listen I might have
> been sending a coded message about you not agreeing with
> some statements or other. Then again, I might have meant
> what I said: that you don't listen to us. Let's have a look
> at the rest of your message to see what kind of
> understanding you're showing, shall we?
//

As for your replies, we know you keep writing them. I

disagree that they contained detailed explanations or

answers to questions.

--(your messages) tend to contain rants and
--sometimes personal attacks.
     Such as "no, Carl, I was not smoking pot when I made that scale"?  Or "I hear you, but my ears don't find your magical mathematical solution to translate into a good scale: I've tested it myself...".
     That's called self-respect.  And, no, I'm not going to stop doing that.
-----------------------------------------------------
Have you specified your "phi scale" yet?
ABOUT 15 different times!
Here it is YET AGAIN (approximated as RATIONAL fractions)
18/17
9/8
19/16
19/15
4/3
10/7
20/13
21/13
    And yes, the latest version is NOT the a rational numbered version (IE it's not like the above "socially acceptable" version of the scale which is rounded to the nearest rational fractions).

    I refuse to post it publicly
simply to avoid with getting hit over the head with some tirade about "Mike doesn't know how to convert to fractions" just because the scale does not simplify to fractions.  However, I will gladly e-mail it to you personally if you really want a copy.
**************************************************************************************
--Why don't you "do" some of the other scales we've been suggesting,
--that don't fall into the categories above?

     I'm all ears...so long as the tuning you are pointing me to is consonant and not either
     A) Wilson's MOS scales...including the Mt. Meru scales (which I've tried and like...but annoy me due to how they seem to become too dissonant for my ears when using over 6 tones per scale, though still not too bad)
      B) The scale explained in the below paper
http://dkeenan.com/Music/NobleMediant.txt
   ......which leads to something terribly dissonant that sounds nothing like my PHI scale
despite that it uses PHI to calculate the point of maximum harmonic entropy.  You have my PHI scale...so you might want to compare them yourself.
    C) Some variation on JI or mean-tone....all of which so far that I've listened to either sound uncannily close in mood to 12TET or have serious consonance problems
    D) Using the harmonic series as a scale
    E) strictly diatonic IE 22TET approximating diatonic intervals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have no problem with the other scales on here...most of them that are, say, built strongly along JI or things like JI such as diatonic meantone, sound good.
   But
what fascinates me personally is scales that don't fit that mold (ultimately, the mold formed by the harmonic series) and still manage to sound good.
----------------------------------------------------------------
   So, with the exception of the scales made by Wilson and Sethares (and I realize Wilson still follows the harmonic series to a decent extent)...I haven't seen much that strikes me as both very consonant and significantly different than 12TET.
   I've found that some people REALLY take that the wrong way, as if I'm saying their expertise is somehow wrong or that I THINK I know as much or more than them in their field of expertise.  Truth is I think neither...I'm simply saying I'm heading in a different direction (minus psychoacoustic phenomena such as critical-roughness that effect  all sound-forms and not just the harmonic
series).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--"Why would anybody with two brain cells to rub together send
--any posts about whether LucyTuning is original or not?"
    My point is...who cares?  I agree with you it was Harrison who devised it: and, as you said, Charles Lucy openly credits him (so it's not like he's some terrible thief).

   My question about LucyTuning and virtually all tunings I hear (and, believe me, I've tried hundreds thanks to programs like Fractal Tune Smithy).....is can musicians make good use of it...especially in ways that take musical thought in a new direction (rather than just purifying the same old thing)?
   I don't really like LucyTuning that much either...but at the same time I realize a lot of musicians have found great uses for it.  Therefore, regardless of "academic formallities"...LONG LIVE
LUCY-TUNING!
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---"Those terms you've thrown up ... yes, if you don't know what
---a tetrad is you'll have difficulty discussing harmony."
   But there you go assuming when I say "consonance" I mean "harmony". 
   I've said probably hundreds of times I'm looking for consonant scales, but not "harmony" or "low-limit compliance" and people still can't get it around their heads that noble-number based scales DON'T involve harmony or limits but do involve consonance.
-----
    Again, my scales are not based on the harmonic series and terms used exclusively to the harmonic series, no matter how expertly devised, are not relevant to them.  Period. 
    For the record, I know the term tetrad (any 4 note chord)...but what Carl was bugging me about was
my using prime-limit to characterize my tetrads instead of odd-limit.  Then again, my scales, being not based on low-numbered fractions, have no relevance to the term limit in the first place.

   In general, WHAT FRUSTRATES ME is the way people get pissed off at me (not to mention flame me a lot) simply for not using JI terms (especially the whole LIMIT = consonance assumption) even when I'm working with non-JI scales which don't even involve the musical definition "limit"!   Such people reserve the right to hate my scales...but calling them things they aren't even vaguely related to or trying to impulsively force them into the "closest historical equivalent that fits with rational numerology" isn't exactly showing much respect toward myself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---"How are you deciding that the rest of us aren't open
minded?"
    I never said all or most people on the list were close minded.  Though the few who are sure are loud (LOL).
    But I will say those who try to pigeon-hole my scale into rational scale algorithms they are expert with and then blame the scale for not fitting it well are being blatantly disrespectful, not to mention not helping improve the scale in question in terms of consonance (NOT harmony NOT limits...just consonance).  The worst thing is some of said people stereotype it and then make it a double-whammy whining at me for my not agreeing with their stereotype of it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--"Oh, it's defamation now, is it?"
    Well, saying something I make is something it's not and then blaming me for being "dumb" for not agreeing with the stereotype?  Yes, I'd say people
who do that are being pretty low...almost as if they are betting on me not to be able to give evidence.  Far as evidence...believe me....I think my fairly high ratio of sound samples to match my explanations pretty much speaks for itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--"Yes, he doesn't post very often. I don't know how you're
--assessing coldness of a response."
   A cold response to me is either a message's not getting many responses...or getting ones that become blatantly off-topic very quickly IE "de-railing the thread".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--"Close[d]-mindedness about LucyTuning? But before, weren't
--we all advocating variations of meantone?"
     Two completely different topics.  I respect Lucy-Tuning
and Mean-tone as they have been and continue to be useful to many musicians.  When I discussed close minded-ness as far as Lucy-Tuning, I was talking about the odd obsession many people had about flaming Charles about "is LucyTuning's use of PI special or not...and was it created in an original fashion"?  
    Just as I hope people respect how Charles derived LucyTuning from Harrison's writings, RATHER than whining about things like who has the right to ownership or how they can, say, magically re-create it without using PI...I hope they can respect that I don't create my scales in the same way they do theirs and some of their expertise in their areas may not instantly work-in/"solve" some of my scales.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--"Everybody else has us much right to be an idiot as you. You don't own
--threads and
you aren't obliged to defend yourself."
    I'm not obliged, I choose to.  After 40+ hours of working on and fine-tuning a scale copying nothing from other scale...I feel I deserve to at least say what the scale is, how it's made, and what it's designed to do (regardless of if people think it achieves those goals or not).
   Far as owning threads...of course I don't own them but, if I start a thread on a topic...it's at least somewhat reasonable to at least attempt to keep it on topic...even when the moderation is light.  Again the "de-railed thread" issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--"Informally, if somebody consistently acts like an idiot,
--we're going to filter out your posts. There is an argument
--for doing that filtering formally, via moderation. It's
--more efficient use of labor."
Can you say vague?
So who decides who's an idiot?
Potential example:
     You: "you need to know tetrads to understand harmony and harmony to have consonance.  Therefore I'm filtering out all of your threads on consonance until you speak of it in terms of harmony "
   Me: "That's very relevant in most rational fraction based scales, but my scale is not such a scale.  I'm talking in terms of consonance regarding the critical band and making what beating does happen symmetrical with other notes.  My scales don't even involve rational numbers or the harmonic series which
"harmony" is based on because they are designed not to.  I'm looking for types of consonance...that are not harmony."
  You: "Enough, it's obvious you're just not listening.  You're filtered.  Oh yeah, and your message is too freaking long.  Goodbye."

     Now do you see....why I'm so frustrated...not with "the list", but with the few people who try to shove all the work I do under one convenient umbrella and then try to make me look dumb by "teaching me" how it's wrong for not fitting well under that umbrella?

-Michael

hi Michael,

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

> > [Graham wrote:]
> > Have you specified your "phi scale" yet?
>
> ABOUT 15 different times!
> Here it is YET AGAIN (approximated as RATIONAL fractions)
> 18/17
> 9/8
> 19/16
> 19/15
> 4/3
> 10/7
> 20/13
> 21/13
>     And yes, the latest version is NOT the a rational
> numbered version (IE it's not like the above "socially
> acceptable" version of the scale which is rounded to
> the nearest rational fractions).
>
> I refuse to post it publicly simply to avoid with getting
> hit over the head with some tirade about "Mike doesn't know
> how to convert to fractions" just because the scale does not
> simplify to fractions.  However, I will gladly e-mail it
> to you personally if you really want a copy.

Unfortunately the signal-to-noise ratio on this list
lately has been tilted far in favor of the noise end,
and i have been skipping a lot of posts. So i haven't
seen any of your other postings of this scale.

And there are other people here besides Graham who would
like to see the version of this scale which is not
approximated by ratios -- me, for example.

Do you calculate it in terms of powers of phi?
That's something i'd definitely like to see.

I don't know if my webpage about "Golden Meantone"
has been mentioned yet in this discussion, but i
do use powers of phi to describe it:

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/g/golden.aspx

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

--- Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> Not to pick on Graham, but here's something to point out.
> This email is 1220 words long. There are other replies in the
> previous thread by both Mike Sheiman and Carl that are in
> the same word range.

Let's compare Michael's last post
/tuning/topicId_82907.html#82907
to Graham's last post
/tuning/topicId_82801.html#82904

According to wordcounttool.com, Graham's post has 1162 words;
613 written by him and 549 by Michael (all neatly quoted).
New/old ratio about 1.2.

Michael's post has 747 words. Good luck figuring out which
are quoted -- he's still not following posting conventions.
But apparently 736 of them were typed by him. Ratio of 66.9!

Now, let's summarize the points in Graham's post:

1. Michael's listening skills are nonexistent.
2. Michael's posts don't contain detailed explanations
or answers to questions, but rather, they tend to contain
rants and personal attacks.
3. 1/4-comma meantone is the 5-limit minimax meantone.
4. Meta-stable ratios might be of interest to Michael.
5. I brought up Surreal numbers as a joke.
6. Having a moderator filter posts is a better use of labor
than having 1200 readers filter posts.

Of these points, only #5 is incorrect. Now let's do the
same for Michael's post:

1. He assumed I'd made a joke at his expense.
2. My explanation of what I actually meant "reeks of bull crap".
3. Surreal numbers are not real numbers.
4. I'd been trying to get him to use cents or fractions.
5. I think the only valid ways to build a scale are to
use the harmonic series or to stack tetrads.
6. Michael strongly disagrees the methods in #5 are the only
ways to make good scales.
7. Michael understands 80% of the example I gave him, and boy
was it a crap example.
8. Michael challenges me to a chord beauty contest.

#1 assumes ill intent, though Graham seems to have read it
this way also, so the misunderstanding was probably my fault.
#2 rejects my attempt to clarify. #3 is true but demonstrates
he still hasn't understood the point, despite the clarification.
#4 shows he missed when I explained that decimal ratios from
his DAW are fine and that the only important thing is to share
quantities of some sort. #5 is an attempt at telepathy (and
it's wrong). #6 is attacking a straw man. #7 construes an
example I created to help clarify as an attack.

In light of this analysis, here's what I'm thinking:

Michael, I'm sorry we got to squabbling. Can we put this
behind us? I believe you're someone who's seriously interested
in microtonal music, and if so, you've got something quite
unusual in common with folks here. Let's not waste that
serendipity. I don't care if you believe in JI or anything
else, but if you want to be happy here, you'll have to be
willing to do three things:

1. Please approach the list as a place to learn. That's how
I approach it, and I continue to learn new things here all
the time. This will take an ounce of humility, and it will
go a long way. If you make a claim and are challenged, don't
be defensive. Try to present evidence to support your claim.
Ask as many questions as you like, but please don't swamp out
answers with new text. One can't learn and lecture at the
same time! (I'll be the first to admit I've been guilty of
this in years past.)

2. Please do share your listening adventures and experiences
here. When you do, simply tell us what you were playing
(in cents or crow's feathers or whatever you like) so we can
play along at home.

3. Start formatting your posts as requested. You can look at
Graham's post, discussed above, as a prime example of how to
do it. Yahoo's website should start you off with quoted text
automatically, and most e-mail clients will do the same.
It will also help to read the links I provided on the topic.

Are you willing to work on these points?

-Carl

On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:50 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> Michael's post has 747 words. Good luck figuring out which
> are quoted -- he's still not following posting conventions.
> But apparently 736 of them were typed by him. Ratio of 66.9!

Please -- don't discuss these kind of things if you want to improve the signal to noise ratio on this list!!

The only strategy I know about with has a chance of working is to simply ignore any message which you consider being on the noise side.

Best
Torsten

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of djtrancendance@...
> And, no, I'm not going to stop doing that.

No, you obviously are not.

Michael, wake up!
Instead of being happy to get the patient, caring and intelligent advice
Carl gave you, you only react with aggressiveness and rudeness!

Your posts have a positive side though: you are certainly sincere.
You really explain that you don't give a damn.

Indeed it is sad to see this interesting discussion place plagued by your
posts.

Claudio
(one of your "veterans" "researchers" who is not "open-minded")

There seems to be a free and loose use of the words "scale" and "tuning", in this list by some tunaniks; almost as though they are interchangeable or synonymous

This may be influenced by the fact that Manuel's wonderful tuning collection uses the suffix .scl, when in reality his database is of tunings, with a few scale examples.

Although individually they are usually expressed as scales, to present the possible scales that could be produced from most tunings requires many scale examples for each tuning.

So shouldn't the quest for "phi scale" that is being discussed here be more correctly termed as the "phi-tuning" quest?

My recent thoughts on scales can be found here:

http://www.lucytune.com/scales/

On 16 Apr 2009, at 05:04, djtrancendance@... wrote:

>
>
> As-----------------------------------------------------
> Have you specified your "phi scale" yet?
> ABOUT 15 different times!
> Here it is YET AGAIN (approximated as RATIONAL fractions)
> 18/17
> 9/8
> 19/16
> 19/15
> 4/3
> 10/7
> 20/13
> 21/13
> And yes, the latest version is NOT the a rational numbered > version (IE it's not like the above "socially acceptable" version of > the scale which is rounded to the nearest rational fractions).
>
> .
>
>
>
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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> There seems to be a free and loose use of the words "scale" and
> "tuning", in this list by some tunaniks; almost as though they are
> interchangeable or synonymous

True, sometimes "scale" is synonymous with "tuning", sometimes it means a subset of a tuning and sometimes it means a more abstract entity like the diatonic scale which has many tunings. "Temperament" too has many meanings.

Kalle Aho

I complained about the same problem in my message from November 6th, 2008 :-) Without deeper constructive reactions and wider discussion on it. So I'm glad at least somebody else from you veterans mentioned it, maybe now it will be finally discussed. Very often I read here highly sophisticated mathematically based theories with lot of newspeak, but the very basic terminology is not exact. Is it really so difficult to make some order in it? With so many people here with such admirably high level of scientific approach?

Daniel Forro

On 16 Apr 2009, at 9:43 PM, Kalle Aho wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
> >
> > There seems to be a free and loose use of the words "scale" and
> > "tuning", in this list by some tunaniks; almost as though they are
> > interchangeable or synonymous
>
> True, sometimes "scale" is synonymous with "tuning", sometimes it > means a subset of a tuning and sometimes it means a more abstract > entity like the diatonic scale which has many tunings. > "Temperament" too has many meanings.
>
> Kalle Aho
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> I complained about the same problem in my message from November 6th,
> 2008 :-) Without deeper constructive reactions and wider discussion
> on it. So I'm glad at least somebody else from you veterans mentioned
> it, maybe now it will be finally discussed. Very often I read here
> highly sophisticated mathematically based theories with lot of
> newspeak, but the very basic terminology is not exact. Is it really
> so difficult to make some order in it? With so many people here with
> such admirably high level of scientific approach?

Sure it would be nice if we had exact terminology but when existing
words have multiple meanings it is hard to agree on which meanings we
should choose for mathematical/scientific approach as everyone has
their own preferences. One solution is to come up with new terms with
exact definitions. That approach is also not guaranteed to result in
agreement because we would have to agree on the mathematical objects
used whether they will be sets, ordered sets or perhaps something
else. (Personally I lament the way modern mathematics is presented
as if all of it was just theorems of ZFC set theory and all
mathematical´objects are just sets and their sets.)

Kalle Aho

In the "classical music and historical temperaments" present usage,
"temperament" and "tuning" are synonymous: how we tune a discrete set of
notes (e.g. the 12 traditional semitones).
Scale is a selection of those semitones: e.g. the 7-note diatonic scale or
the 5-note pentatonic scale or the Neapolitan scale.
Then one can say things lilke "the chromatic scale in Pythagorean tuning
sounds with sharps sharper than flats", or "the diatonic scale in 1/4
Syntonic-comma meantone sounds quite different from the same scale in
12-note Equal temperament.

There is no "set-subset" relationship between temperaments and scales:
- with one temperament(tuning) one can play many scales(sequences of notes)
- viceversa one can play the same scale(sequence of notes) in different
temperaments (tunings)

Would be eager to know if the above use of "temperament" and "scale" differs
from present usage among musicians devoted to modern microtonal music.

Claudio

_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Kalle Aho
Sent: 16 April 2009 13:43
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping - Tunings and Scales are different
animals, or at least scales are multiple offsprings of tunings?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com> com, Charles
Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> There seems to be a free and loose use of the words "scale" and
> "tuning", in this list by some tunaniks; almost as though they are
> interchangeable or synonymous

True, sometimes "scale" is synonymous with "tuning", sometimes it means a
subset of a tuning and sometimes it means a more abstract entity like the
diatonic scale which has many tunings. "Temperament" too has many meanings.

Kalle Aho

Indeed, there are cases when tuning and scale can be the same - when tuning system has the same number as scale based on it, and there are no modes of the scale (rotations), just that one scale inside that tuning.

Diatonic scale can have more tunings, and inside one tuning can be more scales.

I offered that term "temperament" should be used only in historical context.

Daniel Forro

On 16 Apr 2009, at 9:43 PM, Kalle Aho wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
> >
> > There seems to be a free and loose use of the words "scale" and
> > "tuning", in this list by some tunaniks; almost as though they are
> > interchangeable or synonymous
>
> True, sometimes "scale" is synonymous with "tuning", sometimes it > means a subset of a tuning and sometimes it means a more abstract > entity like the diatonic scale which has many tunings. > "Temperament" too has many meanings.
>
> Kalle Aho
>

--"The only strategy..which has a chance of working (:) simply ignore --any message which you consider being on the noise side." -Torsten

    Agreed...this should work well: if you aren't interested in a message, don't respond and you likely won't have to worry about getting a response back.
-Michael

--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@....uk> wrote:

From: Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Quality of posts / Challenges on the Tuning list
To: "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 2:07 AM

On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:50 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Michael's post has 747 words. Good luck figuring out which

> are quoted -- he's still not following posting conventions.

> But apparently 736 of them were typed by him. Ratio of 66.9!

Please -- don't discuss these kind of things if you want to improve

the signal to noise ratio on this list!!

The only strategy I know about with has a chance of working is to

simply ignore any message which you consider being on the noise side.

Best

Torsten

--"2. Michael's posts don't contain detailed explanations
--or answers to questions, but rather, they tend to contain
--rants and personal attacks."
   Ok, name just one personal attack I've made.  BTW, not surrendering my point of view on my own scale, saying "no Carl, I'm not smoking pot" when you say I am, and saying "there may be other possibilities" is not a personal attack.  It's called self-respect.
---"Michael's listening skills are nonexistent." -Carl
    Often it seems a lot more like "Michael has an attitude problem because he disagrees with Carl a lot...therefore he must not be listening". 
    If I really were not listening, why would I be quoting you left and right and delving into detailed explanations or quoting the paper you direct me to? 
    Maybe you simply don't like my explanations...but there's no point in pretending they aren't there or they somehow don't count at all for listening or effort.
     Did I mention what you were doing is blatant defamation?  I certainly don't turn around and say "don't listen to Carl, he's talking nonsense"...why do you inflict that upon me?

   On a funnier note: wait a minute, some people here have said I might have perfect pitch, how does that reflect on my bad listening/hearing skills? (LOL) :-D

---"4. Meta-stable ratios might be of interest to Michael." -Carl
    I've read the papers.  If I have it right, they deal primarily with invoking dissonance by finding "sourest mid-points" between consonance ratios.
   I wish to search for consonance.  These are, of course, DIFFERENT GOALS!  I've said this about 15 times...it seems you're trying to push me somewhere I obviously don't want to go.  Unless, of course, you make it obvious to me meta-stable ratios can be used toward consonance (where consonance = sense of relaxation...rather than the mathematical "lowest harmonic entropy" valleys in Sethares' dissonance curve, for example).

--"5. I brought up Surreal numbers as a joke."
---1. He assumed I'd made a joke at his expense.
--"#3 is true but demonstrates
---he still hasn't understood the point, despite the clarification." -Carl
    Truth be told it appears to be an obvious ass of a joke meant for purposes of putting defamation and "Mike is dumb" above the actual learning process by throwing in irrelevant terms just to prove I don't know them rather than to actually stay on topic.  Graham "misunderstood" this and thought it was a joke too, apparently, go figure.  When you bring in off-topic lingo "just because", it may very well confuse and frustrate people...which, apparently, it did.

---"3. 1/4-comma meantone is the 5-limit minimax meantone." -Carl
Which I know as I'm the one who brought it up!   However mini-max seeks to minimize the maximum consonance in triads within mean-tone: and I want to look beyond mean-tone and beyond triads.  Here's one thing I don't know: would 1/4 command mini-max ALSO optimize chords like CADD2 (c,d,e,g)? 
--"4. I'd been trying to get him to use cents or fractions." -Carl
   And I've been using a DAW that doesn't support these but DO convert them to cents or fractions when I have the time to.  Not having time does not = not listening to you or not caring.

 --"6. Michael strongly disagrees the methods in #5 are the only

ways to make good scales." -Carl
--#5 is an attempt at telepathy (and it's wrong)." -Carl
     If it's really not the center of the world, why did you insult me so critically "if you didn't know this 7(odd)-limit tetrad answer you must not know JI"...specifically in a thread discussing psychoacoustic consonance not related to JI.  Yes, you're an expert on it...but, no, it was not on topic and not even close to what I was looking for.  It came across as "teaching an engine designer that his cylinder block didn't have the right artistic symmetry"...the fact it's true doesn't automatically make it relevant.
---"#6 is attacking a straw man"
    The only reason I made the "drastic" assumption your tetrachord example was construed by you as so important...is you scolded me about missing it as if I "forgot my ABC's" IE something everyone needs to know.
*******************************************************
---"Michael, I'm sorry we got to squabbling." -Carl
Myself as well...it's simply frustrating more than anything else.  I think you're ace at what you do...but realize at times it may seem I think otherwise. 

    Fact is...I'm doing something quite different and relatively unresearched.  Just about the only person here whose explanations/papers I've seen doing something that strikes me as similar (after reading such info) is Jaques Dudon.

     Doing something so odd means I'm going to hit a lot of brick walls along the way, kind of like doctors looking for a cure to something like cancer that's not so well known about. 
    It doesn't mean I think I'm better than anyone else here in any way.  In fact, if I didn't believe I could learn a lot from you, I would have said "hey look, I'm just not going to talk to you this is far too much hassle to ever be worth it" ages ago.  The reason I keep talking...is I am looking for the percent of your well-researched ideas that may apply directly to what I'm doing.  That "filter" in no way means I don't respect or admire what you do.
************************************************************************
--"Can we put this behind us?" -Carl
Of course...
*********************************************************************
---"I don't care if you believe in JI"  -Carl
     Thank you for the slack, but truth is I do believe in it (though not as the only premier way to organize music)...but I surely don't know it in the same detail you do.  But at the same time, the fact I haven't gotten that far does not mean I disrespect it or anyone's working with it.  Personally I've been able to feel better about my progress composing with noble-numbered scales...but that difference is on the same ground as someone liking breakbeat vs. rock...simply subjective.  For now, that's what I like, maybe I'll turn back to JI later (like I did before with my tetra-chord based scales) and manage to like it more as I'll know more about it by then...who knows....
*********************************************************************
--"but if you want to be happy here, you'll have to be
--willing to do three things:"
---"...If you make a claim and are challenged, don't
---be defensive. " -Carl
   I admit to having difficulty trying to balance this...especially when I find so many threads I start being de-railed when I'm not very active in them.  But I pledge not to be as defensive...although I'd like to know your opinion on what to do when someone introduces something you've created as something quite far from what it is (IE saying my scale virtually is the scale from the noble-mediant paper when it clearly isn't)...

   I realize this also happend to you also when someone mis-created your meantone scale on the old "God Save The Queen" song comparison... :-)

--"2. Please do share your listening adventures and experiences
--here (in cents or whatever)." -Carl
    Haha, don't worry, I understand why you've been prodding me to churn out those SCALA files and agree they are more convenient to use even though my DAW and how I make scales is in something that uses the "wrong" decimal format.
 
    Next time I am about 95% sure I'm not going to re-tune notes in my latest PHI scale by a few cents the next day for yet another touch-up, for example, (to avoid posting a scale and then having to label it "old" the next day) I'll be happy to post the scales here (and, most likely, in cents this time around). :-)

---"3. Start formatting your posts as requested. You can look at

Graham's post..." -Carl

    I'm trying to lean toward that...  Beyond trimming and naming who said what...what exactly am I missing?
*******************************************************************

--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Quality of posts / Challenges on the Tuning list
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 10:50 PM

--- Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@ ...> wrote:

> Not to pick on Graham, but here's something to point out.

> This email is 1220 words long. There are other replies in the

> previous thread by both Mike Sheiman and Carl that are in

> the same word range.

Let's compare Michael's last post

http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/tuning/ message/82907

to Graham's last post

http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/tuning/ message/82904

According to wordcounttool. com, Graham's post has 1162 words;

613 written by him and 549 by Michael (all neatly quoted).

New/old ratio about 1.2.

Michael's post has 747 words. Good luck figuring out which

are quoted -- he's still not following posting conventions.

But apparently 736 of them were typed by him. Ratio of 66.9!

Now, let's summarize the points in Graham's post:

1. Michael's listening skills are nonexistent.

2. Michael's posts don't contain detailed explanations

or answers to questions, but rather, they tend to contain

rants and personal attacks.

3. 1/4-comma meantone is the 5-limit minimax meantone.

4. Meta-stable ratios might be of interest to Michael.

5. I brought up Surreal numbers as a joke.

6. Having a moderator filter posts is a better use of labor

than having 1200 readers filter posts.

Of these points, only #5 is incorrect. Now let's do the

same for Michael's post:

1. He assumed I'd made a joke at his expense.

2. My explanation of what I actually meant "reeks of bull crap".

3. Surreal numbers are not real numbers.

4. I'd been trying to get him to use cents or fractions.

5. I think the only valid ways to build a scale are to

use the harmonic series or to stack tetrads.

6. Michael strongly disagrees the methods in #5 are the only

ways to make good scales.

7. Michael understands 80% of the example I gave him, and boy

was it a crap example.

8. Michael challenges me to a chord beauty contest.

#1 assumes ill intent, though Graham seems to have read it

this way also, so the misunderstanding was probably my fault.

#2 rejects my attempt to clarify. #3 is true but demonstrates

he still hasn't understood the point, despite the clarification.

#4 shows he missed when I explained that decimal ratios from

his DAW are fine and that the only important thing is to share

quantities of some sort. #5 is an attempt at telepathy (and

it's wrong). #6 is attacking a straw man. #7 construes an

example I created to help clarify as an attack.

In light of this analysis, here's what I'm thinking:

Michael, I'm sorry we got to squabbling. Can we put this

behind us? I believe you're someone who's seriously interested

in microtonal music, and if so, you've got something quite

unusual in common with folks here. Let's not waste that

serendipity. I don't care if you believe in JI or anything

else, but if you want to be happy here, you'll have to be

willing to do three things:

1. Please approach the list as a place to learn. That's how

I approach it, and I continue to learn new things here all

the time. This will take an ounce of humility, and it will

go a long way. If you make a claim and are challenged, don't

be defensive. Try to present evidence to support your claim.

Ask as many questions as you like, but please don't swamp out

answers with new text. One can't learn and lecture at the

same time! (I'll be the first to admit I've been guilty of

this in years past.)

2. Please do share your listening adventures and experiences

here. When you do, simply tell us what you were playing

(in cents or crow's feathers or whatever you like) so we can

play along at home.

3. Start formatting your posts as requested. You can look at

Graham's post, discussed above, as a prime example of how to

do it. Yahoo's website should start you off with quoted text

automatically, and most e-mail clients will do the same.

It will also help to read the links I provided on the topic.

Are you willing to work on these points?

-Carl

--"You really explain that you don't give a damn" -Claudio
    Dude...if I did not give a damn I certainly would not be hear, quoting references from links I am giving, quoting examples from people like Carl and explaining my take on scales, or listening and then talking about things like tetrads despite not having any real use for them in my own non-rational-number-ratio-based scales.

---"And, no, I'm not going to stop doing that." -Me
  When you responded to that as my saying "I don't care" you took things that WAY out of content.

    So what did I mean?  I meant, I'm not going to re-state something just to please other people.  If you said "your preference toward abstract break-beats makes it obvious you don't respect or know anything about classical music...learn classical music" I would likely respond "That's irrelevant: I do respect classical music, I want to write music that sounds good to me, break-beat does, and you're not going to force me to change my mind just to make you happy".

-Michael

--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...> wrote:

From: Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 4:20 AM

> -----Original Message-----

> From: tuning@yahoogroups. com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups. com]

> On Behalf Of djtrancendance@ yahoo.com

> And, no, I'm not going to stop doing that.

No, you obviously are not.

Michael, wake up!

Instead of being happy to get the patient, caring and intelligent advice

Carl gave you, you only react with aggressiveness and rudeness!

Your posts have a positive side though: you are certainly sincere.

You really explain that you don't give a damn.

Indeed it is sad to see this interesting discussion place plagued by your

posts.

Claudio

(one of your "veterans" "researchers" who is not "open-minded" )

Of course I wanted to say "the same number of notes as scale based on it".

