Newbie questions

Hi all,

I've been lurking for a little while, here and elsewhere, and I think
I'm having trouble getting a few aspects of the mindset many people in
the microtonal community have. I was wondering if some of you might be
able to help me understand a few things.

Note that I understand some fundamentals of classic and jazz music
theory, but am not a composer, and I understand enough about harmonics
and physics to basically understand the notation I've seen people use.

1. Why do so many people look for EDO tunings? If traditional melody
and harmony was based on non-EDO diatonic or even pentatonic scales,
why worry about EDO microtonal scales? It seems to me that if it
weren't for the limitations in instruments -- an inability to have
instruments that are playable in multiple keys without wolf tones --
then as a culture we wouldn't have bothered with equal temperament at
all. Therefore, it also seems that if modern composers want to change
keys, and they are synthesizing their music, they can just create
section 1 in key #1 and create section 2 in key #2, and to heck with
all of the imprecision that comes from using any equally tempered
scale. (I'm using the term "key" loosely; this would be true for all
tonal music, and I'm not suggesting we only use traditional keys.) Is
there something I'm missing that's special harmonically or melodically
(vs. mathematically) about EDO scales?

2. A fair bit of the microtonal music I've been listening to (which,
honestly, is stuff I can download for free or stream online) uses
square, sawtooth, and triangle waves. My understanding is that these
waveforms have fairly high amplitudes in the higher-frequency
harmonics. Do composers use those sounds because they deliberately
want to highlight the clashes among upper partials of those notes?

3. I know this will vary a lot from composer to composer, but when
using microtonal scales, how much do you pay attention to things like
leading tones, chord progressions, and other traditional aspects of
music theory? People may use them a lot, for all I know, but I don't
see people writing about them as much. Is that because those things
are already understood, or because microtonal composers tend to
discount their effectiveness in microtonal music, or something else?

As I said, I'm a newbie, so if the answers are "you haven't been
looking hard enough," I'm open to that. :) Any suggestions on reading
/ listening materials would be helpful. I'm just trying to get a
little more inside the heads of the people whose discussions I'm
following.

Thanks,
Jake Freivald
West Orange, NJ, USA

On 10/25/10, gdsecor <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> Posted at:
> /makemicromusic/topicId_23447.html#23447
>
> --George
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

Hi Jake,

> 1. Why do so many people look for EDO tunings? If traditional melody
> and harmony was based on non-EDO diatonic or even pentatonic scales,
> why worry about EDO microtonal scales? It seems to me that if it
> weren't for the limitations in instruments -- an inability to have
> instruments that are playable in multiple keys without wolf tones --
> then as a culture we wouldn't have bothered with equal temperament at
> all. Therefore, it also seems that if modern composers want to change
> keys, and they are synthesizing their music, they can just create
> section 1 in key #1 and create section 2 in key #2, and to heck with
> all of the imprecision that comes from using any equally tempered
> scale. (I'm using the term "key" loosely; this would be true for all
> tonal music, and I'm not suggesting we only use traditional keys.) Is
> there something I'm missing that's special harmonically or melodically
> (vs. mathematically) about EDO scales?

You're right that one of the motivations for using Equal Divisions of the Octave is for computational or instrumental simplicity, but at least in my experience, they have another advantage. A scale's desirability is not only dependent on it's approximation of just ratios, but also on it's melodic stability. That is, if an interval is functioning melodically the same as another interval in the scale, we tend to expect them to be the same size. If the sizes of inconsistent it can be disconcerting for a listener.

For example, in a Just Diatonic Scale of 1/1, 9/8, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2, 5/3, 15/8 the melodically functional distance from 1/1 to 9/8 and from 9/8 to 5/4 is the same, ie, they are both major seconds. But in that scale I described one major second is 9/8 whereas the other is 10/9, and this can be, as I said, disconcerting for a listener. If instead we choose an edo like 12, 19, 53, 17, among others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_Temperament) they fit in just right with the diatonic scale so that they can have exactly 5 equally larges steps (major seconds) and 2 equally small steps (minor seconds).

> 2. A fair bit of the microtonal music I've been listening to (which,
> honestly, is stuff I can download for free or stream online) uses
> square, sawtooth, and triangle waves. My understanding is that these
> waveforms have fairly high amplitudes in the higher-frequency
> harmonics. Do composers use those sounds because they deliberately
> want to highlight the clashes among upper partials of those notes?

Timbre plays a big part in microtonality, but many composers will have different motivations for whatever they use. Some will, as you say, highlight the clash, or lack thereof, with harsher timbres, whereas some will remap timbres to be perfectly in line with their tuning, and then sacrifice a little of the tone of the timbre itself.

A lot of the time, however, a microtonal composer will use whatever resources he has available, which is equally often low quality samples built in to his computer that highlight the worst of unfamiliar scales.

> 3. I know this will vary a lot from composer to composer, but when
> using microtonal scales, how much do you pay attention to things like
> leading tones, chord progressions, and other traditional aspects of
> music theory? People may use them a lot, for all I know, but I don't
> see people writing about them as much. Is that because those things
> are already understood, or because microtonal composers tend to
> discount their effectiveness in microtonal music, or something else?

It depends on how you are treating your music functionally. Many people do hear their microtonal music in diatonic terms, in which case most traditional functional expectations having to do with chord progressions and leading tones are met. There are tunings, however, that support completely different scale structures than the diatonic. Remember how I described the Diatonic as a scale with 5 Large and 2 Small steps (5L,2S)? 16-edo supports a seven note scale with (3L,4S) which behaves completely differently to common practice tonality. Because microtonality in this area has not been widely explored, we can't say exactly how things tend to work in these other scale structures, but they may very well have their own parallels to leading tones and tertian harmony.

And, of course, this is only one of many many many opinions out there.

John M

Hi Jake! Thanks for saying hello. I'll take a stab at
your questions...

> 1. Why do so many people look for EDO tunings? If traditional
> melody and harmony was based on non-EDO diatonic or even
> pentatonic scales, why worry about EDO microtonal scales?
> It seems to me that if it weren't for the limitations in
> instruments -- an inability to have instruments that are
> playable in multiple keys without wolf tones -- then as a
> culture we wouldn't have bothered with equal temperament at
> all.

Since the 15th century, and perhaps earlier, Western music
has exploited the remarkable properties of the comma 81/80,
by ignoring it. Doing so results in what we call meantone
temperament (a.k.a. syntonic temperament). This temperament
need not be equal. It need not have 12 notes to the
octave (19-ET is a meantone temperament). It need not even
be tempered. Ensembles naturally seem to perform in
"adaptive just intonation", where chords are just but 81/80
vanishes in the melodic intervals. Let me know if any of
this makes sense to you.

12-ET is also a meantone in that 81/80 is tempered to
zero steps. But other commas also disappear, for instance
the major diesis, 648/625. And while the elimination of
wolves on keyboard instruments may have been the primary
driver of 12-ET adoption, composers quickly made use of
these extra commas, for instance by writing progressions
involving diminished chords. The octatonic scale of bebop,
Messiaen, and Rimsky-Korsakov (and I recently learned it
was used in Islamic music even earlier) is to 648/625 what
the diatonic scale is to 81/80. To learn more and see some
pretty illustrations of this, check out The Forms of Tonality

http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/erlich-tFoT.pdf

> Therefore, it also seems that if modern composers want to change
> keys, and they are synthesizing their music, they can just create
> section 1 in key #1 and create section 2 in key #2, and to heck
> with all of the imprecision that comes from using any equally
> tempered scale. (I'm using the term "key" loosely; this would be
> true for all tonal music, and I'm not suggesting we only use
> traditional keys.)

This can be done, but you still have to dispose of 81/80.
If you hold common tones common, you will get pitch drift,
by more than an octave over the course of some pieces.
An alternative is to anchor chord roots to 12-ET, and this
is how Hermode tuning works

http://www.hermode.com/index_en.html

Other methods exist.