Daniel Forro

On 16 Apr 2009, at 11:15 PM, Daniel Forro wrote:
> Indeed, there are cases when tuning and scale can be the same - when
> tuning system has the same number as scale based on it, and there are
> no modes of the scale (rotations), just that one scale inside that
> tuning.
>

Michael wrote
So what did I mean? I meant, I'm not going to re-state something just to
please other people. If you said "your preference toward abstract
break-beats makes it obvious you don't respect or know anything about
classical music...learn classical music" I would likely respond "That's
irrelevant: I do respect classical music, I want to write music that sounds
good to me, break-beat does, and you're not going to force me to change my
mind just to make you happy".

Michael:

It's again a pity you use your creativity for misbehaving.

Because the very minimum behaviour I expect from a member of an online list
is to quote properly!

I never wrote the sentence you quoted about "classical music", or anything
similar to it, in this forum or anywhere alse.

Claudio

Ok so I use
--"Because the very minimum behaviour I expect from a member of an
--online list is to quote properly!" -Claudio

   ...Instead of.......
Claudio wrote, "Because the very minimum behaviour I expect from a member of an
online list is to quote properly!"

Look here: http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
  
Note that USENET also uses the exact same quoting style as I do!

And also look at the in-line quoting article here
   http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/

   Note I conform to both of the above best-practices.  As an open question...is there anything you have...that seems to prove posting the name of the person who is quoted as necessarily better than the above conventions I use?

--"I never wrote the sentence you quoted about "classical
music", or --anything similar to it, in this forum or anywhere else." -Claudio

Which is why I said, "for example, SUPPOSE if..." and did NOT put your name at the end.  I was giving a possible example, not reflecting on something actually did.  If I give a quote without any name...you can figure on it being a rhetorical example.

-Michael

--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@braybaroque.ie> wrote:

From: Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Housekeeping
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 8:19 AM

Michael wrote
So what did I mean?  I meant, I'm not going to
re-state something just to please other people.  If you said "your
preference toward abstract break-beats makes it obvious you don't respect or
know anything about classical music...learn classical music" I would likely
respond "That's irrelevant: I do respect classical music, I want to write music
that sounds good to me, break-beat does, and you're not going to force me to
change my mind just to make you happy".

Michael:
 
It's again a pity you use your creativity for
misbehaving.
 
Because the very minimum behaviour I expect from a member of an
online list is to quote properly!
 
I never wrote the sentence you quoted about "classical
music", or anything similar to it, in this forum or anywhere
alse.
 
Claudio

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> I complained about the same problem in my message from November
> 6th, 2008 :-) Without deeper constructive reactions and wider
> discussion on it. So I'm glad at least somebody else from you
> veterans mentioned it, maybe now it will be finally discussed.
> Very often I read here highly sophisticated mathematically based
> theories with lot of newspeak, but the very basic terminology is
> not exact. Is it really so difficult to make some order in it?
> With so many people here with such admirably high level of
> scientific approach?

It has been discussed here many times. See my Tuning FAQ:

http://lumma.org/music/theory/TuningFAQ.txt

(4th question down). The answer was taken from a recent post
of mine.

-Carl

Dear Carl,

On Apr 16, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> It has been discussed here many times. See my Tuning FAQ:
>
> http://lumma.org/music/theory/TuningFAQ.txt
>
> (4th question down). The answer was taken from a recent post
> of mine.
>

I find Gene's definitions in your FAQ helpful, but still have some open questions.

According to this definition, a "tuning" is always an instance of a regular temperament. What about other, well, "tunings" (e.g., a spectral tuning of the partials 32-64, the uning of a specific Gamelan orchestra, or even a random set of pitches). Are they not tunings?

The term "scale" is problematic in that it is obviously used in different meanings. Gene's (and Scala's) definition "list of intervals" is one instance. By contrast, music theorists tend to use this term in a more abstract sense, as just pointed out by Claudio. It is a list of intervals which allows for considerable "retuning" and still remains recognisable (e.g., "major scale" in 12 ET vs. 1/4-comma meantone). Actually, I would prefer using the term "tuning" to denote what Gene and Scala call a "scale".

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> wrote:
>
> I find Gene's definitions in your FAQ helpful, but still have
> some open questions.
>
> According to this definition, a "tuning" is always an instance
> of a regular temperament. What about other, well, "tunings"
> (e.g., a spectral tuning of the partials 32-64, the uning of a
> specific Gamelan orchestra, or even a random set of pitches).
> Are they not tunings?

They would be scales. You can think of some circulating
temperaments (well temperaments) as irregular tunings of an
underlying regular temperament.

It's true that the definition is more restrictive than the
one in general use, but that's the point. If you want to
make these definitions precise, you've got to break some eggs.

> The term "scale" is problematic in that it is obviously used
> in different meanings. Gene's (and Scala's) definition "list
> of intervals" is one instance. By contrast, music theorists
> tend to use this term in a more abstract sense, as just pointed
> out by Claudio.

And Charles. It's a valid point. Gene made temperaments
abstract, but ignored that scales are abstract too.
Perhaps tunings could be instances of either temperaments
or scales. E.g. {100.0, 200.0} is a tuning of LLsLLLs. (?)

-Carl

I believe that you may wish to revisit and review your FAQ Carl, as it contains (IMHO) a few "prejudices"
e.g.
" ... they are both good meantone tunings because they produce good approximations of 5-limit JI."

which clearly exhibits your pro-JI point of view.

To restate my prejudice;
the integer frequency ratios are significant because they generate beating, yet your FAQ is assuming that a "good" meantone should approximate 5-JI, which may not necessarily be the case.

On 16 Apr 2009, at 17:34, Carl Lumma wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
> >
> > I complained about the same problem in my message from November
> > 6th, 2008 :-) Without deeper constructive reactions and wider
> > discussion on it. So I'm glad at least somebody else from you
> > veterans mentioned it, maybe now it will be finally discussed.
> > Very often I read here highly sophisticated mathematically based
> > theories with lot of newspeak, but the very basic terminology is
> > not exact. Is it really so difficult to make some order in it?
> > With so many people here with such admirably high level of
> > scientific approach?
>
> It has been discussed here many times. See my Tuning FAQ:
>
> http://lumma.org/music/theory/TuningFAQ.txt
>
> (4th question down). The answer was taken from a recent post
> of mine.
>
> -Carl
>
>
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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> I believe that you may wish to revisit and review your FAQ Carl,
> as it contains (IMHO) a few "prejudices"
//
> which clearly exhibits your pro-JI point of view.

Sorry, that's a consensus, not my prejudice.

-Carl

Dear Carl,

On Apr 16, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> > wrote:
> >
> > I find Gene's definitions in your FAQ helpful, but still have
> > some open questions.
> >
> > According to this definition, a "tuning" is always an instance
> > of a regular temperament. What about other, well, "tunings"
> > (e.g., a spectral tuning of the partials 32-64, the uning of a
> > specific Gamelan orchestra, or even a random set of pitches).
> > Are they not tunings?
>
> They would be scales. You can think of some circulating
> temperaments (well temperaments) as irregular tunings of an
> underlying regular temperament.
>
> It's true that the definition is more restrictive than the
> one in general use, but that's the point. If you want to
> make these definitions precise, you've got to break some eggs.
>
Hm. I think, terminology is important only in order to facilitate the communication about concepts. Now, while precise definitions help the communication, I think it is also important to take the established use of some terms into account.

I feel the confusion concerning the term "scale" is unfortunate, but it is likely too late to do anything about it. Both meanings are already established in the literature. Still, because one use of this term is much older, I feel inclined to use it only in its conservative meaning (together with Claudio, Charles, Daniel...).

The term "tuning" is a different case, though. As far as I know, Gene's definition of this term as an instance of a regular temperament is not established. Therefore, using the term in this restricted meaning is likely increasing confusion instead of facilitating the communication. By contrast, this term is established among musicians as a generic term for arbitrary, well, tunings including regular temperaments but also anything else. For example, try googling "tuning music" and see what you get. Also, we are speaking of "tuning" an instrument and not of "scaling" it :) Is there a problem to stick with convention and call what you call a "scale" instead a "tuning", and so retain for both terms "scale" and "tuning" their conservative meaning? If you need some term for a new concept, like an instance of a regular temperament, then why not inventing a new term for it, e.g., "regular temperament instance" or "temperament instance"?

Now, if Gene, you and others are using these and other terms in personal communication or even on this list in a different meaning, well, then you know what you are talking about and everything is fine. However, I feel it is not such a good idea to define these terms in such a way in your FAQ, as it may cause confusion. Instead, I would suggest a more neutral approach: explain that certain terms are used with different meanings and then explain each of these meanings.

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

Note: for good housekeeping, I've taken "Housekeeping" out of the subject line.

Torsten Anders wrote:

>> http://lumma.org/music/theory/TuningFAQ.txt

> According to this definition, a "tuning" is always an instance of a > regular temperament. What about other, well, "tunings" (e.g., a > spectral tuning of the partials 32-64, the uning of a specific > Gamelan orchestra, or even a random set of pitches). Are they not > tunings?

Gene's definition was written in the context of regular temperaments. A "tuning" in any context is a particular set of parameters for the given system. For a regular "temperament" as Gene defined it (what I'd call a "temperament class") there are r free parameters for r generators, so the tuning is the particular choice for those generators. For an instrument with a fixed number of notes, the tuning is the particular pitch given to each note. For a string instrument the tuning is the pitch given to each open string. In some contexts the tuning of an instrument or ensemble is the absolute reference pitch everything else is taken relative to. I don't see any inherent confusion or controversy in any of this.

> The term "scale" is problematic in that it is obviously used in > different meanings. Gene's (and Scala's) definition "list of > intervals" is one instance. By contrast, music theorists tend to use > this term in a more abstract sense, as just pointed out by Claudio. > It is a list of intervals which allows for considerable "retuning" > and still remains recognisable (e.g., "major scale" in 12 ET vs. 1/4- > comma meantone). Actually, I would prefer using the term "tuning" to > denote what Gene and Scala call a "scale".

A scale is a list (or ordered set) of pitches. That seems universal. The vague part is that it leaves the definition of "pitch" hanging. With Gene's definition "pitch" is taken in its scientific sense, so it should have a particular value in Hz, which a musical "pitch" needn't. That's why he talked about a "list of intervals" instead of "list of pitches" directly. The intervals are like position vectors for the pitches.

In the abstract sense, a scale is a list of abstract pitches. For example the C major scale is "C D E F G A B C". Here, the tuning (either absolute or relative pitch) isn't determined. Gene's definition excludes this case.

If you take a scale from a regular temperament, then that scale can obviously be (re-)tuned according to the values for the generators and absolute pitch reference. If you talk about "the chromatic scale" then it can be tuned by picking 12 less abstract pitches. This is the general meaning and I don't see any confusion.

The Scala files are obviously of scales. They're lists of pitches, defined as precise intervals relative to an undefined reference. They're also tunings of an abstract scale with the same number of notes. It doesn't matter what you call them.

Graham

On Apr 17, 2009, at 12:10 AM, Graham Breed wrote:
> >> http://lumma.org/music/theory/TuningFAQ.txt
>
> > According to this definition, a "tuning" is always an instance of a
> > regular temperament. What about other, well, "tunings" (e.g., a
> > spectral tuning of the partials 32-64, the uning of a specific
> > Gamelan orchestra, or even a random set of pitches). Are they not
> > tunings?
>
> Gene's definition was written in the context of regular
> temperaments. A "tuning" in any context is a particular set
> of parameters for the given system.
>
> [...]
>
> For an instrument with a fixed number of notes,
> the tuning is the particular pitch given to each note.
>
> [...]
> I don't see any inherent confusion or
> controversy in any of this.
>
I don't have a problem with this use of the term "tuning" if instances of regular temperaments are one particular case of it. However, Carl's use of the term is more restrictive.
> A "tuning" in any context is a particular set of parameters for the > given system.
>

I would argue that in the common usage of the term, a tuning does not need any system. Carl uses the term "scale" for this case. As we just saw by reactions of others here, the term "scale" is conventionally used otherwise -- why not using "tuning" as the generic term instead, that is a more conventional use as far as I know.
> A scale is a list (or ordered set) of pitches. That seems
> universal. The vague part is that it leaves the definition
> of "pitch" hanging. With Gene's definition "pitch" is taken
> in its scientific sense, so it should have a particular
> value in Hz, which a musical "pitch" needn't. That's why he
> talked about a "list of intervals" instead of "list of
> pitches" directly. The intervals are like position vectors
> for the pitches.
>
> In the abstract sense, a scale is a list of abstract
> pitches. For example the C major scale is "C D E F G A B
> C". Here, the tuning (either absolute or relative pitch)
> isn't determined. Gene's definition excludes this case.
>
I would argue (together with Charles, Daniel, Claudio..) that the abstract meaning is the conventional meaning. As you say, in the C major scale the actual pitches are not exactly defined. This is the classical case. Defining a term in a way which excludes its conventional meaning is bound to cause confusion.

Nevertheless, I already conceded that this second meaning is meanwhile also established and it is too late to undo this term... I assume that the influence of the Scala terminology plays an important role here.

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:47 PM, Torsten Anders wrote:
> However, I feel it is not such a good idea to define these
> terms in such a way in your FAQ, as it may cause confusion. Instead,
> I would suggest a more neutral approach: explain that certain terms
> are used with different meanings and then explain each of these
> meanings.

Just reread your FAQ. Actually, you do mention the conventional meaning of the term scale. You also say that there is no consensus on Gene's terminology. So, perhaps we should just bury this terminology debate again. Sorry for the noise :)

Best
Torsen

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> wrote:
>
> terminology is important only in order to facilitate the
> communication about concepts. Now, while precise definitions
> help the communication, I think it is also important to take
> the established use of some terms into account.

But the established use isn't consistent -- that's the problem.

> Still, because one use of this term is much older, I feel
> inclined to use it only in its conservative meaning (together
> with Claudio, Charles, Daniel...).

I completely agree. Since the Scala/Gene definition is far
older, it should be the only one used. :)

> Therefore, using the term in this
> restricted meaning is likely increasing confusion instead of
> facilitating the communication.

Gene's definition is the best possible generalization of
the common usage, so far as the common usage makes any
sense at all.

> Now, if Gene, you and others are using these and other terms in
> personal communication or even on this list in a different
> meaning, well, then you know what you are talking about and
> everything is fine.

Indeed. Everyone outside of that sphere will have to continue
being confused by their inconsistent usage.

> However, I feel it is not such a good idea to define these
> terms in such a way in your FAQ, as it may cause confusion.

The FAQ is meant to be the FAQ of this list, not the FAQ of
the world at large. That's what FAQs are for.

-Carl

I wrote:

> > Still, because one use of this term is much older, I feel
> > inclined to use it only in its conservative meaning (together
> > with Claudio, Charles, Daniel...).
>
> I completely agree. Since the Scala/Gene definition is far
> older, it should be the only one used. :)

Actually I had a thought -- somebody used the term "gamut"
in this latest batch of posts. What if we have "scale" be
the abstract thing (e.g. LLsLLLs) and "gamut" be the
'list of pitches'?

Or maybe the other way around? I just did some quick reading
on the definitions of these terms, but perhaps someone with
more historical knowledge can tell us if this makes any sense.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> Carl, I think it would be good to contact Yahoo! support to
> determine why their search utility isn't performing as expected.

Like Graham, I had a good laugh to myself at this prospect.
But lo and behold, just now I saw a banner on our group about
a new effort by Yahoo to improve search. This banner may
only appear to moderators, I don't know. I signed this group
up to be a beta tester for the new search algorithm. For now,
you can read about it here:

http://www.ygroupsblog.com/blog/2009/03/17/groups-search-update/

As I said, I already signed up the group. We'll see if
anything comes of it.

-Carl

On 17 Apr 2009, at 02:08, Carl Lumma wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > > Still, because one use of this term is much older, I feel
> > > inclined to use it only in its conservative meaning (together
> > > with Claudio, Charles, Daniel...).
> >
> > I completely agree. Since the Scala/Gene definition is far
> > older, it should be the only one used. :)
>
> Actually I had a thought -- somebody used the term "gamut"
> in this latest batch of posts. What if we have "scale" be
> the abstract thing (e.g. LLsLLLs) and "gamut" be the
> 'list of pitches'?
>
> Or maybe the other way around? I just did some quick reading
> on the definitions of these terms, but perhaps someone with
> more historical knowledge can tell us if this makes any sense.

Please find a citation from Grove Music Online below, entry Gamut. I
assume you are referring to the meaning (2). I assume the usage which
is most frequently is (3), simply meaning a pitch range.

Best
Torsten

------------------------------------

source: http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/
music/10613?q=gamut&search=quick&pos=1&_start=1#firsthit

Gamut.

(1) The note G; a contraction of gamma ut, which is the full
Solmization name for gamma, the lowest note of the medieval system of
letter notation that dates back to the Dialogus de musica (c1000; ed.
in GerbertS, i, 251–64) formerly attributed to Odo of Cluny.
Throughout the later Middle Ages the lowest note with a Roman letter
name was A (A re), a 10th below middle C: this was logical not only
because it was considered the equivalent of proslambanomenos, the
lowest note of the Greek Greater Perfect System which had served up
until the time of the Dialogus for virtually all note nomenclature,
but also in that it was the lowest note used within the Gregorian
chant repertory (bearing in mind Apel’s observation, p.248, that the
mere 11 examples with notes below A he found in the entire repertory
are probably ‘of a later date’, and are in any case not confirmed by
all sources). Whether the new extra note below A, apparently first
mentioned by the author of the Dialogus, was added to account for new
expanded chants, or whether, as seems possible, it was necessary to
explain the lowest A and B within a hexachordal or tetrachordal
system, is not at all clear. But from that time on nearly all
descriptions of the scale or of the monochord began with the lowest
note called gamma, gamma ut or gamma graecum. This also found its way
into the vernacular: Tobler and Lommatzsch listed Gautier de Coincy’s
use of ‘gamaüt’; English uses may be found in the Oxford English
Dictionary and in Kurath and Kuhn.

(2) The hexachordal system or, more broadly, any system. Early uses
in English seem to have taken the form ‘gamme’: at the end of the
14th century John Gower wrote ‘Nou hihe notes and nou lowe,/As be the
gamme a man mei knowe,/Which techeth the prolacion/Of note and the
condicion’; and shortly afterwards Leonel Power began his work on
discant: ‘This tretis is contrived upon the gamme for them that will
be syngers or makers or techers’. From similar references listed in
Kurath and Kuhn it seems that ‘gamme’ meant ‘hexachordal system’.
French uses of the word in that sense are plentiful and go back to Le
roman de Thèbes (mid-12th century). More recently the French word
gamme, like the Italian gamma, has been the normal word for a musical
scale. From the end of the 15th century the word ‘gamut’, which is
apparently peculiar to English, has meant ‘hexachordal system’,
‘scale’ or ‘system’. See also Hexachord.

(3) Range. Strictly, the gamut in this sense comprised those notes
shown on the Guidonian hand (see Solmization, figs.1 and 2). More loosely, and more often, it has been used figuratively. References in
the Oxford English Dictionary date back to the early 17th century.
Bibliography

The Gamut, or Scale of Music (Hartford, CT, 1816)

H. Kurath and S.M. Kuhn, eds.: Middle English Dictionary (Ann Arbor
and London, 1952–)

W. Apel: Gregorian Chant (Bloomington, IN, 1958, 3/1966)

A. Tobler and E. Lommatzsch: ‘Game’, ‘Gamaüt’, Altfranzösisches
Wörterbuch, iv (Wiesbaden, 1960)

R.L. Crocker: ‘Hermann’s Major Sixth’, JAMS, xxv (1972), 19–37

David Fallows

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> wrote:

> source: http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/
> music/10613?q=gamut&search=quick&pos=1&_start=1#firsthit
>
> Gamut.
>
> (1) The note G;
//
> (2) The hexachordal system or, more broadly, any system.
//
> (3) Range. Strictly, the gamut in this sense comprised those
> notes shown on the Guidonian hand

Thanks. Unfortunately, not a lot to help us here.

Wikipedia gives us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gammut_etymology_Lemon_1783.png

and

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

So I think gamut would be Gene's "scale", and scale would
be the more abstract definition (e.g. LLsLLLs).

Monz- you have an opinion on this? Anyone else?

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> So I think gamut would be Gene's "scale", and scale would
> be the more abstract definition (e.g. LLsLLLs).

I don't see anything in your references to say "gamut" has that meaning. I thought Scala ".scl" files were "tuning systems". That is, a type of scale with a relative but not absolute tuning. But I can't find a reference for that definition. Wikipedia doesn't agree with it and a quick web search shows that nobody else seems to either.

Wikipedia does suggest that LLsLLLs should be a "type of scale" which I could go along with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_(music)

> Monz- you have an opinion on this? Anyone else?

Wikipedia also says "Musicians use the term 'scale' in several incompatible senses." That pretty much sums it up.

Definitions of "scale" tend to delegate exactness to the word "pitch". It's difficult to pin down a standard source as to whether "C" is a pitch that can correspond to different frequencies. The way it's used it obviously does, but there's often an assumption that standard notations describe equal temperament, and so "pitch" is defined accordingly.

Graham

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

> > So I think gamut would be Gene's "scale", and scale would
> > be the more abstract definition (e.g. LLsLLLs).
>
> I don't see anything in your references to say "gamut" has
> that meaning.

It most certainly doesn't. But it may be the closest thing
out there. Also, hardly anyone uses it these days, so it's
ripe for update.

> I thought Scala ".scl" files were "tuning
> systems". That is, a type of scale with a relative but not
> absolute tuning.

My FAQ defines "scale" as an ordered list of intervals.
I forget if Gene said intervals or pitches, but it hardly
matters since you can get the latter from the former
simply by specifying concert pitch. We shouldn't seek that
much precision out of this exhausted term -- if we can
exclude temperaments and tunings, it'll be time for a beer.

> Definitions of "scale" tend to delegate exactness to the
> word "pitch". It's difficult to pin down a standard source
> as to whether "C" is a pitch that can correspond to
> different frequencies.

"C" is a pitch class, not a pitch.

If someone says "C4", generally it's safe to assume they mean
a pitch given A=440. There is the matter of transposing
instruments, but in my experience one tends to say "high C"
or "middle C" rather than C-number with those.

> But I can't find a reference for that
> definition. Wikipedia doesn't agree with it and a quick web
> search shows that nobody else seems to either.
>
> Wikipedia does suggest that LLsLLLs should be a "type of
> scale" which I could go along with.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_(music)

There's no consistent definition. The terms "scale", "mode",
and "gamut" are all used more or less interchangeably. The
proposed definition of "scale" is the most inclusive and
therefore probably the best.
The most common use of "mode" is a particular circular
permutation of a scale, which is how it's generally used here.
So I think we're on the right track.
What we're lacking is a name for the LLsLLLs thing, which
should be an equivalence class containing all its circular
permutations and tunings.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> >>> So I think gamut would be Gene's "scale", and scale would
>>> be the more abstract definition (e.g. LLsLLLs).
>> I don't see anything in your references to say "gamut" has >> that meaning.
> > It most certainly doesn't. But it may be the closest thing
> out there. Also, hardly anyone uses it these days, so it's
> ripe for update.

But what about:

>> I thought Scala ".scl" files were "tuning >> systems". That is, a type of scale with a relative but not >> absolute tuning.

?

> My FAQ defines "scale" as an ordered list of intervals.
> I forget if Gene said intervals or pitches, but it hardly
> matters since you can get the latter from the former
> simply by specifying concert pitch. We shouldn't seek that
> much precision out of this exhausted term -- if we can
> exclude temperaments and tunings, it'll be time for a beer.

Gene said intervals.

It matters in so far as you want the term to be precise. "Concert pitch" defines a tuning reference. It doesn't give pitches to "LLsLLLs". If you care about the difference between, say, "the C major scale" and "the major scale", once again I point you to Wikipedia's suggestion of "type of scale" for the latter case. None of this has anything to do with alternative tuning systems (by any reasonable definition).

>> Definitions of "scale" tend to delegate exactness to the >> word "pitch". It's difficult to pin down a standard source >> as to whether "C" is a pitch that can correspond to >> different frequencies.
> > "C" is a pitch class, not a pitch.

It could be either. What's the point in bringing up the distinction here?

> If someone says "C4", generally it's safe to assume they mean
> a pitch given A=440. There is the matter of transposing
> instruments, but in my experience one tends to say "high C"
> or "middle C" rather than C-number with those.

If they use the number, they may be thinking in terms of MIDI, which is where that terminology comes from. In general -- whatever the definitions may say -- you can't assume either concert pitch or equal temperament. Or are you seriously suggesting it's impossible to play a C major scale on a piano tuned to A=445 or meantone?

> There's no consistent definition. The terms "scale", "mode",
> and "gamut" are all used more or less interchangeably. The
> proposed definition of "scale" is the most inclusive and
> therefore probably the best.

There *are* consistent definitions of "scale" and "mode" in Renaissance counterpoint, and I think through to Common Practice. They are followed strictly by careful writers in that context. There are other definitions in other contexts, and some people don't follow them strictly. What's new?

What is the proposed definition of "scale"? I thought that issue met no controversy and we agreed to drop it. But note that my simple definition of "a list of pitches" doesn't include scale types (like LLsLLLs) and doesn't say "pitch classes" (but could be made to do so, obviously). Neither issue is relevant to tuning.

> The most common use of "mode" is a particular circular
> permutation of a scale, which is how it's generally used here.
> So I think we're on the right track.
> What we're lacking is a name for the LLsLLLs thing, which
> should be an equivalence class containing all its circular
> permutations and tunings.

It's a "type of scale" until it stops being ordered. Then maybe it'd be a "type of mode" or "relative pitch class set". Who cares?

Graham

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

> >>> So I think gamut would be Gene's "scale", and scale would
> >>> be the more abstract definition (e.g. LLsLLLs).
> >>
> >> I don't see anything in your references to say "gamut" has
> >> that meaning.
> >
> > It most certainly doesn't. But it may be the closest thing
> > out there.
>
> But what about:
>
> >> I thought Scala ".scl" files were "tuning systems". That
> >> is, a type of scale with a relative but not absolute tuning.
>
> ?

What about it?

> >> It's difficult to pin down a standard source
> >> as to whether "C" is a pitch that can correspond to
> >> different frequencies.
> >
> > "C" is a pitch class, not a pitch.
>
> It could be either. What's the point in bringing up the
> distinction here?

You brought it up.

> > If someone says "C4", generally it's safe to assume they mean
> > a pitch given A=440. There is the matter of transposing
> > instruments, but in my experience one tends to say "high C"
> > or "middle C" rather than C-number with those.
>
> If they use the number, they may be thinking in terms of
> MIDI, which is where that terminology comes from.

Nonsense.

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

> In
> general -- whatever the definitions may say -- you can't
> assume either concert pitch

I said _a_ concert pitch. It can be anything you like.

> Or are
> you seriously suggesting it's impossible to play a C major
> scale on a piano tuned to A=445 or meantone?

I wouldn't suggest that.

> There *are* consistent definitions of "scale" and "mode" in
> Renaissance counterpoint, and I think through to Common
> Practice. They are followed strictly by careful writers in
> that context.

I'd like to see that.

> > The most common use of "mode" is a particular circular
> > permutation of a scale, which is how it's generally used here.
> > So I think we're on the right track.
> > What we're lacking is a name for the LLsLLLs thing, which
> > should be an equivalence class containing all its circular
> > permutations and tunings.
>
> It's a "type of scale" until it stops being ordered. Then
> maybe it'd be a "type of mode" or "relative pitch class
> set". Who cares?

I thought Charles and at least one other person were objecting
that "scale" should mean "LLsLLLs", or at least there should be
a name for such a thing. I agree there should be a name.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> >>>>> So I think gamut would be Gene's "scale", and scale would
>>>>> be the more abstract definition (e.g. LLsLLLs).
>>>> I don't see anything in your references to say "gamut" has >>>> that meaning.
>>> It most certainly doesn't. But it may be the closest thing
>>> out there.
>> But what about:
>>
>>>> I thought Scala ".scl" files were "tuning systems". That
>>>> is, a type of scale with a relative but not absolute tuning.
>> ?
> > What about it?

It's an existing term that's at least closer to Gene's definition of "scale" than "gamut" isn't it?

>>> "C" is a pitch class, not a pitch.
>> It could be either. What's the point in bringing up the >> distinction here?
> > You brought it up.

Did not!

>> In >> general -- whatever the definitions may say -- you can't >> assume either concert pitch
> > I said _a_ concert pitch. It can be anything you like.

Now you want to argue about definitions of "concert pitch" do you?

And anyway, you didn't, you said "A=440".

>> There *are* consistent definitions of "scale" and "mode" in >> Renaissance counterpoint, and I think through to Common >> Practice. They are followed strictly by careful writers in >> that context.
> > I'd like to see that.

Try Jeppesen.

> I thought Charles and at least one other person were objecting
> that "scale" should mean "LLsLLLs", or at least there should be
> a name for such a thing. I agree there should be a name.

Yes, the name is "scale". Nobody's objecting because there's nothing to object to. How many interesting ways are we supposed to find to say there's nothing to talk about?

Graham

Do I understand well that L means large interval, s small one? Do all "L" have the same size? And "s", too? Then it's usable only for limited number of diatonic scales which alternate two sizes of intervals... But scale can be constructed from more intervals of different sizes. Then why to use this "Ls" format at all, if it's not generally aplicable?

Daniel Forro

On 18 Apr 2009, at 5:40 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> So I think gamut would be Gene's "scale", and scale would
> be the more abstract definition (e.g. LLsLLLs).
>
> Monz- you have an opinion on this? Anyone else?
>
> -Carl
>

On 18 Apr 2009, at 12:33 PM, Graham Breed wrote:
> Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > So I think gamut would be Gene's "scale", and scale would
> > be the more abstract definition (e.g. LLsLLLs).
>
> I don't see anything in your references to say "gamut" has
> that meaning.
>

Gamut is just another term for scale, used in some languages (in small variants). As far as I know, it's not much used in English. From this point of view it's maybe free for new definition...
> Definitions of "scale" tend to delegate exactness to the
> word "pitch". It's difficult to pin down a standard source as to > whether "C" is a pitch that can correspond to
>
> different frequencies. The way it's used it obviously does,
> but there's often an assumption that standard notations
> describe equal temperament, and so "pitch" is defined
> accordingly.
>
> Graham
>
>
I don't think, scale has nothing to do with concrete pitch, it's more abstract. I can imagine C major, and reference pitch can be different (A = 415 - 442 Hz for example). Even temperament can be different and it will be still accepted as detuned C major.

Daniel Forro

On 18 Apr 2009, at 2:09 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> > > So I think gamut would be Gene's "scale", and scale would
> > > be the more abstract definition (e.g. LLsLLLs).
> >
> > I don't see anything in your references to say "gamut" has
> > that meaning.
>
> It most certainly doesn't. But it may be the closest thing
> out there. Also, hardly anyone uses it these days, so it's
> ripe for update.
>
That's true.
> > I thought Scala ".scl" files were "tuning
> > systems". That is, a type of scale with a relative but not
> > absolute tuning.
>
> My FAQ defines "scale" as an ordered list of intervals.
>
Intervals? From root note or from previous note? It's not clear.

For me scale is an ordered list of pitches, and to be independent from concrete pitch reference in Hz, I like to use Cents, which clearly describe distance from root note.
> I forget if Gene said intervals or pitches, but it hardly
> matters since you can get the latter from the former
> simply by specifying concert pitch.
>
It's not necessary to use concrete pitch reference when dealing with microtunings. Relative distances from root note and between steps in tuning system (or scale) are more important.
> The most common use of "mode" is a particular circular
> permutation of a scale, which is how it's generally used here.
>
That's good.
> So I think we're on the right track.
> What we're lacking is a name for the LLsLLLs thing, which
> should be an equivalence class containing all its circular
> permutations and tunings.
>
> -Carl
>
My opinion is this is not necessary to use in the world of microtonal music, as it's good only for scales which have only two different sizes of intervals.

Daniel Forro

On 18 Apr 2009, at 3:04 PM, Graham Breed wrote:

> >> I thought Scala ".scl" files were "tuning
> >> systems". That is, a type of scale with a relative but not
> >> absolute tuning.
>
> ?
>
>
Yes, it's so. An abstract tuning without exact pitch reference.
> > If someone says "C4", generally it's safe to assume they mean
> > a pitch given A=440. There is the matter of transposing
> > instruments, but in my experience one tends to say "high C"
> > or "middle C" rather than C-number with those.
>
> If they use the number, they may be thinking in terms of
> MIDI, which is where that terminology comes from.
>
This is not true, it has nothing to do with MIDI, and MIDI uses these numbers in a different way then music theory (besides Yamaha assigning differs one octave from MIDI). In many languages numbers are used, usually as superscript (exponent) to note name. Note names are written in small character.
> In
> general -- whatever the definitions may say -- you can't
> assume either concert pitch or equal temperament. Or are
> you seriously suggesting it's impossible to play a C major
> scale on a piano tuned to A=445 or meantone?
>
Yes, this is possible, therefore scales and tunings don't need exact pitch reference for abstract work (creating...), but of course when used practically, some pitch reference is necessary. And there's no reason to use different one then A=440 (or 442).
> > There's no consistent definition. The terms "scale", "mode",
> > and "gamut" are all used more or less interchangeably. The
> > proposed definition of "scale" is the most inclusive and
> > therefore probably the best.
>
> There *are* consistent definitions of "scale" and "mode" in
> Renaissance counterpoint, and I think through to Common
> Practice. They are followed strictly by careful writers in
> that context.
>
Yes, it's so.
> There are other definitions in other
> contexts,
>
For example "mode" as a rotation, permutation of a scale (changing the root note). Or "modal music", "modal jazz" etc. I wouldn't add more to this terminological richness which is always clear from context.
> But note that my simple definition of "a list of pitches" doesn't
> include scale types (like LLsLLLs)
>
Why not? They also use pitches, just the scale description format is different.

Daniel Forro

Hi,

On Apr 18, 2009, at 6:09 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> There's no consistent definition. The terms "scale", "mode",
> and "gamut" are all used more or less interchangeably.

If your music theory classes resulted in this impression then you should get your tuition fees back :)

Western music theory and its terminology developed over centuries, so no wonder terminology evolved and some terms changed their meaning or got further meanings added over time. As they come from Latin, in different European languages their meaning changed in different ways. Nevertheless, these terms are certainly not interchangeable. I suggest for their use in English consult the Grove Music Dictionary.

Anyway, I caution against coming up simply with a new definition for any time-honoured term which is in conflict with the previous usage. This would be bound to lead to confusion. Instead, I suggest using either completely new words (why not inventing a new term for a new concept?) or using qualifiers. For example, the following term are pretty clear: "rhythmic mode" vs. "Gregorian mode" or "church mode", "diatonic scale" vs. "overtone scale", "Guidonian gamut" vs. "gamma ut".

For using a term in a meaning which departs from the conventional meaning you can use some new qualifier. For example, in case there could be some misunderstanding consider using a term like "abstract scale" (?) for a generalisation of diatonic scales, "temperament family" or "temperament class" has already been proposed and so forth. I just suggested "temperament instance" instead of defining a new meaning for "tuning". In case there could be any misunderstanding, using a term first with a qualifier and then consistently in the same meaning will usually do.

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

Dear Graham,

On Apr 18, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Graham Breed wrote:
> But note that my simple definition of "a list of pitches" doesn't
> include scale types (like LLsLLLs) and doesn't say "pitch
> classes" (but could be made to do so, obviously). Neither
> issue is relevant to tuning.

Why are scale types or pitch classes not relevant to tuning? For example, I am interested in exploring Erlich's decatonic scales. I am thinking of their variants in terms of scale types (decatonic modi?) and I find the term pitch class still helpful in this context.

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

On Apr 18, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Daniel Forro wrote:

> > > I don't see anything in your references to say "gamut" has
> > > that meaning.
> >
> > It most certainly doesn't. But it may be the closest thing
> > out there. Also, hardly anyone uses it these days, so it's
> > ripe for update.
> >
> That's true.

As I said, the term "gamut" is most commonly used today (as far as I can tell) to mean "pitch range". So, defining the term otherwise can cause confusion.

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

On Apr 18, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Daniel Forro wrote:
> My opinion is this is not necessary to use in the world of microtonal
> music, as it's good only for scales which have only two different
> sizes of intervals.

The notion of generalised diatonic scales is indeed still useful here. For example, major can be tuned in JI and we may still abstractly talk about L and s. Same goes for decatonic scales.

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

Torsten Anders wrote:

> On Apr 18, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Graham Breed wrote:
>> But note that my simple definition of "a list of pitches" doesn't
>> include scale types (like LLsLLLs) and doesn't say "pitch
>> classes" (but could be made to do so, obviously). Neither
>> issue is relevant to tuning.
> > Why are scale types or pitch classes not relevant to tuning? For > example, I am interested in exploring Erlich's decatonic scales. I am > thinking of their variants in terms of scale types (decatonic modi?) > and I find the term pitch class still helpful in this context.

Yes, but the distinction between "scale" and "scale type" (if you call them so) is the same regardless of the tuning. If "the diatonic major scale" is a scale then so is "the standard pentachordal major scale" and so on. And if each note in the scale has a single pitch to be written or played, or stands in for all members of the pitch class to define "notes in the scale", doesn't depend on the tuning. However loose the standard usage may be, we can follow it.

Graham

On Apr 18, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Graham Breed wrote:
> Torsten Anders wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Graham Breed wrote:
> >> But note that my simple definition of "a list of pitches" doesn't
> >> include scale types (like LLsLLLs) and doesn't say "pitch
> >> classes" (but could be made to do so, obviously). Neither
> >> issue is relevant to tuning.
> >
> > Why are scale types or pitch classes not relevant to tuning? For
> > example, I am interested in exploring Erlich's decatonic scales. > I am
> > thinking of their variants in terms of scale types (decatonic modi?)
> > and I find the term pitch class still helpful in this context.
>
> Yes, but the distinction between "scale" and "scale type"
> (if you call them so) is the same regardless of the tuning.
> If "the diatonic major scale" is a scale then so is "the
> standard pentachordal major scale" and so on. And if each
> note in the scale has a single pitch to be written or
> played, or stands in for all members of the pitch class to
> define "notes in the scale", doesn't depend on the tuning.
> However loose the standard usage may be, we can follow it.
>

Exactly, these "scales types" are independent of the actual tuning. Nevertheless, tuning is still relevant, because the intervals between notes in this scale may be more close to JI in one "temperament instance" then the other, and it might be important to find an instance which minimises these errors.

We are possibly talking at cross-purposes here.

Best
Torsten

OK, thanks for your clear explanations.

Daniel Forro

On 18 Apr 2009, at 8:31 PM, Torsten Anders wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Daniel Forro wrote:
> > My opinion is this is not necessary to use in the world of > microtonal
> > music, as it's good only for scales which have only two different
> > sizes of intervals.
>
> The notion of generalised diatonic scales is indeed still useful
> here. For example, major can be tuned in JI and we may still
> abstractly talk about L and s. Same goes for decatonic scales.
>
> Best
> Torsten
>
> --
> Torsten Anders
> Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
> University of Plymouth
> Office: +44-1752-586219
> Private: +44-1752-558917
> http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
> http://www.torsten-anders.de
>

Using L and s, you can often also express many other intervals by addition and subtraction e.g. L-s etc.

Although it works perfectly and accurately for all meantones and many edo's, yet it can also be applied to other tunings with variable L and s values to approximate values.

On 18 Apr 2009, at 09:45, Daniel Forro wrote:

>
>
> Do I understand well that L means large interval, s small one? Do all
> "L" have the same size? And "s", too? Then it's usable only for
> limited number of diatonic scales which alternate two sizes of
> intervals... But scale can be constructed from more intervals of
> different sizes. Then why to use this "Ls" format at all, if it's not
> generally aplicable?
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 18 Apr 2009, at 5:40 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > So I think gamut would be Gene's "scale", and scale would
> > be the more abstract definition (e.g. LLsLLLs).
> >
> > Monz- you have an opinion on this? Anyone else?
> >
> > -Carl
> >
>
>
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

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

> >> But what about:
> >>
> >>>> I thought Scala ".scl" files were "tuning systems". That
> >>>> is, a type of scale with a relative but not absolute tuning.
> >> ?
> >
> > What about it?
>
> It's an existing term that's at least closer to Gene's
> definition of "scale" than "gamut" isn't it?

Tuning systems? I'm not aware. Can't recall having heard
that phrase in particular.

> > I said _a_ concert pitch. It can be anything you like.
>
> Now you want to argue about definitions of "concert pitch"
> do you? And anyway, you didn't, you said "A=440".

I said that in reference to scientific pitch notation.
Here I said it doesn't matter much whether scale is defined
on pitches or intervals, since a concert pitch can get you
from one to the other. Ozan used to use the term "diapason"
here. Pick whatever you like. I think Scala calls it
"base frequency".

> Yes, the name is "scale". Nobody's objecting because
> there's nothing to object to. How many interesting ways are
> we supposed to find to say there's nothing to talk about?

I happen to think we should be trying to formalize these
terms, at least for use on the mailing lists if not beyond
that. I suggested we call LLsLLLs a scale and the things
described by Scala files gamuts. But I'm open to suggestions.
If you don't want to make a suggestion, then don't.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> Do I understand well that L means large interval, s small one?

Yes.

> Do all "L" have the same size? And "s", too?

Per scale, yes.

> Then it's usable only for
> limited number of diatonic scales which alternate two sizes of
> intervals...

The notation is meant to be extensible, e.g. QrTvFYxW would
be one. Well, OK, it hasn't been formalized yet. Let's
first figure out what it should be called. For now I'm
just saying "LLsLLLs" in want of a name.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:

> Gamut is just another term for scale,

Not for long, if I have my way.

> scale has nothing to do with concrete pitch, it's more
> abstract. I can imagine C major, and reference pitch can be
> different (A = 415 - 442 Hz for example).

I agree.

> Even temperament
> can be different and it will be still accepted as detuned
> C major.

Well, that's what we're talking about. There's clearly a
name for a thing where changing the tuning will break it.
Currently, we're calling those "scales". But as you're
pointing out, there's also a need for something more
abstract. I'm suggested we call the abstract thing a
scale, and the tuning-specific thing a gamut.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> > My FAQ defines "scale" as an ordered list of intervals.
>
> Intervals? From root note or from previous note? It's not clear.

From the root note. It should be clear if you read the
Scala file definition on the Scala website.

> For me scale is an ordered list of pitches,

That's not what you just said! You said the tuning could
vary, and it'd still be C major. You see, there are two
things here, that should have different names.

-Carl

Torsten wrote:

> > There's no consistent definition. The terms "scale", "mode",
> > and "gamut" are all used more or less interchangeably.
>
> If your music theory classes resulted in this impression then
> you should get your tuition fees back :)

Even the historical references I've been looking at show
they were used without precision since the beginning. Also,
corroborated by Daniel Forro.

> I suggest for their use in English consult the Grove Music
> Dictionary.

Post them here and we'll discuss them.

> Anyway, I caution against coming up simply with a new
> definition for any time-honoured

The only thing that time has honored in music theory
is confusion and ignorance; No thanks.

> why not inventing a new term for a new concept?

I'm completely open for suggestions.

> For example, the following term are
> pretty clear: "rhythmic mode" vs. "Gregorian mode" or
> "church mode", "diatonic scale" vs. "overtone scale",
> "Guidonian gamut" vs. "gamma ut".

I'd love to see your definitions of these!

> For example, in case there
> could be some misunderstanding consider using a term like
> "abstract scale" (?) for a generalisation of diatonic scales,

I don't like qualifiers. They can't be transformed into
other parts of speech easily (which is the whole point of
English, really). They require more typing, don't handle line
breaks well, and tend to cause namespace collisions (if for
any other reason the words "abstract" and "scale" are placed
together).

As an aside, I notice you've been mentioning the terms
"diatonic" and "generalized diatonic", which have a very
specific meaning far beyond anything being discussed in this
thread. Truly, there is no other field of human inquiry so
cursed with terminology as microtonal music. :)

> "temperament family" or "temperament class" has already been
> proposed and so forth.

In German at least we could make them one word. :(

-Carl

Listing the scales as LLsLLLs format can get pretty verbose, as you need to define each interval in the scale:

e.g. LLsLLLs notation becomes: (L-s) (s) (L-s) (s) (s) (L-s) (s) (L-s) (s) (L-s) (s) (s)

Notenames from C are: C C# D D# E F F# G G# A A# B

scalecoding is 11/0/2

On 18 Apr 2009, at 21:24, Carl Lumma wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
> >
> > Do I understand well that L means large interval, s small one?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Do all "L" have the same size? And "s", too?
>
> Per scale, yes.
>
> > Then it's usable only for
> > limited number of diatonic scales which alternate two sizes of
> > intervals...
>
> The notation is meant to be extensible, e.g. QrTvFYxW would
> be one. Well, OK, it hasn't been formalized yet. Let's
> first figure out what it should be called. For now I'm
> just saying "LLsLLLs" in want of a name.
>
> -Carl
>
>
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

> I happen to think we should be trying to formalize these
> terms, at least for use on the mailing lists if not beyond
> that. I suggested we call LLsLLLs a scale and the things
> described by Scala files gamuts. But I'm open to suggestions.
> If you don't want to make a suggestion, then don't.
>
> -Carl

What does LLsLLLs specifically mean here? Does L have to be larger
than s? Does the L interval have to be around 200 cents and the s
interval have to be around 100 cents? Would 7-et satisfy the "LLsLLLs"
construct?

-Mike

Mike Battaglia schrieb:
>> I happen to think we should be trying to formalize these
>> terms, at least for use on the mailing lists if not beyond
>> that. I suggested we call LLsLLLs a scale and the things
>> described by Scala files gamuts. But I'm open to suggestions.
>> If you don't want to make a suggestion, then don't.
>>
>> -Carl
> > What does LLsLLLs specifically mean here? Does L have to be larger
> than s? Yes.

Does the L interval have to be around 200 cents and the s
> interval have to be around 100 cents? Would 7-et satisfy the "LLsLLLs"
> construct?

It's only a matter of distinguishing sizes. L = 220 and s = 50 would also be possible.

The JI major scale has been described here as L l S L L l S (9/8, 10/9, and 16/15; s would be 25/24 when you introdice chormatics).

Klaus

Carl Lumma schrieb:

> I happen to think we should be trying to formalize these
> terms, at least for use on the mailing lists if not beyond
> that. I suggested we call LLsLLLs a scale and the things
> described by Scala files gamuts. But I'm open to suggestions.
> If you don't want to make a suggestion, then don't.

Historically, the gamut was the system of all theoretically relevant tones (covering two octaves, in the original narrow sense of the word). The "scales" that were picked from it were called "modes" and still deserve that term, seeing that they each had a defined final, a defined compass, and sometimes provisions for alterations (the b/h change in the "dorian" and "lydian" groups). That makes "gamut" a general term in my understanding.

And don't Scala files describe tunings, no matter on what hierarchical level (gamut, mode, chord, ...)? If, as in medieval music, the gamut is Pythagorean and different in its two octaves, the modes and melodies inherit that. If the gamut is to comprise twelve tones per identical octave, a well-tempered major or minor scale will reflect that temperament/gamut also. I prefer sticking to the simple Db/C# major scales that are different for each starting tone in a well temperament and calling LLsLLLs "major mode". Pretty much compatible with old school music theory.

Klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > I happen to think we should be trying to formalize these
> > terms, at least for use on the mailing lists if not beyond
> > that. I suggested we call LLsLLLs a scale and the things
> > described by Scala files gamuts. But I'm open to suggestions.
> > If you don't want to make a suggestion, then don't.
>
> What does LLsLLLs specifically mean here?

Please see:
/tuning/topicId_82801.html#83015

> Does L have to be larger than s?

No, and no. And no.

> Does the L interval have to be around 200 cents and the s
> interval have to be around 100 cents? Would 7-et satisfy the
> "LLsLLLs" construct?

This isn't directed at you, Mike, but I must admit to
some frustration with the apparent reality that anything
posted here will launch at least four threads, each taking
what was said out of context in a different way.

-Carl

Carl Lumma schrieb:
> Torsten wrote:
> >>> There's no consistent definition. The terms "scale", "mode",
>>> and "gamut" are all used more or less interchangeably.
>> If your music theory classes resulted in this impression then
>> you should get your tuition fees back :)
> > Even the historical references I've been looking at show
> they were used without precision since the beginning. Also,
> corroborated by Daniel Forro.

Daniel was talking about French and some other languages. As it happens, English is one of few if not the only language where both terms are frequent use, and "gamut" means something general. Please let's stick to this.

> >> I suggest for their use in English consult the Grove Music
>> Dictionary.
> > Post them here and we'll discuss them.
> >> Anyway, I caution against coming up simply with a new
>> definition for any time-honoured
> > The only thing that time has honored in music theory
> is confusion and ignorance; No thanks.
> >> why not inventing a new term for a new concept?
> > I'm completely open for suggestions.
> >> For example, the following term are >> pretty clear: "rhythmic mode" vs. "Gregorian mode" or
>> "church mode", "diatonic scale" vs. "overtone scale",
>> "Guidonian gamut" vs. "gamma ut".
> > I'd love to see your definitions of these!

I'm pretty confident they won't differ much from mine.

> >> For example, in case there >> could be some misunderstanding consider using a term like
>> "abstract scale" (?) for a generalisation of diatonic scales,
> > I don't like qualifiers. They can't be transformed into
> other parts of speech easily (which is the whole point of
> English, really). They require more typing, don't handle line
> breaks well, and tend to cause namespace collisions (if for
> any other reason the words "abstract" and "scale" are placed
> together).

Red herring. Without qualifiers, how may ways are there to scale a fish?

> > As an aside, I notice you've been mentioning the terms
> "diatonic" and "generalized diatonic", which have a very
> specific meaning far beyond anything being discussed in this
> thread. Truly, there is no other field of human inquiry so
> cursed with terminology as microtonal music. :)
> >> "temperament family" or "temperament class" has already been
>> proposed and so forth.
> > In German at least we could make them one word. :(

As long as you can't say "temperaments family" or "temperaments families" they are one word in English, too.

Klaus

>> What does LLsLLLs specifically mean here?
>
> Please see:
> /tuning/topicId_82801.html#83015

This is unnecessary. I'm aware of L and s being two interval sizes.
This was taken out of context with an exacto knife, as the very next
sentence of mine indicated just that.

>> Does L have to be larger than s?
>
> No, and no. And no.

Then by that definition, having L be 100 cents and s be 350 cents
would still count as a "major scale," and the 5-limit JI major scale
would not. Seems kind of counterintuitive.

Are the other "no's" referring to the questions I raised about L and s
having to be near a specific interval size and whether or not they can
be the same size?

>> Does the L interval have to be around 200 cents and the s
>> interval have to be around 100 cents? Would 7-et satisfy the
>> "LLsLLLs" construct?
>
> This isn't directed at you, Mike, but I must admit to
> some frustration with the apparent reality that anything
> posted here will launch at least four threads, each taking
> what was said out of context in a different way.

Nothing here was taken out of context. I said what I said to raise the
specific points above, if you're asking for feedback on the definition
of the word "scale." I am also frustrated with the reply to the first
paragraph quoted, as you can see.

Furthermore, what about JI pieces in major that will use both 9/8 and
10/9 and 5/3 and 27/16? Would we say they're written using some huge
scale that incorporates both 9/8 and 10/9, or that they're simply in a
5-limit major JI "tuning," or perhaps that they utilize a 5-limit JI
periodicity block...?

-Mike

On Apr 18, 2009, at 9:21 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> Tuning systems? I'm not aware. Can't recall having heard
> that phrase in particular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuning_system#Tuning_systems

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

Mike Battaglia wrote:

> Then by that definition, having L be 100 cents and s be 350 cents
> would still count as a "major scale," and the 5-limit JI major scale
> would not. Seems kind of counterintuitive.

The definition of "L" and "s" may allow for "LLsLLLs" to be tuned all kinds of strange ways. That doesn't mean a "major scale" has to take on all those properties. You can't expect a wooly concept like "major scale" to be defined in such a simple algebraic way. Still, "LLsLLLs" gives you a good idea what a major scale is.

> Furthermore, what about JI pieces in major that will use both 9/8 and
> 10/9 and 5/3 and 27/16? Would we say they're written using some huge
> scale that incorporates both 9/8 and 10/9, or that they're simply in a
> 5-limit major JI "tuning," or perhaps that they utilize a 5-limit JI
> periodicity block...?

There are different ways you could describe JI. If you want to apply L and s you can say that they define a pitch model, but the precise tuning will imply more distinct intervals.

Graham

Carl Lumma wrote:

> Tuning systems? I'm not aware. Can't recall having heard
> that phrase in particular.

Don't worry, you'll be seeing it everywhere now you're sensitive to it :-) I think the definition I remember was in the tuning special of Computer Music Journal. I don't have it with me to check. In general, the term is certainly used, but not only about a fixed set of notes.

>>> I said _a_ concert pitch. It can be anything you like.
>> Now you want to argue about definitions of "concert pitch" >> do you? And anyway, you didn't, you said "A=440".
> > I said that in reference to scientific pitch notation.
> Here I said it doesn't matter much whether scale is defined
> on pitches or intervals, since a concert pitch can get you
> from one to the other. Ozan used to use the term "diapason"
> here. Pick whatever you like. I think Scala calls it
> "base frequency".

I wasn't talking about scientific pitch notation. I was specifically talking about the difference between the word "pitch" in scientific and musical contexts. That's a distinction that's still passing you by. A concert pitch will not get you from the musical definition (that I intended) to the scientific one.

Now, it certainly isn't as simple as that. And as this is the most likely point of confusion, let's talk about it again, instead of wandering off into scientific pitch, absolute pitch, and so on.

When I started checking definitions, I found that they generally didn't make the distinction I did. For example, here's the Lilypond Music Glossary:

"ES: altura, I: altezza, F: hauteur, D: Tonh�he, NL: toonhoogte, DK: toneh�jde, S: tonh�jd, FI: s�velkorkeus.

" 1. The perceived quality of a sound that is primarily a function of its fundamental frequency.
2. [FR. ton; DE. Ton; ES. tono] Any point on the continuum of musical pitch.
3. [FR. diapason; DE. Kammerton, Stimmung; ES. diapas�n] The standardized association of a particular frequency with a particular pitch name, e.g., c� = 256 Hz."

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/music-glossary/pitch#pitch

Note: three different meanings corresponding to four different words in German. "Concert pitch" and tuning refer to [3] which looks like scientific pitch. Probably the pitches in a scale are [2]. This definition doesn't specify a precise value in Hz.

General dictionaries tend to distinguish "acoustic" from "musical" meanings:

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=pitch

There's a good description from Webster's:

"(Mus.) The relative acuteness or gravity of a tone, determined by the number of vibrations which produce it; the place of any tone upon a scale of high and low.

"Note: Musical tones with reference to absolute pitch, are named after the first seven letters of the alphabet; with reference to relative pitch, in a series of tones called the scale, they are called one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Eight is also one of a new scale an octave higher, as one is eight of a scale an octave lower."

This tells us that letters of the alphabet refer to pitches, and that a scale is made of *relative* pitches.

Here's a website that came up relative to that:

http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_pitch_vs_frequency/

It says "One key distinction between these terms is that pitch is relative (a matter of common agreement among musicians), while frequency is absolute (a precise, unambiguous measurement)." I disagree in that there *is* a precise, unambiguous "pitch" used in acoustics. Still, what it implies is that "pitch" as used in music is imprecise and ambiguous. Hence "a matter of common agreement".

No definition I can find makes it clear what the word "pitch" refers to when we say that the first seven letters of the alphabet are pitch names. Some musicians may sincerely believe that these letters refer to precise, unambiguous, scientific pitches. Still, we know that with all the imprecision of orchestral performance and the variety of tuning systems used throughout history, this musical concept of pitch has to be a lot less precise than that.

For our purposes we often have to tie down the imprecision of these pitches. Some microtonal composers will specify the exact tuning for a piece, and in those cases musical pitch defaults to scientific pitch (sometimes not absolute). Sometimes, especially with regular temperaments, the mathematics will define certain tuning systems as being inside the temperament (class). The precise tuning of a written pitch could follow any of those tunings. So if a scale contains pitches, they maybe scientific pitches with an arbitrary reference -- like Scala files -- or interval patterns like "LLsLLLs". The novelty is in our understanding of "pitch".

If you like you could come up with different terms for different kinds of pitch. I don't know any in English.

So, in summary, a scale is still a list of pitches or pitch classes in ascending or descending order. Going from "the C major scale" to "the major scale" means switching to relative pitch. Your objection (in another message) that "the tuning could vary, and it'd still be C major" doesn't apply to the practical musical concept of "pitch". In musical terms, the tuning of "C'" can also vary but "C'" names a pitch.

Graham

Dear Carl,

On Apr 18, 2009, at 9:51 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> The only thing that time has honored in music theory
> is confusion and ignorance; No thanks.
>
Which sources did you consult to make such a claim?

> > why not inventing a new term for a new concept?
>
> I'm completely open for suggestions.
>
> > For example, the following term are
> > pretty clear: "rhythmic mode" vs. "Gregorian mode" or
> > "church mode", "diatonic scale" vs. "overtone scale",
> > "Guidonian gamut" vs. "gamma ut".
>
> I'd love to see your definitions of these!
>
As I said, check out a definitive music dictionary like the Grove Dictionary (or Music in Geschichte und Gegenwart, MGG). But even Wikipedia explains them to a certain degree.

> > For example, in case there
> > could be some misunderstanding consider using a term like
> > "abstract scale" (?) for a generalisation of diatonic scales,
>
> I don't like qualifiers. They can't be transformed into
> other parts of speech easily (which is the whole point of
> English, really). They require more typing, don't handle line
> breaks well, and tend to cause namespace collisions (if for
> any other reason the words "abstract" and "scale" are placed
> together).
>
It is usually sufficient to use qualifiers once to avoid confusion...

> As an aside, I notice you've been mentioning the terms
> "diatonic" and "generalized diatonic", which have a very
> specific meaning far beyond anything being discussed in this
> thread. Truly, there is no other field of human inquiry so
> cursed with terminology as microtonal music. :)
>
Did you try Philosophy? Or Theology? Or... :)

Best
Torsten

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Klaus Schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:

> Daniel was talking about French and some other languages.

I think was talking about English. Daniel?

> As it happens, English is one of few if not the only language
> where both terms are frequent use, and "gamut" means something
> general. Please let's stick to this.

"Gamut" is NOT in frequent use among musicians in the
English language. The general meaning is precisely
the meaning I'm suggesting for it.

> >> For example, the following term are
> >> pretty clear: "rhythmic mode" vs. "Gregorian mode" or
> >> "church mode", "diatonic scale" vs. "overtone scale",
> >> "Guidonian gamut" vs. "gamma ut".
> >
> > I'd love to see your definitions of these!
>
> I'm pretty confident they won't differ much from mine.

Any of them on which you agree will not be general enough
for use in microtonal music theory. Besides, I'd be happy
to test your confidence, if you'll both send your definitions
to me offlist.

> > I don't like qualifiers. They can't be transformed into
> > other parts of speech easily (which is the whole point of
> > English, really). They require more typing, don't handle line
> > breaks well, and tend to cause namespace collisions (if for
> > any other reason the words "abstract" and "scale" are placed
> > together).
>
> Red herring. Without qualifiers, how may ways are there to
> scale a fish?

So far in this thread, I'm the only person to place a clear
suggestion on the table. This suggestion covers all the
bases, and uses single words for all four terms. As I said,
I'm open to suggestions.

> >> "temperament family" or "temperament class" has already been
> >> proposed and so forth.
> >
> > In German at least we could make them one word. :(
>
> As long as you can't say "temperaments family" or "temperaments
> families" they are one word in English, too.

Nonsense.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> >> Does L have to be larger than s?
> >
> > No, and no. And no.
>
> Then by that definition, having L be 100 cents and s be 350 cents
> would still count as a "major scale," and the 5-limit JI major
> scale would not. Seems kind of counterintuitive.

I still don't think we're on the same wavelength.

> I said what I said to raise the specific points above, if
> you're asking for feedback on the definition of the word
> "scale." I am also frustrated with the reply to the first
> paragraph quoted, as you can see.

Did you really read
/tuning/topicId_82801.html#83015
?
""Well, OK, it hasn't been formalized yet. Let's
first figure out what it should be called.""

Are you saying you'd like to formalize it before naming
it? Be my guest. Oh, alright, I'll have a go at it:

I'd define these on Rothenberg rank-order matrices, to
which these lists of 2nds we've been throwing around are
conveniently isomorphic. Rothenberg uses numerals, but
for scales with more than nine 2nds you'd have to go to
two places, which could be annoying. So I suggest using
capital letters, assigned to 2nds from large to small
in reverse alphabetical order (to avoid confusion with
letter names for scale degrees). E.g. ZYXW is a 4-tone
scale with four kinds of 2nd, with Z being the largest.

The circular permutations should sorted (as in a BWT),
and the canonical permutation should be the one coming
last in the sort. Tunings could be given in curly braces
(to avoid confusion with temperament braket notation),
with 2nds in cents from largest to smallest. E.g. the
diatonic scale would be ZZZYZZY, tuned in 12-ET
with {200.0 100.0}.

That's what you were thinking, right?