> Is there something I'm missing that's special harmonically or
> melodically (vs. mathematically) about EDO scales?

Aside from considerations like the above, ETs also contain
many chords not found in just intonation, that some people
find interesting. ETs also work very naturally on guitars,
where the frets can simply go straight across.

> 3. I know this will vary a lot from composer to composer, but
> when using microtonal scales, how much do you pay attention to
> things like leading tones, chord progressions, and other
> traditional aspects of music theory? People may use them a lot,
> for all I know, but I don't see people writing about them
> as much. Is that because those things are already understood,

I think probably more the reverse, that they are so poorly
understood there's really no way to talk about them.
I mean, in 12 your leading tone is 100 cents or 200 cents,
or maybe a minor 3rd. If you disagree with somebody which
is best, at least there are only two ways to disagree.
In microtonal music the flame wars could go on for ever,
and usually do. :)

That said, I would welcome more discussion of these compositional
nuts and bolts, either here or on the MakeMicroMusic list

/makemicromusic/

-Carl

I'll throw in my 2 cents as well.

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:
>
>
> Note that I understand some fundamentals of classic and jazz music
> theory, but am not a composer, and I understand enough about harmonics
> and physics to basically understand the notation I've seen people use.

I am a composer - I know mostly classical, rock, and what I've been
developing in my mind with regard to ambient.
Everything I say below is from my personal and subjective perspective.

>
> 1. Why do so many people look for EDO tunings?

The short of it - EDO tunings are just like 12 equal but different. If
you do NOT go too deep into common practice voice leading etc.
everything acts more or less like 12 equal but with different interval
sets. So its familiar. With regard to diatonic melodies - I tend to
often use most if not all notes in 12 EDO in a classical piece - I
also want that freedom in the micro world too.

> Therefore, it also seems that if modern composers want to change
> keys, and they are synthesizing their music, they can just create
> section 1 in key #1 and create section 2 in key #2, and to heck with
> all of the imprecision that comes from using any equally tempered
> scale.

Indeed - good observation and I have been mulling over how to do this
in practice. Another thing I toss around is sort of "free" JI - try to
make music where intervals are all low ratios AND without octave
equivalence. No doubt someone on this list has done both of these.

>
> 2. A fair bit of the microtonal music I've been listening to (which,
> honestly, is stuff I can download for free or stream online) uses
> square, sawtooth, and triangle waves. My understanding is that these
> waveforms have fairly high amplitudes in the higher-frequency
> harmonics. Do composers use those sounds because they deliberately
> want to highlight the clashes among upper partials of those notes?

No. Its mainly because of the tools we have to work with - with the
exception of composers trying to make electronic music.
www.chrisvaisvil.com
I have a fair amount of music that is microtonal which use orchestral
sound sets.

>
> 3. I know this will vary a lot from composer to composer, but when
> using microtonal scales, how much do you pay attention to things like
> leading tones, chord progressions, and other traditional aspects of
> music theory?

If I am writing microtonal classical music - I pay attention to this a lot.
Of course, Debussy showed ways to dispense with this and I like his
techniques as well.
If I score a rock piece, micro or 12 equal, I still pay attention but
not as much.

Now, my improvisations - harder to do voice leading on the fly. I'm
not that good.

>
> As I said, I'm a newbie, so if the answers are "you haven't been
> looking hard enough," I'm open to that. :) Any suggestions on reading
> / listening materials would be helpful. I'm just trying to get a
> little more inside the heads of the people whose discussions I'm
> following.

An astounding microtonal album to acquire is Beauty in the Beast by
Wendy Carlos.

Harder to recommend reading to a listener who wants some nuts and
blots. Perhaps:
http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/

And welcome to the forum and thanks for asking the questions.

Chris

Hi Jake,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:

> 1. Why do so many people look for EDO tunings?

Not all of us use synths. On a guitar, non-equal tunings are as much as a hassle as they ever were. But actually most people 'round here DON'T use EDO tunings. The hot new thing is "regular temperaments", which (though they are often approximated in equal temperaments) are most definitely NOT equal.

> 2. A fair bit of the microtonal music I've been listening to (which,
> honestly, is stuff I can download for free or stream online) uses
> square, sawtooth, and triangle waves. My understanding is that these
> waveforms have fairly high amplitudes in the higher-frequency
> harmonics. Do composers use those sounds because they deliberately
> want to highlight the clashes among upper partials of those notes?

Some specific examples would be nice. I'm not familiar with any microtonal music that frequently relies on such basic waveforms, though there's sure lots of MIDI files floating around (which might sound pretty basic if you play them with a poor synth).

> 3. I know this will vary a lot from composer to composer, but when
> using microtonal scales, how much do you pay attention to things like
> leading tones, chord progressions, and other traditional aspects of
> music theory? People may use them a lot, for all I know, but I don't
> see people writing about them as much. Is that because those things
> are already understood, or because microtonal composers tend to
> discount their effectiveness in microtonal music, or something else?

Well, chord progressions work very differently in many microtonal scales. When you abandon the circle of fifths, you are suddenly in very uncharted territory. Sometimes even a basic I-IV-V isn't possible, and most of the time conventions of chromatic harmony go out the window. There are a few composers, like Easley Blackwood, George Secor, Margo Shulter, and Herman Miller (just to name a couple) who have worked out (or so it seems) the beginnings of some new harmonic theories for non-diatonic temperaments, though it seems like the majority of what is composed in microtonal scales is done by ear or mathematically. Frankly, the general principles behind common-practice chromatic harmony are ill-understood, and have only been applied to extended diatonic frameworks; in terms of developing actual *music* theory for microtonal scales, very little work has been done. If we understood better the reasons *why* we can (in 12-tET or other diatonic temperaments) systematically deviate from the plain TTsTTTs diatonic scale without losing the sense of tonal center--and often actually ENHANCING the sense of tonal center--we might be better able to concoct microtonal music that "sounds better". It's a field ripe for research!

HTH!

-Igliashon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:

>The hot new thing is "regular temperaments", which (though they are often approximated in equal temperaments) are most definitely NOT equal.

Except when they are, of course.

Jake Freivald wrote:

> Hi all,

> I've been lurking for a little while, here and elsewhere, and I
> think I'm having trouble getting a few aspects of the mindset
> many people in the microtonal community have. I was wondering if
> some of you might be able to help me understand a few things.

Welcome, Jake, to the Tuning list!

Please let me caution that my answers to your question may reflect
mainly my own mindset, although I'll try my best to share impressions
of what some other views may be. Since these impressions could be
quite wrong, I'd urge you to compare different viewpoints, and to take
the views of others as more authoritative than my guesses of how other
people may be viewing things.

Also, I should give a fair warning: styles that are familiar to you
may not be so familiar to me, as well as vice versa. The fact that
we're both interested in alternative intonations does not guarantee
that we'll focus on the same tuning systems or world musical styles.
I apologize in advance for bringing in topics that may be familiar to
me, but possibly not to the list as a whole, as well for my less than
ideal skill at appreciating limitations of a tuning which from my
perspective might not be so obvious, but from that of another person's
style are all too obvious!

> Note that I understand some fundamentals of classic and jazz
> music theory, but am not a composer, and I understand enough
> about harmonics and physics to basically understand the notation
> I've seen people use.

Please note that you may be way ahead of me on the styles with which
you're familiar! Discussions of "microtonality," in my view, are not
about a genre of music, but about a dimension of music.

It's like discussing "rhythm" in music. Complex Arab or Turkish
rhythms, the rhythms of late 14th-century European music in the
"Manneristic" style of some French and Italian composers, complex
African rhythms, and rhythms in some 20th-century jazz styles are
all different techniques.