> Furthermore, what about JI pieces in major that will use
> both 9/8 and 10/9 and 5/3 and 27/16? Would we say they're
> written using some huge scale that incorporates both 9/8
> and 10/9, or that they're simply in a 5-limit major JI
> "tuning," or perhaps that they utilize a 5-limit JI
> periodicity block...?

The former. If it really were a periodicity block, you'd
have 10/9 or 9/8, but not both.

-Carl

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

> >>> I said _a_ concert pitch. It can be anything you like.
> >>
> >> Now you want to argue about definitions of "concert pitch"
> >> do you? And anyway, you didn't, you said "A=440".
> >
> > I said that in reference to scientific pitch notation.
> > Here I said it doesn't matter much whether scale is defined
> > on pitches or intervals, since a concert pitch can get you
> > from one to the other. Ozan used to use the term "diapason"
> > here. Pick whatever you like. I think Scala calls it
> > "base frequency".
>
> I wasn't talking about scientific pitch notation.

I'm not surprised you weren't talking about it because you
don't seem to have known it existed. I was talking about it.
'"C4" generally assumes A440' is what I said, because S.P.N.
generally assumes A440.

> A concert pitch
> will not get you from the musical definition (that I
> intended) to the scientific one.

What are you talking about? A concert pitch will get you
from intervals to pitches, which is what I've been saying.
There's no difference between musical and "scientific"
pitch -- the latter is an understanding of the former.
Maybe you mean frequency, though I can't see why you'd
bring it up.

> It says "One key distinction between these terms is that
> pitch is relative (a matter of common agreement among
> musicians), while frequency is absolute (a precise,
> unambiguous measurement)."

Heh- what a lot of nonsense!

> I disagree in that there *is* a
> precise, unambiguous "pitch" used in acoustics.

In psychoacoustics.

> Still, what it implies is that "pitch" as used in music is
> imprecise and ambiguous.

It isn't. It's very well studied, and pitch-tracking
algorithms can predict the pitch of any monophonic sound
source down to the range of variation between human
listeners, and better. Polyphonic models aren't far
behind -- they're only lacking some scene analysis stuff
that has more to do with source placement than actual
pitch detection. This stuff has been deployed in commercial
software for years. Autocorrelation methods goes back to
Licklider. We could talk about this all day, but why?

> So, in summary, a scale is still a list of pitches or pitch
> classes in ascending or descending order.

This definition (which both Gene and I have promoted heavily)
is being rejected by Charles L, Daniel F, Mike B, and others.
I'm fine by it, but then we need a name for the abstract
scale. And no, "abstract scale" doesn't cut it.

> Going from "the C major scale" to "the major scale" means
> switching to relative pitch. Your objection (in another
> message) that "the tuning could vary, and it'd still be
> C major" doesn't apply to the practical musical concept of
> "pitch".

You're right. But some people want to make "major scale"
mean "LLsLLLs", which doesn't have a whole lot to do
with pitch.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> wrote:

> > The only thing that time has honored in music theory
> > is confusion and ignorance; No thanks.
>
> Which sources did you consult to make such a claim?

All the sources I've consulted over the past 15 years of
studying music theory? That's a fairly tall order.

> > > why not inventing a new term for a new concept?
> >
> > I'm completely open for suggestions.
> >
> > > For example, the following term are
> > > pretty clear: "rhythmic mode" vs. "Gregorian mode" or
> > > "church mode", "diatonic scale" vs. "overtone scale",
> > > "Guidonian gamut" vs. "gamma ut".
> >
> > I'd love to see your definitions of these!
>
> As I said, check out a definitive music dictionary like the
> Grove Dictionary (or Music in Geschichte und Gegenwart, MGG).

Torsten, almost nothing in Grove is generalized enough for
microtonal music theory -- except for a few entries written
by Doug Leedy. But, as I said, feel free to post anything
you're interested in and we can discuss them. Meanwhile, I
get yelled at from the other side (Michael, Marcel) for being
a history buff. I can hardly win.

> It is usually sufficient to use qualifiers once to avoid
> confusion...

Exactly what would have to happen in a field of study to
convince you it's time to coin a new term (utter silence
so far on that score) or to specialize an existing one?

> > As an aside, I notice you've been mentioning the terms
> > "diatonic" and "generalized diatonic", which have a very
> > specific meaning far beyond anything being discussed in this
> > thread. Truly, there is no other field of human inquiry so
> > cursed with terminology as microtonal music. :)
>
> Did you try Philosophy? Or Theology? Or... :)

Actually, I came close enough to going to seminary (Lutheran),
but settled for classes in existentialism and phenomenology in
college.

-Carl

> So I suggest using capital letters, assigned to 2nds from large to small
> in reverse alphabetical order (to avoid confusion with
> letter names for scale degrees). E.g. ZYXW is a 4-tone
> scale with four kinds of 2nd, with Z being the largest.

Interesting. Just a simplified notation for describing rank-order matrices?

> The circular permutations should sorted (as in a BWT),
> and the canonical permutation should be the one coming
> last in the sort. Tunings could be given in curly braces
> (to avoid confusion with temperament braket notation),
> with 2nds in cents from largest to smallest. E.g. the
> diatonic scale would be ZZZYZZY, tuned in 12-ET
> with {200.0 100.0}.

What does BWT stand for here - a way of sorting these permutations?
Also, if you instantiated ZZZYZZY in such a way that Y was larger that
Z, or in some way such that the scale was no longer Rothenberg proper
(is that even possible without making Y larger than Z?), would that be
"illegal" in this formalization you propose? Or would that simply be a
different scale - YYYZYYZ perhaps?

> That's what you were thinking, right?

It does seem like I was on a bit of a different wavelength. But if
people are opposed to calling 1/1 9/8 5/4... a "gamut", why not keep
calling it a scale and then call the LLsLLLs thing something like a
"scale class?" That's how you have it referred to in your FAQ already,
and it always made sense to me.

One more thought:
The LLsLLLs major scale in meantone is more "general" than the JI
major scale, since C-A can comfortably imply both 5/3 and 27/16, and
C-D can comfortably imply both 9/8 and 10/9 and so on. The usual JI
5-limit major scale should be one specific instantiation of this more
general template of the major "scale." You might remember a while ago
I threw around the notion of defining some structure like

{1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 | 81/80}

Where the 81/80 at the end is the interval that any of those notes can
drift by as needed and still count as part of the structure. This
makes 9/8, 10/9, 27/16, 5/3, etc all part of the same structure,
without the need for defining different variations of the JI major
scale (i.e. one with 5/3, one with 27/16, etc) or adding every single
comma-adjusted JI interval to the scale and so on and so forth. Any
real 5-limit JI piece, even one that stays in one major key the whole
time and never modulates, is likely going to use comma adjusted
intervals anyway - nobody really sticks only to 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2
5/3 15/8.

I asked you about this and you said that this was the same thing as a
periodicity block, although it seems like a periodicity block is
something different. Does the structure I wrote above have a defined
name so far? I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of it. It's
just like some kind of a huge super-scale that abstracts meantone
major back to JI.

-Mike

Mike Battaglia wrote:

> It does seem like I was on a bit of a different wavelength. But if
> people are opposed to calling 1/1 9/8 5/4... a "gamut", why not keep
> calling it a scale and then call the LLsLLLs thing something like a
> "scale class?" That's how you have it referred to in your FAQ already,
> and it always made sense to me.

Why not keep calling 1/1 9/8 5/4 ... a "JI scale" and keep calling LLsLLLs a "meantone scale"?

Graham

> Mike Battaglia wrote:
>
>> It does seem like I was on a bit of a different wavelength. But if
>> people are opposed to calling 1/1 9/8 5/4... a "gamut", why not keep
>> calling it a scale and then call the LLsLLLs thing something like a
>> "scale class?" That's how you have it referred to in your FAQ already,
>> and it always made sense to me.
>
> Why not keep calling 1/1 9/8 5/4 ... a "JI scale" and keep
> calling LLsLLLs a "meantone scale"?
>
> Graham

They're two different things, aren't they? 1/1 9/8 5/4 etc contains
absolute interval sizes, where LLsLLLs could refer to a whole class of
various meantone major scales.

Plus, as I mentioned above, it's always irked me that the meantone
major scale can be defined by LLsLLLs and that a huge range of major
scales can be covered by that broad and abstract definition whereas
the JI major scale definition is so narrow that it doesn't fully
encompass the range of notes that would be used in even a fully
diatonic 5-limit major composition. What do you think of the structure
I posted above in which the same functionality is extended to JI? Does
something like that have a name?

-Mike

Mike Battaglia wrote:

> They're two different things, aren't they? 1/1 9/8 5/4 etc contains
> absolute interval sizes, where LLsLLLs could refer to a whole class of
> various meantone major scales.

That's a difference between meantone and JI. Pitches in meantone depend on the tuning system.

> Plus, as I mentioned above, it's always irked me that the meantone
> major scale can be defined by LLsLLLs and that a huge range of major
> scales can be covered by that broad and abstract definition whereas
> the JI major scale definition is so narrow that it doesn't fully
> encompass the range of notes that would be used in even a fully
> diatonic 5-limit major composition. What do you think of the structure
> I posted above in which the same functionality is extended to JI? Does
> something like that have a name?

As I understand the definitions and careful usages, a "scale" is not a set of notes to be used in a composition. It's a series of notes written down to illustrate a theoretical point or played as a way of practicing an instrument. As soon as you write a scale in JI notation or play it on a suitable instrument, you have to fix exactly which JI pitches you use.

If you want to describe "the set of pitches that may be used in a given JI composition" or "the set of precise pitches that may belong to a given scale in a given composition" then, yes, a term would be useful. I don't know of one.

The term "pitch class set" might do what you want. A "pitch class" is usually defined as something like "a pitch with octave equivalents". I have seen it defined so as to specifically include a range of tunings (or inexact sense of "pitch"). I don't have a reference and I don't know the original definition (which I believe was due to Babbitt).

There are also terms like "image" from group theory. I think LLsLLLs is the image of all JI renderings of a major scale under the homomorphism of meantone temperament. For short you could say "LLsLLLs is the meantone image of the major scale". And, back to the question, all those different JI pitches would be "the meantone preimage of the tones of the major scale".

Notes: "tones of" is a usage I caught in the wild to convert a scale into a set of pitches. Properly speaking, group theory would act on intervals, not pitches.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > So I suggest using capital letters, assigned to 2nds from
> > large to small in reverse alphabetical order (to avoid
> > confusion with letter names for scale degrees). E.g. ZYXW
> > is a 4-tone scale with four kinds of 2nd, with Z being the
> > largest.
>
> Interesting. Just a simplified notation for describing
> rank-order matrices?

Yes.

> > The circular permutations should sorted (as in a BWT),
> > and the canonical permutation should be the one coming
> > last in the sort. Tunings could be given in curly braces
> > (to avoid confusion with temperament braket notation),
> > with 2nds in cents from largest to smallest. E.g. the
> > diatonic scale would be ZZZYZZY, tuned in 12-ET
> > with {200.0 100.0}.
>
> What does BWT stand for here - a way of sorting these
> permutations?

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

> Also, if you instantiated ZZZYZZY in such a way that Y was
> larger that Z,

Das ist forboden. The letters are assigned to 2nds in order
of size.

> or in some way such that the scale was no longer Rothenberg
> proper

This can handle improper scales, no problem.

> (is that even possible without making Y larger than Z?),

Sure.

> Or would that simply be a
> different scale - YYYZYYZ perhaps?

Yes.

> But if people are opposed to calling 1/1 9/8 5/4... a "gamut",
> why not keep calling it a scale and then call the LLsLLLs thing
> something like a "scale class?" That's how you have it referred
> to in your FAQ already, and it always made sense to me.

That's pretty good, though I'd prefer it be one word. And
I'll sorely miss the faint aire of superiority afforded by
reviving a medieval term.

> One more thought: //
> I threw around the notion of defining some structure like
>
> {1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 | 81/80}
>
> Where the 81/80 at the end is the interval that any of those
> notes can drift by as needed and still count as part of the
> structure.
//
> I asked you about this and you said that this was the same
> thing as a periodicity block,

Basically, yes. With only one comma in the 5-limit, you
have a periodicity sheet -- add one more to get a block.
The additional criterion of being "epimorphic" is usually
put to periodicity blocks also -- though sometimes such
blocks are specially identified as "epimorphic blocks" or
"Fokker blocks". As long as the commas are smaller than
the smallest 2nd in the block, I think you get epimorphism.
Basically, epimorphism means the block is a bona fide
detempering of a regular temperament -- there is a val for
the block that sends intervals to scale degrees (e.g. 5:4
is always a 3rd if the pitch classes in the block are
treated as a scale).

-Carl

On 19 Apr 2009, at 3:11 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Klaus Schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:
>
> > Daniel was talking about French and some other languages.
>
> I think was talking about English. Daniel?
>
I talked about languages like French, Portugiese, Spanish, Romanian, and some others, where music terminology was under influence of French language, like Russian, Polish, Lithuanian - using words like gamme, gamma, gama for a scale.
> > As it happens, English is one of few if not the only language
> > where both terms are frequent use, and "gamut" means something
> > general. Please let's stick to this.
>
> "Gamut" is NOT in frequent use among musicians in the
> English language. The general meaning is precisely
> the meaning I'm suggesting for it.
>
As a non native speaker I can't confirm this, but I have never seen a word "gamut" in texts about music. On the first sight it looks like a different word than gamma, gamme, gama (despite the fact it has same root and origin). So if it's really necessary to have another term for an abstract scale, then this would be possible. But maybe it would be better to use different term or invent quite new one. Terms like "rota" and "round" have historical meanings...
> > > In German at least we could make them one word. :(
>
Yes, that's an advantage of a German as a scientific language. One long but quite exact term.

Daniel Forro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> Mike Battaglia wrote:
>
> > They're two different things, aren't they? 1/1 9/8 5/4 etc
> > contains absolute interval sizes, where LLsLLLs could refer
> > to a whole class of various meantone major scales.
>
> That's a difference between meantone and JI. Pitches in
> meantone depend on the tuning system.

What about irregular lists of irrational intervals -- 'I measured
this from a spectrogram of a bagpipe' scales?

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> What about irregular lists of irrational intervals -- 'I measured
> this from a spectrogram of a bagpipe' scales?

I don't think there's a standard term. I'd call it a cents scale because it's probably expressed in cents.

Graham

On 19 Apr 2009, at 4:03 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > So, in summary, a scale is still a list of pitches or pitch
> > classes in ascending or descending order.
>
> This definition (which both Gene and I have promoted heavily)
> is being rejected by Charles L, Daniel F, Mike B, and others.
> I'm fine by it, but then we need a name for the abstract
> scale. And no, "abstract scale" doesn't cut it.
>
>

What about "scalet", "abscale", or Greek "dromos"?

Daniel Forro

On 19 Apr 2009, at 3:37 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> Are you saying you'd like to formalize it before naming
> it? Be my guest. Oh, alright, I'll have a go at it:
>
> I'd define these on Rothenberg rank-order matrices, to
> which these lists of 2nds we've been throwing around are
> conveniently isomorphic. Rothenberg uses numerals, but
> for scales with more than nine 2nds you'd have to go to
> two places, which could be annoying. So I suggest using
> capital letters, assigned to 2nds from large to small
> in reverse alphabetical order (to avoid confusion with
> letter names for scale degrees). E.g. ZYXW is a 4-tone
> scale with four kinds of 2nd, with Z being the largest.
>
> The circular permutations should sorted (as in a BWT),
> and the canonical permutation should be the one coming
> last in the sort. Tunings could be given in curly braces
> (to avoid confusion with temperament braket notation),
> with 2nds in cents from largest to smallest. E.g. the
> diatonic scale would be ZZZYZZY, tuned in 12-ET
> with {200.0 100.0}.
>
>
This looks very well, for scales which use seconds.

Such format showing structure of a scale not as intervals related to the root note, but as sizes of individual scale steps, can be useful. Has this format some name?

Daniel Forro

I like "dromos"!

Lots of cognates in different languages (even Romany) but doesn't have the unfortunate large historical burden of "gamut", which is actually used quite a bit in English: "runs the gamut from "..." to "..."", a common expression. Gamut is used frequently (ka-ching!) in video/TV technology ("color gamut") as well.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Apr 2009, at 4:03 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > > So, in summary, a scale is still a list of pitches or pitch
> > > classes in ascending or descending order.
> >
> > This definition (which both Gene and I have promoted heavily)
> > is being rejected by Charles L, Daniel F, Mike B, and others.
> > I'm fine by it, but then we need a name for the abstract
> > scale. And no, "abstract scale" doesn't cut it.
> >
> >
>
>
> What about "scalet", "abscale", or Greek "dromos"?
>
> Daniel Forro
>

The only problem could be Greek language uses this in the sense of "scale" in music, like "laikoi dromoi" etc...

(In Olash (Vlaxi) Romany it means rather journey, travelling, wandering, nomading than original Greek "path", "road" or "running", "way".)

Daniel Forro

On 19 Apr 2009, at 8:24 PM, Cameron Bobro wrote:
> I like "dromos"!
>
> Lots of cognates in different languages (even Romany) but doesn't > have the unfortunate large historical burden of "gamut", which is > actually used quite a bit in English: "runs the gamut from "..." to > "..."", a common expression. Gamut is used frequently (ka-ching!) > in video/TV technology ("color gamut") as well.
>

Daniel Forro schrieb:
> On 19 Apr 2009, at 4:03 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>> So, in summary, a scale is still a list of pitches or pitch
>>> classes in ascending or descending order.
>> This definition (which both Gene and I have promoted heavily)
>> is being rejected by Charles L, Daniel F, Mike B, and others.
>> I'm fine by it, but then we need a name for the abstract
>> scale. And no, "abstract scale" doesn't cut it.
>>
>>
> > > What about "scalet", "abscale", or Greek "dromos"?
> Why not "mode"? It defines the pattern of step sizes in either direction, the roles of notes, and, by itself, is not tied to specific pitches.

I, too, think that "scale" may very well be left to describe a way of moving about in a given mode in a given key, and tuning can usually be solved without this term.

klaus

As far as I know (and some other here probably have the same opinion), the relation between a scale and a mode is exactly opposite to your description, if only I understood well what you have meant by "moving about in a given mode in a given key" (but maybe you are talking about transposition, when you use the term "key"?).

"Mode" is one of the more possible rotations (permutations) of a scale, that means all modes of one scale have the same notes, in the same order, but starting (root) note is always different. Seven-tone scale has seven modes.

Then of course we have another using of both terms in common practice, when "mode" means the same as a "scale" (historical modes, Messiaen modes of limited transpositions, ethnic modes...). As this doubling is unnecessary and confusing in the world of microtonal music, we should use a term "mode" only as a permutation of a scale. In that sense it will be like an additional explanatory term of the scale, if necessary, and without direct connection to "tuning" (tuning -> scale -> mode).

In the case of ET scales, where all steps have the same size, modes are not applicable, as all possible modes are equal.

Daniel Forro

On 19 Apr 2009, at 11:02 PM, Klaus Schmirler wrote:

>
>
> Daniel Forro schrieb:
> > On 19 Apr 2009, at 4:03 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >>> So, in summary, a scale is still a list of pitches or pitch
> >>> classes in ascending or descending order.
> >> This definition (which both Gene and I have promoted heavily)
> >> is being rejected by Charles L, Daniel F, Mike B, and others.
> >> I'm fine by it, but then we need a name for the abstract
> >> scale. And no, "abstract scale" doesn't cut it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > What about "scalet", "abscale", or Greek "dromos"?
> >
>
> Why not "mode"? It defines the pattern of step sizes in either > direction, the
> roles of notes, and, by itself, is not tied to specific pitches.
>
> I, too, think that "scale" may very well be left to describe a way > of moving
> about in a given mode in a given key, and tuning can usually be > solved without
> this term.
>
> klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > What about irregular lists of irrational intervals -- 'I measured
> > this from a spectrogram of a bagpipe' scales?
>
> I don't think there's a standard term. I'd call it a cents
> scale because it's probably expressed in cents.

If I express the same scale in decimal factors, does it
become a factor scale?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:

> > This definition (which both Gene and I have promoted heavily)
> > is being rejected by Charles L, Daniel F, Mike B, and others.
> > I'm fine by it, but then we need a name for the abstract
> > scale. And no, "abstract scale" doesn't cut it.
>
> What about "scalet", "abscale", or Greek "dromos"?

Abscale might do it. Comments?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Apr 2009, at 3:37 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > Are you saying you'd like to formalize it before naming
> > it? Be my guest. Oh, alright, I'll have a go at it:
> >
> > I'd define these on Rothenberg rank-order matrices, to
> > which these lists of 2nds we've been throwing around are
> > conveniently isomorphic. Rothenberg uses numerals, but
> > for scales with more than nine 2nds you'd have to go to
> > two places, which could be annoying. So I suggest using
> > capital letters, assigned to 2nds from large to small
> > in reverse alphabetical order (to avoid confusion with
> > letter names for scale degrees). E.g. ZYXW is a 4-tone
> > scale with four kinds of 2nd, with Z being the largest.
> >
> > The circular permutations should sorted (as in a BWT),
> > and the canonical permutation should be the one coming
> > last in the sort. Tunings could be given in curly braces
> > (to avoid confusion with temperament braket notation),
> > with 2nds in cents from largest to smallest. E.g. the
> > diatonic scale would be ZZZYZZY, tuned in 12-ET
> > with {200.0 100.0}.
>
> This looks very well, for scales which use seconds.

All scales have 2nds, don't they?

> Such format showing structure of a scale not as intervals
> related to the root note, but as sizes of individual scale
> steps, can be useful. Has this format some name?

I'm partial to "scale", and then calling an arbitrary
list of cents a "gamut", where I see no conflict with the
present meanings of those terms. But abscale might
work too.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> I like "dromos"!
>
> Lots of cognates in different languages (even Romany) but doesn't
> have the unfortunate large historical burden of "gamut", which is
> actually used quite a bit in English: "runs the gamut from "..."
> to "..."", a common expression. Gamut is used frequently
> (ka-ching!) in video/TV technology ("color gamut") as well.

Yes, it's most commonly heard in these expressions. However,
I think the meaning I'm suggesting is perfectly in line with
them. From the range of all possible pitches, your Scala file
tells those pitches that your instrument will reproduce.
From then, you may draw any number of scales, of the form
ZYX... etc.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Klaus Schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:
>
> > What about "scalet", "abscale", or Greek "dromos"?
>
> Why not "mode"? It defines the pattern of step sizes in either
> direction, the roles of notes, and, by itself, is not tied to
> specific pitches.

A "mode" is a circular permutation of a scale.

> I, too, think that "scale" may very well be left to describe a
> way of moving about in a given mode in a given key,

?

-Carl

On Apr 19, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> All scales have 2nds, don't they?

Pentatonic scales do not consist of seconds only.

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> wrote:
>
> On Apr 19, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > All scales have 2nds, don't they?
>
> Pentatonic scales do not consist of seconds only.

All scales can be uniquely determined from their 2nds.

-Carl

On Apr 19, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>> Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>> > This looks very well, for scales which use seconds.
> >
> > > All scales have 2nds, don't they?
> >
> > Pentatonic scales do not consist of seconds only.
>
> All scales can be uniquely determined from their 2nds.

Sorry for my ignorance. How do you notate is pentatonic scale with the L/s notation then?

Thank you!

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Torsten Anders
<torsten.anders@...> wrote:

> Sorry for my ignorance. How do you notate is pentatonic scale with
> the L/s notation then?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Best
> Torsten

sLssL

David Bowen

On Apr 19, 2009, at 10:30 PM, David Bowen wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Torsten Anders
> <torsten.anders@...> wrote:
>
> > Sorry for my ignorance. How do you notate is pentatonic scale with
> > the L/s notation then?
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Best
> > Torsten
>
> sLssL
>
> David Bowen
>
So, then L can be indeed an interval larger than a second?

Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

Carl Lumma wrote:

> Basically, yes. With only one comma in the 5-limit, you
> have a periodicity sheet -- add one more to get a block.
> The additional criterion of being "epimorphic" is usually
> put to periodicity blocks also -- though sometimes such
> blocks are specially identified as "epimorphic blocks" or
> "Fokker blocks". As long as the commas are smaller than
> the smallest 2nd in the block, I think you get epimorphism.
> Basically, epimorphism means the block is a bona fide
> detempering of a regular temperament -- there is a val for
> the block that sends intervals to scale degrees (e.g. 5:4
> is always a 3rd if the pitch classes in the block are
> treated as a scale).
> > -Carl

It sounds as if you're using "third" to mean "two-step interval". Although this is one possible analogy from the way "third" is used in the diatonic system, I think it's more likely to lead to more confusion than anything. We don't call a 5/4 approximation in 12-ET a "fifth" just because it's a 4-step interval; it's still a "major third". As such, the word "third" (as the name of a musical interval) has lost much of the association it once had with the number three (even more so the "octave", which comes from a Latin word for "eight"). Besides, if you're using a set of pitches with 72 notes to the octave, do you really want to call an approximate 5:4 a 24th? I mean, first you have to subtract one, then calculate the approximate size of 23 steps out of 72...

As I use the word, a 5:4 is always a third (specifically a major third), regardless of how many scale steps it encompasses. Unless you're making a distinction between "third" and "3rd"...

Daniel Forro wrote:
> As far as I know (and some other here probably have the same > opinion), the relation between a scale and a mode is exactly opposite > to your description, if only I understood well what you have meant by > "moving about in a given mode in a given key" (but maybe you are > talking about transposition, when you use the term "key"?).
> > "Mode" is one of the more possible rotations (permutations) of a > scale, that means all modes of one scale have the same notes, in the > same order, but starting (root) note is always different. Seven-tone > scale has seven modes.
> > Then of course we have another using of both terms in common > practice, when "mode" means the same as a "scale" (historical modes, > Messiaen modes of limited transpositions, ethnic modes...). As this > doubling is unnecessary and confusing in the world of microtonal > music, we should use a term "mode" only as a permutation of a scale. > In that sense it will be like an additional explanatory term of the > scale, if necessary, and without direct connection to > "tuning" (tuning -> scale -> mode).

I think this is a reasonable way to make the distinction between "scales" and "modes" in general. In some cases there may be a modal relationship between two scales; e.g. Vincent Persichetti labels the "Hungarian Minor" scale as the "4th mode" of the "Double Harmonic" scale. (The Double Harmonic scale could just as easily have been labeled as the 5th mode of Hungarian Minor.)

i.e.
Double Harmonic (in C): C Db E F G Ab B (C)
Hungarian Minor (in C): C D Eb F# G Ab B (C)
5th mode of Hungarian Minor: G Ab B C D Eb F# (G)
transposed to C: C Db E F G Ab B (C)

The melodic minor scale is somewhat of an exception to this general idea of a "scale" as a sequence of step sizes, as it has distinct ascending and descending forms. You could treat it as a special case of a natural minor scale with a couple of extra notes that are used in specific contexts, but those "extra" notes are surely as much a part of the scale as the regular notes, if we want to call this thing a "scale".

Then you get into things like the pelog scale in Indonesian music, one version of which has 7 pitches, from which 5-note subsets (in English often called "modes") are used. If you take the whole set of 7 notes as a "scale", you need to account for the fact that 2 of the notes in the scale (depending on the mode) are rarely used. But those complications can be described outside of the basic definition of "scale".

Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>> Carl Lumma wrote:
>>
>>> What about irregular lists of irrational intervals -- 'I measured
>>> this from a spectrogram of a bagpipe' scales?
>> I don't think there's a standard term. I'd call it a cents >> scale because it's probably expressed in cents.
> > If I express the same scale in decimal factors, does it
> become a factor scale?

I don't know what you mean, but sure, if you like. A general qualifier might be "observed" or "empirical". That gets round the proscriptive implication of "tuning system".

Graham

Klaus seems to know his stuff below. Why were there no replies to this message? Why does Carl stick to his re-definition of "gamut" and, in another post, tell Klaus what "mode" means without a reference?

I found a defunct WikiProject with definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_terminology

Unfortunately, it's been retired in favor of two different pages that don't have the same terms, so you can't take the argument there. A scale is, much like every other source, "a set of related notes placed in ascending or descending order by pitch". Then, a "mode is a set of such notes in the context of the conventional patterns for relating them"

mode = set

scale = ordered set

Graham

Klaus Schmirler wrote:

> Historically, the gamut was the system of all theoretically relevant tones > (covering two octaves, in the original narrow sense of the word). The "scales" > that were picked from it were called "modes" and still deserve that term, seeing > that they each had a defined final, a defined compass, and sometimes provisions > for alterations (the b/h change in the "dorian" and "lydian" groups). That makes > "gamut" a general term in my understanding.
> > And don't Scala files describe tunings, no matter on what hierarchical level > (gamut, mode, chord, ...)? If, as in medieval music, the gamut is Pythagorean > and different in its two octaves, the modes and melodies inherit that. If the > gamut is to comprise twelve tones per identical octave, a well-tempered major or > minor scale will reflect that temperament/gamut also. I prefer sticking to the > simple Db/C# major scales that are different for each starting tone in a well > temperament and calling LLsLLLs "major mode". Pretty much compatible with old > school music theory.

Klaus Schmirler wrote:
> Daniel Forro schrieb:
>> On 19 Apr 2009, at 4:03 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>> So, in summary, a scale is still a list of pitches or pitch
>>>> classes in ascending or descending order.
>>> This definition (which both Gene and I have promoted heavily)
>>> is being rejected by Charles L, Daniel F, Mike B, and others.
>>> I'm fine by it, but then we need a name for the abstract
>>> scale. And no, "abstract scale" doesn't cut it.
>>
>> What about "scalet", "abscale", or Greek "dromos"?

I still say "scale" is the word and I haven't seen a valid argument against it.

> Why not "mode"? It defines the pattern of step sizes in either direction, the > roles of notes, and, by itself, is not tied to specific pitches.

No, let's stay away from "mode". It has completely definitions from different contexts, all of them orthogonal to tuning issues.

Graham

I tend to agree with you Graham.

The word Scale seems to be suitable to refer to the list of ascending notes or pitches and/or the intervals between them, within an octave.

The use of the word "mode" really confuses many issues, due to its diverse meanings and usage in many languages and cultures.

I am considering extending my FileMaker scales database to generate scala-type and other tuning files for the more than 2300 unique scales that I have entered.

http://www.lucytune.com/scales/

It should be quite easy to do, once I write the appropriate FileMaker scripts, yet will generate a vast collection of scales for LucyTuned values alone;.......

so we are talking ten and hundreds of thousands of .scl files if I also include other meantone-type and suitable edo's with other values for L.

On 20 Apr 2009, at 01:14, Graham Breed wrote:

>
>
> Klaus Schmirler wrote:
> > Daniel Forro schrieb:
> >> On 19 Apr 2009, at 4:03 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >>>> So, in summary, a scale is still a list of pitches or pitch
> >>>> classes in ascending or descending order.
> >>> This definition (which both Gene and I have promoted heavily)
> >>> is being rejected by Charles L, Daniel F, Mike B, and others.
> >>> I'm fine by it, but then we need a name for the abstract
> >>> scale. And no, "abstract scale" doesn't cut it.
> >>
> >> What about "scalet", "abscale", or Greek "dromos"?
>
> I still say "scale" is the word and I haven't seen a valid
> argument against it.
>
> > Why not "mode"? It defines the pattern of step sizes in either > direction, the
> > roles of notes, and, by itself, is not tied to specific pitches.
>
> No, let's stay away from "mode". It has completely
> definitions from different contexts, all of them orthogonal
> to tuning issues.
>
> Graham
>
>
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 wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> >>> Here I said it doesn't matter much whether scale is defined
>>> on pitches or intervals, since a concert pitch can get you
>>> from one to the other. Ozan used to use the term "diapason"
>>> here. Pick whatever you like. I think Scala calls it
>>> "base frequency".
<snip>
>> A concert pitch >> will not get you from the musical definition (that I >> intended) to the scientific one.
> > What are you talking about? A concert pitch will get you
> from intervals to pitches, which is what I've been saying.
> There's no difference between musical and "scientific"
> pitch -- the latter is an understanding of the former.
> Maybe you mean frequency, though I can't see why you'd
> bring it up.

A "concert pitch" here maps to a "base frequency" or what I'd call a "reference pitch". A reference pitch is not enough to get you from intervals to exact pitches in the scientific sense. (Saying it gets you to pitches is true, of course, but you beg the question.) Knowing C' is a minor third below A' and that A' is tuned to 440Hz is not enough to tell you the exact pitch of C'. You also need to know the tuning of that minor third.

You could say "concert pitch" implies equal temperament. I said I wasn't interested in arguing about that.

I do mean "pitch" but it can be useful to use the term "frequency" because that's a scientific term that always maps to Hertz.

>> It says "One key distinction between these terms is that >> pitch is relative (a matter of common agreement among >> musicians), while frequency is absolute (a precise, >> unambiguous measurement)."
> > Heh- what a lot of nonsense!

Well, it's nice to know your opinion. Do you have any evidence to back it up?

>> I disagree in that there *is* a >> precise, unambiguous "pitch" used in acoustics.
> > In psychoacoustics.

All the dictionaries I could find say acoustics.

>> Still, what it implies is that "pitch" as used in music is
>> imprecise and ambiguous.
> > It isn't. It's very well studied, and pitch-tracking
> algorithms can predict the pitch of any monophonic sound
> source down to the range of variation between human
> listeners, and better. Polyphonic models aren't far
> behind -- they're only lacking some scene analysis stuff
> that has more to do with source placement than actual
> pitch detection. This stuff has been deployed in commercial
> software for years. Autocorrelation methods goes back to
> Licklider. We could talk about this all day, but why?

Right, you don't want to talk about scientific pitch. Neither do I. Then why did you fill my mailbox with this garbage? And, after all that, do you have an argument to refute mine, instead of a three word contradiction?

If I was moderating I would have rejected that message.

Here is my argument broken down in to statements so that you can say what part you disagree with:

1) C' is a pitch name.

2) Pitch names name pitches.

3) C' can be played at different exact, scientific pitches in different contexts, even on the same instrument in the same performance of the same piece of music.

4) The thing that C' refers to is not an exact, scientific pitch.

5) The sense of "pitch" by which C' is a pitch name is not exact.

6) A scale contains pitches.

7) Those pitches are frequently given names like C'.

8) The pitches a scale contains need not be exact.

>> So, in summary, a scale is still a list of pitches or pitch >> classes in ascending or descending order.
> > This definition (which both Gene and I have promoted heavily)
> is being rejected by Charles L, Daniel F, Mike B, and others.
> I'm fine by it, but then we need a name for the abstract
> scale. And no, "abstract scale" doesn't cut it.

Do you have a definition for this new thing you want a word for?

>> Going from "the C major scale" to "the major scale" means
>> switching to relative pitch. Your objection (in another
>> message) that "the tuning could vary, and it'd still be
>> C major" doesn't apply to the practical musical concept of
>> "pitch".
> > You're right. But some people want to make "major scale"
> mean "LLsLLLs", which doesn't have a whole lot to do
> with pitch.

Some writers, like these, call that a mode:

http://solomonsmusic.net/tonality.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1795/scales.htm?200920

Some call it a scale:

http://web.cuug.ab.ca/~lukivr/Majscale.html

Here's a sort of discussion:

http://www.ibreathemusic.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-281.html

It's not important. If you're being careful you can say "the intervals between the scale tones for C major" like the first "ibreathemusic" message or "the intervals between the notes" like here:

http://neilhawes.com/sstheory/sminor.htm

If you call it a scale, everybody will know what you mean.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> wrote:

> >> > This looks very well, for scales which use seconds.
> > >
> > > > All scales have 2nds, don't they?
> > >
> > > Pentatonic scales do not consist of seconds only.
> >
> > All scales can be uniquely determined from their 2nds.
>
> Sorry for my ignorance. How do you notate is pentatonic scale with
> the L/s notation then?

The scale C D F G A in 12-ET would be sLssL, or in
my proposed notation, ZYZYY with tuning {300.0 200.0}.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> Yes, it's most commonly heard in these expressions. However,
> I think the meaning I'm suggesting is perfectly in line with
> them. From the range of all possible pitches, your Scala file
> tells those pitches that your instrument will reproduce.
>>From then, you may draw any number of scales, of the form
> ZYX... etc.

I know this is adding noise, but somebody had better point it out. A .scl file doesn't define the full gamut of pitches. All it does is define the pitches within one period, usually the octave. It doesn't define the highest and lowest pitch, which is the main point of a gamut. You could call the combination of a .scl and a .kbm file a gamut. A .scl file specifies a tuning system.

There are cases where Scala files are not used to tune instruments, in which case neither term would be strictly correct.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

> It sounds as if you're using "third" to mean "two-step interval".
> Although this is one possible analogy from the way "third" is
> used in the diatonic system, I think it's more likely to lead to
> more confusion than anything.

I'm getting weary of this form of criticism. This is totally
standard terminology in the 'diatonic scale theory' literature.
If you don't like it, don't use it.

> We don't call a 5/4 approximation in 12-ET a "fifth" just
> because it's a 4-step interval;

It so happens I don't support the use of generic interval
names for absolute intervals (i.e. assuming the diatonic
scale) at all. I think it leads to more confusion than
anything. I've argued this for years with Dave K. (with his
labyrnthine 'subsupramajor' stuff) et al, and lost. So I'll
use it only when echoing someone else, e.g. when talking
well temperaments with Tom Dent. Otherwise I avoid it.

> a distinction between "third" and "3rd"...

I wasn't making that distinction, but I suppose it is a
thought. In which case, I claim the numeric form for generic
intervals. But I think it's probably not a good idea to
introduce homophones. So far, I try to use the numeric form
for everything, unless in a sentence with many other digits,
when I sometimes write out "third" to balance things.

-Carl

I have found 378 pentatonic scales in my database.

Here are a selection of some of the spellings in L and s format - in no particular order, just what the find function happened to deliver.
Interestingly none of these have a II or Large interval as the first interval.

(s) (2L) (L) (L) (L+s)
(s) (L) (2L) (s) (2L)
(s) (2L-s) (L) (s) (2L+s)
(L-s) (s) (s) (L+s) (3L)
(L+s) (L) (L) (L+s) (L)
(2L-s) (s) (s) (2L-s) (L+2s)

On 20 Apr 2009, at 02:09, Carl Lumma wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> > wrote:
>
> > >> > This looks very well, for scales which use seconds.
> > > >
> > > > > All scales have 2nds, don't they?
> > > >
> > > > Pentatonic scales do not consist of seconds only.
> > >
> > > All scales can be uniquely determined from their 2nds.
> >
> > Sorry for my ignorance. How do you notate is pentatonic scale with
> > the L/s notation then?
>
> The scale C D F G A in 12-ET would be sLssL, or in
> my proposed notation, ZYZYY with tuning {300.0 200.0}.
>
> -Carl
>
>
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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> Klaus seems to know his stuff below. Why were there no
> replies to this message?

Perhaps because I didn't get it. Can you find the link
in the archives?

> Why does Carl stick to his re-definition of "gamut"

What do you mean, "stick to"? I'm proposing a redefinition,
yes. I'm sticking to defending it until I can get 50% of its
supposed detractors to understand it. As it happens, I don't
think it's very much of a redefinition, and anyway, the notion
of keeping a term unchanged since Guido in 1000AD can harldy
be taken seriously, to say it politely.

Hey Einstein, "relativity" was used by Galileo five hundred
years ago! It doesn't apply to electromagnetism. You're
inviting confusion!

I would say Gene's regular temperaments work is comparable
in music theory to relativity in physics, at least so far
as the right to coin and redefine terminology goes. Yet he
wound up spending half his time here defending his
definitions in threads such as this one. Absurd.

> and, in another post, tell Klaus
> what "mode" means without a reference?

Personal communication as a practicing musician. Problem
is, people tend to operate in bubbles. You can't cite some
millennium-old definition and ignore jazz theory. Is this
some kind of joke? Daniel Forro gets it because he works
in both realms.

Besides, this list's archives are probably the largest
music theory text ever written, and are certainly the most
significant. We don't need anyone's permission to define
terms here. We do need to take our heads out of our
collective asses.

-Carl

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

> 6) A scale contains pitches.

Not really, no. The "C major scale" contains pitches (as
you somewhat awkwardly define them). The "major scale"
does not.

> Do you have a definition for this new thing you want a word for?

Yes. See:

/tuning/topicId_82801.html#83036

Plus half a dozen subsequent posts about it. John Chalmers
is arguing that it's easier to just give the whole rank order
matrix than just the 2nds and the tuning. I'm completely
open to that as well.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> >> 6) A scale contains pitches.
> > Not really, no. The "C major scale" contains pitches (as
> you somewhat awkwardly define them). The "major scale"
> does not.

And I covered this before. The major scale is a type of scale the same as the David-deer is a type of deer. Common usage may not be strict about the distinction but no definition can cover both the C major scale and the major scale. They're obviously different categories.

>> Do you have a definition for this new thing you want a word for?
> > Yes. See:
> > /tuning/topicId_82801.html#83036

There's no definition in that message.

> Plus half a dozen subsequent posts about it. John Chalmers
> is arguing that it's easier to just give the whole rank order
> matrix than just the 2nds and the tuning. I'm completely
> open to that as well. John Chalmers argued that a "scale should be defined as a Rothenberg Equivalence Class". Good old Rothenberg! Maybe you can give the title of the paper in which he defined this "equivalence class" in support of why scales don't contain pitches.

I didn't reply before so I'll take the opportunity so say "no" here. An equivalence class is not a scale. Equivalence classes contain scales. You could say that an equivalence class tells you when two musical scales are perceived as "mistunings" of a single scale as opposed to when they are perceived as "different" scales. I wonder what Rothenberg would say.

Graham

> Unfortunately, it's been retired in favor of two different
> pages that don't have the same terms, so you can't take the
> argument there. A scale is, much like every other source,
> "a set of related notes placed in ascending or descending
> order by pitch". Then, a "mode is a set of such notes in
> the context of the conventional patterns for relating them"
>
> mode = set
>
> scale = ordered set
>
> Graham

I'm still a bit confused about the distinction here. Would the
distinction only apply for scales that don't repeat at the octave? The
"modal" version simply being the list of all pitches that occur in the
scale, and the "scale" version being specifically where they occur
(aka this pitch doesn't occur until the second octave, this pitch not
until the third octave, etc.)

-Mike

Torsten wrote:

> So, then L can be indeed an interval larger than a second?

There are no given rules about what sizes the L and S should be. As I've said, Bohlen-Pierce diatonic has an "L" almost as large as the 12-equal minor third and an "S" of a size of a neutral second (something over 140 cents). And there are also no given rules about what the target intervals should be. For example, in meantone, 5L + 2S add up to an octave, while in BP diatonic, 4L + 5S add up to something which sounds like a perfect 12th and there are no octaves at all.

Petr

Mike Battaglia wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it's been retired in favor of two different
>> pages that don't have the same terms, so you can't take the
>> argument there. A scale is, much like every other source,
>> "a set of related notes placed in ascending or descending
>> order by pitch". Then, a "mode is a set of such notes in
>> the context of the conventional patterns for relating them"
>>
>> mode = set
>>
>> scale = ordered set
> > I'm still a bit confused about the distinction here. Would the
> distinction only apply for scales that don't repeat at the octave? The
> "modal" version simply being the list of all pitches that occur in the
> scale, and the "scale" version being specifically where they occur
> (aka this pitch doesn't occur until the second octave, this pitch not
> until the third octave, etc.)

There are different definitions of "mode". Sometimes one distinction between a "mode" and a "scale" is that a scale is ordered but a mode isn't. So a "mode" is the *set* of pitches that occur in a scale, not a list if you take a list to have an order.

(I say that a list does have an order. A list of your favorite drummers will usually have your bestest favorite at the top. A shopping list is always written down in order even if that order isn't important. A set is a mathematical concept that's specifically defined so that (by default) it doesn't have an order.)

Usually a mode will also have some notes singled out as "tonic" or "dominant" or whatever. And some rules for how to form cadences. Maybe some standard melodic patterns. A lot depends on the music being studied. Medieval modes are not the same as Renaissance modes but sometimes definitions try to cover both.

Scales are usually defined in terms of one octave, but treated so that they repeat in some sense. The distinction has nothing to do with scales that cover more than an octave without repeating.

The Common Practice equivalent of a mode is a key. The modes evolved into two distinct types: major and minor. Keys retain some features of modes but have other, novel properties. An Indian rag or Arab/Persian/Turkish/etc ma[qk]am is a related concept. Indian theories also have "that" or "mela" for a scale or set of notes.

A minor key has both ascending and descending scales, or one scale with both forms. This is where the order is important. Whatever it has to do with music, "ascending" and "descending" are not the same. It's a property that applies to scales, not modes, according to this distinction.

There's also a sense, probably most common these days, in which "the modes" are different scales taken as cyclic permutations of the major scale. This can apply to jazz, rock, or folk. There are plenty of references you'll find that talk about modes as being scales, or generally mix the concepts up. But others where the terms really are distinct, so you'll hear of "the major mode" or "the dorian scale" where appropriate. Different schools generally won't refer to each other, try to be consistent with each other, or even be aware of each other's existence.

You are studying music, aren't you? Or have recently finished doing so? Try checking either your notes or a book like Jeppesen's on counterpoint (in translation).

I'm really not making this up. Jon Szanto, I think, first pointed it out to me on this very list a few years ago. You should know a lot more than I do about it ...

Graham

This whole "modal" thing is a red herring, hung out to confuse the muddle headed.

Modal has so many different meanings and uses amongst musicians and others that is becomes entirely ambiguous.
e.g. I have heard musicians refer to music as being "modal" because it has no apparent third; i.e. no intervals near 300 or 400 cents from the tonic or starting note.
.

On 20 Apr 2009, at 06:44, Mike Battaglia wrote:

>
>
> > Unfortunately, it's been retired in favor of two different
> > pages that don't have the same terms, so you can't take the
> > argument there. A scale is, much like every other source,
> > "a set of related notes placed in ascending or descending
> > order by pitch". Then, a "mode is a set of such notes in
> > the context of the conventional patterns for relating them"
> >
> > mode = set
> >
> > scale = ordered set
> >
> > Graham
>
> I'm still a bit confused about the distinction here. Would the
> distinction only apply for scales that don't repeat at the octave? The
> "modal" version simply being the list of all pitches that occur in the
> scale, and the "scale" version being specifically where they occur
> (aka this pitch doesn't occur until the second octave, this pitch not
> until the third octave, etc.)
>
> -Mike
>
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

I think you are getting confused yourself now Graham.
There are many hundreds of major scales.
All a scale actually needs to be a major scale is a natural (as opposed to a flat) third.
(i.e. a value near 400 cents, without a value near 300 cents)
If it has a value near 300 cents, then it is a minor scale.

The fact that you are starting from C, A, B, or any other note is entirely irrelevant.
The first starting notename is merely a transposition of exactly the same scale, expressed as notenames instead of position in chain, 01010101 etc. LLsLLLs etc.
There are about five generally accepted ways of defining a unique scale in 12edo, and a couple less in meantone.

See how I have handled these differences, and equivalent names, in the FileMaker database etc.

http://www.lucytune.com/scales/

On 20 Apr 2009, at 06:13, Graham Breed wrote:

>
>
> And I covered this before. The major scale is a type of
> scale the same as the David-deer is a type of deer. Common
> usage may not be strict about the distinction but no
> definition can cover both the C major scale and the major
> scale. They're obviously different categories.
>
> >> Do you have a definition for this new thing you want a word for?
> >
> > Yes. See:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_82801.html#83036
>
> There's no definition in that message.
>
> > Plus half a dozen subsequent posts about it. John Chalmers
> > is arguing that it's easier to just give the whole rank order
> > matrix than just the 2nds and the tuning. I'm completely
> > open to that as well.
>
> John Chalmers argued that a "scale should be defined as a
> Rothenberg Equivalence Class". Good old Rothenberg! Maybe
> you can give the title of the paper in which he defined this
> "equivalence class" in support of why scales don't contain
> pitches.
>
> I didn't reply before so I'll take the opportunity so say
> "no" here. An equivalence class is not a scale.
> Equivalence classes contain scales. You could say that an
> equivalence class tells you when two musical scales are
> perceived as "mistunings" of a single scale as opposed to
> when they are perceived as "different" scales. I wonder
> what Rothenberg would say.
>
> Graham
>
>
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

Agreed.

I have been using L and s in the meantone octave sense, and assuming
that the "scale" is with all notes in the same octave.

Maybe if you are going to use L and S universally, you need to define
the interval after which is repeats e.g. octave or octave + fifth etc.
as well as the size of the Large interval or both L and S.

The logic that I have been applying to the L and s pattern is that it
is possible to identify the intervals from the starting note in terms
of L and s regardless of the type of tuning system used.

Sometimes this will be easy accurate and obvious (e.g. any meantone
with octave ratio 2.0); sometimes it will be necessary to octave
normalise some of the notes. e.g if "octave ratio" is other than 2.

Part of the point of defining and analysing the scale is to ascertain
what triads will be usable with the scale, so that Western harmony may
be used in composition or accompaniment.

On 20 Apr 2009, at 06:50, Petr Parízek wrote:

>
>
>
> Torsten wrote:
>
> > So, then L can be indeed an interval larger than a second?
>
> There are no given rules about what sizes the L and S should be. As
> I’ve said, Bohlen-Pierce diatonic has an „L“ almost as large as the
> 12-equal minor third and an „S“ of a size of a neutral second
> (something over 140 cents). And there are also no given rules about
> what the target intervals should be. For example, in meantone, 5L +
> 2S add up to an octave, while in BP diatonic, 4L + 5S add up to
> something which sounds like a perfect 12th and there are no octaves
> at all.
>
> Petr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Graham, please stick to maths, logic, languages and programming, and leave the music theory to the musicians.

What you are saying about modes, cadences etc. is mumbo-jumbo.
Cadences are ways of ending a pattern and are drawn from the chord progressions of Western harmony.
The jazz/pop people sometimes refer to them as "turnarounds", which are three or four chords which used in any sequence which "everyone knows" is the ending of the pattern., and that a new section is to begin or the whole piece is ending.

On 20 Apr 2009, at 07:17, Graham Breed wrote:

>
>
> Mike Battaglia wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, it's been retired in favor of two different
> >> pages that don't have the same terms, so you can't take the
> >> argument there. A scale is, much like every other source,
> >> "a set of related notes placed in ascending or descending
> >> order by pitch". Then, a "mode is a set of such notes in
> >> the context of the conventional patterns for relating them"
> >>
> >> mode = set
> >>
> >> scale = ordered set
> >
> > I'm still a bit confused about the distinction here. Would the
> > distinction only apply for scales that don't repeat at the octave? > The
> > "modal" version simply being the list of all pitches that occur in > the
> > scale, and the "scale" version being specifically where they occur
> > (aka this pitch doesn't occur until the second octave, this pitch > not
> > until the third octave, etc.)
>
> There are different definitions of "mode". Sometimes one
> distinction between a "mode" and a "scale" is that a scale
> is ordered but a mode isn't. So a "mode" is the *set* of
> pitches that occur in a scale, not a list if you take a list
> to have an order.
>
> (I say that a list does have an order. A list of your
> favorite drummers will usually have your bestest favorite at
> the top. A shopping list is always written down in order
> even if that order isn't important. A set is a mathematical
> concept that's specifically defined so that (by default) it
> doesn't have an order.)
>
> Usually a mode will also have some notes singled out as
> "tonic" or "dominant" or whatever. And some rules for how
> to form cadences. Maybe some standard melodic patterns. A
> lot depends on the music being studied. Medieval modes are
> not the same as Renaissance modes but sometimes definitions
> try to cover both.
>
> Scales are usually defined in terms of one octave, but
> treated so that they repeat in some sense. The distinction
> has nothing to do with scales that cover more than an octave
> without repeating.
>
> The Common Practice equivalent of a mode is a key. The
> modes evolved into two distinct types: major and minor.
> Keys retain some features of modes but have other, novel
> properties. An Indian rag or Arab/Persian/Turkish/etc
> ma[qk]am is a related concept. Indian theories also have
> "that" or "mela" for a scale or set of notes.
>
> A minor key has both ascending and descending scales, or one
> scale with both forms. This is where the order is
> important. Whatever it has to do with music, "ascending"
> and "descending" are not the same. It's a property that
> applies to scales, not modes, according to this distinction.
>
> There's also a sense, probably most common these days, in
> which "the modes" are different scales taken as cyclic
> permutations of the major scale. This can apply to jazz,
> rock, or folk. There are plenty of references you'll find
> that talk about modes as being scales, or generally mix the
> concepts up. But others where the terms really are
> distinct, so you'll hear of "the major mode" or "the dorian
> scale" where appropriate. Different schools generally won't
> refer to each other, try to be consistent with each other,
> or even be aware of each other's existence.
>
> You are studying music, aren't you? Or have recently
> finished doing so? Try checking either your notes or a book
> like Jeppesen's on counterpoint (in translation).
>
> I'm really not making this up. Jon Szanto, I think, first
> pointed it out to me on this very list a few years ago. You
> should know a lot more than I do about it ...
>
> Graham
>
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

On 20 Apr 2009, at 3:17 PM, Graham Breed wrote:
> There are different definitions of "mode". Sometimes one
> distinction between a "mode" and a "scale" is that a scale
> is ordered but a mode isn't.
>
I've never heard about...
> Usually a mode will also have some notes singled out as
> "tonic" or "dominant" or whatever.
>
Not necessarily, it's later concept of tonality. But even in modal music we can find finalis and dominant tones.
> Scales are usually defined in terms of one octave, but
> treated so that they repeat in some sense.
>
? Of course they repeat.
> The distinction
> has nothing to do with scales that cover more than an octave
> without repeating.
>
Even such scales can repeat, but starting notes for each cycle can be different.
> The Common Practice equivalent of a mode is a key.
>
Tonality (given by key) is not necessarily connected with mode (scale). This concept came much later into the music then using the modes.
> The
> modes evolved into two distinct types: major and minor.
>
Not necessarily, contemporary modal music can use a lot of other modes which have nothing to do with major/minor.
> Keys retain some features of modes but have other, novel
> properties.
>
???
> An Indian rag or Arab/Persian/Turkish/etc
> ma[qk]am is a related concept. Indian theories also have
> "that" or "mela" for a scale or set of notes.
>
Yes, as this is probably an origin of all European music. So I wouldn't say "related", or maybe in the opposite direction - Near East and European music is a related concept of Indian music.
> A minor key has both ascending and descending scales,
>
? Only melodic minor scale as far as I'm informed :-)
> or one
> scale with both forms. This is where the order is
> important.
>
> There's also a sense, probably most common these days, in
> which "the modes" are different scales taken as cyclic
> permutations of the major scale.
>
... of any scale which has at least 2 different sizes of steps...
> This can apply to jazz,
> rock, or folk.
>
... and historical music, and contemporary music, and ethnic/folklore music...

Daniel Forro

On 20 Apr 2009, at 3:46 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> The logic that I have been applying to the L and s pattern is that > it is possible to identify the intervals from the starting note in > terms of L and s regardless of the type of tuning system used.

I wouldn't say, for this is necessary to add sizes, which can be pretty complicated with all those (3L-12s).

In my opinion L-S concept is good mainly for the purpose we can see immediately the sizes of individual scale steps. Therefore it should be easy to recognize, without all those (2L+3s) for each step. System ZYXW offered by Carl Lumma seems to be perfect, it allows lot of different step sizes in one scale, every of them has always only one character, and additionally we can know all interval sizes in Cents. I vote for this. It's scientific, yet simple. This is how science should be done. There's enough of other complicated things in the music, so why not to keep analysis as simple as possible?

>
> Sometimes this will be easy accurate and obvious (e.g. any meantone > with octave ratio 2.0); sometimes it will be necessary to octave > normalise some of the notes. e.g if "octave ratio" is other than 2.
>
> Part of the point of defining and analysing the scale is to > ascertain what triads will be usable with the scale, so that > Western harmony may be used in composition or accompaniment.

Yes, but Western music and Western harmony is not dependent on triads and triadic system, this is only a small part of what's possible.

Daniel Forro

On 20 Apr 2009, at 3:31 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
> I think you are getting confused yourself now Graham.
>
> There are many hundreds of major scales.
> All a scale actually needs to be a major scale is a natural (as > opposed to a flat) third.

I've never heard about "natural" third, sorry. Third can be major or minor, diminished or augmented, that's all.

And do you really think F# minor has a "flat" third according to your theory? That means not A, but Ab?

> There are about five generally accepted ways of defining a unique > scale in 12edo, and a couple less in meantone.

??? Which ways please? I would say there's only one way with some conditions, it's just a simple combinatorics. Main three rules in my system:
- rule Nr. 1: a scale in 12EDO (or similar system with microtonal flections) can have 5 to 12 notes.
- rule Nr. 2: the biggest used interval between two steps can be 4 halftones.
- rule Nr. 3: for two adjacent intervals the following step sizes are not allowed (as they create triadic chords inside the scale) - 33, 34, 43, 44.

Daniel Forro

No problem Daniel;

A natural third is 2L from the tonic - L being 200 cents in 12edo 191 cents in LT.
e.g. C to E. 400 cents in 12edo.
A flattened third is (L+s)
agreed, just terminology for interval names.

Starting from F# notenames for intervals are:
II second or Large is G# ( L)
bIII flat third is A (L+s)
III third is A# (2L)

What's the problem?

From F# to Ab is the bbIII = double flattened third (2s)

The interesting interval is the #II sharp second;

i.e. F# to Gx (2L-s)

(particularly used in Balkan music)

See this page for details of how this naming system works and the values:

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

and this for more

http://www.lucytune.com/scales/

On 20 Apr 2009, at 08:32, Daniel Forro wrote:

>
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2009, at 3:31 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
> > I think you are getting confused yourself now Graham.
> >
> > There are many hundreds of major scales.
> > All a scale actually needs to be a major scale is a natural (as
> > opposed to a flat) third.
>
> I've never heard about "natural" third, sorry. Third can be major or
> minor, diminished or augmented, that's all.
>
> And do you really think F# minor has a "flat" third according to your
> theory? That means not A, but Ab?
>
> > There are about five generally accepted ways of defining a unique
> > scale in 12edo, and a couple less in meantone.
>
> ??? Which ways please? I would say there's only one way with some
> conditions, it's just a simple combinatorics. Main three rules in my
> system:
> - rule Nr. 1: a scale in 12EDO (or similar system with microtonal
> flections) can have 5 to 12 notes.
> - rule Nr. 2: the biggest used interval between two steps can be 4
> halftones.
> - rule Nr. 3: for two adjacent intervals the following step sizes are
> not allowed (as they create triadic chords inside the scale) - 33,
> 34, 43, 44.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Claudio wrote
>
> > "I never wrote the sentence you quoted about "classical
> > music", or anything similar to it, in this forum or anywhere
> > else." -Claudio
>
> Which is why I said, "for example, SUPPOSE if..." and did NOT put your name at the end.  I was giving a possible example, not reflecting on something actually did.  If I give a quote without any name...you can figure on it being a rhetorical example.
>

If you had written that above, it would be alright. But the point is, you did not. You did NOT write "SUPPOSE". And so the sentence is, in any case, ambiguous and can be misunderstood.

I got to say it appears quite strange to me that, being told to quote properly, in the very first answer you write you do not quote properly again.
--
Hans Straub

On 20 Apr 2009, at 4:57 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
> No problem Daniel;
>
>
> A natural third is 2L from the tonic - L being 200 cents in 12edo > 191 cents in LT.
> e.g. C to E. 400 cents in 12edo.
> A flattened third is (L+s)
> agreed, just terminology for interval names.
>
> Starting from F# notenames for intervals are:
> II second or Large is G# ( L)
> bIII flat third is A (L+s)
> III third is A# (2L)
>
> What's the problem?

Just this:
- you use here "flattened" and "flat" third, is it the same? Never heard about such interval, always only "diminished".

- in my poor knowledge of English language I always thought "flat" means "b", that means A flat is Ab. Then logically after you "flat third" must be C - Eb in Cmi (which is OK by chance), but F#-Ab in F#mi.

I know only this terminology for a third:
- diminished: C - Ebb
- minor: C - Eb
- major: C - E
- augmented: C - E#

Double diminished and double augmented also possible, theoretically.

>
> From F# to Ab is the bbIII = double flattened third (2s)

This should be called "diminished third".

> The interesting interval is the #II sharp second;
>
> i.e. F# to Gx (2L-s)
>
> (particularly used in Balkan music)
>

Never heard about "sharp" second, only about augmented. Will you use a term "sharp second" also in a key with flats? So you will get for the same interval in Ab major this result: Ab - B#? Because this is "B sharp". :-)

It seems to me you mix accidentals with interval sizes.

Just to say "it's used in Balcan music" without a context is not too informative... Do you mean in major scale?

> See this page for details of how this naming system works and the > values:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_02.html
>
> and this for more
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/

I would like to find some time for studying it...

Daniel Forro

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

> John Chalmers argued that a "scale should be defined as a
> Rothenberg Equivalence Class". Good old Rothenberg! Maybe
> you can give the title of the paper in which he defined this
> "equivalence class" in support of why scales don't contain
> pitches.

It's all from the same three papers. Rank order matrices
have been discussed here ad nauseum.