> 1. Why do so many people look for EDO tunings? If traditional melody
> and harmony was based on non-EDO diatonic or even pentatonic scales,
> why worry about EDO microtonal scales?

You're asking a good question, and as someone who tends often to
prefer non-EDO tunings (just or tempered), I suspect there may be a
number of answers.

First, some people may be oriented to types of music which presume
circulation: that is, a continuous circle of fifths all reasonably
close to 3:2 which can return to any starting point.

In the styles which most influence me, European medieval and
Renaissance styles and medieval and more recent Near Eastern styles,
circulation is generally not assumed, and so I have no special reason
to seek an EDO, although I do tend to seek out one, or often two,
regular chains of fifths. A single 24-note chain of fifths, or two
12-note chains often at a distance around a small semitone (say 55-60
cents), are my most typical preferences.

Of course, there are a large number of EDO tunings, so that any
regular tuning is likely to be not too far from some EDO. For example,
one of my favorites has two 12-note chains of fifths at an average
size quite close to 104-EDO, although there are subtle differences.
However, that would be close to two 12-note chains of fifths in
104-EDO at 5/104 octave apart, rather than a complete circle of
104-EDO.

Another fine point is that while many EDO scales are circulating in
the above definition (assuming that the fifth is close enough to 3:2
to qualify in a given definition, say within 7 cents or so), not all
circulating systems are EDO.

For example a 53-note Pythagorean chain with 52 pure fifths at 3:2
actually makes a fine circulating system! What happens is that when we
add a pure 2:1 octave, we get one fifth narrow by about 3.615 cents, a
small interval known as the Comma of Mercator. This doesn't throw
anything off, but actually adds a bit of variety, since we'll get two
slightly different flavors of certain intervals, for example neutral
seconds at either 133.5 or 137.1 cents. The one slightly narrow fifth
is actually quite mild compared to many circulating systems.

Yet a circulating 53-note Pythagorean system may get discussed a lot
less often than 53-EDO because it's a bit more complex and not
precisely symmetrical. Mathematically, it's true: the system is _not_
precisely a circle; but musically, for all practical purposes, it is!

Having said this, a true confession: since my Yahama synthesizer uses
1024-EDO, it could be said that I'm using an EDO all the time, even if
my theoretical model is some kind of JI or a tempered system not based
on this EDO! And that's answer on why some of us, in a sense, can't
escape 1024-EDO or the like, at least on a given digital instrument of
interest: "Because my synthesizer says so."

There's also a more general question: "Why temper -- equally or
otherwise?"

The answer would seem to be because, at times, temperament can be
very convenient. And that's a long discussion!

> It seems to me that if it weren't for the limitations in instruments
> -- an inability to have instruments that are playable in multiple
> keys without wolf tones -- then as a culture we wouldn't have
> bothered with equal temperament at all. Therefore, it also seems
> that if modern composers want to change keys, and they are
> synthesizing their music, they can just create section 1 in key #1
> and create section 2 in key #2, and to heck with all of the
> imprecision that comes from using any equally tempered scale. (I'm
> using the term "key" loosely; this would be true for all tonal
> music, and I'm not suggesting we only use traditional keys.) Is
> there something I'm missing that's special harmonically or
> melodically (vs. mathematically) about EDO scales?

Here I'd say that there's a difference between shifting the tonic,
final, or more generally "resting note" for a given key, mode, or
modal transposition used in the course of a piece, and using a
circulating system. The second often expedites the first, but the
first may not necessarily require the second.

In European music, for example, we find that Guillaume de Machaut in
the 14th century has all kinds of artful mutations, shifts, and
creation of a momentary "center" (actual or anticipated) nicely
accommodated by a 12-note Pythagorean tuning which definitely has a
wolf fifth (e.g. G#-Eb). And likewise for 16th-century European music
in a meantone framework (e.g. G#-Eb).

Likewise, in Near Eastern music based on the maqam and dastgah
systems, an instrument like the 17-note Persian tar tuned in a
definitely noncirculating tuning can cover a vast variety of
transformations or modulations. However, there are also some
limitations: certain modal families are customarily placed on
certain steps and not on others.

The issue of whether a tuning circulates, and whether it can provides
a great variety of modulations (be they tonal, European modal, Near
Eastern maqam or dastgah, etc.), are two different questions, with
different contexts setting different priorities.

Thus 12-EDO circulates flawlessly, of course, but simply doesn't have
the middle or neutral intervals (between major and minor) needed to
play one of the many Near Eastern modes using these intervals
(e.g. neutral seconds at around 135 and 160 cents, adding up to a
minor third of around 295 cents -- or, likely, more precisely the
Pythagoran 32/27 at 294 cents, although as Carl Lumma points out these
intonations can vary by a few cents in either direction).

In contrast, a 17-note Persian tar tuning typically does not
circulate, but does have the required steps and intervals for lots of
interesting modulations of a kind called for by the Persian dastgah
system.

And there are lots of situations where a simple JI scale, maybe with
an alternative form or two for certain steps, can make beautiful
music, quite apart from complications which might arise if you were
doing something else. Consider:

1/1 9/8 7/6 32/27 21/16 4/3 3/2 27/16 7/4 16/9 2/1
0 204 267 294 471 498 702 906 969 996 1200

In this 10-note or decatonic JI scale based on ratios of 2-3-7, we
have "alternative versions" of the minor third, fourth, and minor
seventh (7/6 or 32/27; 21/16 or 4/3; 7/4 or 16/9) at a 64/63 or 27.26
cents apart, the "septimal comma" or "comma of Archytas."

It can be used for simple melody or polyphony, although the polyphonic
progressions may be closer to classical 13th-century European
techniques -- or maybe some kind of Javanese or Balinese gamelan
counterpoint -- than to typical jazz, or to 18th-century European
tonality!

For example, 1/1-7/6-4/3-3/2-7/4-2/1 makes a beautiful pentatonic
scale, and also a kind of JI variation on Javanese or Balinese slendro
as catalogued by Lou Harrison, Jacques Dudon, and others.

If you haven't already tried or heard this, an exquisite and
"something else again" progression is

7/4 27/16
3/2 27/16
21/16 9/8
1/1 9/8

And another way to look at this 10-note tuning would be as follows:

7/6 ----- 7/4 ----- 21/16
/ / /
/ / /
32/27 ----- 16/9 ----- 4/3 ----- 1/1 ----- 3/2 ----- 9/8 ----- 27/16

Here you'll see that we have a seven-note chain of pure 3:2 fifths,
plus a three-note chain starting at our 7/6 or narrow minor third
step. The "squares" in this diagram formed by 1/1-7/6-3/2-7/4 or
3/2-7/4-9/8-21/16 are special sonorities which from a jazz perspective
might be called minor seventh chords: I find them especially smooth
and blending. And with the pure fourths and fifths, you'll also find
lots of quartal and quintal harmony.

While any tuning, including a JI tuning, will have its limitations,
there's no reason we can't use JI tunings -- or, sometimes, tempered
systems with almost identical intervals. A bit of experimenting may
show you what you like and enjoy playing in real time. And a bit of
practice may make the unfamiliar into the routine, although your
mileage may vary!

> 2. A fair bit of the microtonal music I've been listening to
> (which, honestly, is stuff I can download for free or stream
> online) uses square, sawtooth, and triangle waves. My
> understanding is that these waveforms have fairly high
> amplitudes in the higher-frequency harmonics. Do composers use
> those sounds because they deliberately want to highlight the
> clashes among upper partials of those notes?

Actually one motive, I'd guess, might be to highlight the matching or
"locking in" of partials in JI tunings, or temperaments which closely
approximate JI sonorities. George Secor spoke to me of liking bright
harmonic timbres for his 17-tone well-temperament (17-WT,
secor17wt.scl in the Scala scale archive available with Manuel Op de
Coul's Scala software program offered for free download on the Web),
which approximates JI sonorities like 7:9:11:13.