> I didn't reply before so I'll take the opportunity so say
> "no" here. An equivalence class is not a scale.

Your definition allows some wiggle in the definition
of "pitch". So your scales are equivalence classes.
I just happen to think it's the wrong place to put
the wiggle and I would prefer the amount of wiggle
allowed be delimited by the definition.

-Carl

On Apr 20, 2009, at 6:50 AM, Petr Parízek wrote:
> > So, then L can be indeed an interval larger than a second?
>
> There are no given rules about what sizes the L and S should be. As
> I’ve said, Bohlen-Pierce diatonic has an „L“ almost as large as the
> 12-equal minor third and an „S“ of a size of a neutral second
> (something over 140 cents). And there are also no given rules about
> what the target intervals should be. For example, in meantone, 5L +
> 2S add up to an octave, while in BP diatonic, 4L + 5S add up to
> something which sounds like a perfect 12th and there are no octaves
> at all.
>

Meanwhile I understood that Carl used the term second in the sense of
the distance between scale degrees, not as diatonic seconds. This had
caused confusion, because the denoted intervals are often close...

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

On Apr 20, 2009, at 7:31 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> There are many hundreds of major scales.
> All a scale actually needs to be a major scale is a natural (as > opposed to a flat) third.
> (i.e. a value near 400 cents, without a value near 300 cents)
> If it has a value near 300 cents, then it is a minor scale.

I would say, Lydian has a major third but is still not major, nor is Dorian minor..

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

> There's also a sense, probably most common these days, in
> which "the modes" are different scales taken as cyclic
> permutations of the major scale.
//
That's the definition of "mode" most commonly used around here, except
that they don't have to be cyclic permutations of the major scale, but
they can be of any scale. There are the modes of the melodic minor
scale, there are the modes of harmonic minor, of harmonic major, etc.

However, there is also the concept of a piece being in major/minor
mode etc. It refers to the basic pitch set that forms sort of the
background "harmonic vibe" of the piece. This often assumes octave
equivalence, but there are a few cases I've found where octave
equivalence doesn't quite work. And I'm glad you're using that
definition of mode, because that's how I always felt about it - in a
sense, they are the "modes" that a piece of music can exist in. I
remember throwing this definition of mode around a while ago and
someone objected to it, and I'm not sure why.

My definition of a "mode" is also something that a piece of music can
be "in." That is, a piece can be in major mode, minor mode, dorian
mode, lydian #2, etc. And, I find, for almost any mode, you can find
chords that will make you expect some other chord to follow, or chords
that naturally seem to follow other chords - even modes besides the
usual major/minor pairing around here. That effectively means that
so-called "functional" harmony exists in more modes than major and
minor, and that assertion was met with some objection around here.

Would you say that fits outside of the scope of your "unordered pitch
set" definition?

> You are studying music, aren't you? Or have recently
> finished doing so? Try checking either your notes or a book
> like Jeppesen's on counterpoint (in translation).
>
> I'm really not making this up. Jon Szanto, I think, first
> pointed it out to me on this very list a few years ago. You
> should know a lot more than I do about it ...
>
> Graham

Haha... I wish my school talked about things like "unordered pitch
sets" and "rank-scale matrices." Nonetheless, to attempt seriously to
understand something like music theory, you need to sit with it for a
while and sort it out personally (as you are no doubt well aware).
That means that while the teachers at my school are good for
introducing new concepts or ideas, believing their words to be gospel
is usually unwise. It doesn't help that they often say things that
just seem generally wrong.

For example, the concept of Rothenberg propriety around here has
somehow turned into that "you can't have a scale with two half steps
next to each other." Harmonies with minor ninths that aren't placed
over the root are deemed "invalid." And as to whether a piece can
really be in dorian mode or if such a piece would just be in minor
with a bunch of borrowed chords, it depends on who you ask. What I
find is that the more I just stick to my observations and plowing
ahead, the more I find that the people who wrote these groundbreaking
seminal theory works tend to agree with my observations anyway and
that my teachers are just bastardizing the concepts slightly.

So nobody in my school can really agree on what anything is called and
what is and isn't "legal" or fits into the definition of anything. I
just change the terminology as needed to communicate with people. If
the pitch set of a piece that is residing in the back of your mind is
called a "mode," I'm happy with that. And if nobody wants to give
chord expectations in Dorian and Mixolydian the title of "functional
harmony," that's fine too. But, for the record, I'm glad you chose the
definition of "mode" that you did, because I'd always felt like that
definition worked particularly well.

-Mike

I always thought Lydian, Ionian and Mixolydian are considered as major (in this order from the most major to less major sounding), Dorian, Aeolian and Phrygian minor (in this order from less minor to the most minor), Locrian is a special case with its diminished fifth.

I have prepared this explanation many years ago for my students using a general D scale:

D E F G A B C

(because of symmetry on the piano keyboard). And now with different number of accidentals we get:

3# = Lydian
2# = Ionian
1# = Mixolydian
0 = Dorian
1b = Aeolian
2b = Phrygian
3b = Locrian

Not only there's a symmetry in accidentals, but also in intervallic structure - Lydian and Locrian are symmetric, Ionian with Phrygian, Mixolydian with Aeolian, and Dorian has self-symmetry (first and second tetrachords are the same).

Funny is when we add one more flat, we will get again Lydian, from Db. Opposite, with 4 sharps result is again Locrian, on D#.

By historical development of European music it happened, that always middle of those three major and three minor scales was selected as "main" major and "main" minor for future use (golden middle way). Maybe European music would be much more contrasting if the most major and the most minor scales were selected (Lydian and Phrygian). But of course these scales were used in folklore and church music, and since 19th century again in common classical music.

Daniel Forro

20 Apr 2009, at 6:39 PM, Torsten Anders wrote:
> I would say, Lydian has a major third but is still not major, nor is
> Dorian minor..
>
> Best
> Torsten
>

>>> It says "One key distinction between these terms is that
>>> pitch is relative (a matter of common agreement among
>>> musicians), while frequency is absolute (a precise,
>>> unambiguous measurement)."
>>
>> Heh- what a lot of nonsense!
>
> Well, it's nice to know your opinion. Do you have any
> evidence to back it up?

Are you saying that names such as "C", "D","E" are simply relative
terms indicating the place you're at in a scale, or that somehow
"pitch" itself is relative?

>> In psychoacoustics.
>
> All the dictionaries I could find say acoustics.

The way I learned it, pitch is a purely psychoacoustic percept (try
saying that five times fast) and frequency is an absolute and
scientific quantity. The distinction generally becomes useful when one
refers to nonlinearities in pitch perception, i.e. that low
frequencies tend to be perceived as having a "sharper" tone chroma
than their equivalents a few octaves up, and that octaves of pure
tones in the upper register won't sound pure unless they are
considerably sharp.

> 3) C' can be played at different exact, scientific pitches
> in different contexts, even on the same instrument in the
> same performance of the same piece of music.
//
> 8) The pitches a scale contains need not be exact.

I strongly agree with this. This same line of reasoning led to the
post I made above about defining the {1/1 9/8 5/4 ... | 81/80}
structure. It sure beats defining the major scale as 12-tet C D E F G
A B C.

I also strongly agree with Carl that the definition of a "scale"
should not be tied into a specific tuning. And Rothenberg's concept
about hearing all different types of ZZYZZZY as being the major scale
is right on. But what about the fact that people don't usually really
hear comma shifted intervals as containing unique identities in a
scale or mode? They're usually instead swallowed up by their
archetypal neighbors. For example, Tom Dent posted a harpsichord
recording of I think God Save the Queen that uses both 9/8 and 10/9 in
a way in which you would never know a comma shift had occurred unless
you were specifically listening for it. The two intervals were in
different registers at different times.

The concept of the "major scale" ought to be defined in a way that
encapsulates a number of different tuning systems. But to say the
major scale is fundamentally something like "LLsLLLs" isn't abstract
enough. The meantone major scale and the JI major scale would have to
have fundamentally different definitions, and if the goal is to have
the definition of "scale" be abstract enough to incorporate different
entities, we might as well make it abstract enough to incorporate both
of them.

That being said, it would be nice if there were some way to formalize
this so that we didn't really need to have both LLsLLLs and LIsLILs to
represent often barely perceptible comma shifts (especially from a
melodic standpoint). If we're trying to get the root definition of
"scale" abstract enough to where it represents a perceptual feature
rather than a scientifically quantifiable set of cents or intervals,
we might as well go all the way with it, in my opinion.

-Mike

I tend to avoid the terms diminished and augmented, when referring to intervals, as they come from the ambiguous use by classical chauvanists;

although I do use the terms for chords : e.g. C-Eb-Gb is Cdim chord. C-E-G# is CAug chord

Flat and flattened are synonymous.

C-Ebb is double flat third bbIII - definitely not diminished.

C-E# is sharp third #III.

Ab to B is #II; sharp second;

so Ab to B# is xII double sharp second.

The use of sharps and flats when describing intervals should be consistent whether you are using a sharp, flat or neutral key.

There is so much confusion about scales, and names like diminished, augmented, leading note, supratonic etc.. that I just avoid the whole issue of classical terminology.

Using flat and sharp and multiple sharps and flats is much easier to use, and understand.

It is also unambiguous, as it works for all keys, and interval sizes are clearly named without stating or needing to know the key.

On 20 Apr 2009, at 09:54, Daniel Forro wrote:

>
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2009, at 4:57 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
> > No problem Daniel;
> >
> >
> > A natural third is 2L from the tonic - L being 200 cents in 12edo
> > 191 cents in LT.
> > e.g. C to E. 400 cents in 12edo.
> > A flattened third is (L+s)
> > agreed, just terminology for interval names.
> >
> > Starting from F# notenames for intervals are:
> > II second or Large is G# ( L)
> > bIII flat third is A (L+s)
> > III third is A# (2L)
> >
> > What's the problem?
>
> Just this:
> - you use here "flattened" and "flat" third, is it the same? Never
> heard about such interval, always only "diminished".
>
> - in my poor knowledge of English language I always thought "flat"
> means "b", that means A flat is Ab. Then logically after you "flat
> third" must be C - Eb in Cmi (which is OK by chance), but F#-Ab in > F#mi.
>
> I know only this terminology for a third:
> - diminished: C - Ebb
> - minor: C - Eb
> - major: C - E
> - augmented: C - E#
>
> Double diminished and double augmented also possible, theoretically.
>
> >
> > From F# to Ab is the bbIII = double flattened third (2s)
>
> This should be called "diminished third".
>

>
> > The interesting interval is the #II sharp second;
> >
> > i.e. F# to Gx (2L-s)
> >
> > (particularly used in Balkan music)
> >
>
> Never heard about "sharp" second, only about augmented. Will you use
> a term "sharp second" also in a key with flats? So you will get for
> the same interval in Ab major this result: Ab - B#? Because this is
> "B sharp". :-)
>
> It seems to me you mix accidentals with interval sizes.
>
> Just to say "it's used in Balcan music" without a context is not too
> informative... Do you mean in major scale?
>
> > See this page for details of how this naming system works and the
> > values:
> >
> > http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_02.html
> >
> > and this for more
> >
> > http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>
> I would like to find some time for studying it...
>
> Daniel Forro
>
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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> > 8) The pitches a scale contains need not be exact.
>
> I strongly agree with this.

Ask any musician if the C on a Bb horn and the C on a
piano are the same pitch. How many do you think will
answer affirmatively?

-Carl

That depends upon your definition of Major and minor.

You are falling into the thoroughly confusing classical terminology.

Are we agreed upon what Lydian and Dorian mean?

I view it like this:

http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_03.html

Dorian is white notes starting from D
Lydian is white notes stating from F

On 20 Apr 2009, at 10:39, Torsten Anders wrote:

>
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2009, at 7:31 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
> > There are many hundreds of major scales.
> > All a scale actually needs to be a major scale is a natural (as
> > opposed to a flat) third.
> > (i.e. a value near 400 cents, without a value near 300 cents)
> > If it has a value near 300 cents, then it is a minor scale.
>
> I would say, Lydian has a major third but is still not major, nor is
> Dorian minor..
>
> Best
> Torsten
>
> --
> Torsten Anders
> Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
> University of Plymouth
> Office: +44-1752-586219
> Private: +44-1752-558917
> http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
> http://www.torsten-anders.de
>
>
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

On 20 Apr 2009, at 11:39, Daniel Forro wrote:
> I always thought Lydian, Ionian and Mixolydian are considered as
> major (in this order from the most major to less major sounding),
> Dorian, Aeolian and Phrygian minor (in this order from less minor to
> the most minor), Locrian is a special case with its diminished fifth.

OK, if you allow for "more like" and "less like" major, I certainly agree :)

Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

This major/minor thing is all very confusing for most people.

I suspect that some people are assuming that a scale is minor if it contains the bIIIrd interval anywhere between notes used in the scale. i.e. (L+s)

and otherwise the scale must be major?

Forget the whole classical nonsense about naming, major, minor etc; just consider the notes used and what triads can be constructed from the notes used in the scale.

You can then immediately understand the harmonic potential of any scale.

On 20 Apr 2009, at 11:39, Daniel Forro wrote:

>
>
> I always thought Lydian, Ionian and Mixolydian are considered as
> major (in this order from the most major to less major sounding),
> Dorian, Aeolian and Phrygian minor (in this order from less minor to
> the most minor), Locrian is a special case with its diminished fifth.
>
> I have prepared this explanation many years ago for my students using
> a general D scale:
>
> D E F G A B C
>
> (because of symmetry on the piano keyboard). And now with different
> number of accidentals we get:
>
> 3# = Lydian
> 2# = Ionian
> 1# = Mixolydian
> 0 = Dorian
> 1b = Aeolian
> 2b = Phrygian
> 3b = Locrian
>
> Not only there's a symmetry in accidentals, but also in intervallic
> structure - Lydian and Locrian are symmetric, Ionian with Phrygian,
> Mixolydian with Aeolian, and Dorian has self-symmetry (first and
> second tetrachords are the same).
>
> Funny is when we add one more flat, we will get again Lydian, from
> Db. Opposite, with 4 sharps result is again Locrian, on D#.
>
> By historical development of European music it happened, that always
> middle of those three major and three minor scales was selected as
> "main" major and "main" minor for future use (golden middle way).
> Maybe European music would be much more contrasting if the most major
> and the most minor scales were selected (Lydian and Phrygian). But of
> course these scales were used in folklore and church music, and since
> 19th century again in common classical music.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> 20 Apr 2009, at 6:39 PM, Torsten Anders wrote:
> > I would say, Lydian has a major third but is still not major, nor is
> > Dorian minor..
> >
> > Best
> > Torsten
> >
>
>
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

None except the ignorant.

This leads us on the fact that wind instruments are usually easier to play in flat keys, as also are keyboards; whereas strings, guitars, etc are easier to play in sharp keys, because the open string tunings are on the sharp side of C in the circle/spiral of fourths/fifths.

On 20 Apr 2009, at 12:18, Carl Lumma wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > > 8) The pitches a scale contains need not be exact.
> >
> > I strongly agree with this.
>
> Ask any musician if the C on a Bb horn and the C on a
> piano are the same pitch. How many do you think will
> answer affirmatively?
>
> -Carl
>
>
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

On 20 Apr 2009, at 7:18 PM, Mike Battaglia wrote:
> My definition of a "mode" is also something that a piece of music can
> be "in." That is, a piece can be in major mode, minor mode, dorian
> mode, lydian #2, etc. And, I find, for almost any mode, you can find
> chords that will make you expect some other chord to follow, or chords
> that naturally seem to follow other chords - even modes besides the
> usual major/minor pairing around here. That effectively means that
> so-called "functional" harmony exists in more modes than major and
> minor, and that assertion was met with some objection around here.
>
If you find in the mode the most natural chord sequences, which
harmonize the modal melody properly, that means you use modal
harmony, as functional harmony goes against the natural features of
those modes. For example mixolydian minor dominant chord. It has
nothing to do with functional harmony. Opposite when you will use
chromatic relations and altered chords, they are foreign to the mode.

Of course it's possible to harmonize modal melody with functional
harmony, or even with high ratio of chromatism, borrowed chords,
polyharmony, quartal harmony, triadic-quartal, jazz etc. But then you
go against the spirit of mode, against its latent harmony.

As a good examples of both attitudes I can recommend you to study the
attitude of different authors when they do accompaniment for folklore
songs (which are usually in such or more exotic modes). I have verygood examples from Czech music.

Leoš Janáček was a specialist in Moravian ethnic music, fully
understood a difference between functional and modal harmony (which
is clearly to hear even from his autonome works), so his
harmonizations of folklore are exactly as it should be, far from
functional harmony. Very often he uses no chords, only sustained note
or fifth drones, tried to imitate zymbalon way of accompaniment, orspecial bow techniques used by string performers. A revelation.

The same good in this was Hungarian Béla Bartók, also a great
ethnomusicologist, who learned a lot from ethnic music. He used even
older modal harmony then Janáček (as he was inspired additionally by
old European music), on the other side he was not afraid to use
quartal harmony, and more pentatonics than Janáček (because there's
no pentatonics in Indo-European Czech and Moravian original songs,
but Hungarian music is of Asian origin and full of pentatonics).

And now a bad example: Czech Late-romantic composer Vítězslav
Novák did many harmonizations of Czech, Moravian and Slovakian songs,
but not in a modal harmony, but in rich functional harmony. He used
high triadic chords with many alterations, chromatic chords,
impresionistic whole-tone chords, complex modulations and tonal
jumps, double dominants and New-Hungarian urban sequences of
diminished chords (which was over-used by Gipsy musicians in Carpathian from Balcan to middle Europe) for simple folklore modal
songs (some of them very old, in Byzantinian style), and very heavy
and dense virtuoso piano stylization and this way he managed to
destroy totally their latent fragile and exotic beauty. He totally
misunderstood for example some unusual chromatic notes and flections
in modal melodies, and harmonized them as a part of standard
chromatic scale.
I didn't say he was a bad composer, not at all, in his own style he
has some good works (not my cup of Starbucks), but he was totally
unsensitive and tasteless concerning folklore.

So you can see two different attitudes, one very humble, sensitive,
and protective, with a desire to learn something from it, to these old folk treasures, and another one aggressive, tasteless, equalizing
everything into one uniform style...

Worth of study, you can learn a lot from all this. Oh yes, it's never
too late to start with some very interesting places in Chopin,
continue through Russian composers starting with Mussorgski until
Stravinski (you can omit two great composers - Scriabin and
Rachmaninoff, first was quite original, second one Late-romantic,
both without any relation to folklore and modal music in the sense we
are talking about), nothing against Part. And of course there's much
more...

Daniel Forro

Mike Battaglia wrote:
>>>> It says "One key distinction between these terms is that
>>>> pitch is relative (a matter of common agreement among
>>>> musicians), while frequency is absolute (a precise,
>>>> unambiguous measurement)."
>>> Heh- what a lot of nonsense!
>> Well, it's nice to know your opinion. Do you have any
>> evidence to back it up?
> > Are you saying that names such as "C", "D","E" are simply relative
> terms indicating the place you're at in a scale, or that somehow
> "pitch" itself is relative?

I wasn't saying anything there. I was quoting the Electronic Musician website. But what I'm generally saying, since you ask, is that names such as "C", "D", "E" are names of pitches. Whatever quantity they name must be pitch.

They certainly aren't relative pitch, which is a different thing entirely, and in this context may be what jianpu or solfege describes. If you accept that, "the major scale" is a list of relative pitches.

(Incidentally, the answer to Carl's riddle in another message, is abgngrq cvgpu. That's in rot-13 so I don't give the game away for those of you still puzzling over it.)

>>> In psychoacoustics.
>> All the dictionaries I could find say acoustics.
> > The way I learned it, pitch is a purely psychoacoustic percept (try
> saying that five times fast) and frequency is an absolute and
> scientific quantity. The distinction generally becomes useful when one
> refers to nonlinearities in pitch perception, i.e. that low
> frequencies tend to be perceived as having a "sharper" tone chroma
> than their equivalents a few octaves up, and that octaves of pure
> tones in the upper register won't sound pure unless they are
> considerably sharp.

I checked dictionaries, and they said that "pitch" has different meanings in acoustics and music. The acoustics one is a subjective quantity, and you can call that psychoacoustics if you want. It's still a science. This sense is used in music, as in "concert pitch", but isn't the only sense. Which leads us to:

>> 3) C' can be played at different exact, scientific pitches
>> in different contexts, even on the same instrument in the
>> same performance of the same piece of music.
> //
>> 8) The pitches a scale contains need not be exact.
> > I strongly agree with this. This same line of reasoning led to the
> post I made above about defining the {1/1 9/8 5/4 ... | 81/80}
> structure. It sure beats defining the major scale as 12-tet C D E F G
> A B C.

That's good. That's the main thing I've been arguing.

> I also strongly agree with Carl that the definition of a "scale"
> should not be tied into a specific tuning. And Rothenberg's concept
> about hearing all different types of ZZYZZZY as being the major scale
> is right on. But what about the fact that people don't usually really
> hear comma shifted intervals as containing unique identities in a
> scale or mode? They're usually instead swallowed up by their
> archetypal neighbors. For example, Tom Dent posted a harpsichord
> recording of I think God Save the Queen that uses both 9/8 and 10/9 in
> a way in which you would never know a comma shift had occurred unless
> you were specifically listening for it. The two intervals were in
> different registers at different times.

Major scales with 9/8 and 10/9 would be equivalence classes by Rothenberg's definition. No problem there. What I worry about is that 12-tet would be the cut-off point between one equivalence class and another. In equal temperament, F-Bb and Bb-F are the same interval, and hence equivalent, so the scale is proper rather than strictly proper. Rothenberg's ordering is subjective, so a miniscule de-tuning doesn't change the equivalence class. But the further down you go in the meantone direction, the more likely those tritones will be heard as distinct, so that the scale becomes strictly proper. As such it's a different equivalence class and so both couldn't be "the major scale".

You can say that's fine. It means something. But I wouldn't take it as *the* definition of "the same scale". I want to talk about major scales in the whole range of meantones from 12 to 19 -- and I've done so for many years.

> The concept of the "major scale" ought to be defined in a way that
> encapsulates a number of different tuning systems. But to say the
> major scale is fundamentally something like "LLsLLLs" isn't abstract
> enough. The meantone major scale and the JI major scale would have to
> have fundamentally different definitions, and if the goal is to have
> the definition of "scale" be abstract enough to incorporate different
> entities, we might as well make it abstract enough to incorporate both
> of them.

The meantone major scale is something like "LLsLLLs". It has exactly the right degree of abstraction if what you want to talk about is major scales in arbitrary meantone tunings. Yes, the concept of "scale" should cover both it and JI (fixed and adaptive) and other things like expressive intonation and a degree of unintentional mis-tuning.

What I've suggested is that the definition of "scale" delegates this abstraction to the definition of "pitches". That way you can talk about scales at different levels of abstraction by defining them according to different pitch systems. ("Pitch system" is a term I've used before.)

Maybe somebody can come up with a better word than "pitches". It's only recently I've concluded that "pitch" is the proper musical term and I don't particularly like it. Definitions may say "notes" or "tones" but the cascade of definitions always leads us to "pitches".

> That being said, it would be nice if there were some way to formalize
> this so that we didn't really need to have both LLsLLLs and LIsLILs to
> represent often barely perceptible comma shifts (especially from a
> melodic standpoint). If we're trying to get the root definition of
> "scale" abstract enough to where it represents a perceptual feature
> rather than a scientifically quantifiable set of cents or intervals,
> we might as well go all the way with it, in my opinion.

I want "scale" to be abstract enough to do what I want. That isn't always perceptual. And neither is what you're talking about with {1/1 9/8 5/4 ... | 81/80} above.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
> I tend to avoid the terms diminished and augmented, when referring to
> intervals, as they come from the ambiguous use by classical chauvanists; ...
> Using flat and sharp and multiple sharps and flats is much easier to
> use, and understand.
> It is also unambiguous, as it works for all keys, and interval sizes
> are clearly named without stating or needing to know the key.

Surely this is true of the classical terminology too, e.g. Daniel's example:

> > - diminished: C - Ebb
> > - minor: C - Eb
> > - major: C - E
> > - augmented: C - E#

or this one:

- diminished: D-Fb
- minor: D-F
- major: D-F#
- augmented: D-F##

> The use of sharps and flats when describing intervals should be
> consistent whether you are using a sharp, flat or neutral key. ...

I don't see how this can be achieved at the same time as naming the interval sizes unambiguously (but I may have misunderstood you).

Steve M.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> What I worry about is that 12-tet would be the cut-off point
> between one equivalence class and another.

Yes, that's a problem, but I don't see how to resolve it
without getting pretty fancy.

> It means something.

A considerable advantage.

> But I wouldn't take it as *the* definition of "the same scale".
> I want to talk about major scales in the whole range of
> meantones from 12 to 19 -- and I've done so for many years.

Very well. What would you suggest? If you want to use
"relative pitches", you'll have to at least explain what to
do when there are more than 7 pitch classes, and how to tell
whether something is a 'relative C' or a 'relative D'.

Moreover, if you're suggesting doing this by temperament,
how would you even tell if a scale is a meantone? And you'll
need some sort of fallback to support scales that aren't used
harmonically.

-Carl

On 20 Apr 2009, at 8:10 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
> I tend to avoid the terms diminished and augmented, when referring > to intervals, as they come from the ambiguous use by classical > chauvanists;
>

???

> although I do use the terms for chords : e.g. C-Eb-Gb is Cdim > chord. C-E-G# is CAug chord

Then you are the person making more confusion in your own using of terminology.

> Flat and flattened are synonymous.

Less words is a target to make things more easy :-)

>
> C-Ebb is double flat third bbIII - definitely not diminished.

According to your theory G#-Bb must be flat third...

>
> C-E# is sharp third #III.

... then Fb-A as well, or will you call it natural because there's natural A?

>
> Ab to B is #II; sharp second;

I don't see any sharp there..

> so Ab to B# is xII double sharp second.
>

Double sharp is missing.

> The use of sharps and flats when describing intervals should be > consistent whether you are using a sharp, flat or neutral key.

That would be possible by using of neutral terms without any connection to accidentals. You can use for example +/-. But your way I wouldn't call consistency. It's pure chaos.

> There is so much confusion about scales, and names like diminished, > augmented, leading note, supratonic etc.. that I just avoid the > whole issue of classical terminology.

And you managed to bring even more confusion in it.

>
> Using flat and sharp and multiple sharp s and flats is much easier > to use, and understand.
>
> It is also unambiguous, as it works for all keys, and interval > sizes are clearly named without stating or needing to know the key.

It can't work for all keys from obvious logical reasons. Because your "flattening" can be done in different keys by using of sharp (after double sharp), natural (after sharp), flat (after natural) and double flat (after flat), and "sharpening" can be done by using of flat (after double flat), natural (after flat), sharp (after natural) and double sharp (after sharp). It depends on the context.

Not everything from old theories is wrong... And what's wrong we can try to improve. Which is not this case.

Daniel Forro

On 20 Apr 2009, at 8:16 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
> Dorian is white notes starting from D
> Lydian is white notes stating from F

Beg you pardon, do you mean this as a joke here? You have made my day. I would accept such definition from my 3 years old daughter...

I know a little bit more of them, let's say 15 different Dorians, and 15 different Lydians. At least.

Daniel Forro

At least this is my old theory, as I understand the transition between all those major and minor modes as a gradual. In my example when all of them are written as D diatonics and accidentals are changing from 3 sharps to 3 flats, it seems like the "most major" mode, Lydian, has a tendency to have a slope to the right side (as notes are major or increased, shifted to the right), then one by one some tones (concretely G#-G, C#-C, F#-F, B-Bb, E-Eb, A-Ab - it's a segment of fourth circle, and interesting is initial G# = final Ab enharmonically) go to the left by naturals, and Locrian mode has minor or decreased notes by flats, and it looks like a slope to the left.

And if we analyze main three chords - Tonic, Subdominant, Dominant:
Lydian: Major - Dim - Major (rather major II is used for Subdominant)
Ionian: Major - Major - Major
Mixolydian: Major - Major - Minor
Dorian: Minor - Major - Minor
Aeolian: Minor - Minor - Minor
Phrygian: Minor - Minor - Dim (here rather minor II is used for Dominant function)

So the only purely major is really Ionian, and purely minor is Aeolian.

Daniel Forro

On 20 Apr 2009, at 8:17 PM, Torsten Anders wrote:
>
> On 20 Apr 2009, at 11:39, Daniel Forro wrote:
>> I always thought Lydian, Ionian and Mixolydian are considered as
>> major (in this order from the most major to less major sounding),
>> Dorian, Aeolian and Phrygian minor (in this order from less minor to
>> the most minor), Locrian is a special case with its diminished fifth.
>
>
> OK, if you allow for "more like" and "less like" major, I certainly > agree :)
>
> Torsten

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> At least this is my old theory, as I understand the transition
> between all those major and minor modes as a gradual. In my example
> when all of them are written as D diatonics and accidentals are
> changing from 3 sharps to 3 flats, it seems like the "most major"
> mode, Lydian, has a tendency to have a slope to the right side (as
> notes are major or increased, shifted to the right), then one by one
> some tones (concretely G#-G, C#-C, F#-F, B-Bb, E-Eb, A-Ab - it's a
> segment of fourth circle, and interesting is initial G# = final Ab
> enharmonically) go to the left by naturals, and Locrian mode has
> minor or decreased notes by flats, and it looks like a slope to the
> left.
>
> And if we analyze main three chords - Tonic, Subdominant, Dominant:
> Lydian: Major - Dim - Major (rather major II is used for Subdominant)
> Ionian: Major - Major - Major
> Mixolydian: Major - Major - Minor
> Dorian: Minor - Major - Minor
> Aeolian: Minor - Minor - Minor
> Phrygian: Minor - Minor - Dim (here rather minor II is used for
> Dominant function)
>
> So the only purely major is really Ionian, and purely minor is Aeolian.
>
> Daniel Forro

I think in terms of tetrachords (and pentachords, hemioctachords). So "purely minor" for me is Dorian, or "minor-minor" as it is in my old Bulgarian theory book, whereas Aeolian would be minor-phrygian.

(Obviously this smells a whole lot like maqam theory as well as an ancient practical singer's approach, but I'll keep quiet about that.)

-Cameron Bobro

Charles Lucy wrote:

> The use of sharps and flats when describing intervals should be consistent whether you are > using a sharp, flat or neutral key.

1. If you think terms like "augmented" or "diminished" can't serve here, give me a clear answer why. So far, I've just seen statements like "it's inconsistent' and "it's chaotic" but I'm still not sure why you think it is.