> 3. I know this will vary a lot from composer to composer, but
> when using microtonal scales, how much do you pay attention to
> things like leading tones, chord progressions, and other
> traditional aspects of music theory? People may use them a lot,
> for all I know, but I don't see people writing about them as
> much. Is that because those things are already understood, or
> because microtonal composers tend to discount their
> effectiveness in microtonal music, or something else?

Of course, "traditional aspects of music theory" vary depending on the
tradition, period, and style in question, but I would say that some of
us do pay attention -- while remaining open to new possibilities. And
sometimes this may involve writing a bit of new theory!

Actually I do tend to write a bit about two situations, for example,
which may illustrate this point.

The first is applying new kinds of intervals and progressions to a
familiar historical style -- familiar to the author, at least! -- like
13th-14th century European polyphony in a tuning system with middle or
neutral intervals. While it's possible that these intervals may have
occurred in passing in certain 14th-century European styles of
intonation, using them deliberately in cadential progressions is a
modern addition or amendment to medieval practice and theory.
Thus we often speak of "neomedieval" music.

Some rules evolve rather naturally. If it's common in 13th-century
European styles for a minor or major seventh to contract to a fifth by
stepwise contrary motion, then why not a neutral seventh also? At the
same time, there are situations where a neutral seventh may instead
expand to an octave by stepwise contrary motion, as both George Secor
and I have found.

In developing polyphonic styles for Near Eastern music where the
neutral or middle intervals are themselves a given, but polyphony is
mostly a new element, a similar process takes place. Of course,
there's the question of taste: what sounds "delightful" to me as a
lover of 13th-century European polyphony might or might not sound so
delightful to a Near Eastern musician!

There can also be interesting parallels -- and differences -- between
different traditions and styles. Thus medieval European music
sometimes uses _musica ficta_ ("false," "fictitious," or "invented"
music), or altered notes not present in the regular gamut (e.g., in
modern notation, F#, C#, G#) for various melodic and especially
polyphonic reasons. Arab theory likewise recognizes a _dint_ (raised
note) or _dunt_ (lowered note), although for more purely melodic
reasons. A performer in either tradition will face choices as to
whether or how often to use such inflections, or to use the regular
form of a step in a given mode.

Personally, I think questions of this kind are very productive to
discuss on the Tuning list; but it seems that debates on more general
topics often overshadow the specifics of planning, composing, or
improvising music in a given style or "fusion" of styles.

> As I said, I'm a newbie, so if the answers are "you haven't been
> looking hard enough," I'm open to that. :) Any suggestions on
> reading / listening materials would be helpful. I'm just trying
> to get a little more inside the heads of the people whose
> discussions I'm following.

Well, of course, there are many possible sources, especially given
that there is an immense diversity of world musical styles and tuning
systems!

What I can offer myself is a site with some of my own music plus
renditions of some historical European compositions and a few papers
on theory. Currently I'm involved in the Ethno Extras project to
supplement the outstanding Ethno2 collection by Jacques Dudon
surveying many world musical traditions. My special focus is on Near
Eastern music, although I should emphasize that my knowledge is in one
important sense secondhand, since I have not had the benefit of
training by a teacher which is so central to this art. That is an
important disclaimer!

For my website, you may visit:

<http://www.bestII.com/~mschulter/QuickTour.html>
<http://www.bestII.com/~mschulter/>

Also, while this is _not_ the same as personal instruction from a
teacher, there are some excellent books and other sources on Near
Eastern musical traditions, maqam/dastgah systems, and some fine
points of intonation. Ozan Yarman has his monumental thesis on Turkish
music available online, for example, and hundreds of pages of a
fascinating thesis by Amine Beyhom on Near Eastern modal systems is
likewise available (mostly in French).

Of course, these specific sources would be of interest mostly if you
are inclined to explore some Near Eastern music. But this does raise a
more general point.

While the topic of this list, of course, is "Tuning," often in
practice this means tuning in a given context. And, as your remarks
suggest, understanding that context can be very helpful in exploring
the fine points of intonation within it, or possibly in pushing its
envelope, so to speak.

With many thanks,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Margo Schulter <mschulter@...> wrote:

> First, some people may be oriented to types of music which presume
> circulation: that is, a continuous circle of fifths all reasonably
> close to 3:2 which can return to any starting point.

To clarify: there can be more than one such circle (34et has two, for instance, and 72et has six.) And the circles can be of other intervals than fourths or fifths.

> Having said this, a true confession: since my Yahama synthesizer uses
> 1024-EDO, it could be said that I'm using an EDO all the time, even if
> my theoretical model is some kind of JI or a tempered system not based
> on this EDO!

You could, in fact, base it on 1024edo. This tempers out the parakleimsa, the 5-limit interval |18 14 -13> and so supports parakleimsic temperament, which is a 5-limit microtemperament not terribly complex as such things go. In one 11-limit mapping it tempers out 9801/9800, and in another, 3025/3024; and there are of course many less accurate mappings we could consider.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> Except when they are, of course.
>
Well sure, but is anyone really into rank-1 temperaments AS temperaments?

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> > Except when they are, of course.
> >
> Well sure, but is anyone really into rank-1 temperaments AS temperaments?

There's this guy called Igliashon Jones who's very into that.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> There's this guy called Igliashon Jones who's very into that.

Bah, he's a hack.

-Igs

Thanks very much for all of your replies.

I realize now that I was asking my questions a bit too narrowly -- not surprising, but I wasn't sure which way I should widen them -- and what you've all said has both given me some answers and raised new questions. I don't really know what I'm talking about yet, so if you all don't think it's rude, I'm going to continue mostly to be quiet for the next few days while I look some of this over; I think I understand some of the responses, and I'm sure I don't understand some of them, and there are probably some that I think I understand that I don't. :)

Thanks,
Jake

Jake,

Book in libraries, especially large university
libraries, constitute the best sources for separating
fact from opinion. True scholars always list their
sources (to avoid even the slightest appearance of
plagiarism) and so one good book leads to another
good book, etc.

If you have a prodigious intellect and an exuberant
imagination a little sacrifice in time and effort at a
library will always yield more meaning than the so-
called "free" stuff on the internet.

This is especially true if you are interested in works
from around the world that are only accessible in
translation.

Cris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks very much for all of your replies.
>
> I realize now that I was asking my questions a bit too narrowly -- not
> surprising, but I wasn't sure which way I should widen them -- and what
> you've all said has both given me some answers and raised new questions.
> I don't really know what I'm talking about yet, so if you all don't
> think it's rude, I'm going to continue mostly to be quiet for the next
> few days while I look some of this over; I think I understand some of
> the responses, and I'm sure I don't understand some of them, and there
> are probably some that I think I understand that I don't. :)
>
> Thanks,
> Jake
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@...> wrote:

> If you have a prodigious intellect and an exuberant
> imagination a little sacrifice in time and effort at a
> library will always yield more meaning than the so-
> called "free" stuff on the internet.

Not when it comes to tuning theory. Wake up and smell the coffee!

That's pretty much the opposite of rude. Thank you, Jake.
Looking forward to future correspondence, and feel free to
contact me offlist at any time.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks very much for all of your replies.
>
> I realize now that I was asking my questions a bit too
> narrowly -- not surprising, but I wasn't sure which way
> I should widen them -- and what you've all said has both
> given me some answers and raised new questions.
> I don't really know what I'm talking about yet, so if you
> all don't think it's rude, I'm going to continue mostly
> to be quiet for the next few days while I look some of
> this over; I think I understand some of the responses,
> and I'm sure I don't understand some of them, and there
> are probably some that I think I understand that I don't. :)
>
> Thanks,
> Jake
>

Gene wrote:

> > If you have a prodigious intellect and an exuberant
> > imagination a little sacrifice in time and effort at a
> > library will always yield more meaning than the so-
> > called "free" stuff on the internet.
>
> Not when it comes to tuning theory. Wake up and smell the coffee!

Not when it comes to anything.

-Carl

Surely, you jest.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@> wrote:
>
> > If you have a prodigious intellect and an exuberant
> > imagination a little sacrifice in time and effort at a
> > library will always yield more meaning than the so-
> > called "free" stuff on the internet.
>
> Not when it comes to tuning theory. Wake up and smell the coffee!
>

Very good news only to those who have never, are not
now, and will never read Al-Farabi from cover to
cover.

>Most scholars agree that al-Farabi, like Ptolemy
>and other theorists of antiquity, were engaged in
>creative number games that did not accurately
>model the performances of the day.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Gene wrote:
>
> > > If you have a prodigious intellect and an exuberant
> > > imagination a little sacrifice in time and effort at a
> > > library will always yield more meaning than the so-
> > > called "free" stuff on the internet.
> >
> > Not when it comes to tuning theory. Wake up and smell the coffee!
>
> Not when it comes to anything.
>
> -Carl
>

You apparently only a read translation of Al-Farabi's "Kitab al-
Musiqah al-Kebir" by Baron Rodolphe d'Erlanger, which is criticized
for its many shortcomings by some around these backwaters.
Furthermore, I doubt you read Arabic at all.

But really, in order to judge that Carl is only spouting from the
blowhole by saying that it's agreed that Muslim theorists of the
Middle Ages engaged in "numerology" that did not reflect contemporary
performance, one only needs to compare how the unfolding of suggested
intervals in certain tetrachordal and pentachordal genera of that age
seem to be quite well reflected in some maqams performed traditionally
and measured today. The explanations satisfy to a great extent the
theorist who has read the treatises and evaluated the scientific
measurements.

One could, of course, still argue that the whereabouts of 12-tone
equal temperament was the performance norm until it was wholly
transformed throughout the centuries to somehow conform in
considerable part to aforesaid antique treatises. Then again, one can
say that 50 BC Romans played in 7-EDO, or that Ancient China was
dodecaphonic, or Russians had 24-EDO Balalaikas at the time of Peter
the Great - all at the price of being branded as "dunce" in musicology.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 28, 2010, at 1:32 AM, c_ml_forster wrote:

> Very good news only to those who have never, are not
> now, and will never read Al-Farabi from cover to
> cover.
>
>> Most scholars agree that al-Farabi, like Ptolemy
>> and other theorists of antiquity, were engaged in
>> creative number games that did not accurately
>> model the performances of the day.
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>> Gene wrote:
>>
>>>> If you have a prodigious intellect and an exuberant
>>>> imagination a little sacrifice in time and effort at a
>>>> library will always yield more meaning than the so-
>>>> called "free" stuff on the internet.
>>>
>>> Not when it comes to tuning theory. Wake up and smell the coffee!
>>
>> Not when it comes to anything.
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@...> wrote:
>
> Surely, you jest.

No. The information free online on tuning theory is both much greater and much deeper than what can be found in a university library. Go into a library and you'll find Barbour (with all of his errors), Partch (a good starting point, but not a good ending point), maybe Jorgensen, maybe Yasser (which is halfway to crankdom) and so forth. You'd get a good beginning to start on for reading this group, but you'd get a pretty small sample of known tuning theory. The stuff online is way, way more extensive, and vastly more sophisticated.

In "The Sources of Arabian Music," p. 28, Henry
George Farmer credits Al-Manubi al-Sanusi for the
complete translation of Al-Farabi's "Kitab al-musiqi
al-kabir." For a complete list of Arabic-speaking
collaborators who contributed to the translation of
Al-Farabi's monumental text, consult pages xvii-xviii
of "La Musique Arab," Vol. 1.

In this work, Al-Farabi also describes how one
tunes the tunbur and the harp to ratios by ear; and
he describes in full detail the parts and construction
of musical instruments.

While we're at it, I also need translations of Tolstoy, Li Po, the Koran, the Upanishads, etc., etc., etc.

Cris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> You apparently only a read translation of Al-Farabi's "Kitab al-
> Musiqah al-Kebir" by Baron Rodolphe d'Erlanger, which is criticized
> for its many shortcomings by some around these backwaters.
> Furthermore, I doubt you read Arabic at all.
>
> But really, in order to judge that Carl is only spouting from the
> blowhole by saying that it's agreed that Muslim theorists of the
> Middle Ages engaged in "numerology" that did not reflect contemporary
> performance, one only needs to compare how the unfolding of suggested
> intervals in certain tetrachordal and pentachordal genera of that age
> seem to be quite well reflected in some maqams performed traditionally
> and measured today. The explanations satisfy to a great extent the
> theorist who has read the treatises and evaluated the scientific
> measurements.
>
> One could, of course, still argue that the whereabouts of 12-tone
> equal temperament was the performance norm until it was wholly
> transformed throughout the centuries to somehow conform in
> considerable part to aforesaid antique treatises. Then again, one can
> say that 50 BC Romans played in 7-EDO, or that Ancient China was
> dodecaphonic, or Russians had 24-EDO Balalaikas at the time of Peter
> the Great - all at the price of being branded as "dunce" in musicology.
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 1:32 AM, c_ml_forster wrote:
>
> > Very good news only to those who have never, are not
> > now, and will never read Al-Farabi from cover to
> > cover.
> >
> >> Most scholars agree that al-Farabi, like Ptolemy
> >> and other theorists of antiquity, were engaged in
> >> creative number games that did not accurately
> >> model the performances of the day.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Gene wrote:
> >>
> >>>> If you have a prodigious intellect and an exuberant
> >>>> imagination a little sacrifice in time and effort at a
> >>>> library will always yield more meaning than the so-
> >>>> called "free" stuff on the internet.
> >>>
> >>> Not when it comes to tuning theory. Wake up and smell the coffee!
> >>
> >> Not when it comes to anything.
> >>
> >> -Carl
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>

I would not deprive an interested and curious
reader any of the sources you mentioned,
especially a self-proclaimed "newbie."

Thanks for making my point, and for your help!

A library also consists of journals, Ph.D.
dissertations, microfilm, encyclopedias, to say
nothing of recorded sound and video sources. A
large university library is an environment, like a
forest is an environment. How a person learns to
navigate such a three-dimensional space can be a
powerful and life-altering experience.

Cris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@> wrote:
> >
> > Surely, you jest.
>
> No. The information free online on tuning theory is both much greater and much deeper than what can be found in a university library. Go into a library and you'll find Barbour (with all of his errors), Partch (a good starting point, but not a good ending point), maybe Jorgensen, maybe Yasser (which is halfway to crankdom) and so forth. You'd get a good beginning to start on for reading this group, but you'd get a pretty small sample of known tuning theory. The stuff online is way, way more extensive, and vastly more sophisticated.
>

Indeed. And perhaps you'll tell us what kind of news is it
for those who have never and will never read and understand
the archives of this list, or those of tuning-math? Or, for
those incapble of using the internet, the complete published
work of Bosanquet, Fokker, Rothenberg, Wilson, Terhardt, et al?

-Carl

Cris Forster wrote:

> Very good news only to those who have never, are not
> now, and will never read Al-Farabi from cover to
> cover.
>
>> Most scholars agree that al-Farabi, like Ptolemy
>> and other theorists of antiquity, were engaged in
>> creative number games that did not accurately
>> model the performances of the day.

Ozan wrote:

> But really, in order to judge that Carl is only spouting from the
> blowhole by saying that it's agreed that Muslim theorists of the
> Middle Ages engaged in "numerology" that did not reflect
> contemporary performance, one only needs to compare how the
> unfolding of suggested intervals in certain tetrachordal and
> pentachordal genera of that age seem to be quite well reflected
> in some maqams performed traditionally and measured today.

By all means, reveal it. And please, do so without terms
like "blowhole", or you will be moderated.