2. On one hand you say the terminology should be consistent and you almost attack classical terminology users, while on the other hand your examples seem to bring even more uncertainty than there already is. If I should také your explanation seriously, I would have to call a minor second a "flat second", but my question is: "Oh, but G#-A doesn't have any flats, so what should I actually play?" Similarly, if you say "sharp fourth", I would expect to find any sharps in it. But lo and behold, now you're suggesting to call Db-G a "sharp fourth" (despite the fact that "sharp" is already in use for the accidental and that we shouldn't use one term for two different meanings at the same time if we want to avoid confusion). Well, maybe this concept is okay for someone who doesn't feel comfortable in reading sheet music, but using the term "sharp" somehow implies there should be some "sharp" accidentals, and the same goes for flats. You can't say that G#-A is a "flat second" because it doesn't have an A flat nor a G flat in it. And if you do, you aren't using consistent terminology despite saying you are.

Petr

That's great! Such tetrachordal theory and compositional thinking is very good, I like it as well and did some research about tetrachords many years ago in those directions:

- to invent new types of tetrachords: I have realized that Lydian (C D E F#) and some other tetrachords (like C D Eb F#, C Db E F#) have an ambitus of 6 half-tones, and the most "compressed" one can have only 4 half-tones (C Db Ebb Fbb), so I tried to find all possible tetrachords with using of double accidentals and allowing the biggest interval between two adjacent steps 4 half-tones. I got 20 tetrachords (8 of them have names and are in use).

- to combine two tetrachords into the modes closed into the octave: connection interval can be 0 to 4, it gives 2000 modes, but lot of them don't close into octave, after their cancelling there's still enough modes. I can exclude also tetrachords where two adjacent intervals are the same , and try to use only such connection intervals which are different than both edge intervals, and try to connect only various intervals when connecting interval is 0. Target is to have only modes where adjacent intervals are always different. Even with such strict rules I could get a lot of interesting modes. It's quite universal theory.

- to chain more then two tetrachords and create modes closed into the other intervals bigger then octave. This was the most promising part of research.

I was caught in all this modal staff after my study of old Greek music, Byzantinian music, Gregorian chant, maqam and raga. I wanted to keep some connection with these old styles but tried to shift them into the world of contemporary music thinking... I think still lot of this is a part of my compositional style despite the fact later I have started to work with more refined intervallic techniques inside the modes after I had realized the intervals are more important than scales.

Daniel Forro

On 20 Apr 2009, at 11:08 PM, Cameron Bobro wrote:
> I think in terms of tetrachords (and pentachords, hemioctachords). > So "purely minor" for me is Dorian, or "minor-minor" as it is in my > old Bulgarian theory book, whereas Aeolian would be minor-phrygian.
>
> (Obviously this smells a whole lot like maqam theory as well as an > ancient practical singer's approach, but I'll keep quiet about that.)
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

Charles Lucy wrote:
> This leads us on the fact that wind instruments are usually easier to play
in flat keys, as also are keyboards; whereas strings, guitars, etc are
easier to play in sharp keys, because the open string tunings are on the
sharp side of C in the circle/spiral of fourths/fifths.

Fully agree with brass instruments, most on the flats side, some of them
heavily (band instruments in Bb and Eb).
A few are not (natural brass in D and E).

For woodwinds only Clarinets in Bb are really on the flats, Clarinets in A
and the other woodwinds are relatively neutral.

Guitars, violins, double bass: fully agree, their open strings are nearer to
the sharps.
Cello and viola: they are nearer to the flats.
But the "tendency" is anyway slight.

As for keyboards, I never noticed any tendency towards the flats as you
state:
- from a technique point of view the thing is symmetrical
- from the point of view of historical temperaments they are also mostly
symmetrical, with a slight tendency of French circular (modified meantone)
to favour the sharps, German circular ("wohltemperierte") to favour the
flats, but the tendency is really a minor one.
Glad to hear your point of view re this last topic in more detail.

Claudio

http://temper.braybaroque.ie/

>> > 8) The pitches a scale contains need not be exact.
>>
>> I strongly agree with this.
>
> Ask any musician if the C on a Bb horn and the C on a
> piano are the same pitch. How many do you think will
> answer affirmatively?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I don't think he's talking about
transposing instruments or anything like that. What Graham's saying
has to do with the fact that even in just concert C major, on any
suitably expressive instrument a number of different comma shifted
intervals that will be used for let's say "D" and will all be
interpreted as being the same note. Things like "C" and "D" have two
precise meanings: they can refer to an actual pitch class with a
certain frequency and a whole bunch of octave equivalents, or they can
just refer to general "pitch categories" that people will have that
encapsulate a bunch of different nearby frequencies.

So I think Graham's saying the same thing I am: just like intervallic
stretching of the major scale will still result in a perceptually
similar scale, so does comma shifting of intervals. If we're in major,
then both 9/8 and 10/9 will be interpreted as different intonations of
the second scale degree.

Perhaps the definition of a scale should be something like LLsLLLs |
c, where "c" is some small comma that the intervals can drift by and
still count as part of the scale, although I'm not sure exactly how to
formalize something like that. Clearly, if the comma is too large,
it's not going to sound like a slight comma shift anymore, but a
different interval entirely. Does Rothenberg say anything about how
large a comma shift can be before it's no longer heard as a comma
shift?

-Mike

Mike B> "If we're in major, then both 9/8 and 10/9 will be interpreted as >different intonations of the second scale degree."

  To a large extent yes.  However, at least to me, there is a significant difference in tone character between 10/9 and 9/8. 
     This may not matter much if only, say, a couple of notes in the scale are tempered off a bit (IE the minor 3rd in 12TET)...but shifting a lot of notes around toward nearby notes with "brighter" or "darker" character. 

   Experience by ear and composing seems to point out to me...the important things are
A) To stay around a similar tonal area (which, for example, 10/9 and 9/8 are both clearly in)
B) To shift all notes that must be moved "off perfect intervals" toward a consistently brighter or darker sounding equivalent in tonal "character".  Move some
toward brighter sounding and some toward darker often seems to cause problems.

Mike B> "Clearly, if the comma is too large, it's not going to sound like a >slight comma shift anymore, but a different interval entirely."
   I will agree completely here: the trick is not to shift anything too far off.  And, IMVHO, furthermore it's important, within the "sweet spots" near the perfect interval (within this supposed "interpreted as a comma shift" range), to choose tones of the most similar character.

   Come to think of it...I wonder what would happen if I start with diatonic JI and shift each note to very nearby "brighter" character equivalents to attempt to prove my point.  I may very well try this in my next major post.

-Michael

No Daniel you seem to have misunderstood.

G# to Bb is a double flat third. (bbIII)
G# to B# is a third
The G# to B is a flat third
G# to Bx is a sharp third.

As sharpening or flattening a note is achieve by increasing or reducing the pitch of a note respectively by an equal interval . i.e. Large interval - small interval (bII) (L-s)

On 20 Apr 2009, at 14:35, Daniel Forro wrote:

>
>
> On 20 Apr 2009, at 8:10 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
> > I tend to avoid the terms diminished and augmented, when referring
> > to intervals, as they come from the ambiguous use by classical
> > chauvanists;
> >
>
> ???
>
> > although I do use the terms for chords : e.g. C-Eb-Gb is Cdim
> > chord. C-E-G# is CAug chord
>
> Then you are the person making more confusion in your own using of
> terminology.
>
> > Flat and flattened are synonymous.
>
> Less words is a target to make things more easy :-)
>
> >
> > C-Ebb is double flat third bbIII - definitely not diminished.
>
> According to your theory G#-Bb must be flat third...
>
> >
> > C-E# is sharp third #III.
>
> ... then Fb-A as well, or will you call it natural because there's
> natural A?
>
> >
> > Ab to B is #II; sharp second;
>
> I don't see any sharp there..
>
> > so Ab to B# is xII double sharp second.
> >
>
> Double sharp is missing.
>
> > The use of sharps and flats when describing intervals should be
> > consistent whether you are using a sharp, flat or neutral key.
>
> That would be possible by using of neutral terms without any
> connection to accidentals. You can use for example +/-. But your way
> I wouldn't call consistency. It's pure chaos.
>
> > There is so much confusion about scales, and names like diminished,
> > augmented, leading note, supratonic etc.. that I just avoid the
> > whole issue of classical terminology.
>
> And you managed to bring even more confusion in it.
>
> >
> > Using flat and sharp and multiple sharp s and flats is much easier
> > to use, and understand.
> >
> > It is also unambiguous, as it works for all keys, and interval
> > sizes are clearly named without stating or needing to know the key.
>
> It can't work for all keys from obvious logical reasons. Because your
> "flattening" can be done in different keys by using of sharp (after
> double sharp), natural (after sharp), flat (after natural) and double
> flat (after flat), and "sharpening" can be done by using of flat
> (after double flat), natural (after flat), sharp (after natural) and
> double sharp (after sharp). It depends on the context.
>
> Not everything from old theories is wrong... And what's wrong we can
> try to improve. Which is not this case.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
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

Good! So at least we are agreed on the fundamental principles;-)
Let's move on.......

On 20 Apr 2009, at 14:41, Daniel Forro wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2009, at 8:16 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
> >
> > Dorian is white notes starting from D
> > Lydian is white notes stating from F
>
> Beg you pardon, do you mean this as a joke here? You have made my
> day. I would accept such definition from my 3 years old daughter...
>
> I know a little bit more of them, let's say 15 different Dorians, and
> 15 different Lydians. At least.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
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

Thanks for your responses Petr.

I consider sharp and flat key signatures to be transpositions along
the chain of fourths and fifths, therefore to keep things simple,
clear and consistent in my mind I usually initially visualise harmony
from the tonic of C and then transpose it to the required key.

If you take a scale or chord and move it along the chain, the
notenames will change, in steps of fourths in the flatwise direction
and fifths sharpwise, as you transpose.

The intervals between the notes described as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and single
or multiple sharps or flats of these intervals will not change
regardless of what starting note you should use to replace C.

I am using dim and aug to describe triads, as the concept is widely
used and understood, and there seems little point of changing them as
triad names;

Diminished triads have ascending steps of flat thirds, bIIIrd (L+s) ;
Augmented triads use steps of thirds, IIIrds (2L)

in 12 edo this splits the octave into three or four equal intervals of
four and three semitones each.

In other meantone-type tuning they do not arrive exactly at the octave:

Four steps of (L+s) = (4L+4s) for dims; and four of (2L) = (8L) for
augs; neither of which is an octave (of 5L+2s).

It seems that you use of the term diminished means the same as my use
of the term double flat (flattened).

I appreciate how western notation uses key signatures, and how notes
which are out of the "key" will stand out like sore thumbs by
requiring altered notes to be indicated by sharp or flat signs.

It seems that you are assuming that altered notes in a sharp key must
always be shown as sharp alterations, and flat keys by flats.

This would be true if your aim was to produce only the most consonant
traditionally western music, yet we microtuning, so I feel that to
correctly notate microtuned music we have to ignore

the "you can't mix altered notes on the same stave" taboo.

Hence single or multiple sharps and flats should be permissible
regardless of the key signature. So with your thinking if a note is
already flattened by the key signature e.g. Bb, if you wished to
flatten it to Bbb, you would add a flat to the notation of an already
flattened B to indicate Bbb.

How would you notate an A# to be played in a piece for which your key
signature is Bb (i.e. 2 flats signs in the key signature)?

On 20 Apr 2009, at 15:19, Petr Parízek wrote:

>
>
>
> Charles Lucy wrote:
>
> > The use of sharps and flats when describing intervals should be
> consistent whether you are > using a sharp, flat or neutral key.
>
> 1. If you think terms like „augmented“ or „diminished“ can’t serve
> here, give me a clear answer why. So far, I’ve just seen statements
> like „it’s inconsistent‘ and „it’s chaotic“ but I’m still not sure
> why you think it is.
>
> 2. On one hand you say the terminology should be consistent and you
> almost attack classical terminology users, while on the other hand
> your examples seem to bring even more uncertainty than there already
> is. If I should také your explanation seriously, I would have to
> call a minor second a „flat second“, but my question is: „Oh, but G#-
> A doesn’t have any flats, so what should I actually play?“
> Similarly, if you say „sharp fourth“, I would expect to find any
> sharps in it. But lo and behold, now you’re suggesting to call Db-G
> a „sharp fourth“ (despite the fact that „sharp“ is already in use
> for the accidental and that we shouldn’t use one term for two
> different meanings at the same time if we want to avoid confusion).
> Well, maybe this concept is okay for someone who doesn’t feel
> comfortable in reading sheet music, but using the term „sharp“
> somehow implies there should be some „sharp“ accidentals, and the> same goes for flats. You can’t say that G#-A is a „flat second“ > because it doesn’t have an A flat nor a G flat in it. And if you do, > you aren‘t using consistent terminology despite saying you are.
>
> Petr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Hi Claudio;

I was also thinking about the ergonomics of a conventional keyboard in terms of minimalising finger movements, being easier to achieve when playing the same composition in a flat rather than a sharp key.

On 20 Apr 2009, at 17:07, Claudio Di Veroli wrote:

>
>
>
> Charles Lucy wrote:
> > This leads us on the fact that wind instruments are usually easier > to play in flat keys, as also are keyboards; whereas strings, > guitars, etc are easier to play in sharp keys, because the open > string tunings are on the sharp side of C in the circle/spiral of > fourths/fifths.
>
> Fully agree with brass instruments, most on the flats side, some of > them heavily (band instruments in Bb and Eb).
> A few are not (natural brass in D and E).
>
> For woodwinds only Clarinets in Bb are really on the flats, > Clarinets in A and the other woodwinds are relatively neutral.
>
> Guitars, violins, double bass: fully agree, their open strings are > nearer to the sharps.
> Cello and viola: they are nearer to the flats.
> But the "tendency" is anyway slight.
>
> As for keyboards, I never noticed any tendency towards the flats as > you state:
> - from a technique point of view the thing is symmetrical
> - from the point of view of historical temperaments they are also > mostly symmetrical, with a slight tendency of French circular > (modified meantone) to favour the sharps, German circular > ("wohltemperierte") to favour the flats, but the tendency is really > a minor one.
> Glad to hear your point of view re this last topic in more detail.
>
> Claudio
>
> http://temper.braybaroque.ie/
>
>
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

The way how music is written has absolutely nothing to do with a
keyboard finger technique. Db major tonality is the same as C# major,
but Db major has less accidentals and is more easier to read.
Opposite B major is more easier to read then Cb major.

But even this depends on personal preferences of composer. Some
prefer more flats, like Janáček (for example he loved Ab minor and
didn't use more simple to read G# minor).

Daniel Forro

On 21 Apr 2009, at 8:17 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

>
>
> Hi Claudio;
>
>
> I was also thinking about the ergonomics of a conventional keyboard
> in terms of minimalising finger movements, being easier to achieve
> when playing the same composition in a flat rather than a sharp key.

Hi Charles,

Very interesting this discussion. (Had never thought about this before!)

With music and playing techniques from mid-18th century on, you may be
right.

With prior music and techniques, things are different:
1. FINGERING SCALES: Fingering was asymmetrical. with Baroque fingerings
the r.h. plays ascending scales easier with flats, but descending ones
easier with sharps.
The l.h. plays descending scales easier with sharps, and the ascending ones
(with the thumb) have the same difficulty with sharps or flats. So the
balance, if anything, favours slightly the sharps.

2. CHORDS: Pre-classical keyboard technique avoids thumbs and little fingers
on accidentals.
Thus large chords in major G, D, A, E and B (5 sharps) are fine, but to play
even B flat (2 flats) is a problem. It was done, but it imbalanced the
standard hand position, with the thumb normally on the naturals if not out
of the keyboard altogether. This explain why the French writers would use
more sharps than flats. (A well-known exception is of course J.S. Bach, who
favoured the flats and obviously could not care - against the usual custom -
about thumbs on accidentals which cannot be avoided in his organ works.)

Regards

Claudio

http://harps.braybaroque.ie/

_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Charles Lucy
Sent: 21 April 2009 00:18
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Instruments easier on flats or sharps

Hi Claudio;

I was also thinking about the ergonomics of a conventional keyboard in terms
of minimalising finger movements, being easier to achieve when playing the
same composition in a flat rather than a sharp key.

On 20 Apr 2009, at 17:07, Claudio Di Veroli wrote:

Charles Lucy wrote:
> This leads us on the fact that wind instruments are usually easier to play
in flat keys, as also are keyboards; whereas strings, guitars, etc are
easier to play in sharp keys, because the open string tunings are on the
sharp side of C in the circle/spiral of fourths/fif ths.

Fully agree with brass instruments, most on the flats side, some of them
heavily (band instruments in Bb and Eb).
A few are not (natural brass in D and E).

For woodwinds only Clarinets in Bb are really on the flats, Clarinets in A
and the other woodwinds are relatively neutral.

Guitars, violins, double bass: fully agree, their open strings are nearer to
the sharps.
Cello and viola: they are nearer to the flats.
But the "tendency" is anyway slight.

As for keyboards, I never noticed any tendency towards the flats as you
state:
- from a technique point of view the thing is symmetrical
- from the point of view of historical temperaments they are also mostly
symmetrical, with a slight tendency of French circular (modified meantone)
to favour the sharps, German circular ("wohltemperierte") to favour the
flats, but the tendency is really a minor one.
Glad to hear your point of view re this last topic in more detail.

Claudio

http://temper. <http://temper.braybaroque.ie/> braybaroque. ie/
<http://temper.braybaroque.ie/> <http://temper.braybaroque.ie/>
<http://temper.braybaroque.ie/>

Charles Lucy
lucy@lucytune. <mailto:lucy@...> com

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabie <http://www.lullabies.co.uk> s.co.uk

Hi, Claudio,

could you please explain on concrete examples (or thru links), how writing/reading convention of music is connected to fingerings and keyboard technique? I see no connection. Cb major has the same fingerings as B major etc. One of them is just more easier to read, but in no sense more easier to play. The same for contemporary/atonal music. That's the only difference in my opinion. I haven't deeper knowledge of Baroque fingerings but I don't think any fingering is issue here. It's only a question of reading vs. playing.

Daniel Forro

On 21 Apr 2009, at 8:46 AM, Claudio Di Veroli wrote:

>
>
>
> Hi Charles,
>
> Very interesting this discussion. (Had never thought about this > before!)
>
> With music and playing techniques from mid-18th century on, you may > be right.
>
> With prior music and techniques, things are different:
> 1. FINGERING SCALES: Fingering was asymmetrical. with Baroque > fingerings the r.h. plays ascending scales easier with flats, but > descending ones easier with sharps.
> The l.h. plays descending scales easier with sharps, and the > ascending ones (with the thumb) have the same difficulty with > sharps or flats. So the balance, if anything, favours slightly the > sharps.
>
> 2. CHORDS: Pre-classical keyboard technique avoids thumbs and > little fingers on accidentals.
> Thus large chords in major G, D, A, E and B (5 sharps) are fine, > but to play even B flat (2 flats) is a problem. It was done, but it > imbalanced the standard hand position, with the thumb normally on > the naturals if not out of the keyboard altogether. This explain > why the French writers would use more sharps than flats. (A well-> known exception is of course J.S. Bach, who favoured the flats and > obviously could not care - against the usual custom - about thumbs > on accidentals which cannot be avoided in his organ works.)
>
> Regards
>
> Claudio

Carl Lumma wrote:

>> a distinction between "third" and "3rd"...
> > I wasn't making that distinction, but I suppose it is a
> thought. In which case, I claim the numeric form for generic
> intervals. But I think it's probably not a good idea to
> introduce homophones. So far, I try to use the numeric form
> for everything, unless in a sentence with many other digits,
> when I sometimes write out "third" to balance things.

I'd like to make a small correction to what I first wrote: "As I use the word, a 5:4 is always a third (specifically a major third), regardless of how many scale steps it encompasses." There are situations where I might call it a "diminished fourth" (most notably in schismatic temperaments, but also in other cases where it resolves in a way that you might expect a diminished fourth to resolve).

Also, I've been thinking that since "octave" is a clearly distinct word, you could distinguish it from "8th" if you want to make the distinction. Similarly, an interval the size of a fifth could be called a "quint" (we already have the term "quintal harmony"). Other interval names could be "quart" (from "quartal"), and "tertia" (from "tertian"). Or the more verbose "tertian interval", "quartal interval", "quintal interval" could be used if you want to avoid coining new words....

Daniel Forro wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2009, at 3:46 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
> >> The logic that I have been applying to the L and s pattern is that >> it is possible to identify the intervals from the starting note in >> terms of L and s regardless of the type of tuning system used.
> > I wouldn't say, for this is necessary to add sizes, which can be > pretty complicated with all those (3L-12s).
> > In my opinion L-S concept is good mainly for the purpose we can see > immediately the sizes of individual scale steps. Therefore it should > be easy to recognize, without all those (2L+3s) for each step. System > ZYXW offered by Carl Lumma seems to be perfect, it allows lot of > different step sizes in one scale, every of them has always only one > character, and additionally we can know all interval sizes in Cents. > I vote for this. It's scientific, yet simple. This is how science > should be done. There's enough of other complicated things in the > music, so why not to keep analysis as simple as possible?

I've done similar things with ABCDE, but ZYXW has the obvious advantage of not being confused with musical note names. Once you get beyond L, M, S for large, medium, and small, it gets complicated to extend that pattern (besides which, L and S only make sense in English).

>> Ab to B is #II; sharp second;
>
> I don't see any sharp there..
>
>> so Ab to B# is xII double sharp second.
>>
>
> Double sharp is missing.
>
>> The use of sharps and flats when describing intervals should be
>> consistent whether you are using a sharp, flat or neutral key.
>
> That would be possible by using of neutral terms without any
> connection to accidentals. You can use for example +/-. But your way
> I wouldn't call consistency. It's pure chaos.

It's extremely common to refer to augmented intervals as "sharpened"
or "sharp" intervals and diminished intervals as "flattened" or "flat"
intervals. For example, the chord C E G Bb D F# is a C dominant
seventh chord with a sharp 11 (or "C seven sharp eleven", as you'll
usually hear it). You won't find too many people saying that it has an
augmented eleventh in it or anything. The practice extends to
major/minor intervals as well; C D E F G Ab Bb C can be said to be C
mixolydian with a b6, for example, regardless of what key it's in.

The practice is echoed in common practice theory by giving chord
numbers names like bIII and so on. If you're in D major, F major will
still be bIII. It won't be "minor III" or something like that.

-Mike

On 21 Apr 2009, at 2:17 PM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

> It's extremely common to refer to augmented intervals as "sharpened"
> or "sharp" intervals and diminished intervals as "flattened" or "flat"
> intervals. For example, the chord C E G Bb D F# is a C dominant
> seventh chord with a sharp 11 (or "C seven sharp eleven", as you'll
> usually hear it). You won't find too many people saying that it has an
> augmented eleventh in it or anything.
>

It's extremely common in jazz, which doesn't mean it's justified by this. It's wrong from the point of music theory, and this fact is obvious even when 99% of jazz performers will call it as they want (a reason for this situation was a lack of formal musical education, which is nowadays no apology as everybody can find enough quality books for self-study).
Because in the same chord on the root F (F A C Eb G B) no sharp is written (as still was by chance a case with F# in your example), but natural has to be used. So we can't say it is "sharpened". Will you call it "naturalized"? And the same chord on C# (C# E# G# B D# Fx) have there double sharp. Will you call it properly "double sharpened"? I doubt it.

Why not to keep terms as simple as possible? Augmented/diminished is OK, and stay always the same regardless of used accidental.

Another mistake: because chord 11+ (as I called it properly, because +/- is also universal and independent from used accidentals) has augmented 11th, it can't serve well as dominant function despite the fact it's an extension of dominant seventh chord. Therefore it's used in jazz usually as ending chord on tonic function, or on subdominant, or on other grades (even on extra-tonal chords), or in chains of chords and similar.

> The practice extends to
> major/minor intervals as well; C D E F G Ab Bb C can be said to be C
> mixolydian with a b6, for example, regardless of what key it's in.
>
>
A scale you wrote is called C melodic major. You can describe it also by tetrachords as Major-Phrygian.
> The practice is echoed in common practice theory by giving chord
> numbers names like bIII and so on. If you're in D major, F major will
> still be bIII. It won't be "minor III" or something like that.
>
> -Mike
>
You mix here totally different things. Harmonic analysis using general names for functions in functional harmony has other means how to express this, it depends on the context. I didn't see a way you describe. F major in D major can be chromatic mediant function if it stay isolated between two D major chords, or it can be double double subdominant...

Another possibility here would be to use a practice of figured bass, where alterations are written as they appears in concrete key. So in this case we will write sign for natural followed by III. But I always prefer to express a function of chord in functional harmony, not just a grade in the scale.

Daniel Forro

Daniel wrote:

Hi, Claudio,

could you please explain on concrete examples (or thru links), how
writing/reading convention of music is connected to fingerings and
keyboard technique? I see no connection. Cb major has the same
fingerings as B major etc. One of them is just more easier to read,
but in no sense more easier to play. The same for contemporary/atonal
music. That's the only difference in my opinion. I haven't deeper
knowledge of Baroque fingerings but I don't think any fingering is
issue here. It's only a question of reading vs. playing.
Daniel Forro

Hi Daniel,

my post refers to tonalities with a few sharps or flats.

Enharmony is assumed (even in Baroque times 99% of the keyboards had only 12
pitches per octave).

Thus obviously in this respect B is the same as Cb, irrespective of tuning
issues.

The remark by Charles Lucy, that flats can be easier to play than sharps,
has been opposed here from an enharmonic point of view.

I answered it from another point of view, tonality, because what he said is
relevant.

I meant that using early keyboard technique, playing in D major (2 sharps)
is slightly easier than in Bb (2 flats). Playing in B major (5 sharps) is
easier than in Db major (5 flats). Both tonalities in a circular temperament
use exactly the same accidental pitches, sure enough, BUT THE DIATONIC
SCALES AND CHORDS are very different. Thought this was clear from my post.

Regards

Claudio

http://harps.braybaroque.ie/

Thank you, Claudio, that's quite clear now :-)

Daniel Forro

On 21 Apr 2009, at 7:43 PM, Claudio Di Veroli wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> my post refers to tonalities with a few sharps or flats.
>
> Enharmony is assumed (even in Baroque times 99% of the keyboards > had only 12 pitches per octave).
>
> Thus obviously in this respect B is the same as Cb, irrespective of > tuning issues.
>
> The remark by Charles Lucy, that flats can be easier to play than > sharps, has been opposed here from an enharmonic point of view.
>
> I answered it from another point of view, tonality, because what he > said is relevant.
>
> I meant that using early keyboard technique, playing in D major (2 > sharps) is slightly easier than in Bb (2 flats). Playing in B major > (5 sharps) is easier than in Db major (5 flats). Both tonalities in > a circular temperament use exactly the same accidental pitches, > sure enough, BUT THE DIATONIC SCALES AND CHORDS are very different. > Thought this was clear from my post.
>
> Regards
>
> Claudio
>
> http://harps.braybaroque.ie/

Charles Lucy wrote:

> I consider sharp and flat key signatures to be transpositions along the chain of fourths
> and fifths, therefore to keep things simple, clear and consistent in my mind I usually
> initially visualise harmony from the tonic of C and then transpose it to the required key.

Understood.

> If you take a scale or chord and move it along the chain, the notenames will change,
> in steps of fourths in the flatwise direction and fifths sharpwise, as you transpose.

Same for this.

> The intervals between the notes described as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and single or multiple sharps
> or flats of these intervals will not change regardless of what starting note
> you should use to replace C.

Depends primarily on what you mean by „sharps or flats“. The interval sizes obviously don’t change, but the pitch alterations certainly do because the „reference point“ for our regular notation is the „no sharp no flat“ setting. These are two different things and should not be considered interchangeable.

> I am using dim and aug to describe triads, as the concept is widely used and understood,
> and there seems little point of changing them as triad names;

But Charles, this is exactly where your choice is inconsistent. Diminished triads are called like that because they contain a diminished fifth. Similarly, augmented triads contain an augmented fifth.

> It seems that you are assuming that altered notes in a sharp key
> must always be shown as sharp alterations, and flat keys by flats.
> This would be true if your aim was to produce
> only the most consonant traditionally western music, yet we microtuning, so I feel
> that to correctly notate microtuned music we have to ignore
> the "you can't mix altered notes on the same stave" taboo.
> Hence single or multiple sharps and flats should be permissible
> regardless of the key signature. So with your thinking if a note is already flattened
> by the key signature e.g. Bb, if you wished to flatten it to Bbb, you would add a flat
> to the notation of an already flattened B to indicate Bbb.
> How would you notate an A# to be played in a piece for which your key signature is Bb
> (i.e. 2 flats signs in the key signature)?

My goodness, I wasn’t saying you couldn’t mix altered notes on the same stave -- and I’m not sure why you thought I was. Of course you can, why could you not? I was talking about something completely different, which was the fact that while the terms „sharp“ and „flat“ usually describe chromatic alterations of pitches (namely of those with no accidentals), you seem to be using the same words to describe chromatic alterations of intervals, not pitches (without providing a clear explanation what intervals are the „unaltered“ ones which you can alter by adding a „sharp“ or „flat“ to them). But this means that now there are two different meanings for „sharp“ and „flat“ and it’s not clear when we should understand them in one way and when in the other. So if you say to me „play a flat fifth“, I would assume you want me to use some „flat“ tone in the fifth. But if you then tell me that „A#-E“ is a flat fifth, then there will be lots of confusion because A# is sharp and E is natural (i.e. no flats are used). And if words like „augmented“ or „diminished“ CAN describe the alterations you mean (i.e. chromatic alterations of intervals), it’s better to use these because then you don’t end up describing two different things with one word. -- For another thing, you’re using „sharp third“ and „flat third“, but nothing in-between, like if there were no „unaltered“ thirds. This even adds to the confusion because there are actually two of these, which you can judge for yourself if you study the origins of triadic harmony carefully.

Petr

Hi Petr;

Let me explain one of the problems that I find with the term
diminished, which you have yourself illustrated in your response here:

As I understand our point of view, what I call Ebb you call E
diminished. i.e. (2L-2s) lower than E in meantone terms.

Yet you describe the diminished chord as containing a diminished fifith.

In my terms the diminished chord contains a flat fifth bV. e.g. C-Eb-Gb

If you are using the diminished term to mean a double flattening of a
notes; this suggests that your diminished contains a Gbb.

In meantone by sharpening or flattening notes you are raising or
lowering the pitch always by the same number of cents (L-s).