> The explanations satisfy to a great extent the
> theorist who has read the treatises and evaluated the scientific
> measurements.

They do not.

-Carl

Gene wrote:

> You'd get a good beginning to start on for reading this group,
> but you'd get a pretty small sample of known tuning theory.
> The stuff online is way, way more extensive, and vastly more
> sophisticated.

The same goes for any field, of course. 15 years of exponential
growth in human knowledge, exponential growth of the web, and a
per-capita decline in the use of printed material takes care
of that.

-Carl

It was a harmless figure of speech. And Carl, there are a great many
things that need moredation in this list, such as intellectual
harassment the way you exemplify.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 28, 2010, at 3:28 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Ozan wrote:
>
>> But really, in order to judge that Carl is only spouting from the
>> blowhole by saying that it's agreed that Muslim theorists of the
>> Middle Ages engaged in "numerology" that did not reflect
>> contemporary performance, one only needs to compare how the
>> unfolding of suggested intervals in certain tetrachordal and
>> pentachordal genera of that age seem to be quite well reflected
>> in some maqams performed traditionally and measured today.
>
> By all means, reveal it. And please, do so without terms
> like "blowhole", or you will be moderated.
>
>> The explanations satisfy to a great extent the
>> theorist who has read the treatises and evaluated the scientific
>> measurements.
>
> They do not.
>
> -Carl
>

Cris wrote:
> A library also consists of journals, Ph.D.
> dissertations, microfilm, encyclopedias, to say
> nothing of recorded sound and video sources.

The internet has all of these too of course.
Libraries also have computers with internet access.

> A large university library is an environment, like a
> forest is an environment. How a person learns to
> navigate such a three-dimensional space can be a
> powerful and life-altering experience.

Funny you should say that -- my two favorite places
to be have always been the woods or a good library.
That's a principle I established for myself when I was
in grade school. Small libraries can be good
too though. The Berkeley public library used to be
a great, small library. Unfortunately it was torn down
in 2005 and replaced with a low-cost DVD rental store.

Yup, I've spent a lot of time in libraries.
IU Bloomington, where I went to school, had the 13th
largest in the country. The New York public library
was also helpful in tracking down many rare publications,
including microfilm (whoopie!) of Bosanquet's letter on
22-ET, rare Boomsliter and Creel publications,
Blackwood's book, and many papers on psychoacoustics
(available online these days). I also got gobs of sheet
music from the UC Berkeley music library.

And as it happens, I was in the SF public library last
weekend, though only to read material I already had.

But let's not let nostalgia cloud our judgment.

-Carl

Ozan wrote:

> It was a harmless figure of speech.

It was directed at me, and I'm telling you it wasn't harmless.
That's the point where usually, people respond with an apology.

Meanwhile, you are not likely to find a more meritocratic
institution than this list has been. It is not guaranteed
to be in the future, of course: that depends partly on you.

-Carl

How about starting with Xenharmonikon,
edited by John Chalmers and Daniel J. Wolf?

http://www.frogpeak.org/fpartists/fpchalmers.html

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Indeed. And perhaps you'll tell us what kind of news is it
> for those who have never and will never read and understand
> the archives of this list, or those of tuning-math? Or, for
> those incapble of using the internet, the complete published
> work of Bosanquet, Fokker, Rothenberg, Wilson, Terhardt, et al?
>
> -Carl
>
> Cris Forster wrote:
>
> > Very good news only to those who have never, are not
> > now, and will never read Al-Farabi from cover to
> > cover.
> >
> >> Most scholars agree that al-Farabi, like Ptolemy
> >> and other theorists of antiquity, were engaged in
> >> creative number games that did not accurately
> >> model the performances of the day.
>

Carl, I am not moved by your patronizing me or misguided threats. For
a very extended period, I humbly wish to observe that you have been
contributing to the decline of this list with your prejudices and ill-
disposition to maim academic studies on tuning as well as
technological and compositional endeavours. You have obviously irked
many people such as Aaron Krister Johnson, Aaron Andrew Hunt, Margo
Schulter, Cris Forster and many more with such behaviours. I also
observe with dismay that you are not contributing to the intellectual
development of this group with the kind of contrarianist nitpicking
attitude you adopted despite the visible insufficieny of your
scholarship in myriad areas in which we find you engaging.

With all due respect to your past contributions and knowledge and
interests on tuning... At this stage, I suggest a change of moderator.

For the record, I am not thinking of becoming one, nor have I ever
desired the position as you wrongly assumed. I also do not care who
comes to replace you as long as you are replaced.

All in favour, say "aye".

Cordially,
Dr. Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 28, 2010, at 3:53 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Ozan wrote:
>
>> It was a harmless figure of speech.
>
> It was directed at me, and I'm telling you it wasn't harmless.
> That's the point where usually, people respond with an apology.
>
> Meanwhile, you are not likely to find a more meritocratic
> institution than this list has been. It is not guaranteed
> to be in the future, of course: that depends partly on you.
>
> -Carl
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@...> wrote:

> Thanks for making my point, and for your help!

I didn't "make your point", I pointed out why it was nonsense.

> A library also consists of journals, Ph.D.
> dissertations, microfilm, encyclopedias, to say
> nothing of recorded sound and video sources.

As an academic, I am very familiar with university libraries. None of the above will help make it true that the university library contains more than a small sample of the known tuning theory available on the web. You are only demonstrating that your point is being made based on faith in libraries, rather than knowledge of tuning theory and of where it can be found.

> Cris Forster wrote:
>
> > Very good news only to those who have never, are not
> > now, and will never read Al-Farabi from cover to
> > cover.
> >

This seems to be becoming a popularity contest. Personally I have heard
scales from Ptolemy and Al-Farabi. On one hand I agree with Carl...they were
not used often in actual music practice (past or present).

On a greater scale, though, it begs the question "why weren't they?"
As in that both of those theories seem as consistent and good-sounding as,
say, the by-and-large Pythagorean theories that have held somewhat of a monopoly
over common music theory (including schools that teach that Arabic music should
supposedly be tuned only to use 12TET diatonic-style chord voicing(s)).

Saying Al-Farabi is worse because his style became less popular in history
comes across to be like saying Justin Beiber must be a better musician than Joe
Satriani because Beiber used musical techniques more popular in the past and
sells more records (even though Satriani, like Farabi and Ptolemy, still has a
fair share of consistently loyal fans).

If people like Carl don't like certain theories, fair enough...but why go
around saying those theoreticians must be "playing games" and telling other
people what they should and should not like? It's the equivalent to opening a
"which classical musician do you like" forum and throwing out anyone thinks
Debussy's not-so-popular work was not nonsense.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Gene wrote:
>
> > You'd get a good beginning to start on for reading this group,
> > but you'd get a pretty small sample of known tuning theory.
> > The stuff online is way, way more extensive, and vastly more
> > sophisticated.
>
> The same goes for any field, of course. 15 years of exponential
> growth in human knowledge, exponential growth of the web, and a
> per-capita decline in the use of printed material takes care
> of that.

Since I don't know all fields of human knowledge, I can't speak to that, but tuning theory has what seems to be to be an unusually active and productive Invisible College operating mostly independently of academia. Scale theory has had more input from academics, but not to the extent that they hold a dominating position.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@...> wrote:
>
> How about starting with Xenharmonikon,
> edited by John Chalmers and Daniel J. Wolf?
>
> http://www.frogpeak.org/fpartists/fpchalmers.html

Not something you'll find in all university libraries.

>"All in favour, say "aye"."

Aye!

To be fair, Carl knows a lot...but he also seems to come across as having
the idea that if he has a good answer for something it must be the ONLY
reasonable answer and that anyone who disagrees must be an idiot on the topic or
have some sort of terrible attitude problem.

>"I also observe with dismay that you are not contributing to the intellectual
>development of this group with the kind of contrarianist nitpicking attitude"
Right....by going around doing things like telling Ozan he lacks sufficient
knowledge on his own PHD thesis topic and more often than not simply giving one
to two-sentence answers to honest attempts at new ideas by saying "that's just
wrong" without explaining why or any alternative that shows contribution.
People on this list should, at the very least, reserve the right to disagree
with Carl without receiving name-calling and having their topics de-railed.
And this means having a moderator which leads by example...and does more than
simply runs around telling nearly everyone they are wrong (even if they really
are...if they truly are bringing about a useless topic others will ignore them
without those others being harassed to do so).

Ever heard of interlibrary loans?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@> wrote:
> >
> > How about starting with Xenharmonikon,
> > edited by John Chalmers and Daniel J. Wolf?
> >
> > http://www.frogpeak.org/fpartists/fpchalmers.html
>
> Not something you'll find in all university libraries.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@...> wrote:
>
> Ever heard of interlibrary loans?

So by using interlibrary loans, you'll gain access to a journal which contains only a small fraction of the theory available on the web, and this will prove your point?

> How about starting with Xenharmonikon,
> edited by John Chalmers and Daniel J. Wolf?
>
> http://www.frogpeak.org/fpartists/fpchalmers.html

Yes, it's regretable. However, the TOCs are all online
(with the exception of the last issue) as well as errata:
http://xh.xentonic.org

All the Wilson articles (and many more) are online:
http://www.anaphoria.com/wilson.html
and don't forget the new blog for rare Wilson letters:
http://wilsonarchives.blogspot.com/

John Chalmers and Daniel Wolf have made numerous
contributions to this list over the years. John's
book is online (and searchable):
http://lumma.org/tuning/chalmers/DivisionsOfTheTetrachord.pdf

All of Ivor Darreg's writings are online:
http://sonic-arts.org/darreg/contents.htm

All the Erlich articles are online (thanks to me
and Bill Sethares):
http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/

Many important discoveries were made on list this
regarding a particular XH article by George Secor (with
George's further help).

I studied directly with Denny Genovese, who published
his design for the binary flute in vol.7/8.

Needless to say, they are hard to find in any library.
I own and have read them all, as well as all of the
material cited above.

-Carl

Ozan wrote:

> Carl, I am not moved by your patronizing me or misguided threats.

Your behavior on this list has lately been way out of line.
Do you consider that patronizing?

I heard there is a hot new list for people who can't handle
open discussion and feel personally injured when their pet
theories are exposed as incorrect:

/tuning-research/

You should join there are cease posting here. Problem solved!

-Carl

This condescending response is just the kind that justifies the call
for a change of moderator.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 28, 2010, at 4:57 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Ozan wrote:
>
>> Carl, I am not moved by your patronizing me or misguided threats.
>
> Your behavior on this list has lately been way out of line.
> Do you consider that patronizing?
>
> I heard there is a hot new list for people who can't handle
> open discussion and feel personally injured when their pet
> theories are exposed as incorrect:
>
> /tuning-research/
>
> You should join there are cease posting here. Problem solved!
>
> -Carl
>
>

My point? I'll tell you what my point is.
My point is to give you the last word.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@> wrote:
> >
> > Ever heard of interlibrary loans?
>
> So by using interlibrary loans, you'll gain access to a journal which contains only a small fraction of the theory available on the web, and this will prove your point?
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> This condescending response is just the kind that justifies
> the call for a change of moderator.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.

I would like to know what I did to upset you, Ozan.
Seriously. You've been hurling insults at me all over
this list for a month now. I don't recall doing anything
to warrant that. Have you thought about it? I really
want to know. What's going on?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@...> wrote:
>
> My point? I'll tell you what my point is.
> My point is to give you the last word.

Don't forget torrents. Here's word of a forthcoming
1TB containing... all of Geocities. That's right,

http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/2720

As I recall, more than a couple microtonalists had
sites on geocities.

-Carl

My dear Carl, do you not see that reckless exercise of power has
corrupted you into behaving arrogantly to everybody around here since
a very long while whether possessing titles or not, whether "genius"
or "idiot"? You truly need to step down and see what you have been
doing by saying insufferably judgmental things to people all
throughout this time.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:06 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> This condescending response is just the kind that justifies
>> the call for a change of moderator.
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Oz.
>
> I would like to know what I did to upset you, Ozan.
> Seriously. You've been hurling insults at me all over
> this list for a month now. I don't recall doing anything
> to warrant that. Have you thought about it? I really
> want to know. What's going on?
>
> -Carl
>
>

Don't forget? It is impossible for me to remember
something I never knew.

But have at it. I'll give you
the last word as well.

Anyone else?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@> wrote:
> >
> > My point? I'll tell you what my point is.
> > My point is to give you the last word.
>
> Don't forget torrents. Here's word of a forthcoming
> 1TB containing... all of Geocities. That's right,
>
> http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/2720
>
> As I recall, more than a couple microtonalists had
> sites on geocities.
>
> -Carl
>

Carl has my vote as moderator. The poor language choices that he has pointed out have been correct.

It is the level of respect accorded each participant that makes the difference between civil discussion and 6th grade schoolyard banter. If people can't converse with respect then they need to be told to do so. Carl has been doing that as is accorded his position. Deal with it.

If you disagree. If someone wrong on the internet. You don't need name calling and inflamatory language to tell them so.

I return to composing.

Chris Vaisvil
*

-----Original Message-----
From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>
Sender: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:02:13
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: A change of moderator?

This condescending response is just the kind that justifies the call
for a change of moderator.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 28, 2010, at 4:57 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Ozan wrote:
>
>> Carl, I am not moved by your patronizing me or misguided threats.
>
> Your behavior on this list has lately been way out of line.
> Do you consider that patronizing?
>
> I heard there is a hot new list for people who can't handle
> open discussion and feel personally injured when their pet
> theories are exposed as incorrect:
>
> /tuning-research/
>
> You should join there are cease posting here. Problem solved!
>
> -Carl
>
>

Ozan wrote:

> My dear Carl, do you not see that reckless exercise of power has
> corrupted you into behaving arrogantly to everybody around here
> since a very long while whether possessing titles or not, whether
> "genius" or "idiot"? You truly need to step down and see what you
> have been doing by saying insufferably judgmental things to people
> all throughout this time.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.

I want to know what specifically I did to deserve your insults.

-Carl

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> I heard there is a hot new list for people who can't handle
> open discussion and feel personally injured when their pet
> theories are exposed as incorrect:
>
> /tuning-research/

I made the list because I couldn't have any open discussion on THIS
list, because it was erupting into a flamewar, because everyone was
trying to STOP the discussion, and because after I suggested starting
another list to make people happy, you suggested that I actually start
it.

I still don't remember any part of the discussion where I refused to
change my theory in the face of contrary evidence. I also don't really
have a theory. I also don't really care anymore to develop one at this
particular moment.

LOL, what a ridiculous left-field comment.

-Mike

Sorry Mike, I didn't mean to insult your list. I should
have suggested he start a new list.

-Carl

> > /tuning-research/
> [snip]
> LOL, what a ridiculous left-field comment.
>
> -Mike
>

Cris wrote:

> Don't forget? It is impossible for me to remember
> something I never knew.

Sorry, just riffing off your message. Not trying to
get the last word! Thought you might be interested in
the fact that there are 'librarians' involved in
preserving digital history, and possibly in downloading
this particular collection, which should contain a few
lost pages of microtonalists. Searching for "geocities"
in the search box here returned 469 results just now.
Hit "last" and come forward in time to find many
interesting things, I'm sure.

-Carl

Gene wrote:

> > The same goes for any field, of course. 15 years of exponential
> > growth in human knowledge, exponential growth of the web, and a
> > per-capita decline in the use of printed material takes care
> > of that.
>
> Since I don't know all fields of human knowledge, I can't speak
> to that,

A related interesting fact is that we know more today about
almost any year in the past X, than they did in the year X or
any time since.