Yes I am saying that the interval from A# to E is a flat fifth. Follow
my logic:

1. We would agree that A natural to E natural is a fifth Vth (3L+s) in
meantone.

2. The difference between A and A# is I# i.e. (L-s)

3. Changing from A to A# raises the starting note by (L-s).

4. Therefore the interval A# to E is the same as A to E minus (L-s)
i.e. (3L+s) - (L-s) = (2L+2s) which is a bVth.

See this page to confirm my logic:

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

On 21 Apr 2009, at 17:18, Petr Parízek wrote:

>
>
>
> Charles Lucy wrote:
>
> > I consider sharp and flat key signatures to be transpositions
> along the chain of fourths
> > and fifths, therefore to keep things simple, clear and consistent
> in my mind I usually
> > initially visualise harmony from the tonic of C and then transpose
> it to the required key.
>
> Understood.
>
> > If you take a scale or chord and move it along the chain, the
> notenames will change,
> > in steps of fourths in the flatwise direction and fifths
> sharpwise, as you transpose.
>
> Same for this.
>
> > The intervals between the notes described as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and
> single or multiple sharps
> > or flats of these intervals will not change regardless of what
> starting note
> > you should use to replace C.
>
> Depends primarily on what you mean by „sharps or flats“. The
> interval sizes obviously don’t change, but the pitch alterations
> certainly do because the „reference point“ for our regular notation
> is the „no sharp no flat“ setting. These are two different things
> and should not be considered interchangeable.
>
> > I am using dim and aug to describe triads, as the concept is
> widely used and understood,
> > and there seems little point of changing them as triad names;
>
> But Charles, this is exactly where your choice is inconsistent.> Diminished triads are called like that because they contain a
> diminished fifth. Similarly, augmented triads contain an augmented
> fifth.
>
> > It seems that you are assuming that altered notes in a sharp key
> > must always be shown as sharp alterations, and flat keys by flats.
> > This would be true if your aim was to produce
> > only the most consonant traditionally western music, yet we
> microtuning, so I feel
> > that to correctly notate microtuned music we have to ignore
> > the "you can't mix altered notes on the same stave" taboo.
> > Hence single or multiple sharps and flats should be permissible
> > regardless of the key signature. So with your thinking if a note
> is already flattened
> > by the key signature e.g. Bb, if you wished to flatten it to Bbb,
> you would add a flat
> > to the notation of an already flattened B to indicate Bbb.
> > How would you notate an A# to be played in a piece for which your
> key signature is Bb
> > (i.e. 2 flats signs in the key signature)?
>
> My goodness, I wasn’t saying you couldn’t mix altered notes on the
> same stave -- and I’m not sure why you thought I was. Of course you
> can, why could you not? I was talking about something completely
> different, which was the fact that while the terms „sharp“ and
> „flat“ usually describe chromatic alterations of pitches (namely of
> those with no accidentals), you seem to be using the same words to
> describe chromatic alterations of intervals, not pitches (without
> providing a clear explanation what intervals are the „unaltered“
> ones which you can alter by adding a „sharp“ or „flat“ to them). But
> this means that now there are two different meanings for „sharp“ and
> „flat“ and it’s not clear when we should understand them in one way
> and when in the other. So if you say to me „play a flat fifth“, I
> would assume you want me to use some „flat“ tone in the fifth. But
> if you then tell me that „A#-E“ is a flat fifth, then there will be
> lots of confusion because A# is sharp and E is natural (i.e. no
> flats are used). And if words like „augmented“ or „diminished“ CAN
> describe the alterations you mean (i.e. chromatic alterations of
> intervals), it’s better to use these because then you don’t end up
> describing two different things with one word. -- For another thing,
> you’re using „sharp third“ and „flat third“, but nothing in-between,
> like if there were no „unaltered“ thirds. This even adds to the
> confusion because there are actually two of these, which you can
> judge for yourself if you study the origins of triadic harmony
> carefully.
>
> Petr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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.lullabies.co.uk

Dear Daniel,

On Apr 21, 2009, at 7:00 AM, Daniel Forró wrote:
> > It's extremely common to refer to augmented intervals as "sharpened"
> > or "sharp" intervals and diminished intervals as "flattened" or
> "flat"
> > intervals.
>
> It's extremely common in jazz, which doesn't mean it's justified by
> this.

I guess, sharps and flat are just convenient for notating raised/
flattened intervals. Already in figured bass they have been used forthis purpose (see link below). Also, I just checked that Schoenberg
in "Structural functions of harmony" uses them this way in Roman
numeral notation.

http://www.robertkelleyphd.com/figuredbass.htm

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

Charles Lucy wrote:

> As I understand our point of view, what I call Ebb you call E diminished.
> i.e. (2L-2s) lower than E in meantone terms.

Absolutely wrong. I have said that „sharp“ and „flat“ are used to describe chromatic alterations of pitches, while „augmented“ and „diminished“ are used for chromatic alterations of intervals. So Ebb, which is a single pitch, is „E double flat“ because it’s two „chromas“ lower than E natural. But C-Ebb is not a pitch, C-Ebb is an interval, which means that C-Ebb is a diminished third because it’s one chroma lower than a minor third.

> In meantone by sharpening or flattening notes you are raising or lowering the pitch
> always by the same number of cents (L-s).

Okay, this is exactly what I’ve said about altering pitches. But if you do the same while altering intervals, then you’re using one word for two things, which is unacceptable for me. Simply said, sharp and flat is forsingle tones, diminished and augmented is for intervals. Clear enough?

And I can’t accept „sharp third“ and „flat third“ if there’s no „unaltered“ third in-between.

Petr

OK Petr;

Let's agree to differ.

You use diminished, I use flat or flattened; you use augmented, I use
sharp or sharpened, when describing intervals.

I only use the terms "diminished" (dim) and "augmented" (aug) to
identify triad chords, as everyone seems to understand and agree the
terms in this context.

Now you have introduce two other confusing terms: "chroma" and
"unaltered".

Does "chroma" come from chromatic?

I understand chromatic as being by semitones, and hence usually
limited to 12 edo, although some people may use it to describe one
step in other edo's

Instead of "unaltered", I use the term "natural" if it is to be
spelled out - or a letter between A and G without any # or b sign, as
a shorter way of identifying a notename.

On 21 Apr 2009, at 20:18, Petr Parízek wrote:

>
>
>
> Charles Lucy wrote:
>
> > As I understand our point of view, what I call Ebb you call E
> diminished.
> > i.e. (2L-2s) lower than E in meantone terms.
>
> Absolutely wrong. I have said that „sharp“ and „flat“ are used to
> describe chromatic alterations of pitches, while „augmented“ and
> „diminished“ are used for chromatic alterations of intervals. So
> Ebb, which is a single pitch, is „E double flat“ because it’s two
> „chromas“ lower than E natural. But C-Ebb is not a pitch, C-Ebb is
> an interval, which means that C-Ebb is a diminished third because
> it’s one chroma lower than a minor third.
>
> > In meantone by sharpening or flattening notes you are raising or
> lowering the pitch
> > always by the same number of cents (L-s).
>
> Okay, this is exactly what I’ve said about altering pitches. But if
> you do the same while altering intervals, then you’re using one word
> for two things, which is unacceptable for me. Simply said, sharp and
> flat is forsingle tones, diminished and augmented is for intervals.
> Clear enough?
>
> And I can’t accept „sharp third“ and „flat third“ if there’s no
> „unaltered“ third in-between.
>
> Petr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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.lullabies.co.uk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
> I know a little bit more of them, let's say 15 different Dorians, and
> 15 different Lydians. At least.

OK, I'll bite: I have not heard of so many! Could you explain or give a reference, Daniel?

Many thanks,
Steve M.

Charles Lucy wrote:

> Does "chroma" come from chromatic?
> I understand chromatic as being by semitones, and hence usually limited
> to 12 edo, although some people may use it to describe one step in other edo's

The word „chroma“ was in use much earlier than 12-equal. In Pythagorean tuning, it usually means the interval of 7 fifths minus 4 octaves. In 5-limit JI, it’s most often used for the 25/24 ratio -- i.e. the distance from a minor third to a major third. In both cases, it’s the interval between two notes of the same name one accidental apart, like C-C# or Bb-B (i.e. L-S in meantone). And often there is clear distinction made between a „minor second“ (i.e. C-Db) and a „chroma“ (C-C#).
> Instead of "unaltered", I use the term "natural" if it is to be spelled out -
> or a letter between A and G without any # or b sign, as a shorter way
> of identifying a notename.

I wasn’t using „unaltered“ as a term, nor was I using it to mean natural. I was just stating that if there’s a „sharp third“ and a „flat third“, then I would suppose there should also be another third which is neither sharp nor flat, like it is with fifths, for example. And the same goes for sixths (why should there be nothing between a sharp sixth and a flat sixth). But in classical terminology, there really IS something between an „augmented“ and a „diminished“ third. Or in fact, there are two things in-between -- a major third and a minor third. That’s because both of them have more or less similar harmonic (or tonal) properties.

Petr

I have found 15 different scales which contain the word "Lydian" and 17 which contain the word "Dorian" in their known names.

Would you like a complete listing?

On 21 Apr 2009, at 21:11, martinsj013 wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
> > I know a little bit more of them, let's say 15 different Dorians, > and
> > 15 different Lydians. At least.
>
> OK, I'll bite: I have not heard of so many! Could you explain or > give a reference, Daniel?
>
> Many thanks,
> Steve M.
>
>
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

In the system that I am using there is always a difference between (s)
and (L-s), except when used in 12edo when L=2s.

That difference is always (s) - (L-s) = (2s-L) which is the double
flat second, bbII

Between a (your major) third and a (your minor) flat third there are
as many intervals as you wish in LucyTuning. the most "consonant" ones
being double sharp second xII (Dx) (3L-2s) and double flat fourth Dbb
(bbIV) (3s)

All other potential intervals can be mapped in a similar way to
whatever granularity you may require.

On 21 Apr 2009, at 21:19, Petr Parízek wrote:

>
>
>
> Charles Lucy wrote:
>
> > Does "chroma" come from chromatic?
> > I understand chromatic as being by semitones, and hence usually
> limited
> > to 12 edo, although some people may use it to describe one step in
> other edo's
>
> The word „chroma“ was in use much earlier than 12-equal. In
> Pythagorean tuning, it usually means the interval of 7 fifths minus> 4 octaves. In 5-limit JI, it’s most often used for the 25/24 ratio
> -- i.e. the distance from a minor third to a major third. In both
> cases, it’s the interval between two notes of the same name one
> accidental apart, like C-C# or Bb-B (i.e. L-S in meantone). And
> often there is clear distinction made between a „minor second“ (i.e.
> C-Db) and a „chroma“ (C-C#).
> > Instead of "unaltered", I use the term "natural" if it is to be
> spelled out -
> > or a letter between A and G without any # or b sign, as a shorter
> way
> > of identifying a notename.
>
> I wasn’t using „unaltered“ as a term, nor was I using it to mean
> natural. I was just stating that if there’s a „sharp third“ and a
> „flat third“, then I would suppose there should also be another
> third which is neither sharp nor flat, like it is with fifths, for
> example. And the same goes for sixths (why should there be nothing
> between a sharp sixth and a flat sixth). But in classical
> terminology, there really IS something between an „augmented“ and a
> „diminished“ third. Or in fact, there are two things in-between -- a
> major third and a minor third. That’s because both of them have more
> or less similar harmonic (or tonal) properties.
>
> Petr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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.lullabies.co.uk

Charles,
Classical terminology is probably inconsistent in that it differs for note names, interval names, chord names, degrees of the scale. I don't profess to know them all (and definitely not figured bass, which looks even more inconsistent). But in the case of interval names I find it consistent, no less than yours (sorry).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
> As I understand your point of view, what I call Ebb you call E
> diminished. i.e. (2L-2s) lower than E in meantone terms.

No, diminished and augmented are not used in note names; they are used in interval names.

> If you are using the diminished term to mean a double flattening of a
> notes; this suggests that your diminished contains a Gbb.

No, diminished has nothing to do with whether there is a flat or sharp in the note name, only the interval size.

> In meantone by sharpening or flattening notes you are raising or
> lowering the pitch always by the same number of cents (L-s).

Agreed. In fact I assume that your L is (octave equivalent to) two 5ths, and s is five 4ths, so that L-s is seven 5ths, the chroma (I confess that term is new to me too).

> Yes I am saying that the interval from A# to E is a flat fifth. ... Therefore the interval A# to E is the same as A to E minus (L-s)
> i.e. (3L+s) - (L-s) = (2L+2s) which is a bVth.

I agree that A# to E is 2L+2s (or six 4ths) and classical terminology consistently calls this a diminished 5th. (Don't forget, there is no major or minor with 4ths, 5ths and 8ves, only perfect (and diminished and augmented).) It is quite consistent - I can give you the L,s formula for each one and I am sure I am not alone :-)

By the way, in your terminology, how have you chosen which is the "natural" interval, is it the one that occurs in the major scale (or do I mean abscale/necklace/mode) ?

Regards,
Steve M.

To answer your question Steve:

I have chosen the natural (note) or interval as being the note/interval on the LLsLLLs pattern.
i.e. from C it is C D E F G A B = I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII respectively.

On 21 Apr 2009, at 22:19, martinsj013 wrote:

>
>
> Charles,
> Classical terminology is probably inconsistent in that it differs > for note names, interval names, chord names, degrees of the scale. I > don't profess to know them all (and definitely not figured bass, > which looks even more inconsistent). But in the case of interval > names I find it consistent, no less than yours (sorry).
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
> > As I understand your point of view, what I call Ebb you call E
> > diminished. i.e. (2L-2s) lower than E in meantone terms.
>
> No, diminished and augmented are not used in note names; they are > used in interval names.
>
> > If you are using the diminished term to mean a double flattening > of a
> > notes; this suggests that your diminished contains a Gbb.
>
> No, diminished has nothing to do with whether there is a flat or > sharp in the note name, only the interval size.
>
> > In meantone by sharpening or flattening notes you are raising or
> > lowering the pitch always by the same number of cents (L-s).
>
> Agreed. In fact I assume that your L is (octave equivalent to) two > 5ths, and s is five 4ths, so that L-s is seven 5ths, the chroma (I > confess that term is new to me too).
>
> > Yes I am saying that the interval from A# to E is a flat > fifth. ... Therefore the interval A# to E is the same as A to E > minus (L-s)
> > i.e. (3L+s) - (L-s) = (2L+2s) which is a bVth.
>
> I agree that A# to E is 2L+2s (or six 4ths) and classical > terminology consistently calls this a diminished 5th. (Don't forget, > there is no major or minor with 4ths, 5ths and 8ves, only perfect > (and diminished and augmented).) It is quite consistent - I can give > you the L,s formula for each one and I am sure I am not alone :-)
>
> By the way, in your terminology, how have you chosen which is the > "natural" interval, is it the one that occurs in the major scale (or > do I mean abscale/necklace/mode) ?
>
> Regards,
> Steve M.
>
>
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

Yes, there nothing complex in it. We have 15 different major (Ionian) scales (differing by keys, number of sharps and flats), Dorian is the second mode of it and Lydian the fourth mode of it. Thus we have also 15 different Dorians, Phrygians, Lydians, Mixolydians, Aeolians and Locrians. In fact they are the same by structure and shape of course, they differs only by transposition and number of flats or sharps.

Is it enough as an explanation?

Daniel Forro

On 22 Apr 2009, at 5:11 AM, martinsj013 wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
> > I know a little bit more of them, let's say 15 different Dorians, > and
> > 15 different Lydians. At least.
>
> OK, I'll bite: I have not heard of so many! Could you explain or > give a reference, Daniel?
>
> Many thanks,
> Steve M.
>

Lydian, Lydian Dominant, Lydian Augmented, Lydian #2, Lydian Augmented
#2, Lydian b3, Lydian b3 b9... What are the others?

-Mike

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
>
> I have found 15 different scales which contain the word "Lydian" and 17
> which contain the word "Dorian" in their known names.
>
> Would you like a complete listing?
> On 21 Apr 2009, at 21:11, martinsj013 wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>> I know a little bit more of them, let's say 15 different Dorians, and
>> 15 different Lydians. At least.
>
> OK, I'll bite: I have not heard of so many! Could you explain or give a
> reference, Daniel?
>
> Many thanks,
> Steve M.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>

Different number of Dorians and Lydians? That's strange, it should be the same - 15. I would say too much Dorians. Could you please explain?

Daniel Forro

On 22 Apr 2009, at 5:31 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

>
>
> I have found 15 different scales which contain the word "Lydian" > and 17 which contain the word "Dorian" in their known names.

Never heard about yours. There's no reason to alternate the other modes except major and minor, which serve as a basic "neutral" scale suitable best for alterations. So your "Lydian augmented #2" is nothing else than major with augmented 2nd and 4th. Why not to keep things simple and logical?

There's only one Lydian, but can be found in 15 different keys. Same with Dorian, Phrygian... ....Locrian.

Daniel Forro

On 22 Apr 2009, at 8:54 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

>
>
> Lydian, Lydian Dominant, Lydian Augmented, Lydian #2, Lydian Augmented
> #2, Lydian b3, Lydian b3 b9... What are the others?
>
> -Mike
>

OK here's what I found listed as note names from C, there must be many
more if you change the spellings and microtune.

I searched on the words Dorian and Lydian in the scalename field, yet
there are probably others, which I have yet to realise should also be
labelled as Dorian and/or Lydian.

17 different Dorians (but only 9 different scales in 12edo).

Chromatic Permuted Diatonic Dorian C C# D E F G G# A B
Chromatic Diatonic Dorian (#1,b3,#5,b7) C C# D Eb F G G# A Bb
Chromatic Dorian C C# D F G G# A
Blues Dorian Hexatonic C C# D# E G A
Blues Dorian Hexatonic C C# Eb E G A
Blues Dorian Hex (all b’s) as 9/6789/1 in 12edo) C D Eb E G A
Dorian Tetrachord C D Eb F
Dorian, Kafi D to C asc. naturals C D Eb F G A Bb
Dorian Aoelian (Al b’s) 11/891011/4 in 12edo) DC D Eb F G Ab A Bb
Dorian Aeolian (as 7/0/5 in 12 edo) C D Eb F G G# A Bb
Dorian b5 C D Eb F Gb A Bb
Dorian Pentatonic, Kumoi Japan C D Eb G A
Chromatic Dorian Inverse Raga None (India) C D# E F G A# B
Chromatic Diatonic Dorian (all b) C Db D Eb F G Ab A Bb
Blues Dorian Hexatonic C Db D# E G A
Blues Dorian Hexatonic C Db Eb E G A
Jazz Minor Inverse. Javanese, Dorian bII & HIndi C Db Eb F G A Bb

15 different Lydians (but only 8 different in 12 edo)

Lydian Mixolydian Taishikicho, Ryo (Japan) C D E F F# G A A# B
Major Lydian Genus Diatonicum Veterum Correctum Ishikotsucho (Japan) C
D E F F# G A B
Lydian Mixolydian Taishikicho, Ryo (Japan) C D E F F# G A Bb B
Lydian Pentachord C D E F# G
Lydian, Kalyan F to E ascending naturals Ping (China) C D E F# G A B
Lydian Dominant, Overtone, Hindi #IV & bVII Mela Vacaspati (India)
Raga Bhusavati (India) Lydian Mixolydian. Bartok Scale C D E F# G A Bb
Lydian Minor, Stravinski Raga Ratipriya (India) C D E F# G Ab Bb
Lydian Augmented, Hindi #IV & #V C D E F# G# A B
Lydian Hexatonic C D E G A B
Lydian Diminished Raga Dumyaraga, Madhuvanti, Ambika (India) C D Eb F#
G A B
Lydian #2 Raga Kuksumakaram C D# E F# G A B
Lydian #2 Hexatonic C D# E G A B
Chromatic Lydian C Db E F Gb A B
Chromatic Lydian Inverse, Todi bVI C Db Eb F# G Ab B
Lydian b3 Hexatonic C Eb E G A B

I cannot take responsibility for the scale names, as they were
gathered from many internet, academic and library sources over many
years;-)

You can find the database from which I complied this list at:

http://www.lucytune.com/scales/

where many other ways of describing and coding them are listed

On 22 Apr 2009, at 01:13, Daniel Forro wrote:

>
>
> Different number of Dorians and Lydians? That's strange, it should be
> the same - 15. I would say too much Dorians. Could you please explain?
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 22 Apr 2009, at 5:31 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I have found 15 different scales which contain the word "Lydian"
> > and 17 which contain the word "Dorian" in their known names.
>

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.lullabies.co.uk

Thank you for sending.

In my opinion it's very strange to call some scale Dorian, just
because it has major sixth (sometimes there's even major third in the
scale or third is missing!, sometimes there are both minor and major
sixth), same as to call it Lydian just because there's augmented
fourth (sometimes even minor third, sometimes fifth is missing,
sometimes this augmented fourth is spelled as a diminished fifth).
For sure I'm against such chaotic terminology without one logic
behind. This looks like a mix of different attitudes. I can live
without such nonsense like Chromatic Diatonic Dorian :-)

That "Bartok" scale should be called better Scriabin scale, or
Carpathian, or Natural, or shepherd, or pastoral.

Daniel Forro

On 22 Apr 2009, at 10:09 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

>
>
> OK here's what I found listed as note names from C, there must be
> many more if you change the spellings and microtune.
>
>
> I searched on the words Dorian and Lydian in the scalename field,
> yet there are probably others, which I have yet to realise should
> also be labelled as Dorian and/or Lydian.
>
> 17 different Dorians (but only 9 different scales in 12edo).
>
> Chromatic Permuted Diatonic Dorian C C# D E F G G# A B
> Chromatic Diatonic Dorian (#1,b3,#5,b7) C C# D Eb F G G# A Bb
> Chromatic Dorian C C# D F G G# A
> Blues Dorian Hexatonic C C# D# E G A
> Blues Dorian Hexatonic C C# Eb E G A
> Blues Dorian Hex (all b’s) as 9/6789/1 in 12edo) C D Eb E G A
> Dorian Tetrachord C D Eb F
> Dorian, Kafi D to C asc. naturals C D Eb F G A Bb
> Dorian Aoelian (Al b’s) 11/891011/4 in 12edo) DC D Eb F G Ab A Bb
> Dorian Aeolian (as 7/0/5 in 12 edo) C D Eb F G G# A Bb
> Dorian b5 C D Eb F Gb A Bb
> Dorian Pentatonic, Kumoi Japan C D Eb G A
> Chromatic Dorian Inverse Raga None (India) C D# E F G A# B
> Chromatic Diatonic Dorian (all b) C Db D Eb F G Ab A Bb
> Blues Dorian Hexatonic C Db D# E G A
> Blues Dorian Hexatonic C Db Eb E G A
> Jazz Minor Inverse. Javanese, Dorian bII & HIndi C Db Eb F G A Bb
>
> 15 different Lydians (but only 8 different in 12 edo)
>
> Lydian Mixolydian Taishikicho, Ryo (Japan) C D E F F# G A A# B
> Major Lydian Genus Diatonicum Veterum Correctum Ishikotsucho
> (Japan) C D E F F# G A B
> Lydian Mixolydian Taishikicho, Ryo (Japan) C D E F F# G A Bb B
> Lydian Pentachord C D E F# G
> Lydian, Kalyan F to E ascending naturals Ping (China) C D E F# G A B
> Lydian Dominant, Overtone, Hindi #IV & bVII Mela Vacaspati (India)
> Raga Bhusavati (India) Lydian Mixolydian. Bartok Scale C D E F# G
> A Bb
> Lydian Minor, Stravinski Raga Ratipriya (India) C D E F# G Ab Bb
> Lydian Augmented, Hindi #IV & #V C D E F# G# A B
> Lydian Hexatonic C D E G A B
> Lydian Diminished Raga Dumyaraga, Madhuvanti, Ambika (India) C D Eb
> F# G A B
> Lydian #2 Raga Kuksumakaram C D# E F# G A B
> Lydian #2 Hexatonic C D# E G A B
> Chromatic Lydian C Db E F Gb A B
> Chromatic Lydian Inverse, Todi bVI C Db Eb F# G Ab B
> Lydian b3 Hexatonic C Eb E G A B
>
> I cannot take responsibility for the scale names, as they were
> gathered from many internet, academic and library sources over many > years;-)
>
>
> You can find the database from which I complied this list at:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>
> where many other ways of describing and coding them are listed

> Never heard about yours. There's no reason to alternate the other
> modes except major and minor, which serve as a basic "neutral" scale
> suitable best for alterations. So your "Lydian augmented #2" is
> nothing else than major with augmented 2nd and 4th. Why not to keep
> things simple and logical?

Lydian augmented is lydian with a #5. Lydian augmented #2 is lydian
with a #5 and a #2. C lyd aug #2 is C D# E F# G# A B C.

> There's only one Lydian, but can be found in 15 different keys. Same
> with Dorian, Phrygian... ....Locrian.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 22 Apr 2009, at 8:54 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Lydian, Lydian Dominant, Lydian Augmented, Lydian #2, Lydian Augmented
>> #2, Lydian b3, Lydian b3 b9... What are the others?
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>
>

Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>> I want to talk about major scales in the whole range of >> meantones from 12 to 19 -- and I've done so for many years.
> > Very well. What would you suggest? If you want to use
> "relative pitches", you'll have to at least explain what to
> do when there are more than 7 pitch classes, and how to tell
> whether something is a 'relative C' or a 'relative D'.

I'm suggesting that a scale is a list of tones ordered by ascending or descending pitch, and the pitch structure can be understood a lot of different ways. Maybe it's always a group.

I don't know what to make of "relative pitches". There's a concept of "relative pitch" which doesn't seem to be applied to scales. You could say that "the major scale" is defined according to relative pitches, or you could say that it's not a scale or a type of scale. I don't know what the many people who say "the major scale" have in mind.

What's special about 7 pitch classes?

People I've talked to who trained with jianpu say "do" not "relative C" and write the numbers. What do you mean "how to tell"? Do is do, or 1.

> Moreover, if you're suggesting doing this by temperament,
> how would you even tell if a scale is a meantone? And you'll
> need some sort of fallback to support scales that aren't used
> harmonically.

A meantone scale is a meantone scale. Meantone itself is a regular temperament (class) not a scale. Are you proposing some kind of blind tasting of scales? That'd be testing the concept of meantone-ness, not the concept of scale.

Temperament formalisms are great for temperaments. That doesn't mean everything has to be a temperament.

Graham

You are welcome.

The names of the scales were collected from many sources, and I added
each name that I found, so that there are often Western, Indian,
Chinese, and Japanese names for the same scale.
This tendency is not particular to only the Lydian and Dorian scales,
and I have found 1690 scales for which I have yet to find any name at
all.

By coding the scales as described on this page:

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

I have been able to codify them in a unique and microtonal way.

This enables all the found scales to be searched, sorted and ranked in
many different ways; and hopefully also to expose, as yet undiscovered
and unappreciated, underlying patterns, and insights .

On 22 Apr 2009, at 05:42, Daniel Forro wrote:

> Thank you for sending.
>
> In my opinion it's very strange to call some scale Dorian, just
> because it has major sixth (sometimes there's even major third in the
> scale or third is missing!, sometimes there are both minor and major
> sixth), same as to call it Lydian just because there's augmented
> fourth (sometimes even minor third, sometimes fifth is missing,
> sometimes this augmented fourth is spelled as a diminished fifth).
> For sure I'm against such chaotic terminology without one logic
> behind. This looks like a mix of different attitudes. I can live
> without such nonsense like Chromatic Diatonic Dorian :-)
>
> That "Bartok" scale should be called better Scriabin scale, or
> Carpathian, or Natural, or shepherd, or pastoral.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 22 Apr 2009, at 10:09 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> OK here's what I found listed as note names from C, there must be
>> many more if you change the spellings and microtune.
>>
>>
>> I searched on the words Dorian and Lydian in the scalename field,
>> yet there are probably others, which I have yet to realise should
>> also be labelled as Dorian and/or Lydian.
>>
>> 17 different Dorians (but only 9 different scales in 12edo).
>>
>> Chromatic Permuted Diatonic Dorian C C# D E F G G# A B
>> Chromatic Diatonic Dorian (#1,b3,#5,b7) C C# D Eb F G G# A Bb
>> Chromatic Dorian C C# D F G G# A
>> Blues Dorian Hexatonic C C# D# E G A
>> Blues Dorian Hexatonic C C# Eb E G A
>> Blues Dorian Hex (all b’s) as 9/6789/1 in 12edo) C D Eb E G A
>> Dorian Tetrachord C D Eb F
>> Dorian, Kafi D to C asc. naturals C D Eb F G A Bb
>> Dorian Aoelian (Al b’s) 11/891011/4 in 12edo) DC D Eb F G Ab A Bb
>> Dorian Aeolian (as 7/0/5 in 12 edo) C D Eb F G G# A Bb
>> Dorian b5 C D Eb F Gb A Bb
>> Dorian Pentatonic, Kumoi Japan C D Eb G A
>> Chromatic Dorian Inverse Raga None (India) C D# E F G A# B
>> Chromatic Diatonic Dorian (all b) C Db D Eb F G Ab A Bb
>> Blues Dorian Hexatonic C Db D# E G A
>> Blues Dorian Hexatonic C Db Eb E G A
>> Jazz Minor Inverse. Javanese, Dorian bII & HIndi C Db Eb F G A Bb
>>
>> 15 different Lydians (but only 8 different in 12 edo)
>>
>> Lydian Mixolydian Taishikicho, Ryo (Japan) C D E F F# G A A# B
>> Major Lydian Genus Diatonicum Veterum Correctum Ishikotsucho
>> (Japan) C D E F F# G A B
>> Lydian Mixolydian Taishikicho, Ryo (Japan) C D E F F# G A Bb B
>> Lydian Pentachord C D E F# G
>> Lydian, Kalyan F to E ascending naturals Ping (China) C D E F# G A B
>> Lydian Dominant, Overtone, Hindi #IV & bVII Mela Vacaspati (India)
>> Raga Bhusavati (India) Lydian Mixolydian. Bartok Scale C D E F# G
>> A Bb
>> Lydian Minor, Stravinski Raga Ratipriya (India) C D E F# G Ab Bb
>> Lydian Augmented, Hindi #IV & #V C D E F# G# A B
>> Lydian Hexatonic C D E G A B
>> Lydian Diminished Raga Dumyaraga, Madhuvanti, Ambika (India) C D Eb
>> F# G A B
>> Lydian #2 Raga Kuksumakaram C D# E F# G A B
>> Lydian #2 Hexatonic C D# E G A B
>> Chromatic Lydian C Db E F Gb A B
>> Chromatic Lydian Inverse, Todi bVI C Db Eb F# G Ab B
>> Lydian b3 Hexatonic C Eb E G A B
>>
>> I cannot take responsibility for the scale names, as they were
>> gathered from many internet, academic and library sources over many
>> years;-)
>>
>>
>> You can find the database from which I complied this list at:
>>
>> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>>
>> where many other ways of describing and coding them are listed
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>