Paul (I think it was) actually did spot Xenharmonikon in a
university library once, on accident, but who knows if it
would come up in an interlibrary search. Interlibrary loans
can be quite painful... even more painful than purchasing
things from Frog Peak, snarf snarf.

-Carl

Carl> "I heard there is a hot new list for people who can't handle
> open discussion and feel personally injured when their pet
> theories are exposed as incorrect:
>
> /tuning-research/"

Typical. A hot headed complaint with no alternative solution but instead
a boastful "you're wrong" or, in this case, "get out of here / off this list!"

Realistically though..."Tuning Research" is a good group for people who
want to introduce anything to the world of tuning. And, despite what Carl
says, the list is about anything but supporting pet theories. I'd say about 10%
of what is posted there gets anything near unanimous approval by the group. In
fact most of what goes on is people arguing how other people's theories can be
improved rather than saying their theories are correct. A prime example: Marcel
made a bunch of new versions of Drei Equili which failed to get approval and
only recently has gotten a version that virtually everyone on the list agrees is
better sounding than 5-limit JI and, even then, they've said "but you still have
yet to prove it against 1/4 comma meantone and 31TET!" and have not accepted
Marcel's open/yet-unproved claims that only 53TET can compete with his scale.
Nothing on there goes through unchecked...trust me.

Summary: that list is about open-minded arguments...and anything but
randomly boosting each others egos...but it's probably pretty lousy for those
looking for "proven" results since most of what floats around there is
work/theories in progress.

My take is that perhaps, Ozan, you should start an academically focused
Ethnomusicology list if you are frustrated with Carl and invite others from this
list to join and/or work on moving this list in that direction.

One way I see it is this is to divide the lists like this:

A) This "Tuning" list: academic tuning (IE reviewing existing tuning
documentation, including ethno-musicology, with the idea of either debating
things referenced in several papers OR not debating at all).
B) The "Tuning Research" list to focus on development of new micro-tonal ideas
with the idea of trying to gather useful parts of theories regardless of whether
we agree with the theories as a whole or not. Built with the idea of debate,
constant improvement, and the idea that the best answer is one that inspires
much interest for development and improvement (and conversely no answer is "the
most right").
C) The MMM list: finished works, microtonal production ideas (lists of
synths/software/etc.), compositional ideas that have been well tested by the
poster for use by other composers, and detailed sound examples as proofs of
theories such as those posted on "tuning theory" and this list. I figure all
"final draft"/ "composed" products end up on MMM.

However...I don't even see A happening with this list if even other people
gung-ho about making the Tuning list more academically based like Ozan or
professional musicians like Neil Haverstick can even find a way to get along
with Carl. That is, unless Carl turns around and starts giving other academic
masters like Ozan fair credit and influence...which, judging by his quote above
and countless others, I have doubts will ever happen.

I wrote:

> Here's word of a forthcoming 1TB torrent containing all
> of Geocities.
> http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/2720

I went through those search results I mentioned and found
these refs, in case anybody does have 1TB to spare (at least
temporarily) for that torrent:

~

The 22TET page has been updated. And it has a name, courtesy of
my wife, Xenia:

Catch 22! The 22TET Page

Like it? "Catchy", huh? ;-)

Anyway, check it out. I played around with a small lyre that we
have at home and tuned it with some notes from 22TET and recorded
two little ditties, each about 30 seconds long, in RealAudio format.
Kinda sound weird, and my lack of playing ability doesn't help. ;-)

The response I've received from the 22TET page has been nice!
I wasn't sure if I'd just be doing this for myself or how many
others would be interested or would contribute. But it's happening!
Neat! Thanks!

Enjoy!

Darin "Basil" Arrick
basil@...

Catch 22! The 22TET Page
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Diner/2190/22tet.html

Nonagon - A Progressive Rock Band
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Diner/2190/index.html

~

I am Jeffrey Collins and I have a CD that I would like to let you
know about. It is my Guitar Sonatas Volume 1. This CD is done
entirely through improvisations on prepared guitars. And on one
track there is a four guitar improvisation recorded one guitar at
a time onto four tracks (kind of like Sonny Sharrock would do
sometimes). This music is very strange and not intended for your
basic music buyer. It is very atmospheric and at times very
dissonant and sick.
I have a few audio clips in RA format and you can check them out
before you go any farther in your attempts to hear music that can
help aid in those seeking insanity.
Just go to...
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stadium/1429/STRANGETONES.html

~

Drew Skyfyre email : drew_skyfyre@...

web : http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Palais/8151

~

I linked the 72-tET website to Jesus Bernal's site. He teaches
acoustics at the National Conservatory in Mexico and he also runs
a microtonal composition workshop. His site has a sample
of Novaro's music.

http://www.geocities.com/Bernalorg/

~

I've just put a few things up on
http://www.geocities.com/egbdfine/dynatune/ExampleSounds.htm

It is different formats of a single recording I made doing the
tuning in real time.

Jim

~

Eduardo Sabat-Garibaldi
Simon Bolivar 1260
11300 Montevideo
Uruguay
Webpage (Spanish): http://www.geocities.com/dinarra2000/dinarra.html

~

Dear Fellow Microtonalists!

I wanted to announce the appearance of the second issue of
Jacky Ligon's wonderful new internet publication, the
Microtonal Activist. This second issue has a publication of
Joseph Pehrson's lecture about microtonality in electronic
music at Moscow Conservatory's electronic studio, the Theremin
Center on March 19, 2001, as recorded and subsequently
transcribed by yours truly. The link to the magazine is
as follows:

http://www.geocities.com/jacky_ligon/TMA_archive_index.htm

In addition to this lecture the magazine has a lot of other
ineresting materials which I encourage you to browse through.

~

Greta Couper, Mildred Couper's granddaughter, has informed me
that a collection of sheet music and some cassette recordings
of her grandmother's compositions is available at
http://geocities.com/sanbarart/couper-m/music.htm

A number of her compositions are for two pianos tuned a
1/4-tone apart.

~

Here's someone with a 5-limit JI version of Palestrina:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6080/ji0519.html

~

Paul Rubenstein
www.geocities.com/ubertar

~

Hey all,

I've attempted to post my initial forays into writing
electronic music in Just Intonation here:
http://www.geocities.com/tritone_msu/JI

However, it seems to be like winning the lottery if you can
actually get either file to download. If anyone has any
suggestions for some free webspace where I can post these
mp3's, let me know.

Eric T Knechtges

~

Found an interesting website that desribes each of the gamakas
http://www.geocities.com/promiserani2/gamakas.html

~

Here are some pages in English on the Byzantine system.
http://geocities.com/takistan/namethattone.pdf

~

There are demonstrations of JI and ET.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/wtcpage004.html

Music of Sacred Temperament;
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/index.html

~

Some of my ideas i put to the abstract "the
two-dimensional tuning"
http://www.geocities.com/linasrim/2-dtuning.pdf

Linas Plankis

~

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> Paul (I think it was) actually did spot Xenharmonikon in a
> university library once, on accident, but who knows if it
> would come up in an interlibrary search. Interlibrary loans
> can be quite painful... even more painful than purchasing
> things from Frog Peak, snarf snarf.
>
> -Carl

We have the full set of Xenharmonikon at our humble library in Wollongong.
You may not have heard of Wollongong but we like to think of it as the
tuning capital of Australia!
Terumi

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Terumi Narushima <terumi.narushima@...> wrote:

> We have the full set of Xenharmonikon at our humble library
> in Wollongong. You may not have heard of Wollongong but we
> like to think of it as the tuning capital of Australia!
> Terumi

I know Wollongong, though I've never been there.
Good on you, at any rate! Say hello to Kraig for me.

-Carl